« PreviousContinue »
Mr. Hyde. No; there has not been a great volume of requests to us, but we have had this experience under our arrangement with Canada. We have had, oh, 450 requests in a year's time.
On the other hand, we have had approximately 1,300 of our amateurs go into Canada and exercise the privilege of communicating back from there to our country. We expect that if this measure would be approved and, of course, subject to bilateral agreement, there would be 400 or 500 a year from countries other than Canada.
Mr. DEVINE. Have you had any information from the Justice Department or other intelligence agency relative to any security problems involved in this?
Mr. HYDE. Yes; the matter of handling the security problem has been discussed with Justice, Defense, and CIA. It came up in connection with the consideration of the bill before the Senate and a considerable amount of attention was given to the problem. We were able to advise the Senate committee in September 1963 that the procedures for security had been coordinated with the Departments of Defense, Justice, State, and Central Intelligence Agency.
Mr. DEVINE. You say it has been coordinated with them?
Mr. Hyde. By that I mean that they have agreed to the approach which is presented in the bill now.
Mr. DEVINE. At least they have no objection.
Mr. FRIEDEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On page 3 of your statement you say:
Under the proposed procedure the Commission, upon receipt of a request for authorization of an operation by an alien amateur, would ask the Central Intelligence Agency and the Departments of Defense, Justice, and State * *
Don't you think the FBI would have some information ?
Mr. BROTZMAN. Mr. Hyde, I listened to questions by the gentleman from Ohio and if I understood your response to his questions there is little demand for this bill. Could you elaborate on that a little?
Mr. HYDE. I did not mean to indicate that there is little interest. I meant to indicate that very few requests have come to FCC. I presume the reason for that is that the act is very specific in denying us authority to issue permits or licenses to aliens. The act is very strict by letter and I think that would discourage any request to us.
Mr. BROTZMAN. Can you enlighten me as to why the previous act was so clear on this
matter of policy in denying that to you? Mr. HYDE. This goes back to the original Radio Act of 1927. I believe that the considerations were security and also the act does deal with the use of radiofrequencies as part of the public domain, and the Congress then, and I do not disagree with this at all, was very jealous of the privileges of using it and accordingly made very strict provisions against its exploitation by aliens. I presume you are familiar with the fact that in none of the broadcast services, none of the radio
services, may there be more than a 20-percent interest in alien hands. No director or officer of a licensee may
be alien. Mr. BROTZMAN. Now let me ask you this question: What has changed that would make this law seem to be needed, or recommended, or suggested now? What has changed since then?
Mr. HYDE. I would suggest that in radio, as in other areas, we are becoming more involved in worldwide, intercountry matters than earlier. I think it is a part of this increased facility of transportation, and I was about to say communication. That seems to be begging the question.
Let me mention in this connection that we are in a somewhat awkward position now with the strictures against operations by aliens in that we cannot afford to nationals of another country the same kind of privileges that we often have in other countries. There are some 31 countries where an American amateur can set up and operate, countries which do not have reciprocal privileges with respect to our country, and there have been situations where this has been somewhat embar. rassing.
Mr. BROTZMAN. You alluded in your statement to the security checks.
Mr. HYDE. Right.
Mr. BROTZMAN. What is provided? What is the proviso there that has the approval of the Department of Justice and CIA, and those other agencies with whom you have conferred ?
Mr. HYDE. If we may refer to page 3, it is section 2, and we might go down to line 16
Provided, That when an application for authorization is received by the Commission, it shall notify the appropriate agencies of the Government of such fact, and such agencies shall forthwith furnish to the Commission such information in their possession as bears upon the compatibility of the request with the national security : And provided further, That the requested authorization may then be granted unless the Commission shall determine that information received from such agencies necessitates denial of the request.
Those are the specific provisions which I would give in answer to your request, but I also consider these other provisions of the bill giving the Commission the right to cancel a license without procedures other than notice as a security protection.
