Tom Feeney

Mr. FEENEY

Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FEENEY

Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I would yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 287, offered by my friend and Space Subcommittee chairman, Mark Udall, as well as Mr. Melancon, Ralph Hall and myself, commemorating the 50th anniversary of the launch of Explorer I, America's first satellite. With this launch, America became a spacefaring Nation. Unlike the Soviets, who 4 months earlier had launched Sputnik I in secrecy, America's space program was carried on in full public view. Our first attempt to launch a satellite, Vanguard I, ended in failure. As a consequence, some suggested that our preeminence as a world power was jeopardized. Explorer I proved otherwise. The successful launch came through a collaboration of brilliant and dedicated scientists and engineers led by Wernher von Braun, who designed the launch vehicle known as the Jupiter C; Dr. Charles Pickering, director of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, who designed the satellite; and Dr. James Van Allen, who designed the main instrument carried aboard Explorer I. On the night of January 31, 1958, Explorer I lifted off from Pad 26A at Cape Canaveral, Florida. Almost 2 hours passed before a ground station in California confirmed the satellite's successful orbit. America was now on a path to achieve space preeminence. Unlike Sputnik I, Explorer I did more than demonstrate the ability to place an object into orbit. It had a valuable scientific purpose. Explorer I consisted of a Geiger counter that detected cosmic rays, temperature sensors, and a micrometeorite impact microphone. These instruments discovered radiation belts, now named after Dr. James Van Allen, that encircle the Earth. Explorer I stopped transmitting data on May 23, 1958 when its batteries died. But it stayed in orbit until March 31, 1970 and completed about 58,000 orbits around the Earth. Explorer I's legacy was far greater than anticipated. Few imagined how satellites could maintain our Nation's security and economy and extend man's reach to the far corners of the solar system. Government and private enterprise, scientists and engineers, worked together to exploit and expand the capacities of space. Today, a vibrant and critical commercial industry builds and launches sophisticated satellites. In Earth orbit, satellites forecast weather and measure surface winds and other climate variables. They monitor land-use patterns and remote sensing. They help farmers gauge the health of their crops; transmit data, radio and television signals into our homes and to businesses around the world; and they provide the infrastructure for the global positioning system, enabling the capability to accurately navigate to virtually any point on Earth. Beyond Earth orbit, satellites have visited every planet in the solar system except for Pluto, although a mission is under way to visit this far-away planet in 2015. Satellites have carried rovers to the surface of Mars, they have captured samples of interstellar dust and returned them to Earth, photographed the heavens with exceptional clarity, measured background temperatures and radiation to high precision, and landed on a moon of Saturn. Explorer I also led to our human spaceflight program under which America learned to orbit the Earth, explore the Moon, and live for extended periods aboard the international space station. H. Con. Res. 287 commemorates the achievements of the Explorer I team, and acknowledges its role as the impetus for what has become a critical part of America's greatness. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this bill, along with my good friend and ranking Republican member of the Science and Technology Committee, Ralph Hall, and I urge all Members to support it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, earlier I shamelessly invited people to come and experience the Daytona 500. While they are there, they may want to come visit a museum not far from the Daytona 500. Launch Complex 26, where Explorer I was launched, now houses the U.S. Air Force Space and Missile Museum. If you visit, you can tour the blockhouse from which the Explorer I was launched, see launch control equipment from that era and walk on the launch pad. Just a few hundred yards away is Launch Pad 5 where America's first astronaut, Alan Shepherd, was launched into space. Emily Perry serves as the museum's curator. Sixty volunteers, led by Gary Harris, guide these tours. Most of these volunteers are veterans of America's space program, including some from the Explorer I era. Their stories provide a window into this fascinating past. Tours begin from the Kennedy Space Center's Visitors Complex and operate 7 days a week. We have talked about how Explorer I began America's journey as a spacefaring people. If you visit the Space and Missile Museum, you can see and touch where that journey began.

Mr. FEENEY. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FEENEY

Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H. Res. 907, as amended, which recognizes and congratulates the forward-thinking X PRIZE Foundation on one of its latest contest endeavors, the Automotive X PRIZE. There is a rich history in this country of prizes sponsored by private entities leading to innovations in science and technology. Starting with the Ansari X PRIZE, the privately funded X PRIZE Foundation has successfully been able to build on the concept of the 1927 Orteig Prize, which awarded $25,000 to the first person to be able to make a nonstop transatlantic flight. While the actual Orteig Prize name may not be well known, the recipient of this prize, Charles Lindbergh, certainly is. The benefits of the $400,000 of investment teams made in an effort to win this prize certainly have been realized, and the $250 billion aviation industry that took off shortly thereafter certainly continues to prosper. Likewise, the 2004 Ansari X PRIZE leveraged over $100 million in research by teams vying for a $10 million price for private spaceflight. Won by Mojave Aerospace Ventures, the Ansari X PRIZE changed the public's perception of personal spaceflight. Now the Automotive X PRIZE is poised to produce similar results for the next generation of automobiles, viable, super-efficient vehicles. As the resolution states, our ``national security and economic prosperity demand that we move toward a sustainable future.'' This prize certainly helps us move in that direction. It will be awarded to the team that can design, build and sell super-efficient cars that achieve 100 miles per gallon and are not concept cars, but cars that people will want to buy. If successful, the end result in and of itself will be impressive, but the overall benefits to the Nation will be too numerable to measure. This prize, like those before it, will generate millions of privately funded research dollars producing research that may not in the end win the prize, but could spur additional technologies. Likewise, this prize will stimulate the entrepreneurial spirit of inventors and investors alike, both known entities and brilliant minds working in backyard garages. I congratulate the X PRIZE Foundation's leadership in creating a private, independent competition designed to help move us closer to a sustainable energy future. I wish them much success, look forward to seeing the results it produces, and encourage my colleagues to support this resolution. With that, I would reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 1 minute to Dr. Bartlett, my friend from Maryland.

Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my colleague and friend from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).

Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FEENEY

Mr. FEENEY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my cosponsorship of the bill, H.R. 3120, be withdrawn.

Mr. FEENEY

Mr. FEENEY. I am grateful to my friend the ranking member and to the chairman, and I do oppose the manager's amendment and the bill. And I don't think there is any difference of opinion about the crisis in the mortgage markets in America today. I think the difference is on the impact that this bill will have. The problem in mortgage markets in America today is that for years we had lenders that were giving teaser rate loans, that were taking no paperwork requirements to prove that borrowers had the ability to buy the home and pay for it. And we had lenders making 100 percent, 110 percent, 120 percent loan-to-value loans. And, obviously, that worked fine when property values were increasing. When property values declined, you have got a crisis. In essence, what has happened is that we have had this wild galloping horse in the credit markets of mortgages that has gotten loose. Now that horse has gotten very sick. There are none of these loans being made. As a matter of fact, credible buyers with paperwork, with 20 or 30 percent equity, can't get access to mortgage loans today in many instances. What we are doing for this sick horse is to feed it strychnine. The markets having overreacted, we as Congress are going to pile on and kill the horse with poison. And the difference we have about this bill and this manager's amendment is on the impact it will have. Does it help poor people, middle-income people that want to get access to homeownership? No. And I would submit for the Record an article by Star Parker, who entitles this bill, ``How to Limit Homeownership for the Poor.'' Does this bill help existing homeowners? No, because it will decrease credit availability, which means fewer people will get access to loans. There will be fewer buyers for your home. And the law of supply and demand means that all of our homes will decrease in value because there will be fewer people available to buy. Who does this bill help? Well, this bill does help landlords. Very few people will be able to buy homes in the future. Very few people will qualify for the credit. So if you are a landlord, you should be thankful. It helps lawyers. As the Wall Street Journal said, this is the 1-800 Sue Your Banker Act. This is the lawyers and landlords relief act. [From Scripps Howard News Service, Nov. 9, 2007] How To Limit Home Ownership for the Poor (By Star Parker) The Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act of 2007 has passed out of Chairman Barney Frank's House Financial Services Committee. It's now headed to the full House for a vote. In the name of protecting the poor from market predators it will in actuality protect the poor from wealth. This is yet a new chapter in the grand liberal tradition that advances the illusion that government micromanagement of private lives and markets will make us better off. We already have laws against fraud and theft. But for liberals, government isn't there to enforce the law. It's there to run our lives. The legislation assumes that when private individuals make mistakes they can't figure out what they did wrong and make adjustments and that even if they could they wouldn't. We're going to wind up with new and onerous regulations in the business of making loans to consumers for purchasing homes, and as a result, fewer loans will be made and we'll all be worse off. Those who will be penalized the most will be the low-income families who the new regulations will supposedly protect. Should fraud be permitted in our society? No. Should government interfere with private individuals' latitude to determine on their own what risks they wish to take and the willingness of others to finance those risks? Absolutely not. Frank's bill crosses far over the line into regulating private lives and behavior where he and government have no business. Why will this hurt the very low-income families it purports to protect? We already have plenty of experience with the costs of so- called consumer protection laws in general and those designed to regulate mortgage lending in particular. In a recently published article in the Cato Supreme Court Review, Professor Marcus Cole of the Stanford University Law School discusses the fallout of lending laws in Illinois. The Illinois Fairness in Lending Act passed in 2005 gives the state oversight authority on loans made in nine designated zip codes in the state. These zip codes are, of course, areas in which residents are mostly lower-income households. The law places authority in a state bureaucracy to review all applications for mortgages in these designated zip codes. The bureaucrats who review these applications determine if the borrower needs credit counseling and requires the lender to pay for it if required. The costs of the counseling are estimated to be as high as $700 and can delay the processing of the loan up to a month. The borrower has no option to forego this counseling, whose objective is ``to protect homebuyers from predatory lending in Cook County's at-risk communities and reduce the incidence of foreclosures.'' What's the result? Cole reports the following: ``Instead of protecting hardworking would-be homeowners from predatory lending, the new law protected them from credit. Within just a few months more than 30 mortgage lenders refused to lend on homes purchased in the targeted zip codes. Those lenders determined to service these communities saw a rise in their costs, which translated into higher interest rates on their loans.'' The purported cure was worse than the disease. Cole goes on to note that, ``home sales in the designated zip codes dropped an average of 45 percent in just one month after the bill took effect. Home prices plummeted, draining relatively poor but hardworking people of what little equity they had in their homes.'' The experience is similar in other states where governments have authorized bureaucrats to insert themselves between lenders and borrowers. Yes, the number of defaults have declined. They have declined because the number of loans have declined. The Wall Street Journal reports that currently ``80 percent of subprime loans are being repaid on time and another 10 percent are only 30 days behind.'' These are overwhelmingly loans to low-income families. Probably, under Barney Frank's new regulatory regime, many of these loans would not have been made and the families in these homes would be renting and considerably less wealthy than they are today. To quote former Texas Rep. Dick Armey, ``freedom works.'' But it can only work if we let it. Many have paid and are paying a great price for the errors and excesses of recent years. We now should allow private individuals and private markets the opportunity to self correct, which is what will happen. If government steps in to pre-empt the market and Barney Frank is the one to decide who gets loans, the rich will stay rich, the poor will stay poor, and we'll have one more reason for already skeptical Americans to question the American dream.

Mr. FEENEY

Mr. FEENEY. Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. FEENEY. I appreciate the gentlelady's amendment. And I suppose I can't argue that it does a great deal of harm under the bill, because what the bill essentially does is it takes millions of potential homebuyers and makes them ineligible, as a practical matter, for loans. And so all we're doing is taking those million people that can't get loans and saying one more type of loan they can't get is a loan with a prepayment penalty that lasts longer than 3 years built in. Having said that, assuming some potential homebuyers escape the penalties under this bill and they actually do qualify to get a loan that puts them in a house that they like and that's affordable, what the gentlelady's amendment does is to make the marginal interest rate they may have to pay higher. As the gentlelady said, lenders have demonstrated, I think conclusively, that there are lower interest rates available at times if you have a prepayment penalty built in because they know that that loan is going to be out there for 15, 20 or 30 years putting a stream of money into the pocket of the lender. That's why they do the more attractive long-term interest rate. Now, I happen to not like prepayment penalties. Most Americans move a lot. But there are Americans, for example, on a fixed income that are retired and have a pension and they know they're going to be in a house for a long period of time and they don't mind a prepayment penalty. What the gentlelady does is to take choices away from homeowners. By the way, I agree with the notion that we ought to have informed consent. There is nobody here arguing that we shouldn't inform consumers what the prepayment penalty is, what the consequences can be. What we are suggesting is that when you limit for 3 years the amount of the prepayment penalty, there are some homebuyers that otherwise would be able to get an attractive interest rate, buy the home of their dreams, stay in that home for 15 or 20 years and never pay the penalty that will never, ever get to move into that home because the gentlelady thought, in general, prepayment penalties are a bad idea for everybody. They are a bad idea for some people. If you move a lot, if you're going to have your circumstances changed, they can be a very bad idea. I negotiated a slightly higher interest rate because I do not have a prepayment penalty on my mortgage, but I think that individual free men and women, after they are informed, ought to be making these choices and not the Congress of the United States. Again, I don't think this is a horrendous amendment because what the bill does is to say to millions of potential borrowers, as a practical matter, they will be ineligible going forward to get access to credit. But this makes a really bad bill marginally worse. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FEENEY

Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the ranking member yielding on this. Everybody deserves as much notice as possible when their obligations in life are going to change. Every mortgage describes the terms of how the note and the loan will change. One of the problems I see with this bill is when you are required to give a borrower 6-months' notice on what their interest rate is going to be, my understanding is that some mortgages are triggered off dates that may be only 3 or 4 months in advance of the reset date. For example, does a lender have to guess high? Does a lender have to estimate 3 or 4 months out rates are going to go up so they are going to basically send the borrower notice 6 or 7 or 8 months ahead of time so they comply with this very burdensome notice regulation, and they are basically going to stick a borrower, perhaps, with a higher interest rate if the market actually lets interest rates come down than they would have otherwise been able to do. I don't know whether you have to send a new notice or an adjusted notice also in terms of the alternatives that we have to describe. There are lots of alternatives if you are going to have trouble making your mortgage payment. You could hit the lottery, I suppose. You could hope that a rich uncle passes away and endows you. There are all sorts of potential alternatives. Now, if we had a form list of three or four potential things that a borrower could do, that might make sense. But I think this is very subjective. And speaking of the subjectivity, something I wanted to get to earlier, one of the big problems with this bill is that it has all sorts of subjective requirements, for example, that lenders cannot make loans that are not the most appropriate loans. Who knows, other than 20/20 hindsight, whether a loan was appropriate in specific circumstances? Supposing that a family gets divorced? A loan that might have been appropriate one day may be inappropriate. Suppose somebody loses their job or gets sick? And the other huge subjective part of this entire bill is the net tangible benefits test. Supposing I go take out a loan for $100,000. I decide to go down and decide to play the ponies and I win a 10:1 payment, I become a millionaire. Well, that loan after the fact turned out to have huge net tangible benefits to me. On the other hand, supposing I take out a $100,000 loan and put it in investments in the stock market and the market gets jittery because Congress is talking about all sorts of tax hikes. Supposing my stocks decrease from $100,000 to $50,000. Well, it turns out after the fact that my taking out that loan to put the money in the stock market did not have much net tangible benefit. These subjective tests are a nightmare for people trying to provide credit in America.

Mr. FEENEY

Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 1064, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. FEENEY

Mr. FEENEY. Madam Speaker, I would like to express my regret for missing votes on the House floor on Monday, October 22, 2007 and Tuesday, October 23, 2007. I was in my district for the launch of Shuttle STS-120: Discovery.

Mr. FEENEY

Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I thank the gentleman from Georgia and the gentleman from Texas, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 716 and yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for his advocacy on behalf of this resolution. Information technology has become an integral part of our lives. It shapes how we communicate, how we entertain, and how we work with one another. Computers route our phone calls, print our paychecks, constantly tune our Nation's power plants and transmission lines to meet our energy demands. The extent to which our Nation's infrastructure, economy and way of life depend on computers is simply astounding. Unfortunately, this reliance on information technology has also left us vulnerable to cyberattacks, viruses and worms, as well as identity theft. The National Cyber Security Alliance is a public-private partnership whose mission is to improve the safety of our computer networks at home and at work against those threats. Mr. Speaker, the NCSA has declared October National Cyber Security Awareness Month and is sponsoring events throughout the country to raise awareness of the significant cybersecurity issues that we face as a Nation. There are straightforward steps we can take as individuals on our personal computers to help protect ourselves. The NCSA has a Web site to help consumers and small businesses to prevent or respond to cyberattacks at StaySafeOnline.org. It includes tips such as how to create strong passwords, how to protect your children online, and what to do if you think something goes wrong. As part of Cyber Security Awareness Month, we should all visit StaySafeOnline.org and consider how we can better protect ourselves, such as by ensuring antivirus applications are installed and up to date. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the organizations and agencies involved in the National Cyber Security Awareness Month for their efforts to help us all become more responsible and safer computer users. With that, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson). Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

Mr. FEENEY. I want to thank my friend from California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).

Mr. FEENEY

Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman, Mr. Lampson, from Texas. I yield the first 4 minutes of our time to the gentlelady from Virginia, Mrs. Thelma Drake.

Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas, and I would like to rise in support of H. Con. Resolution 222, commending NASA on the occasion of the 90th anniversary of the founding of the Langley Research Center, located in Hampton, Virginia. This legislation was introduced by our friend and colleague, Representative Jo Ann Davis, just a week before she succumbed to cancer; and it is with mixed emotion that I stand here today to talk about this resolution. Mrs. Davis was proud to represent the engineers and technicians at NASA Langley Research Center who have made the United States aeronautics research and testing the envy of the world for 90 years. First established as the Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory in 1917, it was the Nation's first civil aeronautics research laboratory under the charter of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, the precursor to modern-day NASA. It was created at a time when the United States was clearly lagging behind its European counterparts in the development of aircraft capable of controlled powered flight. Our country's leaders well understood that the future economic and military well-being our country demanded development of advanced aeronautics capability, and Langley's founding was motivated in part by the evolution of aircraft used in the first World War and by our desire to match and exceed these capabilities. The center is named after one of America's earliest aeronautical pioneers, Samuel Pierpont Langley, who began his research into aeronautical machines in 1886. Perhaps inauspiciously, Samuel Langley's final crewed test flight ended in failure when his aircraft, launched from the top of a houseboat, immediately plummeted into the Potomac River. Just 9 days later, on December 17, 1903, Orville and Wilbur Wright successfully achieved the first flight on the dunes of Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. During the ensuing decades, Langley Research Center's research and development activities advanced the science of aeronautics from simple propelled-driven aircraft into the jet age. Their accomplishments are too numerous to mention here, but it is no exaggeration to state that Langley was the nexus from which fundamental technological breakthroughs in propulsion, aerodynamics, materials, aircraft and wing designs propelled our Nation to become the world's preeminent designer and builder of high-performance military and civil aircraft. In 1958, responding to the launch of Sputnik, Congress passed legislation creating the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and with it the Langley Research Center's mission was expanded to lead our Nation's earliest efforts in manned space flight. Many of the initial planning, design, test, and development activities related to Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo were conducted at Langley. Langley was the first of 10 research centers that now comprise NASA, and a number of highly talented engineers and scientists who began their careers at Langley eventually helped establish the other NASA centers. Langley's role in space continues to this day, contributing its talents to testing the design of the new Ares One Launch Vehicle and the design testing of the Orion Launch Abort System. The Langley Research Center is home to 3,600 civil service and contractor employees, and it houses several of the world's most advanced wind tunnels and aeronautics laboratories. Mr. Speaker, Langley's record of achievements in aeronautics and aerospace research is without comparison; and it is a testament to the creativity, dedication, hard work, and technical excellence of the men and women who contributed their talents to the agency's mission. But as a word of caution, it bears mentioning that U.S. aeronautics research and testing programs are declining, no matter that countries in Europe and elsewhere are investing heavily in aeronautics research. The health of the U.S. aviation industry depends upon aeronautics research and development, especially long-term research that private industry cannot perform itself, in order to compete in the world market. NASA is the only Federal agency that supports research on civilian aircraft. Their researchers are working to make our planes and our skies safer, and Mrs. Davis believed that this is a worthwhile investment of taxpayers' money. I am pleased to join with my colleagues to commemorate the Langley Research Center on its anniversary, and I urge members to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FEENEY

Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 225, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 225 honoring the 50th anniversary of the dawn of the Space Age and the ensuing 50 years of productive and peaceful space activities. Fifty years ago, only 12 years after the end of World War II, America was enjoying the unprecedented peace and prosperity that characterized the 1950s. But on October 4, 1957, America was shaken out of its technological complacency. The Soviet Union launched a beeping 180-pound aluminum satellite into orbit. Sputnik's capability was a wake-up call because it represented a threat to America's national security and technological preeminence. Our early space program was born out of a clash of ideals between civilizations and systems of government, but it reinvigorated our interest in science and technology leading to increased investment in both research and in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. These investments contributed to a technologically skilled generation of Americans that has led the world in innovation and accomplishments. Our leadership over the last 50 years has encouraged international partnerships that allow us to harness the imaginations and technical talents of many nations for the benefit of all mankind. There is less direct competition and more cooperation. Today, about 60 percent of NASA's science missions and 100 percent of its human spaceflight activities are done in partnership with other nations. In the growing world economy, developing countries are imitating many of the values and traits that have made America successful, and we are adopting policies that promote education and investment in research and technology. They clearly understand the link between an educated workforce, technological innovation and economic preeminence. The new global competition for preeminence in science and technological innovation must be met with a renewed American commitment to research and to science, technology, engineering and mathematics education akin to that which followed the dawn of the space age 50 years ago. Over the next 50 years, it will be more critical, and not less, that we remain world leaders. Our ability to shape our destiny and influence others will depend upon it. Mr. Speaker, as we mark the 50th anniversary of the dawn of the space age, Congress recognizes the value of investing in America's space program and declares that it is in America's interests to continue to advance knowledge and to improve life on Earth through a sustained national commitment to space exploration in all of its forms, led by a new generation of well-educated scientists, engineers and explorers. I thank the gentleman from Texas. Mr. Speaker, with that, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FEENEY

Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Lampson, and I yield the initial 7 minutes of my time to the prime sponsor of the resolution, my friend from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I'm proud to be a cosponsor of this resolution, along with Mr. Lampson, that Mr. Rohrabacher is the prime sponsor of, and it does a number of important things. It congratulates the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics and their test pilots. This was the successor agency to what we now know as NASA. It honors the bravery of Chuck Yeager and all of the many other test pilots that took on such risks, and it basically emphasizes a strong and robust aeronautics research program for America. As both Mr. Lampson and Mr. Rohrabacher have pointed out, Mr. Yeager's historic flight on October 14, 1947, breaking the sound barrier was a very dangerous and precarious experiment. At that time, pilots routinely risked losing control of their aircraft or, sadly, lost their lives due to extreme forces on the airplane. But it's not just that great flight that made Chuck Yeager such a great test pilot in America. Chuck Yeager was only 24 when he flew the Bell X-1 on the famous flight above the Muroc Army Air Field in California. Two days prior to his record-breaking flight, Mr. Yeager broke two ribs after falling off a horse. Fearing that knowledge of this injury would disqualify him from the scheduled flight, he hid his injury from his superiors and, as a result, had to improvise a way to close the latch on his plane. Having successfully broken the sound barrier, others soon followed in Mr. Yeager's footsteps, flying newly designed aircraft at higher and higher speeds to help scientists and engineers gain critical knowledge about transonic and supersonic flight. Only 6 years later, Chuck Yeager flew another Bell-designed rocket plane at more than twice the speed of sound. A veteran of the Second World War, General Yeager flew P-51 Mustangs in the European theater. He ended the war credited with 61 missions and 11.5 shootdowns of enemy aircraft, including five kills in just 1 day. He was himself shot down over France, and with the help of the French Resistance, was able to make his way back to England where he continued flying against the Axis powers. In the years following his historic flight, General Yeager continued an illustrious career in the Air Force. Among other accomplishments, he was the first commanding officer of the Air Force Aerospace Research Pilot School and a commander of fighter wings and squadrons in Germany and southeast Asia during the Vietnam War. He also continued to work for NASA as a consulting test pilot. On the 50th anniversary of his supersonic flight in 1997, General Yeager, then 74, piloted an Air Force F-15 Eagle past mach 1. General Yeager is a native of West Virginia and today resides in California. He's a gifted pilot who spent his career in service to his country, sometimes at extreme risk, defending our shores and advancing our understanding of aeronautics. Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to be a cosponsor and supporter of H. Res. 736, commemorating the 60th anniversary of General Yeager's first flight exceeding the speed of sound. And with that, I would urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.