F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce H.R. 1903, the Computer Security Enhancement Act of 1997. I would like to thank Technology Subcommittee Chairwoman Constance Morella, and the full committee and subcommittee ranking minority members, Congressmen George Brown and Bart Gordon, for their efforts in crafting a bipartisan bill which should help strengthen computer security throughout the Federal Government. The lack of adequate security for Federal civilian computer systems is a significant problem. Since June 1993, the General Accounting Office [GAO] has issued over 30 reports detailing serious information security weaknesses at Federal agencies. This year, GAO highlighted computer security as a governmentwide, high-risk issue in its high risk series. H.R. 1903 is intended to address this problem by strengthening the National Institute of Standards and Technology's [NIST] historic role in computer security. The bill updates the Computer Security Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-235) to give NIST the tools it needs to ensure that appropriate attention and effort is concentrated on securing our Federal information technology infrastructure. The Computer Security Act gives NIST the lead responsibility for computer security for Federal civilian agencies. The act requires NIST to develop the standards and guidelines needed to ensure cost-effective security and privacy of sensitive information in Federal computer systems. H.R. 1903 updates the act to take into account the evolution of computer networks and their use by both the Federal Government and the private sector. Further, the bill's authorizations are consistent with authorizations that have already passed the House as part of H.R. 1274, the NIST Authorization Act of 1997. Specifically, the bill: Reduces the cost and improves the availability of computer security technologies for Federal agencies by requiring NIST to promote the Federal use of off-the-shelf products for meeting civilian agency computer security needs. Enhances the role of the independent Computer System Security and Privacy Advisory Board in NIST's decisionmaking process. The board, which is made up of representatives from industry, Federal agencies and other outside experts, should assist NIST in its development of standards and guidelines for Federal systems. Requires NIST to develop standardized tests and procedures to evaluate the strength of foreign encryption products. Through such tests and procedures, NIST, with assistance from the private sector, will be able to judge the relative strength of foreign encryption, thereby defusing some of the concerns associated with the export of domestic encryption products. Limits NIST's involvement to the development of standards and guidelines for Federal civilian systems. The bill clarifies that NIST standards and guidelines are to be used for the acquisition of security technologies for the Federal Government and are not intended as restrictions on the production or use of encryption by the private sector. Updates the Computer Security Act to address changes in technology over the last decade. Significant changes in the manner in which information technology is used by the Federal Government has occurred since the enactment of the Computer Security Act. The bill updates the act, taking these changes into account. Establishes a new computer science fellowship program for graduate and undergraduate students studying computer security. The bill sets aside $250,000 a year, for each of the next two fiscal years, to enable NIST to finance computer security fellowships under an existing NIST grant program. Requires the National Research Council to conduct a study to assess the desirability of, and the technology required to, support public key infrastructures. It has been 10 years since Congress passed the Computer Security Act. Over that time, computer technology has changed at a breathtaking rate. The Computer Security Enhancement Act of 1997 will help NIST and the rest of our Federal civilian agencies adapt to those changes. Mr. Speaker, ensuring that our agencies' computer systems as secure is a priority. H.R. 1903 is an important step toward this goal, and I urge all my colleagues to cosponsor this bipartisan bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, today we are introducing a bill to clarify the interpretation of language contained in the Florence Agreement, a multilateral international agreement regarding the importation of educational, scientific, and cultural materials. Signed by the United States it allows for the duty-free importation of scientific apparatus into the United States, if used by U.S. approved institutions for educational, scientific, and cultural purposes. As nations tighten their research budgets, international scientific collaborations involving many nations are becoming more common. Therefore, it is crucial the United States promulgate the same tariff treatment for the importation of component parts of large scientific instruments, as for the scientific instruments themselves. The need for this legislation was demonstrated last year by the difficulties experienced in the Gemini International Telescope project. The U.S. Customs Service narrowly defined the words ``scientific instruments or apparatus'' not to include ``components'' of these instruments. The Gemini project involved two large telescopes under construction in Hawaii and Chile. The project was managed by the Association of Universities in Astronomy [AURA], and involved the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Chile, Argentina, and Brazil. The telescopes contained several components, including an 8-meter mirror manufactured in the United States. The mirrors were shipped to France for polishing before being returned to Hawaii and Chile for final assembly. The U.S. Customs Service initially contended that the mirror was a component, along with the other large components is not eligible for the same tariff free status as the instrument. Chile, however, was not charging duties on the components destined for there. The 104th Congress had to pass specific legislation to provide tariff relief for the Gemini project. The prevent future problems, this bill addresses the difficulties encountered through the interpretation of the words ``instruments or apparatus'' by the U.S. Customs Service. It states that separable components shall be included under the definition of instruments or apparatus, and that therefore they shall be eligible for the same tariff treatment under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. This bill will ensure that the United States fulfills the Florence Agreement's intent of furthering the exchange of ideas, knowledge, and information through the interchange of scientific instruments and apparatus.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, the United States is a country built by the sweat, ingenuity, successes, and failure of its people, not its Government. Our history was written well outside of Washington, before the beltway was ever constructed. The American model of progress is one that draws on the skills, energy, and honest work of our citizens. It is a model in which Government ultimately plays a subordinate role. Sometimes we forget that when it comes to outer space. Because the Government put a man on the Moon, some supporters of space development have thought that only Government was capable of developing this newest frontier. But this is the wrong mindset to have in a country that does not revolve around Washington and whose energies must not be trapped by the gravity well of Federal deficits. If we expect, or accept, that Government will do for us in space what the American people did for themselves in developing this country, then we will have lost the vision of our Founding Fathers. We will have ceased to be American. Fortunately, the can-do attitude that built this country still exists beyond the beltway, and even in many corners of Washington. There are legions of citizens who don't work for the Government or a government contractor, but who are opening our next frontier in outer space. They're using their own sweat, their own creativity, their own insight, and their own money to create one of the fastest growing areas of commercial activity in this country: commercial space. In 1995, the commercial space industry generated $7.5 billion in revenue. For the last decade, it has been one of our fastest growing industries and has proven relatively recession-proof. Today, commercial space businesses are employing thousands of people in various commercial activities, including communications, space launch, remote sensing applications, and navigation. The services are growing by leaps and bounds, as is U.S. employment in the industry. We use communication satellites launched on commercial rockets to make international calls for a fraction of the cost we paid decades ago. We have a commercial sector investing in new rockets to lower the costs of getting to space. We have companies investing in new space instruments to do the kind of research that pays immeasurable returns in the outyears. We have remote sensing applications companies using space imagery to better understand flooding and more realistically estimate damage. Tomorrow, we can look forward to an explosion in remote sensing after the first privately financed satellites are launched this year. We can look forward to an explosion in communication services, as companies fill low- and medium-Earth orbits with constellations of communication satellites. We can look forward to cheap access to space that is an order of magnitude less costly and more reliable than today's ballistic vehicles. We may even look forward to space tourism, which NASA is already studying in a joint venture with industry. The American people have spoken on this issue. We value commercial space. We want it to succeed. We want to participate in opening the space frontier. Over the past decade, the Science Committee had led the way under Republican and Democratic management to pass the legislation necessary to enable these industries to succeed, with bills ranging from the original Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984 to the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992. Over the past decade, the office of the President--whether it was held by Republicans or Democrats--has developed and imposed policies intended to expand the ability of the commercial sector to lead this country in space. None of these initiatives required a new government program. Instead of spending money, we've saved it by expanding the technical and industrial base for space. We've saved money by reducing the amount of overhead that Government has to pay on its own. We've saved money by creating new jobs, new technologies, new expertise, and new capabilities that tax dollars didn't have to pay for. These benefits are so simple, and so direct, that America's elected officials have supported them regardless of party, whether they are in the White House or in the Congress. We've done, in legislation, the things that the American people have asked for, we're moving Government out of the way. But the job is not done. We've heard it from constituents and we've experienced it ourselves: The Federal bureaucracy does not always apply law or policy in the manner that the Congress and the White House intend. Instead of serving the Nation's interest in promoting commercial space, bureaucracies serve their self-interest in expanding turf, accreting regulatory power, and stifling creativity. The bill I am introducing today reverses the increasing bureaucratization of commercial space and the tendency by the Government to grow and stifle this industry. The Commercial Space Act of 1997 levers the legislative and regulatory process for space launch, space reentry, and remote sensing back to the track it was meant to be on when Congress enacted and the White House approved commercial space legislation. We designed this bill around the Clinton administration's space policies, in particular, as they relate to remote sensing, space transportation, and navigation from space. We designed this bill around those policies because they are good policies. They strike an appropriate balance among our Nation's interest in promoting commercial space activity, creating high-tech jobs, protecting our national security, preserving the public safety, and increasing our technical competitiveness. We've insisted that Federal agencies and departments do the things they are obligated to do. We've strengthened some of the policies and set specific limits on the power and authority of the Federal Government. By taking these steps, we're creating a stable business environment in which the commercial sector can raise capital, develop a business plan, hire employees, and offer a space good or service with the expectation that the Government won't keep changing the rules. The bill does several things, but let me limit my comments to the highlights. First, we direct NASA to study the prospects for commercial development, augmentation, or servicing of the international space station, including the funds that we might save through greater commercial involvement. Second, we amend the Commercial Space Launch Act to give the commercial sector the legal ability to reenter Earth's atmosphere and return space payloads to Earth. This is a vital portion of the bill, as a handful of companies are building commercial reusable launch vehicles which will need to reenter Earth's atmosphere and land after delivering their payloads to orbit. NASA's own X-33 program is leading technology in this direction, so Congress and the White House must act soon to make commercial reentry from space legal. Third, the bill confirms and supports the President's policies on the global positioning system [GPS]. GPS is a space-based system that people can use to determine their precise position on Earth. Although it is a military system, the Reagan administration decided a decade ago that its signal would be available to civilian users. Since then, the civil and commercial uses of GPS have exploded. According to a RAND Corp. study, the global market for nonmilitary GPS goods and services could reach $8.47 billion by the year 2000. Other governments are considering entering this area of space activity. Because our national security and economic interests are better served if the U.S. system becomes the world standard, the bill encourages the President to enter into regional agreements with foreign governments to secure the U.S. GPS as the world's standard. This encouragement will strengthen the administration's negotiating position by presenting a united front overseas without tying its hands to reach the best agreement. Fourth, the bill streamlines the process of obtaining a license to operate a commercial remote sensing satellite. The Government has issued seven licenses to the industry to image the Earth from space, enabling our commercial sector to compete with a host of corporate, government, and quasi-private entities from other countries seeking to dominate global remote sensing markets. U.S. leadership of this industry is crucial if we are to ensure that its benefits accrue to Americans and that the global industry remains under the control of the United States. If we allow foreign entities to lead the industry, then we will lose insight into and control over the use of high-resolution remote sensing imagery during times of crisis. This bill lays the foundation to ensure that American industry can set the pace of technical change in the industry so that we do not cede control over it to another country. Fifth, the bill requires the Government to procure commercial space transportation services, instead of buying rockets. When the aviation industry began in this country, the Government procured air mail services from the commercial sector, allowing the market to determine the pace of innovation in the industry. The results of this decision made America's aeronautics industry the world's leader in just a few decades. We need to do the same thing for space and bring market mechanisms into the process of launching Government payloads. The bill does make appropriate exceptions, including giving the Defense Department considerable discretion in areas of national security. This bill is based on legislation, H.R. 3936, that the House passed under suspension last year. That bill had broad bipartisan support and we worked very closely with the administration to ensure that it was consistent with President Clinton's objectives. After all, the President's policies help achieve our goals. This is one area where there is very little political disagreement. In the end, a Republican Congress and a Democratic White House can look back on a spirit of cooperation among the Nation's elected officials last year. The bill didn't become law because it was sent to the Senate in the waning days of the 104th Congress. By sending this bill to the Senate during the first session of the 105th Congress, we will be giving the Senators enough time to review and pass the bill. I hope that we can maintain the same level of cooperation and compromise as we experienced last year. Just as we worked on a bipartisan basis in the House last year, and just as we worked with the administration to move the bill forward, I am looking forward to working with the bill's supporters in the Senate this Congress. As important as this bill is, it is not the last and final word on commercial space development or Government's role in it. It takes several very solid, but incremental steps down the path the American people have said they want to go. The changes we are making here are vital to providing the stable business environment that any young and growing industry needs to expand. To paraphrase Neil Armstrong as he leapt to the lunar surface 28 years ago, these small steps add up to one giant leap.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, through the following statement, I am making my financial net worth as of March 31, 1997, a matter of public record. I have filed similar statements for each of the 17 preceding years I have served in the Congress. Real property Assets Single family residence at 609 Ft. Williams Parkway, City of Alexandria, Virginia, at assessed valuation. (Assessed at $619,100). Ratio of assessed to market value: 100% (Encumbered)......$619,100.00 Condominium at N76 W14726 North Point Drive, Village of Menomonee Falls, Waukesha County, Wisconsin, at assessor's estimated market value. (Unencumbered).......................................91,800.00 Undivided 25/44ths interest in single family residence at N52 W32654 Maple Lane, Village of Chenequa, Waukesha County, Wisconsin, at 25/ 44ths of assessor's estimated market value of $564,700.....320,852.27

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's interest in this issue and commend her for offering this amendment. Although the language in H.R. 1271 in no way restricts the FAA's ability to award research grants to historically black colleges and universities and Hispanic serving institutions, we will accept her amendment to clarify that point that the FAA has the authority to make such grants, and I support the amendment.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. SENSENBRENNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1271 authorizes the FAA to carry out its research, engineering, and development program for fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000. The objective of the RE&D program is to develop and validate the technology and knowledge required for the FAA to ensure the safety, efficiency, and security of our national air transportation system. Advances developed through the RE&D program are helping transform the FAA into a modern air traffic management system capable of meeting the increased aviation demands of the coming century. I would like to thank the Chair of the Subcommittee on Technology, the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella], and the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Gordon], for the hard work they have done in crafting H.R. 1271. The legislation was reported out of the Committee on Science with strong bipartisan support. Overall, H.R. 1271 authorizes $217 million in fiscal year 1998, $224 million in fiscal year 1999, and $231 million in fiscal year 2000 for the FAA to carry out the critical projects and activities of the FAA RE&D program, including research and development in the areas of capacity management, navigation, weather, aircraft safety, systems security, and human factors. While including some increases for critical FAA research activities such as weather and computer security, H.R. 1271 does not provide a blank check to the FAA. The legislation contains language that restricts noncompetitive research grants and prohibits funding of lobbying activities. Further, as chairman of the House Science Committee, I plan to work in a bipartisan fashion with the ranking member, the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], and other members of the committee to provide responsible FAA oversight that protects our Nation's investment in aviation research and development. I have also notified the FAA that the Committee on Science intends to take an active role this year in the development of the agency's overall strategic plan as required by the Results Act. At this point, I insert into the Record an exchange of correspondence between the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] and myself relative to jurisdictional concerns that will be addressed in a few minutes by an amendment that the subcommittee chair, the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella] will propose. The correspondence referred to follows: House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Washington, DC, April 23, 1997. Hon. Bud Shuster, Chairman, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Bud: On April 16, 1997, the House Committee on Science marked up and reported out H.R. 1271, FAA Research, Engineering, and Development Authorization Act of 1997. Traditionally, provisions in this bill have been incorporated into the FAA Authorization Acts when considered on the House Floor, indicating your substantive interest in the research components of the FAA. Because of our Committee's desire to expeditiously consider H.R. 1271, it is my understanding that you will not object to its consideration by the House. I acknowledge that H.R. 1271 in no way impacts the traditional jurisdictional lines under which the Committee on Science and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure have operated for years. Under the Rules of the House, the Science Committee only has jurisdiction over civil aviation research and development funded through the Research, Engineering, and Development account. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has jurisdiction over FAA's other functions. Historically, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has had exclusive jurisdiction over the Facilities and Equipment account. H.R. 1271 is not intended to change that. I appreciate your willingness to work with us to expedite the consideration of H.R. 1271. I look forward to continuing to work with you on these issues. Sincerely, F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. The FAA does conduct some of the research projects and activities authorized by this legislation at the technical center in New Jersey.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Illinois is correct. H.R. 1271 fully funds the administration's request for the airport technology account at $5,468,000 for fiscal year 1998.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. LoBiondo].

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, H.R. 1271 does not include language to require the consolidation of any technical centers.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing] for purposes of a colloquy.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, again, the gentleman is correct.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella], chair of the Subcommittee on Technology.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for his good words. I think it shows that, when we confine our arguments to genuine disputes over policy, which are fairly narrow on the Committee on Science, rather than arguing over procedure or perceived or real unfairness, we can get a lot accomplished in a very short period of time. The fact that this is the 6th of the 10 authorization bills to come up, all of which have been relatively noncontroversial, I think is proof of that. The other four bills are of shared jurisdiction with other committees, and the Committee on Science will be working with the chairs and the leadership of the other committees in order to eliminate the jurisdictional problems so that we can complete the job as expeditiously as possible.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill be printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support the amendment on behalf of the committee leadership. Let me say that this amendment was for the sole purpose of alleviating the concerns of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure that our legislation does not infringe upon their jurisdiction whatsoever.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 363 to amend section 2118 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to extend the Electric and Magnetic Fields Research and Public Information Dissemination Program. This bipartisan bill is designed to fulfill the intent of legislation enacted in 1992 to conduct a 5-year research and public information dissemination program on the health effects of electric and magnetic fields. Section 2118 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 directed the Secretary of Energy to establish a 5-year, cost-shared program, the EMF RAPID Program, starting on October 1, 1992, and expiring on December 31, 1997. The EMF RAPID Program objectives are: To determine whether or not exposure to EMF produced by the generation, transmission, and use of electric energy affects human health; to carry out research and development and demonstration with respect to technologies to mitigate any adverse human health effects; to provide for the dissemination of scientifically valid information to the public. Under the act, the Department of Energy and the Department of Health and Human Services National Environmental Health Sciences Institute are jointly responsible for directing the program. DOE has responsibility for research, development, and demonstration of technologies to improve the measurement and characterization of EMF and for assessing and managing exposure to EMF, while NIEHS has sole responsibility for research on possible human health effects of EMF. EPACT also authorized $65 million for the period encompassing fiscal years 1993 through 1997. At least 50 percent of the total authorized funding must come from non- Federal sources, and before the Federal funds can be expended in any fiscal year, they must be matched by non-Federal contributions. In addition, not more than $1 million annually may be spent for the collection, compilation, publication, and dissemination of scientifically valid information. The act also established two advisory committees to help guide the program: The Electric and Magnetic Fields Interagency Committee, composed of 9 members, and the National Electric and Magnetic Fields Advisory Committee, a 10-member body. Finally, EPACT establishes a number of reporting requirements, including the following: By March 31, 1997, the director of NIEHS is to report to the Congress and to the agency his or her findings and conclusions on the extent to which exposure to EMF affects human health. Not later than September 30, 1997, the committee, in consultation with the other committee, is to report to the Secretary and to Congress on its findings and conclusions on the effects, if any, of EMF on human health and remedial actions, if any, that may be needed to minimize any such health effects. Periodically, the National Academy of Sciences is to submit reports to both committees that evaluate the research activities under the program and to make recommendations to promote the effective transfer of information derived from such research projects. Although the act authorized the EMF RAPID Program to begin in fiscal year 1993, no funds were appropriated because the 1993 energy and water development appropriation bill was enacted before EPACT. Consequently, the first year of available appropriations was fiscal year 1994. In 1996, DOE submitted legislation to extend the EPACT authority for the EMF Rapid Program through 1998, and former Committee on Science Chairman Walker introduced this proposal in the last Congress. However, the last Congress adjourned sine die without taking action on the measure. The President's fiscal year 1998 budget contains $8 million in funding for the fifth and final year of the EMF RAPID Program and completion of the DOE long-term commitment to EMF research. The Department continues to believe the 1-year extension is appropriate in the interest of completing the work contemplated by EPACT, and the DOE and non-Federal participants testified at a hearing conducted by the Committee on Science's Subcommittee on Energy and Environment that a total authorization of $46 million will be sufficient to complete the 5-year effort. As amended by the Science Committee, H.R. 363 amends section 2118 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 by extending by 1 year: First, the EMF RAPID Program, the Electric and Magnetic Fields Interagency Committee, and the National Electric and Magnetic Fields Advisory Committee to December 31, 1998; second, the Environmental Health Sciences' report to the EMFIAC and to Congress is extended by 1 year, to March 31, 1998; and third, the deadline of the EMFIAC's final report to the Secretary of Energy and to Congress is extended by 1 year, to September 30, 1998. Finally, the bill, as amended, reduces the EMF RAPID Program 5-year authorization from $65 to $46 million, consistent with the testimony by DOE and the non-Federal participants on the funding requirements needed to complete the program. In closing, I wish to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Calvert], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment of the Committee on Science, and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], the subcommittee's ranking member, for their hard work on this legislation. I would also like to thank the Committee on Science's ranking member, the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], for his bipartisan support. I also want to commend the efforts of the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. Bliley], chairman of the Committee on Commerce; the gentleman from Michigan, [Mr. Dingell], the ranking member of the Committee on Commerce; the gentleman from Colorado, [Mr. Dan Schaefer], chairman of the Committee on Commerce's Subcommittee on Energy and Power, the gentleman from Texas, [Mr. Hall], the subcommittee's ranking member; and also the gentleman. from New York [Mr. Towns], the bill's author, for their work on this legislation.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent during the debate on the bill H.R. 1271, the Federal Aviation Administration Research, Engineering, and Development Authorization Act of 1997, that I be able to insert extraneous material into the Record, specifically, an exchange of correspondence between the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] and myself.