datamatters24/research-document-archive huggingface dataset:
HR 3293 RFS 
(4) is in the national interest, as indicated by 
having the potential to achieve— 
(A) increased economic competitiveness in 
the United States; 
(B) advancement of the health and welfare 
of the American public; 
(C) development of an American STEM 
workforce, including computer science and in-
formation technology sectors, that is globally 
competitive; 
(D) increased public scientific literacy and 
public engagement with science and technology 
in the United States; 
(E) increased partnerships between aca-
demia and industry in the United States; 
(F) support for the national defense of the 
United States; or 
(G) promotion of the progress of science 
for the United States. 
(c) WRITTEN
JUSTIFICATION.—Public announce-
ment of each award of Federal funding described in sub-
section (a) shall include a written justification from the 
responsible Foundation official as to how a grant or coop-
erative agreement meets the requirements of subsection 
(b). 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
21:49 Feb 11, 2016
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H3293.RFS
H3293
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
HR 3293 RFS 
(d) IMPLEMENTATION.—A determination under sub-
section (b) shall be made after a research grant or cooper-
ative agreement proposal has satisfied the Foundation’s 
reviews for Merit and Broader Impacts. Nothing in this 
section shall be construed as altering the Foundation’s in-
tellectual merit or broader impacts criteria for evaluating 
grant applications. 
(e) CLARIFICATION.—Nothing in this Act shall be 
construed to impact Federal funding for research grants 
or cooperative agreements awarded by the National 
Science Foundation prior to the date of enactment of this 
Act. 
Passed the House of Representatives February 10, 
2016. 
Attest: 
KAREN L. HAAS, 
Clerk. 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
21:49 Feb 11, 2016
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H3293.RFS
H3293
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
I
105TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 1543
To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to permit certain non-
immigrant aliens to study in publicly funded adult education programs
if the alien provides reimbursement for such study.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
MAY 7, 1997
Mr. DELLUMS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to permit
certain nonimmigrant aliens to study in publicly funded
adult education programs if the alien provides reimburse-
ment for such study.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. NONIMMIGRANT ALIEN STUDY IN PUBLICLY
FUNDED ADULT EDUCATION PROGRAMS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 214(l)(1) of the Immigra-
tion and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(l)(1) (as added
by section 625(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996; Public Law 104–
208; 110 Stat. 3009—1820) is amended—
(1) in subparagraph (A) by striking ‘‘or in a
publicly funded adult education program’’;
(2) in subparagraph (B)—
(A) by inserting ‘‘or in a public adult edu-
cation program’’ after ‘‘secondary school’’; and
(B) by inserting ‘‘or program’’ after
‘‘school’’ each place it appears.
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by
subsection (a) shall take effect as if included in the enact-
ment of section 625 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.
Æ
tion 201, and subject to subsection (a) of this sec-
tion and paragraphs (4) through (6) of this sub-
section, the Secretary of the Treasury shall assess a 
duty, in the amount determined under paragraph 
(3), on a beef safeguard good imported into the 
United States if— 
(A)(i) the good is imported in the first cal-
endar quarter, second calendar quarter, or third 
calendar quarter of a calendar year; and 
(ii) the monthly average index price, in any 
2 calendar months of the preceding calendar 
quarter, is less than the 24-month trigger price; 
or 
(B)(i) the good is imported in the fourth 
calendar quarter of a calendar year; and 
(ii)(I) the monthly average index price, in 
any 2 calendar months of the preceding cal-
endar quarter, is less than the 24-month trigger 
price; or 
(II) the monthly average index price, in 
any of the 4 calendar months preceding Janu-
ary 1 of the succeeding calendar year, is less 
than the 24-month trigger price. 
(3) CALCULATION OF ADDITIONAL DUTY.—The 
additional duty on a beef safeguard good under this
subsection shall be an amount equal to 65 percent 
of the applicable NTR (MFN) rate of duty for that 
good. 
(4) LIMITATION.—An additional duty shall be 
assessed under this subsection on a beef safeguard 
good imported into the United States in a calendar 
year only if, prior to the importation of that good, 
the total quantity of beef safeguard goods imported 
into the United States in that calendar year is equal 
to or greater than the sum of— 
(A) the quantity of goods of Australia eli-
gible to enter the United States in that year 
specified in Additional United States Note 3 to 
Chapter 2 of the HTS; and 
(B)(i) in 2023, 70,420 metric tons; or 
(ii) in 2024, and in each year thereafter, 
a quantity that is 0.6 percent greater than the 
quantity provided for in the preceding year 
under this subparagraph. 
(5) WAIVER.— 
(A) IN
GENERAL.—The United States 
Trade Representative is authorized to waive the 
application of this subsection, if the Trade Rep-
resentative determines that extraordinary mar-
ket conditions demonstrate that the waiver
I
105TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 1544
To prevent Federal agencies from pursuing policies of unjustifiable non-
acquiescence in, and relitigation of, precedents established in the Federal
judicial circuits.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
MAY 7, 1997
Mr. GEKAS (for himself and Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts) introduced the
following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To prevent Federal agencies from pursuing policies of un-
justifiable nonacquiescence in, and relitigation of, prece-
dents established in the Federal judicial circuits.
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 ‘‘Federal Agency Com-
pliance Act’’.
duct litigation, including the Department of Justice acting
under sections 516 and 519 of title 28, United States
Code, shall ensure that the initiation, defense, and con-
tinuation of proceedings in the courts of the United States
within, or subject to the jurisdiction of, a particular judi-
cial circuit avoids unnecessarily repetitive litigation on
questions of law already consistently resolved against the
position of the United States, or an agency or officer
thereof, in precedents established by the United States
courts of appeals for 3 or more other judicial circuits.
‘‘(b) Decisions on whether to initiate, defend, or con-
tinue litigation for purposes of subsection (a) shall take
into account, among other relevant factors, the following:
‘‘(1) The effect of intervening changes in perti-
nent law or the public policy or circumstances on
which the established precedents were based.
‘‘(2) Subsequent decisions of the United States
Supreme Court or the courts of appeals that pre-
viously decided the relevant question of law.
‘‘(3) The extent to which that question of law
was fully and adequately litigated in the cases in
which the precedents were established.
‘‘(4) The need to conserve judicial and other
parties’ resources.
‘‘(c) The Attorney General shall report annually to
the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and the
House of Representatives on the efforts of the Department
of Justice and other agencies to comply with subsection
(a).
‘‘(d) A decision on whether to initiate, defend, or con-
tinue litigation is not subject to review in a court, by man-
damus or otherwise, on the grounds that the decision vio-
lates subsection (a).’’.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections
at the beginning of chapter 7 of title 5, United States
Code, as amended by section 2(b), is amended by adding
at the end of following new item:
‘‘708. Supervision of litigation; limiting unnecessary relitigation of legal issues.’’.
Æ
IIA
105TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION
H. R. 1544
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
FEBRUARY 26, 1998
Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
AN ACT
To prevent Federal agencies from pursuing policies of un-
justifiable nonacquiescence in, and relitigation of, prece-
dents established in the Federal judicial circuits.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
HR 1544 RFS
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Agency Com-
pliance Act’’.
SEC. 
2. 
PROHIBITING 
INTRACIRCUIT 
AGENCY 
NON-
ACQUIESCENCE IN APPELLATE PRECEDENT.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 7 of title 5, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the follow-
ing:
‘‘§ 707. Adherence to court of appeals precedent
‘‘(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), an agency
(as defined in section 701(b)(1) of this title) shall, in ad-
ministering a statute, rule, regulation, program, or policy
within a judicial circuit, adhere to the existing precedent
respecting the interpretation and application of such stat-
ute, rule, regulation, program, or policy, as established by
the decisions of the United States court of appeals for that
circuit. All officers and employees of an agency, including
administrative law judges, shall adhere to such precedent.
‘‘(b) An agency is not precluded under subsection (a)
from taking a position, either in administration or litiga-
tion, that is at variance with precedent established by a
United States court of appeals if—
‘‘(1) it is not certain whether the administra-
tion of the statute, rule, regulation, program, or pol-
icy will be subject to review by the court of appeals
HR 1544 RFS
that established that precedent or a court of appeals
for another circuit;
‘‘(2) the Government did not seek further re-
view of the case in which that precedent was first es-
tablished, in that court of appeals or the United
States Supreme Court, because neither the United
States nor any agency or officer thereof was a party
to the case or because the decision establishing that
precedent was otherwise substantially favorable to
the Government; or
‘‘(3) it is reasonable to question the continued
validity of that precedent in light of a subsequent
decision of that court of appeals or the United
States Supreme Court, a subsequent change in any
pertinent statute or regulation, or any other subse-
quent change in the public policy or circumstances
on which that precedent was based.’’.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections
at the beginning of chapter 7 of title 5, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end of following new
item:
‘‘707. Adherence to court of appeals precedent.’’.
that declassification of information occurs in an effi-
cient, cost-effective, and consistent manner among
all agencies that create or otherwise are in posses-
sion of classified information.
(3) DISPUTES.—If disputes arise among agen-
cies regarding whether information should or should
not be classified, or between the Center and any
agency regarding the Center’s functions under this
section, the heads of the agencies concerned or of
the Center may refer the matter to the President for
resolution of the dispute.
(c) NATIONAL DECLASSIFICATION ADVISORY COM-
MITTEE.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—There is established a 12-
member National Declassification Advisory Commit-
tee. 4 members of the Advisory Committee shall be
appointed by the President and 2 members each
shall be appointed by the majority and minority
leaders of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, and the minority leader of the
House of Representatives.
(2) MEMBERSHIP.—The members of the Advi-
sory Committee shall be appointed from among dis-
tinguished historians, political scientists, archivists,
other social scientists, and other members of the
HR 1544 RFS
SEC. 3. PREVENTING UNNECESSARY AGENCY RELITIGA-
TION IN MULTIPLE CIRCUITS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 7 of title 5, United
States Code, as amended by section 2(a), is amended by
adding at the end the following:
‘‘§ 708. Supervision of litigation; limiting unnecessary
relitigation of legal issues
‘‘(a) In supervising the conduct of litigation, the offi-
cers of any agency of the United States authorized to con-
duct litigation, including the Department of Justice acting
under sections 516 and 519 of title 28, United States
Code, shall ensure that the initiation, defense, and con-
tinuation of proceedings in the courts of the United States
within, or subject to the jurisdiction of, a particular judi-
cial circuit avoids unnecessarily repetitive litigation on
questions of law already consistently resolved against the
position of the United States, or an agency or officer
thereof, in precedents established by the United States
courts of appeals for 3 or more other judicial circuits.
‘‘(b) Decisions on whether to initiate, defend, or con-
tinue litigation for purposes of subsection (a) shall take
into account, among other relevant factors, the following:
‘‘(1) The effect of intervening changes in perti-
nent law or the public policy or circumstances on
which the established precedents were based.
HR 1544 RFS
‘‘(2) Subsequent decisions of the United States
Supreme Court or the courts of appeals that pre-
viously decided the relevant question of law.
‘‘(3) The extent to which that question of law
was fully and adequately litigated in the cases in
which the precedents were established.
‘‘(4) The need to conserve judicial and other
parties’ resources.
‘‘(c) The Attorney General shall report annually to
the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and the
House of Representatives on the efforts of the Department
of Justice and other agencies to comply with subsection
(a).
‘‘(d) A decision on whether to initiate, defend, or con-
tinue litigation is not subject to review in a court, by man-
damus or otherwise, on the grounds that the decision vio-
lates subsection (a).’’.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections
at the beginning of chapter 7 of title 5, United States
Code, as amended by section 2(b), is amended by adding
at the end of following new item:
‘‘708. Supervision of litigation; limiting unnecessary relitigation of legal issues.’’.
Passed the House of Representatives February 25,
1998.
Attest:
ROBIN H. CARLE,
Clerk.
this title during the performance period for a 
payment year (and had not previously sub-
mitted claims under this title as such a provider 
under a different billing number or tax identi-
fier), such provider shall not be treated under 
this subsection as a PAC provider until the sub-
sequent payment year and performance period 
for such subsequent payment year. 
‘‘(D) PAYMENT YEAR DEFINED.—In this 
subsection, the term ‘payment year’ means— 
‘‘(i) for PAC providers described in 
clause (i) of subsection (a)(2)(A) (relating 
to home health agencies), a calendar year; 
and 
‘‘(ii) for all other PAC providers, a 
fiscal year. 
‘‘(E) TYPE
OF
PROVIDER
DEFINED.—In 
this subsection, the term ‘provider type’ means, 
with respect to PAC providers, each of the 
types of PAC providers described in a clause in 
subsection (a)(2)(A). 
‘‘(2) APPLICATION OF MEASURE.— 
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Under the PAC VBP 
Program, the Secretary shall apply the resource 
use 
measure 
specified 
under 
subsection 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
22:46 Aug 03, 2015
Jkt 049200
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H3298.IH
H3298
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
I 
114TH CONGRESS 
1ST SESSION H. R. 3296 
To clarify that the oath of allegiance to the United States administered 
in the naturalization process may not be altered. 
