datamatters24/research-document-archive huggingface dataset:
HR 1132 RDS 
‘‘(v) criteria for availability of infor-
mation and limitation on access to pro-
gram personnel; 
‘‘(vi) criteria for access to the data-
base, and procedures to ensure that infor-
mation in the database is accurate; 
‘‘(vii) criteria for the use and disclo-
sure of information, including a description 
of the certification process to be applied to 
requests for information under subsection 
(f); 
‘‘(viii) penalties for the unauthorized 
use and disclosure of information main-
tained in the State controlled substance 
monitoring program in violation of applica-
ble State law or regulation; 
‘‘(ix) information on the relevant 
State laws, policies, and procedures, if any, 
regarding purging of information from the 
database; and 
‘‘(x) assurances of compliance with all 
other requirements of this section; or 
‘‘(B) with respect to a State that intends 
to use funds under the grant as provided for in 
subsection (a)(1)(B)—
HR 1132 RDS 
‘‘(i) a budget cost estimate for the 
controlled substance monitoring program 
to be improved under the grant; 
‘‘(ii) a plan for ensuring that the 
State controlled substance monitoring pro-
gram is in compliance with the criteria and 
penalty requirements described in clauses 
(ii) through (viii) of subparagraph (A); 
‘‘(iii) a plan to enable the State con-
trolled substance monitoring program to 
achieve interoperability with at least one 
other State controlled substance moni-
toring program; and 
‘‘(iv) assurances of compliance with 
all other requirements of this section or a 
statement describing why such compliance 
is not feasible or is contrary to the best in-
terests of public health in such State. 
‘‘(2) STATE LEGISLATION.—As part of an ap-
plication under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall 
require a State to demonstrate that the State has 
enacted legislation or regulations to permit the im-
plementation of the State controlled substance moni-
toring program and the imposition of appropriate
Calendar No. 229
105TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 765
[Report No. 105–115]
AN ACT
To ensure maintenance of a herd of wild horses in
Cape Lookout National Seashore.
OCTOBER 28, 1997
Reported with an amendment
III 
109TH CONGRESS 
2D SESSION 
H. CON. RES. 300 
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 
FEBRUARY 16, 2006 
Received and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 
Paying tribute to Shirley Horn in recognition of her many 
achievements and contributions to the world of jazz and 
American culture. 
Whereas on October 20, 2005, the United States lost jazz 
legend Shirley Horn, who contributed greatly to the mu-
sical landscape of the Nation through her artistry and 
musical talent; 
Whereas Shirley Horn was born in 1934 in Washington, 
D.C., and started her musical career at the age of four 
on her grandmother’s piano; 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
21:46 Feb 17, 2006
Jkt 049200
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6300
E:\BILLS\HC300.RFS
HC300
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
HCON 300 RFS 
Whereas at the tender age of 12, Shirley Horn studied com-
position and piano at Howard University and was invited 
to attend the prestigious Juilliard School in New York 
City when she was 18; 
Whereas jazz gives a powerful voice to the American experi-
ence and is born of a diverse society, uniting people 
across the divides of race, region, and national bound-
aries, and draws from life experience and human emo-
tion; 
Whereas over her long and distinguished career, Shirley Horn 
performed and worked with jazz legends, including Miles 
Davis and Quincy Jones; 
Whereas Shirley Horn recorded over two dozen albums and 
was lauded with numerous honors, including the Grammy 
Award for best jazz vocal performance in 1998, election 
into the Lionel Hampton Jazz Hall of Fame in 1996, an 
honorary doctorate from the Berklee College of Music in 
1998, the 2003 Jazz at Lincoln Center Award, inclusion 
in ASCAP’s Wall of Fame as the 2005 living legend, and 
the 2005 NEA Jazz Master, the Nation’s highest honor 
in jazz; 
Whereas Shirley Horn never forgot her roots and continued 
to support and perform in her local community of Wash-
ington, D.C., receiving the Mayor’s Arts Award for Ex-
cellence in an Artistic Discipline; and 
Whereas Shirley Horn’s voice and piano had a profound ef-
fect on her listeners around the world: Now, therefore, be 
it 
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
concurring), That Congress— 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
21:46 Feb 17, 2006
Jkt 049200
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HC300.RFS
HC300
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
HCON 300 RFS 
(1) notes with deep sorrow the death of Shirley 
Horn and extends heartfelt sympathy to her hus-
band and family; and 
(2) recognizes Shirley Horn’s many achieve-
ments and contributions to the world of jazz and 
American culture and notes the loss to American 
culture with her passing. 
