[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 30 (Wednesday, February 15, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2757-S2764]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. McCONNELL (for himself, Mr. Coverdell, and Mr. D'Amato):
  S. 422. A bill to authorize the appropriations for international 
economic and security assistance; to the Committee on Foreign 
Relations.


                     foreign aid reform legislation

 Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, it seems to me there are two 
good reasons for a complete overhaul of foreign aid the world has 
changed and Congress has changed. The cold war is over replaced by a 
new, ambitious Russia, a host of violent smaller regimes, ethnic 
tensions, nuclear concerns, and massive refugee movements affecting 
even our own borders.
  On the bright side, there are former communist nations actively 
seeking U.S. support, the flourishing of free enterprise and democracy, 
giant leaps in free trade and real prospects for peace in some of the 
most war-torn parts of the world.
  Since the world has changed so dramatically, our tools of foreign 
policy must change with it--and one of the key tools is foreign aid.
  That is the impetus for the proposal I am introducing today.
  Our ability to effectively target foreign aid is crippled in large 
part by the outmoded and unduly complicated Foreign Assistance Act of 
1961.
  The 300-plus pages of this document contain 33 conflicting goals, 75 
questionable priorities, which effectively tyrannize the 10,000 AID 
employees who carry out 1,700 projects in 89 countries.
  There is no real sense of coherence, strategy, or focus to the law or 
our aid program. It may seem reasonable to direct the President to 
support a rural development program, but should we be 
[[Page S2758]] requiring him to protect ``community woodlots''? Maybe 
the law should define an ``increase in foreign crop productivity'' as 
an American national priority, but should we go so far as requiring the 
President to ``strengthen foreign systems to deliver fertilizer to 
farmers?'' Creating national standards for nutrition is one thing, but 
should the law direct U.S. assistance support a ``strategy for breast-
feeding''?
  While many of the goals enshrined in law may be admirable, I question 
whether they are American national priorities. My bill presents three 
clear, supportable goals: first, foreign aid must protect American 
security; second, foreign aid must promote American economic interests 
and finally, foreign aid must preserve political and regional 
stability.
  Together with these broad goals, I want to adopt specific conditions 
and performance criteria. If the conditions can't be met, the program 
should not be funded. Throughout my tenure on the Foreign Relations 
Committee and the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, I can't think of a 
single country that has graduated from U.S. assistance.
  This is partly due to the fact that we send money to countries where 
government policies actually defeat the prospects for real economic 
growth. It's in our interests to facilitate the transition to free 
markets, not subsidize failures.
  So, as a beginning point, this bill radically changes our approach to 
bilateral economic aid. In the past development assistance has focused 
on relieving the symptoms of poverty and despair. No doubt there are 
people and communities where the quality of life has improved somewhat. 
But by any standard, the fact is most poor countries are still poor and 
that is largely because of government practices and policies.
  This bill starts from scratch. Development assistance, economic 
support funds and related programs are eliminated and instead I have 
established a new, smaller bilateral economic aid account. Funds can 
only be spent in countries committed to the road to free-market reform.
  Aid will flow if a government encourages free trade and investment, 
protects private property, ownership and interests, limits state 
control of financial institutions, production and manufacturing and 
restricts interference in establishing wages and prices.
  Several weeks ago at the Miami summit we heard 33 nations extol the 
merits of trade not aid. Chile's impressive record may have had a great 
deal to do with this hemispheric shift in emphasis.
  In 1970, it had the twin distinction of being the world's largest 
recipient of U.S. aid per capita and being an economic basket case. 
Setting aside wrenching internal political events, once cut loose from 
aid dependency, Chile implemented a comprehensive free-market system, 
turned an economic corner and the rest, as they say, is history. The 
success of these reforms is evident in the fact that Chile's economic 
strength has opened the door to early membership in NAFTA.
  Chile offers a good lesson in why foreign aid fails. If countries 
resist market reforms no amount of aid will improve economic or 
political conditions.
  Absent meaningful reforms, foreign aid, like crack for an addict, 
only fuels failure.
  The only way to break the devastating cycle of dependency is to end 
foreign aid entitlement programs, to change our economic aid agenda.
  We should be contributing to a cure, supporting and energizing 
economic growth and opportunity, not just offering temporary relief 
from symptoms.
  Why? Well setting aside altruistic motives, it is in our economic 
interests to encourage countries to embrace free-market principles. As 
we turn the corner on this century, it is clear our own economic health 
and progress, improving and expanding American job opportunities are 
closely tied to export opportunities in developing countries.
  This mutually enriching scenario depends upon changing how we 
administer foreign aid--aid must become performance based.
  Beyond defining broad goals and performance based economic aid 
strategy, the bill also funds specific national priorities. As drafted, 
the bill creates two separate titles--one for Europe and the NIS and 
the other for the Middle East.
  There is little question in my mind that the security interests of 
our Nation are directly affected by stability in the Middle East and 
Europe. In the former, the administration has actively pursued a 
comprehensive peace agreement. Whether or not negotiations produce 
sound, durable agreements, the United States has ongoing interests 
driven by a number of issues including our close alliance with Israel, 
the important relationship with Egypt, as well as concerns about 
political extremism, energy security and terrorism.
  I believe our assistance supports vital American interests in the 
region and should be sustained.
  Turning to the second region where I think we have vital interest, 
the bill provides $350 million for Eastern Europe and the Baltics and 
$750 million for assistance to the New Independent States of the former 
Soviet Union. Within the NIS account, the bill earmarks funds for 
Ukraine, Armenia, and Georgia.
  I also toughen conditions on Russian aid. No funds can be provided if 
there is any evidence the government is directing or supporting the 
violation of another nation's territory or sovereignty.
  Beyond the NIS, many of my colleagues share a concern about expanding 
the sphere of NATO's stabilizing influence. This bill builds on this 
interest and targets excess defense articles and IMET for the Baltic 
nations and the Visegrad group.
  In addition, as an alternative to Russia's ambition to exercise a 
unilateral security role in the region, I earmark money for a training 
and support of a joint peacekeeping battalion for the Baltics. This was 
a program the President announced in Riga this
 summer and then immediately told Congress, he was diverting the 
funding to Haiti. This reversal was a serious mistake which the bill 
corrects.

  This bill not only spells out what needs to be done, but which agency 
should do it.
  There are two major structural changes: first, trade and export 
promotion efforts are consolidated. The Trade Development Agency and 
the Overseas Private Investment Corporation are merged and the funding 
level is boosted.
  One clear way to strengthen popular support for foreign aid is to 
make it more effectively serve American business interests--as I 
mentioned, American jobs, exports, and income depend on it.
  Second, the bill abolishes AID and consolidates the agency's 
functions under the Secretary of State. This recommendation reflects my 
view that U.S. foreign aid must better serve U.S. foreign policy 
interests. The connection between U.S. aid and U.S. interests has been 
lost with agencies acting wholly independent of our collective 
interests and common good.
  And, there is no more compelling illustration of the problem than the 
difficulties which plague the NIS program. Here you have the first 
major initiative since the Marshall plan. It enjoys the President's 
personal attention and bipartisan support in Congress--if anything was 
designed to work it should have been our NIS effort.
  Instead, bureaucratic redundancy has allowed AID to blame the State 
Department, State to blame AID--and when all else fails, both blame the 
host government for not asking for a program in the first place.
  But for a combination of these excuses, we could have had an 
aggressive effort underway 2 years ago--helping lay a foundation for a 
legal and commercial code protecting citizens and property throughout 
the NIS.
  Instead, Judge Freeh has been put in the unfortunate position of 
playing catch-up with an international Mafia capable of undermining the 
successful transition to free markets throughout the region, not to 
mention engaging in nuclear terrorism against the United States.
  Let me add one more point on the need to reorganize the foreign 
policy bureaucracy.
  I have only addressed issues that fall directly within the 
jurisdiction of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee. Given the 
opportunity, I would also recommend consolidating USIA activities under 
the State Department and abolish ACDA altogether.
  [[Page S2759]] It makes no sense not to have the agency responsible 
for communicating U.S. interests separate and apart from the agency it 
serves. The State Department and USIA are integrated overseas and 
should be here at home. As for ACDA, it is completely unclear what they 
do that couldn't be done by the Undersecretary for International 
Security Affairs. Since these agencies are beyond the jurisdiction of 
my subcommittee, I will leave their reorganization and funding to the 
good judgment of Senator Helms and Senator Gramm.
  This bill is a new lease on life for American assistance programs. 
Although drafted here in Congress, I should point out that I worked 
hard to assure that we do not micromanage the process.
  Presidential flexibility is clearly preserved in general, by 
broadening goals and specifically by maintaining various waiver and 
transfer authorities, although I have restructured them somewhat to 
address a number of problems which have developed in the past several 
years.
  Recently, the administration has increased its use of waivers to move 
forward with programs which I think everyone would agree are 
controversial. The fact that waivers have been so frequently invoked at 
the last possible minute, suggest one of two things: either the 
administration is incapable of even short-term planning or they are 
intentionally undermining the congressional notification and 
consultation process.
  I am not prepared to pass judgment at this stage, but let me point 
out that waiver authorities included in this bill in sections 208, 701, 
and 703 must now either meet a national security interests test or 
Congress must be notified in advance of the use of the waiver.
  Let me conclude by summing up where my bill takes foreign aid: First, 
I clearly define American interests; second, I set standards for 
performance; third, I fund American priorities in the Middle East and 
Europe and, fourth, I reorganize the bureaucracy so that foreign aid 
better serves our foreign interests.
  If we don't produce real changes in how we administer foreign aid--
soon--we will end up with no foreign aid at all.
  In 1961, when he transmitted the Foreign Assistance Act to the Hill, 
President John Kennedy said:

       No objective supporter of foreign aid can be satisfied with 
     the existing program--actually a multiplicity of programs. 
     Bureaucratically fragmented, awkward and slow, its 
     administration is diffused over a haphazard and irrational 
     structure covering at least four departments and several 
     agencies. The program is based on a series of legislative 
     measures and administrative procedures conceived at different 
     times for different purposes, many of them obsolete, 
     inconsistent and unduly rigid and thus unsuited for our 
     present needs and purposes. Its weaknesses have begun to 
     undermine our confidence in our effort both here and abroad.

