[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 15]
[House]
[Page 21894]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                PIPELINE SAFETY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2000

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
Senate bill (S. 2438) to provide for enhanced safety, public awareness, 
and environmental protection in pipeline transportation, and for other 
purposes.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                S. 2438

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; AMENDMENT OF TITLE 49, UNITED STATES 
                   CODE.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Pipeline 
     Safety Improvement Act of 2000''.
       (b) Amendment of Title 49, United States Code.--Except as 
     otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this Act an 
     amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to, 
     or a repeal of, a section or other provision, the reference 
     shall be considered to be made to a section or other 
     provision of title 49, United States Code.

     SEC. 2. IMPLEMENTATION OF INSPECTOR GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Except as otherwise required by this Act, 
     the Secretary shall implement the safety improvement 
     recommendations provided for in the Department of 
     Transportation Inspector General's Report (RT-2000-069).
       (b) Reports by the Secretary.--Not later than 90 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, and every 90 days 
     thereafter until each of the recommendations referred to in 
     subsection (a) has been implemented, the Secretary shall 
     transmit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives a report on the specific actions taken to 
     implement such recommendations.
       (c) Reports by the Inspector General.--The Inspector 
     General shall periodically transmit to the Committees 
     referred to in subsection (b) a report assessing the 
     Secretary's progress in implementing the recommendations 
     referred to in subsection (a) and identifying options for the 
     Secretary to consider in accelerating recommendation 
     implementation.

     SEC. 3. NTSB SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Transportation, the 
     Administrator of Research and Special Program Administration, 
     and the Director of the Office of Pipeline Safety shall fully 
     comply with section 1135 of title 49, United States Code, to 
     ensure timely responsiveness to National Transportation 
     Safety Board recommendations about pipeline safety.
       (b) Public Availability.--The Secretary, Administrator, or 
     Director, respectively, shall make a copy of each 
     recommendation on pipeline safety and response, as described 
     in sections 1135 (a) and (b) of title 49, United States Code, 
     available to the public at reasonable cost.
       (c) Reports to Congress.--The Secretary, Administrator, or 
     Director, respectively, shall submit to the Congress by 
     January 1 of each year a report containing each 
     recommendation on pipeline safety made by the Board during 
     the prior year and a copy of the response to each such 
     recommendation.

     SEC. 4. QUALIFICATIONS OF PIPELINE PERSONNEL.

       (a) Qualification Plan.--Each pipeline operator shall make 
     available to the Secretary of Transportation, or, in the case 
     of an intrastate pipeline facility operator, the appropriate 
     State regulatory agency, a plan that is designed to enhance 
     the qualifications of pipeline personnel and to reduce the 
     likelihood of accidents and injuries. The plan shall be made 
     available not more than 6 months after the date of enactment 
     of this Act, and the operator shall revise or update the plan 
     as appropriate.
       (b) Requirements.--The enhanced qualification plan shall 
     include, at a minimum, criteria to demonstrate the ability of 
     an individual to safely and properly perform tasks identified 
     under section 60102 of title 49, United States Code. The plan 
     shall also provide for training and periodic reexamination of 
     pipeline personnel qualifications and provide for 
     requalification as appropriate. The Secretary, or, in the 
     case of an intrastate pipeline facility operator, the 
     appropriate State regulatory agency, may review and certify 
     the plans to determine if they are sufficient to provide a 
     safe operating environment and shall periodically review the 
     plans to ensure the continuation of a safe operation. The 
     Secretary may establish minimum standards for pipeline 
     personnel training and evaluation, which may include written 
     examination, oral examination, work performance history 
     review, observation during performance on the job, on the job 
     training, simulations, or other forms of assessment.
       (c) Report to Congress.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall submit a report to the 
     Congress evaluating the effectiveness of operator 
     qualification and training efforts, including--
       (A) actions taken by inspectors;
       (B) recommendations made by inspectors for changes to 
     operator qualification and training programs; and
       (C) industry responses to those actions and 
     recommendations.
       (2) Criteria.--The Secretary may establish criteria for use 
     in evaluating and reporting on operator qualification and 
     training for purposes of this subsection.
       (3) Due date.--The Secretary shall submit the report 
     required by paragraph (1) to the Congress 3 years after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 5. PIPELINE INTEGRITY INSPECTION PROGRAM.

       Section 60109 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(c) Integrity Management.--
       ``(1) General requirement.--The Secretary shall promulgate 
     regulations requiring operators of hazardous liquid pipelines 
     and natural gas transmission pipelines to evaluate the risks 
     to the operator's pipeline facilities in areas identified 
     pursuant to subsection (a)(1), and to adopt and implement a 
     program for integrity management that reduces the risk of an 
     incident in those areas. The regulations shall be issued no 
     later than one year after the Secretary has issued standards 
     pursuant to subsections (a) and (b) of this section or by 
     December 31, 2001, whichever is sooner.
       ``(2) Standards for program.--In promulgating regulations 
     under this section, the Secretary shall require an operator's 
     integrity management plan to be based on risk analysis and 
     each plan shall include, at a minimum--
       ``(A) periodic assessment of the integrity of the pipeline 
     through methods including internal inspection, pressure 
     testing, direct assessment, or other effective methods;
       ``(B) clearly defined criteria for evaluating the results 
     of the periodic assessment methods carried out under 
     subparagraph (A) and procedures to ensure identified problems 
     are corrected in a timely manner; and
       ``(C) measures, as appropriate, that prevent and mitigate 
     unintended releases, such as leak detection, integrity 
     evaluation, restrictive flow devices, or other measures.
       ``(3) Criteria for program standards.--In deciding how 
     frequently the integrity assessment methods carried out under 
     paragraph (2)(A) must be conducted, an operator shall take 
     into account the potential for new defects developing or 
     previously identified structural defects caused by 
     construction or installation, the operational characteristics 
     of the pipeline, and leak history. In addition, the Secretary 
     may establish a minimum testing requirement for operators of 
     pipelines to conduct internal inspections.
       ``(4) State role.--A State authority that has an agreement 
     in effect with the Secretary under section 60106 is 
     authorized to review and assess an operator's risk analyses 
     and integrity management plans required under this section 
     for interstate pipelines located in that State. The reviewing 
     State authority shall provide the Secretary with a written 
     assessment of the plans, make recommendations, as 
     appropriate, to address safety concerns not adequately 
     addressed in the operator's plans, and submit documentation 
     explaining the State-proposed plan revisions. The Secretary 
     shall carefully consider the State's proposals and work in 
     consultation with the States and operators to address safety 
     concerns.
       ``(5) Monitoring implementation.--The Secretary of 
     Transportation shall review the risk analysis and program for 
     integrity management required under this section and provide 
     for continued monitoring of such plans. Not later than 2 
     years after the implementation of integrity management plans 
     under this section, the Secretary shall complete an 
     assessment and evaluation of the effects on safety and the 
     environment of extending all of the requirements mandated by 
     the regulations described in paragraph (1) to additional 
     areas. The Secretary shall submit the assessment and 
     evaluation to Congress along with any recommendations to 
     improve and expand the utilization of integrity management 
     plans.
       ``(6) Opportunity for local input on integrity 
     management.--Within 18 months after the date of enactment of 
     the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2000, the Secretary 
     shall, by regulation, establish a process for raising and 
     addressing local safety concerns about pipeline integrity and 
     the operator's pipeline integrity plan. The process shall 
     include--
       ``(A) a requirement that an operator of a hazardous liquid 
     or natural gas transmission pipeline facility provide 
     information about the risk analysis and integrity management 
     plan required under this section to local officials in a 
     State in which the facility is located;
       ``(B) a description of the local officials required to be 
     informed, the information that is to be provided to them and 
     the manner, which may include traditional or electronic 
     means, in which it is provided;
       ``(C) the means for receiving input from the local 
     officials that may include a public forum sponsored by the 
     Secretary or by the State, or the submission of written 
     comments through traditional or electronic means;
       ``(D) the extent to which an operator of a pipeline 
     facility must participate in a public forum sponsored by the 
     Secretary or in another means for receiving input from the 
     local officials or in the evaluation of that input; and
       ``(E) the manner in which the Secretary will notify the 
     local officials about how their concerns are being 
     addressed.''.

     SEC. 6. ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) In General.--Section 60112 is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
       ``(a) General Authority.--After notice and an opportunity 
     for a hearing, the Secretary of Transportation may decide a 
     pipeline facility is hazardous if the Secretary decides 
     that--
       ``(1) operation of the facility is or would be hazardous to 
     life, property, or the environment; or
       ``(2) the facility is, or would be, constructed or 
     operated, or a component of the facility is, or would be, 
     constructed or operated with equipment, material, or a 
     technique that the Secretary decides is hazardous to life, 
     property, or the environment.''; and
       (2) by striking ``is hazardous,'' in subsection (d) and 
     inserting ``is, or would be, hazardous,''.

     SEC. 7. PUBLIC EDUCATION, EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS, AND 
                   COMMUNITY RIGHT TO KNOW.

       (a) Section 60116 is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 60116. Public education, emergency preparedness, and 
       community right to know

       ``(a) Public Education Programs.--
       ``(1) Each owner or operator of a gas or hazardous liquid 
     pipeline facility shall carry out a continuing program to 
     educate the public on the use of a one-call notification 
     system prior to excavation and other damage prevention 
     activities, the possible hazards associated with unintended 
     releases from the pipeline facility, the physical indications 
     that such a release may have occurred, what steps should be 
     taken for public safety in the event of a pipeline release, 
     and how to report such an event.
       ``(2) Within 12 months after the date of enactment of the 
     Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2000, each owner or 
     operator of a gas or hazardous liquid pipeline facility shall 
     review its existing public education program for 
     effectiveness and modify the program as necessary. The 
     completed program shall include activities to advise affected 
     municipalities, school districts, businesses, and residents 
     of pipeline facility locations. The completed program shall 
     be submitted to the Secretary or, in the case of an 
     intrastate pipeline facility operator, the appropriate State 
     agency and shall be periodically reviewed by the Secretary 
     or, in the case of an intrastate pipeline facility operator, 
     the appropriate State agency.
       ``(3) The Secretary may issue standards prescribing the 
     elements of an effective public education program. The 
     Secretary may also develop material for use in the program.
       ``(b) Emergency Preparedness.--
       ``(1) Operator liaison.--Within 12 months after the date of 
     enactment of the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2000, an 
     operator of a gas transmission or hazardous liquid pipeline 
     facility shall initiate and maintain liaison with the State 
     emergency response commissions, and local emergency planning 
     committees in the areas of pipeline right-of-way, established 
     under section 301 of the Emergency Planning and Community 
     Right-To-Know Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. 11001) in each State in 
     which it operates.
       ``(2) Information.--An operator shall, upon request, make 
     available to the State emergency response commissions and 
     local emergency planning committees, and shall make available 
     to the Office of Pipeline Safety in a standardized form for 
     the purpose of providing the information to the public, the 
     information described in section 60102(d), the operator's 
     program for integrity management, and information about 
     implementation of that program. The information about the 
     facility shall also include, at a minimum--
       ``(A) the business name, address, telephone number of the 
     operator, including a 24-hour emergency contact number;
       ``(B) a description of the facility, including pipe 
     diameter, the product or products carried, and the operating 
     pressure;
       ``(C) with respect to transmission pipeline facilities, 
     maps showing the location of the facility and, when 
     available, any high consequence areas which the pipeline 
     facility traverses or adjoins and abuts;
       ``(D) a summary description of the integrity measures the 
     operator uses to assure safety and protection for the 
     environment; and
       ``(E) a point of contact to respond to questions from 
     emergency response representative.
       ``(3) Smaller communities.--In a community without a local 
     emergency planning committee, the operator shall maintain 
     liaison with the local fire, police, and other emergency 
     response agencies.
       ``(4) Public access.--The Secretary shall prescribe 
     requirements for public access, as appropriate, to this 
     information, including a requirement that the information be 
     made available to the public by widely accessible 
     computerized database.
       ``(c) Community Right To Know.--Not later than 12 months 
     after the date of enactment of the Pipeline Safety 
     Improvement Act of 2000, and annually thereafter, the owner 
     or operator of each gas transmission or hazardous liquid 
     pipeline facility shall provide to the governing body of each 
     municipality in which the pipeline facility is located, a map 
     identifying the location of such facility. The map may be 
     provided in electronic form. The Secretary may provide 
     technical assistance to the pipeline industry on developing 
     public safety and public education program content and best 
     practices for program delivery, and on evaluating the 
     effectiveness of the programs. The Secretary may also provide 
     technical assistance to State and local officials in applying 
     practices developed in these programs to their activities to 
     promote pipeline safety.
       ``(d) Public Availability of Reports.--The Secretary 
     shall--
       ``(1) make available to the public--
       ``(A) a safety-related condition report filed by an 
     operator under section 60102(h);
       ``(B) a report of a pipeline incident filed by an operator;
       ``(C) the results of any inspection by the Office of 
     Pipeline Safety or a State regulatory official; and
       ``(D) a description of any corrective action taken in 
     response to a safety-related condition reported under 
     subparagraph (A), (B), or (C); and
       ``(2) prescribe requirements for public access, as 
     appropriate, to integrity management program information 
     prepared under this chapter, including requirements that will 
     ensure data accessibility to the greatest extent feasible.''.
       (b) Safety Condition Reports.--Section 60102(h)(2) is 
     amended by striking ``authorities.'' and inserting 
     ``officials, including the local emergency responders.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 
     601 is amended by striking the item relating to section 60116 
     and inserting the following:

``60116. Public education, emergency preparedness, community right to 
              know.''.

