[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 80 (Monday, May 15, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6676-S6678]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


              TERMINATION OF THE HELIUM AND OTHER PROGRAMS

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to take a few moments to praise 
both the House and Senate Budget Committees for including in their 
budget assumptions termination of a relatively small program, the 
helium reserve program. The Budget Committee materials assume a $27 
million savings over 5 years from termination of the helium reserve 
program.
  As the budget debate unfolds in the House and Senate in the coming 
week, there will certainly be considerable debate over programs of 
enormous magnitude--programs with budget outlays in the billions, not 
millions. Although the Budget Committee materials assume a $27 million 
savings from termination of the helium reserve program, the actual 
savings will be significantly higher as the Federal Government sells 
off the existing helium reserve over a period of time that will not 
disrupt the private helium market, as well as terminates the program 
itself. The Federal Government is currently stockpiling enough helium 
to meet its needs for the next 80 to 100 years. In order to make sure 
that the taxpayers get a fair price for this helium, the reserve needs 
to be sold over a period of time to make sure that we do not 
inadvertently cause the entire market price for helium to fall 
needlessly. CBO has estimated that we can, at current market prices, 
eventually recover between $1 and $1.6 billion by this sale.
  It is not just the current $27 million in savings but a long-term 
savings by in effect privatizing this area of our Government.
  I introduced legislation, S. 45, to terminate this program on the 
first day of the 104th Congress. I am pleased to report that this 
legislation has gained bipartisan support and that it has been 
cosponsored by the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], the Senator from New 
Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg], the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy], the 
Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], the Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl], the 
Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], the [[Page S6677]] Senator from 
Colorado [Mr. Campbell], and the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. 
Daschle]. On May 1, 1995, the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Thomas], 
introduced similar legislation to terminate the program, joined by the 
Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig], the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Grams], 
the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms], the Senator from Virginia 
[Mr. Warner], and the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski]. Thus, 15 
Members of the Senate, 8 Republicans and 7 Democrats have sponsored 
legislation to terminate the program. Moreover, President Clinton on 
January 24, highlighted termination of the helium program in his State 
of the Union Address as an example of the kind of Federal spending that 
could no longer be justified.
  Mr. President, I have previously spoken on the Senate floor about why 
termination
 of the helium reserve program is particularly appropriate today in 
light of the growth of a private helium industry which can more than 
adequately supply the needs of the Federal Government for this product.

  The helium reserve program, like many programs which are the target 
of today's deficit reduction efforts, began decades ago when there was 
a reason for the Federal Government to become involved in this area. In 
the case of helium, the program dates back to the time of President 
Woodrow Wilson. The Helium Act of 1925 was enacted at a time when 
observation balloons were thought to have strategic merit. It was 
expanded under the Eisenhower administration when blimps were being 
used to spot enemy submarines in the Atlantic and to meet the needs of 
the fledgling space program. Since that time, however, a private 
domestic helium industry has developed and as of 1995, 90 percent of 
the helium produced in this country does come from private operations.
  Now, Mr. President, it is time to terminate the Federal helium 
program. With the kind of bipartisan support that is now behind this 
effort, this would seem like a relatively easy task to accomplish 
during this budget cycle.
  I hope it will be, but I am not overly confident, given the history 
of this program and similar programs. Even with the endorsement of both 
Budget Committees, bipartisan support in Congress, and the backing of 
the administration, terminating any Federal program, large or small, is 
never easy.
  The helium reserve program was targeted for termination by the Reagan 
administration, by the Bush administration, and now the Clinton 
administration. Nonetheless, it survived. The Washington Post, in an 
article published February 7, 1995, entitled ``Odorless, Colorless--and 
Hard To Kill'' outlined the history of efforts to terminate the helium 
program and describe it as a ``tale of yet another federal government 
program that has had more than nine lives.'' Perhaps 1995 will be the 
year that these efforts succeed. I certainly intend to work to see that 
happens.
  But I think we need to look at the survival of these kinds of 
programs in a broader context.
  In the last Congress, we terminated another program, the wool and 
mohair subsidy program, that was started in 1954 when wool was 
considered to be a strategic material. The program lived on and on long 
after the original purpose had ended.
  Unfortunately, even though this was a relatively small but important 
piece in the President's overall $500 billion deficit reduction plan, I 
have just learned that there may be yet another attempt to try and 
revive this program now that we finally finished it off. I certainly 
hope that does not happen.
  I have 2,000-3,000 sheep growers in Wisconsin who did not like it 
when I introduced legislation in the last Congress to terminate this 
program, but I also know that many of them recognized that it was 
difficult to continue that subsidy in light of our deficit problems. I 
also worked with this industry to get legislation enacted during the 
103d Congress to enable them, working together, to set up a producer-
funded promotion board to help increase sales in the marketplace for 
their product. I believe that it is very important as we terminate 
Federal spending programs that we do it in a way that is sensitive to 
the needs of the communities and individuals who have been dependent to 
some degree on continuation of these programs.
  So that process appeared to have worked. We cut the subsidy, but we 
worked together to find a way to, through producer supported programs, 
promote the product. They made them less dependent on the Federal 
Government and yet we were able to move forward for their product. But 
we have to end many of these programs if we are going to make 
meaningful progress in reducing the deficit and achieving a balanced 
budget.
  Mr. President, as one former President once said, ``Not all spending 
initiatives were designed to be immortal.'' At least I hope they were 
not. Yet, we have all learned in one way or another how difficult it is 
to terminate a Federal spending program.
  I recall during the last Congress a debate over whether a NASA 
program originally entitled SETI--Search for Extraterrestrial 
Intelligence--which had been terminated had been revived under a new 
name. That is another demonstration of how difficult it is to actually 
end any Federal program. I recently had an interesting experience in 
attempting to terminate a program in my own State--Project ELF, a cold 
war relic that I believe no longer serves any significant strategic 
purpose.
  The Senate recently voted unanimously to terminate Project ELF as 
part of the DOD rescission bill. The program survived, somehow, in 
conference, however, on the grounds that some new purpose justified its 
continuation. I am not satisfied that there is a meaningful reason for 
continuing to spend millions of dollars each year--in this case, about 
$16 million each year--on this program.
  I am just going to have to continue my efforts to try to eliminate 
that, although I thought we finally had it in the Senate.
  During the debate over the balanced budget amendment, I discovered 
that another program that is high on many deficit-reduction lists, the 
Tennessee Valley Authority, was going to receive special protection.
  The Senate committee report on the balanced budget amendment created 
what could be called constitutional pork by singling out TVA as a 
program that would somehow not be affected by the proposed amendment, 
while everything else would be. I add that the House Budget Committee 
has assumed termination of TVA as part of its budget resolution.
  I believe this is the direction we should be headed with regard to 
the program which has a long and significant history, going back to 
1933 when it was first created. Mr. President, 60 years later we have 
to question whether the Federal Government should continue to operate 
and fund this particular program.
  In this regard, I have introduced legislation, S. 43, to phase out 
funding for TVA and thereby reduce the deficit by about $600 million 
over 5 years. I know that this legislation and termination of Federal 
funding for TVA will again be strongly opposed by those who benefit 
from the program, and this, too, will be a hard fight.
  Mr. President, I mention these various programs that in total amount 
come to millions--not billions--each year because I think they 
illustrate one of the problems that confronts Congress as we attempt to 
reduce the Federal deficit. The cumulative total spending on so many of 
these smaller programs does add up to significant budget cost. Each one 
standing alone may not be an overwhelming burden on the taxpayers, but 
taken together, they are a major part of the problem.
  Yet, Mr. President, my experience in the past 2 years has indicated 
that it takes almost as much effort to rein in spending on these 
relatively small programs as it does to tackle the big-ticket programs. 
The advocates for the smaller programs work just as hard to preserve 
them, and they are often quite effective in those efforts.
  Mr. President, I think we all know that reducing the Federal deficit 
and achieving a balanced budget will take a great deal of discipline 
and hard work. I am delighted that both of the Budget Committees have 
identified the Helium Reserve Program as being appropriate for 
termination in this budget cycle, and I am prepared to work with other 
Members of the Senate again on a bipartisan basis to enact legislation 
that closes down this outdated program in a manner that will help 
reduce the Federal deficit. [[Page S6678]] 
  Mr. President, I realize there is a lot of partisan rhetoric that 
goes with any budget resolution. This one is no exception. I want to 
again take this opportunity, as I did Friday with regard to appropriate 
Medicare cuts, to signal my desire to work with the majority party to 
find the cuts that will actually lead to that balanced budget by the 
year 2002 and to make sure as we do it that we look at both the small 
and the big programs so we balance the budget not only for the year 
2002, but that we can achieve a virtually permanent practice that is 
not existent here, which is to have a permanent commitment to have a 
balanced Federal budget into the future. I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________