```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 70 (Monday, May 1, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5910-S5912]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. THOMAS (for himself, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Helms, Mr. 
        Lautenberg, Mr. Grams, and Mr. Craig):
  S. 738. A bill to amend the Helium Act to prohibit the Bureau of 
Mines from refining helium and selling refined helium, to dispose of 
the U.S. helium reserve, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.

                         helium act amendments

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation that 
would reform the Federal helium program and the helium refining and 
marketing aspirations of the U.S. Bureau of Mines.
  Mr. President, we are in the process, I think happily, to be 
reforming Government, to be changing some of the things that have gone 
on for a very long time, which is a tendency of the Federal Government. 
Things that started for good reason and with meritorious purpose, as 
time goes by, often change.
  I think everyone admits it becomes very difficult that despite the 
changing conditions, programs seem to continue. I understand that. They 
start with a purpose. Often the remnants of that purpose at least 
remains, and of course, there is always a constituency built around 
that activity; in this case, an economic one. I understand that as 
well.
  However, the more important thing is that we do have a chance to 
change, indeed, a responsibility to change. If there is anything, it 
seems to me, that this Congress is about, what this election was about 
in November, it is to really finally make some of the alterations in 
Government that need to be made, try to deal with some of the things 
that do not contribute to the well-being of this country and contribute 
to the well-being of this Government so that those resources being used 
in that manner can be shifted and changed to something more useful, to 
do something that is appropriate for this Government to be doing.
  I think the Federal helium program, Mr. President, is one of those 
activities. This helium recovery program began in 1925. At that time, 
helium conservation was deemed to be a matter of national security. At 
that time, I think, people saw the future of defense, the future of 
aviation, as being lighter-than-air--machinery of that kind, and there 
was no private helium industry that existed.
  Today, on the contrary, the private sector has a thriving helium 
industry that produces 90 percent of the world's helium demand and 
supplies it. There are 11 privately owned plants throughout the 
country, modern plants, as opposed to the Government plant, which is 
some 50 years old.
  A private company can deliver helium cheaper, better, and more 
efficiently than the Federal Government. Unfortunately, the Federal 
Government continues to process helium in a burdensome and outdated 
fashion. The program was designed for the 1920's and certainly is 
failing in the 1990's. Not only has the program been inefficient, but 
it has cost millions of dollars each year.
  Beginning in 1960, the Federal Government contracted with private 
companies to supply helium to the Bureau of Mines. To finance these 
purchases, the Bureau borrowed $252 million from the Treasury. Although 
it was planned that future sales would cover the costs of this loan, 
this has not occurred. The agency has paid back the loan, and it 
continues to accumulate. Today the Bureau of Mines owes the Treasury 
roughly $1.3 billion on the loan.
  The legislation that I am introducing, along with several cosponsors, 
including the chairman of the committee and the chairman of the 
subcommittee, would end the Federal helium program within 1 year. Then, 
importantly, it would phase out the sale of the Federal crude helium 
reserve. I think it is very important that we do phase it out over a 
period of time so that this private-sector industry that has developed 
will not be demolished by simply dumping all this surplus supply on the 
market. It would end the program and the Federal Government's direct 
competition with the private sector.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this bill will save 
American taxpayers approximately $7 million annually, between $26 and 
$36 million over 5 years. The measure would allow the Bureau of Mines 
to contract with the private sector for services to purchase and 
distribute crude helium. There is some requirement in the Government 
for it. NASA is a customer, as well as the Department of Energy. It 
would be provided by the private sector.
  Most importantly, this legislation phases out the sale of the 
official helium stockpile over several years and requires that all of 
these reserves be disposed of by the year 2015. This would allow the 
helium fields to be probably close to depleted, the ones that currently 
are there. It would ensure that when the stockpile is sold, the return 
to the Treasury would be at a level that makes this a valuable asset. 
If it were dumped immediately, it would not be valuable. The taxpayers 
would lose a considerable amount of asset value.