     SEC. 8. PENALTIES.

       (a) Civil Penalties.--Section 60122 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$25,000'' in subsection (a)(1) and 
     inserting ``$500,000'';
       (2) by striking ``$500,000'' in subsection (a)(1) and 
     inserting ``$1,000,000'';
       (3) by adding at the end of subsection (a)(1) the 
     following: ``The preceding sentence does not apply to 
     judicial enforcement action under section 60120 or 60121.''; 
     and
       (4) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Penalty Considerations.--In determining the amount of 
     a civil penalty under this section--
       ``(1) the Secretary shall consider--
       ``(A) the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the 
     violation, including adverse impact on the environment;
       ``(B) with respect to the violator, the degree of 
     culpability, any history of prior violations, the ability to 
     pay, any effect on ability to continue doing business; and
       ``(C) good faith in attempting to comply; and
       ``(2) the Secretary may consider--
       ``(A) the economic benefit gained from the violation 
     without any discount because of subsequent damages; and
       ``(B) other matters that justice requires.''.
       (b) Excavator Damage.--Section 60123(d) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``knowingly and willfully'';
       (2) by inserting ``knowingly and willfully'' before 
     ``engages'' in paragraph (1); and
       (3) striking paragraph (2)(B) and inserting the following:
       ``(B) a pipeline facility, is aware of damage, and does not 
     report the damage promptly to the operator of the pipeline 
     facility and to other appropriate authorities; or''.
       (c) Civil Actions.--Section 60120(a)(1) is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(1) On the request of the Secretary of Transportation, 
     the Attorney General may bring a civil action in an 
     appropriate district court of the United States to enforce 
     this chapter, including section 60112 of this chapter, or a 
     regulation prescribed or order issued under this chapter. The 
     court may award appropriate relief, including a temporary or 
     permanent injunction, punitive damages, and assessment of 
     civil penalties considering the same factors as prescribed 
     for the Secretary in an administrative case under section 
     60122.''.

     SEC. 9. STATE OVERSIGHT ROLE.

       (a) State Agreements With Certification.--Section 60106 is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``General Authority.--'' in subsection (a) 
     and inserting ``Agreements Without Certification.--'';
       (2) by redesignating subsections (b), (c), and (d) as 
     subsections (c), (d), and (e); and
       (3) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
       ``(b) Agreements With Certification.--
       ``(1) In general.--If the Secretary accepts a certification 
     under section 60105 of this title and makes the determination 
     required under this subsection, the Secretary may make an 
     agreement with a State authority authorizing it to 
     participate in the oversight of interstate pipeline 
     transportation. Each such agreement shall include a plan for 
     the State authority to participate in special investigations 
     involving incidents or new construction and allow the State 
     authority to participate in other activities overseeing 
     interstate pipeline transportation or to assume additional 
     inspection or investigatory duties. Nothing in this section 
     modifies section 60104(c) or authorizes the Secretary to 
     delegate the enforcement of safety standards prescribed under 
     this chapter to a State authority.
       ``(2) Determinations required.--The Secretary may not enter 
     into an agreement under this subsection, unless the Secretary 
     determines that--
       ``(A) the agreement allowing participation of the State 
     authority is consistent with the Secretary's program for 
     inspection and consistent with the safety policies and 
     provisions provided under this chapter;
       ``(B) the interstate participation agreement would not 
     adversely affect the oversight responsibilities of intrastate 
     pipeline transportation by the State authority;
       ``(C) the State is carrying out a program demonstrated to 
     promote preparedness and risk prevention activities that 
     enable communities to live safely with pipelines;
       ``(D) the State meets the minimum standards for State one-
     call notification set forth in chapter 61; and
       ``(E) the actions planned under the agreement would not 
     impede interstate commerce or jeopardize public safety.
       ``(3) Existing agreements.--If requested by the State 
     Authority, the Secretary shall authorize a State Authority 
     which had an interstate agreement in effect after January, 
     1999, to oversee interstate pipeline transportation pursuant 
     to the terms of that agreement until the Secretary determines 
     that the State meets the requirements of paragraph (2) and 
     executes a new agreement, or until December 31, 2001, 
     whichever is sooner. Nothing in this paragraph shall prevent 
     the Secretary, after affording the State notice, hearing, and 
     an opportunity to correct any alleged deficiencies, from 
     terminating an agreement that was in effect before enactment 
     of the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2000 if--
       ``(A) the State Authority fails to comply with the terms of 
     the agreement;
       ``(B) implementation of the agreement has resulted in a gap 
     in the oversight responsibilities of intrastate pipeline 
     transportation by the State Authority; or
       ``(C) continued participation by the State Authority in the 
     oversight of interstate pipeline transportation has had an 
     adverse impact on pipeline safety.''.
       (b) Ending Agreements.--Subsection (e) of section 60106, as 
     redesignated by subsection (a), is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(e) Ending Agreements.--
       ``(1) Permissive termination.--The Secretary may end an 
     agreement under this section when the Secretary finds that 
     the State authority has not complied with any provision of 
     the agreement.
       ``(2) Mandatory termination of agreement.--The Secretary 
     shall end an agreement for the oversight of interstate 
     pipeline transportation if the Secretary finds that--
       ``(A) implementation of such agreement has resulted in a 
     gap in the oversight responsibilities of intrastate pipeline 
     transportation by the State authority;
       ``(B) the State actions under the agreement have failed to 
     meet the requirements under subsection (b); or
       ``(C) continued participation by the State authority in the 
     oversight of interstate pipeline transportation would not 
     promote pipeline safety.
       ``(3) Procedural requirements.--The Secretary shall give 
     the notice and an opportunity for a hearing to a State 
     authority before ending an agreement under this section. The 
     Secretary may provide a State an opportunity to correct any 
     deficiencies before ending an agreement. The finding and 
     decision to end the agreement shall be published in the 
     Federal Register and may not become effective for at least 15 
     days after the date of publication unless the Secretary finds 
     that continuation of an agreement poses an imminent 
     hazard.''.

     SEC. 10. IMPROVED DATA AND DATA AVAILABILITY.

       (a) In General.--Within 12 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop and 
     implement a comprehensive plan for the collection and use of 
     gas and hazardous liquid pipeline data to revise the causal 
     categories on the incident report forms to eliminate 
     overlapping and confusing categories and include 
     subcategories. The plan shall include components to provide 
     the capability to perform sound incident trend analysis and 
     evaluations of pipeline operator performance using normalized 
     accident data.
       (b) Report of Releases Exceeding 5 Gallons.--Section 
     60117(b) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``To'';
       (2) redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as subparagraphs 
     (A) and (B);
       (3) inserting before the last sentence the following:
       ``(2) A person owning or operating a hazardous liquid 
     pipeline facility shall report to the Secretary each release 
     to the environment greater than five gallons of the hazardous 
     liquid or carbon dioxide transported. This section applies to 
     releases from pipeline facilities regulated under this 
     chapter. A report must include the location of the release, 
     fatalities and personal injuries, type of product, amount of 
     product release, cause or causes of the release, extent of 
     damage to property and the environment, and the response 
     undertaken to clean up the release.
       ``(3) During the course of an incident investigation, a 
     person owning or operating a pipeline facility shall make 
     records, reports, and information required under subsection 
     (a) of this section or other reasonably described records, 
     reports, and information relevant to the incident 
     investigation, available to the Secretary within the time 
     limits prescribed in a written request.''; and
       (4) indenting the first word of the last sentence and 
     inserting ``(4)'' before ``The Secretary'' in that sentence.
       (c) Penalty Authorities.--(1) Section 60122(a) is amended 
     by striking ``60114(c)'' and inserting ``60117(b)(3)''.
       (2) Section 60123(a) is amended by striking ``60114(c),'' 
     and inserting ``60117(b)(3),''.
       (d) Establishment of National Depository.--Section 60117 is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(l) National Depository.--The Secretary shall establish a 
     national depository of data on events and conditions, 
     including spill histories and corrective actions for specific 
     incidents, that can be used to evaluate the risk of, and to 
     prevent, pipeline failures and releases. The Secretary shall 
     administer the program through the Bureau of Transportation 
     Statistics, in cooperation with the Research and Special 
     Programs Administration, and shall make such information 
     available for use by State and local planning and emergency 
     response authorities and the public.''.

     SEC. 11. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

       (a) Innovative Technology Development.--
       (1) In general.--As part of the Department of 
     Transportation's research and development program, the 
     Secretary of Transportation shall direct research attention 
     to the development of alternative technologies--
       (A) to expand the capabilities of internal inspection 
     devices to identify and accurately measure defects and 
     anomalies;
       (B) to inspect pipelines that cannot accommodate internal 
     inspection devices available on the date of enactment;
       (C) to develop innovative techniques measuring the 
     structural integrity of pipelines;
       (D) to improve the capability, reliability, and 
     practicality of external leak detection devices; and
       (E) to develop and improve alternative technologies to 
     identify and monitor outside force damage to pipelines.
       (2) Cooperative.--The Secretary may participate in 
     additional technological development through cooperative 
     agreements with trade associations, academic institutions, or 
     other qualified organizations.
       (b) Pipeline Safety and Reliability Research and 
     Development.--
       (1) In General.--The Secretary of Transportation, in 
     coordination with the Secretary of Energy, shall develop and 
     implement an accelerated cooperative program of research and 
     development to ensure the integrity of natural gas and 
     hazardous liquid pipelines. This research and development 
     program--
       (A) shall include materials inspection techniques, risk 
     assessment methodology, and information systems surety; and
       (B) shall complement, and not replace, the research program 
     of the Department of Energy addressing natural gas pipeline 
     issues existing on the date of enactment of this Act.
       (2) Purpose.--The purpose of the cooperative research 
     program shall be to promote pipeline safety research and 
     development to--
       (A) ensure long-term safety, reliability and service life 
     for existing pipelines;
       (B) expand capabilities of internal inspection devices to 
     identify and accurately measure defects and anomalies;
       (C) develop inspection techniques for pipelines that cannot 
     accommodate the internal inspection devices available on the 
     date of enactment;
       (D) develop innovative techniques to measure the structural 
     integrity of pipelines to prevent pipeline failures;
       (E) develop improved materials and coatings for use in 
     pipelines;
       (F) improve the capability, reliability, and practicality 
     of external leak detection devices;
       (G) identify underground environments that might lead to 
     shortened service life;
       (H) enhance safety in pipeline siting and land use;
       (I) minimize the environmental impact of pipelines;
       (J) demonstrate technologies that improve pipeline safety, 
     reliability, and integrity;
       (K) provide risk assessment tools for optimizing risk 
     mitigation strategies; and
       (L) provide highly secure information systems for 
     controlling the operation of pipelines.
       (3) Areas.--In carrying out this subsection, the Secretary 
     of Transportation, in coordination with the Secretary of 
     Energy, shall consider research and development on natural 
     gas, crude oil and petroleum product pipelines for--
       (A) early crack, defect, and damage detection, including 
     real-time damage monitoring;
       (B) automated internal pipeline inspection sensor systems;
       (C) land use guidance and set back management along 
     pipeline rights-of-way for communities;
       (D) internal corrosion control;
       (E) corrosion-resistant coatings;
       (F) improved cathodic protection;
       (G) inspection techniques where internal inspection is not 
     feasible, including measurement of structural integrity;
       (H) external leak detection, including portable real-time 
     video imaging technology, and the advancement of computerized 
     control center leak detection systems utilizing real-time 
     remote field data input;
       (I) longer life, high strength, non-corrosive pipeline 
     materials;
       (J) assessing the remaining strength of existing pipes;
       (K) risk and reliability analysis models, to be used to 
     identify safety improvements that could be realized in the 
     near term resulting from analysis of data obtained from a 
     pipeline performance tracking initiative;
       (L) identification, monitoring, and prevention of outside 
     force damage, including satellite surveillance; and
       (M) any other areas necessary to ensuring the public safety 
     and protecting the environment.
       (4) Points of contact.--
       (A) In general.--To coordinate and implement the research 
     and development programs and activities authorized under this 
     subsection--
       (i) the Secretary of Transportation shall designate, as the 
     point of contact for the Department of Transportation, an 
     officer of the Department of Transportation who has been 
     appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate; and
       (ii) the Secretary of Energy shall designate, as the point 
     of contact for the Department of Energy, an officer of the 
     Department of Energy who has been appointed by the President 
     and confirmed by the Senate.
       (B) Duties.--
       (i) The point of contact for the Department of 
     Transportation shall have the primary responsibility for 
     coordinating and overseeing the implementation of the 
     research, development, and demonstration program plan under 
     paragraphs (5) and (6).
       (ii) The points of contact shall jointly assist in 
     arranging cooperative agreements for research, development 
     and demonstration involving their respective Departments, 
     national laboratories, universities, and industry research 
     organizations.
       (5) Research and development program plan.--Within 240 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Transportation, in coordination with the Secretary of Energy 
     and the Pipeline Integrity Technical Advisory Committee, 
     shall prepare and submit to the Congress a 5-year program 
     plan to guide activities under this subsection. In preparing 
     the program plan, the Secretary shall consult with 
     appropriate representatives of the natural gas, crude oil, 
     and petroleum product pipeline industries to select and 
     prioritize appropriate project proposals. The Secretary may 
     also seek the advice of utilities, manufacturers, 
     institutions of higher learning, Federal agencies, the 
     pipeline research institutions, national laboratories, State 
     pipeline safety officials, environmental organizations, 
     pipeline safety advocates, and professional and technical 
     societies.
       (6) Implementation.--The Secretary of Transportation shall 
     have primary responsibility for ensuring the 5-year plan 
     provided for in paragraph (5) is implemented as intended. In 
     carrying out the research, development, and demonstration 
     activities under this paragraph, the Secretary of 
     Transportation and the Secretary of Energy may use, to the 
     extent authorized under applicable provisions of law, 
     contracts, cooperative agreements, cooperative research and 
     development agreements under the Stevenson-Wydler Technology 
     Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.), grants, 
     joint ventures, other transactions, and any other form of 
     agreement available to the Secretary consistent with the 
     recommendations of the Advisory Committee.
       (7) Reports to congress.--The Secretary of Transportation 
     shall report to the Congress annually as to the status and 
     results to date of the implementation of the research and 
     development program plan. The report shall include the 
     activities of the Departments of Transportation and Energy, 
     the national laboratories, universities, and any other 
     research organizations, including industry research 
     organizations.

