PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 5, 1995
Comprehensive One-Call Notification Act of 1995 - Directs the Secretary of Transportation to provide for the establishment of a nationwide toll-free telephone number to be used by State one-call (call before you dig) notification systems. Requires each State to consider whether to adopt a comprehensive statewide one-call notification program containing all elements required under this Act. Outlines required elements of the program, including prior notification of any intended excavations and its application to all excavators and underground facility operators. Provides an exception. Provides penalties for violations of the requirements of the program, as well as enforcement procedures. Directs the Secretary to make grants to States (or to operators of State notification systems) which have elected to establish and maintain a notification system with all required elements. Allows grants for alternative programs if they are at least as protective of the public health and safety and environment as a State program under this Act. Directs the Secretary to: (1) coordinate the implementation of this Act with Federal pipeline safety requirements; (2) review and report to the Congress on the achievement of the purposes of this Act; and (3) develop and make available to States a model State one-call notification program, with suggested elements. Requires each State to provide an initial and annual status reports on progress made in implementing a State program. Directs the Secretary to report annually to the Congress on accidents caused by routine railroad maintenance. Allows States to implement more protective notification systems than that required under this Act. Directs the Secretary to consult with other agencies as to the availability and affordability of technologies which will help relocate pipelines from above-ground and remote locations. Directs the Secretary to carry out a study under the vision waiver study program which would include drivers who failed to qualify under the original study program due to application time limits and the failure to learn of the program in a timely manner. Expresses the sense of the Congress that equipment and products purchased with funds made available under this Act should be American-made. Requires notification of such preference to the recipients of assistance under this Act.
People & committees
Rep. Pallone, Frank, Jr. [D-NJ-6] · D–NJ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
See H.R.1323.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Chairman.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation.
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 21, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.431 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.431 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.431 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.431 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.