[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 168 (Friday, December 17, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10514-S10519]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. Reed, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Udall of
New Mexico):
S. 4043. A bill to revise and extend provisions under the Garrett Lee
Smith Memorial Act; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Garrett Lee
Smith Memorial Act, GLSMA, Reauthorization. Six years ago, my former
colleague Senator Gordon Smith and I introduced the original GLSMA to
address the public health challenge of youth suicide by providing
funding to states, Indian tribes, colleges, and universities to develop
suicide prevention and intervention programs. Our bill made great
strides in combating the growing problem of youth suicide. However, our
work remains unfinished. For this reason, joined by colleagues Senator
Jack Reed, Senator Richard Durbin, and Senator Tom Udall, I am
introducing a reauthorization bill to strengthen the existing Federal,
State, and local efforts.
Last year, more than 4,000 Americans between the ages of 15 to 24
died by suicide, making suicide the third leading cause of death for
this age group and the second leading cause of death among college
students. These numbers are devastating. During an economic crisis, the
situation is becoming more dire for young adults across the country.
Over the past two years, we have seen a substantial increase of calls
into suicide crisis centers. Many of these centers are threatened with
cutbacks in funding from State and local governments. Despite the
success of GLSMA, the latest Indian Health Service numbers show that
suicide is the second leading cause of death for American Indian and
Alaska Native youth ages 10-24.
Youth suicide represents both a public and mental health tragedy--a
tragedy that knows no geographic, racial, ethnic, cultural, or
socioeconomic boundaries. Regrettably, it is one of the leading causes
of death among our nation's children; however, suicide is preventable
and its causes are treatable. It has been proven that early
intervention in mental health problems leads to the most effective
treatment. The funding provided through the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial
Act supports critical resources our young people need to develop into
healthy, happy adults.
The Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act provides federal grants to promote
the
[[Page S10515]]
development of statewide suicide early intervention and prevention
strategies intended to identify and reach out to young people who need
mental health services. In addition, this bill makes competitive grants
available to colleges and universities to create or enhance the
schools' mental and behavioral health programs. It is imperative that
we reauthorize the GLSMA in order to ensure those who utilize those
important programs continue getting the aid they need before it is too
late.
Our reauthorization effort increases funding to the existing programs
and make important policy changes to the campus grant program. Whereas
the funding level for all three programs in fiscal year 2010 is $40
million, the reauthorization bill would bring the authorization level
to $260 million over 5 years. As a result, this bill includes increased
funding for the Suicide Prevention Resource Center and grants for
state, Tribal, and campus prevention efforts. The reauthorization bill
also incorporates changes which will allow for increased flexibility in
the use of campus grant funds. The original GLSMA authorized the use of
campus grant funds only for suicide prevention infrastructure, such as
hotlines. The proposed changes would allow for additional flexibility
in the use of these funds, including crisis counseling and training of
campus staff and students. I believe that these uses are critical to
suicide prevention efforts on campuses.
I would like to take a moment to honor Garrett Lee Smith, the
namesake of this bill. Six years ago, Garrett's father, Senator Gordon
Smith introduced the original bill with me. Three years later, along
with Senator Jack Reed, we introduced the original reauthorization.
Nothing can be said or done to bring back Gordon and Sharon Smith's son
Garrett, but their steadfast support and tireless efforts on behalf of
young adults with mental illnesses have given their son the legacy he
deserves.
In addition, without the network of groups and individuals who have
made it their mission to take on this fight, none of the progress we
have made would have been possible. I have worked closely with these
groups throughout my tenure in the Senate and I thank them for their
support and assistance, and truly value the working relationship we
have established.
It is my hope that introducing this reauthorization bill will build
momentum for the efforts of my colleagues during the 112th Congress,
and I would like to thank Senator Reed, Senator Durbin, and Senator Tom
Udall for their willingness to lead the charge into next Congress. Both
of these Senators have been great partners on so many issues over the
years and I am happy that they will be here next Congress to lead the
efforts on this reauthorization.
