This book made available by the Internet Archive.

Inflation and other forces have during recent years severely eroded the base funding available for these purposes. Rectifying these shortages and deficiencies has a very high priority in our planning.

Another priority, exemplifying the Nation's pluralism, reflects our responsibility to reach out more effectively to ethnically and culturally diverse, geographically dispersed audiences.

The Smithsonian is a national institution dependent upon tax resources appropriated in the name of all the people. Hence, we cannot lose sight of the importance of the cultural representation that can be uniquely provided in the heart of the Nation's Capital by our exhibits and educational programs.

Accordingly, the inclusive Dreadth and sensitivity of those programs and the effectiveness of the dialogs we maintain with external constituencies in order to assure those qualities is a matter of prime importance. That in turn requires intensified efforts to secure diversity of staff employed at all levels, independent of color, creed or gender.

Consistent with these objectives, the Smithsonian's Board of Regents, at their meeting on May 6, adopted in principle the recommendations of the report of the African American Institutional Study, which recommended the establishment of a National African American Museum in the Arts and Industries Building on The Mall here in Washington. The Regents have requested additional information about the availability of collections for such a museum which we will attempt to provide by September. Thereafter, we would expect to initiate a museum development process, including wide-ranging consultations with interested professionals, scholars, and community leaders, in order to assess the programmatic options, identify facilities' needs, and make budget estimates.

To move that process forward in a timely manner, we believe, will require about $750,000 in the coming fiscal year.

Often only capital expenditures for new facilities, or for the transformation of old ones, make possible the attainment of very important programmatic objectives. New facilities are the most tangible expression of the vital new directions that the Smithsonian must pursue from time to time. They tend to refocus and typically enlarge our commitments. But only rarely do these new commitments embody ventures that are entirely unprecedented.

More often, they are natural outgrowths of current programs, improvements, and extensions that enrich the meaning of existing programmatic commitments to meet new conditions.

The considerations leading to their selection are, of course, subject to Congress' careful scrutiny and they can be phased and structured to accommodate new budgetary circumstances. But it should be recognized that new facilities sometimes may play a crucial part as the Smithsonian adapts to the demands and expectations of our rapidly changing society.

In these difficult times, old and new needs and opportunities for advancing the Institution's programs must be viewed against the common Dackground of uncertain budgetary prospects. We recognize that both our Federal appropriations, affected by projected changes in the Federal deficit, and our trust funds, closely tied to the general state of the U.S. economy, are unlikely to maintain the same rate of growth they have enjoyed in the past.

Clearly, our best response to these sobering prospects is to put forward a vision of the Smithsonian's future sufficiently compelling to justify your support of the Smithsonian as an investment in the capacity of the Nation's body politic to react constructively to our growing diversity and to respond positively and creatively to the challenges of the modern world.

Across almost a century and a half, the Smithsonian's mission to serve has helped to advance historical, scientific, and cultural understandings in fields of primary and national concern. Fields of concern never remain the same for very long.

Nonetheless, our staffs body of knowledge and professional skills and the Smithsonian's vast collections properly serve as standards against which to measure the prospect of change.

Sharing common objectives, but acting at different levels of comprehensiveness with regard to programs, policies and priorities, the Regents and staff of the Institution have the responsibility to being the governor of a balance wheel that maintains a consistent course between these counterposed tendencies or forces.

It is our collective duty to continually reassess that past without losing sight of its enduring importance, but also to bring forward and consider within the Institution's scope the most promising of its future options.

As another guiding principle, we must recognize that the Institution's audiences come completely at their own choosing, bringing with them highly diverse backgrounds and interests.

The Smithsonian can be broadly compared to other teaching enterprises. But these elements of volunteerism and diversity give us a special responsibility to develop a distinctively innovative, informal, and nondidactic approach.

Ours is a setting that joins museums with meeting rooms, field sites, and laboratories. It encourages us to seek out attractive and widely intelligible ways to complement, not compete with, traditional modes of education.

Above all, we must continuously work to increase the outreach of the Institution to constituencies that are now underserved, attracting them through an open-ended learning process in which we ourselves participate.

Implicit in the Congress' earliest consideration of establishing the Smithsonian was an awareness of the almost endless array of possibilities of what might become. But while the Smithsonian's program has remained potentially unlimited in scope throughout the ensuing century and a half, in practice, it has moved deliberately to widen its areas of interest within realistic limits of growth established primarily by the availability of resources and, most recently, by careful analysis of priorities for the pursuit of those interests.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I wish to stress that the essence of the Smithsonian is not a series of monuments alone on The Mall, nor even the great collection within them. It is people communicating with people in advancement of deepened cultural, historical, and scientific understandings of one another, and on behalf of all people.

It is a highly dedicated and professional staff carrying forward a tradition of public service and research for which the national need has never been greater.

Mr. Chairman, my colleagues and I are ready to try to speak to your questions.

SMITHSONIAN PROGRAMS

Senator Reid. Senator Stevens, you may proceed.

Senator Stevens. Thank you. Mr. Adams, I'm here today because it appears to me that you're developing a political agenda that I've not been aware of before.

For instance, in terms of your exhibit, "The West as America— Reinterpreting Images of the Frontier, From 1820 to 1920," your exhibit declares that Western settlement was nothing more than exploitative, a capitalist plot, which Daniel Boorstin described as a perverse, historically inaccurate, and destructive exhibit that was no credit to the Smithsonian.

Now who approved that exhibit?

Mr. Adams. If you're asking whether I was aware in detail of its contents before it opened, I was not.

Senator Stevens. Who does approve of these things?

Mr. Adams. I think we should call upon the Assistant Secretary for Museums, Mr. Tom Freudenheim, to speak to that question. >

I'd like to return to the subject of the exhibit. But on the question of approval, let me ask

Senator Stevens. Let's stay on the subject of the exhibit, then. This is the West being described as a capitalist plot, a perverse, historically inaccurate, destructive exhibit, according to Dr. Boorstin. Dan Boorstin, we all know, was the Librarian of Congress, an eminent historian for the United States.

How do we get such a conflict between the political agenda of your institution and our Library of Congress?

Senator Reid. Is that a quote from Dan Boorstin?

Senator Stevens. That is a quote from Dan Boorstin.

Mr. Adams. That is a quote from Dan Boorstin. I know what his views are on this matter.

I might say that there are very differentiated views by a number of different people about that exhibit. I think his views, while they're very strong, have to be understood as being one end of a very considerable continuum.

I think that exhibit is clearly a revisionist view of American history. I think it lies within the purview of what the Smithsonian should do to present a variety of different views in the exhibits that it puts on. And I think that this exhibit does, too.

It is revisionist in the sense that it does call attention to the costs that were involved in the Western campaigns to the suppression of the Indians that accompanied that process, to the privation that was part of it. And I think that those were reasonable things for exhibits to deal with, as well as the celebratory spirit in which much of that art was put forward.

I don't think this represents a political agenda for

Senator Stevens. Let's get to the agenda. You've got a new one coming now, a TV show on the Columbus quincentenary.

And you know, I'm not a guy that normally looks under beds. I've been here 22 years supporting your Institution and suddenly, I find there is a political agenda that I disagree with violently, and I think the Congress ought to know about it.

I intend to see that more people know about it. You have hired Carlos Fuentes, a noncitizen, as I understand it, a Mexican writer, a Marxist Mexican writer, to write and narrate a show on Columbus which I'm told is already in a script.

Have you reviewed the script?

Mr. Adams. I certainly have. I've been involved in that process. This is not a show on Columbus. It's a show on Hispanic America over five centuries. Columbus plays only a very minor part in this discussion.

It's a show which will be presented, a television program, a series of television programs that will be presented in Latin America and in Spain, as welias in the United States.

And I might say I disagree fundamentally with the characterization of Mr. Fuentes as a Marxist. I think he's a person who's been very critical at times of the United States, at other times not.

Senator Stevens. But he's an eminent critic of the United States, isn't he?

Is this supported with taxpayer's money?

Mr. Adams. This is not supported with taxpayer's money. Most of the money that's gone into this has come from Spanish publishers.

Senator Stevens. But it's under the auspices of the Smithsonian Institution of the United States.

Mr. Adams. It is indeed and we're very pleased with the way it's going. And I simply don't accept your characterization of that program.

The program is at the moment in what I think TV people call rough cut or something. And certainly, it's available for you or members of your staff to have a look at.

Senator Stevens. I'd be pleased to do that, as a matter of fact.

Let's go down some of the things I know a little bit about.

You had a film called "Black Tide." That was your sponsorship, as I understand it. The Park Service pulled the movie because they considered it to be biased and did not tell the whole story.

We had a terrible disaster in the Prince William Sound in Alaska. There has been a substantial recovery, if not complete recovery from that. But after a period of time had gone by after the oilspill, you sponsored "The Black Tide," depicting the darkest days of the oilspill. The film did not have any balance at all with regard to what happened to the ecosystem as it recovered from the disaster.

Mr. Adams. Senator Stevens, the first I've ever heard of that film is your mention of it now. I'll simply have to ask whether any of my colleagues can tell me more.

I know nothing about it.

Senator Stevens. How about your lecture series? Are your lecture series supported by public funds?

Mr. Adams. No; the lecture series in the Resident Associates Program are supported by the income of that program. There occasionally are lectures given under other circumstances, but the great

bulk of the lectures that are given are within the Resident Associates Program.

Senator Stevens. But they're conducted in your facilities, under your aegis, again.

Mr. Adams. They're conducted in our facilities under our aegis and, again, we make a very great effort to provide a wide array of opinions.

Senator Stevens. The taxpayers spend the money and build the buildings and support the builaings and pay your salaries, but you can go out and allow the presentation of biased programs. I think we were involved in this about 15 years ago, with regard to the Institution's trust funds, and how they can be used to further a political agenda that is not consistent with that of the United States.

Mr. Adams. Senator Stevens, I fundamentally cannot accept the position that we are furthering a political agenda. I think that we are trying to present a very wide array of materials and exhibitions and other formats here that cover the whole spectrum.

To select particular examples and say that this is a political agenda rather than to look at the whole of the presentation is to say thatyou don't like that part of it and, therefore, you reject the whole effort, rather than to say that one is entitled to have, the whole public is entitled to have, a wide array of presentations.

Senator Stevens. To what extent do you think the Smithsonian was created to develop a political agenda, to be involved in the educational process of controversy in terms of history and of the current society?

Mr. Adams. I don't think that the Smithsonian has any business developing, or ever had any business developing a political agenda.

I think we live in a society that's full of controversy. I think it is impossible to avoid skirting controversy and grappling with it. And I think the only way we can do that is to leave ourselves open to periodic charges of being in favor of one position or another. But doing everything we can internally to make sure that we provide for a wide spectrum of points of view.

That I think is characteristic of our exhibition policy as it is of our lectures.

Senator Stevens. A friend of mine reviewed this, and I'd be pleased to review this show, the Columbus quincentenary.

I take your explanation to be the fact, but it indicates that Mr. Fuentes has described only his view of the subjugation of Indians in the United States, and tied our history to genocide.

Is that right? Is that going out into South America in terms of the history of the United States, written by a non-American citizen?

Mr. Adams. This is concerned with the history of the hemisphere over five centuries. I don't remember what the words are that apply to the particular issue of Indians in the United States. That appears in a small part of one of five programs.

I simply don't recall what it said. It's not the subject of the series, which is really looking at the whole hemisphere and in particular, the Hispanic part of it in the Caribbean and South America over five centuries.

The series is entitled, "The Buried Mirror." It's been subjected to searing review from a whole panel of scholars that have been work-

ing with the Smithsonian. I don't know where the characterization that you heard came from, but it sounds to me as though it's grossly uninformed.

As I say, we can make those rough cuts available to you or your staff.

Senator Stevens. What about the exhibit that Dan Boorstin criticized? Was that subject to some review before it was put out?

Mr. Adams. Well, let me ask Mr. Tom Freudenheim to speak to that question.

Senator Stevens. All right.

Mr. Freudenheim. The exhibit was developed and reviewed by the staff at the museum, but it was a project which invited new scholarship and recent scholarship from a wide range of scholars. It does not represent a single point of view. It represents the points of view of a variety of younger scholars.

There's a certain irony in the fact that it takes place in a very traditional art museum which celebrates the traditional way of looking at American art and, in fact, gives some alternate views of how we can look at the history of how we have looked at art and does it within the context of an extraordinary range of 19th and early 20th century paintings.

Yes; it was reviewed by the Director of the museum. It was not reviewed directly, word by word, by anyone in the central administration. But we knew about the project. It was supported by a special exhibition fund, which is a fund that we administer centrally for exhibitions out of our trust funds.

Senator Stevens. Mr. Chairman, I don't want to prolong this. I'm going to take the position before this committee that it's time we used some of those trust funds to support the Institution if it can waste money like this.

I really believe that the time has come for us to look at these trust funds. The taxpayers build these edifices for the Smithsonian yet it goes out and raises these funds for projects not approved by Congress. I remember the problem we had once with Smithsonian people traveling all over the world.

Mr. Adams, do you recall that battle we had up here?

Mr. Adams. I don't think I was here then, sir.

Senator Stevens. No; I don't think you were. But I think your people will recall the problems we had, substantial problems. And I think you're heading for a substantial problem now. You're asking for more money. You've got money. You've got money to finance exhibits like that and to hire Mr. Fuentes and put on this exhibit of the United States throughout South America, and promote what I call revisionist concepts.

And again, I think the Senate knows I'm not one that really raises the Communist concept to hold up projects like this. But, this one bothers me. I do see a pattern. I see a pattern now of a political agenda coming from this Institution. And I think if you've got that much money to spend on projects like this Fuentes program, you ought to put some of that money into the facilities you want Congress to approve. Let's give the taxpayers a little bit of a break and use those moneys in other ways.

I think that your board is going to be upset and you're going to be upset, but you're in for a battle because I'm going to get other people to help me make you make sense with that money.

I do not think we ought to be sending out of this country a film prepared by a noncitizen that describes our history in the way that I've been told this film describes it. I'll look at that. I do not think that we ought to ignore something as significant as that history being told by a noncitizen.

Furthermore, if Dan Boorstin is moved to make that much of a criticism of an exhibit, then I think that the Smithsonian ought to look inward at itself and find out how that happened.

And if you don't, we in Congress ought to do it because I have great respect for the Library of Congress and for Dan Boorstin's great record in terms of running that Institution and its work in the history of the United States.

And it bothered me very much when I saw that comment. I asked my staff to start looking into the things that you've been doing.

I see you with a political agenda. And if you've got a political agenda that you don't know about, you ought to know about it.

Mr. Adams. Senator?

Senator Stevens. I'm going to see to it that Congress knows about it.

Mr. Adams. Senator, can I reply with a further question?

Senator Stevens. Sure.

Mr. Adams. I would welcome an inquiry of the kind that you speak of. But it seems to me that the further question I'd put to you is whether that inquiry can, in fact, deal with the full range of our programs or only with the ones that you happen to disagree with?

I mean, because the point is that we're trying to——

Senator Stevens. I haven't gone through the full range of your programs so I don't know the full range. Fm not saying that just because I disagree with it. I think the American people disagree with these.

Mr. Adams. But the question that I'm asking is whether—in a sense, we're speaking to a very diverse society. And the question that I'm really asking you is whether you simply want to eliminate one part of a wide range of programs which we have tried to address to that diverse society, or whether you really want to see whether we have stepped away from that full range.

Senator Stevens. Well, the thing that disturbed me most was Boorstin's comment. We from the West live here in the East, as far as I'm concerned, really under attack all the time. I don't think that those of you who have not really lived in public land States understand our feeling about the way we're treated by the United States to begin with.

And to see that exhibit and hear about that exhibit, I'll tell you, that one set me off. I think that is sectional, it's divisional. It breeds division within our country.

And why should the people of the United States come to your Institution and see a history of the West that's so perverted?

Mr. Adams. Senator, the current U.S. News and World Report has a commentary on that exhibit by one of their columnists, Mr. John Leo.

I'd urge you to look at that because he, too, is critical and critical of some of the same points you're making. He ends up supportive of the exhibit as saying something that it was important to say.

I think there's another view tnan the one that you heard from Dan Boorstin, who is a friend and colleague and whose opinions I value. But I would urge you to look at that column to see that this is not quite the raw political agenda that it's been suggested that it was.

Senator Stevens. Ill be glad to do that. Mr. Chairman, Senator Domenici had some questions to provide and I would ask that they be submitted for the record.

Senator Reid. We'll make sure that they are indeed.

Senator Stevens. And I apologize to you for the time. But I'll tell you

Senator Reid. When you see the film, I want to watch it with you.

Senator Stevens. I'd be glad to.

Senator Reid. I just out of curiosity want to know, how much was Fuentes paid for this?

Mr. Adams. I haven't any idea because this was—the money was raised for that project in Spain and I really don't know.

Perhaps someone here does know. Can anyone—none of this came out of the Smithsonian trust funds. This was a separate contract.

Senator Stevens. If Spain wants to tell the world about Columbus and about the revisionist concepts of American history, why can't the Spanish money be spent in Spain and let them hire Fuentes?

Mr. Adams. Our concern, Senator, was to do something to celebrate the five centuries of this hemisphere in connection with the quincentenary. We tried very hard to raise that money in the United States. In the end, the place where we could get the money was from Spanish publishers.

It was not a matter of having—it's a little like what I heard from Carter Brown in the earlier session.

Senator Gorton. Do you describe this as a celebration?

Mr. Adams. It is a celebration.

Senator Gorton. OK

Mr. Adams. And I think that's the total effect of it.

Senator Stevens. Well, I suggest that you'd better get ready to get your board to meet with some of us, because I think others in this Senate are going to agree with me that this is not the way the Smithsonian ought to be going at a time when money is short and we're raising this Institution to be really the symbol to the American people of a place where they can come to to study our history.

And now that symbol is being exported into South America to teach them the Spanish version or the Mexican version of our history, as I understand it.

Mr. Adams. Well, the board of scholars that was responsible for this was almost entirely American. The script has been carefully

AFRICAN AMERICAN MUSEUM

Senator Reid. Senator Stevens, before you leave, this morning's paper had an editorial in the Washington Post. And their criticism, I guess—I think that's a fair way to state it—is that we're now talking about another museum, and there's no money for what we have, let alone a new one.

So I think that's something we have to take into account.

Senator Stevens. I have serious questions about what we did with the Heye Museum, as Dr. Adams knows. I finally relented. We've wrapped our arms around an exhibit that perpetuates a family name. It's a wonderful thing to do. But it was not necessary and it really wasn't part of what I consider to be the right thing for the Smithsonian. But there again, that was my judgment. You had the right to do it and you did it, and we helped you financially.

But I again think this one, in terms of this political agenda, that the attack on the West and the attack on the country itself, I think we ought to follow through on that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Adams. Mr. Chairman, shall I speak to that editorial in the Washington Post?

Senator Reid. Sure.

Mr. Adams. Let me point out that the acceptance of this project by the Regents at this point has been provisional. A question has been raised for further discussion as to where the collections will come fVom, whether there are collections that can justify this project going forward.

There is no budget for this project yet. There is only the proposal that this needs further study and it will indeed go to the Regents presently with a recommendation. But it isn't as if the Smithsonian has embarked on this project without regard for its cost or where the money would come from.

SUPPORT FOR ONGOING AND NEW INITIATIVES

Senator Reid. Mr. Secretary, in our report that accompanies the Senate version of the Interior and related agencies appropriation bill for 1991, the committee stated, and I quote:

The committee believes that the Smithsonian's programmatic reach has been allowed to far exceed its ability to grasp. The Institution's management priorities have become submerged by a preoccupation with costly new initiatives. While the committee has, and will continue to be supportive of future growth and expansion for the Smithsonian, the committee cannot allow growth and expansion of the Institution if it is to be achieved at the expense of existing programs and infrastructure.

How would you comment on that?

Mr. Adams. Well, I think that there are several replies to be made. I think that in the budgetmaking process, it can be shown that we have consistently stressed or tried to stress the improvement and reinforcement of our infrastructure.

What happens, as the budget goes forward through the OMB and comes to the Congress, is that the new initiatives are the ones that tend to get the funding and the funding for the maintenance and infrastructure tends disproportionately to lose out in that process.

It isn't as if we're not aware of the point that's being made here. I think we're keenly aware of it. It is the case with regard to our trust funds as well.

It is simpler, in these difficult times, to get funding for new initiatives than it is to maintain the existing ones.

We're trying to stay afloat under those difficult conditions. I think that that issue has received, that criticism in the previous report of this committee has received anguished attention from the Smithsonian, the entire Smithsonian staff in the course of the last year and we've tried to the degree we can in the budgetmaking process to reflect that in our proposal.

Mrs. Turner. Mr. Chairman, may I add just one thing?

Senator Reid. Of course.

Mrs. Turner. In looking at the priorities that came out of the 1992 planning process, and I've only been in the Smithsonian a short 4V2 months, but we have had an opportunity to look at the planning process and to, I think, acknowledge that we are making progress in putting into place a planning process with management oversight that does yield on a set of priorities that has continuity.

If you look at our budget request this year, the funds that we're asking for in construction are for the completion of the Custom House, which is an ongoing project, the first phase of the Natural History East Court in-fill, another ongoing project, and some of the design work to preserve trie old General Post Office building.

In addition to that, we have a number of infrastructure projects—the reinstallation of outdated exhibits, the work with our mainframe computing, and catching up on staffing for human resource management.

And then the new initiatives are obviously global change research and the program development for the Museum of the American Indian.

So we have demonstrated, I believe, in this budget request continuity growing out of the 1991 request and the 1992 request.

That is not to say that there is not much more that needs to be done. But we are trying to get this program structured in a way that you can see the progression of the decisions that are made and the relationship of appropriations from one year to the next.

Senator Reid. I appreciate that. Mr. Secretary, I think my question, or direction, is toward the same problem we've been trying to resolve at the Library of Congress. The Library of Congress is a great institution, as is the Smithsonian. It brings great attention to the country.

Of the real positive things in our country, much is found, for example, in the Library of Congress and in the Smithsonian.

But the Library, like the Smithsonian, is gathering all kinds of documents, and tnat stuffs rotting basically, deteriorating. Some of it is gone. It will never be able to be salvaged.

I saw an article these past few days about the Smithsonian and strange musical instruments that you've collected. There must be an endless agenda of things that you have that you're not able to maintain because you don t have the manpower resources or warehouses to maintain them.

I think that's where we should be focusing our attention. Just like with the Library of Congress, with the work that we did in the

Library, Senator Gorton and I, and Senator Nickles last year, we focused attention on trying to save what we already have, rather than new initiatives.

Now I think that's where we should start looking to accomplish at the Smithsonian. I understand the Office of Management and Budget. You indicate they like new projects better than trying to save some of the old. But just because that's what they want doesn't mean that's what we're going to give you.

I would like—one question that I d like you to spend some detail on in writing is to tell us what you have in the way of warehoused goods, for lack of a better word, that need attention. What can we do to manage, salvage, maintain, restore, whatever the words are, the great materials that you have somewhere in the bowels of this

country. I'd like

to know that because while I'm on this subcommittee, I will be interested. And I think it would be a shame—I respect and appreciate Senator Stevens and the great work that he's done in Congress—but I would hate that this great institution, the Smithsonian, would be off now on some National Endowment of the Arts quest type thing.

I think we need to refocus on what this institution's all about. There's no one that I enjoy reading more than Daniel Boorstin, such as his book, The Discoverers, and I have great respect for him. Because of the statement he made and Senator Stevens' attention, direction—we're going to look at some of these other things.

Mr. Adams. I understand.

Senator Reid. But I still don't want to lose sight of what the Smithsonian, in my mind is all about.

So I want you to spend, with your staff, whatever time is necessary to tell this subcommittee what we're not doing.

Mr. Adams. May I respond, not directly?

Obviously, we would be pleased to try to put together a detailed commentary and I think it would be a useful thing for us to do from an internal point of view as well.

But let me take as an example of the problem, the challenge that we face in trying to make the judgment you're speaking of.

The case of the new National Museum of the American Indian— that initiative grew out of the crisis of one of the major collections in the world, one of the two or three major collections in the world, which was in New York in private hands and was in danger of being broken up because of lack of public support.

And under those circumstances, there was an initiative which obviously we had to support, but which had, as you also know, very wide support in the Congress, to make this a national collection, to use this as an opportunity to bring that collection within the national scope and to use that as a part of the more comprehensive set of measures that were envisioned by which we sort of reassessed the position of American Indians in contemporary society.

That was a judgment that was made that certainly we had a part in, but that the whole Congress had a part in, and we moved together with the Congress on that one. And in a sense, you could say that that collection was not within the Smithsonian. You ought not to have paid it any attention because it wasn't here.

It was a world resource in that area. It was a resource of enormous importance. And I don't think it would be consistent with the Smithsonian's own charter to say our marble wall stops here and what is outside of it on this date is, therefore, a matter of no concern to us.

That problem is going to arise in the future, too, if you see what I'm getting at. It isn't always the case that you can say, under these difficult conditions, we must turn inward and do nothing that isn't already within our grasp.

SENATOR GORTON'S CONCERN REGARDING SMITHSONIAN PROGRAMS

Senator Reid. Senator Gorton.

Senator Gorton. Well, I want to tell you that I find myself in full agreement with what Senator Stevens said to you.

For the purpose of this question, I'm willing to take as given that what I would describe as the totally perverted catalog and descriptions on paintings in your present exhibit on the West are, in your kind and delicate words, simply a revisionist view of the history of the West which needs to be presented.

My question is when was the last time that the museum presented an exhibit of art relating to the West of this size and this amount of publicity that celebrated the traditional view of the conquest of the American West and the American triumph?

Mr. Adams. On that particular theme, I don't think we've ever had an exhibit before. But right downstairs in the National Museum of American Art, at the same time, is a very traditional exhibiton on Winslow Homer which has had very positive reviews and which would, I think, exactly match the kind of thing that I believe you expect to find in such a museum.

It isn t that we aren't doing both.

Senator Gorton. So the answer is you don't know. Obviously, at some time or another, you have. But this isn't a revisionist view to a view of the American West which you have been consistently presenting to us.

Mr. Adams. No; this is the first such exhibit.

QUINCENTENARY THEMES AND PRESENTATIONS

Senator Gorton. The second question on this same subject of political orientation.

Let's accept even the milder description that you have of Fuentes' presentations on Columbus. Is the Smithsonian, are the museums also under their sponsorship subsidizing or encouraging or putting their imprimatur on any study or exhibit or television presentation of Columbus which takes a more traditional view that his discovery of America and what happened as a result of it were triumphs?

Mr. Adams. I'm glad you asked, Senator. Let me give you a very brief account of only a few of the highlights of the Smithsonian s program for the quintcentenary.

It includes no exhibit on Columbus. It includes—to take the three major cases, first of all, in Natural History, there is a marvelous exhibit called "Seeds of Change," which deals over the five-century period with the flow back and forth across the Atlantic in

both directions of, of course, immigrants, but also their domestic animals and their new domestic plants and the weeds and the illnesses that accompanied them and the weeds and illnesses that moved back in the other direction, the transformation of the whole of the New World landscape as a result of this unexpected encounter.

So that's one major exhibit, which is essentially of a natural historical focus, as you see.

In American History, there is an exhibit called "American Encounters," which focuses on the State of New Mexico and deals with the coexistence in New Mexico of different cultures—Indian, Hispanic—and then from the 19th century on, the incoming Americans, as they met and mingled and coexisted and developed a new civilization with the Rio Grande Valley as its center.

In Air and Space, the meaning of Columbus has been taken in a different direction. The exhibit there will be called "What Next, Columbus?" It tries to look out five centuries in space exploration and asks, what are the possible targets? What will be the means of locomotion? What can we say, admittedly, with a large element of guesswork, but with scientific guesswork by people who are as much in a position to know as anyone, of where we will go in that next five centuries.

We're really trying to look at a five-century span at the meaning of the quincentenary and to do it in a variety of ways, one of which was to do a television series.

I really am upset when someone wants to put this down as a political program.

Senator Gorton. The basic answer to my question is that the only exhibit that you are planning or the only process that you're planning that has anything to do with Columbus might also be properly described as revisionist.

Mr. Adams. Yes; I don't know that Columbus appears in any exhibit that we're doing, to be honest with you. I don t think he does.

We do not regard, and I might say that the question of the role of Columbus is one which, again, has highly revisionist views on it. We might have thought of taking that up. I happen to have studied some of Columbus's diaries myself and that can become a very interesting and complicated historical subject in itself.

But our feeling was that what was really exciting here was the development of a new civilization and that it was triggered by the arrival of Columbus, but that this is not a celebration of Columbus, per se.

I don't think that's a political statement. I think that's a judgment of historical significance.

Senator Gorton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I share your and Senator Stevens views, and those that you've just expressed as well. As we are doing with respect to the Library of Congress, that we may well wish to concentrate somewhat more heavily on the preservation of what we have.

DAMAGE TO ANTIQUITIES DURING MDDEAST WAR

Senator Reid. Mr. Secretary, would you indicate to me, and this is not critical, I'm just curious, how much time you spent this past

year on your area of expertise in the Middle East working with the military, et cetera, on the antiquities over here?

Mr. Adams. A very limited time, Mr. Chairman. A few days.

Senator Reid. Again, to your knowledge, were most of those antiquities spared?

Mr. Adams. My impression is, and my sources of information are fragmentary, that the damage was relatively slight. I think one important reason for that is that the great cities of antiquity were located along the great rivers of antiquity, which are not in the same position as the modern rivers.

Therefore, it was really only some of the religious shrines in the major cities which are more recent than the great cities of antiquity that suffered.

SMITHSONIAN'S FUNDING PRIORITffiS

Senator Reid. If you look at the Smithsonian prospectus that I was viewing here just a minute ago, called, "Choosing the Future," it appears that fiscal year 1993 is going to be quite a year.

Your projections as shown on pages 62 and 63 of that document indicate that two things will happen. One, the Smithsonian request for its "Salaries and expense" account which you propose to increase by 13 percent in 1992, is projected to increase by another 27 percent in 1993, or more than double the increased request for 1992.

How can you justify that?

Mr. Adams. I think you're dealing here, Mr. Chairman, with an artifact of the timing of the appearance of this prospectus, which we can't really control.

There's a blip in the curves that you see here that comes from the fact that we don't get our budgetary passback from the Office of Management and Budget until sometime in November and sometimes even early December.

This publication has a publication date, as you may have noticed, of January 1991. In other words, it came out without our being able to take into account the cutbacks in our budget that were in the passback that came from the OMB.

That means that the projections for the future years are still not taking into account those passbacks. And there is an apparent increase there which we know we won't be able to receive.

I don't know how to overcome this problem because of the sequencing of the timing of the passback and this publication.

Senator Reid. While we're talking about increases, the 1993 estimate for new construction is almost $80 million, an increase of 214 percent above your 1992 request.

Again, how can we handle this? I mean, we're not talking about—there's not another item in the budget that has increases like this.

Mr. Adams. Well, Mr. Chairman, let me use as an example something in the fiscal year 1991 budget which concerns the so-called East Court fill-in at the Museum of Natural History.

We well understand that we need to make adjustments in these numbers based upon available funding. And in that case, we have extended the period of funding of that East Court fill-in so that

rather than having it entirely in the 1991 budget, as was originally anticipated, part of it appears here.

In effect, what I'm saying is we obviously know that we have to phase out various expenses and naturally do so. We present them in whatever way we can at this time, which is in January 1991, we know that there will have to be readjustments in those numbers.

That's the case also, and I think most significantly, with regard to the Air and Space Museum extension at Dulles, which I think tended to be seen quite widely as an enormous, almost indigestable number, which, first of all, was viewed in our minds as spread over a period of perhaps 30 years, but also, at any given stage, could be postponed, could be phased, could be divided into multiple phases.

But we have to put the number there just as a planning target.

So that I don't think that we are going to be surprised to find that we do have to cut back on the numbers that you see here.

Senator Reid. I asked you to prepare some information for us in detail. Let me add to what I've said a question that staff prepared. It is a little more artfully drawn than perhaps my statement so you know where we're coming from.

We have a list of critical infrastructure items that keep growing, a repair and renovation backlog that keeps growing, a vacancy level for existing positions that remain near 10 percent of existing staffing levels, staff training deferred, public education unfunded, and collections aquisitions and collections management postponed, in addition to what I talked about earlier, the fact that we have all this material that is just laying around, nothing happening with it.

This is what I'm looking to have answered. We need whatever depth you can go into.

What I'd like to do next year is start pecking away at some of this backlog.

Mr. Adams. Fine.

[Clerk's note. —Following the hearing, the Smithsonian Institution indicated that it will assess the state of its core responsibilities in collections management, research, and public education, and the adequacy of resources to support these functions, as recommended by Senator Reid. The Smithsonian will make this report available to the subcommittee prior to the fiscal year 1993 Senate hearing.]

Senator Reid. And maybe there's going to have to be a decision made to stop some of the things that cost a lot of money, like the museum at Dulles.

Mr. Adams. May I just correct one number that you mentioned?

Senator Reid. Yes.

Mr. Adams. My impression is, and I can't give it to you with complete accuracy, that if you look across the entire Institution, the vacancy rate on positions, so to speak, is not 10 percent, but around 5 percent, between 4 and 5 percent.

It is 10 percent in one facility, in the Museum of Natural History. But that's not a figure that applies to the whole Institution.

38-707 O—92 25

766 SECURITY GUARD VACANCY RATES

Senator Redd. In 1991, $600,000 was added to help reduce 96 security guard position vacancies. I'd be interested in knowing how many still remain.

Ms. Suttenfield. I can answer that. We have filled approximately one-half of the positions that were vacant due to lack of funding last year and we're well on track in getting the remainder of them filled before our heaviest visitation period this summer.

Senator Redd. We understand that you're hiring about three new guards a week.

Ms. Suttenfield. That's right.

Senator Reid. But two are leaving. Is that right?

Mr. Adams. I've heard that number.

Ms. SuTTENFffiLD. But we have a very good possibility of bringing additional people onboard at the end of May when many students are available for summer employment. In fact, we do staff up in the summer with student help.

Senator Reid. Why do we have such a high turnover in that one area in the guards, with two leaving a week?

Ms. SuTTENFffiLD. I think the answer is that typically, in security positions, there is a high degree of turnover because there are opportunities to move to other organizations.

Senator Reid. But we don't have that in the Library of Congress. We don't have those high turnover rates.

Ms. Suttenfield. I can also say that we train our guards very well and they're recruited very heavily in other organizations because they are so well trained.

Senator Reid. Maybe we should stop training them so well. [Laughter.]

Mr. Adams. I think there is a difference between security guards in a museum where the valuable objects are within reach, so to speak, and in the Library of Congress, where the collections are not accessible to the general public.

Our guards need to be armed. The requirements are somewhat different, it seems to me, in a museum.

SMITHSONIAN ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER

Senator Redd. I'm sure that's the case. Why are you requesting money for land acquisition?

Mr. Adams. This is a complicated measure and I think I'd rather pass this one on to Mrs. Turner to deal with. We think that the case is

Senator Reh). She's turning it over, too. [Laughter.]

Mr. Adams. You're speaking of the environmental research center, I believe.

Senator Reid. Yes, that's right.

Mrs. Turner. It isn't land acquisition in the sense that we're acquiring land to build a facility. It's land acquisition that will allow us to continue a research project.

Dr. Hoffmann is here and can tell you in detail what that is.

Dr. Hoffmann. The Environmental Research Center, which is located at Edgewater, MD, has been conducting for a number of years research that relates to the interaction between the land of

the Muddy Creek watershed, which flows into the Rhode River, one of the arms of the Chesapeake Bay.

Our concern is how use of the land impacts upon the environment, the ecology of the bay, as well as of the watershed itself.

We began to acquire land with trust funds and through gifts when we first initiated this center back in the 1960's, I believe. This was well before I got here. Over the years, we have acquired quite a bit of the critical lower portion of the watershed.

But over those same years, there has been more and more development pressure in that region as the Washington suburban area expands.

What we are now hoping to do is to secure those critical portions of land in the middle and upper watershed that will permit the traditional agricultural uses of that land to continue, so that the basic research that we undertook some years ago can continue.

This is very important research in terms of our understanding of how the ecosystem of the Chesapeake Bay functions, and how it can be restored. It is also critical to the issue of maintenance and restoration of watershed lands generally.

