SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY

LENGTH: 5901 words

HEADLINE: TESTIMONY February 11, 1999 FRANKLIN R. SILBEY BUSINESS OWNER HOUSE RESOURCES NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS GETTYSBURG MANAGEMENT PLAN

BODY:
THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO PROMOTE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN GETTYSBURG NATIONAL MILITARY PARK TESTIMONY OF: FRANKLIN R. SILBEY FEBRUARY 11, 1999 HOUSE NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE Mr. Chairman: My name is Franklin Silbey, president of my own Washington consulting company. I spent 17 years working In the House and Senate as staff director and chief of investigations of three House and Senate oversight-subcommittees and committees. Today I represent only myself, but have been involved in the Gettysburg National Park situation since 1993. Then I guided former Congressman Mike Synar of Oklahoma and his staff to the battlefield to see for themselves how much damage the park sustained as a result of a land exchange between the park and Gettysburg College. That resulted in destruction of a unique historical landscape on the first day's battlefield, which today remains a repellent eyesore due to the unwillingness and inability of NPS to pursue this issue with the college. I commend this subcommittee for its courage and integrity in holding this hearing, which many have hoped for and some have worked to prevent. It is a long overdue airing of facts and policies that have heretofore never seen true light of day nor come to detailed attention of Congress and the public. I represent no economic interest of any kind, never have and do not anticipate representing anyone in future With economic interests in the park- I have never accepted any compensation for my work and expect none. At the outset, I wish to assure this subcommittee that I am not here to engage in personality issues or questions of character or ethics of any kind. I am here to ask questions only a Congressional inquiry can answer. Such as: 1) Why was Congress never approached on Gettysburg, and its problems? 2) Why the cloak of secrecy and denial of so many requests for vital data? 3) Why the proposed creation of a very large commercial monopoly in tourist business in the heart of hallowed ground? 4) Why the effective denial of due process through abuse of federal procedures? 5) Why what appears to be undue favoritism to certain groups and individuals in terms of fundraising or quasi-official advisory groups? These are a few of the major questions I hope the subcommittee will explore in this hearing. This issue is not about patriotism, charity or idealism. It is solely and exclusively about lots of money. Almost two million visitors annually visit the battlefield, spending several hundred million dollars doing so. This is solely about a carefully planned, methodical effort by a tiny group of senior NPS officials to deliver a de facto commercial monopoly over that lucrative tourist business to a private developer. It has been justified by repeated claims that irreplaceable battle relics are being inexorably destroyed through neglect and lack of adequate storage facilities at the present visitor center. Should they succeed, they have repeatedly announced it will serve as a national precedent for further so-called public-private partnerships at other "great places" in our country under NPS stewardship. At no time has NPS ever approached this or any other Congressional committee delineating this serious situation and making specific requests for funds to rescue relics and update facilities. Simultaneously, while single-mindedly pursuing this private commercial alternative, they have been blaming Congress, and by inference this authorizing committee for this sad state of affairs. I wish to offer for the record quotes by NPS officials to this effect, including the present Superintendent. Who chose these policies and approved them? This process of seeking commercial development to the exclusion of other alternatives has gone on for more than two years, characterized throughout by a calculated policy of official agency secrecy, with a goal of exclusion of the public from any and all substantive parts of the process. Denial of Freedom of Information Act requests and long delays in making available even basic data have been consistent NPS policy. Why such information denial lo the public" The chronology clearly demonstrates that a decision was made to create a commercial complex and visitor center at the LeVan site, and the GMP was drafted to justify that approach. Improvement of the existing facility was never offered as an alternative. NPS had a commercial plan far in advance of obtaining any project approval. This was admitted by the Deputy Director of NPS at Senate hearings last year held by Senator Thomas (R) of Wyoming. Once NPS issued their Request for Procurement, they made it plain they wanted no part of the precedents of Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty. No public appeal to the nation. No fundraising