HEATS Act

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1189 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule providing for consideration of four pieces of legislation.

The rule provides for consideration of H. Res. 1182, expressing support for rural communities across the United States, under a closed rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees.

The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 4690, the Reliable Federal Infrastructure Act, under a closed rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees and provides for one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 5587, the HEATS Act, under a closed rule with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their respective designees and provides for one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 1897, the ESA Amendments Act, under a closed rule with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their respective designees and provides for one motion to recommit.

Now, Madam Speaker, as the House of Representatives works to deliver on critical issues for the American people, we urge our colleagues to pass this suite of bills that I just described.

As I already talked about, we have a resolution to support our Nation's rural communities. We have legislation to unlock geothermal energy. We have legislation to repeal burdensome energy mandates on Federal buildings, and we have a fix to the Endangered Species Act.

Now, I anticipate some of the arguments my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will make, and I would just note something that is critically important, this is going to raise issues about why we are bringing up a resolution, for example, with regard to support for our rural communities.

The fact is, if you look at what has been happening over the last 16 months, you will see that the Republican House of Representatives has led on numerous issues, issue after issue, month after month.

We started this Congress by passing legislation, the Laken Riley Act, to ensure that we can have adequate and full enforcement by ICE and by our Border Patrol men and women who are securing our country, by improving that law to ensure that people can be adequately removed.

Importantly, it included the sue act which will allow States, such as my home State of Texas, to be able to defend our homes by suing the Federal Government when it fails to secure the border, as occurred under the previous President and the previous Secretary of Homeland Security.

Fast-forward to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, a piece of legislation that made permanent tax rates so that we can have growth and economic opportunity for the American people, lower taxes for millions of Americans to ensure that we can actually grow this economy and compete worldwide.

We had legislation in that bill that removed some of the onerous subsidies that were undermining reliable energy in Texas and around the country with the green new scam subsidies that were making energy more expensive for the American people.

We had reforms to our programs, whether it was Medicaid or whether we are talking about food stamps. By the way, those reforms are probably going to make it easier for us to move a farm bill in the coming weeks.

We had significant resources that were put aside for our defense, to modernize our military after it languished under the previous administration, and we had language that is enabling us to fund ICE and Border Patrol right now, which brings me to my final point.

What we have been able to pass has been hitting a wall, a wall in the Senate, of Democrats who refuse to do the job the American people sent us here to do. We had over 40 days of shutdown in the fall, 40 days where we had to deal with the lack of pay and resources for the people who defend our country, including TSA at airports. We are currently in over 60 days of shutdown of

our Homeland Security operations, which we are using funds that we had the foresight to put forward to be able to use to backfill in order to keep operations going to fund Border Patrol and ICE, to fund TSA, to fund the Coast Guard, and to fund FEMA when our colleagues on the other side of the aisle refused to do it. This is what we are dealing with every single day in the United States Congress.

Consequently, yes, we are going to be able to tell the American people and have a resolution for the people in rural communities, that we are passing legislation that benefits them, that enables them to have more affordable energy, that enables them to be able to have lower taxes, and to be able to provide better homes for their families.

What we aren't going to do is allow Democrats to be able to get past or allow them to get away with shutting down our ability to do our job in this country, and that is precisely what they have been doing.

We are going to move legislation this week that is going to provide greater energy resources by harnessing energy and thermal sources. We are eliminating permitting restrictions and making it easier to do that.

We are going to put forward the Reliable Federal Infrastructure Act, where we have got barriers to our ability to have reliable energy to provide energy for our Federal buildings, and the ESA Amendments Act, which makes dramatically needed and necessary improvements to the Endangered Species Act, which has been standing in the way of our ability to provide energy and to provide greater freedom for the American people.

Madam Speaker, the Republican leadership and the Republican Conference in this House of Representatives have been fighting to deliver for the American people, and we have been obstructed by two things: our colleagues on the other side of the aisle and Democrats in the Senate who are using an artificial 60-vote threshold to deny the American people the ability for us to have the changes that they sent us here to Washington to do.

