[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 128 (Wednesday, September 22, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7353-S7361]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. BEGICH (for himself and Ms. Murkowski):
  S. 3820. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to issue 
permits for a microhydro project in nonwilderness areas within the 
boundaries of Denali National Park and Preserve, to acquire land for 
Denali National Park and Preserve from Doyon Tourism, Inc., and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I wish to speak about legislation I am 
introducing today with support from my fellow senator from Alaska, 
Senator Murkowski.
  It is all too rare that we get to talk about successful partnerships 
between private industry and the Federal Government. This legislation 
would cement just such a successful partnership between a subsidiary of 
an Alaska Native Corporation, Doyon Limited and the National Park 
Service.
  Briefly this measure would authorize a special use permit and over 
the longer term an equal value land trade to facilitate a micro-hydro 
project within the non-wilderness portion of the Denali National Park. 
The micro-hydro project would allow Kantishna Roadhouse, a backcountry 
lodge that accommodates thousands of visitors a year, to substantially 
reduce their diesel use.
  Because the lodge is not connected to any utility grid, it must 
generate its own power. By converting much of the load to a renewable 
resource, the lodge would improve local air quality and reduce truck 
traffic on the single park access road, thus improving the experience 
for visitors to the lodge and park as a whole. It additionally would 
help the lodge's bottom line.
  The legislation has been developed with the assistance of Alaska 
Region of the National Park Service, and they are supportive of the 
project. Eureka Creek, the source of the hydro power, is not a fish-
bearing stream, and the Park Service is interested in acquiring the 
lands to be traded from Doyon ownership.
  After a good deal of outreach this summer by Doyon and others, we are 
aware of no opposition to this permit, land trade and the legislation 
itself. I want to thank the National Park Service for their willingness 
to come to the table and work constructively to solve problems. 
Additionally, I particularly want to thank the senior senator from 
Alaska and her staff for their work on this legislation. It's been a 
good partnership and I appreciate her help.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER:
  S. 3821. A bill to amend title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to 
prohibit discrimination on the ground of religion in educational 
program or activities; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
and Pensions.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to urge support 
for legislation I am introducing today to amend Title VI of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964.
  Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on 
the basis of race, color, and national origin by any organization, 
program or activity that receives federal financial assistance, 
including colleges and universities. If recipients fail to comply, the 
federal agency providing the assistance may terminate funding, and 
organizations risk losing their eligibility for future funding.
  The Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, OCR, is tasked 
with enforcing Title VI as it applies to colleges and universities. 
OCR, however, believes that it does not have jurisdiction over 
complaints based solely on religion as opposed to race, color, or 
national origin. This means that when a Jew, or a Muslim, or a Sikh is 
harassed or discriminated against for being a Jew, a Muslim, or a Sikh, 
OCR must first determine whether the harassment or discrimination is a 
result of the student's religion or a result of her race, color, or 
national origin.
  In most cases involving such discrimination, the perpetrator himself 
probably wouldn't even know if his hatred stems from prejudice based on 
religion or prejudice based on race, color, or national origin. Yet, 
before acting to protect these students, OCR has to determine the 
motive behind the perpetrator's actions. This wastes valuable time and 
allows the discrimination to continue pending the determination. 
Furthermore, it sets a dangerous example to require OCR to make such a 
determination and then in essence say the harassment and discrimination 
is okay provided it was based on religion and not on race, color, or 
national origin.
  Many people are not aware that Title VI does not explicitly prohibit 
discrimination on the basis of religion. This is because discrimination 
on the basis of religion is prohibited in virtually every other civil 
rights law and has become such a fundamental principle of our country 
that we just assume the protection exists. For example, titles other 
than Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibit religious discrimination 
in other contexts.

[[Page S7354]]

  In 1941, President Roosevelt issued an executive order prohibiting 
discrimination in the Federal Government and in the defense industry on 
grounds of ``race, creed, color, or national origin.'' The Civil Rights 
Act of 1957 established the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to 
investigate discrimination on the basis of ``color, race, religion, or 
national origin.'' The Civil Rights Act of 1964 itself included 
numerous prohibitions on religious discrimination, just not in Title 
VI. For example, Title VII of the 1964 Act prohibits discrimination in 
employment. The Civil Rights Act of 1968 governing housing, continued 
to prohibit discrimination on the basis of ``race, color, religion, 
sex, or national origin.''
  When it comes to education, the 1964 Act provides two mechanisms that 
address religious discrimination. First, the Attorney General is given 
limited authorization to sue public colleges that deny admission on the 
basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in a way that 
limits educational desegregation. Second, the Attorney General is 
authorized to intervene in certain pending equal protection cases 
claiming discrimination ``on account of race, color, religion, sex or 
national origin'' if the case is of sufficient public importance. 
However, the Justice Department may not institute such actions on its 
own, and no federal agency is authorized to investigate run-of-the-mill 
religious discrimination cases at educational institutions or cases in 
which the victim has been unable to initiate litigation.

