    [Senate Hearing 109-511]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                          S. Hrg. 109-511

       ENHANCING EDUCATIONAL AND ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY IN THE DISTRICT OF
                                    COLUMBIA
    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                      OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT,
                     THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE AND THE DISTRICT
                            OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE

                                     of the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                             HOMELAND SECURITY AND
                              GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                           ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                               FEBRUARY 28, 2006

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
                            and Governmental Affairs

                                     _____

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    27-033 PDF              WASHINGTON : 2006
    _________________________________________________________________
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
    Printing  Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free
    (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail:
    Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001

            COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                       SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Chairman
    TED STEVENS, Alaska                  JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
    GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio            CARL LEVIN, Michigan
    NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota              DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
    TOM COBURN, Oklahoma                 THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
    LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island      MARK DAYTON, Minnesota
    ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah              FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
    PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico         MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
    JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia

               Michael D. Bopp, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
       Joyce A. Rechtschaffen, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
                          Trina D. Tyrer, Chief Clerk

       OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE AND THE
                       DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE

                      GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio, Chairman
    TED STEVENS, Alaska                  DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
    NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota              CARL LEVIN, Michigan
    TOM COBURN, Oklahoma                 THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
    LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island      MARK DAYTON, Minnesota
    ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah              FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
    PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico         MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
    JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia

                       Andrew Richardson, Staff Director
                  Richard J. Kessler, Minority Staff Director
                Nanci E. Langley, Minority Deputy Staff Director
                          Emily Marthaler, Chief Clerk

                                C O N T E N T S

                                     ------
    Opening statements:
                                                                       Page
        Senator Voinovich............................................     1
        Senator Akaka................................................    11

                                   WITNESSES
                           Tuesday, February 28, 2006

    Hon. Anthony Williams, Mayor, District of Columbia...............     3
    Hon. Sally L. Stroup, Assistant Secretary for Post-Secondary
      Education, U.S. Department of Education........................     7
    Paul Hoffman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife
      and Parks, U.S. Department of the Interior.....................     8

                         Alphabetical List of Witnesses

    Hoffman, Paul:
        Testimony....................................................     8
        Prepared statement with an attachment........................    35
    Stroup, Hon. Sally L.:
        Testimony....................................................     7
        Prepared statement...........................................    32
    Williams, Hon. Anthony:
        Testimony....................................................     3
        Prepared statement...........................................    25

                                    APPENDIX

    Questions and answers submitted for the Record from:
        Mayor Williams...............................................    44

                       ENHANCING EDUCATIONAL AND ECONOMIC

                          OPPORTUNITY IN THE DISTRICT

                                  OF COLUMBIA

                                  ----------

                           TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2006

                                         U.S. Senate,
                        Oversight of Government Management,
                                The Federal Workforce and the
                             District of Columbia Subcommittee,
                                       Committee on Homeland Security
                                              and Governmental Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in
    room 342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. George V.
    Voinovich, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Voinovich and Akaka.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH

        Senator Voinovich. This hearing will come to order.
        Today the Subcommittee on the Oversight of Government
    Management, the Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia
    meets to discuss legislation intended to enhance educational
    and economic opportunity in the District of Columbia.
        As Chairman of this Subcommittee, I understand the special
    relationship between the Federal Government and the District of
    Columbia. Congress shares the responsibility of ensuring that
    the Nation's capital provides a decent quality of life for its
    citizens and reflects the best in America, a shinning city on
    the Hill. People all over the world should come here and it
    should be a model for the rest of the world.
        The Subcommittee is currently considering three bills, two
    of which I have sponsored. They are S. 2060, a bill to extend
    the District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999, S. 1838,
    the Federal and District of Columbia Government Real Property
    Act of 2005, and H.R. 3508, the 2005 District of Columbia
    Omnibus Authorization Act of 2005.
        Since becoming Chairman of the Subcommittee, I have made
    enhancing educational opportunities in the District a top
    priority. It is important that we ensure that the students in
    the District develop their god-given talents so they can take
    care of themselves, their families, and make a contribution to
    society. As a former Mayor, I understand how important a good
    education system is to the vibrancy of a community.
        S. 2060 continues an effort that we began in 1999 when I
    worked with House members, and Senators Jeffords and Durbin, to
    craft the District of Columbia College Access Act, which led to
    the creation of the District of Columbia Tuition Assistance
    Grant Program. The aim of this program is to assist District
    students who do not have access to state-supported education
    systems, in attending college. Since the program's inception,
    the District has seen a 28 percent increase in college
    attendance, many the first in their family to attend college.
        I get goose bumps thinking about that. I have worked on
    many pieces of legislation during my time in the Senate. I must
    tell you that one of the highlights of my career is the
    sponsorship of the D.C. Tuition Assistance Grant program. It
    has meant so much to the District and particularly to those
    students who didn't have the opportunity to attend college.
        Mayor Williams and I were at a graduation last year. It was
    wonderful to have these youngsters get up and testify about
    what a difference the DC TAG Program has made in their lives.
        S. 2060 would reauthorize this important program for five
    more years, expand the program to private colleges and
    universities nationwide, cap the current funding level of $33.2
    million. I would point out that the original authorization
    provided for $17 million. We have really doubled the original
    authorization.
        Mayor Williams, I understand that you have some concerns
    about the bill. I look forward to hearing your remarks.
        The second bill we are here to discuss is S. 1838, the
    Federal and District of Columbia Government Real Property Act
    of 2005. Under this legislation, the Federal Government would
    transfer land to the District of Columbia to be put to better
    use, specifically economic development. The vast majority of
    the conveyance is contained in three large parcels at or near
    the Anacostia River: Poplar Point, Reservation 13, and several
    acres of land near the Robert F. Kennedy Stadium.
        I had the opportunity to spend a couple of hours with the
    Anacostia Waterfront Corporation. I was also very impressed
    with their planning. I was very impressed with what I saw. I
    see the potential that is there. This land could be a terrific
    asset to the District.
        The bill also would transfer buildings and property located
    on the west campus of Saint Elizabeth's Hospital and several
    smaller properties from the District of Columbia to the Federal
    Government.
        Conveying these parcels of land to the District would free
    the Department of Interior and General Services Administration
    from managing property of little value to the Federal
    Government. Additionally, the District would gain the ability
    to spur economic development in Southeast Washington (similar
    to the Chinatown and MCI area in Northwest DC), to better
    address the needs of its citizens and increase the local tax
    base.
        Finally, we will examine H.R. 3508, the D.C. Omnibus
    Authorization Act of 2005. The bill was introduced in the House
    on July 28, 2005, and passed the House on December 14, 2005.
    The bill would authorize a variety of District of Columbia
    decisions and policies that require congressional approval, as
    the matters involved amend the Home Rule Act or other Federal
    laws affecting the District of Columbia's municipal governance.
        We have three excellent witnesses with us today to discuss
    these bills. First, we have Mayor Anthony Williams. We
    appreciate your being here today. It is hard to believe that it
    has been almost 8 years since we first met. You came to
    Cleveland for a couple of days, and as a former mayor, I tried
    to show you the successful public-private partnership that we
    had developed in Cleveland. Mayor, you have done a very good
    job with public-private partnerships and you should feel proud
    of the record that you have made during your terms as Mayor.
    All of us are anxious to see what kind of successor the people
    in the District decide that they are going to elect. I think
    that you set a real standard for the District, and we are
    hopeful that we can get someone of your quality that will
    continue the leadership and build on the base that you have
    built.
        We also have Paul Hoffman of the National Park Service, and
    Sally Stroup of the U.S. Department of Education. Thank you
    both for testifying today.
        Senator Akaka is going to be here in a few minutes. We will
    start with the testimony of our witnesses, and when Senator
    Akaka gets here, we will then give him an opportunity to make
    his opening statement.
        If you would all stand, we have a custom of this
    Subcommittee to swear in the witnesses.
        Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give this
    Subcommittee is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the
    truth, so help you, God?
        Mayor Williams. I do.
        Ms. Stroup. I do.
        Mr. Hoffman. I do.
        Senator Voinovich. Mayor Williams, I am looking forward to
    your testimony. You are on.

