Date: 1999-07-14
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. if there is ever a situation that cries out for oversight. this is one that does. As my colleague. Mr. GOODLING. has recounted. this project has been controversial from the outset. and he has played a continued and constructive role in trying to mediate that process. But it started because the process started backwards. It started with the National Park Service trying to avoid congressional authorization for a major visitor center. a visitor center that all of us agree is sorely needed and must be brought to fruition. But the fact of the matter is that the visitor center plans that have been devised before were ones where they took the plan and then tried to develop a management plan to make it fit. When we asked them for actuarial information and we asked them for their business plan. when we asked them for the facts and figures with respect to the cash flows and whether or not this would be sustainable or not. or whether or not the Park Service would end up inheriting the facility that could not carry itself financially. they dodged the information. They hid the information from all of us for a very. very long period of time. came up with inaccurate information. came up with information that they knew in fact was inaccurate and presented it to our staff on the Committee on Resources. I think the fact what we see is that by trying to skirt the process. they have probably lengthened the process. The committee. the authorizing committee. has established authorized major visitor centers throughout this country. and we have done it -in the midst of great controversy. but we have provided the forum by which those controversies could be reconciled. So far the National Park Service has been unable to do that. We still do not know what the economics of this plan will be and whether or not they believe the taxpayer holding. if. in fact. the projections. which are fairly robust and fairly optimistic. turn out not to be true. So I think the gentleman is quite correct in asking for this limitation on the expenditures of money for this agreement until such time as we have an opportunity to provide that kind of congressional oversight. and I say that with all due respect and great respect for my colleague and my chairman on the Committee on Education and the Workforce. the gentleman from Pennsylvania . I had talked to him about this almost 2 years ago when.I was trying to get information from the Park Service and recognized his ongoing involvement. and I have tried to pull back from that because both he and the gentleman from Pennsylvania and others were working out to try to see whether or not something could be resolved. We still find ourselves in a situation where the Park Service has failed to come up with a workable plan both from the point of the affected community and from. I think. economics in terms of one that is sustainable for this magnificent battlefield park. And I would say that I absolutely agree with the gentleman. and I think the gentleman from Pennsylvania and the gentleman from Pennsylvania and others who have been involved in this process. The goal is to get a new visitor center. This park deserves better. The artifacts. the history. all of that that is being maintained there needs to be preserved in a better fashion. needs to be more accessible to the public and to the people who study the history of the Civil War. and certainly the battle of Gettysburg. and I think this amendment is quite proper. and I would hope that the committee would support it