[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 125 (Tuesday, October 10, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H9548-H9562]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PIPELINE SAFETY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2000
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
Senate bill (S. 2438) to provide for enhanced safety, public awareness,
and environmental protection in pipeline transportation, and for other
purposes.
The Clerk read as follows:
S. 2438
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; AMENDMENT OF TITLE 49, UNITED STATES
CODE.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Pipeline
Safety Improvement Act of 2000''.
(b) Amendment of Title 49, United States Code.--Except as
otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this Act an
amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to,
or a 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. 2. IMPLEMENTATION OF INSPECTOR GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS.
(a) In General.--Except as otherwise required by this Act,
the Secretary shall implement the safety improvement
recommendations provided for in the Department of
Transportation Inspector General's Report (RT-2000-069).
(b) Reports by the Secretary.--Not later than 90 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, and every 90 days
thereafter until each of the recommendations referred to in
subsection (a) has been implemented, the Secretary shall
transmit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives a report on the specific actions taken to
implement such recommendations.
(c) Reports by the Inspector General.--The Inspector
General shall periodically transmit to the Committees
referred to in
[[Page H9549]]
subsection (b) a report assessing the Secretary's progress in
implementing the recommendations referred to in subsection
(a) and identifying options for the Secretary to consider in
accelerating recommendation implementation.
SEC. 3. NTSB SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Transportation, the
Administrator of Research and Special Program Administration,
and the Director of the Office of Pipeline Safety shall fully
comply with section 1135 of title 49, United States Code, to
ensure timely responsiveness to National Transportation
Safety Board recommendations about pipeline safety.
(b) Public Availability.--The Secretary, Administrator, or
Director, respectively, shall make a copy of each
recommendation on pipeline safety and response, as described
in sections 1135 (a) and (b) of title 49, United States Code,
available to the public at reasonable cost.
(c) Reports to Congress.--The Secretary, Administrator, or
Director, respectively, shall submit to the Congress by
January 1 of each year a report containing each
recommendation on pipeline safety made by the Board during
the prior year and a copy of the response to each such
recommendation.
SEC. 4. QUALIFICATIONS OF PIPELINE PERSONNEL.
(a) Qualification Plan.--Each pipeline operator shall make
available to the Secretary of Transportation, or, in the case
of an intrastate pipeline facility operator, the appropriate
State regulatory agency, a plan that is designed to enhance
the qualifications of pipeline personnel and to reduce the
likelihood of accidents and injuries. The plan shall be made
available not more than 6 months after the date of enactment
of this Act, and the operator shall revise or update the plan
as appropriate.
(b) Requirements.--The enhanced qualification plan shall
include, at a minimum, criteria to demonstrate the ability of
an individual to safely and properly perform tasks identified
under section 60102 of title 49, United States Code. The plan
shall also provide for training and periodic reexamination of
pipeline personnel qualifications and provide for
requalification as appropriate. The Secretary, or, in the
case of an intrastate pipeline facility operator, the
appropriate State regulatory agency, may review and certify
the plans to determine if they are sufficient to provide a
safe operating environment and shall periodically review the
plans to ensure the continuation of a safe operation. The
Secretary may establish minimum standards for pipeline
personnel training and evaluation, which may include written
examination, oral examination, work performance history
review, observation during performance on the job, on the job
training, simulations, or other forms of assessment.
(c) Report to Congress.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall submit a report to the
Congress evaluating the effectiveness of operator
qualification and training efforts, including--
(A) actions taken by inspectors;
(B) recommendations made by inspectors for changes to
operator qualification and training programs; and
(C) industry responses to those actions and
recommendations.
(2) Criteria.--The Secretary may establish criteria for use
in evaluating and reporting on operator qualification and
training for purposes of this subsection.
(3) Due date.--The Secretary shall submit the report
required by paragraph (1) to the Congress 3 years after the
date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 5. PIPELINE INTEGRITY INSPECTION PROGRAM.
Section 60109 is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(c) Integrity Management.--
``(1) General requirement.--The Secretary shall promulgate
regulations requiring operators of hazardous liquid pipelines
and natural gas transmission pipelines to evaluate the risks
to the operator's pipeline facilities in areas identified
pursuant to subsection (a)(1), and to adopt and implement a
program for integrity management that reduces the risk of an
incident in those areas. The regulations shall be issued no
later than one year after the Secretary has issued standards
pursuant to subsections (a) and (b) of this section or by
December 31, 2001, whichever is sooner.
``(2) Standards for program.--In promulgating regulations
under this section, the Secretary shall require an operator's
integrity management plan to be based on risk analysis and
each plan shall include, at a minimum--
``(A) periodic assessment of the integrity of the pipeline
through methods including internal inspection, pressure
testing, direct assessment, or other effective methods;
``(B) clearly defined criteria for evaluating the results
of the periodic assessment methods carried out under
subparagraph (A) and procedures to ensure identified problems
are corrected in a timely manner; and
``(C) measures, as appropriate, that prevent and mitigate
unintended releases, such as leak detection, integrity
evaluation, restrictive flow devices, or other measures.
``(3) Criteria for program standards.--In deciding how
frequently the integrity assessment methods carried out under
paragraph (2)(A) must be conducted, an operator shall take
into account the potential for new defects developing or
previously identified structural defects caused by
construction or installation, the operational characteristics
of the pipeline, and leak history. In addition, the Secretary
may establish a minimum testing requirement for operators of
pipelines to conduct internal inspections.
``(4) State role.--A State authority that has an agreement
in effect with the Secretary under section 60106 is
authorized to review and assess an operator's risk analyses
and integrity management plans required under this section
for interstate pipelines located in that State. The reviewing
State authority shall provide the Secretary with a written
assessment of the plans, make recommendations, as
appropriate, to address safety concerns not adequately
addressed in the operator's plans, and submit documentation
explaining the State-proposed plan revisions. The Secretary
shall carefully consider the State's proposals and work in
consultation with the States and operators to address safety
concerns.
``(5) Monitoring implementation.--The Secretary of
Transportation shall review the risk analysis and program for
integrity management required under this section and provide
for continued monitoring of such plans. Not later than 2
years after the implementation of integrity management plans
under this section, the Secretary shall complete an
assessment and evaluation of the effects on safety and the
environment of extending all of the requirements mandated by
the regulations described in paragraph (1) to additional
areas. The Secretary shall submit the assessment and
evaluation to Congress along with any recommendations to
improve and expand the utilization of integrity management
plans.
``(6) Opportunity for local input on integrity
management.--Within 18 months after the date of enactment of
the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2000, the Secretary
shall, by regulation, establish a process for raising and
addressing local safety concerns about pipeline integrity and
the operator's pipeline integrity plan. The process shall
include--
``(A) a requirement that an operator of a hazardous liquid
or natural gas transmission pipeline facility provide
information about the risk analysis and integrity management
plan required under this section to local officials in a
State in which the facility is located;
``(B) a description of the local officials required to be
informed, the information that is to be provided to them and
the manner, which may include traditional or electronic
means, in which it is provided;
``(C) the means for receiving input from the local
officials that may include a public forum sponsored by the
Secretary or by the State, or the submission of written
comments through traditional or electronic means;
``(D) the extent to which an operator of a pipeline
facility must participate in a public forum sponsored by the
Secretary or in another means for receiving input from the
local officials or in the evaluation of that input; and
``(E) the manner in which the Secretary will notify the
local officials about how their concerns are being
addressed.''.
SEC. 6. ENFORCEMENT.
(a) In General.--Section 60112 is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
``(a) General Authority.--After notice and an opportunity
for a hearing, the Secretary of Transportation may decide a
pipeline facility is hazardous if the Secretary decides
that--
``(1) operation of the facility is or would be hazardous to
life, property, or the environment; or
``(2) the facility is, or would be, constructed or
operated, or a component of the facility is, or would be,
constructed or operated with equipment, material, or a
technique that the Secretary decides is hazardous to life,
property, or the environment.''; and
(2) by striking ``is hazardous,'' in subsection (d) and
inserting ``is, or would be, hazardous,''.
SEC. 7. PUBLIC EDUCATION, EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS, AND
COMMUNITY RIGHT TO KNOW.
(a) Section 60116 is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 60116. Public education, emergency preparedness, and
community right to know
``(a) Public Education Programs.--
``(1) Each owner or operator of a gas or hazardous liquid
pipeline facility shall carry out a continuing program to
educate the public on the use of a one-call notification
system prior to excavation and other damage prevention
activities, the possible hazards associated with unintended
releases from the pipeline facility, the physical indications
that such a release may have occurred, what steps should be
taken for public safety in the event of a pipeline release,
and how to report such an event.
``(2) Within 12 months after the date of enactment of the
Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2000, each owner or
operator of a gas or hazardous liquid pipeline facility shall
review its existing public education program for
effectiveness and modify the program as necessary. The
completed program shall include activities to advise affected
municipalities, school districts, businesses, and residents
of pipeline facility locations. The completed program shall
be submitted to the Secretary or, in the case of an
intrastate
[[Page H9550]]
pipeline facility operator, the appropriate State agency and
shall be periodically reviewed by the Secretary or, in the
case of an intrastate pipeline facility operator, the
appropriate State agency.
``(3) The Secretary may issue standards prescribing the
elements of an effective public education program. The
Secretary may also develop material for use in the program.
``(b) Emergency Preparedness.--
``(1) Operator liaison.--Within 12 months after the date of
enactment of the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2000, an
operator of a gas transmission or hazardous liquid pipeline
facility shall initiate and maintain liaison with the State
emergency response commissions, and local emergency planning
committees in the areas of pipeline right-of-way, established
under section 301 of the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-To-Know Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. 11001) in each State in
which it operates.
``(2) Information.--An operator shall, upon request, make
available to the State emergency response commissions and
local emergency planning committees, and shall make available
to the Office of Pipeline Safety in a standardized form for
the purpose of providing the information to the public, the
information described in section 60102(d), the operator's
program for integrity management, and information about
implementation of that program. The information about the
facility shall also include, at a minimum--
``(A) the business name, address, telephone number of the
operator, including a 24-hour emergency contact number;
``(B) a description of the facility, including pipe
diameter, the product or products carried, and the operating
pressure;
``(C) with respect to transmission pipeline facilities,
maps showing the location of the facility and, when
available, any high consequence areas which the pipeline
facility traverses or adjoins and abuts;
``(D) a summary description of the integrity measures the
operator uses to assure safety and protection for the
environment; and
``(E) a point of contact to respond to questions from
emergency response representative.
``(3) Smaller communities.--In a community without a local
emergency planning committee, the operator shall maintain
liaison with the local fire, police, and other emergency
response agencies.
``(4) Public access.--The Secretary shall prescribe
requirements for public access, as appropriate, to this
information, including a requirement that the information be
made available to the public by widely accessible
computerized database.
``(c) Community Right To Know.--Not later than 12 months
after the date of enactment of the Pipeline Safety
Improvement Act of 2000, and annually thereafter, the owner
or operator of each gas transmission or hazardous liquid
pipeline facility shall provide to the governing body of each
municipality in which the pipeline facility is located, a map
identifying the location of such facility. The map may be
provided in electronic form. The Secretary may provide
technical assistance to the pipeline industry on developing
public safety and public education program content and best
practices for program delivery, and on evaluating the
effectiveness of the programs. The Secretary may also provide
technical assistance to State and local officials in applying
practices developed in these programs to their activities to
promote pipeline safety.
``(d) Public Availability of Reports.--The Secretary
shall--
``(1) make available to the public--
``(A) a safety-related condition report filed by an
operator under section 60102(h);
``(B) a report of a pipeline incident filed by an operator;
``(C) the results of any inspection by the Office of
Pipeline Safety or a State regulatory official; and
``(D) a description of any corrective action taken in
response to a safety-related condition reported under
subparagraph (A), (B), or (C); and
``(2) prescribe requirements for public access, as
appropriate, to integrity management program information
prepared under this chapter, including requirements that will
ensure data accessibility to the greatest extent feasible.''.
