Heinrich, a New Mexico Democrat, concentrates on energy and land issues: data centers paying their own grid costs, protection of federal public lands, and opposition to Arctic Refuge drilling, usually objecting to unanimous consent requests and laying out his reasons clause by clause. He often brings specific figures—Dallas Fed price estimates, lease sale revenues, visitation numbers—and states clear alternative proposals like his GRID Savings Act. His most frequent habit, by a wide margin, is making promises without a date, measure, or named actor: he repeatedly says he looks forward to working with a colleague or wants a law with “real teeth” without specifying what that would require. He also sometimes draws conclusions his stated reasons don’t fully support, such as treating a bill’s lack of a mandate as proof consumers get no protection. He rarely spends words on self-positioning, but he does frame Republican bills as political messaging and credits higher oil prices to Republican control.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .
Average grade
A
The average grade of 8 analysed statements. 1 more was analysed but was too short to grade.
93 / 100 over 8 statements
Signal89 / 100
Relevance100 / 100
Reasoning89 / 100
Respect100 / 100
Clarity94 / 100
Averaged over the 8 of 9 statements graded so far.
In their own words
Loses points more than most for
A conclusion that does not follow from the reasons given for it.2.5 times as often as most members.What the tags mean →×2.5
“I ask that two staff members working with our committee be allowed on the Senate floor while they serve with us.”
“Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to Michael Kellermann, serving a detail from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to the Committee on Natural Resources, and Francisco Alvarez, serving a fellowship from Sandia National Laboratories to the Committee on National Resources, for the duration of their assignments to the committee.”
Official Congressional Record
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to Michael Kellermann, serving a detail from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to the Committee on Natural Resources, and Francisco Alvarez, serving a fellowship from Sandia National Laboratories to the Committee on National Resources, for the duration of their assignments to the committee.
“I want to find a compromise on this land deal. Tribal trust land is not the same as public land. Giving federal land to a state is not an equal trade. Any deal must be fair to the tribes, the state, and the public who owns the federal land.”
“Mr. President, I look forward to working with my colleague from North Dakota on the issue. I think we need to find a path forward here. Tribal trust land is not the same as public land. Transferring lands from the Federal Government to the status State is not equivalent, and we need something that is fair to the Tribal constituents, the State, and the public that owns those Federal public lands.”
Official Congressional Record
Mr. President, I look forward to working with my colleague from North Dakota on the issue. I think we need to find a path forward here. Tribal trust land is not the same as public land. Transferring lands from the Federal Government to the status State is not equivalent, and we need something that is fair to the Tribal constituents, the State, and the public that owns those Federal public lands.
“I oppose this bill as it is written. It gives away public land without paying the American people back or giving them land of equal value in return.”
“Mr. President, this is like a three-legged stool where one of the legs is missing. I support cleaning up the parcels inside of the Tribal reservations that currently do not belong to them. But the public, who owns the Bureau of Land Management lands, also either need compensation or equal value. And this is simply a transfer of the public land of the United States of America that all of our constituents own, whether they are in North Dakota or New Mexico or Florida, without any compensation to the people of the United States. Whether transferring public land to counties, transferring public lands to States, or transferring public lands to private entities, without an equal value for the public, is simply something I cannot support.”
Official Congressional Record
Mr. President, this is like a three-legged stool where one of the legs is missing. I support cleaning up the parcels inside of the Tribal reservations that currently do not belong to them. But the public, who owns the Bureau of Land Management lands, also either need compensation or equal value. And this is simply a transfer of the public land of the United States of America that all of our constituents own, whether they are in North Dakota or New Mexico or Florida, without any compensation to the people of the United States. Whether transferring public land to counties, transferring public lands to States, or transferring public lands to private entities, without an equal value for the public, is simply something I cannot support.
“I object to this bill. It gives federal public land to North Dakota without giving the public equal land or money in return. It also lets the state pick which land to take without a public review.”
“Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I am actually pretty sympathetic to the land management challenges in the West that have come from a history of public land disposal and development, but I cannot support the approach this bill takes transferring public land to a State without a fair exchange for the public. Under the bill, if the State of North Dakota transferred State land to a Tribe, the State could then select Bureau of Land Management public land to replace them. The public would not receive any land or compensation in return for the land transferred to the State. What is more, the bill doesn’t specify which public land would be transferred out of public hands. It would allow the State to select any BLM-managed public land in North Dakota that hasn’t already been set aside. Land exchanges are an important tool for western public land management. I get that. I have supported many land exchanges in New Mexico and many other States, but land exchanges need to include a public process to determine which parcels are being exchanged. They must be in the public interest and be of equal value for the public and the other parties. I am willing to work with my colleague from North Dakota to find a solution to the State lands within Indian reservations in his State, but the solution can’t be simply giving away our public land, especially when we don’t know even which lands would be transferred away. I hope we can work together to find a different path forward on this issue but as the bill is currently drafted, I must object.”
Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I am actually pretty sympathetic to the land management challenges in the West that have come from a history of public land disposal and development, but I cannot support the approach this bill takes transferring public land to a State without a fair exchange for the public. Under the bill, if the State of North Dakota transferred State land to a Tribe, the State could then select Bureau of Land Management public land to replace them. The public would not receive any land or compensation in return for the land transferred to the State. What is more, the bill doesn’t specify which public land would be transferred out of public hands. It would allow the State to select any BLM-managed public land in North Dakota that hasn’t already been set aside. Land exchanges are an important tool for western public land management. I get that. I have supported many land exchanges in New Mexico and many other States, but land exchanges need to include a public process to determine which parcels are being exchanged. They must be in the public interest and be of equal value for the public and the other parties. I am willing to work with my colleague from North Dakota to find a solution to the State lands within Indian reservations in his State, but the solution can’t be simply giving away our public land, especially when we don’t know even which lands would be transferred away. I hope we can work together to find a different path forward on this issue but as the bill is currently drafted, I must object.
“I oppose this bill and urge my colleagues to vote no. It only asks states to consider making tech data centers pay for their own power grid upgrades, but it does not actually require them to pay. We need a law that forces data centers to cover these costs so everyday families do not get stuck with higher electric bills.”
“Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the motion to proceed to H.R. 9340. Electricity demand, as we all know, is growing, driven in large part by hyperscalers and data centers. Tech companies have promised to pay their fair share and not make American households pay the extra costs, but it is not enough to take their word for it, and it is not enough to merely tell States to consider--consider--making utilities charge data centers for all of the costs associated with the generation, additional transmission, and distribution upgrades necessary to serve them. States are already taking action. According to the Smart Electric Power Alliance, more than 30 States have adopted specific retail rate structures for large loads like data centers. H.R. 9340 simply does not protect Americans from high utility bills. Let me be clear. This bill has no--zero--requirement that data centers actually pay for their own grid upgrades. H.R. 9340 might make some Members of the Senate feel good about voting on a bill that sounds like it does something about data centers. Let me be clear. This is nothing more than a messaging bill on the eve of an election. Rather than voluntary pledges or vague suggestions to States, Congress needs to pass a law with real teeth. If voluntary pledges and suggestions worked, families and small businesses wouldn’t already be staring down rate hikes right now. So let’s require data centers to pay for their incremental costs and prohibit by law passing those costs on to consumers. I would urge my colleagues to vote no.”
Official Congressional Record
Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the motion to proceed to H.R. 9340. Electricity demand, as we all know, is growing, driven in large part by hyperscalers and data centers. Tech companies have promised to pay their fair share and not make American households pay the extra costs, but it is not enough to take their word for it, and it is not enough to merely tell States to consider--consider--making utilities charge data centers for all of the costs associated with the generation, additional transmission, and distribution upgrades necessary to serve them. States are already taking action. According to the Smart Electric Power Alliance, more than 30 States have adopted specific retail rate structures for large loads like data centers. H.R. 9340 simply does not protect Americans from high utility bills. Let me be clear. This bill has no--zero--requirement that data centers actually pay for their own grid upgrades. H.R. 9340 might make some Members of the Senate feel good about voting on a bill that sounds like it does something about data centers. Let me be clear. This is nothing more than a messaging bill on the eve of an election. Rather than voluntary pledges or vague suggestions to States, Congress needs to pass a law with real teeth. If voluntary pledges and suggestions worked, families and small businesses wouldn’t already be staring down rate hikes right now. So let’s require data centers to pay for their incremental costs and prohibit by law passing those costs on to consumers. I would urge my colleagues to vote no.
“I object to passing this bill. It allows oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which harms wildlife and public lands. It also ignores environmental laws, brings in very little money, and bypasses the regular committee process.”
“Mr. President, reserving the right to object, nestled in the far northeast corner of Alaska is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--not ANWR, which sounds like some country in the Middle East, but the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, one of the wildest and most untouched places in all of America. It is our land. It belongs to every single American. It is public land set aside by President Eisenhower to protect our amazing native wildlife. I have been blessed to see this refuge with my own eyes. I have seen the critical habitat on the coastal plain where caribou drop their calves. I have met with Alaskans whose way of life is sustained by those same caribou. The Arctic Refuge is also home to hundreds of iconic wildlife species, including 200 species of birds that have called this landscape home since long before humans even stepped on the continent. But that is only part of the story. It is also deeply connected to the traditions and daily life of people who have depended on that wildlife for thousands of years. Now, that said, the Arctic Refuge’s future is increasingly at risk. In the past year, we have seen relentless attacks on the Arctic Refuge from both the Trump administration and my Republican colleagues here in the Congress. Today, the Senator from Alaska is trying to force through another bill that would once again prioritize oil and gas over literally everything else, and he is doing so by using a procedural tactic to bypass the legislative process. Now, let me be clear. The Energy and Natural Resources Committee has not held a single hearing on this legislation despite being chaired by the Republicans; nor have we reported it out of the committee. But here is what I can tell you already. This bill is deeply unpopular. Even the oil and gas majors themselves don’t want to drill in the Arctic Refuge. And that is because development in the refuge is complicated, it is expensive, and it carries enormous reputational risk for these corporations. So to incentivize drilling there, this bill waives revenue requirements, meaning that the oil and gas industry pays less and the taxpayer gets less. I have been around long enough to remember a time when this same Republican Party promised the American people that they would get $1 billion--billion with a ``b’’--from these lease sales in the Arctic Refuge. Right now, those lease sales have secured $9 million. They seem to be missing a few zeroes--especially when it is sacrificing priceless public lands. I came to the Senate floor back in December when Republicans first overturned the management plan for the Arctic Refuge to warn that in order for drilling in the Arctic to be economical, oil prices would have to be at least $75 a barrel, just to break even on oil from the refuge. Well, with full control of the House, the Senate, and the White House, my colleagues have managed to make that math finally work. Thanks to the war in Iran, today, oil prices are hovering near $100 a barrel. We all feel that at the pump. I guess the President finally got his energy emergency, and it is one of his own creation. The reality is that oil from the Arctic Refuge won’t solve the global instability that was caused by waging an illegal war in Iran. What it will cause is devastating impacts on that landscape, forever changing this landscape and the wildlife that depend on it, which is why his bill also waives all the environmental laws and deems environmental studies complete. So there won’t be an accounting of the impacts this development would have on the caribou, whose 1,500-mile migration ends there, or the hundreds of species that live there, like the polar bear and musk ox, or the people who rely on the area for subsistence, which is why this bill also prohibits future litigation on oil and gas authorization. The bill does not stop with the Arctic Refuge. It would also ensure that subsistence rights and conservation on some of the most unique and special public lands in the western Arctic could never be evaluated again. It paves the way for a management framework where automatic approvals of hundreds of fossil fuel projects are not only possible, they are guaranteed. We could be discussing ways to lower electricity costs, how to bring down the price of diesel, but, instead, here we are again trying to drill in a national wildlife refuge. I know there are some corners of the universe that believe this is part of a secret plan to promote New Mexico energy at the expense of Alaska energy. I want to be clear. I support oil and gas development in the right places. As the Senator from Alaska has stated many times, New Mexico does its part. But I don’t support drilling everywhere. I asked the Biden administration to set aside Chaco Canyon for that very reason, and I especially do not support drilling in the crown jewel of America’s National Wildlife System. Therefore, I do object.”
Official Congressional Record
Mr. President, reserving the right to object, nestled in the far northeast corner of Alaska is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--not ANWR, which sounds like some country in the Middle East, but the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, one of the wildest and most untouched places in all of America. It is our land. It belongs to every single American. It is public land set aside by President Eisenhower to protect our amazing native wildlife. I have been blessed to see this refuge with my own eyes. I have seen the critical habitat on the coastal plain where caribou drop their calves. I have met with Alaskans whose way of life is sustained by those same caribou. The Arctic Refuge is also home to hundreds of iconic wildlife species, including 200 species of birds that have called this landscape home since long before humans even stepped on the continent. But that is only part of the story. It is also deeply connected to the traditions and daily life of people who have depended on that wildlife for thousands of years. Now, that said, the Arctic Refuge’s future is increasingly at risk. In the past year, we have seen relentless attacks on the Arctic Refuge from both the Trump administration and my Republican colleagues here in the Congress. Today, the Senator from Alaska is trying to force through another bill that would once again prioritize oil and gas over literally everything else, and he is doing so by using a procedural tactic to bypass the legislative process. Now, let me be clear. The Energy and Natural Resources Committee has not held a single hearing on this legislation despite being chaired by the Republicans; nor have we reported it out of the committee. But here is what I can tell you already. This bill is deeply unpopular. Even the oil and gas majors themselves don’t want to drill in the Arctic Refuge. And that is because development in the refuge is complicated, it is expensive, and it carries enormous reputational risk for these corporations. So to incentivize drilling there, this bill waives revenue requirements, meaning that the oil and gas industry pays less and the taxpayer gets less. I have been around long enough to remember a time when this same Republican Party promised the American people that they would get $1 billion--billion with a ``b’’--from these lease sales in the Arctic Refuge. Right now, those lease sales have secured $9 million. They seem to be missing a few zeroes--especially when it is sacrificing priceless public lands. I came to the Senate floor back in December when Republicans first overturned the management plan for the Arctic Refuge to warn that in order for drilling in the Arctic to be economical, oil prices would have to be at least $75 a barrel, just to break even on oil from the refuge. Well, with full control of the House, the Senate, and the White House, my colleagues have managed to make that math finally work. Thanks to the war in Iran, today, oil prices are hovering near $100 a barrel. We all feel that at the pump. I guess the President finally got his energy emergency, and it is one of his own creation. The reality is that oil from the Arctic Refuge won’t solve the global instability that was caused by waging an illegal war in Iran. What it will cause is devastating impacts on that landscape, forever changing this landscape and the wildlife that depend on it, which is why his bill also waives all the environmental laws and deems environmental studies complete. So there won’t be an accounting of the impacts this development would have on the caribou, whose 1,500-mile migration ends there, or the hundreds of species that live there, like the polar bear and musk ox, or the people who rely on the area for subsistence, which is why this bill also prohibits future litigation on oil and gas authorization. The bill does not stop with the Arctic Refuge. It would also ensure that subsistence rights and conservation on some of the most unique and special public lands in the western Arctic could never be evaluated again. It paves the way for a management framework where automatic approvals of hundreds of fossil fuel projects are not only possible, they are guaranteed. We could be discussing ways to lower electricity costs, how to bring down the price of diesel, but, instead, here we are again trying to drill in a national wildlife refuge. I know there are some corners of the universe that believe this is part of a secret plan to promote New Mexico energy at the expense of Alaska energy. I want to be clear. I support oil and gas development in the right places. As the Senator from Alaska has stated many times, New Mexico does its part. But I don’t support drilling everywhere. I asked the Biden administration to set aside Chaco Canyon for that very reason, and I especially do not support drilling in the crown jewel of America’s National Wildlife System. Therefore, I do object.
“I ask the Senate to pass this bill right now without any more debate.”
“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.”
Official Congressional Record
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.
“I oppose this bill because it is too weak. AI data centers are using huge amounts of power and driving up electric bills for families. This bill only asks states to consider making tech companies pay for electric grid upgrades. We must require them to pay, and my bill does that.”
“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, 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.
“I am blocking this bill. It will hurt tourism and the economy in the Northern Mariana Islands. The current system already screens visitors strictly to keep us safe, and we should keep it.”
“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.”
Official Congressional Record
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.