     TESTIMONY OF THE HON. ANTHONY WILLIAMS,\1\ MAYOR, DISTRICT OF
                                COLUMBIA

        Mayor Williams. Good morning, Chairman Voinovich, and thank
    you for your kind words, and I want to also thank Ranking
    Member Senator Akaka, and other Members of the Subcommittee
    with whom we have worked. Thank you, one, for your partnership
    with the City. I remember 7 or 8 years ago visiting with you to
    Cleveland as part of my effort to visit what I thought were
    well-managed cities, Cleveland being one of them, New York,
    Indianapolis, Philadelphia, and it really has, I think, allowed
    us to, and I think you put it very well, Senator, establish a
    base for my success. There is still an enormous amount of work
    to be done, but I think we have made significant progress. I
    thank you for you role in that.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Mayor Williams appears in the
    Appendix on page 25.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I also thank you for this opportunity to testify to three
    bills currently under consideration before you, and I have
    submitted my full testimony for the record, and wherever
    possible, I will abbreviate my oral testimony this morning.
        I want to first talk about the Federal and District of
    Columbia Real Property Act briefly. It would result in an
    exchange of more than 40 parcels of land totaling more than 220
    acres between the District and the Federal Government, and I
    want to take this opportunity to thank the Office of Management
    and Budget, particularly Director Josh Bolten, the National
    Park Service, and the General Services Administration for
    working closely with the President and with my administration
    to develop a very complex initiative. The legislation
    represents a significant step, I believe we took towards
    stewardship of the land in the District, and ultimately I think
    it is going to help us, as you suggested, Senator, build a
    world class waterfront along the Anacostia, supporting not only
    economic development but the communities that are adjacent to
    it.
        I also believe that it will allow the District to fulfill
    the legacy of planning that was inherent in L'Enfant's original
    plan for the District. Despite the evolution of our city as
    being a small federal enclave to being one of the most dynamic
    regions in the last 20 or so years, many parcels within our
    borders remain underutilized, and opportunities that have the
    potential to really expose a greatness of our city are
    untapped. The Real Property Act of 2005 is a step toward
    addressing unfinished business in the District.
        I also believe the legislation will promote economic
    development and make a more vibrant and prosperous area, not
    only for our city, but for the entire region. I know that you
    believe very strongly, Senator, that the seat of the Federal
    Government should be located in a healthy, vibrant city for the
    benefit of local citizens, for the benefit of foreign visitors,
    for the benefit of investors, and certainly for the benefit of
    employees of the Federal Government, and I believe that this
    bill would allow us to do that.
        Specifically, the 2005 Federal and District of Columbia
    Real Property Act would do two important things. It would
    transfer ownership of two key parcels of land along the
    Anacostia River, Reservation 13, and Poplar Point in order to
    achieve the urban development and environmental restoration
    goals that are outlined in the Anacostia Waterfront Framework
    Plan. As you know, Senator, with the help of yourself,
    Congresswoman Norton and others, we have actually brought
    together a number of private sector partners, nonprofit
    entities, and a number of Federal Government departments--
    including the Navy and the Department of Interior--toward
    endorsing this framework plan. Any time I think you can bring
    this far-flung group together to do anything, I think it is
    worthy of note. And by transferring these parcels, the District
    will be able to significantly enhance access to the river and
    parkland and become a destination in its waterfront consistent
    with that plan.
        Now, the second thing that the Act would do is transfer
    several small parcels of land in the vicinity of the Anacostia
    River. Many of these parcels, and I would mention Reservation
    17A along New Jersey Avenue, Southeast, are already under the
    District's administrative jurisdiction and will be components
    of ongoing neighborhood redevelopment efforts. Overall open
    space in the District will improve under the Act by renovating
    existing parkland to create more accessible green space, and I
    will give you an example. The conveyance of Poplar Point under
    the Act will grant residents and visitors easy access to the
    site which is presently hemmed in by roadways, making it
    practically inaccessible, and it also suffers from
    environmental contamination. The Congress through the
    transportation bill has funded work on the rebuilding of the
    Frederick Douglass Bridge which bounds the site. So this would
    be consistent with congressional action already undertaken.
    This site is right across the river from the proposed, and I
    hope soon-to-be-implemented, new baseball stadium on the river.
        Now, conveying title to Federal property in the District
    will not harm the Federal Government, I would add, since
    virtually all of this has no Federal activity at the moment.
    For example, Reservation 13, which is commonly known as the
    site of D.C. General, across East Capitol from RFK, hasn't been
    used by the Federal Government in 157 years; whereas, we
    believe if we had title to the property, we could implement a
    plan to create a vibrant mixed-income community.
        There would be economic benefit to the Federal Government,
    we believe by this, because transferring property to the
    District is going to provide more contiguous park preservation,
    and the National Park Service can speak to this, but I think it
    will make their job easier and allow them to take costs that
    are avoided and put them into other key strategic initiatives
    consistent with the plan of the Park Service and Secretary
    Norton.
        The Real Property Act of 2005 will also provide a sound
    economic benefit to the Federal Government by resolving
    millions of dollars in litigation claims brought by the
    District against the Federal Government. These claims are the
    cause of legal action for the failure, we believe, to reimburse
    the District for costs associated with Saint Elizabeth's
    Hospital. We would waive that as part of this package.
        Finally, I want to emphasize that this Act will provide the
    Anacostia Waterfront Corporation with the tools it needs to
    proceed on implementation of the Anacostia Waterfront
    Initiative. This is an initiative that has been endorsed
    implicitly, for example, by the Administration in a series of
    bills that have funded parts of Anacostia Waterfront
    Initiative. It is consistent with Council legislation. It
    reflects a careful balance, as you know as a mayor and governor
    what you have to do between commercial, residential, recreation
    space, or public amenities in any kind of situation like this.
        Senator, I want to speak on the College Access Act. I
    believe, just to begin with, that the College Access Act is
    something that the Congress ought to be particularly proud of
    because it has been very successful and it is something that
    was sponsored and initiated by the Congress. In fact the
    District of Columbia Tuition Assistance Program has been a
    tremendous success, as you recalled Senator, since its
    inception in School Year 2001-2002. For the most recent school
    year, for example, 2004-2005, 4,754 students received funding
    from the TAG program.
        Recognizing the success of the program, the President
    requested and Congress approved $33.2 million to continue the
    program in 2006. By continued support for this successful
    program, the Administration certainly understands the
    importance and value it has brought to young college-bound
    residents of the District of Columbia, who would not have had
    an opportunity to attend a 4-year institution without this
    successful program.
        The TAG program, as it is called, is a marquee Federal
    initiative established by the Congress. It compensates the
    District for our lack of a State university system that the
    rest of the country enjoys by allowing our high school college-
    bound students to attend out-of-state public universities, as
    you know. Now, unfortunately, the program's costs have
    continued to grow rapidly due to two things, both outside of
    our control: One, rising tuition costs nationwide; and, two, a
    good thing but it has had a financial impact--rising program
    participation.
        The program provides grants up to $10,000 annually for
    District students to attend eligible colleges and universities
    at in-state tuition rates. It provides grants of up to $2,500
    for students to attend private institutions in the DC
    metropolitan area and private historic black colleges and
    universities as well as public 2-year community colleges. In
    2005, our students were enrolled in universities and colleges
    in 45 States across the country, the District, and the U.S.
    Virgin Islands.
        Now, the program has had many successes. In June 2004, the
    program graduated its first class. The second class graduated
    in June of last year, and you referred to that, Senator. For 75
    percent of the students surveyed at Woodson High School in the
    District, TAG affected their decision to pursue post-secondary
    education, and 65 percent of these students have said that the
    program has also affected their school choice. Also important
    to me is that 55 percent of the participants are first members
    of their immediate family to attend college.
        Now, while I welcome changes to the program that would
    expand benefits and eligibility, any change would have to be
    considered within the context of the overall viability,
    financial viability, of the program. Expanding participation to
    all private schools would, for example, provide many more
    options to District residents, but it would also extend the
    current fiscal challenges faced by the program.
        In recent years, as I mentioned earlier, costs have risen
    dramatically for the program because of rising participation
    and tuition costs. I appreciate the Congress' broad support for
    these increased needs, and I understand that the Congress is
    concerned about costs exceeding available Federal funds. There
    are several options that are available to address these costs
    which I have to be, as a realist, willing to explore. Some that
    have been mentioned are making a pro rata cut in each
    participant's grant award, restricting the number of
    participating colleges and universities, reducing the maximum
    amount awarded, or making the program need-based. I have to
    say, though, Senator, that all such options are very attractive
    to me because this has been a very successful program, and I
    think that these options would detract from its success, and I
    would hope to keep the existing program in tact to the greatest
    extent possible.
        When you think of a program initiated by the Congress that
    invests in college matriculation and successful graduation and
    you look at the costs that are avoided by the District at the
    local and State level and by the Federal Government in
    everything from substance abuse, criminal justice system, and
    penal institutions, I think it is a very easy case to make that
    the overall program return on investment by this strategic
    congressional initiative ought to be realized and the program
    continued.
        Once again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity
    to testify. I look forward to answering any or all of your
    questions.
        Chairman Voinovich. Thank you, Mayor. Ms. Stroup.

