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

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1392 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1392

Supporting the goals and ideals of ``National Life Insurance Awareness 
                                Month''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 30, 2008

Mr. Kanjorski (for himself, Mrs. Biggert, Mr. Bachus, and Mr. Hinojosa) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
                   on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Supporting the goals and ideals of ``National Life Insurance Awareness 
                                Month''.

Whereas life insurance is an essential part of a sound financial plan;
Whereas life insurance provides financial security for families by helping 
        surviving members meet immediate and long-term financial obligations and 
        objectives in the event of a premature death in their family;
Whereas approximately 68,000,000 United States citizens lack the adequate level 
        of life insurance coverage needed to ensure a secure financial future 
        for their loved ones;
Whereas life insurance products protect against the uncertainties of life by 
        enabling individuals and families to manage the financial risks of 
        premature death, disability, and long-term care;
Whereas individuals, families, and businesses can benefit from professional 
        insurance and financial planning advice, including an assessment of 
        their life insurance needs; and
Whereas numerous groups supporting life insurance have designated September 2008 
        as ``National Life Insurance Awareness Month'' as a means to encourage 
        consumers to--

    (1) become more aware of their life insurance needs;

    (2) seek professional advice regarding life insurance; and

    (3) take the actions necessary to achieve financial security for their 
loved ones: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the goals and ideals of ``National Life 
        Insurance Awareness Month''; and
            (2) calls on the Federal Government, States, localities, 
        schools, nonprofit organizations, businesses, and the citizens 
        of the United States to observe the month with appropriate 
        programs and activities.
                                 <all>
```
From: LMS255@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:43:07 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,

Laura Sagalski

Hampton, NH 03842
No. 566, Misc.

#### Martinez *v.*United States.

Petitioner *pro se.*

*Solicitor General Cox*for the United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
From: d.murray@lilly.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:21:37 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,

Andrew Murray

Zionsville, IN 46077
From: cheesemonkeyboy@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:04:20 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,

Scott Graham

Huntington Beach, CA 92649
No. 476, Misc.

#### Gaines *v.*United States.

Petitioner *pro se.*

*Solicitor General Cox, Acting Assistant Attorney General Guilfoyle*and *Alan S. Rosenthal*for the United States.

Court of Claims. Certiorari denied.
From: bkilly@q.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:34:35 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,

Bruce Killy

Littleton, CO 80126
From: mdburian1@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:36:46 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,

Mark Burian

Cedar Rapids, IA 52402
No. 613.

#### Berenson et al. *v.*Muchard.

*Thomas Gibbs Gee*and *Robert J. Hear on, Jr.*for petitioners.

*Coleman Gay*for respondent.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORAMTION EXTRACTED FROM *GFSI
HOLDINGS INC. AS OF APRIL 3, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENT.

*IDENTIFY THE FINANCIAL STATMENTS(S) TO BE REFENCED IN THE LEGEND:
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-03-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-03-1998
<CASH>                                           1,122
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,274
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     34,755
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                69,073
<PP&E>                                          36,869
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,877
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  99,164
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,286
<BONDS>                                        234,555
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            4,303
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (166,522)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    99,164
<SALES>                                        165,477
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               165,477
<CGS>                                           92,728
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  133,216
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    11
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,079
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,171
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,839
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,332
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    203
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,129
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
From: leesha.fischer@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:46:35 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,

Leesha Fischer

Hayden, AL 35079
From: dwalker@elitewoodworking.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:23:09 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,

Dan Walker

Glendale, AZ 85310
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsModeling of Global BEAM Structure for Evaluation of MMOD Impacts to Support Development of a Health Monitoring SystemThis report summarizes the initial modeling of the global response of the Bigelow Expandable Activity Module (BEAM) to micrometeorite and orbital debris(MMOD) impacts using a structural, nonlinear, transient dynamic, finite element code. These models complement the on-orbit deployment of the Distributed Impact Detection System (DIDS) to support structural health monitoring studies. Two global models were developed. The first focused exclusively on impacts on the soft-goods (fabric-envelop) portion of BEAM. The second incorporates the bulkhead to support understanding of bulkhead impacts. These models were exercised for random impact locations and responses monitored at the on-orbit sensor locations. The report concludes with areas for future study.Document ID20160001633Acquisition SourceLangley Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsLyle, Karen H.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Vassilakos, Gregory J.*(Analytical Mechanics Associates, Inc. Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredFebruary 5, 2016Publication DateNovember 1, 2015Subject CategorySpacecraft Design, Testing And PerformanceReport/Patent NumberNASA/TM-2015-218984L-20612NF1676L-22609Funding Number(s)WBS: WBS 149030.01.99.99.99.99.23Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightPublic Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20160001633.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
No. 382, Misc.

#### Hornbeck *v.*New York.

Court of Appeals of New York. Certiorari denied.