Page images

amount of manpower. Actually when we locate the source of the interference, the Commission goes to the owner of the garage, points out what is happening, and asks him to correct it. Even if it is corrected, it may be on the air again the following week.

If the bill, S. 1015, were enacted, it would then give the Commis. sion authority to get at the trouble at the source; in other words, at the point of manufacture.

Mr. O'CONNELL. In the design of the equipment.

Mr. PLUMMER. These things are going in by the tens of thousands all over the country.

Mr. DAHLIN. Thank you very much.


Mr. ROBACK. Mr. O'Connell, we are in receipt of a communication of General Betts, who is chief of R. & D. of the Army, following our hearings with the Army, wherein we indicated some concern about the ground stations. I want to read one paragraph and ask for your comment, whether

your office is in any way involved. (Reading:]

In further recognition of the urgent need for an operation at status in the Pacific, the AN/MSC–46 and AN/TSC-54 terminal development programs have been placed in the highest military priority category to shorten the delivery of critical components. As a continuing action, those components and subassemblies which may cause future delays in terminal deliveries are being identified. It is intended that these particular items be given top priority.

(The full text of the letter appears at the end of the Army testimony, p. 231.)

Does your office have anything to do with assigning priorities? This is strictly an internal defense matter?

Mr. O'CONNELL. If we can help them in any way, we would be happy to.

Mr. ROBACK. Do you subscribe to the general urgency of these ground stations?

Mr. O'CONNELL. I do indeed.
Mr. ROBACK. And operations?
Mr. O'CONNELL. I do indeed.

Mr. MORRIS. Mr. Roback, here is a matter of where the office is involved from information and coordination standpoints. I might mention that this very question came up before the Communications Satellite Technology Panel of Mr. O'Connell's Intragovernmental Communications Satellite Coordination Committee.

Mr. ROBACK. What came up!

Mr. MORRIS. The question of priority and the need for pushing forward the earth station program. The Department of Defense at that time indicated that they were considering some changes in priority, and indeed these did come forward.

The panel took no action. It was merely asking for information. It may have prompted some additional action on the part of the Department of Defense. There was no directed action, you can be assured.

Mr. ROBACK. Well, anyway they took it now.
Mr. MORRIS. Yes, sir.
Mr. ROBACK. Thank you.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. This will conclude our hearing for today, Mr. O'Connell. We thank you for your appearance before the committee and for the long series of answers, and your testimony which you have given to us will be helpful to us in our work, and we will excuse you at this time.

Tomorrow we plan to have witnesses from State and FAA before us at 10 o'clock in this room.

Mr. O'CONNELL. We appreciate your interest and your support, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ROBACK. The FAA testimony, if it is not concluded tomorrow, will carry over until Friday. Mr. HOLIFIELD. Thank you.

(Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, September 1, 1966.)

[ocr errors]




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: Representative Holifield.

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

Mr. HOLIFIELD. The committee will be in order.

We will continue our hearings on the communications satellite programs. Our first witness this morning will be Mr. Richard P. Scott, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Communications. Will you come forward to the witness table, Mr. Scott, and bring your associates if you wish.



Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

If I may, sir, I would like to introduce my associates. Mr. Frank Loy, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Transportation and Telecommunications; Mr. Philip Patman, who is from the Office of the Legal Adviser; Mr. Thomas Nelson of the Office of Telecommunications; and Mr. Grant Shaw, who is from my office, the Office of Communications.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. You may proceed with your statement, sir.
Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, it is my privilege to appear before you today to comment on the Department of State's participation in the National Communications System and to discuss, from an operational viewpoint, our interest in satellite communications and our thoughts concerning their future use.

As Deputy Assistant Secretary for Communications, I represent the operating communications component of the Department of State. This includes the diplomatic courier service as well as the electrical communications of the Department and the Foreign Service of the United States.

Assistant Secretary of Defense Horwitz, in his testimony before you the week before last, covered the role of the NCS. I shall not, therefore, repeat it in this statement. The basic authority for the Department's participation in the National Communications System is contained in President Kennedy's memorandum to the heads of all executive departments and agencies, dated August 21, 1963.

The Department of State is a major operating agency of the National Communications System. Our long-haul, worldwide system-the diplomatic telecommunications system is an element of the national system and is a key supporting mechanism to the coordination and application of U.S. foreign policy.

I have been designated by Secretary Rusk as the Department of State's NCS representative. In addition, a senior staff officer has been assigned from my office as a full-time representative to the Manager's advisory staff. I'he Department also has representation in the NCS operations staff and the NCS plans staff. The Department of State's participation in the NCS is direct and continuing.

Mr. Chairman, the "telecommunications explosion” to which Assistant Secretary of Defense Horwitz referred in his statement before this subcommittee on August 15, 1966, is a continuing phenomenon. Indeed, it continues on an accelerating basis. This fact emphasizes the importance of common technical standards, procedures and facilities planning being developed on a joint basis within our Government.

As Secretary Horwitz indicated, we must assure that the U.S. Government's telecommunication systems are so designed and operated that they can interface and work together as a coherent entity under all conditions ranging from normal situations to national emergencies and international crises. The Department of State participates with the Director of Telecommunications Management, the Executive Agent and the Manager, NCS, and with the other operating agencies in the system to accomplish these aims.

We consider the accomplishments of the NCS to date as noteworthy. The adoption of uniform procedures, priorities systems and technical standards for all NCS systems represents a substantial forward step in collectively handling our Government's traffic. The NCS organization has proven to be a productive management group of this Government's principal communications representatives.

The Department of State is following with keen interest communications satellite developments. A description of our system will, I believe, demonstrate why. We have a basic requirement to communicate rapidly, reliably, and securely, with and between some 275 diplomatic and consular posts throughout the world.

It is a complex and difficult requirement to satisfy. Communications services involved run the gamut from the traditional diplomatic courier to full-time electrical communications links. Our primary requirement today is for secure teletype record communications. Of increasing importance is telephonic service—both secure and clear text. In the future we visualize a need for data transmission channels which can support computer operations.

The electrical communications requirements of the State Department and of the agencies which look to us for communications support at our posts abroad, which include Defense attachés and the

MAAG's, are today being met by a combination of commercial, Defense, and our own facilities. This organized, yet flexible, combination of assets constitutes the Diplomatic Telecommunications System. One might think of the DTS as the "nerve” system of foreign affairs.

Following the practice of other worldwide systems, the Diplomatic Telecommunications System generally functions on the basis of regional relay facilities. These communications centers, operating 24 hours daily, serve as communications collection and distribution points in the region of the world which they serve. Events occurring in a given country today more often than not directly affect adjoining and other interested countries of the world.

A typical telegram today is addressed to several places—not just to Washington. Rapid transmission of traffic between and among posts in a given region is, therefore, most important. To the maximum extent possible we interface and cross-connect with Defense facilities at the closest geographic point, in order to provide the best and most reliable service to all customers of the DTS—wherever located.

The Department of State considers communications satellites as another means of communications—to be added to the present means: courier, radio, cables, microwave, and wire line. It is in this context, and in recognition of our long-haul international circuitry and longhaul requirements as contained in the NCS long-range plan, that the Department of State anticipates the first general use of satellites to support our operational communications. Linking Washington with the regional relay facilities and linking the regional relays among themselves is an initial and important role for communications satellites.

For the foreseeable future, at least, communications satellites will not replace our regional relay operations, nor will they completely replace the other means of communications: radio, undersea cable, and wire.

The communications satellite mode, as it becomes available, will most certainly complement and may in many cases be more effective than the more conventional means of communications now widely used to service the Foreign Service establishments of the Department of State. I should also indicate that we believe in providing, to the maximum extent possible, alternate means of communications to our posts. Satellites, like all other means, cannot guarantee 100 percent communications reliability under all conditions.

In addition to existing international mainline trunk requirements, communications satellites can, as General Starbird has stated, play an important role in providing superior service to crisis areas. Portable satellite ground units are now in prospect. Smaller and technically more effective earth terminals may be anticipated to meet such requirements in the future.

The application of communications satellite technology to the worldwide complex of U.S. Foreign Service posts is inescapable. Increasing requirements for telephonic links, both secure and clear text, can be accommodated. In the offing are data requirements which can also be met by satellite relay.

We of the State Department are following all activities in the communications satellite field with the greatest of interest, and, I might add, our participation in the NCS is most helpful in this regard.

« PreviousContinue »