Senator Reed. I thought the acquisition of land for environmental preservation was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Dr. Hoffmann. This is not strictly environmental preservation.

Mr. Adams. This is a research project.

Dr. Hoffmann. What we're talking about is research. This is a research tool, if you will.

Senator Reid. How much more land in the area is required? Five acres?

Dr. Hoffmann. I believe Dr. Correll has got some maps with which he could show you quickly what the situation is. Dr. Correll is the director of the Environmental Research Center.

Dr. Correll. Mr. Chairman, I have several—perhaps you can see if I move over here a little closer.

Senator Reid. I can see that fine.

Dr. Correll. This is the Chesapeake Bay out this way and a tidal river tributary to the bay called the Rhode River is the study site we're talking about. It is a long-term study site that the Smithsonian has been investigating for 25 years now.

The drainage basin is this area here [indicating]. This one, without taking too much of your time, this area on the lower part of the watershed near the water was acquired by gifts and by purchases with trust funds primarily in the 1960 s and early 1970's.

We now have either ownership or protection of 2,600 acres. The overall area that we're worried about is a little over 6,000 acres. We're concerned now about development pressures in the mid and upper area, especially this area here [indicating]. It's a large area, and we don't intend to purchase it all. We have had a study done by the Trust for Public Lands and make recommendations on how to protect it.

We have made some progress now. Over 1,500 acres of lands have been protected by other parties that protect them from development.

Senator Reid. That's a small part of 6,000.

Dr. Correll. Well, that plus the 2,600 acres we have already. We're still talking about roughly 2,000 acres that we need to protect by some means.

The most successful means for most of that acreage seem to be agricultural easements, which are paid for by the State and the county. Just the last year, actually on this map, three of these large areas, the Smith parcel here, the Claggett Farm and the Moreland Farm, which are 645 acres, have joined an agricultural easement program and are protected.

We prefer that route because it keeps it in agriculture in the first place. It doesn't cost the Smithsonian directly any funds. But there are properties there which are not subject to this type of protection. They're nonresident ownership and are subject to development pressures.

In some cases the only means of protecting them is to purchase them.

Senator Reid. Is this the first time that any appropriated moneys have been requested to purchase land?

Dr. Correll. Yes; for the center.

Senator Reid. Thank you very much. That's helpful.

Mr. Secretary, why are you requesting $158,000 for global climate change research to be conducted at SERC when you're also requesting $209,000 for full-time equivalents for SERC who will also conduct research in global climate change?

Mr. Adams. I think I'll call on Dr. Hoffmann to speak to that question again, if I may.

Senator Reid. It looks like we have a duplication here.

Dr. Hoffmann. These are different programs. We have a series of programs being conducted at the Environmental Research Center. One of these has to do with the effects of ultraviolet-B radiation, for example. Another has to do with the effects of atmospheric gases on vegetation. A third has to do with the effects of increased carbon dioxide on plant interactions. There is, fourth, a new migratory bird program that looks at forest fragmentation.

So that what you are looking at is two distinct programs, both of them located at the Environmental Research Center, but not duplicated.

Senator Reid. It sounds like revisionist programs to me. [Laughter.]

Mr. Adams. I hope they are. If science isn't revisionist, it doesn't constitute good science.

RESEARCH CENTER IN KENYA

Senator Reid. You're requesting another increase for global climate change research of $50,000 to establish a research center in Kenya.

Tell me about that.

Dr. Hoffmann. The Smithsonian conducts research on global environmental issues in many parts of the world. We have, as you know, our program in Panama through the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute. The Zoological Park, through its Conservation and Research Center, also conducts research in tropical Asia. And we have recently had an opportunity to take advantage of the interest of a private individual who has a ranch in Kenya that he wishes to develop for conservation research, global change research.

We are entering into a consortial arrangement, or we hope to, with Princeton University in this country and with the National Museums of Kenya and the Kenya Wildlife Service in Kenya to develop this ranch, a total of almost 50,000 acres, as a site where scientists not only from the Smithsonian and Princeton and from the several Kenyan institutions, but, in fact, scientists from throughout the world, can study the critical grasslands savannas of tropical Africa, and to investigate issues such as the effects of potential global climatic warming, the effects of dessication and desertification, and other kinds of global change associated with human activities that result in the degradation and depauperization of these environments.

Senator Reid. Well, what I'm concerned about is what do you see as the out-year costs of this project?

Dr. Hoffmann. We are planning for a 1993 request on the order of $150,000. We are also, I should tell you, beginning to work with Princeton University to develop a fundraising strategy that will fund a significant portion of this research.

For those scientists who may be coming from other institutions to work at the site, assuming that we get it established, we would establish cost recovery so that we would be able to fund quite a bit of this on a cost recovery basis.

Senator Reid. Mr. Secretary, this is kind of what we're talking about, another project next year that is triple what it is this year.

Mr. Adams. I understand the point.

GENERAL POST OFFICE BUILDING RENOVATION

Senator Reid. Let's talk about the general post office renovation.

Why do you project a total cost through the year of 2000 of $75 million when you only have an authorization for $40 million for renovation of the post office building?

Mr. Adams. Well, the authorization, Mr. Chairman, which was made before—it was all introduced before I came to the Smithsonian—was for a number which was, I think, dangerously or unreal-istically low even for its time, which was, I believe, 1983 or 1984.

We regard that number as unworkable today. Of course, there's been further deterioration of this building. The building is a monument of early Federal Washington, and while we're delighted to have it, I don't think that the cost of the renovation of that building can be put down as an expense of the Smithsonian in a pure sense because the whole idea of restoring that building is a part of the development of lower Pennsylvania Avenue and all the rest.

Senator Reid. I understand.

Mr. Adams. We've tried to put down a number there that begins to be realistic, but we know we have no authorization for that number.

Senator Reid. What effect will the

Mrs. Turner. Also—excuse me. We've also conducted several studies now that have refined our estimate. And as we get into it and conduct these studies in terms of what it will take to restore and to renovate that building, obviously, we will adjust the estimates to reflect the actual cost.

SAO SUBMILLIMETER ARRAY SITE

Senator Reid. OK What effect will the Board of Regents' May decision of last year—no, it's this year, just a few days ago—what effect will the Board of Regents' May 6 decision to site the telescope on Mauna Kea instead of Mount Graham in Arizona have on the total cost of the project?

Mr. Adams. The only quite informal estimate I've seen was one that—well, there was an early estimate that it might lead to a cost as much as 25 percent greater. I have an informal verbal estimate from Irwin Shapiro, the Director of the Astrophysical Observatory, that more likely it would be on the order of 10 percent greater.

But, in other words, there is no refinement of those costs, either, at this point.

national museum of natural history exhibition reinstallation

Senator Reid. The Natural History Museum's original request for renovation of the major halls was $1.8 million, which you reduced to $360,000. OMB increased—that's a first of a kind—to $400,000.

What was the reason for your reduction?

Mr. Adams. I'd have to call on—I guess Mr. Frank Talbot, the Director of that museum.

Senator Reid. Mr. Talbot, do you know the answer to that?

Mr. Talbot. I think that was an internal decision. We requested more and we were reduced to that.

Mr. FREUDENHEm. Well, we basically are dealing with a lot of competing requests. We try to come up with reasonable numbers based on the competition among our various bureaus.

We know the need of each of the units and try to balance it out, one against the other, frankly.

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Senator Reid. We have a significant number of other questions that we need you to answer, and your staff. We'd appreciate your doing it at the earliest possible time.

Mr. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Reid. We've enjoyed visiting with you here this morning and preparing this record.

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were submitted to the Institution for response subsequent to the hearing:]

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Budget Priorities

Question 1: Secretary Adams, in our report accompanying the Senate version of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill for FY 1991, the Committee stated:

" The Committee believes that the Smithsonian's

programmatic reach has been allowed to far exceed its ability to grasp. The Institution's management priorities have become submerged by a preoccupation with costly new initiatives. While the Committee has, and will continue to be supportive of future growth and expansion for the Smithsonian, the Committee cannot allow growth and expansion of the Institution if it is to be achieved at the expense of existing programs and infrastructure."

As I look at your FY 1992 reguest, I find that $17.4 million or 38 percent of your proposed total increase of $46.0 million is for "uncontrollable costs" associated with utilities, space rental, and pay raises. This represents an increase of $6,282,000 or 56 percent above the uncontrollable costs that you identified last year. You are also requesting in FY 1992 $9,978,000 or 22 percent of the total proposed increase for "infrastructure" items such as reinstallation of exhibit halls, information systems, and collections management and conservation. This would leave a remaining backlog of critical infrastructure items in excess of $66 million or almost 10 percent above the infrastructure backlog of $60.0 million that you identified last year. I should note that $3,940,000 of your $10.0 million request in FY 1992 for critical infrastructure items would provide funding for the construction of a submillimeter telescope array in Hawaii and the conversion of the multiple mirror telescope in Arizona. If the proposed funding for the two telescopes which, frankly, are more new construction and equipment upgrades than renovation or rehabilitation, are deducted, we are left with a request for "infrastructure" items of barely 13 percent of your proposed increase. Finally, I note that the Smithsonian FY 1992 request for new construction constitutes a quarter, 25 percent, of your proposed increase.

Would you explain how your FY 1992 request reflects the concerns identified in the Committee's report of last year?

Answer: The Smithsonian has been very mindful of the Senate Committee's concerns, identified in the FY 1991 Senate report language, during the development of its FY 1992 budget request. The Institution shares these concerns, and has made several changes in its budget process over the past two years to better highlight the long-standing problems of ensuring adequate funding for existing programs and infrastructure and to weigh the budget decision-making process more towards funding these reguirements for "infrastructure deficiencies."

In this regard, it is important to make note of four major points concerning the Smithsonian's budget formulation process and infrastructure deficiencies:

1) As indicated in the Introduction to the FY 1992 budget request, "Review of the resource requirements necessary to carry out the public trust and to achieve the Institution's goals makes it evident to Smithsonian management that the majority of these reguirements do not represent new or expanded service levels. Instead, most of these requirements constitute a growing backlog of resource deficiencies that have reached critical proportions." (p. 2). In fact, the "bundling" of individual items of increase from

the different bureaus and offices into infrastructure categories, which the Institution introduced as part of the FY 1991 budget process, was the result of the Smithsonian's efforts to find a method of budget presentation that would more visibly demonstrate the magnitude of these deficiencies to the Office of Management and Budget and the Congress. The new presentation underscores the distinction between the infrastructure deficiencies and new initiatives, and highlights the magnitude of what remains to be accomplished to eliminate the unfunded deficiencies backlogs.

2) Moreover, this emphasis on ensuring adequate funding for infrastructure deficiencies is not just reflected in budget presentation, but was a driving force throughout the FY 1992 budget formulation process. Since FY 1992 was the second year that the Smithsonian emphasized infrastructure needs, the initial guidance provided to the Institution's bureaus and offices was strongly geared to continuing the priority placed on infrastructure needs identified in the FY 1991 process, as indicated in the following excerpt from the FY 1992 "budget call" memo from the Institution's Office of Planning and Budget (dated March 19, 1990):

"For FY 1991, the Office of Management and Budget (0MB) passback did eventually direct limited resources to several infrastructure needs, among them information and financial systems, exhibition reinstallation, human resource management, and rental space. The Institution also received increases for Major Scientific Instrumentation. Despite our lack of success in gaining a larger proportion of our infrastructure request, our emphasis on such needs was, we believe, an effective beginning to gain greater focus by 0MB on these needs. For FY 1992, we plan to continue this emphasis, to resubmit many of the infrastructure needs that 0MB denied in FY 1991, and to strengthen the presentation of all such needs within a broader public and national context that articulates 'The State of Smithsonian Collections,* 'The State of Smithsonian Exhibits,' the 'State of Smithsonian Research,' etc."

3) Because of the realities of the current federal budget environment and the magnitude of the resources required, it is not possible to seek all of the funding necessary to eliminate these infrastructure deficiencies in one year. Therefore, the Institution established an objective to secure a portion of funding for each infrastructure category (to ensure that the most critical items in each area could be addressed immediately) and to seek the balance of these items over time according to their relative priorities.

The Office of Management and Budget subsequently targeted the funding that it allowed the Smithsonian to request from Congress to specific programmatic initiatives and to specific categories of infrastructure deficiencies. This "earmarking" of funds in the 0MB passback resulted in the drastic changes in percentages of funding for infrastructure deficiencies in relation tp program initiatives between the request to OMB and the request to Congress.

4) Even though the Smithsonian has placed greater emphasis on the maintenance of current activities and existing facilities than on new initiatives, the FY 1992 request must also address required funding for two national imperatives that have strong support from both the Office of Management and Budget and the Congress — (1) global change research; and (2) cultural pluralism, especially the development of the new National Museum of the American Indian. The amount of funding reguested for each initiative in each year depended upon the specific funding needs of the individual program areas and upon the level of funding supported by the Office of

Management and Budget. The Smithsonian had no latitude to shift resources by OMB from these areas to infrastructure deficiencies. During the FY 1992 budget formulation process, the Institution identified a third program area — education — as a critical national imperative that it must respond to during the 1990s. However, proposed increases were not supported by OMB for FY 1992. This area will remain an important budget priority for future years.

These four major points show how the Smithsonian has been responsive to the concerns identified in the FY 1991 Senate report.

Question 2: According to the table you provided to the subcommittee, your original reguest to OMB for "infrastructure" items was $36.7 million, or more than three times what is in your reguest as it was received by the Congress. What "infrastructure" items were eliminated by OMB's $26.7 million reduction?

Answer: The following table provides details on the specific infrastructure items which were eliminated or reduced in the OMB passback.

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION FY 1992 INFRASTRUCTURE ITEMS ELIMINATED BY OMB

Infrastructure Category

Bureau Item of Increase FTE $000s

Conservation of Library and Archival Collections OFG Research Resources Program JHP Conservation of Bell/Henry Library SIA Shelving and Cabinets AAA Supervisory Archivist & Support - NYC

Total - Conservation of Library and Archival Collections

Reinstallation of Permanent Exhibit Halls NASM Exhibitions and Staff

NMAH Exhibitions--Reinstallation and Maintenance HMSG Re-establish base funding for exhibit halls VIARC Update SIC Exhibit Components

Total - Reinstallation of Permanent Exhibit Halls

Collections Management

NZP Support For Current Programs (Collection)

SIL Serials control and conversion

SIL Cataloging

SIL Collections assessment program

NMNH Collection Storage and Supplies

NASM Collections Mgmt. Programs

NMAH Collections and Fullerton Storage

NMAA Collections Management

SACK Library/Conservation

CHM Collectons Management - Computers

CAL Preservation of Natural History Specimens

MSC MSC Move

MSC MSC Equipment

Total - Collections Management

Human Resource Management

SAO Human Resource Managment Functions

NMAA Human Resource Management

OASPS Administrative Support - Dep. Asst. Sec'y ■

Total - Human Resource Management

Clerical Support Staff

SAO Clerical Staff

STRI Global Change

STRI Marine Labs Staffing, Equipment and Support

STRI Preservation of Research Areas and Reserves

SERC Administrative

SIA Clerk-Typist & Support Costs

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION FY 1992 INFRASTRUCTURE ITEMS ELIMINATED BY OMB

Infrastructure Category

Bureau Item of Increase

NMAA

CHM

OASPS

OFP

NSRC

OTC

OTS

OIRM

Clerical Support Staff

Clerical Support

Administrative Support - Secretary

Fiscal Technician

Administrative and Clerical Support

Clerk Typist

Travel Clerk

Manage Communications Service

Total - Clerical Support Staff

Specialized & Technical Stall and Support Costs

OASR Carbon 14 Dating Program

JHP Programmatic Development, Conference attend.

SAO Specialized Technical Staff

SAO Strengthen Theoretical Research

SAO Scientific and Technical Staff

STRI Global Change

STRI Marine Labs Staffing, Equipment and Support

STRI Central Research and Education

NZP Endocrine Research Laboratory

NZP Wildlife Conservation Programs

SIA Archivist, Technician & Support Costs

SIA Archivist, Technician & Support Costs

SIA Archivist, Technician & Support Costs

SIL Professional and technical staff

OASM Senior Program Analyst

0»*" Smithsonian Staff Training

jrtP Museologlcal Research Services

NMNH Collections Improvement Fund

NMNH Basic Research Support

NMNH Research Greenhouse Facility

NMAH Technical and Staff Support

NMAA Specialized and Technical Staff

NMAA Senior Curator

NPG Increase Curatorial Support Staff

HMSG Staff training

SACK Expand research staff (curators)

AAA Archivist/Automation & Support - DC

CHM Asst. Curator & Secretary--Decorative Arts

CHM Staff Support

NMAfA Curatorial Travel

CAL Research of Archaeol. Ceramics & Llthics

OEC Exhibition Production Support

OASPS Administrative Support - Exec. Asst.

