Search results

(165,781 - 165,800 of 182,750)

Pages

CRS85718Apage04
Title
CRS85718Apage04
Page from
info:fedora/mu:50941
Text
r I I. i, , ‘ 1 s I 5 K 4 'nV.l‘ -3:» "P142,-1'5’ 1...‘ _.‘:...‘..‘.,,_.,-¢.‘.r..-_..,y-,..‘.«‘.-,Va.,,_ ,—: -. . ._.. _..
CRS85718Apage09
Title
CRS85718Apage09
Page from
info:fedora/mu:50941
Text
css-5 issue final regulations no later than 135 days after the end of its period uof comment, numerous agencies had not issued regulations by 1979. An 9 action was filed in California district court seeking to force the promulgationi of these regulations and in 1981 the court ordered the promulgation of the remaining regulations.§! To date, all the affected agencies have issued final regulations
CRS85718Apage12
Title
CRS85718Apage12
Page from
info:fedora/mu:50941
Text
person.p % Subpart C of the lead agency regulations contains the guidelines for determining discriminatory practices. These guidelines include general ‘ i 16/ l . 1 .17/ prohibitions against discrimination,._' sections on emplowment,__?and sect§5§* Ki 1;] 28 c.r.a. §4l.3(d) (1984). n £31 28 c.r.n. §41.31 (19s4). §§ 1g] 28 c.r.n. 541.32 (1934). i is ;§_/ _;_g_. ggj 28 c.r.n. 541.51 (1934). 11/ 28 C
CRS85718Apage14
Title
CRS85718Apage14
Page from
info:fedora/mu:50941
Text
or possession of the property.g$! The DOD regulations also require assurances but obligate the recipient for the period during which the property is used under a financial assistance agreement or is possessed by the recipient. The DOD regulations do not distinguish Q3] between real and personal property. The regulations of all four gig as c.r.n. §34.s (19a4)(aus); 34 C.F.R. 5104.5 (19s4)(rn); 7 c.r.a. §15b
CRS85718Apage01
Title
CRS85718Apage01
Page from
info:fedora/mu:50941
Text
€S- 7/44”“) LC, "Mg/5‘ Congressional Research Service }Q;>t»%”L' 3’5"7/8 The Library of Congress in G°V9f"me"tn., '?UW°a’fi°“9 Unit ‘ JUL ‘.2 2 1994 W33*'i"¢*°"- °-°- 2°54‘) Washington Unaversify Libraries‘ St. Louis, MO 63130 N O E... 0 N G P R0 P E RTE’ Q E O L E N M fikfihfiy ISSUES CONCERNING THE REGULATIONS UNDER SECTION 504 OF THE A &apos
CRS85718Apage02
Title
CRS85718Apage02
Page from
info:fedora/mu:50941
CRS861020ENRSPRpage16
Title
CRS861020ENRSPRpage16
Page from
info:fedora/mu:73520
Text
these assumptions (and everything else being equal), per-cow output might average roughly 19,000 pounds by the year 2000-~nearly 50 percent higher than current production. If demand is between 160 billion and 190 billion pounds at that time, then between 8.4 million andrlD million cows would be needed for production of all milk and dairy products. (If there were no reduction from the 1985 herd of roughly 11
CRS861020ENRSPRpage39
Title
CRS861020ENRSPRpage39
Page from
info:fedora/mu:73520
Text
many scientific challenges. Because FDA approves drug, formulations for specific uses and not drugs per se, the formulations submitted for FDA approval will influence when the drug reaches the commercial market. The companies investigating BST estimate that even if the regulatory process proceeds without unusual delay, the drug will probably not be avai1ab1e.comr C mercially until 1989. 44 Bauman, D
CRS861020ENRSPRpage40
Title
CRS861020ENRSPRpage40
Page from
info:fedora/mu:73520
Text
extend beyond the dairy programs and the regulatory policies discussed above. iThe Federal Government, through USDA, directly supports research on BST. USDA has funded such research at a level of approximately $963,546 in l984 and $2,130,000 in -as-. . 1985. An estimated $1,240,346 will be spent in l986.45,47 Most BST research is funded by private industry, however. Although there is no delineated
CRS861020ENRSPRpage34
Title
CRS861020ENRSPRpage34
Page from
info:fedora/mu:73520
Text
, and Poultry of the Committee on Agriculture. Hearing: Review of the status and potential impact of bovine growth hormone. June 11, 1986. 35 Fox, Michael W., The Humane Society of the United States. Testimony before the Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy and Poultry, committee on Agriculture. Hearing: Review of the status and potential impact of bovine growth hormone. June 11, 1986.
CRS861020ENRSPRpage11
Title
CRS861020ENRSPRpage11
Page from
info:fedora/mu:73520
Text
.3 percent higher than the 1983 level. The 1985 rate was 3.6 percent above 1984. The 1986 and 1987 rates are predicted at about 3 percent and from 1-3 percent, respectively, according to usoA.3 7 For details on this legislation, see U.S. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service. Dairy Price Support Legislation: A Recent History (CRS Rept. No. 84-52 ENR), Mar. 1, 1984; also, The Dairy Provisions
CRS861020ENRSPRpage14
Title
CRS861020ENRSPRpage14
Page from
info:fedora/mu:73520
Text
. These predictions differ from a March 1986 Office of Technology Assessment COTA) report, which stated that some producers might begin using the hormone as-early_ as 1987.129 BST still must complete a lengthy FDA review and approval process, and the companies have not perfected practical applications of the product. As noted above, Dr. Mix estimated that average milk production could. exceed 16,000 pounds per cow
CRS861020ENRSPRpage07
Title
CRS861020ENRSPRpage07
Page from
info:fedora/mu:73520
Text
of consumers and dairy animals. WHAT IS BOVINE SOMATOTROPIN? Growth hormones are naturally occurring proteins produced by animals’ pituitary glands. They are "species specific, meaning that each species produces its own slightly different form of hormone. '___ _,..__...- . . . . . _ -, 4 New Hormone will Transform Western Dairying. New Scientist, Oct. 2, 1986. V ‘
CRS861020ENRSPRpage05
Title
CRS861020ENRSPRpage05
Page from
info:fedora/mu:73520
Text
