Earlier this month, U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman of Colorado’s 6th Congressional District was named to the House Armed Services Conference Committee. In this role, the long-serving House Armed Services Committee member will work with other selected members of the House and Senate to hammer out differences regarding the FY 2018 National Defense Authorization Agreement (NDAA).

Thanks to a small section in the NDAA, Coffman will be in a powerful position to help determine the future of U.S. space exploration, protect astronaut safety, and inject American free-market values into future NASA missions.

If Coffman and the other members of the Armed Services Conference Committee make the wrong choice, NASA could find itself in the dangerous position of relying on just one provider for space launches for years to come.

Section 1615 of the NDAA would prohibit the Air Force from moving forward with cost-sharing partnerships to fund new launch systems. This section might not seem like a big deal except for the fact that there are only two viable launch systems available today – United Launch Alliance’s Atlas V and SpaceX’s Falcon 9. Soon, that number may be cut to one, as the Atlas V is being phased out due to security concerns about its use of Russian-made rocket engines; this means that, without a new launch system (as has been recommended by the Pentagon), the Falcon 9 – a launch vehicle that has failed several times over the past two years – may have a near-term monopoly over launch services.

Coffman is already aware of just how dangerous a SpaceX-dominated market could be. In 2014, he sent a note to NASA expressing “concern over an epidemic of anomalies that have occurred during SpaceX launches or launch attempts,” as well as “frustrations with NASA’s refusal to provide insight into those mishaps.” Last year, he penned another letter asking NASA and the Air Force to take over SpaceX’s lead in an investigation of Falcon 9’s failures, which “could have spelled disaster, even loss of life, had critical national security payloads or NASA crew been aboard those rockets.”

All of Coffman’s past concerns are valid ones, but his comments came while other forces were still present in the market. These apprehensions will only multiply should Section 1615 become law, ridding SpaceX of most future competition.

As he pointed out in his most recent letter, the SpaceX control issue is not just a matter of national security but also about being “responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars.” The Trump administration said that Section 1615’s limiting of competition “will increase taxpayer costs by several billions of dollars through FY 2027 and stifle innovation.”

In an op-ed for Fox News, former Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul concurred, writing, “If this provision becomes law, SpaceX will be able to charge the government more than they could in even a quasi-competitive market,” which could “stifle innovation in rocket launching technology.”

While Coffman is wise about the risks of a launch-system monopoly, it is vital that he also explain the issues related to Section 1615 to his fellow Conference Committee colleagues. If he does not, tax dollars, astronauts’ safety, and the future of the American space program may all be in doubt.