Soil Compaction Research In the United States and Canada —1958 ASAE Soil Compaction Committee Report

1958 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 0058-0064
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soil Compaction ◽  
The United States ◽  
Committee Report

Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law

1961 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
pp. 697-733 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denys P. Myers
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economic Cooperation ◽  
Committee Report ◽  
Department Of State ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
Legal Adviser ◽  
Contemporary Practice

The Senate on March 16, 1961, by a vote of 72 to 18, advised and consented to the ratification of the Convention on the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and its three protocols signed at Paris December 14, 1960. The Organization is a consultative forum capable of initiating agreements on the use and development of economic resources, on removing obstacles to trade and current payments, on liberalization of capital movements, on the flow of capital to less developed countries. The 20 signatories are the industrialized states of Europe, Canada and the United States. A vociferous opposition to the convention by interests that erroneously thought it might reduce tariffs was heard by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Whether on that account or because they realized the importance of the convention itself, members of that committee in two executive sessions carefully probed official spokesmen to satisfy themselves that the convention did not affect the powers of the President or Congress. As a consequence, the resolution approving the convention took this unusual form: Having regard to and in reliance on the statement in the letter of January 16, 1961, from Secretary of State Herter to President Eisenhower and transmitted by him to the Senate on January 17, 1961, that “the U. S. representative will not have any additional powers in substantive matters to bind the United States after the convention enters into force than now exist in the Executive, but that any act of the Organization outside the power of the Executive will require action by Congress or the Senate, as the case may be, before the United States can be bound,” and having regard to and in reliance on the testimony of Secretary of the Treasury Dillon and Under Secretary of State Ball in behalf of the administration, and having regard to and in reliance on the Opinion of the Legal Adviser of the Department of State dated March 6, 1961, and quoted in the committee report of this convention:Resolved (Two-thirds of the Senators present concurring therein), That the Senate advise and consent to the ratification of the Convention on the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, together with two protocols relating thereto, signed at Paris on December 14, 1960, by representatives of the United States of America, Canada, and the 18 member countries of the Organization for European Economic Cooperation (Executive E, 87th Congress, 1st session), with the interpretation and explanation of the intent of the Senate that nothing in the convention, or the advice and consent of the Senate to the ratification thereof, confers any power on the Executive to bind the United States in substantive matters beyond what the Executive now has, or to bind the United States without compliance with applicable procedures imposed by domestic law, or confers any power on the Congress to take action in fields previously beyond the authority of Congress, or limits Congress in the exercise of any power it now has.

scholarly journals Prospects for a National Clearinghouse on International Medical Schools

2008 ◽  
Vol 94 (3) ◽  
pp. 7-11
Author(s):  
David Alan Johnson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Medical Education ◽  
Medical Schools ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Medical ◽  
Committee Report ◽  
Close Monitoring ◽  
Special Committee ◽  
The Caribbean ◽  
State Medical Boards

ABSTRACT In 2006, a special committee appointed by the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) issued its report on the “Evaluation of Undergraduate Medical Education” in the United States and abroad. Satisfied with accreditation systems already providing reasonable and adequate assurance for the quality of medical education in this country, the committee turned its focus toward international medical schools. Because international medical graduates (IMGs) comprise 25 percent of the physician workforce, U.S. medical licensing boards continue to seek meaningful information on the medical schools of their licensees. The report's recommendations included a call for close monitoring of efforts to provide international accreditation systems. One of the current initiatives being closely watched is that of the Caribbean Authority for Accreditation in Medicine and Other Health Professions (CAAM). Under the auspices of the Caribbean Community, CAAM has established an accreditation system for medical schools in the region, carried out site visits and rendered decisions for a number of Caribbean schools. A complementary initiative currently underway by FSMB and ECFMG staff involves the development of a primer on IMGs and international medical education. This web-based resource is scheduled for completion in late fall 2008. The major recommendation of the special committee report called for the FSMB to work with state medical boards and the ECFMG to establish an information and data clearinghouse on international medical schools. A clearinghouse workgroup has already begun meeting and considering various quality indicators suggested by the special committee report such as admission requirements, policies relative to advanced standing and aggregate performance data on USMLE. The challenges facing the clearinghouse are significant. One approach being considered is to focus data collection efforts primarily on the eight to 10 schools currently supplying the largest number of IMGs seeking medical licensure in the United States.

AGA Institute Future Trends Committee Report: The Future of Gastroenterology Training Programs in the United States

2008 ◽  
Vol 135 (5) ◽  
pp. 1764-1789.e2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy C. Wang ◽  
Fabio Cominelli ◽  
David E. Fleischer ◽  
James M. Gordon ◽  
Robert M. Glickman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Training Programs ◽  
The United States ◽  
Committee Report ◽  
Future Trends ◽  
The Future

Potential yield loss in sugar beet due to weed interference in the United States and Canada

2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (6) ◽  
pp. 749-753 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nader Soltani ◽  
J. Anita Dille ◽  
Darren E. Robinson ◽  
Christy L. Sprague ◽  
Don W. Morishita ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
North America ◽  
Sugar Beet ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Quantitative Data ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
The United States ◽  
Committee Report ◽  
Potential Yield ◽  
Weed Interference

AbstractThe objective of this WSSA Weed Loss Committee report is to provide quantitative data on the potential yield loss in sugar beet due to weed interference from the major sugar beet growing areas of the United States and Canada. Researchers and extension specialists who conducted research on weed control in sugar beet in the United States and Canada provided quantitative data on sugar beet yield loss due to weed interference in their regions. Specifically, data were requested from weed control studies in sugar beet from up to 10 individual studies per calendar year over a 15-yr period between 2002 and 2017. Data collected indicated that if weeds are left uncontrolled under optimal agronomic practices, growers in Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ontario, Oregon, and Wyoming would potentially lose an average of 79%, 61%, 66%, 68%, 63%, 75%, 83%, 78%, and 77% of the sugar beet yield. The corresponding monetary loss would be approximately US$234, US$122, US$369, US$43, US$40, US$211, US$12, US$14, and US$32 million, respectively. The average yield loss due to weed interference for the primary sugar beet growing areas of North America was estimated to be 70%. Thus, if weeds are not controlled, growers in the United States would lose approximately 22.4 million tonnes of sugar beet yield valued at approximately US$1.25 billion, and growers in Canada would lose approximately 0.5 million tonnes of sugar beet yield valued at approximately US$25 million. The high return on investment in weed management highlights the importance of continued weed science research for sustaining high crop yield and profitability of sugar beet production in North America.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document