Search results

(167,221 - 167,240 of 182,687)

Pages

CRS87371Lpage08
Title
CRS87371Lpage08
Page from
info:fedora/mu:73888
Text
Wye. ’(?.ime§-flgicagune Thaaoda. 3/, /42'/-, €cl3~f5«u7J 90.8. 9198 7» Reproduced with Permission. The (New Orleans) Times-Picayurie Watching the watchers The third recent major failure of American counterintelligence is per- haps the most spectacular and was perhaps the most preventable. We have had a CIA agent, briefed for assignment to Moscow, defect and have exposed, after great damage was done, a ring of Navy men who fed a widespectrum of defense intelligence to the Soviets. Now two Marine guards at the American Embassy in Moscow stand charged with letting KGB officers roam the most sensitive areas of the embassy after hours. Marine guards at diplomatic missions abroad are, virtually by definition, above suspicion. They are not privy to security information. They keep the keys to buildings and offices because they the premises to see that classified papers and equipment are not left on desks and in waste-baskets,’ that file cabinets are locked and classified equipment is not left out. They do not have combinations, but combination locks are no mystery to foreign professionals. A lot is still fuzzy in the charges, but even at minimum they are serious. The code room is said to have been thoroughly penetrated, A but it is said to be unclear whether the am}:-essador’s and the CIA station chiefs offices were. The guards are said to have provided the Soviets names, photographs, addresses and phone numbers of American intelligence agents, information Marine guards do not possess and cannot normally acquire, unless giving others access to the CIA office files is meant. The two are said to have turned over classified contents of burn bags, which would mean that embassy procedure was sloppy --— such burning is supposed to be supervised by cleared embassy personnel. Indeed, several procedures seem to have been sloppy if the guards committed the deeds they are charged with, and several other people and institutions need to be examined for remedies. News note that no one else has yet been disciplined in the case, but the Marine sergeant who commands the embassy guard unit must have many ques- tions to answer. The two guards are said to have been seduced into treason by Russian female employees of the embassy who were KGB agents. It is assumed that all Russian embassy employees are. KGB agents or report to the KGB (last fall, belatedly and unrelated to this incident, hiring of local personnel was ended). The embassy is small, isolated from local society and thus turned in onto itself. How, then, could such alliances have gone unknown or even unsuspected by the men’s superiors, colleagues or acquaintances? Foreign intelligence services are able and can beat us fair and square. But most tum- coat agents, seen too late in retrospect, exhibit characteristics or behavior that should have alerted their superiors _at least to suspicion. The Marines are naturally fearful that all will be tarred with this bmsh. But, in fact, the system of providing diplomatic missions with Marine guards should now come under review. It is a relic from the time when such guards were actually defensive forces; now they are impressively uniformed watchmen --— young, largely unsophisticated, trained not for this work but for battlefield action --4 doing a job better assigned to professional counterintelligence officers. Even lacking reports of successes, which must go unreported to be successes, we assume that American counterintelligence is broadly effective. But trumpeted failures give the impression that we are always locking the barn door after a horse that should have been known to be a rogue has escaped. The lesson to be learned is always the same: tighten up and pay attention.
CRS87371Lpage26
Title
CRS87371Lpage26
Page from
info:fedora/mu:73888
Text
THE MILWAUKEE JOURNAL /9. /0/4 0198 7 The Milwaukee Journal. Reproduced with Permission. 7 /9/7» W / .o.=5 a «pronoun 3 nonaoa a E on :o:a.:m_EEua 2: E3 :2: 3.5 §2§.u$=8 3. mmmmma 8 can Boumofi 5 >838» ms 2: mascara mmaomzu 3 fiaucm o5 .§EoE 8 canoe: m_ :o:awamo>:_ «SE 5:2 .:._2_ £5 3 33¢ 6.5 293 $2: 3932 52: on S ..u>o3o: .u..3aEo.E on 2.53 £ .bEEo.E vmE.§o on 8 coo: btofiau uo men: :2: .o
CRS87371Lpage22
Title
CRS87371Lpage22
Page from
info:fedora/mu:73888
Text
- omcial - Americans living in Moscow. One need only think back to 1960 after the U-2 spy incident to those dramatic pictures of an indignant Henry Cabot Lodge showing Americans a massive rep- lica of the Great Seal of the US from the American embassy in Moscow - in which the Soviets had planted a listening device. And among security lapses, there was the bombing of the Marine barracks in Leba- non a few
CRS87371Lpage12
Title
CRS87371Lpage12
Page from
