alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1279 

Recognizing the Special Olympics’ 40th anniversary. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 17, 2008 

Mr. TERRY submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Foreign Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the Special Olympics’ 40th anniversary. 

Whereas Eunice Kennedy Shriver organized the first international Special Olympics Summer Games, which were 

held on July 20, 1968, in Chicago’s Soldier Field; 

Whereas the Special Olympics World Games are held every 

4 years; 

Whereas the Special Olympics oath is ‘‘Let me win, but if I 

cannot win, let me be brave in the attempt.’’, which was 

originally spoken by gladiators entering the arena in ancient Rome; 

Whereas the Special Olympics is dedicated to empowering individuals with intellectual disabilities to become physically 

fit, productive, and respected members of society through 

sports training and competition; 


erowe on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1279 IH 

Whereas the Special Olympics currently serves 2,500,000 

people with intellectual disabilities in more than 200 programs in over 180 countries; 

Whereas the Special Olympics currently has 700,000 volunteers and 500,000 coaches worldwide; 

Whereas the Special Olympics programs offer year-round 

training and competition in 30 Olympic-type sports for 

both winter and summer; 

Whereas at every Special Olympics awards ceremony, in addition to the traditional medals for first, second, and third 

places, athletes from fourth to last are presented a suitable place ribbon with appropriate ceremony; 

Whereas the Special Olympics events are open to all intellectually disabled peoples that are above the age of 8 regardless of the degree of their disability; 

Whereas the Special Olympics was officially recognized by the 

International Olympics Committee in February 1988 and 

is the only organization authorized by the International 

Olympics Committee to use the word ‘‘Olympics’’ worldwide; 

Whereas the Flame of Hope is a symbol of the Special Olympics World Games and is lit in a special ceremony in Athens, Greece; 

Whereas the Law Enforcement Torch Run is a multinational 

fundraising campaign for the Special Olympics programs 

in which the Flame of Hope is run by law enforcement 

officers to raise funds and awareness for the Special 

Olympics; 

Whereas the cities of Lincoln and Omaha, Nebraska will be 

hosts to the Special Olympics in July 2010; and 


erowe on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
3 

•HRES 1279 IH 

Whereas the Special Olympics provides its athletes continuing 

opportunities to develop physical fitness, demonstrate 

courage, experience joy, and participate in a sharing of 

gifts, skills, and friendship with their families, other Special Olympics athletes, and the community: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives con2 gratulates the Special Olympics on its 40th anniversary 

3 for the contributions and opportunities it provides to all 

4 its participants. 

Æ 


erowe on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
From: wm_dan_adkins@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:08:24 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Wm Adkins

La Fontaine, IN 46940
From: House, Mary
To: Heggs, Angela Subject: FW: Follow up to Workshop
Date: Monday, September 22, 2014 10:27:50 AM
Attachments: Scanned from a Xerox Multifunction Printer.pdf

Hi Angie,

Can you please add the email below, as well as the attached pdfs to the rulemaking docket for the
1110 rule? The comment period should be open until 10/31 on that.

The docket number is: CPSC-2013-0017.

Thanks!

Mary

From: Walt Sanders [ mailto:wsanders@vmgthehill.com ] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 4:14 PM To: Cave, Carol Cc: 'Jeff Duke' Subject: Follow up to Workshop

Dear Carol,

Good to see you at the 1110 workshop yesterday. While I know that CPSC has a stellar record of protecting company trade secrets, and I know this from my experience as counsel to Chairman Ann Brown, I do appreciate your reassuring me that CPSC will continue to safeguard ZMC’s proprietary
information on the identity of 3 rd party manufacturers in China and other foreign countries.

Considering the technical nature of the presentations, you and Jacquie did a remarkable job responding to questions.

I had intended to ask a few more questions from the microphone yesterday directly related to the public information presented at the workshop, but did not want to take up too much time. I would appreciate it if you would please be so kind to respond to three other questions I would have asked?

1. Since many products are repetitively ordered from the same factory with only the date of production changing, would it be feasible and easier for the CPSC to accept the posting of the certificates for each product and each batch of production on the CPSC and company
URLs?

2. It was my impression from a number of the presentations that CBP may not have made the appropriate software changes to properly implement the 1110 rule at this time. It appears that Chairman Kaye’s decision to create a special task force to implement a pilot program to provide both stakeholders and CPSC and CBP to develop coordinated software programs, would be consistent with this development. Is that your impression too?3. Is CPSC and/or CBP prepared to notify companies independently about the incoming shipments of goods before their reach a port to ensure the timely posting of Certificates of Compliance or does CPSC anticipate that companies will track these shipments themselves?

I would appreciate if very much if you could provide answers to my questions.

Walt A. Sanders
Vice President Law & Government Affairs Van Fleet Associates, Inc. 1800 Diagonal Road, Suite 600 Alexandria, VA 22314 (703)647-7504 (O) (703)728-2431(C) (703)647-7531(fax)
**Exhibit 32.1****Certification Pursuant to****18 U.S.C. Section 1350****As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**     In connection with the Annual Report on Form 40-F of Rogers Communications Inc., a corporationorganized under the laws of British Columbia (the “Company”) for the period ending December 31,2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), eachof the undersigned officers of the Company certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:     1. the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and     2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.        Dated: March 28, 2007 /s/ Edward S. Rogers   Edward S. Rogers   President and Chief Executive Officer       Dated: March 28, 2007 /s/ William W. Linton   William W. Linton   Senior Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer
#### Van Dyke *v.*Menlo Fruit Company.

Submitted June 21,

Decided November 15, 1907.

Action for damages. Before Judge Wright. Chattooga ■ superior court. September term, 1906.

*O. D. Rivers,*for plaintiff.

Lumpkin, J.

1. Where a servant sought to recover damages from his employer an account of a physical injury resulting to him while engaged' in loading logs on a wagon, and it was alleged that the master was negligent in having the loading done where the grass and weeds were dense and likely to trip the feet of the plaintiff and cause him to fall under the log which was being loaded, and that rough round “skids” were used in loading, but it appeared that this condition was fully known to the plaintiff, and that he had equal opportunity with the master for knowing it, but voluntarily assumed the risk, the petition was demurrable.

2. Although in such a suit another employee of the same master was-called a manager, yet where the only duty which he was shown to-have to perform was to help the plaintiff to load logs on a wagon, and it was alleged that he was so engaged at the time of the injury, his action in this regard was that of a fellow-servant. *Moore*v. *Dublin Cotton Mills,*127 *Ga.*610 (4).

S. An allegation that the master was “bound to place a competent person to assist plaintiif with said log,” without showing any failure in such alleged duty, or injury resulting from such a failure, sets forth no cause of action.

*Judgment a/firmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Bolden, J., who did not preside.*
From: mike421@atlanticbb.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:57:33 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

mike abramo

Queenstown, MD 21658
From: Cynthia Wiltshire

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Women"s Health

Date: Friday, August 12, 2011 3:24:27 PM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to accept the

recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to coverage of preventive care under the

new health care law, and to reject any exemptions for “religious employers.” These preventive

services are a critical element of the new law and would provide countless women better access to

necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women access to

contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all contraceptive services, are

pushing the government to make exemptions even larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for

the exemption to apply to religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with religious

affiliations would be exempt from the coverage requirement, even though they employ people of

all faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger exemption would deny access to thousands of

women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting IOM’s

recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption provisions.

Cindy Wiltshire
From: smithmarylee19@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:01:01 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Mary Lee Smith

Huntington Beach, CA 92647
#### Charles W. Durant, Appellant, v. William P. Abendroth, Respondent. Henry Fulmer, Appellant, v. William P. Abendroth, Respondent.

Judgment reversed, new trial ordered, costs to abide event. Opinion by

Daniels, J.
<PAGE>
                                                                 EXHIBIT 10aa-5


                                AMENDMENT TO THE
                         BELLSOUTH STOCK INVESTMENT PLAN



This Amendment is made to the BellSouth Employee Stock Investment Plan ("the
Plan"), which was adopted effective April 1, 1996. Pursuant to Section 7.04 of
the Plan, the BellSouth Savings Plan Committee hereby amends the Plan,
effective January 1, 2001, as follows:

Amend Section 7.04 of the Plan by replacing the termination date of the Plan
"December 31, 2000" with the following:

December 31, 2004


APPROVED this 18th day of December, 2001.

BELLSOUTH SAVINGS PLAN COMMITTEE:



/s/ Richard D. Sibbernsen
------------------------------------
Richard D. Sibbernsen
Vice President-Human Resources
Chairman
From: Kelly Quinn

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Monday, August 29, 2011 10:08:29 PM

To Whom it May Concern,

I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no co-pays under

the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

It is imperative that you give credence to my personal objection along with those of

millions of other Americans who do not want to be forced to pay for and provide

medication, devices, and procedures that do not treat or prevent any disease or

illness, but distort and render inoperable a healthy reproductive system. This rule is

unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it should be stricken.

Sincerely,

Kelly Quinn
West Des Moines, Iowa
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
                         THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Select Medical Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Martin F. Jackson, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial position and results of operations of the
Company.

/s/ Martin F. Jackson
---------------------------------------
Martin F. Jackson
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
August 11, 2003
From: Theresa Sawczyn

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Date: Saturday, August 13, 2011 12:58:52 AM

The current definition of religious employer does not provide true conscience protection for

those committed to preserving life. Health care plans should not be forced to violate the

moral and religious convictions of providers or employees in order to participate in the health

care system. Requiring such an unacceptable demand threatens both universal access to

health care and religious freedom of conscience. Thank you for your understanding in regard

to this issue.

Sincerely,

Miss Theresa Sawczyn
From: Moreillon, Judith

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Preventative Care and Contraception

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 10:18:43 PM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to accept the

recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as they pertain to coverage of preventive care under the

new health care law, and to reject any exemptions for “religious employers.” These preventive services

are a critical element of the new law and would provide countless women better access to necessary

health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women access to contraceptive

services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all contraceptive services, are pushing the

government to make exemptions even larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for the exemption to

apply to religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with religious affiliations would be exempt from

the coverage requirement, even though they employ people of all faiths and ideologies. If granted, this

larger exemption would deny access to thousands of women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting IOM’s

recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption provisions.

Thank you.

Judi Moreillon, M.L.S., Ph. D.

Assistant Professor

School of Library and Information Studies

Texas Woman's University

Denton, Texas

jmoreillon@twu.edu<mailto:jmoreillon@twu.edu>
Exhibit 15.1      November 1, 2006   Securities and Exchange Commission
100 F Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20549  Commissioners:   We are aware that our report dated November 1, 2006 on our review of interim financial information of NSTAR for the three-month and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2006 and September 30, 2005 and included in the Company's quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 is incorporated by reference in its Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-117014), Form S-4 (No. 333-78285) and on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-85559 and 333-87272).  Very truly yours,   /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Boston, Massachusetts