datamatters24/research-document-archive huggingface dataset:
paragraphs (C) and (D) as subparagraphs (D) and (E),
respectively, and by inserting after subparagraph (B) the
following new subparagraph:
‘‘(C) for foods for special dietary use, die-
tary supplements (as defined in section 201 of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act),
and medical foods,’’.
(b) SPECIAL
RULE
FOR
INSURANCE
COVERING
FOODS FOR SPECIAL DIETARY USE, DIETARY SUPPLE-
MENTS, AND MEDICAL FOODS.—Subsection (d) of section
213 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
medical, dental, etc., expenses) is amended by adding at
the end the following new paragraph:
‘‘(12) SPECIAL
RULE
FOR
INSURANCE
COV-
ERING FOODS FOR SPECIAL DIETARY USE, DIETARY
SUPPLEMENTS, 
AND
MEDICAL
FOODS.—Amounts
paid for insurance covering foods and supplements
referred to in paragraph (1)(C) shall be treated as
described in paragraph (1)(E) only if such foods and
supplements comply with applicable good manufac-
turing practices prescribed by the Food and Drug
Administration or with other comparable stand-
ards.’’.
(c) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—
I
107TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 3474
To amend the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Textile Fiber
Products Identification Act to require that labeling required under those
Acts identify products processed or manufactured in a territory of the
United States.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
DECEMBER 12, 2001
Mr. SMITH of Washington introduced the following bill; which was referred to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce
A BILL
To amend the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and
the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act to require
that labeling required under those Acts identify products
processed or manufactured in a territory of the United
States.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘United States Terri-
tories Truth in Labelling Act of 2001’’.
SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT THAT LABELS INDENTIFY WOOL
AND TEXTILE FIBER PRODUCTS PROCESSED
OR MANUFACTURED IN TERRITORIES OF THE
UNITED STATES.
(a) WOOL PRODUCTS.—Section 4(a)(2) of the Wool
Products Labeling Act of 1939 (15 U.S.C. 68b(A)(2)) is
amended by adding after subparagraph (D) the following:
‘‘(E) the full name of the Territory where
processed or manufactured.’’.
(b) TEXTILE FIBER PRODUCTS.—Section 4(b) of the
Textile Fiber Products Identification Act (15 U.S.C.
70b(b)) is amended by adding after paragraph (5) the fol-
lowing:
‘‘(6) If it is a textile fiber product processed or
manufactured in a Territory, it be so identified with
the full name of such Territory.’’.
(c) APPLICATION.—The amendments made by sub-
sections (a) and (b) shall apply after the expiration of the
120-day period that begins on the date of the enactment
of this Act.
Æ
I
107TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 3475
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that amounts
paid for foods for special dietary use, dietary supplements, or medical
foods shall be treated as medical expenses.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
DECEMBER 12, 2001
Mr. BURTON of Indiana (for himself, Mr. PALLONE, Mr. CANNON, Mr.
ISTOOK, Mr. PAUL, and Mr. HORN) introduced the following bill; which
was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means
A BILL
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
that amounts paid for foods for special dietary use, die-
tary supplements, or medical foods shall be treated as
medical expenses.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act shall be known as the ‘‘Dietary Supplement
Tax Fairness Act of 2001’’.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds that—
(1) the inclusion of foods for special dietary
use, dietary supplements, and medical foods in the
deduction for medical expenses does not subject such
items to regulation as drugs,
(2) the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 treats
such items as allowable for the medical expense de-
duction, but only if such items are prescribed drugs,
(3) such items have been shown through re-
search and historical use to be a valuable benefit to
human health, in particular disease prevention and
overall good health, and
(4) children with inborn errors of metabolism,
metabolic disorders, and autism, and all individuals
with diabetes, autoimmune disorders, and chronic in-
flammatory conditions, frequently require daily die-
tary interventions as well as medical interventions to
manage their conditions and such dietary interven-
tions often become a significant economic burden on
such individuals.
