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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

39–553 PDF 2007

S. HRG. 110–213

MISCELLANEOUS NATIONAL PARKS LEGISLATION

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

S. 127 S. 327

S. 868 S. 1051

S. 1184 S. 1247

S. 1304 S. 1329

H.R. 359 H.R. 759

H.R. 807 H.R. 1021

SEPTEMBER 11, 2007

(

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
(II)

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

KEN SALAZAR, Colorado 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

JON TESTER, Montana 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida

ROBERT M. SIMON, Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Chief Counsel 

FRANK MACCHIAROLA, Republican Staff Director 

JUDITH K. PENSABENE, Republican Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, Chairman

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

KEN SALAZAR, Colorado 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

JON TESTER, Montana 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida

JEFF BINGAMAN and PETE V. DOMENICI are Ex Officio Members of the Subcommittee
(III)

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

Page

Allard, Hon. Wayne, U.S. Senator From Colorado ............................................... 31

Akaka, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator From Hawaii ............................................. 1

Barboza, Maurice A., Founder and CEO, National Mall Liberty Fund DC ........ 33

Burr, Hon. Richard, U.S. Senator From North Carolina ..................................... 5

Collins, Hon. Susan M., U.S. Senator From Maine .............................................. 3

Dodd, Hon. Christopher J., U.S. Senator From Connecticut ............................... 31

Engel, Hon. Eliot L., U.S. Representative From New York ................................. 22

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator From California ........................................ 29

Hicks, David, Executive Director, Arizona Trail Association, Phoenix, AZ ........ 37

Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., U.S. Senator From Massachusetts .......................... 32

Kyl, Hon. Jon, U.S. Senator From Arizona ........................................................... 2

McCain, Hon. John, U.S. Senator From Arizona .................................................. 2

Salazar, Hon. Ken, U.S. Senator From Colorado .................................................. 6

Schumer, Hon. Charles E., U.S. Senator From New York ................................... 4

Snowe, Hon. Olympia J., U.S. Senator From Maine ............................................ 30

Solis, Hon. Hilda L., U.S. Representative From California ................................. 4

Wenk, Daniel N., Deputy Director, National Park Service, Department of 

the Interior ........................................................................................................... 6 

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 47

APPENDIX II 

Additional material submitted for the record ........................................................ 61

(1)

MISCELLANEOUS NATIONAL PARKS 

LEGISLATION 

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:32 p.m. in room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Akaka 

presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM HAWAII 

Senator AKAKA. The hearing on National Parks will come to 

order. 

The purpose of the hearing is to consider the following bills. But 

before I do that, I want to congratulate another leader of this subcommittee, Senator Burr, who will be joining me in the leadership 

of this committee here. I’m grateful for that and I thank God for 

his new position and his presence. 

The following bills are: S. 127, to explain the purpose and provide for the administration of the Baca National Wildlife Refuge in 

Colorado; S. 327 and H.R. 359, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resources study of sites associated with 

the life of Cesar Chavez and the farm labor movement; S. 868, to 

designate segments of the Taunton River in Massachusetts as a 

component of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System; S. 1051, to establish the National Liberty Memorial in Washington, D.C.; S. 1184 

and H.R. 1021, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct 

a study of certain historic sites in Taunton, Massachusetts; S. 

1247, authorizing a land exchange to allow for development of administrative and visitor facilities at Weir Farm National Historic 

Site in Colorado; S. 1304, to designate the Arizona National Scenic 

Trail; S. 1329, to extend the authorization for the Acadia National 

Park Advisory Commission, and for other purposes; H.R. 759, to redesignate the Ellis Island Library located in the Ellis Island Immigration Museum as the Bob Hope Memorial Library; and H.R. 807, 

to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study to determine the suitability and feasibility of establishing a memorial to 

the Space Shuttle Columbia in Texas. 

Although we have a lengthy agenda, I believe most of these bills 

will be noncontroversial. There are a few bills that the administra-
2

tion will oppose and we can discuss those bills in greater detail 

during the hearing. 

[The prepared statements of Senators Kyl, McCain, Collins, and 

Schumer, and Ms. Solis follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JON KYLE, U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA, ON S. 1304

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for holding this hearing 

on S.1304, the Arizona National Scenic Trail Act. This bill would amend the National Trails System Act to designate the Arizona Trail as a national scenic trail. 

Senator McCain and I have been working on Arizona Trail legislation since 2003. 

Previous forms of the bill focused on conducting a feasibility study to determine 

whether the trail is physically possible and financially feasible. We took this approach because a feasibility study is usually conducted for most trails before they 

enter the National Trails System. 

The legislation before you today, however is not a feasibility study bill; it is a designation bill and let me tell you why—we now know this trail is physically possible 

and financially feasible. Most of the Arizona Trail already exists, extending over 800 

nearly continuous miles from the Mexican border to Utah. Ninety-nine percent of 

the route is on public land, and it will not require a single land acquisition. There 

is no doubt that the trail is scenic. The trail is a rollercoaster ride through the six 

of the seven life zones between the Equator and the North Pole. 

Designating the Arizona Trail a National Scenic trail will preserve a magnificent 

natural, cultural, and historical experience of the American West while bringing balance geographically to a trail system heavily focused on the Eastern United States. 

I urge my colleagues to work with Senator McCain and me to ensure that the Arizona Trail becomes a permanent part of our landscape. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN MCCAIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA,

ON S. 1304

Mr. Chairman, I greatly appreciate the opportunity to offer my comments regarding S. 1304, the Arizona National Scenic Trail Act. This bill would designate the 

Arizona Trail as a National Scenic Trail. 

Mr. Chairman, the Arizona Trail is a beautifully diverse stretch of public lands, 

mountains, canyons, deserts, forests, historic sites, and communities. The Trail is 

approximately 807 miles long and begins at the Coronado National Memorial on the 

U.S.-Mexico border and ends in the Bureau of Land Management’s Arizona Strip 

District on the Utah border near the Grand Canyon. In between these two points, 

the Trail winds through some of the most rugged, spectacular scenery in the Western United States. The corridor for the Arizona Trail encompasses the wide range 

of ecological diversity in the state, and incorporates a host of existing trails into one 

continuous trail. In fact, the Trail route is so topographically diverse that a person 

can hike from the Sonoran Desert to Alpine forests in just one day. 

For over a decade, more than sixteen Federal, state, and local agencies, as well 

as community and business organizations, have partnered to create, develop, and 

manage the Arizona Trail. Trough their combined efforts, these agencies and the 

members of the Arizona Trail Association have completed over 90% of the longest 

contiguous land-based trail in the State of Arizona. Designating the Arizona Trail 

as a National Scenic Trail would help streamline the management of the high-use 

trail to ensure that this pristine stretch of diverse land is preserved for future generations to enjoy. 

Mr. Chairman, as you know, under the National Trails System Act a proposed 

trail typically receives national designation after a federal study assess the feasibility of establishing a trail route and addressing other land management matters. 

But in this case, it’s not necessary to require a feasibility study for the Arizona Trail 

because it’s virtually complete with less than 60 miles left to build and sign. Already 

heavily used, the Trail has overwhelming support from the local governments and 

citizens of the State of Arizona. All but one-percent of the trail resides on public 

land, and the unfinished segments do not involve private property. The trail meets 

the criteria to be labeled a National Scenic Trail and already appears on all Arizona 

state maps. Therefore, the Congress has reason to forego an unnecessary and costly 

feasibility study and proceed straight to National Scenic Trail designation. 

The Arizona Trail is known throughout the state as boon to outdoor enthusiasts. 

In one of the fastest-growing states in the U.S., the designation of the Arizona Trail 

as a National Scenic Trail would ensure the preservation of a corridor of open space 
3

for hikers, mountain bicyclists, cross country skiers, snowshoers, eco-tourists, equestrians, and joggers. 

I thank the Chairman and the members of the Subcommittee for your consideration of this legislation. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN M. COLLINS, U.S. SENATOR FROM MAINE,

ON S. 1329

Chairman Akaka, Ranking Member Burr, and members of the subcommittee, 

thank you for holding this hearing today on the Acadia National Park Improvement 

Act of 2007, which I introduced on May 8 with Senator Snowe as a cosponsor. This 

legislation takes important steps to ensure the long-term health of one of America’s 

most beloved national parks. It would increase the land acquisition ceiling at Acadia 

by $10 million; facilitate an off-site intermodal transportation center for the Island 

Explorer bus system; and extend the Acadia National Park Advisory Commission. 

In 1986, Congress enacted legislation designating the boundary of Acadia National Park. However, many private lands were contained within the permanent authorized boundary. Congress authorized the Park to spend $9.1 million to acquire 

those lands from willing sellers only. While all of that money has now been spent, 

rising land prices have prevented the money from going as far as Congress originally intended. 

There are over 100 private tracts left within the official park boundary. Nearly 

20 of these tracts are currently available from willing sellers, but the Park does not 

have the funds to purchase them. My legislation would authorize an additional $10 

million to help acquire these lands. Since these lands already fall within the congressionally authorized boundary, this effort would ‘‘fill in the holes’’ at Acadia, 

rather than enlarging the park. 

My legislation will also facilitate the development of an intermodal transportation 

center as part of the Island Explorer bus system. The Island Explorer has been extremely successful over its first years. Since 1999, these low-emission propane-powered vehicles have carried more than 1.5 million riders. In doing so, they removed 

424,000 vehicles from the park and reduced pollution by 24 tons. 

Unfortunately, the system lacks a central parking and bus boarding area. As a 

result, day-use visitors do not have ready access to the Island Explorer. Our legislation would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide assistance in the planning, construction, and operation of an intermodal transportation center in Trenton, 

Maine. This center will include parking for day users, a visitor orientation facility 

highlighting park and regional points of interest, a bus boarding area, and a bus 

maintenance garage. It will be built in partnership with the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maine Department of Transportation, and other partners, and it will reduce traffic congestion, preserve park resources, and help ensure a vibrant tourist economy. 

Finally, our legislation would extend the 16-member Acadia National Park Advisory Commission for an additional 20 year period. This commission was created by 

Congress in 1986 and expired in 2006. It was a mistake to let the commission expire. The commission consists of three federal representatives, three state representatives, four representatives from local towns on Mount Desert Island, three from adjacent mainland communities, and three from adjacent offshore islands. These representatives have provided invaluable advice relating to the management and development of the Park. The Commission has proven its worth many times over and 

deserves to be extended for an additional 20 years. 

Acadia National Park is a true gem of the Maine coastline. The Park is one of 

Maine’s most popular tourist destinations, with nearly three million visitors every 

year. While unsurpassed in beauty, the Park’s ecosystem is also very fragile. Unless 

we are careful, we risk substantial harm to the very place that Mainers and Americans hold so dear. 

In nine years, Acadia will be 100 years old. Age has brought both increasing popularity and greater pressures. By providing an extra $10 million to protect sensitive 

lands, expanding the highly successful Island Explorer transportation system, and 

extending the Acadia National Park Advisory Commission, this legislation will help 

make the Park stronger and healthier than ever on the occasion of its centennial 

anniversary. 

Again, I extend my appreciation to Chairman Akaka and Ranking Member Burr. 

I know our national parks are very important to them, and I look forward to working with them to advance this legislation. 
4

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. SCHUMER, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW

YORK, ON H.R. 759

Chairman Akaka and members of the Committee, thank you for holding this important hearing. I appear before you today to express my support of H.R.759, a bill 

to redesignate the Ellis Island Library on the third floor of the Ellis Island Immigration Museum as the ‘‘Bob Hope Memorial Library.’’

Bob Hope and his family passed through Ellis Island in 1907. In 1920, Bob Hope 

become an American citizen, and went on to become one of the most famous Ellis 

Island immigrants. His impressive career in entertainment, included hundreds of 

radio, movie, television and personal appearances, and made Bob Hope a star and 

a household name. The Guinness Book of Records cites Bob Hope as the most honored entertainer in the world, with more than two thousand awards and citations 

for humanitarian and professional efforts, including 54 honorary doctorates and a 

Congressional Gold Medal. 

Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of Bob Hope’s extraordinary career was his 

commitment to his country. Bob Hope was dedicated to entertaining American service men and women throughout the world during times of war and peace for over 

sixty years. He spent the majority of World War II entertaining Allied troops. In 

later years, he traveled to Korea, Vietnam, and the Middle East to perform for our 

troops. In recognition of this dedication to America’s servicemen and women, Congress named him as an honorary veteran for the decades of work he did with veterans serving overseas. 

Renaming the library on Ellis Island after Bob Hope is a fitting tribute to one 

of America’s most famous immigrants. The library will serve as a daily reminder 

to everyone who visits Ellis Island of a man whose life and career epitomizes the 

American dream. 

Thank you again, Chairman Akaka and members of the Committee, for holding 

this hearing and for inviting me to testify today. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. HILDA L. SOLIS, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM

CALIFORNIA, ON H.R. 359 AND S. 327

Thank you Chairman Akaka and Ranking Member Burr for the opportunity to 

provide testimony in support of H.R. 359 and S. 327, legislation to authorize a special resource study by the Department of Interior to honor the life of Cesar Estrada 

Chavez. I appreciate the leadership of Senators Salazar and McCain, and your willingness to give this legislation consideration in your Subcommittee. I am pleased 

that the U.S. House passed H.R. 359 with bipartisan support under suspension of 

the rules on July 10, 2007, and I am hopeful the full Energy and Natural Resources 

Committee will consider this legislation favorably and forward it to the full Senate 

in a timely manner. 

Cesar Estrada Chavez, a second-generation American, was born on March 31, 

1927 in Yuma, Arizona. Raised during the Great Depression, Chavez’s family lost 

everything and wandered the southwestern United States with thousands of other 

farm worker families. Chavez eventually left the fields in 1952 and conducted voter 

registration drives and campaigns against racial and economic discrimination. In 

1962, Chavez returned to help farm worker families and started the National Farmworkers Association. Today we know this organization as the United Farm Workers 

(UFW.) 

Cesar Chavez changed the course of history for Latinos and farm workers. As a 

result of his actions, many have been empowered to fight for fair wages, health care 

coverage, pension benefits, housing improvements, pesticide and health regulations, 

and countless other protections for their health and well-being. These changes have 

meant considerable improvements for the life of the farm worker, three-fourths of 

which are Latino. 

Chavez was a student of Mahatma Gandhi’s non-violent philosophies. He believed 

that non-violence is the most powerful tool to achieve change, including social and 

economic justice and equality. Cesar Chavez taught that if we ‘‘have the capacity 

to endure, if we have the patience, things will change.’’ Chavez also valued equity, 

responsibility, and faith. 

Since I was a young Latina, Cesar Chavez has been my inspiration. Cesar Chavez’ 

work inspired me to find ways to help others and led me to civil service where I 

strive to do the best I can for those I represent. As a result of his beliefs, exhibited 

through his actions, I was moved to introduce H.R. 359 and believe it is important 

that we preserve his history through our National Parks System. 

National Park System units are important components of our nation’s historic, 

cultural, economic, recreation, and social identity, yet there is not a single unit of 
5

the National Park System dedicated to Latinos. Chavez strongly understood the importance of the land and the value of the environment in connection to ones health 

and economic stability. For many Latinos, this appreciation of the environment is 

cultural. Ninety-six percent of Latinos believe the environment should be an important priority for this country, and I strongly believe we should honor Latinos and 

Cesar Chavez through this special resource study. It is my hope that one day Latino 

families have a place in the National Park Service where they can appreciate, honor 

and learn about Cesar Chavez’s work and beliefs, just as African American families 

can visit the Martin Luther King, Jr. historical site and the Selma-Montgomery 

trail. 

H.R. 359 has broad support. It has been endorsed by the Congressional Hispanic 

Caucus, the National Parks Conservation Association, the National Hispanic Environmental Council, Southern California Edison Company, and the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, among many others. The Department 

of Interior testified before the House Natural Resources Committee in support of 

this legislation, stating ‘‘As a result of his efforts, he continues to serve as a symbol 

not only for Hispanic-Americans, but for all Americans, of what can be accomplished 

in this country through unified, courageous and nonviolent actions.’’

Chavez died in 1993 at the age of 66. 50,000 people attended his funeral. This 

is a tribute to the impact he had on people’s lives. By authorizing a study by the 

Department of Interior on the areas important in his life, we are studying the areas 

important in the lives of so many citizens who wandered the southwest during the 

great depression in search of work, the lives of so many who believe in peaceful 

change, and the lives of so many who toil today in our fields as farm workers. 

I appreciate your consideration of H.R. 359/S. 327 and am hopeful you can join 

me in support of this legislation.

At this time I’d like to recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, Senator Burr, for any statement he may care to make. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BURR, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

NORTH CAROLINA 

Senator BURR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon to you. 

I want to express my appreciation to all of the witnesses who are 

appearing in front of the subcommittee today. 

We have an extremely full agenda with 12 bills. The diversity of 

topics covered in this hearing reflects the broad mission of the National Park Service and the scope of this subcommittee. In this single hearing we will discuss historic buildings constructed in the 

1700s, the valor and sacrifices of soldiers of the Revolutionary War, 

the life of a leader who fought for the rights of migrant farm workers, historical figures who immigrated through Ellis Island, and the 

Columbia Space Shuttle tragedy. 

We will also address a National Scenic Trail and a Wild and Scenic River. These issues illustrate the degree of public interest in 

the National Park System and the Service’s continuing role in preserving the history of our Nation. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for convening the subcommittee. I, like you, look forward to a thorough review of these 

bills and the likelihood that a majority of them have unanimous 

support, and I yield the floor. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much and I look forward to 

working with you, Senator Burr. 

Now I’d like to call on the Senator from Colorado for any remarks that he wishes to make. 

Senator Salazar. 
6

STATEMENT OF HON. KEN SALAZAR, U.S. SENATOR

FROM COLORADO 

Senator SALAZAR. Thank you very much, Senator Akaka. I am 

very much looking forward to this hearing and to support the legislation that Senator Allard and I have introduced concerning 

amendments to the Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve 

Act of 2007. I also look forward to hopefully passing out of this 

committee the authorization for the study on the sites to honor the 

late American hero Cesar Chavez. So I’m looking very much forward to the hearing. 

Thank you, Senator. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much. It’s good to have you 

here. 

Congressman Engel is due to be here and he is not. So I’d like 

to ask Dan Wenk to please come forward. Dan Wenk is the Deputy 

Director of the National Park Service and will testify on behalf of 

the administration on all of the bills. Dan has been a frequent witness this year and I’d like to welcome you back this afternoon. We 

will include all of your written statements in the record, so please 

feel free to summarize your remarks. Once you have finished with 

your comments on all of the bills, we will begin with our questions. 

So will you please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL N. WENK, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. WENK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before this subcommittee to present the administration’s views on 12 bills on today’s agenda. One of the bills is 

under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and another under the U.S. Forest Service. I ask that after I give my 

statement that officials from these two agencies be allowed to join 

me to respond to your questions. They are Andy Laranger, Acting 

Division Chief, Conservation Planning and Policy, National Wildlife 

Refuge System, and Jim Bedwell, Director of the Heritage and 

Recreation, U.S. Forest Service. I will submit our full statements 

for the record and summarize the administration’s positions on 

those bills. 

S. 127 would amend the Great Sand Dunes National Park and 

Preserve Act of 2000 to explain the purpose and to provide for the 

administration of the Baca National Wildlife Refuge in Colorado. 

The administration supports this bill if amended to address issues 

regarding water rights within the refuge. Our recommended 

amendment is included in the Department’s written statement. 

S. 327 and H.R. 359 would authorize a special resource study of 

Cesar Chavez and the farm labor movement he led from the 1950s 

to the 1980s. The study would evaluate a range of resources in Arizona and California for potential addition to the National Park System, as well as for their potential eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places and for designation as a national historic 

landmark. The Department supports this legislation. 

S. 868 would designate segments of the Taunton River in Massachusetts as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

System. Because we are currently completing the study authorized 

by Congress to determine the eligibility and suitability of the Taun-
7

ton River for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, the Department requests that the committee defer action on 

the bill until the study is complete. However, if this bill moves forward we would like to work with the committee to make it more 

consistent with other wild and scenic river designation bills that 

have been enacted by Congress. 

S. 1051 would authorize the National Mall Liberty Fund D.C. to 

establish a memorial on the site of the Constitution Gardens on the 

National Mall that was previously approved for the Black Revolutionary War Patriots Memorial. The Department supports the establishment of a memorial in the Nation’s capital that would recognize and commemorate the contributions of African Americans who 

fought for their independence, liberty, and justice during that war. 

However, we oppose S. 1051 in its current form as it is inconsistent 

with the Commemorative Works Act. The Department has determined that the proposed National Liberty Memorial is a new proposal, not an extension for the authority of the Black Revolutionary 

War Patriots Memorial, and should follow all the processes the 

Commemorative Works Act requires for new memorials, including 

the site selection process. 

S. 1184 and H.R. 1021 would authorize a special resource study 

for historic buildings and areas in the city of Taunton, Massachusetts. The Department opposes this legislation because, while the 

historic properties listed in the bills are locally significant, they 

have been determined not to be nationally significant. By law and 

policy, national significance is the first criteria that must be met 

for a resource to be determined appropriate for inclusion in the National Park System. Other authorities and mechanisms exist at the 

Federal, State, and local levels to support the preservation of historic properties of local significance. 

S. 1247 would enable the National Park Service to acquire land 

for visitor and administrative facilities for Weir Farm National 

Historic Site within a larger geographic area than the current law 

provides. The change would enable the National Park Service to 

consider the acquisition of all property in all of Fairfield County, 

Connecticut, including a building in nearby Reading that the park 

has leased for over 13 years for park curatorial and maintenance 

functions. This authority would both reduce the cost of building 

support facilities and address concerns that local towns have expressed about the location of administrative facilities in residential 

neighborhoods. The Department supports S. 1247, but would like 

to work with the committee to simplify the bill language. 

S. 1304 would designate the Arizona Trail, which runs for 807 

miles from Mexico to Utah, as a national scenic trail administered 

by the U.S. Forest Service. Normally the administration does not 

support the designation of national scenic trail without completion 

of a feasibility study. But because of the unique circumstances in 

this case the administration does not object to this legislation. 

S. 1329 would accomplish four objectives for Acadia National 

Park. First, it would extend the life of the park’s 16-member advisory board, which expired in September 2006, for an additional 20 

years. Second, it would extend the authority of the Secretary to exchange land with local towns in order to allow both parties to consolidate land holdings within their borders. Third, the bill would 
8

increase the park’s land acquisition ceiling from 9.1 million to 28 

million. Fourth, it would authorize the park to participate in the 

planning, construction, and operation of an intermodal transportation center outside the park boundaries. 

The Department supports the bill with two technical amendments. 

H.R. 759 would redesignate the third floor library of the Ellis Island Immigration Museum as the ‘‘Bob Hope Memorial Library.’’ 

By policy, the National Park Service does not support naming a 

park site or facility in honor of a person unless there is a strong 

association between the park and that person. Bob Hope did enter 

the United States through Ellis Island, as did many other great 

Americans. However, there is no compelling connection between his 

life and the Ellis Island Immigration Museum. Therefore the Department cannot support this bill. 

H.R. 807 would authorize a special resource study of several sites 

in the State of Texas to determine the suitability and feasibility of 

establishing a memorial to the Space Shuttle Columbia as a unit 

of the National Park System. The Department supports this legislation. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be pleased 

to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statements of Mr. Wenk follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DANIEL N. WENK, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK

SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

ON S. 127

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to testify today on behalf of the Administration on a number of bills. 

S. 127 would amend the Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve Act of 

2000 to explain the purpose and provide for the administration of the Baca National 

Wildlife Refuge in Colorado. The Administration supports this bill if amended. The 

bill amends earlier legislation by affirmatively establishing a purpose statement for 

the Refuge. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service is currently managing the refuge under a Conceptual Management Plan finalized in 2005. The Plan noted that the refuge’s authorizing legislation did not state a purpose and proposed language similar to that of 

S. 127. Specifically, S. 127 would explicitly define the purpose of the refuge as, 

‘‘ . . . to restore, enhance, and maintain wetland, upland, riparian, and other habitats for native wildlife, plant, and fish species in the San Luis Valley.’’ The Service 

would also be required to emphasize migratory bird conservation and manage the 

refuge in concert with broader landscape scale conservation efforts. 

The bill also includes a language requiring the Service to manage water on the 

refuge in approximately the same manner as has occurred historically. While this 

is the current intent of the Fish and Wildlife Service, such a requirement could be 

read to run counter to the purpose of the refuge and the sustainability of the wildlife, plant, and fish species and their habitat for which the refuge was established. 

As discussed below, for this reason we recommend a clarifying amendment to this 

language. 

BACKGROUND ON BACA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

The Baca National Wildlife Refuge is located in Saguache and Alamosa Counties 

in the San Luis Valley of south-central Colorado. The approved acquisition boundary 

includes 92,500 acres of wetlands, desert shrub grasslands, and riparian lands and 

abuts lands managed by other conservation agencies and organizations, including 

the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and The Nature Conservancy. 

Other land features included within the refuge include stabilized sand dunes, intermittent streams, and approximately 20,000 acres of wetland basins, many of which 

are maintained through irrigation practices with decreed water rights. The refuge 

is administered as a unit of the San Luis Valley National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 
9

which includes the Alamosa and Monte Vista refuges, and other smaller units 

throughout the Valley. 

The refuge’s wetlands are an integral part of a larger wetlands complex that constitutes the largest and most diverse assemblage of wetlands in the State of Colorado. Several bird species of conservation concern, such as White-faced ibis, rely on 

the Baca’s wetlands for key foraging areas during the breeding season. Waterfowl 

and other water birds heavily utilize wetlands and other habitats on the refuge at 

various times of year, especially during the nesting season. Native fish species, including a recently discovered population of Rio Grande chub, which is listed by the 

State of Colorado as species of concern, and the Rio Grande sucker, listed by the 

State as endangered, live on the refuge in small streams draining from the Sangre 

de Cristo Range. Elk, mule deer, and pronghorn also use the refuge. 

To date, the Service has acquired 57,000 acres of fee-title land, and, in cooperation 

with neighboring landowners, is managing an additional 27,000 acres within the acquisition boundary. 

The refuge was authorized by Congress in 2000 as part of the larger creation of 

the Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve. While Congress did direct the 

Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Service, to administer the refuge in accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 and 

the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, and specified certain water management requirements, no formal purpose for the refuge was provided. 

Typically, national wildlife refuges, when established by Congress or by Executive 

action, are assigned a primary purpose that gives the Service clear management direction for the refuge. For example, many refuges have as their purpose the conservation of migratory birds. Others were established primarily for big game, or the 

conservation of species protected by the Endangered Species Act. In recent years, 

an increasing number of refuges have been established in urban areas to promote 

environmental education. Numerous refuges have multiple purposes. 

It is important to note that these primary purposes do not necessarily preclude 

other management activities, including public use. Rather, they give refuge managers a framework for planning and implementing management activities, including 

long-range conservation planning to compatibility determinations, both of which 

were key provisions of the 1997 amendments to the 1966 Refuge Administration 

Act. 

