[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 18 (Thursday, February 8, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1176-S1205]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PIPELINE SAFETY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2001
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
proceed to the consideration of S. 235, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 235) to provide for enhanced safety, public
awareness, and environmental protection in pipeline
transportation, and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate is now considering
S. 235, the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2001. I am joined in
sponsoring this important transportation safety legislation by Senators
Murray, Hollings, Hutchison, Bingaman, Domenici, Breaux, Brownback,
Smith, and Landrieu. I especially express my appreciation to Senator
Murray, as well as former Senator Gorton, for the hundreds of hours
they put into this legislation.
This bill is the product of many months of hearings and bipartisan
compromise and cooperation during the last Congress. It is designed to
promote both public and environmental safety by reauthorizing and
strengthening our Federal pipeline safety programs which expired last
September.
As most of my colleagues well know, the Senate worked long and hard
during the last Congress on how best to improve pipeline safety. After
several months of hearings, and countless meetings, the Senate finally
achieved a bipartisan consensus on comprehensive pipeline safety
improvement legislation. We unanimously approved that legislation last
September 7. I want to point out, by a voice vote, this legislation was
passed just last September 7. Unfortunately, the House failed to
approve a pipeline safety measure so we were never able to get to
conference or send a measure to the President. Our collective inaction
was a black mark on the 106th Congress.
Because the Congress as a whole did not act, the unacceptable status
quo under which a total of 38 fatalities occurred during just the last
year remains the law of the land. If we consider the pipeline-related
deaths during the last Congress, that number increases to 64 total
fatalities. Again, there have been 64 recent deaths, yet we have done
nothing concrete to improve the law governing pipeline safety. Timely
action not only by the Senate, but also the House, is needed to
[[Page S1177]]
address identified safety problems before any more lives are lost. This
is a call for action by both Chambers.
I commend and thank the Senate leadership on both sides for
recognizing the critical need for passage of this legislation and
scheduling this floor action so quickly. This early attention by the
Senate demonstrates our firm commitment to improving pipeline safety. I
remain hopeful that the new Congress as a whole will act quickly to
take the necessary action to improve pipeline safety before we receive
another call to action by yet another tragic accident.
Before I discuss the specific provisions of the legislation, I would
like to discuss the safety record for pipeline transportation.
According to the Department of Transportation, pipeline related
incidents dropped nearly 80 percent between 1975 and 1998, and the loss
of product due to accident ruptures has been cut in half. From 1989
through 1998, pipeline accidents resulted in about 22 fatalities per
year--far fewer than the number of fatal accidents experienced among
other modes. While the fatality rate has been generally low, it has
taken a turn in the wrong direction during the past 2 years--with 26
fatalities in 1999 and 38 fatalities in the year 2000. I must also
point out that according to the General Accounting Office, the total
number of major pipeline accidents--those resulting in a fatality, and
injury or property damage of $50,000 or more--increased by about 4
percent annually between 1989 and 1998.
The leading cause of pipeline failures is outside force damage,
usually from excavation by third parties. Other causes of failures
include corrosion, incorrect operation, construction, material defect,
equipment malfunction, and pipe failure.
While statistically the safety record is generally good, accidents do
occur, and when they occur, they can be devastating. That was certainly
the case last August when a pipeline accident claimed the lives of 12
members of two families camping near Carlsbad, NM, and the previous
year when three young men lost their lives in Bellingham, WA. That is
why I believe so strongly that we must act now to help prevent future
pipeline-related tragedies. It is our duty to take action as necessary
to ensure our Federal transportation safety policies are sound and
effective, whether for air, rail, truck, or pipelines.
The Office of Pipeline Safety within the Department of
Transportation's Research and Special Programs Administration oversees
the transportation of about 65 percent of the petroleum and most of the
natural gas transported in the United States. OPS regulates the day-to-
day safety of 3,000 gas pipeline operators with more than 1.6 million
miles of pipelines. It also regulates more than 200 hazardous liquid
operators with 155,000 miles of pipelines. Given the immense array of
pipelines that traverse our nation, reauthorization of the pipeline
safety program is, quite simply, critical to public safety.
The legislation before us today will strengthen and improve pipeline
safety. S. 235 will authorize additional funding for safety enforcement
and research and development efforts. It will provide for increased
State oversight authority and facilitate greater public information
sharing at the local community level. It raises civil penalties,
provides whistle-blower protections for employees, and provides for
many other safety improvements. In short, it will promote both public
and environmental safety.
Let me describe the major provisions of the bill:
First, the bill would require the implementation of pipeline safety
recommendations issued last March by the Department of Transportation's
Inspector General to the Research and Special Programs Administration.
The IG found several glaring safety gaps at OPS and it is incumbent
upon us all to do all we can to insure that the Department
affirmatively acts on these critical problems.
The legislation would also require the Secretary of Transportation,
the RSPA Administrator and the Director of the Office of Pipeline
Safety to respond to all NTSB pipeline safety recommendations within 90
days of receipt. The Department's responsiveness to NTSB pipeline
safety recommendations for years has been poor at best. While current
law requires the Secretary to respond to the NTSB no later than 90 days
after receiving a safety recommendation, there are no similar
requirements at RSPA. I am aware of one case in particular where an
NTSB recommendation sat at DOT's pipeline office for more than 900 days
before even an acknowledgment of the recommendation was issued. Such
disregard for the important work of the NTSB is intolerable. Therefore,
this legislation statutorily requires RSPA and OPS to respond to each
and every pipeline safety recommendation it receives from the NTSB and
to provide a detailed report on what action it plans to initiate to
implement the recommendation.
The measure would require pipeline operators to submit to the
Secretary of Transportation a plan designed to improve the
qualifications for pipeline personnel. At a minimum, the qualification
plan would have to demonstrate that pipeline employees have the
necessary knowledge to safely and properly perform their assigned
duties and would require testing and periodic reexamination of the
employees' qualifications.
The legislation would require DOT to issue regulations mandating
pipeline operators to periodically determine the adequacy of their
pipelines to safely operate and to implement integrity management
programs to reduce those identified risks. The regulations would, at a
minimum, require operators to do the following: base their integrity
management plans on risk assessments that they conduct; periodically
assess the integrity of their pipelines; and, take steps to prevent and
mitigate unintended releases, such as improving leal detection
capabilities or installing restrictive flow devices.
It also would require pipeline operators to carry out a continuing
public education program that would include activities to advise
municipalities, school districts, businesses, and residents of pipeline
facility locations on a variety of pipeline safety-related matters. It
would also direct pipeline operators to initiate and maintain
communication with State emergency response commissions and local
emergency planning committees and to share with these entities
information critical to addressing pipeline safety issues, including
information on the types of product transported and efforts by the
operator to mitigate safety risks.
The legislation directs the Secretary to develop and implement a
comprehensive plan for the collection and use of pipeline data in a
manner that would enable incident trend analysis and evaluations of
operator performance. Operators would be required to report incident
releases greater than five gallons, compared to the current reporting
requirement of 50 barrels. In addition, the Secretary would be directed
to establish a national depository of data to be administered by the
Bureau of Transportation Statistics in cooperation with RSPA.
In recognition of the critical importance of technology applications
in promoting transportation safety across all modes of transportation,
the legislation directs the Secretary to focus on technologies to
improve pipeline safety as part of the Department's research and
development efforts. Further, the legislation includes provisions
advanced last year by Senator Bingaman, myself, and others, to provide
for a collaborative R&D effort directed by the Department of
Transportation with the assistance of the Department of Energy and the
National Academy of Sciences.
The bill provides for a three-year authorization, with increased
funding for Federal pipeline safety activities, the state grant
program, and research and development efforts. Let me assure my
colleagues that we are seeking the views of the Administration
regarding the funding levels and will carefully consider funding and
other concerns as the bill proceeds through the legislative process. We
must ensure that the Department has the tools it needs to carry out its
critical pipeline safety activities and to advance research and
development efforts.
The legislation requires operators, in the event of an accident, to
make available to the DOT or NTSB all records and information
pertaining to the accident and to assist in the investigation to the
extent reasonable. It also includes provisions concerning serious
accident that provide for a review
[[Page S1178]]
to ensure the operator's employees can safely perform their duties.
In addition, pipeline employees are afforded the same whistle-blower
protections as are provided to employees in other modes of
transportation. These protections are nearly identical to the
protections aviation-related employees were granted in the Wendell H.
Ford Aviation and Investment Reform Act for the 21st Century.
Again, I hope this Congress can act expeditiously to approve
comprehensive pipeline safety legislation. We simply cannot afford
another missed opportunity to address identified pipeline safety
shortcomings.
The Senate can be very proud to be taking action on such an important
public safety issue as one of its first legislative acts of the 107th
Congress. We must act to help improve pipeline safety and prevent
future tragedies like those that occurred in Washington and New Mexico.
I urge my colleagues' support of this legislation.
Mr. President, I point out to my colleagues something that bears
looking at. This map behind me is a snapshot of the thousands of miles
of gas transmission, gas distribution, and hazardous liquid pipelines
that crisscross our country. It is based on data compiled in 1997 by
MAPSearch Services in the Office of Pipeline Safety. The Office of
Pipeline Safety is in the process of completing its own mapping
initiative that will provide a much greater level of accuracy and will
be made available to the public via the Internet by this legislation.
While the Office of Pipeline Safety is years behind in completing
this initiative, it is projected that by the end of February, 86
percent of hazardous liquid lines and 29 percent of natural gas
transmission lines will be mapped under this new initiative. I am
committed to ensuring that OPS completes this initiative in a timely
manner and to the highest degree of accuracy possible.
What is important, from the map I have here today, is for all of us
to realize that pipeline safety affects all of us. We owe it to our
constituents to pass this measure today and to press the House to act
expeditiously to pass a bill in order to improve pipeline safety.
Let me, for the benefit of my colleagues, particularly the 11 new
Members, provide a brief history of the work of the Commerce Committee
and the time devoted by the Senate during the last Congress which led
to the development of the pending legislation.
I understand there will be amendments that will be proposed. I in no
way object to those amendments. I want a proper perspective to be given
on this issue. We just didn't come up with this legislation.
The Commerce Committee's work began nearly a year ago when we held a
field hearing in Bellingham, Washington, on March 13th, at which 18
people formally testified--including the Governor of Washington, mayors
and city officials, the parents of the three boys killed in the tragic
June 1999 pipeline accident, representatives of state and federal
pipeline safety regulatory agencies, oil and gas companies, and public
interest groups.
We then held a full committee hearing on pipeline safety on May 11th
at which we heard from Senator Patty Murray and several Representatives
from Washington State. We also received testimony from the
Administrator of the Department of Transportation's Research and
Special Programs Administration, the DOT Inspector General, the NTSB,
the parents of the children killed in the Washington pipeline accident,
and witnesses representing the natural gas transmission industry, the
natural gas distribution industry, the hazardous liquid pipeline
industry, State pipeline inspectors, and public safety advocates.
Each and every one of the 30 witnesses testifying before our
committee recommended changes in the current law and offered views on
the legislative proposals pending at the time. Members both on and off
the Commerce Committee also offered specific recommendations. And
countless meetings were held by Members and staff discussing ways to
improve pipeline safety. The Commerce Committee operated in a manner to
ensure that anyone who wanted to participate in this process could do
so and the input from the many diverse interests has been both useful
and appreciated.
Next, the Commerce Committee met in executive session on June 15
during which we considered a substitute amendment which was the product
of the many views presented to the committee. We also adopted a number
of other amendments and debated others that weren't adopted. We agreed
to continue to work to resolve some outstanding issues prior to taking
the bill to the floor. That bill was reported by the committee without
one dissenting vote.
Following that markup, the interested Members continued working to
try to find common ground on those areas that had not been resolved
during the executive session. Now, I will remind my colleagues of the
tragic pipeline accident that occurred during the August recess when 12
members of two families camping near Carlsbad, NM, lost their lives
when a natural gas transmission line ruptured. Sadly, it was that
tragic accident that spurred the prompt action upon the Senate's return
in September. During the first week back from the August recess, we
reached a final consensus on the legislation to enable the bill's
prompt consideration. The bill was approved by unanimous consent on
September 7.
Unfortunately, the House failed to approve pipeline safety
legislation during the last Congress. As a result, the status quo under
which 64 lives have been lost in just the past 2 years remains the law
of the land. We simply must take action--both Chambers must take
action--and allow us to get to a conference and to send a strong pro-
safety pipeline bill to the President.
Mr. President, I believe every Member of this Chamber can be proud
that one of our very first legislative acts for the new Congress is to
consider legislation to strengthen federal pipeline safety policies and
in turn, improve public safety. I urge the House to also make pipeline
safety an early priority and enable the Congress to carry out its
obligations to the American public.
I recognize that some Members may not have expected this bill to have
been scheduled for floor action as quickly as this week. It is not my
intent, nor do I believe it is the leadership's, to preclude any Member
from having the opportunity to offer their views on how we could even
further improve pipeline safety. But I want to remind all of my
colleagues that this measure did pass this Chamber by unanimous consent
just 5 months ago. And it took considerable effort and bipartisan
cooperation and compromise to enable that action to occur.
Some would like the bill to go further and some believe it goes too
far. But we did work long and hard to finally achieve a consensus in
this legislation and I hope our new colleagues who were not in the
Senate during the last Congress will carefully consider the critical
importance of advancing this pipeline safety measure through the
process. And, I want to state for the Record my strong interest in
working with the administration on this issue. I will certainly
consider any recommendations it may offer to improve pipeline safety as
we work to move this legislation through conference.
Mr. President, I want to take a moment to recognize two Members who
played key roles in the process last year that culminated in the
creation of the measure before us today. They are Senator Patty Murray
and Senator Slade Gorton. It was in large part due to their tireless
work and bipartisan cooperation that enabled the Senate to pass a
strong, pro-safety pipeline bill last year. And it is in the spirit of
continued bipartisan cooperation that we are able to consider this bill
today.
Finally, I want to again mention the other sponsors of this bill:
They are Senators Hollings, Hutchison, Bingaman, Domenici, Breaux,
Brownback, Smith, and Landrieu. I thank them for their work and
bipartisan cooperation on this important legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of comprehensive
pipeline safety legislation. I want to especially commend Senator
McCain for his strong, personal leadership on this issue. He held
hearings on pipeline safety in the last Congress, and he's helped make
this legislation a priority here in the Senate. We would not be here
today without Senator McCain's leadership.
[[Page S1179]]
I first got involved in this issue 20 months ago in the wake of a
horrible pipeline explosion in my home State of Washington. On June 10,
1999 in Bellingham, Washington a gasoline pipeline ruptured. Gas poured
out of the pipeline and overflowed into Whatcom Creek. Eventually, that
gasoline ignited, and it created a massive fireball. The explosion sent
a plume of smoke more than 20,000 feet into the air--as you can see in
this picture. But most tragic of all, the explosion killed three young
people. It shattered a community and inflicted serious environmental
damage. Without warning on a quiet summer day, three young people were
taken from their families in a tragedy that should never have happened.
After the accident, I spent several months learning about pipelines.
I learned that the Office of Pipeline Safety oversees more than 157,000
miles of hazardous liquid pipelines and more than 2.2 million miles of
natural gas lines throughout the country. These pipelines run near our
schools, our homes, and our communities. They perform a vital service--
bringing us the energy we need for cars, airplanes, and home heating.
But at the same time, they are not as safe as they could be.
I learned that it's hard for citizens to find out if they live near a
pipeline--much less if that pipeline is safe. I learned that many of
these pipelines were laid down 30 or 40 years ago, and they are getting
old. They're subject to internal corrosion and to external damage. And
worst, of all--they may not receive regular inspections. I learned that
too many pipeline operators don't have the training they need. And I
learned that we're not investing in pipeline safety--both in oversight
and in the new technology that will make pipelines safer.
Mr. President, the impact of all of these problems can be seen in the
number of pipeline accidents. Between January 1, 1986 and December 31,
1999, there have been more than 5,700 pipeline accidents in this
country, 325 deaths, 1,500 injuries, and almost $1 billion in
environmental damage. On average there is one pipeline accident every
day in this country, and 6 million hazardous gallons are spilled into
our environment every year.
As I worked on pipeline safety, I talked to a lot of people. I worked
with officials at all levels of government, with industry
representatives, environmentalists, state and federal regulators, and
concerned citizens.
Last year, I introduced my own pipelines safety legislation. I was
pleased when Senator McCain--as Chairman of the Senate Commerce
Committee--made this issue a priority and held a hearing and a markup
on pipeline safety legislation. And many other Senators played key
roles--especially Senators Hollings, Bingaman, Inouye, Domenici,
Breaux, and Wyden--and also former-senator Slade Gorton. On June 15,
our bill passed out of committee.
Then, on August 19, there was another terrible pipeline explosion
near Carlsbad, NM. That blast killed 12 people. That horrific accident
reminded this Senate that we had to act. As a result, our bill passed
the Senate on September 7. Let me review the features of the McCain-
Murray bill as passed last year.
To make pipelines safer, our bill improved the qualification and
training of pipeline personnel, improved pipeline inspection and
prevention practices, expanded the public's right to know about
pipeline hazards, raised the penalties for safety violators, enabled
States to expand their safety efforts, invested in new technology to
improve safety, protected whistle blowers, increased funding for safety
efforts by $13 billion, and recognized State citizen advisory
committees and allowed for their funding.
This bill--which is again being considered today--was the strongest
pipeline safety bill to ever pass either Chamber of Congress. The
Senate has clearly made pipeline safety a priority--and we are doing so
again this year. Then our bill moved to the House for debate. In the
House, it did gather support from a majority of Representatives.
Unfortunately, it was brought up for a vote through a procedure that
required a two-thirds majority--and it fell short.
Again this year, it is the House of Representatives that must step up
to the plate on this issue. That is why I have worked with Washington's
congressional delegation--especially Congressman Rick Larsen who
represents Bellingham--to develop additional provisions to address some
of the concerns expressed by the House last year.
I am proud to report that Congressman Larsen introduced that
legislation in the House this week. I also plan on introducing it here
in the Senate today so it can become part of the process we use to
enact the best legislation. The delegation legislation that Congressman
Larsen and I have worked on will improve the McCain bill in several
ways.
It will strengthen the provision on employee certification. It will
further increase penalties for safety violations. It will improve the
community's right to know. And, it will ensure periodic inspections of
pipelines.
The strongest pipeline safety bill ever to pass either body of
Congress is on the floor of the U.S. Senate right now. A vote yes is a
vote for progress--a vote to make pipelines safer. A vote no is a vote
for the status quo. A vote no freezes the process. A vote no leaves us
exactly where we were when three people were killed in Bellingham and
12 people were killed in Carlsbad.
Are there things we can do to improve this bill? Yes. But we well
never get to them unless this bill passes out of the Senate. This bill
represents our single best opportunity to make pipelines safer. That's
clear from what happened last year. Last year, the Senate passed this
bill, and some in the House had problems with it. The improvements will
be made--and the differences will be worked out--in the conference
process. But we can't get to the conference process until the Senate
and the House each pass pipeline safety legislation.
Voting against this bill won't make pipelines safer. Voting for this
bill--and making improvements during conference--will make pipelines
safer.
Frankly, Mr. President, I expect the bill we're debating today--S.
235--to pass the Senate again this year--as it did last year.
Then--once again--the House will need to pass its own legislation.
At that point, the two bills will be reconciled by a conference
committee. That committee's work will be critical.
Ultimately, I hope that the conference committee's final bill will
resemble the bill I've been working on with the Washington state
delegation.
Mr. President, this isn't the end of our discussion on pipeline
safety. In fact, it's just the start and that starting process begins
by voting yes for this bill.
Before I conclude, I want to comment on the current energy crisis.
It's something that I have spent a lot of time on in the past few
months, and it is having a real impact on the people of my State.
I have been listening very closely to President Bush's comments.
Among other things, he has suggested streamlining the approval process
for installing pipelines. That concerns me.
I recognize that we need to increase our energy generation, but we
shouldn't do it at the expense of our safety or our environment. Just
because we are having an energy crisis does not mean that the families
in Bellingham or Carlsbad will accept a rollback of safety standards.
I hope President Bush will agree that we shouldn't replace our
current energy crisis with a pipeline safety crisis. Let me offer four
ways President Bush can show his commitment to public safety, The first
one is simple. We shouldn't backtrack on safety. Senate bill 235--
represents the new minimum of safety standards. President Bush should
not send us a proposal that is less stringent than this bill. Let me
give you one example. Our bill expands the public's right to know about
problems with pipelines and ensure communities and States have a role
in pipeline safety.
Last week, I heard about a draft energy plan that President Bush may
put forward. It gives the oil and gas industry a guaranteed seat at
every meeting on pipeline regulations. However, it provides no
guarantee that concerned citizens, local officials or state
representatives would be part of the decisionmaking process.
President Bush should not undue the progress we made last year. And I
hope he'll show a sensitivity to safety and environmental concerns that
have been
[[Page S1180]]
absent from his discussions on this issue to date. Second, President
Bush should signal his support of pipeline safety legislation, which I
hope will ultimately take the form of him signing a bill into law.
Third, President Bush should fund pipeline safety in his budget as a
priority. I will be fighting for pipeline safety funding in the
upcoming budget debate, and I will hold the administration accountable
for its commitment to investing in pipeline safety. Finally, President
Bush's Department of Transportation should continue to issue
administrative rules to make pipelines safer.
The Clinton administration took several important administrative
steps.
They issued safety and environmental regulations that require
mandatory safety testing of pipelines in populated areas, in sensitive
environmental areas, and along waterways. And at my request, they
stationed a pipeline inspector in Washington State. And they agreed to
give Washington state more of a role in pipeline inspections. I hope
the Bush administration will show the same level of commitment.
So I hope President Bush will reconsider his energy proposal to make
sure it will heed the lessons we've learned from so many pipeline
accidents. We do need to address our energy needs, but not at the
expense of our safety. Let's make pipelines safe first, before we lay
down more pipelines. I want to close with one final image. This chart
shows where pipeline accidents have taken place between 1984 and 1999.
As you can see, pipelines fail in every State.
The states marked in yellow had between 3 and 19 accidents. The
states marked in orange had between 20 and 69 accidents. And the states
marked in red had 70 or more pipeline accidents. As you can see--most
of the States are red. I don't want to have to color more of these
States red.
If we learned anything last year, it's that we must not wait for
another tragedy to force us to act. We must pass a comprehensive
pipeline safety bill this year. This bill represents the start of our
efforts in Congress this year, and I will work with anyone who want to
make pipelines safer. I know that we can't undo what happened in
Bellingham, but we can take the lessons from the Bellingham tragedy and
put them into law so that families will know the pipelines near their
homes are safe.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Washington that
she is too modest. Had it not been for her efforts and those of former
Senator Gorton, I know we would not have achieved the product that we
have. I am grateful for her continued commitment not only to this
legislation but to the families who experienced the terrible tragedy in
Bellingham where all are very appreciative.
I note the presence of Senator Breaux, a friend from Louisiana who
also has significant background and knowledge on this issue and who has
played a very important role in its passage. I will be brief.
Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the Record at this time a
statement from the Office of Management and Budget. Also, I ask that
two letters in support of this legislation from the National Governors'
Association and the National Association of Regulatory Utility
Commissioners be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Statement of Administration Policy
(This statement has been coordinated by OMB with the concerned
agencies.)
S. 235--Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2001
(McCain (R) Arizona and 7 co-sponsors)
The Administration supports Senate passage of S. 235, which
would significantly strengthen the enforcement of pipeline
safety laws: The Administration appreciates the Senate's
action in making consideration of pipeline safety legislation
one of its first priorities. The tragic deaths last year of
12 family members in Carlsbad, New Mexico, and the earlier
deaths of three youths in Bellingham, Washington, underscore
the need for action.
The Administration looks forward to working further with
Congress to secure enactment of pipeline safety legislation.
____
National Governors Associations,
February 6, 2001.
Hon. Trent Lott,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Senate Russell Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Lott: On behalf of the nation's Governors, we
are writing to express our support for S. 235, a bill to
improve oil and gas pipeline safety, and to encourage prompt
passage of such legislation. Governors are concerned about
the increasing number of pipeline accidents and reported
regulatory inaction by the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS).
As you know, the General Accounting Office (GAO) report on
OPS issued last year noted that the agency failed to
implement 22 of the 49 requirements made by Congress over the
last decade, and has the lowest rate of any transportation
agency for implementing recommendations of the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).
It is important to Governors that OPS be required by law to
comply with congressionally mandated requirements and
implement the recommendations of the NTSB. OPS should also
strengthen its rules regarding pipeline operation,
maintenance, and public reporting of spills and leaks.
Equally important to Governors, legislation should grant
OPS the continued authority to enter into agreements with
states to inspect and oversee interstate pipelines. According
to the GAO report, states have performed well as interstate
agents under these agreements, yet until recently OPS was
phasing out interstate agent agreements. The National
Governors Association (NGA) adopted a policy statement last
year (enclosed) that urges Congress to review this
unfortunate trend. State inspectors typically are able to
perform more frequent and more thorough inspections than
federal inspectors, improving their ability to detect safety
problems and prevent accidents.
NGA's policy support pipeline safety legislation that
provides states with the authority to protect our citizens
from pipeline explosions and leaks. States should be
authorized to establish standards that do not conflict with
but may exceed federal standards. Our policy also endorses
the ability of states to enforce violations of federal or
state standards. We look forward to working with you on
legislation that accomplishes these goals.
Thank you for your consideration. Please feel free to
contact Diane S. Shea, Director of NGA's Natural Resources
Group, at 202/624-5389, if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Tom Vilsack
Chair, Committee on Natural Resources.
Frank Keating,
Vice Chair, Committee on Natural Resources.
Enclosure.
NR-20. Improved Pipeline Safety
20.1 Preamble
The United States contains approximately 2 million miles of
natural gas and hazardous liquid pipelines. The U.S.
Department of Transportation's Office of Pipeline Safety
(OPS) is responsible for regulating these pipelines. OPS
retains oversight authority unless it grants authority to
individual states. A number of states have assumed oversight
responsibility for intrastate gas and liquid pipelines within
their borders following certification by OPS; a far smaller
number are responsible for inspection of interstate lines.
OPS authority derives from the 1968 Natural Gas Pipeline
Safety Act and the 1979 Hazardous Liquids Pipeline Safety
Act, which were substantially amended in 1992 and 1996. OPS
is responsible for establishing and enforcing safety
standards for the construction, testing, operation, and
maintenance of pipelines. The Pipeline Safety Program is due
to be reauthorized in September 2000.
20.2 Recommendations
20.2.1 Increasing State Authority
The Governors urge Congress to consider amending the 1968
Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act and the 1979 Hazardous
Liquids Pipeline Safety Act and authorize states to establish
safety standards for interstate pipelines that do not
conflict with but may exceed federal standards. States should
also be authorized to enforce violations of federal or state
standards.
The Governors urge Congress to review the policy of OPS to
decline to grant any additional states interstate agent
status for interstate pipelines.
20.2.2 Congressional Oversight
The Governors urge that Congress, as it reauthorizes OPS,
require the office to strengthen its rules, as appropriate.
OPS should be required to explain its failure to comply, in
some cases for over a decade, with the recommendations of the
National Transportation Safety Board for periodic internal
and hydrostatic testing and operator certification. The
office should be held accountable for its failure to meet
congressional mandates to define ``environmentally sensitive
areas'' and ``high-density population areas.''
20.2.3 More Effective Rules
The Governors urge that Congress require OPS to strengthen
rules, as appropriate, regarding pipeline operation,
maintenance, and public reporting of spills and leaks. These
should include a review of: Requiring federal certification
of operator training and qualification; increasing inspection
requirements for pipeline corrosion; requiring study and
implementation of state-of-the-art leak detection systems;
requiring installation of
[[Page S1181]]
effective fail-safe mechanisms; imposing safety standards for
liquid fuel pipelines that are at least as stringent as those
for natural gas pipelines; requiring pipeline operators to
report to OPS and affected jurisdictions all spills greater
than five gallons; requiring pipeline operators to disclose
the results of all pipeline inspections to local and state
authorities; requiring OPS to work with local emergency
response providers to develop preparedness and response plans
and providing appropriate funding support to local
jurisdictions to implement such plans; requiring pipeline
operators to periodically plan and drill cooperatively with
local emergency response providers; and requiring periodic
management audits of pipeline companies to ensure compliance
with the foregoing.
20.2.4 Appropriate Funding
The Governors urge Congress to fund OPS at a level that
will allow an increased allocation for states, working in
partnership with the federal agency, to ensure pipeline
safety, as well as providing for federal research and
development on technologies for leak detection, testing, safe
operations, corrosion protection, and internal inspection.
20.2.5 Intergovernmental Cooperation
The Governors urge the states and the federal government to
work together to exchange data on ways to improve their
inspections of intrastate pipelines and local distribution
companies to continue to improve the safety of these
facilities. The Governors also urge the states to review the
OPS' Common Ground Report--Study of One-Call Systems and
Damage Prevention Best Practices issued in August 1999, and
compare their state one-call systems to the proposals for
improving one-call systems in order to continue improving
ways of preventing third-party damage to underground
facilities.
____
National Association of
Regulatory Utility Commissioners,
Washington, DC, February 7, 2001.
Re S. 235--Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2001.
Hon. Trent Lott,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Majority Leader Lott: On behalf of the National
Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) we
urge you to support swift passage of S. 235. However, NARUC
does not believe S. 235 should be the vehicle for broader
energy policy legislation. NARUC would therefore oppose
amendments that would attempt to expand this bill beyond its
current intent of improving pipeline safety.
Last Congress NARUC expressed strong support for the
reauthorization of pipeline safety legislation provided
sufficient funding to the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) for
State grants was authorized. We believe the increase in
funding for these grants found in S. 235 will better enable
OPS to meet its obligation of a 50% funding share for this
Federal/State partnership.
Additionally, NARUC and its membership strongly believe
there is a vital role for the States in ensuring the safe
operation of pipelines regardless of the interstate or
intrastate nature of the pipeline in question. NARUC strongly
supports provisions of S. 235 that provide States with
increased authority and increased participation in safety
activities of the pipelines traversing our States.
There will be more we can do to improve upon S. 235, and
NARUC is committed to working with Congress in the future to
produce legislation that improves upon this bill. We too
would like to see a stronger bill, one that provides the
States with more oversight. However, we believe that it is
vitally important to the safety and welfare of our citizens
to send pipeline safety legislation to the President as soon
as possible. Thank you for your consideration of NARUC's
views.
Sincerely,
Nora Mead Brownell,
President, NARUC Commissioner, Pennsylvania Public Utility
Commission.
Edward J. Holmes,
Chair, NARUC Committee on Gas Commissioner, Kentucky Public
Service Commission.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I note Senator Breaux is here. My friend
from Minnesota, Senator Wellstone, also wishes to speak.
I invite others who wish to speak on this issue. We would like to
consider amendments after that and move to passage of this bill today.
That is our intention.
I yield the floor.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
allowed to follow the Senator from Louisiana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. BREAUX. I thank my colleagues for the remarks they have made on
this legislation already. I was particularly pleased to be here when
Senator Murray from Washington was making her remarks. As the chairman
of the committee acknowledged regarding her contributions, she was an
active participant in the drafting of this legislation in the last
Congress, actually to the point of being invited by the chairman to sit
in the committee and participating as a member because she made
valuable contributions in developing this legislation.
I rise in strong support of the bill that is now before the Senate.
It is a major step in ensuring the safety and the integrity of a system
of pipelines that is covering the entire United States, bringing
necessary energy to our families, to our businesses, and to our
industry.
We worked over a year in the last Congress, saying we have to do a
better job than we have done in the past. What we produced last year
was an important contribution. It took into account concerns of both
the operators and owners of pipelines, as well as those who are served
by those pipelines. We all have a common interest in seeing that these
lines have integrity, that they are technologically the best we could
have in this country. The bottom line is, they are safe.
We produced a bill in the last Congress that passed the Senate by a
unanimous vote. That was not an easy accomplishment. There were a lot
of different sides with opinions on how the legislation should look and
what it should do. Some, quite frankly, thought it went too far. Others
felt it didn't go far enough.
The bottom line is that at the end of last year this bill came to the
Senate in essentially the same form it is in today and passed by a
unanimous vote. That indicated there was general agreement, obviously,
on what the content should be.
Unfortunately, the House took the legislation up on what they call a
suspension of the rules and it failed by a 23-vote margin from being
adopted in the House. That was most unfortunate. Had the other body
been able to do what I think most of them wanted to do--a majority, in
fact, voted for it--this issue would be behind us and we would have in
place today a new system of inspection, a new system for qualifications
for the operators, and community right-to-know provisions would be the
law of the land.
Unfortunately, that is not the case. Therefore, under the leadership
of our chairman, Senator McCain, and other members of the Commerce
Committee, and Members of the Senate, we are back on the floor where we
left off last year with the product that already passed, essentially,
the Senate in the last Congress by unanimous consent.
It is an important issue for my State, an important issue for me. We
have over 40,000 miles of pipeline in my State alone--33,000 on shore
and about 7,000 miles in the Gulf of Mexico--bringing the largest
supply of natural gas in North America from the Gulf of Mexico. We have
7,000 miles of pipeline buried under the ocean in the Gulf of Mexico
that brings the natural gas on shore, and that is distributed through a
pipeline system throughout the United States. Mr. President, 33,000
miles of those pipelines are in my own State of Louisiana. We have a
very strong interest in making sure those lines are secure and safe.
What does the bill do? No. 1, we require periodic pipeline testing.
That will be a requirement. A line can be inspected by internal devices
such as a ``pig,'' which is basically the name for a device that is run
through the pipeline, a very sophisticated piece of technology. It is
referred to as a ``pig'' because it sort of squeaks through the
pipeline and takes various measurements as to integrity of the line. It
tests for corrosion of the line, tests for leaks or potential leaks of
the line. A very sophisticated and very accurate piece of equipment
that we require would be run through all of these pipelines on a
periodic basis.
However, it is important to note that only about 35 percent of the
natural gas pipelines are susceptible to being tested through this type
of technological instrument called the ``pig'', the rest of them are
not. In the legislation, we allow that in the areas where the so-called
``pig'' technology is not suitable because of the type and size of the
line or the bends in the line, there be other methods of testing that
would be periodically required by the legislation.
For instance, we require the operators perform direct assessments of
their lines. What do we mean by direct
[[Page S1182]]
assessments? It is not a term of architect; it is pretty much what it
implies. We require operators to actually dig up the lines and
physically inspect them for corrosion and any other abnormalities that
may be interfering with the integrity of the lines actually by physical
inspection of the lines, looking at them, and other methodologies they
would employ after the lines are actually dug up to ensure they are
safe.
We also leave room for other technology. We want to use the best
technology available to inspect the lines, and we certainly leave room
for that.
We also had some concerns in the legislation which I think now have
been satisfactorily worked out with regard to employees who may
potentially be involved in any type of an accident. We still believe
people are innocent until proven guilty, but there are certainly
circumstances when people are involved in an accident where we do not
want to keep them doing the same thing at the same time and in the same
place until the responsibility for the accident is determined. That is
not to say we in any way presume someone to be guilty. We have worked
out a satisfactory methodology for handling people involved in these
types of accidents.
We are also required, with regard to the operator qualifications, to
make sure the people who operate the lines, the people who have the
capability of shutting them off when there is something that has
happened, have the best training and the best information and knowledge
in order to be involved in operating something as sophisticated as a
natural gas pipeline. We require operator qualifications so that we
make certain the people in charge are qualified, and they should be
tested in order to make sure they are qualified. This is a big
improvement, something that is very important.
We also invest in a new technology to which I was referring. Senator
Bingaman was involved in wanting to ensure that we are encouraging the
development of better technology to improve the inspection process,
which we do by this legislation.
Also, the States are given an increased role in their inspection of
the interstate pipelines. There is a legitimate argument that the lines
run through 50 States and you cannot have 50 different sets of
standards, 50 different departments investigating and inspecting them.
It needs to be coordinated, but the States need to be involved. We have
given an increased role to the States to be involved in this. I think
that is positive.
Also, for the communities--providing increased involvement in
pipeline safety. Operators are required under this legislation, I think
probably for the first time, to maintain a relationship both with the
State and local officials and providing them the information they need
on a local and State level to make sure their constituents are also
aware of where the lines are located, and additional information about
potential hazards and other information they would need to know.
Again, let me conclude by saying some people say it should be a lot
stronger than this. Others say this is far too regimented an operation
and it should not be that restrictive. But I do think, because of the
good faith on both sides, we have come up with something that is a
balanced approach. It is a major improvement over the current system.
I think we should do as we did in the last Congress, pass this bill
by unanimous consent. The other body will work their will. There will
be a conference. There will be differences, I point out, between the
House version and the Senate version.
For those who think the right thing to do is try to amend it here, I
suggest, in all good faith, it may be better to take a look at what the
House does and work within the conference to get what may be more to
their viewpoint. I think it would be a mistake, just from the politics
of handling this, to offer amendments on the floor of the Senate that
may not pass, and have a recorded vote which would prevent the Senate,
when the bill comes back, from accepting something that maybe, frankly,
may be more to its liking.
There is a process here that people should be cautioned about. In
order to improve the legislation in the way they may like to see it
improved, I caution them and I recommend the best thing to do is pass
this bill in its current form, work with the House in the conference,
and then see what happens when the conference comes back.
To all colleagues who have helped produce this bill, I thank them; I
congratulate them for a job very well done, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). Under the previous order, the
Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, there are a number of colleagues who
want to speak. I had wanted to speak about an amendment that I join
Senator Boxer on and she is on the floor. I ask unanimous consent that
Senator Boxer be allowed to lead off. I myself will only take 5 minutes
following her. I think this amendment will be accepted; is that right?
Mrs. BOXER. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Amendment No. 3
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), for herself, Ms.
Mikulski, Mr. Wellstone, and Mr. Murkowski, proposes an
amendment numbered 3.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To direct the Secretary of Energy to request the National
Academy of Sciences to conduct a study of, and report to Congress on,
increasing the reserve supply of natural gas)
At the end, add the following:
SEC. . STUDY OF NATURAL GAS RESERVE.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) In the last few months, natural gas prices across the
country have tripled.
(2) In California, natural gas prices have increased
twenty-fold, from $3 per million British thermal units to
nearly $60 per million British thermal units.
(3) One of the major causes of these price increases is a
lack of supply, including a lack of natural gas reserves.
(4) The lack of a reserve was compounded by the rupture of
an El Paso Natural Gas Company pipeline in Carlsbad, New
Mexico on August 1, 2000.
(5) Improving pipeline safety will help prevent similar
accidents that interrupt the supply of natural gas and will
help save lives.
(6) It is also necessary to find solutions for the lack of
natural gas reserves that could be used during emergencies.
(b) Study by the National Academy of Sciences.--The
Secretary of Energy shall request the National Academy of
Sciences to--
(1) conduct a study to--
(A) determine the causes of recent increases in the price
of natural gas, including whether the increases have been
caused by problems with the supply of natural gas or by
problems with the natural gas transmission system;
(B) identify any Federal or State policies that may have
contributed to the price increases; and
(C) determine what Federal action would be necessary to
improve the reserve supply of natural gas for use in
situations of natural gas shortages and price increases,
including determining the feasibility and advisability of a
federal strategic natural gas reserve system; and
(2) not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, submit to Congress a report on the results of the
study.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, so my colleagues know, I will be very
brief on this amendment because I am extremely pleased that it has been
accepted by both sides. I know enough that when you have an ``aye''
vote, be brief. I will probably take about 5 minutes, and then I
understand my friend Paul Wellstone wants to speak in support.
First, let me thank my colleagues, both Democratic and Republican,
for accepting this amendment which I think is an important one because
it looks to the problem of natural gas prices. What we have seen when
Americans are opening up their utility bills this month, some of them
are in complete shock because in many cases their bills have doubled
and tripled. We believe the cause is the spike in natural gas prices.
It would be very simple if we could tell people not to use the heat
in their homes. But heat is a necessity. Although we can all do our
best, this is
[[Page S1183]]
not similar to buying a candy bar. It is something that a lot of our
people need. It is not a luxury. They need the natural gas to heat
their homes.
If we look at the facts, we can see in the last few months natural
gas prices have skyrocketed. In California, it is hard to even believe
this, but the facts show that natural gas prices have increased
twentyfold, from $3 per million Btu's to nearly $60 per million Btu's.
Experts agree that one of the major causes of this price increase is
a lack of supply. That includes a lack of natural gas reserves. In
other words, the reserves just are not there in times of crisis or a
crunch. In California, the lack of a reserve was compounded by the
rupture of an El Paso Natural Gas Company pipeline in Carlsbad, NM, on
August 1, 2000.
What is very important about this underlying legislation, and why I
support it so much, is that we want to make sure similar accidents are
prevented. We do not want to face the tragedy of lost lives anywhere in
this country. With safe pipelines, we will not have to face that. But,
in addition, when we do not have these accidents, we will not see an
interruption in the supply of natural gas.
We need to look at and solve the lack of natural gas reserves in
times of extreme shortages. My amendment attempts to get to the bottom
of these issues. It requires a National Academy of Sciences study to
investigate this problem. First, the study will determine the causes of
recent increases in the price of natural gas. Second, the study will
identify any Federal and State policies which may have contributed to
this price increase. Finally, and to me most important, the study will
determine how the Federal Government can take action to ensure that
there is an adequate reserve supply in the future.
I especially want to learn about the feasibility and advisability of
a Federal strategic natural gas reserve for use during supply and price
emergencies.
We all know we have a Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We also know that
a natural gas reserve raises other issues, but, in fact, it may well be
feasible.
I trust my amendment will help all of us understand the causes of the
natural gas problem we are facing, and I am very optimistic that this
study will give us a range of solutions to meet this crisis now and in
the future.
The spike in natural gas prices is not a California phenomenon,
although we have seen, probably, the worst of the spikes in prices. We
are beginning to see it all over the country. That is why my friend,
Barbara Mikulski, wanted to be a cosponsor of this amendment. That is
why Senator Wellstone as well wants to support it and wants to speak on
it.
With deep thanks to my friends who have accepted this amendment, I
yield the floor at this time. I ask for a vote on the amendment at the
appropriate time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized under
the previous order.
Mr. WELLSTONE. First, I defer to my colleagues from Arizona and
Louisiana on this if they want to respond right now.
Mr. McCAIN. Since the Senator from Minnesota is speaking in support
of the amendment, if it is agreeable to have him speak, then Senator
Breaux and I speak, and then we intend to accept the amendment
following that, if that is agreeable to the Senator from California and
the Senator from Minnesota.
Mrs. BOXER. May I say yes, it is. I would like to add Senator
Murkowski as a cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Murkowski or Mikulski?
Mrs. BOXER. Murkowski--Mikulski and Murkowski. This is a banner day.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Before my colleague from Minnesota starts, could I ask
if we could get a unanimous consent on order of discussion here, so we
know how to organize things. I understand the Senator from California
desires to speak for around 20 minutes. I believe the Senator from
Idaho wanted to respond for up to 10 minutes. I would like to see if I
could speak at that point in time for 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this
amendment with Senators Boxer and Murkowski and Mikulski. The amendment
is pretty simple. I thank my colleagues from Arizona and Louisiana and
Washington for their support.
The amendment would require the National Academy of Sciences to
conduct a study, A, to determine the cause of the recent increase in
the price of natural gas; B, to identify any Federal or State policies
that have contributed to price increases; and, C, to determine what
Federal action might be necessary to improve natural gas supplies,
including the feasibility of a Federal natural gas reserve system.
When my colleague from California says that this is not just
California, she is absolutely right. In the State of Minnesota, a cold
weather State, we just got hit with a big snowstorm yesterday. Families
are seeing the price of natural gas going up 45, 50 percent, and it is
a real hardship.
I am going to be working with Senator Bingaman and others to expand
the LIHEAP program. We are going to need that. That just helps the
poorest of poor people. And there are other ways of providing help for
families.
The fact is, a whole lot of families in Minnesota, a whole lot of
people, are just being killed by these prices. It is a huge consumer
issue. This study is important. Frankly, I think all of us need to try
to get a handle on what is happening.
For my own part, I say to the wholesalers, I do not quite understand
why they were not able to anticipate some of the demand. Personally, I
am skeptical about deregulation. This was 1989 and natural gas took
effect in 1993. Part of the problem is the wholesalers have no
incentive to have an inventory. Therefore, we see the economics of
scarcity. But if they are not going to anticipate new power markets
going on line, natural gas, new homes, new businesses, much less cold
weather, then we are going to be right back again next winter for our
State with the economics of scarcity, with the spike in prices. It is
murder not just for low income, I say to my colleagues, but also for
moderate income, middle income, small businesses--across the board.
I am so pleased this amendment has such strong support. I am pleased
we are going to vote on it. This is not a study for the sake of a
study; this is a study that will provide us with more information so
we, as legislators, can take some action to deal with what I think has
really become one of the front-burner, central, family, consumer issues
in the United States of America.
I thank my colleagues.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for one point in
the form of a question?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I will be pleased to yield.
Mrs. BOXER. My friend is so right. Because of the urgency of this
matter, we have called for a 60-day study. I want to make sure my
friend knows that. This bill is just a 60-day study so we can get the
information back and then come before the Senate with solutions. I want
to make sure my friend is aware of that.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my friend from California, if it was more
than 60 days, I do not think I would support it. The last thing I want
to see is a study that will go on and on. This calls for action.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, we have discussed this amendment of the
Senator from California and I certainly find no objection to it. In
fact, it can be a very positive contribution. The National Academy of
Sciences is eminently qualified to take a look at the things this study
requires. I look forward to their recommendations.
I will just mention the obvious difference in creating a reserve for
crude oil. We have stored crude oil in salt domes, most of which are in
my State and the State of Texas, which is quite different from setting
up a reserve for natural gas. I think the author understands that, but
that is the purpose of asking the National Academy of Sciences to take
a look at it, and perhaps they can come back with good recommendations.
The amendment of the Senator from California is helpful, and we
certainly support it.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask that Senator Feinstein be added as a
cosponsor of the amendment.
[[Page S1184]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. I yield to Senator McCain so we can dispose of this
amendment.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, if there is no further debate on the
amendment, I urge its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
3.
The amendment (No. 3) was agreed to.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized for
20 minutes.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I begin by indicating my support for this bill and
thanking the chairman of the committee and the ranking member for their
work on the bill.
There is an issue relevant to natural gas, and it is electricity. I
want to use my time to outline what I believe has happened in
California and to set to rest a couple of myths that have arisen during
the course of the debate.
The problem in California essentially was set into motion by a bill
passed in the middle of the last decade, 1996. This was a deregulation
bill. It is my understanding that at the time, virtually everyone came
together--Republicans, Democrats, utilities, generators, and
consumers--to produce a bill which deregulated electricity. The bill
was approved quickly. It was signed at the end of the session by then-
Governor Pete Wilson, a former Member of this body.
The bill created what, in essence, was a flawed market structure. It
deregulated wholesale power, but it left regulated the retail side. It
also demanded that 95 percent of California's power had to be purchased
on the day-ahead or spot market. That was fine when the supply of power
was plentiful, but as the supply of power shortened, spot prices rose
to unprecedented levels, and those costs could not be passed on to the
consumer. The result was that California's large investor-owned
utilities are now on the brink of bankruptcy, and the reason is that
they have been forced to purchase power that averages $300 per megawatt
hour or 30 cents per kilowatt hour, while they can only pass it on to
the consumer at $75 a megawatt hour or 7\1/2\ cents a kilowatt hour.
Today, they have accumulated a debt of anywhere from $10 billion to
$12.5 billion. They have severe difficulty in obtaining the credit they
need today to make forward purchases. Therefore, they stand on the
brink of bankruptcy.
California's current mix of regulated retail rates and unregulated
wholesale rates is clearly, in my view, not a long-term workable
scenario.
As I have already mentioned, generators are charging exorbitant rates
for power, which has led some to suspect that they are gaming the
market. When Sempra Energy in San Diego tells me they are buying spot
power at 3 a.m. in the morning at 500 times the normal price, something
is wrong with the market.
Supporting that suspicion, economist Paul Joskow and Edward Hahn of
MIT released a report this past January 15. Let me read from that
report:
The high wholesale electricity prices observed in the
summer of 2000 cannot fully be explained as the natural
outcome of market fundamentals in a competitive market since
there is a very significant gap between actual market prices
and competitive benchmark prices that take into account these
market fundamentals.
Moreover, there is considerable empirical evidence to
support a presumption that the high prices experienced in the
summer of 2000 reflect the withholding of supplies of the
market by suppliers.
For this reason, I believe the most critical and immediate step that
can be taken to address this crisis is to fix the market, which is
terribly broken.
I would like to outline for a moment some of the steps California is
taking to fix the problem.
First, California has conducted an online energy auction to solicit
bids for long-term bilateral contracts. Remember, this contracting was
prohibited by the 1996 legislation. The State is now negotiating
contracts which cover up to one-third of the State's energy demand for
the winter. The contracts range from 3 to 10 years and average $70 per
megawatt hour. It is my understanding they hope to contract for up to
5,000 megawatts. That is enough for 5 million households.
Second, the State is now going into the power business in a major
way. It has exercised its authority to purchase power on the spot
market and has distributed this power at cost to the utilities. By
February 15, it is estimated that the State will have spent $1 billion
to buy this power. And it is buying power at the rate of about $50
million a day. All told, the State has provided an authorization for
the California Department of Water Resources to finance up to $10
billion to buy power--again, to pass that power along, at cost, to the
utilities.
Third, California has taken action to speed up the construction and
siting of new energy plants. The State has already approved 9 out of 25
additional powerplants, which will generate enough energy to power 6
million households. That is about 6,278 megawatts. But the rub is that
these first nine plants will not be on line before the end of 2002. So
you can see that there is a short-term period. I am going to speak more
about that short-term period of excess volatility in a moment.
Fourth, part of AB 1890 required California's investor-owned
utilities to sell their generating facilities. I think that was a huge
mistake. The State has reversed this.
Fifth, the State has restructured the California ISO--or Independent
System Operator--and essentially eliminated the Power Exchange, which
was a trading floor for California used to purchase energy hourly. The
fatal flaw of the Power Exchange was that it ensured that all bidders
into the exchange received the highest clearing price for electricity.
The Power Exchange was intended to encourage bidders to use the floor,
but instead it became too easy to manipulate, driving up prices.
Sixth, the Governor recently announced an $800 million energy
conservation program to reduce California's peak load demand by more
than 3,700 megawatts. As I said, the legislature approved a baseline
conservation rate, which the PUC should begin to put in place soon and
will protect the cost of basic necessary electricity but charge
premiums for use above that cost.
This is really the first consequential effort to begin to fix the
regulated retail end of the market. Frankly, whether it will be enough
or not, I do not know at this stage.
What is the Federal role in all of this? And why is legislation that
Senator Boxer, I, and others have submitted so important?
The most significant thing the Federal Government can do, through the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, is to provide a period of interim
price stability, preventing price volatility or gouging, until this
market is able to straighten itself out.
Let me show you why that is so crucial because what is anticipated to
happen in the summer is, despite everything the State is doing today,
there will still be an absence of sufficient electricity to serve the
State.
The Independent System Operator has prepared this chart that shows
what the shortfall will be in the summer: In May, despite everything,
3,030 megawatts; in June, 6,815 megawatts; in July, 4,685 megawatts; in
August, 5,297 megawatts; in September, 1,475 megawatts.
So the worst time to come for California--and it has spread for other
States--is going to be the summer, if this shortfall happens as has
been predicted by the ISO. That is when price volatility, for that
power that is not already under bilateral negotiated contracts, comes
into play in a serious way. That is why Senator Boxer and I have said
we need a period of short-term interim price stability, really, to get
through these summer months. Therefore, we have submitted S. 26.
What S. 26 would do is say, if, during this short-term period, the
FERC finds that prices are unjust and unreasonable, the FERC--the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission--has two options: The first option
would be to set cost-of-service rates themselves--cost-of-service rates
take into consideration the cost of providing the electricity plus
margin of profit--or, second, provide an interim or temporary wholesale
[[Page S1185]]
price cap across the 12 Western States from which any Governor can opt
out if that Governor does not want their State to participate. That is
one way of looking at this.
The FERC has clearly found that prices charged in the year 2000 for
electricity are unjust and unreasonable. But the FERC refuses to do
anything about it, saying let the market prevail. The market is broken,
and until the State can adequately increase supply, the market is going
to remain broken.
So the responsible Federal posture isn't, as some have said, that the
Federal Government should be an ostrich, sticking its head in the sand:
Let anything happen that may happen to California; we do not care. That
is not the responsible role. It is to provide an absence of volatility.
The reason is that this volatility will also impact other States--and
is beginning to do just that right now.
The impact of the crisis on our State has been tremendous. California
has spent more than $600 million over the past month purchasing
electricity. The State is suffering from lost productivity. A recent
study by the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation has
concluded that California's few rolling blackouts and interrupted
service have taken a $1.7 billion toll in direct and indirect costs on
the economy. As I have said, we want to increase the supply.
Here is where there is a big myth. People say: California has an
increased supply; right? Wrong. This past decade, California has
actually added 2,670 megawatts of additional capacity--not enough
because the demand has gone up by 14 percent. But, believe it or not,
California has added more generation in the past decade than any other
State in the western region. At the same time, demand in these 10
States has grown by a greater percentage than it has in California.
People don't realize this, but this is what an examination of the
record will reflect.
It is critical for California now to do the following: Expedite its
powerplant siting and construction process. I have been told by
generaters that it has taken them up to 6 years to get a permit. That
clearly cannot continue. California has to assume its power to expedite
siting and construction.
Two, improve the transmission capacity in the State. Currently, you
can't now transmit power from the south to the north.
Three, reduce any bona fide environmental obstacles. I am aware of
none that have stopped power production at the present time, but if
there are, let's take a look at them. Let us do what we must.
Four, ensure that all large buildings, hospitals, and hotels with
emergency generators or that have additional generation capacity use
these facilities in the interim. I am told there is about 2,000
megawatts in generating capacity that buildings have but that are not
in regular use.
To reduce demand for energy, I have written to the Secretary of
Energy asking him to look at the feasibility of significantly reducing
energy consumption by Federal Government offices in California, I hope,
by 10 to 15 percent. I have also called upon the Bush administration to
fully implement new energy efficienct rules for air-conditioners or
other appliances so they can get in place as soon as possible.
Last week, Senator Bob Smith, Republican of New Hampshire, and I and
five of our colleagues introduced legislation to provide tax incentives
for energy-efficient homes, buildings, and schools, to encourage people
to do what they must in that area. I am also introducing legislation to
provide tax incentives for the development of wind, solar, geothermal,
and biomass energy, something that can be developed in a major way,
certainly in California.
It is clear to me the State is going to have to increase rates at
some point, as painful as that is, but do it in a way that gives
Californians advanced warning and that phases in these costs over a
period of time so as to protect consumers as much as possible, with a
lifeline rate for the basic electricity use of consumers.
The big question I have is whether a hybrid system can work. That is
what California has, a hybrid system. You cannot deregulate on the
wholesale side and keep retail rates regulated. The dilemma facing the
State, in my view, is going to be either move to a completely
deregulated market and do so in a structured, commonsense way, or begin
to reregulate. Thus far, the moves California has made show me, by
beginning to buy power, by legislation that would buy the utility's
transmission lines and then lease them back, that California is slowly
beginning a path to reregulation.
I make no value judgment. My value judgment at this stage is, we
can't have both worlds. We can't deregulate the wholesale end and
regulate the retail end because it breaks the market. California has
been a victim of that broken market into which generaters have charged
the highest possible rates. Long-term contracts obviously play a major
role. The 1996 legislation prohibited those contracts.
If I may, I will send, on behalf of Senator Boxer and I, an
alternative piece of legislation to committee. I ask unanimous consent
to be able to send that legislation to the desk at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I understand there is a UC and I have been
included in that for 10 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that 5 of my
10 minutes be yielded to the Senator from Oregon, who is on the floor.
Prior to proceeding with that, I am happy to yield to Senator Boxer
from California for a couple of minutes to respond to the legislation
Senator Feinstein has just introduced.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. I will be brief. I thank Senator Craig and Senator Smith
for their indulgence. I did not want to see a break here. I thank my
colleague, Senator Feinstein, for laying out what we are going through
in California with this power crisis. I have already spoken about the
natural gas problem which is a separate problem but nonetheless very
important to us. She really laid out well the situation in which we
find ourselves. I have maybe some differing views with her on the final
way to solve it, but I absolutely agree with her, at this time what is
most important is to stabilize the market for the short-term.
I compliment her on putting together the chart showing us the real
facts; that we are going to be short electricity in the summer months.
I do believe--and I am optimistic; we already see signs of this--that
California is going to come out of this. Again, we don't know exactly
if it is going to be a more regulated system. We don't know whether it
will continue to be a hybrid system or a full deregulation, which I
don't think will happen. The fact is, we have a real short-term
problem. I implore my colleagues, particularly those from the western
States who are starting to see this problem spread to their area, to
take a look at this idea of a temporary cap on these wholesale prices.
At least in that way, we could be sure of supply at a reasonable price
to get us through these summer months.
I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a column written by
Peter King--not the Congressman--with the Sacramento Bee called ``If
Only Myths Were Megawatts.'' The notion is exploding a lot of myths
about California. For example, we rank 47th in per capita use of energy
consumption. Our consumption has gone up 11 percent in the last period
of time, but the rest of the country's consumption has gone up 22
percent. We are doing our part. We are trying. We will succeed. Just
remember, when California gets a cold, they eze all over the country.
We are the sixth largest country in the world, if measured by GDP.
I thank my colleague from California for her insights and yield the
floor.
There being no objection, the column was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
[From the Sacramento Bee]
If Only Myths Were Megawatts . . .
(By Peter H. King)
If the myths surrounding California's energy mess somehow
could be converted into megawatts, the state would be awash
in electricity and, in the words of Merle Haggard, we'd ``all
be drinking that free Bubble Up and eating that rainbow
stew.'' Whatever that means.
Alas, this is not the case. A haze of half-truths, revised
histories and other forms of
[[Page S1186]]
rhetorical hocus-pocus has enveloped the public dialogue over
what has happened with California energy and who should pay
for it.
Perhaps the most galling piece of mythology, so popular
among California bashers across the land, is that the problem
is rooted in California itself and, in particular, in a sun-
addled, something-for-nothing outlook on life. In an
editorial about the energy crunch, the Wall Street Journal
sneeringly labeled California the ``Alfred E. Neuman state,''
a reference to the ``What, me worry?'' cover boy of Mad
magazine.
The idea seems to be that Californians have been too busy
meditating in the hot tub to recognize that it takes energy
to generate those soothing bubbles, and that as the state
attracts more and more hot tub soakers it will need more and
more electricity. The idea also seems to be that we kept
tilting at windmills when we should have been decorating our
coasts with offshore oil rigs and nuclear reactors, that
California's concern for its environment is a luxury that it
can no longer afford.
In fact, Californians are not hopeless energy addicts; the
state ranks 47th in the nation in terms of per capita
consumption. Over the past decade, energy usage in California
did rise by 11%--but nationally, according to U.S. Department
of Energy figures, it climbed at twice that rate. In fact,
the bulk of growth in consumption on the overburdened Western
grid has occurred in states that neighbor California.
In other words, it's not all about Topanga Canyon hot tubs
and Silicon Valley computers. The posse searching for where
all the energy goes might also look toward the bright lights
of booming Las Vegas and, come summer, the humming air
conditioners of Phoenix, Tucson, et al.
Yet what about the other side of the electrical switch?
Over and over again, the point is made that California hasn't
built any new energy plants in the last decade. The
impression created is that environmentalists and bureaucrats
have locked arms and encircled any and all prospective power
generation sites, gently singing ``Kumbaya'' while the energy
producers stalk off to Texas and the lights of the Golden
Land dim, flicker and go dark.
In fact, there are 10 power plants now under construction
in California, with a total generating capacity of roughly
6,500 megawatts. In addition, 14 projects with a collective
capacity of 7,500 megawatts are under review, with
construction scheduled to start sometime this year. Fourteen
thousand megawatts represents about a third of what the state
currently needs to survive its highest peaks in demand.
That's quite a lot of new energy development going on in a
state that forgot to develop new energy.
To be fair, there had been a slowdown in energy
development--although one not confined to California. Like
almost everything that drives the energy business, it had to
do with pure economics. As energy prices drop, so too does
the desire to build more plants and drill more well-heads.
When they climb, the opposite occurs. Some energy
consultants, in fact, already see signs of California's
energy crisis winding down. They see these signs, not in the
frenzied hallways of the state Capitol, but in distant
natural-gas oil fields where, sparked by soaring prices,
drilling activity has perked up again.
There have been other myths. There was the myth, rather
quickly shot down, that Southern California's air quality
rules somehow were behind the supply crunch. There was the
business of the consumer rate freeze, a feature of
deregulation that has prevented utilities from passing along
to customers wildly inflated wholesale power costs. Lost in
the myth-making here was the fact that this price ceiling
functioned for the first couple of years, by design, as a
price floor, keeping consumer rates propped up while the
utilities raked in billions.
``Headroom,'' they called it.
There was the more amusing myth of the Christmas lights.
Remember how turning off Christmas lights was supposed to
help ease California through its crisis? To borrow once again
from the ever-reliable Merle Haggard: ``If we make it through
December, we'll be fine.'' Well, we did make it through
December, but we aren't fine, at least not yet. Soon enough,
though, we will be. To suggest that California, in the end,
always has frustrated those who would rush to write it off as
a paradise lost, as a doomed experiment in easy living, is
not mythology, It is history.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I come to the floor not to respond to
Senator Feinstein. There will be ample time. I understand the chairman
of the Energy Committee has agreed to a hearing date for the Senator's
legislation, and there will be ample opportunity to examine the concept
of cost plus pricing into the marketplace.
The reason one of Idaho's Senators is on the floor this afternoon and
the reason one of Oregon's Senators is on the floor this afternoon is
that what is happening in California is rapidly spreading into Oregon
and Washington and Idaho. Why would a power disease in California
spread to Oregon and Idaho? In part because we are in the same system
or grid--we are interconnected--and in part because we sell power to
California and California sells power to us.
When you distort a marketplace in one part of the market system, it
overacts or reacts somewhere else.
What the Senator from California is talking about is absolutely true.
I will have to say I am pleased when I hear Senators from California
say: We have a problem, and we probably didn't do it right. We are
probably a creator of our own problem. When you deregulate wholesale
power and you cap retail power, you send a phenomenally loud message to
the marketplace: Don't come and build. You cannot evaluate or bring
back your values, and you have protected the consumer in a false
marketplace environment. California has recognized that and they are
trying to do something about it.
I am pleased the Senator from California did not propose to cap
wholesale prices.
I think it would be a phenomenal distortion at this time to do that.
A couple of Governors have said, yes, it is a good idea. But eight
Governors just wrote the President and FERC and the Vice President and
said: Please don't go in that direction, don't coddle the consumer,
because if you coddle the consumer, the consumer doesn't understand and
will not put pressure on the politician to get out of the way and let
the marketplace work. That is really the problem we are in at this
moment.
Compounded with the growth of the region and the crisis in
California, the Senator from Oregon and the Senator from Idaho have a
predominantly hydro-based system. Our system is run by water flowing
through turbines held back by dams on large rivers. When it doesn't
snow and rain in the West, and especially in the Pacific Northwest,
there isn't enough water to be held by the dams to flow through the
turbines to generate the power.
Come May of the year 2001--this May--when power usage starts going up
in California, and in Oregon, and in Washington, and in Idaho, Idaho
will be in big trouble because our moisture for the winter is not at
100 percent or 110 percent of normal; it is now at about 60 percent
region-wide. We are in a dry winter in the West, and we are not
producing the snow to flow to the reservoirs to generate the power.
We in Idaho will be in a crisis environment if it doesn't improve
rapidly, as will be true in the State of Oregon. What California, in
large part, has caused, we are now asking our consumers to pick up the
bill for because, unlike California, the consumers in Oregon and
Washington and Idaho are not protected by a retail price cap.
Our utilities, under order or fixed contract, have certain lids to
bump up against. But the average consumer is going to feel this by 20-,
30-, 40-, 50-percent rate increases, while California basically takes
none, or very little. How can that possibly be fair if California is
largely a part of the problem, if not the largest part of the problem?
Because while they have brought on some new production compared to
their growth, they have brought on very little, and they have not built
the transmission systems to make all of that happen.
We started hearings, and we are going to ask that we move quickly,
Mr. President. We know that the President and the Vice President have
assembled Cabinet-level counsel to look at the long-term problem. But
we in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho are going to have to sort out the
short-term problem, and that is now, in April, May, June, July, August,
and September of this year when this crisis will sweep across the
Pacific Northwest, at a time when we need power to not only fuel our
refrigerators at home but our factories and our irrigation pumps to
keep our agriculture alive and our men and women working.
Cost-plus pricing is not an answer--again, a false message to the
market, a new bureaucracy at FERC. Power will not flow to California;
it will flow away from California, if the markets of California do not
reflect the true price. That is the reality of the marketplace, and you
can't fix it by some Federal bureaucracy or well-intended piece of
legislation. The Senator from California is right: Let's get to the
business of siting powerplants, building transmission lines, and doing
it in an environmentally safe, but a responsible way, and allowing our
consumers once again to have affordable power. Those are some of the
issues we must deal with quickly.
[[Page S1187]]
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I probably should say amen to
what the Senator from Idaho has said. I agree with his message. I want
to just add one point. Let's assume that caps made sense. I have been
told by Federal officials, Bonneville Power Administration officials,
that even if you could do it, the power of the Federal Government would
reach about two-thirds of the generating capacity in the West. Why is
that the case? Well, because a lot of the West's power comes from
Canada and comes from Mexico. We haven't the ability to cap their
rates. I would like to see us try. I think that would generate quite a
response.
Moreover, if you did that even to what we could control, what would
that then mean to the uncapped power of Canada and Mexico? It would go
up even further.
I want to point out, as Senator Craig has, that the fundamental flaw
in these proposals of cost-plus, or caps, is that they leave in place
California's retail cap. As we speak, California's consumption is going
up. As California's neighbor, I wish them no harm. I know their swathe
economically in our country and in the West. I admire so much about
California and would like very much to be a good neighbor. But I don't
think many Californians understand what they are doing to their
neighboring States. Because of a retail cap, there is absolutely no
incentive for Californians to conserve. Those who advocate price caps
without the lifting of California's retail price caps are giving the
green light for Californians to send their energy bills to Oregonians.
That is just wrong. If anybody is serious about correcting this problem
by conservation and production, it includes lifting these artificial
measures that don't allow the marketplace to work. It is that simple.
I had thought the Senator from California was coming with a bill, so
I had a second-degree amendment to her's. I appreciate that she has not
offered that on the pipeline safety bill. That is a bill that needs to
go forward on its own because of its own merit. We will have this
hearing and debate. But central to any effort to interfere further in
the market that is already suffering because of Government interference
must be, as a predicate, that California lift its retail price caps.
Anything more or less than that will simply fail and will be a
continued abuse upon the neighbors of California. It is wrong, and it
should be fixed. I understand the politics of fixing it. It is
difficult for their legislature and their Governor, but it is utterly
unfair to California's neighbors for them to continue this without
considering the impact on everyone else in the grid with them.
Mr. President, I will simply conclude my remarks. I was going to put
a human face on the consequence of what California has done. I ask
unanimous consent that a letter from the Chenowith School District be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Chenowith School District,
The Dalles, OR, February 1, 2001.
Senator Gordon Smith,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Smith: The Chenowith School District is
requesting your assistance to help resolve the energy crisis
in our area. School districts are allotted a limited amount
of money per pupil to provide an education for all of our
students. We try to use our resources as prudentially as
possible to see that every dollar is spent to help improve
instruction and to help our students achieve.
The recent increases in power costs are going to be taking
resources away from the education of students. As an example,
the cost of natural gas for three of our main buildings in
the Chenowith School District in November of 1999 was
$4383.59. It was a mild November. The cost of natural gas to
keep these same three buildings in November 2000 was
$11,942.14. We have not had a cold, hard winter. The increase
in gas costs must be paid from unbudgeted funds, funds that
were earmarked for the improvement of instruction.
The Northern Wasco People Utilities District (NWPUD) has
added a 20% surcharge to the cost of electricity. These,
again, are unbudgeted costs that, along with the tremendous
increase in the cost of fuel for our school buses are taking
valuable funds away from educating our children.
Today's schools are very energy dependent with our network
of computers and technology to provide an appropriate
education for students who will be living in our
technological society. The district has one computer for
every two students, has servers and a network system that is
run with the assistance of students and is enhancing their
education. Power costs are taking a disproportional amount of
funds away from funds needed to educate children.
Your assistance in helping the energy crisis in the area
would be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
James J. Kiefert,
Superintendent.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I think we need to understand
what California sending its energy bills to Oregon means to the rest of
the West, my State and others. It affects school districts that have
not budgeted for
50-, 60-percent increases in energy. Seniors have not budgeted for
energy rates going up double, triple. But that is what is, in fact,
happening. It isn't right, isn't fair. I want to be a good neighbor,
and I will be open to their suggestions; but they must, as a predicate,
lift their retail price caps because anything less than that will not
produce conservation and will not produce the incentives for new
production.
I yield the floor.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized
before the Senator from Kansas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, first, I want to announce that after this
discussion, we are ready for amendments. If there are not amendments
within about quarter after the hour--it is a little less than quarter
of--we will move to final passage.
As I mentioned in my opening statement, this issue has been well
ventilated in hearings and was passed by voice vote. I understand that
the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Corzine, has some amendments. If he
does, come on down, or any other Member. But we are not going to sit
here in a quorum call. We are going to move to final passage. A quarter
after or 20 after the hour should be plenty of time for Members to come
and offer amendments. I ask Members to notify the Cloakroom so we can
do our best to accommodate them.
Amendment No. 4
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for himself and Mr.
Hollings, proposes an amendment numbered 4.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To make technical and minor corrections in the bill as
introduced)
On page 5, line 12, after ``industry'' insert ``and
employee organization''.
On page 34, line 9, strike ``sections 60525'' and insert
``section 60125''.
On page 34, line 14, after ``transferred'' insert ``to the
Secretary of Transportation, as provided in appropriation
Acts,''
On page 34, beginning in line 15, strike ``fiscal year
2002, fiscal year 2003, and fiscal year 2004.'' and insert
``each of fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004.''.
On page 34, line 21, strike ``60125'' and insert ``60301''.
On page 35, line 1, strike ``Transportation'' and insert
``Transportation, as provided in appropriation Acts,''.
On page 36, line 5, strike ``until--'' and
insert ``until the earlier of the date on
which--''.
On page 36, line 6, strike ``determines'' and insert
``determines, after notice and an opportunity for a
hearing,''.
On page 36, line 14, strike ``Disciplinary action'' and
insert ``Action''.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment is being offered by Senator
Hollings and myself. It provides technical and minor correction to the
bill. It has been cleared on both sides. I urge adoption of the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question
is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 4) was agreed to.
Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor. I thank my colleague from Kansas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you very much, Mr. President. And I thank my
colleague from Arizona for moving this
[[Page S1188]]
through so rapidly. Hopefully, we can get this through in a fashion so
we can send it forward. We had extensive hearings last year. I think
most of it was worked out quite well. The chairman, Senator McCain from
Arizona, has done a splendid job of moving this forward.
Therefore, today I rise to offer my support of S. 235, the Pipeline
Safety Improvement Act of 2001. I also come to the floor to strongly
encourage my colleagues to pass a clean bill on this issue. We have
worked a long time in a delicate set of negotiations to get a good bill
through. It is well balanced. I think we need to move this through
rapidly to get these safety issues out there dealing with the
pipelines. I understand that the Senate is a body of amendments, but
this issue is too important to be killed by hasty changes--and that is
exactly what could happen if we clutter this carefully compromised bill
with unnecessary changes or additions.
The oil and gas industry is very important to my state of Kansas--but
nothing is more important than securing the safety of all our citizens.
I have worked hard alongside my friend from Arizona to find a way to
strengthen safety precautions and provide strong incentives for better
public and environmental protection without crippling a vital industry
to our nation.
Now more than ever, Americans are keenly aware of the need for a
strong energy infrastructure--which makes the way we tighten these
standards more important than ever. The bill before use today has
crafted a fine balance between setting tough standards, and yet
maintaining the flexibility which will be needed for industry to
implement this bill. Industry is not questioning that there needs to be
tougher standards--even though it will cost them money and they don't
agree with all the provisions of this bill, they stand ready to do what
is necessary to prevent as many accidents and injuries as possible.
Everyone wants safety first.
However, if this bill takes on prescriptive amendments which lock in
the way these standards are to be implemented, there will be opposition
to the bill--not on substance but on procedure. While it might be good
politics to stir up anti-industry sentiment, it is bad policy because
it would prevent a good bill from becoming law. I think we can all
agree that this would hinder the cause of making America's pipelines
more safe, which is our objective.
This bill has a number of important provisions which will make our
pipelines and our people who live near them, safer--including:
Increased daily penalties for violation of safety regulations from
$25,000/day to $500,000/day--a factor of 20 times.
Spill reporting would occur for something as small as 5 gallons as
opposed to the 2100 gallon trigger which currently exists.
Training and qualification requirements strengthened along with
public right to know provisions.
The Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, worked diligently and
carefully to getting this bill to this point.
There are numerous positive things that this bill would achieve. I
won't detail it all here now--but the important point is that this bill
significantly improves the status quo and will make our nation safer.
That is why it is so important that we not allow this bill to get
bogged down, and potentially defeated by amendments that will destroy
the hard-won balance achieved last year.
I would remind my colleagues that this bill went through extensive
debate last year. In the Commerce Committee there were hearings and
markups which addressed the very contentious question of how best to
increase the safety of oil and gas pipelines without jeopardizing a key
industry to this nation.
The compromise which this bill creates is a good one--but it is
fragile. And before some of my fellow Senators try to amend this bill--
I would ask that they weigh the changes they seek against the
possibility of killing this important bill--because that is a distinct
possibility. If at the end of the day, members feel that this
compromise is not adequate to address the concerns of pipeline safety--
then our recourse should be to return the bill to the committee and
address those concerns through the regular process. We should not make
the mistake of rushing through a bad bill.
I hope this option will not be necessary. I believe this is a good
bill; that it is a good compromise and addresses a very serious problem
in our country. This problem cannot await further refinement and work.
It needs to be addressed now.
I urge my colleagues to join Senator McCain, myself, and others to
pass this bill clean and move it on through the process so we can get a
safer pipeline system in this country.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I see no other Senators on the floor
wishing to speak. I see no other amendments. I would like to place us
in a quorum call in just a second. I would like to tell my colleagues
that there is no reason why we shouldn't move forward with final
passage of the bill unless there are amendments.
I say to my colleagues on both sides, let's move the process forward.
It was announced 3 days ago that we would be taking up this bill. So it
is time to move forward.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am curious. Can we go through a
unanimous consent that the vote take place? You have announced to our
colleagues that it would be a quarter after.
Mr. McCAIN. Not yet. We want to give the other side a chance to call
all their Members and see if there are any further amendments or
discussion of the bill.
At this time, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I compliment the floor manager, Senator
McCain, and the Commerce Committee, for bringing this matter before
this body, the pipeline safety bill.
I have the honor of serving as chairman of the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee of the Senate. I think everyone is aware of the
energy crisis occurring in the country today highlighted by the
situation in California which can best be described as both a supply
program and a credit program. In other words, they had become somewhat
complacent in their ability to attract power from other States to the
point where they were relying on 25 percent of their energy coming from
outside of California. The prices went up on that outside energy. They
have a cap on their retail sales. Their utility companies, which were
among the largest in this country, had to pay a higher price for the
energy than they could pass on to the consumer. As a consequence, they
are facing bankruptcy.
The significance of the California crisis has created concern all
over America. Part of that involves our dependence on pipelines.
Pipelines, of course, provide this country with a supply of oil, supply
of gasoline, supply of natural gas.
We have had some very unfortunate accidents occur in New Mexico and
in the State of Washington. The reality is many of these pipelines are
aging, and with the increased demand for energy, we are putting more
pressure into these pipelines. Hence, the need for a responsible plan
that ensures safety.
I commend the members of the Commerce Committee, Senator McCain, and
others. We are very interested in our committee, as well, because we
have to have a delivery system. This delivery system has been something
we are going to have to continue to expand, as indeed the demand for
energy, particularly oil and gas, natural gas, gasoline and others,
depends on pipelines.
The legislation will protect consumers by ensuring that our natural
gas and oil pipelines are safe. I think it is fair to say that the same
bill did pass the Senate unanimously last year. Unfortunately, the
House did not have time to act before the elections. We have to have
the public confidence in the safety of our pipelines.
I think we have a tough bill that addresses the critical issues of
safety.
[[Page S1189]]
The pipelines are essential to the Nation's energy delivery
infrastructure. As I indicated, we would not be able to receive the
energy that we take somewhat for granted. We forget that somebody,
somewhere has to produce energy. It has to come from an energy source.
It has to come from either oil or natural gas or hydro or clean coal or
nuclear. It is a diminishing resource. Once we use it, obviously, it is
gone and we have to replace it.
As a consequence, as we look at the increased demand associated with
our electronic society with its computers and e-mails, the reality is
we simply cannot get there with conservation alone. We want to do a
better job of conservation. That is why in the energy bill we will
produce on Tuesday, we have a great deal of emphasis on conservation,
on incentives for conservation, for CAFE standards, many of the things
that we believe will assist but will not supplant, of course, the
increased demand for energy in this country. That is why we will have
to continue to develop technology and make our footprint smaller, open
up new areas for oil and gas exploration, including my State of Alaska
and ANWR.
Without going down that rabbit trail too far, I wish to comment that
we have, again, taken for granted the role of pipelines in the delivery
of fuel to heat our homes, fuel for our automobiles, and, of course,
the ability to run our production lines. We are fortunate in this
country to have a network which is extraordinary in itself because it
has been proven safer than any other mode of transportation. We cannot
be complacent. We have to improve safety. I welcome the changes to
existing law made by the legislation that will improve the overall
safety of the pipeline.
One example is the bill requires new periodic pipeline integrity
inspections using a variety of new technologies such as the ``pigs''
that are used to go through the pipelines now; we have smart pigs that
not only go through the pipeline but can get out of the pipeline and be
examined. As a consequence, we do have the opportunities to improve
dramatically.
I have mentioned the accidents in New Mexico and Washington. However
important safety is, we have to balance the safety of regulations and
the need to be able to efficiently operate these pipelines.
What we have today in this legislation is a balance that strikes
fairness and equity in safety and the reality that there is an economic
factor as well. When this legislation is enacted, and there is no
question in my mind that it is going to be enacted, it will be the
strongest, most comprehensive pipeline safety measure ever approved by
the Congress. At the same time I think we avoid some of the extreme
responses some have advocated, responses that would lead to an energy
shortage, a lack of investment in pipelines without any measurable
improvement in safety.
I think we would agree, as a consequence of this energy crisis in our
country, the pipeline industry cannot and should not be taken for
granted. Many of our colleagues are aware of the huge demand increases
anticipated for natural gas, and this increasing demand has already
contributed to the price runup we have seen for natural gas. Last year,
natural gas was about $2.16 per thousand cubic feet. Today it is
somewhere in excess of $8.
Natural gas producers and pipeline operators are working feverishly
to respond by investing billions of dollars in exploration and
production and by building new pipelines. That is how we will achieve
it. The current natural gas pipeline network simply cannot transfer all
the gas which Americans will demand by the end of the decade. New
pipelines already take anywhere from 3 to 7 years to permit and build.
Without new pipeline capacity, our Nation will only fall further
behind.
Accordingly, I urge the Senate to pass the pending legislation. I
believe this legislation meets the challenge and does so in a way that
will complement our national energy policy rather than thwart it.
I again thank Senator McCain, the floor managers, and yield the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank Senator Murkowski for his efforts, not only on
this legislation but on overall energy policy. It is a very difficult
task, a challenging one, and we are grateful for his leadership.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Senator.
Amendment No. 5
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment on behalf of Senator
Reed of Rhode Island. I send it to the desk and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCAIN], for Mr. Reed,
proposes an amendment numbered 5.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To direct the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in
consultation with the Department of Energy, to conduct a study of, and
report to Congress on, the natural gas pipeline transmission network in
New England and natural gas storage facilities associated with that
network)
At the end, add the following:
SEC. . STUDY AND REPORT ON NATURAL GAS PIPELINE AND STORAGE
FACILITIES IN NEW ENGLAND.
(a) Study.--The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in
consultation with the Department of Energy, shall conduct a
study on the natural gas pipeline transmission network in New
England and natural gas storage facilities associated with
that network. In carrying out the study, the Commission shall
consider--
(1) the ability of natural gas pipeline and storage
facilities in New England to meet current and projected
demand by gas-fired power generation plants and other
consumers;
(2) capacity constraints during unusual weather periods;
(3) potential constraint points in regional, interstate,
and international pipeline capacity serving New England; and
(4) the quality and efficiency of the federal environmental
review and permitting process for natural gas pipelines.
(b) Report.--Not later than 120 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission shall prepare and submit to the Senate Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources and the House of
Representatives a report containing the results of the study
conducted under subsection (a), including recommendations for
addressing potential natural gas transmission and storage
capacity problems in New England.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment on behalf of Senator Reed
of Rhode Island calls for a study of the needs of the natural gas
pipelines in New England. I think it is perfectly appropriate and
acceptable to both sides. I believe there is no further debate on the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 5) was agreed to.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence
of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I would like to speak before we enter
some amendments. I compliment my colleagues, Senators McCain, Murray,
Hollings, and Breaux, for their hard work and dedication in bringing
this bill on pipeline safety to the floor. I appreciate their
leadership on this important issue, one that is certainly vital to the
constituency I represent in New Jersey, and, unfortunately, one that
has affected their lives in a very significant way.
I rise today, however, because of concerns about some of the
important aspects of this legislation. In its current form, I believe
the bill does not go far enough to ensure the safety and integrity of
gas and oil pipelines around our Nation, particularly in New Jersey;
and does not do enough to provide information to the communities living
near those pipelines.
Several years ago, my own State of New Jersey was the site of a major
pipeline explosion. On March 24, 1994, a natural gas pipeline exploded
in Edison, NJ, at 12 midnight. Families living
[[Page S1190]]
in the nearby Durham Woods apartment complex awoke to a deafening roar.
They ran out of their homes and saw a wall of flame several hundred
feet high. These flames were so high they were visible in both New York
City and Pennsylvania. I ask you to think about that--flames were
visible in both New York and Pennsylvania.
Many of the residents who awoke that night thought a nuclear bomb had
detonated. Miraculously, only one person died. However, scores more
suffered injuries due to burns or smoke inhalation. Many more lost
their homes and all their possessions. There was millions of dollars in
damages, and the explosion itself left a crater 60 feet deep.
At another point, I would like to submit to the record accountings of
the explosion from the New York Times and the Washington Post.
This explosion was caused by a natural gas pipeline that was buried
in the earth. What concerns me is that there were no reports of digging
in the area nor were there reports of any other disturbances that could
have set off the explosion.
As harrowing as this tragedy was, it is not the only one. There have
been other pipeline explosions across this country: in the States of
Arizona, Washington, Michigan, New Mexico and others. These tragedies,
with their accompanying loss of life, are the basis for everyone's
concern. I applaud their efforts.
However I believe there is more that we can do to prevent these
explosions. First, we should ensure that oil and natural gas pipelines
are inspected on a regular basis so that flawed lines can be recognized
early, repaired, or replaced. My first amendment will require both oil
and gas pipelines to be inspected every 5 years.
The pending legislation does require pipeline operators to adopt a
program for integrity management, which includes periodic assessments
of the integrity of hazardous liquid and natural gas pipelines. I am
concerned that this does not go far enough.
There is no definition of what constitutes ``periodic.'' It could
allow inspections every 5 years, every 7 years, or every 50 years for
that matter. That is just not good enough. After all, lives and
property are at stake.
GAO reported that 226 people have been killed between 1989 and 1998,
over 1,000 injured, and $700 million in property damage.
I know the Office of Pipeline Safety has issued regulations regarding
the inspection of certain liquid pipelines and is considering
regulations concerning natural gas pipelines. I am concerned however
about how long it has taken for these regulations to be issued and
whether they will seriously be followed through.
I am also concerned they do not require inspections to be conducted
at a sufficient enough frequency. In my view, therefore, it is time to
pass strong legislation to make safety the priority it deserves to be.
I will also be offering an amendment which will give communities that
live near pipelines more information about them. Again, I understand
the pending bill does include some enhanced right-to-know provisions,
and I congratulate the sponsors for that, but I believe we should go
further.
We need, for example, ongoing reports from pipeline companies about
their efforts to prevent or minimize pipeline risks. We also need
companies to tell communities how frequently testing occurs and what
those tests find. Then we need to enact liability provisions that will
impose fines on all pipeline operators following oil spills.
Another problem is that currently, pipeline oil spills that occur on
land alone are not a violation of any Federal law. We need to ensure
that when such spills occur, fines are levied as a way to prevent
future releases.
Lastly, I believe we need to deal with the certification of pipeline
operators. We have laws that license the drivers of cars and the pilots
of planes. We need a Federal law, in my view, that provides standards
for operators of pipelines as well.
The principles contained in these suggestions have been supported by
many environmental and pipeline reform groups, as well as by almost the
entire delegation from the State of New Jersey. They also have been
supported by many Members of the House of Representatives.
I hope my colleagues join me today in ensuring that we make sure we
no longer have another Edison disaster.
I yield the floor, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I compliment Chairman McCain, Senator Hollings,
Senator Bingaman, Senator Murray, my friend Senator Breaux, and those
who have worked on this legislation. I voted for this pipeline safety
legislation in the last Senate. I would like to be able to vote for it
in this Senate. It is legislation that should be enacted.
As a nation in the midst of an energy crisis, we need to have the
pipeline network of the Nation constructed and expanded to supply
communities in need, and to do so can only help reduce prices. This
Senate should act forthwith to do so.
As I voted for this legislation previously, it is worth noting that
this is not the same Senate that it was a year ago. The membership is
different, the balances are different, and this bill should be
different.
My colleague from New Jersey, Senator Corzine, is prepared to offer a
series of amendments that I think are thoughtful and would help not
simply communities in New Jersey but communities in States throughout
the Nation.
They are centered on several specific objectives. I am going to
review them, but I first want to make clear that I do think the
legislation as offered makes some progress on these issues. The bill
does require an assessment of the risks associated with pipeline
facilities in environmentally sensitive and high-density population
areas and requires the implementing of a plan to mitigate these risks.
That is helpful, it is a beginning, and I am glad it is in the bill.
The bill before the Senate is a good first step in strengthening
safety regulations. There have not been enough in the past. It is a
good beginning.
The legislation does increase the amount of information companies
must provide to communities where pipelines are located so communities
can zone their property properly and plan for emergency services so
people who live in the communities know what is happening in their
towns. Finally, it increases civil penalties substantially for those
responsible for pipeline disasters.
In the analysis I will offer, I do not discount the work of the
committee or the progress this legislation offers, but I take the
floor, as did my colleague, Senator Corzine, because there are people
in my State who will watch this vote carefully, and we are not alone.
From New Jersey to Washington State to Texas, communities have
experienced not simply disruptions in gas supplies from ruptured
pipelines, we have lost lives, a lot of lives.
Since 1996, there have been 18 major pipeline disasters in the United
States--major disasters. But if a pipeline ruptures and causes a fire
or explosion in your neighborhood, the Federal Government may not
declare it major, but I assure you, in your neighborhood, it is major.
The map on my left illustrates the States where in the last 10 years
there have been 2,241 major accidents. They are in every State in the
Nation, at least on this map indicating the lower 48 States in the
Nation; high population areas, such as New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New
York, and Connecticut, which have the greatest concentration; one can
see in Indiana, Michigan, and Illinois, in Texas and in California--
these are significant numbers of pipeline explosions. One of the most
recognized has led to my effort today with Senator Corzine.
On March 23, 1994, Texas Eastern Corporation's 36-inch high-pressure
natural gas pipeline was running through a residential community in
Edison, NJ. Nearby, there was an apartment building and residential
housing. The pipeline exploded. As it exploded, it consumed the
neighborhood in a fireball. Buildings burned. Three hundred homes were
destroyed. One of the neighbors was killed. The night became an inferno
for miles around. One moment, a peaceful suburban community; the next,
a war zone. One can only imagine the trauma to a family living in their
suburban community in the middle of the night watching their
neighborhood explode in a ball of flames.
The heat from the blast touched off fires in nearby neighborhoods.
More
[[Page S1191]]
than 2 hours after the explosion, the pipeline continued to send a wall
of flame hundreds of feet into the air. Two miles away, ash rained on
cars. On the New Jersey Turnpike, the principal artery through the
northeastern part of the country, roads were filled with debris.
Drivers likened it to driving on a newly salted road. The highway was
covered with this debris. The National Transportation Safety Board
found that the inability of the pipeline operator to properly stop the
flow of natural gas contributed to the cause of the accident.
It is the lasting impact of this incident that brings me to the floor
and to offer and support several important amendments.
My State has not forgotten. If this Senate fails to address the
reality of this problem, I can assure you, in the next 10 years, when
one of these 22 accidents comes to a neighborhood near you--it is not
New Jersey, it is Nevada or California or Florida--they will remember
as well.
We do not ask a lot. We know the reasons these accidents are
happening. Here you have a 36-inch pipeline running, as the crow flies,
no more than 8 miles from midtown Manhattan--in the most densely
populated area of the Nation--to New Jersey. A pipeline erupts, and the
company does not have personnel trained, capable, or instructed in how
to stop the flow of gas. The local community did not have enough
information to deal with the emergency. These are not unreasonable
requests.
The bill contains provisions to deal with a cost-benefit analysis. My
colleagues, what is the cost-benefit analysis of the cost of ensuring
that personnel are trained, that a pipeline is inspected, compared to
the cost of 300 people running from their homes in a fireball in the
middle of the night? Allow me to share with you a cost-benefit
analysis.
As you consider voting on whether or not people should have licenses
to work on these pipelines or whether or not these pipelines should be
inspected, this is your cost-benefit analysis.
Every one of these children pictured here have been killed--burned,
killed in an explosion because of a ruptured pipeline. They are dead.
Mr. President, 2,200 accidents in 10 years will cause that kind of
destruction.
Our amendments are very simple. I do not believe Senator Corzine and
I are being unreasonable.
What is it we would like?
One, a community have the right to know the flow of the pipeline,
what is in the pipeline, basic information about the pipeline. Even if
it were not required by law, and you operated a pipeline, wouldn't you
want the fire department to know that basic information? Wouldn't you
want a local builder to know about the pipeline if they are going to
put residential homes next to it? Wouldn't you want the planning board
to know about the power of a potential explosion? We require it in the
bill. But if we did not require it in the bill, wouldn't you want to do
it anyway?
Second, mandatory testing of natural gas and hazardous liquid
pipelines themselves. This is the most extraordinary to me. I do not
know of any principal structure in the Nation, on a mandatory basis--
from the local building authority through airplane construction, to
your own car--that does not get inspected. If I do not take my car to a
local New Jersey motor vehicles inspection station and get it inspected
every year or two, I am in violation. But you want to put a 36-inch
pipeline across my State, next to thousands of residents, knowing that
it has cost lives, and you do not want to require an inspection every 5
years, every 7 years? I do not think this is unreasonable.
Third, the certification of pipeline personnel. I do not know a
profession or means of employment in the Nation which involves health--
life and death--and public safety where you do not have to get a
certification. I have a certification to drive here to work in the
morning in my car. It is called a driver's license. But you are going
to operate a high-pressure gas pipeline across the Nation, and you do
not want a license?
Lest you think this is somebody else's abstract problem--these people
who are operating these pipelines--here are the areas they impact as
shown on this map. You cannot serve in this Senate and not represent
somebody who lives near one of these pipelines.
All we want to know is, if you work on these pipelines, and you have
responsibility for pipeline safety, we would like to know that you know
what you are doing. It does not have to be a high threshold. Give me
the easiest test you want. If you do not want to strain them, if you do
not want to make them study, OK, I will be reasonable, but how about
some certification?
The person who died in Edison, NJ, in the destruction of that
neighborhood, did not know how to turn off the flow of the gas. When I
bought my home, I went in the basement and said to the guy who showed
me the house: If there is a problem here, how do I turn off the gas to
my house? It took me about a minute.
In a town of tens of thousands of people, the operator of the
pipeline did not know how to shut off the gas. Standing in midtown
Manhattan, you could see the fireball in central New Jersey.
This is an important business. There are more people living by these
pipelines, having their lives on the line, than people living by
airports, but you would not have somebody operate an airplane without a
license.
Finally, we ask for additional liability penalties, recognizing that
in our system in this country, one sure way to ensure that the pipeline
companies build a quality product, with quality personnel, to the
highest safety standards, with the best materials, is they know that if
they do not, they are liable for those kids who lost their lives and to
the towns that lost the housing where I live. We would like them to be
liable so they have an incentive to ensure that people are safe and
secure.
I am concerned that this bill has been brought to the floor--
recognizing that Senator McCain has improved the bill. He has designed
good legislation, but it is not legislation that any of you can take
back to your States, along these pipeline routes, and say: My friends,
I have done everything I can to ensure that your family is safe. I have
struck a balance. We are going to have pipelines that lower the cost of
your natural gas. We are going to get you additional supply. We are
going to meet the Nation's needs. And I am going to protect your
family.
We have done a good job. We have not done a good enough job because
we can do more to ensure that people are safe. That is the balance I
want. That is what I think this Congress can do that is better than
what the last Congress did when this legislation was before it.
I find it frustrating that we need to return again to deal with an
issue that has been raised that the Senate knows is a real problem. We
are going to offer these amendments. We are going to insist upon them.
I ask my colleagues to think carefully in weighing the consideration of
passing this bill today or tomorrow or waiting a day or two or a week
and getting it done right. The stakes, I am afraid, are that high. We
have tried to do this voluntarily. Maybe the cost of compliance is too
much.
We have passed statutes before. We have not seen them enforced. This
is a list of pipeline safety regulations that have not been met in the
last 12 years, things we have asked to ensure that people would be safe
and that standards would rise, only to find that, increasingly around
the Nation, they have been ignored. That is why we have increased
penalties and liability. Are they really so unreasonable?
The Pipeline Safety Act of 1992.
Emergency flow restriction devices to ensure that if there is an
accident, operators on an emergency basis can restrict the flow of gas.
That alone would have made the difference in destroying the
neighborhood in Edison, NJ.
Underground utility location technologies in the Pipeline Act of
1992.
Carry out research and develop programs on technologies so that
people can quickly locate where these pipelines are in an emergency so
they can map them properly if there is a problem.
These are 23 different attempts to ensure compliance. We have not met
our responsibilities to do this properly. I know the desire to increase
the Nation's supply of natural gas. I believe as strongly in it as
anyone in this Chamber. I also know how strongly we are going to feel
if we do this wrong. If
[[Page S1192]]
we do this wrong, a lot of people get hurt. That is the issue before
the Senate. Certify the personnel, let communities have a right to know
about the operations of these pipelines, require an inspection of them
every 7 years and liability to ensure compliance with the laws, laws
that have often been ignored, to our considerable peril.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. I thank my colleagues from New Jersey for offering these
four excellent amendments. I share their passion on this issue, having
lost three young children in Bellingham, WA, a year and a half ago when
a pipeline exploded at a school where my sister teaches seventh grade.
It has impacted the lives of those families every single day since that
explosion.
This is a passionate issue in my State. I have to say, before that
explosion, no one knew that they lived next door to a pipeline. No one
knew that their school was on a pipeline.
I commend them for bringing forward these provisions. They are all
excellent. They are all incorporated into a bill that I have dropped in
with the Washington State delegation today. If they are unable to pass
on this bill, I urge my colleagues from New Jersey to continue to work
with us.
This bill has a long way to go before passage, certainly as it goes
through the House and through conference. These provisions are
excellent ones that I hope will be incorporated into a final bill,
regardless of what happens on the floor today.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, it is hard for me to comment on any
amendments because the amendments have not been proposed yet. I will
respond briefly to the overall comments made by the Senators from New
Jersey.
Last year, after we passed the legislation, U.S. Transportation
Secretary Slater issued the following statement:
I commend the U.S. Senate for taking swift and decisive
action in passing the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of
2000. This legislation is critical to making much-needed
improvements to the pipeline safety program. It provides for
stronger enforcement, mandatory testing of all pipelines,
community right-to-know information, and additional
resources, all hallmarks of the Clinton-Gore administration
bill on pipeline safety that was transmitted to the Senate by
Vice President Gore on April 11, 2000.
I commend in particular the Commerce Committee Chairman and
Ranking Member, Senators McCain and Hollings, as well as
Senators Murray and Gorton for their hard work . . . I thank
the many others who worked for the U.S. Department of
Transportation and the Administration in seeking the highest
possible level of safety for our nation's pipelines,
including Senators Bingaman and Domenici, who recently
suffered a terrible loss in their state. . ..
I look forward to working with the House leadership . . .
to help resolve any legislative differences.
Clearly, former Secretary of Transportation Slater had a little
different view of this legislation than the Senators from New Jersey.
I will quote from a letter from the National Association of
Regulatory Utility Commissioners. We all know that these individuals--
most of whom are elected; they certainly are in my State--are
responsible for the regulation of this kind of industry and responsible
for the safety of others. I had already included this letter for the
Record, but I think it is important to reference it again. This is in
reference to S. 235, the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2001.
Dear Majority Leader Lott:
On behalf of the National Association of Regulatory Utility
Commissioners--
I assume that includes the regulatory utility commissioners
of the State of New Jersey--
We urge you to support swift passage of S. 235. However,
NARUC does not believe S. 235 should be the vehicle for
broader energy policy legislation. NARUC would therefore
oppose amendments that would attempt to expand this bill
beyond its current intent of improving pipeline safety.
Last Congress NARUC expressed strong support for the
reauthorization of pipeline safety legislation provided
sufficient funding to the Office of Pipeline Safety for State
grants was authorized. We believe the increase in funding for
these grants found in S. 235 will better enable OPS to meet
its obligation of a 50 percent funding share. . . .
Additionally, NARUC and its membership strongly believe
there is a vital role for the States in ensuring safe
operation. . . .
They go on to say:
NARUC strongly supports provisions of S. 235 that provide
States with increased authority and increased participation
in safety activities. . . .
Finally, I will quote again from passages from the National
Governors' Association letter. I don't know if the National Governors'
Association speaks for the Governor of New Jersey or not, but they go
on to say:
On behalf of the nation's Governors, we are writing to
express our support for S. 235, a bill to improve oil and gas
pipeline safety, and encourage prompt passage of such
legislation.
NGA's policy supports pipeline safety legislation that
provides states with the authority to protect our citizens
from pipeline explosions and leaks. States should be
authorized to establish standards that do not conflict with
but may exceed federal standards. Our policy also endorses
the ability of states to enforce violations of federal or
state standards.
The Governors, the utility commissioners, the former Secretary of
Transportation, Secretary Slater, all are in support of this
legislation.
A majority of the House of Representatives did vote in favor of this
legislation last year. It was taken up under a procedural situation
that required a two-thirds vote.
I assure the Senators from New Jersey, after passage through the
House of Representatives, this legislation will be going to conference,
and we will be more than happy to examine any recommendations and
proposals.
With all due respect to Senator Torricelli, at no time, during all
the deliberations and all of the hearings and all of the involvement of
this issue that our committee and the Senate had, were there any
additional amendments, recommendations, or ideas raised. It is a little
hard for us at this point in time, with the legislation on the floor,
to give serious consideration to these amendments. Obviously, I cannot
support them at this time, but we will be more than happy to consider
them in the future.
So when there is an amendment pending, I will be glad to comment on a
pending amendment. But I, again, remind my colleagues that this product
is literally months of negotiation, hours of hearings, and negotiations
that took place over a very long period of time.
I hope my colleagues from New Jersey will consider what has gone
before and that we can move forward with the amending process.
I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I thank Senator Breaux and Senator
McCain for working together on the principal issue we brought to the
floor today. I believe we can find real resolution. Senator Cantwell,
Senator Corzine, Senator Murray, and I have raised a question about the
frequency of inspection of these pipelines for safety. We have raised
the issue of the community's right to know. We have raised the issue of
liability and the certification of workers.
It was our hope to make progress today on the principal of these,
which would be the inspection of the pipelines themselves, believing
and taking great faith in the conference following the passage of this
legislation that Senator McCain would represent our bipartisan
interests. We know of his own commitment to safety on the issue of the
qualification of the workers and the community's right to know and are
leaving those for another day. We believe we can find common language
on the issue of the inspections of the pipelines themselves. Senators
Cantwell, Murray, and I join Senator Corzine who is prepared to offer
an amendment.
I yield to Senator Corzine at this time.
Amendment No. 10
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, and I
ask for its immediate consideration.
[[Page S1193]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. CORZINE], for himself, Mr.
Torricelli, Ms. Cantwell, and Mrs. Murray, proposes an
amendment numbered 10.
Mr. BREAUX. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be
dispensed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
The assessment period shall be no less than every 5 years
unless the DOT IG, after consultation with the Secretary
determines--
There is not a sufficient capability or it is deemed
unnecessary because of more technically appropriate
monitoring or creates undue interruption of necessary supply
to fulfill the requirements under this paragraph.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, before I read the amendment, I will
preface it by expressing my gratitude to Senator McCain and Senator
Breaux for their cooperation in working to address what all Members
believe is an extraordinarily important issue with regard to
inspections. I think all Members will be better served because of the
efforts all Members, cooperatively and in a bipartisan way, brought
forward.
The amendment reads:
The assessment period shall be no less than every 5 years
unless the DOT IG, after consultation with the Secretary
determines --
There is not a sufficient capability or it is deemed
unnecessary because of more technically appropriate
monitoring or creates undue interruption of necessary supply
to fulfill the requirements under this paragraph.
Let me say I hope the other issues with regard to certification--
particularly inspectors and operators, consideration of civil
liabilities--are things that will be considered as we progress with
regard to this legislation. But I think this is a major step forward. I
am very grateful to the sponsors for their willingness to consider the
efforts we are bringing to bear on inspections. I thank my colleagues.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment
offered, that has been designed by Senator Corzine and offered by
Senator Torricelli, Senator Murray, and myself. I want to take this
opportunity to thank the sponsor for his diligence, not just on this
amendment but the others, in hopes of improving the bill in the
process.
I know this has been a long process for many who have been involved
including the senior Senator from my State. I applaud her for her
diligent efforts along with Senator McCain, in trying to improve
pipeline safety.
As our Nation moves forward to meet our increasing energy needs in an
environment where the supply of natural gas is very important, we need
to also make sure that pipeline safety is implemented. As they
currently stand, our current laws and regulations, I believe, do not
adequately do the job in ensuring the safety of nearly 2 million miles
of pipeline networks around this country.
Indeed, we heard earlier from Senator Murray that our State,
Washington, has faced the tragic consequences of unsafe pipelines head
on. Two years ago, in a park near Bellingham, two 10-year-old boys died
in a blast of flames and one young man drowned after being overcome by
fumes when an aging pipeline burst. This was the worst of many pipeline
accidents in our State, which has suffered from 47 reported incidents
and more than $10 million in property damage between 1984 and 1999.
My State is not alone, as you saw from the charts that Senator Murray
and Senator Torricelli displayed, in facing the consequences of
substandard pipeline safety. Just last August, in Carlsbad, NM, 11
people, including 5 children, died when a nearby pipeline explosion
rained fire on their campsite.
Again I applaud Senator Murray and Senator McCain for their efforts
in trying to improve, through this legislation, pipeline safety not
just for the States of Washington, New Jersey, and New Mexico, but for
the whole country, so they may not face the tragedy the people of our
States have faced.
I believe one of the weaknesses of the underlying bill had been the
issue of reporting and the bill's reliance on the Department of
Transportation's Office of Pipeline Safety for implementing guidelines
we are seeking. OPS has not had a great record. In a June 2000 report,
the GAO found that, since 1988, OPS has failed to implement 22 of the
49 requirements mandated by Congress--almost half of those
requirements--and 10 of these 22 requirements are now between 5 and 11
years overdue.
Moreover, the report exposed that OPS has the lowest rate of any
transportation agency for implementing the NTSB regulations. Indeed,
the GAO report concluded that OPS:
. . .is a weak and overly compliant regulator that seldom
imposes fines when violations are found, fails to fully
involve State officials and often ignores reforms demanded by
Congress.
I think the amendment offered by my colleagues and myself will go a
long way in making sure there are at least the reporting requirements
mandated on a 5-year basis.
I look forward to continuing to work with the sponsors of this
legislation and the Washington delegation in the House and other
Members on improving this legislation through the process.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senators from New Jersey for
bringing this very important issue as part of this legislation. I think
it is an important issue, pipeline inspections. I think we have reached
a very reasonable result, and their amendment embodies that.
I thank Senator Murray, Senator Torricelli, Senator Corzine, and
especially Senator Breaux. I was thinking as I watched Senator Breaux
negotiate this agreement, I nominate him to be the Middle East peace
negotiator. He might be able to achieve that since he has had so much
practice around here on the floor of the Senate. Certainly it was with
some entrenched constituencies.
I do thank him for his hard work there. I think this amendment is
very acceptable, and following Senator Breaux's comments, hopefully we
can move the amendment. Then I would like to be recognized for a
unanimous consent agreement so we can have final passage.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his comments. Let
me make just a couple of comments to hopefully maybe put out some
additional information on what exactly I think the amendment does and
why I can be supportive of it.
I think all of us want to have as much inspection of pipelines as
necessary to ensure their safety. There are a couple of problems with
just an arbitrary statement that says we have to inspect all the
pipelines every 5 years. No. 1, some of them should be inspected more
than every 5 years. Pipelines that are in high-risk areas or are in
danger of being interrupted because of natural causes should be
inspected more than every 5 years. On the other hand, there are
pipelines that do not necessarily need to be inspected every 5 years
for various reasons. So just to have an arbitrary date, as I think
originally was being considered, is not appropriate.
What we have here is a requirement which is a general requirement
that all lines be inspected every 5 years, but giving the Department of
Transportation, through the inspector general, some ability to make
decisions on how that should be actually conducted.
What the amendment says is: Yes, they will be inspected every 5 years
unless there is not the capability to do so.
We all know so-called pig inspection, where you run equipment through
the line, is only capable of doing about 30 percent of the lines. So we
have to look at the capability to do it in that fashion or in another
fashion. The Department of Transportation, through the inspector
general, will have the obligation to make the determination of the
capacity to do this. I would like them to develop the capacity. That is
going to be part of the appropriations process. We have some key people
in that process to give them greater capability.
The second exemption would be if it is determined, again by the
Department of Transportation through the inspector general, that it is
unnecessary because of other technology being used--to assure the
safety of that line. For instance, there are lines that have
[[Page S1194]]
constant monitoring on them. They are not inspected every 5 years. They
are constantly monitored and inspected for any corrosion or any leaks.
I think it would be foolish to require that line to undergo an
additional inspection every 5 years if in fact it were being monitored
on a constant basis. That is the type of thing we are talking about in
that part of the amendment.
The third thing is to say it would be inspected every 5 years unless
that inspection would create an undue interruption of supplies. I
wouldn't want to shut down Newark, NJ, on a line that is running
perfectly and has a good history, to do an inspection, if that would be
unnecessary and unduly interrupt the supplies of natural gas to that
area.
So I think, with those caveats, the concept of doing it every 5 years
is OK. It is fine. I think we are putting the burden where it belongs,
on the Department of Transportation and the Office of Pipeline Safety,
through their inspector general, to make sure that the inspections are
doing what we want.
I think the bill addresses a number of the concerns of our colleagues
from New Jersey and Washington about making sure we have trained
workers. This bill says what the worker training programs will be and
they have to file it with OPS and make sure they have an adequate
training program for all of their workers.
The public's right to know has been greatly increased. I know Senator
Murray had a great deal to do with the public's right to know. I don't
know if every individual in the country needs to know where every high-
pressure valve is on a pipeline. There is some security involved here.
We are concerned about sabotage of lines or disruption of lines by
people intent on doing violence to areas. To make that type of
information available to everybody all the time without any
consequences is going a little bit too far. People who are involved in
safety, fire departments and safety people, will get that information
quickly as soon as it is on file. And the public will have a right to
know the information that they need to protect their local communities.
So I think the concerns have been addressed by our colleagues. The
bill does an awful lot to improve the current situation, because of
their involvement in this amendment, as I understand it to be, and it
would be an improvement as well.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. BREAUX. Yes.
Mr. TORRICELLI. First, I again thank Senator Breaux for his
leadership in helping to fashion this amendment, but since this was not
drafted in committee and was literally written on the floor, I want to
ensure the Record properly reflects our mutual intent.
There is a 5-year requirement for inspection basically with three
escape clauses that I think should be properly understood and defined.
First, ``there is not sufficient capability'' means strictly there is
not the equipment available; there is not the personnel available. The
Secretary will be certifying this was just not possible to get done
simply because of a shortage.
Mr. BREAUX. If the Senator will yield, I agree with his explanation
of that section.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Second, we discussed at some length ``deemed
unnecessary because of more technologically appropriate monitoring.''
This escape was created because the Senator from Louisiana noted some
lines have constant monitoring. They do not need to be inspected every
5 years because they are inspected every minute. That was our intent
here, not that someone comes forward and says: We think that is a well-
designed pipeline and well done, so leave that one for 20 years. This
was, as the Senator noted, because of constant monitoring. Is that the
understanding of the Senator from Louisiana?
Mr. BREAUX. That is the intent. There may be something other than
constant monitoring that can lead them to the same conclusion. Right
now, constant monitoring would be the type of technology that would
assure the safety of that pipeline. There may be something tomorrow
that will be just as good as constant monitoring. I do not know that
would be there. It would be a technology that would ensure the
integrity and safety of that pipeline. That will be equally as good or
better than an inspection.
Mr. TORRICELLI. In any case, this is not some general escape where
people, in the future, who live in New Jersey will say: We think that
is a good pipeline under the technology that was built so we are never
going to inspect it.
The Senator was very specific about the kind of technology involved;
that it offered a superior guarantee.
Mr. BREAUX. Equal or superior.
Mr. TORRICELLI. The last element on this was ``created an
interruption of supply,'' which I take it means simply shutting down
the pipeline for inspection without an alternative means of delivering
the liquid or the natural gas and people would be without the product;
that there was no way to do the inspection without shutting this off
and creating an economic or other kind of hardship.
Mr. BREAUX. The Senator's point is well taken. If you have to dig up
a pipeline, obviously that is going to cause an interruption of supply.
Sometimes lines have to be dug up to be inspected. That creates a
disruption of supply. That does not mean that inspection should not be
done.
What we are trying to get at is interruptions that would work an
undue hardship on communities by having an inspection that may not be
necessary. That is what we are talking about--not a normal
interruption, but an unnecessary interruption that would cause real
problems for a community to be without any natural gas, for instance,
at a time when they desperately need it.
Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Senator from Louisiana. For my purposes--
and I think Senator Corzine is concerned about these large pipelines
delivering liquid and natural gas through the Northeast through densely
populated suburban communities in New Jersey--we have met our
objective; that is, the level of technology for inspection must be
extraordinarily high or there will be regular inspections, so people
living in proximity to these pipelines know they can be assured of its
safety.
The Record should also reflect that we actually discussed having some
other exemption for places that are sparsely populated. It was noted
that under no instances, given the density of the population in the
Northeast or I assume in California or in Illinois, would that be
appropriate.
This affords us the protection we need, and for that I am very
grateful. Again, my thanks to Senator McCain.
Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield while Senator McCain and I enter a
unanimous consent request?
Mr. DOMENICI. I did not hear the Senator.
Mr. REID. Senator McCain and I want to propound a unanimous consent
request.
Mr. DOMENICI. I wish to speak to this amendment for a moment.
Mr. McCAIN. Maybe we ought to wait.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the adoption of
the amendment, after the statements by both Senators from New Mexico,
the vote occur on passage of S. 235, as amended, and that paragraph 4
of rule XII be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, it is my understanding that
prior to the vote Senator Domenici wishes to speak for 5 minutes,
Senator Bingaman, 5 minutes, and Senator Cantwell 5 minutes, and that
following the adoption of this amendment, on which Senator Domenici
wants to speak before it is adopted, we vote on final passage, unless
the Senator from Arizona wishes to speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, my only amendment will be that I be
added as a cosponsor to the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I revise my unanimous consent request that
following the adoption of the amendment, Senators Cantwell, Bingaman,
and Domenici be allowed to speak for 5 minutes; following that, the
vote occur on passage of S. 235, as amended, and that paragraph 4 of
rule XII be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from New Mexico.
[[Page S1195]]
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I call to the attention of Senators on
the floor, in particular Senator Breaux and Senator McCain and perhaps
the New Jersey Senators, that one of the issues being discussed as we
work on this bill is the advancement of technology so inspections can
be done better.
There is a very interesting new technology--this bill provides for
some more money for research and technology--but there is a very
interesting technology that is about to be offered to the pipelines
that has been developed by a little company in New Mexico. Their name
is LaSen Corporation. They have developed a system where a device is
put on a light airplane and you fly over the pipeline. The device picks
up the radiation from any kind of leakage whatsoever, reports it to the
instrumentation. They can do 500 miles of pipeline a today, where today
we do 5 to 10. They can do it at a cheaper price.
With this bill putting a little more into technologies and companies
with innovation such as this one, we are going to find better ways to
do the inspections covering a greater number of miles per day at much
cheaper rates. This bill will push that. In the meantime, entrepreneurs
are finding some exciting technologies such as this little company that
will have these devices very soon. I yield the floor.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment
No.10.
The amendment (No. 10) was agreed to.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I congratulate Senator Cantwell and
Senator Corzine for their initial success in the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to speak on the bill for a very
few minutes, and, of course, congratulate Senator Corzine and the other
cosponsors for the amendment that was just adopted, which I strongly
support.
This bill overall is very important to the people of my State.
Senator Domenici and I had the experience of learning last August of a
terrible rupture of a high-pressure natural gas pipeline coming through
New Mexico on its way to California. It occurred on August 19 near
Carlsbad, NM, at 5:30 in the morning. Unfortunately, the rupture
occurred at a place where the pipeline crosses the Pecos River. It was
a place where many people came to fish and camp.
There was a large family there, an extended family and friends who
were camped there that night and the next morning when the rupture
occurred. The rupture did kill 12 people. Shortly thereafter, there was
a 13th person who died later from injuries received at the site. It was
a terrible tragedy for our State and for the entire country.
After visiting the site with the personnel from the Office of
Pipeline Safety, it became clear to me that that office did not have
adequate resources to do what it needed to do and it did not have
adequate authority to do what it needed to do.
There are over 500,000 miles of interstate pipeline in the United
States. That agency needs the additional authority contained in this
bill in order to address the different circumstances of individual
pipelines. The Senate bill requires each and every interstate natural
gas and hazardous liquid pipeline to develop and implement an integrity
management plan.
The bill gives the Office of Pipeline Safety the authority to impose
rigorous requirements to address areas with the greatest likelihood of
failures and, specifically, to address aging pipelines and those in
populated or environmentally sensitive areas.
The transmission line in New Mexico, as I said, was crossing the
Pecos River at the place where it ruptured. The bend in the pipe that
was required in order to cross that river was part of the problem that
led to the rupture of the pipeline. As best we can determine, the
pipeline ruptured because of internal corrosion in the line. The line
was 40 or so years old. It is a very longstanding line. There had not
been adequate inspection, particularly inspection that would have
caught that internal corrosion.
In the hopes of preventing other problems such as this which have
gone undetected, and the ability to move some of the equipment that is
used to determine internal corrosion that is impeded when you have a
sharp bend in the pipe, which is what we had there where the pipe was
crossing the river, I introduced a bill to set up a coordinated
research and development program. I am very pleased to say that has
been incorporated into this bill that we are voting on today.
These natural gas and liquid pipelines are a critical element of the
Nation's energy infrastructure. They provide a cost-effective and
relatively safe means of delivering energy. As our economy has grown
and become increasingly urbanized, the siting of new pipelines has
become more and more of a challenge. At the same time, the importance
of having these lines has increased dramatically, and the importance of
ensuring the safety of these lines has increased dramatically.
Earlier this week, the Energy Daily reported that inadequate pipeline
capacity into the northeastern part of this country will create serious
power supply problems in the next few years.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article from the
Energy Daily be printed in the Record following my statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. BINGAMAN. We do have a series of near-term crises related to
energy in the country. We are more and more aware of those families and
businesses that have been hit by winter heating bills. There are high
natural gas prices affecting power prices in the western part of the
country. Natural gas is a feedstock for the fertilizer industry, and
the high prices have shut down production of fertilizer in some parts
of our country. Farmers are not going to find adequate supplies for the
spring planting season.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes have expired.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for another 2
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, natural gas prices are only part of the
problem. After a number of years of surplus gas supplies, pipeline
capacity, and high electricity reserve margins, we are bumping up
against the constraints of our infrastructure in each of these areas.
We need to deal with that. I hope we can this spring. We are going to
work on legislation in the Energy Committee to do that.
Passage of this pipeline safety bill is a small but a very important
step to help restore public confidence in the pipeline infrastructure
and to avoid these catastrophes in the future. I believe this will be
an appropriate step to take. I hope very much, after we pass this
bill--as I believe we will today--the House of Representatives will
take it up and pass it quickly so that the Office of Pipeline Safety
can get about the business of better inspections to avoid catastrophes
such as we faced near Carlsbad this last year.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Exhibit No. 1
[From the Energy Daily, Feb. 6, 2001]
Pipeline Bottleneck To Pinch Gas Supplies for New England IPPs
(By Jeff Beattie)
In a stark warning that New England's power supply is
becoming over-dependent on natural gas, the region's grid
operator said Monday that natural gas pipelines will not be
able to fill generators' requirements by 2005, leaving them
unable to operate 3,000 megawatts of gas-fired capacity.
The study released by ISO New England Inc. predicted
``substantial unserved gas requirements'' by 2005 absent
major changes in infrastructure or fuel use.
The independent system operator urged a streamlined
regulatory process to expand pipeline capacity and--in a
proposal that raised generators' hackles--called for
requirements that new independent gas-fired plants develop
backup capabilities to burn oil.
The study said the gas crunch was developing because gas-
fired generating capacity is expected to triple between 1999
and 2005, rising from 16 percent of total capacity to 45
percent.
At the same time, pipeline capacity is not increasing at
the same pace, meaning independent generators likely will
have to keep
[[Page S1196]]
3,000 MW idle in the 2005 peak heating season due to lack of
gas. The study said smaller, brief shortfalls could occur in
the winter of 2003. The study said independent generators
would feel the impact before utilities because the current
system's operational flexibility could not meet coincident
needs of both, and ``the demands of utilities are scheduled
first--the majority of throughput for generation is
subordinated.''
Conducted by Boston-based Levitan and Associates Inc., the
study also suggests that the ability of gas-fired generators
to switch ``on-the-fly'' to distillate oil will be crucial
not only to meet the potential shortfall but to take up slack
in the event one of the region's major pipes has an accident
or shutdown.
The ISO said switching to oil was workable because 5,900 MW
of generation capacity have air permits that permit such
switching.
The region's shortfall stems from a projected installation
of between 7,500 and 11,600 MW of gas-fired generation by
2005. Virtually all of the new generating facilities plan to
use gas from Western Canada, the Gulf Coast, or--
increasingly--from new reserves off the coast of Nova
Scotia.
Pipeline industry officials say the Northeast's problems
are not surprising given the obstacles thrown up to the
industry's efforts to add capacity to the five major
interstate pipeline systems now serving the region.
``FERC delayed one projected by over a year and a half
because they had 7,000 landowner complaints,'' said Jerry
Halvorsen, president of the Interstate Natural Gas
Association of America (INGAA). ``But we went into the FERC
document room and identified that only 5 percent of those
complainants were actually along the right of way, and in one
case they had counted one letter 14 times.''
Halvorsen also pointed to opposition from utilities
concerned that expansion would primarily feed independent
generators, and environmental agency concern about stream
crossings.
He added that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
under the leadership of new Chairman Curt Hebert, seems now
to be headed in the right direction.
``I think FERC will do what it has to,'' he said.
The ISO suggests a number of ways to both increase the flow
of natural gas and reduce dependence, including: Requiring
merchant generators to certify the ``character and quality''
of their gas transportation; additional modeling to predict
impacts of system breakdowns; and support for streamlining
federal pipe approval.
``These fixes are doable if we get started now,'' said ISO
Vice President of System Operations Stephen Whitley. ``If you
wait until winter's over and forget about it because the cold
weather's gone, and then start talking about it later, that
would be terrible.''
Officials representing New England generators generally
agreed with the findings of the ISO's study, but objected to
its recommendation that IPPs be required to have fuel-
switching capability.
``We would oppose that,'' said Neal Costello, general
counsel for the Competitive Power Coalition of New England.
``ISO New England need to understand that they were created
to facilitate the development of a competitive wholesale
market. They are not `The Great Regulator,' which is
unfortunately sometimes how they view their role.
``The fuel-switching capabilities of plants can be somewhat
misleading. Let's be honest about it: We [the generators]
would be switching from gas that people use to heat their
homes, to distillate oil that people use to heat their
homes.''
Costello said also said ``draconian environmental
regulations'' were part of New England's gas-dependence
problem.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Does the Senator desire to speak? I will be glad to let
the Senator proceed, and then I will follow.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. CANTWELL. I say to my colleague from New Mexico, I appreciate
being deferred. And I say to my other colleague from New Mexico, I
appreciate and wish to be associated with his remarks.
Obviously, we are here discussing the best ways to move forward on
pipeline safety for the country. Obviously, despite the troubling
record, this bill puts much of the responsibility of additional
standards into the hands of the Transportation Department and the
Office of Pipeline Safety.
In this legislation, we are relying on the Office of Pipeline
Safety--a small office of only 55 inspectors--to be the principal
Government agency responsible for ensuring the safety of 2 million
miles of our Nation's pipelines.
After years of failure in responding to congressional mandates--not
having the capacity--one of the key issues for me, as this bill moves
through the process of the other body, and through a conference
committee, will be the level of support for funding given to the Office
of Pipeline Safety and their ability to take on the monitoring
responsibilities and the responsibilities of the amendment that was
offered by Senator Corzine, myself, and others, which was adopted.
The pipeline safety disruptions not only endanger human health and
safety but the leaks and explosions and fires associated with pipeline
ruptures can devastate the environment and disrupt critical energy
flows.
Ultimately, considering the increasing incidents of pipeline
disruption, and a system that has led to over 243 pipeline-related
deaths since 1990, the unfortunate state of pipeline safety in this
country demands that we make this a higher national priority.
I believe the bill today--unlike the version prior to being amended,
which was not a better bill--with this amendment that was adopted is a
better bill, but I can only support this in the final passage out of
conference if we continue to improve the bill through the process. I
will be working diligently with my colleagues from around the country,
with the delegation in Washington, and in the House to make sure that
is a reality.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor a bill to
modernize our nation's pipeline safety programs. The issue of our
country's pipeline safety came to the forefront after tragic explosions
in Bellingham, Washington, and later, in my own state of New Mexico.
On August 19, 2000, twelve members of an extended family were on a
camping and fishing trip along the Pecos River near Carlsbad, NM. Just
after midnight, a natural gas pipeline exploded, sending a 350 foot
high ball of flame into the air. Six of the campers died instantly. The
six remaining family members later died from their horrific injuries.
I am not here today to argue the reasons why pipeline tragedies, such
as the one in Carlsbad, continue to occur. I am not here today to
further admonish the traditionally poor regulatory enforcement by the
Office of Pipeline Safety.
In that regard, I am confident that the new Administration will
assume its responsibility to vigorously oversee and enforce pipeline
regulations.
What I am here to do today, is to work so that we don't have to think
twice before camping with our families and friends. I am here to do my
part, to assume my responsibility, so that pipeline tragedies like in
Carlsbad, do not happen again.
Pipelines carry almost all of the natural gas and 65 percent of the
crude oil and refined oil products. Three primary types of pipelines
form a network of nearly 2.2 million miles, 7,000 of which lie in my
own state of New Mexico.
Pipelines stretch across our country. They allow us to obtain energy
resources quickly and economically.
In light of the energy crisis in California, and in the west in
general, the value of our nation's pipeline system is obvious. We must
have access to energy.
Therefore, pipelines and the potential hazards they pose affect us
all. It is time that we do something to ensure our safety while
protecting our access to energy.
Mr. President, this bill:
Significantly increases States' role in oversight, inspection, and
investigation of pipelines.
Improves and expands the public's right to know about pipeline
hazards.
Dramatically increases civil penalties for safety and reporting
violations.
Increases reporting requirements of releases of hazardous liquids
from 50 barrels to five gallons.
Provides important whistle blower protections prohibiting
discrimination by pipeline operators, contractors or subcontractors.
Furthermore, the legislation would provide much needed funding for
research and development in pipeline safety technologies.
In fact, technology currently exists that might have detected
weaknesses in pipelines around Carlsbad. Unfortunately, due to
insufficient funding those products have yet to reach the market.
La Sen Corporation in my own State of New Mexico has developed
technology that can detect faulty pipelines
[[Page S1197]]
where current pipeline inspection technology is not useable. La Sen's
Electronic Mapping System can be very effective even in pipelines where
conventional pig devices cannot be used.
Pipeline inspection is costly and slow. Innovative new technologies
could allow us to inspect all 2.2 million miles of pipeline each year
in a cost effective manner. Today, pipeline inspection technology only
covers 5-10 miles per day at a cost of $50 per mile. Again, La Sen's
technology can survey 500 miles per day at a cost of $32 per mile.
The bottom line is that today, we can take action that will hopefully
make pipelines safer.
I encourage my colleagues to recognize the potential dangers that
pipelines pose and to minimize those dangers by unanimously passing
this legislation.
Mr. President, on August 19th, New Mexicans, and the country to some
extent, woke up to find out that at a camping site near Carlsbad, NM,
right by our second largest river, which has been frequently used by
families, that a pipeline exploded reigning fire and terror. Six people
died instantly and six other family members and friends died shortly
thereafter. And then one additional lived for a while and then died.
It was a very tragic event for a small State, especially a State
where we know how important natural gas is. We produce a lot of it. We
know how important crude oil is. We produce a lot of it. But
nonetheless, it was thought by many that we could do better, that these
kinds of things should not happen.
I am not an expert, but I do believe that, as the facts have
determined subsequent to that event, the Nation's inspection mechanism
for pipelines has been underfunded, understaffed, and probably at a
minimum, lackadaisical, and to some extent totally asleep.
This bill says it is a far more important issue. And it comes at
exactly the right time. Because we are assessing our country's energy
situation. We are going to find, when the President's task force
reports, that we are growing more and more dependent upon natural gas
and becoming more and more dependent upon foreign oil. Everyone should
know that pipelines are very important solution to our energy crisis.
We already know there are 2.2 million miles of pipeline carrying
natural gas across this country. Sixty-five percent of the crude oil
refined is in these pipelines. And 7,000 of these miles are in the
State of New Mexico. This bill does a number of significant things to
improve the situation and, perhaps, make it such that we won't have
these kinds of problems in my State, and wonderful people like those
whose relatives woke up and read about their friends at this camp site
that were burned to death, at the pipeline rupture site.
Once again, the inspection process is rather crude today. We have to
do a lot better. I am quite certain, that the small corporation to
which I referred the Senate a minute ago, La Sen Corporation in New
Mexico is not the only technology around, but it is among the most
exciting. We are quite sure that company is going to succeed and that
we will be inspecting the pipelines of our country, whether they hang
above ground in some areas or whether they are underground. They are
going to inspect them from small airplanes with technology on board
that will be so technically significant, with reference to detection of
the composites that are part of either natural gas or crude oil in the
pipelines. They will detect and report those composites, much like a
radar screen in these small airplanes.
If that occurs, as I indicated a while ago, instead of 5 to 10 miles
a day, with crews and current equipment, we will inspect 500 miles a
day, and it will be ultimately cheaper per mile. That is what
ultimately has to happen. This bill helps. It does put more money and
directs more research into pipeline safety technologies.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this bill authorizes the Secretary of
Transportation to take the steps necessary to protect the families of
communities served by pipelines that are, or could be, hazardous. Under
Section 14 of the bill, the Secretary can order necessary corrective
action for hazardous facilities, including closing the facilities. In
the case of pipeline accidents, the Secretary can remove or reassign
responsible employees.
The Secretary's authority to deal with pipeline accidents and safety
hazards can and should be exercised in ways that treat workers at
pipelines and pipeline facilities fairly. Under the bill, the Secretary
may direct pipeline operators to relieve employees from their duties,
reassign them, or place them on leave for an indefinite period of
time--all without any provision for those employees to receive
compensation or benefits. Employees who may ultimately be determined to
bear no responsibility for an accident could be put on extended unpaid
leave under the bill. I believe that greater protections are needed for
the men and women who work at the nation's pipelines and pipeline
facilities. The vast majority of these workers are dedicated to
protecting the health and safety of the communities they serve. As we
go to conference with the House on this important bill, I urge the
conferees to amend this provision to avoid the possible mistreatment of
these workers.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Pipeline Safety
Improvement Act of 2001. I commend the work of the chairman and ranking
member of the Commerce Committee, Senators McCain and Hollings, for
their hard work on this legislation. I believe that this legislation
takes a balanced approach to an important issue and provides for an
increase in public safety without unduly burdening a vital ingredient
of our energy infrastructure.
This legislation takes several important steps in improving the
safety of America's oil and natural gas pipelines. There are several
elements of this legislation that I would like to highlight. First,
this legislation requires the implementation of pipeline safety
recommendations recently issued by the Department of Transportation
(DOT) Inspector General to the DOT Research and Special Programs
Administration (RSPA). The Inspector General has recommended that the
pipeline industry finalize outstanding Congressional mandates
protecting sensitive environmental areas and high-density population
areas. Moreover, it calls for the implementation of a training program
for the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) inspectors.
Second, it requires pipeline operators to submit to the Secretary of
Transportation, or the appropriate State regulatory agency as the case
requires, a plan designed to enhance the qualifications of pipeline
personnel. I hope that this approach, in which the pipeline operators
themselves are consulted on the proper safety and training
qualifications of their personnel, is a cooperative one that will not
only increase public safety, but also encourage the pipeline industry
to take ownership in the standards they are called upon to implement.
Third, this bill calls upon the Secretary of Transportation to issue
regulations that require hazardous liquid pipelines and natural gas
transmission pipelines to evaluate the risks of the operator's
facilities in environmentally sensitive and high-density population
areas, and to implement a program for integrity management that reduces
identified risks of an incident in those areas. Under these guidelines,
the pipeline operator's integrity management plan must be based on risk
analysis and must include a periodic assessment of the integrity of the
pipeline through methods including internal inspection, pressure
testing, direct assessment, or some other effective methods, to ensure
that identified problems are corrected in a timely manner. Again, I am
hopeful that this integrity management plan will allow operators to be
even more pro-active in identifying potential problems and correcting
them before any accidents occur.
Fourth, this legislation requires an operator of a gas transmission
or hazardous liquid pipeline facility to carry out a continuing public
education program that would include activities to advise
municipalities, school districts, businesses, and residents of pipeline
facility locations on a variety of pipeline safety matters. Educating
the community on issues of pipeline safety should also serve to
decrease the incidents of dangerous accidents in these areas.
While no legislation can entirely alleviate the elements of risk and
danger from human experience, there are ways that government,
businesses, and local
[[Page S1198]]
communities can cooperate to help minimize risks of serious accidents.
When crafting such legislation, it is also important to ensure that any
additional burdens we place on private businesses will result in
benefits that outweigh those costs. This is especially important in the
area of oil and gas pipelines, which are the arteries of energy
production that allow us to fuel our cars, heat and cool our homes, and
carry out countless activities in our daily lives. All the oil and
natural gas in the world is worthless if we are unable to get it to the
American consumers. For this reason, I am especially heartened by the
cooperative approach that was taken in preparing this legislation to
ensure that all the various stakeholders were heard and their
legitimate concerns were incorporated into this important legislation.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Pipeline Safety
Improvement Act of 2001.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise to make a short statement about the
Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2001. This bill is identical to
legislation we considered and passed in the 106th Congress.
Last year, I took the time to outline the problem we now face in
regard to this issue, and I want to take a moment to do that again. To
understand this legislation, you must understand the situation from
which we started. The federal government, through the Department of
Transportation, regulates more than 2,000 gas pipeline operators with
more than 1.3 million miles of pipe and more than 200 hazardous liquid
pipeline operators with more than 156,000 miles of pipe. To protect the
public safety and the environment and maintain reliability in the
energy system over that massive infrastructure is an enormous
challenge. The responsibility for meeting that challenge, no matter how
great it is, falls upon the industry and federal government,
specifically, DOT's Office of Pipeline Safety. It is clear that both
OPS and the industry have failed to rise to that challenge, and we have
paid a high price.
According to the OPS, since 1984, there have been approximately 5,700
natural gas and oil pipeline accidents nationwide, 54 of them in my
home state of Massachusetts. In the 1990s, nearly 4,000 natural gas and
oil pipeline ruptures--more than one each day--caused the deaths of 201
people, injuries to another 2,829 people, cost at least $780 million in
property damages, and resulted in enormous environmental contamination
and ecological damages. Two accidents in particular show us the tragic
consequences of pipeline accidents. On June 10, 1999, a leaking
gasoline pipeline erupted into a fireball in Bellingham, Washington.
The fire extended more than one and half miles, killing two 10-year-old
boys and a young man. The second accident took place in August in
Carlsbad, New Mexico. A leaking natural gas pipeline erupted killing 12
members of an extended family on a camping trip. My sympathies go out
to all those involved in these incidents. They are truly tragic.
The Senate Commerce Committee and others have investigated the cause
of this tragic record. What we found, sadly, is that OPS was simply
failing to do its job. The head of the National Transportation Safety
Board, Jim Hall, gave the OPS ``a big fat F'' for its work. As we
considered the legislation in the Commerce Committee, I found that OPS
had fallen short in the area of enforcement, in particular. Enforcement
is the backbone of any system of safeguards designed to protect the
public and the enforcement. Without the threat of tough enforcement,
companies, the unfortunate record shows, do not consistently comply
with safeguards. The resulting harm to people and places is predictable
and regrettable. I will not outline all of the details here today, but
I recommend to anyone interested that they read the General Accounting
Office's investigation into OPS dated May 2000.
The Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2001 includes enforcement
reforms and enhances the role of OPS and the Department of Justice in
enforcement. These provisions, which I proposed in the Commerce
Committee in the 106th Congress, will, I believe, put some teeth into
our pipeline safety laws. They include raising the maximum fines that
OPS can assess a company from $500,000 to $1,000,000; ensuring that
companies cannot profit from noncompliance; clarifying the law
regarding one-call services; and allowing DOJ, at the request of DOT,
to seek civil penalties in court to ensure that serious violators can
be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
The bill makes other significant improvements to existing law. My
colleagues Mr. McCain and Ms. Murray have outlined many of these
provisions and how they will improve pipeline safety. In addition, Mr.
Corzine has offered a successful amendment that will require pipeline
inspections on a 5 year basis when appropriate. That is a significant
improvement. However, Mr. President, despite the improvements in the
underlying bill and Mr. Corzine's amendment, S. 235 falls short in some
areas. It is my hope that the legislation will be further improved in
the House and in the House-Senate conference by including worker
certification, enhancing right-to-know provisions and other steps that
would improve environmental and public safety protections. I look
forward to continuing to work on this legislation, improve it, and,
ultimately, improving the pipeline safety throughout the nation.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this legislation is very important to the
people of Michigan because we know what it is like to have pipeline
safety concerns in our own backyard. Last June, a gasoline pipeline
ruptured in Michigan, spilling more than 70,000 gallons of gasoline.
Further, national estimates rank Michigan second only to Texas in the
number of repairs to damaged or leaking natural gas lines. Clearly, we
need comprehensive legislation which will help prevent further
tragedies like those which have occurred in the United States over the
past few years.
This legislation would strengthen pipeline safety regulations and
encourage increased participation from interested and affected state
agencies and communities as well as expand citizen right-to-know
provisions. It would also provide increased funding to the development
of technologies to improve pipeline safety.
Although this bill could be stronger, it accomplishes many goals. I
hope that when it comes back from Conference, we will see an even
stronger bill. However, I will support this legislation at this time
because I believe it moves us in the right direction.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, as a co-sponsor of S. 235, the
Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2001, I would like to urge my
colleagues to support this balanced bipartisan bill.
I am a new member of the Senate Commerce Committee, and have been
privileged to be appointed as Chair of the Surface Transportation and
Merchant Marine Subcommittee. I have also been a member of the Senate
Energy and Natural Resources Committee for a number of years.
In the past few years, I have heard numerous witnesses discuss the
need to obtain more supply and build more energy infrastructure to
service the increasing energy demand. On a number of occasions I have
heard, for example, that demand in the natural gas market is expected
to increase from 22 trillion cubic feet to 30 trillion cubic feet by
around 2010 to 2012 and that the interstate natural gas pipeline
industry is having to spend over $2.5 billion per year to build the
necessary pipeline and storage facilities to meet this demand.
More recently, these issues have taken on a sense of urgency as the
electricity problems in California have reached beyond that state to
affect the availability of electricity in Oregon and to significantly
increase the rates that my constituents are paying at this time.
I also know that it is important to assure the public that both new
pipelines and existing pipelines are safe. The Pipeline Safety
Improvement Act puts into place a number of common-sense measures that
will encourage pipeline operators to coordinate safety and emergency
procedures with national and state officials. The improvements mandated
by this bill will help to eliminate accidents and decrease the very
real hazards for those who live and work near the pipelines that
crisscross our nation.
S. 235 requires the Office of Pipeline Safety to promulgate
regulations to require operators of natural gas transmission pipelines
and hazardous liquid
[[Page S1199]]
pipelines to evaluate the risks to the pipeline, focusing on areas that
are highly populated or, in the case of hazardous liquid pipelines,
areas that are environmentally sensitive.
S. 235 also provides more opportunity for state and local government
input when new regulations are promulgated. States that are interested
in acting as interstate agents can participate in special
investigations involving incidents or new construction and assume
additional inspection or investigatory duties or other activities under
the regulations issued by the Office of Pipeline Safety.
The Pipeline Safety Improvement Act calls on pipeline operators to
review their public education programs for effectiveness and modify
them if necessary. Furthermore, S. 235 says the Office of Pipeline
Safety may issue standards prescribing the elements of an effective
public communications program.
As the new Chairman of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee, I
will become very involved in this pipeline safety program. I plan to
sit down with the staff of the Office of Pipeline Safety to learn more
about their plans for implementing legislation and what they may need
to improve their effectiveness. I also plan to oversee their activities
to make sure that, once Congress passes a reauthorization bill, they
will move to implement the intentions of Congress.
I know that S. 235 is the product of bipartisan cooperation and I
support quick passage of this bill.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today the Senate is considering S. 235,
legislation to improve the safety of pipelines carrying oil, natural
gas and hazardous liquids. I commend Senator McCain, Senator Hollings,
Senator Murkowski and Senator Bingaman for their work on this
legislation.
Over the past few years, deadly pipeline explosions have destroyed
homes and taken lives. There is no question that safety standards need
to be improved to ensure the safety of all Americans and to avoid
interruptions of energy supplies that can lead to shortages and
significant price increases. This legislation will help to meet this
goal by strengthening safety regulations, updating penalties for safety
violations, improving whistleblower protections and providing increased
funding for safety research and enforcement.
I also want to express my support for the objectives mentioned today
by Senator Torricelli and Senator Corzine, and my appreciation for the
willingness of Senator McCain and Senator Hollings to address these
issues. It is my hope that the final bill will include strong right-to-
know, oversight, enforcement and worker certification provisions, and
ensure that those who violate regulations are held accountable for
their actions. Finally, we need to ensure that adequate funding will be
available to meet all of these goals.
Once again, I want to thank my colleagues for their work on this
issue.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today the Senate has the opportunity to move
one step closer to correcting an extreme disappointment of the 106th
Congress. S. 2438, the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2000, which
passed the Senate unanimously on September 7, 2000, but never made it
across the finish line in the House of Representatives, has been
reintroduced this Congress as S. 235, the Pipeline Safety Improvement
Act of 2001.
This legislation is the result of months of extraordinary bipartisan
effort by Senators John McCain, Patty Murray, Slade Gorton, Jeff
Bingaman and Pete Domenici. Significant contributions to the
legislation were also made by Senators John Breaux, Fritz Hollings, Sam
Brownback, Ron Wyden, John Kerry, Kay Bailey Hutchison and Byron
Dorgan.
I also feel some ownership of this effort. I serve on the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, which prepared the
bill for the Senate's consideration, and my home state of Mississippi
hosts many, many miles of pipelines. These issues are extremely
important to me.
S. 235 is an excellent bill. It is probably the most significant
rewrite of our pipeline safety laws in more than a decade. It is a
tough bill.
It comes on the heels of horrific accidents in Bellingham,
Washington, Carlsbad, New Mexico, and in locations in Texas, that
resulted in the deaths of a total of 17 people.
The authors of this bill were determined to put the necessary
specific requirements into the pipeline safety statutes that would
prevent these kinds of accidents from happening in the future. They
were successful.
The bill represents a watershed change in the types of requirements
on pipeline operators for inspection, pipeline facility monitoring and
testing, employee training, disclosure of information, enforcement,
research and development, management and accountability. It is as
comprehensive, tough, and complete as to be expected of a bill that
emerged from a thorough process of hearings, both here and in the
field, data gathering, and working with the Administration, States and
local groups.
It is the kind of legislative work product to be expected from the
experience, independence and determination of the Senators who worked
on S. 235. The pipeline industry had no choice but to submit to this
legislation.
Last year it received the affirmative vote of more than three fourths
of the Congress--all of the Senate and just under two-thirds of the
House. It received the written praise of Secretary Slater and the Vice
President Gore.
Now, at a time when there is no question that this country is in dire
need of a sound energy policy, the Senate has the opportunity to
address one very important component of that policy--pipelines.
Today's fuel prices are a daily reminder that America is now at the
mercy of foreign oil producing nations. However, before you blame your
neighbor's SUV, your local fuel distributors, the oil companies, the
automakers, or any of the other usual scapegoats, consider this fact--
America is one of the leading energy producing countries in the world.
This country has the technology, alternative resources, and enough oil
and gas to be much more self-sufficient. America does not have to
revert back to the practices of the 1970s. The goal of the soon to be
introduced energy policy legislation is to reduce the dependence on
foreign sources by 50 percent by 2010. This goal can be accomplished,
and with the accomplishment of this goal will be an increased need for
the use of pipelines--safe pipelines.
There is no question that this bill would make much needed
improvements in pipeline safety. There will be time in the coming
months to debate energy policy. Let's keep this bill clean and focus on
pipeline safety.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read
the third time.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The bill, as amended, having been read the third time, the question
is, Shall it pass? The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo) is
necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) is
necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 11 Leg.]
YEAS--98
Akaka
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee, L.
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Craig
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
[[Page S1200]]
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
Crapo
Miller
The bill (S. 235), as amended, was passed, as follows:
S. 235
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 2001''.
(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 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 and employee organization 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, 2002, 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. The
assessment period shall be no less than every 5 years unless
the Department of Transportation Inspector General, after
consultation with the Secretary determines there is not a
sufficient capability or it is deemed unnecessary because of
more technically appropriate monitoring or creates undue
interruption of necessary supply to fulfill the requirements
under this paragraph;
``(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 2001, 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
[[Page S1201]]
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 2001, 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 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 2001, 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 2001, 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
[[Page S1202]]
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, 2002,
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 2001 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.
``(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;
[[Page S1203]]
(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 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 2002, of which
$20,000,000 is to be derived from user fees for fiscal year
2002 collected under section 60301 of this title; and
``(2) $30,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2003 and
2004 of which $23,000,000 is to be derived from user fees for
fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004 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 2002, of which
$15,000,000 is to be derived from user fees for fiscal year
2002 collected under section 60301 of this title; and
``(2) $20,000,000 for the fiscal years 2003 and 2004 of
which $18,000,000 is to be derived from user fees for fiscal
year 2003 and fiscal year 2004 collected under section 60301
of this title.''.
(c) Oil Spills.--Section 60125 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 the Secretary of Transportation, as
provided in appropriation Acts, to carry out programs
authorized in this Act for each of fiscal years 2002, 2003,
and 2004.''.
(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 60301 of title 49,
United States Code, for each of the fiscal years 2002 through
2006.
(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, as provided
in appropriation Acts, 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 2002 through
2006.
(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 2002 through 2006.
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 the earlier of
the date on which--
``(A) the Secretary determines, after notice and an
opportunity for a hearing, 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 2001 and can safely
perform those activities.
``(3) 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
[[Page S1204]]
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 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.
[[Page S1205]]
SEC. 19. STUDY OF NATURAL GAS RESERVE.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that:
(1) In the last few months, natural gas prices across the
country have tripled.
(2) In California, natural gas prices have increased
twenty-fold, from $3 per million British thermal units to
nearly $60 per million British thermal units.
(3) One of the major causes of these price increases is a
lack of supply, including a lack of natural gas reserves.
(4) The lack of a reserve was compounded by the rupture of
an El Paso Natural Gas Company pipeline in Carlsbad, New
Mexico on August 1, 2000.
(5) Improving pipeline safety will help prevent similar
accidents that interrupt the supply of natural gas and will
help save lives.
(6) It is also necessary to find solutions for the lack of
natural gas reserves that could be used during emergencies.
(b) Study by the National Academy of Sciences.--The
Secretary of Energy shall request the National Academy of
Sciences to--
(1) conduct a study to--
(A) determine the causes of recent increases in the price
of natural gas, including whether the increases have been
caused by problems with the supply of natural gas or by
problems with the natural gas transmission system;
(B) identify any Federal or State policies that may have
contributed to the price increases; and
(C) determine what Federal action would be necessary to
improve the reserve supply of natural gas for use in
situations of natural gas shortages and price increases,
including determining the feasibility and advisability of a
Federal strategic natural gas reserve system; and
(2) not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, submit to Congress a report on the results of the
study.
SEC. 20. STUDY AND REPORT ON NATURAL GAS PIPELINE AND STORAGE
FACILITIES IN NEW ENGLAND.
(a) Study.--The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in
consultation with the Department of Energy, shall conduct a
study on the natural gas pipeline transmission network in New
England and natural gas storage facilities associated with
that network. In carrying out the study, the Commission shall
consider--
(1) the ability of natural gas pipeline and storage
facilities in New England to meet current and projected
demand by gas-fired power generation plants and other
consumers;
(2) capacity constraints during unusual weather periods;
(3) potential constraint points in regional, interstate,
and international pipeline capacity serving New England; and
(4) the quality and efficiency of the Federal environmental
review and permitting process for natural gas pipelines.
(b) Report.--Not later than 120 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission shall prepare and submit to the Senate Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources and the appropriate committee
of the House of Representatives a report containing the
results of the study conducted under subsection (a),
including recommendations for addressing potential natural
gas transmission and storage capacity problems in New
England.
Mr. LEAHY. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was
agreed to.
Mr. HATCH. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
____________________