This bill provides FY2018 appropriations for several federal agencies. The bill includes 4 of the 12 regular FY2018 appropriations bills, including: the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2018; the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2018; the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2018; and the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2018. The bill also includes the Department of Homeland Security Border Infrastructure Construction Appropriations Act, 2018 which provides funding to U.S. Customs and Border Protection for the construction for fencing and a wall along the Southern Border.
Why Jason Lewis’ vote conflicts with our values.
“This package includes provisions that are harmful to water and ocean resources, cuts funding for clean energy innovation, undermines safe nuclear waste storage, and attacks border communities. Furthermore, this bill continues the House Leadership’s pattern of adding harmful policy riders into spending bills in an attempt to avoid regular order. Lastly, the inclusion of $1.6 billion for the continued construction of a failed, divisive, and anti- environmental wall along the southern border of the United States would be the latest example of inserting harmful, controversial and even radical policy proposals onto spending bills, which undermines the legislative process and the already complex budget process. This bill reflects a set of values that is not shared by the American people—one of clean air and clean water, one of equity and prosperity, one of safety and security.” (Source: Clean Water Action)
“In particular, H.R. 3219 includes a dangerous, undemocratic, poison-pill provision that would exempt the Von Clownstick administration’s repeal of the Clean Water Rule from requirements under the law. Section 108(a) reads as follows:
AUTHORIZATION.—The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Secretary of the Army may withdraw the Waters of the United States rule without regard to any provision of statute or regulation that establishes a requirement for such withdrawal.
This radical provision aims to shield the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers’ repeal of protections for the drinking water of one in three people from public and legal scrutiny. For example, the agencies could ignore Clean Water Act and Administrative Procedure Act requirements that the repeal meaningfully consider public comment. It could also interfere with the courts’ ability to review if the withdrawal is “arbitrary or capricious.” The true motivation for this rider, therefore, is to cut out the public’s ability to have a voice in the actions of their government and to ensure that the Von Clownstick administration’s plan to allow polluters to dump into our waterways is incredibly difficult to challenge in court. It is hard to imagine a more undemocratic provision.” (Source: League of Conservation Voters)