[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 45 (Tuesday, April 11, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2492-S2496]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                GAS TAX

  Mr. VOINOVICH. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank Senator Byrd 
for yielding time.
  I speak against the repeal of the 4.3-cent-a-gallon gas tax for the 
third time on the floor of the Senate. Although I disagree with my 
colleague from Alaska in regard to this matter, I do agree this debate 
has given us an opportunity to identify the real problem of why we have 
high gas prices in this country, and that is, we lack an energy policy. 
Our reliance on foreign oil could increase to 65 percent or more by the 
year 2020.
  As a matter of fact, a couple of weeks ago in the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs, we had a representative from the Energy 
Department appear before the committee and I asked him: Just how 
reliant should we be on foreign oil? What is the number? He was unable 
to give a number.
  I mentioned that, as a former Governor, if I had a problem, I would 
identify what the goal was to solve that problem and put in place 
strategies to achieve that goal. The fact is, we are here today because 
we have no energy policy in this country. That is the main issue.
  The other issue is whether or not reducing the gas tax by 4.3 cents a 
gallon is going to make any real difference. I argue it may not bring 
down the price of gas at the pump. In some States, if the gas tax is 
reduced, their State laws provide that the state gas tax is increased 
to make up for the loss of the Federal gas tax. I point out that in 
terms of the traveling public, the motoring public, getting rid of the 
4.3 cent gas tax is only going to save about $43 a year.
  This is one of the factors which I think adds to the cynicism of the 
American public in regard to some of the things we do in the Senate. We 
argue this is going to make a difference, and then the people realize 
all we are talking about over a year's period, if they drive 15,000 
miles a year, at 15 miles-per-gallon is about $43.
  I have been involved in this matter as a Governor and as the former 
chairman of the National Governors' Association. The Governors were 
opposed to the 4.3-cent-a-gallon gas tax in 1993 because it was used 
for deficit reduction and we thought it should be used for building 
highways.
  In 1998, when TEA-21 was negotiated, everyone agreed to put that 4.3 
cents a gallon into the highway trust fund so we can use it for new 
construction of highways and to maintain and repair highways. It also 
guaranteed to many of the donor States--that is, a State that sends 
more money to Washington than they get back, like Ohio--that they will 
get at least 90.5 cents per dollar back every year. It gave us a 
predictable, reliable source of revenue to get the job done. We thought 
we had resolved this issue once and for all.
  Today we have the issue before us of reducing the gas tax by 4.3 
cents a gallon. Someone said: Do not worry about it because we will 
make up the lost funding from the surplus. I argue, if I have listened 
carefully to my colleagues on the floor, there are lots of other good 
things that they want to do with our surplus. If one looks at it from 
an equity point of view, the tradition in this country is, the people 
who use the highways pay for them. We are saying reduce their tax and 
make it up by hitting everybody else in the country and taking it out 
of the general fund, which can be used for other things that would 
benefit the rest of America.
  I cannot buy the argument: Do not worry about it, we will make it up 
from the surplus.
  I also point out the National Governors' Association, the National 
League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National 
Association of Counties, all the major State and local organizations 
are opposed to repealing the 4.3-cent-a-gallon gas tax.

  I do not care what the polls say, the one organization I listen to in 
Ohio which represents the motoring public is the American Automobile 
Association. This is the premier organization representing the people 
who drive in this country.
  One would think they would be for reducing the gas tax, wouldn't 
they? The fact is, they are opposed to it because they know that repair 
and maintenance of our highways and new construction are important to 
the motoring public, particularly to their safety. They also realize 
that this country, in so many areas, has turned into a gigantic parking 
lot, with gridlock, bottlenecks, and hours wasted in America on

[[Page S2493]]

the highways because our infrastructure is in such bad shape. Gasoline 
is being wasted sitting in these traffic jams, polluting the air, let 
alone the stress and strain on the drivers and their loss of time.
  Today, the only good thing I can say about the fact we are debating 
this 4.3-cent-a-gallon gas tax reduction is the fact that it is 
bringing to the American people's attention that we do not have an 
energy policy.
  As I have said over and over on this floor, gas prices are going to 
come down. They are going to come down because the administration is 
going to make sure they come down before the November election.
  The real question is: Are we just going to treat it as we have in the 
past? Do my colleagues remember 1973 when we had the crisis and the 
prices went up? Are we just going to treat this like we treat a barking 
dog and say: Give it a bone, it'll stop barking and we will go back to 
doing things the way we've always done in this country? I hope not.

  What we should resolve--Republicans and Democrats, Congress and the 
administration--is to put together a real energy policy for the United 
States of America before the end of this year so we can bring down our 
reliance on foreign oil, which is a threat not only to our nation's 
economy, but it is a threat to our national security.
  So I urge my colleagues, please, today, on the cloture vote, please 
vote against cloture so that we can get on with other business. And 
part of that ``other business'' should be, let's put together a 
bipartisan energy policy.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield 8 minutes to my distinguished 
friend, the senior Senator from Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I first thank our distinguished Senator 
from Ohio. When I was chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation, 
he was a Governor. He brought together those Governors. He laid the 
foundation with the National Governors' Association; indeed, a 
coalition of highway administrators all over the country. He deserves a 
great deal of credit for the work he did as we, in this body, worked on 
the legislation. We could not have done it without the help of those 
organizations. I am so glad the Senator paid proper respect to their 
services.
  I thank our distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia. I have 
now been privileged to serve with him here in my 22nd year in the 
Senate. No matter whether he has been the majority leader or minority 
leader, as a leader in his party, he has always been there taking the 
lead, making the tough decisions, and pointing the way.

  There is an old French saying about a politician one time saying: 
Tell me, which way is the crowd going so I can jump in front and lead? 
The senior Senator knows that quote better than I. That is not our 
senior Senator from West Virginia. He knows which way to lead and then, 
indeed, the Senate, most often, and the crowd, know which way to go.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. WARNER. But I say to my colleague, there are two separate issues 
today. Let us divide them.
  First is the energy policy of this administration. Our distinguished 
colleague from Alaska has addressed that issue. Yes, it is flawed. In 
the words of the Secretary of Energy, they were caught napping. As a 
consequence, we are suffering at the gas pump. We are suffering in our 
economy. We are suffering in many ways for these increased prices.
  I have compassion and understanding for those people. I support what 
Senator Murkowski will bring forth as separate legislation to try to 
once again restore America's preeminence in its ability to develop 
energy sources and get the rigs out from under the brier patch of laws 
and regulations where they once drilled oil and gas in this country but 
are now rusting in stacks.
  The Presiding Officer comes from a State which is known for its 
energy production. He knows full well of that situation.
  I do not like to be in opposition to the distinguished leaders of my 
party, the Republican Party, but I am strongly in opposition to this 
question of repealing this gas tax.
  I will not go back into the history, but we addressed this in the 
course of TEA-21. We took the funds, the general revenue, and put them 
into the highway trust fund. That was a commitment to the American 
public of those dollars so desperately needed to repair and modernize 
our transportation system.
  I think what underlines this debate is the word ``anger.'' Yes, there 
is anger at the pump. That is understandable. But there is also anger 
behind the wheel when Americans, driving their vehicles today--whether 
it is for work or for pleasure, or for whatever purpose--see this 
cancer of the transportation system slowly eating away at their 
lifestyle, devouring the time they need at the job, devouring the time 
they need with their families, devouring the time they need for what 
little pleasure life provides today in terms of the burdens and 
commitments on the American family.
  So we have a choice: Anger at the pump; anger with the highways. I 
believe it is most important that the institution of the Senate show a 
continuity of commitment to the modernization of our highways, our 
rails, and other transportation modes to reduce the threat to our 
lifestyle. That is what it is all about.
  If we were to repeal this gas tax--I project that the Senate will 
not, but if we were to repeal it, what Senator could get up and say, 
with certainty, that that tax reduction will be passed down to the 
consumer at the gas pump? I will carefully listen to the speeches. What 
Senator could make that irrefutable commitment to the American public?
  The free enterprise system is fraught with uncertainty. I would be 
willing to--I am not a betting man--wager, though, that that money 
would not go into the pockets of the American consumers. That will 
bring about anger at the gas pump far greater than any that was 
witnessed thus far.

  There is the question of the modernization of this highway 
transportation system and other modes of transportation. Hundreds of 
thousands of people are involved, from the Governor of a State, to 
their highway transportation authorities, to the legislatures of the 
various States. These people have made commitments, passed laws, 
adopted budgets on the reliability of the Congress to stand behind what 
they put into that legislation.
  I repeat that. Stability in this program is essential because these 
modernization programs cannot be done overnight. They cannot either 
pour concrete or have the designers do their work overnight. There has 
to be a careful, methodical sequence of the steps. Literally hundreds 
of thousands of people are involved all over America. They sit and 
listen, astonished that we are about to take away one of the 
underpinnings of that program.
  Those legislatures, in their next session--most of them have 
completed their sessions for this year--would say: Wait a minute. 
Before we commit so many State funds in reliance on what the Federal 
Government might do, let's wait and see. Is the Congress going to do 
something else to diminish the flow of funds?
  We cannot have instability in the highway modernization program. That 
is fundamental, absolutely fundamental.
  I conclude my remarks and hope the distinguished Senator from West 
Virginia will address the clause in the bill referred to on page 3, 
which says:

       Maintenance of trust fund deposits.--In determining the 
     amounts to be appropriated to the Highway Trust Fund under 
     section 9503 . . . an amount equal to the reduction in 
     revenues to the Treasury by reason of this subsection shall 
     be treated as taxes received . . .

  I just say to my good friend from West Virginia, who has examined 
this legislation for so many years in this body, I think this is the 
first of its type. The distinguished Senator, the senior Democrat on 
the Appropriations Committee, understands the appropriations process. I 
find that this provision, No. 1, is unique. I don't know of many 
precedents that I have seen, if any at all. And second, the subject, 
again, of the uncertainty of taking it with one hand from the highway 
trust fund, by virtue of the elimination of the tax, then giving it 
back with the other hand in terms of some commitment, to me,

[[Page S2494]]

brings about uncertainty. I question how many Senators can rely on 
that.
  I hope my distinguished colleague might look at that provision based 
on his many years of experience.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. WARNER. I see my time is up. I see my colleague on his feet. I 
wonder if he might address that issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. I have not prepared remarks in that connection, but I will 
take a look at that and insert the matter in the Record, if I am able 
to make a contribution.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank our distinguished colleague because he has spent 
these many years in the appropriations process; he has studied all the 
budget resolutions going back these many years.
  I question what the precedent is, and the degree of uncertainty as to 
this body being able to deliver, and, I might say, the House of 
Representatives. It would take both bodies; would I not be correct?
  Mr. BYRD. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator and very much respect and appreciate 
the leadership he has given. I will work with him on this to the final 
vote.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank my distinguished friend. I thank him for the 
excellent contribution he has made in this debate. I thank him for his 
support and cooperation with respect to the amendment we prepared a few 
days ago, which was voted on favorably by the Senate. I thank him for 
his leadership on the committee and in the Senate on this subject over 
the years. We have stood together shoulder to shoulder on previous 
occasions on this very subject matter, and I am glad to have him 
standing shoulder to shoulder today.

  Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how much time was taken in the colloquy 
earlier about who should go first?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. About 10 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. I wonder if we could restore that time, half to the other 
side and half to this side on the question. I ask unanimous consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator now has 19 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. I also thank Mr. Voinovich for the fine 
statement he made. I thank him for his courage in taking the position 
he has today. It isn't easy for him, but I thank him for his solid 
support of the position I take today. I think he is right, as I think I 
am right.
  Mr. President, just 5 days ago, during consideration of this year's 
Budget Resolution, the Senate, by a vote of 65 yeas to 35 nays, 
expressed the Senate's opposition to either a temporary or permanent 
repeal of Federal gasoline taxes. In addition to myself, the original 
co-sponsors of the amendment were Senators Warner, Baucus, Voinovich, 
Lautenberg and Bond. Additional co-sponsors added during the debate 
were Senators Lincoln, Domenici, Bingaman and Robb. Later today, the 
Senate will be asked to vote again on essentially the same question, 
when the cloture vote is taken on S. 2285. That bill would implement a 
temporary repeal of a portion of the Federal tax on gasoline. To make 
up for the lost revenues to the Highway Trust Fund that this gas tax 
repeal would cause, the proponents of this bill advocate the use of 
revenues from the General Fund of the Treasury. The proponents do not 
identify a particular source of those revenues. One has to assume that 
the replenishment of the Highway Trust Fund will either come from the 
non-Social Security surplus, or from cuts in spending in other areas of 
the budget, such as education, or if it turns out that there is no non-
Social Security surplus, then this bill could cause us to have to 
return to deficit spending. That would be true, particularly if the 
Republican tax cut package is enacted, and if the projections of the 
Congressional Budget Office turn out to be faulty. I, for one, cannot 
support any proposition such as this, which takes the ``trust'' out of 
the Highway Trust Fund and could mandate unidentified cuts in other 
Federal programs. We must not backfill the potholes this bill will 
leave in funding for adequate maintenance of roads and bridges with 
money from education, veterans programs or other vital needs.
  The proponents of S. 2285 have attempted to downplay the 
aforementioned vote that was taken on the Budget Resolution against any 
repeal of Federal gasoline taxes. That amendment to the Budget 
Resolution, which as I have said, was adopted by a vote of 65 yeas to 
35 nays, contained the following language, ``Any effort to reduce the 
federal gasoline tax or de-link the relationship between highway user 
fees and highway spending, poses a great danger to the integrity of the 
Highway Trust Fund, and the ability of the states to invest adequately 
in our transportation infrastructure.''
  Yet, Mr. President, S. 2285 would in fact de-link the relationship 
between highway user fees and highway spending. In that respect, S. 
2285 poses a great danger to the integrity of the Highway Trust Fund, 
and thereby, threatens to undermine the ability of the States to invest 
adequately in our nation's transportation infrastructure.
  In I Corinthians 14:8, we are told, ``If the trumpet gives an 
uncertain sound, who will prepare to the battle?'' When it comes to our 
Federal investment in our Nation's highways, S. 2285 would give a most 
uncertain sound. This bill would cut revenues to the Highway Trust Fund 
by repealing a portion of Federal gasoline taxes. Yet, just two years 
ago, in landmark legislation, the Transportation Equity Act for the 
21st Century, TEA-21, our State and local governments were told that we 
had put the ``trust'' back into the Highway Trust Fund, and that we had 
established an automatic mechanism to distribute all gasoline taxes to 
the states for their highway needs. In so doing, we committed ourselves 
to retaining the ``trust'' in the Highway Trust Fund forevermore. Now 
we come along and have a different sound coming from those who trumpet 
S. 2285. They want to cut Federal gasoline taxes and place in jeopardy 
the funding stream that we promised to the States in TEA-21. In return 
for these lost revenues, they would have us adopt a new promise, a 
promise that we will make up those lost gas tax revenues from the 
General Fund surpluses or from cutting funding for other vital national 
investments. The very reason that funding ``guarantees'' were included 
in TEA-21 was to eliminate the uncertainty surrounding our national 
highway program. We said that all highway user fees--the Federal 
gasoline taxes which the American people pay every time they go to the 
gas pump--would automatically go to the States so that our Governors, 
highway commissioners, and State and local officials would have a 
predictable funding stream to meet their critical highway funding 
needs.

  The goal of TEA-21 was to reverse decades of disinvestment in our 
national highway infrastructure. The use of our national highway system 
continues to grow dramatically. In the 15 years, from 1983 to 1998, 
according to the Federal Highway Administration, the number of vehicle 
miles traveled on our Nation's highways, has grown from 1.65 trillion 
miles per year to over 2.62 trillion miles per year. However, our 
Nation's investment in highways has not come close to keeping pace with 
this increased traffic. The percent of vehicle miles traveled has been 
dropping almost every year since we initiated the interstate highway 
system during the Eisenhower Administration. They dropped steadily 
until 1997--the most recent year for which data is available.
  What has this disinvestment done to the condition of our nation's 
roads? It has led to a national network of roadways with inadequate 
pavement conditions. Less then half the miles of roadway in rural 
America are considered to be in good or very good condition. Of the 
road miles in rural America, 56.5 percent are in fair to poor 
condition. Conditions are even worse in urban America, where 64.6 
percent of road miles are considered to be in some level of disrepair, 
and only 35.4 percent of urban roadways are considered to be in good or 
very good condition. The situation is no better when we turn our 
attention to the nation's highway bridges. According to the most recent 
data from the Federal Highway Administration, 28.8 percent of our 
nation's bridges are either functionally obsolete

[[Page S2495]]

or structurally deficient. In urban America, 32.5 percent of the 
bridges are either functionally obsolete or structurally deficient. We 
are talking about a basic issue of safety here. It is an issue that 
cannot be ignored in the name of short-term, feel-good tax cut 
proposals.
  Total highway spending by all levels of Government currently equals 
$41.8 billion annually. However, if we wanted to spend a sufficient sum 
to simply maintain the current inadequate condition of our national 
highways and bridges, we would need to spend $9 billion more per year, 
or $50.8 billion. In order to maintain the current average trip time 
between destinations, we would have to spend $26.1 billion more per 
year, or a total of $67.9 billion annually on our Nation's highways. 
Put another way, Mr. President, as a Nation, we would have to increase 
highway spending by more than 62 percent each year, simply to prevent 
traffic congestion from getting any worse. Yet, S. 2285 would place 
even the present levels of highway spending in jeopardy.
  Highway congestion is worsening each and every year in cities, as 
well as rural communities across America. In the last 15 years, use by 
motorists of our highways on a per lane basis increased by more than 46 
percent. This increased use has led to record levels of congestion. 
That congestion and the time that motorists spend in traffic jams is a 
continual and ever-growing drag on our national economy. Whether it's 
commuters stuck in traffic jams going to or from their jobs, or trucks 
that are delayed in delivering their products to their destinations, 
the costs to the nation are tremendous, and growing. In 1982, it was 
estimated that congestion cost our economy $21.6 billion. Between 1982 
and 1997, that figure increased over 234 percent to $72.2 billion per 
year. That is $72 billion in wasted fuel, wasted time, and lost 
prosperity, not to mention the untold pollution that is caused by daily 
traffic congestion, particularly in our Nation's largest cities.
  It is for these reasons, Mr. President, that I urge my colleagues to 
again reject this effort to temporarily repeal Federal gasoline taxes. 
Gasoline prices are too high, even though we have recently seen a 
decline in prices at the pump. However, there is no assurance 
whatsoever, that reduced Federal gasoline taxes, if enacted, would 
result in reduced gasoline prices at the gas pump. I find that 
proposition highly doubtful. In any case, I believe that the enactment 
of S. 2285 would cause grave danger both to the integrity to the 
Highway Trust Fund and to our ability to meet these huge and ever-
growing highway needs.
  I urge my colleagues to keep the commitments we made in TEA-21 and 
vote against cloture on S. 2285.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has eight minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. I yield that to Senator Baucus.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the Lott bill to repeal 
the gasoline tax that funds our nation's highway program.
  I do so for two reasons. First, the bill would undermine the landmark 
1998 highway bill, which is so important to economic development in 
Montana and throughout the country. Second, the bill will not reduce 
the price of gas at the pump.
  It is, in short, a bad idea. I urge that it be rejected by a strong, 
bipartisan, vote.
  By way of background, the gas tax was established for one simple 
reason: to finance the construction of the national highway system.
  In 1993, there was a departure. The tax was increased, by 4.3 cents a 
gallon. And, for the first time, the tax was used not for the highway 
program, but instead for deficit reduction.
  I supported the increase, reluctantly, as part of an overall 
compromise that was a key step toward balancing the budget.
  Even so, many of us were determined to restore the principle that the 
gas tax should only be used to fund our highway and related 
transportation programs. We worked, as we said, to ``put the trust back 
in the trust fund.''
  It was a long, difficult fight. We faced tough opposition, from the 
administration, the budget committees, and elsewhere. But, in the end, 
we prevailed. During the Senate's consideration of the 1998 highway 
bill, we provided that the entire gas tax, including the 4.3 cents, 
would go into the trust fund and be used exclusively for highway 
construction and other transportation needs. When an amendment was 
offered to repeal the 4.3 cent tax, it was defeated.
  Don't get me wrong. Nobody likes taxes. But the tax goes directly to 
improve the roads. As these things go, the gas tax has worked well.
  The Lott amendment would turn back the clock. It would repeal the 4.3 
cent tax.
  Let me explain what this would mean for our nation's highway program.
  It puts $20 billion worth of the highway trust fund in jeopardy.
  I'll get right to the point. Most of my colleagues were here for the 
highway bill debate. You know how difficult it was. You know how hard 
we fought to make sure that each of our states would get enough funding 
to support our transportation needs.
  For my state of Montana, it would mean losing $184 million.
  That, in turn, will mean delays and cancellations. Roads won't be 
repaired. Interchanges won't be built. Safety improvements will be left 
on the drawing board.
  In Montana, The DOT estimates that upwards of 60 projects would be 
delayed or canceled. Projects that would increase mobility and save 
lives.
  That's not all. If this bill passes, Mr. President, we will be 
breaking faith. We will be breaking faith with governors. With state 
transportation agencies. With contractors. And with thousands of hard-
working folks who show up every day, in good weather and bad, to build 
our roads and improve our communities. Who depend on their jobs to 
support themselves and their families.
  Senator Lott and others argue that the bill won't affect the highway 
program, because any reductions in highway funding would, in effect, be 
covered by transfers from other programs.
  In other words, the bill would shift the burden somewhere else. But 
we all know that there aren't any easy alternatives. There are no easy 
cuts. So we should not assume that these ``alternative'' cuts will 
occur. We have to assume that the cuts will come right out of the 
highway program. And that, again, would be devastating.

