plentiful supply but we've had to pay a price today we find america is addicted to oil september eleventh two thousand and one and the hurricanes in the gulf region have shown the fragile state of our energy markets domestic disasters and terrorism can send energy prices spiraling out of control our energy resources are stretched to the limit and small supply disruptions ripple throughout the entire economy i believe that all americans as they see continued instability in the middle east in china and india and sustain gasoline prices around three fifty four dollars a gallon and c n n a g crisis on the horizon as you can see from this chart that i have up here our production of energy is almost stayed completely flat and will stay completely fat until about two thousand and twenty five and leslie do something about it and on the other side  consumption continues to escalate and so the difference between the two is the crisis we're now looking at this year alone we will spend about two hundred and fifty billion dollars to foreign countries mostly in the middle east just to buy oil adding the seven trillion dollars we've already spent in the last few decades america has become complacent and over dependent on  no matter what energy prices are we need to take responsibility for our reliance on imported energy and develop a secure or domestic fuel source i believe that part of the effort should be developing call collect good fuels america happens to be blessed with significant coal reserves coal plyers our homes fifty two percent of our electricity is derived from coal it has long been america's most abundant fuel resource and has driven our economy good economic growth since the industrial revolution cold to liquid technology lets america capitalize on a domestic resource every dollar invested in cold elected production will stay in america grow our economy and create jobs by displacing payment to foreign oil companies with the vets the domestic investment we will actually increase the amount of fuel available for other alternative fuels it will lower energy prices for american families improve the environment create thousands of jobs and bring billions of dollars in new investment to our local communities many of you may be asking one question right now if this technology is so great and could really replace expensive imports from the middle east why hasn't it been done already the answer is simple cost and market uncertainty a typical size cold the liquid plant costs between two and five billion dollars to construct with complicated plans and environmental permitting a new plant could take five to eight years to build this is a challenge for even the biggest risk takers on wall street raising the capital needed to develop a new technology is always difficult but the multi billion dollar investment scale of coal to liquid plants has made it nearly impossible on top of this is the uncertainty of the price of oil yesterday all you'll hit sixty dollars sixty nine dollars and nine cents a barrel an all time high soon we'll be seeing seventy dollars prices on a barrel of oil we have seen this dramatic rise in the last few years but investors are concerned that all prices could drop the low levels of the eighty's and make cold the liquid plans uncompetitive again but even the of oil prices were to drop that load in the next few decades i believe c t l plans would more than pay for itself by insulating us from supply shock and providing a secure domestic fuel source for our military businesses like airlines and trucking and the average american cars the challenge for america is to leverage the private investment required for these large expensive plants u s investors remember the last time synthetic fuels were promoted and the seventy's and remember the losses they took as audio prices collapsed in the eighty's the scale of investment uncertainty of oil prices and complicated environmental permitting processes have prevented the industry from taking roots in the united states we need to take an aggressive steps now to ensure that america does not continue to face high high heating and gasoline costs and relies so heavily on unstable and dangerous parts of the world for our energy i believe the answer is to prove provide government support to get cold the liquid technology off the ground at least it's one of the things that we must consider with my modest initial investments we can kick start the industry and then the government will get out of the way and let the marketplace take over i would rather the government not have any involvement in the cold to liquids but this industry needs assistance because of the threat  all tyrants like hugo chavez and technological challenges while these are legitimate challenges facing cold electrodes other issues have become more and more prominent during this debate in the last few weeks the environmental rhetoric has been strongly against coal fuels unfortunately too many people have repeated it without checking the facts the pick your opponents of coal paint is far from the truth and our fight for energy independence it shows the same misinform by as found in anti cold advertisements and environmental loot newsletters i want to tell you clearly and without reservation that cold to look good fuel will be a clean part of our energy future and i want to show you this right here and while some nitrogen and others air force test laboratories shows environmental reports that cold the liquid fuels will reduce the air pollutants that pose a threat to human health as you can see when you compare diesel in one well to wheel urban emissions from all decreasing in the cold the liquids area but all of these improvements and the promise of energy security is wiped away by but by a bit misleading claim that cold to liquids would produce twice as many carbon emissions as conventional peel that's just not true the production of cold liquid fuels does release carbon twice once during the gasification and another when burned like conventional fuels and engines but does not but does not mean cold the liquid plants have to release twice as much carbon emissions my m m requires carbon capture now listen to this i hope some people in their office are listening to this my am man that requires carbon capture but recognizes that there are limits to this technology today carbon capture is only part of the emission model nearly all the developers we have work would like to use bio mass called blended with the stock to to achieve a mission reductions believe the i have studied called t liquid extensively and reports from the e p a princeton university and the idaho national laboratories have shown cold electrodes lifecycle greenhouse gas emission rates will vary dramatically based on the technology feedstock and process used these researchers have shown that called the liquid process could one day produce a fuel that is carbon neutral i'm going to repeat that now these researchers have shown that cold  ed process could one day produce a fuel that is carbon rude girl no carbon emissions this is not a pie in the sky research using some of the same ideas of a plan plant in ohio one that will need some government support to get started will produce called the liquid diesel that has forty six percent trade greenhouse gas emissions this chart shows the life cycle of greenhouse gases emissions of different kinds of fuel based on the analysis of the national lab and on the left we have diesel fuel called the liquid fuels with no environmental technology called the liquid that uses carbon capture and cold the liquid that uses carbon capture and bio mass as you can see by the chart cold the liquid can be very clean and that is our goal for comparison i include gasoline an ethanol blend on the right if we support called the liquids and let the industry develop these carbon capture and bio mass technology we will reduce the emissions from more than corn base eighty five and more than sell you last week and that's currently what everybody wants the five is the big savior the new so you lost to get that all the ten is the big savior as you can see by this chart that is mixed with biomass that's the truth those are facts the sector should be given time like everyone else to develop the best technology and not rely on congress to pick it for them that is why i called the liquid fuel amendment set the environmental standard for cold the liquids at the same aggressive twenty percent life cycle reduction that chairman bingaman requires far biofuels the very same reduction that chairman begum in and his energy bill requires of biofuels is the one i have in this amendment every gallon of cold the liquids made with the help of my men would meet this standard and would be a gallon of oil we did not have to buy from the middle east by showing that limited government support is necessary and cold the liquid fuels will be as clean as bio fuels another reason to bust to support cold to liquid fuels is national security and i want to i want you all to look at this because this is the most important part of cold to liquid technology and putting it on this energy bill the military is the largest single purchaser in this country and the air force consumes fifty percent of this total i have spoken many times with the secretary of the air force