effort on a non-profit basis. Certainly no approach to Congress. NPS officials have unwaveringly pursued one alternative only; allowing a private commercial development within boundaries of the park itself Who dictated these policies and made sure they have been followed despite mounting public opposition and questions? On page 8 of Senator Thomas subcommittee report on the hearing, Mr. Galvin, NPS Deputy Director, is quoted as saying, "There will be no commercialization of the park." When the developer submitted his proposal and it was accepted by NPS it was not released for 8 months, despite numerous FOIA requests from preservation groups, other bidders, media, local officials, individuals and Civil War groups. The original proposal described the facility he wants to build as "a small mail," which turned out to be almost 150,000 square feet. Some small mall. When opponents finally got several inside sources to leak facts about the original proposal, they were deeply concerned at the size and contents of the facility. Kinsley was given a 30-day extension to submit his plan, the while claiming he had control of the tract, when in fact he did not. This $43 million complex included a retail store and 300-seat cafeteria plus an additional restaurant, a large bus terminal and an Imax theater. The "small mall" quote comes from Page 2 of the original Kinsley proposal, under the heading of "Concept and Development Strategy." Why was the original Kinsley proposal not made available to the public? Why was it dated 5/9/97 and only released 7/23/98? Why was the huge size of the commercial development withheld from all who inquired? Why were vital documents withheld despite repeated FOIA requests? No park visitor center in recent memory had cost more than $10 million to build. Those the size of Gettysburg have averaged $5 million. This is a veritable Titanic of a visitor center. In the ensuing protest, and because of negative national publicity in Civil War Times and USA Today, NPS, the developer and his Washington lobbying firm, Hill & Knowlton, orally reassured critics the commercial scale has been vastly reduced, supposedly to virtual non-existence. This is not true. We have only their verbal assurance, and NPS has long since forfeited the trust of large segments of the interested public. Even to take such assurances at face value, the mall will have a 6,000 square foot retail store and a 6,000 square foot cafeteria, both of which would be the largest such establishments in all Adams County, with a comparable impact. The size of the mall is being dictated by the size of its commercial components. Why has the so-called reduced commercial element been downplayed when it is so massive and will obviously dominate all commercial tourist business at GNMP? How can this be justified one-third of a mile from where Lincoln spoke and Pickett's charge was repulsed? Federal law strictly regulates private enterprise on park- properties. It requires competitive bidding in almost all cases, and procedures that must be followed by concessionaires are rigorous and subject to public scrutiny. The new visitor center/commercial development has been structured as a VI partnership" with a non-profit foundation to avoid those law and regulations. The foundation will use the imprimatur of the Park Service and hallowed name of Gettysburg to raise $22 million via charitable public subscription, and will use the security of rents from commercial ventures on the Site to borrow another $18 million. This raises certain questions: a) Will the public contribute to build commercial facilities for a commercial developer? b) Has the "public/private partnership" corrupted the GMP process? For example, this structure has permitted the developer to commit $500,000 to hiring the powerful and costly lobbying and public relations firm of Hill & Knowlton, with those funds reimbursable by the public's charitable gifts. In turn, Hill & Knowlton has embarked on a joint effort with the Park Service to lobby Congress to back Alternative C. Hill & Knowlton and the Park Service have organized junkets to Gettysburg for members of Congress and their staffs at which visitors have either not been told of broad opposition to the Park Service plan or have heard it belittled. Indeed, Hill & Knowlton has prepared material for these junkets which state that "A set of single interest groups has coalesced and formed a new anti-Visitor Center/GMP group." The materials never mention that doubts and opposition have been voiced about the plan by such parties as the editors of the Civil War News, the Association for the Preservation of Civil War Sites and numerous Civil War Roundtables. The Opposition of the Gettysburg Battlefield Preservation Association is dismissed, with egregious inaccuracy, because the organization is, "opposed to the NPS' solution to the railroad cut." d) What is the private partner really contributing? It will retain a professional fundraiser, who will presumably be paid from proceeds raised. It will borrow part of the $40 million cost of the project and obtain the rest from the public. Why cannot the Park Service work cooperatively with non-profits interested in refurbishing and expanding the existing visitor center and building a museum and conservation facility to raise monies needed? Would this not avoid a need to award the plum construction contract without competitive bidding and embed within Park Service facilities a commercial complex which will undermine many businesses in Gettysburg dependent on the Park? We have received reassurances the developer will not commence work until all money is in hand, totalling some $40 million. The original cost was listed at $43 million. As secret negotiations progressed, critics discovered the following- The Davis-Bacon Act, dating from the 1930's, requires Federal projects to pay prevailing wages. A waiver of this act has allegedly been negotiated with the developer, allowing him savings of $3 million, accounting for the difference between his original figure and the present one. Organized labor in Pennsylvania has been in court often insisting on enforcement of this rule. Has a Davis Bacon waiver been discussed or agreed to? If so, what does it consist of? Numerous data requests are simply ignored by NPS. They stonewalled FOIA requests by invoking a new, specialized exemption created by Congress two years ago to the FOIA. NPS claimed Federal regulations prevented them from complying, as if they wished to release data but were forbidden, for national security reasons. Checking with FOIA experts, we found the exception to the act in question was solely designed to protect release of information in bids submitted by Pentagon contractors occasionally containing sensitive national defense material. Why such a transparent, elaborate effort by NPS to deny access to the Kinsley proposal and any information on ongoing negotiations? What other concessions have been discussed, sought by the developer and agreed to? Even names of NPS officials chosen to evaluate bids from contractors were considered secret and withheld from the public until Congressional interest forced their release. The same was true of identities of Wharton School advisers present at all deliberations and evaluations. No admission was ever made that these men, Mr. William Alexander and his business partner, John Rhodes, had a significant contract with NPS to evaluate such initiatives. Mr. Alexander formerly owned and sold a very large family construction company, is formerly Chairman of the Hershey Trust, is on its board now, and allegedly has business relationships with Mr. Kinsley. This is surely worthy of further serious Congressional scrutiny. The Superintendent has repeatedly stated this project will not cost taxpayers any money. That NPS is broke. That NPS will not pay rent to Kinsley (as Mr. Kinsley had originally proposed). To support the Superintendent the Operating Proforma of Revenue Generated does not show any rent from NPS. But apparently this is not true, because on page 98 of the GMP we see the Park will in fact pay Kinsley for, "building operating services." Rent by any other name is still rent. What were our questions? We wanted to know if once built, the mail could be expanded? We still don't have an answer. What was the actual size of the commercial mall going to be? Would the present free parking be replaced with fees? Would the 10,000 square foot movie theater show commercial films on the battlefield after dark after the park closed? Last summer, meeting with the Gettysburg Bureau Retail Merchants Association, Kinsley stated this would in fact be the case. What is the true answer? Only Congress can find out. We asked if negotiations, once concluded, could be reopened and elements of the deal be renegotiated? Evidently they could. Without Congressional knowledge, consent, oversight or any public review. Is this in fact the case? If so, what are the particulars? We were told Mr. Kinsley would claim certain tax exemptions as a Federal project. We then were told because it would be built on private land within the park, his project was immune from all taxes. The Park told us nothing to clarify the situation We were asking about a very large commercial entity to be located within a quarter to one-third of a mile from where Pickett's Charge crested and from where President Lincoln spoke in the National Cemetery- within hailing distance of where 3500 Civil War and 1,500 combatants from other wars lie buried. What are the answers? What is the true Federal and state tax status of the Kinsley project? Eastern National Parks and Monument Association, a non-profit now operating the park bookstore, is slated to run the 6,000 square foot store planned for this mall. Would their lease be with the Federal government or the developer? No definitive answer available. Who will hold the lease? NPS offered repeated assurances that no ground would be broken until all money was raised. In recent private conversations, Mr. Kinsley has stated he will bring in bulldozers and tear open battleground undisturbed since the battle once he has commitments for $8 million, or 20% of required money. Is this true? Mr. Kinsley has since proceeded to buy the LeVan Tract, an inholding of 45 acres within the park; last part of the battlefield totally unchanged from its condition at the time of the conflict. LeVan is the same public-spirited patriot who made available a large portion of the land on which the National Tower now stands. So he has twice blessed our nation with commercial deals of this sort, and profited handsomely. Mr. Kinsley paid approximately $61,000 per acre for unimproved farm land which ordinarily in ADAMS County sells for $2,000 per acre, setting a new asking price for any commercial land needed to protect the park. In one move, this puts the asking price for all other such land out of sight, putting it out of the reach of most preservationists and preservation organizations. By that single act of mischief, if this project is allowed, acquisition and preservation of numerous battle-related tracts has become impossible. NPS gives repeated assurances they will control the project. Many would like to know if this promise and that of the superintendent that no ground will be broken until all money is in hand will be enforced in writing by the U.S. Government. Can it? Will it? Mr. Kinsley has bought or otherwise acquired control of at least two other parcels of land on Baltimore Pike, directly adjacent to his project. He is negotiating for acquisition and control of two other parcels. Developers buy land to develop. Once he has this project in hand and controls a large portion of land across the boundary, he will be free to seek zoning changes to allow a second belt of commercial development just across the boundary. Should the proposed application for Federal highway money succeed by the Friends and prevent any further development on the Pike, it will serve to further cement in and insulate the Kinsley monopoly. Inside the Park boundary, the mall will be next to and anchored right next to the National Tower, whose owner as recently as last week praised the project and last year endorsed it while praising the Superintendent and NPS for bringing it about. This of course rescues his now ailing venture and guarantees him a windfall flow of tourist business while hiking his asking price for the tower far beyond what it once could have been purchased for. The Kinsley Mall adjacent to the Tower will create a huge new commercial footprint within the park. If more development takes place on any ground he is tying up now, there could be a double belt of commercialism where now there is only the tower. NPS repeatedly claims the LeVan Tract saw no battle action, that no artifacts have been found on the site. Richard Rollins and Dave Schultz are acknowledged experts on artillery at Gettysburg. I respectfully call your attention to a letter from Mr. Rollins stating there was indeed critical battle action at Kinzie's Knoll in the LeVan Tract, closely associated with repulse of the Confederate attack on Culp's Hill on the second day. Rollins told this to two historians at the park and claims he was assured the mall would not be built there. He subsequently discovered there was a real possibility this would indeed be the case. I ask the subcommittee to enter his letter questioning the project into the record. Why then did NPS walk away from negotiations several years ago with the owner of the National Tower? Why did Kathy Harrison and Scott Hartwig, the two NPS historians, assure Rollins Kinzie's Knoll would be left inviolate? Where is the list of and the actual artifacts excavated at the LeVan Tract within recent months? There is a FOIA request for this pending since last month. Here are other things NPS has chosen NOT to do: 1. Immediately after taking over in 1994, the Superintendent allegedly unilaterally abandoned existing, well-advanced negotiations with the Tower's, owner for its sale to the United States. No explanation was offered according to a lawyer involved, who was quoted in the Gettysburg Times. 2. Eastern Monument Association had made an offer several years ago to lead a fundraising effort to construct at a remote site in the park a permanent climate-controlled building for storage of any endangered or deteriorating artifacts. This offer has been ignored and never publicized by NPS. Perhaps this would deprive the park of its ability to put on "dog and pony shows" claiming to feature rotting artifacts requiring a new elaborate visitor center. George Lower, one of the nation's leading Civil War relic experts, believes all or most of the damage done to the relics occurred far in the past, and has written a letter to this effect which I offer far the record at this time. 3. The Synar hearings revealed the true disastrous dimensions of the railroad cut land exchange. After then Director Roger Kennedy promised to pursue the issue with Gettysburg College which deliberately vandalized the ridge, NPS chose to walk away from the advantage and evidence the hearing revealed. In a private meeting he sought with me afterwards, Director Kennedy promised as he had promised Congressman Synar, that he would make good on his word to the subcommittee in his presentation. He did not. Why has NPS ignored the Eastern offer, and withheld such knowledge from the public and Congress? Why did NPS ignore its own public commitment to make Gettysburg College make good on its act of unique historical vandalism? Why no statements or actions from NPS? In the past week there have been new developments spotlighting other aspects of this issue. One Civil War-oriented group, Friends of the National Parks at Gettysburg, is, according to press reports, the subject of a criminal inquiry by Adams County's District Attorney. This involves allegations of false information contained in an application they submitted for $2.9 million dollars in Federal highway funds to be used along the Baltimore Pike area leading into the Kinsley Mall. This organization enjoys a uniquely privileged status at the park, and has been totally supportive of the Kinsley Mall, claiming their membership is overwhelmingly favor of this commercial project. Yet the reason such support was forthcoming was because the question was couched in the following way-, Are you in favor of a new museum or not? The Friends enjoy a total monopoly on year-round access to the park for fundraising purposes. This is a privilege-enjoyed by no other group, given them by unilateral and arbitrary decision by the Park since 1995. The Gettysburg Battlefield Preservation Association, to which President Eisenhower once belonged, has been denied access to the park's facilities. Why? Why should GBPA be kept out and FNPG be allowed a monopoly on access for fundraising? Who made and enforces such a decision? Money raised allegedly does not go into the general fund of the U.S. Treasury. Instead, it allegedly goes into a bank account solely accessed and controlled by the Superintendent and Executive Director of the Friends. To my knowledge, no audit of how these funds are used has either been done or is available to the public. Why? Who made a decision to allow such treatment of a considerable sum of money? The Kinsley proposal involves construction of a large bus terminal for tours as part of and adjacent to the mail. This concession originally was granted to Tom Metz, possibly the most influential concessionaire and businessman in Gettysburg, with a similar Federal concession in Everglades National Park. He surreptitiously helped fund an effort to kill a previous attempt to build a similar project. The uproar over this exclusive franchise resulted in his monopoly being slightly reduced. Other buses may use his terminal. Each Metz tout bus will come equipped with a Battlefield Guide at a suitable price, and it will not be cheap. The Guides, who of course support the mail, allegedly made their monopoly presence on Metz's busses a precondition of the initial agreement. A long- time President of the guides, only recently replaced, is Fred Hawthorne, also a long-serving member of the Friends' board of directors. I respectfully request that the committee inquire as to how this arrangement was arrived at, by whom, and who in NPS approved it. Last year the Park's full-time public relations and press person stated there were plans to close off auto traffic at several heavily traveled points in the park. This would make it far more difficult for anyone to drive their own car and take their own tour, a common hands-on learning experience today. This of course would result in many tourists being forced onto busses with guides. The park quickly backed away from the statement, but not before the cat had gotten out of the bag. Making main park roads one-way has already made it much harder for people to really see and get a feel for the battle on their own. Another area where there may have been significant abuses of authority is the park advisory committee. Such committees, with appointees approved by the Interior Department, have rules including three- year terms, reimbursement of expenses, open meetings and no conflicts of interest. At Gettysburg, this group was created to provide Local government and people substantive into park decision making. I do not believe this is now the case. This advisory committee has served as a rubber stamp for the park and Kinsley's proposal. Several committee members, including the chairman and vice chairman, had their terms expire, yet no announcement of this fact was ever made public, no replacements were nominated by Interior, and the people in question were simply kept in place and allowed to continue on as before. The committee is also in the regular habit of having pre-meeting meetings, at which substantive were discussed. This procedure is a violation of the Government In the Sunshine Act, which specifically forbids such abuses. I offer several internal documents delineating this situation for inclusion in the record. Why are there pre-meeting meetings at which substantive issues are discussed in violation of a major Federal law enacted by Congress to prevent just such secret deliberations? Why does Interior evidently deliberately delay further nominations to enable members whose terms have expired to remain in place and make decisions as if they are still in office" Why does the Superintendent feel a need for secret gatherings before a formal meeting is held and the public can attend? The superintendent, who seeks 54 additional job slots at the park in the event the mall is built, arbitrarily abolished the equal opportunity office at the park, claiming they could not afford such a luxury. A full time public relations person is considered a necessity, but no EEO person is. There was a meeting at which this policy was challenged. The Regional Director was present. This insensitive decision was enforced and remains in place, Why? NPS has made elaborate statements and claims about how many public meetings they have held and opportunities given the public, including mall opponents, to comment. While giving the appearance of correct due process, they have turned it into a charade and a mockery by repeatedly denying access to vital data without which there can be no meaningful public discussion on the merits. Simultaneously they negotiate in secrecy despite all protests and requests for information. This hearing is the first time opponents have obtained a forum where such questions can be raised, all information can be aired and protests heard by a body able to take steps to halt the project. At public hearings on GMP comments, people are allowed to register objections and raise questions, but there is no NPS response. No give and take. There will be answers, people are told, when the GMP is released. This is their modus operandi. Is this any way to deal with the public on an issue of vital importance to the nation? Public protests are ignored. Locally, County officials have formally raised repeated serious concerns and the borough and all its elected officials strongly oppose this undertaking. Many are here today. The question is: do communities matter any more? Gettysburg and Adams County certainly do not matter to NPS. In the 3rd week of last October, the Regional Director, a key backer of the mall, could not avoid a meeting with a group of local business and political leaders in Gettysburg. For more than one hour she was confronted with opposition by an overwhelming majority of those present. Emerging from the meeting and queried about objections to the mall, she avoided the tide of opposition and instead said, "I am congratulating Park Superintendent John Latschar and the Park staff on their efforts." George Orwell would have been proud of her. The National Parks & Conservation Association endorsed this commercial venture inside the park. The long-standing national policy of this organization is to place all commercial services outside of national parks rather than inside. They believe if commercial services are available just outside a park, there should not be any inside the park. Yet for some unexplained reason, their representative here today endorses a project that flies in the face of the organization's long-standing national policy. Why? They officially oppose the Tower, yet formally endorse a plan allowing it to stay in place indefinitely. Why? Present here today is Mrs. Angela Rosensteel Eckert and her husband Larry, a grand lady of the town with roots going back before the battle. Her family built and lived in the present day visitor center, amassing the largest collection of Gettysburg relics extant. It is a unique collection donated by the Rosensteel family in the nineteen seventies. A strict condition of the donation was that the collection be cared for properly and not be broken up or transferred. Mrs. Rosensteel has publicly condemned NPS's policies and demanded return of her family's collection because this requirement has been repeatedly violated. She has threatened legal action and is here with her attorney, John Fenstermacher, who is handling the case, pro bono. The NPS Director, who has chosen to be elsewhere today, quietly came to Gettysburg recently without public knowledge, to meet with her to try to dissuade and silence her protests. The subcommittee might wish to ask the Director to appear at another hearing on Gettysburg to answer many of these questions. Accountability is a wonderful word, if only by its rarity today. I have not touched on many other issues such as how much undisturbed battlefield land will be dug up to lay utilities all the way to the mall. What we are seeing here, cloaked in self-serving rhetoric, is an agency largely out of touch with the public, heedless of dissent and criticism, arrogant in behavior and actions, oblivious to Congressionally-mandated rules and determined to create a massive commercial presence within one of our greatest shrines to sacrifices for liberty. Wrapped in secrecy, allied with especially favored semi-official advisory and support groups who benefit significantly from NPS favor, driven by an expensive Washington public relations and lobbying machine, this project has been propelled by all the force senior bureaucrats running a little-scrutinized