U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

27–033 PDF 2006

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

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota 

FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas

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 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota 

FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas

ANDREW RICHARDSON, Staff Director 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Minority Staff Director 

NANCI E. LANGLEY, Minority Deputy Staff Director 

EMILY MARTHALER, Chief Clerk 

(III)

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

(1)

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. 

2

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 inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:02 Aug 30, 2006 Jkt 027033 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\27033.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
3

1The prepared statement of Mayor Williams appears in the Appendix on page 25. 

volved 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. 

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 

4

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 

5

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 

6

lack of a State university system that the rest of the country enjoys 

by allowing our high school college-bound students to attend outof-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. 

7

1The prepared statement of Ms. Stroup appears in the Appendix on page 32. 

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. 

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 inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:02 Aug 30, 2006 Jkt 027033 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\27033.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
8

1The prepared statement of Mr. Hoffman with an attachment appears in the Appendix on 

page 35. 

creased 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. 

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 relationVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:02 Aug 30, 2006 Jkt 027033 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\27033.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
9

ship 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 

10

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. 

11

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 selfgovern, 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 

12

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 publicprivate 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? 

13

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 

14

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 

15

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 publicprivate 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. 

16

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 

17

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 

18

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 transVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:02 Aug 30, 2006 Jkt 027033 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\27033.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
19

ferred 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 caseby-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 GovernVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:02 Aug 30, 2006 Jkt 027033 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\27033.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
20

ment 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 

21

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 DepartVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:02 Aug 30, 2006 Jkt 027033 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\27033.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
22

ment 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. 

23

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.] 

(25)

A P P E N D I X 


27033.001
26


27033.002
27


27033.003
28


27033.004
29


27033.005
30


27033.006
31


27033.007
32


27033.008
33


27033.009
34


27033.010
35


27033.011
36


27033.012
37


27033.013
38


27033.014
39


27033.015
40


27033.016
41


27033.017
42


27033.018
43


27033.019
44


27033.020
45


27033.021
46


27033.022
47


27033.023
48


27033.024
49


27033.025
50

Æ


27033.026