It is one of the 12 spending bills Congress is supposed to pass every year to pay for the operations of 15 Cabinet departments and other federal agencies.
The Senate Appropriations Committee has approved a $34.8 billion energy and water bill.
Money for renewable energy and energy efficiency programs would be cut to less than $1 billion, about half of last year's total, while the budget for research into futuristic energy technologies would plummet $195 million from the pre-sequester 2013 level to $70 million.
The bill provides $430 million for fossil fuel research and $656 million for nuclear energy, down about 19 percent and 14 percent respectively from 2013.
The bill, said Rep. Marcy Kaptur of Ohio, top Democrat on the energy and water subcommittee, "abandons America's quest for energy independence, which has the potential to create millions of new jobs."
Democrats failed in several attempts to shift money from the nuclear-weapons budget to renewable-energy and energy-efficiency programs.
"The priorities that are in this bill are dead wrong," said Rep. John Garamendi, D-Calif., questioning the $7.6 billion budget for nuclear weapons when he can't get Army Corps assistance to prevent floods that threaten his northern California district.
The bill would bar the Army Corps and Environmental Protection Agency from updating Clean Water Act regulations on non-navigable waters and on materials, including mining waste, that enter waterways. Democrats tried to remove those provisions but failed.
The White House has already issued a blanket veto threat against all House spending bills, saying the House and Senate must work out a budgetary framework that better supports the nation's needs. Specifically, it said in its veto threat that the energy and water bill "drastically under-funds critical investments that develop American energy sources to build a clean and secure energy future."
The bill would set aside $25 million to sustain the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository project despite attempts by the administration to cut off money for the project. Amendments by Nevada lawmakers to redirect that money or facilitate the closing of the project were defeated.
Lawmakers who support the project say there is yet no viable alternative for storing nuclear waste.