In this task, you are given text for US Congressional and California state bills, your task is to generate a summary for this bill.

Example input: SECTION 1. LIABILITY OF BUSINESS ENTITIES PROVIDING USE OF FACILITIES
TO NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Business entity.--The term ''business entity'' means a
firm, corporation, association, partnership, consortium, joint
venture, or other form of enterprise.
(2) Facility.--The term ''facility'' means any real
property, including any building, improvement, or appurtenance.
(3) Gross negligence.--The term ''gross negligence'' means
voluntary and conscious conduct by a person with knowledge (at
the time of the conduct) that the conduct is likely to be
harmful to the health or well-being of another person.
(4) Intentional misconduct.--The term ''intentional
misconduct'' means conduct by a person with knowledge (at the
time of the conduct) that the conduct is harmful to the health
or well-being of another person.
(5) Nonprofit organization.--The term ''nonprofit
organization'' means--
(A) any organization described in section 501(c)(3)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from
tax under section 501(a) of such Code; or
(B) any not-for-profit organization organized and
conducted for public benefit and operated primarily for
charitable, civic, educational, religious, welfare, or
health purposes.
(6) State.--The term ''State'' means each of the several
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern
Mariana Islands, any other territory or possession of the
United States, or any political subdivision of any such State,
territory, or possession.
(b) Limitation on Liability.--
(1) In general.--Subject to subsection (c), a business
entity shall not be subject to civil liability relating to any
injury or death occurring at a facility of the business entity
in connection with a use of such facility by a nonprofit
organization if--
(A) the use occurs outside of the scope of business
of the business entity;
(B) such injury or death occurs during a period
that such facility is used by the nonprofit
organization; and
(C) the business entity authorized the use of such
facility by the nonprofit organization.
(2) Application.--This subsection shall apply--
(A) with respect to civil liability under Federal
and State law; and
(B) regardless of whether a nonprofit organization
pays for the use of a facility.
(c) Exception for Liability.--Subsection (b) shall not apply to an
injury or death that results from an act or omission of a business
entity that constitutes gross negligence or intentional misconduct,
including any misconduct that--
(1) constitutes a crime of violence (as that term is
defined in section 16 of title 18, United States Code) or act
of international terrorism (as that term is defined in section
2331 of title 18) for which the defendant has been convicted in
any court;
(2) constitutes a hate crime (as that term is used in the
Hate Crime Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note));
(3) involves a sexual offense, as defined by applicable
State law, for which the defendant has been convicted in any
court; or
(4) involves misconduct for which the defendant has been
found to have violated a Federal or State civil rights law.
(d) Superseding Provision.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2) and subsection
(e), this Act preempts the laws of any State to the extent that
such laws are inconsistent with this Act, except that this Act
shall not preempt any State law that provides additional
protection from liability for a business entity for an injury
or death with respect to which conditions under subparagraphs
(A) through (C) of subsection (b)(1) apply.
(2) Limitation.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to
supersede any Federal or State health or safety law.
(e) Election of State Regarding Nonapplicability.--This Act shall
not apply to any civil action in a State court against a business
entity in which all parties are citizens of the State if such State
enacts a statute--
(1) citing the authority of this subsection;
(2) declaring the election of such State that this Act
shall not apply to such civil action in the State; and
(3) containing no other provision.
Example output: Shields a business entity from civil liability relating to any injury or death occurring at a facility of that entity in connection with a use of such facility by a nonprofit organization if: (1) the use occurs outside the scope of business of the business entity; (2) such injury or death occurs during a period that such facility is used by such organization; and (3) the business entity authorized the use of such facility by the organization.
Makes this Act inapplicable to an injury or death that results from an act or omission of a business entity that constitutes gross negligence or intentional misconduct, including misconduct that: (1) constitutes a hate crime or a crime of violence or act of international terrorism for which the defendant has been convicted in any court; or (2) involves a sexual offense for which the defendant has been convicted in any court or misconduct for which the defendant has been found to have violated a Federal or State civil rights law.
Preempts State laws to the extent that such laws are inconsistent with this Act, except State law that provides additional protection from liability. Specifies that this Act shall not be construed to supersede any Federal or State health or safety law.
Makes this Act inapplicable to any civil action in a State court against a business entity in which all parties are citizens of the State if such State, citing this Act's authority and containing no other provision, enacts a statute declaring the State's election that this Act shall not apply to such action in the State.
Example explanation: This Bill focuses on shielding business entities from civil liability relating to an injury or death depending on the conditions of injury, hence the generated summary is correct.
Q: SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) Oliver L. Brown is the namesake of the landmark United
States Supreme Court decision of 1954, Brown v. Board of
Education (347 U.S. 483, 1954);
(2) Oliver L. Brown is honored as the lead plaintiff in the
Topeka, Kansas case which posed a legal challenge to racial
segregation in public education;
(3) by 1950, African-American parents began to renew their
efforts to challenge State laws that only permitted their
children to attend certain schools, and as a result, they
organized through the National Association for the Advancement
of Colored People (the NAACP), an organization founded in 1909
to address the issue of the unequal and discriminatory
treatment experienced by African-Americans throughout the
country;
(4) Oliver L. Brown became part of the NAACP strategy led
first by Charles Houston and later by Thurgood Marshall, to
file suit against various school boards on behalf of such
parents and their children;
(5) Oliver L. Brown was a member of a distinguished group
of plaintiffs in cases from Kansas (Brown v. Board of
Education), Delaware (Gebhart v. Belton), South Carolina
(Briggs v. Elliot), and Virginia (Davis v. County School Board
of Prince Edward County) that were combined by the United
States Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education, and in
Washington, D.C. (Bolling v. Sharpe), considered separately by
the Supreme Court with respect to the District of Columbia;
(6) with respect to cases filed in the State of Kansas--
(A) there were 11 school integration cases dating
from 1881 to 1949, prior to Brown v. Board of Education
in 1954;
(B) in many instances, the schools for African-
American children were substandard facilities with out-
of-date textbooks and often no basic school supplies;
(C) in the fall of 1950, members of the Topeka,
Kansas chapter of the NAACP agreed to again challenge
the ''separate but equal'' doctrine governing public
education;
(D) on February 28, 1951, the NAACP filed their
case as Oliver L. Brown et al. v. The Board of
Education of Topeka Kansas (which represented a group
of 13 parents and 20 children);
(E) the district court ruled in favor of the school
board and the case was appealed to the United States
Supreme Court;
(F) at the Supreme Court level, the case was
combined with other NAACP cases from Delaware, South
Carolina, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. (which was
later heard separately); and
(G) the combined cases became known as Oliver L.
Brown et al. v. The Board of Education of Topeka, et
al.;
(7) with respect to the Virginia case of Davis et al. v.
Prince Edward County Board of Supervisors--
(A) one of the few public high schools available to
African-Americans in the State of Virginia was Robert
Moton High School in Prince Edward County;
(B) built in 1943, it was never large enough to
accommodate its student population;
(C) the gross inadequacies of these classrooms
sparked a student strike in 1951;
(D) the NAACP soon joined their struggles and
challenged the inferior quality of their school
facilities in court; and
(E) although the United States District Court
ordered that the plaintiffs be provided with equal
school facilities, they were denied access to the
schools for white students in their area;
(8) with respect to the South Carolina case of Briggs v.
R.W. Elliott--
(A) in Clarendon County, South Carolina, the State
NAACP first attempted, unsuccessfully and with a single
plaintiff, to take legal action in 1947 against the
inferior conditions that African-American students
experienced under South Carolina's racially segregated
school system;
(B) by 1951, community activists convinced African-
American parents to join the NAACP efforts to file a
class action suit in United States District Court;
(C) the court found that the schools designated for
African-Americans were grossly inadequate in terms of
buildings, transportation, and teacher salaries when
compared to the schools provided for white students;
and
(D) an order to equalize the facilities was
virtually ignored by school officials, and the schools
were never made equal;
(9) with respect to the Delaware cases of Belton v. Gebhart
and Bulah v. Gebhart--
(A) first petitioned in 1951, these cases
challenged the inferior conditions of 2 African-
American schools;
(B) in the suburb of Claymont, Delaware, African-
American children were prohibited from attending the
area's local high school, and in the rural community of
Hockessin, Delaware, African-American students were
forced to attend a dilapidated 1-room schoolhouse, and
were not provided transportation to the school, while
white children in the area were provided transportation
and a better school facility;
(C) both plaintiffs were represented by local NAACP
attorneys; and
(D) though the State Supreme Court ruled in favor
of the plaintiffs, the decision did not apply to all
schools in Delaware;
(10) with respect to the District of Columbia case of
Bolling, et al. v. C. Melvin Sharpe, et al.--
(A) 11 African-American junior high school students
were taken on a field trip to Washington, D.C.'s new
John Philip Sousa School for white students only;
(B) the African-American students were denied
admittance to the school and ordered to return to their
inadequate school; and
(C) in 1951, a suit was filed on behalf of the
students, and after review with the Brown case in 1954,
the United States Supreme Court ruled that segregation
in the Nation's capitol was unconstitutional;
(11) on May 17, 1954, at 12:52 p.m., the United States
Supreme Court ruled that the discriminatory nature of racial
segregation ''violates the 14th Amendment to the Constitution,
which guarantees all citizens equal protection of the laws'';
(12) the decision in Brown v. Board of Education set the
stage for dismantling racial segregation throughout the
country;
(13) the quiet courage of Oliver L. Brown and his fellow
plaintiffs asserted the right of African-American people to
have equal access to social, political, and communal
structures;
(14) our country is indebted to the work of the NAACP Legal
Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., Howard University Law
School, the NAACP, and the individual plaintiffs in the cases
considered by the Supreme Court;
(15) Reverend Oliver L. Brown died in 1961, and because the
landmark United States Supreme Court decision bears his name,
he is remembered as an icon for justice, freedom, and equal
rights; and
(16) the national importance of the Brown v. Board of
Education decision had a profound impact on American culture,
affecting families, communities, and governments by outlawing
racial segregation in public education, resulting in the
abolition of legal discrimination on any basis.

SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL.

(a) Presentation Authorized.--
(1) In general.--The Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate
shall make appropriate arrangements for the posthumous
presentation, on behalf of Congress, of a gold medal of
appropriate design in commemoration of the Reverend Oliver L.
Brown, in recognition of his and his fellow plaintiffs'
enduring contributions to civil rights and American society.
(2) Display.--The medal presented under paragraph (1) shall
be maintained and displayed at the Brown Foundation of Topeka,
Kansas.
(b) Design and Striking.--For purposes of the presentation referred
to in subsection (a), the Secretary of the Treasury (referred to in
this Act as the ''Secretary'') shall strike a gold medal with suitable
emblems, devices, and inscriptions, to be determined by the Secretary.

SEC. 3. DUPLICATE MEDALS.

The Secretary may strike and sell duplicates in bronze of the gold
medal struck pursuant to section 2 under such regulations as the
Secretary may prescribe, at a price sufficient to cover the cost
thereof, including labor, materials, dies, use of machinery, and
overhead expenses, and the cost of the gold medal.

SEC. 4. STATUS OF MEDALS.

(a) National Medals.--The medals struck pursuant to this Act are
national medals for purposes of chapter 51 of title 31, United States
Code.
(b) Numismatic Items.--For purposes of section 5134 of title 31,
United States Code, all medals struck under this Act shall be
considered to be numismatic items.

SEC. 5. AUTHORITY TO USE FUND AMOUNTS; PROCEEDS OF SALE.

(a) Authority to Use Fund Amounts.--There is authorized to be
charged against the United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund, such
amounts as may be necessary to pay for the costs of the medals struck
pursuant to this Act.
(b) Proceeds of Sale.--Amounts received from the sale of duplicate
bronze medals authorized under section 3 shall be deposited into the
United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund.
A:
Directs the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate to arrange for the posthumous presentation, on behalf of Congress, of a gold medal in commemoration of the Reverend Oliver L. Brown (the lead plaintiff in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education) in recognition of his and his fellow plaintiffs' enduring contributions to civil rights and American society.