Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 156.
This bill is the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2026.
It provides FY2026 discretionary appropriations and direction for Corps of Engineers civil works (investigations, construction, operation and maintenance, regulatory program), Bureau of Reclamation water programs, and a wide range of Department of Energy accounts (including energy efficiency, grid, fossil energy, nuclear energy, weapons activities, environmental cleanup, ARPA‑E, Science, and loan guarantee authorities), plus funding for multiple independent agencies and regional commissions.
The text sets specific dollar amounts for many accounts, attaches detailed reprogramming and reporting rules, authorizes transfers and some rescissions, and includes numerous policy riders and restrictions (for example on DEI programs, certain regulatory actions, Strategic Petroleum Reserve sales, admission of certain foreign nationals to sensitive facilities, and dredged material disposal).
On content alone, this is a must-do policy area (annual appropriations) so a funding outcome is likely one way or another, but the specific text contains multiple controversial policy riders and detailed programmatic strings that typically trigger negotiation in the other chamber and with the executive branch. Historically, such bills either are amended in the Senate, enacted as part of a larger omnibus, or see some riders removed to secure final enactment; the core funding is comparatively likely to be enacted after negotiation, but the detailed riders and some transfers are at higher risk of modification or removal.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this appropriations bill is detailed and well‑constructed: it specifies funding amounts and sources, embeds implementation controls, integrates with existing law, and includes numerous reporting and oversight provisions appropriate to the scale of the appropriations.
Social/cultural riders: Progressive strongly opposes bans on DEI and the provision restricting 'Critical Race Theory', while conservatives view these riders as positive; the centrist is mixed and concerned about administrative/legal disruption.
Social/cultural riders: Progressive strongly opposes bans on DEI and the provision restricting 'Critical Race Theory', while conservatives view these riders as positive; the centrist is mixed and concerned about adminis…
A mainstream liberal would view the bill as a necessary vehicle to fund important water infrastructure, science, climate and energy research programs, but would be concerned about multiple policy riders and funding choices.
Positive items include appropriations for energy efficiency, ARPA‑E, DOE science, Bureau of Reclamation restoration programs, and Corps ecosystem restoration.
However, the bill contains riders that restrict diversity, equity, and inclusion programs; prohibit implementation of a DOE clean building rule; permit firearms at Corps recreation projects consistent with state law; and preserve or bolster funding for fossil and certain nuclear programs — all of which would trigger significant concern.
A pragmatic centrist would treat this bill primarily as an annual appropriations vehicle that funds essential infrastructure, research, and public safety functions, while being wary of some of the more ideologically charged riders.
They would appreciate the appropriations for Corps projects, Bureau of Reclamation, DOE science and weapons activities, and may accept reporting and reprogramming requirements as reasonable oversight.
At the same time, the centrist would have reservations about sweeping programmatic bans (for example on DEI or specific DOE rulemaking), overly prescriptive procurement restrictions, and provisions that could complicate agency management or create legal risk.
A mainstream conservative would likely view the bill favorably as it provides funding for traditional infrastructure, defense‑related DOE activities, and includes a number of policy riders consistent with conservative priorities.
Supportive features include restrictions on DEI programs, bans on COVID mask/vaccine mandates, protections allowing firearms at Corps water projects consistent with state law, limits on use of Chinese‑linked equipment and sales from the SPR to Chinese‑controlled entities, and constraints on certain DOE rulemakings.
Conservatives would also welcome funding for fossil R&D, advanced nuclear loan guarantees, and strong oversight provisions.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
On content alone, this is a must-do policy area (annual appropriations) so a funding outcome is likely one way or another, but the specific text contains multiple controversial policy riders and detailed programmatic strings that typically trigger negotiation in the other chamber and with the executive branch. Historically, such bills either are amended in the Senate, enacted as part of a larger omnibus, or see some riders removed to secure final enactment; the core funding is comparatively likely to be enacted after negotiation, but the detailed riders and some transfers are at higher risk of modification or removal.
On Passage
On Motion to Recommit
On Agreeing to the Amendment
Social/cultural riders: Progressive strongly opposes bans on DEI and the provision restricting 'Critical Race Theory', while conservatives…
On content alone, this is a must-do policy area (annual appropriations) so a funding outcome is likely one way or another, but the specific…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this appropriations bill is detailed and well‑constructed: it specifies funding amounts and sources, embeds implementation controls, integrates with existing law, and includes…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.