SEC. 3. AMOUNTS PAID FOR FOODS FOR SPECIAL DIETARY
USE, DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS, OR MEDICAL
FOODS TREATED AS MEDICAL EXPENSES.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 213(d)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to medical,
dental, etc., expenses) is amended by redesignating sub-
(B) The Administrator shall make the deter-
mination described in subparagraph (A)—
(i) using, to the extent practicable, the pro-
cedures specified in part 150 of title 14, Code
of Federal Regulations;
(ii) using the same method for calendar
year 2000 and for each forecast year; and
(iii) by determining noise impact solely in
terms of the aggregate number of square miles
and the aggregate number of single-family
houses and schools exposed to 65 or greater
decibels using the DNL metric, including only
single-family houses and schools in existence on
the last day of calendar year 2000. The Admin-
istrator shall make such determination based on
information provided by the city of Chicago,
which shall be independently verified by the Ad-
ministrator.
(C) The conditions described in this subsection
shall be enforceable exclusively through the submis-
sion and approval of a noise compatibility plan
under part 150 of title 14, Code of Federal Regula-
tions. The noise compatibility plan submitted by the
city of Chicago shall provide for compliance with this
subsection. The Administrator shall approve meas-
(1) Subparagraph (E) of section 213(d)(1) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as redesignated
by subsection (a), is amended by striking ‘‘subpara-
graphs (A) and (B)’’ and inserting ‘‘subparagraphs
(A), (B), and (C)’’.
(2) The last sentence of section 213(d)(1) of
such Code is amended by striking ‘‘subparagraph
(D)’’ and inserting ‘‘subparagraph (E)’’.
(3) Paragraph (6) of section 213(d) of such
Code is amended—
(A) by striking ‘‘and (C)’’ and inserting
‘‘(C), and (D)’’, and
(B) by striking ‘‘paragraph (1)(D)’’ in
subparagraph (A) and inserting ‘‘paragraph
(1)(E)’’.
(4) Paragraph (7) of section 213(d) of such
Code is amended by striking ‘‘and (C)’’ and insert-
ing ‘‘(C), and (D)’’.
(5) 
Sections 
72(t)(2)(D)(i)(III) 
and
7702B(a)(4) of such Code are each amended by
striking ‘‘section 213(d)(1)(D)’’ and inserting ‘‘sec-
tion 213(d)(1)(E)’’.
(d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by
this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
Æ
I
107TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 3476
To protect certain lands held in fee by the Pechanga Band of Luiseno
Mission Indians from condemnation until a final decision is made by
the Secretary of the Interior regarding a pending fee to trust application
for that land, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
DECEMBER 13, 2001
Mr. ISSA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee
on Resources
A BILL
To protect certain lands held in fee by the Pechanga Band
of Luiseno Mission Indians from condemnation until a
final decision is made by the Secretary of the Interior
regarding a pending fee to trust application for that
land, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. LAND OF PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO MIS-
SION INDIANS.
(a) LIMITATION ON CONVEYANCE.—Land described
in subsection (b) (or any interest in that land) shall not
be voluntarily or involuntarily transferred or otherwise
made available for condemnation until the date on
which—
(1)(A) the Secretary of the Interior renders a
final decision on the fee to trust application pending
on the date of the enactment of this Act concerning
the land; and
(B) final decisions have been rendered regard-
ing all appeals relating to that application decision;
or
(2) the fee to trust application described in
paragraph (1)(A) is withdrawn.
(b) DESCRIPTION OF LAND.—The land referred to in
subsection (a) is land located in Riverside County, Cali-
fornia, that is held in fee by the Pechanga Band of
Luiseno Mission Indians, as described in Document No.
211130 of the Office of the Recorder, Riverside County,
California, and recorded on May 15, 2001.
(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this sec-
tion designates, or shall be used to construe, any land de-
scribed in subsection (b) (or any interest in that land) as
an Indian reservation, Indian country, Indian land, or res-
ervation land (as those terms are defined under any Fed-
eral law (including a regulation)) for any purpose under
any Federal law.
Æ
IB 
Union Calendar No. 439
107TH CONGRESS 
2D SESSION 
H. R. 3476
[Report No. 107–708] 
To protect certain lands held in fee by the Pechanga Band of Luiseno 
Mission Indians from condemnation until a final decision is made by 
the Secretary of the Interior regarding a pending fee to trust application 
for that land, and for other purposes. 
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
DECEMBER 13, 2001
Mr. ISSA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 
on Resources 
OCTOBER 1, 2002
Additional sponsors: Mrs. BONO, Mr. CALVERT, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Mr. 
