I 
110TH CONGRESS 
1ST SESSION 
H. R. 493 
To prohibit discrimination on the basis of genetic information with respect 
to health insurance and employment. 
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
JANUARY 16, 2007 
Ms. SLAUGHTER (for herself, Mrs. BIGGERT, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. WALDEN of Or-
egon, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Mr. DINGELL, Mr. RANGEL, 
Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. BACHUS, Mr. BAKER, 
Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mrs. 
BLACKBURN, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mrs. BONO, Mr. BOUSTANY, Mr. 
BROWN of South Carolina, Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida, Mr. 
BURTON of Indiana, Mr. CALVERT, Mrs. CAPITO, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. 
CAPUANO, Mr. CASTLE, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. CHANDLER, Mr. COLE of 
Oklahoma, Mr. CONAWAY, Mr. CONYERS, Mrs. DAVIS of California, Mr. 
TOM DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky, Ms. DEGETTE, Mr. 
DICKS, Mr. DOGGETT, Mrs. DRAKE, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. EHLERS, Mr. 
EMANUEL, Mrs. EMERSON, Mr. ENGEL, Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania, 
Mr. FARR, Mr. FERGUSON, Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN, Mr. GALLEGLY, Mr. 
GERLACH, Mr. GILCHREST, Mr. GILLMOR, Mr. GOHMERT, Ms. GRANGER, 
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. HALL of Texas, Mr. 
HASTINGS of Washington, Mr. HERGER, Ms. HERSETH, Mr. HINOJOSA, 
Ms. HIRONO, Mr. HOBSON, Mr. HOEKSTRA, Ms. HOOLEY, Mr. HUNTER, 
Mr. ISRAEL, Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr. 
KANJORSKI, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. KILDEE, Mr. KING of New York, Mr. 
KIRK, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. KUHL of New York, Mr. LAHOOD, Mr. 
LATHAM, Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky, Mr. LIPINSKI, Mr. LOBIONDO, Ms. 
ZOE LOFGREN of California, Mr. LUCAS, Mrs. MALONEY of New York, 
Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. MARCHANT, Mr. MCCAUL of Texas, Ms. MCCOLLUM 
of Minnesota, Mr. MCCOTTER, Mr. MCHUGH, Mr. MCNULTY, Mr. MICA, 
Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. NEUGEBAUER, Mr. NOR-
WOOD, Mr. OLVER, Mr. PEARCE, Mr. PITTS, Mr. PLATTS, Mr. PORTER, 
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina, Ms. PRYCE of Ohio, Mr. PUTNAM, Mr. 
RAMSTAD, Mr. REGULA, Mr. REICHERT, Mr. REYNOLDS, Mr. ROSKAM, 
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. RYAN
of Wisconsin, Mr. SAXTON, Ms. 
SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. SCHIFF, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. SHAYS, Mr. SIMPSON, 
Ms. SOLIS, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. STARK, Mr. THOMPSON of California, Mr. 
TIBERI, Mr. TIERNEY, Mr. UDALL of New Mexico, Mr. UPTON, Mr. VAN 
HOLLEN, Mr. WALSH of New York, Mr. WAMP, Ms. WATSON, Mr. WAX-
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
22:31 Jan 17, 2007
Jkt 059196
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6652
E:\BILLS\H493.IH
H493
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
MAN, Mr. WELLER of Illinois, Mr. WEXLER, Mr. WHITFIELD, Mr. WICK-
ER, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. WOLF, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. 
YARMUTH, Mr. YOUNG of Florida, Mr. CROWLEY, Mr. HOLT, Mr. 
JINDAL, Mr. LATOURETTE, and Mr. TANCREDO) introduced the following 
bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor, and 
in addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and 
Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 
each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdic-
tion of the committee concerned 
A BILL 
To prohibit discrimination on the basis of genetic information 
with respect to health insurance and employment. 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the 
‘‘Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2007’’. 