We are going to continue to go down this road. This week is another step in going down this road, and that is why I am going to be urging my colleagues to support this rule and to support the legislation that we put forward under the rule.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I note my colleague invoked that we could be down here debating, for example, immigration. Well, this Republican House has stood up to defend our borders and defend this President and defend this administration's active enforcement of our laws at the border of the United States in the face of willful resistance by Democrats who refuse to fund it.

That is the actual truth. We know this because we are now in day 63 or something to that effect or higher than 60 days of a shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security after enduring over 40 days shutdown in the fall.

Republicans are having to move money around in order to pay our men and women in Border Patrol and ICE so that they can do their job and be able to fund TSA, FEMA, and the Coast Guard.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say we keep offering amendments and bills to fund it. No. They have rejected our bills to fund the entirety of the Department of Homeland Security because they are trying to keep it hostage for political purposes.

This Republican Congress, as I said, passed the Laken Riley Act. This Republican Congress, as I said, passed funds in the big, beautiful bill last summer to ensure that we can secure the border of the United States. This Republican Congress has been backing up the President and Department of Homeland Security in doing the job that Joe Biden and Alejandro Mayorkas would not do.

Now, we see the ramifications of this in continuation as we see Americans losing their lives while people are in our country who should not be. There was a woman in Florida, a mother, who walked out of the convenience store because her car was being destroyed by a Haitian who had come here and was operating under a temporary program. This individual bludgeoned this American to death, this mother, with a hammer in front of the convenience store, and I am met with utter silence from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I am met with utter silence while we tried to ensure that we fund the men and women responsible for securing us against these individuals.

Now we are having to figure out how to backdoor find a way to fund these important, core constitutional responsibilities in defending the United States of America because our Democratic colleagues refuse to do it. They refuse and are willing to create chaos for the American people and endanger the American people for crass political purposes.

The American people observe this. They know this. They see what we are doing and, yes, we are going to move important legislation this week, critical legislation this week to do what our Democratic colleagues also do not want to do: free up the American entrepreneur to produce energy for the American people. We are getting barriers and regulations out of the way. We are getting barriers and regulations, obstacles that stand in the way of people who actually know how to produce energy.

As a Texan, I know what that looks like. I have had to fight and deal with the abuse of the Endangered Species Act to prevent the ability of us to be able to have frac sand and to be able to go out and produce the energy and the oil and gas that we need, that right now is providing the independence that gives us the freedom to not be reliant on people around the world.

That is what we are doing this week. That is what we have been doing for the last 16 months. There is one obstacle for the American people's prosperity, and that is the Democratic Party.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I note that there are three pieces of legislation that are coming to the floor that will make meaningful differences for the American people.

The Harnessing Energy At Thermal Sources Act is adding to a laundry list of things that we have done over the last 15 or 16 months to try to free up energy production in the United States. It amends the Geothermal Steam Act to streamline the permitting processes. A constant theme is the barriers to the American people being able to go out through their entrepreneurial spirit and produce energy that is affordable. In many instances, it makes dramatic improvements in terms of its cleanliness.

Currently, geothermal operators on non-Federal land that produces any quantity of Federal resources, like federally owned mineral estates, must comply with permitting, even if the Federal share of the mineral estate is trivial.

This would alleviate that burden and others by clarifying that the geothermal exploration or production on non-Federal lands is not subject to NEPA, the ESA, or the National Historic Preservation Act permitting processes. It doesn't change anything specific to our ability to produce them and the royalty structures, and it keeps in place important safeguards while allowing geothermal to be built out.

Madam Speaker, these are important, important changes for the people out there trying to produce them. We act like this is trivial. We act like this isn't a big deal for the ability of the American people to have affordable energy and for our business leaders to be able to go out and produce alternative energy sources.

The Reliable Federal Infrastructure Act repeals a 2007 mandate that Federal buildings reduce their use of fossil fuels by 2030 by, I think, 90 percent. These mandates came at a time when we thought that the United States would run out of oil.

Obviously, we had the shale revolution. We have the ability to be able to produce significant cleaner energy in the production of natural gas. We need reliable energy to be able to keep our buildings operating.

An overreliance on subsidized, unreliable wind and solar, including in my home State of Texas, has created difficulties with having reliability on the grid and, in many instances, has not produced any of the so-called improvements in terms of green energy that were promised.

We want to reduce those barriers, reduce the burdens, and be able to ensure that we are able to proceed.

Madam Speaker, the final point is the ESA Amendments Act of 2025. The ESA Amendments Act of 2025 makes the first major reform to the broken Endangered Species Act.

Again, as I mentioned before, working with businesses in Texas, we have had numerous issues where that has been a major barrier to our ability to be able to get energy in production.

In the 50 years since the ESA was signed, only 3 percent of the listed species have ever recovered. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't be working and finding ways to make sure that we can protect certain species, but we often are listing certain species that aren't going to have a chance of recovery and that are actually used as a weapon and a tool of the left to stop the ability of us to be able to produce affordable energy for the American people.

The American people sit at home wondering why they can't afford goods and services, can't afford cars, can't afford energy, can't afford to be able to pay for their families. It is almost always tied back to the regulatory state and the burdens placed upon them by this body and by bureaucrats in this town.

What we have been trying to do for the last 16 months is unwind even just a fraction of those burdens. Yet we are met with constant resistance by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

I know that we talk about gas prices and how they are at a point right now where we all want them to go down as we are dealing with the conflict with Iran, but they were $6 a gallon nationally under the previous administration. Now they are somewhere around $4 a gallon, and we want them to go down. We certainly can do that.

The best way to do that is to have massive production of oil and gas in the United States. We have tankers that are coming to the United States to get oil and gas. We have the ability to produce oil and gas if we get the regulatory climate such that they can do it, and that is what we are trying to do with this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire as to how much time each side has remaining.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I would note to my colleague from Colorado that the previous administration racked up a rather undistinguished list of antireliable energy policies and results. President Biden closed the Keystone XL pipeline on day one and rejoined the Paris Climate Accords, handicapping our industry.

In the final days of the administration, he used the stroke of a pen to grow a national monument by 85 percent and closed off thousands of acres to reliable energy production.

He closed off the Gulf of America to new oil and gas leasing. It is a decision thankfully reversed in the Big Beautiful Bill Act last summer. He singlehandedly paused the exportation of liquefied natural gas, recognizing that LNG has the ability to free up the rest of the world from reliance on numerous of our enemies around the globe, and to create wealth and jobs and opportunities in the United States.

Biden's Department of Commerce sought to limit how fast boats could go in certain waters because of the Endangered Species Act. NOAA also abused the Endangered Species Act to deny oil leases.

Meanwhile, we have bills on the floor this week to try to reverse those issues. We have been dedicated to passing energy reform for the last 16 months. Just last week, we sent a number of bills to reform the Clean Air Act. There is issue after issue, some of which are recounted in the resolution the gentleman seems so hung up on spending time worrying about, when we have bill after bill that we are passing, some of which have become law and passed through the Senate and gotten to the President, but many of which are hung up by a Democratic Senate obstructionist that has the inability to actually move anything because of an artificial 60-vote threshold.

That is the simple reality. We are being hamstrung by resistance to our ability to deliver on the things that the American people sent us here to deliver upon.

The gentleman brought up the issue with respect to, I suppose, the motion to recommit that would be offered and that was offered as an amendment last night in committee. I wholly recognize that, yes, I opposed that amendment and have opposed it before because I do not believe that we should fund a Department of Homeland Security specifically isolating and pulling out Border Patrol and ICE. I just don't believe we should do that. I think it is wrong. I think we are setting a bad precedent. I think we are setting up a structure in which we are going to start saying we are going to have X pieces of these important--by the way, these are core functions that defend our way of life, defend our community, and defend our country. We can have debates about their policies. I understand that my colleagues want to add riders and want to add changes and impact policies attached to the funding, but we are setting a terrible precedent by going down the road of saying we are going to carve out and say that we are not going to fund Border Patrol and ICE, which is the resistance. The American people understand that, because we have an obligation to fund all of the Department of Homeland Security. I believe that, and I think that is something that we should do. Whether we do that this way or whether we have to backdoor it through reconciliation, I am not sure I care. I think we should do it through appropriations, but I don't believe we ought to isolate it. We will see what the Senate does. We will see what the House does.