Passed the House of Representatives February 15, 
2006. 
Attest: 
KAREN L. HAAS, 
Clerk. 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
21:46 Feb 17, 2006
Jkt 049200
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HC300.RFS
HC300
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
HR 1132 RDS 
penalties for the unauthorized use and disclosure of 
information maintained in such program. 
‘‘(3) INTEROPERABILITY.—If a State that sub-
mits an application under this subsection geographi-
cally borders another State that is operating a con-
trolled substance monitoring program under sub-
section (a)(1) on the date of submission of such ap-
plication, and such applicant State has not achieved 
interoperability for purposes of information sharing 
between its monitoring program and the monitoring 
program of such border State, such applicant State 
shall, as part of the plan under paragraph 
(1)(B)(iii), describe the manner in which the appli-
cant State will achieve interoperability between the 
monitoring programs of such States. 
‘‘(4) APPROVAL.—If a State submits an appli-
cation in accordance with this subsection, the Sec-
retary shall approve such application. 
‘‘(5) RETURN
OF
FUNDS.—If the Secretary 
withdraws approval of a State’s application under 
this section, or the State chooses to cease to imple-
ment or improve a controlled substance monitoring 
program under this section, a funding agreement for 
the receipt of a grant under this section is that the 
State will return to the Secretary an amount which
HR 1132 RDS 
bears the same ratio to the overall grant as the re-
maining time period for expending the grant funds 
bears to the overall time period for expending the 
grant (as specified by the Secretary at the time of 
the grant). 
‘‘(d) REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.—In implementing 
or improving a controlled substance monitoring program 
under this section, a State shall comply, or with respect 
to a State that applies for a grant under subsection 
(a)(1)(B) submit to the Secretary for approval a state-
ment of why such compliance is not feasible or is contrary 
to the best interests of public health in such State, with 
the following: 
‘‘(1) The State shall require dispensers to re-
port to such State each dispensing in the State of 
a controlled substance to an ultimate user not later 
than 1 week after the date of such dispensing. 
‘‘(2) The State may exclude from the reporting 
requirement of this subsection—
‘‘(A) the direct administration of a con-
trolled substance to the body of an ultimate 
user; 
‘‘(B) the dispensing of a controlled sub-
stance in a quantity limited to an amount ade-
eign tax credit) for a taxable year exceed the taxpayer’s 
tax liability for the taxable year (after application of the 
family tax credit and the foreign tax credit but before ap-
plication of the other USA tax credits), the taxpayer shall 
be entitled to a refund for such excess. The taxpayer may 
elect in lieu of a refund to apply such excess as a tax paid 
for the following taxable year. 
‘‘SEC. 21. FAMILY TAX CREDIT. 
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The taxpayer shall be allowed a 
family tax credit in an amount equal to the sum of— 
‘‘(1) the base family credit amount, plus 
‘‘(2) the additional family credit amount. 
‘‘(b) BASE FAMILY CREDIT AMOUNT.—The base 
family credit amount shall be the sum of the credit amount 
for each status, determined in accordance with the fol-
lowing table: 
‘‘ Status is: 
Credit 
amount 
for status 
is: 
Married individuals filing joint return ..................................
$3,300
Unmarried individuals with one or more dependents ...........
$2,800
Unmarried individuals with no dependents ...........................
$1,650
Each dependent .....................................................................
$1,150. 
