This book made available by the Internet Archive.

Mr. Yates. You are hiding, too.

Mr. Fiske. Hi, Mr. Fiske. How are all your gems?

Mr. Fiske. Just fine.

Mr. Yates. How good are your appraisals these days?

Mr. Fiske. I am not in the appraisal business.

Mr. Yates. I see.

Mr. Klein, Director of the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center. You are from Panama?

Mr. Klein. No.

Mr. Yates. You are from Chesapeake. What happens to the Panama man?

Mr. Robinson, hi. You are from Panama.

Mr. Robinson. Right.

Mr. Yates. Mr. Shapiro, Director of the Smithsonian Astrophysi-cal Observatory. Where are you down from?

Mr. Shapiro. Down from Cambridge.

Mr. Yates. Down from Cambridge. It is never up from Cambridge, is it? No. Cambridge is up there.

That is all Science.

Now we have History and Art. Mr. Eldredge—I hope we have some time left for your testimony, Dillon. Mr. Eldredge, Director of American Art. Where are you, Mr. Eldredge? There you are, way back there.

Mr. Fern, Director of the National Portrait Gallery. Yes, Mr. Fern, glad to see you.

Roger Kennedy, "Old Faithful." Where are you, Roger? There you are quietly raising your hand.

Mr. Kinard, Anacostia. There you are. Hi, Mr. Kinard.

Mr. Lawton, Hello, in Chinese.

Mr. Lerner, Director of the Hirshhorn. Delighted to see you. Last appearance?

Mr. Lerner. Yes.

Mr. Yates. That is unfortunate.

Mr. Murray, Archives of American Art. Hi, Mr. Murray.

Lisa Taylor—hi, Lisa—Cooper-Hewitt.

Sylvia Williams, National Museum of African Art.

I am impressed with this list. You have got many more women on this list than I thought you had. I thought the Smithsonian was a men's club.

Mary Grace Potter, Director of Visitor Information. Ms. Potter, where are you? Are you no longer here, Ms. Potter?

Mr. Kennedy. She is greeting a visitor.

Mr. Yates. She is that wrapped up in her job. She will be here tomorrow. I see.

Peggy Loar—where are you, Peggy? Hi—Director of SITES.

Mr. Maloy, Director of Smithsonian Institution Libraries. Where are you, Mr. Maloy? He must be the visitor.

Mr. Postlethwaite, Acting Director, Conservation Analytical Laboratory. Hi, Mr. Postlethwaite.

Then Judge Powers. Where are you, Judge? I know, I made your lunch a tragedy, didn't I? Didn't I? I will tell the rest of the crowd why in a few minutes. They will just have to hold themselves in check, temporarily.

Robert Burke, Director of the Office of Protection Services. Glad to see you, Mr. Burke.

Well, I am delighted. We have Ms. Ellsworth and we have Lisa Taylor, Sylvia Williams, and the absent Ms. Potter, and Peggy Loar. That is pretty good.

Dillon, when are you going to graduate one of these women or some other woman to assistant secretaryship?

Mr. Ripley. Very soon.

Mr. Yates. Will it be in your tenure, or your successors?

Mr. Ripley. It is hard to tell.

Mr. Yates. Very hard to tell. Okay. You don't have them up there yet, have you? You haven't placed them up there yet, have you, Dillon?

Mr. Ripley. No, I have not.

Mr. Yates. Is this your swan song, too?

Mr. Ripley. This is my last hearing before this committee.

Mr. Yates. That is not a swan song, is it, or are you going to be like Anna Pavlova

Mr. Ripley. Swans only sing when they are dying.

Mr. Yates. At any rate, we are delighted to have you here today. Your statement may be made a part of the record, as soon as we dispose of the biographies of certain of the distinguished newcomers to the ranks of the Smithsonian.

The biography of Mr. Rinzler may go into the record at this point, to be followed by the biography of Mr. Richards, to be followed by the biography of Mr. Clarke, to be followed by the biography of Mr. Robinson, to be followed by the biography of Mr. Murray, and that is it.

We also have—I know. I think it ought to go into the record at this point now that I mention it, to be followed by a list of the members of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian accompanied by a description of the Smithsonian Institution, by a description of the Establishment and a list of the Secretary's Executive Committee.

Now we have the statement of Mr. Ripley, Secretary of the Smithsonian, which may go into the record.

[The biographies follow:]

Ralph Rinzler

Mr. Ralph Rinzler was appointed Assistant Secretary for Public Service and director of the International Center of the Center for African, Near Eastern, and Asian Cultures in October 1983. He has served as Director of the Office of Public Service from April 1983 until his appointment as Assistant Secretary.

Born in Passaic, New Jersey, Mr. Rinzler received a B.A. from Swarthmore College in 1956 and conducted graduate work at Middlebury College and the Sorbonne in French Literature and Language in 1957-1958. During 1958-1963, he participated in field collecting in the British Isles, France, Italy, and the southeastern United States and served as Director of Field Research Programs of the Newport Folk Foundation from 1963 to 1967.

Mr. Rinzler joined the Smithsonian in 1967 as Museum Service Consultant on Folk Music and Material Cultures and served as Director of Folklife Programs in the Division of Performing Arts from 1968 to 1976. In 1976, he became Director of the Office of Folklife Programs and served in that capacity through April 1983.

Memberships and Affiliations: Trustee, Newport Folk Foundation, 1963-65; American Folklore Society, Life Member since 1964; John Edwards Foundation, UCLA, Board Member, 1965-Present; Trustee, Foxfire Fund, 1968-78; U.S. National Commission to UNESCO, Member, 1976-81, Executive Committee, 1977-81; Chairman of

Cultural Committee, 1977-80, Member, U.S. Delegation to 20th General Conference, Paris, 1978; Japan Foundation Advisor, 1977-81; Folklore Society of Greater Washington, Life Member, 1979; Anthropolgical Society of Washington, Life Member, 1980.

Fellowships, Honors, Awards: 1976 Washingtonian of the Year; 1977, Smithson Society Medal; 1981, D.C. Mayor's Art Award.

Publications: Contemporary Music and the Folk Song Revival, 1976; The Meaders Family, North Georgia Potters (monograph with Robert Sayers; accompanying ethnographic film), 1980.

William N. Richards

Mr. William N. Richards was appointed Acting Assistant Secretary for Museum Programs on January 25, 1984.

Mr. Richards was born in Lansford, Pennsylvania; he received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Muhlenberg College in 1946 and a Master of Arts degree in United States and British History from the University of Pennsylvania in 1949. From 1949 to 1974, Mr. Richards held a number of positions with the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, serving for a time as Director of the William Penn Memorial Museum (the Pennsylvania State Museum) which opened in 1965 and subsequently as Director of the Bureau of Museums which encompassed a statewide network of fourteen museums dealing with many aspects of Pennsylvania's cultural, social, industrial and military history.

In 1975, Mr. Richards joined the Smithsonian as Executive Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Museum Programs.

John R. Clarke

Mr. John R. Clarke was appointed Acting Director of the Office of Programming and Budget in July 1983. Mr. Clarke joined the Smithsonian in 1973 as Assistant Director for Grants Administration in the Office of Grants and Risk Management (1973-1977) and has served as Assistant to the Treasurer (1977-1983). Before coming to the Institution, he had been employed by Litton Bionetics, Incorporated as Manager of Cost Accounting and Assistant Director of Contract Administration.

He attended Florida Presbyterian College in St. Petersburg, Florida and Duke University in Durham, North Carolina.

Michael H. Robinson

Dr. Michael H. Robinson was named Director of the National Zoological Park on January 31, 1984.

Born in Preston, Lancashire, England, Dr. Robinson currently serves as Deputy Director of the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI) in Panama and is a noted animal behaviorist and tropical biologist. A member of the Smithsonian staff for the past 18 years, he was the first predoctoral scholar in STRI (1965) and joined the STRI staff as a biologist in 1966. He was appointed Deputy Director for the Tropical Research Institute in 1980 and served for one year as acting director.

Dr. Robinson received a certificate in education from the University of Liverpool in 1953 and went on to the University of Wales, where he earned a bachelor of science degree in zoology, summa cum laude, in 1963. He was awarded a doctorate by Oxford University in 1966. Before joining the Smithsonian, he served as a science teacher for seven years in secondary schools in the United Kingdom.

Dr. Robinson has served as a visiting lecturer at the University of Pennsylvania, reader in biology at the New University of Ulster (Northern Ireland) and adjunct professor of the University of Miami (Coral Gables). He is a fellow of the Linnean Society of London, a scientific fellow of the Zoological Society of London, a fellow of the Royal Entomological Society of London and a fellow of the Institute of Biology. He is a director of the American Arachnological Society and a member of the Society for the Study of Animal Behavior and other scientific bodies.

His major scientific interests include predator-prey interactions, particularly predatory behavior and anti-predator adaptations; evolution of complex adaptations, tropical biology and freshwater biology. He has carried out research in 18 countries in addition to Panama, ranging from Kenya and Ghana to Sri Lanka, Assam, Papua New Guinea, Brunei and Venezuela.

In his current research, Dr. Robinson is working on the evolution of intelligence and higher learning capacities in vertebrates, using free-living tropical birds in open-field learning experiments. He is also working on courtship and mating behavior in freshwater fish. He is the author of numerous scientific papers.

Richard N. Murray

Mr. Richard N. Murray was appointed Director of the Archives of American Art in September 1983.

Born in Bartlesville, Oklahoma, Mr. Murray received a bachelor's degree from San Jose State University in California in 1968 and a master's degree from the University of Chicago in 1970. He had served as director of the Birmingham Museum of Art from 1979 to 1983 and is a specialist in the history and development of American Art.

Prior to his selection as director of the Birmingham Museum, Mr. Murry had worked at the Smithsonian's National Museum of American Art (then known as the National Collection of Fine Art) from 1970 to 1979. He was a fellow from 1970 to 1972, served as a research assistant from 1972 to 1974 and as Coordinator of the NCFA's Bicentennial Exhibition from 1974 to 1976. From 1976 to 1979, he was Assistant to the Director of the NCFA and Acting Curator of Education during 1978-1979.

His publications include: Art for Architecture, Washington, D.C.: 1895-1925, and NCFA exhibition catalog; "The Art of Decoration," in Perceptions and Digressions, the Art of Elihu Vedder, published by NCFA; "Paintings, Sculpture and Mural Painting." in The American Renaissance, published by the Brooklyn Museum, and Kenyon Cox and the Art of Drawing," in Drawing, May-June 1981. In preparation is "Mural Painting in the United States, 1876-1920" and Kenyon Cox, N.A.

Mr. Murray is a member of the Association of Art Museum Directors, College Art Association, American Association of Museums and the Southeastern Museums Conference.

[The members of the Board of Regents follows:]

Members of the Board of Regents the Smithsonian Institution

Honorable Warren E. Burger, The Chief Justice of the United States, ex officio, Chancellor. Honorable George H. W. Bush, The Vice President of the United States, ex officio. Honorable E. J. (Jake) Garn, Senator from Utah. Honorable Barry Goldwater, Senator from Arizona. Honorable James R. Sasser, Senator from Tennessee. Honorable Edward P. Boland, Representative from Massachusetts. Honorable Silvio O. Conte, Representative from Massachusetts. Honorable Norman Y. Mineta, Representative from California. Honorable David C. Acheson, Citizen of the District of Columbia. Honorable Anne L. Armstrong, Citizen of Texas. Dr. William G. Bowen, Citizen of New Jersey. Honorable William A. M. Burden, Citizen of New York. Mrs. Jeannine Smith Clark, Citizen of the District of Columbia. Dr. Murray Gell-Mann, Citizen of California. Honorable A. Leon Higginbotham, Jr., Citizen of Pennsylvania. Honorable Carlisle H. Humelsine, Citizen of Virginia. Mr. Samuel C. Johnson, Citizen of Wisconsin.

THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

The Smithsonian Institution was created by act of Congress in 1846 in accordance with the terms of the will of James Smithson of England, who in 1826 bequeathed his property to the United States of America "to found at Washington, under the name of the Smithsonian Institution, an establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men." After receiving the property and accepting the trust, Congress incorporated the Institution in an "establishment," whose statutory members are the President, the Vice President, the Chief Justice, and the heads of the executive departments, and vested responsibility for administering the trust in the Smithsonian Board of Regents.

THE ESTABLISHMENT

Ronald Reagan, President of the United States; George H. W. Bush, Vice-President of the United States; Warren E. Burger, Chief Justice of the United States; George P. Shultz, Secretary of State; Donald Regan, Secretary of the Treasury; Caspar W. Weinberger, Secretary of Defense; William French Smith, Attorney General; William P. Clark, Secretary of the Interior; John R. Block, Secretary of Agriculture; Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary of Commerce; Raymond J. Donovan, Secretary of Labor; Margaret M. Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human Services; Terrel H. Bell, Secretary of Education; Samuel R. Pierce, Jr., Secretary of Housing and Urban Development; Elizabeth H. Dole, Secretary of Transportation; Donald P. Hodel, Secretary of Energy.

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION—SECRETARY'S EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

The Secretary, S. Dillion Ripley; The Under Secretary, Phillip S. Hughes; Assistant Secretary for Administration, John F. Jameson; Assistant Secretary for History and Art, John E. Reinhardt; Assistant Secretary for Museum Programs, William N. Richards, Acting; Assistant Secretary for Public Service, Ralph C. Rinzler; Assistant Secretary for Science, David Challinor; Coordinator of Public Information, Lawrence E. Taylor; Director, Office of Membership and Development, James McK. Symington; Executive Assistant to the Secretary, James M. Hobbins; General Counsel, Peter G. Powers; Treasurer, John F. Jameson, Acting; Chairman 1 of Council of Directors, Alan M. Fern (National Portrait Gallery).

[The statement of Mr. Ripley follows:]

STATEMENT OF S. DILLON RIPLEY, SECRETARY

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION ON APPROPRIATIONS REQUESTED FOR FY 1985

Mr. Chairman, It is again my pleasure to testify before your Subcommittee on behalf of the Smithsonian's FY 1985 budget request. FY 1984 and FY 1985 mark a period of great change at the Institution not the least of which is that this is my last opportunity to appear before you as Secretary of the Institution. As you know, Dr. Robert McCormick Adams will become the ninth Secretary of the Institution on September 17th of this year. I can only assume that with the stalwart support of my indispensible colleagues assembled here before you, our great array of Institutional activities, as supported by your Subcommittee, will be in good hands. I know that the new Secretary will have to rely on their guidance and he will be fortunate indeed in that respect, as I myself have been.

I must say also that I regret leaving at this particular juncture, precisely because there are so many new and important activities underway. However, this Institution is, especially our new International Center, alive and vibrant with new exhibitions planned, innovative research underway, additional collections coming in, and, as always, new opportunities to pursue the increase and diffusion of knowledge. As the bishop said to Cardinal Newman, "growth is the only evidence of life."

FY 1985 BUDGET PRIORITIES

The Institution's appropriations request of $196,932,000 represents an increase of $22,129,000 over the FY 1984 level (exclusive of the $8,000,000 construction rescission). We believe that this request realistically reflects the basic additional resources necessary to support the Institution's role as the national repository for the collections of this Nation's heritage and tradition, with the corresponding obligations to provide adequate care and facilities for the preservation of these items and to sustain our research programs.

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

For FY 1985 the Institution is requesting a Salaries and Expenses Appropriation of $170,682,000, an increase of $15,419,000 over the FY 1984 appropriation.

UNCONTROLLABLES

Approximately one half, or $7,980,000 of the additional operating funds sought, represents legislated necessary pay requirements, uncontrollable increases in utilities, postage, communications, and inflationary Increases, offset by $187,000 due to the Office of Management and Budget's imposed reduction aimed at an overall decrease in the average grade level of employees in the GS 11-15 category.

SCIENCE

Program increases totaling $1,535,000 are requested for Science activities. An amount of $620,000 is requested for the National Museum of Natural History's exhibition programs in the Thomas M. Evans Hall ($360,000 as a per-

manent reprogrammlng of Major Exhibition funds) and for the implementation of an equipment replacement/upgrading program for the Museum's important research programs ($260,000). An amount of $750,000 is requested for the Astrophysical Observatory: $600,000 for additional general laboratory and test equipment replacement, as well as for computer equipment, and $150,000 as authorized by P.L. 98-73 (authorizing the Smithsonian to purchase land in Arizona) for the acquisition of land for the Whipple Observatory base camp. We continue to investigate alternative sites for the base camp since the proposed site as described in our justification is not available at the appraised prices. An amount of $25,000 is sought for the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute for a computer specialist to ensure adequate use of STRI's administrative and scientific computer capabilities in Panama. Finally, $140,000 is justified for the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center to commence a scientific equipment replacement/upgrading program similar to those at the Astrophysical Observatory, the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, and as proposed at the National Museum of Natural History.

HISTORY AND ART

In the History and Art group, a reduction of $200,000 for the FY 1984 onetime funding of Truman Centennial activities and events is included in our presentation, as are increases of $885,000; of these $525,000 is requested as a permanent reprogrammlng of funds for the exhibition reinstallation program at the National Museum of American History, along with $100,000 for important collections management concerns and $35,000 for a data base administrator to look after the refinement and coordination of new automated collections-oriented management information systems. The National Museum of American Art requires a similar position ($25,000) to prepare existing art data bases for access by a nationally automated network. The Cooper-Hewitt Museum requests $200,000 for the conversion of seven Trust-funded collections management positions to Federal status to meet our obligation to maintain, preserve and exhibit the Museum's extensive and heavily used collections, as explained in previous hearings before this Subcommittee.

MUSEUM PROGRAMS

The Smithsonian Institution Libraries is seeking $120,000 for higher costs relative to journal subscriptions and book purchases, as well as $80,000 for the initiation of a five-year program to complete the cataloguing of 35,000 volumes which would be accomplished through the use of contractual services.

SPECIAL PROGRAMS

A total program increase of $3,754,000 is requested for FY 1985 for our Special Programs. We are proposing the elimination of the Major Exhibition Program by permanently reprogrammlng the funds to the National Museum of American History and the National Museum of Natural History for their own base exhibition program needs. We plan on initiating a more substantial program with Trust funds to fund temporary shows of international importance visiting the Smithsonian. The refinement and reconciliation phase of our Collections Management/Inventory Program continues to go well and we wish to retain base funds previously provided to continue the process.

Museum Support Center equipping and move preparations are well underway. Installation of the wet storage equipment is nearing completion and a contract has been awarded for the construction and installation for part of 'the dry

storage equipment. We are requesting 27 positions and workyears and $925,000 to complete the planned staffing of the MSC. We are also asking for $3,605,000 to fund the continuing acquisition of dry storage equipment. We also seek restoration of the $500,000 in anticipated lapse savings cut from our FY 1984 appropriation as these positions should be filled in FY 1985.

Ground for the Quadrangle complex was broken in June 1983, and completion of construction is anticipated in January 1986. In preparation for the opening of this facility, we ask for 21 positions and workyears and $1,109,000 for Quadrangle-related operations.

The Quadrangle is to be operated as an integrative entity and to serve as such a force for the Smithsonian Institution as a whole. The Quadrangle will consist of a major new International Center, the Sackler Gallery of Art, and the National Museum of African Art. Together, these entities will create a sense of mutual understanding between Western nations and those of Africa, the Near East, and Asia. It is intended that the temporary exhibition spaces of the Quadrangle complex, Including its two-floor-high exhibition hall, will be available for collaborative exhibitions which are interdisciplinary in approach and transcend the bureau concept. The Thomas Mellon Evans Gallery of the Museum of Natural History will also be available for this purpose. It is anticipated that at least one large, collaborative exhibition will be organized each year. The Quadrangle will also include facilities for the Smithsonian Institution Traveling Exhibition Service.

The Assistant Secretary for Public Service will direct the International Center in collaboration with an Advisory Committee consisting of the Assistant Secretaries of History and Art, Museum Programs, Science, and Administration. The International Center will have its own budget, again a mix of Federal and Trust funds. The focus of Its scholarly endeavors will be natural and cultural history and conservation issues of mutual concern to the participating nations, as well as to all their peoples and their governments. The Center will coordinate collaborative research projects involving Smithsonian, United States, and foreign scholars, which will lead to a series of international symposia designed to encourage inquiry across cultures and to be held In conjunction with exhibitions, performances, publications, and related activities. The Center will also provide information on international, historical, cultural, and scientific subjects through use of an automated videodisc system developed for this purpose.

Distinguished fellows will be Invited both from countries of these regions and from other nations of the world with a view towards sustaining a comprehensive dialogue between Western thinkers and scholars from the geographic areas of focus within the Quadrangle. In order to insure representation from different generations, each scholar will be encouraged to bring his or her best student. The aim of these centers is practical: to facilitate dialogue between Western thinkers and those from African, Near Eastern, and Asian nations on practical concerns selected from among the most pressing international problems relating to cultural and environmental conservation.

The Sackrfex^Gallery of Art and the National Museum of African Art will have line administration for budget, personnel, and objects reporting to the Assistant Secretary for History and Art. These museums will be responsible for installing permanent and rotating exhibitions reflective of the cultures which each museum represents. Exhibits will be designed to foster a sense of viewer participation, enabling visitors to associate objects with the purpose of their creation. Recreated cultural environments will be totally accurate. Careful

design and installation will convey to viewers a sense of the character and meaning of objects by revealing as much as possible about their creators, their context, their purpose, and the cultural values they embody.

Beyond the public face of many of the Smithsonian's existing museum facilities, the Quadrangle will not be simply an exhibit space. It will be a vital hub of research and dialogue, a center for the exchange of ideas between cultures. The director of the International Center will be the agent responsible for coordinating cooperative exhibitions and activities among the entities residing within the Quadrangle. Collaborative research, publication, presentation, and educational programs will complement the exhibitions by exploring the differing religions and resulting modes of thought and philosophy among the cultural groups featured in the Quadrangle, tracing the interweavings of contact through commerce, expansion through war, and the attendant transmission of ideas over centuries.

The Quadrangle will welcome cooperative projects with other Smithsonian entities, such as the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, the National Museums of American History, and Natural History/Museum of Man, the International Environmental Science Program, the Office of Smithsonian Symposia and Seminars, the Office of Folkllfe Programs, the Office of International Activities, the Office of Fellowships and Grants, and the Smithsonian's Environmental Research Center.

The Center for Islamic Arts and Culture will be located within the Center for African, Near Eastern, and Asian Cultures and will be under the director of the International Center. This Center will seek outstanding authorities in the United States and abroad to pursue their research in conjunction with Smithsonian historians, scientists, and curators working—whenever it is appropriate—with Smithsonian collections and the International Center data bank. The goal of the Center for Islamic Arts and Culture will be Islamic research and related academic and cultural activities.

The Traveling Exhibition Service (SITES) has great experience in organizing, producing, and maintaining traveling exhibitions nationally and internationally. SITES produces approximately 32 exhibitions a year, only a portion of which are shown in Washington, D.C. due to limited space. New galleries in the Center will allow more SITES shows in Washington, D.C.

Since the goal of the Quadrangle is to be an educational and research center for non-Western cultures, close cooperation between the National Museum of African Art library and the library of the Center for Asian Art is both important and necessary. Through a central automated catalogue now under development by the Smithsonian Institution Libraries, both libraries will be able to provide their users with a rapid bibliographic search and corresponding savings of time and effort in locating relevant volumes.

Finally, an Education Center and cognate activities of the Resident and National Associates will be found in the Quadrangle, although Associates' activities may eventually be re-sited in the Arts and Industries building next door.

ADMINISTRATION AND FACILITIES SERVICES

We ask for $40,000 to fund an information specialist in the area of personnel management as the volume of necessary data and reports continues to grow. We believe it critical to provide an additional $150,000 to our Office of Design

and Construction to help meet the needs generated by our expanded Restoration and Renovation Program. In the area of security, we ask to continue the $700,000 provided by your Subcommittee in FY 1984 to acquire more economically our proprietary alarm system. We also ask for $200,000 additional to continue the upgrading and replacement of security devices, $50,000 for our occupational health program and $325,000 to help correct a base deficiency for basic materials and supplies for our Office of Plant Services.

SPECIAL FOREIGN CURRENCY PROGRAM

For FY 1985, the Smithsonian requests $9,000,000 equivalent in foreign currencies which have been determined by the Treasury Department to be in excess of the normal needs of the United States. This appropriation will be used to continue a program of grants to United States institutions for research in those countries where excess local currencies are available ($4,000,000); to increase the level to $7,250,000 equivalent in Indian rupees the forward-funded reserve in support of future programs of the American Institute of Indian Studies ($4,000,000); and for the third increment of the United States contribution to the international effort to restore and preserve the ancient city of Moenjodaro in Pakistan ($1,000,000).

For twenty years the Smithsonian has enjoyed the ability to support American research abroad and to promote scholarly and cultural exchange with other nations. Although the number of "excess" accounts has diminished in that period from twelve to four, the Smithsonian's program is still significant and vital. As the Indian excess account continues to decline, the State Department is seeking rupees to endow a fund to sustain financial support for scientific and cultural collaboration, a goal to which we subscribe. But we, along with other Special Foreign Currency Programs are deeply concerned that the new binationally governed fund, now under negotiation with the Indian government, will readily become caught up in the trammels of intergovernmental relations and the priorities of the Indian government.

Because the Smithsonian's foreign currency program from the outset aimed to provide to American scholars the incentive and opportunity to develop people-to-people cooperation and to further shared interests with Indian colleagues, we are uncertain about the implications of the current plan for the future support of American institutions. Thus we are especially concerned in this year's request that the American Institute of Indian Studies forward fund, as well as the Smithsonian's grants program, be fully funded.

At the same time, we recognize that the binational fund will probably come into existence. Therefore, in cooperation with the other large Special Foreign Currency Programs, we are making strenuous efforts to influence its philosophy and practical form to preserve the independence of scientific and cultural relationships insofar as possible.

ZOO CONSTRUCTION

The National Zoo's Rock Creek facilities have been undergoing major renovations and improvements since FY 1974 through implementation of the Master Plan. With the transfer of selected and critical animal building functions to Front Royal, the elimination of some costly projects and the scaling down of others, the total Rock Creek Master Plan program is now estimated at a total of 30 projects costing $75,500,000. The total of $37,000,000 appropriated to date has been spent on 25 new exhibits and support facilities. With funds appropriated

in FY 1980, the interior renovation of the Small Mammal Building was completed and the building reopened in the spring of 1983. The Monkey Island Exhibit, constructed with funds appropriated in FY 1981, opened in April 1983. It features a 25-foot rock mountain, waterfall and surrounding moat; it is the last major facility to be constructed in the Central Area Complex. Projects continuing or commencing with funds appropriated in FY 1984 are the Small Animal Facility and the very important Veterinary Hospital, both at the Conservation and Research Center at Front Royal.

For FY 1985, an amount of $3,500,000 is requested to support one Master Plan project at Rock Creek - Phase I construction for renovation of the Rock Creek entrance and Olmsted Walk to the Small Mammal Building including a new animal facility to exhibit gibbons ($2,000,000); and to continue renovations, repairs and improvements both at Rock Creek and Front Royal ($1,500,000).

CONSTRUCTION/RENOVATION AND RESTORATION

Consistent with the Institution's responsibility and commitment to maintain museum and other buildings and to provide for future facility needs, the Smithsonian has embarked upon a carefully planned and integrated improvements program involving restoration, renovation and repair of existing facilities and the planning, design and construction of additional facilities essential to future programmatic needs. Since each of the many projects planned requires considerable study, planning and design before drawings and specifications can be issued for bid solicitation, it is necessary to forecast these projects several years in advance of seeking necessary appropriations. This process greatly assists in the orderly development of facility requirements and a well managed program for implementation of each project, although it should be noted that the projection of costs for such facilities must constantly be examined and reevaluated.

Smithsonian facilities are comprised of well over 4 million square feet of building space located in 14 museum and gallery buildings (including the Quadrangle, now under construction) in Washington, D.C. and New York City, housing research and collections management activities and a wide range of exhibitions in the fields of science, history, technology and art. In addition, the Institution operates and maintains preservation, storage, aircraft and spacecraft display facilities and the Museum Support Center at Suitland, Maryland; centers for biological research, conservation and education in Panama and on the Chesapeake Bay near Annapolis, Maryland; a center for astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts; and the Whipple Observatory on Mt. Hopkins in Arizona. These facilities range in age from new to well over 100 years old.

The Smithsonian's request for $13,750,000 in FY 1985, coupled with ongoing planning of major initiatives in subsequent years, illustrates the Institution's commitment toward strengthening the Restoration and Renovation Programs to improve the condition of existing facilities and to a thorough and creative process of planning for and meeting future facilities requirements. Consequently, although funds are sought in this budget to continue a wide range of essential repair, alteration and improvement projects, major emphasis will be placed in this and subsequent years on restoring and renovating facades, roofs and terraces; improving heating, ventilating and air conditioning systems at facilities on and off the Mall; completion of design and installation of fire detection and suppression systems; continuation of work consistent with master plans developed for off-Mall facilities; and the planning, design, renovation, and construction of facilities to meet present and future collections storage, exhibition and other programmatic needs of the Institution.

The Institution's Flve-Year Prospectus identifies specific categories of Restoration snd Renovation work which are estimated to cost approximately $112.7 million between FY 1985 and FY 1989 (in 1983 dollars). The FY 1985 request of $13,750,000 represents an Increase of $4,750,000 over the FY 1984 R&R appropriation and emphasizes the Institution's commitment to establish the necessary level of annual funding for this account in consideration of the size, diversity, age, condition and character of the Smithsonian facilities.

Mr. Chairman, again I would like to express my great personal gratitude to you and the Subcommittee for the support provided the Institution throughout my tenure. I and my colleagues would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

Mr. Yates. Now, Mr. Ripley, tell us what is the state of the Smithsonian.

Mr. Ripley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Yates. I was telling Mr. Ripley, when I had the pleasure of lunching with him a few days ago, that his tenure will be known as the Periclean Age of the Smithsonian. Under his tenure the Smithsonian has reached new heights, and I think, I believe sincerely that in great measure that is the greatest tribute that we can pay to him, is to remind him of what he has been able to achieve for the Smithsonian and for the people of this country—yes, for the people of the world—as a result of his having acted as Secretary for so many years.

We are delighted that you were the Secretary, Mr. Ripley. We are delighted at this time, departing from the appropriations dialogue that we have had, to be able to tell you what an outstanding trusteeship we think you have given to the Smithsonian.

Opening Remarks

Mr. Ripley. Thank you, sir. It is my great pleasure to appear before your subcommittee as it has been every one of the years since I have been here. I have enjoyed testifying before your predecessors, and particularly before yourself.

Fiscal year 1984 and 1985 have marked a period of great change at the Institution, not the least of which is that this is my last opportunity to appear before you as Secretary. As you know, Mr. Robert McCormick Adams, a native Chicagoan, will become the ninth Secretary of the Institution on September 17th.

Mr. Yates. He is not here today; that is too bad.

Mr. Ripley. I can only assume that with the stalwart support of my indispensable colleagues, who, as you have noticed, Mr. Chairman, have come out in force today for the pleasure of appearing before you

Mr. Yates. If it can be called that.

Mr. Ripley. It can be called that. It is indeed. As you have spread encomiums upon myself, I would like to reciprocate in a small way, if I may, although it may not be totally in the name of decorum

Mr. Yates. Well, it is not, Dillon, and it won't help. So go ahead.

Mr. Ripley. I realize it won't help. That is one of my hesitations in saying it at all.

But they represent our great array of institutional activities and I feel that with them, as supported by your subcommittee, those institutions will be in good hands. I know that the new Secretary will have to rely on their guidance and he will be fortunate, indeed, in that respect, as I myself have been.

I must say also that I regret leaving at this particular juncture, precisely because there are so many new and important activities underway. However, this Institution is, especially our new International Center, alive and vibrant with new exhibitions planned, innovative research underway, additional collections coming in, and, as always, new opportunities to pursue the increase and diffusion of knowledge. As the Bishop said to Cardinal Newman, "Growth is the only evidence of life."

34-632 O-

Mr. Yates. Who was it that said, "One step at a time"? Go ahead.

Mr. Ripley. The Institution's appropriations request this year is $196,932,000, representing an increase of $22,129,000 over the fiscal year 1984 level (exclusive of the $8 million construction rescission). We believe that this request realistically reflects the basic additional resources necessary to support the Institution's role as the national repository for the collections of this nation's heritage and tradition, with the corresponding obligations to provide adequate care and facilities for the preservation of these items and to sustain our research programs.

For fiscal year 1985 the Institution is requesting a salaries and expenses appropriation of $170,682,000, an increase of $15,419,000 over the fiscal year 1984 appropriation. And I may say that increase represented about the total of our S&E budget in 1964.

Approximately one half, or $7,980,000, of the additional operating funds sought represents legislated necessary pay requirements, uncontrollable increases in utilities, postage, communications, and inflationary increases, offset by $187,000 due to the Office of Management and Budget's imposed reduction aimed at an overall decrease in the average grade level of employees in the GS-11-15 category. And may I say that, as we have testified every year, Mr. Chairman, approximately one half of every increase that we have requested in our budget has been due to inflation and adjunct causes imposed by new legislation and new requirements.

INCREASES REQUESTED FOR SCIENCE

In Science, program increases totaling $1,535,000 are requested for those activities. An amount of $620,000 is requested for the National Museum of Natural History's exhibition programs in the Thomas M. Evans Hall ($360,000 as a permanent reprogramming of Major Exhibition funds) and for the implementation of an equipment placement/upgrading program for the Museum's important research programs ($260,000).

An amount of $750,000 is requested for the Astrophysical Observatory; $600,000 of that for additional general laboratory and test equipment replacement, as well as for computer equipment, and $150,000 as authorized by Public Law 98-73 (authorizing the Smithsonian to purchase land in Arizona) for the acquisition of land for the Whipple Observatory base camp. We continue to investigate alternative sites for the base camp since the proposed site as described in our justification is not available at the appraised prices. An amount of $25,000 is sought for the Tropical Research Institute in Panama for a computer specialist to ensure adequate use of STRI's administrative and scientific computer capabilities down there.

Finally, $140,000 is justified for the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center to commence a scientific equipment replacement/ upgrading program similar to those at the Astrophysical Observatory, the Tropical Research Institute, and as proposed at the National History Museum.

INCREASES REQUESTED FOR HISTORY AND ART

In History and Art, a reduction of $200,000 for the fiscal year 1984 one-time funding of Truman Centennial activities and events is included in our presentation. In other words, we are doing as we have in the past with the Bicentennial activities; we are reducing the request once these activities are completed. Also, we have increases of $885,000, of which $525,000 is requested as a permanent reprogramming of funds for the exhibition reinstallation program at the National Museum of American History, along with $100,000 for important collections management concerns and $35,000 for a data base administrator to look after the refinement and coordination of new automated collections-oriented management information systems.

Mr. Yates. You will yield for just a moment? I think that Roger Kennedy has established a very good precedent. He has taken his jacket off. This room tends to get hot.

Oh, Sam, you, too. I didn't know that you had taken your jacket off.

Go ahead, please.

Mr. Ripley. I am afraid I might show the holes in my sleeves.

Mr. Yates. Oh, come on, Dillon.

Mr. Ripley. We will take that under advisement, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Yates. All right.

Mr. Ripley. The National Museum of American Art requires a similar position ($25,000) to prepare existing art data bases for access by a nationally automated network. Time was, Mr. Chairman, when I used to beseech this committee to have some automation, some computer work we could work with. Time was when Mrs. Hansen used to object to our getting into computers at all, because she said it was a lot of fuss and feathers. Sometimes when I look at these prices and the complications that have come out of having to be—I hardly dare say the word—"computerized," I begin to agree with her.

Mr. Yates. Well, I have objected to "prioritize."

Mr. Ripley. The Cooper-Hewitt Museum requests $200,000 for the conversion of seven Trust-funded collections management positions to Federal status to meet our obligation to maintain, preserve and exhibit the Museum's extensive and heavily used collections. That is the trouble with having collections and being in the education business, they get so heavily used and you have to have more people to find out where they all are at any moment because of the eager desire to use them.

Mr. Yates. Doesn't your new inventory take care of that?

Mr. Ripley. That is what we wish it would.

Mr. Yates. Well, that is not an admission it doesn't, is it?

Mr. Ripley. No. It is simply an admission that, having found out where everything is, we have to get at it more often.

Mr. Yates. I see. All right. That is what we want to find out, is where it is.

INCREASES REQUESTED FOR MUSEUM PROGRAMS

Mr. Ripley. Museum Programs includes the libraries, which as you shall see is seeking $120,000 for higher costs relative to journal

subscriptions and book purchases—I am sure you are well aware of the problems of the Library of Congress which constantly finds that to keep up you are on the move all the time. Like sheep in the Southwest, to try to find out where the grass is, they have to keep running—as well as $80,000 for the initiation of a five-year program to complete the cataloguing of 35,000 volumes which would be accomplished through the use of contractual services.

INCREASES REQUESTED FOR SPECIAL PROGRAMS

In Special Programs, a total program increase of $3,754,000 is requested for fiscal year 1985 for these programs. We are proposing the elimination of the Major Exhibition Program by permanently reprogramming the funds to the National Museum of American History and the National Museum of Natural History for their own base exhibition program needs. We plan on initiating a more substantial program with Trust funds to fund temporary shows of international importance visiting the Smithsonian. The refinement and reconciliation phase of our Collections Management/Inventory Program continues to go well and we wish to retain base funds previously provided to continue the process.

Museum Support Center equipping and move preparations are well underway. Installation of the wet storage equipment is near-ing completion and a contract has been awarded for the construction and installation for part of the dry storage equipment. We are requesting 27 positions and work-years and $925,000 to complete the planned staffing of the MSC. We are also asking for $3,605,000 to fund the continuing acquisition of dry storage equipment. As you know, those are all those complicated pods, I mean series of tiers of cases that fit into the pods. We also seek restoration of the $500,000 in anticipated lapse savings cut from our fiscal year 1984 appropriation as we believe these positions should, indeed, be filled in fiscal year 1985.

Ground for the Quadrangle complex was broken in June 1983, and completion of construction is anticipated in January 1986. In preparation for the opening of this facility, we ask for 21 positions and workyears and $1,109,000 for Quadrangle-related operations.

The Quadrangle is to be operated as an integrative entity and to serve as such a force for the Smithsonian Institution as a whole. The Quadrangle will consist of a major new International Center, the Sackler Gallery of Art, and the National Museum of African Art. Together, these entities will create a sense of mutual understanding between Western nations and those of Africa, the Near East, and Asia. It is intended that the temporary exhibition spaces of the Quadrangle complex, including its two-floor-high exhibition hall, will be available for collaborative exhibitions which are interdisciplinary in approach and transcend the bureau concept. The Thomas Mellon Evans Gallery of the Museum of Natural History will also be available for this purpose. It is anticipated that at least one large, collaborative exhibition will be organized each year. The Quadrangle will also include facilities for the Smithsonian Institution Traveling Exhibition Service and the Associates' programs in education and outreach.

The Assistant Secretary for Public Service will direct the International Center in collaboration with an Advisory Committee consisting of the Assistant Secretaries of History and Art, Museum Programs, Science, and Administration. The International Center will have its own budget, again a mix of Federal and Trust funds. The focus of its scholarly endeavors will be natural and cultural history and conservation issues of mutual concern to the participating nations, as well as to all their peoples and their governments. The Center will coordinate collaborative research and exhibition projects involving Smithsonian, United States and foreign scholars, which will lead to a series of international symposia designed to encourage inquiry across cultures and to be held in conjunction with exhibitions, performances, publications, and related activities. It will also provide information on international, historical, cultural, and scientific subjects through use of an automated videodisc system developed for this purpose.

The Sackler Gallery of Art and the National Museum of African Art will have line administration for budget, personnel, and objects reporting to the Assistant Secretary for History and Art. These museums will be responsible for installing permanent and rotating exhibitions reflective of the cultures which each museum represents. Exhibits will be designed to foster a sense of viewer participation, enabling visitors to associate objects with the purpose of their creation. Recreated cultural environments will be totally accurate. Careful design and installation will convey to viewers a sense of the character and meaning of objects by revealing as much as possible about their creators, their context, their purpose, and the cultural values they embody.

The Quadrangle will welcome cooperative projects with other Smithsonian entities, such as the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, which we know that you are so interested in, Mr. Chairman, the National Museums of American History and Natural History/Museum of Man, the International Environmental Science Program, the Office of Smithsonian Symposia and Seminars, the Office of Folklife Programs, the Office of International Activities, the Office of Fellowships and Grants, and the Smithsonian's Environmental Research Center.

INCREASES REQUESTED FOR ADMINISTRATION AND FACILITIES SERVICES

For Administration and Facilities Services, we ask for $40,000 to fund an information specialist in the area of personnel management as the volume of necessary data and reports continues to grow. We believe it critical to provide an additional $150,000 to our Office of Design and Construction to help meet the needs generated by our expanded Restoration and Renovation Program, including the roofs.

In the area of security, we ask to continue the $700,000 provided by your subcommittee in fiscal year 1984 to acquire more economically our proprietary alarm system. We also ask for $200,000 additional to continue the upgrading and replacement of security devices, $50,000 for our occupational health program and $325,000 to help correct a base deficiency for basic materials and supplies for our Office of Plant Services.

INCREASE REQUESTED FOR SPECIAL FOREIGN CURRENCY PROGRAM

In Special Foreign Currency, for fiscal year 1985, the Smithsonian requests $9,000,000 equivalent in foreign currencies which have been determined, as you know, by the Treasury Department to be in excess of the normal needs of the United States. This appropriation will be used to continue a program of grants to United States institutions for research in those countries where excess local currencies are available ($4,000,000); to increase the level to $7,250,000 equivalent in Indian rupees the forward-funded reserve in support of future programs of the American Institute of Indian Studies, another $4 million; and for the third increment of the United States contribution to the international effort to restore and preserve the ancient city of Moenjodaro in Pakistan, $1 million. The statement before you calls attention to our concerns about the proposal bina-tional fund to India and because of those concerns, we urge that our programs be fully funded.

Mr. Yates. Dillon, would you like just as well to relax and just put the rest of the statement in the record so you don't have to read it, and save your energy for the barrage of questions which is going to follow?

Mr. Ripley. Well, it is up to you, sir. I am happy to

Mr. Yates. We have read all the justifications. We have the statement. We know, unless you feel more comfortable completing the statement—well, you don't have much left, why don't you go into the appropriation?

Mr. Ripley. If you would like me to paraphrase, I will be happy to do so, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Yates. Go ahead.

Mr. Ripley. All I am saying, essentially, is that I am detailing the highlights of these things in our annual support document and saying that I am delighted as always to be here because of my personal gratitude to you and the subcommittee for the support provided the Institution throughout my tenure. I and my colleagues would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATIONS

Mr. Yates. Thank you for a very good statement.

First, let me comment on the publications with which you have showered the committee.

Mr. Ripley. I hope we haven't overloaded you.

Mr. Yates. No, no. We are always delighted to receive copies of Smithsonian publications, because they are so marvelous. They are really outstanding, and the Smithsonian is to be congratulated upon the quality and expertise of their publications.

I am particularly delighted with your new book, The Treasures of the Smithsonian. It is just a magnificent rendition of some of the things that the Smithsonian has. I visited the Renwick last week, and among the publications that I saw there was one that I found very intriguing. It took me back to the time of your childhood, when there was a publication known as the St. Nicholas Magazine, which was a publication for children at that time. And apparently what has happened here is that Henry Steele Commager and

others have edited what they consider to be the outstanding pieces from that publication.

It is a marvelous book. I am going to buy it for my grandson so that he can have some of the good things that were in the St. Nicholas Magazine. I am sorry it is no longer in existence. But I am just really tremendously impressed with the quality.

I don't know who does these things for you, but whoever does them does a tremendous job. Which of your Assistant Secretaries is in charge of this? I know you get top credit for it, but who is at the next level below you? Or is this Smithsonian Press?

Mr. Ripley. This is Smithsonian Press. Essentially it is under the Assistant Secretary for Public Service. I think the Press has done a wonderful job. And I want to say one thing about The Treasures of the Smithsonian. It looks like a coffee table book and it weighs like a coffee table book. It is actually readable. That is rare for coffee table books I think. Highly readable. Great congratulations are due Ted Park, the contributing editor, who actually wrote it with his own hand.

FREER GALLERY ANNUAL REPORT

Mr. Yates. Looking through the publication, I guess this is the Annual Report of the Freer Gallery, I learned something that I hadn't known before. That is, as required by the Freer deed of gift, the Fine Arts Commission must approve all acquisitions. I didn't know that.

Is that true of all galleries, or just Freer?

Mr. Ripley. Just the Freer. The Chairman of the Fine Arts Commission and myself are supposed to come and look at new acquisitions which are being purchased with the income from the Freer will, and approve of them. I look at the prices and Mr. Brown looks at the objects. We both look at the objects. The price sometimes is significant.

Mr. Yates. Well, I thought it was kind of presumptious to question the expertise of Mr. Lawton on the question of acquisitions for Freer. But I guess Mr. Freer didn't know that Mr. Lawton was going to be the administrator some day.

Mr. Ripley. He didn't know who he was at the time. And he was very conscious of what they call in law I believe la mainmorte.

Mr. Yates. Oui. Well, that raises another question. I saw the beautiful exhibition of screens at the other Smithsonian Institution, the National Gallery of Art. And I wondered whether or not the imprimatur that Mr. Freer put in his will against loaning Freer objects applies to sister organizations of the Smithsonian. For example, could any of the beautiful screens that are in the Freer be moved across campus to the National Art Gallery?

Mr. Ripley. Heaven forfend.

Mr. Yates. Well, that doesn't answer my question.

Mr. Ripley. I suppose it would be lese majeste to do that. It is in the will that nothing is to go out of the Freer that was in the original collection or things acquired since by

Mr. Yates. Can't leave the four walls?

Mr. Ripley. In the original draft it was the hope that the American paintings would go to what was then called the National Gal-

lery, now Museum of American Art. But that was changed later on in the drafting of the will. And Mr. Freer was obdurate, if that is the right word.

Mr. Yates. It is.

Mr. Ripley. About not changing the clauses that he felt were important for his own expression of his own tastes and his own identity, as it were, as a collector. So that is the way it stayed ever since.

I think, Judge Powers, that is right, isn't it?

AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS

Mr. Yates. I called Judge Powers this morning, and I think I may have aggravated him somewhat. I said that I had studied the Smithsonian presentation over the weekend, and in the preparation of questions for the committee the horrible thought suddenly occurred to me that there was no authorization for Smithsonian appropriations. I went through the legislation this morning that created it, and there is no specific appropriation. The reason that I was fearful was because of the possibility that in bringing the Smithsonian appropriation to the floor, a point of order might be made on the grounds that under the House rules there was no authorization for the appropriation.

So I called Judge Powers and asked him about it, and asked him to prepare himself for the hearing today. I don't know whether he has.

Have you, Judge Powers? Would you like to come up here where we can all see you, and tell us what the authorization is for the Smithsonian appropriation? I have since checked it and I have been satisfied, but I would like to hear what you have to say anyway.

Mr. Powers. In the 10 minutes I had before luncheon

Mr. Yates. It was really 20.

Mr. Powers. What?

Mr. Yates. Go ahead.

Mr. Powers. I found that section of Rule XXI which I think you are referring to.

Mr. Yates. You mean in the House rules?

Mr. Powers. House rules.

Mr. Yates. Right. Requiring authorization.

Mr. Powers. The authorization that is referred to there is, in my understanding of it, an authorization for the activities or the objects or the functions that are to be supported by the appropriation, and there is no technical requirement for a little piece of language which says at the end of the authorization for the activity, appropriations are authorized for this purpose.

That has been a fashion which has grown up, I believe, in the last 30 or 40 years, to add such language, but I do not believe it is required by the rules.

Mr. Yates. Well, that goes into the record as the explanation. I checked with the House Parliamentarian for his interpretation of that rule insofar as it pertains to the Smithsonian, and I discussed the basic language with him and he was willing to accept your original thesis, that the charge in creating the Institution itself carried with it the authorization to carry out the functions of the

Smithsonian originally. And he was willing to accept it. He also thought that the congressional committee's language in approving the original legislation which I found in the speech prepared by Marie Malaro, Assistant General Counsel of the Smithsonian, on the SI accountability in the federal budget process, to be appropriate.

I read for the record, because I would want all this to go into the record in case the point is ever raised subsequently. It says this:

"It is then, a high and solemn trust which the testator has committed to the United States of America, and its execution devolves upon their Representatives in Congress, duties of no ordinary importance." This goes back to 1836.

"In the commission of every trust there is implied tribute of the soul to the integrity and intelligence of the trustees; and there is also an implied call for the faithful exercise of those properties to the fulfilment of the purpose of the trust."

"Your committee are fully persuaded—"I would have said "is."

"Your committee are fully persuaded, therefore, that . . . the Congress of the United States, in accepting the bequest, will feel in all its power and plentitude the obligation of responding to the confidence reposed by him, with all fidelity, disinterestedness and perseverance of exertion which may carry into effective execution the noble purpose of an endowment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men."

He says to present him with a copy of this language. He says it is acceptable. So, if you have any fears, just as I had, I no longer have. I am sure you didn't have before.

Mr. Powers. It might interest you to know, Mr. Chairman, those remarks which appeared in the House Report were written by John Quincy Adams.

Mr. Yates. I think that is a very helpful addition. No, I am serious. It is helpful because I can just picture old John Quincy Adams reciting those and making a speech on the floor of the House about this beneficient and noble gift, incidentally, which I am about to convey to the Smithsonian as well. You have bestowed gifts upon the Smithsonian. You mentioned the Harry Truman exhibit that is coming up.

Mr. Ripley. Yes.

GIFT FOR THE SMITHSONIAN

Mr. Yates. Well, I have something here that I propose to give to the Smithsonian for the exhibit.

Mr. Ripley. Oh, splendid. How splendid.

Mr. Yates. So, seriously, Roger. This is by one of the fathers of contemporary art, whose name is Dominique Libino. You at the Renwick are going to have an exhibit by Harvey Littleton. Is the administrator of the Renwick here, by any chance?

Mr. Ripley. I don't think Lloyd Herman is here today.

Mr. Yates. Yes. At any rate, they always have these glass exhibitions and they are going to have one by Harvey Littleton, who with Dominique prepared the process by which most of the current glassmakers are using. At any rate, I give this to the muse in perpetuity—are you required to have Carter Brown pass on it?

Mr. Ripley. No.

Mr. Yates. Can you use it in the exhibit, do you think? Good. Because Libino is of national and international fame. Let's just leave it here.

Mr. Ripley. I am going to look at it.

Mr. Yates. It is a fairly decent representation of the President.

Mr. Ripley. It is very good.

EISENHOWER INSTITUTE FOR MILITARY HISTORY

Mr. Yates. Okay. Now we go back to work.

Before we go back to work, I discovered another thing the other day. I am always discovering things about the Smithsonian. You have an Institution of the Presidents there of some kind, an Eisenhower

Mr. Ripley. Institute. Yes.

Mr. Yates. Is it the Eisenhower Institute or an Institute of the Presidents?

Mr. Ripley. It is the Eisenhower Institute for Military History.

Mr. Yates. Why do we never know of that? Why do you never tell us of that?

Mr. Ripley. It is in the Museum of American History as a bureau and it is the outgrowth of statutory actions by the Congress in 1962, I believe, to study the desireability of creating an Armed Forces Museum.

Under the language of that act, a study center called the Eisenhower Institute was created. With subsequent permission of the Congress, the specific notion of an Armed Forces Museum was dismissed, leaving a residual bureau known as the Eisenhower Institute of Military History.

Mr. Yates. I see.

Mr. Ripley. Which continues and has its own staff.

Mr. Yates. How is that funded?

Mr. Ripley. That is funded under the budget of the Museum for American History.

Mr. Yates. Is it mentioned in the document?

Mr. Ripley. Normally it is mentioned in the hearings testimony. I don't know if it was just a continuing item.

Mr. Yates. I don't remember having seen it. Is it a separate function in a separate budget?

Mr. Kennedy. No, sir, it is part of the base budget. There are three individuals; Forrest Pogue, a distinguished historian who is Director, an Assistant Director, and a Secretary. The function is to study the interaction of civilian and military life in the United States in pursuance of both General Eisenhower's interest in that intersection, and I believe that the original legislation stipulates that to be the basis for its activity. It has continued to be so.

Mr. Pogue's primary activity has been as the primary biographer of George C. Marshall, both as a military officer and subsequently as a Secretary of State.

Mr. Yates. I thought the Armed Forces had a separate museum and separate institute.

Mr. Kennedy. No, it was dissolved.

Mr. Yates. By this act?

Mr. Kennedy. By an agreement, yes. Mr. Yates. All right.

NEEDS OF THE MUSEUM OF AMERICAN HISTORY

Mr. Secretary, is it fair to do with the Smithsonian what we do with other agencies that appear before us for their budgets? We not only hear the Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries, but in the case of the National Park Service, for example, the Wildlife Refuge and I certainly don't intend to put you at the same level as natural resource organizations, but we ask them to present to us their district directors, and we ask each of the district directors what he needs to carry out his functions properly.

You would not take umbrage if I were to call Roger Kennedy to the table and say, "Roger, what need is not provided for in this budget for the National Museum of American History?"

May I do that, with your permission?

Mr. Ripley. I would be thrilled, Mr. Chairman, if you were to call upon Roger. He sings beautifully.

Mr. Yates. Well, I know. I have heard him sing, but this is not an occasion for "When You and I Were Sweet Sixteen."

Roger, what about your budget? Is it satisfactory? May one ask you to tell the committee whether the budget is adequate for your purposes and whether there ought to be more happening here than is happening now?

One of the reasons that I am asking this question is because your Regents, according to what you say, have an enormous construction program in prospect for the years ahead.

Mr. Ripley. Yes.

Mr. Yates. And I wonder whether you want to start constructing, or whether you should be bringing your current museums up to date.

Now, are Roger and his colleagues who are Assistant Secretaries, being held in check because of the needs of the Regents for the future so that he isn't given adequate money to operate his museum?

I ask you that question. Are you being held in check unduly or are you being given the funds you need to operate your museum?

If you had your druthers, would you put more money into something else?

bicentennial of the constitution

Mr. Kennedy. I think fundamentally the operations of the Museum are adequately funded. There are things we would like to do that we can't do because of constraints of budget. I think particularly of the desire appropriately to celebrate the bicentennial of the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. Yates. When is that?

Mr. Kennedy. That will appear 200 years from 1787. We would like more funds to do that appropriately, but with that exception I think the requests that have come forward to you in this budget represent, given all the constraints under which the Institution generally operates, a pretty fair cut.

Mr. Yates. Well, but let's talk about that for a minute. According to the budget history you asked Mr. Hughes and Mr. Ripley and the Regents for $11,113,000. They permitted you to go to the Office of Management and Budget with only a slight reduction. They permitted you to go with $11,079,000.

OMB cut you back to $10,887,000. So you had about a $300 or $400 thousand cut. Now, I agree with you. I think that we ought to be doing a great deal to celebrate the occasion of the bicentennial of the signing of the Constitution of the United States. Is that stricken from the budget?

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. Was it in your original budget?

Mr. Kennedy. It was in our original request, sir, yes.

Mr. Yates. How much money do you need?

Mr. Kennedy. That thing in total, to do it adequately along the lines we have outlined, would cost about $525,000. We asked for it in three stages. One hundred thousand dollars for the next fiscal year and two other increments thereafter. There were smaller requests that were cut out, but that is the major area in which I think our service to the public would fall short. That would, in our view, permit us to do several things at once.

One, to adequately demonstrate that the Constitution of the United States was not finished in 1787. That it continues to guide our lives.

Second, it would permit us to commence an adequate statement of the relationship of certain minority representatives in our Armed Forces as they themselves encountered both the opportunities and the penalties of living in a constitutional system, and it would enable us to commence to return to an earlier subject, the appropriate presentation to the American people of the role of civilians in our Armed Services generally.

We are a nation that depends upon civilian activity in our Armed Forces. Those have presented in the past grave constitutional questions which need to be treated seriously.

Mr. Yates. How much do you need in your 1985 budget and how much in 1986?

Mr. Kennedy. We need, we certainly need $100,000 to $150,000 to get going and the rest of it can come in the next two fiscal years.

I should think $100,000 to $150,000 this year adequately to, among other things, record the recollections of very elderly persons who will not be with us if we don't get at it pretty soon. I should think beyond that another $250,000 to $275,000 the following year, polishing it off in the last.

Mr. Yates. What is the total amount?

Mr. Kennedy. About $525,000.

Mr. Yates. Are there other programs that you would like to see undertaken that have to be initiated in this budget?

Mr. Kennedy. No, sir, I don't think so. We could, of course, argue to you that we would like to rehabilitate the museum and reconstruct its major installations more rapidly. These tradeoffs do have to be made within a general budgetary capability. So we are not, aside from that one, I think we are prepared to live within the budgets that we have asked for.

Mr. Yates. Okay. Thanks, Roger.

UPGRADING PHYSICAL FACILITIES

One more question. You have $3,060,000 in this budget for upgrading certain of your physical facilities.

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. Is there any question of health and safety involved in the portions that are allocated for 1986 and 1987 that should be done this year rather than those years?

Mr. Kennedy. I don't think I can honestly answer that there is a question of health and safety. There are certain clean-up jobs to be done at Silver Hill that probably can be delayed beyond this fiscal, but I think the answer narrowly to your inquiry is probably not. There are no such dangers.

Mr. Yates. All right. Thank you, Roger.

NATIONAL MUSEUM OF AMERICAN ART

All right. Assistant Secretary for History and Art, National Museum—what about the National Museum of American Art, Mr. Fern?

Mr. Ripley. Mr. Eldredge.

Mr. Yates. Excuse me. Mr. Eldredge.

Mr. Ripley. He is right here.

CONSERVATION NEEDS

Mr. Yates. Hi, Mr. Eldredge. You started out with a request for $5,276,000, which was cut to $4,728,000 by the firm of Ripley and Hughes and cut even more by OMB to $4,648,000. How badly are you hurt by the cuts?

Mr. Eldredge. Basically those cuts force us to defer resolution of some of our conservation problems.

Mr. Yates. Conservation? Does that mean some of your properties may deteriorate?

Mr. Eldredge. Indeed it may be.

Mr. Yates. Why did Sam Hughes and Mr. Ripley cut you?

Mr. Eldredge. As I understand, it was primarily a cut effected at the OMB level.

Mr. Yates. You were cut by $500,000 at the first instance, weren't you?

Mr. Eldredge. That prior instance was for another issue that related to the dissemination of knowledge broadly defined, to publications and other research efforts on the collections.

Mr. Yates. That is understandable. How are you hurt in your conservation?

Mr. Eldredge. We are dealing with antique equipment.

Mr. Yates. Yes. What has to be done?

Mr. Eldredge. In some cases replace the equipment.

Mr. Yates. Give us an example of the kind of equipment.

Mr. Eldredge. Such as a 16-year old hot table which does not heat evenly and is unable to perform the kinds of procedures which we now need to utilize on some of our paper collections which continue to deteriorate. As well as storage equipment, for art that is in danger.

Mr. Yates. What has to be done?

Mr. Eldredge. We need to replace the hot table, for instance.

Mr. Yates. You are not using this for your lunch?

Mr. Eldredge. This is not for our lunches.

Mr. Yates. All right.

Mr. Eldredge. We need to acquire the kinds of goods and storage

equipment

Mr. Yates. How much money is involved in it?

Mr. Eldredge. $80,000.

Mr. Yates. Can you give us a list of it?

Mr. Eldredge. I can provide that, yes, sir.

[The information follows:]

National Museum of American Art Conservation Needs

Equipment:

Vacuum hot table (with capability for moisture treatment of art

works) '$16,000

Fume hood (for organic and inorganic vapors) *4,000

Binocular microscope (for detailed examination and restoration) *5,000

X-ray developing area with sink *6,000

Blotter dryer/press (for works on paper) *2,000

Painting storage bins 4,000

Paper storage cabinets 5,000

Contract work:

Treatment of nine sculptures in immediate danger 18,000

Conservation and preparation of 1,500 photographic prints received

from the National Endowment for the Arts 20,000

Total 80,000

'Asterisk denotes half of cost of equipment which will be shared with the National Portrait Gallery. The other half of the cost is included in the Portrait Gallery's list of conservation needs.

Mr. Yates. Anything else we should know?

Mr. Eldredge. That is the primary cut.

Mr. Yates. Are you on the construction schedule?

Mr. Eldredge. No, we are not.

Mr. Yates. You are not?

Mr. Eldredge. No, sir.

Mr. Yates. All right. Thank you very much.

NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY

All right. National Portrait Gallery.

Mr. Ripley. Mr. Fern.

Mr. Yates. How have you been treated?

Mr. Fern. Reasonably well.

Mr. Yates. You were cut about $300,000 by the firm of Ripley and Hughes. You went down, OMB cut you another $100,000?

Mr. Fern. Yes.

Mr. Yates. What did they take from you that you thought you needed?

CONSERVATION NEEDS

Mr. Fern. I think the most serious lack is the funds for collections management and conservation—again relating to what Mr. Eldredge just spoke to.

Mr. Yates. What do you mean by conservation?

Mr. Fern. Maintaining the physical condition of the art works in our custody. As you know, perhaps, we share a laboratory for this

with the Museum of American Art. So the equipment Mr. Eldredge was just talking about we also have to contribute to.

Mr. Yates. I see. So if the committee were to restore his $80,000 that would help you too?

Mr. Fern. We had another $87,000 for equipment and supplies and for two staff, one of them a conservator in paper.

Mr. Yates. Was the conservator cut?

Mr. Fern. Yes, OMB cut him.

Mr. Yates. What would happen without the conservator?

Mr. Fern. Our backlog increases.

Mr. Yates. Well, what about the possibility of contracting the work out?

Mr. Fern. With funds we could do that, but, you see, without either funds or people

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

Mr. Fern. Approximately the same as the salary, I would say.

Mr. Yates. Can you give us the—well now, what do you need to be conserved?

Mr. Fern. Well, we have a number of collections we haven't been able to do much work on. The time

Mr. Yates. What do you mean by not much work on them?

Mr. Fern. Well, all we can do is, if we select one work to be put up in an exhibition, we can treat that one as it comes, but we cannot do the job on the entire collection as we should do.

Mr. Yates. I don't make the jump with you. What do you mean by doing the job? Do you mean by treating it in some way?

Mr. Fern. Right. When we acquire works of art, in general we have to do something to them. If we get a painting, or sculpture, of course, we hope that it is healthy, but very often it has a problem.

It may be dirty, it may have a more difficult physical problem of some sort. We need to have staff treat these works; in the case of the originals from Time magazine, for instance—the cover paintings, sculptures and collages—these come in in quite large numbers. We use only a few at a time.

Those we use, we make secure for exhibition and study, but there are many others that require work.

Mr. Yates. Well, what would happen to your acquisitions if you delay the conservation for a year?

Mr. Fern. They—we try to maintain

Mr. Yates. Which is what is proposed in the budget, isn't it?

Mr. Fern. We try to maintain them in a reasonable physical environment so they don't deteriorate, but the amount of work that we can put up and the amount of work that we can serve to those who wish to study works is limited until we can treat them.

We have an obligation when we acquire works to conserve them for the future and it is meeting that obligation that our conservation program is addressed to.

Mr. Yates. Are you required to accept all works offered to you?

Mr. Fern. Oh, no, not at all.

Mr. Yates. So that when you accept works, it has some value, something you want to preserve for posterity?

Mr. Fern. Yes.

Mr. Yates. The conservation then becomes important?

Mr. Fern. Becomes an obligation, of course.

Mr. Yates. An important activity as well as obligation.

Mr. Fern. That is correct.

Mr. Yates. So you need another $80,000?

Mr. Fern. Yes, and two positions.

Mr. Yates. Well, either that or for contracting. $80,000 and two positions.

Mr. Fern. Yes.

Mr. Yates. Do you need the money for the two positions in addition to the $80,000 or will the $80,000 permit you to contract it out?

Mr. Fern. Now, let me see. I haven't got that specifically in order. I would have to give you that breakdown, but I believe that

Mr. Yates. Mr. Reinhardt is helping you?

Mr. Fern. Oh, here we are. Thank you. Yes, it was altogether, $87,000. Because it was $41,000 for the equipment and space, and I am looking for the staff.

Mr. Yates. For the equipment and the space. Now, is this part of this rental?

Mr. Fern. No, no, no. No. Outfitting things in the conservation laboratory and I am looking for the staff here. This is cast in a different form than I have seen it.

Mr. Yates. Why don't you put it in the record?

Mr. Fern. Can I give it to you for the record, sir?

Mr. Yates. Sure.

Mr. Fern. All right.

[The information follows:]

National Portrait Gallery Positions and Conservation Items

Conservation Items:

Vacuum hot table (with capability for moisture treatment of art

works) *$15,000

Fume hood (for organic and inorganic vapors) *4,000

Binocular microscope (for detailed examination and restoration) *5,000

X-ray developing area with sink *6,000

Blotter dryer/press (for works on paper) *2,000

Painting storage bins 3,000

Paper storage cabinets 3,000

Custom-built formica work table (6'x6' with under storage) 4,000

Subtotal $42,000

Positions:

Conservator; GS-11 $27,000

Museum Registration Technician; GS-7 18,000

Subtotal $45,000

Total $87,000

'Asterisk half of cost of equipment which will be shared with the National Museum of American Art. The other half of the cost is included in the National Museum of American Art's list of conservation needs.

BUILDING REPAIRS

Mr. Yates. You also need $480,000 this year for repairs. Mr. Fern. On the building. Mr. Yates. On the building? Mr. Fern. Yes.

Mr. Yates. You also have requests for fiscal years 1986, 1987 and so on. Is there anything in the work to be delayed that can possibly threaten health and safety for not having been done?

Mr. Fern. I think Mr. Peyton would have to speak to that.

Mr. Yates. Mr. Peyton?

Mr. Peyton. I think that the $480,000 is sufficient to take care of their needs in the area that you are asking about.

Mr. Yates. Thank you.

HIRSHHORN MUSEUM BUDGET CUTS

Hirshhorn. Mr. Lerner.

Anything we ought to be doing for Hirshhorn? Let's see what happened to you. What did they do to you as a goodbye present? You started out with $3,557,000. They cut you by $200,000 immediately, the firm of Ripley and Hughes.

OMB cut you by $200,000 more. What did you lose?

Mr. Lerner. $100,000 was to finance exhibitions based on major overseas loans, $60,000 for collection acquisitions, and $50,000 for sculpture conservation. As you know, Mr. Chairman, our collection is international in scope. We have European artists, we have South American, Eskimo, African artists, as well as other artists from around the world. This international aspect is probably one of the distinguishing features of the Hirshhorn Museum. Despite its mandate as a museum of modern art, if we examine past exhibitions they reveal that of the one hundred exhibitions displayed at the museum, only one contained a significant number of foreign loans that was organized by our museums.

Mr. Yates. That is the Russian exhibition.

Mr. Lerner. No, the Russian exhibition actually was organized in Los Angeles. I was referring to the R. B. Kitaj exhibition. This means that the museum is unable to do large scale international exhibitions because these are, as you know, very expensive to do. We also lost $60,000 for collection acquisitions. I needn't tell you the price for acquisitions has jumped.

Mr. Yates. What will $60,000 buy you?

Mr. Lerner. Perhaps one fair painting by one fair artist. A younger artist.

Mr. Yates. I guess 12 years old.

Mr. Lerner. No, no, no. 30 years.

Mr. Yates. Do you want that minor piece of art by the young artist in the Hirshhorn Museum?

Mr. Lerner. Sure, why not? We collect lots of young artists.

Mr. Yates. Going to be great some day?

Mr. Lerner. Well, you never know. We lost $50,000 for sculpture conservation.

Mr. Yates. That is very important.

Mr. Lerner. Very important to us, considering so many of our pieces are outside.

Mr. Yates. What does that mean? Is this for your outside garden sculpture?

Mr. Lerner. Well, it is for inside and outside. We have to take care of them inside as well. It requires an extra person. We have

34-632 0—84-

only one sculpture conservator. He does everything. He does the inside and outside pieces, he waxes all year round.

Mr. Yates. Can he do it?

Mr. Lerner. No, he cannot. That is why we need somebody else.

Mr. Yates. How much money do you need?

Mr. Lerner. Well, we need $50,000.

Mr. Yates. $50,000. Just for a waxer?

Mr. Lerner. No, wax is cheaper than that. No. To have a man who would help him do these things.

Mr. Yates. $50,000 to carry around the wax?

Mr. Lerner. No. He actually does the waxing. This also would include getting another person to do some of the things that have to be done. Things have to be welded and so on.

Mr. Yates. Why don't you expand for the record.

Mr. Lerner. I would be glad to.

[The information follows:]

Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden Sculpture Conservation

The Museum's sculpture collection includes a variety of three-dimensional works that vary in height from a few inches to Mark diSuvero's monumental construction Isis which is 43 feet tall, 65 feet long, 33 feet wide and weighs 35 tons. The materials range from the traditional (stone, terra cotta, bronze, and wood) to modern (plexi-glas, welded steel, polished aluminum and glass). Often the media are mixed, creating new problems in conservation. Among contemporary sculptors, even traditional media such as plaster or wood may be used in new and unorthodox way.

Although the Museum has a full-time sculpture conservator, he cannot maintain this large collection without additional contractual assistance. Outside expertise is required where in-house skills are not available, such as arc-welding, sandblasting, automotive painting and marine cable testing. Many of the Museum's pieces are motorized, and the motors that actuate these require expert maintenance, rewinding and occasional replacement.

In FY 1985, Isis, which was originally painted in 1978, will need to be sandblasted and repainted. A complete sandblasting and repainting is estimated to cost $20,000. While this does not have to be repeated every year, it will nevertheless be a continuing periodic expense for both this piece and for other monumental painted sculptures by Calder, Rickey, and Oldenburg.

The Museum also needs to enclose and equip an area separate from its building in which arc-welding, repathinization, and other sculpture maintenance treatments can be carried out. For reasons of health and safety, this cannot be done inside the Museum's main premises. The proposed structure would be open on four sides and have a roof to provide protection against the elements for the technicians working on the sculpture.

Another on-going expenditure required by the Museum sculpture collection is for crane rentals. These costs are incurred whenever heavy and large outdoor pieces are received, lent or relocated.

An increase of $50,000 would assure that such services can be secured to keep the collection from deteriorating.

Mr. Yates. Can it be contracted out?

Mr. Lerner. Sometimes it has to be contracted out because we don't have the equipment.

Mr. Yates. OMB traditionally doesn't like to put people on the federal payroll. If you can contract this work out, perhaps that would be easier in getting it through.

Mr. Lerner. We would be glad to do that.

Mr. Yates. Would you put something into the record.

Mr. Lerner. Sure.

CONDITION OF HIRSHHORN MUSEUM

Mr. Yates. Thank you. How are the cracks in your walls, incidentally?

Mr. Lerner. They are fine.

Mr. Yates. You used to have rain leaks?

Mr. Lerner. No, no, no. We are fine. We have a plaza problem. Our plaza is breaking up all the time, but we keep patching it.

Mr. Yates. Why? What is the matter with it?

Mr. Lerner. I don't know. Something goes wrong with it, and it just heaves up. One day we will have it done.

Mr. Yates. Is this Mr. Peyton's fault?

Mr. Lerner. Oh, no, Mr. Peyton is very good at repairing it for us.

Mr. Yates. You should have a different structure.

Mr. Lerner. Yes, we should. But that takes a lot of money.

Mr. Yates. Have you written Gordon Bunshaft about this?

Mr. Lerner. Well, he can't help us. He is a poor man.

Mr. Yates. Do we have to worry about health and safety on the plaza?

Mr. Lerner. To a degree.

Mr. Yates. Then that worries me. Shouldn't we be repairing it now?

Mr. Lerner. Yes, we should.

Mr. Yates. What should we be doing? Should Mr. Peyton tell us that or should you?

Mr. Lerner. I think Mr. Peyton can tell us about that.

Mr. Yates. You are prepared to tell us?

Mr. Peyton. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. What should we be doing, Mr. Peyton?

Mr. Peyton. We have a repair contract out right now to repair the plaza to bring it up to the proper safety levels. We also plan a complete replacement of the plaza in fiscal year 1989 which will probably cost about $3 million.

Mr. Yates. Well, is there a chance of somebody spraining an ankle or breaking a foot on it now?

Mr. Peyton. Right now it is barricaded so that is not possible unless they go through the barricade.

Mr. Yates. How big an area is barricaded?

Mr. Peyton. About the size of this part of the room.

Mr. Yates. What about the rest of the plaza?

Mr. Peyton. Generally, the rest of the plaza is all right. This particular area is caused by the expansion of the structure of the building. The individual sections of plaza surface expand and bind together, with no place to go but up. This results in broken concrete at the joint and an inch or so difference in elevation between the sections of plaza surface pavement.

Mr. Yates. How do you put that kind of gesture into the record? Let the record show that he has his fists counteracting each other in what seems to be constant combat.

Mr. Peyton. These are two plaza sections binding together and being thrust upward.

Mr. Yates. All right. Thanks, Mr. Peyton.

CENTER FOR ASIAN ART

Is that Freer? What is the Center for Asian Art?

Mr. Ripley. That is the Quad.

Mr. Yates. Oh, that is the Quad.

Mr. Lawton, do you want to come up here? Are you and Freer now the Center for Asian Art or are they separate?

Mr. Lawton. Freer and Sackler constitute the Center for Asian Art.

Mr. Yates. I see. You were cut half a million dollars immediately and OMB was kind to you?

Mr. Lawton. Yes.

Mr. Yates. Apparently they said what had happened was enough. What did you lose for your $500,000?

funds for acquisitions

Mr. Lawton. We would like purchase funds for the collection.

Mr. Yates. Is that all it is? Why don't you ask Dr. Sackler for it?

Mr. Lawton. He is willing to provide some funds, but more willing if we can provide matching funds as well.

Mr. Yates. Do you need money for conservation?

Mr. Lawton. No, if we have our present budget approved, our conservation fund will be on target.

Mr. Yates. And preservation of all your art objects is going along apace and isn't deteriorating?

Mr. Lawton. Very well.

Mr. Yates. You have got $100,000 for acquisitions. That is only $100,000. You lost another $400,000?

Mr. Lawton. I am speaking specifically; even though we have a Center for Asian Art, we still think in terms of the Freer Gallery and Sackler Gallery.

Mr. Yates. Right.

Mr. Lawton. The $100,000 we are asking there is specifically for the Sackler Gallery.

Mr. Yates. Yes.

Mr. Lawton. But the Freer is the only museum in the Smithsonian that gets no federal funds for purchases. We never have. We ask repeatedly, but that is always removed from the budget.

Mr. Yates. By who?

Mr. Lawton. I think maybe Mr. Hughes could

Mr. Yates. Mr. Hughes, why do you take away his acquisition money?

Mr. Hughes. I think we need to look back at our numbers and make sure who took what, but the hypothesis has been that the Freer has some funds available.

Mr. Yates. Really, for acquisition? Why is he complaining?

Mr. Hughes. I guess he would like some federal funds, right, Tom?

Mr. Lawton. What we do, Mr. Chairman, we pay all of our bills with the income from the Freer bequest. What we have left, we use to buy objects.

Mr. Yates. Yes.

Mr. Lawton. In a normal year that would be $200,000-$250,000. It simply isn't enough if we are to keep abreast

Mr. Yates. But Mr. Lerner said all he wanted was $60,000.

