[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 22584-22589]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 22585]]

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 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

[[Page 22586]]

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 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

[[Page 22587]]

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 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

[[Page 22588]]

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.
  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

[[Page 22589]]

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 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.

                          ____________________