KILDEE, and Mr. BACA 
OCTOBER 1, 2002
Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
and ordered to be printed 
A BILL 
To protect certain lands held in fee by the Pechanga Band 
of Luiseno Mission Indians from condemnation until a 
final decision is made by the Secretary of the Interior 
regarding a pending fee to trust application for that 
land, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. LAND OF PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO MIS-
SION INDIANS. 
(a) LIMITATION ON CONVEYANCE.—Land described 
in subsection (b) (or any interest in that land) shall not 
be voluntarily or involuntarily transferred or otherwise 
made available for condemnation until the date on 
which—
(1)(A) the Secretary of the Interior renders a 
final decision on the fee to trust application pending 
on the date of the enactment of this Act concerning 
the land; and 
(B) final decisions have been rendered regard-
ing all appeals relating to that application decision; 
or 
(2) the fee to trust application described in 
paragraph (1)(A) is withdrawn. 
(b) DESCRIPTION OF LAND.—The land referred to in 
subsection (a) is land located in Riverside County, Cali-
fornia, that is held in fee by the Pechanga Band of 
Luiseno Mission Indians, as described in Document No. 
211130 of the Office of the Recorder, Riverside County, 
California, and recorded on May 15, 2001.
(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this sec-
tion designates, or shall be used to construe, any land de-
scribed in subsection (b) (or any interest in that land) as 
an Indian reservation, Indian country, Indian land, or res-
ervation land (as those terms are defined under any Fed-
eral law (including a regulation)) for any purpose under 
any Federal law.
Union Calendar No. 439
107TH CONGRESS 
2D SESSION 
H. R. 3476
[Report No. 107–708] 
A BILL 
To protect certain lands held in fee by the 
Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians from 
condemnation until a final decision is made by 
the Secretary of the Interior regarding a pending 
fee to trust application for that land, and for 
other purposes. 
OCTOBER 1, 2002
Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
I
107TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 3477
To amend the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 to permit States
to use administrative funds to pay costs relating to the processing,
transporting, and distributing to eligible recipient agencies of donated
wild game.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
DECEMBER 13, 2001
Mr. PHELPS (for himself, Mr. THOMPSON of California, Mr. HAYES, Mr.
PICKERING, Mr. SHOWS, Mr. BOSWELL, Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin, and
Mr. BOYD) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Com-
mittee on Agriculture
A BILL
To amend the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 to
permit States to use administrative funds to pay costs
relating to the processing, transporting, and distributing
to eligible recipient agencies of donated wild game.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Hunters Help the
Hungry Act of 2001’’.
SEC. 2. USE OF ADMINISTRATIVE FUNDS FOR DONATED
WILD GAME.
Section 204(a)(1) of the Emergency Food Assistance
Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 7508(a)(1)) is amended in the first
sentence—
(1) by striking ‘‘$50,000,000’’ and inserting
‘‘$70,000,000’’; and
(2) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ‘‘(including donated wild game, using not
more than a percentage established by the Secretary
(by regulation) of funds appropriated for a fiscal
year)’’.
Æ
I
107TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 3478
To redesignate the position of the Secretary of the Navy as the Secretary
of the Navy and Marine Corps.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
DECEMBER 13, 2001
Mr. JONES of North Carolina (for himself, Mr. GUTKNECHT, Mr. MURTHA,
Mr. GILCHREST, Mr. EVANS, Mr. HOUGHTON, Mr. UNDERWOOD, Mr.
HANSEN, Mr. TRAFICANT, Mr. NORWOOD, Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. GIBBONS,
Mr. HALL of Texas, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mr. HOSTETTLER, Mr. ABER-
CROMBIE, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. WELDON of
Pennsylvania, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. DELAY, Mr. COOKSEY, Mr.
HAYWORTH, Mr. SPRATT, Mr. PICKERING, and Mr. OTTER) introduced
the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Serv-
ices
A BILL
To redesignate the position of the Secretary of the Navy
as the Secretary of the Navy and Marine Corps.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) On November 10, 1775, the Continental
Congress meeting in Philadelphia passed a resolu-
tion directing that ‘‘two Battalions of Marines be
HR 3479 PCS
cago is authorized to submit directly to the Federal Avia-
tion Administration without the approval of the State of
Illinois, applications for Federal airport improvement pro-
gram funding for planning and construction of a project
shown on an O’Hare airport layout plan directly related
to the agreement reached on December 5, 2001, and to
accept, receive, and disburse such funds without the ap-
proval of the State of Illinois.
(c) LIMITATION.—If the Federal Aviation Adminis-
tration determines that an O’Hare airport layout plan di-
rectly related to the agreement reached on December 5,
2001, will not be approved by the Administration, sub-
sections (a) and (b) of this section shall expire and be of
no further effect on the date of such determination.
(d) WESTERN PUBLIC ROADWAY ACCESS.—As pro-
vided in the December 5, 2001, agreement referred to in
subsection (a), the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration shall not consider an airport layout plan
submitted by the city of Chicago that includes the runway
redesign plan, unless the airport layout plan includes pub-
lic roadway access through the existing western boundary
of O’Hare to passenger terminal and parking facilities lo-
cated inside the boundary of O’Hare and reasonably acces-
sible to such western access. Approval of western public
roadway access shall be subject to the condition that the
raised’’ for service as landing forces with the fleet,
thereby establishing the Continental Marines and
signifying the birth of the United States Marine
Corps.
(2) The Marines throughout the Nation’s his-
tory have often been called upon to be the first into
battle and have accepted this duty without hesitation
and with a sense of honor and esprit de corps that
is second to none.
(3) Marine Corps units constitute approxi-
mately 20 percent of the United States military’s ac-
tive ground maneuver battalions, 20 percent of the
active fighter/attack squadrons, 17 percent of the at-
tack helicopters, and nearly one third of the ground
combat service support in the active forces.
(4) Throughout the 226-year history of the
Navy and Marine Corps, they have fought side by
side as a cohesive team against any interests that
would do the Nation harm.
(5) The Marine Corps is the only service in the
Department of Defense without a specific service
Secretary.
(6) The Secretary of the Navy serves as both
the Secretary of the Navy and Secretary of the Ma-
rine Corps.
SEC. 2. CHANGE IN TITLE OF SECRETARY OF THE NAVY.
(a) CHANGE IN TITLE.—The position of the Sec-
retary of the Navy is hereby redesignated as the Secretary
of the Navy and Marine Corps.
(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference to the Secretary of
the Navy in any law, regulation, document, record, or
other paper of the United States shall be considered to
be a reference to the Secretary of the Navy and Marine
Corps.
Æ
107TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION
H. R. 3479
AN ACT
To expand aviation capacity.
107TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION
H. R. 3479
AN ACT
To expand aviation capacity.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
TITLE I—NATIONAL AVIATION
CAPACITY EXPANSION
SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ‘‘National Aviation Ca-
pacity Expansion Act of 2002’’.
SEC. 102. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) O’Hare International Airport consistently
ranks as the Nation’s first or second busiest airport
with 
nearly 
34,000,000 
annual 
passengers
enplanements, almost all of whom travel in inter-
state or foreign commerce. The Federal Aviation Ad-
ministration’s most recent data, compiled in the Air-
port Capacity Benchmark Report 2001, projects de-
mand at O’Hare to grow by 18 percent over the next
decade. O’Hare handles 72,100,000 passengers an-
nually, compared with 64,600,000 at London
Heathrow International Airport, Europe’s busiest
airport, and 36,700,000 at Kimpo International Air-
port, Korea’s busiest airport, 7,400,000 at Narita
International Airport, Japan’s busiest airport,
23,700,000 at Kingsford-Smith International Air-
port, Australia’s busiest airport, and 6,200,000 at
Ezeiza International Airport, Argentina’s busiest
airport, as well as South America’s busiest airport.
(2) The Airport Capacity Benchmark Report
2001 ranks O’Hare as the third most delayed air-
port in the United States. Overall, slightly more
than 6 percent of all flights at O’Hare are delayed
significantly (more than 15 minutes). On good
weather days, scheduled traffic is at or above capac-
ity for 31⁄2 hours of the day with about 2 percent
of flights at O’Hare delayed significantly. In adverse
weather, capacity is lower and scheduled traffic ex-
ceeds capacity for 8 hours of the day, with about 12
percent of the flights delayed.