‘‘(c) ADDITIONAL FAMILY CREDIT AMOUNT.—The 
additional family credit amount shall be the sum of the 
credit amount for each dependent of the taxpayer, deter-
mined as follows: 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:10 Nov 19, 2007
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4159.IH
H4159
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
IV 
109TH CONGRESS 
1ST SESSION 
H. CON. RES. 301 
Expressing the sense of Congress that any bill or joint resolution that provides 
for the establishment of a new Federal program should contain a provi-
sion that eliminates one or more current Federal programs of equal 
or greater cost. 
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
NOVEMBER 16, 2005 
Mr. CONAWAY submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
referred to the Committee on Government Reform 
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 
Expressing the sense of Congress that any bill or joint reso-
lution that provides for the establishment of a new Fed-
eral program should contain a provision that eliminates 
one or more current Federal programs of equal or great-
er cost. 
Whereas Congress must be committed to slowing the growth 
of Government spending, reforming inefficient Govern-
ment programs, and removing burdensome Government 
regulations in order to lower the Federal budget deficit; 
Whereas Congress must pledge to hold the line on spending 
and the growth of Government for the remainder of this 
fiscal year and beyond;
•HCON 301 IH 
Whereas Congress needs to demonstrate to the people of the 
United States that it will not return to the failed fiscal 
policies of the past by attempting to solve budgetary 
problems by raising taxes to pay for new programs and 
more spending; 
Whereas a real solution to the Federal budget deficit must 
consist of the curtailment of unnecessary Federal pro-
grams, which are currently costing taxpayers billions of 
dollars; 
Whereas it is time to reduce the Federal budget deficit by 
demonstrating a strong commitment to reforming and 
eliminating inefficient and wasteful Government pro-
grams; 
Whereas to reduce the Federal budget deficit, Congress must 
do a better job of establishing priorities for Federal pro-
grams and spending; and 
Whereas to limit the growth of Government, Congress should 
only enact a new Federal program if Congress considers 
the program to be a higher priority than one or more 
current Federal programs of equal or greater cost: Now, 
therefore, be it 
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that any bill 
or joint resolution that provides for the establishment of 
a new Federal program should contain a provision that 
eliminates one or more current Federal programs of equal 
or greater cost. 
Æ
‘‘(1) In the case of each qualifying child, the 
amount shall be $1,500. 
‘‘(2) In the case of each qualifying relative, the 
amount shall be $500. 
‘‘(d) DEPENDENT; QUALIFYING CHILD, AND QUALI-
FYING RELATIVE DEFINED.—For purposes of this sec-
tion, the terms ‘dependent’, ‘qualifying child’, and ‘quali-
fying relative’ shall have the meaning given such terms 
by section 152 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. 
‘‘SEC. 22. WORK TAX CREDIT. 
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The taxpayer shall be allowed a 
work tax credit in an amount equal to taxable income re-
duced (but not below zero) by the family tax credit. 
‘‘(b) LIMITATIONS.—The amount of the credit al-
lowed under subsection (a) shall not exceed the sum of— 
‘‘(1) the base work tax credit amount, plus 
‘‘(2) the additional work tax credit amount. 
‘‘(c) BASE WORK TAX CREDIT AMOUNT.—For pur-
poses of this section— 
‘‘(1) IN
GENERAL.—The base work credit 
amount with respect to a taxpayer shall be the lesser 
of— 
‘‘(A) the applicable percentage of the work 
income of the taxpayer, or 
‘‘(B) the base work credit dollar amount. 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:10 Nov 19, 2007
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4159.IH
H4159
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
IV 
109TH CONGRESS 
1ST SESSION 
H. CON. RES. 302 
Supporting the national motto of the United States. 
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
NOVEMBER 16, 2005 
Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia submitted the following concurrent resolution; 
which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 
Supporting the national motto of the United States. 
