TRANSCRIPT: Congresswoman Escobar Speaks on Meta Data Center, Drunk Driving During Appropriations Markup

Last night, Congresswoman Veronica Escobar (TX-16) spoke during the House Appropriations Committee mark up of the Fiscal Year 2027 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Bill, and the Fiscal Year 2027 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development (THUD), and Related Agencies Bill. In her remarks, she spoke on two amendments.

The first amendment was provided by Rep. Escobar to prohibit the use of federal funds to implement a policy proposed by President Trump that would clear the way for construction to begin on data centers without local input. This amendment was rejected by Republicans.

The second amendment was provided by Republicans to block federal agencies from researching technologies used to prevent drunk driving. It was passed by Republicans.

The videos can be found here and here, and a transcript of both parts can be found below:

Rep. Escobar Amendment (Data Centers)

Congresswoman Escobar: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment is about data centers, and I know I have stood up and spoken about data centers before in this committee. And I want to share with you all that in my community, the data center issue is probably the number one front and center issue. And if data centers haven't come to your community yet, they will, and hopefully we can do something to protect your community before that happens.

We know that many of our residents are already dealing with skyrocketing utility bills. In my community, we are dealing with a rapidly warming environment. In fact, El Paso is the third fastest warming community in America, behind Reno and behind Las Vegas. We are breaking records. Unfortunately, we have the dubious distinction of breaking heat records in my community now, and we have three data centers going up in our region already, with another one planned on our military installation. And these data centers are using gas turbines to more than double the electrical output. They need a lot of electricity. And in my community, we have issues with air quality. I am really concerned that we are going to reach a non attainment level in El Paso with the proliferation of these data centers.

I'm also worried about water. The drought that we have to deal with is real. And in El Paso for decades, we have regulated ourselves. We've xeriscaped lawns. People have pulled up, you know, their water-thirsty lawns and put xeriscape. We limit our showers. We only water our outdoor plants on certain days of the week during certain hours. But yet here come data centers that are going to use hundreds of gallons per day to keep them cool.

And I will tell you, it's not just my community that's concerned about the proliferation of these data centers. A recent Gallup poll found that 71% of Americans oppose building AI data centers in their backyards. 71% of Americans. This is a bipartisan issue with bipartisan concern.

The EPA's proposed rule revision to begin actual construction in the new source review, or the NSR, pre-construction permitting program, changes the definition of when a facility "begins actual construction to only require a Clean Air Act permit before constructing emitting units, not other facility components." And what this means is that a data center that relies on gas polluting generators like those in my community, they'd be able to begin millions of dollars worth of construction without permits and, more importantly, without the public comment period that these permits require.

One of the data center companies constructing a data center in my community is Meta, and Meta made all sorts of assurances before coming into the community, and I've been trying to get them to participate in the town hall with me.

And we have security at our town halls. We've never let our town halls get out of control. You know, like all of you, we have order to our conversations in the community. But constituents have real questions and they deserve answers. Meta has refused to engage with my community. We cannot let these big corporations have access to our natural resources without the public being involved, without there being a process.

And so that is what my amendment would do ensure that the public has the ability to have a public comment period before construction begins. Let's give our folks a chance to ask their questions and have a say in our own communities.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Republican Amendment (Drunk Driving)

Congresswoman Escobar: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to say to the author and the collaborators: I understand where you're coming from, and I am not - I think your motivations are good, but I do rise in opposition to this amendment.

Texas is one of the worst states when it comes to drunk driving. And in fact, let me read you some statistics. Texas is home to five cities with the highest rate of drunk driving fatalities, and unfortunately, my community has the dubious distinction of being the top offender. Houston, Fort Worth, Dallas, and Arlington all have alcohol related crash fatality rates between 46.3% and 51.9%. In El Paso, that number is 61%.

We should not be standing in the way of options provided to Congress. As my colleague from the state of Florida mentioned, we will have the ability to say no to technology that we think goes too far.

In my community, my constituents think Congress isn't doing enough to stop drunk driving. Vehicles are weapons when an impaired or drunk driver is behind the wheel. And absolutely, there's different forms of impairment for sure: distracted driving, texting while driving, changing radio stations, other drugs, and we have to think about that as well. But the statistics show that someone has driven drunk 80 times on average before they are finally caught.

And this is a crisis in many communities. There is no kill switch right now. Frankly, one of the organizations in my community, the Sober Streets movement, would probably love a kill switch because they are a club no one wants to be a part of. They have lost children, spouses, loved ones, to someone who didn't bother to order an Uber, a Lyft or get a ride home.

There's a lot of work we have to do as members to create safer communities, and I want to look at the menu of options. That's what the language in the bipartisan bill did. When we get the options before us, we can then debate those options. But why would we place limitations on something that is a crisis in many communities right now, and the research that's going in to finding solutions?

I'd like for us to do more, not less. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.