Lauren Boebert

“I want the House to pass this bill. Big data centers use huge amounts of electricity, and they should pay for the extra power and power lines they need. Families and small businesses should not have to pay higher electric bills for them.”

“Madam Speaker, America is in a race for the future, and that future is artificial intelligence. We need to build data centers that will power American AI. We need to create jobs, grow our economy, and make sure that the next generation of technology is built right here in the United States. But there is one principle that we should never compromise: American families should not be forced to pay for someone else’s data center. That is exactly what the Ratepayer Protection Act addresses. If a massive data center wants to come in and consume hundreds of megawatts of electricity, it should pay the full incremental costs of providing that power, not the families struggling to pay their electric bills and not the small businesses trying to keep their doors open. The companies creating the demand should pay for the demand. This is not antibusiness. It is not anti-AI. It is certainly not antigrowth. It is common sense. In fact, when we get this right, the data centers can actually strengthen communities. Georgia Power was able to freeze residential rates for 3 years as large-load growth expanded. In Virginia, data centers took on a dramatically larger share of transmission costs while residential customers saw their share decline. In Loudoun County alone, data centers have generated $1.1 billion in tax revenue. Madam Speaker, let’s build. Let’s compete. Let’s win the AI race. Let’s also protect the people who keep this country running. The Ratepayer Protection Act gives States a practical tool to make sure that massive new electricity users pay their fair share while preserving State authority over their energy markets. America can lead the world in AI without making American families foot the bill. That is not a radical idea. That is responsible leadership, and I applaud my colleague from Colorado (Mr. Evans) for leading on this issue.”

• Reasons given
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Reasoning 100 of 100

  This statement drew 4 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

  See full analysis →

“I want this constitutional amendment to pass. It keeps the Supreme Court at nine justices. Democrats want to add more seats to the Court so they can fill it with liberal judges and push their agenda.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs) for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in defense of the judicial branch of the United States Government. The Supreme Court of the United States is not a partisan prize to be captured. It is an independent branch of our government, and it must remain impartial. My colleague’s amendment to limit the Supreme Court to nine Justices preserves judicial fairness, ensures unbiased decisionmaking, and upholds the constitutional duties of our Nation’s highest court. Some on the left have advocated for expanding the Court to 13 Justices, paving the way for the majority of leftwing ideologues to sit on the Supreme Court under future Presidential administrations. We cannot simply change the rules because one side thinks that they are not getting their way enough. That is not how a constitutional republic works, Mr. Speaker. This is what happens in the Third World, and it cannot happen here in America. Democratic Socialists, kind of an oxymoron, are on the rise, and they want to pack the Court so they can impose an agenda the American people never voted for. Look at what happened yesterday. Democrats could not even vote against socialism because their own party is overrun by self-proclaimed socialists. We already saw what the far left did under Joe Biden by opening our borders. Just imagine what they would do with a court packed with DSA judges. The proposed expansion of the Supreme Court is not about faithfully interpreting the laws of the United States and the Constitution. Rather, the expansion would support a radical leftist agenda, repugnant to the ideas in equality, liberty, and impartial justice under the law of our Founding Fathers. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption.”

“I want the House to pass my amendment. It stops transgender people from serving in the military. Other serious mental health conditions already disqualify people, and gender dysphoria should be treated the same way.”

“Madam Chair, since a member of this committee did not reserve the time, I reserve my right to close at this time. I would just say if gender dysphoria isn’t a mental illness, then why do 42 percent of those who identify as transgender attempt suicide? We don’t hand nuclear weapons and fighter jets to people in that kind of crisis. We shouldn’t start now. We should be helping these people in real ways rather than handing them weapons of destruction. This is a very serious issue that we should address right now. No other severe mental disorder gets a waiver into the United States military. Schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depression, they are all disqualifying. Gender dysphoria is no different, except politicians changed the label. My amendment treats it exactly the same. Madam Chair, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.”

• Reasons given
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Reasoning 100 of 100

  This statement drew 3 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

  See full analysis →

“I want to end funding for the Fulbright Program. It costs taxpayers nearly $300 million a year, promotes left-wing causes, and lets people from countries tied to our enemies enter the United States to spy on us.”

“Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of fiscal responsibility and protecting Americans from foreign adversaries. President Trump’s domestic policy is defined by his commitment to rid the Federal Government of waste, fraud, and abuse. It is time that Congress followed through on the President’s promise. Last year, the Fulbright Program cost the American taxpayers nearly $300 million, set to be repeated in next year’s State Department budget. My amendment returns these funds to the pockets of hardworking American taxpayers. The President’s FY27 budget proposed an 80-percent cut to the Fulbright Program and for good reason. For years, the Fulbright Program acted as a taxpayer-funded handout for trans fanatic, Green New Deal activists and agents of foreign powers seeking to undermine the United States of America. While the President confronted Fulbright’s board of directors about this injustice of their leftist bias, they resigned rather than face the truth. Every year, nearly 5,000 foreign applicants receive a Fulbright Scholarship. These recipients include citizens of countries with very close ties to adversaries, such as Russia, China, and North Korea, a known pathway for agents of foreign powers to enter the United States and spy on us. This is an unacceptable risk to the American people and our national security. The Fulbright Program is a bad deal for the American people, and my amendment restores fiscal responsibility and keeps our great Nation safe. For the good of our country and responsibility to every American taxpayer, we must act to end this harmful and wasteful program. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.”