Inside (the Beltway) Scoop

By: Ellen Kuo
Thursday, May 28, 2026
House Appropriators Pass the Fiscal Year (FY) 2027 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill

The subcommittee markup for the House Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Act bill occurred on May 15. Chair Chuck Fleischmann (R-TN) said the bill “strengthens our nation’s energy security, prioritizes research and development efforts on baseload energy sources…” He also said the Office of Science is one of his really high priorities for the bill. Full committee Chair Tom Cole said the bill “advances activities to further unleash domestic production of critical minerals and reduce reliance on foreign supply. It unlocks technological innovation to propel advancements for the future-including support for the White House’s Genesis Mission.” The Genesis Mission supports coordinated national efforts to leverage artificial intelligence to accelerate discovery, strengthen national security, and drive energy innovation. The committee strongly supports the goals of the Genesis Mission to enhance discovery science by fully realizing the unique capabilities of the Department’s high-performance computing infrastructure, but directs the Department to ensure that Genesis Mission initiatives align with the original purpose and intent of programs through which they are funded and for which funds are appropriated. 

However, House Democrats said during the markup that the bill “raises costs for American households, weakens our national security…” Ranking member Marcy Kaptur’s (D-OH) view is that a bipartisan compromise needs to be crafted where there must be a revision in the balances of top line funding between the defense portion, up two percent, and non-defense funding, with a six percent cut, where innovation happens. She also wanted to see a bill that provided transparency and accountability for how federal agencies spend the funds Congress provides, and that is free of riders. The Democrats’ factsheet is available for viewing. As part of the larger picture, Democratic appropriators have filed an amicus brief in support of litigation over the administration’s attempts to take down a statutorily required spending transparency website that makes the Office of Management and Budget’s apportionments public.

The full committee markup took place on May 20, with an attempt to cut the Office of Science by $1.4 billion offered by Representative Clyde, but his amendment failed during committee consideration. Attempts to add bill language that would compel the release of DOE funds and reverse $9 billion in DOE-terminated projects also failed.

After a short markup, the full Appropriations Committee passed the bill by a vote of 34 to 25. The bill still provides $8.525 billion (an increase of $125 million) for the Office of Science, one of FASEB’s important funding areas. In section 312 of the bill, the Department of Energy shall continue to apply the indirect cost rates to the same extent as applied in FY 2024.

The committee’s report also placed a high priority on the Office of Science’s activities, noting that the private sector is not likely to fund research whose findings either have high non-commercial value or are not likely to be commercialized in the near or medium term. Its work is vital to sustaining the scientific leadership of the United States and can provide the underpinnings for valuable intellectual property in the coming decades.

There is also a report language stating that the committee continues to include the Department’s reprogramming authority in statute to ensure that the Department carries out its programs consistent with congressional direction, prohibits new starts through the use of reprogramming, and includes other direction to improve public oversight of the Department’s actions. The committee also expressed its need to have timely basic, factual information, including budget justification materials and responses to inquiries,  and said that there should be no interference with communication with all recipients of funding from this Act, plus they shall not be penalized for such communication. Any reprogramming of funds would also require the Department to inform the committee promptly when a change in program execution and funding is required during the fiscal year. Reprogramming should only be made when an unforeseen situation arises, not for mere convenience or preference. Lastly, the committee did not include funding for the relocation of the department to the building currently occupied by the Department of Education, and wants to be briefed on the proposed relocation plan.