<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>