(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents of 
this Act is as follows: 
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. 
Sec. 2. Findings. 
TITLE I—GENETIC NONDISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH INSURANCE 
Sec. 101. Amendments to Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. 
Sec. 102. Amendments to the Public Health Service Act. 
Sec. 103. Amendments to title XVIII of the Social Security Act relating to 
medigap. 
Sec. 104. Privacy and confidentiality. 
Sec. 105. Assuring coordination. 
Sec. 106. Regulations; effective date. 
TITLE II—PROHIBITING EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ON THE 
BASIS OF GENETIC INFORMATION 
Sec. 201. Definitions. 
Sec. 202. Employer practices. 
Sec. 203. Employment agency practices. 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
22:31 Jan 17, 2007
Jkt 059196
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6211
E:\BILLS\H493.IH
H493
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
Sec. 204. Labor organization practices. 
Sec. 205. Training programs. 
Sec. 206. Confidentiality of genetic information. 
Sec. 207. Remedies and enforcement. 
Sec. 208. Disparate impact. 
Sec. 209. Construction. 
Sec. 210. Medical information that is not genetic information. 
Sec. 211. Regulations. 
Sec. 212. Authorization of appropriations. 
Sec. 213. Effective date. 
TITLE III—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISION 
Sec. 301. Severability. 
SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 
Congress makes the following findings: 
(1) Deciphering the sequence of the human ge-
nome and other advances in genetics open major 
new opportunities for medical progress. New knowl-
edge about the genetic basis of illness will allow for 
earlier detection of illnesses, often before symptoms 
have begun. Genetic testing can allow individuals to 
take steps to reduce the likelihood that they will con-
tract a particular disorder. New knowledge about ge-
netics may allow for the development of better thera-
pies that are more effective against disease or have 
fewer side effects than current treatments. These 
advances give rise to the potential misuse of genetic 
information to discriminate in health insurance and 
employment. 
(2) The early science of genetics became the 
basis of State laws that provided for the sterilization 
of persons having presumed genetic ‘‘defects’’ such 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
22:31 Jan 17, 2007
Jkt 059196
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H493.IH
H493
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
as mental retardation, mental disease, epilepsy, 
blindness, and hearing loss, among other conditions. 
The first sterilization law was enacted in the State 
of Indiana in 1907. By 1981, a majority of States 
adopted sterilization laws to ‘‘correct’’ apparent ge-
netic traits or tendencies. Many of these State laws 
have since been repealed, and many have been modi-
fied to include essential constitutional requirements 
of due process and equal protection. However, the 
current explosion in the science of genetics, and the 
history of sterilization laws by the States based on 
early genetic science, compels Congressional action 
in this area. 
(3) Although genes are facially neutral markers, 
many genetic conditions and disorders are associated 
with particular racial and ethnic groups and gender. 
Because some genetic traits are most prevalent in 
particular groups, members of a particular group 
may be stigmatized or discriminated against as a re-
sult of that genetic information. This form of dis-
crimination was evident in the 1970s, which saw the 
advent of programs to screen and identify carriers of 
sickle cell anemia, a disease which afflicts African- 
Americans. Once again, State legislatures began to 
enact discriminatory laws in the area, and in the 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
22:31 Jan 17, 2007
Jkt 059196
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H493.IH
H493
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
early 1970s began mandating genetic screening of 
all African Americans for sickle cell anemia, leading 
to discrimination and unnecessary fear. To alleviate 
some of this stigma, Congress in 1972 passed the 
National Sickle Cell Anemia Control Act, which 
withholds Federal funding from States unless sickle 
cell testing is voluntary. 
(4) Congress has been informed of examples of 
genetic discrimination in the workplace. These in-
clude the use of pre-employment genetic screening at 
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, which led to a court 
decision in favor of the employees in that case Nor-
man-Bloodsaw v. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory 
(135 F.3d 1260, 1269 (9th Cir. 1998)). Congress 
clearly has a compelling public interest in relieving 
the fear of discrimination and in prohibiting its ac-
tual practice in employment and health insurance. 
