U.S. FEEDGRAIN 0/92 SUPPORTERS EVALUATE POSITION
Advocates of a 0/92 plan for
feedgrains will likely delay offering their proposals if a
disaster aid bill before the House Agriculture Committee is
scaled back to include only 1987 winter wheat, congressional
sources said.
    The disaster aid bill, introduced by Rep. Glenn English
(D-Okla.), sparked sharp controversy with its proposals to
implement a 0/92 program for 1987 wheat and 1988 winter wheat.
    An agreement has been reached to trim the bill back to 1987
wheat, but supporters of a 0/92 feedgrains plan said even that
scaled-down version would not be equitable for farmers.
    Unless the English bill pertains only to 1987 winter wheat,
it is more than a simple disaster payment and feedgrains should
be treated equally, they said.
   If the bill is narrowed to just winter wheat, then
supporters of a 0/92 feedgrains amendment will probably not
offer their proposals next week, sources said.
   English has agreed to support an amendment by Rep. Charles
Stenholm (R-Tex) to narrow the bill to 1987 wheat only, but
whether he would also back a further reduction is unclear.
    Agricultural aides to English said the congressman's first
choice is to make the option available to all 1987 wheat
farmers. However, if the political reality is that disaster aid
for winter wheat farmers would be unavailable because of
controversy over spring wheat, then English might consider an
even greater cutback in the bill, they said.
    Under a 0/92 plan, farmers could forego planting and still
receive 92 pct of deficiency payments.
    Rep. Arlan Stangeland (R-Minn.) and Harold Volkmer (D-Mo.)
have both expressed interest in expanding the English bill to
include a 0/92 program for feedgrains.
    An aide said Stangeland does not want to reopen the farm
bill, but to be fair to all crops.
    Only a small percentage of spring wheat farmers would
likely sign up for 0/92 since the incentives to plant are
greater than to idle the land, economists said.
    Opponents to a 0/92 feedgrains program argue it is
premature to make major changes in the farm bill and that the
House Agriculture Committee needs to study more closely the
impacts of such a program.
 Reuter
