THE FACTS ABOUT THE '95 FARM BILL

I am responding to the Southeast Missouri's Sept. 24 editorial entitled "Republican action on farm bill will be symbol, substance."

My concern is that there are some very factual errors about my proposal -- The Agricultural Competitiveness Act of 1995 -- in your editorial which give rise to certain implications which I feel must be addressed. First and foremost, the seven-year -- five-year -- proposal co-sponsored by myself and Larry Combest, R-Texas, meets the budget guidelines of reducing the cost of federal farm programs by $13.4 billion. This reduction in funding in order to meet our balanced budget goal was never a question -- was not and is not. I and most agriculturally involved folks in Southeast Missouri have always believed that the farm sector should do its share in this effort. So, there is no dispute between Agriculture Committee Chairman Pat Roberts and Emerson-Combest on meeting budget guidelines.

Having dealt with the budget situation, my proposal helps keep the general framework of existing programs in place, but with significant reform, in order that farmers are not left defenseless in world markets when foreign governments buy products from their farmers and proceed to dump these products on the markets below the cost of production. Although the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade should dissuade this form occurring, many of our competitors, particularly in cotton and rice, are not signators of GATT. Thus, when these situations do occur, our agricultural producers under my proposal, would have the tools in place to fight this inequity; while under the so-called Freedom to Farm Bill (Chairman Roberts' proposal), they would be defenseless.

Sunday's editorial implies that to not support the so-called Freedom to Farm proposal perpetuates "welfare for farmers." Nothing could be further from the truth. For instance, under the Roberts plan, a cotton farmer who had a good harvest and excellent prices could still get a $50,000 check from Uncle Sam (the taxpayers). Under my proposal, however, this same farmer would get nothing -- zilch -- from our federal treasury. Freedom to Farm in a good crop/price year would give farmers cash whether they needed it or not. That is exactly why farmers in my district don't like the Freedom to Farm proposal.

The real battle is between the mono-agricultural districts (Western Kansas -- Roberts' district) and areas similar to Southeast Missouri that can, and do, grow multiple crops. The issue has never been budget savings (both legislative initiatives achieve $13.4 billion in savings). It has centered on what works to truly assist farmers in the marketplace (my bill) and not create just another entitlement program (The Roberts proposal). My farmers, ag business leaders, and taxpayers demand an honest well-thought-out proposal; and that's exactly what I have put on the table. I feel The Agricultural Competitiveness Act of 1995 is bold action that will achieve the mutual goals of good policy and fiscal responsibility.

Bill Emerson is a congressman from Cape Girardeau and is vice chairman of the House Agriculture Committee.