SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
55–029 l
1999
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON GETTYSBURG NATIONAL MILITARY PARK GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN AND PROPOSED VISITORS CENTER
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
FEBRUARY 11, 1999, WASHINGTON, DC
Serial No. 106–4
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house
or
Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
KEN CALVERT, California
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Carolina
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
KEVIN BRADY, Texas
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania
RICK HILL, Montana
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
GEORGE MILLER, California
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELÓ, Puerto Rico
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ADAM SMITH, Washington
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
DONNA CHRISTIAN-CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands
RON KIND, Wisconsin
JAY INSLEE, Washington
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
TOM UDALL, New Mexico
MARK UDALL, Colorado
JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff
ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel
CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator
JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director
Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
ELTON, GALLEGLY, California
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Carolina
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
RICK HILL, Montana
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania
CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELÓ, Puerto Rico
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
DONNA CHRISTIAN-CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands
RON KIND, Wisconsin
JAY INSLEE, Washington
TOM UDALL, New Mexico
MARK UDALL, Colorado
JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
ALLEN FREEMYER, Counsel
TODD HULL, Professional Staff
LIZ BIRNBAUM, Democratic Counsel
GARY GRIFFITH, Professional Staff
C O N T E N T S
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Hearing held February 11, 1999
Statements of Members:
Hansen, Hon. James V., a Representative in Congress from the State of Utah
Romero-Barceló, Hon. Carlos, a Resident Commissioner in Congress from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
Statements of Witnesses:
Galvin, Denis P., Deputy Director, National Park Service, Department of the Interior, accompanied by John A. Latschar, Superintendent, Gettysburg, National Military Park
Prepared statement of
Kinsley, Robert, Managing Partner, Kinsley Equities
Prepared statement of
Powell, Walter L., Ph.D, President, Gettysburg Battlefield Preservation Association
Prepared statement of
Silbey, Franklin R., President, Franklin Silbey & Associates
Prepared statement of
Streeter, Ted, Councilman, Borough of Gettysburg
Prepared statement of
Woodford, Eileen, Northeast Regional Director, National Parks and Conservation Association
Prepared statement of
Additional material supplied:
Economic Impact Evaluation, Gettysburg National Military Park, General Management Plan Alternatives
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Santorum, Hon. Rick, a Senator in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania, prepared statement of
Communications submitted:
Descendants of the NY 136th Infantry Regiment, The, prepared statement of
Gettysburg, The Friends of the National Parks at, prepared statement of
Hoeweler, Alan E., Chairman, Association for the Preservation of Civil War Sites, Inc., Hagerstown, Maryland, prepared statement of
Letter from Mr. Hansen to Robert Stanton, National Park Service
Letter to Mr. Hansen from Randal J. Holderfield
Letter to Mr. Hansen from George J. Lower
Lower, George J., prepared statement of
Maruyama, Kinya, Architect, prepared statement of
Press release, Committee on Resources
Responses to questions from the Committee by the National Park Service
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON GETTYSBURG NATIONAL MILITARY PARK GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN AND PROPOSED VISITORS CENTER
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1999
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on National Parks
and Public Lands,
Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in Room 1324 Longworth House Office Building, Hon. James V. Hansen [chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HANSEN. The Committee will come to order. We like to start on time. We would like to have the Ranking Member of the Full Committee George Miller with us but we understand he is sick. Part of this hearing is for his benefit and for Mr. Goodling and I haven't seen either one of them walk in.
Before we start I would just like to recognize we have some people here that have done a great job in that particular area. We are honored to have the mayor, Mayor William Troxell here, mayor of Gettysburg, Mr. John Murphy, Mr. Leonard Andrews, Richard Kreisher, Dr. Beverly Stanton and Angela Rosensteel Eckert. They are very impressive credentials that all of these people and they are obviously very knowledgeable about the issue at hand.
I am tempted to wait just a minute but sometimes around here you can wait forever because there are a lot of things going on. There are meetings all over. We expect to have members pop in.
I notice we have quite a number of folks that are standing and I am always embarrassed about that. I don't know what we do but this lower tier will not be used. If anyone is so inclined to come up there and sit quietly, we would be happy to have them come in and use this lower tier. I always hate to have people have to stand.
So if you are so inclined, go right ahead.
[Pause.]
Mr. HANSEN. We know this is a rather controversial issue that we are facing today. We had a number of letters from a lot of people. Mr. Miller had a very intense interest in this issue, as Mr. Goodling has, as everyone in Pennsylvania seems to have, and we would like to have them here. I will wait just a moment longer and then read this prepared statement and then turn to Mr. Romero-Barceló from Puerto Rico for his statement. Then Mr. Hefley on the Republican side also had an interest, I understand. We haven't seen him yet. So if you can bear with me, we will wait just a moment, please.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The letters may be found at the end of the hearing.]
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES V. HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. HANSEN. I understand Mr. Miller will be with us so I will go ahead. We would like to welcome everyone to this oversight hearing today. It is almost exactly one year ago to the day that the Senate convened a hearing to examine problems with the Gettysburg National Military Park and the Kinsley proposal, yet very little change has occurred. In fact, the situation seems worse with the release of the draft General Management Plan by the Park Service.
These problems are serious and remain unresolved. They deal with a number of significant issues, including the public process and procedure the Park Service used with the plan and in selecting the Kinsley proposal, the proposed site selected for the construction of the visitors center, the Cyclorama building, local economic impacts, the battlefield artifacts, and the commercialization of the military park.
Praised by the Park Service as a model for future public-private partnerships involving the Park Service and the construction of visitors centers across the country, this proposal and the surrounding issues have instead soured the general public's perception of the Park Service and this project.
This attitude is not without merit. The Park Service has been less than forthcoming with information that should have been readily and openly available to the general public. The Park Service has narrowed the alternatives in the management plan, rendering public input meaningless. They also have exaggerated and overstated some problems while, at the same time, understated the significance of other issues. These actions clearly were intended to justify the decision they have already made to demolish the Cyclorama, along with the current visitors center and museum and to proceed with the implementation of the Kinsley proposal.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
If this indeed is a model of things to come, it does not bode well for future projects of this nature.
Without question, Gettysburg is one of, if not the, most important and sacred battlefield in the history of this Nation. And looking at the more recent past of the battlefield, a good case can be made that we have done our best to thwart the good stewardship of this site. Things like the Gettysburg ''Cut'' and the National Tower all come to mind, of which we have received a lot of correspondence over the years.
We cannot allow another mistake to be made at Gettysburg. We must approach the issue at Gettysburg slowly and deliberately and above all, make sure that we are not proceeding with a project that will harm in any way the integrity and importance of this most cherished site.
I want to mention a few other things before we get started but I want to recognize our Ranking Minority member, Mr. Carlos Barceló, at this time for any statement he may make.
STATEMENT OF HON. CARLOS ROMERO-BARCELÓ, A RESIDENT COMMISSIONER IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate holding this oversight hearing today. I think it is a very timely occasion and opportunity. And those of us who had the privilege to visit the Gettysburg National Military Park really know what an important monument and what important facilities these are for the whole Nation. Those who have had the opportunity to visit come away with awe and are very, very impressed also by what it represents to the history of our Nation and also to all of us who appear there to visit those facilities. This is an important matter that deserves the attention of the Subcommittee.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
For nearly two years there has been an on-going public controversy with National Park Service plans to enter into a partnership with a developer to construct the visitors facility on private land within Gettysburg National Military Park. Many questions have been raised regarding the size, the location, the financing of such a new facility and the fact that the community feels that they have not been involved sufficiently or at all in the planning and in the decisions that have been made or appear to have been made. We hope that today's hearing will shed some light on these many questions.
It is our understanding that the National Park Service is in the process of finalizing a General Management Plan for the park which includes a visitors facility proposal. We understand also that these facilities and proposals have not been discussed at length with the community of people who may be interested in otherwise participating and feel that their business activities may be threatened by some of the decisions that have been made.
Today's hearing is timely also so that the matter can be reviewed and discussed before any irreversible decisions are made. We owe it to the public to ensure that the high standards of the National Park system are maintained in all actions affecting the Gettysburg National Military Park.
We appreciate the presence of our witnesses today and look forward to the testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HANSEN. I thank you.
Mr. Miller hasn't walked in. He specifically requested that we conduct this oversight hearing and we were glad to accommodate that request and we would like to hear from him when he comes in.
Because of the scrutiny that we received on this particular issue, I am asking all those who will testify today if they would stand and be sworn in. If you have any question about who that is, Denis P. Galvin, the superintendent Dr. John Latschar, Robert Kinsley, Eileen Woodford, Walter L. Powell, Ted Streeter and Franklin R. Silbey. Would those folks please stand?
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. HANSEN. Perjury is a rather sensitive issue around here right now. With that in mind, Mr. Galvin, always a pleasure to have you with us and I understand the superintendent, Dr. John Latschar, is with you. Would you two please come up?
Mr. GALVIN. I am the government witness, Mr. Chairman, and I will call on Mr. Latschar to answer any detailed local questions.
Mr. HANSEN. Let me explain to the folks who are going to testify, we have a rule in this Committee that you get five minutes. I am sure you have heard that from staff. Due to the importance of this particular issue, if you run over a little bit I am not going to bang the gavel but I would appreciate it if you would stay by your time.
Most of you will say that you maybe will abbreviate your entire testimony, which we appreciate, but your entire testimony will be submitted for the record and we will review your entire testimony.
So with that in mind, if you could stay within your five minutes, we would appreciate it.
You will see in front of Mr. Galvin there something you see every time you drive your car: red, yellow and green. It means the same as it does when you are going down a street. The green comes on, start talking. When the yellow comes on, wrap it up. And when the red comes on, then you hope that I am not a very mean traffic cop.
So with that in mind, Mr. Galvin, we will go with you. I see Mr. Souder is here from the Committee. We appreciate his presence.
STATEMENT OF DENIS P. GALVIN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN A. LATSCHAR, SUPERINTENDENT, GETTYSBURG NATIONAL MILITARY PARK
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GALVIN. Mr. Chairman, I have an unusually long prepared statement which I will submit for the record. I will summarize my statement and I think I will get close to five minutes.
I will try in my summary to respond particularly to the issues raised in the letter to the Secretary that invited us to this hearing and I highlight that letter, ''to enter into a partnership with the developer to construct a visitors facility on private land, questions concerning the type and location of the facility, the financial arrangements associated with the proposal, the impact of such a facility on the local community and the public process used by the NPS for this proposal.'' I will try to hit those points. They are elaborated at greater length in my prepared statement.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the National Park Service draft General Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for Gettysburg and the proposal to develop a new park visitors center and museum. This proposal is to achieve these objectives in partnership with a nonprofit foundation and without construction cost to the taxpayer.
While the proposal had evolved in response to public comment, it is consistent with the objectives set forth in the related planning documents and is strongly supported by the National Park Service. Protection of the resources at Gettysburg has been the driving force behind this proposal and all related planning. We are committed to the protection of these resources.
Also of high priority is removal of incompatible development from within the boundary of the park. The National Tower is one of those developments and acquisition and removal of the tower is of paramount importance to this administration. The President has made this a priority in his 2000 budget request, along with the acquisition of another 93 acres of land within the boundary of the park where there is either incompatible development or plans for inappropriate development.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Gettysburg is, of course, the nationally significant site of the Civil War battle of Gettysburg and the Soldiers National Cemetery. It is 5,900 acres of terrain upon which most of the battle occurred. There are 1,700 monuments and cannons placed by the battle survivors.
The park owns a collection of 38,000 artifacts and 350,000 printed texts. It includes the Cyclorama painting illustrating Pickett's Charge. Together the land, monuments, archival collection and the Cyclorama painting represent a remarkable resource that tell the complete and compelling story of this important time in American history.
The current visitors center and museum facilities are inadequate to meet resource conservation and preservation needs. Our visitors facility, sized for a visitation level of about 450,000 people a year, handle more than 1.2 million people. The facilities are located on some of the most significant land of battle, land that was central to the Battle of Gettysburg at the site of what has been called the high-water mark of the battle.
In December 1994 a local developer unilaterally approached the park and proposed a new Cyclorama center paired with a private IMAX theater. After 60 days of public and agency review, the NPS decided not to pursue that proposal, that unsolicited offer.
Between August 1995 and April 1996 the National Park Service prepared a draft development plan that enunciated four goals: protection of the park's collections and archives, preservation of the Cyclorama painting, provision of high quality interpretation and educational opportunities for park visitors, restoration of the high-water mark of the battle.
As part of this process, the NPS held a series of public workshops, a scoping meeting with a 30-day public review of the scoping documents and a 45-day public review of the draft DCP. Twelve public workshops, focus groups and advisory commission meetings were held by the National Park Service on these proposals.
After considering comments on this, the National Park Service issued a request for proposals to see if there were any private parties interested in a partnership with the National Park Service. The RFP solicited proposals to provide a new visitors center and museum facilities either on park land or on nonpark land in the vicinity of the park.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The RFP closed on May 16, 1997. We received six proposals. On November 8 the NPS announced the selection for negotiation of the proposal submitted by Mr. Robert Kinsley. This is a different proposal, a different entity and a different concept than in the December 1994 unsolicited proposal.
The proposal was to build on a privately owned 45-acre site within the boundaries of the park, located at the intersection of Hunt and Baltimore Avenues. The estimate for the facility and the acquisition of the land was $40.4 million. $22 million would be raised through grants and nonprofit fundraising. The balance of the cost that would be needed to cover land, soft costs and building costs for related facilities would be through a nonrecourse commercial loan.
As part of this process, the NPS sought comments on the proposal through a public review process. Between November 1997 and March 1998 we held six public workshops, three open houses and mailed a newsletter to 3,800 people to acquaint the public with the proposal selected for negotiation. During this review NPS received 3,200 sets of written comments from the public. Of those, more than 85 percent of the respondents favored the proposal. Twenty-nine percent were concerned with the level of commercial development.
Because the issue of appropriateness of the site was of concern to many, NPS undertook a comprehensive review of the site to determine what its Civil War history was. An artillery battery had operated from a ridge on the eastern edge of the property. No significant battle action had occurred on the balance of the tract.
A panel of independent Civil War historians reviewed NPS work and agreed that no significant activity occurred there. An archeological study of the site was undertaken. It found seven small prehistoric lithic scatters, three historic quarries and 73 Civil War artifacts. The Pennsylvania Historic and Musd1m Comlisriof as bnncurred that none of the locations are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The request for proposal has evolved over time through negotiations. The originally proposed IMAX theater has been dropped out of the proposal in favor of a conventional theater.
A General Management Plan and full EIS, given the controversy of the proposal, has been undertaken. The draft was available to the public. The goals of the GMP are similar to the goals of the DCP. Land and resources of Gettysburg are to be protected. Visitors understand and appreciate the significant events. Visitors enjoy a high-quality and accessible educational experience. And public and private entities understand the park's mission.
In August 1998 the plan was made available to the public. Four alternatives are contained in the plan. The plan proposes more than a visitors center. It proposes rehabilitation of large landscape elements, rehabilitation of major historic features and partnerships with local communities, particularly the Borough of Gettysburg.
An economic analysis has been prepared in conjunction with the General Management Plan. That analysis shows that expenditures in the communities related to the park are expected to increase by $23.7 million or more than 21 percent, with stable or increased visitor expenditures in each of the lodging, food, transportation, retail and amusement sectors of the local tourist economy.
The plan proposes to add downtown Gettysburg to the park's auto tour brochure, to expand the historic pathways, to provide a regular shuttle service believe the visitors center museum and downtown Gettysburg. Economic research suggests that the complete proposal will have beneficial tax effects.
As part of the process, the National Park Service held 30 public workshops, two oral hearings where testimony was recorded. More than 500 comments were received, 75 percent of which supported the National Park Service preferred alternative.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we believe the National Park Service has undertaken an exhaustive process of public involvement. Between the GMP and its predecessor Development Concept Plan process we have held 50 public meetings and have received and considered 4,600 public comments.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Because of public and agency concerns expressed before the issuance of the draft GMP, we have removed commercial facilities from the proposed visitors center, cut the size of the restaurant facility by more than half, turned it into a family cafeteria, decided that the theater would be operated by the park's nonprofit cooperating association or the foundation, with the proceeds from the operation to benefit the National Park Service's resource protection activities.
If the preferred alternative is adopted, we believe it would result in a very strong proposal, resulting in appropriate rehabilitation of the battlefield. The museum proposal would allow us to preserve the park's archives, collections and the colossal Cyclorama painting.
Gettysburg would be able to provide much improved interpretation of the causes, course and consequences of the Gettysburg campaign. Moreover, thanks to the generosity and entrepreneurial spirit of private sector partners, NPS could accomplish this at no cost to the taxpayers.
It is important to note that a final decision on the draft General Management Plan/EIS has not been made and that our final preferred alternative has not been selected. We currently are analyzing public comment received in the period of public review of the GMP.
I would like to say in closing, Mr. Chairman, that I have been involved in a number of partnership activities: right here on the Mall with the Washington Monument and the Target Corporation; in Philadelphia with the Pew Foundation where they are donating a considerable amount of money to build a regional visitors center in Independence National Historic Park. You heard a bill here on the Falls Church Visitors Center at Rocky Mountain, where there was private involvement outside the park.
I would say that the Kinsley proposal here and its spirit and his flexibility in the face of what has been an arduous process is admirable. He has been a most empathetic partner and I believe he is doing this in a spirit of public good and support of the objectives of Gettysburg National Military Park.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
That concludes my summary of my statement, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer the Subcommittee's questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Galvin may be found at the end of the hearing.]
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Galvin.
The gentleman from Puerto Rico. I will recognize my colleagues for five minutes each for questions of Mr. Galvin.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have some questions for the witness. First of all I would like to thank him for his testimony. I think it is very comprehensive and very complete testimony. It provides us with quite a bit of information.
I would like to know, Mr. Galvin, the NPS testimony today refers to negotiations with the Gettysburg National Battlefield Museum Foundation. However, the foundation was not, according to our information, was not established until May 1998. Before and after the foundation was established, the NPS negotiations were directly with Mr. Kinsley; is that correct?
Mr. GALVIN. That is correct. That is correct. That evolved process has been subsequent to the request for proposals.
Obviously when you put out a request for proposals, the burden is more on the proposer. We have to set up a process that allows equal consideration of these proposals. So once you get the proposals, rate and rank them and pick what you think is the best, then you begin negotiations with the best proposer and the situation changes.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. And the information that we have about the time frame of when the Gettysburg National Battlefield Museum Foundation was established, is that correct, May 1998?
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GALVIN. I am not entirely—I will supply that for the record. I am not exactly sure of the date.
——————
The Gettysburg National Battlefield Museum Foundation was established May 8, 1998.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. The NPS has also previously stated that the construction of the visitors facility would not commence until the entire project cost has been raised by the foundation. Is this still the case?
Mr. GALVIN. Yes, it is.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. And what happens if the foundation is unable to raise the necessary funds?
Mr. GALVIN. Well, if the proposal is unsuccessful, the only irreversible—because of the answer to the question you just asked, if nothing is built, obviously there will be no damage to the park. I believe we will acquire the property on which the visitors center was proposed to be built. We believe the prospects are very good, however, for a successful fundraising drive here.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Has the NPS made a determination on the use on the project of Davis–Bacon wage rates?
Mr. GALVIN. No, we have not. As it stands right now, this is construction on private property. It is within the boundaries of the park but we have made no final determination on that issue.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Is there any special reason why you have not made a determination on that issue yet?
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GALVIN. Well, it is unclear whether Davis–Bacon wage rates apply in this case. You would have a private entity building a building on private land, funded with donations and with a commercial loan. And so it is simply unclear. We would need a determination from the Department of Labor as to whether Davis–Bacon wages apply and it is just premature to get that determination.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. In August of 1998 a letter by the foundation's lawyers to the Cumberland Township asserted that the visitor facility is exempt from local zoning because it is a Federal building and would be used for government uses.
If that is the case, if it is a Federal building to be used for government uses, why is there any question of the applicability of the Davis–Bacon Act?
Mr. GALVIN. Well, ultimately it will become a government facility at the time when the loan is paid off. Actually it normally is the case that local zoning does not apply, although generally speaking, we comply with zoning where we can, certainly local codes.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. My question goes to the fact that because the foundation itself asserts that it is going to be a Federal building and it is going to be for government uses, why then can you argue at all that the Davis–Bacon Act would not apply?
Mr. GALVIN. Davis–Bacon wage rates may apply. We simply have not made that determination at this time.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. The revised cost estimates for the project assume that the Cyclorama, the electric map and the book store gift shop will cover a significant portion of the center's cost. Has the NPS done any cash flow analysis to verify this?
Mr. GALVIN. Yes, we have. We have done an independent analysis of the cash pro formas and believe this will work.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. And how is it that the net revenue after expenses is to more than double for the Cyclorama, the electric map and the book store gift shop?
Mr. GALVIN. The book store gift shop is the primary increased source of revenue here. The current book store is way undersized. There is a considerable demand for these publications and our independent consultant feels that with a larger book store, revenue will more than double.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. The same thing with the Cyclorama and the electric map?
Mr. GALVIN. Some increase with the Cyclorama and electric map because of the increased attractiveness of the facility and the ability to handle more visitors.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Thank you very much. I have no more questions for now.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you.
The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Souder.
Mr. SOUDER. I am new to this Committee and relatively new to the issue. I am a history buff. I am interested in the Civil War. It has been a while since I have been in Gettysburg but it looks, just in casually trying to go through this stuff, that this is not uncommon as we try to change things around, national parks and national historic sites and the tension that develops between the community around it and the interests around it and the Park Service. And we have, in my opinion, a strong national interest in Gettysburg but as part of that, I also am concerned that the local communities have input into that, too, and we try to accommodate those two things simultaneously.
I am curious. My understanding is that, and I assume the second panel will get into this, as well, that the Borough of Gettysburg is against this, the merchant association is against it, the convention center is against it, the Gettysburg Battle Preservation Association is against it, along with other associations and many people.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Do you believe that is merely because it is moving from its current location to a different location farther than the downtown or are there other dynamics, as well?
Mr. GALVIN. The short answer to your question is yes, I believe it is because the facility is moving. I have reviewed the comments of the borough of Gettysburg.
One thing I would like to make clear here, there are five townships involved. The current facility is not in the Borough of Gettysburg. It is in Cumberland Township. It will move to a location in Cumberland Township.
So the location of the township in which the facility will move is not changing. The current facility is not in the Borough of Gettysburg. And I might add that those other boroughs have taken different positions on this proposal.
Mr. SOUDER. Have they been enthusiastic in their support?
Mr. GALVIN. Yes.
Mr. SOUDER. And how many people are involved in businesses in Cumberland Township, as opposed to the town of Gettysburg?
Mr. GALVIN. I don't know that. I would have to provide it for the record. I do have the number of businesses within a two-fifths mile of Gettysburg and it is a very significant number. There are something like 100 businesses within a two-fifths mile radius of the current development, and the move is about a mile.
Mr. SOUDER. So are you, in effect, saying that if you took the metro Gettysburg area, such as I know it is not like Pittsburgh, that the metro Gettysburg area, you are saying that the majority of people in that region would, in fact, support your position? Or are you saying just the people in Cumberland Township?
Mr. GALVIN. Within the Borough of Gettysburg, within the Borough of Gettysburg alone, the public comments we have received are 50/50.
Mr. SOUDER. In your statement you list a number of things. As somebody who likes to go around and visit national parks, historic sites, public and private, it is clear that many of the people who develop—whether they are appropriate or inappropriate from the historic perspective—sites around a park or a national site actually themselves very much love history, attract people who are there and ideally in these situations you should be allies. It doesn't always work that way.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And you have a series of things that you are proposing here to try to help accommodate things with the Borough of Gettysburg to try to make sure that tourists move when they come into the region. Are there additional proposals on the table? I mean Jeb Stewart is wandering around. Where was he? Are there other things the National Park Service could pick up that would strengthen this? Because many times people will go back to the Gettysburg area multiple times, not just once, because they won't necessarily do a four-day. They are going to want to eat. They are going to want to stay somewhere. And if you had, as part of a compromise, if there were additional satellite things, have any of those been considered?
Mr. GALVIN. Yes. In fact, the plan proposes several items. I mentioned them in my testimony: a shuttle downtown, an addition of a fourth day kind of tour that would include sites within Gettysburg.
Right now, before the plan is finished, we have moved into several locations, historic buildings within Gettysburg, and we are certainly willing to do more of that. We are anxious to cooperate with all the communities around all our parks.
Mr. SOUDER. You had the Wills House listed here and several others?
Mr. GALVIN. Yes.
Mr. SOUDER. Are there others that have been proposed that you, at this point, haven't taken?
Mr. GALVIN. We would consider any offer that enhances the interpretation and educational programs of the battlefield.
Mr. SOUDER. One other statement that I read here that I was curious about, it says, ''On the national level other concerns and questions were noted. Ensuring that the site was appropriate for development from the perspective of historical significance and finding mechanisms to protect Baltimore Pike from unsuitable development were important issues to many.''
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
What precisely do you mean by ''unsuitable development''? Could this be a rival area where another group of motels, businesses develop? Are you looking to zone that? What does that statement mean?
Mr. GALVIN. Actually Mr. Kinsley has purchased some adjacent tracts to the tract that will be developed as the visitors center museum, which would preclude any commercial development along the Baltimore Pike there. Your statement implies exactly what we were worried about.
Mr. SOUDER. Have you looked at in a plan of even if you have controlled the immediate area, is there still area between there and downtown where, in effect, a new shopping area would develop, much like in Yosemite it pushed it out but it still popped up? Will an alternative development be created by this, as opposed to downtown Gettysburg?
Mr. GALVIN. We think this site really provides good insurance against inappropriate development. There is development very close to the existing site, so I think the site, the placement of the facility on the site, the fact that it is over the brow of the hill behind Cemetery Ridge, makes it a good site.
We have done viewshed studies because obviously I guess you could characterize our own development as inappropriate if it can be seen from some of the more sensitive places in the battlefield. And, in fact, none of the 19 interpretative tours and stops in the battlefield—you can't see this proposed development from any of them.
Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Souder.
The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Jones.
Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
I would like to ask the witness, can you tell me who owns Gettysburg National Park?
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GALVIN. Who owns Gettysburg National Park?
Mr. JONES. Yes, sir.
Mr. GALVIN. The people of this country.
Mr. JONES. Okay. So you do think that it is very important that the people that pay your salary and pay my salary are part of the process in making decisions that will impact on property that they own, right?
Mr. GALVIN. Indeed I do.
Mr. JONES. Okay. Well, Mr. Chairman, the reason I bring this up is I represent the Third District of North Carolina and we have Cape Lookout National Park. Last year I had to introduce legislation to protect about 100 wild horses that had been traced back to the Spanish mustangs back in the 1600s. The Park Service fought me the whole way.
What disturbed me was not that they fought me but they fought the people of a county that had grown up with these horses that wanted to protect part of North Carolina's heritage and history.
And what bothers me, Mr. Chairman, as I started reading through this information and listening to the witness is that it always seems that the Park Service puts on a show by saying we are listening to the people but it doesn't matter what the people want to see happen.
Let me talk about another case in my district. It is the lighthouse at Cape Hatteras. We had a hearing last year. The people of that part of North Carolina wanted to see a barrier built in the ocean to protect the lighthouse from beach erosion and damage from the ocean for $4 million.
The Park Service decided it was better to move it 2,900 feet based on some scientific committee that the Park Service paid to give them an opinion.
My point there is that is going to cost the taxpayers $9.8 million, plus the fact, Mr. Chairman, an engineering group says they are not sure because of structural damage existing in this lighthouse that it can be moved safely.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
My point goes back to this issue involving the Gettysburg Park is I am continually amazed and concerned with the attitude of the Park Service always seeming to know what is better than the people.
And that is what is wrong, in my opinion, with many of the Federal agencies. When I ran in 1994 it was to remind these agencies, just like a Member of Congress, who pays our salary. It is the people.
There are many times that we need to make a decision that the people will not like, but what little bit I know about this situation, based on some research on my part and watching some TV feature interviews about it, is that it seems that the people have been left out of this process.
And I am further disturbed, quite frankly, when I see that Congressman Goodling and Senator Specter asked the Park Service for additional time and the Park Service says to a senator and a Member of Congress that represents this area, ''We cannot extend the time. We've already given it 60 days,'' I believe it says, ''and that's long enough for public comment.''
I hope my point is that I do not know what it is going to take for the Park Service to fully understand that Members of Congress are elected by the people and we are the voice of the people in our district. And I think that is why there is such a crowd here today.
One other comment. I hope that you will gather from this, as we go down the road and other issues come about, that we cannot do enough to give the people the opportunity to voice their opinion on these issues on this property that they own. Thank you.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Jones.
The gentleman from Puerto Rico.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. I just wanted to ask something of the witness.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HANSEN. Go ahead.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Mr. Galvin, you mentioned that they had made a cash flow analysis and other related financial documents regarding the proposal. Can we have copies of the analysis for our record?
Mr. GALVIN. Yes. We have the economic analysis. It is a public document. There are certain financial documents that are protected by the Privacy Act and we have discussed that with various Members of Congress. We would be happy to discuss it with you.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. I would like to have copies for the record.
Mr. GALVIN. Those that are commonly available to the public, certainly we will provide everything.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Thank you.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Galvin, we fully realize that nothing happens around this place without debate on both sides. That is just the great American way. But I think Mr. Souder brought up a point that really kind of bothers me, and he ticked off all of those organizations that are entirely against this thing.
That makes me wonder. Doesn't that give you some concern when he ticked off—I don't know if you have that list there handy but he listed all those. Boy, that is an overwhelming amount of people that are opposing this.
Mr. GALVIN. Yes, Mr. Chairman, you are absolutely right. Nothing gets done around this town without a lot of controversy.
On balance, as I said in my statement, we have held 50 public meetings and have received 4,600 public comments.
Mr. HANSEN. Excuse me, sir. What does a public meeting mean in your mind? Give me a definition of a public meeting. There have been public meetings with two people standing there and no one else had even heard of the thing.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Are these meetings that were advertised and held in an auditorium and a whole bunch of folks got the opportunity to come and it was adequately circulated in the paper and the news and all that?
Mr. GALVIN. I believe in this instance there has been no lack of public attention to this issue. Mr. Jones mentioned that he had seen it on television. It has been on network television any number of times.
We have received 4,600 comments. Most of them are in favor of this proposal. The National Trust for Historic Preservation favors this proposal. The Organization of American Historians favors this proposal. Other townships in the vicinity favor this proposal.
So you can tick off a long list on either side, to be sure.
Mr. HANSEN. How much depth did you go into? How much did you lay out the proposal, line upon line, precept upon precept, or was this one of these things where you gave a general concept that the parameters were five miles apart? How far did you do this?
Mr. GALVIN. Well, this is the draft General Management Plan.
Mr. HANSEN. Was that available to all these folk?
Mr. GALVIN. Absolutely. It was on public comment for 60 days. It is 329 pages long and includes a full Environmental Impact Statement. Prior to that there was a Development Concept Plan and environmental assessment.
The responses to the request for proposals, absent private financial information, have been made available to the public. We will make anything available to the public that will enlighten the debate.
Mr. HANSEN. How many of those meetings were held prior to that being released?
Mr. GALVIN. All of them. Prior to it being released? Maybe as many as half.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HANSEN. So half of them were done before the plan was released; is that right?
Mr. GALVIN. Well, the process includes some public meetings just for scoping, to develop the alternative. So even if you had started with the General Management Plan, there would be a certain number of public meetings before we put this together.
So there have been meetings throughout this process. As I say, the process has not lacked for public comment.
Mr. HANSEN. I have here how many were there and it says six were the only ones that were done after that was released and a whole bunch more were done before it was released. I won't haggle with you over the details but I think it is very important that people have the opportunity to know exactly what they are looking at before they have a voice in this thing.
Mr. GALVIN. We do, too.
Mr. HANSEN. You have to know what you are debating, just like we have to know what we are voting for.
Mr. GALVIN. We agree.
Mr. HANSEN. I have another question. Last time I was up there I took my wife and some of my children and we walked through the area and then we walked right into the town. I mean it was within walking distance. It was right there. Am I wrong? I mean you folks here can correct me, but we walked in. Now under this plan I guess we couldn't do that, if we accept this plan.
Mr. GALVIN. Yes, you would just walk into it from a different angle. This is close to town.
Mr. HANSEN. What is the distance?
Mr. GALVIN. We are moving the visitors center about a mile.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HANSEN. Now the first one was contiguous, if I recall.
Mr. GALVIN. About a half a mile.
Mr. HANSEN. So now if I want to do this I would really have to get in my car and drive; is that right?
Mr. GALVIN. It depends on whether you want to walk a half a mile. Within two-fifths of a mile of the current development there are 100 businesses. I think you could say with some confidence that when we move this, within a half a mile of the development there will be 100 businesses.
Mr. HANSEN. Half a mile?
Mr. GALVIN. Mm-hmm.
Mr. HANSEN. Let me ask you another thing. The gentleman from Puerto Rico brought up an interesting question. You brought up the idea that you are going to raise $20 million. This is voluntary money. People are going to volunteer this money. My staff tells me that figure is now closer to $27 million. Around here nobody haggles about $7 million except a few of us from the West.
But anyway, with that said, let me say this. I have been on this Committee for 19 years and I have never seen anybody make it. I always hear these pie-in-the-sky ideas of a park—oh boy, we are going to get this public money in and it is all going to come and we are going to get this much or that much. Then what happens is they turn around and they ask us for it.
I have sat here time after time saying gee, our intent was good, our motives were pure, but the money didn't come in. So gee, Congress, we know you have an endless supply of money, even though you are $5 trillion in debt. Why don't you come up with the bucks?
Now give me a straight answer. Do you really think they can raise this money
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GALVIN. Yes.
Mr. HANSEN. Give me an example of the last time they raised the full amount.
Mr. GALVIN. Well, the biggest fundraising campaign we have been involved with, of course, was the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island, which is about $300 million. Now that is extraordinary, to be sure. Mount Rushmore, about $10 million.
Mr. HANSEN. I think Mr. Iacocca did a heck of a job on that one. I will agree.
Mr. GALVIN. Washington Monument, $5 million. The regional visitors center in Philadelphia, $60 million. So we have some experience at this.
Now you are right. You are right in the sense that if this doesn't work, we have to go back to the drawing board. But in the meantime, no harm is going to be done to Gettysburg National Military Park.
Mr. HANSEN. But the vast majority of them, and I will agree with what you said but the vast majority of them, they come back here. But in your heart of hearts, you feel they can swing this one?
Mr. GALVIN. Yes, I do. I wouldn't be endorsing this proposal if I didn't.
Mr. HANSEN. How much more time have you got before you retire?
Mr. GALVIN. Well, sometimes it seems like it ought to be a very short amount of time.
Mr. HANSEN. People try to retire us every two years. Well, I am just curious because I would call you back if they didn't make it.
Anyway, any further questions from the Committee? I wish Mr. Miller was here. I know he had some questions for the Park Service.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Jones, Mr. Souder, Ranking Member, Mr. Romero-Barceló? I recognize the gentleman from Puerto Rico.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. There is a letter from Mr. Miller that was sent to the director of the National Park Service and he said that ''Based on the NPS request for proposals, your response regarding the release of the Kinsley proposal is just simply wrong. Please refer to the attachment D of the request for proposals whereby the NPS states that your failure to mark information contained in your proposal as secret or confidential, commercial and financial information will be treated by the NPS as evidence that the information is not exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. And except for Mr. Kinsley's personal financial statement, no such markings appear on the Kinsley proposal. On that fact alone, you have no basis under FOIA, as you claim, to deny the information to the public.''
In other words, apparently information which is not privileged and is not confidential was denied to the public, financial information.
Mr. GALVIN. Well, we have been guided by our release of information to the public obviously by our solicitors. In our response to that letter we said, ''Under the applicable FOIA requirements, the fact that proprietary information is not marked as confidential does not, in and of itself, authorize the release of such information.''
It does not have to be marked as confidential on the proposal to be covered by the privacy considerations, I believe.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. So that was the reason why the information was denied to the public?
Mr. GALVIN. That is correct.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Also one of the other concerns that Mr. Miller has expressed is the fact of the information that the NPS is conveying to the public to the effect that the materials that were used in the NPS presentation to service clubs assert that Gettysburg NP is broke and that the entire NPS is bankrupt and that these documents further go on to blame Congress for not providing the NPS with funds.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Has the NPS ever asked Congress for funds for this?
Mr. GALVIN. Not for this particular development. It has been tested in our priority system and would not show up for some time.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. So there has never been a request to Congress?
Mr. GALVIN. No.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. So no funds have been denied to the NPS for this.
Mr. GALVIN. That is correct.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. And why were these statements then made?
Mr. GALVIN. I don't know that we have made statements that say we were broke or bankrupt. We certainly talked a lot up here about our backlog, had debates with the Appropriations Committee about the amount of the backlog. General Accounting Office has looked at it.
While there is not a precise figure, there is general agreement that it is in the billions of dollars and we have a list that is about $1 billion long that we would plan to try to ask Congress for over the next 10 years.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. We have a document that was submitted by the National Park Service, talking about the service clubs in the context of the visitors center and the museum proposal. In the second paragraph it specifically says as follows: ''The bad news is that we cannot currently carry out that mission of Gettysburg NMP because we are broke. It cannot be stated more simply or more honestly than that. On a broader scale, the entire NPS is bankrupt.''
Mr. GALVIN. Okay, I will acknowledge the accuracy of the quote. It is not quite the way I would put it but the fact is that if you ask for $40 million here, you are displacing $40 million worth of other needed public facilities.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And it seems to me if we can protect Gettysburg National Military Park without spending taxpayer dollars, that means that $40 million is going to go someplace in the system and do some good. And I don't see frankly why we wouldn't pursue it.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Mr. Miller's issue is that if you need the money and you feel that you can do it better with public proposals, requests for donations, and you feel that that also would release the money for other things in the government, but why put the blame on Congress and say you are broke? I mean you don't have to mislead the public.
Mr. GALVIN. I have not done that.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. NPS did it. You are representing NPS here. That is why we want you to convey that back to the people at NPS.
Mr. GALVIN. I certainly will.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Galvin. I would like to point out to you that we have a number of questions that we are going to give you in written form. Would you respond to those?
Mr. GALVIN. Yes, I certainly will, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Galvin, if I may point out, no disrespect to you or others but we would really like to have an answer to them in kind of a short time.
Mr. GALVIN. I understand, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HANSEN. Many times we sit around and before long the whole issue is resolved and then we get the answers back. The Pentagon started that game and I notice others have all played that game. So if we could have those back tomorrow we would sure appreciate it.
Mr. GALVIN. We will get them back as quick as we can, Mr. Chairman.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. I want to ask you one other thing. That is I would really appreciate it if you and the superintendent, members of the Park Service would stay here and listen to this other testimony.
Mr. GALVIN. We plan to do so.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you very much. We will excuse you and thank you for your testimony.
Our next and last panel is Mr. Robert Kinsley, Eileen Woodford, Walter L. Powell, Ted Streeter and Franklin R. Silbey. If they would all come forth, please.
We appreciate you folks being with us today and taking the time to come down and prepare testimony for us. You heard my instructions on the light. It is a very important issue. If you have to go over a couple of minutes, that is all right. Please don't go much more than that.
I would like to take you in the order that I read your names. Would that be all right with everybody? Mr. Kinsley, if you would like to go first, we will turn to you, sir. I would appreciate it if you would all pull that mike up close to you because the recorder has to pick it up and we have to pick it up. So if you are an old pilot, you know about kissing the mike. Bring it in close, sir.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT KINSLEY, MANAGING PARTNER, KINSLEY EQUITIES
Mr. KINSLEY. I know about that, sir.
I am pleased that the House Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands is holding this hearing to discuss the issues related to the proposed visitors center and museum at Gettysburg and I welcome this opportunity to appear before you to discuss this very important issue.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Let me just say that I vividly remember my first visit to Gettysburg on a seventh grade school history class trip. Standing in Devil's Den, I experienced the sense of awe that many who have visited that historic site experience. That experience remains with me today and is one of the motivating factors why I feel so strongly about creating a new visitors center and museum that honors and respects the heritage of Gettysburg.
When I first learned of this project it was from other developers who requested that I either purchase their lands or provide the venture capital necessary to develop their commercial plans. It was my feeling that the proposed sites for these plans were far from the battle action and also the Borough of Gettysburg and, quite frankly, were overshadowed by commercial lodging and conference activity. My belief was that the history of the Civil War should not be presented to our children and our grandchildren in that context.
With all that being said, I submitted our own proposal and it was selected by the Park Service. Upon selection, we then began negotiating, working together to create a plan for the visitors center that would be a model for privatization of such park projects.
Since we began our work together, there has been an outreach process that has encouraged input from the local community, historians, environmentalists and from all Americans. The Park Service has conducted many public meetings and public input has been an integral part in the evolution of this project.
In an effort to create a dialogue with the Gettysburg community, we have met with a committee of the Council of the Borough of Gettysburg, the Gettysburg Convention and Visitors Bureau, the Adams County Gettysburg Chamber of Commerce and the area's retail merchants association. We have also participated in the borough's working committee which has led to the formation of a steering committee to develop an interpretive plan for the historic Borough of Gettysburg.
We hope to continue working with borough representatives as the museum and visitors center project progresses to ensure that the important history of the borough is told along with the history of the battle.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Last year we established the nonprofit Gettysburg National Battlefield Museum Foundation to undertake the visitors center project. The goals of the foundation parallel those of the Park Service: to preserve the artifacts and the archives, to restore and preserve the Cyclorama painting and to provide an expanded quality interpretative and educational experience for the visitor to Gettysburg.
Of utmost importance will be the restorations of Ziegler's Grove and the high-water mark, which are situated adjacent to the National Cemetery. We have done archeological and historic surveys which have determined that the proposed site for the museum, south of Hunt Avenue between the former Fantasyland site and Baltimore Pike, saw no significant battle action.
The site is located in an area out of the direct view shed of the high-water mark of the battle and Culp's Hill. This permits the building to be built in such a way that it does not intrude on the landscape. The building can be situated away from Kinzie's Knoll and the position of Rugg's Battery, which are at the northeastern edge of the site, thereby permitting these historic places to be appropriately interpreted. It is also a site in an area that can be protected and buffered from commercialism.
The Museum Foundation will be funded by grants from other foundations, corporate sponsorships, local businesses and contributions from the American people. We are confident that we will be able to raise the necessary capital to complete this project.
When the project has been fully funded and the debt retired, the property will be presented to the National Park Service as a gift to the American people. The Statue of Liberty Ellis Island project stands before us as a model for success, having received over $400 million in contributions from the American people.
We are hopeful that the new museum will increase overall visitorship to the Gettysburg area. We believe that the new center and the enhanced interpretative experience will spark the interest of students, seniors, families and all Americans. Such improved offerings shall bring more visitors to the area and will lengthen the duration of their stay.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Museum Foundation is committed to providing a more complete interpretation of the events that took place in and around Gettysburg in July of 1863. A well planned, coordinated transportation system is integral to that effort. A thoughtful approach to transportation will allow for a meaningful experience for the visitor, as well as increased economic benefit for the Borough of Gettysburg.
We look forward to building a strong and effective partnership among the foundation, the Park Service and the Borough of Gettysburg and the surrounding townships.
It is expected that a national fundraising campaign will be conducted by the foundation, simultaneously with the planning of the project. Construction will commence approximately two years after the definitive agreement with the Park Service is negotiated, but only after the necessary funds have been pledged or received.
All net proceeds realized by the foundation from operations after payment of debt service and the cost of operations will benefit the Park Service.
I believe that the Gettysburg National Military Park has a talented and committed team. The park, together with the foundation and the borough, can make this project a true success. Gettysburg and its history belong to all Americans. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kinsley and The Baltimore Pike Artillery Line pamphlet may be found at the end of the hearing.]
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Kinsley. We appreciate your statement.
I ask unanimous consent that the statement of Senator Santorum be included in the record. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Senator Santorum may be found at the end of the hearing.]
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HANSEN. We will now turn to Eileen Woodford of the NPCA.
STATEMENT OF EILEEN WOODFORD, NORTHEAST REGIONAL DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARKS AND CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION
Ms. WOODFORD. Mr. Chairman, my name is Eileen Woodford and I am the Northeast Regional Director for the National Parks and Conservation Association. I am pleased to present this summary testimony concerning the proposed museum complex and General Management Plan at Gettysburg National Military Park.
NPCA is America's only private nonprofit citizen organization dedicated solely to protecting, preserving and enhancing the U.S. National Park System. An association of citizens protecting America's parks, NPCA was founded in 1919 and today has nearly 400,000 members. For the purposes of this oral testimony, we are speaking as well for the National Trust for Historic Preservation.
NPCA strongly supports the draft General Management Plan and museum proposal for Gettysburg National Military Park. This innovative plan has the ability to return Gettysburg to being the world-class national park it so much deserves to be.
NPCA did not make this decision lightly to support the museum proposal. We understand only too well what profound changes the proposal and the General Management Plan will bring to the park, but those changes are necessary. We can no longer tolerate mold and mites eating away at the park's collection. We can no longer tolerate watching the paint chip off the Cyclorama painting. We can no longer tolerate visitors putting up with a second-rate experience. And we can no longer tolerate the intrusion of a wholly inadequate visitors center and a dysfunction Cyclorama building onto some of the most sacred ground in this country.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
At the outset of the planning process for the museum complex, NPCA stated that we supported the concept of using a public/private partnership to construct and manage this critically needed facility, but we would only support a proposal that passed the most stringent of tests and proved to uphold the highest of resource protection standards. Indeed, aspects of the initial museum facility, as proposed by Kinsley Equities, were highly unacceptable to us.
However, because of the dire situation at the park, it was necessary to explore a constructive outcome, and both the National Park Service and Kinsley were very open to public input for making the proposal acceptable. Towards that end we participated in nearly every single public meeting sponsored by the Park Service. We examined all public documents and provided written comments to NPS stating our specific concerns. We met with both supporters and opponents of the museum proposal to hear their points of view, including my two neighbors here at the table. We articulated strict new standards by which to judge the appropriateness of related activities. We subjected the museum proposal to extensive outside financial and economic analysis.
In the end, NPCA has concluded that the GMP, with the museum complex, is sound and in the very best interest of the historic resources and the American public.
I will now speak to specific aspects of the planning process, including the building program and location of the complex and the project's financial structure, to explain how NPCA came to its position of support.
Given the severity and extensiveness of the park's needs, a facility that combines a number of interrelated operations makes the most functional and financial sense. In addition, after a thorough examination of the Advisory Council's report on the history of the LeVan property, NPCA believes this site is suitable for the museum complex and that historically significant resources that exist there can be protected through careful siting of the new facility.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
With regard to the price paid for the parcel, all of the proposers would have faced similar situations. Indeed, one proposer had identified the same tract as a potential development site.
A major concern for NPCA was that the project be financially viable but not violate the integrity of the park or compromise the stewardship role of the NPS over the historic resources. To give us this assurance, NPCA hired a private consultant with substantial expertise to review the project's economic impact methodology, which looked at overall visitation projections and revenue attendance estimates, the operating projections, meaning the cash flow of the project, and the project financing. Our consultant determined that the overall financial structure of the proposal appeared to be sound and reasonable.
Finally, I want to address the public planning process for both the DCP and the General Management Plan. Overall, NPCA found the public planning process to be exceptional. At public meetings for both the museum proposal and the General Management Plan, the park staff was willing to listen to a wide range of opinions and ideas. Additionally, the amount and detail of historical documentation presented in the GMP public meetings was unparalleled in my four years with NPCA.
The use of the documentation in the meetings brought the public into the process of framing the plan's alternatives and allowed for both the Park Service and the public to evaluate the environmental consequences of any proposed action as that proposal was being developed.
As a result, there is a very reasonable range of alternatives, all of which are grounded in sound and extensive analysis, as well as vetted by extensive and exhaustive public input.
In addition, I was greatly impressed with the park's specific effort to reach out to local governments, the business community, park partners and the institutional community through open morning working group meetings. The public process was nothing less than open and thorough.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, NPCA and the National Trust thank you again for this opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee today. We agree this highly innovative project, proposed at a place considered to be hallowed ground, requires the closest of scrutiny. NPS has presented us with a sound plan that has met all the tests put to it.
We enthusiastically support the adoption and implementation of the General Management Plan, including the museum. Indeed this is the very kind of plan that is needed to honor those who fought and fell at Gettysburg. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Woodford may be found at the end of the hearing.]
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you.
Dr. Powell, we will turn to you, sir.
STATEMENT OF WALTER L. POWELL, Ph.D, PRESIDENT, GETTYSBURG BATTLEFIELD PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION
Dr. POWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, for the opportunity to speak to you this morning.
My name is Walter Powell and I am president of the Gettysburg Battlefield Preservation Association, a locally based nonprofit established in 1959. Something of our organization's background and my background appears further in the written testimony and I will refer you to that.
Gentlemen, everyone here, 104 years ago today, today, President Grover Cleveland signed legislation creating Gettysburg National Park, a momentous occasion that followed several years of lobbying by Civil War veterans concerned about the future and preserving the land and historic features that constituted the battlefield.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Once again this morning we are at a defining moment in the history of that battlefield, but this time less from the threat of losing land but from losing an ideal; less from gaining an improved visitors center than a diminished sense of what is fitting and proper for a national shrine.
For despite what the National Park Service would lead us to believe, their proposal is less about resource protection than it is about establishing privatization of the park, less about saving relics than it is about saving the NPS bureaucracy the burden of asking the American public for funds. This is, in our view, in short, the selling of the battlefield to the highest bidder.
The NPS will counter that they and the developer have already listened to public concerns by reducing the amount of commercialism in the proposed facility. They will also counter that the current visitors center already has a book store that competes with other Gettysburg businesses. But what they are less eager for the public to understand is how much the commercial elements in the proposed new center will be larger than virtually anything else that currently exists in Gettysburg or the adjacent two-fifths miles alluded to and what an impact this will have on local businesses, despite the claims of a badly flawed economic analysis paid for by the National Park Service.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, it is for us as an organization the final straw when the agency charged with protecting sacred ground allows the money-lenders in the temple or, in a more modern context, a fast food restaurant in the middle of the cemetery, for it is to be built on battlefield, sacred ground.
And I repeat that here because the NPS has made much of the claim that no major battle action occurred here. As historian Richard Rollins has demonstrated in a letter recently submitted to this Committee, the area known as Kinzie's Knoll was an important Union artillery position and the artillery pieces here were instrumental in the repulse of the Confederate attack on a portion of Culp's Hill.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But even so, the debate over whether the action here was heavy or not is irrelevant. It is reductio ad adsurdam. Using the same logic, might we not also argue that a floating restaurant in view of the USS ARIZONA is okay because fewer men died in the harbor?
In the words of former NPS Director Roger Kennedy before the late House subcommittee chair Mike Synar at a hearing on the infamous Seminary Ridge railroad cut fiasco in 1994, and I paraphrase, all the land on the Gettysburg Battlefield is equally important. Well, is it or isn't it?
Our organization's concern, however, goes much further than the issue of commercialization. As I noted in previous testimony before the Senate subcommittee in February of 1998, we continue to wonder how much we can trust the actions and public statements by the national park regarding the particulars of this proposal and its real consequences and benefits.
As I noted then, the NPS has fostered a growing feeling is mistrust through a pattern of withholding information from the public and since last year, with the release of the General Management Plan, creating a document that allows the public effectively to consider the merits of no alternative but the Kinsley plan.
In fact, the draft GMP is a seriously flawed instrument because, like a true planning document, it should offer a range of alternatives for serious consideration, but does not do so and, in our view, violates the intent of the National Environmental Policy Act to require it to provide the public with a full range of alternatives.
Mr. Chairman, we are deeply troubled by these NPS actions, none the more so since the draft GMP was released. This park has had a history since 1991 of poor or controversial management decisions, especially the disastrous Seminary Ridge railroad cut land exchange and I would think Director Stanton and the park administration would bend over backwards to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. For in these troubled times, as this Committee well knows, perception is reality. It is unfortunate that the public and the press have had to resort to FOIA requests to get information for public disclosure.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It wouldn't be appropriate for us, however, to come to this hearing merely to criticize the park proposal. The needs that led them here have been legitimate and we know that overall Federal spending on parks has declined in recent years. But we believe the NPS has failed, for whatever reason, to present an accurate picture of its needs before Congress and has gone full speed ahead with the Kinsley initiative despite a growing chorus of protests from the Gettysburg community and from many in the Civil War preservation community.
In fact, we believe a solution is at hand. In summary, Mr. Chairman, we believe in watching the public reaction over the past year that solution, a compromise solution, affirms the need for improved facilities, supports many of the goals outlined in the General Management Plan, but affirms the need to explore some of the alternatives to building a new facility on the Hunt Avenue, LeVan or Kinsley tract.
That alternative plan might include demolition and rebuilding of the current visitors center and, if the National Tower is eventually acquired, the development of appropriately designed and screened facilities on ground that has already been compromised and is very close to the edge of the borough limits. All of this would keep businesses close to Steinwehr Avenue, maintain easy access to the National Cemetery and prevent developing battlefield land that, at the moment, is much as it was in 1863. These alternatives, we believe, still allow for a partnership of Federal, state and private funds and, more importantly, would be in stark contrast to the current proposal.
Mr. Chairman, in our letter to Superintendent Dr. John Latschar on October 16, 1998 commenting on the draft GMP, we urged him to ''give up his pride of authorship of this proposal and demonstrate true leadership by dropping this plan.''
In public statements since then he has refused to do so, telling us in so many words that if the plan is to be stopped, go to the Congress or to the courts. We accept Dr. Latschar's invitation and on behalf of all members of the Gettysburg Battlefield Preservation Association, we urge this Committee to halt the current plan and seize an unparalleled opportunity to turn public anger and mistrust into a real partnership of the public, by the people, for the people, so that the Gettysburg Battlefield, precious to us all, will not perish from the earth.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The prepared statement of Mr. Powell and letter from Richard Rollins may be found at the end of the hearing.]
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Powell.
Mr. Streeter, we will turn to you, sir.
STATEMENT OF TED STREETER, COUNCILMAN, BOROUGH OF GETTYSBURG
Mr. STREETER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am Ted Streeter. I represent the Gettysburg Borough Council, who, in turn, represents the people of Gettysburg.
First and foremost, I would like to express our appreciation for the opportunity to appear in front of you. We regard it as a reaffirmation of the democratic process and one which we have long looked for. The written testimony that I have submitted to you on behalf of the Gettysburg Council can basically be summarized in two sentences with regard to the economic situation in Gettysburg.
First of all, Gettysburg is a one-industry town. It is inextricably linked to tourism and that can never change. The second point is, obviously following from the first, that whatever happens to tourism in the battlefield area undoubtedly cannot help but affect the Gettysburg Borough.
We believe that the Kinsley plan does affect the Gettysburg Borough and that it will affect it adversely, to be polite.
You have in front of you in your packet a graphic which we submitted. It shows on the left the current location of the Gettysburg Visitors Center and on the right, the proposed location of the Gettysburg Visitors Center. As you alluded to, Mr. Hansen, the current Gettysburg center is located just across the street from the Steinwehr Avenue business district, within two-fifths of a mile of over 100 businesses. There is adequate parking currently in the visitors center for people who want to park there for long periods of time, thus relieving parking congestion on Steinwehr Avenue and visit the shops there.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Movement of the visitors center, I believe it will be closer to nine-tenths of a mile from the current commercial zone, will have two effects, two major effects. First of all, it will physically isolate the visitors center from the Steinwehr Avenue business district. Pedestrian access will not be as affordable as it was before. Indeed, it will be quite a hike, contrary to, I think, what was previously said.
Secondly, it will destroy the parking lot when the current visitors center is razed, which will eliminate the ability to park and visit the Steinwehr Avenue business district.
The second effect will be economic isolation of our Steinwehr Avenue business district. The new visitors center is what has been called a one-stop shopping mall and I think that is a very accurate description. It is going to contain a theater. It is going to contain a museum. It is going to contain a retail outlet. It is going to contain a restaurant of some sort. It is going to contain guide facilities and tour bus facilities.
And with regard to the restaurant, Mr. Chairman, we are told by economic analysis done by the park that the restaurant will be capable of serving 615,000 meals a year. Now, I know nothing about the restaurant business but the immediate thing that pops into my mind is Hershey Park, which is the closest facility and would seem to have a restaurant comparable to that.
The combination of these two factors—the economic isolation and the physical isolation—can lead the average tourist and his family to drive to the current visitors center, get out of their car or bus, go into the visitors center, visit the museum, see the film, hire a guide or a tour bus, take a tour, come back, purchase something at the retail center, have a bite to eat at the cafeteria and leave for any other major attraction in the area without ever having to visit the Steinwehr business area.
Consequently, this potentially has a devastating effect on the people who have worked very, very hard in those businesses for the past 20 some years to build them, in accordance with earlier park policy which encouraged that sort of thing. The park, in its infinite wisdom, has characterized these people as greedy, short-sighted, avaricious, whatever, in order to discredit their credibility, but I am going to spend a couple of minutes and tell you about a couple of them.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
One of the most greedy of these people is Dick Peterson. He and his wife Pauleen coincidentally are two of the nicest people that the Lord ever put on the earth. They have worked for 20 years to build what they have. It is a nice business. It is a good addition to the Steinwehr Avenue business district. During the summer they hire over 12 people to do their theater presentations, man their book store and what have you. It is accessible now by foot traffic from the current visitors center and by people who park in the lot. Elimination of that visitors center and its lot will virtually eliminate the access that these people have.
I will tell you about Emmett Patterson. Emmett is an easy target. Emmett runs the local McDonald's. McDonald's is a megacorp. It is greedy.
Emmett Patterson employs three people full-time and over 80 kids, Gettysburg kids, during the summer, part-time, kids working for high school money. If the visitors center is moved, he is going to be forced into unfair competition with his own government, Mr. Chairman, and that is going to result in obviously a loss of jobs, a loss of jobs to these kids and the community.
Mr. Chairman, I am not talking about the economics of greed. I am not talking about the economics of avarice. I am talking about the economics of concern and indeed the economics of survival. These people have a right to survive. They have a right to prosper in their businesses and they do not need to be driven out by unfair competition.
Now I might close by saying that the situation was obviously not brought about by the Park Service's offer of cooperation with the borough. Were that so, we wouldn't be here today. Nor would you have been burdened for the past year with the problems that you are burdened with.
Nor is it a situation that has been brought about by the Park Service coming in and saying, ''We know what is best for you.''
No, sir, the situation has been brought to a head the way it is now because the Park Service has said to the borough, ''We don't care about you. We are going to pursue our own dreams. We are going to pursue our own agenda. We are going to build this monument to ourselves and what happens to you is your tough luck.''
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We ask only for meaningful participation. The gentleman from North Carolina hit it right on the head. We ask only for meaningful participation in the process. We have not had it to date.
The GMP that is the result of this is a prototype document. It will affect the National Park Service and the American people for the next 25 to 50 years. Let us take the time. Let us do it right. Let us get people, the people who own the park, to participate. And to that end, we are coming to you, sir, to help us do it. I appreciate your time. Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Streeter may be found at the end of the hearing.]
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Streeter.
Our last witness is Mr. Silbey.
STATEMENT OF FRANKLIN R. SILBEY, PRESIDENT, FRANKLIN SILBEY & ASSOCIATES
Mr. SILBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity to testify. I am very grateful for this oversight hearing.
For 17 years I ran investigations and oversight subcommittees on Capitol Hill, House and Senate, for both parties, and I represent no economic interest of any kind. I am not going to engage in personalities or questions of character.
I learned when I worked in oversight that the real truth often lies behind the curtain, and that the most important thing in oversight is to look behind that curtain and ask questions about what really is going on. To that effect, I have done my own research. My information has been shared with Majority and Minority staff, who have done a marvelous job and have rendered every fair courtesy. I believe the public has been prevented from hearing much information that is germane, vital, factual that goes to the heart of this issue that have never seen light of day before.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This is all about money. This has nothing to do with patriotism.
Your colleagues just spoke about the arrogance of the Park Service. It has never been better exhibited than in this instance. What you have here is a group of senior public officials who have decided on a plan to give a commercial developer a virtual monopoly on the dollars that 2 million tourists annually bring to Gettysburg. They decided before hand on that plan. They did not tell Congress a thing about it. They have methodically decided to circumvent the congressional authorization, appropriation and oversight process through the so-called public/private concept, and thus far they have been successful.
They have never considered any other alternative, never told Congress they had a problem. They plunged right ahead and, while denying access to all this vital information, came up with a commercial plan they kept secret for quite a while. The commercial development plan was finalized May 9, 1997. It was finally released July 23, 1998.
Any and all public comment meetings that took place they speak about were largely meaningless. The NPS is very quick and voluble to speak about all kinds of open discussions. Those open discussions were useless because the public was denied access to all the basic information on which they were basing decisions. They were denied access to a development document that says at the top, ''a small mall.''
This'' small mall'' will have an enormous commercial footprint—6,000 square feet of restaurant, 6,000 square feet of retail store, largest in the county, a large bus terminal complete with busses and battlefield guides. The guides made it a condition of agreeing to participate that they would have a presence on each of these tourist busses.
This is commercialization by any other name. Yet in the hearing held last February before the Senate Natural Resources Committee, Mr. Galvin of NPS said, ''There will be no commercialization of the park.'' How that jibes with these retail operations and their immense volume, somebody who is far more knowledgeable than I will have to explain.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Rich Rollins, a historian who met with two of park historians, Mr. Hartwig and Miss Harrison, told them, ''Don't put this thing where Kinzie's Battery was.'' Yet he was sent a letter that said Kinzies Battery played a significant role in the second day's battle.
We have an advisory commission acting as a rubber stamp for the park. We are told there is a sunshine law requiring all advisory committee meetings to be open to the public. I have a document here dated July 12, 1996, in which, ''As before, we will also meet at 2 p.m. in the visitors center conference room for our premeeting caucus.'' This is the written policy of the superintendent of the park.
There has been a recent archeological search of the LeVan site. They found relics. A Freedom of Information Act request has been sent. We can't get at what they found nor even seen those relics.
I had the privilege of working for John Moss, author of the Freedom of Information Act. I know that law reasonably well and have access to attorneys who wrote it. At one point opponents had barraged the park with Freedom of Information Act requests, seeking basic data. NPS actually started denying requests for information on the basis of national security. They cited a Federal regulation that allegedly prevented their compliance with FOIA requests.
What was the real reason? Congress, in its wisdom, enacted an exception to FOIA to protect sensitive national security data submitted by Pentagon contractors. This was the fig leaf they sought to shelter behind and use as grounds for denial of Freedom of Information Act requests.
Then there is the relic argument. NPS gives dog and pony shows in the form of tours of the basement of the visitors center, claiming priceless relics are being ruined. Yet we have a man who is one of the greatest Civil War relic experts in the country, George Lower, saying it absolutely isn't so. What NPS has also chosen not to reveal to the public is that Eastern National Monument Association chose to make them an offer they have ignored and kept from the public. It is to build a climate-controlled, year-round storage facility to store these so-called deteriorating relics.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There is much more, but my time is limited. At this point I welcome many more questions from the Committee about what is a planned desecration of one of the most unique places in America.
I have more documentation germane to what this Committee is seeking to find out. I wish to close with a quotation from General Joshua Chamberlain, hero of the fight on Little Pound Gap, from October, 1889. ''In great deeds, something abides. On great fields, something stays. Forms change and pass. Bodies disappear but spirits linger to consecrate ground for the vision. And reverent men and women from afar, and generations that know us not and that we know not of, heart drawn to see where and by whom great things were suffered and done for them, shall come to this deathless field, to ponder and dream: and lo! The shadow of a mighty presence shall wrap them in its bosom, and the power of the vision pass into their souls.''
Imagine what that man and his comrades of both sides would say about putting this kind of massive commercial facility half a mile from where Lincoln gave his speech and where 5,000 Americans, 3,500 from the battle and 1,500 from other wars, lie buried.
I do not understand for the life of me how anybody can come forward and argue rationally, patriotically, for doing this kind of thing.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Silbey may be found at the end of the hearing.]
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you for your testimony. There are about a dozen hearings going on around here right now, so Mr. Romero-Barceló had to go to one that had some votes on, as some of the other members, and I have the same problem. I guess I will miss some of them.
Mr. Kinsley, I understand that you established the Gettysburg National Battlefield Museum in May of 1998; is that correct?
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. KINSLEY. That is correct.
Mr. HANSEN. How many officers are there in the foundation?
Mr. KINSLEY. We have three interim officers before the full board is selected and it is myself, my chief financial officer and Barbara Sardella.
Mr. HANSEN. Would you give us the names of those, if you would, please? Could you submit the names of your officers of your company?
Mr. KINSLEY. We would be happy to.
Mr. HANSEN. We would appreciate that if you would.
How will your commercial loan be collateralized?
Mr. KINSLEY. Well, I think what you need to know is that this is a $39 million project in which we will raise about $27 million. About $12 to $13 million will be financed by financial institutions. Those loans will be able to be collateralized by the leases that we will have with Eastern National, with the theater and with any other tenants that we will get. There would be no lien on Park Service property. There may be a mortgage on the building, but it would permit operations of the Park Service in the event of a foreclosure through a non-disturbance agreement.
Mr. HANSEN. I assume that you would be expecting to do the construction on this, your construction company. Is that correct?
Mr. KINSLEY. It would be an honor if I would be selected, but I may not be selected. What you have to realize is that in a construction project of this type, about 90 percent of the project is subcontracted out. There will be probably 20 or 30 specialty contractors used on this job and those construction contracts can be awarded by the foundation directly to those subcontractors based on scope and price and ability to perform exceptional work.
Mr. HANSEN. You feel that as a general, it would be a bidding process to see who would be the general contractor on this? Is that how you would look at it?
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. KINSLEY. It is very possible that you will not have a general contractor. You will have different trades contractors and the construction project could be managed and probably would be managed under a construction management contract with a construction manager and all the financial records and books would be open for scrutiny and all monies would be handled by the foundation.
Mr. HANSEN. I would think that would be the way to do it but it contradicts the hearing that was held in the Senate, not to make a big deal out of that, but in that one Senator Bumpers asked the question of Mr. Galvin: ''Let me just start off by asking you if Mr. Kinsley has a contracting firm.'' Mr. Galvin: ''Yes, I believe he does.'' Senator Bumpers: ''Is he a contractor?'' Mr. Galvin: ''Yes.'' Senator Bumpers: ''It is my understanding that he would do the building. In other words, once you accept him, under the request for proposals which you have already issued, once you accept him as the contractor, this will not be put out for public bids. He will build it himself; is that correct?'' Mr. Galvin: ''That would be my presumption.''
Mr. KINSLEY. Is that a statement or a question?
Mr. HANSEN. Pardon me, sir?
Mr. KINSLEY. Is that a statement or a question?
Mr. HANSEN. So far it is a statement.
Mr. KINSLEY. Okay.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Galvin: ''That would be my presumption, or a contractor of his choice would do the construction.''
I don't know if that really squares, and I'm not trying to take on former Senator Bumpers or yourself or Mr. Galvin, but that doesn't square with the way that we normally do bids. Would you like to comment on that?
