120 



My concern about the USDA disaster payments program is not that the program 

 shouldn't be there— just the opposite, because vegetable producers like me cannot get crop 

 insurance on our crops, we need the protection offered by the disaster payments program to 

 cover the relatively high input and harvest costs involved with vegetable and specialty crop 

 production. 



I have tried for years to get crop insurance on my pumpkin crop, but as of yet have not 

 been able to get coverage extended to Bailey County. I am determined to keep trying, because 

 I believe crop insurance is a necessary and valuable element of a sound farming operation. 



I would urge the Subcommittee to ask USDA to intensify its efforts to develop crop 

 insurance packages for vegetable and specialty crop producers in the High Plains. 



The main point 1 wish to make today, however, concerns the way that disaster yields 

 are assigned by ASCS for nonprogram crops under the disaster payments program. In short, 

 the assigned yields are inconsistent and inequitable. As a result, even though the program is 

 designed to benefit farmers, it has bred a lot of discontent and dissatisfaction among farmers 

 in my area. 



USDA handbook rules require ASCS to set the assigned yields on a state-by-state basis 

 if county yields have not been established. The problem I want to comment on is the way the 

 statewide assigned yields in Texas have been established. 



It is relatively easy to establish county yields for program crops as ASCS has so much 

 data on program crop production. However, with specialty crops, the historical data aren't there 

 since ASCS has never had reason prior to implementation of the disaster payments program 

 to keep records on such production. Therefore, ASCS has had to fall back on estimates of 

 statewide yields and "assign" yields on a state-by-state basis; and that is where the problem 

 started for us specialty crop producers in the High Plains of Texas. 



