Page images
PDF
EPUB

Of the total cost of activation and conversion of these three ships approximately $20.5 million is the cost of the three Satcom terminals. Status of the two range ships being converted to APOLLO use is as follows:

USNS Watertown (TAGM–6) will be inspected by the Board of Inspection and Survey in September; delivery is expected in October 1966. Completion of testing and trials is planned for December 1966. Will not receive Satcom terminal.

USNS Huntsville (TAGM-7) will complete inspection and trials in October 1966. Completion of testing is planned for February 1967. Will not receive Satcom terminal. No Satcom costs are associated with these two ships.

(Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene August 29, 1966.)

67-906-66-17

GOVERNMENT USE OF SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS

MONDAY, AUGUST 29, 1966

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY OPERATIONS
OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS,

Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a.m., in room 2247, Rayburn Office Building, Hon. Chet Holifield (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Chet Holifield, William J. Randall, Jim Wright, and William L. Dickinson.

Also present: Herbert Roback, staff administrator; Douglas G. Dahlin, counsel; Paul Ridgely, investigator; and J. P. Carlson, minority staff.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. The committee will be in order.

Today we have before us the Honorable James D. O'Connell, Director of Telecommunications Management, Executive Office of the President.

Mr. O'Connell, it is good to have you before the subcommittee again. I want to express our apologies for postponing your appearance which originally was scheduled for last Wednesday. As you know, I am the sponsor of the Department of Transportation bill which came to the floor last week, and I was the floor manager of the bill. In view of all the preparatory work in transportation matters, which are almost as complicated as communications matters, I had to cancel our scheduled hearings last week. I thought I would finish the Department of Transportation legislation last week, but the leadership saw fit to carry it over until today. It is the first order of business at noon today, so I am still under pressure on that subject.

Your statement, I note, is rather lengthy, and you may proceed to read such parts of it as you wish, and the remainder will be placed in the record as if read.

But before you proceed, the Chair would like to make some observations and, perhaps, you will want to comment on some of them in the course of your presentation. First of all, there has been an unfortunate blowup of the Titan III-C booster carrying the second installment of the IDCSP—the initial defense communications satellite program—and we lost eight satellites in that blowup. We can only regret the occurrence, but it serves to recall the warning sounded by the committee 2 years ago in a basic report on this subject. We believed then, and subsequent events apparently have affirmed, that a military communications systems is important, indeed urgent. We said at that time that it was too risky to put all our satellite eggs, so to speak, in the basket of a development booster if we wanted to get a satellite communications system going as soon as possible.

Your statement was prepared before this unfortunate incident, Mr. O'Connell, and perhaps, it has a more optimistic tone than the events now warrant.

What this blowup does to the IDCSP launch schedule is a matter of interest to this subcommittee. I trust that everything possible will be done to compensate for the accident and to move quickly toward placing the next installment of the satellites in orbit. We will ask the Air Force to give us a report on the whole matter.

Optimism about communication satellite technology should not gloss over another fact: that our ground station program is lagging. We reviewed this matter with General Starbird of DCA and Army witnesses. It is of great concern to the subcommittee, and we expect the Army to take all necessary steps toward correcting deficiencies and getting it back on the track.

Regarding the Government's decision to purchase Comsat services, we have discussed these in some detail with Defense witnesses, and expect to explore other aspects with you and following witnesses.

At this point, it seems to me, as I have reviewed our materials on the subject, that Government policy on satellite communications badly needs clarification. At issue, among other things, are: (1) the extent to which the Government will establish and utilize its own system or systems; and (2) whether the Government will deal directly or indirectly with Comsat in procuring satellite communication services.

The first issue has been the subject of continuing inquiry by this subcommittee over the past few years. The second issue is brought into prominence by Government commitments, approved by the Secretary of Defense as Executive Agent of the NĆS, to buy Comsat services for NASA and DOD at an estimated cost of $58 million over a 3-year period; and (b) an FCC decision to the effect that Comsat should not provide satellite communications services to the Government directly, except in unique and exceptional circumstances.

At this reading, the DOD and the FCC apparently are on a collision course.

As Director of Telecommunications Management, you are in a key position to inform the subcommittee how and why this conflict a rose and what you believe ought to be done about it.

You may proceed now with your prepared statement, sir. (The biographical sketch of Mr. O'Connell follows:)

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF JAMES D. O'CONNELL Born: Chicago, Ill., September 25, 1899.

Education: University of Chicago; U.S. Military Academy, B.S., 1922; Yale University, M.S. (communications engineering), 1930; Northwestern University, graduate studies.

Present position: Special Assistant to the President for Telecommunications, Director of Telecommunications Management, Executive Office of the President. Appointed May 15, 1964.

Experience: Tactical and strategic military communications operations. Research and development of U.S. military communications equipment. Service in North African and European theaters of operation, World War II; Japan postwar; deputy chief signal officer and chief signal officer, U.S. Army, 1951-59 ; retired lieutenant general, U.S. Army, 1959; vice president, General Telephone & Electronics Laboratories, 1959–62; Consultant in communications-electronics to:

Stanford Research Institute; Page Communications Engineers ; Northrop Corp. ; Granger Associates; Data Dynamics, Inc.; Fred W. Morris, Jr., & Associates.

Other professional activities and awards: Silver Medal, Poor Richard's Club; Distinguished Service Medal, U.S. Army, and other U.S. and foreign decorations; fellow, Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers; member, and later chairman, joint technical advisory committee, Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers and Electronic Industries Association, 1959–64; Chairman, JTAC Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Space Communications, 1960–61; member, steering Committee for Interdepartmental Committee on Atmospheric Sciences, Federal Council for Science and Technology (analysis of atmospheric research needed to facilitate communication by electromagnetic propagation), 1963–65; honorary life member, Armed Forces Communications & Electronics Association; vice president, Armed Forces Communications & Electronics Association, San Francisco Chapter, 1962–64; member, executive committee, San Francisco region, National Security Industrial Association, 1961-64.

Author of: “Teamwork in Spectrum Conservation," Signal magazine, June 1964; “Summary of Military Communications in the United States, 1860–1962," Proceedings of the Institute of Radio Engineers, May 1962 ; “Satellite Communications” section, the Encyclopedia of Electronics, Reinhold Publishing Corp., 1962.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES D. O'CONNELL, DIRECTOR OF TELE

COMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT; ACCOMPANIED BY FRED W. MORRIS, JR., ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR (ADVANCED CONCEPTS AND TECHNOLOGY); WILLIAM E. PLUMMER, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT (FREQUENCY MANAGEMENT); COL. HAROLD R. JOHNSON (U.S. AIR FORCE), ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR PLANS AND PROGRAMS; VICTOR F. EVANS, DEPUTY ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR (NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS); RALPH L. CLARK, SPECIAL ASSISTANT FOR INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS STUDY; CHARLES E. LATHEY, SPECIAL ASSISTANT FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS MOBILIZATION PLANNING; AND JOHN J. O'MALLEY, ASSISTANT LEGAL COUNSEL

Mr. O'CONNELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As you know, of course, i have been asked to appear today to bring the committee up to date on activities and accomplishments of the Office of Telecommunications Management and, in particular, I have been asked to review, in addition to those matters which you just mentioned, the organization of the Office of Telecommunications Management and its relation to the Secretary of Defense, acting in his capacity as Executive Agent for the NCS.

The progress in developing the National Communications System.

The role of the Government as an “authorized user” of the commercial communications satellite service.

The problem of Government-owned versus Government-leased communications facilities. This, too, touches on one of the points you made this morning.

You have heard testimony from Assistant Secretary Horwitz for the Executive Agent and from the Manager of the National Communications System with respect to their specific responsibilities and activities concerning the National Communications System.

« PreviousContinue »