Search results

(167,801 - 167,820 of 183,544)

Pages

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.
CRS86796ENRpage44
Title
CRS86796ENRpage44
Page from
info:fedora/mu:72802
Text
r CRS-40 place EPA and the registrant in adversarial roles, which arguably is not the most effective way to develop highly site specific regulations. In addition, since the restrictions are to prevent action levels being exceeded in the future, there would appear to be considerable room for contention about whether present restrictions are needed. The fourth and last major issue addresses the situation where the residue detected in a groundwater drinking water source already exceeds the action level. The controversy surrounds whether or not EPA should immediately prohibit use of the pesticide in the area and/or immediately require registration amendments. What criteria should determine how EPA is to impose restrictions or label amendments which would bring and maintain concentrations of the pesticide at or below the action level at points of human.consumption? How quickly should EPA have to act to mitigate the situation, and what kinds of solutions should EPA be allowed to propose under FIFRA? Such provisions, triggered when a pesticide's action level is ex- ceeded, seek to control the problem quickly by expediting EPA's power to restrict the pesticide's use. For example, some proposals would allow EPA to prohibit the use of a pesticide in a certain area without going through the process of amending the label. However, EPA officials state that such local determinations would either be impossible to make, or would be excessively resource-intensive to properly determine. More easily made determinations, such as a universal decision rule (e.g. prohibiting use within a two-mile radius of the site of contamination), might be administratively feasible, but could adversely affect pesticide
CRS86796ENRpage26
Title
CRS86796ENRpage26
Page from
info:fedora/mu:72802
Text
CRS-22 the Reviews will be greatly reduced; and 2) the success of changes to the Special Review process is related to proposed changes to the adjudicatory hearing process outlined in FIFRA. (Section 6 of FIFRA outlines procedures for challenges to EPA cancellation proposals: possible changes to these hearing procedures are described in more detail in the next section of this paper.) What is less
CRS86796ENRpage32
Title
CRS86796ENRpage32
Page from
info:fedora/mu:72802
Text
. In this one case, FIFRA provides for EPA to set a "temporary tolerance,” which has been interpreted as being subject to the same risk—benefit criteria as FIFRA applies in registration. 10 r .
CRS86796ENRpage35
Title
CRS86796ENRpage35
Page from
info:fedora/mu:72802
Text
other factors, State or local variation from the Federal standards is justified. 1 During the 97th Congress the ri nts of States to require further {.7 13 health and safety data beyond that required by EPA proved especially contentious; attempts to strengthen Federal preemption powers were

Pages