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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.