Thank you for inviting me to participate in the subcommittee hearings of July 31 on the Space Commercialization Promotion Act of 1996. I hope my comments were helpful given that commercial space industries are of increasing importance to the United States. At your request, I would like to provide responses to additional questions submitted for the record. What is the open skies policy as it relates to remote sensing? Open skies is a term that is applied to space activities in general rather than just remote sensing. As an original signatory to the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, the United States supports the right of all countries to use space for peaceful purposes and recognizes the responsibility of appropriately regulating the space activities of persons subject to its jurisdiction and control. The United States has and will continue to conduct remote sensing activities for commercial, scientific, and national security purposes. What is the Administration's current position on a blanket prohibition on imaging certain countries or geographic areas imposed on U.S. remote sensing firms? The Administration is aware of the terms of the Kyle/Bingaman amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill. Under the terms of the Land Remote Sensing Act of 1992 and the President's March 10, 1994 directive on remote sensing, the Secretary of Commerce is responsible for determining appropriate conditions, if any, on U.S. remote sensing operating licenses. It is our position that any prohibitions should be limited in area and duration to be as least disruptive as possible to U.S. firms consistent with the actual threat to the United States and its allies. Such prohibitions would be imposed by the Secretary of Commerce only as necessary for national security after consultation with the Secretaries of Defense and State. If blanket prohibitions do prove necessary, we believe it would be more effective and flexible to define them in regulation rather than in statute. Is the best way to protect U.S. security interests for American companies to dominate the field of remote sensing? U.S. leadership in commercial remote sensing would help protect U.S. security interests in several way. It would provide new sources of data for U.S. armed forces, preserve and advance crucial technical skills in a period of constrained Federal budgets, and help deter the proliferation of remote sensing capabilities by effectively meeting global market demands for data. The United States does not dominate the field of remote sensing, but does seek mutually beneficial international partnerships. To this end, the United States engages in military and scientific cooperation in remote sensing, and allows for foreign investment in U.S.-licensed ventures. According to press reports and government statements, Russia, France, China, Israel, and Brazil are all seeking to aggressively enter or expand their share of the international market in remote sensing. Is it correct then, that the U.S. had no binding way in which to limit the imaging of these other nations? At present, the United States is a leader in remote sensing. It is also true the many other countries are seeking to compete in international markets. The countries are sovereign states which are free to use space for peaceful purposes just as the United States is. It is difficult to imagine a feasible, enforceable international agreement which would effectively limit remote sensing activities for peaceful purposes. What type of impact do you think a policy like the Kyle Bingaman amendment (prohibiting U.S. firms from imaging Israel) will have on U.S. firms that are currently investing in remote sensing capabilities? Do you think that a blanket prohibition on imaging like this will have an effect on investment in American remote sensing ventures? The Administration does not have a position on the potential economic impact of the Kyle/Bingaman amendment. The Administration has continually supported the creation and maintenance of a stable policy environment which would foster private sector investment in commercial space activities, including remote sensing. It is certainly our hope and intention that necessary and carefully limited prohibitions would not have any significant financial effect on U.S.-licensed ventures. Is it likely that other countries will seek the same type of imaging exclusion that Israel would receive under the Kyle Bingaman amendment? If the government prohibits imaging of certain countries, do you think that the U.S. should ask for a similar arrangement prohibiting foreign entities from imaging the U.S.? The United States has been and will remain committed to the security of Israel and will support Israel in the search for a lasting peace in the Middle East. The importance and significance of excluding Israel from commercial remote sensing has been the subject of extensive interagency review. The terms and conditions of any prohibition on imaging Israel will be dictated by the unique strategic situation of Israel. We are not aware of any other situation which would necessitate the extraordinary steps taken in this case. We also do not believe it is practical or desirable to seek limitation on peaceful remote sensing of the United States. Russia currently has remote sensing imagery that is selling commercially at 2 meters resolution. Several American firms are privately developing remote sensing satellites that have a 1 meter resolution. Given Russia's desire for hard currency, is it likely that Russia will refrain from selling images of Israel? It is possible that Russia might choose to refrain from selling images of Israel and we understand that discussions have occurred between the Russian Federation and the Israeli government. Monitoring and enforcement of any formal agreement would like be a challenge, however, given the sophistication of global communication networks. You state in your testimony, that FAA and DOD are leading an interagency process to develop guidelines to clearly define the relationship between federal facilities and spaceport activities. Are you referring to guidelines and not regulations, if so please explain in further detail. Is this interagency process an effort to actually develop regulations to license spaceports? FAA and DOD are co-chairing an interagency working group that includes NASA, State, and Commerce. The group is developing proposed guidelines for Federal Government interaction with launch site operators. These guidelines will define government roles and responsibilities as they relate to potential spaceport operations. The intent of the Administration is to ensure that there is a clear and predictable government environment that encourages commercial ventures. The interagency working group expects to complete the guidelines this month and forward them to OSTP and the NSC for review. The FAA has the lead for developing regulations for commercial space launch activities and the DOD will be part of any regulatory review prior to publication for public comment. 3 You mention in your testimony that the FAA is in the process of developing draft regulations for licensing launch activities involving spaceports. When will these be released? FAA intends to go through the formal rule-making process and intends to have a complete draft set of regulations for spaceports early next year. The H.R. 3936 provisions on GPS are based on the President's recently announced policy. Do you anticipate any changes in policy that should be considered for this bill? No. Policy clarity and stability are vital to U.S. economic and security interests in the Global Positioning System. The Administration appreciates the cooperative spirit taken with respect to the GPS-related provisions in the draft bill. The State Department has begun international discussions of GPS policy, beginning with Japan, and we hope to see GPS adopted as a global standard for navigation, position-location, and precision timing. Thank you again for inviting me to participate in these hearings. Please feel free to contact me if I can provide additional information. Sincerely, Lionel S. Johns Associate Director for Technology |