Martin Heinrich

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the Senator from Ohio and I agree on one thing: AI data centers can mean higher costs for American families, and in a lot of places, they already do.

The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas found that data center demand has already pushed electricity prices across the Nation up by 2 to 6 percent--a number that they expect to increase to 20 to 30 percent by 2028. In the Mid-Atlantic region, that means an extra $840 per year, per family, for the next 2 years--840 bucks. We expect to see increases like this across the country as more AI data centers come online, but the Ratepayer Protection Act falls short of what we need to do to respond.

When I open my mail and unfold my electricity bill and read how much I owe for the month, it doesn't say that

I may pay that amount. It doesn't say that I should pay that amount. It is not optional. Just like every other bill-paying American family out there, I open that bill, and I have to pay it. The same needs to be true for AI data centers. If hyperscalers and other Big Tech developers need expensive new facilities and more energy, they should pay for it, not our hard-working families and small businesses.

I think the Senator from Ohio and I agree on that principle, and plenty of Big Tech companies have said that that is their plan. But I don't think it is enough to just take their word for it. It is not enough for us to tell States to consider making data centers pay for grid updates. Rather than voluntary pledges or suggestions to States, Congress needs to pass real legislation with real teeth.

That is why I introduced the GRID Savings Act--not a voluntary agreement--to require large load customers like data centers to pay for the facilities needed to connect them to the grid--not to consider it, not to make pledges, but to actually do it; to pay for the upgrades they need. That way, we can ensure reliable, low-cost energy to power everyday lives. My bill is what is needed to start to bring down energy prices.

We also need to do more to get data centers to actually engage with communities from the beginning to the very end. We need to conserve local resources, especially water. And we need to protect communities from air pollution by using clean energy and battery storage. But we are not going to get there with the bill that the Senator from Ohio has proposed.

Therefore, I object.

Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be discharged from further consideration of S. 5199, the GRID Savings Act, and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; 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, in reserving the right to object, this bill will needlessly punish the Northern Mariana Islands and significantly--or I should say further--harm its tourist economy, which is the islands' largest source of revenue and jobs.

There is a current program in place. The current program requires any visitors who come to the Northern Mariana Islands through this program to undergo a two-step vetting process by the Department of Homeland Security, including having an in-person interview. That program has already reduced visitation from the PRC from over 185,000 visitors down to 18 in 2026--not 18,000 but 18. The purpose is to ensure that visitors do not pose any risk to the United States but allow the islands' economy to grow. The current visa program was put in place after a long and thoughtful consultation between the United States and our territory the Northern Mariana Islands. It successfully balances both our national security needs and supports the economic vitality of the Northern Mariana Islands.

The Northern Mariana Islands are more than just an American territory; they are one of our most important partners in the Pacific to actually

counter China's influence in this critical theater. We can't ask them to further decimate their tourism economy. This legislation, as well meaning as it is, would certainly undermine the stability of our partner and American territory. We should not abolish the program. Instead, we need to ensure the Department of Homeland Security is doing sufficient screening to prevent visitation that poses a risk.

The Northern Mariana Islands do not have a voice in the Senate, and that is why I am objecting today in support of our partner in the Pacific.

While I oppose the passage of this bill, I do stand ready to work with Senator Scott and others to support the security of our Nation in a way that does not harm the people and government of the Northern Mariana Islands.

So I object to the request.

I ask for the yeas and nays.