A sentence was inadvertently dropped from a letter in yesterday's Post from Rep. Steve Gunderson (R-Wis.) concerning U.S. dairy policy ("Cows and Pork"). The sentence should have read: "The South gave up its price cuts on manufactured products; and the Northeast gave up its regional pricing ideas." (Published 6/13/90)

I realize that tradition dictates that The Post editorialize against anything the Agriculture Committee does, especially on dairy policy. But I certainly would encourage a bit more analysis before such editorials as "Cows That Oink" {May 29} are written.

In 1985, The Post criticized our dairy plan. Now the paper calls it good public policy. The 1990 proposal should also merit The Post's praise. Moving toward a national policy built on market orientation, the Midwest abandoned permanent supply management; the South gave up its regional pricing ideas. The end result is a program in which farmers will produce for the market, not for the government support price every year. But don't worry, not an economist in the country thinks the market will get that low. The worst The Post can accuse us of is freezing the support price like all other commodities.

If The Post wants to talk about pork in the dairy bill, it should go after the California milk allowance. This enables California processors to buy milk at a lower price than processors elsewhere and actually make a profit by selling products to the government for a higher price. While every region of the country made concessions for a national policy, California played power and partisan politics. The federal government gives them an 84-cents-per-100-pounds milk advantage on the costs of processing milk, and yet still buys all of their surplus. Perhaps that is why California produces only 12 percent of the nation's milk products but accounts for 24 percent of the government purchases of butter. Let's talk about real pork!

STEVE GUNDERSON U.S. Representative (R-Wis.) Washington