Richard Bryan

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set the pending amendment aside.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair. Transitional Funding For United States Travel And Tourism Administration

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, if I might inquire of the floor managers, I just came to the floor a few moments ago, so I have not heard the colloquy. I want the managers of the bill to know that Senator Burns and I have an amendment concerning USPTA, and I just want to make sure that the terms of the unanimous consent would not preclude us from having an opportunity to offer that amendment and perhaps have a vote. We do not need to do it this evening. We can go tomorrow. I want to assure my colleague that I am willing to cooperate and work with him. I do not know the terms of the agreement.

Mr. BRYAN. I appreciate that.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I want to bring to the attention of the Senate the impact the proposed VA/HUD appropriations bill is having on veterans who rely on the Veterans Affairs medical center located in Reno, NV, for inpatient hospital care. I recognize the difficult funding decisions that faced the VA/HUD Appropriations Subcommittee. And I know the subcommittee wants to provide quality health care for veterans in quality medical facilities. But the decision to not fund any major construction projects jeopardizes the ability of the Reno VA hospital to provide that quality inpatient care to its veterans. The Reno VA hospital's $20.1 million major construction project to build an inpatient bed wing project is an authorized project. The project's construction plans will be completed in November. The project will be ready for bid award in January, 1996. The House VA/HUD appropriations bill, passed in June, includes $20.1 million for the project. But there is no funding for this authorized project in this Senate bill. The Reno VA hospital's current inpatient bed wing was designed prior to World War II, and is today a woefully inadequate facility. The Reno VA hospital inpatient bed wind has been in noncompliance with JCAHO accreditation standards for nearly 6 years. It again faces an accreditation evaluation from JCAHO on October 10. The hospital's inpatient wing's deficiencies include inadequate fire prevention including lacking water sprinklers, an inadequate oxygen system in patient rooms, inadequate air conditioning, and inadequate handicapped access. Further, the patient rooms lack wash basins and toilets which violate both privacy standards for the patients, and health standards for nurses and physicians who are required to wash their hands before leaving a patient's room. With the increase in women patients using the hospital, the lack of wash basins and toilets problem is further exacerbated. Can you imagine being sick in a room with no air conditioning? In a room with no toilet facility except down the hall? I know we would all agree this situation is intolerable. This inpatient care unit is woefully inadequate to meet even the most basic of standards for care and safety. The personal dignity of all the veterans who receive their inpatient hospital care there is compromised. This hospital critically needs the new inpatient hospital wing to ensure the [[Page S 14380]] center does not lose the JCAHO accreditation. To date, no Veteran Affairs medical facility has lost its accreditation. However, JCAHO has recently been under industry criticism for not being as stringent as it should be to ensure the quality of its accreditation standards. When a facility like the Reno hospital has been in noncompliance with accreditation standards for 6 years, and is unable to show JCAHO a definitive plan to correct those deficiencies, because its construction project has not been funded, it is surely not beyond the realm of possibility that Reno could be facing nonaccreditation. And what happens should the hospital lose its accreditation? The hospital will be given a specific time period to move the current inpatient patients out of the facility, and obviously no new patients can be admitted. The hospital's medical residents from the University of Nevada-Reno medical school will have to leave the hospital immediately as they cannot practice in an unaccredited facility. The hospital's physicians will leave as soon as possible, as physicians do not further their professional standing by serving in an unaccredited facility. The hospital's research program will be dismantled because Federal research funds cannot flow to an unaccredited facility. In simple terms, Reno will no longer have an inpatient hospital. Since coming to the Senate, I have worked to attain funding for a new inpatient bed wing. During the last budget cycle, the Reno hospital and the Department of Veterans Affairs drastically scaled back the construction project by nearly half its original cost. This revision was done to face the reality of funding constraints for major construction projects, and to ensure the hospital would have a definitive plan to meet its accreditation deficiencies. It is ironic that a construction project which has been significantly scaled back, and would solve the Reno hospital accreditation problems cannot go forward. The subcommittee has recommended that no major construction project, whether authorized or not, should be funded. I understand the concerns of the subcommittee and the Senate Veteran's Affairs Committee that major construction projects should not go forward while the Department of Veterans Affairs is developing a new veterans health care delivery system. However, the veterans who rely upon the Reno VA hospital for inpatient medical care cannot wait. The subcommittee increased the minor construction account funding to try to provide additional funds for facilities to use to address their accreditation, and life and safety deficiencies. But the minor construction account funding is not the answer for the Reno hospital. The minor construction account limits funding to no more than $3 million per project. It is estimated to require $13.9 million to renovate the current inpatient bed wing; obviously over the $3 million project limit. Even if a $13.9 million expenditure could be made from the minor construction fund, the hospital would still not meet accreditation standards. This is an old building. Most of this building is uninsulated. Its electrical system is at capacity. Its steam radiator heating system is beyond economical repair. Only so much can be done within the limits of such a building. Is it wise to put millions into an old building, that will not in the end meet accreditation and life safety code requirements? I think not. It must also be noted that the estimated $13.9 million renovation cost does not include the costs of contracting out inpatient hospital care during the disruption caused by such construction work. There is no other VA health care facility within competitive travel distance to assume any of Reno's inpatient caseload. Given the population influx of veterans into northern Nevada, and the increased patient load of California veterans due to closure of the Martinez VA facility damaged by earthquake, this hospital needs to be able to continue to serve the inpatient hospital needs of veterans for years to come. None of us wants a VA hospital closed for accreditation noncompliance. None of us wants sick veterans receiving care in a hospital room with no air conditioning or inadequate fire protection. Given extreme budget restraints, hard decisions must be made. But when those hard decisions serve to prevent a vitally needed construction project like the Reno hospital inpatient wing from going forward, the funding priorities are skewed. Reno needs a new inpatient wing without further delay. national science foundation

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, the hour is late, and this has been debated extensively during the course of the last day or two. Let me commend my colleague from Arkansas. He and I, it is clear I think to all Senators, if given a preference would like to eliminate the program. We have tried, he and I together, for the past several years--and prior to my arrival in this body, I am sure he was trying even then-- and it is $110 million in the appropriations bill this year. As he just pointed out, this is a carefully crafted compromise. We have preserved the right for small businesses, as defined under the Small Business Administration, to be eligible to participate in this program. We eliminate foreign companies from their eligibility. I think the more current number my colleague mentioned was $10 million. The information I have in the current year is that the program currently provides some $12 million. So we eliminate all foreign companies. Certainly, my colleagues would agree that the American taxpayer has no business in providing money for the advertising accounts of foreign companies. Certainly, we ought to be able to agree to that. As he pointed out, the various co-ops in the country, representing a broad diversity of products that are exported abroad, would continue to be eligible as they are under current law under this program, and we limit it to $70 million. We made some progress. The last time this issue came before us for a vote, my recollection is that we got 38 votes. This morning, we got 41 votes. That is incremental progress, and I suppose we should be grateful for that. But in an effort to accommodate the concerns that a number of our colleagues that say, look, we are not enamored with the program, but it provides help to small businesses, it provides assistance to local co-ops involved in export promotion, this is the compromise that is offered in good faith. I hope my colleagues-- particularly those who have rejected efforts in the past to eliminate this program--will take a fresh look at this approach and say, look, we tried to strike a reasonable and responsive balance--not going as far as the Senator from Arkansas and I would like to go, but recognizing the concerns that a number of our colleagues have with respect to small businesses, and agricultural co-ops, and to eliminate the money that currently goes to foreign companies, some $12 million, and to try to at least begin to wean these programs from their current level of expenditure, which is $110 million, and to reduce that to $70 million. I urge my colleagues to reconsider their previous position and support this amendment, which is offered in the spirit of compromise. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BRYAN. That is certainly acceptable to me. Mr. President, I have a further question. If I might inquire of the chairman, is there any time allocated under the protocol that we are adopting for tomorrow to explain any of these amendments? I know that, previously, we have had arrangements where each side is given a couple of minutes. I simply inquire.

Mr. BRYAN. If the Senator will yield, I am sure my colleague and I have no further amendments. Has there been a time set, or a sequence for the votes to occur on the amendments offered this evening?

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. I will yield time to the Senator from Arkansas. First, the point I seek to make, as I have over the past several years with my friend from Arkansas, is that this is really a question of a subsidy that in light of what I consider the new economic reality, where we are literally going to have to reexamine the way in which we do things in Government, and those programs that have long existed that are near and dear to many of my colleagues. Some of these programs simply cannot pass what I would call the ``smell test.'' This is one of them. I offer no criticism of these large agribusinesses, who have been extraordinarily successful. I compliment them. But I think the fundamental question is: Should the American taxpayer be paying for their advertising and promotion? I reserve the remainder of my time. I yield the Senator from Arkansas my remaining time.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, might I inquire about the time?

Mr. BRYAN. I yield myself a minute and a half. Mr. President, I simply make a point that this presumably is a time in America in which we are calling for shared sacrifice. We are saying that we cannot do business the way we have always done it. With all due respect to my distinguished colleague and friend from California, in terms of weighing the priorities, it seems to me it is pretty hard to contend when we are savaging the kinds of programs that affect the poor and those who are least able to defend themselves to support these kinds of dollars. McDonald's, the hamburger folks, I think, reported a net profit of in excess of $1 billion. They continue to receive money to supplement their advertising account. Their advertising budget is in the range of $600 to $700 million. I would think that these outfits would be embarrassed, at a time when they are encouraging us to balance the budget, as we should, to simply say, look, it is time for us to kind of participate in this shared sacrifice and say, look, we will handle our own promotion and not depend upon the American taxpayer for a handout. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes. I point out to my colleagues that the MPP and its immediate predecessor, the Targeted Export Assistance Program, has cost the American taxpayers $1 billion--$1 billion. It is currently proposed for funding at $110 million. It is a program which has been soundly denounced by think tanks and organizations that are representing a broad spectrum of interest groups from the Cato Institute to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the National Taxpayers Union, the Citizens Against Government Waste, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the Progressive Policy Institute. The General Accounting Office has reviewed this program and has concluded that there is no tangible, ascertainable basis upon which to conclude that, in fact, has assisted in the Market Promotion Program. There are no criteria in terms of large company, small company, who receives, no period of time in which one is supposed to graduate out of the program. We are currently spending to assist our overall export promotion programs in this country about $3.5 billion annually. While agricultural products account for 10 percent of total U.S. exports, the Department of Agriculture spends $2.2 billion, or 63 percent of the total. The way this program works, Mr. President, is that the advertising budgets of some of the largest corporations in the world receive a handout from the American taxpayer to supplement their budgets. Time restricts me from going into great detail, but here are some of the companies, all fine companies, that received in fiscal year 1993-1994 substantial amounts of money: Ernest & Julio Gallo, $7.9 million; Pillsbury, $1.75 million; Jim Beam Whiskey, $713,000, Campbell Soups, $1.1 million, to cite a few. I think the American taxpayer, if he or she understood, would be shocked that, in effect, we are taking tax dollars collected from the American people and, in effect, adding them to the advertising budgets of some of the largest companies in the world. Mr. President, the time to end this program has come. We have cut Medicare by $270 billion. We are cutting all kinds of programs involving educational assistance and a whole raft of programs. Yet, we seem to be unable to divorce ourselves from this form of corporate welfare. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. BRYAN. May I inquire as to how much time I have left?

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Would the Senator be willing to make that 15 minutes, equally divided?

Mr. BRYAN. The Senator is always gracious in accommodating his colleague, when I suspect that the Senator may not agree with the thrust of the enlightened Bryan-Bumpers amendment that is just about to be unveiled on the floor. Amendment No. 2691 (Purpose: To eliminate funding for the Market Promotion Program )

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, if I told the Members of the Senate that there is a program that has cost the American taxpayers a billion dollars, much of that money going to the largest corporations in America, and that there is no evidence it works, in this time of budget constraints, one would think that Members of this body on both sides of the political aisle would say, ``Senator, show me where that is; that is one cut that surely we can agree to.'' Mr. President, you would be wrong if you made that assumption. If I further [[Page S 13719]] asserted that there is a program which is currently slated in this budget proposal at $110 million, that has been denounced by such groups as the Cato Institute, the Progressive Policy Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the National Taxpayers Union, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Citizens against Government Waste, Citizens for a Sound Economy, the Concord Coalition Citizens Council, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, surely, Mr. President, you might think this is an arrangement that has been made in Heaven, and we should have those on the right and those in the political center all in agreement that a program costing the American taxpayers $110 million ought to be eliminated. Mr. President, you would be wrong, because this program continues to survive. If I put this in the context that at a time when this Congress is cutting money for the National Park Service, school-to-work programs, vocational education, elderly housing, and countless hundreds of other programs that help needy Americans, who help us to advance our abilities to enjoy public recreational facilities in America, that would make it even all the more unbelievable that there is a program out there that survives. This program, Mr. President, not only survives, but earlier this year when we were considering the supplemental budget, it was increased from an $85 million to a $110 million program. By now I suppose some are saying, ``Tell me, Senator, what is this program? What is this program that seems to survive when those who are thoughtfully considering the function and role of the Federal Government, both in the center and on the right, all agree that it ought not to exist? It has cost us $1 billion that goes to some of the wealthiest corporations in America. Tell me what this program is. Let me have a chance to cast my vote to kill it.'' This program, Mr. President, is the Market Promotion Program. As the distinguished occupant of the chair knows, because he has been supportive over the years in our efforts, this is a program that continues to survive and, as I say, even prosper in this, a year when budget austerity is supposedly the order of the day. Let me tell you some of the companies that receive this money. For fiscal years 1993 and 1994, here are some of the companies that have received taxpayer funds for the Market Promotion Program. Before stating exactly what these companies have received, I think a word of explanation about this program: Ostensibly, presumably, the underlying premise of this program is that by providing taxpayers' dollars to advertising budgets of companies that deal with the overseas promotion of American agricultural products, that somehow--somehow-- that will increase our agricultural exports. I acknowledge, Mr. President, that is a noble goal. I am fully supportive of efforts to increase our agricultural exports overseas. This is a program that is part of a larger budget picture in which, as the General Accounting Office has pointed out, the entire Federal Government spends about $3.5 billion annually on export promotion--$3.5 billion. While agricultural products account for only 10 percent of total U.S. exports, the Department of Agriculture receives and spends about $2.2 billion, or 63 percent of the total. I do not believe that it can be argued that we are being unnecessarily penurious in providing money to promote agricultural products abroad. The Department of Commerce, by way of contrast, spends about $236 million annually on trade promotion. Let me return to the beneficiaries of this program. Your tax dollars are going to some of the largest and most successful corporations in America to be added to their advertising budgets. Here is an example of the kind of companies that receive this generous largess from the Federal taxpayers. Ernest & Julio Gallo. Fine products. I can attest to that. Mr. President, $7.9 million go to Gallo wines to assist in their advertising budgets. Now, certainly Ernest & Julio Gallo, great success stories, ought to be able to finance, without the benefit of Federal tax dollars, their own advertising programs. The Dole people, $2.4 million; Pillsbury, the little doughboy, $1.75 million; Tysons Food, the chicken people, $1.7 million; M & M/Mars, $1.5 million. Let me say, lest the thought be that somehow the Senator from Nevada is picking on programs that do not have any recipients or beneficiaries in his State and, therefore, it is kind of easy for him to take a cheap shot at others, I remind my colleagues that more than 2 years ago on the floor this Senator took the lead in eliminating an equally outrageous program, the wool and mohair subsidy, in which there are a number of Nevada ranchers that received this largess, as I characterize it, for a period of some 39 years, from 1954 to 1993. I led the charge to eliminate that abomination in our Federal expenditure system. I point out that M & M/Mars has a factory in Las Vegas, a wonderful product. They are not, in my judgment, entitled to get into the American taxpayers' pocket for $1.5 million. Campbell soups, $1.1 million; Seagrams, $793,000; Hershey, $738,000; Jim Beam whiskey, $713,000; and Ralston Purina, $443,000. Mr. President, this is only a part of the $110 million that has currently been appropriated to go to companies of this size. It is an outrage. The General Accounting Office has examined this program and done a study to assert its effectiveness. Let me share with my colleagues what its conclusions are. It goes on to say that there are many problems with the MPP program, the Market Promotion Program, one of which is that there is no strategic planning. The USDA lacks overall guidance or priorities. To date, listen to this, there is no solid measure of success or a way to evaluate how the money is spent. I think that is a pretty compelling argument, Mr. President, to eliminate the program. Moreover, it is not clear who should get the funds. There are no strict guidelines about the size or type of company that will receive these funds. I have mentioned some of the larger corporations. But in addition to those that are depicted, McDonald's, the hamburger people, Sun Maid, Welch's, among others, are also some of the largest recipients of this funding. I think the American taxpayers, when shared sacrifice appears to be the clarion call of the day, want to ask themselves why are corporations of this size not being asked to do their bit in reducing the level of Federal expenditures? A sacrifice that simply requires them to say, ``Look, we are not going to take Federal taxpayers' dollars to supplement our own advertising accounts. We will do that job on our own. Nobody knows better than we do how to market. Nobody knows better how to advertise our programs and our products than we do. We do not need and we are not going to accept Federal dollars.'' This program continues on. Moreover, as the GAO concluded, ``There is no proof that these funds do not simply replace funds that would already have been spent on advertising anyway.'' Let me make that point clear: In effect, what the GAO is saying is that there is no way in which they can assert that this $7.9 million that Ernest & Julio Gallo, the group on the top of the list for fiscal year 1993 and 1994, has not simply slid dollars out of the corporation treasury that would have gone to the advertising budget and just simply said, look, we will release those with $7.9 million that the Federal Government is going to give us and direct that $7.9 million down the profit line to be distributed to the shareholders of that company. In effect, this program, like its predecessor, the TEA--the Targeted Export Assistance Program--has become a convenient source of free cash for wealthy businesses to help pay for their overseas advertising budgets. Mr. President, I argue forcefully and implore my colleagues, whatever their previous voting record may have been--is it not time to eliminate this program? Whatever its justification may have been in the past, is this not a new era? I compliment Members on both sides of the aisle who have taken the lead to support a budget amendment to the Constitution, to require the President of the United States to submit a balanced budget and the Congress to require a balanced budget. I am a supporter of that effort. [[Page S 13720]] I support the target of 2002 or 2003, whatever it might be, to achieve that balanced budget. Presumably, these kinds of pronouncements herald a new era of Government spending in Washington. But, if we allow these kinds of programs, corporate welfare, pork for the wealthiest corporations in America, to continue, what kind of message do we send to the American people? I will tell you. The message is, it is business as usual. If you are a big corporation and have influence in high places and have access to the right kind of people, even though we are cutting the programs for the poor, the elderly, and those who do not have influence in high places in Washington--but these programs can be protected. These are good citizens, good corporate citizens. They make important contributions in their communities and in this country, I am sure. I would think they would be shamed and embarrassed to reach out there at a time when we are trying, struggling to balance this budget. I offer no criticism of my colleagues who have had to wrestle with some of these tough decisions in the money committees. It is not easy. I may disagree with them on some of their priorities. But it is difficult. There is no magic wand that can be waved. We cannot simply say let us eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse and we can balance the budget. It requires tough and hard decisions. Nobody has encouraged the Congress to do this more than some of the leading business people in America, the kind of people who are chief executive officers for these companies. I think they ought to stand up and say, ``You know, you are right. We ought to do our share, too. From here on out we will simply pay for our own advertising budget. You return those dollars--$110 million--you return those to the Treasury and let us let that money be used to help reduce the deficit.'' Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. Not to belabor the point, my colleague from Mississippi and I--I think it is fair to say we have a disagreement on the value of this program. I know the hour is late, but I hope that a number of Senators' offices are still tuned in. [[Page S 13722]] One of the best articles that I have read on this MPP program was printed recently in the Los Angeles Times, Sunday edition, June 25, 1995. I think it is a matter of about seven or eight pages. I implore my colleagues, or at least their staff, just read that article. Just read that article. It quotes both those who support the program and those who criticize it. My good friend from Mississippi mentions the good folks at McDonald's, the hamburger people. Let me just say to him and the rest of my colleagues, I enjoy a Big Mac. I am a hamburger man. In fact, just this summer while we were on tour through our State I ran across a McDonald's manager who had a McDonald's tie on. It shows the Big Mac, the French fries. I said, ``I've got to have that tie.'' I am a Big Mac kind of a guy. So my comments are not directed with any sense of malice or hostility, but simply as one trying to do justice to the American taxpayer. McDonald's, the hamburger people, are good folks. I wish I had been as smart as Ray Kroc. And I wish I had been that smart to put together this impressive enterprise. Most folks of this generation think it has gone on forever. It has lasted only about 40 years, and it has been an incredible success. I pay great tribute to the entrepreneurship and the vision of folks that thought, ``By golly, we can change the fast food business in America,'' and we can do it in a way that McDonald's has been eminently successful. Let me comment on the success. And I know my distinguished colleague who joins me in arms, the Senator from Arkansas, may want to add his comments, also. McDonald's, which has received $1.6 million in this program since 1986--that is when the Targeted Export Assistance Program, which is the progenitor to MPP, was in existence; it is the same program essentially--has received $1.6 million. Remember, this is to supplement one's advertising account. McDonald's had a net profit in 1994 of $1.224 billion--$1.224 billion. You know, whether you are to the left of Mao Tse-tung or to the right of Genghis Khan, wherever you fit yourself on the political scale, if you accept the premise that Federal tax dollars are finite, they are not inexhaustible, there ought to be some priorities. How, good Lord, can you say, McDonald's with a net profit of $1.224 billion ought to be able to get into this program? You know what they spent in 1994 in advertising? $694.8 million. And yet the American taxpayer is supplementing the good folks of McDonald's who make those great hamburgers and French fries that so many of us enjoy. Let me just give you the cumulative impact of this. The top corporate recipients of this money from 1986 to 1994: Sunkist Growers, $76,375,000. In a different era and in a different context the great Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen used to say, ``A million here, a million there. Before long you will be talking about real money.'' Let me suggest, Mr. President, to our colleagues that $76 million is more money than 99.9 percent of the people in America will ever see in their lifetime--ever see. The Blue Diamond Growers, they do not do too badly, $37,338,000. Sunsweet Growers, $22 million. I am rounding these numbers off. And our good friend, Ernest & Julio Gallo, the winery folks--this was not an aberration, this 1993-1994 number; they have this program down; whoever is doing this good work for them obviously deserves a lot of credit-- they have gotten $23 million since 1986. Sun-Maid Growers of California, $12 million; Tyson Foods, $11 million; Pillsbury Company, $11 million. I do not quarrel with the proposition that my good friend from Mississippi argues when he says, look, we do need to support American agricultural promotions. But, Mr. President, not in this fashion, not when there is not one scintilla of objective evidence where GAO and other groups can make the proposition stick that this is a program that works. Moreover, its premise is flawed: Money to supplement advertising budgets that ought to be the responsibility of the private sector, for branded products, some of the largest companies not only in America but in the world at a time when we are desperately struggling to balance this budget. My friend from Arkansas used the word ``indefensible,'' and I think that sums it up. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article appearing in the Los Angeles Times, June 25, 1995, be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. BRYAN. I would be pleased to do so. With respect to this amendment that the distinguished floor leader is aware of, Senator Bumpers and I will want to have some time tonight and just a small amount tomorrow before the vote. It is not our purpose to prolong this. I would be willing to agree, subject to the agreement of the Senator from Arkansas, to an hour on this amendment, to be divided equally.

Mr. BRYAN. Let me inquire of the Senator from Arkansas.