[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 137 (Saturday, September 28, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11763-S11764]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




EXPLANATION OF VOTES ON THE FISCAL YEAR 1997 TREASURY/POSTAL AND VA/HUD 
                             APPROPRIATIONS

 Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, the Senate recently considered 
several appropriation bills and addressed a number of amendments upon 
which I did not have the opportunity to comment at the time. One of 
these votes was on a motion to table the Dorgan amendment to the 
Treasury-Postal Appropriations bill which would have raised taxes on 
companies doing business overseas.
  Under current law, income generated by a domestically owned 
controlled foreign corporation is not subject to our income taxes until 
that income is repatriated back into the country. In addition, CFC's 
earn tax credits equal to the amount of tax they pay to their foreign 
host--up to but not exceeding the United States rate of taxation. The 
Dorgan amendment would require income generated by a CFC by producing 
goods overseas and selling them back here to be taxed currently, rather 
than be deferred.
  Mr. President, I believe there are a number of provisions in our Tax 
Code which need to be addressed, but I disagree that offering ad hoc 
amendments on the Senate floor to appropriation bills is the way to go 
about it. Appropriation bills are simply not suitable vehicles for 
major tax reforms. Instead, these issues should be addressed in a 
comprehensive manner in the Finance Committee.
  That said, I also have a number of specific concerns regarding the 
Dorgan amendment. First, I believe Senator Dorgan needs to make a 
better case that companies move their plants due to this tax provision, 
rather than in response to comparative advantages or political 
barriers. Second, absent some unspecified new protective barriers, I 
see nothing in this amendment which would repatriate existing overseas 
jobs or prevent future jobs from being located there as opposed to 
here.
  Mr. President, none of our foreign trading partners impose such a tax 
burden on their foreign corporations, and before the Senate chooses to 
impose new taxes on our companies operating overseas, I believe this 
issue needs to be more fully studied. While I am certain this amendment 
will raise taxes on American businesses and could harm our 
competitiveness in Michigan and elsewhere, I am unconvinced it will 
protect American jobs from foreign competition.
  Another issue on which I wish to explain my vote was the motion to 
table the Bumpers amendment prohibiting the use of funds for the Space 
Station Program. A similar amendment was introduced last year by 
Senator Bumpers, which I supported. Then and now, I have been concerned 
as to the costs of the program and the extent to which federal 
taxpayers verses the private sector should fund the effort.
  In addition, I am concerned by reports that the American Physical 
Society has joined 14 other scientific organizations in stating that 
the scientific justification for the space station was lacking, and 
that the cost overruns threatened to crowd out other, more

[[Page S11764]]

promising NASA programs in future years. As was the case last year, I 
still believe there would be a net advantage to terminating this 
program. However, we are near the point where our investment is too 
great to not finish the project, and so I will continue to review this 
program annually. Should I reach the conclusion that we have reached 
the stage where our investment has matured, I will drop my opposition 
to the space station.

  A pair of amendments concerning the distribution of Veterans Medical 
Administration resources are also worthy of additional explanation. 
Senators McCain and Graham introduced an amendment to develop a 
redistribution plan of Veterans Administration medical care resources. 
The amendment's purpose is to ensure that veterans have similar access 
to health care services regardless of where they live. This seems to be 
the correct way for a efficient government to function and is 
consistent with our commitment to provide quality medical care to our 
Nation's veterans. The Senate overwhelmingly adopted this amendment by 
a vote of 79 to 18.
  Senators Harkin and Moynihan then introduced an amendment that would 
have prohibited this plan from reducing VA funds spent in any State 
over the previous year. Given our declining veterans population with 
shifting medical requirements, I believe it is unreasonable to prohibit 
the Department of Veterans Affairs from reducing its outlays in certain 
regions of the country, even if the demand for such services has 
decreased. The effect of this prohibition would have been large 
segments of our veterans population being denied medical care. This is 
not responsible governance, and I therefore joined with 59 other 
Senators in defeating this amendment 60 to 37.
  Another amendment related to health care was offered by the Senator 
from Oregon, Senator Wyden, which would prohibit health care plans from 
restricting or prohibiting certain communications between doctors and 
their patients. Mr. President, I believe this issue has merit and 
should be addressed by Congress, but I do not believe the Treasury-
Postal Appropriations bill is the appropriate vehicle, especially 
considering that the amendment had a substantial cost which would have 
made the entire appropriation bill exceed its budget limits. As such, 
it was subject to a point of order which I supported.
  It is my understanding that Senator Wyden, Senator Kassebaum, and 
others are working at this moment to construct a bipartisan solution to 
both the problem raised by Senator Wyden and the concerns of other 
Senators and the insurance industry. I support these efforts and look 
forward to seeing some type of resolution, if not in this Congress then 
in the next.
  Finally, Mr. President, this Senator would like to explain his 
reasoning in voting to table Senator Kerry's amendment calling for 
additional expenditures on behalf of a study on the use of taggants in 
black gun powder and smokeless powder. On this amendment, both the 
majority and minority managers of the bill as well as the 
administration objected to the offset used by the Senator from 
Massachusetts in paying for the study's expanded mandate. Therefore, I 
chose to support the managers' motion to table. The amendment was 
successfully tabled by a vote of 57 to 42.

                          ____________________