In this task, you are given text for US Congressional and California state bills, your task is to generate a summary for this bill.
One example is below.
Q: 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.
A: 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.
Rationale: 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``HIV Prevention Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress makes the following findings:
            (1) The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (in this 
        Act referred to as ``PEPFAR'') is an unprecedented effort to 
        combat the global AIDS epidemic, with $9,000,000,000 targeted 
        for initiatives in 15 focus countries.
            (2) The PEPFAR prevention goal is to avert 7,000,000 HIV 
        infections in the 15 focus countries--most in sub-Saharan 
        Africa, where heterosexual intercourse is by far the 
        predominant mode of HIV transmission.
            (3) According to the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/
        AIDS, young people between the ages of 15 and 24 years old are 
        ``the most threatened by AIDS'' and ``are at the centre of HIV 
        vulnerability''. Globally, young people between the ages of 10 
        and 24 years old account for \1/2\ of all new HIV cases each 
        year. About 7,000 young people in this cohort contract the 
        virus every day.
            (4) A recent review funded by the United States Agency for 
        International Development found that sex and HIV education 
        programs that encourage abstinence but also discuss the use of 
        condoms do not increase sexual activity as critics of sex 
        education have long alleged. Sex education can help delay the 
        initiation of intercourse, reduce the frequency of sex and the 
        number of sexual partners, and also increase condom use.
            (5) The United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, 
        Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7601 et seq.) 
        requires that at least \1/3\ of all prevention funds be 
        reserved for abstinence-until-marriage programs.
            (6) A congressionally mandated review by the Institute of 
        Medicine of the first 3 years of PEPFAR unequivocally 
        recommends greater flexibility in the global fight against 
        AIDS. The March 2007 Institute of Medicine report entitled 
        ``PEPFAR Implementation: Progress and Promise'' calls for 
        greater emphasis on prevention than the law currently allows 
        and says that ``removal of the abstinence-until-marriage'' 
        earmark, among other changes, ``could enhance the quality, 
        accountability, and flexibility'' of prevention efforts.
            (7) The Institute of Medicine report further found that the 
        abstinence-until-marriage earmark ``has greatly limited the 
        ability of Country Teams to develop and implement comprehensive 
        prevention programs that are well integrated with each other 
        and with counseling and testing, care and treatment programs 
        and that target those populations at greatest risk''.
            (8) The Institute of Medicine report also found that the 
        earmark has ``limited PEPFAR's ability to tailor its activities 
        in each country to the local epidemic and to coordinate with . 
        . . the countries' national plans''.
            (9) The Institute of Medicine report is in keeping with the 
        conclusions of a report issued in 2006 by the Government 
        Accountability Office. The GAO report, entitled ``Spending 
        Requirement Presents Challenges for Allocating Funding under 
        the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief'', found 
        ``significant challenges'' associated with meeting the earmark 
        for abstinence-until-marriage programs.
            (10) The Government Accountability Office found that a 
        majority of country teams report that fulfilling the 
        requirement presents challenges to their ability to respond to 
        local epidemiology and cultural and social norms.
            (11) The Government Accountability Office found that, 
        although some country teams may be exempted from the 
        abstinence-until-marriage spending requirement, country teams 
        that are not exempted have to spend more than the 33 percent of 
        prevention funds on abstinence-until-marriage activities--
        sometimes at the expense of other programs.
            (12) The Government Accountability Office found that, as a 
        result of the abstinence-until-marriage spending requirement, 
        some countries have had to reduce planned funding for 
        Prevention of Mother-to-Child Transmission programs, thereby 
        limiting services for pregnant women and their children.
            (13) The Government Accountability Office found that the 
        abstinence-until-marriage spending requirement limited or 
        reduced funding for programs directed to high-risk groups, such 
        as services for married discordant couples, sexually active 
        youth, and commercial sex workers.
            (14) The Government Accountability Office found that the 
        abstinence-until-marriage spending requirement made it 
        difficult for countries to fund medical and blood safety 
        activities.
            (15) The Government Accountability Office found that, 
        because of the abstinence-until-marriage spending requirement, 
        some countries would likely have to reduce funding for condom 
        procurement and condom social marketing.
            (16) In addition, the Government Accountability Office 
        found that \2/3\ of focus country teams reported that the 
        policy for implementing PEPFAR's ABC model (defined as 
        ``Abstain, Be faithful, use Condoms'') is unclear and open to 
        varying interpretations, causing confusion about which groups 
        may be targeted and whether youth may receive the ABC message.
            (17) The Government Accountability Office found that the 
        ABC guidance does not clearly delineate permissible ``C'' 
        activities under the ABC model. Program staff reported that 
        they feel ``constrained'' by restrictions on promoting or 
        marketing condoms to youth. Other country teams reported 
        confusion about whether PEPFAR funds may be used for broad 
        condom social marketing, even to adults in a generalized 
        epidemic.
            (18) Young people are our greatest hope for changing the 
        course of the AIDS epidemic. According to the World Health 
        Organization, ``[f]ocusing on young people is likely to be the 
        most effective approach to confronting the epidemic, 
        particularly in high prevalence countries''.

SEC. 3. ENSURING BALANCED FUNDING FOR HIV PREVENTION METHODS.

    (a) Sense of Congress on Abstinence-Until-Marriage Funding 
Requirement.--Section 402(b)(3) of the United States Leadership Against 
HIV/AIDS, Tuburculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7672(b)(3)) 
is amended by striking ``, of which such amount at least 33 percent 
should be expended for abstinence-until-marriage programs''.
    (b) Elimination of Abstinence-Until-Marriage Funding Requirement.--
Section 403(a) of such Act (22 U.S.C. 7673(a)) is amended by striking 
the second sentence.
A:
HIV Prevention Act of 2007 - Amends the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 to eliminate the HIV/AIDS abstinence-until marriage funding set-aside.