[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.

                          ____________________