  Mr. President, we are faced, of course, with some most difficult 
times on the budget. We are faced with seeking to balance this budget 
over 6 or 7 years. I think it is an imperative that we do that.
  We are faced, as well, with programs that we do want to continue to 
provide services. We do want to help people who are in need. We do want 
to help them get back into the workplace. We do want Medicare to 
continue to provide those benefits.
  Frankly, if we do not do something, none of those things will happen. 
it is not a question of whether we make some changes; it is a question 
of what changes we make and how soon we can make them.
  Somehow, there has been kind of a presumption developed by our 
friends on the other side and by the administration that these programs 
are simply designed to take away benefits and that we should not do 
that, we ought to continue doing what we have been doing.
  Let me say that that is not one of the choices. If we continue to do 
what we have been doing with the revenue we have, by the year 2010 we 
will be able to afford only the entitlements and interest on the debt. 
None of the other discretionary spending will be able to be provided.
  We have talked about this in the past, Mr. President. There was 
considerable discussion last year when I was in the House Interior 
Committee. I think there is general acceptance to the notion, but we 
did not get it done. Now it is time to take action to shut down the 
Federal helium program, and I hope the Senate will take swift action on 
this bill so that we can begin to end this wasteful and inefficient and 
unnecessary Federal program.
                                 ______

      By Mr. HATCH:
  S. 740. A bill for the relief of Inslaw, Inc., and William A. 
Hamilton and Nancy Burke Hamilton; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

                       inslaw private relief act

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I am introducing two pieces of 
legislation regarding the matter of Inslaw, Inc.
  Inslaw sold the Department of Justice a software program it alleges 
was improperly shared with other Federal agencies. In 1986, Inslaw sued 
the Department and was awarded a judgment. An appellate court, however, 
reversed the case some years later on technical grounds. Considerable 
controversy has surrounded the merits of Inslaw's claim ever since. 
Referring this matter to the Court of Claims is thus the best way to 
settle this matter once and for all.
  It is to accomplish that referral that I am introducing these two 
pieces of legislation. The first is a bill to provide the compensation 
due, if any, to Inslaw. The second is a resolution, referring the 
Inslaw matter, including the bill just described, to the United 
[[Page S5911]] States Court of Federal Claims for a hearing to 
determine whether the United States owes the company compensation for 
providing computer software and services to the Department of Justice.
  The Senate considered this matter favorably several months ago. On 
October 6, 1994, we adopted a similar resolution by unanimous consent 
in the form of a free-standing amendment to the Process Patent 
Protection Act of 1994. Pursuant to the legislation establishing the 
Court of Federal Claims, either House of Congress may refer a matter to 
the court. Unfortunately, because the House of Representatives failed 
to take action on the patent bill last October, and the Inslaw 
amendment was attached to that piece of legislation, the status of the 
amendment was left in doubt.
  As the matter was never properly referred to the court, I believe the 
best way to proceed is for the Senate to repeat the action it took in 
the Inslaw matter last October.
  There is, in closing, a point I believe that deserves special 
emphasis. This legislation simply refers the Inslaw case to the Court 
of Claims to hear, determine, and render conclusions that are 
sufficient to inform the Congress of the amount, if any, due to Inslaw 
for furnishing its computer services to the Department of Justice. This 
legislation does not obligate Congress to compensate Inslaw. It is 
deficit neutral, because the final decision to satisfy any judgment 
rendered will rest with Congress, not with the Court of Claims. 
Congress, and Congress alone, will decide how much to pay, if any, 
should the court recommend that compensation is owed. I believe this is 
the fair and appropriate thing to do.
                                 ______

      By Mr. PRESSLER:
  S. 741. A bill to require the Army Corps of Engineers to take such 
actions as are necessary to obtain and maintain a specified maximum 
high water level in Lake Traverse, South Dakota and Minnesota, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

                        lake traverse relief act

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to correct 
a serious problem in South Dakota that has resulted in severe flooding 
along the shores of Lake Traverse. Lake Traverse is located in the far 
northeast corner of South Dakota and in parts of western Minnesota. In 
fact, the boundary line between South Dakota and Minnesota cuts through 
the middle of the lake.
