Discussion · Senate
Mark R. Warner Democrat
“I want the Senate to pass my bill on data centers instead of the Ratepayer Protection Act. The bill coming up tomorrow gives states two years to consider rules, with no penalties if they do nothing. That will not protect people from rising electric bills and water shortages. My bill requires data centers to report their water and power use and to follow environmental and distance standards. If they do not, they will lose big tax breaks.”
“Mr. President, I have spent the last couple of years trying to learn as much as I can about artificial intelligence and its upside, and still long AI in terms of innovational brain. I think there are some real challenges. I have to acknowledge, I did witness this afternoon something that was a little bit surreal. The President had brought together some of the leading leaders in the AI industry. And in a closed, quiet room, I guess they reached some level of moral agreement--whatever that means-- that they are going to try to make sure things are safe. As a matter a fact, they even went so far as to say all of the President’s critique about concerns about AI being a hoax or about data centers not a problem are suddenly being solved because the President has renamed AI, ``SI’’--superintelligence. I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry to think that the greatest innovation in my lifetime--I was in the tech business before I came to politics--it will be bigger than my old industry, wireless, bigger than the internet, bigger than cloud computing is--and with all upsides, there are downsides--they are suddenly going to be solved by the name change. But that is kind of the status of our political debate. Earlier today, I came down with two of my Democratic colleagues and said: As we get all these warnings from industry, from businesses that use AI tools, from national security, wouldn’t it be a good idea to put some basic safety precautions in place? We stripped away all of the others and said let’s just have a safety board hearing. I know the Presiding Officer has interest in this topic. I think I have yet to talk to a Member that doesn’t think some level of safety with this enormous innovation is appropriate. Well, that is not going take place before we finish before the elections. So I am back again this afternoon to talk about another piece of the AI debate that certainly needs congressional action, and that is the whole question about how we build out and ensure consumers don’t get stuck with the build-out of data centers. Now, this is something I know a little bit about. Virginia is the capital of data centers in our country, and there is enormous concern from neighbors and communities. Many of the worst examples of data centers were built 15, 20 years ago, but the industry has moved forward. I give credit there. But the angst about data centers--what I think is also reflective of the angst, generally, about AI--is not going away, no matter what the President wants to say. I would urge him to travel anywhere across Virginia, for that matter, anywhere across Kansas or Texas or anywhere else these data centers are being proposed because communities actually want to have a say in what happens in their backyard, what happens with their utility rates, what happens with their water usage, what happens with local communities signing nondisclosure agreements so the community doesn’t even know what they are getting until after the deal is cut. So I guess tomorrow, the Senate will turn their focus on the so- called Ratepayer Protection Act, which is supposed to answer all of these concerns about cost, about computing. The challenge is--and it could be a starting point. But here is what the bill does. It says: States can consider adopting a Federal standard that would hold data centers responsible for rising electricity bills, and then they get 2 years to consider that. Candidly, they could do that today. We have already taken some action in Virginia. And what happens if nobody takes up that offer? Anything happen to these data centers? Anything happen to those communities? Well, nothing. So I think we need real legislation on this. We need legislation that actually has some boundaries. This should not be optional. We have seen communities hit by skyrocketing electrical costs. We have seen communities where a lot of their water usage has gone up dramatically, and they are concerned about the water table. We have seen these data centers sometimes literally intrude right into neighborhoods. And I have heard the pushback from communities all across our Commonwealth. As a matter a fact, even the community that has got the most, that has received the most economic benefits, they recently--Loudoun County--they recently put a pause. I don’t think we can pause. I don’t think we can put the genie back in the bottle. But I would urge the Senate not to take this flimflam, do-nothing bill but actually take a look at my Data Center Tax Accountability and Disclosure Act, which I didn’t dream up in the last couple of days but put forward much earlier this summer on an issue that I have been working on for a couple of years. What we can’t rely on is simply the good will of these hyperscalers and these companies. Some are well-intentioned; some are not. So we need to make sure we have got accurate information about power usage, water usage, setbacks, backup power, get rid of nondisclosure agreements. My legislation will require--not invite--but require that information to come forward and put a penalty in place at a relatively small amount if they don’t submit that. But the real bite and the only thing that is really going to change this behavior--and, frankly, earn back some of the communities’ trust-- is if there is a tool. And, frankly, I have had ongoing discussions with most of the hyperscalers who are building out these data centers who, frankly, think my piece of legislation makes some sense. So the second half of my legislation would say: If you don’t meet Gold LEED or Platinum LEED standards, which are already established--if you don’t show how you are bringing your own clean power or power, if you don’t have criteria on water usage--and that has gotten better because more of these data centers now have circulatory systems, if you don’t have setbacks from neighborhoods, if you use nondisclosure agreements, what it would say is: Well, if you are going to do all that and not meet those standards, then you shouldn’t get bonus depreciation. I am not going to raise anybody’s taxes, but we have given these hyperscalers, we have given these data center builders enormous tax benefits and bonus depreciation where they can write off the cost of these very expensive centers all in the