A new hand touches the beacon
![Mr. KLUG. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California for his
work on this legislation, and my other colleague from California [Mr.
Cox], and also the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], for their
work on this legislation for years. In a way it is kind of a shame to
see this program come to an end because it takes away one of the great
punch lines when talking about the Federal Government, because the
national helium reserve has really been a laughingstock, I think, for
several decades.
Looking all the way back to the early 1930's, the Federal Government
got involved and continues to be involved in the operation of
hydroelectric facilities, and I have to ask my constituents at home
whether they think the Federal Government should be producing,
marketing, and selling electric power these days, and they say no.
We continue to run and operate, believe it or not, a series of oil
fields scattered around this country from California to Wyoming to
passed last week that we will be selling off, finally, some of those
oil fields that have literally existed since the days that Teddy
Roosevelt was President in order to guarantee the fact that our naval
fleet would have an adequate supply of petroleum.
And here we are arguing, 70 years later, whether or not we need a
helium reserve in order to do dirigible research in the United States.
This is absolutely absurd. The private sector is capable of producing,
marketing, and selling helium as it has been for the last several
decades
The reality today is that in 1996 it is clear that blimps have
absolutely nothing to do with national security. They may have to do
with some intriguing shots at the halftime of a Monday night football
game, but I think they manage to do that without support from the
Federal Government. The taxpayers, frankly, now are left with almost a
$1.5 billion debt to pay off the cost of a reserve that has not really](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:mvgf7ccpvl6cuvehze2qgb77/bafkreigjrgqanj4ehhtrhn6h3xnkdpowmf6emw3h2cz6wbswkl5b5a5nwq)
![Justice Elena Kagan called the case a “textbook” case of viewpoint discrimination. As an exercise to understand why she presented “a hypothetical law that is the mirror image of Colorado’s.”
“Instead of barring talk therapy designed to change a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity, this law bars therapy affirming those things,” Kagan wrote in a concurrence. “[T]he First Amendment would apply in the identical way. Once again, because the State has suppressed one side of a debate, while aiding the other, the constitutional issue is straightforward.”
This appeared to be an argument why opponents of conversion therapy should consider this opinion favorably. If conversion talk therapy can be banned by some states, so too could other states ban any talk therapy that affirms someone’s gender identity or sexual orientation, Kagan suggested.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:mvgf7ccpvl6cuvehze2qgb77/bafkreiake4bwi7otgtroacsn5uc7zwchbku6vovzcx6qykzrwjk3k6cwem)
A new hand touches the beacon