Search results

(166,041 - 166,060 of 184,001)

Pages

CRS86553EPWpage05
Title
CRS86553EPWpage05
Page from
info:fedora/mu:56822
Text
'OOOQOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOIO000000000000OIOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOIOIOOO COORDINATION WITH 401(k) PLANS AND 4O3(b)‘ANNUITIES.....7...........,..... La|wO.COOOOOO'OOOOOCOCOOO_O‘OO0'0GOOO'Q'OOOOOQOOOOO,OOOOOOflOO.O=OOO‘OOOOI PrOpo’SalOOO‘C!OOOOOOOOOIOOO0,0)OOO'OO‘OOOOOOOO'0.000IOOOIOOO ‘HURT ’3838OO1OOfiOOOCOOOO|ODOOOOOOIQOO0,0COOO'OO‘OOfOQ]OOOCOOOOOOOO'OOOOOOOOOOOOf uauiuauz WITHDRAWALSCIOOOOCOCCQOOOOOOO
CRS86553EPWpage15
Title
CRS86553EPWpage15
Page from
info:fedora/mu:56822
Text
of two separate individuals argue that this treats one-earner couples unfairly. The Administration has estimated that revenue losses associated with IRA deductions will be about $16 billion in fiscal year 1987. Much like these rev- enue losses, the additional $1 billion in revenue losses associated with the Administration's spousal IRA proposal would have been skewed in favor of high- income
CRS86553EPWpage09
Title
CRS86553EPWpage09
Page from
info:fedora/mu:56822
Text
contribution exceed $2,000 in the 0 ‘ ' Present law contains an anomaly under which a married couple with only one earner can contribute up to a total of $2,250 to their IRAs while a married , couple that has two earners, one of which earned less than $250, is subject to a lower overall limit. ‘For example, if one spouse had compensation of $25,000, ‘and the other spouse had $100, the overall deduction
CRS86553EPWpage10
Title
CRS86553EPWpage10
Page from
info:fedora/mu:56822
CRS86553EPWpage08
Title
CRS86553EPWpage08
Page from
info:fedora/mu:56822
CRS86553EPWpage18
Title
CRS86553EPWpage18
Page from
info:fedora/mu:56822
CRS86553EPWpage12
Title
CRS86553EPWpage12
Page from
info:fedora/mu:56822
CRS86553EPWpage16
Title
CRS86553EPWpage16
Page from
info:fedora/mu:56822
CRS85890Apage17
Title
CRS85890Apage17
Page from
info:fedora/mu:80853
Text
individual fiemhers, is discussed infra at pp; 12-15.’ ' 7 I I Exclusivity of Congress"Rulemahing and Disciplinary Authority I I I Under art. I, 5, cl. 2 of the Constitution, "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with I ‘the Concurrence of ten thirds, expel a Member." Under this blanket language there is‘little doubt
CRS85890Apage18
Title
CRS85890Apage18
Page from
info:fedora/mu:80853
Text
to such Constitution include the authority to delegate some portion of that power to another branch of government? This is another question~&hich has not yet been ' 27/ which it was presented, United States V. Johnson and United States v. Brewster. 39/.144 U.s. 1, 5 (1892). ’ p T ' .., g1] 383 U.S. L69 (1966). ,g§/ 408 U.S. 501 (1972). f’. 28/i
CRS85890Apage04
Title
CRS85890Apage04
Page from
info:fedora/mu:80853
Text
by the Supreme Court in a 1977 case, Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, and turns upon the "potential for disruption" of the branch of government which is asserting the claim. Of these three proposals, H.R; l4l and H.R. 66B are on their face more disruptive than H.r. 691, in that they involve both the‘, ,executive and judicial branches in the adjudication and enforcement process and would
CRS85890Apage21
Title
CRS85890Apage21
Page from
info:fedora/mu:80853
Text
'« cas-LS Dissenting Justice White, joined by Justices Brennan and Douglas, was even stronger in expressing his View that Congress cannot as an institution I I .waive the immunities of its individual Members: . 'H 5 4 Johnson put aside the question of whether an other- A « wise impermissible prosecution conducted pursuant to ' . ‘ a statute such as we now have before us--a statute. specifically including congressional conduct and, purporting to be an exennise of congressional power to.discipline its Membeta--would be consistent with , the'Speech or Debate Clamse ... . . I am convinced ‘ 4 that such a statute contravenes the letter and purpose i. l ' * of the Clause. Truegpcongress itself has defined the _ , ' ' D crime and specifically delegated to the Executive the discretion to prosecute and to the courts the power to try. Nonetheless, I fail to understand how a ma- jority of Congress can bind an objecting Congressman - . to a course so clearly at odds with the constitutional command that'legislative conduct shall be subject to question in no'place other than the Senate or the I House'of Representatives. The Speech or Debate Clause is an