The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“ONE-CALL NOTIFICATION” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Transportation was published in the Senate section on pages S10947-S10948 on Oct. 22, 1997.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
ONE-CALL NOTIFICATION
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I would like to clarify the intent of a portion of the Commerce Committee's ISTEA amendment that deals with State one-call (``call-before-you-dig'') programs. I'm interested in this language as it relates to the treatment of railroads. I understand that the provisions proposed to be added to the ISTEA legislation are the same as the provisions of S. 1115, the ``Comprehensive One-Call Notification Act of 1997.''
The Leader, together with the Minority Leader, introduced this bill as S. 1115 in July, and the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation already held a hearing on this bill in September.
Mr. LOTT. Senator Ford is correct. Thank you for focusing attention on this important safety aspect of the amendment. Our country increasingly depends on a reliable, safe, dependable underground infrastructure of pipelines and communications networks. To protect these facilities against damage from excavation activities, States have developed one-call programs. These programs notify facility owners of imminent excavation in the vicinity of those facilities. The owners can then mark the location of those facilities, protecting both the facilities and the excavator. My legislative goal is to augment and improve the effectiveness of these State programs.
Mr. FORD. Does the legislation impose mandates on States and require them to change their programs?
Mr. LOTT. The answer is an emphatic ``no.'' The legislation does not impose any federal mandate on the States to modify their existing one-
call programs. The bill does not dictate the content of these programs from Washington. Period. The legislation does, however, encourage States to improve their programs, and it makes funding available for that purpose.
To be eligible for the funding, the State programs must meet certain minimum standards, but even those standards are performance-based, not prescriptive.
Frankly, legislation that contained a federal mandate for a one-call system was tried a few years ago, and it failed. There were endless fights over how the bill should be written precisely due to the fact that there are indeed 50 differing perceptions. Valid perceptions and experiences which match up to the many programs already in existence. This year, this mistake was avoided with this legislative approach--no mandates. And I am pleased to say that is why it enjoys broad support on both sides of the aisle.
In fact, at the conclusion of my remarks, I will ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from Secretary of Transportation Slater, dated October 16, recognizing the importance of including one-call legislation as part of the reauthorization of the ISTEA legislation.
Mr. FORD. Among the minimum standards required for a program to be eligible for federal assistance is the requirement for ``appropriate participation by all excavators.'' However, the bill does not define these terms. Isn't that going to lead to a variety of inconsistent outcomes?
Mr. LOTT. What I have found is that there is not one single one-call definition that applies equally to all 50 States. The various State laws on the books have certain elements in common, but there are just as many differences, and those differences often are appropriate. Montana will not need the same law as Mississippi. For that reason, the bill allows States flexibility by not mandating a single definition written in Washington.
Mr. FORD. While there is not a definition of ``excavation'' in the bill, some definitions in other bills on this subject would have covered routine railroad maintenance. I am concerned that railroads might be required to participate in a program that places an undue burden on activities that pose little threats to underground facilities. How would the bill before us affect this matter?
Mr. LOTT. Again, I say to Senator Ford, the bill does not require States to change their existing programs. So it would not change the way railroads are treated under any existing State laws. I understand about 30 States laws now cover at least some railroad activities while about 10 specifically exempt railroads from coverage. The bill will not change the exemption in these States. Will not. The fact that 30 States have chosen to include railroads within their programs suggests that at least in these instances, State legislatures determined that some potential threat to underground facilities from railroad activity does exist. Again, this bill in and of itself will not require a change in how the railroad activity is treated. Will not.
However, I want to reiterate that what is appropriate for one State may not be appropriate for another. To receive Federal assistance under the bill, a State must only demonstrate that its program covers those excavators whose action poses a significant risk to underground facilities.
The State's decisions will not be measured and second-guessed against a national standard.
Mr. FORD. Railroads also raised the issue of whether it is appropriate to require them to participate in one-call systems as
``underground operators'' because railroads own their right-of-ways and know the location of their own facilities within those right-of-ways.
Mr. LOTT. Again, if States do not now require railroads to participate as operators of underground facilities, then there still is no provision in the bill that would change that status. Remember, no mandates. Most State programs do not require participation by persons whose underground facilities lie within their own property like a gas station. The bill in no way discourages States from continuing such common sense exclusions.
Mr. FORD. The railroads also urged Congress to provide for immediate response in the case of derailments and natural disasters. Does the bill address this issue?
Mr. LOTT. Again, this bill neither specifies or directs the details of a State program nor does it override existing State programs. All of the State programs of which I am aware allow for an immediate response in the event of an emergency. And this bill does not change this situation.
Mr. FORD. Finally, the railroad industry expressed concern that the bill could possibly interfere with the right-of-way agreements companies have negotiated between themselves. Can this concern be addressed?
Mr. LOTT. I want to personally assure Senator Ford that this bill does not override private contracts, just as it does not override existing State programs. If expert opinions believe doubt is created than I will offer an amendment to remove this consequence.
Mr. FORD. I thank the Leader for his clarifications regarding this legislation.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Secretary Slater be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
The Secretary of Transportation,
Washington, DC, October 16, 1997.Hon. Trent Lott,Majority Leader,U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Lott: Thank you for your continued support in developing legislation to enhance protection of America's underground utilities.
As you know, safety is the Department of Transportation's highest priority. Prevention of damage to underground facilities, including pipelines and telecommunications cables, is a key departmental safety initiative. That is why we included one-call legislation as part of the Administration's proposal to reauthorize the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA).
Your continued leadership on one-call issues is critical to enacting legislation during this Congress. I am pleased that our respective bills share the same fundamental principles: that all underground facility operators must participate in one-call systems and that, with very limited exceptions, all excavators must call before they dig. I look forward to working with you to enact this important legislation.
Please do not hesitate to contact me or Mr. Steven O. Palmer, Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs, at 202-366-4573, if you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,Rodney E. Slater.
____________________