and i'm proud to say that he has taken the lead develop developing this domestic resource last year the air force spent nearly seven billion dollars seven billion dollars alone on  you was over budget by one point six billion dollars for every one dollar change in the price of a barrel of oil it costs the air force about sixty million dollars a year that dramatically impacts that dramatic impact ten times worse for our commercial airline you can see if we do it the right way we can produce enough of our every ation fuel from this technology with a change in the way air the air force buy their their fuels if we change it from five to twenty years in terms of the amount of time that they can contract for we can have this kind of dramatic import  importance for our military with this in mind last summer the air force tested jet fuel with a fifty percent mix of fischer trope feel that's the coal t liquid process and a b fifty two bomber the results of these tests so far are nothing short of outstanding we already knew that these fuels are nearly zero in software and very low in nitrogen oxide and particulate matter emissions but we are learning very new benefits during these tests the air force demonstrated that this fuel that we're talking about burns significantly cleaner and burns significantly cooler than conventional jet fuel these characteristic allow our jets to have a smaller radar profile and lower heat signature and these advantages translate into better mileage reducing both fuel costs as well as greenhouse gas emissions in light of this the air force plans to test these fuels in the c seventeen cargo plane this year and it's embracing the goal of certifying the more than one point three billion gallons with fissured tropes cold to liquid fuels this will provide a safety net for our military to ensure a stable fuel supply regardless of the blow a global political politics of oil but only if we build a domestic industry to make the fuel for them let me turn to the two amendments we will consider today i am asking that you support the bunning domenici amendment that i have introduced with with senator craig center and z center matt martinez and senator hatch our amendment is the only amendment that will help create a cold dellec with industry first is a separate program that will not compete with biofuels in any way requires cold the liquid meet the same twenty percent lifecycle reduction of greenhouse gases that biofuels must meet the rest of this bill requires that requires cold the liquid facility to capture carbon dioxide and mandates only one six as much fuel as the renewable will fuel standards i am also urging my colleagues to oppose the tester being a month amendment this amendment is not and i  this is not a cold the liquid amendment it sets and ear responsible environmental standard and will just kick government support for this fuel into the future there amendment is opposed by twenty three members of the called the liquid coalition including industry airlines railroads and others said strict technology mandates for emissions that will stifle innovation and prevent nearly all domestic cold the liquid plants from moving forward limits the availability of the loan to fifty percent of plants because making it less effective than the already existing program that we passed in two thousand and five will take two years indeed rulemaking before the first dollar is ever allocated for a plant and in the greatest deception o it does not even require coal to be used in the cold to liquid process i'm committed to the cold the liquid fuel as a secure domestic  and environmentally sound fuel the tester amendment looks at coal to liquids as an afterthought i think my proposal should pass for any one  arguments that we have made for coal to liquid fuels it will create jobs bring down the price of fuel bring down the price of what you pay at the pump fuel our military basically displace foreign oil and hance our national security adviser you two are cold but my final and perhaps most important point is that cold to liquid fuels deserve fair treatment i ask that my colleagues look at what we have done biofuels in america and the benefit to we have given to our farm commuters farm communities throughout the midwest that our uniting to invest in ethanol and  bio mass money from wall street is flowing into our rural rural communities developing interest trucks here and creating jobs and many parts of america i have seen new hope in agriculture and new ways for farmers to realize greater values for their crops it all started here is me with the ethanol fuel mandate ethanol fuel my amendment will create the exact same mandate for cold to liquid fuels and the same environmental standards i think our coal communities deserve the same support that we gave our farm community will you tell the governors of the southern states pennsylvania ohio illinois north to go to colorado nevada and montana that you oppose their efforts to bring cold the liquid plants to their states will you tell the men and women who serve as coal miners construction workers truck drivers train conductors and plant operators that they deserve less support than our farmers will you tell all americans that you would rather keep buying all you will from the middle east instead of making fuel right here in america if you vote against the binding the minute she amendment that is exactly what you are telling them thank you mr president i yield the floor the senator from colorado is recognized mr president  parliamentary inquiry as to the amount of time left on either side souter from kentucky has fifty seconds has five zero seconds remaining the majority say thirty minutes remain minutes mr president i write today to speak on behalf of amendment sixteen fourteen which is the amendment which senator tester senator byrd senator rockefeller senator bingaman and i are called sponsoring perhaps the most important work that we could be doing because how we move from our current chaos on energy here in america to a reality of energy independence really has got to be a hallmark of the twenty percent rate is  absolute imperative for us to get to the kind of energy independence that has been desired in this country for now over forty years but which has been very long on rhetoric and very little on action and so this is a our opportunity today as the united states senate and in the days ahead to speak out loud and clear about the importance of energy and how we move forward in this world from my perspective mr president i believe we have no choice i believe the innes capable forces of our civilization today require us to do nothing less than to embrace this concept of a clean energy the future with a sense of moral imperative that president carter spoke about now over thirty years ago i believe that those three inescapable forces that are with us today are first of all national security and when you say the rockets that are raining down from  northern israel you have to ask yourself where is that money coming from that is funding those rockets and where is that money coming from that is funding ten thousand members of the militia but we know it is coming from the sixty seven dollars a barrel oil is being paid  day for oil that is imported from from those countries and today indeed when one looks at the fact that we're importing in market with sixty six sixty seven percent of the oil that we use in america was imported from foreign sources so our national security requires us  to make sure that we move forward with this imperative before us today secondly our environmental security and how we deal with issues of climate change has come i think to a reality here in america that  world needs to deal with the issue of climate change in a realistic way and we need to do it now we we cannot wait even the president of the united states here to be a person that didn't really believe on about global warming in the state of the union as he address d the congress he said that he wanted the united states congress this year to address the issue of global warming and the third inescapable force which compels us to move forward on the issue of energy has to do again with the economics of our nation and making sure that we're not subject to the volatility that we have seen so often in in the past so mr president as i come to the floor to speak on behalf of the coal amendment the coal gasification amendment which senator spot tester is  lead sponsor on i want to say that what we are proposing fits very well into into into making sure that where adopting this clean energy future i am not against the development of call i know what the call is in the west in places like montana and other places in places like my own state of colorado where the coal miners and the mines on the western slope know the importance of color and the importance of clean energy and the amendment that we have introduced will help us reduce our dependence on foreign oil by making better use of our vast coal resources here at home fields fertilizers chemicals and consumer products derived from coal produced responsibly with coal gasification technology can replace much of the imported oil that we use on a daily basis mr president call this the united states or a list of saudi arabia it's our most abundant domestic energy resource that produces more than fifty percent of our electricity and as a nation we have enough coal to last more than two hundred years until recently however coal has not been a legitimate replacement for oil with all technologies called gasification resulted in high c o two emissions which cause global warming without carbon capture technology c o two emissions from liquid call a product of the coal gasification process are twice that of conventional fuels so as we try to deal with c o two emissions we ought not to be embracing a concept or a policy here that is going to increase our problems with respect to c o two emissions fortunately we have new technologies and those new technologies offer us a way to use coal in our transportation sector and other sectors of our economy in an environmentally responsible manner not only can we sequester the carbon produced in the gasification process but we are able to produce a wide range of materials that are currently be being made from oil natural gas including diesel fuel plastics verbalise or chemicals in a wide range of household items senator tester and i and the other co sponsors of this amendment have included in this amendment a framework for how we proceed with coal gasification in a responsible manner our amendment has four main complements first it will enable ten billion dollars in direct loans for the construction of all emission called gasification plants secondly our legislation will establish a grant program that will help spur construction of  new generation of coal gasification plants the grants will be up to twenty million dollars for any one project with two hundred million dollars available nationwide they will be awarded to projects that use a variety of feedstock such as coal and biomass and which carbon emissions that are twenty percent lower than conventional baseline emissions the third component of our amendment is a set of studies that will help us determine the opportunities that might be provided with greater use of coal and moving forward with liquid production of coal the the amendment commissioned a study of the benefits of maintaining coal to liquid products in the strategic petroleum reserve it also requires administrator of e p a to examine the emissions based products that are used as a as a vehicle in aviation fuel and fourth mr president the legislation also provides additional funding for the air force research lab to continue its development and testing of synthetic fuels for use in jeff's mispresent the amendment that senator tester and i and others are proposing is a reasoned way of making better use of our vast coal resources here at home he recognizes that cool call can replace much of the imported oil but it also creates a rigorous conver a rigorous carbon emission standards for these new coal gasification projects to meet in order to get federal support we simply can't afford to dump excess carbon into the atmosphere and this amendment ensures that we won't i want to once again thank chairman being a man and senator domenici for their leadership on the overall bill and i want to make a comment with respect to my statement has been made on the other side with respect to the competing amendment the essence of the competing then when is to say that it is the end of the world for call if we don't adopt the amendment that is being proposed by my good friend from kentucky and as i said earlier we are not anti cult those of us who are sponsoring this amendment from coal producing states believe that call is very much an item that has to be in our for all of our energy future but i have here a letter written by dow chemical in which the chemical says that they are fully supportive of senator tester's amendment and one of the conclusions that they say in support of the amendment is that dow chemical now this is dow chemical alchemical believes that the environmental standards in the bill are achievable it says a requirement that seventy five percent of the carbon dioxide generated is captured will ensure that all companies prepare for long term c o two management this will help drive action to make carbon capture and storage a reality sooner than later and mr president in conclusion i would urge my colleagues to join us in support of amendment sixteen fourteen because it because it is the most responsible way to proceed as we deal with energy independence as well as dealing with the issue of climate change mr president  president i'll talk very quickly in two minutes i come to visit to support the voting amendment banning domenici amendment of coal to liquids it's quite simple i look at it rather black and white terms a vote for coal is a vote against saudi arabia a vote for coal to liquids is a vote against cesar chavez a vote of coal to liquids is a vote against nigeria and for our own production  from colorado talks about america always laying the claim that we are the saudi arabia of coal except we're rapidly deciding we're not going to use it for anything now if we're going to use it and it is the great introduced supply then we've got to make it cleaner and that is clearly the technology at hand one of the ways to do so and not only to use it for transportation fuels but the runner through the liquids occasion process who is the expert in the field of testing the idaho national laboratory working with baird energy looked at the ohio project forty six percent cleaner and if you add bio mass to it thirty percent to sequester the carbon dioxide in the combined cycle code generation process that's where you get now isn't that a technology worth passing on to china that is the largest emitter or soon will be producing an emission with less economy of c o two than the united states i think it's time we pushed all technologies and if they're cleaner they're better but what the argument is here is they have to be perfect before we do i would suggest that perfect may not be possible but fifty percent cleaner or more is possible and that's where we ought to go and that's where the bunning amendment takes a tell you what i'm going to do i'm going to vote for senator bunning amendment and i'm going to vote against saudi arabia your craig thank you very much for your comment and let me let me say we have a similar situation to the one we had growing up here the last two or three days on the fifteen percent wind mandate s we got two amendments out there and all of a sudden we find out that neither of them are going to have a vote and i'm afraid what's happened is we've got two amendments here neither of them are going to get the vote if this if the senate doesn't really consider the difference between these two bills and vote for the one that's most apt to accomplish the purpose that we set out in a coal to liquid amendment the tester bi sixteen fourteen and them and sixteen fourteen in this senator's opinion it's theirs it's only a long shot that we are going to get a lot of incentives for coal to liquid there's ten billion dollars direct loan that's nice for everybody we're going to have ten billion dollars alone but it's lend a ball on a number of things beyond just coal to liquid and i i predict that the money is going to go to those other things because it is so hard to reach the calibration required in this bill in this amendment of coal to liquid while on the binding amendment they have a long time to work on he sixteen and they say and they a a given amount of that liquid will be purchased and they can get ready for it to be purchased but the standard is clearly achievable because it's the same twenty percent twenty percent that we are going to require of ethanol and the other programs that we're achieving and  we're saying do the same thing you're not saying that in the montana amendment do the same as we have done for the other fuels and i'm afraid if we're not going to get there and the money is going to get loaned for the wrong things before we're finished and competing between the two both are going to die i suggest you should vote against the amendment from the senator from montana for the one from the center from kentucky if you want to get coal to liquid start this president how much time remains a majority has twenty minutes fifteen seconds the minority has fifty three seconds remaining center from next was let me just take five minutes i know senator tester is here and wishes to speak i understand senator kerry maybe others wish to speak also the issue really between the two amendments is what our focus should be when we think about the future of coal are we sure that the best use of coal and the best future for coal is in the transfer in developing transportation fuels in my view that's what the bunning amendment concludes the tester amendment to the contrary takes a broader view of the future of coal i believe that we want to enable the development of many potential uses of coal that are both environmentally and economically sound we should not be focused on commercializing at large scale u ses of call that do not make good sense in the marketplace let me just say the first let me say a couple things about the bunning amendment there are currently no large scale coal to liquid plants in the u s the price tag of a typical plant is in the billions of dollars the bunning amendment purports to require that calderon fuels be twenty percent better than gasoline but we have an apples to oranges comparison here because coal to liquids plants will produce primarily diesel fuel not gasoline the total greenhouse gas emissions from coal derived diesel's are likely to be greater by about one hundred fifty percent than the emissions for diesels that are produced from petroleum the bunning amendment is technologically limiting and such uses of coal as conversion to chemicals to plastics to fertilizer are not permitted to benefit from the bunning amendment the coal to liquids products mandated by the bunning amendment have very large water requirements water requirements are estimated to be about two gallons for every gallon of cold arrived fuel produced the tester amendment  by contrast is much more broad in the beneficial uses that coal can be put to whether to make fuel or fertilizers or plastics or chemicals there are industrial plants in the us that do use coal he states in as follows and in that letter on behalf of dow chemical company i write to offer my strongest support for senator tester's coal innovation amendment simply put it will allow companies to build gas cation plants in the united states that run on coal bio mass and other feedstocks while helping to increase fuel and feedstock the versity and demonstrate options for carbon capture and storage this will result in gasification plants that are more efficient and help address climate change and contribute to energy security present also have a after that i want to put in the record from various unions the n f l c e o building and construction trades department industrial unions the united mine workers various others they they strongly endorse the the tester amendment they previously were part of a coal to liquids coalition which issued an earlier letter that has now been rescinded that chance for promoting the future of objection without objection as letter to appear in the record i think the president i think the tester amendment gives us the best chance of promoting the use of coal to meet our energy needs in the future and i strongly support it and oppose the bunning amendment i hope my colleagues will do the same i believe this is the right course for us to follow and with bunning amendment for a number of reasons number one this is a mandate to develop the gallonage for call the liquids i don't think it's the right direction to go this amendment folks have been using apples oranges to comparison for greenhouse gases gases the bunning amendment says called electricity twenty percent better than gasoline but coal the liquids do not produce a gas gasoline equivalent fuel they produce the equivalent of diesel fuel and that's one hundred fifty percent higher in greenhouse gas emissions than diesel produced from petroleum the third thing is second technology limiting fuels produce from are only allowed in the binding amendment rather than articles like fertilizer chemicals and plastics as as my amendment does and finally there is no path to coles future in a carbon constrained world with a binding m m no requirement to do with the carbon dioxide produced in the coal to liquids plants no technology as incentive to keep call viable into the future which we absolutely need if and when our greenhouse gases are regulated these plants will not become economic and the cost to the consumers of the binding a mandate will soar mr president i've seen many signs up today placards talking about how cold liquid technology is less than automatically less than petroleum that's not correct unless you have carbon capture the binding amendment does not allow for carbon capture recognition to speak in favor of a amendment will go to law later this afternoon which provides we would lift the half a crust exemption which is now held by the opec nations there have been judicial interpretations holding that the opec countries have sovereign immunity from prosecution under the a by legal judgment that they limited judicial holdings in this field are our rodeos because there is a well a accepted exception to the sovereign immunity doctrine where there is commercial activity involved but in any event there is no doubt that the congress of the united states has the authority to legislate in the field and i believe it would be very prudent to remove the antitrust exemption which the ok nations now we have a crisis of strong words but i think an accurate word on gasoline prices today the price of crude oil has been hovering around sixty five  the american people are paying a lot of average more than three dollars a gallon for gasoline so consumers are paying more for products because american companies have to pay more to sponsorship of this of this legislation i have been interested in this subject for more than a decade because i think that the ana crossed exemption which they record when i spoke on this amendment last week i followed it up with a letter to president george bush on the same subject and we passed the amendment last year as i say it was dropped  conference we were asking for a roll call vote on it this time because the practical realities are if it gets a very strong vote and i anticipate it well that it will have more stature i want to get to the conference committee so i walk urge my colleagues to support this of this amendment to eliminate the conspiracy the concert of action where the opec nations get together in a room reduce supply and that  minutes or some lesser amount of that we can go ahead and go to a vote whenever you're completed with your statement thank you chairman bingaman from montana mr president i just want to talk about my m sixteen fourteen as long as we have time to do that very quickly recap it because i think it's important that we know the facts first of all we've got enough coal in this country if it's used at the current rate to last us for two hundred fifty years we need to develop it responsibly this amendment for coal to liquids will develop it responsibly what it does is it provides grants and loans for clean coal technology and let me tell you the parameters because some folks of said this can't be achieved in front of the senate finance committee it was testified that is entirely capable with the technology we have the data have eighty five percent carbon capture what this amendment requires is seventy five percent carbon capture the national mining association said that with coal the liquid is adding some biomass with the coal you could achieve forty six percent less in lifestyle get lifecycle greenhouse gases that comparable petroleum forty six percent less this amendment requires twenty percent less this amendment is entirely doable by the industry and if we want to develop our coal resources in a manner that meets the needs of the consumers in this country as well as being able to develop our call resources in a responsible way that won't trash our environment when climate change is such a huge issue in this world we need to step forth and adopt this amendment i could go into this amendment further and talk about the potential of replacing foreign oil i could talk about how it's a win win situation for this country overall as far as achieving our energy independence as we push this bill forward that deals with renewables like biofuels and wind and solar and geothermal but the fact is that this amendment there are no bogeyman and it achievable by the industry and it should be adopted if we're going to lead this country down a road of energy independence and and a road that will allow our climate change issue to be put to bed and by the way we do this we pass this amendment i fully believe that the two power plants a month that china is putting on board at five hundred megawatts each we can also help lead china down a road of clean coal technology also committee presented for privileges during the remainder of debate on this energy bill without  madam president leader i met him present rozza day to speak in support of my good friend from kentucky senator bunning and his amendment with the senator from new mexico to establish a program to help support and promote clean coal to liquid fuels focusing more on coal to liquid fuels will benefit our economy and our national security coal is a vital part of america's energy production and coal is a vital part of kentucky's economy and history the coal industry creates over sixty thousand jobs in my state including approximately fifteen thousand coal miners over half of the country's electricity is generated by coal and coal constitutes over ninety percent of america's fossil fuel resources that means the coal we can mine in this country alone would be enough to supply our nation for more than two hundred fifty years what saudi arabia is to all al america is to coal therefore madam president it would be irresponsible of us not to mention downright foolish not to invest in technology to take advantage of this vital natural resource that's why i want to thank my friend senator bunning for his leadership on this issue the greater use of coal to liquid fuels will benefit our environment by reducing emissions of software dioxide nit particulate matter and other pollutants as compared to conventional fuels the bunning a member also requires that coal to liquid fuels under this program reduce greenhouse gas emissions by