  Forty-four years later, President Kennedy's words couldn't be more 
accurate.
  Let me conclude by expressing my appreciation to Senator Coverdell 
and Senator D'Amato who have joined in cosponsoring this measure. When 
I released this bill in December, Senator Coverdell was quick to point 
out many features which he supported and one which caused him serious 
concern. It is in deference to his considerable expertise and strong 
views that I revised my original draft and removed the Peace Corps from 
my reorganization plan.
  I look forward to working with Senator Coverdell and his colleagues 
on the Foreign Relations Committee to reform the foreign aid and policy 
process. Let me pay special recognition to the committee chairman, 
Senator Helms, whose leadership is crucial to changing the way this 
country carries out both its foreign policy and foreign aid agenda. It 
is my hope that working together in the authorization and 
appropriations process we can take advantage of a unique moment in 
history and complete a comprehensive reorganization of the foreign 
policy bureaucracy.
 Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friend 
from Kentucky, Senator McConnell, in introducing legislation to 
overhaul our current foreign aid program. I commend him on his efforts 
and his leadership in this matter, and look forward to working with him 
and others to forge a new foreign assistance framework for the 21st 
century.
  That foreign aid reform is needed is clear. Amazingly, after 32 
years, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 remains the basic statute for 
our foreign aid program. Since then, the world has changed in ways few 
could have imagined. The collapse of Soviet influence, the growing 
interdependence of markets and the regionalization of conflict are 
realities that face this Congress and the American people. Reform 
efforts must be as sweeping as the changes that have made them 
necessary.
  By almost any standard by which Congress evaluates programs, foreign 
aid has fallen short. Despite years of U.S. assistance, few countries 
have been able to make the transition from poor to developed. Examples 
of countries graduating from U.S. assistance to self-sufficiency are 
few and far between. While many nations have made serious efforts to 
help themselves, U.S. assistance is all too often a disincentive to 
economic reform and real growth. As a result, most Americans hold 
foreign aid in contempt. Their frustration is understandable, but it 
must be changed if we are to remain world leaders.
  The world has changed dramatically, demanding a new foreign aid 
apparatus to address the new international environment. In this current 
climate of global unpredictability an shrinking budget resources, a new 
approach is needed. The bill we are introducing today meets that 
challenge. It states very simply that foreign assistance should meet 
three goals: It must protect American security, promote American 
economic interests, and preserve political and regional stability.
  To meet these goals, our bill consolidates bureaucracies originally 
designed to meet the cold-war reality, and streamlines them in order to 
meet the new security environment. It provides additional resources to 
assist and promote U.S. economic interests oversees, creating more jobs 
and opportunities here at home. Our bill addresses what I believe has 
been a dangerous trend toward subcontracting our unique military 
capability to international institutions by prohibiting voluntary 
peacekeeping funds from being used to support U.S. personnel under U.N. 
command. Finally, the legislation anchors United States strategic 
interested throughout the globe by maintaining our commitment to the 
Middle East and Europe.
  Additionally, I would like to thank Senator McConnell for his 
cooperation in another matter regrading this legislation. As originally 
written, this bill would have folded the U.S. Peace Corps into the 
State Department. As former Director of the Peace Corps, I believe such 
a move would ultimately have detracted from the effectiveness and 
efficiency of the organization. The safety of Peace Corps volunteers, 
in my judgment, depends on its independent status. I raised these 
concerns with Senator McConnell, and I appreciate his willingness to 
remove this provision.
  To close, I want to commend the Senator from Kentucky for his hard 
work in this matter. Prudently managed, properly targeted foreign aid 
serves the national interests of the Untied States. Our challenge is to 
build a system that does both. I am proud to be included in this 
effort, and will continue to work toward the principles and objectives 
outlined in this legislation.
                                 ______

      By Mr. COHEN:
  S. 423. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
improved access to quality long-term care services, to create 
incentives for greater private sector participation and personal 
responsibility in financing such services, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Finance.


           the private long-term care protection act of 1995

 Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
additional material be printed in the Record.

Section-by-Section Summary of the Private Long-Term Care Protection Act 
                                of 1995

       Purpose: The Cohen legislation is designed to provide 
     improved access to long term care services. An emphasis is 
     placed on removing tax barriers and creating incentives which 
     encourage individuals and their families to finance their 
     future long term care needs. 
     [[Page S2760]] The bill creates consumer protection standards 
     for long term care insurance, and provides incentives and 
     public education to encourage the purchase of private long 
     term care insurance.


           title i--tax treatment of long term care insurance

Sec. 101. Qualified long term care services treated as medical expenses

       Section 213 of the Internal Revenue Code is clarified to 
     allow qualified individuals to deduct out-of-pocket long term 
     care services as medical expenses subject to a floor of 7.5 
     percent of adjusted gross income. Qualified long term care 
     services include necessary diagnostic, preventive, 
     therapeutic, rehabilitative, maintenance and personal care 
     performed in either a residential or nonresidential setting. 
     Qualified individuals must be determined by a licensed 
     professional or qualified community case manager to be unable 
     to perform without substantial assistance at least two 
     activities of daily living (ADLs) or suffer from a moderate 
     cognitive impairment.

            Sec. 102. Treatment of long term care insurance

       Section 213 is also amended to allow qualified long term 
     care insurance premiums to be deducted as medical insurance 
     subject to the 7.5 percent-of-adjusted-gross-income-floor. 
     Qualified long term care insurance premiums are also 
     deductible as a business expense and employer-provided long 
     term care insurance is excluded from an employee's taxable 
     income. A qualified long term care insurance policy must meet 
     the regulatory standards as established in Title II.

        Sec. 103. Treatment of qualified long term care policies

       Benefits paid under qualified long term care insurance 
     policies would be excluded from income under section 105(c) 
     ``Payments Unrelated to Absence from Work'', and employer-
     paid long term care insurance would be a tax free employee 
     fringe benefit.
       The daily benefit cap for all long term care policies would 
     be established at $200 per day and indexed for inflation.
      There is no ``cliff'' on per diem distributions, meaning 
     that only payments above the established cap are treated 
     as income.
        Private long-term care insurance is exempt from 
     the continuation of coverage requirements created by COBRA. 
     In addition, long-term care will be considered a ``qualified 
     benefit'' that may be included in a cafeteria plan.

   Sec. 105. Tax treatment of accelerated death benefits under life 
                          insurance contracts

       Clarifies that an accelerated death benefit received by an 
     individual on the life of an insured who is terminally ill 
     individual (expected to die within 12 months) is excluded 
     from taxable income as payment by reason of death.


            title ii. standards for long-term care insurance

       Sec. 201. National Long-Term Care Insurance Advisory Panel

       Establishes a national advisory board to help implement the 
     long-term care consumer protection standards, and educate the 
     public, insurers, providers and other regulatory bodies of 
     issues related to long-term care insurance.

                     Sec. 202. Policy requirements

       Insurers are required to meet the National Association of 
     Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) January 1, 1993 standards for 
     long-term insurance. Additional federal requirements include: 
     a mandatory offer of nonforfeiture benefits, rate 
     stabilization, minimum rate guarantees, limits and 
     notification of increases on premiums and reimbursement 
     mechanisms for long-term care policies. Policies that do not 
     meet these consumer protection standards would be denied the 
     favorable tax treatment described in Section I.

    Sec. 203. Additional requirements for issuers of long-term care 
                           insurance policies

       A penalty of $100 per day per policy shall be imposed on 
     long-term care issuers failing to meet the minimum federal 
     standards as outlined in this section. The civil monetary 
     penalty per policy may not exceed $25,000 against carriers, 
     and may not exceed $15,000 per policy against insurance 
     agents.

             Sec. 204. Coordination with State requirements

       A State retains the authority to apply additional standards 
     or regulations that provide greater protection of 
     policyholders of long-term care insurance.

               Sec. 205. Uniform language and definitions

       The National Advisory Council shall issue standards for the 
     use of uniform language and definitions in long-term care 
     insurance policies, with permissible variations to take into 
     account differences in State licensing requirements for long-
     term care providers.


  title iii--incentives to encourage the purchase of private insurance

          Sec. 301. Public information and education programs

       The Secretary of Health and Human Services is directed to 
     establish a program designed to educate individuals on the 
     risks of incurring catastrophic long-term care costs and the 
     coverage options available to insure against this risk. 
     Education should increase consumers knowledge of the lack of 
     coverage for long-term care in Medicare, Medigap and most 
     private health insurance policies and explain the various 
     benefits and features of private long-term care insurance.

  Sec. 302. Assets or resources disregarded under the Medicaid program

       Amends Section 1917(b) of the Social Security Act, related 
     to Medicaid Estate Recoveries, to allow for States to 
     establish asset protection programs for individuals who 
     purchase qualified long-term care insurance policies, without 
     requiring States to recover such assets upon a beneficiaries 
     death. This provision is aimed at encouraging more middle-
     income persons to purchase long-term care insurance by 
     allowing individuals to keep a limited amount of assets and 
     still qualify for Medicaid, if they have purchased long-term 
     care insurance.
       States that develop asset protection programs to encourage 
     private insurance purchase are required to conform with 
     uniform reporting and documentation requirements established 
     by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

  Sec. 303. Distributions from individual retirement accounts for the 
             purchase of long-term care insurance coverage

       Individuals above 59\1/2\ are allowed tax-free 
     distributions from an IRA or an individual retirement annuity 
     for the purchase of a long-term policy. This provision also 
     allows individuals below the age of 59\1/2\ to withdraw from 
     their individual retirement account without penalty in order 
     to purchase a qualified long-term care plan. Individuals who 
     obtain tax-free distributions from their IRA or individual 
     retirement annuity would be restricted from deducting their 
     long-term care insurance premium as a medical expense under 
     Title I of this act.
                                 ______

      By Mr. D'AMATO:
  S. 424. A bill to provide for adherence with MacBride Principles by 
United States persons doing business in Northern Ireland; to the 
Committee on Finance.


           the northern ireland fair employment practices act

 Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to offer the Northern 
Ireland Fair Employment Practices Act. This legislation seeks to deter 
efforts to use the work place as an arena of discrimination in Northern 
Ireland. I am pleased that my colleague from New York, Representative 
Ben Gilman, chairman of the House International Affairs Committee has 
introduced this bill, H.R. 470, in the House.
  The Northern Ireland Fair Employment Practices Act incorporates the 
MacBride Principles, which are modeled after the famous Sullivan 
Principles, one of the initial efforts to apply United States pressure 
to change the system of apartheid in South Africa. The MacBride 
Principles are named in honor of the late Sean MacBride, winner of the 
Nobel Peace Prize and cofounder of Amnesty International.
  This amendment will enlist the cooperation of United States companies 
active in Northern Ireland in the campaign to force the end of 
discrimination in the workplace by:
  First, eliminating religious discrimination in managerial, 
supervisory, administrative, clerical, and technical jobs and 
significantly increasing the representation in such jobs of individuals 
from underrepresented religious groups;
  Second, providing adequate security for the protection of minority 
employees at the workplace;
  Third, banning provocative sectarian and political emblems from the 
workplace;
  Fourth, publicly advertising all job openings and undertaking special 
recruitment efforts to attract applicants from underrepresented 
religious groups, and establishing procedures to identify and recruit 
minority individuals with potential for further advancement, including 
managerial programs;
  Fifth, establishing layoff, recall, and termination procedures which 
do not favor particular religious groupings;
  Sixth, abolishing job reservations, apprenticeship restrictions, and 
differential employment criteria which discriminate on the basis of 
religious or ethnic origin;
  Seventh, developing and expanding upon existing training and 
educational programs that will prepare substantial numbers of minority 
employees for managerial, supervisory, administrative, clerical, and 
technical jobs; and
  Eighth, appointing a senior management staff member to oversee the 
U.S. company's compliance with the principles described above.
  It is at the workplace in Northern Ireland, which can be used to 
either foster or eliminate discrimination, where improving the 
employment opportunities for the underprivileged will help factor out 
the economic causes of the current strife in Northern Ireland 
[[Page S2761]] and, hopefully, begin the process toward a peaceful 
resolution of the so-called troubles.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
                                 S. 424

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Northern Ireland Fair 
     Employment Practices Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) Overall unemployment in Northern Ireland exceeds 14 
     percent.
       (2) Unemployment in some neighborhoods of Northern Ireland 
     comprised of religious minorities has exceeded 70 percent.
       (3) The British Government Fair Employment Commission 
     (F.E.C.), formerly the Fair Employment Agency (F.E.A.), has 
     consistently reported that a member of the minority community 
     is two and one-half times more likely to be unemployed than a 
     member of the majority community.
       (4) The Industrial Development Organization for Northern 
     Ireland lists twenty-five firms in Northern Ireland which are 
     controlled by United States persons.
       (5) The Investor Responsibility Research Center (IRRC), 
     Washington, District of Columbia, lists forty-nine publicly 
     held and nine privately held United States companies doing 
     business in Northern Ireland.
       (6) The religious minority population of Northern Ireland 
     is frequently subject to discriminatory hiring practices by 
     United States businesses which have resulted in a 
     disproportionate number of minority individuals holding 
     menial and low-paying jobs.
       (7) The MacBride Principles are a nine point set of 
     guidelines for fair employment in Northern Ireland which 
     establishes a corporate code of conduct to promote equal 
     access to regional employment but does not require 
     disinvestment, quotas, or reverse discrimination.