  Why was religious discrimination left out of Title VI? Key members of 
Congress wanted to make sure that religiously affiliated colleges 
maintained their ability to discriminate in favor of co-religionists in 
admissions and extra-curricular activities. The original version of the 
bill that would become Title VI, drafted by the Department of Justice, 
did ban religious discrimination in federally assisted programs or 
activities. However, Emanuel Celler, the House Judiciary Committee 
Chairman and sponsor of the bill, explained during floor debate that he 
wanted to permit denominational colleges to engage in certain forms of 
discrimination in favor of co-religionists. Celler stated that he 
wanted to ``avoid a good many problems'' relating to funding that 
``goes to sectarian schools and universities.'' He explained that ``for 
these reasons, the subcommittee and, I am sure, the full committee or 
the majority thereof deemed it wise and proper and expedient--and I 
emphasize the word `expedient'--to omit the word `religion.' ''
  Congressman Celler may have been right that eliminating religion made 
it expedient, but it did not make it correct. Congressman Celler's 
concerns could have been addressed with some clarifying language that 
such institutions would still be allowed to favor co-religionists.
  The bill that I am introducing contains such language. It states that 
the amendment is not to limit an educational entity with a religious 
affiliation, mission, or purpose from applying admissions policies, 
degree criteria, student conduct regulations, student organization 
regulations, or policies for faculty and staff employment, when these 
policies relate to the religious affiliation, mission, or purpose of 
the institution. Furthermore, it does not require educational entities 
to provide accommodation to any student's religion obligations such as 
dietary restrictions and school absences. Finally, if the educational 
entity permits expressive organizations to exist by funding or 
otherwise recognizing them, the amendment does not require the entity 
to limit such organizations from exercising their freedom of expressive 
association by establishing membership or leadership criteria.
  Therefore, I am proposing an amendment to Title VI of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964. The amendment simply provides the same protection 
against discrimination based on religion that this title already 
provides for discrimination based on race, color, and national origin.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mrs. Boxer):
  S. 3824. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to provide for 
enhanced safety and environmental protection in pipeline transportation 
and to provide for enhanced reliability in the transportation of United 
States energy products by pipeline, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, on September 9, a gas pipeline 
underneath a neighborhood in San Bruno, California, just south of San 
Francisco, exploded, turning a quiet residential area into something 
resembling a war zone.
  The resulting inferno damaged or destroyed 55 homes, injured 66, and 
killed an estimated 7 people. Three likely victims have yet to be 
identified.
  This tragedy shows the heavy toll, in death and destruction, when 
high pressure natural gas pipelines fail. The risk is unacceptably 
high.
  So today I join with my colleague, Senator Barbara Boxer, to 
introduce the Strengthening Pipeline Safety and Enforcement Act of 
2010.
  This legislation is drafted to repair clear shortcomings in pipeline 
oversight that have, unfortunately, come to our attention as the result 
of a devastating tragedy in San Bruno, CA.
  Specifically, this legislation would improve pipeline safety and 
oversight by expanding Federal inspection capacity; increasing fines 
for safety violations; adding information to the national pipeline 
mapping system, to assure greater transparency for the public and the 
regulator; closing jurisdictional loopholes that allow gathering lines, 
carbon dioxide pipelines, and biofuel pipelines to operate without 
oversight; requiring widespread adoption of automatic shut-off valves 
that could shut off a pipeline immediately in emergency situations; 
requiring that high-pressure pipelines be inspected on a regular basis 
with either internal instrumented internal inspection devices, known as 
smart pigs, or other inspection methods that are certified to be just 
as effective; prohibiting pipelines that cannot be inspected with the 
best, most-modern techniques from operating at high pressure; requiring 
regulators to consider seismicity and the age of pipes when identifying 
pipelines that deserve the highest level of oversight; and establishing 
the first standards for effective leak detection systems in natural gas 
pipelines.
  Together, Senator Boxer and I believe these improvements to pipeline 
safety will bring about a safer national pipeline system in which 
disasters, such as the tragedy in San Bruno, can be prevented.
  At 6:11 p.m. on September 9, 2010, a 30-inch steel natural gas 
pipeline exploded in San Bruno, California.
  The blast in the Crestmoor neighborhood two miles west of San 
Francisco International Airport shook the ground like an earthquake. 
The fire raged for more than two hours and burned 15 acres.
  The resulting loss of life, serious injuries and property damage are 
heartbreaking.
  Two days after the fire, I visited San Bruno. I walked through the 
devastation with Christopher Hart, vice chairman of the National 
Transportation Safety Board.
  I was struck by what I saw: Homes leveled or charred; cars burned 
out; the burned and bent pipeline--now a key part of the 
investigation--which revealed the intensity of the heat; and a gaping 
crater that demonstrated the size of the initial blast.
  I was saddened by the disaster and I am determined to act to prevent 
this type of catastrophe from recurring.
  I left San Bruno once again impressed by the professionalism of the 
NTSB.
  Their team was on site and in charge, and I am confident they will 
work meticulously to find out what caused this deadly disaster.
  I am confident that their feedback will make pipelines safer in the 
future.
  But I also left San Bruno determined to introduce legislation to 
address the known weaknesses in our pipeline oversight system.
  Let me explain the key provisions in the Bill. First, we propose to 
double the number of Federal pipeline safety inspectors.
  The Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 
Safety Administration currently has 100 pipeline inspectors, 
responsible for 217,306 miles of interstate pipeline. Each inspector is 
responsible for 2,173 miles of pipeline--the distance from San 
Francisco to Chicago.
  The vast amount of pipeline per inspector has led to lax oversight of 
pipeline operators, according to NTSB investigations.

[[Page S7355]]

  NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman testified in June that:

       NTSB is concerned that the level of . . . oversight 
     currently being exercised is not uniformly applied by . . . 
     PHMSA to ensure that the risk-based safety programs are 
     effective. The NTSB believes that . . . PHMSA must establish 
     an aggressive oversight program that thoroughly examines each 
     operator's decision-making process for each element of its 
     integrity management program.

  Doubling the number of inspectors will still require each inspector 
to oversee more than 1,000 miles of pipeline, but the thoroughness of 
inspection and oversight will be far greater.
  Second, this legislation will require deployment of electronic valves 
capable of automatically shutting off the gas in a fire or other 
emergency.
  I was shocked to learn that it took hours to turn off the gas in San 
Bruno.
  Manually operated valves had to be located, buildings had to be 
opened, and workers had to physically turn off the valves. Every minute 
that passed, a flaming inferno burned on.
  In today's era we have electronic water faucets, and furnaces all 
deploy electronic valves to shut off the supply of natural gas in an 
emergency.
  If electronic valves can be deployed in our homes and offices, I 
believe they should be deployed on gas pipelines pumping millions of 
cubic feet of fuel through urban areas. Gas pipeline safety technology 
should be brought into the modern era.
  Third, this legislation will require inspections by ``smart pigs'' in 
all pipes, or the use of an inspection method certified to be equally 
effective at finding corrosion.
  Department of Transportation accident statistics over the past 
decade, 2000-2009, identify corrosion as the leading cause of all 
reported pipeline accidents.
  We need to inspect our pipes to find problems before they cause 
deadly explosions. Every pipe needs effective inspection, regardless of 
age or design.
  Fourth, if natural gas pipelines cannot be inspected using the most 
effective inspection technology, this bill would require operation at 
lower pressure.
  This precautionary approach to pipeline operations assures that 
pipelines more likely to have undetected problems are operated at lower 
risk.
  Department of Transportation experts believe that a breach or other 
major problem with a pipeline operating at lower pressure is more 
likely to produce a leak instead of a catastrophic or deadly explosion.
  The cause of the San Bruno pipeline fire remains under investigation, 
but we know that this pipe could not be inspected using the most modern 
smart pigs, and we know it was operating at high pressure.
  Had this law been in place, either this pipe would have been 
inspected by other means certified to be just as effective as a smart 
pig, or it would have been operating at a pressure far less likely to 
cause the kind of catastrophe we saw.
  Fifth, this legislation will require the Secretary of Transportation 
to consider pipe age and the seismicity of an area when identifying 
pipelines deserving the highest level of safety oversight.
  Today, regulators consider a pipeline's proximity to homes and 
buildings. Other risk factors, such as age of pipe, are not a defining 
consideration.
  We know in San Bruno that this pipe was very old.
  This old pipe had unique twists and turns, and numerous welds that I 
was told would not be allowed on a pipe installed today. NTSB 
identified failed welds as the cause of another major pipeline disaster 
in 2009, so these deserve special attention.
  Sixth, this legislation would require standards for natural gas leak 
detection equipment and methods to identify pipeline leaks as 
expeditiously as technologically possible.
  In San Bruno, some have asserted that they smelled gas for weeks. 
Records are still being checked to determine whether consumers reported 
these leaks, but no equipment on the pipeline clearly demonstrates that 
no leak existed.
  Finally, this legislation adopts a number of commonsense provisions 
proposed last week by Secretary of Transportation LaHood to improve 
pipeline safety, including increasing civil penalties for safety 
violations; expending data collection to be included in the national 
pipeline mapping system; closing jurisdictional loopholes to assure 
greater oversight of unregulated pipelines; and requiring consideration 
of a firm's safety record when considering its request for regulatory 
waivers.
  Senator Boxer and I introduce this legislation today in order to 
initiate quick action to make our pipeline system safer.
  We have put forward our best ideas to improve inspection, address old 
pipes, and advance modern safety technology. We hope to improve these 
ideas as new information comes forward about the San Bruno accident.
  We look forward to working with the Department of Transportation and 
the Senate Commerce Committee to move and improve this legislation 
expeditiously.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3824

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the 
     ``Strengthening Pipeline Safety and Enforcement Act of 
     2010''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. References to title 49, United States code.
Sec. 3. Additional resources for Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 
              Safety Administration.
Sec. 4. Civil penalties.
Sec. 5. Collection of data on transportation-related oil flow lines.
Sec. 6. Required installation and use in pipelines of remotely or 
              automatically controlled valves.
Sec. 7. Standards for natural gas pipeline leak detection.
Sec. 8. Considerations for identification of high consequence areas.
Sec. 9. Regulation by Secretary of Transportation of gas and hazardous 
              liquid gathering lines.
Sec. 10. Inclusion of non-petroleum fuels and biofuels in definition of 
              hazardous liquid.
Sec. 11. Required periodic inspection of pipelines by instrumented 
              internal inspection devices.
Sec. 12. Minimum safety standards for transportation of carbon dioxide 
              by pipeline.
Sec. 13. Cost recovery for pipeline design reviews by Secretary of 
              Transportation.
Sec. 14. International cooperation and consultation on pipeline safety 
              and regulation.
Sec. 15. Waivers of pipeline standards by Secretary of Transportation.
Sec. 16. Collection of data on pipeline infrastructure for National 
              pipeline mapping system.
Sec. 17. Study of non-petroleum hazardous liquids transported by 
              pipeline.
Sec. 18. Clarification of provisions of law relating to pipeline 
              safety.

