In May of this year, the Department sponsored a 2-week seminar on earth station technology which provided a big boost to an understanding of the potentials of communications via satellites. This seminar. held in Washington, was designed to promote the global system. A third week was used to offer the foreign participants an opportunity to visit earth stations and space installations throughout the United States and in Canada.

Representatives of 46 nations, including 35 developing countries, actually participated in this seminar. They were provided with basic knowledge and practical information on earth station technical requirements and space segment access requirements.

Mr. Chairman, the foregoing has been a brief outline of the accomplishments and practical results in the field of international satellite communications since August 1964. I believe that we must all acknowledge the fact that these developments have been considerably more positive than many had suspected would be the case several years ago.

While the establishment of a global commercial communications satellite system is a difficult task with many associated political and economic problems, I believe that the future is bright and that the expectations foreseen by our Government in 1962, as set forth in the policy declarations of the Communications Satellite Act will be achieved. Thank you.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Loy.
Mr. Roback.

VALUE OF PORTABLE GROUND STATIONS

Mr. ROBACK. Mr. Scott, you mentioned in the latter part of your statement, the last page, the possible value of portable ground stations. Does the State Department have an interest in portable ground stations for crises, temporary communications situations?

Mr. SCOTT. We do, Mr. Roback, and as I think General Starbird testified some days back, under the IDCSP as portable ground stations become available it is more than possible that in a crisis situation such as the Congo crisis a portable earth station would indeed be very much applicable to our problems.

Mr. ROBACK. Your contemplation would be to use portable stations that the Defense Department would have available. You would not think of having your own?

Mr. Scorr. Inasmuch as we are, at least in my judgment, still largely in a research and developmental phase of portable earth stations development, the answer would be "Yes." At some future time. however, it would also be my judgment that we would contemplate earth stations not necessarily portable in nature but to support our State Department complex.

Mr. ROBACK. The portable station concept contemplates U.S. ownership and control, whereas a permanent station usually would be in the area of jurisdiction of the host country, isn't that so?

Mr. SCOTT. That is correct. Actually, it seems to me it breaks out as being, in fact, two categories. One, of course, is the commercial facility to which, by a tieline, an embassy could be tied very much in principle as we do today in making use of commercial facilities to support us on the more conventional means.

The second category is, of course, that which is operated by ourselves. There are, as I view the world scene today, places where we may, in order to have rapid, reliable, and secure communications, well have that particular requirement satisfied only if we install one on our own which is Government owned. This also carries with it the obvious connotation of approval by the host for the operation, of course.

Mr. ROBACK. In the sense that the military, even though it is a U.S. Government-owned station, would have to have some kind of acceptance, called for in moving around in the country.

Mr. SCOTT. That is right, Mr. Roback.

Mr. ROBACK. But assuming that there is no problem there, you would have an interest in the system the military is building; if you had your own stations, you would have to decide whether they would be on a commercial or Government type of frequency.

Mr. Scort. Yes; that is correct.

Mr. ROBACK. You could not use them interchangeably unless they were so designed.

Mr. Scorr. That is true. And, as a matter of fact, in my mind we are again dealing in somewhat general terms here, on the commercial side I would certainly see us taking service from the commercially available Intelsat system. I hesitate to introduce again into testimony the expression, "unique and vital communications," but in those instances where indeed it is in the national interest to have them, to have U.S. Government owned and controlled facilities. This would not involve the problem of commercial frequencies as I see it.

STATE DEPARTMENT USE OF NCS

Mr. ROBACK. Have you made any demands upon, or entered into any discussions with, the NCS to hook into the IDCSP-I hate to use all these initials, but it makes it easier to refer to them.

Mr. SCOTT. In a staff and discussion and general planning sense, yes. In a specific sense of hardware being committed, no.

It is an understood principle, I believe, in the NCS that on the basis of priorities and, indeed, the situation which we are faced with collectively, that the capabilities of the National System can be made available. So in the case of the IDCSP, and again as General Starbird indicated, it seems to me that this capability could be considered as part of our arsenal.

