20 



Mr. MiNGE. One problem that we have seen is that farmers are 

 faced with, and in the last week, the obligation to determine 

 whether or not there is going to be a killing frost before the com 

 crop is matured to the point where it will actually produce a yield 

 of any value and at the same time there is an opportunity to sign 

 into 0/92. 



Those farmers that signed into 0/92 are now required to disk 

 down or destroy a crop that may well produce some fairly signifi- 

 cant quantities of corn depending upon the frost. 



If the extension had been granted until the end of the crop year, 

 we would not have farmers faced with this virtually impossible di- 

 lemma and the anguish that they experience in destrojdng a crop 

 that they have spent several months trying to grow and nurture. 



Could you explain why the Department decided not to extend 

 0/92 on to the end of the crop year for com? 



Mr. Weber. For one thing, the 0/92 program, I think as we have 

 talked about before, technically got out of hand as far as what it 

 was originally intended for anyway. And in an effort to help, we 

 got into this situation of allowing producers to plow up to get into 

 the 0/92 and run into the situation. And it became a point at which 

 a decision had to be made to shut it off. 



Yes, it might have been better, given the process that we have 

 gone through, to simply extend it through crop maturity; but given 

 the other pressures we were receiving on the other end, the deci- 

 sion was made at the Secretary's level to cut it off as of September 

 17 and not to go any further with this process. 



Mr. MiNGE. Could you just quickly list what those other types of 

 pressures were or considerations, the countervailing ones? 



Mr. Weber. Well, we had the countervailing — the pressures of 

 plowing up a potential crop, not giving the weather the opportunity 

 to decide what the crop results would be. 



We were getting the negative press from that side. So it was a 

 matter of just simply deciding we had gone far enough but maybe 

 too far, and we had to stop it at some point. 



Mr. Johnson. Mr. Nussle. 



Mr. Nussle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me yield to my 

 friend Mr. Barrett for a clarification. 



Mr. Barrett. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 



Mr. Weber, my concern initially was dry edible beans. I believe, 

 correct me if I am wrong, you answered soybeans are covered 



Mr. Weber. Well, soybeans. And the process would be followed 

 the same as grains. 



Now, as far as dry edible beans, there is a process for determin- 

 ing quality loss there as well. 



Mr. Barrett. But a nonprogram crop like dry edible beans is 

 covered under 



Mr. Weber. Under a quality loss, that is correct. 



Mr. Barrett. There may be a slight adjustment in the way the 

 adjustment is handled. 



Mr. Weber. Yes. 



Mr. Barrett. And it will be handled the same as grain, feed 

 grains. 



Mr. Weber. It is handled slightly different. Basically, as far as 

 other program crops in which dry edible beans — we look at a pri- 



