U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

78-322 PS 2002

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member

Don Young, Alaska,

Vice Chairman

W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin, Louisiana

Jim Saxton, New Jersey

Elton Gallegly, California

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee

Joel Hefley, Colorado

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland

Ken Calvert, California

Scott McInnis, Colorado

Richard W. Pombo, California

Barbara Cubin, Wyoming

George Radanovich, California

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina

Mac Thornberry, Texas

Chris Cannon, Utah

John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania

Bob Schaffer, Colorado

Jim Gibbons, Nevada

Mark E. Souder, Indiana

Greg Walden, Oregon

Michael K. Simpson, Idaho

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado

J.D. Hayworth, Arizona

C.L. ‘‘Butch’’ Otter, Idaho

Tom Osborne, Nebraska

Jeff Flake, Arizona

Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana

George Miller, California

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey

Calvin M. Dooley, California

Robert A. Underwood, Guam

Adam Smith, Washington

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands

Ron Kind, Wisconsin

Jay Inslee, Washington

Grace F. Napolitano, California

Tom Udall, New Mexico

Mark Udall, Colorado

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey

James P. McGovern, Massachusetts

Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico

Hilda L. Solis, California

Brad Carson, Oklahoma

Betty McCollum, Minnesota

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

(III)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION,

AND PUBLIC LANDS

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California, Chairman

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands Ranking Democrat Member

Elton Gallegly, California

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee

Joel Hefley, Colorado

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina,

Vice Chairman

Mac Thornberry, Texas

Chris Cannon, Utah

Bob Schaffer, Colorado

Jim Gibbons, Nevada

Mark E. Souder, Indiana

Michael K. Simpson, Idaho

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey

Tom Udall, New Mexico

Mark Udall, Colorado

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey

James P. McGovern, Massachusetts

Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico

Hilda L. Solis, California

Betty McCollum, Minnesota

(V)

CONTENTS

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

(1)

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.

2

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.

3

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.

4

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.

5

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 picVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:59 Dec 13, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 78322.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
6

ture 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.

7

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.

8

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

9

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 phasein 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

10

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

11

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

12

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 en- dowment 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,

13

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

14

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:

• the 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;

• inclusion of the Wills House in the NPS boundary through Public Law 106–290;

• preparation of an historic structure report and preliminary design for the Wills

House, with funding provided by the NPS, for rehabilitation as a Lincoln

Museum;

• acquisition of the Lincoln Train Station—where Lincoln arrived in Gettysburg—

by the Borough of Gettysburg;

• preparation of an historic structure report and design documents for the rehabilitation of the Lincoln Train Station as a downtown information and orientation center;

• completion 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

• agreement 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:

• Protection 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.

• Preservation 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.

15

• Provision 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.)

• Rehabilitation 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

16

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.

17

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.

18

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:]

19

20

21

22

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 fundraising 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

23

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

24

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.

25

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:

• We want to educate and to inspire; to promote learning by creating the kind

of excitement that makes people thirst to know more.

• We want people to leave Gettysburg with a deeper, more lasting appreciation

of what happened there.

• We 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. • We 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

26

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:

• Provide the American people with a state-of-the art museum and visitor center.

• Ensure high quality interpretation and educational opportunities.

• Restore and fully protect the Cyclorama painting.

• Protect and provide for proper display of artifact collection.

• Return significant portions of the battlefield, now paved over and covered with

buildings, as close as possible to their state in 1863.

• Acquire 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.

• Create 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.

27

(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.

28

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:]

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

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 fundraising 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

42

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.

43

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

44

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

45

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

46

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.

47

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 stateof-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.

48

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

49

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

50

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 mil- lion 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.

51

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

52

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:

• Benner, Craig, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, Letters submitted for

the record

• Haffner, Craig, President and CEO, Greystone Films, Letter

submitted for the record

• Levy, Robert W., FAIA, President, The HABS/HAER Foundation, Letter and resolution submitted for the record

• Platts, The Honorable Todd Russell, Statement submitted for

the record

• Rebmann, Chris, President, Association of Licensed Battlefield

Guides, Letter submitted for the record

[Letters submitted for the record by Mr. Benner follow:]

53

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

54

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:]

55

56

[A letter and resolution submitted for the record by Mr. Levy

follow:]

57

[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

58

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.

59

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

Æ