The bill
Commerce, Justice, Science; Energy and Water Development; and Interior and Environment Appropriations Act, 2026
HR. 6938, 119th Congress — read as touching Pipelines & Energy Infrastructure.
Sponsored by
Rep. Cole, Tom [R-OK-4]
ID: C001053
Follow the money
The bill
HR. 6938, 119th Congress — read as touching Pipelines & Energy Infrastructure.
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
27 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
This bill's text tracks the "Introduction" section, p. 288-290 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Became Public Law No: 119-74.
January 22, 2026
📍 Current Status
This bill has become 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!
Another masterpiece of legislative theater, brought to you by the esteemed members of Congress. This appropriations bill is a 140-page behemoth that's guaranteed to cure insomnia in even the most ardent policy wonk.
Let's get down to business. The total funding amount for this monstrosity? A whopping $582 billion, with some funds available until 2027 because, why not? It's not like we have a budget deficit or anything (spoiler alert: we do).
Division A allocates $582 million to the International Trade Administration, which is roughly the same as last year. But don't worry, they've got their priorities straight – $20 million of that will come from fees, because who needs transparency when you can just charge people for services? And hey, at least $16.4 million will go towards China antidumping and countervailing duty enforcement, because we all know how much the Chinese love a good trade war.
The Bureau of Industry and Security gets $235 million, which is a slight increase from last year. But don't get too excited – most of that will go towards "export administration and national security activities," code for "we're going to use this money to justify our existence and maybe, just maybe, do some actual work."
Now, let's talk about the real meat of this bill: the riders. Ah, yes, those lovely little policy provisions that get tacked on to funding bills because who needs separate legislation when you can just sneak it in? This one's got a doozy – a provision related to the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, which is basically a fancy way of saying "we're going to use this money to fund some vague cultural exchange programs that will probably benefit our buddies more than anyone else."
Fiscal impact? Ha! Who needs fiscal responsibility when you can just kick the can down the road? This bill will add to our already- bloated deficit, but hey, at least we'll have some shiny new programs to show for it.
In conclusion, this appropriations bill is a masterclass in legislative sleight of hand. It's a Frankenstein's monster of a bill, stitched together from various body parts with no discernible purpose other than to feed the beast that is our federal government. Bravo, Congress. You've done it again.
Rep. Cole, Tom [R-OK-4]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 53 nodes and 27 connections (57 secondary connections hidden)
Total contributions: $414,600
Showing top 24 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 21 helped, 4 harmed.
Division B, Title I, Corps of Engineers--Civil, operation and maintenance: $3,245,249,000 from Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for Federal share of eligible operations and maintenance costs for coastal harbors and channels, and $416,760,000 for donor and energy ports per section 102 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020.
Division B, Title I, Corps of Engineers--Civil, operation and maintenance: $62,000,000 derived from general fund to carry out subsection (c) of section 2106 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014, which includes design and construction to replace Federal dredges, supporting energy infrastructure.
Division B, Title III, Department of Energy, Nuclear Energy: $1,785,000,000 for nuclear energy activities, including acquisition or condemnation of real property for plant or facility acquisition, construction, or expansion.
Division B, Title IV, Independent Agencies, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board: $42,000,000 for expenses necessary for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board in carrying out activities authorized by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended by Public Law 100-456, section 1441.
Division B, Title I, Corps of Engineers--Civil, construction: $3,169,966,000 for expenses necessary for the construction of river and harbor, flood and storm damage reduction, shore protection, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and related projects authorized by law.
Division B, Title III, Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy: $3,100,000,000 for energy efficiency and renewable energy activities, including acquisition or condemnation of real property for plant or facility acquisition, construction, or expansion.
+ 19 more industries not shown.
For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Cole, Tom [R-OK-4])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.
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.
