“A thousand new data centers are coming. They need lots of electricity. Big companies should pay for the power upgrades they need. Regular people shouldn't pay for it. This bill makes big companies pay. It will help us build more data centers faster. It will keep prices lower for families. The House passed this bill almost unanimously. The Senate should pass it right now too. I want unanimous consent for the Senate to pass this bill immediately.”

“I want the Senate to pass this bill right now. Tech companies are building about 1,000 new data centers over the next five years. This bill makes sure those companies pay for the extra power lines and electricity they need, so regular families do not see their electric bills go up.”

“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. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cramer). Is there an objection? The Senator from New Mexico.”

“I object to this bill. My colleague's bill was better. It would have made data centers pay before they are built. But Democrats blocked it. They want high electricity prices. They want to use that to win elections. I don't like that. I object.”

“I object to this request. We should have passed the bill from my Ohio colleague instead. His bill would make data centers pay a deposit before building, which would quickly lower electricity costs for taxpayers. This other bill just adds more federal rules and red tape. Democrats blocked a good bill that would have helped people, and power bills will keep going up because of it.”

“Mr. President, reserving my right to object, I just want to make it crystal clear for everybody as to what just happened. If we had passed my colleague from Ohio's bill--the one he spent an enormous amount of time writing, the bill that he spent enormous time in lobbying support for from the House of Representatives--all we had to do was not have an objection from a Democrat Senator. That bill would have become law today, and taxpayers all over America and electricity users all over this country would have seen immediate relief. We would have advanced the ball. The term ``do-nothing Congress'' exists for a reason. We absolutely accomplished that right now. We did nothing here in the Senate because of, again, Democrat obstruction. This bill would have done something. That is not nothing. So I applaud my colleague from Ohio for putting the work in and for having a massive, bipartisan win. By the way, just on policy alone in comparing the two solutions, the last thing we need is a new Federal interconnection queue to make Google pay for a transformer. My colleague from Ohio's bill would have actually required a deposit before steel is put in the ground for a new data center. The other would have required a FERC NOPR. Look that up. It is a bunch of bureaucratic nonsense. What you saw now is just, over and over again, Democrat obstruction after Democrat obstruction so they can just put up another TV ad saying that electricity prices are high so that they can win an election. Instead, the victim of all of this is the taxpayer of the United States of America, who is going to see electricity prices continue to go up, when we could have passed a law to have solved it. Instead, it is more games after more games. Like the American people, I am sick of it, and I know they are. For that reason, I object.”

“My bill passed the House almost unanimously. That means the Senate should pass it right away. The other guy's idea didn't pass the House. So he shouldn't block my bill. People want us to do something. We should do this. I will keep pushing for this bill. We can pass it with support from both parties. We should do it now.”

“I want the Senate to pass this bill right now. The House already passed it with almost everyone voting yes, 417 to 3. The American people want us to act on this, and I will keep pushing until we pass it.”

“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.”