Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr. letter to R. B.-F., December 3, 1996

•-5SS-'-* Congress of the tUniteb States JflOUSE of &EprtSCntattbES ©Hasbington, ЭС 20515-2002 December 3, 1996 3905 Mountain Roao Pasadena. MO 21122 (4101 255-6983 Dear Thank you for contacting me regarding your concern for environmental issues. I believe we must take a balanced, independent approach towards environmental issues. I have supported regulatory reform legislation which will ensure that every environmental regulation promulgated by Washington is absolutely necessary and truly worth the price of implementation. At the same time, I have not hesitated to oppose legislation which I believe will weaken laws important to public health and safety. In the five most important environmental votes to come before the 104th Congress, I supported the position endorsed by most environmental groups. For example, in one of my toughest votes since coming to Congress, I opposed H. R. 961— a Clean Water Act reauthorization bill strongly supported by the Republican leadership — because I believed it would harm the Chesapeake Bay. Additionally, I voted (on three separate occasions) to delete from an appropriations bill seventeen legislative provisions unilaterally restricting EPA’s ability to enforce environmental laws and regulations. I also supported a bipartisan Safe Drinking Water Act enacted by Congress in August. Moreover, I have consistently fought to preserve funding for environmental programs important to the Chesapeake Bay. Last year, I launched a bipartisan fight to preserve funding for the environmental cleanup program at Aberdeen Proving Ground. Additionally, I along with four House Republicans from Maryland and Virginia urged House Speaker Newt Gingrich to fully fund the Chesapeake Bay program at 1995 levels. In your letter, you cite several examples of votes I have cast which you claim indicate insensitivity to these issues. The subjective language you used to describe some of these votes is the same as that used by extreme environmental organizations. I disagree with the one-sided approach taken by many of these organizations. Accordingly, I would like to elaborate on two of the specific issues you raised.