U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

24–837 PDF 2005

S. HRG. 109–201

LAND IN ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK; BENJAMIN

FRANKLIN NATIONAL MEMORIAL; DESIGNATE THE STARSPANGLED BANNER TRAIL AS HISTORIC; EXTEND THE

ACADIA NATIONAL PARK ADVISORY COMMISSION;

KALAUPAPA NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK ADVISORY COMMISSION; AND STUDY OF MARITIME SITES IN MICHIGAN

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

on 

S. 584 H.R. 432

S. 652 S. 958

S. 1154 S. 1166

S. 1346 

JULY 28, 2005

Printed for the use of the 

(

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

RICHARD M. BURR, North Carolina, 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida 

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

GORDON SMITH, Oregon 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey 

KEN SALAZAR, Colorado

ALEX FLINT, Staff Director 

JUDITH K. PENSABENE, Chief Counsel 

ROBERT M. SIMON, Democratic Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming, Chairman 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee, Vice Chairman

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

RICHARD M. BURR, North Carolina 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida 

GORDON SMITH, Oregon 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey 

KEN SALAZAR, Colorado

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

THOMAS LILLIE, Professional Staff Member 

DAVID BROOKS, Democratic Senior Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

Page

Akaka, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii .............................................. 14

Belko, Dr. Steve, Manager, Michigan Lighthouse Project, Oxford, MI ............... 30

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

Dick, Mrs. Betty, Grand Lake, CO ......................................................................... 35

Eshelman, Dr. Ralph, Lusby, MD .......................................................................... 26

Martin, Stephen P., Deputy Director, National Park Service, Department 

of the Interior ....................................................................................................... 2

Salazar, Hon. Ken, U.S. Senator from Colorado ................................................... 19

Santorum, Hon. Rick, U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania ....................................... 2

Sarbanes, Hon. Paul S., U.S. Senator from Maryland ......................................... 18

Stabenow, Hon. Deborah Ann, U.S. Senator from Michigan ............................... 15

Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from Wyoming ............................................... 1

Udall, Hon. Mark, U.S. Representative from Colorado ........................................ 20

Wint, Dr. Dennis M., President and CEO, the Franklin Institute,

Philadelphia, PA .................................................................................................. 32

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 41

APPENDIX II 

Additional material submitted for the record ........................................................ 47

(1)

LAND IN ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK; 

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN NATIONAL MEMORIAL; DESIGNATE THE STAR-SPANGLED 

BANNER TRAIL AS HISTORIC; EXTEND THE 

ACADIA NATIONAL PARK ADVISORY COMMISSION; KALAUPAPA NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK ADVISORY COMMISSION; AND 

STUDY OF MARITIME SITES IN MICHIGAN 

THURSDAY, JULY 28, 2005

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Craig Thomas presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS,

U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING 

Senator THOMAS. I believe we’ll go ahead and start. Everything’s 

a little unusually busy around here today, so folks may be a little 

late. But in any event, it’s time for us to begin, so we’ll do that. 

I want to welcome Deputy Director Steve Martin and our other 

witnesses to today’s subcommittee hearing. Steve, congratulations 

on your assignment as Deputy Director, we’re delighted to have 

you here. Your background in Wyoming, of course, is particularly 

helpful. Anyway, I look forward to working with you. 

The purpose for this hearing is to hear testimony on seven pending bills: S. 584 and H.R. 432, bills to require the Secretary of the 

Interior to allow continuing occupancy of certain land and improvements within Rocky Mountain National Park; S. 652, a bill to provide financial assistance for the rehabilitation of the Benjamin 

Franklin National Memorial in Philadelphia, and the development 

of an exhibit to commemorate the 300th anniversary; S. 958, a bill 

to amend the National Parks Trail System to designate the StarSpangled Banner Trail in the States of Maryland and Virginia and 

the District of Columbia as a National Historic Trail; S. 1154, a bill 

to extend Acadia National Park Advisory Commission to provide 

improved visitor services at the park, and for other purposes; S. 

1166, a bill to extend the authorization of the Kalaupapa National 

Historical Park Advisory Commission; and S. 1346, a bill to direct 

2

the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of maritime sites 

in the State of Michigan. So, we have several issues, and we’re very 

pleased to have you all here. 

We will begin, then, with our first witness, Steve Martin, Deputy 

Director of the National Park Service. Steve, thanks for joining us. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Santorum follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. RICK SANTORUM, U.S. SENATOR

FROM PENNSYLVANIA

It is my pleasure to speak on behalf of S. 652 and introduce Dr. Dennis Wint, 

President and Chief Executive Officer of The Franklin Institute of Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania. Prior to assuming the position of CEO in 1995, Dr. Wint earned a 

Ph.D. from Case Western Reserve University and served as president of the St. 

Louis Science Center. Under Dr. Wint’s leadership, the Institute has been transformed and reinvented to emphasize the advances in science and technology. 

In appearing before the Subcommittee today, I pledge my full support for prompt 

passage of S. 652, which would authorize federal funding for the rehabilitation and 

enhancement of the Benjamin Franklin National Memorial. The Memorial is located 

on the premises of The Institute and, as Dr. Wint will explain, it is unique, because 

unlike other national memorials throughout the United States, it does not receive 

federal funding to support programs, operations, or preventative maintenance. In 

contrast to other national memorials that are owned and operated by the National 

Park Service, the Benjamin Franklin National Memorial remains in the custody of 

a private, non-profit institution. 

I was pleased that with your support, the Senate passed identical legislation last 

year; however, our colleagues in the House did not act upon this bill prior to the 

108th Congress’ adjournment. With a national celebration occurring in 2006 to mark 

the 300th anniversary of the birth of Benjamin Franklin, Senator Specter and I reintroduced this bill because we believe it is our nation’s obligation to honor the legacy of a distinguished scientist, statesman, inventor and diplomat by making certain 

that our national memorial to Benjamin Franklin remains intact and accessible to 

the public. 

The time has come to pass this legislation and provide federal support to help The 

Institute ease the burden of maintaining this national treasure so that generations 

of Americans may continue to enjoy this magnificent tribute to his legacy. As an 

indication of The Franklin Institute’s commitment to this important project, I am 

pleased to report that Dr. Wint plans to commence a private fundraising campaign 

that will match The Institute’s request for federal assistance as required by this legislation. Subsequently, prompt passage of this bill is expected to leverage the support of interested parties that will provide much needed funding for this project. 

Mr. Chairman, after consideration of today’s testimony, I urge the Committee to 

favorably report this measure to help ensure its prompt enactment. Thank you and 

now it is my pleasure to introduce to you Dr. Dennis Wint, President and Chief Executive Officer of The Franklin Institute of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN P. MARTIN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR,

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE

INTERIOR 

Mr. MARTIN. Thank you, Senator Thomas, for having me here 

today. I would like to submit six statements on the different bills, 

but just summarize my remarks to start with and then answer any 

questions. 

Senator THOMAS. Your statements will be part of the record. 

Mr. MARTIN. S. 584, the Betty Dick Residence Protection bill 

would require the Secretary of the Interior to permit continued occupancy and use of certain lands and improvements within Rocky 

Mountain National Park. The Department supports the general 

goal of the bill, which is to allow the National Park Service to resolve the issue of Mrs. Betty Dick’s desire to continue to use her 

summer residence inside Rocky Mountain National Park, which 

she has used for more than 25 years. Currently, the National Park 

3

Service does not have clear statutory authority to address this 

unique situation. The Department would support this legislation, if 

amended, in a way that balances the merits of Mrs. Dick’s situation with the public’s interest in the property, which was purchased 

and is owned for the benefit of the American people. Our testimony 

recommends amendments that would open a portion of the property for public use, require fair market value rent for the property, 

and name Mrs. Dick as sole beneficiary of the bill. The pending legislation would only address Mrs. Dick’s unique situation. The Department is also willing to work with the committee to develop a 

broader solution, one that would provide NPS with clear statutory 

authority to address expiring reservations of use and occupancy 

and other situations with similar merit. We regret the difficult situations that sometimes arise from expiration of private use and occupancy leases located within the National Parks, and we look forward to working with the committee on this issue. 

S. 652, the Ben Franklin National Memorial, would authorize up to $10 million in Federal funding for the rehabilitation of the Benjamin Franklin National Memorial in Philadelphia, and the development of an exhibit to commemorate the 300th anniversary of the 

birth of Benjamin Franklin. The Department does not support this 

bill. 

For many years, the Department has opposed legislation authorizing appropriations for non-National Park Service construction 

projects, because of its impact on the limited amounts of discretionary funds available to address the priority needs of our National Parks, and other programs that we administer. 

In addition, when Congress authorized the Ben Franklin National Memorial as an affiliated area in 1972, no provision was 

made for appropriated funds to be used for the Memorial. Congress 

anticipated that the Franklin Institute would continue to operate 

and maintain the Memorial at no cost to the government. 

We are committed, though, to supporting initiatives to commemorate the 300th anniversary of Benjamin Franklin and the interpretation of his legacy, especially at Franklin Court, a unit of Independence National Historical Park, but given the current demands 

on National Park Service funds, we cannot support this legislation. 

Senator THOMAS. Mr. Martin, can I interrupt you for a moment? 

Mr. MARTIN. Yes. 

Senator THOMAS. The Senator’s here from Maine, and I think she 

has other commitments. 

Would you care to make your opening comments? 

STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN COLLINS, U.S. SENATOR

FROM MAINE 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

thank you, Mr. Martin, for allowing me to interrupt your testimony 

before you got to my bill. I was on pins and needles on what you 

were going to say. 

Chairman Thomas, Senator Salazar, members of the subcommittee, I would like to thank you, first of all, for holding this 

hearing, and for considering a bill that I’ve introduced that is 

called the Acadia National Park Improvement Act of 2005. This 

legislation takes important steps to ensure the long-term health of 

4

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. I would invite the members of this distinguished subcommittee to come to Acadia this summer, it is an absolutely beautiful place. 

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 privately 

held 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 more than 

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 funds anymore to purchase them. My legislation would authorize an additional $10 million to help acquire 

these lands. 

Since the lands already fall within the congressionally authorized 

boundary, I want to emphasize that this effort would just ‘‘fill in 

the holes’’ within the park, it would not enlarge the boundaries of 

the park. 

My legislation would 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 5 years. These low-emission, propane-powered vehicles have 

carried more than 1.5 million riders since 1999. 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, and as a result, many day-use visitors do not have ready 

access to the Island Explorer buses. My legislation would authorize 

the Secretary of the Interior to provide assistance in the planning, 

construction and operation of an intermodal transportation center. 

I would stress that this center would be constructed in partnership 

with the Federal Highway Administration, the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, the Maine Department of Transportation, and 

other partners. It would reduce traffic congestion, preserve park resources, and help to ensure a vibrant tourist economy. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, my legislation would extend the 16-member Acadia National Park Advisory Commission for an additional 

20-year period. This commission was first created by Congress in 

1986, and it’s scheduled to expire in 2006. That would really be a 

mistake. The Commission consists of Federal, State, and community representatives who have provided invaluable advice relating 

to the management and development of the park. The commission 

has proven its worth many times over, and I would recommend 

that it be extended for an additional 20 years. 

Mr. Chairman, Acadia National Park is a true gem on the Maine 

coastline. The park is one of Maine’s most popular tourist destinations, with nearly three million visitors a year. While unsurpassed 

in beauty, the park’s ecosystem is also very fragile. Unless we are 

5

careful, we risk substantial harm to the very place that Mainers 

and Americans hold so dear. 

In just 11 years, Acadia will be 100 years old. Age has brought 

both increase in popularity, and greater pressures. By providing an 

additional $10 million to protect sensitive lands within the boundary of the park, by expanding the highly successful Island Explorer 

System, and by extending the advisory commission, our legislation 

would help make the park stronger, and healthier than ever on the 

occasion of its centennial anniversary. 

Again, my appreciation to you for holding this hearing. I know 

how dedicated the members of this subcommittee are to preserving 

and strengthening our National Park System. I hope you will give 

favorable consideration to this bill. Thank you very much, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Senator THOMAS. Thank you, Senator, it’s always nice to have 

Mainers here. I’ve never heard that word before. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you. 

Senator THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. Director, you can go right on 

with your testimony. 

Mr. MARTIN. The Star-Spangled Banner Trail, S. 958, would 

amend the National Trails System Act to designate the Star-Spangled Banner Trail as a National Historic Trail. The Department 

supports this bill, which would designate an approximately 290-

mile land and water trail, extending from southern Maryland 

through the District of Columbia, and Virginia, along the Chesapeake Bay. 

The proposed National Historic Trail would commemorate the 

events leading up to the writing of the Star-Spangled Banner, during the Chesapeake Campaign of the War of 1812. The proposed 

trail represents an opportunity for an effective partnership among 

Federal, State and local governments, a dedicated trail organization, and the many public and private site managers to administer 

and maintain a federally designated, commemorative trail, along 

the historic routes of the Chesapeake Campaign. 

Because of its emphasis on partnerships, this approach provides 

the greatest flexibility for resource protection, while creating a 

framework for interpretation, and visitor experience. 

Acadia National Park, S. 1154, which was just very well-spoken 

to, would extend the Acadia National Park Advisory Commission 

for an additional 20 years, increase the park’s land acquisition ceiling to $28 million, and authorize the park to participate in the 

planning, construction, and operation of an intermodal transportation center outside of the park’s boundary. 

The Department supports enactment of this bill, with two technical amendments, which are attached to our statement. The Acadia Advisory Commission continues to be a valuable asset that enhances communication between park managers and local communities. Its continuation is strongly supported by its State and local 

representatives. The land acquisition ceiling is needed because of 

the increased number of willing landowners who wish to sell their 

property, and acquiring these properties is effective at this time for 

the National Park Service. Raising the ceiling to $28 million would 

allow the park to acquire all of the parcels within the boundary 

that are currently available for sale. 

6

The intermodal transportation center is the final piece of a threephase transportation strategy that was developed with the assistance of an interagency team of transportation and park managers, 

and partners who have combined their resources to offer the Island 

Explorer, a bus system that uses clean, propane-powered vehicles. 

More than 1.5 million riders have used the popular system since 

1999. Traffic congestion on Mount Desert Island has been reduced, 

and the park’s air quality has improved. The new project calls for 

developing an off-island transportation center, which would include 

a visitor orientation facility to serve day users of Acadia National 

Park. 

Kalaupapa Advisory Commission, S. 1166, would extend the authorization of the Kalaupapa National Park Advisory Commission 

for another 20 years. The Department supports this legislation, 

with amendments described in our statement. Extending the duration of the Kalaupapa Advisory Commission for another 20 years 

would enable a panel of knowledgeable and dedicated individuals 

to provide guidance during the coming years when the park will be 

anticipating the change from a patient community to a more traditional park unit. 

Kalaupapa National Historical Park was established to preserve 

and interpret the settlement on Kalaupapa Peninsula on the island 

of Molokai, and to provide a well-maintained residential community for the patients with Hansen’s Disease, or leprosy. The enabling legislation gave primary consideration to the rights and needs 

of the resident patients, so long as they remain there. However, the 

legislation also anticipated the day when there would no longer be 

a resident patient community at Kalaupapa. An advisory commission, in operation until 2025 would offer important guidance for the 

National Park Service as it seeks to provide for the settlement’s 

last remaining patients, and transition to a park that is more 

broadly available for the public. 

Maritime sites in Michigan, S. 1346, would authorize a special 

resource study of the maritime heritage sites in the State of Michigan. The Department does not support this bill. While Michigan is 

rich in historic treasures linked to its Great Lakes heritage, and 

the coastline of the state are home to important resources, such as 

wetlands, dunes, and threatened and endangered species and 

plants. We believe the best of these cultural and natural resources 

are already being conserved and interpreted for the enjoyment of 

the public. All four National Park Service units in Michigan—Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore, Keweenaw National Historical 

Park, Isle Royale National Park and Sleeping Bear Dunes National 

Lakeshore—already preserve and interpret historic maritime resources identified in the provisions of S. 1346. 

The State of Michigan also has made great efforts to protect important cultural and natural resources. Michigan has listed over 

1,000 sites on the National Register of Historic Places, which include many ships and shipwreck sites. The State has developed a 

data base that includes the stories of the 1,500 shipwrecks, as well 

as information on 11 underwater preserves. 

We would continue to work together with the communities, the 

State and others to preserve, interpret and use these areas. 

7

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I’d be pleased to answer any questions that you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Martin follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEPHEN P. MARTIN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK

SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

ON S. 584 AND H.R. 432

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. 

584 and H.R. 432, bills that would require the Secretary of the Interior to permit 

continued occupancy and use of certain lands and improvements within Rocky 

Mountain National Park. 

The Department supports the general goal of S. 584 and H.R. 432 to allow the 

National Park Service (NPS) to resolve the merits of Mrs. Betty Dick’s desire to continue to live in the home inside Rocky Mountain National Park where she has lived 

for more than 25 years. Currently, the NPS does not have clear statutory authority 

to address these unique situations. In this testimony, we recommend certain amendments that will address both Mrs. Dick’s needs while recognizing the public’s purchase and ownership of this property. 

As drafted, the pending legislation will only address Mrs. Dick’s unique situation. 

