LETTERS: WHAT EMERSON WOULD DO

To the editor:

When Independent/Republican candidate Jo Ann Emerson offers a platform based on "continuing to fight for Southeast Missouri," she asks that we judge her candidacy on the basis of the record of the late Congressman Bill Emerson. Since her campaign seems to be based on promising to maintain that track record, we are forced to evaluate it as a measure of her candidacy.

If we examine the last two years of activity by Congressman Emerson, we must conclude that as a continuation of such policies, an elected Jo Ann Emerson: Would support bills such as H.R. 961 that promote polluted and unclean drinking water. Would cripple the Environmental Protection Agency, the primary agency that stands between Americans and increased disease, such as cancer, caused by air and water pollution. Would support changes in laws in order to erect bureaucratic roadblocks to legislation that promote health and environmental protection.

Would promote destruction of our national forests and the giveaway of our Alaskan public forest and wildlife refuge resources to forestry and mining interests. Would promote the giveaway of wildlife refuges to states and the closure and sale of our national parks to pay for Republican budget proposals. Would continue to subsidize nuclear power while opposing funds to support the development of non-destructive renewable and perpetual energy resources. Would be unmoved at the prospect of seeing American wild species become extinct.

Would oppose efforts to assist foreign nations in developing human population stabilization policies.

Would support a continued taxpayer subsidy to western ranchers by maintaining their destructive, below-cost grazing permits on our public lands. Would support wetlands destruction and the diversion of rivers for pork-barrel water projects.

Would place the property rights of polluters ahead of public and environmental health and protection, requiring that taxpayers pay to stop polluters and would support cleaning up toxic waste sites at taxpayer rather than polluter expense.

The pattern is clear. These are neither mainstream nor reasonable positions. To those who focus on questions of values and ethics, I ask, what possible values lie in sacrificing the future and the health of our children, family, friends, and environment for short-term economic gratification? To those who argue against regulations and for the inherent trustworthiness of industry, I ask, do you really want to place your health in the hands of an unfettered tobacco industry, and your environment in the hands of unregulated corporate hog farmers, and the oil, mining and forestry industries? A vote for candidate Emerson would be a vote to support and maintain a record of policies that has been consistently opposed to human and environmental health.

ALAN JOURNET

Cape Girardeau