DOE and NSF Interagency Research Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/1350
Last Updated: July 12, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Stevens, Haley M. [D-MI-11]

ID: S001215

Follow the money

The bill

DOE and NSF Interagency Research Act

HR. 1350, 119th Congress — read as touching AI & Cloud Infrastructure.

The sponsor

Rep. Stevens, Haley M. [D-MI-11]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$84,700 raised

30 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

66% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Introduction" section, p. 404-406 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

March 24, 2025

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

Passed House

Senate Review

📍 Current Status

Next: Both chambers must agree on the same version of the bill.

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Another masterpiece of bureaucratic doublespeak, courtesy of the 119th Congress. Let's dissect this monstrosity and expose its true purpose.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The DOE and NSF Interagency Research Act (HR 1350) claims to promote "cross-cutting and collaborative research and development activities" between the Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Science Foundation (NSF). In reality, this bill is a thinly veiled attempt to justify increased funding for pet projects, expand bureaucratic empires, and create new opportunities for cronyism.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill establishes a memorandum of understanding between the DOE and NSF, which will supposedly facilitate "competitive, merit-reviewed" research grants. Don't be fooled – this is just a euphemism for "we'll give money to our friends and favored institutions." The bill also authorizes reimbursable agreements, collaboration with other federal agencies, and the creation of new research infrastructure.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects will benefit from this bill:

1. Federal agencies (DOE and NSF): More funding, more power, and more opportunities for bureaucratic growth. 2. National Laboratories: Expect increased funding and influence peddling. 3. Institutions of higher education: More grants, more research opportunities, and more chances to curry favor with federal bureaucrats. 4. Non-profit institutions: The same as above – more money, more influence.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill will:

1. Increase the national debt by funneling more taxpayer dollars into bureaucratic black holes. 2. Create new opportunities for cronyism and corruption, as favored institutions and individuals receive preferential treatment. 3. Further entrench the federal government's grip on scientific research, stifling innovation and competition. 4. Produce a plethora of pointless reports, studies, and initiatives that will gather dust on shelves or be used to justify further bureaucratic expansion.

In short, HR 1350 is a classic example of legislative theater – a meaningless exercise in bureaucratic posturing designed to justify more spending, more power, and more influence for the usual suspects. The real disease here is the insatiable appetite for federal control and funding that afflicts our politicians and bureaucrats. This bill is just another symptom of that deeper illness.

Related Topics

Research & Innovation PolicyFederal Budget & AppropriationsState & Local Government Affairs
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Stevens, Haley M. [D-MI-11]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$84,700
25 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$28,600
Committees
$0
Individuals
$56,100

No PAC contributions found

1
MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS
2 transactions
$6,600
2
EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS
1 transaction
$3,300
3
NOTTAWASEPPI HURON BAND OF THE POTAWATOMI
1 transaction
$3,300
4
POKAGON BAND OF POTAWATOMI INDIANS
1 transaction
$3,300
5
SAGINAW CHIPPEWA INDIAN TRIBE
1 transaction
$3,300
6
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
2 transactions
$3,300
7
SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION
2 transactions
$2,500
8
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
2 transactions
$2,000
9
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
1 transaction
$1,000

No committee contributions found

1
TURKISH, JASON
2 transactions
$6,600
2
JARBOU, FRANK
1 transaction
$3,300
3
SACKS, CARI B.
1 transaction
$3,300
4
JARVIS-SHEAN, ELIZABETH
1 transaction
$3,300
5
BLUHM, NEIL
1 transaction
$3,300
6
SILVERSTEIN, WILLIAM
1 transaction
$3,300
7
SACKS, MICHAEL
1 transaction
$3,300
8
SHAPIRO, ANDREW
1 transaction
$3,300
9
CHERN, ERIC
1 transaction
$3,300
10
SANDBERG, SHERYL
1 transaction
$3,300
11
CHERN, LAURA
1 transaction
$3,300
12
GURAL, JEFFREY R.
1 transaction
$3,300
13
GATES, WILLIAM H. III
1 transaction
$3,300
14
BROWN, GREGORY
1 transaction
$3,300
15
WALKER, KENT
1 transaction
$3,300
16
WYETT, TODD
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 2 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Baird, James R. [R-IN-4]

