This is not an official government website.
© 2026 PLEJ LC. All rights reserved.
Congressional Daily Record
This section captures a floor statement or debate entry. It mentions legislation such as Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4690) to amend the Energy Conservation and Production Act to repeal certain Federal building energy efficiency performance standards, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 1182) expressing support for rural communities across the United States as stewards of the environment, major suppliers of United States energy resources, critical providers of food production and manufacturing capacity, and drivers of national economic stability, and recognizing the work of the House of Representatives in the 119th Congress in support of those vital communities; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1897) to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to optimize conservation through resource prioritization, incentivize wildlife conservation on private lands, provide for greater incentives to recover listed species, create greater transparency and accountability in recovering listed species, streamline the permitting process, eliminate barriers to conservation, and restore congressional intent; and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5587) to amend the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 to waive the requirement for a Federal drilling permit for certain activities, to exempt certain activities from the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and for other purposes., committees such as Committee on Natural Resources, members such as Bruce Westerman.
Issued
April 23, 2026
house side of the record
People
3
Linked members mentioned in this section
Legislation
2
Bills and resolutions linked from this section
Committees
1
Committees connected to this section
Senate Holds
0
No hold activity linked here
Source Document
Connected Data
People mentioned
Bills and resolutions
Committees
Source Control
Reader mode is for comprehension. The linked government PDF is the official published source.
Download official House Record PDFReturn to issue contextMr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1189, I call up the bill (H.R. 5587) to amend the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 to waive the requirement for a Federal drilling permit for certain activities, to exempt certain activities from the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1189, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources, printed in the bill, is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 5587
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Harnessing Energy At Thermal
Sources Act of 2026” or the “HEATS Act”.
SEC. 2. NO FEDERAL PERMIT REQUIRED FOR GEOTHERMAL ACTIVITIES
ON CERTAIN LAND.
The Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
“SEC. 30. NO FEDERAL PERMIT REQUIRED FOR GEOTHERMAL
ACTIVITIES ON CERTAIN LAND.
“(a) In General.—The Secretary shall not require an
operator to obtain a Federal drilling permit for geothermal
exploration and production activities conducted on a non-
Federal surface estate, provided that—
“(1) the United States holds an ownership interest of less
than 50 percent of the subsurface geothermal estate to be
accessed by the proposed action; and
“(2) the operator submits to the Secretary a State permit
to conduct geothermal exploration and production activities
on the non-Federal surface estate.
“(b) No Federal Action.—A geothermal exploration and
production activity carried out under subsection (a)—
“(1) shall not be considered a major Federal action for
the purposes of section 102(2)(C) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969;
“(2) shall require no additional Federal action;
“(3) may commence 30 days after submission of the State
permit to the Secretary;
“(4) shall not be subject to section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973; and
“(5) shall only be considered an undertaking under
division A of subtitle III of title 54, United States Code
(commonly referred to as the `National Historic Preservation
Act'), if, with respect to the State in which the activity
occurs, there is no State law in effect that addresses the
preservation of historic properties in such State.
“(c) Royalties and Production Accountability.—(1) Nothing
in this section shall affect the amount of royalties due to
the United States under this Act from the production of
electricity using geothermal resources (other than direct use
of geothermal resources) or the production of any byproducts.
“(2) The Secretary may conduct onsite reviews and
inspections to ensure proper accountability, measurement, and
reporting of the production described in subsection (a), and
payment of royalties.
“(d) Exceptions.—This section shall not apply to actions
on Indian lands or resources managed in trust for the benefit
of Indian Tribes.
“(e) Indian Land.—In this section, the term `Indian land'
means—
“(1) any land located within the boundaries of an Indian
reservation, pueblo, or rancheria; and
“(2) any land not located within the boundaries of an
Indian reservation, pueblo, or rancheria, the title to which
is held—
“(A) in trust by the United States for the benefit of an
Indian tribe or an individual Indian;
“(B) by an Indian tribe or an individual Indian, subject
to restriction against alienation under laws of the United
States; or
“(C) by a dependent Indian community.”.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Ansari) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).
General Leave
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 5587.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?
