[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 139 (Monday, September 9, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Page S5869]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



            National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor

  Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I, like many of my colleagues, spent a 
lot of time in our home States during the month of August and early 
September, and I am ready to come back and go to work. I am pleased to 
report that I had a number of conversations about things that we are 
doing and not doing with the citizens of the State of Kansas.
  I traveled from east to west and north to south, from Elwood in the 
northeast corner to Sedan in southeast Kansas, to St. Francis and 
Sharon Springs in the far western part of our State, southwest corner, 
to Liberal, KS.
  And I rise today to speak on behalf of many Kansans on a couple of 
topics. I would tell my colleagues: Many of my constituents are angry 
and afraid of potentially losing their homes, farms, and businesses, 
and their land as a result of the Department of Energy's proposed 
National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor.
  During August, Kansans from across the State--but particularly those 
who are in line for this corridor--raised their concerns with me about 
this proposal and that it would give way to a large-scale Federal 
Government intervention in rural America, in rural Kansas.
  One women in Downs, KS, shared how her home sits within the proposed 
corridor, and she is fearful of how the proposed transmission line 
would impact her family.
  By designating this corridor, the Department of Energy opens up the 
door for potential officials from the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission to steamroll State regulators by overriding their decisions 
on whether or not to site electric transmission lines.
  The Federal Government should not be in the business of condemning 
land for eminent domain, especially for a transmission project that was 
rejected by a State regulator.
  Kansans know these decisions should not be made by folks in 
Washington, DC, who live hundreds and hundreds of miles away.
  That is why I am introducing legislation with Congressman Tracey 
Mann, my successor in the First District of Kansas, to prevent the 
Federal Government from possessing landowner's property without their 
consent for these transmission projects.
  In addition to this legislation, I have also been engaged with the 
Department of Energy, who has assured me they will continue to accept 
comments and take them into consideration through the next phase of 
this proposal.
  After an unacceptably short comment period, it is critical the 
Department of Energy fully understands the objections my constituents 
have with this proposal.
  Protecting the Kansas way of life involves standing up for our 
smallest towns and for family farms, many of which have been passed 
down generation to generation.
  As these proposals move forward, I will continue to work to defend 
Kansas agriculture, small businesses, and the rights of property owners 
across our State from Federal overreach.
  We must--we must--make certain that the Federal taxpayer dollars are 
not used for eminent domain and that decisions about electrical 
transition siting be left in Kansas, not in Washington, DC.