     SEC. 12. PIPELINE INTEGRITY TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Transportation shall 
     enter into appropriate arrangements with the National Academy 
     of Sciences to establish and manage the Pipeline Integrity 
     Technical Advisory Committee for the purpose of advising the 
     Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of Energy on 
     the development and implementation of the 5-year research, 
     development, and demonstration program plan under section 
     11(b)(5). The Advisory Committee shall have an ongoing role 
     in evaluating the progress and results of the research, 
     development, and demonstration carried out under that 
     section.
       (b) Membership.--The National Academy of Sciences shall 
     appoint the members of the Pipeline Integrity Technical 
     Advisory Committee after consultation with the Secretary of 
     Transportation and the Secretary of Energy. Members appointed 
     to the Advisory Committee should have the necessary 
     qualifications to provide technical contributions to the 
     purposes of the Advisory Committee.

     SEC. 13. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Gas and Hazardous Liquids.--Section 60125(a) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(a) Gas and Hazardous Liquid.--To carry out this chapter 
     and other pipeline-related damage prevention activities of 
     this title (except for section 60107), there are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Department of Transportation--
       ``(1) $26,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, of which 
     $20,000,000 is to be derived from user fees for fiscal year 
     2001 collected under section 60301 of this title; and
       ``(2) $30,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2002 and 
     2003 of which $23,000,000 is to be derived from user fees for 
     fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003 collected under section 
     60301 of this title.''.
       (b) Grants to States.--Section 60125(c) is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(c) State Grants.--Not more than the following amounts 
     may be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out section 
     60107--
       ``(1) $17,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, of which 
     $15,000,000 is to be derived from user fees for fiscal year 
     2001 collected under section 60301 of this title; and
       ``(2) $20,000,000 for the fiscal years 2002 and 2003 of 
     which $18,000,000 is to be derived from user fees for fiscal 
     year 2002 and fiscal year 2003 collected under section 60301 
     of this title.''.
       (c) Oil Spills.--Sections 60525 is amended by redesignating 
     subsections (d), (e), and (f) as subsections (e), (f), (g) 
     and inserting after subsection (c) the following:
       ``(d) Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.--Of the amounts 
     available in the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, $8,000,000 
     shall be transferred to carry out programs authorized in this 
     Act for fiscal year 2001, fiscal year 2002, and fiscal year 
     2003.''.
       (d) Pipeline Integrity Program.--(1) There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation for 
     carrying out sections 11(b) and 12 of this Act $3,000,000, to 
     be derived from user fees under section 60125 of title 49, 
     United States Code, for each of the fiscal years 2001 through 
     2005.
       (2) Of the amounts available in the Oil Spill Liability 
     Trust Fund established by section 9509 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 9509), $3,000,000 shall be 
     transferred to the Secretary of Transportation to carry out 
     programs for detection, prevention and mitigation of oil 
     spills under sections 11(b) and 12 of this Act for each of 
     the fiscal years 2001 through 2005.
       (3) There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Secretary of Energy for carrying out sections 11(b) and 12 of 
     this Act such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal 
     years 2001 through 2005.

     SEC. 14. OPERATOR ASSISTANCE IN INVESTIGATIONS.

       (a) In General.--If the Department of Transportation or the 
     National Transportation Safety Board investigate an accident, 
     the operator involved shall make available to the 
     representative of the Department or the Board all records and 
     information that in any way pertain to the accident 
     (including integrity management plans and test results), and 
     shall afford all reasonable assistance in the investigation 
     of the accident.
       (b) Corrective Action Orders.--Section 60112(d) is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``Corrective Action 
     Orders.--''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) If, in the case of a corrective action order issued 
     following an accident, the Secretary determines that the 
     actions of an employee carrying out an activity regulated 
     under this chapter, including duties under section 60102(a), 
     may have contributed substantially to the cause of the 
     accident, the Secretary shall direct the operator to relieve 
     the employee from performing those activities, reassign the 
     employee, or place the employee on leave until--
       ``(A) the Secretary determines that the employee's 
     performance of duty in carrying out the activity did not 
     contribute substantially to the cause of the accident; or
       ``(B) the Secretary determines the employee has been re-
     qualified or re-trained as provided for in section 4 of the 
     Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2000 and can safely 
     perform those activities.
       ``(3) Disciplinary action taken by an operator under 
     paragraph (2) shall be in accordance with the terms and 
     conditions of any applicable collective bargaining agreement 
     to the extent it is not inconsistent with the requirements of 
     this section.''.

     SEC. 15. PROTECTION OF EMPLOYEES PROVIDING PIPELINE SAFETY 
                   INFORMATION.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 601 is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:

     ``Sec. 60129. Protection of employees providing pipeline 
       safety information

       ``(a) Discrimination Against Pipeline Employees.--No 
     pipeline operator or contractor or subcontractor of a 
     pipeline may discharge an employee or otherwise discriminate 
     against an employee with respect to compensation, terms, 
     conditions, or privileges of employment because the employee 
     (or any person acting pursuant to a request of the 
     employee)--
       ``(1) provided, caused to be provided, or is about to 
     provide (with any knowledge of the employer) or cause to be 
     provided to the employer or Federal Government information 
     relating to any violation or alleged violation of any order, 
     regulation, or standard of the Research and Special Programs 
     Administration or any other provision of Federal law relating 
     to pipeline safety under this chapter or any other law of the 
     United States;
       ``(2) has filed, caused to be filed, or is about to file 
     (with any knowledge of the employer) or cause to be filed a 
     proceeding relating to any violation or alleged violation of 
     any order, regulation, or standard of the Administration or 
     any other provision of Federal law relating to pipeline 
     safety under this chapter or any other law of the United 
     States;
       ``(3) testified or is about to testify in such a 
     proceeding; or
       ``(4) assisted or participated or is about to assist or 
     participate in such a proceeding.
       ``(b) Department of Labor Complaint Procedure.--
       ``(1) Filing and notification.--A person who believes that 
     he or she has been discharged or otherwise discriminated 
     against by any person in violation of subsection (a) may, not 
     later than 90 days after the date on which such violation 
     occurs, file (or have any person file on his or her behalf) a 
     complaint with the Secretary of Labor alleging such discharge 
     or discrimination. Upon receipt of such a complaint, the 
     Secretary of Labor shall notify, in writing, the person named 
     in the complaint and the Administrator of the Research and 
     Special Programs Administration of the filing of the 
     complaint, of the allegations contained in the complaint, of 
     the substance of evidence supporting the complaint, and of 
     the opportunities that will be afforded to such person under 
     paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Investigation; preliminary order.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     receipt of a complaint filed under paragraph (1) and after 
     affording the person named in the complaint an opportunity to 
     submit to the Secretary of Labor a written response to the 
     complaint and an opportunity to meet with a representative of 
     the Secretary to present statements from witnesses, the 
     Secretary of Labor shall conduct an investigation and 
     determine whether there is reasonable cause to believe that 
     the complaint has merit and notify in writing the complainant 
     and the person alleged to have committed a violation of 
     subsection (a) of the Secretary's findings. If the Secretary 
     of Labor concludes that there is reasonable cause to believe 
     that a violation of subsection (a) has occurred, the 
     Secretary shall accompany the Secretary's findings with a 
     preliminary order providing the relief prescribed by 
     paragraph (3)(B). Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     notification of findings under this paragraph, either the 
     person alleged to have committed the violation or the 
     complainant may file objections to the findings or 
     preliminary order, or both, and request a hearing on the 
     record. The filing of such objections shall not operate to 
     stay any reinstatement remedy contained in the preliminary 
     order. Such hearings shall be conducted expeditiously. If a 
     hearing is not requested in such 30-day period, the 
     preliminary order shall be deemed a final order that is not 
     subject to judicial review.
       ``(B) Requirements.--
       ``(i) Required showing by complainant.--The Secretary of 
     Labor shall dismiss a complaint filed under this subsection 
     and shall not conduct an investigation otherwise required 
     under subparagraph (A) unless the complainant makes a prima 
     facie showing that any behavior described in paragraphs (1) 
     through (4) of subsection (a) was a contributing factor in 
     the unfavorable personnel action alleged in the complaint.
       ``(ii) Showing by employer.--Notwithstanding a finding by 
     the Secretary that the complainant has made the showing 
     required under clause (i), no investigation otherwise 
     required under subparagraph (A) shall be conducted if the 
     employer demonstrates, by clear and convincing evidence, that 
     the employer would have taken the same unfavorable personnel 
     action in the absence of that behavior.
       ``(iii) Criteria for determination by Secretary.--The 
     Secretary may determine that a violation of subsection (a) 
     has occurred only if the complainant demonstrates that any 
     behavior described in paragraphs (1) through (4) of 
     subsection (a) was a contributing factor in the unfavorable 
     personnel action alleged in the complaint.
       ``(iv) Prohibition.--Relief may not be ordered under 
     subparagraph (A) if the employer demonstrates by clear and 
     convincing evidence that the employer would have taken the 
     same unfavorable personnel action in the absence of that 
     behavior.
       ``(3) Final order.--
       ``(A) Deadline for issuance; settlement agreements.--Not 
     later than 120 days after the date of conclusion of a hearing 
     under paragraph (2), the Secretary of Labor shall issue a 
     final order providing the relief prescribed by this paragraph 
     or denying the complaint. At any time before issuance of a 
     final order, a proceeding under this subsection may be 
     terminated on the basis of a settlement agreement entered 
     into by the Secretary of Labor, the complainant, and the 
     person alleged to have committed the violation.
       ``(B) Remedy.--If, in response to a complaint filed under 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary of Labor determines that a 
     violation of subsection (a) has occurred, the Secretary of 
     Labor shall order the person who committed such violation 
     to--
       ``(i) take affirmative action to abate the violation;
       ``(ii) reinstate the complainant to his or her former 
     position together with the compensation (including back pay) 
     and restore the terms, conditions, and privileges associated 
     with his or her employment; and
       ``(iii) provide compensatory damages to the complainant.