ID: B001307

Top Contributors

10

1
TORCHBEARER PUBLIC AFFAIRS
OrganizationCARMEL, IN
$1,000
Apr 10, 2024
2
NICOSON, JON
NICOSON FARMING INCFARMER
IndividualCORY, IN
$6,600
Aug 25, 2023
3
BAIRD, BEAU
SELFRANCHER
IndividualGREENCASTLE, IN
$3,300
Sep 30, 2023
4
GOODRICH, CHARLES D
GAYLOR ELECTRIC, INC.VICE PRESIDENT
IndividualNOBLESVILLE, IN
$3,300
Jun 30, 2024
5
CARRIER, JAMISON
RELENTLESS DEALER SERVICESFOUNDER
IndividualGREENWOOD, IN
$3,300
Mar 11, 2024
6
WALTON, ROBERT S
RETIREDRETIRED
IndividualBENTONVILLE, AR
$3,300
Mar 31, 2024
7
NICOSON, BARBRA
RETIREDRETIRED
IndividualCORY, IN
$3,300
Jul 8, 2024
8
NICOSON, JON
NICOSON FARMING INCFARMER
IndividualCORY, IN
$3,300
Jul 8, 2024
9
NESSEL, ARIEL
ENTREPRENEURENTREPRENEUR
IndividualROSS, CA
$2,500
Apr 14, 2023
10
LANGLEY, THOMAS
LANGLEY CONSULTINGCONSULTANT
IndividualATHENS, AL
$2,000
Sep 29, 2023

Rep. McBride, Sarah [D-DE-At Large]

ID: M001238

Top Contributors

10

1
SOKOLA FOR SENATE
COMNEWARK, DE
$1,000
Dec 15, 2023
2
HPUL PROJECT OPERATIONS
OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA
$3,300
Dec 30, 2023
3
ATLAS RESTAURANT GROUP LLC
OrganizationBALTIMORE, MD
$1,000
Jun 12, 2024
4
EASTERN SUSSEX DEMOCRATS
OrganizationLEWES, DE
$1,000
Jun 23, 2024
5
FRIENDS FOR HANSEN
OrganizationMIDDLETOWN, DE
$600
Oct 6, 2024
6
FRIENDS OF JULIAN CYR
OrganizationTRURO, MA
$500
Nov 4, 2024
7
FRIENDS OF JULIAN CYR
OrganizationTRURO, MA
$500
Apr 30, 2024
8
FRIENDS OF SHARIF STREET
OrganizationPHILADELPHIA, PA
$500
Jun 5, 2024
9
SC PAC
OrganizationWILMINGTON, DE
$500
Sep 10, 2024
10
SC PAC
OrganizationWILMINGTON, DE
$500
Oct 11, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Stevens, Haley M. [D-MI-11]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Loading...

Showing 84 nodes and 36 connections (87 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $100,900

Top Donors - Rep. Stevens, Haley M. [D-MI-11]

Showing top 25 donors by contribution amount

9 Orgs16 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 5 helped.

  • Section 2(c)(1)(C) includes modeling and simulation, machine learning, artificial intelligence, data assimilation, large-scale data analytics, predictive analysis, and advanced computational, storage, and networking capabilities to optimize algorithms for energy and climate, which benefits AI and cloud infrastructure providers.

  • Section 2(c)(1)(G) covers microelectronics, including novel chip architectures, memory systems, and interconnects, which directly supports semiconductor and hardware industries.

  • +Renewable Energyconfidence 0.80

    Section 2(c)(1)(E) includes energy and materials science and engineering, such as artificial photosynthesis, plasma, solar fuels, and fusion, which advances renewable energy technologies.

  • +Nuclear Powerconfidence 0.75

    Section 2(c)(1)(E) includes fusion science and energy and materials science, which supports nuclear power research, including fusion and advanced reactor concepts.

  • +Electric Utilitiesconfidence 0.70

    Section 2(c)(1)(C) focuses on optimizing algorithms for energy and climate, which can improve grid efficiency and support electric utilities' operations and planning.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Stevens, Haley M. [D-MI-11])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HELPS

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.

Introduction

Moderate65.9%
Pages: 404-406

— 371 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions l Refocus the National Labs on fundamental and advanced science. DOE currently oversees 17 National Laboratories. The three National Labs run by DOE’s NNSA should continue to focus on national security issues. The remaining 14 science and energy labs should focus on basic research projects; demonstration and deployment of technology should be left to the private sector. This goal can be achieved by realigning the labs to limit duplication and mission creep and to maximize potential. l Conduct a whole-of-government assessment and consolidation of science. Before the start of a new Administration, there should be a review of all the federal science agencies.12 This should include a review of the ill-advised attempt to expand the National Science Foundation’s mission from supporting university research to supporting an all-encompassing technology transition. Specific to DOE, there should be a review to measure, prioritize, and consolidate DOE programs based on a range of beneficial factors, including degree of relationship to national security; furtherance of energy security (cyber but also international aspects); and importance to scientific discovery/advancement. New Policies: Remediation of Nuclear Weapons Development Programs and Civilian Nuclear Waste Cleaning up the radioactive waste produced in support of the Manhattan Project and the Cold War at America’s nuclear development sites is a massive and com- plicated process led by DOE’s Office of Environmental Management. Projected liabilities and costs to be borne by America’s taxpayers, according to DOE’s FY 2023 budget request, total $887,205 billion.13 In addition, the federal government is required by law to dispose of nuclear waste produced by the private sector, includ- ing spent fuel rods from nuclear power plants. The new DESAS should: l Continue DOE’s remediation of radioactive waste created by the nuclear weapons projects from the Manhattan Project and Cold War. Strong leadership focused on accelerating the cleanup, coupled with technical and administrative innovation, will be needed to reduce the federal government’s third largest liability. l Develop a new approach that increases the level of private-sector responsibility for the disposal of nuclear waste. Disposing of civilian nuclear waste is an important national issue that requires strong scientific study. According to an independent audit conducted by the public accounting firm of KPMG, the Nuclear Waste Fund holds $46 billion in payments by utilities and their ratepayers, plus interest, for a permanent waste disposal site for spent nuclear fuel and other nuclear waste.14 The — 372 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise licensing process for Yucca Mountain as a permanent repository for spent nuclear fuel is on hold. Without storage sites, spent nuclear fuel remains temporarily stored at nuclear plants. In addition to permanent storage, low- level nuclear waste facilities are needed. New Policies: NNSA The U.S. nuclear arsenal needs to be updated and reinvigorated if we are to be able to deal effectively with threats from China, Russia, and other adversaries. As a semi-autonomous agency, the NNSA has the primary responsibility for researching and designing new nuclear warheads and for ensuring that the existing nuclear arsenal is still potent. These efforts require significant funding and scientific know- how. In addition, NNSA develops and designs nuclear propulsion reactors for the U.S. Navy. NNSA also plays a role in preventing nuclear proliferation. With strong leadership by the Secretary of DESAS, the next Administration should: l Fund the design, development, and deployment of new nuclear warheads, including the production of plutonium pits in quantity.15 l Expand the U.S. Navy and develop new nuclear naval reactors to ensure that the Navy has the nuclear propulsion it needs to secure America’s strategic interests. l End ineffective and counterproductive nonproliferation activities like those involving Iran and the United Nations. Budget DOE’s total FY 2023 budget request (which does not include IIJA, IRA, and CHIPS and Science Act funding) was for $48,183,451,000.16 Many DOE activities are required by various authorization and appropriations bills. To implement many of the policies contained in these proposals, several laws will need to be amended, including the Department of Energy Organization Act, IIJA, IRA, and possibly portions of the CHIPS (Creating Healthy Incentives to Produce Semiconductors) and Science Act.17 Ending taxpayer subsidies will promote an “all of the above” energy policy, lead to more energy resources, reduce costs, and save taxpayers billions of dollars. OFFICE OF CYBERSECURITY, ENERGY SECURITY, AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE (CESER) Mission/Overview CESER’s mission is to “enhance the security and resilience of U.S. critical energy infrastructure to all hazards,” to “mitigate the impacts of disruptive events and risk

Introduction

Moderate65.9%
Pages: 404-406

— 371 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions l Refocus the National Labs on fundamental and advanced science. DOE currently oversees 17 National Laboratories. The three National Labs run by DOE’s NNSA should continue to focus on national security issues. The remaining 14 science and energy labs should focus on basic research projects; demonstration and deployment of technology should be left to the private sector. This goal can be achieved by realigning the labs to limit duplication and mission creep and to maximize potential. l Conduct a whole-of-government assessment and consolidation of science. Before the start of a new Administration, there should be a review of all the federal science agencies.12 This should include a review of the ill-advised attempt to expand the National Science Foundation’s mission from supporting university research to supporting an all-encompassing technology transition. Specific to DOE, there should be a review to measure, prioritize, and consolidate DOE programs based on a range of beneficial factors, including degree of relationship to national security; furtherance of energy security (cyber but also international aspects); and importance to scientific discovery/advancement. New Policies: Remediation of Nuclear Weapons Development Programs and Civilian Nuclear Waste Cleaning up the radioactive waste produced in support of the Manhattan Project and the Cold War at America’s nuclear development sites is a massive and com- plicated process led by DOE’s Office of Environmental Management. Projected liabilities and costs to be borne by America’s taxpayers, according to DOE’s FY 2023 budget request, total $887,205 billion.13 In addition, the federal government is required by law to dispose of nuclear waste produced by the private sector, includ- ing spent fuel rods from nuclear power plants. The new DESAS should: l Continue DOE’s remediation of radioactive waste created by the nuclear weapons projects from the Manhattan Project and Cold War. Strong leadership focused on accelerating the cleanup, coupled with technical and administrative innovation, will be needed to reduce the federal government’s third largest liability. l Develop a new approach that increases the level of private-sector responsibility for the disposal of nuclear waste. Disposing of civilian nuclear waste is an important national issue that requires strong scientific study. According to an independent audit conducted by the public accounting firm of KPMG, the Nuclear Waste Fund holds $46 billion in payments by utilities and their ratepayers, plus interest, for a permanent waste disposal site for spent nuclear fuel and other nuclear waste.14 The

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills