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

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1021 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                        Calendar No. 81
107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1021

  To reauthorize the Tropical Forest Conservation Act of 1998 through 
                           fiscal year 2004.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 12, 2001

 Mr. Lugar (for himself, Mr. Biden, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Craig, Mr. Kerry, 
  Mr. Leahy, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Reed, Mr. Roberts, Mr. 
  Helms, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, Mr. Corzine, and Mr. 
Dodd) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 
                 to the Committee on Foreign Relations

                             July 12, 2001

                Reported by Mr. Biden, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To reauthorize the Tropical Forest Conservation Act of 1998 through 
                           fiscal year 2004.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS TO SUPPORT REDUCTION OF DEBT 
              UNDER THE FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961 AND TITLE I OF 
              THE AGRICULTURAL TRADE DEVELOPMENT AND ASSISTANCE ACT OF 
              1954.

    (a) Reauthorization.--Section 806 of the Tropical Forest 
Conservation Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 2431d) is amended by adding at the 
end the following new subsection:
    ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations for Fiscal Years After Fiscal 
Year 2001.--For the cost (as defined in section 502(5) of the Federal 
Credit Reform Act of 1990) for the reduction of any debt pursuant to 
this section or section 807, there are authorized to be appropriated to 
the President the following:
            ``(1) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.
            ``(2) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.
            ``(3) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2004.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 808(a)(1)(D) of the Tropical 
Forest Conservation Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 2431f(a)(1)(D)) is amended 
by striking ``to appropriated under sections 806(a)(2) and 807(a)(2)'' 
and inserting ``to be appropriated under sections 806(a)(2), 807(a)(2), 
and 806(d)''.
                                                        Calendar No. 81

107th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1021

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

  To reauthorize the Tropical Forest Conservation Act of 1998 through 
                           fiscal year 2004.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             July 12, 2001

