[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 136 (Friday, September 27, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H11530-H11540]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        ACCOUNTABLE PIPELINE SAFETY AND PARTNERSHIP ACT OF 1996

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
Senate bill (S. 1505) to reduce risk to public safety and the 
environment associated with pipeline transportation of natural gas and 
hazardous liquids, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page H11531]]

                                S. 1505

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Accountable Pipeline Safety 
     and Partnership Act of 1996''.

     SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

       Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this 
     Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an 
     amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the 
     reference shall be considered to be made to a section or 
     other provision of title 49, United States Code.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 60101(a) is amended--
       (1) by striking the periods at the end of paragraphs (1) 
     through (22) and inserting semicolons;
       (2) by striking paragraph (21)(B) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(B) does not include the gathering of gas, other than 
     gathering through regulated gathering lines, in those rural 
     locations that are located outside the limits of any 
     incorporated or unincorporated city, town, or village, or any 
     other designated residential or commercial area (including a 
     subdivision, business, shopping center, or community 
     development) or any similar populated area that the Secretary 
     of Transportation determines to be a nonrural area, except 
     that the term `transporting gas' includes the movement of gas 
     through regulated gathering lines;''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(23) `risk management' means the systematic application, 
     by the owner or operator of a pipeline facility, of 
     management policies, procedures, finite resources, and 
     practices to the tasks of identifying, analyzing, assessing, 
     reducing, and controlling risk in order to protect employees, 
     the general public, the environment, and pipeline facilities;
       ``(24) `risk management plan' means a management plan 
     utilized by a gas or hazardous liquid pipeline facility owner 
     or operator that encompasses risk management; and
       ``(25) `Secretary' means the Secretary of 
     Transportation.''.
       (b) Gathering Lines.--Section 60101(b)(2) is amended by 
     inserting ``, if appropriate,'' after ``Secretary'' the first 
     place it appears.

     SEC. 4. GENERAL AUTHORITY.

       (a) Minimum Safety Standards.--Section 60102(a) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``transporters of gas and hazardous liquid 
     and to'' in paragraph (1)(A);
       (2) by striking paragraph (1)(C) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(C) shall include a requirement that all individuals who 
     operate and maintain pipeline facilities shall be qualified 
     to operate and maintain the pipeline facilities.''; and
        (3) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(2) The qualifications applicable to an individual who 
     operates and maintains a pipeline facility shall address the 
     ability to recognize and react appropriately to abnormal 
     operating conditions that may indicate a dangerous situation 
     or a condition exceeding design limits. The operator of a 
     pipeline facility shall ensure that employees who operate and 
     maintain the facility are qualified to operate and maintain 
     the pipeline facilities.''.
       (b) Practicability and Safety Needs Standards.--Section 
     60102(b) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Practicability and Safety Needs Standards.--
       ``(1) In general.--A standard prescribed under subsection 
     (a) shall be--
       ``(A) practicable; and
       ``(B) designed to meet the need for--
       ``(i) gas pipeline safety, or safely transporting hazardous 
     liquids, as appropriate; and
       ``(ii) protecting the environment.
       ``(2) Factors for consideration.--When prescribing any 
     standard under this section or section 60101(b), 60103, 
     60108, 60109, 60110, or 60113, the Secretary shall consider--
       ``(A) relevant available--
       ``(i) gas pipeline safety information;
       ``(ii) hazardous liquid pipeline safety information; and
       ``(iii) environmental information;
       ``(B) the appropriateness of the standard for the 
     particular type of pipeline transportation or facility;
       ``(C) the reasonableness of the standard;
       ``(D) based on a risk assessment, the reasonably 
     identifiable or estimated benefits expected to result from 
     implementation or compliance with the standard;
       ``(E) based on a risk assessment, the reasonably 
     identifiable or estimated costs expected to result from 
     implementation or compliance with the standard;
       ``(F) comments and information received from the public; 
     and
       ``(G) the comments and recommendations of the Technical 
     Pipeline Safety Standards Committee, the Technical Hazardous 
     Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards Committee, or both, as 
     appropriate.
       ``(3) Risk assessment.--In conducting a risk assessment 
     referred to in subparagraphs (D) and (E) of paragraph (2), 
     the Secretary shall--
       ``(A) identify the regulatory and nonregulatory options 
     that the Secretary considered in prescribing a proposed 
     standard;
       ``(B) identify the costs and benefits associated with the 
     proposed standard;
       ``(C) include--
       ``(i) an explanation of the reasons for the selection of 
     the proposed standard in lieu of the other options 
     identified; and
       ``(ii) with respect to each of those other options, a brief 
     explanation of the reasons that the Secretary did not select 
     the option; and
       ``(D) identify technical data or other information upon 
     which the risk assessment information and proposed standard 
     is based.
       ``(4) Review.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(i) submit any risk assessment information prepared under 
     paragraph (3) of this subsection to the Technical Pipeline 
     Safety Standards Committee, the Technical Hazardous Liquid 
     Pipeline Safety Standards Committee, or both, as appropriate; 
     and
       ``(ii) make that risk assessment information available to 
     the general public.
       ``(B) Peer review panels.--The committees referred to in 
     subparagraph (A) shall serve as peer review panels to review 
     risk assessment information prepared under this section. Not 
     later than 90 days after receiving risk assessment 
     information for review pursuant to subparagraph (A), each 
     committee that receives that risk assessment information 
     shall prepare and submit to the Secretary a report that 
     includes--
       ``(i) an evaluation of the merit of the data and methods 
     used; and
       ``(ii) any recommended options relating to that risk 
     assessment information and the associated standard that the 
     committee determines to be appropriate.
       ``(C) Review by secretary.--Not later than 90 days after 
     receiving a report submitted by a committee under 
     subparagraph (B), the Secretary--
       ``(i) shall review the report;
       ``(ii) shall provide a written response to the committee 
     that is the author of the report concerning all significant 
     peer review comments and recommended alternatives contained 
     in the report; and
       ``(iii) may revise the risk assessment and the proposed 
     standard before promulgating the final standard.
       ``(5) Secretarial decisionmaking.--Except where otherwise 
     required by statute, the Secretary shall propose or issue a 
     standard under this Chapter only upon a reasoned 
     determination that the benefits of the intended standard 
     justify its costs.
       ``(6) Exceptions from application.--The requirements of 
     subparagraphs (D) and (E) of paragraph (2) do not apply 
     when--
       ``(A) the standard is the product of a negotiated 
     rulemaking, or other rulemaking including the adoption of 
     industry standards that receives no significant adverse 
     comment within 60 days of notice in the Federal Register;
       ``(B) based on a recommendation (in which three-fourths of 
     the members voting concur) by the Technical Pipeline Safety 
     Standards Committee, the Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline 
     Safety Standards Committee, or both, as applicable, the 
     Secretary waives the requirements; or
       ``(C) the Secretary finds, pursuant to section 553(b)(3)(B) 
     of title 5, United States Code, that notice and public 
     procedure are not required.
       ``(7) Report.--Not later than March 31, 2000, the Secretary 
     shall transmit to the Congress a report that--
       ``(A) describes the implementation of the risk assessment 
     requirements of this section, including the extent to which 
     those requirements have affected regulatory decisionmaking 
     and pipeline safety; and
       ``(B) includes any recommendations that the Secretary 
     determines would make the risk assessment process conducted 
     pursuant to the requirements under this chapter a more 
     effective means of assessing the benefits and costs 
     associated with alternative regulatory and nonregulatory 
     options in prescribing standards under the Federal pipeline 
     safety regulatory program under this chapter.''.
       (c) Facility Operation Information Standards.--The first 
     sentence of section 60102(d) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``as required by the standards prescribed 
     under this chapter'' after ``operating the facility'';
       (2) by striking ``to provide the information'' and 
     inserting ``to make the information available''; and
       (3) by inserting ``as determined by the Secretary'' after 
     ``to the Secretary and an appropriate State official''.
       (d) Pipe Inventory Standards.--The first sentence of 
     section 60102(e) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and, to the extent the Secretary 
     considers necessary, an operator of a gathering line that is 
     not a regulated gather line (as defined under section 
     60101(b)(2) of this title),''; and
       (2) by striking ``transmission'' and inserting 
     ``transportation''.
       (e) Smart Pigs.--
       (1) Minimum safety standards.--Section 60102(f) is amended 
     by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) Minimum safety standards.--The Secretary shall 
     prescribe minimum safety standards requiring that--
       ``(A) the design and construction of new natural gas 
     transmission pipeline or hazardous liquid pipeline 
     facilities, and
       ``(B) when the replacement of existing natural gas 
     transmission pipeline or hazardous liquid pipeline facilities 
     or equipment is required, the replacement of such existing 
     facilities be carried out, to the extent practicable, in a 
     manner so as to accommodate the passage through such natural 
     gas transmission pipeline or hazardous liquid pipeline 
     facilities of instrumented internal inspection devices 
     (commonly referred to as `smart