The Department also would be willing to work with the Committee to develop a 

broader solution, one that would provide NPS with clear statutory authority to address expiring reservations of use and occupancy in other situations with similar 

merit. We look forward to working with the Committee on this issue. 

On April 14, 2005, the Department testified in opposition to H.R. 432 at a hearing 

before the House Subcommittee on National Parks. However, since that time, the 

Department has recognized the need for a broader solution in light of the several 

hundred reservations of use and occupancy that will expire over the next 10 years. 

Some of these existing reservations may present circumstances similar in merit to 

Mrs. Dick’s. 

S. 584 and H.R. 432 would allow the continued use and occupancy of land within 

Rocky Mountain National Park by Betty Dick for the remainder of her life. The bills 

also state that the use and occupancy of the land would be governed by the conditions stated in the 1980 settlement agreement. Under these conditions, Betty Dick 

would be required to make an annual payment of $300 to the Secretary of the Interior and she would be prohibited from constructing any new structures on the property. 

We regret the difficult situations that sometimes arise from the expiration of private use and occupancy leases located within National Parks. Mrs. Dick has been 

a model tenant in Rocky Mountain National Park. The park has always enjoyed, 

and continues to enjoy, a congenial relationship with her, and she is a familiar summer resident of the Grand Lake community opening her home to park staff and residents of the community alike. Park staff always feel welcome in Mrs. Dick’s home 

and have frequently stopped by to discuss this issue and other items of mutual interest relating to the park. 

The situation that is the subject of these bills is the result of a commitment made 

by Mr. Dick, Mrs. Dick’s late husband, to vacate the property that he sold to the 

NPS 25 years ago. We understand and appreciate that this commitment has caused 

anxiety and stress for Mrs. Dick. 

In 1977, the NPS purchased 66.5 acres from Marilyn Dick, the ex-wife of George Fredrick Dick for $214,000. The title company that handled the transaction overlooked the fact that Mr. Dick had retained a right of first refusal to purchase the 

property if his ex-wife ever decided to sell. Mr. Dick sued the NPS and his former 

wife in U.S. District Court. In a legally binding Memorandum of Settlement Agreement, signed by the parties in 1980, the NPS retained ownership of the property 

and agreed to lease approximately 23 acres to Mr. Dick and his heirs for a period 

of 25 years for $7,500, which equates to $300 per year. Mr. Dick died in 1992. His 

second wife, Betty Dick, survives him and now occupies the premises during the 

summer months. As the heir of Mr. Dick, Betty Dick had a leasehold interest in 

the property that expired July 16, 2005. 

Mrs. Dick has contacted the NPS about extending her use and occupancy on a 

preferential basis for the remainder of her life. The NPS lacks the authority to grant 

such an extension either through existing leasing authority or special use permit authority. NPS does have the authority to issue leases competitively in most circumstances; issuing leases noncompetitively is limited to leases to units of government or non-profit organizations under certain circumstances. NPS is also is reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:01 Dec 08, 2005 Jkt 109201 PO 24837 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\24837.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
8

quired to charge rent at least equal to fair market value, and the rent payment is 

kept by the park. 

NPS cannot issue special use permits to extend use and occupancy for a life term 

under current authorities. However, NPS does have authority under certain circumstances to issue a two-year special use permit, with the possibility of re-issuance 

as long as the justifying circumstances apply, that would allow an individual with 

an expired use and occupancy to remain on the premises. Some of the criteria include situations in which NPS would be unable to remove the structure for a significant period of time (e.g., because of the need to complete planning requirement or 

the lack of available funds); the structure has or may have historical significance 

that would be endangered if vacated; or termination of residency would create 

undue hardship to the occupant (this provision requires the structure to be the primary residence of the individual). Special use permits also may only be issued for 

rent equal to the fair market value rent for the property, and the rent would be 

deposited in the U.S. Treasury. Under our current authority, we have offered Mrs. 

Dick such a special use permit that allows her to remain on her property for a period of time while NPS conducts a planning process to consider the options and determine an appropriate use for the property taking into account the interests of 

American taxpayers and park visitors, and park resources. 

Mrs. Dick has verbally indicated that she will not accept the offer of a special use 

permit because it does not address her request for a life estate. A written offer has 

been sent to her that asks for her reconsideration of the NPS offer. While she has 

not yet responded to the request for reconsideration, she has accepted our offer to 

remain at her summer home for the remainder of this season as we await the outcome of the pending legislation. In accepting this offer, Mrs. Dick has stated her 

appreciation to park staff for allowing her to continue her normal routine for this 

summer. 

The Department would support S. 584 and H.R. 432, if amended in a way that 

balances the merits of Mrs. Dick’s situation with the public’s interest in this property, which was purchased and is owned for the benefit of the American people. 

First, the Department would recommend that the bills be amended to reduce the 

acreage she occupies from 23 acres to approximately three to five acres that contain 

the house and outbuildings and her access to the Colorado River. The balance of 

the property would then be available for park visitors, including access to the river. 

This would require producing a new map, which we would be happy to provide to 

Mrs. Dick and to the public. 

In addition, we suggest that Mrs. Dick’s continued occupancy of the property 

should be subject to fair market value rent, based upon an appraisal of the property, 

with the rent being retained by the park. 

Finally, we suggest that the bill be amended to name Mrs. Dick as the sole beneficiary of the legislation, and that language be added to allow the termination of the 

lease in the event that Mrs. Dick is no longer able to use the property in the summer or is unable or unwilling to pay the annual fees. We would be happy to work 

with the Subcommittee staff to develop these amendments. 

Throughout the country, there are many instances where the NPS has purchased 

private inholdings and permitted former landowners to remain on the property for 

a period of time, usually 25 years, through a ‘‘Reservation of Use and Occupancy.’’ 

The United States pays a reduced purchase price to account for the value of the retained use. This acquisition tool saves taxpayer dollars and allows the former owner 

to continue to enjoy the property for a set period of time. As we noted earlier, the 

Department also would like to work with the Committee to develop a broader solution—one that would provide the NPS with clear statutory authority to address the 

expiring reservations of use and occupancy in situations where there is merit. We 

look forward to working with the Committee on this effort. 

That concludes my remarks. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to answer any questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may have. 

ON S. 652

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

present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 652, a bill to provide financial assistance for the rehabilitation of the Benjamin Franklin National Memorial in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and the development of an exhibit to commemorate the 300th anniversary of the birth of Benjamin Franklin. The Department does 

not support this bill. 

This bill would authorize financial assistance in the form of a grant to the Franklin Institute to rehabilitate the Benjamin Franklin National Memorial, and to develop an interpretive exhibit relating to Benjamin Franklin to be displayed at a muVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:01 Dec 08, 2005 Jkt 109201 PO 24837 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\24837.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
9

seum adjacent to the memorial. An amount not to exceed $10,000,000 would be authorized to be appropriated for these purposes, with the Franklin Institute required 

to provide matching funds. 

For many years, the Department has opposed legislation authorizing appropriations for non-National Park Service construction projects. Many of these projects, 

like the rehabilitation of the Ben Franklin National Memorial, represent an important contribution to the preservation of our Nation’s history. However, each time 

such legislation is enacted and appropriations follow, it further reduces a limited 

amount of discretionary funds available to address the priority needs of our national 

parks and other programs administered by the National Park Service. With the emphasis we have placed on the President’s initiative to reduce the deferred maintenance backlog, it has become more important than ever to avoid authorizing funding 

for non-National Park Service projects that would likely draw funds from the National Park Service’s budget. We are committed to supporting initiatives to commemorate the 300th anniversary of Benjamin Franklin and the interpretation of his 

legacy, especially at Franklin Court, a unit of Independence National Historical 

Park in Philadelphia, but given the current demands on National Park Service 

funds, we cannot support this legislation. 

The Benjamin Franklin National Memorial is an affiliated area of the National 

Park System that is owned and administered by the Franklin Institute. The Memorial includes a colossal seated marble statue of Franklin carved by sculptor James 

Earle Fraser, which stands in the Rotunda of the Franklin Institute’s main building 

at 20th Street and the Benjamin Franklin Parkway in Philadelphia. The statue and 

surrounding Memorial Hall was designated as the Benjamin Franklin National Memorial on October 25, 1972 (P.L. 92-551) and made no provision for appropriated 

funds to be used for acquisition, development, operation or maintenance of this Memorial. The House committee report on P.L. 92-551 anticipated that the Franklin 

Institute would continue to operate and maintain the Memorial at no cost to the 

government. 

A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) entered into on November 6, 1973, falls 

under the administrative authority of Independence National Historical Park. The 

MOA outlines the major responsibilities of each party regarding the operations of 

the national memorial. The Franklin Institute agreed to preserve the memorial in 

perpetuity, that no substantial alterations or repairs be taken without Secretarial 

approval, that the public shall be admitted without charge to the memorial, and 

that there will be equal employment opportunities. In turn, the Secretary agreed to 

include the memorial in publications, to make appropriate references to it in the interpretive and information programs of Independence National Historical Park, and 

to cooperate with the Institute in all appropriate and mutually agreeable ways on 

behalf of the memorial. 

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. 958

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. 958, 

a bill to amend the National Trails System Act to designate the Star-Spangled Banner Trail as a National Historic Trail. 

The Department supports S. 958, which would designate an approximately 290-

mile land and water trail extending from southern Maryland through the District 

of Columbia and Virginia along the Chesapeake Bay. The land routes would follow 

existing public roads, along which British and American troops traveled. The bill 

would require the Secretary to encourage public participation and consult with landowners, Federal, State, and local agencies on the administration of the trail. The 

bill would prohibit land or interest in land outside the exterior boundaries of any 

federally administered area from being acquired for the trail without the consent 

of the owner. 

The proposed National Historic Trail would commemorate the events leading up 

to the writing of ‘‘The Star-Spangled Banner’’ during the Chesapeake Campaign of 

the War of 1812. These events include the British invasion of Maryland, the Battle 

of Bladensburg, the burning of the White House and the Capitol, the burning of the 

Washington Navy Yard, and the Battle for Baltimore in the summer of 1814. The 

route of the invasion is known and documented, and the proposed trail would follow 

it as closely as practical. 

The War of 1812 and the Chesapeake Campaign of 1814 had long-lasting and farreaching effects on the United States and American culture. It represented the first 

10

major test of our infant democracy, contributed to the formation of a national identity, and demonstrated the importance of a strong military and the need for coastal 

defenses. During the campaign, other events occurred that are significant to our nation’s heritage, particularly the writing of the poem commemorating a key battle—

the Battle for Baltimore. Francis Scott Key’s poem, the words of which comprise our 

National Anthem, celebrated the resiliency of the young nation and the flag he described as ‘‘The Star-Spangled Banner’’ during the successful defense of Fort 

McHenry. The events provide important testimony, too, about the roles of the 

enslaved and civilians in the early defense of the nation. 

Should S. 958 be enacted, the National Park Service, subject to availability of 

funds, would prepare a comprehensive management plan with widespread public 

participation to identify the goals and objectives for trail preservation, research, interpretation, public use, trail marking, and cooperative management. The bill recognizes the advantages offered by the regional nature of the trail and the many organizations interested in and associated with the history of the Chesapeake Campaign. Several key trail-related resources, such as Fort McHenry and the White 

House, are owned by the Federal government. We anticipate that other trail-related 

resources such as structures within Old Town Alexandria in Virginia or Jefferson 

Patterson Park and Museum in Maryland will primarily remain in local or private 

ownership. 

In 1999, the Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail Study Act (Public Law 

106-135) was enacted authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to study the potential 

route of a Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail. The history, background, 

integrity, and national significance of the trail were researched and analyzed. The 

criteria for national trails, set forth in the National Trails Systems Act, were applied, and five of the eight trail study segments were found to meet the necessary 

criteria. The proposed 290-mile trail would only include these five segments. 

Providing conservation and enjoyment of, public access to, and interpretation of 

the historic route and its resources has been a growing focus of both public and private initiatives in recent years as the Bicentennial of the War of 1812 approaches. 

In Maryland, a grassroots initiative was undertaken to raise public awareness of the 

important events that occurred in the Chesapeake region in the summer of 1814 

during the War of 1812. Historians and regional groups recognized the untold stories and legacy of the events of the Chesapeake Campaign and the need for protection and interpretation of related historical resources. 

The proposed trail represents an opportunity for an effective partnership among 

Federal, State, and local governments, a dedicated trail organization, and the many 

public and private site managers to administer and maintain a federally designated 

commemorative trail along the historic routes of the Chesapeake Campaign. Because of its emphasis on partnerships, this approach provides the greatest flexibility 

for resource protection while creating a framework for interpretation and visitor experience. 

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

any questions that you and the committee may have. 

ON S. 1154

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

present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 1154, 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. 1154 would accomplish three objectives. First, it would extend the 

life of the 16-member Acadia National Park Advisory Commission, which is set to 

expire in September 2006, for an additional 20 years. Second, the bill would increase 

the park’s land acquisition ceiling from $9.1 million to $28 million. Third, 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 has been in operation for almost 

20 years, and continues to be a valuable asset that enhances communication between park managers and local communities. The Commission’s state and local representatives participate actively, and they strongly support its continuation. The 

cost of administering the Commission is minimal and is covered by the park’s operating budget. 

11

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, thus leaving valuable resources within the park threatened with incompatible development. The current law allowing Congress to exceed the ceiling by 10% or $1 million per year has resulted in an additional $8.9 million appropriated over the ceiling, for a 

total appropriation of $18 million for land acquisition at Acadia National Park to 

date. However, because the current law is limited to $1 million per year, it does not 

adequately address situations where available tracts are valued higher 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 within S. 1154 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 Transportation 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 

12

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 would recommend two technical amendments be made to section 4 of the bill. 

First, we need 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 flexibility in how resources are allocated, we would recommend 

that the word ‘‘may’’ be used instead of ‘‘shall’’. 

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. 

Technical amendments to S. 1154, the Acadia National Park Improvement Act of 

2005 

On p. 2, line 9, strike ‘‘shall’’ and insert ‘‘may’’. 

On p. 2, line 26, strike ‘‘system;’’ and insert ‘‘system or any successor transit system;’’. 

ON S. 1166

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the Department of the 

Interior’s views on S. 1166, a bill to extend the authorization of the Kalaupapa National Historical Park Advisory Commission. The advisory commission is due to expire on December 22, 2005; this bill would extend the commission another twenty 

years, until December 22, 2025. 

The Department supports this legislation with amendments described later in this 

statement. Extending the duration of the Kalaupapa National Historical Park Advisory Commission for another 20 years would enable a panel of knowledgeable and 

dedicated individuals to provide guidance during the coming years when the park 

will be anticipating the change from a patient community to a more traditional national park unit. 

Kalaupapa National Historical Park was established in 1980 by Public Law 96-

565 to preserve and interpret the settlement on the Kalaupapa Peninsula on the island of Molokai, and to provide a well-maintained residential community for the patients with Hansen’s disease (leprosy). The enabling legislation gave primary consideration to the rights and needs of the resident patients so long as they remained 

there. However, the legislation also anticipated the day when there would no longer 

be a resident patient community at Kalaupapa by providing for a reevaluation of 

the policies governing the management, administration, and public use of the park 

once that occurs. 

With a patient population of fewer than 40, it is likely that sometime before 2025, 

there will no longer be a resident patient community at Kalaupapa. At that time, 

the reevaluation of policies governing the park will be undertaken, as required by 

the law establishing the park. An advisory commission in operation until 2025 could 

offer important guidance to the National Park Service, as it seeks to provide for the 

settlement’s last remaining patients and transition the park from a site that is primarily a patient community to one that is more broadly available for public uses. 

While we believe it is critically important to have the involvement of the patient 

community on the advisory board for as long as possible, we believe that an extension of the advisory commission for 20 years, by necessity, needs to be accompanied 

by a change in the allowable composition of the commission. Section 108(a) of P.L. 

96-565 provides for the Secretary of the Interior to appoint seven members to the 

11-member advisory commission who are present or former patients, elected by the 

patient community. We recommend amending this section to provide for the Secretary to appoint seven members who are knowledgeable about Kalaupapa’s history 

and have a strong interest in the preservation of the settlement’s history, if patients 

are unable to serve on the commission. We support retaining the requirement currently in law that the other four members be appointed from recommendations submitted by the Governor of Hawaii. 

For similar reasons, we also recommend amending Section 108(d) of P.L. 96-565. 

This section requires the Secretary to consult with the commission on a training 

program for the patients, among other matters, and provides for public visitation 

levels to be determined by the commission on the basis of a patient referendum. For 

13

the next phase of decision-making, we believe it would be more appropriate to 

amend Section 108(d) to specify that the commission should recommend to the Secretary the long-term strategic planning, education, and outreach efforts that should 

be undertaken by the National Park Service for the park and should advise the Secretary about appropriate visitation levels for the park. 

We would be pleased to work with the subcommittee on language for amendments 

to Sections 108(a) and 108(d). 

In the 25 years since Congress passed the enabling legislation for Kalaupapa National Historical Park, the National Park Service has built a strong relationship 

with many of the residents and the State of Hawaii. We have learned a lot—about 

Hansen’s disease, inequality, renewal and hope—through our relationship with 

these individuals and their families. We want those who have helped us understand 

the history of what happened at Kalaupapa to be involved in framing the story for 

the future. Providing for the advisory commission for the park to remain in existence for another 20 years will help ensure that this goal is achieved. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I will be happy to answer questions 

you or the other members of the subcommittee may have. 

ON S. 1346

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 1346, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to 

conduct a special resource study of the maritime heritage sites in the state of Michigan. 

The Department does not support S. 1346. While Michigan is rich in historic 

treasures linked to its Great Lakes’ heritage and the coastlines of the state are 

home to important resources such as wetlands, dunes, and threatened and endangered species and plants, we believe the best of these cultural and natural resources 

are already being conserved and interpreted for the enjoyment of the public. 

S. 1346 would authorize a study to determine the potential economic and tourism 

benefits of preserving, protecting, and interpreting the State’s maritime resources. 

It would recommend management alternatives for the most effective long-term protection and interpretation of the resources. The study also would address ways to 

link communities, waterways, monuments, parkways, national and state parks, and 

state historic sites on the national, regional, state and local levels into a Michigan 

Maritime Heritage Destination Network. S. 1346 would require a report to be submitted to Congress not later than 18 months after funds are made available that 

describes the results of the study. The bill would authorize funding of $500,000 for 

the study. 

All four National Park Service (NPS) units in Michigan, Pictured Rocks National 

Lakeshore, Keweenaw National Historical Park, Isle Royale National Park, and 

Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore already preserve and interpret historic 

maritime resources identified in the provisions of S. 1346. These parks contain historic maritime landscapes of a size and quality unique on the Great Lakes and rare 

elsewhere on the United States coastlines. The maritime heritage resources at all 

four NPS sites are interpreted and presented to the public in a variety of ways. 

Symbols of the maritime history of Lake Superior are preserved at Pictured Rocks 

National Lakeshore at three former Coast Guard stations and the Au Sable Light 

Station, which is perhaps the finest example on the Great Lakes of late 1800’s vintage masonry lighthouses. At Keweenaw National Historical Park, the majority of 

cultural resources are related to copper mining. Some of the success of that industry 

was attributed to the waterways of Lake Superior and the role that copper played 

in building ships and boats to this day. Thus, this site adds another dimension to 

the maritime heritage of the area. 

Copper mining on the island of Isle Royale and the growth of Lake Superior shipping led to the establishment of four lighthouses around Isle Royale National Park. 

These lighthouses, three of which are listed on the National Register of Historic 

Places, and numerous shipwrecks of both national and state significance scattered 

throughout Isle Royale National Park give clear indication of the traffic and danger 

the waters of Lake Superior posed to sailing vessels throughout history. The area 

was a base for a thriving commercial fishing industry from the 1830’s until the 

park’s establishment in 1931. 

The maritime resources at Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore include an 

1858 lighthouse, three original Life-Saving Service /Coast Guard stations, eight historic rescue boats, and hundreds of museum artifacts. Cultural landscapes highlight 

the maritime and agricultural resources of the area. The waters of Lake Michigan 

have played a key role in the settlement of the state. 

14

There are indoor and outside exhibits, walking tours, living history, boat tours 

and audio-visual programs at these park sites. Scores of school groups make trips 

to these sites where history comes alive to enhance their social science studies. During the summers, national park rangers, Volunteers-in Park (VIPs), and various 

park partners staff museums, visitor centers, and historic structures to provide the 

general public with enthusiasm and knowledge of the maritime heritage resources. 

The state of Michigan also has made great efforts to preserve and protect important cultural and natural resources. Michigan has listed over one thousand sites on 

the National Register of Historic Places, which includes state parks, historic houses, 

commercial and residential areas, farm and factory complexes, cemeteries, monuments, as well as ships and shipwreck sites. The state has developed a database 

that includes the stories and details of wrecks and rescues of 1,500 shipwrecks as 

well as information on the 11 underwater preserves and other important historical 

facts. There are 120 lighthouses along the coastline, the oldest ones being over 180 

years old. And Michigan established the first fresh water marine sanctuary in the 

Great Lakes area, the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary and Underwater 

Preserve, to maintain stewardship over and interpret a large collection of shipwrecks. There are numerous museums, hotels, historic ships and boats, locks and 

ports, and underwater preserves related to the maritime industry. 

The Great Lakes are a critical part of Michigan’s economy and quality of life. Millions of people use the Great Lakes each year to enjoy beaches, good fishing and 

boating. Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore, Keweenaw National Historical Park, 

Isle Royale National Park, and Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore will continue to ensure that outstanding natural and cultural resources will be protected for 

generations to come. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared testimony. I would be pleased to answer any questions you or the committee may have.

Senator THOMAS. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Martin. 

We’ve been joined by the Senator from Hawaii. Would you have 

any opening statements? 

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

FROM HAWAII 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you, very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank 

you very much for holding this hearing. I have a statement that 

I ask to be included in the record. I’d like to say that I’ve heard 

a lot of your statement, Mr. Martin, and I’m glad to know how you 

feel about Kalaupapa National Park and I’d like to say more about 

that later. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Akaka follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA, U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII

Mr. Chairman, thank you for scheduling this hearing. I would like to make a brief 

statement in support of S. 1166, a bill Senator Inouye and I introduced to extend 

the authorization of the advisory commission at Kalaupapa National Historical 

Park. Like the other bills on today’s agenda, this is not a major national issue, but 

it is very important to my State. 

Kalaupapa National Historical Park was established by statute in 1980 to provide 

for the preservation of the nationally and internationally significant resources of the 

Kalaupapa settlement on the island of Molokai—including its residents, culture, history, and natural resources. 

The purpose of the park is to provide a well-maintained community in which the 

patients with Hansen’s disease may remain at Kalaupapa as long as they wish, 

while protecting their current lifestyle and their individual privacy. The park also 

protects the spectacular features of the Kalaupapa peninsula and the important history of the site. 

The park’s enabling legislation also established the Kalaupapa National Historical 

Park Advisory Commission consisting of 11 members, appointed by the Secretary of 

the Interior. Seven of the members are patients or former patients elected by the 

patient community. Four members are appointed from recommendations made by 

the Governor of Hawaii, and at least one of these is Native Hawaiian. 

The Advisory Commission has provided very useful input and advice to the Secretary of the Interior on policy concerning visitation to the park and other matters. 

15

* The letter is included in the appendix. 

It is remarkable that 25 years have passed since enactment of the bill establishing 

the park and Commission, and at the end of the 2005 calendar year, the Advisory 

Commission expires. It is important to continue the work of the Commission, which 

is to provide a voice for the patients and residents on matters concerning their 

home. S. 1166 simply extends the authorization for an additional 20 years. 

I have received a letter from some of the residents at Kalaupapa in support of 

S. 1166, and I ask that it be included in the hearing record.* 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you and the sponsors of the bills 

on today’s agenda to help move them through the Committee process as soon as 

practicable. 

Thank you.

Senator THOMAS. Thank you very much. 

Now we’re joined by the Senator from Michigan. If you’d like to 

go ahead before we ask questions. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DEBBIE STABENOW, U.S. SENATOR

FROM MICHIGAN 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you, Senator Thomas. Thank you, I 

will leave before you ask questions. 

Senator THOMAS. Well, we’ll have some for you, of course. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator STABENOW. I very much appreciate your allowing me to 

say a few words about a very important bill to Michigan that Senator Levin and I have introduced, and I appreciate your allowing 

me to speak now. As you may know, in the Banking Committee, 

we are currently marking up the GSE bill, so I’m running back and 

forth. I also know my colleagues, Senator Sarbanes and Senator 

Santorum who are also on the Banking Committee, have bills and 

want to appear before your committee. But I very much appreciate 

your hearing on this important bill. Senator Thomas, Senator 

Akaka, thank you very much for your leadership on the committee, 

and of course, Senator Salazar, thank you for being here. 

I’m speaking today about the Michigan Lighthouse and Maritime 

Heritage Act. Senator Levin and I introduced this bill because we 

believe it’s important to our maritime heritage, and it’s important 

to provide education and interpretation to the public of the great 

maritime heritage in Michigan. I invite all of you to come to Michigan, if you have not, to enjoy the beauty of our great State. 

This bill has long had broad bipartisan support in the Michigan 

delegation. Congressman Dave Camp just introduced the bill today 

in the House, and has been my colleague on the House side, working on this issue for us. I also want to take the time to thank Steve 

Belko for traveling all the way from Michigan to testify before the 

subcommittee today. 

The Great Lakes are an inseparable part of Michigan’s identity, 

and our cultural heritage. Our 3,288 miles of shoreline cover a 

larger distance than the entire eastern coast of the United States. 

Michigan’s landscape reflects our deep bond with the Great Lakes, 

and the associated industries that have shaped our State from the 

time of the earliest settlers. 

We’re very proud that Michigan has the most lighthouses of any 

State in the Nation, totaling 120 lighthouses. At one time we had 

over 100 staffed lighthouses, which was more than any other State. 

Our lighthouses are no longer staffed, because of advances in techVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:01 Dec 08, 2005 Jkt 109201 PO 24837 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\24837.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
16

nology, but they remain a symbol of the importance that the Great 

Lakes has played, and continue to play, in Michigan’s history. 

In addition to our famous lighthouses, Michigan is also home to 

the Nation’s only freshwater marine sanctuary, the Thunder Bay 

National Marine Sanctuary. We have historic shipwrecks and numerous maritime and lighthouse museums. 

The purpose of my bill is to link all of these elements together—

history, lighthouses, maritime sanctuaries, shipwrecks and museums—so that Michigan residents and all visitors to our great State, 

have a wonderful insight into the importance of the Great Lakes 

in the settling, the growth and the development of our history. 

Specifically, S. 1346 will help develop Federal, State and local 

partnerships by requiring the National Park Service to work with 

the State of Michigan and local communities to study and make 

recommendations to Congress on the best ways to promote and protect Michigan’s lighthouses and maritime resources. These recommendations would include specific legislative proposals for the 

preservation of lighthouses and maritime history. For example, 

they may call for the creation of a State-wide trail, highlighting the 

historic features of our shorelines and lighthouses—I would love to 

see that. The recommendations would also include the identification of funding sources from Michigan communities, which are critical to this effort. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, my bill will also promote tourism for the 

local economies of our Great Lakes communities. Our shoreline 

towns host visitors from across the country who travel to view the 

magnificence of our coastal areas and the lighthouses that illuminate them. These small communities are more dependent than 

ever on tourism dollars, and we must help them by coordinating 

our efforts to protect Michigan’s lighthouses, and promote our 

Great Lakes maritime culture. 

I want to thank you, again, for allowing me to come on S. 1346 

in today’s hearing. I’m hopeful that the subcommittee and the committee will support the legislation and move it to the floor so that 

we can continue our broad, bipartisan effort in Michigan to preserve and protect our history and our assets on the Great Lakes. 

And I invite you, at any time, to come join us, and we will show 

you some wonderful beauty in Michigan. Thank you. 

Senator THOMAS. Thank you very much, Senator, for being here, 

we appreciate it. 

Now we’ll go back to the questions for the Director, and we’ll try 

and time those. Let me ask about the Rocky Mountain land occupancy issue. It’s my understanding that back in 1979 it was offered, the land, as a life estate. However, the final agreement was 

for a 25-year estate. Do you know how the final agreement came 

about? That is the final agreement; is that right? 

Mr. MARTIN. Yes, the final agreement was for a 25-year term. I 

don’t know exactly how it came about, except that it was done 

through negotiation. We do have some correspondence from Mr. 

Dick’s attorney where he talked about a 25-year use and occupancy 

as well as the life tenancy, so I know that both of those options 

were in play, but exactly what resulted in the decisionmaking, I’m 

not aware of. 

17

Senator THOMAS. So what would be necessary to change that? I 

think you suggested that under some conditions—what would be 

necessary to cause that to happen? Would there have to be congressional action, or can the Department do that? 

Mr. MARTIN. We have looked extensively at the authorities that 

we have, and feel that we don’t have the authority to extend this 

to a life tenancy. Right after the current situation came up, the region and the park provided a short-term extension for the summer, 

as we looked into it. We have offered some additional time, as we 

plan for the continued use of the property, but we really feel—and 

we’re really looked at it hard—that we don’t have that current authority. 

Senator THOMAS. Now, I think you mentioned there are nearly 

300 similar cases throughout the park Service. What kind of a 

precedent would we be setting in terms of arrangements that have 

been made? Should this happen here? 

Mr. MARTIN. I think we have to be sensitive to that. The lands 

were purchased for the American public, just as in the previous 

testimony on the land issues in Maine that are similar, where 

we’re working within the boundaries of parks to acquire these 

lands, I think that under the right conditions, we feel that some 

more general legislation could provide flexibility for unique situations. It would have to be clearly laid out. 

In this particular case, on the individual legislation, we feel that 

some amendments, including fair market for the property, opening 

some of the property to the public and a few other amendments, 

would make it acceptable. 

Senator THOMAS. I understand there’s a bill pending, or a bill 

suggested that would be broad for this and other arrangements as 

well. 

Mr. MARTIN. We’ve been requested to do drafting service on a bill 

that would look at some broader flexibility for in-holdings. That’s 

the status of it. Other than that, we have, of course, stated in the 

testimony that we’re willing to work with the committee in evaluating what might be fair to, not only to this situation, but to future 

ones that come up. 

Senator THOMAS. With regard to the Benjamin Franklin tricentennial, how much funding has the park Service provided in the 

past? 

Mr. MARTIN. Very little. We helped some with a presidentiallyappointed commission on a matter of thousands of dollars, and they 

did receive a Save America’s Treasures grant for $300,000, which 

is one that we make available, but otherwise there has been no 

funding. 

Senator THOMAS. So this is not a parks facility? 

Mr. MARTIN. That’s correct. 

Senator THOMAS. The Star-Spangled Banner Trail, is that a trail, 

or is that a series of activities that took place? Why is it called a 

trail, and why should it be called a trail? 

Mr. MARTIN. Yes, it’s a series of activities, but I think the concept of a trail linking them together to commemorate the StarSpangled Banner and the events that went on and working with 

the groups that have come together on it as that campaign went 

on, I think it is appropriate as a trail. 

18

Senator THOMAS. That is not recognized as any unit of the Federal Government now? 

Mr. MARTIN. No. We have areas, certainly, that represent portions of that story within the National Park System. By adding it 

to the trails system—we’ve done similar things elsewhere, like 

Lewis and Clark, where you have an opportunity to work with a 

broad array of partners that manage through their own jurisdictions and work together. 

Senator THOMAS. I know it’s difficult, but somehow we have to 

start having, it seems to me, some kind of a definition of what can 

be Federal designations and what can be local and State. Now, 

your testimony was that you support the idea of this being a Federal designation? 

Mr. MARTIN. Yes, but this Federal designation really lays out an 

opportunity to cooperate, as opposed to the traditional National 

Park Service model where we own all of the properties. It’s really 

a recognition of working together. 

Senator THOMAS. What would it be called, then? 

Mr. MARTIN. It would be part of the National Trails System. 

Senator THOMAS. National Trails System? 

Mr. MARTIN. Yes. 

Senator THOMAS. Okay. Thank you very much. 

Senator Akaka. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank 

you, Mr. Martin, for your testimony. I just want to be sure that 

your testimony did include supporting the extension of the authorization of the advisory commission at Kalaupapa National Historical Park. I also note that you have suggested the make-up of the 

commission is something that we need to look at, because of the 

age of the patients who serve on the commission. We’ll certainly 

consider that. Also, I’d like to tell you that in Hawaii the people 

tend to live longer than we think, and I would prefer that we keep 

the composition until the time comes, so that they don’t feel that 

the make-up will change while they’re still alive. But that’s something to consider. I thank you so much for the support you’ve given. 

I have, Mr. Chairman, a letter from the residents of Kalaupapa 

in support of S. 1166, and I ask that it be included in the record 

with my full statement. 

Senator THOMAS. It will be included. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Chairman, also there is a statement of Senator Paul Sarbanes of Maryland on the designation of the StarSpangled Banner Trail in the States of Maryland and Virginia, and 

the District of Columbia as a National Historic Trail. Senator Paul 

Sarbanes is submitting this for the record. 

Senator THOMAS. It will be included. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Sarbanes follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL S. SARBANES, U.S. SENATOR FROM MARYLAND

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee for scheduling this 

hearing on S. 958, to designate the Star-Spangled Banner Trail in the States of 

Maryland and Virginia and the District of Columbia as a National Historic Trail. 

The Star Spangled Banner National Historic Trail would commemorate an extremely important period in the history of our nation—one that has often been overshadowed by other conflicts in our nation’s history—but which is quite significant 

in understanding our national heritage. It would tell the story of the important 

events that occurred in this region during the War of 1812 including the British inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:01 Dec 08, 2005 Jkt 109201 PO 24837 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\24837.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
19

vasion—the only combined naval and land attack on the United States, the Battle 

of Bladensburg, the burning of the White House, the Capitol and the Washington 

Navy Yard, and the Battle of Baltimore during the summer of 1814. It is, of course, 

out of this battle that Francis Scott Key watched the tremendous bombardment at 

Fort McHenry and wrote the words which were to become our National Anthem. 