  To what end? the proponents of the Lott bill say that, if we cut the 
tax, it will reduce the price of gas at the pump.
  Certainly, there is reason to be concerned about the price of gas at 
the pump. I represent Montana. The Big Sky State. We drive long 
distances. We're sensitive to the price of gas at the pump, which has 
risen from $1.18 gallon a year ago to $1.59 a gallon now. We need to 
get the price down, as soon as we can.
  But there is no reason to believe that a reduction in the federal gas 
tax will result in lower prices at the pump. After all, this is a 
market ruled by a cartel. Until we break the stranglehold of that 
cartel, we'll be limited. We can cut the gas tax. But we can't 
guarantee that the price at the pump will be reduced by the same 
amount. Instead, the difference may well offset by price increases, by 
either the OPEC producers or by the refiners, marketers, and other 
middlemen.
  Pulling this all together, the Lott amendment will undermine our 
highway programs without enhancing our energy independence.
  There's one final point.
  For the past few years, Congress has been criticized for putting 
partisan politics ahead of the public interest. In short, of not 
getting much done.
  There have been some notable exceptions. Balancing the budget. 
Reforming the welfare system.
  And, yes, reaching a bipartisan compromise on the 1998 highway bill, 
TEA-21. The bill did not just reauthorize the highway program. It 
renewed and revitalized the highway program. We passed it 
overwhelmingly, by a vote of 88-5. It was a great accomplishment.
  We can confirm that accomplishment today, by rejecting the Lott bill.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President I yield up to 10 minutes to my 
colleague from Maine, Senator Collins.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.

[[Page S2496]]

  (The remarks of Ms. Collins and Mrs. Hutchison pertaining to the 
submission of S. Res. 285 are printed in today's Record under 
``Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')

                          ____________________