     TESTIMONY OF THE HON. SALLY L. STROUP,\1\ ASSISTANT SECRETARY
       FOR POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

        Ms. Stroup. Good morning. Thank you for inviting the
    Administration to testify today, Mr. Chairman. I am here to
    testify on behalf of the District of Columbia Tuition
    Assistance Grant Program.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Stroup appears in the Appendix on
    page 32.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Administration shares Mayor Williams' goal of bettering
    the lives of residents of the District of Columbia through
    improved educational opportunities. We appreciate his efforts
    on behalf of the elementary, secondary, and post-secondary
    students in the District. The Administration strongly supports
    the reauthorization of the District of Columbia College Access
    Act of 1999.
        As you noted and the Mayor noted, it was designed to
    provide eligible college-bound students living in the District
    with greater choices among institutions of higher education.
    Its accomplishing its goal. The numbers are pretty staggering,
    I think, when you talk about the growth in the program in the
    short time it has been in existence. I do think we need to give
    credit to the Mayor and the City Government for their work in
    implementing this program. They have been managing this program
    since its inception and they have worked to administer it on
    behalf of the residents of the District. As with any new
    program, it takes a lot of hard work to get the program to work
    efficiently, to make sure you have all of the implementation
    kinks worked out, to make sure it is effective on behalf of the
    students. The increasing number of students who are benefitting
    in this program each year, I think, is evidence that the
    program is working on behalf of the District's residents.
        As the Mayor noted, there are more than 4,700 students
    enrolled in the program, but I think what is striking about
    that is that there are 600 colleges who are currently
    participating in the program. They have signed agreements with
    the District. As someone who works at the Department of
    Education on higher education matters, I can tell you that
    dealing with hundreds of colleges, all who have their own rules
    and procedures, is never an easy task. So the fact that the
    Mayor has been able to get all of the institutions who have
    students enrolling there willing to participate is certainly a
    credit to the District, and they should be commended for their
    hard work.
        The statistics are impressive, as we said, but I think the
    statistics you mentioned are actually more important when we
    talk about the students who benefit from this program, how many
    of them would not have gone to college if not for this program,
    and, as you noted, how many of them are first-generation
    college students. It is certainly one of the most important
    things we can do on behalf of the students in this country.
        Our budget request, as you mentioned, is at $35.1 million.
    It is an increase of $1.9 million over 2006, and we believe an
    increase is needed in order to keep pace with rising tuition
    costs and increased student participation. As the Mayor noted,
    tuition is going up. It is a fact of life. I don't see it
    changing any time soon. We track tuition increases every year
    at the Department to make sure we know what is going on. I
    think States are working on controlling tuition costs, and
    institutions know that Congress is certainly watching their
    tuition increase across the country. At the end of the day, we
    still see tuition increases anywhere from 4 percent to 9
    percent on average. That seems to have actually stabilized at
    those rates compared to days when we were seeing double-digit
    increases in tuition rates.
        As you know, 90 percent of the fastest growing jobs in this
    country require some post-secondary education. We want students
    living in the District to have an opportunity to pursue the
    education that will help them get one of those jobs. This
    program, when you add it to and think about it in the context
    of the $80 billion that the Federal Government will make
    available in Federal student aid this year, will really help
    all of our students pursue their dreams of college education.
    We do believe that is the priority of the Administration.
        That completes my testimony, and I would be happy to answer
    any questions, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Voinovich. Thank you very much. Mr. Hoffman.

     TESTIMONY OF PAUL HOFFMAN,\1\ DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
      FISH AND WILDLIFE AND PARKS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

        Mr. Hoffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Hoffman with an attachment
    appears in the Appendix on page 35.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        My name is Paul Hoffman. I am Deputy Assistant Secretary
    for Fish, Wildlife, and Parks with the Department of the
    Interior, and I am here today to testify, on behalf of the
    Department, in strong support of S. 1838, the Federal and
    District of Columbia Real Property Act of 2005. We do have some
    clarifying amendments we would like to recommend, and I will
    get to those in the course of my testimony. This is a bill that
    was submitted by the Administration last July, and I have
    submitted written testimony for the record.
        A little bit of personal background: I come from a small
    community called Cody, Wyoming where I was involved in Chamber
    of Commerce work and economic development and actually was
    engaged in getting some legislation passed for the sale of some
    land to us for the purpose of economic development. I now have
    the opportunity to represent the Secretary of the Interior on
    the Board of Directors of the Anacostia Waterfront Corporation,
    and it is a real distinct honor for me to watch landscape
    community redevelopment and revitalization and to see the plan
    that the city has put together and to have an opportunity to
    help implement that plan over time.
        There is an interesting similarity between the land
    ownership pattern in the District of Columbia, the Federal land
    ownership pattern, and the land ownership pattern in the west,
    yet there are some unique differences as well. Clearly there is
    a strong relationship between the Federal Government and the
    District of Columbia as established by the Constitution, and
    this is our Nation's capital, as you mentioned in your opening
    remarks.
        There are two major purposes to this piece of legislation.
    The first and foremost is to facilitate the shared goals of the
    Anacostia Waterfront Framework plan. Mayor Williams began the
    public planning process for this in March 2000, and the plan
    was adopted in December 2003. The D.C. Federal Agencies
    Memorandum of Agreement was set out ``. . . to contribute to
    the revitalization of the surrounding neighborhoods, provide
    enhanced park areas, develop government-owned land for the
    benefit of the people of the District and the Federal and
    District Governments, where appropriate; increase access to
    water, where appropriate; and enhance visitor participation in
    the activities and opportunities provided along the new
    waterfront.''
        A second major purpose of this legislation is to improve
    the management of National Park Service lands within the
    District of Columbia. The bill has several components, and I am
    going to focus my testimony on Titles II and III of the bill.
    Title I is the GSA transfer of the hospital which the Mayor
    spoke to. The other two titles basically break down between
    transfers of jurisdiction, which are authorized under current
    laws, and conveyance by deed, and I will clarify those as we go
    forward.
        The bill will transfer jurisdiction from the District of
    Columbia to the National Park Service for a variety of
    properties within the District that are for the most part
    platted roads that have never been built, and those roads are
    contained within other National Park Service units now, and
    this will clean up boundaries and facilitate enhanced
    management of those sites as park areas for the citizens to
    enjoy. It also includes transfer of jurisdiction back to the
    National Park Service for access that was formally provided for
    the proposed Mayor's residence that was not built. Then the
    last transfer is for the transfer of the triangle over here by
    the Capitol for the construction of the American Veterans
    Disabled for Life Memorial. There are two pieces of land set
    for transfer within the bill. We have worked very closely with
    the Architect of the Capitol and the U.S. Capitol Police on
    that, and after working with them, we determined that in order
    to address traffic concerns and pedestrian safety, that the
    south piece, the piece south of C Street, should not be
    transferred. Just the north side of C Street should be
    transferred. So that is the first clarifying amendment.
        The second set of transfers is from the National Park
    Service to the District of Columbia. This includes access to
    D.C. Public Works sites, giving DC access to portions of Canal
    Road, Fort Reno Salt Dome and leaf collection facilities,
    Eastern Market Metro, 8th and M, Southeast commercial
    development area, the Mount Vernon Square City Museum, and the
    Florida Avenue Parks. This will not adversely affect National
    Park Service management of their lands within the District of
    Columbia at all.
        Now, for the conveyance by deed, there are two properties
    proposed to be transferred or conveyed by deed from the
    District of Columbia to the National Park Service. Those are
    lands along the C&O Canal that were originally part of the
    Georgetown plan and so all were deeded in the name of the
    District of Columbia, and this would facilitate management of
    the park there, and also Needwood, Niagara, and Pitt Streets,
    which would allow improved maintenance and the removal of a
    couple of dead-end roads in Rock Creek Park.
        Conveyance by deed from the National Park Service to the
    District of Columbia includes several small parcels, a former
    DC transfer facility, the Randall School parklands, Potomac
    Avenue, Southeast triangles, Virginia Avenue, Boathouse Row,
    and Waterside Mall. Also included among those properties would
    be the Reservation 174 triangle at the former Convention Center
    site, and we would ask that a clarifying amendment be added to
    this bill to address our desire that in the planning for the
    redevelopment of the Convention Center site, that at least one
    of the options considered in that plan includes keeping the
    triangle itself as open space. It is consistent with the
    original design and triangles of the L'Enfant plan. Generally
    speaking, the plan ought to include at least that amount of
    open space retained in the redevelopment in all of the options.
    The Mayor mentioned 15 acres near RFK Stadium, and we support
    that transfer, and then there is the 100 acres at Poplar Point.
    Sixty-five acres are currently occupied by National Park
    Service facilities. Thirty-five of those acres are the former
    tree nursery for the District of Columbia and the Architect of
    the Capitol. There is a little bit of a cloud on that title,
    and this conveyance will clear that up. The bill would require
    the District to retain 70 of those 100 acres in parkland-type
    conditions, and we would like to recommend a clarifying
    amendment with respect to that, that the parkland maintenance
    be included in a restriction on the deed of conveyance.
        We also believe that there should be a provision in the
    bill to make the overall agreement third-party enforceable.
    And, last, the District of Columbia, as the Mayor mentioned,
    would assume the environmental liability associated with these
    properties.
        The bill does require the District to replace the National
    Park Service facilities at no cost, and we would ask that there
    be an amendment to clarify the bill, that those facilities
    would be provided at no cost upon the Secretary's approval, and
    that all rights, title, and interest would be transferred
    unencumbered to the National Park Service when complete.
        In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, this is a package. It was
    carefully negotiated among a number of us; OMB, the District of
    Columbia, the Anacostia Waterfront Corporation, and the
    Department of the Interior were all involved. It has been
    carefully put together, and we believe it represents a good
    package. I will not say it is an equal value exchange, but it
    is a good package that represents benefits for both the
    District of Columbia and the National Park Service. A healthy
    DC economy, a healthy environment, and the good healthy
    community is beneficial to the Federal Government, its leaders,
    its employees, and the visitors to our Nation's capital.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Voinovich. Thank you very much, Mr. Hoffman. We
    are pleased that Senator Akaka has joined us.
        Senator, would you like to make an opening statement.

