Page images
PDF
EPUB

the stimulation of efforts to modernize radar techniques and reduce their spurious emissions to tolerable levels.

Sitting problems have also arisen in connection with the proposed location of other earth stations, as well as in the proposed location of TV stations in relatively close proximity to Government communication and radar operations.

Interference to radio astronomy observations from radar emissions has required corrective action on several occasions.

Extensive efforts have been required to provide adequate protection to the national radio quiet zone, and at the same time find the means for satisfying the frequency requirements of the general public in that zone insofar as practicable. The determination of a means for the satisfaction of requirements for educational and commercial TV broadcasting in the zone has proven to be particularly difficult.

THE FUTURE

The future of our radio spectrum management is of vital national concern. The national interest requires that we nurture and cultivate this valuable asset. We have an opportunity to enhance our “productivity” not only in tangible industrial output, but also in the intangible rewards of security, protection of life, property and resources, and the pursuit of happiness. Logic, therefore, tells us that we should :

Protect and foster the use of the spectrum.
Decide which uses are most in the national interest.

Plan ahead for orderly changes in its use to increase benefits without destroying existing investments.

Implement desirable changes on a scheduled basis.

Constantly monitor the administration of use for prudence and for being in the national interest. My staff will shortly complete a major study of the activities needed to improve our prosture in this important field of frequency management and spectrum utilization. It is already clear that we need to launch a major long-range planning effort if we are to overcome the growing saturation in this important resource and avoid a situation in which the spectrum impedes growth in our national economy. I should shortly be able to provide this committee with copies of our study in this important area.

CONCLUSIONS

I would like to summarize this lengthy review as follows:

There is an acute and growing need for the development of comprehensive telecommunications policies and national plans with a perspective of the world of 1966. My office has issued important policy guidance in satellite communications; spectrum management; and Government-owned versus leased communications. Further policies are needed.

Adequate policies cannot be evolved by cooperative committee action alone but require the leadership of an aggressive and informed office at an effective coordinating level. My staff is growing in number and in experience. Our ability to provide assistance has been demonstrated on several fronts within recent months.

A competent, efficient, expanding common carrier structure for both domestic and international telecommunications is essential to our national security and continued social and economic development. The Intragovernmental Committee which I cochair has presented specific recommendations to the Congress to improve international telecommunications.

Effective communications satellite systems to serve both civil and Government needs are essential. By the end of this year a global commercial communications satellite system and an interim defense system will be in operation.

The Congress has charged the Executive with major responsibilities for the successful attainment of the objectives of the Communications Satellite Act of 1962. Executive departments and agencies are deeply involved with the questions not resolved by the act and are actively supporting the development of the Communications Satellite Corporation.

The orderly development of the National Communications System is dependent upon adequate support of the domestic and international common carriers and upon progressive integration of agency networks to form a long lines-like Government network. The definition of precise goals of the National Communications System by the Executive Agent is proceeding.

There is a need to further evaluate the proper policy and managerial relationships involved in directing the future growth of the National Communications System. Studies are currently being made of means of improving policy and management definition for the NCS through the provision of more adequate and detailed resource information as a part of the annual NCS long-range-plan submissions.

There is need to undertake a major revision of the Communications Act of 1934 at an early date. Preliminary studies are underway to detail the nature of legislative recommendations required.

In developing major policies it is essential that there be close working relationships between this office, the FCC, the Congress and the principal agencies of the executive branch. Progress toward improving coordination has been encouraging and is becoming more effective as we gain experience and understanding of major problems.

If you think that I have presented to you, gentlemen, more of the problems than of the solutions—more of the things that need to be done than the things that have been done, you are completely right. I am not a pessimist, but a realist and I try to face the situation as it is.

Mr. RANDALL. Our chairman has asked that it be announced that the same witness will resume tomorrow at the same time, 10 o'clock, and at the same place here in room 2247, Rayburn Building.

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

(Whereupon, at 12 noon, the subcommittee adjourned until 10 a.m., Tuesday, August 30, 1966.)

GOVERNMENT USE OF SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS

TUESDAY, AUGUST 30, 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 S. Moorhead, and William L. Dickinson.

Also present: Herbert Roback, staff administrator; Douglas G. Dahlin, counsel ; Paul Ridgely, investigator; and J. P. Carson, minority staff. Mr. HOLIFIELD. The subcommittee will resume its hearings.

I understand that you did not quite finish your report yesterday. Let us accept the balance of it for the record, and start in on the questioning. Then as we get to that part, we will discuss some of the matters.

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 (FREQUENCY MANAGEMENT); COL. HAROLD R. JOHNSON (U.S. AIR FORCE), ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR PLANS AND PROGRAMS; VICTOR F. EVANS, DEPUTY ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT (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-Resumed. Mr. O'CONNELL. Very good, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ROBACK. You have a lengthy statement, and it will probably take some time to go over it, Mr. O'Connell. So, in the course of the interchange, undoubtedly the members will have occasion to refer to the portions that you have not covered. .

Of course, the subject of the FCC decision on authorized user has had a great bearing upon this problem of Government procurement, and your office in one way or another has been involved.

Now, our attention was drawn to several articles in the newspapers about a letter you had written to the Chairman of the FCC, and after we had seen those newspaper references, we asked your office for a copy of this letter, which was sent, and which is still marked "for official use only."

In view of the fact that this letter has been quoted in extenso, as the literary fellow said, by the Wall Street Journal and others, do you have any objection to having it placed in the public record ?

Mr. O'CONNELL. Well, actually I do not have any objection. I discussed this at some length with Chairman Hyde as to whether it should be released entirely, since it had been quoted out of context in the press, and we thought that it would better not to create any additional excitement about the letter by publishing it several days after it had been quoted. This would restart the excitement all over again._I have no objection to it. Mr. ROBACK. It will be submitted for the record, Mr. Chairman. Mr. HOLIFIELD. It will be accepted. Mr. ROBACK. For the committee's consideration. (The document, above referred to, follows:)

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,
OFFICE OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT,

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR,

Washington, D.C., June 28, 1966. Hon. ROSEL H. HYDE, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I appreciate your taking the time last Tuesday to discuss the matter of Government utilization of communications satellite services. I also appreciate your calling me on Thursday to advise that the Commission would be issuing a public notice that day which would state, among other things, that the Communications Satellite Corporation (Comsat) would be authorized to provide service directly to the Government only in those cases where there are unique or exceptional circumstances warranting the authorization. My staff and I have studied the public notice. As you realize, we are disappointed that the Commission contemplates taking a position which would attempt to restrict the right of procurement of communications satellite services by the Government. As I pointed out to you in our meeting on Tuesday, we are of the opinion that Congress gave the Government the right to directly procure communications satellite services from Comsat.

Based upon our meeting of last Tuesday, I feel that there may be some misunderstanding as to our position in this matter. The main reason I am writing now is to clarify that position to the extent that it may not be completely understood by the Commission.

In the first place, I recognize the Commission's concern that commercial communications satellite service should be implemented in a way which is not unduly disruptive to established communication systems.

We recognize the Commission's right to prescribe the relationship that onght to exist between Comsat and the carriers. We disagree, however, with the Commission's position that it has the authority, under the Communications Satellite Act of 1962 and/or the Communications Act of 1934, to prescribe the conditions under which the Government can obtain service from Comsat.

This subject has been discussed with other departments and agencies of the executive branch, including the Department of Justice. All are in complete agree ment that the Communications Satellite Act of 1962 clearly designates the Fed. eral Government as an authorized user. I wish to make it clear, however, that the Department of Justice is the appropriate agency to speak on any legal interpretations involved.

Aside from the question of congressional intent, as expressed in the rommunications Satellite Act of 1962. I would like to point out some of the effects which can be foreseen if the Commission should rule to regulate Comsat's right to provide service to the Government or to affect the Government's author. ity to deal directly with Comsat.

« PreviousContinue »