Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Sun, 2 Jul 89 00:25:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <8YfNYRW00UkV4RSU4r@andrew.cmu.edu> Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sun, 2 Jul 89 00:25:02 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #528 SPACE Digest Volume 9 : Issue 528 Today's Topics: Re: DC3 Toward a New US Policy on Remote Sensing (long) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1989 00:14-EDT From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU Subject: Re: DC3 I would just about sell my left (ah...) for a chance to fly in one of the best pieces of aeronautical engineering ever created. There probably aren't a whole lot of us reading this there were alive when the Gooney's rolled off the assembly line at Douglas Aircraft. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jun 89 19:20:50 GMT From: well!rh@apple.com (Robert Horvitz) Subject: Toward a New US Policy on Remote Sensing (long) This posting concerns H.R. 1574, a bill introduced in the US House of Representatives by Rep. Robert Mrazek (D-NY). The first part of this posting is the text of Rep. Mrazek's statement introducing the bill, the second part is the bill itself. H.R. 1574 has already attracted 30 co-sponsors, and has been referred to the Committees on Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, and Science & Technology. For more information, call Rep. Mrazek's office at 202-225-5956. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ CIVIL REMOTE-SENSING PROGRAM Hon. Robert J. Mrazek of New York in the House of Representatives Congressional Record - Extensions of Remarks, pp. E 929-931 Wednesday, March 22, 1989 Mr. Mrazek: Mr. Speaker, it is with great satisfaction that I have introduced the International Security and Satellite Monitoring Act of 1989. The bill, as I will soon discuss, is both timely and comprehensive. I will also take the opportunity to explain in some detail the different sections of the bill. Remote-sensing of the Earth by satellite is often an emotionally charged and complicated subject. Therefore, it is only natural that misperceptions could exist regarding the intent of my legislation. But first, I would like to review a bit of history so that all Members can better understand the importance of developing a comprehensive remote- sensing policy as it relates to the security interests of this Nation and where they may intersect with the national security needs of all nations of the world. Over 30 years ago, President Eisenhower offered a visionary proposal to reduce superpower tension and mistrust called open skies or mutual inspection for peace. In 1955, open skies as envisioned by the President would entail an exchange of blueprints detailing military installations in the United States and Soviet Union. The shared information would be verified by reconnaissance planes of both nations. Unfortunately, open skies was politically immature in that era, and Nikita Krushchev rejected Eisenhower's offer. However, in the changing turbulent environment of the middle and late 1950's, the United States had an overriding interest in understanding the world it was confronting. President Eisenhower had little choice but to developed classified reconnaissance systems to monitor the Earth. Without a doubt, classified surveillance capabilities have proven to be a stabilizing element in world affairs. Common sense demands that these operations continue in defense of U.S. national security. In 1972, the United States launched the Earth resources technology satellite, later renamed Landsat. Landsat represented a new initiative in information gathering and dissemination in the open domain. Of the five satellites that have been launched, each has obtained greater amounts of information on the state of our planet and has addressed human needs, particularly with respect to managing global resources and the environment. Our Nation's leadership and success in this arena, along with the policy of nondiscriminatory access to remotely sensed images, helped ignite a proliferation of remote-sensing technology. By the year 2000, it is projected that 24 nations or multilateral organizations will have launched 40 to 50 satellites, a development which suggests that in the future cooperative endeavors will become increasingly attractive and necessary. The Soviet Union has also started to commercially sell, on a limited basis, high-resolution photography, and recently endorsed the concept of an international satellite monitoring agency, a proposal first offered by the French in 1978 to the United Nations. It should also be pointed out that both the United States and the Soviet Union joined forces to table the proposal. In addition to the tremendous changes that have taken place in the field of remote sensing, the world has also undergone a quiet but unprecedented evolution. In the last 30 or more years, science and technology has produced and accelerated untold changes. Everything from superpower relations to the planet's ecosystem is being reshaped in ways not quite understood. Moreover, an explosion of information technology is moving all nations inexorably into a new era of international openness. Is there any doubt that the United States, a nation founded on principles of democracy and openness, can best adjust to the information revolution? All told, a transitional phase in international security and world affairs is clearly at hand. If the United States is to understand and manage the dynamics of global change, information acquired by overhead observation satellite[s will play an increasingly important role. A significant database, such as the one Landsat has accumulated over the last 15 years, is indispensable. In our current era of global changes and challenges, military strength will continue to represent one element of a larger national security strategy. U.S. intelligence capabilities, both classified and unclassified, will play an equally critical role. Therefore, our national security strategy should strive to include and maximize nonclassified remote-sensing systems. The combination of expanded satellite remote-sensing capabilities and national security needs suggests that the time has come to rethink the original open skies concept so an information policy can be fashioned which will increase international security and stability. U.S. leadership in the development and exploitation of civilian remote- sensing technology is also on the wane. Very recently, our Government nearly shut down two operational Landsat satellites. The official reason given for such a drastic action was insufficient funding. In reality, I believe the roots to this possible action can be traced all the way back to our Nation's inability to make a strategic commitment to our civilian remote-sensing systems. For too many years now, we have operated either without a policy or focused our entire efforts on only one small aspect of remote sensing, namely the effort to commercialize the Landsat system. But now that the information age is upon us, we will have to consider and develop a fully integrated strategy concerning remote sensing of the Earth. Today, open skies would entail the sharing of information, gathered by nonclassified observation satellites, on both a national and international basis, regarding environmental and economic development concerns, certain military activities, the usage of global resources, and to facilitate emergency and natural disaster planning and management. Another part of open skies would entail the development and articulation of a coordinated civilian remote-sensing policy. For instance, much attention has been recently given to Landsat; however, Landsat is only one remote-sensing program. A clear and interrelated role must also be specified for satellites which will observe the oceans and atmosphere. Finally, cooperative endeavors would be a key ingredient of any revised open skies policy. Open skies would encourage nations with closed systems of government, such as the Soviet Union, to become more open. The real world security challenges facing the United States would be more easily understood and more effectively addressed. In short, data collected by civilian remote sensing satellites in the information age will, as Dr. Ray Cline, former Deputy Director of the CIA recently stated, "determine who wins and who loses geopolitically, more, even than missiles and guns." The unlimited potential of a revised open skies policy to increase international security and stability should be balanced by an equal amount of realism. Significant hurdles must be addressed before, during and after implementation. There are many unanswered questions. For instance, will the U.S. intelligence gathering and defense operations benefit from an open skies concept that addresses our changing national security requirements in the near and far term? Second, will scientific and commercial remote-sensing endeavors flourish or decline if a broad strategic emphasis is attached to our civilian Earth-observation assets? Third, what type of institutions will have to be formed to best exploit these open information sources? Fourth, and finally, can global climate changes studies serve as a model for the future conduct of world affairs, as well as promote an integrated U.S. remote-sensing policy? Taken together, the above questions establish a context for a national debate on the convergence of expanded national-security requirements and the role of space-based observations. At this point in time, I do not know all the answers to these complex questions. However, I strongly believe the potential security, scientific, commercial and economic benefits associated with a revised open skies policy are so great that we can ill-afford to ignore them. A process should be initiated that brings together all concerned parties to debate and discuss this issue in a responsible manner. Therefore, my legislation would take a small but important step toward initiating a national debate on open skies by establishing a national commission to examine three interrelated policy questions as specified in section 4(a) of the bill: First, determine how a revised open skies policy could enhance the national security strategy of the United States; Second, review the status of the civilian remote-sensing programs of the United States and then offer a series of recommendations toward developing a long-term, coordinated policy; and Third, study areas in which the sharing of information collected by civilian remote-sensing satellites, cooperatively employed along with other open information sources, could increase international security and stability. The principal thrust of the third point will be the role Earth-observation satellites could play in understanding and managing global environmental change, particularly with respect to promoting sustainable economic development. However, when satellites image the Earth, they do not just see civilian or military features of society but rather everything at once. It is my belief that military intelligence gathered by nonclassified Earth-observation satellites need not be treaty-specific or processed as soon as the