>If that argument actually carried any weight, then ULA wouldn't exist, but Martin, McDonnel Douglas Aerospace, and GD Convair would.

Times have changed. I think Congress may have seen the error of its ways on this one.

Thinking of Congress as a single entity that is capable of sustained memories is dangerous. Congress is a hive of bees, half of whom absolutely hate the other half, with individuals' life spans being potentially very short due to the mandatory fight-to-the-death that happens every 2 or 6 years. Said deathmatch inevitably leads to significant distraction, as well, since any sane individual is going to be concerned with their own survival to the point of preoccupation if it's constantly under threat. So each of these individuals is operating in the service of their own interests, which may or may not be in line with the interests of Congress or the nation as a whole.

Individual congresspeople might see why a past decision did or did not work out well in the long run. That's very different from seeing whether the same decision is politically expedient in the present moment. Nor does it necessarily imply that Congress as a whole is even capable of forming stable memories that can reliably retain that sort of knowledge.

This marvelous and insightful metaphor is deserving of its own post!

At the time ULA was formed it wasn't an error. The US had a serious problem with rocket reliability and lost more than a few very expensive satellites. The devlopment or reliable and on demand access to space was a matter of national security.

ULA was formed at the end of 2006. The United States had no rocket reliability problem at that time. (Not counting rockets in development, of course.) The Enhanced Expendable Launch Vehicles (Altas V and Delta IV) had good track records when they were merged into ULA—each already had several flights under their belts at that point.