[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 101 (Tuesday, July 23, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H5273-H5288]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PIPELINE INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION TO ENHANCE SECURITY AND SAFETY ACT
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
pass the bill (H.R. 3609) to amend title 49, United States Code, to
enhance the security and safety of pipelines, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 3609
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; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Pipeline
Infrastructure Protection to Enhance Security and Safety
Act''.
(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.
(c) Table of Contents.--
Sec. 1. Short title; amendment of title 49, United States Code; table
of contents.
Sec. 2. One-call notification programs.
Sec. 3. One-call notification of pipeline operators.
Sec. 4. Protection of employees providing pipeline safety information.
Sec. 5. Safety orders.
Sec. 6. Penalties.
Sec. 7. Pipeline safety information grants to communities.
Sec. 8. Population encroachment.
Sec. 9. Pipeline integrity research, development, and demonstration.
Sec. 10. Pipeline qualification programs.
Sec. 11. Additional gas pipeline protections.
Sec. 12. Security of pipeline facilities.
Sec. 13. National pipeline mapping system.
Sec. 14. Coordination of environmental reviews.
Sec. 15. Nationwide toll-free number system.
Sec. 16. Recommendations and responses.
Sec. 17. Miscellaneous amendments.
Sec. 18. Technical amendments.
Sec. 19. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 20. Inspections by direct assessment.
Sec. 21. Pipeline bridge risk study.
Sec. 22. State oversight role.
SEC. 2. ONE-CALL NOTIFICATION PROGRAMS.
(a) Minimum Standards.--Section 6103 is amended--
[[Page H5274]]
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (1) by inserting ``, including all
government operators'' before the semicolon at the end; and
(B) in paragraph (2) by inserting ``, including all
government and contract excavators'' before the semicolon at
the end; and
(2) in subsection (c) by striking ``provide for'' and
inserting ``provide for and document''.
(b) Compliance With Minimum Standards.--Section 6104(d) is
amended by striking ``Within 3 years after the date of the
enactment of this chapter, the Secretary shall begin to'' and
inserting ``The Secretary shall''.
(c) Implementation of Best Practices Guidelines.--
(1) In general.--Section 6105 is amended to read as
follows:
``Sec. 6105. Implementation of best practices guidelines
``(a) Adoption of Best Practices.--The Secretary of
Transportation shall encourage States, operators of one-call
notification programs, excavators (including all government
and contract excavators), and underground facility operators
to adopt and implement practices identified in the best
practices report entitled `Common Ground', as periodically
updated.
``(b) Technical Assistance.--The Secretary shall provide
technical assistance to and participate in programs sponsored
by a non-profit organization specifically established for the
purpose of reducing construction-related damage to
underground facilities.
``(c) Grants.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may make grants to a non-
profit organization described in subsection (b).
``(2) Authorization of appropriations.--In addition to
amounts authorized under section 6107, there is authorized to
be appropriated for making grants under this subsection
$500,000 for each of fiscal years 2002 through 2005. Such
sums shall remain available until expended.
``(3) General revenue funding.--Any sums appropriated under
this subsection shall be derived from general revenues and
may not be derived from amounts collected under section
60301.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--The analysis for chapter 61 is
amended by striking the item relating to section 6105 and
inserting the following:
``6105. Implementation of best practices guidelines.''.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) For grants for states.--Section 6107(a) is amended by
striking ``$1,000,000 for fiscal year 2000'' and all that
follows before the period at the end of the first sentence
and inserting ``$1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2003
through 2006''.
(2) For administration.--Section 6107(b) is amended by
striking ``for fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001'' and
inserting ``for fiscal years 2003 through 2006''.
SEC. 3. ONE-CALL NOTIFICATION OF PIPELINE OPERATORS.
(a) Limitation on Preemption.--Section 60104(c) is amended
by adding at the end the following: ``Notwithstanding the
preceding sentence, a State authority may enforce a
requirement of a one-call notification program of the State
if the program meets the requirements for one-call
notification programs under this chapter or chapter 61.''.
(b) Minimum Requirements.--Section 60114(a)(2) is amended
by inserting ``, including a government employee or
contractor,'' after ``person''.
(c) Criminal Penalties.--Section 60123(d) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking
``knowingly and willfully'';
(2) in paragraph (1) by inserting ``knowingly and
willfully'' before ``engages'';
(3) by striking paragraph (2)(B) and inserting the
following:
``(B) a pipeline facility, and knows or has reason to know
of the damage, but does not report the damage promptly to the
operator of the pipeline facility and to other appropriate
authorities; or''; and
(4) by adding after paragraph (2) the following:
``Penalties under this subsection may be reduced in the case
of a violation that is promptly reported by the violator.''.
SEC. 4. 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 Employee.--(1) No employer may
discharge any employee or otherwise discriminate against any
employee with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions,
or privileges of employment because the employee (or any
person acting pursuant to a request of the employee)--
``(A) provided, caused to be provided, or is about to
provide or cause to be provided, to the employer or the
Federal Government information relating to any violation or
alleged violation of any order, regulation, or standard under
this chapter or any other Federal law relating to pipeline
safety;
``(B) refused to engage in any practice made unlawful by
this chapter or any other Federal law relating to pipeline
safety, if the employee has identified the alleged illegality
to the employer;
``(C) provided, caused to be provided, or is about to
provide or cause to be provided, testimony before Congress or
at any Federal or State proceeding regarding any provision
(or proposed provision) of this chapter or any other Federal
law relating to pipeline safety;
``(D) commenced, caused to be commenced, or is about to
commence or cause to be commenced a proceeding under this
chapter or any other Federal law relating to pipeline safety,
or a proceeding for the administration or enforcement of any
requirement imposed under this chapter or any other Federal
law relating to pipeline safety;
``(E) provided, caused to be provided, or is about to
provide or cause to be provided, testimony in any proceeding
described in subparagraph (D); or
``(F) assisted or participated or is about to assist or
participate in any manner in such a proceeding or in any
other manner in such a proceeding or in any other action to
carry out the purposes of this chapter or any other Federal
law relating to pipeline safety.
``(2) For purposes of this section, the term `employer'
means--
``(A) a person owning or operating a pipeline facility; or
``(B) a contractor or subcontractor of such a person.
``(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 180 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 or
persons named in the complaint and the Secretary of
Transportation 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 or persons 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 or persons 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 of Labor 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 or persons
alleged to have committed a violation of subsection (a) of
the Secretary of Labor'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 of
Labor shall include with the Secretary of Labor's findings
with a preliminary order providing the relief prescribed by
paragraph (3)(B). Not later than 60 days after the date of
notification of findings under this subparagraph, any person
alleged to have committed a 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 60-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 of Labor 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 of Labor 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 90 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
[[Page H5275]]
person or persons 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 or persons 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 or persons against 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 or persons 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 action of
an employee of an employer who, acting without direction from
the employer (or such employer's agent), deliberately causes
a violation of any requirement relating to pipeline safety
under this chapter or any other law of the United States.''.
(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. 5. SAFETY ORDERS.
Section 60117 is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(l) Safety Orders.--If the Secretary decides that a
pipeline facility has a potentially unsafe condition, the
Secretary may order the operator of the facility to take
necessary corrective action, including physical inspection,
testing, repair, replacement, or other appropriate action to
remedy the unsafe condition.''.
SEC. 6. PENALTIES.
(a) Pipeline Facilities Hazardous to Life and Property.--
(1) General authority.--Section 60112(a) is amended to read
as follows:
``(a) General Authority.--After notice and an opportunity
for a hearing, the Secretary of Transportation may decide
that 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.''.
(2) Corrective action orders.--Section 60112(d) is amended
by striking ``is hazardous'' and inserting ``is or would be
hazardous''.
(b) Enforcement.--(1) Section 60122(a)(1) is amended--
(A) by striking ``$25,000'' and inserting ``$100,000''; and
(B) by striking ``$500,000'' and inserting ``$1,000,000''.
(2) Section 60122(b) is amended by striking ``under this
section'' and all that follows through paragraph (4) and
inserting ``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, and 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 reduction because of subsequent damages; and
``(B) other matters that justice requires.''.
(3) Section 60120(a) is amended--
(A) by striking ``(a) Civil Actions.--(1)'' and all that
follows through ``(2) At the request'' and inserting the
following:
``(a) Civil Actions.--
``(1) Civil actions to enforce this chapter.--At 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, 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.
``(2) Civil actions to require compliance with subpoenas or
allow for inspections.--At the request''; and
(B) by aligning the remainder of the text of paragraph (2)
with the text of paragraph (1).
SEC. 7. PIPELINE SAFETY INFORMATION GRANTS TO COMMUNITIES.
(a) Grant Authority.--(1) The Secretary of Transportation
may make grants for technical assistance to local communities
and groups of individuals (not including for-profit entities)
relating to the safety of pipelines in local communities. The
Secretary shall establish competitive procedures for awarding
grants under this section, and criteria for selection of
grant recipients. The amount of any grant under this section
may not exceed $50,000 for a single grant recipient. The
Secretary shall establish appropriate procedures to ensure
the proper use of funds provided under this section.
(2) For purposes of this subsection, the term ``technical
assistance'' means engineering and other scientific analysis
of pipeline safety issues, including the promotion of public
participation in Department of Transportation and other
official processes, commenting on Department of
Transportation proposals, and participating in official
Federal standard setting processes.
(b) Prohibited Uses.--Funds provided under this section may
not be used for lobbying or in direct support of litigation.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation for
carrying out this section $1,000,000 for each of the fiscal
years 2003 through 2006. Such amounts shall not be derived
from user fees collected under section 60301.
SEC. 8. POPULATION ENCROACHMENT.
Section 60127 is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 60127. Population encroachment
``(a) Study.--The Secretary of Transportation, in
conjunction with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and
in consultation with appropriate Federal agencies and State
and local governments, shall undertake a study of land use
practices and zoning ordinances with regard to pipeline
rights-of-way.
``(b) Purpose of Study.--The purpose of the study shall be
to gather information on land use practices and zoning
ordinances--
``(1) to determine effective practices to limit
encroachment on existing pipeline rights-of-way;
``(2) to address and prevent the hazards and risks to the
public, pipeline workers, and the environment associated with
encroachment on pipeline rights-of-way; and
``(3) to raise the awareness of the risks and hazards of
encroachment on pipeline rights-of-way.
``(c) Considerations.--In conducting the study, the
Secretary shall consider, at a minimum, the following:
``(1) The legal authority of Federal agencies and State and
local governments in controlling land use and the limitations
on such authority.
[[Page H5276]]
``(2) The current practices of Federal agencies and State
and local governments in addressing land use issues involving
a pipeline easement.
``(3) The most effective way to encourage Federal agencies
and State and local governments to monitor and reduce
encroachment upon pipeline rights-of-way.
``(d) Report.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall publish a
report identifying practices, laws, and ordinances that are
most successful in addressing issues of encroachment on
pipeline rights-of-way so as to more effectively protect
public safety, pipeline workers, and the environment.
``(2) Distribution of report.--The Secretary shall provide
a copy of the report to--
``(A) Congress and appropriate Federal agencies; and
``(B) States for further distribution to appropriate local
authorities.
``(3) Adoption of practices, laws, and ordinances.--The
Secretary shall encourage Federal agencies and State and
local governments to adopt and implement appropriate
practices, laws, and ordinances, as identified in the report,
to address the risks and hazards associated with encroachment
upon pipeline rights-of-way.''.
SEC. 9. PIPELINE INTEGRITY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND
DEMONSTRATION.
(a) Establishment of Cooperative Program.--
(1) In general.--The heads of the participating agencies
shall develop and implement a program of research,
development, demonstration, and standardization to ensure the
integrity of energy pipelines and next-generation pipelines.
(2) Elements.--The program shall include research,
development, demonstration, and standardization activities
related to--
(A) materials inspection;
(B) stress and fracture analysis, detection of cracks,
corrosion, abrasion, and other abnormalities inside pipelines
that lead to pipeline failure, and development of new
equipment or technologies that are inserted into pipelines to
detect anomalies;
(C) internal inspection and leak detection technologies,
including detection of leaks at very low volumes;
(D) methods of analyzing content of pipeline throughput;
(E) pipeline security, including improving the real-time
surveillance of pipeline rights-of-way, developing tools for
evaluating and enhancing pipeline security and
infrastructure, reducing natural, technological, and
terrorist threats, and protecting first response units and
persons near an incident;
(F) risk assessment methodology, including vulnerability
assessment and reduction of third-party damage;
(G) communication, control, and information systems surety;
(H) fire safety of pipelines;
(I) improved excavation, construction, and repair
technologies; and
(J) other elements the heads of the participating agencies
consider appropriate.
(3) Activities and capabilities report.--Not later than 6
months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
participating agencies shall transmit to the Congress a
report on the existing activities and capabilities of the
participating agencies, including the national laboratories.
The report shall include the results of a survey by the
participating agencies of any activities of other Federal
agencies that are relevant to or could supplement existing
research, development, demonstration, and standardization
activities under the program created under this section.
(b) Program Plan.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the participating agencies shall
prepare and transmit to Congress a 5-year program plan to
guide activities under this section. Such program plan shall
be submitted to the Pipeline Integrity Technical Advisory
Committee established under subsection (c) for review, and
the report to Congress shall include the comments of the
Advisory Committee. The 5-year program plan shall take into
account related activities of Federal agencies that are not
participating agencies.
(2) Consultation.--In preparing the program plan, the
participating agencies shall consult with appropriate
representatives of State and local government and the private
sector, including companies owning energy pipelines and
developers of next-generation pipelines, to help establish
program priorities.
(3) Advice from other entities.--In preparing the program
plan, the participating agencies shall also seek the advice
of other Federal agencies, utilities, manufacturers,
institutions of higher learning, pipeline research
institutions, national laboratories, environmental
organizations, pipeline safety advocates, professional and
technical societies, and any other appropriate entities.
(c) Pipeline Integrity Technical Advisory Committee.--
(1) Establishment.--The participating agencies shall
establish and manage a Pipeline Integrity Technical Advisory
Committee (in this subsection referred to as the ``Advisory
Committee''). The Advisory Committee shall be established not
later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this
Act.
(2) Duties.--The Advisory Committee shall--
(A) advise the participating agencies on the development
and implementation of the program plan prepared under
subsection (b); and
(B) have a continuing role in evaluating the progress and
results of research, development, demonstration, and
standardization activities carried out under this section.
(3) Membership.--
(A) Appointment.--The Advisory Committee shall be composed
of--
(i) 3 members appointed by the Secretary of Energy;
(ii) 3 members appointed by the Secretary of
Transportation; and
(iii) 3 members appointed by the Director of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology.
In making appointments, the participating agencies shall seek
recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences.
(B) Qualifications.--Members appointed to the Advisory
Committee shall have experience or be technically qualified,
by training or knowledge, in the operations of the pipeline
industry, and have experience in the research and development
of pipeline or related technologies.
(C) Compensation.--The members of the Advisory Committee
shall serve without compensation, but shall receive travel
expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in
accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of title 5, United
States Code.
(4) Meetings.--The Advisory Committee shall meet at least 4
times each year.
(5) Termination.--The Advisory Committee shall terminate 5
years after its establishment.
(d) Reports to Congress.--Not later than 1 year after the
date of the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter,
the participating agencies shall each transmit to the
Congress a report on the status and results to date of the
implementation of their portion of the program plan prepared
under subsection (b).
(e) Memorandum of Understanding.--Not later than 120 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
participating agencies shall enter into a memorandum of
understanding detailing their respective responsibilities
under this Act, consistent with the activities and
capabilities identified under subsection (a)(3). Each of the
participating agencies shall have the primary responsibility
for ensuring that the elements of the program plan within its
jurisdiction are implemented in accordance with this section.
The Department of Transportation's responsibilities shall
reflect its expertise in pipeline inspection and information
systems surety. The Department of Energy's responsibilities
shall reflect its expertise in low-volume leak detection and
surveillance technologies. The National Institute of
Standards and Technology's responsibilities shall reflect its
expertise in standards and materials research.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated--
(1) to the Secretary of Energy $10,000,000;
(2) to the Secretary of Transportation $5,000,000; and
(3) to the National Institute of Standards and Technology
$5,000,000,
for each of the fiscal years 2003 through 2007 for carrying
out this section.
(g) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
(1) the term ``energy pipeline'' means a pipeline system
used in the transmission or local distribution of natural gas
(including liquefied natural gas), crude oil, or refined
petroleum products;
(2) the term ``next-generation pipeline'' means a
transmission or local distribution pipeline system designed
to transmit energy or energy-related products, in liquid or
gaseous form, other than energy pipelines;
(3) the term ``participating agencies'' means the
Department of Energy, the Department of Transportation, and
the National Institute of Standards and Technology; and
(4) the term ``pipeline'' means an energy pipeline or a
next-generation pipeline.
SEC. 10. PIPELINE QUALIFICATION PROGRAMS.
(a) Verification Program.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 601 is further amended by adding
at the end the following:
``Sec. 60130. Verification of pipeline qualification programs
``(a) In General.--Subject to the requirements of this
section, the Secretary of Transportation shall require the
operator of a pipeline facility to develop and adopt a
qualification program to ensure that the individuals who
perform covered tasks are qualified to conduct such tasks.
``(b) Standards and Criteria.--
``(1) Development.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this section, the Secretary shall ensure that
the Department of Transportation has in place standards and
criteria for qualification programs referred to in subsection
(a).
``(2) Contents.--The standards and criteria shall include
the following:
``(A) The establishment of methods for evaluating the
acceptability of the qualifications of individuals described
in subsection (a).
``(B) A requirement that pipeline operators develop and
implement written plans and procedures to qualify individuals
described in subsection (a) to a level found acceptable using
the methods established under subparagraph (A) and evaluate
the abilities of individuals described in subsection (a)
according to such methods.
``(C) A requirement that the plans and procedures adopted
by a pipeline operator under
[[Page H5277]]
subparagraph (B) be reviewed and verified under subsection
(e).
``(c) Development of Qualification Programs by Pipeline
Operators.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the
enactment of this section, the Secretary shall require a
pipeline operator to develop and adopt a qualification
program that complies with the standards and criteria
described in subsection (b).
``(d) Elements of Qualification Programs.--A qualification
program adopted by an operator under subsection (a) shall
include, at a minimum, the following elements:
``(1) A method for examining or testing the qualifications
of individuals described in subsection (a). Such method may
not be limited to observation of on-the-job performance,
except with respect to tasks for which the Secretary has
determined that such observation is the best method of
examining or testing qualifications. The Secretary shall
ensure that the results of any such observations are
documented in writing.
``(2) A requirement that the operator complete the
qualification of all individuals described in subsection (a)
not later than 18 months after the date of adoption of the
qualification program.
``(3) A periodic requalification component that provides
for examination or testing of individuals in accordance with
paragraph (1).
``(4) A program to provide training, as appropriate, to
ensure that individuals performing covered tasks have the
necessary knowledge and skills to perform the tasks in a
manner that ensures the safe operation of pipeline
facilities.
``(e) Review and Verification of Programs.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall review the
qualification program of each pipeline operator and verify
its compliance with the standards and criteria described in
subsection (b) and includes the elements described in
paragraphs (1) through (3) of subsection (d). The Secretary
shall record the results of that review for use in the next
review of an operator's program.
``(2) Deadline for completion.--Reviews and verifications
under this subsection shall be completed not later than 3
years after the date of the enactment of this section.
``(3) Inadequate programs.--If the Secretary decides that a
qualification program is inadequate for the safe operation of
a pipeline facility, the Secretary shall act as under section
60108(a)(2) to require the operator to revise the
qualification program.
``(4) Program modifications.--If the operator of a pipeline
facility seeks to modify significantly a program that has
been verified under this subsection, the operator shall
submit the modifications to the Secretary for review and
verification.
``(5) Waivers and modifications.--In accordance with
section 60118(c), the Secretary may waive or modify any
requirement of this section.
``(6) Inaction by the secretary.--Notwithstanding any
failure of the Secretary to prescribe standards and criteria
as described in subsection (b), an operator of a pipeline
facility shall develop and adopt a qualification program that
complies with the requirement of subsection (b)(2)(B) and
includes the elements described in paragraphs (1) through (3)
of subsection (d) not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this section.
``(f) Covered Task Defined.--In this section, the term
`covered task'--
``(1) with respect to a gas pipeline facility, has the
meaning such term has under section 192.801 of title 49, Code
of Federal Regulations, as in effect on the date of enactment
of this section; and
``(2) with respect to a hazardous liquid pipeline facility,
has the meaning such term has under section 195.501 of such
title, as in effect on the date of enactment of this section.
``(g) Report.--Not later than 5 years after the date of
enactment of this section, the Secretary shall transmit to
Congress a report on the status and results to date of the
personnel qualification regulations issued under this
chapter.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--The analysis for chapter 601 is
amended by adding at end the following:
``60130. Verification of pipeline qualification programs.''.
(b) Pilot Program for Certification of Certain Pipeline
Workers.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 36 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation
shall--
(A) develop tests and other requirements for certifying the
qualifications of individuals who operate computer-based
systems for controlling the operations of pipelines; and
(B) establish and carry out a pilot program for 3 pipeline
facilities under which the individuals operating computer-
based systems for controlling the operations of pipelines at
such facilities are required to be certified under the
process established under subparagraph (A).
(2) Report.--The Secretary shall include in the report
required under section 60130(g), as added by subsection (a)
of this section, the results of the pilot program. The report
shall include--
(A) a description of the pilot program and implementation
of the pilot program at each of the 3 pipeline facilities;
(B) an evaluation of the pilot program, including the
effectiveness of the process for certifying individuals who
operate computer-based systems for controlling the operations
of pipelines;
(C) any recommendations of the Secretary for requiring the
certification of all individuals who operate computer-based
systems for controlling the operations of pipelines; and
(D) an assessment of the ramifications of requiring the
certification of other individuals performing safety-
sensitive functions for a pipeline facility.
(3) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection, the term
``computer-based systems'' means supervisory control and data
acquisition systems (SCADA).
SEC. 11. ADDITIONAL GAS PIPELINE PROTECTIONS.
(a) Risk Analysis and Integrity Management Programs.--
Section 60109 is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Risk Analysis and Integrity Management Programs.--
``(1) Requirement.--Each operator of a gas pipeline
facility shall conduct an analysis of the risks to each
facility of the operator in an area identified pursuant to
subsection (a)(1), and shall adopt and implement a written
integrity management program for such facility to reduce the
risks.
``(2) Regulations.--Not later than 18 months after the date
of the enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall
issue regulations prescribing standards to direct an
operator's conduct of a risk analysis and adoption and
implementation of an integrity management program under this
subsection. The regulations shall require the conduct of the
risk analysis and adoption of the integrity management
program to occur within a time period prescribed by the
Secretary, not to exceed 1 year after the issuance of such
regulations. The Secretary may satisfy the requirements of
this paragraph through the issuance of regulations under this
paragraph or under other authority of law.
``(3) Minimum requirements of integrity management
programs.--An integrity management program required under
paragraph (1) shall include, at a minimum, the following
requirements:
``(A) A baseline integrity assessment of each of the
operator's facilities in areas identified pursuant to
subsection (a)(1), to be completed not later than 10 years
after the date of the adoption of the integrity management
program, by internal inspection device, pressure testing,
direct assessment, or an alternative method that the
Secretary determines would provide an equal or greater level
of safety.
``(B) Subject to paragraph (4), periodic reassessment of
the facility, at a minimum of once every 7 years, using
methods described in subparagraph (A).
``(C) Clearly defined criteria for evaluating the results
of reassessments conducted under subparagraph (B) and for
taking actions based on such results.
``(D) A method for conducting an analysis on a continuing
basis that integrates all available information about the
integrity of the facility and the consequences of releases
from the facility.
``(E) A description of actions to be taken by the operator
to promptly address any integrity issue raised by an
evaluation conducted under subparagraph (C) or the analysis
conducted under subparagraph (D).
``(F) A description of measures to prevent and mitigate the
consequences of releases from the facility.
``(G) A method for monitoring cathodic protection systems
throughout the pipeline system of the operator to the extent
not addressed by other regulations.
``(H) If the Secretary raises a safety concern relating to
the facility, a description of the actions to be taken by the
operator to address the safety concern, including issues
raised with the Secretary by States and local authorities
under an agreement entered into under section 60106.
``(4) Waivers and modifications.--In accordance with
section 60118(c), the Secretary may waive or modify any
requirement for reassessment of a facility under paragraph
(3)(B) for reasons that may include the need to maintain
local product supply or the lack of internal inspection
devices if the Secretary determines that such waiver is not
inconsistent with pipeline safety.
``(5) Standards.--The standards prescribed by the Secretary
under paragraph (2) shall address each of the following
factors:
``(A) The minimum requirements described in paragraph (3).
``(B) The type or frequency of inspections or testing of
pipeline facilities, in addition to the minimum requirements
of paragraph (3)(B).
``(C) The manner in which the inspections or testing are
conducted.
``(D) The criteria used in analyzing results of the
inspections or testing.
``(E) The types of information sources that must be
integrated in assessing the integrity of a pipeline facility
as well as the manner of integration.
``(F) The nature and timing of actions selected to address
the integrity of a pipeline facility.
``(G) Such other factors as the Secretary determines
appropriate to ensure that the integrity of a pipeline
facility is addressed and that appropriate mitigative
measures are adopted to protect areas identified under
subsection (a)(1).
In prescribing those standards, the Secretary shall ensure
that all inspections required are conducted in a manner that
minimizes environmental and safety risks, and shall take
[[Page H5278]]
into account the applicable level of protection established
by national consensus standards organizations.
``(6) Additional optional standards.--The Secretary may
also prescribe standards requiring an operator of a pipeline
facility to include in an integrity management program under
this subsection--
``(A) changes to valves or the establishment or
modification of systems that monitor pressure and detect
leaks based on the operator's risk analysis; and
``(B) the use of emergency flow restricting devices.
``(7) Inaction by the secretary.--Notwithstanding any
failure of the Secretary to prescribe standards as described
in paragraph (2), an operator of a pipeline facility shall
conduct a risk analysis and adopt and implement an integrity
management program under paragraph (1) not later than 30
months after the date of the enactment of this subsection.
``(8) Review of integrity management programs.--
``(A) Review of programs.--
``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall review a risk
analysis and integrity management program under paragraph (1)
and record the results of that review for use in the next
review of an operator's program.
``(ii) Context of review.--The Secretary may conduct a
review under clause (i) as an element of the Secretary's
inspection of an operator.
``(iii) Inadequate programs.--If the Secretary determines
that a risk analysis or integrity management program does not
comply with the requirements of this subsection or
regulations issued as described in paragraph (2), or is
inadequate for the safe operation of a pipeline facility, the
Secretary shall act under section 60108(a)(2) to require the
operator to revise the risk analysis or integrity management
program.
``(B) Amendments to programs.--In order to facilitate
reviews under this paragraph, an operator of a pipeline
facility shall notify the Secretary of any amendment made to
the operator's integrity management program not later than 30
days after the date of adoption of the amendment.
``(C) Transmittal of programs to state authorities.--The
Secretary shall provide a copy of each risk analysis and
integrity management program reviewed by the Secretary under
this paragraph to any appropriate State authority with which
the Secretary has entered into an agreement under section
60106.
``(9) State review of integrity management plans.--A State
authority that enters into an agreement pursuant to section
60106, permitting the State authority to review the risk
analysis and integrity management program pursuant to
paragraph (8), may provide the Secretary with a written
assessment of the risk analysis and integrity management
program, make recommendations, as appropriate, to address
safety concerns not adequately addressed by the operator's
risk analysis or integrity management program, and submit
documentation explaining the State-proposed revisions. The
Secretary shall consider carefully the State's proposals and
work in consultation with the States and operators to address
safety concerns.
``(10) Application of standards.--Section 60104(b) shall
not apply to this section.''.
(b) Integrity Management Regulations.--Section 60109 is
further amended by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Evaluation of Integrity Management Regulations.--Not
later than 5 years after the date of enactment of this
subsection, the Secretary shall complete an assessment and
evaluation of the effects on public safety and the
environment of the requirements for the implementation of
integrity management programs contained in the standards
prescribed as described in subsection (c)(2).''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 60118(a) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (2);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (3) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) conduct a risk analysis, and adopt and implement an
integrity management program, for pipeline facilities as
required under section 60109(c).''.
(d) Study of Reassessment Intervals.--
(1) Study.--The Secretary of Transportation shall conduct a
study to evaluate the 7-year reassessment interval required
by section 60109(c)(3)(B) of title 49, United States Code, as
added by subsection (a) of this section.
(2) Report.--Not later than 5 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to
Congress a report on the results of the study conducted under
paragraph (1).
SEC. 12. SECURITY OF PIPELINE FACILITIES.
(a) In General.--Chapter 601 is further amended by adding
at the end the following:
``Sec. 60131. Security of pipeline facilities
``(a) Rulemaking Requirement.--The Secretary of
Transportation, not later than 60 days after the date of the
enactment of this section, after consultation with any
appropriate Federal, State, or nongovernmental entities,
shall commence a rulemaking to require effective security
measures which the Secretary determines are necessary to be
adopted against acts of terrorism or sabotage directed
against waterfront liquefied natural gas plants, capable of
receiving liquefied natural gas tankers, located in or within
1 mile of a densely populated urban area. Within 1 year after
the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary of
Transportation shall issue a final rule.
``(b) Factors To Be Considered.--Regulations issued under
subsection (a) shall take into account--
``(1) the events of September 11, 2001;
``(2) the potential for attack on facilities by multiple
coordinated teams totaling in the aggregate a significant
number of individuals;
``(3) the potential for assistance in an attack from
several persons employed at the facility;
``(4) the potential for suicide attacks;
``(5) water-based and air-based threats;
``(6) the potential use of explosive devices of
considerable size and other modern weaponry;
``(7) the potential for attacks by persons with a
sophisticated knowledge of facility operations;
``(8) the threat of fires and large explosions; and
``(9) special threats and vulnerabilities affecting
facilities located in or within 1 mile of a densely populated
urban area.
``(c) Requirements.--Regulations issued under subsection
(a) shall establish requirements for waterfront liquefied
natural gas plants, capable of receiving liquefied natural
gas tankers, relating to construction, operation, security
procedures, and emergency response, and shall require
conforming amendments to applicable standards and rules.
``(d) Operational Security Response Evaluation.--(1)
Regulations issued under subsection (a) shall include the
establishment of policies and procedures by the Secretary of
Transportation, which shall ensure that the operational
security response of each facility described in paragraph (2)
is tested at least once every 2 years through the use of
force-on-force exercises to determine whether the threat
factors identified in regulations issued under subsection (a)
have been adequately addressed.
``(2) Facilities subject to testing under paragraph (1)
include waterfront liquefied natural gas plants, capable of
receiving liquefied natural gas tankers, located in or within
1 mile of a densely populated urban area, and associated
support facilities and equipment.
``(e) Review and Revision.--Regulations issued under
subsection (a) shall be reviewed and revised as appropriate
at least once every 5 years.
``(f) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the term
`densely populated urban area' means an area with a
population density of more than 10,000 people per square
mile.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 601 is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``60131. Security of pipeline facilities.''.
SEC. 13. NATIONAL PIPELINE MAPPING SYSTEM.
(a) In General.--Chapter 601 is further amended by adding
at the end the following:
``Sec. 60132. National pipeline mapping system
``(a) Information To Be Provided.--Not later than 6 months
after the date of enactment of this section, the operator of
a pipeline facility (except distribution lines and gathering
lines) shall provide to the Secretary of Transportation the
following information with respect to the facility:
``(1) Geospatial data appropriate for use in the National
Pipeline Mapping System or data in a format that can be
readily converted to geospatial data.
``(2) The name and address of the person with primary
operational control to be identified as its operator for
purposes of this chapter.
``(3) A means for a member of the public to contact the
operator for additional information about the pipeline
facilities it operates.
``(b) Updates.--A person providing information under
subsection (a) shall provide to the Secretary updates of the
information to reflect changes in the pipeline facility owned
or operated by the person and as otherwise required by the
Secretary.
``(c) Technical Assistance To Improve Local Response
Capabilities.--The Secretary may provide technical assistance
to State and local officials to improve local response
capabilities for pipeline emergencies by adapting information
available through the National Pipeline Mapping System to
software used by emergency response personnel responding to
pipeline emergencies.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 601 is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``60132. National pipeline mapping system.''.
SEC. 14. COORDINATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 601 is further amended by adding
at the end the following:
``Sec. 60133. Coordination of environmental reviews
``(a) Interagency Committee.--
``(1) Establishment and purpose.--Not later than 30 days
after the date of enactment of this section, the President
shall establish an Interagency Committee to develop and
ensure implementation of a coordinated environmental review
and permitting process in order to enable pipeline operators
to commence and complete all activities necessary to carry
out pipeline repairs within any time periods specified by
rule by the Secretary.
``(2) Membership.--The Chairman of the Council on
Environmental Quality (or a designee of the Chairman) shall
chair the Interagency Committee, which shall consist of
[[Page H5279]]
representatives of Federal agencies with responsibilities
relating to pipeline repair projects, including each of the
following persons (or a designee thereof):
``(A) The Secretary of Transportation.
``(B) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency.
``(C) The Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service.
``(D) The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
``(E) The Director of the Bureau of Land Management.
``(F) The Director of the Minerals Management Service.
``(G) The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works.
``(H) The Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission.
``(3) Evaluation.--The Interagency Committee shall evaluate
Federal permitting requirements to which access, excavation,
and restoration activities in connection with pipeline
repairs described in paragraph (1) may be subject. As part of
its evaluation, the Interagency Committee shall examine the
access, excavation, and restoration practices of the pipeline
industry in connection with such pipeline repairs, and may
develop a compendium of best practices used by the industry
to access, excavate, and restore the site of a pipeline
repair.
``(4) Memorandum of understanding.--Based upon the
evaluation required under paragraph (3) and not later than 1
year after the date of enactment of this section, the members
of the Interagency Committee shall enter into a memorandum of
understanding to provide for a coordinated and expedited
pipeline repair permit review process to carry out the
purpose set forth in paragraph (1). The Interagency Committee
shall include provisions in the memorandum of understanding
identifying those repairs or categories of repairs described
in paragraph (1) for which the best practices identified
under paragraph (3), when properly employed by a pipeline
operator, would result in no more than minimal adverse
effects on the environment and for which discretionary
administrative reviews may therefore be minimized or
eliminated. With respect to pipeline repairs described in
paragraph (1) to which the preceding sentence would not be
applicable, the Interagency Committee shall include
provisions to enable pipeline operators to commence and
complete all activities necessary to carry out pipeline
repairs within any time periods specified by rule by the
Secretary. The Interagency Committee shall include in the
memorandum of understanding criteria under which permits
required for such pipeline repair activities should be
prioritized over other less urgent agency permit application
reviews. The Interagency Committee shall not enter into a
memorandum of understanding under this paragraph except by
unanimous agreement of the members of the Interagency
Committee.
``(5) State and local consultation.--In carrying out this
subsection, the Interagency Committee shall consult with
appropriate State and local environmental, pipeline safety,
and emergency response officials, and such other officials as
the Interagency Committee considers appropriate.
``(b) Implementation.--Not later than 180 days after the
completion of the memorandum of understanding required under
subsection (a)(4), each agency represented on the Interagency
Committee shall revise its regulations as necessary to
implement the provisions of the memorandum of understanding.
``(c) Savings Provisions; No Preemption.--Nothing in this
section shall be construed--
``(1) to require a pipeline operator to obtain a Federal
permit, if no Federal permit would otherwise have been
required under Federal law; or
``(2) to preempt applicable Federal, State, or local
environmental law.
``(d) Interim Operational Alternatives.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
enactment of this section, and subject to the limitations in
paragraph (2), the Secretary of Transportation shall revise
the regulations of the Department, to the extent necessary,
to permit a pipeline operator subject to time periods for
repair specified by rule by the Secretary to implement
alternative mitigation measures until all applicable permits
have been granted.
``(2) Limitations.--The regulations issued by the Secretary
pursuant to this subsection shall not allow an operator to
implement alternative mitigation measures pursuant to
paragraph (1) unless--
``(A) allowing the operator to implement such measures
would be consistent with the protection of human health,
public safety, and the environment;
``(B) the operator, with respect to a particular repair
project, has applied for and is pursuing diligently and in
good faith all required Federal, State, and local permits to
carry out the project; and
``(C) the proposed alternative mitigation measures are not
incompatible with pipeline safety.
``(e) Ombudsman.--The Secretary shall designate an
ombudsman to assist in expediting pipeline repairs and
resolving disagreements between Federal, State, and local
permitting agencies and the pipeline operator during agency
review of any pipeline repair activity, consistent with
protection of human health, public safety, and the
environment.
``(f) State and Local Permitting Processes.--The Secretary
shall encourage States and local governments to consolidate
their respective permitting processes for pipeline repair
projects subject to any time periods for repair specified by
rule by the Secretary. The Secretary may request other
relevant Federal agencies to provide technical assistance to
States and local governments for the purpose of encouraging
such consolidation.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 601 is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``60133. Coordination of environmental reviews.''.
SEC. 15. NATIONWIDE TOLL-FREE NUMBER SYSTEM.
Within 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act,
the Secretary of Transportation shall, in conjunction with
the Federal Communications Commission, facility operators,
excavators, and one-call notification system operators,
provide for the establishment of a 3-digit nationwide toll-
free telephone number system to be used by State one-call
notification systems.
SEC. 16. RECOMMENDATIONS AND RESPONSES.
(a) In General.--Chapter 601 is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``Sec. 60134. Recommendations and responses
``(a) Response Requirement.--Whenever the Office of
Pipeline Safety has received recommendations from the
National Transportation Safety Board regarding pipeline
safety, it shall submit a formal written response to each
such recommendation within 90 days after receiving the
recommendation. The response shall indicate whether the
Office intends--
``(1) to carry out procedures to adopt the complete
recommendations;
``(2) to carry out procedures to adopt a part of the
recommendations; or
``(3) to refuse to carry out procedures to adopt the
recommendations.
``(b) Timetable for Completing Procedures and Reasons for
Refusals.--A response under subsection (a)(1) or (2) shall
include a copy of a proposed timetable for completing the
procedures. A response under subsection (a)(2) shall detail
the reasons for the refusal to carry out procedures on the
remainder of the recommendations. A response under subsection
(a)(3) shall detail the reasons for the refusal to carry out
procedures to adopt the recommendations.
``(c) Public Availability.--The Office shall make a copy of
each recommendation and response available to the public,
including in electronic form.
``(d) Reports to Congress.--The Office shall submit to
Congress on January 1 of each year a report describing each
recommendation on pipeline safety made by the National
Transportation Safety Board to the Office during the prior
year and the Office's response to each recommendation.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 601 is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``60134. Recommendations and responses.''.
SEC. 17. MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS.
(a) Protection of Public Health, Welfare, and the
Environment.--Section 60102(a)(1) is amended by inserting
``in order to protect public health and welfare and the
environment from reasonably anticipated threats that could be
posed by such transportation and facilities'' after ``and for
pipeline facilities''.
(b) Conflicts of Interest.--Section 60115(b)(4) is amended
by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(D) None of the individuals selected for a committee
under paragraph (3)(C) may have a significant financial
interest in the pipeline, petroleum, or gas industry.''.
SEC. 18. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.
Chapter 601 is amended--
(1) in section 60102(a)--
(A) by striking ``(a)(1)'' and all that follows through
``The Secretary of Transportation'' and inserting the
following:
``(a) Minimum Safety Standards.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary of Transportation'';
(B) by moving the remainder of the text of paragraph (1),
including subparagraphs (A) and (B) but excluding
subparagraph (C), 2 ems to the right; and
(C) in paragraph (2) by inserting ``Qualifications of
pipeline operators.--'' before ``The qualifications'';
(2) in section 60110(b) by striking ``circumstances'' and
all that follows through ``operator'' and inserting the
following: ``circumstances, if any, under which an
operator'';
(3) in section 60114 by redesignating subsection (d) as
subsection (c);
(4) in section 60122(a)(1) by striking ``section 60114(c)''
and inserting ``section 60114(b)''; and
(5) in section 60123(a) by striking ``60114(c)'' and
inserting ``60114(b)''.
SEC. 19. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Gas and Hazardous Liquid.--Section 60125(a) is amended
to read as follows:
``(a) Gas and Hazardous Liquid.--To carry out this chapter
(except for section 60107) related to gas and hazardous
liquid, the following amounts are authorized to be
appropriated to the Department of Transportation:
``(1) $45,800,000 for fiscal year 2003, of which
$31,900,000 is to be derived from user fees for fiscal year
2003 collected under section 60301 of this title.
[[Page H5280]]
``(2) $46,800,000 for fiscal year 2004, of which
$35,700,000 is to be derived from user fees for fiscal year
2004 collected under section 60301 of this title.
``(3) $47,100,000 for fiscal year 2005, of which
$41,100,000 is to be derived from user fees for fiscal year
2005 collected under section 60301 of this title.
``(4) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, of which
$45,000,000 is to be derived from user fees for fiscal year
2006 collected under section 60301 of this title.''.
(b) State Grants.--Section 60125 is amended--
(1) by striking subsections (b), (d), and (f) and
redesignating subsections (c) and (e) as subsections (b) and
(c), respectively; and
(2) in subsection (b)(1) (as so redesignated) by striking
subparagraphs (A) through (H) and inserting the following:
``(A) $19,800,000 for fiscal year 2003, of which
$14,800,000 is to be derived from user fees for fiscal year
2003 collected under section 60301 of this title.
``(B) $21,700,000 for fiscal year 2004, of which
$16,700,000 is to be derived from user fees for fiscal year
2004 collected under section 60301 of this title.
``(C) $24,600,000 for fiscal year 2005, of which
$19,600,000 is to be derived from user fees for fiscal year
2005 collected under section 60301 of this title.
``(D) $26,500,000 for fiscal year 2006, of which
$21,500,000 is to be derived from user fees for fiscal year
2006 collected under section 60301 of this title.''.
(c) Emergency Response Grants.--Section 60125 is amended by
adding after subsection (c) (as redesignated by subsection
(b)(1) of this section) the following:
``(d) Emergency Response Grants.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may establish a program
for making grants to State, county, and local governments in
high consequence areas, as defined by the Secretary, for
emergency response management, training, and technical
assistance.
``(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated $6,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2003, 2004, and 2005 to carry out this subsection.''.
(d) Conforming Amendment.--Section 60125(c) (as
redesignated by subsection (b)(1) of this section) is amended
by striking ``or (b) of this section''.
SEC. 20. INSPECTIONS BY DIRECT ASSESSMENT.
Section 60102, as amended by this Act, is further amended
by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(m) Inspections by Direct Assessment.--Not later than 1
year after the date of the enactment of this subsection, the
Secretary shall issue regulations prescribing standards for
inspection of a pipeline facility by direct assessment.''.
SEC. 21. PIPELINE BRIDGE RISK STUDY.
(a) Initiation.--Within 90 days after the date of enactment
of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall initiate a
study to determine whether cable-suspension pipeline bridges
pose structural or other risks warranting particularized
attention in connection with pipeline operators risk
assessment programs and whether particularized inspection
standards need to be developed by the Department of
Transportation to recognize the peculiar risks posed by such
bridges.
(b) Public Participation and Comments.--In conducting the
study, the Secretary shall provide, to the maximum extent
practicable, for public participation and comment and shall
solicit views and comments from the public and interested
persons, including participants in the pipeline industry with
knowledge and experience in inspection of pipeline
facilities.
(c) Completion and Report.--Within 2 years after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall complete the
study and transmit to Congress a report detailing the results
of the study.
SEC. 22. STATE OVERSIGHT ROLE.
(a) State Agreements With Certification.--Section 60106 is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a) by striking ``General Authority.--''
and inserting ``Agreements Without Certification.--'';
(2) by redesignating subsections (b), (c), and (d) as
subsections (c), (d), and (e), respectively; 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 and makes the determination required
under this subsection, the Secretary may make an agreement
with a State authority authorizing it to participate in the
oversight of interstate pipeline transportation. Each such
agreement shall include a plan for the State authority to
participate in special investigations involving incidents or
new construction and allow the State authority to participate
in other activities overseeing interstate pipeline
transportation or to assume additional inspection or
investigatory duties. Nothing in this section modifies
section 60104(c) or authorizes the Secretary to delegate the
enforcement of safety standards prescribed under this chapter
to a State authority.
``(2) Determinations required.--The Secretary may not enter
into an agreement under this subsection, unless the Secretary
determines in writing 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 31,
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, 2003,
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 Infrastructure Protection to Enhance Security
and Safety Act 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)(2) of this section) 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
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.''.
(c) Secretary's Response to State Notices of Violations.--
Subsection (c) of section 60106 (as redesignated by
subsection (a)(2) of this section) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Each agreement'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--Each agreement'';
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Response by secretary.--If a State authority notifies
the Secretary under paragraph (1) of a violation or probable
violation of an applicable safety standard, the Secretary,
not later than 60 days after the date of receipt of the
notification, shall--
``(A) issue an order under section 60118(b) or take other
appropriate enforcement actions to ensure compliance with
this chapter; or
``(B) provide the State authority with a written
explanation as to why the Secretary has determined not to
take such actions.''; and
(3) by aligning the text of paragraph (1) (as designated by
this subsection) with paragraph (2) (as added by this
subsection).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
General Leave
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject matter of
this bill, H.R. 3609.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Alaska?
There was no objection.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
[[Page H5281]]
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for his cooperation in reaching
this compromise on H.R. 3609, the Pipeline Infrastructure Protection
and Enhancement Security and Safety Act. I also would like to thank my
good friend and hunting partner, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Tauzin), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) for their hard
work in crafting a bill that both our committees can agree to.
H.R. 3609 improves safety and protects workers and residents who live
near pipelines. H.R. 3609 will strengthen the training procedures of
pipeline workers, and implement a tough inspection and rigorous
inspection schedule of pipelines.
The bill will improve the permitting procedures that allow operators
to make the repairs that will be required under rules currently being
developed at the Department of Transportation.
The bill will improve the enforcement of statutes and regulations
that cover pipeline and operators at facilities.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good piece of legislation, and I urge my
colleagues to support the legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes.
Today, we are finally going to be able to vote on pipeline safety
legislation worthy of the name. It is regrettable it has taken us 3
years to get here, but the bill before the House is a good bill. It is
the result of long, intense, constructive negotiations among the
parties to this process, including our Republican leadership on our
committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), and his staff, the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and his staff, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and his staff, represented here today by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher).
This is a compromise in the best sense of that word. We have all
yielded some and accepted some. It is one that will promote pipeline
safety and legislation that should be widely supported. We were very
far apart at the outset of this process. I had serious reservations
about the bill, H.R. 3609, as introduced, because I believed very
strongly that the introduced bill failed to respond adequately to a
number of important safety concerns, many of which date back to the
mid-1980s when I chaired the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations and held hearings on pipeline safety in the aftermath of
several tragedies throughout the United States, including one very
serious fatal pipeline blast in Minnesota that killed people in the
northern suburbs of the Twin Cities.
The introduced bill, in my view, did little to ensure that pipeline
employees with safety responsibilities would be qualified or that they
would get the necessary training. It did not have funding for
assistance to groups of concerned citizens who had played an important
role in pipeline safety, something I have come to appreciate over the
years, and unprecedented authority for the Department of Transportation
to terminate jurisdiction of agencies with environmental
responsibilities for pipelines. Those were widely discussed issues and
widely reported in news reports on this legislation.
I think that the bill we have before us now adequately addresses
those problems, and I can support this legislation in partnership with
the gentleman from Alaska and the gentleman from Louisiana and the
gentleman from Michigan and the gentleman from Virginia.
The bill requires that all natural gas transmission pipelines serving
high-consequence areas be inspected within 10 years and reinspected no
later than every 7 years thereafter. It requires pipeline operators to
provide training to ensure that individuals have the necessary
knowledge and skills to do their tasks in a safe manner. It makes clear
that it is not enough to rely on observing an employee's on-the-job
performance to determine if he or she is qualified.
I have been to pipeline operational facilities to observe these
circumstances firsthand. I am quite convinced that the language we have
now is going to address that issue.
The bill includes a pilot program to determine whether persons
operating computer-based systems for controlling pipelines should be
certified. It raises civil penalties for violations from $25,000 to
$100,000, and the maximum civil penalty from $500,000 to $1 million.
The bill allows the Secretary of Transportation to ask the Attorney
General to bring civil actions in Federal District Court to enforce
pipeline safety regulations. It has a program of grants for local
organizations to obtain technical assistance to participate effectively
in pipeline safety proceedings and limitations on those groups against
lobbying, against political activities with these funds.
The bill requires an interagency committee to coordinate
environmental reviews, chaired by the chairman of the Council on
Environmental Quality and consisting of Federal environmental
permitting agencies to develop a memorandum of understanding to
coordinate environmental reviews for pipeline repair projects. It
ensures that this coordination process will respect existing
environmental laws. It will address the appropriate roles of the
permitting agencies and respect those roles. The bill requires the
affected agencies to reach union agreement on the memorandum, and
specifically states that the provision does not preempt any Federal,
State, or local environmental law.
That is a critical issue. It has taken a long time to get to that
point. The fact that we have reached agreement on that issue is
significant in moving this legislation forward. For that, I express my
great appreciation to the chairman of our committee, the gentleman from
Alaska; and to the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce,
the gentleman from Louisiana; and also the gentleman from Michigan, the
ranking member on that committee.
Two years ago, Mr. Speaker, we defeated a weak bill, believing that
no bill was better than a weak bill. It was the right thing to do then.
Today's action proves that we were right. With time, with effort, with
imagination, with good will to achieve a good result, we could do
better. And today we do better.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1830
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I do agree with the gentleman's
words and I insert into the Record at this point an exchange of letters
between myself and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) regarding
H.R. 3609.
House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure,
Washington, DC, July 23, 2002.
Hon. Sherwood L. Boehlert,
Chairman, Committee on Science, Rayburn Building, Washington,
DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of July 23,
2002, regarding H.R. 3609, the Pipeline Infrastructure
Protection to Enhance Safety and Security Act, and for your
willingness to waive consideration of provisions in the bill
that fall within your Committee's jurisdiction under House
Rules.
I agree that your waiving consideration of section 9 of
H.R. 3609 does not waive your Committee's jurisdiction over
the bill. I also acknowledge your right to seek conferees on
any provisions that are under your Committee's jurisdiction
during any House-Senate conference on H.R. 3609 or similar
legislation, and will support your request for conferees on
such provisions.
As you request, your letter and this response will be
included in the Congressional Record during consideration on
the House Floor.
Thank you for your cooperation in moving this important
legislation.
Sincerely,
Don Young,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science,
Washington, DC, July 23, 2002.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure has had under consideration H.R. 3609, the
Pipeline Infrastructure Protection to Enhance Security and
Safety Act. Section 9 of that bill falls under the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Science.
By waiving consideration of H.R. 3609 the Committee on
Science does not waive any of its jurisdictional rights and
prerogatives.
I ask that you would support our request for conferees on
H.R. 3609 or similar legislation if a conference should be
convened with
[[Page H5282]]
the Senate. I also ask that our exchange of letters be
included in the Congressional Record.
I look forward to working with you on this and other
important pieces of legislation.
Sincerely,
Sherwood Boehlert,
Chairman.
Mr. Speaker, I yield whatever time he may consume to the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), chairman of the very powerful Committee on
Energy and Commerce, a good friend.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to thank the gentleman from
Alaska (Mr. Young), my friend and the chairman of the tremendously
important Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, whom we all
depend upon for our transportation needs and whom I consider my dearest
friend, whenever I have those needs in particular. I do want to
seriously thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for the
extraordinary degree of cooperation between his committee and his staff
and the staff of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, as well as the
staffs of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), representing the minority of our two
committees for the extraordinary work that has been done on this bill.
This is not just a multi-year bill, this is a multi-Congress bill. This
has been a work in progress for years through several Congresses, and
we have reached the point today where we now have concurrence not only
between our two committees but in a bipartisan fashion we can bring
pipeline safety to the floor for a vote, and most importantly we can
bring it to the floor for a vote with the support of the Office of
Pipeline Safety, with the pipeline industry itself, with the support of
the environmental community and the support of organized labor. This is
a bill literally that meets all those tests simultaneously and it is a
great example of the way this House can work through our committee
system together in a bipartisan fashion to do the right thing for our
country.
It also addresses, by the way, State participation in the pipeline
safety regulatory regime, again recognizing the dual role in the
Federal and the State governments in protecting our citizens in terms
of pipeline safety, and, perhaps most importantly, this bill becomes
the House position on pipeline safety as we are now engaged in the
Conference on Energy with the Senate where we hope to produce a
comprehensive energy package for the House and Senate to vote on
sometime before we leave session in October.
This bipartisan position that is now supported, I hope, by this whole
House will be the frame by which the House makes an offer to the Senate
now and hopefully resolves this issue in the context of the much larger
energy bill. And I want to thank my friends from both sides of the
aisle for making that possible. As we move toward consideration of the
most serious issues in dispute between the House and Senate, getting an
agreement on pipeline safety will be one of the first orders of
business that we will take up this Thursday when the conference meets.
So again I want to thank all the chairmen and ranking members, and I
lastly want to pay particular thanks and attention to the chairman of
the subcommittee and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) for
doing such a great job at the subcommittee level of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce in producing this bill. We sometimes forget how
important the work of our subcommittees is in framing a bill that we
can together work out in final detail for the floor, and the gentleman
from Texas (Chairman Barton) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Boucher) as in their usual fashion have worked in extraordinarily close
fashion to make sure we have that opportunity at the Committee on
Energy and Commerce level. And again I want to thank them for their
hard work and the work of the staffs that went behind it. Again this is
a good day for both our committees. I commend this legislation to the
House floor.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Boucher) representing the Democrats on the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
(Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 3609 and to urge
its approval by the House. The pipeline safety measure now before the
House results from bipartisan discussions involving two committees and
I want to commend the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin) of our
full Committee on Energy and Commerce; the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Dingell), ranking committee member; the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Barton), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality,
with whom I have been pleased to cooperate on this measure; and the
gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Oberstar) of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
for all of the efforts of these Members in achieving the consensus
measure that is before the House today.
The authorization for appropriations for the Federal pipeline safety
program expired during the year 2000. The bill which we are considering
today will take the necessary steps to reauthorize the program. The
measure makes a number of improvements to existing pipeline safety
requirements. It will direct the Department of Transportation to
promulgate a rule requiring operators to develop integrity management
plans which will include a pipeline safety inspection within 10 years
of enactment and a reinspection within the following 7 years. The
measure will also require operators to develop and implement written
programs to ensure that all individual pipeline operators are qualified
to perform their jobs and will establish a pilot program within the
Department of Transportation for the certification of pipeline
employees.