This is a very compelling story of our patriots’ determination to stand firm against 

this enemy attack and bombardment that preserved our democracy, helped form our 

national identity through the symbols of the National Anthem and the Star Spangled Banner, and had such a long lasting effect on American culture. 

Over the past five years, the National Park Service has conducted a vigorous investigation and determined that five of the eight trail segments examined fully meet 

the three principal criteria for inclusion in the National Historic Trail System, that 

is, they retain historic integrity, are nationally significant, and have significant potential for public recreational use and historic interpretation. The feasibility study 

and environmental impact statement which was completed in March 2004, recommends as its preferred alternative that ‘‘the proposed Star Spangled Banner National Historic Trail . . . be established by Congress as a national historic trail 

with commemorative recreation and driving routes and water trails.’’ The proposed 

National Historic Trail would be comprised of approximately 175 miles of land and 

373 miles of water routes within the States of Maryland, Virginia and the District 

of Columbia. The study concluded that the costs of implementing the proposed trail 

would be minimal. No federal acquisition of trail sites is envisioned, and less than 

$2.5 million would be required to develop the comprehensive management plan, conduct archeological surveys and provide interpretation. 

In my view, this trail will be of tremendous historical and educational benefit to 

the Nation. Since the passage of the National Trail Systems Act of 1968, the Congress has recognized historically significant routes of exploration, migration and 

military action through the National Historic Trails Program. Routes such as the 

Lewis and Clark, Pony Express and Selma to Montgomery National Historic Trails 

cross our country and represent important episodes of our nation’s history—episodes 

which were influential in shaping the future of this country. The inclusion of the 

Star-Spangled Banner Trail will give long overdue recognition to another of these 

important events. As we rapidly approach the bicentennial of the War of 1812, I 

very much hope that the committee will consider this legislation and report it to 

the Senate floor favorably.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator THOMAS. Senator Salazar. 

Senator SALAZAR. Thank you very much, Chairman Craig and 

ranking member Akaka. Let me first say that I would ask unanimous consent to include my opening statement with respect to the 

Betty Dick issue into the record. 

Senator THOMAS. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Salazar follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. KEN SALAZAR, U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO

Good morning, Chairman Thomas, Senator Akaka. Thank you for holding this 

hearing today in the midst of a busy week. I appreciate the opportunity for the committee to hear more about H.R. 432/S. 548, ‘‘The Betty Dick Residence Protection 

Act’’. 

I’d like to ask unanimous consent that my opening statement and a statement 

from Congressman Udall be placed into the record. 

I’d like to welcome Mrs. Betty Dick and thank her for coming all the way to 

Washington to testify. 

Betty Dick is an 83 year old woman who has spent much of the past 25 years 

on property within the boundaries of Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado. 

Over the course of those 25 years, Betty Dick has become a cherished part of the 

Grand Lake community. She’s been a good citizen and has been happy to share her 

family’s beautiful cabin for civic events, and she has been a good neighbor to the 

National Park. In fact, the Park Service refers to Mrs. Dick as a ‘‘model tenant’’. 

But now, the National Park Service believes that it is compelled to evict Betty 

Dick. This bill would authorize and instruct the Park Service to allow Mrs. Dick to 

spend her last summers at her cherished home 

Mrs. Dick has been living on this property subject to a settlement agreement with 

the Park Service that allowed for the Dick’s occupancy for 25 years and expired earlier this month. There are circumstances around the settlement agreement that sugVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:01 Dec 08, 2005 Jkt 109201 PO 24837 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\24837.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
20

gest that the settlement was supposed to be for the duration of Fred and Betty 

Dick’s lives. 

Fred Dick, Betty’s husband, died in 1992. Mrs. Dick knows she doesn’t have too 

many summers left, but she would like to spend them at her family home. My bill 

will ensure that the federal government-and in particular the NPS-respects the 

basic dignity of this woman living out her days in her house. 

This bill goes back to the original settlement that was supposed to allow Fred and 

Betty Dick to occupy the land for the duration of their lives. In 1979, the Department of Interior met with the Dicks and agreed that a life estate was an appropriate 

settlement, and put it in writing. Then the deal disappeared. Mrs. Dick feels that 

they were the victims of a classic bait and switch. I sincerely hope that was not the 

case. I believe the parties to the NPS/Dick settlement intended to give Mr. Dick and 

his wife Betty the equivalent of a life estate. The 25-year lease was apparently 

based on the faulty assumption that Mr. and Mrs. Dick would not survive the term 

of that lease. We owe it to Betty Dick to correct that faulty assumption. We now 

know, and my bill recognizes, that Betty Dick has outlived the Park Service’s original incorrect assumptions. This bill, far from setting a new precedent, simply corrects faulty assumptions. 

The Park Service will testify about the need to address in-holdings in other National Parks. To the extent there is a broader problem related to Park in-holdings, 

I would support legislation designed to address that problem. I cannot, however, 

support holding up a solution for Mrs. Dick while we wait for the Park Service to 

answer basic questions about the nature and extent of the perceived problem and 

its recommended solutions the problem. 

If there is a need for legislation to address in-holding situations there is no reason 

for Mrs. Dick to be held captive to the Park Service’s pace. H.R. 432 has cleared 

the House of Representatives unanimously and it deserves to be evaluated on its 

own and in the light of the particular facts involved. How long should Betty Dick 

have to wait for a dignified resolution to her simple request to live out the remainder of her life in her family home? 

This bill will, simply, require the Secretary of the Interior’s National Park Service 

to enter into an agreement that will allow Betty Dick to continue to occupy her family cabin and property within Rocky Mountain National Park for the rest of her life. 

Mrs. Dick will continue to pay the rent that has been due under the prior lease. 

Mrs. Dick’s children and grandchildren will have no right to occupy the property 

after her death, and the cabin and property will then be managed by the Park Service. 

This bill recently passed the House unanimously and it has been sent to the Senate. It enjoys broad support in Colorado and I am hopeful that the subcommittee 

and full committee will act favorably in regards to this bill. Again, Mr. Chairman, 

thank you for conducting this hearing.

Senator SALAZAR. And I also would ask unanimous consent that 

we include Representative Mark Udall’s statement into the record. 

Senator THOMAS. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Representative Udall follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MARK UDALL, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE

FROM COLORADO

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing on my bill, 

H.R. 432. 

The bill would permit Ms. Betty Dick to continue her use and occupancy of a 

house located on lands within Rocky Mountain National Park. 

The bill is not complicated. It would allow Ms. Dick to continue to use the property and live in this house in Grand County, Colorado, for the rest of her life. 

This is not about ownership. The property belongs to the federal government and 

is part of the National Park. There is no dispute about that. 

This is strictly about whether Ms. Dick should be permitted to continue to use 

the property. 

There is no dispute that she has had that right for the past 25 years, under a 

legal agreement between her late husband and the National Park Service. 

There is also no dispute about the fact that this agreement expired on July 16th 

of this year. The National Park Service, through a letter from Rocky Mountain National Park Superintendent Vaughn Baker, has indicated that Ms. Dick can nevertheless remain on this property until mid-October. 

Although the Park Service has given her this additional time, as things now 

stand, come October of this year Ms. Dick, who has been a good neighbor with the 

21

National Park and who has opened her home for community events, will again face 

the unsettling prospect of having to permanently vacate this property. 

I do not think that is either necessary or desirable. 

As I said, Ms. Dick has been a good neighbor. She has taken good care of the 

property and has not created management or administrative problems for the National Park Service in the years she has lived there. 

In my opinion, she should be allowed to continue to live on this property and continue to contribute to the National Park and the surrounding community. 

I had hoped that Ms. Dick and the Interior Department could work out a resolution to this issue so that she could remain. Beginning in September of last year, 

on a number of occasions I urged the National Park Service to sit down with her 

and explore various options. Regrettably, these entreaties were either rejected or ignored, and no such discussions took place. 

Earlier this month, the National Park Service indicated that they would be will- ing to offer Ms. Dick a 2-year lease for $1,000 per month, which would allow her 

to stay while they evaluated the property and planned for its future use. 

Ms. Dick rejected this offer. I also had my own concerns with this proposal, as 

it would not necessarily allow Ms. Dick to remain on this property for the rest of 

her life, and, presuming Ms. Dick is still with us in two years hence, we would still 

be facing then the same situation we face today—that is, finding a workable and 

acceptable arrangement allowing her to remain on the property for the rest of her 

life. 

Given that this proposal has been rejected, and other efforts to work this out administratively have come to naught, I believe that this legislation provides a fair 

resolution that will give Ms. Dick the certainty and peace of mind about her future. 

The National Park Service has expressed concern that this legislation will create 

a ‘‘precedent’’ in that there are apparently many other individuals who occupy property within national parks. 

However, I believe that Ms. Dick’s situation is unique because she has occupied 

this property under the terms of an agreement that settled an underlying lawsuit 

to void the sale of the property to the National Park Service. In addition, as this 

is a ‘‘private bill,’’ this legislation relates only to the particulars and equities of Ms. 

Dick and her occupancy—and no future Congress would be bound to consider or 

pass similar legislation. 

Ms. Dick needs to have a resolution to this issue as soon as possible. 

Since I first raised this matter with the Interior Department, I have been impressed with the outpouring of support from the nearby communities of Grand Lake 

and Granby, Colorado. The people in these communities have expressed a strong desire to have Ms. Dick remain on this property and be a part of their community. 

The bill would enable that to happen. 

I do not think this is a controversial measure. It was approved by the Resources 

Committee by unanimous consent and passed the House in a similar fashion. I urge 

its approval. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.

Senator SALAZAR. Mr. Martin, I have a series of questions that 

I would like to ask of you. And in the second panel today, we will 

be hearing from Betty Dick about her particular situation at Rocky 

Mountain National Park and the circumstance that has brought 

her here to Washington, some nearly three decades after this saga 

started. One of the things for me that is troubling with all this is 

that a circumstance that seems to be so easily fixable has become 

so seemingly difficult. As you said, in your testimony, from your 

point of view, if you had the authority, you could go ahead and act 

to resolve Mrs. Dick’s situation, but right now you feel you lack 

that statutory authority. The House of Representatives passed legislation with the unanimous vote to fix her situation, and we are 

now here in the Senate with the park Service and the Department 

of the Interior taking the position that that legislation would have 

to be amended for the Department to support it, but you support 

the general goals. 

I will tell you that, from my point of view, what we’re dealing 

with here is a very unique circumstance. It’s not going to create 

precedent, because of the history of this particular situation, and 

22

I don’t want to have Betty Dick, who’s 83 years old, used as a political football by the Federal Government, or by anybody, because 

that’s not how we ought to treat people. 

Now, when I go back and study the information, the records that 

have been put together over time with respect to this issue, I find 

a memorandum that was written by the Department of the Interior 

a long time ago, concerning a meeting that was held here by Betty 

Dick and her husband, Fred, and it was a meeting that was conducted at the suggestion and request of then-Senator Adlai Stevenson, and Senator Ted Stevens had his staff also attend the meeting. 

It was a result of that meeting—what we had was the Associate 

Director, at the time, writing a memorandum that said—it talked 

about the issue with respect to the Dick family, and it said, and 

I quote, ‘‘At the request of Senator Adlai Stevenson’s office, a meeting was held on November 16, 1979 at the office of the Chief-Land 

Acquisition. It was attended by Will Kriz, Allen Harpine, George 

Dick, Betty Dick, and others. Mr. Kriz suggested that on a technical acquisition, a compromise whereby George and Betty Dick 

would obtain a life estate on the house and surrounding outbuildings and a portion of the land seem to be in order. However, 

he advised that he needed to obtain views of management.’’

The memo then continues, and in subsequent paragraphs says 

the following, and again I quote, ‘‘After discussing this matter with 

Superintendent Brooks, we concur with Mr. Kriz in the desirability 

of a life estate compromise. We feel that the following limitations 

should be part of the compromise,’’ and they set forth what those 

limitations are which have been complied with. There’s a subsequent documentation, then, that changes were made to the concept 

that had been agreed to in the meeting that was held at the direction of Senator Adlai Stevenson. 

I will ask you some questions—if I may, Mr. Chairman—and I 

want you to be straightforward with me, because here’s where we 

are with Mrs. Dick. Her lease, under your interpretation, has expired. We’re about ready, from a National Park Service point of 

view, to kick her off of her property. We have legislation that has 

passed the House unanimously, and we are now over here in the 

Senate. And if we end up going through the amendments that you 

have suggested, obviously this legislation is going to have to go 

back to the House, and we are going to end up in a situation where 

we are not going to be able to bring this matter together in a timely fashion to make sure that we give Mrs. Dick an opportunity to 

live out her life on her property, which she has been living on now 

for more than two decades. 

My question to you is this, in terms of the timeliness of moving 

forward, and providing the kind of equitable relief here, what 

would the amendments that you and the Department are suggesting do to that timeline, to be able to give her the closure to this 

issue as soon as possible? 

Mr. MARTIN. The question is, what our amendments are, or what 

would it do, or how long would it take to get them enacted? I guess 

I’m a little——

Senator SALAZAR. What, from your point of view, would we be 

able—you know what I know, that is that——

23

Mr. MARTIN. My sense is, throughout this, that we’ve already offered an extension through this year, and an extension while we 

plan for the future use of the property over the next 2 years. And, 

that said, we’ve struggled with how to be fair here. That’s our current position with what we feel we have flexibility for. 

It seems reasonable to think, with the amendments, that there 

would be time within that timeframe to get those amendments in 

the bill and pass it. We have made that provision for extending 

Mrs. Dick’s use of the property while we sort this out and while 

we plan for the future disposition of the property. 

Senator SALAZAR. Mr. Martin, I understand those amendments 

are amendments that Mrs. Dick has not been agreeable to, because 

she views that they are inconsistent with the terms that were 

agreed upon when this arrangement was first entered into, some 

25 years ago. 

Let me tell you the concerns that I have with respect to the 

amendment. It seems to me that we could have legislation that 

fixes this problem—we could actually get that done, perhaps, even 

before we go home—but if we move forward with the types of 

changes that you’re talking about, knowing how legislation moves 

around here, this 83-year old person, whom I have come to revere, 

is not going to get the kind of relief that she wants. And I think 

that she is rightly entitled to it, given the discussion and the 

memorandum that were put together some 25 years ago, giving her 

the understanding that she had a life estate on this property. 

Let me ask you a second question. I hear a lot about precedent, 

and I understand your position, you feel you don’t have the authority to do this deal that we want to do with Mrs. Dick. Well, we can, 

through this legislation, give you that authority so it gets done. 

You raise a concern that this might create a precedent that’s unwarranted. I have looked at other situations where, in fact, the National Park Service has done this at the direction of Congress. 

There’s a situation involving the Indiana National Sand Dunes, 

and there was another situation involving a place called BiscayneStiltsville, in which apparently the in-holding was handled with 

this kind of legislation. 

Given that kind of precedent that has occurred before, it seems 

to me that it would be appropriate to support this legislation because of its uniqueness. And I also recognize, Mr. Martin, that 

there may be a larger issue here. So, let me ask this questions. In 

terms of a precedent, are you here telling the committee today, Mr. 

Martin, that there have been no other situations in the recent history of the park Service where we have dealt with an in-holding in 

the manner that we propose to address it here in this legislation? 

Mr. MARTIN. To the best of my knowledge. Are you saying have 

there been other cases where we, the Park Service, have converted 

a 25-year use and occupancy to a life lease? 

Senator SALAZAR. My question is, has the Congress in the past 

dealt with this kind of an issue, having a kind of in-holding that 

basically has given you the authority to basically resolve it and 

make it into a life estate? 

Mr. MARTIN. I know that there have been other cases where Congress has stepped in and changed the way we’ve administered 

things, but I don’t know of any, specifically, like this particular one. 

24

That doesn’t mean that there couldn’t be, we’ve administered—I 

think there are over 400 that we’ve closed out in the past, and 

there are 290 or so of these that currently exist. I think there are 

roughly 50 expiring this year, but I don’t know of any exactly like 

this. But that doesn’t mean that there couldn’t have been. 

Senator SALAZAR. There might have been, and the Congress 

might have, in fact, stepped in to correct the situation. 

Mr. MARTIN. Yeah. 

Senator SALAZAR. Let me ask you a question about the longerterm issue, because this is a matter that I very much agree with 

Chairman Craig on, that if, in fact, there is a significant issue with 

respect to the other, some 300 in-holdings that we have in our National Park System, that we should, in fact, address that. And I 

think it would be the appropriate jurisdiction of this Committee to 

deal with that broader issue. And I would be very happy to work 

along with Senator Craig and the National Park Service to get that 

longer-term issue resolved. 

I would like you to describe for us how you see this situation 

today in terms of those other in-holdings, and the kind of problems 

that we’re having with those other in-holdings, and also what kind 

of contours you would put around legislation that this committee 

might consider to address the in-holding situation in other parks 

around the country. 

Mr. MARTIN. Well, I think that we have to work with you and 

really work with our lands and parks to come up with what unique 

situations exist and where it might be fair to adjust commitments, 

or——

Senator SALAZAR. Do we know today, Mr. Martin, where those 

unique situations exist? Can you, as the Assistant Director of the 

National Park Service, come in and give us a listing of what those 

unique situations are? 

Mr. MARTIN. I would say no, that we can come in and tell you 

where those exist, But I think that we would have to go out and 

evaluate each one, because there’s a tremendous variety. They exist 

in over 30 parks, and having been in parks that have administered 

these, each one is tough. This is not something that we really relish, it’s a hard thing, and where they’ve been acquired, like Grand 

Teton, where we’ve had to move people out, where it’s their primary residence, we’ve worked with them as best we could with our 

authorities to give them the time to find another place in an extremely competitive market. So I think we could come up with general categories from our experience of executing the previous 400 

or so that we have closed and, I think, come up with some reasonable terms. Things like, where it’s their primary residence, significant economic hardship, unusual terms and conditions—like this 

one—where there was some uncertainty in exactly how the agreement came together. I think we could come up with—from the 

knowledge that we have—what would seem reasonable in being 

compassionate in big government in regulating these, but also preserving the interests of the American people, to make these properties available for recreation and other things, which is the intent 

of their purchase. So, we would be happy to do that, and work hard 

to get that information to you. 

25

Senator SALAZAR. And Mr. Martin, let me just say that I very 

much look forward to working with you on that, but my understanding is, as yours is, that because of the uniqueness of each one 

of these in-holdings and the development of legislation that would 

try to address this on a broader issue, it’s going to take us some 

time to get there, and I very much look forward to working with 

you on that. I ask you on behalf of the park Service, are you willing 

to work with me, and to work with Senator Craig and others on 

this committee to develop that kind of legislation? 

Mr. MARTIN. Yes. 

Senator SALAZAR. Then let me also ask you, if we were able to 

move forward with the legislation that I have proposed here today 

concerning Mrs. Dick’s situation, would that in any way negate the 

effort to move forward with this broader legislation that we’re addressing here this morning? 

Mr. MARTIN. I don’t think so. 

Senator SALAZAR. I very much appreciate your testimony, and I 

don’t mean to be hostile, but I am very concerned about—given the 

history of this very unique situation, that we see our national government essentially kicking somebody out of their household, which 

has been their family home for so long. I appreciate your candidness. 

Mr. MARTIN. Thank you. 

Senator THOMAS. Okay, thank you. I know this is a difficult one, 

so we certainly would look forward to working with you. I do think, 

as I understand it, as a matter of record, that the agreement was 

a 25-year agreement, regardless of the misunderstanding. That is 

the agreement that is in place that we have to deal with. 

Senator SALAZAR. If I may, Chairman Thomas? 

Senator THOMAS. Sure. 

Senator SALAZAR. I respect my neighbor from the North, because 

you’ve walked amongst the ranches and corrals, just like I have in 

my life, so I have tremendous respect for you, and it is true that 

I think the legal document that you currently have in place has a 

25-year life estate, but the understanding that Mrs. Dick had when 

she had the meeting at the request of Adlai Stevenson gave her the 

very distinct impression that——

Senator THOMAS. I understand that, and I don’t mean to take 

away the importance of that, I just want to get on the record that 

the agreement that the park is going by is a legal agreement for 

25 years. So we’ll have to work with that, but we will work together to do something. 

Thank you very much, I guess I have one short question on this 

Michigan——

Mr. MARTIN. The lighthouses? 

Senator THOMAS. The lighthouse thing. Now, that’s a study; is 

that correct? 

Mr. MARTIN. Yes, that is a request for a study. 

Senator THOMAS. I see. But you’re not supportive of that idea? 

Mr. MARTIN. Right. We certainly support the concept of working 

together for tourism, and with these affiliated areas, our feeling is 

that that kind of cooperation could be achieved without going into 

a study that we have to fund. 

26

Senator THOMAS. I understand. Thank you very much. Thank 

you, Mr. Director, nice to have you here. 

Mr. MARTIN. Thank you. 

Senator THOMAS. Okay, let’s go to our second panel now, please. 

Dr. Ralph Eshelman, Dr. Dennis Wint, Dr. Steve Belko, and Mrs. 

Betty Dick, if you’d all come to the table, please. 

I certainly appreciate all of you being here, and look forward to 

your testimony. If you have written statements, they will be included in the record. If you could sort of shorten up your statements, we’ll try to get 5 minutes on each statement. 

So why don’t we start with you, Dr. Eshelman. 

STATEMENT OF DR. RALPH ESHELMAN, LUSBY, MD 

Dr. ESHELMAN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of 

the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to be here to testify 

in support of the Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail. I 

think Mr. Martin did a good job in summarizing that, in particularly emphasizing the fact that this is a partnership. 

But there is also one other thing that I think is important, and 

that is that this is a grassroots effort. The whole concept of this 

trail actually came from the people who live in the community in 

this region, so I definitely want that to be noted as a part of the 

record. 

Also, this is not a War of 1812 trail. This is a trail which tells 

the story about the Star-Spangled Banner and how that flag inspired a poem which became our National Anthem. And, Mr. 

Chairman, you had asked the question of Mr. Martin, is this, in 

fact, a trail, or is it merely some events that are connected together, and I want to address that, because it is, indeed, a trail. 

It has a documented path where the British invaded southern 

Maryland from Benedict on the Patuxent River. They marched to 

Bladensburg, where we had that ill-fated battle where, you know, 

the Americans lost; they marched into Washington, DC, where we 

are today; they captured our Nation’s Capital, and they burnt the 

public buildings, including the Capital, which is just a stone’s 

throw from here, and also the White House, which is just down the 

street. 

The trail also documents the trail that was used by the British 

when they attacked Baltimore. And many people don’t understand, 

but that’s also a water trail as well as a land trail. There was a 

land component to the Battle for Baltimore, and that’s known as 

the Battle of North Point today. 

So to answer your question, yes, in fact, this is an actually documented trail that has been well-studied. The study team has had 

scholars from England, from Canada, and throughout the United 

States that have helped work on this particular trail, all of the 

members of the study team have visited all of the resources along 

that trail, and I can emphatically tell you that it meets all the requirements of being listed as a National Historic Trail. 

If you would like me to go into more detail on the specifics of 

where that trail actually goes, I’m happy to do that, but it is also 

well-documented in our reports that we have provided, as well as 

in my written testimony that will be a part of this record. 

27

So instead, what I’d really like to do is to concentrate on a personal reflection of the purpose and really. The significance of this 

trail. And that is that, unfortunately, many Americans don’t fully 

appreciate or understand our own history. And if we were to do a 

poll of the children in our schools today, and we were to ask them 

two simple questions—under what war was the Star-Spangled Banner created, and Who made that flag?—unfortunately, we would 

get the wrong answers from most of our children. I think most of 

our children would say the Revolutionary War, and it was made by 

Betsy Ross, and of course that’s not the case at all. 

And that’s the importance of this trail, it’s going to help Americans, as well as visitors that come to this country, to better appreciate and understand America’s foremost icon, in my opinion, the 

Star-Spangled Banner and to help people understand how the 

words of the National Anthem came about, so that when you hear 

the words, ‘‘the rockets’ red glare,’’ or ‘‘the bombs bursting in air’’ 

that you understand that that was a part of the Battle of Baltimore. And so, to me, that is the significance behind this particular 

trail. It’s going to help to raise patriotism, it’s going to help to 

make people better understand our own history about really our 

foremost icon, the Star-Spangled Banner. It’s preserved at the 

Smithsonian Institution, again, not very far from where we are 

here today. 

So I personally am asking your support for this trail, and anything I can do to help, or answer any questions that you have in 

that regard, I’d be more than happy to do. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Eshelman follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. RALPH ESHELMAN, LUSBY, MD 

First I would like to thank the Chair and the members of this Subcommittee on 

National Parks to allow me to testify in support of an amendment to the National 

Trail System Act to add a new historic trail, the Star-Spangled Banner National 

Historic Trail. I have been involved in cultural resource preservation and management for over thirty years and served as the historian for the Star-Spangled Banner 

National Historic Trail Study. I can think of no existing or potential historic trail 

in the United States that is more deserving of this national distinction then the trail 

we are now considering. 

The Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail Study was approved by the 

Secretary of Interior after exhaustive research and review by numerous scholars 

and several public presentations. The proposed Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail meets all the criteria for designation as required by the National Trail 

System Act. Below is a brief summary of the significance of the War of 1812, how 

the Star-Spangled Banner came about as a result of this war, criteria upon which 

the proposed trail was determined eligible for National designation, and a personal 

perspective on the potential significance of inclusion of this proposed trail into the 

National Trail System. 

What was the War of 1812? Because it took place only 29 years after the United 

States secured its freedom from England, the War of 1812 is sometimes incorrectly 

referred to as the ‘‘Second War for Independence.’’ However, the British were not 

fighting to regain their former American colonies. Rather, they sought to protect 

their remaining North American interest, Canada. The Revolutionary War (Loyalists versus Revolutionists) and American Civil War (Yankees versus Rebels) were 

in many instances wars of brother against brother. The War of 1812 was an international conflict (Great Britain versus the United States), even though Americans 

were divided over it (Federalists Doves versus Democrat-Republican Hawks). New 

Englanders were especially against the war, while the South and West largely favored it.What caused the War of 1812? It is estimated that by 1807 over 1,000 

Maryland sailors alone had been illegally and unwillingly pressed into service on 

British warships, mostly to help England fight Napoleon. On June 21, 1807, the US 

frigate Chesapeake left the Washington Navy Yard and sailed down the Potomac 

28

River and the Chesapeake Bay into the Atlantic. It was soon hailed by the larger 

British warship HMS Leopard, which demanded that the frigate muster its crew so 

a search could be conducted for British ‘‘deserters.’’ The Chesapeake refused, whereupon the British opened fire, killing three American sailors, then boarded and took 

four men, two of whom were black and two of whom were nephews of George Washington. President Thomas Jefferson, trying to avoid war, retaliated by placing an 

embargo on all English goods. However, this curtailed commerce, which especially 

upset New Englanders, since they controlled most American shipping, and thus 

their fortunes were most threatened. As a result, there was talk of secession. While 

the new administration under President James Madison emphasized the maritime 

issues with England, the war was largely a result of the desire for national expansion. The southern and western slaveholding states, led by War Hawks such as 

John C. Calhoun and Henry Clay, wanted war with Britain in order to push the 

annexation of Canada, expand the western and southern frontiers, remove the 

threat of alliance between Britain and the Indians of the Great Lakes region, and 

help prevent slaves from escaping beyond American borders. While valid maritime 

issues did exist, they were less the cause of the war than a pretext for public outcry, 

as expressed by the slogan that it was necessary to protect ‘‘free trade and sailors 

rights.’’ After a war vote that barely passed in the Senate, President Madison signed 

the declaration of war against Great Britain on June 18, 1812. American opposition 

to the war was as widespread as that during the Vietnam War. Early American forays into Canada for the most part resulted in routs, but Captain Oliver Perry’s victory at Lake Erie eased the threat of British attack from the west. Still, the victory 

of the USS Constitution (‘‘Old Ironsides’’) over the HMS Guerriere, and American 

privateers who successfully took the war to the shores of England, were isolated successes among an otherwise dismal affair for America due to the small size of the 

U.S. regular army and navy, over reliance on volunteer militia as well as ineptitude, 

lack of leadership, stupidity and woeful lack of preparedness for a major conflict. 

By 1814 the British Navy has blockaded nearly the entire east coast reducing foreign trade to six percent of its 1807 peak. With the defeat of Napoleon England concentrated its efforts on America. The War of 1812 was the first and only time a foreign military force invaded the United States. Our young Nation’s capitol was burnt 

in 1814 in retaliation for America’s burning of York (now Toronto), then the capitol 

of Upper Canada, in April of the previous year. Had not Baltimore and Lake Champlain been successfully defended, the British probably would have crushed the 

United States. New England Federalists convened in Connecticut to denounce the 

war and weaken federal authority. Southerners called the act treason. The last 

major battle of the War of 1812 was the Battle for Baltimore September 24, 1814. 

The Peace Treaty of Ghent was signed in Belgium, December 24, 1814. The American victory at the Battle of New Orleans was fought on January 8, 1815, 15 days 

after the Treaty. The war was over. The annexation of Canada was blocked, but the 

nation could now look inward and westward. Citizens for the first time had confidence in the nation and could now truly refer to themselves as Americans. How 

did the Star-Spangled Banner became a national icon? The United States had done 

nothing to defend its capital, Washington. Only a relatively small detachment at 

Fort Warburton (later called Fort Washington) on the Potomac River protected the 

city. Although it was estimated that 15,000 militiamen could be depended upon to 

defend Washington, in reality the government could muster only 1,000 regular 

troops and about 4,000 militiamen, and of the latter only a few hundred were actually available and ready. Although some government leaders believed that Washington was not a likely enemy target, British forces embarked upon a plan to capture the capital in 1814. The main body of the British fleet entered the Patuxent 

River in Maryland and landed forces at Benedict to march overland to Washington. 

A smaller fleet entered the Potomac, in part as a feint to make the Americans think 

that was the direction of the invasion, but also to take Fort Warburton and provide 

a water route for land forces retreating from Washington, if necessary. With most 

of the regular U.S. Army on the Canadian border, the defense of the nation’s capital 

fell largely to poorly led, poorly trained, inexperienced militia. How much could be 

expected of them in the face of battle-hardened British soldiers, many just arriving 

after defeating Napoleon in Europe? When the British returned through Upper 

Marlboro after successfully capturing Washington some British deserters began 

plundering small nearby farms. Robert Bowie, a former governor of Maryland, enlisted Dr. William Beanes, his cousin, among others, who seized six or seven of the 

deserters and confined them to a jail at nearby Queen Anne Town. One of the prisoners escaped and informed his commander of the incident. A contingent of British 

marines was sent to arrest Bowie, Beanes and at least one other man. The Americans were held in exchange for the British prisoners. In addition the British threatened to burn the town to the ground if the British prisoners were not released by 

29

noon the next day. When the British prisoners were released all the Americans were 

likewise released except Beanes who was considered the instigator of the incident 

and was taken and placed in confinement aboard the British flag-ship HMS 

Tonnant some thirty-five miles away at Benedict. Beanes’s friend, Richard W. West, 

hurried to Georgetown to urge his brother-in-law, U.S. Attorney for the District of 

Columbia, Francis Scott Key, to arrange a mission to seek Beanes release. President 

James Madison authorized Key to meet with General John Mason of the U.S. Commissary for Prisoners. Mason approved the mission and gave Key a letter addressed 

to General Robert Ross in command of the British land forces setting forth the government’s case for Beanes’s release as a civilian noncombatant. Key was instructed 

to go to Baltimore and contact Colonel John Stuart Skinner, U.S. Agent for Exchange of Prisoners, to handle the negotiations. Ironically, it was Skinner who did 

a Revere-like ride to warn the capitol of the British approach in August 1814. Skinner and Key, set sail down the Bay from Baltimore (September 5, 1814) to near the 

mouth of the Potomac River on a cartel or truce ship, where they met the British 

fleet and boarded the HMS Tonnant under a flag of truce when Vice Admiral Sir 

Alexander Cochrane invited them to dinner (evening, September 7, 1814). Skinner 

had also obtained letters from wounded British soldiers left behind after the Battle 

of Bladensburg giving testimony to the kindness and treatment given them by U.S. 

hands. This so moved General Ross, who had ordered the arrest of Beanes, that he 

suggested to Cochrane to release him, but only after their planned attack on Baltimore—they did not want the American forces to learn of their next objective. 

Beanes, Key and Skinner, due to crowded conditions on HMS Tonnant, were ordered 

on board the HMS Surprize which took the cartel in tow (September 8, 1814). During the Battle for Baltimore the three Americans at Skinner’s request were placed 

on board the cartel under guard. Key was so moved by the scene of the battle that 

he partially composed a poem which eventually became our National Anthem. The 

three American’s were released on the cartel boat which sailed to Baltimore (late 

September 16, 1814). That night in the Indian Queen Hotel Key worked on his poem 

from which he produced the draft that probably is the one now on exhibit at the 

Maryland Historical Society. Handbills of the poem were printed the day after (September 17, 1814) Key arrived in Baltimore. Copies of the poem were distributed to 

every man who was at Fort McHenry during the bombardment. It was Skinner who 

took Key’s poem to the Baltimore Patriot which published it under the title ‘‘The 

Defense of Baltimore (evening 20 September 1814). 

During the American Civil War federal troops often sang ‘‘The Star-Spangled Banner.’’ In 1895 Army Regulations ordered that the song be played during the lowering 

of the American flag during evening retreat. The Secretary of Navy ordered it 

played during both morning and evening colors. By 1916 ‘‘The Star-Spangled Banner’’ was regarded as the official National Anthem. Yet it wasn’t until 3 March 

1931, when President Herbert Hover signed the bill passed by Congress that ‘‘The 

Star-Spangled Banner,’’ born in the Battle for Baltimore, officially became National 

Anthem of the United States. 

Study Team Methodology—The Study Team researched all the resources related 

to the story behind the Star-Spangled Banner. The team visited those resources and 

linking trail to ascertain the feasibility, public access and integrity of these resources. In addition the team held a Scholar’s Roundtable of international experts 

on April 7, 2001. Present were: Dr. Dwight Pitcaithley, Chief Historian, National 

Park Service; Donald Graves, historian and scholar from Canada; Dr. Andrew Lambert, Kings College, London; Marilyn Zoidis, curator of the Star-Spangled Banner 

Project, Smithsonian Institution; Dr. Donald Hickey, professor at Wayne State College and specialist in the War of 1812; and Dr. Joseph Whitehorne, former staff historian for the U.S. Army. This was followed by a local historian’s workshop on April 

12, 2001. Present were: Dr. William Dudley, director of the Naval Historical Center, 

Washington, DC; Christopher George, editor of the Journal of the War of 1812 and 

author of Terror on the Chesapeake: The War of 1812 on the Bay; Dr. Fred Hopkins, 

Jr., expert on privateering and author; Sally Johnston, director of the Star-Spangled 

Banner Flag House and Museum; Dr. Stanley Quick, historian; Robert Reyes, president of the Friends of the North Point Battlefield, Inc; Scott Sheads, author and historian, Ft. McHenry; Donald Shomette, historian and author; and Lonn Taylor, historian and author of the Star-Spangled Banner: The Flag that Inspired the National 

Anthem. 

Based on this study, the team determined that six of the eight identified trail segments retain integrity sufficient to result in a recommendation for their designation 

as a national historic trail: Criterion One. All recommended trail segments were 

found to be nationally significant: Criteria Two. The proposed trail segments have 

significant potential for public recreational use and historical interpretation as well 

as aesthetic appeal and patriotic appreciation: Criteria Three. 

30

Personal Perspective—It is sad, but most of the children here in the United States 

if asked who made the Star-Spangled Banner and during which war was it created 

would answer Betsy Ross and The American Revolutionary War. Inclusion of the 

Star-Spangled Banner Trail within our National Trail System will help American’s 

and visitors alike understand and better appreciate the history behind America’s 

greatest icon—The Star-Spangled Banner and the poem evoked from the flag which 

eventually became our National Anthem. Having served-for many years on the team 

which studied the potential for this trail, I have become keenly aware of the significance and meaning behind the Star-Spangled Banner. Every time I see the flag, 

whether at a baseball game, Boy Scout camp, or flying over our Capitol or over Fort 

McHenry, it gives me pause. Often times a chill will ascend up my spine. Designation of this proposed national trail will enable our citizens to better understand and 

appreciate the symbolism behind this flag. Many more will get goose bumps when 

they see our flag and hear our National Anthem. Our patriotism will increase; our 

pride will fill; and our spirits will soar. I ask you, what trail now existing in the 

United States is more appropriate for national designation than this proposed StarSpangled Banner National Historic Trail?

Senator THOMAS. Thank you very much, sir. 

Dr. Belko. 

STATEMENT OF DR. STEVE BELKO, MANAGER, MICHIGAN 

LIGHTHOUSE PROJECT, OXFORD, MI 

Dr. BELKO. I want to thank you, Mr. Thomas, and Mr. Salazar, 

for the opportunity to present the position of Michigan’s lighthouse 

and maritime interest, both governmental and non-profit, in support of S. 1346, the Michigan Lighthouse and Maritime Heritage 

Bill. 

From the very beginning, I want to state that this bill is the 

most important piece of legislation, to date, that will aid and facilitate the restoration of Michigan’s rich maritime heritage, including 

lighthouses, which is my specialty, and not only that, provide a 

foundation for the economic growth of the local communities along 

our coastline. 

In light of Mr. Martin’s testimony, I want to change a little bit 

of what I had planned for my oral testimony. He was correct in 

stating that Michigan, the National Parks in Michigan, as well as 

our State Parks are phenomenal, my wife and I use them often. 

But Michigan has a long way to go to preserve its lighthouses and 

its maritime heritage, it has a long way to go to provide that economic foundation that the local communities and the State of 

Michigan, itself, can build upon. 

Maritime heritage is the most important aspect of Michigan’s 

tourism, hands down, and lighthouses are a key part of that. This 

plan, S. 1346, does provide a comprehensive plan for all of the 

State of Michigan, and for the rest of the Great Lakes States to 

model upon for, not only preserving, but setting in motion a plan 

to identify and to interpret, and then to provide a plan for the longterm preservation of Michigan’s rich maritime heritage, and to provide a plan for the exhibition of that for the public to enjoy for generations to come, and identifies funding sources, and all the needs, 

from technical to economic development, that the State of Michigan 

needs. 

I have a lot of experience in lighthouse preservation efforts, and 

a lot of experience in comprehensive heritage studies, such as S. 

1346 provides, and I will say today that I know that this is the bill 

that Michigan needs to take it into the future. 

31

Tourism is our second-largest industry in the State of Michigan. 

Our number one industry is a little lagging behind right now, and 

this is something that the people of Michigan greatly need. And I’m 

certainly here on behalf of all of the maritime, both governmental 

and non-profit organizations and individuals in the State of Michigan and its lighthouse organizations. We fully support S. 1346, and 

we think this will provide the comprehensive plan to set us in motion to preserve our maritime heritage and help the local economies 

throughout the State of Michigan. Thank you for your testimony, 

and I’ll be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Belko follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. STEVE BELKO, MANAGER,

MICHIGAN LIGHTHOUSE PROJECT, OXFORD, MI 

Mr. Chairman and fellow subcommittee members, I want to thank you for the opportunity to present the position of Michigan’s lighthouse interests, both governmental and nonprofit, regarding S. 1346, entitled the ‘‘Michigan Lighthouse and 

Maritime Heritage Act,’’ a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a 

study of maritime sites in the state of Michigan. 

I must emphasize from the very start of my testimony, that Sen. Stabenow’s bill 

is the most important piece of legislation to date aiding and facilitating the preservation of Michigan’s rich maritime heritage and providing an unparalleled opportunity for continued economic growth in our state. As an expert both on lighthouse 

preservation efforts and on comprehensive heritage studies, such as proposed under 

S. 1346, I cannot express enough how critical this bill is to the people of our state, 

to our maritime heritage, and to our local economies. 

It is no secret that the state of Michigan—the Great Lakes state—is one of this 

nation’s premier maritime destinations, with a rich maritime heritage and culture 

stretching back long before European colonization and settlement. From Native 

American fishermen and French fur traders, to Great Lakes shipping supporting the 

great copper, iron ore, and lumber legacy of Michigan, to pristine and rugged shorelines, the people of Michigan have indeed a maritime heritage worthy of treasuring 

and exhibiting for all to enjoy. The state contains twelve maritime-related national 

landmarks, two extensive national lakeshores, and the only fresh water national 

maritime sanctuary. Our state’s history—its settlement, its development, its economy, and its culture—cannot be told without emphasizing first and foremost our extensive maritime legacy. 

It is also no secret that the cornerstone of Michigan’s maritime heritage are the 

numerous historic lighthouses stretched across our great state. The state of Michigan has over 120 historic lighthouses—more than any other state. Many reside 

along the extensive 3,200 miles of Michigan’s shoreline; some stand miles offshore 

on remote islands or isolated shoals. All have historical and architectural significance and are either listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic 

Places. These architectural wonders once served as crucial beacons to Great Lakes 

shipping, but now they have yielded to the advance of technology. The era of global 

positioning has made the Fresnel lens antiquated to all but recreational boaters and 

lighthouse enthusiasts. Simple metal poles supporting computerized navigation instruments have replaced the brick and steel towers with their adjacent keeper’s 

dwellings and ancillary outbuildings. 

Yet these historic structures still attest to the rich maritime history of the state. 

Their very presence still commands awe from those who catch sight of them and 

lighthouse lore never fails to capture the attention of all who pass their way. Michigan’s lighthouses, many in a state of disrepair and in danger of disintegrating, 

stand witness to the great age of the lighthouse keepers and their isolated lives 

struggling to keep the shipping lanes of the Great Lakes safe. Dedicated groups endeavoring to save this integral part of the state’s history have restored some of 

Michigan’s lighthouses. Several of these lighthouses now house museums devoted to 

lighthouse history and maritime culture, and are open to the public for their pleasure and education. Many more lighthouses, however, are in dire need of restoration. 

Without quality stewards to preserve, maintain, and exhibit these ailing structures, 

they will certainly vanish from the landscape, only to exist in our collective memory, 

in old photographs, or in dusty log books. 

Michigan’s lighthouses have become the state’s most identifiable icon, gracing 

tourism guides, welcome centers, city logos, and countless marquees, billboards, 

32

business publications, and storefronts. Travel Michigan, the state’s ‘‘tourism bureau,’’ has as its logo, a lighthouse, and the State of Michigan’s official website likewise sports a lighthouse, the beautifully restored Big Sable Point Light Station residing along the blue waters of Lake Michigan. Rescuing these historic structures 

and maintaining them for public enjoyment has obviously emerged as one of Michigan’s most popular endeavors. 

S. 1346 provides the people of Michigan with a comprehensive plan for rescuing 

and restoring our lighthouses and other maritime structures and landscapes. The 

study will assess the needs and outline the costs of preserving our historic lighthouses and maritime resources; it will identify funding sources critical to a successful campaign for restoring and exhibiting our maritime history; and, it will provide 

the necessary and much-needed direction for implementing preservation projects, for 

establishing methods of interpreting our rich maritime heritage, and for laying out 

a long-term strategy for future restoration efforts. And I must add, that this bill will 

not only benefit Michigan and the Great Lakes region, it will also provide a model 

for other states to follow as they, too, preserve their own heritage and historical resources. 

As important, this study will generate a centralized and complete inventory of our 

state’s maritime resources, by bringing together the knowledge of local, regional, 

state, and national entities interested in saving Michigan’s maritime resources. The 

bill will further establish and facilitate healthy partnerships among all levels of government and throughout all the communities lying along our shoreline, and combine 

their talents and skills in creating a network of organizations and individuals dedicated to preserving and exhibiting Michigan’s abundant maritime resources. The 

creation of the Michigan Maritime Heritage Destination Network will undoubtedly 

link all maritime interests and resources in our state into a working cooperative, 

providing shared information and technical expertise, mapping out future preservation efforts, and guaranteeing the successful exhibition of Michigan’s lighthouses 

and maritime heritage for generations to come. 

Passage of S. 1346 is not only imperative for preserving our state’s maritime heritage, it is equally critical for boosting the future economic potential of our state. 

Tourism is the second largest industry in Michigan, and with our largest industry 

(the automotive industry) currently facing hard times, we must invest in the state’s 

ability to attract substantial numbers of tourists. 

Our maritime heritage can indeed draw great numbers of tourists, and our maritime heritage and resources are indeed the foundation for increasing our tourism 

base. As such, S. 1346 will help guide the state of Michigan in implementing a 

strong and effective plan of action for expanding and capitalizing on the tourist-oriented sector of our state’s economy. Preservation of the state’s lighthouses and other 

maritime structures and resources will bring much-needed dollars into local communities, directly affecting other segments of the local economies, from restaurants, hotels, and gas stations, to retail shops and local attractions. In short, this bill is imperative for the economic growth and vitality of the local communities directly affected by this legislation, and it will yield significant economic dividends for the 

state of Michigan and for the Great Lakes region in general. 

In closing, the lighthouse and maritime interests within the state of Michigan vigorously support passage of S. 1346, providing the people of Michigan and of the 

Great Lakes overall with a comprehensive plan for emphasizing the importance of 

the maritime heritage of the region and for augmenting the economic development 

of the local communities residing along the extensive Great Lakes shoreline. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks. I would be pleased to answer any 

questions you or other members of your committee may have.

Senator THOMAS. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Wint. 

STATEMENT OF DR. DENNIS M. WINT, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

THE FRANKLIN INSTITUTE, PHILADELPHIA, PA 

Dr. WINT. I’m Dennis Wint, president and chief executive officer 

of the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia. I very much appreciate 

the opportunity to testify on behalf of S. 652, to authorize Federal 

funding for the rehabilitation of the Benjamin Franklin National 

Memorial, which is our Nation’s primary and most visited memorial to Franklin. I want to also extend my gratitude to the sponsors 

33

of this legislation, Senator Arlen Specter and Senator Rick 

Santorum, for their continuing support. 

Mr. Chairman, I’d also like to thank you and the subcommittee 

for passing this legislation last year, in the 108th Congress. Despite our best efforts, however, the House did not have the time to 

pass the measure. 

I’m pleased to report that on April 14, 2005, Representative Jim 

Gerlach introduced legislation, H.R. 1645, so the House will be able 

to have the opportunity to join the Senate in considering this bill. 

We urge you, respectfully, to pass favorably on this legislation. 

Founded in 1824, the Franklin Institute is the Nation’s premiere 

science and technology museum, and also the custodian of the Benjamin Franklin National Memorial. In the spirit of inquiry and discovery embodied by Ben Franklin, the mission of the Institute is 

to honor the lifetime achievements of Franklin and to foster a development of a scientifically and technologically literate society. 

The memorial was unveiled in 1938. It is the same size and scale 

as the Abraham Lincoln memorial, featuring a pantheon-inspired 

marble rotunda, and a massive statue of Franklin. 

The statue was created by the great American sculptor James 

Earle Fraser, whose work also includes the buffalo nickel, and the 

bust of Theodore Roosevelt. Nearly one million visitors visit the national memorial each year. Over 350,000 of those are school children. 

The memorial is unique, because unlike other national memorials in the United States, as we have heard, it does not receive 

any funding for its support and maintenance operations. In 1972, 

Public Law 92-511 designated the Benjamin Franklin Memorial. In 

1973 a Memorandum of Agreement directed the Department of the 

Interior to cooperate with the Franklin Institute in all appropriate 

and mutually agreeable ways in the preservation and the presentation of the Benjamin Franklin Memorial as a national memorial. 

This agreement also requires that the Institute admit the public, 

free of charge. 

However, the Institute is a 501(c)(3), not-for-profit corporation, 

and over the past 67 years, the burden of maintaining the Memorial has been our responsibility, and we have spent nearly $20 million from our operating and our capital budgets to preserve and 

maintain the Memorial since its opening in 1938. 

Despite our best efforts, I regret to inform the subcommittee that 

this national treasure has fallen the victim of the pressures of 

time, especially the marble surfaces in the structure that houses 

the statue of Ben Franklin. The Department of the Interior has not 

provided any funds in support of the National Memorial, with the 

exception of a $300,000 grant from Save America’s Treasures in fiscal year 2000. This fund helped improve ADA access, but left other 

issues unresolved. 

January 17, 2006 marks the 300th anniversary of the birth of 

Ben Franklin. In recognition of that momentous occasion, President 

Bush signed into law H.R. 2362, creating the Benjamin Franklin 

Tercentenary Commission. This Commission, which I co-chair with 

Senator Specter, specifically recommends the re-dedication, and 

other appropriate activities related to the National Memorial. As a 

result, the Institute is currently engaged in a private fundraising 

34

program that will match any funds that are invested by the Department of the Interior. It is also crucial that we receive the authorization on appropriation so that this can coincide with the anniversary of Franklin’s birth. 

Accordingly, we do respectfully urge the subcommittee to support 

S. 652, and enact it prior to the celebration of Franklin’s birth in 

January 2006. 

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

the opportunity to testify on this very important issue, and I’m 

happy to answer any questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Wint follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DENNIS M. WINT, PRESIDENT AND CEO,

THE FRANKLIN INSTITUTE, PHILADELPHIA, PA 

Good morning. 

I am Dr. Dennis Wint, President and Chief Executive Officer of The Franklin Institute of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

I very much appreciate your willingness to consider Senate Bill 652, to authorize 

Federal funding for the rehabilitation of the Benjamin Franklin National Memorial, 

our nation’s primary and most-visited monument to Franklin. I would like to take 

this opportunity to extend my gratitude to the sponsors of this legislation, Senator 

Arlen Specter and Senator Rick Santorum, for their steadfast support for this 

project. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by thanking you and the Subcommittee for 

helping to pass this legislation in the Senate during the 108th Congress. Despite 

our best efforts, unfortunately, the House did not have the time needed to consider 

the measure through regular order. I am pleased to report that on April 14, 2005, 

Congressman Jim Gerlach introduced companion legislation, House of Representatives Bill 1645, so that the House will again have an opportunity to join the Senate 

in considering this bill. 

I am appearing today to respectfully urge the Subcommittee to favorably report 

this legislation because it will authorize the appropriation of funding that is critical 

to the integrity of one of our nation’s most awe-inspiring national memorials. 

Unveiled in 1938, The Benjamin Franklin National Memorial is on the same scale 

as the Abraham Lincoln Memorial and features a Pantheon-inspired marble rotunda 

and massive white-marble statue of a seated, introspective Franklin. The statue was 

created by the great American sculptor James Earle Fraser, whose works include 

the Buffalo Nickel and a bust of then Vice-President Theodore Roosevelt which is 

housed in the Senate’s own collection. 

This national memorial is unique, because unlike other national memorials 

throughout the United States, it does not receive an annual allocation of Federal 

funds to support programs, operations, or preventative maintenance. 

Founded in 1824, The Franklin Institute is one of the nation’s premier science 

and technology museums and also serves as custodian of the Benjamin Franklin National Memorial. 

In the spirit of inquiry and discovery embodied by Benjamin Franklin, the mission 

of The Franklin Institute is to honor the lifetime achievements of Franklin—America’s distinguished scientist, statesman, inventor, diplomat, and founding father, and 

to foster the development of a scientifically and technologically literate society. 

Indeed, The Franklin Institute brings Franklin’s legacy of inquiry, discovery, and 

learning to nearly one million visitors each year, more than 350,000 of whom are 

schoolchildren. Every visit to The Franklin Institute begins with a moment of reflection and inspiration in the Benjamin Franklin National Memorial. 

In 1972, Public Law 92-511 designated this site as the Benjamin Franklin National Memorial. 

In 1973, a Memorandum of Agreement, executed between the U.S. Department 

of the Interior and the Franklin Institute, directed the Department of Interior to 

cooperate with the Institute in ‘‘all appropriate and mutually agreeable ways in the 

preservation and presentation of the Benjamin Franklin Memorial Hall as a national memorial.’’ Under the terms of the 1973 Agreement, the Institute is required 

to admit the public to the Memorial free of charge. 

However, The Franklin Institute is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization and, over 

the last 67 years, the burden of maintaining this National Memorial has been the 

total responsibility of the Institute. Nearly $20 million has been expended from the 

35

Institute’s operating and capital budgets to preserve and maintain the Memorial 

since it’s opening in 1938. 

In spite of our diligent efforts, I regret to inform the Subcommittee that this national treasure has fallen victim to the pressures of time, especially the exterior and 

interior marble surfaces and structures that house the statue of Benjamin Franklin. 

The Interior Department has not provided any federal funding for maintaining 

this National Memorial, with the exception of a $300,000 ‘‘Save America’s Treasures’’ grant awarded in Fiscal Year 2000 with support from Senators Specter and 

Santorum. Although this funding did help to improve ADA accessibility to the Memorial, it left other structural issues unresolved. To address these issues, The 

Franklin Institute is currently engaged in a private fundraising campaign that will 

match dollar for dollar any funds invested by the Department of the Interior. 

Mr. Chairman, 2006 marks the 300th anniversary of the birth of Benjamin Franklin. Given this important opportunity for our Nation to remember and celebrate 

Franklin, we are eager to commence work to renovate and restore the Memorial. 

Timely passage of this legislation will make our plan possible. 

In July 2002, President George W. Bush signed into law House Resolution 2362, 

that created the Benjamin Franklin Tercentenary Commission. This Commission, 

which I co-chair with Senator Specter, specifically recommends rededication of and 

other appropriate activities related to the National Memorial. 

Since the Memorial Hall’s opening, tens of millions of Americans have had the opportunity to salute Franklin’s remarkable impact in Philadelphia. As we continue 

to develop plans to welcome visitors from throughout the world during the Franklin 

Tercentenary, it is vital that we begin a meticulous restoration process that will 

make the Memorial a place of appropriate reverence to Dr. Franklin on the upcoming momentous anniversary of his birth. 

Our private fundraising campaign will help match our request for federal assistance. However, it is critical for The Franklin Institute to secure this authorization 

and subsequent appropriations to ensure that the Benjamin Franklin National Memorial is preserved and presented to future generations in a manner befitting Benjamin Franklin’s enormous legacy for our Nation. 

A rehabilitated Memorial will present Franklin and his inspirational story for the 

study and observation of future generations of Americans and citizens worldwide. 

Accordingly, I respectfully urge this Subcommittee to support Senate Bill 652 so 

that it may be enacted prior to the national celebration of Franklin’s life beginning 

in January 2006. 

Thank you for your invitation to testify on this very important matter and I would 

be delighted to answer any questions that you or other distinguished Members of 

Subcommittee may have.

Senator THOMAS. Thank you very much. 

Mrs. Dick, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF BETTY DICK, GRAND LAKE, CO 

Mrs. DICK. Chairman Thomas, Senator Salazar, and members of 

the Subcommittee on the National Parks, thank you for your kind 

consideration of my plight. I’m here to speak in favor of H.R. 432 

and/or S. 584, and to acquaint you with the reasons why you 

should vote favorably on one of these pieces of legislation. 

I’m the widow of George F. Dick, known to his family and friends 

as Fred, who died in 1992. I’m 83 years old, and during the summer months I live on a 20-acre parcel that is within the boundaries 

of Rocky Mountain National Park. 

This property was bought by Fred, and his former wife, Marilyn, 

in 1961. In the settlement of Fred and Marilyn’s bitter divorce in 

June 1977, Marilyn received the property, and Fred received the 

right of first refusal to buy it. 

Without giving Fred his right of first refusal, Marilyn sold the 

property to the U.S. Government in October of that year. When 

Fred discovered that the property had been sold, he sued Marilyn 

and the Government, demanding that the Government honor his 

right of first refusal. 

36

In the Spring of 1978, I married Fred, and so I became an interested bystander to the struggle and witnessed the events that I 

want to bring to your attention. These events will explain the 

uniqueness of my situation and why this is not a precedent-setting 

case. 

It was after interminable depositions, hearings and the like, and 

thousands of dollars spent on two law firms that Fred and I—without our lawyers—traveled to Washington, DC, in November 1979 

to see if the case could be settled. In a meeting with various officials representing the Department of the Interior, it was agreed 

that the case would be settled. Fred and I were each to receive a 

life estate in the property, Fred was to give up 44 acres, which was 

two-thirds of his land, and to pay a settlement fee of $7,500. We 

were not mistaken in our understanding of this agreement. 

Shortly after this meeting, on November 26, 1979, the Associate 

Regional Director of Park Operations at the Rocky Mountain National Park circulated a memo which recounted that November 

meeting, and specifically cited the Department of the Interior’s recommendation that we were to get a life estate to settle this case. 

It’s this memorandum you have as Exhibit A, and Senator Salazar 

has read that to you, so I will not repeat that, but it’s the meeting 

with Mr. Kriz and Ted Stevens’ Committee at that time. 

Papers were drawn to settle the case based upon the agreement 

that we would have a life estate, specifically. And you have a Stipulation that is Exhibit B, and a Judgment, Exhibit C, that were 

drawn, which expressly stated that Fred and I would have a life 

estate on the property. And I want to add here, that after that 

meeting in 1979, Fred was certain that this settlement agreement 

would be a life estate. 

And we came back to the ranch in the late Spring, because it’s 

9,000 feet up, and you can’t get into it in the wintertime. He had 

the property completely re-fenced so that the Government would 

have its 44 acres. He had it re-fenced for the 23 acres that were 

to remain. This was all done at his expense. And all of this time, 

during the winter, three statements came, certain preliminary 

statements saying ‘‘life estate’’. 

So he gave up the property, he sent the $7,500, and within a 

month, Exhibit D came, and that was the Exhibit that says 25 

years. So Fred had agreed, as a gentleman, to his part of this 

agreement, but the Government had not honored their part. 

When Fred saw the change, he was devastated. Realizing that he 

had, once again, been out-maneuvered, he also realized that he 

could no longer afford the litigation against the Government, with 

its unlimited resources and lawyers, which by past experience had 

not honored his right of first refusal. 

Saying that it would not make a difference, since he would not 

live another 25 years, he signed the settlement agreement. And 

that’s what you have attached as Exhibit D, which you, Chairman 

Thomas, had talked about. 

As it turned out, Fred would not live so long that there would 

be a difference between a life estate and a term of 25 years, but 

I’m still here, and it makes a difference to me. At 83, I have just 

a few years of life left. For the last 25 years I’ve been a good neighbor to the park and the employees, who feel comfortable just dropVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:01 Dec 08, 2005 Jkt 109201 PO 24837 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\24837.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
37

ping in for a cup of coffee or just to check on me, which I’m grateful 

for. I’ve been heavily involved in the Grand Lake community, making my home and grounds available for several organizations for 

their summer picnics and cookouts. I’ve served on the Board of the 

Rocky Mountain Repertory Theatre for over 5 years, two as president. The Grand Lake Board of Trustees and the mayor in our little town have voted to support my request, and I have huge support from the Grand County community. As long as my health continues to be good, I intend to continue in these community activities, just as I have in the past. That is, if I have my home to live 

in. 

I watched litigation that went on for too long and cost too much 

money. Then, when we thought we had the matter settled, the Government changed the deal. At that point, having exhausted our resources, both physical and financial, Fred just took what he could 

get, even though it was different from what had been agreed upon. 

I respectfully ask the subcommittee to consider the fairness of 

this matter, and to give me what was agreed upon in November 

1979, nothing more. I also ask the subcommittee to note that I was 

party to the settlement originally made with the Government, but 

the settlement papers were only signed by Fred. As a result, the 

contract I have with the Government has never been honored, and 

I have never agreed to any change. The Government’s obligation 

remains outstanding that I receive a life estate in exchange for the 

money paid. The National Park Service does not want to talk about 

this, but I do. 

One further thing. The Government’s contention that their hands 

are tied because there was a court order is not true. The fact is, 

there was a settlement between Fred and the Government, and the 

case was dismissed. There was no court decree entered. If this matters, the facts ought to control. As you can plainly see, this is a settlement agreement, not a lease, and because of its uniqueness, it 

is not a precedent-setting case. 

I thank you for your consideration, and I will respect whatever 

decision you make. 

Senator THOMAS. Thank you. Thank you all, very much. 

Just a couple of quick questions. Mr. Eshelman, would the establishment of this trail entail the purchase of more lands by the Federal Government? 

Dr. ESHELMAN. No, sir. At this time, there’s no anticipation of 

trying to acquire any land. In fact, in the legislation, I believe it 

states that there would not be any, so I do not believe that’s a 

problem at all. 

Senator THOMAS. I see. From your testimony, you believe because 

of the history this is a logical Federal designation, as opposed to 

local or State? 

Dr. ESHELMAN. Without question. I mean, what more could you 

ask for than a trail that’s going to tell our citizens about the StarSpangled Banner? To me, it’s the premiere icon of the United 

States, it has national significance. 

Senator THOMAS. Dr. Belko, you talked about the impact on the 

economy and so on; is that justification for a Federal designation? 

Dr. BELKO. Well, I certainly think so. 

38

Senator THOMAS. Well, I know you do, but if you were setting up 

a principle for parks and national establishments, would it be because of the local economy? 

Dr. BELKO. Absolutely not. I think the premiere aspect—the 

thing we need to focus on about this bill is it provides a plan, an 

outline, if you want to say, a kind of Bible for the restoration of 

all of Michigan’s maritime resources. And it’s just not for identification and interpretation for public enjoyment, it goes a step further. 

We can incorporate that maritime heritage, which is so critical to 

our State’s history, into the local economies. It becomes a way for 

them to bring in tourists, to make money from restaurants and gas 

stations and hotels. So it is—I wouldn’t even say indirect, I would 

call it a direct consequence—a benefit from this. 

Senator THOMAS. Would there be a plan, an arrangement, in 

your view, to raise local money and participation financially? 

Dr. BELKO. Absolutely. I think one of the neatest things about 

this bill, one of the more important aspects is that it is a cooperative effort, from Federal Government down to our State government, and to all of the non-profit organizations, and the local governments, some wonderful organizations. They have a direct role in 

this, in this partnership, to create this maritime heritage destination network. They would share technical expertise and assistance, 

funding sources, and it would provide great benefits to the State 

of Michigan, so the partnership is key. 

Senator THOMAS. I appreciate it, thank you. 

Dr. Wint, as I understand it, the Franklin Institute contemplated 

non-Federal funding, and as you’ve indicated, there’s basically—I 

guess there’s one little instance, but non-Federal funding, is that 

correct? 

Dr. WINT. That is correct. The Memorandum of Understanding in 

1973 did indicate there would be cooperation in mutually agreeable 

ways with the National Park Service. It did not explicitly or implicitly state that there would be Federal support. However, 30 years 

ago, I don’t believe we could have envisioned what has happened 

today, particularly with the celebration of Franklin’s 300th anniversary beginning in January, nor the enormous growth of the Institute in terms of our attendance. 

In 2002, our attendance was 711,000, this past year it was 

934,000. We expect it to reach a million or more, and every person 

who comes, sees the Franklin Memorial. 

Senator THOMAS. What do you contemplate the cost will be for 

the restoration of the statue and the construction of the displays? 

Dr. WINT. The total cost would be $18 million, which includes the 

restoration of the memorial hall, and the creation of a museum devoted to Franklin that would be built immediately adjacent to 

Franklin Hall. So the visitor would come in, see Franklin Hall, and 

then turn left and go into this museum. We would fundraise for the 

balance of the money from private sources. 

Senator THOMAS. All right. Well, thank you. Thank you, Mrs. 

Dick, for being here. We appreciate your testimony and we really 

look forward to working with you. 

Senator. 

Senator SALAZAR. First, Dr. Eshelman, I commend you for your 

project, and also for recognizing the importance of teaching the hisVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:01 Dec 08, 2005 Jkt 109201 PO 24837 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\24837.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
39

tory and heritage of this great Nation to the American public, but 

particularly toward children, so thank you for coming before the 

committee today. 

Mrs. Dick, I wanted—first of all, Mr. Chairman, I’d ask your consent and the consent of the committee that the exhibits that were 

referred to by Mrs. Dick be entered as part of the record of this 

proceeding. 

Senator THOMAS. Without objection. 

Senator SALAZAR. I want to make a comment, Mrs. Dick. It is 

now 26 years ago that you came to Washington, DC, with your husband, without a lawyer. Today, 26 years later, you come to Washington, DC, now without him, but again without a lawyer. You sit 

at a witness table here in one of our hearing rooms of the U.S. 

Capitol. You talk to us about your plight, and the issue that you 

want this committee to consider, and the request for a favorable 

vote on S. 584. I just want to commend you for having that courage. 

Most of the time what happens at this Capitol are the people 

who we hear from are not ordinary Americans. We hear from people who are either somehow tied into the bureaucracy, or paid millions of dollars to do what they do. You, on the other hand, have 

come here asking your government to do something that would 

help resolve a situation that has been outstanding for a very long 

time, and I’m very hopeful that you will be able to work with all 

of my colleagues in the U.S. Senate, to afford you the same kind 

of relief that was recognized by all members of the U.S. House of 

Representatives. 

Let me ask one question of you, in terms of your management 

of the land during the time period that you’ve been there, over a 

quarter century, have there been any issues in terms of the management of the property between you and the Park Service, or has 

it been a good, positive relationship? 

Mrs. DICK. For the most part, it’s been very positive, and I certainly do appreciate the Superintendent, the present Superintendent, and all of the people who work there. As I indicated in 

my testimony, the rangers stop in and we have a good relationship. 

I have been responsible for the maintenance of all the buildings 

and the insurance on the property, I pay every year. I feel that it’s 

been a great experience, and they do too, I think, if you ask any 

one of them. In fact, there are a great many of them who have 

stopped by and said, ‘‘We sure hope you get to keep your property,’’ 

and that is very encouraging. 

I do want to make another statement, if I may, Chairman Thomas, and that is that the park has only come to me within the last 

week with any effort to negotiate at all. We have made every effort 

through our Congressman, and through Senator Salazar, and 

through many of my friends, just to get them to sit down and talk 

to me about this, and they claim that there is nothing they can do 

administratively. It was a week ago, Tuesday, when I was first told 

about this negotiation, which went on without my knowledge, and 

I was notified by the press. NBC called me and asked me how I 

felt about this negotiation that was taking place, and I just said, 

‘‘What negotiation? I don’t know anything about this.’’ And when 

they came to me the following day, from the park, the SuperVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:01 Dec 08, 2005 Jkt 109201 PO 24837 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\24837.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
40

intendent, to present the terms of the negotiation—which I hadn’t 

known anything about—and tell me I can be on some kind of a 

lease, which was to be for 2 years, while they start to plan what 

they’re going to do with my property. And I was concerned about 

that, because I thought surely they had some plan for it, but 

they’re just now beginning to think what they’re going to do with 

those buildings that they got. 

So the park has no plans, and they’re asking me to stay in limbo 

for another 2 years, while they decide what they’re going to do with 

the property. And in the meantime, they’re cutting back on their 

personnel in the park, they’re cutting back on their programs in 

the park, and I do not see how they can maintain that property, 

or how they can destroy it, which is another thing that has been 

threatened. And I can’t negotiate when they come to me 9 days before I’m to appear here, with this kind of a settlement, whereby 

they take away everything but three to five acres, and expect me 

to pay what they call ‘‘fair market value’’ of $1,000 a month for 

what’s left. 

It’s been a misunderstanding from the very beginning. And I 

really appreciate your listening to my story, because it is complicated, and it is unique, and that’s why it’s hard to explain. 

Thank you both so very much. 

Senator THOMAS. You’re more than welcome. 

Senator SALAZAR. Mrs. Dick, thank you very much for having 

made the trip, again. And to you, Chairman Thomas, I appreciate 

your courtesy this morning, and your leadership of this committee. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator THOMAS. If there are no further questions—if we have 

any questions further, we may ask them, and other members may 

have questions over the next month, otherwise the committee’s adjourned. Thank you all for being here. 

[Whereupon, at 11:23 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(41)

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to Additional Questions 

THE FRANKLIN INSTITUTE, 

Philadelphia, PA, August 11, 2005. 

