42 



Mr. English. Have we ever done it on any other crop? 



Mr. Weber. We were mandated by law on nonprogram crops. 



Mr. English. But no program crops? 



Mr. Weber. Right. 



Mr. English. So we have expanded the program in reahty? 



Mr. Weber. Yes. 



Mr. English. Has the law been changed to expand the program? 

 Or was that an interpretation of the law? 



Mr. Weber. Well, for 1992, it was an interpretation of the law. 

 And the more recent authority for 1993 is in the statute. 



Mr. English. Yes. So 1992 is when we really started down the 

 road with regard to quality? 



Mr. Weber. That is correct. 



Mr. English. But quality was always covered in the past by crop 

 insurance; is that not correct? 



Mr. Weber. That is correct. 



Mr. English. So in effect, what we are doing is providing quality 

 protection to those people who do not buy crop insurance? 



Mr. Weber. In effect, we would be, yes. 



But, likewise, those that have crop insurance, they could get the 

 same quality adjustment under ASCS as well as the quality adjust- 

 ment under FCIC. 



Mr. English. So they get assistance twice? 



Mr. Weber. Could be portrayed as that way, yes. 



Now, there is a requirement in the law that says that the indem- 

 nity payments that we received — the producer receives under FCIC 

 plus the disaster payments cannot exceed a given value. 



Generally that is not a factor unless the producer has opted for 

 the high option under Federal crop insurance. 



Mr. English. Right. Of the people who are part of the flooding 

 this year, the disaster, of those who will receive assistance under 

 the disaster program, what percentage of those also had crop insur- 

 ance? 



Mr. Weber. Mr. Witt may be able to address that more. 



Mr. Witt. I would say that our average was between 45 and 50 

 percent in the areas that were affected in the flood areas. 



Mr. English. In the flood areas, it is only 45 to 50? 



Mr. Witt. Around 50 percent, yes. 



Mr. English. So that is not much higher than the national aver- 

 age with regard to crop insurance. 



Mr. Witt. National average is projected around 33 to 35 percent. 



Mr. English. And so this is an area that — or much of this area — 

 generally one of the areas where we have the greater participation; 

 is that not correct? 



Mr. Witt. Yes, it is. 



Mr. English. Crop insurance program. 



Mr. Witt. Some of our better producing areas for participation 

 purposes. 



Mr. English. Is there a difference with regard — and I am prob- 

 ably asking the wrong person, but I assume you all are familiar 

 with these numbers. Is that — are the people who were flooded 

 along the river — along the rivers, is the participation level there in 

 crop insurance much different than it is several miles away from 

 the river in the same general area? 