GH), is expected to he one of the first of these new agricultural biotechnologies made commercially available to large numbers of producers.1 In test herds, the new product has stimulated large increases.in dairy productivity--from lfl to 40k percent more milk per cow~-without corresponding increases in input costs. Some dairy experts have predicted that BST will transform the industry within the next 5 to 10
CRS861020ENRSPRpage36
Title
CRS861020ENRSPRpage36
Page from
info:fedora/mu:73520
Text
CRS*32 An important determinant of whether sufficient environmental effects from a drug approval are identified to warrant that an environmental impact statement is prepared is how possible drug effects are classified at the environmental assessment stage. If FDA considers the effects to relate to drug "safety" or "effectiveness" the standards of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act will apply. If effects are considered "environmental,"_they will be considered under the National Environmental Policy Act and may help to trigger the legal requirement that an environmental impact statement be prepared. Whether possible effects of a drug approval are considered "environmental"s or "economic" also determines whether they are considered in the environmental assessment. Economic effects are not considered in an environmental assessment. However, economic effects will be considered in an environmental impact statement if they are secondary to environmental effects. The distinction between environmental and economic effects, however, is not well- defined in NEPA or in the FDA regulations promulgated under the statute. For indirect effects of drug approval the distinction is murky and is decided by agency discretion.‘ A hypothetical example which illustrates the potential ambiguity follows. In an environmental assessment, increased soil erosion resulting from altered land use patterns might be considered an environmental effect (i.e., an effect that may help to trigger preparation of an environmental impact statement) depending on whether it was considered secondary to an "economic" or "environmental" impact of drug approval. If land use patterns changed because dairy farmers were put out of business (an economic impact of drug approval) because a new drug increased milk production, secondary land use shifts and soil erosion would probably be beyond the reach of an environmental assessment. On the other hand, if land use patterns shifted to accommodate increased feed
CRS83631Epage21
Title
CRS83631Epage21
Page from
info:fedora/mu:88759
Text
CRS-8 general. But it is misleading to consider Hispanics as a single group. The labor market experiences of Mexican-Americans, Puerto Ricans, Cuban Americans, and Central and South Americans vary significantly. Of the Hispanic groups, Mexican-Americans and Puerto Ricans face the most severe employment problems. However, recent refugees from Cuba may negatively affect the Cuban-American group. Puerto Rican men and women have higher unem- ployment rates and lower labor force participation rates than any other His- panic group. 'Why? Mexican-American men receive the lowest wages and have the smallest proportion employed in white-collar jobs of any Hispanic group. Why? Mexican-American women's unemployment rates are as high as Puerto Rican women's and their income level is as low as black women's. Why?‘ Cuban-Americans and Central and South Americans in the United States have high particpation in the A labor force and high income levels relative to their other Hispanic counter- parts. Why? Almost 90 percent of Mexican-Americans live in the Southwest (California, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado). Mainland Puerto Ricans live pri- marily in the Northeast with 70 percent in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Cuban-Americans live mostly in Florida (60 percent), but a large proportion lives in New York and New Jersey (about 25 percent). About two-thirds of Central and South-Americans live in California and New York. Does geographic location in- fluence the labor market success of the various Hispanic groups? ,As a group, Hispanics are more likely to be employed in blue-collar jobs than whites or blacks. Hispanic men, on average, earn less per hour than black or white men and Hispanic women less than black or white women. Why do Hispanics, particularly Mexican-Americans and Puerto Ricans, fare so poorly in the labor
CRS83631Epage18
Title
CRS83631Epage18
Page from
info:fedora/mu:88759
CRS83631Epage07
Title
CRS83631Epage07
Page from
info:fedora/mu:88759
Text
rate reached during the cycle was higher than the minimum rate reached in the previous cycle. In the 1961-1970 cycle (trough to trough) the lowest unemployment rate achieved was 3.4 percent; in the 1970-1975 cycle it was 4.6 percent; in the I975-1980 cycle 5.6 percent; and in the 1980-1982 cycle 6.3_percent. If this pattern holds, we can_expect the lowest unemployment rate in the current cycle
CRS83631Epage15
Title
CRS83631Epage15
Page from
info:fedora/mu:88759
Text
CRS-5 1981 one-parent families with children made up 21 percent of all families with children, up from 11 percent in 1970. Most of these one-parent families (90 percent) are maintained by the mother. How has this dramatic growth in labor force participation affected the labor market success of women? Are there any significant racial differences? Which occupations and industries have absorbed
CRS83631Epage13
Title
CRS83631Epage13
Page from
info:fedora/mu:88759
Text
in 1982 being between the ages of 20 and 34. This growth in the female labor force has been the result of a dramatic increase in their rate of labor force participation. In 1959, 37 out of every 100 women of working age (16 years old and over) were in the labor force; by 1982 this proportion had risen to 53 out of every 100. The large increase has been attributed to numerous factors, including

Pages