satellite observes certain features on Earth or in near real- time to be effective. While arms reduction or limitation treaties should be pursued as part of an integrated strategy, it is equally clear that such treaties rarely influence the international behavior of nations. However, our public diplomacy efforts can only be enhanced if a greater understanding is struck between government and its citizens regarding the military threat our Nation faces now and into the future. Real-time imagery is not needed to accomplish this goal. Moreover, images acquired by Landsat and SPOT are already used to monitor with limited effectiveness the deployment of nuclear and conventional arms, the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons and regional conflicts. The expected improvements in resolution capabilities for future civilian satellites will increase the amount of military intelligence gathered by civilian Earth-observation satellites. In short, the challenge is to develop a synergistic relationship between our nonclassified and classified intelligence gathering satellites. In addition, peace-keeping efforts will be promoted by information gathered by Earth-observation satellite[s through enhancing the management and usage of Earth resources. In the not-too-distant future, wars may well be fought over water and the destruction or misuse of other natural resources. In section 4(b) of the bill, the commission will be instructed to examine certain factors and considerations. I believe they are equally important. These factors include: First. The impact of global developments on the national security requirements of the United States; Second. The impact of a revised open skies concept on the defense and intelligence gathering operations of the United States; Third. The desirability of establishing an institutional structure to disseminate information gathered by nonclassified observation satellites and coordinate civilian remote-sensing programs; Fourth. How an integrated national remote-sensing program would affect the efforts to commercialize the Landsat program; Fifth. Possible joint ventures for investment in the future operation of Landsat; Sixth. How the sharing of information gathered by nonclassified remote- sensing satellites can help to promote greater openness and the restructuring of military forces on the part of the Soviet Union; Seventh. The international economic impact of sharing information gathered by nonclassified remote-sensing satellites; Eighth. The degree to which satellite monitoring arrangements woiuld complement established programs within the United Nations; Ninth. The technical advances and costs associated with improved data processing capabilities; and Tenth. Such factors as the commission considers appropriate. Can there be any doubt that with these guidelines in place, such a Commission would be of great service to our Nation? Given global developments, can the United States afford not to develop a coordinated plan to fully exploit all of its intelligence assets? Therefore, I hope my colleagues and the Bush administration will closely examine my bill and strongly support it. It is not the only option we have to right our civilian remote-sensing program, but I believe that it represents the kind of comprehensive approach that has been lacking for the last 15-plus years. The possible demise of Landsat is a prime example of having a nonintegrated policy. We can and must do better. Now is the time to set forth on a different course. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 101st Congress 1st Session H.R. 1574 In the House of Representatives Mr. Mrazen introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on_______________________________ A BILL To establish the Commission on International Security and Satelite Monitoring Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the "International Security and Satellite Monitoring Act of 1989". SEC. 2. FINDINGS. The Congress finds that-- (1) in a world where important developments increasingly transcend national borders, there is a need for continuing leadership and engagement on the part of the United States to enhance international security and stability, (2) the development of civilian remote-sensing technologies by nations other than the United States and the Soviet Union suggests that mutually beneficial international satellite monitoring arrangements with respect to understanding global environmental change will soon be possible, (3) the classified reconnaissance programs of the United States have been and will continue to be a stabilizing factor in world affairs, (4) it is necesary to assess existing and proposed satellite monitoring capabilities in order to identify areas in which mutually advantageous international satellite monitoring arrangements can be developed; (5) the last quarter of the twentieth century is a time in which information technology is moving all nations inexorably into a new era of international openness; (6) the United States, whose system of government is based on openness and is respectful of diversity, is the nation best suited to exploit this information age, and (7) a revised version of the open skies concept, first articulated by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1955, has the potential to increase international security and stability. SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT. There is established the Commission on International Security and Satellite Monitoring (hereafter in this Act referred to as the "Commission"). SEC. 4. DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION. (a) AREAS OF STUDY AND ANALYSIS.--The Commission shall-- (1) determine how a revised open skies policy could enhance the national security strategy of the United States; (2) review the status of the civilian remote-sensing programs of the United States and then offer a series of recommendations toward developing a long-term, coordinated policy; (3) study areas in which the sharing of information collected by civilian remote-sensing satellites, cooperatively employed, along with other open information sources, could increase international security and stability, including the following: (A) The monitoring, inventorying and protection of the Earth's resources. (B) The study of the Earth as an integrated ecosystem and the corresponding implementation of policies that support sustainable economic development. (C) The formation of an international remote-sensing consortium dedicated to environmental monitoring. (D) Disaster management, including pre-disaster preparedness, disaster mitigation, and post-disaster relief. (E) Facilitation of on-going efforts to control international terrorism and drug trafficking activities. (F) Monitoring conventional and nuclear weapon deployments, the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons, and regional conflicts. (b) FACTORS AND CONSIDERATIONS.--In conducting its study and analysis under subsection (a), the Commission shall consider-- (1) the impact of global developments on the national security requirements of the United States, (2) the impact of a revised open skies concept on the defense and intelligence gathering operations of the United States, (3) the desirability of establishing an institutional structure to disseminate information gathered by non-classified observation satellites and coordinate civilian remote-sensing activities, (4) how an integrated national remote-sensing program would impact on efforts to commercialize the landsat system, (5) possible joint ventures for investment in the future operation of Landsat (6) how the sharing of information gathered by satellite monitoring arrangements can help promote greater openness and the restructuring of military forces on the part of the Soviet Union, (7) the international economic impact of sharing information gathegred by civilian remote-sensing satellites, (8) the degree to which satellite monitoring arrangements would complement established programs within the United Nations, (9) the technical advances and costs associated with improved data processing capabilities, and (10) such other factors as the Commission considers appropriate. (c) DEFINITION.--As used in this Act, the term "open skies" means the nondiscriminatory collection and dissemination of information gathered by the civilian remote-sensing satellites of the United States (as well as international arrangements) regarding environmental concerns, economic development, earth resources, meteorology, urban planning, and military developments. SEC. 5. VOTING MEMBERSHIP. (a) NUMBER AND APPOINTMENT.--The Commission shall have 15 voting members appointed, from among persons who are not officers or employees of the Federal Government, within 60 days of the enactment of this Act as follows: (1) Five members shall be appointed by the President; (2) Five members shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, in consultation with the minority leader of the House of Representatives. (3) Five members shall be appointed by the majority leader of the Senate, in consultation with the minority leader of the Senate. A vacancy in the Commission shall be filled in the same manner in which the original appointment was made. (b) QUALIFICATIONS.--The members appointed under subsection (a) shall reflect a multidisciplinary make-up and be selected from among individuals who are specifically qualified to serve on the Commission by virtue of their education, training or experience. (c) CHAIRPERSON AND VICE CHAIRPERSON.--The President shall designate one of the members appointed under subsection (a) to serve as Chairperson of the Commission and another to serve as Vice Chairperson of the Commission. The Vice Chairperson shall perform the duties of the Chairperson in the Chairperson's absence. (d) COMPENSATION.--Members appointed under subsection (a) may be paid at a rate not to exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay in effect under section 5332 of title 5, United States Code, for grade GS- 18 of the General Schedule, for each day, including travel time, during which such members are engaged in the performance of duties for the Commission. (e) TRAVEL EXPENSES.--Members appointed under subsection (a) may be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by law for persons serving intermittently in Government service uner section 5703 of title 5, United States Code, while away from their home or regular place of business in performance of duties for the Commission. (f) MISCELLANEOUS.--Individuals who are not officers or employees of the United States and who are members of the Commission shall not be considered officers or employees of the United States by reason of receiving payments under subsections (d) or (e). SEC. 6. ADVISORY MEMBERSHIP. (a) NUMBER AND APPOINTMENT.--The Commission shall have 17 advisory members appointed within 60 days of the date of the enactment of this act as follows: (1) One advisory member shall be appointed by the President from each of the following Federal departments and agencies: (A) National Academy of Sciences (B) The Central Intelligence Agency (C) Department of State (D) Department of Defense (E) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (F) Department of Agriculture (G) Geological Survey (H) Environmental Protection Agency (I) National Aeronautics and Space Administration (J) National Science Foundation (K) Office of Science and Technology Policy (L) The Army Corps of Engineers (M) The Agency for International Development (2) Two advisory members shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives from among Members of the House of Representatives. (3) Two advisory members shall be appointed by the majority leader of the Senate from among members of the Senate. Advisory members of the Commission shall not vote in the decisions of the Commission and shall not participate, except in an advisory capacity, in the formulation of the findings and recommendations of the Commission. (b) TRAVEL EXPENSES.--Members of the Commission appointed under section 6(a) shall not be entitled to receive compensation for their work on the Commission, but shall be entitled to reimbursement for travel expenses in the same manner and subject to the same conditions as voting members under section 5(e). SEC. 7. MEETINGS. (a) IN GENERAL.--The Commission shall meet at the call of the Chairperson or a majority of its voting members. (b) QUORUM.--Eight voting members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum but a lesser number may hold hearings. (c) VOTING.--Decisions of the Commission shall be made according to the vote of a majority of the voting members present at a meeting at which a quorum is present. SEC. 8. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND STAFF; EXPERTS AND CONSULTANTS. (a) EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.--The Chairperson shall, without regard to section 5311(b) of title 5, United States Code, appoint a person to serve as Executive Director of the Commission. The Executive Director shall be paid at a rate not to exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay in effect under section 5332 of title 5, United States Code, for grade GS-18 of the General Schedule. (b) STAFF.--Subject to the rules prescribed by the Commission and without regard to sectoin 5311(b) of title 5, United States Code, the Executive Director may appoint and fix the pay of such additional personnel as the Executive Director considers appropriate. (c) STAFF OF FEDERAL AGENCIES.--Upon request of the Commission, the head of any department or agency of the United States is authorized to detail, on a reimbursable basis, any of the personnel of such agency to the Commission to assist the Commission in carrying out its duties under this Act. (d) EXPERTS AND CONSULTANTS.--With the approval of the Commission, the Executive Director may procure temporary and intermittent services under section 3109(b) of title 5 of the United States Code. SEC. 9. POWERS OF THE COMMISSION. (a) HEARINGS AND SESSIONS.--The Commission may, for the purpose of carrying out section 4, hold such hearings, sit and act at such times and places, take such testimony, and receive such evidence, as the Commission considers appropriate. (b) OBTAINING OFFICIAL DATA.--(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Commission may secure directly from any Federal department or agency of the United States information necessary to enable it to carry out section 4. (2) Upon request of the Chairperson of the Commission, the head of of a department or agency shall furnish such information to the Commission. (3) In the event that such information includes national security information that has been classified according to criteria contained in an Executive order, upon request of the Chairperson of the Commission, the head of a department or agency shall expedite the security investigations of members of the Commission in order that such members may gain access to the classified information. (c) MAILS.--The Commission may use the United States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions as other departments and agencies of the United States. (d) ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES.--The Administrator of General Services shall provide to the Commission on a reimbursable basis such administrative support services as the Commission may request. SEC. 10. REPORTS. (a) COMPREHENSIVE REPORT.--The Commission shall transmit to the President and to each House of Congress not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act a comprehensive report containing a detailed statement of the findings and conclusions of the Commission and such recommendations as it considers appropriate. (b) PRELIMINARY REPORTS.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the Commission from transmitting preliminary reports to the President and to Congress. (c) TRANSMITTALS TO CONGRESS.--When transmitting reports to Congress under subsections (a) and (b), the Commission shall transmit a copy of such reports to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the majority leader of the Senate. SEC. 11. TERMINATION. The Commission shall terminate on the date 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act. SEC. 12. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this Act $3,000,000 for fiscal year 1990, to remain available until expended, and such additional sums as may be necessary. -----------------------------==< E N D >==------------------------------ -- ........... Robert Horvitz ........... ........... ANARC, P.O. Box 143, Falls Church, VA 22046 USA ........... ........... uucp: ...{pacbell,hplabs,ucbvax}!well!rh ........... ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V9 #528 *******************