Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 26, 1997 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing on intelligence matters.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 2 p.m. on Wednesday, February 26, 1997 in open session, to receive testimony in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 1998 and the future years defense program.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on International Economic Policy of the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 26, 1997, at 2 p.m. to hold a hearing.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure be granted permission to meet Wednesday, February 26, at 9:30 a.m., Hearing Room (SD-406), to conduct a hearing on the administration's proposal for reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act [ISTEA] and the performance of ISTEA's programs.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs would like to request unanimous consent to hold a hearing on the President's proposed fiscal year 1998 budget for veterans programs. The hearing will he held on February 26, 1997, at 2 p.m. in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be allowed to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 26, 1997, at 9 a.m. in SR- 328A to discuss the impact of capital gains taxes on farmers.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 26, 1997, to conduct a hearing on the oversight on the Monetary Policy Report to Congress pursuant to the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978. The witness will be: the Honorable Alan Greenspan, Chairman, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 26, 1997 at 9:30 a.m. to conduct an Oversight Hearing on the President's Budget Request for fiscal year 1998 for the Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA] and the Indian Health Service [IHS]. The hearing will be held in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Labor and Human Resources be authorized to meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 26, 1997, at 9:30 a.m.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate for a hearing entitled ``The President's Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Request for the United States Small Business Administration'' on Wednesday, February 26, 1997, which will begin at 9:30 a.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President and Members of the Senate, I certainly compliment the Senator from Utah for his very compelling statement on the necessity of having a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. He rightfully points out the fact that if we fail to place this amendment in the Constitution, then there is no guarantee of providing fiscal stability for this country in the future. As we have made the case time and time again in this body, there is no issue more central to competitiveness, to security, to stability of America's future than the issue of a balanced budget. It means more jobs; it means increased wages; it means a better standard of living; it means less taxes; it means lower interest rates, all of which will benefit the American people and future generations. The overwhelming majority of people in America today are pessimistic about the future when it comes to their children and what kind of life they will enjoy. That is the essence of this issue. This issue points to the fact that we need to do all we can to reduce the Federal deficit, to reach a balanced budget, and begin to grapple with the burgeoning debt that we have compiled for generations. The fact is the next generation will be required to pay an 82-percent tax rate and a 50-percent reduction in benefits to manage and to finance the debt that we leave behind. I do not think that is the kind of legacy we want to bequeath the next generation. We have had this debate in this body in 1995 and on many previous occasions, and in fact when I served in the House of Representatives I can remember we had this debate in 1982, and we had it many times thereafter. We heard the same rationale each and every time, that we should be able to have a balanced budget without a constitutional amendment. In fact, the President himself said it in the State of the Union. He said we do not need to rewrite the Constitution; all we need is your vote and my signature. We as Republicans worked very hard in the last Congress to design a balanced budget plan with specifics and in great detail, without gimmicks. We presented it to the President of the United States, so he got our vote, but, unfortunately, we did not get his signature. I think the reason is that without a constitutional amendment, it does not force consensus on all sides and between both branches of Government. So ultimately there is no will and there is no self- discipline to reach a consensus on balancing the budget without a constitutional mandate. We have heard many reasons today as to why Senators cannot support this particular amendment. We have had many amendments that proposed exemptions to this amendment, all of which were designed and disguised as a rationale for avoiding supporting a constitutional amendment. Nothing could be further from the truth than suggesting that exempting the Social Security Program from this balanced budget amendment would protect the benefits of Social Security retirees. There is nothing in that amendment that would suggest that. In fact, quite the contrary. The Social Security trust fund, since its inception, has been on budget. We have always addressed the shortfalls. We have prepared for the future by redesigning the program, as was the case in 1983, with a bipartisan commission that was chaired by the head of the Federal Reserve Board, Chairman Greenspan, to address those concerns. We have no idea, we have no track record to know what would happen to the Social Security trust fund off budget. No one has presented us a plan for how the surpluses would be used. The surpluses on budget are invested in Government-backed bonds. But no one has told us, those who presented amendments exempting the Social Security trust fund, how these surpluses would be invested off budget. Would they be used and invested in private securities with a privatized Social Security? That is a major issue, and certainly I think it represents a consequence of placing the Social Security trust fund off budget. Would the Social Security trust fund off budget be diverted for other purposes? That is a real possibility, that those funds could be used for programs other than Social Security. So, if I were a retiree--and I will be one long after the turn of the century--I would be very much concerned about how those trust funds would be used. We have also heard and we know that, by exempting the Social Security trust fund from this amendment, we will have to further reduce Federal expenditures by $295 billion over the next 5 years, between now and the year 2002, in addition to the more than $250 billion that is required to reach a balanced budget in the year 2002. In addition to that, we would also be required to reduce the budget another $709 billion between the year 2002 and the year 2007. That represents $1 trillion in additional cuts above and beyond what will be required to reach a balanced budget. Again, I think we have a right to know, from those who propose this exemption, as to how they would reach that target, with an additional $1 trillion in cuts? In fact, if you carry it further, to the year 2019, it would be $1.9 trillion--$1.9 trillion in additional cuts. Mr. President, 2 years ago when we were having this debate, an amendment was offered by the minority leader that was called the right to know amendment. It says if you are going to propose a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, then, indeed, Members of this body have the right to know and are entitled to know as to exactly how we would accomplish balancing the budget. The same is true here today. We have a right to know exactly how these additional cuts will be accomplished over and above the cuts that already will be required in achieving a balanced budget between now and the year 2002 and then, of course, beyond. I repeat, it would require $1 trillion more in additional reductions in order to accomplish that. Yet, again, we do not have a plan as to how, exactly, that would be achieved. In the final analysis, it gets back to the central issue, the central question in this constitutional amendment. That is whether or not we are truly committed to engaging in fiscal responsibility so future generations can have a secure future. We have an obligation, as one generation to the next, to provide a better standard of living. I think it is regrettable that we in this Congress decide to pursue a direction that accepts budgets that suggest, somehow, that higher taxes, a lower standard of living, sub par growth and anemic recovery are acceptable in a global economy as we approach the 21st century. It is certainly not what I want for future generations. So, I hope we would consider this amendment for what it is. In reality, it is a way of avoiding the passage of this constitutional amendment because, in the final analysis, it does nothing to guarantee the benefits for Social Security retirees. In fact, I would say, quite the contrary, it raises a great deal of concern as to exactly what will happen to this trust fund, what will happen to the benefits for retirees, because we have no plan from the proponents of this amendment as to exactly how the off-budget program would work for Social Security and exactly how the surpluses would be used and whether or not this program, the trust fund, would be used for other purposes other than for Social Security benefits. So, I hope this body will reject this amendment. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I yield as much time as he may consume to the Senator from Utah.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I think that it is interesting to hear the debate that has been underway this morning with respect to the constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Frankly, this is probably--and is in many instances--the same debate we have had over and over and over again on this issue. I served 16 years in the House of Representatives, and we debated this issue. We debated this issue 2 years ago here in the U.S. Senate and lost by one vote, regrettably. But we hear the same arguments over and over again. I have been in Congress now for a total of 19 years, in both the House and Senate. We have debated this issue approximately eight times. What we have heard time and time again is, if we only had the will, or the courage, we would not need a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, that we should, as an institution, collectively be able to balance the budget without a constitutional requirement. Even the President stated that fact in his State of the Union Address to the Congress on February 4. He said, ``Rewriting the Constitution isn't necessary to balance the budget. All we need is your vote and my signature.'' Well, the fact of the matter is, he got our vote in the bill, which was a balanced budget submitted to the President, but we didn't get the President's signature. That's the problem. We don't have a constitutional requirement because there will always be a reason or an excuse as to why we can't balance the budget. Governors can't evade that constitutional requirement. Most Governors in this country today are required by their own constitutions, and they don't avoid that responsibility. The problem here is, there is a significant amount of avoidance because there is not an institutional will, or