(b) Safety Condition Reports.--Section 60102(h)(2) is
amended by striking ``authorities.'' and inserting
``officials, including the local emergency responders.''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter
601 is amended by striking the item relating to section 60116
and inserting the following:
``60116. Public education, emergency preparedness, community right to
know.''.
SEC. 8. PENALTIES.
(a) Civil Penalties.--Section 60122 is amended--
(1) by striking ``$25,000'' in subsection (a)(1) and
inserting ``$500,000'';
(2) by striking ``$500,000'' in subsection (a)(1) and
inserting ``$1,000,000'';
(3) by adding at the end of subsection (a)(1) the
following: ``The preceding sentence does not apply to
judicial enforcement action under section 60120 or 60121.'';
and
(4) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
``(b) Penalty Considerations.--In determining the amount of
a civil penalty under this section--
``(1) the Secretary shall consider--
``(A) the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the
violation, including adverse impact on the environment;
``(B) with respect to the violator, the degree of
culpability, any history of prior violations, the ability to
pay, any effect on ability to continue doing business; and
``(C) good faith in attempting to comply; and
``(2) the Secretary may consider--
``(A) the economic benefit gained from the violation
without any discount because of subsequent damages; and
``(B) other matters that justice requires.''.
(b) Excavator Damage.--Section 60123(d) is amended--
(1) by striking ``knowingly and willfully'';
(2) by inserting ``knowingly and willfully'' before
``engages'' in paragraph (1); and
(3) striking paragraph (2)(B) and inserting the following:
``(B) a pipeline facility, is aware of damage, and does not
report the damage promptly to the operator of the pipeline
facility and to other appropriate authorities; or''.
(c) Civil Actions.--Section 60120(a)(1) is amended to read
as follows:
``(1) On the request of the Secretary of Transportation,
the Attorney General may bring a civil action in an
appropriate district court of the United States to enforce
this chapter, including section 60112 of this chapter, or a
regulation prescribed or order issued under this chapter. The
court may award appropriate relief, including a temporary or
permanent injunction, punitive damages, and assessment of
civil penalties considering the same factors as prescribed
for the Secretary in an administrative case under section
60122.''.
SEC. 9. STATE OVERSIGHT ROLE.
(a) State Agreements With Certification.--Section 60106 is
amended--
(1) by striking ``General Authority.--'' in subsection (a)
and inserting ``Agreements Without Certification.--'';
(2) by redesignating subsections (b), (c), and (d) as
subsections (c), (d), and (e); and
(3) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
``(b) Agreements With Certification.--
``(1) In general.--If the Secretary accepts a certification
under section 60105 of this title and makes the determination
required under this subsection, the Secretary may make an
agreement with a State authority authorizing it to
participate in the oversight of interstate pipeline
transportation. Each such agreement shall include a plan for
the State authority to participate in special investigations
involving incidents or new construction and allow the State
authority to participate in other activities overseeing
interstate pipeline transportation or to assume additional
inspection or investigatory duties. Nothing in this section
modifies section 60104(c) or authorizes the Secretary to
delegate the enforcement of safety standards prescribed under
this chapter to a State authority.
``(2) Determinations required.--The Secretary may not enter
into an agreement under this subsection, unless the Secretary
determines that--
``(A) the agreement allowing participation of the State
authority is consistent with the Secretary's program for
inspection and consistent with the safety policies and
provisions provided under this chapter;
``(B) the interstate participation agreement would not
adversely affect the oversight responsibilities of intrastate
pipeline transportation by the State authority;
``(C) the State is carrying out a program demonstrated to
promote preparedness and risk prevention activities that
enable communities to live safely with pipelines;
``(D) the State meets the minimum standards for State one-
call notification set forth in chapter 61; and
``(E) the actions planned under the agreement would not
impede interstate commerce or jeopardize public safety.
``(3) Existing agreements.--If requested by the State
Authority, the Secretary shall authorize a State Authority
which had an interstate agreement in effect after January,
1999, to oversee interstate pipeline transportation pursuant
to the terms of that agreement until the Secretary determines
that the State meets the requirements of paragraph (2) and
executes a new agreement, or until December 31, 2001,
whichever is sooner. Nothing in this paragraph shall prevent
the Secretary, after affording the State notice, hearing, and
an opportunity to correct any alleged deficiencies, from
terminating an agreement that was in effect before enactment
of the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2000 if--
``(A) the State Authority fails to comply with the terms of
the agreement;
``(B) implementation of the agreement has resulted in a gap
in the oversight responsibilities of intrastate pipeline
transportation by the State Authority; or
``(C) continued participation by the State Authority in the
oversight of interstate pipeline transportation has had an
adverse impact on pipeline safety.''.
(b) Ending Agreements.--Subsection (e) of section 60106, as
redesignated by subsection (a), is amended to read as
follows:
``(e) Ending Agreements.--
``(1) Permissive termination.--The Secretary may end an
agreement under this section when the Secretary finds that
the State authority has not complied with any provision of
the agreement.
[[Page H9551]]
``(2) Mandatory termination of agreement.--The Secretary
shall end an agreement for the oversight of interstate
pipeline transportation if the Secretary finds that--
``(A) implementation of such agreement has resulted in a
gap in the oversight responsibilities of intrastate pipeline
transportation by the State authority;
``(B) the State actions under the agreement have failed to
meet the requirements under subsection (b); or
``(C) continued participation by the State authority in the
oversight of interstate pipeline transportation would not
promote pipeline safety.
``(3) Procedural requirements.--The Secretary shall give
the notice and an opportunity for a hearing to a State
authority before ending an agreement under this section. The
Secretary may provide a State an opportunity to correct any
deficiencies before ending an agreement. The finding and
decision to end the agreement shall be published in the
Federal Register and may not become effective for at least 15
days after the date of publication unless the Secretary finds
that continuation of an agreement poses an imminent
hazard.''.
SEC. 10. IMPROVED DATA AND DATA AVAILABILITY.
(a) In General.--Within 12 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop and
implement a comprehensive plan for the collection and use of
gas and hazardous liquid pipeline data to revise the causal
categories on the incident report forms to eliminate
overlapping and confusing categories and include
subcategories. The plan shall include components to provide
the capability to perform sound incident trend analysis and
evaluations of pipeline operator performance using normalized
accident data.
(b) Report of Releases Exceeding 5 Gallons.--Section
60117(b) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``To'';
(2) redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as subparagraphs
(A) and (B);
(3) inserting before the last sentence the following:
``(2) A person owning or operating a hazardous liquid
pipeline facility shall report to the Secretary each release
to the environment greater than five gallons of the hazardous
liquid or carbon dioxide transported. This section applies to
releases from pipeline facilities regulated under this
chapter. A report must include the location of the release,
fatalities and personal injuries, type of product, amount of
product release, cause or causes of the release, extent of
damage to property and the environment, and the response
undertaken to clean up the release.
``(3) During the course of an incident investigation, a
person owning or operating a pipeline facility shall make
records, reports, and information required under subsection
(a) of this section or other reasonably described records,
reports, and information relevant to the incident
investigation, available to the Secretary within the time
limits prescribed in a written request.''; and
(4) indenting the first word of the last sentence and
inserting ``(4)'' before ``The Secretary'' in that sentence.
(c) Penalty Authorities.--(1) Section 60122(a) is amended
by striking ``60114(c)'' and inserting ``60117(b)(3)''.
(2) Section 60123(a) is amended by striking ``60114(c),''
and inserting ``60117(b)(3),''.
(d) Establishment of National Depository.--Section 60117 is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(l) National Depository.--The Secretary shall establish a
national depository of data on events and conditions,
including spill histories and corrective actions for specific
incidents, that can be used to evaluate the risk of, and to
prevent, pipeline failures and releases. The Secretary shall
administer the program through the Bureau of Transportation
Statistics, in cooperation with the Research and Special
Programs Administration, and shall make such information
available for use by State and local planning and emergency
response authorities and the public.''.
SEC. 11. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.
(a) Innovative Technology Development.--
(1) In general.--As part of the Department of
Transportation's research and development program, the
Secretary of Transportation shall direct research attention
to the development of alternative technologies--
(A) to expand the capabilities of internal inspection
devices to identify and accurately measure defects and
anomalies;
(B) to inspect pipelines that cannot accommodate internal
inspection devices available on the date of enactment;
(C) to develop innovative techniques measuring the
structural integrity of pipelines;
(D) to improve the capability, reliability, and
practicality of external leak detection devices; and
(E) to develop and improve alternative technologies to
identify and monitor outside force damage to pipelines.
(2) Cooperative.--The Secretary may participate in
additional technological development through cooperative
agreements with trade associations, academic institutions, or
other qualified organizations.
(b) Pipeline Safety and Reliability Research and
Development.--
(1) In General.--The Secretary of Transportation, in
coordination with the Secretary of Energy, shall develop and
implement an accelerated cooperative program of research and
development to ensure the integrity of natural gas and
hazardous liquid pipelines. This research and development
program--
(A) shall include materials inspection techniques, risk
assessment methodology, and information systems surety; and
(B) shall complement, and not replace, the research program
of the Department of Energy addressing natural gas pipeline
issues existing on the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) Purpose.--The purpose of the cooperative research
program shall be to promote pipeline safety research and
development to--
(A) ensure long-term safety, reliability and service life
for existing pipelines;
(B) expand capabilities of internal inspection devices to
identify and accurately measure defects and anomalies;
(C) develop inspection techniques for pipelines that cannot
accommodate the internal inspection devices available on the
date of enactment;
(D) develop innovative techniques to measure the structural
integrity of pipelines to prevent pipeline failures;
(E) develop improved materials and coatings for use in
pipelines;
(F) improve the capability, reliability, and practicality
of external leak detection devices;
(G) identify underground environments that might lead to
shortened service life;
(H) enhance safety in pipeline siting and land use;
(I) minimize the environmental impact of pipelines;
(J) demonstrate technologies that improve pipeline safety,
reliability, and integrity;
(K) provide risk assessment tools for optimizing risk
mitigation strategies; and
(L) provide highly secure information systems for
controlling the operation of pipelines.
(3) Areas.--In carrying out this subsection, the Secretary
of Transportation, in coordination with the Secretary of
Energy, shall consider research and development on natural
gas, crude oil and petroleum product pipelines for--
(A) early crack, defect, and damage detection, including
real-time damage monitoring;
(B) automated internal pipeline inspection sensor systems;
(C) land use guidance and set back management along
pipeline rights-of-way for communities;
(D) internal corrosion control;
(E) corrosion-resistant coatings;
(F) improved cathodic protection;
(G) inspection techniques where internal inspection is not
feasible, including measurement of structural integrity;
(H) external leak detection, including portable real-time
video imaging technology, and the advancement of computerized
control center leak detection systems utilizing real-time
remote field data input;
(I) longer life, high strength, non-corrosive pipeline
materials;
(J) assessing the remaining strength of existing pipes;
(K) risk and reliability analysis models, to be used to
identify safety improvements that could be realized in the
near term resulting from analysis of data obtained from a
pipeline performance tracking initiative;
(L) identification, monitoring, and prevention of outside
force damage, including satellite surveillance; and
(M) any other areas necessary to ensuring the public safety
and protecting the environment.
(4) Points of contact.--
(A) In general.--To coordinate and implement the research
and development programs and activities authorized under this
subsection--
(i) the Secretary of Transportation shall designate, as the
point of contact for the Department of Transportation, an
officer of the Department of Transportation who has been
appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate; and
(ii) the Secretary of Energy shall designate, as the point
of contact for the Department of Energy, an officer of the
Department of Energy who has been appointed by the President
and confirmed by the Senate.