I am going to continue to stand up on the principle that Border Patrol and ICE should be funded fully through the appropriations process as the entire Department of Homeland Security should, whether it is FEMA, TSA, and every other function like Coast Guard, but that we should do it together: debate the policy, offer amendments on it, and move on.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would note that the reason that the former President's name comes up is because the lingering impacts of the previous administration continue. I mean, I already mentioned you have got the mother in Florida, but I can mention dozens and hundreds of examples of American citizens that have died as a result of people who were let in under the previous administration's policies, people who have died here today in America, policies we are trying to reverse and that we are trying to enforce against.

The lingering effects are fairly profound. I can assure you that the American citizens getting killed at the hands of criminals allowed into our country by the previous administration do not take solace in the fact that we now have a new administration, yet that administration is being hamstrung by virtue of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle's unwillingness to fund the very entities that try to stop the danger and the attacks on the American people.

That is what this is all about. That is what this all boils down to.

Again, I can assure you that the people I represent, the people I talk to across the State of Texas, are thrilled with tax cuts. They are thrilled with regulatory relief. They are thrilled with our actions in Venezuela. They are thrilled that we are reestablishing our strength in the Western Hemisphere and around the globe. They are thrilled that we are standing up to the cartels. They are thrilled that we designated the cartels as terrorists. They are thrilled that we stopped the flow at the border. They are thrilled that we have been enforcing the law and removing dangerous aliens. They are thrilled that our military has the highest recruitment and the highest enlistment in a generation because people actually believe in our country again. They are thrilled in the direction that this administration and this Congress wants to go, and they recognize that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are throwing up barrier after barrier

after barrier to be able to carry out the fundamental function of government, which is to defend the United States, defend our border, and do our job.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would note that we are talking about rural America. Last summer, when we passed the largest tax savings for the American people in history, it included significant savings with respect to the death tax that cripples American farmers, and not a single one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle supported that.

We advanced that legislation. We advanced that tax reduction so that American farmers can pass down their farms to the next generation without having to give it up because of the burden of Federal Government.

My colleague invoked the Founders, that they couldn't imagine we would be here having this discussion. I, in fact, think that the Founders would be quite pleased to see us on the floor reversing the regulatory state and reversing the burdens being placed on the American people that are limiting their ability to do what God gave them the ability to do.

That is what we are doing with respect to getting these barriers in the Endangered Species Act: the energy mandates on the Federal buildings, putting us into unreliable power rather than reliable power, and allowing ourselves to have geothermal production without barriers that stand in the way of the American people doing what they do best.

That is absolutely what the Founders would have envisioned us doing on the floor of the House of Representatives. I am proud to be doing that. I am proud of what we have been doing the last 16 months.

As I said before, the people whom I talk to when I go home to Texas are thrilled that our border is secure. They are thrilled our enlistments are up with our military. They are thrilled we are standing up to cartels. They are thrilled we are removing bad actors in this country.

They are thrilled we are removing the bureaucratic state. They are thrilled we are firing Federal bureaucrats. They are thrilled we held flat spending for discretionary spending for the last 3 years. They are thrilled that we have tried to make sure that we have money aside to be able to do what our Democratic colleagues refuse to do.

Today, I urge adoption of this rule, a rule to put forth legislation that will help the American people in the face of opposition from my colleagues here.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me first just say congratulations to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Roy) for congratulating himself. It is a special thing here in the House of Representatives. Apparently, if you work hard enough, you can introduce a resolution congratulating yourself and your colleagues for the resolutions or the bills that you have passed. It is a participation trophy, a Mike Johnson participation trophy, that my colleague from Texas is a proud recipient of along with the other members of the House Republican Conference.

Madam Speaker, it has been 15 months now, 15 months since this Republican majority and the President were elected into office. For nearly a year and a half, Republicans have presided over what is now widely considered to be one of the least productive Congresses in the modern history of our country.

Since President Trump took office, only 86 pieces of legislation have been signed into law. Of course, of those 86, many bills have harmed tragically, profoundly the American public.

Fifteen million Americans have lost access to health insurance since President Trump took office. Millions of Americans are going hungry because of lost SNAP benefits that my colleagues are so proud to have enacted. The country is now involved in yet another deeply unpopular war in the Middle East.

President Trump campaigned on lowering gas prices and no new wars, he said. Of course, that couldn't have been further from the truth.