     SEC. 3. RESTRICTION ON IMPORTS.

       An article from Northern Ireland may not be entered, or 
     withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, in the customs 
     territory of the United States unless there is presented at 
     the time of entry to the customs officer concerned 
     documentation indicating that the enterprise which 
     manufactured or assembled such article was in compliance at 
     the time of manufacture with the principles described in 
     section 5.

     SEC. 4. COMPLIANCE WITH FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRINCIPLES.

       (a) Compliance.--Any United States person who--
       (1) has a branch or office in Northern Ireland, or
       (2) controls a corporation, partnership, or other 
     enterprise in Northern Ireland,
     in which more than twenty people are employed shall take the 
     necessasry steps to insure that, in operating such branch, 
     office, corporation, partnership, or enterprise, those 
     principles relating to employment practices set forth in 
     section 5 are implemented and this Act is complied with.
       (b) Report.--Each United States person referred to in 
     subsection (a) shall submit to the Secretary--
       (1) a detailed and fully documented annual report, signed 
     under oath, on showing compliance with the provisions of this 
     Act; and
       (2) such other information as the Secretary determines is 
     necessary.

     SEC. 5. MACBRIDE PRINCIPLES.

       The principles referred to in section 4, which are based on 
     the MacBride Principles, are as follows:
       (1) Eliminating religious discrimination in managerial, 
     supervisory, administrative, clerical, and technical jobs and 
     significantly increasing the representation in such jobs of 
     individuals from underrepresented religious groups.
       (2) Providing adequate security for the protection of 
     minority employees at the workplace.
       (3) Banning provocative sectarian and political emblems 
     from the workplace.
       (4) Advertising publicly all job openings and undertaking 
     special recruitment efforts to attract applicants from 
     underrepresented religious groups.
       (5) Establishing layoff, recall, and termination procedures 
     which do not favor particular religious groupings.
       (6) Providing equal employment for all employees, including 
     implementing equal and nondiscriminatory terms and conditions 
     of employment for all employees, and abolishing job 
     reservations, apprenticeship restrictions, and differential 
     employment criteria, which discriminate on the basis of 
     religion or ethnic origin.
       (7) Developing training programs that will prepare 
     substantial numbers of minority employees for managerial, 
     supervisory, administrative, clerical, and technical jobs, 
     including--
       (A) expanding existing programs and forming new programs to 
     train, upgrade, and improve the skills of all categories of 
     minority employees;
       (B) creating on-the-job training programs and facilities to 
     assist minority employees to advance to higher paying jobs 
     requiring greater skills; and
       (C) establishing and expanding programs to enable minority 
     employees to further their education and skills at recognized 
     education facilities.
       (8) Establishing procedures to assess, identify, and 
     actively recruit minority individuals with potential for 
     further advancement, and identifying those minority 
     individuals who have high management potential and enrolling 
     them in accelerated management programs.
       (9) Appointing a senior management staff member to oversee 
     the United States person's compliance with the principles 
     described in this section.

     SEC. 6. WAIVER OF PROVISIONS.

       (a) Waiver of Provisions.--In any case in which the 
     President determines that compliance by a United States 
     person with the provisions of this Act would harm the 
     national security of the United States, the President may 
     waive those provisions with respect to that United States 
     person. The President shall publish in the Federal Register 
     each waiver granted under this section and shall submit to 
     the Congress a justification for granting each such waiver. 
     Any such waiver shall become effective at the end of ninety 
     days after the date on which the justification is submitted 
     to the Congress unless the Congress, within that ninety-day 
     period, adopts a joint resolution disapproving the waiver. In 
     the computation of such ninety-day period, there shall be 
     excluded the days on which either House of Congress is not in 
     session because of an adjournment of more than three days to 
     a day certain or because of an adjournment of the Congress 
     sine die.
       (b) Consideration of Resolutions.--
       (1) Any resolution described in subsection (a) shall be 
     considered in the Senate in accordance with the provisions of 
     section 601(b) of the International Security Assistance and 
     Arms Export Control Act of 1976.
       (2) For the purpose of expediting the consideration and 
     adoption of a resolution under subsection (a) in the House of 
     Representatives, a motion to proceed to the consideration of 
     such resolution after it has been reported by the appropriate 
     committee shall be treated as highly privileged in the House 
     of Representatives.

     SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS AND PRESUMPTIONS.

       (a) Definitions.--For the purpose of this Act--
       (1) the term ``United States person'' means any United 
     States resident or national and any domestic concern 
     (including any permanent domestic establishment of any 
     foreign concern);
       (2) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Commerce; 
     and
       (3) the term ``Northern Ireland'' includes the counties of 
     Antrim, Armagh, Londonderry, Down, Tyrone, and Fermanagh.
       (b) Presumption.--A United States person shall be presumed 
     to control a corporation, partnership, or other enterprise in 
     Northern Ireland if--
       (1) the United States person beneficially owns or controls 
     (whether directly or indirectly) more than 50 percent of the 
     outstanding voting securities of the corporation, 
     partnership, or enterprise;
       (2) the United States person beneficially owns or controls 
     (whether directly or indirectly) 25 percent or more of the 
     voting securities of the corporation, partnership, or 
     enterprise, if no other person owns or controls (whether 
     directly or indirectly) an equal or larger percentage;
       (3) the corporation, partnership, or enterprise is operated 
     by the United States person pursuant to the provisions of an 
     exclusive management contract;
       (4) a majority of the members of the board of directors of 
     the corporation, partnership, or enterprise are also members 
     of the comparable governing body of the United States person;
       (5) the United States person has authority to appoint the 
     majority of the members of the board of directors of the 
     corporation, partnership, or enterprise; or
       (6) the United States person has authority to appoint the 
     chief operating officer of the corporation, partnership, or 
     enterprise.

     SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act shall take effect six months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
                                 ______

      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Campbell, Mr. 
        Dorgan, and Mr. Wellstone):
  S. 425. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to require the 
establishment in the Department of Veterans Affairs of mental illness 
research, education, and clinical centers, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.


           the va mental health care improvement act of 1995

 Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce 
legislation that would establish up to five centers of excellence in 
the area of mental illness at existing VA health care facilities. These 
centers, to be known as mental illness research, education, and 
clinical centers [MIRECC's] would be a vitally important and integral 
link in VA's efforts in the areas of research, education, and 
furnishing of clinical care 
[[Page S2762]] to veterans suffering from mental illness. I am 
delighted to be joined in introducing this bill by Senators Akaka, 
Campbell, Dorgan, and Wellstone.
  Mr. President, the need to improve services to mentally ill veterans 
has been recognized for a number of years. For example, the October 20, 
1985, report of the Special Purposes Committee to Evaluate the Mental 
Health and Behavioral Sciences Research Program of the VA, chaired by 
Dr. Seymour Kety--generally referred to as the Kety Committee--
concluded that research on mental illness and training for 
psychiatrists and other mental health specialists at VA facilities were 
totally inadequate. The Kety report noted that about 40 percent of VA 
beds are occupied by veterans who suffer from mental disorders, yet 
less than 10 percent of VA's research resources are directed toward 
mental illness.
  Little has changed since that report. Information provided to the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs at our August 3, 1993, hearing showed 
that the percentage of VA patients suffering with mental illness 
continues to hover over the same 40 percent rate found by the Kety 
Committee. Likewise, VA's research on mental illness has not increased 
to any appreciable extend and was estimated to be approximately 12 
percent.
  Mr. President, VA provides mental health services to more than one 
half to three quarters of a million veterans each year, yet in the 
decade between the time the Kety Committee began its work and now, 
there has not been a significant effort to focus VA's resources on the 
needs of mentally ill veterans. Among the recommendations of the Kety 
Committee was one that VA centers of excellence be established to 
develop first-rate psychiatric research programs within VA. Such 
centers, in the view of the Kety Committee, would provide state-of-the-
art treatment, increase innovative basic and clinical research 
opportunities, and enhance and encourage training and treatment of 
mental illness.
  Based on the recommendations of the Kety Committee, the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs began efforts more than 6 years ago to encourage 
research into mental illnesses and to establish centers of excellence. 
For example, on May 20, 1988, Public Law 100-322 was enacted which 
included a provision to add an express
 reference to mental illness research in the statutory description of 
VA's medical research mission which is set forth in section 7303(a)(2) 
of title 38.

  At that time, the committee--see S. Rept. 100-215, page 138--urged VA 
to establish three center of excellence, or MIRECC's, as proposed by 
the Kety Committee. In March 1992, Senator Cranston, then chairman of 
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, noted that the VA had not taken any 
action to implement those recommendations. I unfortunately must tell 
you today that the VA still has done little to implement the 
recommendations of the Kety committee and has made no progress on the 
establishment of centers of excellence.
  Mr. President, I also note that the January 1991 final report of the 
blue ribbon VA Advisory Committee for Health Research Policy 
recommended the establishment of MIRECC's as a means of increasing 
opportunities in psychiatric research and encouraging the formulation 
of new research initiatives in mental health care, as well as 
maintaining the intellectual environment so important to quality health 
care. The report stated that these ``centers could provide a way to 
deal with the emerging priorities in the VA and the Nation at large.''
  In light of VA's failure to act administratively to establish these 
centers of excellence, our committee has developed legislation to 
accomplish this objective. The proposed MIRECC's legislation is 
patterned after the legislation which created the very successful 
geriatric research, education, and clinical centers [GRECC's], section 
302 of Public Law 96-330, enacted in 1980. The MIRECC's would be 
designed first, to congregate at one facility clinicians and research 
investigators with a clear and precise clinical research mission, such 
as PTSD, schizophrenia, or drug abuse and alcohol abuse; second, to 
provide training and educational opportunities for students and 
residents in psychiatry, psychology, nursing, social work, and other 
professions which treat individuals with mental illness; and third, to 
develop new models of effective care and treatment for veterans with 
mental illnesses, especially those with service-connected conditions.
  The establishment of MIRECC's should encourage research into outcomes 
of various types of treatment for mental illnesses, an aspect of mental 
illness research which, to date, has not been fully pursued, either by 
VA or other researchers. The bill would promote the sharing of 
information regarding all aspects of MIRECC's activities throughout VHA 
by requiring the Chief Medical Director to develop continuing education 
programs at regional medical education centers.
  Finally, beginning February 1, 1997, the Secretary would be required 
to submit to the two Veterans' Affairs Committees annual reports on the 
research, education, and clinical care activities at each MIRECC and on 
the efforts to disseminate the information throughout the VA health 
care system.
  At our committee hearing on August 3, 1993, numerous witnesses, 
including Dr. John Lipkin, representing the American Psychiatric 
Association, and Mr. Richard Greer, representing the National Alliance 
for the Mentally Ill, testified in favor of the MIRECC legislation. All 
of the veterans service organizations testifying at the hearing--the 
American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans, 
and Paralyzed Veterans--supported the enactment of MIRECC legislation.
  Mr. President, the VA for too long has made inadequate efforts to 
improve research and treatment of mentally ill veterans and to foster 
educational activities designed to improve the capabilities of VA 
mental health professionals. The establishment of MIRECC's will be a 
significant step forward in improving care for some of our neediest 
veterans. I am hopeful that this long recognized need will become more 
than a forgotten want item for veterans who suffer, in many cases, in 
silence.
  The Committee on Veterans' Affairs has reported, and the Senate has 
passed, comparable legislation in each of the last three Congresses. I 
hope to bring this legislation before the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs soon and remain optimistic that we can move forward with this 
important legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill 
appear in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
                                 S. 425

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. MENTAL ILLNESS RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND CLINICAL 
                   CENTERS.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 73 of title 38, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 7319. Mental illness research, education, and clinical 
       centers

       ``(a) The purpose of this section is to improve the 
     provision of health-care services and related counseling 
     services to eligible veterans suffering from mental illness, 
     especially mental illness related to service-related 
     conditions, through research (including research on improving 
     mental health service facilities of the Department and on 
     improving the delivery of mental health services by the 
     Department), education and training of personnel, and the 
     development of improved models and systems for the furnishing 
     of mental health services by the Department.
       ``(b)(1) In order to carry out the purpose of this section, 
     the Secretary, upon the recommendation of the Under Secretary 
     for Health and pursuant to the provisions of this subsection, 
     shall--
       ``(A) designate not more than five health-care facilities 
     of the Department as the locations for a center of research 
     on mental health services, on the use by the Department of 
     specific models for furnishing such services, on education 
     and training, and on the development and implementation of 
     innovative clinical activities and systems of care with 
     respect to the delivery of such services by the Department; 
     and
       ``(B) subject to the appropriation of funds for such 
     purpose, establish and operate such centers at such locations 
     in accordance with this section.
       ``(2) The Secretary shall designate at least one facility 
     under paragraph (1) not later than January 1, 1996.
       ``(3) The Secretary shall, upon the recommendation of the 
     Under Secretary for Health, ensure that the facilities 
     designated for centers under paragraph (1) are located in 
     various geographic regions.
       ``(4) The Secretary may not designate any health-care 
     facility as a location for a center under paragraph (1) 
     unless--
     [[Page S2763]]   ``(A) the peer review panel established 
     under paragraph (5) has determined under that paragraph that 
     the proposal submitted by such facility as a location for a 
     new center under this subsection is among those proposals 
     which have met the highest competitive standards of 
     scientific and clinical merit; and
       ``(B) the Secretary, upon the recommendation of the Under 
     Secretary for Health, determines that the facility has 
     developed (or may reasonably be anticipated to develop)--
       ``(i) an arrangement with an accredited medical school 
     which provides education and training in psychiatry and with 
     which the facility is affiliated under which arrangement 
     residents receive education and training in psychiatry 
     through regular rotation through the facility so as to 
     provide such residents with training in the diagnosis and 
     treatment of mental illness;
       ``(ii) an arrangement with an accredited graduate school of 
     psychology under which arrangement students receive education 
     and training in clinical, counseling, or professional 
     psychology through regular rotation through the facility so 
     as to provide such students with training in the diagnosis 
     and treatment of mental illness;
       ``(iii) an arrangement under which nursing, social work, or 
     allied health personnel receive training and education in 
     mental health care through regular rotation through the 
     facility;
       ``(iv) the ability to attract scientists who have 
     demonstrated creativity and achievement in research--
        ``(I) into the evaluation of innovative approaches to the 
     design of mental health services; or
       ``(II) into the causes, prevention, and treatment of mental 
     illness;
       ``(v) a policymaking advisory committee composed of 
     appropriate mental health-care and research personnel of the 
     facility and of the affiliated school or schools to advise 
     the directors of the facility and the center on policy 
     matters pertaining to the activities of the center during the 
     period of the operation of the center; and
       ``(vi) the capability to evaluate effectively the 
     activities of the center, including activities relating to 
     the evaluation of specific efforts to improve the quality and 
     effectiveness of mental health services provided by the 
     Department at or through individual facilities.
       ``(5)(A) In order to provide advice to assist the Under 
     Secretary for Health and the Secretary to carry out their 
     responsibilities under this section, the official within the 
     Central Office of the Veterans Health Administration 
     responsible for mental health and behavioral sciences matters 
     shall establish a panel to assess the scientific and clinical 
     merit of proposals that are submitted to the Secretary for 
     the establishment of new centers under this subsection.
       ``(B) The membership of the panel shall consist of experts 
     in the fields of mental health research, education and 
     training, and clinical care. Members of the panel shall serve 
     as consultants to the Department for a period of no longer 
     than six months.
       ``(C) The panel shall review each proposal submitted to the 
     panel by the official referred to in subparagraph (A) and 
     shall submit its views on the relative scientific and 
     clinical merit of each such proposal to that official.
       ``(D) The panel shall not be subject to the Federal 
     Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.).
       ``(c) Clinical and scientific investigation activities at 
     each center may compete for the award of funding from amounts 
     appropriated for the Department of Veterans Affairs medical 
     and prosthetics research account and shall receive priority 
     in the award of funding from such account insofar as funds 
     are awarded to projects and activities relating to mental 
     illness.
       ``(d) The Under Secretary for Health shall ensure that at 
     least three centers designated under subsection (b)(1)(A) 
     emphasize research into means of improving the quality of 
     care for veterans suffering from mental illness through the 
     development of community-based alternatives to institutional 
     treatment for such illness.
       ``(e) The Under Secretary for Health shall ensure that 
     useful information produced by the research, education and 
     training, and clinical activities of the centers established 
     under subsection (b)(1) is disseminated throughout the 
     Veterans Health Administration through publications and 
     through programs of continuing medical and related education 
     provided through regional medical education centers under 
     subchapter VI of chapter 74 of this title and through other 
     means.
       ``(f) The official within the Central Office of the 
     Veterans Health Administration responsible for mental health 
     and behavioral sciences matters shall be responsible for 
     supervising the operation of the centers established pursuant 
     to subsection (b)(1).
       ``(g)(1) There are authorized to be appropriated for the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs for the basic support of the 
     research and education and training activities of the centers 
     established pursuant to subsection (b)(1) the following:
       ``(A) $3,125,000 for fiscal year 1996.
       ``(B) $6,250,000 for each of fiscal years 1997 through 
     1999.
       ``(2) In addition to the funds available under the 
     authorization of appropriations in paragraph (1), the Under 
     Secretary for Health shall allocate to such centers from 
     other funds appropriated generally for the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs medical care account and the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs medical and prosthetics research account 
     such amounts as the Under Secretary for Health determines 
     appropriate in order to carry out the purposes of this 
     section.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 73 of such title is amended by adding at 
     the end of the matter relating to subchapter II the 
     following:

``7319. Mental illness research, education, and clinical centers.''.

       (c) Reports.--Not later than February 1 of each of 1997, 
     1998, and 1999, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall 
     submit to the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate 
     and House of Representatives a report on the status and 
     activities during the previous fiscal year of the mental 
     illness, research, education, and clinical centers 
     established pursuant to section 7319 of title 38, United 
     States Code (as added by subsection (a)). Each such report 
     shall contain the following:
       (1) A description of--
       (A) the activities carried out at each center and the 
     funding provided for such activities;
       (B) the advances made at each center in research, education 
     and training, and clinical activities relating to mental 
     illness in veterans; and
       (C) the actions taken by the Under Secretary for Health 
     pursuant to subsection (d) of such section (as so added) to 
     disseminate useful information derived from such activities 
     throughout the Veterans Health Administration.
       (2) The Secretary's evaluations of the effectiveness of the 
     centers in fulfilling the purposes of the centers.
                                 ______

      By Mr. SARBANES (for himself and Mr. Warner):
  S. 426. A bill to authorize the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity to 
establish a memorial to Martin Luther King, Jr., in the District of 
Columbia, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Rules and 
Administration.


       reverend dr. martin luther king, jr, memorial legislation

 Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, since 1926 this Nation has 
designated February as the month to honor the contributions of African-
Americans and their proud heritage, which has so powerfully enriched 
our land. As we honor the accomplishments of African-American citizens 
throughout the country, I wanted to bring to the attention of my 
colleagues legislation introduced today by myself and the distinguished 
Senator from Virginia, Senator Warner, to recognize and honor Dr. 
Martin Luther King, Jr.
  As you know, Dr. King's life was one of extraordinary accomplishments 
and has had a significant and lasting impact on our Nation's history. 
The legislation Senator Warner and I have introduced today would 
recognize these accomplishments by authorizing the Alpha Phi Alpha 
Fraternity, the oldest African-American fraternity in the United 
States, to establish a monument to Dr. King on Federal land in the 
District of Columbia. Identical legislation passed the Senate in the 
102d Congress with 60 cosponsors, but was unfortunately not passed by 
the House of Representatives before adjournment sine die.
  Pursuant to this proposal, the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity of which 
Dr. King was a member, will coordinate the design and funding of the 
monument. The bill provides that the monument be established entirely 
with private contributions at no cost to the Federal Government. The 
Department of the Interior, in consultation with the National Capital 
Park and Planning Commission and the Commission on Fine Arts, will 
select the site and approve the design.
  Alpha Phi Alpha was founded in 1906 at Cornell University and has 
hundreds of chapters across the country and many prominent citizens as 
members, including the late Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. 
Alpha Phi Alpha has strongly endorsed the Martin Luther King, Jr. 
Memorial project and is committing its considerable human resources to 
the project's development.
  Since 1955, when in Montgomery, AL, Dr. King became a national hero 
and an acknowledged leader in the civil rights struggle, until his 
tragic death in Memphis, TN in 1968, Martin Luther King, Jr. made an 
extraordinary contribution to the evolving history of our Nation. His 
courageous stands and unyielding belief in the tenent of nonviolence 
reawakened our Nation to the injustice and discrimination which 
continued to exist 100 years after the Emancipation Proclamation and 
the 
[[Page S2764]] enactment of the guarantees of the 14th and 15th 
amendments to the Constitution.
  A memorial to Dr. King erected in the nation's Capital will provide 
continuing inspiration to all who visit it, and particularly to the 
thousands of students and young people who visit Washington, DC every 
year. While these young people may have no personal memory of the 
condition of civil rights in America before Dr. King, nor of the 
struggle in which he was the major figure, they do understand that 
there is much more that still needs to be done. As Coretta King said so 
articulately:

       Young people in particular need nonviolent role models like 
     him. In many ways, the Civil Rights movement was a youth 
     movement. Young people of all races, many of whom were 
     jailed, were involved in the struggle, and some gave their 
     lives for the cause. Yet none of the youth trained by Martin 
     and his associates retaliated in violence, including members 
     of some of the toughest gangs of urban ghettos in cities like 
     Chicago and Birmingham. This was a remarkable achievement. It 
     has never been done before; it has not been duplicated since.

  It is our hope that the young people who visit this monument will 
come to understand that it represents not only the enormous 
contribution of this great leader, but also two very basic principles 
necessary for the effective functioning of our society. The first is 
that change, even every fundamental change, is to be achieved through 
nonviolent means; that this is the path down which we should go as a 
nation in resolving some of our most difficult problems. The other 
basic principle is that the reconciliation of the races, the inclusion 
into the mainstream of American life of all its people, is essential to 
the fundamental health of our Nation.
  Mr. President, Martin Luther King, Jr., dedicated his life to 
achieving equal treatment and enfranchisement for all Americans through 
nonviolent means. As we continue to celebrate Black History Month, I 
urge all of my colleagues to join Senator Warner and me in this effort 
to ensure that the essential principles taught and practiced by Dr. 
King are never forgotten.


                          ____________________