[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 11]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 15262]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                H.R. 432, BETTY DICK PRIVATE RELIEF BILL

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, June 29, 2005

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, 
and to thank Chairman Pombo and Ranking Member Rahall of the Resources 
Committee as well as the House leadership on both sides of the aisle 
for making it possible for the House to act on it today.
  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--not a lease, but an agreement that settled a 
lawsuit.
  There is also no dispute about the fact that the agreement ends on 
July 16th of this year.
  Without this bill or a new agreement with the National Park Service, 
at that time Ms. Dick, who has been a good neighbor with the National 
Park and who has opened her home for community events, will have to 
leave.
  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.
  Ms. Dick needs to have a resolution to this issue as soon as 
possible--she needs to know by this spring whether she has to start 
packing her things and move out, or arrange to do some maintenance on 
the property if she is allowed to stay.
  Last year I wrote to Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton, asking 
her to help make that happen.
  However, the response--from the Director of the National Park 
Service's Intermountain Region--was that the Interior Department is 
``legally bound to honor the provisions of the [1980] settlement 
agreement'' and that the furthest the Department would go would be to 
offer Ms. Dick ``the opportunity to remain on the property for the 
entire summer of 2005,'' an offer that evidently she has declined.
  I am not convinced that the Interior Department lacks the authority 
to resolve this matter by entering into a new agreement with Ms. Dick.
  But in any event, the bill would settle that question.
  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.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, it should be noted that this bill deals only 
with this particular property and the arrangement that has permitted 
Ms. Dick to use it over the years.
  I recognize that somewhat similar arrangements may exist in various 
other parts of the National Park System, and that other Members may 
propose legislation addressing some of them.
  I think that the right way to proceed is to evaluate each such 
proposal on its own and in the light of the particular facts involved.
  That is what I have done in drafting this bill, and I hope that is 
the approach the Resources Committee and the House will take in 
considering similar measures in the future.

                          ____________________