discipline, to balance the budget because it's difficult to make choices. So no one is willing to set any priorities. If we don't have a constitutional amendment, we are not required to establish these priorities and we are not willing to exhibit leadership on our own initiative. So Congress has had decades and decades of good intentions. History is replete with good intentions on imposing fiscal discipline. But we have failed in achieving a balanced budget. Now, we have heard a lot of discussion today about the past. We heard about the last 15 years. They talked about the Reagan Presidency and the Bush Presidency. But what was omitted from that discussion was the fact that we also had a Congress, and it happened to be a Democratic Congress. Now, does anyone happen to believe that these budgets that are down here, which are unbalanced, didn't have the support of the Democratic Congress? I think we all know the answer to that question. Congress played a very significant role in the adoption of the budget. There is blame to go around on both sides. I think we all recognize that. But to sit here and say that blame for the last 15 years of budget deficits can be placed on the Reagan and Bush Presidencies clearly is ignoring reality, because that is not what happened. In fact, I can recall back in the early eighties--in fact, I think it was 1983--there was an agreement between President Reagan and the Congress that for every dollar increase in taxes, there would be a $3 reduction in spending. Guess what? We got the dollar increase in taxes, but we didn't get the $3 reduction in spending. I should also say that there was a budget agreement in 1990 that certainly contributed to the declining deficits that we are experiencing right now, and everybody is referring to the Clinton administration and declining deficits. But what's ironic about those declining deficits--and we know there are serious problems beyond the turn of the century, but for now the deficits are declining compared to previous years--in talking about those declining deficits, the other side fails to mention that they also include the Social Security trust fund surpluses. So they want to sort of have it both ways. Look, the deficits are coming down. Yet, they do include the Social Security trust fund. If we are going to talk about honesty in budgeting, they ought to exclude them to show what the real deficit is. Every President has used the Social Security trust fund surpluses. There is no question that we have a serious problem beyond the turn of the century when we have the beginning of the baby boomers retiring. We have had an obligation, as we have always shown, since the inception of the Social Security trust funds, to pay those benefits to beneficiaries. That has been and will always be a sacred trust between the Government and the American people. We want to preserve and protect the Social Security trust fund. What is the best way to do it? It is to balance the budget so that we can rein in spending, so that we will be in a position to pay out the baby boomers' retirement. And that is the issue that is confronting us. If we rein in the debt, we have a better ability to preserve and protect the Social Security trust fund. I find it interesting that the debate today has centered around the constitutional amendment to balance the budget, not passing the straight face test, because it includes the trust funds of Social Security. What I find interesting about the amendment that has been offered by the Senator from Nevada is that it doesn't take off budget all the other trust funds--the highway trust fund, the aviation trust fund, and the numerous other trust funds that represent billions of dollars. If we are going to talk about honesty in budgeting, they don't include that. In fact, here we have an enormous list of trust funds. If we are talking about truth in budgeting, then we are talking about many other trust funds as well. The point is that the best way to preserve the Social Security trust fund is to balance the budget. The best way to protect the Social Security beneficiary payment checks is to keep it on budget, because that is the system that we have known. We have known how that system has worked. We have paid the benefits, and when there has been a problem with Social Security, we have addressed it, as was the case in 1983 with the bipartisan commission. But no one has told us on the other side exactly how this trust fund off budget is going to work. We have had no indication of what exactly is going to happen with those surpluses. Will they continue to be invested in Government bonds as they are today to pay off the debt and to write off the deficit, or are they going to be invested in private securities? Because that is also an issue. It raises a concern for me because I am now asking the question: If you place the Social Security trust fund off budget, what exactly is going to happen to those surpluses? In what way are they going to be used? Are they going to be privatized? I think that is an issue and a consequence that should be addressed, because that does raise some significant concerns. Will they be placed in noninterest-bearing accounts because we cannot buy Government bonds? If the other side says, ``Yes, we are going to buy Government bonds with it,'' that is exactly what we are doing right now. That is precisely the point. So, then, the amendment really isn't changing what we are doing right now. So essentially the amendment places us full circle in terms of what we are doing with the Social Security trust fund surplus. Because I have not heard how the surpluses are going to be used off budget. How are they going to be invested? That is a significant question. Two years ago when we had this debate on the constitutional amendment, there was a right-to-know amendment that was