(3) The city of Chicago, Illinois, which owns
and operates O’Hare, has been unable to pursue
projects to increase the operating capability of
O’Hare runways and thereby reduce delays because
the city of Chicago and the State of Illinois have
been unable for more than 20 years to agree on a
plan for runway reconfiguration and development.
State law states that such projects at O’Hare re-
quire State approval.
(4) On December 5, 2001, the Governor of Illi-
nois and the Mayor of Chicago reached an agree-
ment to allow the city to go forward with a proposed
capacity enhancement project for O’Hare which in-
travel to our national economy, and the importance
of O’Hare to national air transportation, it is critical
that the Federal Government does all it can to facili-
tate redesign of O’Hare and the development of an
additional air carrier airport located near Peotone,
Illinois.
(4) The Governor of Illinois and the Mayor of
Chicago have determined that redesign of O’Hare
and the development of an additional air carrier air-
port located near Peotone, Illinois, as described in
this Act, are each necessary and desirable to provide
reliable and efficient air commerce.
(5) On December 5, 2001, the Governor of Illi-
nois and the Mayor of Chicago entered into an his-
toric agreement that would modernize O’Hare Inter-
national Airport, by providing for—
(A) east-west parallel runways;
(B) construction of a south suburban air-
port near Peotone;
(C) addressing traffic congestion along the
Northwest Corridor, including western airport
access;
(D) continuation of the operation of Chi-
cago Meigs Field; and
HR 3479 PCS
agency to conduct further proceedings. After reasonable
notice to the Secretary or the head of such other agency,
the court may grant interim relief by staying the order
or taking other appropriate action when good cause for
its action exists. Findings of fact by the Secretary or the
head of such other agency are conclusive if supported by
substantial evidence.
‘‘(d) REQUIREMENT FOR PRIOR OBJECTION.—In re-
viewing an order of the Secretary or the head of any other
Federal agency under this section, the court may consider
an objection to the action of the Secretary or the head
of such other agency only if the objection was made in
the proceeding conducted by the Secretary or the head of
such other agency or if there was a reasonable ground for
not making the objection in the proceeding.
‘‘(e) SUPREME COURT REVIEW.—A decision by a
court under this section may be reviewed only by the Su-
preme Court under section 1254 of title 28.
‘‘(f) ORDER DEFINED.—In this section, the term
‘order’ includes a record of decision or a finding of no sig-
nificant impact.
‘‘§ 47178. Definitions
‘‘In this subchapter, the following definitions apply:
‘‘47172. Categorical exclusions.
‘‘47173. Access restrictions to ease construction.
‘‘47174. Airport revenue to pay for mitigation.
‘‘47175. Airport funding of FAA staff.
‘‘47176. Authorization of appropriations.
‘‘47177. Judicial review.
‘‘47178. Definitions.’’.
SEC. 205. GOVERNOR’S CERTIFICATE.
Section 47106(c) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended—
(1) in paragraph (1)—
(A) by inserting ‘‘and’’ after the semicolon
at the end of subparagraph (A)(ii);
(B) by striking subparagraph (B); and
(C) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as
subparagraph (B);
(2) in paragraph (2)(A) by striking ‘‘stage 2’’
and inserting ‘‘stage 3’’;
(3) by striking paragraph (4); and
(4) by redesignating paragraph (5) as para-
graph (4).
SEC. 206. CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN AIRPORT CAPACITY
PROJECTS.
Section 47504(c)(2) of title 49, United States Code,
is amended—
(1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of subpara-
graph (C);
(2) by striking the period at the end of sub-
paragraph (D) and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(E) to an airport operator of a congested
airport (as defined in section 47178) and a unit
of local government referred to in paragraph
(1)(A) or (1)(B) of this subsection to carry out
a project to mitigate noise in the area sur-
rounding the airport if the project is included
as a commitment in a record of decision of the
Federal Aviation Administration for an airport
capacity enhancement project (as defined in
section 47178) even if that airport has not met
the requirements of part 150 of title 14, Code
of Federal Regulations.’’.
SEC. 207. LIMITATIONS.
Nothing in this Act, including any amendment made
by this Act, shall preempt or interfere with—
(1) any practice of seeking public comment; and
(2) any power, jurisdiction, or authority of a
State agency or an airport sponsor has with respect
to carrying out an airport capacity enhancement
project.
Passed the House of Representatives July 23, 2002.
Attest:
Clerk.