Whereas the national motto of the United States is ‘‘In God 
we trust’’; 
Whereas the national motto was adopted in 1956 and is codi-
fied in the laws of the United States at section 302 of 
title 36, United States Code; 
Whereas the national motto reflects the traditional sentiment 
that we are a people whose institutions presuppose a Su-
preme Being; 
Whereas the sentiment ‘‘In God we trust’’ is deeply inter-
woven into the fabric of our civil polity; 
Whereas the content of the motto is as old as the Republic 
itself and has always been as integral a part of the first 
amendment to the Constitution as the very words of that 
charter of religious liberty;
•HCON 302 IH 
Whereas the Founding Fathers believed devotedly that there 
was a God and that the unalienable rights of man were 
rooted in Him, a belief clearly evidenced in their writings, 
from the Mayflower Compact to the Constitution itself; 
Whereas our national life reflects a religious people who ear-
nestly pray that the Supreme Lawgiver guide them in 
every measure which may be worthy of His blessing; 
Whereas the national motto serves the secular purpose of ex-
pressing confidence in the future and encouraging the 
recognition of what is worthy of appreciation in society; 
Whereas the national motto appears on all coins and currency 
issued by the United States Government; and 
Whereas the words ‘‘In God We Trust’’ appear over the en-
trance to the Chamber of the Senate and are prominently 
engraved in the wall above the Speaker’s dais in the 
Chamber of the House of Representatives: Now, there-
fore, be it 
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
concurring), That the House of Representatives— 
(1) finds repugnant all misinterpretations and 
misapplications of the Constitution that disregard 
those references to God that are well within the 
American tradition and outside constitutional pro-
scription; 
(2) finds that acknowledgment of our need for 
the superintending care of the Supreme Being does 
not intrude upon the freedom of conscience;
•HCON 302 IH 
(3) rejects the notion that the laws and Con-
stitution of this Nation require the exclusion of God 
from matters of Government and public life; 
(4) supports the public display of the national 
motto in all public buildings, public schools, and 
other Government institutions established or main-
tained at taxpayer expense; 
(5) supports the inscription of the national 
motto on United States currency; and 
(6) affirms its support for the national motto. 
Æ
HR 1132 RDS 
vidual investigation or proceeding involving the 
unlawful diversion or misuse of a schedule II, 
III, or IV substance, and such information will 
further the purpose of the investigation or as-
sist in the proceeding; 
‘‘(C) the controlled substance monitoring 
program of another State or group of States 
with whom the State has established an inter-
operability agreement; 
‘‘(D) any agent of the Department of 
Health and Human Services, a State medicaid 
program, a State health department, or the 
Drug Enforcement Administration who certifies 
that the requested information is necessary for 
research to be conducted by such department, 
program, or administration, respectively, and 
the intended purpose of the research is related 
to a function committed to such department, 
program, or administration by law that is not 
investigative in nature; or 
‘‘(E) an agent of the State agency or enti-
ty of another State that is responsible for the 
establishment and maintenance of that State’s 
controlled substance monitoring program, who 
certifies that—
HR 1132 RDS 
‘‘(i) the State has an application ap-
proved under this section; and 
‘‘(ii) the requested information is for 
the purpose of implementing the State’s 
controlled substance monitoring program 
under this section. 
‘‘(2) DRUG DIVERSION.—In consultation with 
practitioners, dispensers, and other relevant and in-
terested stakeholders, a State receiving a grant 
under subsection (a)—
‘‘(A) shall establish a program to notify 
practitioners and dispensers of information that 
will help identify and prevent the unlawful di-
version or misuse of controlled substances; and 
‘‘(B) may, to the extent permitted under 
State law, notify the appropriate authorities re-
sponsible for carrying out drug diversion inves-
tigations if the State determines that informa-
tion in the database maintained by the State 
under subsection (e) indicates an unlawful di-
version or abuse of a controlled substance. 
‘‘(g) LIMITATIONS.—In implementing or improving a 
controlled substance monitoring program under this sec-
tion, a State—
IV
103D CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. CON. RES. 99
Expressing the sense of Congress concerning the appropriate level of funding
for Department of Veterans Affairs research programs for fiscal year 1994.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
MAY 11, 1993
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey (for himself, Mr. ROWLAND, Mr. STUMP, Mr. GIL-
MAN, and Mr. BACHUS of Alabama) submitted the following concurrent
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of Congress concerning the appropriate
level of funding for Department of Veterans Affairs re-
search programs for fiscal year 1994.
