ment and agency of the Government that makes use of the radio. frequency spectrum. We are able from the mass of detail provided to glean and assemble pertinent facts which we were previously not able to obtain.

We have also sponsored several studies to measure the effectiveness of telecommunications during periods of crises. I mention that again later on, and I have copies of those here for the committee. In this way we have endeavored to identify weak links in our system capabilities, our management practices, and our policy structure. Most of these crises studies are classified in nature, however, they have been very important to our overall policy verification function.

Another area of contract study activity, which has been completed, is the cataloging of the many and diverse command control and communications studies that have been done by various agencies in the Government on a somewhat uncoordinated basis. I have here an unclassified summary of the results of this contract study effort. It is also available to the committee members in accordance with their interests.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. The staff will receive all these studies.

CONTRACTUAL STUDIES IN PROGRESS

Mr. O'CONNELL. Our current contractual study program is as follows:

One of the most important ones is an effort to determine the radio frequency needs of the space services, all of the space services, between now and 1980. This study is being carried out under the direction of the office and jointly with the FCC, and the Department of Defense, NASA, FAA, and other interested agencies and department of the Government.

The data base summary of requirements and the policy or management alternatives are being developed by a contracting team consisting of the Atlantic Research Corp. and Systems Sciences Corp. The results of this study will provide a basis for the development of policies and plans to conserve frequency spectrum and yet provide adequate facilities for Government and non-Government use of space. The study will also provide basic information needed to formulate the U.S. position on space services frequency allocations in forthcoming international conferences.

One of the most productive areas in the entire Government telecommunications program for the application of improved policies is the area of Government-owned versus Government-leased systems. My office has devoted a major effort over the past several months to in-house studies in this area. I have here a typical study made by my staff. It is a comparison of the leased versus Government-owned aspects of the proposals to meet Bonneville Power Administration telecommunications requirements. We are now extending our staff efforts through contractual study and research of the Bonneville case and other Government-owned versus Government-leased case studies. Through this contractual research effort, we are endeavoring to provide a precise pattern of policy guidance which will provide the most efficient and economical application of both Government resources and the resources of the commercial communications carriers.

THE IMPORTANCE OF BUDGETARY SUPPORT

The capabilities, the accomplishments and the potential of any Government agency are largely controlled by the Congress and its decision as expressed through budget authorizations.

My office is no different. We do have our own separate budget now, as I mentioned, distinct and apart from OEP.

The budget identifies the objectives and goals of the office; it prescribes new programs and provides funds with which to move forward; and here we have a chart which indicates what our progress has been in budgetary funding.

In fiscal year 1965, the office was supported by a total budget of approximately $700,000, of which $120,000 was for the ADCSP program development.

Next year, fiscal year 1966, the amount was $1.28 million; and in 1967, as you see from the chart, was $1.6 million (chart 3). (The chart referred to follows:)

Mr. O'CONNELL. My office, like any other office, is totally dependen upon a full understanding of our mission and resultant congressional support.

The history of the budget of the Office of Telecommunications Man agement is perhaps more representative of the interest of the Congres and the vitality of the executive branch in the field of telecommuni cations management than any other source. This chart tells the story in straightforward terms.

In fiscal year 1965 the office was supported by a total budget of approximately $700,000-this amount was submerged within the budget of another agency.

In fiscal year 1966 the Congress authorized $1.28 million to carry out the objectives and the goals of the office. This growth in our budget permitted a major increase in the tempo of activity and the capabilities of the office.

In fiscal year 1967 we have seen a national need to maintain nondefense expenditures at a highly austere level in order to avoid the dangers of inflation. Even so, the President recommended a major increase in the budget authorization for my office. The Congress has authorized $1.6 million to carry out the work of the office in fiscal year 1967.

I think this history of support for the office, by both the President and the Congress through budget authorizations, indicates increased recognition of the overriding need for improvements in the field of telecommunications policy.

THE NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM

Almost from the outset of the establishment of the National Communications System, your committee has taken a direct interest in the planning and implementation of NCS management and organizational structure, and in the System's capabilities. Accordingly, I will not dwell on the considerable background material that applies; rather, I will endeavor to give a straightforward report of where we stand and the issues ahead.

