CRUCIAL FARM-BILL VOTE SMOOTHED OUT THROUGH AGREEMENT

As massive budget-reform measures neared final votes in Congress this week, one rut in the road appears to have been smoothed out to everyone's satisfaction. House members from key cotton- and rice-producing states, including Rep. Bill Emerson, R-Cape Girardeau, reached common ground with Speaker Newt Gingrich over the Freedom to Farm bill that would cut some $13.4 billion from agriculture program as part of the overall budget-balancing plan.

The farm bill hit a bumpy road when Emerson and three other farm-state representatives refused to join the Republican majority in the Agriculture Committee. The Freedom to Farm bill seeks to replace farm subsidies with direct payments to farmers. There tends to be widespread agreement that, in the long term, farm subsidies will be ended, but there is considerable -- and logical -- concern about the method of doing it. Generally, the biggest support is for a gradual phase-out of the subsidy programs, which would be the least disruptive to the producers of the food we eat and other agricultural products.

The opposition of Emerson and his cohorts, which was joined this week by 11 other congressmen from farm-producing states, at first irked the House leadership, especially Speaker Gingrich who, in a private memo, threatened sanctions against the wayward Republicans. But as the crucial vote on appropriations bills neared this week, reason produced a satisfactory compromise: Emerson and his farm-state colleagues would be among the GOP ranks for the voting, but the speaker would see to it that their concerns were addressed in conference.

It is important to note that both the Freedom to Farm bill and the alternative presented by Emerson and the others both accomplish the same budget-cutting objective. The savings in both plans would be $13.4 billion. The issue is how to handle government support payments for farmers. Emerson argued this week that "it would be foolish to create yet another welfare payment" for farmers as the federal government strives to reform social welfare programs.

Many Americans, mostly non-farmers, consider any subsidy a form of welfare. But farm subsidies are a mechanism used to balance trade and create price parity for U.S. farmers in the marketplace. Farmers in developed countries around the world enjoy much greater government support than American farmers, but the U.S. system is generally regarded as a success. Consider the production levels of U.S. farms, the quality of the food products and the abundance of supplies -- all of which contribute to well-fed Americans and, by comparison in world markets, affordable food supplies.

The push by Republicans to establish a budget-balancing program to be achieved in just seven years is ambitious. It was the cornerstone of the GOP's Contract With America. Republican leaders rightfully stress the need for unanimity on what is considered the most important vote this year in Congress. Emerson and the other legislators who have held out for their farm constituents have made a contribution to the process that is both beneficial to farmers and, in the long run, to all taxpayers.