In addition, the measure establishes a technical assistance grant
program to enhance the knowledge of individuals who reside or conduct
businesses in the general vicinity of pipelines.
We worked very closely with the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman
Young) of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to ensure
that the establishment of these grants is performed in such a way as to
accommodate the concern of all stakeholders. In addition, the measure
will improve the Office of Pipeline Safety's ability to enforce safety
laws by increasing the cap on penalties. The bill will also improve
existing one-call notification programs and develop a national pipeline
mapping system. These are all very helpful steps that, taken together,
will ensure greater pipeline safety for the Nation going forward.
I again want to commend all of the Members who on a bipartisan basis
have worked diligently to achieve the consensus that has embodied this
measure. And, Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to urge approval of this
bill by the House. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Barton), one of the great subcommittee chairmen of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I also want to rise in strong
support of H.R. 3609, the Pipeline Infrastructure Protection to Enhance
Security and Safety Act. It is comprehensive, bipartisan, multi-
committee, and widely supported. It will reauthorize our pipeline
safety laws through 2006 which, in my opinion, is a tremendous
accomplishment.
I want to add my commendations to my full committee chairman, the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), and the ranking member, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). I compliment the gentleman from
Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, along with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
I would also thank the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski),
the ranking member, and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), the
ranking member on my subcommittee. We all worked very hard to make it
possible to come out and pat each other on the back this evening.
[[Page H5283]]
The bill before us is an agreement that we have worked on in both
committees. Both of our committees reported a pipeline safety bill
earlier this year. It has a new landmark section on integrity
management for natural gas transmission lines. It has a baseline
integrity assessment of 7 years and periodic reinspections every 10
years. We have a tough but very manageable requirement for pipeline
infrastructure. This balance requirement, in my opinion, appears to be
a much more appropriate inspection regime than is currently in the bill
which passed the other body.
The pipeline infrastructure for delivering natural gas and liquid
petroleum is more important than ever for our great Nation. The demand
for natural gas and gasoline will likely continue to rise, and our
pipelines will have a more and more important role each day in
supplying those commodities. Pipeline transportation is among the
cheapest and safest methods of transport. We need to make sure that our
pipelines are safe and managed well. We also want States and our local
communities to be comfortable that future pipelines which will be
needed are good things for their region, and that they are operated as
safely as possible.
Today's agreement includes changes to the one-call notification
programs, a new national toll-free number suggested by the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. John), a member of my subcommittee. It has an
important integrity research and development program which was authored
by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) who is also the ranking member
of the Committee on Science. It includes important coordination of
environmental reviews by Federal agencies to streamline the process for
permitting repairs.
Finally, I commend all of the staffs for their hard work on this
bill, especially from our committee, Bill Cooper and Andy Black of the
majority, and Rick Kessler of the minority for their hard work. The
bill is supported by environmental groups, labor groups and industry
associations and many local community groups. It has the support of the
majority and the minority of every committee involved in the
discussions. I hope that we will pass this by unanimous consent in the
very near future.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by complimenting the
work of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and
the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin). It is amazing what can be
done when all sides resign themselves to work together.
Although not a perfect bill, this is a bipartisan bill. It is an
effort the American people can be proud of. Unbeknownst to millions of
Americans, their homes, schools and communities are sitting on top of
millions of miles of pipelines. With this bill, Congress seeks to
ensure that proper regulations are backed up by strong enforcement
policies to ensure their safety.
Despite the Office of Pipeline Safety requests for mapping
information more than 3 years ago, and the importance of a national
repository of pipeline maps for national security purposes, hundreds of
operators have not submitted the requested maps. Under the bill, OPS
will finally have the maps of pipeline systems it needs to regulate
effectively.
Furthermore, the compromise legislation includes important employee
training provisions and whistleblower protections. Those on the front
lines must feel free to inform the proper authorities if there is a
safety or security risk not being addressed. Also included is funding
for grants to community groups to allow them to obtain technical
expertise for participation in pipeline regulatory proceedings.
The House will finally be on record endorsing real pipeline safety
legislation, requiring pipeline operators to adopt integrity management
programs with periodic inspections. Enron has shown us that we cannot
put our faith in the industry to do the thing.
We cannot afford to lose any more lives, Mr. Speaker. In the face of
potentially severe consequences, symbolic legislation cannot suffice.
This is our opportunity to fix a broken system. Mr. Speaker, I am
confident that we are doing the right thing by passing strong pipeline
legislation today.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn).
Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I think special kudos should go to the gentleman from
Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin)
because they put so much leadership and commitment into bringing this
bill to the floor. This debate has gone on for a long time. The first
bill that we voted on during this debate was 2 years ago, and we could
not get the votes then.
We have worked on this bill consistently with the help of a lot of
our neighbors in Washington State and a lot of members from the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. I commend the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young)
for putting together a good bill.
In Washington State 3 years ago, there was a pipeline explosion in
the area of Bellingham. It is the area that the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Larsen) now represents, and at that time Congressman
Metcalf represented. Both gentlemen were very involved in this debate.
They had a problem to solve for the neighbors who lived in their
communities, and success has finally greeted us here on the floor of
the House tonight.
{time} 1845
We have worked on this bill ever since. Three years of work to put
together a bill that would be appropriate, a bill where we could
release some information but be very aware that if terrorists are
looking for a way to endanger our communities, we have to be somewhat
careful on how we phrase the public information portion of this.
I want to summarize a few of the elements that are in this
legislation that make it much better than anything we have ever had
before in protecting our neighbors and our neighborhoods from any
explosion or any kind of emission of toxic substances into the
environment.
The legislation tonight talks about inspection of gas pipelines every
5 years. It will be mandated. There is flexibility left so that we can
do it in the proper way, so it will not be a huge new expense to the
companies but will also perform the program that we are interested in,
which is to make sure those pipelines are not corroded, are not broken,
and will not result in a horrible explosion like the one that the
parents of those children in Bellingham had to live with 3 years ago.
It also establishes a program to certify that critical pipeline
employees are qualified to do their jobs. This has never been required
before, Mr. Speaker. I think this bill puts out there in print what we
expect from the companies who are engaged in operating pipelines. It
also increases penalties for pipeline safety violations. Why is this
important? It is important, Mr. Speaker, because we want those
companies to take very seriously the requirements we have handed to
them. Sometimes money tells the story. To penalize them in a monetary
way we think is very important. It also provides for increased State
oversight of pipelines. We want the States involved. We would like to
have community advisory boards. We are going to increase the amount of
personal activity done to keep these pipelines safe by allowing the
communities and the neighbors to advise the companies that come up with
good ideas that we may have missed, that might have fallen through the
cracks on this legislation.
I think it is also very important that communities be given access to
information about the pipelines that run underneath their schools,
underneath their homes, underneath their neighborhoods. Everybody in
the process agrees that this information ought to be out there. We have
not yet agreed how this information should be available. I hope this
information can be addressed as this bill moves forward as we go
through the conference committee with a good strong House bill that
will be debated by Members of the Senate and the House so that we will
come up with something really strong.
The answer to this particular public access question may be part of
homeland security. It may have to be a compromise. What I want, Mr.
Speaker, my
[[Page H5284]]
mayors to be able to walk in and see the most up-to-date maps that
outline these pipeline directions so that they will be able to instruct
people who are digging trenches for water mains or digging trenches for
the construction of foundations of homes or schools. I want them to
know, these communities, where these pipelines run and we all
appreciate that. In an era which is different since 9-11, where
terrorists can get control fairly easily of information, we have to
massage this. But I think each of us appreciates the fact that this
information must be made available.
Mr. Speaker, for 3 years we have tried to pass this bill. We have
tried to put this bill together in a way that would protect our
communities. This bill moves closer to that objective than anything I
have seen so far. It is a compromise, but I think it provides us the
basis for a good, strong community approach that will allow us to
provide that protection for our communities that we worked so hard to
do.
Mr. Speaker, as we move closer to our objective, as we get a good
bill out of the House, I urge our colleagues to support this. It is a
fine bill. My congratulations to everybody who has been in the process.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Green).
(Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as one of the Democratic cosponsors,
I rise in strong support of H.R. 3609. Our pipeline infrastructure is
the invisible backbone of this country through which the vast majority
of our gasoline and natural gas flows. This bill greatly enhances the
safety of all the pipelines by requiring more frequent inspections,
additional operator training, greater fines for safety violations, and
better measures to protect against terrorist attacks.
All these additional enhancements are reached on a bipartisan basis,
not only by the Committee on Energy and Commerce but also by my good
friends and colleagues on the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure. Mr. Speaker, protecting the lives of the folks whom I
represent in Houston, Texas, who have lived and worked along pipelines
all their lives, is our first priority, even around the country. The
vast majority of the pipelines scheduled to be inspected first are
those with high population density surrounding them. This commonsense
approach will immediately bring the greatest margin of safety to the
largest number of people. In addition, all pipelines will be inspected
more frequently under this legislation.
Because of the increased inspections mandated under the bill,
pipeline inspection equipment and the personnel needed to man them
should increase at a rapid pace. This will in turn lead to even better
inspections and less accidents like we have had in Washington State and
New Mexico.
This is a great bill. I am proud to be a cosponsor.
Mr. Speaker, as one of the Democratic cosponsors to this legislation,
I rise in strong support of H.R. 3609. Our pipeline infrastructure is
the invisible backbone of this country through which the vast majority
of our gasoline and natural gas flows through.
This bill will greatly enhance the safety of all pipelines by
requiring more frequent inspections, additional operator training,
greater fines for safety violations, and better measures to protect
against terrorist attacks.
All these additional enhancements were reached on a bipartisan basis
between members of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and
the Energy & Commerce Committee.
Mr. Speaker, protecting the lives of my folks in Houston who happen
to live around the many pipelines is my first priority.
The vast majority of the pipelines scheduled to be inspected first
are those with high population density surrounding them.
This common senses approach will immediately bring the greatest
safety margin to the largest number of people.
In addition, all pipelines will be inspected more frequently under
this legislation
Because of the increased inspections mandated under this bill,
pipeline inspection equipment and the personnel needed to man them
should increase at a rapid pace.
This will in turn lead to even better inspections and less accidents
like we saw in Washington State and New Mexico.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill and I want to commend both Chairmen
and Ranking Members for working to better protect the American people.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
It is rare that I do this as the chairman of two committees over the
period of the last 8 years, but I would like to acknowledge at this
time the work that has been mentioned by other Members that have
spoken, the work of the staff. This has been a long, trying period of
time. I want to compliment the staff on the minority side but I also,
because I pay their bills, would like to compliment Graham Hill,
especially, for his work and his outstanding dedication and
perseverance; Levon Boyagian, who has been with me now as the counsel
for the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure; Mike Henry from
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure; Frank Mulvey; David
Heymsfeld; Ward McCarragher; and, of course, Liz Megginson, who is my
chief counsel.
I rarely do this because I know they are doing what they love to do,
but this has been a very complex issue; it takes a lot of work, a lot
of discussion, some which I do not have the patience for, and I will be
the first one to admit that; but we worked together as a group
collectively and fought out the battles and discussed it.
I can truthfully say I believe that this piece of legislation is a
great step forward to accomplish what I am seeking to do and have the
safest pipelines in the United States. Twenty-two million miles of
pipeline exist in the United States. This will be the first time where
we know they will be inspected in a period of time, they will be
repaired under the system of this bill on time, we will not have the
accidents, hopefully, that have been happening in the past, and we will
be able to deliver that product to the homes that they so badly need to
live their lives.
Again, I thank the staff for the work they have done on both sides of
the aisle.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, the chairman's patience is legendary.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall).
(Mr. HALL of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman and
ranking member of the Committees on Energy and Commerce and
Transportation and Infrastructure for working with the Committee on
Science and for allowing us to work with them to include the research
and development language that is contained in section 9 of the bill
that is before us today. Section 9 is also the product of a very close
collaboration on both sides of the aisle in the Committee on Science,
which reported these provisions as H.R. 3929 last spring.
Section 9 will be of immense value to this Nation in ensuring that
the natural gas, crude oil, and refined products pipelines of this
country are safer and more secure as we move into the 21st century.
The result will be a much stronger focus on the development of
technologies necessary to make the pipeline infrastructure of this
country safer and more secure.
Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the Chairman and Ranking Minority
members of the Energy and Commerce and Transportation and
Infrastructure Committees for working with the Science Committee to
include the research and development language contained in Section 9 of
the bill before us today. Section 9 is also the product of a close
collaboration on both sides of the aisle in the Science Committee,
which reported these provisions as H.R. 3929 last spring.
Section 9 will be of immense value to this nation in ensuring that
the natural gas, crude oil, and refined products pipelines of this
country are safer and more secure as we move into the 21st Century. And
we are taking the first steps toward addressing the development of what
we call the next-generation pipelines--those that will carry hydrogen,
CO2 and perhaps other substances that will be part of the energy
infrastructure of the future.
These pipelines are an essential part of the nation's energy
infrastructure. They are so affected with the public interest that
special efforts need to be taken now to make certain that new
technologies are developed or existing technologies adapted to make
certain that
[[Page H5285]]
these facilities are as safe and secure as they can be--and so soon as
they can be.
Section 9 of the bill brings the considerable capabilities of the
Department of Energy (DOE) and its National Laboratories and the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to bear in a much
more prominent way to provide solutions to the safety and security
needs of the nation's pipelines. It provides considerable flexibility
to the participating agencies, the Department of Transportation, DOE
and NIST, to develop a research plan--one that will be reviewed by a
Technical Advisory Committee to ensure that the work being done is
relevant and appropriate.
The result will be a much stronger focus on the development of
technologies necessary to make the pipeline infrastructure of this
country more safe and secure.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I urge all Members to vote for this bill. For the committee, we
expect to have a vote on this legislation probably later on this
evening. I urge all Members to vote for the passage of this
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen), whose district was tragically
the site of a pipeline tragedy.
(Mr. LARSEN of Washington asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R.
3609. I have a full statement, but I just want to make a quick note
about what happened 3 years ago on June 10, 1999, in Bellingham,
Washington, and remember why we are here today, to remember 10-year-old
Wade King, 10-year-old Stephen Tsiorvas, and 18-year-old Liam Wood, who
were killed when nearly 300,000 gallons of gasoline from a nearby
pipeline rupture leaked into Whatcom Creek and were ignited and
exploded. 1,100 days later, the House of Representatives is on the
verge of finally passing strong pipeline safety legislation to respond
to this tragedy.
On behalf of their families, I want to thank the House for doing so.
I want to thank Chairman Young, Chairman Tauzin, Ranking Member
Oberstar and Ranking Member Dingell and the staffs from the majority
and minority side for all the hard work that they have put into this
issue over the last 3 years to make this a reality, to respond to the
communities, to respond to their concerns about safety; and again to
remember Wade King, Stephen Tsiorvas and Liam Wood for the lives that
they lost, but hopefully with action by the House today we are doing
our best to prevent losing lives in the future.
On June 10, 1999 in Bellingham, Washington, two ten-year old boys,
Wade King and Stephen Tsiorvas, and an 18 year-old man, Liam Wood, were
killed when nearly 300,000 gallons of gasoline from a nearby pipeline
rupture ignited, sending a fireball roaring down Whatcom Creek, and a
plume of smoke thousands of feet into the sky. Over 1100 days later,
the House of Representatives is on the verge of finally passing
pipeline safety legislation to respond to this tragedy.
Since I came to this chamber, I have worked to see that the type of
tragedy my constituents suffered never happens again by laboring to see
that meaningful pipeline safety legislation passes the House of
Representatives. Our friends in the Senate have acted three times. It
is now time for us to act.
The bill before us today is a strong pipeline safety bill. It
strengthens pipeline safety by ensuring operators enhance training and
evaluation of pipeline employees, requires pipeline inspection programs
be adopted and enacted every ten years, with follow-up inspections
every seven years, strengthens the oversight role of state governments
and citizens, and mandates substantially increased civil penalties.
With that said, I think it important to point out that the bill is
missing critical community-right-to-know provisions that are vital if
we truly intend to improve the safety of the pipelines that weave in
and out of our communities. If we do not direct pipeline operators
maintain continuous liaison with emergency responders, or require them
to provide maps of their pipelines to municipalities, we are not doing
all we can to ensure that another tragedy like that in Bellingham or
Carlsbad, New Mexico never happens again. As this process moves forward
into a Conference Committee, I urge my colleagues in the strongest
possible terms to recede to the Senate's community-right-to-know
provisions.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, allow me to thank the leadership of the
Transportation and Infrastructure and Energy and Commerce Committees.
Chairman Young and Tauzin, as well as Ranking Members Oberstar and
Dingell have done a good job of shepherding this critical piece of
legislation through the House of Representatives. As one who has seen
firsthand the danger posed by unsafe pipelines, I thank them, and all
Members who have worked on this bill, and urge my colleagues to support
this bill.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the chairman of the subcommittee that
handled this issue.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill before us and
urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this worthwhile legislation. I
would like to take a minute to commend the leadership of the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure and of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce for reaching this agreement, particularly the gentleman from
Alaska (Mr. Young), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), and the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Dingell).
The bill will require a more frequent inspection and reinspection
schedule for pipelines, in particular problem pipelines. It will ensure
that individuals who work on pipelines are properly trained. The bill
also includes a permanent streamlining provision that will enable
pipeline operators to make repairs within the time limits set forth by
the Department of Transportation.
H.R. 3609 includes whistleblower provisions to protect employees who
report problems that may endanger the lives of fellow workers and those
living near the facilities. Finally, the bill will require every
pipeline operator to develop and to implement a terrorism security
program approved by the Secretary.
Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that will increase the safety and
security of our Nation's pipelines. I urge its adoption.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, for 3 years the parents of the three boys
who died on June 10, 1999, in Bellingham, Washington, have been
unstinting and unyielding in their insistence that this Chamber adopt a
requirement that pipeline companies inspect their pipelines. Today it
is their efforts that truly ought to be honored to fully and fairly
require that for the American people.
I want to note the efforts of Frank and Mary King, Marlene Robinson
and Katherine Dalen, because they have been insistent that we not leave
this House until we require in statute the inspection of these
pipelines. This has been difficult for them. It has been difficult
because the last time we had this provision on this Chamber, on this
floor, we did not have such an inspection. But they were unyielding and
unstinting. I want to thank them for their courage in such difficult
circumstances to hold our feet to the fire, to go through a multiple-
year effort to get this inspection requirement. Their decision not to
allow anything less than that in the last Congress today has proven the
right decision.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce, whose years of endeavor in the
vineyard have proven fruitful.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3609. I am
pleased to be here to mark an important event. We are on the verge of
moving forward with pipeline safety legislation that will enhance the
real safety of our Nation's pipelines. I want to commend the
distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), our chairman, and
also the distinguished gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), chairman of
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and my
distinguished friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the
ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
for making this possible.
{time} 1900
Mr. Speaker, there is a mounting body of evidence that our system of
pipeline safety regulation is wholly inadequate. As of now, the
Congress has
[[Page H5286]]
failed to move on meaningful reforms. We do so in this legislation.
I want to, again, commend my colleagues for the work, efforts and
leadership which they have given, and also, again, the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) for
having worked with us to develop this legislation.
The legislation we are considering today is comprised of the
unanimously approved Committee on Energy and Commerce bill plus
important and valuable additions drawn from the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure product.
As a result of good faith working together, we have presented the
House with a bill which deserves the support of all of my colleagues
and which will contribute significantly to the protection of the
environment and the protection of the American public.
I want to commend our good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Boucher), the ranking member of the subcommittee, for his efforts on
the technical assistance grants and hazardous pipeline enforcement
provisions. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) and the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle) again deserve significant recognition for
their fine efforts on the research provisions which largely reflect the
legislation of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) that was reported
overwhelmingly by the Committee on Science.
I also want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey)
for his work and cooperation on the provisions relating to the National
Transportation Safety Board and the security of liquefied natural gas
and other pipeline facilities.
Finally, I express my appreciation to those in the environmental
community and in organized labor who have worked with me for so many
years on these matters. They, along with industry stakeholders who have
chosen to play a constructive role in this process, deserve great
credit. They all deserve to be thanked.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the swift and speedy adoption of this
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3609. I am truly
pleased to be here to mark a very important event: for the first time
in a decade, we are on the verge of moving forward on pipeline safety
legislation that would actually enhance the safety of our Nation's
pipelines. I want to commend Chairman Tauzin, along with Chairman Young
and Ranking Member Oberstar for making this possible.
There is a mounting body of evidence that our system of pipeline
safety regulation is wholly inadequate. Unfortunately, until now,
Congress has failed to move on any meaningful reforms. during the last
Congress, the House considered legislation that was more about public
relations than public safety. Because that legislation did little more
than restate existing law and provide cover for maintaining the deadly
status quo, Mr. Oberstar and I--along with many of our colleagues--
successfully opposed enactment of that legislation.
Things, however, were very different this year in our Committee, and
Chairmen Tauzin and Barton deserve the thanks of this body for working
as partners with us to develop legislation that moves the ball forward
on protecting the public and the environment from the dangers of unsafe
pipelines. The Energy and Commerce Committee bill was supported by all
stakeholders--including the gas pipeline industry, the oil pipeline
industry, labor, and the environmental community.
The legislation we are considering today is comprised of the
unanimously approved--Energy and Commerce bill plus some very important
and useful additions drawn from the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee product. It is the result of a good faith, sincere effort to
do what is doable for the sake of safety, rather than hold out for
everything that every stakeholder ever wanted. I know it is not a
perfect product, but I believe that the effort has been successful.
I commend Members who have worked with us to address specific matters
in the bill. These include Chairman Barton and Representative John--as
well as Representative Pallone--for their work on the provision to
establish a national 3-digit, one-call number. I also want to commend
Ranking Member Boucher for his efforts on the technical assistance
grants and hazardous pipeline enforcement provisions. Representatives
Hall and Doyle deserve recognition for their efforts on the research
provisions that largely reflect Mr. Hall's legislation that was
reported overwhelmingly by the Committee on Science. I also want to
specifically thank Representative Markey for his work and cooperation
on the provisions relating to the National Transportation Safety Board
and the security of liquified natural gas and other pipeline
facilities.
Finally, I express my appreciation to those in the environmental
community and organized labor who have worked with me over the years on
these matters. They, along with the industry stakeholders who have
chosen to play a constructive role in this process, deserve to be
recognized for helping us make it possible to go forward with the
support of every Member of our Committee and hopefully today with
support of the entire House of Representatives.
Mr. Chairman, I urge swift adoption of the amendment in the nature of
a substitute and passage of the bill.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Carson).
Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my
support for this compromise version of H.R. 3609, which improves
pipeline safety. I am an original cosponsor of this legislation, which
has undergone significant changes since it was first introduced.
This legislation importantly accomplishes various improvements in
pipeline safety, while recognizing the realities of pipeline operation
and its, unacknowledged often, importance to many communities and
businesses across the country.
Pipelines are a critical mode of transportation for our Nation and by
far one of the safest modes of transporting energy materials to needed
destinations. It is equally important that the American public have
faith in its safety.
I support this legislation and encourage my colleagues to vote in
favor of this bill, which improves public confidence in our Nation's
pipeline system and allows continued quality service to the many
Americans who depend upon the products that pipelines provide.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Madam Speaker, I surely hope that the bill before us is a good one,
and there is reason for hope, since it is inconceivable that our
current pipeline safety regulation could get much worse.
When it comes to pipeline safety, ``oversight'' has usually meant
``overlook.'' When it comes to the Office of Pipeline Safety, it has
found itself in alliance with groups such as the Longhorn Pipeline that
have posed such dangers to my community in Central Texas, and how South
Austinites have rightly shouted that they have everything to lose and
nothing to be gained by being forced to be a Longhorn partner because
of the tragic intrusion on our community by Longhorn Pipeline. The City
of Austin has a lot resting on the protections offered by this bill.
With an understanding of our experience with Longhorn Pipeline and
the lack of protection from the Office of Pipeline Safety, the city
submitted testimony expressing its concern about current Federal
statutes that restrict municipalities in protecting their citizens from
pipeline dangers. It is essential that the Office of Pipeline Safety
and other Federal agencies give thorough consideration to the issues
faced by those exposed to hazardous pipelines. Hopefully, that will be
accomplished by the modest steps in this bill.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I wish to express my great appreciation for the
cooperation of all the members on the Democratic side on the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure. We had many, many meetings and
discussions to iron out differences, to reach agreements, to reach
consensus on matters, that compromise that we have offered to the
majority in our committee. In particular, the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Pascrell) has been an absolute champion on pipeline safety; the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larson), who has been a vigorous
advocate stemming from the tragedies that resulted in his own district;
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Carson), who, likewise, has been a
vigorous advocate and a staunch supporter of strong pipeline safety
legislation; and many others on our committee who have contributed long
hours in the discussion and debate internally.
[[Page H5287]]
But especially my appreciation goes to the chairman of our committee,
whose patience, as I said a moment ago, is legendary. Sometimes that
fuse is maybe a quarter of an inch long, but he is always willing to
come back again and to discuss and to revisit issues on which it seems
that there is no agreement and to find common ground. We have found
common ground, and I am very appreciative.
I especially am grateful to our committee staff, David Heymsfeld and
Frank Mulvey, who have labored intensively on crafting this legislation
and Ward McCarragher, whose many, many hours combined have produced
this splendid piece of legislation which we can now support.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, that everybody is thanking everybody means this is a
good day, and I would suggest we especially thank again the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member on the Committee on
Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the work he has done, the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larson) and the gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. Carson).
Everybody has worked together and we have got what I think is a good
piece of legislation.
Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3609.
I am pleased that the bill we are considering today contains a
provision I authored (Section 12 of the bill) which deals with a
special situation that we are facing in Everett, Massachusetts, in my
Congressional District.
The Distrigas LNG facility in Everett is owned by Tractebel, a
Belgian-based energy affiliate of the French conglomerate, Suez. This
facility is unlike any other waterfront LNG plant in the nation that
receives LNG tankers. It is located in the middle of the City of
Everett, a city of 38,000 people that has a population density of
11,241 people per square mile. The facility is a mile and a half from
my hometown of Malden (a city of 56,000 people), it is two and a half
miles from the City of Medford (also population 56,000) where my
District Office is located. The facility also is right across the
Mystic River from downtown Boston--population 590,000.
LNG tankers that dock at the Distrigas facility must enter the Boston
Harbor and sail through a narrow ship channel that passes by Logan
airport, under the Tobin Bridge, and right by the central financial and
commercial district of the City of Boston. For this reason, when LNG
tankers approach Boston, the Coast Guard has established special
procedures to help protect the public health and safety, including the
possibility of terrorist attacks. The Coast Guard works with the City
of Boston, and police and fire departments of Everett, Malden and
Medford to establish procedures for protecting the tanker ships and
preparing for any emergency response.
However, after the LNG tankers have docked at the facility, the Coast
Guard's job is done. Security then, is left to the private security
guards hired by Distrigas and the Everett Police Department. Of course,
the Everett Police Department has all of the responsibilities of an
urban police force, and cannot devote the resources to maintaining a
large police presence at this facility at all times. For this reason,
we have to rely primarily on the LNG plant operator, Distrigas, to put
in place adequate security systems.
Unfortunately, I have found that security at this facility is sorely
inadequate. Both from whistleblower reports and from direct first hand
observation, I have seen a facility where security is either
nonexistent or woefully lacking. I have written to Homeland Security
Director Tom Ridge on two occasions last fall and last winter to ask
him to look into this matter and work with the Department of
Transportation, the Coast Guard, and with the State and Local
governments to help rectify this situation, and he responded several
weeks ago to tell me that he had misplaced my letters and would have to
get back to me later. So I guess you could say that I have had direct
firsthand experience that demonstrates that Governor Ridge needs the
additional resources and authorities that President Bush called upon
the Congress to give him.
I also raised this issue with the Transportation Department during
the Subcommittee's hearing on the pending legislation. The responses I
received were not satisfactory. The Department noted, for example, that
it had found in November that the Everett plant's contract security
guards ``needed additional training regarding existing Distrigas
security procedures''. And these were the security procedures
established before September 11th.
The Department subsequently announced that it was imposing a $220,000
civil fine on Distrigas for violations of DOT security requirements and
safety rules. In so doing the Department announced that the
Department's ``Inspectors found Distrigas had failed to train their
contract security personnel in security procedures established prior to
Sept. 11, 2001. Morever, a follow-up inspection found that even as late
as April 2002, not all contract security employees had been trained in
security procedures.''
In other words, the Transportation Department essentially said that
Distrigas has flunked what is basically an elementary school-level
security test. However, what they may really need to be prepared for is
a college level exam. We need to upgrade the security standards
affecting this type of facility, so that we can get access to the LNG
needed to provide energy for our region, while also protecting our
communities from a terrorist action that could threaten public safety.
While Distrigas says it is improving its security procedures, it has
also said that the company would fight the Department's proposed fine.
While I have had some positive recent communications with U.S.-based
representatives of the company following the Committee's adoption of my
amendment, only time will tell whether the situation on the ground in
Everett will change and whether the companies' European corporate
parents will provide the funding and support to allow a ``security
first'' philosophy to truly take hold at Distrigas.
My amendment, which appears as Section 12 of the bill, is aimed at
assuring that this facility, or any future LNG terminal that is sited
in a densely populated urban area, it fully protected against terrorist
threats. What it does is very simple:
It directs the Secretary of Transportation to undertake a rulemaking
to develop new security rules for the Everett facility, and to issue a
final rule within one year ``to require effective security measures
which the Secretary determines are necessary to be adopted against acts
of terrorism or sabotage . . .'' The amendment identifies nine specific
factors the Secretary shall take into account in this rulemaking, and
it provides that any rules issued by the Secretary shall establish
requirements for security procedures and emergency response at the
facility, including effective testing of the security forces at the
plant.
Let me make it clear, the provision would only cover this one
facility, located in Everett, Massachusetts, in my District, which
faces what may be some unique security challenges and some severe
public safety consequences in the event of a successful terrorist
attack. Of course, the amendment is drafted to be generic in
application, so that if there is some future facility that meets the
statutory definition, it would be similarly afforded the protections
provided by the security measures mandated under the Section. The
principle underlying the Section 12 is the LNG facility that receive
LNG tanker ships, and are located in or near densely populated urban
areas, must comply with enhanced security rules and security force
testing procedures. We are focused on this class of facilities, because
the adverse consequences of a security breach at a LNG facility in an
urban area could be quite severe in terms of loss of life or
destruction of property.
I would not that the rulemaking required under Section 12 applies
only to a ``waterfront liquefied natural gas plants capable of
receiving liquefied natural gas tankers'' that is ``located in or
within one mile of a densely populated urban area.'' The term
``waterfront liquefied natural gas plant'' is derived from a term which
appears in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, and refers to ``an LNG
plant with docks, wharves, piers, or other structures in, on, or
immediately adjacent to the navigable waters of the United States or
Puerto Rico and any shore area immediately adjacent to those waters to
which vessels may be secured and at which LNG cargo operations may be
conducted.'' The term ``densely populated urban area'' is specifically
defined in the amendment as ``an area with a population
[[Page H5288]]
density of more than 10,000 people per square mile.''
Section 12 therefore currently would exclude the Lake Charles,
Louisiana LNG facility, the Elba Island, Georgia LNG facility, and the
soon-to-be reactivated Cove Point, Maryland LNG facility from coverage,
as none of those facilities are located in areas with a population area
of more than 10,000 people per square mile. For example, the population
density of Lake Charles (home of the CMS Trunkline Facility) is 1786
people per square mile. There is one other LNG Terminal currently
operating, which is located at Elba Island, Georgia, near Savannah,
Georgia (which has a population of 1759.5 people per square mile). It
was reactivated in December. The Cove Point facility, in Maryland is
not yet reopened, but it is located in a rural area that is even less
densely populated.
Section 12 also excludes an LNG facility that is not used to dock or
receive LNG tankers. We are focused narrowly on LNG terminals in this
amendment since these are facilities that may receive ocean-going
tankers from Middle Eastern countries like Algeria, where there may be
active terrorist cells operating, or from other foreign nations, where
there may not be adequate screening of ship's crews or adequate systems
in place to assure ship security. The section is intended to supplement
the other measures undertaken to ensure the security of such LNG
terminals, included those taken by the Coast Guard in addressing the
security of LNG tankers and screen their crews as they enter U.S.
waters and travel through U.S. harbors to their destinations. In the
past, I have seen at the Everett facility that while the Coast Guard
does a reasonably good job of addressing security at the water side of
the plant, there simply has not been enough attention focused on what
could happen on the land side, or the potential for a coordinated
attack that might involve insiders. Section 12 gives the Department the
tools needed to address this.
I appreciate the cooperation of the Chairman of the Energy and
Commerce Committee and his staff, who have offered some helpful
suggestions on how to tighten the language of the amendment, as well as
the Ranking Member, who have been helpful in assuring that the
amendment touched only this facility, and did not inadvertently affect
other facilities where the security problems may not be as serious, or
the consequences of a successful terrorist attack so potentially
devastating.
I urge adoption of the legislation.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) that the House suspend
the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3609, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________