Mr. Lawton. But he has money in addition to the $60,000.

Mr. Yates. His is for young artists. All yours are centuries old.

OK, thanks Mr. Lawton.

Mr. Ripley. Mr. Chairman, we do have a recent acquisition fund which was set up by the Regents.

Mr. Yates. For Mr. Lawton.

Mr. Ripley. Which can be tapped by any one of the bureaus, particularly

Mr. Yates. Yes, you have sort of gone around robin for that.

Mr. Ripley. Round robin. That is the way we got the Stuart portraits, you remember, of George and Martha Washington. We tapped that several years out in advance.

Mr. Yates. Yes, but that takes away from everybody else for years, doesn't it?

Mr. Ripley. It does.

Mr. Yates. Is that why Mr. Lawton wants to go into the federal budget?

Mr. Ripley. Well, I think he deserves to have federal funds, actually, because for all the years of its existence, the Freer Gallery, which I think everyone admits is one of the finest galleries anywhere in the United States if not the world, in Oriental art, has had to depend on the income of the Freer bequest.

Mr. Yates. You stated in reponse to my question about Dr. Sackler that he is willing to put up a matching fund.

Mr. Lawton. Yes.

Mr. Yates. If the committee were to vote $200,000 for acquisition, would he put up $200,000?

Mr. Lawton. I think through his foundation he would be quite willing to provide matching funds.

Mr. Ripley. He would be very excited by this kind of commitment by the federal government to support the acquisition.

Mr. Yates. Can you give us a memo on that for the record, Mr. Lawton?

Mr. Lawton. Surely.

Mr. Yates. Thank you. We don't have to worry about health and safety for you, do we, Tom?

Mr. Lawton. No, sir.

[The information follows:]

Center for Asian Art

In the budget submission before your Committee, $100,000 in federal appropriations has been requested for the Sackler Gallery for collection acquisitions as part of the Quadrangle request. I believe it is very important to provide a comparable $100,000 to the Freer Gallery for collection acquisitions.

Dr. Sackler has expressed considerable enthusiasm to develop a collection acquisitions fund for the Sackler Gallery on some sort of matching basis. If Congressional support is obtained for the initial federal appropriation of $100,000 for this purpose, the Smithsonian Institution will be able to work out an arrangement with the Sackler Foundation to enlarge the collection acquisition fund at least on a one-to-one matching basis, if not better. Although the initial donation of the Sackler Gallery collection to the Smithsonian is a magnificent gift of value far in excess of the original agreement (and Dr. Sackler is continuing to acquire and give more objects to the Smithsonian after consultation with the director of the Sackler Gallery), efforts are needed to develop certain areas of the collection. Dr. Sackler appears willing to support the efforts of others to develop those areas and others now and in the future.

In a way, a federal appropriation of $100,000 for the Freer collection acquisition funds would be a long overdue beginning to match the efforts of Charles Lang Freer to continue to develop the original collection. His bequest included funds that could be used for this purpose. Sixty years ago, the funds appeared to be more than sufficient, but inflation and a rising market for Oriental art led to an increasing dependence on the earnings of the Freer Gallery Museum Shop to supplement available collection acquisition funds. Current developments have allowed the Freer to increase its budget of $200,000 in trust funds to collection acquisitions to over $230,000 and the Smithsonian Regents' Fund for Collection Acquisitions has supplemented our efforts with funds for extraordinary collections meeting certain requirements in a five-year period, but the Freer no longer enjoys the dominant position in the Oriental art market it enjoyed decades ago. As Mr. Ripley stated so warmly in the hearings, the Freer deserves to have federal support in this area, and I hope that the Congress will share this view.

ARCHIVES OF AMERICAN ART

Mr. Yates. Archives of American Art. That is a relatively minor one. You gave them an increase?

Sorry, come up here.

Mr. Murray. Thank you.

Mr. Yates. You didn't respond. I see that you stand aces high with the firm of Ripley and Hughes. You started out with a request of $778,000 and they gave you $791,000. But OMB caught up with you and cut you by $50,000, right?

Mr. Murray. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. What did the $50,000 represent?

Mr. Murray. Let me preface my remarks by saying the Archives is in a period of re-evaluating our responsibility to our collections as well as the information that we get out to the scholarly world. What this $50,000 would mean to us would be a curator of photography and support funds for conservation, a beginning of the conservation program for our collection of photographs.

CONSERVATION OF PHOTOGRAPHS

Mr. Yates. What is the nature of conservation of your photographs? Are you talking about the conservation of color photographs or are you talking about black and white?

Mr. Murphy. Chiefly of black and white photographs. Our photographs come to us in the collection of papers from artists. We do not normally go out and solicit the collecting of photographs as objects of art. We do find, however, that since our collections number eight million documents of artists, we have a major collection of photographs because we do collect papers of photographers as well. Our initial survey

Mr. Yates. Where do you keep your archives?

Mr. Murphy. Unfortunately, we are having to store our—nearly our entire collection off-site at 1111 North Capitol Street.

Mr. Yates. Off-site? Where are you housed?

Mr. Murray. Our major office, chief office, is here in Washington at the Portrait Gallery/American Art Building. We are housed in the library there. We have offices also in New York, Boston, Detroit, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Houston. These are collecting stations from which we gather the papers of artists. We process them, catalog them, and microfilm them when possible here in Washington, and return that microfilm out to the offices and regions.

Mr. Yates. I see. What was cut out, just conservation money?

Mr. Murray. The position of curator of photography and support funds needed for the conservation, initial conservation of our collection. We plan then to look forward to the next five years as a kind of conservation program.

Mr. Yates. Can you contract that out, or do you have to hire somebody?

Mr. Murphy. The actual conservation of the photographs would be best done contracted out. The survey, the expertise needed to identify the photographs in our collections as valuable, would have to be done by a staff member.

Mr. Yates. Anything else you want to tell us?

Mr. Murray. No. Thank you for hearing me out.

Mr. Ripley. Mr. Chairman, I should apologize to you. I neglected to identify before the hearing some of our new acquisitions. I should say that Mr. Murray, who came to us only last September from Birmingham, Alabama, where he was director of the art museum there, is a very valuable acquisition.

Mr. Yates. Good. Nice meeting you, Mr. Murray.

Mr. Ripley. We are delighted to have him because the Archives serve a tremendous amount of art historians throughout the world.

Mr. Yates. Thank you.

COOPER-HEWITT MUSEUM

Cooper-Hewitt, Mrs. Taylor.

Mr. Ripley. Mrs. Taylor is here today.

Mr. Yates. Hi.

Ms. Taylor. Hi.

Mr. Yates. They were rough on you. You started out with a request of $1,893,000. Hughes and Ripley cut you back to $1,266,000 and OMB went even further than that. They cut you back another $200,000 to $1,092,000. You have lost approximately—you have lost $800,000 in the process. Now, where were you hurt besides your pride?

NEEDED FUNDS FOR POSITIONS

Ms. Taylor. Sir, all that we are asking for at this stage is funding for positions. The positions will be given to us from the Smithsonian, taken from other areas in the currently authorized Institutional base.

Mr. Yates. Oh, I see. They have loaned people to you?

Ms. Taylor. Yes, because the need for Cooper-Hewitt is so critical. But there are three positions that we lost out on—I shouldn't say three positions because only two were new positions. These three areas are a curator for the department of drawings and prints, and an archivist and an assistant archivist.

Mr. Yates. Who does the work now?

Ms. Taylor. We have the largest collection of drawings in America. It contains 113,000 items, and we have one curator. We have an archive of two million items and no archivist. So those, indeed, are critical losses.

Mr. Yates. What has happened to you? Has the Smithsonian taken people from you?

Ms. Taylor. No, they will give us permanent new federal work-years.

Mr. Yates. I know. But are they—I thought they had loaned them to you. Did I misunderstand you?

Ms. Taylor. No. They will make available slots within the Institution to fill these critical needs at the Cooper-Hewitt.

Mr. Yates. Three jobs aren't $800,000, are they?

Ms. Taylor. No, no. We are asking here for seven. A curator of textiles, of decorative arts, a registrar. I can give you the list for the record.

[The information follows:]

Cooper-Hewitt Museum

An amount of $200,000 if sought in the FY 1985 budget to convert seven Trust fund positions to Federal status. The seven positions are as follows: Curator of Decorative Arts, Curator of Textiles, Registrar, Registration Clerk, Clerk-Typist, Photographer, Exhibits Designer.

Mr. Yates. That will be fine.

OMB cut you by an additional $200,000. What was cut out in that OMB cut? Do you know what I am talking about? I know about your positions. They are represented there in the reduction between $1,893,000 and $1,266,000. But then when you went to OMB, OMB cut out another $200,000. What is that for? Would you know that? Do you want to submit that for the record?

Do you know that, John?

Mr. Reinhardt. Yes. OMB reduced the number.

Mr. Yates. Is this all employment, this money that is cut out?

Ms. Taylor. All employment. Nothing for projects. Just personnel.

Mr. Ripley. Mr. Clarke.

Mr. Clarke. Mr. Chairman, there is an additional $72,000 that OMB did not let us go forward with relating to exhibitions.

CONSERVATION PROGRAM

Mr. Yates. What about conservation? Do you have to worry about that?

Ms. Taylor. We do, sir. But we do have two very fine conservation laboratories, one in paper and one in fabric. We have a large collection of objects made out of many different materials. It is not possible to restore many of them at this stage until we have better facilities to put them in afterwards.

Mr. Yates. What is the nature of better facilities? You don't mean a building. Do you mean within the building you occupy?

Ms. Taylor. No. We have a townhouse on 90th street which we are hoping to renovate over the coming years.

Mr. Yates. Thank you very much, Ms. Taylor.

THE NATIONAL MUSEUM OF AFRICAN ART

Mr. Ripley. Mrs. Williams. Mr. Yates. I have never had the pleasure. Mr. Ripley. She is another jewel in our firmament. Mr. Yates. All right, there you are, described by Mr. Ripley as a jewel in the firmament. We will accept that. You wanted

$1,279,000. That was cut to $1,199,000 and OMB took another hack at you for $1,031,000. Is this personnel or other things?

ACQUISITIONS

Ms. Williams. One of the things was acquisitions. We had requested an increase in our base for acquisitions, $45,000. And we were not able to get that.

Mr. Yates. I thought you were getting all kinds of collections. Weren't you getting the Elisofon collection?

Ms. Williams. That came in sometime ago.

Mr. Yates. Yes.

Ms. Williams. The thing is that with the move to the Quadrangle, we would like to have as broad a spectrum of sub-Saharan/Af-rican art traditions as possible. We certainly have strengths in our collection. But we also have understandably some weaknesses, as all museums do. Some of these can be filled with objects that are not exorbitant. They are modest in price range, and we would like to be able to do that.

Mr. Yates. You mean are they available?

Ms. Williams. Yes, they are available.

Mr. Yates. How much money do you have for acquisitions?

Ms. Williams. We have $30,000 now.

Mr. Yates. You need how much more?

Ms. Williams. We were requesting $45,000.

Mr. Yates. In all, or in addition?

Ms. Williams. In addition to the $30,000, bringing us to $75,000.

Mr. Yates. How many pieces will you get for that?

Ms. Williams. Well, if we could use this year as an example, we could have gotten about 14, which would have plugged some very serious openings in the collection, or at least a portion of the 14. And that would have been a help, a great help.

Mr. Yates. Is there anything else I ought to know? You don't have to worry about health and safety yet, do you? You don't have a museum?

Ms. Williams. Not yet.

Mr. Yates. All right. Thank you.

ANACOSTIA NEIGHBORHOOD MUSEUM

-An ficosti fi

You are a small museum, aren't you, $992,000 to $863,000. What was cut out?

Mr. Kinard. We are building a new structure and about $40,000 for furnishings for the new structure at Fort Stanton in Anacostia was eliminated.

Mr. Yates. What do they say you don't need you felt you needed?

Mr. Kinard. I think we intend to do it somehow.

Mr. Yates. You are getting $600,000 for construction.

Mr. Kinard. $600,000. Part of it is for the replacement of a roof.

Mr. Yates. Yes, $200,000.

Mr. Kinard. And $400,000 for the structure.

Mr. Yates. Expansion. You are talking about the interior, aren't you?

Mr. Kinard. That is correct.

REQUEST FOR FURNISHINGS

Mr. Yates. What was cut out? Give us an example? Mr. Kinard. Well, furnishings for walls, draperies, stage curtains, those kinds of things. Mr. Yates. Do you want to give us a list for the record? Mr. Kinard. Yes, sir. [The information follows:]

Anacostia Neighborhood Museum

non-recurring needs to open the new annex

Safety and security locks and hardware requirements, track lighting for exhibitions, drapes and carpeting, office furnishing ana equipment, lobby interior furnishings, exhibition dividers.

FORT STANTON FACILITY

Mr. Yates. Are you staying where you are or are you moving?

Mr. Kinard. Moving, sir.

Mr. Yates. Will the repairs be done to the new building?

Mr. Kinard. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. I see.

Mr. Kinard. When we say repairs to the new building, one that exists there now. That is the one that requires a new roof. It will be abutted by the new building.

Mr. Yates. I see.

Mr. Kinard. So we will be all together.

Mr. Yates. You are expanding, then?

Mr. Kinard. That is correct.

Mr. Yates. You are an empire builder?

Mr. Kinard. No, sir. Not yet.

Mr. Yates. Not yet. Okay. All right. More power to you. Thank you very much.

NATIONAL MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY/MUSEUM OF MAN

Let's turn to Science now. Mr. Challinor's brigades. National Museum of Natural History, Mr. Fiske. Well, you are way out ahead with your appropriation. You requested $20,580,000. Say you are out ahead of everybody, aren't you?

Mr. Fiske. We are the largest bureau of the Smithsonian.

Mr. Yates. Yes, you are. You were cut to—no, by gosh. You are in good with the chiefs. You were increased to $20,650,000. Then, unfortunately, you had to go to OMB, and they cut you to $20,270,000. What did you lose in the transaction?

COMPUTER costs

Mr. Fiske. Three items, Mr. Chairman. One related to increased computer charges. Our payment to the central computer facility of the Smithsonian. Our scientists are using computers more and more, as all scientists are. So the bill went up. And we tried to cover that with increased budget, but were unsuccessful.

Mr. Yates. How are you going to cover it?

Mr. Fiske. We will have to go back and cut other existing base programs in order to cover those costs.

Mr. Yates. What are you going to cut?

Mr. Fiske. We have not made final decisions yet, but it will be cut across probably most programs in the building.

Mr. Yates. Well, what are you going to cut?

Mr. Fiske. We will cut research, we will cut exhibits, and collections management. Probably all

Mr. Yates. How badly are you hurting?

Mr. Fiske. It is $100,000.

Mr. Yates. I know that. Give me an example of how a program is hurt by the fact that your scientists have to use a computer. What about your halls or your exhibits?

Mr. Fiske. We will slow down the rate at which exhibit halls are renovated. We will reduce travel for scientists. It will be felt in many places.

Mr. Yates. Well, you are not in trouble then, are you? The reason I say you are not in trouble, according to the report on the audit of the computer cost center by the Office of Audits. I don't know whether or not you are talking to them, but they say that in order to help alleviate the funding shortfall in the use of your computers, they say that you can make it up by charges to the other museums.

Mr. Fiske. Well, they are charging us. They have increased their charge to us, so we are having to pay an additional amount into the central facility.

Mr. Yates. I see. No way you can get them to reconsider?

Mr. Fiske. No, and our scientists have to do the computing. We have elected not to cut back on computer usage because it is important to all aspects of our operation.

Mr. Yates. Well, do you want to tell us how you will be hurt by explaining it for the record?

BASIC RESEARCH REQUEST

Mr. Fiske. Yes. There are two other basic research programs that did not make it through. One was a program to increase our capabilities in global volcanic activity, which we already are vigorously working in right now. We see important opportunities for expansion. We are not able to move ahead with that. Also

Mr. Yates. How much was that, do you remember?

Mr. Fiske. That was $175,000.

Mr. Yates. Is this something the Geological Survey can do?

Mr. Fiske. No, they look to us. In fact, they are working with us. They transfer a small amount of money, I think $20,000 to us in this current fiscal year, for us to carry out data related studies that they in turn use in their volcano hazards work.

Mr. Yates. This is important work, then.

Mr. Fiske. Very important. Basically relating global volcanism to plate tectonics, and that is now better understood, we are having some success

Mr. Yates. This is $175,000.

Mr. Fiske. Yes.

Mr. Yates. Where else are you hit?

Mr. Fiske. The third item was a study of coral reefs in the Caribbean basin area. We have had a program under way for 12 years on the east coast of Belize

Mr. Yates. Is this where you do your scuba diving?

Mr. Fiske. That is correct. There are various other reefs being disturbed, et cetera, due to man's activities, pollutions or natural silting or hurricane damage. There are opportunities for comparison and contrasting what we have learned in Belize.

Mr. Yates. Have you finished your study on the impact of the starfish?

Mr. Fiske. I believe that has been completed.

Mr. Yates. Are the starfish still eating it?

Mr. Fiske. I believe that is slowed down. I have not heard anything about that in the last year, so I assume they are under control. Our scientists had an interest in this. We did not have a program directed toward that program that I am aware of.

Mr. Yates. How much is your reef study?

Mr. Fiske. $175,000.

Mr. Yates. That is not necessarily as important as the other, is it?

Mr. Fiske. These are both important programs. You understand, I am a volcanologist.

Mr. Yates. I didn't know.

Mr. Fiske. Yes, that is right.

Mr. Yates. He is the Fiske of Krakatau. Why does everybody else spell it t-o-a?

Mr. Fiske. Because the British, way before the eruption, decided they would spell it Krakatoa, so in the English literature it has appeared that way, and all of us grew up, so to speak, saying it that it way. But we have learned that it really should be Krakatau.

Mr. Yates. This is the classical eruption, isn't it?

Mr. Fiske. That is right, the most famous eruption in history, we think.

Mr. Yates. The ones taking place in Hawaii now don't appear to compare.

Mr. Fiske. No, they are very small.

Mr. Yates. Shouldn't you be out looking at it?

Mr. Fiske. They have it completely under control. I talked to them yesterday.

Mr. Yates. Please provide for the record the complete list of your programs which didn't make it through the budget process.

Mr. Fiske. Yes, sir.

[The information follows:]

National Museum of Natural History/Museum of Man

Pursuant to my testimony before you during the Smithsonian's budget hearings on March 26th, I would like to submit for the record a review of the programs which were requested by the Museum of Natural History but did not make it through the budgetary process. Of the eight items which the Museum originally requested, six were not in the package which is under review by your Committee. I would like to briefly describe those programs.

In the area of collections management, the sum of $250,000 was requested to begin the replacement of wooden storage cabinets here in the Natural History Building which currently house much of our entomological and botanical collections. These cabinets have been in service for many years and must be replaced with insect-proofed cabinets if the collections are to be well protected. Over the years, the Museum has lost the ability to use one after another of the most effective pesticides owing to health and safety considerations. Pesticides which formerly could be used to keep infestations from occurring, or minimize them when they did occur, are no longer permitted to be used. Thus, our strategy for protection of the collections must shift from eradication to prevention, and therefore we have made known our need for funds to replace our old wooden cabinets which are not pest-proof.

Another important program chiefly in the area of collections management that was eliminated is support to cover the cost of computer time. The Smithsonian provides nearly all of the computer services used by the Museum of Natural History, and bills the Museum on a pro-rata basis to cover the cost of the Computer Center. With a change in management at the Computer Center it was discovered that the Museum has been underpaying its fair share of usage, and as a result its costs for use of computer services have been increased by $200,000. The Museum included a request for these funds in its budget to 0MB so as to avoid using base resources to cover this expense.

Four research programs which were eliminated from the budget include: a planned study of disappearing natural island ecosystems; a planned study and documentation of contemporary American Indian culture; a program to study coral reefs in the Caribbean; and a global volcanism project. The proposed island ecosystems study is based on the observation that the natural flora and fauna of islands has, over great lengths of time, come into equilibrium with local environmental conditions. With the intrusion of man, these ecosystems; like those on mainlands everywhere, are being disrupted. The purpose of the proposed program was to marshall the resources of the Museum in the form of specimens and observations to begin a study of island ecosystems in order to better elicit knowledge about how they relate. I believe, Mr. Chairman, with the work now being carried out on Aldabra in the Indian Ocean under funds provided through the Scholarly Studies program, that this island ecosystems program could well be

deferred. Information we gain from Aldabra and other studies might be integrated into a renewed request for island ecosystems support in the future, but it is not essential that the work begin in fiscal year 1985.

The program of research on contemporary North American Indians culture is intended to fill two gaps in our coverage of Native Americans. The first gap is in our knowledge of the rapidly changing culture of American Indians, and the second is in our collection of contemporary American Indian art and material culture Items. The core of the program is the employment of a research scientist who would devote his or her attention to study of contemporary American Indian culture and to the acquisition of representative materials for the national collections. In addition, an important component of the position would be to augment Smithsonian contacts with the American Indian community in order to increase our sensitivity of Indian concerns on such issues as repatriation, storage, and loans of American Indian artifacts. This is a program which we feel is current and worthy of support.

A proposal was submitted for work on Caribbean Coral Ecosystems which we feel has considerable merit. The proposal is based upon work that the Museum has been doing, using base resources and grant funds, since 1972. This work, carried out principally in Belize but extending to other areas in the Caribbean, has gained us much knowledge about how coral reefs work biologically. These reefs are productive and diverse biological communities of considerable value to man. They serve as a protective barrier to wave erosion, provide large quantities of high quality proteins and, once buried by sediment, can serve as petroleum reservoirs. We need to understand better how these complex reef communities function, and particularly what can impede or destroy them. Waste dumping, over-fishing, siltation, and other forms of pollution can have adverse impacts on reefs. The program we propose is to employ a specialist on coral, plus support for this individual, to enable us to bring more attention to the study of these important ecosystems.

Another program not in the budget before you which we feel has a great deal of merit is the global volcanism project. With the development of plate tectonics theory in geology, understanding of the the origin and history of volcanic activity has improved greatly. Much study has gone into volcanoes in recent years, and a main thrust of the proposed program is to integrate that information and make it available to the community at large. Integration of knowledge of the chemical and physical aspects of global volcanism can help us to begin to relate eruption characteristics, rates of output, and trends of chemical variation of volcanoes located in key tectonic settings. We are hopeful that this information, plus analysis of the location, timing, and chemistry of global volcanism through space and time, will

yield insight into the relationships between plate motions, subduction geometry, and eruptive activity. We propose to hire a geologist and a geophysicist team to work with existing information, and to undertake further volcano research as well. We expect the knowledge so gained to be of interest not only to other researchers but to the Geological Survey with its mission programs to mitigate the volocano hazards of the United States. I hope these brief characterizations will suffice to give you a feeling for the kinds of initiatives which were deferred for fiscal year 1985. I would be delighted to answer any questions you may have on them.

ASTROPHYSICAL OBSERVATORY

Mr. Yates. We have Mr. Shapiro, astrophysics.

Have you used the story I gave you last time in your speeches?

Mr. Shapiro. You have given me lots of stories.

Mr. Yates. Did I read about you in Time magazine?

Mr. Shapiro. Well, it depends on how old your copies are. Maybe you are thinking of Smithsonian magazine. There was an article in it last December.

Mr. Yates. I thought it was Time.

I told you about your observer looking through the hole up there. Good story.

You were really cut from $11,044,000. Why were they so tough on you?

Mr. Shapiro. That is a question that is hard for me to answer, I suppose.

100TH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION

Mr. Yates. What did they cut out? That is easier, isn't it?

Mr. Shapiro. Yes, but what I would like to do with your permission is to talk about an item that wasn't mentioned there that I feel is of extreme importance to the Observatory.

Mr. Yates. Okay.

Mr. Shapiro. During my first year as Director of SAO, I contemplated what the observatory could do to properly celebrate its 100th anniversary, which is coming up in 1990, and that would honor its founder, Samuel P. Langley, one of the 19th Century secretaries of the Smithsonian. I also wanted to fulfill the Smithsonian charter for the increase and diffusion of knowledge, in SAO's case with emphasis on increase.

The last frontier for exploring the universe from the ground is with light whose wavelengths lie between what we can see when we look through optical telescopes, and what we see when we use radio telescopes. Just now has technology advanced to the point where we can exploit that part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Each time we look at the universe in a new part of the spectrum that is in a new wavelength region, it always looks quite different—and there have been many surprises. It occurred to me this would be a good thing for SAO to do.

I set up a committee at the Observatory to study the feasibility of making an array of telescopes that would be sensitive at these wavelengths to exploit this possibility. The committee just last month finished a draft of a 100 page report on the subject. They discussed it widely with scientists from various parts of this country, and with a few from other countries. It is fair to say that it was uniformly viewed as an excellent idea, something that could really make a major impact on astronomy.

DESCRIPTION OF THE TELESCOPES

My son's friend, Bob Marvin, drew up a sketch last night of what this instrument might look like. He didn't choose the best perspective but his sketch conveys the main idea. The instrument would have three arms, each 500 meters long. On each of these arms, or

tracks, there would be two six-meter diameter telescopes. Each telescope would be protected from the environment with an enclosure like this, with sort of a garage door sliding roof that would expose the front and the top, and, by swiveling, would allow the telescope to view all parts of the sky.

Mr. Yates. It seems to me that we have found Mr. Lerner's young artist.

Mr. Shapiro. In fact, Mr. Lerner was rather impressed with the ability of my son's friend when he saw the sketch.

Mr. Yates. What do you need the funds for? For paying for the drawing?

Mr. Shapiro. No, no. The drawing is the only thing that comes free of charge.

Mr. Yates. I see. Okay.

Mr. Shapiro. Very little is free in this world.

Anyway, I decided it would be nice to call the project the STAR project, for Submillimeter Telescopes Arrayed for high Resolution. The name has an added meaning since one of the major uses for this telescope would be to probe the regions of star formation, where the birth of stars take place in our galaxy. This type of instrument would be especially sensitive to the processes that go on when a star is born. Now, I would like, if possible, to start this project as soon as possible, because it is not a simple project. I would like to get it finished in time to dedicate it by 1990.

FUNDS NEEDED FOR STAR

Mr. Yates. How much money do you want?

Mr. Shapiro. Well, I was getting to that slowly.

Mr. Yates. Oh, I see.

Mr. Shapiro. The

Mr. Yates. Is this by any chance the ten meter submillimeter— wave radio antenna?

Mr. Shapiro. No, the instrument I am discussing is from the plan the SAO committee has come up with based on that original thought. The history is a little complicated but the design has evolved. But the basic initiative is the one to which you refer.

Mr. Yates. You need $4 million for that?

Mr. Shapiro. Well, no.

Mr. Yates. According to this book, you do. This is more modest?

Mr. Shapiro. What the Field committee proposed

Mr. Yates. I am referring to a document which is entitled Astronomy and Astrophysics for the 1980s, Volume I, Report of the Astronomy Survey Committee, reading from page 19.

Mr. Shapiro. This committee was chaired by George B. Field, my immediate predecessor as Director of SAO. This committee recommended that the highest priority new initiative for small programs be a telescope for this part of the spectrum. What I am talking about here is a set of smaller telescopes that has the advantage of giving very high angular resolution. To give an example, if we were to build, just a single telescope, as discussed in the Field Committee report, we would get a view of a galaxy that looks like this. But by making smaller telescopes, spreading them out, and using them as with an interferometer, we can see far greater detail, equivalent to

34-632 0—84 4

this. We can get about 25 times as fine a resolution. I think you can see easily

Mr. Yates. It does.

Mr. Shapiro. We can learn a lot more about the universe from pictures like this than from pictures like that.

Mr. Yates. What more do you want?

Mr. Shapiro. We will be able to study individual stars forming, whereas here they are all lumped together and we can't separate them out. So we can study in detail the processes that go on, processes that we would be unable to study with the lower resolution.

Mr. Yates. Having said that, how much money do you need?

Mr. Shapiro. Well, for the whole project over its duration, the capital costs, including the people and everything, would be $20 to $25 million. What we would like is to start on engineering designs, needed preparatory to any construction. Such designs would cost one and a half million dollars, approximately.

Mr. Yates. Did Mr. Ripley approve it?

Mr. Shapiro. Well, I spoke to him about it at lunch. I can't say he approved, but I can't say he disapproved.

Mr. Yates. Who paid for lunch?

Mr. Ripley. It is always better at lunch. I think it is a very exciting project.

Mr. Yates. Is this a budget item solely for the federal government?

Mr. Shapiro. Beg your pardon?

Mr. Yates. Is this to be paid for exclusively by the federal government, or is this a venture that can also have the participation by universities or by outsiders?

Mr. Shapiro. We would certainly intend to make the instrument available some of the time to all qualified scientists to make the best use of the instrument. We have discussed this

Mr. Yates. I mean the original funding of it.

Mr. Shapiro. I had viewed it as an SAO instrument—the 100th anniversary instrument for SAO.

Mr. Ripley. Smithsonian instrument.

Mr. Yates. You didn't tell us what Mr. Ripley told you at lunch.

Mr. Shapiro. Yes, he looked at it. He said it was . . . well why don't I let Mr. Ripley say.

Mr. Yates. Did you comment to Mr. Shapiro?

Mr. Ripley. I was very impressed by it. I am very impressed by the idea of an anniversary present in memory of Dr. Langley, whose instrument of the late 1870s, '79, I think, was perhaps one of the forerunners of this kind of instrumentation. It is fantastic to think that one could have been so advanced in those days. But Langley was obviously very much of a genius. You know, in one of his papers he suggested rocket propulsion of the Chinese style, as used in Chinese fireworks, as probably the most efficient method of propulsion for a heavier than air object. So Langley is someone to be commemorated. I would hope it might be possible to get additional grants from places like the National Science Foundation, which I realize we are excluded from applying to, but for a one of a kind thing like this, I think it should be a national effort because this is a way of analyzing star formations that has never been possible before. But, of course, it is all new. It is not in our '85 budget.

Mr. Yates. Does Mr. Shapiro's presentation seek an '85 budget, or does it start in '85? What is your target year?

Mr. Shapiro. To have it dedicated by 1990.

Mr. Yates. How long does it take to build?

Mr. Shapiro. It is not a simple instrument to build. It is advancing the state of the art in several respects, but it is feasible. The study has demonstrated quite convincingly to everyone that it is feasible. If we could get started in '85, we would be well advised to do so to meet a 1990 dedication date. Otherwise it would be a very tough date to meet.

Mr. Yates. How much do you need in 1985?

Mr. Shapiro. One and a half million dollars would get us firmly

Mr. Yates. What in 1986? Mr. Shapiro. Probably $3 million. Mr. Yates. Where does the sum hit you then? Mr. Shapiro. It peaks about 1988.

Mr. Yates. Would you put a memorandum into the record, please, Mr. Shapiro—Dr. Shapiro? Mr. Shapiro. Sure. [The information follows:]

Smithsonian Astrophysioa1 Observatory

The last frontier for ground-based astronomy consists in observing the skies with telescopes sensitive to submi11iraeter waves, light with wavelengths between those of infrared and radio waves. By observing the appearance of the universe with high resolving power at such submi11 imeter wavelengths, one can study the birth of stars, probe the puzzling cores of quasars and galaxies, and, perhaps, discover other planetary systems.

Technology has only just advanced to the point where two critical requirements for such telescopes can be met: (1) large and precisely finished surfaces to focus the submi llime ter waves effectively, and (2) sensitive and efficient devices to detect the focussed sub-millimeter waves.

The report of the Astronomy Survey Committee, "Astronomy and Astrophysics for the 1980's," Volume 1, page 151, lists a 10-meter diameter submillimeter-wave telescope as its highest priority for small new programs. Two such telescopes are, in fact, now being built -- one at Caltech to be placed on Mauna Kea in Hawaii and one by a partnership between the University of Arizona and the Max Planck Institut fur Radioastronomie , in Bonn, Federal Republic of Germany, possibly to be placed on Mt. Graham in southern Arizona. The Astronomy Survey Committee also specifically recognized on page 152 the advantages of an interferometer, an array of two or more telescopes operating in concert to achieve higher resolving power.

A c the feas submi Hi sc ient is page dra millimet simple t to propo meters i that wou The tele the trac tection . is attac

ommi t ibili meter ts an ft re er in o con se an n dia Id fo scope ks , a A s hed a

tee of ty of c

wavele d engin por t, c terfero struct.

array meter a r m a " Y s would nd woul ketch o s Figur

seven onstr ng ths eers omp le meter A P of si nd tw " . E be c d eac f the e 1 .

sc len uct ing . The in th i ted la

is de relimi x tele o wou 1 ach ar onnect h be p

instr

in

tis ts at nter o co ntry nth , ely "cos

y als s cou st mo f init nary scope d be m wou ed el laced ument

s.

on e Id b ec tr

SAO f ero nsu 1 and con feas t/be Each ach e se ical a co it m

spent six meter for ted with

ab road . eludes th ible , but nefit" an

telesc op of three veral hun ly, would mpact enc ight appe

months

operat knowled

Their at a su

by no alysis e would arms, o dred me

be mov losure ar in o

study ing ion at geable hundred-b-

means led them

be six r tracks, ters long, able on for pro-pera tion

The angular resolution that could be achieved with this interferometer would be at least 15 times greater than would be achievable with the single, 10-meter diameter telescopes now being built. Figure 2, attached, shows the difference in detail achievable in a picture of a galaxy made with two different instruments, one with a resolving power 15 times higher than that of the other. Thus, an array of sub-millimeter telescopes would represent a bold next step in the development of this last frontier in ground-based astronomy and would be a pioneer instrument, unique in the world. It is, of course, impossible to predict the new discoveries that would be made with this instrument. But, high angular resolution can yield powerful results. For example, the development of radio interferometers led to a startling discovery in the 1970's: some distant objects appear to separate from one another at speeds well in excess of the speed of light. This discovery, which is still puzzling scientists, was made possible by high resolving power, then achievable only with radio interferometers.

A pioneering instrument is needed before any national facility in this wavelength range is designed and built. SAO is ideally suited with its scientific talent and size for this pioneering development, just as it was for the MMT which in many ways will be the prototype for the next generation of giant optical telescopes.

After the completion of the study, the next step would be the detailed design of the instrument and the development of the pacing items of technology. In particular, early starts are desirable in the following areas: site testing, overall instrument concept, receiver development, correlator development (specific for interferometers), and antenna design. Site testing is important because the instrument performance is enhanced significantly when the atmosphere above it is dry and not turbulent, the latter being a prime requirement for successful interferometry. Hence, suitable measurements and tests are needed to compare potential sites such as Mt. Graham in southern Arizona and Mauna Kea in Hawaii. Further, the physical layout of the array will depend on the choice of site. Detectors and receivers have just become technically feasible in this wavelength region and it is necessary to proceed with their development. Similarly, the correlator, needed to analyze simultaneously the signals from the various telescopes, requires special development, as do the telescopes, the enclosures, and the track.

The Committee estimates that an additional staff of about eight, almost all engineers, is required for this design effort, at a total cost of $500,000, including salaries, benefits, laboratory rental, etc. Special equipment for the laboratories is estimated to be an additional $500,000. The equipment and operating expenses for site testing, $300,000, and the funds, $200,000, for industrial subcontracts lead to a total of $1,500,000. Of this total, the site testing and the initiation of receiver work are the most important to start early; the total for these two items is $500,000.

The total capital costs, including personnel, are estimated by the Committee to be between 20 and 25 million (1984) dollars. Operating expenses are typically about 10$ of capital costs for such facilities; the Committee's independent estimate for such expenses is slightly under 2 million dollars per year.

We have tentatively decided on the acronym STAR (Submi11 imeter Telescopes Arrayed for high Resolution) for the project and would like to name the array after the founder of SAO, Samuel P. Langley who also invented the bolometer, the "grandfather" of the detectors that would be used in the submi1 limeter array. It would be fitting to be able to dedicate the telescope in 1990, the hundredth anniversary of the founding of SAO.

It may also be possible to build the array so as to be sufficiently robust that it could be converted, when technology allows, to operate effectively as an interferometer at the even shorter infrared wavelengths. Such a project would extend the exciting science that could be accomplished with the array and would assure that its utility would last well into the 21st century.

Mr. Yates. See if you can find some way of including the picture.

Mr. Shapiro. Okay.

Mr. Yates. Either that or put it in the Hirshhorn.

TROPICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Tropical Research. Is this your last presentation for Tropical Research before you go to the Zoo?

Mr. Robinson. I hope so, sir.

Mr. Yates. You were cut by the powers, then, OMB cut you a little bit more. How badly are you hurt?

AGRO-FORESTRY RESEARCH

Mr. Robinson. We, in fact, the powers included a program that we didn't include, a very imaginative program in reforestation which we are very proud of which we thought up and David Chal-linor's office finally included it in their presentation to OMB, and we had not included it. We feel that is really important, a pioneer program of significance to all of tropical mankind.

Mr. Yates. How much money is involved?

Mr. Robinson. That was $150,000.

Mr. Yates. What will this do?

Mr. Robinson. We were trying to look at a means of regrowing tropical forest where it has been eliminated by man. Nobody at the moment can find a means of doing that. Foresters have only succeeded in growing two or three species of trees on cleared land and real tropical forest has up to 150 species on a hectare. What we were looking for was fundamental research to devise a system of doing this quickly in the hope that someday somewhere in the world a government will, say, put the forest back and tell us how to do it. Nobody at the moment could tell anybody how to do it.

Mr. Ripley. If I am not mistaken, Mr. Chairman, a lot of this fundamental research in ecology is being done by a first cousin of the Director of the National Gallery. Mr. Egbert Leigh is a first cousin of Carter Brown. But he is a most innovative and fascinating ecologist. Isn't this some of Bert's work?

Mr. Robinson. Bert has been heavily involved in studying the background to this kind of work. But nobody anywhere can put forest back, the foresters have not looked at it from the point of view of doing this. We were very excited by the prospects.

Mr. Ripley. The foresters are at least 25 if not more years behind the 8 ball in this.