Federal agency can muster. Congress and the courts are our last hope. If they do not act decisively, NPS will do as before; admit a few small errors, plead for time in which to correct procedural abuses and promise to return with a better plan to answer all objections. This Committee knows that game and must not allow this strategy to be employed. If allowed, NPS will wait a "decent interval," then proceed without advance warning. This is their mindset. They allowed the college to destroy the railroad cut on Christmas and New Year's Day, 1990, and raised no substantive objections and took no vigorous action. They will do something similar if allowed. There should be no commercial development of any kind inside boundaries of the GNMP. It is a grotesque abuse of our principles, a betrayal of our heritage and desecration of the memory of the brave and idealistic men who gave everything so we could have our America as we know it today. Therefore, I most respectfully request the committee to take the following actions: 1. Notify the Secretary of Interior the project is opposed in Congress, must not go forward and should be scrapped forthwith. 2. Notify chairmen of appropriate subcommittees of House and Senate of the committee's position, asking they add their voices and actions to the bipartisan demand for an immediate end to this unacceptable project. 3. Order a swift GAO audit of monies collected by the Friends for the past four years at GNMP, including how the money is spent and who makes any decisions past and present, as to its use. 4. Order the Inspector General of the Department of Interior to initiate a probe of procedures and actions regarding the Gettysburg advisory committee, particularly policies of closed meetings, financial decisions and lapsed terms of members. 5. Order a second inquiry into public information policies of NPS regarding this project and deliberate withholding of information. 6. Guarantee a public release of unexpurgated copies of these reports within 30 days of their completion. Sunlight is still the best disinfectant. 7. Request the immediate transfer and relief from duties of the present superintendent and Regional Director Philadelphia. Mr. Chairman, I deeply appreciate the opportunity you have given me today to appear. The issues raised go the heart of how NPS handles our irreplaceable heritage. If similar actions are taken regarding other great places we trust them to manage, imagine what lies ahead. We have an opportunity to salvage this disaster... to prevent another railroad cut ... another million- dollar toilet at Glacier National Park ... another $300,000 toilet at Delaware Water Gap ... another Steamtown. We allowed the Tower in the seventies. The judgement of history and the public has been harsh and merciless. It will be so again no stringent corrective measures are not taken. At every turn in this twisting road, when we have questioned the wisdom of putting commercial facilities on hallowed ground, we have been assured that it would be "tastefully" done. So why not put a hot dog stand on the Arizona Memorial? Tastefully done, of course. And why not a commercial movieplex right outside the cemetery overlooking Omaha Beach, where thousands of American GI's lie buried? But so tastefully done, of course. Ralph Lauren donated $13 million to refurbishing of the original Star Spangled Banner. He didn't ask to place a "tasteful" store in the lobby of the Museum on the Mail where the flag is, or to have his logo "tastefully" embroidered on Old Glory. Imagine what the old veterans of Gettysburg, now all long gone to their reward, would say if present here today. In spirit they very well may be. Imagine their words if they could tell us what they think of this proposal, those involved and the manner in which NPS has treated our priceless heritage their sacrifice bequeathed to our nation. Is this what they died for? Was it for such a result that they gave their all and created this shining. bright star of a land? In October 1889, General Joshua L. Chamberlain's delivered a talk at Gettysburg. It is worth quoting in part to this subcommittee. "In great deeds something abides. On great fields something stays. Forms change and pass. Bodies disappear, but spirits linger to consecrate ground for the vision. And reverent men and women from afar, and generations that know us not and that we know not of, heart drawn to see where and by whom great things were suffered and done for them, shall come to this deathless field, to ponder and dream: and lo! The shadow of a mighty presence shall wrap them in its bosom, and the power of the vision pass into their souls." Think what short though eloquent comments would be voiced by President Lincoln. The shame of the NPS proposal to plant this commercial atrocity in the Park at Gettysburg is the disgrace of our country. Even that it has gotten this far. I ask the committee to do what is right for the public and future generations, not what is career-building for the NPS bureaucracy and profitable for a developer.

LOAD-DATE: February 17, 1999