                       Reported without amendment
```
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1384 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1384

     To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
Assistance Act to expand the definition of the term ``major disaster'' 
 to include an application of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 that 
                    causes severe economic hardship.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 3, 2001

Mr. Smith of Oregon introduced the following bill; which was read twice 
     and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
Assistance Act to expand the definition of the term ``major disaster'' 
 to include an application of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 that 
                    causes severe economic hardship.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DEFINITION OF MAJOR DISASTER.

    Section 102(2) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122(2)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``means any natural'' and inserting the 
        following: ``means--
                    ``(A) any natural'';
            (2) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
        and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(B) any application of the Endangered Species Act 
                of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) that, in the 
                determination of the President, causes economic 
                hardship of sufficient severity and magnitude to 
                warrant major disaster assistance under this Act.''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                            3108
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                       1430
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                            2745
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                              2752
<LOANS>                                          44700
<ALLOWANCE>                                        373
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   54192
<DEPOSITS>                                       39944
<SHORT-TERM>                                      2000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                662
<LONG-TERM>                                       4500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             4
<OTHER-SE>                                        7082
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                   54192
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   1999
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  117
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    13
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                  2129
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                 888
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1104
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             1025
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       30
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    772
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    480
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         480
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       292
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .72
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .72
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.61
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                        31
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   339
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        3
<RECOVERIES>                                         7
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  373
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            373
        

</TABLE>
1 

### Gurdoglanyan, Nicole

From: Harris, Cheryl J MAJ MIL NG NGB ARNG [Cheryl.J.Harris@us.army.mil]

Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 12:54 PM

To: GovernmentAffairs

Subject: Re: Docket No. DOT-OST-2012-0029 (UNCLASSIFIED)

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

Caveats: FOUO

Dear Secretary LaHood:

I am writing today to express my strong support for JetBlue's application to offer new

beyond

‐ perimeter service at Reagan National and link the nation's capital to two other

important capital cities: San Juan, Puerto R ico (connecting onward to St. Thomas, the capital

of the U.S. Virgin Islands) and Austin, Texas.

JetBlue's application will provide much

‐ needed low

‐ fare, high

‐ quality service from the

capital's downtown airport to the capital of our closest territory, and to the capital of the

largest of the contiguous 48 states. Both San Juan and Austin are crying out for new JetBlue

service to DCA, being two of the ten largest markets without nonstop air service to the

airport. Their application will bring tremendous public benefit and much

‐ needed low

‐ fare

competition to DCA.

MAJ Cheryl J. Harris

Manassas, VA

Cheryl.j.harris@us.army.mil

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

Caveats: FOUO
Page | of 1

REG 126.39)-/6
GAL PROCESSING DIVISIO
PUBLICATION & REGULATIONS As of: August 31, 2011
BRANCH Received: August 24, 2011
Status: Posted

PUBLIC SUBMISSION Posted: August 31, 2011

Tracking No. 80ceaf6f
‘Comments Due: September 30, 2011
Submission Type: Web

Docket: IRS-2010-0017
Requirement for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers to Provide Coverage of Preventive
Services under the PatientProtection and Affordable Care Act

Comment On: IRS-2010-0017-0038
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of Preventive Services under
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Amendment

Document: IRS-2010-0017-0085
Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

Submitter Information

Name: Jennifer
Address:
IN,
Email: jennifer.sewell@live.com

General Comment

I believe that all health insurance issuers should assist with contraceptives. | understand that pregnancy
is not a disease and contraceptives are against many religions but in the health care field (regardless of
religion) one of the most important lessons taught in school is NOT to judge the patients. If a patient
presents himself with genital herpes he is treated for the herpes and sent home with medication that will
keep the herpes from coming back (while on the medication) and prevent him from spreading it to
anyone else. How did he aquire those herpes? Probably the same way that a woman would get pregnant.
Could both issues have been avoided by being abstinent? Yes, they could have. But as health care
professionals, it is not our place to judge. Is it our place to educate young people about the decisions
they face and aide them in making better decisions? Absolutely. But if a patient does not have the same
values and beliefs as we do, we cannot treat them any differently. My hospital has no problem admitting
patients who are coming down off of heroin/cocaine or even detoxing from alcohol even if the patient
insists that after discharge he will go right back to the same lifestyle as before. My hospital also has no
problem handing out morphine or dilaudid for known narcotic abusers. So abusing drugs is alright but
oral contraceptives are out of the question..? Where is the logic? A lot of women take contraceptives for
reasons other than birth control. | know women who go 6 months without a normal menses without
contraceptive. I also know women who have a menses every 3 weeks without contraceptive. I know
women who have cramping and bleeding to the extent that they are incapacitated for days. Oral
contraceptives completely correct these issues and most religious companies refuse to acknowledge the
benefits of these drugs. It is a very sad thing to watch these companies to be so judgemental and
hypocritical at the same time.

http://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectId=0900... 8/31/2011
From: mathtee@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Denial of contraceptive coverage

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 7:33:12 PM

Women should not be denied contraceptive services because their employer has a belief against such

coverage. A woman's right to contraceptive services should not be dictated by someone else.

