This report assesses domestic political support for internationalist foreign policy by analyzing the motivations of members of Congress on key foreign policy issues. It includes case studies on major foreign policy debates in recent years, including the use of force, foreign aid, trade policy and U.S.-Russia relations. It also develops a new series of archetypes for describing the foreign policy worldviews of members of the 115th Congress to replace the current stale and unsophisticated labels of internationalist, isolationist, hawk and dove. Report findings emphasize areas of bipartisan cooperation on foreign policy issues given member ideologies.

Documents the various abuses that occurred during the Bush Admin. relating to the House Judiciary Committee¿s review and jurisdiction, and to develop a comprehensive set of recommendations to prevent the recurrence of these or similar abuses in the future. Contents: Preface: ¿Deconstructing the Imperial Presidency,¿ which describes and critiques the key war power memos that gave rise to the concept of broad-based, unreviewable, and secret presidential powers in time of war. Also describes specific abuses of the Imperial Presidency relating to Judiciary Comm. inquiries. Includes a comprehensive set of 47 policy recommendations designed to respond to the abuses and excesses of the Bush Imperial Presidency.

The field of health psychology has grown dramatically in the last decade, with exciting new developments in the study of how psychological and psychosocial processes contribute to risk for and disease sequelae for a variety of medical problems. In addition, the quality and effectiveness of many of our treatments, and health promotion and disease prevention efforts, have been significantly enhanced by the contributions of health psychologists (Taylor, 1995). Unfortunately, however, much of the theo rizing in health psychology and the empirical research that derives from it continue to reflect the mainstream bias of psychology and medicine, both of which have a primary focus on white, heterosexual, middle-class American men. This bias pervades our thinking despite the demographic heterogeneity of American society (U. S. Bureau of the Census, 1992) and the substantial body of epidemiologic evidence that indicates significant group differences in health status, burden of morbidity and mortality, life expectancy, quality of life, and the risk and protective factors that con tribute to these differences in health outcomes (National Center for Health Statistics, 1994; Myers, Kagawa-Singer, Kumanyika, Lex, & M- kides, 1995). There is also substantial evidence that many of the health promotion and disease prevention efforts that have proven effective with more affluent, educated whites, on whom they were developed, may not yield comparable results when used with populations that differ by eth nicity, social class, gender, or sexual orientation (Cochran & Mays, 1991; Castro, Coe, Gutierres, & Saenz, this volume; Chesney & Nealey, this volume).