[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 41 (Thursday, April 2, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Page S3108]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      UPDATE ON THE ACCOUNTABLE PIPELINE SAFETY & PARTNERSHIP ACT

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I want to take a few moments to update my 
Senate colleagues on an important piece of legislation enacted in the 
last Congress. The bill, now a law, was about regulatory reform of a 
segment of the energy community, namely natural gas pipelines. As DOT 
begins the rulemaking process required by law, they do so with improved 
regulatory reform guidelines.
  Although this law only affects one statute and one agency it is real 
regulatory reform. It is the government and industry working together 
to make each more efficient and effective. It is government being held 
accountable for its rulemaking and regulatory decisions.
  This law, the Accountable Pipeline Safety and Partnership Act of 
1996, passed the 104th Congress, bringing with it provisions that 
strengthen risk assessment, cost/benefit analysis and peer review. Last 
week the Department of Transportation announced its first participant 
in a demonstration program where the rules will be flexibly applied and 
pipeline safety will be improved.
  The Accountable Pipeline Safety and Partnership Act has two important 
elements which make it unique. First, all new pipeline safety 
regulations must undergo a risk assessment and cost/benefit analysis. 
This is crucial, because it ensures that new regulations and limited 
public resources are focused to maximize public benefit. This is real 
regulatory reform.
  The second notable element of the Accountable Pipeline Safety and 
Partnership Act is the risk management demonstration project. Intended 
to move the agency beyond the old ``command-and-control'' style of 
regulating, this project allows individual pipelines to propose their 
own safety procedures to DOT for review and approval. This type of risk 
management takes us to a higher and more sophisticated level of safety 
regulation. Once again, the agency is encouraged to direct limited 
resources towards activities that provide maximum safety to the public. 
This, too, is real regulatory reform.
  The Office of Pipeline Safety, has received a number of applications 
from pipeline companies that want to participate in the risk management 
demonstration project. One company has been approved and five other 
applicants are close to approval. These proposals have bolstered 
innovation in safety policy, and have encouraged pipeline companies to 
think beyond simple compliance with existing standards. The government 
is learning to think ``outside of the box'' and to consider creative 
industry solutions. This genuine reengineering partnership illustrates 
the fruits of real regulatory reform.
  The demonstration project illustrates a commitment by a number of DOT 
civil servants to the principles of this law. Three key staff deserve 
recognition for rapidly implementing the law: Kelley Coyner, Rich 
Felder, and Stacey Gerad. These civil servants ensured that the 
American public gets greater safety and environmental protection when 
industry is given flexibility. This law is a bargain for America.
  The Accountable Pipeline Safety and Partnership Act has restored 
trust between regulators and the regulated community. This new found 
trust will permit the sharing of research information that can be 
translated into improved pipeline safety technology. This trust has 
maximized both government and private dollars.
  Enacting this legislation is a formal recognition that there is a 
valid role for risk assessment and cost/benefit analysis in federal 
rulemaking. These steps must be taken when regulating, not simply as a 
check off or to satisfy requirements of transparency, but to genuinely 
incorporate the results into how the rules are made. Cost is an 
essential factor and cannot be dismissed by rulemakers.
  This regulatory reform is the law of the land for a small sector of 
our federal system.
  This incremental effort changed a public policy by establishing a new 
level of confidence among stakeholders. It did not create a cloud of 
legislative doubt and confusion. To the contrary, it received 
overwhelming support from both chambers of Congress. This initiative is 
indeed a genuine bipartisan regulatory reform approach.
  Regulatory reform should be incremental and fully bipartisan. If this 
Congress considers just one element of the regulatory process this year 
I believe it should be risk. There is a clear consensus among our 
colleagues that changes must be made to the rulemaking process. Risk is 
the basis for every rule, and should be the center of our next 
legislative correction.
  I frequently draw a comparison between risk and a dog's ear. As you 
wash a dog, it has a tendency to want to shake the water and shampoo 
off. Because a dog starts shaking at the head and will not stop until 
the final flick of the tail, holding the ear will stop the shaking. 
Just as the dog's ear is the starting point of a shake, risk is the 
starting point of the rulemaking process. Without a risk, there can be 
no rule. Without a free ear, a dog cannot spray water everywhere. The 
water and shampoo will be effectively applied to the desired subject, 
and not wasted by going everywhere. Get risk right and the regulated 
industry will have respect for the rulemaking process. Ignoring risk 
and working on anything else is like holding the dog's tail --you will 
get soaked as the dog shakes from the head down to its tail. 
Unnecessary rules and regulations will abound.
  I want to thank my colleagues for their attention. Regulatory reform 
is a passion in which I have invested six years. It is an area I will 
remain engaged in because more legislative changes are needed. It may 
take years of incremental efforts, but only this step-by-step approach 
will generate the confidence and comfort necessary to reform the 
rulemaking process. Current regulations were enacted during the years 
when the philosophical approach was one-size-fits-all. This is no 
longer operative. These rules and procedures should be updated in a 
deliberate but incremental manner to reflect today's modern approach--
an approach that permits innovative technology and offers flexibility.
  Mr. President, the approval of this demonstration program is a 
validation of today's modern approach. Safety will not be jeopardized 
and environmental protection will not be compromised. It is a 
recognition that regulatory reform, when done incrementally and with 
the goal of producing effective regulations, can have a real impact on 
government's rulemaking.

                          ____________________