Designating purposes for the Baca National Wildlife Refuge is also necessary because the refuge is part of a larger public lands complex, comprised of multiple federal jurisdictions, which is in turn situated on a landscape with diverse land ownership status. Because refuges, by definition, are unique in their ‘‘wildlife first’’ approach to land management, it is important for the Service to be able to communicate with other area landowners, both public and private, as well as the general 

public about the purposes for which the Service will manage the Baca, as well as 

the overarching mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

WATER USE REQUIREMENT

The only change the Administration recommends to the bill as currently written 

does not involve the purpose statement of the refuge but the provision at section 

1(3), which would require the Secretary of Interior, in administering water resources 

on the refuge to ‘‘use decreed water rights on the Refuge in approximately the same 

manner that the water rights have been used historically.’’ As noted above, historically, water has been used to irrigate lands now included in the Baca National Wildlife Refuge. The Service expects to continue to manage the land in such a fashion, 

however, the document that will guide the future of the refuge is a Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan (CCP). While this plan will not be finished for a number of years, 

the refuge will be operating under the current Plan and provide for ‘‘compatible’’ 

uses as provided by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. The requirement of S. 127 to use ‘‘decreed water in approximately the same manner’’ as 

it has been used historically could restrict the options for future management actions available to the Service in developing the CCP. 

Additionally, there is a pre-existing water service agreement between the Service 

and the Baca Grande Water and Sanitation District associated with the refuge. This 

agreement obligates the Service to lease up to 4,000 acre-feet of water rights—which 

the Service acquired along with the refuge—to the District. Currently, there are several wells on the refuge that are decreed for irrigation. Under the terms of the 

agreement, if the District requests the full amount of water to which they are entitled, the Service will need to change the decreed use of these wells from irrigation 

to municipal to fulfill the District’s request. Because the Service must file in State 

water court to change the decreed use of these wells from irrigation to municipal, 
10

we wish to avoid any potential conflict between S.127 and future state water court 

proceedings. 

For these reasons, we recommend amending the bill to include the following 

italicized language:

(3) in subsection (d)—

(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end; 

(B) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘‘; 

and’’; and 

(C) by adding at the end the following:

(3) subject to existing agreements and to the extent it does not interfere with 

refuge purposes, use decreed water rights on the Refuge in approximately the 

same manner that the water rights have been used historically.’’.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared 

testimony on S. 127. I would like to extend our appreciation to you and the rest 

of the Subcommittee, especially Senator Salazar, for your leadership and support for 

the National Wildlife Refuge System and for landscape conservation efforts in the 

San Luis Valley. I would be happy to respond to any questions you may have. 

ON S. 327 AND H.R. 359

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 327 and H.R. 359, bills to authorize the Secretary of the 

Interior to conduct a special resource study of sites associated with the life of Cesar 

Estrada Chavez and the farm labor movement. 

The Department supports both bills, which are virtually identical to each other 

and to legislation that we supported during the 108th and 109th Congresses. While 

the Department supports the authorization of this study, we also believe that any 

funding requested should be directed first toward completing previously authorized 

studies. We recommend a technical amendment to S. 327, described later in this 

statement. 

This study will provide a good opportunity to work with the Cesar E. Chavez 

Foundation and others to identify valuable resources associated with the story of 

Chavez’s life and the movement he led and ways to protect those resources. Ask historians to name one person who had the greatest impact on farm labor, and the 

name of Cesar Estrada Chavez leaps to mind. Between the 1950s and the 1980s 

Chavez cultivated a life-long commitment to bringing respect, dignity, and democracy to the nation’s farmworkers, many of whom were Hispanic. After an initial career as a community organizer, Chavez focused his organizing skills on the farmworkers, inspiring them to look their employers in the eyes, stand up for their rights 

and take active roles in creating their union and wielding its power. As a result of 

his efforts, he continues to serve as a symbol not only for Hispanic-Americans, but 

for all Americans, of what can be accomplished in this country through unified, courageous, and nonviolent action. 

Chavez’s death on April 22, 1993, brought a resurgence of interest in his life and 

work and a new wave of assessments recognizing his national and, indeed, international significance. He has taken his place among other national labor leaders in 

the Department of Labor’s Hall of Fame and been recognized by an ever-increasing 

number of states and communities with special holidays, events, and place names. 

Because of the tremendous impact he had, we believe it is appropriate to study sites 

associated with Cesar Chavez and the farm labor movement he led in order to consider ways to preserve and interpret this story of enormous social change. 

The National Park Service and the Cesar E. Chavez Foundation first discussed 

the possibility of conducting a national historic landmark study of sites related to 

the work of Chavez and the farmworkers’ movement several years ago, as a way 

of identifying sites important to the history of the man as well as the migrant worker. The Foundation represents and fosters the ongoing legacy of Chavez and has a 

strong interest in seeing that heritage preserved. In 2002, the National Park Service 

collaborated with the Foundation and scholars at universities in Washington State 

and California in preparing a preliminary assessment and scope for future research 

on sites associated with Chavez and the farmworkers’ movement. The information 

gathered through that assessment would give the National Park Service a head 

start on the study authorized by S. 327 and H.R. 359. 

The legislation would authorize a study of sites in Arizona, California, and other 

States that are significant to the life of Cesar Chavez and the farm labor movement 

in the western United States to determine appropriate methods for preserving and 

interpreting sites. Through this study, the National Park Service could examine 

whether certain sites are suitable and feasible for addition to the National Park 
11

System. The study would be conducted in accordance with the criteria for new area 

studies contained in Title III of the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 

1998. 

The study also would consider whether any sites meet the criteria for listing on 

the National Register of Historic Places or for designation as a National Historic 

Landmark. This would enable the National Park Service to complete the work that 

was begun with the preliminary assessment described earlier. The legislation specifically requires that the National Park Service consult with the Cesar E. Chavez 

Foundation, the United Farm Workers Union, and other entities involved in historic 

preservation on this study. The study is estimated to cost approximately $250,000. 

If the committee acts on S. 327, we recommend amending it on page 1, line 6 and 

on page 2, line 1 by inserting ‘‘special’’ before ‘‘resource study’’ to use the term for 

the proposed study that is normally used for such studies and to make it consistent 

with the title of the bill. H.R. 359 as passed by the House includes this change, 

which the Department recommended in testimony before the House Subcommittee 

on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands on March 29, 2007. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to answer any 

questions you or the other members of the subcommittee may have. 

ON S. 868

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your committee 

today to discuss the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 868, a bill to 

amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act by designating a segment of the Taunton 

River as a component of the national wild and scenic rivers system. 

The Department is currently completing the study authorized by Public Law 106–

318 to determine the eligibility and suitability of the Taunton River for inclusion 

in the national wild and scenic rivers system. The draft report and environmental 

assessment is currently out for public and agency comment, with the comment period scheduled to close on September 17, 2007. We request that the committee defer 

action on the bill until the study is complete. In addition, if this bill moves forward, 

we would like to work with the committee to make this bill consistent with other 

wild and scenic river designation bills that have been enacted by Congress. 

S. 868 would designate the entire 40-mile main stem of the Taunton River as a 

component of the national wild and scenic rivers system. This corresponds to ‘‘Alternative B: Full Designation’’ as described in the draft report, and is identified in the 

draft as the environmentally preferred alternative because it is the alternative that, 

by virtue of its inclusion of the entire main stem in the designation, provides the 

highest degree of protection. The draft study does not include an agency preferred 

alternative. The environmentally preferred alternative is supported by the town 

meeting and city council votes of all ten communities abutting the Taunton River, 

as documented in the draft report and the companion document developed during 

the study, the Taunton River Stewardship Plan, dated July 2005. 

The draft report concludes that the Taunton River meets the eligibility requirements of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act by virtue of its free-flowing condition and 

presence of one or more outstandingly remarkable resource values. The 40-mile 

Taunton River is the longest undammed coastal river in New England. This unique 

character, including the lack of a head-of-tide dam, is directly related to outstandingly remarkable values identified during the study, including fish, ecology and biological diversity, and recreation. As such, the Taunton River represents a natural 

fit with Wild and Scenic River Act purposes of recognizing and protecting special 

free-flowing rivers and the values they support. 

The Taunton River is recognized as the most significant river in Massachusetts 

for anadromous fish species, including alewife, blueback herring, American shad, 

hickory shad, gizzard shad and rainbow smelt, a direct result of the free-flowing 

character of the river which allows these and other species unfettered access to 

spawning tributaries. Similarly, the broader ecology of the river is unusually diverse 

and intact, supporting 31 distinct wildlife habitats, globally rare plant species, regionally significant freshwater and brackish tidal marshes, and many rare species 

of birds and amphibians. A Nature Conservancy study has concluded that the Taunton River represents one of the most unique, diverse, and intact ecosystems in the 

North Atlantic Ecoregion, from Delaware to Maine. Recreationally, the 40-mile 

Taunton River offers outstanding flatwater paddling, and, in the lower river, additional opportunities for broader recreational uses including power boating and sailing. 

The study authorized by Public Law 106–318 has been conducted in partnership 

with the local communities of the Taunton River, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and other local river interests based upon the partnership wild and scenic 
12

river model. This model recognizes and anticipates a limited federal role stemming 

from the lack of federal land ownership. Successful planning and management 

under these circumstances requires the fundamental support and involvement of 

state and local interests. This common basis of support and involvement for the 

Taunton River is outlined in the Taunton River Stewardship Plan (July, 2005). This 

plan and the strong support it has received through the extensive public involvement of the study, is the principal basis for the draft report’s conclusion that the 

Taunton River can be effectively managed and protected as a component of the national wild and scenic rivers system, and thereby meets the criteria for wild and 

scenic river suitability. The management scheme proposed in the stewardship plan 

is similar to ones that have proven effective on other partnership wild and scenic 

rivers, including the Sudbury, Concord, and Assabet Rivers also in Massachusetts. 

It is important to point out that the draft report is out for public review and comment. Once the study is complete, the Secretary is required by law to submit to the 

President a report on the suitability or nonsuitability of the river for addition to the 

national wild and scenic rivers system. The President is then required to report to 

the Congress his recommendations and proposals with respect to the designation of 

the studied river. If the President recommends that this river be included in the 

system, we would like to work with the committee on several amendments to the 

bill to clarify the management scheme for the river and to conform to established 

legislative models. It would be particularly important in this regard to consider the 

Taunton River Stewardship Plan as the basis for management of the designated 

wild and scenic river segment. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks, and I would be happy to answer any questions you or other committee members may have regarding this bill. 

ON S. 1051

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to appear before you today to present the Department of the Interior’s views on S. 

1051, a bill to authorize the National Mall Liberty Fund D.C. to establish a memorial on Federal land in the District of Columbia at Constitution Gardens previously 

approved to honor free persons and slaves who fought for independence, liberty, and 

justice for all during the American Revolution. 

The Department supports the establishment of a memorial in the Nation’s Capital 

that would recognize and commemorate the contributions of African Americans as 

they fought for independence, liberty and justice during the Revolutionary War. 

However, the Department opposes S. 1051 in its current form as it is inconsistent 

with the principles, processes and requirements set forth in the Commemorative 

Works Act, which has successfully guided the process for establishing monuments 

in the Nation’s Capital since it was enacted in 1986. Over the course of the succeeding 20 years, 17 memorials have been planned, designed, and constructed following that process and an additional five memorials are currently in various stages 

of completion. 

While S. 1051 states that the memorial shall be established in accordance with 

the Commemorative Works Act, the bill also contains provisions that contravene 

several critical requirements of the Commemorative Works Act. 

First, the provisions in S. 1051 would designate a specific site for the memorial, 

rather than allowing for the site selection process under the Commemorative Works 

Act to determine the appropriate location of the memorial. This site selection process requires consultation with the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission 

and approval by the Commission of Fine Arts, the National Capital Planning Commission, and the National Park Service. Congress has traditionally provided that 

such site and design decisions be determined through established processes under 

the Commemorative Works Act, and we support this practice that has worked well 

for over 20 years. 

The specific site identified in the bill is in Area I at Constitution Gardens which 

was approved for the Black Revolutionary War Patriots Memorial in 1988, but expired in 2005 and is now within the Reserve. In 2003, Congress declared the Reserve to be a completed work of civic art and precluded the establishment of new 

memorials. The Department supports Congress’s prohibition of new memorial proposals within the Reserve. The Department recognizes the site selection process and 

the Reserve to be basic pillars of the Commemorative Works Act, a safeguard and 

a guide to the best use of the parklands of the Nation’s Capital. 

In addition, S. 1051 is inconsistent with the Commemorative Works Act provisions relating to expiration of legislative authority, a separate, but related issue. 

The Commemorative Works Act specifies that ‘‘upon expiration of the legislative authority, any previous site and design approvals shall also expire.’’ In 1986, Congress 
13

authorized the Black Revolutionary War Patriots Memorial Foundation to establish 

the Black Revolutionary War Patriots Memorial consistent with legislation to establish the Commemorative Works Act, which was pending before Congress at the time 

and enacted later that year. In 1987, Congress enacted second law authorizing 

placement of that memorial within Area I as it was then defined by the Commemorative Works Act. In 1988, the National Park Service, the Commission of Fine Arts 

and the National Capital Planning Commission approved a site in Constitution Gardens for the Black Revolutionary War Patriots Memorial and, in 1996, approved the 

final design. Despite four extensions of the memorial’s authorization over 21 years, 

the Foundation was unable to raise sufficient funds for construction, and the authority finally lapsed in October 2005. 

The authority to construct a memorial is granted by Congress to a specific sponsor 

to establish a particular memorial typically within specified timeframes. The expired 1986 authorization was given to the sponsor, the Black Revolutionary War Patriots Memorial Foundation, to establish the Black Revolutionary War Patriots Memorial. S. 1051 would authorize a different sponsor, the National Mall Liberty Fund 

D.C. to establish a memorial with a different name, and, as we understand it, a different design. It has been 19 years since the site was approved for the Black Revolutionary War Patriots Memorial and 11 years since the design was approved. In accordance with the Commemorative Works Act, these previous site and design approvals expired in 2005 along with the fourth extension of the legislation authorizing that memorial. Given that the reservation of the site expired in 2005, the new 

sponsor, the new name, and a new proposed design, we believe that S. 1051’s authorization to establish the National Liberty Memorial should not be construed as 

an extension of an expired legislative authority for the Black Revolutionary War Patriots Memorial. 

Thus, the Department finds that the National Liberty Memorial is a new proposal 

and should follow all the provisions of the Commemorative Works Act, including the 

site selection process. Unlike all memorial proposals that seek authorization by 

means of a discrete bill to recognize and designate an individual memorial subject 

matter and sponsor, S. 1051 would amend Public Law 99–558 to establish the National Liberty Memorial without complete compliance to the provisions and requirements of the Commemorative Works Act. We are concerned that allowing for what 

amounts to an extension of selected provisions of processes required under the Commemorative Works Act after they have expired is unfair to memorial sponsors who 

diligently meet the timeframes of their authorizations and creates an unwelcome 

precedent for future efforts to establish memorials through what has been an evenhanded public process. 

We also would like to point out that S. 1051 makes no provisions for the disposition of moneys raised in excess of funds needed for the establishment of the memorial or to hold in reserve the amount on hand should the authority to establish the 

memorial expire before completion. 

We reiterate our support of the establishment of a memorial in the Nation’s Capital that recognizes and commemorates the contributions of African Americans as 

they fought for independence, liberty and justice during the Revolutionary War. We 

look forward to the opportunity to work with the subcommittee to develop language 

that would provide for such authorization in a manner consistent with the principled processes set forth by existing authorities. 

BACKGROUND ON THE COMMEMORATIVE WORKS ACT AND THE RESERVE

In 1986, following what some characterized as ‘‘monumental chaos’’ over the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, which was dedicated in 1982, Congress enacted the Commemorative Works Act to guide the process for establishing memorials in the nation’s Capital. Since its enactment, the Commemorative Works Act has played an 

important role in ensuring that memorials in the nation’s Capital are erected on the 

most appropriate sites and are of a caliber in design that is worthy of their historically significant subjects. 

On November 17, 2003, Congress declared the National Mall complete by establishing the Reserve through an amendment to the Commemorative Works Act. The 

Reserve was designated in response to Congressional concern over the loss of open 

space on the National Mall to memorials. Between 1980 and 2000, seven new memorials were erected on the Mall. This trend foreshadowed a proliferation of commemorative works that could threaten the historic open space of the Nation’s greatest 

symbolic landscape. As a result of a Congressional hearing in 1997, this committee 

expressed an interest in an evaluation of how the Commemorative Works Act was 

functioning. Pursuant to that request, the National Capital Memorial Commission, 
14

the Commission of Fine Arts, and the National Capital Planning Commission established a Joint Task Force on Memorials. 

The Joint Task Force recommended the establishment of a Reserve to preserve 

the monumental core and developed the Memorials and Museums Master Plan to 

redirect memorials throughout the city. The Reserve, an area where no new memorials would be constructed other than those previously authorized such as that honoring Martin Luther King Jr., was envisioned by the Joint Task Force as generally 

encompassing the central cross-axis of the Mall from the U.S. Capitol to the Lincoln 

Memorial and from the White House to the Jefferson Memorial. Congress expanded 

this area to include all of the area between Constitution and Independence Avenues 

from 17th Street west to the Lincoln Memorial, as well as lands south of Independence Avenue from the Tidal Basin to the Potomac River when it statutorily established the Reserve through passage of the Commemorative Works Act Clarification 

Act of 2003. 

That concludes my testimony, I would be glad to answer any questions that you 

or other members of the subcommittee may have. 

ON H.R. 1021 AND S. 1184

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your committee to 

present the views of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 1021 and S. 1184, identical bills that direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resources 

study regarding the suitability and feasibility of designating certain historic buildings and areas in Taunton, Massachusetts, as a unit of the National Park System. 

The Department does not support these bills. On June 15, 2004, in the 108th Congress, the Department also did not support H.R. 2129, a similar bill. 

The City of Taunton, located in southeastern Massachusetts in Bristol County, 

can trace its roots back to the earliest days of our Nation. As the seat of Bristol 

County since 1746, Taunton was the site of that county’s first courthouse built in 

1772, and the town served as a locale for colonial discontent prior to the Revolutionary War. In 1774, Taunton was the site of the raising of the Liberty and Union 

flag, one of a number of symbolic representations in the Colonies expressing discontent with British rule. The town settlement was anchored around the Taunton 

River and its tributaries, which provided a focus for its shipbuilding and shipping 

activities during the 1800s. The historic nature of the city draws tourists to visit 

the well-preserved greens and houses that date back to the 1800s. Taunton’s history 

spans from its earliest beginnings as an agrarian hinterland to its development as 

a major industrial urban core (particularly for iron) and regional political center 

during the Revolutionary War. The city emerged at an early date as a regional communications focus for the exchange and interaction of goods, people, and information. 

H.R. 1021 and S. 1184 both propose that the Secretary conduct a study of historic 

buildings and areas in Taunton, to evaluate the suitability and feasibility of designating them as a unit of the National Park System. The study is to be conducted 

in accordance with the National Park Service Organic Act (16 U.S.C. 1a-5). In addition to the criteria set out in the Organic Act, the bills also require an evaluation 

of these areas against a list of criteria commonly seen in study legislation for evaluating individual National Heritage Areas, and not part of the usual evaluation of 

a park unit. 

The Department has concerns about enactment of these bills, because the named 

historic properties have been studied and determined not to be nationally significant, the first criterion that must be met for inclusion in the National Park System 

as spelled out in the Organic Act and in National Park Service Management Policies 

2006. Most of the historic properties cited in the findings were included in a Multiple Resource Area nomination to the National Register of Historic Places, completed in 1984 and nominated by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which 

formed the basis for listing properties. The Multiple Resource Area nomination documented and evaluated Taunton’s historic properties including buildings, structures 

and districts that were found to have architectural and historic merit. These properties were evaluated within the context of significant historical themes and time 

periods in Taunton’s history. The Multiple Resource Area nomination included 86 

individual properties, two districts, three industrial complexes, and one religious 

complex, primarily spanning from the mid-18th Century through the mid-20th Century. The Massachusetts State Historic Preservation Officer nominated these properties for their local historic or architectural significance, rather than for their state 

or national significance. The National Park Service agreed with this recommendation and listed the properties in the National Register of Historic Places for their 

local historic or architectural importance. 
15

The Department is concerned with H.R. 1021 and S. 1184 because other authorities and mechanisms exist at the Federal, State, and local levels, to support the 

preservation of historic properties of local significance. To expend limited study 

funds on properties that are known not to meet National Park Service standards 

seems ill-advised when the Department is pressed to meet the budgetary needs of 

previously authorized studies of nationally significant resources. 

Currently, the National Park Service is in various stages of progress with 37 studies previously authorized by Congress. These studies are focusing on potential National Park System Units, National Heritage Areas, additions to the National Wild 

and Scenic Rivers System, or additions to the National Trails System. Our highest 

priority is to complete the studies previously authorized by Congress, and to begin 

work on newly authorized studies as soon as funds are available. 

In addition, the Department notes that the National Park Service is currently in 

the midst of a wild and scenic river study of the Taunton River, authorized by Congress in December 2000. The City of Taunton is actively engaged in this process 

along with the nine other communities that abut the main stem of the Taunton 

River. Historical and cultural resources associated with the river, including sites in 

the City of Taunton, are an important part of the study, recognizing that the river 

has a rich history dating from Native American use to colonial settlement and early 

industrial development. The study is currently out for public comment and we expect to finalize and transmit it to Congress in 2008. 

It would appear that the wild and scenic river study is evaluating many of the 

same resources identified in H.R. 1021 and S. 1184. Furthermore, the wild and scenic river study is appropriately considering a larger area than the city limits of 

Taunton. To launch an overlapping study with similar but slightly different criteria 

from those governing the wild and scenic river study, would seem to invite both confusion and duplication. Therefore, the Department does not support enactment of 

H.R. 1021 and S. 1184. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to comment. This concludes my prepared remarks and I will be happy to answer any questions you or other committee 

members might have. 

ON S. 1247

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to 

appear before you today to present the Department of the Interior’s views on S. 

1247, a bill to amend the Weir Farm National Historic Site Establishment Act of 

1990, and for other purposes. 

The Department supports S. 1247, but would like to work with the committee to 

simplify the language in the bill. 

S. 1247 would amend the Weir Farm National Historic Site Establishment Act of 

1990 (as amended by Public Law 105–363) to expand the geographic area in which 

the park could acquire up to 15 acres to develop visitor and administrative facilities. 

Public Law 105–363 required that the acquisition be ‘‘in close proximity or contiguous to the park.’’ Furthermore, by requiring a planning agreement with the towns 

of Ridgefield and Wilton, Connecticut before building a facility, Public Law 105–363 

appears to authorize land acquisition only within these two towns. S. 1247 would 

expand the National Park Service’s authority so that it can consider the acquisition 

of property in all of Fairfield County, Connecticut, including a building in nearby 

Redding, Connecticut, that the park has leased for over 13 years for park curatorial 

and maintenance functions. This expanded authority would reduce the cost of building support facilities and would address concerns that local towns have expressed 

about the location of administrative facilities in residential neighborhoods. 

Weir Farm National Historic Site was established on October 31, 1990 to preserve 

the historic structures and landscapes associated with American Impressionist artist 

Julian Alden Weir. The park’s authorizing legislation identifies one of the park’s 

purposes as ‘‘to maintain the integrity of a setting that inspired artistic expression.’’ 

In keeping with this purpose, the park’s 1995 General Management Plan determined that all administrative and operational support functions should be located 

in off-site facilities. In 1998, Public Law 105–363 authorized a boundary expansion 

of up to 15 acres, and in 2000, the National Park Service purchased nine acres in 

the town of Ridgefield, Connecticut under this authority. 

Public Law 105–363 required the National Park Service to enter into agreement 

with the towns of Ridgefield and Wilton, Connecticut, prior to building a facility. 

During discussions, concerns were raised about locating a 10,000 square foot facility 

in a residential neighborhood. In addition, cost estimates for building a facility on 

the newly acquired property had increased from $3.4 million to $5.9 million. 
16

To address local concerns and rising costs, the National Park Service would like 

to consider alternative sites, including space at the Georgetown Wire Mill (Mill), a 

55-acre brownfield development site listed on the National Register of Historic 

Places and located less than 2 miles from the park, in the town of Redding, Connecticut. Currently, the park leases 5,000 square feet of curatorial and maintenance 

space at the Mill. S. 1247 would allow the park to acquire 12,000 square feet of finished space at the Wire Mill in exchange for all or part of the nine acres acquired 

by the park in Ridgefield, Connecticut. This acquisition would reduce construction, 

operating, and maintenance costs for the park. Since the National Park Service 

would use all or part of the nine acres currently owned to exchange for the space 

at Georgetown Wire Mill, no acquisition funds are required. If appraisals indicate 

that the Georgetown Land Corporation (Corporation) building exceeds the value of 

the National Park Service land, the Corporation has agreed to donate the difference 

to the National Park Service. 

Environmental sustainability would be another benefit of the Mill site. Within the 

next two years, the Mill is expected to be certified as a Leadership in Energy and 

Environmental Design (LEED) village center with residential and commercial services and subsidies for artist housing. 

The language in S. 1247 that amends paragraph 2 of section 4(d) of Public Law 

101–485 is complex. Without changing the substance of the bill, the Department 

would like to work with the committee to make the language simpler and clearer. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any 

questions you or other members of the subcommittee might have. 

ON S. 1329

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your committee to 

present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 1329, a bill to extend the 

Acadia National Park Advisory Commission, to provide improved visitor services at 

the park, and for other purposes. The Department supports enactment of this bill 

with two technical amendments. 

If enacted, S. 1329 would accomplish four objectives. First, it would extend the 

life of the 16-member Acadia National Park Advisory Commission, which expired in 

September 2006, for an additional 20 years. Second, the bill would extend the authority of the Secretary to exchange land with local towns in order to allow both 

parties to consolidate land holdings within their borders. Third, the bill would increase the park’s land acquisition ceiling from $9.1 million to $28 million. Fourth, 

it would authorize Acadia National Park to participate in the planning, construction, and operation of an intermodal transportation center outside the park’s boundaries. 

ACADIA NATIONAL PARK ADVISORY COMMISSION

The Acadia National Park Advisory Commission had been in operation for almost 

20 years, before it expired on September 30, 2006, and was a valuable asset that 

enhanced communication between park managers and local communities. The Commission’s state and local representatives participated actively, and they strongly 

support its re-authorization. The cost of administering the Commission is minimal 

and is covered by the park’s operating budget. 