  There is very interesting history connected with Lake Traverse. Lake 
Traverse is the beginning of the Red River--the only major North 
American river that flows north. This river eventually enters Hudson 
Bay and flows through Wahpeton, Fargo, Grand Forks, and Winnipeg. 
Historical records show this lake was an important avenue in the 
transportation of United States grain to destinations as far away as 
Belgium.
  On Lake Traverse, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers maintains and 
operates White Rock Dam and structures at interstate bridge. Both these 
sites are located east of Rosholt, SD. Operations to date have been 
devastating.
  Lake Traverse is facing a major disaster due to high water levels. 
Shorelines have been destroyed. Some small businesses are facing 
financial jeopardy. Farmland is being lost. Homes, cottages, and other 
structures are being destroyed. And if that is not enough, subsequent 
erosion is wreaking havoc on the local land. Thousands of trees are 
under water and dying.
  Something must be done. Taxpayers should not be required to pay taxes 
on land that is under water and useless.
  According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, congressional approval 
is needed before the corps can take steps to correct the high water 
level and erosion problems. The corps is managing the lake with arcane 
rules that are half a century old. That is unacceptable. My bill would 
give the corps the necessary authority to better manage water release 
at Lake Traverse and control erosion.
  The answer, in the form of legislation I am introducing today, is 
simple: It would direct the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to obtain and 
maintain a high water level at Lake Traverse not to exceed 977 (MSL). 
In other words, this legislation would provide the necessary authority 
for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to solve the problems surrounding 
Lake Traverse.
  There is strong public support for this action. Just last week, I 
held a meeting at the Circle K Resort, which is located on the South 
Dakota side of Lake Traverse. More than 250 people were in attendance. 
This turnout clearly indicates that South Dakotans believe something 
needs to be done. The bill I am introducing today would achieve their 
goal.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that material related to the 
Lake Traverse flooding be inserted into the Record.
  I urge my colleagues from South Dakota and Minnesota to review this 
legislation. We must solve this problem. I urge their support and the 
support of the entire Senate.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Rosholt Review, Apr. 26, 1995]

      Pressler Seeking Congressional Action on Traverse Situation

                           (By Kathleen Cook)

       Emotions were almost as hard to control as rising waters on 
     Lake Traverse at a public meeting Thursday night.
       More than 250 persons crowded into Circle K Resort to voice 
     concerns about high water, property damage and shoreline 
     erosion at the meeting arranged by South Dakota Sen. Larry 
     Pressler and staff.
       Pressler couldn't attend, but he acted quickly on his 
     staff's report of overwhelming public sentiment.
       ``According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, they need 
     Congressional approval before they can take steps to correct 
     the high water level and erosion problems,'' he said Friday.
       The Corps is managing the lake with rules that applied to 
     its condition half a century ago, and ``that is 
     unacceptable,'' Pressler said.
       ``I am preparing legislation that would give the Corps the 
     necessary authority to better manage water release at Lake 
     Traverse and to control erosion,'' Pressler said.
       At Pressler's invitation, representatives of the St. Paul 
     District of the U.S. Corps of Engineers attended Thursday's 
     showdown with property owners, area farmers and sportsmen, 
     and others who simply have sentimental ties to the lake.
       Also present were representatives of South Dakota Sen. Tom 
     Daschle and Rep. Tim Johnson and Minnesota Sen. Paul 
     Wellstone.
       ``Currently, landowners are paying taxes on land that is 
     under water and not of any use. Approval of my legislation 
     would change that. I will work with my colleagues from South 
     Dakota, Minnesota and North Dakota to correct this problem 
     quickly,'' Pressler said.