The CHAIRMAN. You were reading from S. 920; were you not?
Mr. HYDE. I was, sir; the Congressman asked me to cite the particular provisions which had been the subject of discussion with the other agencies.
The CHAIRMAN. We have the three bills. We just wanted to be sure we are referring to the right bill. You read from S. 920.
Mr. HYDE. I read from S. 920.
Mr. BROTZMAN. I don't see a similar provision in the Cederberg bill.
Mr. HYDE. That is right, sir. The reason why I addressed my comment to S. 920 was that in connection with the bill of Mr. Cederberg's and the one under consideration here the problem of security came up and the provisions which are now found in S. 920 were, you might say, coordinated with the other agencies of the Government, and it is
my understanding that Mr. Cederberg is satisfied with this method of handling the question.
I believe this is the only change between the bill of Mr. Cederberg and S. 920.
Mr. FRIEDEL. Will you yield?
Mr. BROTZMAN. I haven't had a chance to compare them line by line, but that is what I was trying to understand.
Mr. HYDE. This is the only significant difference.
Mr. FRIEDEL. I understand that H.R. 9035 has the same provision on page 3, the bill introduced by Congressman Brown of California; is that correct?
Mr. HYDE. In general it is the same. It is identical.
Mr. FRIEDEL. Have you had any difficulty with the foreign pilots in any way?
Mr. Hyde. We have had no difficulty with respect to the pilots or the reciprocal recognition of amateurs in the case of our relations with Canada. This is the only place that we have such an arrangement. There have been no untoward incidents whatever.
Mr. BROTZMAN. In order to administer this law, what do you anticipate will be needed in the way of personnel?
Mr. HYDE. We believe that we can handle this without any increase in our staff or budget. The volume expected is minuscule as compared to the total volume of licensing that we do in safety and special and regular services. No additional outlay is expected to be needed.
Mr. BROTZMAN. One more question. Do you think this is a great improvement over permitting treaties to be effected and their relationship to be continued that way?
Nr. HYDE. I know of the feeling about using executive agreements in some situations instead of formal treaties. We believe in the legislation proposed here, with the safeguards in it, that this matter could be handled very satisfactorily under the executive-agreement approach and if it could be handled that way it could be done very expeditiously, as occasions required it.
I believe there would be no untoward results coming from it. This is a very specialized field. It is one where an agreement would be
. made only where it was clear that no substantial difficulties are going to come up.
As I mentioned before, if the experience proved unsatisfactory, the operation could be discontinued immediately by a simple order of the Commission.
Mr. BROTZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hyde. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. I think we might get the record clear. S. 920, which has been passed by the Senate and sponsored by Senator Goldwater, and H.R. 9035, which was introduced in the IIouse by our colleague, Jr. Brown of California, are identical.
Mr. HYDE. They are identical.
The CHAIRMAN. The bill, H.R. 7309, introduced by our colleague from Michigan, Mr. Cederberg, in the House, is the same bill I believe that Senator Goldwater originally introduced in the Senate.
Mr. HYDE. I think it is the same and, also, I believe it is the same as Congressman Brown's except for the provisions with respect to security.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; but I am trying to get the record straight on what the situation is that we have before us. Because of the security questions which were raised during the consideration by the other body of Senator Goldwater's bill, Senator Pastore and others worked out this additional language to make it abundantly clear that the security question would not be a problem.
Mr. HYDE. You have stated the situation exactly as we understand it.
The CHAIRMAN. I thought that the committee ought to have the benefit of how this was developed and what we have before us here for our consideration. One other thing. This is not a proposal which is primarily being sponsored or recommended by the Commission itself.
Mr. HYDE. That is correct; it was not a part of our legislative program.
The CHAIRMAN. That is right; however, the Commission does recommend it?
Mr. HYDE. Yes; my statement which was approved in the Commission yesterday simply indicates an acceptance of it. I indicated to the Commission that I personally would favor the bill and I found no disagreement with that at all.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; it also has the approval of the Department of State, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Defense!
Mr. HYDE. Yes; it is my understanding that they do give general approval. In the case of the Department of Defense I think there was a more affirmative interest than in the others.
I believe Defense gave affirmative support to it. The other agencies
The CHAIRMAN. Offered no objection. Mr. HYDE (continuing). Offered no objection. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other questions of Commissioner Hyde? It not, are you in a big hurry? Mr. HYDE. No, sir: I am at your service.
The CHAIRMAN. The next and final witness we have on this subject is the Honorable Herbert Hoover, Jr. As I understand, you are president of the American Radio Relay League, Inc.
STATEMENT OF HERBERT HOOVER, JR., PRESIDENT, AMERICAN
RADIO RELAY LEAGUE, INC., NEWINGTON, CONN., ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN HUNTOON, LEAGUE'S SECRETARY AND GENERAL MANAGER; AND ROBERT M. BOOTH, JR., LEAGUE'S GENERAL COUNSEL
Mr. HOOVER. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Perhaps you had better identify yourself or your organization a little more clearly for the record, Mr. Hoover, and on behalf of the committee I want to extend to you a cordial welcome here today. We are pleased to have your testimony.
Mr. HOOVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. We are most appreciative of the opportunity to appear before you today. I have a very brief statement which I think might answer some of the questions in advance and if I might read it I would be appreciative, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed. I think probably you might want to identify for the record those that are accompanying you today.
Mr. HOOVER, Mr. John Huntoon, the general manager of the American Radio Relay League, and Mr. Robert Booth, its general counsel.
The CHAIRMAN. Very well.
Mr. HOOVER. My name is Herbert Hoover, Jr., and I reside in Pasadena, Calif. I am the president of the American Radio Relay League, a nonprofit organization whose headquarters are at Newington, Conn., and which has approximately 100,000 members in the United States and Canada. Our membership comes almost entirely from among the more than 250,000 amateur radio operators who are licensed by the United States and Canadian Governments. The league was founded some 50 years ago by the late Hiram Percy Maxim.
It is also my privilege to be president of the International Amateur Radio Union, an organization made up of the 60 national societies who represent radio amateurs in most of the other countries of the world.
In private life, I am a consulting engineer. I have held an amateur radio license for the past 45 years and my call is WGZH. From 1953 to 1957 I served in the Department of State, most of the period as the Under Secretary.
As the national association of amateur radio operators, the league wishes to record with your committee its support of S. 920 and companion bills introduced in the House. It is my understanding that the bill has been cleared by all of the executive agencies concerned. The purpose of this bill is to permit the United States to enter into reciprocal agreements whereby our amateurs can receive authority to operate in selected foreign countries in return for granting their amateurs a similar privilege here.
Such action is now prohibited by the Communications Act of 1934, which allows only U.S. citizens to operate within our boundaries. The sole exception is Canada, with whom we have had a most successful reciprocal arrangement over the past 12 years, the arrangement having been the result of a 1952 treaty. Indeed, the amendment now under consideration is patterned on the Canadian arrangement.
Amateur radio has extensive international aspects. This service is specifically provided for by international agreements, the most recent of which was the 1959 Geneva Conference of the International Telecommunications Union, as amended by the 1963 Geneva Space Communications Conference.
One of the bases and purposes of the amateur service, as specified in regulations of the Federal Communications Commission, is "continuation and extension of the amateur's unique ability to enhance international good will." Under this concept, U.S. amateur radio operators, by the thousands, daily make contacts with amateurs in foreign countries, the perfect example of an effective people-to-people program in continuous operation.
A few countries, purly as a unilateral courtesy, occasionallyissue amateur licenses to visiting or resident American citizens and such privileges have been very much appreciated by our amateurs abroad. While relatively rare, operation of American stations at remote mis