EXTENSION OF LAND CONVEYANCE AUTHORITY

Before 1986, Acadia National Park did not have a well-defined boundary. The 

boundary established in 1986 by Public Law 99–420 included certain lands owned 

by local towns and excluded certain lands owned by the National Park Service. In 

order to allow the park and the towns to consolidate holdings within their respective 

boundaries, section 102(d)(2) gave the Secretary the authority to convey lands outside the park boundary to the towns for no consideration after the towns had conveyed all of their land within the park boundary to the park. This provision set a 

10-year deadline for these conveyances in order to encourage timely action. 

Several towns missed the 10-year deadline, but are still interested in exchanging 

lands with the National Park Service. This bill would extend the authority of the 

Secretary to exchange lands with the towns indefinitely. Without this amendment, 

the park would continue to own isolated small tracts of land outside the park boundary, and the towns would continue to own small isolated tracts of land inside the 

park boundary. The proposed change would benefit both the park and the towns by 

continuing to allow each of them to consolidate land ownership. 
17

INCREASE IN LAND ACQUISITION CEILING

Acadia National Park’s authorized land acquisition ceiling of $9.1 million has 

been reached, although there are over 100 tracts left to be acquired to complete the 

park as authorized by Congress in 1986. Land prices on Mount Desert Island, where 

Acadia National Park is located, have increased dramatically since 1986 and may 

continue to do so if local home-inflation trends continue. Many willing landowners 

are anxious to sell, but the park cannot buy the land because the land acquisition 

ceiling does not permit the use of sufficient appropriated funds to acquire them, 

thus leaving valuable resources within the park threatened with incompatible development. 

The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCF) authorizes the National 

Park Service to exceed the land acquisition ceiling by 10%, or $1 million annually, 

whichever is greater. Under this authority, Acadia NP may exceed the land acquisition ceiling by a maximum of $1 million per year. To date, Congress has appropriated $8.9 million beyond Acadia’s land acquisition ceiling, bringing total appropriations for land acquisition at the park to $18 million. However, because the 

LWCF authorization limits National Park Service annual expenditures on additional 

land acquisition to $1 million or less, the National Park Service has been unable 

to purchase several undeveloped tracts that are valued at more than $1 million. If 

these undeveloped tracts within the boundaries of the park are developed with new 

structures, acquisition costs will increase. Acquiring these lands sooner rather than 

later is more cost-effective for the National Park Service in the long run. In addition, the park currently faces encroachment issues, where private landowners use 

adjacent park lands for swing sets, hot tubs, sheds and the like. The proposed $28 

million ceiling would allow the National Park Service to acquire all parcels of land 

that are located within the boundary of the park that are currently available for 

sale. 

Incompatible development within park boundaries can degrade the natural and 

cultural values that are important to the visitors of Acadia National Park. There 

are also ‘‘spillover’’ impacts from use of private lands that are surrounded by park 

land including noise and light impacts, which tend to drive the public away from 

these parts of the park. Finally, larger blocks of land are more cost-effective to manage than smaller discontinuous parcels that are owned by multiple owners and thus, 

result in higher boundary monitoring and patrol costs. 

INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION CENTER

The intermodal transportation center is the final piece of a three-phase transportation strategy that was developed with the assistance of an interagency team of 

transportation and park managers. The interagency team was established pursuant 

to the 1997 Memorandum of Understanding between the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of the Interior to comprehensively address public transportation in and around our national parks. Language in S. 1329 authorizing Acadia 

National Park to participate in the planning, construction and operation of an intermodal transportation center outside park boundaries is essential for completion of 

a highly successful transportation system that operates through a consortium of 

twenty partners. These partners include the U.S. Department of Transportation, the 

Maine Department of Transportation, and many local interests who developed this 

transportation strategy and have combined their resources to offer the Island Explorer, a bus system that uses clean propane-powered vehicles to move visitors 

around the Island. The operational costs are paid for by a special transportation fee 

imposed at Acadia, state and local funds, and business contributions. 

Daily summer use of the Island Explorer has averaged 3,700 riders and more 

than 1.5 million riders have used the popular system since it began in 1999. Traffic 

congestion on Mount Desert Island and the negative impacts of too many vehicles 

in Acadia National Park have been reduced, and the park’s air quality has improved 

annually. 

Currently, overnight visitors are picked up at their lodgings by the Island Explorer, but the increasing numbers of day use visitors do not have access to the 

transit system because it lacks a central parking and bus boarding area. As 

planned, the project calls for developing an off-island intermodal transportation center to serve day users of Mount Desert Island and Acadia National Park. The center 

is needed to maximize the benefits of the transit system and to fully achieve the 

project’s goals of reducing traffic congestion, preserving park resources and the visitor experience, and ensuring a vibrant tourist economy. 

The proposed center would be strategically located on Route 3 (the only road to 

Mount Desert Island and Acadia National Park) in Trenton, Maine. A non-profit 

partner will acquire the land using donated funds. The Maine Department of Trans-
18

portation and the Federal Transit Administration will have the lead in the planning 

and construction of the center, which will include parking for day users, a visitor 

orientation facility highlighting park and regional points of interest, a bus boarding 

area, and a bus maintenance garage. 

Most of the proposed facility would be built with funds provided by the U.S. Department of Transportation to the State of Maine. The National Park Service would 

be responsible for the design, construction, and operation of all or part of the visitor 

orientation portion of the center, which would include exhibits, media presentations, 

and general information for park visitors bound for Acadia National Park. The National Park Service might also contribute to maintenance and operation of the facility. The proposed center would replace the park’s inadequate Thompson Island Information Center, which is too small to accommodate the large number of summer 

visitors to the park, contains out-of-date exhibits, and is not optimally located to 

intercept visitors. 

We recommend two technical amendments be made to section 5 of the bill. First, 

we would like to clarify that the Secretary would be authorized to conduct activities 

that facilitate the dissemination of information relating to the Island Explorer or 

any successor to the Island Explorer in case the transit system is renamed. Second, 

in order to preserve the Secretary’s flexibility in how resources are allocated in the 

National Park Service, we recommend an amendment to the authority provided to 

the Secretary to contribute to the Intermodal Transportation Center. The amendments are attached to this testimony. 

Technical amendments to S. 1329, the Acadia National Park Improvement Act of 

2007:

On p. 2, line 24, strike ‘‘shall’’ and insert ‘‘may’’. 

On p. 3, line 16, strike ‘‘system;’’ and insert ‘‘system or any successor transit 

system;’’.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to comment. This concludes my prepared remarks and I will be happy to answer any questions you or other committee 

members might have. 

ON H.R. 759

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 

appear before you to present the views of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 

759, a bill to redesignate the Ellis Island library on the third floor of the Ellis Island 

Immigration Museum as the Bob Hope Memorial Library. 

The National Park Service believes there should be a strong association between 

the park and the person being commemorated, and that at least five years should 

have elapsed since the death of the person. This basic principle is reflected in our 

National Park Service Management Policies. Therefore, the Department cannot support this bill. On May 12, 2005, the Department also testified that we could not support H.R. 323, an identical bill from the 109th Congress. 

A unique repository of resources in history, ethnology, and sociology is located on 

the third floor of the Immigration Museum on Ellis Island. The space has been 

reconfigured to provide a reading room, a preschool children’s reading center, an archive for controlled storage of valuable paper artifacts, and a room designed to provide retrieval access to the library’s collection of more than 1,000 oral histories. It 

is a resource devoted to the American immigration experience and the stories of 

those who came to America with hopes and dreams for a better life. The library provides important lessons to our citizens of the meaning of liberty and opportunity in 

the history of our nation. 

Although Bob Hope’s life story exemplifies the experience of many who came to 

the United States with little, rose to the heights of their professions, and gave back 

in abundance to their adopted nation, the Department cannot support H.R. 759. Bob 

Hope did enter the United States through Ellis Island, as did many other great 

Americans, however there is no compelling connection between his life and the Ellis 

Island Immigration Museum. 

Bob Hope was born Leslie Townes Hope, the son of stonemason William Henry 

Hope and Avis Townes Hope. The family emigrated from England to Cleveland, 

Ohio in 1908, when Leslie, one of seven children, was not yet five years old. In 

Cleveland, the Hope family struggled financially, as they had in England. Mrs. Hope 

took in boarders to supplement her husband’s erratic income. She gave singing lessons to Leslie, who entertained his family with song, impersonations, and dancing. 

When he left school at age 16, Leslie worked at a number of part-time jobs. He 

boxed for a short time under the name of ‘‘Packy East’’ but later changed his name 

to Lester Hope. His interest in entertainment and show business led him to take 
19

dancing lessons and to seek employment as a variety stage entertainer. Not until 

he had achieved considerable success on the stage did he begin using the name, 

‘‘Bob Hope.’’

Bob Hope’s more than fifty-year commitment to public service has made him one 

of the most honored and esteemed performers in history. His charitable work and 

tours on behalf of the armed forces brought him the admiration and gratitude of 

millions and the friendship of every President of the United States since Franklin 

D. Roosevelt. 

National Park Service Management Policies 2006 state that the National Park 

Service will discourage and curtail commemorative works, especially commemorative naming, except when Congress specifically authorizes them or there is a compelling justification for the recognition, and the commemorative work is the best 

way to express the association between the park and the person, group, event, or 

other subject being commemorated. While Bob Hope had a distinguished career, we 

do not believe there is sufficient association between him and the Ellis Island Library to merit renaming the library. 

Mr. Chairman this concludes my statement and I will be happy to answer any 

questions that members of the committee may have. 

ON H.R. 807

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to appear before you today to present the Department of the Interior’s views on H.R. 

807, a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study 

to determine the feasibility and suitability of establishing a memorial to the Space 

Shuttle Columbia in the State of Texas and for its inclusion as a unit of the National Park System. 

The Department supports enactment of H.R. 807. The Department testified on 

April 28, 2005, that we could not support S. 242, a similar bill in the 109th Congress that would have designated the areas covered in this bill as units of the National Park System. At that time we recommended to the subcommittee that the bill 

be amended to authorize the Secretary to study the sites to determine if they are 

suitable and feasible as additions to the National Park System. 

We appreciate that H.R. 807 would authorize such a study. A study would provide 

the opportunity to consult with other agencies and organizations, including the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), to determine what other commemorative efforts have been undertaken to memorialize the space shuttle Columbia as well as taking into account the wishes and desires of the crew’s families regarding how they would like their loved ones remembered. A study also would look 

at a variety of alternatives that could include National Park Service (NPS) management or could focus on administering the site through State or local governments 

or private organizations. 

Studies of this type typically take approximately three years to complete after 

funds are made available and cost between $300,000 and $500,000. Also, priority 

should be given to the 37 previously authorized studies for potential units of the 

National Park System, potential new National Heritage Areas, and potential additions to the National Trails System and National Wild and Scenic River System that 

have not yet been transmitted to the Congress. 

H.R. 807 would direct the Secretary to study areas in the Texas cities of 

Nacogdoches, Hemphill, Lufkin and San Augustine. Large amounts of debris from 

the Columbia were found on the parcels specified in the bill, a combination of public 

and private land, and the Lufkin civic center served as NASA’s command center for 

retrieval efforts. As a part of the study, the Secretary is also authorized to recommend additional sites in Texas for establishment of memorials to Columbia. 

Columbia, the first space shuttle to orbit the earth, was NASA’s oldest shuttle. 

On the morning of February 1, 2003, after a three-week mission devoted to scientific 

and medical experiments, the Columbia began its return to earth. As re-entry into 

the earth’s atmosphere continued over the Pacific, problems were noticed by NASA, 

contact with the shuttle was lost, and it began to break apart. Debris from the shuttle was observed from California to Louisiana, however the remains of the seven astronauts and the most significant parts of the shuttle were found in several communities across Texas. Soon after the crash, an independent accident investigation 

board was established and the first volume of the board’s findings was issued in August 2003, identifying the factors that led to the shuttle disaster and making recommendations for future actions. 

Many memorials and remembrances have been established in honor of Columbia’s 

crew, including a memorial at Arlington Cemetery and on Devon Island in the Canadian High Arctic. Asteroids have been named for members of the crew, as has 
20

a highway in Washington and an elementary school in California. On May 12, 2004, 

NASA dedicated its new ‘‘Altix’’ supercomputer to the memory of Kalpana ‘‘KC’’ 

Chawla, flight engineer and mission specialist on the Columbia. 

An NPS suitability and feasibility study would determine how, or if, this proposal 

would complement or add to those already established memorials. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks, and I would be happy to answer any 

questions that you or other members of the subcommittee may have. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

ON S. 1304

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to present the Administration’s views on S. 1304, a bill to amend the National Trails 

System Act to designate the Arizona Trail as a National Scenic Trail. 

The Administration does not object to S. 1304. While the Administration typically 

does not support the designation of a National Scenic Trail without the completion 

of a feasibility study, we recognize that the Arizona Trail presents a unique situation. 

The Arizona Trail designation is unique because it is located primarily on public 

land, it is already established for much of its length and it has strong local, regional 

and state advocates and it offers outstanding recreational opportunities. For these 

reasons we do not object to an expedited process in this case and proceeding directly 

to designation. We do, however, plan to continue efforts to engage the public in the 

management of the trail, especially to private land owners that may be affected by 

the designation. 

All but one of the National Scenic Trails designated subsequent to the enactment 

of the National Trails System Act have undergone a feasibility study prior to enactment. However, in the case of the Arizona Trail, because of its unique circumstances, the Administration does not object to directly designating the trail as 

a national scenic trail. The Administration would be unlikely, however, to support 

future legislation to designate National Scenic Trails that bypass requirements 

under the national Trails System Act to conduct feasibility studies. A feasibility 

study allows the public to have a comprehensive look at the effects of designated 

national scenic trails and provides the public with the opportunity to comment on 

all aspects of the trail. Information provided by the public during this review adds 

value and is useful for the future management of the scenic trail. A study would 

also review and recommend the most effective and efficient management of the trail. 

Approximately 85% of the trail crosses federal land, 10% crosses State lands, and 

the remainder of the trail crosses private, municipal or county lands. The trail was 

established as a primitive long-distance hiking, horseback, and mountain biking 

trail that links all of Arizona’s major physiographic zones (the mountains, canyons, 

deserts, forests, historic sites, and mesas) to local communities and Arizona’s major 

metropolitan areas. The Arizona Trail’s significance is found in the diversity of resources, landscapes and recreational opportunities that it represents. 

The Arizona Trail was conceived in 1985 as a continuous non-motorized trail from 

Mexico to Utah. The Arizona Trail connects Arizona’s north and south borders 

across mountain ranges and deserts for approximately 807 miles. In 1993, the U.S. 

Forest Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Arizona 

State Parks developed a cooperative agreement to work together to develop this nonmotorized trail. Since then more than 750 miles of trail have been opened to the 

public, maps and trail resource information have been developed, and routine trail 

maintenance has been carried out, while efforts continue to open the remaining 57 

miles of trail. An important characteristic of all National Trails is the partnerships 

they generate. The Arizona Trail already has strong regional, state and local advocates, all of whom have worked hard at creating and maintaining a trail featuring 

the incredible natural and cultural diversity of the State of Arizona. In 1994, the 

non-profit Arizona Trail Association (ATA) was founded ‘‘to coordinate the planning, 

development, management, and promotion of the Arizona Trail for the recreational 

and educational experiences of non-motorized trail users.’’ If designated by Congress 

as a National Scenic Trail, the Arizona trail will be administered by the U.S. Forest 

Service in close coordination with the Arizona Trail Association and any relevant 

State and local agencies that may wish to help with the Trail. 

National scenic trails are continuous, primarily non-motorized routes of outstanding recreational opportunity. These trails provide for outdoor recreation needs, 

promote the enjoyment, appreciation, preservation of open-air, outdoor areas and 

historic resources, and encourage public access and citizen involvement. National 

historic trails commemorate historic and prehistoric routes of travel that are of sig-
21

nificance to the entire Nation. Because of its characteristics, the Arizona Trail is 

more likely to meet the criteria for a scenic trail rather than an historic trail. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to present the Administration’s views on S. 

1304. This completes our statement for the record.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

My first question to you is on H.R. 759, the Bob Hope Library 

designation. As I understand your testimony, the primary reason 

the Park Service opposes this bill is that there is not a strong association between Ellis Island and Bob Hope. However, according to 

Congressman Engel there is strong local support for this designation, including support from the Ellis Island Restoration Commission. Given the local support, then, why is it inappropriate to allow 

this and allow for this designation? 

Mr. WENK. It is the policy of the National Park Service that 

there has to be a very close association between a facility or a feature within a park area to be a named opportunity. An example 

would be from a park that I was formerly a superintendent, Mount 

Rushmore National Memorial. We do have there a Borglum Studio. 

It’s named after the sculptor of the memorial itself. That is a very 

strong connection and a strong association between why the memorial was established, what it represents, and the individual. 

There is not that strong connection between Bob Hope and Ellis 

Island. He did pass through Ellis Island, as did many other great 

Americans. 

Senator AKAKA. Have any other National Park Service buildings 

or facilities ever been named in honor of someone? 

Mr. WENK. Yes, they have. It’s not an infrequent process. But 

once again, it goes back to that strong association between the individual and the structure or the facility or feature that may be 

named. It’s a component that we don’t believe exists in this particular case. 

Senator AKAKA. My next question is on S. 1051, the National 

Liberty Memorial bill. The Commemorative Works Act requires a 

sponsoring organization to file a financial report with the Department of Interior each year, including financial statements that 

have been independently audited. I’m curious, how much money 

was raised by the Black Revolutionary War Patriots Foundation 

and what happened to that money when the group disbanded? 

Mr. WENK. We do know that we received financial reports from 

I believe 1996 to 2003. Prior to 1996, that was not a requirement. 

We believe that, from a cursory review of those reports, we believe 

that they raised approximately $3.25 million, $1 million of which 

came from the Commemorative Coin Act that was authorized for 

the memorial. 

Currently the Department of Treasury is doing an audit—excuse 

me. The Department of Treasury, the Office of the Inspector General, is looking to see how those funds were used that came from 

the Coin Act. How the rest of the funds were used, I do not have 

that answer. But certainly they were used in the design and the 

plans that were done to this time. 

Senator AKAKA. According to Mr. Barboza’s written testimony, in 

June 2006 the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission 

concluded, and I’m quoting: ‘‘The Commemorative Works Act could 

be interpreted to allow Liberty Fund D.C. to assume the site ap-
22

provals,’’ unquote. Are you familiar with this conclusion by the 

commission and do you have any comment on that statement? 

Mr. WENK. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am familiar with the statement 

that was made. We do not agree with that interpretation of what 

the Memorial Commission said. We believe that in 2005 the authority for the memorial expired. At the time that it expired, we 

believe that all the approvals, the design, and all other aspects of 

that expired at the same time. 

Since that time, since this bill was authorized, the Commemorative Works Act was passed, which did declare the area where this 

memorial was to be placed to be in the reserve and called it a completed work of civic art and therefore no other memorials were to 

be located in that area. We believe it is necessary to basically begin 

the process anew to relook at whether or not a memorial should be 

established, go through the design proceedings and the approvals 

of the National Park Service, the National Capital Planning Commission, as well as the Commission of Fine Arts. 

So we think—we believe we have two different interpretations of 

that and we believe that we do not have the authority to extend 

this. 

Senator AKAKA. My final question relates to S. 868, the wild and 

scenic river designation in Massachusetts. The draft Park Service 

study analyzes two alternatives. One alternative would designate 

the entire 40 miles of the main stream of the river. The second alternative would designate only 36 miles of the river pending potential approval of a liquefied natural gas facility. 

If S. 868 is enacted into law designating the entire 40 miles, 

what impact would that have on the proposed LNG facility? 

Mr. WENK. There would be a different standard that would be 

applied in terms of the evaluation of the impacts on the wild and 

scenic river if it included that last four miles. Primarily we believe 

that it would affect the riparian zones on the river that would be—

we would have to look at the impacts on those riparian zones. 

We also would be looking at the impacts on the anadromous fish 

that use the river. That, however, would not change because those 

fish are protected for upstream portions of the river that are included under either alternative. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much for your responses and 

would you please remain where you are while I call on Congressman Engel. 

Thank you so much for making the time to be here. We’re delighted to have you and, with the good graces of our ranking member here, we’ll go to you next, Representative Engel. You are the 

sponsor of H.R. 759, the bill to rename the Ellis Island Library 

after Bob Hope. So, Congressman Engel, I welcome you to the subcommittee. So please proceed with your statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ELIOT L. ENGEL, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM NEW YORK 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Senator, and it’s good to see you, Senator 

Akaka, Senator Burr, and Senator Salazar. I of course had the 

honor of serving with you, Senator Akaka and Senator Burr, as 

House members. Senator Salazar, I have the honor of serving with 
23

* The additional materials referred to in Representative Engel’s statement have been retained 

in subcommittee files. 

your brother as a House member. So I feel a little attachment to 

all three of you. 

I want to thank you for holding this hearing on H.R. 759, which 

seeks to name the third floor library at Ellis Island in New York 

as the ‘‘Bob Hope Memorial Library.’’ Ellis Island is important to 

me. All four of my grandparents passed through there when they 

immigrated to the United States about 100 years ago. I think it is 

very fitting that this be named after Bob Hope. 

I also want to thank the primary co-sponsor of this legislation, 

Representative Gallegly of California, for his support. 

Finally, I would like to point out that present today in the audience is Linda Hope, Bob Hope’s daughter and the Vice President 

of the Bob Hope Legacy. 

Before I begin, I just must first start by venting my frustration 

with the National Park Service in its handling of this legislation. 

Today the Park Service will testify that it cannot support this bill 

even though it’s passed the House of Representatives in a bipartisan fashion two Congresses in a row. Each time they came and 

said that they couldn’t support the bill and as far as I’m concerned 

the reasons were specious. 

This effort to honor Bob Hope at Ellis Island has been ongoing 

for years and I would ask that a letter* from former Secretary of 

the Interior Manuel Lujan, who served the first President Bush, 

supporting naming a different facility at Ellis Island for Bob Hope 

be included in the record as part of my testimony. Thank you. 

Mr. ENGEL. In the 109th Congress my staff had ongoing communications with the Park Service. The Park Service even requested 

that some language in the bill be changed to clarify that the library 

on the third floor and not the whole floor was being named for Bob 

Hope. I accepted this clarifying language and it is included in the 

bill that is before us today. In fact, the language is exactly the 

same language requested by the Park Service. 

I would like to address the Park Service’s contention that there 

is not a clear link between Bob Hope and Ellis Island. Bob Hope 

came to Ellis Island 100 years ago in 1907 with his family when 

he was just 4 years old as an immigrant. Mr. Chairman, after a 

long period of restoration, Ellis Island was turned into a museum 

in 1990. The purpose of the restoration was for people to come and 

remember the 12 million people who passed through Ellis Island 

from 1892 to 1954 to pursue the American dream. 

I can’t think of anyone who embodies the American dream more 

than Bob Hope. He and his family arrived in the United States 

with almost nothing. Bob Hope became a household name here in 

the U.S. and around the world. He is perhaps best known for his 

work entertaining our Nation’s military overseas, most often during the holiday season. 

This bill is strongly supported by the Ellis Island Restoration 

Commission, which has worked diligently to repair and refurbish 

Ellis Island. The commission has said that naming the third floor 

library after Bob Hope would be a fitting tribute to one of America’s most famous immigrants. I have a letter to that effect and I 
24

would also respectfully ask to have it be made part of my testimony. Thank you. 

Mr. ENGEL. When the idea of naming another center at Ellis Island after Bob Hope was suggested, Secretary Lujan said in his letter to Bob Hope, and I quote the Secretary: ‘‘I understand that you 

came to Ellis Island on your way to becoming a treasured U.S. citizen. Certainly your association with the center makes the project 

all the more important because your success story surely reflects 

the American dream.’’ 

Delores Hope and the rest of the Hope family members are 

pleased that Bob Hope’s life will be honored and remembered 

through this museum. Thus, for my final request I ask that a letter 

from Bob Hope himself and a letter from his wife Delores be placed 

into the record as part of my testimony. Thank you. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank you 

for holding this hearing on the legislation. I would like to thank 

Senator Burr and Senator Salazar, and I want to thank my lead 

Republican sponsor, Rick Gallegly. I believe this is a small but fitting tribute to a man who did so much for our Nation and for our 

men and women in uniform. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Representative Engel follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ELIOT L. ENGEL, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW

YORK, ON H.R. 759

Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing on H.R. 759, which seeks to 

name the third floor library at Ellis Island in New York as the ‘‘Bob Hope Memorial 

Library.’’ I also want to thank the primary cosponsor of this legislation, Representative Gallegly, for his support. Finally, I would like point out that present in the audience today is Linda Hope, Mr. Hope’s daughter and the vice president of the Bob 

Hope Legacy. 

I must first start by venting my frustration with the National Park Service and 

its handling of this legislation. Before you today, the Park Service will testify that 

it cannot support this bill even thought is passed the House of Representatives two 

Congresses in a row. 

This effort to honor Bob Hope at Ellis Island has been ongoing for years. And I 

would ask that a letter from former Secretary of the Interior Manuel Lujan, who 

served the first President Bush, that supports naming a different facility at Ellis 

Island for Bob Hope be included in the record as part of my testimony. 

In the 109th Congress, my staff had ongoing communications with the Park Service. The Park Service even requested that some language of the bill be changed to 

clarify that the library on the third floor, and not the whole third floor, was being 

named for Bob Hope. I accepted this clarifying language and it is included in the 

bill that is before us today. In fact, the language is exactly the same language requested by the Park Service. 

I would like to address the Park Service’s contention that there is not a clear link 

between Bob Hope and Ellis Island. Bob Hope came through Ellis Island in 1907, 

with his family, when he was just four years old. Mr. Chairman after a long period 

of restoration, Ellis Island was turned into a museum in 1990. The purpose of the 

restoration was for people to come and remember the 12 million people passed 

through Ellis Island from 1892–1954 to pursue the American dream. Bob Hope embodies the American dream! He and his family arrived in the United States with 

almost nothing. Bob Hope became a household name here in the U.S. and around 

the world. He is perhaps best known for his work entertaining our nation’s military 

overseas—most often during the holiday season. 

This bill is strongly supported by the Ellis Island Restoration Commission, which 

has worked diligently to repair and refurbish Ellis Island. The Commission has said 

that naming the third floor library after Bob hope would be a fitting tribute to one 

of America’s most famous immigrants. I have a letter to that effect and would ask 

to have this also be made part of my testimony. When the idea of naming another 

center at Ellis Island after Bob Hope was suggested, Secretary Lujan said in his 

letter to Bob Hope, ‘‘I understand that you came through Ellis Island on your way 
25

to becoming a treasured U.S. citizen. Certainly your association with the center 

makes the project all the more important because your success story surely reflects 

the American Dream.’’

Dolores Hope and the rest of the Hope family members are pleased that Bob 

Hope’s life will be honored and remembered through this museum. 

Thus, for my final request I ask that a letter from Bob Hope himself and a letter 

from his family be placed into the record as part of my testimony. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for holding this hearing on the legislation, and thank my lead Republican sponsor, Rep. Gallegly. I believe this is a small 

but fitting tribute to a man who did so much for our nation, and our men and 

women in uniform.

