[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1573-1602]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                PIPELINE SAFETY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2001

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
proceed to the consideration of S. 235, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 235) to provide for enhanced safety, public 
     awareness, and environmental protection in pipeline 
     transportation, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate is now considering 
S. 235, the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2001. I am joined in 
sponsoring this important transportation safety legislation by Senators 
Murray, Hollings, Hutchison, Bingaman, Domenici, Breaux, Brownback, 
Smith, and Landrieu. I especially express my appreciation to Senator 
Murray, as well as former Senator Gorton, for the hundreds of hours 
they put into this legislation.
  This bill is the product of many months of hearings and bipartisan 
compromise and cooperation during the last Congress. It is designed to 
promote both public and environmental safety by reauthorizing and 
strengthening our Federal pipeline safety programs which expired last 
September.
  As most of my colleagues well know, the Senate worked long and hard 
during the last Congress on how best to improve pipeline safety. After 
several months of hearings, and countless meetings, the Senate finally 
achieved a bipartisan consensus on comprehensive pipeline safety 
improvement legislation. We unanimously approved that legislation last 
September 7. I want to point out, by a voice vote, this legislation was 
passed just last September 7. Unfortunately, the House failed to 
approve a pipeline safety measure so we were never able to get to 
conference or send a measure to the President. Our collective inaction 
was a black mark on the 106th Congress.
  Because the Congress as a whole did not act, the unacceptable status 
quo under which a total of 38 fatalities occurred during just the last 
year remains the law of the land. If we consider the pipeline-related 
deaths during the last Congress, that number increases to 64 total 
fatalities. Again, there have been 64 recent deaths, yet we have done 
nothing concrete to improve the law governing pipeline safety. Timely 
action not only by the Senate, but also the House, is needed to address 
identified safety problems before any more lives are lost. This is a 
call for action by both Chambers.
  I commend and thank the Senate leadership on both sides for 
recognizing the critical need for passage of this legislation and 
scheduling this floor action so quickly. This early attention by the 
Senate demonstrates our firm commitment to improving pipeline safety. I 
remain hopeful that the new Congress as a whole will act quickly to 
take the necessary action to improve pipeline safety before we receive 
another call to action by yet another tragic accident.
  Before I discuss the specific provisions of the legislation, I would 
like to discuss the safety record for pipeline transportation. 
According to the Department of Transportation, pipeline related 
incidents dropped nearly 80 percent between 1975 and 1998, and the loss 
of product due to accident ruptures has been cut in half. From 1989 
through 1998, pipeline accidents resulted in about 22 fatalities per 
year--far fewer than the number of fatal accidents experienced among 
other modes. While the fatality rate has been generally low, it has 
taken a turn in the wrong direction during the past 2 years--with 26 
fatalities in 1999 and 38 fatalities in the year 2000. I must also 
point out that according to the General Accounting Office, the total 
number of major pipeline accidents--those resulting in a fatality, and 
injury or property damage of $50,000 or more--increased by about 4 
percent annually between 1989 and 1998.
  The leading cause of pipeline failures is outside force damage, 
usually from excavation by third parties. Other causes of failures 
include corrosion, incorrect operation, construction, material defect, 
equipment malfunction, and pipe failure.
  While statistically the safety record is generally good, accidents do 
occur, and when they occur, they can be devastating. That was certainly 
the case last August when a pipeline accident claimed the lives of 12 
members of two families camping near Carlsbad, NM, and the previous 
year when three young men lost their lives in Bellingham, WA. That is 
why I believe so strongly that we must act now to help prevent future 
pipeline-related tragedies. It is our duty to take action as necessary 
to ensure our Federal transportation safety policies are sound and 
effective, whether for air, rail, truck, or pipelines.
  The Office of Pipeline Safety within the Department of 
Transportation's Research and Special Programs Administration oversees 
the transportation of about 65 percent of the petroleum and most of the 
natural gas transported in the United States. OPS regulates the day-to-
day safety of 3,000 gas pipeline operators with more than 1.6 million 
miles of pipelines. It also regulates more than 200 hazardous liquid 
operators with 155,000 miles of pipelines. Given the immense array of 
pipelines that traverse our nation, reauthorization of the pipeline 
safety program is, quite simply, critical to public safety.
  The legislation before us today will strengthen and improve pipeline 
safety. S. 235 will authorize additional funding for safety enforcement 
and research and development efforts. It will provide for increased 
State oversight authority and facilitate greater public information 
sharing at the local community level. It raises civil penalties, 
provides whistle-blower protections for employees, and provides for 
many other safety improvements. In short, it will promote both public 
and environmental safety.
  Let me describe the major provisions of the bill:
  First, the bill would require the implementation of pipeline safety 
recommendations issued last March by the Department of Transportation's 
Inspector General to the Research and Special Programs Administration. 
The IG found several glaring safety gaps at OPS and it is incumbent 
upon us all to do all we can to insure that the Department 
affirmatively acts on these critical problems.
  The legislation would also require the Secretary of Transportation, 
the RSPA Administrator and the Director of the Office of Pipeline 
Safety to respond to all NTSB pipeline safety recommendations within 90 
days of receipt. The Department's responsiveness to NTSB pipeline 
safety recommendations for years has been poor at best. While current 
law requires the Secretary to respond to the NTSB no later than 90 days 
after receiving a safety recommendation, there are no similar 
requirements at RSPA. I am aware of one case in particular where an 
NTSB recommendation sat at DOT's pipeline office for more than 900 days 
before even an acknowledgment of the recommendation was issued. Such 
disregard for the important work of the NTSB is intolerable. Therefore, 
this legislation statutorily requires RSPA and OPS to respond to each 
and every pipeline safety recommendation it receives from the NTSB and 
to provide a detailed report on what action it plans to initiate to 
implement the recommendation.
  The measure would require pipeline operators to submit to the 
Secretary of Transportation a plan designed to improve the 
qualifications for pipeline personnel. At a minimum, the qualification 
plan would have to demonstrate that pipeline employees have the 
necessary knowledge to safely and properly perform their assigned 
duties and would require testing and periodic reexamination of the 
employees' qualifications.
  The legislation would require DOT to issue regulations mandating 
pipeline operators to periodically determine the adequacy of their 
pipelines to safely operate and to implement integrity management 
programs to reduce those identified risks. The regulations would, at a 
minimum, require operators to do the following: base their integrity 
management plans on risk assessments that they conduct; periodically 
assess the integrity of their pipelines; and, take steps to prevent and 
mitigate unintended releases, such as improving

[[Page 1574]]

lead detection capabilities or installing restrictive flow devices.
  It also would require pipeline operators to carry out a continuing 
public education program that would include activities to advise 
municipalities, school districts, businesses, and residents of pipeline 
facility locations on a variety of pipeline safety-related matters. It 
would also direct pipeline operators to initiate and maintain 
communication with State emergency response commissions and local 
emergency planning committees and to share with these entities 
information critical to addressing pipeline safety issues, including 
information on the types of product transported and efforts by the 
operator to mitigate safety risks.
  The legislation directs the Secretary to develop and implement a 
comprehensive plan for the collection and use of pipeline data in a 
manner that would enable incident trend analysis and evaluations of 
operator performance. Operators would be required to report incident 
releases greater than five gallons, compared to the current reporting 
requirement of 50 barrels. In addition, the Secretary would be directed 
to establish a national depository of data to be administered by the 
Bureau of Transportation Statistics in cooperation with RSPA.
  In recognition of the critical importance of technology applications 
in promoting transportation safety across all modes of transportation, 
the legislation directs the Secretary to focus on technologies to 
improve pipeline safety as part of the Department's research and 
development efforts. Further, the legislation includes provisions 
advanced last year by Senator Bingaman, myself, and others, to provide 
for a collaborative R&D effort directed by the Department of 
Transportation with the assistance of the Department of Energy and the 
National Academy of Sciences.
  The bill provides for a three-year authorization, with increased 
funding for Federal pipeline safety activities, the state grant 
program, and research and development efforts. Let me assure my 
colleagues that we are seeking the views of the Administration 
regarding the funding levels and will carefully consider funding and 
other concerns as the bill proceeds through the legislative process. We 
must ensure that the Department has the tools it needs to carry out its 
critical pipeline safety activities and to advance research and 
development efforts.
  The legislation requires operators, in the event of an accident, to 
make available to the DOT or NTSB all records and information 
pertaining to the accident and to assist in the investigation to the 
extent reasonable. It also includes provisions concerning serious 
accident that provide for a review to ensure the operator's employees 
can safely perform their duties.
  In addition, pipeline employees are afforded the same whistle-blower 
protections as are provided to employees in other modes of 
transportation. These protections are nearly identical to the 
protections aviation-related employees were granted in the Wendell H. 
Ford Aviation and Investment Reform Act for the 21st Century.
  Again, I hope this Congress can act expeditiously to approve 
comprehensive pipeline safety legislation. We simply cannot afford 
another missed opportunity to address identified pipeline safety 
shortcomings.
  The Senate can be very proud to be taking action on such an important 
public safety issue as one of its first legislative acts of the 107th 
Congress. We must act to help improve pipeline safety and prevent 
future tragedies like those that occurred in Washington and New Mexico. 
I urge my colleagues' support of this legislation.
  Mr. President, I point out to my colleagues something that bears 
looking at. This map behind me is a snapshot of the thousands of miles 
of gas transmission, gas distribution, and hazardous liquid pipelines 
that crisscross our country. It is based on data compiled in 1997 by 
MAPSearch Services in the Office of Pipeline Safety. The Office of 
Pipeline Safety is in the process of completing its own mapping 
initiative that will provide a much greater level of accuracy and will 
be made available to the public via the Internet by this legislation.
  While the Office of Pipeline Safety is years behind in completing 
this initiative, it is projected that by the end of February, 86 
percent of hazardous liquid lines and 29 percent of natural gas 
transmission lines will be mapped under this new initiative. I am 
committed to ensuring that OPS completes this initiative in a timely 
manner and to the highest degree of accuracy possible.
  What is important, from the map I have here today, is for all of us 
to realize that pipeline safety affects all of us. We owe it to our 
constituents to pass this measure today and to press the House to act 
expeditiously to pass a bill in order to improve pipeline safety.
  Let me, for the benefit of my colleagues, particularly the 11 new 
Members, provide a brief history of the work of the Commerce Committee 
and the time devoted by the Senate during the last Congress which led 
to the development of the pending legislation.
  I understand there will be amendments that will be proposed. I in no 
way object to those amendments. I want a proper perspective to be given 
on this issue. We just didn't come up with this legislation.
  The Commerce Committee's work began nearly a year ago when we held a 
field hearing in Bellingham, Washington, on March 13th, at which 18 
people formally testified--including the Governor of Washington, mayors 
and city officials, the parents of the three boys killed in the tragic 
June 1999 pipeline accident, representatives of state and federal 
pipeline safety regulatory agencies, oil and gas companies, and public 
interest groups.
  We then held a full committee hearing on pipeline safety on May 11th 
at which we heard from Senator Patty Murray and several Representatives 
from Washington State. We also received testimony from the 
Administrator of the Department of Transportation's Research and 
Special Programs Administration, the DOT Inspector General, the NTSB, 
the parents of the children killed in the Washington pipeline accident, 
and witnesses representing the natural gas transmission industry, the 
natural gas distribution industry, the hazardous liquid pipeline 
industry, State pipeline inspectors, and public safety advocates.
  Each and every one of the 30 witnesses testifying before our 
committee recommended changes in the current law and offered views on 
the legislative proposals pending at the time. Members both on and off 
the Commerce Committee also offered specific recommendations. And 
countless meetings were held by Members and staff discussing ways to 
improve pipeline safety. The Commerce Committee operated in a manner to 
ensure that anyone who wanted to participate in this process could do 
so and the input from the many diverse interests has been both useful 
and appreciated.
  Next, the Commerce Committee met in executive session on June 15 
during which we considered a substitute amendment which was the product 
of the many views presented to the committee. We also adopted a number 
of other amendments and debated others that weren't adopted. We agreed 
to continue to work to resolve some outstanding issues prior to taking 
the bill to the floor. That bill was reported by the committee without 
one dissenting vote.
  Following that markup, the interested Members continued working to 
try to find common ground on those areas that had not been resolved 
during the executive session. Now, I will remind my colleagues of the 
tragic pipeline accident that occurred during the August recess when 12 
members of two families camping near Carlsbad, NM, lost their lives 
when a natural gas transmission line ruptured. Sadly, it was that 
tragic accident that spurred the prompt action upon the Senate's return 
in September. During the first week back from the August recess, we 
reached a final consensus on the legislation to enable the bill's 
prompt consideration. The bill was approved by unanimous consent on 
September 7.
  Unfortunately, the House failed to approve pipeline safety 
legislation during the last Congress. As a result, the

[[Page 1575]]

status quo under which 64 lives have been lost in just the past 2 years 
remains the law of the land. We simply must take action--both Chambers 
must take action--and allow us to get to a conference and to send a 
strong pro-safety pipeline bill to the President.
  Mr. President, I believe every Member of this Chamber can be proud 
that one of our very first legislative acts for the new Congress is to 
consider legislation to strengthen federal pipeline safety policies and 
in turn, improve public safety. I urge the House to also make pipeline 
safety an early priority and enable the Congress to carry out its 
obligations to the American public.
  I recognize that some Members may not have expected this bill to have 
been scheduled for floor action as quickly as this week. It is not my 
intent, nor do I believe it is the leadership's, to preclude any Member 
from having the opportunity to offer their views on how we could even 
further improve pipeline safety. But I want to remind all of my 
colleagues that this measure did pass this Chamber by unanimous consent 
just 5 months ago. And it took considerable effort and bipartisan 
cooperation and compromise to enable that action to occur.
  Some would like the bill to go further and some believe it goes too 
far. But we did work long and hard to finally achieve a consensus in 
this legislation and I hope our new colleagues who were not in the 
Senate during the last Congress will carefully consider the critical 
importance of advancing this pipeline safety measure through the 
process. And, I want to state for the Record my strong interest in 
working with the administration on this issue. I will certainly 
consider any recommendations it may offer to improve pipeline safety as 
we work to move this legislation through conference.
  Mr. President, I want to take a moment to recognize two Members who 
played key roles in the process last year that culminated in the 
creation of the measure before us today. They are Senator Patty Murray 
and Senator Slade Gorton. It was in large part due to their tireless 
work and bipartisan cooperation that enabled the Senate to pass a 
strong, pro-safety pipeline bill last year. And it is in the spirit of 
continued bipartisan cooperation that we are able to consider this bill 
today.
  Finally, I want to again mention the other sponsors of this bill: 
They are Senators Hollings, Hutchison, Bingaman, Domenici, Breaux, 
Brownback, Smith, and Landrieu. I thank them for their work and 
bipartisan cooperation on this important legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of comprehensive 
pipeline safety legislation. I want to especially commend Senator 
McCain for his strong, personal leadership on this issue. He held 
hearings on pipeline safety in the last Congress, and he's helped make 
this legislation a priority here in the Senate. We would not be here 
today without Senator McCain's leadership.
  I first got involved in this issue 20 months ago in the wake of a 
horrible pipeline explosion in my home State of Washington. On June 10, 
1999 in Bellingham, Washington a gasoline pipeline ruptured. Gas poured 
out of the pipeline and overflowed into Whatcom Creek. Eventually, that 
gasoline ignited, and it created a massive fireball. The explosion sent 
a plume of smoke more than 20,000 feet into the air--as you can see in 
this picture. But most tragic of all, the explosion killed three young 
people. It shattered a community and inflicted serious environmental 
damage. Without warning on a quiet summer day, three young people were 
taken from their families in a tragedy that should never have happened.
  After the accident, I spent several months learning about pipelines. 
I learned that the Office of Pipeline Safety oversees more than 157,000 
miles of hazardous liquid pipelines and more than 2.2 million miles of 
natural gas lines throughout the country. These pipelines run near our 
schools, our homes, and our communities. They perform a vital service--
bringing us the energy we need for cars, airplanes, and home heating. 
But at the same time, they are not as safe as they could be.
  I learned that it's hard for citizens to find out if they live near a 
pipeline--much less if that pipeline is safe. I learned that many of 
these pipelines were laid down 30 or 40 years ago, and they are getting 
old. They're subject to internal corrosion and to external damage. And 
worst, of all--they may not receive regular inspections. I learned that 
too many pipeline operators don't have the training they need. And I 
learned that we're not investing in pipeline safety--both in oversight 
and in the new technology that will make pipelines safer.
  Mr. President, the impact of all of these problems can be seen in the 
number of pipeline accidents. Between January 1, 1986 and December 31, 
1999, there have been more than 5,700 pipeline accidents in this 
country, 325 deaths, 1,500 injuries, and almost $1 billion in 
environmental damage. On average there is one pipeline accident every 
day in this country, and 6 million hazardous gallons are spilled into 
our environment every year.
  As I worked on pipeline safety, I talked to a lot of people. I worked 
with officials at all levels of government, with industry 
representatives, environmentalists, state and federal regulators, and 
concerned citizens.
  Last year, I introduced my own pipelines safety legislation. I was 
pleased when Senator McCain--as Chairman of the Senate Commerce 
Committee--made this issue a priority and held a hearing and a markup 
on pipeline safety legislation. And many other Senators played key 
roles--especially Senators Hollings, Bingaman, Inouye, Domenici, 
Breaux, and Wyden--and also former-senator Slade Gorton. On June 15, 
our bill passed out of committee.
  Then, on August 19, there was another terrible pipeline explosion 
near Carlsbad, NM. That blast killed 12 people. That horrific accident 
reminded this Senate that we had to act. As a result, our bill passed 
the Senate on September 7. Let me review the features of the McCain-
Murray bill as passed last year.
  To make pipelines safer, our bill improved the qualification and 
training of pipeline personnel, improved pipeline inspection and 
prevention practices, expanded the public's right to know about 
pipeline hazards, raised the penalties for safety violators, enabled 
States to expand their safety efforts, invested in new technology to 
improve safety, protected whistle blowers, increased funding for safety 
efforts by $13 billion, and recognized State citizen advisory 
committees and allowed for their funding.
  This bill--which is again being considered today--was the strongest 
pipeline safety bill to ever pass either Chamber of Congress. The 
Senate has clearly made pipeline safety a priority--and we are doing so 
again this year. Then our bill moved to the House for debate. In the 
House, it did gather support from a majority of Representatives. 
Unfortunately, it was brought up for a vote through a procedure that 
required a two-thirds majority--and it fell short.
  Again this year, it is the House of Representatives that must step up 
to the plate on this issue. That is why I have worked with Washington's 
congressional delegation--especially Congressman Rick Larsen who 
represents Bellingham--to develop additional provisions to address some 
of the concerns expressed by the House last year.
  I am proud to report that Congressman Larsen introduced that 
legislation in the House this week. I also plan on introducing it here 
in the Senate today so it can become part of the process we use to 
enact the best legislation. The delegation legislation that Congressman 
Larsen and I have worked on will improve the McCain bill in several 
ways.
  It will strengthen the provision on employee certification. It will 
further increase penalties for safety violations. It will improve the 
community's right to know. And, it will ensure periodic inspections of 
pipelines.
  The strongest pipeline safety bill ever to pass either body of 
Congress is on the floor of the U.S. Senate right

[[Page 1576]]

now. A vote yes is a vote for progress--a vote to make pipelines safer. 
A vote no is a vote for the status quo. A vote no freezes the process. 
A vote no leaves us exactly where we were when three people were killed 
in Bellingham and 12 people were killed in Carlsbad.
  Are there things we can do to improve this bill? Yes. But we well 
never get to them unless this bill passes out of the Senate. This bill 
represents our single best opportunity to make pipelines safer. That's 
clear from what happened last year. Last year, the Senate passed this 
bill, and some in the House had problems with it. The improvements will 
be made--and the differences will be worked out--in the conference 
process. But we can't get to the conference process until the Senate 
and the House each pass pipeline safety legislation.
  Voting against this bill won't make pipelines safer. Voting for this 
bill--and making improvements during conference--will make pipelines 
safer.
  Frankly, Mr. President, I expect the bill we're debating today--S. 
235--to pass the Senate again this year--as it did last year.
  Then--once again--the House will need to pass its own legislation.
  At that point, the two bills will be reconciled by a conference 
committee. That committee's work will be critical.
  Ultimately, I hope that the conference committee's final bill will 
resemble the bill I've been working on with the Washington state 
delegation.
  Mr. President, this isn't the end of our discussion on pipeline 
safety. In fact, it's just the start and that starting process begins 
by voting yes for this bill.
  Before I conclude, I want to comment on the current energy crisis. 
It's something that I have spent a lot of time on in the past few 
months, and it is having a real impact on the people of my State.
  I have been listening very closely to President Bush's comments. 
Among other things, he has suggested streamlining the approval process 
for installing pipelines. That concerns me.
  I recognize that we need to increase our energy generation, but we 
shouldn't do it at the expense of our safety or our environment. Just 
because we are having an energy crisis does not mean that the families 
in Bellingham or Carlsbad will accept a rollback of safety standards.
  I hope President Bush will agree that we shouldn't replace our 
current energy crisis with a pipeline safety crisis. Let me offer four 
ways President Bush can show his commitment to public safety, The first 
one is simple. We shouldn't backtrack on safety. Senate bill 235--
represents the new minimum of safety standards. President Bush should 
not send us a proposal that is less stringent than this bill. Let me 
give you one example. Our bill expands the public's right to know about 
problems with pipelines and ensure communities and States have a role 
in pipeline safety.
  Last week, I heard about a draft energy plan that President Bush may 
put forward. It gives the oil and gas industry a guaranteed seat at 
every meeting on pipeline regulations. However, it provides no 
guarantee that concerned citizens, local officials or state 
representatives would be part of the decisionmaking process.
  President Bush should not undue the progress we made last year. And I 
hope he'll show a sensitivity to safety and environmental concerns that 
have been absent from his discussions on this issue to date. Second, 
President Bush should signal his support of pipeline safety 
legislation, which I hope will ultimately take the form of him signing 
a bill into law. Third, President Bush should fund pipeline safety in 
his budget as a priority. I will be fighting for pipeline safety 
funding in the upcoming budget debate, and I will hold the 
administration accountable for its commitment to investing in pipeline 
safety. Finally, President Bush's Department of Transportation should 
continue to issue administrative rules to make pipelines safer.
  The Clinton administration took several important administrative 
steps.
  They issued safety and environmental regulations that require 
mandatory safety testing of pipelines in populated areas, in sensitive 
environmental areas, and along waterways. And at my request, they 
stationed a pipeline inspector in Washington State. And they agreed to 
give Washington state more of a role in pipeline inspections. I hope 
the Bush administration will show the same level of commitment.
  So I hope President Bush will reconsider his energy proposal to make 
sure it will heed the lessons we've learned from so many pipeline 
accidents. We do need to address our energy needs, but not at the 
expense of our safety. Let's make pipelines safe first, before we lay 
down more pipelines. I want to close with one final image. This chart 
shows where pipeline accidents have taken place between 1984 and 1999. 
As you can see, pipelines fail in every State.
  The states marked in yellow had between 3 and 19 accidents. The 
states marked in orange had between 20 and 69 accidents. And the states 
marked in red had 70 or more pipeline accidents. As you can see--most 
of the States are red. I don't want to have to color more of these 
States red.
  If we learned anything last year, it's that we must not wait for 
another tragedy to force us to act. We must pass a comprehensive 
pipeline safety bill this year. This bill represents the start of our 
efforts in Congress this year, and I will work with anyone who want to 
make pipelines safer. I know that we can't undo what happened in 
Bellingham, but we can take the lessons from the Bellingham tragedy and 
put them into law so that families will know the pipelines near their 
homes are safe.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Washington that 
she is too modest. Had it not been for her efforts and those of former 
Senator Gorton, I know we would not have achieved the product that we 
have. I am grateful for her continued commitment not only to this 
legislation but to the families who experienced the terrible tragedy in 
Bellingham where all are very appreciative.
  I note the presence of Senator Breaux, a friend from Louisiana who 
also has significant background and knowledge on this issue and who has 
played a very important role in its passage. I will be brief.
  Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the Record at this time a 
statement from the Office of Management and Budget. Also, I ask that 
two letters in support of this legislation from the National Governors' 
Association and the National Association of Regulatory Utility 
Commissioners be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   Statement of Administration Policy

    (This statement has been coordinated by OMB with the concerned 
                               agencies.)


            S. 235--Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2001

                 (McCain (R) Arizona and 7 co-sponsors)

       The Administration supports Senate passage of S. 235, which 
     would significantly strengthen the enforcement of pipeline 
     safety laws: The Administration appreciates the Senate's 
     action in making consideration of pipeline safety legislation 
     one of its first priorities. The tragic deaths last year of 
     12 family members in Carlsbad, New Mexico, and the earlier 
     deaths of three youths in Bellingham, Washington, underscore 
     the need for action.
       The Administration looks forward to working further with 
     Congress to secure enactment of pipeline safety legislation.
                                  ____



                               National Governors Association,

                                                 February 6, 2001.
     Hon. Trent Lott,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Senate Russell Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lott: On behalf of the nation's Governors, we 
     are writing to express our support for S. 235, a bill to 
     improve oil and gas pipeline safety, and to encourage prompt 
     passage of such legislation. Governors are concerned about 
     the increasing number of pipeline accidents and reported 
     regulatory inaction by the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS). 
     As you know, the General Accounting Office (GAO) report on 
     OPS issued last year noted that the agency failed to 
     implement 22 of the 49 requirements made by Congress over the 
     last decade, and has the lowest rate of any transportation 
     agency for implementing recommendations of the National 
     Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).

[[Page 1577]]

       It is important to Governors that OPS be required by law to 
     comply with congressionally mandated requirements and 
     implement the recommendations of the NTSB. OPS should also 
     strengthen its rules regarding pipeline operation, 
     maintenance, and public reporting of spills and leaks.
       Equally important to Governors, legislation should grant 
     OPS the continued authority to enter into agreements with 
     states to inspect and oversee interstate pipelines. According 
     to the GAO report, states have performed well as interstate 
     agents under these agreements, yet until recently OPS was 
     phasing out interstate agent agreements. The National 
     Governors Association (NGA) adopted a policy statement last 
     year (enclosed) that urges Congress to review this 
     unfortunate trend. State inspectors typically are able to 
     perform more frequent and more thorough inspections than 
     federal inspectors, improving their ability to detect safety 
     problems and prevent accidents.
       NGA's policy support pipeline safety legislation that 
     provides states with the authority to protect our citizens 
     from pipeline explosions and leaks. States should be 
     authorized to establish standards that do not conflict with 
     but may exceed federal standards. Our policy also endorses 
     the ability of states to enforce violations of federal or 
     state standards. We look forward to working with you on 
     legislation that accomplishes these goals.
       Thank you for your consideration. Please feel free to 
     contact Diane S. Shea, Director of NGA's Natural Resources 
     Group, at 202/624-5389, if you have any questions.
           Sincerely,
     Tom Vilsack
       Chair, Committee on Natural Resources.
     Frank Keating,
       Vice Chair, Committee on Natural Resources.
       Enclosure.

                    NR-20. Improved Pipeline Safety


                             20.1  Preamble

       The United States contains approximately 2 million miles of 
     natural gas and hazardous liquid pipelines. The U.S. 
     Department of Transportation's Office of Pipeline Safety 
     (OPS) is responsible for regulating these pipelines. OPS 
     retains oversight authority unless it grants authority to 
     individual states. A number of states have assumed oversight 
     responsibility for intrastate gas and liquid pipelines within 
     their borders following certification by OPS; a far smaller 
     number are responsible for inspection of interstate lines.
       OPS authority derives from the 1968 Natural Gas Pipeline 
     Safety Act and the 1979 Hazardous Liquids Pipeline Safety 
     Act, which were substantially amended in 1992 and 1996. OPS 
     is responsible for establishing and enforcing safety 
     standards for the construction, testing, operation, and 
     maintenance of pipelines. The Pipeline Safety Program is due 
     to be reauthorized in September 2000.


                         20.2  Recommendations

                   20.2.1  Increasing State Authority

       The Governors urge Congress to consider amending the 1968 
     Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act and the 1979 Hazardous 
     Liquids Pipeline Safety Act and authorize states to establish 
     safety standards for interstate pipelines that do not 
     conflict with but may exceed federal standards. States should 
     also be authorized to enforce violations of federal or state 
     standards.
       The Governors urge Congress to review the policy of OPS to 
     decline to grant any additional states interstate agent 
     status for interstate pipelines.


                    20.2.2  Congressional Oversight

       The Governors urge that Congress, as it reauthorizes OPS, 
     require the office to strengthen its rules, as appropriate. 
     OPS should be required to explain its failure to comply, in 
     some cases for over a decade, with the recommendations of the 
     National Transportation Safety Board for periodic internal 
     and hydrostatic testing and operator certification. The 
     office should be held accountable for its failure to meet 
     congressional mandates to define ``environmentally sensitive 
     areas'' and ``high-density population areas.''


                      20.2.3  More Effective Rules

       The Governors urge that Congress require OPS to strengthen 
     rules, as appropriate, regarding pipeline operation, 
     maintenance, and public reporting of spills and leaks. These 
     should include a review of: Requiring federal certification 
     of operator training and qualification; increasing inspection 
     requirements for pipeline corrosion; requiring study and 
     implementation of state-of-the-art leak detection systems; 
     requiring installation of effective fail-safe mechanisms; 
     imposing safety standards for liquid fuel pipelines that are 
     at least as stringent as those for natural gas pipelines; 
     requiring pipeline operators to report to OPS and affected 
     jurisdictions all spills greater than five gallons; requiring 
     pipeline operators to disclose the results of all pipeline 
     inspections to local and state authorities; requiring OPS to 
     work with local emergency response providers to develop 
     preparedness and response plans and providing appropriate 
     funding support to local jurisdictions to implement such 
     plans; requiring pipeline operators to periodically plan and 
     drill cooperatively with local emergency response providers; 
     and requiring periodic management audits of pipeline 
     companies to ensure compliance with the foregoing.


                      20.2.4  Appropriate Funding

       The Governors urge Congress to fund OPS at a level that 
     will allow an increased allocation for states, working in 
     partnership with the federal agency, to ensure pipeline 
     safety, as well as providing for federal research and 
     development on technologies for leak detection, testing, safe 
     operations, corrosion protection, and internal inspection.


                 20.2.5  Intergovernmental Cooperation

       The Governors urge the states and the federal government to 
     work together to exchange data on ways to improve their 
     inspections of intrastate pipelines and local distribution 
     companies to continue to improve the safety of these 
     facilities. The Governors also urge the states to review the 
     OPS' Common Ground Report--Study of One-Call Systems and 
     Damage Prevention Best Practices issued in August 1999, and 
     compare their state one-call systems to the proposals for 
     improving one-call systems in order to continue improving 
     ways of preventing third-party damage to underground 
     facilities.
                                  ____

                                           National Association of


                             Regulatory Utility Commissioners,

                                 Washington, DC, February 7, 2001.
     Re S. 235--Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2001.

     Hon. Trent Lott,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Majority Leader Lott: On behalf of the National 
     Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) we 
     urge you to support swift passage of S. 235. However, NARUC 
     does not believe S. 235 should be the vehicle for broader 
     energy policy legislation. NARUC would therefore oppose 
     amendments that would attempt to expand this bill beyond its 
     current intent of improving pipeline safety.
       Last Congress NARUC expressed strong support for the 
     reauthorization of pipeline safety legislation provided 
     sufficient funding to the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) for 
     State grants was authorized. We believe the increase in 
     funding for these grants found in S. 235 will better enable 
     OPS to meet its obligation of a 50% funding share for this 
     Federal/State partnership.
       Additionally, NARUC and its membership strongly believe 
     there is a vital role for the States in ensuring the safe 
     operation of pipelines regardless of the interstate or 
     intrastate nature of the pipeline in question. NARUC strongly 
     supports provisions of S. 235 that provide States with 
     increased authority and increased participation in safety 
     activities of the pipelines traversing our States.
       There will be more we can do to improve upon S. 235, and 
     NARUC is committed to working with Congress in the future to 
     produce legislation that improves upon this bill. We too 
     would like to see a stronger bill, one that provides the 
     States with more oversight. However, we believe that it is 
     vitally important to the safety and welfare of our citizens 
     to send pipeline safety legislation to the President as soon 
     as possible. Thank you for your consideration of NARUC's 
     views.
           Sincerely,
     Nora Mead Brownell,
       President, NARUC Commissioner, Pennsylvania Public Utility 
     Commission.
     Edward J. Holmes,
       Chair, NARUC Committee on Gas Commissioner, Kentucky Public 
     Service Commission.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I note Senator Breaux is here. My friend 
from Minnesota, Senator Wellstone, also wishes to speak.
  I invite others who wish to speak on this issue. We would like to 
consider amendments after that and move to passage of this bill today. 
That is our intention.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to follow the Senator from Louisiana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. BREAUX. I thank my colleagues for the remarks they have made on 
this legislation already. I was particularly pleased to be here when 
Senator Murray from Washington was making her remarks. As the chairman 
of the committee acknowledged regarding her contributions, she was an 
active participant in the drafting of this legislation in the last 
Congress, actually to the point of being invited by the chairman to sit 
in the committee and participating as a member because she made 
valuable contributions in developing this legislation.

[[Page 1578]]

  I rise in strong support of the bill that is now before the Senate. 
It is a major step in ensuring the safety and the integrity of a system 
of pipelines that is covering the entire United States, bringing 
necessary energy to our families, to our businesses, and to our 
industry.
  We worked over a year in the last Congress, saying we have to do a 
better job than we have done in the past. What we produced last year 
was an important contribution. It took into account concerns of both 
the operators and owners of pipelines, as well as those who are served 
by those pipelines. We all have a common interest in seeing that these 
lines have integrity, that they are technologically the best we could 
have in this country. The bottom line is, they are safe.
  We produced a bill in the last Congress that passed the Senate by a 
unanimous vote. That was not an easy accomplishment. There were a lot 
of different sides with opinions on how the legislation should look and 
what it should do. Some, quite frankly, thought it went too far. Others 
felt it didn't go far enough.
  The bottom line is that at the end of last year this bill came to the 
Senate in essentially the same form it is in today and passed by a 
unanimous vote. That indicated there was general agreement, obviously, 
on what the content should be.
  Unfortunately, the House took the legislation up on what they call a 
suspension of the rules and it failed by a 23-vote margin from being 
adopted in the House. That was most unfortunate. Had the other body 
been able to do what I think most of them wanted to do--a majority, in 
fact, voted for it--this issue would be behind us and we would have in 
place today a new system of inspection, a new system for qualifications 
for the operators, and community right-to-know provisions would be the 
law of the land.
  Unfortunately, that is not the case. Therefore, under the leadership 
of our chairman, Senator McCain, and other members of the Commerce 
Committee, and Members of the Senate, we are back on the floor where we 
left off last year with the product that already passed, essentially, 
the Senate in the last Congress by unanimous consent.
  It is an important issue for my State, an important issue for me. We 
have over 40,000 miles of pipeline in my State alone--33,000 on shore 
and about 7,000 miles in the Gulf of Mexico--bringing the largest 
supply of natural gas in North America from the Gulf of Mexico. We have 
7,000 miles of pipeline buried under the ocean in the Gulf of Mexico 
that brings the natural gas on shore, and that is distributed through a 
pipeline system throughout the United States. Mr. President, 33,000 
miles of those pipelines are in my own State of Louisiana. We have a 
very strong interest in making sure those lines are secure and safe.
  What does the bill do? No. 1, we require periodic pipeline testing. 
That will be a requirement. A line can be inspected by internal devices 
such as a ``pig,'' which is basically the name for a device that is run 
through the pipeline, a very sophisticated piece of technology. It is 
referred to as a ``pig'' because it sort of squeaks through the 
pipeline and takes various measurements as to integrity of the line. It 
tests for corrosion of the line, tests for leaks or potential leaks of 
the line. A very sophisticated and very accurate piece of equipment 
that we require would be run through all of these pipelines on a 
periodic basis.
  However, it is important to note that only about 35 percent of the 
natural gas pipelines are susceptible to being tested through this type 
of technological instrument called the ``pig'', the rest of them are 
not. In the legislation, we allow that in the areas where the so-called 
``pig'' technology is not suitable because of the type and size of the 
line or the bends in the line, there be other methods of testing that 
would be periodically required by the legislation.
  For instance, we require the operators perform direct assessments of 
their lines. What do we mean by direct assessments? It is not a term of 
architect; it is pretty much what it implies. We require operators to 
actually dig up the lines and physically inspect them for corrosion and 
any other abnormalities that may be interfering with the integrity of 
the lines actually by physical inspection of the lines, looking at 
them, and other methodologies they would employ after the lines are 
actually dug up to ensure they are safe.
  We also leave room for other technology. We want to use the best 
technology available to inspect the lines, and we certainly leave room 
for that.
  We also had some concerns in the legislation which I think now have 
been satisfactorily worked out with regard to employees who may 
potentially be involved in any type of an accident. We still believe 
people are innocent until proven guilty, but there are certainly 
circumstances when people are involved in an accident where we do not 
want to keep them doing the same thing at the same time and in the same 
place until the responsibility for the accident is determined. That is 
not to say we in any way presume someone to be guilty. We have worked 
out a satisfactory methodology for handling people involved in these 
types of accidents.
  We are also required, with regard to the operator qualifications, to 
make sure the people who operate the lines, the people who have the 
capability of shutting them off when there is something that has 
happened, have the best training and the best information and knowledge 
in order to be involved in operating something as sophisticated as a 
natural gas pipeline. We require operator qualifications so that we 
make certain the people in charge are qualified, and they should be 
tested in order to make sure they are qualified. This is a big 
improvement, something that is very important.
  We also invest in a new technology to which I was referring. Senator 
Bingaman was involved in wanting to ensure that we are encouraging the 
development of better technology to improve the inspection process, 
which we do by this legislation.
  Also, the States are given an increased role in their inspection of 
the interstate pipelines. There is a legitimate argument that the lines 
run through 50 States and you cannot have 50 different sets of 
standards, 50 different departments investigating and inspecting them. 
It needs to be coordinated, but the States need to be involved. We have 
given an increased role to the States to be involved in this. I think 
that is positive.
  Also, for the communities--providing increased involvement in 
pipeline safety. Operators are required under this legislation, I think 
probably for the first time, to maintain a relationship both with the 
State and local officials and providing them the information they need 
on a local and State level to make sure their constituents are also 
aware of where the lines are located, and additional information about 
potential hazards and other information they would need to know.
  Again, let me conclude by saying some people say it should be a lot 
stronger than this. Others say this is far too regimented an operation 
and it should not be that restrictive. But I do think, because of the 
good faith on both sides, we have come up with something that is a 
balanced approach. It is a major improvement over the current system.
  I think we should do as we did in the last Congress, pass this bill 
by unanimous consent. The other body will work their will. There will 
be a conference. There will be differences, I point out, between the 
House version and the Senate version.
  For those who think the right thing to do is try to amend it here, I 
suggest, in all good faith, it may be better to take a look at what the 
House does and work within the conference to get what may be more to 
their viewpoint. I think it would be a mistake, just from the politics 
of handling this, to offer amendments on the floor of the Senate that 
may not pass, and have a recorded vote which would prevent the Senate, 
when the bill comes back, from accepting something that maybe, frankly, 
may be more to its liking.
  There is a process here that people should be cautioned about. In 
order to improve the legislation in the way they

[[Page 1579]]

may like to see it improved, I caution them and I recommend the best 
thing to do is pass this bill in its current form, work with the House 
in the conference, and then see what happens when the conference comes 
back.
  To all colleagues who have helped produce this bill, I thank them; I 
congratulate them for a job very well done, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). Under the previous order, the 
Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, there are a number of colleagues who 
want to speak. I had wanted to speak about an amendment that I join 
Senator Boxer on and she is on the floor. I ask unanimous consent that 
Senator Boxer be allowed to lead off. I myself will only take 5 minutes 
following her. I think this amendment will be accepted; is that right?
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.


