Last Week in Congress (8/17–8/28/26)
An update will be shared every week that Congress is in session. This will include a short summary of the past week in Congress, as well as a listing of all education-related bills introduced in the House and Senate, relevant Committee and Floor activity, and education-related hearings.
Break out the popcorn for the fading summer’s big blockbuster. Congress has been home for August recess. One month out from the end of the fiscal year, we’ve got our spotlight on appropriations. The House and Senate both have an unusually early FY2027 funding strategy taking place, with each having passed a version of a Continuing Resolution extending government funding into early December. The President released a Statement of Administration Policy in support of the Senate’s version, H.R. 6500, as amended, signaling that he will sign it as passed. (Reminder, this is the version that would pause the upcoming Uniform Guidance regulatory changes until December 6).
The timing of the continuing resolutions is notable. Usually, CR language doesn’t emerge – much less pass both chambers – until September or later, once it becomes clear that the regular appropriations process isn’t going to meet the September 30 deadline. This year, Congress essentially decided mid-summer that it would rather push the problem into December.
In the meantime, the House advanced its FY2027 Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies bill earlier in the summer, but the Senate has not yet produced its counterpart, leaving the package, and many of the questions important to education stakeholders, unresolved.
The flip-flopped process feels both unusual and inevitable. After last year’s extended shutdowns, neither party seems particularly interested in staging another government-funding crisis during the final stretch of the midterm election cycle. A December CR effectively moves the deadline past Election Day and gives Congress another couple of months to negotiate (although questions remain about how that will roll out with election results). The question is whether this is a 2026 blip, or a new appropriations-era strategy.
For federal grantees, the OMB provision in the Senate CR adds another interesting wrinkle. It would temporarily block implementation of the controversial proposed changes to the Uniform Guidance, meaning that the future of the regulations may now be tied, at least indirectly, to the larger FY2027 negotiations. This matters to every Department of Education grantee that has been trying to figure out what the grant-management rules will look like on October 1. The CR is more than a “keep the lights on” bill – it potentially gives grantees a little breathing room on a regulatory transition that could otherwise have landed at the beginning of the new fiscal year.
However, it would also come with remaining uncertainty. Under a typical CR, agencies generally continue operating under existing funding levels and conditions. So the fact that Congress seems inclined to temporarily keep federal education dollars flowing does not tell us what FY2027 ultimately looks like program-by-program, or what Congress will ultimately decided about the Administration’s proposed changes to the Uniform Guidance. The uncertainty is particularly important for formula-driven programs where states and LEAs are already planning budgets, awards, subawards, and compliance activities for the coming year. For discretionary grants, the timing of new awards, continuation awards, allowable costs, indirect costs, and other Uniform Guidance requirements can have very practical consequences for grantees.
Two things we’re watching as this process unfolds:
1) How will appropriators receive the Department’s proposed changes to EDGAR? The Department’s regulatory agenda and the Administration’s broader approach to grant administration raise significant questions about the scope of agency discretion and the conditions attached to federal funding. Appropriations language can become an important, and sometimes overlooked, vehicle for Congress to weigh in on those questions.
2) Will Congress take Director Vought’s “advice” on how to secure program funding in an environment of increased regulatory uncertainty? If the Administration is asserting greater discretion to rescind or cancel grants – and the courts remain an uncertain backstop – Congress may have an incentive to turn back toward specific line items and detailed appropriations language to protect funding for programs it has authorized.
We’ve got an interesting few months ahead. And yes, we’ll absolutely be watching all of it. Because apparently this is what we consider fun.
· H.R. 10113 (Houchin, R-IN), the New Improvements to Definitions for Educational Access (New IDEA) Act”, to make certain revisions to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Education and Workforce)
· H.R. 10127 (Mace, R-SC), to prohibit the use of Federal funds to conduct, support, or fund research that studies the effects of gender-related medical treatment (Energy and Commerce).
· H.R. 10148 (Steube, R-FL), the Safeguarding America’s Nonprofits Act, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify that certain exemptions from Federal income tax are not treated as Federal financial assistance (Ways and Means).
· H.R. 10156 (Harder, D-CA), to authorize workforce development innovation grants for the implementation, expansion, and evaluation of evidence-based workforce programs (Education and Workforce).
· H.R. 10172 (Norton, D-DC), to amend title 38, United States Code, to extend eligibility for survivors’ and dependents’ educational assistance to the dependent parent of a person who dies of a service-connected disability or has a total and permanent service-connected disability (Veterans’ Affairs).
· H.R. 10173 (Rivas, D-CA), to amend the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 to reauthorize the research experiences for undergraduates program at the National Science Foundation (Science, Space, and Technology).
· H.R. 10178 (Steube, R-FL), to amend the General Education Provisions Act to require certain local educational agencies to notify parents before distributing or disseminating information about abortion or abortion-related services to students
· On August 20, the House Committee on Education and Workforce reported, as amended, H.R. 8476, the No Antisemitism in Education Act of 2026, to require each local educational agency and institution of higher education that receives Federal financial assistance to treat discrimination motivated by antisemitism as vigorously as such agency or institution treats other forms of discrimination prohibited by title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. H. Rept. 119-759, Part I
· On August 27, the House Committee on Ways and Means reported H.R. 9772, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require disclosure by certain tax-exempt organizations of information relating to foreign contributions to such organizations, with an amendment (H. Rept. 119–765), and H.R. 9722, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to ensure fair treatment of certain charitable organizations, with an amendment (H. Rept. 119–779).
· On August 27, the House Committee on Education and Workforce reported H.R. 4795, the Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act of 2026, to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to prohibit an institution that participates in a nonexpressive commercial boycott of Israel from being eligible for certain funds under that Act, to require an institution that participates in certain programs under that Act to certify that students are not unreasonably obstructed from participating in academic programs in Israel, and for other purposes, with an amendment (H. Rept. 119–780), and H.R. 2555, the Freedom of Association in Higher Education Act of 2026, to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide for certain freedom of association protections, and for other purposes, with an amendment (H. Rept. 119–781).