[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE FUTURE VISITOR'S CENTER AT GETTYSBURG NATIONAL MILITARY PARK AND
THE ASSOCIATED FUNDRAISING EFFORTS
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
March 21, 2002
__________
Serial No. 107-99
__________
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://resourcescommittee.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
78-322 WASHINGTON : 2002
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska, George Miller, California
Vice Chairman Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Elton Gallegly, California Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Samoa
Joel Hefley, Colorado Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Ken Calvert, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Scott McInnis, Colorado Calvin M. Dooley, California
Richard W. Pombo, California Robert A. Underwood, Guam
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Adam Smith, Washington
George Radanovich, California Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Islands
Carolina Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Mac Thornberry, Texas Jay Inslee, Washington
Chris Cannon, Utah Grace F. Napolitano, California
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Tom Udall, New Mexico
Bob Schaffer, Colorado Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Mark E. Souder, Indiana James P. McGovern, Massachusetts
Greg Walden, Oregon Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho Hilda L. Solis, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Brad Carson, Oklahoma
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Betty McCollum, Minnesota
C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Idaho
Tom Osborne, Nebraska
Jeff Flake, Arizona
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana
Tim Stewart, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel/Deputy Chief of Staff
Steven T. Petersen, Deputy Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND PUBLIC LANDS
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California, Chairman
DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands Ranking Democrat Member
Elton Gallegly, California Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
Joel Hefley, Colorado Samoa
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Tom Udall, New Mexico
Carolina, Mark Udall, Colorado
Vice Chairman Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Mac Thornberry, Texas James P. McGovern, Massachusetts
Chris Cannon, Utah Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Bob Schaffer, Colorado Hilda L. Solis, California
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 21, 2002................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Christensen, Hon. Donna M., a Delegate in Congress from the
Virgin Islands............................................. 3
Radanovich, Hon. George P., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California.................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Platts, Hon. Todd Russell, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Pennsylvania, Statement submitted for the
record..................................................... 57
Santorum, Hon. Rick, a U.S. Senator from the State of
Pennsylvania............................................... 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Statement of Witnesses:
Hoffman, Paul, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife,
and Parks, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington,
D.C........................................................ 10
Prepared statement of.................................... 13
Wilburn, Robert C., President, Gettysburg National
Battlefield Museum Foundation, York, Pennsylvania.......... 22
Prepared statement of.................................... 24
Additional materials supplied:
Benner, Craig, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, Letters submitted
for the record............................................. 53
Haffner, Craig, President and CEO, Greystone Films, Letter
submitted for the record................................... 55
Levy, Robert W., FAIA, President, The HABS/HAER Foundation,
Letter and resolution submitted for the record............. 56
Rebmann, Chris, President, Association of Licensed
Battlefield Guides, Letter submitted for the record........ 58
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE FUTURE VISITOR'S CENTER AT GETTYSBURG NATIONAL
MILITARY PARK AND THE ASSOCIATED FUNDRAISING EFFORTS
----------
Thursday, March 21, 2002
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:05 p.m., in
room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. George
Radanovich [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Mr. Radanovich. Well, good afternoon and welcome to the
Oversight Hearing on the Future Visitor's Center at Gettysburg
National Military Park and the Associated Fundraising Efforts.
I have an opening statement. With that, after that, we will
introduce our panel and begin the hearing.
Senator Santorum, it is a pleasure to have you here.
Welcome.
Senator Santorum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GEORGE RADANOVICH, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Radanovich. And the Subcommittee on National Parks does
come to order. Good afternoon. We are here today to examine the
progress of the future visitor center at Gettysburg National
Military Park and the accompanying fund-raising efforts.
I would like to begin by expressing condolences to the
family of Congressman Platts who represents Gettysburg. I know
that he wanted to be here but is unable to attend due to the
death of an extended family member and his participation at
that service. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family at
this time.
Without question, Gettysburg is the crown jewel of
America's Military and battlefield parks. That sacred ground is
greatly revered because of the special sacrifices that took
place there and because of the key role of the Battle of
Gettysburg in our Nation's history. We share a common reverence
for it.
As a result, we are not here today to discuss whether or
not to care for the ground at Gettysburg, but how best to
accomplish that goal and keep faith with the American people,
who expect National Park Service and Congress to ensure that it
is done properly.
We must also keep in mind that many have referred to this
project as a pattern of how the Park Service can meet future
Park needs when resources are limited. In other words, there is
a special responsibility that this Subcommittee maintain close
oversight over this project. We need to be able to answer to
the American people that what has been done in that Park is
consistent with their expectations and desires and that they
are comfortable with the process and its outcome.
Given the potential magnitude of this project's impact upon
the entire Park system, it would be a dereliction of duty if it
were not subject to close scrutiny.
Several significant concerns have been brought to my
attention about this project. First, important legal questions
remain regarding the adequacy of the NEPA process followed.
This concern has deepened as the project moves farther away
from what the public thought that they were commenting on
during the public process.
Second, there are substantial concerns that the general
agreement entered into by the Park Service and the Gettysburg
National Battlefield Museum Foundation may violate the 1998
Park Concession Act, Federal procurement law, and is also
inconsistent with public expectations and commitments made to
the Congress.
The general agreement also does not impose a time schedule
and leaves it unclear as to when or even if the complex will be
turned over to the Park, which we will later clear up. These
questions need to be answered.
I am pleased to note that the written testimony for the
Park Service notes their willingness to review the 1999 general
management plan for Gettysburg, and I am hopeful that this will
allow us to fix some problems in that plan as well as the
problems in the general agreement that might need attention.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. With
is, of course, Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania. Mr. Paul
Hoffman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and
Parks, and Robert Wilburn, President and CEO of the Gettysburg
National Battlefield Museum Foundation.
It is my hope that the testimony today will shed further
light upon those key questions. With that, I give time to the
Gentlelady from the Virgin Islands, Mrs. Christensen.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Radanovich follows:]
Statement of The Honorable George P. Radanovich, Chairman, Subcommittee
on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands
The Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands
will come to order. Good afternoon everyone. We are here today to
examine the progress of the future visitor's center at Gettysburg
National Military Park and the accompanying fundraising efforts.
I would like to begin by expressing condolences to the family of
Congressman Platts, who represents Gettysburg. I know he wanted to be
here but is unable to attend due to the death of an extended family
member and his participation at the service. Our thoughts and prayers
are with their family.
Without question, Gettysburg is the crown jewel of America's
military and battlefield parks. That sacred ground is greatly revered
because of the special sacrifices that took place there and because of
the key role of the Battle of Gettysburg in our nation's history. We
share a common reverence for it. As a result, we are not here today to
discuss whether or not to care for the ground at Gettysburg, but how
best to accomplish that goal and keep faith with the American people
who expect the National Park Service and Congress to ensure that it is
done properly.
We must also keep in mind that many have referred to this project
as a pattern of how the Park Service can meet future park needs when
resources are limited. In other words, there is a special
responsibility that this Subcommittee maintain close oversight over
this project. We need to be able to answer to the American people that
what has been done with their park is consistent with their
expectations and desires and that they are comfortable with the process
and the outcome. Given the potential magnitude of this project's impact
upon the entire park system, it would be a dereliction of duty if it
were not subjected to close scrutiny.
Several significant concerns have been brought to my attention
about this project that merit further exploration. First, important
legal questions remain regarding the adequacy of the NEPA process
followed. This concern has deepened as the project moves farther away
from what the public thought they were commenting on during the public
process. Second, there are substantial concerns that the General
Agreement entered into by the Park Service and the Gettysburg National
Battlefield Museum Foundation may violate the 1998 Park Concessions
Act, Federal procurement law and is also inconsistent with public
expectations and commitments made to Congress. The General Agreement
also does not impose a time schedule and leaves it unclear, as to when,
or even if, the complex will be turned over to the Park. These
questions need to be answered.
I am pleased to note that written testimony for the Park Service
notes their willingness to review the 1999 General Management Plan for
Gettysburg. I am hopeful that this will allow us to fix problems in
that plan as well as the problems in the General Agreement that need
attention.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, Senator Rick
Santorum of Pennsylvania, Mr. Paul Hoffman, Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, and Mr. Robert Wilburn, President and
CEO of the Gettysburg National Battlefield Museum Foundation. It is my
hope that the testimony today will shed further light upon these key
questions.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, A DELEGATE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I
share some of your concerns. The development of the visitor's
facility at Gettysburg National Military Park is an important
matter that deserves the attention of the Subcommittee.
However, this is not a new matter for this Subcommittee.
Today's hearing builds upon a hearing held by us on this same
topic in February 1999.
The reason for all of this attention is that since the mid-
1990's there has been an ongoing public controversy with the
Park Service plans to implement a partnership with the
developer and the foundation they established to construct a
major visitor's facility complex on private land within the
Gettysburg National Military Park.
There have been many questions and concerns raised
regarding the size, scope and location of such a new facility.
The questions and concerns with this project were such that the
House voted in 1999 to cutoff funds to implement the NPS plans.
While that funding limitation was ultimately not successful, it
did indicate the depth of concern that existed with what was
being proposed.
Through the parks planning process, a number of changes
were made to the project to reduce both its size and cost.
Therefore, it came as a surprise to learn recently that the
project had undergone a significant expansion. Since 1999, the
project's cost has more than doubled and its size has increased
by nearly 20 percent.
No one questions the inadequacy of the current visitor's
and artifacts facilities at Gettysburg National Military Park.
However, we owe it to the public to assure that the high
standards of the National Park System are maintained in all
actions affecting the Park, especially a Park of such
significance to our Nation.
I appreciate the presence of our colleague, Senator
Santorum, welcome him today, and I welcome all of our witnesses
and look forward to your testimony.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mrs. Christensen. With that, I
would like to introduce our first panel. Mark, did you have any
opening statements or anything?
Mr. Souder. I will make some comments.
Mr. Radanovich. That will be fine. Seeing there is nobody
else up here, I guess we are ready. Senator, thank you for
being here and please begin your testimony. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RICK SANTORUM, A SENATOR IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Senator Santorum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me apologize
for my voice not being so great, but I will do my best to get
through this.
Let me just say that my history here with this battlefield
has been a long one. When I got into the U.S. Senate, I worked
very diligently in trying to improve the Park because what I
saw was a Park in actually pretty deplorable condition. I know
Mark has been involved in this effort, also.
I want to thank this Committee for this effort, and I know
in talking to the Chairman that your effort here is one to make
sure that we are doing this right and that this is going to be
a successful project, and I can tell you from the bottom of my
heart there is nothing that I would rather see be successful
more than this project. So I think we come at it from the same
perspective.
Let me give you a little bit of a rundown of my history
with it, and why I believe what is before you now is not only
proper, but a bare minimum of what we should be doing to create
a quality visitor's experience and to honor those who
sacrificed the ultimate at the Battle of Gettysburg.
If you have been, and I know you have, to the existing
visitor's center, it is really a tragedy. It is a tragedy on
many levels. It is a tragedy, No. 1, because you have artifacts
sitting in unregulated conditions that are going to seed. Most
of them are not displayed. Most of them are in conditions that
they should not be in, but we have no adequate place to house
them.
The visitor's center is at best a hodgepodge of buildings
added on one after another over time that does not provide any
kind of real interpretative experience for the visitors. It
sits in the middle of the battlefield. It sits at the edge of
Pickett's Charge. A parking lot is where people gave their
lives for this country.
It is simply not a proper venue or location for a visitor's
center. The battlefield should be, and I know the members of
the Committee agree with this, the battlefield should be as the
battlefield was in 1863, and it is not. All of those things
were confronted when I came to begin my actions at Gettysburg
back in 1995.
We have done some things very positively. We added a
million dollars to the operations budget there which allowed
for substantial improvement of cannon carriages that were
simply collapsing, of buildings that were field hospitals that
were collapsing. We have been able to make some improvements in
that regard.
But the big nut, and the big thing that we had to change
was the visitor's center. We had to do something to provide a
better quality visitor's experience and we had to do something
to protect those artifacts. There are a lot of plans that were
being thrown around and a lot of ideas. But the Park Service
went through their process, the general management plan
process.
I can tell you there was no shortage of public hearings,
because my staff went to dozens upon dozens of them and
listened to those who were very much opposed to it. And I
understand why they were opposed to it. There were a lot of
businesses in proximity to the current visitor's center. And
when you move the visitor's center off the battlefield, which I
think everybody hopefully on this Committee supports, you are
going to move it away from those businesses.
And I understand why all of those businesses opposed it.
They were very vocal with me in their opposition to the
movement of the visitor's center. But I think it is in the
interest of history that it be moved. The question is where do
you move it to?
Well, there was lots of ideas out there, and my sense is
you move it to some place in proximity to the existing
battlefield that does not disturb the historic integrity of the
battlefield. I think the location that has been proposed in the
management plan is exactly that location. It is behind the
Union line. It is down below the elevated heights of the
battlefield. It is in a tree-covered area. You can't see it
from any point in the battlefield, yet it is in proximity to
the battlefield. It is walking distance. It makes it a really
well connected visitor's center, at the same time not being
intrusive on the battlefield.
With respect to the space, the cost, I would just say this,
that Gettysburg is, as I think you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, the
most significant Military Park that we have in this country,
and it deserves a world class visitor's center. You do not
build a world class visitor's center on a shoestring. I would
make the argument, and I have to my colleagues who are going to
testify before you, that we should be doing it bigger and
better. But this in my mind is at a minimum what we should be
doing.
The increase in cost, part of it is inflation, as you will
hear. Part of it is one of the things they decided to do, which
the townspeople as well as many others have been involved and
encouraged them to do, which is to build trails and other
things to connect the visitor's center more to the Park and to
downtown.
We are doing a lot of things. I see my time is up. But we
are trying to do a lot of things to make this, No. 1, a
showcase of how a private-public partnership can work. I
understand there is concerns about raising the $90-plus million
that are suggested here.
I would argue that if you can't raise that kind of money
for Gettysburg, you are not going to have a private-public
project succeed in any other Park in this country. I think that
now that the project is really underway, the fund-raising
effort has really just started.
I actually welcome this hearing as an opportunity to sort
of shed light on the wonderful plans that you are going to be
hearing from today of how we are going to make this a place
that is really going to teach, not just battlefield and
tactics, but really the whole picture of what Gettysburg means,
not just to the Civil War, but to who we are as a culture.
And I think that is an important interpretative aspect that
has been missing that can be added with the dynamic visitor's
center that they put together here. So I understand your
concerns. And look, I want to make sure it is done right. I
want to make sure it is done according to law. And to the
extent that there are problems, I will certainly be happy to
work with you. But I certainly would very strongly suggest that
this is a project that is important not just for Gettysburg, it
is important for the entire Park Service, so we can build--get
these kind of private dollars into the Park Service at a time
that we don't have the resources to maintain what we have.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to
be here. I have a written statement that I would like to be put
in the record, and be happy to take whatever questions you
have, if you have any, of me.
[The prepared statement of Senator Santorum follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Rick Santorum, a U.S. Senator from the State
of Pennsylvania
Chairman Radanovich and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate
the opportunity to testify today regarding the approved General
Management Plan that outlines the parameters for design and
construction of a new visitors center and museum at the Gettysburg
National Military Park (GNMP). Over the course of several years, I have
been involved with, and strongly supportive of, the effort to preserve
the historic battlefield landscape and surrounding park resources, in
order to continue sharing the story of the Battle of Gettysburg.
Undoubtedly, that battle is one of the most significant events in our
nation's history.
Not unlike the many battlefields that reflect our nation's history,
Gettysburg NMP faced the daunting task of how to preserve the many
associated aspects of the park--artifacts, buildings, the battlefield,
and the Soldiers' National Cemetery. To that end, the National Park
Service initiated a process in 1995 that led to the development of a
new general management plan. After an exhaustive process whereby dozens
of public meetings were held; comments solicited on various
preservation options; and an environmental impact study performed--a
conclusion was reached as to how this comprehensive preservation effort
would proceed.
The end result would come in the form of a collaborative and
cooperative partnership between the Gettysburg National Military Park
and a non-profit organization--the Gettysburg National Battlefield
Museum Foundation. Through their combined efforts, a new world-class
visitors center will be built, in addition to a new museum that will
house a permanent collection of Civil War artifacts and documents, and
the battlefield will be restored to its historic condition preserving
the battle lines of July 2 and 3, 1863.
It's my understanding that the committee wants to explore the cost
increase of the project, and look at the progress-to-date on
implementation of the General Management Plan. I firmly believe the
fundraising goals, while significant, will be met in a timely manner,
and that given a chance to succeed--it will. I'm sure the committee
will be satisfied with the answers provided today, and will be
presented with the progress that has already been achieved.
The Gettysburg National Military Park is truly a national treasure,
and sacred ground. The battlefield is a sobering and tangible reminder
of the sacrifice and courage of thousands of men whose convictions and
actions determined the fate of this country. On the site where more
than 51,000 men were killed, wounded or captured our obligation is
clear: we must thoughtfully, thoroughly, and accurately present the
Battle of Gettysburg and its significance in the context of the Civil
War. I firmly believe the approved General Management Plan takes
appropriate and meaningful steps to ensure that park visitors will be
guaranteed that experience.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to our continued dialogue on this
worthy and important undertaking, and appreciate the opportunity to
highlight the unique partnership, and unwavering commitment, that will
ensure this project's success.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Senator, and I also look forward
to working with you to make sure that Gettysburg turns out all
that it can be. As you know, we described it earlier as the
crown jewel of the battlefield parks in this Nation, and I am
happy to work with you to get through any hurdles that might be
in the way to make it just that.
So that is the conceptual drawing of the visitor's center?
Senator Santorum. Yes.
Mr. Radanovich. That is in the area located off the
battlefield?
Senator Santorum. Right.
Mr. Radanovich. Does everybody have the current
understanding that the current visitor's center and parking lot
is part of the battlefield, that there is a consensus there
that it needs to be removed?
Senator Santorum. I am not too sure that some of the people
that you have heard from in opposition to this plan do not have
that consensus. There are many of the downtown business groups
who do not want to move the battlefield--excuse me, the
visitor's center, because of the parking lot. And when you Park
there, your car is there. You are right across the street from
the Wax Museum, you are across the street from the other
businesses. And there is a concern by those businesspeople that
if you restore the battlefield that parking lot goes, and you
will be removing people from that area for commerce.
Our argument has been all along is, No. 1, from an historic
purpose, you have to do that. And from a commerce point of
view, if you build a better visitor's center, if you make
Gettysburg a better interpretative experience, you are going to
get a lot more people coming there and staying there longer to
enjoy all of the richness that can be brought through a better
visitor experience, which will be beneficial to the downtown
businesses over the long haul.
That is the point we have tried to make. We haven't been
successful with those who have a direct financial interest. By
and large, I think the rest of the community feels the way I
do. But there is a significant downtown business segment that
does not agree with this.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much. Any questions, Mrs.
Christensen?
Mrs. Christensen. Let's see. Really I am happy to have you
with us, and I hope we can work on reaching some resolution to
getting this done. I don't think anyone disagrees, as you said,
with the poor condition and need for replacement and the need
for relocation.
There was a request for an extension of the comment period
which was denied. Do you feel that there was adequate comment
by the public into the proposal?
Senator Santorum. I most sincerely do. I can't tell you the
number of public meetings that not only I attended but other
members of my staff attended in Gettysburg. They may know the
number. Dozens. Two dozen. 50. I mean, that is a lot of
meetings to hear. And, you know, I met with them outside of
those public comment meetings. I had meetings with the downtown
businesspeople.
Mrs. Christensen. When you went shopping.
Senator Santorum. I heard from them. And they kept saying,
well, you are not listening to us. I said, no, no, we are
listening to you. That doesn't mean that we have to agree with
everything you said. And I can tell you, well, they can tell
you. I am not going to give their testimony of the changes that
were made. We made changes with respect to seating at the
restaurant, of food that was going to be offered there, a
variety of different things so we would do the least amount of,
quote, damage to the commercial entities within the community.
Mrs. Christensen. That was my other concern. Do you think
that--I imagine a lot of the opposition was from that? Do you
think you have addressed that?
Senator Santorum. That was principally where the opposition
did come from. We did try. They made change after change to try
to accommodate the concerns. But the bottom line was, those
folks didn't want to move the visitor's center. And all of
this, in my mind, was just an attempt to try to stymie any
effort to change the existing plan.
Mrs. Christensen. Well, I thank you for being here with us
and answering the questions and for your testimony. I don't
have any further questions, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mrs. Christensen. Mr. Souder.
Mr. Souder. I would like to make a few comments and then I
have a question. First, I have been generally supportive of
this project from the beginning. It is not just in the
battlefield, it is right at the Fishhook, which was right near
the point of the farthest southern advance where many of the
Hoosiers died trying to fight.
Also, during the summer, when I was there the last time, I
think there were seven part-time rangers and others trying to
do parking. And for the business people in the community who
are worried whether people will go that extra distance from the
visitor's center, a shuttle will make it more likely. I
couldn't even figure out where I was. I couldn't figure out
where the Gettysburg Address was. People were parking up on the
monuments, up on the battlefield. It is chaos in the summer.
Unless we can get this off the battlefield, nobody is
looking of where to go into town, they are looking about how to
get out of the mess right now at the peak season. This has to
be addressed. It is disappointing that it has taken this long,
because this is our premier Military Park.
As a retailer myself, in a much smaller town even than
Gettysburg, and certainly without a national landmark there,
one of the things is how to extend a major visitor's site to an
overnight visit. It is one of the things you face in Yosemite
and elsewhere. This gives the potential particularly to develop
the Wills House and the Gettysburg Address sites, which are
kind of lost in the shuffle right now because of the nature of
this. This becomes an even greater attraction, because the
Gettysburg Address is arguably the single most important speech
ever made in the United States, and its document, and we have
not had the ability to fully develop that concept.
This Committee over the last few years has added some
additional sites. We are looking at this as Gettysburg College
gets involved as they redo the downtown with the Majestic
Theatre. You can see how the town is actually going to be
complimentary. And in putting it into perspective, it is clear.
And I think there are some questions as to what is the
potential Federal liability if the funds aren't raised in the
process. That is going to be one of the guts of the types of
questions.
But this site, which looks like an Andrew Wyeth painting,
is the kind of classic parkitecture that we should see in our
major most significant parks, and the idea that this can be
mostly raised from the private sector and the State is
extremely important. Yosemite was all raised from the private
sector.
Senator Santorum. All raised.
Mr. Souder. But there are things that I don't think we
should preclude, like the Cyclorama painting was already
cracking and was going to require Federal funding beforehand
and would require it otherwise. It is not clear that in certain
artifact preservation or interpretation that should be
absolutely ruled out that there will never be any Federal
dollars. I know that is the intent. But the practical matter is
the dollars, as the premier Military Park, would have come in
any way to Gettysburg. You can't say, well, we would have but
it in the old visitor's center but not in the new visitor's
center, because we have already been doing restoration. We were
already putting dollars in from this Federal Government, much
as Independence Hall and Independence Park is privately raised
for the Constitution Center and for the Education Center.
We still have had to put some into those, because it is
where the original documents of the United States Constitution
were developed, and the Library of Congress and everything. So
I don't think that we should say there is absolutely no Federal
dollars. But for the construction of the building, it is very
similar to what you are doing at Yosemite Falls, where the
Yosemite Fund is actually raising the money to redo the area,
and it may be that there is some Federal help if they don't do
it.
And the question is, how do we phase in a project to limit
the Federal liability in dollars much like Yosemite Falls. We
could wind up, if the Yosemite Fund fell short, having to cover
some of the gap too. But we don't necessarily say you have to
say all of the dollars before you start, but there needs to be
some kind of phase-in project that limits the ultimate
liability, and I think that is going to be one of the concerns
of the Committee.
But I think if you don't dream of a world class center for
our primary battlefield that defines much of the conflict and
how to avoid that conflict in the future, and what lessons we
have learned through the Address afterwards, through the battle
itself, it would be terrible to go cheap on this Park and
regret it. We have seen that from Mission 66 architecture in
the United States and now we are tearing it down because it
doesn't fit. And if we can do this with almost all private
sector funds, and as long as we are assured that it is almost
all private sector funds, I think this is an exciting
development.
And I sat through the hearings and many of the meetings
where the community was complaining about the interaction with
the community, and to do the trails and stuff is partly to meet
the objections of some of the critics. But there is--we can't
always meet every objection with more money in the first round,
and one of the things that I wanted to just double check with
Senator Santorum, because, like me, we have also wrestled with
how to balance the budget and we have many other type of needs.
And are you supportive of a concept that would have phases
here, that if the private sector's funding doesn't meet certain
goals that it can be delayed, whether that be the trails, the
interconnecting, the shuttle service, whether parts of this
building could be built with additions later on so we know that
the amount of liability at any given time is somewhat
contained?
Senator Santorum. I would be happy to certainly work with
you on that. And I got to say, I am very confident we are going
to be able to raise this money. I am supremely confident that
we are going to be able to raise this money. But if the
Committee feels comfortable with some sort of arrangement
whereby the Federal Government is protecting themselves from
any kind of liability, I would be certainly willing to look at
what you have to offer and, you know, run it by our folks and
see what we can come up with.
Mr. Souder. I am certain that too, that--I mean, Gettysburg
probably has more mass numbers of support than almost any other
Park, because of all of the Military buffs, the reenactment
buffs, in the general Civil War history following. So you are
not just talking about major donors, you have a much broader
base.
So I would hope we would be able to reach those goals, but
I do think it is responsible of us to ask those kind of
questions.
Thank you very much for your time.
Senator Santorum. Thank you, Mark.
Mr. Radanovich. Any other questions? All right.
Senator, thank you very much for being here. I ask
unanimous consent to allow the Senator to join the Committee on
the dais for the rest of the hearing if the Senator so wishes.
So ordered.
And with that, we will go ahead--and also asking unanimous
consent to accept the written testimony of the Senator and
anybody else who wishes to submit written testimony. There
being no objection, none heard, so ordered.
The second panel is Mr. Paul Hoffman, who is the Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, and Mr. Robert
Wilburn, who is the President of Gettysburg National
Battlefield Museum Foundation from York, Pennsylvania.
Gentlemen, welcome. Thank you very much. We are not going to
run the clock, but if you would stay close to 5 minutes for
your presentation, it will give us plenty of time for questions
and answers.
Mr. Hoffman, welcome and you may begin.
STATEMENT OF PAUL HOFFMAN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR FISH,
WILDLIFE, AND PARKS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; ACCOMPANIED BY
JOHN LESHER, SUPERINTENDENT, GETTYSBURG NATIONAL MILITARY PARK;
AND DAVID HOLLENBACK, ASSOCIATE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, NORTHEAST
REGION, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Mr. Hoffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your
forbearance, and thank you for the opportunity to testify
before your Committee on behalf of the Department of the
Interior regarding the general management plan for the
Gettysburg National Military Park, the partnership with the
Gettysburg National Battlefield Museum Foundation, the fund-
raising efforts for the new museum and visitor's center.
And I have submitted already some written testimony for the
record. I would like to give you just a little bit of personal
background. This is my first time testifying at a Congressional
hearing, and it is my prayer that it is memorable only for that
reason.
Mr. Radanovich. Just wait.
Mr. Hoffman. But I am ready. I have faced grizzly bears in
the dark of night. So I am ready to answer all of your
questions.
I do have in my background extensive experience in working
with the National Park Service, back country use as a
wilderness guide. I used to be the State Director for then
Congressman Dick Cheney, when he was Congressman from Wyoming.
I just most recently served a 12-year stint as the
Executive Director of the Cody Country Chamber of Commerce, a
gateway community to Yellowstone National Park, and we dealt
extensively with Park Service issues. I dealt extensively with
a little museum called the Buffalo Bill Historical Center, soon
to be 300,000 square feet, right in the Town of Cody. And
amazingly enough there were people right in the Town of Cody,
right next to them, that didn't like them being there because
they were a nonprofit and they thought that was unfair
competition.
I have had a lot of experience working with Secretary
Norton's four Cs: Consultation, Cooperation, Communication, all
in the service of Conservation, and we hope to apply that to
this issue as well.
I have fairly extensive experience in conflict resolution
skills, a common sense approach to government, and I bring a
customer service perspective to these issues.
A little bit of background on the issue. In the mid to late
1990's there were conceptual plans proposed for a full service
visitor's center and museum at the Gettysburg National Military
Park. That was approximately 145,000 square feet. There was a
comment period that led to a scaled back proposal.
It is my understanding that the essence of those comments
were largely focused on what people perceived to be the unfair
competitive aspects of the original proposal, the full service
restaurant, the IMAX Theatre and those things that the
businesspeople felt were unfair competition to what they were
trying to provide to the visitors at Gettysburg.
In the final general management plan, there were specific
components to the new visitor's center that were articulated in
the plan as well as reduced square footage down to 118,000
square feet. Those components included a visitor's center,
museum, classrooms and a library, the restoration and new
display for the Cyclorama painting, bookstore and limited food
service, as well as Foundation and National Park Service
administrative space.
It is my understanding that those components were pretty
much agreed upon by those who commented on the plan. There is
now a current estimate for the cost of the new visitor's center
as well as a revised increase in square footage which is the
source of some of the anxiety and why we are here today.
It is unfortunate that the current cost estimate is
approximately two and a half times the cost estimate that was
contained in the general management plan. I think that really
is one of the more regrettable aspects of this whole thing. I
think the $39 million figure was an abysmal attempt to forecast
the cost of such a visitor's center, and it has the consequence
of making the $95 million cost look excessive.
I would like to offer some explanations, some observations
if you will, on why the $95 million figure is what it is
relative to the $39 million. First of all, as all projects go,
you originally have an idea and you try to attach cost to that,
and then you go out and you develop conceptual plans, and with
conceptual plans in place you can get a better focus on what
the cost will be.
And then when you get down to construction plans. That is
the point at which you really can say what you expect this
facility to cost you when it is finally built out and open to
the public.
This is a natural process. Perhaps it is not natural to go
two and a half times, but it is natural to see those costs
escalate during this process.
Regarding the expansion of the square footage, it does not
change the components to the visitor's center. And,
accordingly, the Park Service feels that it did not alter the
general management plan or substantially deviate from what the
public had commented on during that process. And the expansion
of those components came at the recommendation of the
architects and the engineers, who felt that the larger size
would facilitate the movement of people through that facility.
Also part of the $95 million is the addition of a $10
million endowment fund, $10 million for the cost of fund-
raising, and that has significantly increased the amount of the
project.
Some other issues that have been raised by the Committee
that I would like to address is, one is, will the construction
start before the funds are raised? And the answer to that
question has always been no. Construction will not begin until
all of the funds are raised.
Now, when I say that, I think it is important to put a
caveat on that. I think it is important that when we say all of
the funds raised, we focus on the funds necessary for the
construction of the visitor's center and all of those amenities
and not necessarily say that all of the funds for the endowment
or the cost of fund-raising or the interest payments or the
restoration of Zeigler's Grove be part of that.
I estimate that $65 million is necessary to build the
infrastructure out and open it to the public. We will not begin
construction until that amount is raised and in the can, so to
speak.
There are some concerns about the open-ended aspect of the
general agreement and when the facilities will actually be
transferred to the National Park Service, and I believe we are
willing to go back to the Foundation and discuss amending that
agreement and putting some sideboards on that, if you will, to
suggest that at the end of 20 years after the facility is open
to the public it will be transferred debt free to the National
Park Service, and we would facilitate those discussions.
As you noted in the written testimony, we have agreed to
review the general management plan, and we think that that is
appropriate. We always want to make sure that whatever we are
doing, we are doing it consistent with the general management
plan for the Park Service unit, and that may or may not
necessarily lead to a supplemental EIS or a complete redoing of
the general management plan. I think we want to reserve
judgment on that, depending on whether or not that is
warranted.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I fully appreciate that the
Committee has concerns about the newly forecasted cost of this
project and the fact that they are more than double the
original cost estimates of these facilities as articulated in
the GMP. Moreover, I appreciated the concerns the Committee may
have concerning the Foundation's ability to reach the new fund-
raising goal in a timely manner. To answer those questions and
other questions that the Committee may have, I would like to
introduce to the Committee Superintendent John Lesher, from
Gettysburg National Military Park, and David Hollenback, who is
the Associate Regional Director from the Northeast Region of
the National Park Service.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to
testify, and we would be most happy to answer any questions you
may have or other members of the Committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hoffman follows:]
Statement of Paul Hoffman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks, U.S. Department of the Interior
I wish to thank the committee for the opportunity to appear today
to discuss the implementation of the approved General Management Plan
(GMP) for Gettysburg National Military Park which includes our
partnership with the non-profit Gettysburg National Battlefield Museum
Foundation to fund, design, build and operate a new museum and visitor
center at Gettysburg National Military Park. I understand that the
Committee has concerns about the newly forecasted cost of this project
and the fact that they are more than double the original cost estimates
of these facilities as articulated in the final GMP.
Gettysburg National Military Park
The mission of Gettysburg National Military Park is to preserve and
protect the resources associated with the Battle of Gettysburg and the
Soldiers' National Cemetery, and to provide understanding of the events
that occurred here, within the context of American history.
The park was established on February 11, 1895, and includes the
National Cemetery, and 6,000 acres of historic farmhouses, barns,
fences, orchards, earthworks, roads, wood lots, and other key features
of the battlefield.
Gettysburg is the most visited Civil War site in the National Park
System, and has attracted an average of 1.8 million visitors per year
over the past eight years.
The General Management Plan and Public Involvement
By law and policy, the NPS planning process provides opportunities
for public involvement in the creation of a general management plan.
For Gettysburg NMP, public involvement in the planning process began in
March of 1995 and ended in April 1999. During this four-year period,
the NPS provided the public with opportunities to comment at over 50
public meetings and open houses and asked for comments in four
newsletters. A draft and final plan was sent to a nationwide mailing
list of 3,800 members of the public.
During the four-year planning process, the NPS received over 3,700
written comments from the public. Of these, more than 85% of the
respondents favored the NPS proposal to rehabilitate the battlefield
landscape to its historic condition and to form a public-private
partnership to provide the NPS and its visitors with much-needed
facilities (11.5% were opposed, and 2.7% were undecided). Many of those
who favored the proposal noted that it offered a way to build new
facilities without reliance upon appropriated funds.
In November 1999 the Northeast Regional Director of the NPS signed
the Record of Decision for the General Management Plan/Environmental
Impact Statement. This marked the completion of the legal and
regulatory requirements for the NPS planning process and final approval
of the GMP for Gettysburg NMP. The approved final plan, containing a
new vision for the entire battlefield, has received widespread support
from historians, historic preservationists, Civil War enthusiasts and
the general public.
In light of concerns raised by this Committee and others, regarding
the change in cost and size of the project, the National Park Service
is willing to review the 1999 General Management Plan for Gettysburg
NMP.
Implementation of the General Management Plan
Since the last hearing held by this committee on this matter, the
National Park Service has taken a number of steps to implement the
General Management Plan for Gettysburg.
The Borough of Gettysburg Interpretive Plan--Concurrent with the
approval of the park's GMP, the NPS funded the development of an
Interpretive Plan for the Borough of Gettysburg. This plan, developed
in cooperation with the Borough of Gettysburg, the Chamber of Commerce,
Gettysburg College and six other local organizations, was approved in
November 2000. The purpose of the plan is to
Help those who visit Gettysburg appreciate its history by
telling the story of its people, of their lives during the
Civil War, and of their role in the Battle's aftermath and
commemoration. In doing so, the plan will help preserve the
Borough's historic buildings and sites and bolster the economic
health of the town. (Borough of Gettysburg Interpretive Plan,
p. 2)
In November, 2001, seven local organizations and institutions
joined with the NPS and the Borough of Gettysburg in a Memorandum of
Agreement for the implementation of this Interpretive Plan. To date,
our progress includes:
Lthe Borough's purchase of the Wills House--where
President Lincoln spent the night before delivering the Gettysburg
Address--with grant assistance from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
provided by former Governor Ridge;
Linclusion of the Wills House in the NPS boundary through
Public Law 106-290;
Lpreparation of an historic structure report and
preliminary design for the Wills House, with funding provided by the
NPS, for rehabilitation as a Lincoln Museum;
Lacquisition of the Lincoln Train Station--where Lincoln
arrived in Gettysburg--by the Borough of Gettysburg;
Lpreparation of an historic structure report and design
documents for the rehabilitation of the Lincoln Train Station as a
downtown information and orientation center;
Lcompletion of a Phase I Alternate Transportation Study,
using NPS TEA-21 funds, for a potential shuttle system to connect the
NPS museum/visitor center to downtown Gettysburg, with Phase II studies
underway; and
Lagreement to use the first floor of the Wills House as a
downtown welcome center by the Borough of Gettysburg, the Gettysburg
National Battlefield Museum Foundation, and the Friends of the National
Parks at Gettysburg, during the rehabilitation of the Train Station.
Rehabilitation of Battlefield Landscapes--In July 2001, the NPS
initiated this long-range project as called for in the approved park
General Management Plan, which will rehabilitate areas of the
battlefield where major battles took place so that they more closely
resemble their 1863 appearance. As a result, visitors will be able to
see the battlefield as the soldiers did at the time of the battle,
understand the reasons that Generals made their decisions, and
understand the experiences of the soldiers in carrying out those
decisions. The landscape rehabilitation process will also improve
wetlands, water quality and wildlife habitat throughout the 6,000-acre
battlefield.
Partnership with the Gettysburg National Battlefield Museum Foundation
Gettysburg's GMP calls for a major partnership with the non-profit
Gettysburg National Battlefield Museum Foundation, for the fund-
raising, design, construction, and operation of a new museum and
visitor center for the park. The project's goals are:
LProtection of the park's collection of 38,000 artifacts
and 700,000 archival documents and historic photographs, one of the
largest and most significant Civil War era collections in the nation.
New facilities are needed to provide permanent protection, preservation
and display of the collections.
LPreservation treatment of the Cyclorama painting to stop
the continued deterioration of the largest and one of the most
significant objects in the collection, a colossal painting illustrating
Pickett's Charge, measuring 26 feet by 370 feet. The painting is
designated a National Historic Object. New facilities are needed to
provide permanent protection, preservation and display of the painting.
LProvision of high-quality interpretation and educational
opportunities for park visitors, with new exhibits and broader
interpretation that will provide visitors with an understanding of the
Gettysburg Campaign within the broad context of the Civil War and
American history, as mandated twice by the Congress.
(Public Law 101-377, ``An Act to revise the boundary of
Gettysburg National Military Park,'' in 1990 directed the
National Park Service (NPS) to ``take such action as is
necessary and appropriate to interpret, for the benefit of
visitors to the park and the general public, the Battle of
Gettysburg in the larger context of the Civil War and American
history, including the causes and consequences of the Civil War
and including the effects of the war on all the American
people.'' )
(The Department of the Interior fiscal year 2000
Appropriations: Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of
the Conference,'' Title I, p. 96. U.S. Congress, 1999, stated
``...Civil War battlefields throughout the country hold great
significance and provide vital historic educational
opportunities for millions of Americans. The managers are
concerned, however'the Civil War battlefields are often weak or
missing vital information about the role that the institution
of slavery played in causing the American Civil War. The
managers direct the Secretary of the Interior to encourage
Civil War battle sites to recognize and include in all of their
public displays and multi-media educational presentations the
unique role that the institution of slavery played in causing
the Civil War and its role, if any, at the individual battle
sites.)
LRehabilitation of the historic landscapes of the Union
battle lines of July 2 and 3, 1863, by removal of current visitor
facilities and parking lots from the Union battle line at Cemetery
Ridge, where 34 Union regiments fought and over 970 soldiers were
killed, wounded, or captured during the Battle of Gettysburg.
The current partnership agreement includes not only design and
construction of the new facilities, infrastructure, roads and parking,
but also the design and installation of the museum exhibits, land
acquisition for the new complex, the restoration and relocation of the
historic Cyclorama painting, removal of current visitor facilities and
associated roads and parking, restoration of the historic landscapes of
Cemetery Ridge, relocation of NPS collections, equipment and
furnishings to the new complex, a $10 million endowment for the
maintaining and operating the facility, and the Foundation's
administrative and fundraising costs. The Foundation's fundraising
campaign is now underway.
The Foundation expects to break ground for the facility in early
2004, with the project completed in early 2006. The current facilities
will be demolished at that time and the historic landscape restoration
will begin that same year.
Museum Foundation Progress To Date
On June 30, 2000, following nine months of review through the NPS
and the Department of the Interior, the Director of the NPS approved
the General Agreement and the Fundraising Agreement with the Gettysburg
National Battlefield Museum Foundation.
In July, 2000, the Museum Foundation created the Gettysburg Museum
Advisory Committee to advise the Foundation on the exhibit design and
story line for the new museum. The advisory committee includes several
nationally renowned scholars.
