42 U.S.C. § 300ff–28 — Distribution of funds

submitted 82 years ago by Pub. L. 101-381 to r/title-42-THE-PUBLIC-HEALTH-AND-WELFARE · 3,509 words · no verdicts yet

in plain englishAI-generated · not legal advice

This law tells the Secretary how to split HIV/AIDS grant money among the States. Each State gets a guaranteed minimum plus a share based on its number of HIV and AIDS cases. States must spend the money quickly and cannot use it for land or cash payments.

(a) Amount of grant to State Every year, the Secretary of Health and Human Services gives each State money to fight HIV/AIDS, based on a formula. Minimum floor. Each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands (called a "covered State") gets at least $200,000 if it has fewer than 90 living cases of AIDS, or at least $500,000 if it has 90 or more. Every other territory (besides Guam and the Virgin Islands) gets at least $50,000. If the formula amount below is bigger than these minimums, the State gets the formula amount instead. The formula. The formula amount comes out of the money Congress sets aside for these grants each year. A State's share of that money is: 75 percent multiplied by the State's share of the total number of living HIV/AIDS cases in all States (its "State distribution factor"); plus 20 percent multiplied by the State's share of a "non-EMA distribution factor" — the State's HIV/AIDS cases minus the cases that fall inside an area that separately gets Ryan White Part A city or metro funding; plus, for a State with no Part A-funded area at all, an extra 5 percent multiplied by that State's share of cases counted among all such no-Part-A states. Counting cases. These counts must come from "names-based" HIV/AIDS reporting — cases where the person's name was reported to and confirmed by the CDC as of the most recent December 31. But for fiscal years 2007 through 2012, a State did not have to report non-AIDS HIV cases by name if it already had a reliable names-based system running by December 31, 2005, or if the Secretary later certified that the State's system had become reliable. States switching over during this window had specific deadlines — an application by October 1, 2006, and a start date of April 1, 2008 — to keep the exemption, and the Secretary could end the exemption early if a State fell behind on its own transition plan. A specific list of states (Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, West Virginia, Wyoming, Guam, and the Virgin Islands) is deemed to have met the December 31, 2005 standard; no other state may claim it. For states still using older "code-based" (not names-based) reporting, the Secretary had to cut the counted number of non-AIDS HIV cases by 5 percent (6 percent in fiscal year 2012) to correct for double-counting, but had to count the number as 3 percent higher for certain states meeting specific conditions about when they switched to names-based reporting or about drops in their funding. This whole exemption system stopped applying after fiscal year 2013 — from then on, only names-based counts are used. The Secretary must also run a program to catch inaccurate or fraudulent case reporting, and must keep accepting AIDS-case reports even from a State that is not in compliance on the separate non-AIDS HIV reporting rule. Cap on states using code-based reporting. For fiscal years 2007 through 2012, if a State was still using code-based reporting, its grant could not grow more than 5 percent over the year before, though it could never drop below its guaranteed minimum. Money above that cap instead goes into the supplemental-grant program under section 300ff–29a. ADAP drug money. When Congress sets aside money specifically for the AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP, section 300ff–26), 95 percent of it is split among States using the same living-cases formula, and 5 percent is reserved for "supplemental treatment drug grants" — extra money for States that show a severe need, based on things like gaps in their drug list and unmet demand, and that did not have unspent ADAP funds taken back the year before. A State getting a supplemental grant generally must match every $4 of federal money with $1 of its own, unless the Secretary waives that because the State already met its other funding obligations. Supplemental funds can only buy HIV/AIDS medication and must be coordinated with the State's regular ADAP money. The same 5-percent growth cap that applies to the general formula grants also applies here, with any money above the cap flowing into the supplemental pool. Hold-harmless increases. For fiscal year 2010, the Secretary had to make sure a State's combined formula-grant-plus-ADAP total did not fall more than 5 percent below its 2009 total. For 2011 and 2012, that combined total could not fall below the full 2010 amount. For 2013, it could not fall more than 7.5 percent below the 2012 amount. Money for these guarantees comes from funds reserved under section 300ff–31b(b)(2) and from money freed up under the reallocation rule below; if that is not enough, the Secretary must trim other States' formula grants proportionally to cover the gap — except the trim cannot touch States already protected by the guarantee or by the minimum-allotment floor, and cannot push a State low enough that it would newly qualify for the guarantee. None of this hold-harmless rule applies after fiscal year 2013. (b) Allocation of assistance by States Before spending its grant, a State must first consider the unmet needs of areas that have not gotten Part A city funding. A State generally cannot spend more than 10 percent of its grant on planning and evaluation, and cannot spend more than 10 percent on administration — including making sure that, across every organization and subcontractor it funds, their combined administrative spending stays under 10 percent even if some individual ones spend more. "Administration" covers routine grant oversight and a clinical quality management program that checks whether care matches current federal HIV treatment guidelines; a State can spend the lesser of 5 percent of its grant or $3,000,000 on that quality program, and that spending does not count against the 10 percent administrative cap. Subcontractor administrative costs include normal overhead, program oversight, and other program-support costs like quality assurance. Planning/evaluation and administration combined cannot exceed 15 percent of the grant. States that only get the minimum allotment are excused from these percentage caps and may instead spend up to what it costs to support one full-time employee on these tasks. A State can never use the money to buy or improve land, to build or substantially improve any building, or to hand recipients cash payments directly. (c) Expedited distribution A State must commit ("obligate") at least 75 percent of its grant to specific programs and make that money available to spend within 150 days of receiving it in its first year of funding, and within 120 days in every year after that. During that window, the State must also invite and receive public comment on how the money should be used. (d) Reallocation Any part of a State's grant that is not obligated on time under subsection (c) stops belonging to that State. The Secretary instead uses it for the supplemental grants described in section 300ff–29a, on top of whatever money is already set aside for those grants elsewhere.

