« PreviousContinue »
plished? Is that delegated out to the agencies? Are you managing that now?
Mr. O'CONNELL. No; we are endeavoring to do this within the limited resources of the office. Mr. Plummer, would you like to speak on this? Here is an area where we need to do much more, and we need an increase in personnel to do it. What we have done so far is to get a system of inspection started, to find out by a limited number of trips what we are going to be up against, to develop a procedure and a methodology for conducting such inspections. I should say that the inspections that we have held have indicated that the agencies have high standards of frequency discipline and frequency use.
Would you like to amplify that?
Mr. PLUMMER. Yes, sir; that is correct. We, by taking people away from other work, have managed to have about one-half man-year devoted to this effort, to make arrangements with a particular agency to go visit a station, to see how they operate, what the facilities are, whether they are using frequencies in accordance with terms of authorization, and whether they have frequencies they are not using
The results of inspections are written up in a report, and coordinated with the agency operating the station that was inspected to make sure we use facts only. It is then submitted to Mr. O'Connell for approval. Upon approval a copy is sent to the head of the agency, and to the frequency manager of the agency. We have visited the Army, Navy, Treasury Department, FBI, Interior, AEC, about six or seven a year, depending on how much time we can spare for it. It is really only token inspection. We feel it is accomplishing a lot though, because the agencies have come to expect it. They do not know where we will go next, and so they naturally improve and present a good picture.
Out of the 12 or 14 we have inspected to date, we found only 1 frequency that was not properly authorized. That has been corrected.
Mr. DAHLIN. How about the problem on page 77 where you are
Mr. O'CONNELL. I think I should say this has never been done before.
Mr. PLUMMER. That is right.
Mr. O'CONNELL. In the 40 years that the Federal Government has been handling this frequency business, no previous
Mr. DAHLIN. You are doing it partly by inspection and publicity, as an inspector general function, rather than delegating
Mr. PLUMMER. I might add we have no monitoring facilities to take the signal off the air.
Mr. Dahlin. A related question—where you talk about hazards to life and property from such things as garage door openers, do you have many cases a year where this affects the Government agencies and vice verse? Do those reports come to your office, is that the place where these kinds of complaints or problems come to you?
Mr. O'CONNELL. Yes. Through the agencies. In other words, if a military airport has difficulty and receives interference because of garage door openers, it is reported to the local FCC district for im. mediate relief. We will, in some cases at least, receive notification of this in my office, not always.
I think that this is a place where improvement can be made.
Mr. PLUMMER. I might say—these opener units are being built and installed far faster than we can find and correct them. The FCC has been working very well with us on this matter. It takes a terrific 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 Commission 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.
URGENCY OF IDCSP GROUND STATION PROGRAM
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. 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?
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. 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.)
GOVERNMENT USE OF SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1966
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
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.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD P. SCOTT, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRE
TARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNICATIONS; ACCOMPANIED BY
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. The 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