Gettysburg Visitor Center- Who Would Have Thought Politics Would Get In the Might Have Gotten in the Way of a Great Plan?

Why did Congressman Klink jump into the Gettysburg issue? The answer was politics. With the removal of the Klink Amendment from the Interior 2000 Appropriations Bill, the politics finally ended.

Santorum, Klink Trade Accusations Over Visitor Center

July 30, 1999- Excerpts from an article published in the Online edition of The Gettysburg Times

WASHINGTON-- � A funding measure aimed at blocking the proposed Gettysburg battlefield visitor center is a "political stunt" that will be stripped out in final negotiations between House and Senate leaders, U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum said Thursday. "That provision will not be in the (Senate) interior bill. And that will not be in the conference report," Santorum said after speaking to a Senate panel on National Park Service plans for acquiring the Wills House in Gettysburg and designating a state park in Lackawanna Valley a national site.

"Political stunts have a short shelf life," the first-term senator said about his confidence that a measure sponsored by Democrat U.S. Rep. Ron Klink of Westmoreland County will be deleted from the final appropriations bill. "I'm just telling you what will happen," the Republican said when asked if he had spoken with committee chairmen or Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott. Santorum said Klink, who plans to run in the Senate elections next year, has political motivations behind his actions.

"It was a political stunt. And that's unfortunate," Santorum said.

"It's a very serious matter. It has very serious repercussions for the community and the future of the battlefield," he said. Klink said his amendment to the House appropriations bill, which passed on two votes, is only a response to concerns of Gettysburg citizens and preservationists concerned about a proposed Park Service partnership with York developer Robert Kinsley to build a $39.28 million visitor center.

"The only thing that would offend me is that someone with such a dismal record as Santorum was in agreement with me," he said. "When he likes what I'm doing, it offends me." While he said it is difficult to predict if his amendment will survive negotiations between House and Senate interior appropriations leaders, Klink said Santorum has a re-election agenda.

"It strikes me that if Mister Santorum thinks that representing the public interest is a political stunt, then he has stood true to the fact of the kind of rough treatment he's given people," he said. "That's a political stunt. Then when he did not represent the people in Adams County, did not represent the local elected officials, the merchants, the citizens, they came to me," Klink said.

Klink noted that Santorum is putting pressure on other Republicans who had supported the amendment, citing Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania and Appropriations Chairman Ralph Regula of Ohio. "Sometimes people stand up for their beliefs and sometimes they fold under pressure. The question here is are they going to stand up for their beliefs, and are they going to stand up for their constituents?" Klink said.

Senate National Parks subcommittee Chairman Craig Thomas, whose panel heard testimony on planned National Park Service acquisition of the Wills House, questioned the procedure Klink used to accomplish his goal. "It shouldn't have been in the appropriations. It should have been sent to us," Thomas said.

Klink said he introduced the Gettysburg Preservation Act, which did the same thing as the appropriations amendment, and that the Republican leadership chose not to send it to the Senate. {*** See note below}

Sitting on the sidelines of the debate, Park Service officials said they are uncertain about the outcome. "I have no idea. It passed the House, I don't know what's going to happen over here (Senate)," said Park Service Deputy Director Denis Galvin. He said the Park Service is not really working with legislators to assure the amendment is removed from the final appropriations measure. "I have no sense of when these guys are going to take it up," he said. The Park Service official said the Gettysburg management plan will probably not be signed until congressional leaders determine the fate of Klink's funding amendment.

Galvin said he is unsure what recommendation the Park Service would give if the Klink amendment remains in the final measure sent to President Clinton. "Those things are so complicated that it's difficult to predict," he said. "If it becomes law, what's the bottom line: A no development of Gettysburg of any kind."

But Klink said that is a wrong assumption by the Park Service. "If they really believe that, then they don't understand the law and they need to resign," he said. "All we're saying is that Congress will have oversight before this is done. {See note below}

Now they are either lying to the public and misleading us by telling us something that we all know is erroneous or they don't understand the law," Klink said. {End of excerpts from the Gettysburg Times On Line edition}

*** OUR COMMENTS: We find the quotes from Rep. Klink in the Gettysburg Times article to be somewhat baffling:

The language of H.R. 2438 (in Section 1 of this bill that Rep. Klink gave the confusing title of the Gettysburg Preservation Act) is far more limited in its language than House Amendment. 278. HR 2438 states:

>>SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION REQUIRED FOR CERTAIN NEW CONSTRUCTION WITHIN GETTYSBURG NATIONAL MILITARY PARK.

(a) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of the Interior may not authorize the construction of any visitor's center or museum in the proximity of or within the boundaries of Gettysburg National Military Park, unless Congress has specifically authorized the construction of such visitor's center or museum.

H. Amdt. 278 to HR 2466 (the Interior Appropriations Bill), as printed on page H5531 of the Congressional Record (7/14/99) states:

SEC. 332. No funds made available under this Act may be used to implement alternatives B, C, or D identified in the Final Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for Gettysburg National Military Park dated June 1999.<<

H.R. 2438 was introduced by Rep. Klink on July 1 and was, on July 13, 1999, added to the agenda for an already scheduled hearing by Rep. Hansen's subcommittee. This information was from the subcommittee's web page on July 13.>>

Name ring a bell? Member of Congress. Democrat from Beaver County. Ever heard of the guy?� If you're like most York and Adams countians -- and unless you're a serious C-SPAN fan -- probably not. At least not until a few weeks ago, when Ron Klink invaded the 19th Congressional District and occupied Gettysburg.

It couldn't have been hard for Klink to take Gettysburg. The town's rightful congressman -- Rep. Bill Goodling -- was practically missing in action: hemming and hawing about the National Park Service's general management plan for the battlefield, and then, when it was almost too late, saying a new visitors center shouldn't be built in a new site a little farther from downtown. Rep. Klink is not afflicted with such indecision. He knows what's best for Gettysburg, and if Goodling isn't going to do anything about it, then Klink will. What's best for the downtown T-shirt and trinket salesmen is what's best for Gettysburg, and so this commercialized, semi-privatized,de-localized visitors center plan must be stopped, Klink says.

So he introduced an amendment to a Department of the Interior appropriations bill that blocks funding for the visitors center unless Congress OKs the plan. Because, you see, Rep. Ron Klink from Beaver County has a lot of questions. What will it look like? Will it be a modern monstrosity? What will be the effect on the downtown businesses? Has the park service been responsive enough to opponents' concerns? And what about those 600 acres of trees that could be cut down for the center?

Maybe if Ron Klink from Beaver County -- that's outside Pittsburgh -- had been involved in this process from the beginning (it's been going on for a couple of years now) he wouldn't have to ask such newbie questions. The trees, for instance, while certainly controversial, will be removed as part of the entire plan to restore the park to its 1863 appearance, not just for the visitors center.

But we can't just allow park service bureaucrats to run roughshod over the people, says Klink. Congress needs to sign off on all this stuff. And maybe he's on to something here. Maybe we should expect more hands-on involvement from Congress -- especially since it gave itself a nice pay raise last week. Maybe Congress should choose the site and design the building and pick the tile and the wall colors. Congress should draw the landscaping plan and choose the shrubbery and plant the bushes and mow the grass. Congress should patrol the park and restore the monuments and conduct the tours.

And why stop with the federal parks? Congressmen should make the laws and arrest the lawbreakers and act as judges, juries and executioners. Congressmen should print the money and build the roads and take the tolls-- even in other congressmen's districts.� Because how could we possibly trust all these important civic duties to bureaucrats, to mere functionaries, when the elected Ron Klinks of the world are willing and able to personally supervise everything?

It's hard to overestimate Congress' sense of self-importance, so it should be no surprise that Klink's amendment passed the House last week, and now moves to the Senate. So that's how you may have heard of Rep. Ron Klink from Beaver County, the heretofore unheard of, unsung savior of Gettysburg.

Oh, did we mention that this unknown soldier is running for the Senate? And that his likely opponent, the incumbent Rick Santorum, strongly supports the visitors center and the general management plan?� Heck of a way to make a name for yourself in a part of the state where no one's ever heard of you. Charge in on an issue you've never had a thing to say about before, raise a ruckus about officious federal bureaucrats ignoring the little guy, and then sponsor micromanagement legislation thateven the local congressman (who doesn't like the visitors center plan) can't bring himself to support.

Think there could be some ulterior, political motive behind Klink's sudden interest the Civil War?

Santorum's quip on the situation was priceless: Opponents of the proposed visitors center want the project to go their way and "don't know the difference between being listened to and being pandered to."

Congressman Ron Klink's introduction of an amendment to require National Park Service to have congressional approval to build a proposed $39.28 million Gettysburg Visitors Center is nothing more than a smoke screen.

Congressman Klink is taking advantage of the fact that local businessmen are vehemently opposed to anything that would disturb the status quo. He admits he intends to oppose Sen. Rick Santorum in his run for a second six-year term. Klink is disingenuous when he poses as a local white knight fighting the evil dragon in the National Park.

When he could have come to at least one of the 30 public meetings, Congressman Klink was too busy. He could have sent one of his assistants, but he did not. Now, all of a sudden, he says he became involved because many of Gettysburg's businessmen, residents, and public officials have contacted him. He even turned down a private briefing at the Gettysburg Battlefield offered him by park officials.