Contraceptives are not being forced upon any one. Some want to force the lack of contraceptives on

others.

This is a health issue. Free contraceptives will help women control their lives and improve the lives of

their family members.

Karen Wagner

mathtee@aol.com
From: Rita Diller

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 3:02:15 PM

To Whom it May Concern,

I am outraged that we, the people, have once again been steamrolled by the Obama

administration and Planned Parenthood. Our right to give input on rules promulgated

by the government has been set aside and our religious freedoms have been thrown

under the bus.

We will be required to pay for other people's contraception through our insurance

premiums, and Catholic institutions and employers will be required to provide and

participate in insurance programs that include abortifacient birth control.

As Planned Parenthood "applauds the U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services (HHS) decision requiring new insurance plans to fully cover FDA-approved

contraceptive methods without co-pays or other out-of-pocket costs," those who

oppose paying for abortifacient birth control are left without even a forum to object.

That is why I turn to you today.

The Obama administration, through its various departments, unilaterally set aside

the required period for public comments and implemented the requirements as of

the date of publication in the Federal RegisterAugust 3, 2011.

The reason given for setting aside statutory provision for public comment? "The

Departments have determined that such a delay in implementation of the statutory

requirement that women receive vital preventive services without cost-sharing would

be contrary to the public interest because it could result in adverse health

consequences that may not otherwise have occurred."

This reasoning is ridiculous and the regulations are an affront to my religious

liberties.

As a member of your constituency, I ask you to please take any and all steps

available to rectify this situation, and notify me of the steps that are being taken to

right this horrible wrong.

Sincerely,

Rita Diller

Pampa, Texas
No. 465, Misc.

#### Callahan *v.*Cunningham, Penitentiary Superintendent.

*William Alfred Hall, Jr.*for petitioner.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia. Certiorari denied.
Docket: EBSA-2010-0011 

Interim Final Rules for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Dependent 

Coverage of Children to Age 26 Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0011-0001 

Interim Final Rules for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Dependent 

Coverage of Children to Age 26 Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

Document: EBSA-2010-0011-DRAFT-0002 

Comment on FR Doc # 2010-11391 

Submitter Information 

Name: Ann Melinda Maher 

Address: 

45 South Seventh Street 

Minneapolis, MN, 55402-1609 

Email: mmaher@oppenheimer.com 

Phone: 612-607-7436 

Organization: Oppenheimer, Wolff & Donnelly 

General Comment 

Some employer-sponsored group health plans extend dependent eligilbity for coverage to 

employees' grandchildren and children of employees' Domestic Partners. Under the PPACA and 

these interim final rules, it is clear that such coverage is not required. If an employer chooses to 

extend eligiblity to such dependents, is the employer now prohibited from imposing a residency 

or support requirement on the grandchild or child of Domestic Partner under Section 2590.715-

2714 (b) "Restrictions on plan definition of dependent"? 

PUBLIC 

SUBMISSION 

As of: July 19, 2010 

Received: May 13, 2010 

Status: Pending_Post 

Tracking No. 80aecc7f 

Comments Due: August 11, 2010

Submission Type: Web

Page 1 of 1

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=... 7/19/2010
From: glass4him@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:52:55 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,

Sue Ubertini

Beach Lake, PA 18405
To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Access to Preventive Care and Contraception!

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 4:38:32 AM

 Department of Health and Human Services

To whom it may concern:

DO NOT ENCOURAGE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION

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 can’t claim to know as much as AAUW, but I am aware of a form of

employment discrimination based on the employee’s religious beliefs

that is considered illegal. Insurance companies have proven to be

unethical and I can’t imagine one being considered religious except for

sales purposes. Though an employer may provide insurance I am

not aware of any instance where the employer has a right or a privilege

to invade the privacy of an employee using his insurance. If the

employer doesn’t conveniently believe in a service or treatment for

whatever, then it is up to him to let his conscience be his guide when

seeking treatment or service. We are talking about a legal requirement

to participate in the society known as the United States of America and

any other interpretation that does not result in religious discrimination if
these “exemptions” were to proceed would be as incredulous as religion

is proving to be.

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.

Opportunity appreciated,

R.
#### The Syracuse Savings Bank, Repondent, v. Dennis Hess and others, Appellants.

Judgment modified, by striking therefrom $34.66, and as modified affirmed, without costs to either party. Opinion by

Follett, J.
Exhibit 32.1

Section 1350 Certification by the Chief Executive Officer

I, Dean Personne, the chief executive
officer of Peak International Limited (the Company), certify for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(i) the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2006 (the Report), fully
complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

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



|                       |  |                        
|---------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: November 9, 2006 |  | /s/  Dean Personne     
|                       |  |                        
|                       |  | Dean Personne          
|                       |  | Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 23.1 Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm We consent to the
use of our report dated, February 28, 2006 with respect to the Combined Financial
Statements of Lightstone Member
LLC, PRC Member LLC, Lightstone Member II LLC, and Lightstone Member III LLC
for the Year Ended December 31, 2005, and our report dated February 24, 2005
with respect to the Consolidated Financial Statements of PRC Member LLC and
Subsidiary and Lightstone Member and Subsidiary for the Year Ended December 31,
2004 in Presidential
Realty Corporations Annual Report
on Form 10-KSB, expected to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and be
effective on or about March 31, 2006. The
  Schonbraun McCann Group LLPRoseland,
  New JerseyMarch 30,
  2006
file:///C|/..._List_29-08-2011_12-55-54-352/Document%20List%2029-08-2011%2012-55-54-352_docs/EBSA-2010-0018-DRAFT-0053.html[8/29/2011 2:37:40 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: August 29, 2011

Received: August 24, 2011

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 80eeb3c9

Comments Due: September 30, 2011

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0018

Interim Final Rules for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of

Preventive Services Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0018-0002

Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of Preventive Services under

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Amendment

Document: EBSA-2010-0018-DRAFT-0053

Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

Submitter Information

General Comment

I highly oppose forcing Health Insurance carriers to provide funding for birth control and/or abortion

type drugs.I suggest a religious exemption for any organization,business,school who desires this as a

protection of their rights and conscience in this matter.
No. 275.

#### Estate of Faulkerson *v.*United States.

*Jerome J. O’Dowd*for petitioner.

*Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Oberdorfer, Wayne G. Barnett, Robert N. Anderson*and *Benjamin M. Parker*for the United States.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.