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA

        Senator Akaka. Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        I first want to welcome all the panelists, Mr. Mayor, Ms.
    Stroup, and Mr. Hoffman.
        May I apologize for being late. I was in the press
    conference on Katrina and telling the story of the devastation
    that I saw there--this was about 5 months ago--all of the good
    people that have come back and restored the energy and
    infrastructure as well as the energy distribution there, and
    also to make a commitment that I would continue to support the
    efforts to help the Gulf Coast. That is why I was a little
    delayed, and I thank you for being so patient, and I want you
    to know that in my time here in the Senate, I have enjoyed
    working with our Chairman and look forward to the tough
    assignments that we have facing us in the future.
        So I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this
    hearing, and we know that it is this Subcommittee's
    responsibility to oversee the management of DC without
    intruding on the right to self-govern, commonly referred to as
    D.C. Home Rule. We want to be sure that there is that
    understanding.
        I am proud to be a cosponsor of the S. 2060 which
    authorizes the District of Columbia Tuition Assistance Grants
    Program, As a Federal City, DC does not have a State university
    system such as the University of Hawaii system, which has 10
    campuses and educates over 50,000 students every year. To fill
    this need, DC TAG provides funding for DC residents to attend
    colleges and universities across the country. DC TAG has
    increased college enrollment in the District by 35 percent
    since the year 2000. As a former educator, I firmly believe all
    Americans should have access to a college education, and I am
    pleased to support a bill which helps to make that happen.
        Under the District of Columbia College Access Act, the
    Mayor has authority to implement cost-saving measures to the DC
    TAG program in order to keep the overall cost of the program
    closely to the originally authorized amount of $17 million.
    However, the program has exceeded the authorized amount by
    almost 50 percent. This increase means that most students are
    attending college, which pleases me; however, we need
    assurances that the costs of this program will not continue to
    grow so quickly. I understand, Mr. Mayor, that you do not want
    to restrict DC TAG, but it may be necessary. What you will do
    to ensure that the costs for DC TAG stabilize is a question we
    would like to have answered.
        So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Senator.
        Thank you all for your testimony. I would like to start by
    pointing out that this Subcommittee and Congress have been very
    sensitive to the needs of education in the District. Mayor,
    because of your backing we have now have $14 million for a
    voucher program in the District. We have $14 million for
    charter schools, and we increased the District's money for
    public education to $14 million. One of these days, I would
    like to hear how those programs are working in the District.
        I am particularly interested in the voucher program.
    Because I supported this program, I didn't get the endorsement
    of the Ohio Education Association even though several years
    ago, they said that no governor had done more for education
    than myself. I do believe in the voucher program, and I am very
    proud that the program we instituted in Cleveland went to the
    U.S. Supreme Court, and they ruled that it was constitutional.
        Mayor Williams, do we have the folks responsible for
    managing the DC TAG program here today? Would you introduce
    them? I understand they are doing an outstanding job.
        Mayor Williams. Yes. We should recognize Deborah Giss as
    the State educational officer for the District. She is actually
    a former teacher. She revived volunteer efforts in the
    District. She has done an extraordinary job. She is sitting
    right there, and she is responsible for the program overall as
    State education officer. And John Parham is the Director of the
    TAG program itself.
        Senator Voinovich. I am glad that you are here today. I
    understand that you have done an outstanding job of
    administering the program. Thank you very much for your
    leadership and good work.
        As we discuss DC TAG, we must point out the private sector
    support for this program. We have a public-private partnership
    here. The D.C. College Access scholarship program was modelled
    after the Cleveland scholarship program and has been very
    successful. Mayor, how many of the DC TAG students also receive
    the DC CAP scholarships? Do you have that statistic available?
        Mayor Williams. I can get you that exact number. It is a
    very high number. I actually think that one of the tremendous
    attributes of this program is the way that it has leveraged a
    public-private partnership, and I will give you just one
    example. People ask me, the people I am supporting for
    ownership of this baseball team, and my primary reason for
    supporting one group over another is that some key members of
    this group have been very instrumental and pivotal in the
    college access program. I think it is a tremendous example of
    directed focus, productive philanthropy working with
    government.
        Senator Voinovich. I want to congratulate the private
    sector involvement for supporting this program. I understand
    through the grapevine that there is probably going to be an
    increase, a substantial increase, in the amount of the
    scholarships that are available to the students in the
    District, and I think that is just great.
        That is the other side of this program, Senator Akaka, that
    this is not exactly the yeast that raises the dough. In
    addition to the money we are putting in this program, we do
    have the private sector who is participating significantly to
    help these youngsters that need more help than what is
    available through the DC TAG program.
        Mayor Williams, the bill as we have introduced it, expands
    the program to private schools nationwide. There are several of
    my colleagues in the Senate who feel that if we are going to
    have private schools available, that it should go beyond the
    District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia, and historic black
    institutions that are private. I would like to know what you
    think about the expansion impact it would have on the program.
    In the alternative, would you suggest that maybe we limit the
    participation of private schools in the program to just those
    that were originally in the program, those in the District,
    Virginia, and Maryland? Could we hear from you on that?
        Mayor Williams. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would prefer to see
    the program remain according to its original parameters with
    the private colleges limited to the immediate area, because we
    have seen that this is really reflective of the original
    development of the Act. It really is informed by what the
    students' choices actually are.
        I also want to mention or make a point here that I think
    when you consider the two costs that are driving this program,
    one, tuition increase and, two, the attendance and the
    enrollment. While we can't control the tuition costs, we
    believe that the enrollment is going to stabilize over the next
    couple of years once we have a full cohort of students. As
    Senator Akaka was referring to, I don't think we are going to
    be seeing these double-digit percentage increases in the
    program and the allotment for the program year by year, and I
    would prefer to control it that way and would pledge to control
    it that way, rather than changing the program in terms of
    allowing attendance at private schools across the country. From
    a programmatic point, I think, limiting the amount that we can
    offer each student or limiting the number of students because
    we only have a limited amount of money is the prefered way.
        I could get you exact figures of what we estimate the
    impact of that would be.
        Senator Voinovich. Yes. I would like to see. In other
    words, your initial reaction is that you are not supportive of
    expanding it to private schools around the country?
        Mayor Williams. One, because I think it would have a
    program impact and, two, I think the original idea implicit in
    the program--there is an exception for private schools in the
    immediate area, but the original point was the District doesn't
    have its own State university system. So it made sense to
    extend this option to students to State systems across the
    country as opposed to private schools across the country. I
    just think it is more consistent in the design and architecture
    of the program.
        Senator Voinovich. If we limit it to the original schools
    that were included in the private schools, that would mean that
    we would cut back on providing money for private HBCs.
        Mayor Williams. It could. I mean, it is a balloon, and any
    time you push on one area, it is going to affect another area.
        Senator Voinovich. The original legislation was intended to
    mimic or mirror what we do in a State. If a student goes to a
    public university, they are provided the tuition subsidy, and
    if they want to go a private school, it would be a private
    school in the District or Maryland or Virginia with the concept
    that it be much like the State. Congress later expanded it to
    include private historic black colleges.
        Mayor Williams. Twenty five thousand dollars, right.
        Senator Voinovich. I am concerned that if we limit it to
    the private schools that were in the original bill, I am sure
    we will catch a lot of flack from the private historic black
    colleges around the country. Some of my colleagues are saying,
    if you make it available to them, why don't you make it
    available to everybody else. This has been a real issue because
    the Senators felt that it wasn't fair.
        The other thing is this: I think Senator Akaka made the
    point, is we are concerned about the cost of the program. I
    know there has been some discussion that we build an
    inflationary factor in the funding of the program, possibly the
    average cost increase in tuition. I don't think I would support
    that because it is more like an open door in terms of the
    finances. Perhaps a cost of living increase would be a fair way
    of doing it.
        Is there any reaction to this?
        Mayor Williams. I can understand why the Senate and the
    Congress, in general, would want to have some kind of objective
    basis for making an inflationary adjustment and not leaving it
    kind of open-ended for the schools to develop on their own, so
    that there is negotiating pressure, and I could support the
    Congress establishing some objective yearly adjustment and then
    with the understanding we on our end would work on the
    enrollment side to keep the program roughly within bounds in
    the out years.
        Senator Voinovich. I know that there have been some efforts
    to keep the costs down. Are you currently negotiating with
    universities who have high numbers of DC TAG students attending
    to receive a lower rate on tuition.
        Mayor Williams. We are considering that as a possibility,
    because there are some universities with a number of our
    students. Basic business practice is you would want a volume
    discount of some sort. It just makes sense.
        Senator Voinovich. Thank you. Senator Akaka.
        Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I didn't
    give my full statement. I would like to have my full statement
    entered into the record.
        Senator Voinovich. Without objection.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Akaka follows:]
                      PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this hearing to review
    legislation affecting the District of Columbia. It is this
    Subcommittee's responsibility to oversee the management of DC without
    intruding on its right to self-govern, commonly referred to as DC home
    rule.
        I am proud to be a cosponsor of S. 2060, which reauthorizes the
    District of Columbia Tuition Assistance Grants program (DC TAG). As a
    Federal city, DC does not have a state university system, such as the
    University of Hawaii system which has 10 campuses and educates over
    50,000 students every year. To fill this need, DC TAG provides funding
    for DC residents to attend colleges and universities across the
    country.
        DC TAG has increased college enrollment in the District by 35
    percent since 2000. As a former educator, I firmly believe all
    Americans should have access to a college education, and I'm pleased to
    support a bill which helps make that happen.
        Another piece of legislation before us today is the Federal and
    District of Columbia Government Real Property Act, S. 1838, which will
    transfer public land between the District of Columbia and the Federal
    Government. I support the Administration's effort to alleviate a
    portion of the structural imbalance--a term used to describe the
    difference between the cost of providing basic public services in DC
    and the District's tax revenue--which the Government Accountability
    Office estimates is between $470 million and $1.1 billion, and at the
    same time better utilize land in the District.
        However, I do have some concerns about the lack of accountability
    in the bill as it is currently drafted. I am working with the Chairman
    to add provisions to S. 1838 that will enable Congress to oversee the
    District's use of the land. I thank the Chairman for his cooperation on
    this issue.
        I look forward to discussing this legislation today and I welcome
    our witnesses to the Subcommittee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

        Senator Akaka. Mr. Chairman, I have been concerned about
    some aspects of the Real Property Act, but I also support parts
    of the bill as well. In particular, I support the
    Administration's effort to alleviate a portion of structural,
    what we call the structural imbalance, which GAO estimates is
    between $470 million and $1.1 billion and at the same time
    better utilize land in the District. However, and this has been
    evident in the discussion here, I do have some concerns about
    the lack of accountability in the bill as it is currently
    drafted. I am working with the Chairman to add provisions to S.
    1838 that will enable Congress to oversee the District's use of
    the land, and I thank the Chairman for his cooperation on this
    issue.
        Mayor Williams, Chairman Voinovich and I are working on
    adding accountability provisions to the Real Property Act to
    ensure that the land is utilized effectively. Mayor Williams,
    what are your thoughts on additional language to hold the
    District accountable for carrying out its development plans?
        Mayor Williams. Well, Senator Akaka, I recognize that the
    Congress would want to maintain some oversight in the out years
    in the implementation of the land transfer. While I couldn't
    and wouldn't support the transfer being conditional, I would
    support as an accountability measure periodic reports by the
    District to Congress on the implementation of the Act and the
    accomplishment of certain agreed-upon outcome measures.
        Senator Akaka. Thank you. I would like to ask you to
    provide for the record any suggestions for language increasing
    the accountability of the District to Congress in ensuring that
    District follows through with its land development proposals in
    a timely manner.
        Mayor Williams. I will do that, Senator, and I would work
    with Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, who I understand has
    joined us, in those agreed-upon measures and timetables.
        Senator Akaka. Thank you. I would appreciate that.
        Mayor Williams, previous DC development projects have been
    slow to get off the ground or have stalled completely. How will
    you ensure that the land you receive from the Federal
    Government in the Real Property Act will be utilized
    effectively and efficiently?
        Mayor Williams. I think a couple of things, Senator. I
    think there have been some cases where some land economic
    development initiatives have slowed or stalled. There are cases
    like that in every city and there certainly are cases like that
    in the District, but I have made it a point in my
    administration over the last 7 years to create a client for
    investment in the District. We have seen some $40 million of
    investment in the District, one of the strongest if not the
    strongest office economy in the Nation, a strong retail
    economy. I think this investment has flown into the District
    because we have shown the ability to expedite a process in a
    public-private partnership to see that business goals are
    realized, and that is the same commitment and diligence that we
    would bring to the implementation of the land transfer. That is
    number one.
        Number two, we have worked with the Administration, with
    the Congress, with the cabinet agencies, community
    organizations, a multi-party partnership on the Anacostia
    Waterfront Initiative. Precisely so, we have laid the ground
    work to actually get the work done. A lot of the preliminary
    work in terms of collaboration, consultation, vision,
    development has already been done. So we are ready to hit the
    ground running now with the enactment of this bill.
        So those are two things I would say to that, Senator.
        Senator Akaka. Mayor Williams, I know my staff has received
    plans from the Anacostia Waterfront Corporation that provide a
    greater level of detail than is provided in your testimony of
    how the District intends to utilize that transferred land. So I
    would like to request that those plans be submitted for the
    record.
        Mayor Williams. Yes, sir. We can submit all that material
    for the record and will do so.
        Senator Akaka. Thank you. Mr. Mayor, you are retiring at
    the end of this year. What steps have you taken or will take to
    ensure the development plans that you just told us about will
    transcend administrations?
        Mayor Williams. Well, contrary to some opinion, Senator,
    the overwhelming majority of the legislation that I have
    submitted to the District Council has been approved. I will
    give you another statistic. The Federal funding in categorical
    terms for the District is at its greatest level since the
    expiration of the Federal payment, and I think that is because
    I have been able to build partnerships with Congress and the
    District Council, to put in place a firm climate for investment
    in the District.
        One example of this is executing and implementing the
    National Capital Revitalization Corporation; which is
    responsible for neighborhood development in the District; the
    Downtown Partnership that was responsible kicking in and
    getting started the Downtown Partnership in the District; and,
    last, working with Congresswoman Norton and, again, a cast of
    literally hundreds of people to establish the Anacostia
    Waterfront Initiative. I try to do this on a bipartisan basis.
    For example, the chairman of Anacostia Waterfront Corporation
    is a former Mayor of Indianapolis, Steve Goldsmith. I think he
    is still a Republican. I am never sure. He is the chairman of
    it. I have a number of District leaders, downtown as well as
    neighborhood, on the initiative. The initiative's ground work
    and enabling legislation has been endorsed by the Council and
    implicitly by the President in yearly appropriations, and so I
    think there has been tremendous work done to see to it that the
    vision that we will submit to you is as part of the record can
    be realized according to specific timetables that we can share
    with you working with the Congresswoman.
        Senator Akaka. Thank you so much, Mr. Mayor for your
    responses. My time has expired.
        Mayor Williams. Thank you, Senator, for support of the
    District.
        Senator Voinovich. Mr. Hoffman, listening to your
    testimony, there were a series of amendments you discussed.
    Have all of those amendments been vetted with the District, and
    is there consensus on all of them, or is there a difference of
    opinion?
        Mr. Hoffman. My understanding, Mr. Chairman, is that we are
    in agreement on all of those amendments unless the Mayor--I
    think we are all in agreement with those. If I could add to the
    Mayor's answer to Senator Akaka's question, the Act does refer
    to the greatest extent practicable, the plan is consistent with
    the Anacostia Waterfront Framework plan, and I believe that
    provides a good basis for accountability. The Anacostia
    Waterfront framework plan was a huge public planning effort,
    thousands of people involved, as the Mayor has articulated, but
    it was also subsequently backed up with a memorandum of
    agreement signed by 20 different DC and Federal agencies.
        So you have a very well-grounded, well-supported plan that
    is in place that provides the protocol and the guidance for
    implementation of this Act once passed.
        Senator Voinovich. I can assure you that I will ask those
    who are responsible to come back to the Subcommittee to update
    us on the progress of the land development. As I mentioned, I
    visited the land being transferred and the headquarters for the
    Anacostia Waterfront Corporation. I was very impressed with
    what they have planned. So often the question is whether you
    are going to get the investors to see the land developed. I was
    also pleased to see that there was a sensitivity to the people
    who live in the neighborhood, which I think is very important.
        Along that line, we received a letter, Mayor, from D.C.
    Councilman Vincent Grey who represents the neighborhood where
    the RFK property is located. It is our understanding that the
    preference for the use of this land is for a public boarding
    school, specifically the Seed Charter School. Mr. Grey
    indicates that his constituents disapprove of this land being
    used for a boarding school. Has the District had any public
    hearings on the use of this land and has the District decided
    the boarding school is going to be built there, or is that
    still something that is open to negotiation?
        Mayor Williams. I think that Councilman Grey does a good
    job, but I think the letter was premature. It is too early and
    premature to really conclude that the neighbors, and the
    citizens in the area adjoining that parcel, feel one way or the
    other. I could bring you just as many people who are strongly
    supportive of what the Seed School is trying to accomplish. I
    am very strongly supportive of the Seed School, but we are
    still in a negotiating period with the neighborhood, and so I
    think that letter is premature.
        Senator Voinovich. So you are still negotiating?
        Mayor Williams. Yes, sir.
        Senator Voinovich. Mayor, in your testimony, there wasn't
    anything in here about H.R. 3508. Are there any provisions that
    you would like to highlight? Are there any provisions that you
    have concerns about? In your written testimony you focused on
    several amendments you would like to have added to H.R. 3508.
    How important are these amendments and why weren't they
    included in the House bill?
        Mayor Williams. I can get back to you on why they weren't
    included in the House bill. I am not exactly sure why. I don't
    really have any particularly strong reservations or
    qualifications to the omnibus bill, which is why I really
    focused my testimony on the land transfer and the College
    Access Act.
        Senator Voinovich. You did focus on several amendments that
    you would like added to the bill. How important are they, and
    if we didn't get the cooperation of the House, and they
    indicate that they aren't going to be supportive of them, what
    would you say then?
        Mayor Williams. Well, for example, there is an amendment to
    Section 123. Section 123 would facilitate private sector gifts
    of money and tangible property to the District's public library
    system. The amendment which was adopted by the District's
    Council would amend congressional language contained in the
    Appropriations Act of 2003, which constrains the ability to
    give gifts to any District Government Agency except the Mayor,
    Council, public schools, and the courts. This would allow us to
    pursue direct-giving to the libraries. For example, last year
    21 computers were donated to the library system by Friends of
    the Cleveland Park Library. Many months later, did each library
    branch actually receive a computer? Well, current law requires
    a circuitous process for review and acceptance of these kinds
    of gifts. In a situation where I have put together a
    comprehensive library task force, where I have consulted with
    the First Lady on our library task force and where the
    President's budget includes a major gift to our library system
    predicated on a public-private partnership, this amendment is
    absolutely essential. It is very important to allow that giving
    directly to the libraries.
        To give you an example, Mr. Chairman, what I am really
    trying to do is really mimic the partnership that you see
    between private giving and the CAP program--incidentally,
    Angelica Rodriguez, who is the director of that program is
    here. I want to recognize her--and the DC TAG program, private
    giving and the public contribution to the library system. So
    the amendment to Section 123 is important.
        Amendment to Section 303, there is a need to amend Section
    303 of the Omnibus Authorization Act in order the address a
    problem affecting the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS).
    Annuitants who are re-employed by the District under Title V,
    an annuitant who is re-employed is subject to a salary offset.
    The District Government found that re-employed CSRA annuitants
    were receiving disparate treatment based on whether their
    original employment with the District was before or after
    October 1, 1987. Those hired before are subject to a salary
    offset, and those hired after that date are not. So we want to
    stop this disparity. It is a classic example of where an
    arbitrary date can create a real disparity and we have an
    impact.
        So those are the two amendments that I would focus and
    highlight on.
        Senator Voinovich. My suggestion is that someone from your
    office sit down with Congressman Davis, because when we start
    moving this through the Subcommittee, I wouldn't want to end up
    with a problem that would cause this bill not to become law
    this year.
        Mayor Williams. Yes, sir.
        Senator Voinovich. Senator Akaka.
        Senator Akaka. Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Because it was mentioned, I want the acknowledge the presence
    of Congresswoman Norton in the room. Will you raise your hand?
        Hi. How are you?
        Senator Voinovich. I didn't even see her back there.
        Senator Akaka. I asked her to do so because I was looking
    and I haven't seen her. Now I know where you are.
        Senator Voinovich. Usually, she is not hiding out.
        Senator Akaka. Thank you for coming to our hearing.
        Mayor Williams, it is my understanding that DC wants to
    take responsibility for the environmental clean-up of the land
    transferred from the Federal Government. How will the District
    pay for the clean-up?
        Mayor Williams. Senator, we believe that the value of the
    land to be transferred on a square foot basis is more than
    adequate to compensate the District for the cost of
    environmental remediation. As part of the overall negotiation
    with the Federal Government, this is something we were willing
    to accommodate.
        Senator Akaka. Will the District perform the clean-up
    itself or will the responsibility be passed to developers as a
    condition of purchasing the land?
        Mayor Williams. I think, Senator, it would really be on a
    case-by-case basis. In some of the negotiations with the
    developers, the developers assume the responsibility. Even
    though it is the owner's responsibility, the developer, as an
    offset to the price paid, will take care of clean-up. In other
    cases, as part of land assembly and site preparation, the
    District would do it. So it would be difficult for me to say on
    an across-the-board basis that we would do it one way or the
    other.
        Senator Akaka. I asked that because I am concerned that a
    private developer may not have the best interest of DC
    residents at heart. Can you tell me how you will oversee the
    developers to ensure the land is properly decontaminated?
        Mayor Williams. Yes, sir. We are working on a bipartisan
    basis. I put in place a Mayor's Environmental Council. Jim
    Condit, as the President's environmental advisor, for example,
    is on the Council, along with the former chairman on the other
    side of the aisle was Former Secretary of Interior Bruce
    Babbitt. So they advised me on the regeneration improvement of
    the District's environmental policies and affairs. One of the
    things we have done is to create an environmental department
    analogous to a State Department of the Environment.
        One of the things we wanted to do was to standardize and
    improve the execution and oversight of environmental
    remediation. So we now have in place an infrastructure to
    ensure that, in cases such as this, the environmental
    remediation will be successfully accomplished.
        Senator Akaka. Mayor Williams, I have mentioned that the DC
    TAG program has had management problems tracking whether grant
    recipients graduate from college and what they do and what they
    go on to do after college. Such tracking is a basic tenet of
    good grant management. Has a system been put in place to track
    the participants of the DC TAG program so that the benefits of
    this program can be better quantified?
        Mayor Williams. Yes. I understand from the director that we
    are working with a national clearing house to track our
    students as a cohort into their post-graduation years. I know
    that they are also working in conjunction with the U.S.
    Department of Education to ensure eligibility and to work in
    cooperation with the Federal Government to track the students
    who are entering the program as well.
        Senator Akaka. This hearing has been dedicated to education
    and economics. Mr. Mayor, will you please explain how you will
    ensure that the DC land that was received from the Federal
    Government economically benefits all DC residents, specifically
    low-income residents?
        Mayor Williams. Well, sir, the Anacostia Waterfront
    framework plan, which we are submitting as part of the record,
    as the Deputy Assistant Secretary was saying and as I refer to
    in my testimony, is a result of hundreds and hundreds of hours
    of effort involving literally hundreds of people, Congress,
    community people, and Federal agencies. One of the key
    components of the framework was to ensure that the benefits
    derived from regeneration of the river rebounded to the benefit
    of the adjoining neighborhoods. So they are contemplated in the
    framework with specific links between economic benefits on
    particular sites to housing, office, retail investments in the
    neighborhoods, between improvement in parkland along the river,
    to enjoyment of, and accessibility to, that parkland of
    neighborhoods along the river.
        Senator Akaka. Mr. Mayor, as the ranking member of the
    National Parks Subcommittee of the Energy Committee, I am
    concerned about the preservation of green space in the
    District. Could you please elaborate on how specifically the
    District intends to utilize the parkland set aside by the bill?
        Mayor Williams. Again, Senator, as part of the framework
    plan, we would inherit parkland and work in conjunction with
    the National Park Service. We would use that parkland to
    address a couple of key concerns. One is to ensure that by the
    maintenance of this parkland, the economic development that we
    are pursuing on the river is sustainable development. Clearly,
    the relationship to the inherited area of parkland is
    consistant with other regeneration efforts on the river, and is
    a key part of that development. For example, there is
    restoration of wetlands that is underway on the river. Part of
    that is the responsibility of the Army Corps of Engineers.
    There is combined sewage overflow clean-up, a billion dollar
    effort that we have solicited Federal help for and still need
    additional Federal help, I will say by way of an advertisement,
    of over a billion dollars to clean up the river, to ensure as a
    key theme that we have linked the difficult parcels together
    into one overall park complex.
        One thing that we worked with our Federal partners in
    doing, and the Department of the Interior and Environmental
    Protection Agency have been instrumental in this, is the
    beginning of a trail, a river walk that would link the entire
    river together on a level commensurate with what you see along
    the George Washington Parkway. If you look at a trail along the
    George Washington Parkway and you look at a trail along the
    river, they are really not comparable. You think you are in
    another world. We believe that every trail on an environmental
    basis ought to be first class in the District, and that would
    be a key component; and then, last, as mentioned earlier, to
    ensure that parkland is accessible to the residents that adjoin
    that parkland.
        Two examples of some of the things that we are doing with
    the Federal Government and Congresswoman Norton, in rebuilding
    some of the Federal infrastructure, is going to allow some of
    the residents along the Anacostia Park greater access to the
    park. The assumption of responsibility for Poplar Point will
    allow residents actual access to Poplar Point in a way they
    don't have access now. It is completely cut off by the usual
    roads, bridges, everything else.
        So those are key themes: Linkage, accessibility,
    sustainability.
        Senator Akaka. I want to really thank you, Mr. Mayor, for
    your responses. They have been very helpful.
        Mayor Williams. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Akaka. Mr. Chairman. I know my time has expired.
    May I ask just one more question to Mr. Hoffman?
        Senator Voinovich. Sure.
        Senator Akaka. Mr. Hoffman, is the Department of Interior
    satisfied with the parkland preservation requirements in this
    bill?
        Mr. Hoffman. Yes, sir, Senator Akaka, the Department of
    Interior is satisfied. I think many of these parcels of land,
    if you are to look at them, you would not think of them as
    national parks. You would not even think of them as parks. They
    have been used historically for other purposes over the years.
        The National Park Service within the District of Columbia
    fulfills a role very similar to the Bureau of Land Management
    in the west. Many of these lands are administered by the
    National Park Service, but they are not part of the national
    park system. So we do not look at this as trading out national
    parklands. It is a transfer of the administration, conveyance
    by deed in some cases, but where there is conveyance by deed,
    well, the school location by RFK is open space only that there
    isn't a building on it.
        The Poplar Point would have a deed requiring 70 of the 100
    acres to be retained as open space parkland and much of the
    land to be developed actually is being gained by the
    realignment of the bridge. So it does not constitute a loss of
    open space, and, in fact, for the National Park Service, the
    transfer back of jurisdiction of the platted roads that were
    never constructed enables us to block and manage contiguous
    units in a more park-like fashion to the benefit of the
    citizens of the District.
        Senator Akaka. Thank you.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Senator Akaka.
        This is a question for Mayor Williams and Mr. Hoffman: In
    S. 1838, there is a requirement for the District to relocate
    and replace the existing National Park Service facility that is
    located on Poplar Point before the District can develop the
    land. Has the District and the Park Service begun this
    discussion in regards to that facility? Mr. Hoffman, in your
    testimony, you mentioned concerns with the current language in
    the bill. Could you be more specific about concerns and that of
    the Park Service in regard to the facility?
        Mr. Hoffman. We have had preliminary discussions, but the
    goal in negotiating this package has been not to
    inappropriately tie the hands or reduce the flexibility of the
    City in pursuing options for the rereplacement of those
    facilities. The facilities are specifically the U.S. Park
    Police headquarters, and they have needs, but those needs are
    not necessarily tied to that specific location, and the city
    has, obviously, options for providing a replacement facility
    and location, and we don't want to unnecessarily tie the hands
    of either side in that. We want to make it very clear that the
    Secretary shall be able to approve the new facility and that it
    would be transferred to the U.S. Government at no cost to the
    Department of the Interior, and, of course, at no cost means
    without a mortgage; and those are basically the clarifying
    amendments, and we want to make sure that we have good
    communication and that we fully understand the ground rules by
    which those replacement facilities will be provided back to the
    U.S. Government.
        Senator Voinovich. Would these be new facilities or
    renovated facilities?
        Mr. Hoffman. As yet to be determined. They would be
    facilities that would be determined by the Secretary of the
    Interior to be appropriate replacement facilities. If that is
    renovated or new, we don't want to prejudge that.
        Senator Voinovich. Mayor, do you have any comment?
        Mayor Williams. We have had preliminary discussions with
    the department. I am sure we can come into agreement with
    something that is comparable with what they have over there
    now. We clearly want something a little bit better than what
    they have now over there. I would agree with Mr. Hoffman. We
    are not talking about pristine areas right now. They are really
    just land-banked areas where if you walked onto the site, you
    really wouldn't think of it is as a park.
        Senator Voinovich. The point is that, is it a condition
    precedent to move forward with the Poplar Point that this be
    resolved now, the issue of the facility?
        Mr. Hoffman. We don't believe it is necessary to resolve it
    at this time.
        Senator Voinovich. I asked this question because we have
    had an Army Reserve facility in Ohio that we have been trying
    to move since I was governor, and it has never happened.
        Mr. Hoffman. The incentive is with the District. If they
    want to pursue their Anacostia Waterfront Framework Plan, then
    they will want to move forward with the redevelopment of the
    Poplar Point land, and that will fund the replacement
    facilities as well as the environmental clean-up. So the
    incentive is all with the District to do that, and the bill
    provides that the U.S. Park Police can remain at the existing
    facilities at no cost until such replacement facilities are
    provided.
        So there is no harm to the Federal Government in this.
        Mayor Williams. I would agree with the Secretary. There is
    an enormous incentive for us to move, because, for example,
    working with the Congresswoman, Congress realigning, rebuilding
    the Douglas Bridge, re-thinking and envisioning South Capitol
    Street, the baseball stadium will be on that site, so to do all
    of that and then just everyone looking at us and saying what is
    happening with Poplar Point and then 3 years down the road, we
    are saying we still haven't moved the maintenance site, I mean,
    that is pretty embarrassing. So I think you are going to have a
    very powerful incentive to move on that and get it done.
        Senator Voinovich. I always talk about doing the doable.
    Poplar Point looks to me like it is doable. I have been down to
    see the area. Poplar Point seems to me something that could be
    developed pretty fast. So the incentive would be to try and
    work that out as soon as possible.
        Senator do you have any other questions?
        Senator Akaka. No other questions.
        Senator Voinovich. Again, I would like to thank you for
    your testimony here today, and we look forward to seeing the
    development.
        Mayor, you will be watching it, I am sure, from some other
    perspective.
        The hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27033.001

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27033.002

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27033.003

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27033.004

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27033.005

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27033.006

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27033.007

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27033.008

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27033.009

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27033.010

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27033.011

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27033.012

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27033.013

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27033.014

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27033.015

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27033.016

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27033.017

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27033.018

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27033.019

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27033.020

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27033.021

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27033.022

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27033.023

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27033.024

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27033.025

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27033.026