lowing, and previous Directors in fact had asked and had received; and I was simply restating what I felt was the case. Mr. DINGELL. What about the ordinary citizen? Did he get brought in at this juncture also? Mr. WALKER. Not at that point, sir; but then subsequent to that there are public hearings that are held, and there is a great deal of public involvement; there is also an opportunity to speak out at those times. Mr. DINGELL. We have had many complaints from citizens about failures to make available drafts of the master plan as these steps were going forward. We have had great numbers of complaints about failure of the Department to make copies of environmental impact statements and assessments available to people, particularly with regard to the Yosemite master plan. Now, how are we to evaluate this? On the one hand, you instruct that concessioners are to be brought in at every stage; and on the other hand you fend off citizens, the Sierra Club, newspapers, and so forth, who want to get into the planning structure and want to know what's going on in their national park. Perhaps you can explain to me the reason for your having one pattern of treatment for the concessioners and a different pattern of treatment for the citizenry. Mr. WALKER. Yes, sir, I will try. It is my understanding-and I tried to perpetuate what I feel is one of the very finest agencies in the U.S. Government with the finest dedicated people, through having conversations with the four Directors that are alive today. They have all-I think even going back to Horace Albright-had difficulties with concessioners in some form or fashion as to what they provide, how they provide it, and the way that it transpires. It is also, I think, important that while they have been referred to in many cases, there have been so many studies done in regard to the concessions; there is so much ambiguity about the 1965 Concessions Act, and other legislation that has come, that it gives us great latitude to do certain things; and they actually expect such. Your previous statement is certainly apropos in that there are certain superintendents that get along better with concessioners than others. There are an awful lot of very fine concessioners. But they have insisted in years past-my predecessor, Mr. Hartzog, had a number of conversations, and I have the documentation, and I have had a chance to talk with him on numerous occasions that it was one of the things that was given to the concessioners in order that they might be involved in the planning process. Mr. DINGELL. But what about the citizen? It's his park. Mr. WALKER. Yes, sir; I understand that. Mr. DINGELL. The concessioner is out there to make money. The citizen pays our salaries-yours and mine. Mr. WALKER. I understand that. Mr. DINGELL. And he also provides the profits that lubricate the wheels of the concessioner. Why isn't he brought in? Mr. WALKER. Sir, the public does get their chance. Mr. DINGELL. After everything is all pretty well set up. Mr. DINGELL. When the flag is flying from the walking beam and things are going down the channel, the citizen is brought in. Mr. WALKER. Well, it got me in, I think, at 1 o'clock. Mr. DEMAREST. In fact it would have arrived at Baltimore Airport at 11:04. Mr. WALKER. That's little short of 12 o'clock, midnight. Mr. DEMAREST. 11:04. Mr. WALKER. Let's go ahead. I understand what you are thinking. Mr. DEMAREST. I just wanted to clarify that point. You then said that Mr. Reed, or Mr. Kyl, talked to you and indicated that you did not have to return. Mr. WALKER. No; I talked to Mr. Bohlen, who had talked with Mr. Reed, and indicated that I should continue on with my meeting with Gary, in light of what the Chairman had already indicated. Mr. DEMAREST. Mr. Bohlen? Mr. WALKER. Mr. Bohlen is the Deputy Assistant Secretary. Mr. DINGELL. I'm curious why you didn't talk directly to Mr. Indritz, as was suggested in the letter. Mr. WALKER. I don't have an answer to that, sir. It was not intentional. I just simply called back into the Washington office after I had received word from Russ that you wanted me back here. He also indicated to me that you had been trying to reach me all yesterday morning. I find that awfully hard to believe because my office knew I was at home-I did not leave my home until 5 minutes after 11; and I was at the airport. We weren't hiding it from anyone. Mr. DINGELL. We were hunting for you very hard. Mr. WALKER. Well, I just wonder how hard. And I don't understand how hard, because I was there, sir. Mr. DINGELL. Well, I'm not sure we are plowing productive ground. Mr. WALKER [continuing]. Be indifferent to these committees, sir. Mr. DINGELL. I want you to know in these committees, at least in the subcommittee that I run, we never tolerate anybody snapping their fingers at us, and we don't have the least intention of doing So ever again-whether it is you or anybody else. Mr. WALKER. Sir, I had no intention of snapping my fingers. I am not that kind of an individual. I would do nothing to desecrate this body, period. Mr. DINGELL. Well, let's just not talk about this any more now. There are many things with regard to this matter that trouble me. I find that one thing in particular troubles me very much. I observed here that on September 20, 1973, you sent a memorandum to all the Park Service officials that says as follows: The Director informed the concessioners' representatives that he will insist they be brought in on master and other planning processes and that we will work together in this important phase of park management. Therefore, this is to reaffirm the stated policy that concessioners are to be involved in master planning at all stages and in further detailed planning as appropriate. They are also to be involved in special projects involving planning when their operations are affected, such as in the current ongoing planning and development backlog review. We expect each superintendent to take steps to assure that this policy is implemented to the maximum extent. Is that your policy? The memorandum is printed in pp. 101-102.] Mr. WALKER. Sir, it was a historical policy that I was simply fol lowing, and previous Directors in fact had asked and had received; and I was simply restating what I felt was the case. Mr. DINGELL. What about the ordinary citizen? Did he get brought in at this juncture also? Mr. WALKER. Not at that point, sir; but then subsequent to that there are public hearings that are held, and there is a great deal of public involvement; there is also an opportunity to speak out at those times. Mr. DINGELL. We have had many complaints from citizens about failures to make available drafts of the master plan as these steps were going forward. We have had great numbers of complaints about failure of the Department to make copies of environmental impact statements and assessments available to people, particularly with regard to the Yosemite master plan. Now, how are we to evaluate this? On the one hand, you instruct that concessioners are to be brought in at every stage; and on the other hand you fend off citizens, the Sierra Club, newspapers, and so forth, who want to get into the planning structure and want to know what's going on in their national park. Perhaps you can explain to me the reason for your having one pattern of treatment for the concessioners and a different pattern of treatment for the citizenry. Mr. WALKER. Yes, sir, I will try. It is my understanding-and I tried to perpetuate what I feel is one of the very finest agencies in the U.S. Government with the finest dedicated people, through having conversations with the four Directors that are alive today. They have all-I think even going back to Horace Albright-had difficulties with concessioners in some form or fashion as to what they provide, how they provide it, and the way that it transpires. It is also, I think, important that while they have been referred to in many cases, there have been so many studies done in regard to the concessions; there is so much ambiguity about the 1965 Concessions Act, and other legislation that has come, that it gives us great latitude to do certain things; and they actually expect such. Your previous statement is certainly apropos in that there are certain superintendents that get along better with concessioners than others. There are an awful lot of very fine concessioners. But they have insisted in years past-my predecessor, Mr. Hartzog, had a number of conversations, and I have the documentation, and I have had a chance to talk with him on numerous occasions-that it was one of the things that was given to the concessioners in order that they might be involved in the planning process. Mr. DINGELL. But what about the citizen? It's his park. Mr. WALKER. Yes, sir; I understand that. Mr. DINGELL. The concessioner is out there to make money. The citizen pays our salaries-yours and mine. Mr. WALKER. I understand that. Mr. DINGELL. And he also provides the profits that lubricate the wheels of the concessioner. Why isn't he brought in? Mr. WALKER. Sir, the public does get their chance. Mr. DINGELL. After everything is all pretty well set up. Mr. DINGELL. When the flag is flying from the walking beam and things are going down the channel, the citizen is brought in. Mr. WALKER. No, sir; I'm sorry, I have to disagree with you. I don't think that is the case. It is not locked in concrete when it goes to public hearings. And I think at that point what I was about ready to say earlier is that I think everyone talks about the National Park Service employees and stuff, and they should believe in them if they think they are that good. And basically where I have had my support and strength come is from these people. Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Would the chairman yield? Mr. DINGELL. I will yield to my good friend. Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Mr. Walker, in line with your last statement, the December 18, 1974, staff memorandum for the members of these subcommittees shows that running through the documents on the part of this particular concessioner are continued references to the recalcitrance of the professional Park Service employees-particularly the regional director. The staff memorandum is printed in app. 1.] Mr. MCCLOSKEY. And repeatedly in his letters set forth in the staff memorandum Mr. Stein talks about coming to Washington to get those decisions reversed, as if politically they could accomplish what they could not do through the professional Park Service employees. Would you comment on that, please, because it's exactly the opposite of what you have just said. Let me refer you here to this valley overnight accommodations memo from Mr. Fisher's letter to the Park Service of July 11, 1974: ** We disagreed with the regional director who felt that "overnight capacities were at their peak and would probably go lower." What has been confirmed with one hand is now taken away with the other. This is double talk, similar to the superintendent's letter of June 24, 1974. We have referred this subject to the director who reconfirmed our understanding of the matter on our last visit to Washington, ** Mr. MCCLOSKEY. So, apparently you overruled the regional director and the superintendent in this particular Mr. WALKER. No, sir; I did not overrule him. Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Well, let me go further: We had to go this route only because of this problem of vacillation on the part of the superintendent and the regional director. And the route means going to you; is that correct? Mr. WALKER. Yes, sir; they called me on the phone. Mr. MCCLOSKEY. All right. Did you feel that the regional director had been vacillating? Mr. WALKER. No, sir. I thought that there was some misunderstanding, and that there had been some difficulty in what the regional director had in fact told the concessioner, not MCA, but a concessioner, that he had led them to believe they could certainly go ahead and do certain things but in the final analysis, after they had made these preparations and had gone in good faith, I believe, the National Park Service changed its tune. Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Mr. Walker, you came in as a politician, in effect from the White House. You had no prior employment with the National Park Service; is that correct? Mr. WALKER. That's correct, sir; I had not. Mr. MCCLOSKEY. I'm disturbed by the tenor of these comments from MCA in their letters. Let me read you a further example. This is in a June 24, 1974 memo from Regional Director Chapman, a memorandum to his files, describing some of the comments made by MCA's Vice President Bernard Fisher, as follows: Mr. Bernard Fisher opened the session with comments on behalf of MCA. He stated that MCA was coming into this meeting with a feeling of mistrust for the National Park Service for they felt they have been unjustly dealt with in matters relating to Curry Village. He further stated that MCA was not accepting the decision as had been presented to them by me on Tuesday, June 11. His comments were clearly in the realm of accusations of deliberate misrepresentation which had caused them to feel that the National Park Service had dealt with them in bad faith. Mr. Fisher had with him a tape recorder, and he recorded the entire meeting. Mr. Fisher was clearly the spokesman for MCA, and his actions were those of attempting to take control and give direction to all matters relating to the objectives for the Yosemite, master plan. [The June 24 memorandum is printed on pp. 414-416.] Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Now, that is your regional director talking. And these comments by a concessioner certainly border on arrogance, mistrust of the National Park Service, deliberate misrepresentation. Here is Mr. Chapman saying in effect he is in a bitter controversy with his own concessioner, and the concessioner comes to Washington to get the decision of the regional director and of the park superintendent reversed. That comes through clearly. Are you telling me that these employees are supporting your position, the regional director and the park superintendent, and that you get your strength from their position? Mr. WALKER. Yes, sir, 99 percent of the time that's correct. Mr. MCCLOSKEY. In this case? Is the witness under oath? Mr. DINGELL. No. Mr. MCCLOSKEY. I find your statement incredible. These hearings are being held on the Yosemite National Park Mr. WALKER. Yes, sir. Mr. MCCLOSKEY [continuing]. And on the Yosemite National Park concessions. Mr. WALKER. Yes, sir. Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Is it your statement that your park superintendent and your regional director support you in the positions you have taken with regard to this concession? Yes or no. Mr. WALKER. No. Mr. MCCLOSKEY. They do not. Then your previous testimony was in error, wasn't it? Mr. WALKER. I'm not sure what my previous testimony was, sir. Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Let me ask the reporter to read back that portion of the witness' answer as to the support that has been given him by the Park Service employees. Mr. WALKER. Well, I think I have had support, sir. Mr. MCCLOSKEY. I trust that you understand the reasons for these questions relate to this concession in this park. And everything in this memorandum indicates that you have not had the support of the super |