[[Page H11532]]

     pigs'). The Secretary may extend such standards to require 
     existing natural gas transmission pipeline or hazardous 
     liquid pipeline facilities, whose basic construction would 
     accommodate an instrumented internal inspection device to be 
     modified to permit the inspection of such facilities with 
     instrumented internal inspection devices.''.
       (2) Periodic inspections.--Section 60102(f)(2) is amended--
        (A) by striking ``(2) Not later than'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(2) Periodic inspections.--Not later than''; and
       (B) by inserting ``, if necessary, additional'' after ``the 
     Secretary shall prescribe''.
       (f) Updating Standards.--Section 60102 is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(l) Updating Standards.--The Secretary shall, to the 
     extent appropriate and practicable, update incorporated 
     industry standards that have been adopted as part of the 
     Federal pipeline safety regulatory program under this 
     chapter.''.
       (g) Mapping.--Section 60102(c) is amended by adding at the 
     end thereof the following:
       ``(4) Promoting public awareness.--
       ``(A) Not later than one year after the date of enactment 
     of the Accountable Pipeline Safety and Accountability Act of 
     1996, and annually thereafter, the owner or operator of each 
     interstate gas pipeline facility shall provide to the 
     governing body of each municipality in which the interstate 
     gas pipeline facility is located, a map identifying the 
     location of such facility.
       ``(B)(i) Not later than June 1, 1998, the Secretary shall 
     survey and assess the public education programs under section 
     60116 and the public safety programs under section 60102(c) 
     and determine their effectiveness and applicability as 
     components of a model program. In particular, the survey 
     shall include the methods by which operators notify residents 
     of the location of the facility and its right of way, public 
     information regarding existing One-Call programs, and 
     appropriate procedures to be followed by residents of 
     affected municipalities in the event of accidents involving 
     interstate gas pipeline facilities.
       ``(ii) Not later than one year after the survey and 
     assessment are completed, the Secretary shall institute a 
     rulemaking to determine the most effective public safety and 
     education program components and promulgate if appropriate, 
     standards implementing those components on a nationwide 
     basis. In the event that the Secretary finds that 
     promulgation of such standards are not appropriate, the 
     Secretary shall report to Congress the reasons for that 
     finding.''.
       (h) Remote Control.--Section 60102(j) is amended by adding 
     at the end thereof the following:
       ``(3) Remotely controlled valves.--(A) Not later than June 
     1, 1998, the Secretary shall survey and assess the 
     effectiveness of remotely controlled valves to shut off the 
     flow of natural gas in the event of a rupture of an 
     interstate natural gas pipeline facility and shall make a 
     determination about whether the use of remotely controlled 
     valves is technically and economically feasible and would 
     reduce risks associated with a rupture of an interstate 
     natural gas pipeline facility.
       ``(B) Not later than one year after the survey and 
     assessment are completed, if the Secretary has determined 
     that the use of remotely controlled valves is technically and 
     economically feasible and would reduce risks associated with 
     a rupture of an interstate natural gas pipeline facility, the 
     Secretary shall prescribe standards under which an operator 
     of an interstate natural gas pipeline facility must use a 
     remotely controlled valve. These standards shall include, but 
     not be limited to, requirements for high-density population 
     areas.''.

     SEC. 5. RISK MANAGEMENT.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 601 is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:

     ``Sec. 60126. Risk management

       ``(a) Risk Management Program Demonstration Projects.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish risk 
     management demonstration projects--
       ``(A) to demonstrate, through the voluntary participation 
     by owners and operators of gas pipeline facilities and 
     hazardous liquid pipeline facilities, the application of risk 
     management; and
       ``(B) to evaluate the safety and cost-effectiveness of the 
     program.
       ``(2) Exemptions.--In carrying out a demonstration project 
     under this subsection, the Secretary, by order--
       ``(A) may exempt an owner or operator of the pipeline 
     facility covered under the project (referred to in this 
     subsection as a `covered pipeline facility'), from the 
     applicability of all or a portion of the requirements under 
     this chapter that would otherwise apply to the covered 
     pipeline facility; and
       ``(B) shall exempt, for the period of the project, an owner 
     or operator of the covered pipeline facility, from the 
     applicability of any new standard that the Secretary 
     promulgates under this chapter during the period of that 
     participation, with respect to the covered facility.
       ``(b) Requirements.--In carrying out a demonstration 
     project under this section, the Secretary shall--
       ``(1) invite owners and operators of pipeline facilities to 
     submit risk management plans for timely approval by the 
     Secretary;
       ``(2) require, as a condition of approval, that a risk 
     management plan submitted under this subsection contain 
     measures that are designed to achieve an equivalent or 
     greater overall level of safety than would otherwise be 
     achieved through compliance with the standards contained in 
     this chapter or promulgated by the Secretary under this 
     chapter;
       ``(3) provide for--
       ``(A) collaborative government and industry training;
       ``(B) methods to measure the safety performance of risk 
     management plans;
       ``(C) the development and application of new technologies;
       ``(D) the promotion of community awareness concerning how 
     the overall level of safety will be maintained or enhanced by 
     the demonstration project;
       ``(E) the development of models that categorize the risks 
     inherent to each covered pipeline facility, taking into 
     consideration the location, volume, pressure, and material 
     transported or stored by that pipeline facility;
       ``(F) the application of risk assessment and risk 
     management methodologies that are suitable to the inherent 
     risks that are determined to exist through the use of models 
     developed under subparagraph (E);
       ``(G) the development of project elements that are 
     necessary to ensure that--
       ``(i) the owners and operators that participate in the 
     demonstration project demonstrate that they are effectively 
     managing the risks referred to in subparagraph (E); and
       ``(ii) the risk management plans carried out under the 
     demonstration project under this subsection can be audited;
       ``(H) a process whereby an owner or operator of a pipeline 
     facility is able to terminate a risk management plan or, with 
     the approval of the Secretary, to amend, modify, or otherwise 
     adjust a risk management plan referred to in paragraph (1) 
     that has been approved by the Secretary pursuant to that 
     paragraph to respond to--
       ``(i) changed circumstances; or
       ``(ii) a determination by the Secretary that the owner or 
     operator is not achieving an overall level of safety that is 
     at least equivalent to the level that would otherwise be 
     achieved through compliance with the standards contained in 
     this chapter or promulgated by the Secretary under this 
     chapter;
       ``(I) such other elements as the Secretary, with the 
     agreement of the owners and operators that participate in the 
     demonstration project under this section, determines to 
     further the purposes of this section; and
       ``(J) an opportunity for public comment in the approval 
     process; and
       ``(4) in selecting participants for the demonstration 
     project, take into consideration the past safety and 
     regulatory performance of each applicant who submits a risk 
     management plan pursuant to paragraph (1).
       ``(c) Emergencies and Revocations.--Nothing in this section 
     diminishes or modifies the Secretary's authority under this 
     title to act in case of an emergency. The Secretary may 
     revoke any exemption granted under this section for 
     substantial noncompliance with the terms and conditions of an 
     approved risk management plan.
       ``(d) Participation by State Authority.--In carrying out 
     this section, the Secretary may provide for consultation by a 
     State that has in effect a certification under section 60105. 
     To the extent that a demonstration project comprises an 
     intrastate natural gas pipeline or an intrastate hazardous 
     liquid pipeline facility, the Secretary may make an agreement 
     with the State agency to carry out the duties of the 
     Secretary for approval and administration of the project.
       ``(e) Report.--Not later than March 31, 2000, the Secretary 
     shall transmit to the Congress a report on the results of the 
     demonstration projects carried out under this section that 
     includes--
       ``(1) an evaluation of each such demonstration project, 
     including an evaluation of the performance of each 
     participant in that project with respect to safety and 
     environmental protection; and
       ``(2) recommendations concerning whether the applications 
     of risk management demonstrated under the demonstration 
     project should be incorporated into the Federal pipeline 
     safety program under this chapter on a permanent basis.''.
       (f) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 601 is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

``60126. Risk management.''.