first year. I don’t want to take that away. I am not raising anybody’s taxes, but I am saying you shouldn’t get all the benefits upfront if you don’t provide to the community some guarantees about water, power, setbacks, community involvement. If the community then wants to go over--a hyperscaler wants to come in and say: We will help provide--I think in Louisiana--some additional benefits to your schools, have at it. But you have got to set a Federal baseline so that communities don’t feel they are getting suckered, and the ability to make sure we don’t give away these tax benefits without that minimum guarantee, I think, has a lot of benefit. Just today, we learned that Microsoft saved about $10 billion in taxes on using accelerated depreciation, a bonus depreciation; Meta saved about $16 billion, $15.9 billion from using bonus depreciation. I have reached out to these companies. They understand that the game has changed. They have to be more engaged. I think many of the hyperscalers would meet these new standards, but unless we put some consequences, I think we are going to completely miss the boat. It is kind of like saying, even though the AI companies themselves are saying: Gosh, we are really worried about safety, none of the responsible ones realize they can simply say: Just trust us. The idea that these largest companies in the world--and I know the CEOs and many of them are good people. But the idea, after we all have experienced some of the ups and downs of social media, we are going to turn the same power over to the same group of CEOs and say: We are going to trust you to figure this all out on your own without any public input. I keep thinking back, would I ever climb on an airplane that hadn’t had a safety inspection? That is what we are thinking about on overall AI safety and these models being released. But at least tomorrow, if the Senate takes up this Ratepayer Reduction Act, I hope and I would--I am not sure what I am going to do on the vote tomorrow. But I would say the Ratepayer Production Act is a figleaf. I know people will say, my colleagues might say: Well, why don’t you take half a loaf? You know, I am pretty involved in every bipartisan action. You know, take half a loaf means you can keep working on it. But the underlying bill isn’t half a loaf; it is the promise of maybe one slice of that bread 2 years down from now. The anger in my State and in every State across the country on this issue is not going to wait 2 years to have some kind of optional-- optional, no penalty, but optional review where frankly the pitchforks are out already. So I hope that I can encourage my colleagues to join me in passing the Data Center Tax Accountability and Disclosure Act, one that I have already socialized within industry, one that would put some mandatory requirements but also put some real teeth in this very important issue. I know my colleagues coming want to raise other issues. I will yield the floor, but these issues are not going to disappear. And simply punting or saying to industry: Trust us--and I come from the tech industry--is not going to satisfy the concerns of the American people. The sooner we get to work on serious business, the sooner we can make sure that we benefit from all of this AI innovation that I do think lies in wait--because if we have a mistake or we have a challenge and something happens, all of this innovation could go away because the American people are already enormously suspect about AI. They are already enormously concerned at a 90-10 ratio about data centers. It is time for us to act and not simply punt. I yield the floor.”
Mr. President, I have spent the last couple of years trying to learn as much as I can about artificial intelligence and its upside, and still long AI in terms of innovational brain. I think there are some real challenges. I have to acknowledge, I did witness this afternoon something that was a little bit surreal. The President had brought together some of the leading leaders in the AI industry. And in a closed, quiet room, I guess they reached some level of moral agreement--whatever that means-- that they are going to try to make sure things are safe. As a matter a fact, they even went so far as to say all of the President’s critique about concerns about AI being a hoax or about data centers not a problem are suddenly being solved because the President has renamed AI, ``SI’’--superintelligence. I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry to think that the greatest innovation in my lifetime--I was in the tech business before I came to politics--it will be bigger than my old industry, wireless, bigger than the internet, bigger than cloud computing is--and with all upsides, there are downsides--they are suddenly going to be solved by the name change. But that is kind of the status of our political debate. Earlier today, I came down with two of my Democratic colleagues and said: As we get all these warnings from industry, from businesses that use AI tools, from national security, wouldn’t it be a good idea to put some basic safety precautions in place? We stripped away all of the others and said let’s just have a safety board hearing. I know the Presiding Officer has interest in this topic. I think I have yet to talk to a Member that doesn’t think some level of safety with this enormous innovation is appropriate. Well, that is not going take place before we finish before the elections. So I am back again this afternoon to talk about another piece of the AI debate that certainly needs congressional action, and that is the whole question about how we build out and ensure consumers don’t get stuck with the build-out of data centers. Now, this is something I know a little bit about. Virginia is the capital of data centers in our country, and there is enormous concern from neighbors and communities. Many of the worst examples of data centers were built 15, 20 years ago, but the industry has moved forward. I give credit there. But the angst about data centers--what I think is also reflective of the angst, generally, about AI--is not going away, no matter what the President wants to say. I would urge him to travel anywhere across Virginia, for that matter, anywhere across Kansas or Texas or anywhere else these data centers are being proposed because communities actually want to have a say in what happens in their backyard, what happens with their utility rates, what happens with their water usage, what happens with local communities signing nondisclosure agreements so the community doesn’t even know what they are getting until after the deal is cut. So I guess tomorrow, the Senate will turn their focus on the so- called Ratepayer Protection Act, which is supposed to answer all of these