SOME FARM BILL POSSIBILITIES

In January and February, row-crop farmers will be planning and in some cases planting (in the Deep South, Texas, Arizona and California) Their 1996 crops with no knowledge of what the U.S. Department of Agriculture will require of them in terms of program crop acres or acreage set-aside requirements. The 1995 farm bill is tied up in the federal budget battle between the Congress and the president. Congressional leaders and Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman will quickly have to sort through the farm legislation maze.

By mid-February, the most likely scenario will be a simple extension of the 1990 Farm Bill with some modifications to fit into budgetary guidelines. Those modifications will primarily consist of more flex acres for 1996 program participants. Stated in another way, this means fewer acres guaranteed federal dollars and, thus, less money spent on feed grain, wheat, cotton and rice programs with continuation of the current sugar, dairy and tobacco programs.

It is possible that the nation's farmer will get a separate enactment of House Agriculture Committee chairman Pat Roberts' Freedom to Farm Act before Feb. 15. It is unlikely, however, that this legislation would escape damaging amendments in the House and Senate, and it could also be vetoed by the White House.

Least likely to happen would be for farm program legislation to revert to the 1949 Farm Act, which could happen if nothing is done to amend or change federal farm legislation. In the first place, this would link farm-loan rates with parity as established in 1938, which means that wheat loans would be anywhere from $4.35 to $8.69 a bushel, corn loans from $2.95 to $5.89 a bushel and rice loans from $12.95 to $24.30 a hundredweight. If you are a producer of these crops, this looks great. But if you are worried about balancing a federal budget, these guaranteed loan prices are not so hot. In addition, all the conservation and wetland compliance provisions weren't in the 1949 legislation, which, when added to the financial consequences, make this last option very unlikely to be the interim 1995 Farm Bill.

Worth noting is that Sen. Bob Dole is proposing a two-year extension of the 1990 Farm Bill (plus more flex acres) to take the farm bill debate out of the arena of presidential politics this fall. (A one-year extension would mean that the farm bill debate would start all over again in the fall of 1996, right in the middle of an intensely partisan presidential battle.)

Federal farm legislation does need intelligent revision and should be done as much as possible in a non-political climate, if this is possible. All of us consumers of food and fiber should remember that the one thing worse than spending too many federal dollars on agriculture would be for our country to have a short supply of the basic agricultural crops.

Peter C. Myers Sr. of Sikeston is a former deputy secretary of agriculture and currently is president of Adopt A Farm Family of America, which is a Christian outreach to farmers and ranchers.