Skip to main content
GWGovwatch
CongressBillsCommitteesPresidentMoneyPulseMisconductElectionsMap
Donate

Weekly accountability digest

One email a week with new votes, moving bills, and misconduct updates. No spam.

GW

Govwatch. Public data about Congress, in one place, in plain English.

Built with public data. Not affiliated with the U.S. government.

Explore

  • Officials
  • Legislation
  • Committees
  • Congress Pulse
  • Trending Topics
  • Bipartisan Leaderboard
  • Weekly Digest
  • Misconduct
  • Predictions

Learn

  • How Congress Works
  • How a Bill Becomes Law
  • Campaign Finance 101
  • Glossary

Tools

  • My Representatives
  • Compare Members
  • Bill Watchlist
  • Search
  • District Map
  • Follow the Money
  • Watch Live

Site

  • About
  • Contact
  • Corrections
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Service

Data Sources

Congress.gov API v3
Bills, members, votes
GovInfo API
Floor speeches, reports, bill text
Federal Election Commission (FEC)
Campaign finance
VoteView (UCLA)
Ideology scores (DW-NOMINATE)
GovTrack.us
Misconduct data (CC0)
U.S. Census Bureau
District demographics

Data Last Updated

Bills & Votes: 2 hours ago
Support This Project

This site is free. Donations help cover hosting, API fees, and keeping the data fresh.

All data is sourced from official government APIs and public records. This site is for informational purposes only.

© 2026 Govwatch

Floor SpeechUrgent2026-09-30

RATEPAYER PROTECTION ACT

Chris Van Hollen
Chris Van Hollen
DMD · Senator
Share:
TaxesEnvironmentTechnology

Context

On 2026-09-30, Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) delivered a floor speech titled "RATEPAYER PROTECTION ACT" in the Senate.

Full Text

RATEPAYER PROTECTION ACT

Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 155 (Wednesday, September 30, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 155 (Wednesday, September 30, 2026)] [Senate] [Pages S5198-S5199] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] RATEPAYER PROTECTION ACT Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I cannot vote for a bill that promises protection but lacks the enforcement mechanisms needed to deliver on lowering Americans' electric bills. To add insult to injury, Republicans pushed for a vote on this without even taking the opportunity to consider real solutions, like my Power for the People Act. The Ratepayer Protection Act relies solely on a process that would ask States to consider implementing data center-specific rate classes, without any guarantee that these rate classes would be implemented and without any [[Page S5199]] of the additional measures needed to ensure that consumers are protected from rising electric bills caused by skyrocketing energy demand from data centers. Americans are facing an affordability crisis from the grocery store to the gas pump, and they deserve real solutions, which is why I filed my bill, the Power for the People Act, as an amendment to this bill. The Power for the People Act includes meaningful reforms that would actually hold data centers accountable for driving up energy prices, something that the Ratepayer Protection Act purports to do but cannot achieve on its own. Unfortunately, Republicans have provided no guarantees that we would consider amendments to the Ratepayer Protection Act. This body has repeatedly failed to address the real concerns of Americans struggling to make ends meet, with Republicans prioritizing tax breaks for the wealthy and big corporations and Trump's golden age for billionaires. Now the majority is claiming to address a real problem with the bill before us, with a solution that falls far short. The energy demand of data centers is unlike anything we have dealt with in recent history and our solutions need to meet the moment. My Power for the People Act protects consumers, creates good-paying jobs, and mitigates harm to the environment, but we have no assurance that it could be considered. Without the opportunity to provide amendments, the bill before us today is an empty gesture, leaving Americans shouldering Big Tech's costs with no relief. ____________________
View original source →