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
JULY 29, 2015 
Mrs. BLACK (for herself, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. BARLETTA, Mr. DUN-
CAN of Tennessee, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. FINCHER, Mr. FLEISCHMANN, Mr. 
DONOVAN, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. OLSON, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. 
BABIN, Mr. PEARCE, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Ms. JENKINS of Kansas, Mr. 
SALMON, Mr. CONAWAY, Mr. HARPER, Mr. LAMALFA, Mr. YOUNG of 
Alaska, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. CURBELO of Florida, Mr. ROUZER, Mr. COL-
LINS of Georgia, Mr. POE of Texas, and Mr. NUGENT) introduced the 
following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 
A BILL 
To clarify that the oath of allegiance to the United States 
administered in the naturalization process may not be 
altered. 
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 ‘‘Restore the Oath of 
Allegiance Act’’. 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
22:45 Aug 03, 2015
Jkt 049200
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H3296.IH
H3296
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
SEC. 2. OATH OF ALLEGIANCE. 
Beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the 
oath taken under section 337 of the Immigration and Na-
tionality Act (8 U.S.C. 1448) shall be the same formula-
tion and shall be subject to the same potential omissions 
or alterations from such formulation, as the formulation 
of such oath administered on July 20, 2015. 
Æ 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
22:45 Aug 03, 2015
Jkt 049200
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6301
E:\BILLS\H3296.IH
H3296
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
I
105TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 1545
To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 to eliminate the nu-
merical limitations relating to cancellations of removal and suspensions
of deportation.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
MAY 7, 1997
Mr. GUTIERREZ introduced the following bill; which was referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act and the
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibil-
ity Act of 1996 to eliminate the numerical limitations
relating to cancellations of removal and suspensions of
deportation.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF NUMERICAL LIMITATIONS RE-
LATING TO CANCELLATIONS OF REMOVAL
AND SUSPENSIONS OF DEPORTATION.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 240A of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1229b) (as inserted by sec-
tion 304 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immi-
grant Responsibility Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–208;
110 Stat. 3009–594)) is amended—
(1) in subsection (b)(3), by striking the second
sentence; and
(2) by striking subsection (e).
(b) TRANSITION.—Section 309(c) of the Illegal Immi-
gration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
(Public Law 104–208; 110 Stat. 3009–627)) is amended
by striking paragraph (7).
Æ
I
105TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 1548
To suspend until January 1, 2001, the duty on Diiodomethyl-p-tolylsulfone.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
MAY 7, 1997
Mr. PORTER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the
Committee on Ways and Means
A BILL
To suspend until January 1, 2001, the duty on
Diiodomethyl-p-tolylsulfone.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON DIIODOMETHYL-P-
TOLYLSULFONE.
Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tar-
iff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting
in numerical sequence the following new item:
‘‘
9902.32.90
Diiodomethyl-p-
tolylsulfone (CAS
No. 20018–09–1)
(provided for in
subheading
2930.90.10) ........
Free
No change
No change
On or before
12/31/2000
’’.
SEC. APPLICABILITY.
The amendment made by section 1 applies with re-
spect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
Æ
human drug application that is the subject of a pri-
ority review voucher shall pay to the Secretary a fee 
determined under paragraph (2). Such fee shall be in 
addition to any fee required to be submitted by the 
sponsor under chapter VII. 
‘‘(2) FEE AMOUNT.—The amount of the priority 
review user fee shall be determined each fiscal year by 
the Secretary and based on the average cost incurred 
by the agency in the review of a human drug applica-
tion subject to priority review in the previous fiscal 
year. 
‘‘(3) ANNUAL FEE SETTING.—The Secretary shall 
establish, before the beginning of each fiscal year be-
ginning after September 30, 2016, for that fiscal year, 
the amount of the priority review user fee. 
‘‘(4) PAYMENT.— 
‘‘(A) IN
GENERAL.—The priority review 
user fee required by this subsection shall be due 
upon the notification by a sponsor of the intent 
of such sponsor to use the voucher, as specified 
in subsection (b)(3)(A). All other user fees associ-
ated with the human drug application shall be 
due as required by the Secretary or under appli-
cable law. 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
22:23 Sep 09, 2016
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6203
E:\BILLS\H3299.RH
H3299
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS
114TH CONGRESS 
2D SESSION 
H. R. 329 
AN ACT 
To amend the Indian Employment, Training and Related 
Services Demonstration Act of 1992 to facilitate the 
ability of Indian tribes to integrate the employment, 
training, and related services from diverse Federal 
sources, and for other purposes. 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,