(B) Duties.--
(i) The point of contact for the Department of
Transportation shall have the primary responsibility for
coordinating and overseeing the implementation of the
research, development, and demonstration program plan under
paragraphs (5) and (6).
(ii) The points of contact shall jointly assist in
arranging cooperative agreements for research, development
and demonstration involving their respective Departments,
national laboratories, universities, and industry research
organizations.
(5) Research and development program plan.--Within 240 days
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Transportation, in coordination with the Secretary of Energy
and the Pipeline Integrity Technical Advisory Committee,
shall prepare and submit to the Congress a 5-year program
plan to guide activities under this subsection. In preparing
the program plan, the Secretary shall consult with
appropriate representatives of the natural gas, crude oil,
and petroleum product pipeline industries to select and
prioritize appropriate project proposals. The Secretary may
also seek the advice of utilities, manufacturers,
institutions of higher learning, Federal agencies, the
pipeline research institutions, national laboratories, State
pipeline safety officials, environmental organizations,
pipeline safety
[[Page H9552]]
advocates, and professional and technical societies.
(6) Implementation.--The Secretary of Transportation shall
have primary responsibility for ensuring the 5-year plan
provided for in paragraph (5) is implemented as intended. In
carrying out the research, development, and demonstration
activities under this paragraph, the Secretary of
Transportation and the Secretary of Energy may use, to the
extent authorized under applicable provisions of law,
contracts, cooperative agreements, cooperative research and
development agreements under the Stevenson-Wydler Technology
Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.), grants,
joint ventures, other transactions, and any other form of
agreement available to the Secretary consistent with the
recommendations of the Advisory Committee.
(7) Reports to congress.--The Secretary of Transportation
shall report to the Congress annually as to the status and
results to date of the implementation of the research and
development program plan. The report shall include the
activities of the Departments of Transportation and Energy,
the national laboratories, universities, and any other
research organizations, including industry research
organizations.
SEC. 12. PIPELINE INTEGRITY TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Transportation shall
enter into appropriate arrangements with the National Academy
of Sciences to establish and manage the Pipeline Integrity
Technical Advisory Committee for the purpose of advising the
Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of Energy on
the development and implementation of the 5-year research,
development, and demonstration program plan under section
11(b)(5). The Advisory Committee shall have an ongoing role
in evaluating the progress and results of the research,
development, and demonstration carried out under that
section.
(b) Membership.--The National Academy of Sciences shall
appoint the members of the Pipeline Integrity Technical
Advisory Committee after consultation with the Secretary of
Transportation and the Secretary of Energy. Members appointed
to the Advisory Committee should have the necessary
qualifications to provide technical contributions to the
purposes of the Advisory Committee.
SEC. 13. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Gas and Hazardous Liquids.--Section 60125(a) is amended
to read as follows:
``(a) Gas and Hazardous Liquid.--To carry out this chapter
and other pipeline-related damage prevention activities of
this title (except for section 60107), there are authorized
to be appropriated to the Department of Transportation--
``(1) $26,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, of which
$20,000,000 is to be derived from user fees for fiscal year
2001 collected under section 60301 of this title; and
``(2) $30,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2002 and
2003 of which $23,000,000 is to be derived from user fees for
fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003 collected under section
60301 of this title.''.
(b) Grants to States.--Section 60125(c) is amended to read
as follows:
``(c) State Grants.--Not more than the following amounts
may be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out section
60107--
``(1) $17,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, of which
$15,000,000 is to be derived from user fees for fiscal year
2001 collected under section 60301 of this title; and
``(2) $20,000,000 for the fiscal years 2002 and 2003 of
which $18,000,000 is to be derived from user fees for fiscal
year 2002 and fiscal year 2003 collected under section 60301
of this title.''.
(c) Oil Spills.--Sections 60525 is amended by redesignating
subsections (d), (e), and (f) as subsections (e), (f), (g)
and inserting after subsection (c) the following:
``(d) Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.--Of the amounts
available in the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, $8,000,000
shall be transferred to carry out programs authorized in this
Act for fiscal year 2001, fiscal year 2002, and fiscal year
2003.''.
(d) Pipeline Integrity Program.--(1) There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation for
carrying out sections 11(b) and 12 of this Act $3,000,000, to
be derived from user fees under section 60125 of title 49,
United States Code, for each of the fiscal years 2001 through
2005.
(2) Of the amounts available in the Oil Spill Liability
Trust Fund established by section 9509 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 9509), $3,000,000 shall be
transferred to the Secretary of Transportation to carry out
programs for detection, prevention and mitigation of oil
spills under sections 11(b) and 12 of this Act for each of
the fiscal years 2001 through 2005.
(3) There are authorized to be appropriated to the
Secretary of Energy for carrying out sections 11(b) and 12 of
this Act such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal
years 2001 through 2005.
SEC. 14. OPERATOR ASSISTANCE IN INVESTIGATIONS.
(a) In General.--If the Department of Transportation or the
National Transportation Safety Board investigate an accident,
the operator involved shall make available to the
representative of the Department or the Board all records and
information that in any way pertain to the accident
(including integrity management plans and test results), and
shall afford all reasonable assistance in the investigation
of the accident.
(b) Corrective Action Orders.--Section 60112(d) is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``Corrective Action
Orders.--''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) If, in the case of a corrective action order issued
following an accident, the Secretary determines that the
actions of an employee carrying out an activity regulated
under this chapter, including duties under section 60102(a),
may have contributed substantially to the cause of the
accident, the Secretary shall direct the operator to relieve
the employee from performing those activities, reassign the
employee, or place the employee on leave until--
``(A) the Secretary determines that the employee's
performance of duty in carrying out the activity did not
contribute substantially to the cause of the accident; or
``(B) the Secretary determines the employee has been re-
qualified or re-trained as provided for in section 4 of the
Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2000 and can safely
perform those activities.
``(3) Disciplinary action taken by an operator under
paragraph (2) shall be in accordance with the terms and
conditions of any applicable collective bargaining agreement
to the extent it is not inconsistent with the requirements of
this section.''.
SEC. 15. PROTECTION OF EMPLOYEES PROVIDING PIPELINE SAFETY
INFORMATION.
(a) In General.--Chapter 601 is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``Sec. 60129. Protection of employees providing pipeline
safety information
``(a) Discrimination Against Pipeline Employees.--No
pipeline operator or contractor or subcontractor of a
pipeline may discharge an employee or otherwise discriminate
against an employee with respect to compensation, terms,
conditions, or privileges of employment because the employee
(or any person acting pursuant to a request of the
employee)--
``(1) provided, caused to be provided, or is about to
provide (with any knowledge of the employer) or cause to be
provided to the employer or Federal Government information
relating to any violation or alleged violation of any order,
regulation, or standard of the Research and Special Programs
Administration or any other provision of Federal law relating
to pipeline safety under this chapter or any other law of the
United States;
``(2) has filed, caused to be filed, or is about to file
(with any knowledge of the employer) or cause to be filed a
proceeding relating to any violation or alleged violation of
any order, regulation, or standard of the Administration or
any other provision of Federal law relating to pipeline
safety under this chapter or any other law of the United
States;
``(3) testified or is about to testify in such a
proceeding; or
``(4) assisted or participated or is about to assist or
participate in such a proceeding.
``(b) Department of Labor Complaint Procedure.--
``(1) Filing and notification.--A person who believes that
he or she has been discharged or otherwise discriminated
against by any person in violation of subsection (a) may, not
later than 90 days after the date on which such violation
occurs, file (or have any person file on his or her behalf) a
complaint with the Secretary of Labor alleging such discharge
or discrimination. Upon receipt of such a complaint, the
Secretary of Labor shall notify, in writing, the person named
in the complaint and the Administrator of the Research and
Special Programs Administration of the filing of the
complaint, of the allegations contained in the complaint, of
the substance of evidence supporting the complaint, and of
the opportunities that will be afforded to such person under
paragraph (2).
``(2) Investigation; preliminary order.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
receipt of a complaint filed under paragraph (1) and after
affording the person named in the complaint an opportunity to
submit to the Secretary of Labor a written response to the
complaint and an opportunity to meet with a representative of
the Secretary to present statements from witnesses, the
Secretary of Labor shall conduct an investigation and
determine whether there is reasonable cause to believe that
the complaint has merit and notify in writing the complainant
and the person alleged to have committed a violation of
subsection (a) of the Secretary's findings. If the Secretary
of Labor concludes that there is reasonable cause to believe
that a violation of subsection (a) has occurred, the
Secretary shall accompany the Secretary's findings with a
preliminary order providing the relief prescribed by
paragraph (3)(B). Not later than 30 days after the date of
notification of findings under this paragraph, either the
person alleged to have committed the violation or the
complainant may file objections to the findings or
preliminary order, or both, and request a hearing on the
record. The filing of such objections shall not operate to
stay any reinstatement remedy contained in the preliminary
order. Such hearings shall be conducted expeditiously. If a
hearing is not requested in such 30-day period, the
preliminary order shall be deemed a final order that is not
subject to judicial review.
``(B) Requirements.--
``(i) Required showing by complainant.--The Secretary of
Labor shall dismiss a complaint filed under this subsection
and shall not conduct an investigation otherwise required
under subparagraph (A) unless the
[[Page H9553]]
complainant makes a prima facie showing that any behavior
described in paragraphs (1) through (4) of subsection (a) was
a contributing factor in the unfavorable personnel action
alleged in the complaint.
``(ii) Showing by employer.--Notwithstanding a finding by
the Secretary that the complainant has made the showing
required under clause (i), no investigation otherwise
required under subparagraph (A) shall be conducted if the
employer demonstrates, by clear and convincing evidence, that
the employer would have taken the same unfavorable personnel
action in the absence of that behavior.
``(iii) Criteria for determination by Secretary.--The
Secretary may determine that a violation of subsection (a)
has occurred only if the complainant demonstrates that any
behavior described in paragraphs (1) through (4) of
subsection (a) was a contributing factor in the unfavorable
personnel action alleged in the complaint.
``(iv) Prohibition.--Relief may not be ordered under
subparagraph (A) if the employer demonstrates by clear and
convincing evidence that the employer would have taken the
same unfavorable personnel action in the absence of that
behavior.
``(3) Final order.--
``(A) Deadline for issuance; settlement agreements.--Not
later than 120 days after the date of conclusion of a hearing
under paragraph (2), the Secretary of Labor shall issue a
final order providing the relief prescribed by this paragraph
or denying the complaint. At any time before issuance of a
final order, a proceeding under this subsection may be
terminated on the basis of a settlement agreement entered
into by the Secretary of Labor, the complainant, and the
person alleged to have committed the violation.
``(B) Remedy.--If, in response to a complaint filed under
paragraph (1), the Secretary of Labor determines that a
violation of subsection (a) has occurred, the Secretary of
Labor shall order the person who committed such violation
to--
``(i) take affirmative action to abate the violation;
``(ii) reinstate the complainant to his or her former
position together with the compensation (including back pay)
and restore the terms, conditions, and privileges associated
with his or her employment; and
``(iii) provide compensatory damages to the complainant.
If such an order is issued under this paragraph, the
Secretary of Labor, at the request of the complainant, shall
assess against the person whom the order is issued a sum
equal to the aggregate amount of all costs and expenses
(including attorney's and expert witness fees) reasonably
incurred, as determined by the Secretary of Labor, by the
complainant for, or in connection with, the bringing the
complaint upon which the order was issued.
``(C) Frivolous complaints.--If the Secretary of Labor
finds that a complaint under paragraph (1) is frivolous or
has been brought in bad faith, the Secretary of Labor may
award to the prevailing employer a reasonable attorney's fee
not exceeding $1,000.
``(4) Review.--
``(A) Appeal to court of appeals.--Any person adversely
affected or aggrieved by an order issued under paragraph (3)
may obtain review of the order in the United States Court of
Appeals for the circuit in which the violation, with respect
to which the order was issued, allegedly occurred or the
circuit in which the complainant resided on the date of such
violation. The petition for review must be filed not later
than 60 days after the date of issuance of the final order of
the Secretary of Labor. Review shall conform to chapter 7 of
title 5, United States Code. The commencement of proceedings
under this subparagraph shall not, unless ordered by the
court, operate as a stay of the order.
``(B) Limitation on collateral attack.--An order of the
Secretary of Labor with respect to which review could have
been obtained under subparagraph (A) shall not be subject to
judicial review in any criminal or other civil proceeding.
``(5) Enforcement of order by secretary of labor.--Whenever
any person has failed to comply with an order issued under
paragraph (3), the Secretary of Labor may file a civil action
in the United States district court for the district in which
the violation was found to occur to enforce such order. In
actions brought under this paragraph, the district courts
shall have jurisdiction to grant all appropriate relief,
including, but not to be limited to, injunctive relief and
compensatory damages.
``(6) Enforcement of order by parties.--
``(A) Commencement of action.--A person on whose behalf an
order was issued under paragraph (3) may commence a civil
action against the person to whom such order was issued to
require compliance with such order. The appropriate United
States district court shall have jurisdiction, without regard
to the amount in controversy or the citizenship of the
parties, to enforce such order.
``(B) Attorney fees.--The court, in issuing any final order
under this paragraph, may award costs of litigation
(including reasonable attorney and expert witness fees) to
any party whenever the court determines such award costs is
appropriate.
``(c) Mandamus.--Any nondiscretionary duty imposed by this
section shall be enforceable in a mandamus proceeding brought
under section 1361 of title 28, United States Code.
``(d) Nonapplicability To Deliberate Violations.--
Subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to an employee of
a pipeline, contractor or subcontractor who, acting without
direction from the pipeline contractor or subcontractor (or
such person's agent), deliberately causes a violation of any
requirement relating to pipeline safety under this chapter or
any other law of the United States.
``(e) Contractor Defined.--In this section, the term
`contractor' means a company that performs safety-sensitive
functions by contract for a pipeline.''.
(b) Civil Penalty.--Section 60122(a) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(3) A person violating section 60129, or an order issued
thereunder, is liable to the Government for a civil penalty
of not more than $1,000 for each violation. The penalties
provided by paragraph (1) do not apply to a violation of
section 60129 or an order issued thereunder.''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter
601 is amended by adding at the end the following:
``60129. Protection of employees providing pipeline safety
information.''.
SEC. 16. STATE PIPELINE SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEES.
Within 90 days after receiving recommendations for
improvements to pipeline safety from an advisory committee
appointed by the Governor of any State, the Secretary of
Transportation shall respond in writing to the committee
setting forth what action, if any, the Secretary will take on
those recommendations and the Secretary's reasons for acting
or not acting upon any of the recommendations.
SEC. 17. FINES AND PENALTIES.
The Inspector General of the Department of Transportation
shall conduct an analysis of the Department's assessment of
fines and penalties on gas transmission and hazardous liquid
pipelines, including the cost of corrective actions required
by the Department in lieu of fines, and, no later than 6
months after the date of enactment of this Act, shall provide
a report to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation and the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure on any findings and recommendations for
actions by the Secretary or Congress to ensure the fines
assessed are an effective deterrent for reducing safety
risks.
SEC. 18. STUDY OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY.
The Secretary of Transportation is authorized to conduct a
study on how best to preserve environmental resources in
conjunction with maintaining pipeline rights-of-way. The
study shall recognize pipeline operators' regulatory
obligations to maintain rights-of-way and to protect public
safety.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today we are considering a bill to save lives. This
legislation is tough new pipeline safety legislation that is going to
significantly strengthen our Nation's pipeline safety laws. In the past
year and a half, the Nation has suffered two tragic pipeline accidents.
This legislation reauthorizes our Nation's pipeline safety program
for 3 years and makes a number of very important, substantive changes
to the pipeline safety statute.
It reflects a year of intensive efforts by the Congress to bring a
balanced measure to the floor. The legislation we have before us passed
the United States Senate unanimously just a week or so ago by a vote of
99-0.
It was supported by the White House, the Secretary of Transportation,
the National Governors Association, even the Mayor of Bellingham,
Washington, the site of one of the tragic accidents.
Indeed, I would note this is very bipartisan. The Mayor of Bellingham
happens to be a Democrat; many of the members of the Washington
delegation are Republicans. This is not, and should not be, a political
issue. It is a bipartisan issue attempting to deal with safety and save
lives. It is a good bill, but it is not a perfect bill. It balances
many competing concerns.
I know we are going to hear from my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle, some of them at least, who feel that it does not go far
enough. I happen to agree with them.
If I had my druthers, I would like to have worked out a House bill
that we could bring to the floor, then pass it, then go to conference
with the Senate, then negotiate a compromise, bring it back and bring
back what I believe could be an even better bill.
The problem, however, is we are running out of time; that simply is
not going to happen. The legislation that
[[Page H9554]]
we have before us today does indeed address all of the major issues
debated during the reauthorization effort on both sides of the Capitol.
This legislation that we have before us today provides for mandatory
inspections. It requires qualifications of pipeline personnel.
It requires certification so we know that people are competent in
looking out for pipeline safety. It expands public access to
information on pipeline operations, and it provides, very importantly,
a greater role for the States in oversight of interstate pipelines.
It also provides for the ability to reassign employees involved in
incidents during the investigation of those incidents. It significantly
increases penalties and removes the penalty cap. It provides whistle-
blower protection, and it significantly increases funding for the
pipeline safety program.
It is a strong step in the direction of reducing risks and, indeed,
reducing the awful possibility of losing lives. It improves the current
pipeline safety program by several different movements, one of which is
addressing criticisms which have been leveled by the NTSB, the IG and
GAO, and not only by addressing those criticisms, but providing funding
levels to effectively implement those tougher changes.
There are going to be those who say the bill does not go far enough.
I happen to agree with that. I know the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar), my dear friend, would like the House to act. I agree with
him. I would like the House to act also. The problem is we simply are
running out of time. And if we do not move this good legislation, this
safety legislation to save lives, there is not going to be any
legislation, because we are not going to have the time to pass a House
bill and go to conference and work out our differences.
{time} 1645
There will not be any safety legislation, and I think that would be
regrettable.
I think it is very important to note that Senator Murray from
Washington strongly supports the bill, Senator Breaux supports the
bill, Senator McCain supports the bill. This really should have been an
easy matter for this body. The bill passed the Senate unanimously. It
addresses a very serious pressing problem.
Unfortunately, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
apparently thought to politicize this issue and kill this legislation.
I think that would be regrettable because if we kill the legislation,
then we will not have improved pipeline safety. We will not have
provided the opportunity to save lives.
So I say let us not let the perfect, which is unattainable, become
the enemy of the good. This is a good bill. It is going to save lives.
I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, July 8, 1986, a quiet neighborhood in Mounds
View, Minnesota, at 4 a.m. was wrenched from its slumber by a
shattering explosion. A wall of fire roared through the street, turning
the night into an inextinguishable nightmare.
The explosion of a pipeline carrying unleaded gasoline killed a
mother and her 7-year-old daughter, incinerated them, and severely
injured another woman who emerged from her home.
Lawns were scorched, mailboxes melted, power lines were down, cars
set afire, the road buckled, and trees wilted. A quarter of a million
dollars of property damage was caused. The origin of it all: a ruptured
hazardous liquid pipeline carrying gasoline between St. Paul and
Duluth.
It focused the attention of the Congress and of the country and the
review of the National Transportation Safety Board and the General
Accounting Office on the need to improve the safety of the Nation's
pipelines.
I was then chair of the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight
and had been preparing for a hearing on pipeline safety when this
tragedy occurred. We held those hearings.
Following the hearings, my then partner on that subcommittee, Mr.
Clinger from Pennsylvania, and I made recommendations for safety
improvements, including a substantial increase in pipeline inspections
to detect problems before they lead to tragedy, better information on
pipelines for persons who live near them, improvement in the data
submitted by the Office of Pipeline Safety, improvements in cathodic
protection, automatic shut-off valves to detect problems and prevent
them from getting worse in suburbanized areas.
The NTSB agreed and issued recommendations that the Office of
Pipeline Safety require operators to conduct periodic internal
inspection of their lines. But nothing happened because the
administration at the time did not want those recommendations to go
into effect.
My two Senate Republican colleagues from Minnesota introduced
legislation that required 3-year inspections, every 3 years. Tough
inspections. Mandatory inspections. Established in legislation. That
was reflected in our hearings. So in 1992, Congress passed legislation
requiring OPS to set requirements for operators to conduct internal
inspections by 1995.
Today, 14 years after Mounds View, little progress has been made. The
accident rate has not improved. In fact, it is increasing by 4 percent
a year rate of accidents in pipelines. Twenty-four percent of the gas
pipelines in this country are now more than 50 years old. The Office of
Pipeline Safety has failed to step up to the plate and deal with the
problem.
The Office of Pipeline Safety has failed to comply with 22 directives
from Congress to adopt regulations and undertake the necessary studies
and regulatory action. That office has the lowest rate of any in the
Department of Transportation of accepting NTSB recommendations.
The bill before us is not as they, the industry, claim, a ``tough''
bill that will promote pipeline safety. The Senate bill mandates
nothing beyond the current inadequate program of OPS. It leaves it to
the discretion of OPS whether to adopt stronger programs. That approach
has not worked.
This bill will be requirement 23 on the Office of Pipeline Safety to
adopt regulations. They have not done it 22 other times, what makes
anyone think they are going to do it now?
OPS has not issued a single final regulation requiring inspections.
Just a short time ago, in the absence of inspection requirements, we
had another tragedy. In Carlsbad, New Mexico, a 50-year-old pipeline
exploded, killing 12 people, 5 children. Inspections showed that the
pipeline had significant internal corrosion. It had never been properly
inspected in 50 years. We cannot wait for OPS to do some more foot
dragging in the face of this industry opposition to mandatory actions.
There is a whole group of people that do not want this legislation
and want this legislation strengthened. We have been told right from
the very outset, we were in the process, I say to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster), we had reached a staff agreement, we
had moved forward with a bill, and then, the Senate, on September 7,
passed their bill.
All of a sudden, we heard from the other body, you know the process
over here in the Senate. There is not enough time left. That was a
month ago. We could have had a bill on the floor. We could have been in
conference with the Senate. We could even have some discussions with
the Senate and do better, do better.
I resent the implication and the statements made on the floor of the
other body down the hall from here that people in this body, with
indirect reference to this Member, are objecting to this bill on
political grounds. Bologna. Anyone who knows me knows I stand for
principle and for safety, and that is what this debate is all about.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I agree with so very much of what the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) has said about the serious
problems that have existed. If I could, I would wave a magic wand and
get a bill through the House here that we could go to the Senate with
and negotiate a compromise, and I think we could have a better product.
Time is not on our side.
So I believe we are faced with the reality of we take this bill,
which did, indeed, pass the Senate unanimously, 99 to 0, or we simply
will not get any safety bill. I regret that, but I believe that is the
reality of where we are.
[[Page H9555]]
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a distinguished
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman
Shuster) has said it best, of course we could do a better bill in the
House. Of course, if we have the time, we could perhaps resolve all the
problems in pipeline safety. But this Senate bill, passed by unanimous
consent, is what we have.
It is a strong and effective bill. It makes some very important steps
in favor of pipeline safety. It improves and expands the public's right
to know about pipeline hazards. It requires pipeline operators to test
and inspect. It requires the operators to qualify and test their
personnel. It requires spills as small as 5 gallons to be reported. It
significantly raises the penalties for safety violations. It invests in
new technologies to improve pipeline safety. It provides protections
for whistle blowers, an important part of this process. It increases
State oversight and local government input. Finally, it increases
funding for safety efforts.
Mr. Speaker, if one looked at a map of my State, and my district in
particular, the third district in Louisiana, a map of pipelines across
my district and the State, it looks like spaghetti. We are just
absolutely covered with pipelines that carry all sorts of hazardous and
very important products for America, oil, gas, liquids of all kinds.
Pipeline safety is incredibly important to the people of my State. I
will say again what the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster)
has said, I think if we had the occasion to sit down in this Chamber
and write a better bill than this one, I think we could because this
bill is not perfect and could be improved.
But what has been agreed upon by the Senate, it dramatically advances
pipeline safety. It is an incredibly important step in the right
direction. For us not to take this step this session would be a shame.
It would be, I think, a disregard of our duty. This is the opportunity
for us to improve pipeline safety across this country. We need to take
that important step. We need to pass this bill.
We will be back here next year. We can provide the oversight over the
DOT and the other agencies to make sure they carry out the intent of
both this act and other acts. I urge my colleagues to pass this bill.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member of the Committee on
Commerce.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this embarrassment
that is called a piece of legislation, S. 2438. It does nothing to add
to the safety of the American people or to ensure the safety of
pipelines. There is little in this bill that cannot be done under
existing law, and there is little in this bill that cannot be done by
regulation at the Office of Pipeline Safety. It does little to correct
the weakening that was done in the agreement which produced a bill
which slipped through this House and through the Senate not long back
and which resulted in significant weakening of the law with regard to
pipeline safety.
It is time that we did something meaningful in the area of pipeline
safety. The results of inaction by the Office of Pipeline Safety, a
very weak agency, and by this Congress, are that there are more than 15
people dead in the last 18 months, including seven children under the
age of 10.
The environment has suffered, too. In the first 9 months of this
year, property and environmental damages from hazardous liquid pipeline
accidents has already surpassed that of any other full year. Consumers
have suffered from pipeline accidents on the Explorer pipeline in Texas
and the Wolverine pipeline in my own State of Michigan. Those events
helped drive the gasoline price to as high as $2.50 a gallon in parts
of the Midwest this summer.
Inaction has hurt people. It has killed people. It has hurt the
economy. It has raised gas and oil prices. There is no friend outside
of this Chamber to the legislation except the pipeline industry. They
are the only people that want this bill. They are the only people that
do not know it is a sham, because they know there is something in it
for them.
There is more inaction by OPS, there is more inaction by the
Congress, and there is a weak law under which little, if anything, is
going to be done to take care of the safety of the American people.
This legislation is opposed by organized labor. The AFL-CIO, the
Teamsters, PACE, the transportation trades, the building and
construction trades, the plumbers and the pipefitters all have sent
letters urging Members to oppose this bill.
The bill is also opposed by environment and public safety groups,
including the League of Conservation Voters, the Environmental Defense
Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Physicians for Social
Responsibility, Clean Water Action, U.S. PIRG, and the National
Pipeline Reform Coalition.
Finally, and most importantly, the families of the Bellingham,
Washington pipeline disaster oppose this legislation. They sent a
letter to the House of Representatives urging us to vote against this
sham safety legislation. The bill, as initiated in the Senate, was
named after the two 5-year-old boys in Bellingham who were killed last
year. Those names were removed from the bill at the request of the
parents of Wade King and Stephen Tsiorvas because, in their view, the
legislation is so weak that it is unworthy of being named after their
sons.
Who does support the bill? Pipeline companies and their trade
organizations. They are the only ones supporting the bill. Why? Because
it is a sweetheart deal, because it is not going to do anything.
My counsel to this House is based on years of experience with OPS and
with pipeline safety and with the pipeline companies, and that is
reject the bill. Nothing is going to happen other than the fact that we
will save this House a little bit of time, and we will enable us to
approach this bill in a more sensible way next year without the kind
of, quite frankly, disgrace that we confront at this particular time.
{time} 1700
I would simply observe, no one is going to be hurt by rejecting a
bill like this, which does so little. Everyone will be helped by
passing a decent piece of legislation. We can do that next year. There
is no need to make haste to pass this kind of an abomination.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, let us pass good legislation, let
us strengthen pipeline safety, let us see to it that people are no
longer killed by indifference and by poor legislation and by sweetheart
deals cut which result in bad legislation coming to this House, and by
weak organizations like the Office of Pipeline Safety, which does not
do the job it should do in protecting the American people.
I urge the legislation be rejected. We can do a better job next year.
Certainly we cannot do a worse job next year.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, when my good friend from Michigan, with whom I have
stood shoulder to shoulder in fighting so many battles together, says
that this legislation, if I heard him correctly, is only supported by
the pipeline industry, I have to refer to numerous other important
people, I think, and organizations which indeed have expressed their
strong support for this legislation.
Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington, who is intimately
familiar with the terrible problems, has come out strongly for this
legislation; Senator Slade Gorton, a Republican of Washington. So we
have both the Republican and the Democratic Senators representing the
whole State, a State which has been so badly hurt in the past,
supporting the legislation. The Secretary of Transportation, Rodney
Slater, who says this legislation is critical to much-needed
improvements in pipeline safety program; Vice President Al Gore, and I
might get in trouble with some of my colleagues over here for
emphasizing this, but facts are facts. Vice President Gore said, ``I
commend the Senate for taking action today on this important issue of
pipeline safety and I urge the House to take up this legislation
soon.''
The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. The
National Governors' Association, which
[[Page H9556]]
says, ``On behalf of the national governors, we are writing to urge you
to support this legislation adopted by the Senate to improve oil and
gas pipeline safety and to support prompt passage of such
legislation.'' The newspaper in Bellingham, where the terrible tragedy
occurred, says ``Given where we are now, the reforms provided by the
Senate legislation are significant. We cannot wait. The time is now for
pipeline safety legislation.''
And indeed, Senator Patty Murray, who has been in the forefront of
supporting this on the floor of the Senate said, ``Well, some critics
say we'll start again next year; we'll do better next year. That means
it will be at least a year. And how can we have so much faith that we
will get anything stronger or anything at all under a new Congress and
a new President?'' And she says, ``Let me ask a simple question. Will
you take that bet, if your family's safety depended upon it? I
wouldn't, and I don't think we can shirk our responsibility to protect
the public this year.''
I find myself in a bit of an incongruous position in defending, in
the midst of this heated political campaign, the Clinton
administration, defending a Democratic administration who says we
should pass this because it is so critical. And again, I emphasize we
could have done a better job here in the House if we had had the time.
But that simply is not the reality that we face, and so we should
settle for a good piece of legislation, one which we indeed could have
made better, but given the time, it is either this or nothing. And,
indeed, if we want to bring up something next year to improve it
further, we can certainly do that; but let us not continue to
jeopardize the lives of American people, and in many cases young
children, by doing nothing this year.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. He is noted for his generosity, and once again that is being
exemplified here by his activities on the floor.
This is really a sad day when we are listening to Members of the
House of Representatives tell every other Member that we should not
have any judgment on a piece of legislation; we should just listen to
the Senate.
Now, the gentleman from Pennsylvania would never, under any
circumstances, have the Senate make every decision about every highway,
every dam, every railroad in the United States. But he is out here
today telling us that for pipeline safety, these pipes that go past
homes and playgrounds all over the United States, that we should listen
to the Senate. Since when did they become so wise?
The bill before us fails to repeal the cost-benefit provision put
into the 1996 reauthorization bill. I opposed these provisions then and
support their repeal now. Keeping that section on the book's allows for
paralysis by analysis. The pipeline companies just squeeze these
smaller communities and individual neighborhood groups to death because
they cannot get over this huge procedural obstacle which is built into
the existing piece of legislation.
Secondly, the bill does not meaningfully address the Department of
Transportation's failure to enact many of the proposed safety
recommendations issued by the National Transportation Safety Board.
Here is what the National Transportation Safety Board, Chairman Jim
Hall, said in the Boston Globe on March 5, 1999. He said that he would
give the Office of Pipeline Safety a big fat F, F, on everything that
it has done regarding the safety of pipelines in our country.
We are reauthorizing a bill with that kind of a grade being attached
to it by the chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board? And
moreover, the bill itself rejects the amendment which I tried to make
in committee which would have held the Department's feet to the fire so
they had deadlines that they had to meet in order to ensure there was
public safety.
Who opposes this bill? I will tell my colleagues who opposes it. The
Environmental Defense Fund, the National Resources Defense Council, and
the League of Conservation Voters. In fact, the League of Conservation
Voters is going to make this one of the votes for the year to get our
grade. That is how important it is to them.
So, please, reject this and do the House of Representatives the honor
of being allowed to deal with the subject itself and not allowing the
Senate to do our thinking for us.
Mr. Speaker, submitted, as follows, for the Record, is a letter from
the League of Conservation Voters regarding this matter:
League of Conservation Voters,
Washington, October 6, 2000.
Re Oppose S. 2438, The Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of
2000
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: The League of Conservation Voters
(LCV) is the bipartisan, political voice of the national
environmental community. Each year, LCV publishes the
National Environmental Scoreboard, which details the voting
records of Members of Congress on environmental legislation.
The Scoreboard is distributed to LCV members, concerned
voters nationwide, and the press.
LCV urges you to oppose S. 2438, the ``Pipeline Safety
Improvement Act of 2000.'' S. 2438 does not contain any of
the elements that are needed to significantly improve the
safety of natural gas and oil pipelines.
According to the General Accounting Office, approximately
four major pipeline accidents occur each week. The GAO also
found that major accidents are increasing by approximately 4%
annually at the same time that DOT's Office of Pipeline
Safety's fines against the industry are declining: currently,
only one in 25 violators receives a proposed fine. Oil
pipelines spill over 6 million gallons annually, an amount
equal to more than half of the Exxon Valdez release, and
average spill size has been increasing since 1993 to over
44,000 gallons in 1999.
LCV believes that legislation to address pipeline safety
issues must include the following three elements:
1. Strong regulatory standards (including pipeline testing
type and frequency, leak detection requirements, etc.), and
effective enforcement of those standards;
2. Expanded liability for releases; and,
3. Public accountability through right-to-know reporting
and establishment and funding of regional advisory councils
(similar to the councils in Alaska created by the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990).
Several bills introduced in the House (H.R. 3558, 4792, and
5361) contain some or all of these critical pipeline safety
provisions. In addition, LCV believes it is essential to
remove the cost-benefit provisions put into section 60102(b)
of the pipeline statute during its 1996 reauthorization,
which are designed to prevent enactment of new safety and
environmental protection regulations by requiring those
regulations to meet economic and judicial tests that no other
federal agency's standards must meet.
We urge you to vote no on S. 2438 and to pass a bill that
is more protective of the environment and the public's
health. LCV's Political Advisory Committee will consider
including votes on these votes on these issues in compiling
LCV's 2000 Scorecard: If you need more information, please
call Betsy Loyless in my office at 202/785-8683.
Sincerely,
Deb Callahan,
President.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Barton).
(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the distinguished chairman of the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure, for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I am a little bit puzzled at some of the opposition from
the other side on this issue. My subcommittee held hearings on this
legislation last year. My subcommittee passed the bill, I think, by
unanimous consent out of the subcommittee. We passed a piece of
legislation on this issue either by unanimous consent or with very few
no votes out of the full Committee on Commerce, over a year ago. That
legislation has languished as the Senate has worked its will on this
same issue.
And now, as we are in the waning weeks of this Congress, the Senate
has reported a bill that, quite frankly, is much stronger than the bill
that came out of the Committee on Commerce. Our bill was a straight
reauthorization of the existing pipeline safety law with some
modifications. At the time of our hearings and the time of the debate
in the committee, the Committee on Commerce, there were some concerns
raised. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), who just spoke,
raised some concerns; but basically, at that point in time last year,
it was felt that straight reauthorization with some modification was
acceptable.
[[Page H9557]]
Now, what the other body has done is to actually present a much
tougher bill in terms of safety. In fact, I think I could say with a
straight face on the floor that this is the toughest pipeline safety
bill to ever come before the House of Representatives. It increases
fines in some cases by a factor of 20. It reduces the reporting
requirements for liquid spills to 5 gallons. It increases dramatically
the rights of local officials, safety agencies, and community residents
to have access to important safety information from pipelines. It
provides for a much expanded R&D program to improve pipeline safety
technology. It provides, for the first time, whistle-blower protection
for pipeline employees who wish to come forward and report possible
safety or other types of violations.
Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on. I might add in the political
context that the Clinton-Gore administration supported passage of this
bill when it came out of the other body. The Democrat Senators from
some of the States that have pipeline accidents in New Mexico and
Washington State supported this bill when it was on the other body's
floor.
So it comes over to us. Now, in a perfect world, we would like to
have the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure pass a bill,
then go to the Committee on Rules and merge the Committee on Commerce
bill and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure bill, then
come to the floor and have a debate with some amendments. But we are
late in the session, so we have put the Senate bill on the floor under
suspension of the rules, which means it will take a two-thirds vote to
pass this legislation later this evening.
I think we should be able to get a two-thirds vote. And if there are
those that, for whatever reason, think that the Senate bill is
imperfect, we can obviously come back to this legislation in the next
Congress and, depending on which political party is in control,
obviously reopen it and make further improvements, if that is
necessary. But the decision today is do we pass the Senate bill. My
judgment as subcommittee chairman that has jurisdiction on this issue
is that the Senate bill is an improvement over current law, that it
needs to be passed.
We should get the two-thirds vote. I have gone through the summary of
the Senate legislation. I have looked at all of the analysis of the
Senate legislation. I could quote some of the support groups that are
supporting it. In addition to the Clinton-Gore administration, the
National Governors' Conference is supporting this legislation. So it is
a good piece of legislation.
I would hope that our colleagues, when we come to the floor later
this evening, do pass this by a two-thirds vote so that we can send it
on its way. If for some reason that fails, I would recommend to the
leadership that we go to the Committee on Rules, we get a rule, and we
bring it out under regular order, have a debate and vote it where it
only needs a majority. But we felt like this was a strong enough piece
of legislation that it could be put on the suspension calendar.
And, quite frankly, I thought it was noncontroversial enough to be
put on the suspension calendar. So I am a little bit surprised about
some of the statements that have been made so far on this particular
bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2438, the Pipeline Safety
Improvement Act of 2000. This legislation greatly improves the safe
operation of natural gas, oil, and hazardous liquid pipelines and goes
far to prevent future accidents.
The bill requires higher safety standards, allows a greater role for
State participation, provides for strict accountability by the
Department of Transportation to Congress, and allows increased public
education and participation. It provides long term solutions for public
safety by appropriating funds for Research and Development for
innovative technologies for improving the structural integrity of
pipelines and preventing accidents. And, it backs up these higher
safety standards by sharply raising penalties for safety violators.
The recent accidents in Bellingham, Washington and New Mexico have
made us all aware that higher safety standards and additional oversight
authority benefit all of us. This legislation answers the concerns
raised by those accidents. It requires the Department of Transportation
to issue rules and for pipeline operators to develop programs that
provide for: increased inspection of pipelines; increased maintenance;
public input into the development of these programs; strengthened
training for pipeline employees; improved data collection about
pipelines and about accidents; public education programs; availability
of information to the public; greater emergency preparedness; an
expanded State role in oversight, inspection, and investigation of
interstate pipelines; and protection for employees that report safety
violations. In addition, the legislation requires inspection reports,
maps of pipeline facilities, and other data to be available to the
public. It raises public awareness by requiring a public education
program. Many of these programs have deadlines and require the
Secretary of Transportation to report back to Congress on the progress
of these programs within a certain period of time. And, as I stated
earlier, penalties have been increased, in one instance from 25
thousand dollars to five hundred thousand dollars.
We know that it is essential to have public support for maintaining
the safe operation of pipelines. That is why a ``whistleblower''
protection provision is included in this bill. Other bills do not have
these protections for good citizens and employees. This legislation
also brings in the experts--it provides for the National Academy of
Sciences to advise the Secretary of Transportation on Research and
Development for innovative technologies to improve the safety,
reliability, and structural integrity of pipelines, and inspection and
leak detection technology. Research and Development is also focused on
minimizing the environmental impact of pipelines.
In sum, this legislation greatly advances the ultimate goal of
preventing future accidents by requiring and enforcing stricter safety
standards, and expanding the role of the States and the public to
ensure the safe operation of pipelines. I strongly urge my colleagues
to support S. 2438.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, this is an insult to our intelligence. Let
us put our cards on the table; let us say it the way it is. This
legislation that we have just received from the Senate requires no
periodic inspections. It requires zilch.
Number two, the people who do the inspections do not even have to be
trained. Now, who are we kidding? Who are we really kidding on this
legislation? This is a disgrace.
There are 2.2 million miles of pipeline in this country. And if my
colleagues think this is going to help us, other than helping the
pipeline companies, they are dead wrong and others are dead in the past
10 years.
My colleagues have heard the statistics. This is an insult that my
colleagues would think that this is pipeline safety. Who are my
colleagues doing their bidding for?
I have always stood up here with congeniality, but if my colleagues
think this is going to help pipeline safety when these pipelines go
into people's houses and through dormitories, do my colleagues know
what we are now leading to? We are leading to a moratorium on pipelines
until we get our own act together, and I do not care who supports it.
We should vote this down.
{time} 1715
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge a no vote.
And that is not out of disrespect to the work done by Senators McCain
and Murray in the other Chamber in an attempt to advance this cause.
But, Mr. Speaker, the majority leadership has not brought one single
House bill on this issue to the floor of this House this session
despite multiple tragedies in multiple States of this country, not one
single bill.
And why is that important? It is important because, unless we have a
strong mandate that pipelines be inspected, a stronger mandate than is
in the Senate bill, we will be committing the very same blunder, the
very same blunder that Congress has made for 20 years running. They
have deferred to OPS to pass rules 22 times, and 22 times that has been
ignored. The House bills that we want to vote on a simple chance to
vote plug that gigantic hole.
Now, there is one thing I know. I am not a scientist. I am not a
meteorologist. I am not a hydrologist. But there is one thing I know,
and that is that nobody has ever gotten a different result by doing the
same thing.
[[Page H9558]]
We must break this chain of failure and statutorily mandate
inspections or commit the same blunder that every Congress has made
late in the session saying, it is the best we can do. It is not the
best we can do, and it is not up to American standards.
I am not alone in this opinion. The people with moral authority on
this subject, the three families who sent their young men out on a nice
day in Bellingham in June last year whose sons never came home, want us
to defeat this bill and move on to a stronger bill.
Now, the oil and gas industry desperately wants this legislation.
They have sent armies of lobbyists up here to try to get this bill
through. But I am not voting for them. I am not voting with them. I am
voting for the families. I am voting for Redmond and Kirkland. I am
voting for the environmental community. I am voting for my conviction
of conscience that we must enact a strong bill now or forever lose our
chance until another string of tragedies occur.
I will say one more thing. The oil and gas pipeline industry
understands pressure. Do not let them use this for a relief valve. Keep
the pressure on and pass a strong bill.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Barton).
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to point out once again, the Clinton-Gore
administration supports passage of this bill. It passed the Senate by
unanimous consent, which, if I understand correctly, there are 45
Democrat Senators in the other body. So this should not be a partisan
issue.
I want to briefly read from the report that the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Dingell) asked the GAO to do on pipeline safety. On page
5, in the summary section, it says, ``The office,'' meaning the office
that is responsible for overseeing pipeline safety, ``has historically
had the lowest rate of implementation for these recommendations of any
Transportation agency and has not implemented 22 statutory
requirements, 12 of which date from 1992 or earlier.''
Now, the law that is before us is stronger than the current law. And
the Clinton-Gore administration has not implemented the current law.
For my friends on the other side of the aisle that have concerns,
legitimate concerns, direct those to the present administration. Help
us pass this bill and then get it implemented.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, on October 3 the White House issued this statement: It
is imperative that the House bring legislation to the floor as soon as
possible so a new pipeline safety law that can be enacted before the
end of the year.
The Secretary of Transportation said, referring to the bill Mr.
Dingell and I introduced, ``I urge the House leadership and its members
to act quickly to pass comprehensive pipeline safety legislation and
move to a conference with the Senate.''
There is no statement of administration support for this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Metcalf.)
(Mr. METCALF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. METCALF. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this bill because it is
far, far too weak.
Pipeline safety has been one of my top priorities in this, my last
term in the House. In a way, it is gratifying to see a bill debated on
the floor today which addresses some of the most important safety
issues facing our communities. The two Senators from my state, Slade
Gorton and Patty Murray, fought tirelessly for pipeline safety in the
other body and moved legislation forward which markedly improves
current law in several key areas, including expanded right-to-know
provisions, increased civil penalties for bad actors, and whistleblower
protections. I am extremely grateful to them both for their sincere
efforts.
Unfortunately, I cannot support the bill we will vote on today. At
the end of the day, it still leaves far too much discretion in the
hands of the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), an agency which has
habitually ignored Congressional directives and National Transportation
Safety Board recommendations. For example: as part of this bill,
pipeline operators are required to submit Integrity Management Plans to
OPS which include periodic testing of their pipelines. There is no
maximum period for frequency of inspections. Similar vagueness exists
in the section dealing with employee training. In 1996, I voted against
the last pipeline reauthorization bill because it removed the
requirement that pipeline operators be certified as qualified to do
their jobs. This bill does not reinstate that requirement.
Further, the language allows the states to take a more active role in
pipeline safety regulation is weak, and in no way resembles my
legislation, which is based on the model of the Clean Water Act. I fear
that much of this bill could end up meaning nothing at all. We need to
enact a law that leaves very little wiggle room to Federal regulators
who have proven that they cannot be trusted to protect the public.
Proponents of this legislation admit that it is far from perfect. In
fact, the strongest argument they make for its passage is that time is
too short to pass something better. It may well be true that defeat of
this bill means the death of pipeline legislation in this Congress. I
am retiring at the end of this year, and would love to see a strong
bill passed before I leave office. However, I would rather see Congress
go back to the drawing board next year than pass this watered-down
bill. I will vote against it, and would urge my colleagues to do the
same.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, pipelines are certainly important in
supplying our Nation's energy needs. But in Travis County, Texas, when
gasoline is to be pumped through a 50-year-old line not designed for
gasoline located within a few feet of 11 public schools and across a
major source of drinking water, the term ``pipeline safety'' is a
conflict. It is an oxymoron.
Despite over thousands of Central Texans asking that they place the
pipeline somewhere else, the Office of Pipeline Safety has been totally
useless.
Frank King, for whose son this bill has been named, came all the way
from Washington State to Austin, Texas, to meet with us to describe the
horror that can develop when pipeline safety is neglected and pipelines
are mislocated. This bill does his family absolutely no justice. It has
been so weakened that it has even been blessed by the giant oil
companies that are trying to impose the Longhorn pipeline on Central
Texas neighborhoods.
We need a real pipeline safety bill, not a legislative illusion that
does more to appease special interests than protect America's families.
Reject this illusion tonight.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me
the time.
This Senate bill that is being proposed here today under the
suspension rules falls very far short of the necessary protections that
we need. And while some have said that this is a step in the right
direction and some have even told us that we should not let the perfect
be the enemy of the good, when is it that this House started letting
only the passably good be the enemy of the best that we can do?
I agree with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), we can do better
and we should do better. And if we need to bring it to committee and
allow it to come out under a regular rule so that we can put amendments
to it, let us do it. But this bill as it came out of the Senate is too
inadequate. It needs to be amended. We need to have inspections. We
need to have training for workers so that they can do the right job on
that for their own good and for the good of the public.
