Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr. letter to W. H. J., June 19, 1997

ROBERT L. EHRLICH. JR. Congress of tlje ®nitrt) States Jlouee ol Supresfentattocs Magtjington, 2ЭС 20515-2002 June 19, 1997 Dundalk. MD 21222 Thank you for contacting me with respect to the flag burning amendment, the supplemental appropriations bill, and your dissatisfaction with GOP leaders in Congress. I appreciate hearing your views. With respect to the supplemental appropriations bill, you expressed skepticism about the relevance of two legislative riders GOP leaders attached to this bill. I agree that the supplemental bill was also an inappropriate vehicle for directing the Census Bureau on the proper method for taking the 2000 census count. However, 1 strongly supported the second rider - a provision to permanently prevent future government shutdowns. President Clinton incorrectly claimed the anti¬ shutdown provision was an “extraneous” measure which held innocent flood victims hostage to the political agenda of congressional Republicans. In reality, the government shutdown provision was a vital part of ensuring that federal government agencies will be able to respond to future victims of natural disasters. If the government is shut down, federal agencies will be prevented from providing essential relief for future victims of natural disasters. Some believe that the dispute over the two riders delayed delivery of disaster relief aid to victims of recent Midwestern floods. This is absolutely false. The truth is that almost all of the emergency funding in the supplemental bill could not be spent until after October 1, the beginning of the next fiscal year. Therefore, the supplemental had almost nothing to do with the immediate needs of flood victims in the Midwest. Bureaucratic delays, not a lack of funding, are mainly responsible for the problems now being encountered by flood victims. With respect to the flag burning amendment, 1 supported the revised version when it came up for a vote a few weeks ago. As you probably know, the amendment was modified to allow only the U.S. Congress to enact laws protecting the flag. The amendment introduced in the last Congress would have allowed Congress and the states to make such laws. This change is significant in that it will prevent the kind of chaos and confusion which would result from fifty different state legislatures making laws and penalties. Please keep in mind that an amendment to the Constitution must be approved by two-thirds of both houses of Congress as well as three- fourths of the states. With respect to enforcement mechanisms and penalties for flag burning, that question will be answered by future Congresses should this amendment become law. With respect to your comments about the effectiveness of the GOP leadership in Congress, I agree with you. The House leadership’s decision to abruptly surrender during the dispute with the White House over the permanent continuing resolution was, in my view, inept and regrettable. I hope to see a bit more fortitude from my party’s leadership in the coming weeks. Once again, thank you for contacting me regarding these issues. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance to you on these or other matters. Sincerely, Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr. Member of Congress PRINTED ON RECYCLED I