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
*******************