Mr. ROBACK. Do you put requirements on the NCS? Mr. Scort. Yes, Mr. Roback, we do. But we do not carry it to the extreme of demanding a given means of communications. The requirements are more general in nature.

Mr. ROBACK. Are your requirements qualified or limited by what you estimate as your budgetary resources for communications?

Mr. Scort. In the final analysis, yes; because I think we are all bound by the structure of budgetary limitations.

Mr. ROBACK. In other words, if you did not have the funds for a desired type of communications, you would not put such a requirement on the NCS.

Mr. SCOTT. This is a difficult question of answer. Again, may I say, if we, in the National System, have a capacity available, the question of funding in the final analysis, to me becomes secondary. If we, this

Government, have facing us a major crisis, for example, and the Department of Defense has available equipment and a capability to answer the communications requirements, I believe it would be answered out of the national assets as opposed to necessarily the view of just budget.

Mr. ROBACK. Well, it is no secret that the whole concept of the National Communications System, the NCS, started when the State Department found it could not talk to people or communicate with people that it wanted to during a crisis situation, and some kind of a committee was set up. President Kennedy then turned to the Department of Defense and designated the Secretary as Executive Agent to see if they could not improve the situation and get a better working system. Isn't that generally what the concern was?

Mr. SCOTT. Yes; I would agree with that statement.

Mr. ROBACK. So the question I ask you today is, considering the concern that President Kennedy had in 1963 when the NCS was set up because the State Department was in trouble in the way of communications, how does the State Department stand today?

Mr. SCOTT. I think the State Department today stands, considering the fact that we are talking about essentially a 3-year period, vastly further ahead than we were at the time that the NCS was established. I might remind us all that August 21 is the third anniversary of the Executive memorandum.

Mr. Roback, to more fully respond to your question, I should like to say that the Department of State in 1963 had a long way to go simply to catch up with the then techniques of communications. We have completely modernized our terminal equipment and cryptographic system. We are currently installing an automated switch in the Department's communications center here in Washington, and we have another one programed for our regional relay in Europe at the Embassy in Bonn in fiscal 1968.

This pacing forward of activities in the Department of State, I think, is quite significant. As a communicator, and in the face of what I have referred to and, I think, properly, as a continuing and accelerating telecommunications revolution, we are not yet, in my opinion, fully caught up. But I am convinced that we have placed the proper priorities and emphasis in getting where we are today.

The NCS has been most helpful. Today we have 24-hour effective communications, for example, throughout Latin America. This did not obtain in 1963. In this cause we were helped considerably by our friends in the military.

As I indicated in my testimony also, we do not believe in settling for only one means of communication. For example, in the case of Bolivia, there is a military station operating 24 hours a day in support of the Embassy in Las Paz. This facility is backed up by other facilities, including commercial, available in that capital.

To the maximum extent possible we make use of backup radio facilities. I am reminded of this morning's telegrams in the Department specifically coming from our Embassy in Vientiane. That capital city is currently inundated, the Mekong is out of its banks, the worst flood in 20 years. The first floor of our chancery is under water. Our communications facilities on the second floor, including an Embassy radio station, are in full continuing operation.

These sorts of crises of a physical nature over and above political are, of course, again a concern of all communicators. I do not know, sir-I have given you a rundown, and I trust in sufficient depth to cover the field involved.

TYPES OF CIRCUITS REQUIRED

Mr. ROBACK. You emphasize at this stage of development that record communications are more important to the Department than voice communications.

Mr. SCOTT. Yes, that is true.

Mr. ROBACK. As far as facilities go.

Mr. SCOTT. That is true, Mr. Roback.

In my personal judgment, record communications are the very first requirement. We must have the capability of the telegraphic communications as a first and last in communications.

Mr. ROBACK. How many telegraphic communications come into the State Department on an average day?

Mr. SCOTT. About 4,000 telegrams daily.

Mr. ROBACK. Do the Ambassadors report by cable or do they report in longhand memorandums?

Mr. Scorr. The answer, indeed, is both, sir. The perishability and the substance and importance of the material determine whether it is sent in telegraphically or by some other means.

Mr. ROBACK. Do I detect a kind of implicit concern or resistance against good telephonic communications because, you see, if the Ambassador would have too good telephonic communications, he would merely be taking orders from Washington?

Mr. SCOTT. No, sir. You are asking, of course, a philosophic ques

tion.

Mr. ROBACK. Is there some kind of resistance on the part of the Ambassadors to really having too good communications because it might change their essential function? There is always a question as to how much direction they should take or how much judgment they should exercise; the better the communications the less judgment you have opportunity to exercise.

Mr. SCOTT. No. From my purview I do not see that our principal officers, the Ambassadors, Ministers, Consuls General, are in any way reacting against an improvement in communications. The fact is it is quite the reverse. The demands for improved, better, more rapid and effective communications, particularly telephonic, are increasing. We see an accelerating set of requirements here, not the reverse.

Mr. ROBACK. If I looked at a book of requirements in the NCS, would I see a chapter entitled, "State Department"?

Mr. SCOTT. Yes, sir. We are contained in the long-range plan. I believe the testimony will reflect that. General Starbird has already agreed to make available to you that long-range plan. It is, of course, classified.

COMSAT AND STATE DEPARTMENT ROLES

Mr. ROBACK. Considering the fact that it is classified, we will pursue further inquiry in this matter on a staff basis.

I might ask, I might switch to Mr. Loy for a bit, and discuss a few problems that are, perhaps, more in the policy than in the communications area as such, in the technical sense.

Do you consider, Mr. Loy, that Comsat is the effective communications, satellite communications, voice of America, so to speak, in dealing with foreign countries? That is to say, does the State Department look to Comsat as the representative of the United States?

Mr. Loy. Yes. I think that in the Interim Committee, which is the governing body of the consortium which owns and operates the space segment, it is quite clear that Comsat is our voice and we look to it to represent the U.S. interests.

Mr. ROBACK. Well, there are all these U.S. international carriers that have foreign counterparts they deal with constantly in foreign countries. Do you have any relationship with them? Do they go through you or do they deal directly in their business relationship with their counterparts?

Mr. Loy. We have quite a few relations with them. But, as a general proposition, when one or the other international carrier wishes to make a business arrangement with a telecommunications entity of another country, it does so without our participation.

Mr. ROBACK. Or involvement.

Mr. Loy. As a general proposition.

STATE DEPARTMENT ROLE IN DOD/COMSAT CONTRACT

Mr. ROBACK. Well, you are aware, are you not, that the Defense Department has entered into a contract with Comsat to lease 30 circuits to the Far East; you are familiar with that?

Mr. Loy. Yes, I am.

Mr. ROBACK. In the course of negotiating that contract they decided they ought to try to get some quotations from the other carriers, other interested carriers, and they did so. But part of the problem was getting a quotation from the foreign counterpart on the receiving end, on the down-link. What you had in this case was each carrier trying to make some kind of an arrangement with a foreign counterpart.

Now, from the standpoint of the foreign country, it was exposed to what you might call a rather confused situation, where all these carriers were trying to see what kind of an arrangement they could make. Did you get involved at all, as the State Department; did they have any involvement, in any sense, in that?

Mr. Loy. Only a quite limited one, Mr. Roback.

When Comsat, I gather, first raised this issue with a number of foreign governments it was on a trip which was, in large part, intended to stimulate the countries of southeast Asia to participate in the global system, to join Intelsat, and to discuss the establishment of earth stations in that part of the world.

That general program is a program that we have considerable interest in, and in which we would work with Comsat in various degrees; and at that time, as part of their discussions, they did discuss, I gather, the possible leasing of channels by the United States.

It was after that that there was, I gather, other carrier interest in this, and at that stage I would say we had very little contact with the other carriers' efforts or, indeed, with Comsat's efforts.