Attachment 1992NEXSAT Applicati

1992NEXSAT Applicati

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW submitted by NEXSAT

Application For Review

1992-04-20

This document pretains to SAT-MOD-19901031-00062 for Modification on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATMOD1990103100062_1078761

RECEIVED APR 2 0 1992 Before the Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 OfficeoftheSecretary In the Matter of ) ) National Exchange ) File Nos. 4/5—DSS—EXT—90 Satellite, Inc.. ) ) ) For Extension of Time to ) Construct and Launch Space ) Stations in the Domestic ) Fixed—Satellite Service ) To: The Commission PP W Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 1.115, National Exchange Satellite, Inc. ("NEXSAT") hereby requests Commission review of the Memorandum Opinion and Order ("MO&O") of the Common Carrier Bureau in National Exchange Satellite, Inc., DA 92—294, released March 20, 1992, in which the Bureau denied NEXSAT‘s request for an extension of the milestones for the construction and launch of NEXSAT‘s domestic fixed—satellite system. The policy that the Bureau applied in the MO&O was devised at a time of domestic satellite scarcity, when the principal threat was the "warehousing" of orbital locations. The Bureau now insists upon rigid application of that policy despite changed circumstances, including the facts that there has not been a new applicant for C—band or Ku—band domestic satellite facilities since 1987; that there presently is significantly reduced demand for domestic satellite capacity and that, therefore, the industry has undergone what the Bureau concedes is a period

—2 . of "consolidation" through mergers and acquisitions, MO&OQO at [ 10; and that no existing satellite operator has opposed NEXSAT‘s request. In light of these changed circumstances, the MO&O does not give sufficient weight to the unique factors presented by the NEXSAT request for extension —— factors that serve the goals of the Commission‘s "open skies" policy and demonstrate that the public interest would be served by granting the relief sought by NEXSAT. T. BACKGROUND NEXSAT was the sole new entrant to come forward in the 1987 domestic satellite processing round. Except for NEXSAT, all of the applicants in that round proposed spacecraft of traditional configuration and capability.! NEXSAT, however, proposed a high—power, spot beam configuration that promised enormous increases in frequency reuse and other efficiencies. Because of the "cutting edge" nature of its proposal, NEXSAT was required to make a supplemental demonstration of its ability to coordinate its "SpotNet" satellites with adjacent spacecraft at 2° orbital spacing prior to being assigned orbital positions in the primary eastern and western arcs. See National Exchange Satellite, Inc., 3 FCC Red 6992 (1988). Failure to make this additional showing would have consigned the SpotNet satellites to the then—newly established high—power arc for video carriers, an environment inherently incompatible with the SpotNet design. The uncertainty caused by the imposition of this additional requirement made it impossible for NEXSAT to go beyond the most rudimentary planning stages until the matter was resolved.2 1 The other applicants included both the remaining giants of the industry —— AT&T, Hughes, GTE and GE —— as well as smaller companies subsequently absorbed by the giants —— SBS, Contel/ASC, Western Union. See Assignment of Orbital Locations to Space Stations in the Domestic Fixed— Satellite Service, 3 FCC Red 6972 (1988) . 2 It has been suggested that NEXSAT could have gone forward with constructing its satellites while the matter of its precise orbital assignments was being resolved, the theory being that the spacecraft bus and much of the internal hardware is not specific to a particular orbital location. See Letter from James R. Keegan, Chief, Domestic Facilities Division to Henry Goldberg, dated June 7, 1990. This is only half correct. If the high—power are, to which NEXSAT initially was consigned, had provided a viable environment for the provision of NEXSAT‘s proposed services, it might have been able to go forward. However, as NEXSAT made clear at the outset, its high— speed, narrow—beam data carriers could not co—exist with the high—power video carriers for which that are was established. See, g.g., Reply of National Exchange, Inc. (filed February 23, 1988) at

—3 . Finally, in January of 1990, the SpotNet satellites were assigned to viable orbital locations and NEXSAT was able to proceed with the contracting process. See Assignment of Orbital Locations to Space Stations in the Domestic Fixed— Satellite Service, 5 FCC Red 179 (1990). Initially, NEXSAT could not locate a satellite manufacturer able to provide reasonable assurances thatit could meet NEXSAT‘s design and performance specifications. See Letter from Henry Goldberg to Donna R. Searcy, Secretary, dated October 31, 1990. NEXSAT eventually found that TRW, a company not traditionally involved in the commercial satellite market, although possessing great expertise in military satellite construction, was willing to work with NEXSAT to explore design alternatives. NEXSAT, therefore, funded a study by TRW to ascertain the relative merits of "lightsats" versus the traditionally—sized domestic satellites. See Letter from Henry Goldberg to Donna R. Searcy, Secretary, dated March 1, 1991. The study was concluded in the fall of 1991, at which time NEXSAT began the final process of selecting a spacecraft design. Shortly thereafter, NEXSAT was approached by EDSAT, an organization seeking to establish a national instructional satellite network. See Letter from Henry Goldberg to Donna R. Searcy, Secretary, dated January 6, 1992. EDSAT wished to explore whether NEXSAT could support EDSAT‘s goal of using a satellite system for the nationwide distribution of instructional programming and support materials. Id. In furtherance of that goal, NEXSAT agreed to postpone its final design decisions until EDSAT, and its affiliate,the National Education Telecommunications Organization ("NETO"), had an opportunity to evaluate NEXSAT‘s capabilities, in comparison with those of other satellite system suppliers. Contemporaneously, legislation —— S. 2377 —— was introduced in the Congress to provide a means of funding such an instructional network. See Attachment A, Senator Burns‘ statement upon introducing S. 2377. While the legislation was pending before the Congress and EDSAT/NETO were considering proposals from NEXSAT and others, the MO&O was released, denying NEXSAT‘s extension requests. Given the unique circumstances 10—11. Put simply, had NEXSAT been forced to remain in the high—power arc, it most likely would have abandoned the project altogether, because neither its spacecraft design nor basic business plan would have been viable operating from that arc.

—4— | presented, the Bureau‘s precipitous action is unsupported by any relevant precedent. II. THEBUREAU‘S In brief, the Bureau‘s reasoning for denying NEXSAT‘s extension request rests almost exclusively on a fear of warehousing of orbital slots, coupled with the notion that the delays experienced by NEXSAT essentially were of its own making. See MO&OQO at § 8, 11, 16, 18. While, as an abstract proposition, the Commission should indeed be cautious of warehousing, that wariness must be tempered by the marketplace realities facing both NEXSAT and customers for satellite capacity. The realities are that, unlike the conditions that existed when the Bureau‘s construction guidelines were established, today‘s domestic satellite marketplace is characterized by a glut of capacity and a concomitant reduction in the number of viable competitors. In such circumstances, the public interest is best served by preserving opportunities for customers to deal with new entrants, with all the benefits that flow from such entrants offering new technologies and operational innovations to customers. Moreover, the Bureau‘s fears are unfounded. It is highly questionable that a new entrant has any incentive to engage in warehousing; costs must be incurred to pursue such a plan with no offsetting revenues or other competitive advantage. Moreover, no other carrier or would—be applicant raised any objection to NEXSAT‘s request.3 The absence of any rational economic incentive for NEXSAT to engage in warehousing —— coupled with the silence of those existing licensees that might directly benefit from NEXSAT‘s departure from the scene and the fact that no applicants presently are waiting in line seeking orbital assignments —— undermines the Bureau‘s reliance on the anti—warehousing policy. In addition, the Bureau‘s suggestion that the design difficulties experienced by NEXSAT were all matters exclusively within its own control begs the issue. Certainly, NEXSAT designed its satellite system around its intended 3 The sole objection came from a member of the C—band TVRO industry, in pursuit of a regulatory agenda entirely unrelated to the issues in this case. See General Instrument Corporation‘s Opposition to Request for Extension of Time (filed December 12, 1990).

—5. business plan. Equally certain is the fact that the Commission awarded NEXSAT a construction permit based on that state—of—the—art design and, moreover, required NEXSAT to make supplemental interference showings not required of any other applicant in order for the SpotNet satellites to be assigned to viable orbital slots. NEXSAT should not be penalized for making every reasonable effort to locate a vendor ready, willing and able to meet NEXSAT‘s specifications.4 Finally, the Bureau‘s criticism of NEXSAT‘s willingness to attempt to accommodate EDSAT/NETO‘s developing needs is, in reality, nothing but a restatement of the anti—warehousing policy. See MO&O at J 18. The Bureau‘s unwillingness to permit a reasonable period for NEXSAT to serve the EDSAT/NETO needs —— particularly given the strong congressional interest in EDSAT/NETO‘s mission —— is entirely unwarranted. It is no answer to say, as the Bureau does, that NEXSAT can re—apply for these orbital locations to serve EDSAT/NETO‘s needs. See MO&OQ at [ 18. The Bureau knows as well as NEXSAT that such a process would be time—consuming and, therefore, would delay implementation of EDSAT/NETO‘s option to have a satellite system dedicated to the nation‘s substantial instructional and educational requirements. The better course, and one that disadvantages no one, would be for the Commission to grant the modest extension of construction time, as requested by NEXSAT, to determine if use of NEXSAT‘s propose satellite system would serve EDSAT/NETO needs. CONCLUSION The MO&O‘s analysis falls well short of the standard established in WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1157 (D.C. Cir. 1969). The Bureau has not given a 4 The Bureau‘s cites P&R Temmer v. FCC, 743 F.2d 918 (D.C. Cir. 1984), for the proposition that the proponent of "innovative technology bears [the] risk that it will be unable to meet authorization conditions if the technology fails to perform as hoped." MO&Q at n. 19. This is inapposite. The delay that NEXSAT experienced arose from its inability to locate a vendor —— not from a failure of the SpotNet technology . Moreover, the central fact in Temmer was that there were over twenty—five SMR applicants on a waiting list for the channels in questions. See 743 F.2d at 929. The Commission previously had warned that technical difficulties of the sort experienced in Temmer "would not be a basis for a waiver or extension." Id. at 930. Indeed, the applicants in Temmer proceeded in a manner directly contrary to various Commission suggestions. Id. In short, the facts in Temmer are unrelated to those present in the instant case.

—6— —"hard look" to the unique circumstances presented by this case. Instead, it has reflexively invoked the anti—warehousing policy against one who has no incentive to warehouse and where no would—be applicant or existing licensee has raised an objection. In short, the Bureau would sacrifice the substantial public interest benefits to be derived from the NEXSAT‘s request, solely in order to preserve the precedential integrity of a policy the application of which in this case advances no identifiable public interest goal. Based on the above, NEXSAT requests that the Bureau‘s decision be vacated and its request for an extension of its construction and launch milestones be granted. Respectfully submitted, NATIONAL EXCHANGE SATELLITE, INC. _| By ‘ Henry Gohiberg _ n Jeffrey H. Olson GOLDBERG & SPECTOR 1229 19th Street, NW. Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 429—4900 April 20, 1992

Attachment $ 4034 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATr March 20, 1992 mitted themselves to principles of democra— plays & key role in making us world tramming to have one dish focused on cy and human rights. leaders. In the areas of space and de— one satellite off which they can re— (9) Any other matters relating to the fense, our technological know—how has policy referred to in subsection (a) that the ceive at least 24 channels of Instruc— made us second to none. President considers appropriate. I believe we should act now to apply tlonal progryamming—24 different pro— grams—ever hour of the achool day. By Mr. BURNS (for himsel{, Mr. that same technological know—how to There is no doubt in my mind that Forp, Mr. LoTt, Mr. Simox. education. If we do, our success will be distance learning is a growth area and and Mr. McCaINX): no less than it has been in space and that there is a role for the Federal 5. 23717. A bill to facilitate the devel— defense. Whether it be through copper Government in facilitating that opment of an integrated, nationwide wire, satellites, or fiber optics, distance growth. The Office of Technology As— telecommunications system dedicated learning can provide access to the vast sessment‘s 1989 report, "Linking for to instruction by guaranteeing the ac— educational resources of our Nation, ing: A New Course for Educa— quisition of a communications satellite regardless of wealth or geographic lo— tion," documents the recent growth of system used solely for communications cation. Let us go back for a minute to distance learning. calling the growth among State and local instructional in— Saco, MT. Educators in Saco have in the K—12 sector dramatic. OTA an— stitutions and agencies and instruc— turned to telecommunications and dis— ticipates this growth to continue. The tional resource providers; to the Com— tance learning to diversify and enrich National Governors‘ Association in mittee on Labor and Human Re— their students‘ education. Students in 1988 found that while fewer than 10 sources. Saco can take not only Spanish, but States were promoting distance learn— INTEGRATED AMD HATIONWIDE Russian,. chemistry, and physics via ing in 1987; 1 year later two—thirds of satellite. The Mid—Rivers Telephone TELECOMMUNICATIONS the States reported involvement. The Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, America Co—Op in eastern Montans also has a NGA passed & resolution in 1988, and faces many problems and challenges in project linking schools in Terry, Baker, Plevna, and Ekalaka, MT, with revised it in 1991, expressing their sup— education. From Montana to Maine, port for a dedicated education and from local school districts to large uni— fiber—optics. The fiber link allows stu— dents in these communities to have a public purpose satellite—tased telecom— versities, educators are being asked to munications network. Following their do more with less. There is overcrowd— two—way audio and visual connection with their Spanish and German teach— 1989 education summit in Charlottes— ing in urban areas, and a lack of access ville, VA, where former Governor Wal— to educational opportunities in many ers over a hundred miles away. Unfor— tunastely, barriers still exist which are lace Wilkinson of Kentucky and other rural areas. And everywhere we turn. Governors raised with President Bush budgets are being squeezed. We do not hoiding back the full development of distance learning. the proposal for this dedicated system, have to look far to see examples of the the EDSAT Institute was formed to problems in education. In my home I have introduced & bill, S. 1200, which will facilitate the deployment of analyze the proposal. In 1991, they . State, our university system faces a broadband fiber—optic network that issued a report entitled "Analysis of a funding decreases and tuition in— will be available to every educational Proposal for an Education Satellite," creases. The problems do not end with institution, health care organization, and they found, as did the OTA higher education either. Like many other States, the Montana Supreme business, and home in the United report, that individual States and con— Court has ruled that all public school States by the year 2015. In order to do sortiums of States are investing heavi— students must be given equal educa— this, some regulatory barriers have to ly in distance learning technologies tional opportunities. This is extremely be removed, and S. 1200 removes those and that the education sector is a sig— difficult to asccomplish in rural areas barriers. A national broadband fiber— nificant market. where & school may only have 20—25 optic network holds great promise for The legisiation we are introducing students. And it is equally challenging the field of education. With a fiber— today addresses the issue of an infra— for inner cities. optic network. any school in the coun— structure for distance learning. The Every student deserves equal access try could have guest teachers from OTA report also addresses this issue to a quality education, but not every anywhere in the world via a two—way and concludes that national leadership small rural school, or poor inner city interactive audio and visual network. could focus, infrastructure, invest— school, can afford the resources and The possibilities of what a fiber optic ments toward the future, ensuring specialized instructors that are avail— network could offer our educational that today‘s distance learning efforts able in wealthier communities. Saco, system are limited only by the mind. carry our educational system into the MT. is a perfect example. The Saco But even with the passage of S. 1200, 2ist century. A commitment to a na— High School has less than 40 students. this network may not be a reality for tional telecommunications infrastruc. They just cannot afford to hire a quite some time, and we cannot wait to ture for distance learning requires a Spanish teacher to teach one class a expand the opportunities available change in the existing Federal role. «day. This could unfairly limit stu— through distance learning. We must That is what we are proposing today, dents‘ educational opportunities. Un— start right here, right now, by taking and what I have proposed in S. 1200, a fortunately, this is not an isolated ex— advantage of the satellite technology change in the Federal role and a ample. I could go on, giving you exam— that exists today. That is why I am in— change in the Federal telecommunica— ples from every State in the Union. troducing today, along with Senators tions policy. Our approach is based on But there is no point in doing that Foarp, Simxon, Lott, and McCarn, a bill the precepts of Abraham Lincoln who when the real question is what are we which will help remove some of the saild, and I paraphrase, that the legiti— going to do about it? barriers that are stunting the growth mate role of the Government is to do We are being challenged as & nation. of distance learning. Our bill offers for the people that which they cannot and we must react—as a nation, with Federal loan guarantees to a non—Fed— do for themselives. The application of unity of purpose. We must marshall eral, nonprofit, public corporation this great precept to this initiative our resources and find ways to over. which they can use to obtain financing begs two questions. First, how do we come the probleras in education. Our for the purchase or lease of & dedicat— know the people cannot provide for chiidren‘s future is at stake. We must ed education satellite system. A dedi— themseives an integrated. satellite. act now to position America to move cated educational satellite will allow based telecommunications System? into the 21st century with a well—edu— us to address two barriers faced by And once we determine that they cated, competitive work force. There those involved in distance learning via can‘t, we must then ask what the Fed— are many exciting proposals being for— satellite. First, it will insure instruc— eral Government‘s role is in doing It warded and each of them has merit. tional programmers that they will be for them? . Over this Nation‘s history, we have able to obtain affordable satellite The first question, why can‘t the used good old American creativity to transmission time without risk of pre— educetion sector provide such a system conquer many challenges and forge emption by commercial users. Second, themseives, is best answered by look— new horizons. Often times, technology it will allow educators using the pro— ing at the realities surrounding their

March 20, 1992 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE $ 4035 use of satellite technology. While tary of Education their findings and cational access. The risk to the Feder— there is a significant market out there, recommendations. At that time, the al Government is minimal. The only it can best be described as disorganized Secretary will be authorized guarantee risk the Government is assuming is and fragmented. For the most part, loans ol up to $270 million of which the risk that the distance learning schools, school districts, State educa— not more than $20 million can be for market will dissipate. I think the find— tion agencies, colleges, and universities the costs of operating and managing ings of the Mational Governors‘ Asso— g&ll operate independently. In recent satellite services for up to 3 years. clation, the OTA, and the EDSAT In— years, as the OTA report documents, The organization, the National Edu— stitute prove that highly unlikely. But many States have undertaken ef{forts cation Telecommunications Organiza— I also believe that with distance learn— to plan and coordinate for distance tion [NETO], was formed after the ing, as with transportation and other learning. Many States have also EDSAT Institute held seven regional infrastructure—dependent markets, formed distance learning consortiums. meetings last summer. Through these once an infrastructure is in place the But until all the users are aggregated meetings they recognized the need to market will expand beyond our cur— on & national level, they will not have aggregate the education market for rent expectations. erough market power to attract com— distance learning and concluded that A dedicated satellite system will mercial intérest for a telecommunica— an education programming users orga— tbring instructionel programming tions infrastructure to facilitate dis— nlzation was needed. NETO has & dis— which is now scattered across 12 to 15 tance learning growth. tinguished board of educators, public satellites Into one place in the sky. Aggrezation is not the only hurdle policy officials, State education agen— This colocation will allow educators to that the education sector faces. They cies, and telecommunications experts receive & variety of instructional pro— are also limited by short—term plan— who are committed to the goal of de— grams without having to constantly re— ning. As we all know, education budg— veloping an integrated telecommunica— orient their satellite dish. By making ets are formulated primarily at the tions system dedicated to education. State and local levels, and they are the investment in a dedicated system The first step, that of acquiring & dedi— done on an annual or biannual basis. cated satellite, is what we are facilitat— on the front end, we are reducing dis— Since funding levels are uncertain ing through Federal loan guarantees. tance learning costs for educators on from year to year, educators and ad— Some have asked why NETO is the State and local levels. The pro— ministrators find it difficult to enter needed. They have suggested that the grammers will benefit because they into long—term agreements. In the sat— Public Broadcasting System [PBS] is will be able to market their program— ellite market, these small, short—term alrzready in place and could meet the in— ming to & wider audience and will be users are considered occasional buyers. frastructure needs of the distance guaranteed reliable satellite time at an As occasional buyers, educational learning community. This is not an at— affordable rate. A rate that will be users must pay high commercial rates tempt to replace PBS; I am a support— equal no matter how much time they for service that is often undependable er of their mission and have spoken on buy. Programmers include public because they are subject to preemp— a number of occasions in support of schools, colleges, universities, State tion. In today‘s satellite market, occa— their efforts to expand educational agencies, private sector corporations slonal buzers would not form a basis programming. What we must keep in and consortiums, such as the Star on which satellite vendors could offer mind, however, is that PBS and NETO Schools consortiums, and independ— dedicated service. A satellite vendor have very different missions. PBS is in ents. The users will benefit because operates much like a shopping mall the business of broadcasting. PBS pro— their investment in equipment to re— developer. Before they build and vides programming and has acquired ceive instructional programming may launch a satellite, they go out and pro— satellite time in order to deliver its be reduced because of the technologi— cure contracts from users who can own programming. In contrast, cal advantages of focusing on one guarantee their use of a majority of NETO‘s focus is on the distribution of point in the sky. Users include pri— the transponders for the life of the distance learning, much of it live and mary and secondary students, college satellite, 10 to 12 years. In doing this, interactive. NETO itself will not gen— and university students, professionals itey often look for a anchor tenart, a erate programming. NETO‘s sole con— interested in continuing education, large user like HBO for example, and cern is the creation of an infrastruc— community members, and government then fill up the rest of their capacity ture which will distribute instructional bodies. The benefits far outweigh the with smaller users. Clegrly, the educa— programming created by others at an costs in my mind. tion sector is not in a position to satis— equitable price to all users. A dedicated educational satellite will ty these commercial practices and mac— Although NETO will aggregate the allow our kids to benefit from equal quire for themselves a satellite dedi— market so that it will be of sufficient access to quality education. This is cated to educational use. size, the education sector still faces really just a first step. Both NETO So, how can the Federal Govern— the problem of being a short—term and I believe that a telecommunica— ment help the education sector build a user. Educators cannot enter into the tions infrastructure for use by the telecommunications infrastructure? 5— or 10—year commitments that satel— educational sector should not be tech— Or more specifically, how can the Fed— lite vendors look for in long—term nology specific. I plan to continue vral Government help the education users. This legislation solves that pushing for passage of S. 1200 to make sector acquire a satellite dedicated to problem by offering Federal loan guar— & national broadband fiber—optic net— education? Well, we could just zo out antees to NETO so that they can, in work & reality. NETO‘s vision is for an and appropriate the money to buy & turn, offer the satellite vendors the integrated, nationwide telecommunica— sateliite, but which I think would be lorg term commitment they need. Our tions system, & transparent highway very expensive and unnecessary. In— proposal basically guarartees the that encompasses land and space, over stead we have the opportunity to enter vendor an anchor tenant. Without which educational and instructional into a public/private partrorship that guarantee, it is likely that even resources can be delivered. They envi— which I think is the appropriate route an aggregated education market would sion bringing together the land—based to take. The legislation we are intro— be able to secure an long—term lease or systems that are already in place, not ducing says that the Federal Covern—. purchase arrangement with a satellite repiscing them. This is an inclusive :nent‘s ro‘e is to take the risk from the vendor. effort, not an exclhisive one. I hope private sector in order to encourege the If this legislation passes, the Federal that my colleagues will join me in fevelopment of a dedicated satellite Government will be setting a national making this & reality. system. A non—profit, public corpora— policy in support of & telecommunica— Technology has transformed every tion representing educsational users of tions infrastructure for distance learn— sector of our lives. It can transform all levels will Investigate all practical ing. A policy that will cost the govern— education as well. It will not replace means to acquire the most cost—effec— ment relatively little compared to the teachers, it will empower them with tive, high quality communications sat— benefits our Nation will receive better teaching tools. It will inspire cllite system and report to the Secre— through improved education and edu— our young people to actively engage in

S 4036 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE March 20, 19 their education. It will expose them to piration dates and the date of enact— VA‘s authority to establish resear the world around them and broaden ment of this legislation, and, finally, corporations until December 31, 199 their horizons. Our Nation‘s children extend an expired requirement for VA ANNUAL REPORT OH FURNISHING HEALTH CA: deserve no less. to submit to the Congress & report on Sectin 19011(eX1) of Public Law < Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, satellite (tis use of certain health care authorl— 272, as amended, required VA technology can expand educational op— ties. submit to the House and Senate Vet portunity for students in areas with RECLIONAL OFFICE IN THE PHILIPPINES ans‘ Affairs Committees, not la teacher shortages in important sub— Mr. President, section 315(b) of title than February 1, following the end jects—such as foreign languages, 38, United States Code, authorizes VA math, and science. We should capital— the fiscal year covered by the repc to maintain a regional office in the annual reports on the furnishing ize on technology‘s potential for Republic of the Philippines. Pursuant hospital care in fiscal years 1‘ supplementing curriculum, without al— to this authority, VA operates an through 1991. Section 4 of the : lowing it to in any way replace stu— office in Manillia. This authority ex— would amend that requirement so dents‘ one—on—one interaction with pired on September 30, 1991. teachers. to extend the reporting requirem: Section 1 of the bill would extend through fiscal year 1992. I am pleased that Western Illinois this authority until March 31, 1994, University has been a leader in using CONCLUSION and would expressly ratify any actions satellite technology for teacher devel— Mr. President, as I mentioned at taken by VA to maintain the regional outset., my intention is to seek Ser. opment programs and student instruc— office in Manila between October 1, action on this measure in the r tion, particularly in rural and low— 1991, and the date of the enactment of iIncome areas. Clearly. it is in our best future and then to work with our this legislation. interest to expand this type of pro— leagues on the House committee CERTAIN VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION AND gramming, so that schools across the ensure its prompt enactment. TRALNING PROGRAMS country can provide their students Mr. President, I ask unanimous c with a similar opportunity. Mr. President, section 2 of the bill sent that the text of the bill be pr I am pleased to join Senator Burns would extend certain temporary voca— ed in the Recorp at this point. in sponsoring this bill. tional rehabilitation and training pro— There being no objection, the grams and authorities which expired was ordered to be printed in By Mr. CRANSTON (for himself on January 31, 1992. These specific Rrcorp, as follows: and Mr. Srecter): programs and authorities are as fol— lows. First, section 1163 of title 38 pro— 5. 2378 S. 2378. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to extend certain vides for a temporary program of trial Be it enacted by the Senate and Hou Representatives of the United State authorities relating to the administra— work periods and voluntary vocational America in Congress assembled, tion of veterans laws, and for other rehabilitation evaluations for veterans SECTION 1. AUTHORITY OP SECRETARY oF v; purposes; to the Committee on Veter— receiving VA compensation at the ANS AFFAIRS TO MAINTAIN TH: ans‘ Affairs. total—disability rate based on a deter— GIONAL OFFICE IN THE PHILIF; ADMINISTRATION OP VETERANS LAWS mination of Individual employability. (a) Extensron.—Section 315(b) of ti e Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, as Second, section 1524 provides for pro— United States Code, is amended by str the chairman of the Committee on grams of vocational training for cer— out "September 30, 1991" and insertir Veterans‘ Affairs, I have today intro— tain non—service—disabled wartime vet— leu thereof "March 31, 1994". erans who are awarded VA needs— (b) Errectivs DatE.—The amend: duced S. 2378, legislation which would extend certain expired Department of based disability pensions. Third, sec— made by subsection (a) shall take effe of September 30, 1991. Veterans Affairs authorities. I am tion 1525 provides for a program of (c) Rarirication or Marerenmancs joined in introducing this measure by time—limited protection of VA health Orrics Duzring Larsep Prrion.—Any a the committee‘s ranking minority care eligibility for a veteran whose en— of the Secretary of Veterans Affair member, Senator Sescoter. titlement to pension is terminated by maintaining a ent of Veteran. Mr. President, last fall, at the close reason of income from work or train— fairs Regional Office in the Republic o of the first session of this Congress, ing. Each of these provisions would be Philippines under section 315(b) of tit United States Code, during the perio« the Senate was precluded from acting extended until December 31, 1992, so on H.R. 2280 as passed by the House as to enable the committee to receive ginning on October 1, 1991, and endit the date of the enactment of this / on November 25, 1991, with amend— and review VA evaluations on the ef— hereby ratified with respect to that p ments to an earlier version of that leg— fectiveness of each program or author— SEC. 1. AUTHORITIES RELATING TO CERT\® islation that the Senate had passed on ity. Provisions in the bill would ratify PORARY PROGRAMS. > November 20. Among other things, any actions taken by VA under these (a) Prockax ror Triar Worxk Prrio: that compromise included provisions authorities between their expiration VocaTI0ONAL REHABLLITATION.—S— which extended some then—expired or and the date of enactment. 1163(aX2XB) of title 38, United States soon—to—be expiring VA authorities. RESEARCH CORPORATIONS is amended by striking out "Janua: In an effort to obtain expeditious 1992" and inserting in lieu thereo!f "C Mr. President, subchapter IV of ber 31, 1993". action extending these authorities, we chapter 73 of title 38 suthorizes VA to (b) Procrax or VocaTIONaL TrRaist® have included in this legislation only establish at its medical centers non— New PrExsion RecirigwtTs. ~S& extensions of various expired provi— profit corporations to provide a flexi— 1524(aX4) of such title is amended by sions. In the near future, I will seek ble funding mechanism for the con— ing out "January 31, 1992" and insert Senate action on this measure and duct of medical research at VA medi— lieu thereof "December 31. 1992". then will work with Chairman Moxt. cal centers. This subchapter also re— (c) Prorectio® or Hmaith—cars Eu: comEry and other members of the ITYy.—Section 152%bX2) of such ti quires VA to dissolve any such corpo— House committee to secure its prompt amended by striking out "January 31. ration that fails to obtain, within 3 and inserting in lieu thereo{ "Deceint enactment. years after establishment, recognition 1992". DESCRIPTION OF PROVISIONS from the Internal Revenue Service as (d) Errecrive Dats.—The amend Mr. President, this measure would a tax—exempt entity under section made by subsections (a) throux«h (c) extend VA authorities in three areas— 501(cX3) of the IRS code. Finally, this take effect as of January 31. 1992. the authorities to maintain an office subchapter requires any research cor— (e) Rartricarion® or Actions °D in the Philippines, to conduct certain poration to be established no later Larsep Prraiop.—The following acti vocational rehabilitation and training than September 30, 1991. the Secretary of Veterans Affairs dur: period beginning on February 1. 1y programs, and to establish research Section 3 of the bill would extend ending on the date of the enactment corporations—which I will describe in from 3 to 4 years the time period after Act are hereby ratified with respect : more detail in a moment, ratify any establishment that a research corpore— period: actions taken pursuant to these now— tion has to obtain IRS recognition &as & (1) A fallure to reduce the disabilit; expired authorities between their ex— tar—exempt entity and also extends of a veteran who began to engage in

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Susan M. Tanner, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing "Application for Review" was served by first class mail this 20th day of April, 1992, on the following: Lewis J. Paper, Esquire Keck Mahin & Cate 1201 New York Avenue, NW. Penthouse Washington, D.C. 20005 Susan M. Tanner


Document Created: 2015-02-27 16:12:30
Document Modified: 2015-02-27 16:12:30
© 2025 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC