Ratepayer Protection Act

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee (Mr. Guthrie) for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this really important bill by my friend Mr. Evans from Colorado who led on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the latest advancement in technology. If you think about the history of this great Nation as we celebrate 250 years of America, one of the things that America has been so successful at has been always being on the frontier of new innovations. In fact, in the last 150 years, America has led the world in advancements in technology.

Today is no different. In fact, today, America is at the heart of the domination of technology all around the world. If you think about some of the simplest things we are able to do in our lives, that give us the ability to have more free time, or the things you can do on a cell phone that would have taken a supercomputer 30 years ago to do, that is because of advancements in technology.

Artificial intelligence and data centers are no different. It is another advancement in technology. As we are advancing in technology, we have to do it the right way, Mr. Speaker, in a smart and thoughtful way. If you look at communities that have embraced data centers, some communities said it is not for me, and that is a choice communities make.

The Federal Government is not the one making that decision. What we have always said, and what President Trump took the leadership in doing, is meeting with all of the Big Tech companies building these massive data centers and said just make sure as you are making these big investments in communities, you won't add to the cost of a local community's ratepayer electricity rates.

The President got a commitment to do that. We are not fully codifying that. It is, in essence, a step in that direction what this bill is doing. But as the President did that, you saw companies going and making massive multibillion-dollar investments in some of our communities and helping those communities along the way, Mr. Speaker.

That story does not get told. Frankly, I think that story needs to get told more. I have seen massive data centers in my home State of Louisiana. In fact, if you go to little Richland Parish, a rural part of north Louisiana that not a lot of people live in, not a lot of opportunities for wealth in that parish, Mr. Speaker, but then Meta decided to build a data center, and that data center grew and grew as the community embraced it.

They worked with the community. They are building their own natural gas facilities. It is actually going to help the grid in that community because they are going to be paying their own way and anything extra they have is going to be off-loaded to the grid so the neighbors in that community will actually get lower utility rates.

Do you know what else happened, Mr. Speaker? This is another part of the story that is not getting told enough, but the data center is still being built. It is up to about $50 billion in private funding that is being built in little Richland Parish.

As they are building that data center, because of all of the increased sales tax collections to Richland Parish, they were able to give a bonus. I am not talking about the base salary of their schoolteachers. They gave a bonus to every schoolteacher in Richland Parish because of the building of that data center.

Mr. Speaker, do you know how much every schoolteacher in Richland Parish received a few months ago because of the data center? They received a bonus of $50,000 per teacher because of the data center.

Those are the stories that you are seeing in communities that have embraced it, where they worked with the local community. It is not a burden on that community. It is actually a tremendous benefit. Not only teachers will benefit, but small businesses are cropping up.

Loudoun County in Virginia, Mr. Speaker, is another community that made the decision for themselves. It is not a Washington choice. It is a local community choice, and I think everybody would agree with that. If there are local communities that don't want it, believe me there are other communities that will take those benefits.

Loudoun County in Virginia got the benefits of their data centers to the tune of a 30 percent reduction in property taxes for every homeowner in Loudoun County, Virginia. They are benefiting from that still to this day, as well as the jobs that come along with it. They are benefiting from the investment, the buildings that come along, and the small business growth that we are seeing.

There has been this assertion, Mr. Speaker, some of it funded by China, that data centers are driving up utility prices. There was a study done. In fact, the Institute for Energy Research did a State-by- State study in all 50 States of this country and they looked at energy costs, the kilowatt-per-hour cost in every State.

Some States have data centers. Some States don't. The study is titled: ``Have Data Centers Driven Up Electricity Prices?''

Their conclusion was clearly no, they do not. There was no disparity in kilowatt hours per customer in States that have data centers and States that don't.

Again, a lot of that is because President Trump made all of the data centers, the companies that build them, give those pledges that they will not have a negative impact on the ratepayers.

What they did find, Mr. Speaker, was quite interesting, and that was a disparity that does exist in electricity prices between States. It is not all States.

What they ultimately looked at is States that have a unified government, all one party, either Republican or either Democrat. The States that have all unified Democratic Party control in those States actually have higher electricity costs than States that have all Republican.

The Institute for Energy Research did the study. You can go find it online. It shows you State by State the kilowatt-per-hour cost. The reason it is rising is because a lot of those States that have unified Democratic government are also States that are losing population. Some hundreds of thousands to nearly millions of people have fled those States. As those States lose population because of bad policies, Mr. Speaker, their baseload capacity is the same. The cost to run their grid is the same. It is spread amongst fewer people because their bad policies are running hundreds of thousands or a million-plus people out of the State.

The States that are growing, that have good government policies, and that are attracting people and jobs, those States have lower kilowatt- per-hour costs for their consumers because the same grid has the same fixed costs, but there is more people to spread the cost around so those people pay less.

That is what actually is happening in this country. Look at all the States. Go look at the Institute for Energy Research study, Mr. Speaker, because it shows you what is really happening out there.

There is a revolution happening. China is competing, and America is competing. We surely do not want China to win this war. America is staying at the forefront. I want us to stay at the forefront. Let locals make the choice and let consumers reap the benefits. That is what is happening right now, and this bill, by my friend Congressman Evans, ensures that we continue to see that growth continue.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption.

Mr. President, America is expected to build the equivalent of 1,000 major data centers during the next 5 years. You heard that correctly--a thousand data centers within the next 5 years, with more than 2,000 projects currently being proposed and tracked. We need to protect American ratepayers from footing the bill.

The clock is ticking, and we have no time for delay. Americans are becoming ever more reliant on computing power from data centers for their daily lives--from medicine to manufacturing, education to agriculture, and national defense to the way we deliver basic services. Data centers are used not just for AI. They support almost every aspect of modern life, including online shopping, streaming videos, social media, and the broadcast of this very debate.

To meet these consumer demands, Americans need an ample supply of electricity. This problem has been exacerbated by the fact that, due to Federal regulations over the past two decades, powerplants have been closed, decreasing the supply of electricity. Congress failed to stop this action. During the Obama and Biden years alone, 23 powerplants were closed in the State of Ohio, creating a supply-and-demand problem that drove up prices on consumers.

So, as we look to build the future, we must follow some basic principles of fairness.

The companies creating enormous new demands for electricity should pay the costs required to serve them--pretty simple. Working families, small businesses, and senior citizens should not open up their electric bills and discover they are paying for the power infrastructure needed by some large tech company in the world or in their neighborhood.

That is the principle behind the Ratepayer Protection Act.

When a very large electricity customer, such as a data center, connects to the grid, it requires investments in new generation, transmission lines, substations, and local distribution systems. The Ratepayer Protection Act would require State utility regulators to consider standards, ensuring that large load customers pay the full-- full--incremental costs of the infrastructure needed to serve it. Those standards could also require financial assurances so that families are not left paying for stranded infrastructure if the project is delayed, downsized, or abandoned. In plain language, if you create the cost, you should pay the cost.

This is not anti-technology legislation. It is pro-growth and pro- innovation. Mostly, it is procurement legislation. In fact, protecting ratepayers will make it easier, not harder, for America to build the technology infrastructure we need. Americans are understandably concerned about rising electric bills. If they believe every new data center will make their monthly bills go up, public opposition will grow, communities will reject plans, construction will slow, and China will gain ground.

The better approach is to establish clear rules from the beginning. Data centers should only be located where communities want them. They can bring billions of dollars in private investment; in construction work for electricians, pipefitters, equipment operators, and other skilled trades; as well as in revenue for schools and local services. But those benefits should not come with a hidden charge of electric bills for families, farmers, and small businesses.

When companies know up front that they will be responsible for their own energy costs, they can plan accordingly. That approach encourages innovation. It rewards those who find the most efficient ways to operate. It also creates an incentive to build more American energy in the most efficient manner possible. When energy supply adequately meets demand, it helps put down pressure on prices for consumers. It helps people save money; that is what it does. They keep more of their paychecks for what they need to spend for their priorities.

Providing modern benefits from innovation does not require us to choose between technological leadership and affordable electricity. We can do both. We can do both. We can build the computing capacity America needs, and we can produce the reliable energy it requires. We can protect families and small businesses from unfair costs.

The Ratepayer Protection Act rests on a principle every American understands: Pay your own way. This is how we make sure American families are not left footing the bill for the energy infrastructure required by data centers. Most importantly, it will help the American people keep more of what they earn.

So this brings me to this moment:

Yesterday, this bill passed the House of Representatives by a nearly unanimous vote of 417 to 3. That is right--417 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives voted to pass this bill, with only 3 objections. So the Members of the House did their jobs; they stood up for the American ratepayer. It is time for the Senate to do the same.

In a few moments, I am going to ask my colleagues in the Senate to support the Ratepayer Protection Act. Together, we can send this bill to the President's desk for his signature. The Ratepayer Protection Act represents the most meaningful, bipartisan step Congress can take to protect the American people from higher prices for electricity. I am here today because we can get this done. The House has already done it. The House has done its job. There is no need to wait and no need to delay.

If we get it done today, we say to the American people: We actually care. We heard you. We are going to get the job done.

It demonstrates Washington can work in a bipartisan way to address the problems that are most pressing to the American people. I am proud to have led this effort in the U.S. Senate, and I am going to urge unanimous consent for this commonsense bill.

Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 9340, which is at the desk; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for an additional 1 minute.

Mr. President, I would just say this: I accept the Senator from New Mexico's concerns, but the reason I am proposing that we pass this piece of legislation is that it passed the House, 417 to 3. If the Senator from New Mexico's provision had passed the House 417 to 3, he would have had every right to stand up and ask that we do this.

Before we leave here, we ought to do something on a matter that the American people have asked us to do something about, and we have the opportunity to do that with the Ratepayer Protection Act. It is a shame that this opportunity has been missed today, but I will be back to push this issue forward. We have a bipartisan opportunity to get this done, and we should do it immediately.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my bill, the Ratepayer Protection Act. I am proud to lead this bipartisan bill with Congressman Evans to protect my neighbors from unfairly paying for the energy needs of large AI data centers.

Mr. Speaker, all across America, families, farmers, and small business owners fear the arrival of their electric bill every month. Too many are struggling under the weight of soul-crushing energy bills, and it comes at a time especially where everything costs more--your groceries, gas, diesel, healthcare, and housing.

Many of my neighbors back in the Tampa Bay area show me their electric bills. They are exorbitant, and it is

gut-wrenching. They are not alone because across the country, electricity prices are up on average 15 percent, but much higher in many places.

But now there is a new stressor: massive hyperscale data centers are connecting to the grid. These are energy hogs. They are massive. The descriptors know no end.

When a data center or other large load comes online, it can trigger massive upgrades--new power plants, transmission lines, local transformers--and typically those costs are passed along to ratepayers, and that is not fair. Our neighbors should not be stuck paying for the energy infrastructure of the wealthiest countries in the world. The Ratepayer Protection Act says that the data center pays for its own upgrades, not the rest of us.

These monumental hyperscale data centers can span hundreds of thousands of square feet. They host thousands of servers, computer storage, networks, and then they have these giant cooling systems that also require massive amounts of energy as well.

Massive hyperscale data centers can continuously consume over 100 megawatts, with the largest facilities consuming over 650 megawatts. That is comparable to the energy use of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of homes.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, right now data centers consume about 4.4 percent of all electricity in America, but they predict that that will go up to 12 percent of the total electricity consumption in America by just 2028.

Mr. Speaker, hyperscale data centers are being constructed by the wealthiest Big Tech corporations on the planet. As hardworking Americans are just trying to make ends meet, they shouldn't carry Big Tech's data center load as well. That is why we hammered out the bipartisan Ratepayer Protection Act, to ensure that data centers pay the full cost of their energy demand and upgrades.

It says that if a company wants to build a data center, they should pay for the power and grid upgrades they need, not the rest of us.

This bill will require those data centers to cover all the costs. It is an important first step. I know some people say this is not enough. It is not enough. It is not enough, but it does provide some first steps.

Congress has to do more. We should set stricter requirements for States to report their progress to Congress so we can ensure the bill is enforced. We should incentivize data centers to be empowered by clean energy and prioritize projects that can reduce demand during peak hours.

But notably, this bill does allow States to do some of those things. The States now can set additional specific guardrails. For example, States can require that data centers are powered by clean energy and don't damage local water supplies. They can require investments in grid-enhancing technologies or virtual power plants. States can even require that data centers fund weatherization initiatives or deployment of energy-saving batteries, rooftop solar, and heat pumps.

For example, Virginia is requiring data centers to cover new transmission and distribution capacity costs. Minnesota requires data centers to pay into an energy conservation and weatherization fund to benefit working-class neighbors. Kansas incentivized data centers to participate in demand response programs to reduce peak demand.

This bill also empowers local communities to make decisions on the siting and building of data centers. It allows for robust community input, not NDAs, nondisclosure agreements, where they try to sneak in.

For example, in Florida, at least 20 counties and municipalities passed or discussed very strict guardrails on data centers. In my home county, Hillsborough County, many say that is not the appropriate place for a data center because we don't have the water resources and we don't have the electricity yet to do that. There are places in America that don't want them.

We need to keep working on this, but this is a very important first step. These are the wealthiest corporations in America. There is no reason why the average American should be subsidizing their electricity upgrades and costs.

I am eager to keep advancing bipartisan, real solutions to invest in our U.S. power grid, which is reaching the end of its useful life, which is also raising costs on Americans. We have just got to remain clear-eyed that right now our neighbors are suffering an affordability squeeze. They deserve so much better than what they are getting right now.

This Ratepayer Protection Act is a good first start, but it is a modest first start. It is about fairness on this one.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my bill, the Ratepayer Protection Act. I am proud to lead this bipartisan bill with Congressman Evans to protect my neighbors from unfairly paying for the energy needs of large AI data centers.

Mr. Speaker, all across America, families, farmers, and small business owners fear the arrival of their electric bill every month. Too many are struggling under the weight of soul-crushing energy bills, and it comes at a time especially where everything costs more--your groceries, gas, diesel, healthcare, and housing.

Many of my neighbors back in the Tampa Bay area show me their electric bills. They are exorbitant, and it is gut-wrenching. They are not alone because across the country, electricity prices are up on average 15 percent, but much higher in many places.

But now there is a new stressor: massive hyperscale data centers are connecting to the grid. These are energy hogs. They are massive. The descriptors know no end.

When a data center or other large load comes online, it can trigger massive upgrades--new power plants, transmission lines, local transformers--and typically those costs are passed along to ratepayers, and that is not fair. Our neighbors should not be stuck paying for the energy infrastructure of the wealthiest countries in the world. The Ratepayer Protection Act says that the data center pays for its own upgrades, not the rest of us.

These monumental hyperscale data centers can span hundreds of thousands of square feet. They host thousands of servers, computer storage, networks, and then they have these giant cooling systems that also require massive amounts of energy as well.

Massive hyperscale data centers can continuously consume over 100 megawatts, with the largest facilities consuming over 650 megawatts. That is comparable to the energy use of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of homes.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, right now data centers consume about 4.4 percent of all electricity in America, but they predict that that will go up to 12 percent of the total electricity consumption in America by just 2028.

Mr. Speaker, hyperscale data centers are being constructed by the wealthiest Big Tech corporations on the planet. As hardworking Americans are just trying to make ends meet, they shouldn't carry Big Tech's data center load as well. That is why we hammered out the bipartisan Ratepayer Protection Act, to ensure that data centers pay the full cost of their energy demand and upgrades.

It says that if a company wants to build a data center, they should pay for the power and grid upgrades they need, not the rest of us.

This bill will require those data centers to cover all the costs. It is an important first step. I know some people say this is not enough. It is not enough. It is not enough, but it does provide some first steps.

Congress has to do more. We should set stricter requirements for States to report their progress to Congress so we can ensure the bill is enforced. We should incentivize data centers to be empowered by clean energy and prioritize projects that can reduce demand during peak hours.

But notably, this bill does allow States to do some of those things. The States now can set additional specific guardrails. For example, States can require that data centers are powered by clean energy and don't damage local water supplies. They can require investments in grid-enhancing technologies or virtual power plants. States can even require that data centers fund weatherization initiatives or deployment of energy-saving batteries, rooftop solar, and heat pumps.

For example, Virginia is requiring data centers to cover new transmission and distribution capacity costs. Minnesota requires data centers to pay into an energy conservation and weatherization fund to benefit working-class neighbors. Kansas incentivized data centers to participate in demand response programs to reduce peak demand.

This bill also empowers local communities to make decisions on the siting and building of data centers. It allows for robust community input, not NDAs, nondisclosure agreements, where they try to sneak in.

For example, in Florida, at least 20 counties and municipalities passed or discussed very strict guardrails on data centers. In my home county, Hillsborough County, many say that is not the appropriate place for a data center because we don't have the water resources and we don't have the electricity yet to do that. There are places in America that don't want them.

We need to keep working on this, but this is a very important first step. These are the wealthiest corporations in America. There is no reason why the average American should be subsidizing their electricity upgrades and costs.

I am eager to keep advancing bipartisan, real solutions to invest in our U.S. power grid, which is reaching the end of its useful life, which is also raising costs on Americans. We have just got to remain clear-eyed that right now our neighbors are suffering an affordability squeeze. They deserve so much better than what they are getting right now.

This Ratepayer Protection Act is a good first start, but it is a modest first start. It is about fairness on this one.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the bill.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 684, H.R. 9340.

Mr. President, we are coming to the end of the first year of the Rural Health Transformation Program. This multiyear initiative created in Republicans' Working Families Tax Cut legislation will invest $50 billion in all 50 States to put rural healthcare providers on a more sustainable footing for the future.

Beyond helping to ensure that Americans in rural areas can access healthcare, it will also ensure that providers are able to leverage technology and innovation to address the challenges unique to rural States.

One year in, this program is off to a promising start, and that is certainly the case in my home State of South Dakota. Just last week, CMS announced a $13 million investment in behavioral and mental health care in South Dakota. This funding will help expand crisis services and build out our State's workforce in behavioral healthcare, and it comes after another announcement in August of funding to modernize technology and strengthen cyber security at rural healthcare providers in South Dakota, an initiative that will not only modernize care in my State but also support future innovation to address the unique needs of rural South Dakota.

When Republicans created the Rural Health Transformation Program, last summer, we didn't take a top-down, Washington-Senate approach. Instead, we designed it to give States the resources and freedom to find solutions to their particular challenges, and I am proud to see South Dakota taking the same approach when it comes to distributing the funding that it will receive.

In the words of South Dakota Secretary of Health Melissa Magstadt, ``the initiatives that we've developed came strictly from the assessments we had, the expert input we garnered, and what citizens themselves said they needed in the community.''

That is exactly how the Rural Health Transformation Program is supposed to work, and it is not just working in South Dakota. As I mentioned, all 50 States are taking advantage of this transformative program.

Ohio is putting $3 million toward expanding offerings at pharmacies in rural communities.

A nearly $5 million award will help a hospital in central Maine update its electric medical records system to integrate it with the wider health system it is part of.

Providers in Kansas will benefit from nearly $17 billion this year to support new technologies and improve transportation options for specialty healthcare.

And Missouri will use $35 million to support 20 rural hospital projects and another $4 million to train its rural EMS workforce.

A hospital in South Carolina will use funding to add an additional operating room and upgrade its technology.

And a nonprofit in Alaska received $16 million to improve primary care offerings and bring in more providers and staff.

This is just some of the funding States are receiving for the first year of this program. As this list suggests, the Rural Health Transformation Program will make an impact in every corner of this country. All 50 States are receiving funding from this program, red States and blue States alike, which makes Senate Democrats' opposition to this program particularly baffling.

Our Democrat colleagues have made their opposition to the Rural Health Transformation Program very clear, with the Democrat leader going so far as to say this last year:

This little fund to help reimburse rural hospitals is just

a fraud.

Let me repeat that.

This little fund to help reimburse rural hospitals is just

a fraud.

That is from the Democrat leader.

Well, perhaps the Democrat leader should check in with his State's Governor, who said of a recent $76 million investment from this program:

These investments will bring rural hospitals, health

centers and community providers together to strengthen

regional health care networks and make it easier for New

Yorkers to get the care they need closer to home.

That is from New York's Governor.

Let me repeat that:

. . . and make it easier for New Yorkers to get the care

they need closer to home.

Well, that doesn't sound like fraud to me. But whether this would help the people in rural parts of their States didn't seem to matter to Washington Democrats. In fact, Senate Democrats voted more than half a dozen times, last year, to repeal--repeal--the Rural Health Transformation Program.

That is right.

Around this time last year, during Democrats' record-long government shutdown, Senate Democrats were working to end this program. I am curious if the Democrat leader would like to claw back the $212 million that rural healthcare providers in New York are going to receive from this program this year.

Should already-strapped rural hospitals not spend this money because Democrats are going to take it back the next time they have the power to do so? Let's hope it never comes to that.

The Rural Health Transformation Program is helping Americans in rural areas across this country. It is helping South Dakota, Ohio, Idaho, Kansas, Rhode Island, Alaska, and everywhere in between. And I am proud that Republicans are delivering for rural Americans.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I thank my colleagues Senator Warner and Senator Schatz.

This is really an invitation to all of our colleagues to be able to join us in this moment because this is a call from the American people to address their worries, to avoid disaster, and to give them a sense of stability and predictability.

Yes, this effort we are putting forward today is not going to fix all of the problems; it is not going to avoid all of the pitfalls, but it is a start, and that is what the American people are looking for. They are looking for a start. They are looking for action that we are taking not just in words but in recognizing, yes, innovation without control just leads to chaos and leads to unpredictability. That is something that we need to make sure we are meeting at this moment to ensure that the American people have control over the incredible strides that we are seeing on AI.

Now, control can't be built on faith and half measures. Just yesterday, we saw again OpenAI saying that they are not going to release their newest model Astra because of security concerns. We have seen other major labs take some steps to mitigate. That is progress, but the stakes are too high for this to be just voluntary that big corporations take the right action just because it is the right thing to do.

When I was working in national security, the starting point of every conversation was, ``What is the magnitude of the problem that we are facing?'' and then to be able to work backward from there to understand what the magnitude is of the solution needed to actually address that problem.

Well, when I did a townhall 2 weeks ago, I had a constituent come up and ask me--because I was talking about the Hugging Face incident or some of the other news that we had seen of rogue AI agents breaking out. This one constituent asked me, he said: Well, how many times has this happened? How many times? Are we documenting it? How many times have we actually seen this?

Look, the answer that I had to give, truthfully, was that we didn't know.

Even still, today, we are standing here on the floor of the Senate, and we don't know how many of these types of instances have happened. I will be honest with you, I don't think the top AI companies fully know the total number of incidents and other challenges that they have faced.

So when they have the question: What is the magnitude of the problem we are trying to solve, the answer right now is that we don't know. That is scary, that is worrisome, and that is something we should work incredibly hard to be able to address.

Do we know just how much the move toward full recursive self- improvement is going to magnify these problems? We don't know yet, which is why we are trying to set out, with the effort today, to recognize that the stakes are too high and that control comes from creating efforts like an AI safety board or in establishing more secure sandboxes for testing and other types of standards. Control is necessary because we need to ensure that the technology does not outpace safety and common sense.

I am grateful, again, to be working with my colleagues here and, again, to be, hopefully, working with all of our colleagues together on this shared agenda. That is what the American people are not just asking of us but are demanding of us to be able to do so that this bill can be part of a comprehensive approach that will help us maintain control and avoid the chaos that no American wants to see.

With that, I yield to the Senator from Virginia.

Madam President, I will be quick here. I just want to say I hope we can be able to take this step and continue to move on. And as someone who is on the Commerce Committee, wanted to find ways to be able to engage.

I agree on the importance of America leading the innovation of the future, but I don't think that that competition, especially vis-a-vis China, is mutually exclusive with the need to be able to engage with safety and security.

We have pieces of the legislation, things that I have been pushing, like the MATCH Act, that are about us being able to further strengthen our innovative lead, and I hope that this body does take those measures up, as we have them before us in this very Congress. Within the end of the year, we can move forward on those types of steps.

But as we are engaged in this, it is not just about the United States. It is not just about China. It is about our ability to proliferate this technology all over the world. And whether or not all of these other countries are going to be choosing our technology or someone else's is going to depend on its performance and whether or not it carries risk.

So us being able to do this isn't just about showing the American people that we have something safe and secure, it is about a product that we hope the rest of the world will very much engage on and be using and driving American innovation as well as American prosperity going forward. So that is something that, again, I hope we can work on together.

I yield the floor.

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

I rise in support of H.R. 9340, the Ratepayer Protection Act. Everyone knows that data centers are helping drive electricity prices to record highs this year. Just in the mid-Atlantic over the past few years, data centers have increased electric bills by over $30 billion. By and large, it has not been the data centers that have been footing the bill. It has been our constituents.

This problem is happening across the Nation, from Texas to California, from Florida to Washington State. It doesn't matter if you are in a red State or a blue State. Your prices have gone up.

Americans, Mr. Speaker, are concerned about what data centers and Big Tech's push for more AI means for their communities, jobs, property values, and the future. Electricity prices are skyrocketing. The electric grid is strained. Our clean air and water are being polluted. Noise is wearing on our communities' health and patience.

People, frankly, are sick and tired of corporate special interests and Big Tech billionaires taking over their neighborhoods and threatening their utility bills, air, water, and property.

Unfortunately, these very real concerns are repeatedly swept to the sidelines, minimized, or ridiculed by President Trump and Republican congressional leaders.

Last month, Trump posted on social media that communities that opposed data centers must want to end up being backward and poor. The President, in my opinion, is out of touch on this issue, and the American people are demanding action. That is the reality we are living in right now, where President Trump wants to continue to give Big Tech free rein to build data centers, with no Federal guardrails.

This bill is a start in addressing the impact that data centers have on our power bills, but this particular bill does not go far enough to ensure that Big Tech and other data center owners fully pay for the energy use and demand that they create. The bill requires State utility regulators to consider--and I say ``consider''--mandating that the electricity prices that data centers pay fully account for all their costs that they impose on the grid. This includes new and upgraded power plants, high-voltage transmission lines, and local power lines.

We can all agree that data centers must pay their fair share and that the data centers themselves allegedly agree, but this bill, I do believe, is one small step in that direction.

The bill, as I said, isn't perfect. It also only addresses one small part of the puzzle. It does not change how wholesale generation or transmission costs are allocated at the Federal level. It doesn't push for the transparency and data-transfer mechanisms that State regulators need to ensure that data centers actually are paying their fair share.

Data centers must bring their own clean electricity generation capacity onto the grid and be willing to get curtailed first when there are grid reliability issues.

Now, Representative Landsman from Ohio has a bill that would kick FERC into gear to start studying some of those issues. It passed the Energy and Commerce Committee unanimously nearly 2 months ago, but unfortunately, House Republican leadership did not include that bill on the floor this week.

Regardless of what happens with this bill in the Senate, I will make a commitment to the American people, Mr. Speaker. Americans across the country are furious about the unchecked development of data centers and artificial intelligence. They are furious about what it means for their communities, for their jobs, or even for their lives. I promise that this bill is not the end of our focus on these issues. It is only the beginning.

I have repeatedly said that we need strong guardrails on data centers and the impact they have on our communities, our environment, and our bills. If we can't establish those strong guardrails, then it is my belief that we will need to establish a moratorium on constructing new data centers.

This bill by itself, or even in combination with a number of other bills we are considering this week, is simply not enough, but it is a start.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), who is the ranking member of our Subcommittee on Energy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. I have no additional speakers.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. I do believe that this legislation is a first step, and therefore, I support it and would ask my colleagues to vote for it. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise in support of H.R. 9340, the Ratepayer Protection Act. Everyone knows that data centers are helping drive electricity prices to record highs this year. Just in the mid-Atlantic over the past few years, data centers have increased electric bills by over $30 billion. By and large, it has not been the data centers that have been footing the bill. It has been our constituents.

This problem is happening across the Nation, from Texas to California, from Florida to Washington State. It doesn't matter if you are in a red State or a blue State. Your prices have gone up.

Americans, Mr. Speaker, are concerned about what data centers and Big Tech's push for more AI means for their communities, jobs, property values, and the future. Electricity prices are skyrocketing. The electric grid is strained. Our clean air and water are being polluted. Noise is wearing on our communities' health and patience.

People, frankly, are sick and tired of corporate special interests and Big Tech billionaires taking over their neighborhoods and threatening their utility bills, air, water, and property.

Unfortunately, these very real concerns are repeatedly swept to the sidelines, minimized, or ridiculed by President Trump and Republican congressional leaders.

Last month, Trump posted on social media that communities that opposed data centers must want to end up being backward and poor. The President, in my opinion, is out of touch on this issue, and the American people are demanding action. That is the reality we are living in right now, where President Trump wants to continue to give Big Tech free rein to build data centers, with no Federal guardrails.

This bill is a start in addressing the impact that data centers have on our power bills, but this particular bill does not go far enough to ensure that Big Tech and other data center owners fully pay for the energy use and demand that they create. The bill requires State utility regulators to consider--and I say ``consider''--mandating that the electricity prices that data centers pay fully account for all their costs that they impose on the grid. This includes new and upgraded power plants, high-voltage transmission lines, and local power lines.

We can all agree that data centers must pay their fair share and that the data centers themselves allegedly agree, but this bill, I do believe, is one small step in that direction.

The bill, as I said, isn't perfect. It also only addresses one small part of the puzzle. It does not change how wholesale generation or transmission costs are allocated at the Federal level. It doesn't push for the transparency and data-transfer mechanisms that State regulators need to ensure that data centers actually are paying their fair share.

Data centers must bring their own clean electricity generation capacity onto the grid and be willing to get curtailed first when there are grid reliability issues.

Now, Representative Landsman from Ohio has a bill that would kick FERC into gear to start studying some of those issues. It passed the Energy and Commerce Committee unanimously nearly 2 months ago, but unfortunately, House Republican leadership did not include that bill on the floor this week.

Regardless of what happens with this bill in the Senate, I will make a commitment to the American people, Mr. Speaker. Americans across the country are furious about the unchecked development of data centers and artificial intelligence. They are furious about what it means for their communities, for their jobs, or even for their lives. I promise that this bill is not the end of our focus on these issues. It is only the beginning.

I have repeatedly said that we need strong guardrails on data centers and the impact they have on our communities, our environment, and our bills. If we can't establish those strong guardrails, then it is my belief that we will need to establish a moratorium on constructing new data centers.

This bill by itself, or even in combination with a number of other bills we are considering this week, is simply not enough, but it is a start.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), who is the ranking member of our Subcommittee on Energy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. I have no additional speakers.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. I do believe that this legislation is a first step, and therefore, I support it and would ask my colleagues to vote for it. I yield back the balance of my time.