     SEC. 6. INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE.

       Section 60108 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``transporting gas or hazardous liquid or'' 
     in subsection (a)(1) each place it appears;
       (2) by striking the second sentence in subsection (b)(2);
       (3) by striking ``Navigable Waters'' in the heading for 
     subsection (c) and inserting ``Other Waters''; and
       (4) by striking clause (ii) of subsection (c)(2)(A) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(ii) any other pipeline facility crossing under, over, or 
     through waters where a substantial likelihood of commercial 
     navigation exists, if the Secretary decides that the location 
     of the facility in those waters could pose a hazard to 
     navigation or public safety.''.

     SEC. 7. HIGH-DENSITY POPULATION AREAS AND ENVIRONMENTALLY 
                   SENSITIVE AREAS.

       (a) Identification.--Section 60109(a)(1)(B)(i) is amended 
     by striking ``a

[[Page H11533]]

     navigable waterway (as the Secretary defines by regulation)'' 
     and inserting ``waters where a substantial likelihood of 
     commercial navigation exists''.
       (b) Unusually Sensitive Areas.--Section 60109(b) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(b) Areas To Be Included as Unusually Sensitive.--When 
     describing areas that are unusually sensitive to 
     environmental damage if there is a hazardous liquid pipeline 
     accident, the Secretary shall consider areas where a pipeline 
     rupture would likely cause permanent or long-term 
     environmental damage, including--
       ``(1) locations near pipeline rights-of-way that are 
     critical to drinking water, including intake locations for 
     community water systems and critical sole source aquifer 
     protection areas; and
       ``(2) locations near pipeline rights-of-way that have been 
     identified as critical wetlands, riverine or estuarine 
     systems, national parks, wilderness areas, wildlife 
     preservation areas or refuges, wild and scenic rivers, or 
     critical habitat areas for threatened and endangered 
     species.''.

     SEC. 8. EXCESS FLOW VALVES.

       Section 60110 is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``, if any,'' in the first sentence of 
     subsection (b)(1) after ``circumstances'';
       (2) by inserting ``, operating, and maintaining'' in 
     subsection (b)(4) after ``cost of installing'';
       (3) by inserting ``, maintenance, and replacement'' in 
     subsection (c)(1)(C) after ``installation''; and
       (4) by inserting after the first sentence in subsection (e) 
     the following: ``The Secretary may adopt industry accepted 
     performance standards in order to comply with the requirement 
     under the preceding sentence.''.

     SEC. 9. CUSTOMER-OWNED NATURAL GAS SERVICE LINES.

        Section 60113 is amended--
       (1) by striking the caption of subsection (a); and
       (2) by striking subsection (b).

     SEC. 10. TECHNICAL SAFETY STANDARDS COMMITTEES.

       (a) Peer Review.--Section 60115(a) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following: ``The committees referred to in the 
     preceding sentence shall serve as peer review committees for 
     carrying out this chapter. Peer reviews conducted by the 
     committees shall be treated for purposes of all Federal laws 
     relating to risk assessment and peer review (including laws 
     that take effect after the date of the enactment of the 
     Accountable Pipeline Safety and Partnership Act of 1996) as 
     meeting any peer review requirements of such laws.''.
       (b) Composition and Appointment.--Section 60115(b) is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``or risk management principles'' in 
     paragraph (1) before the period at the end;
       (2) by inserting ``or risk management principles'' in 
     paragraph (2) before the period at the end;
       (3) by striking ``4'' in paragraph (3)(B) and inserting 
     ``5'';
       (4) by striking ``6'' in paragraph (3)(C) and inserting 
     ``5'';
       (5) by adding at the end of paragraph (4)(B) the following: 
     ``At least 1 of the individuals selected for each committee 
     under paragraph (3)(B) shall have education, background, or 
     experience in risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis. The 
     Secretary shall consult with the national organizations 
     representing the owners and operators of pipeline facilities 
     before selecting individuals under paragraph (3)(B).''; and
       (6) by inserting after the first sentence of paragraph 
     (4)(C) the following: ``At least 1 of the individuals 
     selected for each committee under paragraph (3)(C) shall have 
     education, background, or experience in risk assessment and 
     cost-benefit analysis.''.
       (c) Committee Reports.--Section 60115(c) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``including the risk assessment 
     information and other analyses supporting each proposed 
     standard'' before the semicolon in paragraph (1)(A);
       (2) by inserting ``including the risk assessment 
     information and other analyses supporting each proposed 
     standard'' before the period in paragraph (1)(B);
       (3) by inserting ``and supporting analyses'' before the 
     first comma in the first sentence of paragraph (2);
       (4) by inserting ``and submit to the Secretary'' in the 
     first sentence of paragraph (2) after ``prepare'';
       (5) by inserting ``cost-effectiveness,'' in the first 
     sentence of paragraph (2) after ``reasonableness,'';
       (6) by inserting ``and include in the report recommended 
     actions'' before the period at the end of the first sentence 
     of paragraph (2); and
       (7) by inserting ``any recommended actions and'' in the 
     second sentence of paragraph (2) after ``including''.
       (d) Meetings.--Section 60115(e) is amended by striking 
     ``twice'' and inserting ``up to 4 times''.
       (e) Expenses.--Section 60115(f) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Pay and'' in the subsection heading;
       (2) by striking the first 2 sentences; and
       (3) by inserting ``of a committee under this section'' 
     after ``A member''.

     SEC. 11. PUBLIC EDUCATION PROGRAMS.

       Section 60116 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``person transporting gas'' and inserting 
     ``owner or operator of a gas pipeline facility'';
       (2) by inserting ``the use of a one-call notification 
     system prior to excavation,'' after ``educate the public 
     on''; and
       (3) by inserting a comma after ``gas leaks''.

     SEC. 12. ADMINISTRATIVE.

       Section 60117 is amended--
       (1) by adding at the end of subsection (b) the following: 
     ``The Secretary may require owners and operators of gathering 
     lines to provide the Secretary information pertinent to the 
     Secretary's ability to make a determination as to whether and 
     to what extent to regulate gathering lines.'';
       (2) by adding at the end thereof the following:
       ``(k) Authority for Cooperative Agreements.--To carry out 
     this chapter, the Secretary may enter into grants, 
     cooperative agreements, and other transactions with any 
     person, agency, or instrumentality of the United States, any 
     unit of State or local government, any educational 
     institution, or any other entity to further the objectives of 
     this chapter. The objectives of this chapter include the 
     development, improvement, and promotion of one-call damage 
     prevention programs, research, risk assessment, and 
     mapping.''; and
       (3) by striking ``transporting gas or hazardous liquid'' in 
     subsection (b) and inserting ``owning''.

     SEC. 13. COMPLIANCE.

       (a) Section 60118 (a) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``transporting gas or hazardous liquid or'' 
     in subsection (a); and
       (2) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) comply with applicable safety standards prescribed 
     under this chapter, except as provided in this section or in 
     section 60126;''.
       (b) Section 60118 (b) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Compliance Orders.--The Secretary of Transportation 
     may issue orders directing compliance with this chapter, an 
     order under section 60126, or a regulation prescribed under 
     this chapter. An order shall state clearly the action a 
     person must take to comply.''.
       (c) Section 60118(c) is amended by striking ``transporting 
     gas or hazardous liquid'' and inserting ``owning''.

     SEC. 14. DAMAGE REPORTING.

       Section 60123(d)(2) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (A);
       (2) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C); 
     and
       (3) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
       ``(B) a pipeline facility that does not report the damage 
     promptly to the operator of the pipeline facility and to 
     other appropriate authorities; or''.

     SEC. 15. BIENNIAL REPORTS.

       (a) Biennial Reports.--
       (1) Section heading.--The section heading of section 60124 
     is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 60124. Biennial reports''.

       (2) Reports.--Section 60124(a) is amended by striking the 
     first sentence and inserting the following: ``Not later than 
     August 15, 1997, and every 2 years thereafter, the Secretary 
     of Transportation shall submit to Congress a report on 
     carrying out this chapter for the 2 immediately preceding 
     calendar years for gas and a report on carrying out this 
     chapter for such period for hazardous liquid.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 601 is 
     amended by striking the item relating to section 60124 and 
     inserting the following:

``60124. Biennial reports.''.

     SEC. 16. POPULATION ENCROACHMENT.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 601, as amended by section 5, is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 60127. Population encroachment

       ``(a) Land Use Recommendations.--The Secretary of 
     Transportation shall make available to an appropriate 
     official of each State, as determined by the Secretary, the 
     land use recommendations of the special report numbered 219 
     of the Transportation Research Board, entitled `Pipelines and 
     Public Safety'.
       ``(b) Evaluation.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(1) evaluate the recommendations in the report referred 
     to in subsection (a);
       ``(2) determine to what extent the recommendations are 
     being implemented;
       ``(3) consider ways to improve the implementation of the 
     recommendations; and
       ``(4) consider other initiatives to further improve 
     awareness of local planning and zoning entities regarding 
     issues involved with population encroachment in proximity to 
     the rights-of-way of any interstate gas pipeline facility or 
     interstate hazardous liquid pipeline facility.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 601 is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 60126 
     the following:

``60127. Population encroachment.''.

     SEC. 17. USER FEES.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation 
     shall transmit to the Congress a report analyzing the present 
     assessment of pipeline safety user fees solely on the basis 
     of mileage to determine whether--
       (1) that measure of the resources of the Department of 
     Transportation is the most appropriate measure of the 
     resources used by

[[Page H11534]]

     the Department of Transportation in the regulation of 
     pipeline transportation; or
       (2) another basis of assessment would be a more appropriate 
     measure of those resources.
       (b) Considerations.--In making the report, the Secretary 
     shall consider a wide range of assessment factors and 
     suggestions and comments from the public.

     SEC. 18. DUMPING WITHIN PIPELINE RIGHTS-OF-WAY.

       (a) Amendment.--Chapter 601, as amended by section 16, is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 60128. Dumping within pipeline rights-of-way

       ``(a) Prohibition.--No person shall excavate for the 
     purpose of unauthorized disposal within the right-of-way of 
     an interstate gas pipeline facility or interstate hazardous 
     liquid pipeline facility, or any other limited area in the 
     vicinity of any such interstate pipeline facility established 
     by the Secretary of Transportation, and dispose solid waste 
     therein.
       ``(b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     `solid waste' has the meaning given that term in section 
     1004(27) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 
     6903(27)).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Cross-reference.--Section 60123(a) is amended by 
     striking ``or 60118(a)'' and inserting ``, 60118(a), or 
     60128''.
       (2) Chapter analysis.--The analysis for chapter 601 is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``60128. Dumping within pipeline rights-of-way.''.

     SEC. 19. PREVENTION OF DAMAGE TO PIPELINE FACILITIES.

       Section 60117(a) is amended by inserting after ``and 
     training activities'' the following: ``and promotional 
     activities relating to prevention of damage to pipeline 
     facilities''.

     SEC. 20. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.

       (a) Section 60105.--The heading for section 60105 is 
     amended by inserting ``pipeline safety program'' after 
     ``State''.
       (b) Section 60106.--The heading for section 60106 is 
     amended by inserting ``pipeline safety'' after ``State''.
       (c) Section 60107.--The heading for section 60107 is 
     amended by inserting ``pipeline safety'' after ``State''.
       (d) Section 60114.--Section 60114 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``60120, 60122, and 60123'' in subsection 
     (a)(9) and inserting ``60120 and 60122'';
       (2) by striking subsections (b) and (d); and
       (3) by redesignating subsections (c) and (e) as subsections 
     (b) and (d), respectively.
       (e) Chapter Analysis.--The analysis for chapter 601 is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``pipeline safety program'' in the item 
     relating to section 60105 after ``State'';
       (2) by inserting ``pipeline safety'' in the item relating 
     to section 60106 after ``State''; and
       (3) by inserting ``pipeline safety'' in the item relating 
     to section 60107 after ``State''.
       (f) Section 60101.--Section 60101(b) is amended by striking 
     ``define by regulation'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``prescribe standards defining''.
       (g) Section 60102.--Section 60102 is amended by striking 
     ``regulations'' each place it appears in subsections (f)(2), 
     (i), and (j)(2) and inserting ``standards''.
       (h) Section 60108.--Section 60108 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``regulations'' in subsections (c)(2)(B), 
     (c)(4)(B), and (d)(3) and inserting ``standards''; and
       (2) by striking ``require by regulation'' in subsection 
     (c)(4)(A) and inserting ``establish a standard''.
       (i) Section 60109.--Section 60109(a) is amended by striking 
     ``regulations'' and inserting ``standards''.
       (j) Section 60110.--Section 60110 is amended by striking 
     ``regulations'' in subsections (b), (c)(1), and (c)(2) and 
     inserting ``standards''.
       (k) Section 60113.--Section 60113(a) is amended by striking 
     ``regulations'' and inserting ``standards''.

     SEC. 21. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Gas and Hazardous Liquid.--Section 60125 is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(a) Gas and Hazardous Liquid.--To carry out this chapter 
     (except for sections 60107 and 60114(b)) related to gas and 
     hazardous liquid, there are authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Department of Transportation--
       ``(1) $19,448,000 for fiscal year 1996;
       ``(2) $20,028,000 for fiscal year 1997, of which 
     $14,600,000 is to be derived from user fees for fiscal year 
     1997 collected under section 60301 of this title;
       ``(3) $20,729,000 for fiscal year 1998, of which 
     $15,100,000 is to be derived from user fees for fiscal year 
     1998 collected under section 60301 of this title;
       ``(4) $21,442,000 for fiscal year 1999, of which 
     $15,700,000 is to be derived from user fees for fiscal year 
     1999 collected under section 60301 of this title; and
       ``(5) $22,194,000 for fiscal year 2000, of which 
     $16,300,000 is to be derived from user fees for fiscal year 
     2000 collected under section 60301 of this title.''.
       (b) State Grants.--Section 60125(c)(1) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(D) $12,000,000 for fiscal year 1996.
       ``(E) $14,000,000 for fiscal year 1997, of which 
     $12,500,000 is to be derived from user fees for fiscal year 
     1997 collected under section 60301 of this title.
       ``(F) $14,490,000 for fiscal year 1998, of which 
     $12,900,000 is to be derived from user fees for fiscal year 
     1998 collected under section 60301 of this title.
       ``(G) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 1999, of which 
     $13,300,000 is to be derived from user fees for fiscal year 
     1999 collected under section 60301 of this title.
       ``(H) $15,524,000 for fiscal year 2000, of which 
     $13,700,000 is to be derived from user fees for fiscal year 
     2000 collected under section 60301 of this title.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] and the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. 
Rahall] each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 10 minutes of 
my 20 minutes be given to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer], 
and that he be permitted to control the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, my understanding, I could be wrong, is that 
those of us in opposition, which I am, are entitled to 20 minutes under 
the rules.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, unless there is some other Member in 
opposition, I would ask for the 20 minutes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. 
Rahall] opposed to the bill?
  Mr. RAHALL. No, Mr. Speaker, I am in favor of the bill.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to vacate my 
unanimous-consent request and reclaim my time from the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Schaefer].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. If the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Pallone] is opposed to the bill, he can be recognized for 20 minutes.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that we extend the 
time here by an additional 10 minutes so that we are able to give 5 
minutes to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer], 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall], and 10 minutes to myself, 
which I will be liberal with for the first time in my life in order to 
share it with others who support this legislation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Shuster] will control 10 minutes, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. 
Schaefer] will control 5 minutes, and the gentleman from West Virginia 
[Mr. Rahall] will control 5 minutes, and the gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Pallone] will control 20 minutes in opposition.
  Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Shuster]?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in support of S. 1505, the Accountable Pipeline Safety and 
Partnership Act of 1996. The bill authorizes the pipeline safety 
program for 5 years. It ensures and oversees the safety of our Nation's 
gas and hazardous liquid pipelines. I certainly want to thank my 
colleagues for their support.
  Pipelines remain the safest form of transportation in our country. 
Fatalities from pipeline accidents represent less than 0.003 percent of 
the total number of fatalities of all modes of transportation. The bill 
we are considering today is a new direction for pipeline safety. In the 
last decade, Congress has micromanaged the program. However, because of 
the outstanding safety record, we think it makes a lot of sense that 
the industry and the Department of Transportation now move away from a 
command and control approach to a risk-based approach and that is what 
the legislation does.
  This has been bipartisan throughout. We have worked with colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle. Indeed we have worked with the 
Department of Transportation, with all parties who are interested. And 
we believe that this is a

[[Page H11535]]

strong safety bill in the right direction and we would urge its 
support.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. PALLONE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to S. 1505, 
legislation that would roll back in my opinion the gains made by the 
pipeline safety improvement act of 1992, which was largely written by 
the former chairman of the Energy and Power Subcommittee, Phil Sharp. 
That law, which was passed a mere 4 years ago, made positive, 
significant public safety and environmental changes to our pipeline 
laws.
  That law and the protections already on the books are important to 
me. About 2 years ago the residents of Edison, NJ, which is in my 
district, and communities across the country got a very loud wake-up 
call when a natural gas pipeline exploded, sending a fireball hundreds 
of feet into the air and destroying the homes of more than 1,000 people 
in my district.
  This bill, which was drafted primarily with far more input from the 
industry than from the House Democrats, allows pipeline operators to 
decide for themselves what safety precautions to take and which to 
ignore while, making it even more difficult for Federal regulators to 
pass new safety requirements. However, as evidenced with the Iroquois 
pipeline in New York, there is an inherent conflict of interest that 
prevents companies from regulating themselves in a manner that provides 
maximum protection to the public.
  Unfortunately, despite some lone cries from both parties, this 
Congress is set to let the industry govern itself and at the same time 
weaken protections in existing law. Right now the law requires that all 
individuals responsible for operating and maintaining pipelines be 
tested for qualifications and certified to operate and maintain those 
pipelines. But the bill before us removes the testing and certification 
requirement.
  The 1992 act, which I mentioned, required the Department of 
Transportation to issue several new safety and environmental protection 
regulations. This bill, however, creates risk management demonstration 
programs, I will repeat that, risk management demonstration programs 
that allow pipeline companies to write their own rules.
  Furthermore, the general language is written to give industry maximum 
wiggle room. The bill allows DOT to exempt pipelines from current 
regulations and forces DOT to release them from future regulations, 
including those based upon the public law of 1992 and essentially the 
rules that are still pending right now.
  The bill is so poorly drafted that it allows pipeline operators who 
fail to comply with the plans that they themselves wrote to continue to 
regulate themselves. Instead of mandating that companies that are in 
substantial noncompliance be automatically kicked out of the program, 
it opens the door to allowing those bad actors to remain exempt from 
the rules that every one else has to play by.
  This bill also deletes a requirement in current law requiring that 
pipelines be inch inspected at least once every 2 years. If you think 
about the Edison accident, after that accident the DOT and everyone who 
was involved thought the inspection should be more frequent. This bill 
says they do not even have to do it every 2 years.
  The bill would undermine a DOT regulation that allows DOT to require 
companies to replace old pipes with new pipelines that are able to be 
inspected by an internal inspection device, also known as a smart pig. 
During the Edison accident aftermath there was much suggestion that 
smart pigs be used wherever possible. This does not require that 
anymore. By changing the underlying basis for the DOT rule, pipeline 
companies would now be able to successfully overturn current regulation 
in court.
  The bill also removes a requirement in current law that DOT, when 
issuing a standard, has to consider the extent to which the standard 
contributes to safety and environmental protection. The bill replaces 
this with risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis. This is the 
Contract With America risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis that I 
thought that this Congress had rejected.
  Furthermore, the bill would add more industry representation to the 
two committees that would serve to peer review the risk assessment/
cost-benefits processes, while leaving in place weak conflict-of-
interest provisions.
  Finally, perhaps most egregiously, this bill completely changes 
environmental language in current law to benefit the oil industry. It 
undermines wetlands protection and removes the requirement to identify 
pipelines in earthquake zones. And, to add insult to injury, it removes 
a mandate for regular inspection of pipelines in environmentally 
sensitive areas.
  I just have to say, Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that the New Jersey 
delegation has worked hard to improve this bill. On the Senate side, 
amendments were added by Senators Lautenberg and Bradley that would 
require DOT to study effectiveness of remote shutoff valves, and if the 
study finds them technically or economically feasible, would require 
DOT to publish standards for their use where they would reduce risk.
  It also contains language requiring criminal penalties for dumping in 
pipeline rights-of-way. That is something that Mr. Schaefer put in at 
my request, and I appreciate that. And it retains a House Democratic 
amendment authorizing DOT to engage in public education to promote One-
Call and pipeline damage prevention, again something that Mr. Schaefer 
put in the bill at my request, and I appreciate that.
  These are poison-coated carrots, I think, meant to entice us into 
supporting a bill that will ultimately undermine the very protections 
we support. Even with these additions by the New Jersey delegation, 
this is a bad bill.
  None of this bill's provisions have ever been the subject of 
legislative hearings in either the House or the Senate. Last year, as 
part of their Contract With America, the House Republicans rammed a 
dangerous industry-drafted bill through two committees without 
significant Democratic input. That bill has been sitting in limbo for 
well over a year.
  But because the original bill contained risk assessment language that 
condemned it to a near certain Presidential veto, Republicans finally 
sat down with us and other Democrats to negotiate a new bipartisan 
bill. But Republicans broke off negotiations, for example, after only 
one session because they realized that they could get a better deal by 
forcing the Senate bill on the Democrats. That is what we are getting 
here today. That is wrong.
  We went to the table in good faith. We were prepared to make a deal 
and help move it through the House and Senate on a truly bipartisan and 
inclusive basis, which is what should happen. Instead we have this: 
broken-off negotiations and a bill that we are being denied our right 
to amend. The process stinks. It is unnecessary process.
  If it was brought under normal circumstances, this would be subject 
to a point of order because it has a $6 million pay-as-you-go 
violation. No amendments. It undermines safety and environmental 
protection. It is opposed by the Natural Resources Defense Council, the 
American Oceans Campaign, and the Center for Marine Conservation.
  I urge my colleagues, before you vote, think about this. Do you 
really know what you are getting into in this Senate bill? I am here to 
tell you that this is not what you think. This is not something that is 
going to move forward on protections for pipelines. It is harmful. It 
deserves to be defeated. It is really backtracking on the issue of 
pipeline safety in this country. It deserves to be defeated.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am astonished at the gentleman's comments when he says the House 
Democrats did not have an opportunity to participate. I recognize that 
his committee does not have primary jurisdiction and they may be very 
upset about that, but the facts are the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure has primary jurisdiction over

[[Page H11536]]

this, and the Democrats on our committee were full partners throughout 
the process when this legislation was crafted.
  Further, there were hearings held on this legislation and, further, 
this legislation passed the Senate unanimously, passed our Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, which has primary jurisdiction, 
unanimously.
  Indeed, the distinguished Senator from New Jersey, Senator 
Lautenberg, said this on the floor of the Senate: ``The bill before us 
enhances our existing pipeline safety program in a number of ways.'' He 
goes on to list those ways. He also goes on to say that the bill would 
also increase funding for pipeline safety programs and make other 
improvements.
  It passed the Senate unanimously; passed our committee unanimously. 
Now at this 11th hour suddenly we find that the committee which does 
not have primary jurisdiction, but I guess would like to have 
jurisdiction, is on the floor opposing this legislation. I regret that.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. SCHAEFER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Speaker, S. 1505, the Accountable Pipeline Safety 
and Partnership Act of 1996 reauthorizes the Natural Gas and Hazardous 
Liquid Pipeline Safety Acts both of which expired in September of last 
year.
  Natural gas and oil pipelines play a vital role in getting energy to 
market. In the United States there are approximately 280,000 miles of 
natural gas transmission lines and 1.5 million miles of gas 
distribution lines. Hazardous liquid pipelines consist of over 200,000 
miles of pipeline. Even with this extensive pipeline network, oil and 
gas pipelines have maintained a remarkable safety record. However, 
because of the enormous potential for loss of life or harm to the 
environment from a pipeline rupture, it is important that we make sure 
our national pipeline system operates as safely as possible.
  The bill we are considering today, S. 1505, is a compromise version 
of a bill passed last year by the Commerce Committee, Like the House 
bill, H.R. 1323, S. 1505 changes the way pipelines will be regulated in 
the future. In the past, Congress responded to specific accidents by 
creating inflexible, one-size fits all mandates which were applied to 
all pipelines. The result has been a layering of congressional 
mandates, which don't necessarily lead to improved safety, and in some 
instances may even divert limited resources away from more promising 
safety measures.
  S. 1505, like its House predecessor, gets away from the old approach, 
by requiring the Department of Transportation to conduct a risk 
assessment for new pipeline safety regulations. In addition, S. 1505 
establishes a voluntary, 4-year risk management demonstration project 
at DOT's Office of Pipeline Safety.
  Under this demonstration program, pipeline operators would be allowed 
to assess the unique safety risks associated with their pipelines, 
create specific safety measures tailored to a pipeline or a segment of 
pipelines, and implement these measures subject to DOT approval and 
management. DOT would have the responsibility of ensuring that the risk 
management proposal contains provisions designed to provide an equal or 
greater level of safety than currently exists under the statute.
  S. 1505 also makes a number of smaller and technical changes. Among 
other things, pipeline operators must now be qualified rather than 
certified to operate a pipeline, the definition of environmentally 
sensitive areas is clarified, and DOT is given authority to enter into 
agreements with States and other entities to promote pipeline safety.
  S. 1505 lowers the user fees pipelines must collect to pay for the 
pipeline safety program. The improvements made to the pipeline safety 
program by this bill will result in less costly and more effective 
regulation of pipelines. Importantly, the user fees, while lower than 
DOT's original request, are significantly higher than the amounts 
authorized in the House bill. Keeping pipeline safety user fees at a 
reasonable level will assure that consumers can afford to purchase 
clean burning, environmentally friendly natural gas and will help keep 
the cost of heating oil and gasoline at reasonable levels.
  I believe DOT can run an efficient and effective Office of Pipeline 
Safety with the money authorized in S. 1505, given the fact that more 
emphasis will be placed on risk management and risk assessment as 
opposed to command and control regulation. S. 1505 is the kind of 
innovative solutions we need to ensure responsible regulation while 
controlling the cost of government.
  Overall, I believe S. 1505 will improve an already high level of 
safety on our Nation's interstate pipelines. I urge its adoption.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I come from an area of the country where, at times, 
terror springs forth from deep within the Earth. The ground shakes, 
fire and smoke belch forth, the siren wails, and then the process of 
counting the dead begins.
  It is unfortunate, but true, that this is part of the legacy of 
underground coal mining in Appalachia. For deep within many of these 
mines stalks a silent killer: It is known as methane gas. As it 
accumulates, it takes just one spark to set off a disaster that leaves 
many families without a father, son, or daughter.
  In many parts of the country, another potential silent killer lies 
beneath the ground. It is the natural gas that flows through the 1.6 
million miles of pipelines which run through rural and urban areas 
alike. A natural gas pipeline, lying beneath the Earth, can explode, 
and it can cause the same terror, the same trauma, and the same 
consequences to life and property as occurs with mine disasters.
  It is from this perspective that I approach the pending measure, and 
it is from this perspective why I am pleased to rise in support of the 
pending legislation, Mr. Speaker.
  The basic purpose of this bill is to reauthorize the natural gas and 
hazardous liquid pipeline safety programs through the year 2000. In 
this regard, the pending legislation provides authorization levels that 
are consistent with the administration's budget request for the Office 
of Pipeline Safety.
  The bottom line is that this legislation would not diminish pipeline 
safety whatsoever.
  At the same time, it provides the necessary authorization for the 
Office of Pipeline Safety to continue with its very important work of 
ensuring the safety of the American public as their safety relates to 
potential hazards associated with gas and liquid pipeline.
  I would note as the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] noted, 
that this bill passed the Senate in a bipartisan fashion, and it is 
generally supported by the Office of Pipeline Safety at the Department 
of Transportation.
  In this body, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
reported a reauthorization, as has already been stated bill on May 1, 
1995. We did so in a bipartisan fashion.
  Under a sequential referral, the Commerce Committee reported its 
version on June 1, 1995. It did not do so in a bipartisan fashion, and 
that is where we find ourselves today.
  The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is bipartisan in its 
support of the pending measure. In fact, from my perspective, the 
Senate version is superior to what the Transportation Committee 
Democrats agreed to last year.
  This is because the risk assessment provisions of the Senate bill are 
far more flexible than what was in the House bill, and basically 
comports with what the Office of Pipeline Safety is already 
undertaking. Further, the Senate bill has a higher authorization level 
than what is in the House measures.
  I see my very good friend from Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the 
Committee on Commerce, on the floor at this moment, and I realize fully 
that my distinguished friend from Michigan and his Committee on 
Commerce views itself rather as being second to none. Indeed our 
friendship is probably second to none in this body.

[[Page H11537]]

  It is a powerful committee, and it deserves our respect with all due 
respect to my friend. But in this case, in this particular piece of 
legislation, it is the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
which has the primary jurisdiction in this body, and we are united in 
our support thereof, Democrat and Republican alike.
  So I would urge my Democratic colleagues to support the pending 
measure and certainly realize that this came out of the bipartisan 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Dingell].
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my affection and respect 
for the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall] and also the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], and I want to point out that 
we on the Committee on Commerce have no concerns about the jurisdiction 
or jurisdictional questions or the referrals of these matters. I want 
to talk a little about the history of how this bill came to be and what 
is in it and why, perhaps, it ought to be rejected.
  First of all, the bill was only voted out of the Senate last night. 
No legislative hearings were held upon this bill either in the House or 
in the Senate. The bill, if my colleagues will read it, is poorly 
drafted and it is ambiguous. The Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure broke off discussions and negotiations with the other 
committees last week, so there have been no real discussions during 
that time.
  The threat to communities from unsafe pipelines is real. In 1994, a 
gas pipeline explosion destroyed an apartment complex in Edison, NJ. In 
1993, a leak in the Colonial Oil Pipeline in Fairfax County, VA, caused 
extensive property and environmental damage, and other events of this 
kind are waiting to happen.
  The bill allows, in a rather curious provision, the Department of 
Transportation to substitute a voluntary demonstration project for real 
regulation. That is hardly protecting the public safety or public 
interest. It does not ensure public participation when the Department 
of Transportation considers whether or not a pipeline should be exempt 
from regulation. That is possible even for pipelines which go through 
heavily settled metropolitan areas where some fine, fine explosions 
could occur. The bill discontinues the existing requirement that 
pipelines be inspected every 2 years, even in high density communities 
or in environmentally sensitive areas.
  Now, there are a lot of questions about this bill: Does the bill 
undermine rulemaking protections under the Administrative Procedure 
Act? The language of it indicates yes, that it does undermine the 
Administrative Procedure Act's requirements.
  The bill also raises questions of whether the APA applies or not. I 
do not believe that any member of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure can tell us whether in fact it applies or not.
  The question arises are the safety standards referred to in section 
60102 required to be set by rulemaking? Are they going to be done 
publicly? Or will they be done in some curious, sneaky, dishonest, 
underhanded fashion in the dark of night without public participation?
  Another question: What is going to happen to existing and pending 
pipeline safety standards? How will this requirement affect DOT's 
pending rule for replacing pipelines to facilitate better safety 
inspections? What kind of delay is this going to introduce in 
finalizing that rule?
  Now, there is a question of demonstration projects in public 
participation. The bill permits DOT to set up demonstration projects 
for pipelines in lieu of existing regulation.
  What does that mean?
  Question: Does DOT consider an application under this type of 
exemption? If it does, can local citizens participate? Are exemptions 
done through rulemaking where they can be challenged in court? Are 
citizens' comments to be a part of the public record, or will we hear 
only from pipeline executives? Will pipeline executives function in 
some kind of a curious darkened place where there is no public 
participation?
  The bill significantly alters wetland protections. It sets up some 
new category of critical wetlands. These are not defined in the bill. 
Question: What are these curious types of wetlands? Are they better or 
worse? Are they entitled to different protections than other wetlands? 
And what does this all mean?
  Now there is one other little item that is in this: peer review. The 
question here is, does the secretary have to put a peer review panel 
above the other rulemaking process? Does he bring into the peer review 
process ordinary citizens? Who is to be on this peer review panel? Are 
they going to be pipeline lobbyists or pipeline lawyers or pipeline 
executives or will ordinary citizens be permitted to participate in 
this? Is the mayor of a community that a major pipeline goes through 
going to be involved in this, or will there be representatives of 
cities and counties and local governments and safety authorities and 
fire insurance people and specialists in public safety of all kinds?
  The hard fact here is this bill drips questions, this bill raises 
more questions than it answers. It puts in place loopholes which raise 
questions about public safety. It was done in a very curious fashion. 
There have been no hearings. Nobody of the Transportation Committee can 
tell us what is in the bill. The Transportation Committee endorses it 
with great enthusiasm, and perhaps that is because they do not really 
know what is in the bill.
  The bill raises the fine question then of whether we should perhaps 
reject it because we are supposed to pass a bill on which there can be 
no amendments, without adequate discussion, in a period of 40 minutes 
which is going to raise fine questions later as to public safety.
  I would remind my colleagues that in the 1940's there was a natural 
gas explosion in the City of Cleveland which cost the citizens of 
Cleveland better than $300 million. That was in 1940's dollars; that 
was a huge sum. Enormous numbers of buildings were destroyed, citizens 
were destituted, and the consequences were horrible to see.
  The pipeline explosion which occurred in New Jersey was a spectacular 
event. It was reminiscent of an atom bomb going off.
  I would say that in the addressing of questions of pipeline safety we 
should consider the need to be concerned about the well-being of the 
pipelines. We also should be aware of the need to be concerned about 
the safety of citizens and about the mechanisms that government has to 
assure the safety of citizens from risks of leaking or exploding 
pipelines or fires which are associated with leaks in these pipelines.
  I urge the rejection of this bill.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri].
  (Mr. PETRI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to follow the 
unanimous lead of the Senate and of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure in adopting the measure before us. I would like to be 
clear that the Senate bill we are currently considering is based on a 
House bill that was favorably reported last year by both the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Committee on 
Commerce. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure approved 
the bill by a unanimous voice vote.

                              {time}  1645

  The only significant differences between the Senate bill that is 
before us and the bill approved by our committees are less prescriptive 
risk assessment provisions and increased authorization levels. The risk 
assessment provisions were developed with the United States Department 
of Transportation and reflect the current practices of the Office of 
Pipeline Safety, in accordance with President Clinton's executive order 
regarding cost-benefit analysis.
  This risk assessment approach is particularly suited to the pipeline 
safety program, as facts clearly show that pipelines remain the safest 
form of transportation. Fatalities from pipeline accidents represent 
only three one-thousandths of 1 percent of the total number of annual 
transportation fatalities.

[[Page H11538]]

  The second major new initiative in the bill before us, which was also 
included in the bill that our committees earlier adopted, is a pilot 
project to demonstrate the safety and cost-effectiveness of risk 
management.
  This provision gives statutory authority to a program already under 
development by the department. The goal of risk management is to focus 
resources on the greatest risks and improve protection of the public, 
rather than proposing a one-size-fits-all regulatory straitjacket and 
wasting resources and endangering the public by not focusing on where 
we can do the most good.
  A participant may submit a risk management safety plan for approval 
by the Secretary that would achieve a level of safety that is equal to 
or greater than that which would be achieved by following existing 
regulations. So we give them flexibility to improve safety, not to 
lower safety. I think it is something we should be encouraging.
  In return, the pipeline owner or operator would be allowed to operate 
free of the regulations that may be proved unnecessary based on the 
safety plan submitted.
  Mr. Speaker, I would note, as I said before, that the Senate passed 
this legislation by unanimous consent. We have worked for 18 months to 
reach the point we are today. Because this bill will improve pipeline 
safety by allowing the Department of Transportation and pipeline owners 
and operators to focus and allocate resources on the greatest risks to 
public safety and environment, I would urge the House to pass the bill 
before us.
  In conclusion, I would like to thank our colleagues, the gentleman 
from West Virginia, Nick Rahall, the ranking minority member of the 
Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, as well as the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, Mr. Shuster, and the gentleman from Minnesota, Jim 
Oberstar, for their support in the past, and their hard work on this 
important legislation.
  The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Bob Franks, a member of the 
Committee on Transportation, has worked diligently on this issue for a 
number of years, and so has the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Schaefer, 
and the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Bliley, of the Committee on 
Commerce, which shares jurisdiction over the pipeline safety program.
  Finally, I would like to recognize the many hours that the Department 
of Transportation has devoted to this legislation. I think it is a 
good, worthwhile product, and we should adopt it today.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask that this bill be rejected. Let me just give the 
Members the very simple five-step program to understanding this bill.
  Step No. 1: The Department of Transportation finds a very serious 
problem in pipelines across the United States. They might explode, for 
some reason or another, because of some defect which they have found in 
pipelines nationally, a very serious problem, a great public safety 
problem in community after community across the United States.
  Step No. 2: The Department of Transportation decides to promulgate a 
rule in order to ensure that the public safety will be protected 
against the defects which have been created in pipelines in 
neighborhoods near where children play all across the United States.
  Step No. 3: The bill, as constructed by the authors, then forces an 
extremely complex risk assessment cost-benefit analysis of whether or 
not these pipelines should in fact be repaired or the changes made in 
the methodology that in the future will ensure that all of the 
citizens, all of the children that live in these neighborhoods, will be 
protected.
  Step No. 4: An industry-dominated peer review panel reviews the rule 
and then dissents from it. It says to the Department of Transportation, 
as the peer review panel we really do not think that this rule is 
necessary.
  The interesting thing is that under the bill, the peer review panel 
that has this right to dissent is packed with, guess what, pipeline 
company officials, who will have to change the way in which they make 
these pipes that are endangering the children in the neighborhoods. 
Now, with this peer review panel packed with pipeline officials that 
make their living off of these pipes, they say no, we dissent. We do 
not think the rule should go into place.
  Then, step No. 5: The lawyers for the pipeline companies then use the 
dissent of the peer review panel at the Department of Transportation as 
the basis for their lawsuit, which keeps the rule from going on the 
books for years in this country. Meanwhile, the pipelines continue to 
exist or continue to be built that endanger the children in the 
neighborhoods of this country.
  Mr. Speaker, how in the world can we in good conscience, with less 
than 1 day left to go in the Congress, with so little understanding of 
what this impact could be, cater to the special interests of pipeline 
companies and give them this opportunity of railroading through here 
this inoculation against the guarantee that the people of this country 
will be protected?
  Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Hall].
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Hall].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Hall] is 
recognized for 3 minutes.
  (Mr. HALL of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 1505, 
the Pipeline Safety Reauthorization Act. This legislation is not really 
a stranger to this House. In fact, it is similar to the legislation 
that passed the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure over a 
year ago.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill reaches some important compromises on several 
issues that were contentious in the House. If I recollect, the 
gentleman from New Jersey had some problems with some of those. 
Frankly, I had thought the gentleman had done such a good job 
representing the people of New Jersey that he had had his problems 
solved over there. I am surprised to find out today that he has not. I 
admire his spunk in standing up and taking the positions he has taken.
  I think we have reached out the hands to try to take care of the 
problems that were set forth. If not, had I known so 2 weeks ago, we 
would have done our best to have addressed them.
  Really and truly, Mr. Speaker, the bill reaches all types of 
important compromises. I think first, the risk assessment cost-benefit 
analysis in the Senate bill is significantly less prescriptive than 
last year's regulatory reform legislation.
  Senators John Glenn and Carl Levin, the senior Democrats on the 
Senate Government Affairs Committee, agree. According to these two 
Senators, I understand that their position is that the risk assessment 
provision in S. 1505 is carefully tailored to the pipeline safety 
program at the Department of Transportation, and represents a fair and 
reasonable approach, so they said. This provision has the support of 
the Department of Transportation.
  Second, S. 1505 contains a risk management demonstration project 
which is virtually identical to a provision in the House legislation. 
Some have suggested that this program will exempt pipeline operators 
from existing pipeline safety regulations. Of course that is not so. 
Under the voluntary demonstration program, pipeline operators would be 
given the opportunity to submit alternative safety plans to the 
Department of Transportation which address the unique safety concerns 
of that pipeline system.
  The Department of Transportation would have to certify that the risk 
management plan provided an equal or greater level of safety than 
existing regulations before the plan could be approved. This is not a 
plan for thwarting regulations, it is a way of providing an even higher 
level of safety than simply sticking to minimum safety standards.
  Last, this bill provides a more than adequate budget for DOT to carry 
out its pipeline safety program. The authorization figures in S. 1505 
are significantly higher than those contained in last year's bill, and 
have the support of both DOT and the regulated industry.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation enjoyed unanimous bipartisan support in 
the other body just yesterday. It is not anything new. They passed it 
unanimously over there, Republicans and

[[Page H11539]]