     SEC. 2. REFERENCES TO 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. 3. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES FOR PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS 
                   MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall increase the number of 
     full-time equivalent employees of the Pipeline and Hazardous 
     Materials Safety Administration by not fewer than 100 
     compared to the number of full-time equivalent employees of 
     the Administration employed on the day before the date of the 
     enactment of this Act to carry out the pipeline safety 
     program, of which--
       (1) not fewer than 25 full-time equivalent employees shall 
     be added in fiscal year 2011;
       (2) not fewer than 25 full-time equivalent employees shall 
     be added in fiscal year 2012;
       (3) not fewer than 25 full-time equivalent employees shall 
     be added in fiscal year 2013; and
       (4) not fewer than 25 full-time equivalent employees shall 
     be added in fiscal year 2014.
       (b) Functions.--In increasing the number of employees under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary shall focus on hiring 
     employees--
       (1) to conduct data collection, analysis, and reporting;
       (2) to develop, implement, and update information 
     technology;
       (3) to conduct inspections of pipeline facilities to 
     determine compliance with applicable regulations and 
     standards;
       (4) to provide administrative, legal, and other support for 
     pipeline enforcement activities; and
       (5) to support the overall pipeline safety mission of the 
     Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 
     including training pipeline enforcement personnel.

[[Page S7356]]

     SEC. 4. CIVIL PENALTIES.

       (a) Penalties for Major Consequence Violations.--Section 
     60122 is amended by striking subsection (c) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(c) Penalties for Major Consequence Violations.--
       ``(1) In general.--If the Secretary determines, after 
     written notice and an opportunity for a hearing, that a 
     person has committed a major consequence violation of 
     subsection (b) or (d) of section 60114, section 60118(a), or 
     a regulation prescribed or order issued under this chapter 
     such person shall be liable to the United States Government 
     for a civil penalty of not more than $250,000 for each such 
     violation.
       ``(2) Separate violations.--A separate violation occurs for 
     each day the violation continues.
       ``(3) Maximum civil penalty.--The maximum civil penalty 
     under this subsection for a related series of major 
     consequence violations is $2,500,000.
       ``(4) Definition.--In this subsection, the term `major 
     consequence violation' means a violation that contributed to 
     an incident resulting in any of the following:
       ``(A) One or more deaths.
       ``(B) One or more injuries or illnesses requiring 
     hospitalization.
       ``(C) Environmental harm exceeding $250,000 in estimated 
     damage to the environment including property loss.
       ``(D) A release of gas or hazardous liquid that ignites or 
     otherwise presents a safety threat to the public or presents 
     a threat to the environment in a high consequence area, as 
     defined by the Secretary in accordance with section 60109.''.
       (b) Penalty for Obstruction of Inspections and 
     Investigations.--Section 60118(e) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``If the Secretary'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) In general.--If the Secretary''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Civil penalties.--The Secretary may impose a civil 
     penalty under section 60122 on a person who obstructs or 
     prevents the Secretary from carrying out an inspection or 
     investigation under this chapter.''.
       (c) Nonapplicability of Administrative Penalty Caps.--
     Section 60120 is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Nonapplicability of Administrative Penalty Caps.--The 
     maximum amount of civil penalties for administrative 
     enforcement actions under section 60122 shall not apply to 
     enforcement actions under this section.''.
       (d) Judicial Review of Administrative Enforcement Orders.--
       (1) In general.--Section 60119(a)(1) is amended by striking 
     ``about an application for a waiver under section 60118(c) or 
     (d) of'' and inserting ``under''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The heading for section 60119(a) 
     is amended to read as follows: ``Review of Regulations, 
     Orders, and Other Final Agency Actions''.

     SEC. 5. COLLECTION OF DATA ON TRANSPORTATION-RELATED OIL FLOW 
                   LINES.

       Section 60102 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(n) Collection of Data on Transportation-related Oil Flow 
     Lines.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may collect geospatial, 
     technical, or other pipeline data on transportation-related 
     oil flow lines, including unregulated transportation-related 
     oil flow lines.
       ``(2) Transportation-related oil flow line defined.--In 
     this subsection, the term `transportation-related oil flow 
     line' means a pipeline transporting oil off of the grounds of 
     the production facility where it originated across areas not 
     owned by the producer regardless of the extent to which the 
     oil has been processed.
       ``(3) Construction.--Nothing in this subsection may be 
     construed to authorize the Secretary to prescribe standards 
     for the movement of oil through--
       ``(A) production, refining, or manufacturing facilities; or
       ``(B) oil production flow lines located on the grounds of 
     production facilities.''.

     SEC. 6. REQUIRED INSTALLATION AND USE IN PIPELINES OF 
                   REMOTELY OR AUTOMATICALLY CONTROLLED VALVES.

       Section 60102, as amended by section 5, is further amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(o) Remotely or Automatically Controlled Valves.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date 
     of the Strengthening Pipeline Safety and Enforcement Act of 
     2010, the Secretary shall prescribe regulations requiring the 
     installation and use in pipelines and pipeline facilities, 
     wherever technically and economically feasible, of remotely 
     or automatically controlled valves that are reliable and 
     capable of shutting off the flow of gas in the event of an 
     accident, including accidents in which there is a loss of the 
     primary power source.
       ``(2) Consultations.--In developing regulations prescribed 
     in accordance with paragraph (1), the Secretary shall consult 
     with appropriate groups from the gas pipeline industry and 
     pipeline safety experts.''.

     SEC. 7. STANDARDS FOR NATURAL GAS PIPELINE LEAK DETECTION.

       Section 60102, as amended by sections 5 and 6, is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(p) Natural Gas Leak Detection.--Not later than 1 year 
     after the date of the enactment of this subsection, the 
     Secretary shall establish standards for natural gas leak 
     detection equipment and methods, with the goal of 
     establishing a pipeline system in which substantial leaks in 
     high consequence areas are identified as expeditiously as 
     technologically possible.''.

     SEC. 8. CONSIDERATIONS FOR IDENTIFICATION OF HIGH CONSEQUENCE 
                   AREAS.

       Section 60109 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(g) Considerations for Identification of High Consequence 
     Areas.--In identifying high consequence areas under this 
     section, the Secretary shall consider--
       ``(1) the seismicity of the area;
       ``(2) the age of the pipe; and
       ``(3) whether the pipe at issue can be inspected using the 
     most modern instrumented internal inspection devices.''.