No, this is not about Congressman Klink saving Gettysburg, it's about taking political advantage of a controversial situation to enhance his chances to topple Sen. Santorum.

Representative Souder's remarks in support of our position are on page H5533 of the Congressional Record (7/14/99).

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, it would be a great tragedy if this amendment passes. It would be a tragedy to every Civil War buff in America, everybody concerned about the preservation of the artifacts.

I very much respect the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and it has been an honor to serve under him and his tremendous outline of the history on this.

Also, as a member of the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands, I have great respect for the gentleman from Utah (Chairman Hansen), and I know his frustration was also expressed by the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), the frustration about a lot of the processes that go on with the Park Service.

But I spent 3 hours listening to the hearing and to the concerns of the local community, and I understand some of their concerns, that business may drop off if the visitors center is moved a half to three-quarters of a mile away from the downtown business district.

But I do not agree. The studies do not show that. As a retailer myself, I think the business is actually going to go up. There is no business argument, and I believe their concerns, as are always there when there are changes, but they in fact are not anchored in economic reality. A new visitors center will be a boost to tourism and to those very businesses that are concerned. It may extend the length of stay.

But more importantly, Gettysburg is a national site. Nine hundred Americans were killed, wounded, or captured at the very point where the current visitors center sits. It is on the critical fishhook of the Union Army, and the establishment of that fishhook was critical to the preservation of the Union.

The visitors center sits smack in the middle of that. The traffic is so high that when one visits there, as I did a few weeks ago, they have more park rangers right now trying to handle the overflow parking on the grass as you try to tour the battlefield than they have park rangers at Antietam, which was the bloodiest single day, because we do not have adequate parking facilities.

The compromise, the fantasyland area sometime ago where they proposed to put the new visitors center, is in an area that is part of the Park Service now, but was not part of the battle.

Jeb Stuart, in the Confederate Army, took on the calvary over in a side battle because he was not where he was supposed to be. The main battle was over here. By putting the visitors center down in between, people can move around to the cemetery where Lincoln spoke and gave the Gettysburg address. The fishhook will now be available to walk around and see as part of the critical battlefield line, so you can see how the battle actually worked. Now you stand there, there is a big tower, a cyclorama building, a visitors center, cars all over the place. You cannot get the line of sight. There are trees there that are not supposed to be there. There is a peach orchard. One thinks, why did he hide there? The trees are fairly young yet.

If we really believe in historic preservation, in appreciating this site, it is not enough to just talk about a visitors center, because quite frankly, we do not have enough money to keep up our sites. Every park we go to, whether it is a natural resource or a cultural resource, they do not have the budget to even keep the things from falling down in our primary parks in the United States.

We can talk about preservation, but it is not occurring. We spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep some of these rifles in historic condition, and they are in non-humidified areas where they are not even preserving some now because we do not have adequate facilities.

We can argue about this, but one of the fundamental things, in addition to the importance to every Civil War buff in America and every person who is interested in historic preservation in America, is a fundamental premise here. If we do not have enough money to keep things as they are, are we going to allow public-private partnerships in the parks? It is a fundamental question that is undergirding this debate.

If we can extend public dollars through nonprofit corporations, I favor that. That is one of the fundamental fights here. It is very hard, when we go through years and years and years of delay and arguing, to come up with figures. It is hard for a private developer to come in and said, okay, I want this size bookstore, this size gift shop, this size restaurant. Then they come back after the hearing and say, no, you cannot have the restaurant, it has to be scaled back to this; the gift shop has to be scaled back to this.

Legitimate arguments, but then it is a little cute to argue that there were not financial projections that were consistent all the way through because the gentleman is forcing the alternate projections on the cost.

This is the realistic way, a legitimate way to get the visitors center, to preserve the cyclorama that is wrinkling, that is going to start to crack if we do not start this project immediately. If this gets stopped, to come up with an alternative plan, by the time an alternative plan could be executed, if we ever have the funds here in Congress, the cyclorama will be cracked, articles will be destroyed, and we will not have the fishhook for all the tourists who are going through there. For years it will delay the process another couple of years.

This is a realistic alternative. It may have problems. Perhaps the Federal dollars will have to pick up some of the gap, but our alternative is, as the chairman of the committee full well knows, is the public is going to pick up all the costs of the visitors center.

So for those who are really looking for creative solutions to the national park dilemma, this is one. It would be a tragedy if this amendment passes.

The Descendants of the 136th New York would like to thank Rep. Souder for his remarks in defense of our position. We agree with Rep. Souder that it would have been tragedy had this amendment been allowed to remain in force. Fortunately, the appropriations conference committee removed it from the final version of the fiscal year 2000 Interior Appropriations bill.

Gettysburg Visitor Center Proposal

Politics Didn't Belong in this Issue