VIARC Supplies and Materials

OIR Clerical Support

QUIN Program Positions & Support

OCS Technical Staff & Support Costs

MAB Education Specialist & Support

SIP Freelance Editorial

OGC Legal Assistant

OPPM Stockroom Supplies

OPPS Equipment Modernization - Duplicating

OPPS Add'l Equipment Operator (XP-05)

Total - Specialized & Technical Staff and Support Costs

Laboratory and Scientific Equipment (Non-computing)

SAO Laboratory and Scientific Equipment

STRI Marine Labs Staffing, Equipment and Support

NZP Equipment Upgrade and Replacement Program

NMAH Textile Lab Equipment

HMSG Replace laboratory equipment

CAL Research Equipment Upgrade and Replacement

FTE

26

0 0 5 1

1 3 1 1

2 1 2 2

2 1

1 0 1 0 6

1 4 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 0 1 3 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 0

1

57

$000s

62 58 26 26 30 22 38 125

$755

70 10

227 88 87 94

150 57

125 75 80 80 80 40 80 15 50 50

183

100 40

110 90 52 20 75 65 40 45 10 50

100 57 10 29

124

100 55 18 27 13

300 25

$3,196

Total - Laboratory and Scientific Equipment (Non-computing) 0 $1,300

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION FY 1992 INFRASTRUCTURE ITEMS ELIMINATED BY OMB

Infrastructure Category

Bureau Item of Increase

FTE

$000s

Computers (Hardware)

SAO Computers

NPG Computer Maintenance and Replacement

AAA RLIN

MSC Automated Information Management

OPA Computers & Peripherals

IC Computer Llfecycle Enhancement

OIRM Develop Communications Networks

OIRM PC Replacement

MAO PCs and support

Total - Computers (Hardware)

Information Systems

JHP PC Equipment

NMNH OIRM Cost Center

NASM Office Automation, LAN, Exhibits, A/V

NMAH CIS

NMAA Cost Center

NPG CIS Catalog Records

OIRM New Data Base System

OIRM CIS

OIRM Applications Support

ODC CAD System and LAN

Total - Information Systems

Space Deficiencies

OFG Space Deficiency

SAO Space Deficiencies

STRI Marine Labs Staffing, Equipment and Support

NMNH NMNH East Court/Master Implementation Plan

HMSG Rent space for collection storage

FREER Exhibit-related off-site storage

OTC Office/Studio Renovation

Total - Space Deficiencies

Facilities Maintenance Deficiencies

SAO Facilities Maintenance Deficiencies

STRI Marine Labs Staffing, Equipment and Support

SERC Maintenance

NZP Support for Current Programs (Facilities)

NMNH Facility and Safety Management

NMAH Building Management and Safety

AA/PG Building Management Staff Increase

CHM Base Deficiency: Buildings & Grounds

CHM Fox House/Operating Expenses

MSC Facilities Maintenance and Services

ODC Major Construction/R&R Projects

OPLANTS Correct Base Deficiency

OPLANTS Strengthen Buildings and Facilities Maintenance

OPLAi'ITS Enhance Automated Administrative/Mgt Systems

OPLANTS Increase Human Resources Programs

OH Tree Replacement & Contractual Service Prog.

BM/SG Laborers - EXHIBITS SUPPORT

QBM Support services for the Education Center

Total - Facilities Maintenance Deficiencies

Health and Safety of Staff and Visitors

OASR SI Diving Program

SAO Health and Safety of Staff and Visitors

STRI Central Research and Education

STRI Hazardous Waste Disposal

AA/PG Safety Specialist AA/PG/Renwick/Barney House

HMSG Health, Safety and Accessibility Programs

MSC Facility Safety Management

OASA Substance Abuse Program

OEMS Compliance with OSHA workplace standards

OPS Occupational Health

Total - Health and Safety of Staff and Visitors

46

$879

$3,038

11

$988

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION FY 1992 INFRASTRUCTURE ITEMS ELIMINATED BY OMB

Infrastructure Category

Bureau Item of Increase FTE $000s

Security of Facilities and Collections

STRI Preservation of Research Areas and Reserves

STRI Security

STRI Security Aide

OPS Correct Base Shortage

OPS Reduce Critical Guard Shortage

OPS STRI Security Upgrade

OPS Security Systems Radio, Rekey, Equipment, Etc.

Total - Security of Facilities and Collections 20 $1,322

Question 3: On page 3 of your FY 1992 budget justification you list the unfunded infrastructure requirements which you describe as "resource deficiencies that have reached critical proportions" and "jeopardize the Institution's ability to manage the National Collections it holds in trust for the American people...". The backlog of these critical infrastructure needs has grown from $60 million in FY 1991 to $66 million in FY 1992. Why is this backlog of critical needs continuing to grow?

Answer: The estimate for the backlog of critical needs is greater in the FY 1992 budget justification than in the FY 1991 budget justification because of three major factors: (1) funding requested for FY 1991, but not approved, must be added back into the "Unfunded Requirements Backlog"; (2) estimates for some infrastructure requirements have increased based on revised projections of personnel costs and inflation; and (3) new infrastructure requirements have surfaced during the FY 1992 budget process which had not been identified last year.

Question 4: Another area where the Smithsonian seems to be losing ground is in the repair and restoration of existing facilities. The Smithsonian's FY 1992 request for repair and restoration of buildings is $31,600,000, an increase of $409,000 above the FY 1991 enacted level of $31,191,000. Since FY 1989, the Congress has provided $79.0 million for the repair and restoration of buildings account and, yet, the backlog of projects has, by the Smithsonian's own estimates, gone from $197.0 million in the FY 1989 budget justification to $216.0 million in the Smithsonian's FY 1992 justification.

Why are you continuing to lose ground in your efforts to repair and restore existing facilities?

Answer: While it would appear on the surface that the Institution is losing ground in reducing the backlog of repair and restoration of its facilities, we actually have made enormous strides in improving the condition of the physical plant. The Institution is very appreciative of the support the Congress has given us in dealing with this issue.

It is important to note, however, that the backlog is not a static list of repair projects that can be reduced by each annual increment of funding. Every year a number of problems that did not previously exist must be added to the backlog. For example, a piece of equipment might fail, or reach the end of its useful life; or a roof might develop serious leaks where a significant problem was not evident the year before. Newly promulgated life safety and health codes and heightened sensitivity to environmental hazards may require inclusion of work not formerly recognized. In addition, a number of factors contribute to increased cost estimates for repairs already included in the backlog. In some

cases, additional deterioration or damage caused by delay increases the cost of individual projects. More detailed studies of previously identified problems and the inflationary effect of project delays also contribute to higher cost estimates for the work.

The Institution has reported to the Congress on several occasions that sustained major funding over a period of eight to ten years would be required to reduce the backlog in an orderly manner to ensure preservation of its buildings for continued use by future generations. When we made this projection, we considered the fact that approximately $3 5 - $20 million would be added to the backlog each year because of the above factors.

Question 5: You state in your testimony that you intend to request $35.0 million for the repair and restoration account in FY 1993. At that level of funding, how long will it take the Smithsonian to eliminate the backlog of repair and restoration projects?

Answer: The Institution believes that it will take approximately eight to ten years to bring the backlog to a reasonably manageable level.

Question 6: You state in your written testimony that "The essence of the Smithsonian's infrastructure concept is that it is inefficient and wasteful to have renovated facilities without the necessary personnel or equipment in them to fulfill planned objectives."

What is the current level of vacancies in existing staff positions at the Smithsonian?

Answer: As Secretary Adams indicated in his testimony before the subcommittee, the Institution's vacancy rate for all staff positions is approximately five percent. This number is, of course, subject to seasonal variations and includes some Smithsonian units with higher current vacancy rates (e.g., the Museum of Natural History and the Office of Protection Services).

Question 7: During last year's hearing before this subcommittee, you stated that funding shortages were preventing you from filling 60 vacant positions at the National Museum of Natural History. How many of those positions remain vacant and how does this number of vacant positions compare to the other museums and galleries?

Answer: The National Museum of Natural History is holding approximately the same number of vacancies this fiscal year. The number of vacant positions at the National Museum of Natural History is substantially higher than at other Smithsonian museums and galleries, which have report between 3 and 13 positions vacant in FY 1991.

The primary reason for leaving so many positions unfilled at NMNH is due to shortages in Necessary Pay (i.e., there is insufficient funding to cover the costs of the new Federal Employees Retirement System, the lifting of the pay cap, and Cost-of-Living Adjustments and Within-Grade Increases). In addition, non-salary funds have been cut by almost 30 percent in all accounts, due to the effects of inflation, the cumulative impact of Gramm-Rudman-Hollings cuts, and new, unfunded regulatory requirements. Therefore, in making the cuts, the Museum has tried to maintain a balance between personnel and support funds.

Question 8: In FY 1991, 170 new FTEs were added. The bulk of these new positions (58 percent) was spread across three areas: the National Museum of the American Indian (88 positions) ; the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (6 positions) ; and research associated with global climate change ( 5 positions). The Smithsonian is reguesting an additional 131 new positions in FY 1992 and again the bulk of the new FTEs (63 percent) would be spread across three areas: the National Museum of the American Indian (64 positions); the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (12 positions); and research related to global climate change (7 positions).

Why are you reguesting new positions when the Smithsonian cannot afford to fill existing vacant positions?

Answer: The reguests for new positions are related to the specific staffing needs of the individual program increases for infrastructure reguirements and national imperatives. The funding reguested for these positions reflects full funding, including the costs of the Federal Employment Retirement System (FERS) and the increased costs of health insurance, which have been two major factors in the base erosion problems experienced by the Institution, and, therefore, will not add to the existing problem. Finally, the Institution anticipates that it will reguest additional funding to fully fund these existing vacancies as part of the FY 1993 budget reguest, and so eliminate the problem entirely.

Question 9: Is the Smithsonian's programmatic reach continuing to exceed its ability to grasp?

Answer: No. The Smithsonian's pursuit of new initiatives should not imply any lack of support for or attention to its critical core programs. In fact, the broad mandate given the Institution reguires the continual presentation of timely research, exhibitions and public programs which reflect the dynamic changes of nature and society. At the same time, the Smithsonian remains ever mindful of its responsibility to maintain and update the vast collections held in stewardship for succeeding generations.

Indeed, many "new initiatives" are, in reality, simply solutions to old problems. For example, the NASM Extension is necessary to solve the long-standing problem of providing adeguate collections storage, preservation and restoration facilities for the National Air and Space Museum's unigue collection of aircraft and spacecraft, a problem that NASM has had to address in some form since its establishment in 1946. While the Paul E. Garber Facility provided a partial solution to this problem in the 1960s, as did the Mall museum in the 1970s, the NASM extension is needed to solve the problem in the 1990s.

Finally, the Smithsonian is also aware that oftentimes resource trade-offs must be made between its varied areas of emphasis. The Institution attempts through careful planning to balance these needs in a way that allows progress in meeting new goals, without sacrifice to its ongoing basic programs.

Question 10: How does the Smithsonian intend to solve the problem of the erosion of its base funding if it continues to reguest additional staff to fund its new initiatives?

Answer: There are several factors that have caused the current problems of base erosion. These include (a) the increased cost to the Institution of the new Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS); (b) the reduction of personnel funding associated with the Grade Target Reduction (from FY 1985 through FY 1989); (c)

the FY 1990 Gramm-Rudman-Hollings reduction; (d) the FY 1991 across-the-board 0.524 percent reduction; and (e) the erosion of purchasing power for non-personnel expenditures related to the effects of inflation since FY 1987. The Smithsonian anticipates requesting additional funding in the FY 1993 budget request to restore the purchasing power lost over the past five years through these factors.

In order to decrease the probability of future base erosion problems, the Institution has implemented a number of changes in its budget formulation and planning processes over the past few years to ensure that requests for new programs include full-funding for all personnel costs (including FERS and health insurance) as well as sufficient funding for non-personnel support costs related to the program. However, base erosion problems could still be possible in the future if across-the-board cuts are levied against the base funding of the Institution.

Question 11: Your FY 1992 budget presentation (page 19) shows total "uncontrollable costs" of $17,439,000. This represents an increase of 56 percent over the total presented in your FY 1991 justification. The bulk of the increase is for salaries and related costs which more than double and total $13,879,000. How much of the salary and related costs are associated with the need to annualize the costs related to the 170 new positions added in FY 1991?

Answer: The funding required to annualize the costs related to the new positions added in the FY 1991 appropriation totals $1,249 million.

Question 12: How will the addition of 131 new FTEs requested in your FY 1992 budget affect your uncontrollable costs in FY 1993?

Answer: If the new positions are approved as requested, the only impact that these positions would have on the uncontrollable costs for FY 1993 would be to increase the funding required for the January 1993 legislated pay raise.

Future Priorities

Question 13: As I look at the Smithsonian prospectus entitled "Choosing the Future", it appears that FY 1993 is going to be quite a year. Your projections as shown on pages 62 and 63 of that document indicate that two things will happen in FY 1993: (1) The Smithsonian request for its Salaries and Expenses account which you propose to increase by 13 percent in FY 1992 is projected to increase by another 27 percent in FY 1993 or more than double the increase requested for FY 1992; and (2) The Federal appropriated share of the annual Smithsonian operating requirements exceeds 50 percent for the first time since FY 1984. Since FY 1984, the majority of funds required for the Smithsonian operating budget has been derived from nonappropriated trust activities.

Why has FY 1993 become so pivotal in the lives of Smithsonian management?

Answer: As Secretary Adams responded to Senator Reid's question in the subcommittee hearing, Smithsonian management does not see FY 1993 as a pivotal year in terms of its funding expectations. The magnitude of the percentage increase from FY 1992 to FY 1993, presented in the final version of the Institution's five-year prospectus, "Choosing the Future," results from the combination of two components: (1) projected

uncontrollable and programmatic increases for FY 1993; and (2) reductions in the estimate of FY 1992 base funding levels to reflect final OMB passback decisions. With reference to the original FY 1992 Salaries and Expenses reguest to OMB ($323 million), the projected FY 1993 level represented only a 15 percent increase in funding, as presented in the draft version of the prospectus (issued in September 1990).

Question 14: I take it that your solution to the erosion of your base funding is to increase the Smithsonian Salaries and Expenses budget by $112 million or 43 percent from FY 1991 through FY 1993. Is that correct?

Answer: The projected increase for Salaries and Expenses from FY 1991 through FY 1993 includes reguired funding for uncontrollable pay and inflation costs and programmatic increases for global change research, cultural pluralism, and education initiatives, as well as funding to address base erosion and a significant portion of the currently unfunded infrastructure reguirements.

Question 15: Could you identify any other portion of the Federal budget that might anticipate a 43 percent increase in its operating budget during the period FY 1991 through FY 1993?

Answer: The Institution does not have information regarding projected increases for other Federal programs for FY 1993.

Question 16: While we are on the subject of projected increases, I note that your FY 1993 estimate for new construction is $78.7 million or an increase of 214 percent above your FY 1992 reguest of $25.1 million. Your projection for new construction through the year 2000 is $707.0 million. If construction at the National Zoo, for the proposed Administrative Support Center, and the recently approved (by the Smithsonian Board of Regents) National African American Museum are added, the total funding projected for new construction through the year 2000 approaches $1 billion.

Given the fiscal imperative to reduce the deficit, are these projections reasonable?

Answer: The Smithsonian currently faces a growing reguirement for physical plant expansion and new construction to properly support current programs and operations. It is not surprising, therefore, that numerous projects are being considered within the context of the Institution's long-range facilities plan. Clearly, given the realities of the current federal budget deficit, not all of these construction plans are likely to be realized. Some projects will have to be re-prioritized, others will be delayed or stretched out beyond the completion dates projected earlier.

Question 17: Have any of the budget projections included in the Smithsonian prospectus "Choosing the Future" been cleared by OMB? Have these projections been reviewed by OMB?

Answer: "Choosing the Future" describes intended future directions for SI programs and facilities in very broad terms. The Office of Management and Budget does not review or clear the budget projections included in the Smithsonian's five-year planning document, "Choosing the Future." While the Institution submits a copy of "Choosing the Future" to the Office of Management and Budget for their use, there is no prior clearance or approval review by OMB before publication of the planning document.

The Office of Management and Budget does however exercise review and approval of future year "planning targets" for the Smithsonian as part of its annual review of the Institution's budget reguest. During the "passback" process for the budget year, the Office of Management and Budget provides the Institution with preliminary planning targets for future fiscal years. These planning targets are adjusted the following summer in OMB's "mid-session" review process and become the funding levels from which OMB evaluates the Institution's Budget reguest.

Planning and Setting Priorities

Question 18: Secretary Adams, you state in your prepared testimony that:

" Protecting the vitality of current activities and the maintenance of existing structures, while undertaking meritorious new pursuits in education, research, and public service, are the central decision-making tasks of Smithsonian management, particularly in this time of restraint in the Federal budget and in the national economy."

As I look at your FY 1992 reguest, I see $4.0 million in new telescopes; I see $25.1 million in new construction; I see 131 new FTEs; I see $500,000 for Smithsonian land acguisition; I see a new Administrative Support Center; I see a new Museum for African-American history and culture; I see a new research center starting up in Africa; and I see the possibility of a Smithsonian Biodiversity Research Center. I also see an ever expanding funding base that appears to erode primarily because it continues to expand.

But, let me tell you what else I see: I see a list of critical infrastructure items that keeps growing; a repair and renovation backlog that keeps growing; I see a vacancy level for existing positions that remains near 5 percent of the existing staffing level; I see staff training deferred; public education unfunded; and I see collections acguisitions and management postponed.

Would you please explain how the Smithsonian management goes about arbitrating these competing concerns? Specifically, how do you set priorities as you prepare your annual budget and conduct your long-range planning?

Answer: The Smithsonian's budget and planning processes provide the framework for managers at all levels of Smithsonian management to set priorities and make resource allocation decisions to implement these priorities. The Institution has submitted an issue paper, "Planning, Priority Setting, and Budget Processes," as an appendix to the Secretary's opening statement, to describe these processes and how the Institution uses them to set programmatic and budgetary priorities. The following summarizes the description of the processes described in the issue paper.

Each bureau and major office undertakes a comprehensive analysis of both its external environment and its current internal situation to determine how both sets of realities will impact its ability to fulfill its purpose and accomplish its goals in the years ahead. Each bureau and major office also examines its own strengths and weaknesses by surveying such internal factors as its readiness to respond to the aforementioned outside world pressures, staff profiles, emerging and longstanding areas of expertise or deficiency, the condition of its collections, facilities and other capital assets, and a range of other such considerations. After

completing these reviews, each bureau and office then confirms and, if necessary, modifies its traditional mission; formally acknowledges its primary program audiences (whether currently being reached or not) and those factors that give it a unique strength (its comparative advantage) ; and sets long term goals. These statements also make explicit certain responsibilities, principles and values, such as the bureau's special obligation to provide care and conservation to its collections or its responsibility as a public institution to serve all sectors of the population rather than limited segments.

With the overarching considerations of mission, goals and valued as context, each bureau and major office then develops a long term program and facilities plan—desired outcomes for which there is generally broad staff consensus and for which executive management support is sought—that will build upon its traditional strengths, overcome its particular shortcomings, and mitigate the effects of threats thrust upon it by the outside world. The bureau director, together with his/her key staff, presents and discusses the preliminary plan with the Assistant Secretary(ies) who has oversight responsibility, and the Assistant Secretary then approves the plan, subject to modification as appropriate.

Based upon a comprehensive review of the "bottom up" results of the situation analyses conducted Institution wide by all bureaus, executive management, with staff assistance by the Institution's Office of Planning and Budget, then engages in the process of explicating the Institution's original mission, setting long term goals, and determining broad themes of emphasis for program and facilities planning and for budget formulation. The Institution's goals have as their foundation its several broad traditional functions which encompass basic research, collections management, and exhibits and other public programs. The Institution's executive management has established, and affirmed for the last three years, themes of emphasis for the Institution's infrastructure (i.e., "Stewardship of the Public Trust"), global change research (i.e., "Understanding the Global Environment and Our Place in the Universe"), and cultural pluralism (i.e., "Exemplifying the Nation's Pluralism"). During the past year, an additional theme, or "Area of Emphasis", was selected for education (i.e., "Bringing Synergism to Contemporary Public Education").

While executive management develops these various statements, the statements do circulate to all bureau directors for comment, concurrence and areas of substantive disagreement prior to review by the Secretary. However, the final versions of the mission and goals statement ("Statement of Purpose and Goals") and the "Areas of Emphasis" constitute those essential planning directions that the Secretary has deemed most appropriate and urgent. Once the Secretary approves these guiding principles, they serve as the cornerstone for the Institution's five year plan, "Choosing the Future", and for budget formulation.

In preparing their budgets, bureaus must prioritize each requested item of increase and classify each to the one "Area of Emphasis" to which it is most responsive. Since there are close to a dozen subcategories of infrastructure (e.g., conservation of collections, exhibit reinstallation, lab/scientific equipment, etc.), there are multiple infrastructure classifications. After all budget requests have come from,the bureaus, they are sorted, according to the various "Areas of Emphasis" and respective subcategories, to permit like requests to be reviewed and weighed relative to each other.

While the bureaus are preparing their budgets, the Secretary and Assistant Secretaries decide upon the total funding level that the Institution should seek from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), taking into consideration past documented needs and

opportunities. They also decide a preliminary allocation of this total among the "Areas of Emphasis," and between infrastructure requirements and critical national imperatives, such as Global Change Research, Cultural Pluralism and Education.

The Assistant Secretaries then form review teams to consider all competing requests within a particular grouping. These teams make preliminary allocations (from the "functional" allocations established above) to individual bureau items of increase in a priority order that takes into account relative need and urgency as well as bureau priority. Once the Assistant Secretaries see the range of requests that are competing for funding, they may also decide to alter particular functional allocations by cross ranking functions and making offsetting adjustments between two or more of these respective allocations. The final products of this review are prioritized listings of the items of increase that can be accommodated within each functional allocation, which are in turn balanced to the earlier agreed upon total funding level that will be sought from OMB.

At this point, the bureaus receive notice of preliminary budget decisions and have the opportunity to appeal. Once appeals are reviewed and any further adjustments are made, the Assistant Secretaries send their final recommendations to the Secretary for his approval. With the Secretary's approval, the budget then moves to the Regents for their approval and goes to OMB for review.

OMB's final allowances have for the last several years typically allocated funding to specific functional categories or specific line items (i.e., global change research, major science instrumentation, NMAI, audit deficiencies) . Following the OMB passback, the Institution may have to adjust or revise resource allocations between funding categories or between individual program increases within a particular category to carry out the guidelines presented in the OMB passback.

Question 19: Doesn't the establishment of priorities require choosing among competing concerns as opposed to choosing all of those concerns?

Answer: The process of establishing priorities very definitely requires a choosing among competing or alternative concerns. Smithsonian management attempts through careful planning, analysis and review (both internal and external) to identify those programmatic and operational efforts which are deemed of greatest priority to the Institution's varied constituencies.

The National African American Museum

Question 20: I am curious, when the Smithsonian Board of Regents discussed the Advisory Committee's recommendation calling for the establishment of a National African American Museum on the Mall, was there any discussion of the cost and source of funding for the new museum?

Answer: During the discussion at the Regent's meeting, Secretary Adams pointed out that the Advisory Committee's study was strictly conceptual, and did not speak to process, cost, collections and duration of the effort that would be required to bring the museum to fruition. Accordingly, he asked for the Regent's acceptance of the report "in principle," without specific discussion or approval of costs or sources of funding for the new museum.

Question 21: When you appeared before the House Interior Subcommittee on March 21 of this year the Smithsonian Board of Regents had not yet met to discuss the Advisory Committee's report regarding the establishment of the African American Museum. And, yet, you included in your prepared testimony a request for $750,000 to get started on the new museum. Your prepared statement today contains no such request. Why?

Answer: In anticipation of Regents approval, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Museums had identified funding requirements of $750,000 for the development of small task forces which would begin to look more in depth at programmatic issues for a new museum. Subject areas to be covered would include, Research, Collections, Education, Administration, Development and Marketing, and Facilities Planning. This model was effective in the development of the National Museum of the American Indian and was expositive in the building program planning.

Question 22: Has the establishment of a new National Museum of African American History and Culture been authorized by Congress?

Answer: No.

Question 23: On page 137 of your budget justification, you describe the Anacostia Museum as a "...national resource on African-American history and culture." Your FY 1992 request for the Anacostia Museum is $1,217,000, which includes a base adjustment of $58,000. What will be the relationship between the new National African American Museum of History and Culture and the Anacostia Museum?

Answer: The proposed National African American Museum will develop a close working relationship with the Anacostia Museum and other Smithsonian museums and programs in order to present African American history and culture throughout the Smithsonian. The Anacostia Museum evolved as one of the nation's first community-based museums, and has reaffirmed its commitment to focusing its research and exhibition programming on the African American experience in the District of Columbia and the Upper South, a region from which many of the District's residents have migrated. In acknowledgement of the District's constantly changing demographics, Anacostia also will be researching urban issues.

Question 24: What is the Smithsonian's estimate of the total cost to establish and staff the African American Museum? Over how long a period?

Answer: The Institution is presently engaged in preliminary planning that will define the program of a new African American Museum. This will provide the basis for future facilities planning and staff and operating estimates for the new museum.

Question 25: The Smithsonian press release of May 6, 1991 regarding the Board of Regents acceptance of the Advisory Committee's recommendation to establish a new African American museum on the Mall states that the new museum could open as early as 1995. Is that accurate?

Answer: It is conceivable that the exhibits presently housed in the Arts and Industries Building could be deinstalled according to a phased plan, and an exhibition program for the African American Museum could be in place by 1995.

Question 26: What existing Smithsonian priorities will have to be deferred in order to accommodate the new museum?

Answer: Since the expansion and improvement of African-American programming on the Mall is currently one of the Smithsonian's highest priorities, as expressed in the Secretary's Areas of Emphasis, it is not expected that the establishment of the new museum would change existing priorities.

Question 27: Your FY 1992 reguest includes an increase of $250,000 to continue renovating the Arts and Industries Building, which is the proposed site for the African American Museum. Are you still making that reguest?

Answer: Renovation of the offices in the Arts and Industries has been on-going and the reguest for $250,000 to continue renovation of this building is essential regardless of the future use of the building.

National Center For Biological Diversity

Question 28: At its May 6 meeting, the Smithsonian Board of Regents discussed "issues related to legislative .efforts to establish a National Center for Biological Diversity and the Smithsonian's interest in playing a central role in these developments".

What is the Smithsonian management's view of the need to establish a National Center for Biological Diversity and what is your view of the Smithsonian's role in such a center?

Answer: The Smithsonian Institution has long believed in the importance of creating a National Center for Biological Diversity to serve as a coordinating mechanism for the important activities underway in hundreds of institutions throughout the United States. The Institution has supported the effort in Congress to create such a Center and this endorsement reflects the sentiments of the scientific and conservation communities which have enthusiastically endorsed the concept.

Question 29: Where would such a center be located and how would it be staffed?

Answer: It is our belief that the Center should be located at the Smithsonian due to our unigue position as a leading institution concerned with biological diversity, and our ability to successfully network between federal agencies, state agencies, conservation organizations, museums/herbaria and other interested parties working in this field. In addition, as the custodian for the national biological collections, we already serve as one of the major reference sources in the world for this type of activity. We believe the staffing for the Center should be kept intentionally small (not more than 6-10 positions) and that provision should be made for contracting to specialists throughout the world for undertaking the specialized studies necessary to develop biological diversity profiles. It also will be important for the Smithsonian or a similar body to operate a database to ensure that the information collected is readily accessible to scientists, policymakers, and the general public.

Question 30: Where would the Smithsonian's participation in such a center rank on the Smithsonian's list of priorities?

Answer: If such a Center is created, the Institution, with the full consent of its Board of Regents, could play a significant role in its operation and thus would place a high priority on this activity, which would extend our present activities in this area.

Security Guards

Question 31: On page 9" of your FY 1992 budget justification you state:

".... serious erosion of base resources to support the security program has undermined the Institution's ability to provide adeguate protection for its collections and facilities... In recent years staffing shortages have caused the periodic closing of exhibit galleries when guards were not available for full coverage."

How much are you reguesting in FY 1992 to further reduce the security guard vacancies and what steps are you taking to eliminate the high turnover rate?

Answer: The FY 1992 reguest to the Office of Management and Budget included the $1 million needed to offset the base erosion and enable the Office of Protection Services (OPS) to fill the guard positions currently authorized. Congress very generously provided $600,000 of this amount in FY 1991. However, the OMB allowance did not include the remaining funds ($400,000) in the FY 1992 reguest now before Congress. Without these additional resources in FY 1992 OPS will be forced to continue to combine guard posts in order to maintain security operations without closing galleries. This will dilute guard coverage and pose a relatively high level of risk to the collections.

In regard to the high turnover rate among guards, OPS has taken steps to improve the timeliness with which gualified recruits are located and hired to fill vacant positions. These steps include the hiring of a full time recruiter, a program of better and more complete reference checks on guard applicants, and improved procedures for centralized interviewing and selection of guards. Turnover remains high for the first two guarters of the current fiscal year, but the Institution expects these measures to reduce the number of overall guard vacancies that exist at any one time.

Global Change Research

Question 32: The Smithsonian FY 1992 budget reguest includes an increase of $1,550,000 for global climate change research. The requested increase for global change research includes $500,000 to allow the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (SERC) to acguire 72 acres of land which is adjacent to SERC's Rhode River site near the Chesapeake Bay.

You state in your testimony that authorization for this land acguisition is being "reguested". What do you mean?

Answer: At their meeting on May 6, 1991 the Board of Regents asked their Congressional members to introduce and support legislation authorizing the acguisition of land at SERC and funding for doing so. H.R. 2757 is pending in the House; a companion measure is expected to be introduced shortly in the Senate.

Question 33: You also state in your testimony that "Approximately 2,200 acres deemed critical to present and future research are unprotected. We estimate that the total cost of their protection will be between $8 million and $12 million for direct purchases and easements." Are these costs to be absorbed by the Smithsonian?

Answer: The Smithsonian expects to request appropriations of $500,000 annually for the next ten years to be matched by trust funds. Thus, we are projecting total expenditures of $10 million over the next decade.

Question 34: Has the Smithsonian investigated turning land and easement purchase activities over to those Federal land management agencies, such as the Fish and Wildlife Service, that are specifically authorized by the Congress to undertake land acquisition and land management responsibilities?

Answer: No. The specialized, basic research purpose for which these lands are required makes it more efficient for the Smithsonian to continue in its land acquisition and management activities. However, since Federal monies are now requested, Congressional authorization is being sought.

Question 35: Your FY 1992 request also includes increases of $209,000 and 4 FTEs for the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (SERC), $288,000 and 3 FTEs for the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI), and $158,000 and 3 FTEs for the International Environmental Science Program (IESP). All of these increases are for research related to global climate change.

Why are you requesting $158,000 and 3 FTEs for the IESP for global climate change research to be conducted at the SERC when you are also requesting $209,000 and 4 additional FTEs for SERC who will also conduct research on global climate change?

Answer: The IESP funding at SERC is used to support the collection of long-term ecological data by Smithsonian scientists. This program was initiated at SERC in FY 1970 and has resulted in some data sets of very high value to the present global change program. The data sets are archived in a central data bank and are used by SERC as well as other scientists conducting global change research. The IESP encourages interbureau cooperation and programmatic flexibility. No permanent commitments are made to a given scientist. Proposals are solicited to meet program needs. The requested increase in funding for this program (3 FTEs and $158,000) will allow the collection of more comprehensive data sets.

The 4 FTEs and $209,000 will provide SERC with core scientific staff and support necessary to conduct research on the effects of solar ultraviolet radiation and on the chemical aspects of pollutant transport — studies important for understanding the effects of global change on the biota of the Chesapeake Bay region.

The Rhode River represents a significant and complex research site for global change research. The data sets collected under the IESP and the bureau-based programs are valuable to many scientists engaged in global change research for comparative referencing to other research areas.

Question 36: You are requesting another increase for global climate change research of $50,000 and 1 FTE to establish the Mpala Research Station in north central Kenya. Collaborators include Princeton University and the Government of Kenya.

What is the exact nature of the collaboration of Princeton and the Government of Kenya? Are there financial and/or staff contributions involved?

Answer: The Smithsonian, Princeton University, the National Museums of Kenya and the Kenyan Wildlife Service are all members of a scientific advisory committee which are collaborating on the establishment of a research station on the Mpala Ranch in Kenya. The Smithsonian and Princeton are to undertake private fundraising to supplement the requested appropriation to finance research at the field site. In addition, out of base budgets, monies will be devoted to this activity as well as staff time. The National Museums of Kenya and the Kenyan Wildlife Service will provide logistical assistance, scientific staff, and limited equipment to the program. The Kenyan institutions also will assist to the extent possible in rasing private support both in Kenya and in the United States.

Administrative Support Center

Question 37: In your prepared statement, you describe the Smithsonian's proposal to construct and ultimately acquire a new Administrative Support Center using a commercial mortgage and resources within the Institution's working capital Trust fund account. Space in the Service Center would be available to Federal and Trust fund units of the Institution that are currently meeting their needs with Federal funds and/or Trust funds budgeted to them for the commercial leases on the space they now occupy. Those funds would be used for the lease of their space in the new Administrative Support Center and paid into a discrete Institutional cost center that would record and account for all transactions. For Smithsonian tenants in the new building, their annual budgets would continue to include base and incremental funding for leasing of space, with payments made to the cost center, which in turn, would use such funds to amortize the commercial mortgage on the new building.

You suggest that the advantages of such an arrangement include a $50.0 million savings over the 30-year life of the mortgage and ownership of the new facility which would transfer to the Smithsonian at the end of the 30-year period. In addition, operating funds used for leasing space to the individual Smithsonian units could then, after 30 years, be applied elsewhere in the Institution.

Will the lease-purchase of this new building require Congressional authorization?

Answer: Authorization is being sought to provide that funds now appropriated for leases can be used for amortization. It should be noted that this is not a lease purchase in the usual sense of the phrase since Smithsonian ownership will be at the outset of the acquisition process which will be a Trust obligation of the Institution.

Question 38: What assurances do you have „.iat 0MB will not score the entire cost of the new building ($159 * million) in the first year?

Answer: OMB has advised us that inasmucu as the Service Center will not be an obligation of the United States Government, its construction costs will not appear in the Federal budget.

Question 39: Although you have indicated a savings of $50.0 million over the life of the lease-purchase, what are the annual incremental cost increases to the Federal government? For example, the Smithsonian is now spending $1.3 million annually for the leased space at North Capital Street and $900,000 annually on for security, maintenance, and utilities for the North Capital space. The annual cost to the Smithsonian to amortize the $159.5 million lease-purchase would be $5.3 million, for a net increase of $3.1 million. Is that correct?

Answer: Since the Institution is evaluating design and construction proposals and financing proposals, the actual cost of the building and its financing is not yet known. Our current estimate, however, is that amortization plus operating costs (for a building more than twice the size of the present leased facility) will be about $8 million. Depending on our ability to relocate activities now in commercially leased spaces, about $3 million in base funds will be applied, leaving a requirement for $5 million to be obtained over the next two or three budget years.

Question 40: Would appropriated funds be used both to subsidize the annual amortization costs and for the annual rent for the individual Smithsonian units leasing space in the new building?

Answer: No. Smithsonian units occupying space would pay rent to the Institutional cost center, as if they were paying for commercial space. The cost center would use those Federal and Trust funds for amortization.

Question 41: You testified on the House side that the Smithsonian will lease space irf the new building commercially to non-Smithsonian tenants. How much of the planned 3 50,000 square feet would be available to non-Smithsonian tenants?

Answer: Probably no more than 20,000 square feet would be available to non-Smithsonian tenants depending on Smithsonian needs.

Question 42: Have you ever considered the space in the General Post Office Building as an alternative to a new Administrative Support Center?

Answer: Yes, but the character and space layout of this building do not meet our needs for the types of activities now housed in leased space on North Capitol Street, such as the storage of building supplies and materials and other property, printing and duplicating, and exhibits production. Basically, these functions need large, open spaces not provided by the old Post Office Building.

Major Scientific Instrumentation

Question 43: The Smithsonian is requesting in FY 1992 an increase of $2,677,000 to continue construction of the submillimeter telescope array. The total cost of this project through FY 1996 is estimated to be $35.1 million. What effect will the Board of Regents May 6, 1991 decision to site the telescope array on Mauna Kea, Hawaii instead of Mount Graham, Arizona have on the total cost of the project?

Answer: In FY 1989, our submission to Congress requesting initiation of the array project stated that our cost estimate assumed that the array would be located on a continental site, and that construction on a prime noncontinental site such as Mauna Kea,

Hawaii, might cost 25 percent more. We currently estimate that building the array on the Hawaii site will cost approximately 15 percent more than on a continental site, raising the total cost of the submillimeter telescope array to slightly more than $40 million (1990).

Question 44: The Smithsonian will soon begin negotiations with the University of Hawaii for the siting of the telescope array. The University of Hawaii is the lease-holder for the Mauna Kea Science Reserve. Who will actually hold title to the telescope array? Does the Smithsonian have any estimate of the cost and terms of the lease?

Answer: The Smithsonian Institution will hold title to the submillimeter array. Preliminary discussions with the director of the Institute for Astronomy of the University of Hawaii indicate that the terms of the lease will reguire the Smithsonian to pay (1) about $1 million for its prorated share of the cost of the infrastructure at the summit; (2) about $0.6 million for the use of four rooms and associated infrastructure at the mid-level support facility; and (3) its prorated share of the cost of the annual maintenance services for the Mauna Kea facility (approximately $50 thousand each year).

Question 45: Will the University of Hawaii have any other role in the operations or maintenance of the telescope array other than just lease-holder?

Answer: The Smithsonian will grant the University of Hawaii exclusive use of a small, but as-yet-undetermined, share of the scientific use of the array. We expect the University to be represented on the committee that will schedule such use of the array, but we do not expect the University to be involved in the operations or maintenance of the array.

Question 46: The FY 1992 budget reguest for the Smithsonian also includes an increase of $441,000 to continue the conversion of the Multiple Mirror Telescope (MMT) and $119,000 to begin development of new instrumentation for the converted MMT. On page 74 of your budget justification, you state that:

"The exact cost of the conversion and the precise contribution of the University of Arizona are still not known, but $10.8 million is believed to be a reliable upper figure for the Smithsonian Institution's contribution."

What is your current estimate of the Smithsonian contribution and the contribution of the University of Arizona?

Answer: Our current estimate of the Smithsonian contribution is the same as in the budget justification: an upper limit of $10.8 million (1990). It is more difficult to guantify the University of Arizona's contribution which consists primarily in casting and polishing the 6.5 meter-diameter mirror. The cost of these operations depends on the number of mirrors produced at the University of Arizona's mirror fabrication facility. The prorated cost of this facility for the 6.5-meter-diameter mirror is estimated at this time to be of the order of $10 million with an uncertainty of about 25 percent.

Extension of the National Air and Space Museum

Question 47: What is the current status of the extension of the National Air and Space Museum?

Answer: At its meeting on May 6, 1991, the Institution's Board of Regents accepted the proposal of a scaled-back extension and asked its Congressional members to introduce and support legislation authorizing its planning.

Question 48: The scaled-back Air and Space Museum extension proposal that you have just described is, in fact, what used to be "Phase I" of your original 3-phased proposal, is that correct?

Answer: Yes, the scaled-back version is essentially "Phase I". This version will take care of the Museum's most urgent and immediate needs, the proper housing and storage of the majority of its collections, as well as certain educational and elemental exhibit components consistent with the Institution's understandings with the Commonwealth of Virginia which has committed itself to substantial contributions to this project.

Question 49: Is it the Smithsonian's intention to leave open the question of whether Phase II and III will be constructed at some point in the future?

Answer: Yes, the scaled-back version will only take care of the Museum's immediate needs for proper storage and housing of the present collection and as a replacement to the Garber Facility.

Question 50: Would you identify the specific commitments that the State of Virginia has made regarding the development of the Air and Space Museum extension? What is the status of these commitments?

Answer: Virginia has pledged to provide all of the project infrastructure (estimated at $40 million); a $3 million interest-free loan to assist with planning, bonding authority up to $100 million; and $6 million in general funds to be matched by an equal amount from local government and/or private sector donations. The Commonwealth of Virginia remains committed to this pledge.

Question 51: Who will hold title to the land and the buildings at the Dulles site?

Answer: The Washington Metropolitan Airports Authority will continue to hold title to the land and lease it to the Institution. Title to the buildings will be held by the Institution.

National Museum of Natural History

Question 52: The Smithsonian is including $400,000 in its FY 1992 request for renovations of its permanent exhibit halls. On page 85 of your budget justification, you state that: "Existing Federal resources will not permit timely renovation of major halls." What is required to permit timely renovation of major halls?

Answer: NMNH has 200,000 square feet of permanent exhibition space, with over 150,000 square feet of exhibits more than twenty-five years old. The Museum plans to renovate ($450 per square foot) or upgrade ($250 per square foot) all of this space by the

year 2000, using a mix of public and private funds. Federal dollars will be primarily focussed on the upgrading of existing halls to correct factual errors, introduce new scientific concepts, and achieve cultural and gender eguity in our presentations. To complete 80,000 sguare feet of upgraded exhibitions by the year 2000 will reguire $2.5 million per year dedicated to this effort. Of this amount, Congress provided $689,000 in FY 1991. The $400,000 reguested for FY 1992 would provide another significant step toward this goal. It will allow us to advance the upgrading of the Marine Hall, Africa Hall and Physical Anthropology halls in FY 1992.

An additional $4 million per year would be reguired to renovate completely the other 70,000 sguare feet of space. We hope to raise a large part of this from private sources. It seem most appropriate that as the nation seeks to be "first in the world in science education by the year 2000" that we dedicate ourselves to having the National Museum of Natural History first in the world in the scientific understanding and interpretation of nature and the place of people in it.

National Air and Space Museum

Question 53: The National Air and Space Museum reguested an increase of $85,000 for science demonstrations and a teacher-in-residence program as part of its FY 1992 budget plan. OMB eliminated funding for this program reguest. What is the effect of this reduction?

Answer: The Museum had planned for the teacher-in-residence program to support a teacher from the District of Columbia to work with Museum staff, for a year, to develop curriculum materials specifically for use in the D.C. school system. This would foster a stronger relationship between the Museum and the District school system while also promoting science and math education in conjunction with planned visits to the Museum. The science demonstration program is currently performed once daily with additional demonstrations being added this summer. They provide an opportunity for visitors of all ages to see in-action and close-up the principles of flight represented around the Museum. The elimination of these requests by OMB means that there will not be a teacher-in-residence at the Museum in FY 1992 and the Museum will not expand the science demonstration program to include additional topics, number of daily shows, or expansion out into the community.

Question 54: The National Air and Space Museum requested an increase of $1,702,000 as part of its FY 1992 budget plan for exhibitions and staff. You reduced that reguest to $360,000 and OMB reduced that reguest still further to $200,000. What is the effect of this reduction? What would the Air and Space Museum have been able to accomplish with the full request of $1,702,000?

Answer: The Museum requested $1,702,000 to fund a variety of planned exhibitions to encourage visitors to think critically, and to understand the social, political and economic contexts which shaped, and were in turn influenced by, aviation and space technology. These include "Where Next Columbus?", which will examine our prospects, during the next 500 years, for the discovery and exploration of "new worlds" in space; "Vietnam", a focus on the helicopter in Vietnam, examining the many roles of vertical flight, both combat and noncombat, in order to explore how this new technology influenced the planning and conduct of the American military effort in Southeast Asia; "Principles of Flight" to provide visitors with a genuine gualitative understanding of the

basic physical principles which allow aircraft and spacecraft to fly; and "Stars" a major revision of the present gallery focusing on the processes of scientific reasoning that support our understanding of the origin, evolution, and nature of stars, galaxies, and the universe. The reduction of this reguest to $200,000 will reguire the Museum to spread out over a long period of time its plan to produce these exhibitions. The Museum will utilize a combination of base resources and fund raising efforts to fund these exhibitions in as timely a manner as possible.

National Museum of American History

Question 55: The Smithsonian's FY 1992 reguest for the National Museum of American History includes an increase of $100,000 for the reinstallation of its major permanent exhibitions. The Museum had originally reguested $600,000. How will this reduction affect the Museum of American History's ability to reinstall its major permanent exhibitions?

Answer: The Museum's long range reinstallation program is in serious jeopardy unless federal support is restored to the full $600,000 reguested. The Museum's highest priority activity, this program is its principal means of helping the public understand the nation's complex social, cultural, scientific and technological history. More than half of the Museum's 450,000 sguare feet of exhibition and public space has yet to be updated. Failure to sustain reinstallation funding would destroy an effective coordination with ongoing Repair and Restoration (R&R) work totalling over $25 million through FY 1996, and would lead to duplicate effort and waste when renovated spaces are eventually reinstalled. Failure would also deprive the public of exhibitions based on recent scholarship, addressing current issues, and incorporating new technologies and collections.

While support for the reinstallation program once reached $850,000, the cumulative impact of cuts and inflation since FY 1986 has reduced the fund to $300,000, two-thirds of which goes for production staff. Sufficient private funding is unavailable to keep pace with the R&R schedule and to treat many critically important issues. Federal support provides needed leverage with the private sector. The Museum can only sustain the successful federal/private partnership developed over the past decade if the lost federal reinstallation funding is restored.

Question 56: During your hearing before this Subcommittee last year, you used the absence of collections acguisition funding for the American History Museum as an example of the paucity of Federal resources available for Smithsonian operations. I note that there are no funds included in the Smithsonian's FY 1992 reguest to the American History Museum for collections acguisitions. How do you explain this and what is the effect of no funding available for collections acguisition?

Answer: The Museum's collections acguisition funding base was first eliminated in FY 1990 as a result of the Gramm Rudman Hollings and other reductions. At the time that the FY 1992 budget reguest was submitted, NMAH hoped to restore this amount in future years through reprogramming within its base. Therefore, no reguest was made to OMB or Congress to restore collections acguisition monies. The only funding for collections acguisition provided in FY 1991 for NMAH is associated with two specific programs, the Duke Ellington Collection and the Columbus Quincentenary Program, and represents programmatic funding applied to purchase collections items for these particular programs. Because of further cuts and unfunded benefits increases in FY 1991, NMAH was forced again in

FY 1991 to eliminate base funding for collections acquisition. Without restoration of prior year funding cuts, this situation will doubtless become permanent. It is anticipated that the Museum's FY 1993 budget submission will contain a request for restoration of this funding.

It is absolutely imperative for the continued growth and strengthening of the national collections that the Federal acquisitions budget be restored. Due to changes in the tax laws and changes in the economy, more people are becoming less willing to donate their objects or collections to the Museum and are instead more eager to sell. Many are selling their collections through auction houses. To continue to build and improve the collections the Museum has to be able to purchase objects that cannot be obtained in any other way. The Museum must be able to compete in the marketplace with other museums, collectors, and dealers. This holds true for most of the subject areas NMAH collects in, including fairly new areas of emphasis such as African-American collections as well as 20th century Americana.

National Museum of the American Indian

Question 57: The Smithsonian is requesting an increase of $6,121,000 and 64 FTEs for the National Museum of the American Indian in FY 1992. In addition, the Smithsonian has included an increase of $2,400,000 for new construction related to the Indian Museum.

The requested increase for the Indian Museum in FY 1992 includes $448,000 and 2 FTEs for the National Campaign Office to assist in fundraising for the Indian Museum. This increase is in addition to the $544,000 and 11 FTEs added last year. How many fundraisers does the Museum need and what have they accomplished to date?

Answer: The two positions requested for FY 1992 are a Membership Director and a support position for the Membership Program. These two positions will bring the National Campaign Office to its full complement of 13 full-time positions.

Even with this small and developing staff, the National Campaign has accomplished a great deal and is gathering substantial momentum. Funds received from all sources and for all purposes, through May 29, 1991, total $590,506.03. Other Campaign accomplishments include:

Several strategies have been pursued to manage the Campaign within the parameters of its budget. These have included: (1) furnishing the National Campaign Office for less than $20,000 as a result of discounts and donations; (2) raising $30,769.18 in unrestricted income (representing one-half of total proceeds which were shared with the Resident Associates Program) from the World Premiere on October 19, 1990, of the award-winning film, Dances With Wolves ($25,000 projected as income); and (3) raising $55,666 toward placement costs for a newspaper advertisement and receiving $60,836 (through May 22) from 1,573 donors (who are now being assessed with regard to their major gift and membership potential) in direct contributions to the NMAI construction fund in response to the ad ($25,000 projected as income). Included in this amount are seven gifts of $1,000 and nine gifts of $500.

The membership/direct mail program, through an initial testmailing sent to 200,000 persons, was launched on March 21. Our consultants in this area had defined "success" for this test mailing as the ability to achieve a response rate of 1.5

percent and an average gift of $22. The first responses to the mailing were received on April 1. Through May 28, 5,078 memberships have been received, a response rate of 2.5 percent, with total gross revenue of $144,831 and an average gift of $28.52. Based on the success of this first mailing, we will conduct a second test of the membership/direct mail program in June 1991, and will continuously evaluate it for cost effectiveness. If a positive evaluation continues to result from these mailings, we will launch a broadly based membership appeal ("rollout") in FY 1992.

A logo for the Campaign has been chosen from among several which were submitted by the Institute of American Indian Arts which is located in Santa Fe, New Mexico. We have registered this logo as the trademark for the NMAI Campaign.

A Business Supporters Program , to be initiated in June 1991, will be targeted to approximately 1,000 businesses and galleries which specialize in Indian arts and crafts and will solicit annual unrestricted gifts of at least $250.

A contractor has submitted recommendations for the purchase of appropriate computing software to be used for management of the Campaign's research and donor records. It is projected that this system will be fully operational by late Summer 1991. The system will be implemented with support from appropriated funds.

Recruitment of the Chairman and members of the Honorary Committee for the Campaign is under way, and should be completed by June 1991.

Prospect identification for the Campaign's volunteer fund-raising committee, the International Founders Council, is progressing rapidly and is moving into the stages of cultivation and recruitment.

Several special events have been held and others are planned for fund raising purposes, including: an April 17 reception in honor of the Museum's Director in New York City; a May 2 book reading event in Seattle, Washington by authors Michael Dorris and Louise Erdrich in connection with their new book The Crown of Columbus : a weekend of fund raising events in Aspen, Colorado on August 23-25; and a new members reception in New York City on September 26 at the U.S. Custom House, the future site of the NMAI.

A conference of prominent Native American fiction writers is planned for July 1991 both to elicit their support of the Campaign and to seek their assistance in the development of the case statement and other communications materials which must be produced in Fiscal Year 1992.

The Campaign has been invited by Orion Pictures to submit a 30-second spot concerning the Museum and its membership program for inclusion in the "Collectors Edition" home video of Dances With Wolves.

Question 58: Why did 0MB increase Smithsonian's FY 1992 request for the Indian Museum by $1,700,000?

Answer: The $1.7 million increase does not represent an increase provided by 0MB, but rather a reassignment of costs between accounts. The request for Custom House furnishings and equipment, originally included as part of the Construction account

38-707 O—92 26

in the FY 1992 OMB request, is reflected in the NMAI line-item in the Salaries and Expense account in the budget to Congress.

Question 59: The Smithsonian will have provided by the end of FY 1992 its full $8.0 million share for the renovation of the Custom House in New York. The City of New York and the State of New York are also committed to providing equal shares of $8.0 million each for a total of $24.0 million which is required to complete the necessary work. What is the status of the City and State shares committed for the Custom House?

Answer: Negotiations with the City and State of New York on a contract covering the transfer of funds and a series of related issues are nearing completion. The money has been appropriated in the current New York state budget and resides in a construction account. The City of New York has already appropriated its share of the total. Once a final agreement has been reached the City expects to forward a draft contract to its Comptroller for review. We expect to have funds in hand by September first and to proceed immediately to seek bids for renovation of the Custom House. On such a schedule the Custom House opening to the public is now anticipated to occur in mid-1993.

National Museum of American Art

Question 60: The National Museum of American Art had requested an increase of $245,000 and 5 FTEs for education programs as part of its FY 1992 budget plan. OMB eliminated the requested increase. What is the effect of this reduction?

Answer: The effect of this reduction is that the Museum must continue its current bare minimum level of local educational programming, in much the same fashion as a mere local museum. In recent years this programming has been very successful in attracting visitors to the museum, but, at the current funding level, it can only serve those who come to Washington and cannot reach the national audience the Museum aspires to serve. There is an increased interest in American art among school children, families, adults, and scholars nationwide. In recent months this heightened interest has been reflected in a marked increase in visitor attendance at the Museum, even as overall visitorship to the Smithsonian was declining. A recent survey conducted at the Museum showed that most of its visitors were from outside of the Washington, D.C., area.

The Museum, however, has a broader responsibility beyond Washington to American art and artists and to the national public's thirst for knowledge of its visual heritage. Currently, the Museum produces its educational programs with a base staff of three professionals, a secretary, and a tour scheduler. (By comparison, the National Gallery of Art has an educational staff of 56.) The additional FTEs and funding will allow the Museum to begin education programs targeted to multiple audience levels and national constituencies through the use of new technologies and wide dissemination. In particular, the Museum will produce short films and videos, teachers' workbooks and course materials on American art, frequently using themes and images based on exhibitions organized by the National Museum of American Art. These materials will be tested locally and then distributed nationwide through a carefully coordinated system. To fulfill its mission of national outreach, the Museum should extend its goals as far and wide as possible, which it cannot currently do with a staff of only 5 people.

Question 61: There exists a very narrow "window" of opportunity for museums to take advantage of the Federal tax deduction available in 1991 for arts donations. What is the Smithsonian doing to aggressively pursue arts donors while the tax advantage remains in effect? Are the individual museums forced to compete against one another for these donations? Does the Smithsonian have a development office and staff for arts and collections acquisitions?

Answer: Smithsonian curatorial staff and museum directors have been making a number of contacts with donors to seek 1991 art donations. Smithsonian curators have been, and will continue to approach potential donors, who have been sufficiently cultivated, for gifts of art this calendar year. In February, the National Museum of American Art sponsored a Tax Seminar for collectors and other interested individuals to explain the ramifications of the new tax law. Attendees were also invited to consider the NMAA as a recipient of gifts of art. The session was attended by about eighty people. The Freer Gallery of Art has launched a campaign to obtain, by gift, blue and white ware for installation in the refurbished Peacock Room. Solicitation of objects has just begun and a few gifts have already been received.

Although there is little competition between Smithsonian museums for donated works of art, there is, without question, competition with sister museums outside the Smithsonian. Donor cultivation is a process that takes time and attention and there will always be competition for certain objects. Recently, a work by Horace Pippin, that the National Museum of American Art had been seeking, was given to the National Gallery of Art for the Gallery's 50th Birthday. The National Museum of African Art had a similar experience recently when a potential donor it had been cultivating for several years gave some important pieces to the Metropolitan Museum.

The Smithsonian does not have development office staff for arts and collections acquisitions. Generally, these approaches are made at the museum level by curators or directors because of their knowledge of personal collections and their contacts with those individuals through loan requests and research.

American Folklife Festival

Question 62: Questions are being raised regarding the impact of the annual Folklife Festival on the National Mall grounds and the bordering elm trees. There is growing evidence that the Festival is causing considerable and, possibly, irreversible damage to the Mall. What efforts are you and the National Park Service making to mitigate the impact of the annual Festival on the Mall?

Answer: The Smithsonian Institution and the Park Service have agreed to form a joint committee to study the Mall, although no action has yet been taken.