     SEC. 9. REGULATION BY SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION OF GAS AND 
                   HAZARDOUS LIQUID GATHERING LINES.

       (a) Gas Gathering Lines.--Paragraph (21) of section 
     60101(a) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(21) `transporting gas' means the gathering, 
     transmission, or distribution of gas by pipeline, or the 
     storage of gas, in interstate or foreign commerce.''.
       (b) Hazardous Liquid Gathering Lines.--Section 
     60101(a)(22)(B) is amended--
       (1) by striking clause (i); and
       (2) by redesignating clauses (ii) and (iii) as clauses (i) 
     and (ii), respectively.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date that is 1 year after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 10. INCLUSION OF NON-PETROLEUM FUELS AND BIOFUELS IN 
                   DEFINITION OF HAZARDOUS LIQUID.

       Section 60101(a)(4) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C); 
     and
       (3) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
       ``(B) non-petroleum fuels, including biofuels that are 
     flammable, toxic, corrosive, or would be harmful to the 
     environment if released in significant quantities; and''.

     SEC. 11. REQUIRED PERIODIC INSPECTION OF PIPELINES BY 
                   INSTRUMENTED INTERNAL INSPECTION DEVICES.

       Section 60102(f) is amended by striking paragraph (2) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(2) Periodic inspections.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 270 days after the date 
     of the enactment of the Strengthening Pipeline Safety and 
     Enforcement Act of 2010, the Secretary shall prescribe 
     additional standards requiring the periodic inspection of 
     each pipeline the operator of the pipeline identifies under 
     section 60109.
       ``(B) Inspection with internal inspection device.--
       ``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), the 
     standards prescribed under subparagraph (A) shall require 
     that an inspection shall be conducted at least once every 5 
     years with an instrumented internal inspection device.
       ``(ii) Exception for segments where devices cannot be 
     used.--If a device described in clause (i) cannot be used in 
     a segment of a pipeline, the standards prescribed in 
     subparagraph (A) shall require use of an inspection method 
     that the Secretary certifies to be at least as effective as 
     using the device in--

       ``(I) detecting corrosion;
       ``(II) detecting pipe stress; and
       ``(III) otherwise providing for the safety of the pipeline.

       ``(C) Operation under high pressure.--The Secretary shall a 
     prohibit pipeline segment from operating under high pressure 
     if the pipeline segment cannot be inspected--
       ``(i) with a device described in clause (i) of subparagraph 
     (B) in accordance with the standards prescribed pursuant to 
     such clause; or
       ``(ii) using an inspection method described in clause (ii) 
     of such subparagraph in accordance with the standards 
     prescribed pursuant to such clause.''.

     SEC. 12. MINIMUM SAFETY STANDARDS FOR TRANSPORTATION OF 
                   CARBON DIOXIDE BY PIPELINE.

       Subsection (i) of section 60102 is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(i) Pipelines Transporting Carbon Dioxide.--The Secretary 
     shall prescribe minimum safety standards for the 
     transportation of carbon dioxide by pipeline in either a 
     liquid or gaseous state.''.

     SEC. 13. COST RECOVERY FOR PIPELINE DESIGN REVIEWS BY 
                   SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION.

       Subsection (n) of section 60117 is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(n) Cost Recovery for Design Reviews.--
       ``(1) In general.--If the Secretary conducts facility 
     design safety reviews in connection with a proposal to 
     construct, expand, or operate a gas or hazardous liquid 
     pipeline or liquefied natural gas pipeline facility, 
     including construction inspections and oversight, the 
     Secretary may require the person proposing the construction, 
     expansion, or operation to pay the costs incurred by the 
     Secretary relating to such reviews.
       ``(2) Fee structure and collection procedures.--If the 
     Secretary exercises the authority under paragraph (1) with 
     respect to conducting facility design safety reviews, the 
     Secretary shall prescribe--
       ``(A) a fee structure and assessment methodology that is 
     based on the costs of providing such reviews; and

[[Page S7357]]

       ``(B) procedures to collect fees.
       ``(3) Additional authority.--This authority is in addition 
     to the authority provided under section 60301.
       ``(4) Notification.--For any pipeline construction project 
     beginning after the date of the enactment of this subsection 
     in which the Secretary conducts design reviews, the person 
     proposing the project shall notify the Secretary and provide 
     the design specifications, construction plans and procedures, 
     and related materials not later than 120 days prior to the 
     commencement of such project.
       ``(5) Pipeline safety design review fund.--
       ``(A) In general.--There is established in the Treasury of 
     the United States a revolving fund known as the `Pipeline 
     Safety Design Review Fund' (in this paragraph referred to as 
     the `Fund').
       ``(B) Elements.--There shall be deposited in the fund the 
     following, which shall constitute the assets of the Fund:
       ``(i) Amounts paid into the Fund under any provision of law 
     or regulation established by the Secretary imposing fees 
     under this subsection.
       ``(ii) All other amounts received by the Secretary incident 
     to operations relating to reviews described in paragraph (1).
       ``(C) Use of funds.--The Fund shall be available to the 
     Secretary, without fiscal year limitation, to carry out the 
     provisions of this chapter.''.

     SEC. 14. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AND CONSULTATION ON 
                   PIPELINE SAFETY AND REGULATION.

       Section 60117 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(o) International Cooperation and Consultation.--
       ``(1) Information exchange and technical assistance.--
     Subject to guidance from the Secretary of State, the 
     Secretary may engage in activities supporting cooperative 
     international efforts to share information about the risks to 
     the public and the environment from pipelines and means of 
     protecting against those risks if the Secretary determines 
     that such activities would benefit the United States. Such 
     cooperation may include the exchange of information with 
     domestic and appropriate international organizations to 
     facilitate efforts to develop and improve safety standards 
     and requirements for pipeline transportation in or affecting 
     interstate or foreign commerce.
       ``(2) Consultation.--Subject to guidance from the Secretary 
     of State, the Secretary may, to the extent practicable, 
     consult with interested authorities in Canada, Mexico, and 
     other interested authorities to ensure that the respective 
     pipeline safety standards and requirements prescribed by the 
     Secretary and those prescribed by such authorities are 
     consistent with the safe and reliable operation of cross-
     border pipelines.
       ``(3) Construction regarding differences in international 
     standards and requirements.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to require that a standard or requirement 
     prescribed by the Secretary under this chapter be identical 
     to a standard or requirement adopted by an international 
     authority.''.

     SEC. 15. WAIVERS OF PIPELINE STANDARDS BY SECRETARY OF 
                   TRANSPORTATION.

       (a) Nonemergency Waivers.--Paragraph (1) of section 
     60118(c) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) Nonemergency waivers.--
       ``(A) In general.--Upon receiving an application from an 
     owner or operator of a pipeline facility, the Secretary may, 
     by order, waive compliance with any part of an applicable 
     standard prescribed under this chapter with respect to the 
     facility on such terms as the Secretary considers 
     appropriate, if the Secretary determines that such waiver is 
     not inconsistent with pipeline safety.
       ``(B) Considerations.--In determining whether to grant a 
     waiver under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall consider--
       ``(i) the fitness of the applicant to conduct the activity 
     authorized by the waiver in a manner that is consistent with 
     pipeline safety;
       ``(ii) the applicant's compliance history;
       ``(iii) the applicant's accident history; and
       ``(iv) any other information the Secretary considers 
     relevant to making the determination.
       ``(C) Effective period.--
       ``(i) Operating requirements.--A waiver of 1 or more 
     pipeline operating requirements under subparagraph (A) shall 
     be effective for an initial period of not longer than 5 years 
     and may be renewed by the Secretary upon application for 
     successive periods of not longer than 5 years each.
       ``(ii) Design or materials requirement.--If the Secretary 
     determines that a waiver of a design or materials requirement 
     is warranted under subparagraph (A), the Secretary may grant 
     the waiver for any period the Secretary considers 
     appropriate.
       ``(D) Public notice and hearing.--The Secretary may waive 
     compliance under subparagraph (A) only after public notice 
     and hearing, which may consist of--
       ``(i) publication of notice in the Federal Register that an 
     application for a waiver has been filed; and
       ``(ii) providing the public with the opportunity to review 
     and comment on the application.
       ``(E) Noncompliance and modification, suspension, or 
     revocation.--After notice to a recipient of a waiver under 
     subparagraph (A) and opportunity to show cause, the Secretary 
     may modify, suspend, or revoke such waiver for--
       ``(i) failure of the recipient to comply with the terms or 
     conditions of the waiver;
       ``(ii) intervening changes in Federal law;
       ``(iii) a material change in circumstances affecting 
     safety; including erroneous information in the application; 
     and
       ``(iv) such other reasons as the Secretary considers 
     appropriate.''.
       (b) Fees.--Section 60118(c) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(4) Fees.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall establish reasonable 
     fees for processing applications for waivers under this 
     subsection that are based on the costs of activities relating 
     to waivers under this subsection. Such fees may include a 
     basic filing fee, as well as fees to recover the costs of 
     technical studies or environmental analysis for such 
     applications.
       ``(B) Procedures.--The Secretary shall prescribe procedures 
     for the collection of fees under subparagraph (A).
       ``(C) Additional authority.--The authority provided under 
     subparagraph (A) is in addition to the authority provided 
     under section 60301.
       ``(D) Pipeline safety special permit fund.--
       ``(i) In general.--There is established in the Treasury of 
     the United States a revolving fund known as the `Pipeline 
     Safety Special Permit Fund' (in this subparagraph referred to 
     as the `Fund').
       ``(ii) Elements.--There shall be deposited in the Fund the 
     following, which shall constitute the assets of the Fund:

       ``(I) Amounts paid into the Fund under any provision of law 
     or regulation established by the Secretary imposing fees 
     under this paragraph.
       ``(II) All other amounts received by the Secretary incident 
     to operations relating to activities described in 
     subparagraph (A).

       ``(iii) Use of funds.--The Fund shall be available to the 
     Secretary, without fiscal year limitation, to process 
     applications for waivers under this subsection.''.

     SEC. 16. COLLECTION OF DATA ON PIPELINE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR 
                   NATIONAL PIPELINE MAPPING SYSTEM.

       Section 60132 is amended--
       (1) in the matter before paragraph (1), by striking ``Not 
     later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this 
     section, the'' and inserting ``Each'';
       (2) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Such other geospatial, technical, or other pipeline 
     data, including design and material specifications, as the 
     Secretary considers necessary to carry out the purposes of 
     this chapter, including preconstruction design reviews and 
     compliance inspection prioritization.''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Notice.--The Secretary shall give reasonable notice 
     to the operator of a pipeline facility of any data being 
     requested under this section.''.

     SEC. 17. STUDY OF NON-PETROLEUM HAZARDOUS LIQUIDS TRANSPORTED 
                   BY PIPELINE.

       (a) Authority to Carry Out Analysis.--Not later than 270 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary of Transportation shall conduct an analysis of the 
     transportation of non-petroleum hazardous liquids by pipeline 
     for the purpose of identifying the extent to which pipelines 
     are currently being used to transport non-petroleum hazardous 
     liquids, such as chlorine, from chemical production 
     facilities across land areas not owned by the producer that 
     are accessible to the public. The analysis shall identify the 
     extent to which the safety of the lines is unregulated by the 
     States and evaluate whether the transportation of such 
     chemicals by pipeline across areas accessible to the public 
     would present significant risks to public safety, property, 
     or the environment in the absence of regulation.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 365 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress 
     a report containing the findings of the Secretary with 
     respect to the analysis conducted pursuant to subsection (a).

     SEC. 18. CLARIFICATION OF PROVISIONS OF LAW RELATING TO 
                   PIPELINE SAFETY.

       (a) Amendment of Procedures Clarification.--Section 
     60108(a)(1) is amended by striking ``an intrastate'' and 
     inserting ``a''.
       (b) Owner Operator Clarification.--Section 60102(a)(2)(A) 
     is amended by striking ``owners and operators'' and inserting 
     ``any or all of the owners or operators''.
       (c) One Call Enforcement Clarification.--Section 60114(f) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following: ``This 
     limitation shall not apply to proceedings against persons who 
     are pipeline operators.''.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce the Strengthening 
Pipeline Safety and Enforcement Act of 2010 today along with my 
colleague, Senator Feinstein.
  On September 9, 2010, San Bruno, California suffered a terrible 
tragedy when a natural gas transmission pipeline unexpectedly exploded 
beneath a busy residential neighborhood.
  The catastrophic explosion and the resulting fire was a horrific 
event, creating a massive fireball that many described as the largest 
earthquake they had ever felt.
  The tragedy killed four people, injured 66, and destroyed nearly 
three

[[Page S7358]]

dozen homes. Preliminary estimates put the cost of the damage and 
recovery at $65 million.
  This tragic incident should not have happened.
  Californians and all Americans must feel confident that their 
communities are safe and that the regulatory agencies responsible for 
ensuring the safety of natural gas pipelines are doing everything 
possible to guarantee their safety.
  That is why we are introducing this legislation today. Our bill is 
based on the Department of Transportation's, DOT, proposal for 
improving pipeline safety and includes additional provisions to address 
concerns raised by the San Bruno blast.
  The Strengthening Pipeline Safety and Enforcement Act of 2010 will 
increase the number of Federal inspectors and require the Department of 
Transportation to certify an inspection method for gas lines that 
cannot use ``smart pig'' technology. ``Smart pig'' technology is used 
to test the structural integrity of a pipe and identify any defects.
  The bill would also require DOT to promulgate regulations for the 
installation of automatic and remote shutoff valves, update the 
definition of ``high consequence areas'' to include seismicity of the 
area, age of the pipe and whether a pipe is able to use the ``smart 
pig'' technology, and require DOT to set standards for detecting leaks 
on natural gas lines.
  This legislation strengthens pipeline safety standards to ensure that 
a tragedy like this never happens again. I urge my colleagues to 
support this legislation and work for final passage as quickly as 
possible.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. RISCH (for himself and Mr. Crapo):
  S. 3825. A bill to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to remove 
certain portions of the distinct population segment of the Rocky 
Mountain gray wolf from the list of threatened species or the list of 
endangered species published under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works.
  Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, I come here today on behalf of myself and 
my colleague, Senator Crapo, from Idaho to introduce the State Wolf 
Management Act. This act as drawn is aimed at some particular issues we 
have in Idaho with the management of wolves, and that other adjoining 
States that share Idaho's boundaries have with the Federal Government.
  First of all, I want to thank the Governor of the great State of 
Idaho, the Honorable Butch Otter, for his assistance in crafting this 
bill. I can tell you, Governor Otter, as the chief executive of Idaho, 
his predecessor, who happens to be yours truly, and my predecessor, as 
Governors of the great State of Idaho have all joined in the effort to 
obtain delisting of the wolf in Idaho. That is particularly true as we 
attempt to wrest management of this particular species away from the 
Federal Government.
  What the act does is it identifies as a distinct population a segment 
of the gray wolf population. Specifically, it identifies this specific 
population in eastern Washington and eastern Oregon, in which there are 
few if any wolves, and the State of Montana and the State of Idaho, all 
of those States in which there are a lot of wolves and indeed are too 
many wolves.
  First of all, let me say, the official estimates, in 2008, for Idaho 
are that there were 846 wolves in Idaho, with 39 breeding pairs. 
Virtually everyone in the State agrees that estimate is very low. In 
the year 2010, again virtually everyone agrees there are well over 
1,000 gray wolves in Idaho and well over 39 breeding pairs.
  How did we get to where we are?
  Wolves have been gone from the State of Idaho and adjoining areas for 
many years. In 1995, someone--I cannot identify who--in their infinite 
wisdom, who lived back here on the banks of the Potomac River, decided 
we in Idaho needed wolves again.
  The State of Idaho was indeed not very happy about the decision. The 
chief executive of the State, the executive branch of the State, the 
legislative branch of the State, and the vast majority of Idahoans were 
absolutely opposed to reintroducing wolves back into the State of 
Idaho.
  After litigation, and after the usual things you go through, 
nonetheless, 34 wolves were captured in Canada and brought to the State 
of Idaho and introduced into the State of Idaho against the objections 
of almost everyone. Indeed, there was a group of people who did want to 
see wolves brought to Idaho, and they got their way.
  To give you a little bit of background as to what happened, we in the 
State of Idaho are very proud of our big game management. Under common 
law in this country, and indeed in England before this country, all 
wild game belonged to the sovereign. The United States of America is 
probably surprised to hear they are not the sovereign, that indeed the 
States are the sovereign. As a result of that, over the centuries--the 
couple of centuries we have been in existence as the United States of 
America--litigation after litigation has determined that indeed all 
wildlife in the State belongs to the sovereign; that is, the State in 
which they are located.
  Idaho has a long and proud history and culture of hunting and outdoor 
life. We have managed our wildlife to the point that we are getting--or 
had been getting--the maximum out of our wildlife for big game harvest 
every year. Before Europeans inhabited Idaho, there were very few deer 
and even less elk. Elk were a plains species. They were not a mountain 
species. After settlement of the State, the elk were pretty much 
removed from the plains and took up residence in the mountains, where 
they have done very well and adapted very well.
  Again, over the years, the premier species in Idaho, as determined by 
the people of the State of Idaho, has been elk. Elk are difficult to 
manage; that is, they are not as easy to manage as deer. They are not 
as prolific as deer. As a result, they require relatively intensive 
management.
  As a result, the State has broken into many different game units for 
elk, and each of these units is carefully managed by the fish and game 
department to determine the birthrate of the elk each year and the 
survival rate over the winter and a determination of how many elk can 
be harvested. As a result, we have had a robust and relatively stable 
population of elk in the State of Idaho.
  Fast forward to 1995. The Federal Government released its 34 wolves 
into the State of Idaho, and contrary to what some people believe, they 
are not vegetarians. Also contrary to what some people believe, they 
need to eat every day. And when they eat, they eat our elk.
  As a result, there has been considerable depredation on our elk herds 
and for that matter on domestic livestock. The domestic livestock 
losses are not large in number, unless, of course, it is your livestock 
they are preying on, of which a number of us in the livestock business 
have experienced losses in that regard.
  Back to the elk. We want to continue to manage our elk. We want to 
continue to manage our deer. Indeed, we manage a lot of big game 
species. We manage moose, we manage bears, we manage cats, we manage 
all big game in the State of Idaho and do a pretty decent job of that.

  On top of the Federal Government's introduction of these 34 wolves 
into Idaho, which have now exploded into 1,000 wolves, with regulations 
that at the outset were very, very intrusive, to the point where you 
couldn't shoot wolves--even if you found them attacking your livestock, 
it was unlawful to take a wolf. Of course, the regulations that were 
imposed on us by the Federal Government have created a considerable 
amount of animosity and bad blood.
  What we want at this point is the ability to manage the wolves just 
as we manage every other population of big game and animal species in 
Idaho. The fact is that the wolves are there. They are going to be 
there. We obviously made the effort at the outset to not have them. We 
did our best to keep them out. We lost that fight, so now we have to 
accept the fact that they are there. But the fact that they are there 
does not mean that we, in the sovereign State of Idaho, should not have 
the ability to manage our own game species.
  Recently, because the numbers have exploded in the amount that they 
have--when I was Governor, I pressed

[[Page S7359]]

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to start the delisting process, 
which happened on my watch. The start of the delisting happened on my 
watch as Governor. As time went on, my successor, Governor Otter, did 
an excellent job of continuing to press the case for delisting. After 
all, the Federal Government has absolutely no business in the State of 
Idaho dealing with wolves other than the hook it has of the Endangered 
Species Act. To argue that a species that has been introduced--34 of 
them--and then explodes to well over 1,000 is endangered simply flies 
in the face of not only science, but it also flies in the face of 
logic.
  Let me tell my colleagues what we were told and what we were promised 
by the Federal Government at the time they brought in the wolves. They 
told us that once we got to the point of 300 wolves and got to the 
point of 30 breeding pairs, the party was over and they would delist. 
Well, we reached that point in 3 years, and we have been trying to 
delist ever since. We got them delisted. The matter went to court. We 
actually had a hunting season last year. But now it has gone back to 
court, and, again, those who are trying to protect the number of 
wolves, to the great disadvantage of elk, won again, and they got the 
judge to order that the wolves be listed again in Idaho and Montana.
  That is as a result of a dispute the State of Wyoming also has with 
the Federal Government, and they have been unable to reach an agreement 
as to how wolves should be managed. The Federal Government, the Fish 
and Wildlife Service, and the Department of the Interior were perfectly 
happy with the plans from Idaho and Montana, but because they have been 
unable to settle with Wyoming, we now find ourselves at a tremendous 
disadvantage. This simply isn't fair.
  This bill will very simply turn management of the wolves back over to 
the State of Idaho unless and until the time that the Federal 
Government can again or can ever claim that they are an endangered 
species. When that happens, the State again will be subject to the 
lawsuits that will inevitably come if, indeed, they are endangered. But 
in the meantime, I will urge every Senator to vote for this bill. This 
is a States rights issue. We are a sovereign State. We are entitled to 
take over management of these wolves. I can promise everyone that the 
State of Idaho will do a substantially better job, a cheaper job, and a 
much more efficient job of managing the wolves in the State of Idaho 
than the Federal Government could ever do or will ever do, and we will 
be able to do it with due deference to all the other species in the 
State of Idaho.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Lugar, and Mr. Leahy):
  S. 3827. A bill to amend the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
Responsibility Act of 1996 to permit States to determine State 
residency for higher education purposes and to authorize the 
cancellation of removal and adjustment of status of certain alien 
students who are long-term United States residents and who entered the 
United States as children, and for other purposes; read the first time.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3827

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Development, Relief, and 
     Education for Alien Minors Act of 2010'' or the ``DREAM Act 
     of 2010''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Institution of higher education.--The term 
     ``institution of higher education'' has the meaning given 
     that term in section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 1001).
       (2) Uniformed services.--The term ``uniformed services'' 
     has the meaning given that term in section 101(a) of title 
     10, United States Code.

     SEC. 3. RESTORATION OF STATE OPTION TO DETERMINE RESIDENCY 
                   FOR PURPOSES OF HIGHER EDUCATION BENEFITS.

       (a) In General.--Section 505 of the Illegal Immigration 
     Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 
     1623) is repealed.
       (b) Effective Date.--The repeal under subsection (a) shall 
     take effect as if included in the enactment of the Illegal 
     Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 
     (division C of Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-546).

     SEC. 4. CANCELLATION OF REMOVAL AND ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS OF 
                   CERTAIN LONG-TERM RESIDENTS WHO ENTERED THE 
                   UNITED STATES AS CHILDREN.

       (a) Special Rule for Certain Long-term Residents Who 
     Entered the United States as Children.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law 
     and except as otherwise provided in this Act, the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security may cancel removal of, and adjust to the 
     status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, 
     subject to the conditional basis described in section 5, an 
     alien who is inadmissible or deportable from the United 
     States, if the alien demonstrates that--
       (A) the alien has been physically present in the United 
     States for a continuous period of not less than 5 years 
     immediately preceding the date of enactment of this Act and 
     was younger than 16 years of age on the date the alien 
     initially entered the United States;
       (B) the alien has been a person of good moral character 
     since the date of the enactment of this Act;
       (C) the alien--
       (i) is not inadmissible under paragraph (2), (3), (6)(E), 
     (10)(A), or (10)(C) of section 212(a) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)); and
       (ii) is not deportable under paragraph (1)(E), (2), or (4) 
     of section 237(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1227(a));
       (D) the alien--
       (i) has been admitted to an institution of higher education 
     in the United States; or
       (ii) has earned a high school diploma or obtained a general 
     education development certificate in the United States;
       (E) the alien has never been under a final administrative 
     or judicial order of exclusion, deportation, or removal, 
     unless the alien--
       (i) has remained in the United States under color of law 
     after such order was issued; or
       (ii) received the order before attaining the age of 16 
     years; and
       (F) the alien was younger than 35 years of age on the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Waiver.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security may waive the ground of ineligibility 
     under section 212(a)(6)(E) of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act and the ground of deportability under paragraph (1)(E) of 
     section 237(a) of that Act for humanitarian purposes or 
     family unity or when it is otherwise in the public interest.
       (3) Procedures.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     provide a procedure by regulation allowing eligible 
     individuals to apply affirmatively for the relief available 
     under this subsection without being placed in removal 
     proceedings.
       (4) Deadline for submission of application.--An alien shall 
     submit an application for cancellation of removal or 
     adjustment of status under this subsection no later than the 
     date that is one year after the date the alien--
       (A) was admitted to an institution of higher education in 
     the United States; or
       (B) earned a high school diploma or obtained a general 
     education development certificate in the United States.
       (b) Termination of Continuous Period.--For purposes of this 
     section, any period of continuous residence or continuous 
     physical presence in the United States of an alien who 
     applies for cancellation of removal under this section shall 
     not terminate when the alien is served a notice to appear 
     under section 239(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     (8 U.S.C. 1229(a)).
       (c) Treatment of Certain Breaks in Presence.--
       (1) In general.--An alien shall be considered to have 
     failed to maintain continuous physical presence in the United 
     States under subsection (a) if the alien has departed from 
     the United States for any period in excess of 90 days or for 
     any periods in the aggregate exceeding 180 days.
       (2) Extensions for exceptional circumstances.--The 
     Secretary of Homeland Security may extend the time periods 
     described in paragraph (1) if the alien demonstrates that the 
     failure to timely return to the United States was due to 
     exceptional circumstances. The exceptional circumstances 
     determined sufficient to justify an extension should be no 
     less compelling than serious illness of the alien, or death 
     or serious illness of a parent, grandparent, sibling, or 
     child.
       (d) Exemption From Numerical Limitations.--Nothing in this 
     section may be construed to apply a numerical limitation on 
     the number of aliens who may be eligible for cancellation of 
     removal or adjustment of status under this section.
       (e) Regulations.--
       (1) Proposed regulations.--Not later than 180 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security shall publish proposed regulations implementing this 
     section. Such regulations shall be effective immediately on 
     an interim basis, but are subject to change and revision 
     after public notice and opportunity for a period for public 
     comment.

[[Page S7360]]

       (2) Interim, final regulations.--Within a reasonable time 
     after publication of the interim regulations in accordance 
     with paragraph (1), the Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     publish final regulations implementing this section.
       (f) Removal of Alien.--The Secretary of Homeland Security 
     may not remove any alien who has a pending application for 
     conditional status under this Act.

     SEC. 5. CONDITIONAL PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Conditional basis for status.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, and except as provided in section 6, 
     an alien whose status has been adjusted under section 4 to 
     that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence 
     shall be considered to have obtained such status on a 
     conditional basis subject to the provisions of this section. 
     Such conditional permanent resident status shall be valid for 
     a period of 6 years, subject to termination under subsection 
     (b).
       (2) Notice of requirements.--
       (A) At time of obtaining permanent residence.--At the time 
     an alien obtains permanent resident status on a conditional 
     basis under paragraph (1), the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall provide for notice to the alien regarding the 
     provisions of this section and the requirements of subsection 
     (c) to have the conditional basis of such status removed.
       (B) Effect of failure to provide notice.--The failure of 
     the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide a notice under 
     this paragraph--
       (i) shall not affect the enforcement of the provisions of 
     this Act with respect to the alien; and
       (ii) shall not give rise to any private right of action by 
     the alien.
       (b) Termination of Status.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     terminate the conditional permanent resident status of any 
     alien who obtained such status under this Act, if the 
     Secretary determines that the alien--
       (A) ceases to meet the requirements of subparagraph (B) or 
     (C) of section 4(a)(1);
       (B) has become a public charge; or
       (C) has received a dishonorable or other than honorable 
     discharge from the uniformed services.
       (2) Return to previous immigration status.--Any alien whose 
     conditional permanent resident status is terminated under 
     paragraph (1) shall return to the immigration status the 
     alien had immediately prior to receiving conditional 
     permanent resident status under this Act.
       (c) Requirements of Timely Petition for Removal of 
     Condition.--
       (1) In general.--In order for the conditional basis of 
     permanent resident status obtained by an alien under 
     subsection (a) to be removed, the alien must file with the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security, in accordance with paragraph 
     (3), a petition which requests the removal of such 
     conditional basis and which provides, under penalty of 
     perjury, the facts and information so that the Secretary may 
     make the determination described in paragraph (2)(A).
       (2) Adjudication of petition to remove condition.--
       (A) In general.--If a petition is filed in accordance with 
     paragraph (1) for an alien, the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security shall make a determination as to whether the alien 
     meets the requirements set out in subparagraphs (A) through 
     (E) of subsection (d)(1).
       (B) Removal of conditional basis if favorable 
     determination.--If the Secretary determines that the alien 
     meets such requirements, the Secretary shall notify the alien 
     of such determination and immediately remove the conditional 
     basis of the status of the alien.
       (C) Termination if adverse determination.--If the Secretary 
     determines that the alien does not meet such requirements, 
     the Secretary shall notify the alien of such determination 
     and terminate the conditional permanent resident status of 
     the alien as of the date of the determination.
       (3) Time to file petition.--An alien may petition to remove 
     the conditional basis to lawful resident status during the 
     period beginning 180 days before and ending 2 years after 
     either the date that is 6 years after the date of the 
     granting of conditional permanent resident status or any 
     other expiration date of the conditional permanent resident 
     status as extended by the Secretary of Homeland Security in 
     accordance with this Act. The alien shall be deemed in 
     conditional permanent resident status in the United States 
     during the period in which the petition is pending.
       (d) Details of Petition.--
       (1) Contents of petition.--Each petition for an alien under 
     subsection (c)(1) shall contain information to permit the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security to determine whether each of 
     the following requirements is met:
       (A) The alien has demonstrated good moral character during 
     the entire period the alien has been a conditional permanent 
     resident.
       (B) The alien is in compliance with section 4(a)(1)(C).
       (C) The alien has not abandoned the alien's residence in 
     the United States. The Secretary shall presume that the alien 
     has abandoned such residence if the alien is absent from the 
     United States for more than 365 days, in the aggregate, 
     during the period of conditional residence, unless the alien 
     demonstrates that the alien has not abandoned the alien's 
     residence. An alien who is absent from the United States due 
     to active service in the uniformed services has not abandoned 
     the alien's residence in the United States during the period 
     of such service.
       (D) The alien has completed at least 1 of the following:
       (i) The alien has acquired a degree from an institution of 
     higher education in the United States or has completed at 
     least 2 years, in good standing, in a program for a 
     bachelor's degree or higher degree in the United States.
       (ii) The alien has served in the uniformed services for at 
     least 2 years and, if discharged, has received an honorable 
     discharge.
       (E) The alien has provided a list of each secondary school 
     (as that term is defined in section 9101 of the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801)) that 
     the alien attended in the United States.
       (2) Hardship exception.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary of Homeland Security may, in 
     the Secretary's discretion, remove the conditional status of 
     an alien if the alien--
       (i) satisfies the requirements of subparagraphs (A), (B), 
     and (C) of paragraph (1);
       (ii) demonstrates compelling circumstances for the 
     inability to complete the requirements described in paragraph 
     (1)(D); and
       (iii) demonstrates that the alien's removal from the United 
     States would result in exceptional and extremely unusual 
     hardship to the alien or the alien's spouse, parent, or child 
     who is a citizen or a lawful permanent resident of the United 
     States.
       (B) Extension.--Upon a showing of good cause, the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security may extend the period of conditional 
     resident status for the purpose of completing the 
     requirements described in paragraph (1)(D).
       (e) Treatment of Period for Purposes of Naturalization.--
     For purposes of title III of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), in the case of an alien who is 
     in the United States as a lawful permanent resident on a 
     conditional basis under this section, the alien shall be 
     considered to have been admitted as an alien lawfully 
     admitted for permanent residence and to be in the United 
     States as an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for 
     permanent residence. However, the conditional basis must be 
     removed before the alien may apply for naturalization.