Mr. Yates. How does this affect our southern forests? Does it?

Mr. Robinson. The only forest of this kind that is in the United States is in Puerto Rico. That is not anything like as rich as this forest we are talking about.

Mr. Ripley. The world tropical problem, it is one of the worst

Mr. Yates. That is subtropical down there.

All right. We will take a look at it.

Do you want to give us a memo on it?

Mr. Robinson. Indeed, yes.

[The information follows:]

Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute

Throughout the humid tropics, forests are being destroyed at an alarming and accelerating rate. An area the size of the British Isles disappears every year. This process has been extensively documented.

The destruction of tropical forest may mean the loss of thousands of species of plants and hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of species of animals (mainly insects but including large numbers of birds and mammals). Most of these species have not yet been studied to determine whether they could be of economic or medical benefit to mankind. On a world-wide scale the process of cutting down forest could enhance the so called "greenhouse effect" that may dramatically change world climate in the next few years. Most predictions suggest that this change will adversely affect agricultural production in North America and other temperate regions.

Despite some attention being focused on the problem of tropical deforestation the short and long term consequences of the process here has been little interest in studies that could provide a basis for reconstituting real tropical forest on cleared land. Attempts to reforest throughout the tropics, have involved a small number of quick-growing commercially lucrative species. Forests produced in this way are species-poor and bear no relationship to the really complicated ecosystem that constituted the original forest. Impoverished or simplified forests almost always have problems with pest outbreaks and disease because they do not have the ecological balance of the rich original forests. Natural tropical forests may contain 150-200 species of trees per hectare compared to 10-20 in Northern forests. At present we simply do not have the knowledge necessary to recreate natural tropical forests. Research into his matter is an urgent necessity. It has to be of two kinds: research into the ecological dynamics of the forest, and, in parallel, researches into techniques particularly those of propagation and silviculture. Without understanding how the forest functions we cannot rebuild it, without appropriate techniques we cannot even grow the trees.

To study basic forest dynamics STRI proposes to take advantage of the carefully mapped 50 hectare study site on Barro Colorado Island, where 250,000 trees have already been identified, measured and mapped. With this valuable resource it will be possible to explore the reproductive biology of a substantial number of tropical forest tree species. Particular emphasis will be placed on studying the adaptions, often highly specialized, that facilitate pollination, fertilization, dispersal and germination. Some of these basic studies should provide insights into the ultimate commercial potential of the constituent species only a tiny fraction of which have been assessed for their utility. Thus, studies on the mapped plot would assess the effects on growth of: field shading conditions, variations of edaphics (soil and soil moisture characteristics) effects of neighboring species, vine and epiphyte (plants growing on the trees themselves) cover and reproductive strategies. To provide just one example of how these elements of basic ecology could affect commercial value we can consider reproductive strategies. Some trees start to flower and fruit while still growing, others reach maximum size before flowering. It is probable that flowering and fruiting while growing adversely affects the rate of timber production, since energy is put into reproductive parts that would otherwise be invested in wood. This aspect of tree biology is simple but unstudied for most tropical species.

As a purely practical measure, we need to solve the problems involved in producing seedlings of the species found in mature neotropical forests and also to create a seed bank. Indications from fundamental studies carried out at STRI suggest that many seeds will only germinate after passing through the intestinal tract of some vertebrate animal. This subject requires detailed investigation to determine the range of species involved and to devise a technique to substitute for the effects of ingestion. Germination is not the only crucial stage in propagation. We need to expand our studies of the effects of symbiotic fungi on seedling growth. Without spores of these fungi, seedlings germinate but then fail to grow. We will have to develop a "potting compound" that provide seedlings with both nutrients and the mycorrhizal spores. The developments of these techniques should be of general value. In addition, we need to investigate the effect of species diversity and distribution on the success of plantations. This is a far different problem from that faced by in temperate region forestry, because of the species richness of the original forest. Even the simple effects of clumping are unknown for most tropical species. There is a continuum of clumping "preferences" in tropical species but the effects of clumping versus diversity are simply not understood. Current research has identified the most and least clumped species on the BCI plot but the effects need detailed investigation.

STRI also lost from its budget request to OMB $88,000 that was necessary to replace old and energy-inefficient motor vehicles (50K) and upgrade computer equipment to provide for rapid data processing that would expedite information flow and enhance the prospects for the speedy diffusion of knowledge throughout the world's scientific community (38K).

NATIONAL AIR AND SPACE MUSEUM

Mr. Yates. Thank you. National Air and Space Museum.

How are you?

Mr. Boyne. How are you, sir?

Mr. Yates. Good. You start at $8,300,000 and move to $8,200,000, then to $8,000,000. How are you hurt?

Mr. Boyne. May I preface it with a couple remarks? I should note the museum employee strength declined in the last four or five years from 231 to a present level of 209. It impinges heavily on the charter Mr. Ripley gave us to make the museum a center of science and technology. We have tried to remedy it over the years by maintaining control of spaces and spending. In the process we have done our inventory, done the other things necessary.

Now, we have the opportunity to move to a new height we hope as a center for the history of science and technology. One of the means we plan to do this is by some very high tech equipment which we have developed at the Air and Space Museum. It is invented there. It is in advance of the industry in many respects. We are very anxious to have that funded. That is where we will be hurting as a result of these cuts and where we could be enhanced as a result of some additional funds.

VIDEO DISCS

Two particular techniques that I would like to mention to you, if I may, and I would like to show you sometime. One is a video disc which we are placing a million photographs on ten video discs.

Mr. Yates. Really, a million photographs?

Mr. Boyne. Right. We are starting a process of acquiring collections all over the country so that this can be an unending process. We are able to provide a user a copy of the video disc for about $30.

Mr. Ripley. We have an example here.

Mr. Boyne. Oh, yes.

Mr. Ripley. So you will know what it looks like.

Mr. Boyne. This technique has been the subject of considerable study by IBM and others because it has not been done before. On each side of this videodisc are 50,000 photographs. It has enormous conservation advantages.

Mr. Yates. It is a pretty big disc, isn't it?

Mr. Boyne. I am glad you said that because we are moving to another disc, a film disc, which is about an eighth the size of this disc.

Mr. Yates. How many will that hold?

Mr. Boyne. Seventy-thousand characters and be operated not with a laser, but an incandescent bulb.

Mr. Yates. Amazing.

Mr. Boyne. The second thing we are hoping to be able to divert some funds to is a brand new piece of equipment. We have limited space at the museum. We wish to acquire archives from all over the world to make the National Air and Space Museum sort of a mecca for study. Under conventional means, it was not possible.

We now have a system in which we can, using a digital camera, digitize documents, place them on a digital videodisc, and automatically cross-reference them and cross-index them. They can then be

transmitted by wire to any museum or university in the country. There is a very great deal of interest in this.

We have a pilot program going. We would like to have a prepro-duction model in about six months and production model about a year after that. So our emphasis is on boot-strapping our capability to do research by these technical means.

We also would like to have two additional scientists: one to supervise these technical teams and one to follow the practice we have already established with the Space Telescope. We have a combat historian we call him, a man who is actually recording the history of the Space Telescope as it occurs. We would like to create a similar position for the space station. Those are the areas we are anxious to look at.

Mr. Yates. How much money is involved?

Mr. Boyne. In the first year, $420,000 additional; $470,000 the next two years after that. Then it would drop to $170,000.

Mr. Yates. Could you put a memo in the record?

Mr. Boyne. Yes, sir.

[The information follows:]

National Air and Space Museum

Early in 1983, Secretary Ripley assigned to the National Air and Space Museum the goal of becoming the primary center for air and space history research in the United States. To accomplish this NASM began two consecutive programs. The first was the expansion of the curatorial staff both to perform research and to expand the research archival holdings both in quality and quantity. The second was to develop advanced methods of storage and retrieval of archival material.

In the first program to date, NASM has appointed an Associate Director for Research and is in the process of adding curators with specialties in Air Transportation, Manned Space Flight and Avionics and Computer Science.

The Space Telescope History Project, a combat history approach in which the actions and the motives of the planners and other principals in the project are recorded and analyzed as soon as possible after they occurred, has been very successful and well received by all connected with the project. It will not only be an important history in its own right but will be an invaluable reference source for future historians. We think that the same approach would be just as valuable for the Space Station Project and therefore will require an additional curator.

In the second program there have been two technical developments. The video disc photo storage system which is already very successful and the digital archiving and indexing system which promises to be even more successful.

The video disc project staff has completed two discs, each containing 100,000 still photographs from the NASM collection of 1,000,000. They are now working on the USAF collection of photographs through WW II. Using an inexpensive laser disc player any photograph on the disc can be displayed on a video screen within five seconds of punching the frame number into the viewer. Excellent hard reproductions of the video image can be made in a few seconds with a printer. Discs are reproducible at low cost and are made available to other organizations and individuals for $30 each. About 150 have been sold to date without advertising.

When the NASM collection is completely on the discs some 1,000,000 photographs will be available for $300. Many other government and private collections will also be put onto the discs. This technology is equally applicable to collections of art and other items. Several art museums have expressed interest in placing photographs of their collections on discs so that they can be reviewed without handling and so that they could be made available all over the count ry.

In order to expedite the preparation of the discs we would like to purchase two more recording cameras and add two more operators and a clerk typist in FY 85, and two more operators in FY 86. With four additional experienced operators we could complete four discs per year as well as establish a training program for professionals from other organizations within the S.I. and elsewhere. This would require $100,000 in FY 1985, FY 1986, and FY 1987.

The digital archiving and indexing system will take most of the country's archives of aerospace research material available, through extremely low cost efficient transmission and information dissemination methods to the majority of personal computers as well as to other more sophisticated systems anywhere in the United States and in other countries.

The system is designed to solve three major archival problems:

Indexing There are many large, excellent collections of archival material, including documents, manuals and photographs, held by universities, museums and private individuals, that are of little or no value to the researcher because they are not organized and have no index or finding aid of any type. The task of creating indices for these collections, using currently available methods, is enormous, and prohibitively expensive in both time and money. These expenses are primarily responsible for the lack of progress in organizing these collections.

Storage Most archives, large or small, suffer from the Blivet Syndrome, in which archival material is increasing geometrically, while the rate of increase in storage space is only linear. Also, much of the storage space lacks the temperature and humidity control necessary for the preservation of the stored material. Again, the expense for providing sufficient storage of the proper type would be prohibitive.

Deterioration Much of the archival material, especially the oldest material, suffers from fading, crumbling and other forms of deterioration, usually irreversible, due to improper storage conditions, acidic paper, handling and other factors. When the item itself is historically significant the expense of preservation and restoration is justified. However, when only the information is valuable, it is more sensible to transfer the information to another medium, one that is more durable and easier to store.

Except for the preservation and restoration of historic documents, the NASM system provides an inexpensive and effective means of solving all of these problems.

The proof of concept system uses a digital camera to record and store in computer memory any document, regardless of the type style and including handwriting, photograph or even three dimensional object. For historical aircraft and spacecraft drawings larger than legal size we will use a digitizer plotter. The material can then be viewed on a computer screen, printed as hard copy and stored on a low cost digital optical disk. Digital optical disks are very durable and one type already has a proven archival life of its medium of mote than 100 years. Disks can be copied and supplied to other organizations or the information can be read by a distant computer using a telephone modem.

Once the historical material has been captured, automatically indexed and then stored in an optical digital disk, the documents can be accessed within a few seconds by means of any word or combination of words including numeric data (dates) in its content. There are some exceptions at the present time : handwritten material, original material in very bad condition and microfilm of microfiche copies of such material. The desired material can be viewed on a screen and then hard copied, if so desired and if copyright laws so permit.

When the system is perfected, NASM plans to use it to record and index as many as possible of the previously inaccessible collections. To do this NASM will provide the equipment and will subsidize area graduate students to operate it.

The system, assembled from off-the-shelf proven components and equipment from various manufacturers, was suggested by NASM's Director in October 1983 and developed by the Director of Advanced Projects and his staff.

NATIONAL AIR AND SPACE MUSEUM

FUNDING REQUIREMENTS FOR RESEARCH AND VIDEODISC PROGRAMS

FY 1985 - FY 1989

($000*s)

PROJECT FY 1985 FY 1986 FY 1987 FY 1988 FY 1989

Research Program

Hire Space Station Project Historian, Research Scientist to supervise Digital Videodisc technical teams, and research technician. 75 75 75 75 75

Computers for Space Telescope and Space Station Projects. 50 — — — ~-

Videodisc Project

Purchase two additional recording cameras In 1985; Hire four additional operators (2 in 1985 and 2 in 1986) and a clerk-typist (in 1985). 100 100 100

Digital Videodisc Project

Develop digitizer technology,

equipment and software 150 200 200 —

Hire one computer specialist and one technician for digitizer/videodisc technical team. 45 45 45 45 45

Travel funds to support field trips for technical team to locate and digitize archival material at research sites. — 50 50 50 50

TOTAL FUNDING REQUIREMENTS 420 470 470 170 170

CONDITION OF NASM BUILDING

Mr. Yates. Thank you.

Do we have to worry about health and safety construction in your case?

Mr. Boyne. We have a very large program ongoing which Mr. Peyton is taking care of. It is very unusual. It has to be arrayed according to the way the construction takes place from the top down. These are in the program.

Mr. Yates. You have allocated $455,000 for this year, excuse me, 1985, and $1,835,000 for 1986.

Mr. Boyne. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. What about the problem you had of rain going through the outer walls?

Mr. Boyne. That is part of this general problem. The first part was not only rain but a condensation problem.

Mr. Yates. Yes.

Mr. Boyne. Because of the way the building is structured. That is being addressed currently.

Mr. Yates. I will ask Mr. Peyton how you are doing on that. He is the expert in that.

Mr. Boyne. Yes, sir.

NATIONAL ZOOLOGICAL PARK

Mr. Yates. The Zoo.

Mr. Ripley. Mr. Wemmer.

Mr. Yates. Hi, Mr. Wemmer. No hunt to worry about this year, is there?

Mr. Wemmer. No, not for two years.

Mr. Yates. That is good. You were hurt, you went through a transition of $11,500,000 to $11,200,000 to $11,000,000. What did this consist of? Incidentally, congratulations on Ling-Ling.

Mr. Wemmer. Thank you very much. We have always been hopeful in the past, but we are optimistic this year.

Mr. Yates. Okay.

VEHICLE REPLACEMENT PROGRAM

Mr. Wemmer. Mainly the cuts that have been made would affect productivity and efficiency within the zoo. For example, we have a somewhat faltering vehicle replacement program. The mean age of the vehicles in Washington, for example, is about seven years. The mean age of the vehicles in Front Royal is about 16 or 17 years. This means the repairs have to be made on a fairly steady basis, which eats up a lot of mechanic time and which is generally inconvenient. That is an example of the problems with inefficiency.

scientific equipment needs

In addition, in the scientific equipment category, we have a request for some bits of specialized high-technology equipment for diagnosing animal health problems. For example, a flexible fiber optic endoscope. We are looking into the bodies of animals to diagnose problems. That was also included in this request.

ANIMAL FOOD

There is, in addition, some computer hardware that would complete some of the systems we have begun to purchase in Washington and in Front Royal and also animal food. The SI request to OMB was $50,000.

Mr. Yates. Does that mean your animals go on a starvation diet?

Mr. Wemmer. No, but this has been a constantly escalating category in the budget. For 1984, the food budget will be approximately $438,000. We have not kept up with our base allocation with the real cost. We are relying on an annual donation from a private individual of about $50,000 to help cover these costs. So that was also one of the items included in the request.

Mr. Yates. Do you have to worry about concentrations of chemicals in your food?

Mr. Wemmer. Most of the food is processed food.

Mr. Yates. I mean, like EDBs in grains and things of that sort?

Mr. Wemmer. Basically, it is tested and purchased from dealers who specialize in the food and it is tested. We also have a nutritionist who can analyze the food for its nutritional quality.

Mr. Yates. How important are these programs; how many of them can wait?

Mr. Wemmer. We can get by without the money. As I said, the main impact is on productivity and efficiency. We are less efficient without the assistance. It takes longer to do things.

Mr. Yates. And, therefore, more expensive?

Mr. Wemmer. In the long run, yes.

Mr. Yates. Let's have a memo on it, Mr. Wemmer, please.

Mr. Wemmer. Yes, sir.

[The information follows:]

34-632 O-

National Zooloeical Park

The original Salaries and Expenses budget request for FY 1985 Included $475,000 to support six program categories at the Zoo. The funds requested were to support existing Zoo programs and other projects related to newly constructed or modernized facilities at Rock Creek and Front Royal VJrglnla. Cut from our request were fundsto support the purchase/an Imal food ($75,000); equipment and vehicle replacement funds ($150,000); two Water Quality Specialists positions and needed funds ($50,000); maintenance of real property funds ($150,000); and funds to purchase a mini-computer and related hardware ($50,000). The cuts that were made will effect the productivity and efficiency of existing programs at the Zoo.

The purchase of animal food Is the single largest non-salary expenditure for the Zoo. Over the past few years, base funds for the Commissary have not kept pace with the Increase In the animal population. The highly successful programs at the Front Royal Conservation and Research Center have accounted for a tremendous Increase In the animal population through expanded breeding programs and new births. As of December 31, 1983 the Zoo had 2,355 specimens at Rock Creek and 758 specimens at Front Royal. The total of 3,113 specimens Is an Increase of 8$ over the animal population of 1982. The Increase of $75,000 will allow the Zoo to feed the animals without reprogramm I ng existing base funds.

In the area of equipment and vehicle replacement the Zoo had requested a total of $150,000 to support both programs. Many departments are operating programs crucial to the health of the collection with equipment that is between ten and 17 years old. Some equipment has been replaced but we are still behind In our overall replacement program. We need to replace obsolete video equipment with modern closed' circuit monitoring of the collection. Other equipment purchases such as a dental x-ray machine and a flexible fiber optic endoscope are In our replacement program for FY 1985. Other needed Items Include large scales for new animal facilities and medical equipment for the veterinary facility at Front Royal.

The Zoo currently maintains Just over 150 vehicles. The average age of the vehicles at Rock Creek Is about seven years and the average at Front Royal Is about 17 years. The cost to maintain and repair these vehicles Is not economical nor practical In view of their age and the availability of parts. Safety factors play an Important part in our decision to request vehicle replacement funds. If funds are restored the Zoo would purchase two small trash removal vehicles; two panel trucks; and four mini pick-up trucks.

Two Water Quality Specialist positions and $50,000 were requested to monitor, operate and maintain all life support systems within the Aquatic Exhibits at the Zoo. We currently have seven exhibits (Seals; Sea Lions; Polar Bears; River Otter; Beaver exhibits; Lion and Tiger and Monkey Island) that have a total capacity of 1,600,00 gallons of water. Each exhibit must be tested for water qual Ity at least once each day (some pools are tested three times per day) and the proper chemical balance maintained. The funds and both positions are needed to support this program.

SMITHSONIAN ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER

Mr. Yates. Public Service.

Mr. Challinor. Mr. Chairman, you left out the Environmental Research Program.

Mr. Yates. Sorry about that.

Mr. Challinor. Dr. Klein is over here.

Mr. Yates. You are absolutely right. I would not for a moment insult Dr. Klein.

Tell us about environmental research, Dr. Klein. You had a transition of $3,700,000 to $3,500,000 to $3,400,000. How badly are you hurt?

REDUCTION IN TECHNICAL SUPPORT

Mr. Klein. Most of that cut came in technical support.

Mr. Yates. What kind of technical support?

Mr. Klein. Laboratory technicians.

Mr. Yates. Personnel?

Mr. Klein. Personnel.

Mr. Yates. Can you contract it out?

Mr. Klein. Not very easily. At the present time we are handling it by hiring people with grants and soft money. But this is detri-^^_ mental because if a person is not assured of longevity in a job, as ^x"§bon as he finds something that does assure him of some kind of '^permtCnence, he is gone and we have lost all that training. \ Mr. Yates. What does soft money mean?

\ Mr. Klein. Grants and contracts, from DOE, or NSF, places such

/ as that. NOAA. They contract with us to provide certain kinds of research for them.

Mr. Yates. Why do you call it soft money?

Mr. Klein. Because it is only on an annual basis.

Mr. Yates. I see. You can't depend on it?

Mr. Klein. We can't depend on it.

Mr. Yates. How badly are you hurt by a delay?

Mr. Klein. It just means that the individual scientists will have to do more of their dishwashing and glassware work and things that a technician would normally do, so that it slows him down considerably.

Mr. Yates. But does that take up $300,000?

Mr. Klein. No, that takes up close to $200,000.

Mr. Yates. Does it? Just that activity of cleaning up?

Mr. Klein. There were I think seven technicians requested and something like $60,000 in support for those people. For every person you hire, you have to provide a certain number of supplies and materials for him to work with.

Mr. Yates. So if we don't do it, they will have to continue, the scientists will have to continue to wash their beakers and other things?

Mr. Klein. They will continue to have to do the things they don't have help to do.

Mr. Yates. What happens to your equipment replacement program if you don't have people to take care of the equipment?

Mr. Klein. We have

Mr. Yates. I know you have an equipment replacement program.

Mr. Klein. Yes.

Mr. Yates. But what you are saying is that you really don't have the people to take care of the equipment.

Mr. Klein. Well, no, we have people to take care of the equipment because the scientist is responsible for that equipment and makes sure it is taken care of. Major items of equipment are assigned to individual scientists so that they maintain these and see that they are taken care of. Then we have service contracts for some of the work.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

Mr. Yates. What is the nature of the environmental research that you do?

Mr. Klein. A lot of it is field work at Chesapeake Bay Center in which we examine the nutrient runoff from the farm fields that go into the Rhode River estuary.

Mr. Yates. You mean you are responsible for what is happening to the striped bass?

Mr. Klein. No, I don't think so. The Smithsonian is acquiring land to take out of commercialization and urbanization. We have 2600 acres there that are protecting and conserving the environment.

Mr. Yates. Are you studying what may be causing the loss of the striped bass?

Mr. Klein. We are examining what influence urbanization has on the Bay, on the small section of the Bay we handle, the Rhode River.

We also do laboratory controlled environmental work in which we examine certain individual aspects of the physical environment on plant growth and development.

Mr. Yates. Thank you very much.

Mr. Klein. You're welcome.

Mr. Yates. Now we turn—does that complete it, David?

Mr. Challinor. Yes, sir.

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION PRESS

Mr. Yates. Now we turn to Public Service and the Smithsonian Press. You are the publisher, right?

Mr. Rinzler. Thank you.

Mr. Yates. What beautiful dreams are you making?

Mr. Rinzler. We have a number of projects in the works, both recordings and books.

Mr. Yates. You weren't cut at all. They like what you are doing, $1,085,000. You successfully withstood the challenge of your chiefs and also of OMB. You must be very persuasive. Some of these other directors ought to hire you.

Would that help them, do you think?

Mr. Rinzler. I think the explanation is that the majority of that program is really a trust fund operation, Mr. Yates.

Mr. Yates. Oh, really? Of your program?

Mr. Rinzler. Yes.

Mr. Yates. I see. You don't ask for appropriated funds then?

Mr. Rinzler. Very little.

Mr. Yates. Very little. Just $1 million worth, roughly, $1,085,000. You have $10,900,000 in unrestricted funds. Well, then, we don't have to spend much time together, do we? You weren't hurt, and you don't have any programs cut out. Is there anything you ought to tell me that I don't know?

BICENTENNIAL OF THE CONSTITUTION

Mr. Rinzler. The only program that was cut which is part of the Bicentennial of the Constitution was the Symposia and Seminars citizenship program which would have led to a major seminar in the Office of Symposia and Seminars.

Mr. Yates. Is this

Mr. Rinzler. We are seeking outside funding for that.

Mr. Yates. Is this what Humanities is doing, too, do you know, National Endowment?

Mr. Rinzler. I believe the National Endowment for Humanities is also involved in a program celebrating the bicentennial.

Mr. Yates. They are coming in on Thursday. We will ask them about that.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Rinzler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Yates. Again, congratulations on your books.

Mr. Rinzler. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Yates. Do you live with all these books in your office?

Mr. Rinzler. In fact, yes.

Mr. Yates. All those that are in the shops?

Mr. Rinzler. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. How many books are there? There must be thousands, aren't there?

Mr. Rinzler. I can't give you a total number off the top of my head.

Mr. Yates. But there are a lot of them.

Mr. Rinzler. Yes, sir.

OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR

Mr. Yates. All very good, too. All right.

Museum Programs. We have Office of the Registrar. We won't even bother with him because he wasn't hurt. Ninety-nine, 99, 99 for him, unless he has something he wants to tell us. Office of the Registrar. Anything you want to tell us?

Mr. Richards. No, sir. The representative of the Office of Registrar isn't in attendance today.

Mr. Yates. Is not?

Mr. Richards. No. That is the office of two persons overseeing

Mr. Yates. Yes. Well, except that apparently he wasn't cut out of anything he wanted.

Mr. Richards. That is right, sir.

Mr. Yates. Thank you.

CONSERVATION ANALYTICAL LABORATORY

Conservation Analytical Laboratory. Is that you?

Mr. Richards. The Acting Director is here, Mr. Postlethwaite.

Mr. Yates. Right. It is $1,042,000. It wasn't much of a cut, just $44,000. Is there anything we ought to talk about, Mr. Postlethwaite?

Mr. Postlethwaite. No, the cut was for an archeometallurgist. I think that could be deferred to later. But certainly something the Smithsonian needs is someone trained as a metallurgist in ancient materials as a resource for the Institution.

Mr. Yates. Can't they find him in Mr. Challinor's shop? Don't you have metallurgists, David?

Mr. Challinor. We do have metallurgists, Mr. Chairman, but not of the specialty that they are looking for in the Conservation Analytical Laboratory.

Mr. Postlethwaite. In fact, it is a very difficult specialty to find.

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION LIBRARIES

Mr. Yates. I would think it would be. All right. Smithsonian Institution Libraries, $6 million cut to $4,300,000, then cut to $4 million. Those are big cuts. Why is that?

Mr. Richards. Dr. Maloy is here.

Mr. Yates. Doctor, you were cut by $2 million and more.

Mr. Maloy. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. That is a prodigious cut, isn't it?

Mr. Maloy. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps it should be said at the beginning that this is an effort to begin to bring the Smithsonian Libraries into—using a phrase that perhaps might not be felicitous—parity with the lower tier of research libraries in the country.

Mr. Yates. What does this mean?

Mr. Maloy. It means bringing it into line with a university library such as Rice, George Washington.

Mr. Yates. Are you saying the Smithsonian Libraries are not up to that standard?

Mr. Maloy. We are not at the moment, sir.

Mr. Yates. When do you propose to bring it up to that standard, and is it necessary that you be brought to that standard inasmuch as you have the facilities of the Library of Congress at hand and other such facilities?

Mr. Maloy. The Library of Congress is absolutely essential. We have a historic relationship with the Library of Congress, right back to the moment of the Smithsonian Deposit in the 1860s. However, the Library of Congress does not build collections to support the research which is ongoing in the Institution.

And, for example, we borrow about 100 items a day from various academic and research libraries throughout the country. The Library of Congress would be about a third of our borrowing, confined to about a third.

Mr. Yates. Do you want to buy books? What facilities, what is made up in the $2 million?

Mr. Maloy. The major emphasis over a number of years would be to increase the ability to support research in the Institution, and, therefore, basically to build collections.

Mr. Yates. Where are you going to put them?

Mr. Maloy. That is a problem. We have conceived, at least in the original sketch—the original sketch was collections; the persons necessary to give access to these collections; conservation; and the catchup on cataloguing of collections which we indeed even have now.

Mr. Yates. It occurs to me that you will need a library about the size of the Library of Congress, won't you, for all the activities of the Smithsonian if your library proposes to serve all of its activity?

Mr. Maloy. The Smithsonian Libraries I call the invisible library because, first of all, it is dispersed in 36 locations from Cambridge to Panama. We do have our collections dispersed to serve the scientists, the scholars, where they are working.

In addition, the space is a critical problem throughout the Institution. The directors have many buildings where we are guests, where our collections are now housed, where we give services, frequently have need of those spaces. And, therefore, there is need to have certain central space for these collections. We house these at the present time in large part at the Museum of American History, and at the North Capitol facility, 1111 North Capitol Street.

Mr. Yates. Yes, but is that really an answer to my question? Won't you need an enormous—do you propose to have a central house for the collection ultimately?

RARE BOOK COLLECTIONS

Mr. Maloy. We certainly need a facility, for example, to gather together our rare book collections to give them proper care and support.

Mr. Yates. Yes, I can understand that.

Mr. Maloy. We need to have a central place

Mr. Yates. Where are your rare book collections now?

Mr. Maloy. They are in several places now.

Mr. Yates. Should they be gathered together?

Mr. Maloy. Given our restrained staffing, we could give better service if they were; yes.

Mr. Yates. But should you have your rare books all in one central location, because they are rare books, or because of what the subject matter is? Should they be dispersed?

Mr. Maloy. It would be ideal if we could disperse them everywhere. Obviously, to handle these materials we need high security, we need conservation, and we need specialized staff, which is the most difficult thing to come by. We do have our collections dipersed in four places; in the Cooper-Hewitt in New York City, in the Air and Space Museum here in Washington, in a closed room in the Arts and Industries Building, and in the Dibner Room in the Museum of American History. We have one person basically with an assistant who cares for all these collections.

Mr. Yates. What happens if you don't do this until next year?

Mr. Maloy. Basically, the issue is one of increasing ability to serve the scholars of the Institution. I think that is the issue which needs to be heard.

THE NEED TO EXPAND THE COLLECTION

Mr. Yates. How much of a protest do you get now because of inadequate service?

Mr. Maloy. There is a constant, what shall I say, competition for resources. We cannot buy the materials which people want. We really do not get much controversy, because in a certain sense, people do not feel the cost of doing research even when materials come at a slower pace. I will put it that way.

In other words, if we are borrowing 100 items a day, even though we are using the most advanced computer in the work basically to speed things along; it is three to four weeks before that item arrives. We are working on all sorts of advanced technology to speed this up.

Mr. Yates. Is there any urgent item in the $2 million cut you think cannot be postponed?

Mr. Maloy. I feel it would be useful for us to begin—as indeed the present budget which was presented to Congress indicates— that it would be useful to begin to gain control of many of our collections which are not properly controlled. I am speaking now of the intellectual access, the catalogue, to use the traditional term.

Mr. Yates. Give us a memorandum telling us why it is a matter of urgency, would you?

Mr. Maloy. I will do that.

[The information follows:]

Smithsonian Institution Libraries

The Libraries supports Smithsonian research through traditional books and journals (600,000 titles), as well as through online information services. The Libraries is dispersed in some 36 locations from Panama to Cambridge, Massachusetts. It was organized by Mr. Ripley to coordinate Smithsonian library services, but has never been funded adequately to accomplish this task.

In its FY 1985-1989 plan the Libraries requested a gradual increase in its base over the next five years, starting with a first increment of $2.1 million in FY 1985. The purpose of the request was to remove critical and long-standing impediments to providing basic services for approximately 1000 Smithsonian scholars and researchers. The program is three-fold:

To invento ry 400,000 titles . - Two-thirds of the holdings of the SI Libraries either has never been described or has been incompletely listed in idosyncratic ways in the years before 1965. None of these 400,000 titles is represented in the Libraries online catalogue. SIL requests $2.4 million over three years; this includes the rare-book backlog and the trade-literature collection, a unique record of American business and enterprise.

To address conservation backlogs . - Sixty percent of the SIL collection needs some conservation attention. Approximately one-half of this 60 percent needs to be de-acidified to prevent further paper deterioration; the other half is beyond preservation and must be microfilmed to save the texts. This request for a permanent increase to the base will allow the Libraries to save books only as fast as they are deteriorating.

To build a minimum research collection . - The SI Libraries spends about$700 per researcher on books and journals each year, one-third as much as do the libraries of Oregon, Temple, Utah, Rice, and Oklahoma Universities. Harvard spends 9 times as much; Yale 7 times as much. The SI Libraries must borrow an average of 100 books each day from other libraries, of which one-third is from the Library of Congress. This means Smithsonian researchers must wait an average of 3 weeks for each of these 25,000 books per year, a serious and costly detriment to research. The SIL borrows at 62 times the rate Harvard does; 15 times the rate Georgetown does.

Because of economies of scale, a tripling of the present acquisition rate will require only a doubling of the SIL base and only a 25 percent increase in staff. The increased base and staff are requested permanently.

The summarized costs (in thousands of dollars) show increases or (decreases) to the base, ignoring inflation:

program FY85 FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90

(previous-year base) 4,030 6,042 6,885 7,636 7,344 8,041

inventory backlogs 624 200 128 (952) 0 0

conservation 300 20 20 20 20 0

collections 1,088 623 603 640 677 0

(FTE increase) 7 6 5 4 3 0

new base 6,042 6,885 7,636 7,344 8,041 8,041

total FTE's 99 . 105 110 114 117 117

Mr. Ripley. I always feel, Mr. Chairman, that the library is one of the sort of running abscesses in the Institution.

Mr. Yates. I am still impressed.

Mr. Ripley. It is terribly difficult to get the funds to keep up with the inflation and the cost of the journals, subscription costs. The Library of Congress has the same problem. We are heavily hit because we have different constituency to serve than they do.

Mr. Yates. I still think, I have this picture in my mind of a library the size of the Library of Congress to serve all your disciplines.

Mr. Ripley. That was Joseph Henry's theory and it has never quite worked. He wanted to give all the books in the Smithsonian to the Library of Congress and make it more efficient.

In those days, you could simply take a carriage and horse and drive up here and get any book you wanted. There were fewer books and there wasn't this enormous compaction that has occurred when you have new journals coming out, new interests, new subdivisions of scientific areas of research being created every year. And the whole thing has grown out of focus and out of phase so that now we simply are not able to service our needs, even with one of the finest libraries in the world right here.

And we have lost many books in the process, of course, because they get mislaid, misplaced by antiquated indexing and cataloguing.

Mr. Yates. But look what you did to Mr. Maloy. You gave a very eloquent testimonial in his behalf. Yet you cut him by $1.7 million yourself.

Mr. Ripley. Well, I think we had a problem in trying to figure out the number of personnel that we needed to get. We had to equate it broadly across the whole spectrum of the Institution.

Mr. Yates. Apparently they will be much more considerate of you next year, Mr. Maloy. But you will just have to wait.

TRAVELING EXHIBITION SERVICE

Okay. Next is the Office of Exhibit Central which received no cuts at all. So there is nothing for us to talk about I suspect. Then Traveling Exhibition Service. Ms. Loar.

Ms. Loar. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Yates. You don't have much of a budget, but they sure took a whack out of it. Cut it to $467,000, then down to $310,000 from $532,000. So you are about 40 percent cut. Staff advises me you get an increase in the Quadrangle operation.

Ms. Loar. That is correct.

Mr. Yates. So you aren't hurt badly?

Ms. Loar. Not terribly.

Mr. Yates. You are not hurt. You don't feel hurt?

Ms. Loar. The only ones that got hurt are the museums who have to pay our fees. We pass costs on to those museums.

Mr. Yates. Are you getting more business or less?

Ms. Loar. More business. We turn down half the requests we receive, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Yates. Is that for lack of financial responsibility on the part of museums who ask you?

Ms. Loar. Many of the medium range exhibitions which are object exhibitions have as many as 20 museums who want the exhibition but only 10 who can have the exhibition because of the length of the loan period of the show.

Mr. Yates. Can't you give them an exhibition nobody else wants? Substitute that?

Well, now are you hurt by the cut?

Ms. Loar. No, we can operate fine. We are not cutting on quality.

Mr. Yates. Okay.

Ms. Loar. We might cut the scope of our programs somewhat, but not the quality.

Mr. Yates. All right. If you are not hurt, then there is no way I can help you, is there? Thank you, Ms. Loar.

SMITHSONIAN ARCHIVES

The Archives, $548,000 to $523,000, $25,000. Are you hurt by that?

Mr. Richards. No, sir. Mr. Moss I believe is not here; he is our Archivist.

Mr. Yates. Then shall we go to the next item?

Mr. Richards. That would be fine.

NATIONAL MUSEUM ACT

Mr. Yates. National Museum Act was cut by roughly $220,000. Who has that? You again?

Mr. Richards. I again, sir.

Mr. Yates. What did they knock out?

Mr. Richards. That would be additional grant funds or funds available for grants to applicants to the National Museum Act.

Mr. Yates. Is there any reason you are not authorized yet?

Mr. Richards. I don't know that, sir. It is still in committee.

Mr. Yates. Thank you very much.

FOLKLIFE PROGRAM

All right. Special Programs, American Studies and Folklife. Are you back again?

Mr. Rinzler. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. In which group do you do the moonlighting?

Mr. Rinzler. Folklife falls under Public Service.

Mr. Yates. Public Service. You are cut back but not significantly, right? Where are you hurt?

Mr. Rinzler. The only increase requested was for a clerk-typist. That was a lower priority request.

INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE PROGRAM

Mr. Yates. Okay. The next item is International Environmental Science, no cuts in that. I suppose there is nothing to speak about there. If I am wrong, somebody better tell me.

David, anything, International Environmental Science? David, you weren't cut?

Mr. Challinor. We were not cut.

Mr. Yates. Should you have more money?

Mr. Challinor. We can always use more, but we are working very well with what we have.

Mr. Yates. All right. Any of this money go to the Treaty of Paris?

Mr. Challinor. No.

ACADEMIC AND EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS

Mr. Yates. Okay. Academic and Educational Programs. Who is that? David, you again?

Mr. Challinor. I have one small corner of that program, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Yates. Is that the one that was cut out?

Mr. Challinor. No, the only cuts in that program were some requests for publishing Research Opportunities in the Smithsonian. And there was another small cut for a computer service contract.

Mr. Yates. Are you hurt by it?

Mr. Challinor. Temporarily, but I think we can resolve this within the system.

Mr. Yates. All right. That is what I like to hear.

collections management inventory program

Collections management inventory.

Mr. Richards. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. You are a utility outfielder, aren't you?

Mr. Richards. A little bit, sir.

Mr. Yates. $872,000 to $857,000, not much of a cut. Is there anything to talk about?

Mr. Richards. Some of the museums are looking forward to increasing their requests, expanding their activities. This funding would certainly keep us at the level at which we have been conducting

Mr. Yates. You mean the $857,000?

Mr. Richards. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. Why did you want to go to $872,000?

Mr. Richards. I don't know what that was for, sir.

Mr. Yates. Can you find out?

Mr. Clarke. That was additional help for the Cooper-Hewitt Museum, for their inventory efforts.

Mr. Yates. Have they inventoried everything on your overall computer yet?

Mr. Clarke. I believe their inventory efforts are complete at this point. This was to assist in the refinement process.

Mr. Yates. This is part of the reconciliation?

Mr. Hughes. Yes.

MAJOR EXHIBITION PROGRAM

Mr. Yates. All right, the next item is Major Exhibition Program, from $500,000 to $360,000. And it is cut out entirely. What is that?

Mr. Reinhardt. Transferred. We are asking this be transferred to the base of the Museum of American History, $525,000. The remainder to the Museum of Natural History.

Mr. Yates. Okay.

John, are you zeroing it out in 1984 as well?

Mr. Reinhardt. This particular program, yes.

Mr. Yates. You are. Okay.

Mr. Reinhardt. We would put it in the base of the two museums.

Mr. Clarke. Mr. Chairman, $525,000 is being applied to the Museum of American History in fiscal year 1984. We have a repro-gramming request before the committee for the $360,000 in fiscal year 1984 to address a base supply shortage in the Office of Plant Services.

MUSEUM SUPPORT CENTER

Mr. Yates. Museum Support Center. That is the one in Suitland. No cuts. Should that have more money, or is that adequate? This is Mr. Perrot's old baby, isn't it?

Mr. Richards. That is true.

Mr. Yates. You moved up from four million five—from $8,500,000 to $13,172,000. That is a significant increase. Were you cut any in that? No?

Mr. Richards. No, sir.

Mr. Yates. Not really. So you are not hurt there?

Mr. Richards. No, sir.

Mr. Yates. You are not hurt in the Quadrangle operations, $1,100,000. And in the trustee grants. Okay.

Mr. Hughes. Mr. Chairman, on the Museum Support Center

Mr. Yates. Yes.

Mr. Hughes. I would like to provide something for the record on the equipment side of that. We are buying equipment you will recall, the three-tier racking system.

Mr. Yates. I remember that.

Mr. Hughes. It has not all worked exactly as we originally planned; that is, the process of procurement hasn't worked as we planned. We are running into some additional expenses. I don't know enough to talk adequately about it, but we could provide you something for the record in the next day or so.

Mr. Yates. We would be glad to have it.

Mr. Hughes. Thank you.

Mr. Yates. Does it have any appropriations?

Mr. Hughes. Yes. I am trying to respond to your question as to whether there were any problems.

Mr. Yates. I remember that some of the—when we talked to Paul a year or two ago there was some question of drawer space being needed and the money stricken by OMB, or the Senate struck it.

Mr. Hughes. There are a variety of problems. We have purchased the shelves for wet storage. We are now in the process of contracting for dry storage equipment. And we are getting some surprises there on the cost side.

Mr. Yates. Higher, or lower?

Mr. Hughes. Higher.

Mr. Yates. Does that mean you will need additional funds?

Mr. Clarke. Perhaps, Mr. Chairman. There is a balance in the construction account of $400,000 to $500,000 that we may be able to ask you to use for this purpose.

[The information follows:]

Museum Support Center Equipment Funding Problems

Pod 3 is the "wet pod" which will hold the Natural History Museum's liquid-preserved specimens. This pod was to have a portion of its full complement of racking and shelving installed shortly after opening. We have not yet been given use of the pod owing to delays in construction of the steel racking - specifically, there is concern about welds in some of the components. We hope to obtain occupancy rights to pod 3 in May of 1984. We are approximately $86,000 overspent in the budget for pod 3, owing to additional GSA management costs, contingency and change requirements.

Pod 4 will be divided into two parts - high bay for the storage of large items such as totem poles, canoes and whale skulls, and another portion which will contain racking like that in pods 1 and 2. Our design consultants seriously underestimated the cost of the racking and material handling equipment needed for pod 4 high bay, and in addition certain safety aspects have had to be added to the original concept, such as the extension of sprinklers and HVAC ductwork. We have $425,000 in hand, which was the anticipated cost for building the racking in the high bay, but we are now advised that the full cost will be $1.5 million. We are approximately $1.1 million short of what is needed to install the storage equipment, to provide necessary associated material handling equipment, and to supply required safety and support services in that pod.

Presently, we believe that we are approximately $1.9 million short of the funds necessary to install the racking we need for the initial move into pods 1, 2, and 4. About $0.9 million of this amount reflects underestimates by the General Services Administration of the need for funds for architectural fees, contingencies, and change orders. The other $1 million will be justified, as planned, in FY 1986.

Therefore, we are in need of approximately $2.1 million for the above stated purposes. Alternative funding mechanisms might be reprogramming of unobligated construction funds, as identified, additional appropriations in FY 1985 to cover the projected shortfall, or a base reduction in FY 1986 of $4.2 million in lieu of the planned reduction of $6.3 million.

34-632 0—84 6

OFFICE OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Yates. Let us talk about Facilities Services, Office of Design and Construction, $2,191,000. Mr. Peyton, you weren't hurt badly, were you? You were cut $150,000.

Mr. Peyton. Mr. Chairman, I am responsible for the next three items, Office of Design and Construction, Office of Plant Service and Office of Protection Services. In the Office of Design and Construction and Protection Services, we took cuts, but I feel that we can continue to maintain momentum in those two program areas. We will be receiving, if our request is favorably considered, sufficient funds to keep going. The kind of momentum we have tried to instill in the last several years.

office of plant services

But in the case of Office of Plant Services we asked for 28 mechanics and $650,000 to maintain the physical plant. I really believe that the growth of the present R&R program is in part a result of not being able to adequately maintain the plant that we have. I feel that by

Mr. Yates. I agree with you. Now, do you have enough money in this budget to adequately maintain the plant?

Mr. Peyton. No, we have asked for an additional 28 mechanics and $650,000 salary and benefits, which OMB did not feel that we should submit in our budget.

Mr. Yates. All right. OMB probably feels you can do it by outside contracting. Can you?

Mr. Peyton. We are doing some maintenance by outside contract.

Mr. Yates. But you still need the money, don't you?

Mr. Peyton. But we still need the in-house mechanics as well.

Mr. Yates. Do you need all of them?

Mr. Peyton. Yes, sir, we do.

Mr. Yates. Won't take 20 instead of 28? You won't take what you can get?

Mr. Peyton. The request is for 28.

Mr. Yates. You are a tough man, McGee. What happens if you don't get it?

Mr. Peyton. If we don't get that and we don't get the money to go out for contract, it just spills over into the R&R program, with the multiplier of times three or times four, about five or six years from now.

Mr. Yates. What happens as a result of your delaying this item? Is it going to be more expensive to the government in the end? I shouldn't say the government, should I, when dealing with the Smithsonian?

Mr. Peyton. I think the answer I just gave was the answer to that question. If we do delay, it just becomes more expensive.

Mr. Yates. You know what I wish you would do, if you can? Can you give us for the record a memorandum as to what the consequences of such delays have been in the past? Where you have delayed maintenance that you should have taken care of, what has the result been? You have had a deterioration or a greater reduc-

tion in the efficiency or operation of your plant. Can you give us a memorandum of that kind?

Mr. Peyton. Yes, sir, we can.

[The information follows:]

Office of Facilities Services Consequence of Delayed Maintenance

As pointed out before the Subcommittee, the Institution firmly believes that the growth of the Smithsonian's present Renovation and Restoration program is in significant part the result of not being ab-le to maintain the physical plant adequately with the current staff resources of the Office of Plant Services. A number of instances in recent experience graphically illustrate the effect of delayed maintenance of Smithsonian buildings in terms of higher costs for replacement or major renovation of large areas of building interiors and exteriors.

Painted surfaces in Smithsonian buildings are subjected to unusual conditions because of the high humidity maintained in the museums for the protection of the collections, and the heavy use of public spaces by large numbers of people, seven days a week. The inability of the Office of Plant Services to provide routine preventive maintenance to building surfaces, with regular repainting of building exteriors every three to five years and interiors every five to seven years, has directly resulted in the increase in cost of several current R&R projects, as well as the addition of several future projects for correction of paint and plaster related conditions. The penetration of moisture through paint has caused deterioration of the plaster in such areas as the north entrance of the Castle, where removal and replacement of the plaster will cost an estimated $100,000 in FY 1986. Window frames in several buildings have deteriorated to such an extent that the windows now need to be replaced. At the Arts and Industries Building this will cost approximately $2 million as part of the facade work now underway. In addition, the windows that were replaced in the rotunda area of A&I eight years ago already show signs of serious deterioration and will need replacement in the next few years, for an estimated cost of $325,000. At the Renwick Gallery as well, some window replacement was incorporated as part of the overall facade work in progress, at a cost of approximately $135,000. And windows at the Cooper-Hewitt Museum will be replaced over the next three years for a total cost of $900,000; some of these windows were repaired in FY 1980. Also at Cooper-Hewitt, restoration of the wrought iron fence that is a feature of the original Carnegie House, including cleaning and repainting of corroded metal, will cost $50,000.

Sidewalks, plazas and parking lots of the Smithsonian are subjected to the tremendous number of freeze-thaw cycles experienced in the District each winter. The cracks that develop allow water to penetrate the pavement causing it to heave and crumble. During 1983 an emergency project using R&R funds was required to replace the sidewalk south of the American History and Natural History Museums, costing $162,000. Future R&R projects include progressive replacement of sections of deteriorated sidewalks and parking lot pavement at a yearly cost of $150,000. The plaza paving at the Air & Space and Hirshhorn Museums must be replaced, at a cost in excess of $7 million. While not entirely caused by inadequate maintenance, the rapid deterioration experienced in less than ten years would have been slowed had the surface been maintained and repaired on a regular basis.

In a number of instances, lack of adequate maintenance of building exteriors has resulted in recent years in the early replacement of roofs, such as at the Castle and the American Art/Portrait Gallery Building. At the Museum of American History and the Museum of Natural History, as well, a more thorough program of inspection and preventive maintenance more than likely would have prolonged the life of the roofs, delaying the multi-million dollar replacement scheduled for the next several years.

Regular inspection and repair of building exteriors would also have prevented extensive deterioration of the facades of a number of Smithsonian buildings and accompanying damage to building interiors caused by water intrusion. At the Museum of Natural History a major recaulking and pointing of the facade will cost $550,000. Moisture penetration through open joints in the stone work has resulted in costly interior repairs by the OPlantS staff. Recaulking of the exterior and courtyard walls of the American Art and Portrait Gallery Building was recently completed for a cost of $140,000. The Museum of American History will also require facade caulking to prevent further interior damage. Current R&R projects to repair the stonework at the Castle and the American Art/ Portrait Gallery came about as a result of inadequate OPlantS effort available. Also at the Castle and the Arts and Industries Building, lack of maintenance to gutters and rain leaders have caused serious interior wall damage which has been costly to repair by OPlantS.

Finally, although OPlantS has been particularly successful in providing preventive maintenance for the building mechanical systems through continual surveillance by a corps of operating engineers, deterioration and early replacement of a number of mechanical and electrical systems have occurred. Notable among these are a chiller and a transformer that had to be replaced on an emergency basis at the Museum of American History last year costing $345,000; and reheat coils at the Air and Space Museum that will need to be replaced in the next few years, at a cost of $200,000.

In order to address these kinds of problems the Smithsonian requested an increase of 28 positions and $650,000 in salary costs in FY 1985. Barring the availability of these additional resources, the Renovation and Restoration program can be expected to continue to grow.

Mr. Yates. All right. Is that all you think you need, 28 mechan-ics? Mr. Peyton. And $650,000.

Mr. Yates. I see. That is important, too, isn't it? Mr. Peyton. Yes, sir, it is.

SPECIAL FOREIGN CURRENCY PROGRAM

Mr. Yates. Special Foreign Currency Program, OMB cut you back. Probably correctly, right, Dillon?

Mr. Ripley. No, I don't think it is ever really correct to cut out

AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF INDIAN STUDIES

Mr. Yates. Is that the India program?

Mr. Ripley. Yes, it is partly the Indian money. It is partly something we really need to catch up with because we are going to be losing it fairly soon.

Mr. Yates. What do you mean by losing?

Mr. Ripley. Well, it is the proposal now to take really the rest of the money and put it into a kind of endowment which then would mean that we would have to be fighting for segments of that endowment on a different level with a different cast of characters. I think that Ms. Ellsworth if you want to hear about it can speak to it, Mr. Chairman. But I know we all feel rather upset and worried about it.

Mr. Yates. Ms. Ellsworth, Mr. Ripley thinks you will be very persuasive on this.

Ms. Ellsworth. Well, Mr. Chairman, I hope so. I hope I can be heard and maintain my voice for which I apologize. Yes, we were disturbed that OMB cut us back from our $12.75 million request because we had hoped to be able to fund entirely the AIIS forward-funded reserve before the Indian rupee is taken off the excess currency list by Treasury.

Mr. Ripley has referred to the plan for an endowment fund which will be binationally governed. State Department is seeking in this fiscal year, that is, fiscal year 1985, $110 million in Indian rupees to establish this endowment fund. We believe the Binational Foundation that is proposed to govern this fund will have less interest in American-initiated scholarship and science, will, we believe, not be particularly sympathetic to some of the less high technology, less development oriented kinds of work that the American Institute and Smithsonian and its other constituents are engaged in.

Mr. Yates. The justification, of course, shows what you are doing with the money. Is there anything in addition to the justification that you ought to tell us on this?

Ms. Ellsworth. I hope that we have submitted

Mr. Clarke. Mr. Chairman, we do have in support of the AIIS program a number of letters from presidents of a number of universities which we can submit to you.

Mr. Yates. I think it might be helpful. Let us have that. I am sure that we have heard from them in the past. It is always helpful, I think, to have them for the file.

Thank you, Gretchen.

Ms. Ellsworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

NATIONAL ZOOLOGICAL PARK CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Yates. Construction and improvements of the National Park. You were cut by roughly $750,000.

Mr. Wemmer, are you hurt by that? What about OMB knockout?

Mr. Wemmer. Basically, for 1985 we would begin the construction of the first phase of the Olmsted phase of the Olmsted Walk project.

Mr. Yates. What is the total cost of that?

Mr. Wemmer. That should be about, I think it is $2 million.

Mr. Yates. I am told that is budgeted?

Mr. Wemmer. Yes.

Mr. Yates. You asked for $4,250,000 and were allowed $3,500,000. Was there something stricken out?

Mr. Wemmer. Can I call on George Calise, Assistant

Mr. Yates. Sure. George, what was knocked out?

Mr. Calise. The design of the 1986 program, sir, $750,000.

Mr. Yates. What is your 1986 program?

Mr. Calise. The 1986 program was the second hoof stock facility at Front Royal, and the hospital/research facility at Rock Creek. The design money

Mr. Yates. Why don't you give us a memorandum on it? Can you delay this?

Mr. Calise. We shouldn't. We should have the design money a year before construction.

Mr. Yates. But suppose you get the design money next year and construction is put off for another year, then what happens?

Mr. Calise. Then we lose the program.

Mr. Yates. How do you lose the program if it is delayed a year?

Mr. Calise. We delay the program?

Mr. Yates. Right.

Mr. Calise. They need to have the facility to support their research program of

Mr. Yates. Who is "they"? That is Mr. Wemmer?

Mr. Calise. Yes.

Mr. Yates. What happens if Mr. Wemmer doesn't get it?

Mr. Wemmer. It stretches it out.

Mr. Yates. Well, it doesn't begin it.

Mr. Wemmer. No, but what happens is we are really rushed into construction without having a chance of really reviewing the A&E work carefully. Generally, when the A&E work precedes the construction work by one year, we have sufficient lead time to really review the construction.

Mr. Yates. Give us a memorandum on it.

Mr. Calise. Yes, sir.

[The information follows:]

National Zoological Park

The $750,000 cut from our FY 1985 Construction and Improvement request will have an adverse impact on our programs for FY 1985 and FY 1986. Design funds were cut for three projects (Health and Research Facility $400,000; Maintenance Facility $100,000; and Large Hoofed Stock Facility $200,000) which are scheduled for construction in FY 1986. Also cut from our request was $50,000 for the repair and improvement program at the Rock Creek facility.

The deferral of actual design until FY 1986 will cause a loss of the dollar value of the construction funds due to inflation and would result in a reduction of the scope of work for each of the projects. Actual construction of the projects would be delayed six to nine months because of the design could not be started until October 1985 (Beginning of FY 1986). For projects such as ours, where no clear cut design history is available, it is important to have planning and design funds at least one year in advance of the receipt of construction funds to insure a minimum of change orders, once actual construction is started. If the $700,000 for the design of the three facilities is restored to our FY 1985 program.

We can insure that the construction funds for FY 1986 will be used to provide the best possible facilities for the construction dollars available.

The $50,000 that was cut from our FY 1985 Repair and Renovation was in the category of general repairs and improvements and would be used to fund repair projects. If these funds are not restored for FY 1985 $50,000 worth of general repair projects would have to be deferred until FY 1986.

RESTORATION AND RENOVATION OF BUILDINGS

Mr. Yates. Restoration and renovation of buildings, Mr. Peyton, is this affected by your request for 28 mechanics and $650,000? You were cut by $3 million.

Mr. Peyton. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. What does this do?

Mr. Peyton. First of all, this represents an increase from $9 million last year to the present request of $13,750,000.

Mr. Yates. What is the additional $3 million for?

Mr. Peyton. Primarily in the area of utilities, utilities replacements of various components in the building.

Mr. Yates. Shouldn't you have that money as you go ahead with the building?

Mr. Peyton. Well, we think that the $13,750,000 is going to be a pretty full program. We could use the $3 million if given to us, but

Mr. Yates. Well, if you don't need it this year, we won't give it to you. Ordinarily, if you restore buildings, don't you restore the utilities as a part of it?

Mr. Peyton. Yes, sir, and that is part of our program. But we are satisfied with the $13,750,000.

GENERAL POST OFFICE BUILDING

Mr. Yates. That is what you get. Construction, General PO Building?

Mr. Peyton. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. OMB struck it out.

Mr. Peyton. The reason

Mr. Yates. It is not authorized.

Mr. Peyton. That is correct. We would

Mr. Yates. You would what?

Mr. Peyton. We are presently involved in authorization hearings on that particular project. It is entirely possible the Congress will authorize the Smithsonian Institution renovation and restoration of the building within the coming months. For the same reason that Dr. Wemmer just gave, we would like to precede the construction phase of the project with an earlier appropriation of the necessary design and planning funds.

Mr. Yates. Okay.

Mr. Peyton. We would like to find a way when the building is authorized to come back to you and ask that it still be considered for design funds in FY 1985.

Mr. Yates. We will be glad to talk to you when you are authorized.

Mr. Peyton. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. That takes care of the committee of all the warriors. Now, we go to the chiefs.

Mr. Challinor, is there anything you want to tell us before we go into the specifics, anything that you want that was stricken?

Mr. Challinor. No, Mr. Chairman. I think my bureau heads have done a good job.

Mr. Yates. Mr. Jameson, anything you want to tell us?

Mr. Jameson. No, sir.

Mr. Yates. Mr. Reinhardt?

Mr. Reinhardt. No, sir, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Yates. Mr. Rinzler?

Mr. Rinzler. No, sir, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Yates. Mr. Richards?

Mr. Richards. No, sir, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Yates. Mr. Peyton, you have already talked. I mean you are both a warrior and a chief.

Mr. Peyton. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. Mr. Wemmer has already talked; he is a warrior and chief. And Mr. Clarke is with us. Okay.

Now, the question is whether or not we ought to go forward with the rest of the presentation, or whether we ought to wait until tomorrow morning. I think we can go into a couple more questions.

PROJECTION OF FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION AND RESTORATION AND RENOVATION PROGRAM

One particularly, I think Mr. Peyton is the key man on this. The total request for the Smithsonian for fiscal year 1985 is $196,932,000, which is a pretty substantial increase over 1984. And the most significant increase, not the most significant but one of the significant increases is for restoration and renovation of buildings, which is an increase of $4,750,000.

You are starting on a program of very substantial construction and physical plant upgrading, to go forward for some years. And the total of that program for the next five years is very, very impressive. It is estimated to be $84,395,000 in fiscal year 1986; $65,855,000 in fiscal year 1987; $73,825,000 in fiscal year 1988; $44,395,000 in 1989; and about $132 million for 1990 and beyond. That is what they call empire building, isn't it, Sam?

Mr. Hughes. No, sir.

Mr. Yates. What is it called?

Mr. Hughes. That is called care of facilities.

Mr. Yates. But that is a lot of money for care of facilities, isn't it?

Mr. Hughes. Yes, sir, we have a lot of facilities. Some of them more than 100 years old.

Mr. Yates. It isn't only care, it is actual construction, too, isn't it?

Mr. Hughes. It is—restoration.

Mr. Yates. You want $51,900,000 for new construction in 1986. You want $34 million in new construction in 1987,'$33,200,000 for new construction in 1988.

Mr. Hughes. That is right.

Mr. Yates. 1989, you want $50,300,000. That is pretty new. That isn't just care.

Mr. Hughes. The R&R is care.

PROPOSED FACILITY AT DULLES AIRPORT

Mr. Yates. R&R is care. We are for R&R because your plant needs care. What happens if you don't get the new facility at Dulles for the Air and Space Museum?

Mr. Peyton. Dr. Challinor would like to answer that one?

Mr. Challinor. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. What is the answer to the question I just propounded?

Mr. Challinor. If we do not get the new space at Dulles, this means that a significant number of very important airplanes and space artifacts would not be able to come to the Smithsonian.

Mr. Yates. For example, what?

Mr. Challinor. For example, the Space Shuttle which in the next three or four years should come to the Smithsonian. There would be no way we could get the Space Shuttle to our facility at Silver Hill, even were there room to put it there. The idea of going to Dulles would be that the Space Shuttle could land at Dulles on a 747, and be wheeled to a new facility on the east side of the Dulles Airport, with its own entrance and its own parking so it would not interfere with the operation of the terminal itself. Besides—I use the shuttle as an example—there is the Concorde, and there is the prototype of the 707 which was the first really important jet commercial aviation machine.

Mr. Yates. Apparently you have told us you want $12 million for it. You have told the newspapers you want $21.2.

Mr. Challinor. This is a program, Mr. Chairman, over a whole series of years. We would hope to have this facility completed sometime before the end of the century. It isn't that far away.

Mr. Yates. What is the total cost of the program?

Mr. Challinor. The total cost of the program to finish the first building would be about $20 million.

Mr. Yates. What is the total cost of the program?

Mr. Challinor. Subsequent buildings should run at about $15 million apiece, so there would be a total of four separate hangarlike buildings. We are looking for the first building through the authorization process now, and we have so testified before a House committee for authorization to do this.

Mr. Yates. As I understand the cost of the facility at Dulles, which the Regents have approved, it is $12 million.

Mr. Challinor. That is the cost of the first building, yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Yates. What is the $21 million for?

Mr. Challinor. Well, there is the building itself. We then have to spend about $5 million to extend the runway to allow these heavy aeroplanes to get to the exhibit facility, for parking, for setting new utility lines, and because this particular area now is completely undeveloped.

Mr. Yates. Why don't we have NASA do that, pay for it?

Mr. Challinor. Because we will be exhibiting material other than material that came from NASA. For example, at Dulles right now we have parked on an apron, away from the commercial part, one Canberra bomber. In May of this year we expect a B-17, a World War II bomber, to be flown from Tucson, where it has been mothballed, to Dulles to be stored there for the day that we will hopefully have a facility to show it to the public.

Mr. Yates. Don't you have a B-17 hanging in Air and Space now?

Mr. Challinor. No, we do not, Mr. Chairman. That would be too big to fit in the existing Air and Space Building.

Mr. Yates. Will it fit into your restaurant?

Mr. Challinor. Not yet, no.

Mr. Yates. Can you increase the size of the restaurant?

Mr. Challinor. If we could spill over to the National Gallery—it would take almost that much space—and I don't think we can.

Mr. Yates. Does the Smithsonian now have an adequate, competent staff to embark on such a significant construction upgrading program?

Mr. Challinor. For the Air and Space Museum?

Mr. Yates. No. For everything. I am sure you are going to say it does have for the Air and Space Museum.

Mr. Challinor. If we built that facility at Dulles, Mr. Chairman, we would expect that we would need about 15 new people when all four buildings were completed, and a budget in the vicinity of, oh, $500,000 to $600,000 to operate that new facility over and above what we have now.

Mr. Yates. That really isn't what I am asking, David. I am asking who supervises the construction? Do you have somebody who can do that? Mr. Peyton puts his hand up.

Mr. Challinor. That would normally be contracted, and I believe through the General Services Administration.

Mr. Yates. Do they have any competent people?

Mr. Peyton. Yes, sir, they do.

Mr. Yates. Well, should we hold this in abeyance until the new Secretary comes aboard? We will have to decide it.

Mr. Challinor. Well, the first thing we have to do, Mr. Chairman, is to get authorization, then to ask the Congress for the money.

Mr. Yates. This committee can wait.

Mr. Challinor. Yes, this committee can wait.

Mr. Yates. All right. The new Secretary is going to be called on to administer this budget. Is he familiar with it at all, do you know? Has he been briefed on it?

Mr. Clarke. He has been provided a copy of this budget justification.

Mr. Yates. As I understand it, Dillon, he takes over in September, doesn't he?

Mr. Ripley. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. That new fiscal year starts a month later.

Mr. Ripley. I may say, I took over in February without knowing what the budget was and had to defend it within a couple of weeks of arriving here.

BOARD OF REGENTS MEETINGS

Mr. Yates. I am sure you did well. Let us go back to the question of the open meetings of the Board of Regents. I understand the Board of Regents has taken a position in opposition to open meetings?

Mr. Ripley. Yes, they have.

Mr. Yates. What about the question of opening the meetings to consideration of the Federal budget?

Mr. Ripley. I am not sure whether that has been argued in any depth. We have simply tried to present alternatives in each case.

This debate has gone on within the Regents for some two or three years now.

Mr. Yates. I know it has. I notice in reading the document put out by the Smithsonian, I forget the name of it, but it talks about your By-Laws, that in the relationship between GAO and the Smithsonian, GAO is allowed to review and to audit your records as far as the Federal budget is concerned. Is my memory right on that?

Mr. Ripley. Mr. Powers would know more about that than I would.

Mr. Yates. Does anybody have a copy of your blue book, the little pamphlet?

Mr. Powers. Oh, the By-Laws. It is not referred to in there, Mr. Chairman, I don't think. Maybe it is.

Mr. Yates. Well, is this the one? I think somewhere in here in discussing audits there is reference to the fact that—yes, here it is, page 18. "The accounts of the non-appropriated funds of the Institution shall be audited annually by a recognized firm of certified public accountants, which shall submit its report to the Board of Regents. This audit shall be in addition to audits of grant and contract funds conducted by the designated Federal audit agency and audits conducted by the General Accounting Office under other authority with respect to appropriated funds. . . ." So they do have the power to look at appropriated funds.

Mr. Hughes. Yes.

Mr. Yates. That raises the question, why shouldn't, if the GAO can look at appropriated funds because it is a Federal matter, why shouldn't appropriated fund matters be open when—be open to discussions of the Board of Regents when they are under discussion? Would you like to consider that, and have the Board of Regents consider that?

Mr. Ripley. I don't see the distinction. I mean theoretically all appropriated funds are open to investigation, aren't they?

Mr. Yates. No, not according to this. Your audits of your Trust funds are not by GAO. GAO does not make audits of those.

Mr. Hughes. Just as a bit of background, Mr. Chairman, the Regents expressed some years ago, couple of years ago I guess it was, an interest in a comprehensive audit of the Smithsonian by someone, and in the process of that explored the GAO's interest in making such a comprehensive audit, covering both the Trust and appropriated funds. GAO did not wish to look at the unappropriated, non-appropriated funds. The Regents thereupon enlarged the contract with our external auditors to comprehensively audit the funds.

Mr. Yates. That is why that is worded as it is, then?

Mr. Hughes. I think the wording antedated that action. But that is why the decision was as it was.

Mr. Yates. Yes, but they look at appropriated funds. They can look at the appropriated funds.

Mr. Hughes. External auditors can do it.

Mr. Yates. According to what you say they have decided by their own choice not to look at your non-appropriated funds.

Mr. Ripley. GAO, yes.

Mr. Hughes. GAO has, yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. Let us get back

Mr. Hughes. Both funds are looked at by the external auditors.

Mr. Yates. Let us get back to the question of open meetings. There isn't anything you can tell me here on the question of policy as to whether or not it should be open for discussion of appropriated funds meetings, meetings of the Board of Regents?

Mr. Hughes. I have heard no discussion.

Mr. Ripley. Not at this point, no, because it has never really come up. We would be glad to raise it, if you would like.

Mr. Yates. But what you have done is furnish the committee with a copy of a resolution adopted by the Board in which it is stated it adopts the policy on public and congressional information as reflected in the following statement—wait a minute, that isn't it. The statement on the effect, well, let us put it in the record at this point as to what the statement is of the Board of Regents on the question of opening the meetings as revealed by the statement of September 19, 1983.

[The information follows:]

Regent's Meetings

Excerpt from Minutes of Board of Regents Meeting of September 19, 1983-

Policy on Public and Congressional Information

The Secretary noted that at its May 9, 1983 meeting, the Board of Regents reviewed the record of their past discussions on the question of meetings open to the press and public, reviewed the potential applicability of the Government in the Sunshine Act, and discussed current practices and options for the future. As noted in the Minutes of that meeting, page 56, the Regents wished to have a formal statement delineating the policy of the Board, presenting a complete explanation of it, and serving as a direct communication to the press. The statement below was drafted for the Regents' consideration.

After discussion it was agreed that the proposed statement represents

a consensus of the views of the Regents. Accordingly, with Mr. Mineta

registering his negative vote, it was

VOTED that the Board of Regents adopts the policy on public and Congressional information as reflected in the following statement, with the understanding that this policy will be reviewed periodically by the Board. This statement is to be released to the press and forwarded to the chairmen of the appropriate Congressional committees as soon as practicable.

****** PRESS RELEASE At its meeting on September 19, 1983 the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution agreed upon the following statement regarding its policy on public information.

******

Since 1977 and during the course of numerous meetings, including their meeting of May 9, 1983, the Regents have discussed in depth the admission of press and public to the Board's meetings. While it has been clear that

the Board has not favored "open" meetings, the Regents have been unanimous in their view that information regarding their actions should be communicated openly and widely to the Congress, press, and public. To that end the Regents have arranged for briefings by the Secretary or Under Secretary for interested members of the press following each meeting, for the distribution of written summaries of the proceedings, and for the mailing of the full minutes of the meetings to the appropriate Congressional committees.

In a recent discussion of these matters, the Regents noted that it has been said that the Institution is obliged to open its meetings under the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. Section 552b). Subsequently the Regents have been counseled that this act does not apply to the Smithsonian, as it is not in the executive branch, not an independent regulatory agency, and not headed by a collegial body — the primary criteria for applicability. As a consequence the responsibility for determining the prudence of opening such meetings rests within the discretion of the Board of Regents. The Board has weighed the advantages and disadvantages of such an action in light of its trust obligation to manage the Institution efficiently and effectively.

While recognizing that open meetings would undoubtedly speed up communication for the media and would tend to eliminate concerns that information was being withheld, the presence of observers would undoubtedly affect the Board's deliberations and therefore its actions and decisionmaking. Because of their remote residences, the Regents generally do not have opportunities for meeting as a group and with the executive staff of the Institution except at their scheduled meetings. Between meetings they must depend heavily on written communications and the work of their

Executive Committee, Audit and Review Committee, Investment Policy Committee, and other special committees, all of which conduct various elements of the Regents' business. When these committees and staff report on their actions and recommendations, the Regents must have the benefit of free and candid discussion for the effective discharge of their responsibilities. Indeed, it has been argued that, if the opening of meetings were judged by the Regents to impair their capacity to carry out their trustee responsibilities, they have an obligation to maintain present practice.

Certain additional actions will be taken in furtherance of the Regents' expressed objective of complete and timely communications with the Congress and the media. A representative of the Regents, where possible the Chairman of their Executive Committee, will appear regularly with Institution staff at post-meeting press briefings. Agenda for the meeting will also be distributed to the press representatives at that time. The summary of proceedings, which has been widely distributed in the past, will routinely be supplied to the press and to interested Congressional Committees as soon as practicable after each meeting.

The effectiveness of this policy will be monitored continually and reviewed periodically by the Regents.

34-632 O—84 7

Mr. Yates. It is stated in there, "While it is clear that the board has not favored 'open' meetings, the Regents have been unanimous in their view that information regarding their actions should be communicated openly and widely to the Congress, press, and public. . . ." But of course that isn't what happens to the discussions of other establishments.

At any rate, I think we have done enough for the day. Let us come back at 10:00 o'clock in the morning.

Tuesday, March 27, 1984. Opening Remarks

Mr. Yates. Mr. Reporter, show the hearing as coming to order, and let the record show that we are starting early. Perhaps we will get a medal at some time in the future.

Mr. Secretary, has the new Secretary-to-be reviewed the budget, by any chance, do you know?

Mr. Ripley. We have sent him a copy of the budget.

Mr. Yates. Okay. Has it been reviewed with him by any chance? Is he likely to want any changes?

Mr. Ripley. We haven't heard any comments. As of now, he is very busy in Chicago. He does have a big job.

Mr. Yates. Let us turn back to the special hearing we had last year on the question of gems, and the reforms that were taking place. It raises a question in my mind. Under the new policy that you have, are they applicable only to the question of gems, or for all properties of Smithsonian?

DEACCESSION PROCESS

What I am concerned about is, can any one of your Assistant Secretaries, for example, sell any of Smithsonian's properties, albeit for the best motives in the world, to try to improve the collection? If he can, under what circumstances must this be done?

Mr. Ripley. Well, Mr. Chairman, at the time that we discussed all of this last year we did review our acquisitions and deacquisi-tion policy.

Mr. Yates. Right.

Mr. Ripley. It is uniform throughout the Institution as far as I know. The grading of the amount of value of any object has a series of little plateaus. When you get rid of something under a dollar, let us say, that is cash or whatever, you go on up to $1,000 or more, then it has to be reviewed by successive steps. So I think that, to answer your question, in the first place it is uniform; in the second place, there are provisions throughout our code which in fact were in effect before to take care of the stated values of any objects that might have been decided to be deacquisitioned.

Mr. Yates. Suppose Mr. Fiske wanted to sell the Hope diamond, how would he go about selling it?

Mr. Ripley. Well, the rigamarole that he would have to go through would go right up to the Regents, of course. Because of the estimated value of that—which is really not effective, it is a kind of one-of-a-kind piece—is great. The matter would go right on up to the Regents, and there would be no opportunity for any individual to sell such an important object without complete clearance.

Mr. Yates. Could the Hope diamond be sold with the approval of the Regents?

Mr. Ripley. I would doubt it, because it is of a kind of inestimable value in the sense that it has a historic value which is far beyond its probable actual value. First of all, it would have to be appraised outside. Then once appraised, the value might, including that quotient of the sort of historic interest of it, might be so great that no one would feel inclined to sell what is indeed a collective

item registered, listed and so on in the national collections. We never do sell, as far as I know, never have sold objects that were really of great value in the national collections.

MORTGAGING PROPERTIES

Mr. Yates. Let me give you, these are all suppositions, but I remember some years ago that when you acquired the Chesapeake property there was either a movement, or there had been a mortgage, possibly, that you were going to take out in order to improve the Chesapeake property. I think the committee protested and we provided the money to you in order to go ahead. And you never went ahead with the mortgage. I don't know why, really. At the time I had the feeling that I wasn't sure who was liable on your mortgage.

Can you mortgage? Can the Smithsonian mortgage its properties?

Mr. Ripley. Well, it depends what kinds of property they are.

Mr. Yates. All right. Suppose you have—the Judge wants to answer.

Mr. Ripley. Let me first say, Mr. Chairman

Mr. Yates. Judge, your client wants to answer first.

Mr. Ripley. Thank you. Let me first say this about the Chesapeake Bay property. The property was left as a bequest in a will.

Mr. Yates. Right.

Mr. Ripley. Therefore it had a real value. The question was simply whether that should be sold and the assets put into some special fund, endowment or otherwise, or kept. And the argument among the Regents was really whether to keep that property for the benefit of the Institution as an environmental center, or to sell it. They had the right to sell it out of hand, just as we did, as you know, in the past three years negotiate to sell the Belmont property which had been left under the same terms. It was clear that the Regents had the right to dispose of this property as an asset.

Mr. Yates. Why couldn't the Regents then dispose of the Hope diamond as an asset?

Mr. Ripley. Well, we think that this as an object comes under a different category. It is an object which is of benefit for exhibition, and therefore it is in the sort of public domain and should be kept as part of the museum collections.

Mr. Yates. May I ask that same question of your lawyer?

Mr. Ripley. Please.

Mr. Yates. Can the Regents sell the Hope diamond, Judge?

Mr. Powers. Is it a question of legal authority?

Mr. Yates. Yes. Not as a matter of policy. It is a question of legal authority.

Mr. Powers. I don't know whether the Hope diamond came with any restrictions on it. If it did, of course, it could not be.

Mr. Yates. Right. Those would govern.

Mr. Powers. If it was unrestricted, in principle it would be possible under the proper circumstances to sell it. But it would be, as the Secretary is saying, a question of the prudence of the matter.