The GLSMA has long been a bipartisan, bicameral bill. That must
continue next Congress. I hope that my colleagues will support this
important legislation. We must continue to build upon these successes
and ensure more communities are better equipped to prevent youth
suicide through the reauthorization of the GLSMA.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Dodd, Durbin,
and Tom Udall in the introduction of the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial
Reauthorization Act. This bill, which is dedicated to the son of our
former colleague Senator Gordon Smith, would bolster the ability of the
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration to help prevent
suicide among our nation's youth.
My efforts during the original enactment of this law, and now this
reauthorization, have been focused on enhancing suicide prevention
programs on college campuses. Suicide is the second leading cause of
death among college-age students in the United States, with some 1,100
deaths by suicide occurring in this age group each year. Indeed, we can
and must do more to curb this trend.
The reauthorization bill we are introducing today would expand
existing federally-funded efforts on campuses beyond outreach,
education, and awareness about suicide and suicide prevention to
include funding for services and the hiring of appropriately trained
personnel. These provisions stem from a bill that I introduced in the
108th Congress, the Campus Care and Counseling Act, and I am pleased
that they are included in the reauthorization efforts of this law. I
thank Senator Dodd for his leadership and hard work on this bill, and I
look forward to continuing efforts with my colleagues to move this bill
in the 112th Congress.
______
By Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. Menendez):
S. 4044. A bill reauthorize and strengthen the Combating Autism Act
of 2006 (Public Law 109-416), to establish a National Institute of
Autism Spectrum Disorders, to provide for the continuation of certain
programs relating to autism, to establish programs to provide services
to individuals with autism and the families of such individuals and to
increase public education and awareness of autism, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Combating
Autism Act, CAA, Reauthorization. Six years ago, my former colleague
Senator Rick Santorum and I introduced the original CAA to expand
Federal investment for Autism research, services, treatment, and
awareness efforts. The bill was signed into law by President Bush
following a nearly unanimous Congressional vote. The original CAA made
great strides in addressing the growing public health problem. However,
our work remains unfinished and essential programs are set to expire in
2011. For this reason, joined by my colleague Senator Robert Menendez,
I am introducing a reauthorization bill to strengthen the existing
federal, state, and local efforts.
Autism is one form of Autism Spectrum Disorder, ASD, a group of
developmental disabilities caused by atypical brain development. It is
a severe neurological disorder that affects language, cognition,
emotional development, and the ability to relate and interact with
others. Current estimates suggest that over 1 million Americans suffer
from some form of autism.
Individuals with ASD tend to have challenges and difficulties with
social and communication skills. Many people with ASD also have unique
ways of learning, paying attention, or reacting to different
sensations. ASD begins during early childhood and lasts throughout a
person's life. As the name ``autism spectrum disorder'' implies, ASD
covers a continuum of behaviors and abilities.
Autism is a profound condition that can have a devastating effect on
children and their families. We as a nation must devote significantly
increased resources to finding answers to the many questions
surrounding autism. Families struggling to raise a child with autism
deserve our support, and they deserve answers. The legislation we are
working to reauthorize will help us continue the journey towards a
better understanding of autism and better supporting those living with
this difficult condition.
The original CAA represented the largest Federal investment of
funding and programs for children and families with autism. The law
expanded Federal investment for Autism research through NIH; services,
diagnosis and treatment through HRSA; and surveillance and awareness
efforts through the CDC. As a result of these efforts, we made
significant advances in the understanding of autism. For example, we
identified several autism susceptibility genes that are leading to drug
discovery and earlier detection of infants at risk for ASD. Our
Nation's researchers are now investigating the links between
environmental exposures and autism. We improved methods for autism
screening and recommendation for universal autism screening at well
baby check-ups. We even developed effective early intervention methods
for toddlers with autism.
Unfortunately, major provisions of CAA are set to sunset in 2011.
Although some Federal efforts on autism would undoubtedly continue
without a reauthorization, the autism community would experience a
disastrous loss of momentum. Autism is the fastest growing
developmental disability in the Nation. For unknown reasons, the number
of children diagnosed with autism has skyrocketed in recent years, from
one in 10,000 children born 15 years ago to approximately one in 110
children born today. Although it is more common than Down syndrome,
childhood cancer, and cystic fibrosis, autism research currently
receives less
[[Page S10516]]
funding than these other childhood diseases.