the actual law source: uscode.house.gov ↗public domain

(a) Amount of grant to State

(1) Minimum allotment

Subject to the extent of amounts made available under section 300ff–31b of this title, the amount of a grant to be made under section 300ff–21 of this title for—

(A)

each of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands (referred to in this paragraph as a “covered State”) for a fiscal year shall be the greater of—

(i)

(I)

with respect to a covered State that has less than 90 living cases of AIDS, as determined under paragraph (2)(D), $200,000; or

(II)

with respect to a covered State that has 90 or more living cases of AIDS, as determined under paragraph (2)(D), $500,000; and

(ii)

an amount determined under paragraph (2) and then, as applicable, increased under paragraph (2)(H); and

(B)

each territory other than Guam and the Virgin Islands shall be the greater of $50,000 or an amount determined under paragraph (2).

(2) Determination

(A) Formula

For purposes of paragraph (1), the amount referred to in this paragraph for a State (including a territory) for a fiscal year is, subject to subparagraphs (E) and (F)—

(i)

an amount equal to the amount made available under section 300ff–31b of this title for the fiscal year involved for grants pursuant to paragraph (1), subject to subparagraph (F); and

(ii)

the percentage constituted by the sum of—

(I)

the product of 0.75 and the ratio of the State distribution factor for the State or territory (as determined under subsection (B)) to the sum of the respective State distribution factors for all States or territories;

(II)

the product of .20 and the ratio of the non-EMA distribution factor for the State or territory (as determined under subparagraph (C)) to the sum of the respective non-EMA distribution factors for all States or territories; and

(III)

if the State does not for such fiscal year contain any area that is an eligible area under subpart I of part A or any area that is a transitional area under section 300ff–19 of this title (referred to in this subclause as a “no-EMA State”), the product of 0.05 and the ratio of the number of cases that applies for the State under subparagraph (D) to the sum of the respective numbers of cases that so apply for all no-EMA States.

(B) State distribution factor

For purposes of subparagraph (A)(ii)(I), the term “State distribution factor” means an amount equal to the number of living cases of HIV/AIDS in the State involved, as determined under subparagraph (D).

For purposes of subparagraph (A)(ii)(II), the term “non-ema 1 distribution factor” means an amount equal to the sum of—

(i)

the number of living cases of HIV/AIDS in the State involved, as determined under subparagraph (D); less

(ii)

a number equal to the sum of—

(I)

the total number of living cases of HIV/AIDS that are within areas in such State that are eligible areas under subpart I of part A for the fiscal year involved, which individual number for an area is the number that applies under section 300ff–11 of this title for the area for such fiscal year; and

(II)

the total number of such cases that are within areas in such State that are transitional areas under section 300ff–19 of this title for such fiscal year, which individual number for an area is the number that applies under such section for the fiscal year.

(D) Living cases of HIV/AIDS

(i) Requirement of names-based reporting

Except as provided in clause (ii), the number determined under this subparagraph for a State for a fiscal year for purposes of subparagraph (B) is the number of living names-based cases of HIV/AIDS in the State that, as of December 31 of the most recent calendar year for which such data is available, have been reported to and confirmed by the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

(ii) Transition period; exemption regarding non-AIDS cases

For each of the fiscal years 2007 through 2012, a State is, subject to clauses (iii) through (v), exempt from the requirement under clause (i) that living non-AIDS names-based cases of HIV be reported unless—

(I)

a system was in operation as of December 31, 2005, that provides sufficiently accurate and reliable names-based reporting of such cases throughout the State, subject to clause (vii); or

(II)

no later than the beginning of fiscal year 2008 or a subsequent fiscal year through fiscal year 2012, the Secretary, after consultation with the chief executive of the State, determines that a system has become operational in the State that provides sufficiently accurate and reliable names-based reporting of such cases throughout the State.

(iii) Requirements for exemption for fiscal year 2007

For fiscal year 2007, an exemption under clause (ii) for a State applies only if, by October 1, 2006—

(I)

(aa)

the State had submitted to the Secretary a plan for making the transition to sufficiently accurate and reliable names-based reporting of living non-AIDS cases of HIV; or

(bb)

all statutory changes necessary to provide for sufficiently accurate and reliable reporting of such cases had been made; and

(II)

the State had agreed that, by April 1, 2008, the State will begin accurate and reliable names-based reporting of such cases, except that such agreement is not required to provide that, as of such date, the system for such reporting be fully sufficient with respect to accuracy and reliability throughout the area.

(iv) Requirement for exemption as of fiscal year 2008

For each of the fiscal years 2008 through 2012, an exemption under clause (ii) for a State applies only if, as of April 1, 2008, the State is substantially in compliance with the agreement under clause (iii)(II).

(v) Progress toward names-based reporting

For fiscal year 2009 or a subsequent fiscal year, the Secretary may terminate an exemption under clause (ii) for a State if the State submitted a plan under clause (iii)(I)(aa) and the Secretary determines that the State is not substantially following the plan.

(vi) Counting of cases in areas with exemptions

(I) In general

With respect to a State that is under a reporting system for living non-AIDS cases of HIV that is not names-based (referred to in this subparagraph as “code-based reporting”), the Secretary shall, for purposes of this subparagraph, modify the number of such cases reported for the State in order to adjust for duplicative reporting in and among systems that use code-based reporting.

(II) Adjustment rate

The adjustment rate under subclause (I) for a State shall be a reduction of 5 percent for fiscal years before fiscal year 2012 (and 6 percent for fiscal year 2012) in the number of living non-AIDS cases of HIV reported for the State.

(III) Increased adjustment for certain States previously using code-based reporting

For purposes of this subparagraph for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2012, the Secretary shall deem the applicable number of living cases of HIV/AIDS in a State that were reported to and confirmed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to be 3 percent higher than the actual number if—

(aa)

there is an area in such State that satisfies all of the conditions described in items (aa) through (cc) of section 300ff–13(a)(3)(C)(vi)(III) of this title; or

(bb)

(AA)

fiscal year 2007 was the first year in which the count of living non-AIDS cases of HIV in such area, for purposes of this part, was based on a names-based reporting system; and

(BB)

the amount of funding that such State received under this part for fiscal year 2007 was less than 70 percent of the amount of funding that such State received under such part for fiscal year 2006.

(vii) List of States meeting standard regarding December 31, 2005

(I) In general

If a State is specified in subclause (II), the State shall be considered to meet the standard described in clause (ii)(I). No other State may be considered to meet such standard.

(II) Relevant States

For purposes of subclause (I), the States specified in this subclause are the following: Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, West Virginia, Wyoming, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.