Mr. Yates. Suppose you had to raise money?

Mr. Powers. I doubt that would be the first thing that one would look at. The Regents have to act as prudent trustees.

Mr. Yates. Right.

Mr. Powers. It seems to me the Hope diamond would be rather far down the list of things they would consider if they were in that kind of trouble.

Mr. Yates. What would they sell?

Mr. Powers. I don't really know at this point. I am not familiar with the collections.

Mr. Yates. Well, you have got a huge construction program coming forward. Suppose Congress in its lack of wisdom decided that funds for that huge construction program should not be granted and the Regents decided it was absolutely vital to proceed with the construction program, and they needed the funds. How could they raise the funds?

Mr. Powers. What we have done in the past, of course, is to go out and raise it in the private sector as we have for the Quadrangle.

Mr. Yates. Mr. Ripley is gone now. No longer do you have the same kind of an explorer.

Mr. Powers. It is difficult for me to predict what the distinguished Board, including your colleagues, would do under these circumstances. Eut I did want to say one thing about the mortgages.

Mr. Yates. We are talking about legal, not policy.

Mr. Powers. They would have the legal authority to do that, but the other legal constraint they operate under is that of being prudent trustees.

Mr. Yates. Yes.

Mr. Powers. That doesn't give you a specific answer, but it certainly governs anything they would decide.

Mr. Yates. Yes.

Mr. Powers. Can I say something about the mortgages?

Mr. Yates. Sure.

Mr. Powers. The only mortgages we have ever taken are what are called purchase money mortgages. The acquisition of property, the Chesapeake Bay was the only place as far as I know, we have, oh, I think only two or three locations, as part of the purchase of the property, we have taken out a purchase money mortgage with the owner or the bank. That was, in effect, to give us more time to raise the funds to pay for it. We have raised those funds largely with grants and help from the individual donors and so forth. A very small amount has been made of over the years from the unrestricted Trust funds.

Mr. Yates. They do have the power, if they are acting prudently, to dispose of any of the assets.

Mr. Powers. Unrestricted.

Mr. Yates. Unrestricted, if they act prudently. Even the Hope diamond?

Mr. Powers. In principal.

APPRAISALS OF DONATIONS

Mr. Yates. The Judge raises his hand to indicate "y es -" What about the question of appraisals? When we were in that hearing

there was agreement among all of us that there had been kind of a light-handed approach toward appraisals. Is there a change in policy on that now? Have you been working with IRS on that?

Mr. Ripley. We don't specifically work with IRS, as you know, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Yates. Yes. Not working with IRS on each appraisal but as to establishing a code on valuations.

Mr. Ripley. I don't think there is such a thing as a code exactly. What we can only do really is, if there is to be an appraisal, we can ask an owner to go and get a reputable appraisal as between maybe two or more appraisers. We don't, of course, appraise directly—we are sort of hands off on the question of appraising objects of this sort that may be offered because of the complicity problem, which is clear. It is between the owner, his own tax attorneys and his own IRS statement.

Mr. Yates. All right. Well, Mr. Hughes said last year at our hearing, at page 228 of Part 8 for 1984, when I asked him about the question, I had said by the question, "I am still troubled by the increases in values that are discussed in these gems that were given to you, because I wonder about whether the taxpayers are paying for the gifts to the Smithsonian rather than the donors, . . .'

Mr. Hughes replied:

Mr. Chairman, if I could comment, I think that is a very legitimate concern. We have, you mil note in the collections' management policies, tried to address that question more directly, still without putting ourselves into the business of appraising donations.

I am not sure we are fully satisfied yet. But the language which pertains to our responsibilities here is more stringent than it was prior to this series of events. But it is a very difficult question. I think Mr. Applemen's comment was correct, that the law permits this as things now stand. Gem appraisals are in a sense whatever they are, as is the case with art and gold and so on. While we should not be a party to a tax fraud or undue tax advantage, neither should we be in a position of making the decision as to what the appropriate tax appraisal ought to be.

I assume that is still your answer?

Mr. Hughes. Yes, sir. We have slightly different provisions with respect to gems, and we, including our counsel, are not entirely happy yet. We do ask the curator in the gem business, only, to make a judgment as to whether the appraisal is reasonable.

Mr. Yates. All right. This was an expansion of your old policy.

Mr. Hughes. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. I think you called it a new policy at the time. Has the new policy put a crimp on Smithsonian's receiving any new gifts?

Mr. Hughes. Not to my knowledge, Mr. Chairman. The gem business is functioning quite differently than it did from a variety of factors. The IRS activity is part of that. Our policy says rather explicitly that we will not acquire gems for trading purposes. The only purpose for which they can be acquired under current policy is for the collections. That in itself affects the volume of activity. That policy is being applied, and we are satisfied.

RECONCILIATION OF INVENTORY RECORDS

Mr. Yates. At the conclusion of that hearing the committee was informed that your inventory process had just about been completed of all your objects. You were then undertaking a policy of reconciliation.

Mr. Hughes. Yes.

Mr. Yates. What is the status of that?

Mr. Hughes. That process is continuing in the gems and mineral area. It is essentially completed, as it is in many other areas of the institution. The difficult and time-consuming areas are in American history, where the number of items is very large and the records frequently very incomplete. The process is going on there, it will continue at least for another year or more. We are expediting it as much as we can. The process is working I think reasonably well. Individual museum directors can talk to their particular problem. But I think the time-consuming activity is in natural history and American history.

Mr. Yates. Have you found any objects to be missing?

Mr. Hughes. Not, not to my knowledge.

Mr. Yates. Well, not to your knowledge. Who would know?

Mr. Hughes. Mr. Challinor.

RECONCILIATION OF GEMS AND MINERALS COLLECTION

Mr. Challinor. Mr. Chairman, the gem and minerals collection is being reconciled now with our original records. We show among the gems 28 cataloged entries that we cannot reconcile. In other words, we canot find the objects.

Mr. Yates. How valuable are they?

Mr. Challinor. These are of minimal value, if any. Some are pieces of quartz. For example, 12 rock crystal quartz arrowheads from North Carolina, we have not been able to find. Many of the specimens, however, we know, or we assume, have been destroyed in the process of chemical analysis. In other words, very small gems, a .5 carat corundum sapphire we cannot find. We will assume quite logically that over the years this very small piece of corundum was destroyed for analytical purposes. We do not believe it is worth going any further in this reconciliation, because the specimens we have been unable to find are of minimal value.

Mr. Yates. So that what you are saying is that your task has been completed?

Mr. Challinor. We feel the reconciliation has now been completed, and it is not worth going any further.

Mr. Yates. Would you put a list of the objects that you are unable to find into the record?

Mr. Challinor. I will.

Mr. Yates. Hand it to the reporter.

[The list follows:]

GEMS NOT FOUND

Weight (carats) Locality No. of specimens

Catalog No./name:

G 200.00/Corundum, ruby 0.811 Sri Lanka

G 245.00/Quartz, rock crystal (arrowheads) North Carolina

G 748.00/Beryl 2.871 North Carolina

G 1020.00/Corundum, ruby 1.05 Montana

G 1399.00/Quartz 19.6 North Carolina

G 1676.00/Quartz, colorless (sphere) Unknown

G 1901.00/Quartz, amethyst (carved pendant) Unknown

GEMS NOT FOUND—Continued

Weight (carats) Locality No ol specimens

G 2162.00/Diamond, greenish-brown 1.1 Unknown

G 5694.00/Hydrogrossular, pink/violet (cab) South Africa...

G 5710.00/Beryl, heliodor 35 North Carolina.

G 5799.00/Quartz, smoky (intaglio) 26.2 Germany

G 5811.00/Grossular, hessonite 2.6 Unknown

G 5830.00/Corundum, sapphire 0.55 Montana

G 5877.00/Diamond, light brown 0.53 Brazil

G 6056.00/Quartz, amethyst 1.1 Unknown

G 6058.00/Diamond, blue (irradiated) 0.325 Unknown

G 6059.00/Diamond, blue (irradiated) 0.15 Unknown

G 6066.00/Diamond, yellow 0.375 Unknown

G 6074.00/Diamond, yellow 0.225 Unknown

G 6188.00/Quartz, agate (cube, 4.1 cm) Brazil

G 6284.00/Quartz, petrified wood (broken cab) Washington

G 7181.00/Quartz, cats eye, green (cab) 1.4 South Africa....

G 7182.00/Quartz, tiger eye (cameo) 5.0 South Africa....

G 7183.00/Quartz, tiger eye (cab) 1.5 South Africa....

G 7485.00/Pumpellyite, chlorastrolite (cab/peb) Michigan

G 7486.00/Pumpellyite, chlorastrolite (cab/peb) Michigan

G 7487.00/Pumpellyite, chlorastrolite (cab/peb) Michigan

G 9344.00/Quartz, coral (cab) Panama

RECONCILIATION AT MUSEUM OF AMERICAN HISTORY

Mr. Regula. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Yates. I will yield in just a second after I complete this.

Do any of the other Assistant Secretaries have anything missing? You mentioned the National Museum of American History?

Mr. Ripley. Mr. Reinhardt.

Mr. Yates. Do you have anything missing, Mr. Reinhardt?

Mr. Reinhardt. My answer is essentially the same as David's, Mr. Chairman. In the vast stamp and coin collections of the Museum of American History we have not completed the reconciliation process. We know of no valuable items that are missing. Some of the records have not been reconciled with what we have been able to find in the inventories.

In the Art Museums the inventory has been completed, and the reconciliation process has been completed, and there are no valuable missing items.

Mr. Yates. How many items have not been reconciled in the Museum of American History?

Mr. Reinhardt. I don't know by number.

Do you, Roger?

Mr. Kennedy. The inventorying process is complete. Of 14,200,000 separate items in the postal history collection and 800,000 items in the numismatics, coins and similar items related to currency, the reconciliation process is going to take us, as the Under Secretary said, years to complete, because the state of ancient records is not good. But with regard to that aggregate of something in excess of 15.5 million items, the inventory, as he said, is done. But we will not—there can be no crisp answer with respect to the termination of the reconciliation process because in a sense it is endless. New items come in and they are recorded and con-

trolled. The process of getting the historic records reconciled will run to some hundreds of thousands of items. To give you a best guess, that will be a year or two, but not sooner.

PHILATELIC COLLECTION

Mr. Yates. How many items are involved in, you said you gave the 800,000 figure for the postal collection.

Mr. Kennedy. Sorry. That is coins. 14,227,000, depending on whether you batch them or not, is about the right number for stamps.

Mr. Yates. When you inventory your stamps, how do you do that? How do you inventory for purposes of the record on the number of stamps you have? That is the total. Do you break that down?

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. You count them manually in some instances where there are sheets or aggregates of similar items that are clearly a unit, they are batched. But you are going through increasing stages of refinement there.

Mr. Yates. Mr. Reguia.

Mr. Regula. Mr. Chairman, I had some unrelated questions.

Mr. Yates. Let me just finish this line of questioning, if I may.

missing items

What happened to the items that were missing several years ago? The sugar bowl, I think, and was it a sword that was missing?

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. My recollection is that we gave you some testimony in detail about those items which had to do with certain criminal activity last year, I believe, sir. That is, I think the report which had to do with certain FBI and other files was submitted to you. We will complete that record if that is not the case.

We recovered certain subsequent losses in the stamp collection also as a result of criminal prosecution, and we could give you a memorandum with respect to that.

Mr. Yates. The sugar bowl is still missing?

Mr. Kennedy. I don't know whether

Mr. Yates. I didn't hear you.

Mr. Kennedy. Sorry. I believe the answer to your question is, though we will fill the record later, is that those items are all returned.

Mr. Yates. Good.

Mr. Kennedy. I believe so. There were some losses of some silver items that were melted down. But I believe that we gave you a report on those last year, and they are behind us.

Mr. Yates. All right. So the record is clear on everything, then, except the items that are still to be reconciled.

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, sir.

[The information follows:]

National Museum of American History

In 1978 several silver items were discovered missing, which included the sugar bowl to which you refer. Three years later (1981) more items were discovered missing including two swords, one silver pen, and other similar items. The investigation into this loss resulted in arrests and convictions. The swords, pen and some of the other items were recovered. One year later, more items were reported missing. Sub-

sequent investigations, on which a full report is now being made, appear to implicate the same individuals convicted earlier. However, there remain a number of items, including the sugar bowl, which we can only assume will not be recovered. In the Fall of 1983, 24 of 25 stamps stolen from the NMAH were recovered and returned to the National Philatelic Collections. On September 9, 1982, two display pages of late-19th-century American stamps had been discovered missing from a display frame in the Museum's Hall of Stamps and Mails. Quick response by the Security Services Division of the Smithsonian's Office of Protection Services and the FBI's Washington Field Office, led to the arrest of a citizen who pleaded guilty in the U.S. District Court, Washington, D.C. and was sentenced to 18 months confinement. The recovered stamps are on exhibit again.

AUDIT OF THE STATUS OF COLLECTIONS INVENTORIES

Mr. Yates. In American History. And according to the report on the audit—did you bring Mr. Peratino with you this time? Can we ask Mr. Peratino a few questions on this?

Mr. Hughes. Chris.

Mr. Yates. Wherever you are, Chris. You were such a star performer last time, we just decided to call you. You are the one who prepares these very good audit reports on the status of the collections. You have indicated in the one for January, 1984, that the Smithsonian has made great strides over the past five years toward establishing inventory control over vast and diverse collections, correct?

Mr. Peratino. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. I think we ought to put this into the record to show the efforts by the Smithsonian in establishing greater inventory control over its collections. Do you find any criticism of what they are doing now, Chris?

[The Report on Audit of the Status of Collections Inventories at the Smithsonian Institution follows:]

REPORT ON AUDIT OF THE STATUS OF COLLECTIONS INVENTORIES AT THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

NOTICE — USE RESTRICTED

For use by the Board of Regents, the Secretary, appropriate members of the Secretary's Executive Committee, and others officially concerned with this audit. Further distribution of this report must be cleared in advance with the Director, Office of Audits.

BY THE

OFFICE OF AUDITS

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

JANUARY 1984

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

memorandum

sutler: Report on Au dit of the Status of Collections Inventories

TO: Secretary Ripley

Our review disclosed that the Smithsonian has made great strides over the past five years toward establishing inventory control over its vast and diverse collections.

The physical inventory, which began on a museum-wide basis in 1978, is essentially complete. Oir spot-checks during the audit disclosed that the inventory was accurately recorded.

Now that a comprehensive inventory has been completed and recorded on the official Smithsonian records, daily transactions (accessions, deaccessions, loans, etc.) must be entered on the records to maintain a current "book inventory" of the collections. Almost every museum we reviewed needed to improve in this area to one degree or another. We reccnmended that Smithsonian-wide policies and procedures be developed and issued to guide the museums in maintaining current book inventories.

We found that the National Museum of American History (NMAH) and the National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) are the only museums that need to refine their inventories to any significant extent. We recommended that NMAH and NMNH prepare long-range refinement plans on a collection-by-collection basis.

The reconciliation process at the National Portrait Gallery, the Freer Gallery of Art and the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden accounted for all of the collections in those museums. The National Museum of American Art (100 discrepancies), the Museum of African Art (500 discrepancies), and the National Air and Space Museum (700 discrepancies) are currently reconciling their discrepancies. t*ffiH, t»WH and the Cooper-Hewitt Museum of Decorative Arts and Design (C/H) have significant reconciliation work to perform. >MNH has prepared plans and schedules to complete their reconciliations. We recommended that NMAH and C/H develop plans and schedules for their collections.

Smithsonian officials concurred in the recommendations made, and advised us of corrective actions that have been initiated on the matters discussed in this report. These actions, if properly implemented, should improve the conditions noted during our review.

Buy U.S. Savings Bonds Regularly on the Payroll Savings Plan

OTTIONAL FOW* CSAFFMR 41 Cf

Vfe wish to express our appreciation for the cooperation and courtesies extended to us by Smithsonian officials contacted during our audit.

cc: Messrs. Hughes, Challinor, Howland, Jameson, Perrot, Reinhardt, Powers, Leslie, and Burke

Bureau Directors: Boyne, Eldredge, Fern, Fiske, Hamilton, Kennedy, Kinard, Lawton, Lerner, Taylor, Wemmer, and Williams

Bureau Registrars: Block, Goode, Jenkins, Johnston, Morris, Radcliffe, Robinson, Rose, Santiago, Schroffel, Throm, and L. Williams

CONTENTS

Page

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF AUDIT 1

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 2

GENERAL COMMENTS 5

RESULTS OF AUDIT 5

Physical Inventory 6

Maintenance of Inventory Records 6

Refinement of Inventory 8

Reconciliation of Inventory 10

ABBREVIATIONS

C/H Cooper-Hewitt Museum of Decorative Arts and Design

HMSG Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden

NASM National Air and Space Museum

NMAA National Museum of American Art

NMAH National Museum of Amer ican History

NMNH National Museum of Natural History

OM Office Memorandum

SI Smithsonian Institution

REPORT ON AUDIT OF THE STATUS OF COLLECTIONS INVENTORIES AT THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

The Office of Audits, Office of the Under Secretary, has performed an audit of the status of collections inventories at the Smithsonian. The audit was made under the authority delegated in Office Memorandum 752 (rev.)/ dated March 9, 1982.

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF AUDIT The purpose of the audit was to determine:

— If a comprehensive inventory of the collections was satisfactorily completed.

— Whether maintenance procedures have been established to assure that inventory transactions such as accessions, deaccessions and loans are being adequately controlled to ensure that inventory records are being kept up to date.

— ""he extent of the need for refinement of collections inventories. This involves the need for more inventory work on collections that were initially inventoried on a group or a batch basis.

— The extent of the need for reconciliation of collections upon completion of the comprehensive inventory. The objective of the reconciliation process is to determine if objects are missing from the collections.

The audit was conducted at the following museums:

Museum of African Art

National Air and Space Museum

National Museum of American Art

National Museum of American History

Cooper-Hewitt Museum of Decorative Arts and Design

Freer Gallery of Art

Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden

National Portrait Gallery

National Museum of Natural History

We also held discussions with various members of the Secretary's Executive Committee.

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on our review, we believe that the Smithsonian has made great strides over the past five years toward establishing inventory control over its vast and diverse collections. Improvements are needed, however, especially in maintenance procedures. It is most critical to establish adequate maintenance procedures to assure that the significant gains made in the past five years are not wasted.

We found that a comprehensive inventory of the collections was completed by all of the museums by June 1, 1983. We found, however, that there is a significant amount of refinement work to be done for several collections at NMAH, as well as at NMNH. Even though NMAH officials have not developed detailed refinement plans and schedules, they estimate that it will take about five years to finish this work. We could not determine how long it will take at 1WNH because they have not yet prepared detailed refinement plans and schedules. We recommended that this be done immediately.

We also made this recommendation to the Assistant Secretary for Museum Programs in a report entitled "Report On Audit of the Management of Collections", dated October 1983. Our current follow-up on this recommendation indicated that the Assistant Secretary for Museum Programs directed the SI Registrar to solicit refinement plans and schedules, however, action has not yet been initiated by the SI Registrar.

The most serious museum-wide problem that we noted during our review was in regard to maintenance of inventory records. Almost every museum we reviewed needed to improve in this area to one degree or another. One of the main reasons why maintenance records need to be improved is that there have been no policies and procedures issued to the museums on this subject. In our opinion, maintenance is the most critical aspect of the inventory process and Smithsonian-wide maintenance policies and procedures should be developed and issued immediately. We also made this recommendation in the previously mentioned report on "Management of Collections". Our current follow-up showed that the SI Registrar has not yet initiated action on this recommendation.

Our review showed that the only significant reconciliation work to be performed is at NMAH, C/H, and NMNH. tWNH has prepared reconciliation plans and schedules. We recommended that NMAH and C/H should also prepare reconciliation plans and schedules. We recommended, in the report on "Management of Collections", that the SI Registrar solicit reconciliation plans and schedules from appropriate museums. Our follow-up during this audit showed that the SI Registrar has not yet initiated action on this recommendation.

In response to our tentative findings, Smithsonian officials concurred in all 40 of our recommendations. Our follow-up disclosed that action had been initiated, but had not been completed, on any of the recommendations. Our recommendations follow.

-2-

Adequate Corrective Action Not Completed For the Director, Museum of African Art Advise the Registrar to:

1. Ensure that loan agreement documents are properly prepared.

2. Ensure that proper documentation is prepared to control the movement of all museum objects from one location to another.

3. Develop a better locator system to assure that objects can be readily found.

For the Director, NMAA

Advise the Registrar to:

1. Update the computer print-out being maintained by the NMAA Office of Museum Resources for each object in the collection to include location information.

2. Upon completion of No. 1, discontinue using 3"x5" cards currently being used as the master inventory file.

3. Reconcile the accession records to the master inventory file. For the Director, NMAH

Advise the Deputy Director to:

1. Complete the development of an automated program which will provide assurance that the inventory file is being updated for accessions and deac-cessions.

2. Complete the extensive refinement effort on the National Numismatic Collections and the National Philatelic Collections.

3. Revise inventory print-outs of the Division of Military History to show more specific locations, such as shelf or drawer number, rather than room number.

4. Prepare a museum-wide long range refinement plan on a collection by collection basis. Submit the plan to the Assistant Secretary for History and Art for his approval.

5. Prepare plans and schedules for reconciliation of inventories for submission to the SI Registrar.

-3-

34-632 0-

For the Director, C/H

Advise the Registrar to:

1. Discontinue the reconciliation process being performed by inventory technicians.

2. Reassign inventory technicians to reinventory the Wallpaper Collection noting the designated location of each object on the inventory worksheets.

3. Update the inventory file for accessions and loans which have not been entered for a two-year period.

4. Improve the system for locating objects in the four departments.

5. Prepare plans and schedules for reconciliation of inventories for submission to the SI Registrar.

For the Director, Freer Gallery of Art

Advise the Registrar to:

1. Record new locations onto the inventory records (storage area cards) for objects removed from storage areas to be placed on exhibit.

2. Emphasize to the staff authorized to handle collection objects that they should be returned to their designated locations.

For the Director, National Portrait Gallery

Advise the Registrar to:

1. Maintain accession records in the Registrar's Office rather than in the curatorial departments.

2. Update inventory records to note location changes of objects.

3. Ensure that all incoming objects are processed through the Registrar's Office.

4. Ensure that the Meserve Collection items and subsequent prints are assigned accession numbers.

For the Director, NMNH

1. Prepare a museum-wide long range refinement plan on a collection by collection basis within each department. Submit the plan to the Assistant Secretary for Science for his approval.

2. Reexamine the rationale to inventory many of the collections being moved to the Museum Support Center at the specimen or lot level.

-4-

3. Change the current management approach of the Collections Management/ Inventory Program. Consolidate the functions of ADP inventory operations; inventory maintenance; inventory spot checks; collection management policies and procedures, and the registrarial function under one office and give that office oversight responsibility of this program.

Note: We also recommended that the Director of NMNH advise the seven

department heads to implement 15 recommendations we made during our review of these departments. For brevity's sake we will not list those findings. The majority were aimed at the need to improve maintenance procedures.

GENERAL COMMENTS

In 1978, the Smithsonian initiated a complete physical inventory of their collections on a museum-wide basis. In Office Memorandum 804, "Collections Management—Inventories," dated September 21, 1978, Secretary Ripley stated, "The security of our vast collection of cultural treasures, artifacts, and scientific specimens continues to be of deep concern to me, and I am certain all share this special interest." He added, "It is essential that the collections in all our museums be brought cinder satisfactory inventory control and that collection inventories be coordinated on an Institution-wide basis."

This CM established a formal plan for conducting inventories, reporting results and monitoring compliance. The CM established a target date of June 1, 1983 to complete an initial comprehensive inventory of each collection, and a requirement for additional comprehensive inventories on a regularly scheduled cyclical basis.

There were several other OM's issued subsequent to 804 which addressed the subject of collections management. They dealt with matters such as criteria for developing collections management policies; establishing effective management controls over the collections, and defining responsibilities of various Smithsonian officials, such as the SI Registrar and bureau registrars, in the collections management process.

From 1978 to June 1983, the Smithsonian spent millions of dollars in taking physical inventories of the collections, including approximately $4 million received from Congress in special inventory funds.

RESULTS OF AUDIT

It is difficult to generalize about a subject so diverse and complex as the adequacy of inventory procedures at the various Smithsonian museums. It is much more difficult, for example, to maintain adequate inventory control over 80 million objects and specimens at NMNH than it is to maintain control over 30,000 objects at NMAA. Furthermore, the requirements for inventory control at these two museums are quite different. The consequence of a priceless piece of art

-5-

being lost or stolen is obviously more significant than specimens from a general collection in the Department of Entomology being lost or stolen.

Recognizing these differences, we issued separate audit reports to each Museum Director addressing their individual needs. The following comments are highlights from those individual reports. We have attempted to show the specific areas reviewed and to summarize the improvements needed.

Physical Inventory

The physical inventory, which began on a museum-wide basis in 1978, is essentially complete at the Smithsonian. During our review, we randomly selected items from inventory records to see if we could find the objects. Almost without exception, we were able to locate all of the objects.

During the spot-checks, we noted that many museums needed to improve the systems they have established to locate objects in the collections. It is extremely important to establish good locator systems and, more importantly, to keep them up-to-date when objects are moved.

In one museum, we found that an entire collection of several thousand objects was moved subsequent to the completion of the physical inventory. When the collection was moved, the museum stored the collection on racks but did not reference the inventory record as to each object's location. Consequently, when we made our spot-check we could not readily find any of the items we selected. We recommended that the entire collection be reinventoried and that the location of each object be noted on the inventory record.

During our review, this was the most extreme example of the effect of not having a good locator system. However, it illustrates the serious consequence of not keeping a locator system up-to-date.

Maintenance of Inventory Records

Our review of procedures used to maintain collections inventory records showed that improvement is needed to one degree or another at almost every museum reviewed.

Now that the Smithsonian has completed a comprehensive inventory, it is extremely important that adequate procedures are in place to keep the inventory up-to-date. Good maintenance procedures should provide reasonable assurance that accessions, deaccessions, loans, etc. are documented properly and that the documentation is processed so that inventory master lists are kept current. Ideally, when a good system is in place and systematically followed, inventory master lists will show exactly what objects are in the collections at any given time. In our judgment, keeping maintenance records up-to-date is the most critical aspect of the collections inventory process.

Our review showed that except for NASM and HMSG, every museum needed to improve its maintenance procedures. Some of the problems we noted were:

-6-

— Some museums, or departments, have not established a central receiving point for the purpose of controlling objects. Instead, objects can be received by any curator or technician who would then be responsible for processing documentation to ensure that inventory records are established. Under these procedures, there is less assurance that inventory master records are kept up-to-date.

— Some museums' procedures did not provide for a periodic reconciliation of objects accessioned to inventory records. The value in making this reconciliation is that it allows the museums to quickly determine if their maintenance procedures are working well. If weaknesses are detected, they can be corrected on a small scale. Otherwise, the weaknesses will not be found until a comprehensive inventory is taken at same later date, at which point it will be much more difficult to correct the records.

— We found that objects were removed from collection areas with no indication as to where they were, or who had them. We also found that objects were being returned to other than their original location. Since the inventory master record showed the old location, we could not readily find these items during our spot-check. Over a period of time, a breakdown of this type will greatly impair the usefulness of the inventory master records.

— Some museums keep their inventory master records on 3" x 5" file cards, rather than on a computerized record. We noted in several museums that these cards were kept in an open area readily accessible to many people. Under these circumstances, if an object were stolen from the collections, the related inventory card could be easily removed from the file, thereby allowing the theft to go undetected for a long period of time. We also noted that there were no back-up files for these cards. In the event of a fire or other form of destruction, the inventory master records would have to be completely redone.

— At one museum we found that entries had not been made to their computerized inventory file for accessions or deaccessions for a two-year period.

During the course of our review, we held discussions with many Smithsonian officials about the need for good maintenance procedures. We talked with museum directors, department heads, registrars, curators and inventory technicians. Based on these discussions, we were surprised at the number of people who did not understand maintenance procedures. Many did not see the importance of maintaining inventory records. As one curator of a large and valuable collection

-7-

said, "What difference does it make whether we maintain the inventory of our collections or not - we can always correct the records when we take our next physical inventory." This response represents the antithesis of the philosophy of maintenance procedures. The primary value of keeping inventory records up-to-date, is that it provides a "book" inventory which can be used to compare against comprehensive physical inventories. If the Smithsonian allows maintenance procedures to deteriorate, it will find itself back where it was in 1978.

In our opinion, the primary reason why we found such widespread misunderstanding of the need for good maintenance procedures is because there has been so much emphasis up to this point on the completion of physical inventories. We believe it is important at this stage to issue Smithsonian-wide maintenance procedures as soon as possible in the form of an CM.

In the previously mentioned report issued by our office entitled "Review of the Management of Collections" we recommended that the Assistant Secretary for Museum Programs direct that the SI Registrar "Initiate action to revise CM 804 by December 31, 1983 to fully address the importance and need for bureaux to keep their inventory records up-to-date." We followed up on this recommendation during this review and found that it has not yet been initiated. We stress the importance of these procedures, and urge the SI Registrar to initiate the recommended action.

Refinement of Inventory

We found that NMAH & NMNH are the only museums that need to refine their inventories to any significant extent. By refinement we mean the need for further inventory work on collections that were initially inventoried on a group or batch basis, or the need to enter additional information onto existing inventory records to make the records more useful.

There are several reasons why refinement is necessary. For example, during the physical inventory at NMAH asbestos leakage was found in some locations. Since inventory personnel could not be exposed to the asbestos for extended periods of time, they inventoried these objects in batches and sealed off the collections to prevent movement of objects in or out of the collections. When the asbestos leakage is under control, the inventory will be resumed on an item by item basis, where appropriate.

Another reason why certain collections need to be refined is that time constraints did not permit the completion of these collections to the extent desired. Therefore, a minimum of information was recorded during the inventory process so that the inventory could be finished by the Smithsonian deadline of June 1, 1933.

The major refinement effort that needs to be completed at NMAH is in the Philatelic and Numismatic Collections. Based on our review of the Philatelic Collections, we found that a significant amount of work needs to be performed before this collection of 13 million items will be under effective inventory control.

-8-

NMAH officials estimate that it will take five years to reorganize, house and inventory the objects in that collection. Even this estimate may be overly optimistic because the Deputy Director, NMAH, said that it would take that long if additional funding were received, and, to date, that additional funding has not been received by ?*1AH.

Our office is currently making a management review of the Numismatic Collections. We will issue a report on our review, including our findings and recommendations on collections inventory, in the near future. Our review to date has indicated that about 40% of this collection of 800,000 items was batch-inventoried prior to June 1, 1983. In addition to this planned refinement effort, we found that more work will be required on certain coins that have already been inventoried at the item level.

At MWH, we talked to various Department Collection Managers about the need for refinement work in their collections. Based on the responses we received, we found that refinement criteria varied quite a bit from department to department. Some managers indicated that they would like to inventory all of their collections on a specimen or lot level. Others said that little additional effort was required beyond the initial phase, even though they had a significant amount of material that was inventoried at the collection level. As a result of these inconsistent responses, we could not make a judgement as to the resources required to finish the shelf inventory or to initiate new inventory effort.

We reccmnended that NMNH establish a museum-wide long range refinement plan. This plan should address the refinement requirements on a collection by collection basis within each department indicating the number of man-years required to complete each collection. It should also specify new inventory effort for collections that were inventoried only at the collection level prior to June 1, 1983. We believe that this latter point is particularly important because criteria for future inventories should be established now so that parameters can be established for budgetary purposes.

In our opinion, this type of plan is needed for NMNH more than any other museum we reviewed because of the nature and size of its collections. It has some collections which are quite valuable monetarily and/or from a research point of view. These collections should be and were inventoried at the specimen or lot level (Anthropology for example). Others have a preponderence of low value collections and, therefore, once having inventoried the type specimens, there is, in our opinion, no need to inventory the general collections beyond the collection level. CEntomology for example inventoried only 3% of its total collection at the specimen or lot level).

In an audit report entitled "Review of Management of Collections," dated October 13, 1983, we recommended that the Assistant Secretary for Museum Programs direct that the SI Registrar "Solicit Immediately from the various bureau registrars or other appropriate bureau officials formal plans and schedules for inventory refinement " We followed up on this recommendation and found that the SI Registrar has not yet solicited this information. We reiterate in this report that the SI Registrar should immediately solicit this information.

-9-

Reconciliation Of Inventory

Our review indicated that the only museums that have significant reconciliation work are NMAH, C/H, and tWINH.

The reconciliation process has been completed at the National Portrait Gallery, the Freer Gallery of Art, and HMSG. The reconciliations at these three museums accounted for all of the collections.

For the other three museums, NMAA noted approximately 100 discrepancies which they are currently reconciling. They expect to be complete by the end of fiscal year 1984. The Museum of African Art noted about 500 discrepancies. They advised us that unless they get additional staff, they will not complete the reconciliation process until 1986-1988. NASM had approximately 700 discrepancies. They advised us that they expect to resolve the majority of these by the end of fiscal year 1984.

The reconciliation process is an attempt to reconcile the physical inventory with inventory and preinventory records to the extent considered desirable and practical. Reconciliation should be tempered by the intrinsic and research value of the objects being reconciled. In some cases, the reconciliation effort would far exceed the value of the objects, while in other cases reconciliation would not be possible owing to incomplete preinventory records.

Since there is a potential for wasteful expenditures for impractical or inappropriate reconciliation efforts, our main emphasis during our review was to determine if written plans and schedules have been developed for reconciling collections. We found that there is a need to develop these plans and schedules, particularly at NMAH and C/H. At NMNH, the only collections that are being reconciled to preinventory records to any extent are the gems, minerals and ethnographic collections. NMNH has prepared plans and schedules for these collections and estimates that the reconciliation process will be completed by the end of fiscal year 1984.

It is particularly important that NMAH and C/H develop reconciliation plans and schedules in order to preclude wasteful expenditures due to their unique situations. NMAH was formed originally by the separation of the old U.S. National Museum into two major components, the other of which was NMNH. Over the years, in the interest of effective management, certain collections were divided and recombined. Whenever objects were transferred from one curatorial unit to another, objects and records were not always matched against each other, either before or immediately after such mass transfers. Consequently, records may still be housed in one collection and objects related to those records in another.

The situation at C/H is similar to that at NMAH. When the Smithsonian acquired this collection in 1976, they also acquired accession and catalogue records, the earliest of which dated to before the turn of the century. When the collection was acquired, no physical inventory was taken. During the recent physical inventory, they compared the inventory records to the old accession records and found approximately 13,000 "mismatches". They advised us that they

-10-

were going to assign inventory technicians to the various collections to see if they could locate these "missing" items. We believe that prior to starting this attempt at reconciliation, C/H should prepare plans and schedules outlining the rationale for the procedure and the estimated dates of completion for each collection.

In the previously mentioned audit report entitled "Review of the Management of Collections", we recommended that the Assistant Secretary for Museum Programs direct that the SI Registrar "Solicit immediately from the various bureau registrars or other appropriate bureau officials plans and schedules for inventory reconciliation " During this review, we followed up on this recommendation and found that the SI Registrar has not solicited this information to date. We recommend again that the SI Registrar solicit reconciliation plans and schedules from all applicable museums.

-11-

Mr. Peratino. Well, we sort of spell out a few things we feel need to be done, yes.

Mr. Yates. Such as what?

Mr. Peratino. Well, we felt all along the primary thing was to get control of the current inventory. And that the refinement process should proceed because we need to get control of things at the level at which we want it. But the reconciliation process we felt was history.

We were more concerned with getting control of our current inventory. We feel that now that we have an inventory, the primary thrust should be to maintain a current book inventory so that the next time we take a physical inventory, we will have something to compare it against.

Mr. Yates. What do you mean by a book inventory? I thought you had a computer inventory. Is this the same thing?

Mr. Peratino. A book inventory is where you put in your current activity, such as accessions, deaccessions, loans and things, so that any time you push the button, you can say what is in the collection today.

Mr. Yates. Okay.

Mr. Peratino. So that is a book inventory, a current inventory being a book inventory.

Mr. Yates. All right.

Mr. Peratino. All right, so what we felt is needed now is guidance to everyone in the Smithsonian to continue the maintenance, in other words, the updating of the physical inventory that was taken during that five-year period.

Mr. Yates. Isn't this being done?

Mr. Peratino. To varying degrees.

Mr. Yates. I thought it had been completed. Now that it has been completed, I had assumed and the committee had assumed it was being maintained as an ongoing process. What you are saying is that it is not being maintained as an ongoing process to the extent that you think it should be.

Mr. Peratino. That is correct, sir.

Mr. Yates. Where is it deficient?

Mr. Peratino. There are backlogs in posting current activity, and certain museums did not recognize the need to continue this current activity. We have pointed this out to everyone and recommended that steps be taken to get things current in that area.

Mr. Yates. Why can't that be done?

Mr. Hughes. It is being done.

Mr. Ripley. It may partly be a staffing

Mr. Yates. He says it is not being done. Mr. Peratino says it is not being done.

Mr. Ripley. Mr. Chairman, it may partly be a staffing problem.

Mr. Peratino. Yes.

Mr. Ripley. We are weak in numerical staff in particular bureaus, it is quite obvious that they get a backlog.

Mr. Yates. That is what we want to do. It doesn't make sense to bring your inventory up to date and then let it fall behind.

Mr. Ripley. That is absolutely right.

Mr. Yates. The committee believes it is of very great importance. How do you maintain this process? What do you need to maintain it? Do you need additional funds to maintain it?

Mr. Ripley. It has to be done with trained personnel who are available, and this isn't always the case.

Mr. Yates. All right. Will this budget take care of that process?

Mr. Ripley. I can't answer that, but I perceive that over the years

Mr. Yates. Somebody should have an answer to that, Dillon.

Mr. Ripley. That is right.

Mr. Yates. All right, who can answer that?

Mr. Hughes. I believe Chis will, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Yates. Go ahead, Chris.

Mr. Peratino. I believe Roger Kennedy and Dick Fiske and others could answer to that as to what their needs are to maintain the inventory.

Mr. Yates. Roger, what do you need to maintain the inventory?

PHILATELIC AND NUMISMATIC COLLECTIONS

Mr. Kennedy. The budget that you have before you shows in the requested additional positions a couple of technicians whose primary functions are related to these two enormous collections, stamps and coins. There are fancier names, but that is what they are.

If we get the relatively modest sum of money for the positions— and retain the resources already assigned to us for inventory we can indeed keep the process current.

Mr. Yates. Is that part of the budget that has been approved by OMB?

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, sir, that which has already been approved by OMB and is before you will enable us to carry that process on.

Mr. Yates. How long will it take you to bring that process up to date assuming you get the money?

Mr. Kennedy. It is not a matter of

Mr. Yates. Or how far behind are you in the process?

Mr. Kennedy. It is not a matter of our being behind or not being in control. It is a matter of learning enough about each of these items. It isn't just a matter of one stamp, blue. Particularly with high-cost items, it is having enough information with respect to it so that you can both know it for inventory, that is, management of the merchandise reasons, but also use it for scholarly reasons.

This is a double process. You want to know enough so that you can call forth the information to use your collection. So you are deepening your knowledge of what you own at the same time that you are identifying what you own.

So the answer to that question is, it isn't quite endless, but it will take two or three more years at any rate with this staff. You can do it faster or slower. But I do not think, sir, there is a problem of inventory control in the sense that you are now asking these questions if we get the staff requests here.

Mr. Yates. Let me put into the record the audit for March, 1984.

It indicates the problems that you have, and I think fairly so. We will try to be helpful with your problems.

[The Report on Audit of the National Numismatic Collections follows:]

REPORT ON AUDIT

OF THE

NATIONAL NUMISMATIC COLLECTIONS

NOTICE — USE RESTRICTED

For use by the Board of Regents, the Secretary, appropriate members of the Secretary's Executive Committee, and others officially concerned with this audit. Further distribution of this report must be cleared in advance with the Director, Office of Audits.

BY THE

OFFICE OF AUDITS

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

MARCH 1984

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

m Jt^j0 <r memorandum

'Chris S. Peratino Audit of the National Numismatic Collections (NNC)

Secretary Ripley

Our review disclosed that improvements are needed in the maintenance of the National Numismatic Collections to improve the security and control over the collections.

Smithsonian officials agreed with our recommendations and advised us of corrective actions taken or initiated on the matters discussed in this report. These actions, if properly completed, should correct the situations noted.

At the closing conference on this audit, the Deputy Director, National Museum of American History, and the NNC Executive Director, outlined the staff, space, storage supplies, and equipment needed to implement the recommendations in this report. They stated that with this support, the museum can better maintain the collections and improve public programs. The Under Secretary suggested that these needs be discussed by the Assistant Secretary for History and Art at the upcoming hearings before the House and Senate appropriations committees.

We wish to express our appreciation for the cooperation and courtesies extended to us by Smithsonian officials contacted during the audit.

cc: Messrs. Hughes, Reinhardt, Jameson, Powers, Kennedy, Evelyn, Perkins, McGuire, and Mrs. Clain-Stefanelli

Buy U.S. Savings Bonds Regularly on the Payroll Savings Plan

O^TIO*4Ai-rO«M MO. 10

CONTENTS

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF AUDIT 1

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 1

GENERAL COMMENTS 6

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7

Objects Left in the Custody of NNC 7

Photographic Controls Over Collections 11

Physical Security 15

Clarification on the Status of Objects Received from the Bureau

of the Mint 19

Inventory Refinement • 21

Controls Over Loans of Collection Objects 24

Authentication of Suspected Counterfeits 27

Outstanding Accession Documents 29

Controls Over Library Materials 31

Nonexpendable Property 33

ABBREVIATIONS

AO Accountable Officer

DMS Division of Medical Science

DOC Division of Costume

NMAH National Museum of American History

NMNH National Museum of Natural History

NNC National Numismatic Collections

OASMP Office of Assistant Secretary for Museum

Programs

OPF Objects Processing Facility

OPPS Office of Printing and Photographic

Services

OPS Office of Protection Services

OR Office of Registrar

OSS Office of Supply Services

PMO Property Management Officer

SIL Smithsonian Institution Libraries

SSH Smithsonian Staff Handbook

REPORT ON AUDIT OF THE NATIONAL NUMISMATIC COLLECTIONS

The Office of Audits, Office of the Under Secretary, has performed an audit of the National Numismatic Collections. The audit was made under the authority delegated in Office Memorandum 752 (rev.), dated March 9, 1982.

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF AUDIT

The purpose of the audit was to review and evaluate the overall management of NNC. Because of the type and size of the NNC collections, we concentrated much of our audit effort in the area of collections management. The other NNC mission areas of exhibitions, research and publications, and education services were included in our review to a lesser degree. We also reviewed internal controls over library materials, nonexpendable property, and small procurements.

We reviewed Smithsonian, NMAH, and NNC policies, office memoranda, and related correspondence. We held discussions with Smithsonian officials to ascertain their responsibilities and the nature and scope of activities performed. We reviewed administrative practices and procedures and examined transactions and records to the extent deemed necessary.

The audit was conducted primarily at NNC. Other Smithsonian offices were included in the audit to the extent necessary to fully complete our review of NNC operations.

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our review, we determined that:

— Accountability over objects left in the custody of NNC needed to be improved.

— Photographic controls over collection objects needed to be improved.

— Physical security over collection objects needed to be improved.

— The title status of objects received from the Bureau of the Mint needed to be clarified.

— Certain inventory refinement tasks needed to be included in NNC's inventory refinement plan.

— Controls over loans of collection objects needed to be improved.

— A policy and procedures for authenticating and reporting suspected counterfeit specimens needed to be established.

— The status of certain accession numbers assigned to NNC needed to be clarified.

— Controls over NNC library materials, including certain rare items, needed to be improved.

— Controls over nonexpendable property assigned to NNC needed to be improved.

We reported certain minor matters to the Deputy Director, NMAH, and the Director, Office of Personnel Administration, in memoranda dated November 22, 1983 and November 28, 1983-

During the course of the audit, officials of NMAH and the Office of General Counsel initiated action to dispose of 3,735 pounds of unaccessioned Mexican silver coins which were received from the Bureau of Customs in 1967. In view of the action already initiated on this matter, we are not making any recommendations concerning the disposal of these coins.

In response to our tentative findings, Smithsonian officials concurred in all of our 38 recommended actions. Our follow-up disclosed that adequate corrective action had been completed on six of our recommendations, and had been initiated, but had not been completed, on the remaining 32.

Adequate Corrective Action Completed For the Deputy Director, NMAH

Direct that the Executive Director, NNC: • 1. Comply with the NMAH Collections Management Policy, to include:

a. Not accepting custody of collection objects unless the objects can be returned or accessioned within 90 days. (Page 10)

b. Notifying OPF within a week after receipt of collection objects in NNC. (Page 11)

c. Requiring the owners of collection objects left in the custody of NNC to sign a Temporary Custody Receipt, and forwarding the receipt to the OR. (Page 11)

2. Notify OPF immediately of the 65 Roman, Greek, and Byzantine dies and the 63 Roman, Greek, and Byzantine coins; have the owners sign either a

deed of gift or a Temporary Custody Receipt immediately for these objects; and provide the OR with accession documents (including a deed of gift) or Temporary Custody Receipts for these objects. (Page 11)

3. Begin immediately to use the combination lock on the vault door to provide additional security during non-duty hours. (Page 19)

4. Secure the Mexican silver coins, currently being stored outside the NNC vault, by transferring them to the vault. (Page 19)

-2-

34-632 0—84 9

5- Begin using the personnel and objects logbooks as required in the October 16, 1982, "Guidelines for Securing Reference Areas". (Page 19)

For the Smithsonian PMO

Direct that the NNC AO inventory all property items under the control of NNC which meet the criteria of accountable property, but which are not currently on the NNC property listing, and report the items to OSS on form SI-2907. (Page 35)

Adequate Corrective Action Not Completed For the Deputy Director, NMAH

1. Direct that the Executive Director, NNC:

a. Either return the coins belonging to the U.S. Secret Service or obtain their permission to accession them. (Page 11)

b. Initiate an incoming loan form for the Silver Jubilee medals belonging to OASMP, and provide an executed copy to the OR. (Page 11)

c. Improve physical security over those items being stored for other NMAH and Smithsonian units by placing the items in limited access cabinets and/or rooms within the main NNC vault. (Page 11)

d. In coordination with the OR and in consultation with OPS:

(1) Determine the quality of photographs necessary for positive identification of NNC specimens in the event they are lost or stolen. (Page 14)

(2) Establish criteria for photographing newly acquired items for security purposes; begin photographing new objects based on established quality and criteria standards; and ensure that accession files, inventory records, and housing containers of objects photographed are properly annotated to reflect the availability and location of photographs and/or negatives. (Page 14)

e. Plan and budget for a project to photograph high value exhibit items. (Page 15)

f. Establish criteria for selecting objects in the vault for photographing under the current photography contract. (Page 15)

-3-

Develop a filing and indexing system for photographs and negatives that will permit timely location of photographs or negatives of collection objects. (Page 15)

Inmediately identify those rooms, cabinets, cases, etc., that should be kept locked when not in use; designate those employees authorized to access the locked units; physically inventory and record all keys in use and dispose of obsolete keys; and place keys in use, including duplicates, under proper security and control. (Page 18)

Develop written policies and procedures on internal security over the NNC collections to include responsibilities, authorities, and procedures for:

(1) Securing collection storage rooms and units and exhibit cases. (Page 19) i

(2) Accessing collection storage rooms and units and exhibit cases. (Page 19)

(3) Key Control. (Page 19)

(4) Periodic inspections of collection storage rooms and units and exhibit cases. (Page 19)

(5) Monitoring compliance with and reporting violations of security policies and procedures. (Page 19) .

Review the 169 transactions occurring since the initial transfer of the Mint collection in 1923 in order to assure that Smithsonian records reflect accurately the language of each such transaction. (Page 21)

Prepare for the Deputy Director's approval (1) a brief history of the Mint collection with the Executive Director's opinions as to why certain transaction language has been used by the Mint over the years, and (2) the Executive Director's recommendation for steps that should be taken if, in the future, questions should arise concerning the lending or disposal of any Mint collection specimen. (Page 21)

Include the approved history and recommendation in the permanent Mint collection records which are maintained by NNC and the NMAH OR. (Page 21)

Include the following tasks in the NNC inventory refinement plan:

-4-

(1) Assign unique identification numbers, where applicable, to objects that have been inventoried at the item level, and add the assigned numbers to the computerized inventory records and housing containers of the objects. (Page 24)

(2) Add or change film roll and frame numbers in existing inventory records. (Page 24)

(3) Perform a 100% verification of the inventory printouts for exhibit items. (Page 24)

n. Establish separate active and inactive loan files, and periodically review the status of all active loans. (Page 27)

o. In coordination with OPS, develop written policy and procedures for authenticating suspected counterfeit specimens and reporting confirmed counterfeits to OPS where appropriate. (Page 29)

p. Report NNC's cataloging backlog to the Director, SIL, and coordinate with SIL, a project for cataloging NNC's uncata-loged library materials. (Page 33)

q. Coordinate with the Director, SIL, a project to identify items in the NNC library for assignment to SIL's Special Collections. (Page 33)

r. Review the need for typewriters for NNC; transfer any

excess usable typewriters to other NMAH units having a need for typewriters; and report to OSS those typewriters which are surplus to the needs of NMAH. (Page 35)

2. Direct that the Executive Director, NNC, and the NMAH Registrar, in a coordinated effort:

a. Identify all outstanding NNC loans. (Page 26)

b. Determine if incoming loan items should be returned or accessioned, and if outgoing loan items should be recalled or deaccessioned. (Page 26)

c. Initiate new loan agreements, for definite periods, for those objects that are to remain on loan. (Page 27)

d. Determine the status of incoming loan specimens that cannot be located in the NNC collections, and report any missing specimens to OPS. (Page 27)

e. Research the status of all NNC accessions which OR reports indicate are still outstanding. (Page 3D

-5-

3- Direct that the supervisory curators of DOC and DMS initiate intramural loan forms for those objects being stored in the NNC vault, and forward an executed copy to the OR. (Page 11)

4. Direct that the supervisory curator of DMS add the 36 DMS medals being stored in NNC to the DMS physical inventory record. (Page 11)

5. Direct that the NMAH Registrar, after determining the status of outstanding NNC loans, update OR loan records accordingly. (Page 27)

For the Smithsonian PMO

1. Investigate the shortage of three NNC property items detected during the audit. (Page 35)

2. Direct that the NNC AO:

a. Identify personal property items belonging to NNC staff members, remove or direct the removal of those staff-owned items not being used for official business, and tag those staff-owned property items that remain on NNC premises for official use. (Page 35)

b. Consult with the PMO on whether certain camera accessories should be added to the NNC property listing. (Page 35)

GENERAL COMMENTS

Formerly the Division of Numismatics, NNC was established in 1980 as a result of an NMAH reorganization. The Executive Director, NNC, reports directly to the Deputy Director, NMAH. As a curatorial unit of NMAH, NNC's mission, as described in an NNC publication, is "the search into the history of all forms of money, attempting to explain their origin, their evolution, their extrinsic appearance as well as their intrinsic qualities, their relations to economics, to social and cultural history, as well as to the history of art. Parallel with this is the search into the various aspects and development of medallic art."

As of February 1, 1984, NNC employed eight personnel, all Federal appointments. Seven of the-eight employees held permanent positions (six full-time and one part-time). The remaining employee, the Collections Manager, was under a two year temporary appointment.

The NNC collections contain approximately 800,000 objects. Approximately 6,700 of these objects are on exhibit in the museum's Hall of Money and Medals. The balance of the objects are stored in a vault within the NNC office confines in NMAH. In calendar year 1983, NNC accessioned 1,986 objects in 48 separate transactions.

-6-

NNC funding has been almost exclusively Federal S&E. A review of fiscal year 1982 and 1983 costs showed that most of the funding was used for personnel costs. A summary of costs for these two fiscal years follows:

(In 000's of Dollars) Fiscal Year 1982 Fiscal Year 1983

Federal Trust Total Federal Trust Total

Totals $254.3 $15.8 $270.1 $207.9 $24.0 $231-9

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

OBJECTS LEFT IN THE CUSTODY OF NNC

Accountability over Smithsonian and non-Smithsonian objects left in the custody of NNC needs to be improved. Our review disclosed that 2,118 objects, with an estimated value of at least $200,000, were being held in the custody of NNC without proper documentation. The Smithsonian could be held liable for missing or damaged non-Smithsonian objects as long as title to the objects has not been transferred to the Smithsonian or if the owners have not formally released the Smithsonian of liability for the objects. Responsibility for lost or damaged objects belonging to other Smithsonian units but stored in NNC would be difficult to determine without proper documentation.

Non-Smithsonian Objects

Objects Awaiting Accessioning - At the time of our review, NNC was holding in its vault two groups of non-Smithsonian objects which were awaiting accessioning. The NMAH OR had not been notified of these two groups of objects, nor were there any documents or listings on hand in NNC or the OR showing receipt or description of the objects. In addition, neither group of objects were included in NNC's physical inventory of the collections.

The first group of objects included 65 Roman, Greek, and Byzantine counterfeit dies, described by the Executive Director, NNC, as being of excellent quality. These dies could be used to produce quality counterfeit gold or silver coins. These dies were received from a coin dealer approximately two years ago, according to the Executive Director, along with other groups of numismatic items that have since been accessioned. The dealer had asked NNC not to accession the dies until 1983- NNC had not initiated action to accession these objects,

-7-

including obtaining a deed of gift from the dealer, at the time of our review. Accessioning of these dies was being delayed until time became available for the Executive Director to attribute, or list, the 65 dies. Listing is the first step in the accessioning process, and depending on the quantity and complexity of the objects, may involve many days of research and analysis to obtain the proper description of the objects.

The second group of objects awaiting accessioning included 63 Roman, Greek, and Byzantine coins, with an estimated value of $8,000 - $11,000. Per the Executive Director, these coins were received sometime during the Spring 1983 from a coin dealer. The coins were being held by NNC while the dealer attempted to locate a buyer who would be willing to donate the coins to NNC after being purchased. During our review, the coins were sold to another dealer who has agreed to donate them to NNC.

The NMAH established the 0PF under the OR in July 1980. The objective of the 0PF is to establish minimal control records for all objects placed in or leaving the custody of the museum for any period of time. All objects entering or leaving the museum are supposed to pass physically through 0PF. Exceptions were made in August 1982 for NNC and the National Philatelic Collection because of the volume and sensitivity of the objects involved. NNC is now contacted once a week by OPF personnel to determine if any objects were received during the previous week. If objects have been received, OPF personnel are to visit NNC and record the objects.

The NMAH Collections Management Policy, dated April 1982, states that all objects coming into the custody of the museum must be registered with -the OR within five days of their arrival and the purpose, circumstances, and expected duration of stay recorded on a NMAH Temporary Custody Receipt. By signing the Temporary Custody Receipt, owners of the objects release the museum of liability for the objects. The policy also states that any temporary custody of objects is not to exceed 90 days.

The Executive Director, NNC, advised us that in the past, objects were frequently acquired for accessioning and held for long periods prior to the OPF being notified and the objects accessioned. Items may be given by a donor in one year, with a request not to accession them until the following year. Also, a lack of NNC staff time may delay listing acquisitions involving large quantities. NNC practice has been not to notify OPF until the objects have been listed and the necessary accession documents have been prepared. The Executive Director, who was not involved in the management of the collections until she became head of NNC in October 1982, stated that she was unaware of the requirement to notify OPF immediately upon receipt of objects and to have the owner of the objects sign a Temporary Custody Receipt.

We believe that the Executive Director, NNC, should comply with museum policy by: not accepting custody of objects unless the objects can be returned or accessioned within 90 days; notifying OPF within a week after objects are received in NNC; and requiring owners to sign Temporary Custody Receipts when

-8-

objects are left in the custody of NNC. We also believe that the NNC should immediately notify OPF of the above objects, obtain signed Temporary Custody Receipts from the owners of the objects, and forward copies to the OR.

Objects Held for Examination - NNC received six gold coins in 1965 and 1,510 coins in 1972 from the U.S. Secret Service. NNC was requested to examine these coins to determine if they were genuine or counterfeit. A value placed on 1,230 of these coins in 1972 by the Secret Service was near $87,000, assuming the coins were genuine. Although signed letters from the Secret Service were on hand in NNC requesting the examination of the coins and listing in detail the coins left in the custody of NNC, there was no signed receipt document on hand in NNC or the OR showing that these coins were inventoried and accepted by NNC or that released the Smithsonian of liability for the objects. Our physical inventory of sealed Secret Service envelopes containing the bulk of the coins, and of coins in Secret Service envelopes that had been opened by NNC, disclosed that all coins delivered by the Secret Service in 1965 and 1972 were on hand. These coins were also not included in the physical inventory of NNC collections.

The Executive Director, NNC, was not certain of the status of these coins. The previous Executive Director had always dealt with matters involving the Secret Service. During our review, the Executive Director requested the Secret Service to review the status of the coins. Depending on the outcome of this review, we believe that the coins should either be returned to the Secret Service or accessioned by NNC.

Objects Belonging To Other Smithsonian Units

We noted that NNC was storing objects belonging to three other Smithsonian units. These objects, because of their value, were deposited with NNC for safekeeping. Details follow.

Silver Jubilee Medals - These medals were produced in 1977 for the Smithsonian to commemorate Her Majesty's Elizabeth II Silver Jubilee. They are not part of the Smithsonian's collections, but were acquired for resale. The inventory of these medals is the responsibility of the 0ASMP. On October 28, 1983, we counted 430 of these medals in the NNC. They were being stored in four sealed and one unsealed cardboard boxes on top of storage cabinets in the NNC vault. According to 0ASMP documents, these medals had a unit cost of $66.53 and sold for $125 to the general public. We could not locate any receipt or other document in NNC, the OR, or 0ASMP showing these 430 medals in the custody of NNC. An outdated receipt for 244 medals signed by an NNC employee on December 2, 1977, was found in OASMP. These medals were properly not included in the recent physical inventory of Smithsonian collections. An employee of OASMP was maintaining a separate inventory control over these medals.

-9-

Division of Costume Jewelry - The NMAH DOC has been keeping high value jewelry items in NNC for several years. Currently, eight jewelry items, with an estimated value of at least $10,000 each, are being stored in NNC. Two packages wrapped in paper and sealed with tape, held the eight jewelry items. We could not locate any receipt or other document in NNC, DOC, or the OR for these eight items. The DOC was keeping a separate record of items stored in the NNC vault. These items were included in the physical inventory of DOC collections. The jewelry items were being kept in a storage cabinet with other NNC objects. The cabinet is accessible to both NNC employees and members of the NMAH inventory team assigned to NNC.

Division of Medical Science Medals - The NMAH DMS deposited 36 medals with NNC in 1972. The medals were packaged in wrapped paper and sealed with tape. An employee of DMS estimated the 1972 value of these donated medals at $1,800 -$3,600. We could not locate any receipt or other document in NNC, DMS, or the OR for these 36 medals. We were also advised that the medals were overlooked by DMS in the physical inventory of their collections. The medals were being kept in the same storage cabinet as the DOC jewelry items.

We were advised by OR personnel that an intramural loan form could be used to document and report to the OR objects transferred from NMAH units to NNC for storage purposes. An incoming loan form could be used to document and report to the OR objects transferred from other Smithsonian units to NNC for storage purposes. These "loans" could be for specified time periods with an option to renew, as is the museum policy for loans for exhibit and research purposes. We believe that these loan documents should be initiated immediately for those objects currently being stored by NNC for other NMAH and Smithsonian units.

We also believe that NNC should further limit access to those objects being held for other NMAH and Smithsonian units by storing them in storage cabinets that can be accessed only by the Executive Director. Such cabinets already exist in NNC. For more bulky items requiring more space, the objects could be stored in one of two rooms within the NNC vault where access could be further limited.

Recommendations

We recommended that the Deputy Director, NMAH, direct that the:

1. Executive Director, NNC:

a. Comply with the NMAH Collections Management Policy, to include:

(1) Not accepting custody of collection objects unless the objects can be returned or accessioned within 90 days.

-10-

(2) Notifying OPF within a week after receipt of collection objects in NNC.

(3) Requiring the owners of collection objects left in the custody of NNC to sign a Temporary Custody Receipt, and forwarding the receipt to the OR.

b. Notify OPF immediately of the 65 Roman, Greek, and Byzantine dies and the 63 Roman, Greek, and Byzantine coins; have the owners sign either a deed of gift or a Temporary Custody Receipt immediately for these objects; and provide the OR with accession documents (including a deed of gift) or Temporary Custody Receipts "or these objects.

c. Either return the coins belonging to the U.S Secret Service or obtain their permission to accession them.

d. Initiate an incoming loan form for the Silver Jubilee medals belonging to OASMP, and provide an executed copy to the OR.

e. Improve physical security over those items being stored for other NMAH and Smithsonian units by placing the items in limited access cabinets and/or rooms within the main NNC vault.

2. Supervisory curators of the DOC and DMS initiate intramural loan forms for those objects being stored in the NNC vault, and forward an executed copy to the OR.

3- Supervisory curator of DMS add the 36 DMS medals being stored in NNC to the DMS physical inventory record.

In a memorandum dated January 23, 1984, the Deputy Director, NMAH, concurred in our recommendations and advised us of action initiated on our recommendations. Our follow-up disclosed that adequate corrective action had been completed on recommendations 1a and 1b, but not yet completed on recommendations 1c, 1d, 1e, 2, and 3- We believe that the action initiated on recommendations 1c, 1d, 1e, 2, and 3» if properly completed, will correct the situation reported.

PHOTOGRAPHIC CONTROLS OVER COLLECTIONS

NNC needs to improve the photographic controls over high value collection items. Improved controls are needed to ensure positive and timely identification in the event items are lost or stolen. Our review disclosed that:

— The quality of existing photographs of items on exhibit may not be adequate for identification purposes in the event objects are lost or stolen.

— Photographic records do not exist for many high value items on exhibit.

-11-

— Many newly acquired high value items were not being adequately photographed for security purposes.

— Certain high value items are being excluded while lower value items are being included under an ongoing contract photography project.

— NNC's filing and indexing system for photographs and negatives is not adequate to permit timely location of photographs or negatives of collection objects.

Quality and Completeness of Photographs

Exhibit Items - The quality of photographs of items on exhibit in the Hall of Money and Medals may not be adequate for positive identification of individual specimens in.the event of loss or theft. In addition, the lack of photographs for many items on exhibit could adversely effect any investigative efforts in locating and identifying NNC lost or stolen objects.

In 1976, photographs were taken of the exhibit cases by OPPS at the request of NNC. The photographs were generally of entire exhibit cases. In some instances, smaller areas of an exhibit case were photographed. In all instances, because of the method used, only one side of the objects was photographed. A very valuable collection of United States and foreign gold coins was photographed in this manner. In our opinion, most of the photographs are not of adequate quality to positively identify individual items on exhibit.

We also found that photographic records were not available for many high value items on exhibit. During the review we selected at random nine of the 84 exhibit cases located in the Hall of Money and Medals. We could not locate photographs for six of the nine exhibit cases tested. One exhibit case, which had not been photographed, contained Indian Peace Medals. One medal in the case is valued in excess of $10,000. NNC personnel could not explain why these six exhibit cases were not photographed in 1976.

Newly Acquired Items - In accordance with museum policy, newly acquired NNC items are photographed by OPF, OR. The primary purpose of the OPF photography is to provide a temporary record of an item until it is accessioned and cataloged by the receiving division. OPF usually photographs NNC's items in groups, and only one side of the items is photographed. As a result, these photographs usually are not of adequate quality to positively identify the item.

For example, one acquisition of 63 Byzantine coins, with an estimated value of $200 to $300 each, had been photographed by OPF in three groups. According to an NNC staff member, the photographs of two groups, totaling 32 coins, may be of acceptable quality to assist in the identification of the items. The photograph of the remaining group of 31 coins was probably not of acceptable quality. Only one side of the 63 coins was photographed. In another example, 65 Roman, Greek and Byzantine counterfeit dies, estimated to be worth thousands of

-12-

dollars, were photographed in one group. We were advised that the quality of the photograph was not adequate for positive identification of the individual specimens in the group.

We were advised by an OPF staff member that OPF was capable of providing photographs of a higher quality. However, it is the responsibility of the division to request that higher quality photographs be made by OPF. In addition, an OPPS camera currently being used by a contract photographer in NNC is available for quality photographs of NNC specimens. NNC could use this camera while it is on NNC premises and possibly after its return to OPPS for high quality photographs of new acquisitions.

Quality and Criteria Standards - We believe that NNC, in coordination with the OR and in consultation with OPS, should determine the quality of photographs needed to positively identify NNC specimens that are lost or stolen. NNC should also establish criteria for selecting newly acquired objects for high quality photography. Once the quality and selection standards have been established, NNC should plan and budget for a project to photograph the specimens on exhibit, and begin photographing new acquisitions based on the established standards. NNC and OR should also ensure that the accession files, inventory records, and housing containers of objects photographed are properly annotated to reflect the availability and location of photographs and/or negatives.

Contract Photography Project

A contract photography project in NNC began in December 1982 and is planned to continue through April 198U- Only those items being stored in the NNC vault are being photographed during this project. Continuation of the project will depend on the availability of funding to exercise options under the existing contract. The NNC collection consists of more than 800,000 items. As of December 12, 1983, more than 140,000 items (16?) had been photographed. NNC has selected an additional 40,000 items to be photographed if funding is made available.

During our review we identifed recently minted United States pennies of low intrinsic value (less than $10) that were being photographed, while many United States gold coins of high intrinsic value (more than $600 to $1,000) were not being photographed. The NNC collection of United States coins totals approximately 12,000 specimens, excluding items on exhibit. About 3,000 (25?) of the 12,000 United States coins had been photographed. There are currently no plans to photograph the high value United States coins remaining in the collection.

We believe that the reason certain high value items have been bypassed during the photography project is that NNC has not developed written criteria for the selection of collection items to be photographed. NNC's selection task has been made more difficult because funding for the project has been provided in small amounts making planning difficult. This is all the more reason why a predetermined selection of items to be photographed should be made based on

-13-

established criteria. We believe that by establishing criteria for the selection of objects to be photographed, more efficient use of photographic resources would result.

We believe that NNC should develop written criteria for the selection of collection items to be photographed during the ongoing photography project. The criteria should include values of items, since the higher value items should be under a higher level of security. Coordination of the photography project with the refinement of the NNC inventory should also be considered in developing criteria. For example, it may be more economical to photograph the collections that have been batch inventoried than to expend large amounts of staff hours inventorying these collections on an item-by-item basis. Once the selection criteria have been established, they should be applied to the selection of items to be photographed during the remainder of the photography project.

Filing and Indexing System

for Photographs and Negatives

We encountered delays in locating photographs of items on exhibit. We selected at random nine of the 84 exhibit cases located in the Hall of Money and Medals. As previously stated, photographs existed for only three of the nine cases. Of the three photographs located, NNC staff members spent a considerable amount of time in locating two. In our opinion, the delay in locating the photographs was caused by an inadequate filing and indexing system. For example, NNC maintained binders of photographs of exhibit cases in order by case number. Only one of the three cases that were located was on file in the binders. The remaining two photographs were found after a lengthy search in a separate file of miscellaneous photographs of collection objects.

We believe that NNC should develop a filing and indexing system for photographs and negatives that will permit timely location of photographs or negatives of collection objects.

Recommendations

We recommended that the Deputy Director, NMAH, direct that the Executive Director, NNC:

1. In coordination with the OR and in consultation with OPS:

a. Determine the quality of photographs necessary for positive identification of NNC specimens in the event they are lost or stolen.

b. Establish criteria for photographing newly acquired items for security purposes; begin photographing new objects based on established quality and criteria standards; and ensure that accession files, inventory records, and housing containers of objects photographed are properly annotated to reflect the availability and location of photographs and/or negatives.

-14-

2. Plan and budget for a project to photograph high value exhibit items.

3. Establish criteria for selecting objects in the vault for photographing under the current photography contract.

4. Develop a filing and indexing system for photographs and negatives that will permit timely location of photographs or negatives of collection objects.

In a memorandum dated January 23, 1984, the Deputy Director, NMAH, concurred in our recommendations and advised us of action initiated on our recommendations. We believe that the initiated action, if properly completed, will correct the situation reported.

PHYSICAL SECURITY

NNC needs to improve the physical security over 800,000 items, valued in the millions of dollars, in its collections. Improved security is needed to fulfill the Smithsonian's obligation to protect objects left in its custody for preservation and display. In addition, any perceived lack of security could have an adverse effect on future acquisitions of objects by NNC.

Background

NNC's collections are stored in a vault on the fourth floor of NMAH and displayed in exhibit cases on the third floor. To gain access to the vault one must first pass through a set of double entry doors off a fourth floor corridor, through a door to the work/reference room, and through a vault door. During non-duty hours, all these doors are locked and alarmed.

At the beginning of the day, any of the seven NNC employees may pick up the key to the double entry doors from the NMAH guard-office. After entry is made, the alarms are shut off and the doors are electrically controlled from one of two desks inside the NNC office. The key to the work/reference room is kept within NNC. Five of the seven NNC staff members are authorized to unlock the door to this room as well as the vault door. A phone call is made to the guard-office and a specially worded message alerts the guards that the work/reference room and the vault are being accessed and that the alarms are to be turned off. NNC policy is to open the vault door immediately after the work/reference room is entered. A combination lock controls the vault door during non-duty hours. During duty hours a cypher lock controls the vault door. Inside the vault, coins and medals are stored in locked coin cabinets. Paper currency and other miscellaneous objects are stored in unlocked cabinets, or on top of cabinets. Items on exhibit are locked in alarmed exhibit cases. Keys to these cases are kept in NNC.

During our review, personnel working on a regular basis in NNC included seven permanent NNC staff members, six museum inventory personnel on term appointments, and a contract photographer. In addition, a volunteer worked in NNC approximately one day per week.

-15-

Access to Collections Storage Units and Exhibit Cases

More limited access is needed over NNC storage units and exhibit cases. Our review disclosed that unauthorized personnel had access to collections kept in the vault, storage rooms and cabinets inside the vault, and exhibit cases in the exhibit hall.

We found that the key to the door to the work/reference room was being kept in an unlocked card file drawer just adjacent to the door. This room could be entered by an unauthorized person if he knew the location of the key and the special message. We also found that a key for overriding the vault door cypher lock was being stored in an unlocked cabinet inside the work/reference room. Unauthorized personnel could gain access to the vault undetected if they knew the location of this key. We believe that the keys to the work/reference room and the cypher lock override should be secured in NNC with access restricted to only authorized personnel.

Twelve keys to 79 locked coin cabinets and 5 keys to 84 locked exhibit cases were being kept together in a locked coin cabinet within the NNC vault. However, the key to this "key cabinet" was being kept in an unlocked cabinet in the work/reference room. Although only five of the NNC staff members and one of the inventory team members were authorized to use this key, the location of this key was common knowledge among all 13 NMAH personnel working in NNC. Since the work/reference room is normally accessible by all personnel working in NNC, any of these personnel had access to this key.

We also noted that a key to 16 other coin cabinets was being kept in an unlocked desk drawer within the vault. This key was accessible to all NNC employees and all inventory team members who enter the vault. We noted that a duplicate of this key was kept in the desk drawer of an NNC museum specialist, in violation of NNC policy.

All the coin cabinets are located in the main part of the vault and are supposed to remain locked when not in use. However, on several occasions during our audit, we found cabinets to be unlocked when collection items in these cabinets were not being used. We were advised that one museum specialist preferred to leave cabinets housing items of his specialty unlocked. In other instances, employees apparently forgot to lock cabinets after items being used from those cabinets were returned. There was no policy for periodic checking of cabinets to ensure that they were all locked.

In addition to the 104 coin cabinets, 29 other lockable storage cabinets and 45 lockable file drawers were being used in the vault for holding paper currency and miscellaneous numismatic objects. Only one of the storage cabinets and none of the file drawers were being kept locked. Keys for 10 of the cabinets and 42 of the drawers were being kept inserted in the locks, but were not being used. Confusion existed over the location of the keys to the other cabinets and drawers. Some were eventually found, but had not been labeled to facilitate the matching of keys to cabinets and drawers. At the time of our review, there was no clear policy on whether these 29 cabinets and

-16-

45 drawers should be kept locked. Most of the cabinets and all of the drawers were being kept in two lockable rooms within the main vault. Although the doors to these rooms were locked at the end of the duty day, the keys were left in the lock, defeating the purpose of locking the doors. The doors would generally be unlocked at the beginning of the workday and remain open during the day. Within one of the rooms was a divider to separate the stored collections from an area used for photography. A padlock in the gate of the divider was not being used and the gate was being left open. Again, there was no clear policy at the time of our review on whether the doors to the two rooms and the gate on the divider should be kept locked when the collections in these rooms were not being used.

We also noted that the keys to the various NNC rooms, cabinets, and cases were being stored in various locations throughout NNC. Some obsolete keys were also on hand. We did not perform a physical count of keys in NNC, but based on discussions with NNC staff, we estimate that over 100 usable keys, including duplicates, were on hand at the time of our review. For effective key control, usable keys should be identified and obsolete keys should be disposed of. Keys, including duplicates, should be numbered and an inventory record should be developed to include the key number, location or holder, authorized user, and the room, storage cabinet or exhibit case that the key is for.

We believe that the Executive Director, NNC, should take immediate action to identify those rooms, cabinets, cases, etc., that should be kept locked when not in use; designate those employees authorized to access the locked units; physically inventory and record all keys in use and dispose of obsolete keys; and place keys in use, including duplicates, under proper security and control.

We also believe that the Executive Director should develop written policies and procedures on internal security over the collections. Such policies and procedures should include responsibilities, authorities and procedures for securing collection storage rooms and cabinets; accessing collection storage rooms and cabinets and exhibit cases; key control; periodic physical inspections of collection storage rooms and cabinets and exhibit cases; and monitoring compliance with and reporting violations of security policies and procedures.

Vault Door

The vault door has two locks: a combination lock for non-duty hours and a cypher lock to permit quicker access during duty hours. We noted that the combination lock was not being used to secure the vault door during non-duty hours. We were advised that it had not been used for several years. We were advised by the Executive Director that the lock has had a history of mechanical failure and could not be relied on for consistent operation. She also advised us that using the combination lock after duty hours was redundant to existing security measures and that the extra layer of security it provides in her opinion was not needed. The latest request to OPS to perform maintenance on the vault door combination lock was in November 1982. We were advised by personnel of OPS that maintenance was subsequently performed on the lock and that the lock was made

■17-

operable. We believe that the combination lock should be used unless the Executive Director, NNC, can justify to the Deputy Director, NMAH, why it shouldn't be used.

Mexican Silver Coins

We noted 65 bags of Mexican silver coins, weighing a total 2,875 pounds, being stored in an unlocked room within the NNC office confines. We were advised that the coins had been moved from the vault several months ago during a vault reorganization project. This project was designed to gain more efficient utilization of vault space. A conservative estimate of the bullion value of these coins is $110,000, or about $1,700 per bag. The average total weight of the coins per bag is 44 pounds.

In view of the high value of these coins, we believe that they should be better secured. We believe that space could be made available in the NNC vault for these coins and that they should be returned to the vault immediately.

Personnel and Objects Logbooks

The Deputy Director, NMAH, issued "Guidelines for Securing Reference Areas" to all NMAH units on October 16, 1982. These guidelines included a requirement for two logbooks in every reference area: one for the movement of people in and out of the reference area and one for the movement of objects in and out of the reference area.