concerns about cost, about computing. The challenge is--and it could be a starting point. But here is what the bill does. It says: States can consider adopting a Federal standard that would hold data centers responsible for rising electricity bills, and then they get 2 years to consider that. Candidly, they could do that today. We have already taken some action in Virginia. And what happens if nobody takes up that offer? Anything happen to these data centers? Anything happen to those communities? Well, nothing. So I think we need real legislation on this. We need legislation that actually has some boundaries. This should not be optional. We have seen communities hit by skyrocketing electrical costs. We have seen communities where a lot of their water usage has gone up dramatically, and they are concerned about the water table. We have seen these data centers sometimes literally intrude right into neighborhoods. And I have heard the pushback from communities all across our Commonwealth. As a matter a fact, even the community that has got the most, that has received the most economic benefits, they recently--Loudoun County--they recently put a pause. I don’t think we can pause. I don’t think we can put the genie back in the bottle. But I would urge the Senate not to take this flimflam, do-nothing bill but actually take a look at my Data Center Tax Accountability and Disclosure Act, which I didn’t dream up in the last couple of days but put forward much earlier this summer on an issue that I have been working on for a couple of years. What we can’t rely on is simply the good will of these hyperscalers and these companies. Some are well-intentioned; some are not. So we need to make sure we have got accurate information about power usage, water usage, setbacks, backup power, get rid of nondisclosure agreements. My legislation will require--not invite--but require that information to come forward and put a penalty in place at a relatively small amount if they don’t submit that. But the real bite and the only thing that is really going to change this behavior--and, frankly, earn back some of the communities’ trust-- is if there is a tool. And, frankly, I have had ongoing discussions with most of the hyperscalers who are building out these data centers who, frankly, think my piece of legislation makes some sense. So the second half of my legislation would say: If you don’t meet Gold LEED or Platinum LEED standards, which are already established--if you don’t show how you are bringing your own clean power or power, if you don’t have criteria on water usage--and that has gotten better because more of these data centers now have circulatory systems, if you don’t have setbacks from neighborhoods, if you use nondisclosure agreements, what it would say is: Well, if you are going to do all that and not meet those standards, then you shouldn’t get bonus depreciation. I am not going to raise anybody’s taxes, but we have given these hyperscalers, we have given these data center builders enormous tax benefits and bonus depreciation where they can write off the cost of these very expensive centers all in the first year. I don’t want to take that away. I am not raising anybody’s taxes, but I am saying you shouldn’t get all the benefits upfront if you don’t provide to the community some guarantees about water, power, setbacks, community involvement. If the community then wants to go over--a hyperscaler wants to come in and say: We will help provide--I think in Louisiana--some additional benefits to your schools, have at it. But you have got to set a Federal baseline so that communities don’t feel they are getting suckered, and the ability to make sure we don’t give away these tax benefits without that minimum guarantee, I think, has a lot of benefit. Just today, we learned that Microsoft saved about $10 billion in taxes on using accelerated depreciation, a bonus depreciation; Meta saved about $16 billion, $15.9 billion from using bonus depreciation. I have reached out to these companies. They understand that the game has changed. They have to be more engaged. I think many of the hyperscalers would meet these new standards, but unless we put some consequences, I think we are going to completely miss the boat. It is kind of like saying, even though the AI companies themselves are saying: Gosh, we are really worried about safety, none of the responsible ones realize they can simply say: Just trust us. The idea that these largest companies in the world--and I know the CEOs and many of them are good people. But the idea, after we all have experienced some of the ups and downs of social media, we are going to turn the same power over to the same group of CEOs and say: We are going to trust you to figure this all out on your own without any public input. I keep thinking back, would I ever climb on an airplane that hadn’t had a safety inspection? That is what we are thinking about on overall AI safety and these models being released. But at least tomorrow, if the Senate takes up this Ratepayer Reduction Act, I hope and I would--I am not sure what I am going to do on the vote tomorrow. But I would say the Ratepayer Production Act is a figleaf. I know people will say, my colleagues might say: Well, why don’t you take half a loaf? You know, I am pretty involved in every bipartisan action. You know, take half a loaf means you can keep working on it. But the underlying bill isn’t half a loaf; it is the promise of maybe one slice of that bread 2 years down from now. The anger in my State and in every State across the country on this issue is not going to wait 2 years to have some kind of optional-- optional, no penalty, but optional review where frankly the pitchforks are out already. So I hope that I can encourage my colleagues to join me in passing the Data Center Tax Accountability and Disclosure Act, one that I have already socialized within industry, one that would put some mandatory requirements but also put some real teeth in this very important issue. I know my colleagues coming want to raise other issues. I will yield the floor, but these issues are not going to disappear. And simply punting or saying to industry: Trust us--and I come from the tech industry--is not going to satisfy the concerns of the American people. The sooner we get to work on serious business, the sooner we can make sure that we benefit from all of this AI innovation that I do think lies in wait--because if we have a mistake or we have a challenge and something happens, all of this innovation could go away because the American people are already enormously suspect about AI. They are already enormously concerned at a 90-10 ratio about data centers. It is time for us to act and not simply punt. I yield the floor.