There was no objection.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5587, the Harnessing Energy At Thermal Sources Act, or the HEATS Act.
country has. We can do that very responsibly. We can do it in a smarter and more proactive way.
working with our committee to bring this bipartisan legislation to the floor.
H.R. 5587, the HEATS Act, is a commonsense bill that would expedite the development of geothermal energy on non-Federal surface lands where the Federal subsurface estate is less than 50 percent.
undergo a full Federal permitting process under the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act if they intersect any quantity of Federal subsurface resources, even if the Federal mineral interest is minuscule.
developers, who must already comply with rigorous State-level permitting requirements.
H.R. 5587 would address this issue by alleviating the need for the Bureau of Land Management to issue permits for geothermal wells on State and private lands where the Federal Government holds an ownership interest of less than 50 percent of the subsurface geothermal estate.
stipulating that Federal requirements may only be waived if operators receive drilling permits and comply with historic preservation laws on the State level.
Government. Therefore, it will not reduce the Federal revenues generated by geothermal production. In fact, this legislation would actually increase Federal revenues by reducing the administrative responsibilities of Federal agencies and expediting the permitting process so that we can build more geothermal energy projects and do more development in that area.
I want to emphasize the importance of this legislation. Again, energy demand is skyrocketing, and geothermal energy stands ready to meet the moment and bring gigawatts of new baseload power online.
Oregon, Utah, and most of Nevada. According to a recent study from the U.S. Geological Survey, this region alone hosts approximately 135 gigawatts of geothermal potential.
unnecessary red tape holding back key projects on these lands. By reducing duplicative Federal requirements on State and private lands, this bill will give developers the regulatory certainty needed to spur greater investment in geothermal exploration and production.
Mr. Speaker, again, this is an opportunity to do something proactive, something that is common sense, and something that I think we can all be proud of in the future. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. ANSARI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
the rising costs of gas, groceries, and electricity from President Trump's tariffs and endless wars. We should be spending our time finding ways to lower costs for families. Instead, we are moving on legislation that is just another chapter in the Republican playbook to gut commonsense safeguards for energy development.
I am a strong supporter of geothermal energy. Geothermal is a clean, reliable, affordable, and abundant form of electricity. Unfortunately, I have to oppose H.R. 5587, the HEATS Act, on the floor today.
This is a complex issue. The bill waives the requirement for a Federal drilling permit if a project starts on private or State lands and then drills underground into Federal lands, provided the total project is made up of less than 50 percent Federal subsurface land.
National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA. They don't need to comply with the Endangered Species Act. They don't need to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act so long as the State has any law that vaguely “addresses the preservation of historic properties.”
but I see it as an irresponsible waiver of the Federal Government's obligation to steward our Federal resources.
owns the underground mineral rights but a rancher owns the surface rights to graze their cattle, or a farmer to grow their crops, underground development could take place without that landowner even knowing and without sufficient protections in place.
work with developers to make sure their lands and resources, like groundwater they depend on for their wells or springs, are protected when developers are drilling into Federal minerals.
underground Federal lands. Geothermal wells can extend horizontally for kilometers.
development, that doesn't mean that developers should just skip their environmental reviews altogether.
public lands are developed, whether that development is on the surface of the land or below it.
Again, I am a strong supporter of geothermal energy. It provides 24/7 carbon-free energy and creates good jobs in the clean energy economy.
hot water reservoirs, but recent technological breakthroughs have created next-generation geothermal systems that can be deployed in a wide range of conditions at competitive prices.
could soon be possible all across the country, not in decades but in the next few years.
This could be truly transformational for our energy system. Paired with wind and solar, geothermal can help us break free from fossil fuels and build a reliable, homegrown energy system that we need to fight climate change and tackle the affordability crisis.
of the package of six bills, three from Democrats and three from Republicans, that the Natural Resources Committee passed out of committee by unanimous consent.
for geothermal through commonsense ways like increased coordination at BLM field offices, cost-recovery authority, and some categorical exclusions that already exist for oil and gas development on previously disturbed lands.
{time} 0930
the Bureau of Land Management's limited staff can focus on bigger problems. I agree that staff in BLM field offices are overworked and understaffed.
However, let's be honest about the situation. The Bureau of Land Management doesn't have enough staff because the President continues to try to zero out the budget for renewable energy, and former Presidential aide Elon Musk kicked off across-the-board staff cuts.
excuse to waive the law. When we waive
consultation responsibilities required by the National Historic Preservation Act or federally protected endangered species? What if a State doesn't provide opportunities for public input or even public notice?
Federal lands. It is a very promising and growing source of energy. But instead of spending floor time on geothermal legislation that everyone supports and could help stop skyrocketing electricity bills, we are debating a bill to solve a problem that may not even be a burden on the industry.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of similarities on both sides of the aisle, but there is a big difference. The similarities are that I think both sides of the aisle support geothermal energy. It is similar that we talk about inflation and high costs and how that affects Americans.
policies that will help those things. On the other side of the aisle, they vote against those policies.
We talk about the high cost of living. Republicans voted to give Americans a huge tax cut last year. All the Democrats voted against it.
We talk about high healthcare costs. Republicans voted to send $50 billion to help with rural healthcare. All Democrats voted against it.
that are there. We have an opportunity to help make that happen more. Republicans are supporting it. I believe some Democrats will actually support this legislation, but there is a difference between saying you want something to happen and actually voting to make it happen.
California (Mrs. Kim), and I thank her for her work on geothermal energy.
Mrs. KIM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding, and I rise in support of my bill, H.R. 5587, the Harnessing Energy At Thermal Sources Act or the HEATS Act.
Republicans ran on a simple promise: to unleash American energy dominance and lower prices for families. The HEATS Act delivers on those commitments.
generate electricity and heat homes and buildings without relying on foreign adversaries or suppliers.
feet. My State of California has some of the richest geothermal reserves in the world, but burdensome permitting requirements are keeping that energy locked away.
drilling permit requirements for geothermal wells on State and local lands. Operators will still go through a rigorous State-level permitting process, but they will no longer be subjected to duplicative Federal requirements that slow production, raise costs, and kill jobs.
costs for working families, and a stronger domestic supply chain that doesn't depend on adversaries like China.
H.R. 5587 is a commonsense, progrowth measure that lowers energy costs and strengthens our national security.
effort. I also thank Chairman Bruce Westerman for his work to accelerate geothermal production and advance American energy independence.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the HEATS Act.
Ms. ANSARI. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman).
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of geothermal energy, we are sure hearing a lot of hot air from the other side with this fantastical narrative that Republicans, I guess, are now lowering costs and saving healthcare.
whoppers, but today it is at least refreshing to see our colleagues across the aisle tiptoeing back in the direction of this all-of-the- above energy policy that they always swore they supported. Yet, for the past year-plus they have been cheerleaders for Donald Trump's insane war on clean energy that is trying to destroy an entire sector, to surrender American leadership to China and others, and drive up utility bills for the American people.
geothermal energy. Like the gentlewoman from Arizona, the ranking member, I like geothermal energy a lot. This is something that we should be working on together in a bipartisan way. I represent the largest geothermal energy plant in America in my district, and I am proud of it. I want to see more of it.
support and with very expeditious permitting, but good geothermal energy projects don't need the kind of sweeping waiver that is proposed in this legislation, which simply misses the mark.
Let's talk about that. Under this bill, a geothermal project would no longer require a Federal drilling permit if it is on land where the surface is not federally owned, but the subsurface is significantly, up to 50 percent of the acreage.
While this may sound innocuous—oh, it is just subsurface; it is below what we can see with our eyes—without a Federal permit, the core safeguards for development affecting Federal resources would totally disappear. That includes protections under the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, and the Endangered Species Act.
and the production activities that would be covered under this bill. That goes entirely too far. It is bad news for Tribes, communities, and property owners on the ground. Again, good projects don't need this kind of sweeping free pass from environmental review.
goes away, along with public input and consultation requirements, and that includes Tribal consultation. It takes away opportunities for public involvement that can make projects better. It takes away the convening process that brings Federal, Tribal, State, and local entities to the table so they can identify basic health and safety risks, flag concerns, and work through conflicts and impacts to protect the resources that are owned by the American people, even if they are below the ground, even if they are not something you can see with the naked eye.
others, is essential to building a solid foundation for our clean energy future.
because, let's be clear, underground drilling can still have impacts above the ground, like sinking, subsidence, settlement of lands, earthquakes, and on other resources like groundwater.
still are some risks—it is not zero—and the public deserves the opportunity to engage.
I will say that this bill is also playing games with percentages. The threshold is set at 50 percent Federal subsurface ownership, and that may sound trivial. It may sound reasonable, but even my rudimentary math skills tell me that 50 percent of a project that might be 2,000 acres is 1,000 acres. That is a lot of land. That is a lot of potential impacts. It is not insignificant.
permit, it creates a gray area for underground injection control permits, which allow for the assessment of potential seismic activity. How could we not look at that?
{time} 0940
Committee's jurisdiction. This is something that I brought up in the markup. I urged the majority to consider working with the Energy and Commerce Committee to add clarifying language to make sure those permits would still be required. Unfortunately, the majority failed to address that concern.
passes that would otherwise need to happen because we are talking about Federal resources. What happens if there is a subsidence event within the Federal resource? States and property owners would be on the hook.
see them, and the Federal Government has an obligation to steward them responsibly.
about geothermal energy. This is the proverbial camel's nose under the tent. The oil and gas industry has been trying to get this same policy, this same broad waiver, for subsurface Federal lands for years.
This is a precedent we should not set. Mark my words: If this legislation advances before this sputtering Congress comes to an end later this year, you will see another bill where the oil and gas industry is seeking the same treatment.
exemptions from oversight. What we need is to fully fund our agencies so that they can have the capacity for thorough, efficient, and timely reviews. I would be happy to work with my colleagues across the aisle to advance responsible and well-balanced geothermal and other renewable energy development on Federal lands, but I have to urge my colleagues to vote “no” on this poorly drafted legislation.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I have to ask the question: What is well balanced and what is fair about requiring a duplicative process? It is almost, from the minority's testimony, like there is no permitting that will happen. We are talking about a well that is drilled on State or private property close to Federal property. The surface disturbance is all on the State or private property. They have to go through the State permitting process, which is very rigorous. It is looking at the same things the Federal permitting process looks at.
and suspenders. We want to make the developers go through the total duplicative process because the underground well that is thousands of feet below ground would be receiving thermal energy that is under the Federal estate and all of the historical preservation, all the NEPA, all the ESA, that has been looked at under the State permitting process.
Again, the surface disturbance would not be on Federal land. You are only talking about the migration of thermal energy thousands of feet below ground, and we are saying it is reasonable and fair and a good process to make a developer go through double permitting and opening up Pandora's box for people who, for whatever reason, don't like geothermal energy will have all these Federal statutes and the broken permitting process to stop geothermal energy projects.
are serious about being energy independent, if we are serious about developing energy sources like geothermal energy, then this is a pragmatic, proactive way to make that happen. It removes duplicity, and it makes the process make sense.
Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. ANSARI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, even good energy sources need good permitting policy. I am a strong supporter of geothermal energy, but the HEATS Act could undermine the on-the-ground support and good environmental track record geothermal currently enjoys.
neighbors. This bill allows developers to skip Federal permitting when drilling from their property into federally owned subsurface minerals which often sit under a neighbor's private property.
live above Federal minerals a say in what happens beneath their homes. What happens underground doesn't always stay underground. Drilling can cause earthquakes and sinkholes or accidentally contaminate drinking or irrigation water.
landowners, especially if they are not the ones doing the drilling. Without a Federal drilling permit, the Federal Government can't require financial assurances from developers to cover the costs of cleanup if surface damages do happen. That means landowners or Federal taxpayers will be on the hook to pay for the cleanup.
to bring to the House floor rather than the bipartisan package of real, commonsense permitting solutions for geothermal that the Natural Resources Committee unanimously supported.
standardized best permitting practices across the Bureau of Land Management to responsibly speed up geothermal development. I hope to keep working across the aisle to advance geothermal energy, but this particular bill is a step in the wrong direction.
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, again, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5587. These reforms will both streamline the permitting process for geothermal energy projects and reduce agency workloads, which will allow BLM to focus on projects that actually have a majority Federal nexus.
regulations for developing energy resources within their borders, so eliminating duplicative Federal-level bureaucracy will help stop the things that are impeding geothermal energy development. This quite simply is just common sense.
our economy, a win for national security, and a win for American energy dominance.
opportunity to vote for American energy, for American workers, for common sense, and for doing the right things. I have heard many times: I support this, but . . . There is always a but—but what about this or what about that. Today is an opportunity to actually vote for something good.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this good bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. ANSARI. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Roll No. 137
YEAS—231
Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei (NV)
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Barr
Barrett
Baumgartner
Bean (FL)
Begich
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs (AZ)
Biggs (SC)
Bilirakis
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Bresnahan
Buchanan
Budzinski
Burchett
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Correa
Costa
Crane
Crank
Crawford
Cuellar
Davidson
Davis (NC)
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Downing
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Evans (CO)
Ezell
Fallon
Fedorchak
Feenstra
Fine
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flood
Fong
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Fuller
Garbarino
Gill (TX)
Gillen
Gimenez
Golden (ME)
Goldman (TX)
Gonzalez, V.
Gooden
Goodlander
Gosar
Gottheimer
Graves
Gray
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Hamadeh (AZ)
Harder (CA)
Haridopolos
Harrigan
Harris (MD)
Harris (NC)
Harshbarger
Hern (OK)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Himes
Hinson
Houchin
Hoyer
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Hurd (CO)
Issa
Jack
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy (UT)
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley (CA)
Kim
Knott
Kustoff
LaHood
LaLota
Langworthy
Latta
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luttrell
Mackenzie
Malliotakis
Maloy
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McDonald Rivet
McDowell
McGuire
Messmer
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Moolenaar
Moore (AL)
Moore (NC)
Moore (UT)
Moore (WV)
Moran
Moulton
Murphy
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ogles
Onder
Owens
Palmer
Panetta
Pappas
Patronis
Perez
Perry
Pfluger
Reschenthaler
Riley (NY)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rouzer
Roy
Rulli
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
Shreve
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steil
Steube
Strong
Stutzman
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner (OH)
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Epps
Van Orden
Vasquez
Vindman
Wagner
Walberg
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Westerman
Wied
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke
NAYS—186
Adams
Aguilar
Amo
Ansari
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bell
Bera
Beyer
Bishop
Bonamici
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Bynum
Carbajal
Carson
Carter (LA)
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conaway
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dexter
Dingell
Doggett
Elfreth
Escobar
Espaillat
Evans (PA)
Fields
Figures
Fletcher
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Friedman
Frost
Garamendi
Garcia (CA)
Garcia (IL)
Gomez
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Hayes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jacobs
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy (NY)
Khanna
Krishnamoorthi
Landsman
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latimer
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Liccardo
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Magaziner
Mannion
Matsui
McBath
McBride
McClain Delaney
McClellan
McCollum
McGarvey
McGovern
McIver
Meeks
Mejia
Menefee
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Min
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Morrison
Moskowitz
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
Ocasio-Cortez
Olszewski
Omar
Pallone
Pelosi
Peters
Pettersen
Pingree
Pocan
Pou
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Randall
Raskin
Rivas
Ross
Ruiz
Ryan
Salinas
Sanchez
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Sewell
Sherman
Simon
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Subramanyam
Suozzi
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Tran
Underwood
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Walkinshaw
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Whitesides
Williams (GA)
NOT VOTING—12
Brownley
Crenshaw
De La Cruz
Dunn (FL)
Garcia (TX)
Goldman (NY)
Kean
Luna
Mace
Stefanik
Williams (TX)
Wilson (FL)
{time} 1032
Mr. LEVIN changed his vote from “yea” to “nay.”
Mr. GOTTHEIMER changed his vote from “nay” to “yea.”
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. WILLIAMS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, due to illness, I was unable to vote on H.R. 5587. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 137.
Stated against:
Ms. GARCIA of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote during the vote series today. Had I been able to vote, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 137, Passage of H.R. 5587—HEATS Act of 2026.
Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote today due to a commitment in my Congressional district. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 137.