                            Amendment No. 3

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), for herself, Ms. 
     Mikulski, Mr. Wellstone, and Mr. Murkowski, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To direct the Secretary of Energy to request the National 
 Academy of Sciences to conduct a study of, and report to Congress on, 
             increasing the reserve supply of natural gas)

       At the end, add the following:

     SEC.   . STUDY OF NATURAL GAS RESERVE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) In the last few months, natural gas prices across the 
     country have tripled.
       (2) In California, natural gas prices have increased 
     twenty-fold, from $3 per million British thermal units to 
     nearly $60 per million British thermal units.
       (3) One of the major causes of these price increases is a 
     lack of supply, including a lack of natural gas reserves.
       (4) The lack of a reserve was compounded by the rupture of 
     an El Paso Natural Gas Company pipeline in Carlsbad, New 
     Mexico on August 1, 2000.
       (5) Improving pipeline safety will help prevent similar 
     accidents that interrupt the supply of natural gas and will 
     help save lives.
       (6) It is also necessary to find solutions for the lack of 
     natural gas reserves that could be used during emergencies.
       (b) Study by the National Academy of Sciences.--The 
     Secretary of Energy shall request the National Academy of 
     Sciences to--
       (1) conduct a study to--
       (A) determine the causes of recent increases in the price 
     of natural gas, including whether the increases have been 
     caused by problems with the supply of natural gas or by 
     problems with the natural gas transmission system;
       (B) identify any Federal or State policies that may have 
     contributed to the price increases; and
       (C) determine what Federal action would be necessary to 
     improve the reserve supply of natural gas for use in 
     situations of natural gas shortages and price increases, 
     including determining the feasibility and advisability of a 
     federal strategic natural gas reserve system; and
       (2) not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, submit to Congress a report on the results of the 
     study.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, so my colleagues know, I will be very 
brief on this amendment because I am extremely pleased that it has been 
accepted by both sides. I know enough that when you have an ``aye'' 
vote, be brief. I will probably take about 5 minutes, and then I 
understand my friend Paul Wellstone wants to speak in support.
  First, let me thank my colleagues, both Democratic and Republican, 
for accepting this amendment which I think is an important one because 
it looks to the problem of natural gas prices. What we have seen when 
Americans are opening up their utility bills this month, some of them 
are in complete shock because in many cases their bills have doubled 
and tripled. We believe the cause is the spike in natural gas prices.
  It would be very simple if we could tell people not to use the heat 
in their homes. But heat is a necessity. Although we can all do our 
best, this is not similar to buying a candy bar. It is something that a 
lot of our people need. It is not a luxury. They need the natural gas 
to heat their homes.
  If we look at the facts, we can see in the last few months natural 
gas prices have skyrocketed. In California, it is hard to even believe 
this, but the facts show that natural gas prices have increased 
twentyfold, from $3 per million Btu's to nearly $60 per million Btu's.
  Experts agree that one of the major causes of this price increase is 
a lack of supply. That includes a lack of natural gas reserves. In 
other words, the reserves just are not there in times of crisis or a 
crunch. In California, the lack of a reserve was compounded by the 
rupture of an El Paso Natural Gas Company pipeline in Carlsbad, NM, on 
August 1, 2000.
  What is very important about this underlying legislation, and why I 
support it so much, is that we want to make sure similar accidents are 
prevented. We do not want to face the tragedy of lost lives anywhere in 
this country. With safe pipelines, we will not have to face that. But, 
in addition, when we do not have these accidents, we will not see an 
interruption in the supply of natural gas.
  We need to look at and solve the lack of natural gas reserves in 
times of extreme shortages. My amendment attempts to get to the bottom 
of these issues. It requires a National Academy of Sciences study to 
investigate this problem. First, the study will determine the causes of 
recent increases in the price of natural gas. Second, the study will 
identify any Federal and State policies which may have contributed to 
this price increase. Finally, and to me most important, the study will 
determine how the Federal Government can take action to ensure that 
there is an adequate reserve supply in the future.
  I especially want to learn about the feasibility and advisability of 
a Federal strategic natural gas reserve for use during supply and price 
emergencies.
  We all know we have a Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We also know that 
a natural gas reserve raises other issues, but, in fact, it may well be 
feasible.
  I trust my amendment will help all of us understand the causes of the 
natural gas problem we are facing, and I am very optimistic that this 
study will give us a range of solutions to meet this crisis now and in 
the future.
  The spike in natural gas prices is not a California phenomenon, 
although we have seen, probably, the worst of the spikes in prices. We 
are beginning to see it all over the country. That is why my friend, 
Barbara Mikulski, wanted to be a cosponsor of this amendment. That is 
why Senator Wellstone as well wants to support it and wants to speak on 
it.
  With deep thanks to my friends who have accepted this amendment, I 
yield the floor at this time. I ask for a vote on the amendment at the 
appropriate time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized under 
the previous order.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. First, I defer to my colleagues from Arizona and 
Louisiana on this if they want to respond right now.
  Mr. McCAIN. Since the Senator from Minnesota is speaking in support 
of the amendment, if it is agreeable to have him speak, then Senator 
Breaux and I speak, and then we intend to accept the amendment 
following that, if that is agreeable to the Senator from California and 
the Senator from Minnesota.
  Mrs. BOXER. May I say yes, it is. I would like to add Senator 
Murkowski as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Murkowski or Mikulski?
  Mrs. BOXER. Murkowski--Mikulski and Murkowski. This is a banner day.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Before my colleague from Minnesota starts, could I ask 
if we could get a unanimous consent on order of discussion here, so we 
know how to organize things. I understand the Senator from California 
desires to speak for around 20 minutes. I

[[Page 1580]]

believe the Senator from Idaho wanted to respond for up to 10 minutes. 
I would like to see if I could speak at that point in time for 10 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this 
amendment with Senators Boxer and Murkowski and Mikulski. The amendment 
is pretty simple. I thank my colleagues from Arizona and Louisiana and 
Washington for their support.
  The amendment would require the National Academy of Sciences to 
conduct a study, A, to determine the cause of the recent increase in 
the price of natural gas; B, to identify any Federal or State policies 
that have contributed to price increases; and, C, to determine what 
Federal action might be necessary to improve natural gas supplies, 
including the feasibility of a Federal natural gas reserve system.
  When my colleague from California says that this is not just 
California, she is absolutely right. In the State of Minnesota, a cold 
weather State, we just got hit with a big snowstorm yesterday. Families 
are seeing the price of natural gas going up 45, 50 percent, and it is 
a real hardship.
  I am going to be working with Senator Bingaman and others to expand 
the LIHEAP program. We are going to need that. That just helps the 
poorest of poor people. And there are other ways of providing help for 
families.
  The fact is, a whole lot of families in Minnesota, a whole lot of 
people, are just being killed by these prices. It is a huge consumer 
issue. This study is important. Frankly, I think all of us need to try 
to get a handle on what is happening.
  For my own part, I say to the wholesalers, I do not quite understand 
why they were not able to anticipate some of the demand. Personally, I 
am skeptical about deregulation. This was 1989 and natural gas took 
effect in 1993. Part of the problem is the wholesalers have no 
incentive to have an inventory. Therefore, we see the economics of 
scarcity. But if they are not going to anticipate new power markets 
going on line, natural gas, new homes, new businesses, much less cold 
weather, then we are going to be right back again next winter for our 
State with the economics of scarcity, with the spike in prices. It is 
murder not just for low income, I say to my colleagues, but also for 
moderate income, middle income, small businesses--across the board.
  I am so pleased this amendment has such strong support. I am pleased 
we are going to vote on it. This is not a study for the sake of a 
study; this is a study that will provide us with more information so 
we, as legislators, can take some action to deal with what I think has 
really become one of the front-burner, central, family, consumer issues 
in the United States of America.
  I thank my colleagues.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for one point in 
the form of a question?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will be pleased to yield.
  Mrs. BOXER. My friend is so right. Because of the urgency of this 
matter, we have called for a 60-day study. I want to make sure my 
friend knows that. This bill is just a 60-day study so we can get the 
information back and then come before the Senate with solutions. I want 
to make sure my friend is aware of that.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my friend from California, if it was more 
than 60 days, I do not think I would support it. The last thing I want 
to see is a study that will go on and on. This calls for action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, we have discussed this amendment of the 
Senator from California and I certainly find no objection to it. In 
fact, it can be a very positive contribution. The National Academy of 
Sciences is eminently qualified to take a look at the things this study 
requires. I look forward to their recommendations.
  I will just mention the obvious difference in creating a reserve for 
crude oil. We have stored crude oil in salt domes, most of which are in 
my State and the State of Texas, which is quite different from setting 
up a reserve for natural gas. I think the author understands that, but 
that is the purpose of asking the National Academy of Sciences to take 
a look at it, and perhaps they can come back with good recommendations.
  The amendment of the Senator from California is helpful, and we 
certainly support it.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask that Senator Feinstein be added as a 
cosponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. I yield to Senator McCain so we can dispose of this 
amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, if there is no further debate on the 
amendment, I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
3.
  The amendment (No. 3) was agreed to.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized for 
20 minutes.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I begin by indicating my support for this bill and 
thanking the chairman of the committee and the ranking member for their 
work on the bill.
  There is an issue relevant to natural gas, and it is electricity. I 
want to use my time to outline what I believe has happened in 
California and to set to rest a couple of myths that have arisen during 
the course of the debate.
  The problem in California essentially was set into motion by a bill 
passed in the middle of the last decade, 1996. This was a deregulation 
bill. It is my understanding that at the time, virtually everyone came 
together--Republicans, Democrats, utilities, generators, and 
consumers--to produce a bill which deregulated electricity. The bill 
was approved quickly. It was signed at the end of the session by then-
Governor Pete Wilson, a former Member of this body.
  The bill created what, in essence, was a flawed market structure. It 
deregulated wholesale power, but it left regulated the retail side. It 
also demanded that 95 percent of California's power had to be purchased 
on the day-ahead or spot market. That was fine when the supply of power 
was plentiful, but as the supply of power shortened, spot prices rose 
to unprecedented levels, and those costs could not be passed on to the 
consumer. The result was that California's large investor-owned 
utilities are now on the brink of bankruptcy, and the reason is that 
they have been forced to purchase power that averages $300 per megawatt 
hour or 30 cents per kilowatt hour, while they can only pass it on to 
the consumer at $75 a megawatt hour or 7\1/2\ cents a kilowatt hour.
  Today, they have accumulated a debt of anywhere from $10 billion to 
$12.5 billion. They have severe difficulty in obtaining the credit they 
need today to make forward purchases. Therefore, they stand on the 
brink of bankruptcy.
  California's current mix of regulated retail rates and unregulated 
wholesale rates is clearly, in my view, not a long-term workable 
scenario.
  As I have already mentioned, generators are charging exorbitant rates 
for power, which has led some to suspect that they are gaming the 
market. When Sempra Energy in San Diego tells me they are buying spot 
power at 3 a.m. in the morning at 500 times the normal price, something 
is wrong with the market.
  Supporting that suspicion, economist Paul Joskow and Edward Hahn of 
MIT released a report this past January 15. Let me read from that 
report:

       The high wholesale electricity prices observed in the 
     summer of 2000 cannot fully be explained as the natural 
     outcome of market fundamentals in a competitive market since 
     there is a very significant gap between actual market prices 
     and competitive benchmark prices that take into account these 
     market fundamentals.

[[Page 1581]]

       Moreover, there is considerable empirical evidence to 
     support a presumption that the high prices experienced in the 
     summer of 2000 reflect the withholding of supplies of the 
     market by suppliers.

  For this reason, I believe the most critical and immediate step that 
can be taken to address this crisis is to fix the market, which is 
terribly broken.
  I would like to outline for a moment some of the steps California is 
taking to fix the problem.
  First, California has conducted an online energy auction to solicit 
bids for long-term bilateral contracts. Remember, this contracting was 
prohibited by the 1996 legislation. The State is now negotiating 
contracts which cover up to one-third of the State's energy demand for 
the winter. The contracts range from 3 to 10 years and average $70 per 
megawatt hour. It is my understanding they hope to contract for up to 
5,000 megawatts. That is enough for 5 million households.
  Second, the State is now going into the power business in a major 
way. It has exercised its authority to purchase power on the spot 
market and has distributed this power at cost to the utilities. By 
February 15, it is estimated that the State will have spent $1 billion 
to buy this power. And it is buying power at the rate of about $50 
million a day. All told, the State has provided an authorization for 
the California Department of Water Resources to finance up to $10 
billion to buy power--again, to pass that power along, at cost, to the 
utilities.
  Third, California has taken action to speed up the construction and 
siting of new energy plants. The State has already approved 9 out of 25 
additional powerplants, which will generate enough energy to power 6 
million households. That is about 6,278 megawatts. But the rub is that 
these first nine plants will not be on line before the end of 2002. So 
you can see that there is a short-term period. I am going to speak more 
about that short-term period of excess volatility in a moment.
  Fourth, part of AB 1890 required California's investor-owned 
utilities to sell their generating facilities. I think that was a huge 
mistake. The State has reversed this.
  Fifth, the State has restructured the California ISO--or Independent 
System Operator--and essentially eliminated the Power Exchange, which 
was a trading floor for California used to purchase energy hourly. The 
fatal flaw of the Power Exchange was that it ensured that all bidders 
into the exchange received the highest clearing price for electricity. 
The Power Exchange was intended to encourage bidders to use the floor, 
but instead it became too easy to manipulate, driving up prices.
  Sixth, the Governor recently announced an $800 million energy 
conservation program to reduce California's peak load demand by more 
than 3,700 megawatts. As I said, the legislature approved a baseline 
conservation rate, which the PUC should begin to put in place soon and 
will protect the cost of basic necessary electricity but charge 
premiums for use above that cost.
  This is really the first consequential effort to begin to fix the 
regulated retail end of the market. Frankly, whether it will be enough 
or not, I do not know at this stage.
  What is the Federal role in all of this? And why is legislation that 
Senator Boxer, I, and others have submitted so important?
  The most significant thing the Federal Government can do, through the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, is to provide a period of interim 
price stability, preventing price volatility or gouging, until this 
market is able to straighten itself out.
  Let me show you why that is so crucial because what is anticipated to 
happen in the summer is, despite everything the State is doing today, 
there will still be an absence of sufficient electricity to serve the 
State.
  The Independent System Operator has prepared this chart that shows 
what the shortfall will be in the summer: In May, despite everything, 
3,030 megawatts; in June, 6,815 megawatts; in July, 4,685 megawatts; in 
August, 5,297 megawatts; in September, 1,475 megawatts.
  So the worst time to come for California--and it has spread for other 
States--is going to be the summer, if this shortfall happens as has 
been predicted by the ISO. That is when price volatility, for that 
power that is not already under bilateral negotiated contracts, comes 
into play in a serious way. That is why Senator Boxer and I have said 
we need a period of short-term interim price stability, really, to get 
through these summer months. Therefore, we have submitted S. 26.
  What S. 26 would do is say, if, during this short-term period, the 
FERC finds that prices are unjust and unreasonable, the FERC--the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission--has two options: The first option 
would be to set cost-of-service rates themselves--cost-of-service rates 
take into consideration the cost of providing the electricity plus 
margin of profit--or, second, provide an interim or temporary wholesale 
price cap across the 12 Western States from which any Governor can opt 
out if that Governor does not want their State to participate. That is 
one way of looking at this.
  The FERC has clearly found that prices charged in the year 2000 for 
electricity are unjust and unreasonable. But the FERC refuses to do 
anything about it, saying let the market prevail. The market is broken, 
and until the State can adequately increase supply, the market is going 
to remain broken.
  So the responsible Federal posture isn't, as some have said, that the 
Federal Government should be an ostrich, sticking its head in the sand: 
Let anything happen that may happen to California; we do not care. That 
is not the responsible role. It is to provide an absence of volatility. 
The reason is that this volatility will also impact other States--and 
is beginning to do just that right now.
  The impact of the crisis on our State has been tremendous. California 
has spent more than $600 million over the past month purchasing 
electricity. The State is suffering from lost productivity. A recent 
study by the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation has 
concluded that California's few rolling blackouts and interrupted 
service have taken a $1.7 billion toll in direct and indirect costs on 
the economy. As I have said, we want to increase the supply.
  Here is where there is a big myth. People say: California has an 
increased supply; right? Wrong. This past decade, California has 
actually added 2,670 megawatts of additional capacity--not enough 
because the demand has gone up by 14 percent. But, believe it or not, 
California has added more generation in the past decade than any other 
State in the western region. At the same time, demand in these 10 
States has grown by a greater percentage than it has in California.
  People don't realize this, but this is what an examination of the 
record will reflect.
  It is critical for California now to do the following: Expedite its 
powerplant siting and construction process. I have been told by 
generaters that it has taken them up to 6 years to get a permit. That 
clearly cannot continue. California has to assume its power to expedite 
siting and construction.
  Two, improve the transmission capacity in the State. Currently, you 
can't now transmit power from the south to the north.
  Three, reduce any bona fide environmental obstacles. I am aware of 
none that have stopped power production at the present time, but if 
there are, let's take a look at them. Let us do what we must.
  Four, ensure that all large buildings, hospitals, and hotels with 
emergency generators or that have additional generation capacity use 
these facilities in the interim. I am told there is about 2,000 
megawatts in generating capacity that buildings have but that are not 
in regular use.
  To reduce demand for energy, I have written to the Secretary of 
Energy asking him to look at the feasibility of significantly reducing 
energy consumption by Federal Government offices in California, I hope, 
by 10 to 15 percent. I have also called upon the Bush administration to 
fully implement new

[[Page 1582]]

energy efficient rules for air-conditioners or other appliances so they 
can get in place as soon as possible.
  Last week, Senator Bob Smith, Republican of New Hampshire, and I and 
five of our colleagues introduced legislation to provide tax incentives 
for energy-efficient homes, buildings, and schools, to encourage people 
to do what they must in that area. I am also introducing legislation to 
provide tax incentives for the development of wind, solar, geothermal, 
and biomass energy, something that can be developed in a major way, 
certainly in California.
  It is clear to me the State is going to have to increase rates at 
some point, as painful as that is, but do it in a way that gives 
Californians advanced warning and that phases in these costs over a 
period of time so as to protect consumers as much as possible, with a 
lifeline rate for the basic electricity use of consumers.
  The big question I have is whether a hybrid system can work. That is 
what California has, a hybrid system. You cannot deregulate on the 
wholesale side and keep retail rates regulated. The dilemma facing the 
State, in my view, is going to be either move to a completely 
deregulated market and do so in a structured, commonsense way, or begin 
to reregulate. Thus far, the moves California has made show me, by 
beginning to buy power, by legislation that would buy the utility's 
transmission lines and then lease them back, that California is slowly 
beginning a path to reregulation.
  I make no value judgment. My value judgment at this stage is, we 
can't have both worlds. We can't deregulate the wholesale end and 
regulate the retail end because it breaks the market. California has 
been a victim of that broken market into which generaters have charged 
the highest possible rates. Long-term contracts obviously play a major 
role. The 1996 legislation prohibited those contracts.
  If I may, I will send, on behalf of Senator Boxer and I, an 
alternative piece of legislation to committee. I ask unanimous consent 
to be able to send that legislation to the desk at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I understand there is a UC and I have been 
included in that for 10 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that 5 of my 
10 minutes be yielded to the Senator from Oregon, who is on the floor. 
Prior to proceeding with that, I am happy to yield to Senator Boxer 
from California for a couple of minutes to respond to the legislation 
Senator Feinstein has just introduced.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. I will be brief. I thank Senator Craig and Senator Smith 
for their indulgence. I did not want to see a break here. I thank my 
colleague, Senator Feinstein, for laying out what we are going through 
in California with this power crisis. I have already spoken about the 
natural gas problem which is a separate problem but nonetheless very 
important to us. She really laid out well the situation in which we 
find ourselves. I have maybe some differing views with her on the final 
way to solve it, but I absolutely agree with her, at this time what is 
most important is to stabilize the market for the short-term.
  I compliment her on putting together the chart showing us the real 
facts; that we are going to be short electricity in the summer months.
  I do believe--and I am optimistic; we already see signs of this--that 
California is going to come out of this. Again, we don't know exactly 
if it is going to be a more regulated system. We don't know whether it 
will continue to be a hybrid system or a full deregulation, which I 
don't think will happen. The fact is, we have a real short-term 
problem. I implore my colleagues, particularly those from the western 
States who are starting to see this problem spread to their area, to 
take a look at this idea of a temporary cap on these wholesale prices. 
At least in that way, we could be sure of supply at a reasonable price 
to get us through these summer months.
  I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a column written by 
Peter King--not the Congressman--with the Sacramento Bee called ``If 
Only Myths Were Megawatts.'' The notion is exploding a lot of myths 
about California. For example, we rank 47th in per capita use of energy 
consumption. Our consumption has gone up 11 percent in the last period 
of time, but the rest of the country's consumption has gone up 22 
percent. We are doing our part. We are trying. We will succeed. Just 
remember, when California gets a cold, they sneeze all over the 
country. We are the sixth largest country in the world, if measured by 
GDP.
  I thank my colleague from California for her insights and yield the 
floor.
  There being no objection, the column was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                       [From the Sacramento Bee]

                   If Only Myths Were Megawatts . . .

                           (By Peter H. King)

       If the myths surrounding California's energy mess somehow 
     could be converted into megawatts, the state would be awash 
     in electricity and, in the words of Merle Haggard, we'd ``all 
     be drinking that free Bubble Up and eating that rainbow 
     stew.'' Whatever that means.
       Alas, this is not the case. A haze of half-truths, revised 
     histories and other forms of rhetorical hocus-pocus has 
     enveloped the public dialogue over what has happened with 
     California energy and who should pay for it.
       Perhaps the most galling piece of mythology, so popular 
     among California bashers across the land, is that the problem 
     is rooted in California itself and, in particular, in a sun-
     addled, something-for-nothing outlook on life. In an 
     editorial about the energy crunch, the Wall Street Journal 
     sneeringly labeled California the ``Alfred E. Neuman state,'' 
     a reference to the ``What, me worry?'' cover boy of Mad 
     magazine.
       The idea seems to be that Californians have been too busy 
     meditating in the hot tub to recognize that it takes energy 
     to generate those soothing bubbles, and that as the state 
     attracts more and more hot tub soakers it will need more and 
     more electricity. The idea also seems to be that we kept 
     tilting at windmills when we should have been decorating our 
     coasts with offshore oil rigs and nuclear reactors, that 
     California's concern for its environment is a luxury that it 
     can no longer afford.
       In fact, Californians are not hopeless energy addicts; the 
     state ranks 47th in the nation in terms of per capita 
     consumption. Over the past decade, energy usage in California 
     did rise by 11%--but nationally, according to U.S. Department 
     of Energy figures, it climbed at twice that rate. In fact, 
     the bulk of growth in consumption on the overburdened Western 
     grid has occurred in states that neighbor California.
       In other words, it's not all about Topanga Canyon hot tubs 
     and Silicon Valley computers. The posse searching for where 
     all the energy goes might also look toward the bright lights 
     of booming Las Vegas and, come summer, the humming air 
     conditioners of Phoenix, Tucson, et al.
       Yet what about the other side of the electrical switch? 
     Over and over again, the point is made that California hasn't 
     built any new energy plants in the last decade. The 
     impression created is that environmentalists and bureaucrats 
     have locked arms and encircled any and all prospective power 
     generation sites, gently singing ``Kumbaya'' while the energy 
     producers stalk off to Texas and the lights of the Golden 
     Land dim, flicker and go dark.
       In fact, there are 10 power plants now under construction 
     in California, with a total generating capacity of roughly 
     6,500 megawatts. In addition, 14 projects with a collective 
     capacity of 7,500 megawatts are under review, with 
     construction scheduled to start sometime this year. Fourteen 
     thousand megawatts represents about a third of what the state 
     currently needs to survive its highest peaks in demand. 
     That's quite a lot of new energy development going on in a 
     state that forgot to develop new energy.
       To be fair, there had been a slowdown in energy 
     development--although one not confined to California. Like 
     almost everything that drives the energy business, it had to 
     do with pure economics. As energy prices drop, so too does 
     the desire to build more plants and drill more well-heads. 
     When they climb, the opposite occurs. Some energy 
     consultants, in fact, already see signs of California's 
     energy crisis winding down. They see these signs, not in the 
     frenzied hallways of the state Capitol, but in distant 
     natural-gas oil fields where, sparked by soaring prices, 
     drilling activity has perked up again.
       There have been other myths. There was the myth, rather 
     quickly shot down, that Southern California's air quality 
     rules somehow were behind the supply crunch. There was the 
     business of the consumer rate freeze, a feature of 
     deregulation that has prevented utilities from passing along 
     to customers wildly inflated wholesale power costs. Lost

[[Page 1583]]

     in the myth-making here was the fact that this price ceiling 
     functioned for the first couple of years, by design, as a 
     price floor, keeping consumer rates propped up while the 
     utilities raked in billions.
       ``Headroom,'' they called it.
       There was the more amusing myth of the Christmas lights. 
     Remember how turning off Christmas lights was supposed to 
     help ease California through its crisis? To borrow once again 
     from the ever-reliable Merle Haggard: ``If we make it through 
     December, we'll be fine.'' Well, we did make it through 
     December, but we aren't fine, at least not yet. Soon enough, 
     though, we will be. To suggest that California, in the end, 
     always has frustrated those who would rush to write it off as 
     a paradise lost, as a doomed experiment in easy living, is 
     not mythology, It is history.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I come to the floor not to respond to 
Senator Feinstein. There will be ample time. I understand the chairman 
of the Energy Committee has agreed to a hearing date for the Senator's 
legislation, and there will be ample opportunity to examine the concept 
of cost plus pricing into the marketplace.
  The reason one of Idaho's Senators is on the floor this afternoon and 
the reason one of Oregon's Senators is on the floor this afternoon is 
that what is happening in California is rapidly spreading into Oregon 
and Washington and Idaho. Why would a power disease in California 
spread to Oregon and Idaho? In part because we are in the same system 
or grid--we are interconnected--and in part because we sell power to 
California and California sells power to us.
  When you distort a marketplace in one part of the market system, it 
overacts or reacts somewhere else.
  What the Senator from California is talking about is absolutely true. 
I will have to say I am pleased when I hear Senators from California 
say: We have a problem, and we probably didn't do it right. We are 
probably a creator of our own problem. When you deregulate wholesale 
power and you cap retail power, you send a phenomenally loud message to 
the marketplace: Don't come and build. You cannot evaluate or bring 
back your values, and you have protected the consumer in a false 
marketplace environment. California has recognized that and they are 
trying to do something about it.
  I am pleased the Senator from California did not propose to cap 
wholesale prices.
  I think it would be a phenomenal distortion at this time to do that. 
A couple of Governors have said, yes, it is a good idea. But eight 
Governors just wrote the President and FERC and the Vice President and 
said: Please don't go in that direction, don't coddle the consumer, 
because if you coddle the consumer, the consumer doesn't understand and 
will not put pressure on the politician to get out of the way and let 
the marketplace work. That is really the problem we are in at this 
moment.
  Compounded with the growth of the region and the crisis in 
California, the Senator from Oregon and the Senator from Idaho have a 
predominantly hydro-based system. Our system is run by water flowing 
through turbines held back by dams on large rivers. When it doesn't 
snow and rain in the West, and especially in the Pacific Northwest, 
there isn't enough water to be held by the dams to flow through the 
turbines to generate the power.
  Come May of the year 2001--this May--when power usage starts going up 
in California, and in Oregon, and in Washington, and in Idaho, Idaho 
will be in big trouble because our moisture for the winter is not at 
100 percent or 110 percent of normal; it is now at about 60 percent 
region-wide. We are in a dry winter in the West, and we are not 
producing the snow to flow to the reservoirs to generate the power.
  We in Idaho will be in a crisis environment if it doesn't improve 
rapidly, as will be true in the State of Oregon. What California, in 
large part, has caused, we are now asking our consumers to pick up the 
bill for because, unlike California, the consumers in Oregon and 
Washington and Idaho are not protected by a retail price cap.
  Our utilities, under order or fixed contract, have certain lids to 
bump up against. But the average consumer is going to feel this by 20-, 
30-, 40-, 50-percent rate increases, while California basically takes 
none, or very little. How can that possibly be fair if California is 
largely a part of the problem, if not the largest part of the problem? 
Because while they have brought on some new production compared to 
their growth, they have brought on very little, and they have not built 
the transmission systems to make all of that happen.
  We started hearings, and we are going to ask that we move quickly, 
Mr. President. We know that the President and the Vice President have 
assembled Cabinet-level counsel to look at the long-term problem. But 
we in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho are going to have to sort out the 
short-term problem, and that is now, in April, May, June, July, August, 
and September of this year when this crisis will sweep across the 
Pacific Northwest, at a time when we need power to not only fuel our 
refrigerators at home but our factories and our irrigation pumps to 
keep our agriculture alive and our men and women working.
  Cost-plus pricing is not an answer--again, a false message to the 
market, a new bureaucracy at FERC. Power will not flow to California; 
it will flow away from California, if the markets of California do not 
reflect the true price. That is the reality of the marketplace, and you 
can't fix it by some Federal bureaucracy or well-intended piece of 
legislation. The Senator from California is right: Let's get to the 
business of siting powerplants, building transmission lines, and doing 
it in an environmentally safe, but a responsible way, and allowing our 
consumers once again to have affordable power. Those are some of the 
issues we must deal with quickly.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I probably should say amen to 
what the Senator from Idaho has said. I agree with his message. I want 
to just add one point. Let's assume that caps made sense. I have been 
told by Federal officials, Bonneville Power Administration officials, 
that even if you could do it, the power of the Federal Government would 
reach about two-thirds of the generating capacity in the West. Why is 
that the case? Well, because a lot of the West's power comes from 
Canada and comes from Mexico. We haven't the ability to cap their 
rates. I would like to see us try. I think that would generate quite a 
response.
  Moreover, if you did that even to what we could control, what would 
that then mean to the uncapped power of Canada and Mexico? It would go 
up even further.
  I want to point out, as Senator Craig has, that the fundamental flaw 
in these proposals of cost-plus, or caps, is that they leave in place 
California's retail cap. As we speak, California's consumption is going 
up. As California's neighbor, I wish them no harm. I know their swathe 
economically in our country and in the West. I admire so much about 
California and would like very much to be a good neighbor. But I don't 
think many Californians understand what they are doing to their 
neighboring States. Because of a retail cap, there is absolutely no 
incentive for Californians to conserve. Those who advocate price caps 
without the lifting of California's retail price caps are giving the 
green light for Californians to send their energy bills to Oregonians. 
That is just wrong. If anybody is serious about correcting this problem 
by conservation and production, it includes lifting these artificial 
measures that don't allow the marketplace to work. It is that simple.
  I had thought the Senator from California was coming with a bill, so 
I had a second-degree amendment to her's. I appreciate that she has not 
offered that on the pipeline safety bill. That is a bill that needs to 
go forward on its own because of its own merit. We will have this 
hearing and debate. But central to any effort to interfere further in 
the market that is already suffering because of Government interference 
must be, as a predicate, that California lift its retail price caps. 
Anything more or less than that will simply fail and will be a 
continued abuse upon the neighbors of California. It is wrong, and it 
should be fixed. I understand the

[[Page 1584]]

politics of fixing it. It is difficult for their legislature and their 
Governor, but it is utterly unfair to California's neighbors for them 
to continue this without considering the impact on everyone else in the 
grid with them.
  Mr. President, I will simply conclude my remarks. I was going to put 
a human face on the consequence of what California has done. I ask 
unanimous consent that a letter from the Chenowith School District be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                    Chenowith School District,

                                 The Dalles, OR, February 1, 2001.
     Senator Gordon Smith,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Smith: The Chenowith School District is 
     requesting your assistance to help resolve the energy crisis 
     in our area. School districts are allotted a limited amount 
     of money per pupil to provide an education for all of our 
     students. We try to use our resources as prudentially as 
     possible to see that every dollar is spent to help improve 
     instruction and to help our students achieve.
       The recent increases in power costs are going to be taking 
     resources away from the education of students. As an example, 
     the cost of natural gas for three of our main buildings in 
     the Chenowith School District in November of 1999 was 
     $4383.59. It was a mild November. The cost of natural gas to 
     keep these same three buildings in November 2000 was 
     $11,942.14. We have not had a cold, hard winter. The increase 
     in gas costs must be paid from unbudgeted funds, funds that 
     were earmarked for the improvement of instruction.
       The Northern Wasco People Utilities District (NWPUD) has 
     added a 20% surcharge to the cost of electricity. These, 
     again, are unbudgeted costs that, along with the tremendous 
     increase in the cost of fuel for our school buses are taking 
     valuable funds away from educating our children.
       Today's schools are very energy dependent with our network 
     of computers and technology to provide an appropriate 
     education for students who will be living in our 
     technological society. The district has one computer for 
     every two students, has servers and a network system that is 
     run with the assistance of students and is enhancing their 
     education. Power costs are taking a disproportional amount of 
     funds away from funds needed to educate children.
       Your assistance in helping the energy crisis in the area 
     would be greatly appreciated.
           Sincerely,
                                                 James J. Kiefert,
                                                   Superintendent.

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I think we need to understand 
what California sending its energy bills to Oregon means to the rest of 
the West, my State and others. It affects school districts that have 
not budgeted for
50-, 60-percent increases in energy. Seniors have not budgeted for 
energy rates going up double, triple. But that is what is, in fact, 
happening. It isn't right, isn't fair. I want to be a good neighbor, 
and I will be open to their suggestions; but they must, as a predicate, 
lift their retail price caps because anything less than that will not 
produce conservation and will not produce the incentives for new 
production.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized 
before the Senator from Kansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, first, I want to announce that after this 
discussion, we are ready for amendments. If there are not amendments 
within about quarter after the hour--it is a little less than quarter 
of--we will move to final passage.
  As I mentioned in my opening statement, this issue has been well 
ventilated in hearings and was passed by voice vote. I understand that 
the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Corzine, has some amendments. If he 
does, come on down, or any other Member. But we are not going to sit 
here in a quorum call. We are going to move to final passage. A quarter 
after or 20 after the hour should be plenty of time for Members to come 
and offer amendments. I ask Members to notify the Cloakroom so we can 
do our best to accommodate them.


                            Amendment No. 4

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for himself and Mr. 
     Hollings, proposes an amendment numbered 4.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To make technical and minor corrections in the bill as 
                              introduced)

       On page 5, line 12, after ``industry'' insert ``and 
     employee organization''.
       On page 34, line 9, strike ``sections 60525'' and insert 
     ``section 60125''.
       On page 34, line 14, after ``transferred'' insert ``to the 
     Secretary of Transportation, as provided in appropriation 
     Acts,''
       On page 34, beginning in line 15, strike ``fiscal year 
     2002, fiscal year 2003, and fiscal year 2004.'' and insert 
     ``each of fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004.''.
       On page 34, line 21, strike ``60125'' and insert ``60301''.
       On page 35, line 1, strike ``Transportation'' and insert 
     ``Transportation, as provided in appropriation Acts,''.
       On page 36, line 5, strike ``until--'' and 
     insert ``until the earlier of the date on 
     which--''.
       On page 36, line 6, strike ``determines'' and insert 
     ``determines, after notice and an opportunity for a 
     hearing,''.
       On page 36, line 14, strike ``Disciplinary action'' and 
     insert ``Action''.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment is being offered by Senator 
Hollings and myself. It provides technical and minor correction to the 
bill. It has been cleared on both sides. I urge adoption of the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor. I thank my colleague from Kansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you very much, Mr. President. And I thank my 
colleague from Arizona for moving this through so rapidly. Hopefully, 
we can get this through in a fashion so we can send it forward. We had 
extensive hearings last year. I think most of it was worked out quite 
well. The chairman, Senator McCain from Arizona, has done a splendid 
job of moving this forward.
  Therefore, today I rise to offer my support of S. 235, the Pipeline 
Safety Improvement Act of 2001. I also come to the floor to strongly 
encourage my colleagues to pass a clean bill on this issue. We have 
worked a long time in a delicate set of negotiations to get a good bill 
through. It is well balanced. I think we need to move this through 
rapidly to get these safety issues out there dealing with the 
pipelines. I understand that the Senate is a body of amendments, but 
this issue is too important to be killed by hasty changes--and that is 
exactly what could happen if we clutter this carefully compromised bill 
with unnecessary changes or additions.
  The oil and gas industry is very important to my state of Kansas--but 
nothing is more important than securing the safety of all our citizens. 
I have worked hard alongside my friend from Arizona to find a way to 
strengthen safety precautions and provide strong incentives for better 
public and environmental protection without crippling a vital industry 
to our nation.
  Now more than ever, Americans are keenly aware of the need for a 
strong energy infrastructure--which makes the way we tighten these 
standards more important than ever. The bill before use today has 
crafted a fine balance between setting tough standards, and yet 
maintaining the flexibility which will be needed for industry to 
implement this bill. Industry is not questioning that there needs to be 
tougher standards--even though it will cost them money and they don't 
agree with all the provisions of this bill, they stand ready to do what 
is necessary to prevent as many accidents and injuries as possible. 
Everyone wants safety first.
  However, if this bill takes on prescriptive amendments which lock in 
the way these standards are to be implemented, there will be opposition 
to the bill--not on substance but on procedure. While it might be good 
politics

[[Page 1585]]

to stir up anti-industry sentiment, it is bad policy because it would 
prevent a good bill from becoming law. I think we can all agree that 
this would hinder the cause of making America's pipelines more safe, 
which is our objective.
  This bill has a number of important provisions which will make our 
pipelines and our people who live near them, safer--including:
  Increased daily penalties for violation of safety regulations from 
$25,000/day to $500,000/day--a factor of 20 times.
  Spill reporting would occur for something as small as 5 gallons as 
opposed to the 2100 gallon trigger which currently exists.
  Training and qualification requirements strengthened along with 
public right to know provisions.
  The Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, worked diligently and 
carefully to getting this bill to this point.
  There are numerous positive things that this bill would achieve. I 
won't detail it all here now--but the important point is that this bill 
significantly improves the status quo and will make our nation safer. 
That is why it is so important that we not allow this bill to get 
bogged down, and potentially defeated by amendments that will destroy 
the hard-won balance achieved last year.
  I would remind my colleagues that this bill went through extensive 
debate last year. In the Commerce Committee there were hearings and 
markups which addressed the very contentious question of how best to 
increase the safety of oil and gas pipelines without jeopardizing a key 
industry to this nation.
  The compromise which this bill creates is a good one--but it is 
fragile. And before some of my fellow Senators try to amend this bill--
I would ask that they weigh the changes they seek against the 
possibility of killing this important bill--because that is a distinct 
possibility. If at the end of the day, members feel that this 
compromise is not adequate to address the concerns of pipeline safety--
then our recourse should be to return the bill to the committee and 
address those concerns through the regular process. We should not make 
the mistake of rushing through a bad bill.
  I hope this option will not be necessary. I believe this is a good 
bill; that it is a good compromise and addresses a very serious problem 
in our country. This problem cannot await further refinement and work. 
It needs to be addressed now.
  I urge my colleagues to join Senator McCain, myself, and others to 
pass this bill clean and move it on through the process so we can get a 
safer pipeline system in this country.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I see no other Senators on the floor 
wishing to speak. I see no other amendments. I would like to place us 
in a quorum call in just a second. I would like to tell my colleagues 
that there is no reason why we shouldn't move forward with final 
passage of the bill unless there are amendments.
  I say to my colleagues on both sides, let's move the process forward. 
It was announced 3 days ago that we would be taking up this bill. So it 
is time to move forward.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am curious. Can we go through a 
unanimous consent that the vote take place? You have announced to our 
colleagues that it would be a quarter after.
  Mr. McCAIN. Not yet. We want to give the other side a chance to call 
all their Members and see if there are any further amendments or 
discussion of the bill.
  At this time, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I compliment the floor manager, Senator 
McCain, and the Commerce Committee, for bringing this matter before 
this body, the pipeline safety bill.
  I have the honor of serving as chairman of the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee of the Senate. I think everyone is aware of the 
energy crisis occurring in the country today highlighted by the 
situation in California which can best be described as both a supply 
program and a credit program. In other words, they had become somewhat 
complacent in their ability to attract power from other States to the 
point where they were relying on 25 percent of their energy coming from 
outside of California. The prices went up on that outside energy. They 
have a cap on their retail sales. Their utility companies, which were 
among the largest in this country, had to pay a higher price for the 
energy than they could pass on to the consumer. As a consequence, they 
are facing bankruptcy.
  The significance of the California crisis has created concern all 
over America. Part of that involves our dependence on pipelines. 
Pipelines, of course, provide this country with a supply of oil, supply 
of gasoline, supply of natural gas.
  We have had some very unfortunate accidents occur in New Mexico and 
in the State of Washington. The reality is many of these pipelines are 
aging, and with the increased demand for energy, we are putting more 
pressure into these pipelines. Hence, the need for a responsible plan 
that ensures safety.
  I commend the members of the Commerce Committee, Senator McCain, and 
others. We are very interested in our committee, as well, because we 
have to have a delivery system. This delivery system has been something 
we are going to have to continue to expand, as indeed the demand for 
energy, particularly oil and gas, natural gas, gasoline and others, 
depends on pipelines.
  The legislation will protect consumers by ensuring that our natural 
gas and oil pipelines are safe. I think it is fair to say that the same 
bill did pass the Senate unanimously last year. Unfortunately, the 
House did not have time to act before the elections. We have to have 
the public confidence in the safety of our pipelines.
  I think we have a tough bill that addresses the critical issues of 
safety. The pipelines are essential to the Nation's energy delivery 
infrastructure. As I indicated, we would not be able to receive the 
energy that we take somewhat for granted. We forget that somebody, 
somewhere has to produce energy. It has to come from an energy source. 
It has to come from either oil or natural gas or hydro or clean coal or 
nuclear. It is a diminishing resource. Once we use it, obviously, it is 
gone and we have to replace it.
  As a consequence, as we look at the increased demand associated with 
our electronic society with its computers and e-mails, the reality is 
we simply cannot get there with conservation alone. We want to do a 
better job of conservation. That is why in the energy bill we will 
produce on Tuesday, we have a great deal of emphasis on conservation, 
on incentives for conservation, for CAFE standards, many of the things 
that we believe will assist but will not supplant, of course, the 
increased demand for energy in this country. That is why we will have 
to continue to develop technology and make our footprint smaller, open 
up new areas for oil and gas exploration, including my State of Alaska 
and ANWR.
  Without going down that rabbit trail too far, I wish to comment that 
we have, again, taken for granted the role of pipelines in the delivery 
of fuel to heat our homes, fuel for our automobiles, and, of course, 
the ability to run our production lines. We are fortunate in this 
country to have a network which is extraordinary in itself because it 
has been proven safer than any other mode of transportation. We cannot 
be complacent. We have to improve safety. I welcome the changes to 
existing law made by the legislation that will improve the overall 
safety of the pipeline.
  One example is the bill requires new periodic pipeline integrity 
inspections using a variety of new technologies such as the ``pigs'' 
that are used to go through the pipelines now; we have

[[Page 1586]]

smart pigs that not only go through the pipeline but can get out of the 
pipeline and be examined. As a consequence, we do have the 
opportunities to improve dramatically.
  I have mentioned the accidents in New Mexico and Washington. However 
important safety is, we have to balance the safety of regulations and 
the need to be able to efficiently operate these pipelines.
  What we have today in this legislation is a balance that strikes 
fairness and equity in safety and the reality that there is an economic 
factor as well. When this legislation is enacted, and there is no 
question in my mind that it is going to be enacted, it will be the 
strongest, most comprehensive pipeline safety measure ever approved by 
the Congress. At the same time I think we avoid some of the extreme 
responses some have advocated, responses that would lead to an energy 
shortage, a lack of investment in pipelines without any measurable 
improvement in safety.
  I think we would agree, as a consequence of this energy crisis in our 
country, the pipeline industry cannot and should not be taken for 
granted. Many of our colleagues are aware of the huge demand increases 
anticipated for natural gas, and this increasing demand has already 
contributed to the price runup we have seen for natural gas. Last year, 
natural gas was about $2.16 per thousand cubic feet. Today it is 
somewhere in excess of $8.
  Natural gas producers and pipeline operators are working feverishly 
to respond by investing billions of dollars in exploration and 
production and by building new pipelines. That is how we will achieve 
it. The current natural gas pipeline network simply cannot transfer all 
the gas which Americans will demand by the end of the decade. New 
pipelines already take anywhere from 3 to 7 years to permit and build. 
Without new pipeline capacity, our Nation will only fall further 
behind.
  Accordingly, I urge the Senate to pass the pending legislation. I 
believe this legislation meets the challenge and does so in a way that 
will complement our national energy policy rather than thwart it.
  I again thank Senator McCain, the floor managers, and yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank Senator Murkowski for his efforts, not only on 
this legislation but on overall energy policy. It is a very difficult 
task, a challenging one, and we are grateful for his leadership.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Senator.


                            Amendment No. 5

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment on behalf of Senator 
Reed of Rhode Island. I send it to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCAIN], for Mr. Reed, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 5.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To direct the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in 
consultation with the Department of Energy, to conduct a study of, and 
report to Congress on, the natural gas pipeline transmission network in 
  New England and natural gas storage facilities associated with that 
                                network)

       At the end, add the following:

     SEC.   . STUDY AND REPORT ON NATURAL GAS PIPELINE AND STORAGE 
                   FACILITIES IN NEW ENGLAND.

       (a) Study.--The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in 
     consultation with the Department of Energy, shall conduct a 
     study on the natural gas pipeline transmission network in New 
     England and natural gas storage facilities associated with 
     that network. In carrying out the study, the Commission shall 
     consider--
       (1) the ability of natural gas pipeline and storage 
     facilities in New England to meet current and projected 
     demand by gas-fired power generation plants and other 
     consumers;
       (2) capacity constraints during unusual weather periods;
       (3) potential constraint points in regional, interstate, 
     and international pipeline capacity serving New England; and
       (4) the quality and efficiency of the federal environmental 
     review and permitting process for natural gas pipelines.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 120 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Federal Energy Regulatory 
     Commission shall prepare and submit to the Senate Committee 
     on Energy and Natural Resources and the House of 
     Representatives a report containing the results of the study 
     conducted under subsection (a), including recommendations for 
     addressing potential natural gas transmission and storage 
     capacity problems in New England.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment on behalf of Senator Reed 
of Rhode Island calls for a study of the needs of the natural gas 
pipelines in New England. I think it is perfectly appropriate and 
acceptable to both sides. I believe there is no further debate on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 5) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I would like to speak before we enter 
some amendments. I compliment my colleagues, Senators McCain, Murray, 
Hollings, and Breaux, for their hard work and dedication in bringing 
this bill on pipeline safety to the floor. I appreciate their 
leadership on this important issue, one that is certainly vital to the 
constituency I represent in New Jersey, and, unfortunately, one that 
has affected their lives in a very significant way.
  I rise today, however, because of concerns about some of the 
important aspects of this legislation. In its current form, I believe 
the bill does not go far enough to ensure the safety and integrity of 
gas and oil pipelines around our Nation, particularly in New Jersey; 
and does not do enough to provide information to the communities living 
near those pipelines.
  Several years ago, my own State of New Jersey was the site of a major 
pipeline explosion. On March 24, 1994, a natural gas pipeline exploded 
in Edison, NJ, at 12 midnight. Families living in the nearby Durham 
Woods apartment complex awoke to a deafening roar. They ran out of 
their homes and saw a wall of flame several hundred feet high. These 
flames were so high they were visible in both New York City and 
Pennsylvania. I ask you to think about that--flames were visible in 
both New York and Pennsylvania.
  Many of the residents who awoke that night thought a nuclear bomb had 
detonated. Miraculously, only one person died. However, scores more 
suffered injuries due to burns or smoke inhalation. Many more lost 
their homes and all their possessions. There was millions of dollars in 
damages, and the explosion itself left a crater 60 feet deep.
  At another point, I would like to submit to the record accountings of 
the explosion from the New York Times and the Washington Post.
  This explosion was caused by a natural gas pipeline that was buried 
in the earth. What concerns me is that there were no reports of digging 
in the area nor were there reports of any other disturbances that could 
have set off the explosion.
  As harrowing as this tragedy was, it is not the only one. There have 
been other pipeline explosions across this country: in the States of 
Arizona, Washington, Michigan, New Mexico and others. These tragedies, 
with their accompanying loss of life, are the basis for everyone's 
concern. I applaud their efforts.
  However I believe there is more that we can do to prevent these 
explosions. First, we should ensure that oil and natural gas pipelines 
are inspected on a regular basis so that flawed lines can

[[Page 1587]]

be recognized early, repaired, or replaced. My first amendment will 
require both oil and gas pipelines to be inspected every 5 years.
  The pending legislation does require pipeline operators to adopt a 
program for integrity management, which includes periodic assessments 
of the integrity of hazardous liquid and natural gas pipelines. I am 
concerned that this does not go far enough.
  There is no definition of what constitutes ``periodic.'' It could 
allow inspections every 5 years, every 7 years, or every 50 years for 
that matter. That is just not good enough. After all, lives and 
property are at stake.
  GAO reported that 226 people have been killed between 1989 and 1998, 
over 1,000 injured, and $700 million in property damage.
  I know the Office of Pipeline Safety has issued regulations regarding 
the inspection of certain liquid pipelines and is considering 
regulations concerning natural gas pipelines. I am concerned however 
about how long it has taken for these regulations to be issued and 
whether they will seriously be followed through.
  I am also concerned they do not require inspections to be conducted 
at a sufficient enough frequency. In my view, therefore, it is time to 
pass strong legislation to make safety the priority it deserves to be.
  I will also be offering an amendment which will give communities that 
live near pipelines more information about them. Again, I understand 
the pending bill does include some enhanced right-to-know provisions, 
and I congratulate the sponsors for that, but I believe we should go 
further.
  We need, for example, ongoing reports from pipeline companies about 
their efforts to prevent or minimize pipeline risks. We also need 
companies to tell communities how frequently testing occurs and what 
those tests find. Then we need to enact liability provisions that will 
impose fines on all pipeline operators following oil spills.
  Another problem is that currently, pipeline oil spills that occur on 
land alone are not a violation of any Federal law. We need to ensure 
that when such spills occur, fines are levied as a way to prevent 
future releases.
  Lastly, I believe we need to deal with the certification of pipeline 
operators. We have laws that license the drivers of cars and the pilots 
of planes. We need a Federal law, in my view, that provides standards 
for operators of pipelines as well.
  The principles contained in these suggestions have been supported by 
many environmental and pipeline reform groups, as well as by almost the 
entire delegation from the State of New Jersey. They also have been 
supported by many Members of the House of Representatives.
  I hope my colleagues join me today in ensuring that we make sure we 
no longer have another Edison disaster.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I compliment Chairman McCain, Senator Hollings, 
Senator Bingaman, Senator Murray, my friend Senator Breaux, and those 
who have worked on this legislation. I voted for this pipeline safety 
legislation in the last Senate. I would like to be able to vote for it 
in this Senate. It is legislation that should be enacted.
  As a nation in the midst of an energy crisis, we need to have the 
pipeline network of the Nation constructed and expanded to supply 
communities in need, and to do so can only help reduce prices. This 
Senate should act forthwith to do so.
  As I voted for this legislation previously, it is worth noting that 
this is not the same Senate that it was a year ago. The membership is 
different, the balances are different, and this bill should be 
different.
  My colleague from New Jersey, Senator Corzine, is prepared to offer a 
series of amendments that I think are thoughtful and would help not 
simply communities in New Jersey but communities in States throughout 
the Nation.
  They are centered on several specific objectives. I am going to 
review them, but I first want to make clear that I do think the 
legislation as offered makes some progress on these issues. The bill 
does require an assessment of the risks associated with pipeline 
facilities in environmentally sensitive and high-density population 
areas and requires the implementing of a plan to mitigate these risks. 
That is helpful, it is a beginning, and I am glad it is in the bill.
  The bill before the Senate is a good first step in strengthening 
safety regulations. There have not been enough in the past. It is a 
good beginning.
  The legislation does increase the amount of information companies 
must provide to communities where pipelines are located so communities 
can zone their property properly and plan for emergency services so 
people who live in the communities know what is happening in their 
towns. Finally, it increases civil penalties substantially for those 
responsible for pipeline disasters.
  In the analysis I will offer, I do not discount the work of the 
committee or the progress this legislation offers, but I take the 
floor, as did my colleague, Senator Corzine, because there are people 
in my State who will watch this vote carefully, and we are not alone. 
From New Jersey to Washington State to Texas, communities have 
experienced not simply disruptions in gas supplies from ruptured 
pipelines, we have lost lives, a lot of lives.
  Since 1996, there have been 18 major pipeline disasters in the United 
States--major disasters. But if a pipeline ruptures and causes a fire 
or explosion in your neighborhood, the Federal Government may not 
declare it major, but I assure you, in your neighborhood, it is major.
  The map on my left illustrates the States where in the last 10 years 
there have been 2,241 major accidents. They are in every State in the 
Nation, at least on this map indicating the lower 48 States in the 
Nation; high population areas, such as New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New 
York, and Connecticut, which have the greatest concentration; one can 
see in Indiana, Michigan, and Illinois, in Texas and in California--
these are significant numbers of pipeline explosions. One of the most 
recognized has led to my effort today with Senator Corzine.
  On March 23, 1994, Texas Eastern Corporation's 36-inch high-pressure 
natural gas pipeline was running through a residential community in 
Edison, NJ. Nearby, there was an apartment building and residential 
housing. The pipeline exploded. As it exploded, it consumed the 
neighborhood in a fireball. Buildings burned. Three hundred homes were 
destroyed. One of the neighbors was killed. The night became an inferno 
for miles around. One moment, a peaceful suburban community; the next, 
a war zone. One can only imagine the trauma to a family living in their 
suburban community in the middle of the night watching their 
neighborhood explode in a ball of flames.
  The heat from the blast touched off fires in nearby neighborhoods. 
More than 2 hours after the explosion, the pipeline continued to send a 
wall of flame hundreds of feet into the air. Two miles away, ash rained 
on cars. On the New Jersey Turnpike, the principal artery through the 
northeastern part of the country, roads were filled with debris. 
Drivers likened it to driving on a newly salted road. The highway was 
covered with this debris. The National Transportation Safety Board 
found that the inability of the pipeline operator to properly stop the 
flow of natural gas contributed to the cause of the accident.
  It is the lasting impact of this incident that brings me to the floor 
and to offer and support several important amendments.
  My State has not forgotten. If this Senate fails to address the 
reality of this problem, I can assure you, in the next 10 years, when 
one of these 22 accidents comes to a neighborhood near you--it is not 
New Jersey, it is Nevada or California or Florida--they will remember 
as well.
  We do not ask a lot. We know the reasons these accidents are 
happening. Here you have a 36-inch pipeline running, as the crow flies, 
no more than 8 miles from midtown Manhattan--in the most densely 
populated area of the Nation--to New Jersey. A pipeline erupts,

[[Page 1588]]

and the company does not have personnel trained, capable, or instructed 
in how to stop the flow of gas. The local community did not have enough 
information to deal with the emergency. These are not unreasonable 
requests.
  The bill contains provisions to deal with a cost-benefit analysis. My 
colleagues, what is the cost-benefit analysis of the cost of ensuring 
that personnel are trained, that a pipeline is inspected, compared to 
the cost of 300 people running from their homes in a fireball in the 
middle of the night? Allow me to share with you a cost-benefit 
analysis.
  As you consider voting on whether or not people should have licenses 
to work on these pipelines or whether or not these pipelines should be 
inspected, this is your cost-benefit analysis.
  Every one of these children pictured here have been killed--burned, 
killed in an explosion because of a ruptured pipeline. They are dead. 
Mr. President, 2,200 accidents in 10 years will cause that kind of 
destruction.
  Our amendments are very simple. I do not believe Senator Corzine and 
I are being unreasonable.
  What is it we would like?
  One, a community have the right to know the flow of the pipeline, 
what is in the pipeline, basic information about the pipeline. Even if 
it were not required by law, and you operated a pipeline, wouldn't you 
want the fire department to know that basic information? Wouldn't you 
want a local builder to know about the pipeline if they are going to 
put residential homes next to it? Wouldn't you want the planning board 
to know about the power of a potential explosion? We require it in the 
bill. But if we did not require it in the bill, wouldn't you want to do 
it anyway?
  Second, mandatory testing of natural gas and hazardous liquid 
pipelines themselves. This is the most extraordinary to me. I do not 
know of any principal structure in the Nation, on a mandatory basis--
from the local building authority through airplane construction, to 
your own car--that does not get inspected. If I do not take my car to a 
local New Jersey motor vehicles inspection station and get it inspected 
every year or two, I am in violation. But you want to put a 36-inch 
pipeline across my State, next to thousands of residents, knowing that 
it has cost lives, and you do not want to require an inspection every 5 
years, every 7 years? I do not think this is unreasonable.
  Third, the certification of pipeline personnel. I do not know a 
profession or means of employment in the Nation which involves health--
life and death--and public safety where you do not have to get a 
certification. I have a certification to drive here to work in the 
morning in my car. It is called a driver's license. But you are going 
to operate a high-pressure gas pipeline across the Nation, and you do 
not want a license?
  Lest you think this is somebody else's abstract problem--these people 
who are operating these pipelines--here are the areas they impact as 
shown on this map. You cannot serve in this Senate and not represent 
somebody who lives near one of these pipelines.
  All we want to know is, if you work on these pipelines, and you have 
responsibility for pipeline safety, we would like to know that you know 
what you are doing. It does not have to be a high threshold. Give me 
the easiest test you want. If you do not want to strain them, if you do 
not want to make them study, OK, I will be reasonable, but how about 
some certification?
  The person who died in Edison, NJ, in the destruction of that 
neighborhood, did not know how to turn off the flow of the gas. When I 
bought my home, I went in the basement and said to the guy who showed 
me the house: If there is a problem here, how do I turn off the gas to 
my house? It took me about a minute.
  In a town of tens of thousands of people, the operator of the 
pipeline did not know how to shut off the gas. Standing in midtown 
Manhattan, you could see the fireball in central New Jersey.
  This is an important business. There are more people living by these 
pipelines, having their lives on the line, than people living by 
airports, but you would not have somebody operate an airplane without a 
license.
  Finally, we ask for additional liability penalties, recognizing that 
in our system in this country, one sure way to ensure that the pipeline 
companies build a quality product, with quality personnel, to the 
highest safety standards, with the best materials, is they know that if 
they do not, they are liable for those kids who lost their lives and to 
the towns that lost the housing where I live. We would like them to be 
liable so they have an incentive to ensure that people are safe and 
secure.
  I am concerned that this bill has been brought to the floor--
recognizing that Senator McCain has improved the bill. He has designed 
good legislation, but it is not legislation that any of you can take 
back to your States, along these pipeline routes, and say: My friends, 
I have done everything I can to ensure that your family is safe. I have 
struck a balance. We are going to have pipelines that lower the cost of 
your natural gas. We are going to get you additional supply. We are 
going to meet the Nation's needs. And I am going to protect your 
family.
  We have done a good job. We have not done a good enough job because 
we can do more to ensure that people are safe. That is the balance I 
want. That is what I think this Congress can do that is better than 
what the last Congress did when this legislation was before it.
  I find it frustrating that we need to return again to deal with an 
issue that has been raised that the Senate knows is a real problem. We 
are going to offer these amendments. We are going to insist upon them. 
I ask my colleagues to think carefully in weighing the consideration of 
passing this bill today or tomorrow or waiting a day or two or a week 
and getting it done right. The stakes, I am afraid, are that high. We 
have tried to do this voluntarily. Maybe the cost of compliance is too 
much.
  We have passed statutes before. We have not seen them enforced. This 
is a list of pipeline safety regulations that have not been met in the 
last 12 years, things we have asked to ensure that people would be safe 
and that standards would rise, only to find that, increasingly around 
the Nation, they have been ignored. That is why we have increased 
penalties and liability. Are they really so unreasonable?
  The Pipeline Safety Act of 1992.
  Emergency flow restriction devices to ensure that if there is an 
accident, operators on an emergency basis can restrict the flow of gas. 
That alone would have made the difference in destroying the 
neighborhood in Edison, NJ.
  Underground utility location technologies in the Pipeline Act of 
1992.
  Carry out research and develop programs on technologies so that 
people can quickly locate where these pipelines are in an emergency so 
they can map them properly if there is a problem.
  These are 23 different attempts to ensure compliance. We have not met 
our responsibilities to do this properly. I know the desire to increase 
the Nation's supply of natural gas. I believe as strongly in it as 
anyone in this Chamber. I also know how strongly we are going to feel 
if we do this wrong. If we do this wrong, a lot of people get hurt. 
That is the issue before the Senate. Certify the personnel, let 
communities have a right to know about the operations of these 
pipelines, require an inspection of them every 7 years and liability to 
ensure compliance with the laws, laws that have often been ignored, to 
our considerable peril.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank my colleagues from New Jersey for offering these 
four excellent amendments. I share their passion on this issue, having 
lost three young children in Bellingham, WA, a year and a half ago when 
a pipeline exploded at a school where my sister teaches seventh grade. 
It has impacted the lives of those families every single day since that 
explosion.

[[Page 1589]]

  This is a passionate issue in my State. I have to say, before that 
explosion, no one knew that they lived next door to a pipeline. No one 
knew that their school was on a pipeline.
  I commend them for bringing forward these provisions. They are all 
excellent. They are all incorporated into a bill that I have dropped in 
with the Washington State delegation today. If they are unable to pass 
on this bill, I urge my colleagues from New Jersey to continue to work 
with us.
  This bill has a long way to go before passage, certainly as it goes 
through the House and through conference. These provisions are 
excellent ones that I hope will be incorporated into a final bill, 
regardless of what happens on the floor today.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, it is hard for me to comment on any 
amendments because the amendments have not been proposed yet. I will 
respond briefly to the overall comments made by the Senators from New 
Jersey.
  Last year, after we passed the legislation, U.S. Transportation 
Secretary Slater issued the following statement:

       I commend the U.S. Senate for taking swift and decisive 
     action in passing the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 
     2000. This legislation is critical to making much-needed 
     improvements to the pipeline safety program. It provides for 
     stronger enforcement, mandatory testing of all pipelines, 
     community right-to-know information, and additional 
     resources, all hallmarks of the Clinton-Gore administration 
     bill on pipeline safety that was transmitted to the Senate by 
     Vice President Gore on April 11, 2000.
       I commend in particular the Commerce Committee Chairman and 
     Ranking Member, Senators McCain and Hollings, as well as 
     Senators Murray and Gorton for their hard work . . . I thank 
     the many others who worked for the U.S. Department of 
     Transportation and the Administration in seeking the highest 
     possible level of safety for our nation's pipelines, 
     including Senators Bingaman and Domenici, who recently 
     suffered a terrible loss in their state. . . .
       I look forward to working with the House leadership . . . 
     to help resolve any legislative differences.

  Clearly, former Secretary of Transportation Slater had a little 
different view of this legislation than the Senators from New Jersey.
  I will quote from a letter from the National Association of 
Regulatory Utility Commissioners. We all know that these individuals--
most of whom are elected; they certainly are in my State--are 
responsible for the regulation of this kind of industry and responsible 
for the safety of others. I had already included this letter for the 
Record, but I think it is important to reference it again. This is in 
reference to S. 235, the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2001.

       Dear Majority Leader Lott:
       On behalf of the National Association of Regulatory Utility 
     Commissioners--
       I assume that includes the regulatory utility commissioners 
     of the State of New Jersey--
       We urge you to support swift passage of S. 235. However, 
     NARUC does not believe S. 235 should be the vehicle for 
     broader energy policy legislation. NARUC would therefore 
     oppose amendments that would attempt to expand this bill 
     beyond its current intent of improving pipeline safety.
       Last Congress NARUC expressed strong support for the 
     reauthorization of pipeline safety legislation provided 
     sufficient funding to the Office of Pipeline Safety for State 
     grants was authorized. We believe the increase in funding for 
     these grants found in S. 235 will better enable OPS to meet 
     its obligation of a 50 percent funding share. . . .
       Additionally, NARUC and its membership strongly believe 
     there is a vital role for the States in ensuring safe 
     operation. . . .

  They go on to say:

       NARUC strongly supports provisions of S. 235 that provide 
     States with increased authority and increased participation 
     in safety activities. . . .

  Finally, I will quote again from passages from the National 
Governors' Association letter. I don't know if the National Governors' 
Association speaks for the Governor of New Jersey or not, but they go 
on to say:

       On behalf of the nation's Governors, we are writing to 
     express our support for S. 235, a bill to improve oil and gas 
     pipeline safety, and encourage prompt passage of such 
     legislation.
       NGA's policy supports pipeline safety legislation that 
     provides states with the authority to protect our citizens 
     from pipeline explosions and leaks. States should be 
     authorized to establish standards that do not conflict with 
     but may exceed federal standards. Our policy also endorses 
     the ability of states to enforce violations of federal or 
     state standards.

  The Governors, the utility commissioners, the former Secretary of 
Transportation, Secretary Slater, all are in support of this 
legislation.
  A majority of the House of Representatives did vote in favor of this 
legislation last year. It was taken up under a procedural situation 
that required a two-thirds vote.
  I assure the Senators from New Jersey, after passage through the 
House of Representatives, this legislation will be going to conference, 
and we will be more than happy to examine any recommendations and 
proposals.
  With all due respect to Senator Torricelli, at no time, during all 
the deliberations and all of the hearings and all of the involvement of 
this issue that our committee and the Senate had, were there any 
additional amendments, recommendations, or ideas raised. It is a little 
hard for us at this point in time, with the legislation on the floor, 
to give serious consideration to these amendments. Obviously, I cannot 
support them at this time, but we will be more than happy to consider 
them in the future.
  So when there is an amendment pending, I will be glad to comment on a 
pending amendment. But I, again, remind my colleagues that this is a 
product of literally months of negotiation, hours of hearings, and 
negotiations that took place over a very long period of time.
  I hope my colleagues from New Jersey will consider what has gone 
before and that we can move forward with the amending process.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I thank Senator Breaux and Senator 
McCain for working together on the principal issue we brought to the 
floor today. I believe we can find real resolution. Senator Cantwell, 
Senator Corzine, Senator Murray, and I have raised a question about the 
frequency of inspection of these pipelines for safety. We have raised 
the issue of the community's right to know. We have raised the issue of 
liability and the certification of workers.
  It was our hope to make progress today on the principal of these, 
which would be the inspection of the pipelines themselves, believing 
and taking great faith in the conference following the passage of this 
legislation that Senator McCain would represent our bipartisan 
interests. We know of his own commitment to safety on the issue of the 
qualification of the workers and the community's right to know and are 
leaving those for another day. We believe we can find common language 
on the issue of the inspections of the pipelines themselves. Senators 
Cantwell, Murray, and I join Senator Corzine who is prepared to offer 
an amendment.
  I yield to Senator Corzine at this time.


                            Amendment No. 10

  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, and I 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Corzine], for himself, Mr. 
     Torricelli, Ms. Cantwell, and Mrs. Murray, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 10.

  Mr. BREAUX. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be 
dispensed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       The assessment period shall be no less than every 5 years 
     unless the DOT IG, after consultation with the Secretary 
     determines--
       There is not a sufficient capability or it is deemed 
     unnecessary because of more technically appropriate 
     monitoring or creates

[[Page 1590]]

     undue interruption of necessary supply to fulfill the 
     requirements under this paragraph.

  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, before I read the amendment, I will 
preface it by expressing my gratitude to Senator McCain and Senator 
Breaux for their cooperation in working to address what all Members 
believe is an extraordinarily important issue with regard to 
inspections. I think all Members will be better served because of the 
efforts all Members, cooperatively and in a bipartisan way, brought 
forward.
  The amendment reads:

       The assessment period shall be no less than every 5 years 
     unless the DOT IG, after consultation with the Secretary 
     determines --
       There is not a sufficient capability or it is deemed 
     unnecessary because of more technically appropriate 
     monitoring or creates undue interruption of necessary supply 
     to fulfill the requirements under this paragraph.

  Let me say I hope the other issues with regard to certification--
particularly inspectors and operators, consideration of civil 
liabilities--are things that will be considered as we progress with 
regard to this legislation. But I think this is a major step forward. I 
am very grateful to the sponsors for their willingness to consider the 
efforts we are bringing to bear on inspections. I thank my colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment 
offered, that has been designed by Senator Corzine and offered by 
Senator Torricelli, Senator Murray, and myself. I want to take this 
opportunity to thank the sponsor for his diligence, not just on this 
amendment but the others, in hopes of improving the bill in the 
process.
  I know this has been a long process for many who have been involved 
including the senior Senator from my State. I applaud her for her 
diligent efforts along with Senator McCain, in trying to improve 
pipeline safety.
  As our Nation moves forward to meet our increasing energy needs in an 
environment where the supply of natural gas is very important, we need 
to also make sure that pipeline safety is implemented. As they 
currently stand, our current laws and regulations, I believe, do not 
adequately do the job in ensuring the safety of nearly 2 million miles 
of pipeline networks around this country.
  Indeed, we heard earlier from Senator Murray that our State, 
Washington, has faced the tragic consequences of unsafe pipelines head 
on. Two years ago, in a park near Bellingham, two 10-year-old boys died 
in a blast of flames and one young man drowned after being overcome by 
fumes when an aging pipeline burst. This was the worst of many pipeline 
accidents in our State, which has suffered from 47 reported incidents 
and more than $10 million in property damage between 1984 and 1999.
  My State is not alone, as you saw from the charts that Senator Murray 
and Senator Torricelli displayed, in facing the consequences of 
substandard pipeline safety. Just last August, in Carlsbad, NM, 11 
people, including 5 children, died when a nearby pipeline explosion 
rained fire on their campsite.
  Again I applaud Senator Murray and Senator McCain for their efforts 
in trying to improve, through this legislation, pipeline safety not 
just for the States of Washington, New Jersey, and New Mexico, but for 
the whole country, so they may not face the tragedy the people of our 
States have faced.
  I believe one of the weaknesses of the underlying bill had been the 
issue of reporting and the bill's reliance on the Department of 
Transportation's Office of Pipeline Safety for implementing guidelines 
we are seeking. OPS has not had a great record. In a June 2000 report, 
the GAO found that, since 1988, OPS has failed to implement 22 of the 
49 requirements mandated by Congress--almost half of those 
requirements--and 10 of these 22 requirements are now between 5 and 11 
years overdue.
  Moreover, the report exposed that OPS has the lowest rate of any 
transportation agency for implementing the NTSB regulations. Indeed, 
the GAO report concluded that OPS:

       . . . is a weak and overly compliant regulator that seldom 
     imposes fines when violations are found, fails to fully 
     involve State officials and often ignores reforms demanded by 
     Congress.

  I think the amendment offered by my colleagues and myself will go a 
long way in making sure there are at least the reporting requirements 
mandated on a 5-year basis.
  I look forward to continuing to work with the sponsors of this 
legislation and the Washington delegation in the House and other 
Members on improving this legislation through the process.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senators from New Jersey for 
bringing this very important issue as part of this legislation. I think 
it is an important issue, pipeline inspections. I think we have reached 
a very reasonable result, and their amendment embodies that.
  I thank Senator Murray, Senator Torricelli, Senator Corzine, and 
especially Senator Breaux. I was thinking as I watched Senator Breaux 
negotiate this agreement, I nominate him to be the Middle East peace 
negotiator. He might be able to achieve that since he has had so much 
practice around here on the floor of the Senate. Certainly it was with 
some entrenched constituencies.
  I do thank him for his hard work there. I think this amendment is 
very acceptable, and following Senator Breaux's comments, hopefully we 
can move the amendment. Then I would like to be recognized for a 
unanimous consent agreement so we can have final passage.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his comments. Let 
me make just a couple of comments to hopefully maybe put out some 
additional information on what exactly I think the amendment does and 
why I can be supportive of it.
  I think all of us want to have as much inspection of pipelines as 
necessary to ensure their safety. There are a couple of problems with 
just an arbitrary statement that says we have to inspect all the 
pipelines every 5 years. No. 1, some of them should be inspected more 
than every 5 years. Pipelines that are in high-risk areas or are in 
danger of being interrupted because of natural causes should be 
inspected more than every 5 years. On the other hand, there are 
pipelines that do not necessarily need to be inspected every 5 years 
for various reasons. So just to have an arbitrary date, as I think 
originally was being considered, is not appropriate.
  What we have here is a requirement which is a general requirement 
that all lines be inspected every 5 years, but giving the Department of 
Transportation, through the inspector general, some ability to make 
decisions on how that should be actually conducted.
  What the amendment says is: Yes, they will be inspected every 5 years 
unless there is not the capability to do so.
  We all know so-called pig inspection, where you run equipment through 
the line, is only capable of doing about 30 percent of the lines. So we 
have to look at the capability to do it in that fashion or in another 
fashion. The Department of Transportation, through the inspector 
general, will have the obligation to make the determination of the 
capacity to do this. I would like them to develop the capacity. That is 
going to be part of the appropriations process. We have some key people 
in that process to give them greater capability.
  The second exemption would be if it is determined, again by the 
Department of Transportation through the inspector general, that it is 
unnecessary because of other technology being used--to assure the 
safety of that line. For instance, there are lines that have constant 
monitoring on them. They are not inspected every 5 years. They are 
constantly monitored and inspected for any corrosion or any leaks. I 
think it would be foolish to require that line to undergo an additional 
inspection every 5 years if in fact it were being monitored on a 
constant basis. That is the type of thing we are talking about in that 
part of the amendment.

[[Page 1591]]

  The third thing is to say it would be inspected every 5 years unless 
that inspection would create an undue interruption of supplies. I 
wouldn't want to shut down Newark, NJ, on a line that is running 
perfectly and has a good history, to do an inspection, if that would be 
unnecessary and unduly interrupt the supplies of natural gas to that 
area.
  So I think, with those caveats, the concept of doing it every 5 years 
is OK. It is fine. I think we are putting the burden where it belongs, 
on the Department of Transportation and the Office of Pipeline Safety, 
through their inspector general, to make sure that the inspections are 
doing what we want.
  I think the bill addresses a number of the concerns of our colleagues 
from New Jersey and Washington about making sure we have trained 
workers. This bill says what the worker training programs will be and 
they have to file it with OPS and make sure they have an adequate 
training program for all of their workers.
  The public's right to know has been greatly increased. I know Senator 
Murray had a great deal to do with the public's right to know. I don't 
know if every individual in the country needs to know where every high-
pressure valve is on a pipeline. There is some security involved here. 
We are concerned about sabotage of lines or disruption of lines by 
people intent on doing violence to areas. To make that type of 
information available to everybody all the time without any 
consequences is going a little bit too far. People who are involved in 
safety, fire departments and safety people, will get that information 
quickly as soon as it is on file. And the public will have a right to 
know the information that they need to protect their local communities.
  So I think the concerns have been addressed by our colleagues. The 
bill does an awful lot to improve the current situation, because of 
their involvement in this amendment, as I understand it to be, and it 
would be an improvement as well.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BREAUX. Yes.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. First, I again thank Senator Breaux for his 
leadership in helping to fashion this amendment, but since this was not 
drafted in committee and was literally written on the floor, I want to 
ensure the Record properly reflects our mutual intent.



  There is a 5-year requirement for inspection basically with three 
escape clauses that I think should be properly understood and defined.
  First, ``there is not sufficient capability'' means strictly there is 
not the equipment available; there is not the personnel available. The 
Secretary will be certifying this was just not possible to get done 
simply because of a shortage.
  Mr. BREAUX. If the Senator will yield, I agree with his explanation 
of that section.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Second, we discussed at some length ``deemed 
unnecessary because of more technologically appropriate monitoring.'' 
This escape was created because the Senator from Louisiana noted some 
lines have constant monitoring. They do not need to be inspected every 
5 years because they are inspected every minute. That was our intent 
here, not that someone comes forward and says: We think that is a well-
designed pipeline and well done, so leave that one for 20 years. This 
was, as the Senator noted, because of constant monitoring. Is that the 
understanding of the Senator from Louisiana?
  Mr. BREAUX. That is the intent. There may be something other than 
constant monitoring that can lead them to the same conclusion. Right 
now, constant monitoring would be the type of technology that would 
assure the safety of that pipeline. There may be something tomorrow 
that will be just as good as constant monitoring. I do not know that 
would be there. It would be a technology that would ensure the 
integrity and safety of that pipeline. That will be equally as good or 
better than an inspection.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. In any case, this is not some general escape where 
people, in the future, who live in New Jersey will say: We think that 
is a good pipeline under the technology that was built so we are never 
going to inspect it.
  The Senator was very specific about the kind of technology involved; 
that it offered a superior guarantee.
  Mr. BREAUX. Equal or superior.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. The last element on this was ``created an 
interruption of supply,'' which I take it means simply shutting down 
the pipeline for inspection without an alternative means of delivering 
the liquid or the natural gas and people would be without the product; 
that there was no way to do the inspection without shutting this off 
and creating an economic or other kind of hardship.
  Mr. BREAUX. The Senator's point is well taken. If you have to dig up 
a pipeline, obviously that is going to cause an interruption of supply. 
Sometimes lines have to be dug up to be inspected. That creates a 
disruption of supply. That does not mean that inspection should not be 
done.
  What we are trying to get at is interruptions that would work an 
undue hardship on communities by having an inspection that may not be 
necessary. That is what we are talking about--not a normal 
interruption, but an unnecessary interruption that would cause real 
problems for a community to be without any natural gas, for instance, 
at a time when they desperately need it.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Senator from Louisiana. For my purposes--
and I think Senator Corzine is concerned about these large pipelines 
delivering liquid and natural gas through the Northeast through densely 
populated suburban communities in New Jersey--we have met our 
objective; that is, the level of technology for inspection must be 
extraordinarily high or there will be regular inspections, so people 
living in proximity to these pipelines know they can be assured of its 
safety.
  The Record should also reflect that we actually discussed having some 
other exemption for places that are sparsely populated. It was noted 
that under no instances, given the density of the population in the 
Northeast or I assume in California or in Illinois, would that be 
appropriate.
  This affords us the protection we need, and for that I am very 
grateful. Again, my thanks to Senator McCain.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield while Senator McCain and I enter a 
unanimous consent request?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I did not hear the Senator.
  Mr. REID. Senator McCain and I want to propound a unanimous consent 
request.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I wish to speak to this amendment for a moment.
  Mr. McCAIN. Maybe we ought to wait.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the adoption of 
the amendment, after the statements by both Senators from New Mexico, 
the vote occur on passage of S. 235, as amended, and that paragraph 4 
of rule XII be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, it is my understanding that 
prior to the vote Senator Domenici wishes to speak for 5 minutes, 
Senator Bingaman, 5 minutes, and Senator Cantwell 5 minutes, and that 
following the adoption of this amendment, on which Senator Domenici 
wants to speak before it is adopted, we vote on final passage, unless 
the Senator from Arizona wishes to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, my only amendment will be that I be 
added as a cosponsor to the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I revise my unanimous consent request that 
following the adoption of the amendment, Senators Cantwell, Bingaman, 
and Domenici be allowed to speak for 5 minutes; following that, the 
vote occur on passage of S. 235, as amended, and that paragraph 4 of 
rule XII be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I call to the attention of Senators on 
the

[[Page 1592]]

floor, in particular Senator Breaux and Senator McCain and perhaps the 
New Jersey Senators, that one of the issues being discussed as we work 
on this bill is the advancement of technology so inspections can be 
done better.
  There is a very interesting new technology--this bill provides for 
some more money for research and technology--but there is a very 
interesting technology that is about to be offered to the pipelines 
that has been developed by a little company in New Mexico. Their name 
is LaSen Corporation. They have developed a system where a device is 
put on a light airplane and you fly over the pipeline. The device picks 
up the radiation from any kind of leakage whatsoever, reports it to the 
instrumentation. They can do 500 miles of pipeline a day, where today 
we do 5 to 10. They can do it at a cheaper price.
  With this bill putting a little more into technologies and companies 
with innovation such as this one, we are going to find better ways to 
do the inspections covering a greater number of miles per day at much 
cheaper rates. This bill will push that. In the meantime, entrepreneurs 
are finding some exciting technologies such as this little company that 
will have these devices very soon. I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
10.
  The amendment (No. 10) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I congratulate Senator Cantwell and 
Senator Corzine for their initial success in the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to speak on the bill for a very 
few minutes, and, of course, congratulate Senator Corzine and the other 
cosponsors for the amendment that was just adopted, which I strongly 
support.
  This bill overall is very important to the people of my State. 
Senator Domenici and I had the experience of learning last August of a 
terrible rupture of a high-pressure natural gas pipeline coming through 
New Mexico on its way to California. It occurred on August 19 near 
Carlsbad, NM, at 5:30 in the morning. Unfortunately, the rupture 
occurred at a place where the pipeline crosses the Pecos River. It was 
a place where many people came to fish and camp.
  There was a large family there, an extended family and friends who 
were camped there that night and the next morning when the rupture 
occurred. The rupture did kill 12 people. Shortly thereafter, there was 
a 13th person who died later from injuries received at the site. It was 
a terrible tragedy for our State and for the entire country.
  After visiting the site with the personnel from the Office of 
Pipeline Safety, it became clear to me that that office did not have 
adequate resources to do what it needed to do and it did not have 
adequate authority to do what it needed to do.
  There are over 500,000 miles of interstate pipeline in the United 
States. That agency needs the additional authority contained in this 
bill in order to address the different circumstances of individual 
pipelines. The Senate bill requires each and every interstate natural 
gas and hazardous liquid pipeline to develop and implement an integrity 
management plan.
  The bill gives the Office of Pipeline Safety the authority to impose 
rigorous requirements to address areas with the greatest likelihood of 
failures and, specifically, to address aging pipelines and those in 
populated or environmentally sensitive areas.
  The transmission line in New Mexico, as I said, was crossing the 
Pecos River at the place where it ruptured. The bend in the pipe that 
was required in order to cross that river was part of the problem that 
led to the rupture of the pipeline. As best we can determine, the 
pipeline ruptured because of internal corrosion in the line. The line 
was 40 or so years old. It is a very longstanding line. There had not 
been adequate inspection, particularly inspection that would have 
caught that internal corrosion.
  In the hopes of preventing other problems such as this which have 
gone undetected, and the ability to move some of the equipment that is 
used to determine internal corrosion that is impeded when you have a 
sharp bend in the pipe, which is what we had there where the pipe was 
crossing the river, I introduced a bill to set up a coordinated 
research and development program. I am very pleased to say that has 
been incorporated into this bill that we are voting on today.
  These natural gas and liquid pipelines are a critical element of the 
Nation's energy infrastructure. They provide a cost-effective and 
relatively safe means of delivering energy. As our economy has grown 
and become increasingly urbanized, the siting of new pipelines has 
become more and more of a challenge. At the same time, the importance 
of having these lines has increased dramatically, and the importance of 
ensuring the safety of these lines has increased dramatically.
  Earlier this week, the Energy Daily reported that inadequate pipeline 
capacity into the northeastern part of this country will create serious 
power supply problems in the next few years.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article from the 
Energy Daily be printed in the Record following my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. BINGAMAN. We do have a series of near-term crises related to 
energy in the country. We are more and more aware of those families and 
businesses that have been hit by winter heating bills. There are high 
natural gas prices affecting power prices in the western part of the 
country. Natural gas is a feedstock for the fertilizer industry, and 
the high prices have shut down production of fertilizer in some parts 
of our country. Farmers are not going to find adequate supplies for the 
spring planting season.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes have expired.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for another 2 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, natural gas prices are only part of the 
problem. After a number of years of surplus gas supplies, pipeline 
capacity, and high electricity reserve margins, we are bumping up 
against the constraints of our infrastructure in each of these areas. 
We need to deal with that. I hope we can this spring. We are going to 
work on legislation in the Energy Committee to do that.
  Passage of this pipeline safety bill is a small but a very important 
step to help restore public confidence in the pipeline infrastructure 
and to avoid these catastrophes in the future. I believe this will be 
an appropriate step to take. I hope very much, after we pass this 
bill--as I believe we will today--the House of Representatives will 
take it up and pass it quickly so that the Office of Pipeline Safety 
can get about the business of better inspections to avoid catastrophes 
such as we faced near Carlsbad this last year.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                             Exhibit No. 1

                 [From the Energy Daily, Feb. 6, 2001]

     Pipeline Bottleneck To Pinch Gas Supplies for New England IPPs

                           (By Jeff Beattie)

       In a stark warning that New England's power supply is 
     becoming over-dependent on natural gas, the region's grid 
     operator said Monday that natural gas pipelines will not be 
     able to fill generators' requirements by 2005, leaving them 
     unable to operate 3,000 megawatts of gas-fired capacity.
       The study released by ISO New England Inc. predicted 
     ``substantial unserved gas requirements'' by 2005 absent 
     major changes in infrastructure or fuel use.
       The independent system operator urged a streamlined 
     regulatory process to expand pipeline capacity and--in a 
     proposal that raised generators' hackles--called for 
     requirements that new independent gas-fired plants develop 
     backup capabilities to burn oil.
       The study said the gas crunch was developing because gas-
     fired generating capacity

[[Page 1593]]

     is expected to triple between 1999 and 2005, rising from 16 
     percent of total capacity to 45 percent.
       At the same time, pipeline capacity is not increasing at 
     the same pace, meaning independent generators likely will 
     have to keep 3,000 MW idle in the 2005 peak heating season 
     due to lack of gas. The study said smaller, brief shortfalls 
     could occur in the winter of 2003. The study said independent 
     generators would feel the impact before utilities because the 
     current system's operational flexibility could not meet 
     coincident needs of both, and ``the demands of utilities are 
     scheduled first--the majority of throughput for generation is 
     subordinated.''
       Conducted by Boston-based Levitan and Associates Inc., the 
     study also suggests that the ability of gas-fired generators 
     to switch ``on-the-fly'' to distillate oil will be crucial 
     not only to meet the potential shortfall but to take up slack 
     in the event one of the region's major pipes has an accident 
     or shutdown.
       The ISO said switching to oil was workable because 5,900 MW 
     of generation capacity have air permits that permit such 
     switching.
       The region's shortfall stems from a projected installation 
     of between 7,500 and 11,600 MW of gas-fired generation by 
     2005. Virtually all of the new generating facilities plan to 
     use gas from Western Canada, the Gulf Coast, or--
     increasingly--from new reserves off the coast of Nova Scotia.
       Pipeline industry officials say the Northeast's problems 
     are not surprising given the obstacles thrown up to the 
     industry's efforts to add capacity to the five major 
     interstate pipeline systems now serving the region.
       ``FERC delayed one projected by over a year and a half 
     because they had 7,000 landowner complaints,'' said Jerry 
     Halvorsen, president of the Interstate Natural Gas 
     Association of America (INGAA). ``But we went into the FERC 
     document room and identified that only 5 percent of those 
     complainants were actually along the right of way, and in one 
     case they had counted one letter 14 times.''
       Halvorsen also pointed to opposition from utilities 
     concerned that expansion would primarily feed independent 
     generators, and environmental agency concern about stream 
     crossings.
       He added that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 
     under the leadership of new Chairman Curt Hebert, seems now 
     to be headed in the right direction.
       ``I think FERC will do what it has to,'' he said.
       The ISO suggests a number of ways to both increase the flow 
     of natural gas and reduce dependence, including: Requiring 
     merchant generators to certify the ``character and quality'' 
     of their gas transportation; additional modeling to predict 
     impacts of system breakdowns; and support for streamlining 
     federal pipe approval.
       ``These fixes are doable if we get started now,'' said ISO 
     Vice President of System Operations Stephen Whitley. ``If you 
     wait until winter's over and forget about it because the cold 
     weather's gone, and then start talking about it later, that 
     would be terrible.''
       Officials representing New England generators generally 
     agreed with the findings of the ISO's study, but objected to 
     its recommendation that IPPs be required to have fuel-
     switching capability.
       ``We would oppose that,'' said Neal Costello, general 
     counsel for the Competitive Power Coalition of New England. 
     ``ISO New England need to understand that they were created 
     to facilitate the development of a competitive wholesale 
     market. They are not `The Great Regulator,' which is 
     unfortunately sometimes how they view their role.
       ``The fuel-switching capabilities of plants can be somewhat 
     misleading. Let's be honest about it: We [the generators] 
     would be switching from gas that people use to heat their 
     homes, to distillate oil that people use to heat their 
     homes.''
       Costello said also said ``draconian environmental 
     regulations'' were part of New England's gas-dependence 
     problem.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Does the Senator desire to speak? I will be glad to let 
the Senator proceed, and then I will follow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Ms. CANTWELL. I say to my colleague from New Mexico, I appreciate 
being deferred. And I say to my other colleague from New Mexico, I 
appreciate and wish to be associated with his remarks.
  Obviously, we are here discussing the best ways to move forward on 
pipeline safety for the country. Obviously, despite the troubling 
record, this bill puts much of the responsibility of additional 
standards into the hands of the Transportation Department and the 
Office of Pipeline Safety.
  In this legislation, we are relying on the Office of Pipeline 
Safety--a small office of only 55 inspectors--to be the principal 
Government agency responsible for ensuring the safety of 2 million 
miles of our Nation's pipelines.
  After years of failure in responding to congressional mandates--not 
having the capacity--one of the key issues for me, as this bill moves 
through the process of the other body, and through a conference 
committee, will be the level of support for funding given to the Office 
of Pipeline Safety and their ability to take on the monitoring 
responsibilities and the responsibilities of the amendment that was 
offered by Senator Corzine, myself, and others, which was adopted.
  The pipeline safety disruptions not only endanger human health and 
safety but the leaks and explosions and fires associated with pipeline 
ruptures can devastate the environment and disrupt critical energy 
flows.
  Ultimately, considering the increasing incidents of pipeline 
disruption, and a system that has led to over 243 pipeline-related 
deaths since 1990, the unfortunate state of pipeline safety in this 
country demands that we make this a higher national priority.
  I believe the bill today--unlike the version prior to being amended, 
which was not a better bill--with this amendment that was adopted is a 
better bill, but I can only support this in the final passage out of 
conference if we continue to improve the bill through the process. I 
will be working diligently with my colleagues from around the country, 
with the delegation in Washington, and in the House to make sure that 
is a reality.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor a bill to 
modernize our nation's pipeline safety programs. The issue of our 
country's pipeline safety came to the forefront after tragic explosions 
in Bellingham, Washington, and later, in my own state of New Mexico.
  On August 19, 2000, twelve members of an extended family were on a 
camping and fishing trip along the Pecos River near Carlsbad, NM. Just 
after midnight, a natural gas pipeline exploded, sending a 350 foot 
high ball of flame into the air. Six of the campers died instantly. The 
six remaining family members later died from their horrific injuries.
  I am not here today to argue the reasons why pipeline tragedies, such 
as the one in Carlsbad, continue to occur. I am not here today to 
further admonish the traditionally poor regulatory enforcement by the 
Office of Pipeline Safety.
  In that regard, I am confident that the new Administration will 
assume its responsibility to vigorously oversee and enforce pipeline 
regulations.
  What I am here to do today, is to work so that we don't have to think 
twice before camping with our families and friends. I am here to do my 
part, to assume my responsibility, so that pipeline tragedies like in 
Carlsbad, do not happen again.
  Pipelines carry almost all of the natural gas and 65 percent of the 
crude oil and refined oil products. Three primary types of pipelines 
form a network of nearly 2.2 million miles, 7,000 of which lie in my 
own state of New Mexico.
  Pipelines stretch across our country. They allow us to obtain energy 
resources quickly and economically.
  In light of the energy crisis in California, and in the west in 
general, the value of our nation's pipeline system is obvious. We must 
have access to energy.
  Therefore, pipelines and the potential hazards they pose affect us 
all. It is time that we do something to ensure our safety while 
protecting our access to energy.
  Mr. President, this bill:
  Significantly increases States' role in oversight, inspection, and 
investigation of pipelines.
  Improves and expands the public's right to know about pipeline 
hazards.
  Dramatically increases civil penalties for safety and reporting 
violations.
  Increases reporting requirements of releases of hazardous liquids 
from 50 barrels to five gallons.
  Provides important whistle blower protections prohibiting 
discrimination

[[Page 1594]]

by pipeline operators, contractors or subcontractors.
  Furthermore, the legislation would provide much needed funding for 
research and development in pipeline safety technologies.
  In fact, technology currently exists that might have detected 
weaknesses in pipelines around Carlsbad. Unfortunately, due to 
insufficient funding those products have yet to reach the market.
  La Sen Corporation in my own State of New Mexico has developed 
technology that can detect faulty pipelines where current pipeline 
inspection technology is not usable. La Sen's Electronic Mapping System 
can be very effective even in pipelines where conventional pig devices 
cannot be used.
  Pipeline inspection is costly and slow. Innovative new technologies 
could allow us to inspect all 2.2 million miles of pipeline each year 
in a cost effective manner. Today, pipeline inspection technology only 
covers 5-10 miles per day at a cost of $50 per mile. Again, La Sen's 
technology can survey 500 miles per day at a cost of $32 per mile.
  The bottom line is that today, we can take action that will hopefully 
make pipelines safer.
  I encourage my colleagues to recognize the potential dangers that 
pipelines pose and to minimize those dangers by unanimously passing 
this legislation.
  Mr. President, on August 19th, New Mexicans, and the country to some 
extent, woke up to find out that at a camping site near Carlsbad, NM, 
right by our second largest river, which has been frequently used by 
families, that a pipeline exploded reigning fire and terror. Six people 
died instantly and six other family members and friends died shortly 
thereafter. And then one additional lived for a while and then died.
  It was a very tragic event for a small State, especially a State 
where we know how important natural gas is. We produce a lot of it. We 
know how important crude oil is. We produce a lot of it. But 
nonetheless, it was thought by many that we could do better, that these 
kinds of things should not happen.
  I am not an expert, but I do believe that, as the facts have 
determined subsequent to that event, the Nation's inspection mechanism 
for pipelines has been underfunded, understaffed, and probably at a 
minimum, lackadaisical, and to some extent totally asleep.
  This bill says it is a far more important issue. And it comes at 
exactly the right time. Because we are assessing our country's energy 
situation. We are going to find, when the President's task force 
reports, that we are growing more and more dependent upon natural gas 
and becoming more and more dependent upon foreign oil. Everyone should 
know that pipelines are very important solution to our energy crisis.
  We already know there are 2.2 million miles of pipeline carrying 
natural gas across this country. Sixty-five percent of the crude oil 
refined is in these pipelines. And 7,000 of these miles are in the 
State of New Mexico. This bill does a number of significant things to 
improve the situation and, perhaps, make it such that we won't have 
these kinds of problems in my State, and wonderful people like those 
whose relatives woke up and read about their friends at this camp site 
that were burned to death, at the pipeline rupture site.
  Once again, the inspection process is rather crude today. We have to 
do a lot better. I am quite certain, that the small corporation to 
which I referred the Senate a minute ago, La Sen Corporation in New 
Mexico is not the only technology around, but it is among the most 
exciting. We are quite sure that company is going to succeed and that 
we will be inspecting the pipelines of our country, whether they hang 
above ground in some areas or whether they are underground. They are 
going to inspect them from small airplanes with technology on board 
that will be so technically significant, with reference to detection of 
the composites that are part of either natural gas or crude oil in the 
pipelines. They will detect and report those composites, much like a 
radar screen in these small airplanes.
  If that occurs, as I indicated a while ago, instead of 5 to 10 miles 
a day, with crews and current equipment, we will inspect 500 miles a 
day, and it will be ultimately cheaper per mile. That is what 
ultimately has to happen. This bill helps. It does put more money and 
directs more research into pipeline safety technologies.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this bill authorizes the Secretary of 
Transportation to take the steps necessary to protect the families of 
communities served by pipelines that are, or could be, hazardous. Under 
Section 14 of the bill, the Secretary can order necessary corrective 
action for hazardous facilities, including closing the facilities. In 
the case of pipeline accidents, the Secretary can remove or reassign 
responsible employees.
  The Secretary's authority to deal with pipeline accidents and safety 
hazards can and should be exercised in ways that treat workers at 
pipelines and pipeline facilities fairly. Under the bill, the Secretary 
may direct pipeline operators to relieve employees from their duties, 
reassign them, or place them on leave for an indefinite period of 
time--all without any provision for those employees to receive 
compensation or benefits. Employees who may ultimately be determined to 
bear no responsibility for an accident could be put on extended unpaid 
leave under the bill. I believe that greater protections are needed for 
the men and women who work at the nation's pipelines and pipeline 
facilities. The vast majority of these workers are dedicated to 
protecting the health and safety of the communities they serve. As we 
go to conference with the House on this important bill, I urge the 
conferees to amend this provision to avoid the possible mistreatment of 
these workers.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Pipeline Safety 
Improvement Act of 2001. I commend the work of the chairman and ranking 
member of the Commerce Committee, Senators McCain and Hollings, for 
their hard work on this legislation. I believe that this legislation 
takes a balanced approach to an important issue and provides for an 
increase in public safety without unduly burdening a vital ingredient 
of our energy infrastructure.
  This legislation takes several important steps in improving the 
safety of America's oil and natural gas pipelines. There are several 
elements of this legislation that I would like to highlight. First, 
this legislation requires the implementation of pipeline safety 
recommendations recently issued by the Department of Transportation 
(DOT) Inspector General to the DOT Research and Special Programs 
Administration (RSPA). The Inspector General has recommended that the 
pipeline industry finalize outstanding Congressional mandates 
protecting sensitive environmental areas and high-density population 
areas. Moreover, it calls for the implementation of a training program 
for the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) inspectors.
  Second, it requires pipeline operators to submit to the Secretary of 
Transportation, or the appropriate State regulatory agency as the case 
requires, a plan designed to enhance the qualifications of pipeline 
personnel. I hope that this approach, in which the pipeline operators 
themselves are consulted on the proper safety and training 
qualifications of their personnel, is a cooperative one that will not 
only increase public safety, but also encourage the pipeline industry 
to take ownership in the standards they are called upon to implement.
  Third, this bill calls upon the Secretary of Transportation to issue 
regulations that require hazardous liquid pipelines and natural gas 
transmission pipelines to evaluate the risks of the operator's 
facilities in environmentally sensitive and high-density population 
areas, and to implement a program for integrity management that reduces 
identified risks of an incident in those areas. Under these guidelines, 
the pipeline operator's integrity management plan must be based on risk 
analysis and must include a periodic assessment of the integrity of the 
pipeline through methods including internal inspection,

[[Page 1595]]

pressure testing, direct assessment, or some other effective methods, 
to ensure that identified problems are corrected in a timely manner. 
Again, I am hopeful that this integrity management plan will allow 
operators to be even more pro-active in identifying potential problems 
and correcting them before any accidents occur.
  Fourth, this legislation requires an operator of a gas transmission 
or hazardous liquid pipeline facility to carry out a continuing public 
education program that would include activities to advise 
municipalities, school districts, businesses, and residents of pipeline 
facility locations on a variety of pipeline safety matters. Educating 
the community on issues of pipeline safety should also serve to 
decrease the incidents of dangerous accidents in these areas.
  While no legislation can entirely alleviate the elements of risk and 
danger from human experience, there are ways that government, 
businesses, and local communities can cooperate to help minimize risks 
of serious accidents. When crafting such legislation, it is also 
important to ensure that any additional burdens we place on private 
businesses will result in benefits that outweigh those costs. This is 
especially important in the area of oil and gas pipelines, which are 
the arteries of energy production that allow us to fuel our cars, heat 
and cool our homes, and carry out countless activities in our daily 
lives. All the oil and natural gas in the world is worthless if we are 
unable to get it to the American consumers. For this reason, I am 
especially heartened by the cooperative approach that was taken in 
preparing this legislation to ensure that all the various stakeholders 
were heard and their legitimate concerns were incorporated into this 
important legislation. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting 
the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2001.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise to make a short statement about the 
Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2001. This bill is identical to 
legislation we considered and passed in the 106th Congress.
  Last year, I took the time to outline the problem we now face in 
regard to this issue, and I want to take a moment to do that again. To 
understand this legislation, you must understand the situation from 
which we started. The federal government, through the Department of 
Transportation, regulates more than 2,000 gas pipeline operators with 
more than 1.3 million miles of pipe and more than 200 hazardous liquid 
pipeline operators with more than 156,000 miles of pipe. To protect the 
public safety and the environment and maintain reliability in the 
energy system over that massive infrastructure is an enormous 
challenge. The responsibility for meeting that challenge, no matter how 
great it is, falls upon the industry and federal government, 
specifically, DOT's Office of Pipeline Safety. It is clear that both 
OPS and the industry have failed to rise to that challenge, and we have 
paid a high price.
  According to the OPS, since 1984, there have been approximately 5,700 
natural gas and oil pipeline accidents nationwide, 54 of them in my 
home state of Massachusetts. In the 1990s, nearly 4,000 natural gas and 
oil pipeline ruptures--more than one each day--caused the deaths of 201 
people, injuries to another 2,829 people, cost at least $780 million in 
property damages, and resulted in enormous environmental contamination 
and ecological damages. Two accidents in particular show us the tragic 
consequences of pipeline accidents. On June 10, 1999, a leaking 
gasoline pipeline erupted into a fireball in Bellingham, Washington. 
The fire extended more than one and half miles, killing two 10-year-old 
boys and a young man. The second accident took place in August in 
Carlsbad, New Mexico. A leaking natural gas pipeline erupted killing 12 
members of an extended family on a camping trip. My sympathies go out 
to all those involved in these incidents. They are truly tragic.
  The Senate Commerce Committee and others have investigated the cause 
of this tragic record. What we found, sadly, is that OPS was simply 
failing to do its job. The head of the National Transportation Safety 
Board, Jim Hall, gave the OPS ``a big fat F'' for its work. As we 
considered the legislation in the Commerce Committee, I found that OPS 
had fallen short in the area of enforcement, in particular. Enforcement 
is the backbone of any system of safeguards designed to protect the 
public and the enforcement. Without the threat of tough enforcement, 
companies, the unfortunate record shows, do not consistently comply 
with safeguards. The resulting harm to people and places is predictable 
and regrettable. I will not outline all of the details here today, but 
I recommend to anyone interested that they read the General Accounting 
Office's investigation into OPS dated May 2000.
  The Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2001 includes enforcement 
reforms and enhances the role of OPS and the Department of Justice in 
enforcement. These provisions, which I proposed in the Commerce 
Committee in the 106th Congress, will, I believe, put some teeth into 
our pipeline safety laws. They include raising the maximum fines that 
OPS can assess a company from $500,000 to $1,000,000; ensuring that 
companies cannot profit from noncompliance; clarifying the law 
regarding one-call services; and allowing DOJ, at the request of DOT, 
to seek civil penalties in court to ensure that serious violators can 
be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
  The bill makes other significant improvements to existing law. My 
colleagues Mr. McCain and Mrs. Murray have outlined many of these 
provisions and how they will improve pipeline safety. In addition, Mr. 
Corzine has offered a successful amendment that will require pipeline 
inspections on a 5 year basis when appropriate. That is a significant 
improvement. However, Mr. President, despite the improvements in the 
underlying bill and Mr. Corzine's amendment, S. 235 falls short in some 
areas. It is my hope that the legislation will be further improved in 
the House and in the House-Senate conference by including worker 
certification, enhancing right-to-know provisions and other steps that 
would improve environmental and public safety protections. I look 
forward to continuing to work on this legislation, improve it, and, 
ultimately, improving the pipeline safety throughout the nation.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this legislation is very important to the 
people of Michigan because we know what it is like to have pipeline 
safety concerns in our own backyard. Last June, a gasoline pipeline 
ruptured in Michigan, spilling more than 70,000 gallons of gasoline. 
Further, national estimates rank Michigan second only to Texas in the 
number of repairs to damaged or leaking natural gas lines. Clearly, we 
need comprehensive legislation which will help prevent further 
tragedies like those which have occurred in the United States over the 
past few years.
  This legislation would strengthen pipeline safety regulations and 
encourage increased participation from interested and affected state 
agencies and communities as well as expand citizen right-to-know 
provisions. It would also provide increased funding to the development 
of technologies to improve pipeline safety.
  Although this bill could be stronger, it accomplishes many goals. I 
hope that when it comes back from Conference, we will see an even 
stronger bill. However, I will support this legislation at this time 
because I believe it moves us in the right direction.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, as a co-sponsor of S. 235, the 
Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2001, I would like to urge my 
colleagues to support this balanced bipartisan bill.
  I am a new member of the Senate Commerce Committee, and have been 
privileged to be appointed as Chair of the Surface Transportation and 
Merchant Marine Subcommittee. I have also been a member of the Senate 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee for a number of years.
  In the past few years, I have heard numerous witnesses discuss the 
need to obtain more supply and build more energy infrastructure to 
service the increasing energy demand. On a number of occasions I have 
heard, for example,

[[Page 1596]]

that demand in the natural gas market is expected to increase from 22 
trillion cubic feet to 30 trillion cubic feet by around 2010 to 2012 
and that the interstate natural gas pipeline industry is having to 
spend over $2.5 billion per year to build the necessary pipeline and 
storage facilities to meet this demand.
  More recently, these issues have taken on a sense of urgency as the 
electricity problems in California have reached beyond that state to 
affect the availability of electricity in Oregon and to significantly 
increase the rates that my constituents are paying at this time.
  I also know that it is important to assure the public that both new 
pipelines and existing pipelines are safe. The Pipeline Safety 
Improvement Act puts into place a number of common-sense measures that 
will encourage pipeline operators to coordinate safety and emergency 
procedures with national and state officials. The improvements mandated 
by this bill will help to eliminate accidents and decrease the very 
real hazards for those who live and work near the pipelines that 
crisscross our nation.
  S. 235 requires the Office of Pipeline Safety to promulgate 
regulations to require operators of natural gas transmission pipelines 
and hazardous liquid pipelines to evaluate the risks to the pipeline, 
focusing on areas that are highly populated or, in the case of 
hazardous liquid pipelines, areas that are environmentally sensitive.
  S. 235 also provides more opportunity for state and local government 
input when new regulations are promulgated. States that are interested 
in acting as interstate agents can participate in special 
investigations involving incidents or new construction and assume 
additional inspection or investigatory duties or other activities under 
the regulations issued by the Office of Pipeline Safety.
  The Pipeline Safety Improvement Act calls on pipeline operators to 
review their public education programs for effectiveness and modify 
them if necessary. Furthermore, S. 235 says the Office of Pipeline 
Safety may issue standards prescribing the elements of an effective 
public communications program.
  As the new Chairman of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee, I 
will become very involved in this pipeline safety program. I plan to 
sit down with the staff of the Office of Pipeline Safety to learn more 
about their plans for implementing legislation and what they may need 
to improve their effectiveness. I also plan to oversee their activities 
to make sure that, once Congress passes a reauthorization bill, they 
will move to implement the intentions of Congress.
  I know that S. 235 is the product of bipartisan cooperation and I 
support quick passage of this bill.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today the Senate is considering S. 235, 
legislation to improve the safety of pipelines carrying oil, natural 
gas and hazardous liquids. I commend Senator McCain, Senator Hollings, 
Senator Murkowski and Senator Bingaman for their work on this 
legislation.
  Over the past few years, deadly pipeline explosions have destroyed 
homes and taken lives. There is no question that safety standards need 
to be improved to ensure the safety of all Americans and to avoid 
interruptions of energy supplies that can lead to shortages and 
significant price increases. This legislation will help to meet this 
goal by strengthening safety regulations, updating penalties for safety 
violations, improving whistleblower protections and providing increased 
funding for safety research and enforcement.
  I also want to express my support for the objectives mentioned today 
by Senator Torricelli and Senator Corzine, and my appreciation for the 
willingness of Senator McCain and Senator Hollings to address these 
issues. It is my hope that the final bill will include strong right-to-
know, oversight, enforcement and worker certification provisions, and 
ensure that those who violate regulations are held accountable for 
their actions. Finally, we need to ensure that adequate funding will be 
available to meet all of these goals.
  Once again, I want to thank my colleagues for their work on this 
issue.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today the Senate has the opportunity to move 
one step closer to correcting an extreme disappointment of the 106th 
Congress. S. 2438, the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2000, which 
passed the Senate unanimously on September 7, 2000, but never made it 
across the finish line in the House of Representatives, has been 
reintroduced this Congress as S. 235, the Pipeline Safety Improvement 
Act of 2001.
  This legislation is the result of months of extraordinary bipartisan 
effort by Senators John McCain, Patty Murray, Slade Gorton, Jeff 
Bingaman and Pete Domenici. Significant contributions to the 
legislation were also made by Senators John Breaux, Fritz Hollings, Sam 
Brownback, Ron Wyden, John Kerry, Kay Bailey Hutchison and Byron 
Dorgan.
  I also feel some ownership of this effort. I serve on the Senate 
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, which prepared the 
bill for the Senate's consideration, and my home state of Mississippi 
hosts many, many miles of pipelines. These issues are extremely 
important to me.
  S. 235 is an excellent bill. It is probably the most significant 
rewrite of our pipeline safety laws in more than a decade. It is a 
tough bill.
  It comes on the heels of horrific accidents in Bellingham, 
Washington, Carlsbad, New Mexico, and in locations in Texas, that 
resulted in the deaths of a total of 17 people.
  The authors of this bill were determined to put the necessary 
specific requirements into the pipeline safety statutes that would 
prevent these kinds of accidents from happening in the future. They 
were successful.
  The bill represents a watershed change in the types of requirements 
on pipeline operators for inspection, pipeline facility monitoring and 
testing, employee training, disclosure of information, enforcement, 
research and development, management and accountability. It is as 
comprehensive, tough, and complete as to be expected of a bill that 
emerged from a thorough process of hearings, both here and in the 
field, data gathering, and working with the Administration, States and 
local groups.
  It is the kind of legislative work product to be expected from the 
experience, independence and determination of the Senators who worked 
on S. 235. The pipeline industry had no choice but to submit to this 
legislation.
  Last year it received the affirmative vote of more than three fourths 
of the Congress--all of the Senate and just under two-thirds of the 
House. It received the written praise of Secretary Slater and the Vice 
President Gore.
  Now, at a time when there is no question that this country is in dire 
need of a sound energy policy, the Senate has the opportunity to 
address one very important component of that policy--pipelines.
  Today's fuel prices are a daily reminder that America is now at the 
mercy of foreign oil producing nations. However, before you blame your 
neighbor's SUV, your local fuel distributors, the oil companies, the 
automakers, or any of the other usual scapegoats, consider this fact--
America is one of the leading energy producing countries in the world. 
This country has the technology, alternative resources, and enough oil 
and gas to be much more self-sufficient. America does not have to 
revert back to the practices of the 1970s. The goal of the soon to be 
introduced energy policy legislation is to reduce the dependence on 
foreign sources by 50 percent by 2010. This goal can be accomplished, 
and with the accomplishment of this goal will be an increased need for 
the use of pipelines--safe pipelines.
  There is no question that this bill would make much needed 
improvements in pipeline safety. There will be time in the coming 
months to debate energy policy. Let's keep this bill clean and focus on 
pipeline safety.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.

[[Page 1597]]


  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The bill, as amended, having been read the third time, the question 
is, Shall it pass? The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 11 Leg.]

                                YEAS--98

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Crapo
     Miller
       
  The bill (S. 235), as amended, was passed, as follows:

                                 S. 235

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

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

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Pipeline 
     Safety Improvement Act of 2001''.
       (b) Amendment of Title 49, United States Code.--Except as 
     otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this Act an 
     amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to, 
     or a repeal of, a section or other provision, the reference 
     shall be considered to be made to a section or other 
     provision of title 49, United States Code.

     SEC. 2. IMPLEMENTATION OF INSPECTOR GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS.

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

     SEC. 3. NTSB SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS.

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

     SEC. 4. QUALIFICATIONS OF PIPELINE PERSONNEL.

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

     SEC. 5. PIPELINE INTEGRITY INSPECTION PROGRAM.

       Section 60109 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(c) Integrity Management.--
       ``(1) General requirement.--The Secretary shall promulgate 
     regulations requiring operators of hazardous liquid pipelines 
     and natural gas transmission pipelines to evaluate the risks 
     to the operator's pipeline facilities in areas identified 
     pursuant to subsection (a)(1), and to adopt and implement a 
     program for integrity management that reduces the risk of an 
     incident in those areas. The regulations shall be issued no 
     later than one year after the Secretary has issued standards 
     pursuant to subsections (a) and (b) of this section or by 
     December 31, 2002, whichever is sooner.
       ``(2) Standards for program.--In promulgating regulations 
     under this section, the Secretary shall require an operator's 
     integrity management plan to be based on risk analysis and 
     each plan shall include, at a minimum--
       ``(A) periodic assessment of the integrity of the pipeline 
     through methods including internal inspection, pressure 
     testing, direct assessment, or other effective methods. The 
     assessment period shall be no less than every 5 years unless 
     the Department of Transportation Inspector General, after 
     consultation with the Secretary determines there is not a 
     sufficient capability or it is deemed unnecessary because of 
     more technically appropriate monitoring or creates undue 
     interruption of necessary supply to fulfill the requirements 
     under this paragraph;
       ``(B) clearly defined criteria for evaluating the results 
     of the periodic assessment methods carried out under 
     subparagraph (A) and procedures to ensure identified problems 
     are corrected in a timely manner; and
       ``(C) measures, as appropriate, that prevent and mitigate 
     unintended releases, such as leak detection, integrity 
     evaluation, restrictive flow devices, or other measures.
       ``(3) Criteria for program standards.--In deciding how 
     frequently the integrity assessment methods carried out under 
     paragraph (2)(A) must be conducted, an operator shall take 
     into account the potential for new defects developing or 
     previously identified structural defects caused by 
     construction or installation, the operational characteristics 
     of the pipeline, and leak history. In addition, the Secretary 
     may establish a minimum testing requirement for operators of 
     pipelines to conduct internal inspections.
       ``(4) State role.--A State authority that has an agreement 
     in effect with the Secretary under section 60106 is 
     authorized to review and assess an operator's risk analyses 
     and integrity management plans required

[[Page 1598]]

     under this section for interstate pipelines located in that 
     State. The reviewing State authority shall provide the 
     Secretary with a written assessment of the plans, make 
     recommendations, as appropriate, to address safety concerns 
     not adequately addressed in the operator's plans, and submit 
     documentation explaining the State-proposed plan revisions. 
     The Secretary shall carefully consider the State's proposals 
     and work in consultation with the States and operators to 
     address safety concerns.
       ``(5) Monitoring implementation.--The Secretary of 
     Transportation shall review the risk analysis and program for 
     integrity management required under this section and provide 
     for continued monitoring of such plans. Not later than 2 
     years after the implementation of integrity management plans 
     under this section, the Secretary shall complete an 
     assessment and evaluation of the effects on safety and the 
     environment of extending all of the requirements mandated by 
     the regulations described in paragraph (1) to additional 
     areas. The Secretary shall submit the assessment and 
     evaluation to Congress along with any recommendations to 
     improve and expand the utilization of integrity management 
     plans.
       ``(6) Opportunity for local input on integrity 
     management.--Within 18 months after the date of enactment of 
     the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2001, the Secretary 
     shall, by regulation, establish a process for raising and 
     addressing local safety concerns about pipeline integrity and 
     the operator's pipeline integrity plan. The process shall 
     include--
       ``(A) a requirement that an operator of a hazardous liquid 
     or natural gas transmission pipeline facility provide 
     information about the risk analysis and integrity management 
     plan required under this section to local officials in a 
     State in which the facility is located;
       ``(B) a description of the local officials required to be 
     informed, the information that is to be provided to them and 
     the manner, which may include traditional or electronic 
     means, in which it is provided;
       ``(C) the means for receiving input from the local 
     officials that may include a public forum sponsored by the 
     Secretary or by the State, or the submission of written 
     comments through traditional or electronic means;
       ``(D) the extent to which an operator of a pipeline 
     facility must participate in a public forum sponsored by the 
     Secretary or in another means for receiving input from the 
     local officials or in the evaluation of that input; and
       ``(E) the manner in which the Secretary will notify the 
     local officials about how their concerns are being 
     addressed.''.

     SEC. 6. ENFORCEMENT.

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

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

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

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

       ``(a) Public Education Programs.--
       ``(1) Each owner or operator of a gas or hazardous liquid 
     pipeline facility shall carry out a continuing program to 
     educate the public on the use of a one-call notification 
     system prior to excavation and other damage prevention 
     activities, the possible hazards associated with unintended 
     releases from the pipeline facility, the physical indications 
     that such a release may have occurred, what steps should be 
     taken for public safety in the event of a pipeline release, 
     and how to report such an event.
       ``(2) Within 12 months after the date of enactment of the 
     Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2001, each owner or 
     operator of a gas or hazardous liquid pipeline facility shall 
     review its existing public education program for 
     effectiveness and modify the program as necessary. The 
     completed program shall include activities to advise affected 
     municipalities, school districts, businesses, and residents 
     of pipeline facility locations. The completed program shall 
     be submitted to the Secretary or, in the case of an 
     intrastate pipeline facility operator, the appropriate State 
     agency and shall be periodically reviewed by the Secretary 
     or, in the case of an intrastate pipeline facility operator, 
     the appropriate State agency.
       ``(3) The Secretary may issue standards prescribing the 
     elements of an effective public education program. The 
     Secretary may also develop material for use in the program.
       ``(b) Emergency Preparedness.--
       ``(1) Operator liaison.--Within 12 months after the date of 
     enactment of the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2001, an 
     operator of a gas transmission or hazardous liquid pipeline 
     facility shall initiate and maintain liaison with the State 
     emergency response commissions, and local emergency planning 
     committees in the areas of pipeline right-of-way, established 
     under section 301 of the Emergency Planning and Community 
     Right-To-Know Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. 11001) in each State in 
     which it operates.
       ``(2) Information.--An operator shall, upon request, make 
     available to the State emergency response commissions and 
     local emergency planning committees, and shall make available 
     to the Office of Pipeline Safety in a standardized form for 
     the purpose of providing the information to the public, the 
     information described in section 60102(d), the operator's 
     program for integrity management, and information about 
     implementation of that program. The information about the 
     facility shall also include, at a minimum--
       ``(A) the business name, address, telephone number of the 
     operator, including a 24-hour emergency contact number;
       ``(B) a description of the facility, including pipe 
     diameter, the product or products carried, and the operating 
     pressure;
       ``(C) with respect to transmission pipeline facilities, 
     maps showing the location of the facility and, when 
     available, any high consequence areas which the pipeline 
     facility traverses or adjoins and abuts;
       ``(D) a summary description of the integrity measures the 
     operator uses to assure safety and protection for the 
     environment; and
       ``(E) a point of contact to respond to questions from 
     emergency response representative.
       ``(3) Smaller communities.--In a community without a local 
     emergency planning committee, the operator shall maintain 
     liaison with the local fire, police, and other emergency 
     response agencies.
       ``(4) Public access.--The Secretary shall prescribe 
     requirements for public access, as appropriate, to this 
     information, including a requirement that the information be 
     made available to the public by widely accessible 
     computerized database.
       ``(c) Community Right To Know.--Not later than 12 months 
     after the date of enactment of the Pipeline Safety 
     Improvement Act of 2001, and annually thereafter, the owner 
     or operator of each gas transmission or hazardous liquid 
     pipeline facility shall provide to the governing body of each 
     municipality in which the pipeline facility is located, a map 
     identifying the location of such facility. The map may be 
     provided in electronic form. The Secretary may provide 
     technical assistance to the pipeline industry on developing 
     public safety and public education program content and best 
     practices for program delivery, and on evaluating the 
     effectiveness of the programs. The Secretary may also provide 
     technical assistance to State and local officials in applying 
     practices developed in these programs to their activities to 
     promote pipeline safety.
       ``(d) Public Availability of Reports.--The Secretary 
     shall--
       ``(1) make available to the public--
       ``(A) a safety-related condition report filed by an 
     operator under section 60102(h);
       ``(B) a report of a pipeline incident filed by an operator;
       ``(C) the results of any inspection by the Office of 
     Pipeline Safety or a State regulatory official; and
       ``(D) a description of any corrective action taken in 
     response to a safety-related condition reported under 
     subparagraph (A), (B), or (C); and
       ``(2) prescribe requirements for public access, as 
     appropriate, to integrity management program information 
     prepared under this chapter, including requirements that will 
     ensure data accessibility to the greatest extent feasible.''.
       (b) Safety Condition Reports.--Section 60102(h)(2) is 
     amended by striking ``authorities.'' and inserting 
     ``officials, including the local emergency responders.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 
     601 is amended by striking the item relating to section 60116 
     and inserting the following:

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

     SEC. 8. PENALTIES.

       (a) Civil Penalties.--Section 60122 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$25,000'' in subsection (a)(1) and 
     inserting ``$500,000'';
       (2) by striking ``$500,000'' in subsection (a)(1) and 
     inserting ``$1,000,000'';
       (3) by adding at the end of subsection (a)(1) the 
     following: ``The preceding sentence does not apply to 
     judicial enforcement action under section 60120 or 60121.''; 
     and
       (4) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Penalty Considerations.--In determining the amount of 
     a civil penalty under this section--
       ``(1) the Secretary shall consider--
       ``(A) the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the 
     violation, including adverse impact on the environment;

[[Page 1599]]

       ``(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, 2002, 
     whichever is sooner. Nothing in this paragraph shall prevent 
     the Secretary, after affording the State notice, hearing, and 
     an opportunity to correct any alleged deficiencies, from 
     terminating an agreement that was in effect before enactment 
     of the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2001 if--
       ``(A) the State Authority fails to comply with the terms of 
     the agreement;
       ``(B) implementation of the agreement has resulted in a gap 
     in the oversight responsibilities of intrastate pipeline 
     transportation by the State Authority; or
       ``(C) continued participation by the State Authority in the 
     oversight of interstate pipeline transportation has had an 
     adverse impact on pipeline safety.''.
       (b) Ending Agreements.--Subsection (e) of section 60106, as 
     redesignated by subsection (a), is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(e) Ending Agreements.--
       ``(1) Permissive termination.--The Secretary may end an 
     agreement under this section when the Secretary finds that 
     the State authority has not complied with any provision of 
     the agreement.
       ``(2) Mandatory termination of agreement.--The Secretary 
     shall end an agreement for the oversight of interstate 
     pipeline transportation if the Secretary finds that--
       ``(A) implementation of such agreement has resulted in a 
     gap in the oversight responsibilities of intrastate pipeline 
     transportation by the State authority;
       ``(B) the State actions under the agreement have failed to 
     meet the requirements under subsection (b); or
       ``(C) continued participation by the State authority in the 
     oversight of interstate pipeline transportation would not 
     promote pipeline safety.
       ``(3) Procedural requirements.--The Secretary shall give 
     the notice and an opportunity for a hearing to a State 
     authority before ending an agreement under this section. The 
     Secretary may provide a State an opportunity to correct any 
     deficiencies before ending an agreement. The finding and 
     decision to end the agreement shall be published in the 
     Federal Register and may not become effective for at least 15 
     days after the date of publication unless the Secretary finds 
     that continuation of an agreement poses an imminent 
     hazard.''.

     SEC. 10. IMPROVED DATA AND DATA AVAILABILITY.

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

     SEC. 11. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

       (a) Innovative Technology Development.--
       (1) In general.--As part of the Department of 
     Transportation's research and development program, the 
     Secretary of Transportation shall direct research attention 
     to the development of alternative technologies--
       (A) to expand the capabilities of internal inspection 
     devices to identify and accurately measure defects and 
     anomalies;
       (B) to inspect pipelines that cannot accommodate internal 
     inspection devices available on the date of enactment;
       (C) to develop innovative techniques measuring the 
     structural integrity of pipelines;
       (D) to improve the capability, reliability, and 
     practicality of external leak detection devices; and
       (E) to develop and improve alternative technologies to 
     identify and monitor outside force damage to pipelines.
       (2) Cooperative.--The Secretary may participate in 
     additional technological development through cooperative 
     agreements with trade associations, academic institutions, or 
     other qualified organizations.
       (b) Pipeline Safety and Reliability Research and 
     Development.--

[[Page 1600]]

       (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 2002, of which 
     $20,000,000 is to be derived from user fees for fiscal year 
     2002 collected under section 60301 of this title; and
       ``(2) $30,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2003 and 
     2004 of which $23,000,000 is to be derived from user fees for 
     fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004 collected under section 
     60301 of this title.''.
       (b) Grants to States.--Section 60125(c) is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(c) State Grants.--Not more than the following amounts 
     may be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out section 
     60107--
       ``(1) $17,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, of which 
     $15,000,000 is to be derived from user fees for fiscal year 
     2002 collected under section 60301 of this title; and
       ``(2) $20,000,000 for the fiscal years 2003 and 2004 of 
     which $18,000,000 is to be derived from user fees for fiscal 
     year 2003 and fiscal year 2004 collected under section 60301 
     of this title.''.
       (c) Oil Spills.--Section 60125 is amended by redesignating 
     subsections (d), (e), and (f) as subsections (e), (f), (g) 
     and inserting after subsection (c) the following:
       ``(d) Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.--Of the amounts 
     available in the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, $8,000,000 
     shall be transferred to the Secretary of Transportation, as 
     provided in appropriation Acts, to carry out programs 
     authorized in this Act for each of fiscal years 2002, 2003, 
     and 2004.''.
       (d) Pipeline Integrity Program.--(1) There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation for 
     carrying out sections 11(b) and 12 of this Act $3,000,000, to 
     be derived from user fees under section 60301 of title 49, 
     United States Code, for each of the fiscal years 2002 through 
     2006.
       (2) Of the amounts available in the Oil Spill Liability 
     Trust Fund established by section 9509 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 9509), $3,000,000 shall be 
     transferred to the Secretary of Transportation, as provided 
     in appropriation Acts, to carry out programs for detection, 
     prevention and mitigation of oil spills under sections 11(b) 
     and 12

[[Page 1601]]

     of this Act for each of the fiscal years 2002 through 2006.
       (3) There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Secretary of Energy for carrying out sections 11(b) and 12 of 
     this Act such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal 
     years 2002 through 2006.

     SEC. 14. OPERATOR ASSISTANCE IN INVESTIGATIONS.

       (a) In General.--If the Department of Transportation or the 
     National Transportation Safety Board investigate an accident, 
     the operator involved shall make available to the 
     representative of the Department or the Board all records and 
     information that in any way pertain to the accident 
     (including integrity management plans and test results), and 
     shall afford all reasonable assistance in the investigation 
     of the accident.
       (b) Corrective Action Orders.--Section 60112(d) is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``Corrective Action 
     Orders.--''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) If, in the case of a corrective action order issued 
     following an accident, the Secretary determines that the 
     actions of an employee carrying out an activity regulated 
     under this chapter, including duties under section 60102(a), 
     may have contributed substantially to the cause of the 
     accident, the Secretary shall direct the operator to relieve 
     the employee from performing those activities, reassign the 
     employee, or place the employee on leave until the earlier of 
     the date on which--
       ``(A) the Secretary determines, after notice and an 
     opportunity for a hearing, that the employee's performance of 
     duty in carrying out the activity did not contribute 
     substantially to the cause of the accident; or
       ``(B) the Secretary determines the employee has been re-
     qualified or re-trained as provided for in section 4 of the 
     Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2001 and can safely 
     perform those activities.
       ``(3) Action taken by an operator under paragraph (2) shall 
     be in accordance with the terms and conditions of any 
     applicable collective bargaining agreement to the extent it 
     is not inconsistent with the requirements of this section.''.

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

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

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

       ``(a) Discrimination Against Pipeline Employees.--No 
     pipeline operator or contractor or subcontractor of a 
     pipeline may discharge an employee or otherwise discriminate 
     against an employee with respect to compensation, terms, 
     conditions, or privileges of employment because the employee 
     (or any person acting pursuant to a request of the 
     employee)--
       ``(1) provided, caused to be provided, or is about to 
     provide (with any knowledge of the employer) or cause to be 
     provided to the employer or Federal Government information 
     relating to any violation or alleged violation of any order, 
     regulation, or standard of the Research and Special Programs 
     Administration or any other provision of Federal law relating 
     to pipeline safety under this chapter or any other law of the 
     United States;
       ``(2) has filed, caused to be filed, or is about to file 
     (with any knowledge of the employer) or cause to be filed a 
     proceeding relating to any violation or alleged violation of 
     any order, regulation, or standard of the Administration or 
     any other provision of Federal law relating to pipeline 
     safety under this 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 of 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.

[[Page 1602]]

       ``(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.

     SEC. 19. STUDY OF NATURAL GAS RESERVE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that:
       (1) In the last few months, natural gas prices across the 
     country have tripled.
       (2) In California, natural gas prices have increased 
     twenty-fold, from $3 per million British thermal units to 
     nearly $60 per million British thermal units.
       (3) One of the major causes of these price increases is a 
     lack of supply, including a lack of natural gas reserves.
       (4) The lack of a reserve was compounded by the rupture of 
     an El Paso Natural Gas Company pipeline in Carlsbad, New 
     Mexico on August 1, 2000.
       (5) Improving pipeline safety will help prevent similar 
     accidents that interrupt the supply of natural gas and will 
     help save lives.
       (6) It is also necessary to find solutions for the lack of 
     natural gas reserves that could be used during emergencies.
       (b) Study by the National Academy of Sciences.--The 
     Secretary of Energy shall request the National Academy of 
     Sciences to--
       (1) conduct a study to--
       (A) determine the causes of recent increases in the price 
     of natural gas, including whether the increases have been 
     caused by problems with the supply of natural gas or by 
     problems with the natural gas transmission system;
       (B) identify any Federal or State policies that may have 
     contributed to the price increases; and
       (C) determine what Federal action would be necessary to 
     improve the reserve supply of natural gas for use in 
     situations of natural gas shortages and price increases, 
     including determining the feasibility and advisability of a 
     Federal strategic natural gas reserve system; and
       (2) not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, submit to Congress a report on the results of the 
     study.

     SEC. 20. STUDY AND REPORT ON NATURAL GAS PIPELINE AND STORAGE 
                   FACILITIES IN NEW ENGLAND.

       (a) Study.--The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in 
     consultation with the Department of Energy, shall conduct a 
     study on the natural gas pipeline transmission network in New 
     England and natural gas storage facilities associated with 
     that network. In carrying out the study, the Commission shall 
     consider--
       (1) the ability of natural gas pipeline and storage 
     facilities in New England to meet current and projected 
     demand by gas-fired power generation plants and other 
     consumers;
       (2) capacity constraints during unusual weather periods;
       (3) potential constraint points in regional, interstate, 
     and international pipeline capacity serving New England; and
       (4) the quality and efficiency of the Federal environmental 
     review and permitting process for natural gas pipelines.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 120 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Federal Energy Regulatory 
     Commission shall prepare and submit to the Senate Committee 
     on Energy and Natural Resources and the appropriate committee 
     of the House of Representatives a report containing the 
     results of the study conducted under subsection (a), 
     including recommendations for addressing potential natural 
     gas transmission and storage capacity problems in New 
     England.

  Mr. LEAHY. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was 
agreed to.
  Mr. HATCH. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________