SUBMITTED QUESTIONS Senator HUDDLESTON. Before concluding, I wish to submit a series of questions to have you answer for the record. [The following questions were not asked at the hearing but were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:] QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR HUDDLESTON TRIPLER ARMY MEDICAL CENTER, HAWAII Senator HUDDLESTON. The Tripler Army Medical Center in Hawaii has been the subject of some controversy in recent years. Please give us a brief history of this project as well as what is involved. General BECKER. An addition/alteration project was programed by the Army for Fiscal Year 1980. However, due to other priorities in what was a very austere budget year, the project was slipped. At that time a decision was made to split the required work into two separate and complete projects. This approach made good architectural sense and was in keeping with Congressional guidance for funding large dollar military construction items. The Fiscal Year 81 project will provide large addition to house the "core" functions of the facility such as surgery, intensive care, labor and delivery, and clinics. The seond project, currently programed for Fiscal Year 1983, will upgrade the existing building, including most of the bed areas, to current fire codes and life safety standards. Both projects are greatly needed if Tripler is to continue in its role as the Pacific Regions' only Federal Medical Center. Senator HUDDLESTON. Is this project incrementally funded? General BECKER. We are proposing two separate projects, both of which are sorely needed. Senator HUDDLESTON. What can we look for in the next few years for Tripler? General BECKER. A project to renovate the existing bed areas, making them more functional and in compliance with fire and safety codes, is currently programed in Fiscal Year 1983 at an estimated cost of $68 million. Senator HUDDLESTON. Since Tripler serves the entire Pacific area not only for Defense, but for the Veteran's Administration and the Public Health Service, was any consideration given to making this project a jointly funded venture? General BECKER. This was considered but rejected since these agencies as well as other non-Defense users reimburse DOD for services received. Senator HUDDLESTON. Please explain how treatment is paid for by other than DOD personnel. General BECKER. Treatment is paid on a fee-for-service basis according to a rate schedule established by DOD. SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS Senator HUDDLESTON. Gentlemen, thank you very much. I appreciate your testimony. The subcommittee will stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair. [Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m., Friday, April 18, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.] MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1981 TUESDAY, APRIL 22, 1980 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 3 p.m. in room 1224, Everett McKinley Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Inouye presiding. Present: Senator Inouye. CONGRESSIONAL WITNESSES DALLAS NAVAL AIR STATION, TEX. STATEMENT OF HON. MARTIN FROST, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM TEXAS BUDGET REQUEST Senator INOUYE. Our subject this afternoon is the fiscal year 1981 military construction program for the Guard and Reserve components. The Guard and Reserve now constitute almost 30 percent of our fighting force and they have assumed many new missions traditionally performed by the Active Forces. The fiscal 1981 budget request for these components is some $206 million, which is a substantial increase over the $100 million requested and the $120 million appropriated for the current fiscal year It is nevertheless $10 million less than the amount requested in January because of the March budget revision. We will first hear from Congressman Martin Frost, who asked to testify on a problem at the Dallas Naval Air Station in Grand Prairie, Tex. Our witnesses will then include the Chief of the National Guard Bureau and the Chiefs or their representatives of the various Reserve components. We will also be receiving testimony from the Reserve Officers Association and the National Guard Association of the United States. Since there are so many witnesses and since much of the questioning will be generic in nature, I think we could expedite matters by receiving all the statements and then proceeding with questions. PREPARED STATEMENT We are pleased to have with us today the distinguished Congressman from the State of Texas, Martin Frost. Welcome, sir. Without objection your prepared statement will be made a part of the record The statement follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARTIN FROST, M.C. I would like to request your consideration in adding $4,000,000 to the Naval Reserve Military Construction budget for FY 81 to begin the process of acquiring property for the creation of a "clear zone" adjacent to the Dallas Naval Air Station in Grand Prairie, Texas. Several years ago, the Department of the Navy conducted a series of AICUZ (Air Installation Compatible Use Zone) Studies to determine the level and effect of noise and safety hazards associated with the operation of military air installations and the existing land use patterns in the areas surrounding the runways of the installations (SECNAV Instruction 11011.0, 1973). In April 1978, the Department published the AICUZ study for NAS Dallas which concluded that noise and safety problems associated with the normal operations of the facility create problems severe enough to warrant the recommendation that the residences and commercial structures currently within a 100-acre clear zone be purchased by the Navy (NAS Dallas AICUZ Study, pp. v-10). This area presently includes an elementary school, a fire station, approximately 37 single-family dwelling units, approximately 98 duplex dwelling units, an apartment building, and fourteen commercial/ industrial establishments. Even though this recommendation initially caused considerable public controversy in Grand Prairie, the city council in February 1979 went on record in support of the recommendation and requested my assistance in securing the funding necessary to resolve the matter at the earliest possible date. The Navy, however, has been reluctant to assign budgetary priority to the resolution of the AICUZ recommendations including extensive property acquisition and, as a result, the City and the residents of the clear zone area have been placed in a very awkward economic position. Continuing to delay implementation of this recommendation is creating a real and substantial hardship on the homeowners presently in the area. The net effect has been to effectively destroy the private market for their homes, making it impossible for most to relocate voluntarily. Complicating the problem is the fact that as the fair market value of the homes rises, the acqusition of the property within the zone by the government becomes a more and more expensive proposition. During 1979 I contacted officials within the Department of the Navy on several occasions attempting to determine what the prospects were of having the entire amount required for the project included in their military construction budget requests for either FY 81, 82 or 83. (Copies of all correspondence between my office and the Department are attached.) The final official word from the Navy came in a letter dated December 19, 1979: Unless there is a change in the acquisition priorities in This year I began the process of attempting to secure an add-on to the MCNR budget and on February 27 testified before the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities, seeking authorization for an appropriation for the entire amount, which at that time was estimated at $14,000,000. Following my testimony, Chairman Nedzi again contacted the Department of the Navy on the matter and they submitted a supplement to the record in which they altered the total estimate of the project and proposed that the subcommittee consider authorizing funding for the project on a segmented basis: $4,000,000 for FY 81; $13-15,000,000 for FY 82; and $3-5,000,000 for FY 83. The Navy also advised the subcommittee at that time that they were assigning DNAS second priority nationally for resolving AICUZ studies for naval reserve facilities. I On April 2, I testified before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction requesting their consideration of appropriating $4,000,000 for FY 81 for this project as per the Navy's recommendation. expect a decision from Congressman Nedzi's Armed Services Subcommittee on the question of authorization for this amount by the first week in May, so that the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction can complete its work in time for the May 15th deadline for floor consideration. I recognize that authorization is required by the Senate Armed Services Committee before this subcommittee can act on this request; and I'm hopeful that this will be accomplished this year in time for you to consider this request for FY 81. I would like to add that the City of Grand Prairie has taken measurable steps to improve the situation with restrictive zoning. The City is attempting to restrict any further development which may be incompatible with AICUZ objectives. Unfortunately, however, the 100 acres in question were developed many years ago and already include established structures. The Navy's supplement to my testimony to Chairman Nedzi's subcommittee noted that the City is cooperating on the zoning question and conforming to the AICUZ recommendations. I do not feel that my request for immediate assistance with this problem is premature. I have devoted a considerable amount of time and energy over the past year toward attempting to work through the Department of the Navy. Please be assured that I am aware of the competing interests and budgetary constraints associated with planning for and funding military construction projects for naval reserve facilities. However, there are some very serious questions surrounding this situation that should be addressed: 1) If, in fact, the safety and noise considerations are so serious 2) If the Navy is confident about its conclusion, it is grossly I feel that the status quo is unacceptable. In the interests of fairness and safety, I hope that you will give this request for this $4,000,000 add-on for FY 81 every possible consideration. CorrespondenCE The Honorable Martin Frost Dear Mr. Frost: This is in reply to your letter of October 4th requesting clarification of the Navy's recommendations for land use within the clear zone and the problems associated with financing the high noise exposure areas defined in the AICUZ study for NAS Dallas. Areas of mutual agreement appear to exist.. There are three basic factors that the AICUZ study addresses - noise exposure, accident potential exposure and height restrictions near the airfield. All of these factors are involved in the questions that have been raised by the City Manager of Grand Prairie. Land use recommendations for all areas within the AICUZ footprint are described in detail in the study itself but are summarized for the clear zone, noise zone 2 and noise zone 3 in enclosure (1) for ease of reference. As you know, the recommendations contained in the AICUZ study are made to the local government officials for their consideration in the develop |