Buck McKeon

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes, and I want to ask him a question.

Mr. McKEON. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I stand in opposition to H.R. 3021, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. The name of this bill is a mouthful but seems harmless enough, the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act. It sounds like a program to ensure good schools, safe schools, environmentally friendly schools. It sounds pretty good to me. It is when we look a little closer that the real goal becomes clear. This is a bill that puts us on a path toward Federalizing the building and maintenance of our Nation's schools. It is about feeding bigger government and giving Washington more control over what happens in States and local communities. We are talking about an estimated $20 billion over the next 5 years handed out to States and schools so that we can exercise control over how they build their schools. Maybe a school has a leaky roof. The Federal Government is happy to pay to get it fixed; but instead of spending $1,000 on a repair, we tell the school it has to spend $100,000 on a new roof that meets our hand-picked environmental standards. And Big Brother doesn't stop there. We also link this funding to the Depression-era Davis-Bacon Act, meaning that construction projects under this bill must pay so-called prevailing wages. The problem is, prevailing wage calculations are critically and fundamentally flawed. Sometimes they are higher than market rates and other times they are lower. Take plumbers, for instance. I have a chart here that shows in a sampling of cities plumbers paid Davis-Bacon wages could be paid anywhere from 70 percent below the market rate to 77 percent above the market rate. Davis-Bacon requirements drive up the cost of Federal projects by 10, 15, 20 percent, and sometimes more. These are costs that get passed on to the taxpayers. Moreover, these requirements force private companies to do hundreds of millions of dollars of excess administrative work each year. So already we are talking about a new $20 billion program to fund an inefficient construction mandate that allows bureaucrats here in Washington to tell our neighborhoods and small towns and big cities exactly how their school buildings should be built, from the materials they use to the contractors they hire. Madam Chairman, I would like to know where that $20 billion is going to come from. When we were in the majority, we heard no end to the complaints from the other side of the aisle that we were underfunding No Child Left Behind and the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. I am proud of our record of strong support for these programs, but it is true that they are not funded at their authorized level. It was true when Democrats were in the majority up until 1995, it was true when we were in the majority even though we doubled the payments there, and it is still true today with Democrats back at the helm. The reality is that neither party has funded these programs at their authorized maximum. If we have $20 billion to spend on our schools, shouldn't we invest that in keeping the promises we have already made? We are looking at $6.4 billion authorized for this program next year alone. Do you know what that could do for title I or IDEA? We could increase special education funding by almost 60 percent in 1 year. We could bring title I funding to more than $20 billion. I don't know whether we have the money to spend on this program; in fact, I think we probably don't. But if we have it, we have a duty to spend it on programs that help improve academic achievement for disadvantaged children. I also think it is ironic that we are here today proposing a program to build more schools when districts around the country are struggling just to pay for the fuel it takes to transport children and operate, heat, and cool the schools we already have. Like the rest of the country, our schools are being squeezed by the high price of gasoline. Rising fuel prices are taking a real toll on our Nation's schools, just as on our Nation's families and individuals. Beyond diesel fuel and heating oil, schools are faced with higher supply costs, fewer field trips, and costlier school lunches. First it was community colleges forced to move to a 4-day school week; now, even K-12 school systems are reducing the number of school days because of the pain at the pump. Unfortunately, that is a problem for which the Democrats are offering no answers. Madam Chairman, this is a bad program created based on a flawed premise. Yes, there is a need for school construction and modernization. It is a need that is best handled at the State and local level where they can be responsive to each community's unique needs. The Federal role in education has been limited to target interventions that help provide a more level playing field for children who might otherwise be left behind. That is where our focus should remain. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. I am privileged to yield at this time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren) 3 minutes.

Mr. McKEON. I agree with the gentleman. I just don't think it should be the Federal Government's responsibility to go into the local communities and tell them what type and how to build their schools, who should build their schools and how much they should spend. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. I yield myself such time as I may consume, Madam Chairman. The purpose of this amendment is to gather information about the types of floors that schools may be installing with funds provided under this massive new federally funded school construction program. Like the rest of the bill, it simply misses the point. If our goal today is to address the problems facing our Nation's schools, we shouldn't be talking about floors or bicycle racks. We should be talking about how to bring down the price of gas. High gas prices are hitting schools hard. They're driving up costs for nearly every aspect of a school's budget, from transportation to school lunches and from utilities to supplies. What we should be debating is how to address the skyrocketing cost of energy. Instead, we're talking about creating a $20 billion program that allows bureaucrats in Washington to tell our communities how to build their schools. The Federal Government has had a history of investing in our Nation's schools, but it's not the floors and the walls and the plumbing and the light bulbs where we focus our investment. Rather, it's the students themselves. Our role, the role of the Federal Government, is to support programs that help improve student academic achievement. We know that disadvantaged children, children with disabilities, English language learners and our vulnerable populations have too often been left behind by our educational system. Our job is to ensure all children are given the opportunity to receive a high quality education. That means learning from a highly qualified teacher and being held to the same high academic standards. I know how important safe and healthy schools are, and that's why States are spending some $20 billion each year on the building and modernization of schools facilities. If we really want to meet the needs of our schools, we should be doing two things: We should be maintaining the Federal focus on student achievement, and we should be talking about how to bring down the cost of energy to help schools, families, businesses and our economy. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. As the gentleman that just spoke said, we cannot drill our way into energy independence. I agree, because over the past 12 years, every time we have had a vote to give us an opportunity to explore and find more oil to get us past the gap to where all these other things that they are talking about will work, 91 percent of House Republicans have historically supported the increase of production of American-made oil and gas, while 86 percent of House Democrats have historically voted against increasing the production of American-made oil and gas. Ten years ago when we passed an energy bill that would let us drill in the ANWR which would reduce gas prices now 70 cents to $1.60 a gallon, and that would be in production now and we would be receiving that benefit, President Clinton vetoed that bill. So, yes, we can't drill our way out of it. We have to sit here and buy oil from countries around the globe that want to see us destroyed, and I don't see how we possibly can continue to go on putting ourselves in that position. We need to find new energy, and we need to do it now. Madam Chairman, as I said, I will not oppose this amendment. I oppose the underlying bill for many, many reasons. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment allows funding under the massive new program to be used for renewable energy generation and heating systems in schools. Clearly, this amendment recognizes that schools are grappling with the high cost of energy, and they need help. I couldn't agree more. But we are acknowledging that schools, like the rest of the country, are being burdened by the skyrocketing costs of gasoline, diesel fuel, and other energy sources. I'd like to know why we are not having a real debate about energy solutions. Giving schools a little bit of money for renewable energy generation and heating systems, while ignoring the problem of rising gasoline, diesel, and other energy costs, will not solve the problems our schools are facing. In the Northeast, for instance, we know that many schools rely on home heating oil during the winter months. Clearly, a one-size- fits-all approach isn't going to work. What we need are comprehensive energy solutions. We need to expand production here at home, something my friends on the other side of the aisle have historically opposed 86 percent of the time. We need to encourage innovation and invest in new fuel alternatives, and we need to promote conservation. Only by embracing meaningful energy reforms will we finally be able to move toward energy independence and provide our schools, especially those impacted by the skyrocketing costs of heating oil, much needed relief. That is why I am so disappointed in this legislation. It's quite simply the wrong solution to the wrong problem. If the question is how should the Federal Government help our schools, the answer is by funding programs that promote academic achievement for disadvantaged children. If the question is how should the Federal Government help schools burdened by high energy costs, the answer is by taking decisive action to increase energy production here at home, and red tape and regulations encourage next generation energy sources and promote conservation. The bill achieves none of these goals. I won't oppose passage of this amendment, but I strongly oppose passage of this legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment, although I don't expect to oppose its passage.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McKEON. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. McKEON. We would love to have you on the committee, and I think that you're asking the right questions.

Mr. McKEON. I notice the chairman has left, but I wanted to just correct the record a little bit. I've been here 16 years. I know he's been here over 30 years. But when we won the majority in 1994, at that point IDEA was funded at about $2 billion. It was passed in 1976. At the time, we made a commitment, those who were in the Congress at the time made a commitment, that the Federal level would be funded at 40 percent. At that time in 1976, $2 billion would have funded at 40 percent. The Democrats were in charge from 1976 to 1994. They got it from a few hundred million up to $2 billion in that time. We won the majority in 1994, and we increased the funding from $2 billion up to over $10 billion in the following 12 years. Now, to go back to talk about the surplus and the deficit. In 1994, we ran on the Contract With America, and we made a pledge to the American people that if we were given a chance, given the majority, we would balance the Federal budget in 7 years. Actually, we did it in 4 years. That's how we got that surplus. But then in 2000, President Bush came in. There was a recession when he took office. We had 9/11 in 2001, which took us into a war footing, and you know, when you're at war, you spend more money, and that's how we've gotten the deficit. But all of that aside, back to the basic premise of why we should be working to fully fund IDEA. What a problem that is to not provide fully funding for these children that need help with their special disabilities. We made a strong commitment. We took it from the 7 percent that they were funding it when they were in the majority, and they had been there for 18 years prior to that. We had 12 years. We got it up to over 17, 18 percent in that period of time. So I don't think if you want to talk about commitment and who was putting the money where, we were doing it. All we're saying now is if they can find another $6 billion, why not put it to the children with disabilities rather than fund a brand new program that really is the State and local responsibility. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. McKEON. I would be happy to yield that. You're a man of conviction and I think you are a strong supporter of IDEA, and we've worked together well on these things in the past. I just think right now we have kind of a divergence where we're talking about a new program that could be used to fully fund IDEA, and we just have a difference then on that opinion.

Mr. McKEON. I yield myself an additional minute. I did have an amendment saying that we should first spend the money for the title I. That was where the Federal Government first got involved, helping underprivileged children, close the gap between the minorities and those that were doing better in their school, 14 percent gap. And we have spent billions of dollars, over $85 billion, to try to close that gap, and we haven't done it, and we're still short on that funding. And then the disabilities, the students that we all feel need more help, why, if we can come up with another $6 billion, don't we put the money for these children that need the help the most? I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, for our Nation's schools, the spike in energy prices means that it costs more to fuel the buses that carry children to and from school. It costs more to heat and cool their facilities. It costs more to buy books and supplies. It costs more to provide school lunches and snacks. The list goes on. School budgets are being overwhelmed by rising energy costs, and they need relief. The majority refuses to unveil its commonsense plan to bring down skyrocketing gas prices. On January 4, 2007, when the Democrats took charge of this House, gas prices stood at $2.33 a gallon. Seventeen months later, gas costs 71 percent more, and yet their plan remains a secret. We're turning a blind eye to the burden of high energy costs in our Nation's schools, and instead taking up a bill that usurps State and local rights and responsibilities, undermines efforts to fund programs for disadvantaged children, imposes complex and costly requirements, and offers little more than a Band-Aid for the very real need for school construction and modernization. Madam Chairman, I strongly oppose this legislation. Just yesterday we received a Statement of Administration Policy indicating that if this legislation were presented to the President, his advisers would recommend that it be vetoed. The Federal Government has a role to play in education. That role is to provide support and assistance to ensure that all children are provided a quality education. It's to support the academic achievement for disadvantaged children, children with disabilities, and other at- risk students who might otherwise be left behind. We all want our communities to have safe, modern, environmentally friendly schools in which our children can live and thrive, but this bill is the wrong way to achieve that goal. States, local communities and the private sector are all actively engaged in the construction and maintenance of school facilities all around the country. At least $20 billion is being spent by the States each year to build new schools and modernize those already in use. If we have $6.4 billion to invest in education next year, let's put it into programs that serve underprivileged and disadvantaged children. Programs are already there. Whether it's title I or IDEA or even Pell Grants to help low-income students attend college, there are existing programs that could use these resources to improve academic achievement and directly benefit those who need help most. I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I oppose this amendment, Madam Chairman, for the same reason I oppose the underlying bill. This proposal radically shifts the Federal role in education. This new school construction program will compete for funding with other critical priorities like title I and IDEA. And no matter what the other side tries to tell you, every dollar spent under this legislation is a dollar that won't be spent improving academic achievement for disadvantaged children. Here in Congress our job is to set priorities. Are we really saying that it's more important to fund bicycle racks, as this substitute would do, than it is to provide funds for schools to serve children with disabilities? I don't deny that schools can use bicycle racks, but I challenge anyone to explain why that's a priority for scarce Federal dollars when title I and IDEA continue to be funded below their authorized level. I also think this entire debate is a distraction from the most immediate financial concern facing many school systems and every family in this Nation: That's the high price of gasoline. School districts are struggling just to fill the tanks on their school buses. They're scaling back field trips and activities. And some schools are even moving to a 4-day school week to save on energy costs. Just like the rest of the country, our schools need energy relief and they need it now. But we're not here today to discuss how we can produce more American- made energy. We're not here to promote new clean and reliable sources of energy like advanced nuclear and next-generation coal. We're not even here to encourage greater energy efficiency by offering conservation tax incentives to Americans who make their home, car, and businesses more energy efficient. Instead, we are proposing a big government program to exert Federal control over how States and local communities build their schools. It's the classic Washington approach to problem solving: If we just kick in a little bit of money, we'll be able to wield our power and influence over the decisions that used to be made by individual citizens and local leaders. Surely Washington must know best when it comes to where our children learn. Madam Chairman, I oppose this amendment, I oppose this legislation, and I oppose the fact that Congress has yet to do anything to address the skyrocketing cost of energy. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. McKEON. Let's talk about the things we deal with when we're not here in Congress. You have children. I have children. We have grandchildren. And I try to think about our children and grandchildren sitting at the kitchen table, and they have a little different rules that they have to operate under. You know, we have a Federal responsibility that we have taken upon ourselves, and we will fund 40 percent of IDEA. We're up to about 17 percent. We said that we'll fund title I. We're way short of where we should be on that. If, say, you have a grandson or granddaughter, maybe they've bought a motorcycle and they have a commitment to pay $100 a month on a motorcycle. And maybe the daughter is going to school and has a commitment to pay a couple hundred dollars a month on that. Family is sitting around and they say, you know, we're a little short, we don't have quite enough to pay the motorcycle bill this month, we don't have quite enough to pay the school bill this month, but why don't we go out and buy a motor home, because the family would benefit from that; it would be a good thing. We could have good quality time that we could spend together, and we don't have the money for that. That's kind of what we're talking about here, isn't it?

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. I thank the gentleman for yielding and I rise in opposition to this rule. Schools around the Nation are facing an immediate funding shortfall, but it's not a lack of funds for green facilities maintenance. Mr. Speaker, like the rest of us, they're struggling with gasoline prices. For local school systems, energy represents a significant share of their budget. They pay for the fuel to operate the buses that drive children to and from school. They pay to heat their schools in the winter and cool them in the summer. They pay for electricity to light their classrooms and power their computers. And with the national average for a gallon of regular gasoline reaching $3.98 today--now, that might have been at the start of debate. It could be $3.99 or $4 now the way it's going up. In California, it's much higher than this already--these energy costs are consuming an increasing share of overall school budgets. For schools, rising energy costs don't stop with school buses and utilities. The cost of fuel makes almost everything more expensive, from books and supplies to the food that goes into school lunches. So, yes, our schools do have an immediate need, and we ought to be on the floor addressing that need today. We should be taking action on comprehensive energy legislation that will increase production, drive innovation, and promote conservation. Unfortunately, that's not what we're going to do today. Instead, the House will consider a bill that fundamentally changes the Federal role in education. I'm talking about legislation that begins the process of Federalizing the building and maintenance of individual schools in communities across this Nation. Agree or disagree with what this bill is trying to accomplish, no one can deny that what's being proposed is a significant, perhaps even monumental, shift in education policy. In keeping with the pattern established by the majority, it is no surprise then that this bill is being brought up with limited opportunity for debate and amendment, after being rushed through an abbreviated committee process. Of the 20 amendments submitted by Republicans, just four were made in order. That's one in five. Not surprisingly, members of the majority party fared a little better. Of the eight amendments they offered and did not withdraw, fully half of them were made in order. Several others were combined with amendments that were accepted or added to the manager's amendment, making sure that in the end virtually all of their concerns are going to be addressed. We can do better than this. We should do better than this, but after a year-and-a-half under this iron-fisted majority, I know better than to expect better. So much for the most open Congress in history. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I submit the following: Requesting Member: Congressman Howard ``Buck'' McKeon. Bill Number: H.R. 5658--The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. Account: Operations and Maintenance, Air Force. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Edwards Air Force Base. Address of Requesting Entity: Edwards AFB, CA 93524. Description of Request: At my request, a project authorization for $700,000 is included in the National Defense Authorization bill for FY 2009 to make several sites managed by Edwards Air Force Base safe. Several isolated range tracking sites located near Edwards Air Force Base (EAFB), including Site T-6, A-11, and A-12 as well as the Ely, NV, Radar Site, have become attractive nuisances provoking unauthorized civilian entry onto the sites. Foundations and shelters at the site have been the target of graffiti. Shell & shotgun casings are found lying on the ground in large numbers. The extent to which hazardous materials, such as Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM) and lead-based paint may have been used in the construction of these facilities is not known. EAFB requires the continued use of T-6, A-11, and A-12 sites. This portion of the project will construct approximately 8,500 LF of chain link fence, 6-feet high with 3-strand barb wire outriggers, with lockable gates to prevent unauthorized entries into each of the sites. Additionally, an EAFB-owned radar site near Ely, Nevada (known as Ely Radio Annex), is no longer used and this project will demolish 5 buildings totaling approximately 7,500 SF, including their foundation slabs, an antenna tower, several concrete pads and fixtures, including transformers, guard rails, vaults, tank supports, power poles, stairs, fencing, and antenna pads. Requesting Member: Congressman Howard ``Buck'' McKeon. Bill Number: H.R. 5658--The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. Account: Research Development Test and Evaluation, Air Force. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Advatech Pacific, Inc. Address of Requesting Entity: 950 E. Palmdale Blvd., Suite C, Palmdale, CA 93550. Description of Request: At my request, a project authorization for $3,000,000 is included in the National Defense Authorization bill for FY 2009. The funds will be used for the continued operation of the Advanced Vehicle Propulsion Center (AVPC), which provides the Air Force with a unique, world-class engineering modeling and simulation environment for analysis and engineering of current and future space vehicles, missiles, and advanced weapon concepts. The AVPC leverages and integrates the best engineering, analysis, and cost tools from government, industry, and academia. The AVPC directly supports analyses of alternatives, the fundamental first step in the formal DOD weapon systems acquisition process and plays a key role directly supporting the following Air Force Research Laboratory programs at Edwards Air Force Base: Prompt Global Strike, Common Aero Vehicle, Operationally Responsive Space for strategic and tactical commanders, and Conventional Ballistic Missile. AVPCs detailed technical engineering analysis also provides cost versus risk trade-off analysis across missions, systems, operations, and infrastructures. Requesting Member: Congressman Howard ``Buck'' McKeon. Bill Number: H.R. 5658--The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. Account: Research Development Test and Evaluation, Air Force. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Northrop Grumman Corporation. Address of Requesting Entity: 1840 Century Park East, Los Angeles, CA 90067. Description of Request: At my request, a project authorization for $10,300,000 is included in the National Defense Authorization bill or FY2009 for Moving Target Kill/Small Diameter Bomb (MTK/SDB II) integration on the B-2 to enhance the B-2's ability to dynamically and precisely engage mobile targets deep in hostile territory. The current Air Force Integrated Capability Requirements and Risk Assessment (I- CRRA) identified the need to improve joint, collaborative operations capabilities to effectively engage a wide range of high-threat targets: Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive (CBRNE) targets, moving and relocatable targets, underground targets, and air defense targets. This additional funding will address many of these critical needs. Approximately $2,000,000 is intended for UAI Design Architecture; $2,000,000 for MDU-R CDR; $4,300,000M for MDU-R Prototype #2; and $2,000,000 for Displays System Requirements. Requesting Member: Congressman Howard ``Buck'' McKeon. Bill Number: H.R. 5658--The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. Account: Research Development Test and Evaluation, Air Force. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Aerojet-General Corporation. Address of Requesting Entity: P.O. Box 13222, Sacramento, CA 95813- 6000, USA. Description of Request: At my request, a project authorization for $3,000,000 is included in the National Defense Authorization bill for FY2009 to return the Hydrocarbon Boost Technology Demonstrator program to its initial programmed funding level. This critical, next-generation liquid rocket engine development effort run by the Air Force Research Laboratory at Edwards AFB will not only provide the highest performing hydrocarbon engines ever developed in the United States, but also will provide higher operability, lower costs and greater safety with higher reliability than any liquid booster engine ever made in the U.S. and perhaps the world. Since the federal government is the primary end- user, it is logical that federal funding support the initiative. While a match is not required, during the past eight years, Aerojet has invested approximately $30 million in internal research and development funding on this technology and intends continued support in FY09. Requesting Member: Congressman Howard ``Buck'' McKeon. Bill Number: H.R. 5658--The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. Account: Research Development Test and Evaluation, Army. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Pacific Scientific Energetic Materials Company. Address of Requesting Entity: 24908 Avenue Kearney, Valencia, CA 91355, USA. Description of Request: At my request, a project authorization for $2,500,000 is included in the National Defense Authorization bill for FY2009 to develop a MIL-STD-1901A-compliant Micro Arm Fire Device for DoD Rocket Systems, which will significantly improve the safety, reliability and performance of rocket, missile, and pyrotechnic arming and fuzing systems for the Department of Defense. Approximately $800,000 is intended for design and engineering; $400,000 for materials; $700,000 for manufacturing and assembly and $600,000 for qualification and environmental testing. The Army has determined that there is a federal interest in micro arm fire devices to increase the safety of DoD rockets, missiles, munitions and pyrotechnics. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Army Research, Development, Testing and Evaluation account. This is the first year funding will be needed to advance the technology. Pacific Scientific Energetic Materials Company has provided $500,000 of internal R&D funds for this technology. Requesting Member: Congressman Howard ``Buck'' McKeon. Bill Number: H.R. 5658--The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. Account: Research Development Test and Evaluation, Army. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Curtiss-Wright Controls Embedded Computing. Address of Requesting Entity: 28965 Avenue Penn, Santa Clarita, CA, 91355 USA. Description of Request: At my request, a project authorization for $4,800,000 is included in the National Defense Authorization bill for FY2009 to develop a Common Ground Combat System electronic architecture prototype which will include replacement of legacy military standard based data-bus components with modem commercial standards based network centric capable components, the consolidation of obsolete electronic subsystems into common electronic modules and assemblies providing greatly reduced space, weight, and power consumption and the implementation of a two-level maintenance approach using newly standardized commercial electronic module technology. Approximately $100,000 is intended to be spent on program management, $300,000 is for an electronics obsolescence study, $350,000 is for an electronics commonality study, $1,000,000 is for a design concept development, $2,600,000 is for design concept demonstrators, and $450,000 is for a heavy brigade combat team Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA) application report. The advantage of this approach to the Department of the Army is an evolutionary capability migration allowing the Future Force to operate with the current force. This project can be completed in FY09. Requesting Member: Congressman Howard ``Buck'' McKeon. Bill Number: H.R. 5658--The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. Account: Research Development Test and Evaluation, Navy. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Aerojet-General Corporation. Address of Requesting Entity: P.O. Box 13222, Sacramento, CA 95813- 6000. Description of Request: At my request, a project authorization for $2,500,000 is included in the National Defense Authorization bill for FY2009 to fund the risk reduction necessary following a successful test flight of the High Speed Anti-Radiation Demonstration (HSAD). Specifically, approximately $1,000.000 will be spent for Navy program management, $800,000 for tactical missile component design development and analysis, $2,450,000 for lightweight ramjet engine component testing, $750,000 for ramjet engine safety engineering and analysis, $600,000 for the guidance system conceptual design, and $400,000 for operational analysis. The basic HSAD program focuses on demonstrating the feasibility and viability of using variable flow ducted rocket propulsion technology for the propulsion portion of planned advanced weapon systems. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the account and the project is under the direction of the Naval Air Warfare Center. Requesting Member: Congressman Howard ``Buck'' McKeon. Bill Number: H.R. 5658--The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. Account: Military Construction. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Edwards Air Force Base. Address of Requesting Entity: Edwards AFB, CA 93524. Description of Request: At my request, a project authorization for $6,000,000 is included in the National Defense Authorization bill for FY09 to fund the replacement of the main base runway at Edwards Air Force Base. The runway, which supports almost every flight operation at Edwards is over 50 years old and is rapidly degrading as a result of Alkali-Silica Reaction (ASR), a reaction between the cement and the aggregate that creates map cracking, scaling and spalling of the concrete, Increased sweeper operations and Foreign Object Damage (FOD) walks are necessary to eliminate concrete chunks several inches across that are routinely discovered. Emergency FOD repairs have forced runway closures affecting 10 to 15 flights for each closure. Pavement Condition Index (PCI) numbers are dropping rapidly, which is indicative of pavements nearing the end of their useful life. The runway will soon fail functionally and will no longer be safe for aircraft operations. In early FY03 the runway was evaluated by a tri-service team of experts who rated the pavement condition along the centerline as marginal, with portions predicted to be unsatisfactory within the next year. Functional failure of the runway is expected in 2008. No other runways at Edwards AFB can safely support the current and projected test operations without significant test mission delays. Temporary relocation of these missions is not feasible. However, many of the current and planned test missions can be supported by a temporary runway. This project was programmed in 2003 for FY06, and was incrementally funded over 3 years (FY06, FY07 and FY08). After the project was programmed, the cost of construction materials escalated dramatically, eliminating all management reserve, and resulted in a reduction in the planned scope of the project. In FY08 Congress increased the funding for the project by $8,500,000; however, this was not enough to account for a completely unforeseeable increase in number and extent of site conditions. In particular, over 730 drums containing a ``tar-like'' substance had to be disposed of as hazardous waste and over 41,000 cubic yards of both unsuitable and unstable soil had to be stabilized. A final project phase has been created to complete the remaining work, and this phase has a programmed cost of $6,000,000. Funding for this phase in FY09 will avoid contractor demobilization and remobilization, and will avoid reconstitution of the temporary runway to support this work. This alone saves the government over $4,000,000 in cost avoidance.