WHERE THE NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM STANDS TODAY

In brief, the goal of the NCS is to develop an integrated, Government intercontinental communications system which can meet the entire range of Government needs throughout the world. In the initial stages, the objective has been to integrate a resource base of facilities. and manpower amounting to some $212 billion in total assets. The progress toward achieving this goal can be stated as follows:

The NCS is proceeding in an evolutionary way, generally in conformance with the policy guidelines set by President Kennedy on August 21, 1963. A need for major policy decisions to foster the ultimate development of the NCS is apparent. However, fundamental command and control decisions will be required, if the NCS charter is to be extended in the future toward total unification.

To date, progress in the development of the NCS has proceeded under a concept of a confederation of systems under DCA coordination and management and integrated planning. We have achieved a great deal of progress in linking together some 48 independent systems of Government departments and agencies. An additional 18 networks of varying sizes remain to be considered for integration into the overall system. The total requirements to be served by a fully capable NCS have been surveyed, but not yet completely defined to form the basis for a completely unified system.

Based on requirements to date, progress has been made in interconnecting selected networks operating within the NCS, and signifi

cant increases have been attained in the survivability and flexibility of NCS components.

The identification of facilities that currently make up the NCS has, to date, proceeded essentially on the basis of network definition. A precise resource analysis which would categorize equipment, real estate, personnel, and leased communications support is proceeding well.

Limited tests and exercises have been conducted, and standards have been prescribed by the NCS Manager. These management actions have contributed substantially to the effectiveness of the NCS. A major increase in the testing activities and in the performancestandards area will be forthcoming for the next period of system evolution.

As an extension of Bureau of the Budget Bulletin No. 66-3, coordinated planning, programing and budgeting system procedures for the NCS are now under consideration by the Bureau of the Budget. These procedures should provide additional policy and management tools upon which to base further progress of the NCS.

Within the Office of Telecommunications Management, some conceptual planning to improve the interface between Federal-State telecommunications systems is in progress.

THE ISSUES AHEAD

It is clear that the initial and evolutionary stage of the NCS has now been well completed. Ultimate unification goals are conditioned by command concepts. A pattern of greater integration will probably have to await decisions in this domain.

We need to make a fundamental decision soon that from this point on the NCS will be: Planned as a system, implemented as a system, and operated as a system.

The first two are now going forward. The latter remains open. A number of independent issues must be faced before an effective union can be achieved of the facilities which make up the NCS. I would like to list some of the more important of these issues:

We need to arrive at a common position between those who are interested within the Congress and between my office and the executiv agent, NCS, as to exactly what constitutes policy and what consti tutes executive agent operational management activities.

Government requirements are changing rapidly. The Executiv Agent and the Manager of the NCS have reviewed and analyzed avail able data. Newly developed requirements create a growing problen for maintaining a continuously updated data base of the valid require

ments.

Mr. RANDALL (presiding). Mr. O'Connell, may I interrupt for moment, please, here?

Mr. O'CONNELL. Yes.

Mr. RANDALL. The chairman of this subcommittee, Mr. Holifield I think it is worth while to mention, is the floor manager of the De partment of Transportation bill which is being considered today, an some of the rest of us have other committee obligations. The actin chairman has been involved in the reserve callup in the armed service and we had to pull away from that in order to be here, and I know m colleague from Texas has other obligations.

You are making a very interesting statement. I have been debating whether to interrupt you or not; but, it seems to me, if we do not, because it is such a long statement maybe there will be some things that some of us, at least, just cannot come back to. So, if we can, I would ask leave of the committee that these questions be put in their proper place, in order not to break into the statement; but, at the bottom of the page, I guess it was let me see, back here on page 36-you were talking about Federal-State telecommunications systems. What are you talking about there in the States? Are you talking about disaster warnings or what are you talking about in the States? This is a little puzzling to me, at least.

Mr. O'CONNELL. I have a chart on that, Mr. Chairman, which we will get out at this point, and indicate to you the number of States that are considering putting together State communications systems. Mr. RANDALL. Well, all right.

(Chart 4 follows:)

Mr. O'CONNELL. Those in red are operational, and those in green are planned. These are State plans to try to integrate their State facilities in a somewhat comparable manner that the Government is trying to integrate its various telecommunications activities.

Mr. RANDALL. And that is an active pursuit by your office, is it? Mr. O'CONNELL, It is.

Colonel JOHNSON. Let me explain, sir. What happens is that these State networks in any of these programs have to be interfaced with the Federal networks. A good example of this is the so-called Na