24 



Mr. Bishop. With regard to cotton and peanuts, the second ques- 

 tion had to do with the case where more than one cotton producer, 

 each independent of the other, rent a farm under one farm unit 

 number and where one producer has a disaster and the other one 

 has no disaster, perhaps because one of them had irrigation and 

 the other one didn't. The other is a dryland farmer, but the farm 

 unit is taken as a whole so that the producer with the disaster may 

 be left with little or no payment, though his loss was pretty severe. 



But on the other hand, it seems to me that one producer who 

 may have had the irrigated acreage or while the other one had the 

 dryland, that each should have a distinct — well, each of them has 

 a different marketing card; each of them has his own independent 

 history. 



It would seem as if, based upon the idea behind the program, 

 that you ought to want to help the individual farmer and not take 

 the unit as a whole. 



And the question is whether or not you can develop some more 

 equitable regulations and policies in this kind of a situation so that 

 the individual farmer, even though he may be operating with some 

 other farmers under a single farm unit number, can be com- 

 pensated for his loss. 



And I say that because I commend the Secretary and this admin- 

 istration for the efforts that you have undertaken to make this ad- 

 ministration's policies be farmer friendly. 



And I just wanted to lift up and highlight this kind of a problem, 

 because it is serious for cotton and peanut farmers in Georgia, to 

 see if there is a remedy that can be developed through regulations 

 or whether or not we need legislation. Hopefully it can be covered 

 through regulations. 



Mr. Weber. In this particular instance, it would require a 

 change in legislation because the losses are determined based on 

 a farm. And in the example that you quote, it may well be possible, 

 because of the production off that irrigation, that it makes the en- 

 tire farm not eligible for disaster losses. 



However, if the farm should qualify for disaster losses, the pay- 

 ments can be paid. Any payments that are paid can be paid to the 

 producer that suffered the loss, rather than splitting the payments 

 out to someone that didn't have a loss. 



But to look at the individuals separately would require a change 

 in legislation. 



Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Weber. 



And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your consideration. 



Mr. Johnson. Mr. Pomeroy. 



Mr. Pomeroy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



First, I would like to commend you for taking diminished quality 

 into account as you have looked at the disaster adjustment. 



If we are going to run a disaster program in the most equitable 

 way possible, I think we have to look at what happens to the farm- 

 er when he brings his crop to the market. And if you don't look at 

 quality and its impact on the price discounts that farmer receives, 

 you really don't have a fair picture of the actual loss from the dis- 

 aster. 



Is that the basis for why USDA has moved forward in this way? 



Mr. Weber. That is correct. 