     If such an order is issued under this paragraph, the 
     Secretary of Labor, at the request of the complainant, shall 
     assess against the person whom the order is issued a sum 
     equal to the aggregate amount of all costs and expenses 
     (including attorney's and expert witness fees) reasonably 
     incurred, as determined by the Secretary of Labor, by the 
     complainant for, or in connection with, the bringing the 
     complaint upon which the order was issued.
       ``(C) Frivolous complaints.--If the Secretary of Labor 
     finds that a complaint under paragraph (1) is frivolous or 
     has been brought in bad faith, the Secretary of Labor may 
     award to the prevailing employer a reasonable attorney's fee 
     not exceeding $1,000.
       ``(4) Review.--
       ``(A) Appeal to court of appeals.--Any person adversely 
     affected or aggrieved by an order issued under paragraph (3) 
     may obtain review of the order in the United States Court of 
     Appeals for the circuit in which the violation, with respect 
     to which the order was issued, allegedly occurred or the 
     circuit in which the complainant resided on the date of such 
     violation. The petition for review must be filed not later 
     than 60 days after the date of issuance of the final order of 
     the Secretary of Labor. Review shall conform to chapter 7 of 
     title 5, United States Code. The commencement of proceedings 
     under this subparagraph shall not, unless ordered by the 
     court, operate as a stay of the order.
       ``(B) Limitation on collateral attack.--An order of the 
     Secretary of Labor with respect to which review could have 
     been obtained under subparagraph (A) shall not be subject to 
     judicial review in any criminal or other civil proceeding.
       ``(5) Enforcement of order by secretary of labor.--Whenever 
     any person has failed to comply with an order issued under 
     paragraph (3), the Secretary of Labor may file a civil action 
     in the United States district court for the district in which 
     the violation was found to occur to enforce such order. In 
     actions brought under this paragraph, the district courts 
     shall have jurisdiction to grant all appropriate relief, 
     including, but not to be limited to, injunctive relief and 
     compensatory damages.
       ``(6) Enforcement of order by parties.--
       ``(A) Commencement of action.--A person on whose behalf an 
     order was issued under paragraph (3) may commence a civil 
     action against the person to whom such order was issued to 
     require compliance with such order. The appropriate United 
     States district court shall have jurisdiction, without regard 
     to the amount in controversy or the citizenship of the 
     parties, to enforce such order.
       ``(B) Attorney fees.--The court, in issuing any final order 
     under this paragraph, may award costs of litigation 
     (including reasonable attorney and expert witness fees) to 
     any party whenever the court determines such award costs is 
     appropriate.
       ``(c) Mandamus.--Any nondiscretionary duty imposed by this 
     section shall be enforceable in a mandamus proceeding brought 
     under section 1361 of title 28, United States Code.
       ``(d) Nonapplicability To Deliberate Violations.--
     Subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to an employee of 
     a pipeline, contractor or subcontractor who, acting without 
     direction from the pipeline contractor or subcontractor (or 
     such person's agent), deliberately causes a violation of any 
     requirement relating to pipeline safety under this chapter or 
     any other law of the United States.
       ``(e) Contractor Defined.--In this section, the term 
     `contractor' means a company that performs safety-sensitive 
     functions by contract for a pipeline.''.
       (b) Civil Penalty.--Section 60122(a) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(3) A person violating section 60129, or an order issued 
     thereunder, is liable to the Government for a civil penalty 
     of not more than $1,000 for each violation. The penalties 
     provided by paragraph (1) do not apply to a violation of 
     section 60129 or an order issued thereunder.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 
     601 is amended by adding at the end the following:

``60129. Protection of employees providing pipeline safety 
              information.''.

     SEC. 16. STATE PIPELINE SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEES.

       Within 90 days after receiving recommendations for 
     improvements to pipeline safety from an advisory committee 
     appointed by the Governor of any State, the Secretary of 
     Transportation shall respond in writing to the committee 
     setting forth what action, if any, the Secretary will take on 
     those recommendations and the Secretary's reasons for acting 
     or not acting upon any of the recommendations.

     SEC. 17. FINES AND PENALTIES.

       The Inspector General of the Department of Transportation 
     shall conduct an analysis of the Department's assessment of 
     fines and penalties on gas transmission and hazardous liquid 
     pipelines, including the cost of corrective actions required 
     by the Department in lieu of fines, and, no later than 6 
     months after the date of enactment of this Act, shall provide 
     a report to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation and the House Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure on any findings and recommendations for 
     actions by the Secretary or Congress to ensure the fines 
     assessed are an effective deterrent for reducing safety 
     risks.

     SEC. 18. STUDY OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY.

       The Secretary of Transportation is authorized to conduct a 
     study on how best to preserve environmental resources in 
     conjunction with maintaining pipeline rights-of-way. The 
     study shall recognize pipeline operators' regulatory 
     obligations to maintain rights-of-way and to protect public 
     safety.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today we are considering a bill to save lives. This 
legislation is tough new pipeline safety legislation that is going to 
significantly strengthen our Nation's pipeline safety laws. In the past 
year and a half, the Nation has suffered two tragic pipeline accidents.
  This legislation reauthorizes our Nation's pipeline safety program 
for 3 years and makes a number of very important, substantive changes 
to the pipeline safety statute.
  It reflects a year of intensive efforts by the Congress to bring a 
balanced measure to the floor. The legislation we have before us passed 
the United States Senate unanimously just a week or so ago by a vote of 
99-0.
  It was supported by the White House, the Secretary of Transportation, 
the National Governors Association, even the Mayor of Bellingham, 
Washington, the site of one of the tragic accidents.
  Indeed, I would note this is very bipartisan. The Mayor of Bellingham 
happens to be a Democrat; many of the members of the Washington 
delegation are Republicans. This is not, and should not be, a political 
issue. It is a bipartisan issue attempting to deal with safety and save 
lives. It is a good bill, but it is not a perfect bill. It balances 
many competing concerns.
  I know we are going to hear from my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle, some of them at least, who feel that it does not go far 
enough. I happen to agree with them.
  If I had my druthers, I would like to have worked out a House bill 
that we could bring to the floor, then pass it, then go to conference 
with the Senate, then negotiate a compromise, bring it back and bring 
back what I believe could be an even better bill.
  The problem, however, is we are running out of time; that simply is 
not going to happen. The legislation that we have before us today does 
indeed address all of the major issues debated during the 
reauthorization effort on both sides of the Capitol. This legislation 
that we have before us today provides for mandatory inspections. It 
requires qualifications of pipeline personnel.
  It requires certification so we know that people are competent in 
looking out for pipeline safety. It expands public access to 
information on pipeline operations, and it provides, very importantly, 
a greater role for the States in oversight of interstate pipelines.
  It also provides for the ability to reassign employees involved in 
incidents during the investigation of those incidents. It significantly 
increases penalties and removes the penalty cap. It provides whistle-
blower protection, and it significantly increases funding for the 
pipeline safety program.
  It is a strong step in the direction of reducing risks and, indeed, 
reducing the awful possibility of losing lives. It improves the current 
pipeline safety program by several different movements, one of which is 
addressing criticisms which have been leveled by the NTSB, the IG and 
GAO, and not only by addressing those criticisms, but providing funding 
levels to effectively implement those tougher changes.
  There are going to be those who say the bill does not go far enough. 
I happen to agree with that. I know the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar), my dear friend, would like the House to act. I agree with 
him. I would like the House to act also. The problem is we simply are 
running out of time. And if we do not move this good legislation, this 
safety legislation to save lives, there is not going to be any 
legislation, because we are not going to have the time to pass a House 
bill and go to conference and work out our differences.

                              {time}  1645

  There will not be any safety legislation, and I think that would be 
regrettable.
  I think it is very important to note that Senator Murray from 
Washington strongly supports the bill, Senator Breaux supports the 
bill, Senator McCain supports the bill. This really should have been an 
easy matter for this body. The bill passed the Senate unanimously. It 
addresses a very serious pressing problem.
  Unfortunately, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
apparently thought to politicize this issue and kill this legislation. 
I think that would be regrettable because if we kill the legislation, 
then we will not have improved pipeline safety. We will not have 
provided the opportunity to save lives.
  So I say let us not let the perfect, which is unattainable, become 
the enemy of the good. This is a good bill. It is going to save lives. 
I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, July 8, 1986, a quiet neighborhood in Mounds 
View, Minnesota, at 4 a.m. was wrenched from its slumber by a 
shattering explosion. A wall of fire roared through the street, turning 
the night into an inextinguishable nightmare.
  The explosion of a pipeline carrying unleaded gasoline killed a 
mother and her 7-year-old daughter, incinerated them, and severely 
injured another woman who emerged from her home.
  Lawns were scorched, mailboxes melted, power lines were down, cars 
set afire, the road buckled, and trees wilted. A quarter of a million 
dollars of property damage was caused. The origin of it all: a ruptured 
hazardous liquid pipeline carrying gasoline between St. Paul and 
Duluth.
  It focused the attention of the Congress and of the country and the 
review of the National Transportation Safety Board and the General 
Accounting Office on the need to improve the safety of the Nation's 
pipelines.
  I was then chair of the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight 
and had been preparing for a hearing on pipeline safety when this 
tragedy occurred. We held those hearings.
  Following the hearings, my then partner on that subcommittee, Mr. 
Clinger from Pennsylvania, and I made recommendations for safety 
improvements, including a substantial increase in pipeline inspections 
to detect problems before they lead to tragedy, better information on 
pipelines for persons who live near them, improvement in the data 
submitted by the Office of Pipeline Safety, improvements in cathodic 
protection, automatic shut-off valves to detect problems and prevent 
them from getting worse in suburbanized areas.
  The NTSB agreed and issued recommendations that the Office of 
Pipeline Safety require operators to conduct periodic internal 
inspection of their lines. But nothing happened because the 
administration at the time did not want those recommendations to go 
into effect.
  My two Senate Republican colleagues from Minnesota introduced 
legislation that required 3-year inspections, every 3 years. Tough 
inspections. Mandatory inspections. Established in legislation. That 
was reflected in our hearings. So in 1992, Congress passed legislation 
requiring OPS to set requirements for operators to conduct internal 
inspections by 1995.
  Today, 14 years after Mounds View, little progress has been made. The 
accident rate has not improved. In fact, it is increasing by 4 percent 
a year rate of accidents in pipelines. Twenty-four percent of the gas 
pipelines in this country are now more than 50 years old. The Office of 
Pipeline Safety has failed to step up to the plate and deal with the 
problem.
  The Office of Pipeline Safety has failed to comply with 22 directives 
from Congress to adopt regulations and undertake the necessary studies 
and regulatory action. That office has the lowest rate of any in the 
Department of Transportation of accepting NTSB recommendations.
  The bill before us is not as they, the industry, claim, a ``tough'' 
bill that will promote pipeline safety. The Senate bill mandates 
nothing beyond the current inadequate program of OPS. It leaves it to 
the discretion of OPS whether to adopt stronger programs. That approach 
has not worked.
  This bill will be requirement 23 on the Office of Pipeline Safety to 
adopt regulations. They have not done it 22 other times, what makes 
anyone think they are going to do it now?
  OPS has not issued a single final regulation requiring inspections. 
Just a short time ago, in the absence of inspection requirements, we 
had another tragedy. In Carlsbad, New Mexico, a 50-year-old pipeline 
exploded, killing 12 people, 5 children. Inspections showed that the 
pipeline had significant internal corrosion. It had never been properly 
inspected in 50 years. We cannot wait for OPS to do some more foot 
dragging in the face of this industry opposition to mandatory actions.
  There is a whole group of people that do not want this legislation 
and want this legislation strengthened. We have been told right from 
the very outset, we were in the process, I say to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster), we had reached a staff agreement, we 
had moved forward with a bill, and then, the Senate, on September 7, 
passed their bill.
  All of a sudden, we heard from the other body, you know the process 
over here in the Senate. There is not enough time left. That was a 
month ago. We could have had a bill on the floor. We could have been in 
conference with the Senate. We could even have some discussions with 
the Senate and do better, do better.
  I resent the implication and the statements made on the floor of the 
other body down the hall from here that people in this body, with 
indirect reference to this Member, are objecting to this bill on 
political grounds. Bologna. Anyone who knows me knows I stand for 
principle and for safety, and that is what this debate is all about.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I agree with so very much of what the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) has said about the serious 
problems that have existed. If I could, I would wave a magic wand and 
get a bill through the House here that we could go to the Senate with 
and negotiate a compromise, and I think we could have a better product. 
Time is not on our side.
  So I believe we are faced with the reality of we take this bill, 
which did, indeed, pass the Senate unanimously, 99 to 0, or we simply 
will not get any safety bill. I regret that, but I believe that is the 
reality of where we are.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a distinguished 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman 
Shuster) has said it best, of course we could do a better bill in the 
House. Of course, if we have the time, we could perhaps resolve all the 
problems in pipeline safety. But this Senate bill, passed by unanimous 
consent, is what we have.
  It is a strong and effective bill. It makes some very important steps 
in favor of pipeline safety. It improves and expands the public's right 
to know about pipeline hazards. It requires pipeline operators to test 
and inspect. It requires the operators to qualify and test their 
personnel. It requires spills as small as 5 gallons to be reported. It 
significantly raises the penalties for safety violations. It invests in 
new technologies to improve pipeline safety. It provides protections 
for whistle blowers, an important part of this process. It increases 
State oversight and local government input. Finally, it increases 
funding for safety efforts.
  Mr. Speaker, if one looked at a map of my State, and my district in 
particular, the third district in Louisiana, a map of pipelines across 
my district and the State, it looks like spaghetti. We are just 
absolutely covered with pipelines that carry all sorts of hazardous and 
very important products for America, oil, gas, liquids of all kinds.
  Pipeline safety is incredibly important to the people of my State. I 
will say again what the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) 
has said, I think if we had the occasion to sit down in this Chamber 
and write a better bill than this one, I think we could because this 
bill is not perfect and could be improved.
  But what has been agreed upon by the Senate, it dramatically advances 
pipeline safety. It is an incredibly important step in the right 
direction. For us not to take this step this session would be a shame. 
It would be, I think, a disregard of our duty. This is the opportunity 
for us to improve pipeline safety across this country. We need to take 
that important step. We need to pass this bill.
  We will be back here next year. We can provide the oversight over the 
DOT and the other agencies to make sure they carry out the intent of 
both this act and other acts. I urge my colleagues to pass this bill.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member of the Committee on 
Commerce.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this embarrassment 
that is called a piece of legislation, S. 2438. It does nothing to add 
to the safety of the American people or to ensure the safety of 
pipelines. There is little in this bill that cannot be done under 
existing law, and there is little in this bill that cannot be done by 
regulation at the Office of Pipeline Safety. It does little to correct 
the weakening that was done in the agreement which produced a bill 
which slipped through this House and through the Senate not long back 
and which resulted in significant weakening of the law with regard to 
pipeline safety.
  It is time that we did something meaningful in the area of pipeline 
safety. The results of inaction by the Office of Pipeline Safety, a 
very weak agency, and by this Congress, are that there are more than 15 
people dead in the last 18 months, including seven children under the 
age of 10.
  The environment has suffered, too. In the first 9 months of this 
year, property and environmental damages from hazardous liquid pipeline 
accidents has already surpassed that of any other full year. Consumers 
have suffered from pipeline accidents on the Explorer pipeline in Texas 
and the Wolverine pipeline in my own State of Michigan. Those events 
helped drive the gasoline price to as high as $2.50 a gallon in parts 
of the Midwest this summer.
  Inaction has hurt people. It has killed people. It has hurt the 
economy. It has raised gas and oil prices. There is no friend outside 
of this Chamber to the legislation except the pipeline industry. They 
are the only people that want this bill. They are the only people that 
do not know it is a sham, because they know there is something in it 
for them.
  There is more inaction by OPS, there is more inaction by the 
Congress, and there is a weak law under which little, if anything, is 
going to be done to take care of the safety of the American people.
  This legislation is opposed by organized labor. The AFL-CIO, the 
Teamsters, PACE, the transportation trades, the building and 
construction trades, the plumbers and the pipefitters all have sent 
letters urging Members to oppose this bill.
  The bill is also opposed by environment and public safety groups, 
including the League of Conservation Voters, the Environmental Defense 
Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Physicians for Social 
Responsibility, Clean Water Action, U.S. PIRG, and the National 
Pipeline Reform Coalition.
  Finally, and most importantly, the families of the Bellingham, 
Washington pipeline disaster oppose this legislation. They sent a 
letter to the House of Representatives urging us to vote against this 
sham safety legislation. The bill, as initiated in the Senate, was 
named after the two 5-year-old boys in Bellingham who were killed last 
year. Those names were removed from the bill at the request of the 
parents of Wade King and Stephen Tsiorvas because, in their view, the 
legislation is so weak that it is unworthy of being named after their 
sons.
  Who does support the bill? Pipeline companies and their trade 
organizations. They are the only ones supporting the bill. Why? Because 
it is a sweetheart deal, because it is not going to do anything.
  My counsel to this House is based on years of experience with OPS and 
with pipeline safety and with the pipeline companies, and that is 
reject the bill. Nothing is going to happen other than the fact that we 
will save this House a little bit of time, and we will enable us to 
approach this bill in a more sensible way next year without the kind 
of, quite frankly, disgrace that we confront at this particular time.

                              {time}  1700

  I would simply observe, no one is going to be hurt by rejecting a 
bill like this, which does so little. Everyone will be helped by 
passing a decent piece of legislation. We can do that next year. There 
is no need to make haste to pass this kind of an abomination.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, let us pass good legislation, let 
us strengthen pipeline safety, let us see to it that people are no 
longer killed by indifference and by poor legislation and by sweetheart 
deals cut which result in bad legislation coming to this House, and by 
weak organizations like the Office of Pipeline Safety, which does not 
do the job it should do in protecting the American people.
  I urge the legislation be rejected. We can do a better job next year. 
Certainly we cannot do a worse job next year.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, when my good friend from Michigan, with whom I have 
stood shoulder to shoulder in fighting so many battles together, says 
that this legislation, if I heard him correctly, is only supported by 
the pipeline industry, I have to refer to numerous other important 
people, I think, and organizations which indeed have expressed their 
strong support for this legislation.
  Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington, who is intimately 
familiar with the terrible problems, has come out strongly for this 
legislation; Senator Slade Gorton, a Republican of Washington. So we 
have both the Republican and the Democratic Senators representing the 
whole State, a State which has been so badly hurt in the past, 
supporting the legislation. The Secretary of Transportation, Rodney 
Slater, who says this legislation is critical to much-needed 
improvements in pipeline safety program; Vice President Al Gore, and I 
might get in trouble with some of my colleagues over here for 
emphasizing this, but facts are facts. Vice President Gore said, ``I 
commend the Senate for taking action today on this important issue of 
pipeline safety and I urge the House to take up this legislation 
soon.''
  The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. The 
National Governors' Association, which says, ``On behalf of the 
national governors, we are writing to urge you to support this 
legislation adopted by the Senate to improve oil and gas pipeline 
safety and to support prompt passage of such legislation.'' The 
newspaper in Bellingham, where the terrible tragedy occurred, says 
``Given where we are now, the reforms provided by the Senate 
legislation are significant. We cannot wait. The time is now for 
pipeline safety legislation.''
  And indeed, Senator Patty Murray, who has been in the forefront of 
supporting this on the floor of the Senate said, ``Well, some critics 
say we'll start again next year; we'll do better next year. That means 
it will be at least a year. And how can we have so much faith that we 
will get anything stronger or anything at all under a new Congress and 
a new President?'' And she says, ``Let me ask a simple question. Will 
you take that bet, if your family's safety depended upon it? I 
wouldn't, and I don't think we can shirk our responsibility to protect 
the public this year.''
  I find myself in a bit of an incongruous position in defending, in 
the midst of this heated political campaign, the Clinton 
administration, defending a Democratic administration who says we 
should pass this because it is so critical. And again, I emphasize we 
could have done a better job here in the House if we had had the time. 
But that simply is not the reality that we face, and so we should 
settle for a good piece of legislation, one which we indeed could have 
made better, but given the time, it is either this or nothing. And, 
indeed, if we want to bring up something next year to improve it 
further, we can certainly do that; but let us not continue to 
jeopardize the lives of American people, and in many cases young 
children, by doing nothing this year.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. He is noted for his generosity, and once again that is being 
exemplified here by his activities on the floor.
  This is really a sad day when we are listening to Members of the 
House of Representatives tell every other Member that we should not 
have any judgment on a piece of legislation; we should just listen to 
the Senate.
  Now, the gentleman from Pennsylvania would never, under any 
circumstances, have the Senate make every decision about every highway, 
every dam, every railroad in the United States. But he is out here 
today telling us that for pipeline safety, these pipes that go past 
homes and playgrounds all over the United States, that we should listen 
to the Senate. Since when did they become so wise?
  The bill before us fails to repeal the cost-benefit provision put 
into the 1996 reauthorization bill. I opposed these provisions then and 
support their repeal now. Keeping that section on the book's allows for 
paralysis by analysis. The pipeline companies just squeeze these 
smaller communities and individual neighborhood groups to death because 
they cannot get over this huge procedural obstacle which is built into 
the existing piece of legislation.
  Secondly, the bill does not meaningfully address the Department of 
Transportation's failure to enact many of the proposed safety 
recommendations issued by the National Transportation Safety Board. 
Here is what the National Transportation Safety Board, Chairman Jim 
Hall, said in the Boston Globe on March 5, 1999. He said that he would 
give the Office of Pipeline Safety a big fat F, F, on everything that 
it has done regarding the safety of pipelines in our country.
  We are reauthorizing a bill with that kind of a grade being attached 
to it by the chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board? And 
moreover, the bill itself rejects the amendment which I tried to make 
in committee which would have held the Department's feet to the fire so 
they had deadlines that they had to meet in order to ensure there was 
public safety.
  Who opposes this bill? I will tell my colleagues who opposes it. The 
Environmental Defense Fund, the National Resources Defense Council, and 
the League of Conservation Voters. In fact, the League of Conservation 
Voters is going to make this one of the votes for the year to get our 
grade. That is how important it is to them.
  So, please, reject this and do the House of Representatives the honor 
of being allowed to deal with the subject itself and not allowing the 
Senate to do our thinking for us.
  Mr. Speaker, submitted, as follows, for the Record, is a letter from 
the League of Conservation Voters regarding this matter:

                                League of Conservation Voters,

                                      Washington, October 6, 2000.

     Re Oppose S. 2438, The Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 
         2000

     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: The League of Conservation Voters 
     (LCV) is the bipartisan, political voice of the national 
     environmental community. Each year, LCV publishes the 
     National Environmental Scoreboard, which details the voting 
     records of Members of Congress on environmental legislation. 
     The Scoreboard is distributed to LCV members, concerned 
     voters nationwide, and the press.
       LCV urges you to oppose S. 2438, the ``Pipeline Safety 
     Improvement Act of 2000.'' S. 2438 does not contain any of 
     the elements that are needed to significantly improve the 
     safety of natural gas and oil pipelines.
       According to the General Accounting Office, approximately 
     four major pipeline accidents occur each week. The GAO also 
     found that major accidents are increasing by approximately 4% 
     annually at the same time that DOT's Office of Pipeline 
     Safety's fines against the industry are declining: currently, 
     only one in 25 violators receives a proposed fine. Oil 
     pipelines spill over 6 million gallons annually, an amount 
     equal to more than half of the Exxon Valdez release, and 
     average spill size has been increasing since 1993 to over 
     44,000 gallons in 1999.
       LCV believes that legislation to address pipeline safety 
     issues must include the following three elements:
       1. Strong regulatory standards (including pipeline testing 
     type and frequency, leak detection requirements, etc.), and 
     effective enforcement of those standards;
       2. Expanded liability for releases; and,
       3. Public accountability through right-to-know reporting 
     and establishment and funding of regional advisory councils 
     (similar to the councils in Alaska created by the Oil 
     Pollution Act of 1990).
       Several bills introduced in the House (H.R. 3558, 4792, and 
     5361) contain some or all of these critical pipeline safety 
     provisions. In addition, LCV believes it is essential to 
     remove the cost-benefit provisions put into section 60102(b) 
     of the pipeline statute during its 1996 reauthorization, 
     which are designed to prevent enactment of new safety and 
     environmental protection regulations by requiring those 
     regulations to meet economic and judicial tests that no other 
     federal agency's standards must meet.
       We urge you to vote no on S. 2438 and to pass a bill that 
     is more protective of the environment and the public's 
     health. LCV's Political Advisory Committee will consider 
     including votes on these votes on these issues in compiling 
     LCV's 2000 Scorecard: If you need more information, please 
     call Betsy Loyless in my office at 202/785-8683.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Deb Callahan,
                                                        President.

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Barton).
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the distinguished chairman of the Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure, for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am a little bit puzzled at some of the opposition from 
the other side on this issue. My subcommittee held hearings on this 
legislation last year. My subcommittee passed the bill, I think, by 
unanimous consent out of the subcommittee. We passed a piece of 
legislation on this issue either by unanimous consent or with very few 
no votes out of the full Committee on Commerce, over a year ago. That 
legislation has languished as the Senate has worked its will on this 
same issue.
  And now, as we are in the waning weeks of this Congress, the Senate 
has reported a bill that, quite frankly, is much stronger than the bill 
that came out of the Committee on Commerce. Our bill was a straight 
reauthorization of the existing pipeline safety law with some 
modifications. At the time of our hearings and the time of the debate 
in the committee, the Committee on Commerce, there were some concerns 
raised. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), who just spoke, 
raised some concerns; but basically, at that point in time last year, 
it was felt that straight reauthorization with some modification was 
acceptable.
  Now, what the other body has done is to actually present a much 
tougher bill in terms of safety. In fact, I think I could say with a 
straight face on the floor that this is the toughest pipeline safety 
bill to ever come before the House of Representatives. It increases 
fines in some cases by a factor of 20. It reduces the reporting 
requirements for liquid spills to 5 gallons. It increases dramatically 
the rights of local officials, safety agencies, and community residents 
to have access to important safety information from pipelines. It 
provides for a much expanded R&D program to improve pipeline safety 
technology. It provides, for the first time, whistle-blower protection 
for pipeline employees who wish to come forward and report possible 
safety or other types of violations.
  Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on. I might add in the political 
context that the Clinton-Gore administration supported passage of this 
bill when it came out of the other body. The Democrat Senators from 
some of the States that have pipeline accidents in New Mexico and 
Washington State supported this bill when it was on the other body's 
floor.
  So it comes over to us. Now, in a perfect world, we would like to 
have the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure pass a bill, 
then go to the Committee on Rules and merge the Committee on Commerce 
bill and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure bill, then 
come to the floor and have a debate with some amendments. But we are 
late in the session, so we have put the Senate bill on the floor under 
suspension of the rules, which means it will take a two-thirds vote to 
pass this legislation later this evening.
  I think we should be able to get a two-thirds vote. And if there are 
those that, for whatever reason, think that the Senate bill is 
imperfect, we can obviously come back to this legislation in the next 
Congress and, depending on which political party is in control, 
obviously reopen it and make further improvements, if that is 
necessary. But the decision today is do we pass the Senate bill. My 
judgment as subcommittee chairman that has jurisdiction on this issue 
is that the Senate bill is an improvement over current law, that it 
needs to be passed.
  We should get the two-thirds vote. I have gone through the summary of 
the Senate legislation. I have looked at all of the analysis of the 
Senate legislation. I could quote some of the support groups that are 
supporting it. In addition to the Clinton-Gore administration, the 
National Governors' Conference is supporting this legislation. So it is 
a good piece of legislation.
  I would hope that our colleagues, when we come to the floor later 
this evening, do pass this by a two-thirds vote so that we can send it 
on its way. If for some reason that fails, I would recommend to the 
leadership that we go to the Committee on Rules, we get a rule, and we 
bring it out under regular order, have a debate and vote it where it 
only needs a majority. But we felt like this was a strong enough piece 
of legislation that it could be put on the suspension calendar.
  And, quite frankly, I thought it was noncontroversial enough to be 
put on the suspension calendar. So I am a little bit surprised about 
some of the statements that have been made so far on this particular 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2438, the Pipeline Safety 
Improvement Act of 2000. This legislation greatly improves the safe 
operation of natural gas, oil, and hazardous liquid pipelines and goes 
far to prevent future accidents.
  The bill requires higher safety standards, allows a greater role for 
State participation, provides for strict accountability by the 
Department of Transportation to Congress, and allows increased public 
education and participation. It provides long term solutions for public 
safety by appropriating funds for Research and Development for 
innovative technologies for improving the structural integrity of 
pipelines and preventing accidents. And, it backs up these higher 
safety standards by sharply raising penalties for safety violators.
  The recent accidents in Bellingham, Washington and New Mexico have 
made us all aware that higher safety standards and additional oversight 
authority benefit all of us. This legislation answers the concerns 
raised by those accidents. It requires the Department of Transportation 
to issue rules and for pipeline operators to develop programs that 
provide for: increased inspection of pipelines; increased maintenance; 
public input into the development of these programs; strengthened 
training for pipeline employees; improved data collection about 
pipelines and about accidents; public education programs; availability 
of information to the public; greater emergency preparedness; an 
expanded State role in oversight, inspection, and investigation of 
interstate pipelines; and protection for employees that report safety 
violations. In addition, the legislation requires inspection reports, 
maps of pipeline facilities, and other data to be available to the 
public. It raises public awareness by requiring a public education 
program. Many of these programs have deadlines and require the 
Secretary of Transportation to report back to Congress on the progress 
of these programs within a certain period of time. And, as I stated 
earlier, penalties have been increased, in one instance from 25 
thousand dollars to five hundred thousand dollars.
  We know that it is essential to have public support for maintaining 
the safe operation of pipelines. That is why a ``whistleblower'' 
protection provision is included in this bill. Other bills do not have 
these protections for good citizens and employees. This legislation 
also brings in the experts--it provides for the National Academy of 
Sciences to advise the Secretary of Transportation on Research and 
Development for innovative technologies to improve the safety, 
reliability, and structural integrity of pipelines, and inspection and 
leak detection technology. Research and Development is also focused on 
minimizing the environmental impact of pipelines.
  In sum, this legislation greatly advances the ultimate goal of 
preventing future accidents by requiring and enforcing stricter safety 
standards, and expanding the role of the States and the public to 
ensure the safe operation of pipelines. I strongly urge my colleagues 
to support S. 2438.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, this is an insult to our intelligence. Let 
us put our cards on the table; let us say it the way it is. This 
legislation that we have just received from the Senate requires no 
periodic inspections. It requires zilch.
  Number two, the people who do the inspections do not even have to be 
trained. Now, who are we kidding? Who are we really kidding on this 
legislation? This is a disgrace.
  There are 2.2 million miles of pipeline in this country. And if my 
colleagues think this is going to help us, other than helping the 
pipeline companies, they are dead wrong and others are dead in the past 
10 years.
  My colleagues have heard the statistics. This is an insult that my 
colleagues would think that this is pipeline safety. Who are my 
colleagues doing their bidding for?
  I have always stood up here with congeniality, but if my colleagues 
think this is going to help pipeline safety when these pipelines go 
into people's houses and through dormitories, do my colleagues know 
what we are now leading to? We are leading to a moratorium on pipelines 
until we get our own act together, and I do not care who supports it. 
We should vote this down.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge a no vote.
  And that is not out of disrespect to the work done by Senators McCain 
and Murray in the other Chamber in an attempt to advance this cause. 
But, Mr. Speaker, the majority leadership has not brought one single 
House bill on this issue to the floor of this House this session 
despite multiple tragedies in multiple States of this country, not one 
single bill.
  And why is that important? It is important because, unless we have a 
strong mandate that pipelines be inspected, a stronger mandate than is 
in the Senate bill, we will be committing the very same blunder, the 
very same blunder that Congress has made for 20 years running. They 
have deferred to OPS to pass rules 22 times, and 22 times that has been 
ignored. The House bills that we want to vote on a simple chance to 
vote plug that gigantic hole.
  Now, there is one thing I know. I am not a scientist. I am not a 
meteorologist. I am not a hydrologist. But there is one thing I know, 
and that is that nobody has ever gotten a different result by doing the 
same thing.
  We must break this chain of failure and statutorily mandate 
inspections or commit the same blunder that every Congress has made 
late in the session saying, it is the best we can do. It is not the 
best we can do, and it is not up to American standards.
  I am not alone in this opinion. The people with moral authority on 
this subject, the three families who sent their young men out on a nice 
day in Bellingham in June last year whose sons never came home, want us 
to defeat this bill and move on to a stronger bill.
  Now, the oil and gas industry desperately wants this legislation. 
They have sent armies of lobbyists up here to try to get this bill 
through. But I am not voting for them. I am not voting with them. I am 
voting for the families. I am voting for Redmond and Kirkland. I am 
voting for the environmental community. I am voting for my conviction 
of conscience that we must enact a strong bill now or forever lose our 
chance until another string of tragedies occur.
  I will say one more thing. The oil and gas pipeline industry 
understands pressure. Do not let them use this for a relief valve. Keep 
the pressure on and pass a strong bill.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Barton).
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to point out once again, the Clinton-Gore 
administration supports passage of this bill. It passed the Senate by 
unanimous consent, which, if I understand correctly, there are 45 
Democrat Senators in the other body. So this should not be a partisan 
issue.
  I want to briefly read from the report that the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell) asked the GAO to do on pipeline safety. On page 
5, in the summary section, it says, ``The office,'' meaning the office 
that is responsible for overseeing pipeline safety, ``has historically 
had the lowest rate of implementation for these recommendations of any 
Transportation agency and has not implemented 22 statutory 
requirements, 12 of which date from 1992 or earlier.''
  Now, the law that is before us is stronger than the current law. And 
the Clinton-Gore administration has not implemented the current law.
  For my friends on the other side of the aisle that have concerns, 
legitimate concerns, direct those to the present administration. Help 
us pass this bill and then get it implemented.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, on October 3 the White House issued this statement: It 
is imperative that the House bring legislation to the floor as soon as 
possible so a new pipeline safety law that can be enacted before the 
end of the year.
  The Secretary of Transportation said, referring to the bill Mr. 
Dingell and I introduced, ``I urge the House leadership and its members 
to act quickly to pass comprehensive pipeline safety legislation and 
move to a conference with the Senate.''
  There is no statement of administration support for this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Metcalf.)
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this bill because it is 
far, far too weak.
  Pipeline safety has been one of my top priorities in this, my last 
term in the House. In a way, it is gratifying to see a bill debated on 
the floor today which addresses some of the most important safety 
issues facing our communities. The two Senators from my state, Slade 
Gorton and Patty Murray, fought tirelessly for pipeline safety in the 
other body and moved legislation forward which markedly improves 
current law in several key areas, including expanded right-to-know 
provisions, increased civil penalties for bad actors, and whistleblower 
protections. I am extremely grateful to them both for their sincere 
efforts.
  Unfortunately, I cannot support the bill we will vote on today. At 
the end of the day, it still leaves far too much discretion in the 
hands of the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), an agency which has 
habitually ignored Congressional directives and National Transportation 
Safety Board recommendations. For example: as part of this bill, 
pipeline operators are required to submit Integrity Management Plans to 
OPS which include periodic testing of their pipelines. There is no 
maximum period for frequency of inspections. Similar vagueness exists 
in the section dealing with employee training. In 1996, I voted against 
the last pipeline reauthorization bill because it removed the 
requirement that pipeline operators be certified as qualified to do 
their jobs. This bill does not reinstate that requirement.
  Further, the language allows the states to take a more active role in 
pipeline safety regulation is weak, and in no way resembles my 
legislation, which is based on the model of the Clean Water Act. I fear 
that much of this bill could end up meaning nothing at all. We need to 
enact a law that leaves very little wiggle room to Federal regulators 
who have proven that they cannot be trusted to protect the public.
  Proponents of this legislation admit that it is far from perfect. In 
fact, the strongest argument they make for its passage is that time is 
too short to pass something better. It may well be true that defeat of 
this bill means the death of pipeline legislation in this Congress. I 
am retiring at the end of this year, and would love to see a strong 
bill passed before I leave office. However, I would rather see Congress 
go back to the drawing board next year than pass this watered-down 
bill. I will vote against it, and would urge my colleagues to do the 
same.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, pipelines are certainly important in 
supplying our Nation's energy needs. But in Travis County, Texas, when 
gasoline is to be pumped through a 50-year-old line not designed for 
gasoline located within a few feet of 11 public schools and across a 
major source of drinking water, the term ``pipeline safety'' is a 
conflict. It is an oxymoron.
  Despite over thousands of Central Texans asking that they place the 
pipeline somewhere else, the Office of Pipeline Safety has been totally 
useless.
  Frank King, for whose son this bill has been named, came all the way 
from Washington State to Austin, Texas, to meet with us to describe the 
horror that can develop when pipeline safety is neglected and pipelines 
are mislocated. This bill does his family absolutely no justice. It has 
been so weakened that it has even been blessed by the giant oil 
companies that are trying to impose the Longhorn pipeline on Central 
Texas neighborhoods.
  We need a real pipeline safety bill, not a legislative illusion that 
does more to appease special interests than protect America's families. 
Reject this illusion tonight.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me 
the time.
  This Senate bill that is being proposed here today under the 
suspension rules falls very far short of the necessary protections that 
we need. And while some have said that this is a step in the right 
direction and some have even told us that we should not let the perfect 
be the enemy of the good, when is it that this House started letting 
only the passably good be the enemy of the best that we can do?
  I agree with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), we can do better 
and we should do better. And if we need to bring it to committee and 
allow it to come out under a regular rule so that we can put amendments 
to it, let us do it. But this bill as it came out of the Senate is too 
inadequate. It needs to be amended. We need to have inspections. We 
need to have training for workers so that they can do the right job on 
that for their own good and for the good of the public.
  This is a bill that needs sorely to be corrected and to be improved. 
I ask that we do that in the right process, that we not settle here. 
There is nothing going to be accomplished by letting this pass in its 
present form. We can do much better. We can do much for many more 
people if we do the right thing and bring it back, let us amend it, let 
us make it a strong bill. Let us have safety in the pipelines.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to repeat the words of Marlene Robinson, 
mother of Liam Wood, whose life was lost in the Billingham pipeline 
tragedy.
  He was 18 years old. He had just graduated from high school 5 days 
before. He did not go off on a party with his buddies. He went off fly 
fishing, the thing she said that made him happiest, 5 minutes from 
downtown. What he did not know was that a gas pipeline went through 
that area. A wall of fumes roared down that canyon and snuffed his life 
out, and then it exploded and incinerated two other children further on 
down.
  That is what this is all about. Do not tell me this is about the good 
and the perfect. Do not tell me this is about the other body that will 
not give us time to consider the bill.
  They passed their bill a month ago. We had a month to do something 
whether in committee or on this floor. We had a month to do something 
good for life.
  And what Marlene Robinson said was that this bill does not do the 
job. If the Office of Pipeline Safety will not protect the health and 
safety of our children in the community, she said, then our lawmakers 
must.
  She referred to this bill and said it is fatally weakened by effects 
of intense pressure from the pipeline industry. It is lives at stake. 
It is not political careers. It is not who is in charge. It is not who 
is the majority this year, who may be the majority next year. It is 
what we can do now.
  We will be judged on whether we have made the pile higher and better 
and left a better legacy. We can do better than this bill. We can do 
something that we have been waiting 13 years to do, at least this 
gentleman has since the last hearings that I chaired on the subject and 
found in a Republican administration failure of this Office of Pipeline 
Safety to do its job, in a Democratic administration failure of the 
same office to do its job.
  It is up to the Congress, as Mrs. Robinson said, it is up to us to 
draw the line, to protect communities, and to pass a bill that ensures 
safety for all of our children.
  This is the hour of truth.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would indeed point out that the complaints which my 
good friend has alluded to and which I agree with really are complaints 
about the Clinton-Gore administration for not enforcing the law and not 
being tough enough with their regulations. And indeed that is what we 
are trying to fix here.
  In fact, I hear so much about the pipeline industry being for this, 
if we really wanted to help the pipeline industry, we would bottle up 
this legislation and not pass anything so there would be weaker than 
the weak current legislation on the books. Instead, we provide what is 
clearly stronger legislation.
  Now, a year ago our good friends on the Committee on Commerce passed 
legislation on pipeline safety with virtually no substantive change in 
it and the very gentlemen, my good friends from the Committee on 
Commerce, who have taken the floor today to oppose this stronger 
legislation voted unanimously in favor of that weaker legislation which 
came out of their committee just a year ago.
  So this indeed is stronger legislation, not as strong as I would like 
it to be. And if we had more time, my colleagues can bet we would be 
attempting to negotiate with the Senate an even better bill.
  But the stark choice today is to live with the weak law we have or to 
accept the improvements passed by the Senate not overwhelmingly, that 
is not an adequate term, unanimously, 99-0, with 45 Democrats 
supporting the legislation.
  So it clearly is bipartisan. It is a major step in the right 
direction. I would be happy to join with my friends next year if we are 
here to try to improve it further. But let us pass legislation which is 
going to save lives rather than defer that until another year.
  And so, I strongly urge that this legislation be passed.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit this Joint Explanatory Statement for the 
gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley) and myself.

       S. 2438 requires the Secretary of Transportation to 
     implement the safety improvement recommendations provided for 
     in the Department of Transportation Inspector General's 
     Report. In addition, the legislation requires the Secretary 
     of Transportation to submit reports on the implementation of 
     those recommendations to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
     and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives. The Committee on Commerce of the House of 
     Representatives also shares responsibility for pipeline 
     safety legislation. Therefore, in addition to the above-
     mentioned Committees, the Secretary of Transportation should 
     also transmit such reports to the Committee on Commerce of 
     the House of Representatives.

  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, this nation has 157,000 miles of aging 
pipeline. The fact is that pipelines transport most of the natural gas 
and hazardous liquids in the United States.
  In many places, pipelines go unnoticed. Sometimes people don't even 
know that there is a pipeline near their home.
  However, in places like Lively, Texas; Mounds View, Minnesota; 
Bellingham, Washington; and Edison, New Jersey, just north of my 
district, pipelines are no longer taken for granted. Explosions have 
rocked these communities and taken innocent lives.
  We need to ensure accidents like these will never happen again. We 
need stronger pipeline standards.
  There must be statutorily required inspections at least once every 
five years.
  There must be a national safety certification program for pipeline 
operators, like programs for railroad engineers or FAA mechanics.
  And we need penalties for spills occurring on land to be made as 
stringent as existing penalties for spills occurring in water under the 
Clean Water Act.
  S. 2438 does not ensure that these protections are provided.
  I am proud to join my colleagues Representative Inslee and 
Representative Pascrell (Pallone, Baird, Smith, Dicks, McDermott are 
also sponsors) in sponsoring the ``Comprehensive Pipeline Safety 
Improvement Act of 2000'' (HR 4792) that will make these protections 
mandatory.
  Time is running out in this Congress to provide these protections. We 
need to act now. For all these reasons, I will be opposing this bill 
today. I urge my colleagues to defeat S. 2438 so that we can bring up 
real, strong, pipeline safety legislation.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant 
opposition to S. 2438, the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2000.
  All too often, Members of this body are faced with the unpleasant 
task of choosing between doing nothing at all or doing something that 
is inadequate. I will readily admit that S. 2438 is an improvement over 
the current pipeline safety regime. However, this Congress could have 
done so much more, and I believe that doing the inadequate would be a 
grave injustice to those who lost their lives in recent pipeline 
accidents and to the loved ones they left behind.
  Proponents of S. 2438 tacitly admit that there bill does not do 
enough to improve pipeline safety standards and enforcement. They 
instead urge that we pass this bill because Congress simply does not 
have enough time to work on a stronger bill. The reality is that the 
House had plenty of time to consider how to improve on the Senate bill. 
Furthermore, even before we received the Senate bill, staff on the 
communities with jurisdiction over the bill were negotiating in good 
faith to reach a compromise to incorporate the key provisions of 
several bills introduced in the House. The failure of the House to act 
on true reform measures to improve pipeline safety merely epitomes this 
Congress' failure to enact a whole host of legislation to improve the 
health and safety of ordinary Americans.
  It is still not too late to pass a strong pipeline safety bill before 
the 106th Congress adjourns. Representatives Oberstar  and Dingell 
recently introduced H.R. 5361, a bill that includes necessary 
provisions pertaining to accountability to the public, stronger safety 
standards, and more diligent enforcement. Now that the bill has failed 
to obtain the requisite two-thirds support to pass under suspension of 
the rules, I hope that S. 2438 will be reconsidered under regular 
order, thereby enabling the House to consider H.R. 5361 as an amendment 
in the nature of a substitute.
  Mr. Speaker, it is still not too late to act on pipeline safety. I 
urge the House to pass H.R. 5361 or similar legislation.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 2438, the 
Senate pipeline bill in its current form. Pipeline safety is an issue 
of great importance, and one that hits very close to home for those of 
us in the Pacific Northwest, a pipeline explosion in Bellingham, 
Washington on June 10, 1999 killed three children. This and other 
recent tragedies have highlighted the need for strengthening federal 
pipeline safety laws; that is why I cosponsored H.R. 5361. 
Unfortunately, the bill that provides the greatest protection for 
workers and their families did not make it to the floor of the House. 
Since the House Leadership has scheduled a vote on S. 2438 under 
suspension of the rules, and no amendments may be offered for its 
improvement, I must vote against it.
  S. 2438 fails to adequately protect our communities because the 
federal Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) would not be required to take 
action on such critical matters as pipeline inspection, leak detection, 
worker protection and training, and fines. This is in stark contrast to 
the mandatory requirements that are included in H.R. 5361. The pipeline 
industry has succeeded in circumventing meaningful regulation for 
decades because of weak legislation. Passing S. 2438 would send yet 
another message to OPS that the industry can continue to do so.
  Critics of the stronger House legislation say it has no chance of 
passing during this Congress, therefore, we must support the weaker 
Senate version--something is better than nothing. I disagree, once 
pipeline safety legislation is passed, the urgency to revisit the issue 
will diminish. At least until another deadly explosion.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit the following Seattle Times op-ed into the 
Record. It is written by the parents of the three children killed in 
the Bellingham, Washington pipeline explosion and calls for Congress to 
pass the stronger House legislation.

  [From the Seattle Times, Editorials & Opinion, Fri., Oct. 06, 2000]

      Pipeline Safety: Don't sacrifice The Good For The Status Quo

 (By Marlene Robinson and Bruce Brabec, Frank and Mary King, Katherine 
             Dalen and Edwin Williams Special to The Times)

       We are the parents who lost children when the Olympic 
     pipeline exploded on June 10, 1999. As we struggled with our 
     own loss, we also have struggled to give meaning to that loss 
     by trying to make pipelines safer in this country. To our 
     sadness and despair, before we were able to see meaningful 
     pipeline reform occur, tragedy struck again with a pipeline 
     explosion that killed 12 family members in New Mexico.
       The Washington state delegation to Congress, led by Reps. 
     Jay Inslee and Jack Metcalf, and Sens. Slade Gorton and Patty 
     Murray, have done a wonderful job of pushing pipeline safety 
     into the consciousness of Washington, D.C. Without their 
     efforts, there would not now be a debate regarding whether to 
     pass the weak bill that the Senate approved, or to wait for a 
     real, meaningful bill from the House. For their efforts, we 
     thank them.
       In her recent guest commentary, Sen. Murray said that our 
     push for a meaningful pipeline safety bill from the House 
     means that we are willing ``to sacrifice the good for the 
     perfect.'' We wish our choice was between good and perfect 
     but, unfortunately, the bill that passed the Senate was so 
     watered down by those who pay homage to the powerful oil and 
     gas lobbyists, that in reality it would change very little.
       The Senate pipeline bill leaves almost all decisions on 
     critical matters, such as pipeline testing, pipeline leak 
     detection, employee training, public involvement and fines, 
     up to the discretion of the federal Office of Pipeline Safety 
     (OPS). According to the General Accounting Office, OPS has 
     failed to implement 22 legislative mandates Congress has 
     passed since 1988. If you tell an agency to do something 22 
     times and they ignore you, by what logic do you think they 
     will pay attention the 23rd time?
       After a terrible pipeline explosion killed a mother and her 
     daughter in Mounds View, Minn., in 1986, the industry and the 
     OPS said they would develop new standards to ensure safety. 
     They did not. After a huge pipeline explosion destroyed part 
     of Edison, N.J., in 1994, the industry and OPS said they 
     would develop new standards to ensure safety. They did not!
       After three dead here in Bellingham, and now 12 more dead 
     in New Mexico, guess what the industry and OPS are saying. 
     Why should we trust them this time? Ask yourself why 
     pipeline-safety organizations across the country are opposed 
     to the Senate pipeline bill, while the pipeline industry is 
     now trying to push for its passage.
       For a pipeline bill to have real meaning, it has to take 
     the discretion away from the industry-controlled Office of 
     Pipeline Safety. It has to spell out clearly how often 
     pipelines need to be tested, and how that testing is to be 
     accomplished. It has to set strict penalties for companies 
     that do not pay enough attention to their pipelines. It has 
     to include strong local oversight of pipeline safety so those 
     who have the most to lose it something goes wrong have a say 
     in making sure that pipelines are safe. And it needs to 
     ensure that the public can review a wide range of information 
     regarding the pipeline that runs through their communities.
       These requirements all made common sense, practical sense, 
     and represent what a good pipeline safety bill would do. The 
     Senate bill does not accomplish any of these, and we call on 
     the members of the House to do what it takes to pass a 
     stronger ball that secures the public true safety 
     improvements.
       Those who are advocating our acceptance of the inadequate 
     Senate bill urge us not to ``sacrifice the good for the 
     perfect.'' But the reality is that the Senate bill is a long 
     way from ``good'' and will result in business as usual in an 
     industry that enjoyed a net profit of 40 percent in 1999, 
     while communities across the nation will continue to 
     experience horrific failures of aging pipelines.
       How many more sons and daughters will be lost before 
     meaningful pipeline-safety reform is passed? We do not want 
     to wait until next year, but we will if we must.
       Fortunately, good pipeline-safety bills have already been 
     drafted and introduced in the House. The House needs to pass 
     one promptly, and the Senate needs to follow the House's lead 
     and not sacrifice the good for the status quo.
       The authors are parents of the three young people killed in 
     the Bellingham pipeline disaster.

  Mr. SHOWS. Mr. Speaker, pipeline safety is of great importance to 
environmentally sensitive areas. Some of the most environmentally 
sensitive pipeline facilities are cable suspension bridges that convey 
pipelines above rivers and canyons.
  As a former state highway commissioner, I strongly believe that it is 
critical to maintain the approximately 4,000 pipeline bridges in this 
country or we will face the prospect of having to bore underground to 
replace this essential part of our infrastructure. It is important to 
clarify that cable suspension pipeline bridges have unique 
qualifications in addition to other pipelines that must be addressed to 
ensure safety through regular maintenance and inspection.
  Pipeline safety legislation under consideration today requires that 
the operators and inspectors be properly trained to inspect all 
pipeline facilities. It is imperative that the inspectors of these 
pipelines possess specialized knowledge to properly determine the 
structural integrity and soundness of the cable suspension bridge that 
supports the pipeline as well as the pipeline itself. Such knowledge 
should include an understanding of and training in: steel fabrication, 
structural engineering fundamentals, pipeline behavior under operating 
pressure, the characteristics of all cable types used in suspension 
bridges, and the characteristics of reinforced concrete foundation 
structures.
  It will be required through this bill that the Office of Pipeline 
Safety's technical experts, in conjunction with the industry, develop 
specific plans to ensure the integrity and safety of all pipelines. 
These regulations will ensure that all pipelines, including cable 
suspension pipeline bridges, are properly maintained and inspected to 
ensure the highest safety standards possible.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to rise in 
support of S. 2438, the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2000. This 
legislation will provide tough new financial penalties for safety 
violations and will lower the spill reporting threshold to five gallons 
as opposed to 50 barrels under existing law. In addition, the bill 
requires pipeline companies to implement stronger training and 
qualifications requirements for their personnel and strengthens the 
public ``right to know'' and ``whistle-blower'' protections for 
pipeline company employees.
  Each of these changes is designed to rebuild confidence in what has 
been one of the safest industries in the country. Unfortunately, no 
industry is perfect and the need for this legislation was highlighted 
by two recent pipeline explosions in Washington State and New Mexico. 
These two events have galvanized my belief that S. 2438 will move 
towards improving the industry safety record.
  Although I would still like to include other public safety 
protections, I understand the need for a pipeline safety bill this year 
is clear. I look forward to continuing working with my colleagues on 
the Committee on Commerce that I serve on but also in the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure if necessary to move even stronger 
legislation next year. Pipelines have been shown to be a much safer way 
to transport products than trucks or other methods and the current bill 
increases that safety factor.
  I also want to point out what I believe should be the model pipeline 
in terms of safety. I, along with several of my Texas colleagues, have 
been working to secure Federal approval of a project called the 
Longhorn Pipeline. The Longhorn Pipeline begins at Galena Park, Texas, 
in east Harris County in the district I represent and goes across Texas 
for approximately 700 miles to El Paso, Texas. The Longhorn Mitigation 
Plan protects the environment and all the people along the pipeline 
route and is of a scope and rigor unprecedented in the pipeline 
industry. It includes measures designed to reduce the probability of a 
spill as well as measures designed to provide greater protection to the 
more sensitive areas, including areas where communities and drinking 
water supplies could be affected.
  Longhorn was willing to take extraordinary steps to protect the 
people living in close proximity to their pipeline and I believe they 
have set the industry standard.
  Mr. Speaker, transporting hazardous materials by pipeline is the 
safest and most economical way to deliver these products to market. S. 
2438 will raise the bar of safety on our pipeline companies and punish 
those bad actors who operate on the margins of the safety envelope. 
Human lives and environmental quality are too important for us not to 
take action immediately.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 2438, 
the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act, a bill introduced by Senator John 
McCain which had bipartisan support in the Senate. My home state of 
Texas has more pipeline mileage than any other state, so maintaining 
the safe operation of these systems is important. In 1996, two 
teenagers were killed in my Congressional district while they were 
trying to warn their neighborhood about a leak from a pipeline carrying 
flammable butane. More can be done to improve pipeline safety, and this 
legislation represents the best--and for this Congress, the only--
opportunity to make constructive changes.
  Several of my colleagues have argued that we should kill this bill 
now, and work to pass another bill later, more along the lines of the 
bill introduced by my friends Mr. Dingell and Mr. Oberstar. I respect 
the concerns of these gentlemen, but I would say to my friends that the 
bill before us today is a good bill. The question of which bill is 
tougher is relative--in some areas the McCain bill is tougher, and in 
other areas the Dingell/Oberstar bill is tougher. For example, the 
McCain bill has higher penalties for safety violations, protections for 
pipeline employee whistleblowers, more defined pipeline safety research 
and development goals, and temporary job assignment requirements for 
pipeline employees involved in an accident. But more importantly, it is 
worth noting that the McCain bill, and the bill introduced by Messrs. 
Oberstar and Dingell, are much more alike than different. I think it's 
important that we not lose sight of this fact.
  Mr. Speaker, the McCain bill has one other key advantage over any 
House legislation--it has already passed the Senate by a unanimous 
vote. Let's not drop the ball in the last few seconds of the game. 
Americans want safe pipelines. In this final week of the 106th 
Congress, we ought to join together to pass this laudable legislation, 
and work in the next Congress with Mr. Dingell and Mr. Oberstar to 
ensure that the Act is implemented in a responsible manner.
  Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``yes'' on S. 2438.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2438, the Pipeline 
Safety Improvement Act of 2000. This is a good bill which will improve 
the safety of our natural gas and hazardous liquid pipelines.
  There are 325,000 miles of natural gas pipelines and almost 156,000 
miles of hazardous liquid pipelines in the United States. These 
pipelines transport over 20 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 
616.5 billion ton-miles of oil and oil products each year. These 
pipelines are critical in moving the fuels necessary to heat and light 
our homes and businesses and power our cars. As we discovered last 
winter, when heating oil was in short supply in the Northeast, and this 
past summer, when certain types of gasoline had difficulty reaching 
cities in the Midwest, these pipelines are also an important part of 
our economy. Therefore, it is important that these pipelines are 
operated as safely as possible, not only to protect individuals living 
or working near these lines and the environment, but to also assure 
that these fuels get to where they are needed.
  The natural gas and hazardous liquid pipeline safety programs are 
essential to preserving the safety of our communities from the risk 
posed by pipelines. Since 1968, the Natural Gas and Hazardous Liquid 
Pipeline Safety Acts have been the primary authorities through which 
the Department of Transportation has instituted regulations 
safeguarding our national pipeline system. This statute must be 
periodically reauthorized and the current authorization expires at the 
end of Fiscal Year 2000. The Commerce Committee shares jurisdiction 
over pipeline safety and has worked towards reauthorization of this 
important Act since early last year. We are including in the record 
today, a joint explanation with Chairman Shuster, indicating that 
reports required by S. 2438 should be provided to the Committee on 
Commerce, as well as the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, so that both Committees can continue to monitor the 
implementation of this Act.
  With the recent accidents in Bellingham, Washington and New Mexico, 
the Department of Transportation's pipeline safety program has been 
placed under scrutiny by Congress and others. Unfortunately, that 
scrutiny has revealed some real shortcomings in the program. As 
analysis of the pipeline safety program conducted by the Inspector 
General of the Department of Transportation recommended six things that 
could be done to improve the pipeline safety program. For the most 
part, these are simple things: complete the actions Congress mandated 
in 1992 and 1996, expand the focus of its research and development 
programs, develop a program to better train its inspectors on the 
latest technologies, revise its system of collecting and processing 
accident date to allow for more detailed trend analysis, require 
revised accident reports when necessary, and respond to open National 
Transportation Safety Board safety recommendations. These simple 
actions can have big impacts on improved pipeline safety.
  S. 2438 requires the Office of Pipeline Safety to comply with these 
recommendations. It also contains provisions requiring periodic testing 
of pipelines, improved training for pipeline operators, improved public 
information, increased reporting of spills. In addition, the bill 
increases State and local oversight and input, provides for more 
targeted research and development to improve pipeline safety, and 
provides increased funding for the Office of Pipeline Safety. Finally, 
the bill provides important protection for whistleblowers.
  I know there are some who would like to put in place even more 
mandates. I don't think that is the answer. Greater accountability is 
key. Unfortunately, as long as we have an Office of Pipeline Safety 
that fails to act on the Congressional mandates already in place both 
new and old mandates will not be worth the paper they are written on. 
And one thing Washington doesn't need more of is paper.
  I believe this bill strikes the right balance between new mandates 
targeted at specific problems and accountability for implementing old 
mandates. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to S. 
2438.
  I oppose this bill because it is weak and does next to nothing to 
ensure the safety of my constituents who live or work near a natural 
gas pipeline.
  Sadly, thirteen years after the National Transportation Safety Board 
first recommended that pipeline operators inspect their pipelines to 
identify corrosion or other mechanical damage--nothing has been done.
  The Department of Transportation has not moved on the NTSB's 1987 
recommendation and no regulations exist today to force pipeline 
operators to regularly inspect their pipelines.
  I am deeply concerned over the issue of pipeline safety because in 
New Jersey, the most densely populated state in the nation, tens of 
thousands of residents live and work near areas cris-crossed by 
pipelines.
  As my colleagues from New Jersey will remember, it was only six years 
ago that a massive natural gas pipeline explosion occurred in Edison, 
New Jersey.
  That pipeline explosion destroyed eight apartment buildings and 
disrupted what was once a stable neighborhood.
  Mr. Speaker, there are plans to today to expand a natural gas 
pipeline in Bergen County, New Jersey, a pipeline that would run very 
near a residential neighborhood and a playground in North Arlington, 
New Jersey.
  How can this Congress, in good conscience, pass a bill that simply 
extends the status quo--and does not require the Department of 
Transportation to issue any meaningful regulations designed to address 
pipeline safety issues?
  What will we say when and if a pipeline problem harms innocent 
individuals in North Arlington, New Jersey or elsewhere in America?
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this weak bill that fails and honor 
our obligation to protect the public's safety.
  Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 2438, the 
King and Tsiorvas Pipeline Safety Improvement Act. In order to know why 
this legislation is so important, one only has to remember that 
seventeen U.S. citizens have died in pipeline accidents during this 
Congress.
  By passing this legislation, the House will be taking an important 
step in avoiding future pipeline tragedies. We all recognize that 
natural gas, oil, gasoline, diesel fuel, and other industrial liquids 
play key roles in the nation's economy. Over 3,000 natural gas 
operators and 52,000 master meter and liquefied natural gas operators 
and over 200 hazardous liquid operators bring these products to market. 
Transporting both gaseous and liquid materials safely through an 
intricate network of over 1,750,000 miles of pipeline is a complex 
undertaking. Today, we have the opportunity to better protect the 
public from the dangers of pipeline operations.
  Among other things, S. 2438 will improve current law by investing in 
new technology to improve pipeline safety, increasing civil penalties 
for safety violations, and requiring pipeline operators to conduct 
periodic inspections of their systems. In addition, in response to 
accusations that the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) has not always 
done its job in the past S. 2438 provides a significant increase in 
funds for the OPS to enable it to hire more personnel to handle the 
mandates that Congress has already required.
  Some of our colleagues will argue that this bill is not strong 
enough. In fact, S. 2438 is the strongest pipeline safety reform ever 
adopted by either body of Congress. This bill represents meaningful 
reform. It was crafted by a bipartisan group of legislators who worked 
through months of meetings and negotiations to develop the best bill 
possible. The resulting legislation is so strong that both the Vice 
President and the Secretary of Transportation supported passage of S. 
2438.
  Let's not put process over results. Our nation needs strong pipeline 
safety legislation this year. The safety of millions of Americans is at 
stake, and S. 2438 is a strong, workable bill that will result in vast 
improvements over the current safeguards for pipeline operations. I 
urge all Members to support S. 2438. It is a good bipartisan bill that 
will take an effective first step towards improving pipeline safety.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dickey). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill, S. 2438.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                          ____________________

                              {time}  1730