[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 66 (Tuesday, May 24, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 24, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]


                              {time}  1040
 
      INTRODUCTION OF THE LAUNCH SERVICES CORPORATION ACT OF 1994

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Lloyd). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of February 11, 1994, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] 
is recognized during morning business for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Madam Speaker, today I would like to talk about a subject 
that has bothered me since I came to Congress in 1987, and that is the 
steady erosion of America's eminence in space, and particularly the 
space launch industry.
  When I came to Congress, we had just lost the Challenger in 1986, and 
for all practical purposes, we were out of space for 2 years because we 
simply could not get things together to get back into our space 
program.
  In space, money matters. It costs about $9,000 to launch a pound into 
orbit aboard Europe's Ariane, the world's most successful commercial 
rocket. This figure outstrips our Titan III. Our Atlas and our Delta 
are competitive for now. Next year's launch of an improved Ariane could 
leave only Delta as a competitive rocket. Even these figures do not 
take into account entry into the commercial market of nonmarket 
economies such as China and Russia.
  These two are pursuing a pricing trend which may stabilize at $4,000 
a pound, half of what anyone else charges.
  All of this has resulted in the loss of 70 percent of the world 
commercial launch market over the past few years. We used to have 100 
percent. We have lost about 70 percent. We now have about 30 percent.
  How have we reacted to this? We have tried diplomacy. We tried to 
limit the number of commercial satellites China and Russia can make. We 
have made incremental improvements to our existing fleet. We have spent 
about $2 billion and $3 billion over the last 6 years studying ways of 
making launches cheaper.
  Where is the action? The American launch industry is insulated from 
the market pressures other businesses face. The Federal Government is 
overwhelmingly the biggest customer of the U.S. space-launch industry.
  Commercial space, in contrast, is inelastic with a small profit 
margin. Thus industry has little incentive to lower cost. Until 
recently, a few in the launch industry were unwilling to admit there 
was even a problem.
  Industry initiative has atrophied over 40 years of cold war command-
and-control programs. Most companies today believe all of this could be 
solved if a lead agency was named and enough government money was 
provided.
  Government has no money for such investments. Thus, we continue to 
tinker with what we built for 40 years. We continue to build race cars 
instead of trucks, and we base it on old ballistic missiles.
  The solution, competing in today's world market, means controlling 
it. Controlling that market requires lowering launch costs to a level 
that can compete with Russian and French carriers even without trade 
restrictions.
  Only an entity responsive to market pressures has the initiative to 
meet such a standard.
  With these reasons in mind, I am introducing the Launch Services 
Corporation Act of 1994, based on the highly successful Communications 
Satellite Act of 1962.
  The President would be directed to issue a set of national 
requirements for space launch and then bring about a corporation to 
raise private capital and provide launching services. To support this 
effort, the Government would negotiate a guaranteed number of launches, 
provide some money to cover nonrecurring costs, provide access to 
launch facilities, and help with research and development.
  The arrangement in my bill is similar to what the Government did for 
the fledgling aviation and airline industries earlier in this century.
  After 6 years the Government would get out and the corporation would 
have to make it on its own as a private for-profit corporation. 
Admittedly, this bill carries some risks, but these are things that 
should and must be debated.
  This bill is my attempt to get this 30-year debate off the dime. 
Clearly, we cannot go on the way we have been.
  I believe that, unless we take steps to revitalize our launch 
industry, those companies which helped us win the cold war may wind up 
as the last casualties of that war.

                          ____________________