offered by the Democratic leader that would have required that Congress provide a detailed budget plan with binding reconciliation instructions before the amendment could even be sent to the States for ratification. And the intent of that amendment was essentially to say that Congress has a right to know how the budget is going to be balanced if this constitutional amendment were to pass and were to be ratified by the States. I think it is an interesting concept. We did present a balanced budget to the President, as I mentioned earlier. But it was vetoed. The fact is, we have a right to know, as was mentioned earlier by the Senator from Michigan, about exactly how we would accommodate the $295 billion in cuts that would be required in addition to the cuts that would be required in the balanced budget amendment. But $295 billion would have to be cut if we didn't take into account the surpluses in the Social Security trust fund just between now and the year 2002. But no one on the other side has identified exactly how we achieve that goal. That is double the amount of cuts that President Clinton submitted in his plan to the Congress that he declared to be balanced. So there would be $295 billion in cuts over and above the cuts that will be required as well to balance the budget if we could not use the surpluses. Then the period between the year 2002 and 2007 would require the Congress to come up with an additional $706 billion. And, again, we have not heard from the other side exactly how that would be achieved because that would be over and above what we would be required to do in order to balance the budget without the surpluses. So we are talking close to $1 trillion--more than $1 trillion--in additional cuts that will be required by Congress over and above what we have presented. These are difficult choices and difficult times. So we have to account for $1 trillion more. And we have yet to hear how that will be accomplished. We have not seen a detailed plan, and we have a right to know, as the other side declared 2 years ago in suggesting that they had the right to know what would be the detailed balanced budget plan to balance the budget if we were to pass a constitutional amendment. They demanded a right to know. We demand a right to know because many have said on the other side that if we pass the Reid amendment, we can vote for the constitutional amendment to balance the budget. But we need to know. What is their plan for coming up with $1 trillion in additional cuts? One trillion dollars is a significant amount over and above what we have already proposed to do. But we have yet to hear the details. I think, frankly, since they insisted 2 years ago that we apply the standard of right to know, that we should apply the same standard to the Reid amendment today that we have a right to know, because to do otherwise, I think, is failing to meet their responsibility in meeting the standard of honesty in budgeting. The American people have a right to know exactly how that will be accommodated. We have known that when the Social Security trust fund has been on budget that we have met our obligations, and we will continue to meet our obligations. We also know that by balancing the budget, it will constantly make us aware of our obligation to the Social Security trust fund in what we can anticipate beyond the turn of the century in more people beginning to retire and with the onset of the baby-boomer retirements. We think that it is important to stay with the system that has worked since the inception of the Social Security system. But with the Reid amendment, we are being asked to act in blind faith. The Social Security trust fund, as we know it, has had proven success. But they have failed to answer the question of what occurs when this trust fund is off budget. What happens to the trust fund? What happens to the surpluses? We have not heard those questions answered. And how will those trust funds be used? So I think that these are some serious questions that need to be addressed and have certainly broad implications because we certainly should worry that these questions remain unanswered. We understand the trust fund within the context of the budget that we know. We have always met our obligations under the trust fund, and we will continue to meet our obligations under the trust fund. But we need to hear from the proponents of the Reid amendment exactly what is going to happen with this trust fund off budget. Will the surpluses be diverted for other purposes? That is a possibility. The amendment is poorly drafted. Will the surpluses be invested in private securities? It is a major problem. It may have major consequences. That has yet to be thoroughly explored. Will they be invested in Government bonds? That is exactly what is happening here today. So then I think one could conclude that really this is not necessarily changing what we do today but just making a political point because, unfortunately, there are those who are not committed to a constitutional amendment and do not want to see the reality of such an amendment because of what it would require of this Congress and a President to make certain decisions in reaching a balanced budget. So I hope that in the course of this debate we will hear some of the answers to these questions because I certainly am troubled by the prospects of some of the issues that this amendment raises. I am a strong supporter of the Social Security system. I want a strong system. We have known how it has worked on budget, but we have not heard the questions answered about how it is going to work off budget, and I repeat that because that in the final analysis I think underscores the issues before us today. I think it unfortunate that the Social Security issue has been used so many times in the past as a political issue. And from this debate at times we would know there are strong supporters of the Social Security trust fund on this side. I have been a very strong supporter over the years, and I just want to assure senior citizens in America that we will continue to preserve and protect them, and the best way to do it is to contain Federal spending and reduce the interest rates in America so that we can prepare ourselves for the commitments we must make in the 21st century to the younger generations as well as to retirees. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, and Members of the Senate, I rise in strong support of this resolution to expedite the release of already appropriated funds for international family planning. This resolution essentially reaffirms the President's certification that the delaying of these funds which were appropriated last year will cause serious and irreparable harm to family planning programs around the world. The life and health of women and children should transcend politics and party lines. The United States has traditionally been a leader in family planning assistance around the world for more than 30 years. It has enjoyed strong bipartisan support for such leadership. It has had unrivaled influence worldwide in setting standards for these programs. These family planning assistance programs fund voluntary family planning services, contraceptive research, maternal health programs and child health programs. An estimated 50 million families in over 60 developing countries, with a combined population of 2.7 billion people across the world, use family planning as a direct result of U.S. population assistance programs. There is no question that our support and our assistance over the last 30 years in developing countries has been enormously successful. The average family size in countries that receive our assistance has decreased from six children to three children. The Agency for International Development has increased the use of contraceptives in developing countries from 10 percent of married couples in the 1970's to 50 to 60 percent today. Yet, there is still a great need for additional family planning assistance. In developing countries, maternal mortality is the single leading killer of women in their reproductive years, with 600,000 women dying annually from pregnancy-related complications. Family planning could reduce the deaths by one-fifth. It is estimated one out of five infant deaths could be averted if all children were spaced at an interval of at least 2 years. Unfortunately, the passage of the omnibus appropriations bill last year came at a heavy price for U.S. family planning assistance programs. As we all know, fiscal year 1997 funds cannot be spent until July 1, and at only 70 percent of the 1995 level, and on a monthly basis of 8 percent over the next 12\1/2\ months. As a result, family planning assistance by our Government will be reduced from $547 million in 1995 to only $385 million during 1997. This translates into a 30 to 35 percent cut of $162 million. If we delay the funding for these programs until July 1, we are talking about delay in funding of another $123 million. We agreed to these cuts and restrictions only because we wanted to avoid a Government shutdown given that there was a difference between the House and the Senate on this issue. The Senate rightfully took the position that we should fund these programs without the Mexico City language. But in order to protect these programs, we inserted language requiring a vote on the President's certification that is before us today. I can assure Members that the failure to release these funds now will have a devastating impact on women, children, and families all over the globe, and particularly in developing countries. Countless programs have already been suspended or halted, as mentioned by the Senator from Wisconsin, and if the funds are released in July rather than now, dozens of programs may be forced to permanently close their doors, including programs in Peru, Bolivia, Mexico, the Philippines, and elsewhere. These programs are critical in preventing unplanned pregnancies, reducing infant mortality, reducing rates of HIV infection, and promoting maternal and child health. So there is no question, as the President has indicated, there will be irreparable harm to these programs. More than that, the Alan Guttmacher Institute and other research institutions predict as a result of just the funding cuts alone, not even the delay in funding, but just in the funding cuts alone, 7 million couples in developing countries who would have used modern contraceptives will be left without access to family planning. Four million more women will experience unintended pregnancies. Now, according to the World Health Organization, 40 percent of unintended pregnancies result in abortions. So we can expect 1.6 million more abortions and countless miscarriages; 1.9 million more unplanned births, often to families, as we know, living in terrible poverty conditions and who cannot afford another child; 8,000 more women dying in pregnancy and childbirth, and 134,000 infant deaths. These figures relate to the funding cuts alone. They do not even take into account the effect of the metering out, on a monthly basis for 12\1/2\ months, of this funding, or, most importantly, the significant delay in funding. Make no mistake about it, a vote against this resolution is a vote for more abortions, more women dying, more children dying. That is what I think is inconceivable in this debate--that those individuals who are against abortion are also against family planning. That is the bottom line in this debate. I have been debating this issue since 1985. Time and time again there hasn't been one single shred of evidence to suggest that U.S. population assistance funding is going for abortions or abortion-related activities in other countries. Senator Leahy was absolutely correct when he discussed the implications of the fungibility argument if applied to our assistance to foreign governments. We give assistance to foreign governments who allow abortions in their countries, according to their laws. We don't impose the requirement that if they use their money for abortion- related activities, we will not provide them foreign assistance. But this is a standard we are using for private organizations who have been instrumental in reducing the incidence of abortion worldwide. That should be of interest to all of us, given the enormous implications of population growth in the future. So I suggest that some are trying to bury their heads in the sand, taking an ostrich-like approach to this entire issue, to suggest that somehow if we don't provide family planning assistance, we will have fewer abortions in the world. The statistics do not bear that out. I hope that the Senate will overwhelmingly support this resolution, because I think that there is no question that it is in America's interest and it is in the world's interest. The United States has traditionally taken a leadership role for more than 30 years on international family planning. In fact, the first Presidential message was issued by a Republican President, President Nixon, back in 1969, saying that population growth was a world problem. America has always shown an inclination for humanitarianism through population assistance funding. We should be predisposed to doing the same thing in this body here today. To do less will impose serious hardship on women and children in developing countries. We know the strain it is going to impose. We know there will be millions fewer couples who have access to family planning assistance because we are undercutting our support. If we undercut our support, I can assure you that other countries will follow suit and it will affect an already fragile international family planning system program worldwide. When you think about the future, we should be concerned because it will provide an enormous strain on economic and social stability all around the world. In the next decade, the number of women of reproductive age will increase from 185 million to 900 million women. That is 10 times the size of Mexico. So I know there will be grave consequences of this incremental decrease in U.S. support for international family planning year after year. How can we incrementally undercut our family planning assistance to those organizations who have been the most effective, the most instrumental in preventing unplanned pregnancies and improving maternal and child health? I can assure you of one other point: Not one dime has been spent--and it bears repeating here today, and let there be no misunderstanding-- there has not been one U.S. dollar that supports abortion or abortion- related activities in other countries. We have had that prohibition in law since 1973. The fact of the matter is, those funds are maintained separately, and there is monitoring and independent reviews on an annual basis. That is why I believe that former Senator Mark Hatfield, who was a pro-life Senator for many years in the U.S. Senate, wrote a letter to a colleague in the House of Representatives, saying that there is no evidence to suggest that our funding has ever gone for abortion or abortion- related activities in other countries through our family planning assistance programs. In fact, he goes on to say that we are contributing to the increase in abortions worldwide by our failure to provide this assistance. So I hope, Mr. President, for these and many other reasons I have highlighted, that my colleagues will support this resolution. It is in our interest and in the world's interest. As the Senate votes tomorrow on this resolution, I hope that these facts will not be forgotten. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services to meet on Wednesday, February 12, at 9:30 a.m. for a hearing on The Future of Nuclear Deterrence.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session on Wednesday, February 12, 1997 at 9:30 a.m. in SR-301 to mark-up the recurring budgets contained in the omnibus committee funding resolution for 1997 and 1998; and any other legislative or administrative matters that are ready for consideration.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate for a hearing entitled ``Nomination of Aida Alvarez to be Administrator of the United States Small Business Administration'' on Wednesday, February 12, 1997. The hearing will begin at 9:30 a.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Health Care be permitted to meet to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, February 12, 1997, beginning at 2 p.m. in room 215- Dirksen.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full Committee on Environment and Public Works be granted permission to conduct a hearing Wednesday, February 12, at 9:30 a.m., Hearing Room (SD-406), to receive testimony from Carol M. Browner, Administrator, EPA, on the ozone and particulate matter standards proposed by EPA.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 12, 1997, to conduct a markup of the following nominee: Janet Louise Yellen, of California, to be a member, council of economic advisors.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 2:45 p.m. on Wednesday, February 12, 1997, in open session, to receive testimony on the defense authorization request for the fiscal year 1998 and the future years defense program.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 12, 1997, for purposes of conducting a full committee business meeting which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this meeting is to consider pending calendar business.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.