In the interim, the Smithsonian has limited trenching for the Festival's electrical needs so that tree roots are not impacted. This year, under Park Service supervision, not one root was hit while trenching. The Smithsonian has relocated its storage area off the Mall, used more of the center and other untreed panels of the Mall, kept vehicles off the treed panels, and located various services on walkways. Some grassy areas of the Mall are worn down during the Festival, but replaced afterwards by the Park Service through reseeding or resodding, at Smithsonian expense.

Question 63: Have you investigated the possibility of moving the event to a location off the Mall?

Answer: The Park Service has proposed several alternative sites, all of which we have tried previously and found to be inadeguate. The reflecting pool site itself contains elm trees and is under the flight paths of planes whose noise drowns out Festival programs thus limiting the ability for audiences to hear and for scholars to document performances and narrative sessions. The Washington Monument grounds have a drainage problem and are also in flight paths. The plot of land between 14th and 15th Streets is too small to accommodate the Festival and given that it is fully surrounded by streets, also too dangerous for the public.

For the Smithsonian, it is important for the Festival to stay in proximity to the museums, as it is an extension of the Smithsonian outdoors onto the Mall, historically known as "Smithsonian Park." The museums often feature exhibitions which complement Festival programs. The Festival's siting conveys its importance as an educational activity and Smithsonian exhibition. Moving the Festival to a different site would mitigate its perception as a "living museum."

Question 64: Does the Smithsonian believe that the Festival would suffer any loss in attendance if it were moved from its present location to other Park lands in the vicinity?

Answer: If the Festival were moved, attendance would drop. This would severely hurt the Smithsonian's ability to. attract considerable outside and state funding to support it. Sponsors, who typically match or exceed federal funds supporting the Festival, do so because of the symbolic location of the Festival on the Mall and the high visitorship it enjoys.

The Smithsonian benefits from the free flow of people in and out of the museums to and from the Festival. As the Festival generally attracts audiences from minority communities who usually do not go the museums, it helps the museums enlarge and broaden their visitorship. The Festival also benefits from the location of the Mall Metro station. If removed from the current site, many older people, people with disabilities and families with children would have a harder time getting to the Festival.

The Mitchell Case

Question 65: Would you summarize the status of the investigations regarding Dr. Mitchell and the status of the GAO review of the Smithsonian's use of $300,000 in appropriated funds to provide outside legal counsel?

Answer: More than three years ago investigations of Dr. Mitchell were initiated by the Law Enforcement Division of the Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of the Interior, the Department of Justice, and United States Attorneys. Various grand jury proceedings were begun; however, no specific charges have been brought. The Smithsonian does not know to what extent the investigations continue or what specific issues may be involved at this point.

The General Accounting Office has not yet completed its review of the Smithsonian's expenditure of appropriated funds for the advancement of legal representation costs incurred by Dr. Mitchell.

Question 66: To the best of your knowledge are any other Smithsonian employees under investigation as a result of the Mitchell case?

Answer: In December 1990, Dr. Robert Hoffmann, Assistant Secretary for Research, learned that he was the subject of an investigation by the Law Enforcement Division of the Fish and Wildlife Service concerning the importation of animal specimens from China in 1987. These specimens were collected with the assistance of Dr. Mitchell.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DON NICKLES

Infrastructure Requirements

Question 67: As expressed by the Committee in the past, we continue to be concerned about priority setting. I am told that in your budget justification you have identified $66.2 million of unfunded backlog requirements for your Institution. Yet, the Construction account is proposed to increase 63 percent above the current year.

How do you justify spending $25.1 million on construction projects when the Smithsonian is not proposing to fund $5.9 million in facilities maintenance deficiencies, $1.5 million in health and safety of staff and visitors, and $7.2 million for security of facilities and collections, to mention only 3 of 16 infrastructure backlog items?

Answer: The fundamental challenge in a climate of budgetary restraint is how to balance the needs of current programs and the maintenance of existing structures with the dynamism that is central to the vitality of the Smithsonian and most obviously manifested in enlarged activities and additional facilities. The aggregate of the priorities which the Institution has identified for the next decade — and into the 21st century — while very large, is essential to undertake if the Institution is to meet its basic responsibilities for the public services inherent in its mandate for "the increase and diffusion of knowledge."

The Institution has adopted planning and priority setting mechanisms that are similar to those used in other large, complex educational and research institutions. The operating expense and capital outlay budget requests that are presented to Congress are the result of an intensive, iterative planning and budget process involving the entire executive staff of the Institution, as well as a great many of the staff engaged in the programmatic activities and administrative operations of the Institution.

Several years ago, the Smithsonian initiated a plan to address the backlog of deferred maintenance and repair of its buildings, recognizing that they must be serviceable if the Institution is to pursue the activities that fulfill its mission. For the past two years, the Institution has also begun to address the concomitant reinvestment that is required when a gradual erosion of resources over time prevents a program from functioning as it should. Such programs include, among others, the care and conservation of collections; reinstallation of outmoded exhibit halls; improvement of information systems; and replacement of laboratory equipment.

At the same time, often only capital expenditures for new facilities, or for the transformation of old ones, make possible the attainment of important programmatic objectives. New facilities are the most tangible expression of the vital new

directions that the Smithsonian must pursue from time to time. They tend to refocus and typically enlarge the Institution's commitments, but only rarely do these new commitments actually embody ventures that are entirely unprecedented. More often, they are natural outgrowths of current programs, improvements and extensions that enrich the meaning of existing programmatic comtiitments to meet new conditions.

The considerations leading to their selection are, of course, subject to Congress' careful scrutiny and then can be phased and structured to accommodate new budgetary circumstances. But it should be recognized that new facilities may play a crucial part as the Smithsonian adapts to the demands and expectations of the current rapidly changing American society.

The Institution believes that its FY 1992 budget request for operating expense and capital outlays is consistent with its stated priorities. While many infrastructure requirements remain, the Institution believes that, at the current level of resources, its FY 1992 request represents the best balance of essential operating and capital requirements that is possible at this time.

Question 68: In January the Smithsonian Institution released the publication "Choosing the Future" which provides a look at the future program and funding needs for the Institution. I note that the Salaries and Expenses account is expected to double from now to the year 2000 reaching a $538 million level.

Please explain why you are projecting that you operating requirements will double?

Answer: Throughout its history, the Smithsonian has conducted a broad range of activities in support of its comprehensive goal of increasing and diffusing knowledge. In order to continue this work, the Institution must be willing to invest in its administrative and programmatic infrastructure. Estimates of these long-term funding requirements, documented in the five-year prospectus, are based largely on the operational needs of the National Museum of the American Indian, a new Administrative Support Facility, projected federal pay increases and inflation.

Question 69: Does this projection include meeting all infrastructure needs? If so, when or over what period of time?

Answer: Yes, the projections from 1992 to 1996 include all identified infrastructure needs.

Long-Range Construction

Question 70: "Choosing the Future" contains an outline of its long-range construction plans also. These are projects for which the Institution is hoping to receive federal funds. The grand total from the present time (FY 1991) through FY 2000 is $707.0 million. That is an average of $70.7 million a year.

Is this an all-inclusive list of projects? Does this mean that additional project requests will not be added to the list? Please explain.

Answer: The list of projects represents the Institution's most urgent physical expansion requirements over the next ten years, as identified in January 1991. A number of other important projects are not included, such as the African American Museum which has only this Spring been approved in principle by the Board

of Regents for installation in the Arts and Industries Building. The costs reflected are intended to be "order of magnitude" only, and in many cases do not reflect the intensive planning reguired to create firm cost estimates for construction. The chart is intended to demonstrate the extensive needs of the Institution for construction of new buildings and alteration of existing ones to preserve the vitality of its diverse research and educational programs, and to meet its public stewardship obligations for preservation and exhibition of the collections and public service. We recognize that the long-range construction program may need to be altered to accommodate current and future economic realities, but believe that it would be irresponsible not to publish the full range of requirements as they are currently known. The Institution expects that construction priorities may also change as "targets of opportunity" become available.

It should be noted that if the chart published in "Choosing the Future" is adjusted to reflect the current plan for the Air and Space Museum Extension, which has been scaled down to encompass only the program previously defined as the first of three phases, the total estimated cost of the long range program would be reduced from $707 million to $601 million through the year 2000.

Question 71: Is the new African American Museum proposal included in the long-range plan? If so, where and how much?

Answer: As described above, the African American Museum is not currently included in the long range plan. The Institution plans to seek appropriations in FY 1993 to begin planning of the alterations to the Arts and Industries Building to accommodate the new Museum. Once some preliminary planning has been completed, the Smithsonian can project possible costs and a schedule for the project.

Question 72: What other projects are being discussed but are not included on the "Choosing the Future" list? Please provide a list of possible projects (which are not included on the list and are being discussed), estimated amounts, and time schedule for completion.

Answer: In addition to the African American Museum, the Institution has identified a number of other potential construction projects that are not expected to come to fruition until after the year 2000. As no planning has been completed on these projects, no cost estimates or schedules have been developed. The projects under consideration, as enumerated on page 81 of "Choosing the Future", include the following:

Continuation of the initiatives to develop collections research and storage facilities;

Removal of the antiquated buildings at the Garber Facility when the National Air and Space Museum Extension is completed;

Construction of a new, expanded facility for the Anacostia Museum;

Expansion of the Cooper-Hewitt National Museum of Design to provide additional space for collection storage and exhibitions and to support educational activities;

Expansion of the Hirshhorn Museum to accommodate increased exhibition and research programs;

Expansion of the Mathias Laboratory at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center to meet the increasing need for environmental research; and

Expansion of the National Museum of Natural History West Court to accommodate increased programming and construction of a new restaurant pavilion.

Air and Space Museum Extension

Question 73: The Air and Space Museum Extension is on the list of long-range projects.

What is the status of the project?

Answer: At its meeting on May 6, 1991, the Institution's Board of Regents approved the proposal of a scaled-back extension and agreed to ask its Congressional members to introduce and support legislation authorizing its planning.

Question 74: How much do you anticipate that it will cost? What is the federal share?

Answer: The scaled-back plan is estimated to cost a total of $162 million. Until more detailed planning is completed and an overall funding strategy devised, the cost of the Federal, share cannot be determined.

African American Museum

Question 75: On May 7, 1991, the Washington Post contained an article stating that "the Smithsonian's Board of Regents unanimously endorsed the creation of a National African American Museum...to be located in the Arts and Industries Building on the Mall." Mr. Adams this is a prime example of how project demands continue to grow without anything being given up in return.

Is this museum replacing the Anacostia Museum? If not, why not?

Answer: A National African American Museum will not replace the Anacostia Museum. While the Anacostia Museum's mandate focuses on community and neighborhood history, the National African American Museum would be dedicated to the collection, preservation, research and exhibition of African American historical and cultural material reflecting the breadth and depth of the experiences of person of African Descent living in the United States. The new museum will develop a close working relationship with the Anacostia Museum and other Smithsonian museums and programs in order to better present African American history and culture throughout the Smithsonian. Finally, a National African American Museum can, through collaborative programs, help to increase the visibility of the Anacostia Museum and its programs and exhibitions.

Question 76: When are you proposing to dismantle the current exhibits now located in the Arts and Industries Building?

Answer: The current exhibits in the Arts and Industries Building can be deinstalled according to a phased plan over the next three to four years. Work which needs to be done on the building's infrastructure will determine the order and method of deinstallation.

Question 77: What is the time frame for the renovation of the Arts and Industries Building?

Answer: It is anticipated that the Institution will request funds in FY 1993 for facilities planning for the Arts and Industries Building. The results of that study will indicate an appropriate time frame and realistic costs.

Question 78: Where will the activities and exhibits be located that are housed currently in the Arts and Industries Museum?

Answer: The material presently in the Arts and Industries Building belongs to the National Museum of American History, the National Museum of Natural History and to private donors. Some of the objects will be returned to donors, some will be placed in storage and others may be placed on view in the two museums.

Question 79: What is the total cost of this project? By activity?

Answer: The total cost has not yet been determined.

Question 80: How much will it cost to relocate the exhibits that reside presently in the Arts and Industries Building?

Answer: The deinstallation of the south gallery, required to create the new Experimental Gallery, cost approximately $250,000. Based on this experience, the Institution estimates that deinstallation of the other three galleries will cost approximately $750,000.

Old General Post Office Building

Question 81: On October 19, 1984, the President signed authorizing legislation to transfer the General Post Office Building from GSA to the Smithsonian Institution without reimbursement. GSA is currently using the building for temporary housing for a number of federal agencies. Custodianship of the building will transfer to the Smithsonian when renovation funding is available. The Smithsonian has decided that FY 1992 should be the first year to begin the transfer process. The $1.7 million requested for FY 1992 would be used for the initial design phase, which will provide a detailed cost estimate for full renovation of the building.

Since your justification states that you intend to "request funds to complete the design and most of the required renovations within the present authorization," do you expect the project needs to exceed the $40 million authorized?

Answer: Authorization for transfer to and renovation by the Smithsonian of the old General Post Office Building was signed in 1984. The $40 million cost estimate was based on information on building conditions and planned programmatic use available at that time. Since then the Institution has completed a number of technical studies on building conditions which indicate that much of the repair and renovation estimates need updating because the building system and envelope has deteriorated further. The Smithsonian has engaged a prominent Washington architectural firm to propose strategies for renovating major building components, such as exterior stone, roofs, windows, exterior fences, and

mechanical systems. The resulting study will include a budget estimate for the renovation. The Smithsonian anticipates completing the study by the end of the calendar year, and will be in a better position to predict total project costs at that time. The Institution does expect, however, that the total cost of renovations reguired to replace deteriorated building systems and components and to modify the building to achieve optimum use for Smithsonian programs may exceed the $40 million level currently authorized. If this is in fact the case, we would plan to accomplish the most urgent reguirements now within the amount currently authorized. Remaining work would be accomplished at a later time, after further authorization.

Question 82: Why is the project cost in "Choosing the Future" listed at $75 million when it authorized $40 million?

Answer: The $75 million includes two phases of construction, as described above. The first phase is described in the budget reguest as repair and renovation items that minimally affect building occupancy including: structural and mechanical system, exterior stone, window restoration, and roofing systems. This phase will also include some basic modifications to the building to accommodate specific program activities. The cost for this phase are shown in "Choosing the Future" in FY 1992 and 1993 and adds up to the $40 million authorization. A second and final phase will focus on the particular needs of the occupants including: modifications to interior partitions, interior finishes, renovation of the sub-basement to a particular use, public circulation and elevators, and installation of user-specific building systems. This second phase is now shown in "Choosing the Future" in FY 1998, 1999, and 2000 with a total budget of $35 million.

Question 83: When do you want the renovation complete?

Answer: We would, of course, like the old GPOB renovation, both the first and second phases, completed as soon as possible. If funding is available as projected in FY 1992 and FY 1993, the first phase construction would be complete in late FY 1995 or early 1996. Because of other needs and financial constraints, the funding dates for the second phase are shown in "Choosing the Future" as FY 1998, 1999, and 2000. This would place a completion in late 2000 or 2001 for this phase of work.

Question 84: How much funding would be reguired each year?

Answer: As shown in "Choosing the Future", the Institution will reguire $1.7 million in FY 1992 to begin first phase design; $38.3 in FY 1993 to complete first phase design and construction; $2 million in FY 1998 for second phase design; $30 million in FY 1999 for second phase construction; and $3 million in FY 2000 for second phase eguipping.

Question 85: Does renovation of this facility reduce the infrastructure backlog? How?

Answer: The renovation reguirements of the General Post Office building are not included in the backlog of essential maintenance and repair on existing buildings. As the building has not yet been transferred to the Smithsonian, pending appropriation of renovation funds, it is not counted as an "existing" building for purposes of assembling the backlog listing.

Question 86: How many additional dollars and FTE's would be required to support this facility once it is renovated?

Answer: In 1985 the Smithsonian developed an initial estimate of 90 FTEs and $2.8 million for building maintenance, operations, and security costs at the General Post Office Building. Escalated to FY 1996, the most likely date for the completion of the first phase, this amount would become $4.3 million. As additional planning and design is done, and as the programmatic activities to be housed in the building are further defined, more complete estimates of staffing and support costs will be developed.

Question 87: The renovated facility is intended to be used on a transitional basis to support the research and collection activities of the National Museum of American Art, the National Portrait Gallery, and the Archives of American Art.

Where are the research and collections activities currently being performed for these three bureaus?

Answer: The research and collection activities are presently performed in the Patent Office Building and in rented space in 1111 North Capitol Street (where the two museums have collections storage space, and the Archives has collections storage and research space).

Research, which requires access to the collections, space for reading, reflection, consultation, and writing, is performed by the curatorial staff, interns, fellows, and visitors of all three organizations. The current space in the Patent Office Building is insufficient and inadequate for the number of and frequency of scholars who use the facilities of the three bureaus and for providing basic support functions to the users, including access to photocopy machines, word processing equipment, telephones, etc.

Collection activities include the acquisition, care and storage of the collection materials and objects by the museums and the Archives, and includes material owned and borrowed by the museums. It is the nature of museums and archives to acquire collection objects and materials and even at a modest rate of growth, the current facilities in the Patent Office Building are insufficient. For some time, this situation has necessitated the leasing of space at 1111 N. Capitol Street, to provide additional storage capability. For the Archives especially, the off-site storage of primary documents has strained current staff resources and limited the amount of access that can be given to scholars.

Question 88: Precisely how much money would be saved by moving these activities to the General Post Office Building?

Answer: The primary money "saved" would be the pro-rated cost of leased space at 1111 N. Capitol Street (the Smithsonian leases the entire building, a portion of which is allocated to the two museums and the Archives). However, additional "savings" would accrue in staff time if all the collections were stored together at each museum and the Archives rather than off-site.

Question 89: Where would the Federal Agencies that are currently housed in the facility be placed?

Answer: The building continues to be under the control of the General Services Administration, which is using it for short-term office space until the construction funds are appropriated to repair and renovate the building. GSA would be responsible for

relocating any Federal agencies temporarily housed in the Old Post Office Building when the Smithsonian assumes control.

Question 90: Would they be moved into less expensive facilities?

Answer: We are unable to answer this question as the GSA would be making alternate arrangements.

Museum of the American Indian

Question 91: Mr. Adams, you are requesting $2.4 million to continue development of the Museum of the American Indian facilities which are located in lower Manhattan, NY; Suitland, MD; and on the Mall in Washington, D.C. The new museum on the Mall is anticipated to cost $106 million with a target date of 1999.

Is the $106 million amount intended to be federal funds? If not, how much would be federal funds?

Answer: The Smithsonian plans to fund $70 million or two thirds of the cost from Federal sources and expects that the balance will be funded with income from a national fundraising campaign.

Question 92: How much are you anticipating that each of these facilities will cost to operate once they are completed?

Answer: We currently anticipate that the cost of operating the George Gustav Heye Center in the U.S. Custom House, New York, will be approximately $2,500,000 annually. The planning process for the Suitland and Mall facilities, including consultations with the Indian community is continuing. The program will be developed over the next 12-18 months. We will then be in a better position to estimate operating costs for these two facilities.

Question 93: Where are the Indian artifacts currently being stored and displayed?

Answer: The artifacts are currently stored at the Research Branch of the National Museum of the American Indian in the Bronx. Those artifacts on exhibit in New York are displayed at the Audubon Terrace facility (155th at Broadway).

Question 94: Would there be cost savings when the artifacts are moved to new facilities? If so, how much? If not, why not?

Answer: When the artifacts are moved to the new facility they will be in an improved environment more readily accessible to Native American people, the scholarly community and the public in general. Because we are not far enough along in our planning for the Suitland and Mall facilities we cannot suggest the extent of savings, if any, that may be available.

Question 95: Why does a new facility need to be built rather than use the Museum Support Center?

Answer: There are several major reasons why a new facility is necessary to house and study the collections of the National Museum

of the American Indian, as authorized by Public law 101-185 which established the Museum. Currently, sufficient storage space is not available in existing Smithsonian collections storage facilities to house the NMAI collection. Specifically in reference to the Museum Support Center, all of the storage space at MSC has been assigned to specific existing collections currently housed in the National Museum of Natural History and the National Museum of American History, and to the growth of these collections.

The new NMAI collections storage, conservation and research facility at Suitland will be designed to satisfy the unique collections storage and research requirements for the collection. The collection transferred from the Heye Foundation includes more than one million Native American objects and artifacts from all parts of the Western Hemisphere. Because of the nature of the collection, these requirements include not only curatorial specifications related to the optimal collections management standards for the types of objects and artifacts in the collection, but also a much greater sensitivity to the cultural context within which these ceremonial and sacred artifacts had been used in the living Indian cultures and the continuing relationship of these artifacts to existing tribal communities.

Question 96: Is the Museum Support Center currently full and occupied? If not, why not?

Answer: The collections storage areas of the Museum Support Center (MSC) are not as yet fully occupied. Even though the MSC was opened in 1983, and the initial portion of Pod 3 equipment was installed in 1984, several major problems related to the design and manufacture of collections storage equipment for the remaining three of the MSC's four storage "pods" (finally resulting in the default of the original contractor in 1987) have prevented the full utilization of its storage space to date.

Progress began again in 1988 with the awarding of the contract to install concrete decks and utilities, and has continued in 1989-1991 with the awarding of several contracts as part of the reprocurement of the collections storage cabinets covered under the original contract. With the completion of the funding for this reprocurement in FY 1991, the Institution will be able to continue to transfer previously-identified "Initial Move" 1 collections from the National Museum of Natural History and the National Museum of American History to permanent storage at the MSC, while at the same time procuring the balance of the storage equipment required to fully utilize the MSC.

However, although the Institution has begun moving some collections into the available cabinets, it does not have sufficient funds to support the expanded MSC move activity that is now possible. With the current level of base funds ($298,000 for FY 1991) , it would take more than 12 years to accomplish the "Initial Move." As part of the FY 1992 budget, the Institution will redirect an additional $107,000 associated with the program to evaluate the effectiveness of asbestos cleaning techniques (which will be completed in FY 1991) to augment the current funding base

1 Note: From the beginning of planning for the relocation of museum collections to the Museum Support Center, the Smithsonian has divided the move into two phases: (1) the "Initial Move" phase, during which two-thirds of the storage space would be filled at the time of the initial occupancy period; and (2) the "Growth Move" phase, during which the remaining one-third of the storage space would be filled as these collections grow.

for the "Initial Move." However, even the addition of these funds will still not be sufficient to permit the "Initial Move" to proceed without further hindering the Smithsonian's ability to fully utilize the Museum Support Center in a timely manner.

The Institution estimates that it would require a minimum of an additional $800,000 and 24 workyears in FY 1992 to support the expanded Move activity and to prevent further delay in achieving the full utilization of the Museum Support Center as expeditiously as possible. Moreover, any further delay in utilizing the MSC will also severely hinder the timely progression of the Major Capital Renewal Projects at the Museum of Natural History and the Museum of American History, which depend upon the relocation to the MSC of collections stored in the two museums within a specified timetable coordinated with the schedule of the repair work.

Currently, the lack of sufficient funding for MSC collections storage equipment and MSC move costs for FY 1992 and following years is the only major problem preventing full utilization of the Museum Support Center. The Institution projects that it will require between $26.9 million and $35.3 million to complete the purchase of the collections storage equipment at the MSC. The completion of the "Initial Move" is projected to cost approximately $6 million over a five-year period of increased move activity, starting in FY 1992. No estimate has been made as yet of the additional funding required for the "Growth Move" activities. Based upon current fundinq availability, completion of the purchase of all collections storaqe equipment and the relocation of collections to the Museum Support Center will not be possible until after the year 2000.

Natural History East Court Buildinq

Question 97: A request of $15 million in the construction account is proposed for the expandinq work force and collections that are housed in the Natural History Buildinq. In FY 1991 Congress approved $1.5 million for design of the new building.

When will the design work be completed?

Answer: The estimated completion date for the design is July 1992.

Question 98: It is estimated that an additional $8.5 million in construction funds and $5.0 million for equipment would be required in FY 1993 to complete the buildinq.

What kind of equipment would be required for the building?

Answer: The equipment includes laboratory sinks and cabinetry, fume hoods, specialized ventilation equipment for selected areas, and compact storaqe equipment for collections.

Question 99: How are the equipment needs to be considered in the planning and design stage?

Answer: During the planning stage the Institution budgeted an amount for equipment based on assumptions about the use of the space in the East Court building. During the design process, the Museum will identify the specific equipment requirements and the architect will incorporate necessary physical characteristics into the building design to support the equipment. For example, the new building will house collections in several locations. In addition to conventional storage equipment, the use of compact storage

equipment on several levels will provide efficient use of the space. The design of the building will include specific floor loading and utility requirements for the compact equipment. The new building will also contain laboratory space. During design, the architect will work with the Museum to determine specific laboratory equipment requirements, and will incorporate utility and space needs for this equipment, such as plumbing for sinks and exhaust systems for fume hoods, into the building specifications. The special equipment needs of functions to be relocated from the present East Court space (such as the Osteo Prep Lab and the hazardous waste storage area) will also be considered during design of the replacement facilities for those activities in other locations.

Question 100: When will you have a refined equipment cost amount?

Answer: The current cost estimate for equipment will be refined at the 35 percent design stage in early spring of 1992. A more complete estimate and equipment listinq will be available upon completion in July 1992.

Environmental Research Center

Question 101: On page 49 of the Smithsonian's budget justification, it states that since the 1960's the Smithsonian has purchased and protected about 2,600 acres of the Rhode River tidal river system, including water front areas. This year the Institution is requesting $500,000 to protect and purchase watershed land on a cost-matching basis with private funds.

Under what authority does the Smithsonian have the ability to purchase land with federal funds?

Answer: The Smithsonian is seeking legislative authorization to used Federal funds for land acquisition at SERC.

Question 102: How has the land been purchased in the past?

Answer: All earlier land acquisitions were made with Trust monies approved by the Smithsonian Board of Regents.

Question 103: Why is the Smithsonian managing 2,600 acres of the Rhode River tidal river system rather than an another agency which is typically assigned this type of responsibility?

Answer: These lands are used for intensive, long-term ecological research on air/land/water interactions in the Chesapeake Bay region. The detailed, specialized, basic research conducted at the site makes it more efficient to manage the land locally. it also is very important that close relations be maintained with local landowners and leasers in order to attain the land use patterns necessary for the research program.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

New Mexico Projects

Question 104: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join you today to discuss the President's FY 1992 budget request for the Smithsonian Institution and the National Gallery of Art.

I am pleased to see the continuing support of the President for these fine institutions. They have a daunting challenge—to preserve and share with the public some of this nation's treasures. They are indeed unparalleled in the world.

I have been working with Mr. Adams colleagues over the past year or so on two exciting initiatives featuring my home state of New Mexico.

First of all, Mr. Chairman, the State of New Mexico will be showcased at the 1992 American Folklife Festival. I am delighted that the crafts, foods, music, and traditions of our ethnically diverse state will be featured in this annual celebration. I invite all in attendance to join New Mexicans and the Smithsonian in the Folklife Festival next summer.

An equally exciting initiative is the Smithsonian's proposed "American Encounters" exhibit, which will be a permanent exhibit portraying the unique blend of cultures—Indian, Hispanic, and Anglo—in the Rio Grande Valley of New Mexico. Over nearly five centuries since the arrival of the Spanish, these distinct cultures have had to coexist. This exhibit will focus on the relationships between these diverse cultures and the ethnically-diverse society that has sought to coexist.

I must say that I give a great amount of credit to the State of New Mexico that, in spite of difficult fiscal times, has committed the necessary $1.2 million in matching funds to participate in these two exhibits—$1 million for the "American Encounters" exhibit and $200,000 for the Folklife Festival. I believe it is particularly noteworthy that both these exhibits will be part of the celebration and commemoration of the quincentenary of Christopher Columbus' discovery of the New World.

Mr. Adams, would you please provide the Subcommittee with the status report on the 1992 Folklife Festival?

Answer: The 1992 Folklife Festival will feature the State of New Mexico, as well as a program on the folklife of White House workers, a music program, and a program on new cultures of the Americas. The latter and the New Mexico program are oriented toward the commemoration of the Quincentenary. The New Mexico program is proceeding on two levels -- conducting the research and raising the additionally needed funds.

On the research side, several meetings have been held with Smithsonian staff and some thirty New Mexican scholars, researchers and key community people from a host of organizations across the State. These meetings helped establish some of the possible themes of the Festival program and the particular traditions to be researched. Currently, a curatorial team is being composed that will reflect the State's geographical and cultural variety. Several of these curators will visit the Festival in Washington this summer to garner ideas about presenting New Mexico on the Mall. Concurrently, some 30 or so contracts will be let for New Mexican researchers to conduct fieldwoik in all parts of the State to document occupational traditions in ranching, farming, railroad work, mining, energy industry work; craft traditions from weaving, pottery and basket making to tin work, jewelry making and sand

painting; musical traditions from old time fiddling to Native American dances to Hispanic musics; land use traditions such as adobe making and fence building; and narrative traditions like cowboy poetry and storytelling. Survey research will also be conducted among Italian-, Czech- and other European American immigrant groups, and among little studied African American, Sefardic, Arab and Japanese-American communities. In the late fall, Smithsonian staff and New Mexican curators will review all the interviews, video tapes, photographs and ideas generated by the research and decide on specific themes and traditions to feature on the Mall.

On the funding end, about $1.1 million is needed for the New Mexico project. The Smithsonian has committed about $370,000 and the State $200,000. We are working with the Museum of International Folk Arts to process the State funds. This leaves us with about $600,000 to raise for the project. The Department of Tourism has indicated it can provide some funds for the project, and is working with us on a plan to get that industry and grassroots groups involved in raising the remainder of the funds. Airlines will be approached for in-kind support for tickets which are a considerable cost; other corporations, organizations and groups will also be approached for funds or in-kind support.

Question 105: Could you tell the Subcommittee generally how you intend to lay out the New Mexico exhibit?

Answer: The specific site plan of the Festival will be developed over the course of the year and will depend upon the specific themes to emerge from the research. The New Mexican landscape, its use by various cultural communities and its elaboration in expressive culture is one set of ideas that may define the program. Land, home, community may be another. Community celebration is yet a third way of organizing the exhibition. In general, though, you can expect to see various genres of activity, for example, demonstrations of occupational cultures, musical performances, foodways and food sales, crafts demonstrations, crafts sales, illustrations of vernacular architecture, community celebrations and the like. Depending upon the theme, various special events may also be part of the Festival, for example, recreating Santa Fe's annual burning of Zozobra (old man gloom), or a home town rodeo.

Question 106: How many craftsmen, artists, dancers, and others would you expect to host from New Mexico during the Festival?

Answer: The number of craftsmen, artists, musicians, cooks, workers, performers and others will vary depending upon the funds available and raised for the project. The Institution's goal is to have about 100 folk artists, and also 10-15 presenters — academic and lay scholars who give background information and frame presentations —from New Mexico on the Mall. If we do not raise all the remaining funds, we will scale back on the number of folk artists and presenters.

Question 107: In your testimony, you indicate that approximately 1.5 million visitors to the city may view these exhibits. Is the figure an average of the number of people that attend the Smithsonian during this 4th of July period?

Answer: The 1.5 million refers to visitors to the Folklife Festival itself. Attendance at the Festival varies, largely with the weather. Estimates of Festival attendance are given by the

National Park Service and vary from about 1.1 million to over 1.5 million in the last few years. In addition to visitors to the Festival, radio, television and print media coverage of the Festival annually reaches approximately 40 million people across the United States. This coverage tends toward highly positive, good quality human feature stories which not only publicize the featured state, but also have educational content.

Question 108: Finally, for the record, what is the estimated portion of program costs the Smithsonian will commit to this project? How much funding did the Smithsonian provide in FY 1991 and request in FY 1992?

Answer: The Smithsonian will provide $50,000 in federal funds and $20,000 in trust funds for the project in FY 1991. In FY 1992 the Smithsonian plans to devote approximately $300,000 in base federal and trust funds for the New Mexico program in salaries, infrastructure, publications, documentation and the like. Funds for the Festival ($100,000) and for the Quincentenary ($207,000) that could have helped support the New Mexico program were initially requested by the Office of Folklife Programs, but cut in the FY 1992 budget process. In sum, the Smithsonian will provide about $370,000 toward the project.

"American Encounters" Exhibition

Question 109: Status report on proposed "American Encounters" exhibit. At what stage is the Smithsonian in planning and implementing this program?

/

Answer: The "American Encounters" exhibition at the National Museum of American History is progressing on schedule and will be ready to open in June of 1992. The research and design phases are now concluded. This summer (1991), the exhibit plans will undergo a review by our Office of Design and Construction, after which we will begin construction in the fall of 1991.

Question 110: What do you perceive as the national value of this permanent exhibit?

Answer: America is a multicultural society. While many Americans see this as a very recent development, in fact, the multicultural basis of American life extends back to its very origins. The diversity of Native American ways of life -- often oversimplified in our textbooks — was matched to some extent by the diversity of European and African groups who participated in the initial encounters. Our exhibit, "American Encounters," will teach Americans (and all our visitors) , how to look at cultural diversity in a way that will create respect and understanding for the differences that exist among us.

Question 111: A major theme of this exhibit will be to portray the multi-ethnic cultures and values that have by necessity had to coexist in the Rio Grande Valley. How does the Smithsonian propose to achieve a balance in portraying this fascinating story?

Answer: A balance among the ethnic and gender groups portrayed will be achieved in several ways. We firmly believe that despite their differences, the people of the Rio Grande Valley — the Pueblo Indians, Hispanic descendants of the Spanish and new immigrants, and the various non-Indian, non-Hispanic groups (often referred to as Anglos) — have been able to coexist in ways that serve as an example for the rest of our country. To ensure a balance among sources of information, we have organized and

listened carefully to an advisory council which includes scholars and community representatives from various museums, tribes, and universities in New Mexico. To ensure an effective presentation of this information, we have conducted audience studies in the Museum so that we are clear about what our visitors already know and what they would like to learn more about and can balance this against what we as curators would like to tell them. As historians, we bring our own expertise to bear on the documentary and artifactual evidence that we have gathered. And finally, as we have in other exhibits, we plan to let the people that this exhibit is about speak for themselves. Through a series of video stations, we will engage our visitors in a "dialogue" with various members of New Mexico's multi-cultural society, who will, in their own words, discuss the tensions and rewards of living in a diverse community.

Question 112: Will there be specific aspects of the exhibit that seek to tie the New Mexico experience to the Columbus Quincentenary and to the national experience during these early colonial days?

Answer: The exhibit begins with an explanation of how the voyages of Columbus and other Europeans set off a series of encounters between groups previously unknown to each other on a worldwide basis. Our exhibit focuses on one of these encounters, which took place in New Mexico (originally part of the Spanish colony of New Spain), and examines the interrelationships between the descendants of the original colonists and the original Indian inhabitants as they have developed over the past 500 years. A series of timeliness will correlate the events discussed in the exhibit with other events in American and world history. This area was chosen to exemplify the Columbian encounter because it tells us an American story — an heroic one of struggle and determination among many of our citizens to preserve their heritage and identity, while at the same time becoming active participants in the modern world. This story is part of our American 'national experience, having ramifications not only in colonial days but throughout American history. Of course the colonial experience is one that evolved through the relationships between Indians and Spaniards, since New Mexico did not become a U.S. territory until 1848. However, we think it important for all Americans to know that in the earliest days of our republic, there existed important cultures and trade centers in the west, in what would eventually become the United States. As one writer put it, .in the WPA Guide to New Mexico, "At the time Jamestown was founded and thirteen years before the Pilgrims set foot on the Massachusetts coast, New Mexico could not only boast of a music teacher. . .but also was in possession of an organ."

Question 113: Finally, would you provide for the record an overall estimate of the cost of this exhibit. How much funding did the Smithsonian provide in FY 1991 and reguest in FY 1992?

Answer: Beginning in FY 1991, the exhibit production budget for "American Encounters" will be approximately $2.2 million. Of this amount, we gratefully acknowledge a grant of $1 nillion from the state of New Mexico. In FY 1991, $524,000 in Federal funds was allocated by the Smithsonian to this exhibit. This amount will continue in the base, and should be allocated again in FY 1992, assuming there are no legislated reductions in budget.

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator Reid. I thank you very much. The subcommittee will stand in recess until 10 a.m., Thursday, May 16, when we will hear testimony from the Minerals Management Service and the Indian Health Service.

[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., Wednesday, May 15, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, May 16.]