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.
John B. 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…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the impact of pipeline inspections on natural gas supply to communities.
Share
More from John B. Breaux
Let me suggest it is a program that is more popular today than the Congress that wrote it.
I will take a few moments to explain my position on this important legislative effort and point to the fact that I have worked on a substitute amendment that has the ability to bring both sides together in a way we have not yet achieved…
it is interesting that the authors, the Senators who oppose the amendment, say the bill is going to create 660,000 jobs. If it is going to create 660,000 jobs, there is no problem. The people would be able to bring the money back and pay 5…
It says if Congress passes this, we will veto it. It is very clear. The administration says the new FCC local and national media ownership rules more accurately reflect the changing media landscape and current state of network station…