44 



Mr. Weber. Yes. 



Mr. Stenholm. We have an unfortunate situation here that mar- 

 ket prices for the commodities being harvested are in the range in 

 which it is tempting not to harvest. And we have seen situations 

 in which those who do not harvest tend to do better financially 

 than those who do. 



The de minimis yield effort is certainly moving in the right direc- 

 tion. The problem that we have seen comes from nonintended in- 

 centives in the policy to abandon crops. 



And we have looked at it from the standpoint of overall program 

 operations that we all do better when a crop that can be harvested, 

 financially feasible, is harvested. 



The pressure on adjusters when you are very close to the de 

 minimis is to go ahead and call it de minimis; and that "very close" 

 is hard to determine because anyone that has adjusted crops knows 

 that you can go into a 100-acre field and you can find 30 pounds 

 in one area, 50 pounds in another, 100 pounds in another, and per- 

 haps as much as 300 pounds in another area; and to come up with 

 an absolute yield is difficult to do. 



Have you got an3^hing additional to share with us today regard- 

 ing the subject of de minimis? 



And my specific question, and I will use cotton, for example: It 

 seems to me that if you have a 500-pound yield, 65 percent disas- 

 ter, you are eligible for coverage at 325. 



The point where you really get into a problem is where you have 

 double de minimis. In other words, instead of 66, 132 pounds or 

 less is where you really get into a fine area on this one. 



And so let's take a hypothetical. You have a situation in which 

 a field is appraised at 80 pounds. Then what happens to that farm- 

 er? 



Mr. Weber. If it is appraised at 80 pounds, the 80 pounds is 

 counted against him as production. 



Mr. Stenholm. And he gets the value of the crop, 80 pounds? 



Mr. Weber. Right. 



Mr. Stenholm. If it is appraised at 66 pounds, what does he get? 



Mr. Weber. He gets zero production consideration for disaster 

 purposes and can get the value of the crop as well. 



Mr. Stenholm. So he gets paid the disaster payment on the 66 

 plus the other 14 pounds for disaster purposes, because you have 

 zero. 



Mr. Weber. You are talking about the 80 pounds. We are going 

 back to the 80 pounds. I thought you were talking about 



Mr. Stenholm. I am saying if the same farm has had an ap- 

 praisal at 66, he is paid on 80 for disaster purposes. 



If he was appraised at 66- 



Mr. Weber. If he was appraised at 66, we would assume 



Mr. Stenholm. But if it is appraised at 80 



Mr. Weber. If he is appraised at 80, we are going to consider 80 

 pounds of production, and that is going to be subtracted from his 

 325. 



If it is appraised at 66 pounds, we will zero the production out, 

 and he is going to receive deficiency payments on 325 pounds. 



Mr. Stenholm. My question is: If it is a legitimate appraisal of 

 80, the best judgment of the appraiser, it is 80, why would it not 