Senator AKAKA. Let me call on Congressman—I mean, ranking 

member Burr, for any comments or questions he might have. 

Senator BURR. I thank the chairman. Mr. Chairman, I will have 

no questions of Congressman Engel. It’s great to see him and I’m 

appreciative that he would take the time to come over and to comment on this project. But I know the House is probably tied in 

knots with votes and I’m more than willing to let him head back 

if in fact that enhances his schedule at all. 

Mr. ENGEL. I thank you, Senator. It’s an honor to be here and, 

as I said, good to see all of you. 

Senator BURR. Mr. Chairman, I do have questions for Mr. Wenk. 

So if I could go into those now. 

Senator AKAKA. Certainly. 

Do you have any comments or questions to Congressman Engel? 

Senator SALAZAR. I have no questions for Congressman Engel. I 

just appreciate him coming over to testify on behalf of his legislation. Thank you. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. I want to thank you, Congressman Engel. You 

may either remain or—I know you’re a busy man, too. 

Mr. ENGEL. I’ll remain. It’s an honor to be in the Senate, so I’ll 

remain, and think about what might have been or something. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator AKAKA. Senator Burr. 

Senator BURR. It’s contagious. You better watch it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Wenk, some would think less of me if I didn’t point out when 

I sat down yesterday afternoon to prepare for this hearing your testimony wasn’t here in its completion. It is my hope before I die or 

leave the Senate, whichever happens first, that I’ll come to one 

hearing where Government witnesses will have all of their testimony written, approved, and to the committee in time that we 

could digest it fully to be able to hold a hearing. I’ll continue to 

point that out every time a witness comes in front of this subcommittee or any subcommittee, because I believe that the rules 

are very specific and I take the latitude to point out that it doesn’t 

matter who’s in control of the White House. It seems to be a perpetual thing. 

But I believe that the quality of what we do is that much better 

if in fact we get the opportunity to know beforehand what witnesses are going to come in and testify on so that we can at least 

put some thought to the proper questions, get a little bit deeper 

into the issues, and so that it’s clear for all members and for the 

administration what’s at stake and what we should support. 
26

Having said that, let me move if I can to S. 868. I take for granted from your testimony that the Park Service has completed the 

suitability and feasibility study, though it’s in its public comment 

period. Am I correct on that? 

Mr. WENK. Yes, we have. It’s actually not a completed study 

until we receive comments, which close on September 17th, and we 

will go out with the final document. 

Senator BURR. I think you have a good feel from that what you’re 

going to find. In your statement you said ‘‘If this bill moves forward 

we’d like to work with the committee to make this bill consistent 

with other wild and scenic river designation bills that have been 

enacted by Congress.’’ If you will, what makes this inconsistent 

with other wild and scenic river bills that have passed Congress? 

Mr. WENK. Senator Burr, I do not have the specifics on that. I 

will have to provide it. I’m sorry. 

Senator BURR. I wish you would, because I believe you’re right. 

I believe that as we go through this process we should show consistency, and I think as one who has a wild and scenic bill I want 

to make sure that whatever I’m proposing is consistent with what 

we’ve done in the past, and I want to make sure that those additional ones that we consider are in fact consistent with the bar I’ve 

tried to hold. 

Let me move, if I can, to S. 1051. This is a little more difficult 

to understand. It’s not more difficult to support the recognition of 

the black Revolutionary War participants, but, given the history of 

this, I think it deserves a little bit of attention and thought. The 

new committee that’s set up is the National Liberty Memorial. The 

previous organization that was set up to initiate this and did receive the approval and a spot on the Mall is the Black Revolutionary War Patriots Memorial. 

It’s my understanding that the reason that the current group 

chose to file under the new name and to file to extend the process 

was the fact that the designation had been approved and that the 

previous organization, though bankrupt, still owes money. Am I 

correct on that? 

Mr. WENK. It’s my understanding—I do not know the specifics of 

how much money and to who money is owed, but I believe that is 

in fact the case. 

Senator BURR. I know we have somebody who will testify on this. 

I think it’s extremely important for all parties, Government included, to know a little bit more about how much is owed, what 

percentage of that money is in fact Federal money versus private 

money. It’s probably a little late to go back and point the finger of 

blame, but I believe it’s also important that we know for purposes 

of counseling with the current initiators, the National Liberty Memorial, as to whether this wouldn’t be a lot smoother transition 

were they to assume the debt and initiate from the continuation of 

the last group. 

I’m not sure that I have enough information to ask the questions 

in the right way, much less to make suggestions. But there seem 

to be some problems with it relative to how it’s been put together. 

Mr. WENK. One of the things we can provide for you is we can 

provide the financial statements we received between 1996 and 

2003, and we’re happy to do that, where we can start to make 
27

those determinations. We can look at those statements ourselves to 

see what more information we can get to you on that, and I would 

hope that you would also look at the previous organization. 

Senator BURR. I appreciate that. Would one conclude that the review of those financials of the last organization are initiated by this 

legislation or was this something that was triggered within the Interior Department? 

Mr. WENK. I believe that it’s a requirement of any foundation or 

group that we’re working on in terms of producing a memorial or 

in support of a memorial in the reserve or in the areas of the Commemorative Works Act, and that we have a responsibility to look 

at and review those financial statements. It’s not specific to this organization. 

Senator BURR. I appreciate that. 

Let me move, if I could, to S. 1247, the Weir Farm National Historic Site amendment. If I could—I’m curious—is this an improvement to a visitors center or a totally new visitors center? 

Mr. WENK. Currently there is—what we have is we had a nine 

acre site that was purchased for the inclusion of National Park 

Service facilities within close proximity to the Weir Farm. What we 

would be—this is not a visitor’s center. This is administrative space 

and this is maintenance space that would be added under this. 

There is still a need for a visitor’s center. 

What we’re looking at is we’re looking at expanding the area that 

we can consider for the placement of these facilities to about an 

area 2.5 miles away from the site itself. It’s in a brownfield area 

that’s been developed. It’s being developed to lead standards. We 

believe that we can exchange the land that was purchased for this 

purpose, save money in terms of not having to go through the construction and be able to move into this new facility, which would 

include the curatorial space that’s been leased already, approximately 12,000 square feet, and be in the best interests of all parties. 

It would remove this from an area—it’s a neighborhood area 

where the neighbors have questioned the appropriateness of putting this kind of facility within a neighborhood. 

Senator BURR. So it’s to enhance the visitor experience of this 

historic site? 

Mr. WENK. It’s actually probably to enhance more the administrative and curatorial abilities of the National Park Service. There 

still is a future need for a visitors center that would be able to display some of the large works that we have. 

Senator BURR. I appreciate hearing that because we’ve got these 

treasures around the country and some that still need the investment of visitors centers and the relocation of operational pieces 

that in some cases take away from the visitor experience and the 

value of the historic site. So I look forward to the action of the subcommittee on that. 

One question as it relates to Acadia National Park, S. 1329. We 

raised the funding authority for land acquisition at the park. How 

much land has the National Park Service identified to date for future acquisition at Acadia and in today’s terms what would be the 

value of that land? 
28

Mr. WENK. The number that we’re asking for, the $28 million 

number that’s within the legislation, that represents the land that 

we have willing sellers for within Acadia National Park today. 

There is additional land that is not by willing sellers and I do not 

have—we have not put a value on that land and I can’t tell you 

the specific acres. But I could get that for you for the record. 

Senator BURR. But $28 million would be the actual land value 

today——

Mr. WENK. For willing sellers. 

Senator BURR [continuing]. For willing sellers. 

Mr. WENK. Of land of willing sellers, correct. 

Senator BURR. OK. I thank you. 

I thank the chair. 

Senator AKAKA. Senator Salazar. 

Senator SALAZAR. Thank you very much, Senator Akaka. 

First of all, let me—I want to comment briefly on two pieces of 

legislation which I’m sponsoring which are here today, and I want 

to thank Director Wenk for your testimony on both of those pieces 

of legislation and the support of the administration. 

First with respect to S. 127, the Great Sand Dunes National 

Park and Preserve Act, it was an historic undertaking back in 2000 

when the Department of the Interior under then-Secretary Babbitt, 

working closely with Senator Campbell and Senator Allard, moved 

forward in the creation of the Great Sand Dunes National Park. As 

part of that legislation, the authorization was given to move forward with the acquisition and creation of the Baca National Wildlife Refuge. 

This is an important chapter in our moving forward with protecting the complex of wetlands that comprise the hydrological and 

ecological reality of what is my native valley in Colorado, the San 

Luis Valley, and tieing in the Baca Wildlife Refuge to the Monte 

Vista Wildlife Refuge and the Alamosa Wildlife Refuge are an essential aspect of an effort to try to preserve the wildlife values as 

well as the water rights within the San Luis Valley and the upper 

reaches of the Rio Grande Basin. 

So I’m appreciative of the administration’s efforts on this and I 

appreciate my colleague, Senator Allard, in helping us move forward with the legislation. 

I think, importantly, the purpose of the refuge defined as defined 

in S. 127, just to state it here for the record as I do it orally, is, 

I quote, ‘‘to restore and enhance and maintain wetland, upland, riparian, and other habitats for native wildlife, plant, and fish species in the San Luis Valley.’’ I think that’s an appropriate purpose 

and one that I fully support. 

Second, a quick comment on S. 127 and H.R. 359. That legislation concerning the late Cesar Chavez, sponsored here in the U.S. 

Senate by Senator John McCain and I, is an important piece of legislation for me personally. Cesar Chavez for me was an inspiration 

and hero in my life and did show me that no matter what the odds 

were, as he would say in Spanish with the words ‘‘Si, se puede,’’ 

yes, it can be done. 

I think it’s appropriate to undertake the review on the study of 

sites associated with a life of a person who made a major difference 

in the life of America. So I appreciate the testimony by the com-
29

mittee. I appreciate my co-sponsors and the work of our staff in 

moving these two pieces of legislation forward. 

Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Salazar. 

I want to thank our witnesses today, Congressman Engel, for 

your testimony, and also, Mr. Wenk, for yours. We’ll certainly deal 

with your testimonies as we deal with these bills. I want to thank 

you very much for that and would like to call on the next panel. 

Mr. WENK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. 

The subcommittee has received several written statements, 

which will be included in the hearing record: from Senator Feinstein, also on the Bob Hope bill; from Senator Collins and Senator 

Snowe on S. 1329, the Acadia National Park bill; from Senator Allard on S. 127, the Baca National Wildlife Refuge bill; from Senator 

Dodd on S. 1051, the National Liberty Memorial bill; and from Senator Kennedy on S. 868 and S. 1184, the two bills dealing with 

Taunton, Massachusetts. All of these statements will be included 

in the hearing record. 

[The statements referred to follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM

CALIFORNIA, ON H.R. 759

Mr. Chairman, I would like to testify in support of H.R. 759, a bill to redesignate 

the Ellis Island Library, located on the third floor of the Ellis Island Immigration 

Museum, as the ‘‘Bob Hope Memorial Library’’. 

Bob Hope may very well be the most widely-known immigrant to have passed 

through the Ellis Island Immigration Station—although when he arrived as a fouryear old he was still went by his given name: Leslie Townes Hope. 

And the story of this young boy, who later changed his name to Bob Hope and 

was adored by so many, truly exemplifies the American Dream:

• As a young boy, he left England with his family and immigrated to the United 

States. 

• His family struggled financially for years after they arrived. 

• To help support his family, he left school early, took on odd jobs, and even 

boxed for a short time.

Later, when Bob Hope became successful, he was celebrated and loved by all 

Americans. 

In his many foreign tours entertaining America’s soldiers abroad, he brought to 

them the warmth and the merry good humor that they longed for from their faraway homes. 

Bob Hope is a great symbol for the Ellis Island story, because he was keenly 

aware that we was an immigrant, of how far he had come, and how passionately 

grateful he was for it. 

Ellis Island is known to the world as a symbol of the possibilities that America 

offers. And the ‘‘Bob Hope Memorial Library’’ will continue to catalogue real life examples of that possibility. 

The Ellis Island Library includes:

• a reading room, 

• a preschool children’s reading center, 

• an archive for controlled storage of valuable paper artifacts, and 

• a room designed to provide access to the library’s collection of more than 1,000 

oral histories.

As the Park Service describes this library: ‘‘It is a resource devoted to the American experience and the stories of those who came to America with hopes and 

dreams of a better life.’’

And Bob Hope embodies this American experience. 
30

* Letter has been retained in subcommittee files. 

In 1990, when Bob Hope learned that he might receive a similar honor during 

his lifetime, he was both ‘‘thrilled and gratified’’, as he says in the attached letter.* 

In that letter, Bob Hope shared an anecdote from his first moments arriving in 

the United States:

[I] saw the first glimmer of this great nation of ours as a 4-year-old boy 

in knickers and had no idea of the opportunities that lay ahead. Frankly, 

my only concern back then was running away as fast as my little legs 

would carry me from the doctor who came to inoculate me before landing 

at Ellis!

I know that the Park Service has suggested that other remarkable American immigrants could equally be associated with Ellis Island. This may be true. But I 

think this approach misses the point. 

For a place that is a shining example of what America can offer, isn’t it more powerful to hold up individuals whose extraordinary lives exemplify that opportunity? 

The Bob Hope Memorial Museum can inspire visitors with his life and the stories 

of others like him. 

Naming this museum after Bob Hope will help to give a face to the American 

dream. 

I hope the Chairman will move the bill quickly, and my colleagues will support 

its enactment. Thank you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, U.S. SENATOR FROM MAINE, ON S. 1329

I would like to first applaud Chairman Akaka and Ranking Member Burr for 

their efforts on behalf of our National Parks. As we approach the centennial of the 

creation of the National Park Service, I am encouraged that under the stewardship 

of this Subcommittee we will provide the leadership to ensure future generations 

will be provided the opportunity to enjoy the natural jewels of America. 

I would also like to voice my strong support for the Acadia National Park Improvement Act of 2007, which I have cosponsored with Senator Collins. For those 

of you who have not had the good fortune to visit one of the crown jewels in the 

National Park system, Acadia National Park, the first national park established 

east of the Mississippi, is located on the rugged coast of Maine, encompassing over 

47,000 acres that follow the shoreline, go up mountains of sheer granite, dotted with 

numerous lakes and ponds, diverse habitats that create striking scenery and make 

the park a haven for wildlife and plants. 

At a time when American society becomes increasingly sedentary, Acadia provides 

uniquely diverse array of activities for visitors of all ages. For example, the Precipice Trail and the cliffs on Champlain Mountain is one of the more challenging 

hikes on the East Coast, while the park also offers handicapped accessible trails, 

such as the Jordan Pond Nature Trail. Furthermore, under the leadership of Sheridan Steele, the park has recently incorporated electronic scavenger hunts in Acadia 

using GPS system to spark interest in geology in our youngest generation. 

Acadia National Park is certainly a land of contrast and diversity, with a variety 

of freshwater, estuarine, forest and intertidal resources and is one of the most visited Parks in the National Park System, and rightfully so, as it offers magnificent 

views from Cadillac Mountain that sweep down 1,530 feet to the rocky coast and 

ocean below. Besides its natural beauty, the Park brings in $130 million a year into 

the State’s economy. 

It is because of the great beauty of the Park and its scenic views that I have continued my efforts to achieve cleaner air for the area and for the entire State. I am 

a devoted supporter of the Island Explorer bus system, whose clean propane-powered vehicles offer visitors and residents free transportation to hiking trails, the 

unique carriage roads, the island beaches and for in-town shopping. Since 1999, the 

bus system has carried 2.1 million people, while eliminating an estimated 7,610 tons 

of greenhouse gases. I understand that other national parks are considering using 

the positive benefits of the Island Explorer system as a transportation model for 

parks all around the country. A great deal of thanks should go to the surrounding 

towns and to L.L. Bean for financing this successful system that helps to make the 

air cleaner and adds to our enjoyment of the activities the Park provides. 

The legislation introduced today will help the Park in three specific areas. First, 

it will help the Park by extending the Acadia National Park Advisory Commission 

for 20 years giving local residents the opportunity for input into the management 
31

of the Park. This has been instrumental in developing comprehensive solutions to 

the problems that arise in an area where thousands of people live and work. The 

bill also increases the authorized ceiling for land acquisition funding by $10 million 

to $28 million to realize the sharp rise in real estate prices so that properties from 

willing sellers within the Park’s boundaries can be included into the Park. Development increasingly threatens the integrity of the park. For example, recently a proposal was submitted to create a nine-unit subdivision on a parcel of land that directly bordered Somes Sound and Acadia. Fortunately, the Friends of Acadia, a devoted, independent philanthropy that has raised more than $15 million in private 

endowments for the park, was able to purchase the land and the land will remain 

pristine. Finally, the legislation will allow the Park to locate an intermodal center 

outside of park boundaries off of Mt. Desert Island to give even more assistance to 

the one road entering and exiting the Park by alleviating auto traffic congestion and 

pollution. 

I will continue to take actions for additions within the Park boundaries, for local 

input into the management process, for a better public transportation system for the 

Island that will create a healthier environment, and better support the Park’s ecological protections. I look forward to continue working with the people of Mt. Desert 

Island, the Park’s Supervisor, and the Friends of Acadia, on issues important to all 

of us for the preservation of the beautiful landscape, the ocean’s coastline, and for 

environmental improvements in Acadia National Park. 

I thank the Chairman. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE ALLARD, U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO, ON S. 127

Thank you, Chairman Akaka and Ranking Member Burr, for the committee’s consideration of S.127, a bill that would provide for the administration of the Baca National Wildlife Refuge. I would also like to thank you for allowing the opportunity 

to submit my comments on this legislation and for your leadership on issues affecting our nation’s parks. 

I am one of the luckiest people in Washington; not only do I get to serve the people of Colorado, but I am fortunate enough to have incredibly beautiful and unique 

lands in my home state. The Baca National Wildlife Refuge is one of these unique 

areas. It is located in southern Colorado, nestled along the west side of the Sangre 

de Cristo Mountain Range. The Refuge preserves one of the most diverse natural 

landscapes in the nation, ranging from wetlands to sand dunes. The refuge is also 

a critical part of the Central Flyway which is a crucial migratory bird habitat. Numerous species of wildlife, including elk and bald eagles, call the refuge home. This 

area is an exceptional place, which is why I sponsored legislation protecting it in 

2000. 

The legislation that the committee is reviewing today would amend the 2000 law, 

clarifying the purpose of the refuge and providing additional management guidance. 

It ensures that this important part of the Central Flyway is managed in a manner 

that emphasizes the importance of the preservation of native wildlife habitat. Providing this guidance will ensure that the refuge is managed in a way that benefits 

all that use it while protecting land and water. I understand that the Fish and 

Wildlife Service is requesting an amendment to the bill, I look forward to working 

with them on this amendment. 

Chairman Akaka, Ranking member Burr, thank you and the Committee for your 

time and consideration. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, U.S. SENATOR FROM

CONNECTICUT, ON S. 1051

Chairman Akaka and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am proud to sponsor, along with Senators Grassley, Obama, 

and Dole, the National Liberty Memorial Act, a bill to allow the construction of a 

memorial to the ‘‘courageous slaves and free black persons who served as soldiers 

and sailors or provided civilian assistance during the American Revolution and to 

honor the countless black men, women, and children who ran away from slavery or 

filed petitions with courts and legislatures seeking their freedom.’’

This memorial will help to complete the story told on the National Mall of the 

birth of our nation. It will sit near a memorial to the fifty-six signers of the Declaration of Independence. What the signers proved true in the words of the Declaration, 

those black patriots demonstrated in their lives. The two memorials will give equal 

testament to the power and promise of freedom; they belong side-by-side. 
32

Mr. Chairman, there is no serious debate about whether the memorial to the 

black patriots is worthy; none about its necessity; none about its value. There is 

only the question of whether this memorial belongs on the National Mall. I believe 

it does. Congress has affirmed and reaffirmed its commitment to the establishment 

of this memorial on the Mall, most recently in an explicit exemption to the Commemorative Works Clarification and Revision Act of 2003. I support the Reserve on 

the National Mall, and the intention to preserve open space and a place of reflection. But the memorial to the black patriots, approved before the statuatory restrictions on additional memorials on the Mall were enacted, has been grandfathered in, 

and sets no precedent. Only one other memorial has been similarly exempted: the 

memorial to Martin Luther King, Jr. I hope you will agree that the Mall, just like 

our national story, would be incomplete without either. 

It is unfortunate that the group first authorized to build this memorial was unable to raise the necessary funds, but it would be a great loss if that failure deprived 

us of testimony to heroic sacrifices that have too long gone overlooked. I am confident that this bill, by authorizing a new group to raise funds, will make this memorial a reality. 

And when someday soon it stands on the Mall, it will be a visible sign that we 

are a nation willing to revisit our history, willing to correct our omissions, willing 

to listen to unacknowledged voices. It will speak of our struggles for liberty in the 

past, and our love for liberty in the present. It will be a monument to black patriots 

of the Revolutionary War, and to a country that lives up to its ideals. 

I ask you to join me and my colleagues in support of this authorization. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD M. KENNEDY, U.S. SENATOR FROM

MASSACHUSETTS, ON S. 868 AND S. 1184

I commend Chairman Akaka and Senator Burr for holding this hearing. Senator 

Kerry and I introduced S. 868 and S. 1184 in the spring, and I appreciate this opportunity to reiterate my strong support for these bills, which will protect and preserve important environmental and historic resources in Massachusetts. 

The first of the two bills, S. 868, would designate as ‘‘Wild and Scenic’’ the Taunton River between the communities of Bridgewater and Fall River.μ Our goal is to 

preserve the free flowing character of this extraordinary resource and support public 

access and clean-up projects. 

Senator Kerry and I first introduced legislation in 1999 with former Congressman 

Joe Moakley to authorize a study of Taunton River for consideration for the Wild 

and Scenic designation, and that legislation was enacted the next year. The study 

identified six special factors along the river: Agriculture; Ecology and Biodiversity; 

Estuary; Fisheries; History and Archaeology; and Recreation and Scenery. 

Taunton River is the longest coastal river in New England without dams. μIt supports 45 species of fish and many species of shellfish, including seven types of freshwater mussels, and its archaeological treasures date back 10,000 years. The watershed is a habitat for 154 species of birds, including 12 rare types. It is also home 

to river otter, mink, gray fox, and deer. 

The Taunton River Stewardship Council—representing the towns of Bridgewater, 

Halifax, Middleborough, Raynham, Berkley, Freetown, Dighton, Somerset, the cities 

of Taunton and Fall River, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Southeastern 

Regional Planning and Economic Development District, the Wildlands Trust of 

Southeastern Massachusetts, the Natural Resources Trust of Bridgewater, the 

Taunton River Watershed Alliance, Save the Bay, the Nature Conservancy, and the 

Council Oak Wampanoags—will serve as the principal partner of the Park Service 

in implementing and overseeing the Wild and Scenic River designation. Passage of 

this legislation will enable the Park Service to work with the Council to ensure that 

this unique resource is protected for generations to come. 

The second bill, S. 1184, authorizes a special resource study to determine the suitability and feasibility of establishing a unit of the Park Service in the City of Taunton. This bill is nearly identical to one filed by Congressman Barney Frank, H.R. 

1021, which was approved unanimously by the House of Representatives on March 

19. 

The City of Taunton has a wealth of historic treasures that make it worth consideration as the site of a new Park Service unit. Taunton Green is renowned as the 

place where the Sons of Liberty flew an early version of the American flag in 1774 

to protest British control of the colonies. The First Parish Church is where negotiations took place in the 1670s between Plymouth Colony and the Wampanoag Tribe 

before the beginning of ‘‘King Philip’s War,’’ named for the tribe’s king, which became the most devastating Indian war in New England. The Bristol County Court-
33

house complex in Taunton was designed in 1894 by the great Frederick Law 

Olmsted, who also designed Boston’s Emerald Necklace, Manhattan’s Central Park, 

Brooklyn’s Prospect Park, and the U.S. Capitol grounds. The former Bristol Academy building was designed by Richard Upjohn, the architect of New York City’s 

Trinity Church. In light of this remarkable concentration of historic resources in 

Taunton, a study of the kind proposed in the legislation is an especially important 

step for their protection and preservation. 

Again, I thank the Subcommittee for scheduling this hearing, and I look forward 

very much to working with you to enact these important measures.

Senator AKAKA. I’d like to welcome Mr. Maurice Barboza to the 

desk here, and also David Hicks. Mr. Maurice Barboza is the Chief 

Executive Officer of the National Mall Liberty Fund D.C. located 

here in Washington; and Mr. David Hicks is Executive Director of 

the Arizona Trail Association from Phoenix, Arizona. 

We will include each of your written statements in the hearing 

record, so I’d ask each of you to please summarize and try to limit 

your oral remarks to no more than 5 minutes. Mr. Barboza, will 

you please proceed with your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF MAURICE BARBOZA, CHIEF EXECUTIVE 

OFFICER, NATIONAL MALL LIBERTY FUND D.C. 

Mr. BARBOZA. Thank you, Senator Akaka and Senator Burr. 

Thank you for your questions. I appreciate them deeply. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for scheduling this hearing on S. 1051. 

As a member of the House in 1985, you were a co-sponsor of the 

predecessor legislation. We thank Senator Chris Dodd and Senator 

Charles Grassley for their fidelity to this cause beginning over 22 

years ago. 

I am the founder of Liberty Fund D.C. My aunt and I initiated 

the idea of a memorial in 1984. I discovered that my grandmother 

was descended from white ancestors who had served in the Revolutionary War. The memorial arose out of my aunt’s 4-year battle to 

join the Daughters of the American Revolution. She was rejected 

because of her race and because leaders may have been uncomfortable with her proven claim to white ancestors. 

Through her settlement agreement, a legally written agreement, 

more than 2,000 black soldiers were identified over a 17-year period. I’m so delighted and proud to have the descendants of the 

Henry Bakeman family. Henry Bakeman was a soldier in the Revolutionary War from New York. Behind me in the first and second 

rows to the middle are Russell Feuget, whose grandfather and father and he are members of the Sons of the American Revolution, 

descendants of Henry Bakeman; and Jo Anne Bakeman and Barbara Bakeman Fero, who are also descendants of Henry Bakeman. 

In 1988, through the Black Revolutionary War Patriots Foundation, we obtained the site preliminary design approval and most of 

the major donors. When we departed in 1992, the name was held 

in high esteem. Thereafter the group’s goodwill plummeted. By 

2001, it was irretrievable. The group was defunct by October 2005. 

Accountability was nonexistent and it was known clearly, unequivocally by the National Park Service, it was known by your 

own staffs, that this group was not accountable. 

The National Park Service is a steward of the Mall and it should 

be in more than one way. The agency supported the group to within days of the deadline, unaware that the design approval by the 
34

Fine Arts Commission had lapsed 4 years earlier, around 2001. On 

that alone, the group could not have qualified for a building permit. 

The failures had nothing to do with the history or the concept. 

It had to do with bad management that was in plain view. The 

New York Times and the Toledo Blade in particular chronicled the 

problems only months before the 2000 reauthorization, which was 

especially unworthy of the support of the National Park Service. 

That year I testified before the Memorial Advisory Commission 

and encouraged the Secretary ‘‘to determine if there was an existing organization, or a new entity, eager to come forward with a 

sound plan to raise the funds.’’ Had this occurred, the ‘‘Black Patriots’’ brand might have been capable of resuscitation. At a minimum, unsuspecting donors, including the U.S. Mint, might have 

been able to exhibit more caution. The mint transferred over 

$900,000 in unmatched coin proceeds in 2004. An investigation is 

under way on how it was spent. Audited financial statements required by the Commemorative Works Act were delinquent, usually 

by at least 48 months, and not demanded to be current in reauthorization years. 

This 1996 requirement that Mr. Wenk mentioned, I believe if I 

remember correctly actually suggesting that to the House committee staff prior to a reauthorization in 1996. I suspected when I 

left that group in 1992 that the very thing that we’re talking about 

here this afternoon would happen, and I told the National Park 

Service in 2000 when I testified before the Memorial Commission 

that it would happen, that this group would not raise the money 

and that they would use funds that they had previously raised and 

not allow it to go to the memorial. 

If there had been vigilance, this committee could not question 

whether citizens would donate to the cause or consider the position 

of the Department reasonable. Today is a new day, however. Had 

the group qualified for a building permit after the 2003 moratorium, the result would have been the same as what we seek: an 

inspiring memorial standing at Constitution Gardens. 

Months before the authorization expired, we sought the advice of 

Senator Dodd and Senator Grassley. Senator Dodd’s staff performed the due diligence. The committee staff was briefed, but already fully aware. Now the only things we seek are the site approvals. The land belongs to the American people. ‘‘Area 1 authorizations are joint resolutions that Congress must pass deeming a subject matter of preeminent historical and lasting significance to the 

Nation.’’ This is based on history and not a sponsor’s worthiness. 

The designation has never been revoked nor could it be. Books 

and research over 20 years reinforce the wisdom of Congress. Constitution Gardens remains capable of embracing this memorial, as 

it had always been—as if it had always been there. That’s the 

beauty of our designer’s concept. 

In June 2006 the Memorial Advisory Commission concluded: 

‘‘The Commemorative Works Act could be interpreted to allow Liberty Fund D.C. to assume to site approvals.’’ One member said: 

‘‘There is enough of a nexus that would be justification for extending the authorization for this site for the same memorial.’’ 

The Park Service representative, who was here today, stated, 

quote: ‘‘The reason Congress designates an organization is because 
35

* Documents have been retained in subcommittee files. 

the memorial is privately funded. So there’s nothing sacred about 

keeping the same name or the same organization.’’ 

The 2003 Clarification Act imposed a moratorium except for 

those memorials ‘‘for which a site was approved.’’ Only the Black 

Patriots Memorial and the King Memorial were exempted entirely. 

Therefore, this is a one-time-only request. The act added this new 

policy, which is telling: ‘‘Upon the expiration of the legislative authority, any previous site and design approvals shall also expire.’’ 

The National Park Service is incorrect. This does not apply to the 

site at Constitution Gardens because this legislation was exempt 

from the entire 2003 Act. 

What the Park Service also discovered when it was trying to 

work in the very last minutes of October 2006 to get this group another extension, doing it through the back door with the Secretary’s 

authority to grant extensions on his own, what they discovered was 

that provision, the beneficial provision, didn’t even apply because 

everything was exempted by the 2003 Act. 

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Burr, Constitution Gardens cries out for this 

memorial and its poetry, even more so than our combined voices. 

Directly across from a memorial to the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, the Liberty Memorial would demonstrate the 

true meaning of the Declaration of Independence. Together with 

the King Memorial, Americans will understand what Dr. King 

meant by ‘‘a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.’’ 

The National Liberty Memorial will symbolize the unconditional 

love of African Americans for our Nation from the Revolution to 9–

11, not to mention their patience. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Barboza follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MAURICE A. BARBOZA, FOUNDER & CEO, NATIONAL MALL

LIBERTY FUND DC, ON S. 1051

Mr. Chairman, I offer for the Record my complete statement and the documents* 

attached concerning research on the identity of the persons we seek to honor. Thank 

you for scheduling this hearing on S. 1051 and for the superb and responsive work 

of both the majority and minority staffs over two years. As a member of the House 

in 1985, you were a cosponsor of the predecessor legislation that led to the prescient 

decision to set aside land at Constitution Gardens. There is far more evidence today 

of the worthiness of constructing a memorial there to the contributions of African 

Americans to Independence. 

We thank Senator Chris Dodd and Senator Charles Grassley for their fidelity to 

the cause beginning 22 years ago. We thank Senator Elizabeth Dole and Senator 

Barack Obama for joining them in requesting this hearing and advancing the National Liberty Memorial. We also thank Rep. Donald Payne for his leadership. The 

entire Congressional Black Caucus has cosponsored H.R. 1693, his companion bill. 

We remember Senator Craig Thomas for his counsel when he met with us on October 5, 2005, and Charles Atherton, a board member and architect of much of Washington’s built environment, including the Mall. 

I am the founder and CEO of National Mall Liberty Fund D.C. (Liberty Fund 

D.C.), the organization seeking this authorization. My aunt, Lena Santos Ferguson, 

and I initiated the idea for such a memorial in 1984. I discovered that my grandmother was descended from white ancestors who served in the Revolutionary War. 

The memorial idea arose out of my aunt’s four-year battle to join the Daughters of 

the American Revolution. She was rejected because of her brown skin, and I suspect 

that leaders were uncomfortable with her proven claim to white ancestors. Through 

her settlement agreement, more than 2,000 black soldiers were identified, from 1984 

to 2001. Descendants have begun to discover family ties through ‘‘African American 

and American Indian Patriots of the Revolutionary War.’’ 
36

By 1988, through the Black Revolutionary War Patriots Foundation, we had obtained the site, preliminary design approval and over 75 percent of the major donors 

who eventually leveraged the rest. When we departed in 1992, the name was held 

in high esteem. Thereafter, the group’s goodwill plummeted. By 2004, it was irretrievable. Months before the authorization expired we sought the advice of Senators 

Dodd and Grassley and congressional staff. Congress allowed the authorization to 

expire on October 26, 2005, without protest. However, the door had been opened to 

demonstrate the history’s continued vibrancy and the site’s availability. 

Incorporated on May 2, 2005, months before the expiration of the previous authorization, Liberty Fund D.C. is a non-profit corporation recognized under the laws of 

the District of Columbia. Form 1023, Application for Recognition of Exemption 

Under Section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, was filed recently. We have 

a comprehensive website, www.libertyfunddc.org, and goodwill growing from 26 

months of constructive activities and dialogue. Our sponsors, architects, sculptors, 

board, lawyers, and descendants have entrusted their sacred honor to this cause, as 

have I from 1978 when I entered the National Archives to uncover my family’s heritage. The determination is as strong as ever. The potential of this project to raise 

the funds, construct the memorial and educate the nation is exceptional. 

Liberty Fund D.C. has no connection to the now-defunct Black Patriots Foundation. This is not a ‘‘resurrection’’ of that group. We are not responsible for its obligations. We have not received any of its assets, if any still exist. We will not use its 

designs or indicia, including the previously approved memorial design. The only 

things we seek are the site approvals. These were never the possession of the group. 

They belong to the American people by virtue of a process the National Park Service 

describes as follows: ‘‘Area I authorizations are joint resolutions that Congress must 

pass deeming a subject matter of preeminent historical and lasting significance to 

the Nation.’’ This is based upon history and not a sponsor’s worthiness, or lack 

thereof. 

The designation has never been revoked—nor could it be. Books, archeological discoveries, documentaries, genealogical research, and DNA extractions over the past 

two decades reinforce the wisdom of Congress. Nothing has occurred on or near the 

site to render the authorization impractical. Constitution Gardens remains unchanged, unencumbered and capable of accepting this memorial in conformity with 

the Commemorative Works Act. The National Liberty Memorial would be located—

(1) in surroundings that are relevant to the subject of the work and (2) so that it 

does not interfere with, or encroach on, an existing commemorative work. 

In June 2006, the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission concluded, 

‘‘the Commemorative Works Act could be interpreted to allow Liberty Fund D.C. to 

assume the site approvals.’’ A member voting in the majority said, ‘‘there is enough 

of a nexus... that would be justification for extending the authorization for this 

site for the same memorial.’’ (Transcript, National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission, June 27, 2006, page 25) The honorees and concept are precisely the same. 

Only the name has been changed. Another member said, ‘‘[T]he reason Congress 

designates an organization is because the memorial is privately funded. So, there’s 

nothing sacred about keeping the same name or the same organization.’’ (Transcript, page 27) 

In 2003, Congress created a Reserve on the Mall and declared it ‘‘a completed 

work of art.’’ The Commemorative Works and Clarification Act imposed a moratorium on any new memorials except those ‘‘for which a site was approved.’’ Only the 

Black Revolutionary War Patriots Memorial and the Martin Luther King. Jr. National Memorial were exempted from the entire Act. Therefore, our request is a 

unique one that will never again be necessary. In addition, the 2003 Act changed 

this preexisting policy: ‘‘Upon expiration of the legislative authority, any previous 

site and design approvals shall also expire.’’ This does not apply to the site approved 

for the Black Patriots Memorial. 

Mr. Chairman, Constitution Gardens cries out for this memorial and its poetry—

even more so than our combined voices. When tourists look across the lake at the 

National Liberty Memorial from one honoring the 56 Signers, they will understand 

the true meaning of the Declaration of Independence. 

This land was hallowed by events made possible by the descendants of those patriots, including Marian Anderson’s 1939 concert and the 1963 March on Washington. Lincoln’s granite stare may suggest how 185,000 blacks fought to preserve 

the union during the Civil War. The backdrop of the Washington Monument will 

tell Americans that thousands of African Americans served under General Washington. 

The sound of water splashing the lakeshore will remind visitors of the harrowing 

ocean passage of some of these men and women and their ancestors from Africa. 

The contemplative nature of the garden, and the walk around the lake to the site, 
37

* Graphic has been retained in subcommittee files. 

will give visitors an opportunity to think about the generations-long struggle for liberty. 

On the Mall’s North/South axis, the interrelationship with DAR Constitution Hall 

will announce the determination of persons of African descent to fully embrace their 

heritage. Together with the future King Memorial, Americans will understand what 

Dr. King meant by ‘‘a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.’’

John Carey of Washington, D.C. is proof of the power of this undying dream. He 

had to live 113 years—just about as long as any American ever has—to finally receive a pension for his service. This memorial means honor and justice, finally, for 

Mr. Carey and his African American compatriots. 

If this Committee allows S. 1051 to move forward, the National Liberty Memorial 

could come to symbolize the unconditional love of African Americans for our nation, 

from the American Revolution to 9–11.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Barboza. 

Now we’ll hear from Mr. Hicks. Will you please proceed with 

your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID HICKS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

ARIZONA TRAIL ASSOCIATION, PHOENIX, AZ 

Mr. HICKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members. Chairman Akaka and members of the subcommittee and also 

staff present in the room: The Arizona Trail is not a concept. It is 

no longer an idea or a vision. It is an 807-mile scenic trail that exists and is now at 93 percent complete. I know because I walked 

it a few years ago and have some tired feet to prove it. 

My name is David Hicks and I’m Executive Director of the Arizona Trail Association. I’m honored to be here today to offer testimony on Senate bill 1304, the Arizona National Scenic Trail Act. 

In July 2006, the National Geographic Traveler Magazine 

spotlighted three premier long distance trails: the Appalachian 

Trail, the Pacific Crest Trail, and our Arizona Trail. The Arizona 

Trail was the only one featured that is not currently a national scenic trail. But we are ready to join that prestigious group of eight 

national scenic trails. 

Mr. Chairman and members, to my side is Ms. Lynn White, Arizona Trail Association board member, with a map* showing the Arizona Trail as it crosses Arizona. As I said, it’s an 807-mile panoramic pathway that weaves its way across some of the State’s most 

spectacular scenery. That trail is the result of an exemplary publicprivate partnership that—it’s the result of a public-private partnership of 19 years ago making the Arizona Trail now 93 percent complete. 

The remaining miles are moving toward completion. The Arizona 

Trail provides recreation opportunities to Arizona’s expanding population and tourists, while preserving and respecting the naturally 

diverse and beautiful Arizona landscape. 

In 1985 the trail was just a vision of a fifth grade school teacher 

from Flagstaff, Arizona. He visualized a path that would pass 

through desert and mountain corridors, crossing the entire State of 

Arizona. Less than 3 years later, the first seven miles of the Arizona were dedicated and open to the public. I’d like to point out 

at that time Representative Bob Stump was at that dedication. I 

wish he were here today. He was a big supporter of the Arizona 

Trail. 
38

But less than 20 years later, we are in sight of completing the 

entire trail. I believe the Arizona Trail is a model case study in 

dedicated citizens working in cooperation with public and private 

agencies toward a common community goal. The leadership, funding, tremendous work effort, and service each partner has provided 

to build and maintain the Arizona Trail is immeasurable. 

The Arizona Trail is unique in the makeup of its management. 

Coordinated by the Arizona Trail Association, Federal agencies, 

State and local public agencies, private businesses, outdoor clubs, 

and individuals work productively together to visualize the Arizona 

Trail. 

I would like to get to several reasons why I think national scenic 

trail designation is appropriate. Of course, it’s a panoramic and diverse Southwestern scenery trail. It’s a popular destination for 

thousands of people annually in the urban areas as well as the 

Grand Canyon National Park. It also offers remote solitude in the 

mountains and the Sonoran Desert. It offers a wide range of recreation opportunities for hikers, equestrians, mountain bikers, trail 

runners, cross-country skiers, birders, photographers, and other 

outdoor enthusiasts. It provides continuous historic sites across the 

trail. Due to the range and elevation, it’s a unique opportunity to 

pass through six or seven life zones identified as being between the 

Equator and North Pole, but also all along the Arizona Trail. 

I believe the two most important points for this committee is: one 

that the Arizona Trail is 99 percent on public land. Acquisition of 

private property is not a concern for the Arizona Trail. The National Trail System Act in section 5 states that ‘‘A trail must be 

physically and financially feasible.’’ I believe the Arizona Trail is. 

Twenty years ago, it was just a vision. Today, at 93 percent complete and plans and actions under way, it is definitely feasible. 

I’d like to express my gratitude to Senator McCain and Senator 

Kyl and also the National Park staff for their endorsement today. 

I also have a letter that I can pass out today from Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano supporting this bill. They’ve all brought 

this bill forward. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the 

western half of the United States currently has two of the eight national scenic trails. The Arizona Trail is ready to become the third 

in the West. Our research shows that there has not been a new national scenic trail designation since 1983, over 24 years ago. Your 

support for the passage of Senate bill 1304, Arizona National Scenic Trail Act, is requested and appreciated. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hicks follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID HICKS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ARIZONA TRAIL

ASSOCIATION, PHOENIX, AZ, ON S. 1304

Thank you Mr. Chairman and distinguished members. 

Chairman Akaka and members of the Subcommittee on National Parks of the 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, the Arizona Trail is not a concept. It is no longer an idea or a vision. It is an 800 mile scenic trail that exists 

and is 93% complete. I know because I recall some very sore feet from walking the 

entire trail a few years ago. 

My name is Dave Hicks and I am the Executive Director for the Arizona Trail 

Association. I am honored to be here today to offer testimony on S. 1304 the Arizona 

National Scenic Trail Act. In July 2006 National Geographic Traveler Magazine 
39

spotlighted three premier long distance trails: The Appalachian Trail, The Pacific 

Crest Trail and our Arizona Trail. The Arizona Trail is the only one featured that 

is not currently a National Scenic Trail but we are ready to join the prestigious 

group of eight National Scenic Trails which is why we are here today. 

THE ARIZONA TRAIL

Mr. Chairman and members, to my side Ms. Lyn White, Arizona Trail Association 

Board member, has a map showing the Arizona Trail. 

The Arizona Trail (AZT) is an 807 mile panoramic pathway that weaves its way 

across the state of Arizona through some of the state’s most spectacular scenery. As 

a result of an exemplary public/private partnership, the 19 years old Arizona Trail 

is now 93% complete. And the remaining miles are moving rapidly towards completion. The Arizona Trail provides recreation opportunities to Arizona’s expanding 

population and tourists while preserving and respecting the naturally diverse and 

beautiful Arizona landscape. From its southern point at the historic Coronado National Memorial on the Arizona/Mexico border to the breathtaking panoramic Southwest splendor on the Arizona/Utah boundary, the Arizona Trail offers an array of 

scenic, historic and cultural attractions to thousands of outdoor enthusiasts. 

THE VISION

In 1985 Dale Shewalter, a hiking enthusiast and fifth grade schoolteacher from 

Flagstaff, Arizona scouted a long-distance trail across Arizona. He visualized a path 

that would pass through desert and mountain corridors, crossing the entire state of 

Arizona. Three years later, the first seven miles of the Arizona Trail were dedicated 

and opened to the public. Less than twenty years later, we are in sight of completing the entire Arizona Trail. 

A PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP

The Arizona Trail is a model case study in dedicated citizens working in cooperation with public and private agencies towards a common community goal. The leadership, funding, tremendous work effort and service each partner has provided to 

build and maintain the AZT is immeasurable. The Arizona Trail is unique not only 

as a scenic, long distance trail but also in the make up of its management. Coordinated by the Arizona Trail Association, federal, state and local public agencies, private businesses, outdoor clubs, and individuals work productively together to realize 

the vision of an Arizona Trail. 

INDIVIDUAL VOLUNTEERS

Arizona Trail Association volunteer stewards and trail workers are the backbone 

for maintaining the AZT. Working with the land managers, they form the nucleus 

for maintaining and building the trail. In calendar year 2006, from a solitary steward hiking into a remote mountain range to 149 people attending a 2-day work 

event, 1796 people volunteered over 26,000 hours on behalf of the Arizona Trail. 

Those volunteers included 30 clubs and businesses that brought their members out 

for one or more work days on the trail. Stewards and volunteers toil diligently to 

build new trail and maintain the existing AZT, and they work closely with land 

managers to make improvements and reroutes to sections as well. 

THE ARIZONA TRAIL IS READY FOR NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL DESIGNATION

Due to its rapid development resulting from a viable leadership organization, positive relations with public agencies and strong support of business and outdoor enthusiasts, the Arizona Trail is feasible and ready to become a National Scenic Trail. 

It meets National Scenic Trail legislative intent by offering:

1. Panoramic and diverse southwestern scenery. 

2. A popular destination for thousands of people annually in the urban areas 

of the Flagstaff, Tucson, Phoenix Metro and the Grand Canyon and Saguaro 

National Parks while also offering remote solitude in places like the Mazatzal 

Mountains and the Sonoran Desert. The AZT offers a wide range of recreation 

opportunities for hikers, equestrians, mountain bikers, trail runners, cross-country skiers, birders, photographers, and other outdoor enthusiasts. 

3. Continuous historic sites starting at one of the United States’ most historic 

areas where Francisco Vasquez de Coronado entered what is now Arizona and 

the USA in 1540. 
40

* See Appendix II. 

4. A unique opportunity to pass through six of the seven life zones identified 

as being between the Equator and the North Pole but also all along the diverse 

Arizona Trail. 

5. A trail that has proven it is both financially and physically feasible. Twenty 

years ago the Arizona Trail was a vision. Today at 93% complete and with plans 

and actions underway for the remaining miles, the Arizona Trail is a reality. 

6. A trail that is 99% on public land. Fortunately for the Arizona Trail, acquisition of private property is not a concern.

Before closing, I would like to express gratitude to Senators John McCain and Jon 

Kyl who have provided tremendous long-time support for the Arizona Trail and who 

have brought the Arizona National Scenic Trail Act forward today. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the western half of the 

United States currently has only two of the eight National Scenic Trails. The Arizona Trail is ready to become the third in the West. Our research shows that there 

has not been a NST designation since 1983, over 24 years ago. Your support for the 

passage of the S. 1304 Arizona National Scenic Trail Act is requested and appreciated. 

With that, I would be pleased to answer questions.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

The letter* that was received by Governor Napolitano will be included in the record. 

Mr. HICKS. Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you for your testimonies. Let me ask my 

first question to you, Mr. Hicks, on the Arizona Scenic Trail. It 

looks like you’ve brought together an impressive array of partners 

to support the Arizona Trail and the bill appears to be noncontroversial. I just have one clarifying question. You use 2 percentages here that tells me it’s not 100 percent. What you said was 

it was 93 percent complete and you also said that 97 percent was 

on public land. 

When you state that the trail is 93 percent complete, what exactly does that mean? Does it mean that the remaining 7 percent 

still needs to be constructed, or are there trail segments that still 

need to be acquired? 

Mr. HICKS. Thank you, Chairman Akaka. The trail is 93 percent 

complete. I hope you received this report here, which we think is 

more thorough than a feasibility study. But it outlines the remaining 53 miles of trail that need to be built. Most of those sections 

have been started. We are under construction in most of those 

areas, but we have 53 miles of trail to build. We hope to have those 

built—the Arizona Centennial is in 2012. We’re hoping to finish the 

trail well before that and present it to the State as a completed national scenic trail at that time or before then. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you for that clarification. 

My next question is to Mr. Barboza. In 1986 there was an original authorization to construct the Black Revolutionary War Patriots Memorial, which you initiated. After many extensions, that authorization and all of the associated permits and site approvals 

that you mentioned expired in 2005. As I understand your position, 

you now want an authorization for a new group, a new group with 

a new memorial design, but for the same underlying memorial purpose, at the previously approved site. 

It seems like you’re trying to have it both ways here. Either this 

is a proposal to extend the previous authorization yet again or it’s 

a new memorial. Can you please clarify this for me? 
41

Mr. BARBOZA. Yes, I’d be glad to, Senator. In 1986 when the authorizing legislation was approved, the bill had been stripped of the 

specific site designation, and there was a long hiatus between the 

time that the first hearings took place in the House and Senate 

and the legislation actually was approved and reported by the 

House and the Senate. The reason is because Senators began to become concerned with what they saw as a proliferation, a possible 

proliferation of memorials. They wanted to get a handle on it. They 

wanted to have some rules, regulations, and ground rules for the 

establishment and maintenance of memorials. 

So in the meantime, while the Black Revolutionary War Patriots 

Memorial, the Korean War Memorial, and the Women in the Military Service Memorials were under consideration, they were put on 

the back burner and this new Commemorative Works Act was considered, and the Commemorative Works Act required that if you 

wanted to get a memorial placed on the Mall that you had to go 

through this additional hoop, and that is get a separate piece of 

legislation approved by Congress stating that the history—and that 

is the history is of preeminent historic lasting significance to the 

Nation, therefore the memorial deserves to go on the Mall. 

So after our authorizing legislation was approved, it was another 

3 years going through all of the commissions—Fine Arts, National 

Capital Planning, Memorial Commission and others—to finally 

achieve that designation. Once Congress approved the general Mall 

area designation, we had to go back to the agencies to get the specific site, and indeed they granted this one site that we sought at 

Constitution Gardens because it meant so much. 

This is, as far as the history is concerned, it’s precisely the same. 

We took the recommendation of the National Capital Memorial 

Commission seriously. Senator Dodd took it seriously. Senator 

Grassley and the co-sponsors took it seriously. They amended the 

legislation that was introduced in early 2006 and when it was reintroduced as S. 1051 it went back to the original language. The 

only thing that was changed was the name. 

So indeed this is a continuation of a project to honor the 5,000 

black soldiers, tens of thousands of freedom seekers, men, women, 

and children who ran away from slavery and who sought liberty, 

who performed patriotic acts during the Revolutionary War, who 

filed freedom petitions with the courts and legislatures. All of those 

men, women, and children would have been honored had the Black 

Patriots Memorial been established and they would be honored if 

this memorial is established. 

With respect to the design, we could not use any—as you would 

understand, we could not use any copyrights, indicia, or design of 

the other foundation, for fear that we would become confused with 

that foundation. The only thing that has changed is the names and 

everything else is the same and those that we seek to honor. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Barboza, the previous Black Revolutionary 

War Patriots Memorial was authorized over a 19-year period, far 

longer than the 7-year period specified in the Commemorative 

Works Act. Yet today the memorial is no closer to being built than 

it was in 1986. Given the previous lack of success in raising the 

necessary funds to build this memorial, why do you expect that it 

will be any different this time if this bill is approved? 
42

Mr. BARBOZA. Senator, if you look behind me, one of the great 

things that—I first want to answer your question more directly 

about the amount of time that transpired. Because this was a new 

process, the process that we had to go through, the additional 3 

years to get the specific site, cut into our authorization. So through 

1992 I believe we were operating on—the original authorization I 

believe was for 4 years. Three years of that time was spent going 

to all the commissions and trying to get the approval of the specific 

site. 

I believe there was a 2-year extension that ended in 1993, which 

was the year after I left, and there were hearings, and it was extended I think three more times to 2005, as you said. 

But we absolutely believe that we can raise the funds and we 

have something I did not anticipate when this project was initiated 

originally, and that is emotion, like the Vietnam Memorial, where 

there were children, there were husbands, there were wives, there 

were cousins and aunts and uncles and everyone else who had 

some association to a soldier in that war. The same thing with 

World War Two and with the Women in Military Service Memorial. 

As I might add, each of those memorials, with the exception of 

Vietnam, received Federal funding. This project never received 

Federal funding except for that coin many years later that was 

minted. 

But we have descendants, living people like the three persons 

that you were just introduced to, the Henry Bakeman descendants. 

My aunt as a result of her battle with the DAR forced the organization to identify all the black soldiers who served in the Revolutionary War. They didn’t do all of them, but they did about 2,000, 

and I understand they’re still working on it after 17 years, and we 

had to push them and push them and push them. There are black 

women who discovered their ancestors in that publication who became members of the DAR and they were able to link themselves 

to this extraordinary history which is the birth right of every 

American. 

This [indicating] is a publication that I received a few days ago 

from the Boston National Historical Park in Massachusetts. This 

was a study done of the black soldiers who served at the Battle of 

Bunker Hill. When Benjamin Quarrels at the age of 88 testified in 

the House in 1985—he wrote ‘‘The Negro and the American Revolution,’’ a preeminent historian—we knew of only a handful of black 

soldiers who were at the Battle of Bunker Hill. This book contains 

120 of them. 

So while the Black Patriots Foundation was foundering and failing, there were news articles about the history that were being 

done, documentaries, studies, books, tons of books on our web site 

your staff has seen. That cemented the notion that this is real history and this is American history. So we believe that we now have 

this new element of emotion. 

The Park Service is correct, there was probably about 3.5, $4 million raised. If there had not been so much funny business going 

on—and it all originated with one individual on our board, and 

those things happen. The Korean War Memorial went through the 

same thing. I sat through hearings back in I think it was 1984 
43

where there were two organizations vying for this authorization. So 

those things happen. 

It took black people, what was it, 200 years, 250 years, for Rosa 

Parks to sit down on that bus seat and cause all of this new reevaluation and new freedoms that we had thought we were going 

to win during the Revolutionary War but didn’t. A memorial, 19 

years? I don’t think that’s such a long period of time. We’re going 

to do it. That’s the point. The point is, do you want this memorial 

to symbolize what we believe it will symbolize on that site on the 

Mall? 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Barboza. 

Senator Burr. 

Senator BURR. Mr. Hicks, thank you for mentioning Bob Stump’s 

name. What a powerful guy. We miss him tremendously. I’m sure 

the chairman remembers Bob and the great personality that he 

had—a guy that never forgot where he was from and cherished in 

fact where he was from. 

In your testimony you stated that 99 percent of the trail is on 

public land and 93 percent of the trail is completed. Of that 7 percent that’s currently not complete, what public land agencies control any or all of that and what’s the level of cooperation for completion? 

Mr. HICKS. Chairman Akaka, Senator Burr, I appreciate the 

comments on Mr. Stump. If he were here alive today, I’m sure he’d 

be sitting in this chair or this chair, thank you very much. 

Of the 7 percent—let me first address the 99 percent that’s on 

public land. We are lucky in Arizona; we have a lot of public land. 

So our trail has progressed very quickly because of that, because 

we haven’t had to acquire private property, and we don’t have to 

acquire any in the future. So we’re fortunate there. 

The amount, the 7 percent that’s not done, I think we are working with Saguaro National Park, Coronado National Forest, 

Coconino National Forest, Bureau of Land Management, city of 

Flagstaff. It seems like there’s another small piece somewhere. 

We’re all on public land, but public land is owned by lots of different entities. 

The level of cooperation is just fantastic. I think we have—and 

that’s part of the cooperation and progress that’s been made because of that cooperation of all those different agencies. So all those 

pieces are moving forward, and so we know they’re going to be 

done. 

Senator BURR. I appreciate that. 

Mr. Barboza, I’ll be totally honest. I am not smart enough to figure out all the different facets of your initiative today. I will make 

you this promise. I will, before we take up this legislation, have a 

great grasp of it. I’m not sure that any member of the Senate 

would disagree with whether a memorial would be the right thing. 

But I think that I listened as the chairman asked his questions and 

I got deeper and deeper in confusion about the dates and what they 

triggered and if there was something on the Government’s part 

where we dropped the ball, what it was, and if there wasn’t then 

who from a standpoint of the private organization is responsible, 

and if you sorted that out do you get a do-over, because in essence 

that’s sort of the way I sense this is. A lot of people have messed 
44

up and we’d like to do it over, but we’d like to pick up right where 

it was left off. 

I’m not opposed to that. I have to think through the precedent 

that might be set and whether that precedent is something that a 

member of the U.S. Senate 3 decades from now sitting in this same 

chair in my seat would look on as a benefit or a liability. Unfortunately, I’m not deep enough into this to understand that. 

Let me ask a few simple questions, though. Are you aware of unpaid debts associated with Black Revolutionary War Patriots Memorial and, if so, do you know what those debts total? 

Mr. BARBOZA. Senator, yes, I am aware, because we have a Web 

site that’s available to the public, so——

Senator BURR. Could I ask you to check your microphone. 

Mr. BARBOZA. Oh, I’m sorry. 

Senator BURR. That’s OK. 

Mr. BARBOZA. We have a Web site, www.libertyfunddc, and apparently the Black Revolutionary War Patriots Foundation shut off 

the telephones, they closed down their web site. So when they 

started searching for this memorial or something associated with 

it, they found our web site and they called me. I did get phone calls 

from an organization in Pennsylvania that did a traveling exhibit 

for them. They were going to display pictures, photographs, to 

carry it around the country. They were owed $50,000. 

I know for a fact, because there was a period of time between 

late 2004 and early 2005 when I tried to help the group. I thought, 

gosh, we’ve got to get this thing done and I’ll do whatever I need 

to do. I volunteered tens of dozens of hours trying to help them, 

and I realized this was going to be pointless. 

At the time, they had received—they had previously received at 

some point—I don’t know the exact date—the coin money. They incurred this particular debt and other debts at a time when they 

had money in the bank, but yet they didn’t pay those debts. 

There was another debt was to a consulting firm and it was a 

wonderful report this consulting firm did explaining what they 

needed to do to get the project back on track. I believe that was 

also $50,000. They didn’t pay for that fee. 

They received the coin money. That was something in the area 

of—then there was a lobbying bill that they—a former Congressman, Marty Russo. I knew him when I was on the staff of the 

House Judiciary Committee and you know him too, I’m sure, a 

lovely person. I called him 1 day and I said: Marty, can you help 

this group out? He calls me back and he says: Maurice, I’d love to 

do it, but they hired us to do a task, we gave them a discount, they 

never paid us; so I really couldn’t touch this. It was embarrassment, silliness after silliness. 

Senator BURR. Does that incorporate the entire debt that you’re 

aware of? 

Mr. BARBOZA. That would—you know, I guess that’s probably 

$160,000. I really don’t know of any—there could be more. There 

definitely could be more. 

Senator BURR. Since you have taken this initiative with others, 

how much have you raised? 

Mr. BARBOZA. When I was there I raised about $2 million. 

Senator BURR. No, I mean currently. 
45

Mr. BARBOZA. Oh, now. 

Senator BURR. The new Liberty Memorial Fund. 

Mr. BARBOZA. $750. We haven’t been raising money. The money 

that seeded this project originally came out of my pocket. I sold my 

house out in the country, seven acres of land, the big house and 

a horse barn. I have no horse, no wife, no moustache as a result 

of all of this, and many other stories that I do not wish to tell. But 

I seeded this project initially back in the 80s through 90s and it 

caused me to go, financially to have all the problems Congress is 

looking at—lack of health insurance and all kinds of other things. 

So I paid my dues on this project. 

Right now we’re not trying to raise money. We filed our—a won- derful law firm prepared our 501[c][3] filing and we raised $750 

from our descendants and other friends, and that was specifically 

what we asked them for. We want to file this document, that’s 

what we need. That’s what we got and that’s what we paid. 

Senator BURR. I want to thank you for your willingness to come 

in and testify on this; also you, Mr. Hicks, for your commitment to 

this trail. As one who shares in the Appalachian Trail, I know the 

value. Ours is a little bit longer, but it is a treasure. 

Again to you, Mr. Barboza, my commitment that I will sort these 

out. I’m sure, listening to the chairman, we both might have some 

additional questions related to this as we go on. It’s not historically 

a process that we rubber stamp, but it’s certainly one that we try 

to afford everybody a total understanding of what we’re trying to 

accomplish, which I think we’re in agreement on. But how we do 

that and the precedent that it sets is very important. 

So I thank both of you. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Burr, for your 

concerns and your questions here. 

I’d like to thank both of you for testifying this afternoon. We may 

have, as was indicated, may have questions from other committee 

members as well who were unable to attend, and if we do we’ll submit them to you in writing and ask that you answer them so they 

can be included in the hearing record. 

It is my hope that Senator Burr and I will be able to have at 

least the noncontroversial bills ready for full committee consideration as soon as possible. I thank you for what you’ve done, both 

of you, what you’ve done for your bills and wish you well in the 

future. 

If there are no further statements, the subcommittee is adjourned. 

Mr. BARBOZA. Thank you, Senator. This is an exceptional hearing. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you 

[Whereupon, at 3:47 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(47)

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to Additional Questions 

NATIONAL MALL LIBERTY FUND DC, 

October 2, 2007. 

Hon. DANIEL K. AKAKA, 

Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for the kindness extended by yourself, Senator 

Richard Burr and the staff of the Subcommittee on National Parks when I testified 

on September 11, 2007, on S. 1051, the National Liberty Memorial Act. Attached 

are two PDF files containing my answers to the questions posed for the record and 

an exhibit. 

From 1985 to 1988, the House and Senate thoroughly considered the question of 

whether the history of black patriots and soldiers of the Revolutionary War warrants a site in Area I. Multiple Federal agencies and Congress spent 21 months 

sorting out the answer. The agencies consumed 18 months alone while the five-year 

time limitation continued to run through that and the design stage. By the time the 

conceptual design was approved in November 1991, the entire authorization had 

been exhausted in one agency hearing or another. Because the agencies control the 

scheduling, duration and outcome, memorial sponsors are constricted in what they 

can do to fulfill the other requirements of a building permit pending site and design 

approval. 

The National Liberty Memorial is not a new project; only the sponsor is different. 

The purpose and scope of S. 1051 are identical to Pub. Law 99–558. Although we 

are a new entity, National Mall Liberty Fund D.C. has associations in the public’s 

mind with the land in Area 1, the history and the project before October 1992. I 

have no knowledge of the internal workings of the previous sponsor after I departed 

the project on that date. Our focus is on the noble history and saving the Black Patriots Memorial although with a new name made necessary by circumstances: National Liberty Memorial. 

We seek to continue what I and thousands of volunteers, organizations and members of Congress began over two decades ago. This, and the class of honorees, is the 

‘‘nexus’’ that the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission thought was sufficient to allow Liberty Fund D.C. to assume the site approvals. It is the 12-year 

period until 2005, after my departure, that represents the break with the project 

that Congress approved in the legislative history described in the answer to Question 5. 

We welcome an opportunity to discuss these answers with members and staff. 

Sincerely, 

MAURICE A. BARBOZA, 

Founder and CEO. 

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BURR

Question 1. National Liberty Memorial (S. 1051): What is the relationship between the Black Revolutionary War Patriots Memorial and the National Liberty Memorial? 

Answer. National Mall Liberty Fund D.C. has no legal or informal relationship 

with the Black Patriots Foundation. This project was incorporated on May 2, 2005, 

six months before the other Foundation forfeited its authorization to construct the 

Black Revolutionary War Patriots Memorial. 
48

* List of articles has been retained in subcommittee files. 

** Chart has been retained in subcommittee files. 

The National Liberty Memorial is not a new project. The purpose and scope are 

identical to Pub. Law 99–558. We are a new entity with far greater attachments 

to the land in Area I than the Black Patriots Foundation after 1992. We are seeking 

to continue what I and thousands of volunteers and members of Congress began 

over two decades ago. It is the 12-year period until 2005, after my departure, that 

represents the break from the project that Congress approved. 

Both memorials would honor ‘‘the black men, women, and children who ran away 

from slavery or filed petitions with courts and legislatures seeking their freedom.’’ 

Statistics for the Fund’s website, www.libertyfunddc.org, show that among the most 

popular key phrases and key words that bring people to the site contain the words 

‘‘black,’’ ‘‘Revolutionary,’’ and ‘‘War.’’ It is not necessary to retain the old name for 

the public to find us or to comprehend that we are trying to fulfill the original purpose and scope of the Black Patriots Memorial. 

The attached articles* written between 1984 and 1992 suggest the connection between the Black Patriots Memorial before 1992 and the current Liberty Fund D.C. 

They reflect the enormous groundwork laid for public education on the forgotten role 

of African Americans which we seek to continue. These more recent articles suggest 

how I, and my cofounder Lena Santos Ferguson, promoted the black patriots, and 

were associated with the effort to honor them in multiple ways, for over 22 years. 

‘‘Lena Ferguson Dies at 75; Challenged DAR on Race,’’ Sunday, The Washington 

Post, March 14, 2004, ‘‘Black DAR Member Challenges Efforts,’’ Associated Press, 

April 14, 2000; ‘‘Meanwhile, America could learn more about its colorful past,’’ The 

New York Times, August 4, 2004, Maurice A. Barboza and Gary B. Nash; ‘‘Injecting 

Race Into The Revolutionary War’’ The Hartford Courant, June 4 2002; and ‘‘Thurmond’s Biracial Daughter Seeks to Join Confederacy Group’’ New York Times, July 

2, 2004. 

Two prominent historians sent a letter to the Senate’s President Pro Tem in 2006 

describing how the knowledge of the history has expanded since the Black Patriots 

Memorial was authorized. (See this contemporary bibliography and letter to the 

Senate’s President Pro Tem by historians Gary Nash and Henry Louis Gates, Jr.) 

In addition, at least 60 African Americans, not counting the other eligible members 

of their families, have joined the Sons of the American Revolution and Daughters 

of the American Revolution since Mrs. Ferguson, now deceased, won her battle to 

join the organization in 1984 and secured research on the black patriots that is allowing them to be discovered by descendants. 

It was my strong feeling in 1985, when I founded the Black Patriots Foundation, 

and the feeling of the Congressional sponsors as well, that my aunt’s nationally-publicized battle to honor her heritage and join the DAR (between 1980 and 1984) was 

a force that could unite patriotic Americans of all backgrounds and contribute 

mightily to the raising of funds for the memorial. That it brought context to the 

noble history by showing how African Americans could be re-connected to their lost 

heritage. In fact, almost 100 percent of funds raised up to $4 million, perhaps, came 

from donors who were drawn to the project prior to our departure in 1992. A construction management firm estimated the cost of the memorial in 1991 to be just 

over $4 million, including the required set-aside for perpetual maintenance. 

When we left the Black Patriots Foundation, the group lost the living and breathing part of its story with a decade’s worth of associations. The group still had the 

noble history and the memorial site. But it no longer had the wherewithal to understand the connection between the history and how it could motivate Americans. This 

is one reason why it could not qualify for a building permit before the expiration 

of re-authorizations in 1994 (Pub. L. 103–321), 1996 (Pub. L. 104–333) and 2000 

(Pub. L. 105–345). 

Question 2. National Liberty Memorial (S. 1051): Is the purpose and scope of National Liberty Memorial the same as the Black Revolutionary War Patriots Memorial? 

Answer. Although the name ‘‘National Liberty Memorial’’ is new, the honorees 

and purpose remain precisely the same as the Black Revolutionary War Patriots 

Memorial. (Shown in the chart** below) S. 1051 does not alter a substantive word 

of the original authorizing legislation, Pub. L. 99–558. First, the bill strikes the 

name ‘‘Black Revolutionary War Patriots Foundation’’ in the two places where it is 

mentioned in the Act. Secondly, the bill gently reaffirms what Congress and the Secretary of the Interior said in 1988: that the history of black soldiers and patriots 

of the Revolutionary War is of ‘‘preeminent historical and lasting significance to the 

nation’’ and, therefore, eligible to be honored by a commemorative work placed in 

Area I. Third, the Act binds itself to Pub. L. 100–265 and the specific site acquired 
49

in March 1988 at Constitution Gardens. S. 1051 says that those soldiers and patriots remain eligible to be honored on ‘‘the portion of land at Constitution Gardens, 

located on the south side of Constitution Lake and west of the island, that was previously selected as the site for the memorial.’’. 

The purpose of Liberty Fund D.C. is to continue the project where it left off in 

1988 when the site was approved at Constitution Gardens. A that moment, public 

knowledge was broad, the underpinnings for fundraising emerging, and enthusiasm 

among volunteers at their highest levels. The site was never revoked, and it remains unencumbered. No other memorials were built on or near the precinct. The 

site was approved pursuant to the Commemorative Works Act on July 28, 1988, and 

grandfathered a second time to the ‘‘preeminent’’ history by the Commemorative 

Works Clarification and Revision Act of 2003. 

The Act created a ‘‘Reserve’’ on the Mall and imposed a moratorium on the construction of future monuments and memorials in that area. Section 205, however, 

exempts ‘‘a commemorative work for which a site was approved in accordance with 

the Commemorative Works Act’’. That section also says that ‘‘Nothing in this title 

shall apply’’ to such a commemorative work. That means that the history of African 

Americans remains vested in the site at Constitution Gardens. Not even the expiration of the authorization of the Black Patriots Foundation alters that fact of law. 

The provision of the 2003 Act that mandates approved sites and designs to expire 

simultaneously with the lapse of a sponsor’s authorization does not apply to the 

black patriots commemorative work, since that site was approved before that provision was written into the law. Moreover, the 2003 Act exempts this memorial from 

every provision. 

Question 3. National Liberty Memorial (S. 1051): Why is it necessary to change 

the name from Black Revolutionary War Patriots Memorial to National Liberty Memorial? 

Answer. The name ‘‘Black Revolutionary War Patriots Memorial’’ is an indicia of 

the Black Revolutionary War Patriots Foundation, as is the design of the commemorative work. The Foundation was incorporated in the District of Columbia in 1985. 

No part of the Foundation was legally or informally folded into National Mall Liberty Fund D.C. We are a separate organization incorporated under the laws of the 

District of Columbia in May 2005. In August, we filed for tax exempt status under 

Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. The Black Patriots Foundation is 

recognized independently as tax exempt and entitled to 501(c)(3) status as a nonprofit organization. 

It is my recollection that the logo and memorial design of the Black Patriots Foundation, as well as the corporate name and the term ‘‘Black Revolutionary War Patriots Memorial,’’ were copyrighted prior to 1992. The Foundation presumably retains 

the rights to one or all of those properties. In addition, while the group no longer 

has a corporate address, telephone number or website, it may still have financial 

or other obligations required to be fulfilled under Federal and state law. 

If Liberty Fund D.C. were to take on one or more identities of the Black Revolutionary War Patriots Foundation, or its obligations, including the name of the Memorial, we could subject ourselves to liabilities that we did not incur and have no 

duty to undertake or redress, in addition to copyright infringement. Such actions 

would exacerbate the attempts of Liberty Fund D.C. to distinguish the noble history 

from the former sponsor. The Foundation may not have initiated proceedings to ‘‘liquidate’’ or ‘‘dissolve’’ the corporation. Pending those proceedings, it could retain 

property rights in its identities and copyrighted assets. 

The Internal Revenue Code and the Foundation’s own bylaws, Article 5, provide 

for the following orderly procedure upon dissolution: ‘‘Further, upon the liquidation 

or dissolution of the Corporation, the Board of Directors shall, after paying or making provision for the payment of all of the liabilities of the Corporation, dispose of 

all of the assets of the Corporation exclusively for the purposes of the Corporation 

in such manner, or to such organizations organized and operated exclusively for 

charitable, educational, religious, or scientific purposes as shall at the time of qualification as an exempt organization or organizations under Section 501(c)(3) of the 

Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (or the corresponding provisions of any future law 

of the United States of America) as the Board of Directors shall determine.’’

Question 4. Are you aware of any unpaid debts associated with the Black Revolutionary War Patriots Memorial? What is the total amount and how many businesses 

are involved? 

Answer. At no time over the past 15 years, since 1992, have I had access to the 

records, receipts, invoices or bank statements of the Black Revolutionary War Patriots Foundation, except for public records such as the IRS Form 990 and audited financial statements required to be filed by the Commemorative Works Act. I have 

no knowledge of the Foundation’s internal operations over the years from October 
50

1992 through the hearing of September 11, 2007, other than through the newspapers and random information from sources outside the Foundation. 

My focus over the past 27 months has been on building the National Liberty Memorial. I hope this Committee will show America that it is more concerned with the 

debt owed to the tens of thousands of Revolutionary War era enslaved and free people who helped create the nation’s Independence. The least Congress could do is to 

memorialize them and offer their descendants the opportunity to discover familial 

connections. 

Those patriots watched, helplessly, as slavery grew and other Americans came to 

enjoy the liberty they had helped to win but were denied by the U.S. Constitution 

and the inaction of Congress. The Senate was central to that history, from the system of doling out Revolutionary War pensions to the expansion of slavery and Jim 

Crow. These continue to negatively impact their descendants. We believe this memorial will help give them a sense of closure and enormous pride—things as priceless 

as the land we seek. 

The Secretary of the Interior would do well by the Administration to defer to the 

judgment of Congress on whether Constitution Gardens should be preserved by S. 

1051 for the National Liberty Memorial and the acknowledgement of this 200-yearold debt. What is the point of enabling the Secretary to pass on the question of the 

‘‘preeminent’’ value of the history a second time. The agency has already spoken on 

that issue and on the site at Constitution Gardens. The following legislative history 

illustrates this clearly. 

Question 5. ‘National Liberty Memorial (S. 1051): The site that you are requesting 

on the National Mall was first approved for the location of the Black Revolutionary 

War Patriots Memorial. How long did the site selection process take, what type of 

documentation was needed to support the process, and what agencies were involved? 

Answer. Duration.—The entire site selection process for the Black Revolutionary 

War Patriots Memorial (P.L 99–558) consumed 21 months. This was separate and 

apart from the authorization of the Black Revolutionary War Patriots Foundation—

or the license to construct a memorial. The license did not entitle the Foundation 

to the land. The history entitled the memorial to occupy the land. Prior to 1988, 

no such procedure existed whereby a group seeking a site on the Mall was required 

to ask the Secretary of the Interior, a land manager, his opinion on the worthiness 

of a chapter in American history, particularly one in which the U.S. Congress was 

an integral part in its unfolding—the Revolutionary War and the struggle for liberty 

200 years forward. 

The clock continued to run during site selection or from authorization to specific 

site approval, including the designation of an Area I location. That amounts to over 

one-third of the original 60 months authorized for memorials under the Commemorative Works Act of 1986. 

President Reagan signed the memorial authorization, Pub. L. 99–558, on October 

27, 1986. However, it was not until July 28, 1988, that the Secretary of the Interior 

approved the site at Constitution Gardens. The sponsors of the Commemorative 

Works Act had no hard and fast evidence that within five years a memorial sponsor 

could obtain an Area I location, site approval, design the commemorative work, secure design approval and raise 100 percent of the required funds to qualify for a 

building permit. 

Actual experience under the Commemorative Works Act proved five years unrealistic and the time limit was later amended. No major privately funded memorial 

project after 1987 has met the original five-year time limitation imposed by the 

Commemorative Works Act or the subsequent seven-year authorization imposed by 

the amendments of 1991. The Korean War Memorial, Women in Military Service 

Memorial, and Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial (all of which were appropriated 

funds by Congress) were given one or more extensions beyond seven years. All, except for the Women in Military Service Memorial, were approved for Mall sites. 

The Black Patriots (which received no Federal appropriations) and Korean War 

Memorials—the first projects considered by Congress and the agencies under the 

Commemorative Works Act—were required to adhere to this process:

1. Obtain a recommendation of the Secretary of the Interior, via the National 

Capital Memorial Commission, that the history to be honored is of ‘‘preeminent 

historical and lasting significance to the nation.’’

2. Obtain within 150 days of such a recommendation the approval of legislation proposed by the Secretary to declare the history eligible to be honored in 

Area I. 

3. Secure the approval of a specific Mall site by the Secretary (as recommended by the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission), National 
51

Capital Planning Commission and Commission of Fine Arts. (There are other 

agencies with sign-off responsibilities).

Congress designated in the Commemorative Works Act the amount of time it had 

to approve an Area I designation. However, the Act puts no similar limitations on 

the time that the National Capital Memorial Commission and the Secretary could 

consume. The Memorial Commission did not conduct a hearing on the Black Patriots Memorial until June 16, 1987, or seven (7) and a half months after the approval 

of the authorization. 

After the meeting of June 16, 1987, it took officials of the National Park Service 

five (5) months to move the paperwork through the bureaucracy to OMB. It was not 

until November 9, 1987, that the paperwork was cleared and the Secretary sent to 

Congress proposed legislation that declares the Black Patriots Memorial eligible to 

stand in Area I. Thereafter, S.J. Res. 216 and H.J. Res. 413 were introduced to authorize a location in Area I. 

By a unanimous vote, and possibly as one of the earliest orders of business that 

year, the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on February 17, 

1988, reported S.J. Res. 216. On February 26, 1988, the Senate approved the Resolution (Congressional Record February 26, 1988, pages S 1548–S 1549). The Energy 

Committee did not hold a hearing on the Area I designation. The Committee Report 

on H.J. Res. 216 says, ‘‘No hearing has been held on the Secretary’s Area I recommendation; however, a hearing was held during the 99th Congress on the authorization legislation for the Black Revolutionary Patriots Memorial.’’ At that hearing, 

I spoke extensively about the significance of the history and the memorial site. The 

National Society Daughters of the American Revolution, Prince Hall Masons and 

American Jewish Congress also testified along with Rep. Mary Rose Oakar, chair 

of the House Task Force on Libraries and Memorials. The Committee received prepared statements from multiple historians and a Howard University psychologist on 

the need for the memorial. The staff also had available the entire record of the hearing held in the House. 

In the House, there was not the same continuity as in the Senate. Jurisdiction 

over memorials resided in two different committees. Jurisdiction over memorial authorizing legislation was in the Task Force on Libraries and Memorials of the House 

Administration Committee. However, jurisdiction over the land resided in the House 

Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. The Task Force conducted a hearing 

June 13, 1985, with 24 witnesses, including multiple historians, the National Society Daughters of the American Revolution, National Society Sons of the American 

Revolution, Prince Hall Masons, National Education Association and numerous 

other groups and individuals. 

On March 8, 1988, the Interior’s Subcommittee on National Parks and Public 

Lands (where the Commemorative Works Act originated) conducted a hearing on 

H.J. Res. 413. This was its first exposure to the idea that African Americans had 

served in the Revolutionary War. Witnesses included myself; the president of the 

Sons of the Revolution in the State of New York; U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Lawrence Pierce, a descendant of Adam Pierce (New Jersey), a black 

Revolutionary war soldier; and historians. On March 14, 1988, the Committee reported favorably on S.J. Res. 216 and the House approved that companion bill on 

March 15, 1988 (Congressional Record March 15, 1988, pages H 841–H 845). 

On April 11, 1988, President Reagan signed S.J. Res. 216 that designates the 

Black Patriots Memorial of ‘‘preeminent historical and lasting significance to the nation.’’ In a letter to Rep. Nancy L. Johnson, he said, ‘‘The Nation owes a debt of 

gratitude to you, and to Mr. Maurice Barboza who has pursued the dream of this 

memorial with you, for your success in passing the resolution for the Memorial to 

honor the blacks who fought for freedom during and after the Revolution.’’ (Letter 

from President Reagan to Rep. Nancy L. Johnson, April 11, 1988) The Secretary of 

the Interior did not approve the specific site until July 28, 1988. Congress took less 

than 16 months to approve the Black Patriots authorizing legislation and just over 

three (3) months to approved the location in Area I. However, it took the National 

Capital Memorial Commission 18 months to consider the matter and for the National Park Service to process the paperwork through Interior and OMB. 

The Congressional testimony (See the chart below, Congressional Statements) was 

so compelling that in bipartisan fashion members of the House Administration Committee, including the floor managers, repeated over and over during floor consideration that it was their wish for the memorial to be situated in Area I. Typical of 

those statements is this remark of Rep. Bill Frenzel, the ranking minority member 

of the Task Force: ‘‘One of the things we cannot do is to designate a specific site, 

for if we do, it would mean that the bill would have to be rereferred a couple of 

times after it left our committee. The committee is... very sympathetic with the 
52

request of the sponsors of the legislation for a site in Constitution Gardens. And it 

is the hope, I think of all of the members of the Committee on House Administration 

that when the final site is selected, it will be in that particular area, and all of us 

regret greatly we were not able to work that into the body of the bill itself.’’ (Congressional Record, November 4, 1985, H 9659). 

Rep. Nancy L. Johnson, the House sponsor asked Rep. Oakar, ‘‘So my resolution 

has also been amended to eliminate the specific reference to the site. But I think 

(thank) the committee for the language in the committee report that does indicate 

that the committee’s intention was, and I ask my colleague if this is not her understanding of the motivation of the committee, that the committee felt that this memorial should be placed in a setting of great prominence in Washington, a setting of 

such prominence as Constitution Gardens.’’ (Congressional Record, November 4, 

1985, H 9657). 

Rep. Oakar responded, ‘‘the Department of the Interior, the Planning Commission, 

the Fine Arts Commission do recommend the site. But we did put in the report language, and it is the committee’s feeling, that an appropriate site would be Constitution Gardens. It is my personal hope that it is there.’’ (Congressional Record, November 4, 1985, H 9657) One of the cosponsors and a witness before the Task Force, 

Rep. Parren Mitchell, told the House, ‘‘House Joint Resolution 142, as introduced, 

designated Constitution Gardens—between the Lincoln Memorial and Washington 

Monument—as the site of the memorial. However, the committee decided that it 

would be preferable to specify the site in its report rather than in the legislation 

itself. It is my understanding that the committee clearly intends to direct the Secretary of the Interior to authorize the establishment of the memorial at an appropriate site in Constitution Gardens. It is with this understanding that I vote in support of this legislation.’’ (Congressional Record, November 4, 1985, H 9658). 

Months before the House approved Rep. Johnson’s bill, H.J. Res. 142, on November 4, 1985, members were already aware that Rep. Bruce Vento, chair of the National Parks Subcommittee was preparing legislation that could undo their work. 

The legislation would govern the approval and construction of memorials, particularly those designated for a site on the Mall. He described it on more than one occasion as a priority of the National Park Service. However, the House decided to exempt the Black Patriots Memorial, the Korean War Memorial and a third memorial 

bill honoring Women in Military Service from the Commemorative Works Act of 

1986 on the grounds that it would be unfair to change the expectations of the memorial sponsors who had been advocating the projects for the previous 16 months, 

since the first hearings in the House and Senate. Two bills were introduced with 

slightly differing approaches: S. 2522 and H.R. 4378. 

By July of 1988, I had learned that the Senate Energy Committee would proceed 

with consideration of the companion bill, S. 2522, before any memorial bills, including the Korean War Memorial and the Black Patriots Memorial, would be considered. Eventually, the Senate decided not to follow the House’s lead and exempt the 

previously-considered memorial bills from the new Commemorative Works Act. The 

sponsors, Rep. Johnson and Senator Gore, would have preferred the language in the 

House bill, H.R. 4378, that gave that responsibility to the Congress alone. They 

wanted to avoid subjecting the Black Patriots Memorial to the discretion of the Secretary with respect to the memorial’s historic significance and the amount of time 

he might take to make the decision. 

Rep. Mary Rose Oakar, submitted a statement on June 24, 1986, on S. 2522, to 

the Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands, Reserved Water and Resource Conservation. With respect to who should make the decision concerning the historical significance of a memorial, she said, ‘‘. . . we are abdicating our responsibilities as representatives of this country if we allow the executive branch to acquire jurisdiction 

of what has always been thoroughly accomplished by the Congress . . . . In the 

Senate version, the establishment and placement of future memorials in Area I will 

be approved by the Executive branch—Congress will give up its authorization, and 

in essence become a rubber stamp to the executive branch.’’

The National Park Service consumed 18 months arriving at what the House managers and sponsors already knew: that the history was of ‘‘preeminent’’ value. This 

elongated process put the design process and fundraising on the back burner. Few, 

particularly large donors, were willing to commit money to a memorial with no site 

and no design. The public was aware that the sponsors preferred the site at Constitution Gardens and were in an uphill battle. It would not be until Spring 1989—

over three (3) and a half years after the House passed H.J. Res. 142—for a major 

donor to announce a fundraiser for the memorial. Just over two (2) and a half years 

had elapsed since President Reagan signed the authorizing bill in November 1986. 

Only a year remained on the authorization with about $4 million still needed for 

construction. No design work could proceed until after the Constitution Gardens site 
53

was approved on July 28, 1988, by the Commission of Fine Arts and the National 

Capital Planning Commission. The National Capital Memorial Commission had approved the site on June 28, 1988. 

On February 22, 1990, the preliminary design was approved by the National Capital Memorial Commission. However, when it was submitted to the U.S. Commission 

of Fine Arts on March 15, 1990, the design was rejected. The Foundation added a 

sculptor to the design team. On September 19, 1991, the new design concept was 

resubmitted to the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts and approved. A month later, the 

Congress decided that five (5) years, was not long enough for any of the newly minted memorial projects to secure design approval and raise the necessary funds. The 

Commemorative Works Act was amended and future memorials given seven (7) 

years to qualify for a building permit. 

The three previously approved memorials, including Korea, Black Patriots and 

Women in Military Service were reauthorized retroactively. Each received an additional two years. The Black Patriots Memorial now had until October 26, 1993. On 

October 9 and November 7, 1991, respectively, the conceptual design was approved 

by the National Capital Planning Commission and National Capital Memorial Commission. From October 27, 1986, when the five-year time limit began to run until 

November 7, 1991, when the final design was approved, the scheduling of approvals 

was controlled by the Congress, National Park Service, Commission of Fine Arts, 

and National Capital Planning Commission. The experience of multiple memorials 

suggests that sponsors cannot raise funds without an approved site and design. The 

expectation that a sponsor could raise more than 10 percent to 20 percent of the 

required funds without an approved model to show donors also is unrealistic. 

By November 7, 1991, the entire 60 months were consumed by me in one government hearing or another. The running of the clock was determined entirely by the 

National Park Service and other agencies. Had the time limit run from the date the 

final design was approved (when the agencies no longer controlled the time), the 

Black Revolutionary War Patriots Memorial might be standing at Constitution Gardens today. Before my departure in 1992, I had secured the approval of the site, 

conceptual design and model, as well as the major donors. The inability of the Black 

Patriots Foundation to follow through after my departure is not relevant to S. 1051. 

If the Committee is concerned about whether Liberty Fund D.C. is a continuation 

of the original intent of the Congress for the commemorative work, it must consider 

the Black Patriots Foundation as it existed on the date Congress approved Pub. L. 

99–558. Questions about the performance of the group after 1992 when the makeup changed drastically is a matter for an entirely separate kind of inquiry. That inquiry has no relevance to the Revolutionary War or the National Liberty Memorial. 

It has to do with the deeds of specific individuals and their impact on the public 

interest. 

One could argue persuasively that in October 1992, the Black Patriots Foundation 

was no longer the same group authorized by Congress to build the memorial. That 

National Mall Liberty Fund D.C. is a closer approximation of the group Congress 

authorized in 1988 for a site in Area I. On October 21, 1993, Charles Atherton, Secretary of the Commission of Fine Arts, testified before the House National Parks 

and Public Lands Subcommittee on, H.R. 2947, the first of three reauthorizations 

of the Black Patriots Foundation. He said, ‘‘I would... hope some way can be 

found to prevent the kinds of internal struggles for the control of sponsoring organizations that we hear about from time to time. Before the makeup of a group is drastically changed, it would probably be advisable to require the new sponsors, or the 

old sponsors in an altered state, to submit these changes in personnel and organization for public scrutiny. There can often be enormous sums of money involved and 

a lot of power and prestige riding on who is or is not in the driver’s seat, and this 

quite obviously can have an effect on matters of public interest.’’
54

AGENCIES 

Agency Functions Action (authorization to design) 

National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission (Advises the Secretary of the Interior and the Administrator of General Services (as appropriate) 

on policy and procedures for establishment of, and proposals to establish, commemorative works in the District of Columbia and its environs.) 

Membership: (1) Director of the National Park 

Service; (2) Architect of the Capitol; (3) Chairman of the American Battle Monuments Commission; (4) Chairman of the Commission of Fine Arts; (5) Chairman of the National Capital Planning Commission; (6) Mayor of the District of Columbia; (7) Commissioner of the Public Buildings Service of the General Services Administration; and (8) Secretary of Defense. 

1.Advise on memorial authorizations 2.Advise on Area I site 3.Advise on specific site 4.Advise on design 

November 14, 1985, recommends establishment of 

memorial with conditions 

June 16, 1987 hearing on Area I June 28, 1988, specific site approved February 22, 

1990, conceptual design approved 

November 7, 1991, approved revised conceptual design

Secretary of the Interior 1.Approve/Disapprove Area I site 

2.Approve/Disapprove specific site 3.Approve/Disapprove design 

November 9, 1987 transmitted Area I bill to Congress July 28, 1988, approved the specific site

National Capital Planning Commission (Planning entity for all Federal projects in the Nation’s Capital) 

1.Approve/Disapprove specific site 2.Approve/Disapprove design approval 

July 28, 1988, approved specific site **Senator Al 

Gore, Jr. testified October 9, 1991, approved revised conceptual design

Commission of Fine Arts (Advisor on public improvements, location, and 

execution of public sculptures) 

1.Approve/Disapprove specific site 2.Approve/Disapprove design 

July 28, 1988, approved specific site March 15, 1990, disapproved conceptual design September 19, 1991 approved revised conceptual 

design 
55

AGENCIES—Continued 

Agency Functions Action (authorization to design) 

Senate Energy Committee 1.Approve/disapprove memorial authorizations 

2.Approve/Disapprove Area I designations 

October 29, 1985, Hearing on memorial authorization, S.J. 

143

September 19, 1986, Reported memorial authorization, 

S.J. 143

February 17, 1988, reported Area I designation, S.J. Res. 

216

House Administration Committee (pre-1988) 1.Approve/disapprove memorial authorizations June 13, 1985, Task Force conducted a hearing on memo- rial authorization, H.J. Res. 142 with nearly 20 witnesses 

October 29, 1985, Reported memorial authorization, H.J. 

Res. 142

House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs (pre1988) 1.Approve/Disapprove Area I designa- tions April 15, 1986, Hearing on Commemorative Works Act (Maurice Barboza testifies) 

March 8, 1988, the Subcommittee on National Parks and 

Public Lands conducted a hearing on Area I 

March 14, 1988, the Committee reported favorably on 

Area I Resolution

U.S. Senate 1.Approve/disapprove memorial authorizations 

2.Approve/Disapprove Area I designations 

October 16, 1986, approves memorial authorization, H.J. 

Res. 143

February 26, 1988, approves the Area I Resolution

U.S. House 1.Approve/disapprove memorial authorizations 

2.Approve/Disapprove Area I designations 

October 4, 1985, approves memorial authorization, H.J. 

Res. 143

October 17, 1986, approves Senate substitute amendment 

to H.J. Res. 143 

March 15, 1988, House approved Area I Resolution

President of the U.S. 1.Approve/disapprove memorial authorizations 

2.Approve/Disapprove Area I designations 

October 27, 1986, Black Patriots Memorial authorization 

signed 

April 11, 1988, Area I authorization signed 
56

Documentation.—An large body of information was submitted to the House and 

Senate Committees to demonstrate the historical significance of black soldiers and 

patriots of the Revolutionary War, including the testimony of almost 30 witnesses. 

The following chart contains links to http://www.libertyfunddc.org/history3.htm, the 

History page of www.libertyfunddc.org, the website of National Mall Liberty Fund 

D.C.

CONGRESSIONAL

STATEMENTS 

Members of Congress Nancy L. Johnson 

Albert Gore, Jr. 

Charles B. Rangel 

Steny Hoyer 

Peter J. Visclosky 

Peter W. Rodino, Jr. 

Harold E. Ford, Sr. 

James R. Jones 

Ralph Regula 

Thomas J. Manton 

Parren J. Mitchell

Supporting Organizations Prince Hall Masons 

Prince Hall Masons, D.C. 

Sons of the American Revolution 

National Education Association 

Daughters of the American 

Revolution 

American Jewish Congress 

National Council for Black 

Child and Family Development 

District of Columbia

Outstanding Historians Dr. Benjamin Quarles Dr. Ira Berlin

Project Founders Maurice A. Barboza Lena Santos Ferguson

School Teacher 

In addition, I submitted to the National Capital Memorial Commission a detailed 

paper prepared by our architects and design team that analyzed the alternative memorial sites, including the preferred site at Constitution Gardens. (Unfortunately, 

I could only locate a reference to this document in correspondence. I could not locate 

the document.) The design team had participated in walking tours of the sites arranged by the staff of the Memorial Commission. In addition, prior to the consideration of the Area I issue before the National Capital Memorial Commission and, 

later, the specific site at Constitution Gardens before the Commission of Fine Arts 

and the National Capital Planning Commission, I sent letters to every member with 

this content:

You may also wish to obtain the following books: ‘‘The Colored Patriots 

of the American Revolution,’’ by William C. Nell (1855, reprinted in 1986 

by Ayer Company), ‘‘Slavery and Freedom in the Age of the American Revolution,’’ U.S. Capitol Historical Society (1983), ‘‘Black Courage 1775,’’ DAR 

(1984) and ‘‘The Black Presence in the Era of the American Revolution 

1770-1800,’’ by Sidney Kaplan 91973). 

Besides myself, Air Force Historian Bernard C. Nalty will testify, as a 

private citizen, next week in behalf of the Patriots Foundation. Mr. Nalty 

is the author of ‘‘Strength for the Fight: A History of Black Americans in 

the Military,’’ published in 1986. A copy of Mr. Nalty’s testimony is enclosed, together with a review of his book.’’ (Letter from Maurice A. Barboza 

to Charles Atherton, Secretary, Commission of Fine Arts, June 10, 1987).

In an identical letter to John Parsons, I said, ‘‘In addition, to help you make this 

decision, I am lending you a copy of ‘‘The Negro in the American Revolution,’’ by 

Dr. Benjamin Quarles. Also enclosed are copies of profiles of some of the patriots 

who would be honored.’’ (Letter from Maurice A. Barboza to John Parsons, Chair, 

National Capital Memorial Commission, June 10, 1987). 

In addition, it was a clear indication of the importance he and his cosponsors 

placed on obtaining the site at Constitution Gardens that on June 28, 1988, Senator 

Albert Gore, Jr. returned to Washington from campaign travel in pursuit of the 

Presidency to testify before the National Capital Memorial Commission in support 

of the site. 
57

RESPONSES OF DAVID HICKS TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BURR

Question 1. Arizona National Scenic Trail Designation (S. 1304): Is it possible to 

walk the complete length of the trail without detouring onto paved roads? If not, 

how much of the trail is not completed and what needs to be done to complete it? 

Answer. Other than crossing paved roads and the in-town Flagstaff route, there 

is only a 3 mile stretch of the Arizona Trail (AZT) that requires walking on a paved 

county road. That stretch is from the Canelo Hills and heads west to the town of 

Patagonia, Arizona. The AZT is primarily on a single trail but occasionally is on little used dirt rancher or forest roads. 

Question 2. Arizona National Scenic Trail Designation (S. 1304): How many users/

visitors do you anticipate per year on the trail? 

Answer. That is a difficult question to ascertain with reasonable accuracy. In 

areas where existing popular trails are used as the Arizona Trail route, the number 

is very conservatively estimated at over one hundred thousand users annually. For 

example, the Arizona Trail crosses the Grand Canyon National Park across the well 

traveled South and North Kaibab trails. Those are two of the most used trails in 

the USA. However, we at the Arizona Trail Association don’t delude ourselves into 

thinking that the majority of those trail users are there for the Arizona Trail even 

though those trail users are in fact on the AZT. The same scenario holds true for 

other parks and popular recreation areas that the AZT passes through too. Those 

parks are listed in the following question #3. They too are wonderful and very popular outdoor venues that include the Arizona Trail. 

Equally important as the popular areas of the AZT is that many parts of the Arizona Trail offer remote solitude for those wishing that experience. Those remote 

areas, which include several mountain ranges and the Sonoran Desert, may each 

attract only a few hundred intrepid users a year. Having both very popular and remote trail segments is another reason why the Arizona Trail appeals to a wide 

range of outdoor enthusiasts. 

Question 3. Arizona National Scenic Trail Designation (S. 1304): What county, 

state, or national parks does the trail cross? 

Answer. The AZT crosses the following parks: Coronado National Memorial; Colossal Cave Mountain Park (Pima County); Saguaro National Park; Oracle State 

Park; Flagstaff Buffalo Park (City); Grand Canyon National Park; and passes alongside the boundary of Walnut Canyon National Monument. 

Question 4. Arizona National Scenic Trail Designation (S. 1304): Your testimony 

states that 99% of the trail is on public land and 93% of the trail is completed. What 

public land agencies control the 7% of the trail that is not complete and are they 

cooperating to ensure completion? 

Answer. Remaining areas to complete and status:

1. Las Colinas Passage, 12 miles: Coronado National Forest/AZ State Land 

Dept. Construction to start Fall 2007. 

2. Rincon Mt Passage, 4 miles: Saguaro National Park. Trail route approval 

expected January-March 08. 

3. White Canyon Passage, 18 miles: Bureau of Land Mgmt/AZ State Land 

Dept. Construction started Fall 2006. 

4. San Francisco Peaks, 16 miles: Coconino National Forest. Construction 

started Summer 07. 

5. Las Cienegas Passage, 2 miles: Pima County. 24 miles done, final 2 by 

March 08. 

6. In-city of Flagstaff route, 1 mile: City of Flagstaff. Complete by Spring 08.

Total to complete: 53 miles. The above listed agencies are very committed to completing the Arizona Trail. Cooperation between the Arizona Trail Association, its 

members, businesses, numerous clubs, and volunteers and the various agencies is 

excellent. The initiative and actions by the various agencies personnel to complete 

their sections of the Arizona Trail is superb. It is a model team effort. 

[Responses to the following questions were not received at the 

time the hearing went to press:]

QUESTIONS FOR DANIEL N. WENK FROM SENATOR BURR

Question 1a. Great Sand Dunes Amendment (S. 127): Will S. 127 have any impact 

on the operation and management of Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve? 
58

Question 1b. How many visitors does Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve receive annually and will S. 127 affect visitation in any way? 

Question 2a. Cesar Estrada Chavez Study (S. 327/H.R. 359): How many sites will 

be included in the Cesar Estrada Chavez study and which states are involved? 

Question 2b. What other units of the National Park System are spread across 

multiple sites in multiple states and what are the management challenges associated with such an arrangement? 

Question 3a. Taunton Wild and Scenic River Designation (S. 868): The Administration’s testimony states: ‘‘we would like to work with the committee to make this 

bill consistent with other wild and scenic river designation bills that have been enacted by Congress.’’ What is inconsistent with S. 868 when compared with other 

Wild and Scenic River designations and how should the bill be amended to make 

it consistent? 

Question 3b. Has the National Park Service completed a suitability and feasibility 

study for this designation and, if so, what was the outcome of the study? 

Question 3c. How will the proposed wild and scenic river designation affect private 

property use along the river? 

Question 4a. National Liberty Memorial (S. 1051): What is the relationship between the National Liberty Memorial and the Black Revolutionary War Patriots Memorial? 

Question 4b. Is the National Park Service aware of any unpaid debts associated 

with the Black Revolutionary War Patriots Memorial? What is the total amount and 

how many businesses are involved? 

Question 4c. What other memorial foundations have gone bankrupt and left unpaid debts in the past 30 years? 

Question 4d. How frequently are memorial foundations, such as the foundation for 

the Black Revolutionary War Patriots Memorial, required to submit financial statements? Please provide a copy of the financial statements submitted by the foundation for the Black Revolutionary War Patriots Memorial. 

Question 4e. For each memorial that has been approved by Congress for the National Capital Region and has not yet begun construction, what is the status of the 

design, site approval, funds needed, funds raised, and financial reports (i.e., dates 

due and dates submitted)? 

Question 4f. Financial reports for the Black Revolutionary War Patriots Memorial 

were submitted over two years beyond the due date. How common is it for financial 

reports to be late, what action did the National Park Service take to persuade the 

foundation to submit the reports in a timely manner, and what changes has the National Park Service made to ensure timely submittal of reports by other foundations? 

Question 4g. In the past 20 years, how many memorials authorized by Congress 

for the National Capitol Region have failed to complete the necessary requirements 

to begin construction within the authorized period? Please provide a list of the memorials. What happened to the funds raised in each case? Did any of the memorial 

foundations go bankrupt and leave unpaid debts? 

Question 4h. The Administrations testimony for S. 1051 states that the site approved for the Black Revolutionary War Patriots Memorial should not be automatically approved for the National Liberty Memorial. How long did the site selection 

process take, what type of documentation was needed to support the process, and 

what agencies were involved? 

Question 5a. Taunton Massachusetts Study (S. 1184/H.R. 1021): The area of 

Taunton proposed for study contains one or more historic districts. Has the area 

been evaluated for National Historic Landmark designation? 

Question 5b. Could National Historic Landmark designation be a recommendation 

from the study? If so, what are the criteria for a National Historic Landmark and 

how does that compare with criteria for National Historic Site designation? 

Question 6a. Weir Farm National Historic Site Amendment (S. 1247): S. 1247 authorizes the National Park Service to exchange 9 acres of park land for 12,000 

square feet of finished space on nearby property owned by the Georgetown Land 

Corporation. The park has identified a use for the finished space, but the use of the 

9 acres by the land corporation is unclear. How does the Georgetown Land Corporation plan to use the 9 acres and is it compatible with the Weir Farm National Historic Site? 

Question 6b. How will S. 1247 improve the visitor experience at Weir Farm National Historic Site? 

Question 6c. What is the current acreage associated with the Weir Farm National 

Historic Site and how much additional property has the National Park Service identified for future acquisition? 
59

Question 7a. Arizona National Scenic Trail Designation (S. 1304): When was the 

suitability and feasibility study completed for the Arizona National Scenic Trail and 

what was the outcome of the study? 

Question 7b. How much of the trail crosses private land and does the National 

Park Service anticipate any land acquisition for the trail? 

Question 7c. What is the anticipated cost for signage, interpretive material along 

the trail, parking, and other improvements if S. 1304 is enacted? 

Question 8a. Acadia National Park Advisory Commission Reauthorization (S. 

1329): When was the Acadia National Park Advisory Commission established and 

what major accomplishments has it had since that time? 

Question 8b. S. 1329 raises the funding authority for land acquisition at Acadia 

National Park. How much land has the National Park Service identified for future 

acquisition at Acadia and what is the estimated value at this time? 

Question 9a. Bob Hope Library Designation at Ellis Island (H.R. 759): What is the 

National Park Service policy on naming sites and structures after individuals? 

Question 9b. Has the National Park Service studied the suitability and feasibility 

of naming the library at Ellis Island after Bob Hope? 

Question 9c. Could you name at least 5 individuals of international prominence 

in addition to Bob Hope that immigrated through Ellis Island? 

Question 10a. Columbia Space Shuttle Memorial Study (H.R. 807): What units of 

the National Park Service are currently associated with the space program, where 

are they located, and when was each established? 

Question 10b. How many sites are involved in the study authorized by H.R. 807? 

(61)

APPENDIX II 

Additional Material Submitted for the Record 

UNITED STATES SENATE, 

September 20, 2007. 

Hon. JEFF BINGAMAN, 

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S Senate, 304 Dirksen 

Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Hon. PETE V. DOMENICI, 

Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, 304 

Dirksen Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Re: H.R. 759

DEAR CHAIRMAN BINGAMAN AND RANKING MEMBER DOMENICI: We write to you to 

express support for H.R.759, a bill to redesignate the Ellis Island Library on the 

third floor of the Ellis Island Immigration Museum as the ‘‘Bob Hope Memorial Library.’’ Bob Hope and his family passed through the doors of Ellis Island in 1907. 

As you know, earlier this month the Subcommittee on Natural Parks held a hearing 

to consider this legislation to honor Mr. Hope’s life and work by naming the third 

floor library at Ellis Island in memory of this well known and sorely missed American treasure. 

Bob Hope was born Leslie Townes Hope to William Henry and Avis Hope on May 

29, 1903. In 1907 the Hope family left England and settled in Cleveland, Ohio. In 

1920, ‘Bob’ the name by which the world would later know him, became a US citizen 

by virtue of his father’s naturalization. He began a career in entertainment, and 

through hundreds of radio, movie, television and personal appearances, Bob Hope 

became a star and a welcomed guest in every living room of America. 

For nearly six decades, throughout times of both war and peace, Bob Hope entertained American service men and women throughout the world. He spent much of 

World War II traveling and entertaining Allied troops, and he continued to perform 

for troops in Korea, Vietnam, and the Middle East in later years. Hope demonstrated his unwavering commitment to the morale of America’s servicemen and 

women with these entertain-the-troops tours and, in 1997, Congress named him as 

an honorary veteran for the decades of work he did with veterans serving overseas. 

Although Bob Hope never won an Oscar for any of his film performances, he received five honorary Academy Awards for his contributions to the motion picture industry. Cited by the Guinness Book of Records as most honored entertainer in the 

world, Bob Hope has more than two thousand awards and citations for humanitarian and professional efforts, including 54 honorary doctorates and a Congressional Gold Medal. 

After a long period of restoration, Ellis Island now features a museum in honor 

of the 16 million immigrants who passed through its halls. The Ellis Island Restoration Commission recommended naming the library after Bob Hope as a fitting tribute to one of America’s most famous immigrants. Like the millions who passed 

through Ellis Island, the Hope family arrived in America with little in terms of material possessions. Bob Hope described himself upon arrival as ‘‘a 4-year-old boy in 

knickers who had no idea of the opportunities that lay ahead.’’ He went on to become a household name in the United States, and his life epitomizes the American 

dream. Despite all the awards Bob Hope received, he had a special place in his 

heart for Ellis Island, and in 1990 when the Ellis Island Restoration Commission 

suggested naming the third floor library of the museum in his honor, he stated that 

it would be ‘‘one of the single most important highpoints in my career.’’ Sadly, Bob 

Hope passed away in 2003 at the age of 100 and did not have an opportunity to 

see this project finished. The Bob Hope Memorial Library will serve as a daily reminder to Ellis Island’s visitors of Bob Hope’s great contributions to the American 

people, American culture, and the American dream. 
62

Thank you for holding this hearing to discuss this important matter. We respectfully ask that the Energy and Natural Resources Committee release this bill so that 

the Senate can adopt it by unanimous consent as soon as possible. 

Thank you for your consideration of this request. We appreciate your assistance. 

Sincerely,

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, State of New York.

BARBARA BOXER, State of California.

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, State of Ohio.

ROBERT MENENDEZ, State of New Jersey.

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, State of New Jersey.

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, State of California.

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, State of New York. 

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, 

Phoenix, AZ, September 11, 2007. 

Hon. DANIEL K. AKAKA, 

Chairman, U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on National Parks, Committee on Energy & 

Natural Resources, Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR AKAKA: I am writing today to encourage your support for S. 1304 

Arizona National Scenic Trail Act which is pending before your subcommittee. 

