60 



seed exemption bears in any particular positive way on stimulating 

 added investment, added research and development to give us a 

 wider range of varieties, improved varieties, that sort of thing. 



Public investment is an appropriate issue for debate. I am not 

 sure that it specifically relates to the possible amendments to the 

 Plant Variety Protection Act. PVPA clearly has principal focus, at 

 least, on the issue of private investment and what kinds of actions 

 Government might take in creating an environment for that in- 

 vestment to create that value added. Public investment may be 

 dealt with in other forums within the Congress and elsewhere. 



Senator Kerrey. I do think, Dr. Clayton, that one of the things 

 we have to establish for people who are paying for this is what is 

 the public role and what is the private role. I think that is a cru- 

 cial debate, and the decision has to be made. 



I think it is being assumed that there is a private role and that 

 the public is going to essentially identify those specialty crops or 

 new crops and do a lot of new basic research. I hope, in fact, that is 

 what has happened over the last 20 years. We are assuming that it 

 is the case and we need to know if it is. 



One of the things, I guess of all of the things coming out of the 

 hearing, that concerns me is that when you are dealing with an 

 issue like this where it hardly reaches onto the normal radar 

 screen of a Member of Congress, there must be a compelling need 

 to ratify the treaty. We have to have an economic argument. The 

 incidental sale issue, it seems to me, we can resolve. The issue of 

 what can the farmer retain and what can't they retain is some- 

 thing that can be resolved. 



But unless we make a compelling economic argument that there 

 is a need both from the standpoint of maintaining our value-added 

 competitive edge for the production of seed, the breeders, as well as 

 the value-added competitive edge from people who are growing 

 crops, that this is an issue that is apt to flounder and not go any- 

 where. 



In the time remaining, I would appreciate — because it seems to 

 me that the testimony you provided gave much more of an academ- 

 ic argument than it was an economic argument, unless I just 

 missed the overall thrust. Perhaps Mr. Latham and Mr. Robinson, 

 who have economic stakes in this thing, could bring a bit of the 

 economic argument. 



Mr. Robinson. I think, again, if we look at the economic side, 

 you have two sides to it. One would be economics on the part of the 

 seed company and the other side is economics on the part of U.S. 

 agriculture. 



Certainly if you look at U.S. agriculture first, U.S. farmers in 

 terms of land costs and certain other inputs aren't at an economic 

 advantage compared to other countries, other producing countries. 

 One thing that makes them so competitive and a world leader in 

 this respect is the yields that they are able to achieve. The corner- 

 stones of that high level of productivity is new and improved plant 

 varieties. 



I think an economic argument that we certainly have to look at 

 is the erosion of U.S. agricultural exports due to fewer and fewer 

 plant varieties being available. 