(5) Federal law addressing genetic discrimina-
tion in health insurance and employment is incom-
plete in both the scope and depth of its protections. 
Moreover, while many States have enacted some type 
of genetic non-discrimination law, these laws vary 
widely with respect to their approach, application, 
and level of protection. Congress has collected sub-
stantial evidence that the American public and the 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
03:03 Jan 18, 2007
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H493.IH
H493
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
medical community find the existing patchwork of 
State and Federal laws to be confusing and inad-
equate to protect them from discrimination. There-
fore Federal legislation establishing a national and 
uniform basic standard is necessary to fully protect 
the public from discrimination and allay their con-
cerns about the potential for discrimination, thereby 
allowing individuals to take advantage of genetic 
testing, technologies, research, and new therapies. 
TITLE 
I—GENETIC 
NON-
DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH 
INSURANCE 
SEC. 101. AMENDMENTS TO EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT IN-
COME SECURITY ACT OF 1974. 
(a) PROHIBITION OF HEALTH DISCRIMINATION ON 
THE BASIS
OF GENETIC INFORMATION
OR GENETIC 
SERVICES.— 
(1) NO
ENROLLMENT
RESTRICTION
FOR
GE-
NETIC SERVICES.—Section 702(a)(1)(F) of the Em-
ployee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 
U.S.C. 1182(a)(1)(F)) is amended by inserting be-
fore the period the following: ‘‘(including informa-
tion about a request for or receipt of genetic services 
by an individual or family member of such indi-
vidual)’’. 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
22:31 Jan 17, 2007
Jkt 059196
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H493.IH
H493
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
(2) NO DISCRIMINATION IN GROUP PREMIUMS 
BASED ON GENETIC INFORMATION.—Section 702(b) 
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 
1974 (29 U.S.C. 1182(b)) is amended— 
(A) in paragraph (2)(A), by inserting be-
fore the semicolon the following: ‘‘except as pro-
vided in paragraph (3)’’; and 
(B) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(3) NO DISCRIMINATION IN GROUP PREMIUMS 
BASED ON GENETIC INFORMATION.—For purposes 
of this section, a group health plan, or a health in-
surance issuer offering group health insurance cov-
erage in connection with a group health plan, shall 
not adjust premium or contribution amounts for a 
group on the basis of genetic information concerning 
an individual in the group or a family member of the 
individual (including information about a request for 
or receipt of genetic services by an individual or 
family member of such individual).’’. 
(b) LIMITATIONS
ON GENETIC TESTING.—Section 
702 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 
1974 (29 U.S.C. 1182) is amended by adding at the end 
the following: 
‘‘(c) GENETIC TESTING.— 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
22:31 Jan 17, 2007
Jkt 059196
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H493.IH
H493
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
‘‘(1) LIMITATION ON REQUESTING OR REQUIR-
ING GENETIC TESTING.—A group health plan, or a 
health insurance issuer offering health insurance 
coverage in connection with a group health plan, 
shall not request or require an individual or a family 
member of such individual to undergo a genetic test. 
‘‘(2) RULE
OF
CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in 
this part shall be construed to— 
‘‘(A) limit the authority of a health care 
professional who is providing health care serv-
ices with respect to an individual to request 
that such individual or a family member of such 
individual undergo a genetic test; 
‘‘(B) limit the authority of a health care 
professional who is employed by or affiliated 
with a group health plan or a health insurance 
issuer and who is providing health care services 
to an individual as part of a bona fide wellness 
program to notify such individual of the avail-
ability of a genetic test or to provide informa-
tion to such individual regarding such genetic 
test; or 
‘‘(C) authorize or permit a health care pro-
fessional to require that an individual undergo 
a genetic test. 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
22:31 Jan 17, 2007
Jkt 059196
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H493.IH
H493
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS