INCUMBENT EMERSON STRESSES QUALIFICATIONS, EXPERIENCE

Each of the three candidates for the 8th District were asked the same set of questions. The candidates will appear in the order they were interviewed. John Hendricks' interview ran Tuesday. Tony Heckemeyer's interview will be published Thursday. Interviews were edited for length.

What is the most pressing problem facing the 8th District as a whole?

Jo Ann Emerson: I don't think there is just one challenge that we face here in the 8th District, but probably a multitude of challenges all of which are interrelated.

First of all, I think that we need to continue our efforts for economic development. It is absolutely, positively critical that we have more and better jobs for folks here in our district. And I think that that is interwoven with the whole concept of infrastructure, obviously. The better the infrastructure, the more likely companies are to come and move here. So, economic development is important and anything we can do to keep our kids at home. If we can have jobs here that are good paying jobs, I think that that's critical.

And I think coupled with that is the whole issue of education. Both early childhood education through 12th grade, and either technical school/vocational school or college or two years of college. But the whole issue of job training is very critical as well. And, obviously an educated public helps you in your drive for economic freedom.

Is the farm economy hurting in Southeast Missouri? If so, why? What should be done, if anything, to improve the agricultural economy?

Emerson: The agricultural economy is at a critical stage right now. It's at crisis stage right now. And there's not one thing that we can do, but several things that we have to do in order to provide a solid safety net for farmers. First of all, back in 1996, when the Freedom to Farm Act was written and passed into law -- and I might add that it was a very bipartisan measure that was signed by a Democratic president -- there were a couple of things happening at the time: prices were higher and it was based upon the administration trying, us working as hard as possible to make certain that we could export as much as we could in the way of livestock, commodities. Therefore, our products would get to market and our farmers would then be able to sell at higher prices.

Problem is, we can't control what other countries necessarily do. So we're competing against the European Union, which is heavily, heavily subsidized; we're competing against Canada and their farmers are heavily subsidized. And, suddenly, we don't have a level playing field in which to start so there is a built-in problem. And so, in my opinion, writing a farm bill based on things that are somewhat beyond our control is questionable.

So, not only do we have that particular situation with regard to trade, this administration has also, in the last six years, imposed sanctions, economic sanctions, on 61 countries. Now there have only been 100 sanctions imposed since World War II, 61 of which have come in the last six years. That cost our farmers about $15-$20 billion a year in lost income and the first thing we can do is take away sanctions, because we all know that food doesn't work as a foreign policy tool. It's just like our farmers competing against subsidized countries. You know, we can outproduce anybody farmer to farmer, but a farmer can't compete with the government. That's just all there is to it.

We also, then, have the situation with our crop insurance program that is prohibitively expensive and unduly complicated. So our farmers can't all afford crop insurance and, if they can, the threshold to get it to kick in is so high that you'd have to have a huge, huge, huge loss rather than maybe just 35 percent or something like that. We need to go in and totally revamp the whole crop insurance program.

So we've got Freedom to Farm. We've got a trade situation that is not very good; you've got an administration that is not promoting our products. We have what is called an "Export Enhancement Policy" program. We haven't even spent the money that's sitting there in the budget, $221 million hasn't even been used by USDA to promote our products we've got for export. That's ridiculous.

Then as far as our livestock producers go, we have low cattle prices. We have low, low hog prices. We have very few packers, three or four at most. And so they are basically setting the price. There's no competition. And so the farmer gets very little. You know, you pay $2.79 at the grocery store for a pound of hamburger. The farmer is getting a little bitty, bitty part of that even though people don't understand that. And so, consequently, there needs to be more competition. There also needs to be, in my opinion, mandatory price reporting so that you know how much cattle are bringing. Same for hogs. We also need to have "country of origin" labeling because one of the things that's happened is that because of NAFTA, Australian beef has come in through Mexico. It is being slaughtered in the U.S. and being labeled USDA. It's happening with Canadian beef. It's brought down to be slaughtered here in the U.S. and because it comes in to the States to be slaughtered, it's labeled USDA, which is why we need "country of origin" labeling.

Should Congress take steps to preserve the financial viability of Social Security and Medicare? If so, what steps should be taken to preserve those programs?

Emerson: Absolutely. Congress has the statutory authority to do that and the fact is the government has a contract with our senior citizens to provide retirement security for them. We have to deal with it in a thoughtful and a thorough way and the best way to do it is to get current retirees, baby boomers and future retirees all at the table and to talk about the different options available to make sure that Social Security is there. And we also must simultaneously pay back the IOUs that were borrowed from the Social Security Trust Fund to balance the budget; take the surplus and segregate it totally from the budget and invest in 100 percent government backed securities, draw the highest interest possible and keep that money set aside.

In the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, we were able to save Medicare for the next 10 years because it was facing a real crisis in financing. And we were able to do that by growing the Medicare program about 6 percent a year for over 5 years as compared to maybe 10 percent. So we would grow it at $70 billion over 5 years. Simultaneous with that, we are also able to offer seniors more choice, add diabetes management, add cancer screening, both mammogram and prostate cancer screening. And we were able to level to some extent the urban/rural differential in reimbursements from Medicare. We still have more work to do on that. It still costs the same to get a mammogram in Cape Girardeau as it does in St. Louis. The equipment costs the same amount of money, therefore, there should not be a disproportionate share of the Medicare funds going to the cities. The only way we are going to keep rural hospitals and rural doctors in business is by being able to reimburse them at the same rates that you get in St. Louis or Memphis or competing cities.

And, I think, simultaneously, we have to address long-term care as well as prescription drugs. This Medicare Plus Choice System that has been developed in the 1997 budget act basically sets up and gives seniors the option to use an HMO managed care type arrangement and within that framework you might have more choices. For example, they might cover eye-glasses or prescription drugs to a certain extent. Many of those things are not available in rural areas. And one thing that we have to do within the framework of Medicare in making certain that it's going to be there for future generations is to totally revamp the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), which is the government agency that oversees Medicare. It is bureaucratic. It creates incredible regulations. As a matter of fact, they have said that they can't even do the education program for seniors on Medicare Plus Choice because they're too behind on their year 2000 computer problems. Well, let me tell you, that's just not going to cut it.

In addition to that, we were able to fix in this most recent budget a whole regulation that HCFA put together with regard to home health care. And they have been so caught in this year 2000 problem they haven't been able to fix this whole rule they set up that really hurts our home health care agencies around the country because they've been too busy doing something that's technical. They have no business, no business whatsoever in shortchanging their clients, our senior citizens, because of a computer problem. That's how absurd and inefficient that agency is.

What are your qualifications for office? What do you think sets you apart from your opponents?

Emerson: Well, I'm a professional mom; I;m a professional grass-roots organizer; I'm a good implementer. I know how to get things done. I think I'm a real good advocate for our district. I'm a consensus builder. I am very non-partisan and I have extraordinarily good relationships with members across both sides of the aisle. And I have been able to forge coalitions with my colleagues across both sides of the aisle to get several things done. First of all, let me just give you a couple of examples.

The economic development administration or EDA is a government agency that provides grants to communities. It has really reinvented itself over the last several years to be a very efficient organization and it has helped so many of our communities around the district develop water, sewer systems; and help build industrial parks. This legislation has languished in Congress without being re-authorized for 17 years. About four weeks ago, the assistant secretary of economic development called me and asked if could I lead the charge to get EDA re-authorized....Well, I did it. And pretty well singlehandedly. I don't like to brag about myself, but that's the kind of thing I've been able to do.

The same thing with the Birth Defects Prevention Act that had been sitting around for six years. It was a matter of knowing the right buttons to push, the right people to talk to, the right group of people to bring together and get it done. I see a problem, look at the different solutions, and solve it. And I think that's probably one of the best qualifications you can have.

Do you favor or oppose gun control and why?

Emerson: I am not in favor of gun control because I believe very strongly in our Second Amendment rights. I'm very happy that in our most recent budget there will not be a user fee that the administration tried to impose and the Bureau of ATF tried to impose on all firearm purchases. It was a user fee, gun tax, if you will. That's not in the budget. It was a big aim of the administration, but they caved in on it fortunately and there will not be a national registry. So, we're making some progress. We've got some other things to do, but I feel very strongly that our Second Amendment rights need to be protected.

Should Congress change the tax code? Do you favor a flat tax or a sales tax or some other solution? Would you scrap the federal income tax?

Emerson: Number one, it is critical that we have tax reform and we have a tax system that's more fair, simple and honest. It's far too complex right now. I don't know if we might go to a flat tax with fewer categories of rates. I can't answer the question. As far as preference goes, I do not have a preference at the moment about a flat tax or a national sales tax. Both have pluses and both have minuses and I think that we will have a dialogue on it over the next couple of years. I supported legislation to scrap the tax code in the future so that we would be forced to deal with the present code we have and reinvent it to make it more simple. I do strongly believe that we need to have tax cuts because people right now are paying more in income taxes as a proportion of the GDP than in our history. But we have to do tax cuts the right way. The budget says that we have to do tax cuts and they need to be offset by one of two things: either increases in some taxes or a restraint in spending. And that's the way we have to do it but people deserve to keep more of what they earn.

I doubt seriously (we can scrap the income tax). There are many programs the federal government does. There are two major things we are in charge of: providing for the common defense and collection of taxes. Now I'm sure everybody would prefer not to have to do the collection of taxes, but there are federal government programs that do, in fact, work and they have to be funded and the only way you fund them is through federal taxes, whether through a flat tax or through a sales tax.

What is the single biggest problem facing small business today?

Emerson: I would say two things: over regulation and over taxation.

Do you favor or oppose school vouchers and why?

Emerson: I am opposed to the concept of school vouchers for public schools in Missouri. All my kids went to public school. I went to public school and I had a great education and I really believe very strongly in public education. However, I did vote for a very limited voucher program in the District of Columbia for two reasons: No. 1, schools in the District of Columbia receive more education dollars than any other school system and those kids are at the bottom of the ladder as far as achievement goes. No. 2, those schools are full of drugs, guns, knives and so much violence that the kids cannot learn in those situations. The voucher program that was put together for the DC schools was a separate appropriation, anyway. It did not come from the education fund, but it was a separate appropriation of money to allow some kids to go to the school of their choice.

What are your views on abortion?

Emerson: I'm Pro-Life. I am very much opposed to partial birth abortion. I voted twice to override the president's veto of this very grisly and inhumane procedure, which is not medically necessary. It is an outrageous, inhumane outright murder. I introduced a constitutional amendment against abortion or to preserve life, and I have voted in every instance the pro-life view on many family planning issues.

Do you favor criminalizing tobacco use?

Emerson: I don't believe you can legislate behavior. I am really opposed to kids smoking because it's just bad for their health. My husband died of lung cancer because he started smoking at the age of 13 and smoked three packs of cigarettes a day. And there is nothing that scares me more, but you can't write laws that say you may not do this because they don't work. We as parents have the responsibility to encourage our kids not to do that. The responsibility lies on us.

Should the federal government regulate the Internet?

Emerson: Yes. As a matter of fact, we did pass within this most recent budget, language that says that companies that put pornography on the Internet that children can get to will be penalized. So there will be a lockout they have to put together. The regulations have not been written yet, but companies will be criminally liable for any pornography which children can get now on the Internet.

Do we need campaign finance reform? If so, what changes are needed?

Emerson: I think way too much money gets spent on campaigns. I also believe that "soft" money should be banned. I think there should be fuller disclosure of any kind of independent expenditure activities or campaigns by outside groups. Why I'm saying that is because you might have a union or you might have the NRA and they get contributions that provide them the funds to advertise or advocate on behalf of a candidate or not. And, they don't have to disclose where that money comes from for an independent expenditure, and I think they should.

Soft money is money that a political party can raise from any kind of source and they don't need to disclose necessarily where that money is coming from, which has been the big controversy over the Chinese and Buddhist donations to the Democrats. So consequently, those moneys don't necessarily have to be disclosed and then the parties can use that money for advertising or get out the vote, or party building activities. Independent expenditures would be third-party groups. It would be unions; it would be corporations, associations. They don't express or ask for the election or defeat of a candidate, but there is definitely a political message involved.

I think you should have to disclose where the money is coming from. The Constitution says that you cannot prohibit free speech so it is unconstitutional to tell any group that they can't say whatever it is they want to say. There needs to be campaign financial reform, but we really need full disclosure. That's one of the keys because people would be a whole lot more reluctant to do things if they had to tell you where the money is coming from.

Do you think President Clinton should be impeached?

Emerson: I can't answer that question. I have to see the evidence that gets presented to us by the House Judiciary Committee and it would be really irresponsible of me to tell you what I think prior to hearing the evidence presented in a very fair and unemotional way. The rule of law and the Constitution says that everybody is innocent 'till proven guilty so I can have a personal opinion about president's behavior, which I find outrageous, but I have to also abide by my constitutional responsibilities which is not to judge somebody before you've seen the evidence.

MEET JO ANN EMERSON

Candidate: Jo Ann Emerson

Party: Republican

Hometown: Cape Girardeau

Age: 48

Education: Grew up in Bethesda, Md. Graduated from Ohio Wesleyan University with a bachelor of arts degree in political science.

Job History: Served as senior vice president of public affairs for the American Insurance Association. Prior to that job, she was director of state relations and grassroots programs for the National Restaurant Association.

Political Office: Elected to Congress in 1996, succeeding her late husband, Bill Emerson.

Family: Widowed. She has two daughters and two stepdaughters.