(viii) Rules of construction regarding acceptance of reports

(I) Cases of AIDS

With respect to a State that is subject to the requirement under clause (i) and is not in compliance with the requirement for names-based reporting of living non-AIDS cases of HIV, the Secretary shall, notwithstanding such noncompliance, accept reports of living cases of AIDS that are in accordance with such clause.

(II) Applicability of exemption requirements

The provisions of clauses (ii) through (vii) may not be construed as having any legal effect for fiscal year 2013 or any subsequent fiscal year, and accordingly, the status of a State for purposes of such clauses may not be considered after fiscal year 2012.

(ix) Program for detecting inaccurate or fraudulent counting

The Secretary shall carry out a program to monitor the reporting of names-based cases for purposes of this subparagraph and to detect instances of inaccurate reporting, including fraudulent reporting.

(x) Future fiscal years

For fiscal years beginning with fiscal year 2013, determinations under this paragraph shall be based only on living names-based cases of HIV/AIDS with respect to the State involved.

(E) Code-based States; limitation on increase in grant

(i) In general

For each of the fiscal years 2007 through 2012, if code-based reporting (within the meaning of subparagraph (D)(vi)) applies in a State as of the beginning of the fiscal year involved, then notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, the amount of the grant pursuant to paragraph (1) for the State may not for the fiscal year involved exceed by more than 5 percent the amount of the grant pursuant to this paragraph for the State for the preceding fiscal year, except that the limitation under this clause may not result in a grant pursuant to paragraph (1) for a fiscal year that is less than the minimum amount that applies to the State under such paragraph for such fiscal year.

(ii) Use of amounts involved

For each of the fiscal years 2007 through 2012, amounts available as a result of the limitation under clause (i) shall be made available by the Secretary as additional amounts for grants pursuant to section 300ff–29a of this title, subject to subparagraph (H).

(F) Appropriations for treatment drug program

(i) Formula grants

With respect to the fiscal year involved, if under section 300ff–31b of this title an appropriations Act provides an amount exclusively for carrying out section 300ff–26 of this title, the portion of such amount allocated to a State shall be the product of—

(I)

100 percent of such amount, less the percentage reserved under clause (ii)(V); and

(II)

the percentage constituted by the ratio of the State distribution factor for the State (as determined under subparagraph (B)) to the sum of the State distribution factors for all States;

which product shall then, as applicable, be increased under subparagraph (H).

(ii) Supplemental treatment drug grants

(I) In general

From amounts made available under subclause (V), the Secretary shall award supplemental grants to States described in subclause (II) to enable such States to purchase and distribute to eligible individuals under section 300ff–26(b) of this title pharmaceutical therapeutics described under subsections (c)(2) and (e) of such section.

(II) Eligible States

For purposes of subclause (I), a State shall be an eligible State if the State did not have unobligated funds subject to reallocation under subsection (d) in the previous fiscal year and, in accordance with criteria established by the Secretary, demonstrates a severe need for a grant under this clause. For purposes of determining severe need, the Secretary shall consider eligibility standards, formulary composition, the number of eligible individuals to whom a State is unable to provide therapeutics described in section 300ff–26(a) of this title, and an unanticipated increase of eligible individuals with HIV/AIDS.

(III) State requirements

The Secretary may not make a grant to a State under this clause unless the State agrees that the State will make available (directly or through donations of public or private entities) non-Federal contributions toward the activities to be carried out under the grant in an amount equal to $1 for each $4 of Federal funds provided in the grant, except that the Secretary may waive this subclause if the State has otherwise fully complied with section 300ff–27(d) of this title with respect to the grant year involved. The provisions of this subclause shall apply to States that are not required to comply with such section 300ff–27(d) of this title.

(IV) Use and coordination

Amounts made available under a grant under this clause shall only be used by the State to provide HIV/AIDS-related medications. The State shall coordinate the use of such amounts with the amounts otherwise provided under section 300ff–26(a) of this title in order to maximize drug coverage.

(V) Funding

For the purpose of making grants under this clause, the Secretary shall each fiscal year reserve 5 percent of the amount referred to in clause (i) with respect to section 300ff–26 of this title.

(iii) Code-based States; limitation on increase in formula grant

The limitation under subparagraph (E)(i) applies to grants pursuant to clause (i) of this subparagraph to the same extent and in the same manner as such limitation applies to grants pursuant to paragraph (1), except that the reference to minimum grants does not apply for purposes of this clause. Amounts available as a result of the limitation under the preceding sentence shall be made available by the Secretary as additional amounts for grants under clause (ii) of this subparagraph.

(G) Repealed. Pub. L. 109–415, title II, § 203(b)(2), Dec. 19, 2006, 120 Stat. 2792

(H) Increase in formula grants

(i) Assurance of amount

(I) General rule

For fiscal year 2010, the Secretary shall ensure, subject to clauses (ii) through (iv), that the total for a State of the grant pursuant to paragraph (1) and the grant pursuant to subparagraph (F) is not less than 95 percent of such total for the State for fiscal year 2009.

(II) Rule of construction

With respect to the application of subclause (I), the 95 percent requirement under such subclause shall apply with respect to each grant awarded under paragraph (1) and with respect to each grant awarded under subparagraph (F).

(ii) Fiscal years 2011 and 2012

For each of the fiscal years 2011 and 2012, the Secretary shall ensure that the total for a State of the grant pursuant to paragraph (1) and the grant pursuant to subparagraph (F) is not less than 100 percent of such total for the State for fiscal year 2010.

(iii) Fiscal year 2013

For fiscal year 2013, the Secretary shall ensure that the total for a State of the grant pursuant to paragraph (1) and the grant pursuant to subparagraph (F) is not less than 92.5 percent of such total for the State for fiscal year 2012.

(iv) Source of funds for increase

(I) In general

From the amount reserved under section 300ff–31b(b)(2) of this title for a fiscal year, and from amounts available for such section pursuant to subsection (d) of this section, the Secretary shall make available such amounts as may be necessary to comply with clause (i).

(II) Pro rata reduction

If the amounts referred to in subclause (I) for a fiscal year are insufficient to fully comply with clause (i) for the year, the Secretary, in order to provide the additional funds necessary for such compliance, shall reduce on a pro rata basis the amount of each grant pursuant to paragraph (1) for the fiscal year, other than grants for States for which increases under clause (i) apply and other than States described in paragraph (1)(A)(i)(I). A reduction under the preceding sentence may not be made in an amount that would result in the State involved becoming eligible for such an increase.

(v) Applicability

This paragraph may not be construed as having any applicability after fiscal year 2013.

(b) Allocation of assistance by States

(1) Allowances

Prior to allocating assistance under this subsection, a State shall consider the unmet needs of those areas that have not received financial assistance under part A.

(2) Planning and evaluations

Subject to paragraph (4) and except as provided in paragraph (5), a State may not use more than 10 percent of amounts received under a grant awarded under section 300ff–21 of this title for planning and evaluation activities.

(3) Administration

(A) In general

Subject to paragraph (4), and except as provided in paragraph (5), a State may not use more than 10 percent of amounts received under a grant awarded under section 300ff–21 of this title for administration.

(B) Allocations

In the case of entities and subcontractors to which a State allocates amounts received by the State under a grant under section 300ff–21 of this title, the State shall ensure that, of the aggregate amount so allocated, the total of the expenditures by such entities for administrative expenses does not exceed 10 percent (without regard to whether particular entities expend more than 10 percent for such expenses).

For the purposes of subparagraph (A), amounts may be used for administrative activities that include routine grant administration and monitoring activities, including a clinical quality management program under subparagraph (E).

(D) Subcontractor administrative costs

For the purposes of this paragraph, subcontractor administrative activities include—

(i)

usual and recognized overhead, including established indirect rates for agencies;

(ii)

management oversight of specific programs funded under this subchapter; and

(iii)

other types of program support such as quality assurance, quality control, and related activities.

(E) Clinical quality management

(i) Requirement

Each State that receives a grant under section 300ff–21 of this title shall provide for the establishment of a clinical quality management program to assess the extent to which HIV health services provided to patients under the grant are consistent with the most recent Public Health Service guidelines for the treatment of HIV/AIDS and related opportunistic infection, and as applicable, to develop strategies for ensuring that such services are consistent with the guidelines for improvement in the access to and quality of HIV health services.

(ii) Use of funds

(I) In general

From amounts received under a grant awarded under section 300ff–21 of this title for a fiscal year, a State may use for activities associated with the clinical quality management program required in clause (i) not to exceed the lesser of—

(aa)

5 percent of amounts received under the grant; or

(bb)

$3,000,000.

(II) Relation to limitation on administrative expenses

The costs of a clinical quality management program under clause (i) may not be considered administrative expenses for purposes of the limitation established in subparagraph (A).

(4) Limitation on use of funds

Except as provided in paragraph (5), a State may not use more than a total of 15 percent of amounts received under a grant awarded under section 300ff–21 of this title for the purposes described in paragraphs (2) and (3).

(5) Exception

With respect to a State that receives the minimum allotment under subsection (a)(1) for a fiscal year, such State, from the amounts received under a grant awarded under section 300ff–21 of this title for such fiscal year for the activities described in paragraphs (2) and (3), may, notwithstanding paragraphs (2) through (4), use not more than that amount required to support one full-time-equivalent employee.

(6) Construction

A State may not use amounts received under a grant awarded under section 300ff–21 of this title to purchase or improve land, or to purchase, construct, or permanently improve (other than minor remodeling) any building or other facility, or to make cash payments to intended recipients of services.

(1) In general

Not less than 75 percent of the amounts received under a grant awarded to a State under section 300ff–21 of this title shall be obligated to specific programs and projects and made available for expenditure not later than—

(A)

in the case of the first fiscal year for which amounts are received, 150 days after the receipt of such amounts by the State; and

(B)

in the case of succeeding fiscal years, 120 days after the receipt of such amounts by the State.

(2) Public comment

Within the time periods referred to in paragraph (1), the State shall invite and receive public comment concerning methods for the utilization of such amounts.

(d) Reallocation

Any portion of a grant made to a State under section 300ff–21 of this title for a fiscal year that has not been obligated as described in subsection (c) ceases to be available to the State and shall be made available by the Secretary for grants under section 300ff–29a of this title, in addition to amounts made available for such grants under section 300ff–31b(b)(2) of this title.

Source credit: (July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XXVI, § 2618, as added Pub. L. 101–381, title II, § 201, Aug. 18, 1990, 104 Stat. 595; amended Pub. L. 102–531, title III, § 312(d)(30), Oct. 27, 1992, 106 Stat. 3506; Pub. L. 104–146, §§ 3(c)(5), (g)(2), 5, 6(c)(3), May 20, 1996, 110 Stat. 1355, 1363, 1365, 1368; Pub. L. 105–392, title IV, § 417, Nov. 13, 1998, 112 Stat. 3591; Pub. L. 106–345, title II, § 206, Oct. 20, 2000, 114 Stat. 1334; Pub. L. 109–415, title II, §§ 203, 204(a), title VII, §§ 702(1), 703, Dec. 19, 2006, 120 Stat. 2789, 2796, 2819, 2820; Pub. L. 111–87, §§ 2(a)(1), (3)(A), 3(b), 5(b), (c)(1), 7(b), 10(b), Oct. 30, 2009, 123 Stat. 2885, 2888, 2890, 2891, 2893, 2895.)

history & why it existsrecord from the source credit

1944Enacted · Pub. L. 101-381 · 104 Stat. 595
1992Amended · Pub. L. 102-531 · 106 Stat. 3506
1996Amended · Pub. L. 104-146 · 110 Stat. 1355, 1363, 1365, 1368
1998Amended · Pub. L. 105-392 · 112 Stat. 3591
2000Amended · Pub. L. 106-345 · 114 Stat. 1334
2006Amended · Pub. L. 109-415 · 120 Stat. 2789, 2796, 2819, 2820
2009Amended · Pub. L. 111-87 · 123 Stat. 2885, 2888, 2890, 2891, 2893, 2895

A history note hasn’t been published yet. The record shows enactment by Pub. L. 101-381 on 1944-07-01.

all 0 arguments · sorted by: best

no arguments yet — make the first case