<DOC> [109 Senate Hearings] [From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access] [DOCID: f:27033.wais] 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 <all>