— 255 — Agency for International Development The USAID Administrator should be authorized to take on the additional role of Director of Foreign Assistance (DFA) with the rank of Deputy Secretary at the Department of State in charge of all U.S. foreign assistance. The DFA role would empower this person to align and coordinate the countless foreign assistance programs across the U.S. government and carry out the agenda of the next con- servative President more effectively. A version of this role existed during the last two years of the George W. Bush Administration, but the Obama Administration eliminated it in 2009. Countering China’s Development Challenge. Through its trillion-dollar Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) has directed billions of dollars in loans and investments to advance its geostrategic objective of displacing the United States as the premier global power. The PRC leverages its transactions—termed “debt traps” by many critics—to strengthen its global influence, extract natural resources, isolate Taiwan, win political support at international fora, and access ports and bases for its military. In Latin America, 25 of 29 countries participate in the BRI, and the PRC ranks as the region’s largest trading partner. Since 2005, Chinese state-owned banks have issued $138 billion in loans to Latin American countries, and other Chinese entities have invested an additional $140 billion. In Africa, China has issued $160 billion in loans and dominates the continent’s rare earth mining sector, which is critical to global energy development. The World Bank estimates that 60 percent of all BRI loans are in financial distress, leading many countries to seek emergency financial help from Western donors. Chinese-funded projects are known for employing substandard labor and environmental practices, fueling corruption, promoting wasteful financial deci- sions by governments, advancing China’s geostrategic interests, and creating an unequal trade relationship in which China secures raw materials from developing countries and sells those countries manufacturing products. For example, Brazil, a world leader in shoe production, saw its industry collapse under a flood of cheap Chinese imports. China’s mercantilist penetration of the developing world and the negative consequences for developing countries’ healthy economic growth have undercut U.S. strategic relationships in those countries and wasted billions in U.S. foreign aid. During the Trump Administration, USAID: l Inaugurated a robust counter-China response called Clear Choice3 that contrasted America’s development approach based on liberty, sovereignty, and free markets with China’s mercantilist authoritarianism that pursued predatory financing schemes and economic and political subordination to Beijing.
— 255 — Agency for International Development The USAID Administrator should be authorized to take on the additional role of Director of Foreign Assistance (DFA) with the rank of Deputy Secretary at the Department of State in charge of all U.S. foreign assistance. The DFA role would empower this person to align and coordinate the countless foreign assistance programs across the U.S. government and carry out the agenda of the next con- servative President more effectively. A version of this role existed during the last two years of the George W. Bush Administration, but the Obama Administration eliminated it in 2009. Countering China’s Development Challenge. Through its trillion-dollar Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) has directed billions of dollars in loans and investments to advance its geostrategic objective of displacing the United States as the premier global power. The PRC leverages its transactions—termed “debt traps” by many critics—to strengthen its global influence, extract natural resources, isolate Taiwan, win political support at international fora, and access ports and bases for its military. In Latin America, 25 of 29 countries participate in the BRI, and the PRC ranks as the region’s largest trading partner. Since 2005, Chinese state-owned banks have issued $138 billion in loans to Latin American countries, and other Chinese entities have invested an additional $140 billion. In Africa, China has issued $160 billion in loans and dominates the continent’s rare earth mining sector, which is critical to global energy development. The World Bank estimates that 60 percent of all BRI loans are in financial distress, leading many countries to seek emergency financial help from Western donors. Chinese-funded projects are known for employing substandard labor and environmental practices, fueling corruption, promoting wasteful financial deci- sions by governments, advancing China’s geostrategic interests, and creating an unequal trade relationship in which China secures raw materials from developing countries and sells those countries manufacturing products. For example, Brazil, a world leader in shoe production, saw its industry collapse under a flood of cheap Chinese imports. China’s mercantilist penetration of the developing world and the negative consequences for developing countries’ healthy economic growth have undercut U.S. strategic relationships in those countries and wasted billions in U.S. foreign aid. During the Trump Administration, USAID: l Inaugurated a robust counter-China response called Clear Choice3 that contrasted America’s development approach based on liberty, sovereignty, and free markets with China’s mercantilist authoritarianism that pursued predatory financing schemes and economic and political subordination to Beijing. — 256 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Launched its first Digital Strategy4 to promote safe 5G access in emerging markets and combat Beijing’s efforts to equip regimes with tools to stifle democracy. l Struck bilateral development relationships with Japan, Israel, Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Taiwan to support projects in sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East. l Established an office in Greenland to help counter China’s claims of being “a near Arctic state” and reoriented its programming across Asia—including establishing a USAID Mission to Central Asia—in line with America’s Indo- Pacific strategy.5 l Joined with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to help coastal countries detect and halt illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing and confront criminal activities practiced by state-run Chinese fishing fleets that violate international norms, ravage fishing industries in developing countries, worsen food insecurity, rob vulnerable communities of their livelihoods, and deplete maritime resources. USAID built an organizational infrastructure to carry out its multiple lines of counter-China operations. An agencywide Clear Choice Executive Council and USAID–U.S. International Development Finance Corporation Working Group reviewed all proposed assistance programs and proposals through a counter-China lens. A senior executive–level Clear Choice Coordinator, reporting to the Adminis- trator, advised the agency’s leadership on initiatives to counter China, supported by a fully dedicated six-person Secretariat. The Biden Administration discontinued these programs and allowed USAID’s counter-China architecture to waste away, subordinating our national security interests to progressive climate politics in which Communist China is viewed as a global partner. The next conservative Administration should restore and build on the Trump Administration’s counter-China infrastructure at USAID, end the climate policy fanaticism that advantages Beijing, and assess bilateral aid through the lens of U.S. national security interests, rewarding those countries that resist China’s debt diplomacy. It should finance programs designed to counter specific Chinese efforts in strategically important countries and eliminate funding to any partner that engages with Chinese entities directly or indirectly. USAID’s Bangkok-based Regional Development Mission for Asia should focus its strategic attention on supporting cross-border initiatives designed to counter Chinese influence.
