This book made available by the Internet Archive.

We have Ms. Broun, Betsy Broun of American Art wherever you are, Ms. Broun. There you are.

David Correll of the Environmental Research Center. Mr. Cor-rell.

Mr. Demetrion of the Hirshhorn. You cannot get away with hiding, Mr. Demetrion.

Alan Fern. Where are you, Alan?

All right, Mr. Harwit is over there.

And Mr. Kennedy is over yonder.

Dianne Pilgrim, Cooper-Hewitt. Where are you? There she is.

Did I miss Mr. Newsome? Anacostia. Where are you, Mr. New-some? Were you here at the last hearing?

Mr. Newsome. I am new.

Mr. Yates. That is what I thought.

Then Irwin Shapiro, from Harvard no less. Hi, Irwin.

Frank Talbot from Natural History from Australia.

Oh, I missed Dr. Rubinoff with his famous violin.

Mr. Wattenmaker. Hi, Mr. Wattenmaker.

Mr. West. Hi, Mr. West.

And Sylvia Williams from the African Art.

Then we go to Ann Bay, the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. I want to talk to you seriously. We are supposed to provide money for education of children in the Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities. How does their mandate differ from your mandate? Does it?

Ms. Bay. Well

Mr. Yates. Shall we explore that later after we are through with the introductions? All right. Worry about that for a while. [Laughter.]

Mr. Burke. How are you, sir?

And Claudine Brown.

Ms. Brown. Good morning.

Mr. Yates. Good morning, Claudine.

Anna Cohn of SITES. Where are you, Anna? What are you hiding for?

Margaret Gaynor, from whom we hear every two minutes. [Laughter.]

Ms. Gonzales, Office of the Quincentenary Programs. Ms. Gonzales. Didn't I introduce a Ms. Gonzales?

Ms. Gonzales. Yes, I am here.

Mr. Yates. And Ms. Rodriguez.

James Hobbins, Executive Assistant to the secretary. You have secret memos.

And Madeleine Jacobs. Oh, boy, you get out in front of everybody.

And Mr. Kurin of Folklife. What happened to Bess Holland? Is that somebody else? Oh, that is NEA. Sorry about that.

Ms. Mattson, the Office of Development.

Ms. Mattson. Good morning.

Mr. Yates. Good morning.

Judge Peter Powers. I am always tempted to follow up, Peter, with a pack of pickled peppers, but I don't.

Barbara Smith, Smithsonian Institution Libraries. Are you here?

Ms. Smith. Yes, I am.

Mr. Yates. How are your books? Are they in good condition or are they failing?

Ms. Smith. Well, we have a number that need preservation.

Mr. Yates. Are they receiving it?

Ms. Smith. Yes.

Mr. Yates. Are you part of the cabal that is gathered together to save the books, with Pat Batton at Humanities?

Ms. Smith. We are making a good faith effort. We have a nice staff on board.

Mr. Yates. I mean there is a real effort being done by Humanities; you are aware of that?

Ms. Smith. Yes.

Mr. Yates. And you are part of that?

Ms. Smith. Yes, we are. However, we are giving attention to the sciences also which have been somewhat neglected. There are many materials in the sciences in all libraries that need to be preserved.

Mr. Yates. Right. Papers and stuff.

All right. We have to vote before we start and we will be back.

[Recess.]

EMBRYO-TRANSPLANTED CAT

Mr. Yates. Did you know I was saving the ocelot, Mr. Robinson?

Mr. Robinson. No, but it sounds like a very admirable thing.

Mr. Yates. It is. It is along the Rio Grande River. We are buying land where the ocelot lives rather than permitting it to be developed. I did not know where the ocelot would go. As we did this, I am sure Mr. Robinson would approve.

Mr. Robinson. Since it is your Spanish morning, they are called manigordo in Spanish.

Mr. Yates. Manigordo, si. Oh, here is the picture which is the tiger. Where is the cat?

Mr. Robinson. This is the lady that did it, Ann Donoghue. She is going to bring George out. George is the first ever embryo transplanted cat. He is called George because he was implanted on President's Day.

Mr. Yates. To me, he looks just like a very handsome alley cat. [Laughter.]

Mr. Robinson. He is. But to develop this technology for implanting embryos, we have to use domestic cats first.

Mr. Yates. And George will go down in history.

Mr. Robinson. He will go down in history, yes. He led to the implantation of a tiger.

Mr. Yates. George, you are going down in history. Thank you very much.

Now, who is that?

Ms. Donoghue. That is Mary Alice.

Mr. Yates. That is Mary Alice with what, a tiger?

Ms. Donoghue. No. Mary Alice is the tiger. [Laughter.]

Mr. Robinson. That is Gretchen Ellsworth.

Mr. Yates. I was not sure when I looked at it.

Thank you very much, Mr. Robinson, and ma'am.

All right. Choosing the future. We are not choosing a future yet. We have Mr. Adams' statement which may go into the record at this point to be followed by the biographies of Ms. Turner, Mr. Newsome, Mr. Wattenmaker, and Rick West. Oh, he has a long one.

[The information follows:]

STATEMENT

BY

ROBERT McC. ADAMS

SECRETARY

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERIOR

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

WASHINGTON, D.C.

MARCH 21, 1991

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to appear today before the Subcommittee and to present the Institution's budget request for Fiscal Year 1992. In it we seek further funding for a multi-year program of reinvestment in our foundation in order to carry out in a planned and responsible manner the Smithsonian's dual mission for both the increase and the diffusion of knowledge. Basic to this inherent mission of service is the care and conservation of the huge and diverse national collections and the facilities with which the Institution has been entrusted in order to fulfill its obligations to the public for research and education.

For Fiscal Year 1992 we are seeking for all accounts a total of $357.1 million, $46.0 million more than the FY 1991 base. Resources required to maintain and reinforce our programmatic, operational, and facilities services total $35.9 million or 78% of the increase, while $10.1 million or 22% is for new program initiatives.

Before turning to the details of the pending FY 1992 request, however, I want to express my appreciation and that of my colleagues for the thoughtfulness and sense of personal commitment with which you addressed our FY 1991 appropriation and for the provision you made for additions that enable us to sustain and improve important elements of our programming. Your support and interest have given us the impetus and the ability

to provide an aspect of service most welcome by the

public — extended summer hours for our visitors. The American History, Natural History and Air and Space museums will be open from 10:00 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. during Easter Week, March 31st through April sixth. From June 17 to Labor Day, they will be open from 9:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.;

to begin tackling one of science's most perplexing

issues — global change. These efforts involve all of our science bureaus and unprecedented coordination with agencies throughout the Government, and integrate our unique capabilities in the physical and the biological sciences;

to encourage the participation of all fifty of the

states in a National Museum of American Art project — Save Outdoor Sculpture — in which reminders of our national patrimony will be inventoried and assessed. Complementing the program is an educational campaign to stimulate community involvement in protecting these unique and valuable objects from vandalism, neglect, and environmental pollution;

to reflect our commitment to cultural diversity in

ways such as (1) the awards to be received next month in Miami by the Resident Associate Program from the National University Continuing Education Association in four categories, one of which is the "Museum Programs Exemplary Program Award for African-American Studies" and (2) our Quincentenary events which have included an international conference in August, 1990, at the Smithsonian's Tropical Research Institute attended by 55 scholars from nine countries who considered matters such as the natural environment at the time of European contact, the processes and effects of human colonization in the pre- and post-contact periods, and cultural continuities in the region. On March 15th we opened "The West As America" at the National Museum of American Art," and in early autumn will formally inaugurate our Quincentennial observance with a symposium on cultural identity in this hemisphere; and

to acknowledge that the diffusion of knowledge can

take many forms by sponsoring, as we have for the past fifteen years, the National Conference on Museum Security. This four-day meeting on the protection of cultural property attracted 200 professionals, who are responsible for the safety and security of museum collections and visitors, from as far away as Australia and Zambia. Two had attended all 15 years, claiming that they "always learn something new." Building on its success when held in Chicago last year, we plan to hold the conference in other parts of the country from time to time in order to serve those who cannot easily travel to Washington.

While only a small sampling of the types of activities which the Subcommittee's support has enabled us to pursue, these are also indicative of the many and diverse ways in which our mandate for service is fulfilled.

Balancing and prioritizing a myriad of such efforts within our program as a whole has formed the reguest before you today. 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.

When I appeared before you last month, Mr. Chairman, I spoke of our planning process, how we set priorities for the Institution, and how those priorities are reflected in our budget reguests. Rather than taking more time today to elaborate further on the planning process, I would draw your attention to Appendix A to this statement. It provides a description of both our planning and

budget processes in narrative form and in two charts which detail the engagement of the entire executive staff of the Institution, as well as many others, in these intensive, iterative undertakings. A key product of our planning is the guidance statement, Choosing the Future . that articulates our areas of emphasis. The first of these is called "Stewardship of the Public Trust" which underscores our commitment to correcting deficiencies in requirements for programs and for structures, and is reflected in the request before you in both our Salaries and Expenses and Facilities accounts.

Just as the Nation, states, and municipalities must invest -and reinvest - in their infrastructure of highways, bridges, and water systems, so, too, must the Institution invest and reinvest in the basic facilities and systems that are integral to sustaining current programs and services. Several years ago we initiated a plan to address the backlog of deferred maintenance and repair of our buildings, recognizing that they must be serviceable if we are to pursue the activities that fulfill our mission. That plan and the annual survey that updates it have become the backbone of our Repair and Restoration of Buildings account.

Less obvious in the Institutional context, but as essential to the viability of our programs, is the concomitant reinvestment that is required when a gradual erosion of resources over time prevents a program from functioning as it should or when program elements have deteriorated. Such elements include, among others, the care and conservation of collections; reinstallation of outmoded exhibit halls; improvement of information systems; and replacement of laboratory equipment.

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. Thus, the goal of our reinvestment program must encompass program requirements, as well as facilities needs. Appendix B outlines this concept more fully and highlights the priority we place on it.

SALARIES AND EXPENSES ACCOUNT

The Institution's Salaries and Expenses (S&E) request of $292.4 million represents an adjusted increase of $34.5 million over the FY 1991 level. As I have indicated, the Smithsonian's various program and operating infrastructure requirements have been central to deliberations on this request. Slightly more than half of the increase requested - $17.4 million - is for uncontrollable items such as utilities, space rental, and the cost of legislated pay raises. Elements of infrastructure, such as reinstallation of exhibit halls, information systems, and major scientific instrumentation, account for another $10 million. Our current estimate of the remaining backlog of items of infrastructure is

more than $66 million.

A portion of that backlog stems from the erosion of base funding. This has occurred because the Institution has absorbed general inflation since 1987 and because overall funding, while, indeed, generous, has not been sufficient to cover fully staff costs such as FERS, health insurance, and salary levels needed to attract and retain qualified personnel. Thus, bureaus and offices have had to leave positions vacant or forego necessary supplies and equipment to the detriment of programmatic objectives.

We have now initiated an analytical process to quantify the cumulative effect of these costs, and would expect to include in our request for Fiscal Year 1993 funding to restore lost purchasing power to the base of our Federal operating budget. Together with a more carefully refined estimate of our infrastructure backlog, this should allow us to set the Institution more solidly on course toward fulfilling its fundamental responsibilities for public service.

For Fiscal Year 1992 we seek, in addition to funding for uncontrollable items and for elements of our infrastructure requirements, $7.7 million for program initiatives related to other active areas of emphasis: Global Change Research and Cultural Pluralism, each of which responds to clear national imperatives. These initiatives include $1.6 million for Global Change Research and $6.1 million for Cultural Pluralism as reflected by the National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI).

Stewardship of the Public Trust

In developing our Fiscal Year 1992 request, our highest priority, as I have suggested, focused on the need to protect, sustain, and renew the core functions of the Institution. The requirements necessary for doing so do not represent new or expanded service levels, but instead reflect a backlog of resource deficiencies that have reached critical proportions.

These deficiencies jeopardize our ability to manage the collections we hold in trust for the Nation and to maintain the increase and diffusion of knowledge that is this Institution's mandated responsibility. For the past two years, in developing priorities and budget proposals, we have grouped those that are similar in nature and spread across various Smithsonian bureaus and offices into several broad categories in order better to communicate their magnitude.

We are requesting funding of $10 million for FY 1992 to overcome some of these deficiencies. The funding will accommodate reinstallation of permanent exhibit halls and needed exhibition support at the National Museum of Natural History, National Air and Space Museum, National Museum of American History, Hirshhorn Museum

and Sculpture Garden, and Freer Gallery ($1 million); the continued development of automated information systems, including that for our pan-Institutional library/archives system ($3.5 million); the continued improvement of the Office of Human Resources ($406,000); and the enhancement of management controls and elimination of critical audit deficiencies ($1.2 million).

It also will, as well, assist in fulfilling our mandate for the increase of knowledge with $3.9 million to support the continuing development of major scientific instrumentation for two projects at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory: the submillimeter telescope array and the conversion of the Multiple Mirror Telescope to one with a single mirror, 6.5 meters in diameter. Both projects are crucial to maintaining the Smithsonian's and the United States' leadership in the field of astrophysics.

Initiatives in Response to National Imperatives

For Fiscal Year 1992 we are reguesting increases totaling $1.6 million to undertake an integrated program in global change research to enhance understanding of world-wide environmental change. The reguest - part of a multi-year, multi-agency effort -will support initiatives at the Smithsonian in areas for which no other institution in the United States has comparable and specialized expertise.

It includes funds for the National Museum of Natural History, the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, the National Zoological Park, the National Air and Space Museum, the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, and the International Environmental Science Program, all of which conduct long-term monitoring projects to generate data critical to analyzing the functions of biological and physical systems. The information that results from the proposed initiatives in global change research will build upon the unigue data already in the Smithsonian's possession and will be broadly available to policy-makers and the scientific community, and for purposes of public education. The Institution's reguest in this area has been coordinated with the Interagency Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences of the President's Federal Coordinating Council on Science, Engineering and Technology (FCCSET) in which we are a participant.

We also seek an increase of $6.1 million for operating reguirements and project planning for the National Museum of the American Indian. While not yet physically manifested in Washington, the Museum does, in fact, have a core staff here. In New York the Museum exists more visibly and carries out a program of exhibition and related services at Audubon Terrace and at the Research Branch in The Bronx.

Over the past year the staff has initiated an ambitious series of consultations with Indian people in all parts of the country to obtain their input into the programming and design processes associated with development of the Mall museum. In addition, documentation of the collections in New York and planning for their move to Washington have moved forward. On March fourth the Museum's Board of Trustees adopted a repatriation policy. Addressing the concerns of Indian people, it specifies the deliberative processes that will be followed in considering reguests for the return of funerary objects and sacred and ceremonial materials in NMAI collections. It speaks also to the treatment, care, and exhibition of those collections.

I will outline the Museum's construction program in some detail in addressing our FY 1992 reguest for construction. However, here I would note that within the amount reguested in the S&E account, we are seeking $1.7 million to furnish and equip the George Gustav Heye Center, the Museum's exhibition and education facility that will be located in the old United States Custom House in lower Manhattan.

FACILITIES ACCOUNTS

For Fiscal Year 1992 our budget proposes a total of $64.7 million for the repair, renovation, and construction of facilities in three appropriation accounts: Repair and Restoration of Buildings, $31.6 million; Construction and Improvements, National Zoological Park, $8 million; and Construction, $25.1 million. This represents a total increase of $11.5 million over the FY 1991 levels for these accounts.

Repair and Restoration of Buildings

Of the $31.6 million requested for the Repair and Restoration of Buildings (R&R) account, we expect to apply $12,480,000 to our Major Capital Renewal program and $19,120,000 to Repair, Restoration, and Code Compliance projects. Renewal of the American History ($6,750,000) and Natural History ($5,730,000) buildings constitute the entirety of the first category. Within the second we seek $2,605,000 for General Repairs; $3,640,000 for Facade, Roof, and Terrace Repairs; $1,560,000 for Fire Detection and Suppression Projects; $4,225,000 for Access, Safety, and Security Projects; $4,950,000 for Utility Systems Repairs; and $2,140,000 for Advanced Planning and Inspection.

In setting priorities for the R&R program, emphasis has been given to (1) projects required to meet life safety or health codes or to mitigate hazardous conditions; (2) repairs reguired to keep building systems and equipment in operation or to avoid major replacement; and (3) projects that will provide a financial return in terms of efficiency of operations or cost savings. In

determining the relative priorities of projects, the effect on ongoing programmatic activities is weighed against the potential risk associated with deferral of the work. Major projects are phased wherever possible to avoid disruption of public programs and research activities.

Examples of life safety and code compliance projects include asbestos abatement, modifications to improve accessibility for persons with disabilities, and installation of fire protection systems. Repairs to building systems and equipment include roof repairs, electrical and plumbing repairs, and replacement of chillers and cooling towers, as well as the replacement of major systems, such as those at American History and Natural History. Projects that will provide cost savings include replacing single-paned windows with double-paned ones, installing automated equipment monitoring systems, and replacing older utility eguipment with more energy-efficient models.

Of the $31.2 million appropriated for R&R in Fiscal Year 1991, $6 million of projects in the Major Capital Renewal category are ready for bid and another $6 million are in the design stage. In the Repair, Restoration, and Code Compliance category, projects valued at approximately $4 million are currently underway; $6 million worth are ready for bid; and $9 million are being designed.

The backlog of work required to assure long-term preservation of Smithsonian facilities and to bring our physical plant up to an acceptable level of repair and code compliance is up-dated each year by an inspection of facilities which is the basis for development of the R&R program. The long-range projection for the R&R program incorporates information from the backlog of essential maintenance and repair and future replacement requirements of major building equipment, systems, and components that have been generated by the preventive maintenance program.

Our current estimate of the total backlog is more than $216 million. We hope in Fiscal Year 1993 to build the R&R account to a level of at least $35 million, and to maintain that level in future years, anticipating that such an amount will allow us to reduce the backlog of repairs to a manageable level over the next eight to ten years and also take care of additional repair requirements that will arise during that period.

Construction and Improvements. National Zoological Park

For Fiscal Year 1992 our request for the construction program at the National Zoo is $8 million. It is based on priorities related to master plans that have been developed for Rock Creek Park and the Conservation and Research Center at Front Royal.

Of the total sought, $4.6 million is for construction at Rock Creek where $1,650,000 will be used to complete the Amazonia

Gallery which will vividly illustrate the global implications of environmental change and the growing international commitment to preservation of irreplaceable tropical biota. The remaining $2,975,000 will be used to modernize the existing Monkey House, extending and exploring knowledge of ourselves by incorporating great apes and monkeys within a new Hall of Humankind. At Front Royal $600,000 will be used to up-grade its antiguated water distribution system which is critical to the operation of the entire complex.

Repairs and Improvements at both facilities address priorities established through annual review for general up-keep and preventive maintenance. For FY 1992 we seek $1,975 million for these purposes at Rock Creek and $800,000 for comparable activities at Front Royal.

Construction

For construction of other facilities in Fiscal Year 1992 we are seeking $25.1 million which is arrayed across three subaccounts: for Major Construction we seek $19.1 million; for Construction Planning, $1.0 million; and for Minor Construction, Alterations, and Modifications, $5.0 million.

As discussed when I appeared before you in February, the Institution's construction priorities arise through programmatic considerations; are assessed in terms of function; and are ranked by weighing factors such as impact, timing, and financing. They may change because of unanticipated opportunities, as well as the timing of authorizing legislation.

Sometimes projects are divided into discrete components with different priorities, thus permitting delayed or interrupted financing, rather than a commitment of total project funding at the outset. Currently, certain aspects of planning and construction associated with the National Museum of the American Indian have our highest priority in the Major Construction Sub-account, followed by the East Court In-fill at the Natural History Building, and the renovation of the Old General Post Office, all of which are authorized.

NATIONAL MUSEUM OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN

American Indian Museum construction has three components: the Heye Center at the old U.S. Custom House in New York; the Museum on the Mall, and the Suitland, Maryland, building. Of the $2.4 million that we seek for the Museum's construction program in Fiscal Year 1992, $1.4 million will be used to complete renovation of the Heye Center, bringing the total Federal commitment there to $8 million and achieving the 1:2 match with funds being provided by the City and State of New York for the $24 million project.

Design of the Heye Center is now complete, and we expect to go to bid on the construction contract as soon as the $16 million in funding are transferred from the City and State. Because negotiations to effect the transfer of funds have taken longer than anticipated, the opening of the Heye Center is expected to occur early in 1993, rather than in November 1992 as initially planned.

The staff of the Museum is developing, in consultation with Native American communities, program plans for the Mall museum and the Suitland storage and research facility. In Fiscal Year 1992 these consultations will be incorporated into specific facility plans for those two buildings, and $1.0 million of the amount requested will be used to begin design of the Mall structure.

Funds previously appropriated will enable the Institution to carry forward initial conceptual and technical studies and to begin design of the Suitland facility which will house conservation, preservation, and collections-related research activities. Future year requests will include funds to complete design and to construct and equip the building.

Prior to the appointment of the Museum's director, the opening of the Suitland facility had been estimated to occur in Fiscal Year 1995 and that of the Mall museum in Fiscal Year 1998. The director's analysis of the planning process, the importance of broad consultation with Native Americans in that process, and the staff's review of program planning requirements and schedule now suggest that those events more realistically will occur in Fiscal Year 1997 and Fiscal Year 2000 respectively.

FAST COURT IN-FILL. NATIONAL MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY

P.L.101-455 provides an authorization for appropriations of $30 million for the East Court project. For FY 1992 we are seeking $15 million of the $23.5 million estimated cost of construction. The balance of construction ($8.5 million) and equipment ($5 million) funds will be sought in FY 1993 to complete the building and ensure that it will be fully operational.

The National Museum of Natural History building houses more than 1200 employees and is in need of extensive renovation. The East Court building will be used initially as swing space for employees and collections during renovation of the Museum's heating, cooling, and ventilation systems which will be funded in the R&R account. Upon completion of the renovation, the East Court, which will inter-connect directly with the existing building, will house various elements of the Museum's programs.

OLD GENERAL POST OFFICE BUILDING

In 1984 Congress authorized the transfer of the Old General Post Office Building from the General Services Administration to

10

the Smithsonian once the Institution obtained funding for its renovation. The Institution is concerned about the long-term preservation of this historic landmark which is the fifth oldest Federal building in Washington and located on the block bounded by 7th, 8th, E, and F Streets, N.W. The longer it remains in its present condition, the greater will be its deterioration, and the more costly it will be to restore.

We are planning a comprehensive renovation program to make the building usable for Smithsonian activities related to American art and portraiture. For Fiscal Year 1992 we seek $1.7 million for initial design, the goal of which is to address preservation of the building's existing envelope.

During the past year we have undertaken intensive studies to examine requirements to bring the building into code compliance and make it suitable for the display, management, and study of museum collections and related research purposes. We are exploring options for achieving that objective with the bureaus at Gallery Place - the National Museum of American Art, the Archives of American Art, and the National Portrait Gallery.

We expect that the studies will be complete by June, after which we will be able to make the decisions that must of necessity precede further planning and architectural design. The magnitude of the costs for various renovation options and programmatic uses of the building will be considerations in our final decision. We will keep the Subcommittee fully informed as we approach those decisions.

Other Construction Sub-accounts

As we are with the R&R account, we also are seeking to build up to and maintain a base level of funding for Construction Planning and for Minor Construction, Alterations, and Modifications (A&M). For Construction Planning in FY 1992, the Institution seeks $1,000,000.

For Minor Construction, Alterations, and Modifications we seek $5 million which will be used for new construction projects (under $1,000,000) to accommodate program growth and change reguired to meet Institutional objectives in research, collections management, exhibition, and public service. Examples of projects in this category include modifications to the Fox and McAlpin-Miller houses at the Cooper-Hewitt Museum ($300,000) to make them more functional for museum purposes and construction of a 3,000 sguare foot greenhouse at the Museum Support Center ($550,000) to house the living plant collections used for research by the Department of Botany and the Laboratory for Molecular Systematics of the National Museum of Natural History.

The distinction between the R&R and A&M accounts is that the

n

former includes projects where repair or replacement of building equipment, systems, or components is needed to maintain facility operations, to ensure long-term preservation, or to correct hazardous conditions. The ASM sub-account includes projects driven primarily by the need to reconfigure space to provide an appropriate setting for program activities.

Obviously, some projects will entail both kinds of needs; their placement within one account or another generally is determined by the preponderance of a particular need. In developing the R&R and A&M programs, we seek to balance repair needs of existing buildings with the alterations required to assure effective program operation.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to touch briefly on four areas of activity that have future budgetary implications. In reiterating our requirement for an Administrative Service Center - a facility to serve important infrastructure purposes of the Institution - I would reiterate as well our proposal to acquire it with a mortgage from a commercial source 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 currently meet their needs with Federal S&E and/or Trust funds budgeted to them for commercial leases. Those funds would be used for the lease of space in the new building and paid to a discrete Institutional cost center that would record and account for all transactions. From the standpoint of Smithsonian tenants, annual budgets would continue to contain base and incremental funds for the leasing of space, and payments to the cost center would be analogous to those to commercial landlords. Depending on availability, space in the new facility also may be leased to non-Smithsonian tenants.

As you directed in February, we have been in contact with the Public Works committees of the House and Senate, as well as with the Office of Management and Budget. The latter has approved the use of Federal funds in this manner and has concluded that the project need not be scored in a single fiscal year. While not yet final, indications are that the committees may adopt similar views.

Obviously, we hope that it will be possible to proceed as we have outlined. Smithsonian ownership and substantial cost savings, estimated at more than $50 million over the life of the mortgage in comparison to a conventional thirty-year lease, are the likely results of doing so. Further, when the mortgage is retired, lease funds can be budgeted for other purposes.

I also would like to up-date the Subcommittee on the status of the African-American Presence project, a year-long study by a distinguished and broadly representative group to determine how the heritage of African-American people might best be represented in

12

the Smithsonian's museums on the Mall. A report, which will be forwarded to the Board of Regents for its May meeting, is virtually complete. It is expected to recommend the establishment of a national museum of African-American history and culture. As a staff, we welcome the recommendation because it is consistent with and will help to advance our objectives for increasing the diversity of Institutional programs.

If the Regents adopt the recommendation, we would need to organize a museum development process to assess programmatic options, identify facilities needs, and, of course, estimate the total costs associated with a new museum. To initiate such a process - which would involve consultation with a wide range of museum professionals, scholars, and those with more general interests in the concept - and to move forward on it in a timely manner would, we believe, require $750,000. As you will understand, the timing of the report and our obligation to defer to the guidance of the Smithsonian's Board of Regents, have precluded our requesting such funding in the budget now before you.

With respect to the proposal for the extension of the National Air and Space Museum, we have been meeting with representatives of the General Accounting Office and working to address and resolve the issues they have raised. In doing so, we have reviewed our oasic assumptions, and continue to believe that the requirement for locating the extension within an hour of the Mall will ensure our ability to provide appropriate care for our collections and a comprehensive program on the history and technology of our achievements in air and space and their impact on culture and communication. The Dulles site meets that requirement, while also being accessible to visitors and a recognizable gateway to the Nation's capital, and having sufficient acreage to accommodate various design alternatives.

We are examining alternatives in order to keep our requirements for funding within a manageable range and, at the same time, address priorities within the project. Chief among these is the need to put under suitable cover objects such as the Super-Constellation and the SR-71, which are now exposed to the elements or inadequately sheltered, and to forestall the future burden of major expenses for their restoration. When our deliberations are complete, we will, of course, share them with the Subcommittee.

Finally, I want to outline for you some of the activities associated with the Area of Emphasis, "Bringing Synergism to Contemporary Education" that has been added this year to our planning document, Choosing the Future . Currently we are conducting an internal survey of all Smithsonian education programs to gain a comprehensive understanding of their range and reach and of which programs need bolstering in order to address the needs of the multiple education communities served by the Institution.

13

In addition, we are working to establish closer relationships and more focused coordination with school systems and educational associations and networks. We are placing increased effort on assisting school systems in addressing the national crisis in science and mathematics education. Areas receiving particular attention are curriculum materials for schools; leadership training for educators; and programs to foster more positive attitudes towards science among women and minorities. A description of our programs is included in the Fiscal Year 1992 report of the FCCSET Committee on Education and Human Resources.

Science, mathematics, and cultural education are disciplinary fields in which our museums, educational offices, and research bureaus have specialized expertise. They are developing synergy among themselves and with external education constituencies in order to advance more significantly fundamental public understanding in these areas.

Mr. Chairman, I would again express my thanks for this opportunity to present to you the Smithsonian's Fiscal Year 1992 budget request and to review some of the planning and priority-setting processes from which it has been derived. I also want to assure you that we are fully sensitive to the prevailing economic climate and the difficulties you face in allocating scarce Federal resources. Our request reflects those processes and acknowledges those difficulties.

It includes provision for a modest level of support for new initiatives in areas of science responsive to national goals and priorities where the Institution has unique capabilities and for the National Museum of the American Indian which celebrates the diversity of the American people. However, by far the largest proportion is dedicated to sustaining on-going services and operations, as well as providing for the repair and restoration of existing buildings and the construction of additional facilities that will ensure preservation of the treasures for which we are accountable, not only to the Congress, but also to the Nation.

Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to respond to your questions and those of other Members of the Subcommittee on these matters or any others pertaining to the Smithsonian.

Thank you.

APPENDIX A Revised 2/12/91

PLANNING, PRIORITY SETTING AND BUDGET PROCESSES: WHAT ARE THEY, WHO PARTICIPATES, WHO DECIDES, HOW ARE THEY REFLECTED IN THE BUDGET REQUEST TO CONGRESS?

Several years ago, as the Institution began to grapple with the difficult issues of priority setting for a growing number of increasingly diverse needs and opportunities that could not be cross ranked with one another, it became apparent that a much more rigorous and systematic process for analyzing our situation and making valid choices was needed. The Institution subseguently adopted planning and priority setting mechanisms that are not unfamiliar in either the corporate sector or in 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. Charts 1 and 2 and the paragraphs below describe the elements of and participants in this process. ,'

Planning

The first step toward establishing'-a rational context and criteria for validating planning and budget choices was to amplify the Institution's basic five-word purpose "to increase and diffuse knowledge" into a more contemporary statement of its mission and its primary goals. To allow the process of amplifying the mission and establishing goals to proceed with ample consideration of the distinctive character of the many diverse institutions (bureaus) which comprise the Smithsonian, the process provided for broad participation by all sectors of the Institution.

The left-most panel of Chart 1 portrays the situation analysis phase that initiates and underpins the Institution's planning and budget process. 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. This analysis involves careful consideration of the impact of such external factors as recent Congressional action or interests, changing demographics, changing public values and attitudes, recent technological developments, advances being made in peer institutions, new laws, regulations and policies, and other similar catalysts emanating from the external operating environment. These factors are considered thoroughly because they circumscribe what the bureau can and cannot do.

Although such external factors are beyond management's control, they nevertheless impact programs, operations and perceptions about how well management is fulfilling its responsibilities.

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, all of which are within its sphere of influence. These factors define what the bureau can and cannot do well.

After completing these "inside-out" and "outside-in" reviews of the environment, 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 values as a 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 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.

Budgeting

Once there is closure on the "Areas of Emphasis", budgeting can proceed. Each bureau and major office develops a budget that will support its plan and be responsive to the Secretary's "Areas of Emphasis". Chart 2, an extension of the planning flowchart, depicts the successive steps in budget formulation described below.

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". After covering the cost of uncontrollable items of expense (e.g., pay adjustments, utilities, rent, etc.), for FY 1992, the allocation placed 90 percent of the intended total request with the various infrastructure needs that would sustain current programs and devoted the remaining 10 percent to new or expanded programs relating to global change research, cultural pluralism, and education. This relative allocation quantified and made explicit the Institution's commitment to preserving core existing programs, while acknowledging a public responsibility to fill particular voids in environmental research for which it is uniquely qualified to proceed, to undertake efforts to broaden its audiences to reflect demographics, and to participate in initiatives that would strengthen informal and

formal public 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.

While the budget request to OMB describes each new cost in each line item, OMB's eventual allowances have for the last several years typically allocated funding to specific functional categories or specific line items (i.e., global change research, major scientific instrumentation, NMAI, audit deficiencies). For FY 1992, excluding funding that must be earmarked for uncontrollable costs, OMB's allowance was split 56 percent for infrastructure needs to sustain current programs and 4 4 percent for global change initiatives and NMAI, as compared with SI management's emphasis of 80 and 20 percent, respectively, for current versus new programs. When the budget reaches Congress, appropriations are made to line items and to specific costs (i.e., specific positions, specific pieces of equipment, etc.).

CO

CO (D

o

O

x_

CL

CD C

*"" C h- C DC 03

<CL

1 C

c o

CO JZ

1

CO

c "3 o

H

c £

si

tifiE

o||f a|"ft

o <«i«.S« t0

CO CO CD O O

s

Q_

~CD CT> "D

Z5 CD

■CO

<

o

CD "O

CD UL

C CO

'c o

CO

E en

-2

« a* t( otS-

- T> ? £ - E

CD<0.0 »<o

■"OB J•?*

-Step «S 5 »

•S s

gats ,

JO J° ra c V f

1.6 7

* 5 « § * £ £ J . s 5

i 1

Eg S -

O „ o -c

ffti :

5 £ r 6 2 s J

<n Og <a^ia

APPENDIX B

Revised 2/12/91

INFRASTRUCTURE (i.e.. Stewardship of the Public Trust)

In recent years, public policy makers have begun to consider a host of unprecedented resource challenges that have come to be labelled as the "nation's decaying infrastructure". In this dialogue, the term "infrastructure" has generally been a reference to various public assets and systems that have been in place for extended periods of time without major replacement or reinvestment. Among the most frequently cited examples of infrastructure are the nation's interstate highway and bridge system, water and sewage treatment plants, buildings on college campuses, dams, and the air traffic control system. These examples range from the highly visible—concrete, steel, bricks and mortar—to the almost imperceptible—automated systems, radar and telecommunications. However, they have in common a single characteristic: they offer the basic structures and essential systems that the public has accepted as valid public investments and services.

Several years ago, the Smithsonian launched a systematic plan to address the backlog of deferred maintenance and repairs for its buildings. It is widely acknowledged that facilities constitute the core of the Institution's infrastructure, since our buildings must be serviceable to permit us to engage in the various programs that contribute to our mission. However, for programs to remain viable they need more than just facilities' that" are in a good state of repair. There must be periodic reinvestment when essential elements of those programs have deteriorated or when a gradual erosion of resources over time begins to prevent a program from functioning as it was originally envisioned.

Thus, the Institution began to inventory the various essential elements, some visible, others imperceptible, for the conduct of current core programs where there was either an absence of resources to engage in a subsistence level of operation or a major reinvestment required. This inventory excluded elements needed to launch new programs and initiatives, and included only those aspects deemed integral to sustaining current programs. These elements are deemed essential both to sustain established public programs -and services and to fulfill public responsibilities entrusted to the Institution. Among these essential elements are the following:

Care and conservation of collections;

Reinstallation of outmoded exhibit halls;

Replacement of laboratory eguipment;

Computers and information systems; Facilities maintenance;

Security of collections, visitors, and staff; Correction of audit deficiencies.

All of these categories are consistent with the concept of infrastructure, insofar as they are essential, although oft invisible, aspects of the Smithsonian's mandated responsibilities, and they have reached a point where there is no alternative to major infusions of new funds or reinvestment. Because they are essential to the fulfillment of the Institution's various public responsibilities, a far more apt characterization of these elements is conveyed by the broad theme "Stewardship of the Public Trust". This theme, with its accentuation on keeping current programs viable, does, in fact, represent one of the Institution's four "Areas of Emphasis" for priority setting and budgeting.

Like the more inanimate examples of infrastructure that are more familiar to public policy makers, without major new investments a collapse of the Smithsonian's various,' "infrastructure" elements would have similar results. Specifically, previous public investments in the Institution's programs and assets would be undermined, .and if the situation remains unaddressed, eventually there would be a- void in many programs and assets that the public now'"assumes will always be available to them. The pronounced difference, however, is that roads and bridges can be rebuilt if they collapse, but an artifact, art object, specimen, or archival record could be lost forever if the infrastructure that supports them collapses.

Carmen E. Turner

Under Secretary

The Smithsonian Institution

Washington, D.C. 20560

Carmen E. Turner, a professional administrator with more than 30 years of experience federally and locally, was appointed as the Under Secretary of die Smithsonian in December, 1990.

As the Under Secretary, Mrs. Turner is the Chief Operating Officer for the Institution with responsibility for operational oversight and direction of the affairs and activities of the largest museum complex in the world. The Institution is composed of 16 museums and galleries — 14 in Washington, D.C. and two in New York - as well as the National Zoological Park in Washington, D.C. The Institution also is one of the world's leading scientific research centers with facilities located in eight states and the Republic of Panama. Research projects in the arts, history and science are also carried out all over the world.

As the Chief Operating Officer, she oversees a $401 million annual budget. These funds support permanent and travelling exhibitions, research, membership programs, a wide range of educational activities, publications and media productions. The Institution employs approximately 6600 employees.

Prior to joining the Smithsonian, Mrs. Turner was the General Manager of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority in Washington, D.C, for 7 years. Under her leadership, the Metrorail system grew from 42.37 miles and 47 stations to 73 miles and 63 stations, expanding by 40%. In the fall of the 1990, Mrs. Turner secured a firm commitment from Congress to fund the completion of the full 103-mile Metrorail system.

In October 1988, the American Public Transit Association chose WMATA to receive its Public Transit Agency Outstanding Achievement Award, given annually to the top transit agency in North America. This was followed in 1989 with APTA presenting Mrs. Turner with the Jesse L. Haugh award, given annually to the transit manager of the year "who has done the most to advance the urban transit industry in the United States and Canada."

Mrs. Turner has testified many times before Congress on issues of great concern to the transit industry, most recently to address the issue of continued federal funding for mass transit.

Mrs. Turner came to WMATA in 1977 as the first Assistant General Manager for Administration. A veteran of 26 years of federal service, Mrs. Turner's previous positions include Deputy Director of Civil Rights for the Urban Mass Transportation Administration and Acting Director of Civil Rights for the U.S. Department of Transportation.

A dedicated volunteer, Mrs. Turner is a past and present member of many community groups. She currently serves as a member of the Boards of Trustees of Howard University, George Washington University, and WETA. In 1988, she was appointed co-chair of the D.C. Committee on Public Education, a committee established by the Federal City Council to conduct an independent assessment of the public schools in the District of Columbia and to develop a long-range plan to improve them. The plan was presented in June, 1989. Mrs. Turner is the co-founder of the Conference of Minority Transit Officials.

A long-time resident of Washington, D.C, Mrs. Turner attended Dunbar High School, received her undergraduate degree from Howard University and her Masters degree from the American University. Mrs. Turner is married to Frederick B. Turner, Jr., has two grown sons and two granddaughters.

Steven Newsome Director, Anacostia Museum

Steven Newsome recently began serving as the Director of the Smithsonian's Anacostia Museum of African American History and Culture. Before coming to the Anacostia, Mr. Newsome served as the Executive Director of the Maryland Commission on Afro-American History and Culture and the Banneker Douglass Museum in Annapolis, Maryland. He also worked as the Chief, Office of Cultural and Educational Services, Division of Historical and Cultural Programs. In this capacity, he was responsible for the administration of multi-cultural services in the areas of cultural conservation, historic preservation education, and publications.

Prior to coming to Maryland, he served in a number of library positions in the Chicago area including serving as the Curator of the Vivian G. Harsh Collection of Afro-American Literature and History.

Mr. Newsome has presented papers and participated in panel discussions covering issues such as recruitment of minority personnel for "mainstream" museums, collecting African American material culture; the importance of African American religious artifacts; the future of African-American museums; and cultural pluralism. He has also participated in a number of workshops focusing on Smithsonian Institution exhibits including one which originated at Anacostia, "Climbing Jacob's Ladder."

A native of Norfolk, Virginia, Mr. Newsome has degrees from Trinity College (Hartford, CT) and Emory University (Atlanta, GA) .

Dr. Richard J. Wattenmaker

Director

Archives of American Art

Smithsonian Institution

Washington, D.C. 2 0560

Dr. Richard J. Wattenmaker was appointed Director of the Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution in September, 1990. Dr. Wattenmaker was formerly director of the Flint Institute of Arts, Flint Michigan, (1980-88) The Chrysler Museum, Norfolk, Virginia, (1979-80) and the Rutgers University Art Gallery (1966-69). He served as Chief Curator of the Art Gallery of Ontario, Toronto, (1972-78). Dr. Wattenmaker also taught History of Art at the University of Michigan in Flint and Ann Arbor. He was a visiting scholar in residence at the National Museum of American Art, Smithsonian Institution (Joshua C. Taylor Fellow), 1986-87.

Dr. Wattenmaker's fields of scholarship include American painting and decorative arts, 19th and 2 0th century European painting and European painting of the Renaissance and Post-Renaissance period. He has lectured widely and organized numerous exhibitions of American and European art. He is presently engaged in research for a monograph on the American artist Maurice Prendergast.

Dr. Wattenmaker was educated at the University of Pennsylvania (BA 1963) and received his Masters in (1965) and Ph.D. (1972) from the Institute of Fine Arts, New York University in the history of art. He also studied at The Barnes Foundation, Merion, Pennsylvania (1959-66). In 1973 Dr. Wattenmaker received New York University's Founders Day Award "...(for) consistent evidence of outstanding scholarship..."

Born in Philadelphia, he is married to Eva Augusta Oscarsson and has two sons age 19 and 16.

W. Richard West, Jr, Director National Museum of the American Indian

Richard West Jr. , an attorney and member of the Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma, became director of the National Museum of the American Indian on June 1, 1990. West, 47, has devoted his professional life and much of his personal life to working with American Indians on cultural, educational, legal and governmental issues.

Formally a partner in the Indian-owned, Albuguerque law firm of Gover, Stetson, Williams & West, P.C., West served as general counsel and special counsel to numerous Indian tribes and organizations.

Rick West was an associate attorney from 1973 to 1979 and partner from 1979 to 1988 in the Indian and Corporate Departments of the Washington, D.C., office of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, a New York-based law firm with other branches offices in Los Angeles and London. In both law firms, West has represented Indian tribes before the U.S. Supreme Court. He took a leave of absence from Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson between September 1976 and September 1977, during which time he worked a director of the Direct Support Component of the American Indian Lawyer Training Program Inc. in Oakland, California. In that capacity, he supervised a litigation backup unit for a number of Indian attorneys who had established private practices in Native American communities or on reservations. From January to May 1977, Mr. West taught a course in Indian Law at the Stanford University School of Law in California as an adjunct professor.

Rick West was born in San Bernardino, and grew up in Muskogee, Oklahoma and is the son a American Indian artist Walter Richard West Sr. and Maribelle McCrea West.

He earned a bachelor's degree majoring in American history in 1965 from the University of Redlands in California and a master's degree in American history from Harvard University in 1968. Originally intending to become a college professor because of his strong interest in history, particularly American Indian history, West decided subseguently to become an attorney, although credits his ongoing interest in Indian history with motivating his career choices.

He graduated from Stanford University School of Law with a doctor of jurisprudence degree in 1971. At Stanford, he was the recipient of the Hilmer Oehlmann Jr. Prize for excellence in legal writing, and he was an officer of the Stanford Law Review. After graduation, West served as a law clerk to Judge Ben C. Duniway of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco.

West has had extensive administrative and fund-raising experience in his professional career and in his other

affiliations. As a partner at Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, West served for a term as a member of the firms *s steering committee, which oversees the planning and administration of the 350-attorney, multi-city firm.

From 1975 to 1980, West was coordinator and treasurer of the Native American Council of Regents of the Institute of American Indian Arts in Santa Fe, New Mexico, one of the nation's most important Indian cultural institutions which has been responsible for producing many of today's leading Indian artists.

He also served as chairman of the board of trustees of Bacone College, a private junior college in Muskogee, Oklahoma, that attracts a large number of Indian students. As chairman of the board, West oversaw the development of a long-range plan for the college and the completion of a major endowment and capital campaign.

West also served as a member of the board of directors of the American Indian National Bank in Washington, D.C. While he was a member of the board, the institution came close to failure, and West's elevation to the chairmanship was a part of the board's effort to turn the bank around. For nearly a year, he headed an oversight committee that virtually ran the bank on a day-to-day basis. The bank ultimately was turned around and became highly profitable.

As a member of the board of visitors of Stanford University School of Law (1978-1981), West has been actively involved in fund raising. He is also a member of the Environmental Defense Fund's board of trustees and participated in the planning and execution of its recent multi-million dollar capital campaign.

Although not a museum professional by training, West has had experience dealing with policy relating to museum collections, exhibitions and public programs. For example, his work with the Native American Council of Regents of the Institute of American Indian Arts, which has a small but significant collection of art and artifacts and mounts exhibitions, reguired him to consider guestions similar to those that will need to be addressed by the National Museum of the American Indian regarding collections., exhibitions and public programs.

He has also served as a founding member of the Smithsonian Cultural Educational Committee, formed in 1987 to advise the Smithsonian on how its collections, exhibitions and public programs can be developed and managed in a manner that reflects the cultural diversity of this country.

Rick West is a member of the bars of the State of California and the District of Columbia. He is also a member of the bars of the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit. He has membership in the American Bar Association, the Federal Bar Association and the Indian Bar Association of New

43-202 O—91-

Mexico. In addition, Rick has served on the board of directors of the National Indian Justice Center (1982)-1989) and has been a member of the board of trustees of the Phelps Stoke Fund (1981-1987) as well as chairman of its Indian Affairs Committee (1982-1987) . He has also been a member and treasurer of the board of directors of Amerindian Circle Inc. (1981-1988), a non-profit organization that held a significant collection of American Indian art and artifacts. He is a member of the National support Committee of the Native American Rights Fund and serves on the board of directors of the Morning Star Foundation.

Rick West is married to the former Mary Beth Braden, who is an attorney and law professor at the University of New Mexico Law School in Albuquerque, New Mexico. They have two children.

EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS

Mr. Yates. Well, all right. Ms. Bay from the education office has provided some educational materials. We have materials from Climbing Jacob's Ladder, and the West as America. That is nice. Very interesting.

Ms. Bay, would you explain these very handsome books that you have given to us? They are very impressive. We have gone from the South to the West. You will sit right there because you are going to be close to Mr. Skeen who agrees with the title of your book, The West as America, Reinterpreting Images of the Frontier.

Now, is all of that in New Mexico?

Ms. Bay. I do not believe so. These materials are just a few examples of educational materials for schools that have been developed by our different museums. I am here wearing two hats. I represent the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, which is the central office that focuses on working with schools and bringing resources from across the institution to bear on the needs of schools.

Mr. Yates. Working with schools.

Ms. Bay. Yes.

Mr. Yates. All right. There must be thousands of them across the country.

Ms. Bay. Yes.

Mr. Yates. How do you work with schools?

Ms. Bay. Well, specifically in our office we do so through teacher education programs as well as through materials that we develop for use in schools, both locally and nationally. We also have a summer intern program for high school students where we bring them to the Smithsonian and place them in work study situations with members of the curatorial staff in the summer.

Mr. Yates. The reason I say that is because all the institutions, the cultural institutions that come before this Committee for funding, have education programs. There is a mandate upon the Humanities Endowment to develop education in humanities. There is a mandate on the Arts Endowment to develop education in the arts.

All of them have programs for educating the teachers. That is as low as it goes. It never gets to the students except through the teachers. Now, yours may vary. Who are your interns; are they high school students?

Ms. Bay. Yes, they are.

Mr. Yates. Well, that is a blessing; that is good.

Ms. Bay. We also are—in fact, we make a great effort to work with outside organizations. One of the particular things that we have been looking at as an institution, not only my office but as an educational institution in general, is the particular role that we as a very unique institution can play in education and how we can collaborate with other organizations, both locally and nationally around the country to leverage our resources to reach new constituencies and to have as great as possible an impact on our audiences.

Mr. Yates. Well, great minds work in the same way. I am trying to do the same thing.

The National Science Foundation which is funded in another subcommittee, there is a lot of money that is going for the education of our children in math and sciences. Years ago we used to talk about the arts and the sciences; humanities was in the background. It occurred to me that maybe in connection with teaching the kids, I could combine with Mr. Traxler who is Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee which grants the money to the National Science Foundation. I thought that perhaps his appropriations and mine for the arts and the humanities might be able to be combined to set up a program on lower levels rather than teachers' levels to teach them.

I talked to Dr. Leon Lederman of the University of Chicago now, a Nobel Prize winner, who has taken unto himself the task of teaching the school children in the elementary schools of Chicago math and science. He thinks it is a great idea because he said, essentially what you are trying to teach is not only math, science, and arts, and humanities; you are trying to teach the learning process.

Ms. Bay. That is correct.

Mr. Yates. So at any rate, perhaps—at least for me, there is some kind of a breakthrough here. Mr. Adams asked for the floor.

SUPPORT FOR EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS

Mr. Adams. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to say we are ahead of you, but we have at least been thinking along the same lines that you have. I think we are on the point of receiving a very substantial grant from the National Science Foundation for the National Science Resources Center which the Smithsonian runs jointly with the National Academy of Sciences. It is housed in our space.

We expect to have long-term support from NSF for that effort which has been going on for about five years now. Again, the emphasis certainly is to work also with teachers and with networking schools and so on, but that effort includes working directly with kids in classrooms. The primary effort has been at the primary school level up until now, but now I think we are moving into the middle schools. It is having an impact on about 3 percent of the programs in the United States.

Mr. Yates. Throughout the whole country?

Mr. Adams. Yes.

Mr. Yates. This is in math and sciences?

Mr. Adams. That is primarily in math and science. We have had some question about that, but it has been easier to raise

Mr. Yates. How much money do you get for it?

Mr. Adams. Oh, the program of the NSRC is now running, what is it?

Ms. Suttenfield. Two hundred and eighty thousand dollars.

Mr. Yates. Two hundred and eighty thousand dollars? Is that all? That is not very much for this problem, is it?

Mr. Adams. Well, there is also private money coming in.

Mr. Yates. I wonder how much is available for your program from both public and private sources.

Mr. Adams. I have a feeling the number is more like a million and a half.

Ms. Suttenfield. I think that is about right.

Mr. Adams. I think it is in that neighborhood at this point.

Mr. Yates. Should you be doing more? Why shouldn't you also do that for the humanities?

Mr. Adams. Well, it has not been as easy to get money from the humanities. I think there has been a real sense of unease within the Smithsonian that we were not able to do it.

Mr. Yates. You mean because of the Yates Rule?

Mr. Adams. Well, because of—no, I do not think the Yates Rule is what is crucially involved here. The issues of competitiveness and economic performance of the country have made it easier to raise corporate money, which is what we have been doing.

Mr. Yates. I would think you would be able to get a lot of foundation money.

Mr. Adams. Well, foundations have not been as easy as one might think.

Mr. Yates. You have contacts with one very significant foundation, the MacArthur Foundation. Can't you talk to somebody there and get some [Laughter.]

Mr. Adams. Unfortunately, the person that I talk to most frequently is not in that area of the MacArthur Foundation.

Mr. Yates. Can she talk to somebody? Anyhow, I read from this publication of yours, the National Science Resources Center. You say—this starts out by saying, "Before children go to school, they exercise their natural curiosity daily. School can expand their universe and open new areas of inquiry for them, or it can close off their search for knowledge by presenting science as a set of words and rules to be memorized from the pages of the textbook."

Well, I think we are on the same road. You may be way ahead of us on this, but we are going to try to catch up.

Mr. Adams. Let me say that we are, unfortunately, not on the same road with OMB in this respect which took out—the number was, what, 1.2?

Ms. Bay. One point six.

Mr. Adams. One point six million.

Mr. Yates. Well, we frequently find ourselves in collision with OMB, but if you need $1.6 and this will help you accomplish this goal, you have won it here on this Committee.

Ms. Bay. I wanted to emphasize, too, that the Institution does a lot of work directly with the school children, especially in the Washington, D.C., area through the museums. A number of our museums have established partnerships with local schools where staffs from the museums are involved in working directly with teachers and students.

Ms. Turner. Yes, I think it is important to bring out that the educational programs are pan-institutional. Almost all of the museums have an educational component now, and that is very exciting.

Mr. Yates. All of your museums?

Ms. Turner. Yes.

Mr. Yates. Okay, thank you very much.

Opening Statement

I deviated from our usual procedure and I probably will deviate from it again. Your statement is in the record.

Mr. Adams. May I request an opportunity to

Mr. Yates. Sure. You can launch the

Mr. Adams. I happened to have worked rather hard on a brief, informal statement, and I had it shot at by a lot of people. [Laughter.]

Mr. Yates. Why should we be excluded from that? [Laughter.]

Mr. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

At the outset, let me express our thanks to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the members of the subcommittee, for the understanding and generosity with which you have consistently maintained oversight of the Smithsonian's congressionally appropriated budget.

We are most grateful for the carefully considered support we have received, particularly in this time of severely strained Federal budgetary resources.

Now in my seventh year as secretary, I am more convinced than ever that the mission of the Smithsonian is to serve and to represent the broadest cultural concerns and aspirations of the American people. My charge is to continue to move the institution toward the fullest implementation of that mission.

The core responsibilities for doing so stem directly from the institution's charter dedication to the increase and diffusion of knowledge. The annual appropriations process has established that core as a baseline in our budget. Within that core our primary commitment is to maintain the infrastructure of facilities and services that provide for the proper conservation of collections which are deepening the public's appreciation and understanding of them through exhibits, research, and publications.

Other infrastructural needs are associated with the support of research in such fields as astrophysics and tropical biology where the institution has established special positions of leadership and responsibility.

Inflation and other forces have, during recent years, seriously eroded the base funding available for these purposes. As our budget submission makes clear, rectifying these shortages and deficiencies in infrastructure has had a very high priority in our planning.

Another major area of co-responsibility is to respect and justify the national support on which the Institution depends. Toward that end, we reach out more effectively—we seek to reach out more effectively to ethnically and culturally diverse geographically dispersed audiences.

The Smithsonian is a national institution dependent on tax resources appropriated in the name of all of 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 breadth and sensitivity of those programs and the effectiveness of the dialogue we maintain with external constituencies in order to assure these qualities is a matter of prime importance. That requires intensified efforts to secure

equality of staff employment at all levels independent of color, creed, or gender.

The National Museum of the American Indian provides a salient example of the institution's concerns to promote an understanding of cultural diversity. Especially noteworthy is the emphasis anticipated in the new museum's program of openness and popular participation. This is exemplified by the selection of an eminent board of trustees that is strongly representative of Indian people in its composition and has broad discretion in its governance.

In other respects as well, the museum embodies a pathbreaking new approach toward maintaining a close, ongoing dialogue between a cultural historical museum and its primary constituency.

As expressed by its first director, Richard West, a Northern Cheyenne, "In the end the National Museum of the American Indian is not just about the past. It is certainly not about the dead or the dying. It is about the here and now. It is about the living. It is about our efforts to preserve a way of life against great odds. It is about our success in doing so."

This is a compelling example, I submit, of why the Smithsonian's needs even in times of budgetary constraint cannot always be limited to programs and services alone. In some cases, as in this one, only capital expenditures for new facilities make possible the attainment of very important programmatic objectives.

New facilities are the most tangible expression of the vital new directions which 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 existing programs, improvements and extensions that enrich the meanings 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 the 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 must be viewed against the common background 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.

I am convinced that the Smithsonian should not be viewed as merely one category of expenditure among many. Instead, supporting the Smithsonian is 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.

Consistently across almost a century and a half of growing responsiveness and centrality in the life of the Nation, our mission to serve and represent has helped to advance historical, scientific, and cultural understanding in fields of primary national concern. Fields of concern can never remain the same for very long.

At the same time, our staffs extraordinary body of knowledge and professional skills and the Smithsonian's vast collections properly serve as standards against which to measure the prospects 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 of being the governor or balance wheel that maintains a consistent course between these counterpost forces or tendencies.

It is our collective duty to continually reassess the past without losing sight of its enduring importance, while also bringing 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 of interest. 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 non-didactic 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 Smithsonian 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 it might become. But while the Smithsonian's program has remained potentially unlimited in scope throughout the ensuing century and a half, in practice the institution has moved deliberately to widen its areas of interest within realistic limits of growth established mainly by its congressional appropriation. That remains our goal today.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I want to stress that the essence of the Smithsonian is not a series of monuments along the Mall, nor even the great collections within them. It is people communicating with people in advancement of deepened cultural, historical, and scientific understanding 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, we are all ready to try to answer your questions.

chairman's reply

Mr. Yates. Thank you for an excellent statement. Now, who opposed that statement? You said there was some question.

Mr. Adams. It is a draft that went through a number of iterations with contributions, some critical but all helpful, from most of the senior staff of the Institution.

Mr. Yates. I think it is an excellent statement personally. Anyway, I was remiss in the last hearing in not giving the opportunity to the heads of your various—what shall I call you—divisions, to tell us what their needs were and what they hope for and how we could help them.

So what I would like to do today is rather than starting out on the usual questioning of that kind, is to give them an opportunity that I did not give them last year because I think it is important that they have that opportunity now.

When we get to Mr. Harwit at National Air and Space, we will discuss the proposed extension of National Air and Space. I have taken unto myself the liberty of allowing Mr. Skaggs, Congressman from Colorado, whom I am sure you know, of joining us at the table here to ask any questions that he wants to ask. I think there has been a very significant and dramatic change in the presentation of the Smithsonian.

David, I do not know whether you know about it, but we have received a letter from Mrs. Turner which reduces both the scope of what they had hoped to do at the extension and expresses a kind of contraction of their purpose and the basic data supporting that analysis. I propose to make copies available to you, to Mr. Cardin, and to Mr. Frank Wolf.

As we talk to the other people, I am going to turn this over to you and let you read the latest.

FREER AND SACKLER GALLERIES

All right. Sounds like World War II or the Vietnam War, but here we have Milo Beach coming up to testify about the Freer or Sackler Galleries and to tell us the state of the Freer and Sackler Galleries.

Mr. Beach, we are glad to see you again. Do you have any problems we should know about?

Mr. Beach. Well, the Freer, as you know, is undergoing renovations still and will be for another couple of years before we reopen. Our concern now, which is expressed in the budget, is for the reinstallation and the costs of getting the Freer reopened again. That is the one item that we are asking for for both the Freer and the Sackler in terms of funding.

Mr. Yates. Is it in the budget?

Mr. Beach. It is in the budget with virtually the entire amount, but not quite the entire amount.

Mr. Yates. Does that take care of all of your problems?

Mr. Beach. It does not take care of all or our problems, but it certainly takes care of our major concern these days.

Mr. Yates. Would you like to tell us about some of your other problems, or would you like to express some wishes about where you are going and the need for money in the future?

Mr. Beach. Of course. I can always do that. It relates to a concern that you started out this hearing with, in fact.

I think that we have seen in opening these two museums, as happens whenever a new museum or a new activity opens, that there is an enormous groundswell of public interest as there has been in the Asian activities with which we are concerned.

We hope at some point to be able to continue and expand the educational activities which we see as being enormously important to both museums.

Mr. Yates. What do you mean by that? How do you propose to expand it? You educate people who come in and walk through your museum now with the explanations of the artifacts that are on exhibit.

Mr. Beach. We are doing that, but I think we need to work with those people a bit more. It does not work simply to put labels, however carefully they are written, on the walls. It blends with other kinds of programs.

I think when we are dealing with Asia, it is extraordinarily important to provide background material which many of our visitors do not bring to the museum. It is a different situation.

Mr. Yates. Do you not do that now?

Mr. Beach. We do it to a certain extent, but we cannot provide the kinds of general brochures, for example, which we ought to have about Asia introducing the religions, the cultural traditions of Asia which could be very, very important to the audience.

Mr. Yates. Do you propose to go beyond the exhibition of the artifacts that you have and bring in history and geography and other matters?

Mr. Beach. I think you have to. We are concerned with having people understand the peoples and cultures that produced these artifacts, not simply look at them and admire them. You have to understand far more than that.

Mr. Yates. How do you do that; through your book store?

Mr. Beach. We do that through our book store, certainly, providing literature. We do it as well whenever we can by providing additional brochures, educational materials, educational programs.

Mr. Yates. Does your budget permit you to do that?

Mr. Beach. To some degree, but we can always do a great deal more.

Mr. Yates. How much is a great deal more, and how much more would it cost you?

Mr. Beach. We had asked initially for the Freer to have $85,000 for educational programs and for the Sackler to have $109,000 and one additional position.

Mr. Yates. That was stricken by whom; by Mr. Adams or by the OMB?

Mr. Beach. The request for the Freer was stricken by the Smithsonian. The request for the Sackler was reduced by the Smithsonian and stricken by OMB.

SMITHSONIAN EDUCATIONAL BUDGET PRIORITIES

Mr. Yates. Well, do I ask you, Mr. Adams, or do I ask your budget officer why they treated him so shabbily? [Laughter.] Mr. Beach. Not my word.

Mr. Adams. Nancy, can you speak for that? I am afraid I do not recall the details on that.

Mr. Yates. Why did you cut him off when he wanted to soar?

Ms. Suttenfield. We had established a funding goal of $1.5 million for various educational programs throughout the institution.

Mr. Yates. That was it in preparation of your budget, and he violated that?

Ms. Suttenfield. Well, the sum total of all of the requests for educational programs far exceeded that, so we were only able to go forward with the highest priority educational programs. In essence, those represented the requests that we received from museums that had very low levels of educational programming to get them up to just some modest level.

Mr. Yates. I want to know two things: one, when you speak of we, who is we?

Ms. Suttenfield. The assistant secretaries formed teams to review all of the competing requests along similar functional lines.

Mr. Yates. Do all of the secretaries sit in judgment on each other's requests or only on the agencies that come within their assistant secretaryship?

Ms. Suttenfield. To the extent that there are overlaps in the programmatic areas.

Mr. Yates. Only to that extent?

Ms. Suttenfield. Yes. For example, the assistant secretary for museums as well as the assistant secretary for public service, and even to some extent the assistant secretary for research oversee programs related to education. So those three would have made determinations about the funding priorities for education.

Mr. Adams. In the case of the Freer, since the Freer is not open, one can understand why that one was fairly easy to strike.

Mr. Yates. You mean he is not ready to educate yet?

Mr. Adams. Hardly at the moment.

Mr. Yates. Will he be ready to educate during the next fiscal year?

Mr. Adams. No. It will not open.

Mr. Yates. But what they are saying is they are not hurting.

Mr. Adams. Well, he mentioned the cut in the Sackler program, and the Sackler is open.

Mr. Yates. Oh, I see. Let's turn to Sackler then.

What I want to know is what was the sum total for education of all of your educating entities? This was obviously in excess of budgeted levels.

Ms. Suttenfield. We do not have that number at the ready, but we can certainly provide it for you.

Mr. Yates. Can you give me a ballpark figure? Do you know how much roughly?

Ms. Suttenfield. Probably in the neighborhood of $4 million. I think the point that we would make is that we tried to give emphasis to our various infrastructure needs to support current programs to emphasize those above new programmatic initiatives, and many of our museums and other educational offices wanted to embark on new educational programs.

Mr. Yates. Isn't it possible that the new ones might be better than the old ones?

Ms. Suttenfield. That is certainly possible, yes. But the emphasis was given to sustaining or bringing up to some modest level current educational programs before embarking upon new ones.

Mr. Yates. As a general principle—general principles, it seems to me, might properly be evaded if you had some excellent programs.

Ms. Suttenfield. I cannot speak to the specifics of the programs that were not able to go forward to OMB. Perhaps the assistant secretary for museums and public service could address that.

freer/sackler educational support

Mr. Yates. All right. Why did you turn the axe on this relatively new and inspired director?

Mr. Freudenheim. Mr. Chairman, as my colleague said, those are your words. We tried

Mr. Yates. What are my words?

Mr. Freudenheim. Turning the axe.

Mr. Yates. Didn't you do it?

Mr. Freudenheim. No. I think in the case of the Freer and Sackler, we decided this year that their most pressing priority, as it has been for the last several years, was to get on with their project to reopen the Freer and to get that program really under way.

As Ms. Suttenfield has explained, there are obviously too many requests in all areas. In education, for example, where we are making really major strides forward where everybody is moving ahead much more aggressively than in the past, we have pushed them forward. That means the various museums come in with more requests. That means there is that much more people want to do, and there is enormously imaginative work going on in education at the Smithsonian that is really breaking new ground in almost all of our museums. The Freer/Sackler priority was their new building in this case.

Mr. Yates. You are also breaking his heart. In addition to breaking new ground, you are breaking his heart.

Mr. Freudenheim. So they simply had to deal with the fact that we considered the Freer and Sackler

Mr. Yates. Well, how do you feel about his response? I know he is your boss; but disregard that if you can and tell us, are you losing a major thing by not having this appropriation?

Mr. Beach. I think we are losing a major opportunity to do very important educational work about a subject that obviously to me seems enormously important. The American audience needs to know a great deal more about Asia. It needs to know a great deal more about many things.

We have museums, we have programs set to do that kind of work, and we are not able to even provide the kind of basic background in many cases that people need.

Mr. Yates. Do you want to put a couple of paragraphs into the record please and give us an idea of what you want to do and how much it will take to do it.

Mr. Beach. I will certainly do that.

Mr. Yates. Thank you.

Mr. Beach. Thank you very much.

[The information follows:]

Arthur M. Sackler Gallery/Freer Gallery of Art Education Needs

The collections and programs of the Freer and Sackler galleries are centered on parts of the world—the Asian countries—that are little known and even less understood by the majority of the American public. Our role as national museums is not simply to place important Asian works of art on exhibition, but to provide interesting, accessible, and significant information about the objects, and about the peoples and cultures that produced them. When the Freer first opened in 1923, Asia was distant and exotic; today, Asian-Americans are the fastest growing element of the American population. The ways in which we present and interpret Asian subjects must therefore also be transformed. This takes time, thought, and carefully articulated presentations.

While the Freer is closed, the preparation of educational materials to accompany the opening must be planned and written immediately; and the minimal education programs provided already by the Sackler Gallery must receive solid support to be fully effective. To achieve these goals, we asked in the budget request to the Smithsonian Institution for FY 1992: $85,000 for educational activity at the Freer Gallery of Art and $109,000 and 1 position for activities at the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery. At these museums, educational programs are essential. They are our primary activi-ty.

NATIONAL MUSEUM OF AMERICAN ART

Mr. Yates. All right. Ms. Broun. National Museum of American Art. Come up, Betsy Broun. You've brought goodies?

Ms. Broun. This is my friend.

Mr. Yates. Very nice; he looks like my grandson. Who is the carver?

Ms. Broun. This was carved by an artist named S.L. Jones, a self-taught folk artist from West Virginia.

Mr. Yates. A what artist?

Ms. Broun. He is a self-taught artist from the State of West Virginia. This was one of over 400 objects that we acquired in 1986 by folk artists across America—from all regions, all States, all ethnic groups. They were included in an exhibition held at the Museum last fall and in the winter.

Mr. Yates. Very nice.

Ms. Broun. I brought him along because I think he represents one of several new initiatives that makes our museum distinctive and that I wanted to highlight today.

We actually think that the Nation deserves a truly great museum representing America's own artistic creativity in the broadest sense. We think we are uniquely positioned to be that museum.

This folk art collection is quite unusual in that it includes not only historic material, but also contemporary material by artists like S.L. Jones. We think we are the only general museum that features folk art along with the normal canon of artists, such as Bier-stadt, Church, and so forth, whom we also have in abundance.

About a decade ago we started a photography collection and program. Twenty years ago we started the first contemporary American craft program and collection. In the late 1960s we acquired the first major collection of art by African-Americans, so that we think we have not only masterworks by the greatest artists, but also a program of greater breadth and depth than any other museum of American art.

Mr. Yates. Is my memory correct; do I not remember the Cooper-Hewitt has got an amazingly large collection of Church drawings, is it?

Ms. Broun. Yes, they do, from the days when they were a teaching institution.

Mr. Yates. How many of those do you have?

Ms. Broun. Well, we have Frederick Church's paintings. We have two major oils that were included in the recent exhibition at the National Gallery.

Mr. Yates. Do they let you look at the Cooper-Hewitt drawings?

Ms. Broun. Yes, we have had research fellows in our program who have done extensive work on those Church drawings at the Cooper-Hewitt.

Mr. Yates. Well, I like what you are doing. What are all those things? Are they all yours?

Ms. Broun. No, no. This folk art piece is my only object today.

Mr. Yates. Well, how are you doing? Are you getting any gifts?

Ms. Broun. We are getting a few, although it is not quite the flood we might have wished.

Mr. Yates. Not like the National Gallery.

Ms. Broun. Well, we think maybe we are suffering a little from the fact that the National Gallery managed to have a major anniversary this year.

Mr. Yates. Couldn't you conjure one up?

Ms. Broun. Our Ren wick Gallery is celebrating its 20th birthday next January, and we are working on that anniversary to try to get some major gifts in anticipation of

Mr. Yates. Are you going to emphasize crafts as in American museums?

Ms. Broun. What we want to do is emphasize the breadth of the program by having all the great canon of wonderful masters, as well as strong programs in photography, in crafts, in contemporary art, in folk art, in the art of minority groups and in different ethnic cultures. In fact, we have the best collection in any east coast museum of California art. We also have the best collection of Chicago art outside of Chicago which was donated by one of your constituents, Sam Koffler.

Mr. Yates. Oh? Sam is a good friend.

Ms. Broun. So we really do aspire to being broader and richer and deeper in the way we represent American art.

Mr. Yates. Who are these artists? McNutt for one?

Ms. Broun. Yes, we have Jim Nutt.

Mr. Yates. Jim Nutt.

Ms. Broun. We have really all of the great Chicago artists. Yo-shida.

Mr. Yates. What was their school called?

Ms. Broun. The Harry Who was one of them.

Mr. Yates. That's right.

Ms. Broun. We did an exhibition and a publication in that area. In fact, if Congressman Skeen were still here—we did a show called "The Art of New Mexico." We now are featuring "The West as America." We really do want to be broadly representational.

Mr. Yates. Well, you sound like you are a beehive of activities. Obviously you do not need any more money.

Ms. Broun. On the contrary. [Laughter.]

Let me go straight to the area of education, since it is a topic for today, because in our request we ask for five positions and $245,000 to really get an educational program under way. We are one of those museums most "below the line," and I think three of our positions and $150,000

Mr. Yates. Below what line?

Ms. Broun. Well, we have had a very, very minimal educational program budget and staff in the past, and we are not even where some of the other Smithsonian museums currently are in this area. We feel we should be way ahead. We are, I think, in a position to assume a primary responsibility for educating people about their own art.

We are working to try

Mr. Yates. Is this because you and Alan do not occupy the Mall; you feel that they are discriminating against you on the budget?

Ms. Broun. No, I do not feel that they are discriminating against us, but I just think there is probably not enough to go around, and they did forward the request to OMB for three of the five positions. But OMB then eliminated them all.

Mr. Yates. All right, we will keep that in mind. You need them.

Ms. Broun. I absolutely need them.

Mr. Yates. Put a couple of paragraphs in the record.

Ms. Broun. I would be pleased to.

Mr. Yates. Thank you very much, and thanks for bringing this carving.

Ms. Broun. Sure.

[The information follows:]

National Museum of American Art — Education Needs

Educational programs offer the most effective program opportunities for a public art museum in the 1990s. Increased interest in American art, as shown by higher attendance figures and extensive recent publicity, suggest that the time is ripe to develop a comprehensive education plan.

School children, families, lay adults and scholars all need targeted programs and staff to conceive and execute educational programs. New technologies should be used to orient visitors, teach in the collections, and take educational programs outside the museum.

Five new staff (three professional positions and two support staff, for $145,000 total) will permit NMAA to begin education programs targeted to schools, families, and adults. $50,000 is needed for base funding of program events and another $50,000 for short videos and films. Major projects and films will be funded through private trust funds, and the to-be-hired staff will assist in preparing applications for those funds.

Currently the museum has only three professional educators dedicated to docents, minority, handicapped, and exhibition-related programs. For support, there is a tour scheduler, secretary, and temporary clerical assistant. This skeletal staff is inadequate to the needs of the 1990s, when new audiences look to museums for informative programs and education materials.

Mr. Atkins. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Yates. Mr. Atkins.

TAX-ADVANTAGED DONATIONS

Mr. Atkins. I just had one question. In light of the fact that we now have for a one-year period of time and for one tax year an opportunity for collectors to donate collections and to receive substantial tax advantages that will not be available after this tax year,

can you tell us what you are doing at the museum to take advantage of that?

Ms. Broun. In early February we hosted a collectors seminar and invited collectors nationwide to come. At the seminar we had lawyers, accountants, and appraisers lecture about the implications of the tax change and what it meant for collectors, hoping to clear up some of the confusion that exists still among collectors about what can and cannot be done in the area of carryovers and so forth.

We are now working—each of our curators is working—with a list of potential donors, people that we have known and worked with over the years, to see if we can persuade them that this is the year they should be serious about donating some of their key objects.

So at this point we are in a phase of individual cultivation. We anticipate that the true interest will begin after April 15, after people have confronted last year's tax obligations and begin to look ahead to the current tax year.

Mr. Atkins. But it would seem to me that you would be looking for some kind of very aggressive program, particularly in the folk art area, where there are a number of very large private collections. Fairly few of those collections have been donated, unlike people's collection of impressionist art and the classical art and so forth. It would seem that particularly that group of collectors which is very different from other art collectors, in the folk art area, that you would have a major effort. I wonder why that would not be your single greatest priority.

Ms. Broun. Our priorities really are to try to take advantage of where we see the best opportunities. In that sense, folk art is one, photography is another. Art by various ethnic cultures, Hispanic artists in particular, and African-Americans also.

It is true that we are less optimistic about going head-to-head with the National Gallery on Winslow Homer, but we have curators in each of those areas who are working with the collectors to try to persuade them that this is a good year.

Mr. Atkins. Why wouldn't all of your efforts be focused on reaching those collectors and doing that work?

Ms. Broun. All of our efforts?

Mr. Atkins. Every effort and every priority. I mean, this is a one-year only opportunity that could immeasurably—I mean, imagine if you were lucky, it could have an enormous impact on increase in collections.

Ms. Broun. We hope it is not going to be just a one-year opportunity, but we recognize that we will not probably know that for a while.

Certainly 1986, the last year before the restrictive change, was the biggest year ever for acquisitions at my museum, as collectors realized and understood that they were about to lose an opportunity.

Our goal is to have our curators working as actively as possible to educate the collectors now about the special opportunities in the same way in 1986 they understood that to be the case.

Although we cannot drop our exhibition program and all the other things we are doing, this is, indeed, a special priority for us now.

SMITHSONIAN DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS

Mr. Atkins. I am just surprised that you come in with your new initiative as an education initiative, which is certainly very important, but that is one that you could start subsequently. I am surprised that you are not putting on additional development people.

Ms. Broun. We have no development people.

Mr. Atkins. I beg your pardon?

Ms. Broun. We have no development people.

Mr. Yates. You do not as a museum. Do you as the Smithsonian?

Ms. Broun. There is a part-time person assigned to work with us, and we are, in fact, concluding arrangements to see if she can work with us exclusively, but we have had about one-third of a half-time person.

Mr. Yates. You raise a very important point. Shouldn't all the museums be doing what he suggests? I suppose I should have asked that question of Mr. Freudenheim since he is the boss of all of the museums.

Mr. Freudenheim. All of the museums are doing it to some extent, sure. They are all aware of it.

Mr. Yates. Do they do it—do you act in concert or by yourselves?

Mr. Freudenheim. Well, each museum has different interests, collecting interests. As Ms. Broun says, there are areas where she feels that the Museum of American Art really has strength and really has clients, if you will, that it can go after, and that's true of all the various museums.

Mr. Yates. Well is there money for her to do that?

Mr. Freudenheim. No. There is not enough money for the development efforts that ought to be done, and they're not paid for out of the Federal till

Mr. Yates. Why doesn't somebody ask for—are they in here?

Mr. Freudenheim [continuing]. They're not appropriated funds.

Ms. Broun. Travel money. Travel, too, is a problem. It's hard to go persuade someone to give you something if you can't get there to talk to them. In focusing on education, just to respond to your point, it was not because it is our only priority by any means, but it is a

Mr. Yates. It's my fault. I raised it. I thought it was your's, too.

Mr. Atkins. It's my—you're correct, Mr. Chairman. [Laughter.]

But I just find it a little bit incredible as I look at private museums around the country that virtually every one of them is gearing up a major and aggressive effort and has been for some months to take advantage of this one-year tax window to pull in some of the major collections, private collections that are out there, and a number of the museums have had enormous success. And I find it incredible that you're saying that you have problems with travel money for people to get around to meet the collectors that you've got. What did you say, one-third of

Ms. Broun. One-third of a half-time person—we may get a

Mr. Yates. One-third of a half-time person to do development? It's probably the museum that should have the single greatest potential, and that this isn't one of the highest priorities for the entire Smithsonian system, and if there isn't a special strategy put forward to get those costs

Ms. Broun. Could I just say that we do have a strategy. I wanted to start by stating that on February 8th we hosted a day for collectors nationwide to come to the museum. Each curator also has a list of people and objects which are their special targets for the year. I don't want to rehearse the whole strategy in public, but it is a high priority. We have mapped a special strategy for the year, and curators are working on it every day.

Ms. Turner. I might point out also that one of the areas we've been looking at is the Development Office. We've made substantial changes in the Development Office, so that office can provide more support to the bureaus and that we can dedicate more resources to the bureaus. It's my understanding that all of the development money comes out of the trust funds, is that correct? And so we do not have any Federal funding for development.

Mr. Yates. How much is that?

Ms. Turner. How much is that, do you know?

Ms. Mattson. $1.64 million.

Ms. Turner. $1.64 million.

Mr. Yates. That's not very much for all

Ms. Turner. No.

Mr. Yates. Now, you don't ask us for any money under that one, do you?

Mr. Adams. I think it's been a tradition that that was a trust fund expenditure.

Ms. Turner. Trust funds.

Mr. Yates. Can they keep it that way?

Mr. Adams. I think it does raise problems to try to make that Federal.

Mr. Yates. I know.

Ms. Mattson. Mr. Chairman, if I could add to

Mr. Yates. You better come up here and speak into the microphone because otherwise your sharp words will be lost—you don't mind my asking about this, do you—inasmuch as we both are interested in the same thing?

Mr. Atkins. The only thing I mind, Mr. Chairman, is your pointing out the inconsistencies in my priorities. [Laughter.]

Mr. Yates. On the contrary, I didn't point them out at all. They were consistent because we both have the same priorities. Betsy

Ms. Mattson. Marie Mattson, Director of the Development Office.

Mr. Yates. Okay.

Ms. Mattson. I just wanted to add that, in fact, as the Secretary says, all of the development funds do come from the trust side of the budget, but with regard to this particular issue, it's very important that the curatorial staff actually do this particular collecting. The development office can help with prospecting and with research on prospective donors, but in fact, it's the curatorial staff that really needs a lot of the travel money and

Mr. Yates. Well, why don't you give them travel money, too?

Ms. Mattson. Well, I think that's what Dr. Broun's working on in this discussion.

Mr. Yates. Oh, you mean she's trying to plug you into it or Mr. Adams?

Ms. Mattson. No, no

Mr. Adams. I think she's trying to plug you into it. [Laughter.]

Mr. Yates. I know, but I can't give you any trust fund money if you insist on keeping in the trust fund.

Mr. Adams. Well, the travel money I think conceivably is an area where there could be

Mr. Yates. Well, but the travel in this instance is part of development.

Mr. Adams. Well, it's curatorial travel. This is not

Mr. Yates. It's curatorial travel in pursuit of development.

Mr. Adams. Well, in pursuit of identifying collections, new themes for exhibition. You don't go for one reason only. You go

Mr. Yates. Well, we wanted to go for a greedy reason.

Mr. Adams. Well, I know, but typically you would have a number of issues that you would be

Mr. Yates. Okay.

Mr. Adams [continuing]. Raising all together.

Mr. Yates. I think we're fencing with words. We all want the same thing. I mean the National Gallery, for example, just offered an amazing number of new gifts, and we had hoped that museums of the Smithsonian are museums on the highest level that would have their share of the gifts taking place, too. I didn't understand one thing that I want to find out about, and maybe Judge Powers can tell us, or perhaps you can tell us, Betsy, as much as you had the seminar on giving. When I went through the new gifts acquired by the National Gallery, under the donor's name they had a statement "promised or partial giving."

Ms. Broun. Right.

Mr. Yates. If it's a one-year gift, how can it be partial giving in terms of a deduction?

Mr. Adams. Since I serve on that board, I can say that some of those partial gifts are at the 10 percent, and I believe even 5 percent level

Mr. Yates. So they can deduct for this purpose

Mr. Adams. For 5 percent of the

Mr. Yates. Only 5 percent.

Mr. Adams. Yes.

Mr. Yates. And that's all they want to give?

Mr. Adams. Well, there is obviously the implicit promise that the

Mr. Yates. Yes.

Mr. Adams [continuing]. That the work of art will come in the end to the

Mr. Yates. Either that or the gift was so valuable that 5 percent takes care of their taxes

Mr. Adams. Takes care of their taxes. [Laughter.]

Mr. Atkins. Or, Mr. Chairman, the taxes are so low that that's

Mr. Yates. Well, that's true, too. All right, is there anything else you want to tell us?

Ms. Broun. No, the National Gallery does have federally-funded development people, and I think if they're working harder and covering more ground, they have put more troops in the field to solicit gifts.

Mr. Yates. Okay. All right.

Mr. Atkins. Mr. Chairman

Mr. Yates. Do you still want that

Mr. Atkins. Just very briefly. On the subject

Mr. Yates. We're never going to get through with the 40 other people that we've invited.

Mr. Atkins. There's a clear difference, and we can see it as you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, between the National Gallery and the gifts and their program where they use Federally-funded development money, and the Smithsonian itself, and the National Gallery have had far, far greater success in gift giving while the curatorial travel is exceptionally important; that's only part of it.

Givers have egos that need to be resolved in other ways than with the curatorial staff, and I would hope that for the record the Smithsonian would submit to us their plan to take advantage of these opportunities, and also how your effort—my understanding is that there is a great deal of confusion because you're in the process of centralizing your development, and how that's going to affect your progress this year in increasing gifts.

Mr. Adams. Mr. Atkins, I would not say we were in the process of centralizing. I think, in fact, we're moving in the opposite direction. We're recognizing that the greatest opportunities come when a museum and its constituency of collectors are working together, and are dealing with one another closely. And I think, in fact, we would propose to put more of our development effort into the activity of museums since they themselves feel that they're constituents.

I'm not saying that we'll ever get away from a central development office; we need one, but there is, in fact, a decentralization effort that is underway. But, I record your suggestion that we provide a memorandum for the record on what the plans are, and I think that would be a useful study for us to do for our own sake so we will do so.

Mr. Yates. Okay. Thank you Betsy.

Ms. Broun. Thank you.

Mr. Yates. Thank you.

[The information follows:]

Federal Funding for Development Professionals at the Smithsonian

Institution

In response to questions raised at our Appropriations Hearing on March 21, 1991, we submit for the record the following information about development activities at the Smithsonian.

Development of gifts and grants to the Institution occurs in the Office of Development as well as in many of the individual bureaus and offices. We operate in both a centralized and decentralized fashion. The latter occurs so that private money can be solicited by the museums needing specific, restricted funds. Centrally, the Institution seeks unrestricted contributions, restricted monies for offices, functions and programs, and private funds for bureaus without their own development staff. (The model is not unlike that of a University development operation, where private

money is raised centrally, in addition to specific contributions sought by individual schools and colleges.)

It is critical that both central and museum development activities be coordinated. This coordination happens in the central development office, where computerized records of all contributions to the Smithsonian are kept. Before soliciting contributions from any corporation, foundation or individual, development officers check the system to insure prospect availability. Once identified for solicitation by anyone at the Smithsonian, the prospect is temporarily immune from solicitation by other offices, unless multiple solicitations are appropriate. We have established this procedure to minimize redundant solicitations from the Smithsonian.

Our requirement for private funds has increased in recent years. Exhibitions for which there are no federal appropriations, expanded educational programs, additional activity in cultural and biological diversity, and increased research and collections needs all dictate a need for more concerted effort for Institutional development. Over the years, we have employed development personnel exclusively on trust funds, but the time has now come to consider some federal slots for fundraising professionals.

There are several reasons to consider this shift in development staffing policy:

Development provides us a way to stretch our federal dollars.

Allocating some federal funds to a development function underscores the importance of the public/private partnership in the funding of the Smithsonian.

Some federal investment in development demonstrates to potential funders that their contributions can be entirely allocated according to their philanthropic wishes, as opposed to partial amounts being spent on operations.

Federal funds applied to development afford us stability in planning and prioritizing for future Smithsonian fundraising activities.

Many federal and state organizations involved in development employ staff with appropriated dollars, eg. the Library of Congress, the National Gallery of Art, and many state univers ities.

In our continuing challenge to find cost-effective ways to secure the public trust, we feel that some federal funds allocated to development activity will make it possible for us to better serve researchers, educators and our millions of visitors.

SMITHSONIAN ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER

Mr. Yates. All right, now we have Mr. Correll. You want to buy some land, Mr. Correll, right?

Mr. Correll. Correct.

Mr. Yates. For possible development.

Mr. Correll. Correct.

Mr. Yates. How will the land—why is that land needed?

Mr. Correll. It's an intensive research site in the global change program, the U.S. global change program.

Mr. Yates. You need the land

Mr. Correll. We need the land not to be developed; we need the land use pattern. We don't need to own it all, but we have, in some cases, had to purchase land to protect it from development.

Mr. Yates. What do you do out there?

Mr. Correll. We do ecological research in the Chesapeake Bay region.

Mr. Yates. In the bay itself?

Mr. Correll. In the bay and also in the watershed, and we do atmospheric research as well. So, we look at how air, land and water interact in the bay region.

Mr. Yates. Is the bay getting cleaner?

Mr. Correll. It may be holding its own right now.

Mr. Yates. Are the fish getting cleaner?

Mr. Correll. In come cases, in some places.

Mr. Yates. In other words, I'd better stay out—I'd better treat the bay as I treat Lake Superior whitefish?

Mr. Correll. Yes, about the same.

Mr. Yates. Okay. All right, is that the extent of your wish?

Mr. Correll. No, we had one request that I think was important, and it was not—it was cut in OMB. It was for some infrastructure support at the site. It was for fairly mundane things: an increase in the security guards, the site facility staff and

Mr. Yates. What do you mean by site facility staff?

Mr. Correll. Maintaining developments and the roads, and things of that sort. We had a request for a plumber, for instance, and for a

Mr. Yates. Who does that now, a private contractor?

Mr. Correll. Well, we get some services from the mall here from the Oplants people, and it's not very efficient. For several years have been trying to

Mr. Yates. Why don't you hire a private contractor?

Mr. Correll. Well, if we had the money, we could. It's a matter of money.

Mr. Yates. It can't be very much, can it?

Mr. Correll. Well

Mr. Yates. Doesn't your central office allow you enough money to keep the place clean and up to date

Mr. Correll. It's very marginal now. We have to use a combination of having people running out from Washington to help—some private contracting, some site staff that we already have to maintain the place. And its very marginal. We only had one custodian, for instance, for the whole facility now, and so we have to contract some of the custodial work. We don't have a budget for that. We have to keep borrowing, stealing money to keep the place running.

Mr. Atkins. Well, I'll tell you what, apparently you're doing a good job of that. [Laughter.]

Anything else?

Mr. Correll. No, that's all. There are five positions and $137,000 that we ask for—for that kind of thing, and was cut in OMB.

Mr. Yates. Okay. Thank you.

[Additional information on the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center follows:]

Smithsonian Environmental Research Center

Over the decade of the 1980's SERC's facilities and research activities increased substantially. These new facilities included construction of the Charles Mc. Mathias laboratory, an instrument shop and a research greenhouse. New research activities included the transfer of three research groups to SERC from other parts of the Smithsonian, and the initiation of several new research projects under the U.S. Global Change program. These include studies of forest-atmosphere interactions and the Migratory Bird Project. More global change research is scheduled to begin in FY 1992 at SERC. In the meantime all SERC requests for increased infrastructure support have been denied. SERC presently relies to a considerable extent on the SI OPlantS for facilities maintenance, but OPlantS is short-handed and SERC is 35 miles from Washington.

For FY 1992, SERC requested an infrastructure bundle consisting of five positions and $137,000. The positions were for a plumber, a custodian, a grounds keeper, a security guard, and a secretary. SERC has no plumbers, only one custodian for 32,000 square feet of buildings, no grounds keeper, two security guards for 2,600 acres of land with 15 miles of waterfront and 20 miles of land boundaries to patrol, and only one secretary to serve approximately 80 staff and students. These five requested positions would greatly increase the efficiency and capability of SERC. The request was approved by the Smithsonian but completely deleted by OMB.

HIRSHHORN MUSEUM AND SCULPTURE GARDEN

Mr. Yates. All right, Mr. Demetrion of Hirshhorn. Hi Jim. I think you're getting thinner. [Laughter.]

Mr. Demetrion. Pardon?

Mr. Yates. I think you're getting thinner.

Mr. Demetrion. Thank you. I wish others thought that.

Mr. Yates. What does your wife think?

Mr. Demetrion. She would disagree strongly with you. [Laughter.]

Mr. Yates. Tell me, what do you need?

Mr. Demetrion. Well, I wonder if I might add a postscript to Betsy Broun's comment before I get into that

Mr. Yates. Of course you may.

Mr. Demetrion. It would be—you know we have this window of opportunity

Mr. Yates. Is this in response to his question, Mr. Atkins' question?

Mr. Demetrion. Yes, Congressman Atkins' question. We do have this window of opportunity for acquisitions in 1991. It would be a tremendous boon not only to the Smithsonian Museums, but to all of the museums in this country, if that window could be widened and let in more fresh air so that it went beyond just 1991. Although I understand the serious problems obviously, and I think it was wonderful that we got this one year, I hope some thought might be given to extending this window and making it wider, as it were.

Mr. Yates. Okay.

Mr. Demetrion. I'd like to address the topic of exhibitions this time. I've spoken about acquisitions in the past, quite a bit. I don't think that horse is dead yet, but I thought I'd change horses and talk about our exhibition program and our needs in that regard. Along those lines, I would like to have this brochure distributed to the Committee. It's a brochure which, in effect, is an exhibition in itself. It pertains to an exhibition which is currently on view at the museum. It's made up completely of works of art that are owned by the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden. What we've attempted to do in this exhibition and its accompanying brochure is to have our viewers—it's a form of education—to have our viewers go through an exhibition a bit more slowly.

Instead of having extended labels which try to explicate the meaning of the work of art or how that work of art was done, we have instead asked the viewer a number of questions and have, in effect, allowed the viewer to make up his or her own mind about those answers while looking at the comparisons. The exhibition has been popular beyond our wildest imagination. We've had about 3,500 written responses to the exhibition by viewers. We've asked a number of them to let us know what they feel about the show, how it might be improved. We have decided, just within the past week, to extend the exhibition another two months and to publish an additional 25,000 copies of this brochure. We feel this is a form of direct outreach through osmosis, as it were, by having the viewer be able to take this home.

This fits into a very important part of our program at the museum, a program having to do with temporary exhibitions. Certainly the core of any museum, certainly in the art museum, is its permanent collection. It's very important for that collection to grow. At the same time, we cannot collect absolutely everything, and it's important that we be able to expose our visitors to a broad spectrum of works. And in that regard, I would urge the Committee to look favorably upon our request for funds for temporary exhibitions which are our top two priorities this year.

Mr. Yates. They were stricken?

Mr. Demetrion. We got about 19 to 20 percent of what we had asked for. One was for the Quincentenary exhibition and the other, just for general temporary exhibition support.

Mr. Yates. How much did you get?

Mr. Demetrion. We got, I believe, it was $100,000 out of $575,000 that we had asked for, yes.

COST OF BORROWING COLLECTIONS

Mr. Yates. What were the other exhibitions about?

Mr. Demetrion. The other exhibitions—well, we only got partial funding on the Quincentenary program. I take that back. We got no additional funding on the Quincentenary program. We're concerned about that because it may, I think it will, seriously affect what it is that we can borrow and where we can borrow from. It will affect ultimately, I think, the quality of the exhibition and the bilingual catalog

Mr. Yates. Wait a minute. Are you saying that other museums will not want to join with you on your work and, therefore, you won't be able to bring in

Mr. Demetrion. No, we won't be able to

Mr. Yates. Let me ask you the question: what do you mean by that statement?

Mr. Demetrion. Yes, exhibitions are very costly. Packing, shipping, insurance—all of that. I just heard from the director of a museum in the Southwest yesterday who told me that he could not borrow a certain work from a New York museum because of a very exorbitant, very high insurance cost. This is extremely important. I think it stands to reason that those works which are of the most importance historically and aesthetically are going to have greater insurance values on them.

Mr. Yates. Let me ask you a question.

Mr. Demetrion. Certainly.

Mr. Yates. Four or five years ago perhaps, when it was evident that the indemnity program was working and would continue to work so well for imported and exported works of art for exhibitions, I tried to interest people in doing the same thing for domestic exhibitions. The indemnity people said it was too difficult. The people who run the museums said it was too difficult. I don't know why.

Mr. Demetrion. I don't know why, either.

Mr. Yates. But it seemed to me to be a natural program to have that; I assume the insurance companies wouldn't like it.

Mr. Demetrion. You're right.

Mr. Yates. But why isn't an extension of that program a good one?

Mr. Demetrion. I think it is a good one. I'm quite confused and surprised when you say that museum people did not think it was a good idea. It works in England. They have a domestic

Mr. Yates. Indemnity program?

Mr. Demetrion. Yes, in England

Mr. Yates. Well, we better find out about it. Perhaps we can either file a bill on that to extend the indemnity or perhaps we can put it into this appropriations bill when it comes along.

Mr. Demetrion. Okay.

Mr. Yates. We're always looking for contests anyway.

Mr. Demetrion. I might add if I may, many of

Mr. Yates. That's a big item of your expense.

Mr. Demetrion. It's a very big item. And many of the works in the Quincentenary program are going to be coming from Latin American countries, obviously.

Mr. Yates. Does the indemnity program in existence now extend to Latin America or is it only Europe?

Mr. Demetrion. No, I believe that it extends to Latin America as well and

Mr. Yates. Any foreign country?

Mr. Demetrion. Right.

Mr. Yates. Well, insurance is a big item, as I said. Are your artifacts insured?

Mr. Demetrion. We do not insure—the Smithsonian does not insure its own works of art while they are on our premises; however, if we borrow works from others, we insure them. And, of course, if we lend works to other museums, those museums insure the works.

Mr. Yates. Okay. All right, is that it, Jim?

Mr. Demetrion. That's it. Thank you.

NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY

Mr. Yates. All right. Mr. Fern. Alan, where are you? There you are. I'm glad to see you again, Alan. How are things with the Portrait Gallery?

Mr. Fern. Well, we're looking forward to an interesting season. We're about to open the Marisol exhibition

Mr. Yates. Are you

Mr. Fern [continuing]. Which ought to be great fun early next month.

Mr. Yates. You want a Marisol face for your exhibition?

Mr. Fern. Have you one?

Mr. Yates. Yes, I have one.

Mr. Fern. We're getting a loan of a Marisol from Mrs. Bergman in your city—Andy Warhol.

Mr. Yates. Now I have one of her own face in plastic.

Mr. Fern. We must talk.

Mr. Yates. We must. [Laughter.]

As it happens, I look for places to put these few artifacts I have because I keep looking at them, and I decide, well, they're good enough for others to see as well. As a matter of fact, that's one of

the reasons I have on loan to the National Gallery a painting of mine.

Mr. Fern. This is the self-portrait

Mr. Yates. Oh, yes.

Mr. Fern [continuing]. Print that's on the cover of our calendar this time.

Mr. Yates. Is that your calendar?

Mr. Fern. Yes. I think you've got it somewhere, but if you don't have

Mr. Yates. I don't remember; it seems unique.

Mr. Fern. Yes.

Mr. Yates. All right. Have we cut out the funds for funding that?

Mr. Fern. No. We have a moderate exhibition line item in our internal budget, which is in the other objects part of the Smithsonian budget; that we get.

I do share in Jim Demetrion's feeling that exhibition support would be a great help. An increase in that would be an important thing for us. Our exhibition program has been a fundamental part of the Portrait Gallery's activities from its opening in 1968. So, we need to work on that, but that is not one of our issues this current round of budget requests.

Mr. Yates. Was any of the money that you requested, and that you think you need, cut out?

Mr. Fern. Yes, I have to say these were mostly for items that support our professional staff, things like computers, computerization of our collection records, the catalog of American portraits, an increase in support staff in the curatorial offices, technical and clerical people, and so on. Also library automation—these issues were, in fact, viewed favorably by the Smithsonian. They went away during the OMB process and that's where we are.

Mr. Yates. OMB cut them out?

Mr. Fern. Yes, for the most part. Well, there were a number of other items that are even farther down the list that we are intending to request in the coming year. We realize that one has to prioritize.

Mr. Yates. All right, put a couple of paragraphs in.

Mr. Fern. All right.

Mr. Yates. All right, thanks, Alan.

[The information follows:]

National Portrait Gallery FY 1992 Budget Needs

With the continuing support of the Smithsonian administration and the Congress, the National Portrait Gallery has progressed substantially in the 29 years of its existence in assembling a collection, establishing public and scholarly constituencies, and attracting a dedicated staff. More than 400,000 visitors will come into the original Patent Office Building this year, and the number promises to grow steadily. NPG exhibitions have been shown in many states of the union and abroad, and the Gallery intends to increase the sharing of programs with other museums. But tomorrow, today will be history, and the collections must continue to grow to keep up with changing America, to fill in gaps in the coverage of the past, and to record the present as accurately and genuinely as possible. To maintain the excellent control we now have over our portrait collections, and to improve public and scholarly access to our holdings by providing more sophisticated indexing of our records, we need to use the latest techniques of computerization. On an experimental basis, a private publisher has already put a major portion of the NPG permanent collection

on a CD-ROM disk, and we must continue to explore emerging technologies like this. And we need to begin the collection of recorded sound, film, and videotape to accurately represent our own time in the media most often used today.

The modest increases allowed by OMB in our request for fiscal year 1992 will cover only a small portion of NPG's immediate needs for the computerized control of our collection (especially to bring the Gallery into conformity with upgraded central cataloging programs being implemented throughout the Smithsonian), for clerical and technical support jobs in our thinly-staffed curatorial departments (so professional staff can fully utilize their talents on research and exhibition work), and to modestly increase our building maintenance capabilities to maintain our premises as attractively and safely as we can. For fiscal year 1992, we urgently need the resources listed below (5 workyears and $204,000 for the NPG; 3 workyears and $263,000 for AA/PG Building Management), in addition to the increases presented in our printed budget justification:

For reconfiguration of NPG collections files—1 workyear (assistant registrar) and $35,000.

For migration of NPG collection records and Catalog of American Portraits files from Honeywell to IBM mainframe (and new NPG system)—2 workyears and $72,000.

For curatorial support staff—2 workyears and $52,000.

For computer replacement and maintenance—$45,000.

BUILDING MANAGEMENT OFFICE IN AA/PG (SHARED WITH NMAA)

For funding a safety specialist position—$48,000.

For custodial worker and laborer—2 workyears and $40,000.

To correct backlog of deferred building repairs, strengthen preventative maintenance program, and support increase in supplies and equipment needed to sustain new safety program—$150,000.

To meet additional workloads in exhibition installation and demolition—1 work-year and $25,000.

NATIONAL AIR AND SPACE MUSEUM EXTENSION

Mr. Yates. Now we have Mr. Harwit.

Ms. Turner. Mr. Chairman, as Mr. Harwit is coming up, I'd like to say just a few words about where we are with the NASM extension

Mr. Yates. Would you like to do that now?

Ms. Turner. Yes.

Mr. Yates. All right, you may proceed. This is Ms. Turner.

Ms. Turner. You'll recall that after the February 5th hearing we were asked to go back and take a look at the justification for some of the decisions concerning the siting of the Air and Space Museum. We've had very good working relationships with GAO. We've had several meetings with them in which they identified areas that they wanted us to go back and take a look, and we've done that. As a result of that, we have provided, as I indicated in the letter to you, a program now of reduced scope. We've moved the program from $342 million to $162 million, which really deals with our basic programmatic needs and the fact that we want to get this collection under cover.

We also pointed out to the GAO that in making a decision about siting the Air and Space Museum, the extension or the support facility, that it was a programmatic decision. And that our primary concern here is to try to provide the American people with a comprehensive view of air and space technology and history, and one that they could see in one visit. For that reason, we have always believed that any additional exhibition or facility should be about an hour's drive from the mall. So we've scaled the project back.

We have made the case to the General Accounting Office that it is a programmatic issue, and really not a fiscal issue that has resulted in identifying the site. Obviously, if we could place an extension on the site of the existing Air and Space Museum, we'd do that, but you can't bring that equipment downtown and there's no space there. So, we have worked with them on it.

In addition to that, we went back and looked at and ran life cycle costs on the comparisons between BWI and Dulles. And by all those measures it does appear, and we think the justification supports the fact, that the Dulles site is the preferable site. So we have worked with them. We believe that we have responded to the questions raised by GAO, and Mr. Harwit can talk a little bit more about his program, but I wanted to at least report to you on the status of the Air and Space extension.

Mr. Yates. All right, Mr. Harwit. You know I have invited Congressman Skaggs here and given him the privilege of asking questions. All right, Mr. Harwit, go ahead. She said you wanted to say a few more words.

Mr. Harwit. No, I don't really have anything else to say. I think the gentlemen from the GAO are here also and I think they will agree with what was said.

Mr. Yates. Where are you, gentleman from the GAO? [Laughter.]

Would you mind coming up here? We're going to talk to the subject in which you're interested for a few minutes. You can sit there, Martin. They can take the seats at the end of the table.

All right, let me first, before we invite Mr. Skaggs to speak, place in the record, if there is no objection, the letter we have received from the Smithsonian on this subject signed by Carmen Turner, Under Secretary, dated March 18, 1991, with accompanying data. And we have also a letter dated March 20, 1991 from GAO signed by Mr. Stevens, Director of Government Business Operations and Issues, which may go into the record at this point. You haven't had a chance to see that.

[The letters from Ms. Turner and Mr. Stevens follow:]

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

Washington, D. C. 20560 KS.A

March 18, 1991

The Honorable Sidney R. Yates

Chairman

Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

U.S. House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

At the February 5th hearings held by the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies on the Smithsonian's long range plans, I promised to provide you with a response to the General Accounting Office testimony on the site selection process for the National Air and Space Museum Extension.

Over the past few weeks, members of the Institution's staff and I have held a number of meetings with General Accounting Office staff, to discuss issues raised by the GAO testimony. The discussions centered on three broad questions the GAO testimony had raised, on the scope of the project, the criteria used in deciding on a site, and the assessment of the actual value of each site offered the Institution. As a result of our meetings, we feel that we have reached agreement on all three of these issues:

1. The Institution has reduced the scope of the Extension, restricting it to only the Museum's immediate needs to protect, preserve and restore the collection and provide public access to significant portions of the collections. This reduces the overall cost to $162 million, just under one half the originally estimated overall cost.

2. The Institution clarified its need for a nearby extension. The criteria for evaluating sites was based upon program needs to keep the collection intact and ideally it would have been best if the extension could have been constructed on the Mall, adjacent to the present museum, much as the National Gallery of Art some years earlier had built its East Wing on the Mall. Unfortunately, the large airplanes and spacecraft in the Museum's care cannot be removed from an airport and brought downtown. Our next best choice, therefore, was to seek

construction at the nearest airport having suitably long runways, sufficient area for the Museum's needs and support from airport and local authorities. We believe that we now have better articulated the ways in which the Dulles International Airport meets all of those requirements best.

We believe we have also formulated a more comprehensive statement on the effects of splitting the National Air and Space Museum into a local and a remote facility. Such a split would have a severe programmatic impact. Locating the Extension within easy access of the Museum in the Washington area would permit anyone to visit both facilities in a single trip. Building an extension, at a site like Denver's Stapleton airport or at any of the other remote locations that have generously offered their help, would have the effect of distributing the Smithsonian collections between two facilities that could not provide as comprehensive and balanced view of the history, technology and social impact of aviation and space flight, as is possible with a single museum in charge of a nearby extension.

3. The Institution produced detailed figures to show that the offer made by the Commonwealth of Virginia affords the best dollar value, though the State of Maryland's offer of a site at the Baltimore-Washington International Airport came close. The Institution's run-out projections also show operating costs that are significantly higher at remote locations, since these facilities need to be operated as free-standing museums with additional support staff.

We believe that our discussions with GAO have been fruitful and that we have responded to their concerns.

Sincerely,

Carmen E. Turner Under Secretary

cc: L. Nye Stevens, GAO Enclosure

GAO

United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

General Government Division G1-0067

March 20, 1991

The Honorable Sidney R. Yates

Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Following our February 5, 1991, testimony on the Smithsonian Institution's site selection process for a proposed extension to the National Air and Space Museum, Ms. Carmen Turner, Under Secretary of the Smithsonian, asked us to discuss the issues raised at the hearing. With the Subcommittee's consent, we have met with the Under Secretary and other Smithsonian officials several times since then and have reviewed a revised analysis of alternative sites prepared by the Smithsonian, including the material the Under Secretary sent you on March 18, 1991.

As a result of these meetings and our review of the revised Smithsonian analysis, we have concluded that the major concerns we raised at the February 5, 1991, hearing have been adequately addressed. The Smithsonian (1) has better defined its requirements, reducing the scope of the project and limiting it to a supporting facility for the National Air and Space Museum on the Mall; (2) better documented and supported its rationale for selecting the Washington, D.C, area as the geographic locale where these reduced requirements can best be met; and (3) completed a revised cost analysis using present value life-cycle costs to compare competing offers within this chosen locale. As explained below, we now believe the choice of Dulles International Airport as the preferred site can be objectively defended by the Smithsonian.

Reduced Project Scope

Our testimony pointed out that the required scope and size of the proposed extension had grown over the past decade, from requirements for four hangar-type buildings expected to cost $12 million each in 1983, to a full-fledged "Museum Extension with a Global View" expected to cost §355 million in 1991. The Smithsonian has now decided to reduce the scope of the Extension to a $162 million facility (to be partly funded by the Commonwealth of Virginia) to replace the Garber facility and provide educational and service facilities for visitors.

As explained to us, the Extension at Dulles is no longer viewed as a facility having a distinct program of its own, but as a support operation for the Mall museum and a convenient site to display large aircraft that cannot be transported to the Mall.

Requirement for a Local Facility

We testified that the Smithsonian should have clearly communicated its requirements to all possible offerors to assure that competitive sites were identified. With the changed nature of the facility described above, we agree with the Smithsonian that the new requirement should only be competed in the Washington, D.C., area. Other Smithsonian requirements, such as those regarding the need for an active runway capable of handling large jet aircraft and no interference with the primary mission of the airport, limit possible offerors to the Baltimore-Washington International (BWI) and Dulles airports.

Revised Cost Analysis

In our testimony, we criticized the Smithsonian's evaluation of offers for not being thorough, primarily because they were not evaluated in terms of present value life-cycle costs to the government. The March 13, 1991, Smithsonian analysis, using present value life-cycle costs, shows the Dulles offer to cost about $10.8 million less than the BWI offer over a 30-year period. Although we did not attempt to verify the Smithsonian's revised cost analysis, it appeared to be more systematic and complete than the earlier analyses that were done.

I hope this additional information is useful to the Committee. If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call me on 202-275-8676.

Sincerely,

L. Nye Stevens

Director, Government Business Operations Issues

cc: Under Secretary, Smithsonian Institution

Mr. Yates. The gentleman from the GAO, did you read Ms. Turner's letter?

Mr. Baldwin. Yes, we did, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Yates. Okay. And you've had meetings with them from time to time? They now come in with a request, a total request as I understand it, of $162 million for a scaled-down version of the building, the extension building to be placed at Dulles. As I understand it, in your letter you've said that you agree with their conclusions. Is that correct?

Mr. Baldwin. Yes, sir, pretty much. At the February 5th hearing, we had three general areas of concern with the process the Smithsonian had followed up to that point, and one of those was the growing number of requirements in the scope of the project that had gone over the past decade from approximately $60 million to $355 million. And another one of the areas was a lack of competition, but with the reduced scope of the project in a different nature—instead of being a museum with global view, it was more or less a replacement for Garber—along with a place to exhibit aircraft that could not be brought down to the mall, we thought that the competition aspect that we had advocated in the hearing was no longer legitimate.

And the third area was the cost study that was performed. The Smithsonian went through a new cost study and they used present-value dollars over a 30-year period. They compared the cost of BWI and Dulles, and it was very close, I have to say, but it was still marginally in Dulles' favor. So, with all that in mind

Mr. Yates. It wouldn't make any difference to you or to the project if this were approved for BWI rather than Dulles? Do I understand what you're trying to say?

Mr. Baldwin. Yes, it was—the numbers were close. Dulles was about $10 million, $10.8 million, less expensive over a 30-year period than BWI, but

Mr. Yates. Okay. But you came to the conclusion that it should not be built in Colorado?

Mr. Baldwin. Yes, that was primarily the Smithsonian's

Mr. Yates. I thought you had agreed on that?

Mr. Baldwin. Which we agreed upon, right.

Mr. Yates. Okay. All right, Mr. Skaggs.

Mr. Skaggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A formal good morning to you all. It's nice to see you again.

This is an interestingly-timed new set of documents coming in the evening before the hearing today, but I realize you were probably shooting for this date in driving the process. I'm not sure whether my question should be directed to Mr. Adams or Ms. Turner but

Mr. Yates. Ms. Turner was the one who wrote the letter. I suggest you may want to talk to her.

Mr. Skaggs. Very well. I gather from the comments made by the gentleman from the GAO that you characterized the proposed new facility as a much scaled-down, barer bones proposition than what was originally proposed. Is that correct?

Ms. Turner. That's correct. The proposed facility now will address our very basic needs in terms of getting the collection under cover and providing some exhibition space. Our primary concern

43-202 O—91-

obviously is protecting the collection and getting that under cover. It will be a hangar-type building. It will be built to museum specifications but a much scaled-down facility.

Mr. Skaggs. And, I take it from that that you would not be promoting it as a museum in the same way you would have been promoting the original plan as a separate museum-quality attraction?

Ms. Turner. Our objective now is to get the collection under cover and to maintain that collection and to share with the American people, to the extent we can, that collection through this facility.

Mr. Skaggs. But, I gather the American people to a more limited degree than the original plan would have been able to do.

Ms. Turner. We will obviously try to provide access to as many people as we possibly can. Certainly, a scaled-down facility will attract less people initially.

Mr. Skaggs. And, therefore, the argument that it needs to be close to the mall so that the entire collection is equally accessible to visitors has somehow been modified?

Ms. Turner. I think that one of the issues that we should have made clearer earlier is the fact that the decision about siting the support facility or the extension, is really a programmatic decision. And what we're very interested in is looking at how we can provide for the American people the evolution of air and space in a way that allows them to see that in, say, one visit. Beyond that, obviously, we're concerned about the care and protection of the collection. So, those two programmatic issues have always driven our decision that the support facility, the extension, be within an hour's drive of the mall.

Mr. Skaggs. Where are these American people that we're talking about?

Ms. Turner. Well, we're talking about all the people who come to the Air and Space Museum today.

Mr. Skaggs. How about the ones that can't get there?

Ms. Turner. Well, I'm not sure that locating the facility at Dulles changes that. I mean people that can come to the Air and Space Museum now are the same people that would then visit and see the whole exhibit.

Mr. Skaggs. But, what about the half of the American people that reside west of the Mississippi who never get to Washington, at least most of them never do?

Ms. Turner. Well, I think you asking a very different kind of question and that is, should institutions like the Smithsonian have a presence in other places? And I think that's something that really needs to be looked at, but I think that we also have to take into consideration—we've looked at that—what the programmatic implications of that are.

We are very interested in taking the Smithsonian to the American people, and we do in a number of ways, with traveling exhibits and other activities, but we also want to make sure that we maximize collections and that the American people, those people that are able to come and visit, get a comprehensive picture.

Mr. Skaggs. Is it fair to say that in your definition of programmatic, that it is of a greater value to have the single collection within the hour's drive accessible to a minority of American people

versus having major parts of the collection, though separated, accessible to a majority of the American people?

Ms. Turner. I'm not sure that it is a minority of the American people. The Nation's capital attracts tourists in large numbers, and there's a distinct

Mr. Skaggs. Your analysis of the traffic of the Smithsonian on the mall certainly has shown you that the vast majority of those visitors are from east of the Mississippi.

Mr. Harwit. We have demographics—we did a demographic study about a year ago and we found that, with the exception of a few of the immediate States around us, there was no State that was either overrepresented or underrepresented by more than factor of 2 or so. We compared that to other locations in the country, and there the variations were quite different. It was much more local.

Mr. Skaggs. Well, I guess I still find the invocation of the word "programmatic" just that, an assertion that meets museum values. It's sort of like the President invoking new world order. We have heard it repeatedly, but it's never been explained as to how it serves the common interest. And merely saying programmatic in your defense of the Dulles decision isn't particularly enlightening about what it is we're really trying to accomplish.

I was intrigued with Mr. Adams' column in the current Smithsonian which I think anticipates a much broader vision of the Smithsonian's mission. And if we are starting to think that way, as I think is healthy, why postpone that until the next century?

Ms. Turner. Well, we're going to comment on that, but we are looking at and taking into consideration ways in which the Smithsonian can have a presence across the United States. On the other hand, we have to take into consideration what is the best way to communicate our message on a given subject to the American people. And we don't believe that breaking a collection up, particularly a collection in which you are looking at a historical progression, is the way in which to do that. Now Mr. Freudenheim is here, he's the Assistant Secretary for Museums, and he may want to speak to that in more detail.

Mr. Freudenheim. Well, I think we are all very sensitive to the issue of what it means for the Smithsonian to work across the country, and the Secretary's recent column in Smithsonian Magazine addresses that. I think we're being very self-reflective about it. We're examining the implications of being only in Washington or being elsewhere. In fact, however, it should be stated we're not only in Washington. Aside from the fact that we have a museum— two museums operating in New York, and offices in other places— we also have a huge traveling exhibition service. Anna Cohn will speak later; she can describe that.

We have all sorts of programs all over the country already, so somehow to think that the Smithsonian is, in fact, operating only in Washington is to misread it. On the other hand, there are a lot of other things that ought to be looked at. And we will be looking at them.

Mr. Yates. Well, the Smithsonian is a national institution. It's located in Washington. The question is whether it ought to send out more branches through the country because you do have some

now. You have Cooper-Hewitt and you're going to have the Indian museum in the north.

Mr. Freudenheim. We already do.

Mr. Yates. The Indian Museum?

Mr. Freudenheim. Yes.

Mr. Yates. I thought

Mr. Freudenheim. We're operating under

Mr. Adams. The existing Indian museum is under the Smithsonian at this time.

Mr. Yates. In Harlem. I thought you were not doing it until you finished the work on the

Mr. Adams. Well it's nothing really. It's

Mr. Skaggs. That collection was split already or will be?

Mr. Adams. It will have a central office here in Washington, and there will be a branch in New York. It's not quite the same thing.

Mr. Yates. It's kind of split because you have to split it in order to get the museum. Well, the New Yorkers will say the collection is in New York. And the reason they will say that is because they couldn't allow the collection to leave New York under the terms of the testament, as I remember what the Attorney General would say.

Mr. Adams. In the end he did agree, though.

Mr. Yates. Did he? Provided you kept some in New York?

Mr. Adams. Kept some, but not kept the entire collection in New York.

Mr. Yates. All right.

Mr. Adams. May I say a word—I think I should here.

Mr. Yates. Sure.

Mr. Adams. I think the issue that Mr. Skaggs has raised is one that is very much on the mind of the Smithsonian.

Mr. Yates. Well, you raised it

Mr. Adams. And I'm beginning to receive comments from readers to the column, and I might say that, again, they're running very much along the line that you might expect. The Smithsonian should think of branching out, but as Mr. Freudenheim has just said, there are many ways to branch out. And in many ways the most expensive and the least attractive is one that physically takes pieces of the Smithsonian and moves them into other distant settings.

I think what we may very well explore is a more economical alternative, certainly one that sees us working in conjunction with existing institutions and new settings. I don't know what all those new ways of working would be, but it seems to me that we're more likely to take that route than we are to see a colonization of

Mr. Yates. But you're doing that now with sites?

Mr. Adams. It's going beyond sites. We may very well have a joint program

Mr. Yates. You may want to go beyond the sites. I can understand that, but I think that what Mr. Skaggs has in mind, and what some of your correspondents may have in mind, is something that I have in mind, and that is that you have a lot of artifacts that are in storage in Suitland.

Mr. Adams. That's right.

Mr. Yates. Which could make a Smithsonian Museum somewhere. As long as you're storing them, store them so that people can come look at them. That's what's implicit in this. Let me—yes, go ahead.

Mr. Adams. I think I perhaps should make it a matter of record that there is even material in storage that is not yet the Smithsonian's, but will some day be the Smithsonian's. That is in storage in Denver. One day there

Mr. Yates. Yes.

Mr. Adams. One day there will be major U.S. G.S. collections that probably will come to the Smithsonian, and that may be many years away, but all I'm saying is that over time we will, indeed, face the question of dispersion, not simply through that example but probably others.

Mr. Yates. Well, the example of Air and Space is an example of what is going to happen to the Smithsonian in the future. You're not going stop collecting. People are going to give you things from now ad infinitum. And you have to make a place for receiving these.

As I read the letters, I was struck by the fact that the amount that you have reduced your request from, $362 million to $162 million, is really the amount of money that is supposed to be spent on the first phase of the $362 million project. Does this mean that you are cutting it back to the first phase only temporarily and then in the future you will move on into the $362 million phase?

Ms. Turner. I think it's only fair to say that we obviously in the next century might want to do something and we would keep our options open there. But for now, we're looking at this facility as the facility to house and store our collection and provide some access to the American public.

Mr. Yates. I remember some years ago, Mr. Challinor came in asking for replacement for Garber and his estimate of what was needed at that time, I think, was $80 million: $20 million each for four buildings and something like that. Now you have a different figure under replacement for Garber. I thought it may have been in your letter. I read somewhere in there in the testimony today that the figure for replacement of Garber—this is the replacement for Garber, isn't it, for $162 million? It's twice the estimate that Mr. Challinor gave when he presented this 10 years ago. Maybe it's the inflation and a few other things.

Mr. Adams. Well, it's also the storage of many objects that I don't think he had in mind at the time he was over

Mr. Yates. It's probably a much larger facility. At any rate, at the Committee level I think it now moves from the Committee level on the question of the selection of the site. That, of course, is the Regents' decision.

Mr. Adams. Well, the Regents, Mr. Chairman, have made their decision. Now the question is the Congress'.

Mr. Yates. They made their decision with respect to the $362 million figure, as I understand it. That was the only thing that was presented to them. Now you're presenting one for $162 million. Right?

Mr. Adams. I think I can say with confidence that that won't affect their decision.

Mr. Skaggs. What's the difference between this $162 million and phase l's $162 million under the original plan?

Mr. Harwit. None.

Mr. Skaggs. So, it's the start of the same project.

Mr. Harwit. The first phase originally was supposed to cover immediate needs and we have decided that the only thing that we can afford to do now is to look at our immediate needs. Whether or not the next century will require additional building is something that we should probably not try to foresee now because it is quite far in the future. I think the mistake that I probably made earlier was to think that I could second-guess the construction requirements of the museum for 35 years into the future.

The first phase, previously, was always meant to cover immediate needs plus requirements that we would have through the end of the century. It makes sense that if one reconsiders the expenditures, that one covers immediate needs plus a small amount of additional requirement for growth—that seems obvious. So, I think that the requirements that we have are predicated on what we see as something that is really urgent.

Mr. Skaggs. Well, I'm just a little bit confused, I guess. I would not have thought that you would have brought something of the magnitude of a one-third of a billion dollar decision to the Regents for their embrace and sanction without having gone through a fairly thorough process of having justified the planning that went into that and the projected need. You knew that this was, at best, a hassle. So it seems in the context that we're dealing with now, a little facile to say, "Hey, on second thought—" and, when challenged, we can really get along with a little less than half.

I'd like to just inquire of the GAO: did it seem to you at all interesting that with regard to the lifetime operating analysis that was done that the larger figure, the operating costs figure, was identical for Dulles and for BWI and that there had been no operating cost analysis done for any alternative site?

Mr. Baldwin. The way it was explained to us—and it seemed to make sense at the time—the utilities and almost all the other operating costs would be identical for either Baltimore or Dulles.

The new costs that he didn't include were not considered to meet the Smithsonian requirements.

Mr. Skaggs. So, there were no attempts to see what the comparable lifetime operating cost would be for any other site than Dulles or Washington because of the programmatic assertions that the Smithsonian made?

Mr. Baldwin. Yes, sir, that's right.

Mr. Harwit. I think I can add to that. We did, for ourselves, look into that question and we found that over a period of 30 years the added costs of running an extension at a remote site was about $200 million. This is because at a remote site you have to have a great amount of independence. You have to have your own auditing; you have to have your own infrastructure personnel there, and that adds up a great deal over that many years. So, we did do that even though the programmatic requirements indicate that a remote site was not

Mr. Skaggs. Is that analysis available for me to take a look at?

Mr. Harwit. We could provide it for you.

[Committee note. —The information requested is contained in the answers to the additional questions for the record submitted by Representative Skaggs.]

Mr. Yates. Is that the analysis we had last year?

Mr. Harwit. I don't remember whether we had done it before. I can check.

Mr. Yates. I had the impression that we had it

Ms. Turner. We did.

Mr. Beall. It's been refined a bit.

Mr. Yates. May I ask you a question? Did you consider the possibility that this was only a part of the total project when you wrote your letter or did you have the impression that this was the total project?

Mr. Baldwin. We had the impression that this was the total project. We knew that it was phase 1 that was originally presented at $355 million, but I think we also knew that, like the agency some years before, there was testimony that with the Air and Space Museum on the Mall, there would be no need for future expansion. I know that in 10 or 20 years from now I could see very well that the Smithsonian would be coming back to this Committee and asking for more space, probably.

Mr. Yates. Not only for this museum but for several of the other museums, I would guess.

All right, David.

Mr. Skaggs. If I could, just a couple of more—I really appreciate this, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

How much of that $144 million over 30 years is personnel?

Mr. Harwit. I'm sorry?

Ms. Turner. Which is personnel?

Mr. Skaggs. I believe the lifetime costs in either site, Dulles or BWI, was $144 million in operating. Is that right?

Mr. Harwit. Yes, most of the operating costs do go into personnel. Not all of them, but right now the operating cost in our museum is something like 85 percent of the total cost.

Mr. Skaggs. And is it correct that in figuring out these numbers you have not attempted to factor in the change in the civil service pay for geography that is expected to take effect beginning in 1994?

Mr. Harwit. We did factor that in, Mr. Skaggs.

Mr. Skaggs. In reaching the costs for the Denver site?

Mr. Harwit. Even there, there were two problems. One was that we looked at the costs of living over the last few years as they appear in the publications that one refers to normally, and we found that they vacillated up and down so that a projection into the future based on just this year was probably not the best criterion. So, we looked at that, and in any case I think the differences were only on the order of 10 percent or 15 percent in these vacillations as well as in the excursions from the means.

Mr. Skaggs. All that is laid out in the documentation that you said I could take a look at?

Mr. Harwit. All that is not laid out in the documentation but we can make it available to you.

Mr. Skaggs. The same thing with other operating expenses, power, HVAC?

Mr. Harwit. We looked at those also and I think that Richard Siegle can speak to those, the power requirements and the cost of power.

Mr. Siegle I don't have them here, Mr. Skaggs.

Mr. Skaggs. No, I didn't expect you to bring them.

Mr. Yates. Why don't you make available to Mr. Skaggs the information that he has requested? Then if he wants to reply to that for the record, it may be done. Is that all right?

[Committee note. —The information requested is contained in the answers to the additional questions for the record submitted by Representative Skaggs.]

Mr. Skaggs. That would be great. And if I may, Mr. Chairman, I'll stop and ask your permission to submit another couple of questions for the record. You've been very, very kind.

Mr. Yates. That can be done and I'm sure they'll be very pleased to answer them.

[Rep. Skaggs' questions and the Smithsonian's answers follow the Committee's questions for the record at the end of the proceedings of this hearing.]

LEASING COLLECTIONS

Mr. Yates. Now let's go from that subject to another subject.

The Washington Post on Saturday, February 23, 1991 commented on questions that were asked by us of you, and that relates to whether you have resolved the question as to whether you will lease to some Japanese enterprise, described as a Japanese television network in this area, whether you will lease any of your objects to a Japanese enterprise?

Mr. Harwit. Mr. Chairman, we had a meeting with a delegation from Japan. They inquired about the

Mr. Yates. A delegation of whom?

Mr. Harwit. This is the Nippon Television people who say they would like to have a Japanese-American amity theme. I believe it would be an exposition in Japan. They came about a month ago. I explained the difficulties of transporting, and the dangers of transporting, the shuttle over the oceans. I referred them to NASA and I haven't had a response from them since then.

Mr. Yates. How long has that been?

Mr. Harwit. It's been about four weeks.

Mr. Yates. Could they have made a deal with NASA?

Mr. Harwit. No, because the person whom they went to see is also the Chairman of the Museum Advisory Committee and I discussed it with him.

Mr. Yates. If that isn't a secret, could you tell us what the results were?

Mr. Harwit. He told me that he hadn't made a deal.

Mr. Yates. He had not made a deal? Had he told you that he wanted to make a deal?

Mr. Harwit. No.

Mr. Yates. That you should make a deal?

Mr. Harwit. No.

Mr. Yates. He did not tell you that or did he say that he should not make a deal?

Mr. Harwit. It's not in his province. I think that's up to the Secretary.

Mr. Yates. Mr. Secretary, what do you think about the question of making a deal with NHK of Japan respecting the leasing of certain of your objects there.

Mr. Adams. Well, we certainly are in the business generally not simply of leasing, but of making loans to other museums of many objects in our collections. That's done all the time.

The shuttle is a somewhat different kind of object. Mr. Harwit has touched on the difficulties of transporting it, but let me suggest that there's an elementary consideration of self-preservation that enters in here. Once that shuttle is put on a plane and carried to Japan, when it is put on a plane to come back from Japan, that plane could land anywhere. At that moment, the Smithsonian's hold on the shuttle is rather tenuous. In effect, for any rental fee that we might get from NHK, the Smithsonian exposes itself to the risk of having the plane come down in Cape Kennedy, or one might mention some other possibilities—Stapleton. [Laughter.]

You see what I mean, that shuttle

Mr. Yates. Stapleton wouldn't release it, would they? [Laughter.]

Mr. Adams. There are considerations here that really make it very

Mr. Yates. Is your answer yes or no?

Mr. Adams. Of course it's no.

Mr. Yates. All right, then. We can dismiss that.

Mr. Adams. I think we can dismiss that, yes.

Mr. Yates. Are there any other so-called deals looked for by anybody in the leasing of the Hope Diamond?

Mr. Adams. I think we might ask Mr. Talbot where that one stands.

Mr. Yates. Mr. Talbot, where does that stand?

Mr. Talbot Mr. Chairman, as you know, we're going to redo those halls that include the home of the Hope Diamond and make a much better home for it. We are getting on well with that.

In the meanwhile, we consider it might be a good thing to travel the national gem collection throughout the United States and perhaps overseas. We did not ask the Regents to travel the exhibit. We asked for a feasibility study to look at the travel and the Regents gave us the go ahead to look at a feasibility study. We think it's an important chance for the American people to see the diamond and the other wonderful national gems. We like the idea.

Mr. Yates. That's a real challenge to some burglar, isn't it, if you start touring the Hope Diamond?

Mr. Talbot We don't think it's a great challenge. We talked with our own security people in the Smithsonian and they don't feel the insurance costs would be excessive. So, I guess the risk is not really excessive.

Mr. Yates. Really?

Mr. Talbot We're at a very early stage. But first we want to see who can afford to take it. Chicago and Los Angeles were two that were thought of—and, perhaps, Dallas.

Mr. Yates. What's the value of the Hope Diamond?

Mr. Talbot We don't have a value for it.

Mr. Yates. You don't have a value for it? How can you insure it then?

Mr. Talbot Well, I would leave that to the insurers. My guess is that they would make a value. A unique thing like that really only has a value when you put it up for sale. It's rather like a major painting. But, they would take a shot at it and what that would be, I really don't know. But the feasibility study is under way.

Mr. Yates. In other words, you may put the Hope Diamond on exhibition. Is that what you're saying?

Mr. Talbot That's correct.

Mr. Yates. Will the Smithsonian be reimbursed for it?

Mr. Talbot Absolutely. We do hope that we would derive some funding from that travel, so that we really do have something to improve the gem collection's home when that collection comes back.

Mr. Yates. This is the Smithsonian proceedings of the meeting of the Board of Regents, your minutes for February 4, 1991. It states this, "The National Gem Collection has never traveled as a collection, though individual pieces, like the Hope Diamond, have traveled for short periods. The collection is truly a national treasure and has an international reputation as the most comprehensive collection of gem stones in the world.

"While this travelling exhibition will be a "blockbuster", it is not intended to be merely a display of rare and valuable gems. Rather, it will foreshadow the new interdisciplinary approaches envisioned for the renovated Hall. The curatorial intent will be to show both the natural and cultural history of gems and examine the two distinct types of times that are embedded in them. Geologic time will be seen in the slow, precise way in which the raw material for gems is formed.

"In contrast to that geological time frame will be the human history; that rapid, unpredictable way that raw material races from discovery, to faceting, to fame.

"Traveling the gems will also provide a highly visible platform for the Museum's continuing fundraising efforts for the renovation of the Hall. The current projected costs for the renovation is $10 million. A strategically constructed, highly promoted tour could raise $4 million from the respective venues. Mr. Ronald Winston, a member of the Museum's National Council, has already donated $1 million to the Hall and the tour will be an opportunity to build on this momentum on both the national and the international fronts. Each venue will become a strategic site to make the project visible and immediate to potential regional givers."

Well, does that indicate that you can travel any of your artifacts except something like the space shuttle? Suppose Japan were to come along and want to rent the Enola Gay?

Mr. Adams. Well, they have, indeed, made a request at an earlier time to rent the Spirit of St. Louis.

Mr. Yates. Oh, that's different.

Mr. Adams. That was turned down.

Mr. Yates. Why did you turn that down?

Mr. Adams. Because that's a national icon and at the time I did not believe that it should leave.

Mr. Yates. The Hope Diamond

Mr. Adams. The Hope Diamond may be in that category; I'm not sure. The point of the feasibility study is not to say that we are prepared to do it, but that we need to know what the circumstances would be if we did. Then that decision would come to the Regents, and I can assure you it would come to you. It's not a matter that we would make a decision independently without consulting extensively.

Mr. Yates. Is it worth making a list of the items that fall on one side and are not leasable and those that fall on the other side and are leasable?

Mr. Adams. I wouldn't know how to make such a list. I think there are certain kinds of decisions that you make when the offer comes and only when it comes.

Mr. Yates. Mr. Talbot.

Mr. Talbot. Mr. Chairman, we are also concerned, I think, about the public perception of traveling that gem. One of the parts of the feasibility study will, in fact, be to ask a sample of focus groups what the public really feels about it, whether they would not like it to travel. The feasibility study will be really quite comprehensive.

Mr. Yates. I suppose I should ask Anna Cohn this. How does she know that the things that are in the SITES exhibition should be traveled? Have the Regents passed on that?

Mr. Adams. No, but museums around the world are engaged in loaning materials all the time. We have no right to expect that we can borrow materials for exhibition unless we loan.

Mr. Yates. Suppose a museum in Japan wanted to show the shuttle?

Mr. Adams. Well, I think we're entitled to say that there are certain kinds of archival material that we don't

Mr. Yates. I know that museums do not loan certain paintings that they have. They're very much concerned with the possibility of damage and other things, so they don't loan them. I suppose you could put the same kind of

Mr. Adams. Take the Star Spangled Banner that's hanging in Rogers' Museum. I cannot imagine that we could responsibly take that off the wall and allow it to go anywhere.

Mr. Yates. Well, I could. I could imagine it being moved, for example, to outside the Vietnam Memorial.

Mr. Adams. Well, I would accept that kind of move.

NATIONAL AIR AND SPACE MUSEUM EDUCATION PROGRAM

Mr. Yates. All right. Well, I think maybe what we'll do now— are we through with Mr. Harwit? Do you want to tell us anything more? What your needs are other than the $162 million?

Mr. Harwit. I have something more modest here. The Smithsonian did forward to the OMB the educational requirements that we have. We started doing science demonstrations at the museum and this is sort of a first for the Smithsonian, I believe. We show people the principles of flight and try to get kids to understand the science behind aviation.

Mr. Yates. Dr. Harwit, I had the privilege and pleasure of having dinner with Dr. Ferrari. He was your guest over at the Air and Space Museum and he found everything extraordinary except

your movie. In the movie he said you were showing things that were already 20 years old. Now I don't know what he was referring to.

Mr. Harwit. I don't know which one he saw.

Mr. Yates. Well, call Dr. Ferrari because this is out of my

Mr. Harwit. We have a film that we brought out at the beginning of November that's been seen by about 2 million people and ultimately will be seen by

Mr. Yates. But they don't know what he knows, apparently, but he says you aren't up to date on the film.

Mr. Harwit. We had the National Academy's Chief Advisor on the Earth Observing System

Mr. Yates. Well, you'd better corner Dr. Ferrari, too, then. [Laughter.]

Mr. Adams. He may have seen one of the older films.

Ms. Turner. We'll check on it.

Mr. Harwit. Since you wanted direct access to kids, there are a couple of books here for members of your staff to give to children, if they want. This is an outgrowth of the film that we made directly for schools and schoolteachers with little experiments in them. Unfortunately, because of a lack of money, we can't do much of this kind of thing. So, if there was a possibility of getting

Mr. Yates. Why don't you and I—what's the name of the woman who testified first? Miss Bay? Why don't we find out how we can get this out to more schoolchildren, if you think it's helpful to them?

Mr. Harwit. That would be fine, but we just need more money to do it.

Mr. Yates. How much money would you need to do it?

Mr. Harwit. Well, what we asked for was $85,000.

Mr. Yates. How many schools would this go to?

Mr. Harwit. What we do is we make these available to every school that asks free of charge, one copy per school, but most of these things are done with private monies. Usually when we get a grant for something like that, it's considered to be a one-time affair and the problem is that we really need to put out books like this on a continuing basis.

Mr. Yates. I would agree with that. I would further like to see if that's possible. Is it possible to follow the results of sending this book out to a class and seeing what effect it has on the class?

Mr. Harwit. I'm very much concerned about the feedback to know whether the material that we use is, in fact, something that goes into the kids' heads and stays there and influences them or whether it goes in one ear and out the other.

Unfortunately, we haven't been able to get a major study like that started. It's something that

Mr. Yates. I think it would be nice if we controlled that some way.

All right, Mr. Atkins.

NASM INFRARED ASTRONOMY WORK

Mr. Atkins. Mr. Chairman, I just have one question.

How does your work in infrared astronomy fit in with your overall mission? That work is primarily being done at NASA. It really seems separate from your mission and I'm just curious as to why you're doing that.

Mr. Harwit. When we started the laboratory for astrophysics a few years ago, a small one, it was with the thought that we ought to try to bring our exhibition on astronomical topics, the space side of air and space, into a much clearer focus. Just as we have research departments on the history of aviation, the history of space flight, and on geophysical problems, we needed a department that could also explain the universe better. In fact, our researchers in that department are working towards an exhibition that will tell people how the universe started, how our galaxies were formed, how stars were formed, how life formed.

You have to have, I believe, a researcher's insight into the subject to come up with a balanced exhibition. We feel that's so important that we have three people on our staff doing that.

Mr. Atkins. I would certainly agree with that, but my understanding is that you're actually developing components for the infrared space observatory. I'm just curious that at a time when educational mission, which I will try to redeem myself on the subject of education, should be primary for Air and Space, and you're saying you don't have $85,000 to do this. NASA, with a huge budget, and now they may or may not do the space station, they've got almost no way—they're searching for ways to fund it. Why would the Air and Space be building components for one of their observatories when we don't have money to do first-rate work in education?

Mr. Harwit. The expenses for that are totally borne by NASA. That is, the research expenses don't come out of the museum's budget. Those are all from grants. So, there are two persons out of those three who are on the trust budget. One of them is entirely on grants, and the money for the laboratory construction came out of trust funds and the money for operating has come out of NASA budgets and the National Science Foundation.

One of the young researchers routinely goes to schools around the city here and lectures to youngsters and gives classes and they love it. So, we think that by means of the research people whom we have, which don't enter the Federal appropriation that we get—we are really doing a fairly remarkable job in the way of education within the city, and countrywide. These people also monitor the booklet that you see for its accuracy, make sure that the factual information is correct, and so forth.

So, there's a real importance, I think, in an institution that has close to 10 million visitors a year and brings the facts correctly and brings a sense of balance to a scientific program. That's what those people are doing.

Mr. Skaggs. Dr. Harwit, this looks like a great book. I was going to make a deal. I'll find the $85,000. [Laughter.]

Mr. Harwit. How about $162 million? [Laughter.]

Mr. Yates. Okay, let's adjourn now and come back at 1:30 p.m.

[Recess.]

NATIONAL MUSEUM OF AMERICAN HISTORY

Mr. Yates. The meeting will come to order. Our next witness is Mr. Kennedy, a very distinguished father. Is he here?

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, sir, he is.

Mr. Yates. Oh, you're gathering up some goodies?

Mr. Kennedy. I thought so, Mr. Chairman. If I could, I would like to ask my friend and colleague, Rick West, to join me just for a moment. This is a

Mr. Yates. Is it a CD?

Mr. Kennedy. No, it's much better than a CD. This is a reasonably big moment, I think, in the life of this Institution. When Brother West makes his first appearance before this committee, we will have shaken hands over the appearance of a brand-new enterprise in the galaxy. We found this week, as a reasonably good talisman of that, this is one of the few remaining peace medals that was issued by President Thomas Jefferson, 1801, to those Indian nations with whom the United States Government said it wished to live in peace. Many other peace medals but this were destroyed by those nations as the sequence of betrayal occurred. This only remained in our time, and it is a reasonably good symbolic representation of the process of reconciliation at the Museum of the American Indian.

Mr. Yates. Can I ask Alan Fern a question? Alan, didn't you have peace medals being worn by Indians?

Mr. Fern. We did, Mr. Chairman. We own a few of them although we don't own this one. [Laughter.]

We borrowed as many of the presidential ones as we could and also some portraits of the people who were wearing them for an exhibition.

Mr. Yates. That's why I don't understand

Mr. Kennedy. But they didn't shake hands.

Mr. Yates. Oh, no, not with Jefferson.

Mr. Kennedy. Another little item that

Mr. Yates. Are you through with him?

Mr. Kennedy. Oh, sure. He's going to get up on his own and we'll have some other things to say on a subject that we'd all like to talk to you more about, which is Federally-funded development activity.

Mr. Yates. Federal funding for development activity? All right.

Mr. Kennedy. Meaning: helping us to raise money with some of your money.

Mr. Yates. Are you going to a formal?

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, I am as a matter of fact and not with the person customarily related to a single glove.

Mr. Yates. Why are we wearing gloves? So we don't get prints on

Mr. Kennedy. So our sweat doesn't change the chemical nature of very precious objects, as this is. This is the only manifestation of the transition between an African musical tradition and the common American banjo. There is one of these in existence. This was carved by a slave in the upper South, probably about 1850. It took an instrument—a way of communicating on pitch—from an African tradition that had lasted that long in the upper South. It

was on its way to a "minstrel show" in which the meaning was quite distinctly different than the maintenance of a long tradition. The minstrel show was, instead, about the disparity of that tradition on the part of the survivors.

Mr. Yates. It provokes the question: what happens at such time as the African-American Museum comes into being? Would you lose that to them?

Mr. Kennedy. I would rejoice in losing this to them, sir.

The themes of fundraising and education, it seems to me, require returning to a subject that we have had interchanges across this table before. The question before us today isn't what does the Smithsonian want or what does the National Museum of American History want. What do the American people want that the Smithsonian can provide? The watchword is not "appetite," but, as the Secretary suggested, "service."

Over the years this committee has been a good partner to the Smithsonian, providing our countrymen with a range of services, services not just on the Mall but also through the traveling exhibitions of sites, spread all over the country through radio and television, which also reaches across the country, and through some connections to the schools which I would like to mention in passing with you.

We can also rejoice in the good things happening which wouldn't have happened without you and without us. Remarkably, those things have kept on happening although the atmosphere has darkened and the mood of the Nation has grown less ebullient.

From an historian's point of view, America, in general, has had a fit, I think, of irresponsibility in recent years, redeemed by battlefield prowess overseas but unrelieved by many equal exploits at home. We have not done very well lately. By "we," I mean all of us Americans. We have let a national mood of complacency and irresponsibility dampen even our willingness to face up to our obligations and get on with the job of serving America's future generations.

I think the decade of the 1980s was a decade of disgrace in which all of us failed in our obligations to our country by allowing many of our basic institutions to decay through indifference and unwillingness to pay the price of civilization in a shameful abdication of the obligations of this generation to the next. We were unwilling, not unable, to pay the bills and we did mark them, "Payable only by my son or my daughter or my grandchild."

Now, specifically, Mr. Chairman, I've asked myself, how could it be that even the Smithsonian, in the presence of a Chairman and a Committee always asking us what was needed, that we still find ourselves with our collections insufficiently identified and tended, asbestos in our storage areas, important subjects unrepresented, and very important elements of our diverse cultures insufficiently represented?

Why is it necessary now for us to return to you and ask for money to catch up? Why, I ask myself,must I come before you one more year condemned to be so implacably boring?

Mr. Yates. I wouldn't go that far. [Laughter.]

NMAH INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS

Mr. Kennedy. The reason that we have to be implacably boring is because, once again, we have to come clean with this Committee and, once again, clean means boring. It means being undramatic and it means talking about infrastructure one more time. Clean means being truthful with regard to the erosion of necessary public services, services the American people have a right to receive and, indeed, probably think they will receive from the Smithsonian Institution, and unless things change, they will not. The truth is that mandated pay increases, unrestored Gramm-Rudman cuts, and desirable useful new starts, all mandated by OMB and the Congress but incompletely funded, have cut into the work the American people have the right to expect of the Smithsonian.

At the National Museum of American History, the bottom line is bloody. The public will get $636,000 less in Congressionally-funded exhibits outside the special Quincentenary observation next year than they did in 1986. They'll get $150,000 less care of the national heritage represented in our collections than they did in 1986, including asbestos removal. They'll get $54,000 less in education and public programs, though, as I will come to in a moment, we've been doing extremely well in doing what we should be doing on our side of the table.

If that sounds not only boring, but whiny, I want to report to you that we have been able to secure for the public—with your money and the budgetary process, we've been able to deliver some real progress. After the disgraceful decade of neglect, ahead of us in the 1990s is a campaign to recapture our national heritage, natural and historical, cultural and moral, and that's the imperative not only for the Smithsonian, but upon the Congress and the rest of us.

The Smithsonian's part of that is to renew our energies through getting the money to serve the public from the Congress, from State legislatures—thank you to New Mexico—and from private sources. And we started the nineties in that respect with a bang.

While I believe the recapturing of our heritage will require the Congress and the Administration to come clean with the people and to raise new taxes because civilization is expensive, we're not waiting around for the epidemic of conscience to sweep across this country. In our little part of the Smithsonian, the American History Museum, we have raised $5 million to teach science in its social context in a new hands-on laboratory and exhibition. We have raised another million to take that program to the schools in the western part of New York State, three in particular.

I want to tell you that your friends at the NEA, in absolute regard to the Yates rule, have given some money to the Duke Ellington School to put young performing artists to work teaching history, and we'll put up a lot of money to match that, so we'll have kids teaching history, learning history, not just there but out in the boonies in western New York, which is their term for their area of New York.

We are halfway through raising a million and one-half to present the first ladies' gowns in a new and thoughtful reincarnation about women in public life juxtaposed to a new permanent exhibition on women from Hull House to the White House.

We and the United States Postal Service are raising $11 million from private donors to do honor to the national postal history collection in a new museum.

We've entered a partnership with the New Mexico legislature which this week committed $1 million to us and $200,000 to the folk-life program to surround the opening of a new permanent exhibition about the interaction of anglos, hispanics, and Indians in the upper Rio Grande Valley with an appropriate celebration of that region on the Mall.

We're almost through raising nearly $8 million for our Information Age Exhibition—a little more still to go—and I may extend the list to include a grand total in four years of nearly $50 million, if I get lucky in California over this coming weekend.

Mr. Chairman, we are doing our best to use your money to leverage services to the American people that they have the right to expect and that best, I think, at its best, is the best there is. Mr. Chairman, give us the tools and we will finish the job.

Mr. Skeen. I wish you would speak out. [Laughter.]

NMAH EDUCATIONAL NEEDS

Mr. Yates. You have done it well, Roger. How much money are you short?

Mr. Kennedy. We are short a batch of things—to do the things that you specifically talked about this morning, let's just talk about the kinds of education you were speaking of. That is pretty much all gone from OMB. We started out by asking for about $400,000, and it has all gone out. So we replaced it by raising it privately.

Mr. Yates. What do you mean by, it is all gone? You mean OMB struck it?

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, all of it.

Mr. Yates. Four hundred thousand dollars was for what?

Mr. Kennedy. To reach into the school system, to do what we are going to do anyway, some of it by raising a lot of money on the private side.

Mr. Yates. How does Ms. Bay come into that?

Mr. Kennedy. Each of the Smithsonian bureaus provides an education service in school systems and to other agencies. In our case, it would be historical societies and houses, and also school systems in the history side.

Ms. Bay's office does that on its own, but also it assists every one of the bureaus in doing what they want to do.

There is not a one of us that does not have an education component. Some of them are so drastically underfunded that you cannot even find them. The truth further is that there is no continuing support for any education program. It is always "get you started, match it, stimulus." Which is dandy. But it means that you cannot keep doing it, and there are going to be an awful lot of kids who "get started" being interested in the subject and who never hear about it thereafter.

There does need to be a consistent Federal commitment through all teaching mechanisms of which the Smithsonian is a marvelous engine to do that.

Mr. Yates. What were you going to do—I know you say you are going to use it for education. Can you be more specific?

Mr. Kennedy. Sure. First of all, I would like to give you a decent sheet that gives you the breakdown of how we would have used that.

RATIONAL MUSEUM OF AMERICAN HISTORY EDUCATION NEEDS FY 1992 Budget

I. The Current Program:

Responding to public demands for broader educational services to wide audiences, the Museum of American History has tried during the last six years to develop its educational program in two ways. First, it has tried to increase the impact of its newly reinstalled exhibits on its 6 million visitors by adding a human dimension to exhibits through use of public programs, demonstrations, interactive audiovisual programs, and careful planning of new exhibitions to emphasize human experience and impacts rather than simply objects, facts or technology.

Second, recognizing the pressing needs of school age and other audiences beyond the Museum to learn about American history and the impacts on people of scientific, technological, cultural, socio-economic, and political developments, we have sought to produce programs and curriculum materials for wide distribution. We have sought to carry the results of our research for the museum exhibitions mentioned above to wider and future audiences. Many of these projects are collaborative, working with schools, educational organizations, and networks. This aspect of our work includes sharing collections and exhibitions with other institutions and a variety of audiences, here and abroad.

The National Museum of American History does not have a federal base for its educational program beyond the three-person education department designed in the 1960s to provide volunteer-led tours of the museum. There is no capacity for expanded programming with minority audiences, schools, new technology, partnerships with other organizations or for our revitalized exhibition program. The education program depends on occasional private funding for specific projects. When the money is gone, usually within one year, the program and related staff, is also gone. This results in a piecemeal approach to education, without continuity or personnel or programs. Moreover, we are no longer able to rely on volunteers to conduct tours and programs in the Museum because the volunteer pool is drying up.

While our base programs remain at the 1960s level, the demands made on us in the 1990s are enormous. The demands come from two sources:

1) Visitors want a livelier museum. They want more demonstrations, tours, dramatic performances of historical characters, and hands-on activity areas. At present, only about 2% of our visitors ever encounter any of these. We are bound by the number of volunteers we have and the number of staff who can manage them and create new programs.

2) Teachers, both local and across the country, want curriculum materials that they can use to make history come alive in the classroom, as well as more activities in the museum for their students. Multi-cultural ism, including African American, Hispanic, Asian American and Native American history, is rapidly becoming mandated at the state level across the country. The schools do not have the knowledge and

resources to teach this in a meaningful way, but the Rational Museum of American History does. We have the obligation to deliver these resources in the form that teachers from Maryland to Alaska can use.

To serve these constituencies, we must increase our base of support.

II. The Original FY 1992 Request:

The Museum's original request was a modest one: $360,000 and 8 workyears for its education programs. The components were:

A. Weekend Program Manager (1 workyear and $34,000) to supervise the ongoing program of 90 volunteers who interpret the permanent exhibitions for the public on weekends. We could add more weekend volunteers from the large pool available on weekends if we had a staff person to manage and train them.

B. Demonstration Program Coordinator (1 workyear and $55,000) A coordinator to develop and supervise museum-wide program of demonstration carts and to manage ongoing demonstration programs in exhibitions. $15,000 in supplies.

C. School Programs (1 workyear and $55,000) A coordinator to develop and maintain in-museum programs for local and national school groups. $15,000 in supplies.

D. School Curriculum Materials (1 workyear and $70,000) A coordinator to develop exhibition-related materials for classroom use. $30,000 in supplies.

E. Live Drama Programs (1 workyear and $65,000) A coordinator to develop, supervise and maintain live dramatic programs of historical figures in exhibitions. $25,000 in supplies.

F. Actors (3 workyears and $81,000) To act as historical characters in exhibitions and interpret complex historical ideas for visitors.

III. Additional Support Needed

The original FY 92 request represents a bare-bones approach to the Museum's education function. To establish a full complement of school-related programs that is commensurate with a museum the size and scope of the National Museum of American History, we need to expand our school programs beyond the original FY 92 request. This will allow NMAH to:

1) create a Youth Intern/Interpreter Program for local high school students conducting demonstrations and interpreting history for the public. The museum would hire and train about 50-75 primarily minority local high school (and college) students per year as demonstrators and tour guides in the museum, working directly with the visiting public and with other school groups. Their presence in the museum would enliven the Smithsonian with their youth and energy, and would provide a role model for their peers.

2) establish close working ties with local schools through and Adopt-a-School Program . The museum has just launched a pilot program to "adopt" a local high school—Duke Ellington High School of the Arts—to bring all of the Museum's resources to bear on improving the academic skills of the students. We would like to expand the program to include elementary and middle schools in the District of Columbia.

3) print educational "treasure hunts" and museum guides that the tens of thousands of students who visit in the spring from all over the country may have some focus to their visit. These young visitors arrive by the busloads in the spring and want desperately to focus on something in this huge building. Most wander through the Museum's exhibits without even stopping. With engaging demonstrations, actors, and activities in our Hands On History Room, as well as with printed guides that help them locate objects of particular interest to their lives, we can enable them to have a more memorable trip to Washington.

To accomplish these additional goals we will need:

A. Hands On History Room Program (1 workyear and $85,000) To manage school programs in this activity center which will serve as the "hub" of the school programs and young interns/demonstrators. $35,000 in supplies.

B. Adopt-a-School Program (1 workyear and $75,000) To coordinate the relationship between local schools and all aspects of the Museum's work, including curatorial, education and conservation. $25,000 in supplies.

C. Youth Intern/Interpreter Program (2 workyears and $150,000) Supervisors to recruit, train and monitor students who will work with the public and with other school students. Two supervisors needed as program will operate 7 days per week to reach maximum number of visitors. Supplies $50,000

D. Printed Materials for Students (1 workyear and $150,000) Educational writer and designer to write, design and print fun educational materials. Printing and supplies $100,000.

SUBTOTAL Additional Educational Support: $460,000

IV. Research for Educational Programs

The Educational Programs of the National Museum of American History rest firmly on the bedrock of original historical research conducted primarily by scholars in the Museum's two curatorial departments. In order to maintain its ongoing programs of education and outreach, the Museum must continue to replenish its knowledge base—its "intellectual capital". The Museum's FY 1992 request for 8 workyears and $284,000 in research support is integral to supporting the educational goals of the Museum.

SUBTOTAL for Education-related Research $284,000

V. Total Funding Needed for Education:

Original FY 1992 Request $360,000

Additional Support for Expanded

Educational Program $460,000

Educational Research $284.000

TOTAL $1,104,000

Mr. Kennedy. Fundamentally, we are teaching in the place. We have 150 docents who are there hands-on teaching. That is what they do. They are with objects, talking to people about all the varieties of American history. We teach through music, we teach through dance. We teach with every conceivable means of communication in the place.

Out of the place, we are now not just beginning because we have had some experience in science teaching, but we are commencing direct bilateral relationships with school systems both in the District and out of the District using private funds in every case. In one small instance, the NEA, which could do more of it and wants to.

But I think it is also important that we stress that people do not just learn in school in this country. A lot of people learn their definition of reality on television and radio and in our place we now have two television series of our own and the beginning of a radio series.

We take our responsibility to diffuse knowledge extremely seriously. You have asked for the Smithsonian as a whole to present to you a comprehensive pattern that enunciates how it would go about amplifying its services to the American public through the school teaching mechanism. We could certainly do that. And we can do it very expeditiously because a number of us have been working at that for quite a spell.

Mr. Yates. The Duke Ellington principal is coming in to testify.

Mr. Kennedy. Good.

Mr. Yates. As to how they do it.

Mr. Kennedy. Good.

Mr. Yates. I was terribly impressed when I heard the story and I thought it ought to go into the record.

Mr. Kennedy. I gather you have had the hearings for the endowments.

Mr. Yates. For the endowments? Yes. But not from outside witnesses.

Mr. Kennedy. Right. Well, Mr. Frohnmayer might want to submit a little extra statement with regard to this set of interconnections which are new.

Mr. Yates. I would hope he would. You only need $400,000 then? Right? That is all you said.

Mr. Kennedy. Sure, for that education. I suspect you do not want to hear me run through my litany of things I would like to spend money on.

Mr. Yates. Put your list in the record, couple of paragraphs telling me why these are needed.

Mr. Kennedy. Thank you.

[The information follows:]

NATIONAL MUSEUM OF AMERICAN HISTORY FT 1992 FUNDING NEEDS

The following is a list of things for which funding is urgently needed. With one exception, the items below and the dollar amounts listed for them are identical to the list that the Museum submitted to the Institution for submission to Congress in FY 1992. That exception is asbestos, where recent analysis has required that we revise our funding estimates upward.

We wish to highlight the following items as being those of greatest need:

o 1 workyear and $188,000 for collections storage and space at Fullerton. o 14 workyears and $500,000 to address audit-cited deficiencies in

collections accountability. o 6 workyears and $300,000 to finish removing asbestos contamination at

Silver Hill.

SHORT SUMMARY

Description

Original Request FTE $

Castle Mark-Up FTE $

0MB

Mark-up FTE $

1. Exhibitions-Re installation & Maintenance

2. Collections Accountability & Fullerton Storage

3. Building Management and Safety

4. Education Programs

5. Columbian Quincentenary Program (Add-on provided in FY91)

6. Cultural Pluralism

7. Technical & Staff Support for Research

8. Computer Support

9. Asbestos Support*

10. Textile Lab Equipment

11. Reference Archivist

12. Conservation Support

13. Collections Acquisition

TOTAL

600

3 360

414

200

40

275

0

50 0 0

24 1955

3 100

0 0 0 0

* Estimate is now 6 workyears, and $300,000 needed for asbestos.

BRIEF DESCRIPTIONS

I. EXHIBITS REINSTALLATION FTE: 1 Dollars: $600,000

The Museum's permanent exhibition reinstallation program has been its number one priority since the early 1980's. Over the last few years, cuts and inflation have seriously eroded this fund. The Museum's program is in serious jeopardy unless Federal support is restored. Funds are needed for both the production and upkeep of exhibit halls—many of which now incorporate complex mechanical and computer components.

II. COLLECTIONS ACCOUNTABILITY

AND FULLERTON STORAGE FTE: 15 Dollars: $688,000

In response to audit findings, the Museum designed a comprehensive Collections Master Plan to address cataloguing and registration backlogs. Resolving backlogs in collections processing is not only dependent upon getting more staff to work directly on cataloguing and registration, but it is also dependent upon completing the asbestos removal at storage facilities and securing additional space to alleviate overcrowded storage conditions. Additional storage is also mandatory if the Museum is to complete its building restoration and renovation work.

The funds requested will be used to rent collections storage space and gain automated inventory controls. The priority for this program would include rental of an additional 12,000 s.f. of space at the Fullerton warehouse; reduction of the most critical backlogs in Numismatics, Philately, and Armed Forces History; the initial inventory at Silver Hill (over 1 million objects), and computer and storage equipment and supplies. Workyears will include technical staff to identify, organize, and catalog collections, enter data into our central collections database, research existing records to identify objects, tag and/or number objects for identification, perform selected record photography, and manage collections stored at Fullerton. The Museum's request in the FY 91 budget presented these items as the highest priority, but they were cut from the budget. Space needs have become more severe in the meantime.

Components in priority order:

ITEM WORKYEARS DOLLARS

Fullerton Lease/Utilities $ 114,000

Fullerton coordinator 1 34,000

Fullerton supplies 40,000

Other staff needed:

Numismatics 4 98,000

Philately 2 90,000

Armed Forces Div. 1 62,000

Silver Hill site 2 54,000

General Collections 4 108,000

Registrar's office 1 27,000

Supplies/Equipment 61,000

TOTAL 15 688,000

III. BUILDING MANAGEMENT AND SAFETY FTE: 3 Dollars: $168,000

An increase in Building Management support is imperative for two reasons. The first is new and rising costs of safety and environmental measures such as treating hazardous waste, pest control, trash recycling, water analysis and an increased safety program. The second is that cleaning staff is not keeping pace with the impact of 6 million visitors, the creation of new office and program spaces (such as the new Interns office and Day Care Center) and the extensive building renovations underway.

IV. EDUCATION PROGRAMS FTE: 8 Dollars: $360,000

The Education program of the Museum is seriously understaffed for a national museum with an exhibition program of this size. There is no staff to supervise the weekend interpretive volunteer programs, and no school program specialist to update programs and evaluate volunteers. The support requested will provide an interactive interpretation of multi-cultural issues and bring exhibitions to life in a way not possible through labels alone.

V. COLUMBIAN QUINCENTENARY PROGRAM ("Add-on" Congressional funding provided in FT91 plus other funds raised have met this need.)

VI. CULTURAL PLURALISM: FTE: 6 Dollars: $414,000

The purpose of this request is to redress the imbalance of how American society and NMAH have portrayed the lives and culture of different ethnic groups. Funds are requested for research technicians, and staff to produce symposia, performances, lectures, workshops, exhibits and resultant outreach materials. Support will be allocated to the Program in African American Culture, the Native American Program, the Hispanic American Program, and the Afro-American Communities Project.

VII. TECHNICAL AND STAFF

SUPPORT FOR RESEARCH FTE: 8 Dollars: $284,000

Technical and secretarial staff are needed to support and strengthen ongoing research in the Museum, and to provide assistance to curatorial positions which were added in the last five years without any accompanying support staff.

VIII. COMPUTER SUPPORT FTE: 1 Dollars: $842,000

Funding is needed to replace NMAH's 10-year old mainframe computer and add 34 microcomputers to support collections management, research staff and interns. This replacement is needed in order to develop the Museum's Collections Information System (CIS), and keep pace with growing users' needs in all areas of Museum applications. An additional computer specialist is also required for systems development and management. A lease-to-own option is available for the above equipment which would spread costs over several years.

IX. ASBESTOS REMOVAL FTE: 6 Dollars: $300,000

Removal of asbestos at Silver Hill's turns now to the renovation of Building 17—a 27,000 square foot space containing thousands of objects which will need to be decontaminated, inventoried, and removed to other storage locations at Silver Hill. This is an enormous task which requires 6 workyears/$300,000 per year for 3 years for cleaning collections and $1.8 million between FY 93 and FY 96 for cleaning the building itself. That's the whole project and will finish the asbestos removal work for our Museum at Silver Hill.

X. TEXTILE LAB EQUIPMENT (CONSERVATION) FTE: 0 Dollars: $100,000

In FY 1991 the Restoration and Renovation Account will fund the construction of a long-awaited and badly needed textile, costume, and paper conservation laboratory. Funds are now needed for equipment to supply the laboratory.

XI. REFERENCE ARCHIVIST FTE: 1 Dollars: $ 50,000

A Reference Archivist is needed to respond to the increased visitorship to the Museum's Archives Center (doubled since the establishment of the Center in 1984), including the recently acquired African-American materials. Without this position, the level of services available to researchers, fellows and other staff is inadequate, and the proper and secure use of the Museum's archival collections is jeopardized.

XII. CONSERVATION TECHNICAL AND

CLERICAL SUPPORT FTE: 5 Dollars: $227,000

Staffing must be increased to keep pace with the immense and growing volume of archival, graphic arts, photographic and brittle paper materials requiring stabilization and proper rehousing so that they can be used by researchers. A conservation scientist will assist staff with analyses requested by conservators, curators and exhibit designers. A secretary is urgently needed to supplement the single departmental secretary so that professional staff are not diverted to clerical tasks.

XIII. COLLECTIONS ACQUISITIONS FTE: 0 Dollars: $ 100,000

The request restores and increases by $20,000 a modest budget for acquiring collection objects. The Museum places a special emphasis on acquiring collections that reflect the diversity of the American cultural experience. Often, important pieces can only be acquired through purchase.

250 Mr. Yates. Thank you, Roger.

NMAH DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS

Mr. Atkins. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Yates. Oh, wait a minute. Mr. Atkins.

Mr. Atkins. What is your process for soliciting private contributions?

Mr. Kennedy. We have a development office in the place itself. The bigger bureaus tend to. Those are privately funded. That is to say, they raise their own salaries for all intents and purposes.

Mr. Atkins. Do you have to get clearance before you solicit a major bid?

Mr. Kennedy. Yes.

Mr. Atkins. Has that always been the practice?

Mr. Kennedy. No.

Mr. Yates. Clearance from whom?

Mr. Atkins. From the central office.

Mr. Kennedy. Those are competent folks in the central office. It is not a problem to us. They do some research on who is out there, what the interests of the foundations or individuals might be. We do clear so we do not arrive on the doorstep on the same day with a whole batch of people so we give the impression we do not know what we are doing.

Mr. Atkins. So you are satisfied as far as the process is concerned?

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. I think the so-called smaller bureaus ought to have development people in their own places. I think it is going to be real tough for them to do that on private money. I think there ought to be Federal money to do that.

Mr. Yates. Thank you, Roger.

Mr. Skeen. Sorry. I thought you were through.

Mr. Atkins. What is your conservation backlog now?

Mr. Kennedy. It is outrageous and it needs to be dealt with. I will submit for the record a statement as to what that means. We are behind on—sorry, Mr. Chairman. I will try to be brief.

[The information follows:]

National Museum of American History Current Conservation Backlog

There is a backlog of over 400,000 objects in the collections which have a high priority for conservation treatment. Flags, folk art, paintings, photographs, graphic arts, First Ladies' Gowns, uniforms, musical instruments, furniture, and many other collections have been surveyed by conservators since 1980. From 15% to 30% of the objects in typical collections need to be given basic stabilization treatments or must be removed from outmoded and harmful storage conditions. Future growth of the backlog is being controlled through consideration of conservation needs before new acquisitions are approved by the Collections Committee of the Museum. In 1992 the Museum asked for 5 workyears and $227,000 to deal with the conservation backlog problem.

COLLECTIONS ACCOUNTABILITY

Mr. Kennedy. We have year after year had the necessary care and counting of our collections knocked out by the Office of Management and Budget. We have year after year tried to get that reinstalled. We are losing control of significant aspects of the na-

tional collections. I have said this to this Committee every year. It continues to be true, and we need that to get fixed.

Mr. Yates. How much do you need to get it fixed?

Mr. Kennedy. We need 15 bodies and about a half a million dollars a year for 10 years.

Mr. Yates. To do what?

Mr. Kennedy. To get on top of the counting—that is the old inventory business—so we know what we have. We need about $70,000 or $80,000 this coming year to get the asbestos off some stuff that we cannot even get into to find out what is there. Then, when we get to it, we can start taking care of it.

There is a very severe backlog in all of these areas. That is one of the things the Secretary meant by infrastructure.

Mr. Atkins. Half a million dollars is your backlog?

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. Every year because that is about as much as you could actually get done, sir, in the course of a year.

Mr. Atkins. But over 10 years

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, we would wrap it up.

Mr. Atkins. Tell me, what kind of difficulties do you have in soliciting gifts from people if they are going to give you a gift

Mr. Kennedy. And they do not know what is going to happen to it?

Mr. Atkins. If I give you something today

Mr. Kennedy. Dead on.

Mr. Atkins. I beg your pardon?

Mr. Kennedy. Dead on. It is a problem because anybody who knows anything about the condition of our inventories in history collections, and there are people who do—collectors of musical instruments for instance—this folk art item that I just held up. We do not happen to treat it as folk art; we treat it as a musical instrument, but that is what it is.

Anybody who knows that things they have given were not being properly tended, would be apprehensive. So we are trying—sorry.

Mr. Atkins. If I give you a musical instrument worth $30,000

Mr. Kennedy. Or worth $3 million which is true in some cases.

Mr. Atkins. How long would it take in the normal course of things for that item to be catalogued and properly preserved?

Mr. Kennedy. New objects of that sort we are taking care of fine. It is that the storage areas and the care of those objects where they have been around for a long, long time are in bad trouble and have been. The new item comes in, gets clocked in, gets put in the computer pretty well.

Mr. Yates. Don't go. Mr. Skeen?

NMAH FY 1992 BUDGET REQUEST

Mr. Skeen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Kennedy, in going over your budget, how much of an increase or decrease did you get this year all together?

Mr. Kennedy. In the bureau itself, just the Museum of American History?

Mr. Skeen. Yes. Your fund.

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, my fund. I will give you some numbers in the record, but I want to say this before you look at them. There is a distortion in that because

Mr. Skeen. The glasses are wrong?

Mr. Kennedy. No, you got the right lenses and probably looking at the right place, too. What you get are bulges that show up for special non-recurring things that the Congress wants us to do.

So you get a bulge up. The rest of the ongoing work of the job is diminished along the lines

Mr. Skeen. The numbers, it shows about a million dollar increase.

Mr. Kennedy. That is right. That is all special stuff that is done for the Quincentenary and other things of that sort. It is the continuing work of the

Mr. Skeen. I understand that. I am new on this Committee and I am trying to get educated and you are doing a good job.

Mr. Kennedy. I am trying.

Mr. Skeen. By the way, that is a classic tie.

Mr. Kennedy. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I want you to know that we will take almost any measures to see

[Committee Note. —At this point, Mr. Kennedy removed his tie and presented it to Mr. Skeen, who returned it to Mr. Kennedy.]

[Laughter.]

Mr. Skeen. I thank you very much. I want to make this my first contribution to your effort. [Laughter and applause.]

You said that you have a summary of what you needed. I will get it out of the record then.

Mr. Kennedy. I will be sure that we get it to you. Thank you, sir.

[The information follows:]

National Museum of American History — Federal Budget Increases in FY 1991

In FY 1991, the Museum of American History got the following increases:

FY 1991 necessary pay:

25 percent of 1990 payraise $117,000

100 percent of 3.5 percent 1991 payraise 346,000

One additional workday 55,000

Annualized FY 1990 positions 14,000

Quincentenary Program 245,000

New Jazz Program 350,000

New position lapse —22,000

Total 1,105,000

In FY 1991, the Museum submitted to OMB $1,060,000 in program requests (exclusive of necessary pay). The top priority requests were infrastructure support for collections management, research, and requests related to programs for cultural diversity. While the Museum was grateful for the Quincentenary support, and the add-on for the new Jazz Program; basic ongoing programs of the Museum also need support to combat erosion caused by inflation, funding cuts, and underfunded increases in benefits costs.

SMITHSONIAN INFRASTRUCTURE PRIORITIES

Mr. Yates. Do not go, Roger. Sit down for just a minute while I address some of the problems as they appear in your justification.

Page three shows that with special collections and management there is a backlog of $9,338,000. The amount requested for this year is zero. The amount set aside is zero. Who can tell me why?

Mr. Kennedy. For collections management?

Mr. Yates. You do not have to tell me why. I think that is the budget officer.

Ms. Suttenfield. I can give you an answer to that, sir.

Mr. Yates. Is it a good one?

Ms. Suttenfield. For the last couple of years we have tried very hard to quantify the extent to which our base has eroded from such things as inflation and pay costs that we have had to absorb without funding. As of last year, we estimated that institution-wide we would require something on the order of $60 million annually along with an appropriate number of staff in these various categories of infrastructure to catch us up to where we really need to be.

In the fiscal year 1992 budget request that we presented to OMB we gave emphasis to all of these infrastructure categories, and we made a deliberate attempt to try to work down this backlog over a phased period of time. My recollection is that we asked for in total about $30 million across these various categories.

What you see here is what OMB was willing to allow to us for our highest priority infrastructure requirements.

Mr. Yates. You got a backlog of $66 million in your infrastructure fund. You have no money for conservation of library and archival collections. You have a million dollars for reinstallation of permanent exhibition halls, library and collections acquisition, no money. Collection management, no money. Human resources management, $406,000. Clerical support staff, no money. Specialized and technical staff and support costs, no money. Major scientific instrumentation. They allowed you $3,940,000.

Was my figure wrong?

Mr. Kennedy. No, sir.

Mr. Yates. Laboratory and scientific equipment, no money. Computers, hardware, no money. Information systems, you got $3,500,000. Management control audit deficiency; you got $982,000. Space deficiency; you got $150,000. Facilities maintenance deficiencies, no money. Health and safety of staff and visitors, no money. Security of facilities and collections, no money.

Now, are those important items?

Ms. Suttenfield. All of those are extremely important.

Mr. Yates. Why don't you ask us for money? You just list those; you do not ask us for the money.

Ms. Suttenfield. We have asked you for $10 million for the highest priority infrastructure requirements that we have, but clearly there is more money that is required in order to do the kind of job that we would all like to do and that the American public deserves.

HEALTH AND SAFETY OF STAFF AND VISITORS

Mr. Yates. Tell me what the health and safety of staff and visitors; what does that mean?

Ms. Suttenfield. I will defer to Mr. Siegle on that one.

Mr. Siegle. Some of them are safety people at the bureaus, in both the research bureaus and museums, to carry out the safety programs in those bureaus for the public and for their own staff, laboratories and so forth.

Mr. Yates. Laboratories and so forth. Are visitors who come to your various installations in danger of their health or safety? Is that what that means?

Mr. Siegle. In most of the buildings we have some deficiencies that we would like to have eliminated, and these people would assist in having those eliminated.

Mr. Yates. Will you—and I do not know whether you do; yes, you do.

Mr. Siegle. We can provide a more detailed breakout than what is in the budget.

Mr. Yates. Than what is in this justification?

Mr. Siegle. Right. We have additional information.

Mr. Yates. All right. I wish you would for each of these items. I do not know that we can go the whole way; we should go the whole way obviously and we should dig into the past as well so we can get the backlog. To me, that is a shocking set of figures, and I wish you would send us that for the record.

[The information follows:]

HEALTH AND SAFETY REQUIREMENTS

A number of items related to the health and safety of staff and visitors were included in the OMB request but were not allowed. The specific items in the request are listed below.

Most of the resources requested would provide staff to implement safety programs at the bureau level, including a specialized diving safety program for scientific staff of several research organizations. The safety staff will enable the bureaus to implement and manage effective onsite safety and occupational health programs, including performing frequent inspections, investigating accidents or complaints of unsafe or unhealthful conditions, identifying and coordinating correction of hazardous conditions, training research and curatorial staff in safe handling and storage of toxic chemicals, and oversee the use and disposal of hazardous materials. These additional resources are a vital component of the Smithsonian's safety and occupational health program, and will ensure the safety and health of all people working in and visiting the facilities.

Resources would also augment the central safety and health functions, to allow the Institution to improve compliance with applicable life safety and occupational health regulations, provide statutory occupational health services to staff, and implement a substance abuse program.

Resources FTEs $rOOQs^ 2 90

Description

Scientific diving officer and secretary to administer the

diving program in the Office of Assistant Secretary for

Research

- 22 Upgrade the FM radio system at the Whipple

Observatory in Arizona

1 175 Safety officer to implement and manage the onsite safety

program at the Tropical Research Institute in Panama and funds for disposal of hazardous waste

1 40 Safety specialist to implement and manage the onsite

safety program at the American Art and Portrait Gallery Building, the Renwick Gallery and the Barney Studio House

- 20 Funds to supplement non-staff costs of the safety and

accessibility programs at the Hirshhorn Museum

1 56 Safety coordinator to implement and manage the onsite

safety program at the Museum Support Center

1 250 Program manager to implement a substance abuse

program for Smithsonian staff

43-202 0-91 9

3 171 Additional environmental management/industrial hygienists

in the Office of Environmental Management and Safety to ensure full compliance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and other Federal environmental regulations

2 164 Occupational health nurse and medical records clerk for

the Office of Protection Services to provide mandatory health monitoring programs for Smithsonian staff

A number of additional requirements with significant, and urgent, health and safety implications were not included in the grouping of health and safety items in the OMB request, but should be mentioned here. These resources would provide support for the Institution's safety program at two of the largest museums: the National Museum of Natural History and the National Museum of American History. Resources would also assist these two museums in dealing with the particularly complex job of cleaning collections which have been contaminated by deteriorated asbestos insulation (in the attics of the Natural History Building, and in the storage buildings at the Silver Hill facility). Early completion of the artifact cleaning will allow the Institution to proceed on schedule with renovation requirements in these areas, and will make the objects accessible for study and display once again.

Resources FTEs $rOOOs>

Description

24 800 Staff to clean asbestos contaminated objects in the attics

of the Natural History Building and to perform other work preparatory to moving the collections to the Museum Support Center

6 479 Staff and materials to clean asbestos contaminated objects

stored at Silver Hill for the Museum of American History, and rental and equipping costs of 12,000 square feet of space to house cleaned objects during the removal of asbestos from Building 17 and subsequent building renovation

2 200 Safety officers to implement and manage the onsite safety

program at the Natural History Building and funds for removal of hazardous waste

100 Safety coordinator to implement and manage the onsite

safety program at the American History Building and funds for removal of hazardous waste

Mr. Yates. Thank you, Roger. Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Yates. All right. We have to go vote. We have the second bell now, and we will be back.

[Recess.]

ANACOSTIA MUSEUM NEEDS

Mr. Yates. Mr. Newsome.

Mr. Newsome. I am here.

Mr. Yates. Oh, Mr. Newsome. I think in the interest of time I am not going to be able to give the remaining people as much time as I have given the others, but I am going to try to be fair and full with respect to the hearing.

How did you fare with the money that you needed?

Mr. Newsome. Well, like everybody else, we wanted some education positions which OMB struck out. We need those positions because education and outreach have been the hallmark of the Anacos-tia Museum. We are talking about approximately $11,000 for the education and outreach positions. Again, education has been the hallmark of the Anacostia Museum, particularly the work with the school systems and with citizens in the community.

Mr. Yates. Good for you.

Mr. Newsome. In fact, I am going to give you a gift. Here is a teacher resource packet developed for our current exhibition, "Gathered Visions." It focuses on artists from the region. This packet is a fine example of what Anacostia does in terms of teaching about the historical and cultural resources from this region.

Mr. Yates. All right. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

COOPER-HEWITT MUSEUM BASIC SUPPORT NEEDS

Ms. Pilgrim from New York. Hi, Ms. Pilgrim.

Ms. Pilgrim. Hi. Things are badly designed over here.

Mr. Yates. They are, indeed, and the comment was made by Itzhak Perlman when he testified here.

Ms. Pilgrim. I am not surprised.

Mr. Yates. Tell me, how did you fare?

Ms. Pilgrim. Well, Mr. Chairman, as you know only too well, one of my main concerns since I became director of Cooper-Hewitt National Museum of Design two years ago was the issue of financial parity for Cooper-Hewitt with the other art museums within the Smithsonian.

We have now been part of the Smithsonian for 24 years and we still get approximately only 50 percent of our budget from the Smithsonian, and approximately half of that 50 percent is Federal, the other half are trust funds.

Every year annually we have to raise that 50 percent of our operating budget, and we do it by means of charging admission fees, having our own memberships, our own shop, our corporate membership, fundraising events, and we are closed one day a week.

Mr. Yates. Which day?

Ms. Pilgrim. Monday. Pretty traditional in New York; people are used to that.

Mr. Yates. All the galleries are closed on Monday, too.

Ms. Pilgrim. I have to admit we are open Tuesday evenings, which, again, is the New York tradition.

Mr. Yates. How much of a deficit do you run?

Ms. Pilgrim. Well, we submitted a budget to the Smithsonian for fiscal year 1992 of 16 positions, $1.7 million. What went forward to OMB were nine positions and $852,000. It was all eliminated.

I feel very strongly that none of these positions were new initiatives. The money is all for basic professional museum support. I can just give you an idea

Mr. Yates. Put it in the record.

Ms. Pilgrim. All right.

Mr. Yates. Put a couple of paragraphs in the record which we will read and go over.

Ms. Pilgrim. Thank you.

Mr. Yates. Thank you. How is the Fox Building coming along?

Ms. Pilgrim. It is going great. In fact, this fall we will be putting our master's program—we are the only agency that has a degree master's program, and we will put the program in the Fox House this fall. It is great.

Mr. Yates. Thank you, Dianne.

[The Cooper-Hewitt Museum FY 1992 budget needs follow:]

Cooper-Hewitt Museum FY 1992 Budget Needs

Cooper-Hewitt, National Museum of Design is the only American museum devoted exclusively to the study of design. Cooper-Hewitt explores the influence objects have on our lives — how they shape and are shaped by our culture. The Museum examines the common tradition and diversity in design history, as well as implications for the future. Design has no geographic, historical, cultural or socio-economic boundaries. As the National Museum of Design, Cooper-Hewitt has an important part to play in educating the public about the significance of design. The Museum pursues this goal through diverse programs which include provisions for making the collections available for study, research and display; educational programs; exhibitions; publications; and conferences keyed to significant design issues.

For Cooper-Hewitt, the issue of achieving institutional parity among its fellow Smithsonian art museums has been a major concern over the last two years. In the past Cooper-Hewitt has not benefitted fully as a Smithsonian bureau and has received very little federal funding. This disparity has made the Museum an anomaly amongst its sister museums.

It can no longer be said, however, that Cooper-Hewitt is the only museum in the United States that does not receive any federal funding for education, exhibitions, publications, or acquisitions. The Museum is grateful to have received its first programmatic federal allocation for the establishment of an Education department in FY91. While these funds have allowed the Museum to professionally execute this most basic educational mission, only half of the requested funds ($150,000) and one work year (out of three requested) were allotted.

Cooper-Hewitt must raise approximately 50% of its operating budget annually . These funds are raised through admissions, shop profits, membership fees, corporate memberships, fundraising events, unrestricted gifts and grants, and they are used for general operating expenses as well as funding approximately 12-15 staff salaries. There are still no Federal appropriations to Cooper-Hewitt for exhibitions, acquisitions or publications. The Museum is closed to the public one day per week.

For FY92, Cooper-Hewitt requested sixteen positions and $1,706,000, nine positions and $852,000 went forward to 0MB, and 0MB allowed no programmatic increases. The positions and subsequent funds requested are for basic professional museum support. They were not for any new initiatives. Cooper-Hewitt has the largest art collection (nearly 250,000 objects) of all Smithsonian art museums, and yet we receive no federal funds to support the curatorial activities that consitute our mandate: staff research, publications, exhibitions, acquisitions, travel, and require clerical assistance.. Furthermore, it is important to remember that due to our location there are many central services that we cannot utilize — yet we are not given additional funds to cover these expenses. Federal support should also be given for Development and Fundraising activities. Our limited Development staff (2) cannot be expected to successfully raise 50% of our operating budget every year.

It is essential to recognize that Cooper-Hewitt is still seriously underfunded and that only with continued infusions of permanent funding can the Museum begin to innovate rather than to maintain status quo . Clearly the Smithsonian, by virtue of its 1992 submission to OMB, understands the unique position Cooper-Hewitt is in regard to the other Smithsonian museums. Now Congress needs to recognize this longstanding problem and address the issue.

SMITHSONIAN TROPICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Mr. Yates. All right, Mr. Rubinoff. You have not been shot yet?

Mr. Rubinoff. No.

Mr. Yates. Were you there during the war?

Mr. Rubinoff. Yes, I was; it was very exciting.

Mr. Yates. I bet it was. Which side were you on? [Laughter.]

Mr. Rubinoff. I was down on the floor, sir.

I would like to apologize for not wearing a brighter tie this afternoon.

Mr. Yates. Well, Mr. Skeen is not here.

Mr. Rubinoff. In keeping with the theme of education, I think that our research programs are part of education and education is research.

Mr. Yates. How much money did you ask for that you did not get?

Mr. Rubinoff. Oh, quite a lot. We were very ambitious. We asked for about $4 million.

Mr. Yates. Wow. Is this for your research vessel?

Mr. Rubinoff. No, the research vessel is taken care of with the exception of the crew. They were not included, and they will be necessary the last quarter of 1992. The boat may be, in fact, ready and we will not have enough crew to do the sea trials and things of that sort.

Mr. Yates. It is fun going out on trials.

Mr. Rubinoff. I think I would rather read the reports than be there myself when things do not work the way they were designed.

Mr. Yates. How does it look?

Mr. Rubinoff. It should look good. We just awarded the design contract. Construction has not started yet.

Mr. Yates. Oh, I see. How long will it take to build?

Mr. Rubinoff. It should take about nine months to build and about maybe six months to design and about three months to contract it out for construction.

Mr. Yates. W T ho is installing your weapons?

Mr. Rubinoff. The question of the war had an interesting effect.

Mr. Yates. Did you look for any Navy boats?

Mr. Rubinoff. We did. The Committee gave us funds for a study. The study indicated that there were no existing vessels that would serve the purposes that we needed.

Mr. Yates. Now, tell us the $4 million—you can tell us more in the record.

Mr. Rubinoff. I can do that.

Mr. Yates. Is there any other

Mr. Rubinoff. I think the issue of democracy in Panama has been a very important one for us, but it has produced some unanticipated benefits. It is very nice to have a free press and human rights respected, but it has also created a great demand for the transfer of technology, both by the government of Panama and the private sector as the economy picks up. People want to know about how to reforest. People want to know about what eco-tourism policy should be.

We are caught a little short in terms of having personnel to provide that information where we have it. So that does turn into education in a sense, but not one that we anticipated.

Mr. Yates. Okay. Give us some work for the record. Thank you very much for coming in.

[The Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute FY 1992 budget needs follow:!

Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute FY 1992 Budget Needs

In addition we would like the subcommittee to consider the requests outlined below as part of the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute's FY 1992 budget. Each represents a program of vital importance to tropical research and education.

1. Crew for the new research vessel: 1.25 FTE's and $90,000

We anticipate the vessel to be completed in the last quarter of FY 1992. Consequently, we need to hire the Marine Engineer, who appropriately should be present for the last phase of construction and sea trials, for half of the year ( 0.5 FTE's and $24,000). The other crew members needed would have to be available for sea trials and for bringing the vessel to Panama. They could be hired for the last quarter of FY 1992. These other three crew members are a First Mate (0.25 FTE's and $10,000), an Oiler/Deck Hand (0.25 FTE's and $7,000), and an Electronics Technician (0.25 FTE's and $9,000), for a total of 1.25 FTE's and $50,000 in personnel costs. in addition the vessel will require additional operating expenses which we calculate to be $40,000 for FY 1992. If we receive the additional funding, the monies will have to be annualized in FY 1993.

2. Canopy Biology: 4 FTE's and $1,134,000

The upper canopy of the tropical forest is one of the last frontiers for ecological research. We know less about this region than about the ocean floor, yet the upper canopy plays a vital role in global climatic change and maintenance of biological diversity. STRI is initiating a research program in Canopy Biology in order to better understand the flora and fauna of the upper canopy, and to measure the exchange of heat, water vapor, carbon dioxide and oxygen between the canopy and the atmosphere. We have successfully tested an innovative technique — use of construction tower cranes installed in the middle of a tropical forest — to gain safe, rapid access to the canopy.

in order to build on this major new advance in canopy access we propose the purchase of a large tower crane ($650,000), and its shipment and installation on Barro Colorado Island ($170,000). The crane will provide access to over 4 acres of tropical forest canopy, and will dramatically expand our knowledge of the Barro Colorado Island forest canopy. We will hire a scientist specializing in canopy biology, and a research assistant for the scientist in order to develop a vigorous research program (2 FTE's and $137,000). In addition, specialized research instrumentation will be required to undertake this program. To run the crane we will hire two crane operators (2 FTE's and $77,000).

3. Safety Officer: 1 FTE and $40,000

The Institution approved STRl's FY 1992 request for a Safety Officer but our request was disapproved by OMB. We still consider this to be an essential position, one that we need to hire as soon as possible. Last week we had a major fire at the Tupper Center. Luckily it occurred at night and resulted in only a minor injury to the security guard who tried to put it out but in several thousands of dollars in property damage. STRI needs a person in charge of safety to review all of our procedures and develop a comprehensive safety program.

4. Marine Sciences Education Program: 1 FTE and $49,000

The STRI has started and outdoor living exhibit at the Naos Marine Laboratory. Plans are underway to reach school groups at the elementary and secondary levels. A full-time Marine sciences Education Specialist is required to be able to carry out this program. This person will develop bilingual educational materials which can be adapted to other science programs and curricula. The work will draw upon STRl's unique expertise in the field and involve coordination with Panama's Ministry of Education, scientists at the University of Panama and the Major's Office of Panama City. No other marine sciences education program currently exists in Panama. Consequently, we request 1 FTE and $29,000 for personnel and $20,000 for materials and supplies, for a total of $49,000 for the program.

5. Development Office: 2 FTE's and $106,000

The STRI has established a Development office at the Mall to increase external funding for our many research and education projects in order to relieve some of the existing financial constraints. The purpose of locating this office at the Mall is to gain efficiencies in accessing major donor organizations. The costs to staff and operate this office is $106,000 and 2 FTE's.

SMITHSONIAN ASTROPHYSICAL OBSERVATORY

Mr. Yates. All right. Irwin Shapiro. Hi, Irwin, wherever you are.

Mr. Shapiro. Right here.

Mr. Yates. Okay. And you want some more computers.

Mr. Shapiro. How did you guess?

Mr. Yates. I assumed you did not get enough of them the last time, and computers keep changing. You know you are full dressed, too. What are you bringing us? Beware of Greeks bringing gifts.

Mr. Shapiro. I am not a Greek, not a drop of Greek blood in my ancestry as far as I know. I just wanted to comment about the overall situation at SAO which was eloquently phrased about a century and a half ago at the time the SI was founded. Of course, the phrasing was nothing like Roger's. I mean, no one can compete with Roger.

But still, people are familiar with it, and I will just paraphrase it: It is the best of times and it is the worst of times. It is the season of light and it is the season of darkness. No one knows what is after the first. Everybody knows it is the best of times, it is the worst of times; but no one knows what comes next. It is the spring of hope; it is the winter of despair. Everything is before us and nothing is before us.

Mr. Yates. I am glad you brought Dickens to the table.

Mr. Shapiro. Thank you. The question is, how does this fit SAO? Well, it fits it very well. In the best of times issue, we have two major projects, major scientific instrumentation projects. The sub-millimeter array and the MMT conversion which will set the stage for the future into the next century for SAO and enable us to be at the forefront.

I brought a couple of things that we are producing along the way, so to say, towards realizing these two instruments. The sub-millimeter array takes these waves which are between optical and radio and has to detect them and manipulate them. What I have here and can show you is a polarizer. You are familiar with Polaroid.

Mr. Yates. It looks like a filter on a camera.

Mr. Shapiro. You are familiar with Polaroid plastic which filters the—which separates out the proper polarization from visible light. This device does it with submillimeter waves by using one-thousandth of an inch Tungsten wire coated with gold, gold-plated Tungsten wire, and separated by three-thousandths of an inch each. This is covered with those wires.

This is an extremely difficult device to make and no one knew how to do it well in the world. A graduate student in our lab who happens to bear the name of Shapiro, although I cannot claim any relation—he is from the Philadelphia branch of the family—he figured out a way to use an ordinary lathe to wrap around this wire and produce this extremely regular grid.

Someone from Cal Tech was visiting our lab two weeks ago and he was very impressed that we did it at all, let alone we did it so simply and beautifully.

Mr. Yates. It is beautiful. I am impressed. What do you use the gloves for?

Mr. Shapiro. I borrowed those from Roger just to make some jokes. [Laughter.]

In the interest of time I thought I would just leave them here.

About this other thing: there are well developed techniques for dealing with short optical waves and for dealing with long radio waves. We are just developing the techniques to deal with these waves of intermediate length, these submillimeter waves. Here is a device where we have combined optical and radio techniques, and you can see this is an optical lens which focuses the submillimeter waves down on a little antenna. You can see those two spirals down at the center.

Mr. Yates. Yes.

Mr. Shapiro. That is the antenna that picks the waves up. Inside that is something that you cannot see that is only about a millionth of a meter in size. It is a superconducting-insulator-superconducting junction that enables the waves to be detected with high efficiency. We are developing this for the various receivers we need for the submillimeter array.

Mr. Yates. How are you on compact disks?

Mr. Shapiro. Oh, that was the one thing I proposed to show you that was ruled out of order by other people from the Smithsonian.

Ms. Turner. I take the blame. I take the blame for that.

Mr. Shapiro. I actually have it here. [Laughter.]

What we have done, and it was the first time it was done in astronomy, we have compacted all the data, all the pictures taken by the so-called Einstein x-ray satellite which was designed and built at SAO. We put all the data on compact disks.

Now, a couple of things I would like to say about it. First of all, this is Einstein in the patent office on the cover. We distribute this for nothing because it is so cheap to produce. The point is that the previous medium for storing these data were 30 big magnetic tapes, reels of tape about 15" in diameter.

So we have made a compaction in the storage requirements from the data of a factor of 400. So as opposed to ordinary collections in Smithsonian museums, where the more you get, the more space you need, the more museum support centers you need, and so forth, we are going the opposite way and we still have a long way to go in compressing everything.

Mr. Yates. It sounds so reasonable, but why were you turned down?

Mr. Shapiro. I beg your pardon?

Mr. Yates. It sounds so reasonable; why were you turned down?

Ms. Turner. I need to answer that question.

Mr. Yates. Oh, okay.

Ms. Turner. We were trying to keep the number of articles to something that was reasonable because we knew there was a time factor. So we thought that

Mr. Yates. But I thought his explanation was reasonable.

Ms. Turner. I am sorry.

Mr. Yates. Did you strike out the funding for it?

Ms. Turner. No, no. Only bringing the objects.

Mr. Yates. Oh, no; that is wonderful, no. We like the show and tell.

Mr. Shapiro. The other thing about it, previously you would have to load a tape and then search the tape for what you were looking for. If it was at the end of the tape, it would take a long time. It could take up to hours to find what you wanted.

Here, in 10 seconds you can find anything because you have random access to the disk and you can go anyplace you want.

Mr. Yates. Who uses the CDs?

Mr. Shapiro. The whole group of astronomers in the world who are interested and utilize x-ray data. We have given out—we have had requests for and given out 400 of these.

Mr. Yates. How much did that cost?

Mr. Shapiro. This cost less than $200—sorry, less than $2.

Mr. Yates. Isn't that amazing. Which orchestra do you have on that?

Mr. Shapiro. The Chicago Symphony Orchestra. [Laughter.]

There is something else I brought in. First of all, some pictures. As you know, the MMT conversion involves building and casting a giant 22-foot diameter mirror and polishing it. I have here some pictures of the furnace which is being enlarged for the casting which is scheduled for later this year, if they keep to the schedule.

I do not know if you can see that, but this is all electronics around the base of the furnace which you can see over here at the top. It is a fisheye lens, so the picture looks very distorted. Here you can see the furnace itself.

Mr. Yates. What are you baking in there?

Mr. Shapiro. We are baking glass. We are baking tons of glass.

Mr. Yates. Who does the polishing?

Mr. Shapiro. The polishing will be done in this lab. This is the mirror lab at the University of Arizona.

Mr. Yates. What are you going to do with the squirrels?

Mr. Shapiro. The squirrels are going rather nicely I am told, and many of them—in fact, most of them seem to live at a lower altitude on Mount Graham than where this other observatory might be put.

Anyway, we put these tons of glass in here, and what we do is have all the glass melt around the ceramic cores which enables us to have a very light weight. You might think "tons" is rather a lot; but, in fact, it is relatively lightweight because we have most of the space empty. To keep it empty, you have to have ceramics which withstand the heat that will melt the glass in the furnace.

This device here which some people thought was really a replica of R2D2, others thought it was a Mayan temple; but, in fact, it is just one of these ceramic cores.

Mr. Yates. Careful.

Mr. Shapiro. Oh, I am very practiced at this. Anyway, this stuff which looks like ordinary styrofoam is actually very refractory material; that is, it does not melt at temperatures up to more than 1,400 degrees centigrade, even hotter than it is in the room here.

Mr. Regula. What is the chemical composition of this?

Mr. Shapiro. I do not know the chemical composition. It is a very refractory ceramic material. But the exact proportions of the different atoms, I do not know. If you are interested, I could find out.

Mr. Regula. It is a unique material.

Mr. Shapiro. Forming them—you have hundreds of these you have to form and put in place, and it is a big, big operation.

Mr. Yates. How much money do you want from us?

Mr. Shapiro. For this, nothing.

Mr. Yates. Okay.

Mr. Shapiro. Or, how shall I put it, what is in the budget is fine.

Mr. Yates. Really? First one.

Mr. Shapiro. I am not quite finished. Remember, I am now talking about the best of times. There was another part.

Anyway, this picture is of the polishing lap. This is a new technique being developed for polishing giant mirrors. This is almost two meters in diameter. It flexes depending on which part of the mirror you want to get the glass from, and it is very efficient. The University was able to do in 24 hours of polishing what used to take a year.

[Committee note. —The Smithsonian later informed the committee that "a year" should be changed to "nearly two weeks".]

Mr. Yates. Wow.

Mr. Shapiro. So it is an enormous advance in the speed of which polishing of large mirrors can be done.

Mr. Yates. We just have to go and vote. All right. What did they knock out for you other than

Mr. Shapiro. What I want to do is just say, what is the worst of times—why we are in the worst of times.

Mr. Yates. You have a question? We are going to have to vote. You better just stay here, Irwin, because Mr. Atkins has a question and I hate to inhibit him.

[Recess.]

submillimeter array and mmt conversion

Mr. Yates. Irwin, oh, he is not here.

Mr. Shapiro. Yes, I am.

Mr. Yates. I don't mean you. Oh, there he is. Mr. Atkins has a question. I have a pre-conference at 3:00 which I can come to a little late. But ask your question.

Mr. Atkins. Mr. Shapiro, let me just say first that I commend you on the educational program you are running. Mr. Chairman, they run what I believe is probably the most creative, innovative, with no public money education program that has had an enormous effect on teaching math in the Boston area schools.

What I am interested in is the question of foreign financial participation in your two big projects; the submillimeter array and the MMT, the multiple mirror telescope. Most of the major astrophysi-cal instrumentation projects that are funded by NSF, they now require them to get participation from at least the Japanese and some people from the European community. Are you doing the same thing with these two projects?

Mr. Shapiro. As with most questions, a simple yes or no does not quite work. For the submillimeter array project, if we site the array in Mauna Kea in Hawaii, there is another single telescope that works at submillimeter wavelengths built by the British, the Dutch, and the Canadians. They have done a study as to how much more effective theirs and ours would be if they were to join our

array, and they have proposed to their board of directors that they do so. If we site the array on Mauna Kea, as we will recommend to do, then we will join them in an international cooperation in that sense, and it will really increase the effectiveness of both their single telescope and our array to work jointly together.

It will not be a monetary exchange. It will be that they will do their part and we will do our part, and the combined instrument will be better for science.

As for the MMT conversion, this is a joint project with the University of Arizona. A much smaller one such as the size of this project, the NSF does not do any international sharing on either. This is below the level where an international consortium makes sense.

For example, the recent international arrangements to which you refer concern a $176 million project to put two 8-meter telescopes, one in Chile and one in Hawaii, with the United States paying half and the other half being split equally between Great Britain and Canada. Just about an order of magnitude, that is a factor of 10, bigger project than the one we are talking about.

Mr. Atkins. Are you satisfied that you have done everything that you ought to be doing to get foreign support for these two instrumentation projects?

Mr. Shapiro. Yes, I think that is fair to say. Certainly for the submillimeter array. We have, for example, on our scientific and technical advisory group, we have the best people in the world in that field and that includes members from England, from Sweden, from Germany, and from Japan.

Mr. Atkins. These people will be users?

Mr. Shapiro. Well, the facility will be open, as most facilities are now in the world, based on competition. That is, there will be proposals submitted and time will be allocated depending on which proposals offer the best prospects for scientific progress.

Mr. Atkins. Shouldn't we be looking on that basis to some participation from the Japanese?

Mr. Shapiro. Well, for example, we use their telescope. They have a millimeter, not a submillimeter, array in Nobeyama, Japan, and a certain amount of their time is available to people from all over the world based on competitive proposals. That is sort of the trend internationally, and we would expect to do the same thing.

Mr. Atkins, How would you feel about a prohibition in your being involved in any activities or construction on Mount Graham?

Mr. Shapiro. Well, the two sites we were considering, one was on Mount Graham and the other on Mauna Kea in Hawaii, and our scientific and technical advisory group came—and there is a representative from both the University of Arizona and the University of Hawaii on our group that I previously alluded to. They met in January. We presented all the evidence, all the relevant factors and asked for their recommendation. They unanimously recommended that we should begin negotiations with the University of Hawaii to site the array there. We intend, and are, in fact, in the process, of preparing a summary of this recommendation to send to the Smithsonian. If Secretary Adams approves, then it will be presented to the Regents for their concurrence.

Mr. Atkins. So that kind of prohibition would not trouble you?

Mr. Shapiro. That is correct.

Mr. Adams. I think we should add that the recommendation is not based in any way on the issue of the squirrels; it is based on the science.

Mr. Shapiro. It is based on the science and also on geography. One of the most interesting parts of the universe to look at in sub-millimeter waves is the center of our galaxy, and that is overhead far south of us. Hawaii has an advantage over Mount Graham that is quite considerable in its latitude being much further south than that of Mount Graham.

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE CENTER

Mr. Yates. I am going to have to leave. I am going to leave the rest of the meeting to you. Before I go, I wanted to ask Mr. Jameson some questions if I may.

Mr. Jameson, what is the status of your administrative center? I have sent Mr. Adams a copy of a letter from your landlord in which he protested what you were doing, saying that nobody gave him a chance to make things better for you. I suspect that you gave him a chance over several years, and he thought perhaps that you had no choice.

Mr. Jameson. Not only that, Mr. Chairman, but prior to the expiration date for the solicitation process which was June of 1990, we actively encouraged them to come in with a proposal because the building that we are currently in on North Capitol Street is susceptible to being expanded. There is a large parking lot and they own adjacent property. So they were encouraged to give us a timely proposal, but did not respond to us until December of 1990.

Mr. Yates. Question: Suppose he now is willing to listen to you? I do not know this gentleman. I just see his letter saying that he hopes you will listen to him. Is it too late to listen to him?

Mr. Jameson. It is too late, Mr. Chairman, to come in with a proposal for an expanded facility. We followed the Federal procurement regulations very carefully.

Mr. Yates. I know you have. The question is whether you would save money by not going out on a RFP or with a mortgage.

Mr. Jameson. I do not know a way that we could extricate ourselves from the process that we have engaged in.

Mr. Yates. Are you committed somewhere along the line?

Mr. Jameson. Well, committed in the sense that we advertised for competitive proposals and have been in the process since last summer of gradually whittling those down to a final selection which we have not made yet. But we are down now to three finalists out of the eleven who started. I do not see how we could walk away or turn our back on that particular process and begin to do business with the owners of North Capitol Street.

Mr. Yates. All right. Who is Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge? Is this your law firm?

Mr. Jameson. No, Mr. Chairman. It is a firm that the owners or their representatives turned to for a legal opinion on whether or not we were obliged to follow the Federal acquisition regulations and other procurement regulations.

Mr. Yates. I have their letter which may go into the record. They address the letter to Mr. Ritchey, who is senior vice president of Boston Properties.

Dear Mr. Ritchie: The purpose of this letter is to confirm our view that the Smithsonian Institution has the authority under relevant Federal procurement standards to execute a sole-source contract for the lease of its total . . . space requirements with the Stern & Moran/Boston Properties joint venture, rather than proceeding to award under solicitation No. SI-90-018-FN for the new requirements only.

Okay, which is on your side, isn't it? The Smithsonian's not covered. I would have thought that you have to go out with an RFP, do you not, if you're going to get Federal money?

Mr. Jameson. Historically, and consistently it has been our position that where we spend Federally appropriated money, either for the hiring of people or for the buying of goods and services, we follow the regulations.

Mr. Yates. Well, it looks like this was written for you, doesn't it? Have you seen this letter?

Mr. Jameson. Yes, we've seen it.

Mr. Yates. Does this sustain your position?

Mr. Jameson. No, we responded to that. You have a letter from us, Mr. Chairman dated the 18th but I think it did not get up there until yesterday. The next to last paragraph on page 2 speaks to that point.

Mr. Yates. Well, that takes care of Mr. Moran, right?

Mr. Jameson. One never knows, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Yates. Well, we'll wait and see.

Mr. Jameson. Would you agree to put our response into the record?

Mr. Yates. I have your response. This is your response dated March 18th, addressed to me, signed by Carmen E. Turner, Under Secretary. All right. It's Ms. Turner, then, who is going to go into the field of battle, rather than you.

Mr. Jameson. We will be by her side to help her out. [Laughter]

Mr. Yates. Oh, you'll be behind her catching. All right, this may go into the record.

[The information follows:]

[The letter from the firm of Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge and the Smithsonian's response follow:]

Shaw. Pittman. Potts & Trowbridge

ESSIOMAL CO«* s O*»ATtO»«S

fTOJI »»0 7BOC (703) 821 2397

2300 M STREET. N. W

'ASHINOTON. O. C. 20037

(202) 663-aoOO

-l»C«TV 5TBCCT. S.W. •U«G. VIRGINIA 22073 (703J 777-OOOA

H <'*o«7A|tei

January 17, 1991

CARLETON S. JONES. PC <202) 6636087

Mr. Raymond A. Ritchey Senior Vice President Boston Properties 500 E Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20024

Dear Mr. Ritchey:

The purpose of this letter is to confirm our view that the Smithsonian Institution has the authority under relevant federal procurement standards to execute a sole-source contract for the lease of its total (i.e., both current and new) space requirements with the Stern & Moran/Boston Properties joint venture, rather than proceeding to award under solicitation No. SI-90-018-FN for the new requirements only.

The Smithsonian is not subject to the common federal contracting statutes and regulations, including the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended by the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, 41 U.S.C. Sections 251-260, and the Federal Acquisition Regulation ("FAR"), 48 C.F.R. Chapters 1-53. These laws apply only to executive agencies. See 40 U.S.C. S 472(a); 41 U.S.C. 405(a). The Smithsonian is not an executive agency because it is not part of the executive branch. See 20 U.S.C. S 41. Therefore, the Smithsonian is not covered by these laws, but by the provisions otherwise applicable to the government, at 41 U.S.C. Sections 5 and 8.

Although the Smithsonian is not required to do so, we understand that it seeks, as a matter of policy, to comply with the common federal contracting statutes and regulations to the maximum extent practicable. Notwithstanding the many differences between the two sets of procurement laws, they do share the common requirement that, broadly stated, contracts be publicly advertised/competitively awarded unless one of several statutory exceptions is applicable. One of the exceptions that enables the Smithsonian to negotiate a sole-source contract with the joint venture is the fact that there is only one responsible source capable of satisfying all of the Smithsonian's requirements. See 41 U.S.C. S 253(c)(1); 48 C.F.R. S 6.302-1; 41 U.S.C. S 5. Furthermore, urgent and compelling circumstances warranting award to the joint venture also permit negotiation of a sole-source

Shaw. Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge

Mr. Ray Ritchey January 17, 1991 Page 2

contract. See 41 U.S.C. S 253(c)(2); 48 C.F.R. § 6.302-1; 41 U.S.C. S 5.

We understand that the joint venture has proposed a greatly-needed two-year extension of the current lease as part of a sole-source contract, and that the joint venture is therefore in a unique position to accommodate both the Smithsonian's short-term and long-term space requirements. Accordingly, the joint venture's ability to provide space for the Smithsonian's new requirements at the current lease site renders the joint venture uniquely capable of offering to the Smithsonian the efficiency and other benefits flowing from extension of the current lease beyond its scheduled expiration date, avoidance of unnecessary moving costs and consolidation of all space requirements at a single site.

These unique capabilities render the joint venture the only source capable of satisfying all of the Smithsonian's requirements and are sufficiently compelling to merit termination of the SFO and award of a sole-source contract to the joint venture. These unique capabilities therefore permit the Smithsonian to cancel the SFO and to award a contract for its space requirements to the joint venture.

Should the Smithsonian elect not to proceed with the sole-source contract with the joint venture, and instead elect to proceed with the SFO, any refusal by the Smithsonian to permit the joint venture to compete would open the ultimate award to substantial legal challenge. The SFO requires delivery of the fully completed premises not later than October 1992. We understand that compliance with this mandatory requirement is extremely unlikely, and the Smithsonian therefore has approached its current landlord for a lease extension. Should the Smithsonian proceed with the current SFO without amending the SFO to revise the completion date and concurrently affording both currently competing and other offerors a new opportunity for submission of offers, award clearly would be subject to legal challenge. The Smithsonian may not proceed to contract award on the basis of an SFO stating, and offerors promising, unattainable mandatory requirements.

Shaw, Pittman. Potts & Trowbridge

Mr. Ray Ritchey January 17, 1991 Page 3

Please let us know if we can be of further assistance in this matter.

S incerely.

Carleton S. Jones

B:0MSKB6860.91

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION VfijJ u nyton.D.C205C0

USA.

March 18, 1991

Honorable Sidney R. Yates Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior

and Related Agencies Committee on Appropriations United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20S1S

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Thank you for your letter of March 14, 1991, enclosing a letter of March 7, 1991 from Vernon E. Knarr of the Vector Realty Group, Inc., regarding the proposed Administrative Service Center. I am pleased to provide comments for your use. Mr. Knarr raises several issues to be addressed: advantages of the North Capitol Street site, encouragement of the late proposal, delivery date for beneficial use of the new building, and applicability of Federal procurement and contracting laws and regulations. Each of these matters will be discussed in turn. Enclosed is the file of relevant correspondence on this matter.

There is no question that the North Capitol Street leased building has provided useful service to the Institution, although its relatively small size and general condition do not meet our current and future needs. For these reasons and because the building might be expanded, the present owners. Stern and Moran Properties, Inc., were encouraged by us to submit a proposal by the June 1990 deadline. We recognized that should such a solution be possible there would be advantages to us, including a buffer against construction delay and simplification and savings in relocation costs. As Mr. Knarr acknowledges, however, the owners did not submit a proposal by the deadline. Indeed the 1111 North Capitol Limited Partnership/Boston Properties proposal was not submitted until December 1990. It should be noted that eleven offers had been received by the June 1990 deadline.

The December 1990 proposal received from the Limited Partnership/Boston Properties was neither solicited nor encouraged by us. Its arrival stemmed from prior discussions with the owners about the possibility of a lease extension. As you will note in the December 20, 1990 letter from the Limited Partnership and Boston Properties their consideration of a lease extension was predicated on-favorable consideration of the proposal for the expansion of the building. Since we were well along in our evaluation of the eleven offers we had received, we could not consider that proposal as a matter of propriety or in fairness to those developers who had been timely in their responses. These timely offers have been evaluated and further discussions are being conducted with those firms in the competitive range.

Concerning delivery date, offerors have provided construction schedules and assurances that beneficial occupancy will be provided prior to October 1991. We are advised that because of the straight forward and relatively simple construction of the warehouse space that this schedule is aggressive, but doable. In the unlikely event that a revised delivery date is necessary, this change would be issued as an amendment to the Solicitation for Offer. In our opinion this amendment would, at most, require offerors in the competitive range to submit a revised "best and final" offer.

With regard to the applicability of Federal procurement and contracting laws and regulations, it has been our consistent policy that whenever Federal funds are involved, appropriate Federal procedures will be followed. The process for obtaining and reviewing proposals for a replacement Administrative Service Center has been diligent in that regard. To turn our backs on that process in our opinion would "constitute a major breach of procurement procedures" to quote from Robert H. Moran's letter of February 14, 1991. It is regrettable that the owners chose not to participate at the beginning of this procurement, but having made that decision it is not possible at this extremely late juncture to open this process to them without doing fundamental injustice to those offerors who have fully complied with all the steps of this procurement.

We believe that these comments are responsive to your interests but would be pleased to provide further information should that be useful.

Sincerely,

Carmen E. Turner Under Secretary

Enclosures

Mr. Yates. Mr. Jameson, at our last hearing, I suggested that it might be wise for the Smithsonian to ask the authorizing committee, the legislative committee, whether it was necessary to obtain their approval, legally, through a statute, for you to proceed in the manner in which you now propose to proceed. Have you been talking to them?

Mr. Jameson. Yes, sir. Immediately, after the hearing on the 5th, we raised the question with the appropriate committees in the House and the Senate. They're both still looking at it, thinking about the question but we're not expected to hear from either of them before close to the end of April.

Mr. Yates. So, would you let us know then?

Mr. Jameson. Absolutely.

NATIONAL ZOOLOGICAL PARK

Mr. Yates. I have time for Mr. Robinson. Mr. Robinson, I would like to see you. Are you coming back?

Mr. Robinson. I'll be very brief, sir. We lost seven positions and $333,000

Mr. Yates. You lost seven positions?

Mr. Robinson. In our request to OMB, they were eliminated.

Mr. Yates. Had they been approved by Mr.

Mr. Robinson. Yes, indeed, and those

Mr. Yates. I notice the big smile you've got, Ms. Turner. [Laughter].

Mr. Robinson. She would get a big smile anyway even if she cut them out.

Very essential, key positions and the safety and care of the animals are involved. I'll give you something for the record on that.

[The information follows:]

National Zoological Park

infrastructure support for current programs

The Zoo lost 7 workyears and $333,000.00 in OMB cuts. This included 2 essential keeper positions to provide for maintenance of labor intensive new exhibits and even more significant safety coverage. Also eliminated were 2 positions for the tropical gardeners necessary to support increasingly luxuriant botanical elements in exhibits including the Amazonia rainforest. The huge water circulation systems in the Zoo's Amazonia, beaver, seal and sea lion exhibits were to be supported by 2 water quality technicians ($68,000) and 1 utility system repairperson ($34,000) these positions were also cut by OMB. We also lost two positions in our crucial Endocrine Research Laboratory. Hormone monitoring for both zoo and wild animals is of outstanding value in breeding endangered species and utilizing in vitro fertilization and embryo transplantation. NZP is at the forefront in this research and these positions would have consolidated our leadership.

AMAZON EXHIBIT

Mr. Robinson. I wanted to tell you something exciting. We are in the middle of construction of our Amazon Exhibit which you funded, all parts of it, and construction is going extremely well. We'll open in time for the Quincentennial and it will be an appropriate contribution to that because, of course, the Columbus voyage exposed that marvelous flora and fauna to science.

I brought a diagram along to emphasize the importance of the Amazon. There's the Amazon watershed superimposed on the

United States. I think that's a really striking example of the huge expanse of that river. It puts eleven times more water into the Atlantic than the Missippi and Missouri combined. The Amazon has two thousand species of fishes and we'll show a lot of them in the underwater exhibition.

In my office, at the moment, is one of them being grown up and trained to leap out of the water. It will do that several times a day.

Mr. Yates. Are you talking about a pirhana?

Mr. Robinson. Beautiful, ancient fish called an Arawana, one of the osteoglossidae. There are only three of them in the entire world and it catches its food from the roots and the trunks of trees.

Mr. Yates. What do you do while it's in the zoo? Do you throw this to them and they snap it up?

Mr. Robinson. I have a special jumping platform at one end of the aquarium.

Mr. Yates. Is there any way we can move that river to this country? [Laughter.]

Mr. Robinson. We are, actually, getting the nearest thing to that. I think that's a must.

Mr. Yates. I wish we had our California representative here.

Mr. Robinson. I think it's going to be a marvelous educational facility to teach people about the glory of life on earth. We're very pleased that it's going so well.

GIFT FROM MUSEUM OF AFRICAN ART

Mr. Yates. Are you through? Oh, thank you. What is that picture I see against the wall?

Mr. Robinson. It's African art.

Mr. Yates. I know. Is that from you, Sylvia?

Ms. Williams. That's for you to keep.

Mr. Yates. Really?

Ms. Williams. Well, Mr. Chairman, it seems that we are a little weighted on American and French, so I thought that you could have this for this, or another room. So that's from the museum, it's one of our most famous pieces.

Mr. Yates. Does it pass the Helms test?

[Laughter.]

Okay. Thank you, Sylvia.

Mr. Atkins [presiding]. Mr. Yates assures me that when I'm through chairing, I'll have the same response.

[Laughter.]

Is that accurate, Mr. Secretary?

Mr. Adams. Yes.

NATIONAL MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY

Mr. Atkins. Mr. Talbot.

Mr. Talbot. Mr. Chairman, I just have a few things and in the interest of time, I'll keep it very short. One of the problems—if I may start this time the other way around—that Natural History is facing is the problem that was stated so eloquently by Roger Kennedy that, though we've been given some additions, at the same time base support has been eroding. The result is that we've had to cut over the past three years twenty-nine and a half percent from

the budgets of all our departments. We've had also, to try and keep within our budget—which we have managed to do, to virtually stop all recruitment.

So, we're hurting and this has hit us in a number of ways. We're really not doing what we should be doing. We've had to limit access to collections which is something we hate to do. We're short of basic supplies and equipment and we haven't upgraded or replaced computers over the past three years. It's reached a state this year that we can't publish the results of our research work. We don't have enough funds to do that.

We have some other real problems. We have collections under an asbestos roof where the asbestos dust has rained down, and we're trying to get those cleaned. Those specimens are anthropological— some thousands of them—and must be cleaned to move them out to the Museum Support Center (MSC) where new cases are ready for them. We can't do that at present.

This is further compounded by the fact that the space with its asbestos in the ceiling, has to be used when the whole HVAC—the renovation of the air conditioning and heating system—goes through. So, we may be forced to hold up the HVAC because we can't get this anthropological and other material out without cleaning. Although the funds are available to remove the asbestos from the ceiling, Mr. Siegle and his men can't get in to do that with the collections still there. So, this is a serious one for us and we've put up a request for funding under the MSC section in the budget of $1.5 million and that was put forward to OMB but was cut out entirely.

Mr. Atkins. Your original request to OMB was $41 million—the Smithsonian went forward with $35.

Mr. Talbot. The specimen cleaning and moving is in the MSC budget, rather than in our budget.

Mr. Atkins. I'm talking about in your own budget. It seems to me as though your budget was one of the most drastically reduced ones by the Smithsonian, itself, in their submission to OMB.

Mr. Talbot. Yes, we had asked for $8.8 million and that was put forward as $2.6 million by the Smithsonian and we got $1.13 million. Three items were supported and necessary pay

Mr. Atkins. I ask the Secretary why does the National Museum of Natural History appear to have been treated more severely by a substantial factor than any of the other parts of the institution?

Mr. Adams. I think I'll defer that to Tom Freudenheim, the Assistant Secretary for Museums.

Mr. Freudenheim. I don't think it's a reflection of the extensive needs of the museum. A lot of the way in which we move forward the figures, in fact, reflects our ability to deal with the amount of money that we can go to OMB with. In fact, the reason that the differential is so great is because the Museum of Natural History has immense problems that need to be solved. So the request they're putting in is, in fact, a fair reflection of the needs of the museum. They've had severe erosion of their base over the years which is really in crisis proportions now. Mr. Talbot can talk about it much more eloquently than I but it is a really major problem.

We need to renovate halls, exhibition halls, and to deal with other physical issues that are really very severe. But our ability to

move forward all the numbers that go into the central pot is limited, as well. So, it's not a reflection of our sense that this isn't important.

Mr. Atkins. So, in essence, they've been triaged and you've made the decision that they are in so much trouble that they're beyond

Mr. Freudenheim. Not triaged in that sense but triaged in the sense that we're dealing with a lot of priorities and they're getting only some of what we feel we can move forward.

Mr. Atkins. So, we're moving forward with a huge, new Air and Space Museum at immense cost and, at the same time, we have a Museum of Natural History that's badly out of date, with an enormous backlog of collections and with a severe and imminent threat to the conservation of the 119 million specimens that are in their care. We've made the choice to proceed with the new museum rather than to take care of the severe needs that we have in existing and core mission of the Smithsonian.

Mr. Adams. Mr. Chairman, I think that's not an accurate expression of what the new Air and Space Museum extension would be as it was presented here. We face a problem of conserving that collection, too. The focus of the Air and Space Museum extension is on placing some sort of cover over objects that otherwise will be deteriorating even more rapidly because they're on the tarmack at Dulles with nothing over them.

So, we were faced with, indeed, a situation of difficulty in any direction we tried to turn. But this is not as if it was a new venture that would be created at Dulles out of the whole cloth, so to speak. That, too, is a measure of conservation directed toward our collections.

Mr. Freudenheim. Mr. Kennedy's comments, in effect, come back right now. That is, these numbers are an example of the price we're paying for a long period of not having put enough resources into a lot of these needs. So the numbers just keep growing as we look at huge backlogs of work that needs to be done. Which is essentially what Mr. Kennedy said.

MAJOR SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTATION FUNDING

Mr. Atkins. It would occur to me as one looks through your budget submission that the mission for the Smithsonian is so broad that it could include virtually anything. What we have, for instance, in the astrophysical facility in Cambridge, which is really an excellent facility, but we have an enormous expenditure for new instrumentation there. That's obviously a choice that's been made, to move ahead with that instrumentation for that research and to not deal with the severe problems that we face in the Museum of Natural History.

The astrophysical facility happens to be adjacent to my district.

Mr. Adams. I think this is a wonderful issue in which to speak about how difficult these priority questions are but I don't think it's quite the way you're presently perceiving it.

In the first place, I should point out that we do anticipate very large expenses in the Natural History Museum which are going for

the so-called East Court fill-in project which is an essential part of the wholesale renovation of that building.

Mr. Atkins. The construction project.

Mr. Adams. Yes. There is, in fact, a major effort to move ahead with a big piece of what will need to be done in Natural History. One can't do everything, but it isn't as if we turned our back on this museum. There's a major effort underway here.

With regard to the new instrumentation, the point I would make is one that I'm sure that Irwin Shapiro would make more eloquently, but essentially it's the following: You can't have eminent staff of that extraordinary quality in that field, in any field of science, without having the materials on hand when they're ready to work on them. The sense of keeping a first-class staff in place in a field like astrophysics and astronomy requires that the instruments be on hand when they get to the point where they need to have them. Unless you have a phased program introducing instrumentation, the staff will disappear. They'll go where the instruments are. This is a step we have to take in order to remain on the cutting edge in that field.

Mr. Atkins. I appreciate that, but what that's saying is that you're making a set of priorities. You may have made the correct priorities but let's at least understand that by doing one we are not doing the other.

Mr. Adams. Absolutely.

Mr. Atkins. Could you tell me why we don't have NASA funding or NSF funding for those instruments at Cambridge?

Mr. Adams. Well, there is a very heavy NASA funding for the work that gets carried on.

Mr. Atkins. I appreciate that, but I'm talking about the instrumentation itself for NSF funding.

Mr. Shapiro. May I address that? There are two components to the answer. First of all, NASA does not support the ground-based work and second of all, the National Science Foundation does not entertain proposals from the Smithsonian Institution in its astronomy section.

Mr. Atkins. Let me ask you, should they? Should the law or policy be changed to allow that?

Mr. Shapiro. That's a tricky question in the sense that the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory is much larger than any university department and the university departments have no other recourse but to the National Science Foundation. The Smithsonian Institution is a Federally funded institution already and so the logic is that the National Science Foundation should be reserved mostly for the universities.

Mr. Adams. There's still another factor to be mentioned, Mr. Chairman. There is no money in the current budget that you're looking at for the National Air and Space Museum extension. There is no direct competition between the anticipated development of such a museum and the needs that the Museum of Natural History currently has.

Mr. Atkins. Since we're not going to fund the needs of the Museum of Natural History, the competition is going to occur, it's just not going to occur in this fiscal year.

Mr. Adams. There will, indeed

Mr. Sharipo. We should also, perhaps, put the construction in proper perspective. The construction that is going to the National Museum of Natural History is quite substantial, on the order of $100 million. It's not that the National Museum of Natural History is being totally ignored. It's a question of which is, perhaps, their greater needs—new construction or other items.

Mr. Adams. We are making very difficult priority decisions.

Mr. Atkins. I appreciate that. I'm struck by the contrast between the National Air and Space Museum where they came in and Mr. Harwit indicated to us that they had some massive funding that was provided for them. They're doing work that is actually building components for one of their observatories and they're doing it in a laboratory that was built with—you made the distinction of trust fund money versus appropriated money, so I'm afraid that I view those as one pot of money and I think that it's viewed by you as one pot of money in setting priorities—that they're in a position at the National Air and Space Museum to really be in an entirely new business which they've had an enormous amount of success in, but we're left with a National Museum of Natural History where we don't have the funds to preserve collections that have been left in our care. Is that

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION SUPPORT

Mr. Talbot. I think that's beginning to be the case. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The problem, as ever, is complicated.

One of the things we have asked and the Smithsonian has strongly supported is for infrastructure funds in the past few years and I think it's reasonable to say that OMB has not been very supportive. We've put forward infrastructure requests and they have been knocked back.

The problem that's now occurring is this reduction in base and those scientists who are now having difficulty in effectively doing their programs and some of them are brilliant, outstanding scientists. The question was raised whether we should not be eligible for NSF funding. I think, in the past, it's been clear that we had our own way of getting adequate funding. That's no longer true and it may well be that that could be relooked at. Our own scientists certainly feel so.

Mr. Atkins. Thank you.

Mr. Adams. Apparently, there was a time in the past when it was possible for the Smithsonian to go to the NSF. I've been told that this was long before I came to Washington. There was a change in policy somewhere in the late 1960's that led to the withdrawing of NSF support, or the possibility of NSF support. We still do receive a little National Science Foundation money in those cases where we provide a unique scientific service, or a project of such quality that it is the very best that might

Mr. Atkins. Have you ever looked at that issue?

Mr. Adams. I raised it passionately with Eric Bloch, the previous director of NSF. There's a new director, Walter Massey, who's just come on board and, I can assure you, we intend to raise the matter again.

Mr. Atkins. I'd appreciate it for the record if you would submit your position on that issue. [The information follows:]

Establishing the Ability for the Smithsonian To Secure Funds From the NSF

In response to questions raised at our appropriations hearing on March 21, 1991, we submit the following on the issue of the Smithsonian's ability to secure money from the National Science Foundation (NSF).

This has been a topic of much discussion for the last several years. As an example of the Institutional importance of the issue, we excerpt from the minutes of our February, 1991 Board of Requests meeting:

"The discussion focused most specifically on the longstanding policy of the National Science Foundation to consider individual Smithsonian scientists as generally ineligible to receive grants from the Foundation. The implications for the Smithsonian were explored in terms of the overall funding levels for Smithsonian research [ . . . ] and the relatively sparse grant resources available through the competitive programs supported within the Institution by-unrestricted non-appropriated trust funds."

Presently, only Smithsonian Research Associates (non-salaried) are allowed to submit research proposals to NSF. Salaried Smithsonian scientists may be collaborators on NSF research proposals submitted by scientists in other institutions, but may not receive direct support from NSF, except from certain NSF programs, such as International Programs or in education and training areas.

The Institution is interested in initiating a dialogue with NSF to explore whether or not it might be feasible to relax some of the present restrictions on eligibility of Smithsonian scientists for NSF support.

NATIONAL MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY

Mr. Talbot. Mr. Chairman, to try and get by, we might have some suggestions, if you would entertain them, for the coming year.

Mr. Atkins. I would be happy to. Let me suggest if you could put those in the record that would be most helpful. We had the Tale of Two Cities earlier, we can have Bleak House. [Laughter.]

[The information follows:]

National Museum of Natural History FY 1992 Budget Needs

Amazonian Biological Diversity Programs ($250.000) -Tropical forests are being destroyed by human alteration throughout the world. The loss of tropical rain forests and concomitant biodiversity is a threat to all humankind, particularly as it relates to hastening global warming and other environmental changes. Addressing these urgent and ultimate problems demands a better understanding of the composition/distribution of tropical flora and fauna. The NMNH Amazonian Biodiversity Programs consist of the Biological Dynamics of Forest Fragments Project (BDFF), the Biological Diversity of the Guianas Project (BDG), the Biological Diversity of Latin America Project (BIOLAT), and the Neotropical Lowland Research Project.

Under BDFF, scientists study the changes that occur in the Amazonian rainforest ecosystem of Brazil as human development encroaches upon it. Researchers inventory the flora and fauna in a series of isolated forest reserves near Manaus and measure the physical changes in the understory microclimate and soil moisture. Biotic and physical changes are then related to the size of the forest reserve under study. Resulting analyses will provide guidelines for the necessary size of reserves and the integration of conservation and economic development.

The BDG project inventories the flora and fauna of one of the most poorly known regions of South America. In addition to conducting workshops and training local biologists in documenting biodiversity, the project forms part of a multinational effort that will produce a complete flora of the Guianas.

BIOLAT currently supports research into all aspects of biological diversity, including inventory and monitoring of the flora and fauna in multidisciplinary ways, utilizing permanent field stations in Bolivia (Beni Reserve) and Peru (Pakitza - Manu National Park). The program also conducts workshops to establish standards for inventorying biological diversity.

The Neotropical Lowland Research Program focusses on understanding the relationships, distributions, diversity, and ecology of selected exemplary groups throughout the Neotropical lowlands. Currently, NMNH scientists associated with the program are studying spiders, beetles, plants, reptiles, amphibians, fishes, and archeology in Amazonia and in the Atlantic Forest system of coastal Brazil.

The World Wildlife Fund provided $250,000 per year for three years to allow for a transition to federal funding for a larger percentage of the programs. This support will end in FY92, and spurred our original request for increased funding totaling $297,000. A $250,000 add-on will allow the programs to continue functioning at the current level, and matching private funds will continue to be sought for future years.

Safety Management (2 workvears and $200.000) - The National Museum of Natural History is an active partner with the central Smithsonian Facilities Services units in meeting the physical plant safety needs of the Institution. A portion of the Natural History Building is over 80 years old. Its age necessitates ever-increasing attention, especially in the current environment in which both the staff and public are far more safety conscious. Federal and local safety laws and regulations require that the building meet new, more stringent requirements. As these changes are mandated, if funds are not forthcoming, we shall have to cut further into base funds to comply.

The Museum houses 231 federal researchers, research associates, curators emeritus and scientists from other agencies and has 26 open exhibit galleries that serve more than 6 million visitors each year. The types of research conducted in the Museum require the use of many different chemicals. The Museum must purchase supplies and equipment, such as respirators and hazardous chemical storage cabinets, to meet the current safety laws. While the Institution requests Repair and Restoration funding to make major repairs, the Museum must bear the cost of minor repairs to the Natural History Building to meet safety laws. The requirement for formal reporting on safety issues has grown exponentially in recent years. The reporting requirement alone is a time-consuming task.

Safety responsibilities have become complex and require staff with technical knowledge and specialized training. A Safety Officer and a Hazardous Waste Officer (two workyears and $105,000) will perform this function. Other funding of $95,000 include travel ($5,000), contractual services and training ($35,000), and supplies and equipment ($55,000). Travel funds will support staff participation in Occupational Safety and Health Administration safety training held in Des Plains, Illinois, several times each year. Contractual services include the costs of hazardous waste removal.

These resources will help the Museum achieve better environmental protection, occupational health, hazard communication, and safety training that will assist in ensuring the safety of staff, visitors, collections, and other property.

MSC Move (24 Workyears and MSC Move $800.000 ) - The Museum Support Center, which opened in FY 1983, has been plagued with contractural difficulties in its attempt to acquire collections storage equipment. Now that the equipment contractural problems have been resolved, and more than 7,000 cabinets are installed and waiting for collections to be moved into them, adequate funding for the Move to occur in a timely way has not been provided. The following summarizes the description of the Move funding need as described in the Budget Request on page 152:

The MSC Move base funds of $298,000 do not contain sufficient resources to relocate collections from the mall to MSC in any significant numbers. Although retaining the $107,000 associated with the program to evaluate the effectiveness of cleaning techniques (to be completed in FY 1991) in the Move base is critical to achieving progress on the Move in FY 1992, base funding will not be sufficient to move enough collections out of the Natural History Building (NHB). With the current base ($405,000), and no funding for within-grade increases or inflation, it would take over 12 years to accomplish the Move.

Many collections at NHB scheduled to move to MSC are currently stored in overcrowded, asbestos-contaminated conditions and as a result are not accessible for research or exhibit. For the sake of the long-term preservation of the objects, it is crucial that they be moved to MSC as quickly as possible.

In addition, the Natural History Building is scheduled to begin in FY 1991 a Major Capital Renewal Project that will take 10 years to replace its 30-year-old mechanical system. For this Project to proceed on schedule, the Smithsonian must move, by mid-FY 1994 those collections presently stored in the Museum's three attics. Only with adequate Move funding from FY 1992 through FY 1994, can the designated collections be relocated to MSC. The contractor can then remove the asbestos from the three attics and use them as "swing spaces" for temporary relocation of staff and/or collections and proceed with necessary mechanical renovations throughout the rest of the building. Any delay in moving those collections scheduled for relocation to MSC will delay the mechanical renovation Project significantly.

The Smithsonian requested the Office of Management and Budget (0MB) to provide an increase of $}.5 million and 45 workyears in FY 1992 for the Move. 0MB did not approve the increase. To maintain the Major Capital Renewal Project schedule, a minimum of an additional $800,000 of Move funding and 24 workyears would be required in FY 1992.

Mr. Talbot. If I can say so, it's not all bleak. The scientists are doing an outstanding job in all sorts of areas and have produced during the year something like 20 books and over 350 scientific papers. Natural History is a powerhouse of work. I just brought one piece along to show you that there's a real result that comes out of

Mr. Atkins. Are those books sold?

Mr. Talbot. That's a book on the flora of Hawaii, both the introduced flora and the original flora and it's done by Doctor Warren Wagner, one of our staff, with some other colleagues.

Mr. Atkins. What's the price of these books?

Mr. Talbot. You can have them for free.

Mr. Atkins. No, my interest in botany does not extend beyond 3,000 pages. But you do sell

Mr. Talbot. Oh, absolutely. This is published and is for sale.

The other area that we've been working very hard on is in looking at that wonderful Amazonian rain forest. One of the four major pieces of environmental work is one that was initiated many, many years ago by Tom Lovejoy and the Smithsonian took over two years ago. That we have funded entirely on private funds. It's called the BDFF, the Biological Dynamics of Forest Fragments and that one we put forward and, again, I'm afraid it was refused and we still are trying to find $600,000 from private sources this year and any help there would be gratefully received.

Mr. Atkins. Let me ask you. Dr. Lovejoy's work is known pretty much around the world and it's my understanding that that's the cutting edge work in that area. Is that fair to say? [Laughter.]

Mr. Talbot. Dr. Lovejoy started something which has not been copied in any major way anywhere else. It's a massive program. It involves the government of Brazil and relationships with the local farming community. It has resulted in isolated areas, from small size to large size—one hectare to a thousand-hectare set aside. We have been monitoring those. We've appointed a new director to do so. We look upon Tom as our patron saint who started it off but he's now handed it over to us. He keeps a very close watch on it. That program is different from any other found anywhere else and it's extremely important. At this time, it's done entirely on private funds and it's a very tough task for us to achieve.

NATIONAL ZOOLOGICAL PARK

Mr. Atkins. Let me ask, just to get to the issue of priorities for the National Zoological Park as part of your participation in the Quincentenary. We're talking about the establishment of two heritage gardens that are supposed to deal with the issues of the rain forest. I guess I'm a little confused, because here you have a program in the Museum of Natural History providing no appropriated funds for what is on the cutting edge of preservation of the rain forest. For people to ask, what are the three most promising initiatives there, certainly Dr. Lovejoy's work is on most concensus lists for that. Yet, we can't find money to fund that work but we find money to start a new initiative in a heritage garden which seems, at best, from my understanding the concept, to be something that's

43-202 O—91 10

not clear why it's there other than there was a Quincentenary and you wanted to put the National Zoological Park as part of it.

Mr. Robinson. There's some confusion here.

[Committee note. —Mr. Robinson later provided the Committee with the following information:]

There are two small heritage gardens planned that deal with medicinal plants of North America. One is about the plants used by Native Americans and the other deals with herbs used by the Afro-Americans who found replacements here for the plants that they used in their African home. Both these gardens are being planted by our staff and volunteers and no capital expenditure is involved. These have nothing to do with tropical forests. The latter, of course, is dealt with by our Amazonia exhibit.

Mr. Robinson. I told you earlier about the fact that we're building an Amazon exhibition—the National Zoological Park—which is a major center then of education about the plight of the rain forest which will bring millions of people to realize how menaced it is and what's at stake. I think the educational message is as important as the research because being sited in the nation's capital, we have here the governmental center of the country, the banking center of the entire globe, and people who are making decisions about rain forests will be able to see what's at stake by going to our exhibit.

Mr. Atkins. Aren't there similar exhibits around the country?

Mr. Robinson. I wouldn't want to knock my colleagues at other zoos but no, this will be absolutely unique and one of a kind in the depth of its biological complexity and its educational perspective. It's already under construction and funded.

Mr. Lovejoy. That's true and I would also say there's a limited number of people that I can actually take to the rain forest in the Amazon and make the case with the real McCoy, as it were. To have the ability to be able to make it much more accessible is very important.

Mr. Atkins. Thank you very much.

ARCHIVES OF AMERICAN ART

Mr. Atkins. Mr. Wattenmaker, Archives of American Art.

Mr. Wattenmaker. Well, knowing that time is short, the Archives of American Art might say two words about the kind of work we do and why our work is important.

As you know, we collect documents on the history of American art and we preserve them and we make them available for researchers at all levels. We currently have approximately 11 million of these documents.

What we are keen about doing and where we need funding is: a. for an archivist in our New York office, which is our busiest office and which has approximately 2,000 researchers a year using our facilities and b. for additional support to complete an automated cataloging project which will enable anyone who is a member, or who becomes a member, of the Research Libraries Information Network anywhere across the country—any libraries, primarily, but also industries and other kinds of educational organizations—can just punch in and immediately get a cross-section of the kinds of documents that we have in the area that they're researching.

Our bureau is very quiet but it is really at the heart of where researchers go to get original research material to support museum exhibitions, books, master degrees, dissertations, and so forth.

Mr. Atkins. I appreciate that and I particularly appreciate your work this year in acquiring the papers of Edmond Tarbell who is one of the only Boston impressionists. Boston still is coming to grips with the impressionists, in accepting them. [Laughter.]

Mr. Wattenmaker. And we make them available through our Boston office, as well. So, we do need some additional support. We're not first among equals but we are one of the really key, indeed unique, educative resources that the Smithsonian provides to scholars.

Mr. Atkins. Thank you very much.

[The Archives of American Art FY 1992 budget needs follow:]

Archives of American Art FY 1992 Budget Needs

Although the Office of Management and Budget disallowed the program increases requested by the Archives of American Art and approved by the Smithsonian's Administration, so central to responsible management of and public access to the collections were the requests that the Archives respectfully submits the following:

1. Archivist for the New York Regional Center (1 workyear and $45,000). So critical is the need for the New York Archivist that the Archives has made the request for three years in a row and has had the position in its five-year plans for nearly six years. The New York Regional Center is the most active of the offices. It accommodates more researchers (in excess of 2000 annually) in its facilities than any other office and acquires more than half of the new collections (estimated 200 cubic feet or 200,000 items annually) accessioned by the Archives every year.

2. Equally urgent is the technical support for research services (2 workyears and $84,000). Funding would provide for the automated cataloguing operation and assure the availability of information on Archives collections anywhere in the country through the Research Libraries Information Network (RLIN). What it means is access to Archives material for students, scholars, and others interested in American art and culture in their own libraries, colleges, and universities. The investment would not only have the effect of broadening the Archives user base, but would also have an enormous impact in reducing overall administrative costs to the Archives and to the Smithsonian Institution.

NATIONAL MUSEUM OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN

Mr. Atkins. Mr. West, National Museum of the American Indian.

Mr. West. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I would like to begin, I guess, by returning the compliment that the Secretary accorded me in his remarks by quoting him when he at one time said, or has said several times, that the National Museum of the American Indian is, indeed, the museum different. And I think what that means from the standpoint of this museum is that it is a museum really that is about not just beautiful objects of which we have over 1 million, unquestionably the most stunning collection of objects from this entire hemisphere in the world of native peoples.

But it is really about a living culture and a living people and it tries to place those objects in that context by talking about both the people and the culture out of which they came. That drives many of things that we do. I guess I would say in contrast, hopefully, to the statement made by my esteemed colleague, Roger Kennedy, I don't think that anything that we are doing is boring, nor do I think that anything that we are asking for is boring in terms of our requests for fiscal year 1992. We think that it presents a

number of exciting prospects for this newest addition to the Smithsonian.

I would just like to briefly point out the ways in which I think this difference in this museum spins itself out as this institution begins to develop. In that we are trying to just talk about a living culture and a living people, that has a definite impact on the direction of program for the National Museum of the American Indian.

For example, in connection with the opening of the Custom House which involves the development of our opening exhibition in late 1992 or early 1993. The exhibits which people will see there, I think, reflect this spirit of the National Museum of the American Indian. One of the things we've done and what will probably be the linch pin of that opening is an exhibit called Points of View that departs from the normal curation process which basically has our staff curators selecting objects, selecting themes, and putting the exhibit together. Instead, we are compiling a list of probably 150 to 250 individuals, most of them natives from all parts of this hemisphere who will actually be selecting the objects themselves and commenting upon those objects. The obvious intent to give a broader, more fullsome and, hopefully, more accurate picture of exactly what living Indian culture is in this hemisphere.

There are other parts of the exhibit which try to do precisely that, also. One of the other shows has been conceptually titled Celebrations and it will involve asking approximately six to ten Indian artists and by that I don't mean only graphic artists. I mean poets, writers, film-makers, video-makers, people who deal in a number of different artistic media to come to the museum, select certain objects from our collection and spend some time together and with those objects to try to figure out exactly how they respond to them. The obvious effort there being to try to pull the historical through the present and push it into the future to see exactly what is going to happen with the evolution, the continuing evolution of contemporary Indian culture.

Another aspect in which I think this particular center of the museum, and what it is at its core, will spin out is in the area of education which has received a great deal of comment today. My feeling has always been that if the National Museum of the American Indian turns out to be nothing more, even though that would be a very significant achievement, than a handsome building on the Mall, then we will have failed and probably failed quite miserably. Because in the end, this museum is not just about objects, bricks, and mortar. It is about ideas, it is about information, and it is about communicating that information throughout the country. Having this institution, this part of the Smithsonian Institution, go far beyond the walls of the edifices that we may create here on the nation's Mall. We are already working in many ways to try to see that there is a connectedness between the tremendous human and material resources that we have on the Mall in our museum and communities located far beyond the boundaries of Washington, D.C. It is that kind of connectedness that we will strive for, too.

NMAI DEVELOPMENT CAMPAIGN

I would also like to mention briefly, if I could, that I do believe honestly that these ideas are finding great receptivity across the country, as we find, from beginning to embark on our national development campaign. As you may be well aware in connection with the construction of our facility on the Mall and at the Mall museum, we have to raise a third of our funds privately and we are already embarking publicly on our development campaign. And that announcement, which I just have a copy of here, went into four national newspapers in January and, contrary to every rule that goes along with such newspaper advertisements, we are to this very day, and I mean literally today, still receiving donations in response to that particular advertisement.

Mr. Atkins. If you could submit for the record your progress report on your national campaign and whether and when you feel you'll be able to meet the requirement for one-third, if you could also submit for the record a progress report and anything you have about the adequacy of funding for your regional training sites and your Native American staff development, your activities which will involve Native Americans in the development of the exhibits.

Mr. West. I would be happy to do that and let me also close by giving you, for distribution to the Committee, copies of the pamphlet which is going into our first direct mail test package which is being mailed, quite literally, today. There will be 202,000 pieces of that which go out as we test the market to see if we can build into our development program a membership program. Thank you.

[The information follows:]

National Museum of the American Indian National Campaign Status Report

Although just beginning, the NMAI National Campaign is attracting a great deal of interest on the part of the American people and private funding organizations. The campaign, as of March 27, 1991 reports a total of $442,074.66 received from all sources and for all purposes.

The NMAI National Campaign is currently testing a membership program and will decide in the near future if the market is conducive to implementing a full scale program. In addition, the National Campaign staff is actively pursuing a broad range of public relations, special events, and fund raising activities, all of which will be directly focused toward securing the initial major gifts and volunteer leadership which the campaign requires.

Given our current fund raising plan, the current estimated cost of construction, the timetable for initiating construction of the Mall facility of the Museum, and the availability of adequate operating support, we anticipate a successful completion of the Campaign during Fiscal Year 1996.

Regional Training Sites Funding

The current budget of $100,000 for regional training provides funding for three training programs, which occured over the past year at Neah Bay, Washington; Stroud, Oklahoma; and in Washington, D.C. An additional $50,000 is requested to increase the number of training sites in FY 1992. In future fiscal years the Office of Museum Programs plans to continue to extend these training programs from three to eight sites; consequently, additional funds will be required and will be requested.

Activities Involving Native Americans in Exhibition Development

Native Americans are involved in several activities relating to exhibition development. Several are currently working to revise exhibits at the museum's existing facility at 155th Street in New York. A Native American staff member has been hired recently as exhibitions coordinator for the Custom House, and a number of Native Americans on the NMAI staff are working on new exhibitions for its opening.

In response to concerns expressed by traditional and tribal leaders, NMAI has begun to remove certain objects from view at the existing museum, particularly where the visibility of the objects to a general public has offended tribal members. Tribal leaders and religious Indian leaders are being contacted about the proper disposition of objects of a sensitive nature.

For the Custom House opening, scheduled for early 1993, NMAI has selected three exhibitions: SHARED VISIONS, CELEBRATIONS, and POINTS OF VIEW. These exhibitions are being approached in a somewhat unique way, in that each will be developed in collaboration with Indian people and Indian communities.

SHARED VISIONS is a traveling exhibition of 20th century Indian paintings and sculpture curated at the Heard Museum in Phoenix by Native people who are art historians.

CELEBRATIONS is an exhibit of will be an original art work. Produced jointly by a selected group of Native people, all of whom are noted contemporary artists, the objects, installation, and documentation of the exhibition will be in the hands of the group themselves with the NMAI providing support and financial assistance.

The third exhibition, POINTS OF VIEW, will be based on the collections of the a Heye Foundation. Thirty prominent Indian people from this hemisphere will serve as individual curators. Each will select and discuss objects of their choosing. The selectors will be from many different areas of expertise and from many different tribes, and will represent many different points of view.

The NMAI Exhibition Selection Committee has met for the first time. Unlike the usual selection process, which includes only internal staff, this committee includes four outside peer reviewers from the Indian community. We have found this format so successful that we intend to institutionalize this process for future selection.

NATIONAL MUSEUM OF AFRICAN ART

Mr. Atkins. Sylvia Williams. Did you have anything—you made the presentation earlier—did you have anything for the record.

Ms. Williams. No sir, I have no difficulty, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to report. I will say only two things.

First, that dealing with Africa, both her earlier visual traditions and her contemporary visual traditions does mean that the staff of the museum needs to get into Africa from time to time. That was the request this year. We were supported by the Castle and now OMB struck the request. We understand that but the fact remains that the area of the world in which we do concentrate and if we are to stay abreast of what is going on in terms of contemporary art in Africa and teaching that in this country, that travel increase is not without merit.

The second thing I will say is that I was heartened by the discussion on education today and—we are busy analyzing what we are doing at this point, with a view to strengthening those programs for the future.

COLUMBUS QUINCENTENARY ACTIVITIES

Mr. Atkins. Thank you very much. That completes our list of witnesses. Mr. Secretary, if I could, ask you to submit for the record your program for the Columbus Quincentenary and specifically your view of how the Smithsonian activities will coordinate with other activities of the Government.

[The information follows:]

Smithsonian Quincentenary Programs

and

Coordination with Other Government Agencies

Following is a calendar listing of programs and activities produced by the Smithsonian Institution for the commemoration of the Columbus Quincentenary.

The Office of Quincentenary Programs maintains a continuing liaison and information exchange with all local groups, including Government agencies, planning Quincentenary programs. In addition plans for collaborative programming are underway with the Department of the Interior, National Park Service, and with the Library of Congress.

The National Park Service has designated 37 parks throughout the country as "Quincentenary Parks." It is proposed that the Office of Quincentenary Programs and the National Park Service work together on mutually beneficial projects, e.g.: traveling exhibit development and display; symposia; exchange of information beneficial to their respective programs; identifiction, distribution, and use of interpretive and educational information through the Quincentenary parks; and projects that could enhance the focus on community events and education.

The Library of Congress plans to produce film series which will be complimentary to Smithsonian programs, such as the symposium, "Images: Women in the Americas."

CALENDAR SMITHSONIAN QUINCENTENARY

January 10, 1991 -— Symposium

Spring 1991 Publication.

March 1991 Publication.

March 15, 1991 Exhibition.

June 28-July 1, Living Exhibition .

July 4-7, 1991

September 4-6,1991 Symposium .

September 7, 1991 Inaugural Event,

Fall 1991 Educational Materials .

October 1991— Educational Materials .

October 12, 1991 Exhibition .

October 18-20, 1991 Symposium .

ACTIVITIES

"Future Technologies", National Air and Space Museum

"Seeds of Change," Smithsonian Institution Press

"Historical Archaeology in Global Perspective," Smithsonian Institution Press

"The West as America, 1820-1920: Reinterpreting Images of the Frontier" National Museum of American Art

"Festival of American Folklife," Office of Folklife Programs

"Symposium of the Americas," Office of Quincentenary Programs

Special event to inaugurate SI wide Quincentenary programs

To accompany Buried Mirror television series

To accompany the exhibition Seeds of Change, National Museum of Natural History

"Seeds of Change," National Museum of Natural History

"Good as Gold" Foods the Americas Gave the World, National Museum of American History

November 7-9, 1991 Symposium .

October 31-November 1,1991

Symposium ,

November 1991— thru Nov. 1994

-Traveling RxhJbi^^V

1992-

—Television Program.

1992-

1992-

-Symposium . -Exhibition.

1992 Educational Guide,

1992 Recordin g Series .

1992 Publication.

1992 ■ Puhlin Pr-ngr-^g ,

"Images: Women in the Americas," Office of Quincentenary Programs

"Race, Discourse and the Origin of the Americas: A New World View of 1492," The University of the West Indies/Smithsonian Institution

"Capturing the Spirit: thru Portraits of Contemporary Mexican Artists," Smithsonian Institution Traveling Exhibition Service

"Music at the Time of Columbus," Univ. of Oklahoma, Office of Telecommunications

"Cultural Transplantation," Office of Elementary and Secondary Education

"Science in the Age of Columbus," Dibner Library, National Museum of American History

"Multi-cultural curriculum Kit," Office of Elementary and Secondary Education

Musical Repercussions of the Encounter, Office of Folklife Programs

"The Buried Mirror," Houghton-Mifflin Co.

Exchanges between Africa and the Americas covering language, literature, religion, music and political history, Anacostia Museum

1992 Exhibition,

1992 Exhibition.

1992 Exhibition.

1992 Educational Materials.

1992 Publication.

1992 Publication.

1992 Publication.

1992 Traveling Exhibition.

1992 Traveling Exhibition.

January 1992 Radio Series.

January 1992 Traveling Exhibitions.

"Amazonia," National Zoological Park

"Algonquin Heritage Garden," National Zoological Park

"African Heritage Garden," National Zoological Park

To accompany the exhibits Amazonia and Heritage Gardens, National Zoological Park

"Where Next, Columbus?," Smithsonian Institution Press

"Maps: Ways to Read the World," Smithsonian Institution Press

"American Encounters," Smithsonian Institution Press

"Borderlands," Smithsonian Institution Traveling Exhibition Service

"Fred E. Miller: Photographer of the Crows," Smithsonian Institution Traveling Exhibition Service

"Spirits of the Present: The Legacy from Native America," Office of Telecommunications

"Seeds of Change," Smithsonian Institution Traveling Exhibition Service/American Library Association

Spring 1992-

-Publication.

"Violence and Resistance in the Americas," Smithsonian Institution Press

Spring 1992-

- publication,

"The Musical Repercussions of 1492," Smithsonian Institution Press

Spring 1992-

- pub li c ation .

"Demography in the Americas: Changing Patterns Before and After 1492," Smithsonian Institution Press

Spring 1992-

- Publication,

Spring 1992-

-Ex hj b jtion ,

Spring 1992-

-Educational Materials.

Spring 1992-

-Exhibition,

May 1992 Educational Materials.

May 1992 Zssfcixftl,

May 7, 1992 Kyhih^on

"Artifacts of the Spanish Colonies," Vol. II, by Kathleen Deagan, Smithsonian Institution Press

"Where Next, Columbus?," National Air and Space Museum

To accompany the exhibition, "Where Next, Columbus?," National Air and Space Museum

"Where Next, Columbus?," supplemental exhibition opening in Spain accompanied by IMAX film and a Smithsonian Institution Museum Shop

To accompany the exhibition "Chicano Art: Resistance and Affirmation," National Museum of American Art

"Festival of the Horse," National Museum of Natural History

"Chicano Art: Resistance and Affirmation," National Museum of American Art

May 1992 Exhibition.

"Golden Threads: A tapestry of Creativity," Sepharad •92/World Sephardic Federation, Smithsonian Institution

June 1992 Living Exhibition.

July 1992— Exhibition.

Fall 1992 Exhibition.

Fall 1992 Publication.

"Festival of American FolJclife," Office of Folklife Programs

"American Encounters," National Museum of American History

"Maps: Ways to Read the World," Cooper-Hewitt Museum of Decorative Arts and Design

"Seeds of the Past," 3 Volumes, Smithsonian Institution Press

Fall 1992 Educational Materials.

Fall 1992—public prograwp,

September 7, 1992—Exhibition.

October 1992 Publication.

To accompany the exhibition, "Maps: Ways to Read the World," Cooper-Hewitt Museum of Decorative Arts and Design

Full range of educational programs related to the exhibition, "Maps: Ways to Read the World," Cooper-Hewitt Museum

"Latin American Pioneers of Modernism," Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden

Atlas of the World through satellite imagery, "Satellite View of a Dynamic Earth" together with a "User's Guide."

October 1992 Educational Materials.

To accompany the publication Satellite Atlas of the World, National Air

October 1992 Education Kit.

October 1992 Public Prpg™»« r

Winter 1992 Television Program.

April 1993-

-Exhifrition,

and Space Museum In conjunction with the exhibition," American Encounters," National Museum of American History

Sympos i a, workshops, demonstrations, performances and films in conjunction with the exhibition "American Encounters," Nat iona1 Museum of American History

"The Buried Mirror: Reflections on Spain and the New World by Carlos Fuentes," Office of Quincentenary Programs

"American Painting and Sculpture at the World's Columbian Exposition, 1893," National Museum of American Art/ National Portrait Gallery

ACTIVITIES PRIOR TO 1991

1987-

-Publication.

"Artifacts of the Spanish Colonies," Vol. I, by Kathleen Deagan, Smithsonian Institution Press

1987-

-Svmposium.

1987-

-Exhibition.

September 1987-

Svmposium .

1988-

-Publication.

1988-

-Publication.

"After Columbus: Encounters in North America," National Museum of Natural History

"A Chinese Puzzle in California: Foreign Trade and Native Americans Before 1600," National Museum of American History

"Americans Before Columbus: Ice Age Origins," Office of Quincentenary Programs

"Americans Before Columbus: Ice Age Origin," Dept. of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh

"Seeds of the Past," Smithsonian Institution Press

1988-

-Symposj.um,

1988-

- Exhibition,

1988 thru 1992-

-Public Program.

"After Columbus: Encounters in North America," National Museum of American History

"Commerce and Conflict: The English in Virginia," National Museum of American History

Performances, classes, films, readings, workshops, courses and other programs on a variety of subjects, Resident Associate Program

March 10-13, 1988 Symposium .

September 23-24, 1988 Symposium .

1989 Publication.

1989 SymPQSJUB,

1989 Exhibition,

Spring 1989 Publication.

Spring 1989 Publication.

March 23-26, 1989 Symposium .

May 4-6, 1989 Symposium.

June 1989 Living Exhibition.

Fall 1989 Publication,

"Musical Repercussions of 1492," Office of Quincentenary Programs

"Seeds of the Past," Office of Folklife Programs/ Cornell University

"Seeds of Commerce," Smithsonian Institution Press

"After Columbus: Encounters in North America," National Museum of American History

"Kiva, Cross, and Crown at Pecos Pueblo," National Museum of American History

"Monte Verde," by Tom Dillehay, Smithsonian Institution Press

"Columbian Consequences," Vol.1, Coordinated by David Hurst Thomas, Smithsonian Institution Press

"Seeds of Commerce," Office of Folklife Programs/Casa del Caribe, Santiago de Cuba

"Violence and Resistance in the Americas: The Legacy of Conquest," Office of Quincentenary Programs

"Festival of American Folklife," Office of Folklife Programs

"Tropical Renaissance," by Katherine Manthorne, Smithsonian Institution Press

October 1989-

1990-

1990-

305

-Traveling Exhibition. -Publication.

1990-

-Publication.

1990-

-Svmposium.

1990 thru 1992-

-PublJC Pr-ocp-aiiiB,

1990 thru 1992 Public Program^ ,

1990 thru 1992 Publication .

Spring 1990 Publication.

"Tiralo a la Calle/Taking to the Streets," Office of Folklife Programs and Institute for Contemporary Culture

"Seeds of Industry," Smithsonian Institution Press

"VSJ—Varrio San Jose: Scenes from an Urban Chicano Experience," National Museum of American History

Exhibition catalogue: "VSJ—Varrio San Jose: Scenes from an Urban Chicano Experience," National Museum of American History

"Power and Purpose in Documentary Photography," National Museum of American History

Performances, lectures, courses, seminars, films, study tours,studio arts and Afro-American studies, Resident Associate Program

Lectures, workshops and performances in host cities in U.S.,and International Events Program

"The New World," Office of Quincentenary Programs

"Columbian Consequences," Vol.11, Coordinated by David Hurst Thomas, Smithsonian Institution Press

January 1990— thru Feb. 1944

Traveling Exhibition .

April 1990-

-Publication.

May 1990-

- publication,

May 1990-

•Publication.

July 1990-

-Publication.

August 27-31, 1990 Symposium .

September 6-8, 1990 Symposium .

September 1990 Publication.

"Paintbrush Diplomacy: Children's Art from the Americas," Smithsonian Institution Traveling Exhibition Service

"Puerto Rico Mio," by Jack May Delano, Smithsonian Institution Press

"The Juan Pardo Expeditions: Explorations of the Carolinas and Tennessee, 1566-1568," by Charles Hudson, Smithsonian Institution Press

"Columbian Consequences," Vol. Ill, Coordinated by David Hurst Thomas, Smithsonian Institution Press

"The Mississippian Emergence," edited by Bruce Smith, Smithsonian Institution Press

"Non-Imperial Polities in the Lands Visited by Christopher Columbus During His Four Voyages to the New World," Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute co-sponsored with the Instituto de Investi-gaciones Cientificas

"Seeds of Industry" Office of Folklife Programs

"After Columbus: The Indians of North America Since the Europeans Came," Smithsonian Books

September 15, 1990— Traveling Exhibition . "Contrasts/Contrastes:

thru Aug. 1993

Forty Years of Change and Continuity in Puerto Rico," Smithsonian Institution Traveling Exhibition Service

October 1-2, 1990 Symposium .

"Potatoes: Feeding Tomorrow's Global Village," National Museum of Natural History

November 2-3, 1990 — Symposium.

"Disease and Demographics," National Museum of Natural History

Mr. Atkins. At this point, it appears as though the Smithsonian is the primary center and I am particularly concerned that, while there has been an effort made to have geographic dispersal of some of your programs, immediate programs that by and large there is now an expectation that the Smithsonian is doing the Quincentenary and that people outside of metropolitan Washington may discover that there isn't much of a Quincentenary during the Quincentenary. Now you may disagree on that, if you could for the record submit your plans and your thoughts about that.

[The information follows:]

SMITHSONIAN PLANS FOR WIDER DISSEMINATION OF QUINCENTENARY PROGRAMS

Although metropolitan areas such as the Washington area are probably more aware of Quincentenary activities, I believe the public at large is informed. The Buried Mirror television series will be a primary source of information for the public concerning the Quincentenary commemoration. The Smithsonian Institution Traveling Exhibition Service will circulate traveling exhibitions to museums throughout the US. Several publications will be produced by the Smithsonian Institution Press which will have wide circulation; and papers and proceedings of symposia and seminars will be published for circulation. Educational materials will be developed which will be available for schools; and teacher workshops will be held to assist teachers in adapting materials for classrooms. The office of Quincentenary Programs newsletter, The New World, is circulated to about 10,000 throughout the hemisphere.

In addition to these activities, many of the bureaus, specifically the National Museum of Natural History, have maintained a close collaborative role with "National History Day" which will involve schools around the country in the theme, "Discovery and Exchange." Extensive work has been done with the American Library Association, the National Endowment for the Humanities, State and Local Humanities Councils and the National Social Science Association.

Mr. Adams. If I could really say that, in response to that, we are as chagrined by this development as you are. We really had the feeling that there should have been the development of activity all across the country. As you know, the Jublilee Commission that was set up by the United States Government came on hard times, and has not offered much leadership in this area. For a variety of reasons we have felt since the beginning that this was a program that was tremendously important and have worked very hard on it. I hope that it doesn't work to our disadvantage that we have retained our sense of its importance, because I think it is of really great importance to the country that this go forward.

Mr. Atkins. I appreciate that. Let me thank everybody here for their forebearance. I appreciate it.

[Questions and answers for the record follow:]

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Infrastructure

Question 1: The budget again this year includes a list of resources requested for infrastructure backlog needs, which are also identified as requirements for stewardship of the public trust. Out of an unfunded requirements backlog of $66.2 million, the budget includes about $10 million in FY 1992. Is the list of these requirements in priority order, i.e., is conservation of collections your highest priority since it is first on the list, and security your lowest since it is last?

Answer: The list of infrastructure bundles is not in priority order. However, the requested increases for reinstallation of permanent exhibit halls, information systems, human resource management, and major scientific instrumentation represent the highest priority categories of the various bundles listed; management controls/audit deficiencies (and related space) are, in a sense, imposed requirements that, of necessity, must assume priority.

Question 2: If the list is not in priority order, how are priorities among these needs determined?

Answer: In the initial stages of the Institution's budget formulation process, preliminary allocations (target funding levels) are established for each infrastructure category based on unfunded needs from the previous budget cycle. In reviewing bureau requests within each infrastructure category, the Assistant Secretaries consider and weigh relative needs, urgency, and bureau priorities. After evaluating the full array of requests for each category, the Assistant Secretaries prioritize the individual bureau requests. In addition, they adjust the preliminary allocations by cross ranking categories and making offsetting adjustments between two or more of these allocations. The Institution presents requests for all infrastructure categories to the Office of Management and Budget without ranking the categories. Within the funding provided in the OMB passback, the Institution's management established funding priorities, as noted above, for exhibits, information systems, human resource management and major scientific instrumentation.

Question 3: Why has the unfunded requirements backlog grown significantly since last year for the category of audit deficiencies (from $418,000 to $1.4 million)?

Answer: The audit deficiencies category has been broadened in FY 1992 to include various management controls and reflects the results of an on-going audit program.

Question 4: Is the backlog shown for reinstallation of permanent exhibit halls ($4 million, down from $5.2 million in 1991) an annual requirement or the total backlog? If it is annual, what is the total estimated backlog for this item?

Answer: The drop from the FY 1991 backlog level for reinstallation is attributable to the Institution being appropriated more than requested for reinstallation in FY 1991 and also the FY 1992 request for reinstallation. The backlog amount for exhibit reinstallation reflects the annual supplement required to current operating funds to reinstall outdated permanent exhibits over the next several years and on a cycle that prevents them from again becoming obsolete to the present extent.

New Initiatives

Question 5: The summary also discusses the funding included for two continuing initiatives, global change research ($1.6 million) and cultural pluralism ($6.1 million for the American Indian museum). How were the priorities between these initiatives and the unfunded requirements items determined?

Answer: The Smithsonian has placed greater emphasis on the maintenance of current activities and existing structures than on new initiatives. The request to OMB was allocated 80 percent to the various infrastructure bundles and 20 percent to new or expanded programs relating to global change research, cultural pluralism and education. OMB's passback declined most of the funding for infrastructure but covered all of the global change research and NMAI requests. As a result, the request to Congress is split with 56 percent for infrastructure and 44 percent for new initiatives.

Question 6: If given a choice, would you shift any funds from these initiatives in order to fund more of the requirements backlog?

Answer: The requests for the National Museum of the American Indian and global change research represent initiatives that the Institution and the Nation are committed to undertaking. The Smithsonian must maintain the momentum generated thus far in making the National Museum of the American Indian a reality. Global change is one of science's most urgent and potentially damaging issues, and the Institution possesses unique capabilities in the physical and biological sciences that will allow it to make significant contributions to the solution of this potential crisis. The Institution supports the requests for these important initiatives and would not elect to shift funds from these initiatives to fund more of the infrastructure backlog. To reiterate answers to Questions 1 and 2, the Institution has determined that the requests for exhibits, information systems,

human resource management and major scientific instrumentation are most critical to us in FY 1992 and have the highest priority among our unfunded needs.

Personnel Payroll System

Question 7: P. 18. The request for salaries and expenses is $292,450,000, an increase of $34,488,000 over 1991. Included in this amount is $17,439,000 for uncontrollable costs. Why are the costs for processing the personnel payroll system expected to increase by 20% in 1992, compared to an increase of 14% last year?

Answer: The USDA/NFC advises us to project a 10 percent increase in costs for the regular processing service. Special services provided by USDA/NFC represent additional costs incurred that are billed to agencies. Such services have been requested and received in the past. The Institution has two major projects underway that will require special services from USDA/NFC in FY 1992. The new financial accounting system and payroll cost projection system contain source data from USDA/NFC. As these new systems develop and are refined, the data output from NFC will in all likelihood require some computer programming modifications. The cost of modifications is projected to be $60,000. This amount and the regular processing cost bring the increase to 20 percent.

Utilities

Question 8: What accounts for the increase in utility reimbursements to $900,000, from $600,000 last year?

Answer: The increase in utility reimbursements of $300,000 resulted from additional funds received from the food service vendor for utility costs associated with the operation of the restaurant in the Air and Space Museum ($200,000) and higher than projected reimbursements for telephone installations received from all organizational units within the Smithsonian ($100,000). These increased reimbursements are reflected in higher costs reported under each appropriate utility heading.

Question 9: Under electricity and gas, what is the status of the expected rate increases that have been filed?

Answer: The expected rate increase of 2.3 percent for electricity has gone into effect. The expected gas rate increase of 5 percent was approved at 2.3 percent by the Public Service Commission. The Smithsonian has also received notification that PEPCO has since filed for a 9.6 percent rate increase for electricity for the period covered by calendar years 1991-1992. The Washington Gas Company has indicated that they do not plan to

file for additional rate increases in the near future unless their current cost to purchase gas escalates more than 2 percent.

Question 10: Under communications, when will the increased costs for the FTS 2000 system and the data communications link between STRI and Washington and the new voice communication system at the Freer occur?

Answer: The additional costs for FTS 2000 are reflected in the FY 1992 costs and are based on the increased use of the system during late FY 1990 and FY 1991. The STRI-Washington data link was recently completed and is fully operational. The new system for the Freer Gallery of Art is planned for installation in mid-summer of 1991.

Question 11: Is the entire increase for postage due to the February, 1991 rate increase? Show how the amount of increase was determined.

Answer: The requested $335,000 increase for postage is directly related to the February 1991 rate increase. The amount of the increase was determined by multiplying the actual FY 1990 volume of mailings in each class, both domestic and foreign, by the new rate for each class. This calculation resulted in a projected cost increase of $361,000 to process the same volume of mail in FY 1992. Although the Institution expects a slight increase in mailing volume by FY 1992, we also anticipate the resulting increase in cost to be offset by the recent establishment of a new contract service to handle foreign mail. This new service was initiated in FY 1991 and is already reducing the cost of foreign mailings from previous historical levels.

Administrative Space

Question 12: On p. 26, the budget discusses the request of $1,000,000 for start up costs associated with the acquisition of a replacement facility for the current warehouse on N. Capitol St. Why will you need the $1,000,000 requested in FY 1992? If you proceed with a new facility, what will be the time schedule for construction of the new space, and how exactly will the $1,000,000 be used?

Answer: Based on developer proposals, construction will be completed early in FY 1993. The $1,000,000 will be used for equipment and relocation expenses in anticipation of occupancy of the new building. Specifically the funds would be used to purchase shelving and space furnishings ($625,000), a security system ($200,000) and packing and moving ($175,000).

Question 13: When does the existing lease expire? Answer: The existing lease expires on September 30, 1992.

Question 14: If the new space is not available by that time, what will you do in the interim?

Answer: We expect to have beneficial occupancy of at least part of the new building prior to September 30, 1992. Should that not be adequate to meet our needs, it would be necessary to negotiate a short lease extension at our present building.

Question 15: What exactly is your current proposal for use of this $1,000,000 in FY 1993 and beyond?

Answer: If appropriated to the Institution and allowed to remain in our base, the funds would be applied to the lease of space in the new building.

Disaster Preparedness

Question 16: There is a request of $200,000 to implement a disaster preparedness program. Explain what the emergency response trailer is, and how it will be used?

Answer: We are currently in the process of implementing a limited disaster preparedness program which was initiated using trust resources because of immediate need. The trailer is an integral part of this program. Initially, the trailer will accommodate critical materials and supplies that would be needed to respond to an emergency or disaster that may occur to metropolitan Washington facilities, particularly museums. In time of need, the trailer will be taken to the particular site where it is needed. The trailer would then be used as a command and control center, and its contents will be used to reduce potential damage to collections and other physical assets after an event such as fire, water damage, etc. Some facilities have minimum supplies and materials on hand because of space problems. In case of an emergency or disaster, there will be immediate need for certain supplies and materials for cleanup and for immediate conservation of collections and equipment. If these supplies and materials were stored in a permanent facility, and the facility impacted by the disaster, they could very well be destroyed. Space limitations in facilities and the potential redundancy of purchasing materials and supplies in all facilities dictate that a central source for supplies is prudent.

Generic facility disaster preparedness programs have been developed and are currently being implemented in facilities. The availability of the trailer and its stock will be taken into

consideration when identifying facility resource needs in case of emergency or disaster.

Question 17: Do you expect there to be additional costs for this effort?

Answer: One purpose of the trailer will be to stock supplies and equipment that would be used by any Washington area facility in case of emergency or disaster. The trailer will be stocked with emergency conservation materials and supplies, such as blotting paper, cloth, plastic sheeting, collapsible milk crates, fans, heaters, etc. Equipment such as wet/dry vacuums, lights, portable generators, extension cables, and communication equipment will also be included. Equipment such as hard hats, dust masks, aprons, and respirators will also be stocked. As these supplies and materials are consumed, there would be a need to replace them.

The Institution foresees the need for one full-time position to assist in the development of a more comprehensive disaster preparedness program and anticipates requesting that position in FY 1993.

Inflation in Acquisition of Journals

Question 18: There is also an increase of $250,000 for inflation in the costs of journals. How many such subscriptions have been dropped in the last several years, by year?

Answer: Listed below are the number of journal subscriptions dropped from FY 1988 through FY 1991.

FY 1988 264 titles

FY 1989 95 titles

FY 1990 65 titles

FY 1991 443 titles

Question 19: What kind of system do you have for reviewing the usage and necessity for individual journals?

Answer: Each year, the Acquisitions Services Department generates a list, organized by branch, of all journals purchased. Under the direction of the Assistant Director, Collections Management, branch librarians are requested to consult with their library committees, departmental liaisons, and individual researchers to determine if journals should be cancelled or new ones added. Because of budget pressures in the last several years, branch librarians have either been asked to assign priorities (1-3) for retention or have been given dollar targets and asked to reduce their journal lists by that amount. In FY 1988 and FY 1991, the years of the largest inflationary increases, a moratorium was placed on adding new subscriptions. In FY 1989 and FY 1990, new

subscriptions were only added if others of equal or greater value were cancelled.

Question 20: Hill any of this increase be used for additional subscriptions, or only for existing ones? Explain how the amount was determined.

Answer: The increase will be used only for existing subscriptions. By FY 1987, SIL had established a base of $400,000 for serial subscriptions. In that year, the first of the extraordinary inflationary jumps took place. By the close of FY 1987, prices had increased by 15 percent, and since that time they have risen steadily, jumping another 20 percent between 1990 and 1991. SIL has attempted to control this inflation by cancelling subscriptions, but in the last round of cancellations was forced to cut journals that are basic to many areas of research in the Institution. Despite these reductions, by FY 1991 the cost to renew the remaining subscriptions had reached $600,000 and another 12-15 percent increase is predicted for FY 1992, which may raise the cost to nearly $690,000. The $250,000 increase will help SIL partially catch up to the 1992 estimated cost of the serials, but will still not cover the entire serials list. SIL anticipates requesting another increase as an uncontrollable cost in the FY 1993 budget.

Museum Support Center Settlement

Question 21: An amount of $1,007,000 is included, to pay a vendor judgment related to the purchase of equipment for the Museum Support Center, out of a total award to the contractor of $3,022,000. When and under what circumstances was this award made?

Answer: This award is the result of a settlement of a lawsuit brought against the United States (the General Services Administration (GSA) and the Smithsonian) by the Davis Company in the U. S. Claims Court. On June 19, 1990, judgment was entered by the Court pursuant to the settlement by the parties.

Question 22: What was the basis for the award? What is the legal requirement for paying it?

Answer: The Davis Company sued the United States, alleging that the GSA had improperly terminated Davis for default of its contract to equip and install storage equipment at the Smithsonian's Museum Support Center. As a result of its investigation, the Department of Justice recommended to the GSA and the Institution that a settlement be negotiated. The GSA and the Institution agreed. A settlement was concluded among the parties. Thereupon, the U.S. Claims Court rendered judgment in favor of the

Davis Company pursuant to that settlement agreement. Payment is required as a result of the Court's order.

Question 23: Did the judgment allow for payment over a three-year period?

Answer: Neither the settlement agreement nor the Court order makes any reference to three annual payments. In fact, the full amount was paid within sixty (60) days by the Department of the Treasury from the "Judgment Fund." This is a fund that the Treasury used to pay awards of this sort. The Treasury Department then requires reimbursement to the Fund. In this instance, the repayment schedule was negotiated with the Treasury Department, which has agreed to accept payment in three annual installments.

Assistant Secretary for Research

Question 24: P. 31. The request for the Assistant Secretary for Research is $1,756,000, an increase of $80,000. Why has the base amount for the Office of the Assistant Secretary decreased from $879,000 last year to $845,000 this year?

Answer: The base amount decreased by $34,000 as a result of the FY 1991 legislated reduction ($9,000) and a permanent transfer from the base of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research to the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute to support their molecular biology program ($25,000).

Question 25: Where did the base funding of $37,000 for the scientific diving program come from?

Answer: The Scientific Diving Program and $37,000 was transferred from the Smithsonian Office of Environmental Management and Safety.

Question 26: How exactly will this be used?

Answer: The $37,000 will be used to cover partial salary and benefits for the Diving Officer ($30,000); travel to various Smithsonian research sites to review diving operations, certify divers, and to conduct diver training courses ($5,000); and regulators, air fills for scuba tanks, and parts to maintain diving equipment ($2,000).

Question 27: Were all 195 certifications in 1990 work-related?

Answer: Yes, the Smithsonian Institution supports a scientific, non-recreational, diving program.

Mitchell Case

Question 28: There have recently been reports on the investigation of Dr. Richard Mitchell and his collecting activities in China while on assignment with the Smithsonian. What is the current amount of funds paid for Dr. Mitchell's legal fees?

Answer: $284,000.

Question 29: Has any decision been made on whether to continue paying such fees?

Answer: No.

Question 30: Has any response from GAO to Under Secretary Turner's letter of January 9 on this subject been received?

Answer: A response from GAO to Under Secretary Turner has not yet been received.

Question 31: Have any changes been made in Smithsonian policy regarding activities of Smithsonian employees or detailees with regarding to collecting specimens or items for the Institution?

Answer: The following policy statement was distributed in February 1991 in order to provide greater definition of present Smithsonian practices in field collecting:

Hunting and Specimen Collecting Policies Applying to Smithsonian Staff and Research Collaborators

The collecting of biological specimens, artifacts and other items of scholarly and educational interests is essential to maintaining a strong National Collection for research and educational purposes. Within the natural sciences disciplines, the Smithsonian Institution is a leader in the fields of systematics, taxonomy and conservation biology. Along with their research and exhibition responsibilities, Smithsonian scientists play a key role in providing data for establishing and maintaining lists of endangered species, and are engaged in world-wide research to promote the survival of the world's fauna and flora.

Smithsonian employees conducting field research as part of their official duties may obtain biological specimens of scientific value to add to the National Collections, which are used by scientists throughout the international scholarly community.

However, Smithsonian employees on official research trips for the Institution do not engage in sport hunting. Although the Smithsonian does use marksmen on occasion to assist in legally authorized collection of biological specimens, it is the policy of the Institution that under no circumstances does it commission hunters seeking trophies to collect the specimens, nor does the Institution lend its name to justify personal permit applications by trophy hunters.

When Smithsonian scientists conduct ecological or conservation research on endangered species, they obtain permits from all appropriate authorities. Under these circumstances, applications for permits are required to be published in the Federal Register , along with scientific justifications, in order for the deciding authorities to have the benefit of public comment before determining whether to grant the permit applications.

Scholars from the international scientific community who collect specimens, artifacts and other items of scholarly interest and importance may ultimately offer to donate them to the Smithsonian's National Collections for research and educational purposes. Private individuals who come into possession of such specimens or artifacts also may offer to donate them to the National Collections for these purposes. These donations are accepted by the Smithsonian only if they are needed for the Collections and scholarly research, and only if they have been legally obtained.

Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory

Question 32: The request for the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory is $13,649,000, an increase of $1,609,000. Included is $50,000 for the global change program, for a theorist in solar variability. Do your existing staff currently include any expertise in this area?

Answer: The present SAO Federal staff has limited theoretical expertise in solar variability in general and no expertise in the critical area of magnetic solar phenomena. Additional resources are needed to help SAO establish a balanced observational and theoretical program in solar variability.

Question 33: If not, what will be the impact if this position is not added?

Answer: SAO has a strong program in the acquisition and analysis of observations of solar variability. If an associated theoretical effort is not undertaken, the present imbalance between theoretical and observational expertise at SAO will continue with a concurrent loss of the mutual strengthening provided by joint theoretical and observational efforts.

Submillimeter Telescope Array

Question 34: P. 67. There is also included for SAO the amount of $8,119,000 for major scientific instrumentation, an increase of $3,237,000, and $703,000 and 11 FTE's related to the submillimeter array.

In FY 1991, $2.6 million was provided for design and construction of the first two antennas for the array. What is the status of this effort?

Answer: SAO expects to enter into commercial contracts for the antennas later this year.

Question 35: How many antennas will there be in total?

Answer: The basic array is expected to consist of six antennas.

Question 36: What is the basis of the estimate of $3.1 million for purchase of the next three antennas? Is it necessary that all three be acquired in 1992?

Answer: Our estimates for the antenna costs indicate that each additional one will cost about $1.0 million. The antennas are the pacing item in the construction of the array. We would have preferred to fund all of the remaining antennas in FY 1991, since we might then have obtained a slightly less expensive contract and better delivery dates, but with the funds expected to be available, this option is not feasible, given the overall requirements for the array.

Question 37: In FY 1991, approximately $400,000 was provided for new positions, compared to a request of $782,000, for 12 positions. In 1992, the request is $$703,000 for 11 positions and related costs. How is the $400,000 available in 1991 being used?

Answer: The $4 00,000 is being used to fill six new positions for the most needed personnel.

Question 38: What is the status of hiring new positions?

Answer: In addition to the six positions approved in the FY 1991 budget, we had one remaining unfilled position from FY 1990 that had been placed on hold during the Institution's hiring freeze. The status on those seven positions is as follows:

43-202 0—91-

Imaging Specialist

Receiver Technician Site Manager

Electrical Engineer

320

Offer accepted, candidate due on board May 6

Candidate chosen, offer pending

Candidate selected, offer letter in preparation

Candidate selected, offer letter in preparation

Lead Electrical Engineer Leading candidates being interviewed Software Engineer Still actively seeking candidates Mechanical Engineer Vacancy advertisement in preparation

Question 39: For 1992, why are these 11 positions required in 1992? What is the impact if they are not all funded this year?

Answer: The reassignment of six new positions from FY 1991 to FY 1992 has already put great pressure on the remaining staff to hold schedule. If we are unable to get the new positions in FY 1992, we will be unable to carry out all of the work needed to finish construction of the array in FY 1996.

Question 40: There is a table on p. 72 showing the total projected funding for the project of $35.1 million (compared to the previous estimate of $32.4 million in 1989 dollars). Is the increase in total costs due solely to inflation, or are there other reasons?

Answer: Yes, the increase is due solely to our applying an estimated 4.1% inflation rate for two years.

Question 41: Have the dollars been inflated through 1996?

Answer: No. We have not attempted to predict the future rate of inflation.

Question 42: so, how much?

Were any costs incurred in 1987 and 1988? If

Answer: No costs were incurred for the submillimeter array project in either FY 1987 or FY 1988; however, in FY 1988, we did spend $0.4 million on developing the SAO submillimeter receiver laboratory, which is a separate but closely aligned effort.

Question 43: What are the actual obligations by year since the start of the project, and the carryover available as of start of FY 1991? What carryover do you estimate will be available as of the start of 1992?

Answer:

Year SAO Base (Salaries . Major Instrumentation

Benefits. & Expenses ) ( no-year money ) Carryover

FY 1989 $0.13 million $0.8 million $0.55million

FY 1990 0.34 1.26 0.66

FY 1991 0.74 2.95 0.3*

*This carryover as of the start of FY 1992 is an estimate; the actual value will depend primarily on the costs for the antennas, to be determined in the formal procurement.

Question 44: Explain how the amount shown for 1992 ($7 million) relates to the request of $5.6 million, plus $0.7 million for staffing?

Answer: The $0.7 million in staffing refers to the 11 new positions for FY 1992. These funds would be added to the existing 12 positions in the SAO base to make a total of 2 3 positions and a total of about $1.4 million in salary-related expenses. The request for funding under the Major Scientific Instrumentation line-item for the array is $5.6 million, yielding a total requested FY 1992 funding for the submillimeter array project of about $7.0 million.

Multiple Mirror Telescope

Question 45: There is also a request of $560,000 to continue conversion of the Multiple Mirror Telescope. When exactly will the 6.5 meter mirror be cast?

Answer: The current schedule calls for the casting process to begin on 15 December 1991. Preparations for this casting are breaking new ground technologically and involve many unique aspects; it is therefore not possible to predict the date of the casting with exactitude.

Question 46: Why is such a long lead-time needed for development of a dual, multi-object spectrograph for the converted mirror?

Answer: Four years is required for the development and construction of the dual, multi-object spectrograph. The conceptual design of the instrument would be carried out during the

first year; the best solutions to the major technical challenges would be selected by the end of that period. During the second and third years, the detailed design would be completed and the instrument built. The fourth year would be spent on the instrument control software and on debugging the instrument's functions, and calibrating its characteristics. No single component in the spectrograph will require a lead-time in excess of 12 to 18 months or the development of new technology. This instrument needs to be ready to install as soon as possible after the telescope conversion is completed. A main use for the converted telescope is to carry out the wide-field-of-view studies to determine the largest scale structures in the universe; this spectrograph is indispensable for that study.

Question 47: What will this development involve?

Answer: The outline of the development is given in the answer to the previous question. We note that the two main technical challenges in the spectrograph are: 1) the development of a robotic device to position optical fibers at the focus of the converted telescope, and 2) the design of an efficient optical system to analyze the light from many optical fibers simultaneously. Our consultations with industry and academic experts in these fields have convinced us that our goals can be met with existing technology.

Question 48: What is the total cost of this effort?

Answer: The estimated total cost is $3.6 million (1991). Through inadvertence, the descriptions of the complete development of this instrument and its total cost were omitted from the budget submission.

Question 49: Will there be other such costs which have not been included in the total conversion budget of $10.8 million? If so, what are they expected to be, and when will they be required?

Answer: There will be no other such costs. However, as with any world-class facility, one should always maintain state-of-the-art instrumentation to pursue the most fundamental scientific problems, by taking advantage of new developments in instrument technology. Thus, from time to time SAO will propose to update its instrumentation to take advantage of new technology and thereby to remain at the forefront of astronomical research.

Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute

Question 50: The request for the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute is $7,053,000, an increase of $662,000. Included is $248,000 and 2 workyears for global change research. Why is a research technician needed to support this program? How many such technicians are there currently on board?

Answer: STRI anticipates hiring a paleoecologist as the staff scientist. Such a scientist typically collects several hundred samples per year in various field trips. These samples must be analyzed in a laboratory; each sample analysis may need to be replicated. The data must be entered into computer data sets and statistical analysis performed. Field work in remote areas cannot be carried out efficiently and safely without assistance. The support of a research technician is essential to maximize research efforts of the scientist. Otherwise, the highly paid researcher must perform many mundane, routine technical tasks, leaving less time for the creative analysis and evaluation necessary to advance scientific knowledge.

Currently there are 2 6 scientists at STRI and they are supported by 9 technicians.

Question 51: What is the ratio of technicians to scientists? How does this compare to other scientific institutions?

Answer: There is one research assistant per three staff scientists at STRI, or a ratio of 1:3. A typical research program at a major marine laboratory in the Caribbean requires at least two technicians per research scientist. The requested technical support position for the scientist begins to address a long-identified support deficiency at STRI.

Question 52: What is the breakdown of the $140,000 requested for support of the global change program, including equipment, travel and research support?

Answer: To establish and maintain the laboratory and research program for the paleoecologist, we are requesting $100,000 in basic equipment. The yearly cost of supplies and materials for the program is $35,000 and travel for the scientist is $5,000.

Question 53: There is also a request of $40,000 and 1 workyear for an inventory management program. What efficiencies are expected to result if this request is agreed to?

Answer: STRI manages and controls nonexpendable property with an acquisition value of over $3.5 million. The property is controlled by six accountable officers at separate and physically distant facilities. STRI currently has separate autonomous

reporting responsibility to the central Institutional inventory management program in Washington. By having a local manager of all the Institute's equipment, STRI could more effectively administer and share the existing eguipment among the various research programs and facilities. We expect this person to establish more effective maintenance programs for existing equipment, thereby reducing the need for replacing as often. An Institutional audit performed in 1989 recommended the addition of this position to improve the overall coordination of nonexpendable property at STRI.

Question 54: Have there been any problems with loss of equipment?

Answer: The loss of equipment due to accidents or theft has been negligible. However, the reduction of useful life and damage to equipment could be substantially improved by exercising more control of maintenance programs to be established by the property manager.

Smithsonian Environmental Research Center

Question 55: P. 47. The request for the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center is $2,979,000, an increase of $836,000. Included is $709,000 and 4 workyears for the global change research program. What is the status of the funds provided in 1991 for this program?

Answer: The $130,000 provided in FY 1991 will be used to hire a Data Manager/Modeler and to begin to upgrade SERC computer facilities. The Modeler position has been advertised nationally with a closing date of April 15, 1991. Plans for the initial phase of the upgrade of SERC computer facilities are near completion; and SERC will purchase about $100,000 worth of computer equipment during FY 1991.

Question 56: What is the Long-Term Ecosystem Research Network, which has selected SERC as one of 25 sites for intensive global change research?

Answer: The Long-Term Ecological Research Network (LTER) is an NSF-supported network of research sites with an administrative headquarters at the University of Washington in Seattle. In November 1989 they sponsored a workshop on Global Change Research Planning in Denver. In addition to 17 LTER sites (funded by NSF), 4 DOE Environmental Research Parks, one NOAA research site, one National Park site, the Cary Arboretum in New York state and the Smithsonian SERC site on Chesapeake Bay were invited to attend and to provide extensive "white papers" on site research history and plans. A report was subsequently published, "1990's Global Change Action Plan." These 25 sites have long research histories on

global change related issues and are the most efficient sites at which to concentrate future ecological global change research.

Question 57: Will the 4 workyears requested provide the total staff anticipated for the global change program?

Answer: Yes, the four workyears provide the total staff for the photobiology and environmental chemistry research. However, a number of other SERC global change initiatives are scheduled for initiation in future years.

Question 58: Why are all 4 positions required in 1992?

Answer: The four positions are reguired in order to conduct the proposed research on solar radiation ecological effects and landscape ecology in the Chesapeake Bay region. Without personnel the research cannot proceed. The data management technician will support a quantitative ecologist staff scientist authorized in FY 1991. The photobiologist staff scientist is urgently needed to study the effects of solar radiation, especially ultraviolet radiation, on both terrestrial and estuarine communities. The environmental chemist staff scientist and physical science technician are needed in order to fully meet the needs of the Chesapeake Bay region for watershed research on the landscape level.

Question 59: What is included in the $45,000 reguested for support for the program?

Answer: The $45,000 reguested will support travel to global change meetings and regional field travel ($4,000); equipment maintenance ($1,000); field and laboratory supplies ($10,000); and analytical chemistry equipment ($30,000).

Question 60: Provide a breakdown of the four positions by salary and benefits.

Answer: Salary Benefits Total

Photobiologist GS-12 $ 37,000

Env ironmenta1

Chemist GS-12 37,000

Physical Science

Technician GS-09 26,000

Data Management

Technician GS-09 26.000

$126,000 $38,000 $164,000

Question 61: Included in the request is $500,000 in no-year funds to purchase watershed land at SERC on a cost-sharing basis with private funds. The total cost of the properties involved is $8-12 million (development cost is $35 million) . What is the total acreage involved?

Answer: The total watershed area to be protected is about 6,300 acres. Of this, about 4,100 acres have now been protected leaving 2,200 that need protection.

Question 62: How much of this property is currently available for purchase?

Answer: Seventy-two acres are for sale at this time.

Question 63: Have you identified specific parcels which will be purchased in 1992 with the funds requested? If so, identify them for the record, including acreage, cost, and basis for the cost.

Answer: We have identified three parcels that we would like to purchase; the three parcels identified are Smith (37 acres), Fibich (18 acres) and Lee (17 acres). Costs would be approximately $ll,000/acre or $792,000. The costs are based upon appraisals.

Question 64: Have the properties involved been appraised? If not, will they be prior to purchase?

Answer: Yes. If conditions of purchase change they will be reappraised.

Question 65: Do you plan to use any Smithsonian non-Federal funds for this purpose?

Answer: Yes, we plan to cost-share with trust funds.

Question 66: What are the private funds that you expect to be available for this purpose, and how much is involved?

Answer: A trust fund account designated for property purchase has been established. The fund presently contains approximately $550,000.

Question 67: What is the role of the Trust for Public Lands in this effort?

Answer: The Trust for Public Lands prepared under contract, a watershed protection strategy report. At present it is not under

contract, but its services may be used in the future to help purchase or protect parcels of land.

National Zoological Park

Question 68: P. 51. The request for the National Zoological Park is $16,825,000, an increase of $1,013,000, all for necessary pay costs. What is the reason for the decrease in your estimates of restricted funds made available in 1990 and 1991?

Answer: The figures in the "Application of Funds" chart represent estimated expenditures. The reductions reflect only a change in timing of a construction project. In our previous submission, we included planned expenditures for design and start up costs related to the Zoo's Parking Facility. The construction date for this facility has been moved to FY 1995 and the associated expenditures have been adjusted accordingly.

Question 69: Why have the estimates for government grants been increased for both these years?

Answer: The figures represent increased levels of expenditures based on the Zoo's receipt of a number of new government grants. In one case NZP received a $520,000 grant to establish a Reptile Science Center. This project will take the successful features of the HERPlab, the Invertebrate Exhibit, and the reptile lab exhibit, "The Other Side," at the Dallas Zoo and incorporate them into the Reptile House exhibit at NZP. The project will be used as a model which could be applied to other exhibits and animal groups there and at other zoos.

Question 70: Last year, funds were added for the neotropical migratory bird research program. How are these funds being used in 1991? Provide a breakdown for the record.

Answer: A temporary program manager has been hired. All positions have been advertised with a closing date of April 15, 1991. Funds have been allocated as follows:

Personnel

Avian Ecologist (12 months)

Avian Ecologist (6 months)

Avian Ecologist (6 months)

2 Biological Techs (6 months)

Administrative Assistant (6 months) GS-07

Total Personnel Costs

Program Support

Funding available in FY 1991 for program support will cover field travel for research and travel to conferences ($25,000); student support, printing, graphics ($40,000); field and laboratory supplies ($30,000); and computers, peripherals, field equipment ($55,000). This $150,000 includes initial setup costs for the new program.

Question 71: What are the plans for these funds in 1992?

Answer: We anticipate that all positions will be filled and the remaining funds will be used to support the program.

Personnel Salary Benefits

2 Avian Ecologists GS-13 $ 92,000 $28,000

1 Avian Ecologist GS-12 40,000 12,000

2 Biological Techs GS-09 54,000 16,000

1 Administrative

Assistant GS-07 22.000 8.000

Total Personnel Costs $208,000 $64,000

Program Support

Support funds in FY 1992 will cover travel to conferences and field travel for research ($25,000), student support, printing and graphics ($30,000), laboratory, office, and field supplies ($20,000), data management equipment and field equipment ($19,000). Support items total $94,000.

Smithsonian Institution Libraries

Question 72: P. 58. The request for the Smithsonian Institution Libraries is $6,099,000, an increase of $525,000. What is the status of the effort on preservation of brittle books?

Answer: In FY 1990 and FY 1991, funds were appropriated by the Congress to establish a brittle book preservation program. The funds provided 5 positions for a new Brittle Books unit to begin the labor-intensive task of identification, selection, and processing of individual books and journals. Since the funds were received, SIL has taken the following steps in its Brittle Books Program:

Staffing . The receipt of the Brittle Books funds occurred just after the resignation of SIL's Preservation Officer. Because there is a high demand and a short supply nationally for qualified preservation officers, the search for a suitable candidate took over one year. The new officer reported in February 1991; two of the preservation technician slots were filled at the same time. Recruitment for the remaining technicians is under way.

Planning . A Preservation Replacement Task Force has been established. The Task Force is in the process of developing guidelines for the identification of volumes in need of preservation. A pilot project of 500 brittle books will be drawn from the collection by June 1991. This initial group will be used to test new internal procedures for processing and allow SIL to test the ability of several commercial vendors to produce high-quality preservation microfilm and photocopy.

Housing . Offices to house the new preservation unit at 1111 North Capitol Street were made available for occupancy in December 1990.

Microfilming . In October 1990, Research Publications, Inc., concluded the filming of 2,000 books, journals, pamphlets, photograph albums, catalogs, and other items contained in SIL's collection of materials relating to world's fairs and international expositions held between 1834 and 1916.

Question 73: How much funding will be devoted to this effort in 1991 and 1992?

Answer: Including salaries, equipment, and contracts, SIL will spend approximately $306,000 in 1991 and again in 1992.

Question 74: At this level of funding, how long will it take to complete this effort?

Answer: This amount of funding will allow SIL to review and process approximately 2,000 volumes a year. SIL currently estimates that an eventual 100,000 volumes will need preservation. At the rate of 2,000 a year, it will take 50 years to complete 100,000 volumes.

International Environmental Science Program

Question 75: P. 62. The request for the International Environmental Science Program is $1,097,000, an increase of $269,000. Why is the amount included for necessary pay for this program almost a 15% increase, compared to about 8% for other programs?

Answer: The necessary pay includes an amount of $28,000 to annualize the salary and benefits for the new positions approved by Congress in FY 1991 for the program. The necessary pay for other programs does not include annualization of pay unless Congress approved new positions in FY 1991 for those programs.

Question 76: The request includes $158,000 and 3 workyears for global change research at SERC. How does this request relate to the SERC request for the program?

Answer: The International Environmental Science Program funding at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center 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 achieved in a central data bank and are used by SERC as well as other scientists conducting global change research. The requested increase in funding for this program will allow the collection of more comprehensive data sets.

Question 77: Why is it preferable to have the program fragmented between the two line items?

Answer: The International Environmental Science Program encourages interbureau cooperation and programmatic flexibility. No permanent commitments are made to a given scientist. Proposals are solicited to meet program needs.

Question 78: What is included in the estimate of support funding ($57,000) for this effort?

Answer: The total request is 3 workyears and $158,000. Of this amount the support requested is $75,000. Support funding of $75,000 includes field travel and travel to conferences ($2,000), equipment maintenance ($8,000), field and laboratory supplies ($20,000), and environmental monitoring equipment ($45,000).

Question 79: How will the effort on forest fragmentation and migratory birds be coordinated with the Zoo program in this area?

Answer: The Zoo program on migratory birds is an interbureau cooperative program. Its administrative location was recently transferred to SERC. The $57,000 effort on forest fragmentation and migratory birds will solicit competitive proposals from the staff scientists involved in the overall migratory birds program. Proposal review will assure that the work is coordinated.

Question 80: What exactly will the SERC program in this area be involved with?

Answer: The forest fragmentation aspects will be concerned with monitoring breeding woodland bird nesting territories over time in a series of forest fragments in the Chesapeake Bay region. The selected forest fragments would differ in size and shape, some corresponding to forest islands and some to forest corridors.

East African Savannah Ecosystem Studies

Question 81: There is also a request of $50,000 and 1 workyear for East African Savannah Ecosystem Studies. This is the first request for the Mpala Research Station which was established in cooperation with Princeton University and the government of Kenya in 1990. What is the rationale for the Smithsonian taking on this responsibility?

Answer: Although this is the first request for Mpala, this research station will become part of the already-established network of sites for global monitoring and research on environmental problems. The process of desertification and overgrazing which characterize much of Africa may have as great an effect on global climatic change and loss of biodiversity as does deforestation, which characterizes Latin America and Asia. The Mpala Research center provides an ideal site for rigorous, long-term research on arid zone degradation, and for the training of local students who must in the long term solve these critical problems. The monitoring of global change in East Africa will provide fundamental contrasts to the more intensively studied regions of Latin America and Southeast Asia.

Question 82: What exactly is the commitment of each of the participants in this arrangement?

Answer: The Smithsonian and Princeton University have agreed to take on the responsibility of raising funds for the construction of the Mpala Research Center, and for fellowship funds for Kenyan students. The National Museums of Kenya and the Kenya Wildlife Services have agreed to provide in-country logistical and scientific support. They have also agreed to facilitate the issuance of research permits and duty-free import of research equipment and supplies. All parties will share in the running of the Center and in carrying out research.

Question 83: Who actually owns the property?

Answer: Ultimately the entire property will be owned by the Mpala Wildlife Foundation, incorporated in Maryland and in Kenya. At present a 4,000 acre portion of the property is owned by the Foundation, and the rest (40,000 acres) is held by George Small, a citizen of Baltimore. The entire property will be managed by a Trust composed of the Smithsonian, Princeton University, the Mpala Wildlife Foundation, the National Museums of Kenya and the Kenya Wildlife Services. The Trust Document is now being circulated to all parties for minor revisions and signature. Upon signature, the Trust will take on full responsibility for the management of all research and training activities on the entire property, including that portion still owned by George Small.

Question 84: Is $25,000 the full cost for the director of research?

Answer: This amount will cover salary for a post-doctoral level research director. Additional funds have been set aside, from the total of $50,000, to cover travel expenses for the director, should he or she come from outside Kenya.

Question 85: Describe what is included in providing support for Kenyan collaborators and students?

Answer: The Smithsonian will provide funding to cover travel and living expenses of Kenyan students and senior researchers who wish to carry out research at the Mpala Research Center. Funds will also be used to provide research eguipment and supplies for such research. Students will, in many cases, work closely with senior researchers in order to learn research technigues. The exact amount allocated per researcher will vary depending on length and nature of the project.

Question 86: Will non-Federal Smithsonian funds also be used for this effort? How much is planned?

Answer: Non-Federal Smithsonian funds will be allocated to research efforts at the Mpala Research Center in the form of competitive grants from established trust-funded programs. One such proposal has been approved, and at least one more is currently undergoing outside peer review. The total amount of such funding depends on both the number and the guality of Mpala-related proposals submitted, and cannot be accurately predicted.

Question 87: What level of funding do you envision for the station in future years, from Federal and from other sources? What level of program will this provide?

Answer: We are currently planning a fund-raising program in collaboration with Princeton University in order to raise funds for the construction and operating expenses for the Mpala Research Center. Our goal for this fund raising is $300,000. In addition we are planning an inter-bureau Mpala Research Center funding initiative for submission to Congress for FY 1993 as part of the Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences inter-agency budget crosscut. The purpose of this initiative is to provide funding for long term Global Change research at Mpala by the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, National Zoological Park, the National Museum of Natural History and the National Air and Space Museum. The tentative annual budget for this initiative is $600,000.

These funds will permit the establishment of a major center for research with a capacity for 10 to 15 long-term visiting researchers, and capacity for 15 to 20 Kenyan and non Kenyan students taking part in training courses. A Center of this size will make a major contribution to the understanding of arid zone ecosystems and to the training of future researchers and resource managers in the region.

African-American Institutional Study Program

Question 88: P. 77. The request for the Assistant Secretary for Museums is $1,940,000, an increase of $209,000. How are you planning to use the funds provided in 1990 and 1991 for the African-American Institutional Study program in 1992?

Answer: During the balance of FY 1991 and for most of FY 1992, with the approval of the Smithsonian Board of Regents expected on May 7, 1991, six small committees will be convened to work out the details of issues proposed by the initial Advisory Board. Subcommittee members will be discipline-based specialists from within and outside the Institution.

The six committees are as follows:

o Education and Curriculum Development - to set goals and establish educational priorities based upon the scope of the collections and the focus of the research

o Training in Museum Professions - to identify opportunities for collaboration which will help to increase the number of African American museum professionals in the field and support and enhance the skills of those already in the profession

o Collections Identification - to identify existing collections which are available for loan, acquisition and/or research. To establish a strategy for locating collections and building a permanent collection

o Collections Care and Preservation - to analyze the possibilities and the mechanics of collections-sharing; and to identify types of objects that might be collected and the systems, structures and staff needed to support such a collection

o Exhibition Development and Design - to develop a design strategy based upon the collections, the educational goals, the information to be conveyed and knowledge of the target audiences

o Museum Collaborations - to further refine how a National African American Museum can work with and support the larger African American Museum community

Each committee will have no more than five members; meetings will be convened as needed. The end-product of the committee's deliberations should inform the facilities planning process for which we will be requesting funds in 1993.

The Study will also begin to respond to requests for public education. During the summer of 1991, three interns will develop the research around three key topics related to the new institution. They are, Museum Careers, African American Museums: Their History and Legacy, and Preserving African American Culture. These presentations will be offered upon request to community and school audiences seeking information about the purpose, context and needs of a National African American Museum.

By mid-1992 we should be prepared to begin the search for a Director of a National African American Museum.

Accessibility for the Disabled

Question 89: The request includes 2 workyears and $100,000 for accessibility for the disabled. What staff used to handle this effort in the Office of Equal Opportunity? Why was there no transfer of staff or funding from this office?

Answer: Accessibility has been handled on a part-time basis by an OEO staff member who also coordinated the Upward Mobility, Outreach and General Equivalency Degree programs for the Institution. About 10 percent of the staff member's time was spent on accessibility concerns.

Responsibility for accessibility concerns was absorbed without the benefit of a new position or funding and no new funding has been forthcoming in subsequent years. Consequently, there was no position or money to transfer to establish two full-time positions.

Question 90: What exactly are the deficiencies that this effort is designed to address?

Answer: In March, 1990, the Smithsonian Institution Acting Inspector General issued a "Report on Audit of the Smithsonian Institution Accessibility Program" which reported that the Smithsonian has not made adequate progress in making its programs accessible to all visitors. Although many accessibility improvements have been made in recent years, the report identified several needs, among which are:

* An accessibility specialist devoted full-time to coordinating and administering Smithsonian efforts to improve accessibility to its programs (exhibits, lectures, seminars and workshops, performances, demonstrations, tours, publications, etc.).

* Accessibility training of and continuing education for Smithsonian staff who share the responsibility for planning and implementing Smithsonian programming.

* Guidelines for developing annual accessibility plans and improved monitoring of progress; as well as development of an annual Smithsonian accessibility plan.

* Improved guidelines for designing exhibits and publications.

* Improved reviews of designs for construction, R&R, and exhibit projects to ensure compliance with mandatory accessibility standards.

National Museum of Natural History

Question 91: P. 81. The request for the National Museum of Natural History is $33,844,000, an increase of $3,060,000. What is the reason for the major increases estimated in restricted funds for 1991 and 1992?

Answer: The increases reflect optimistic projections for private fund-raising efforts during the period, including two Quincentenary programs (the major exhibit, "Seeds of Change," and the Horse Festival); the design and architectural and engineering costs for the major renovation of the Geology, Gems and Minerals complex; and ecological exhibitions. Renovation of the Insect Zoo was also projected for this period, but has been deferred to FY 1993.

Question 92: How many positions are unfilled as a result of base erosion? What are the causes of this erosion?

Answer: Approximately 50 positions have been held vacant since the beginning of FY 1990. There are several factors that

have had the cumulative effect of causing the Museum's FY 1991 salary and benefit support to be $2,000,000 short of the funds necessary to fill authorized workyears. They are:

* Cost of the new Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS). Half of the Museum's staff are now covered under the new system, and the Museum has not received sufficient funds to cover the conversion. The Museum's average benefit rate for staff under the old Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) was 11.2%, while the average rate for those under FERS is 28.8%. While FERS was implemented in FY 1987, only two appropriations to cover the additional cost of FERS have been made available to date. No FERS support is included in the FY 1992 request for Necessary Pay, however every new employee filling a vacancy created by a CSRS employee will cost up to an additional 20% in benefits. In addition, we have no control over the total FERS costs, due to the options employees are provided under the Thrift Savings Plan and associated matching funds paid by the employer.

* Grade Target Reduction. This OMB program, aimed at reducing the number of staff in grades 13-15, resulted in permanent cuts to the Museum of Natural History's base of $303,700. While the reduction seems to have been aimed at reducing the number of management positions, the majority of the Museum's staff in these grades are scientists in non-management positions. We cannot backfill scientific positions at lower grades; thus, the impact has been that we have had to keep a number of scientific vacancies unfilled. >' - - \f L

* Cost of Within-Grade Increases. Until FY 1989, the Museum received Necessary Pay to cover the cost of Within-Grade Increases. These have not been funded since FY 1988, and the Museum has had to absorb these costs, which exceed $1,000,000 for the three-year period.

* Pay Cap. The cost of lifting the pay cap in January amounts to over $112,000, to be absorbed.

* Full or partial absorption of annual Cost-of-Living Adjustments. Since 1987 we have had to absorb full or partial COLAs. While these are only one-time "costs" to the Museum, with restoration of the full annualized costs in the following year, the impact in the current year has the effect of reducing funds available to support a full complement of staff. Thus, each year we start "behind." While Congress was generous in FY 1991 in providing full support for a 3.5% COLA, the actual COLA approved for January was 4.1%. The shortfall for NMNH then amounts to $50,000 for FY 1991.

While the Necessary Pay request pending before Congress for FY 1992 totals $1.9 million, it still does not include support for FERS or Within-Grade Increases.

Other elements of base erosion impact on our non-salary support. These include:

* Permanent base reductions, beginning in FY 1985, totalling $1,070,000 (Gramm-Rudman-Hollings or other across-the-board reductions).

* Inflation. No increases to cover general inflation have been provided since 1987. Thus, we have been forced to reduce basic operating support to cover increased cost of essential supplies, contracts, and field travel. The Museum's pest control contract alone has increased 300% in one year; most maintenance contracts increase 5-15% per year. We are unable to purchase sufficient supplies to properly maintain the collections coming in each year at a rate of up to 1 million per year. Air fares continue to rise. Most Museum travel is not administrative, and, therefore, is not easily eliminated. Rather, it is for scientific field work essential to our research and for participation in scientific meetings, important for ensuring that staff are disseminating the results of their work and keeping current with their fields.

* Regulatory requirements. In FY 1988, the Museum was given responsibility for hazardous waste removal. FY 1991 costs are estimated to total a minimum of $26,400, for which we have received no funding (funds were included in the FY 1992 request to 0MB, but not approved). The Museum must hire two staff (a Safety Officer and a Hazardous Waste Officer) to begin to respond to safety requirements throughout the building, which houses over 1000 staff (including SI Libraries and Office of Plant Services). Mandatory OSHA training for these staff will amount to several thousands of dollars per year. We have received no funds to support these positions, and must reprogram funds and positions to proceed with hiring them now. Fumigants formerly used by museums at large are now being found unacceptable based on new safety standards. Thus, studies must be performed to find alternative methods of protecting our collections from pest infestation. One study this year has cost the Museum $23,000 that had to be reprogrammed from an already severely reduced operating budget.

* New costs. Until the mid-8 0s, only a few staff had computers. Now almost everyone on the staff uses a computer in daily operations. Funds are required for supplies, maintenance, and communications lines for which no funding has been provided. Beginning in FY 1989, a new custodial training program was developed by the Institution, but costs are distributed to the bureaus. Ranging from $6-8,000 per year, this is a valuable program, but one for which we have had no bureau funds designated.

The departments and units at NMNH have $2 million less in operating support, compared to FY 1988. This does not include a factor for inflation. All increases provided to the Museum since 1987, other than Necessary Pay, have been for specific projects or programs, and have not provided for increases in general operating

support. The total base deficiency for NMNH, in salary, travel and other objects totals c. $4 million.

Base erosion is a major problem in all units across the Smithsonian. The details of the causes of base erosion stated above apply across the Institution.

Question 93: What is the current status of your efforts under the repatriation plan developed in response to the NMAI Act?

Answer: Office space—Department of Anthropology's African collection occupying about 3000 square feet of floor space in NMNH E525 has been moved to new storage at the Museum Support Center in Suitland, Maryland to provide office space for repatriation program staff. Contract for architectural planning for space has been submitted and office systems furniture for space should be ordered by June 1991.

Staffing—14 of 18 positions approved and funded are now in the recruitment process. The first documentation archeologist has been selected. Six technical staff positions have been advertised. The program manager position is to be advertised in April. Three more positions will be submitted for processing by the end of April.

Processing of repatriation requests—Larsen Bay Tribal Council, Kodiak Island, Alaska. The documentation information has been prepared and reviewed, and an Institutional decision on return is expected in the next few days.

Hawaii—Approximately one-third of the remains in the NMNH collections have been returned. The remaining material is from the island of Kauai and we are awaiting notification from Kauai representatives that they are ready to receive the material. The delay in returning this material is to permit the creation of an appropriate burial site on the island.

Highest priority for repatriation documentation research will be given to remains in the NMNH collections transferred from the Army Medical Museum and to specific requests from tribal councils. Information on the Army Medical Museum skeletons is being collected and organized for review by the documentation archaeologists as soon as they arrive for the start of their duties.

Question 94: The request includes $335,000 and 3 workyears for human ecological history. Is there no laboratory where archeological plant and animal remains can be analyzed?

Answer: At the present time, NMNH does not have a laboratory capable of undertaking the technically specialized research required for analyzing plant and animal remains recovered from archaeological sites.

The necessary painstaking analysis and curation of such fragmentary and often poorly preserved faunal and floral materials requires the establishment of a laboratory having specialized equipment, access to NMNH's large collections of comparative plant and animal specimens, and a small staff of highly trained research scientists and technicians.

This archaeobiological laboratory represents the essential research core of a larger program of training and scholarly education and outreach regarding the long history of human interaction with, and impact on, the earth's ecosystems.

Question 95: What are your plans for collaborative research in countries such as China, India, and in Africa and South America?

Answer: The plan for collaborative research in China, India, and Africa (Kenya, Ethiopia, and Tanzania) includes two aspects.

1. The first is to develop parallel field projects aimed at recovering fossils and other information about prehistoric humans, archaeological evidence of their activities, and evidence of their ecological settings. The development of parallel projects will ensure collection of comparable data necessary to reconstruct the ecological history of humans over the past 2 million years. Smithsonian fieldwork in Kenya serves as a model approach, which these other countries have expressed a desire to emulate on a cooperative basis.

2. The second aspect is to develop an international consortium of researchers devoted to collating and comparing information on the long-term ecological history of early humans in Africa, Asia, and Europe. This consortium will include field and laboratory scientists in the countries named above, and numerous researchers in the U.S. and Europe. Funds requested will enable international travel and symposia for the purpose of these scientific exchanges that are the basis for the long-term human origins component of this research initiative.

Question 96: Why are you including fellowships in the program, instead of from the central fellowships funding?

Answer: The fellowships included in this program can be differentiated, in a number of important respects, from the guidelines and the fellowships of the central program.

Each year the central fellowships program of the Office of Fellowships and Grants faces an increasing pool of qualified applicants (only 1 in 7 of those qualified was funded this year), and equitably distributes one year awards across a broad range of scholarly fields.

In contrast, the complexity of this research requires that the fellowships of this program will be two to three years in duration. This will ensure a critical mass of young pre- and post-doctoral researchers to bring fresh ideas, data, and projects to this program. Many of the collaborative projects are expected to require two, possibly three, years of fellowship support because of the lengthy nature of the research. This will entail, for instance, extensive synthesis of field and laboratory information regarding early human sites, or extensive collation of data from many sources spread internationally. This profile of multi-year, interdisciplinary fellowships will encompass promising young scholars from third-world countries.

For these reasons, fellowships for the human ecological history program are distinct from the general fellowship program of the Institution. They are an essential component of this integrated program of research, training, and education. It is important that we be able to advertise and award fellowships in Human Ecological History on a predictable and assured basis. This approach has the support of the Office of Fellowships and Grants, and is similar to special fellowship programs already established elsewhere in the Institution.

Question 97: Describe what is included in supplies and services, for which $40,000 is included?

Answer: These funds support three endeavors.

1. The first is to contract the services of local excavation Ledms in Kenya, China, and Iiidia. These teams are composed of people already skilled at recovery of fragile archaeological bone and artifact materials, or who we train to make this essential contribution to the scientific work.

2. The second is to contract for specialized geological and chemical analyses of sediments and other materials in order to reconstruct ancient environments. These contracts are usually to university laboratories in the U.S.

3. Third, funds are needed to purchase maps, notebooks, and other field supplies in the countries where research is conducted, and laboratory supplies in the U.S. to support the analyses that will take place at the Smithsonian.

Question 98: What kind of equipment will be acquired for this effort?

Answer: Equipment for both laboratory analysis and field research is needed.

1. Laboratory equipment. The curation and analysis of plant and animal remains recovered from archaeological contexts

requires the acquisition of a wide range of equipment, from storage cases for specimens to laboratory equipment such as top-loading balances, digital calipers, thin sectioning machines, cameras, etc. Equipment acquisition will also include computers and microscopes, as well as image transferal systems, both digital and video, to facilitate the computer enhanced analysis of microscopic images.

2. Field Equipment. Field equipment will include items necessary to conduct research in rugged terrains where important early human sites occur. This equipment includes recurrent items such as tents and tables, and less-recurrent items such as surveying instruments and field vehicles. The requested funds do not support purchase of all such items at one time, since it will be necessary to acquire this equipment over a period of years as new field projects are developed.

Question 99: There is also a request of $400,000 and 7 workyears for the collections information system. What kind of system does the Museum currently have for collections management? Why is it necessary to develop a completely new system?

Answer: The Museum has two incompatible and outdated systems. One half of the collections management system resides on the Institution's antiquated and ailing Honeywell mainframe in a batch-processing mode that was developed in the late 1960's. The Institution selected a new mainframe (IBM 4381) and software (INQUIRE) in the early 1980's, and began moving the Museum's collections management applications to this newer environment as resources permitted. Approximately one half of the Museum's system now resides on the IBM 4381. Regrettably, the Museum has found extremely serious deficiencies in the newer computing environment. System response time problems have seriously degraded our productivity and software breakdowns have left us with data integrity problems. In addition to these two automated systems, the Museum still carries out much of its registration activities manually. Staff cannot keep pace with increasing registration activities without automated support. In addition, to ensure accountability and to enhance the ability to audit compliance with procedures and policies of the Institution, automation is required.

The Museum contracted with the MITRE Corporation, a systems engineering firm, to perform a cost/benefit analysis of system architecture alternatives for the Museum's new system. Results so far have shown that the standards-based distributed LANs (local area networks) approach will be most cost-effective for the Museum and Institution. It will ensure adequate performance, enable integration of new technologies, and support networking with other research and educational organizations.

Question 100: What is the basis of the cost estimate for this development ($181,000)?

Answer: Our original request for development support was $400,000, which subsequently was cut through the budget process. The figure of $400,000 included contractor support and staff training ($250,000) and equipment and supplies ($150,000). Contractor cost estimates were based on our experience in development of the INQUIRE system, with one full-time contractor estimated at $120,000 per year. Training in the new database management software, operating system software, and LAN software for two staff members was estimated at $10,000, based on past technical training costs. Equipment and supplies were estimated at $150,000 (file server, disk storage, peripherals, and software) based on GSA schedule prices. At this level of funding, combined with a small additional amount from base resources, the prototype core collections transaction management system can be developed. Additional resources will be required to tailor and install the core system in the Museum and to develop a prototype and install the several scientific applications to be linked with the transaction management system.

Question 101: What positions are included in the 6 workyears for data management support?

Answer: Museum Technician positions at the GS-7 level represent the 6 workyears requested for data management. Positions are targeted for the scientific departments.

Question 102: How large is the backlog of collection data in manual form? How many positions do you have currently to work on this backlog?

Answer: The Museum currently estimates a backlog of 9 to 10 million manual records of collection data. Our current automated data base is approximately 4 million records.

Museum base erosion (see Question 92) has devastated the Museum's data management program. While there are about 60 workyears devoted fully to collections data management, 40% of the program's workyear base has been eroded. Twenty-five positions are currently frozen, leaving only 35 inventory program staff to perform data management functions for a collection of approximately 120 million items (13 to 14 million records). As a comparison, the Library of Congress has a collection of about 88 million items and a staff of 690 devoted to data management activities, an immensely larger base for data management support than that of the Museum.

Question 103: With the additional positions, how long do you expect this effort to take?

Answer: With restoration of the base and the addition of 6 workyears, we estimate it will take 30 years to eliminate the backlog of manual data. Many factors can affect this estimate,

however, including rate of new acquisitions, rate of deaccessioning, collaborative data management efforts with other museums (as the libraries have done), and employment of new technologies for rapid data entry.

Question 104: A request of $400,000 is included for permanent exhibit hall renovations. What is the current status of the new Native American Hall?

Answer: The Planning Stage will be completed by December, 1991, including:

* completion of the revised "vision statement";

* completion of detailed storyline;

* selection and hiring of core exhibition team including curators, project manager, researchers, designers; and

* completion of detailed presentation materials, including scale models, renderings, and comprehensive written materials.

Question 105: What additional accomplishments are expected with this additional funding? What will be the impact if it is not funded?

Answer: Additional funding requested in FY 1992 will be used to match corporate contributions and enable the new Insect Zoo to be designed, constructed, and installed by fall of 1993. In addition, these funds will accelerate the upgrading of existing halls, including Human Origins, Africa, and Western Civilization. The current halls, installed over thirty years ago, do not meet current scientific or educational standards. Many are offensive to visitors and do not reflect current standards for racial and gender equity. The museum must correct these serious errors of both fact and prejudice or close the halls rather than allow them to misinform the public. It is unreasonable, if not irresponsible, to delay these corrections, and the loss of these funds would necessitate such delays.

Question 106: Since no additional workyears are included, what kinds of costs will be included in this funding?

Answer: Funds will be used to purchase supplies, materials and contracts for exhibit design and production services.

National Air and Space Museum

Question 107: P. 88. The request for the National Air and Space Museum is $11,650,000, an increase of $817,000, which includes $200,000 and 2 workyears for exhibitions and staff. How many staff scientists are now on board?

Answer: The Museum currently has six staff scientists in research positions, four in the Center for Earth and Planetary Studies and two in the Laboratory for Astrophysics. The Museum's Director and Special Assistant to the Director are also scientists, but work in the area of management and administration.

Question 108: Will the "Principles of Flight" exhibition replace other current exhibitions?

Answer: Yes, the "Principles of Flight" exhibition will be installed in gallery 109, replacing "Flight Testing", which covers the history of flight research including research aircraft, and flight and ground testing. Wiley Post's historic aircraft the "Winnie Mae" will be moved into the Milestones of Flight gallery when "Principles of Flight" is installed.

Question 109: What is included in the $98,000 requested for installation of the exhibit?

Answer: The $98,000 will be used to install a supersonic wind tunnel ($65,000) and four subsonic wind tunnels ($33,000). These wind tunnels will be used as part of the daily, live demonstrations planned for the exhibition to explain the principles of flight. They will be used throughout the life of the exhibit to demonstrate a variety of principles.

National Museum of American History

Question 110: P. 93. The request for the National Museum of American History is $17,790,000, an increase of $1,070,000. What was the reason for the increase in restricted funds in 1990 above your estimate ($4.3 million compared to $1.8 million)?

Answer: $2.9 million of the actual expenditures in 1990 restricted funds were spent on the exhibition, "The Information Age." At the time the 1990 estimates were prepared, the gift income and expenses for this exhibition were unconfirmed.

Question 111: The request includes $100,000 and 3 workyears for exhibition reinstallation. What is the total in the base for this purpose? What is the total staff?

Answer: The current base for exhibits work is $300,000 for personnel, and $80,000 for goods and services. Approximately $470,000 once devoted to exhibits reinstallation has been lost because of 'base erosion' due to underfunded benefits increases and mandated cuts.

Question 112: Will the level of funding, including the addition, provide the total needed to continue this effort on schedule?

Answer: No. The Museum has consistently asked for 1 million dollars in order to successfully accomplish the exhibit reinstallation program. In order to continue the effort on schedule, the $470,000 lost to erosion needs to be restored, and another $150,000 needs to be provided, bringing the total up to the $1 million needed.

National Museum of the American Indian

Question 113: P. 98. The request for the National Museum of the American Indian is $13,962,000, an increase of $6,820,000. Why is the amount included for necessary pay a 22% increase over the base level for compensation and benefits?

Answer: The necessary pay request for the National Museum of the American Indian includes $341,000 to annualize the new positions approved by Congress in FY 1991. The necessary pay for other programs does not include annualization of pay unless Congress approved new positions in FY 1991 for those programs.

Question 114: Provide a breakdown of the program showing funding through 1991, and staffing levels, including how many positions have been filled, and how many remain to be filled.

Answer: As of FY 1991, base S & E funds provided for the NMAI total $10,168,000 and 172 FTEs. The breakdown is as follows:

Permanent Reorganizations: FTE $000

Central Administration Office of Design & Construction Office of Public Affairs Office of Protection Services National Museum of Natural History (Repatriation)

73 3,026

National Museum of the American Indian:

National Campaign

Board of Trustees

Project Planning

Care & Custody of Collections

Native American Staff Devpt.

Custom House

New York Staff

New York Library*

101* 7,142

Grand Total 174 $10,168

* Transfer of the Library has not yet occurred.

** NMAI's total FY 1991 FTE's are incorrectly reflected as 91 on

pages 16 and 98 of the FY 1992 Justification to Congress due to

a database error.

Of the 101 positions allocated for the NMAI, 57 have been filled and 44 are not yet filled.

Question 115: How much was included for regional training sites in 1991? Where was this funding included?

Answer: An amount of $100,000 was included in the FY 1990 base funding for regional training. This funding was included in the NMAI line-item and subsequently reprogrammed to the Office of Museum Programs. The Office of Museum Programs is the central museum training office of the Smithsonian. No additional funds were requested in FY 1991.

Question 116: Where will the regional training take place in 1991, and where is it planned for 1992?

Answer: In FY 1991 regional training programs took place at the Makah Cultural and Research Center, Makah Indian Nation, Neah Bay Washington; Sac and Fox National Public Library, Sac and Fox Nation, Stroud, Oklahoma; and the Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. These programs will be revised and repeated at these sites in FY 1992. Additional sites will be chosen for FY 1992 for courses in material culture research and collecting, collections management, public education, exhibition development, facilities planning. Sites are selected to represent a broad geographic distribution and to serve as models of museum practice in the training session.

Question 117: When do you expect the three pilot traveling exhibitions to be completed?

Answer: SITES expects to complete the exhibitions on the following dates:

Fred E. Miller: Photographer of the Crow by Spring 1992

Plains Indian Art: Continuity and Change by Fall 1992

Saynday Was Coming Along... Silverhorn's Drawings of the Kiowa Trickster by Spring 1993

Question 118: Why is it necessary to add 3 new positions to the SITES staff to carry out this effort?

Answer: It is necessary to add three new positions to SITES staff to carry out its American Indian pilot program in order to plan a series of projects that will build relationships with the American Indian community and the audiences we develop with each successive effort. The three new positions will forge alliances with NMAI curators and become familiar with NMAI collections and research. A specialized team gives us the opportunity to search for new staff members with specific interest, first-hand knowledge, and expertise in the subject matter. In the past, SITES has brought in contractors to work on specific projects. Those adjunct staff need close supervision and training: therefore we conclude that the optimum utilization of personnel to develop an ongoing and long term program is to integrate new staff into our existing program.

Question 119: A request of $200,000 is included for Native American staff development and training. How is the training component of this program (particularly the community-based portion) distinguished from the regional training program?

Answer: The National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI) has initiated two training programs which are reflected in the budget request.

NMAI seeks $200,000 to build on the Native American staff development and training component begun in FY 1991. This focuses on hiring Indian staff and upgrading their skills so they can assume greater authority within the Museum itself and in its relationships with the Indian community. New employees will also be selected for their growth potential and job descriptions will be written so that advancement within the workplace is both possible and expected. Associated staff development will supplement the work they do as members of the NMAI staff.

The regional training component is operated through the Smithsonian's Office of Museum Programs. In cooperation with

Indian controlled museums, the Office of Museum Programs provides courses in museum practices on site in tribal communities across the country. NMAI, Indian museum leaders, other Smithsonian staff and nationally recognized museum professionals serve as faculty. The aim of this program is to help local cultural and educational organizations in tribal communities establish facilities, strengthen management and curatorial skills, and broaden program opportunities. Funding provides for Native American participant scholarships, faculty training and travel, and instructional materials. Three regional workshops are scheduled annually with the development of curriculum material to provide permanent ongoing follow-up opportunities.

Question 120: How will the Native American faculty be used? Will they be brought to the Smithsonian?

Answer: The request would make it possible for Native-American faculty from tribally controlled colleges and other institutions to apply for on-site residencies to work directly with NMAI collections. Indian members of the leadership/cultural center of their community will also be invited to apply for such residencies.

Question 121: Provide a breakdown of the request into the elements listed on p. 102.

Answer: A breakdown of the request of $200,000 for Native American staff development and traininq follows:

Salaries and benefits for

three Native American staff $120,000

Travel for Native American staff,

faculty and community based

museum professionals 10,000

Stipends for fellows and internships,

Native American faculty and

community based museum professionals 50,000

Supplies and materials to support

traininq proqrams both on and off site 10,000

Office and automation equipment for

three Native American staff positions 10,000

$200,000

National Museum of the American Indian - Campaign Ofc.

Question 122: A request of $448,000 is included for the national campaign office. What are the results to date of the fundraising campaign?

Answer: Although just beginning, the NMAI Campaign is attracting a great deal of interest on the part of the American people and private funding organizations. The Campaign, as of March 27, 1991, reports a total of $442,074.66 received from all sources and for all purposes.

Question 123: What is the number of staff now on board? How many positions remain to be filled?

Answer: As of March 27, 1991, there are three full-time staff in the NMAI Campaign Office. The National Campaign Director came on board in January 1991, and began to build the staff.

There are four active recruits underway as of March 27, 1991. Included in this number is the Assistant Director for Public Relations and Special Events position which is in the final interview stage. Also included in the active recruits is the Assistant Director for Corporate and Foundation Relations; an external panel, after reviewing a large number of applications and interviewing three candidates, recommended that the search for this position be broadened and reopened. This has been done through the Smithsonian Office of Human Resources, with a new closing date of May 10, 1991. Position descriptions are being developed for the remaining positions, for the full complement of 13 Federal positions.

With the expectation that the test for the membership program of the Museum, which was initiated on March 21, 1991, will be successful, we must hire a Membership Director and a Support Secretary soon after the beginning of the Fiscal Year; support for these two additional positions is being sought in the FY 1992 budget request.

Question 124: In addition to the donated office space, what other non-Federal funds (amounts and sources) are being used to fund this effort?

Answer: There are three sources of non-Federal funds which are being applied toward the NMAI Campaign:

(1) Institutional Trust funds requested by the Secretary and approved by the Board of Regents for the FY 1991 budget. These funds in FY 1991 total $1,063,660.

(2) Restricted grants totalling $290,666 have been raised to help meet some of the Campaign's costs.

(3) A percentage of the operating cost (salary and support) of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Institutional Initiatives can be applied as an Institutional contribution to help fund the NMAI Campaign. In FY 1991, the Office's total operating budget is $371,000.

NMAI - New York Facilities Maintenance

Question 125: There is a reguest of $710,000 for New York facilities maintenance. When in FY 1992 is the Custom House expected to open?

Answer: The current schedule anticipates a public opening of the Custom House facility in the Spring of 1993. Based upon this schedule, the Smithsonian expects to begin beneficial occupancy of the facility in the Summer of 1992. At that time, the Institution will become responsible for the operation and maintenance of the mechanical eguipment dedicated to the NMAI portion of the building. The resources reguested for the New York facilities maintenance will also supplement staff at the existing museum building at Audubon Terrace, as well as the research facility and its addition in the Bronx.

Question 126: What is the status of constructing the addition to the Research Branch in the Bronx?

Answer: The contract for construction of the addition to the Research Branch in the Bronx was awarded at the end of September 1990. The Institution is currently reviewing and approving shop drawings, a step necessary prior to issuance of the notice to proceed for actual construction. The notice to proceed will be issued in early April, and construction is expected to be complete by August 1, 1991.

Question 127: Why are five air conditioning eguipment mechanics needed for the Custom House space? How many such mechanics do you have for comparable spaces elsewhere in the Smithsonian?

Answer: In order to provide the constant temperature and humidity levels to preserve and protect the collections which will be stored and displayed in the building it is necessary to operate and maintain the heating, ventilating and air conditioning eguipment twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. The five mechanics will ensure that at least one mechanic is available in the facility at all times. All Smithsonian facilities of comparable size reguiring continuous coverage are staffed in egual numbers.

Question 128: What portion of the year do the estimated utility costs represent? How were these amounts determined?

Answer: At the time of the budget submission, the Smithsonian was expecting to take beneficial occupancy of the Custom House space early in the first quarter of FY 1992, and occupy the addition to the Research Branch by October 1, 1991. Based upon this schedule, all utility costs were estimated on an annual basis. These estimates were determined using historical cost figures from the Cooper-Hewitt operation to arrive at a cost per gross square foot figure for electricity, steam and water/sewer costs, then multiplying the cost by the gross square feet assigned to the NMAI operation at the Custom House and the Research Branch addition. Similarly, cost experience at the Cooper-Hewitt for telephone usage was used to determine the estimated costs of this item at the two new facilities.

NMAI - Facilities Project Management

Question 129: A request of $143,000 and 2 workyears is included for facilities project management. What is the status of hiring the positions funded in 1990 and 1991?

Answer: Of the four positions received in 1990 and 1991, two have been permanently filled, and the other functions are being performed temporarily by other staff of the Office of Design and Construction. The remaining two positions have been advertised, and are expected to be filled within three months.

Question 130: With the two additional positions, will this complete the staffing for this element?

Answer: No, two positions will be requested in FY 1993. We anticipate that the eight positions will provide adequate project management staff to ensure successful construction of essential NMAI facilities.

Question 131: When are the A&E design efforts for the Mall museum and the Suitland building scheduled to begin?

Answer: The current schedule calls for completion of the consultations with the Native American communities and development of the museum program by the end of FY 1991, and completion of the facilities planning phase for the two buildings during the third quarter of FY 1992. If these phases are completed as planned, the Institution will begin conceptual, or schematic, design of both the Suitland and the Mall Museum buildings in mid- to late-FY 1992.

43-202 O—91-

NMAI Security

Question 132: There is a request of $477,000 and 15 workyears for security for New York facilities. Explain why you plan to hire 5 temporary guards, as well as 5 permanent guards in April 1992, and an additional 5 temporary guards in mid-1992.

Answer: The Office of Protection Services (OPS) expects that there will be a transition period during 1992 when guards will be needed for the Audubon Terrace location as well as for the Custom House, as both buildings will be in operation and will contain valuable collections items. The Smithsonian is committed to maintaining some public exhibition space at the Audubon Terrace location until the Custom House is fully open. Guards will be needed at the Custom House for several months prior to the official public opening to ensure adequate security for artifacts being moved to that site for the preparation of exhibitions. Specifically, security coverage will be needed for our inner perimeter, to enforce access control at perimeters (including shared space such as the loading dock), and to provide escort for contractors during exhibit installation and related activities. The OPS plan is to hire 5 permanent guards for the Custom House and to move 5 permanent guards already on board to the Custom House and back-fill them with 5 temporary guards who will be needed only during the transition period for Audubon Terrace. An additional 5 temporary guards will be needed to supplement the permanent staff at the Custom House during the early period when the Custom House opens to the public.

Question 133: What is included in the $123,000 requested for contract services to support the guard force?

Answer: The amount of $123,000 is to provide contract guards to supplement the proprietary guards at NMAI. The plan is to use the same model as that used at the Cooper-Hewitt Museum in New York City, i.e., to use proprietary guards on all night posts, at perimeter posts, and any high security posts, while using contract guards in the public exhibition galleries.

Question 134: Provide a breakdown of the $230,000 and the 12 workyears as related to this request.

Answer: The amount of $2 3 0,000 was projected based on hiring five permanent guards in March 1992 ($70,000); hiring five temporary guards also in March 1992 ($70,000) ; and hiring five more temporary guards in May 1992 ($50,000). In addition, support costs were included for training, supplies, equipment, uniforms, dry cleaning, laundry, etc., for the 15 new guards ($40,000).

For FY 1992, we estimated that 6.25 workyears would actually be needed for the hiring of guards as described above. However, we anticipated that the need for the temporary positions would

extend for most of the next fiscal year, and thus requested 12 workyears.

Custom House Program

Question 135: A request of $1,480,000 and 13 workyears is included for the Custom House program. What is the breakdown of the $1,070,000 included for completing the opening exhibition and other costs?

Answer: The breakdown is as follows:

Exhibition fabrication and installation $ 625,000

Media equipment 75,000

Film and video production 75,000

Printed material including education materials 100,000

Lectures and demonstrations 50,000

Costs associated with planning future exhibits 145,000

$1,070,000

Question 136: Explain why these costs are all needed in FY 1992.

Answer: In order to open to the public in early 1993, all production must begin in FY 1992. Thus contracts must be issued and funds obligated in FY 1992.

Question 137: Are there any one-time costs included?

Answer: The cost of the media equipment is an initial capital expense but maintenance, upgrade and replacement of equipment will be an ongoing budget item.

Custom House Furnishings and Equipment

Question 138: There is also a request of $1,700,000 for Custom House furnishings and equipment. Why shouldn't these costs be considered as part of the total cost of renovating the Custom House, and therefore be cost-shared with the City and State of New York, as the other renovation costs were?

Answer: In the case of the Custom House project, the total amount available for construction is $24 million, as the authorizing legislation requires that the Federal portion be matched 1:2 with non-Federal sources and the maximum pledged by New York City and the State of New York is $8 million each. Very preliminary estimates of the cost of renovating the Custom House space for museum use indicated that some funds might be available

to cover the cost of furnishing and equipping the space. After completion of the facilities planning phase in early FY 1991, however, it became evident that the full $24 million would be needed for actual construction costs.

It is in fact customary to include the costs for furnishing and equipping a new building in the budget for construction. However, in several projects such as the Whipple Observatory Base Camp, the Museum Support Center and the Tupper Laboratory, the Institution requested furnishing and equipment funds in the Salaries and Expenses budgets, as these costs can also be considered part of the initial operation of the building. The specific component costs, as described in the next question, are frequently included as operating costs for Smithsonian programs.

Question 139: Provide a breakdown of the cost estimates, and the basis for the amounts.

Answer: The breakdown of furnishing and equipment costs for the Custom House is as follows:

Amount Description

$530,000 Furnishings, including office furniture for new staff, furniture in public and exhibit areas, information desks, coat room storage units and guard stations

620,000 Equipment, including paint spray booth, fume hoods, woodworking equipment, exhibit preparation equipment, vacuum tube system

200,000 Signage, including public orientation and non-public room designations

350.000 Security equipment, wiring, devices, and control systems

$1,700,000

NMAI Planning and Coordination

Question 140: A request of $1,149,000 and 19 workyears is included for planning and coordination for all locations. Summarize the current staffing and activities in this area.

Answer: Of the 12 positions authorized for Project Planning and Coordination Staff in the Washington Office of NMAI, 8 have been filled and 4 are presently under recruitment. The activities of the Planning and Coordination staff have been primarily focussed on the following:

o Planning and development of the George Gustav Heye Center at the U.S. Custom House in New York City including participation in negotiations with New York City and State and GSA; and development of the opening exhibitions and related public programming;

o Planning for facilities and programs for Suitland Mall facilities;

o Consultations with Indian Communities

o Development of repatriation policy;

o Management of the existing museum at Audubon Terrace;

o Recruitment of permanent staff for all locations;

o Native American staff development;

o Development of a series of case studies leading toward programs that foster collaboration and cooperation between the Museum and the indigenous communities in the Western hemisphere which are represented in the collection;

o Development of technology requirements for all programs and facilities.

Question 141: Provide a breakdown of the staffing and funding requested in 1992.

Answer:

Staffing: Amount

Coordinator of International Programs $ 68,000

Manager, Technology Program 79,000

Secretary 27,000

Project Manager, Mall Exhibitions (2) 96,000

Curator (3) 144,000

Research Assistants (6) 204,000

Exhibit Designer 48,000

Education Coordinator 68,000

Administrative Technician 27,000

Clerical/typing (2) 50.000

Salaries & Benefits $811,000

Travel 50,000

Contract Services 125,000

Rent 110,000

Supplies/materials 20,000

Equipment 33.000

Other Expenses $338,000

Total $1,149,000

Question 142: How much is included for rent, and where will the rented space be located?

Answer: An amount of $110,000 is included for rent. We are presently looking into the availability of office space in the vicinity of the Institution.

Special Review Committee on Native American Materials

Question 143: In 1991, funds were provided for the Special Review Committee on Native American materials. What have been the activities to date of the Committee?

Answer: The repatriation review committee has not yet met. This is due, in part, to the fact that information for their review has not been available and also because there was, as yet, no case specifically needing their review. It is important to have an organizational meeting to establish procedures and policies and this will be scheduled in the next few weeks depending on the schedules of the committee members. Additional meetings will be scheduled to further refine policies and review cases as they are developed by documentation archaeologists.

Question 144: What activities are planned in 1992?

Answer: In 1992, it seems highly likely that, as documentation staff are hired and begin to work, some cases will reach the stage in the review process where advice from the repatriation committee will be needed. By that time the committee will need to have developed appropriate procedures and policies for the review process. In the interim, meetings, between the committee and appropriate Native American representatives may also be important in clarifying issues and policies.

National Museum of American Art Save the Outdoor Sculpture Program

Question 145: P. 107. The request for the National Museum of American Art is $7,212,000, an increase of $329,000. In 1991, $1,000,000 was added for the Save Outdoor Sculpture program. What specifically is being done with these funds in 1991?

Answer: In FY 1991, twenty-five state sculpture surveys will be funded at an average cost of $40,000 per state. These surveys will be performed by volunteers who will be recruited and trained by a non-profit organization in each state to inventory and conduct an on-site assessment of each sculpture. Coordinating organizations will be selected from among museums, historic preservation offices, state arts councils and similar agencies.

The average of $40,000 per state will defray costs of participation by coordinating organizations enabling each to hire a principal staff coordinator for this volunteer effort. Most coordinating organizations will want to raise additional funds from local foundations and businesses to match the Federal contribution, creating public-private partnerships at the state and local levels.

Question 146: How exactly will the funds be used in 1992?

Answer: In FY 1991 and FY 1992, all federal dollars will be used to conduct the state surveys and reimburse participating organizations. In 1992, using the same average of $40,000 per state, sculpture surveys will be funded in the remaining twenty-five states.

Private grant awards to the Museum and the National Institute for the Conservation of Cultural Property, co-sponsor of Save Outdoor Sculpture, fund ongoing program costs of data entry, administration, and publicity. To date, $1.6 million has been raised in support of Save Outdoor Sculpture from the Pew Charitable Trusts, the Getty Grant Program, the Henry Luce Foundation, and other donors.

Question 147: What happens after 1992?

Answer: In future years, the Museum anticipates requesting retention of the addition to the Museum's base to create the American Art Study Center. The Study Center will bring together a range of research resources — archival and photographic collections, art research databases, bibliographic materials, as well as the collections of the Museum — to create the most comprehensive information resource on American art in the world. This information center is designed to serve the highly specialized needs of the visiting scholar as well as general public inquiries about the nation's artistic and cultural heritage.

The Museum already has well-established programs — Fellows Program, the Inventory of American Paintings, and the Peter A. Juley Collection of photographic images — that will form the nucleus of the Study Center. Save Outdoor Sculpture is another example of a comprehensive research program that will be part of the Center. In planning for a Study Center, the Museum will examine the relationships between scholars and the resources required for research to consider how the current Museum programs can be strengthened and extended by new programs and through integrated access to the paintings, sculptures, and graphic materials in the collections. The Luce Center at the Metropolitan Museum of Art provides a partial model for the concept although it focuses only on the Metropolitan Museum's own collections and related information. The Luce. Center was developed at the cost of $7-8 million dollars; similar funding will be needed to develop a comprehensive American Art Study Center. The federal contribution

will provide leverage to raise much of this sum from private foundations.

Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden

Question 148: P. 116. The request for the Hirshhorn Museum is $3,941,000, an increase of $307,000, including an increase of $100,000 for exhibition costs. What is the current amount available in the base for exhibition costs?

Answer: The Hirshhorn Museum has approximately $600,000 available for exhibition costs. This has to cover, among other things - shipping, insurance, catalogue costs, installation materials, travel by couriers, and staff salaries and benefits. In recent years the Museum has not received any additional Federal funding to support exhibition costs. Due to base erosion and in order to live within budget the Museum has had to reduce the annual number of major exhibitions from four to three. Base erosion has been exacerbated due to the higher costs of transportation and insurance premiums which have risen as the result of the higher valuation of the works of art and the increased demand by lenders that couriers accompany works of art from one location to another.

Question 149: What is the average cost per loan exhibition in the last several years?

Answer: The cost of loan exhibitions varies widely depending on the size of the exhibition, expenses for transporting and insuring the art work, and other considerations. Some loan exhibitions are created by the Hirshhorn Museum (e.g. "Francis Bacon") while others are borrowed from other museums (e.g. "Bay Area Figurative Art, 1950-1965"). The total cost of Francis Bacon was over $692,000, of which $150,000 was Federal funds allocated to the Hirshhorn over several fiscal years. The exhibition toured to two other museums who helped finance the cost of shipping and insurance. In addition, the Hirshhorn received a grant of $92,000 from the competitive Smithsonian Special Exhibition Fund to help finance the exhibition catalogue and some other expenses. In contrast, "Bay Area Figurative Art, 1950-1965" cost the Hirshhorn Museum $47,357.

Arthur M. Sackler Gallery/Freer Gallery of Art

Question 150: P. 120. The request for the Sackler Gallery/Freer Gallery of Art is $5,605,000, an increase of $381,000, which includes 9 workyears and $200,000 for the reopening of the Freer. What is the breakdown, including staffing, of how the funds added in 1991 ($750,000) for the reopening are being used?

Answer: The sum of $750,000 will be used according to the following breakdown:

1 senior exhibit designer

1 intermediate wood crafter

1 intermediate lighting designer

1 intermediate graphic designer

$ 71,000 - estimated salaries (FY 1991)

18,000 - equipment

14,000 - supplies, mock-ups, testing 547,000 - casework

80,000 - natural lighting control/lighting equipment

20.000 - contingencies $750,000 - total

Question 151: How much of these funds are one-time only funds?

Answer: The sum of $1.5 million was requested over a two-year period which is for one-time only and no-year funding. The sum of $750,000, allocated in FY 1991, is one-half of this amount including the $71,000 in salary costs for temporary positions to reinstall the exhibition galleries. The same amount in the FY 1992 budget will fulfill the $1.5 million one-time only and no-year funding request.

Question 152: When exactly will the Freer be reopened?

Answer: Several factors are now guiding the final decision regarding the reopening date of the Freer Gallery of Art. The 9 positions requested in the FY 1992 budget and the second half of the $1.5 million of no-year funding to support the reinstallation must be allocated in FY 1992 to assure the planned reopening in FY 1992 (Question #150 discusses the use of the first of two $750,000 one-time only, no-year funds). Secondly, Congressionally-funded repairs on the building have revealed that the skylights have deteriorated more than was previously expected. (A request is currently in the FY 1992 Smithsonian R&R budget for replacement. Assuming these funds are forthcoming, replacement should still allow the Freer to reopen in FY 1992.) Thirdly, since the Freer Gallery opened to the public in May 1923, there is strong support to reopen in May of 1993, the 70th anniversary and when the skylight replacement is completed.

Question 153: For each of the types of positions requested in 1992, how many such positions are currently funded, through 1991? What is the justification for the additional positions?

Answer: Renovation of the Freer Gallery tripled the space available for art conservation and technical study and increased

the collection storage facilities by 70 percent. Additional staff are required to clean and maintain the new space, to reinstall the exhibitions and design and install an expanded exhibition program subsequent to the reopening, and to accommodate the increased activity in the new collection storage spaces. For the latter, the new collection storage areas were designed to serve as educational facilities for individuals and groups to study the collections. In the area of building management, only four positions are currently funded; the new requirement for the building calls for 12 positions to properly clean and maintain the building; a request for 4 is part of the fiscal year 1992 budget. In the area of exhibitions, one lighting designer, one exhibit designer and three wood crafters currently work full-time on Sackler exhibitions. No additional exhibit staff are available to work on Freer exhibitions. Lastly, in the area of collections management, one art handling specialist is assigned to the Freer Gallery. Two additional positions are required to work in the expanded collection storage areas to assist with the reinstallation of the collections and to support the educational facilities available in the collection storage areas.

Cooper-Hewitt Museum

Question 154: P. 129. The request for the Cooper-Hewitt Museum is $1,993,000, an increase of $177,000. Why is the amount included for necessary pay an increase of 18% over the 1991 base for compensation and benefits?

Answer: The 18 percent increase includes normal "necessary" pay increases such as cost-of-living and health insurance costs, but also includes the 8 percent geographic (locality) pay increase ($80,000) approved in FY 1991 for all New York City employees.

Question 155: How is the additional funding provided in 1991 for the education department and base deficiencies being used?

Answer: The $200,000 appropriation has been internally divided between the Education (1 workyear and $150,000) and Facilities Departments ($50,000).

The funds allocated for the Education Department have allowed the Cooper-Hewitt to publish a brochure on the permanent collection which will be distributed free of charge to the general public, schools, tour groups, etc. for the next 18 months. The Education Department is also developing an outreach program on the history of the Cooper-Hewitt and the Carnegie Mansion to introduce the Museum and its facilities to new audiences. This program will consist of an audio visual presentation to schools, grades K through 12. Free programs in conjunction with changing exhibitions are also being offered to school groups (K-12) using qualified museum educators as interpreters. This summer, a series of free

lectures and concerts is scheduled to be presented in the garden. The series, "Ritual and Celebration: African Cultures in the New World," consists of four lectures and four concerts which will explore the transformation of the Yoruba and Bakonga civilizations in the Americas as a consequence of the African slave trade. The series will focus on the performance and material objects associated with the rituals and celebrations of these cultures. The funding has also provided for a School Programs Coordinator to be responsible for all educational activities for student (K through college) and in-ser"ice programs for teachers and educators.

The additional $50,000 for facilities maintenance helps provide a funding base for escalating costs associated with doing business in New York City (i.e. trash removal, materials and supplies, etc.) and operating three historic buildings, a conservatory and garden.

Anacostia Museum

Question 156: P. 137. The request for the Anacostia Museum is $1,217,000, an increase of $58,000. What is the status of the plan for the Museum's expansion?

Answer: The recently appointed Director, Steven Newsome, has set into motion an analysis of the feasibility of facility expansion. The use of two sites will be explored. The first is the often mentioned Poplar Point site. This location calls for the construction or a new facility. The second option calls for the acquisition and rehabilitation of the Nicholas Avenue School and the Museum's former location, the Carver Theater. Mr. Newsome is also interested in acquiring two nearby parcels of land for parking and the development of a festival park to be named in honor of the Museum's Founding Director, John Kinard.

A full analysis of these sites is expected by late 1991 or early 1992. Announcements of future plans will be tied to the Museum's 2 5th anniversary, September 1992.

Question 157: Has the shuttle service for which funds were provided in 1991 been initiated?

Answer: The staff is currently reviewing the types of vehicles available. It is hoped that upon analysis and review of associated risk-management factors and the hiring of a driver, the service will be operable by the end of this fiscal year (FY 1991) .

Smithsonian Institution Traveling Exhibition Service

Question 158: P. 148. The request for SITES is $2,482,000, an increase of $119,000. How much of the $1,400,000 added in 1991 will be used to convert 24 Trust positions to Federal positions? How will the balance be used?

Answer: Of the $1,400,000 added to support SITES' operating base, $788,200 will be used to convert 21 Trust positions to the Federal side. These positions include project team supervisors, exhibition coordinators, scheduling coordinators, registrars, and SITES' publications officer, editors and publications assistant.

The balance of $622,800 is being used to fund new positions, as well as selected operating expenses detailed in SITES' original budget justification. The new positions include exhibition coordinators ($187,200), shipping clerks ($42,600), a budget analyst ($32,900), and an exhibition proposal writer ($21,900).

The operating expenses include travel costs for SITES technicians who provide on-site advice on climate control, security, and storage of exhibitions, to museums which lack the expertise or resources necessary to mount exhibitions independently ($40,000); shipping subsidies for institutions that cannot afford rapidly escalating exhibit transportation costs ($80,100); printing and reproduction costs for educational brochures for small, economically fragile institutions ($40,000); office and exhibit construction supplies ($98,000); office equipment ($15,000); and production costs for packing, crating and framing exhibitions ($54,100).

Question 159: How will this conversion result in a reduction in participation fees?

Answer: Salaries and benefits are the largest indirect cost burden on SITES' exhibition rental fees. Until SITES received $1,400,000 in Federal funds for its operating base, its fee-supported salaries ($777,200) were among the costs that SITES needed to recover from borrowers of exhibits. Thus, by converting its fee-supported employees to the Federal payroll, SITES removes the most prohibitive cost burden in its rental fee calculations.

Question 160: What will be the amount of the reduction?

Answer: Every SITES exhibition (125 in all) requires a different budget and therefore has a different rental fee. Irrespective of the specific project, however, the rental cost of each SITES exhibition will be reduced dramatically as a result of Federal support. Two examples that follow illustrate the extent to which fees already have been reduced because SITES no longer needs to recover indirect operating costs from museums in the field.

"Capturing the Spirit," a new exhibition about Mexico's visual and literary art traditions, was scheduled to tour small cultural arts centers for a fee of $3,000. Despite repeated promotional efforts, reservations for the exhibition did not materialize. When SITES contacted potential host museums, it learned that the original $3,000 fee, when coupled with shipping and installation costs, exceeded what those museums could afford. Later, after receiving Federal operating support, SITES was able to reduce the rental fee to $1,200. "Capturing the Spirit" now is fully booked in cultural centers across the country for a two-year period.

A similar example can be seen in SITES' traveling version of a National Zoo exhibition about human attitudes toward animals. Originally this exhibition carried a rental fee of $14,800, an amount far too steep for the zoos and nature parks interested in hosting the show. Federal support enabled SITES to reduce the rental fee to $7,500, and the exhibition's three-year itinerary now is fully booked.

Question 161: When will the conversion take place?

Answer: The conversion of SITES' fee-supported Trust staff is presently taking place. The process is complicated because it involves changes in staff benefit packages and affects a significant number of employees approaching retirement. The Smithsonian's Office of the Assistant Secretary for Museums and Office of Human Resources now are working with SITES personnel to implement staff conversions in accordance with federal personnel regulations, and to ensure that recruitments proceed apace for the new positions that SITES also must fill with its new Federal support. SITES expects that staff conversions and new hires will be in place within the current fiscal year.

Museum Support Center

Question 162: P. 152. The request for the Museum Support Center is $5,403,000, an increase of $1,097,000. What has been done to date on the "high bay" collections storage equipment, and the balance of the "wet" storage equipment?

Answer: Since the Institution's highest priority in purchasing MSC collections storage equipment has been the completion of the reprocurement of the storage cabinets for Pods 1, 2 and 4, there has been little progress to date on the procurement of the "high bay" and the balance of the "wet" storage equipment. With the completion of the last increment of funding for the reprocurement (with a portion of the FY 1991 appropriation), the Institution will be able to now turn its attention to addressing the "high bay" equipment need in the balance of FY 1991 and FY 1992.

As of March 1991, work has begun to initiate the design of the "high bay" collections storage equipment, with construction planned for FY 1992. As yet the schedule of the design and construction of the "wet" collections storage equipment has not been determined. Because of the complexity of the "wet" storage equipment and the need to minimize the disruption to collections already stored in Pod 3, the balance of the "wet" storage system must be installed all at one time, with design work conducted at least one year in advance of the construction work. The preliminary cost estimate for completing the "wet" storage system is from $6.9 to $9 million. This amount exceeds the annual funding base for MSC equipment. Completion of the wet storage equipment will be accomplished when the Smithsonian is able to obtain a significant increase in funding or when it is able to accumulate sufficient no-year funds over a period of several years.

Question 163: What are the current estimated costs of completing the Support Center with all equipment as originally planned? How does this compare to the original estimate?

Answer: The current estimate of the additional funding needed to complete the collections storage equipment at the Museum Support Center is projected to be from $26.9 to $35.3 million. This total includes (1) $2.0 to $2.3 million to design, procure and construct the "high bay" collections storage equipment of cantilever racks on which to store such large objects as totem poles and whale bones, (2) $6.9 million to $9 million to design and construct the balance of the "wet" collections storage system in Pod 3, and (3) $18 million to $24 million to purchase and install storage cabinets and drawers in the growth areas of Pods 1, 2, and 4, and to replace the older wood-frame cabinets transferred to the MSC from the National Museum of Natural History.

Together with the $31.4 million already spent, these additions result in a total of $58.3 million to $66.7 million to equip the Museum Support Center.

The original preliminary cost estimate for the design, purchase and installation of the MSC collections storage equipment was $18,543 million in 1980 dollars. Naturally, escalation accounts for a major part of the cost increase. Additionally, because of the major problems incurred through the years (the decision to change from the pioneering "three-tier" design to more conventional storage cabinets on concrete decks, the termination of the original storage equipment contract for default by GSA, and the re-award of the contracts for construction of the decks, utilities and storage equipment), direct comparisons between the original cost estimate and the current cost estimates cannot be made.

Question 164: What is the current estimate of move costs, and how does this compare to the original estimates?

Answer: 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 will 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 will be filled as these collections grow. The current estimate of the additional funding needed to complete the Initial Move of collections to the Museum Support Center is projected to be approximately $6 million over a five-year period of increased move activity. Together with the $3,646 million already spent and allocated from FY 1983 through FY 1991 for the "Initial Move" activities, including the program to evaluate the effectiveness of asbestos decontamination techniques, this results in a grand total of $9,646 million to accomplish the "Initial Move" of collections to the Museum Support Center. No estimate has been made as yet of the additional funding required for the "Growth Move" activities.

The original preliminary cost estimate of the initial move of collections to the Museum Support Center (developed in 1983) was estimated to be $2.6 million, excluding escalation and salary increases.

Five major factors have contributed to the increased cost of the Initial Move: (1) the refinement of the original preliminary Initial Move cost estimates using the application of the principles and techniques of the "Critical Path" method of scheduling, including consultation with the departments scheduled to move collections; (2) the delay in the procurement of collections storage equipment that has stretched what had been conceived as a short-term, high-activity process into a very long-term, low-level activity process; (3) the additional costs related to the now higher standards required for the preparation and cleaning of asbestos-contaminated objects and related costs for disposal of hazardous waste that had not been reflected in the original cost projections; (4) the additional benefit costs and within grade increases to keep qualified staff on board for a longer than originally estimated move, by placing them on term appointments for up to four years and; (5) the increase in legislated pay requirements for employee salaries and benefits and for inflation.

Question 165: Explain exactly how the base costs available in 1991 and 1992, not including the settlement costs, will be used, including a breakdown for types of equipment, move costs, etc.

Answer: For FY 1991, the base funding for MSC is $4,306,000, including $2,834,000 for MSC Collections Storage Equipment, $405,000 for the preparation and move of the collections to the MSC, and'$1,067,000 for the MSC administrative and maintenance operations. The FY 1992 request for MSC, excluding the settlement, is $4,396,000, which includes $2,834,000 for Collections Storage Equipment, $425,000 for the preparation and move of the collections to the MSC, and $1,137,000 for the MSC administrative and ma intenance operat ions.

MSC Collections Storage Equipment : For the collections storage equipment, the FY 1991 funds will be used to purchase the remaining reprocurement storage equipment and to design the "high bay" collection storage equipment. Some FY 1991 funds will be reserved for the procurement of the "high bay" equipment so it can be installed at the earliest possible date in 1992. FY 1992 funds will provide any balance of funds necessary to procure and install the "high bay" storage equipment. In both FY 1991 and FY 1992 a portion of the collections storage equipment funds will be used to procure and install "growth" cabinets, shelves, and drawers to take advantage of the window of opportunity that is open to purchase these storage equipment items under a current contract for a set price. The Smithsonian must order these storage equipment items by FY 1994 or pay higher prices for them.

MSC Move ; For the Move and the Evaluation of Asbestos Decontamination Techniques Study, the base funds available in FY 1991 are being used primarily to support a skeleton staff of personnel ($355,000) to coordinate and conduct the testing techniques and the Move. The balance of the funding (approximately $50,000) is being spent on the non-personnel costs of the Move, including equipment and supplies needed to work with asbestos, asbestos trash removal (e.g., used safety suits contaminated with asbestos), and packing supplies. In FY 1992, the base costs of the Move will be used for the same general purposes they are being used for in FY 1991. However, because more work will be done in FY 1992 in asbestos contaminated storage areas, more of the funds will be spent on asbestos trash removal.

The current base of funding for the MSC Move is inadequate to support the expanded Move activity required during the peak period of the Initial Move. With the current level of base funds, even including the redirection in FY 1992 of the funding that has supported the three-year study of the evaluation of asbestos cleaning techniques (to be completed in FY 1991), it would take more than 12 years to accomplish the Move, without taking future legislated pay requirements or inflation into account. In fact, the Institution has identified an unfunded need of 24 workyears and $800,000 for MSC Move funding in FY 1992, in addition to the requested funding, as indicated in supplemental material submitted for the record to the Subcommittee as part of the FY 1992 Appropriations hearings. In order to keep pace with the NHB Major Capital Renewal renovation schedule, this funding is necessary for the Move to increase its rate of relocation of collections from the Natural History Building (NHB) to MSC in FY 1992. These funds would be used primarily for salaries, safety related equipment and supplies, and packing and storage supplies.

MSC Operations : The primary function of the operational budget is to fund the building management and computer operations. The FY 1991 funding includes $860,000 for personnel costs and $207,000 for the non-personnel costs for administration and maintenance, including custodial, collection management and computer supplies; trash removal services; and computer

maintenance. For FY 1992, personnel costs are estimated at $930,000 and non-personnel support costs at $207,000.

Office of Folklife Programs

Question 166: P. 168. The request for the Office of Folklife Programs is $$977,000, a decrease of $267,000. What level of funding is included for the Columbus Quincentenary program at the 1992 Folklife Festival?

Answer: The Office of Folklife Programs (OFP) has $210,000 in its FY 1992 base to fund the planned Columbus Quincentenary programs. The Columbus Quincentenary programs at the 1992 Festival of American Folklife will consist of two living exhibition programs on the National Mall: (1) "New Mexico Folklife" and (2) "Cultures of the Americas" which examines the new and distinctive forms of culture arising from the encounter of America's diverse peoples, and the necessity of conserving them as distinctive and useful adaptions to the new world.

Question 167: Will this fully fund this effort?

Answer: The total cost of the New Mexico program is estimated at $1,100,000. The State of New Mexico will fund $800,000 through the state legislature, its department of tourism and private sources. The Office of Folklife Programs (OFP) will use $300,000 of its base resources for the Festival to support the New Mexico program. The "Cultures of the Americas" program will cost $900,000. OFP will use $125,000 of its Federal base and the $210,000 Quincentenary base for this program. In addition, OFP will use $100,000 in Trust funds and expects to raise about $165,000 in grants and in-kind support from foundations, foreign governments and private sources. This leaves a $300,000 shortfall.

International Center

Question 168: P. 179. The request for the International Center is $1,044,000, an increase of $63,000. What funds were used to establish the Office of Environmental Awareness in 1990?

Answer: The Office of Environmental Awareness was organized in response to the growing importance of global environmental degradation, and in recognition of the vital role the Smithsonian Institution can play in gathering and disseminating accurate information. The Office was established by reprogramming one trust fund position, and with grant funds from the Pew Charitable Trusts. The trust funded Director position was created by reprogramming the Special Assistant for Biological Diversity in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research. The grant of $50,000 from Pew

Charitable Trusts supports a Program Assistant position, interns and office operating costs. The Smithsonian International Center, in which the Office is located, provides basic services such as a computer network, supplies, communications and photocopying.

Question 169: What is the staffing and funding level of the Office?

Answer: Presently the Office of Environmental Awareness has two full-time employees, the Director on an indefinite trust fund appointment and the Program Assistant on a temporary grant funded appointment. In addition, a temporary trust Research Assistant, whose salary is paid by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for External Affairs, works part time for both units. Five interns have also worked in the Office of Environmental Awareness since its inception.

Operating funds for the Office are being raised from grants, gifts, and contracts from private organizations, until permanent federal base support becomes available. The current level of funding provides permanent salary for the Director and grant funds provide salary through the end of calendar year 1991 for a Program Assistant. For a fully effective operation, the Office of Environmental Awareness needs 4 FTEs and $307,000 for salaries ($136,000), operating expenses ($67,000), and base support for environmental awareness programs ($104,000). Partial funding has been raised to support the National Forum on Ocean Conservation, scheduled for November 19-21, 1991, and planning for a book and major traveling exhibition on the same topic. Although the Office will continue to raise private funds to support public education and awareness projects, a base of federal support ($307,000) is needed to provide crucial matching funds to private grant requests for planning workshops, conferences, publications, exhibitions and other programs.

Administration

Question 170: P. 185. The request for administration is $29,835,000, which includes a program increase of $4,358,000. Why were actual FTE's in 1990 310, compared to the estimate a year ago of 349?

Answer: Two major items contributed to the approximately 10 percent FTE lapse in Administration. First, the Institution delayed filling many positions in FY 1990 in an effort to create funding lapse that could be applied towards the unfunded D.C. water and sewer charges. Second, the Smithsonian instituted a hiring freeze during the later part of FY 1990 to prepare for the possible 32 percent Gramm-Rudman-Hollings reduction in FY 1991.

Question 171: When do you expect to complete the West Virginia feasibility study?

Answer: The five basic components of the West Virginia feasibility study are as follows:

1. A pan-institutional inventory of all Smithsonian business fulfillment requirements to determine what activities can be consolidated in a single warehouse location.

2. A ten-year projection of SI mail-order operations, with special attention to future savings and benefits that might be realized in a modern new location.

3. A detailed relocation study to develop and prioritize the complex criteria required of a fulfillment warehouse to serve customers throughout the U.S. and in foreign countries.

4. A cost-benefit analysis comparing facility costs in West Virginia and the Washington, D. C. area. The study will also look at the costs and benefits associated with new construction and ownership.

5. A final step is to secure the services of an architectural firm to design such a center and estimate costs.

By mid-April, we expect to have a contract in place for the completion of the first two components with an estimated completion date of mid-June. Following this, we estimate that a second contract to complete the next two components could be let by July 1 and completed by August 15. The final component would be completed by a third contract entered into by September 1 and completed by December 1.

Question 172: Provide for the record a summary of the most recent results of your EEO efforts. Are you satisfied with the pace and results of this effort? What additional efforts are needed?

Answer: Recent efforts have involved a concerted search for the recruitment of women and minorities for senior level positions. As a result, since September 1990, an African American female was appointed as Under Secretary, a non-minority female as Assistant Secretary for Finance and Administration, and a non-minority female as Director of Human Resources. While recent results are positive and encouraging, additional outreach efforts are necessary. The following recruitment efforts and programs are underway:

o With one of the additional positions requested for FY 1992, a recruiter will be made a permanent part of the Office of Human Resources to identify minority

resources and candidates for Smithsonian positions, primarily at the senior level.

A "quick hire" program has been established to identify qualified minorities for immediate hire into temporary positions, with the intent of converting them to permanent positions.

Under the Step Up 90 Program, funding has been allocated to provide upward mobility opportunities in professional and administrative career fields for ten internal employees. Under the program, "Affirmative Cultural Transition" (ACT), four Smithsonian bureaus showing a cultural imbalance have been provided one professional position each to recruit and hire minorities.

Also, a tracking system for monitoring the applicant pool and selection process is being planned. In this way, we can determine if minorities and women are applying for position vacancies, the number applying, and the rate of selection.

Inspector General

Question 173: There is a request for 3 workyears and $327,000 for the Office of the Inspector General, including $131,000 for two auditors with ADP audit experience. Why are two auditors needed for this effort?

Answer: The Smithsonian Institution has devoted substantial resources to its automated data processing (ADP) program. The Institution has both a centralized ADP office as well as decentralized information management operations designed to support the needs of bureaus and offices. ADP systems exist in all major segments of the Institution and provide support for most operations. These systems represent vulnerabilities to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. The skills, training, and background needed to successfully audit vulnerabilities in this area are not sufficiently available within the Office of Inspector General. Currently, the Office of Inspector General only has the resources to provide technical support to internal auditors, contract auditors, and investigators, not the technical audits warranted in this area. Consequently, the Institution is requesting 2 positions as the minimum to begin planning and conducting audits of the Smithsonian's ADP operations.

Question 174: Where will the additional office space be located? What is the basis of the amount of $150,000 requested for this purpose?

Answer: The Smithsonian Institution plans to acquire the additional space in the L'Enfant Plaza building currently housing the Office of Inspector General. The estimate is based on the needed square footage (3,800) times the per square foot estimated lease cost ($29.00) and an additional $40,000 for space modifications.

Human Resources

Question 175: For the Office of Human Resources, there is a request for 7 workyears and $406,000. Provide a breakdown of the request by position and related support costs.

Answer: The Institution's executive management as well as its bureau directors acknowledges an urgent need to bolster its human resource management programs. Additional staff, computers and training for the Office of Human Resource Management are among the Institution's top priorities. The request for $406,000 will be used in the following manner:

Positions

Title

Salaries

& Benefits

Only

1 Personnel Staffing $48,000 Specialist/Recruiter

2 Policy/Program Specialists

90,000

Description

Full-time recruiter will target minority sources for affirmative outreach efforts, develop methods for identifying and attracting qualified job candidates and maintain a usable, up-to-date applicant supply file.

Policy/program specialist will develop and implement human resource management programs to address a variety of the Smithsonian's most critical contemporary needs such as pay policies, performance appraisals, and implementation of Federal Employee Pay Comparability Act (FEPCA).

4 Personnel Management 167,000 Specialists

Personnel management specialists will join the current operations staff to ensure that day-to-day personnel processing and technical assistance needs do not go unmet.

75,000

7 positions

Personal Computer Purchase/Replacement

26.000 Staff Training $406,000

Question 176: What is involved in the human resource management programs, for which you are requesting two specialists to develop and implement?

Answer: Of immediate importance for reasons of statute and regulation, as well as Institutional need, is the formulation of new pay systems and policies. The Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990 will require the Office of Human Resources to develop new Institution-wide guidelines governing pay for rank and file employees during 1991-92. There is also a critical need for the Institution to examine its policies governing pay for top managers to ensure that the Smithsonian Senior Pay

System is both externally competitive and internally equitable. Also, the Institution's Performance Appraisal System needs to be re-examined, streamlined, and simplified through the use of generic performance standards. Further, procedures need to be developed and applied on an Institution-wide basis to enhance pay and performance.

Question 177: On what basis have you determined that you need four personnel service specialists for day-to-day needs?

Answer: The need for additional staff is supported based on the following:

o The total number of Smithsonian employees serviced by the Office of Human Resources has increased over the past several years. This increase in staff results from new activities being established throughout the Institution.

o The ratio of personnel specialists to the number of employees served is the second highest of any Federal entity—1:100 with the Veterans Administration being the highest at 1:107.

o The number of vacant positions announced by the Office of Human Resources has steadily increased. In 1990 alone, approximately 1000 vacancies were published with approximately 100,000 applications received (both solicited and unsolicited). In addition there has been a shift of workload from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The Office of Human Resources expects to receive delegated authority from OPM for a number of occupations, among these being Custodial Workers. This occupation carries a high rate of turnover which naturally leads to a high rate of vacancies. This occupation coupled with the security force, which also has a high turnover rate and for which we currently have authority, will increase workload in the Delegated Examining Unit (DEU) by approximately 50 percent. In order to reduce the delays in filling vacant positions, Smithsonian management has requested that delegated authority be requested for a number of other occupations. To accommodate these authorities, staff will be essential. Currently, the DEU is composed of three staff members. From January to December of 1990, the DEU issued 165 certificates of referral for Smithsonian positions and rated over 1,500 applications. Given the current workload of the DEU, additional staff would be necessary if the Smithsonian accepted examining responsibility for these new occupations.

Question 178: How much is in the base for computer equipment and software purchase/replacement, and for traininq?

Answer: The present base for computer equipment and training is $59,000. An additional $75,000 has been requested for the support of computer equipment and programs in the Office of Human Resources (OHR). This request would be used in the following manner:

o the phased replacement of aging first generation personal computers (approximately 8-10 PC's per year; approximate cost $25,000);

o the expansion of the Local Area Network (LAN) to 20 or 24 workstations (approximate cost $30,000); and

o the procurement of a computer maintenance contract for repair and annual maintenance of approximately 90 personal computers in OHR (approximate cost $20,000).

Office of Information Resource Management

Question 179: A request of $3,572,000 and 5 workyears is included for the Office of Information Resource Management (OIRM). What is the central mainframe computer you wish to replace, and how old is it?

Answer: The Institution plans to acquire a new mainframe to accommodate research, collections, and administrative applications now resident on its central IBM 4381 mainframe computer and to rededicate the old IBM mainframe to the Smithsonian Institution Bibliographic Information System (SIBIS).

SIBIS was installed in 1983 and operates on GEAC, a proprietary hardware and software system. This non-standard system will have surpassed its useful life by FY 1992. Moreover, since the present system is both proprietary and non-standard, SIBIS now locks the Institution into one mainframe technology thereby restricting future integration of other user-specific applications and communication with other organizations' library and archival systems. The original budget request from the Smithsonian Institution Libraries to SI management for SIBIS hardware/software replacement was $2,500,000.

The central IBM 4381 mainframe was purchased in 1985. Two independent requirement studies, completed in 1988 and 1990, confirmed that the Institution's projected research, collections and administrative computer workload would exceed its available capacity by 1992. The initial request from the Office of Information Resource Management to SI management for a larger mainframe to accommodate projected workload was $2,4 00,000.

When these two separate automation needs surfaced, the Institution concluded that replacing the GEAC computer on which SIBIS is resident with the IBM 4 381 would realize a savings of over

$1,000,000. This integrated plan would reduce funding requirements for an additional CPU (central processing unit) to support SIBIS, afford a standard operating environment for SIBIS, and also provide a backup site for the new central mainframe (an emergency service the Institution does not currently have).

Protecting the integrity of present automated applications is among the Institution's highest funding priorities for FY 1992.

Question 180: What studies have you done to determine what your needs are in this area? Have you completed a cost/benefit analysis? Provide all such studies, or summaries of them, for the record.

Answer: In 1988 Price Waterhouse completed a study of the computer capacity needs of the Institution to meet the projected computer processing workloads. A similar analysis was completed by OIRM technical personnel in cooperation with the System Engineering Service Division of IBM in March 1990. Both studies verify the need for additional computer capacity by FY 1992. (Studies provided for Committee files.)

By addressing future mainframe computing requirements holistically, the Institution is pursuing cost beneficial solutions to two increasingly time-urgent automation needs. As discussed in the previous question, the plan to reutilize the current central mainframe computer for the replacement library and archival system reduces potential costs by over $1,000,000. In addition, a study by Price Waterhouse, comparing the cost of operations for the new financial accounting system to be implemented and operated by Smithsonian staff versus one contracted with a service bureau, substantiates the long-term benefits of investing in a new central computer which can support financial applications and other diverse research and collections management Smithsonian requirements.

Question 181: Do you plan to issue a request for proposals under a competitive procurement for the new system?

Answer: The Smithsonian will comply with all applicable procurement regulations.

Question 182: What is the total estimated cost of this replacement effort? What is the basis of this estimate, and of the amount requested for 1992?

Answer: The cost estimate for replacing the central mainframe computer with a newer generation model and 23 million instructions per second (MIP) capacity was based on the 1990 commercial price of leasing a machine adjusted for potential changes estimated between 1990 and 1992. In addition, the request includes salaries for necessary staff, communications requirements, peripheral equipment needs, maintenance, software and general supplies.

The Institution projects the continuing need of $3,350,000 requested for FY 1992 to support SIBIS, regular central computer hardware upgrades, and related software, maintenance, and peripherals for the expected 5 year life cycle of these systems.

Question 183: Why are additional computer specialists needed for the replacement library and archival system? How many specialists are now on staff?

Answer: The Smithsonian plans to procure a commercially available software package for library and archival information to replace the GEAC system. However, a survey of available systems has shown that no current software package meets the full range of Smithsonian requirements. Therefore, the Institution must acquire a system that satisfactorily performs core support functions and hire two computer specialists to develop and maintain Smithsonian-specific applications for library functions. This approach is more cost effective than the development of a fully custom desiqned system.

Two computer programmer/analysts from the Office of Information Resource Management are currently designated for SIBIS system support, specifically maintenance, reporting, and migrating information from the collections information systems, but not for software development. The positions requested in FY 1992 will supplement existinq staff and will provide technical support to Smithsonian libraries staff. With on-staff expertise, the Institution will achieve better service and support for a critical Institution-wide information system. (Survey provided for Committee files.)

Question 184: What weaknesses have you identified that you want to remedy by addinq a position in computer security?

Answer: Due to other on-qoinq priority automation efforts, the Smithsonian is unable to redeploy a position to the critical area of computer security includinq continqency planninq and has been unable to implement the provisions of the Computer Security Act of 1987. Therefore, the Institution is vulnerable to risks associated with inadequate security control and the lack of protection of our automated systems from either inadvertent damaqe by employees or deliberate damaqe and spread of viruses from external sources. In addition, the absence of continqency plans for alternate processinq makes our computer systems vulnerable to disasters such as flood or fire.

In 1989, the Institution's auditors recommended that a formal continqency plan be established for all of the Institution's major systems. The Institution recbqnizes the acute need to establish security procedures for computer systems and is prepared to recruit and fill the position of security specialist as soon as a position and fundinq are allocated for the purpose.

If the position and funding are allocated in fiscal year 1992, and the position is filled promptly, a formal contingency plan still could not be implemented until fiscal year 1994. It is estimated that the time required to develop a contingency plan exceeds one and one-half man years. The implication of taking a long time to implement a formal contingency plan is that the Institution will remain at risk until the plan is developed, tested, and implemented. It is important to note that as the Institution becomes increasingly reliant upon computers for critical operational functions, the relative impact of a disaster increases proportionally.

Office of Procurement and Property Management

Question 185: There is a request of $53,000 for the Office of Procurement and Property Management. What is the basis of this amount?

Answer: The electronic creation, perpetuation and transmission of standardized forms requires new software technology and services and specialized development and implementing skills. Moreover, in an area so governed by regulation and legal requirements, as is contracting, maintaining the integrity of documents processed electronically is paramount and, thus, must be assured by specialized and expert attention. Finally, an effective and comprehensive electronic forms transmission process requires all major users of the system to have compatible sending and receiving capacities.

The figure of $53,000, an initial amount for a pilot effort, breaks down as follows: $15,000 estimated for professional services related to programming, data entry, consultation, and installation of wiring; $4,000 for various computer supplies and materials; and $34,000. for the purchase of necessary computer equipment.

Question 186: What is the status of the planning for the electronic forms transfer system? When will it be completed?

Answer: The status of the planning for the electronic forms transfer system is currently in the analysis stage. We are in the process of reviewing the concept of electronic forms with the cooperation of selected program offices and the Office of Accounting and Financial Services to determine both needs and current capacities. We must identify all issues that require resolution, such as security, requisition procedures, standardization of information and forms. Once done, a pilot program will be developed with one of the major museums prior to universal implementation. After the pilot effort is operational we can better estimate the timeframe to implement a complete system.

Office of Protection Services

Question 187: The request for the Office of Protection Services is $28,103,000, an increase of $1,913,000. Why were the actual costs and FTE's in 1990 less than estimated by about $800,000 and over 100 FTE's?

Answer: The budget estimate for FY 1990 included in last year's Congressional budget document was $23,339,000. Actual expenditures for FY 1990 were $23,044,000 or $295,000 less than estimated. This was due to the fact that the Institution had to reduce the FY 1990 budget allocation for the Office of Protection Services (OPS) by almost $250,000, which represented the OPS prorated share of unfunded District of Columbia water and sewer costs which had been absorbed by the Institution in FY 1990.

The shortfall between the estimated FTE and the actual number resulted from the requirement of OPS to maintain 96 guard vacancies due to the absence of adequate funds to cover authorized positions, plus additional slippage due to staff losses and the ensuing lag time in refilling such vacancies.

Question 188: What is the status of hiring new guards with the funds added in 1991?

Answer: The $600,000 added to the OPS budget for FY 1991 was to cover previously authorized positions for which funds were not available. At the time the appropriated funds were made available, there were 90 guard positions being held vacant due to lack of adequate funding. (A vacancy level of 96 had been held throughout most of fiscal year 1990 because of lack of funds.) After the beginning of the new calendar year, OPS was able to resume active recruiting. As of April 1, 1991, the vacancies had been reduced to 47, with an average weekly increase in guard strength of just over 3. When selections and commitments are added, the 90 vacancies will be reduced to 33 by April 8 and to 27 by the first week in June. It should be noted, however, that if recent turnover experience is repeated over the next several months, approximately 2 guards can be expected to leave the Institution in an average week. Thus, by the first week in June we can expect the number of vacancies to have risen to approximately 43. OPS has taken steps to accelerate even further the rate of hiring and has brought on board, effective April 1, 1991, an experienced recruiter to work full time in locating qualified applicants for continuing guard vacancies.

It should be noted that the $600,000 amount added in FY 1991 was only a portion of the total amount needed. Because the appropriation was not received until well into the fiscal year, OPS is able to fill more positions than if they had been filled all year. When the full year impact of positions being filled is considered, additional personnel funds will be needed to cover such costs. In the absence of those additional funds, after the

beginning of FY 1992 it will be necessary to place a freeze on the refilling of new guard vacancies in order to cover the total salary and benefit costs.

Question 189: What is the estimated amount of remaining shortages of guards and funding?

Answer: The Office of Protection Services surveys on a quarterly basis the number of guard posts which need to be staffed and translates that number into the number of guard positions needed to provide adequate coverage. OPS has been asking for small incremental increases over the past several years to close the gap between what is required and what has been authorized. For the most part, the additional guard positions have not been forthcoming. The current shortfall (as of April 1, 1991) has been identified as 137 guard positions needed to cover 88 guard posts. Although the exact size of the shortfall varies from quarter to quarter according to activities in Smithsonian facilities, the number of posts has consistently gone up from one year to the next. As new facilities come on line, or as new galleries are constructed and opened to the public in areas formerly not open to the public, then the number will rise again.

The total estimated salary and benefits cost for the 137 positions is $3,220,000. In addition, there are one-time start up costs (for uniforms, equipment, etc.) totalling $205,500.

There is no reason to believe at this point that any specia 1 conditions or guard/security configurations will arise or be pi in place in the foreseeable future which would reduce th identified guard position shortfall (137) by any appreciabli number. /

Construction and Improvements, National Zoological Park

Question 190: P. 209. The request for construction and improvements at the Zoo is $8,000,000, an increase of $1,364,000. Included is $1,650,000 to complete the Amazonia Gallery- Does this include all furnishings and equipment for the Gallery? If not, what additional costs are anticipated?

Answer: The request for $1,650,000 does include the funding for the furnishings and equipment for the Gallery. There are associated costs related to the staffing of the facility that were not covered in this section of the request. In order to adequately staff the facility the Zoo will need $128,000 to support two Exhibit Specialists (GS-9), one Police Officer (ZP-7), and one Maintenance Worker (WG-10).

Question 191: There is also an estimate of $2,975,000 for the Hall of Humankind. Will this amount complete the construction?

Answer: This amount will complete construction of the Hall of Humankind.

Question 192: Will there be additional expenses connected with this hall? If so, what are they, and when will they be needed?

Answer: The Hall will require additional educational staff since it is a combination learning center and animal exhibit. The existing keeper staff will be adequate, but we require $67,000 for two biology educators (GS-9) to design face-to-face interactive education programs, and to train and supervise volunteers who will staff the program. Skilled, informed and sensitive guides will be required to treat human biology themes.

Question 193: There is a request of $600,000 for water systems at the Conservation and Research Center. Is this the last phase of this effort? If not, what remains to be done?

Answer: The renovation and upgrading of the Center's central water distribution system was deliberately scheduled for two phases. The $600,000 requested for FY 1992 will complete the second and final phase of this renovation. The project includes the installation of new distribution lines, valves, and fire hydrants throughout the Center's central facility complex.

Question 194: $1,975,000 is included for renovation and repairs at Rock Creek. What is involved in the renovation of the research animal colony building?

Answer: The present research animal colony building was built in 1972, antedating current animal welfare regulations and awareness of the precise environmental controls needed for current research in reproductive physiology, molecular genetics, nutrition and energetics. The building's utility system would be completely replaced to provide adequate ventilation, lighting, temperature control and electrical supply. There would be interior separation and zoning for support of birds, mammals and other animals with vastly different environmental needs. Changes to meet life safety and handicapped access would be made. . The specialized facilities of the new Animal Hospital and renovated Zoological Research Center (both adjacent to the colony building) would not be duplicated. There would be minimal exterior alterations (it has recently been re-roofed).

Question 195: Provide a breakdown of the projects included in this request, as well as under the Conservation and Research Center, including estimated costs.

Answer: The next major building at Rock Creek scheduled for re-roofing is the Bird House, estimated at $200,000. Interior painting and safety and handicap upgrade are scheduled for the Reptile House, which will be re-roofed in 1991 ($100,000). Preventive maintenance for HVAC systems is most effectively done by competitive contract, estimated to cost $400,000 in 1992. Interpretive signage in the Great Ape House, Australian Pavilion and newly renovated Outdoor Flight Cage and Cheetah exhibits is scheduled for replacement, at a cost of $100,000. The quarantine facility, built in 1977, needs utility upgrades to meet new animal welfare regulations, changes in cage design to better meet behavioral needs of animals under the stress of quarantine, as well as special facilities for large carnivores and ungulates. New knowledge of viral transmission also dictates a quarantine area with separate ventilation/air circulation systems. The cost of these changes is estimated at $500,000. The cost of the renovation of the animal colony building described above is expected to be $500,000. The balance of $175,000 will be used for routine and emergency repairs.

At Front Royal we will renovate the Center's fire station at a cost of $50,000. Other scheduled projects include the renovation/conversion of the carpenter shop and the old supply building into research laboratories ($200,000); renovation of the plumbing, paint, and mechanical shop into research offices and lab facilities ($240,000); construction of a new warehouse to be used for storage of small equipment ($95,000); and renovation of Building 159 for use as an avian holding and research facility ($115,000). The balance of $100,000 will be used for miscellaneous preventative maintenance projects, fencing, and in-house renovation/repair projects.

Question 196: Under the Conservation Center, for which $800,000 is requested, where will the carpenter shop and supply building be relocated when those spaces are converted to laboratories?

Answer: The Center's supply operation was moved in FY 1990 from Building 130 to Building 13 in order to secure additional space and to facilitate delivery of supplies and materials. The carpenter shop (Building 67) will be similarly relocated, to an existing building, in order to enable renovation as called for in the Center's Development Plan.

American History Building Major Capital Renewal

Question 197: P. 213. The request for repair and restoration of buildings is $31,600,000, an increase of $409,000. Under major capital renewal, there is a request of $6,750,000 for the American History building. Why has the cost for each quadrangle increased significantly, from $1.6 million for the first to $6.2 million for the most recent?

Answer: The cost per phase of the project has increased for two main reasons. First, construction costs have escalated since the early phases of the project due to normal inflation. Secondly, successive phases of the project have encompassed larger areas and thus cost more to perform the work. The phase lb quadrant was the smallest, limited primarily to exhibit areas, and did not include 4th floor offices as did phases II and III. Phases IVa (funded in FY 1991) and IVb (funding sought in FY 1992) involve still larger areas than the previous phases. In addition, phase IVb involves mostly offices with a greater amount of asbestos, demolition, and mechanical equipment to modify.

Question 198: When in 1991 will phase III construction be completed? When will phase IVa construction beqin, and when is it expected to be completed?

Answer: The current schedule calls for completion of phase III construction in December 1991. Phase IVa construction is scheduled to begin in September 1991 with completion anticipated by March 1993.

Question 199: What is included in the construction project on the fourth and fifth floors? When will design actually begin, and be completed? Why do you think you will be ready to initiate construction on this phase in 1992?

Answer: The fourth and fifth floor construction (phase IVb) includes replacing mechanical equipment servinq fourth floor north offices and collection areas, and fifth floor offices. Additional work in these areas involves installinq fire protection systems, removal of asbestos, and installinq conduit and cablinq to support the security and communications networks.

Desiqn of phase IVb will begin in September 1991 and be complete by July 1992. This will allow award of the construction contract by the end of the fiscal year.

Question 200: Why wasn't the HVAC work in the basement included in the original scope of the project?

Answer: The basement HVAC was not included in the original scope of the project because it is on a separate mechanical system and would not effectively tie-in to the vertical quadrant approach that was established for the upper floors. Also there was a need to coordinate the museum's exhibit installation program with the Master Plan Implementation on floors one through three. Similarly, the basement HVAC work will be coordinated with other modifications of the space to accommodate the Museum's changing use of the basement.

Question 2 01: What are your preliminary estimates as to the cost of this effort?

Answer: The preliminary cost estimate for the basement HVAC work is $6,590,000.

Natural History Building - Major Capital Renewal

Question 202: A request of $5,730,000 is included for the Natural History building. In 1991, $10.1 million was appropriated, and was for construction of the penthouses. Why is the 1992 request also for the construction of the penthouses?

Answer: The Institution originally planned to use the funds appropriated in FY 1991 for construction and equipping of the penthouses. However, since formulation of the FY 1991 request, a more comprehensive cost estimate (based on completed design) for the chiller plant relocation indicated that some additional amount from the FY 1991 funds will be necessary in order to complete that portion of the project. The remaining FY 1991 funds will not be sufficient to proceed with construction of the penthouses, nor is design of this work complete as yet. The sequence of the work was therefore changed, and the Institution will now use the FY 1991 funds to design and replace the windows in the wings, and remove asbestos in the tunnels and wing mechanical rooms. In addition, FY 1991 funds will be used for the design of the penthouses and the roof replacement in the wings, and as needed to replace failed equipment.

In addition to construction and partial equipping of the penthouses, the funds requested for FY 1992 will be used for replacement and reinsulation of the roof system over the wings, and design of future phases, such as renovation of the main building windows. As needed, funds will be used to replace mechanical and electrical equipment or components that fail before the scheduled replacement period. If funds are not needed for interim equipment replacement, the Institution will begin work on restoration or replacement of the windows in the central part of the building. Relocation funds will be used to continue the Museum's project staff and to provide protection for staff and collections while the wing windows are replaced. Although funded

43-202 0—91 13

in FY 1991, most of the actual window replacement will take place in FY 1992.

It should be noted that because of the magnitude and complexity of the Major Capital Renewal project at the Natural History Building, the Institution may need to adjust, on a continuing basis, the sequencing of work to match funding available or other logistical considerations. For example, the schedule may change significantly if the collections now stored in the attic spaces are not moved as planned. The project schedule currently calls for starting work in these areas in FY 1994, so that they may be used as "swing" space to house temporarily staff and collections displaced by renovation work elsewhere in the building. The Museum Support Center move needs additional funding for staff to speed up the cleaning, packing and move of asbestos-contaminated collections in the attics to the Museum Support Center.

Question 203: What is the breakdown of the original estimates of how the $10.1 million was to be used, and any current changes to those estimates? Explain the reasons for the differences.

Answer: The detail of the original $10.1 million estimate is given below, along with the breakdown of current costs and funding years that reflects the current schedule. The reasons for the change are described in the previous answer.

Original Schedule and Estimate ($000s)

FY 1991 ($10.140)

penthouse construction ($8,500) interim equipment repairs ($650) design ($540) relocation ($450)

Current Schedule and Estimate f$000s)

chiller plant construction

($3,500 of $12 million total

from FY 1991 funds) window replacement ($4,000) interim equipment repairs ($500) design of penthouses, wing roof

and windows ($440) asbestos removal ($1,700) relocation costs to be funded

from FY 90

FY 1992 ($5.730)

window replacement ($3,000) wing roof/insulation replacement ($330) asbestos removal ($500) interim equipment repairs ($500) design ($900) relocation ($500)

penthouse construction & partial equipping ($3,500)

wing roof/insulation replacement ($330)

begin central building windows and/or interim repairs ($500)

design ($900)

relocation ($500)

Question 2 04: Provide a breakdown of the $4,3 3 0,000 portion of the 1992 request.

Answer: As itemized in the answer to the previous question, the $4,330,000 will be used as follows: construction and partial equipping of the east and west penthouses ($3.5 million); replacement and reinsulation of the roof systems over the wings ($330,000) ; and beginning restoration or replacement of the windows in the central part of the building ($500,000). If needed, the funds allocated to the central building windows would be used to supplement funds previously appropriated to replace equipment that fails early in the project.

Question 2 05: Have there been any electrical and HVAC equipment failures to date, requiring immediate replacement? How much have you set aside for this purpose in 1991, and how much is included in 1992?

Answer: To date we have spent $580,000 to repair or replace failed equipment or components in the building. The most significant of these was the replacement of leaking chill and reheat coils in air handling units. The cost to complete this work was relatively minor (approximately $30,000) but the presence of asbestos increased the total cost significantly.

In FY 1991, $500,000 has been set aside for interim corrective measures. A like amount will be earmarked from the FY 1992 appropriation. If not needed that year to make interim repairs, we will use the funds to begin replacement of the windows in the central building.

Question 206: Why do you need $900,000 to design the next phase of the project ($540,000 was provided in 1991)?

Answer: We plan to accelerate the design of the complete renovation project to provide more accurate cost estimates of future phases and to enable us better to coordinate project management, including realistic advance planning for necessary staff and collections relocations. The design information will allow the Museum to interphase smoothly other construction projects such as new exhibits with the mechanical renovation project. The accelerated design will also make it possible for the Institution to contract for construction of each phase as soon as funds become available.

Question 207: What is being spent in 1991 for preparation and relocation of staff and collections? How much is planned for this purpose in 1992?

Answer: The Institution estimates that approximately $80,000 for staff, supplies and equipment will be spent in FY 1991 as the

Museum begins to establish project management (including planning for the preparation and relocation of staff and collections) for the mechanical renovation program. The balance of the funds appropriated for relocations in prior years will be applied toward future relocation requirements which will increase significantly once construction in the building actually begins in FY 1992.

Question 208: Why will more funds be needed for this purpose in 1992?

Answer: The Museum's project management function will be ongoing for the duration of the mechanical renovation. In FY 1992 overall coordination and planning of future relocations will continue. In addition, the Institution will use the funds to provide interior protective barriers and make other temporary space modifications during installation of the new wing windows, to allow activities in these rooms to continue.

Question 209: Why do you include funding for correcting exhaust and ventilation problems in the Natural History building in the repairs and code compliance category, rather than as part of the major capital renewal project? How much is involved?

Answer: The exhaust and ventilation problems in the Vertebrate Paleontology Laboratory are a health and safety matter requiring immediate correction. However, the design for the building's new overall exhaust system has not yet begun and work in this area is not expected until late in the mechanical renovation program. The Institution will therefore initiate design of this project this year with construction to be accomplished in FY 1992.

Repairs, Restoration and Code Compliance

Question 210: The request for repairs, restoration and code compliance is $19,120,000. Have you completed designs for all of these projects, or will they be completed by the end of 1991?

Answer: Designs for some of the FY 1992 projects are currently underway, and we are developing a schedule for designing the remainder of the projects. Advance planning & design funds in the FY 1991 budget were not sufficient to start designing all the projects anticipated for FY 1992. This year, we are requesting more advanced planning and design money so that we can get a better start on FY 1993 projects. During the coming fiscal year we are committed to designing a greater percentage of funded projects than ever before. Ultimately, our goal is to design all funded projects prior to or during the year that funding is approved. This will serve to improve our cost estimates, and will also save on escalation costs by allowing us to contract for the construction work as soon as project funding is received.

Question 211: What was the unobligated carryover at the beginning of FY 1991? What do you estimate it will be at the beginning of FY 1992?

Answer: The unobligated carryover at the beginning of FY 1991 was about $25,000,000. We estimate a carryover into FY 1992 of about $21,000,000.

Question 212: What has caused the deteriorated caulking in the joints of the Museum Support Center?

Answer: The deterioration of the caulking is due to age. By the time funding is received the building will be nearly 10 years old, and this is the average life of the elastomeric caulking used on the building. Failure to replace the caulking could result in leaks into the building interior.

Question 213: What is involved in replacing the transformer supervisory system for the museums on the mall?

Answer: The transformer supervisory system provides the main controls to open, close, and monitor the functions of all high voltage equipment such as switchgear and transformers. The systems consist of control wiring and conduit, relays, relay cabinets, and direct current power supplies. These systems were installed more than 27 years ago and serve seven of our museums. The systems are obsolete and parts are no longer available. The project will replace these system components in order to ensure continuous electrical service to the museums, and to prevent equipment damage which can result from fault currents or electrical overloads.

Question 214: What is included in the general repairs at the research branch of the American Indian Museum?

Answer: The FY 1992 general repairs project at the Research Branch of the National Museum of the American Indian includes replacement of the oil tank, plumbing repairs inside the building including shut-off valves and deteriorated piping, interim sidewalk repairs along with temporary lot parking repairs. Illuminated exit signs will also be installed to meet life safety codes.

Question 215: How long will this building continue to be in use?

Answer: It is anticipated that this building will remain a staging and research area for the Heye Center after the collection has been moved to Suitland and as such will become a permanent Smithsonian facility. The space might also be used to support other Smithsonian activities in the New York City area.

Question 216: What is involved in implementing the energy study in the Carnegie Mansion, Cooper-Hewitt?

Answer: Implementation of the energy study will provide central heating/cooling with increased capacity and new electrical service for the mansion while supplying chilled water for cooling to the McAlpin-Miller and Fox Houses. The project will also replace all accessible ductwork that is internally lined to correct air quality problems.

Question 217: Provide a breakdown of what is included in the estimates for the gallery level renovation, and skylight replacement at the Freer Gallery?

Answer: The $675,000 requested in FY 1992 for gallery level renovation will be used for continuation of on-going gallery work. The project includes the following:

1. Lay-in glass panel replacement

2. Lighting system and smoke detectors

3. New wall system

4. Storage rooms — finishing, ventilating, & lighting

5. Limestone wall restoration & marble floor repairs including HVAC grilles

The $1,500,000 requested in FY 1992 for skylight replacement will be used for the following:

1. Replacement of existing skylights and skylight support system

2. Repairs to existing roof

3. Miscellaneous attic repairs

Question 218: Is the $750,000 included for roof replacement at the Hirshhorn the total cost for this project?

Answer: Yes, all aspects of the roof replacement are within the requested funds.

Question 219: What is involved in the $600,000 included for the miscellaneous HVAC projects at the Hirshhorn?

Answer: Included in the projects are the replacement of the cooling tower and installation of waterside economizers.

Question 220: Why are you including $200,000 for chiller plant modifications at the Natural History building, when you will be constructing a new chiller plant this year?

Answer: This project involves the installation of a new emergency generator power system, to provide power for emergency lighting, fire alarms and security systems in the Natural History Building in the case of a major power outage. The optimum location for such a generator is near the normal incoming power supply and away from more populated portions of the building. The new chiller plant was selected as the logical location for this life safety device. Since the generator is not actually a part of the chiller plant, however, it was not included in the original scope of work for the new plant, and thus was added as a separate project in FY 1992.

Question 221: What is included in the $700,000 included for energy study implementation at the Renwick Gallery?

Answer: Implementing the energy study will involve the replacement of the chillers, pumps, damper actuators, and will include asbestos removal of affected piping.

Question 222: Describe what is included in the $525,000 included for road repairs and improvements at SAO?

Answer: The request for $525,000 in FY 1992 is part of a road repair and improvement program that began in FY 1988. This phase of the project will pave a single lane section approximately 1.5 miles long, extending from the new Base Camp to a location known as the Vista on the way to the summit. The work will also widen a section through the mouth of Montosa Canyon to two lanes and install a swale or a box culvert at the Montosa Wash.

Question 223: What is the basis for the amount of $1,000,000 included for asbestos abatement?

Answer: The amount of $1,000,000 will allow the Institution to address only a small portion of the areas currently known to contain asbestos. This amount is requested because it is a manageable amount of money that can be promptly applied to mitigation of some of our most serious problems. Early studies clearly demonstrated that we have a great quantity of asbestos containing material in the public, staff, and storage areas of most SI facilities constructed prior to 1970. The asbestos survey now underway, to be completed in the early part of 1992, will identify those areas and systems where existing asbestos containing materials must be removed. When we have a fuller knowledge of the areas and priorities, we will be better able to project the complete scope and schedule of this activity, and the related costs.

Question 224: Why do you need $1,890,000 for advanced planning and design, when 1991 included $500,000 for this purpose?

Answer: The Institution currently has an estimated backlog of repair projects that totals $216 million. In developing budget requests to correct these problems, the staff has been hampered in the past with inadequate funds with which to develop project requirements in sufficient detail to allow preparation of detailed cost estimates for the work in advance of the budget request. This has resulted in under-funding of many projects, which in turn has caused delays in completing the work while additional funds are located or the scope of work is reduced. Lack of enough resources to complete design before receipt of project funding has also caused delays in making repairs and in many cases has increased the overall cost because of inflation.

The Institution would like to be in a position to correct this, by completing project planning and partial design before the actual request for funding is made, and by completing full design of most projects before project funding is received. This will require steadily increasing amounts in the advanced planning and design account over the next several years. The advantages of additional advance planning and design capability are three-fold: the Institution will be able to provide more accurate cost estimates to Congress as part of our budget request for the R&R program; the bureaus will have essential information on which to assess and plan for the impact of the work on their activities; and the Institution stands to reduce project costs by allowing award of construction contracts as soon as project funding is received.

Question 225: What is the status of the combined master plan, for which $250,000 was provided in 1991 and $250,000 is requested in 1992? What is the total expected cost of this effort, and when will it be completed?

Answer: The first phase of the combined master plan is nearly complete. The Smithsonian-wide inventory of existing owned and leased space is in final review. The evaluation of software for storing the information and generating reports is complete, and negotiations with the recommended vendor are underway. The test of the software remains to be done. This will also generate a summary of existing master plans, including needs statements based on the inventory. The total cost of this effort will be at least the $500,000 requested, but additional funds will be needed to allow us to update the information periodically and conduct site surveys to increase accuracy of data.

Old General Post Office Building Renovation

Question 226: P. 227. The request for construction is $25,100,000, an increase of $9,693,000. Why will it cost $1,700,000 just to develop a detailed cost estimate for renovation of the old General Post Office building? What is the basis for this estimate?

Answer: The funds requested in FY 1992 are to begin actual design of the building renovation. In particular, this first phase of design will focus on developing detailed specifications for the exterior rehabilitation work (facade, windows, water intrusion problems, restoration of exterior architectural finishes, etc.). As part of this phase, the designer will also begin developing conceptual design of the interior spaces of the building to incorporate programming decisions being made by the Institution about the use of the building. Part of the scope of the designer's work will be to prepare more detailed cost estimates for actual renovation of the building. The previous estimate of $40 million was prepared in 1984, and was based on very incomplete information about current conditions in the building and only general assumptions about building use.

Planning for the NMAI Mall Facility

Question 227: There is an increase of $2,400,000 for the National Museum of the American Indian. Has the planning for the Mall museum begun yet? If not, when is it expected to begin?

Answer: The Museum has begun preliminary planning, in the form of meetings, or "consultations", with Native American communities in order to define the programs and activities that will be housed in both the Suitland and Mall facilities. The planning for the buildings themselves will begin in early FY 1992, once this preliminary work is complete.

Question 228: Why have the dates for completing the Mall museum and its opening been moved back by two years?

Answer: The completion and opening of the Mall building has been delayed two years in order to allow broad participation by Native American groups in defining the programs, activities and services to be included in the new museum. The Institution considers this step essential to the ultimate success of this monument to the hemisphere's Native Americans. However, the time required for gathering and assimilating the diverse views and ideas and incorporating them into the planning and design of the building will add two years to the originally projected completion date.

Question 229: What is the total estimated cost of the conceptual design? How long will it take?

Answer: The cost of concept design is a function of the program, the size of the facility and the usage. While these factors are presently being formulated and are unknown at this time, preliminary estimates allow approximately $8.4 million for planning and design. Concept design, which is part of the preliminary design stage, was budgeted for $1.0 million in FY 1992.

This stage will; incorporate the museum programming and facilities planning information into rough outlines of the building, general floor plans identifying functional areas and their interrelationships, and establish criteria for full design. The time required for this effort is on the order of 18 months.

Custom House Facility

Question 230: $1,400,000 is included to complete the Custom House. On what basis do you believe this amount will be needed to complete construction?

Answer: Construction estimates based on the completed design of the Custom House have been prepared which project a cost of $21,000,000. Including estimated construction management and actual design costs, the total project cost is $24,000,000. The $1.4 million is required to make up this amount, as $6.6 million was appropriated in prior years and $8 million each is expected from the State of New York and New York City.

Question 231: When do you expect the renovation to begin?

Answer: Drawings and specifications for the project are complete. When funding is made available from New York City and the State of New York the project will be ready for bid. We expect construction could begin as early as 60 to 90 days after that date.

Question 232: What would be the impact of holding the total provided for this project to $24 million, including furnishings and equipment?

Answer: The project is presently designed for furnishings and equipment to be above and beyond the $24 million budgeted for design and construction. If the furnishings and equipment were to be accommodated within the $24 million, the project would have to be redesigned. This would delay the project by up to a year and would require a significant reduction to the currently envisioned program.

NMAI Suitland Facility

Question 233: What is the status of the preliminary planning for the Suitland storage building?

Answer: Phase I of the initial planning/programming process has been awarded. Several meetings are scheduled with Native American groups over the next few months to gain information vital to the planning process. Specific facilities planning will follow this phase, beginning in early FY 1992.

Question 234: When will design begin, and when is it expected to be completed? What is the total estimated cost?

Answer: The Smithsonian currently plans to begin design in FY 1993, and it will take about one year to complete. Based on the preliminary estimate of $44 million for the entire project, the total design cost is estimated to be approximately $2 million.

NMNH East Court Building

Question 235: There is a reguest of $15 million for the East Court building at Natural History. What is the status of the design?

Answer: The concept design has been approved by the Museum. A solicitation has been made for the award of the full design to an architectural and engineering firm. The selection board will interview several firms in May, and award of the design contract is expected by the end of June.

Question 236: Is it possible the design might not be completed as planned in mid-1992? Might it slip into early FY 1993?

Answer: As noted above, the Institution expects to award the design contract in June 1991. The design will take approximately one year to comDlete, which will allow the Smithsonian to begin solicitation of bids for construction in the summer of 1992. In addition, while design of the East Court Building is in progress the Institution will use a portion of the FY 1992 funding to relocate the functions now occupying the East Court space. Construction or modifications will be reguired at the new locations to accommodate these activities, which include the greenhouse, osteology preparation laboratory, and some of the building trade shops. This work must be complete during FY 1992 to allow the clearing of the East Court space before construction of the new building can begin.

Question 237: When do you plan to go out for bids for the construction? How long a process is this?

Answer: The Institution plans to begin bidding for construction as soon as the design is complete, in June 1992. This process normally takes several months, but contract award is expected before the end of FY 1992.

It should be noted that regardless of whether the contract is awarded in FY 1992, the bidding process cannot begin as planned unless the reguested funding is available in that year. Any delay in funding the construction of the East Court Building would have

a serious impact on the progress of the Major Capital Renewal program in the Natural History Building, as the East Court Building will provide essential "swing" space for the mechanical renovation project.

Question 2 38: Although $30 million is authorized for this project, is it possible that a less costly building could be designed?

Answer: A less costly building would require a change in scope and a reduction in the floor area to be completed. The estimate is based on complete infilling of the court with one basement level and seven additional floors. This would allow maximum use of the available space without changing the sight lines of the main building. If the budget were reduced, space urgently needed to house adequately current activities in the Museum of Natural History could not be constructed. In addition, the Museum would need to use space now devoted to exhibitions as "swing" space during the mechanical renovation of the building. The East Court Building, as currently planned, will provide nearly 80,000 square feet of the 120,000 square feet needed to allow temporary relocation of staff and collections out of the way of the mechanical work. In fact, without the full amount of space now planned, the Museum will never be able to return to public use former exhibit space now used to house offices and collections.

Quadrangle Construction Funding

Question 239: The March newsletter to the Regents addresses the use of $1.9 million in excess funds (accrued interest) in the unrestricted Quadrangle construction account. Are these funds all from the non-Federal side of the Quadrangle construction account?

Answer: Yes, the interest was accrued on the Institution's unrestricted trust funds earmarked for the Quadrangle project.

Question 240: Are there any balances left in the Federal Quadrangle account? If so, how much is involved, and how do you plan to use these funds?

Answer: Approximately $430,000 in Federal funds remains in the Quadrangle account. The Institution is using this balance to correct a number of design and construction deficiency problems, including improving accessibility for people with disabilities at the Pavilion entrances and modifying the heating, ventilating and air conditioning to improve air quality and circulation.

Minor Construction, Alterations, and Modifications

Question 241: Under minor construction, alterations, and modifications, $390,000 is included to construct a mezzanine and improve attic storage space in the American Art and Portrait Gallery building. What is involved in improving the attic storage space? How is this related to the funding provided in 1991 for storage racks?

Answer: The funds requested will be used to design and construct a mezzanine in room 334 and modify adjacent attic space. The attic work in particular will include improving electrical and HVAC service, closing openings in the floor, and providing lifting mechanisms between levels for both artifacts and handicapped personnel. This project is not related to the storage rack project funded in FY 1991, which is in a different section of the building. The FY 1991 funding will complete renovation of attic space for storage of sculpture and small painting collections. The funds requested for FY 1992 will provide suitable storage for large paintings.

Question 242: Since you are requesting funding to begin the renovation of the General Post Office building, why do you need to proceed with this project now?

Answer: Proper storage space for large paintings is at a premium in the American Art and Portrait Gallery Building (AA/PG). Renovating the General Post Office Building (GPOB) will not eliminate the need for such storage in the AA/PG. Preliminary investigations indicate the GPOB does not show much potential for large painting storage. This project will provide an extension of good quality large painting storage. The result will be an increase of proper art storage space and much better use of the existing space. Therefore, the Institution considers this an important project regardless of GPOB renovation.

Question 243: Is this the total cost of the project?

Answer: Based upon the information available at this time, the total estimate for the project is $390,000.

Question 244: There is a request of $300,000 for the Cooper-Hewitt Museum. When will you know how many floors in the Fox House will be vacated by tenants and available for renovation in 1992?

Answer: It is expected that all but one tenant will vacate the premises in FY 1992.

Question 245: What is the basis of the amount of $200,000 requested for this purpose?

Answer: The amount of $200,000 is specifically related to interior work required to convert two floors of the Fox House into office space for the Cooper-Hewitt Museum. In addition to design costs, the funds will be used to demolish existing kitchen and bathroom fixtures, move walls, install new lighting, repair plaster and woodwork, repaint the walls and recarpet the floors. In addition, architectural modifications to the corridors and stairwells will create fire protection zones and improve egress routes.

Question 246: Why should you proceed with the renovation now, before you have an overall plan for renovation of the entire building?

Answer: In November of 1990 the firm of Cole and Denny completed the Miller/Fox House Master Coordination Plan. This plan provides the basis for all work starting in FY 1992 and continuing through FY 1993. The study not only outlines necessary corrective measures to ensure life safety code compliance and HVAC and electrical repairs and improvements, but also sequencing, scheduling and partial occupancy constraints which lead to a well thought out renovation plan. It is the basis of all work presently being designed at the Miller/Fox Houses.

Question 247: A request of $910,000 is included for the Freer Gallery building. Provide a breakdown of the $360,000 included for site work and landscaping modifications.

Answer: The $360,000 estimate was provided by an architectural and engineering firm based on very preliminary information about the project. The Institution has selected an architectural and engineering firm to design the project. When the design is complete, in the Fall of 1991, a more detailed breakdown of costs will be available.

Question 248: Why is it necessary to renovate the auditorium at this time? How old are the furnishings, i.e., the carpeting and seats? Why is new lighting necessary?

Answer: Auditorium renovation is necessary at this time because no major upgrading has been done to the space since the opening of the Gallery in 1923. With the facility closed to the public for other renovations, it is an opportune time to enhance and upgrade the performance characteristics of the auditorium to modern standards.

The present auditorium furnishings are generally dated and very worn. The carpeting dates back to the 1930s and the seats were installed in 1961.

New lighting is needed in order to upgrade performance requirements of the auditorium (i.e., dimmer capability, programmable lighting). Also, plans call for replacing existing fixtures with ones which complement the original architectural detail of the auditorium.

The Institution recently received a donation of over $1 million to supplement the funds requested for the renovation, and to install state-of-the-art systems, such as audio visual equipment, to support the Gallery's performance and educational programs. The donated funds will also support development of public programming for the Freer and Sackler Galleries.

Question 249: There is a request of $900,000 for the Silver Hill facility, to construct a storage building. What is the basis of the cost estimate for this building?

Answer: In January, 1990, an architect-engineer firm was hired to develop a detailed Statement of Work. As part of that task an estimate of probable construction costs was done. It was broken down into various subheadings such as: footings and piers; floor slabs; pre-engineered metal building; mechanical and electrical equipment; plumbing; fire protection, and others. The estimate also included a construction contingency allowance of 10%, and an escalation factor of 7% to the midpoint of construction, which was then forecast as December 1991. Subsequently, this project was deferred from FY 1991 to FY 1992. The estimated cost of construction as stated by the architect-engineer was $875,000 (in FY 1991 dollars) . When escalated to early FY 1992 this estimate is very close to $900,000.

Question 250: How does this building fit into your overall plans for the Silver Hill site?

Answer: The Institution's current plan with regard to development of future storage capability in Silver Hill will focus initially on construction of new buildings on the property occupied by the Museum Support Center (MSC). These new buildings will replace the older buildings on the adjacent Paul E. Garber Facility site, but they are not expected to be completed until late in the decade. Once collections now housed at the Garber site are transferred to new buildings on the MSC site, the Garber buildings will be demolished to make room for very long range development, that is not likely to take place until well into the next century.

The building for which funds are requested in FY 1992 will be constructed on the Paul E. Garber Facility site, and will thus not block initial plans for Silver Hill development. The proposed building will satisfy two urgent needs for immediate collections storage. First, the National Air & Space Museum has continued to acquire artifacts over the last 15 years. During this time no major storage expansion has been provided. This has left NASM

desperately short of storage space. Secondly, this building, which will be shared by the National Museum of American History, will also provide much needed temporary storage space as some of the other much older buildings housing that Museum's collections are rehabilitated and decontaminated from asbestos. The building proposed for FY 1992 will continue to be used for interim storage needs of the Institution even after new facilities are built on the Museum Support Center site.

Question 251: How long will a pre-engineered building such as that proposed be usable?

Answer: The useful life of any pre-engineered metal building is no different than any other type of building. The limiting factor is maintenance. As an example, some of the existing metal buildings at the Silver Hill facility have had a low to medium level of maintenance. They have lasted for 30 to 40 years. The Institution expects that this building, if given a reasonable level of maintenance, should be usable for a minimum of 4 0 to 50 years.

Question 252: A reguest of $600,000 is included for conversion of the building that houses the Multiple Mirror Telescope. Why is this construction needed in 1992?

Answer: The construction is needed in FY 1992 so that modifications to the building and to the existing structure of the MMT instrument within the building can be seguenced with the completion of the new optics, to minimize the time that the instrument is inoperable.

Question 253: Is this the total cost?

Answer: Yes, preliminary estimates indicate that the $600,000 will be sufficient to cover the conversion of the MMT building.

Question 254: A reguest of $50,000 is included for the Smithsonian Institution building. Can you be more specific about how these funds will be used, and how they relate to the $100,000 provided in 1991?

Answer: The $50,000 reguested in FY 1992 for miscellaneous office modifications will be used to continue the work begun with the $100,000 provided in FY 1991. This work includes moving walls, modifying doorway openings, installing computer cabling, modifying heating, ventilating and air conditioning systems, and purchase of modular furniture to utilize existing spaces more efficiently.

Question 255: There is a request of $300,000 for dock site improvements at Gamboa, STRI. Has any of the $300,000 provided in 1989 been spent to date?

Answer: To date we have spent approximately $14,500 for the installation of a chain link fence to secure the site of the dock and the adjacent maintenance/staging area. The balance of the FY 1989 funds will be used to construct the new docking facility.

The funds requested for FY 1992 will allow STRI to make site modifications to accommodate the new facility. When the funding for the Gamboa dock was originally requested, in FY 1989, the site for the dock had not been firmly established. Once the site was acquired, planners identified the need for dredging to reach the shore line and for a breakwater to protect the docked vessels from transiting Panama Canal vessels. We also identified the need for more extensive utilities inasmuch as STRI now plans to move small vessel repairs and major fuel storage from Barro Colorado Island to the Gamboa site on the mainland.

Question 256: What will happen to the Barro Colorado Island facilities that the expanded facilities at Gamboa will replace?

Answer: A portion of the docking facilities at Barro Colorado will be renovated to accommodate research activities. The existing maintenance facilities at the Island dock will be demolished.

Question 257: $525,000 is requested for planning and design, compared to $104,000 in 1991. Why is such a large increase necessary?

Answer: The Institution has currently identified minor construction, alteration and modification projects that total over $40 million. In developing budget requests to meet these needs, the staff has been hampered in the past with inadequate funds with which to develop project requirements in sufficient detail to allow preparation of detailed cost estimates for the work in advance of budget requests. This has resulted in under-funding of many projects, which in turn has caused delays in completing the work while additional funds are located or the scope of work is reduced. Lack of enough resources to complete design before receipt of project funding has further delayed the work and has also increased the overall cost of a number of projects because of inflation.

We would like to be in a position to correct this, by completing project planning and partial design before the actual request for funding is made, and by completing full design of most projects before project funding is received. This will require steadily increasing amounts in the advanced planning and design account over the next several years. The advantages of additional advance planning and design capability are three-fold: we will be

able to provide more accurate cost estimates to Congress as part of our budget request for the ASM program; the bureaus will have essential information on which to assess and plan for the impact of the work on their activities; and the Institution stands to reduce project costs by allowing award of construction contracts as soon as project funding is received.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE RALPH REGULA

National Portrait Gallery

Question 258: How much money is budgeted for the National Portrait Gallery's office of education?

Answer: The FY 1991 budget from appropriated funds for the education department of the National Portrait Gallery is: $208,000 for staff salaries; $2,000 for travel; and $40,000 for other objects of expense. In addition to these amounts from the federal appropriation, funds for specific programs in connection with special programs and exhibitions have been solicited and received from trust funds and private donors; this regularly-conducted activity is ongoing, so no total amount can now be given for FY 1991.

Question 259: Who determines how the education funds are dispersed in the National Portrait Gallery?

Answer: The internal budget process for each department— including the Education Department—within the National Portrait Gallery is as follows: Each year department heads submit a request to the director for funds to administer the programs which are their direct responsibility. This request is reviewed by the Director, the Deputy Director and the Executive Officer. The budget is considered in terms of other department requests, funds available, and the priorities of this department as they reflect the goals of the Smithsonian Institution and the museum. A budget is returned to the head of the department with allocations suggested for programmatic and administrative needs, and each department head is responsible for assigning the funds according to these agreed allocations. It should be noted that the total amount of appropriated funds available for all departmental program and administrative activities is determined by first deducting from the Congressional appropriation the sum required for salaries and benefits (including estimated mandatory increases, etc.); the remainder constitutes the pool available for other activities.

Question 260: I understand that volunteer docents are used to offer the educational program both in the schools and at the gallery. Could you describe how the Gallery uses volunteers?

Answer: The National Portrait Gallery uses volunteers in many ways — at the information desk, as staff support for special curatorial and historical projects, and as docents. The docents (about 50) comprise the largest group of volunteers in the museum and they are formally recognized as members of the National Portrait Gallery, Department of Education. Docents are specially trained, and receive ongoing training to present tours and programs to school groups (both in the Gallery and through visits to

classrooms), families, individuals, adults and children. These tours and programs are vital to the museum's mission because they help visitors better understand the museum's collections and exhibits. Without the dedication, commitment, and services of these volunteers, it would not be possible to offer this outreach to the public.

In the classroom and in the museum, Gallery docents help students and visitors become actively involved in creating and interpreting portraits at the same time that they learn about themes in American history and about the art of portraiture. Presentations are directed to certain age groups, encouraging the participants to think about the art and the history represented by the portrait.

Often, volunteers visit classrooms in advance of the class visit to the museum. Special kits of material are taken to the classrooms to prepare the students for what they will see, the historical context of the sitters, etc. At the museum, students are shown the original portraits of the people discussed earlier in the classroom and are asked questions to draw them into the history of the period.

Question 261: What is the Gallery's policy with respect to including volunteers in openings and receptions at the Gallery? How does this policy compare with the policy at other Smithsonian Museums?

Answer: All gallery openings and receptions at the National Portrait Gallery are supported by private funds. The size of the guest list at openings is determined by the funds available for the opening or reception. Fire regulations and space limitations are such that a maximum number of people which can be accommodated at a "stand-up" reception is 400. A seated dinner in the great hall is limited to approximately 200. Opening receptions for exhibitions in the smaller rooms on the first and second floors are limited to a maximum of 250 for space reasons.

Both staff and docents are invited to events to the extent that resources allow. There are about 4 5 docents; if each were to attend an event with a spouse or guest, the docent attendance at a given opening would number about 90—in other words, between 20% and 40% of those in attendance, a greater percentage than the lenders to the exhibition, special guests from the cultural and government communities, Smithsonian Regents and Gallery Commissioners, or staff who worked directly on the exhibition. We limit the number of staff and docents at these events in order to have room for individuals in the greater Washington community who would have a special interest in the exhibition. For a photography exhibition, we might include photographers, photography dealers, those who teach the history of photography, etc. For the exhibition on Andrew Jackson, we included chairmen and professors of history at the various universities in the region. For the Rosa

Parks unveiling we invited major leaders in the African-American community, both in Washington and elsewhere. At each of our openings we seek a slightly different audience, in order to reach out to new people and introduce them to the rich diversity of the programs at the National Portrait Gallery.

We do want docents to be present at our openings, and to join in special Gallery events, but as the number of docents has increased we have had to develop a system of inviting only a portion of this group to any given event—just as we do with salaried staff, interns and volunteers.

The Education Department staff, based on docent suggestions, devised a system intended to rotate the invitations through the docent corps and to invite the maximum possible number of docents to any given reception. Names were picked blindly from a box for Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday docents to form this list. Thursday docents wanted to be invited as a group, all or none. So their names are grouped together on the list. For the first rotation the Thursday docents were all invited together. For all subsequent events they are invited as their names come up in the rotation. All invitations are for a docent and one guest. Docents have indicated to the Assistant Curator of Education the way they would like to have formal invitations addressed to them.

Every docent is invited to an opening before any docent is invited a second time. Docents emeriti will be invited to openings only when it is possible to invite all active docents and docent emeriti. New docents will be added to the bottom of the list after they complete their provisional year.

The policies of other Smithsonian museums vary, in part because of different fiscal and space resources at each museum. At the National Museum of American Art, the museum which shares the building with the National Portrait Gallery and has similar spatial and fiscal restraints, docents are invited to openings at the discretion of the director. Those who are invited and accept are expected to work a 30 minute shift greeting guests, on behalf of the NMAA, as they enter.

Question 262: If a volunteer files a complaint with the Inspector General, how is that complaint followed-up?

Answer: When a complaint is filed with the Inspector General, an investigation is conducted and a report, with recommended action, is issued. If the report recommends that action be taken by the Director of the National Portrait Gallery, then the Director is required to respond and report what action is or is not taken, to the Inspector General. If the Inspector General does not receive a satisfactory written response within a given period of time, the Assistant Secretary for Museums is notified and is required to resolve the situation.

Question 263: Who makes the decision of who may or may not be a volunteer docent at the National Portrait Gallery?

Answer: The Assistant Curator of Education determines when there is a need for additional docents, and makes the ultimate judgment about the effectiveness of docents' performance. Recruitment of docents is from the entire metropolitan area through public service announcements. Prospective docents submit an application. Virtually all recent applicants to the NPG docent program have been accepted into the training program, and virtually all recent trainees have become active NPG docents. In the past 18 years, several people have not been accepted into the docent program at the end of their training because they proved unable to present accurate information about the portraits in a tour, even though each of the trainees was given extra training and help and several opportunities to complete the reguirements. This system is comparable to that used in the other Smithsonian museums.

Question 264: Given the complaints I have heard about treatment of volunteers at the Portrait Gallery I am concerned as to how this can be reconciled with the President's mandate to encourage volunteerism. Could you comment on this?

Answer: Without knowing the specific nature of the complaints you have heard about the treatment of volunteers, it is difficult to respond meaningfully to this guestion. The director of the National Portrait Gallery is aware of only one volunteer who has registered serious complaints with him; inguiries he has made of other docents and volunteers in other departments have not brought forth any implication of general dissatisfaction. Nonetheless, the administrative staff of the Gallery remains alert to the needs of the docents and other volunteers, who are crucial to its outreach to the public. The Gallery—like the rest of the Smithsonian—is committed to encouraging volunteer participation in its programs, and endeavors to make the volunteer experience as rewarding to the volunteer as it is essential to the museum. Participation in this program provides an unparalled opportunity for people to develop their knowledge about the personalities who shaped American history and culture, and the artists who portrayed them. The docents are given special training on works in the collection, lectures by the curator in charge of each special exhibition, and special general lectures by outside speakers. Each year the Gallery arranges events specially for docents, including a trip to another museum in the region and a docent appreciation night (with a special speaker or event). The Assistant Curator of Education at the National Portrait Gallery acts as the liaison and spokesperson to and from the paid professional staff, and endeavors in numerous ways, large and small, to let the docents know that their service is appreciated.

Question 265: I have also heard some complaints about Questionable portraits being purchased for the Gallery such as

those of Gertrude Stein and her homosexual lover Alice B. Toklas, John Reed (charged with sedition and buried in the Kremlin and his communist wife Louise Bryant). How are these acquisition decisions made? Are these portraits now hanging in the Gallery?

Answer: Gertrude Stein is represented in the Gallery by numerous portraits, including a magnificent terracotta sculpture by Jo Davidson, acquired in 1978. Recently the Gallery purchased a small painting of her which also included the image of Alice B. Toklas. The Gallery made these acquisitions because Stein is known as an American writer who had a profound impact on twentieth century literature, and the issue of her sexual preference was irrelevant to the decision on the part of the Commissioners of the Gallery that she be included in the permanent collection- The Commission, pursuant to its By-Laws, selects individuals for addition to the permanent collection by considering the impact of the person on his or her field of endeavor or his or her influence on shaping America's history and culture.

The Commissioners were well aware that John Reed and Louise Bryant were communists, when their portraits were approved for inclusion. Both played a prominent role in reporting on the Russian revolution in the American press and in books; John Reed was recently the subject of a Hollywood feature film dealing with this aspect of the 20th century. The collections of the National Portrait Gallery include individuals of a wide variety of political affiliations—Whig, Tory, Democrat, Republican, Federalist, and Secessionist, to name just a few—and the inclusion of any of these people has nothing to do with the approval or disapproval of their political positions, only the fact that this individual had some significant national impact in his or her period of history.

Question 2 66: Who interprets the National Portrait Gallery mandate for the permanent collection?

Answer: The National Portrait Gallery Commission is established by Public Law 87-443 (Sec.4), and has been delegated by the Regents (pursuant to PL 87-443, Sec 5) the selection of portraits for the permanent collection of the Gallery. The ex-officio members of the Commission are the Chief Justice of the United States (the Chancellor of the Smithsonian Regents), the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, and the Director of the National Gallery of Art; in addition, there may be up to twelve (presently there are eleven) appointive members from the public. The staff of the National Portrait Gallery recommends to the Commissioners of the National Portrait Gallery portraits that have been located of individuals whom they believe merit inclusion in the permanent collection. The Commission meets twice each year to consider these proposals, and after debate makes a formal decision. As noted above, the final decision regarding the inclusion of an individual in the collection of the National Portrait Gallery legally rests with the Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, which has delegated this to the Commission.

Question 267: Under the mandate of the National Portrait Gallery, the gallery is supposed to be a non-partisan history museum. Why does the director allow partisan political statements both verbally and in print by employees under his direction such as those contained in the Oliphant show catalogue?

Answer: The National Portrait Gallery is, indeed, a nonpartisan museum, and the making of partisan political statements by any staff member in the course of official duties is clearly inappropriate. In the case of the Oliphant exhibition, a temporary exhibition held in 1990 of the work of this Pulitzer prize-winning artist, the statements about the six presidents (from Lyndon B. Johnson to George Bush) depicted in Oliphant's political cartoons were intended to reflect the artist's position, not the Gallery's or the author's.

Question 268: Publications from the National Portrait Gallery are sold in the Smithsonian museum shops. Catalogues sold through the Smithsonian often accompany a particular show. Who is responsible for editing statements made by federal employees within the context of the catalogues funded by the taxpayers?

Answer: All texts written by NPG staff members are reviewed by the Director, the Deputy Director, the Curator for Exhibitions, and the Editor or Assistant Editor.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SKAGGS

National Air and Space Museum Extension

Question 269: Do you plan to use any general planning money in FY 1992 to begin work on the "scaled-down" Air and Space facility?

Answer: No, the remainder of the funding for the master plan was appropriated in FY 1991 and we will be requesting funding for detailed planning and design in FY 1993.

Question 270: Will you seek authorization from Congress before proceeding with planning activities for the extension?

Answer: The Institution plans to continue the master plan upon the release of the FY 1991 funds and to seek authorization this calendar year for FY 1993 planning and design funds.

Question 271: Now that you have announced your plans for a new facility, what is the next step? Please provide a detailed timeline of all of the steps necessary to begin construction on a new facility?

Answer: The next step is to complete the master plan and the environmental impact statement. This will take 10 months once funding is released and we are able to proceed.

Timeline for all remaining steps is as follows:

Site Design: November 1992 - December 1993

Site Bidding: January 1994 - April 1994

Site Construction: May 1994 - May 1995 (The site bidding process and site construction costs are the responsibility of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Site construction can begin before building design is completed)

Building Design: January 1993 - July 1994

Building Bidding: August 1994 - November 1994

Building Construction: December 1994 - December 1996

Question 272: Please explain what the technical and programmatic differences are between splitting the collection of the Museum of the American Indian and splitting the collection of the National Air and Space Museum?

Answer: The programmatic objective is to keep both collections together insofar as possible. The collection of the National Museum of the American Indian in its entirety will come to the Washington, D.C. area as soon as storage space is available. Using this area as a base of operations, objects will be returned to New York City for a program of changing exhibitions in the Heye

Center at the Custom House. Once temporary exhibitions are concluded, objects will return to Washington, D.C. Similarly, it is intended that objects will be loaned to other museums for research and exhibition purposes.

Because of the scope, size, and nature of the collections of the National Air and Space Museum they must be housed separately, but still maintained in the Washington area and managed as a whole. The more recent and larger artifacts would be housed at the Extension. As the Institution has stressed, this is acceptable because the Mall Museum and the Extension are within an hour's drive of each other. Such proximity facilitates staff and visitor access and holds down the costs of administration and supervision.

Question 273: Do you have projections about the percentage of visitors to the NASM that would make the hour trip to Dulles to see that extension?

Answer: The National Air and Space Museum has gone to considerable lengths to assess the number of visitors who would go to an extension at Dulles or at BWI. Estimates were developed by the consulting firm, Harrison Price, which has done projections for other museums and for amusement centers all over the country. The Harrison Price figures were then checked by the Smithsonian Institution's own demographer, to assure their reliability.

The figures indicate that, with present transportation in place, BWI could attract 25% more visitors than Dulles. With improved transportation at both sites, BWI's advantage might shrink to 10%. The Institution did not make any visitor estimates for Denver, but the Denver proposal estimated that visitor attendance could be comparable to attendance at Dulles. Those figures range from roughly 2 million annually, as is, to 2.3 million with improved public transportation. Early in the next century those figures are projected to increase to about 3.5 million.

Figures in this general range are considered credible, given an attendance of 1.5 million annually at the Air Force Museum in Dayton, more remote from major metropolitan centers than a Dulles site.

While the Museum did not make any direct projections concerning the number of visitors from the Museum on the Mall who would make the trip to Dulles to see the extension, it may be assumed that a visitor to the city interested in going to the extension at Dulles, would also wish to see the Air and Space Museum on the Mall. Given an annual attendance of approximately 8 million visitors on the Mall, 4.3% of which come from Washington DC, and another 19.6% from Maryland or Virginia, we know that about 6 million of our visitors come from beyond the immediate region, could be considered to be visitors to the city who do not come frequently, have a considerable distance to travel, and would most likely have to stay overnight. This suggests that one-third of

those six million visitors to the Museum on the Mall would be among the 2 million going to Dulles.

Question 274: Please provide statistics on the demographic breakdown of visitors to the NASM. Specifically, I'm interested in the percentage of visitors by state as compared with the populations of those states. In addition, I'm interested in the percentage of visitors from west of the Mississippi River as compared with the percentage of the U.S. population that reside west of the Mississippi.

Answer:

Regional Origin of Visitors from Across the United States

Region

Nat'l. Air and Space

Museum Visitors Denver Tourism

United States Population

6.0

7.5

6.8

4.6

9.5

9.4

18.1

26.9

11.4

5.7% 17.4 15.8

5.2

11. 19.

7.

4. 13.

Notes: o The National Air and Space Museum visitor count was taken in 1988. Except for the South Atlantic Region surrounding Washington, DC, which predominates over the U.S. national population distribution figure by a factor of 2.6, no region of the country was over or under represented by more than a factor of 2.

o The Denver tourism figures were supplied with the Denver proposal to the Smithsonian. The surrounding Mountain states predominate by a factor of 6.3 over and above the national averages, and the Middle Atlantic and South Atlantic states are under represented by a factor of 2.3, while the West North Central states are over represented by that same amount.

o 20 % of the National Air and Space Museum's visits represent visitors from abroad.

Question 275: Is it possible that the scaled-down NASM extension will be expanded in future years to the size and scope of the original project?

Answer: Yes, there is a possibility for future growth.

Question 276: You have described your revised plans for the extension as essentially a replacement for Garber. What are your minimum structural requirements for a facility to replace Garber and protect the collection. Please provide a cost estimate for a "bare-bones" facility.

Answer: The revised plans for the extension, to replace the Garber facility include a restoration hangar, collections storage (both study collections and archival collections), exhibition hangars (essentially storage space for fully-assembled artifacts with minimal exhibitry and circulation space) and one exhibition gallery. This will enable the Museum to properly house all artifacts presently either outdoors or in substandard conditions. The revised plan also includes minimal space for educational activities, a theater, museum shop, and food service. These areas are essential in order for the Museum to receive support from local communities in building the extension. Without a public component local communities are not willing to provide either in-kind or direct financial assistance. The total cost of this facility is $162 million.

Question 277: Can you provide details about all of the "museum-like" aspects of the scaled-down facility? (visitor services, educational components, etc.) Please provide cost estimates for these components?

Answer: The following are "museum-like" components of the scaled-down facility:

Area Cost

Exhibition Gallery 47,500 sq ft $ 9,389,000

Visitor Service Areas 21,400 sq ft* 4,931,000

Theater 17,100 sq ft** • 3,523,000

Restoration Hangar 156,200 sq ft*** 33,628,000

Related Circulation 10.900 sq ft 1.291.000

Total 253,100 sq ft $52,762,000

* Approximately 85 percent of Visitor Service Areas is for Food Service and Museum Shops, both revenue producing operations; 15 percent is for Education.

** The theater is revenue producing.

*** The Restoration Hangar includes restoration facilities, a conservation laboratory, an exhibit production shop, and conservation management space. The primary function of the restoration facilities (approximately 60 percent of the 156,200 square feet of Restoration Hangar space) is for the preservation of the collections. However, the restoration facilities will be open for public viewing and therefore serve a second function, as "museum-like space".

Question 278: Can you provide a comparison of the different financial aid commitments by Virginia, Maryland, and Colorado?

Answer:

Virginia - provide all site improvements $3 million interest free loan bonding authority up to $100 million $6 million in general funds

$6 million in local government or private sector donations.

Maryland - provide all site improvements

design/build/securitized lease arrangement through

MEDCO

$10 million in state funds

Colorado - raising construction funds of up to $65 million through the following means: local foundation support (commitments of $8 million as

of 1/91) bonding capacity potentially utilizing one or more of the following revenue streams to retire the bonds:

concession revenues

parking fees

excess city revenues from convention center bond issue

state unclaimed property fund

state tourism tax

state historic fund

business improvement districts

low-interest short-term loans up to $500K

Question 279: Please provide for the record a comparison of your estimated operating costs at Dulles, BWI, and Stapleton.

Answer:

Increased NASM Staffing Comparison between

Dulles Extension and Denver Museum

(Estimated in thousands 1991 $'s)

MALL Staff

DULLES/BWI Staff $

DENVER Staff

Director's Ofc 6 385 Administration 4 150 Lab Astrophysics and CEPS 16 715 Research Scientists/

Engineers/Technicians -Interpretive Programs

120 80

6 13*

385 497

353

Facilities Services:

Physical Plant Operations

OPlantS Personnel

OPlantS Support

Utility Costs

Postage/Telephone

Security Operations:

Security Personnel

Security Support

Environmental Management Support

10 Design and Construction Staff

and Support Subtotal

* Administration costs include duplication of central

Institutional services such as: personnel, accounting, payroll,

travel and procurement. ** The majority of building cleaning services at the extension

would be contracted out at an estimated cost of $1,067 for

Dulles and $1,660 for Denver. *** Self-generating income.

Increased Operational Costs Comparison between

Dulles Extension and Denver Museum

(Estimated in thousands 1991 $'s)

DENVER $

70* 100 140 375** 150

1,254 245*** 250****

145

2,729

$16.447

The following additional one-time start-up costs are not included in the above figures:

* $ 25 for administration computer ** $300 for new exhibit shop equipment *** $500 for new restoration shop equipment **** $ 20 for color processinq equipment

The Museum has looked into the comparable lifetime operating costs comparing Dulles to a remote site over a period of 30 years. The analysis follows.

Comparison of Dulles/BWI and a Remote Site, in 1000s of dollars

This table compares the 30-year run-out costs of Dulles and a remote facility assuming operating expenses escalated only through inflation (four percent per year) at both sites, but with realistic staff sizes at each. It assumes no cost for construction at the remote site and is figured in real year dollars. The initial cost at Dulles includes relocation expenses from Garber.

Remote

\ 0 16,447 17,105 17,789 18,501 19,241 23,283 24,241 25 183 26,190 27,238 28,327 29,460 30,639 31,864 33,139 37,883 39,398 40.974 42,613 44,318 46,090 47,934 49,851 51,846 53,919 56,076 58,319 60,652 63,077 65,601

Accumulated Difference

$166,200

159,319

152,163

144,721

136,980

128,930

120,025

110,718

103,087

91,070

80,654

69,820

59,553

46,835

34,649

21,979

8,444

-5,628

-20,263

-35,483

-51,313

-67,775

-84,896

-102,701

-121,220

-140,479

-160,508

-181,338

-203,002

-225,531

-248,962