On October 24, 2000, the Museum Foundation announced its selection
of Robert C. Wilburn as its first President. Mr. Wilburn is the former
President and CEO of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, former
President and CEO of the Carnegie Institute, a two-term Cabinet
Secretary under Governor Dick Thornburgh of Pennsylvania, and has
extensive experience and qualifications in economics, education,
preservation, and the non-profit world. In particular, Mr. Wilburn was
successful in raising $150 million in donations and gifts for the
Colonial Williamsburg Foundation during his tenure there.
In November 2000, the Museum Foundation submitted its Fundraising
and Financial Management Plan to the NPS. Following comments by the NPS
and revisions by the Museum Foundation, the NPS approved the
Foundation's fundraising plan on December 19, 2000.
In April 2001, the Museum Foundation completed a Fundraising
Feasibility study. Based upon interviews with over 60 individuals and
potential supporters, the study identified 27 prospects with the
capacity to give at the $5 million level and another 25 who could give
at the $1 million level.
The Museum Foundation initiated their public fundraising campaign
for the museum and visitor center in January of this year. As of March
7, 2002, the Museum Foundation has reported to the NPS that it has
raised $8.38 million in donations, which includes a $5 million donation
from Mr. Kinsley and a $2.5 million appropriation from Congress for the
conservation of the Cyclorama. The museum partnership has been designed
to work with 100% donated funds; we do not intend to seek from Congress
any appropriated funds.
In July 2001, after a nationwide search and competition, the Museum
Foundation selected the design team for the new facilities. Cooper,
Robertson & Partners of New York were selected as project architects,
due to their highly praised work at Monticello, Charleston (SC), the
Museum of Modern Art, the Brooklyn Botanic Garden, and the Lincoln
Center in NYC. Gallagher & Associates of Washington, D.C., was chosen
as the exhibit design firm, based upon its acclaimed exhibit designs
for the Smithsonian Institute, the Museum of Jewish Heritage (NPC), the
Canyon Visitor Center at Yellowstone National Park, and the Maryland
Museum of African American History and Culture in Baltimore.
On January 11, 2002, after six months of intensive work by the
design team, the Museum Foundation and the NPS, the Foundation released
the conceptual design for the new museum and visitor center. The site
design was laid out to take maximum advantage of the natural topography
and to protect natural ecosystems (such as wetlands). The exhibit
design fully complies with the Congressional direction to provide
interpretation of the Battle of Gettysburg within the context of the
causes and consequences of the Civil War, and was approved by the
Gettysburg Museum Advisory Committee. The architectural design is
carefully suited to the rural agricultural landscapes of the Gettysburg
area and has been widely praised by the public.
Cost and Space Comparisons
For the record, I offer the following explanation of the changes in
the size, scope and estimated cost on this project as provided to me by
NPS personnel.
The 1998 draft General Management Plan/Environmental Impact
Statement, produced by the NPS, estimated that the new museum/visitor
center facility would be approximately 118,000 square feet. The GMP
also estimated that the Foundation would need approximately $39 million
to accomplish the goals described in the GMP. In January 2002, based
upon completed conceptual design and other factors, the Museum
Foundation announced that the new facilities would be approximately
139,000 square feet in size, and that the Foundation had established
$95 million as its total project budget.
Although the size of the new facility and the cost of the
partnership have increased as a result of the completed conceptual
design, none of the components or functions of the complex, as
described on pp. 87-92 of the GMP, have changed. The proposed new
museum/visitor center for Gettysburg NMP will provide visitor services
and collection storage just as described in the GMP. The conceptual
design for the complex does not add any new functions or components to
the facility that were not discussed with the public and described in
the GMP. As a result of these changes, NPS personnel believe the
actions described in the GMP will be accomplished at a higher level of
quality and commitment to the preservation of park resources and the
enjoyment of park visitors.
In accordance with the agreement between the NPS and the Museum
Foundation, the NPS has complete review and approval authority over all
elements of the design, construction, and operations of the new
complex. In particular, the same NPS design, review, and approval
processes will be followed for this project as are followed for all NPS
construction projects funded by Congressional appropriations. As part
of this review and approval process, the Museum Foundation will perform
value engineering analysis for the proposed project, and will submit
design documents to the NPS Development Advisory Board for review and
approval.
The GMP for Gettysburg NMP stated, in discussing the estimated
costs of each alternative considered, that ``the costs provided in this
appendix are indicative of the capital and operational costs of
implementing the alternatives. They are provided so that reviewers can
compare the general costs and benefits of the GMP alternatives.
Specific costs for construction and operation would be determined for
individual actions after detailed designs are produced.''
This language is in conformance with NPS Special Directive 87-1,
``Development of Costs Estimates for General Management Plans,
Development Concept Plans, and Special Studies,'' which states:
Section 604 of Public Law 95-625 requires General Management
Plans to indicate types and general intensities of development
including general locations, timing of implementation and
anticipated costs...The Service has made a commitment to OMB
and the Department that these estimates are used to compare the
cost of alternatives presented in the plans and not for
budgetary purposes...Estimates for advanced and project
planning to support a proposed construction item will be
provided separately.
As articulated in the GMP, and in accordance with Special Directive
87-1, the Museum Foundation and the NPS released revised cost estimates
for the partnership project upon the completion of the conceptual
design. In brief, the increase in the project's budget may be
attributed to four general factors; a detailed project budget
comparison and square footage comparison is attached to our testimony.
General Inflation. In the four years since the NPS and the Museum
Foundation signed the Letter of Intent in 1998 inflation has increased
all costs across the board. In addition, the Museum Foundation has
programmed its costs ahead to the proposed year of construction in
2004, which the NPS had not done in the GMP. Increased costs due to
inflation are approximately $7.6 million.
Increased Space. During the process of completing the conceptual
design, the project design team, composed of the NPS, the Museum
Foundation, and the contracted architectural firms, proposed additional
space. In particular, the Foundation agreed to expand the museum
exhibit space through the addition of a transition gallery, provision
for ``open storage'' of artifacts, and two interactive resource centers
(data banks) for visitor use. By recommendation of the design team,
``circulation'' space throughout the museum complex was increased
across-the-board, in order to provide a more peaceful and reflective
museum experience for visitors. Administrative space for Museum
Foundation staff was added to the building's program. Design,
construction, and exhibit installation costs increased, proportionally,
with the increase in the building's envelope. The estimate of the
increased cost over the GMP estimate is approximately $8.5 million.
Enhanced Exhibits and Visitor Experience. Throughout the conceptual
design process, the Museum Foundation exhibited an exceptional
dedication to quality and in numerous cases, agreed to take on the
fundraising burden of accomplishing more than is required by the
partnership agreement. For example, the GMP requires the restoration of
the existing Cyclorama Painting, and the plan expressed the hope that
the missing historic diorama could be restored ``if possible.'' The
Museum Foundation has not only made the commitment to restore the
missing three-dimensional historic diorama which accompanied the
original painting, but has also made the commitment to represent the
sky which is missing from the original painting--both at considerable
extra costs. In addition, the Museum Foundation made the commitment to
include ``open storage'' areas in the new museum complex, which was not
required by the project agreement, so that the public could see more of
the park's extensive collection of Civil War artifacts.
Other issues which the Foundation intends to address, which are
enhancements beyond the original partnership agreements include:
additional access roads, overflow parking, picnic facilities, walking
trails, furnishings, film production, and additional costs in the
remediation of the current visitor center site. The total cost of the
additional enhancements and projects over the original GMP estimate is
approximately $19.6 million.
Fundraising and Endowment. The NPS estimates in the GMP did not
include the cost of fundraising; rather, NPS estimates were based upon
funds required to accomplish the partnership goals, such as land
acquisition and construction. In keeping with standard practice in non-
profit fundraising, the Museum Foundation includes approximately $10
million for administrative and fundraising costs in the project budget.
Finally, above and beyond the requirements of the project agreement,
the Museum Foundation informed the NPS that it would like to include an
endowment of $10 million in the project budget, to be used for ongoing
facility maintenance and preservation of the park's collections.
Future Activities
With the conceptual design for the complex now complete, the Museum
Foundation will concentrate heavily upon fundraising for the near
future. In the meantime, the Foundation has released a Request for
Proposals for a consultant to prepare the condition assessment and
treatment plan for the conservation and relocation of the Cyclorama
Painting.
If fundraising is as successful as anticipated, the Foundation has
announced that it plans to break ground for the new complex in 2004.
Construction and installation of exhibits would be expected to take
approximately two years, which would indicate an opening date in 2006.
Following the relocation of NPS collections, furnishings and materials
from the current visitor facilities into the new complex, restoration
of the historic landscape of Seminary Ridge would take place in 2007.
In accordance with Director's Order 21, ``Donations and
Fundraising,'' the Museum Foundation may not break ground for
construction until it has ``sufficient...funds in hand to complete the
work so that it is usable.'' As a result, the Foundation will not start
construction until the Foundation and the NPS are mutually assured that
sufficient funds have been secured.
Estimates based on an actual design, inflation, fundraising costs,
and a number of enhancements that the Museum Foundation has agreed to
fund, has increased the estimated cost of the project by $56 million. I
understand the concerns the Committee may have about the foundation's
ability to reach the new fund raising goal in a timely manner. While it
is anticipated that groundbreaking may take place in 2004, let me
assure you that construction will not begin until there sufficient
funds in hand to complete the planned construction project.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to testify and we
would be most happy to answer any questions the Committee may have for
us.
______
[An attachment to Mr. Hoffman's statement follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78322.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78322.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78322.003
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Hoffman. We will wait until
the second panelist is finished, then we will open up the panel
for questions if you wish.
Mr. Wilburn, welcome, and again please begin your testimony
and keep it within 5 minutes if you can. Don't mind if I
interrupt and let you know you are going too long.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT C. WILBURN, PRESIDENT, GETTYSBURG NATIONAL
BATTLEFIELD MUSEUM FOUNDATION
Mr. Wilburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to
be here. I did want to point out just a bit of my background,
because I think it becomes relevant in the discussion.
Prior to assuming the presidency of the Gettysburg National
Battlefield Museum Foundation, I was the President and CEO of
the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, and prior to that I was
President and CEO of Carnegie Institute in Pittsburgh, and in
both of those capacities had responsibility for some very
significant fund-raising activities.
A copy of my resume is attached to my written testimony. I
would like both of those to be made part of the printed record.
In his Gettysburg Address, Abraham Lincoln talked about a
new birth of freedom, and I really wish to thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss what I think
is a once in a lifetime opportunity for a new birth at
Gettysburg.
The Subcommittee is very familiar with the challenges that
confront the Gettysburg National Military Park, and Senator
Santorum spelled that out quite clearly: The aging facility
that cannot accommodate the growing numbers of visitors each
year, exhibitry that because of space and technology
limitations cannot sufficiently meet today's visitor
expectations, or our own educational objectives and a world
class collection of Civil War artifacts that is in danger of
deteriorating beyond repair because of inadequate facilities.
I would like to spend my time today providing a report on
our activities to date, our interactions with the Park Service
and a progress report on our fund-raising. The Foundation was
established to work in partnership with the National Park
Service to restore and preserve this national treasure.
In addition to construction of the state-of-the-art museum
and visitor's center, the partnership has also designed to
enhance roads and infrastructure, to acquire additional land to
expand the park's buffer area, and restore and preserve
portions of the battlefield and the park's collection of Civil
War artifacts, including the historic Cyclorama painting.
Since my appointment in October of 2000 I have devoted my
time to developing a fund-raising and financial management plan
while at the same time recruiting a board of directors and
convening a design team to complete a detailed concept for the
new building.
In July of 2001, following a nationwide search, the
Foundation, in partnership with the Park Service, engaged a
renowned architectural firm and an experienced design team. For
6 months the two firms, the Foundation and the Park Service
collaborated on a conceptual design that you see before you
that both blends into the rural Pennsylvania landscape, and
uses state-of-the-art exhibitry to tell the Gettysburg story.
We released these designs in January to wide public
acclaim. The renderings of the design concepts are included in
my testimony as Attachment 4. With conceptual design in hand,
we now begin the act of fund-raising to break ground as planned
in 2004.
I know that there has been some concern expressed about the
growth in the project budget since approval of the general
management plan, but I do think it is important to distinguish
between a preliminary estimate based on a very generalized
plan, and a budget that reflects detailed conceptual plans as
well as a careful study of the specific program elements needed
to fulfill the project mission.
The $95 million cost estimate includes some elements not in
the GMP; For example, the $10 million endowment to provide
ongoing support for building maintenance and preservation.
There were also elements in the GMP for which the Foundation
did not initially have responsibility.
In the process of developing the project, we identified
opportunities to significantly improve the visitor experience,
which would also require additional funds; I think one of the
best examples is, the cost of restoring the historic Cyclorama
painting. That has increased from the original estimate of $1
million to $5-1/2 million because we plan not only to restore
the current painting, but also to replace parts of the original
painting that have been lost over the years.
Now, when this painting was first displayed in the 1880's
the experience was said to be so realistic that grown men wept.
To restore the Cyclorama's full integrity and ensure the
maximum impact on its visitors, the missing elements, the sky
and the diorama really need to be replaced.
In short, we agreed to view the program enhancements like
this not as fund-raising challenges but as opportunities. The
Foundation was pleased to take on the responsibility of raising
additional funds to make sure that the Gettysburg experience
reaches its full potential.
I should also note that our goal was entirely consistent
with capital campaigns underway right now at other nationally
historic significant history sites. For example, Monticello
today is raising a hundred million dollars to build a new
visitor's center and some related program needs.
In Philadelphia, as you mentioned earlier, the new
Constitution Center and Independence Hall visitor's center will
raise some $225 million for that project.
And Colonial Williamsburg, where I was formerly, is in the
midst of a capital campaign for some $500 million. To date we
have raised about 10 percent of our goal, but this reflects a
very deliberate and orderly process. Experience tells us that
fund-raising for large projects of this nature do not go very
far until potential donors can see what they are supporting,
they can see a design. People want to know what they are
buying.
Based on the response thus far to the conceptual plans, I
can report that people feel very strongly about Gettysburg,
feel very strongly about the need to restore it, are very
excited about the plans that we have developed, and want to
take advantage of the educational opportunities that are
presented.
Our aim now is to translate that sentiment into the
necessary financial support, and we consider this really the
opportunity of a lifetime to build something of lasting
significance. But, more than that, preserving and enhancing the
Gettysburg National Military Park is the responsibility that we
all assume for future generations.
And I think, if anything, the sense of responsibility for
this has really heightened since September 11th. Gettysburg
visitors today seem more eager for understanding the forces
that have shaped America, enabled us to overcome the agony of
civil war. If we make the most of this once in a lifetime
opportunity, the restoration of the battlefield and the new
museum and visitor's center will enable us to better fulfill
our mission and ignite in our visitors a passion to learn.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilburn follows:]
Statement of Robert C. Wilburn, President, Gettysburg National
Battlefield Museum Foundation
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee:
My name is Robert Wilburn and I am President of the Gettysburg
National Battlefield Museum Foundation, a position I accepted in
October 2000. Before joining the Foundation, I spent seven years as
president and CEO of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation and eight
years as president and CEO of the Carnegie Institute. I also served six
years in the cabinet of former Pennsylvania Governor Dick Thornburgh,
first as Secretary of Budget and Administration and later as Secretary
of Education.
(A current resume is attached at (1).)
I wish to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today
to discuss the partnership of the Museum Foundation and the National
Park Service. The mission of the partnership is to tell the story of
the Gettysburg Campaign, to restore and properly preserve the sacred
ground--and the significance--of America's most revered Civil War
battlefield, to preserve and exhibit Gettysburg's priceless collection
of artifacts and archives, including the historic Cyclorama painting,
and to give visitors a deeper, more lasting appreciation of what
happened there. To accomplish this mission, the Museum Foundation will
raise the necessary funds to restore significant portions of the
battlefield and to design, build and operate new museum and visitor
center facilities to enhance the Gettysburg experience for the nearly 2
million visitors who come to the park each year.
(Attachment (2) lists members of the Foundation Board of Directors
who have been appointed as of the date of this testimony, the
distinguished historians who are members of the Gettysburg Museum
Advisory Committee, and the members of our National Council, who have
agreed to work closely with us to support our fundraising and outreach
efforts.)
On a personal level, I appreciate your interest in our efforts to
enhance the Gettysburg experience, and I am delighted to have the
opportunity through this subcommittee to inform the Congress and the
American people about our hopes and our goals. I also understand your
determination that the funds are spent wisely and that the project
moves forward in a manner consistent with the direction of Congress,
which is the ultimate steward of our National Park System.
I am humbled by the responsibility I have been granted to share in
the preservation and enhancement of our national treasure at
Gettysburg. I also am very proud of the Museum Foundation's efforts to
date, our partnership with the Park Service, and the conceptual design
plan for the park. I hope that after our discussions today, you will
begin to share my enthusiasm for this project.
Before responding to your questions, I would like to spend a few
moments discussing our vision for the museum, the visitor center and
the Gettysburg experience. I also would like to talk about its
importance to America, especially at a time when our commitment to
freedom and democracy is once again being put to the test.
The Vision and the Challenge
For me, the opportunity to help improve the Gettysburg experience
is the capstone of a gratifying career spent seeking out ways to excite
and inspire people about their history. I believe strongly that the
preservation of our heritage is a sacred responsibility. With my biases
out front, I would like to share some of the vision and the solutions
identified by the park service and the Museum Foundation, following
several years of public study and discussion.
In the Gettysburg Address, Abraham Lincoln talked of a ``new birth
of freedom.'' Today, I believe the public-private partnership between
the National Park Service and the Museum Foundation offers a once-in-a-
lifetime opportunity for a ``new birth'' for Gettysburg.
The heart of our effort is the new Gettysburg museum and visitor
center, which will enhance the resources of the park and enable us to
protect the sacred ground of our most revered Civil War battlefield. By
properly restoring and preserving the battlefield and the park's
collection of artifacts, we can give visitors a deeper, more lasting
appreciation of the events and the meaning of Gettysburg and help them
connect that battle with America's continuing commitment to freedom
around the world.
I believe that Gettysburg's programs and exhibits need to invite
exploration of our history. They must help us better understand the
forces that shaped our national character, and move us to recommit
ourselves to the principle that people can govern themselves.
(Attachment (3) are op-eds I have written in the last year--for the
Pittsburgh Post Gazette and the Civil War News--that describe in
greater detail my sense of the importance of Gettysburg and the role it
can play in exciting Americans about their heritage.)
Let me tell you some of our goals:
LWe want to educate and to inspire; to promote learning by
creating the kind of excitement that makes people thirst to know more.
LWe want people to leave Gettysburg with a deeper, more
lasting appreciation of what happened there.
LWe want people to have a rewarding experience, and also
to stir their emotions and enable them to imagine what it was like for
the soldiers who battled on Gettysburg's fields and hills in the first
days of July in 1863.
LWe want to create a connection with the events of 1863
and to extend that connection to the town--its architecture, its
history and its people. For the fullest understanding, visitors should
know the town of Gettysburg as well as the battlefield.
To achieve those goals, we need to respond to some very significant
challenges.
As you know, for years the park service has lacked the money and
other resources to properly preserve the collections and artifacts in
its possession at Gettysburg. Nor has it had the resources to provide
visitors with the critical understanding of the battle and its impact
on our nation.
The battlefield park is being overwhelmed by visitors. Nearly 2
million people visit Gettysburg every year. They come from every part
of the world and, right now, they are not getting all that they might
from the experience. There are simply too many people for the
facilities that now exist.
The visitor center is equipped to handle about 400,000 people a
year--but almost five times that many come to the battlefield each
year. The park has been pushed beyond the breaking point. If you visit
Gettysburg during a busy season, one thing is certain--you will wait in
line. You will wait to park, you will wait for tickets, and you will
wait to tour exhibits.
The issue is not just about size. The existing facilities do not
meet the expectations of today's visitors: They do not take advantage
of modern communications tools. They do not take account of what we've
learned over the years about using our collections to educate and
inspire.
Nor do they provide proper protection for the Cyclorama painting or
the other artifacts, manuscripts, letters and photos housed at the
park. Until recently, these precious gems of our heritage were
deteriorating each day, taking bits of our history with them forever.
The facilities that housed these irreplaceable objects were woefully
substandard. They lacked temperature and humidity controls, dust
protection, and fire protection.
Thanks to a grant from ``Save America's Treasures,'' the park has
been able to move the collections into temporary facilities, so
deterioration has been halted. But that's just a temporary solution. We
must provide museum-standard, environmentally controlled space to
ensure permanent protection, preservation and display.
One of the most precious objects in the collection is the 26 foot
by 370 foot Cyclorama painting, entitled ``The Battle of Gettysburg.''
Created in 1884, this magnificent painting is truly an interpretive
icon of the 19th century. Unfortunately, the building in which it is
currently displayed was not properly designed for this task. In
addition, it has structurally failed, exposing the painting to excess
humidity as well as structural stress. Painting conservators have
warned us that if these conditions are not corrected, we face
catastrophic separation of pigment from canvas.
The visitor experience also is undermined by inappropriate siting
of modern buildings and facilities. Because of these intrusions,
visitors struggle to picture Gettysburg as it existed nearly 140 years
ago. Facilities stand atop some of the most significant and fabled
battlefields. The ground where the union repulsed Pickett's charge; the
blood-soaked terrain of Cemetery Ridge; the greenery of Ziegler's
Grove--are today occupied by buildings and parking lots. Buses and cars
compete to park where soldiers struggled and died.
The Foundation's partnership with the park service is designed to
change all of that by raising the necessary funds to restore and
preserve this national treasure for future generations. The partnership
will:
LProvide the American people with a state-of-the art
museum and visitor center.
LEnsure high quality interpretation and educational
opportunities.
LRestore and fully protect the Cyclorama painting.
LProtect and provide for proper display of artifact
collection.
LReturn significant portions of the battlefield, now paved
over and covered with buildings, as close as possible to their state in
1863.
LAcquire additional battlefield land to expand the park's
buffer area and provide a ``decompression zone'' to give visitors a
better sense of what Gettysburg was like 140 years ago.
LCreate a permanent endowment to support ongoing annual
building maintenance and preservation of the park's collection.
A Progress Report
That is the vision. As the subcommittee considers our plans, it
also may wish to know more about the events that led us to this point,
our interactions with the park service and the progress of our
fundraising. In addition, I am aware of some concerns about the project
budget and some apprehension that our reach may exceed our grasp. These
are appropriate questions.
Let me begin with a quick summary of the Museum Foundation and the
partnership.
The Museum Foundation was established in 1997 to address the needs
of the Gettysburg National Military Park, as outlined in the park's
General Management Plan. From the beginning, the Museum Foundation
believed that a partnership with the park service would be the best way
to address the challenges facing this historic treasure. Toward that
end, we created an advisory board of noted Civil War scholars for
assistance in developing the interpretive plan.
In addition to a new museum and visitor center, the partnership is
designed to enhance roads and infrastructure, acquire land, restore the
Cyclorama painting, restore historic landscapes, preserve and enhance
display of the park's collection of Civil War artifacts, and equip and
furnish the new facilities. The Museum Foundation also agreed to run
the new visitor center and, after 20 years, to donate the land,
building and facilities to the park service.
Since my appointment as Museum Foundation president in October
2000, I have devoted much of my time to developing a fundraising and
financial management plan and completing a fundraising feasibility
study, while at the same time recruiting a board of directors and
convening a design team to complete the detailed concepts for the new
building.
In July 2001, following a nationwide search, the Museum Foundation,
in partnership with the park service, engaged the architectural firm of
Cooper, Robertson & Partners, whose work includes Monticello, the city
of Charleston, SC, the Museum of Modern Art in New York City and
Lincoln Center. We also selected the exhibit design firm of Gallagher &
Associates, which has provided similar services for the Smithsonian,
the visitor center at Yellowstone National Park, the Museum of Jewish
Heritage and the Maryland Museum of African American History and
Culture in Baltimore.
For six months, the team--composed of representatives from the
Museum Foundation, the park service, the architect and the exhibit
designer--met frequently to develop a conceptual design for the
building that, on the one hand, blends into the rural Pennsylvania
landscape while at the same time uses state-of-the art exhibitory to
tell the Gettysburg story. In January we released the conceptual design
for the facilities. The design has received wide public acclaim.
(Renderings of the conceptual design for the building, as well as a
ground floor rendering of the building interior, are at Attachment
(4).)
We also have identified the first nine members of our board of
directors and are involved in discussions with a number of prominent
individuals about joining this group. Our goal is a well-rounded and
diverse board with appropriate interests and expertise. The board, as
well as the advisory committee of historians, participated in the
review of our conceptual design plans.
With the conceptual design in hand and an initial group of
directors in place, we are now moving into active fundraising and plan
to raise sufficient funds to allow for groundbreaking as planned in
2004.
Gettysburg Community Embraces the Project
However worthy our goals for the park, we cannot truly fulfill our
objectives without the involvement and support of the citizens of
Gettysburg. With that in mind, we continue to keep interested local
citizens, community and business leaders, and public officials in the
greater Gettysburg area informed about our progress, and to solicit
their input. Our board and advisory committees include representatives
from the community; we also are an active partner in the Main Street
Gettysburg coalition. We view the project for which we have
responsibility as an important component of a variety of programs and
activities underway to enhance the Gettysburg experience for our
visitors.
One cannot fully experience the battlefields without also
experiencing the town, which itself was a site of military action where
soldiers camped, fought and died. We want to extend visitors' stays in
Gettysburg, to encourage them to experience the town and to return for
repeat visits. We support the park service's plans to develop an
improved transportation system that will reduce traffic backups and
move visitors more easily and efficiently from the visitor center to
the town and back.
I am pleased to report a positive response from the people of
Gettysburg, who I believe have grown more enthusiastic as our plans
have taken shape. Just last week we had a very positive public meeting
in Gettysburg with members of the park's Advisory Commission. This
meeting gave us an opportunity to answer many questions posed by
commission members and residents, and I was pleased that we continued
to receive only favorable comments about our plans.
Project Details Shape the Budget
There has been some concern about growth in the project budget
since Congressional approval of the General Management Plan (GMP) in
2000. It is important to recognize, however, the distinction between a
preliminary estimate based on a very generalized plan and a budget that
reflects detailed conceptual plans as well as careful study of the
specific program elements required to fulfill the project mission.
The $95 million cost includes some elements not in the GMP number--
for example, the $10 million endowment to provide ongoing support for
building maintenance and preservation of the collection. Administrative
and fundraising costs, which had been netted out in the GMP, now are
explicitly accounted for.
There also were elements in the GMP that the Museum Foundation
supported but for which we did not initially have responsibility. In
the process of developing the project, we identified opportunities that
would significantly improve the visitor experience but which would also
require additional funds.
For example, the cost of restoring the historic Cyclorama painting
has increased as the Museum Foundation pledged to not only restore the
current painting, but also to replace parts of the original painting
that had been removed and lost over the years. When the painting first
was displayed--in the 1880s--the experience was said to be so realistic
that grown men wept. To restore the Cyclorama's full integrity and to
ensure maximum impact on the visitor, the missing elements need to be
replaced.
Another exciting element of the visitor experience will be the
inclusion in the museum and visitor center of open storage space--
something not originally anticipated--that will allow visitors to see
more of the park's world-class collection of artifacts.
The costs for offsite improvements, such as overflow parking and
restoration of adjacent lands, will add $4.4 million that was not
originally budgeted but which will enhance the visitor experience. The
Museum Foundation also has assumed responsibility to raise $1 million
for an interpretive film and $5.5 million in building and exhibit fit-
out costs that otherwise would have been passed on to visitors.
In short, the Museum Foundation agreed to view these program
enhancements not as fundraising challenges but as opportunities. We
were pleased to take on the responsibility of raising additional funds
for these enhancements to make sure the Gettysburg experience reaches
its full potential.
I should also note that our campaign goal is entirely consistent
with capital campaigns underway right now at other nationally
significant historic sites. Monticello, home of Thomas Jefferson, is in
the midst of a campaign to raise $100 million for a new visitor center
and other program needs. In Philadelphia, the new Constitution Center
and Independence Hall Visitor Center, have as their campaign goal $225
million. And Colonial Williamsburg is in the midst of the first capital
campaign in its history, with a goal of $500 million.
Fundraising Update
To date, we have raised about 10 percent of our goal. This reflects
a very deliberate and orderly approach.
We first established a fundraising plan and conducted a donor
prospect assessment to measure our opportunities and refine our
fundraising strategy. Next we identified the architect and exhibit
design team, and completed conceptual design concepts. Experience shows
that fundraising for large projects of this nature do not get very far
until donors can see a design and renderings. People want to know what
they are supporting.
We have identified many potential donors and had preliminary
conversations with a number of them. Election of board members also has
been an important step in this process. Now, we are ready to go. Based
on the response to the conceptual plans, I can report that people feel
very strongly about Gettysburg and the need to restore it and take
advantage of the educational opportunity it presents. Our goal is to
translate that sentiment into the necessary financial support.
A Classroom of Democracy
We consider this effort the opportunity of a lifetime to build
something of lasting significance. But more than that, preserving and
enhancing the Gettysburg National Military Park is a responsibility
that we all assume for future generations. This sense of responsibility
has been heightened since September 11. In that regard, I should note
that the renewed spirit of patriotism that we all have seen emerge from
that tragic day is also visible at Gettysburg. Park guests seem more
contemplative and more eager for understanding of the forces that have
shaped America and enabled us to overcome the agony of Civil War.
If we make the most of this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, the
restoration of the battlefield and the new museum and visitor center
will enable us to better fulfill our educational mission and ignite in
our visitors a passion to learn. By bringing to life the experiences of
1863, we can help Americans better see the links between the struggles
of the Civil War and the challenges we face today.
Nearly 140 years ago, President Lincoln came to Gettysburg to honor
the dead. On that occasion, he urged Americans to be ``dedicated here
to the unfinished work'' of freedom and democracy. Today, another
generation has picked up that torch. Preserving the battlefield of
Gettysburg and making it a classroom of democracy is one way to advance
the unfinished work that Abraham Lincoln laid before us.
Thank you.
______
[Attachments to Mr. Wilburn's statement follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78322.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78322.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78322.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78322.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78322.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78322.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78322.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78322.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78322.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78322.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78322.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78322.015
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Wilburn. I do have a
question for Mr. Hoffman. Can you tell me regarding the
requirement that all of the cost of the building be raised
before the construction can begin, to my knowledge the
visitor's center is separated somewhat from the current
operation of the Park. So it is really not a requirement to
have the money so that you can go in and construct in a short
amount of time, to allow the minimum amount of disruption is
not the issue in this.
Is it more the requirement to have all the money raised
more because of the price tag of the project and wanting to
make sure that the fund-raising goals are going to be achieved
as the reason why the requirement that all of that money has to
be raised first?
Mr. Hoffman. I believe it is Park Service policy to have
all of the money raised before a project is begun.
Mr. Radanovich. OK.
Mr. Hoffman. I think the important distinction here is that
we need to distinguish between the $95 million that is the
total fund-raising goal at this time and the part of that $95
million that is actually associated with the construction of
the visitor's center and the related facilities.
Mr. Radanovich. So clarify for me, the Park Service will
require the full 95 million raised, or give me a number.
Mr. Hoffman. 65 million.
Mr. Radanovich. And does the Park Service in the plan give
a definite time that that money, the 65, has to be raised,
datewise?
Mr. Hoffman. No. I believe that you have a time line in
your written testimony.
Mr. Wilburn. What we have done in our financial management
plan, we have a plan in which the funds would be raised over a
2-year period, which would enable us to start construction in
the year 2004, and we are pretty much on that plan right now.
But of course the real big push comes over the next 12 to 18
months.
Mr. Radanovich. Right. But the Park Service does not say
that you will have this raised by this date, and on and on and
on, right?
Mr. Hoffman. No, sir. I don't believe there is a precedent
for setting an end line on this. Obviously we need to be
prudent and responsible, that if there is only 10 or 25 percent
of the money raised in a year and a half, we have got to sit
back and seriously question the viability of this project. At
the same time, I wouldn't want to see the project stopped if
they had $60 million in the can on 2004 and some other
prospects just down the road. And so it is very difficult to
say at this point in time what is your drop dead date and what
is your go forward date.
But we are somewhat in this case reliant upon the
professional experience of Mr. Wilburn and the abilities of the
Foundation board to raise the money.
Mr. Radanovich. It sounds like you have got, Mr. Wilburn,
the date set and your job is cut out for you already. You have
got a calendar.
Mr. Wilburn. Right. We have got a calendar. We have a time
plan to raise the funds. But it is--in this business, and I
know you have had experience with this with Yosemite, it is
very difficult to set a specific date, a specific number of
dollars, because you are working with individuals who are
making major commitments, and you really do have to adjust
somewhat to their schedule rather than your own.
But we certainly have a management plan, a financial
management plan and goals that we need to meet.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you. Donna.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess I would
start with Mr. Hoffman, but either of you can answer. We still
have some concerns about the fact that the plans were scaled
back, the cost was scaled back, prior to the public comment
period, and the fact that it was increased significantly since.
Doesn't the Department or the--that seems rather unusual
that after public comment period on a particular project the
plans would be to go ahead with the project that was greater in
scope, size and cost. Doesn't the Department of Interior and
the Park Service have any concerns about proceeding on
something that the public really didn't have a chance to
comment on, when there was so much opposition, even on the
scaled-back plan?
Mr. Hoffman. I would defer to David on that one. I was not
there doing that planning process.
Mr. Hollenberg. Good afternoon. For the record my name is
David Hollenberg, H-o-l-l-e-n-b-e-r-g, and I think I would like
to echo what Mr. Wilburn has said, is that the project--and
what Mr. Hoffman has also said--is that the project is at the
moment in conceptual design.
You can take a closer look at the drawings there. We don't
believe that the design of the project that is represented in
those drawings in any fundamental way, in any way, alters what
the GMP said would be the components of the project.
There are areas of expansion. Attached to Mr. Hoffman's
written testimony is a two-page summary of what it is that
makes up the difference between 39 million and 95 million, and
also what it is that makes up the difference between the
original square footage in the GMP and the current square
footage.
With respect to the square footage, you will see that there
are three or four components that have increased cost. All of
them are based on a collective perception of a better visitor
experience; For example, open study storage so that a lot--more
artifacts can be visible to the public than putting them behind
closed doors; increased circulation at certain choke points in
the design; interactive data banks that add square footage.
There is a chart with the testimony that goes through what it
is that has caused those increases in square footage, and we
are convinced that those are in the public's interest to do
that.
The components that were removed during the public process
that made the project go from roughly 140,000 square feet to
118,000 square feet have not been put back in the project;
three shops and the IMAX Theatre are all gone, and the
cafeteria--reduction in size of the cafeteria.
Mrs. Christensen. The other concern is that we had very
detailed drawings and detailed information to justify this back
in 1999. I understand what you are saying that you have made
some changes that you think would better accommodate the public
and that some of the things that we were concerned about were
taken out.
But in 1999 we thought that we had some very detailed
information about why it would cost so much less, and I still
have some concerns about that, and I also have concerns
remaining about the impact on the economy of the surrounding
community. The cost and the maintenance of the facility is
quite high. That means that the facility, the visitor's center
is going to have to generate a lot of money, and to do that you
are really going to have to be in competition with the
community.
Mr. Wilburn. One of the things that I think that you have
to recognize is that today Gettysburg, unlike some of--has two
million visitors a year that come to Gettysburg and come to the
visitor's center. It is just an enormous base on which to
build. I think that the economic impact on the community is
going to be dramatic.
The studies that were done when the GMP was being put
together I believe showed a 30 percent increase in--$23 million
positive impact on the community from the visitor's center. I
think it is even going to be greater than that. I think, as was
pointed out earlier in some of the comments, the real thing
that is so important to getting the economic impact on the
community is when you can get more and more overnight stays.
And the average stay now in the Gettysburg area is in the--I
believe it is the 6 to 8--4 to 8-hour time range. It is just
getting to the cusp of where you are going to be able to have
everyone staying a day longer.
If we had the time to go into the exhibit plans and into
the interpretative core of this building, you would see all of
the different ways in which we can get people excited about the
Battle of Gettysburg and inspired about the causes and
consequences of the Civil War. We are going to not only have
people come back again and again to use those facilities, but
we are going to increase the length of stay, and that is going
to have a tremendous impact on the community, a very positive
impact on the community. I am totally convinced that this is
going to benefit the businesses in Gettysburg to a great
extent.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you. I see that my time is up. I
might have some further questions. But I will give my
colleagues a chance and I will come back if we have a second
round.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much. As much time as you
wish.
Mr. Souder.
Mr. Souder. We are used to political fund-raising where we
have a plan and we can't go past Election Day. We tend to like
very specific timetables.
I wondered in this plan, if either the Park Service or the
Foundation has any flexibility built into this, if it would
increase this cost--and part of the reason the cost went up
before is inflation. Have you factored that in in a projection
if it goes longer?
Mr. Hoffman. I believe the $95 million figure includes
inflation projections for the cost of the facility based on the
conceptual plans up to 2004.
Mr. Souder. So if it went longer it would be an additional
cost?
Mr. Hoffman. No. If it went longer than that, yes,
depending on what the rate of inflation is.
Mr. Souder. Does the Park Service have a reviewprocess--it
was very interesting what you said, because that was a very
logical management thing to say, which is if they are at 5
million in 2 years, you go, hey, this isn't going to go. If
they are just a little bit short, that is another matter.
Do you know, is there any kind of rule of thumb here, and
then would there be a review of what the inflation might be in
the intervening period?
Mr. Hoffman. I don't know that there is a rule of thumb on
that. I think there are so many other factors that work into
it, Mr. Congressman. You expressed an interest in possibly an
appropriation of Federal dollars to help this if all of the
fund-raising wasn't done. And so the climate for that kind of
an appropriation is a factor that you would have to look at at
that time. You would have to look at what the potential funders
were saying if they decided not to fund the project.
There are a lot of points in this process where you have to
review your plan and see how you are doing compared to your
plan and make some executive decisions on either adjusting your
plans, stopping the plans, or continuing forward with the plan.
And there are so many potential circumstances that may come up,
it is almost impossible to forecast how that might proceed.
Mr. Souder. It is important, and I think in the dollars,
because of the gap from the first proposal, which was sketchy,
to this one there is more nervousness than in many others. The
scale of this compared to Colonial Williamsburg and Monticello,
when you put it in that context it is one thing. But this was a
jump, as you acknowledged. And I wonder in a general management
plan, and understand I am enthusiastic about all of the
changes. I think having a quality project will actually help
you raise quantitatively an exponential increase in funding,
greater than a lesser project would have--it would been harder
to raise money possibly for a $40 million project than it will
for a 90 if you capture the imagination. And I understand the
fund-raising concept. If you have a lousy candidate you can't
raise as much money if you have a good candidate in politics.
Mr. Souder. But at the same time, it is a little bit
disconcerting, not necessarily with this project but in others
with the National Park Service, clearly there were lots of
conflicts in some of the hearings about location. This did not
change location. This did not change kind of the fundamental
conflicts we had on was it going to knock out and be the
largest bookstore in the East Coast and knock out every
bookstore in the area, was it going to have an IMAX. Those
things were not changed, but there were some things changed.
Why would not there have been a hearing just on the changes?
Nobody wanted to refight the last battle at Gettysburg, so to
speak, but it just seems as a course that when there is this
dramatic change in dollars and in some goals, that there would
have been at least some kind of an ability to have public
comment and at least stay focused on the theme, the changes,
which would have been cost, and the additional cost to the
Cyclorama painting, so that the community would have felt like
they had an opportunity and could not claim that there was not.
Mr. Wilburn. Sir, we have had many public sessions, in
which we have described all of the changes and the costs. Just
last week there was the official Gettysburg Advisory Committee
that met in Gettysburg and we presented the plans, the cost,
the changes, and there was not one single negative comment made
at that meeting. Everything was very positive.
Mr. Souder. What I would like to say, and I am not from an
area that has a lot of public lands, and I am not--none that
are particularly Federal, and I don't have a lot of the same
vested interests. But I do know that many Members of Congress,
and I, as I have seen it some from the Federal Government, I
don't believe that this plan is weak, I believe it is
incredibly strong. There is nothing to fear from public
hearings. When you have public hearings you have some people
who are against things and some people who are for things. I
think that over time the majority of the Gettysburg community
and the county and the area around it support this. That has
never been the question.
But there is a difference between a public meeting where
you are explaining what you are doing and a public meeting
where people feel they actually have an ability to change a
policy. The idea of the government management plan hearing is
that people may or may not actually be able to change it there,
but at least there is a participatory aspect to it. I think it
is the type of thing that we have to watch as a parks policy.
We are going to get into these visitor center questions
increasingly with private sector funding. Mesa Verde
desperately needs a new visitor center. It is going to come up
at Mesa Verde too, and it is going to come up at other parks,
too.
I would strongly encourage the Park Service. I don't think
there is anything to be ashamed of. You have been aboveboard.
It is out there. But by not letting people have one more crack
at it until they are basically exhausted, and actually listen
to what they have to say, we are going to have these problems
in other parks as well. It was such an extraordinary dollar
jump, that is really the major thing. It wasn't so much policy
jumps, but the dollar jump which may have been an error in the
original projections because I didn't see this kind of drawing
in the plan. I saw a blueprint with a conceptual with a
developer who was actually trying to do a public service, but
didn't have a dream attached to it, other than he wanted a new
visitor's center. But it does seem to be something that in the
Park Service policy, that this is going to be something that
dogs us if we don't address it.
Mr. Hoffman. Let me, if I may, take a stab at what I
believe I heard several questions to be. One is at what point
do you decide that this is a significant enough change toward
reopening the general management plan.
Mr. Souder. Not necessarily reopening, but adding
additional discussion.
Mr. Hoffman. Right. It is by definition a general
management plan and, as such, puts out general guidelines,
general concepts of how the park unit will be managed over a
coming period of time. As such, it has to have some flexibility
to allow for changes that occur with time.
It is the belief of the Park Service that the principal
components of this thing remain the same as those that were
articulated in the general management plan and, therefore,
within reasonable adjustment of the square footage of those
components and the change in cost because of acquiring new,
more accurate information, do not constitute enough change to
warrant going back and revisiting the whole general management
plan issue.
The role of public input, NEPA provides for public input,
but it is not the only basis on which the administration is
required to make decisions. There are a host of laws that we
must remain in compliance with. Much like you are elected to
represent your constituency, you have to make decisions based
on the facts that you know as well as the input from your
constituency, and sometimes I am sure you find yourself going
home and getting dogged on by your constituents who don't think
you have listened to them.
Mr. Radanovich. Never happens.
Mr. Hoffman. I didn't think so. There is a provision within
NEPA that calls for going back and redoing an environmental
impact statement if there is one of two things that occur. One
is significant new information that would lead to a change in
the final decision, and the other is lack of public input.
When I indicated in my written testimony and my oral
testimony that we would review the GMP, we will be reviewing it
to make sure we are consistent with it and to see if there has
been significant enough new information to warrant that.
Typically, when there is significant enough new information,
you hear about it from a large constituency out there. You
know, a State, a city, an environmental organization, a user
group comes to you and says, look, you didn't consider this,
and then you have to reopen it. The Yellowstone snowmobile
issue is a classic example of that.
Last, I heard some concerns about what is the final gate on
this? I mean where is the final review to decide whether this
is an excessive expenditure of dollars, if we are building the
gold-plated castle that is a monument to some person's ego, or
are we billing an appropriate facility?
The Park Service has what is called the Development
Advisory Board. It was a process put into place with some input
from Congress in response to the famous outhouse at Delaware
Gap, and that board will have the final say on whether the
final plans are consistent with usual and customary
construction costs; is it an exorbitant facility given the
space it is on, given the park it serves, those kinds of
things. That will be the final authority that comes in and
decides whether--well, ultimately I suppose you folks will be
the final authority, but if it goes as normally goes, that
would be the final authority that would put their stamp of
approval or disapproval on this project.
Mr. Souder. Thank you very much. I have to go to catch a
plane, but I wanted to thank you. I think this is a great
project for Gettysburg, for Pennsylvania, and for the Nation. I
will continue to ask questions, and thank you very much.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Souder. Mr. Santorum?
Senator Santorum. Thank you.
I would like to refer to page 15 in your testimony, because
I just think for the edification here we just need to go down
and look at the different elements of what the GMP proposed and
what the current state of play is. I would just like to review
several of the things that sort of came out of these public
hearings, because I was very much directly involved in it.
If you look at the proposal, the first column, it says
proposed 1997 SF. If you look at the IMAX Theater, National
Geographic Store, Civil War Arts and Craft Gallery Gift Store,
all of them had significant square footage, all of them were
taken out of the general management plan, and they are still
out. They were taken out for one reason: the people in
Gettysburg didn't want them. They saw them as competition, they
saw them as commercialization, even though in my testimony and
in my advocacy I advocated strongly for an IMAX Theater. I
believed very strongly there should be an IMAX Theater, and
John Latcher heard me say this 100,000 times.
When the Cyclorama was built in the late 1800's, it was a
state-of-the-art interpretive thing. When the electric map was
built, it was state-of-the-art interpretive. We are now
building the visitor's center, it is not completely state-of-
the-art interpretive.
I just frankly have a problem with that. So you are going
to hear a comment from me, and I think you will hear it from
others in Pennsylvania who would say we need more, not less,
than what they are doing here. But they were taken out directly
because the public in Gettysburg, in the Borough of Gettysburg
did not want these "commercial aspects" at the visitor's
center.
If you look from the GMP to the current status, and you
look at the increases in square footage, none of them are about
the controversial things that were taken out, they are still
out. All of them, at least from my understanding, the biggest
chunk is administrative space. There was never any controversy
about how much room we were going to provide for the Park
Service and their activities. I don't think that is a
controversial thing, but there should be adequate space for the
Park Service to do what they need to do from an administrative
capacity. That is 7,000 square feet.
If you look at the museum in circulation and again, my
understanding is, and I would be happy to get this answered,
that is all because of just flow, because of bottlenecks and
problems, they didn't see this from an architectural point of
view of having a museum, which I believe is this area here in
the orange. You needed a wider space to accommodate peak
periods of time in which there would be tourism and you just
needed more space to get people through.
Is that the reason for the increase in space? There is
nothing different in quality of what you are doing, is there?
Mr. Wilburn. No. In fact, as you are mentioning, the
circulation space increased enormously because what we did is
models where we actually flowed people through the museums to
see how much space we needed for the museum, and we needed more
circulation space, and that was the single biggest increase in
what happened in the planning of this building.
Mr. Santorum. From looking at it here, the space increased
by about 21,000 square feet, and if you take administrative and
museum circulation, that is 20,000.
Mr. Wilburn. Yes.
Mr. Santorum. So yes, there was an increase in square
footage, but it was basically to accommodate more
administrative capacity and better flow for the museum, which I
don't see as a change in scope at all to what the general
management plan laid out in 1999. So I understand that there
may be a reason to brief the public on the new, maybe the
differences in what was proposed as far as square footage, but
clearly, my reading of this is you are completely consistent
with the 1999 GMP in what you have come forward with in this
architectural design.
Mr. Hollenburg. Well, of course I agree with that.
Senator Santorum. Good. Right answer.
Mr. Hollenburg. We have tried very hard to remain
consistent with the GMP and we will continue to try very hard
to remain consistent with the GMP. I am wishing Congressman
Souder had not left because I wanted to add to what Paul had
said. The nature of his question suggests to me that we are not
doing as good a job as we need to do in explaining that the $90
million price tag is not the result of suddenly doing a very
dramatically different building, it is a result of a partner
who has taken on much more than was initially anticipated from
other project components, either things that were not
anticipated that the partner would do, or recognitions by the
partner that things that we wanted to do could be a lot better.
The Cyclorama is a good example of the latter. Doing site
work off the site--well, the site plan isn't up anymore, but
the left-hand side of the site plan is not on their land. They
are going to do all of those site improvements for us. So they
have taken on project components that were always part of the
plan, but were not anticipated to be part of the
responsibilities.
Senator Santorum. Can you explain the offsite things that
you were doing, because I am not too sure that any testimony
went over that?
Mr. Wilburn. This line here represents the land that is
owned by the foundation here, and this is actually National
Park Service land, which is called the Fantasyland site.
Actually, as part of our planning, we have planned how to
develop--.
Senator Santorum. Could you orient us to where the
battlefield is?
Mr. Wilburn. The famous battlefield goes right like this,
OK? The battlefield line. The current visitor's center is here.
This is Taneytown Road, this is Baltimore Pike. This is where
you would enter onto the site. This is the land that is owned
by the foundation and the place where the building will be
located.
In developing the plans, it became apparent that it would
really be a much better development if we included the
Fantasyland site owned by the National Park Service as well as
the land owned by the foundation. So what we have done is we
have developed the plans to use both parcels of land and also
to add parking on both parcels of land.
This actually added about $4 million in cost to the
project. But we thought it was important to have the experience
be right, to do it right, and that is why we agreed to develop
both parcels of land at the same time. And to have adequate--
you will see here there is two complete circulation systems,
one for buses, one for automobiles. We have to handle up to 90
buses a day at Gettysburg. We actually have two bus circulation
systems, one that actually runs shuttle buses into town, and
onto the battlefield, and another bus circulation system for
tour groups, 60 bus parking spaces, three times as much parking
than exists now.
The other thing that really added to the cost of this
project, there currently are two ponds that exist in here that
were put in for an amusement park that was there as late as the
1970's, in going back to the historic landscape and restoring
the stream bed that was there originally. We are also working
in the wetlands, little small wetlands that exist here, and you
will notice very heavily treed areas to make sure that it is
really done right and very environmentally sensitive. Of
course, all of this adds a considerable amount to the cost. But
it is important, we believe, to do the project right.
Again, as I keep saying, it is a once-in-a-lifetime
opportunity to do it and we want to make sure that it is done
appropriately.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you. Could I see the site map for the
construction of the center? This one here. In the additional
square footage that is being proposed, I guess it is 21,000,
22,000 square feet, in the bottom of the drawing is the dining
room.
Mr. Wilburn. Right. That is the same size as it was.
Mr. Radanovich. That is the same size.
Mr. Wilburn. The bookstore museum store is the same size.
What has changed--.
Mr. Radanovich. Sir, just a second. If I may ask, the
terrace that is next to the dining room, is that a proposed
addition, or is that in the project as well?
Mr. Wilburn. Yes, that is in the project.
Mr. Radanovich. All right.
Mr. Wilburn. Yes.
Mr. Radanovich. OK. That is the only other question I had.
Any other questions from anybody?
Mrs. Christensen. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Radanovich. Please.
Mrs. Christensen. Mr. Hoffman, what is the most expensive
visitor's center that we have? Do you have something that can
give me a frame of reference as to how much other visitor's
centers cost? Can anybody come close?
Mr. Hollenburg. Well, first of all, let's remember this is
a visitor's center with a museum, with a painting, and the
painting in and of itself takes up 12,000 square feet, so we
are not really apples and oranges.
But the Constitution Center, which I am very much involved
in, is a $180 million project, including a $40 million
endowment. The construction component of that is about $100
million. Just the hard costs of that project are about $100
million. Down the street from it is the new visitor's center
that just opened last November for Independence National
Historic Park, which is about roughly a 50,000 square foot
building and the cost of that facility was $40 million, hard
and soft costs.
Mrs. Christensen. How is that funded?
Mr. Hollenburg. The new Independence Visitor'S Center was
funded by a public/private partnership. There is not a dime of
Federal money in the new visitor's center. It is city of
Philadelphia, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Annenberg
Foundation, the Charitable Trusts, and the Knight and Connelly
Foundations are the six donors to that project. The
Constitution Center, because it is a bigger project, has a
bigger array of givers and does have Federal money in it, but
it also has City, Commonwealth, lots of foundations, lots of
individuals.
That, too, is a project that may be an interesting example
in that the construction there did not begin until all the
construction money was in hand, but even during construction
they have raised their fund-raising targets so as to have a
bigger endowment when they opened, and I think they will be
successful in doing that, and that is in everyone's interest of
course.
Mrs. Christensen. The fund-raising over the last year,
maybe a little over a year, has been about maybe $800,000 in
private funds?
Mr. Wilburn. No, ma'am. We have--one thing I would like to
get straight, there is a misstatement, I don't know who
prepared this statement from the briefing paper, but there is
an absolute error in fact in there. It says in here that to
date Mr. Kinsley has lent money to the project. That is not
true. He has made an outright gift from the Kinsley Family
Foundation of $5 million to the project. That is not a loan,
that is an outright gift from the Kinsley Family Foundation.
That error keeps reappearing, and we really would like to get
the record straight on that.
We have raised to date in actually documented funds $8.4
million in terms of actual commitments, and in writing and
actual cash in hand. We have verbal commitments of much more
than that, but those are the actual, in-writing commitments at
this point, is $8.4 million.
Mrs. Christensen. So you don't feel that your fund-raising
is somewhat slow?
Mr. Wilburn. It is deliberate, ma'am. It is deliberate, as
we had planned.
Mrs. Christensen. Because part of that $8 million is the $5
million and the $2.5 million that Congress appropriated, so
that leaves about another--that means you have raised about $1
million?
Mr. Wilburn. $1 million, $1.5 million.
Mrs. Christensen. Give or take.
Mr. Wilburn. Also, if you will look, we submitted a plan in
November of 2000 in which we mapped out our fund-raising
schedule, and these kinds of efforts do require, as I mentioned
before, to have the kinds of materials we have now to really
convince people to make the commitment. That is where we
expected that we would be at this particular point in time.
Mrs. Christensen. How many members of the board of
directors should there be in place?
Mr. Wilburn. We have 9 members of our board of directors
today. We are building our board very slowly over time. We are
trying to make sure that we get people on our board who are
willing to make the kinds of personal commitment in time and
philanthropic commitment, and right now we have--I believe you
have in front of you a list of the members of the board that
are there. I think you would agree with me, we have a quite
distinguished group of individuals who are on our board, and we
are building on that.
Mrs. Christensen. And what is the total number?
Mr. Wilburn. Right now we have 9 members.
Mrs. Christensen. You have 9, but what--.
Mr. Wilburn. We don't have an absolute commitment, but
certainly we would see having, you know, probably twice that
many before we are finished.
Mrs. Christensen. OK. I guess after hearing some of the
discussion concerning the fact that maybe Congress might at
some point consider an appropriation and the what-ifs on the
fund-raising and so forth, I still just have a sense that there
may be a more conservative approach, a smaller approach that
might be the most prudent one. But you don't have any concerns
that you won't be able to raise that money?
Mr. Wilburn. There is always--you know, raising funds is
difficult. I have done it before. We raised--all I know is my
past experience. We raised, when I was in Williamsburg over a
4-year period, about $160 million; in Pittsburgh in a 3-year
period we raised $140 million back in the 1980's.
Mrs. Christensen. So you feel pretty confident?
Mr. Wilburn. I feel relatively confident because of the
importance of the project, the importance of the place and the
number of people up there that are interested. It is a
difficult funding environment. There is no question about that.
Mrs. Christensen. One more question. The building plans for
the venue lobby, what are the programs at the facility that a
visitor would be charged to see?
Mr. Wilburn. It would be the same programs that they are
charged to see now at Gettysburg, and that is, namely, the
electric map program which we have now done in the two theaters
that are shown here, and right above the two theaters will be
the Cyclorama painting. Those will be the only fee venues. The
museum would be free, as it is today. So the same things that
you are charged for today, you would be charged for in this
facility.
Mrs. Christensen. The fees are anticipated to stay the
same?
Mr. Wilburn. The fees are anticipated to be modest.
Obviously there will be some increases over time, but of the
same relative magnitude that they are today.
Mrs. Christensen. I guess I will stop there. Thank you.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you. I do have to say that my thought
about the square footage seemed awful large compared to some of
the other visitor's centers in the national parks, but when you
think about it, when you go to Yosemite, you look at something
that is there. I mean it is really there. And in Gettysburg,
you are really looking at a nice landscape, but more
importantly what was there once but isn't there now, and that
is what happened during the Civil War, which puts the pressure
on interpretive displays and how you present what happened then
as being very important.
I guess in my closing I would wish that, being a member of
a satellite community of a national park, that you would
continue to work with the community to make sure that this
exhibit enhances the visitor's experiences. In dealing with
overnight stays, at least we don't have to deal with overnight
facilities inside this park that we do in Yosemite, which adds
extra pressure between the Park Service and satellite
communities. But at the same time, I would like to make sure
that this visitor center is properly linked to the downtown of
Gettysburg and the community there so that they are able to
prosper by this expansion of Gettysburg as much as anybody
else. Those are really my only comments.
Mr. Santorum, did you have anything?
Senator Santorum. Just in closing, I think one of the
things that we will be doing as part of that is the shuttle
service, the Wills House; there are a lot of things that we are
doing with Gettysburg College, Mark Souder mentioned the
Majestic Theater, and there is a lot of things that are under
way right now to make sure that not just the visitor's center,
but the battlefield is much more interlinked within the
community and in bringing people downtown.
As you probably know, the battle took place not just where
it--on the south of town, but it also took place west of town,
so you have to go through town to get from one end of the
battlefield to the other. So there is already a linkage to
town, and the more people you get going from day 1 to day 2 and
3, they are coming through town and there is a greater
opportunity for them to, particularly if there are sites for
them to see while in town, there is a much better opportunity
for them to stop and shop and do all of the other things and
hopefully stay. The big shortfall of Gettysburg, which everyone
has mentioned here, is it is a 1-day trip, and by having a much
fuller interpretive experience we hope to make that into a 2-
day trip or more, and that is going to be a great boon to
downtown.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
Mr. Radanovich. One other question I do have is, to my
knowledge, the information, or whatever is necessary to change
the management plan that says that after 20 years of up and
running operation, that it is dedicated to the National Park
Service; that is happening? I mean that is something that--.
Mr. Wilburn. That was always my interpretation of the
reading anyway, and I assume that--.
Mr. Hoffman. I think we have the agreement of the two
parties verbally here, so we will put that change together.
Mr. Radanovich. So you will get that in motion?
Mr. Hoffman. Yes.
Mr. Radanovich. All right. That is good enough for me.
Any other questions?
All right. Thank you. This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:23 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
The following information was submitted for the record:
LBenner, Craig, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, Letters
submitted for the record
LHaffner, Craig, President and CEO, Greystone
Films, Letter submitted for the record
LLevy, Robert W., FAIA, President, The HABS/HAER
Foundation, Letter and resolution submitted for the record
LPlatts, The Honorable Todd Russell, Statement
submitted for the record
LRebmann, Chris, President, Association of
Licensed Battlefield Guides, Letter submitted for the record
[Letters submitted for the record by Mr. Benner follow:]
March 18, 2002
Dear Members of Congress,
Thank you for reviewing the construction cost proposal for a much-
needed new visitor center and museum on the Gettysburg Battlefield. On
January 17th, I wrote the First Lady with an appeal to monitor this
project and I would like to think she heard my plea.
Plans for a new visitor center and museum put forth by the National
Park Service (NPS) with assistance from the Gettysburg National
Battlefield Museum Foundation (GNBMF) are grandiose and do not conform
to the community's architectural heritage. The proposed cost could
rebuild most of the town of Gettysburg.
In addition, the relationship between the NPS and GNBMF has created
a degree of confusion regarding who actually ``owns'' the project and
what role our Federal government plays in the proposed construction.
The NPS should not sanction one group over others in soliciting private
contributions for battlefield preservation.
Please help us maintain the humble dignity of this hallowed place.
I understand that our town's history belongs to the entire country. As
a seventh generation citizen of Gettysburg and one who has family
relics in the museum and on the battlefield, I hope we can do what
history demands of us in a modest manner.
Abraham Lincoln said, ``But, in a larger sense, we can not
dedicate--we can not consecrate--we can not hallow--this ground. The
brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have hallowed it, far
above our poor power to add or detract.''
I trust in the judgment of Congress.
Your loyal citizen,
Craig Benner
25 Chambersburg Street
Gettysburg, PA 17325
(717) 873-4296
______
March 22, 2002
Dear Members of Congress,
Thank you for conducting the hearing yesterday on the proposed
Gettysburg Battlefield visitor center construction cost. I was present
at the hearing and disappointed with some of the answers that the
National Park Service (NPS) and Gettysburg National Battlefield Museum
Foundation (GNBMF) gave the Congresswomen and men.
I was dismayed to hear the NPS believes the plan should not be open
for discussion or review even after the price tag for the project has
more than doubled. They said the change in cost was insignificant to
the plan and thus, no need for an open discussion. I beg to differ.
Specifically, if the National Park Service is going to be taking
control of the buildings and land after 20 years, then it is important
to know what the cost of maintaining the structures will be. Also, this
is indicative of the NPS and GNBMF interactions with the citizens of
Gettysburg. The NPS views our opinions as insignificant to the plans.
The Congresswoman and men mentioned it was the first time they were
able to review the architectural drawings of the structures. If the
National Park Service is to take over the building in 20 years, then it
is vitally important the architectural designs conform to the
architectural history of the area. The Gettysburg HARB (Historical
Architectural Review Board) should be contacted by the NPS regarding
the architectural style of Gettysburg during Civil War period. The
GNBMF architectural drawings call for round buildings to house some of
the exhibits. Round buildings were not part of the landscape in 1863.
Pennsylvania Dutch barns are square like boxes. The Federal Government
should be interested in preserving the architectural landscape of
historical America.
Please ask the NPS to open the plans up for discussion and please
request the NPS invites the citizens of Gettysburg to the discussion.
The Congressman from Pennsylvania is under the belief retail
storeowners on Steinwehr Avenue are the main voice of decent to the
proposed plan of the NPS. But, there is a large contingency of
Gettysburg citizens who appose the plan on cost, design and the way in
which the NPS has conducted itself during the process. Apparently,
donating $5 million to a NPS project gets you heard. Fortunately, in
America it's one vote for one person. If the conduct of the NPS is not
corrected and if the relationship with the GNBMF is not reviewed more
closely then I will be certain to carry this issue to the next election
of the Congressmen from Pennsylvania.
The National Park Service in Gettysburg has taken an adversarial
approach when dealing with the local citizens. If the management of the
Gettysburg National Park cannot mend the relationship with the local
community then please relocate NPS staff from Gettysburg to other
parks. We should be working together and not moving apart. The irony of
this divide at the Gettysburg Battlefield between the citizens and NPS
staff is very disappointing
Gettysburg resident and citizen,
Craig Benner
25 Chambersburg Street
Gettysburg, PA 17325
(717) 873-4296
______
[A letter submitted for the record by Mr. Haffner follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78322.016
[A letter and resolution submitted for the record by Mr.
Levy follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78322.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78322.018
[A statement submitted for the record by Congressman Platts
follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Todd Russell Platts, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Pennsylvania
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
affording me the opportunity to discuss the Museum and Visitor Center
project at Gettysburg National Military Park.
The Battle of Gettysburg was a pivotal turning point in American
history. It was the largest and bloodiest battle to ever take place in
North America and ultimately it helped preserve the United States of
America. Today, an average of 1.8 million visitors come to Gettysburg
to better appreciate the significance of the Gettysburg Campaign, the
Civil War and the bravery of the soldiers who, in Abraham Lincoln's
words, ``gave the last full measure of devotion.''
Given the significance of this national treasure, I appreciate this
opportunity for the subcommittee, the House of Representatives and the
general public to receive an update on the National Park Service's
partnership with the Gettysburg National Battlefield Museum Foundation.
Questions have arisen about the direction this project has taken, and
they deserve to be answered.
Mr. Chairman, when I began my service in the House of
Representatives last year, the Gettysburg Museum and Visitor Center
Project had already been approved by the National Park Service.
Although I was not a part of the debate leading up to that decision, I
have focused my efforts in office on enhancing the visitor's experience
at Gettysburg for future generations.
When I visited Gettysburg National Military Park as a child, I
remember being very impressed by the technology on display with the
Electric Map. Thirty years later, however, you need more than a few
blinking lights to capture the imagination of today's youth.
As such, I fully support the National Park Service's plan to
restore the Gettysburg Battlefield to its 1863 appearance, while
building a state-of-the art museum and visitor center to better educate
visitors and protect its extensive collection of artifacts and
documents. We need to inspire new generations to study the causes and
consequences of the events that took place on that hallowed ground in
July 1863.
Yet, legitimate questions have been raised about the price of the
visitor center, the fundraising process and the potential use of
taxpayer dollars. I have had the opportunity to individually raise
these and other issues with the National Park Service and the
Gettysburg National Battlefield Museum Foundation, and they have
provided me with very satisfactory answers to these questions. Now
importantly, the National Park Service and the Gettysburg National
Battlefield Museum Foundation need to provide these same assurances to
this committee, the House of Representatives and the general public.
Upon the conclusion of that effort, I believe the committee will
share my general support of this project. Thank you for the opportunity
to give my testimony today. I ask that my statement be submitted for
the hearing record.
______
[A letter submitted for the record by Mr. Rebmann follows:]
Association of Licensed Battlefield Guides
p.o. box 4152
gettysburg, pa 17325
march 16, 2002
Honorable George Radanovich
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks,
Recreation and Public Lands
123 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Sir:
re: plans for new museum and visitor center at gettysburg
The Association of Licensed Battlefield Guides, representing over
90 guides licensed by Gettysburg National Military Park, strongly
supports the plans you will be discussing on March 21. Licensed guides
at Gettysburg provide over 20,000 professionally guided tours for
visitors each year. We provide the most comprehensive overall
battlefield tours available to visitors, as we tailor personalized
tours to each group going with them in cars, vans, and buses. Our
constant interaction with visitors as we tell the powerful story of the
battle gives us a unique perspective on the need for new facilities
here.
We are impressed with the initial design concepts that were
unveiled by the Museum Foundation on January 11, 2002. We believe the
quality, size, and styling reflected in those concepts seem fitting for
Gettysburg.
Quality: The excellent quality of materials and design suggested by
the concepts even at higher cost is fully justified by the power of the
story we tell here. Gettysburg reflects a critical moment in our
history. Over 160,000 courageous Americans fought on this field; our
visitors often stand in awe of the sacrifices those men made here. Our
visitors come from every state and numerous other countries. For many,
their visit is a once in a lifetime chance to see this field, absorb
its story, and carry away memories. President Abraham Lincoln, as much
as anyone, recognized the importance of Gettysburg in the American
experience. His heart-felt words continue to draw new generations here
to learn about Americans giving the last full measure of devotion.
We believe that a low-budget facility of minimal quality would fall
short of the expectations of many visitors, and fail to honor the
memory of the American soldiers who fought here.
Size: The size of the projected facility is necessary for two
reasons. First, a great deal of space is required to handle the crowds
of visitors during the warm months. Our current facility is often
swamped by crowds, particularly in the spring when school groups from
all across the country descend upon the battlefield.
Of equal importance is the need for a larger museum display to link
our story of real people with the tangible artifacts they left behind.
Further, the museum must be large enough to tell at least a basic story
of the entire Civil War period. Visitors must be able to place
Gettysburg in the context of the period. As guides, we attempt to
explain this as we unfold our tours on the battlefield itself. The
projected museum plans reflect a larger facility that can do this
effectively indoors. Then, when we begin our tours, the visitors will
already understand the background history.
We believe a smaller facility than the one planned would severely
limit the park s ability to handle heavy visitation, as well as its
ability to educate visitors with museum displays.
Styling: The styling revealed by the design concepts seems ideal.
It is sensitive to our rural landscape, and will blend into it rather
than intrude upon it. The concept of farm-style buildings, nestled
unobtrusively in an area that saw minimal battle activity, is
fantastic. The use of stone and wood on the exterior seems wholly
appropriate.
Since our profession involves helping modern visitors visualize the
landscape of 1863, we are strong supporters of the park s General
Management Plan. Every effort to restore the period landscape will be
applauded by our Association. The construction of new facilities of
such appropriate styling, and the removal of the current Visitor Center
and Cyclorama from their intrusive locations, will be cause for
celebration among licensed guides at Gettysburg.
In brief, these are reasons that our Association of Licensed
Battlefield Guides supports the design concepts now under review. On
behalf of the Association, I would be pleased to answer questions or
provide additional information as needed. Thank you for your
consideration of our comments.
Sincerely,
Chris Rebmann
President
cc: Hon. Todd Platts
Hon. Rick Santorum
-