       Lake Traverse, bisected by the border of South Dakota and 
     Minnesota, is located at the headwaters of the Red River, the 
     only major river that flows north in North America, and 
     eventually drains into the Hudson Bay.
       Less than 100 years ago, Lake Traverse was a major 
     transportation link for South Dakota agricultural products, 
     Pressler learned after about 100 persons pressed him earlier 
     this month to help them address problems.
       Cottonwood Point Resort owner Mike Brody, who led the local 
     effort and who served as moderator Thursday night, summed it 
     up. Citing historic, cultural, recreational and economic 
     value of Lake Traverse, he said, ``We would like to see it 
     continue to flourish. We feel the present management of the 
     lake will destroy this treasure.''
       Brody added, ``Tempers are strained, which is 
     understandable. But we are not here to attack or belittle. We 
     are asking cooperation of all parties.''
       He presented an aerial video taken around the lake April 8. 
     Many trees along the shoreline are dying; some of them have 
     been under water for about three years. Rainbow Island, 
     normally a peninsula, really is an island now. Many miles of 
     shoreline are gouged or washed away with erosion. Silt 
     appears to flow freely into the lake in some spots.
       ``When work was completed on these dams (White Rock and 
     Reservation) years ago, were they engineered to hold this 
     water back?'' Brody asked.
       The dams were intended to control ``an event'' about every 
     30
      years, according to the Corps.
       Edward Eaton, water control chief for the St. Paul District 
     of the Corps, said water level has exceeded elevation 981 
     feet only once in 43 years.
       Lake Traverse rose to 980.3 feet above sea level April 1, 
     the third highest level recorded at the reservoir since it 
     became operational in 1940. The pool reached 980.75 in 1952 
     and 980.71 in 1986, according to Corps information.
       Todd Johnston of the Lake Traverse Association pointed out 
     that within recent weeks he believes the water was at least 
     in the 980 range with 40 to 50 mile per hour winds at times, 
     creating two- to three-feet rolling waves. ``Was the dam 
     constructed to take that kind of pounding?''
       The pool was set at 981 to allow for a couple of feet of 
     wave action, Eaton said.
       [[Page S5912]] Eaton then referred to excerpts from a 
     brochure created after a public meeting concerning Traverse 
     flooding in 1986.
       At that time, Corps personnel explained in the Reservation 
     pool, located between Browns Valley and Reservation Highway, 
     the government bought permanent flowage rights for lands 
     lying below elevation 977 mean sea level. Elevation 977 is 
     the summer conservation pool for the Reservation pool.
       The government also acquired the right to intermittently 
     overflow those lands between the taking line and the summer 
     conservation pool to temporarily store flood water. The 
     flowage easement means Lake Traverse can permanently flood 
     the surrounding land up to the taking line at approximately 
     elevation 983.
       ``Property owners have cabins with flowage easements. We 
     went through this whole thing after the flood of 1986. The 
     purpose isn't to hold water down but to implement spring 
     drawdown. We don't make releases over winter because of poor 
     quality of water. We wait as close to spring as possible. 
     This year a 1.2 foot drawdown would have made the lake about 
     three-fourths foot higher than it is now,'' the Corps 
     spokesman said.
       Basically, the St. Paul District representatives relied on 
     answers to questions from the 1986 meeting to deal with 
     problems experienced by property owners in varying degrees 
     over the past three years--less than a decade--far from a 
     single ``event'' occurring every 30 years.
       One local resident, John Nelson, wondered if the government 
     controls the lake in such a way that Wahpeton-Breckenridge 
     can release sewage.
       Until then, the crowd was quiet, but in their exuberant 
     support of Nelson's question, they even interrupted Brody.
       Water treatment in cities downstream of Fargo-Moorhead 
     isn't directly related to flood control, Eaton said. ``We 
     don't make releases for waste dissolution.''
       Brody then asked the Corps staff to define intermittent, 
     since it seemed to him government flowage easements for 
     ``intermittent'' flooding were ``steady'' instead, at least 
     the last three years.
       At that point, Corps spokesmen repeated they had the right 
     to flood, acquired through easements in the early 1940s and 
     on record in the Roberts County
      Courthouse.
       But several property owners said they purchased lake land 
     with no knowledge of the easements.
       It is the responsibility of the property buyer to learn 
     what terms, such as ``metes and bounds,'' mean, to make sure 
     they have abstracts examined and updated and to read their 
     deeds and other real estate papers.
       ``You're stuck if you didn't have your abstract examined,'' 
     said Roberts County Commissioner Art Johnson.
       Brody asked if the Corps would be willing to work with 
     local agencies to establish retaining pools.
       ``We don't believe there is a serious sedimentation problem 
     in the lake,'' said Eaton.
       That remark put local folks over the edge, drawing loud 
     disagreement.
       Moments later, the crowd broke out in applause when Brody 
     said if the Corps isn't authorized to make changes without 
     Congressional action, then he wanted to pursue Congressional 
     intervention.
       He then opened the meeting to comments from the floor.
       ``We've got to go through all these hoops for our property. 
     Somebody's got to be liable for what I've lost, because I'm 
     still paying taxes on property that is gone, washed away,'' 
     said one spectator.
       The Corps had made no effort to retain shoreline, added 
     another property owner.
       Back when the Corps' policies regarding Lake Traverse were 
     established, ``environment wasn't so important. Now two 
     islands are completely gone, trees are gone, the rest of the 
     islands are completely gone, trees are gone, the rest of the 
     islands are going . . .'' said one longtime property owner.
       ``What's going to be done?'' asked another.
       Eaton said choices were offered after the 1986 flood: 
     Restore property to its condition before the high water and 
     accept the risk that there may be high water again, or flood-
     proof property so that when the lake gets above 977 
     elevation, property won't be damaged as severely.
       Roberts County Commissioner LaVonne Ringsaker wondered it 
     the Corps has money for dredging. Eaton said no.
       Another spectator remarked, ``Water seems to be held longer 
     these days, and the soil can't absorb it after a number of 
     very wet years.''
       ``What's the magic of 981?'' asked another.
       Gordon Heitzman, a water control specialist with the Corps, 
     answered, ``The bowl is only so big; it's for the safety of 
     the dam.''
       Asked for some specific dates regarding establishment of 
     Lake Traverse policy, Heitzman became flippant--saying he was 
     still in school back then and wouldn't know. He insinuated 
     information sent ahead of the meeting should have provided 
     answers to some of the questions being tossed out.
       That, and just so much technical jargon, made Brody lose 
     his composure.
       ``I'm not a professor, I'm a resort owner!'' he said, 
     exhibiting a thick catalog of Corps facts, figures and 
     policies, which he received when he requested advance 
     information.
       ``You called Friday (April 14) and asked for data. You 
     didn't tell me your problems. I would like the same 
     courtesy,'' Heitzman said. Heitzman later apologized.
                                                                    ____

             [From Watertown Public Opinion, Apr. 11, 1995]

              Traverse Resident Blame Corps for Water Woes

                           (By Wayne Specht)

       Lake Traverse--Rising water along sprawling Lake Traverse 
     is inundating the economic and retirement dreams of Mike 
     Brody and Ron Spencer.
       Both men say it's the fault of the U.S. Army Corps of 
     Engineers.
       Last week, the Corps opened pen gates on the White Rock Dam 
     at the northern reaches of Lake Traverse to relieve build-up 
     of water delivered by Minnesota's Mustinka River.
       That caused waters along Traverse shorelines to rise 
     inundating some farm buildings, boat houses and vacation 
     cabins built 40 years ago during drier weather cycles than 
     what have been seen in the last several years.
       Brody bought the 14-acre Cottonwood Point Resort, three 
     rental cabins and a larger building housing a bar, three 
     years ago.
       For a time this week, his property was isolated as Traverse 
     waters covered the only access road to the modest resort. 
     Brody's parking lot is under several feet of water and he 
     lost a line of trees he planted recently.
       Because his septic tanks have been overtaken by lake 
     waters, his sump pump motors have burned out, too, and 
     reservations booked for cabins later this month may have to 
     be canceled.
       ``This is the third consecutive year this has happened, and 
     it's because of the Corp's inept water management practices 
     over the years,'' says Brody, who estimates 10 of his 14 
     acres are now underwater. He had to haul in fill material to 
     restore the access road so he could reach his property and 
     says it will cost him $1,000 to blade his property when the 
     water recedes.
       One mile south of Brodie, Spencer had to purchase $210 
     worth of fill material to build a dike around his home to 
     keep lake waters outside.
       ``I live on my military retirement checks and I won't be 
     able to meet my bills this month because I had to buy the 
     fill material.''
       Spencer is not a happy camper either.
       As he neared the end of a 24-year Air Force career, Spencer 
     thought it would be a wonderful idea to purchase the property 
     where, as a child, he accompanied his parents to enjoy 
     summertime swimming, fishing and carefree hours on the same 
     swing that remains on the site today.
       ``It was my dram come true when I purchased the property 
     last October,'' Spencer says. ``But if I had the chance, I 
     would sell the property tomorrow. I got took.''
       That's because unlike Brody, who was told by local 
     residents of Traverse flooding that threatened lakeshore 
     structures every 10 or 15
      years, owners who sold Spencer his nearly three acres, never 
     let on about seasonal flooding.
       When the water rose, Brody and Spencer went scurrying for 
     land abstracts where they learned the Corps of Engineers 
     purchased land around the perimeter of the lake that would be 
     covered by water in wet years.
       ``We also purchased flowage easements around the lake 
     covering areas that would be covered by water back in 1942 
     when the White Rock Dam and Reservation Dam across the lake 
     were completed,'' explained Corps of Engineers Public Affairs 
     spokesman, Ken Gardner.
       Brody says his abstract shows the federal government 
     obtained easements rights for 977 feet above sea level in 
     1942.
       ``Today (Thursday) I found an affidavit on file in the 
     Roberts County Courthouse from Col. Joseph Briggs, St. Paul 
     district engineer, dated 1987 placing on public record the 
     right of the federal government to intermittently raise lake 
     levels to 983 feet. Aren't they required to tell 
     landowners?''
       During dry cycles, these figures are of no concern to lake 
     residents as Corps management of water outflow from the two 
     dams keeps reservoir levels behind the White Rock Dam at 
     between 976 and 977 feet.
       ``However the dams were built for flood control for the 
     cities of Wahpeton and Breckenridge which sit on the Boyd de 
     Sioux River,'' Gardner said. ``When flood stage reaches 10 
     feet in either location, we shut the dam down tight to zero 
     outflow.''
       That was the case twice during March when the inflow to 
     Lake Traverse was doubling every 24 hours, Gardner noted, and 
     some minor flooding struck Wahpeton.
       This morning (Thursday) outflow from the White Rock Dam was 
     1,100 cubic feet per second, the maximum outflow says Corps 
     resource manager for the Lake Traverse project Dave Solberg.
       Solberg says the outflow has been holding steady and 
     barring unforeseen heavy rainfall, he says Lake Traverse 
     waters should be back to normal levels by June 15 given good 
     evaporation conditions.
       Gardner and Solberg both say the problem for residents like 
     Spencer and Brody is properties they bought were built during 
     the 1950s within the federal easements and are subject to 
     periodic flooding, especially during the past three very wet 
     years.
       ``I wasn't asking the Corps to bend over for me,'' Brody 
     says, ``but Solberg told me I shouldn't have purchased my 
     property. What kind of compassion is that?''
       Brody and Spencer says the larger problem is federal 
     government enticements to farmers for the last 60 years that 
     rewarded them for draining sloughs thus eliminating natural 
     drainage areas.
     

                          ____________________
```