A Democratic bill with 13 Democratic cosponsors · See all 13 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill aims to lower health risks caused by heat by creating the National Integrated Heat Health Information System (NIHHIS) and an interagency committee within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. These groups will coordinate a federal approach to heat preparedness, planning, and response. The bill requires a study by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to find gaps in heat-related research and policy. Additionally, it establishes a community heat resilience program to provide financial aid for projects that reduce heat risks. Priority for this funding is given to historically disadvantaged and low-income communities.
Yes· 3 of 57
- Scored +9
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Provides targeted financial assistance for cooling and prioritizes low-income communities.
- Scored +8
Would people over 65 be better off under this?
Specifically targets the most high-risk group for heat-related deaths.
- Scored +8
Would Black Americans be better off under this?
Explicitly addresses racial disparities in heat risk and targets funding to disadvantaged communities.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
The bill increases spending by establishing new systems and grant programs.
- Scored -1
Does this reduce what the federal government owes?
The bill authorizes new government spending through 2030.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Improved Information Delivery: The NIHHIS will improve how data, forecasts, and warnings about extreme heat are delivered, especially to communities that are disproportionately affected (Section 5(b)(1)).
-
Financial Support for Heat Mitigation: Eligible entities can receive funding for projects like planting trees, installing cool roofs and pavements, creating cooling centers, and upgrading air conditioning systems (Section 7(e)(1)).
-
Targeted Aid for Vulnerable Groups: At least 40 percent of financial assistance must go to low-income communities or those with environmental justice concerns (Section 7(g)(1)).
-
Worker Protections: The bill supports the creation of workplace policies and practices to reduce heat-related illnesses for workers (Section 7(e)(4)(E)).
-
Research into Health Gaps: A required study will identify gaps in data, such as the number of prisons and schools without air conditioning, to help create better recommendations for protection (Section 6(a)(2)(A)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No negative impacts for individuals or groups are explicitly stated in the provided text.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Provides targeted financial assistance for cooling and prioritizes low-income communities. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Explicitly addresses racial disparities in heat risk and targets funding to disadvantaged communities. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Explicitly addresses racial disparities in heat risk and targets funding to disadvantaged communities. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Explicitly addresses racial disparities in heat risk and targets funding to disadvantaged communities. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Explicitly includes Tribal nations and provides funding to indigenous communities. Would retired people be better off under this? — Seniors are identified as one of the groups at greatest health risk. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Specifically targets the most high-risk group for heat-related deaths. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Specifically targets the urban heat island effect with cooling infrastructure funding. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Ensures specific consideration and representation for individuals with disabilities. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Directs resources to address heat resilience gaps in rural communities. Would women be better off under this? — Focuses on risks to pregnant people and disproportionate impacts on Black mothers. Would children be better off under this? — Protects young children through improved heat warnings and school cooling projects. Would farmers be better off under this? — Improves research and data on agricultural losses and protects outdoor workers. Would students be better off under this? — Addresses the lack of air conditioning in schools. Would union members be better off under this? — Supports the development of workplace policies to reduce heat-related illness. Would immigrants be better off under this? — Benefits those in low-income or disadvantaged communities where immigrants may reside. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Includes VA in coordination efforts to protect veterans from heat. Would men be better off under this? — General benefit from improved heat warnings. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Reduces health risks for general adult populations and pregnant individuals. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Improves general heat warnings and public health data. Would white Americans be better off under this? — General benefit from a more coordinated national heat response. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Reduces health risks for outdoor workers and athletes. Would business owners be better off under this? — Provides potential funding for building retrofits and improved worker productivity. Would high-income households be better off under this? — General improvement in public health resilience. Would billionaires be better off under this? — General improvement in public health stability. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — General improvement in public health stability. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — General improvement in public health stability.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — Explicitly prioritizes funding for historically disadvantaged communities and communities of color facing heat disparities. Does this make housing cost less? — Provides funding for retrofitting buildings for cooling and improving energy efficiency. Does this expand the rights of people with disabilities? — Ensures representation of individuals with disabilities in the system's development. Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Directs 40% of assistance to low-income communities to reduce health-related costs and risks. Is this likely to reduce homelessness? — Provides cooling centers and resources for the most vulnerable, including those experiencing homelessness. Does this narrow the gap between how men and women are treated? — Addresses specific risks for pregnant people, disproportionately impacting Black mothers.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this improve help for people hit by a disaster? — Integrates FEMA into a coordinated federal response to heat-related health emergencies. Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — Focuses on mitigating urban heat islands and improving environmental justice for marginalized communities. Does this invest in rural communities? — Explicitly aims to improve heat risk mitigation and resource access in rural communities. Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — Includes the BLM and National Park Service to manage heat risks on public lands. Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — Promotes urban forestry and energy-efficient cooling systems which can lower emissions. Does this repair or build roads and bridges? — Provides funding for cool pavements. Does this put more money into wind, solar and other renewable power? — Supports energy efficiency and power grid resilience for air conditioning.
- Healthcare
- Does this put more money into medical research? — Establishes a climate and health research grant program and mandates a study by the National Academies. Does this make health care easier to get in general? — Improves warnings and data delivery to protect vulnerable populations from health emergencies. Does this lower what a hospital stay costs? — Reducing heat-related emergency room visits can lower overall hospital burden and costs. Does this help veterans get medical care? — Includes the VA in the interagency committee to coordinate heat-health responses for veterans. Does this make mental health care easier to get? — Includes the SAMHSA in the interagency committee to address heat-health impacts.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more money into scientific research? — Creates a comprehensive climate and health research grant program. Does this put more money into public schools? — Identifies gaps in school air conditioning and provides grants for cooling solutions. Does this give people more control over their personal data? — Addresses privacy concerns in the collection of health observations.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Requires that system data and metadata be fully and openly available to the public. Does this give the federal government more power? — Establishes a new national interagency system and coordinator within NOAA.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this strengthen ties with allied countries? — Mandates collaboration with the international community to share knowledge on heat prevention. Does this increase the pay, pensions or support veterans receive? — Ensures veterans are considered in heat-health planning through VA membership in the committee. Does this favour talking over confrontation abroad? — Encourages global partnerships for scientific research.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — Protects consumers by helping them avoid energy shutoffs and heat-related health crises. Is this likely to create jobs? — Funding for cooling infrastructure projects may create local construction and installation jobs. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Reducing heat-related labor productivity losses can marginally benefit economic growth. Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Potential for small businesses to benefit from cooling infrastructure grants. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — The bill increases spending by establishing new systems and grant programs. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — The bill authorizes new government spending through 2030.
- 7/22/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 12/9/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 12/1/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 11/25/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 10/6/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/3/2025
- Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- 8 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Nikki BudzinskiDemocrat · Illinois
Kathy CastorDemocrat · Florida
Troy CarterDemocrat · Louisiana
Mark DeSaulnierDemocrat · California
Maxine DexterDemocrat · Oregon
Daniel GoldmanDemocrat · New York
Ro KhannaDemocrat · California
Seth MagazinerDemocrat · Rhode Island
Kevin MullinDemocrat · California
Jennifer McClellanDemocrat · Virginia
Jerrold NadlerDemocrat · New York
Eleanor NortonDemocrat · District of Columbia
Robert ScottDemocrat · Virginia