Hon. CRAIG THOMAS, 

Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Thank you so much for inviting me to testify on July 

28, 2005 before the Senate Subcommittee on National Parks on Senate Bill 652, 

which would authorize the National Park Service to provide up to $10 million in 

funding for the revitalization and rehabilitation of the Benjamin Franklin National 

Memorial. 

I appreciated the opportunity to be introduced to you by Senator Rick Santorum 

prior to hearing and to offer testimony on the importance of passing this legislation 

to duly and appropriately recognize Benjamin Franklin, our distinguished scientist, 

statesman, and diplomat, given the upcoming 300th anniversary of his birth. 

As I testified, I respectfully urge the Subcommittee to favorably report this legislation so that it might be enacted in a timely manner, so as to coincide with Franklin’s 300th birthday on January 17, 2006. 

I have enclosed herewith responses to the questions posed in your letter of August 

1, 2005. Please let me know if you require any additional information. 

Thank you for your interest and consideration. 

Sincerely, 

DENNIS M. WINT, 

President and CEO. 

[Enclosure.] 

RESPONSES OF DENNIS M. WINT TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR THOMAS

Question 1a. The bill authorizes $10 million and requires matching funds for any 

Federal money. How much do you estimate that it will cost to restore the Benjamin 

Franklin statue and construct the proposed displays? 

Answer. The cost of the total Benjamin Franklin Memorial Project is $20 million. 

The first priority is to clean the Memorial, restore and repair all marble surfaces, 

and restore and clean the statue. The second, and equally necessary, phase of the 

project would be to address longstanding structural issues in the rotunda dome and 

skylights, replace defunct lighting and sound systems, and relight the Memorial in 

a dramatic fashion. 

The final phase of the project would be to create a facility adjacent to the Memorial to house a nationally significant collection of priceless Franklin artifacts, and 

to add a next generation, state-of-the-art, Franklin multi-media learning experience 

that would make this site even more of an American destination. 

The estimated expenses for this project are as follows: 

NATIONAL MEMORIAL RESTORATION AND RENOVATIONS:

Accent lighting and sound system .................................................................. $153,000

Memorial lobby upgrades ................................................................................ 705,000

Repairs to skylights, roof monitors ................................................................ 430,000

Mechanical and electrical ................................................................................ 400,000

Cleaning, restoration of marble surfaces ....................................................... 710,000

42

Multimedia experience .................................................................................... 5,000,000

Restorations and renovations subtotal ................................................... $7,398,000

PRESERVATION AND EXHIBITION OF FRANKLIN ARTIFACTS:

Site development .................................................................................... $8,800,000

Exhibit installation ................................................................................ $2,800,000

Fees, escalation, contingency ................................................................ $1,000,000

Franklin Memorial Museum subtotal .................................... $12,600,000

TOTAL PROJECT COST ...................................................................... $19,998,000

Question 1b. Have you identified potential funding sources for the matching 

funds? 

Answer. Yes. The Institute will raise the matching funds primarily from the private sector, including private foundations, corporations, and individuals. As a 

501(c)(3) non-profit organization, the Institute relies on a host of private and public 

funding sources to operate with a balanced budget. The Institute has identified several of these funding sources as potential providers of matching funds for any Federal investment in this project. The Institute may also pursue funding from the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 

The Institute’s capacity to succeed in raising matching funds is evidenced by a 

recently completed $61 million life-safety and HVAC renovation project, of which 

nearly $28 million was provided as part of matching or challenge grants. The Institute anticipates similar success in matching any Federal funds invested in the Benjamin Franklin National Memorial. 

Question 1c. Have you raised any money towards the effort to date? 

Answer. No. While the Institute does has several private funding sources that 

have expressed interest in funding this project, these requests are pending until 

passage of S. 652 and subsequent appropriations. The level of support from the Federal government will dictate both the scope and pace of this project. 

The Institute has contributed an estimated $50,000-$100,000 out of its own operating budget to develop this comprehensive plan for the Memorial. 

Question 1d. Have you begun any of the restoration or construction work? 

Answer. Yes. The Institute was able to make the Memorial ADA-accessible in 

2000-2001, partially made possible through a grant of $300,000 from the Save 

America’s Treasures program, which was provided with support from Senators Rick 

Santorum and Arlen Specter. In addition, the Institute raised more than $800,000 

from private sources and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to improve access in 

the Memorial for a total estimated cost of $1.1 million. 

For the continuing renovation efforts, the Institute has consulted with an architect, a project manager, experts in the restoration of historic facilities, educators, 

and a multi-media firm in developing plans for the revitalization of the Memorial. 

No additional restoration or construction work has been initiated since these upgrades because the planned restoration requires public and private funding. Further, significant limitations on visitor traffic to and through the hall would limit the 

celebrations planned for Franklin’s 300th. Upon enactment of S. 652, the Institute 

expects to leverage the initial private contributions in time to commence work on 

or around January 17, 2006, Dr. Franklin’s birthday. 

Question 1e. How long will it take to complete the work? 

Answer. The project will take 4 years from planning until completion. 

Question 2. The enabling legislation that established The Franklin Institute contemplated a non-Federal funding source and did not include a provision for use of 

Federal funds. What has changed to cause a need for Federal funds and do you anticipate future requests? 

Answer. In 1972, when Congress designated this site as The Benjamin Franklin 

National Memorial, it was impossible to foresee the changes brought about that 

have made the Memorial a national destination with over 1 million visitors annually. Since the Memorial was built in 1938, nearly $20 million has been expended 

from The Franklin Institute’s operating and capital budgets to preserve and maintain it. Visitorship takes its toll both in the wear and tear on the Memorial structure and in the added expense the Institute incurs in serving these visitors in a 

space that generates no admission revenue as agreed upon in the 1973 Memorandum of Understanding between The Franklin Institute and the National Park 

Service. 

43

The Institute is now Pennsylvania’s most-visited museum and the Memorial is the 

third most-visited tourist attraction in Philadelphia. My predecessors did not anticipate that by 2005, visitorship would more than triple and annual maintenance costs 

of the Memorial would exceed $300,000. 

Accordingly, once S. 652 is enacted and the authorized funding is appropriated, 

the Institute will actively match federal funding to upgrade the Memorial, ensuring 

that Franklin’s legacy and remarkable story have a home fitting of his importance 

to our nation. Beyond this authorization and subsequent appropriations, the Institute will not seek further Federal support for the Benjamin Franklin National Memorial. 

RESPONSES OF DR. RALPH ESHELMAN TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR THOMAS

Question 1. What makes this trail unique and worthy of designation as a National 

Historic Trail? 

Answer. The proposed Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail would commemorate the events leading up to the writing of the poem ‘‘The Star-Spangled Banner’’ during the War of 1812; events that are generally misunderstood by the general public. This sequence of events include the British invasion of Maryland, the 

Battle of Bladensburg, the burning of the White House and the Capitol, the burning 

of the Washington Navy Yard, and the Battle for Baltimore in the summer of 1814. 

These events arc significant to the United States’ national heritage. Not only was 

our national anthem derived from these events, but the flag that inspired the poem, 

has become America’s foremost patriotic icon. I can think of no more significant trail 

that is worthy of inclusion in the National Trail System. 

The criteria for national trails, set forth in the National Trails Systems Act, have 

been applied, and five of the eight proposed trail segments meet all three criteria. 

National Historic Landmark criteria for national significance have also been applied 

and have been met by the proposed trail. The route of the invasion is clearly known 

and well documented—The proposed trail follows this route with only minor short 

deviations made necessary by limited highway access and railroad construction. 

Question 2. The trail will include separate trail segments highlighting six different sites associated with the war of 1812. Are separate segments the usual route 

National Historic Trails follow? 

Answer. While the proposed national trail contains five routes, the routes are 

physically connected by land and/or water. While we refer to these trail routes as 

segments, they actually are complete routes, each which tell one aspect within the 

full story of the Star-Spangled Banner. Those segments consist of the British invasion route from Benedict to Washington, the British feint up the Potomac River, the 

British feint up the Chesapeake Bay, the British route up the Patapsco River to 

Fort McHenry and the British land route from North Point to Baltimore. Together, 

these ‘‘segments’’ or routes serve to tell a single story—the story of how the StarSpangled Banner came to be. Many national trails have multiple routes including 

the Oregon National Historic Trail, California National Historic Trail, Old Spanish 

National Historic Trail, Santa Fe National Historic Trail, Lewis and Clark National 

Historic Trail, Potomac Heritage National Historic Trail, and Florida National Historic Trail. 

This question implies that the Star-Spangled Banner Trail has only six sites. In 

fact, each segment consists of multiple sites (or resources as the National Park Service refers to them). The fewest number of sites for any one of the recommended segments consists of 8 resources while the British land invasion route segment consists 

of forty-six resources. In total there are ninety-four identified resources among the 

five recommend trail segments. 

Question 3. Is it necessary for the Star-Spangled Banner Trail to have Federal 

designation or can it be managed as a state or regional entity? 

Answer. The Chesapeake Campaign of 1814 is nationally significant and represents key turning points in American social and political history. The events of 

the invasion contributed to the preservation of a young nation and its Constitution. 

Therefore, Federal designation is both desirable and appropriate. The trail would be 

managed in partnership with Maryland similar to many other National Historic 

Trails. 

Question 4. Will the creation of the Star-Spangled Banner Trail require the purchase of any lands? 

Answer. Creation of the trail does not envision any federal land acquisition. 

Thought doubtful, if any such land acquisition should be required in the future, it 

would only be from willing sellers. 

44

August 19, 2005. 

Hon. CRAIG THOMAS, 

Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR THOMAS: I truly appreciate your attentiveness when I appeared 

before your committee on July 28, 2005, and thank you most especially for thoughtfully making the effort to speak to me after the hearing. 

Your August 1st letter with further questions arrived Monday the 15th of August. 

To expedite matters I am sending the response by FAX and will try to make my 

responses as complete as possible. 

Thank you, Senator Thomas, for requesting a clarification of my situation. I am 

truly appreciative of your interest in furthering the understanding of this unique 

situation—one which I am pursuing because I have felt the unfairness of it for so 

many years. As I stated at the July 28th hearing—I am only asking for what the 

National Park Service promised us in November 1979—nothing more. 

Sincerely, 

BETTY H. DICK. 

RESPONSES OF BETTY H. DICK TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR THOMAS

Question 1. You provided a Park Service memo from 1979 that mentions a life 

estate. If you expected to get a life estate, why didn’t you question things at that 

time and correct the paperwork? 

Answer. There are several reasons why we didn’t pursue the life estate that had 

been promised by the National Park Service and attempt to correct the paperwork. 

A) Fred and his first wife, Marilyn had contested ownership of the Colorado property for two years, from 1975-1977. To settle the matter, Fred finally gave the tide 

to Marilyn with the explicit provision that if she sold the property, he would have 

the right of first refusal. Their divorce was finalized in June, 1977. In October 1977, 

the National Park Service, ignoring Fred’s right, bought the property from Marilyn. 

B) Fred learned of the sale when it was subsequently published in our local weekly newspaper. He immediately began litigation against the NPS to recover his property through the right of first refusal clause. Another two years of legal wrangling 

and legal fees ensued—1977-1979. 

C) Fred and I were married in 1978. To reach a final settlement on the property, 

we met with NPS officials in Washington, DC in November 1979. These men were 

attentive and sympathetic, realizing be had been by-passed and unfairly deprived 

of his right to the property. The settlement reached that day had three specific conditions. The NPS was to give each of us a life estate, and Fred was to give up

2/3 of his land (44 acres) and pay a settlement fee of $7, 500.00. 

D) Throughout the winter of 1979-1980 we received three preliminary NPS papers 

which I presented at the July 28th hearing as Exhibits A, B, and C—all stating a 

life estate for both of us. Fred, believing the deal was sincere, returned to the Colorado property in early May of 1980, and at his expense had it re-surveyed, took 

down the original fencing to re-fence his agreed upon 23 acres, and sent the 

$7,500.00 to the NPS. 

E) Fred was a graduate of the University of Illinois Law School. He was President 

of the Peoples Bank in Bloomington, Illinois. He had bought the Colorado property 

in 1961 and vastly improved it for his summers in retirement. He was a gentleman 

who honored his commitments. When the 25 year settlement paper arrived in early 

summer 1980, he was devastated. He realized the NPS had deceived him a second 

time. He could no longer enter into negotiations that were financially and emotionally draining with a Government entity he could no longer trust. He had nowhere 

to turn—he felt defeated . . . so he signed the 25 year agreement, to expire in July 

16, 2005. 

F) For the record, neither Fred nor I have paid the NPS $300.00 a year as it is claiming, That figure comes from dividing $7,500 by 25 years. The agreement for 

a life estate was made and the $7,500 was paid for the life estate, prior to any mention of 25 years. The NPS is also claiming this was a court ruling—it was not. It 

was a Settlement Agreement between Fred and the United States of America. (Exhibit D available at the July 28 hearing) 

Question 2. Is This your primary residence and how long do you occupy the home 

each year? 

Answer. Regarding my residence in Colorado. I return here every year mid-May 

and leave for Arizona mid-October. The altitude here is 9,000 ft., so the weather 

determines the length of my stay. My primacy interests are here. My family considers this my main residence and enjoys visiting during the summer. I have become deeply involved in the Church community, the cultural community and eduVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:01 Dec 08, 2005 Jkt 109201 PO 24837 Frm 00048 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\24837.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
45

cational aspects of the community. The Mayor and the Trustees of Grand Lake have 

voted to support my efforts to remain here, as have many friends and acquaintances 

of Grand County. The present Superintendent of Rocky Mountain National Park is 

sympathetic to my cause, and has granted me the right to stay here through the 

summer of 2005. 

(47)

APPENDIX II 

Additional Material Submitted for the Record 

UDALL BILL BEST PLAN FOR INHOLDING LEASE 

[Rocky Mountain News—July 26, 2005] 

The Senate should go along with the House and approve a private bill that would 

give 83-year-old Betty Dick the right to stay on her 23 acres within Rocky Mountain 

National Park until she dies or leaves. 

A life estate in the inholding is what Dick and her late husband asked for and 

should have been given by the National Park Service originally. But instead the 

Park Service insisted on a 25-year agreement. It technically expired a week ago, although the local supervisor has granted her the right to stay through the summer. 

The bill sponsored by Rep. Mark Udall won unanimous approval in the House, 

but it may be in trouble in the Senate. Sen. Wayne Allard and others maintain it 

might set a legal precedent for 290 other disputed inholdings in 35 national parks. 

We don’t think so. Dick is not on a lease like the others; what she has is a settle- ment agreement under which she paid $7,500 for 23 acres for 25 years. The Udall 

bill would extend the $300-a-year payment until she dies. 

The Park Service, which originally insisted there was no administrative remedy, 

recently decided that there was. It offered to let her stay if she surrendered all but 

five of her acres and paid $1,000 a month for them. 

She sensibly said no. She’s hoping the Udall bill, which is scheduled for a hearing 

in the Senate’s parks subcommittee Thursday, gets passed. So do we. 

Kalaupapa, HI, July 18, 2005. 

Hon. DANIEL K. AKAKA, 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Hon. DANIEL K. INOUYE, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATORS AKAKA AND INOUYE: I am writing to you in support of S. 1166, 

a bill to extend the authorization of the Kalaupapa National Historical Park Advisory Commission. I appreciate your introduction of this measure on behalf of the 

patients of Kalaupapa. 

As you know, the Advisory Commission will expire on December 22, 2005. I understand that S. 1166 would extend the Commission for an additional 20 years. The 

Advisory Commission plays an integral role for the patients to provide input to the 

National Park Service on visitation issues and other matters that may arise. 

The Advisory Commission meets approximately twice a year and we discuss 

issues are that critical to our community. Our decisions on levels of visitation are 

binding, after a referendum; we also discuss the following:

Status of the National Park Advisory Commission 

Status of the Lease Agreement with Department of Hawaiian Home Lands 

Status of Water System 

Status of Friends of Father Damien 

Archeology Work in Kalaupapa Settlement 

Fishing Laws 

Jurisdiction and Law Enforcement 

Electrical System Taken Over by National Park Service 

Vegetation Clearing 

Future of Airline Service to Kalaupapa Settlement 

Co-Habitation of Non-Married NPS Staff 

Influx of Volunteer Staff Without Time Limits 

Establishing An Onsite Memorial For Patients

48

Also our concerns on status of Cooperative Agreements with the following agencies:

State of Hawaii Department of Health 

State of Hawaii Department of Transportation 

State of Hawaii Board of Land & Natural Resources 

Catholic Church 

United Church of Christ

We need to ensure that we have a voice for our community and that voice with 

the Park Service will continue. We look forward to dealing with some of the important transitional issues for Kalaupapa in the future, to ensure that the memory of 

previous patients continues to be honored. 

I have been informed that a Senate hearing on S. 1166 is scheduled for July 21st 

and I, along with the current members of the Commission, and the patients of 

Kalaupapa, hope that the bill will be passed by the Senate soon.

KUULEI BELL

PAUL HARADA

GLORIA MARKS

SHUICHI HAMAI

HENRY NALAIELUA

CLARENCE KAHILIHIWA

Æ