     SEC. 6. RETROACTIVE BENEFITS UNDER THIS ACT.

       If, on the date of enactment of this Act, an alien has 
     satisfied all the requirements of subparagraphs (A) through 
     (E) of section 4(a)(1) and section 5(d)(1)(D), the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security may adjust the status of the alien to 
     that of a conditional resident in accordance with section 4. 
     The alien may petition for removal of such condition at the 
     end of the conditional residence period in accordance with 
     section 5(c) if the alien has met the requirements of 
     subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of section 5(d)(1) during the 
     entire period of conditional residence.

     SEC. 7. EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     have exclusive jurisdiction to determine eligibility for 
     relief under this Act, except where the alien has been placed 
     into deportation, exclusion, or removal proceedings either 
     prior to or after filing an application for relief under this 
     Act, in which case the Attorney General shall have exclusive 
     jurisdiction and shall assume all the powers and duties of 
     the Secretary until proceedings are terminated, or if a final 
     order of deportation, exclusion, or removal is entered the 
     Secretary shall resume all powers and duties delegated to the 
     Secretary under this Act.
       (b) Stay of Removal of Certain Aliens Enrolled in Primary 
     or Secondary School.--The Attorney General shall stay the 
     removal proceedings of any alien who--
       (1) meets all the requirements of subparagraphs (A), (B), 
     (C), and (E) of section 4(a)(1);
       (2) is at least 12 years of age; and
       (3) is enrolled full time in a primary or secondary school.
       (c) Employment.--An alien whose removal is stayed pursuant 
     to subsection (b) may be engaged in employment in the United 
     States consistent with the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 
     U.S.C. 201 et seq.) and State and local laws governing 
     minimum age for employment.
       (d) Lift of Stay.--The Attorney General shall lift the stay 
     granted pursuant to subsection (b) if the alien--
       (1) is no longer enrolled in a primary or secondary school; 
     or
       (2) ceases to meet the requirements of subsection (b)(1).

     SEC. 8. PENALTIES FOR FALSE STATEMENTS IN APPLICATION.

       Whoever files an application for relief under this Act and 
     willfully and knowingly falsifies, misrepresents, or conceals 
     a material fact or makes any false or fraudulent statement or 
     representation, or makes or uses any false writing or 
     document knowing the same to contain any false or fraudulent 
     statement or entry, shall be fined in accordance with title 
     18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, 
     or both.

     SEC. 9. CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION.

       (a) Prohibition.--Except as provided in subsection (b), no 
     officer or employee of the United States may--
       (1) use the information furnished by the applicant pursuant 
     to an application filed under this Act to initiate removal 
     proceedings against any persons identified in the 
     application;

[[Page S7361]]

       (2) make any publication whereby the information furnished 
     by any particular individual pursuant to an application under 
     this Act can be identified; or
       (3) permit anyone other than an officer or employee of the 
     United States Government or, in the case of applications 
     filed under this Act with a designated entity, that 
     designated entity, to examine applications filed under this 
     Act.
       (b) Required Disclosure.--The Attorney General or the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide the information 
     furnished under this section, and any other information 
     derived from such furnished information, to--
       (1) a duly recognized law enforcement entity in connection 
     with an investigation or prosecution of an offense described 
     in paragraph (2) or (3) of section 212(a) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)), when such information 
     is requested in writing by such entity; or
       (2) an official coroner for purposes of affirmatively 
     identifying a deceased individual (whether or not such 
     individual is deceased as a result of a crime).
       (c) Penalty.--Whoever knowingly uses, publishes, or permits 
     information to be examined in violation of this section shall 
     be fined not more than $10,000.

     SEC. 10. HIGHER EDUCATION ASSISTANCE.

       Notwithstanding any provision of the Higher Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), with respect to assistance 
     provided under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.), an alien who adjusts status to that 
     of a lawful permanent resident under this Act shall be 
     eligible only for the following assistance under such title:
       (1) Student loans under parts B, D, and E of such title IV 
     (20 U.S.C. 1071 et seq., 1087a et seq., 1087aa et seq.), 
     subject to the requirements of such parts.
       (2) Federal work-study programs under part C of such title 
     IV (42 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.), subject to the requirements of 
     such part.
       (3) Services under such title IV (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.), 
     subject to the requirements for such services.

     SEC. 11. GAO REPORT.

       Not later than seven years after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall 
     submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and 
     the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of 
     Representatives a report setting forth--
       (1) the number of aliens who were eligible for cancellation 
     of removal and adjustment of status under section 4(a);
       (2) the number of aliens who applied for adjustment of 
     status under section 4(a);
       (3) the number of aliens who were granted adjustment of 
     status under section 4(a); and
       (4) the number of aliens whose conditional permanent 
     resident status was removed under section 5.

                          ____________________