[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 20239-20240]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        COMPETITIVE SPACE LAUNCH

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the senior Senator from Arizona came to 
the floor this morning and raised a question about a provision in the 
Omnibus appropriations bill, particularly the aspect of it that related 
to the Department of Defense. During the course of raising the issue, 
the senior Senator from Arizona used my name on the floor repeatedly. 
It was refreshing and I am relieved. The senior Senator from Arizona 
has not attacked me on the floor for 3 weeks, and I was fearful he was 
feeling under the weather, but clearly he is in fine form and feels 
good, and I welcome him back to the floor for another attack on me 
personally.
  Let's talk about the issue he raised because it is complicated but 
extremely important when it comes to the defense of the United States. 
Here is what it boils down to: In the early 2000s, there were two 
companies making rockets that launched satellites. The two companies 
were Boeing and Lockheed, and they competed with one another, but in 
the early 2000s--and I don't understand why--they made an argument to 
the Department of Defense that the Nation would be better off if they 
merged the two companies into one company and then provided the rockets 
to launch satellites to defend the United States and collect 
information. They argued that if they worked together, it would cost 
less, and they merged. With the approval of the Department of Defense, 
they continued to bid on satellite launches.
  What happened was a good thing and a thing that was not so good. What 
was good was that their product was very reliable. They launched 
satellites with great reliability, and that is of course what America 
and its national defense requires. The bad part is that the costs went 
through the roof. The costs went up about 65 percent over this period 
of time since they created United Launch Alliance, costing the Federal 
taxpayers about $3 billion more for launches than it did in the past. 
They argued that they would eliminate competition and provide 
reliability, and they did, but the costs went up dramatically.
  A new player arrived on the scene--SpaceX. SpaceX is associated with 
Elon Musk, a name that is well known in America. They decided to get 
into the business. They were going to build rockets and launch 
satellites too. Naturally, the United States of America said: Be my 
guest but prove you can do it in a way that we can count on you, 
because when we need a satellite launched to collect information, we 
want to make sure it is successful.
  Over the years, SpaceX improved, evolved, and developed the capacity 
to launch satellites to the point where NASA, for example--the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration--used SpaceX rockets successfully. 
It reached a point where the Department of Defense said to SpaceX: You 
are capable and will be certified to now compete for Department of 
Defense business. It is to the credit of SpaceX that they reached that 
point.
  I thought this was an exciting development because, once again, we 
were going to have competition between the United Launch Alliance, the 
old Boeing-Lockheed merger, and SpaceX, the new company. The owner of 
SpaceX said to me as well as publicly: We can do this for a fraction of 
the cost to American taxpayers. What I did was invite the CEOs of both 
companies to come to my subcommittee--when I then chaired the Defense 
Appropriations Subcommittee--in March of 2014. No one had quite seen a 
hearing like this before. We put the CEOs of both companies at the 
table at the same time, and we asked them questions about their 
operations, reliability, costs, and projections for the future.
  At the end of this hearing, I said to the CEOs of each of these 
companies: I want to do something that is a little unusual. I want to 
offer each of you the opportunity, if you wish, to submit 10 questions 
to the other CEO that you think should have been asked and perhaps we 
didn't--and so they did. It was a complete record and a good one. For 
the first time, it really showed me that we were moving to a new stage 
in rocket science and capacity that could serve the United States by 
keeping us safe and keeping the costs down, and that of course should 
be our goal.
  Then there was a complication. Vladimir Putin of Russia decided to 
take aggressive action by invading Georgia and Ukraine, and other 
actions by him that we considered confrontational tended to freeze up 
the relationship between the United States and Russia. Why is that 
important? It is important because the engine being used by United 
Launch Alliance to launch America's defense satellites was an engine 
built in Russia.
  People started saying: Why in the world are we giving Russia and 
Vladimir Putin the opportunity to sell rocket engines to the United 
States? Secondly, why would we want to be dependent on Russia for 
rocket engines? So the debate started moving forward. How do we exclude 
the Russians from building engines and still have competition between 
these two companies? That is what brings me here today.
  We were trying to find the right combination to bring competition and 
reliability without engaging the Russians. Everyone in Congress knows 
we have authorizing committees and appropriations committees. The 
senior Senator from Arizona is the chair of the defense authorizing 
committee, the Armed Services Committee, and I have been chair and am 
now the vice chair of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.
  The senior Senator from Arizona started including provisions in the 
authorizing bill which said that ULA, United Launch Alliance, could not 
use

[[Page 20240]]

Russian engines to launch satellites and compete for business using 
those engines in the United States. As a result, the Air Force came to 
see me. First, I might add, a letter was sent when this provision was 
added to the Defense authorization bill. The letter was sent in May of 
this year, signed by Ash Carter, the Secretary of Defense, and James 
Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, suggesting that 
excluding Russian engines so quickly could cause a problem in terms of 
the availability of missiles to launch satellites as we need them. The 
limitation that was put in by the defense authorization committee as to 
the number of engines that could be used would be quickly depleted, and 
the Air Force, the Department of Defense, and our intelligence agency 
said that may leave us vulnerable, so they asked the Senator from 
Arizona to reconsider that provision. He did not. If anything, the 
language that came out of conference on this provision made it even 
more difficult for the United Launch Alliance to consider using a 
different type of engine. I might add, they don't have an alternative 
engine to the Russian engine. United Launch Alliance uses it now. We 
told them to develop an American engine, and I stand behind that. They 
told us it will take anywhere from 5 to 7 years for that to happen.
  I understand this is a complex assignment, and we want them to get it 
right. It seems like a long time, but it points to the dilemma we face. 
If United Launch Alliance cannot bid for work with the Department of 
Defense using a Russian engine, they don't have an alternative engine 
to bid with. At that point, SpaceX becomes the sole bidder and the 
monopoly source for engines. We tried to move from ULA as a monopoly 
source or sole bidder to competition, and now by injecting this 
prohibition against Russian engines beyond a certain number, we are 
again getting back to the days of a sole bidder.
  What we have allowed in this Omnibus appropriations bill is language 
which gives 1 year of flexibility to the Department of Defense when it 
comes to bidding for these satellite launches, and of course it means 
United Launch Alliance will be using Russian engines for that bidding.
  The Senator from Arizona came to the floor and spent most of his time 
talking about the aggression of Russia and Vladimir Putin and how we 
need to be strong with our response. Back in the day, when our 
relationship was more constructive, the Senator from Arizona and I 
actually traveled to Ukraine. I agree with him about the aggression of 
Russia and Mr. Putin and why the United States needs to be strong in 
response, but we have to be careful that we don't cut off our nose to 
spite our face. If we reach a point where we don't allow ULA to use a 
Russian engine to compete, we could endanger and jeopardize the 
opportunities the United States needs to keep us safe, and that is 
exactly what the Secretary of Defense and Mr. Clapper said in writing 
to Senator McCain.
  My message is that there is nothing, incidentally, in this omnibus 
bill that was not discussed in the original bill as marked up. There is 
no airdrop of language. It is a slightly different version of the 
language but says the same thing--that we think there should be some 
flexibility as ULA moves to develop their new engine.
  The Department of Defense has convinced me that it would be 
shortsighted of us to make it impossible for ULA to even bid on future 
satellite launches. God forbid something happens to SpaceX where they 
can't launch satellites. At that point then, we would be in a terrible 
situation. We wouldn't be able to keep our country safe when we should. 
None of us wants that to happen.
  The provision in the omnibus bill gives 1 year for the Department of 
Defense and the Air Force to continue to work with ULA to have a launch 
and have competitive bidding. If SpaceX performs as promised and comes 
in with a lower bid for those launches, they deserve to win, and they 
will. In the meantime, we want to make sure we have the availability of 
sourcing
beyond just one company--beyond SpaceX.
  I am impressed with all of these companies. The Senator from Arizona 
raised the point that Boeing has its headquarters in my home State, and 
I am very proud of that. I have worked with them in the past. I think 
it is an excellent company and does great work. My initial premise in 
starting this conversation in the Appropriations subcommittee was that 
we should have competition, and Boeing should face competition. The 
insertion of the Russian engine issue has made this more complex, and 
it will take us some time to reach what should be our ultimate goal: 
quality and reliable engines in these rockets to launch satellites to 
keep America safe and the certainty that if one company fails to be 
able to meet our defense needs, there is an alternative supplier. That, 
to me, is the best outcome possible.
  This section 8045 of the Department of Defense appropriations is 
critical to our national security and launching satellites into space. 
We have to assure the Department of Defense and our intelligence 
agencies that we can put critical satellites into orbit when we need 
it. We have to make certain that the costs of these launches is 
competitive so taxpayers end up getting the best outcome for the 
dollars they put into our national defense. We have to generate 
competition to drive down costs, and we have to bring to an end our 
reliance on Russian-manufactured rocket engines. I wish that were not 
the case. I wish our relationship with Russia was positive in every 
aspect, but it is not, and I join with virtually all of my colleagues 
in believing that the sooner we move away from Russian-made engines to 
American-made engines in competition, the better for us and the better 
for our Nation.
  There is no doubt that our Omnibus appropriations bill recognizes the 
need to end our reliance on Russian engines, and we actually put our 
money where our mouth is. We added $143.6 million on top of the $84.4 
million requested by the President to accelerate the development of a 
new rocket engine. This amount is $43.6 million more than the $100 
million authorized by the defense authorization committee, so we are 
making certain we are going to end this reliance on Russian engines. 
The question is how we manage the space launch through the several 
years of launches before we have that engine. We need to do it without 
jeopardizing our national security.
  The general provision I referred to allows for space launch 
competition in 2016 without regard to the source of an engine. It will 
permit real competition on four missions in 2016, and it will avoid 
trading one monopoly for another. I think I have explained how we have 
reached this point.
  I think there is good faith on both sides. I don't question the 
motives of the senior Senator from Arizona. I hope he doesn't question 
mine. What we need to make certain of is that we move toward a day when 
America is safe and that the money spent by taxpayers is well spent.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________