allocation of power. It authorizes Congress to .call offending members to.account in their appropriate Houses. A statute that represents-an abdication of that power is‘in my éiew impermissible . . . . The Speech or Debate Clause does not immunize corrupt Congressmen. it reserves the power to discipline‘in the Houses of Congress. I would insist that those qduses develop their own institutions and procedures. for dealing with those in their midst who would prosti- I « tute the legislative processrggfl It is stressed that the preceding comments were taken from dissenting I I opinions, and'that the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on this point. There is ‘language in Chief Justice Burger's dissenting opinion in Davis v. ?assman, supra, which can be read as indicating that the Chief Justice and the two Justices who joined in hisldissent might find such action constitutionally valid. .However, until the question is definitively settled, it remains'a potential impediment to the pejforcement of any enactment purporting to bring Congress within the scope of an e’ployment discrimination statute which is not internally administered." 3 / Id. at 562-3. _
CRS85890Apage08
Title
CRS85890Apage08
Page from
info:fedora/mu:80853
Text
on the following reasoning. ; ' '. . ,under generally-applicable discrimination statutes. . l»f CR3-2' As will be discussed in more detail later, H.R. l4l'and;H.R. 66l include " Congress within the scope of several employment discrimination statutes which are enforced by executive branch agencies and through the judicial system. H.R.,69l extends to both thellegislative
CRS85890Apage15
Title
CRS85890Apage15
Page from
info:fedora/mu:80853
Text
arrest while attending or traveling to and from Congress, I T which is also set forth at art{ L, sec. 6, cll l. I gg/ 421 U.s. 491 (1975). t q_g/.395 U.S. ass (1969). ' , ‘ , ‘ 4 q;§/ See Kaye, "Congressional Papers and judicial Subpoenas," 23 UCLA L. Rev. 57 (1975), and "Congressional Papers, Judicial Subpoenas, and the Constitution,7 24 UCLA L; Rev. 523 (1977). ‘ 1 23/ 421 u
CRS85890Apage07
Title
CRS85890Apage07
Page from
info:fedora/mu:80853
Text
, introduced by Rep. Jacobs on Jan. 3,'l985; H.R. 661, introduced by Rep. Don Edwards on Jan.,24, i985; and H.R. 691,; introduced by Rep. Lynn‘fiartin on Jan. 24, 1983. In addition, a. Res. 137, introduced by Rep. Schroeder .. June 5, L985, establishes an internal mechanism in the House of Representatives'to hear and adjudicate discrimination complaints. Finally,‘H. Con} Res. 139 establish- es
CRS85890Apage22
Title
CRS85890Apage22
Page from
info:fedora/mu:80853
Text
maximum hours for the workweek; I la ofi Labor; 1 2000e-2(a). L‘ C3 \-. 43.. K) C: _ (/3 - (3 U) {D 0 41/€42 U.S;C. sec, 2000e-S. / 29 3.3.0. sec; 153. / 29 U{S.C. sec. LS7. / 29 U.S.C. sec. 158. / U.-S-C.'S8C. ’ :3. 9.3. 515‘. .£§/ 29 U.S.G. sec. L59. ii ‘g1/ 29 U.S.C. sec. 206. 5*... ‘/ 29 U.S.C. sec. 207. I?‘
CRS85890Apage06
Title
CRS85890Apage06
Page from
info:fedora/mu:80853
Text
§ ti 0
CRS86547ENRpage18
Title
CRS86547ENRpage18
Page from
info:fedora/mu:56679
Text
the final one? Other programs, like honey and soybeans, use only loans to support prices. How will USDA limit loans to curtail outlays for these programs-by reducing the loan rate, raising interest charged, or changing eligibility? The dairy program presents special questions. USDA might simply ,reduce the Federal rate of support for manufacturing milk, now at $11.60 per hundred pounds (cwt.). However
CRS861020ENRSPRpage32
Title
CRS861020ENRSPRpage32
Page from
info:fedora/mu:73520
Text
the biotechnology research guidelines developed by the National Institutes of 28 See, Hart, I. C. and J. A. Bines. The Effect of Injecting or Infusing Low Doses of Bovine Growth Hormone or Milk Yield, Milk Composition and the Quantity of Hormone in the Milk Serum of Cows. Animal Production, v.40, 1985. p. 243-250. 29 Personal Communication. Aug. 18, 1986, Lehmann, Richard,lCenter for Veterinary Medicine, Food
CRS861020ENRSPRpage24
Title
CRS861020ENRSPRpage24
Page from
info:fedora/mu:73520
Text
CRS~20 The use of bovine growth hormone to increase milk production is an example of biotechnological progress which does not contribute to increased profitability. A dairy farmer with 100 cows would spend $4,000 per year for the hormone drug and $9,000 for additional feed concentrate. At today's support prices, this $13,000 investment would return $17,000 in additional milk receipts

Pages