Whereas medical research carried out by the Department of
Veterans Affairs has a direct effect on the quality of
medical care provided to veterans, both through advances
in medical treatment and technology and through recruit-
ment and retention of qualified physicians;
Whereas more than half of all practicing physicians in the
United States have had some part of their training in the
Department of Veterans Affairs health care system, even
though Department hospitals account for only 10 percent
of all United States teaching hospitals;
•HCON 303 IH 
with its obligations to enforce intellectual property 
rights. 
Æ
112TH CONGRESS 
1ST SESSION H. R. 1308 
AN ACT 
To amend the Ronald Reagan Centennial Commission Act 
to extend the termination date for the Commission, and 
for other purposes. 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
IV 
109TH CONGRESS 
1ST SESSION 
H. CON. RES. 304 
Expressing support for tax incentives for charitable gifts of conservation 
easements. 
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
NOVEMBER 17, 2005 
Mr. FITZPATRICK of Pennsylvania (for himself, Mr. UDALL of Colorado, Mr. 
BLUMENAUER, Mr. GERLACH, and Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania) sub-
mitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the 
Committee on Ways and Means 
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 
Expressing support for tax incentives for charitable gifts 
of conservation easements. 
Whereas the conservation of land for open space, outdoor 
recreation, agriculture, and wildlife habitat is increasingly 
important to American communities; 
Whereas partnerships between private landowners and con-
servation charities are an essential ingredient in such 
conservation; 
Whereas American citizens have formed more than 1,500 
local and regional charities to advance this conservation 
work; 
Whereas voluntary conservation agreements known as con-
servation easements enable these charities to better serve
•HCON 304 IH 
their communities, partner with landowners, and conserve 
valuable land; 
Whereas section 170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 provides tax incentives to landowners who make 
qualified donations of conservation easements; 
Whereas the Joint Committee on Taxation released Report 
JCS–2–05 on January 27, 2005, and proposed reducing 
or eliminating incentives for charitable donations of con-
servation easements; and 
Whereas the recommendations of the Committee to reduce or 
eliminate the charitable deduction for conservation ease-
ments would severely restrict private-sector conservation 
work by land trusts: Now, therefore, be it 
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
concurring), That the Congress— 
(1) supports conservation easements as a valu-
able tool for private sector land conservation; 
(2) supports the charitable deduction for quali-
fied conservation and historic preservation ease-
ments provided for in section 170(h) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986; and 
(3) opposes the recommendations of the Joint 
Committee on Taxation to reduce or eliminate chari-
table deductions for conservation and facade ease-
ments. 
Æ
‘‘(2) APPLICABLE
PERCENTAGE; APPLICABLE 
DOLLAR
LIMITATION.—The applicable percentage 
and the applicable dollar limitation shall be deter-
mined under the following table: 
‘‘In the case of a taxpayer 
with— 
The applicable per-
centage is— 
The appli-
cable dol-
lar limita-
tion is— 
No qualifying children ..............................
7.65 percent .......................
$412
1 qualifying child ......................................
34 percent ..........................
$2,120
2 or more qualifying children .................
40 percent ..........................
$3,200. 
‘‘(d) ADDITIONAL WORK TAX CREDIT AMOUNT.— 
For purposes of this section— 
‘‘(1) TAXPAYER WITH 1 QUALIFYING CHILD.— 
In the case of a taxpayer with 1 qualifying child, the 
additional work credit amount shall be the lesser 
of— 
‘‘(A) 34 percent of the excess of— 
‘‘(i) work income (or modified taxable 
income, if less), over 
‘‘(ii) $6,235, and 
‘‘(B) $1,450. 
‘‘(2) TAXPAYER WITH 2 OR MORE QUALIFYING 
CHILDREN.—In the case of a taxpayer with 2 or 
more qualifying children, the additional work credit 
amount shall be the lesser of— 
‘‘(A) 40 percent of the excess of— 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
23:10 Nov 19, 2007
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4159.IH
H4159
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS