May 11, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4869

1995–96 by 31 percent.There is a strong

return on the investment. European industry expects to post sales of up to $12

billion from commercial launches of

Ariane rockets by the end of the decade.

Although the United States remains

a strong competitor with active spaceports and a healthy booster and satellite market, we have not charted a

course to regain a leading role in what

has become a very large market. Moreover, this very large market promises

to be an even larger international enterprise in the 21st century.

We have to take a step out of the box

and employ a new approach with regard to commercial space. The first

step is educating and making the case

that space is more than a NASA,

science, or an exploration issue. Space

is a vast area of untapped economic potential for local communities, State,

and most importantly our Nation.

We are not looking for government to

play the leading role, but instead we

are looking to the private sector. But if

we are to convince the private sector

that commercial space is a worthwhile

and ultimately profitable undertaking

we have to demonstrate Government’s

commitment to a comprehensive commercial space policy and the development of commercial spaceports.

A spaceport is a transportation center that moves surface infrastructure

into space. I believe that we ought to

look at spaceports in the same way

that we look at airports and treat

them just like we would airports. Rather than moving passengers from one

place to another, spaceports move commerce from one place to another.

The spaceport philosophy is a commitment to use-friendly environments,

integrated launch services, and lowcost access to space. In addition it is

important to recognize that facility development is separate from the overall

commercial space industry. In the

United States, the available parts of

the market are launch bases, boosters,

and satellites. The missing piece of the

puzzle is a facility for the launches and

timing is important. It is imperative

that spaceport development progress

quickly in order to maintain the other

elements of the market.

In America today, there are only two

existing spaceports, but many more

who want to become active spaceports.

I would encourage all States who are

interested in developing spaceports to

get involved. Commercial spaceports

means jobs—many jobs. Jobs in building the spaceports; manufacturing

rockets and satellites; research, training, and education.

Commercial spaceports produce positive economic return. In California for

example, the growth of a spaceport

helps in the revitalization of the hightech industries which have been hurt

by defense cuts. This means more high

paying jobs, added business for local

service providers, new hotels, homes,

shopping centers, education centers,

and research facilities.

In America we want to do it a little

differently than other nations. We

want to reach a point where government acts as a facilitator not an obstacle. We want the government to be primarily a customer rather than a provider. We want to give States the flexibility necessary to develop commercial

spaceports and attract private industry

support. We want to encourage greater

private industry support through taxexempt bond financing. We want spaceport development to progress free of

the traditional regulatory barriers imposed by Government.

Mr. Speaker, commercial spaceport

development is in the national economic interest. It is an issue of transportation and it should be pursued as

part of a national transportation policy. It means jobs, it means economic

opportunity, and it requires American

leadership.

previous order of the House, the genThe SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a

ftleman from Oregon [Mr. DEFAZIO] is

recognized for 5 minutes.

[Mr. DEFAZIO addressed the House.

His remarks will appear hereafter in

the Extensions of Remarks.]

A SMALLER, MORE EFFICIENT

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

fThe SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a

previous order of the House, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. BROWNBACK]

is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Speaker, for

the first time today in 26 years, something very, very unusual has happened.

That is, this morning at 1:05 a.m., the

Committee on the Budget of the House

of Representatives proposed a balanced

budget, a balanced budget, one so that

in 7 years our kids and grandkids won’t

be having more debt to pay off because

we were not willing to face the tough

task and make the tough choices now

to be able to cut things back.

I think this is a grand moment that

we are finally addressing this most

critical of problems. This year alone

the Federal debt is going to $5 trillion.

If we don’t balance the budget, going

on the current projection path we have,

if we don’t put our oar into the water

to make this happen, it is going to be

at $7 trillion by the year 2002. It is time

we do it.

There is only one way we are going

to be able to balance the budget. That

is, creating a smaller, more focused,

more efficient Federal Government,

one that was originally intended by the

Founding Fathers, one that is not into

all functions and tries to do everything

for everybody but a limited government, a focused Federal Government,

one I think that Thomas Jefferson

would be proud of, one that I would

hope that Peter Drucker, the management guru, would be proud of for its efficiency, and one most of all that I

would hope the American people would

be proud of for what it delivers of services of what they call on their Government to do.

We have had a Federal Government

this past quarter of a century that has

grown out of control and everybody has

contributed to it, everybody in this

country, and in this institution here on

both sides of the aisle. It is time to get

it back into control. It is time to cut it

back. It is time to recreate the limited

Government that was always intended

by our Founding Fathers.

The Federal Government was not

meant to be all things to all people.

James Madison wrote early on in the

founding of our country this:

‘‘The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined.’’

We must get the Federal Government

back to its core functions of what it

was originally intended to be and not

flung out here into so many different

things but focused, efficient, and

smaller so that we can be able to cut

back on the spending, so that we can be

able to not deliver so much debt to our

children, so that we can hold the dream

out and push toward even paying off

the debt, the nearly $5 trillion in debt

that has been accumulated.

There are a number of proposals that

have been put forward. Some of them

call for the elimination of whole agencies in the Federal Government, agencies such as the Department of Commerce and Energy, HUD and Education, keeping certain of the core

functions that are functions of the Federal Government and should be done by

the Federal Government and eliminating other portions, privatizing some

functions and sending some functions

back to State and local units of government so that at the end of the day

we have a smaller, more focused, more

efficient Federal Government.

This is an absolute need, if for no

other reason than for our children and

grandchildren, so that they can have a

future, not saddled with this huge debt,

not saddled with such an enormous

mortgage on America.

fHAITI

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a

previous order of the House, the gentleman from Washington [Mr.

METCALF] is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. METCALF. Mr. Speaker, I rise

with great concern over the administration’s action in Haiti. On March 31,

1995, President Clinton turned over

control of the Multi National Force

[MNF] in Haiti, to the United Nations,

under the auspice of the U.N. Mission

in Haiti [UNMIH]. UNMIH, although

still under American command, differs

from the previous U.S. operation in

two respects. The net effect of these

changes is a U.S. commander and U.S.

forces under the control of the U.N.

Special Representative, Mr. Lakhdar

Brahimi and a U.N. mandate for rules

of engagement [ROE] which dictate the

use of force by U.S. troops.