[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 72 (Thursday, April 23, 2026)]
[House]
[Pages H3073-H3077]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
HARNESSING ENERGY AT THERMAL SOURCES ACT OF 2026
Mr. 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).
[[Page H3074]]
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.
This is an important bill to help add to the energy needs that our
country has. We can do that very responsibly. We can do it in a smarter
and more proactive way.
I thank Representative Young Kim for being a leader on this issue and
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.
Currently, geothermal operators on non-Federal land are required to
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.
This process creates unnecessary delays for geothermal energy project
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.
Crucially, this bill upholds strong environmental standards by
stipulating that Federal requirements may only be waived if operators
receive drilling permits and comply with historic preservation laws on
the State level.
Notably, the bill would not impact the royalties paid to the Federal
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.
Out West, the Great Basin region encompasses swaths of California,
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.
To unleash geothermal energy's full potential, we must cut
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.
My constituents and Americans across the country are struggling under
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.
The bill says these projects don't need to do any analysis under the
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.''
The majority says that this is about reducing duplicative reviews,
but I see it as an irresponsible waiver of the Federal Government's
obligation to steward our Federal resources.
In practice, this means that in areas where the Federal Government
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.
The permit to drill process is the process surface landowners use to
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.
We are not talking about developers just tapping into a few feet of
underground Federal lands. Geothermal wells can extend horizontally for
kilometers.
While geothermal energy is exponentially safer than oil and gas
development, that doesn't mean that developers should just skip their
environmental reviews altogether.
Landowners and communities have the right to provide input into how
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.
For decades, geothermal energy was confined to naturally occurring
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.
At this rate of innovation, low-cost, next-generation geothermal
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.
I have a bill, the Geothermal Gold Book Development Act, that is part
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.
These bills, including my own, would all help make permitting easier
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.
Those are the kinds of things that we should focus on that will
actually help move the needle on projects.
{time} 0930
I have heard arguments that we should provide these waivers so that
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.
You cannot break the system, then blame the broken system as your
excuse to waive the law. When we waive
[[Page H3075]]
those Federal review obligations, we end up relying on a patchwork of
State laws.
Under State laws, what happens to the government-to-government
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?
Again, I strongly support geothermal energy development on our
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.
I am happy to continue to work across the aisle to advance geothermal
legislation, but, unfortunately, I must oppose this legislation.
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.
The difference is, on this side of the aisle we actually pass
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.
Today, we are talking about geothermal energy and the opportunities
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.
I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from
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.
Geothermal energy is a powerful domestic energy source that can
generate electricity and heat homes and buildings without relying on
foreign adversaries or suppliers.
America has enormous geothermal resources sitting right beneath our
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.
The HEATS Act fixes that by cutting red tape and waiving Federal
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.
This means more American energy coming online faster, lower energy
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.
I thank Representative Gray for working with me and co-leading this
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.
The American people can decide whether they want to believe those
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.
Nevertheless, I welcome the fact that we are talking today about
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.
Good geothermal energy projects can move forward with bipartisan
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.
All of it would be waived for geothermal exploration, development,
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.
Under the circumstances laid out in this bill, all Federal oversight
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.
This public input and compliance with Federal laws, like NEPA and
others, is essential to building a solid foundation for our clean
energy future.
We need these types of energy projects, but we need to do them right
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.
Geothermal development is a lot safer than oil and gas, but there
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.
Another alarming point about this bill, without a Federal drilling
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?
[[Page H3076]]
{time} 0940
These injection control permits aren't in our Natural Resources
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.
There is no clear opportunity to require bonds if this legislation
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.
We are talking about publicly owned resources here, even if you can't
see them, and the Federal Government has an obligation to steward them
responsibly.
The last thing I will emphasize is that this bill is clearly not just
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.
To deploy clean energy, we don't need to create shortcuts and
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.
The argument not to pass this bill is that we want to put on a belt
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.
If we are serious about producing more energy for this country, if we
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.
The HEATS Act empowers one set of landowners at the expense of their
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.
The Federal permit process gives surface landowners who happen to
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.
State laws do not always require the same protections for surface
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.
This bill would eliminate real, meaningful protections for
landowners, not just red tape.
I am disappointed that this is the bill that the majority has chosen
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.
That package includes my own Geothermal Gold Book Development Act to
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.
States, as I have already mentioned, have robust requirements in
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.
Accelerating geothermal energy production and deployment is a win for
our economy, a win for national security, and a win for American energy
dominance.
On this floor today and not too much longer, we are going to have an
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.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1189, the previous question is ordered
on the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
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.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 231,
nays 186, not voting 12, as follows:
[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
[[Page H3077]]
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.
____________________