Steve Scalise

“I want the House to pass this bill. It protects people from higher power bills by making big data centers pay for their own electricity upgrades. Data centers do not raise energy costs, and they bring jobs, lower taxes, and new money to local towns. Local communities should be able to welcome these projects and get the benefits.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee (Mr. Guthrie) for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this really important bill by my friend Mr. Evans from Colorado who led on this issue. Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the latest advancement in technology. If you think about the history of this great Nation as we celebrate 250 years of America, one of the things that America has been so successful at has been always being on the frontier of new innovations. In fact, in the last 150 years, America has led the world in advancements in technology. Today is no different. In fact, today, America is at the heart of the domination of technology all around the world. If you think about some of the simplest things we are able to do in our lives, that give us the ability to have more free time, or the things you can do on a cell phone that would have taken a supercomputer 30 years ago to do, that is because of advancements in technology. Artificial intelligence and data centers are no different. It is another advancement in technology. As we are advancing in technology, we have to do it the right way, Mr. Speaker, in a smart and thoughtful way. If you look at communities that have embraced data centers, some communities said it is not for me, and that is a choice communities make. The Federal Government is not the one making that decision. What we have always said, and what President Trump took the leadership in doing, is meeting with all of the Big Tech companies building these massive data centers and said just make sure as you are making these big investments in communities, you won’t add to the cost of a local community’s ratepayer electricity rates. The President got a commitment to do that. We are not fully codifying that. It is, in essence, a step in that direction what this bill is doing. But as the President did that, you saw companies going and making massive multibillion-dollar investments in some of our communities and helping those communities along the way, Mr. Speaker. That story does not get told. Frankly, I think that story needs to get told more. I have seen massive data centers in my home State of Louisiana. In fact, if you go to little Richland Parish, a rural part of north Louisiana that not a lot of people live in, not a lot of opportunities for wealth in that parish, Mr. Speaker, but then Meta decided to build a data center, and that data center grew and grew as the community embraced it. They worked with the community. They are building their own natural gas facilities. It is actually going to help the grid in that community because they are going to be paying their own way and anything extra they have is going to be off-loaded to the grid so the neighbors in that community will actually get lower utility rates. Do you know what else happened, Mr. Speaker? This is another part of the story that is not getting told enough, but the data center is still being built. It is up to about $50 billion in private funding that is being built in little Richland Parish. As they are building that data center, because of all of the increased sales tax collections to Richland Parish, they were able to give a bonus. I am not talking about the base salary of their schoolteachers. They gave a bonus to every schoolteacher in Richland Parish because of the building of that data center. Mr. Speaker, do you know how much every schoolteacher in Richland Parish received a few months ago because of the data center? They received a bonus of $50,000 per teacher because of the data center. Those are the stories that you are seeing in communities that have embraced it, where they worked with the local community. It is not a burden on that community. It is actually a tremendous benefit. Not only teachers will benefit, but small businesses are cropping up. Loudoun County in Virginia, Mr. Speaker, is another community that made the decision for themselves. It is not a Washington choice. It is a local community choice, and I think everybody would agree with that. If there are local communities that don’t want it, believe me there are other communities that will take those benefits. Loudoun County in Virginia got the benefits of their data centers to the tune of a 30 percent reduction in property taxes for every homeowner in Loudoun County, Virginia. They are benefiting from that still to this day, as well as the jobs that come along with it. They are benefiting from the investment, the buildings that come along, and the small business growth that we are seeing. There has been this assertion, Mr. Speaker, some of it funded by China, that data centers are driving up utility prices. There was a study done. In fact, the Institute for Energy Research did a State-by- State study in all 50 States of this country and they looked at energy costs, the kilowatt-per-hour cost in every State. Some States have data centers. Some States don’t. The study is titled: ``Have Data Centers Driven Up Electricity Prices?’’ Their conclusion was clearly no, they do not. There was no disparity in kilowatt hours per customer in States that have data centers and States that don’t. Again, a lot of that is because President Trump made all of the data centers, the companies that build them, give those pledges that they will not have a negative impact on the ratepayers. What they did find, Mr. Speaker, was quite interesting, and that was a disparity that does exist in electricity prices between States. It is not all States. What they ultimately looked at is States that have a unified government, all one party, either Republican or either Democrat. The States that have all unified Democratic Party control in those States actually have higher electricity costs than States that have all Republican. The Institute for Energy Research did the study. You can go find it online. It shows you State by State the kilowatt-per-hour cost. The reason it is rising is because a lot of those States that have unified Democratic government are also States that are losing population. Some hundreds of thousands to nearly millions of people have fled those States. As those States lose population because of bad policies, Mr. Speaker, their baseload capacity is the same. The cost to run their grid is the same. It is spread amongst fewer people because their bad policies are running hundreds of thousands or a million-plus people out of the State. The States that are growing, that have good government policies, and that are attracting people and jobs, those States have lower kilowatt- per-hour costs for their consumers because the same grid has the same fixed costs, but there is more people to spread the cost around so those people pay less. That is what actually is happening in this country. Look at all the States. Go look at the Institute for Energy Research study, Mr. Speaker, because it shows you what is really happening out there. There is a revolution happening. China is competing, and America is competing. We surely do not want China to win this war. America is staying at the forefront. I want us to stay at the forefront. Let locals make the choice and let consumers reap the benefits. That is what is happening right now, and this bill, by my friend Congressman Evans, ensures that we continue to see that growth continue. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption.”

• 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 am honoring my chief of staff, Megan Bel Miller, as she leaves my office. She was my first hire, helped write laws to aid our state after the oil spill, and led my team after I was shot. I want to thank her for her years of service.”

“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize someone whose leadership, service, and friendship have meant so much to me, Team Scalise, and the people of southeast Louisiana. I am talking about my chief of staff and senior leadership adviser, Megan Bel Miller. Megan has been part of my team from the very beginning. In fact, when I was first elected to Congress, she was the very first person that I hired. As my then-legislative director and longtime Energy and Commerce Committee staffer, Megan helped lead our work on some of the biggest issues facing not only our district but the Nation, including energy and healthcare. After the Deepwater Horizon disaster, she played a critical role in drafting and passing the RESTORE Act to help Louisiana communities recover and rebuild. When Megan first left our office in 2013, I stood right here on this House floor to recognize her service and said she was leaving for ``bigger and better things.’’ Luckily for me, those bigger and better things eventually led Megan back to Capitol Hill, this time as the chief of staff for my personal office in 2017. Just months later, when I was shot, I came to rely on Megan in ways that none of us could have imagined. Through it all, Megan’s leadership and friendship never wavered, and Jennifer and I will always be grateful for the way she helped my family and our team make it through that challenging time. Over the years, Megan has also been someone I have relied on for her expertise on policy and knowledge of this institution. She has become known for her deep knowledge of policy and process, her strong relationships on both sides of the aisle, and her ability to bring people together. She played a key role in helping secure a provision in the working families tax cut that increases the amount of revenue-sharing dollars that Louisiana and other Gulf Coast States receive each year from offshore drilling. Megan has always been someone I could count on for good advice, sound judgment, and an unwavering commitment to the people we serve. I call her the ``Geaux Getter’’ because no matter what the problem is that we have to solve, Megan just finds a way to get it done. Her impact can be seen not only in the policies that she shaped, but in the countless constituents she helped and staff members that she mentored along the way. Mr. Speaker, I can’t thank Megan enough for everything she has done for me, our office, and the American people. Thirteen years ago, I stood on this floor, and I said I would miss her, as she went on to bigger and better things. Today, I find myself saying it again. It has been a privilege to work alongside her all of these years and an even greater privilege to call her a friend. Jennifer and I wish Megan, Joel, Parker, and Caroline all the best in this next chapter. Best of luck to Megan and all of her friends and family in the gallery.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Speech in the House

  Signal 39 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“I want the House to pass this budget resolution. It supports our military and farmers, cuts taxes for working people, and protects our elections by requiring voters to show a photo ID.”

“Mr. Chairman, I thank my dear colleague from Texas for yielding. I am truly going to miss him, but he has got a lot of great work left to do as the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, not the least of which is this important resolution, which is being brought forward, Mr. Chairman, a resolution that is critical to ensuring the hallmark of democracy, and that is the right to vote: one person, one vote. If we look at all of the things that we have been working with President Trump to do to make life more affordable for working families, over and over again, we see nothing but obstruction from Democrats. It is sad to say. It is sad to see. The American people are watching a party that has become a rudderless ship running off the left edge, socialists taking over. Watching what is going on to that other party, look at some of the things we have been able to do, even with their obstruction: working to produce more energy in America so we can lower costs for American families, while every Democrat voted no, and working to lower tax rates for working families. Yes, no tax on overtime is a benefit that has helped over 30 million Americans. These aren’t the millionaires and the billionaires that Democrats go fight for every day. These are hardworking families making under $100,000 a year, many of them shift workers and law enforcement officers. Maybe they voted against that bill because they want to defund the police, not help police officers and firefighters have a little bit more money in their pockets. With no tax on overtime, no tax on tips, somebody making $32,000 a year on average has thousands more in their pocket now because of the work Republicans did. How did Republicans pay for it, Mr. Chairman? It was paid for by putting antifraud measures in that bill--yes, going after theft of American taxpayer dollars and not just small-time folks. There are foreign countries operating with criminal organizations in States like Minnesota. We saw it. We documented it. It couldn’t be stopped because we needed the measures. We tried to work with Democrats on it, but for whatever reason, every step of the way they blocked it. They blocked it until we put it in the reconciliation bill. Then when the tools were in place, President Trump was able to go out and recoup not millions but billions and tens of billions of dollars that we were able to take out of the hands of people stealing your money, and we put it in the pockets of hardworking families. Overtime workers, waiters, waitresses, senior citizens who now have a tax credit, all of that we paid for with money that was being stolen. Every step of the way, Democrats opposed it. They would rather the theft of your tax dollars go to fraudsters than hardworking families have their money back. Their obstruction is nothing new, Mr. Chairman. Then we get to today, where we say: Shouldn’t we make sure our men and women in uniform have the tools they need to do their job safely? Shouldn’t we make sure that our farmers get the relief they need so we can keep working to lower food costs? Oh, by the way, can’t we ensure the integrity of the American vote? These are basic things that most Americans understand. Democrats in Washington don’t. They go back home and give Fourth of July speeches. Then they get on an airplane, and a transformation happens. They get up here, and they start voting against the wishes of the American people over and over again. Why? Not just to defend fraudsters. If we know that requiring a picture ID, just something so basic that every American understands--which, by the way, those same Democrats have to show that picture ID to get on the airplane to come up here and vote for socialist policies. But they don’t want that to be the case when you vote. They would say: Don’t worry. There is no fraud. There is no fraud. Well, why is it just that today’s New York Post uncovered yet again what we have known all along? In New Jersey, they just admitted 6,600 noncitizens are on their rolls, many of them voting, voting in elections, illegals on their rolls voting. They document in this article many elections that were decided by just a small number of votes. In fact, the margin of the theft, the stolen votes are that margin. This can be stopped just by requiring a picture ID. Then some would say, well, then, why would anybody be against that? They will hide behind all of these other ruses, but they will vote ``no.’’ We have got a bill later today to say: Well, let’s ban Members of Congress from trading stocks, and people are going to watch the board on an issue that every American understands. Almost every Democrat is going to vote ``no.’’ People will say why is that? Because it requires a photo ID. What is so harmful about that? A person can’t go get an unlimited bowl of pasta at Olive Garden without showing a photo ID. Can we at least have the Olive Garden standard when we protect democracy and the franchise that we have to keep this great democracy? That is just requiring that you prove you are who you say you are. This, Mr. Chairman, is such a fundamental principle. It is not hard to explain to the American people, but it is actively opposed by Democrats in Congress. It just begs the question: Why? Who are they protecting? Who are they protecting with the ``no’’ vote, Mr. Chairman? If they know illegals are voting in many of these States where they don’t require photo ID, then why would they vote against the requirement? Why? It is a great question. Every American, Mr. Chairman, is going to be able to watch this vote and know where their Member of Congress is. It is critically important for accountability that we all stand up and be counted. I am strongly for this. I think it is critical we protect the sanctity of every American’s right to vote. If somebody else is stealing your vote because they are voting illegally-- thousands in New Jersey--then it takes away your right to vote, Mr. Chairman. We ought to be protecting everybody’s right to vote, especially those people who are legally allowed to vote, not people who shouldn’t be allowed by law to vote. Let’s pass this important resolution and get it over to the Senate so they can do their job and get this to the President’s desk.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Relevance 3 of 100

  Only 3% of this speech directly addressed the bill under debate.

  See full analysis →
• Little substance
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Signal 44 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →