Search results

(165,781 - 165,800 of 183,285)

Pages

CRS861020ENRSPRpage28
Title
CRS861020ENRSPRpage28
Page from
info:fedora/mu:73520
Text
pushing more farmers out of business. "In the short run, improvements in economic efficiency can rarely be made without making some sectors worse off while improving others," the December 1984 Cornell report commented. Critics argue that this downside outweighs the touted benefits of the new technology.i Most importantly, it threatens to flood a market already saturated by too much milk
CRS861020ENRSPRpage27
Title
CRS861020ENRSPRpage27
Page from
info:fedora/mu:73520
Text
CRS~23 While conceding at the House hearing that larger operators tend to adopt new technology more rapidly than smaller ones, Dr. Jorgensen of the University of Wisconsin agreed that the technology itself does not inherently favor large herds. "In fact, unless manufacturers can overcome the problem of daily injections, this may be a technology that works better in smaller herds, and more carefully managed herds than in megaherds held in loose housing," he said- THE U.S. DAIRY INDUSTRY AT A CROSSROADS The advent of BST could place the U.S. dairy industry at a crossroads. A producer will either produce the same amount of milk with fewer cows, ore i produce more milk with his or her present, or perhaps a larger, herd. What makes either road passable is the ability of BST to lower production costs, proponents observe. These lower costs will enable producers to provide milk and dairy products to consumers at lower prices, according to proponents,. who argue that the greater efficiencies promised by BST are merely typical of the advances that have enabled U.S. farmers to provide an abundance of food for consumers at the lowest relative cost in the world. USDA's Wilson summarized these arguments at the House hearing: The potential benefits of bGH are greater efficiency, lower costs of production, increased consumption, improved profitability for remaining dairy farmers, a greater ability to compete in the world dairy market and also to compete with substitute dairy products. Noting that other countries already are conducting their own research on BST, Wilson added: We cannot, nor should we stop technological development from taking place. Attempting to halt technology in this country will only place us at a comparative disadvantage relative to other countries which continue to pursue new technology. m -
CRS861020ENRSPRpage30
Title
CRS861020ENRSPRpage30
Page from
info:fedora/mu:73520
Text
CRS*26 REGULATION OF BOVINE SOMATOTROPIN* INTRODUCTION The authority to regulate animal drugs, including BST, rests with the Secretary of Health and Human Services (DHHS). The Secretary promulgates theseregulations under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act KFDCA) and upon the recommendation of the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The Commissioner's recommendation is based upon a review of scientific information prepared by the drug sponsor (usually a company seeking to sell the drug commercially) concerning the safety and effectiveness of the drug, the safety for treated animals and for humans exposed to the drug, and the possible environmental impact of drug use. The FDCA provides for regulation of animal drugs in two principal phases. First, for an experimental drug, a Notice of Claimed Investigational Exemption for a New Animal Drug (an INAD) must be filed with FDA before it can be shipped for use in clinical studies. Second, before a drug can be approved for comercial use, a New Animal Drug Application (NADA) must be approved by FDA. Superimposed over these statutory requirements are those of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). ‘Regulations promulgated under NEPA require that environmental effects of drug use be considered in connection with filing an INAD or before a drug may be approved for commercial use. * By Sarah Taylor, Analyst, Science Policy Research Division.
CRS861020ENRSPRpage44
Title
CRS861020ENRSPRpage44
Page from
info:fedora/mu:73520
Text
CRS"40 innovations (drugs) as though either the benefits of a safe and effective drug outweigh economic costs, or that costs to health and the environment cannot be compensated for by economic benefits, or that the most-desirable economic benefits are derived from innovations that are effective and safe to health and the environment. Although it is early in the regulatorv review of BST, no health or environmental issues have emerged so far that are likely to keep the drug from approval altogether. As a result, any action to stop EST comercialization on the grounds that it offered no clear economic benefit would require congressional action to change existing laws. This step--stopping % commercialization of a new drug,on the basis of economic impacts--wouldt represent a departure from the "innovation policy" embodied in Federal animal drug regulations.
CRS861020ENRSPRpage46
Title
CRS861020ENRSPRpage46
Page from
info:fedora/mu:73520
Text
CRS~42 .6. will consumer needs be addressed adequately? How wi1l'consumer percegtions influence the market for dairy products made from milk from cows treated with BST? 7. What impact will BST have on the operation and cost of the current Federal dairy price support program? Does the nation need to consider a new Federal dairy price support policy that better accommodates the introduction
CRS861031EPWpage11
Title
CRS861031EPWpage11
Page from
info:fedora/mu:47428
Text
with the other and that it would punish poor welfare recipients who were attempting to better their own lives Z] U.S. efiongress. Senate. Committee on Finance. Tax Reduction Act of 1975. Report to Accompany H.R. 2166. Mar. 17, 1975. ,Senate Report No. 94-36, I 94th Cong, lst Sess. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1975. p. 11. _§/ Ibid., p. 33. A 2/ Congressional Record. Senate.g Mar. 18, 1975. p. 7230. C 19
CRS861031EPWpage30
Title
CRS861031EPWpage30
Page from
info:fedora/mu:47428
Text
..¢cHa¢¢ .u.m ammmfi mo uu< ucmaum=nu< m=:m>mm may \m .-a¢m .a.m .n~aH mo uu< cowuoawmm xma one xm .>~w:wvuouum muwwmcmn m.%~wEmm m:u?wo:wmu mam % .wm>wmo .mu:ma%mm UHHM. _ sou zaamauom cmsz mu:m>wm nm>wmomu .wm>Hmomu sacs msoocm vacuum mawemw manmwwam % :m;3 maoocw wwaumm . xumaoamu cw Mm mm wmucaou UHHM X maammm cu mums mm wmucnou UHHM we , % ,uHHm mo acme fir .3m~ fiwofi mo fimmmmm mmuwmmo mummamz mucmsxmm mu:m>v< % smug mucm>v< .N R nu «mag . Hmmfi . anmfi .uc:oEm uwmmcwn waw Iawaumumv cw vmucsou mmm.u=n mufififinfimflam % wcficweumumu aw vm .u::oEm Iucsou UHHM .omI~Im uwmmcmn van muwmmn wawccwwmm .uc:oEm %Iww«~m wcwafieumuww .u::oEm uwwmcmn uwmo:mn«v:m aufiawn cw maoocw vmaumm no muaawnwwwam . W .:HmHHm wcwnaeumu mm umuaaoo uawm mswcwauwumu aw g Imv.:« weoocw mm oaHm mo .3m~ omma mo amwmmm vmua:ou_mmm.UHHm . wmuczou mmm.oHHm .:oHww>oum oz uameummua .~ m~¢H c~¢H \m mnafi \m muafi mamuwcum wo:mum«mm< vwuw< haamumwmm cam Hmumvmm cw oeum mo ucmeumwuh mo mwoaocounu .~.¢%mAm<H
CRS861031EPWpage13
Title
CRS861031EPWpage13
Page from
info:fedora/mu:47428
Text
earnings from self-employment), and thus could not exceed $500 per family per year. The maximum credit of $500 was received for earnings between $5,000 and $6,000.$ For each dollar of income above $6,000, the EITC was reduced by 12.5 cents and thus ended when adjusted gross income breached $10,000. léf U.S. Congress. Joint Committee on Taxation. ' General Explanation of the Revenue Act of 1978. Mar
CRS861031EPWpage29
Title
CRS861031EPWpage29
Page from
info:fedora/mu:47428
Text
.wmuum:m mm3 ama umww « .umummmum:u mama» cam wwafi ummz xmu mom m>Huummum \m .mmmH mama xmu now m>wuowmwm EM. Amumaaou «wag nay ooo.-m oom.¢Hw ooo.~Hw ooo.o~w ooo.ww use ommmgg mamumamsoo mm uHHm JUHSB um waoucw Nofi . Nod N-.- Nm.~H Nofi Amum. uaommmnav uwvmuo EOHM vwuuswww mmcwcumw mnuxw mo uamoumm Amumafioc ¢m¢H say .2 Hoo.m m Hom.o m Hom.o m ~oo.o m ~oo.qw ufiumuu we J. unowmmca mo uumum
CRS861031EPWpage24
Title
CRS861031EPWpage24
Page from
info:fedora/mu:47428
Text
and employer) on the "working poor." In 1986. a person (with a child) earning $5,000 would receive the max- imum EITC benefit of $550, equal to 77 percent of the social security taxes of $715 paid by him and on his behalf. _g_§_/ A However, a person earning $10,000 would receive an EITC payment of only $l22, equal to 8.5 percent of the social security taxes of $1,430 paid by him and on his behalf
CRS861031EPWpage31
Title
CRS861031EPWpage31
Page from
info:fedora/mu:47428
Text
CRS-27 TABLE A.3. Recipient and Expenditure Data for Selected R Government Assistance Programs, 1980-1985 AFDC . 0 Food stamps Recipients. Expenditures Recipients Expenditures) (in millions) (in billions) (in millions) (in billions) ' 193o........... 10.6 $13.4 21.1 s 9.2 ]-98100000000000 l98200000000000 V l983........... 10.7 15.4 23.0 12.8 l984ooooooooooc 1009 1691 ' . 2203 l2o4
CRS861031EPWpage05
Title
CRS861031EPWpage05
Page from
info:fedora/mu:47428
Text
’ ELIGIBILITYOOOOOOOOOOO‘OOOOOOOOOOOOO000000000000OOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOO‘OOOO BENEFITS‘-0000000000080000000000000000000COCOOO;OO~O00000000000000.0000 A. Levels Until 1987............................................... 15 B. 1987 and Thereafter............................................. 15 1. 1987 Benefit Levels......................................... 16 C. Comparison With Other Programs
CRS861031EPWpage19
Title
CRS861031EPWpage19
Page from
info:fedora/mu:47428
Text
_ cRs~14 Participating families receive EITC benefits in one of three ways: (1) a reduction in income tax liability, l2] (2) a cash payment from the Treasury if the family has no income tax liability, or (3) a combination of reduced taxes and direct payment. Most EITC benefits have been paid in the form of cash benefits rather than as an offset to tax 1iability., To receive a EITC benefit
CRS861031EPWpage26
Title
CRS861031EPWpage26
Page from
info:fedora/mu:47428
Text
CRS-21 The combined cash and benefit income of the two separated family units ($16,900) would exceed that of the intact family ($12,860); moreover, the wseparated families would qualifyfor Medicaid. However, if each of the 2~person units had to spend as much on rent and utilities as the intact family, and proportionately as much for child care, food, and social sew curity taxes (but nothing
CRS83539EPWpage28
Title
CRS83539EPWpage28
Page from
info:fedora/mu:85851
Text
4
CRS83539EPWpage02
Title
CRS83539EPWpage02
Page from
info:fedora/mu:85851
CRS83539EPWpage13
Title
CRS83539EPWpage13
Page from
info:fedora/mu:85851
Text
the guidelines in 1973 (9.L.i 93-150), and was made mandatory at 95 percent above them in 1975 (P.L. 93-326). Also in 1975, legislation required that reduced-price lunchesl Abe offered in all schools participating in the program. In 1981, the reduced price maximum eligibility level was lowered to 185 percent of the OMB poverty 1 guideline. Table 1 provides information on the average monthly number of children
CRS83539EPWpage07
Title
CRS83539EPWpage07
Page from
info:fedora/mu:85851
Text
guidelines, ; while reduced-price meals are available to children from families with incomes. between 130 percent and 185 percent of these guidelines..i The cash reimbursement for the 1983-84 school year for each lunch served is ll.S cents except in schooldistricts where 60 percent or more of the meals are served free or at reduced-price. In such school districts, the reimbursement is 2 cents higher, or 13.5
CRS83539EPWpage11
Title
CRS83539EPWpage11
Page from
info:fedora/mu:85851
Text
CRS+3 l BRIEF LEGISLATIVE AND DATA HISTORY ,Although the origins of the school lunch program can be traced back to the mid-1930s, when the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) started a program for purchasing and distributing surplus commodities, the program was not per- manently authorized until the National School Lunch Act, (P.L. 79-396) became / law in 1946. As originally passed
CRS83539EPWpage04
Title
CRS83539EPWpage04
Page from
info:fedora/mu:85851

Pages