[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.
____________________