Democrats alike. I do not see any reason why, Mr. Speaker, it should 
not be approved today and receive the same overwhelming support in this 
Chamber today.
  I am really a little surprised that there is even any opposition to 
it. The bill is going to continue to provide the Department of 
Transportation the necessary tools to continue to protect the public 
safety and the environment. I urge Members' support.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to mention, because I know different 
statements were made, that there is no administration position on this 
legislation. To characterize it and say that the President has said 
whether he will support this bill or not is simply not accurate. There 
is no position at this time.
  In addition, I would like to point out again that we are talking 
about a bill that passed the Senate and that came over here today. 
There was no conference on this bill. In fact, the House versions of 
the bill, even though they passed the two committees, the Committee on 
Commerce and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, never 
were reconciled and never came to the floor of the House. So there was 
no hearing on the Senate bill, and the Senate bill is very different in 
many respects from the House versions in both of the two committees.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned, because 2 years ago when the 
explosion occurred in my district, in Edison, NJ, there were officials 
who came in from the Office of Pipeline Safety. There was an 
investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board. They made a 
series of recommendations as to what should be done in the future with 
pipeline safety.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, a lot of those recommendations have not 
been met. Essentially what came out of the Edison explosion, I feel, 
was a feeling nationally that was expressed by many organizations that 
more needed to be done to protect residents, to protect the average 
American from the dangers of pipelines that were not properly inspected 
or that were subject to risks for various reasons.
  We have had many incidents since that time, and in fact, I was given 
a press article that was actually in the Associated Press just a couple 
of weeks ago, September 26, 1996: ``U.S. orders Colonial to test entire 
pipeline, from Dallas. The Nation's biggest petroleum pipeline is 
hazardous, and its owners have been ordered to test the entire 1,500 
mile line, from Texas through to the Carolinas to New Jersey,'' a 
Federal official said. I mentioned the Iroquois pipeline before.
  The bottom line is that there is every reason to believe that there 
needs to be more protection because of problems with pipelines. Yes, 
what do we get instead? We have a Congress now that, instead of 
reacting to that in a progressive way, instead puts in place a 
regressive, if you will, method of essentially downgrading and turning 
the clock back, if you will, on the way we go about pipeline 
inspections right now.

  The germ of all this is that risk assessment procedure. What we have 
essentially, and I listened to some of the comments made by my 
colleague on the other side of this issue, what we have essentially 
here is an effort to put into this bill the risk assessment ideology, 
if you will, that existed in the Contract With America, that says that 
industry knows best; that industry, through demonstration programs, 
should be allowed to get out of existing rules or existing requirements 
and basically do what they want: set up their own safety standards, do 
their own testing, do their own investigation. That is not the way it 
should be. There is too much of a conflict of interest here.
  Mr. Speaker, this is going to be a prime example of how the Gingrich 
Congress, the 104th Congress, basically lets industry write the laws. 
Those industry laws, those laws are written in a way that hurt the 
average American, do not provide protection, safety protections for the 
average American.
  Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that this Congress had learned a lesson, 
that that was not the way to go. But this legislation if it passes 
today is going to be a prime example of exactly the type of legislation 
that we passed under that risk assessment procedure, under that 
procedure that says that we need to downgrade regulations, we do not 
need to protect the average American, we need to let industry do its 
own investigation, its own enforcement, as it sees fit.

                              {time}  1700

  I see a basic conflict of interest there. I think if you look at the 
explosions and you look at what has been happening with pipeline safety 
over the last few years, you can tell that that is not the way to go, 
and yet that is what we have in this instance.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
West Virginia [Mr. Wise].
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. The fact of the matter 
is this legislation has been hanging around, dragging along, whatever, 
for a long, long time.
  The natural gas industry, though, is an industry that is rapidly 
developing. That is one bright spot as we try to become energy 
dependent. Natural gas is the way that we achieve a lot of that, and so 
it is very important that we have some rules of the road. That is why 
this bill is so important.
  It seems to have been worked out in a bipartisan compromise. That is 
the way that we ought to be doing that, and we ought to give those in 
the natural gas industry and those who also make their living from the 
natural gas industry and those who live in the gas fields, we ought to 
give them that predictability.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this legislation.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] 
that I never said the President supported this bill. I said the Office 
of Pipeline Safety within DOT supports this legislation.
  In regard to the risk assessment provisions, we did not and we have 
not in this bill taken the risk assessment language of the Contract 
With America word for word. We have made it more flexible. We have 
actually improved the risk assessment language, and the Senate bill 
went even further than our original House legislation.
  We made it more flexible. We have increased the authorization levels 
for the Office of Pipeline Safety. So we have dramatically improved 
this bill over what it was originally, and it is not the prescriptive 
language that the gentleman from New Jersey would ascribe to it. I 
would say in addition to that, we have had hearings on this issue. It 
has gone on for well over 18 months as we have heard now. We have not 
had hearings on the Senate bill precisely but we have had hearings on 
this issue and it has been dealt with quite a bit.
  We asked the gentleman from New Jersey early on in the process, 
throughout the process, what are his recommendations for improving the 
bill, what are his amendments, please present them in the process and 
we will talk further with you and negotiate further with you. We 
received no such process. So yes, I guess in that sense the process did 
break down.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the legislation.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Franks].
  Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in support of this measure today, a 
measure that was supported by both U.S. Senators from my home State of 
New Jersey. I do so because the impact of this bill will be to focus 
additional resources on areas that present the greatest potential risk. 
For a highly developed, densely populated State like New Jersey, with 
hundreds of miles of pipeline and densely populated areas, this 
approach will have a positive impact, leading to more frequent 
inspections and greater use of safety enhancing technologies.
  Instead of spreading out resources to provide for the same level of 
safety for every mile of pipeline, whether it is located in the 
wilderness or next to an apartment complex, the provisions of this bill 
will allow pipeline companies greater flexibility in defining a program 
to enhance safety, not less safety

[[Page H11540]]

but equal and enhanced safety measures.
  Mr. Speaker, let me finally point out that the existing command and 
control structure did not help the residents of Durham Woods. It is 
under the old system of command and control that that explosion took 
place. We need to invest greater resources in areas that present the 
greatest risk.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, frankly, I was quite surprised to hear this legislation 
attacked by my good friend from New Jersey when indeed both New Jersey 
Senators not only support this legislation, but Senator Lautenberg, who 
has dedicated his life to transportation safety, has been a vigorous 
supporter of this legislation and, indeed, has put an extensive 
statement in the Congressional Record in support of this legislation.
  Further, I am surprised to hear attacks on risk assessment, because 
the risk assessment in this legislation starts with the position the 
administration has taken on risk assessment and in fact toughens it up.
  We all know, nobody disputes, that pipeline is the safest form of 
transportation we have. Indeed, I think at bottom, what this really 
boils down to, this debate, is a debate between the old command and 
control, ``Washington knows best'' point of view and the point of view 
which says let's modernize, let's look to the future instead of the 
past, let's put our focus in those areas where we need the most 
emphasis and not try to micromanage an industry.
  So for all of those reasons, I believe that this bipartisan 
legislation should be vigorously supported, and I would urge its 
passage.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1505, the 
Accountable Pipeline Safety Act. This bill is a modified version of 
H.R. 1323 which was passed out of the Commerce Committee last year. It 
is a good bill and will protect the public and the environment from 
hazards posed by natural gas and hazardous liquid pipelines. And it 
will do so in a more cost-effective manner.
  I have long been concerned with the safe operation of natural gas and 
hazardous liquid pipelines. Since 1980, there have been at least seven 
pipeline ruptures in the State of Virginia. The most recent occurred in 
Fairfax County, VA, when approximately 9,000 gallons of diesel was 
spilled due to third party damage to a pipeline. Another accident in 
1989 forced the city of Fredericksburg to shut down its city water 
intake when 5,000 gallons of kerosene were spilled.
  I believe it is vitally important that our natural gas and oil 
pipelines are operated in as safe a manner as possible. S. 1505, like 
H.R. 1323, takes a new and better approach to pipeline safety. In the 
past, the Congress approached pipeline safety by requiring the 
Department of Transportation to implement Federal minimum standards 
which all pipelines are required to meet. Both industry and DOT agree 
that this is not an efficient use of resources.
  The risk assessment and risk management approach taken in S. 1505 
will result in improved safety at lower costs. The Commerce Committee 
is committed to the concept of risk assessment and I believe it is 
appropriate to apply it to pipeline safety regulations. In this case, 
this modified risk approach will benefit those living or working near 
pipelines by making them safer, as well as benefit consumers who pay 
for the cost of the pipeline safety program by lowering user fees.
  I commend the subcommittee chairman and the chairmen from the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for their hard work on this 
bill and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the Senate bill, S. 1505.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________