Commending NASA Langley Research Center in Virginia on the celebration of its 90th anniversary on October 26 and 27, 2007.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank my friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui) for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The Federal Railroad Administration was created by the Department of Transportation Act of 1966. The Federal Railroad Administration, FRA, is charged with overseeing the Federal rail safety program.

As all of our colleagues know, Mr. Speaker, railroads crisscross every congressional district, and their safe operation is of national importance, especially since they play such an integral part in our national economy by transporting products and people to and from ports, and in the instance of products, from manufacturers, to suppliers, to the consumers.

Since 1978, there's been a dramatic decline in the number of railway accidents. Last year, there were just over 2,800 such accidents, obviously too many, but a significant decline compared to the past. Obviously more can be done to reduce the number of accidents and save lives, and more should be done.

FRA classifies the causes of train accidents into five categories: human factors, track and structures, equipment, signal and train control, and miscellaneous. Of those categories, human factors and track are responsible for the majority of train accidents. Last year, 2006, over 70 percent of such accidents were caused by human factors or track defects.

Most rail-related deaths are to pedestrians on rail lines, trying to cross obviously, and motorists colliding with trains at grade crossings. While there are nearly 1,000 rail-related deaths each year, about 20 to 30 rail employees unfortunately are killed while on duty each year.

The underlying legislation being brought forward by this rule, the Federal Railroad Safety Improvement Act of 2007, seeks to reduce the number of accidents caused by human fatigue by strengthening the hours of service law for signalmen and train crews. The legislation makes changes to what is known as limbo time, which is the wait period when locomotive crews wait for pickup after a day's run. Specifically, the bill phases down limbo time over 3 years, 40 to 30 to 10 hours per month. The bill also creates new exceptions to limbo time in the case of an accident, track obstruction, weather delays or natural disasters. It gives signal and train workers additional hours of rest, 10 hours in 24, and mandatory days off, 1 in 7.

The Department of Transportation estimates that by 2020 the amount of freight moved by rail, measured by weight, will increase by approximately 50 percent. Furthermore, many local governments are interested in establishing, or expanding, commuter rail operations, which often operate on the freight rail network. As a result, the number of train miles on the Nation's freight rail network will significantly increase in the coming years. If train accident rates do not improve, this will lead obviously to an increased number of accidents, injuries and fatalities and some of the gains of the past decade may be lost, and obviously we'd like to avoid that.

I'd like to thank both Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica for their bipartisan work on this legislation, especially on this issue of the limbo time. I think it goes to show that when people are willing to work together across the aisle to try to come up with compromises that good progress can be made.

Now, unlike the bipartisan nature by which the Transportation Committee worked on this bill, the majority in the Rules Committee did not live up to that standard. Only four out of 10 amendments. There were 10 amendments proposed. A lot of time those amendments take a lot of work by Members, a lot of work, a lot of time, a lot of dedication, and only four out of the 10 amendments that Members brought to the Rules Committee were made in order, and of those, only one was an amendment by a Member of the Republican side of the aisle.

During consideration of this rule, Mr. Speaker, the minority made several attempts to make Republican amendments in order, but in the Rules Committee, the majority blocked each amendment by a party-line vote, and I think that's unfortunate. It's quite a contrast to how the Transportation Committee worked and some other committees in this Congress.

It's unfortunate, especially when we take into account the promises made by the majority that they would bring transparency and openness and fairness to the process. We see time and time and time again exactly the opposite. This is really sad.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would inform my friend that we do not.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for your courtesy. I thank my good friend Ms. Matsui for hers as well.

Again, with regard to the underlying legislation, it's important legislation. I think it's a good work product that's come forth from compromise, people reaching out from both sides of the aisle and working together. But the rule, unfortunately, is most unfair, as is typically the case with this new majority.

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can amend this rule and allow the House to consider a change to the rules of the House to restore accountability and enforceability to the earmark rule.

Under the current rule, so long as the chairman of a committee of jurisdiction includes either a list of earmarks contained in the bill or report, or a statement that there are no earmarks, no point of order lies against the bill. This is the same as the rule in the last Congress.

However, under the rule as it functioned under the Republican majority in the 109th Congress, even if the point of order was not available on the bill, it was always available on the rule as a question of consideration. But because the Democratic Rules Committee specifically exempts earmarks from the waiver of all points of order, they deprive Members of the ability to raise the question of earmarks on the rule or on the bill.

I'd like to direct our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to a letter that the House Parliamentarian, Mr. John Sullivan, recently sent to the Rules Chair, Ms. Slaughter, which confirms what we have been saying since January, that the Democratic earmark rule contains loopholes. In his letter to Chairwoman Slaughter, the Parliamentarian states

that the Democratic earmark rule ``does not comprehensively apply to all legislative proposition at all stages of the legislative process.''

I will insert this letter in the Record at this point.

House of Representatives,

Office of the Parliamentarian,

Washington, DC, October 2, 2007.

Hon. Louise McIntosh Slaughter,

Committee on Rules, House of Representatives,Washington, DC.

Dear Chairwoman Slaughter: Thank you for your letter of

October 2, 2007, asking for an elucidation of our advice on

how best to word a special rule. As you also know, we have

advised the committee that language waiving all points of

order ``except those arising under clause 9 of rule XXI''

should not be adopted as boilerplate for all special rules,

notwithstanding that the committee may be resolved not to

recommend that the House waive the earmark-disclosure

requirements of clause 9.

In rule XXI, clause 9(a) establishes a point of order

against undisclosed earmarks in certain measures and clause

9(b) establishes a point of order against a special rule that

waives the application of clause 9(a). As illuminated in the

rulings of September 25 and 27, 2007, clause 9(a) of rule XXI

does not comprehensively apply to all legislative

propositions at all stages of the legislative process.

Clause 9(a) addresses the disclosure of earmarks in a bill

or joint resolution, in a conference report on a bill or

joint resolution, or in a so-called ``manager's amendment''

to a bill or joint resolution. Other forms of amendment--

whether they be floor amendments during initial House

consideration or later amendments between the Houses--are not

covered. (One might surmise that those who developed the rule

felt that proposals to amend are naturally subject to

immediate peer review, though they harbored reservations

about the so-called ``manager's amendment,'' i.e., one

offered at the outset of consideration for amendment by a

member of a committee of initial referral under the terms of

a special rule.)

The question of order on September 25 involved a special

rule providing for a motion to dispose of an amendment

between the Houses. As such, clause 9(a) was inapposite. It

had no application to the motion in the first instance.

Accordingly, Speaker pro tempore Holden held that the special

rule had no tendency to waive any application of clause 9(a).

The question of order on September 27 involved a special rule

providing (in pertinent part) that an amendment be considered

as adopted. Speaker pro tempore Blumenauer employed the same

rationale to hold that, because clause 9(a) had no

application to the amendment in the first instance, the

special rule had no tendency to waive any application of

clause 9(a).

The same would be true in the more common case of a

committee amendment in the nature of a substitute made in

order as original text for the purpose of further amendment.

Clause 9(a) of rule XXI is inapposite to such an amendment.

In none of these scenarios would a ruling by a presiding

officer hold that earmarks are or are not included in a

particular measure or proposition. Under clause 9(b) of rule

XXI, the threshold question for the Chair--the cognizability

of a point of order--turns on whether the earmark-disclosure

requirements of clause 9(a) of rule XXI apply to the object

of the special rule in the first place. Embedded in the

question whether a special rule waives the application of

clause 9(a) is the question whether clause 9(a) has any

application.

In these cases to which clause 9 of rule XXI has no

application in the first instance, stating a waiver of all

points of order except those arising under that rule--when

none can so arise--would be, at best, gratuitous. Its

negative implication would be that such a point of order

might lie. That would be as confusing as a waiver of all

points of order against provisions of an authorization bill

except those that can only arise in the case of a general

appropriation bill (e.g., clause 2 of rule XXI). Both in this

area and as a general principle, we try hard not to use

language that yields a misleading implication.

I appreciate your consideration and trust that this

response is to be shared among all members of the committee.

Our office will share it with all inquiring parties.

Sincerely,

John V. Sullivan.

This amendment will restore the enforceability and accountability of the earmark rule to where it was at the end of the 109th Congress to provide Members with an opportunity to bring the question of earmarks before the House for a vote. I would urge all my colleagues to close this loophole by opposing the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 724 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz- Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 724 provides a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 2095, the Federal Railroad Safety Improvement Act of 2007. The resolution provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The rule makes four amendments in order. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI.

As the debate in the Rules Committee demonstrated, Members on both sides of the aisle are focused on getting this bill to conference and onto the President's desk, and this rule reflects that consensus.

I want to thank Chairman Oberstar and Chairwoman Brown for their leadership in addressing rail safety issues. Attention and investment to the safety of our rail infrastructure and workers is needed.

Congress last reauthorized the Federal Railroad Administration, also known as FRA, rail safety programs in 1994 and that authorization lapsed in 1998. In the time since Congress last took a comprehensive look at railroad safety, much has changed with our Nation's freight and passenger rail infrastructure. The amount of goods transported by rail has increased dramatically and more often our population is turning to rail as an alternative to getting into their cars. This is creating a greater demand on our rail infrastructure.

The bill before us today, the Federal Railroad Safety Improvement Act of 2007, would authorize our Federal rail safety programs at $1.2 billion over 4 years. This bill makes important investments in our current rail safety programs and creates new grant programs for grade crossing safety and train control technology.

Additionally, the importance of safety will be reflected in the renaming of the FRA to the Federal Railroad Safety Administration. This is significant because a new name would emphasize the Federal role in the safety of rail transportation.

A fresh look at rail safety is long overdue. Over the next 20 years, the demand for freight and passenger rail is expected to grow and continue to play an important role in our economy and in our communities. Now is the time to make an investment in the safety of our rail infrastructure, as well as the training of the men and women who work on the rail lines. This way we can embrace the growth of our Nation's infrastructure and face it in a responsible way.

For example, the Department of Transportation has estimated that the amount of freight moved on rail will increase by 50 percent from 1998 to 2020. If you live in a community with a rail line, you are already experiencing this growth firsthand. In my district of Sacramento, there are two freight lines, and the largest railroad switching yard west of the Mississippi lies just outside of my district in Roseville. I understand how big a role freight lines play in a community. When something goes wrong with a freight line, the community knows about it immediately. Freight carried by these rail lines must be transported safely and securely, particularly when it travels through densely populated urban areas.

As the freight rail industry continues to grow, it will need a well- trained and safe workforce. Addressing safety and training issues now will benefit all our communities and our national economy in future years.

This bill makes that investment and nearly doubles the number of FRA inspectors from 440 to 800.

Safety on our passenger rail lines is equally important. In fiscal year 2007, close to 26 million passengers chose to take trains. This is a 6.3 percent increase from the previous year. We can only expect these ridership numbers to increase as Americans seek travel alternatives in an attempt to turn away from congested highways and overstressed airlines.

In northern California, the Capital Corridor line has shown incredibl increases in ridership. In 1998, 544,000 passengers traveled on the Capital Corridor line. In 2007, the Capital Corridor ridership has almost tripled to almost 1.5 million passengers.

In 2007, throughout the entire State of California, 5 million passengers rode

on rail. Translated to vehicle miles, that is 500 million miles, which, simply put, means half a billion vehicle miles not on our highways and thus saving gas, reducing congestion and not polluting our air.

I say this because we need to protect and encourage this upward trend not only in California but across the Nation.

To do this, it is important that we invest in safety at a proportional rate to our ridership growth and freight growth. Our citizens must continue to have confidence in our rail infrastructure.

Finally, the demand on our rail infrastructure has outgrown our ability to keep our rail system safe. We must also ensure that our rail workers are getting the training they need, but also the rest between shifts.

According to the FRA, 40 percent of all train accidents are the result of human factors, and one in four of those accidents result from fatigue. These accidents are preventable, and it's time that we address the problem.

This bill makes the necessary changes to address employee fatigue. It increases the minimum rest period for employees from 8 to 10 hours and also phases in a limit of 10 hours of the amount of limbo time an employee can accrue each month.

In closing, this bill addresses the critical issues of worker fatigue, timely and thorough inspections, as well as enforcement of safety regulations. In short, this bill reinstates rail safety as a top priority for our communities, workforce, and the millions of people who ride our rail lines.

I encourage my colleagues to vote for this rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to inquire of the gentleman from Florida if he has any more speakers.

Okay. I'm prepared to close after he's finished.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida and yield myself the balance of my time.

Let me first say that the earmark rule is not waived in this rule despite the claims of my colleagues. I urge them to read lines 6 and 7, that the rule specifically excludes the earmark rule from the waiver. Any suggestion otherwise is simply untrue.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is important to our economy and the millions of Americans who travel on trains every year. This is the first time in well over a decade that Congress has taken a comprehensive look at our rail safety programs. During that time, the demand on our freight and passenger rail infrastructure has increased dramatically.

This bill addresses the critical issues of worker fatigue, timely and thorough inspections, as well as enforcement of safety regulations.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 724 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 3. That immediately upon the adoption of this

resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point

of order, consider the resolution (H. Res. 479) to amend the

Rules of the House of Representatives to provide for

enforcement of clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House

of Representatives. The resolution shall be considered as

read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on

the resolution to final adoption without intervening motion

or demand for division of the question except: (1) one hour

of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and

ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules; and (2)

one motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 222) commending NASA Langley Research Center in Virginia on the celebration of its 90th anniversary on October 26 and 27, 2007.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the resolution now under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 222 which honors the 90th anniversary of NASA Langley Research Center.

House Concurrent Resolution 222 was introduced by the late Representative Jo Ann Davis. Her four terms in Congress were characterized by hard work and dedication, and I am sorry that she can't be here today to take part in these proceedings.

NASA Langley is a special place. Institutions come and go in our society. You have got to be impressed with an enterprise that has delivered so reliably over the past nine decades. Located not very far from here in coastal Virginia, Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory was the Nation's first government aeronautics laboratory.

If I were to list all of Langley's diverse accomplishments, we would be here until midnight. Langley research teams earned many Collier Trophies over the years, an award bestowed each year for the top contribution to American aviation. Their wind tunnel expertise brought benefits to American aviation era after era. Their first Collier Trophy was one for engine cowling research, which brought immediate large benefit to the aviation industry, resulting in greater speed of travel and enormous cost savings. Later, Langley built the world's first full- scale tunnel. The Harrier Vertical Takeoff and Landfighter; the F-16; American's supersonic transport, SST; the space shuttle; and the lunar landing test vehicle have all been evaluated in this facility, which is still in use.

The science of aviation developed rapidly, with Langley often leading the charge. No ivory tower, Langley has been so effective because of its continual interactions with the aviation community. Our military aircraft, which have turned the tide again and again, did so with capabilities developed at Langley. Their aeronautics test and analysis capabilities brought American aviation and aerospace to world preeminence and maintained that standing.

This is a great success story. Today, the aeronautics and aviation- related industries are responsible for 11 million U.S. jobs and are America's largest source of exports. Americans rely upon the aviation industry's safe and reliable transport of people and products. In our country, aviation and aerospace account for 5.4 percent of the Nation's gross domestic product. Add in aviation-related industries, and it is 9 percent. Investments in core technologies such as aeronautics pay off.

Langley is also responsible for basic aeronautics research in support of the Next Generation Air and Traffic Control System, NextGen, which we are so anxious to have put into effect. Langley leads initiatives in aviation safety and in quiet aircraft technologies.

The aerospace industry has changed rapidly, with Langley often leading the way. Langley staff work closely with Bell Aircraft Corporation and the Air Force in the design of the X-1, the first aircraft to break the sound barrier. Langley has been an important part of each U.S. space program, from Project Mercury through the space shuttle and the space station programs. It was a small group from Langley that determined the lunar orbit rendezvous strategy for sending Apollo to the Moon. Today, as one of NASA's 10 field centers, Langley NASA is an important part of the vision for space exploration.

Langley is helping to develop a replacement for the space shuttle, evaluating conceptual designs and wind tunnels at speeds in excess of 5,000 miles an hour. Langley has partnered with researchers around the world to study Earth from space. The clouds in the Earth's radiant energy system, or CERES, breaks ground in data accuracy. And NASA researchers at Langley are busy studying atmospheres on other planets in support of future exploration activities.

So, Mr. Speaker, with this resolution Congress congratulates and commends the men and women of NASA Langley Research Center for their accomplishments and role in inspiring American people. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the NASA Langley is a real jewel for advancement of science and engineering in the United States of America, and I think it's fitting that we recognize this anniversary, their 90th, and at the same time, honor our colleague Jo Ann Davis for the hard work that she did, the great work that she did in the United States House of Representatives.

I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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. 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. Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of Concurrent Resolution 222, because I believe NASA's Langley Research Center to be a national treasure. With this resolution we are acknowledging nine decades of outstanding technological achievement.

However, before I continue, I must note with sadness that the driving force behind this resolution, Ms. Jo Ann Davis, is no longer with us. In addition to all of the other important causes and issues for which she was such an articulate spokeswoman, she was an ardent champion of the importance of NASA's aeronautics R&D programs. I shall miss her as we all will, and I am sorry that this is the last time that I will be able to have the opportunity to speak in support of one of her initiatives.

One of the strengths of the Langley Research Center over the past nine decades has been that while Langley researchers are experts in scientific theory, they are able to work with many others throughout the aerospace community. They aren't an isolated research lab, but instead have always worked shoulder-to-shoulder with industry and with dynamic people at other government agencies, including DOD. In short, the researchers at Langley are problem solvers.

Step into the Air and Space museum and with the first glance one grasps how rapidly aeronautics has developed. The X-1, the first manned aircraft to break the sound barrier, was designed by Langley staff. Nearby are biplanes from the First World War. The separation in time is just thirty years, but what a difference!

The folks at Langley played a large role in that transformation, and in further advances in aeronautics and in space exploration, with the latter spanning their work on Mercury, Gemini, the Lunar Orbiter, Apollo, Viking, the Space Shuttle, and Space Station programs. They have been a critical enabler of our modern air transportation system.

Last year, U.S. air passengers exceeded 750 million. To handle even busier skies, the Next Generation Air Traffic Control System (NextGen) is being devised. NASA Langley plays an important role in that effort.

For example, to test advanced concepts of aircraft self-separation, Langley conducted air-traffic-management research in its Air Traffic Operations Lab, in partnership with NASA Ames Research Center, Boeing, MITRE Corp. and United Parcel Service.

As another example, the NASA Aviation Safety Program--a partnership with the Federal Aviation Administration, aircraft manufacturers, airlines, and the Department of Defense that is led by Langley-- recently tested a new way to predict thunderstorm turbulence.

We can't overlook the importance of military aviation to American freedom, and the importance of Langley to military aviation.

For example, during World War II, Langley used wind tunnel expertise to design modifications to fighter aircraft to improve their performance. Aerial dogfights were mostly contests between technologies, and a small improvement could make the difference between life and death.

Like the rest of NASA, NASA Langley promotes private sector participation with the Small Business Innovation Research program and the Small Business Technology Transfer program. The creation and transfer of innovation is a key goal at Langley. The Center delivers a steady flow of inventions and patents, across a range of technical areas.

In aeronautics and in space flight, Langley's parade of achievements has inspired generations of Americans, and has helped set the pace of American technological advancement. We need places like NASA Langley, and I hope that as we look back over its 90 years and celebrate its achievements, we are mindful of our future and work to maintain a strong and vital aerospace R&D capability at Langley and throughout our nation.