Last week I stood in this exact same spot and I posed a very simple question, Madam Speaker: Would Republicans continue to waste our time on self-congratulatory, commemorative, meaningless resolutions, saluting themselves, applauding themselves?

Apparently, that was a rhetorical question. We have our answer. The answer is H. Res. 1182. I encourage everyone watching to go online and read the resolution that we are here to debate this week, ``recognizing the work of the House of Representatives in the 119th Congress.''

This is what Republicans choose to spend their time on: resolutions congratulating themselves, giving themselves a pat on the back, participation trophies. It is an utter absurd waste of time, and it is illogical.

It is nonsensical that Republicans would choose to spend their time for the second week in a row on a resolution that does nothing, changes nothing, accomplishes nothing, but congratulating themselves for what they would describe as a job well done.

They have the audacity to suggest that they are supporting rural communities. I represent a district that is one-third rural. Let me tell you, families are struggling in northern and western Colorado as a result of the policies that the Republican Conference have implemented, as a result of President Trump's reckless and extreme agenda.

It is no wonder that President Trump is deeply unpopular, the most unpopular President in the modern history of our country.

I simply say to you, Madam Speaker, that I suspect we will have some debate about the underlying bills that my colleagues have introduced and are asking this august Chamber to consider, bills that weaken a variety of different environmental standards, bills that weaken protections for endangered species. They are not the kind of matters that are coming up at my townhalls in Colorado. Perhaps my colleague from Texas has a different experience in his district.

What I am confident of is that no citizen in our country, no Republican--I am not talking about the politicians here in Washington, D.C. I am talking about their voters--would think that it would be a prudent use of our time to pass self-congratulatory resolutions.

Honestly, I hope if there are folks watching, Republicans watching this--I understand we will have principled disagreements about a wide variety of policy matters and proposals that this House ought to consider, but just understand something: They are squandering their majority.

They are not here debating immigration or gas prices or healthcare costs or any number of priorities. They are not here debating legislation that, frankly, I am likely to oppose, but nonetheless would be legislation and priorities that Republican voters might care about. They are not here debating that. We are here wasting time handing out another participation trophy to the 218 Members of the House Republican Conference.

Madam Speaker, I ask my friend, my colleague on the other side of the aisle, it may just be easier next time to put this into a press release. Put it into a letter. We will help you and that way we can get back to the business of the House.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, first, I will say with respect to the shutdown of DHS, I find it exceedingly rich that my colleague would say what he said when, last night, he voted against an amendment in the Rules Committee that would have enabled this body to consider the bill that passed the United States Senate twice on a unanimous basis to fund the Department of Homeland Security.

Ted Cruz didn't object. Mike Lee didn't object. No Member of the United States Senate objected to that bill. If it were put on the floor for a vote, it would pass with an overwhelming two-thirds majority today.

He knows it. You know it, Madam Speaker. So, spare me these complaints that somehow Democrats are responsible. It is contradicted by the clear facts and procedural history.

Madam Speaker, I will also say, with all respect to my colleague, that the gentleman covered a lot of topics: immigration, Joe Biden, gas prices, and Joe Biden again. What is fascinating is that the resolution that the gentleman has offered, or, rather, that he is being asked to debate today, has nothing to do with any of it.

``Resolved, That the House of Representatives, through policies . . . has demonstrated support for the prosperity and economic growth of the United States.'' They are saluting themselves. What are we doing here?

Again, I understand that the gentleman from Texas does not decide what bills we debate on the floor, so I am talking to Speaker Johnson. If he wanted to, he could put a bill on the floor today to pay TSA agents. He could put a bill on the floor regarding healthcare costs. We could spend all week debating hundreds of bills that have been introduced by Democratic Members and Republican Members. He has decided to force the House to vote on this press release instead for the second time.

What is this obsession with the House recognizing House Republicans? We get it. They are proud of themselves. Everyone understands that. Can we move on?

That, to me, is the absurdity of what we are debating here on the floor today. I am hopeful that this will be the last week, but I am not optimistic.

Last week, I thought it was a joke. I said that maybe next week, we will debate a resolution congratulating House Republicans for passing the congratulatory resolution that they passed last week. Apparently, that was not a joke.

If the Speaker is listening, I didn't mean that literally. I think we should stop with the self-congratulatory resolutions so that Mr. Roy and I can actually debate the underlying policies and the challenges that are facing the country.

Yet, this is not that.

Madam Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Tran), I just will explain that if we defeat the previous question, I intend to offer an amendment to the rule to adopt the Senate amendment to H.R. 7147, which was and is the bipartisan Senate compromise bill that I just referenced a few moments ago that the Senate unanimously passed twice now.

I understand Mr. Roy is vehemently against that bill. I get it. I understand that he believes that the bill that Mike Lee and Ted Cruz didn't object to doesn't satisfy his ideological goals. I understand that.

Yet, I suspect that the vast majority of the Republican Conference would pass that bill today if we had an opportunity to. The good news is that we hope to create that opportunity by ultimately defeating the previous question and enabling the House to be able to consider that bill.

Spare us more debates on commemorative resolutions, and let's fund the government.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record along with any extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Tran).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, a lot to respond to. Apparently, my colleague from Texas wants the American people to believe that the reason they are paying astronomically high prices for gas is because the protections for bald eagles and humpback whales are too strong; that we need to weaken protections for endangered species, and lo and behold, we do that, gas prices will drop. It has nothing to do with the war in Iran. It couldn't possibly be connected to the unconstitutional war that the President has decided to wage. It must be the protections for bald eagles. I am sure that is the case.

Give me a break. The American people know better.

They have the audacity to lecture the House, lecture their colleagues on the other side of the aisle about affordability when, right now, everything is getting more expensive.

For families back home in Colorado, the families that I am privileged to represent, times are tough. Costs for everything are going up. Health insurance, car insurance, appliances, gasoline, you name it, the price is going up.

I am sure it will come as great solace to those families that House Republicans have decided this week that the best way to address it is to pass a resolution congratulating themselves for the work that they have done. I am sure that is going to solve the problem. Republicans are on the case.

Again, with all respect to my colleague, I think he has been given an impossible assignment today: to defend that resolution. I suppose that is why he focused on some of the other bills that we are considering today, because that resolution is indefensible.

I suspect my Republican colleagues aren't necessarily watching today. I think me and my colleague from Texas are the only two Members of Congress in this Chamber. Nobody else is here--oh, of course, the Speaker as well--three Members. There is nobody else who will be here to debate this resolution.

I hope that some of my Republican colleagues, perhaps, may watch some of this and maybe decide tomorrow to vote against the rule because voting for the rule is an endorsement of Speaker Johnson's strategy to waste everyone's time, to waste our time, and to waste your time, and fundamentally, more than anything else, to waste the American people's time when there are real issues of consequence that merit our attention, our scrutiny, our inquiry, and our work.

The best way to stop this Chamber from debating meaningless and needless self-congratulatory resolutions is for a few Republicans to vote against the rule and to suggest that maybe there are some other issues that they would like this body to consider.

I hear a lot--you see all of this on social media all the time--my Republican colleagues who will demand votes on this legislation and that legislation, a laundry list of Republican priorities, none of which the House is considering, none of it. I guess we will find out, but I look forward to--I don't look forward, actually. I bemoan the fact. I suspect maybe Mr. McGovern will be managing that rule next week when we do the congratulatory resolution on the resolution for the last resolution. We will have someone else debate that one because I suspect Mr. Roy and I will have grown tired of engaging in this debate.

In any event, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, first and foremost, I would just say the approach that my friend from Texas describes is wrong and imprudent and whatever adjectives he might characterize it as. That is the approach that Senate Republicans took, so the argument is best made to your colleagues in the upper Chamber. Republicans control the Senate, not Democrats. They passed that bill. They sent it here to the House, not once, but twice.

I understand that my colleague from Texas opposes that bill, and he has explained the reasons why he opposes it. I believe, as I said previously, that the vast majority of this House would vote in favor of that bill, which is why it ought to come up for an up-or-down vote. Let the chips fall where they may, no pun intended.

I will say this, Madam Speaker: I have been keeping meticulous count. I have a little, I guess you could call it, Biden bingo card here. I like to keep track. My colleague from Texas has mentioned Biden six times, six times and counting, in the last couple minutes.

I get it. I understand. He does not like Joe Biden. I understand. The message is received. Joe Biden isn't President anymore. Republicans have been in charge for 16 months. Republicans have had the majority for 16 months. Republicans have had complete control in Washington, the Senate, the Presidency.

What do Republicans have to show for it? Republicans have meaningless resolutions, whereas clause after whereas clause: We are wonderful. We have passed this resolution. We passed this bill. We are frustrated that some Senate Democrats have opposed it.

That is it.

This is 16 months of work.

Again, I would just say to you: I certainly can say very confidently that citizens in our country are not satisfied or pleased or heartened by the way in which this body is functioning. I think my colleague from Texas knows that too.

For the Republican voters out there, for those who believe in the House Republican Conference's policies or, you know, perhaps share their worldview, share their ideology, I am here to tell you they are not pursuing that agenda either. It is not that I disagree in this instance with the substance of what they are pursuing; it is that they are not pursuing any substance; it is that we are just wasting time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Again, my colleague from Texas has spoken with great passion, great passion about any number of issues and policies that he favors and he would like to see accomplished. None of that has anything to do with the resolution that we are debating today. We might as well just--we can set aside a different time for Mr. Roy and I to engage in that debate.

Today, we are debating the resolution that is before us, a resolution that does nothing, achieves nothing, and changes nothing. As I said, it is a participation trophy.

I wish that I would have proposed perhaps a motion to recommit that would maybe change the name of this resolution to the participation trophy. We will have to think of that for next week. I have no doubt I will have another opportunity because I imagine that Speaker Johnson is going to keep this going for the next 7 months.

I am very curious about what participation trophy House Republicans intend to hand out to themselves next week. This week's was--I think rural America was the caveat that they added. Last week's was the big, beautiful bill--or not the big, beautiful bill. That is what Mr. Roy called it today. They changed it last week to the working families bill or something to that effect.

So anyway, we will have to see. I don't know. Maybe next week's resolution will be a commemorative resolution to congratulate House Republicans on the 14-day FISA extension that they passed, and we can spend a half an hour talking about all the ways that House Republicans have changed the country for the better. They are so desperate to convince Americans that they decided that a House resolution is a tool for them to make that case.

Again, there are better ways, Mr. Speaker, to spend this body's time.

I can't imagine that our Framers--that James Madison would have thought that this is how the House of Representatives would be functioning 250 years later. I can't possibly believe that.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that our time for debate has come to a close. I will note, as I did last week, the fact that not a single member of the House Republican Conference is willing to come down to the floor and debate in support of these bills is telling. It tells you all you need to know. For those that are watching in the gallery and all of those who might be watching from home on C-SPAN, there are 218 members of the House Republican Conference, 218. None of them, save for my colleague from Texas, were willing to come to the floor to speak in support of the resolution congratulating themselves for the work that they have done this year, not one.

What is even more fascinating, because, of course, as you know, Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a long resolution, four or five pages, whereas clause after whereas clause recounting all of the bills and the resolutions that were passed last spring and last fall and last summer, and this winter, they gave this resolution to the newest member of the House Republican Conference. He has been in Congress for like 6 days, I think. He was sworn in last Tuesday or Wednesday.

I get it. I understand why they gave this resolution to the new guy. You know, it is a tough assignment to say your first bill is going to be a bill congratulating the rest of us for a job well done. That is a tough assignment.

Mr. Speaker, rural America is struggling. I know I don't need to tell you that. Rural farmers in my State are struggling. The cost of everything is going up. Trump's burdensome tariffs forced costs to skyrocket a year ago.

In 2025, 15,000 farms closed, 15,000 farms. The rate of bankruptcy for America's farmers has never been higher. It has never been higher. I challenge any of my Republican colleagues, those who, like me, represent rural communities and farmers and ranchers, I challenge them to go take this resolution to their constituents. Ask them whether they think that this House deserves applause and plaudits and credit and congratulations for a job well done.

I am pretty sure I know the answer. I urge my colleagues, if they, like me, are sick and tired of this place wasting time functioning in this dysfunctional way, then oppose the previous question, oppose the rule, oppose the underlying bills, and join us so that we can get back to the serious issues that face the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman).

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. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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?

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.