This is a bill that needs sorely to be corrected and to be improved.
I ask that we do that in the right process, that we not settle here.
There is nothing going to be accomplished by letting this pass in its
present form. We can do much better. We can do much for many more
people if we do the right thing and bring it back, let us amend it, let
us make it a strong bill. Let us have safety in the pipelines.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to repeat the words of Marlene Robinson,
mother of Liam Wood, whose life was lost in the Billingham pipeline
tragedy.
He was 18 years old. He had just graduated from high school 5 days
before. He did not go off on a party with his buddies. He went off fly
fishing, the
[[Page H9559]]
thing she said that made him happiest, 5 minutes from downtown. What he
did not know was that a gas pipeline went through that area. A wall of
fumes roared down that canyon and snuffed his life out, and then it
exploded and incinerated two other children further on down.
That is what this is all about. Do not tell me this is about the good
and the perfect. Do not tell me this is about the other body that will
not give us time to consider the bill.
They passed their bill a month ago. We had a month to do something
whether in committee or on this floor. We had a month to do something
good for life.
And what Marlene Robinson said was that this bill does not do the
job. If the Office of Pipeline Safety will not protect the health and
safety of our children in the community, she said, then our lawmakers
must.
She referred to this bill and said it is fatally weakened by effects
of intense pressure from the pipeline industry. It is lives at stake.
It is not political careers. It is not who is in charge. It is not who
is the majority this year, who may be the majority next year. It is
what we can do now.
We will be judged on whether we have made the pile higher and better
and left a better legacy. We can do better than this bill. We can do
something that we have been waiting 13 years to do, at least this
gentleman has since the last hearings that I chaired on the subject and
found in a Republican administration failure of this Office of Pipeline
Safety to do its job, in a Democratic administration failure of the
same office to do its job.
It is up to the Congress, as Mrs. Robinson said, it is up to us to
draw the line, to protect communities, and to pass a bill that ensures
safety for all of our children.
This is the hour of truth.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
Mr. Speaker, I would indeed point out that the complaints which my
good friend has alluded to and which I agree with really are complaints
about the Clinton-Gore administration for not enforcing the law and not
being tough enough with their regulations. And indeed that is what we
are trying to fix here.
In fact, I hear so much about the pipeline industry being for this,
if we really wanted to help the pipeline industry, we would bottle up
this legislation and not pass anything so there would be weaker than
the weak current legislation on the books. Instead, we provide what is
clearly stronger legislation.
Now, a year ago our good friends on the Committee on Commerce passed
legislation on pipeline safety with virtually no substantive change in
it and the very gentlemen, my good friends from the Committee on
Commerce, who have taken the floor today to oppose this stronger
legislation voted unanimously in favor of that weaker legislation which
came out of their committee just a year ago.
So this indeed is stronger legislation, not as strong as I would like
it to be. And if we had more time, my colleagues can bet we would be
attempting to negotiate with the Senate an even better bill.
But the stark choice today is to live with the weak law we have or to
accept the improvements passed by the Senate not overwhelmingly, that
is not an adequate term, unanimously, 99-0, with 45 Democrats
supporting the legislation.
So it clearly is bipartisan. It is a major step in the right
direction. I would be happy to join with my friends next year if we are
here to try to improve it further. But let us pass legislation which is
going to save lives rather than defer that until another year.
And so, I strongly urge that this legislation be passed.
Mr. Speaker, I submit this Joint Explanatory Statement for the
gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley) and myself.
S. 2438 requires the Secretary of Transportation to
implement the safety improvement recommendations provided for
in the Department of Transportation Inspector General's
Report. In addition, the legislation requires the Secretary
of Transportation to submit reports on the implementation of
those recommendations to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives. The Committee on Commerce of the House of
Representatives also shares responsibility for pipeline
safety legislation. Therefore, in addition to the above-
mentioned Committees, the Secretary of Transportation should
also transmit such reports to the Committee on Commerce of
the House of Representatives.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, this nation has 157,000 miles of aging
pipeline. The fact is that pipelines transport most of the natural gas
and hazardous liquids in the United States.
In many places, pipelines go unnoticed. Sometimes people don't even
know that there is a pipeline near their home.
However, in places like Lively, Texas; Mounds View, Minnesota;
Bellingham, Washington; and Edison, New Jersey, just north of my
district, pipelines are no longer taken for granted. Explosions have
rocked these communities and taken innocent lives.
We need to ensure accidents like these will never happen again. We
need stronger pipeline standards.
There must be statutorily required inspections at least once every
five years.
There must be a national safety certification program for pipeline
operators, like programs for railroad engineers or FAA mechanics.
And we need penalties for spills occurring on land to be made as
stringent as existing penalties for spills occurring in water under the
Clean Water Act.
S. 2438 does not ensure that these protections are provided.
I am proud to join my colleagues Representative Inslee and
Representative Pascrell (Pallone, Baird, Smith, Dicks, McDermott are
also sponsors) in sponsoring the ``Comprehensive Pipeline Safety
Improvement Act of 2000'' (HR 4792) that will make these protections
mandatory.
Time is running out in this Congress to provide these protections. We
need to act now. For all these reasons, I will be opposing this bill
today. I urge my colleagues to defeat S. 2438 so that we can bring up
real, strong, pipeline safety legislation.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant
opposition to S. 2438, the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2000.
All too often, Members of this body are faced with the unpleasant
task of choosing between doing nothing at all or doing something that
is inadequate. I will readily admit that S. 2438 is an improvement over
the current pipeline safety regime. However, this Congress could have
done so much more, and I believe that doing the inadequate would be a
grave injustice to those who lost their lives in recent pipeline
accidents and to the loved ones they left behind.
Proponents of S. 2438 tacitly admit that there bill does not do
enough to improve pipeline safety standards and enforcement. They
instead urge that we pass this bill because Congress simply does not
have enough time to work on a stronger bill. The reality is that the
House had plenty of time to consider how to improve on the Senate bill.
Furthermore, even before we received the Senate bill, staff on the
communities with jurisdiction over the bill were negotiating in good
faith to reach a compromise to incorporate the key provisions of
several bills introduced in the House. The failure of the House to act
on true reform measures to improve pipeline safety merely epitomes this
Congress' failure to enact a whole host of legislation to improve the
health and safety of ordinary Americans.
It is still not too late to pass a strong pipeline safety bill before
the 106th Congress adjourns. Representatives Oberstar and Dingell
recently introduced H.R. 5361, a bill that includes necessary
provisions pertaining to accountability to the public, stronger safety
standards, and more diligent enforcement. Now that the bill has failed
to obtain the requisite two-thirds support to pass under suspension of
the rules, I hope that S. 2438 will be reconsidered under regular
order, thereby enabling the House to consider H.R. 5361 as an amendment
in the nature of a substitute.
Mr. Speaker, it is still not too late to act on pipeline safety. I
urge the House to pass H.R. 5361 or similar legislation.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 2438, the
Senate pipeline bill in its current form. Pipeline safety is an issue
of great importance, and one that hits very close to
[[Page H9560]]
home for those of us in the Pacific Northwest, a pipeline explosion in
Bellingham, Washington on June 10, 1999 killed three children. This and
other recent tragedies have highlighted the need for strengthening
federal pipeline safety laws; that is why I cosponsored H.R. 5361.
Unfortunately, the bill that provides the greatest protection for
workers and their families did not make it to the floor of the House.
Since the House Leadership has scheduled a vote on S. 2438 under
suspension of the rules, and no amendments may be offered for its
improvement, I must vote against it.
S. 2438 fails to adequately protect our communities because the
federal Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) would not be required to take
action on such critical matters as pipeline inspection, leak detection,
worker protection and training, and fines. This is in stark contrast to
the mandatory requirements that are included in H.R. 5361. The pipeline
industry has succeeded in circumventing meaningful regulation for
decades because of weak legislation. Passing S. 2438 would send yet
another message to OPS that the industry can continue to do so.
Critics of the stronger House legislation say it has no chance of
passing during this Congress, therefore, we must support the weaker
Senate version--something is better than nothing. I disagree, once
pipeline safety legislation is passed, the urgency to revisit the issue
will diminish. At least until another deadly explosion.
Mr. Speaker, I submit the following Seattle Times op-ed into the
Record. It is written by the parents of the three children killed in
the Bellingham, Washington pipeline explosion and calls for Congress to
pass the stronger House legislation.
[From the Seattle Times, Editorials & Opinion, Fri., Oct. 06, 2000]
Pipeline Safety: Don't sacrifice The Good For The Status Quo
(By Marlene Robinson and Bruce Brabec, Frank and Mary King, Katherine
Dalen and Edwin Williams Special to The Times)
We are the parents who lost children when the Olympic
pipeline exploded on June 10, 1999. As we struggled with our
own loss, we also have struggled to give meaning to that loss
by trying to make pipelines safer in this country. To our
sadness and despair, before we were able to see meaningful
pipeline reform occur, tragedy struck again with a pipeline
explosion that killed 12 family members in New Mexico.
The Washington state delegation to Congress, led by Reps.
Jay Inslee and Jack Metcalf, and Sens. Slade Gorton and Patty
Murray, have done a wonderful job of pushing pipeline safety
into the consciousness of Washington, D.C. Without their
efforts, there would not now be a debate regarding whether to
pass the weak bill that the Senate approved, or to wait for a
real, meaningful bill from the House. For their efforts, we
thank them.
In her recent guest commentary, Sen. Murray said that our
push for a meaningful pipeline safety bill from the House
means that we are willing ``to sacrifice the good for the
perfect.'' We wish our choice was between good and perfect
but, unfortunately, the bill that passed the Senate was so
watered down by those who pay homage to the powerful oil and
gas lobbyists, that in reality it would change very little.
The Senate pipeline bill leaves almost all decisions on
critical matters, such as pipeline testing, pipeline leak
detection, employee training, public involvement and fines,
up to the discretion of the federal Office of Pipeline Safety
(OPS). According to the General Accounting Office, OPS has
failed to implement 22 legislative mandates Congress has
passed since 1988. If you tell an agency to do something 22
times and they ignore you, by what logic do you think they
will pay attention the 23rd time?
After a terrible pipeline explosion killed a mother and her
daughter in Mounds View, Minn., in 1986, the industry and the
OPS said they would develop new standards to ensure safety.
They did not. After a huge pipeline explosion destroyed part
of Edison, N.J., in 1994, the industry and OPS said they
would develop new standards to ensure safety. They did not!
After three dead here in Bellingham, and now 12 more dead
in New Mexico, guess what the industry and OPS are saying.
Why should we trust them this time? Ask yourself why
pipeline-safety organizations across the country are opposed
to the Senate pipeline bill, while the pipeline industry is
now trying to push for its passage.
For a pipeline bill to have real meaning, it has to take
the discretion away from the industry-controlled Office of
Pipeline Safety. It has to spell out clearly how often
pipelines need to be tested, and how that testing is to be
accomplished. It has to set strict penalties for companies
that do not pay enough attention to their pipelines. It has
to include strong local oversight of pipeline safety so those
who have the most to lose it something goes wrong have a say
in making sure that pipelines are safe. And it needs to
ensure that the public can review a wide range of information
regarding the pipeline that runs through their communities.
These requirements all made common sense, practical sense,
and represent what a good pipeline safety bill would do. The
Senate bill does not accomplish any of these, and we call on
the members of the House to do what it takes to pass a
stronger ball that secures the public true safety
improvements.
Those who are advocating our acceptance of the inadequate
Senate bill urge us not to ``sacrifice the good for the
perfect.'' But the reality is that the Senate bill is a long
way from ``good'' and will result in business as usual in an
industry that enjoyed a net profit of 40 percent in 1999,
while communities across the nation will continue to
experience horrific failures of aging pipelines.
How many more sons and daughters will be lost before
meaningful pipeline-safety reform is passed? We do not want
to wait until next year, but we will if we must.