info:fedora/mu:73888
Text
How- ard, who handed over stacks of secrets before defecting in1985. It has happened to the Soviets as well. a In the case of the Marine guards, though, the State Depart- ment was asking for trouble. It plopped 28 Marines — all young, single and green — into the mid- dle of an unfriendly country for two years at a time and told them not to befriend local wom- Editorials — 0193',’ The Burlington
CRS87371Lpage47
Title
CRS87371Lpage47
Page from
info:fedora/mu:73888
Text
-es who undermined internal security and counterintelligence programs in the early 1970s, enabling foreign powers to get their noses under the tent. As long ago as 1980, the Heritage Founda- tion warned in its Mandate for Leadership that “counterintelligence in the United States has all but disintegrated. .. As the need for counterintelligence has grown,” it contin- - ued, “our ability to meet those
CRS87371Lpage30
Title
CRS87371Lpage30
Page from
info:fedora/mu:73888
Text
&W; /%”f / 6 iflnrllanh ¥,lr2S§ lleralh *3 19 87 Reproduced with Permission. S Portland (Maine) Press Herald a S / From Russia with love Whoever negotiated the deal allowing the Soviet Union and the United States to build new embassies in each other’s countries ought to be fired from govern- ment service and forced to sell aluminum siding for a living. Consider: The Russian embassy, built atop
CRS87371Lpage19
Title
CRS87371Lpage19
Page from
info:fedora/mu:73888
Text
ill): iflall as 'illnruiu.g toms ©1937 The Dallas Morning News. Reproduced with Permission. fl/st/$1,/¢aS’@ p 504 EMBASSY SCANDAL If convicted, Marines deserve maximum penalty Military men, no less than other citizens, have the right to be considered innocent un- til proved guilty. But if the two Marines charged with betraying their trust and their country in the Moscow embassy are con- victed
CRS87371Lpage17
Title
CRS87371Lpage17
Page from
info:fedora/mu:73888
Text
Qlje gllzxftfofb gioufant aim./3, /755 f- 4/2 C l,987'- Reproduced with Permission. The Hartford Courant . . . No greater dishonor Public capacity for outrage i: i being worn by the series of violations of national security information by American citizens. The ar- rests of three Marine guards, who served at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow and allegedly- allowed Soviet KGB agents ac :cess
CRS86556Epage05
Title
CRS86556Epage05
Page from
info:fedora/mu:61366
Text
ands i3enat“e.i bills,... and.r the: final- confersencesoi agreement. See: in: particular Titles? on Tax Shelters and Interest Expense, p- :1+137“:¢, lI+157.— Helpful interpretations and elaborations can be found in Peat,x Marwick, Mitchell & Co., Tax Reform Act of 1986: Conference Agreement, August:2l,.l986.. 2/ The Conference Committee reached its agreement on August 16, 1986, which became
CRS86556Epage02
Title
CRS86556Epage02
Page from
info:fedora/mu:61366
Text
ABSTRACT This report briefly describes the limits placed by the Tax Reform‘ Act of 1986 on the deductibility of interest by individuals. It includes the categories of business interest, consumer interest, home mortgage interest, investment interest, interest on activities subject to the passive loss limits, and interest on rental real estate in which the taxpayer actively participates.
CRS86556Epage14
Title
CRS86556Epage14
Page from
info:fedora/mu:61366
Text
;iossesiiandxdeduction~equivaient?credits)- from all such active rental..activities may be taken in each year against the taxpayer's non-passive income. The amount. of this allowed deduction is phased out for adjusted gross incomer(determined, without regard: to passive losses, IRA contributions, or taxable Social Security benefits) between $100,000 and $150,000.. The same« dollar,limit,app1ies whether
CRS86556Epage07
Title
CRS86556Epage07
Page from
info:fedora/mu:61366
Text
CRS-3 consumer interest deductions that are disallowed tnr these limits, unlike investment interest or passive losses. A Phase-out Timetable (Applies to several categories of disallowed deductions: all consumer interest; and passive losses, investment interest, and mortgage interest in excess of new limits) Tax Year Percent Disallowed- Percent Allowed 1986 _ o 100 1987 35 65 1988 60 40 1989 80 20
CRS86556Epage15
Title
CRS86556Epage15
Page from
info:fedora/mu:61366
Text
of 1986, by Jack Taylor. [Washington] 1986. (Report no. 86-929 E) The Tax Reform Act of 1986 and Owners of Rental Housing, by Richard Bourdon. [Washington] 1986. (Report no. 86-919 E) £§/ Conference Report, p. II-141. af/sem/rb/nn/rb
CRS86556Epage03
Title
CRS86556Epage03
Page from
info:fedora/mu:61366
Text
CRS-v -E CONTENTS O O O O O I O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O :0 O O O O O CONSUMER INTEREST . . . . . . . .7. . . . . . Phase-out Timetable . . . .'. . 5 . . . Interest on Borrowing Associated with Life Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . HOME MORTGAGE INTEREST . . . . . . . . . . . Ministers and Military Personnel . 4 . . INVESTMENT INTEREST . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTEREST
CRS86556Epage16
Title
CRS86556Epage16
Page from
info:fedora/mu:61366
Text
UBRARY ‘.'.L‘F Wifx ~'.‘.‘.~ ' ‘ “JGTON L'- -=3iTY ST. .33 - M0. . ».ug‘_.._...._..... ........._... __ ___ ..-_.._..--, , ~
CRS86796ENRpage20
Title
CRS86796ENRpage20
Page from
info:fedora/mu:72802
Text
CR3-l6 about these compounds. Of the approximately l2OO compounds used as inert ingredients in pesticide formulations, EPA identified: 1) 55 compounds of known toxicity, such as animal carcinogens and neurotoxic chemicals; l 2) 51 compounds structurally related to those with known toxicity; 3) 900 compounds (approximately) of unknown toxicity: and 4) 200 compounds (approximately) determined
CRS86796ENRpage50
Title
CRS86796ENRpage50
Page from
info:fedora/mu:72802
Text
CRS-46, \ Further amendments regarding these provisions might be offered during consideration of H.R. 2482 before the House. In the Senate, additional proposals are expected during Committee mark-up if not also on the Senate floor. I Llsnkxnv OF s wASH|NC5TN U’NI”VeER8jlT‘.l:' 31'." LOUl‘S '- MO.
CRS86796ENRpage22
Title
CRS86796ENRpage22
Page from
info:fedora/mu:72802
Text
. A product came under an RPAR “In the original set of amendments offered in 1971 by the Nixon Administration, pesticides were to be classified in three categories: 13 general use, to allow unrestricted use of products which presented no -unreasonable risks to the applicator. consumer of the treated commodity, or the environment: 2) restricted use. to control the use of products which presented acute risks
CRS86796ENRpage05
Title
CRS86796ENRpage05
Page from
info:fedora/mu:72802
Text
PESTICIDE REGULATION: l986 AMENDMENTS TO FIFRA I. INTRODUCTION Pesticides are chemicals used to control many kinds of pests: insects that attack crops, destroy materialsy and serve as disease vectors; weeds, fungi and other disease-causing organisms; nematodes; and others. They have become major components of agricultural production and of health protection. Against their benefits, certain hazards must be ‘weighed. Pesticides may be highly toxic, some are persistent in the environment, and many pose risks to nontarget organisms. During World War II, synthetic organic pesticides were developed for use in the war effort. After the war, the pesticide industry expanded rapidly. In l947, Congress enacted the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to protect farmers from ineffective and dangerous pesticides. It accomplished this through registration of labels that were required on all pesticides. The regulatory authority to control pesticide use comes through the requirement that before a pesticide can be marketed. it must be granted a "registration," a decision based on a determination of what uses are safe and what use restrictions are necessary. The law was under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
CRS86796ENRpage34
Title
CRS86796ENRpage34
Page from
info:fedora/mu:72802
Text
CR8-30 techniques mean that more and more impurities, breakdown products. and metabolites of a pesticide can be identified. If any one of them is a carcinogen. EDA must determine the proper application of the Delaney Clause. Similarly, techniques to identify carcinogenic activity are increasingly sensitive, but the meaning of some test responses remains open to question. In these cases where the test implications are debatable, who should referee the debate (EPA or FDA), and should the Delaney Clause apply? Similarly. one can ask whether registration should proceed for a pesticide that is carcinogenic in animal tests and meets risk—benefit criteria for registration for use on raw agricultural commodities, but one of its residues is also subject to food additive tolerance requirements, including the Delaney Clause zero residue proviso. For example, if the Delaney Clause were to prohibit a 409 food additive tolerance for a pesticide residue in citrus oil, should all tolerances for the pesticide on citrus be disapproved since it is not possible to know what oranges will be used in making citrus oil? The second issue arises primarily because FIFRA provides for 5-year reregistrations. whereas FDCA tolerances are "permanent." The FDCA includes no procedure for revising them. except through revoking an existing tolerance and setting a new one, which can bepa very cumbersome process. New data generated as a result of current reregistration activities are certain to call into question many tolerances set in previous years on less complete data. (Reregistration is described in an earlier section.) EPA has not yet articulated how it will address tolerances in the light of those new data.

Pages