Under this bill, the National Trails System Act would be amended to designate 

the Arizona Trail as a national scenic trail. This designation will help streamline 

the Arizona Trails management, boost tourism, recreation and preserve a magnificent natural, cultural and historical experience of the American West. 

For the past eighteen years over 5,000 volunteers and more than 16 federal, state 

and local agencies including many business partners have come together to build 

the 750 miles of the 800 mile trail. This scenic, non-motorized tail stretches through 

some of Arizona’s most renowned mountains, canyons, deserts, forest and two National Parks. As it transcends from the Grand Canyon National Park to the Sonoran 

Desert, the trail winds through some of the most spectacular landscapes in the 

Western United States. 

The Arizona Trail is truly a national scenic treasure and I encourage you to support it as such and in particular ask you to support S. 1304. 

Yours very truly, 

JANET NAPOLITANO, 

Governor. 

HARVARD UNIVERSITY, 

UCLA, 

June 27, 2006. 

Hon. TED STEVENS, 

President, Pro Tem, U.S. Senate, 522 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Re: S. 1051

DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: Legislation is currently pending in the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to authorize the construction of the National Liberty 

Memorial at a site in Constitution Gardens between the Washington Monument and 

the Lincoln Memorial. We urge the committee chairman, Senator Pete V. Domenici, 

and National Parks Subcommittee chairman, Senator Craig Thomas, to report S. 

2495 promptly so the bill can be enacted before Congress adjourns this year. 

Introduced by Senator Chris Dodd, S. 2495 encapsulates dreams and intentions 

spanning more than 200 years to honor in some fitting way the contributions of 

slaves and free persons to the struggle for liberty during the Revolutionary war era. 

White officers, state legislatures, and George Washington himself began praising 

the contributions of black soldiers as early as the battle of Lexington and Concord. 

Now, a bipartisan group of cosponsors, including Senators Grassley, Byrd, Allen, 

Obama, Dole and Chafee, is picking up where they left off. 

The nation’s Mall will never be a ‘‘completed work of art’’ until this memorial 

takes its place across from a memorial to the 56 Signers of the Declaration of Independence. There, it will redefine how most Americans perceive the nation’s birth, 

‘‘all men are created equal,’’ and our future as one nation based upon enduring principles, instead of color and race. As scholars engaged in teaching, research and writing about U.S. history and literature of 18th century America, we urge the U.S. 
63

* Document has been retained in subcommittee files. 

Congress to pass S. 2495 promptly and for members to promote the construction of 

the National Liberty Memorial in your states and among schoolchildren. 

In the two decades since the U.S. Congress passed Public Law 98-245 honoring 

the role of African Americans of the Revolutionary war era and Public Law 100–

265 declaring their deeds to be ‘‘of preeminent historical and lasting significance to 

the nation,’’ scholarly work has confirmed the wisdom of those actions. For example, 

there is the extraordinary memoir of Jeffrey Brace, ‘‘The Blind African Slave,’’ published in 1810 (as told to Benjamin F. Prentiss, Esq.), and rediscovered, edited, supplemented, and reprinted by historian Kari J. Winter in January 2005. Born in Africa and transported to the U.S. as a slave, Mr. Brace served in the 6th Connecticut 

Regiment and fought in many of the major battles of the Revolutionary war over 

a period of five years. Nothing less than this Revolutionary war soldier’s memory 

is at stake in S. 2495. The National Liberty Memorial will pay tribute to the efforts 

of Mr. Brace and others like him, who fought for their new country in the name 

of equality and justice. 

From 1985 through 2001, more than 2,000 Revolutionary war soldiers of African 

descent, like Jeffrey Brace, were identified by the National Society Daughters of the 

American Revolution as part of a 1984 settlement agreement with Lena Santos Ferguson. The memorial will inspire research to uncover the thousands yet undiscovered. Mrs. Ferguson, a black resident of Washington, D.C. and a descendant of 

a Revolutionary war soldier, had been denied membership in the hereditary organization that honors those patriots because of her race, from 1980 until 1984. Later, 

she and her memorial co-founder, Maurice A. Barboza, realized America could become a more inviting home for the descendants of slaves if the tarnish of slavery 

and second class citizenship were removed from their ancestors with a permanent 

statement on the nation’s most visible landscape. 

We have attached a partial bibliography of books* published on the subject during 

the past 20 years. This confirms the wisdom of Congress in declaring the history 

eligible for memorialization on the nation’s Mall. We ask that this information be 

made a part of the record of the Energy Committee. 

We would also like an opportunity to present testimony at a hearing on S. 2495. 

Sincerely, 

HENRY LOUIS GATES, JR., 

W.E.B Du Bois Professor of the Humanities. 

GARY B. NASH, 

Professor of History. 

NATIONAL COALITION TO SAVE OUR MALL, 

Rockville, MD, September 10, 2007. 

Hon. DANIEL K. AKAKA, 

Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, 304 Dirksen Senate Building, Washington, DC. 

Re: S. 1051

DEAR CHAIRMAN AKAKA AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS: We have just learned that on 

September 11 there will be a hearing in the Subcommittee on National Parks on 

a proposed bill, S. 1051, to authorize the National Mall Liberty Fund D.C. to establish a memorial in Washington at Constitution Gardens to honor free persons and 

slaves who fought during the American Revolution. We note that the language of 

the bill makes no reference to the fact that Constitution Gardens is part of the National Mall, as well as the ‘‘Reserve’’ as described in the Commemorative Works 

Clarification Act of 2003, and so is subject to the Congressionally mandated moratorium on any new commemorative works. 

The National Coalition to Save Our Mall is a grass-roots, nonprofit group dedicated to protecting and enhancing the integrity of the National Mall’s historic plan, 

symbolism, and public open space. We support the moratorium policy and ask Congress not to make any new exceptions to it, for this or any other project, unless and 

until there is a new comprehensive National Mall plan with the accompanying unified management structure. 

We welcome this kind of proposed project as it fits well within the Coalition’s goal 

of having the National Mall tell a fuller, richer narrative about the country’s history, and black patriots in particular are a group that deserves recognition as part 

of this story. 
64

But as worthy as the intent of monuments such as this (and the Coalition supported it before its authorization, which preceded the moratorium, expired), it does 

not obviate the growing problems of piecemeal, fragmented development on the 

Mall. 

The Coalition wants to be clear that our position is not about any specific memorial but is about the larger question of how the National Mall is to accommodate 

the multitude of monuments, memorials, museums, and other facilities without adequate planning. The last comprehensive plan, the 1901–1902 McMillan Plan, is 

more than a century old and ongoing planning by the National Park Service, Smithsonian, and other Mall managing agencies does not add up to a unified vision for 

this great symbol of our nation’s identity which has grown to become a stage for 

our democracy. 

This proposed memorial certainly will not be the last to seek a place among the 

icons of American history and founding ideals on the National Mall. Nor should 

Congress be continually asked to choose between protecting the Mall’s integrity and 

enhancing the Mall’s capacity to teach and inspire. That is why we believe the time 

has come for Congress to create a new independent McMillan-type Commission that 

can shape a forward-looking vision for the Mall—and the nation—in its third century. 

Sincerely, 

JUDY SCOTT FELDMAN, PH.D., 

Chair and President. 

Cocoa, FL, September 11, 2007. 

Re: S.1051

As a member of the Sons of the American Revolution, I have been encouraged to 

provide a comment on the pending legislation, S. 1051. 

Honoring those individuals of every station in life who provided support for that 

momentous period of our county’s birth is of vital interest to myself and my family 

members and should be for all Americans and doing so by means of a monument 

is entirely appropriate. 

The consideration by Congress to build another monument on the mall would be 

significant to me and my family. The personal and national impact of this structure 

on the mall would be emotionally and aesthetically devastating. The continued rape 

of the mall by select groups that wrongly feel that they are deserving of space on 

the mall to the detriment of the significance of the Lincoln and Washington Monuments and their entwined nature—Lincoln contemplating Washington via the Reflecting Pool—must stop. The escalation of groups demanding space on the mall is 

alarming and will, if not stopped now, ultimately reduce the beautiful space and its 

spiritual significance toμ a massive marble and concrete forest of statues. 

Honoring the individuals as proposed in S 1051 can be done in other locations in 

DC not on the mall and would be eminently more suitable. 

STEVE WILLIAMS. 

STATEMENT OF MARION LANE, BUCKS COUNTY, PA, ON S. 1051

It is with great pride that I introduce to you this afternoon my patriot, my ancestor my fourth great-grandfather Sgt. Isaac Brown. Sgt. Isaac Brown was born a free 

black man in Charles City County, Virginia. He was a fourth generation resident 

with his forbearers having been indentured servants. Isaac enlisted in the Continental Line on January 1, 1777. He assisted in establishing American Independence 

while acting in the capacity of Sergeant in the 7th, 11th, and 15th VA Regiments. 

Sgt. Brown served under George Washington at Valley Forge. He also served in 

the battles of Guilford Courthouse, Siege of Fort Ninety-Six and Eutaw Springs. He 

received the balance of his pay for service on April 5, 1783. 

At least six members of the Brown family assisted in the Revolution. Abraham, 

one of these participants, became a property owner in Charles City six years before 

the Revolution with the purchase of 150 acres of land for the sum of 96 pounds. 

Freeman, another participant, owned 40 acres. Isaac owned 270 acres of land in 

Charles City. At the time of his death, he owned 75 acres. His land abutted Greenway the property of the Tyler family. 

On May 19, 1829, Sgt. Brown appeared in Superior Court of the State of Virginia 

to make a formal declaration under the Acts of Congress of the United States of 

March 18, 1818 and May 1, 1820 regarding pensions. At the time, he was 69 years 

of age and had made several informal inquires into the provisions of the Acts. His 
65

age was greatly felt and his farm was no longer able to support him in comfort. The 

Court adjourned and found deficiencies in his declaration. 

On July 16, 1829, he once again appeared in Court to make a declaration to correct the errors and deficiencies of the previous declaration to no avail. On July 24, 

1829, VA Senator John Tyler, who later became the 10th President of the United 

States, wrote a letter on Sgt. Brown’s behalf indicating that all the deficiencies 

pointed out in a letter of June 2, 1829 had been corrected. He also requested that 

the decision be made known to him as soon as convenient. When the pension was 

finally issued, July 27, 1829, there was a notation on it that said,’’ send a copy to 

John Tyler.’’

The intervention of Senator Tyler resulted in the issuance of the pension; however, the compensation awarded was that of a private, $8 dollars per month or $96 

per year. Also, it only gave him credit for having served for 18 months. In other 

words, he never received recognition for having been a noncommissioned officer nor 

credit for his service from January 1, 1777–1783. The Muster Rolls reflect he enlisted for the duration of the war. 

Sgt. Isaac Brown left a legacy of service to this country:

• His great grandson, Robert Walker Brown (my great grandfather) enlisted in 

the 1st U.S. Colored Infantry at Fort Pocahontas May 19, 1864 several days before the battle there. Robert Brown was married twice and had 21 children. His 

widow received a pension check of $36 each month from the U.S. government 

for his Civil War service until her death in 1952. 

• Robert Walker Brown’s grandson, John Edward James (my father), served in 

World War II. He was on the front lines for 37 months and experienced five 

campaigns.

It is time for a memorial symbolizing the service and critical role of people of color 

in the founding of our nation. It is time for the history books, from which our children learn, reflect these significant contributions. It is time for everyone to acknowledge the importance of the Patriots of African descent. 

It is time! It is time! It is time! Thank you. 

ACCESS FUND, 

Boulder, CO, August 15, 2007. 

Hon. JON KYL, 

U.S. Senate, 730 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Re: S. 1304

DEAR SENATOR KYL: I write to inform you of the Access Fund’s support for the 

enactment of S. 1304 that would amend the National Trails System Act to designate 

the Arizona Trail as a National Scenic Trail. The Access Fund supports legislative 

efforts such as S. 1304 that acknowledges the value of recreation on our public lands 

and preserves access to special places such as those found along the Arizona Trail. 

THE ACCESS FUND

The Access Fund is the only national advocacy organization whose mission keeps 

climbing areas open and conserves the climbing environment. A 501(c)3 non-profit 

supporting and representing over 1.6 million climbers nationwide in all forms of 

climbing—rock climbing, ice climbing, mountaineering, and bouldcring—the Access 

Fund is the largest US climbing organization with over 15,000 members and affiliates. Arizona is one our largest member states. 

The Access Fund promotes the responsible use and sound management of climbing resources by working in cooperation with climbers, other recreational users, public land managers and private land owners. We encourage an ethic of personal responsibility, self-regulation, strong conservation values and minimum impact practices among climbers. 

THE ARIZONA TRAIL

The Arizona Trail is planned to be a continuous, 800-mile, non-motorized trail 

across Arizona from Mexico to Utah. It links deserts, mountains, canyons, communities and people. Currently 90% of the trail is complete. As Senator Kyl has pointed out, ‘‘the trail invites recreationists to explore the state’s most renowned mountains, canyons, deserts and forests, including the Grand Canyon and the Sonoran 

Desert. This trail is unique in that it maximizes the incorporation of already existing public trails into one continuous trail to showcase some of the most interesting 

and spectacular scenery in the West.’’
66

Although bills to establish National Trails typically require studies to determine 

whether the trail is physically possible and financially feasible; however, S. 1304 

has yet to accomplish this analysis with regard to the Arizona Trail. Nonetheless, 

the fact that this trail is nearly complete and will not require any additional property acquisition makes the Access Fund support of S. 1304 sensible. Accordingly, the 

Access Fund urges Congress to pass this bill and thus designate the Arizona Trail 

as a National Scenic Trail. Such designation will streamline the Trail’s management, boost tourism and recreation along the Trail corridor, and preserve a magnificent natural, cultural and historical experience of the American West. 

We appreciate your assistance in preserving important recreational opportunities 

in Arizona for both your constituents and outdoor recreationists nation-wide. 

Sincerely, 

DEANNE BUCK, 

Interim Executive Director. 

FRIENDS OF ACADIA, 

September 10, 2007. 

Hon. DANIEL AKAKA, 

Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, 304 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Hon. RICHARD BURR, 

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on National Parks, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, 304 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, 

DC. 

Re: S. 1329

DEAR CHAIRMAN AKAKA AND RANKING MEMBER BURR: I am writing to express 

Friends of Acadia’s support for S. 1329, the Acadia National Park Improvement Act 

of 2007, which is scheduled to be heard by the Senate Subcommittee on National 

Parks on Tuesday, September 11, 2007. Friends of Acadia is an independent nonprofit conservation organization whose mission is to preserve and protect the outstanding natural beauty, ecological vitality, and cultural distinctiveness of Acadia 

National Park and the surrounding communities. Since 1995, Friends has contributed more than $7 million in grants to Acadia National Park and the surrounding 

communities for projects ranging from trail and carriage road maintenance to internships and land conservation. 

Friends supports S. 1329 because it contains important provisions that will encourage land protection, public transportation, and citizen input to park management decisions at Acadia. The bill contains four basic provisions:

Section 2: An extension of land conveyance authority—this section 

amends Acadia’s 1986 boundary legislation to allow local towns and Acadia 

National Park to exchange lands beyond the original 10 year window that 

was written into the 1986 law. Friends of Acadia supports this provision 

because it gives Acadia National Park flexibility as it continues to work 

with local towns on important land exchanges. 

Section 3: An extension of the Acadia National Park Advisory Commission—this section enables the Acadia National Park Advisory Commission, 

an appointed group of citizens representing towns surrounding Acadia and 

at-large, to continue until 2026. Friends supports this provision because the 

Advisory Commission has been an excellent avenue for dialogue between 

local citizens and Acadia National Park managers. 

Section 4: An increase in the land acquisition ceiling for Acadia—this section amends Acadia’s 1986 boundary legislation to increase to $28 million 

the cumulative amount authorized to be appropriated for land acquisition 

at Acadia. Friends supports this provision because Acadia has approximately 150 privately-owned parcels that remain within park boundaries. 

When Congress passed the park’s boundary legislation in 1986, it intended 

that all of these parcels be protected, yet all land acquisition funding authorized in the 1986 legislation has been expended. In order for Acadia to 

continue efforts to acquire lands or conservation easements within park 

boundaries, additional funding must be authorized and appropriated. 

Section 5: Intermodal Transportation Center—this section authorizes the 

National Park Service to assist in planning, construction, and operation of 

the Acadia Gateway Center, a transportation and welcome center planned 

along the major highway approaching Acadia National Park. The Maine Department of Transportation, Friends of Acadia, Downeast Transportation 
67

(the operator of Acadia’s successful propane-powered Island Explorer bus 

system), and regional chambers of commerce are partners in the project. 

Friends supports the National Park Service’s participation in this center because it will be a key opportunity for Acadia’s day visitors to leave their 

cars, gather information about the park, purchase their park entry passes, 

and ride the bus to trailheads and park destinations.

The Acadia National Park Improvement Act of 2007 is extremely important to the 

future of lands, citizen involvement, and transportation programs at Acadia National Park. We thank the subcommittee for considering this important bill and encourage swift passage. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. 

Sincerely, 

MARLA S. O’BYRNE, 

President. 

U.S. SENATE, 

STATE OF MAINE, 

September 21, 2007. 

Hon. JEFF BINGAMAN, 

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 304 Dirksen Senate Office 

Building, Washington, DC. 

Re: S. 1329

DEAR CHAIRMAN BINGAMAN, I am writing to urge you to include S. 1329, the Acadia National Park Improvement Act of 2007, on your next markup agenda. This bill 

authorizes necessary, and timely, actions to ensure the long-term health of one of 

America’s most beloved national parks. 

In the 109th Congress, the Acadia National Park Improvement Act passed the 

Senate by unanimous consent, but the House of Representatives did not act on the 

bill. The bill would increase the land acquisition ceiling at Acadia by $10 million; 

facilitate an off-site intermodal transportation center for the Island Explorer bus 

system; and extend the Acadia National Park Advisory Commission. This commission was created by Congress in 1986 and expired in 2006. Federal, state and local 

interests agree it was a mistake to let it expire and want to see it renewed. 

I’m very grateful to your distinguished subcommittee chairman and ranking member, Senator Daniel Akaka and Senator Richard Burr, for holding a hearing on September 11 on this bill. Daniel Wenk, Deputy Director of the National Park Service, 

testified in support of this important legislation at the hearing. 

Acadia National Park is a true gem of the Maine coastline, and in nine years the 

park will be 100 years old. While unsurpassed in beauty, the Park’s ecosystem is 

also very fragile. This legislation will help make the Park stronger and healthier 

than ever on the occasion of its centennial anniversary. 

I thank you in advance for your consideration. 

Sincerely, 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, 

United States Senator. 

STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION, ON S. 327

NPCA endorses passage of S. 327, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior 

to conduct a special resource study of the sites associated with the life of Cesar 

Estrada Chavez and the farm labor movement. NPCA thanks the Committee for 

holding this timely hearing, and thanks Senators McCain, Salazar, and Boxer for 

sponsoring this important bipartisan legislation. Passage of S. 327 would be the first 

crucial step towards honoring the legacy of this extraordinary American, whose 

work as an activist, spiritual leader, environmentalist, and crusader for non-violent 

social change, helped shape the consciousness of the nation and played a crucial role 

in both the migrant labor and civil rights movements. 

Although few Americans realize it, the National Park Service is actually one of 

the largest stewards of Asian, Latino, Indian, and African-American history and culture. Yet not one of the nearly 400 units in the National Park System honors the 

legacy of an individual contemporary Latino. Mr. Chavez deserves recognition at 

this highest level and with passage of companion legislation (H.R. 359) in the House 

in July 2007, the opportunity to commemorate this powerful legacy has never been 

closer to hand. 
68

As America evolves, so too must the historic and cultural memory of the nation. 

The time has come to honor Chavez’s legacy through the National Park System. 

This is a good and wise thing to do both to ensure that this man and this movement 

are given their long-deserved place at the American table, and to help guarantee 

that our National Park System remains relevant to all Americans for generations 

to come. 

TAUNTON RIVER WATERSHED CAMPAIGN, 

Taunton, MA, September 5, 2007. 

Hon. JEFF BINGAMAN, 

Chair, Energy and Natural Resource Committee, 703 Hart Building, Washington, 

DC. 

Hon. PETE V. DOMENICI, 

Ranking Member, Energy and Natural Resource Committee, 328 Hart Building, 

Washington, DC. 

Re: S.868

DEAR CHAIRMAN BINGAMAN AND RANKING MEMBER DOMENICI: We are writing on 

behalf of the Taunton River Watershed Campaign to express our overwhelming support for passage of S. 868. An Act to Amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate segments of the Taunton River in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as 

a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System The National Park 

Service has found that all forty miles of the Taunton River’s mainstem are eligible 

for Wild and Scenic designation based on the river’s free-flowing condition and the 

presence of ‘‘outstandingly remarkable’’ natural and cultural resource values. These 

values include fisheries, history and archaeology, ecology and biodiversity, and scenery and recreation. The Park Service determined that the eligible reach extends 

from the headwaters of the Taunton at the confluence of the Town and Matfield 

River to Mount Hope Bay at the U.S. 195 Bridge in Fall River. We urge you to include the entire mainstem in this designation by adopting the ‘‘Preferred Alternative’’ recommended by the Park Service. 

The Park Service’s findings were based on an extensive study of the river that 

was completed in July of 2005 by the Taunton Wild and Scenic River Study Committee. This committee included representatives of the ten cities and towns along 

the mainstem, the Massachusetts Riverways Program, the regional planning agency, 

several environmental groups and the Park Service itself. The legislative bodies of 

all ten communities voted to support the designation and the Taunton River Stewardship Plan that was also developed by the Committee. 

Since the completion of the Taunton Wild and Scenic Study, the Taunton River 

Watershed Campaign was formed. The Campaign is a partnership of ten leading environmental and planning organizations who share a strong, ongoing commitment 

to protecting critical water and land resources throughout the Taunton River watershed, and to helping achieve the goals identified by the Study Committee. 

The Taunton River is the longest, un-dammed coastal river in New England. It 

is home to over 154 species of birds, 45 species of fish and 360 plants species. Included in this rich biodiversity are three globally rare species of plants and two 

globally rare fish, bridle shiner and Atlantic sturgeon. The river supports one of the 

largest anadromous fish runs in the Northeast. Its estuary provides significant habitat for juvenile fish and shellfish. Tidal influence extends nearly twenty miles inland, and this factor creates globally rare freshwater tidal marshes, habitat for a 

wealth of nesting birds. Overall, the corridor supports thirty-one distinct wildlife 

habitats including rare wetland communities and numerous state-listed species of 

freshwater mussels, reptiles, amphibians and others. 

The Taunton River is the largest contributor of fresh water to Narragansett Bay. 

Its rich natural resources of the river supported a sizeable prehistoric population, 

and important archeological sites spanning more than ten thousand years are found 

in various locations throughout the corridor. The river and its shoreline also provide 

opportunities for a wide variety of recreational activities; canoeing the river and its 

tributaries is especially popular as a way to enjoy the natural beauty and wilderness 

character. 

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1969 established a system to allow selected rivers that possess ‘‘outstandingly remarkable’’ values to be preserved in free-flowing 

condition and protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations. The values of the Taunton River and its immediate environs have been well 

documented. The river is fully deserving of this designation. We urge you to act 

swiftly and favorably on the Park Service’s recommendation to add the Taunton 

River to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 
69

Thank you for considering these comments. 

Truly yours, 

PRISCILLA CHAPMAN, 

Taunton Watershed Advocate. 

SUSAN SPEERS, 

Campaign Coordinator. 

CARELLA, BYRNE, BAIN, GILFILLAN, CECCHI, STWART & OLSTEIN, P.C. 

COUNSELLORS AT LAW, 

Roseland, NJ, March 21, 2007. 

Ms. MARY BOMER, 

Director, National Park Service, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MS. BOMER: While Governor of the State, I had the privilege of knowing 

Bob Hope during his many visits to New Jersey, including his flights to and from 

McGuire Air Force to overseas bases to entertain our troops. I recall his flight in 

1983 to Beirut with his USO Troupe and his concerts in the State. I also had the 

pleasure of playing golf with him. 

Bob would mention the door that was opened for him at Ellis Island when he and 

his family were granted entry to America as newly arrived immigrants in 1908. He 

loved his adopted land. 

He respected the symbols of our nation—especially Ellis Island. It was his touchstone. It was his stepping stone to his life in America and citizenship. He would 

mention this in his concerts. 

I believe naming the third floor Ellis Island Library—‘‘The Bob Hope Memorial 

Library’’ is a fitting tribute. He always remembered his humble beginnings and the 

opportunities that began for him at Ellis Island as a young boy of four years of age. 

I am honored to support H.R. 759, await its passage and the naming of The Bob 

Hope Memorial Library. 

Very truly yours, 

BRENDAN T. BYRNE. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, 

May 7, 2007. 

Hon. BRENDAN T. BYRNE, 

Carella, Byrne, Bain, Gilfillan, Cocchi, Stewart & Olstein, P.C., Counsellors at Law, 

5 Becker Farm Road, Roseland, NJ. 

DEAR GOVERNOR BYRNE: Thank you for your letter of March 21, 2007, regarding 

the Department of the Interior’s position on H.R. 759, a bill to redesignate the Ellis 

Island library on the third floor of the Ellis Island Immigration Museum as the Bob 

Hope Memorial Library. 

I understand your strong interest in commemorating Mr. Bob Hope, a true American hero and legendary entertainer who brought joy to millions of our soldiers serving both domestically and abroad. As Governor of New Jersey, it must have been 

a thrill to have a personal relationship with such a peat American, and I am honored to hear that Mr. Hope spoke so positively about his personal connection to Ellis 

Island, one of the gems of the National Park System. 

So many great people passed through Ellis Island on their way to a new life in 

America and it holds a special place in the heart of millions. I can appreciate the 

great feelings Mr. Hope and so many others have for their adopted land and the 

opportunities that this country provides to people who arrive on its shores. I also 

understand your strong desire to commemorate Mr. Hope by naming the library at 

Ellis Island in his honor. 

During the 109th Congress, the Department of the Interior testified on a similar 

bill (H.R. 323) before the House Resources Committee in May 2005, stating the the 

bill to redesignate the Ellis Island library as the Bob Hope Memorial Library would 

conflict with our management policies that require a strong association between the 

park and the person being commemorated, and require that five years elapse since 

the death of the person being commemorated. 

As you mentioned, H.R. 759 was introduced on January 31, 2007, by Representative Eliot Engel and has already passed the House and is awaiting Senate action. 

The Department has not had an opportunity to testify on the bill during this Congress, and hence, we have no position on the bill. 
70

I appreciate your taking the time to share with me your support for this legislation as a way of commemorating the personal connection Mr. Hope felt toward his 

adopted land and to Ellis Island. 

Sincerely, 

DANIEL N. WENK, 

Deputy Director.

Æ