Search results

(166,241 - 166,260 of 183,449)

Pages

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
CRS861020ENRSPRpage10
Title
CRS861020ENRSPRpage10
Page from
info:fedora/mu:73520
Text
CRS-6 - consumption, which includes the milk contained in all dairy products consumed, dropped from 706 pcunds in 1955 to 596 pounds in 1985.5 However, population growth more than offset this per capita decline, pushing total civilian consumption of milk from 114.6 billion pounds in 1955 to 141.2 billion pounds in 1985, an average increase of 0.7 percent per year. A U.S. milk herd totalling more
CRS861020ENRSPRpage21
Title
CRS861020ENRSPRpage21
Page from
info:fedora/mu:73520
Text
), introduced on September 19, would require USDA to submit a report to Congress only on the impact of BST on milk production and price supports.18 PRACTICAL APPLICATION AND COST What will the availability of BST supplements mean to the individual dairy farmer? will he or she find BST easy to apply? How much will it cost? As of late 1986, researchers had not yet perfected practical application of thee hormone
CRS861020ENRSPRpage37
Title
CRS861020ENRSPRpage37
Page from
info:fedora/mu:73520
Text
, and were to include in that analysis environmental, economic and social effects, the agency would not be 39 21 ova 2S.31a, format item 9. 40 FDA letter.
CRS861020ENRSPRpage38
Title
CRS861020ENRSPRpage38
Page from
info:fedora/mu:73520
Text
cRs—34 bound to take a particular action under NEPA. While FDA must uphold both NEPA and the FDCA, NEPA requires only that environmental effects be explored before major Federal action (e.g., drug approval) is taken.41,42 However, NEPA does not prescribe the action to be taken after environmental effects are considered. On the other hand, the FDCA requires that drugs that meet the statutory requirements of safety and effectiveness be approved. FDA has stated that ultimately, drug approval decisions are necessarily based only on scientific considerations having to do with whether a drug is safe and effective.43« There may be a need to reconcile NEPA and FDCA if, for example, BST were found to be safe and effective but caused significant environmental effects. In balancing these two laws, such factors as the significance of the environmental impact, the degree to which the effect posed a risk to public health, and the amount by which environmental effects could be mitigated by requiring prescriptions or warning labels on the drug would influence the action FDA finally takes. Efficacy and Animal Health Issues It appears that among the more substantial issues to be resolved before BST can be approved are the long-term efficacy and safety to the cow. Currently available data were collected from cows treated with BST under optimum research conditions over a relatively short interval of time. Under 41 21 can 25.42. 42 42 use 4332. 43 FDA letter.
CRS86547ENRpage24
Title
CRS86547ENRpage24
Page from
info:fedora/mu:56679
Text
Block said producers entering 1986-crop programs will be notified at the time of sign-up how programs will be affected by the deficit reduction legislation. A In regard to dairy program provisions, Black said the price support level of $11.69 per hundredweight will remain unchanged for the current fiscal year, but CCC purchase prices for cheese, butter, and nonfat dry milk will be discounted by 4
CRS861031EPWpage10
Title
CRS861031EPWpage10
Page from
info:fedora/mu:47428
Text
CRS~4 B. Passage of the EITC Fol1owing the recession that occurred in 1974, Congress passed the Tax Reduction Act of 1975. The 1975 Act was an attempt to halt the sliding economy. The Congress refunded $8.1 billion in 1974 individual income taxes,and cut . 1975 Federal income taxes for individuals by another $10 billion. The House Ways and Means Committee report on the Tax Reduction Act of 1975
CRS861031EPWpage34
Title
CRS861031EPWpage34
Page from
info:fedora/mu:47428
Text
LIsnAm} W" OF ,WASHINGTON UNIVERSFTY 8T. LOUIS — MO.
CRS861031EPWpage12
Title
CRS861031EPWpage12
Page from
info:fedora/mu:47428
Text
and thus ended when adjusted gross income reached $8,000. c. Extensions of EITC (1975-1977 Laws) % ‘The Revenue Adjustment Act of 1975, P.L. 94-164, extended the EITC from January 1, 1976 to January 1, 1977, and included a provision requiring that the EITC not be counted in calculating program benefits and determining eligibility of recipients of Federal or federally supported assistance programs
CRS861031EPWpage02
Title
CRS861031EPWpage02
Page from
info:fedora/mu:47428
Text
J! ‘ I4. ‘ ISI +y{ ‘1 .:yL‘ L: .l.1.vx.x,.{1.. 1 1: \x ‘ i
CRS861031EPWpage14
Title
CRS861031EPWpage14
Page from
info:fedora/mu:47428
Text
. Conference Committee. Revenue Act of 1978. Report to Accompany H.R. 13511. Oct. 15, 1978. House Report No. 95-1800, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1978. p. 200. Finance Committee. Revenue Act of 1978. Senate Report No. 95-1263, 95th Senate. Octo 1, 3;] U.S. Congress. Report to Accompany H.R. 13511. ~Cong., 2d Sess. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1978. p. 52.
CRS86570Epage09
Title
CRS86570Epage09
Page from
info:fedora/mu:38242
Text
CRS-6 TABLE 2. Share of Each Country in U.S.—Latin American Trade, 1985 (Percentage of Total) Country U.S. Exports U.S. Imports TOTAL 100.0 100.0 Brazil 0 A 11.5 17.5 Mexico 49.1 44.0 Venezuela 11.7‘ 15.0 Others 27.7 23.5 Source: .U.S. Department of Commerce. TradeNet Data Retrieval System. Brazil and Venezuela are among the leading U.S. trade partners in Latin America. But Mexico dominates
CRS86570Epage08
Title
CRS86570Epage08
Page from
info:fedora/mu:38242
Text
Debt Crisis, 1982-84. by Patricia Wertman, September 17, 1984. p.16. 5/ CR8 calculations based (H1 data contained :h1 International Monetary Fund. Direction of Trade Statistics. Yearbook. 1985. Washington. Q! Between the end of 1982 and the end of 1984, real GNP in the United States grew an annual average of 5.3 percent. During the same period, real GNP in the other OECD countries grew by EH1 annual
CRS861031EPWpage04
Title
CRS861031EPWpage04
Page from
info:fedora/mu:47428
Text
(G 9' Q _ N _
CRS86760GOVpage14
Title
CRS86760GOVpage14
Page from
info:fedora/mu:73336
Text
'ICI RANAII 0 432.373 72.032 HAWAII 01 432.313 30 043 CALIFORNIA 05 525.331 34.207 CALIFORNIA 44 525.330 27.334 CALIEORNIA 11 525.800 22.858 CALIFORNIA 10 525.785 22.043 CALIFORNIA 24 525 333 21.030 CALIFORNIA 03 523.343 13.333 CALIFORNIA 03 523 110 13.413 CALIFORNIA 32 523 154 1; 554 CALIFORNIA 31 525 733 11.423 CALIFORNIA 41. 523 223 11,245 CALIFORNIA 13 523 150 10.533 vIRGINZA 0 523.173 10.343 NASRINOTON
CRS86760GOVpage24
Title
CRS86760GOVpage24
Page from
info:fedora/mu:73336
Text
’) - U] v——i ~i(.) 1) 11 Q. c)N 'U 0 H HI V~d OL0 -4-L>l\J(A)O-- I:-(JO(AJO|——~»(') -‘I L‘) I-I (.flU1Ia(31U1 I\)— ON 01 N ~_* 0) C) (D -t 0| (0 )(0 —* 4 ()'l(.)'| Nf\)f\J( T1070) I.n(O0) U|()|(5l\l()| .2‘. 18. (51 0| 0| 0| 0] N N —» - 01.0) to m 0 0) I) O (I) c.) 0) ()1 Ioooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo U W 11 0 m —1 C) 8150 .5758 .5548 .5383 .5271 .5239 .5192
CRS86760GOVpage13
Title
CRS86760GOVpage13
Page from
info:fedora/mu:73336
Text
2.533 30 0.4327 33 415 NASHINGTGN 01 513.233 4.572 33 0.3355 33 413 NASHINGTGN ' 02 513.430 1.573 33 0.3043 33 417 WASHINGTON 03 . 513.453 1.305 100 0.2527 33 413 NASRINGTGN 04 513.445 1.073 112 0.2033 103 413 NASRINGTGN I 05 513.721 353 153 0.1270 157 420 WASHINGTON 03 513.535 4.233 41 0.3252 40 421 NASRINGTGN 07 513.573 10.031 15 1.3413 15 422 WASHINGTON 03 513.303 2.133 37 0.4231 33 423
CRS86760GOVpage16
Title
CRS86760GOVpage16
Page from
info:fedora/mu:73336
Text
—~ -4 0 0 o C) E) {:3 0 --'C)(0(I)\l) 0 (II L101.) mwwmwmmbmmmmmm-Ll::3:777 wN4owmqmmhwm4ummumm5wm ._—D_.I...—«\._..O....b...5—-I...-.D_..4b -.h...—i1...J...a1...|....b..>_.b 00(1) Illa ( 6 m 137 138 G9 '40 ‘.41 142 143 m4 .145 146 147 -148 149 150 151 ‘I52 ‘:53 7A5L5 THE 0.5 ::LIn'=O POPULATION BY.CQHSRESSI1HAL DISTRICT RANKED 5Y -0r55R STA75 COnGR5SSIONAL '0&apos

Pages