twenty percent relative to gasoline and greater use of coal to liquid fuels which we can generate right here at home will mean less dependence on foreign sources of oil right now madam president america gets sixty percent of its oil from foreign countries many of whom do not have our best interests at heart as we certainly know passing this amendment will be greater energy will mean greater energy independence and strengthen national security for our country so i want to convince can command my good friend and also senator domenici as well my friend jim bunning has been hard at work on this issue for a lengthy period of time i want to thank him for his dedication to the coal producers and miners of kentucky and america this amendment is the right thing to do for them for our economy and for our national security and i would urge my colleagues to support it and madam president i yield the floor the time and i think we're ready for the vote sort of under the previous order the question is on amendment number sixteen twenty eight offered by the senator from kentucky mr buying  mr casey chambliss mrs clinton mr coburn mr cochran mr coleman ms collins mr conrad mr durban mr anson mr and z mr reid of nevada mr roberts mr rockefeller mr salazar mr sanders mr schumer mr sessions mr white house mr wyde mr gregg mr gregg no mr demand mr diamond i mr bond mr bond mr white house mr whitehouse no mr lugar mr lugar h mrs clinton mrs clinton now mr menendez mr menendez no mr salazar mr salazar no mr nelson of florida mr nelson of florida now mr pryor mr pryor no collins ms collins mr sanders mr sanders no mr casey no by a vote of thirty nine i and fifty five nays is amendment is not agreed to for president i move to reconsider that objection so ordered under the previous or there will now be two minutes of debate equally order in the chamber i want to and please take your conversations out of the well the things that only one or fifteen seconds madam president what this m m it does is give loans for equipment to capture and sequester carbon from coal to liquid technology and it also allows for loans to construct the plant the federal government has the opportunity right now to push call the liquids forward with pushing forward with some dollars and also what happens with this m m it is in this these are entirely achievable parameters seventy five percent of the carbon would be captured sequestered and it would be twenty percent less than the life cycle green out gases from petroleum it works for this country in making us more energy independent and it works for the global warming issue to make sure that we get our hands wrapped around that and progress in the proper way for energy development it is it is indorsed by the build a f l cio we also the united mining association dow chemical these these amendment is achievable entirely achievable the industry testified in senate finance that they could capture sequester eighty five percent this amendment does it seventy five percent the national mining mexico while i looked around and didn't see anyone else so i guess i'll do it and i'm president fellow senators you just defeated the best amendment to us to assure that you would bring called the liquid onboard now what you've got is you've got an amendment that says ten billion dollar direct loan program not that not out not to the other kind of loans direct lo meaning the operators can without the white house can just are approving appropriations ten billion dollars but the kicker is it does not have to go for coal to liquid technology it can go for a number of technologies and if you can't reach it and couldn't call you richard and the others so you're surely are voting for ten billion dollars in direct loans you're not assuring that you're going to get that you're going to get the coal to liquid because the standards are so high you may not be able to achieve them in the cold liquid that's enough for me i thank you for giving me some time and would urge a no vote now you know the floor question is on the mr hatch mrs hutchison mr inhofe mr no way mr johnson mr kennedy mr sessions mr shelby mr smith martinez no white house no is order there are thirty minutes equally divided on the cole amendment who yells time thank you madam president i rise at this time with thirteen co sponsors to urge all of my colleagues to support our bipartisan opec amendment to the energy bill so mehmet will hold opec members nations to account under us and i trust law when they agree to limit supply or fix prices in violation of the most basic principles of free competition in addition to the thirteen co sponsors of this amendment today companion house th distillation passed the other body last month by an overwhelming three hundred forty five to seventy two vote this amendment will authorize the justice department and only the justice department filed suit against nations or other countries other other department to file suit against nations or other entities that participate in a conspiracy to limit the supply or fix the price of oil we have long decried opec but sadly no one in government has yet tried to take any action this amendment will for the first time establish clearly and plainly that when a group of competing all producers like the opec nations act together to restrict supply or to set prices then they will be violating u s law as we consider the high price of gas one fact is remain consistent the price of crude oil and in turn gasoline dances to the tune set by but by the opec members referring to the eighty percent rise in worldwide crude oil prices is the start of the year opec's president commented quote that we did have a bit situation at the beginning of the year but it is much better now unquote the difference was opec's decision last fall to enforce a combined output cut of one point seven billion barrels of oil a day in order to drive up the price of crude oil just last week opec refused to add more oil supply to the market despite the international energy agency's urgent call for new supplies meet rising demand for opec enjoys its newfound riches the average american consumer suffers every time here he visits the gas pump or pays a home heating bill gas prices have now increase revenue one cents a gallon just since the start of the year to a current national average of three dollars in one cents per gallon an increase of more than thirty percent federal trade commission has estimated that eighty five percent of the variability in the cost of gasoline is the result of changes in the cost of crude oil a private companies engage in such an international price fixing conspiracy there would be no question that it would be illegal the actions of opec should be treated no differently because it is a conspiracy of nations the amendment will not authorize private lawsuits but it will authorize the justice department to file suit under the antitrust laws for redress it will always be in the discretion of the justice department and the president as to whether or not to take action against opec are mehmet will not require the government to bring a legal action against opec member nations this decision will entirely remain in the discretion of the executive branch so mr president i believe the senate should now join with three hundred forty five of our colleagues in the house and vote to support this legislation at this time i reserve the balance of my time seals t seems to be the case here no one likes opec none of us like being put in a position of appearing to defend opec but this amendment in my opinion would make bad law the framers of the constitution wisely assigned responsibility for formulating foreign policy and conducting foreign relations to the president and to the congress not to the law courts chief justice marshall said nearly two centuries ago quote the judiciary is not the department of the government to which the assertions assertion of its interests against foreign powers is confided a question like this is more a political one than a legal one in quote there's been much talk in this chamber over the years about the proper role of the judiciary nearly every time we are asked to confirm a judicial nomination we hear speeches given here on the senate floor about the need for judges to confine themselves to the business of interpret ing the law not making the law and this is the case this is exactly what the courts have done in this circumstance here's a case where the courts have wisely recognized that opec's pricing policies are not something that should be litigated in u s courts but should instead be addressed by the political priorities of the government the president the executive branch and the calls amendment would throw the issue of opec's oil prices back into our courts and force the courts to address those issues the amendment before us has a truce and a lawsuit filed by a labor union nearly thirty years ago the union at that time charged so packed with price fixing in violation of our antitrust laws the trial judge court dismissed the case on the ground that opec members are sovereign nations and are immune from suit on appeal the appeals court affirmed the dismissal though for different reasons that this missed the suit under the act of state doctrine in the court's words quote the act of state doctrine declares the united states court will not adjudicate a politically sensitive dispute which would require the court to judge the legality of the sovereign act of a foreign state in quote quoting the supreme  court the court went on to say every sovereign state is bound to respect the independence of every other sovereign state and the courts of one country will not sit in judgment on the acts of the government of another done within its own territory sort of calls amendment overturned see act of state doctrine at least in so far as all facts concerned it also creates a new offense under the sherman act to get at opec it waive sovereign immunity for the for this new offensive amends the foreign sovereign immunity zach to cover the new offense in short it sweeps away all of the legal defenses that opec members have against antitrust suits in our courts adopting the amendment will undoubtedly be very popular but it is also very unwise ninth circuit court of appeals explain nearly thirty years ago quote to participate adeptly in the global community the united  speak with one voice and pursue a careful and deliberate policy and quote the president can do this the court said and the judiciary cannot here's another quote from that same decision when the courts engage in piecemeal cation of the legality of the sovereign acts of states they risk disruption of our countries that are national the pharmacy the executive may utilize protocol economic sanction compromise delay and persuasion to achieve international jackdaws ill timed judicial decisions challenging the acts of foreign states could nala five of these tools and embarrass the united states in the eyes of the world in this case the granting of any relief would in fact amount to an order from a domestic court instructing a foreign sovereign to alter its chosen means of allocating and profiting from its own valuable natural resources on the other hand should the court hold that opec's actions are legal this would greatly strengthen the bargaining hand of the opec nations in the event that congress or the executive chooses to condemn opec's actions in addition we are in the senate ought to consider how an act when of this amendment might affect our relations with opec members what will be the international repercussions when the united states starts awarding judgments against foreign nations and attaching their assets in this country what sort of precedent will the amendment set in the international community will other nations start to view our trade policies such as our nuclear trade restrictions as violations of area trust laws the bush administration's office answers to some of these questions the statement of administration policy on this bill which we're considering here in the senate says that quote the consequences the consequent targeting a foreign direct investment in the united states is a source of damage awards would likely spur retaliate tory action against american interests in those in those countries and lead to a reduction in oil available to us refiners not only would such a result substantially harm u s interests abroad it would discourage foreign investment in the united states economy for these reasons madam president the administration concluded quote if a bill including such a provision is presented to the president  that is the bill we're considering right here on the senate floor his senior advisers will recommend the that he veto the bill for all these reasons president i urge my colleagues to vote against the cole amendment but a president i'd ask who yells time and a president i would like to yield several minutes to senator lincoln please oh i'm sorry is is is senator of rhode island which speak if i may i go right ahead richard but it's to a different amendments to the card an amendment if i may take a few minutes for that how much time would you like to better present i would if we could complete the debate on this amendment and then if the senator wishes to y then we could proceed to debate on the next amendment that would be fine moniz on a a little bit of a different topic here today and i appreciate the gentleman yielding to me i found an amendment number amendment number fifteen fifty six to the energy legislation almost a week ago and since that time i have played with my colleagues to help reach an agreement where i could come to the floor and offer this important amendment offered several times last week in the latter part of the week so that it could be considered by the chamber so that mamet would get an up or down vote simply on its merits and unfortunately i understand that certain colleagues are unwilling to lift their objection to this amendment even being considered on the floor under any circumstances so madam president i just came to the floor today to try and express some of my frustrations in dealing with this bill and particularly my amendment not only for me and many of my colleagues who are strongly in support of my men but also for the hard working farm families across our nation the him and i introduced with my good senate and a hundred twenty one co sponsors in the house then present this amendment is particularly timely and appropriate for the a legislation that we're currently considering in the chamber today because there is a growing understanding in this country sad that without the clarification provided by this amendment requirements and liability under circle which is designed to clean up talk sic industrial pollutants could be unfairly applied to america's farmers and ranchers of all sizes of any sizes both large and small but a president these are the very men and women who hold the future of renewable energy production in this country in their hands and in their production operations the underlying bill will considered today would take steps to promote the use of biomass and specifically animal manure as an important and critical source of renewable energy it's widely known that farmers are beginning to use their excess manure for energy generation digesters and other innovative technologies that are developing on a day to day basis the expanded use of and roman ur for energy production not only promote our energies in the nation's energy independence is also why to control the un of the unavoidable supply of manure and litter from livestock production in an environmentally friendly manner while adding economic value for our farm families and our rural communities president this is a win win situation for our nation and especially for american agriculture yet as this chamber stands ready to incentivize these innovative practices and spur the growth of alternative technologies to manage this way pending lawsuits threaten the entire viability of this emerging industry not to mention the viability of the hardworking farm families across our country we should not stand by and allow for a situation where farmers or those who are transporting manure for energy production or other purposes are handling a hazardous waste subject to circle a strict and punitive liability provisions it's worth noting that circle section one hundred one fourteen specifically excludes petroleum here we are looking to lessen our dependence on foreign oil and petroleum products and yet they are exempt from surplus and we are looking at the possibility of agricultural byproducts of being included in circle or from the definition of hazardous waste substances and consequently petroleum releases are not subject to circle of reporting and liability provisions why is it then that the same liability provision should apply to our nation's farmers and ranchers and particularly our dairy farmers farmers and ranchers have always been responsible stewards of the land to make great strides to preserve a healthy environment for their food production but also for their families and communities keep in mind agriculture operations are already regulated madam president under claim water and the clean air act as well as other federal and state environmental law all the the larger size operations are subject to managed management practices these are the appropriate regulatory tools to manage the environmental impacts of agriculture in this country and any farmer will tell you that our u s producers are already subject to much greater scrutiny in this area than their foreign competitors that's one reason why americans in continue to enjoy the safest food supply in the world produce right here at home by our nation's farm families working as hard as they possibly can to not only produce that site food and fiber but to do it in a way that is respectful to the environment under the regulations that we put upon them the last thing we need to do is stand by and allow for policies that encourage outsourcing of food production in this country on that note madam president is my view that congress never intended for circlip to apply to agriculture in the first place in fact the idea of including animal agriculture under circle was never raised during the first two decades of this law's existence if normal animal manure is found backwards to be a hazardous substance under circa then virtually every farming operation in the country could be potentially exposed to severe liabilities and penalties under the law clearly congress never intended such an outcome and we should take the necessary steps by taking up and passing mom in to ensure that the courts clearly understand what our congressional intent is we should not jeopardize american agriculture by allowing courts to him plus or impose circle liability on farmers for their traditional farming practices including the use of as manure as a beneficial fertilizer or an emerging feedstock for renewable energy production madam president   fortunate i hope that my colleagues would would look at this and be aware i will continue my efforts to clarify that circle liability does not apply to agriculture to our livestock to our ranches and our dairy farm making sure that agriculture in this country can continue to do what it has always done and that to produce a site an abundant and affordable food supply under the regulations that we provide them so i thank the gentleman from wisconsin for y floor for the senator from arkansas leaves the floor i would like to say i want to sociate myself with your remarks as they pertain to both subjects and particular circle which we both share a common interest  we've got to get something done we both know it and those who are not letting us have a chance at getting a vote and they will find out sooner or later we're going to get a vote and what's fair and reasonable will prevail and we're going to have to we're going to work hard to use that's done sooner rather than later having said that i want to talk about the no opec amendment it would permit legal action to be brought in u s courts by the department of justice on alleged price fixing and other anti competitive behavior affecting petroleum products product pricing production and distribution by members of the organization of petroleum exporting countries opec while i can see in some some levels how this idea of appeals to our sense of fairness and i frustration about oil prices i must oppose this amendment join with my chairman because in reality not it is reality not sentiment that counts in public policy the reality is this amendment would be unenforceable opec producers could simply decide not to  anymore one third of the oil used in the united states comes every day come from an opec member this would they would would suffer the loss of some profits but our entire economy could come to a grinding halt another problem i have with the amendment is that it is a major change in international law as potential applications beyond the oil sector the sovereignty of nations is put into question by this amendment i know of no instance when the united states government sued a foreign government i think that if this government if this amendment passed we can export a jittery oil market to become even more nervous we can expect that in reality that means higher prices we can expect less transparency from opec in reality that means higher prices we can also expect less cooperation from opec in a future and i really think that that too will lead to higher prices so mr president madam president i believe this amendment should fail but obviously looking at the past and looking at the propensity of the senators to vote on this amendment with from wisconsin should be given the chance to conclude his remarks or to close the argument i'll yield back the time in opposition and allow senator kohl to use whatever additional time he wants and then we could close the debate on this amendment and proceed to the next month in from wisconsin thank you very much i believe that the arguments set forth by the administration as well as those on the floor today in opposition to this bill are without merit we for example we disagree that it would harm u s interests overseas the justice department has taken action to sue many porn cartels that engage in price fixing including the international or example the international vitamin cartel and there has been no read retaliation against u s business interests abroad only eleven nations in the world are members of the opec oil cartel there will be no reason for any other nation to retaliate against the united states for attempting to enforce this legislation the idea that no pick would strongly discourage investment indeed in the u s economy is likewise speculative and without basis existence of strong u s and i trust laws for over a century laws that are ready to reach for and conduct affecting the u s market has not discouraged investment in the united states further and this is enormously important this legislation does not require the administration to do anything it simply gives them the authority to bring action in court against the opec oil cartel so it's it seems that the legislation would have a constructive effect in bringing notice to the opec oil cartel that we do have recourse should it be necessary to move against them in retaliation of their fixing the price of oil at unreasonably high levels and that is why i believe this legislation should be passed by this body as it was passed by the house of representatives thank you so much we'll back the balance of our time oh we're going to let him oh i always get those things down new mexico my present i see senator whitehouse as been here very patiently waiting to speak on the card an amendment and senator thune is agreeable to let him speak for three minutes or so on that so before beginning a discussion of the third amendment so i ask and said that that be the order in the objections no objection so ordered the senator from rhode island is recognized for three minutes i'm here today to express my support for an amendment ponsford by my colleague senator cardin requiring state approval for liquefied natural gas terminals i'm a co sponsor of this important bipartisan went with s senior senator jack reed of rhode island our country is grappling with a serious and difficult question how to meet our growing energy needs without depleting our national resources threatening our environment or endangering our people i strongly support the work of senators boxer and bingaman with many of our colleagues to take a significant step forward in our use of alternative and renewable fuels but as we develop these new and emerging fuel sources we must take great care to balance our need for energy with other imperatives liquefied natural gas as rapidly assuming a larger share of the overall natural gas market over forty new l n g terminals are now proposed for construction many of which are planned near heavily populated areas or environmentally sensitive coastal areas unfortunately in their haste to expand this market the l n g industry and the federal energy regulatory commission have dismissed risks this poses to public safety and the environment i'm particularly concerned about  proposed l n g terminal in fall river massachusetts a town of nearly two hundred thousand people just barely over the state line from rhode island this is rhode island's treasured narragansett bay the bay is used particularly on beautiful summer days like today for commercial and recreational boating and fishing tens of thousands of rhode islanders live along its shores and are bay as in many ways the economic heart of rhode island as well as the environmental and regular recreational heart of our ocean state now to reach the l n g facility proposed for fall river l n g tankers would have to navigate twenty one nautical miles through narragansett bay passing directly by the homes and businesses of sixty four thousand rhode islanders along the way these tankers would pass under four heavily trafficked bridge bridges and execute with the coast guard itself recently described as extremely challenging navigational maneuvers as many is one hundred thirty times per year moreover the tanker requires a security zone around it as it proceeds through the bay there is the tanker this is the size of the security zone it requires completely occupying the east passage going up through n between newport and jamestown it would displace all recreational boaters and other cargo boats and disrupt the bridge traffic as it transited mr president the residents of my state of rhode island have spoken loudly and in large numbers against the l n g terminal proposed for fall river i have heard their deep concern at the environmental and security risks posed by l and g tankers passing so close to their homes and communities yet their voices have not adequately been heard in the current process for permitting g terminals this amendment to help correct this flaw and give all states and communities the seat at the table they deserve by requiring the concurrence of affected states for permits to build a liquefied natural gas terminal this is an issue that affects us  already is three minutes i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment and i thank the chair i yield the floor senator from south dakota bad president rise today in support of my name and to clean to create clean energy corridor ors which will greatly enhance our grid system to transmit transmit clean renewable energy much of the debate in this energy bill is focused on renewable energy how much renewable energy should we use how should it be produced who should be required to use it however this debate has overlooked a key component in this argument which is how do we transport this energy from areas with high concentration of renewable resources to areas with high demand for electrical power oftentimes clean renewable sources of power located in rural areas with low demand for electricity and limited capacity to transmit large my counts of power long distances at the other end of the spectrum states with large urban areas are passing state laws that require the use of renewable energy many cases it is more economical to import that energy from other areas of the country it is critical that we create the infrastructure to allow that movement of energy to happen and i would point to to this chart madam president to illustrate exactly  my state of south dakota serves as a prime example of this dilemma in south dakota we are blessed with abundant sources of when in fact according to the department u s department of energy south dakota has enough wind to produce five hundred sixty six gigawatts of electrical power from wind which is the equivalent of fifty five percent of the nation's electricity demand and i refer you to the chart you look at these red areas in the  areas the purple areas around the country these all these different colors demonstrate varying amounts of wind energy and of course as you can see south dakota north dakota minnesota iowa have enormous amounts of wind energy available although south dakota has an abundant source of wind this renewable resource is dramatically underdeveloped in my state in fact we have less than one tenth the wind energy production of our neighboring states even though our when resources are far superior the fundamental problem is we don't have the population markets to use large amounts of wind power within my state's borders more importantly we lack the transmission capacity to carry wind power from rural areas in south dakota urban areas in other parts of the country this amendment includes simple provisions that would significantly improve transmission development for renewable sources of energy first this amendment would direct the department of energy to identify areas with transmission constraints that increase cost to consumers limit resource options to serve low growth or limit access to sources of clean renewable energy such as wind solar geothermal energy and b upon completion of this study and after considering all alternatives in public comments the department of energy could then designate these areas as national interest electric transmission corridors these corridors which enjoyed broad bipartisan support as part of the energy policy act of two thousand and five are important tools for transmission development under current law these corridors are targeted towards areas experiencing heavy grid congestion my m m it would expand the designation of these corridors to include access to clean renewable sources of energy this m m it also directs the federal energy regulatory commission to establish regulations that allow public utilities to allocate and recover costs associated with building the additional transmission infrastructure for wind and other forms of renewable energy it ensures that rates associated with this development are reasonable just in nondiscriminatory by overcoming some of the inherent o associated with transmitting renewable energy long distances i believe this amendment promotes clean renewable sources of energy in a commonsense fashion this amendment will serve as the blueprint for the twenty first century grid by facilitating the national scale designation and construction of clean energy corridors that will enable the delivery of clean sustainable reliable power to consumers across this country madam president as i have met with people from the industry as i have traveled my state as i've talked with those who invest in energy projects it's clear that this is one of the issues that presents a major obstacle to wind energy development this country this amendment helps address that by creating and opening up these corridors clean energy orders that would allow clean green wind energy to make it from areas where it's in abundance places like the state of south dakota to those places in the country that desperately need affordable power so i hope madam president that my colleagues here in the senate will support this amendment and do something that will significantly address the further promotion of wind energy and affordable electricity to america's consumers but that madam president i would yield back or i should say i reserve the balance of my time and to present a different new mexico and present i just want to say to senator  amendment scope of the amendment in the rationale it's something we need from our from my standpoint i'm in favor of it and it won't require a roll call well i hope i'm hopeful we can dispose of you and them in very shortly on the floor at new mexico but to present to senator thune some men that makes a major change in a provision of the fence federal power act that governs the siting of electric transmission lines  just two years ago the citing of electric transmission lines was under the exclusive control of the state's federal power act gave neither the secretary of energy nor the federal energy regulatory commission the authority to cite transmission lines states tended to make their citing decisions in the best interests of their citizens not necessarily in the best interests of the citizens of neighboring or even distant states that might benefit by the long distance transmission of electricity so two years ago in the energy policy act of two thousand and five which i worked on with senator domenici we amended the federal power act to provide what is called the federal backstop siting a specifically we direct the secretary of energy to conduct a comprehensive national study of electric transmission congestion once every three years we've been authorized the secretary to designate based on the study  geographic areas experiencing electric transmission congestion as national interest electric transmission corridors the secretary completed the first congestion study last august and he has begun proceedings to designate the first national interest corridors designation of an area as a national interest corridor is likely to have serious consequences under the law that we passed two years ago a utility that wants to build an electric transmission line within the corridor can apply to the federal energy regulatory commission for a permit and the commission can approve construction of the transmission line without the permission of or even over the objections of the state once the federal energy regulatory commission issues the utility a permit the utility can then go in the federal court that exercise the federal government's power of eminent domain and take private property to erect the transmission line under president i've heard speeches here on the floor in the time i've served here in the senate from many of my colleagues about their concern about the exercise of the power of eminent  the passage of the through an amendment substantially increases the likelihood that that authority that power of eminent domain will be exercised against private property rights giving federal officials and private utilities these powers was a major change in federal law and a major departure from past practice nonetheless we felt that the step was warranted to ensure that the national interest in the national electric grid was protected and we felt that in trusting the secretary of energy with the task of studying congestion on a national basis and allowing the secretary to designate only those areas affected the national interest would prevent abuse of this federal eminent domain authority even though this authorities less than two years old there have been no corridors yet designated there's been no construction permits that have been issued no private property has been taken the story is already however proving very controversial there is major opposition to the use of this authority just west of here in northern virginia and in other areas of the country there's been talk of repealing  is amendment will only add to the controversy it makes a fundamental change in the current authority senator thune zimmerman says that quote the secretary made designate additional corridors of on the application by an interested person  quote so even though the secretary of energy did not find that a particular area presented congestion concerns of national interest in conducting his congestion study last year and even though the secretary of energy did not see fit to propose an area as a national interest corridor a utility that would like to make use of the federal eminent domain authority to take private property can apply to the secretary and the secretary could then designate the area as a corridor under this new authority this in my view is as one of the authors of the provision that we put in law in two thousand and five is a major expansion of that authority and it's an unwarranted expansion in addition center to things amendment contains additional provisions on rates and recovery of costs which direct the federal energy regulatory commission to issue new rules setting transmission rates for the recovery of the costs of transmission lines and national interest corners frankly i'm not entirely sure what the purpose of these provisions are i'm not sure how these provisions affect the rate making authority