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.
  