Mr. KINSLEY. Well, I think we would not undertake a ''public bid,'' but this would be a process much like a public bid process. Competitive bids would be obtained from the different trade contractors demonstrating they are capable of performing quality work, but this is a project that is being financed by a foundation. We will seek out qualified contractors to do the specialty work and the work that needs to be done on this.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I think that you need to know that I own companies that do better than $200 million a year, have revenues and operate profitably, and I do not need to do this job. Nor do I need to make a profit.
As an American citizen, I am willing and capable of doing this project and less than cover my overhead. And I may not be selected, but it certainly would be an honor for me to do it. I have spent countless hours in the last two and a half years working on this project and it would be an honor to build it, but I may not build it.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Let us accept the premise that you get the job through some bidding process and Kinsley Construction is the general. Of course you would, as you pointed out earlier, many, many subcontractors would be involved.
Would you anticipate starting the job predicated on amount of money you think that you will get from pledges or would you wait until the pledges were there, so the money is in the bank, so to speak?
Mr. KINSLEY. I would think that as a prudent businessman, we would wait until the money is in the bank, unless we have pledges that are signed and collateralized from credit-worthy organizations.
Mr. HANSEN. Let me just switch a minute. I would like to ask Eileen Woodford a question. Your testimony states that ''It is imperative to NPCA to ensure that the proposal was acceptable by meeting only the highest standards.''
Do you folks consider commercialization and construction on undisturbed ground within the park boundary as meeting your highest standards?
Ms. WOODFORD. Let us take it in two pieces. One is the ground itself. We were satisfied—that was one of our initial concerns about the location, that this parcel, that it not be interfering with historic resources that may be there.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We were satisfied with the advisory commission's report on its peer review, its panel of historians, that the proposed museum complex could be placed on this site without disturbing any of the historic resources.
Secondly, in terms of the related activities, in our Senate testimony you would read that we set up a number of criteria by which we would judge the appropriateness of all the activities that would be part of the proposal and those criteria include that they had to be necessary and appropriate, they had to affirmatively support the mission and purpose of the park, and they had to be minimum necessary to make the operation financially viable.
That made a number of the initial activities proposed under the initial proposal that Mr. Kinsley put out unacceptable to us and, after much discussion, those activities were reduced or eliminated.
And using those same criteria and applying them against the activities that were presented in the draft General Management Plan, we feel comfortable that these activities support the mission and purpose and goals of the park.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Mr. SILBEY. Mr. Chairman, may I comment on that?
Mr. HANSEN. Yes, go ahead.
Mr. SILBEY. I think it is fascinating to realize that the official, long-standing policy of this lady's organization is to oppose commercialization within national parks, and to encourage such commercialization only outside such parks. This is a dramatic departure from their policy.
I offer here a quote from this lady. This is from an article from Civil War News of April, 1998. ''Eileen Woodford, Northeast Regional Director, National Parks and Conservation Association, submitted testimony. Removal of the intrusive National Tower must be an integral element of any final plan.''
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Tower does not come down as a result of the Kinsley proposal. It stays. The Park Service was in negotiation with the tower's owner four years ago when the present superintendent came in. He walked away from that negotiation, giving no explanation, according to the lawyer for the tower.
What you really have is a Kinsley mall to be located right next to the tower, creating a huge commercial footprint, reviving the tower's ailing business, doubling its asking price and flying in the face of Miss Woodford's quote, I believe.
Mr. HANSEN. Do you want to respond?
Ms. WOODFORD. Please. NPCA realizes that there are needed activities that the Park Service cannot provide within national parks. That is why we have a concessions law and that is why we have worked to reform that concessions law which, as you know, was passed the last congressional session.
Commercial activities or any kind of activities such as commercial activities are not necessarily inappropriate for national parks. We do need some of them. The Park Service cannot provide them all.
What we did was go beyond the concessions law, which only states necessary and appropriate and we added two additional criteria. One was that it affirmatively support the mission and purpose of the park. Unrelated activities were unacceptable. All the activities proposed under this complex would be supportive of the mission and purpose of the park.
Mr. HANSEN. We don't want to pick on NPCA. We know they do some very wonderful things for the park.
Ms. WOODFORD. I am sorry; I can't hear you.
Mr. HANSEN. Please don't get us wrong. We are not picking on you in any way. We know you do some very good things for the Park Service and for our national parks and we appreciate that, but I am always curious where you folks are coming from on things because you do have considerable clout.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
You know, in 1990 Gettysburg National Park boundary legislation addressed and set the boundaries of the park with the purpose to preserve, conserve and protect the grounds of the parks and other important sites. This legislation resulted in boundaries being set that included private land, including the LeVan tract, which I guess is kind of at issue here, that was deemed to have historic significance within the park.
If you go back and read that, and I don't understand it. I have stumbled around the park two or three times. I think it is wonderful, but I don't understand the intricacies that you folks have, but apparently there is something pretty sacred about that.
In fact, subsequent actions to the passage of this legislation reinforce the intent for the Park Service to preserve and protect the lands within those boundaries.
Now, if I got this right, and I may not have I stand to be corrected—probably everybody in this room knows more about it than I do—isn't this the area that we are talking about? Dr. Powell, do you want to respond to that?
Dr. POWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One of the issues certainly in the boundaries study was more broadly defining what was significant land based on the original 1895 enabling legislation and to include areas that, because of subsequent development pressures, needed to be protected.
The issue here critically is, as I argue in our testimony, not the issue of whether one piece of ground is more significant than another. There is the inherent problem here of the National Park Service claiming, for example, in 1991 that seven acres of Seminary Ridge ''lacked the criteria that determined National Register eligibility,'' yet the property was already within the National Register and already within the park boundary.
The ludicrousness of that sort of assertion is the same ludicrousness of the assertion by the SHPO about the National Register eligibility of the LeVan tract. It is already within the national military park boundaries, already within the National Register boundaries. So it is not a question of whether or not it is significant but whether or not the project on it should be developed.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Kinsley, do you want to respond to that?
Mr. KINSLEY. I think one of the appropriate reasons for this is that I guess it could be a debate whether one piece of ground is more hallowed than the other piece of ground. And we think, and studies have found, that our piece, the LeVan tract, is less hallowed, but it is also close enough to the park that it can be protected. Land on three sides of the tract are now already owned by the Park Service. We have purchased 45 acres from the LeVan family. We will be using, I would think, approximately 15 acres of that and the rest of it will be preserved in the condition that it is today.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you.
Mr. Streeter, one thing that bothers me about your testimony is you sit on the council?
Mr. STREETER. Yes, sir, that is correct.
Mr. HANSEN. And if I am hearing you right, you are somewhat offended that the council really was kind of ignored, not really listened to carefully. Did they accept anything that you folks said or did they just kind of pass you off as a wayward child?
Mr. STREETER. When the initial council position was issued in March of this particular year, we opposed the Kinsley proposal as it was then proposed and we have always stated that our opposition to it was conditional.
In response to that, in all fairness, the proposal was altered, as I recall correctly, to eliminate the IMAX theater and to eliminate the linen tablecloth, as it was called, restaurant.
I personally, and I think members of the council and people we represent, regard that as a negotiations ploy. One always opens negotiations asking for more than he can get and then, when you fall back and ask for what you really want, it seems reasonable.
In reality, it would seem that an IMAX theater in the first place would be of no use in that particular area, although you could show one film, but with a conventional theater you could show many films at different times of the day.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
If you had a linen tablecloth restaurant, you may get a little bit of service out of it but the average visitor who visits that facility would probably not use it.
So to answer your question, I think, sir, yes, some concessions were made on the part of the developer but the concessions that we are asking for, sir, are to be listened to, to have the borough taken into consideration with regard to the Steinwehr Avenue district, which provides a very substantial portion of the borough's income.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Silbey, did you want to comment on that?
Mr. SILBEY. Mr. Chairman, I think a little history might be a bit helpful here. The park is under siege. In 1989-1990, the park, for some reason nobody understands yet, gave Gettysburg College seven and a half acres of land. They proceeded to assure concerned people that everything was going to be just fine. Gettysburg college proceeded to destroy a unique historical landscape. They brought in bulldozers on Christmas Day and New Year's Day, ravaging a critical part of the first day's battlefield.
That led to Congressman Mike Synar's oversight hearing. I brought Mr. Synar and his subcommittee staff up there to take a look. He later held an oversight hearing. It was a masterful oversight hearing. He had Roger Kennedy, head of the NPS, as a witness. Kennedy and a group of his people all agreed they had made a terrible mistake, promising to make good on the damage and to hold the College to account.
They got rid of the then superintendent, brought in the present one. Nothing was ever done. The promises wre broken. If you go there and view that railroad cut, guides will be shown there was serious battle action. At the hearing by Synar, NPS and the College maintained there was little battle action. Thet were not telling the truth. The railroad cut remains today, a desecrated historical landscape and a national disgrace. If the veterans could come back they would have a seizure.
Now we have the proposed Kinsley Mall. Mr. Kinsley paid $61,000 an acre for land that ordinarily sells for $2,000 an acre, thus establishing a new price level, an out-of-reach asking price for any other piece of land anybody wants to buy. They will never get it. Existing preservation organizations are not going to be able to afford such prices. They are going to have to come to Congress.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Again we hear the same argument. Nothing happened on the site. Much ado over nothing. After the tower and the railroad cut, and now this, what you are looking at is the steady erosion of the integrity of the crown jewel of American batttlefield parks.
What will NPS come up with next? A tasteful hot dog stand on the ARIZONA or a tasteful movie theater outside the entrance to the American cemetery overlooking Omaha Beach?
This is nothing more than a commercial development in the middle of the most hallowed place of our Civil War. This is what it all boils down to. If the Subcommittee demonstrates all the unexpurgated documentation we still have yet to be able to access, I believe the Subcommittee will find there is yet another story to be told.
There is now an Adams County criminal investigation into an application for Federal highway funds by an organization enjoying uniquely privileged status in access to the park for fundraising purposes. They have been highly supportive of this project and have generated much of the mail the deputy NPS director quoted when he said there was unanimous public support.