Our reauthorization bill would ensure that these critical programs
continue, including CDC surveillance programs, HRSA intervention and
training programs, and the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee,
IACC. We are building upon the success of the original CAA by making
additional investments in an array of service related activities. We
create a one-time, single year planning and multiyear service provision
demonstration grant programs to States, public, or private nonprofit
entities. We establish a national technical assistance center to gather
and disseminate information on evidence-based treatments,
interventions, and services; and, we authorize multiyear grants to
provide interdisciplinary training, continuing education, technical
assistance, and information to improve services rendered to individuals
with ASD and their families.
Finally, we create a new National Institute of Autism Spectrum
Disorders within NIH, to consolidate CCA funding and accelerate
research focused on prevention, treatment, services, and cures. A
cross-agency institute with an aggressive, coordinated, and targeted
research agenda aimed at improving the lives of individuals with autism
is needed to address the challenges posed by a complex condition that
involves many areas of science and services research. It also will
provide our research community with a more predictable and accountable
budget environment for disorder affecting individuals on this scale.
Over the course of my career I have had the opportunity to meet with
several families who are affected by Autism. The parents of children
with this disorder are some of the most dedicated and perseverant I
have ever worked with. They do more than simply rise to the challenge
they have been presented with. They stand up and fight. They fight for
themselves, they fight for their community, and they fight for
generations to come, but most of all, they fight for their children. I
want to thank these families and their children for sharing their
stories and their strength with me. Their stories, anecdotes and
struggles give a face to the people all across the country whose lives
are touched by this important research, and hearing about them help us
to do our jobs better. The CAA would be nothing without them.
Last but certainly not least, I would like to take this opportunity
to thank the disability, and more specifically, the autism community
and advocacy organizations who have worked tirelessly on this bill. The
magnitude and importance of their work on this legislation and other
related initiatives will never be properly recognized. There are few
advocacy groups that pursue their goals and priorities with as much
fervor and fortitude as this community. They have an incredibly
challenging but critically important job, and I would like to thank
them for their hard work and support throughout the years. None of this
progress could have been made without them.
It is my hope that introducing this reauthorization bill will build
momentum for the efforts of my colleagues during the 112th Congress,
and I would like to thank Senator Menendez for his willingness to lead
the charge into next Congress. Senator Menendez has been a great
partner on so many issues over the years and I am happy that he will be
here next Congress to lead the efforts on this reauthorization.
The CAA was a bipartisan, bicameral bill. That must continue next
Congress. I hope that my colleagues will support this important
legislation. We must continue to build upon these successes and ensure
more communities are better equipped to address this complex public
health issue.
______
By Mr. SPECTER:
S. 4045. A bill to amend section 924 of title 18, United States Code,
to clarify and strengthen the armed career criminal provisions, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce
today a bill that strengthens the Armed Career Criminal Act in response
to a series of Supreme Court rulings, which wrongly have restricted
when and how the Act is applied, and have caused unnecessary and costly
litigation with inconsistent results throughout our Federal court
system. The Department of Justice has provided extensive technical
assistance in the drafting of this bill over many months. I am
introducing this legislation, so the next Congress can have my views on
this subject.
The Armed Career Criminal Act provides certain and harsh penalties
for criminals who are considered especially dangerous because of their
prior serious criminal convictions and subsequent possession of a
firearm. It has proven to be one of the strongest crime fighting tools
in protecting the public from repeat offenders who are armed.
The Act mandates a 15-year sentence for offenders who have already
accumulated three prior convictions for a violent felony or serious
drug offense, and are convicted in Federal court for possessing a
firearm in violation of section 922(g) of title 18, United States Code.
The Armed Career Criminal Act, also referred to as section 924(e) of
title 18, United States Code, was part of the Omnibus Crime Control Act
passed by the 98th Congress in 1984. The 99th Congress broadened its
reach by expanding the crimes that trigger the mandatory 15 year
sentence.
The Act provides Federal prosecutors with the ability to take the
most dangerous and violent criminals--a small percentage responsible
for as much as 70 percent of all crimes--out of circulation. Its
effectiveness, however, has been seriously undermined by Supreme Court
decisions that have severely limited its reach and needlessly
complicated its application. Specifically, these decisions have
unfairly restricted what documents a judge may review in order to
determine whether a prior conviction triggers the Act's sentencing
enhancement, and too narrowly restricted the Act's definition of
violent crime. The bill I am introducing, called the Armed Career
Criminal Sentencing Act of 2010, negates the impact of these rulings.
In Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 1990, and Shepard v. United
States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005), the Supreme Court has required that
district courts apply a ``categorical approach'' when determining
whether certain prior convictions trigger the enhanced sentence under
section 924(e) of title 18, United States Code. This has led to
increased litigation, as well as random and contradictory sentencing
results. It has also put an unnecessary burden on the courts.
The ``categorical approach'' prevents Federal judges from looking at
reliable evidence of the facts of qualifying prior convictions and
instead only permits Federal judges to review the language of the
statute of conviction and certain limited judicial records, such as the
charging document, the jury instructions, and the change of plea
colloquy. The Supreme Court of the United States has said that its
reading of section 924(e) in this regard is colored, in part, by
concern that to permit a more probing judicial inquiry could raise
right-to-jury-trial issues because the sentence enhancement under
section 924(e) increases the statutory maximum sentence of 10 years
under section 922(g) to life imprisonment. Under Apprendi v. New
Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490, 2000, a case decided after the enactment of
the Armed Career Criminal Act, any facts, other than prior convictions,
which may be used to increase the sentence of a defendant beyond the
statutory maximum sentence must be proven to a jury beyond a reasonable
doubt.
There have been frequent instances in which armed career criminals
have not been sentenced consistent with congressional intent due to
this Supreme Court precedent that has significantly narrowed the
applicability of section 924(e) and prevented judges from exercising
their historic sentencing discretion and judgment.
Few statutory sentencing issues have led to such costly and time-
consuming litigation at every level of the Federal court system as the
determination of whether the broad range of criminal offenses under
State and local law qualify categorically as crimes of violence or
serious drug trafficking offenses.
Among the 50 States and territories, there are significant
disparities in the content and formulation of State and local criminal
laws. There are also differing charging and recordkeeping practices.
Based on such fortuities as this, the Supreme Court's precedent
[[Page S10517]]
has caused an irrational divergence of Armed Career Criminal Act
sentences. Fundamental principles of equality and fair treatment, as
well as the imperative of vigorously protecting public safety, require
far more uniform administration and implementation of the sentencing
provisions under section 924(e).
Federal judges are capable of examining and evaluating reliable
evidence to determine if a particular conviction or series of
convictions merits enhancement and should be entrusted to continue
their historic role as sentencing fact finders.
The solution to this problem is simple. The bill I am introducing
today eliminates the ``categorical approach'' and allows judges to
return to their traditional sentencing roles and to make the sentencing
judgments traditionally assigned to courts. The bill accomplishes this
by lowering the maximum sentence under section 924(e) from life to 25
years, and increasing the maximum sentence under section 922(g) from 10
years to 25 years. Equalizing the maximum sentences for the two
statutes means that when a judge enhances a sentence for a section
922(g) conviction, as permitted by section 924(e) for armed career
criminals, the judge will not increase the statutory maximum sentence
of section 922(g) and therefore necessarily avoids any implication of
Apprendi principles. The Congressional Research Service has reviewed
and agreed with this legal analysis.
Because sentences for violations of section 922(g) of title 18,
United States Code, by individuals who are not armed career criminals
will commonly fall in the range of 10 years or less by operation of the
advisory sentencing guidelines and the reasonable judgment of the
sentencing courts, I do not anticipate that there will be many
resulting changes in the length of sentence for those individuals,
although the increased statutory maximum will apply.
The Armed Career Criminal Act currently defines ``violent felony'' as
``any crime punishable by imprisonment for [more than] one year . . .
that . . . (i) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened
use of physical force against . . . another . . . or . . . (ii) is
burglary, arson, or extortion, involves use of explosives, or otherwise
involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical
injury to another.'' 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(e)(2)(B).
To date, the Supreme Court has decided four cases (with another to be
argued next month) in an attempt to clarify which State and local
violent crime offenses qualify as sentencing enhancements under the
Armed Career Criminal Act. In all but one, the Court has too narrowly
restricted the Act's definition of violent crime.
Despite the clear language in section 924(e)(2)(B)(ii) that a violent
crime includes ``conduct that presents a serious potential risk of
injury to another,'' the Court has read this so-called ``residual
clause'' to only apply to crimes that typically involve purposeful,
violent, and aggressive conduct--even though there is no such limiting
language to be found in the statute's definition of violent crime.
Thus, in United States v. Begay, 553 U.S. 137, 2008, the Court found
that 11 felony DUI convictions did not qualify as conduct that presents
a serious risk of physical injury to another. In Chambers v. United
States, 129 S. Ct. 687, 2009, the Court held that the crime of failure
to report to prison, which is the crime of escape, was a ``far cry from
the purposeful, violent, and aggressive conduct''' required to qualify
as a violent crime.
The Supreme Court has also too narrowly restricted the violent felony
definition in section 924(e)(2)(B)(i) by holding that the use of
physical force against another as an element of a crime must include
violent force. In Johnson v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 1265, 1271,
2010, the Supreme Court held that a battery conviction under Florida
law did not qualify for the Act's sentencing enhancement because ``[w]e
think it clear that in the context of a statutory definition of
`violent felony,' the phrase `physical force' means violent force--that
is, force capable of causing physical pain or injury to another
person.'' Again, those words--violent force--are nowhere in the
statute's definition.
The bill I am introducing today simply and clearly defines qualifying
violent crime in two ways--by elements and by conduct--and does not
require violent force, just physical force. It also removes the violent
crime definition from the so-called ``residual clause'' to prevent
limitations being read by the Court into its meaning. Under the bill,
violent crime includes crimes that have as an element--the use,
attempted use, or threatened use of physical force, however slight,
against the person of another individual, or that serious bodily injury
intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly resulted from the offense
conduct.
The bill also defines violent crime to include offenses that, without
regard to the formal elements of the crime, involved conduct that
presented a serious potential risk of bodily injury to another or
intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly resulted in serious bodily
injury to another.
Finally, to ensure that an inflexible application of section 924(e)
does not result in overly harsh results, this bill gives prosecutors
the discretion to file a notice advising the defendant and the court
whether the prosecutor will seek to invoke all, some, or none of the
prior convictions of the defendant to trigger the penalty enhancement.
This is done already for Federal drug penalty enhancements and works
well.
By making these simple changes, we can be assured that fundamental
principles of equality and fair treatment are followed, and that public
safety will be vigorously protected. I urge my colleagues to pass the
Armed Career Criminal Sentencing Act of 2010.
______
By Mr. KERRY:
S. 4046. A bill to amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to
establish provisions with respect to religious accommodations in
employment, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, America was founded on the principle of
religious freedom. Many of us are descended not just from the Pilgrims,
but from so many others Catholics, Jews, and many more who fled
persecution in search of a land where they could practice their
religion and simply be who they are. Our very Constitution exists to
secure the blessings of that freedom to ourselves and to our children.
Even so, charges of religious discrimination in the workplace have
been on the rise for more than a decade. Between 1992 and 2007, the
latest period for which we have data, claims of religious
discrimination filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
have more than doubled, from 1,388 to 2,880. There is no way to tell
how many people simply quit their job rather than complain.
But in a Nation founded on freedom of religion, no American should
ever have to choose between keeping a job and keeping faith with their
cherished religious beliefs and traditions. I have been deeply involved
in this issue since 1996 and once again I am introducing the Workplace
Religious Freedom Act.
The Workplace Religious Freedom Act is designed to protect people who
encounter on-the-job discrimination because of their religious beliefs
and practices. It protects, within reason, time off for religious
observances. It protects the wearing of yarmulkes, hijabs, turbans and
Mormon garments--all the distinctive marks of religious practices, all
the things that people of faith should never be forced to hide.
Writing religious freedom into law is not easy. I have been trying to
make the Workplace Religious Freedom Act law for 15 years. I have
worked with a range of partners from Senator Santorum and Senator
Brownback to Senator Lieberman, and most recently Senator Hatch and I
have been working together behind the scenes to move this issue
forward. In doing so, it has been a difficult challenge to balance so
many interests and legitimate concerns and to keep up with changing
times.
This bill represents years of discussion about religious tolerance
and equal treatment and is a compromise between many different views. I
hope it serves as the beginning of a new discussion as to how we can
move forward in the next Congress and beyond because addressing this
issue is long overdue.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
[[Page S10518]]
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 4046
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 ``Workplace Religious Freedom
Act of 2010''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) In enacting title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.) (referred to in this Act as ``title
VII''), Congress--
(A) recognized the widespread incidence of and harm caused
by religious discrimination in employment;
(B) expressly intended to establish that religion is a
class protected from discrimination in employment, as race,
color, sex, and national origin are protected classes; and
(C) recognized that, absent undue hardship, a covered
employer's failure to reasonably accommodate an employee's
religious practice is discrimination within the meaning of
that title.
(2) Eradicating religious discrimination in employment is
essential to reach the goal of full equal employment
opportunity in the United States.
(3) In Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63
(1977), the Supreme Court held that an employer could deny an
employee's request for religious accommodation based on any
burden greater than a de minimus burden on the employer, and
thus narrowed the scope of protection of title VII against
religious discrimination in employment, contrary to the
intent of Congress.
(4) As a consequence of the Hardison decision and resulting
appellate and trial court decisions, discrimination against
employees on the basis of religion in employment continues to
be an unfortunate and unacceptable reality.
(5) Federal, State, and local government, and private
employers have a history and have established a continuing
pattern of discrimination in unreasonably denying religious
accommodations in employment, including in the areas of garb,
grooming, and scheduling.
(6) Although this Act addresses requests for accommodation
with respect to garb, grooming, and scheduling due to
employees' religious practices, enactment of this Act does
not represent a determination that other religious
accommodation requests do not deserve similar attention or
future resolution by Congress.
(7) The Supreme Court has held in Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer,
427 U.S. 445 (1976) that Congress has clearly authorized
Federal courts to award monetary damages in favor of a
private individual against a State government found in
violation of title VII, and this holding is supported by
Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 (1979).
SEC. 3. PURPOSES.
The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to address the history and widespread pattern of
discrimination by private sector employers and Federal,
State, and local government employers in unreasonably denying
religious accommodations in employment, specifically in the
areas of garb, grooming, and scheduling;
(2) to provide a comprehensive Federal prohibition of
employment discrimination on the basis of religion, including
that denial of accommodations, specifically in the areas of
garb, grooming, and scheduling;
(3) to confirm Congress' clear and continuing intention to
abrogate States' 11th amendment immunity from claims made
under title VII; and
(4) to invoke congressional powers to prohibit employment
discrimination, including the powers to enforce the 14th
amendment, and to regulate interstate commerce pursuant to
section 8 of article I of the Constitution, in order to
prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion, including
unreasonable denial of religious accommodations, specifically
in the areas of garb, grooming, and scheduling.
SEC. 4. AMENDMENTS.
(a) Definitions.--Section 701(j) of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e(j)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(j)'';
(2) in paragraph (1), as so designated, by striking ``he is
unable'' and inserting ``the employer is unable, after
initiating and engaging in an affirmative and bona fide
effort,''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) For purposes of paragraph (1), with respect to the
practice of wearing religious clothing or a religious
hairstyle, or of taking time off for a religious reason, an
accommodation of such a religious practice--
``(A) shall not be considered to be a reasonable
accommodation unless the accommodation removes the conflict
between employment requirements and the religious practice of
the employee;
``(B) shall be considered to impose an undue hardship on
the conduct of the employer's business only if the
accommodation imposes a significant difficulty or expense on
the conduct of the employer's business when considered in
light of relevant factors set forth in section 101(10)(B) of
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.
12111(10)(B)) (including accompanying regulations); and
``(C) shall not be considered to be a reasonable
accommodation if the accommodation requires segregation of an
employee from customers or the general public.
``(3) In this subsection:
``(A) The term `taking time off for a religious reason'
means taking time off for a holy day or to participate in a
religious observance.
``(B) The term `wearing religious clothing or a religious
hairstyle' means--
``(i) wearing religious apparel the wearing of which is
part of the observance of the religious faith practiced by
the individual;
``(ii) wearing jewelry or another ornament the wearing of
which is part of the observance of the religious faith
practiced by the individual;
``(iii) carrying an object the carrying of which is part of
the observance of the religious faith practiced by the
individual; or
``(iv) adopting the presence, absence, or style of a
person's hair or beard the adoption of which is part of the
observance of the religious faith practiced by the
individual.''.
SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS;
SEVERABILITY.
(a) Effective Date.--Except as provided in subsection (b),
this Act and the amendments made by section 4 take effect on
the date of enactment of this Act.
(b) Application of Amendments.--This Act and the amendments
made by section 4 do not apply with respect to conduct
occurring before the date of enactment of this Act.
(c) No Diminution of Rights.--With respect to religious
practices not described in section 701(j)(2) of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, as amended by section 4(a)(3), nothing in
this Act or an amendment made by this Act shall be construed
to diminish any right that may exist, or remedy that may be
available, on the day before the date of enactment of this
Act, for discrimination in employment because of religion by
reason of failure to provide a reasonable accommodation of a
religious practice, pursuant to title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.).
(d) Severability.--
(1) In general.--If any provision of an amendment made by
this Act, or any application of such provision to any person
or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the
remainder of the amendments made by this Act and the
application of the provision to any other person or
circumstance shall not be affected.
(2) Definition of religion.--If, in the course of
determining a claim brought under title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.), a court holds
that the application of the provision described in paragraph
(1) to a person or circumstance is unconstitutional, the
court shall determine the claim with respect to that person
or circumstance by applying the definition of the term
``religion'' specified in section 701 of that Act (42 U.S.C.
2000e), as in effect on the day before the date of enactment
of this Act.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. Leahy):
S. 4048. A bill to extend expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT
Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005, the Intelligence Reform
and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, and the FISA Amendments Act of
2008 until December 31, 2013, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am introducing today, on behalf of
Senator Leahy, Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary and myself
the FISA Sunsets Extension Act of 2010. Since early in this Congress, I
have been working with Chairman Leahy, both in my capacity as Chairman
of the Select Committee on Intelligence and as a member of the
Judiciary Committee, to enact legislation that extends expiring
authorities for the collection of foreign intelligence against
terrorists, proliferators, foreign powers, and spies, while ensuring
that adequate safeguards exist for the protection of the civil
liberties and privacy of Americans.
To that end, the Judiciary Committee reported, in October 2009, S.
1692, a bill that sought to accomplish two main objectives. One was to
extend the life of three authorities under FISA which were then due to
sunset on December 31, 2009, described as roving, lone wolf, and
business records collection, all of which have been previously
described to the Senate during the consideration of earlier extensions.
Through two short-term measures, those sunsets have been extended to
February 28, 2010.
The other main objective was to secure several amendments to statutes
on intelligence collection that would improve the balance they strike
between protecting national security and protecting civil liberties and
privacy. In the course of this Congress, this second objective has been
largely achieved through actions that have been taken by the Department
of Justice and the FBI under administrative actions. On reviewing those
actions, which have been described in a letter from the Attorney
General to Chairman Leahy on
[[Page S10519]]
December 9, 2010, Chairman Leahy and I have determined that the one
remaining action that we need to take legislatively this Congress is to
extend the three important authorities that are now due to sunset on
February 28, 2010. The Feinstein-Leahy bill will extend these sunsets
to the same date as proposed in S. 1692, December 31, 2013. The
Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence have asked
the Congress to extend these authorities.
Additionally, the authority established by the FISA Amendments Act of
2008, regarding collection of foreign intelligence against persons
reasonably believed to be outside of the United States, is scheduled to
sunset on December 31, 2012. The Feinstein-Leahy bill would extend that
authority for one year, to December 31, 2013, so that all of the
sunsets of authority under FISA occur on the same date. This will allow
the Congress to consider all of the temporary authorities in
conjunction.
By acting now on these approaching sunsets, Congress will ensure
stability in the foreign intelligence collection system at a time of
heightened threat levels and guarantee there are no inadvertent gaps in
FISA collection at the beginning of next year.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation so we can achieve
enactment this session.
____________________