Fortunately, good pipeline-safety bills have already been
drafted and introduced in the House. The House needs to pass
one promptly, and the Senate needs to follow the House's lead
and not sacrifice the good for the status quo.
The authors are parents of the three young people killed in
the Bellingham pipeline disaster.
Mr. SHOWS. Mr. Speaker, pipeline safety is of great importance to
environmentally sensitive areas. Some of the most environmentally
sensitive pipeline facilities are cable suspension bridges that convey
pipelines above rivers and canyons.
As a former state highway commissioner, I strongly believe that it is
critical to maintain the approximately 4,000 pipeline bridges in this
country or we will face the prospect of having to bore underground to
replace this essential part of our infrastructure. It is important to
clarify that cable suspension pipeline bridges have unique
qualifications in addition to other pipelines that must be addressed to
ensure safety through regular maintenance and inspection.
Pipeline safety legislation under consideration today requires that
the operators and inspectors be properly trained to inspect all
pipeline facilities. It is imperative that the inspectors of these
pipelines possess specialized knowledge to properly determine the
structural integrity and soundness of the cable suspension bridge that
supports the pipeline as well as the pipeline itself. Such knowledge
should include an understanding of and training in: steel fabrication,
structural engineering fundamentals, pipeline behavior under operating
pressure, the characteristics of all cable types used in suspension
bridges, and the characteristics of reinforced concrete foundation
structures.
It will be required through this bill that the Office of Pipeline
Safety's technical experts, in conjunction with the industry, develop
specific plans to ensure the integrity and safety of all pipelines.
These regulations will ensure that all pipelines, including cable
suspension pipeline bridges, are properly maintained and inspected to
ensure the highest safety standards possible.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to rise in
support of S. 2438, the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2000. This
legislation will provide tough new financial penalties for safety
violations and will lower the spill reporting threshold to five gallons
as opposed to 50 barrels under existing law. In addition, the bill
requires pipeline companies to implement stronger training and
qualifications requirements for their personnel and strengthens the
public ``right to know'' and ``whistle-blower'' protections for
pipeline company employees.
Each of these changes is designed to rebuild confidence in what has
been one of the safest industries in the country. Unfortunately, no
industry is perfect and the need for this legislation was highlighted
by two recent pipeline explosions in Washington State and New Mexico.
These two events have galvanized my belief that S. 2438 will move
towards improving the industry safety record.
Although I would still like to include other public safety
protections, I understand the need for a pipeline safety bill this year
is clear. I look forward to continuing working with my colleagues on
the Committee on Commerce that I serve on but also in the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure if necessary to move even stronger
legislation next year. Pipelines have been shown to be a much safer way
to transport products than trucks or other methods and the current bill
increases that safety factor.
I also want to point out what I believe should be the model pipeline
in terms of safety. I, along with several of my Texas colleagues, have
been working to secure Federal approval of a project called the
Longhorn Pipeline. The Longhorn Pipeline begins at Galena Park, Texas,
in east Harris County in the district I represent and goes across Texas
for approximately 700 miles to El Paso, Texas.
[[Page H9561]]
The Longhorn Mitigation Plan protects the environment and all the
people along the pipeline route and is of a scope and rigor
unprecedented in the pipeline industry. It includes measures designed
to reduce the probability of a spill as well as measures designed to
provide greater protection to the more sensitive areas, including areas
where communities and drinking water supplies could be affected.
Longhorn was willing to take extraordinary steps to protect the
people living in close proximity to their pipeline and I believe they
have set the industry standard.
Mr. Speaker, transporting hazardous materials by pipeline is the
safest and most economical way to deliver these products to market. S.
2438 will raise the bar of safety on our pipeline companies and punish
those bad actors who operate on the margins of the safety envelope.
Human lives and environmental quality are too important for us not to
take action immediately.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 2438,
the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act, a bill introduced by Senator John
McCain which had bipartisan support in the Senate. My home state of
Texas has more pipeline mileage than any other state, so maintaining
the safe operation of these systems is important. In 1996, two
teenagers were killed in my Congressional district while they were
trying to warn their neighborhood about a leak from a pipeline carrying
flammable butane. More can be done to improve pipeline safety, and this
legislation represents the best--and for this Congress, the only--
opportunity to make constructive changes.
Several of my colleagues have argued that we should kill this bill
now, and work to pass another bill later, more along the lines of the
bill introduced by my friends Mr. Dingell and Mr. Oberstar. I respect
the concerns of these gentlemen, but I would say to my friends that the
bill before us today is a good bill. The question of which bill is
tougher is relative--in some areas the McCain bill is tougher, and in
other areas the Dingell/Oberstar bill is tougher. For example, the
McCain bill has higher penalties for safety violations, protections for
pipeline employee whistleblowers, more defined pipeline safety research
and development goals, and temporary job assignment requirements for
pipeline employees involved in an accident. But more importantly, it is
worth noting that the McCain bill, and the bill introduced by Messrs.
Oberstar and Dingell, are much more alike than different. I think it's
important that we not lose sight of this fact.
Mr. Speaker, the McCain bill has one other key advantage over any
House legislation--it has already passed the Senate by a unanimous
vote. Let's not drop the ball in the last few seconds of the game.
Americans want safe pipelines. In this final week of the 106th
Congress, we ought to join together to pass this laudable legislation,
and work in the next Congress with Mr. Dingell and Mr. Oberstar to
ensure that the Act is implemented in a responsible manner.
Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I urge my
colleagues to vote ``yes'' on S. 2438.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2438, the Pipeline
Safety Improvement Act of 2000. This is a good bill which will improve
the safety of our natural gas and hazardous liquid pipelines.
There are 325,000 miles of natural gas pipelines and almost 156,000
miles of hazardous liquid pipelines in the United States. These
pipelines transport over 20 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and
616.5 billion ton-miles of oil and oil products each year. These
pipelines are critical in moving the fuels necessary to heat and light
our homes and businesses and power our cars. As we discovered last
winter, when heating oil was in short supply in the Northeast, and this
past summer, when certain types of gasoline had difficulty reaching
cities in the Midwest, these pipelines are also an important part of
our economy. Therefore, it is important that these pipelines are
operated as safely as possible, not only to protect individuals living
or working near these lines and the environment, but to also assure
that these fuels get to where they are needed.
The natural gas and hazardous liquid pipeline safety programs are
essential to preserving the safety of our communities from the risk
posed by pipelines. Since 1968, the Natural Gas and Hazardous Liquid
Pipeline Safety Acts have been the primary authorities through which
the Department of Transportation has instituted regulations
safeguarding our national pipeline system. This statute must be
periodically reauthorized and the current authorization expires at the
end of Fiscal Year 2000. The Commerce Committee shares jurisdiction
over pipeline safety and has worked towards reauthorization of this
important Act since early last year. We are including in the record
today, a joint explanation with Chairman Shuster, indicating that
reports required by S. 2438 should be provided to the Committee on
Commerce, as well as the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, so that both Committees can continue to monitor the
implementation of this Act.
With the recent accidents in Bellingham, Washington and New Mexico,
the Department of Transportation's pipeline safety program has been
placed under scrutiny by Congress and others. Unfortunately, that
scrutiny has revealed some real shortcomings in the program. As
analysis of the pipeline safety program conducted by the Inspector
General of the Department of Transportation recommended six things that
could be done to improve the pipeline safety program. For the most
part, these are simple things: complete the actions Congress mandated
in 1992 and 1996, expand the focus of its research and development
programs, develop a program to better train its inspectors on the
latest technologies, revise its system of collecting and processing
accident date to allow for more detailed trend analysis, require
revised accident reports when necessary, and respond to open National
Transportation Safety Board safety recommendations. These simple
actions can have big impacts on improved pipeline safety.
S. 2438 requires the Office of Pipeline Safety to comply with these
recommendations. It also contains provisions requiring periodic testing
of pipelines, improved training for pipeline operators, improved public
information, increased reporting of spills. In addition, the bill
increases State and local oversight and input, provides for more
targeted research and development to improve pipeline safety, and
provides increased funding for the Office of Pipeline Safety. Finally,
the bill provides important protection for whistleblowers.
I know there are some who would like to put in place even more
mandates. I don't think that is the answer. Greater accountability is
key. Unfortunately, as long as we have an Office of Pipeline Safety
that fails to act on the Congressional mandates already in place both
new and old mandates will not be worth the paper they are written on.
And one thing Washington doesn't need more of is paper.
I believe this bill strikes the right balance between new mandates
targeted at specific problems and accountability for implementing old
mandates. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to S.
2438.
I oppose this bill because it is weak and does next to nothing to
ensure the safety of my constituents who live or work near a natural
gas pipeline.
Sadly, thirteen years after the National Transportation Safety Board
first recommended that pipeline operators inspect their pipelines to
identify corrosion or other mechanical damage--nothing has been done.
The Department of Transportation has not moved on the NTSB's 1987
recommendation and no regulations exist today to force pipeline
operators to regularly inspect their pipelines.
I am deeply concerned over the issue of pipeline safety because in
New Jersey, the most densely populated state in the nation, tens of
thousands of residents live and work near areas cris-crossed by
pipelines.
As my colleagues from New Jersey will remember, it was only six years
ago that a massive natural gas pipeline explosion occurred in Edison,
New Jersey.
That pipeline explosion destroyed eight apartment buildings and
disrupted what was once a stable neighborhood.
Mr. Speaker, there are plans to today to expand a natural gas
pipeline in Bergen County, New Jersey, a pipeline that would run very
near a residential neighborhood and a playground in North Arlington,
New Jersey.
How can this Congress, in good conscience, pass a bill that simply
extends the status quo--and does not require the Department of
Transportation to issue any meaningful regulations designed to address
pipeline safety issues?
What will we say when and if a pipeline problem harms innocent
individuals in North Arlington, New Jersey or elsewhere in America?
I urge my colleagues to oppose this weak bill that fails and honor
our obligation to protect the public's safety.
Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 2438, the
King and Tsiorvas Pipeline Safety Improvement Act. In order to know why
this legislation is so important, one only has to remember that
seventeen U.S. citizens have died in pipeline accidents during this
Congress.
By passing this legislation, the House will be taking an important
step in avoiding future pipeline tragedies. We all recognize that
natural gas, oil, gasoline, diesel fuel, and other industrial liquids
play key roles in the nation's economy. Over 3,000 natural gas
operators and 52,000 master meter and liquefied natural gas operators
and over 200 hazardous liquid operators bring these products to market.
Transporting both gaseous and liquid materials safely through an
intricate network of over 1,750,000 miles of pipeline is a complex
undertaking. Today, we have the opportunity to better protect the
public from the dangers of pipeline operations.
[[Page H9562]]
Among other things, S. 2438 will improve current law by investing in
new technology to improve pipeline safety, increasing civil penalties
for safety violations, and requiring pipeline operators to conduct
periodic inspections of their systems. In addition, in response to
accusations that the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) has not always
done its job in the past S. 2438 provides a significant increase in
funds for the OPS to enable it to hire more personnel to handle the
mandates that Congress has already required.
Some of our colleagues will argue that this bill is not strong
enough. In fact, S. 2438 is the strongest pipeline safety reform ever
adopted by either body of Congress. This bill represents meaningful
reform. It was crafted by a bipartisan group of legislators who worked
through months of meetings and negotiations to develop the best bill
possible. The resulting legislation is so strong that both the Vice
President and the Secretary of Transportation supported passage of S.
2438.
Let's not put process over results. Our nation needs strong pipeline
safety legislation this year. The safety of millions of Americans is at
stake, and S. 2438 is a strong, workable bill that will result in vast
improvements over the current safeguards for pipeline operations. I
urge all Members to support S. 2438. It is a good bipartisan bill that
will take an effective first step towards improving pipeline safety.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dickey). 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. 2438.
The question was taken.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
____________________