— 814 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Its beneficiaries have proven they can get adequate financing from private banks. EXIM’s charter expires at the end of 2026. The agency will close automatically unless Congress and the President decide to extend it. Closing EXIM should be one of the next Administration’s easiest decisions. Adopting a Multi-Pronged China Strategy. An effective American policy toward China needs to take a realistic view of the country, its leaders, their strengths, and the serious challenges they face. It should be comprehensive and flexible. A threatened CCP is dangerous, perhaps now more than at any time since Mao Tse-Tung, as Xi Jinping continues to use strong-arm tactics to consolidate his power and saber-rattling to challenge the international order. At the same time, recent revelations about China’s official statistics overstating its GDP by 30 percent track well with other problems that were already known.77 These include one of the world’s worst demographic aging curves thanks to China’s one-child policy; a population that may already be declining; an unsustainable debt load that is already causing problems; countless failed boondoggles, from empty cities to its underwhelming Belt-and-Road Initiative, that are wasting significant resources; Xi Jinping’s authoritarian turn; increasing state control of the economy; and a zero-COVID policy that has sabotaged the economy and driven away foreign investment.78 America has its problems, but it is in better shape than China on nearly every measure, especially in the long run. While the facts on the ground should inoculate the next Administration against the most strident China fearmongering circulating in the media and in Washington, that does not mean that the government in Beijing is no threat to American interests. The question is: What should we do about it? A serious China policy will require American policymakers to integrate doc- trines, institutional prerogatives, expertise, and realistic objectives. Traditional Cabinet-level bureaucracies like those at the Departments of Defense, State, and Commerce will need to work together to pursue a comprehensive American strat- egy. Scores of incremental, narrowly targeted policies are necessary. They will not make for good soundbites on cable news, and many will operate slowly and out of sight from most news cycles even as progress is made. An effective China policy must also allow for adaptation because the CCP will not sit idly by. As people react to developments, America needs flexible options. Trade isolationism is inherently inflexible because it reduces the number of con- tact points with China. This is a tougher political sell than loud, simplistic jeremiads, but going the extra mile to solve these difficult coordination problems is vital to America’s interests. Trade and engagement with China are necessary if we are to contain the threats that China poses to its neighbors and to the U.S. The next Administration should: — 815 — Trade l End China’s developing-nation status in the WTO and other international organizations. China is an advanced manufacturing economy and should be treated as such, even if its political and legal institutions remain those of a developing nation, to prevent it from exploiting its status to gain special privileges. l Use a target, not a blanket. There should be actions against Chinese firms that are known to have engaged in unfair trade practices such as intellectual property theft. Rather than blanket tariffs or non-tariff barriers aimed at entire Chinese industry sectors, firms that act in bad faith should be targeted individually. This policy was employed to good effect early in the Trump Administration but was abandoned in favor of a less effective blanket tariff policy. l Rejoin the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Dropping out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement might have been the Trump Administration’s biggest trade policy mistake. The TPP was already negotiated and would have strengthened an alliance against China, including most of its biggest trading partners in East Asia and the Americas. America’s departure created tensions and infighting, distracting the U.S. and its allies from the goal at hand: countering China. The other 11 TPP countries continue, without American input or influence, under the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPATPP) to develop a modern institutional framework to contain Chinese commercial imperialism. Rejoining this alliance should be a top priority in the next conservative Administration’s China policy. Accession negotiations are likely to be difficult, given that the CPATPP suspended several clauses that were important to the United States (such as provisions relating to patents and aspects of investor-state dispute resolution) when the U.S. pulled out of the TPP agreement in 2017. Diplomatic and economic pressure against Beijing will be more effective when its largest trading partners work in concert. Beijing’s diplomats will have a hard time employing a divide-and-conquer policy against a united front of the sort that the TPP offers. l Refocus the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity on trade. President Biden began the process to create IPEF in 2022, but any agreement will likely still be under negotiation when the next Administration takes office. IPEF is similar to the TPP, but its member
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.
A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed foreign military sale to the Government of Israel of certain defense articles and services.
Establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2025 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2026 through 2034.
HELP Response and Recovery Act