Our review disclosed that these logbooks were never put into use in NNC. The Executive Director stated that the guidelines were issued prior to her becoming head of NNC and that she did not recall ever seeing these particular guidelines. However, she stated that she would not object to using the logbooks required in these guidelines. We believe that the logbooks should be placed in use immediately.

Security Consultant's Report

A physical security survey of NMAH collections storage and reference areas, which included NNC, was conducted by an OPS contracted consultant during the period January 17 to April 25, 1983- In his report, the consultant made both museum-wide recommendations and recommendations applicable only to specific NMAH units. None of the recommendations that follow duplicate specific NNC recommendations made by the security consultant.

Recommendations

We recommended that the Deputy Director, NMAH, direct that the Executive Director, NNC:

1. Immediately identify those rooms, cabinets, cases, etc., that should be kept locked when not in use; designate those employees authorized to access the

-18-

34-632 O— i

locked units; physically inventory and record all keys in use and dispose of obsolete keys; and place keys in use, including duplicates, under proper security and control.

2. Develop written policies and procedures on internal security over the NNC collections to include responsibilities, authorities, and procedures for:

a. Securing collection storage rooms and units and exhibit cases.

b. Accessing collection storage rooms and units and exhibit cases.

c. Key control.

d. Periodic inspections of collection storage rooms and units and exhibit cases.

e. Monitoring compliance with and reporting violations of security policies and procedures.

3. Begin immediately to use the combination lock on the vault door to provide additional security during non-duty hours.

4. Secure the Mexican silver coins, currently being stored outside the NNC vault, by transferring them to the vault.

5. Begin using the personnel and objects logbooks as required in the October 16, 1982, "Guidelines for Securing Reference Areas".

In a memorandum dated January 23, 1984, the Deputy Director, NMAH, concurred in our recommendations and advised us of action initiated on our recommendations. Our follow-up disclosed that adequate corrective action had been completed on recommendations 3, 4, and 5, but not yet completed on recommendations 1 and 2. We believe that the action initiated on recommendations 1 and 2, if properly completed, will correct the situation reported.

CLARIFICATION ON THE STATUS OF OBJECTS

RECEIVED FROM THE BUREAU OF THE MINT

NNC needs to clarify the title status of specimens received from the Bureau of the Mint (Mint).

In June 1923, the Smithsonian accessioned 18,324 specimens transferred from the Mint. These specimens represented the Mint's collection, which began with the inception of the Philadelphia Mint in 1792. Since the June 1923 accession, the Smithsonian has annually received specimens from the Mint. Smithsonian records show 169 Mint transactions, involving over 2,700 specimens, occurring between the original June 1923 accession and November 1983. These specimens were accessioned as transfers or gifts from the Mint. All of the specimens have been integrated with NNC's permanent collections.

-19-

While the Smithsonian has recorded these transactions as transfers from the Mint, transmittal letters from the Mint to the Smithsonian have continually shown that the Mint considers the specimens to be on loan to the Smithsonian.

Examples of quotes from these letters follow:

September 27, 1926 "We have shipped to you the

following coins for the Mint collection now lent to the U.S. National Museum."

December 28, 1936 "I am forwarding the following

commemorative coins to be added to the numismatic collection of the Mint, now lent to the Museum."

January 24, 1955 "It is our understanding that these

are needed to round out the collection now on permanent loan at your institution."

May 15, 1970 "We are delivering to you

two medals, for the Mint

Collection."

Smithsonian records should reflect accurately the language used in each of these transactions.

The matter of the legal status of specimens from the Mint has arisen in previous audits. In an April 16, 1972, memorandum to our office on the subject, the General Counsel stated that the term "transfer" on a transaction document from the Mint should be construed as a transfer of title (the original June 1923 transaction, therefore, conveyed title), but that any subsequent transaction which indicated an intent to make a loan should be treated (and recorded) as a loan. Further discussions with NNC and the General Counsel in June 1976 and January 1984 on the question of whether the Mint should be approached to clarify the title status of each transaction involved in the Mint collection evoked these responses from NNC and the General Counsel.

(1) Whether title to all specimens in the Mint collection resides in the Smithsonian or whether portions of the collection are on "permanent" or "indefinite" loan does not affect the day-to-day management of the collection. The genesis of the collection is such that no transfers from it or loans are contemplated (nor would such take place without consultation with the Mint). Historically it is clear that the general consensus is that the Smithsonian is the proper place to have the collection, and unless unusual circumstances arise, there appears to be no practical reason to request reaffirmation of this.

(2) While it is Smithsonian practice to insure collection objects which are on loan to it (or to obtain from the lender a waiver of liability), the reasons for this practice do not dictate that it be followed with regard to Mint

-20-

specimens on "loan" status. If the Smithsonian were to lose or damage a "loaned" Mint specimen, the Mint could not bring a legal action for damages. (Both the Mint and the Smithsonian fall under the Federal Tort Claims Act which bars "interagency" suits). Thus, there is no practical reason to distinguish between "owned" and "loaned" Mint specimens for purposes of insurance.

We believe that the longer this matter goes unsettled, the more difficult it will be to settle any future disagreement between the Mint and the Smithsonian for the specimens turned over to the Smithsonian to date.

Recommendations

We recommended that the Deputy Director, NMAH, direct that the Executive Director, NNC:

1. Review the 169 transactions occurring since the initial transfer of the Mint collection in 1923 in order to assure that Smithsonian records reflect accurately the language of each such transaction.

2. Prepare for the Deputy Director's approval (a) a brief history of the Mint collection with the Executive Director's opinions as to why certain transaction language has been used by the Mint over the years, and (b) the Executive Director's recommendation for steps that should be taken if, in the future, questions should arise concerning the lending or disposal of any Mint collection specimen.

3. Include the approved history and recommendation in the permanent Mint collection records which are maintained by NNC and the NMAH OR.

In a closing conference on the audit held in the Under Secretary's office on February 21, 1984, the recommendations were agreed upon by representatives of NMAH, the Office of the General Counsel, and the Office of Audits. The Deputy Director, NMAH, advised us of action initiated on the recommendations. We believe that the initiated actions, if properly completed, will correct the situation reported.

INVENTORY REFINEMENT

NNC needs to include certain important tasks in its plan for the refinement of the NNC collections inventory. The shelf inventory of the collections completed in June 1983 does not provide for proper accountability over much of the NNC collections, including many highly valuable specimens. In addition to the planned inventory refinement of objects that were batched to meet the inventory completion deadline, other refinement tasks that should be accomplished include:

— Assignment of a unique identification number to items that were inventoried at the item level.

— Adding film roll and frame numbers to the inventory records of items that were photographed after the shelf inventory was completed, and changing roll and frame numbers already entered

-21-

on inventory records for items that were rephotographed after the completion of the inventory'

— Verification of all items on exhibit to the inventory printouts.

In order to meet the June 1, 1983 Smithsonian established deadline for completion of the collections inventory, NNC had to inventory approximately 300,000 of the 800,000 items in its collections by batching. To attain the desired level of inventory control NNC must now refine those batches. An NNC inventory refinement plan had not yet been developed at the time of our review, however, such a plan was scheduled for completion after receipt of inventory print-outs in early 1984. Our review disclosed that in addition to inventorying previously batched specimens at the item level, the refinement plan should include certain other important tasks. Details follow.

Inventoried Ob.jects Without Unique Identification Numbers

We identified inventoried objects that did not have unique identification numbers to distinguish one specimen from another. For example, we learned that numerous specimens within the same accession may have been assigned the same catalog number during the period 1958 to 1968. We noted one 1958 accession of 18,430 specimens in which 27 different catalog numbers were used. As a result, an average of 682 specimens were assigned the same catalog number in this particular accession.

We also noted that catalog numbers were not always entered on inventory records. For example, if no catalog number was present on the container housing the object, none was entered on the inventory record. Also, for the estimated 6,700 items on exhibit, the source of inventory data was the exhibit script. The description of the items on the exhibit script generally did not include a catalog number.

The lack of a unique identification number reduces the level of accountability over a collection item. The verification of items in the future will probably be done on a statistical sample basis. If items are not described by a unique inventory record, more than one item can satisfy the verification test. For example, we identified two 1866 Australian gold sovereigns, valued at $1,600 - $2,500 each, with the same catalog number and the same description on the inventory record. We also identified two 1895 New Guinea (German) 20 mark gold pieces, valued at $7,500 - $10,000 each, with no catalog numbers and the same description on the inventory record. If the verification test included an inventory record for an 1866 Australian gold sovereign, either of the two gold sovereigns would satisfy the test. Therefore, the loss or theft of one of the two gold sovereigns could go undetected indefinitely. The same would apply if the verification test included an 1895 New Guinea (German) 20 mark gold piece.

In the beginning phase of the inventory project at NNC, a unique identification number, called a Record Serial Number was assigned to each item

-22-

inventoried. At some point in 1981, the then Executive Director, NNC, determined that inventory time would be saved if the use of the Record Serial Number was stopped. From that time on, whatever identifying information that was on the container or the item itself, was the information used for the inventory record. As illustrated above, this information was not always sufficient to uniquely identify an item.

We believe that NNC should include a task in its inventory refinement plan to assign unique identification numbers, where applicable, to objects that have been inventoried at the item level. The unique number, once assigned, should then be entered onto the computerized inventory record as well as the container housing the object.

Addition of Film Roll and Frame

Numbers to Inventory Records

Film roll and frame numbers of individual photographs of 18,000 objects taken after the inventory was completed need to be added to existing inventory records. In addition, reshoots of 3,000 objects that were improperly photographed during the inventory have resulted in the need to change roll and frame numbers previously entered on inventory records. The roll and frame numbers identify the location of the photograph in the OPPS film library.

Roll and frame numbers of photographs, when added to the inventory record, increase signficantly the level of accountability of collections objects. In some instances, the roll and frame numbers are the only unique identifying numbers assigned to a collection item.

NNC should include a task in its inventory refinement plan to add or change film roll and frame numbers in existing inventory records.

Verification of Exhibit Items to Inventory Print-outs

There are approximately 6,700 items on exhibit in the Hall of Money and Medals. The exhibit script, prepared in 1972, was used to establish inventory records for the exhibit items. Very few of the items on exhibit were verified to the exhibit script during the inventory project. The proposed verification of computer print-outs on a sample basis will not be adequate for exhibit items.

We believe that a 100? verification of exhibit items is needed once the inventory print-outs are received. Since items may have to be removed from exhibit cases to perform the verification, the verification effort should, if possible, be coordinated with any planned project to photograph items on exhibit.

-23-

Recommendations

We recommended that the Deputy Director, NMAH, direct that the Executive Director, NNC, include the following tasks in the NNC inventory refinement plan:

1. Assign unique identification numbers, where applicable, to objects that have been inventoried at the item level, and add the assigned numbers to the computerized inventory records and housing containers of the objects.

2. Add or change film roll and frame numbers in existing inventory records.

3. Perform a 100$ verification of the inventory print-outs for exhibit items.

In a memorandum dated January 23, 1984, the Deputy Director, NMAH, concurred in our recommendations and advised us of action initiated on our recommendations. We believe that the initiated action, if properly completed, will correct the situation reported.

CONTROLS OVER LOANS OF COLLECTIONS OBJECTS

Controls over NNC incoming and outgoing loans of collection objects need to be improved. Our review disclosed that the status of four loans was not accurately recorded by the NMAH OR; the OR did not have a record of one outstanding outgoing loan; four objects from two incoming loans could not be located in NNC; and the Smithsonian was not properly protected against the loss or damage of certain loaned objects.

Background

The NMAH Collections Management Policy, originally approved in April 1982, states that all loans will be for specified periods of time and will be documented and monitored according to established procedures of the OR. The policy also requires that all loans be contracted by written loan agreement; that loans be insured or a waiver of insurance be obtained; that loans be monitored by the OR for compliance with loan terms; and that loan renewal and return status be checked with curators at the time of expiration.

The policy also states that existing long term loans (over three years) should be reviewed by the curator for possible return or conversion to accession in the case of incoming objects, and for possible deaccession or recall in the case of outgoing objects. It also states that curators should see that loans which are not covered by current loan agreements are updated according to a schedule established by the OR.

Our review focused on compliance with the NMAH Collections Management Policy in the control of NNC loans. Our review also included confirmation of certain loans to determine the accuracy of the recorded or unrecorded status of loans.

-24-

Results of Review

OR records showed 24 outstanding NNC incoming and outgoing loans at the time of our review. Of the 24 OR recorded loans, 15 were incoming loans and 9 were outgoing loans. We selected six incoming loans and one outgoing loan for confirmation. Of the seven loans selected for confirmation, we found that:

- All the items from two incoming loans and the one outgoing loan had been returned. These three loans should be considered closed.

- One incoming loan was still outstanding. However, the two objects involved were on loan to the Division of Military History instead of NNC.

- Another incoming loan was still outstanding. However, no formal loan agreement had been drawn up for this loan. The borrowed item, valued at $25,000, was not covered by insurance and there was no evidence that an insurance waiver had been obtained for this item.

- Three of four items from one incoming loan, and the only item from another incoming loan, could not be located in the NNC collections. No formal loan agreement existed for the one loan involving four specimens. We also could not find any evidence that these four specimens were ever insured or that a waiver of insurance was granted for this loan. Because of inadequate descriptions of these four items, we could not determine their value.

NNC did not have separate active or inactive loan files. We asked NNC staff members if they knew the status of the 24 outstanding loans recorded by the OR. NNC staff members were aware of the status of 18 of the 24 loans, but were not certain of the status of the remaining six.

We also asked NNC staff members if they had knowledge of any outstanding loans not recorded by the OR. NNC advised us of three known outstanding loans not recorded by the OR. Two of these three were incoming loans from other NMAH units. We located the items from these two loans on exhibit in the Hall of Money and Medals. The remaining loan was an outgoing loan made in 1971 to a private individual. We sent a confirmation letter to this individual. The borrower, a member of the Inaugural Medal Committee for Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Reagan, advised us that he still had the borrowed object in his possession and wished to retain it for another 15 months. He contemplates exhibiting the item, an inaugural bronze medal of President Calvin Coolidge, during the coming presidential campaign and inaugural periods. We found that the certificate of insurance on hand for the borrowed specimen had expired on June 3, 1972. This specimen is the only one of its kind in the NNC collections and is valued at $4,000.

-25-

Conclusions

One of the three OR recorded loans that had been returned was a definite loan. (Loaned for a definite period that had recently expired.) All of the other discrepancies found involved indefinite loans made during the period 1960-1971. We believe that had the loan policy as stated in the museum's Collections Management Policy been implemented, the discrepancies noted would have been detected.

We were advised by the NNC Executive Director that she was unaware of the requirement to review long term loans. In addition, a schedule to update loans which are not covered by current loan agreements had not been established by the OR as required by the policy. We were advised by the Acting Registrar that staff shortages and priorities of other work have prevented the OR from developing such a schedule. The OR was drafting a plan to accomplish this requirement at the time of our review.

We believe that the OR and NNC, in a coordinated effort, should identify all NNC outstanding loans. For all outstanding undocumented loans, expired loans, and indefinite loans, efforts should be made to: return borrowed objects or convert them to accessions; recall or deaccession loaned objects; or draw up new loan agreements, for definite periods, for those objects that are to remain on loan. OR records should then be updated to reflect the proper status of NNC loans.

We believe that uncertainty by NNC on the status of certain OR recorded loans existed because of a lack of separate active and inactive loan files and a lack of periodic reviews of outstanding loans by NNC. We believe that NNC should not rely entirely on the OR for monitoring loans, but should also maintain a loan monitoring function within NNC. We believe that NNC should establish and maintain separate active and inactive loan files and periodically review the status of all active loans.

For those incoming loan objects that cannot be found in the collections, the OR should search its inactive loan file for any documented return of the "missing" objects. If no record of return is on file in the OR, then the objects should be reported to OPS for investigation.

Recommendations

We recommended that the Deputy Director, NMAH, direct that:

1. The Executive Director, NNC, and the NMAH Registrar, in a coordinated effort:

a. Identify all outstanding NNC loans.

b. Determine if incoming loan items should be returned or accessioned, and if outgoing loan items should be recalled or deaccessioned.

-26-

c. Initiate new loan agreements, for definite periods, for those objects that are to remain on loan.

d. Determine the status of incoming loan specimens that cannot be located in the NNC collections, and report any missing specimens to OPS.

2. The NMAH Registrar, after determining the status of outstanding NNC loans, update OR loan records accordingly.

3. The Executive Director, NNC, establish separate active and inactive loan files, and periodically review the status of all active loans.

In a memorandum dated January 23> 1984, the Deputy Director, NMAH, concurred in our recommendations and advised us of action initiated on our recommendations. We believe that the initiated action, if properly completed, will correct the situation reported.

AUTHENTICATION OF SUSPECTED COUNTERFEITS

NNC needs to establish formal policy and procedures for authenticating suspected counterfeit specimens and reporting certain confirmed counterfeits to OPS. Our limited review disclosed that four specimens (one with a value of $80,000 - $100,000 as an authentic specimen) recorded in accession documents as authentic specimens, may be counterfeit. Policy and procedures for authenticating suspected counterfeit specimens are needed to protect the Smithsonian. Such policies and procedures would also allow for timely and effective investigative action to determine if any fraudulent substitution of counterfeit specimens occurred after authentic specimens were accessioned.

We asked certain NNC staff members if they knew of any examples of collection items which had been accessioned as authentic specimens, but which they strongly felt were of questionable authenticity. We also spot checked specimens identified on housing containers as "counterfeit" to determine if accession files listed these objects as authentic or counterfeit. As a result of our limited review, we found examples of four specimens which apparently were accessioned as authentic specimens, but which are now considered by certain NNC staff members to be counterfeit. Descriptions of these four specimens follow.

Ancient Gold Coin - An ancient gold coin, with a current estimated value of $80,000 - $100,000, was donated by a coin dealer in 1974. Our review of accession documents for this item disclosed that the item was not recorded as a counterfeit specimen. No other specimens were included in this accession. Photographs were not taken of the specimen when it was accessioned in 1974. Therefore, a comparison could not be made to determine if the specimen currently on hand is the same one that was accessioned. However, we were advised by the NNC Executive Director that the item was determined to be counterfeit by the previous Executive Director after the item was accessioned.

-27-

Colonial American Coins - In 1961, 52 Colonial American coins were lent to NNC by a private individual. They remained with NNC until they were donated and accessioned in 1982. Included in the group of 52 coins were at least two specimens which an NNC museum specialist feels reasonably certain are not authentic. An authentic example of one of these coins, a New England sixpence from a private collection, recently sold for $51,000 at an auction. A review of 1961 correspondence on the loan of these objects to NNC and a review of the 1982 accession documents on this group of coins disclosed that none of the 52 specimens were identified as counterfeit. Photographs taken of these two specimens in 1961 show that the specimens currently on hand are the same as those accessioned. We were advised by the NNC Executive Director that she believes that the two coins, suspected by the museum specialist to be counterfeit, are authentic specimens. Her belief is based on the fact that the coins were donated and appraised by individuals who are very knowledgeable in Colonial coins.

Gold U.S. Dollar - In 1966, five gold coins were transferred from the Bureau of Customs and accessioned by NNC. Our review of transfer and accession documents for these five specimens disclosed that none were recorded as counterfeit specimens. One of these five specimens, an 1853 U.S. one dollar gold piece, currently valued at $300 - $600, is now considered to be a counterfeit. No photographs of this specimen were available. Therefore, we could not determine if the specimen currently on hand is the same one accessioned in 1966.

We believe that NNC, for future acquisitions, should make an affirmative effort to verify the authenticity of at least the important and valuable objects prior to accessioning them into the permanent collections. If NNC suspects that an item is not authentic but cannot make a final determination on the suspected item utilizing in-house expertise, then NNC, depending on the importance and value of the specimen being acquired, should consider obtaining an opinion from an outside expert before accessioning the item. If a supposedly authentic item is determined to be counterfeit, then the item should either be refused and returned to the donor, or accepted and recorded as a counterfeit in the accession documents (including the deed of gift, the acknowledgement letter, and the accession memorandum).

We also believe that specimens that have been accessioned in the past as genuine, but later are suspected of being counterfeit, should be the subject of special study by NNC, either by in-house staff or by outside experts. If such specimens are found to be counterfeit, then they should be reported to OPS for any investigative action deemed appropriate. Recommendations addressing the need for improved photography of newly acquired objects and objects already in the collections are being made elsewhere in this report.

We believe that NNC should develop written policy and procedures for authenticating suspected counterfeit specimens. Such policy and procedures should apply to at least those important and valuable specimens considered in the future for accessioning as well as those important and valuable specimens already in the collections and accessioned as authentic objects, but identified

-28-

during the normal course of business as suspected counterfeits. Such policy and procedures should be coordinated with OPS, and include procedures for reporting confirmed counterfeits to OPS.

Recommendation

We recommended that the Deputy Director, NMAH, direct that the Executive Director, NNC, in coordination with OPS, develop written policy and procedures for authenticating suspected counterfeit specimens and reporting confirmed counterfeits to OPS where appropriate.

In a memorandum dated January 23> 1984, the Deputy Director, NMAH, concurred in our recommendation and advised us of action initiated on our recommendation. We believe that the initiated action, if properly completed, will correct the situation reported.

OUTSTANDING ACCESSION DOCUMENTS

NNC and the NMAH OR need to identify those NNC accessions for which the OR has not received the original accession documents. As of July 1, 1983> OR reports showed that accession documents had not been received for 53 accession numbers issued to NNC since January 1975. Without original accession documents, the right and title to over 5,700 objects added to NNC's permanent collection under these 53 accession numbers would be difficult to establish.

During our review, we attempted to determine the status of accession numbers issued to NNC by reviewing accession records of the OR. However, the Records Section of the OR, where the museum's accession files are maintained, was placed off limits prior to our audit as a result of asbestos leakage. NMAH officials estimate that access to the Records Section will not be regained until after January 1, 1984. Instead of reviewing actual accession files and records of the Records Section, we relied on: an accession files status report issued by the OR for the period January 1975, when the NMAH OR began issuing accession numbers, through January 1981; annual reports of accessions processed by the OR for fiscal years 1981-1983. through July 1, 1983; and NNC catalog records for calendar years 1981-1983-

We identified 53 accession numbers for which accession documents had not been received by the OR. A breakdown of these 53 numbers by calendar year issued follows:

Year Issued Number Still Outstanding

1975-1978 3

1979 8

1980 14

1981 26

1982 1

1983 _L

Total 53 -29-

We reviewed NNC's catalog records to determine if any of the 53 accession numbers had been entered. We identified 44 of the 53 numbers in the catalog record. An additional accession number was identified in the NNC donor card file bringing the total number of accession numbers entered on NNC records to 45. These 45 accessions represented 5,743 objects, which apparently had been added to NNC's permanent collections.

We selected 15 of the 53 outstanding accessions for detailed review. We reviewed copies of accession documents on hand in NNC. Of the 15 accessions reviewed, we found that NNC:

— Had xerox copies of all the necessary accession documents (accession memorandum, deed of gift, etc.) for ten. In some cases a copy of the deed of gift was not on hand, but the deed of gift control number was referenced on other documents, indicating that a deed of gift had been prepared. NNC personnel could not explain where the original copies of these accession documents were, but assumed that they had been forwarded to OR.

— Had original copies of most of the necessary accession documents for four. For three of these four, listings of objects being accessioned had not yet been prepared. For the remaining one, NNC was in the process of obtaining a deed of gift from the donor.

— Had no record of receiving any objects for one. OR had listed the accession number, donor name, and a short description of the objects for this accession number, but NNC catalog and donor cards showed that these objects were not added to the NNC collections.

The OR issued the aforementioned accession files status report in July 1981 to all curatorial units of NMAH. This report included accession numbers of accession files not received by the OR as of January 1981. For NNC, 156 accession numbers were listed. Since the July 1981 status report was issued, NNC has forwarded the necessary accession documents on all but 26 of the 156 accession numbers listed. However, NNC has not forwarded accession documents to the OR for an additional 27 accession numbers issued since January 1981. Each year, the OR issues a report to NMAH curatorial units that lists the accession numbers of accession files which have been received and approved by the OR during the previous year. However, because of a lack of available staff, the OR has not issued an accession files status report similar to the July 1981 report for the past two years.

We believe that the OR and NNC, in a coordinated effort, should research the status of all those NNC accessions which OR status and activity reports indicate are still outstanding. Such a review may have to be delayed until access to the OR accession records is regained. The OR accession files should be checked to determine if in fact accession documents are not on hand for the outstanding accession numbers listed. Missing accession documents could be listed and turned over to NNC. NNC could then check their files for originals or copies and provide any originals or copies to the OR. For any remaining missing documents, the OR and NNC would have to decide if new accession documents need to be prepared.

-30-

Recommendation

We recommended that the Deputy Director, NMAH, direct that the NNC Executive Director, and the NMAH Registrar, in a coordinated effort, research the status of all NNC accessions which OR reports indicate are still outstanding.

In a memorandum dated January 23, 1984, the Deputy Director, NMAH, concurred in our recommendation and advised us of action initiated on our recommendation. We believe that the initiated action, if properly completed, will correct the situation reported.

CONTROLS OVER LIBRARY MATERIALS

Approximately 3»700 volumes in the NNC library need to be cataloged. Certain rare and valuable items should be assigned to the Special Collections of SH. Accountability and accessibility over NNC library items would be improved if these actions were taken.

Cataloging Backlog

We estimate that NNC has a total of 7,730 volumes in its library. Our test of library items housed on the shelves of NNC disclosed that 3,700 volumes, or k7% of the total, had not been cataloged by SIL.

Although the NNC library material was under adequate security, we believe that accountability over uncataloged items would be greatly improved if they were cataloged by SIL. Cataloging provides a form of inventory control for library material. Although NNC had catalog cards on hand for its library material, for effective inventory control, catalog cards or a similar type of record should be centrally located in SIL. In addition, library material not cataloged by SIL causes access to this material to be limited. To be fully accessible to Smithsonian and non-Smithsonian users, these items need to be fully cataloged and entered into a national computerized network.

We were advised by the NNC Executive Director that many library items acquired by NNC, particularly in earlier years, were not routed through SIL for cataloging because of the delay involved. They preferred to have the item on hand for use rather than in SIL's hands awaiting cataloging. The NNC Executive Director did not know what the cataloging turnaround time has been in recent years. We were advised by SIL officials that since SIL began using a national -computerized cataloging service in 197*4, cataloging turnaround has improved tremendously. Using this automated service, the cataloging turnaround averages about two weeks. SIL is able to utilize this automated cataloging service for about 90? of the items it catalogs.

We were also advised by SIL officials that they were unaware of the magnitude of uncataloged materials in NNC. They stated that currently, with existing resources, they would be able to catalog a limited number of rare books, but

-31-

could not provide resources to perform regular cataloging services for the backlogged nonrare items. However, they stated, the NNC backlog can be added to the existing SIL backlog for planning and budgeting purposes. If SIL requests for future funding are received favorably, SIL may be able to provide resources in the future to take care of the NNC backlog.

As an interim measure, SIL officials advised us that the NNC titles could be partially cataloged, which is much less time consuming than full cataloging. Under this procedure, a limited amount of information could be listed for each publication, such as the title, author, date of publication, country, or any other item of information agreed upon before the project is undertaken. The information recorded would not have to be duplicated when the items are later fully cataloged. In addition, exisiting catalog cards in NNC could be used for such a project.

The partial cataloging procedure also requires less cataloging expertise, and can be done by non-SIL staff and volunteers under the guidance of SIL. The information recorded during the partial cataloging project can also be computerized to provide listings of NNC's library material in various formats. Catalog cards or listings produced from the partial cataloging project could be placed on file in both NNC and SIL for reference.

Special Collections

We noted material on hand in NNC that meets the SIL established criteria for assignment to the SIL Special Collections. Special Collections items include books and other materials that are of unusual rarity, impossible to replace, or replaceable only with great difficulty and expense. Items selected for the Special Collections receive a higher degree of accountability through special cataloging and circulation procedures, and receive proper protection by being stored in environmentally controlled and physically secured rooms. Items may be checked out of these rooms by Smithsonian staff for use in studying items in the collections.

We selected for detailed review 23 titles in NNC dating from 1557 to 1770. These books were found in various locations within the NNC offices. We gave copies of title pages of these 23 titles to the Chief, Special Collections, SIL for her review. She advised us that:

— All 23 would meet the criteria for assignment to the SIL Special Collections.

— Only 4 of the 23 had been cataloged by SIL.

— Only 2 of the 23 were listed in the National Union Catalogue as being on hand at the Smithsonian.

— Sales records showed two of these titles selling for $1,960 and $1,200, which indicates how valuable some of these titles could be.

-32-

We did not attempt to identify all the books in NNC that would meet the SIL's established criteria for assignment to the Special Collections. However, we believe that there are many more than the 23 we identified during our limited review.

We believe that SIL and NNC, in a coordinated effort and using established selection criteria, should identify items in the NNC library for assignment to the SIL Special Collections.

Recommendations

We recommended that the Deputy Director, NMAH, direct that the Executive Director, NNC:

1. Report NNC's cataloging backlog to the Director, SIL, and coordinate with SIL, a project for cataloging NNC's uncataloged library materials.

2. Coordinate with the Director, SIL, a project to identify items in the NNC library for assignment to SIL's Special Collections.

In a memorandum dated January 23, 1984, the Deputy Director, NMAH, concurred in our recommendations and advised us of action initiated on our recommendations. We believe that the initiated action, if properly completed, will correct the situation reported.

NONEXPENDABLE PROPERTY

Control over nonexpendable personal property (property) in NNC needs to be improved. Improved control would result in better protection and utilization of property located in NNC.

During our review of property items in NNC, we attempted to physically verify all 58 items, with an acquisition cost of $33»800, listed on the February 28, 1983, NNC property listing maintained by OSS. We also verified accountable property items on hand in NNC to the property listing. We reviewed the results of the May 2, 1983, physical inventory of property conducted by the Executive Director, NNC, who also serves as the NNC AO. The inventory is requested annually by the Director, OSS, who serves as the Smithsonian's PMO. We also reviewed property transactions involving NNC which took place after the physical inventory was completed.

Items on NNC Property Listing Not Located

Two typewriters and an item described as a "bridge duo star" on NNC's property listing could not be located. The typewriters were purchased in 1969 and 1975 for a total of $502. The "bridge duo star" was acquired off GSA surplus in December 1970. The original cost of this item was $1,612. The NNC AO could not explain these missing items. She had reported all three items as found as a result the May 2, 1983 physical inventory.

-33-

SSH 530, entitled "Property Management", requires the PMO to investigate any items reported as not found by an AO. We believe that the shortage detected during our audit should be investigated in accordance with SSH 530.

Items Not on NNC Property Listing Located in NNC

Two storage cabinets, a TV receiver, and a microscope, all meeting the criteria for control under the Smithsonian property system, were found in NNC but were not on NNC's property listing. The two cabinets were acquired sometime in 1982, apparently with non-NNC funds. The other two items had been in NNC for several years, according to the NNC AO.

Per the March 4, 1983, inventory guidelines issued to all AOs by the PMO, accountable property items not listed on an AO's property listing were to be listed on an add-on sheet (form SI-2907) and reported to OSS. The NNC AO did not comply with these guidelines. We believe that the NNC AO should inventory all property items meeting the criteria of accountable property, but not currently on the NNC property listing, and report the items to OSS on form SI-2907.

Property Surplus to the Needs of NNC

• Twenty typewriters, with an acquisition cost of $8,467, were assigned to NNC and under the accountability of the NNC AO. Nine of these typewriters, including three new ones acquired in August 1983, were being used by NNC staff members and inventory team members assigned to NNC. The NNC AO could not justify the need for the remaining eleven typewriters. SSH 530 and the March 1983 inventory guidelines require the AO to report property excess to the needs of the unit to OSS.

We believe that the NNC AO should review the need for typewriters in NNC, transfer any excess usable typewriters to other NMAH units having a need for typewriters, and report to OSS those typewriters which are surplus to the needs of NMAH.

Staff-Owned Property

We found miscellaneous camera accessories, not listed on NNC's property listing, being stored in a file cabinet in NNC. We were advised by the NNC AO that some of these items may belong to NNC staff members while others may be Smithsonian-owned. None of the items in question had been marked to identify the owner. SSH 530 places responsibility with the AO for identifying and tagging property personally-owned by a staff member and approved by the AO for use on official business. We believe that the NNC AO should identify the Smithsonian-owned items and staff-owned items. Staff-owned items not being used for official business should be removed from NMAH. Remaining staff-owned property should be tagged to show ownership. The AO should consult with the PMO on whether the Smithsonian-owned camera accessories should be added to the NNC property listing.

-34-

34-632 0—84 11

Recommendations

We recommended that:

1. The Smithsonian PMO:

a. Investigate the shortage of three NNC property items detected during the audit.

b. Direct that the NNC AO:

(1) Inventory all property items under the control of NNC which meet the criteria of accountable property, but which are not currently on the NNC property listing, and report the items to OSS on form SI-2907.

(2) Identify personal property items belonging to NNC staff members, remove or direct the removal of those staff-owned items not being used for official business, and tag those staffowned property items that remain on NNC premises for official use.

(3) Consult with the PMO on whether certain camera accessories should be added to the NNC property listing.

In a memorandum dated December 27, 1983, the Smithsonian PMO concurred in our recommendations. Our follow-up disclosed that corrective action had been completed on recommendation 1b(1), and had been initiated, but had not been completed, on recommendations 1a, 1b(2) and 1b(3). We believe that the initiated action, if properly completed, will correct the situation reported.

2. The Deputy Director, NMAH, direct that the Executive Director, NNC, review the need for typewriters for NNC; transfer any excess usable typewriters to other NMAH units having a need for typewriters; and report to OSS those typewriters which are surplus to the needs of NMAH.

In a memorandum dated January 23, 198U, the Deputy Director, NMAH, concurred in our recommendation and advised us of action initiated on our recommendation. We believe that the initiated action, if properly completed, will correct the situation reported.

-35-

INVENTORY MAINTENANCE AT NATURAL HISTORY

Mr. Ripley. Mr. Fiske has some statements perhaps.

Mr. Yates. Yes. Mr. Fiske, did you want to say something else?

Mr. Fiske. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to echo what Mr. Kennedy has said. The maintenance of the inventory is in our new and improved policy statement. It is really what is in my policy in managing the museum. We are about to advertise for a position, a person in my office, to oversee all departments regarding inventory maintenance. Coupled with that will be registrial functions, the ins and outs of collections on loans, acquisitions, deaccessions.

All these things are being strengthened, and we believe the process of inventory maintenance can go forward in a correct way if we are able to retain the budget and positions we currently have for the inventory itself, which is in the process of tapering off. But we need to continue on into the future with those people and those funds.

Mr. Yates. Good enough.

Now in Mr. Peratino's report for March, he said this. He said in order to meet the June 1st, 1983 Smithsonian established a deadline for completion of the collections inventory, National Numismatic Collections had to inventory approximately 300,000 of its 800,000 items in its collection by batching. Now that is a very substantial amount.

inventorying by batching

How does—the question comes to my mind, how do you know when you look at a batch collection whether you have got them all or what is in that batch?

Mr. Fiske. In Natural History, we must batch, because with insects, with many invertebrates, they come in large groups and collections.

Mr. Yates. Yes. My question really was addressed to, well, Mr. Peratino, to Roger Kennedy, because you have 800,000 items in your coin collection.

Mr. Kennedy. Yes.

Mr. Yates. You batch 300,000 of them, it says here in the audit. That is a big batch.

Mr. Kennedy. Yes.

Mr. Yates. That is almost an uninventoried group, is it not?

Mr. Kennedy. Could Mr. Peratino answer that for you?

Mr. Yates. Chris?

Mr. Peratino. We discussed this at the closing conference, and I think Mr. Evelyn, who is Deputy to Mr. Kennedy, could address the question for you.

Mr. Yates. Mr. Evelyn?

Mr, Evelyn. Sir, we have made a complete breakdown of the collections that were batched. And we have developed the list of items that we need to identify in each collection, and we have estimated the amount of time and staff needed to get that work accomplished. The information sought is that information necessary to identify the specific item.

What we have done is identified information needed to gain item by item control over each category of the collection, that is, German currency, Russian coins, whatever type of collection it is. We know the number of items involved in each of those categories, and we simply are applying people to the job for as long as it takes to get that specific information.

Mr. Yates. Is that okay with you, Mr. Peratino?

Mr. Peratino. Yes, sir, we feel they are acting very prudently.

THE MARY MORRIS RING

Mr. Yates. Let me ask some additional questions relating to part of the hearings last year. What has happened to the Mary Morris gem problem? There was some question last year as to whether or not Smithsonian would be sued because of having sold her ring.

Mr. Hughes. Mr. Powers might know. I am not aware of any further action.

Mr. Yates. Have you received any kind of unhappy letter from Indiana University as a result?

Mr. Hughes. I think there was one exchange, Mr. Chairman. But that was the end of it to the best of my knowledge.

Mr. Yates. Can we call that the end of it for the record, or is there something we should know beyond this?

Mr. Hughes. There is nothing beyond that.

Mr. Yates. Is that true, Mr. Powers?

Mr. Powers. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. All right.

The lawyers for Yale did not get in touch with you?

Mr. Powers. They did earlier, but quite a long time ago, and I have heard nothing more.

Mr. Yates. Has the matter been reconciled to the best of your knowledge?

Mr. Powers. As far as I know.

THE GWENFRITZ SCULPTURE

Mr. Yates. Then there is the item that appeared in the Washington Post for March 16 about the movement of the Gwenfritz sculpture. Kind of an interesting article about the Alexander Calder—is this being moved in accordance with the approval of the Regents?

Mr. Kennedy. And with that of the Fine Arts Commission.

Mr. Ripley. And the Cafritz Foundation, I should say.

Mr. Yates. There too?

Mr. Ripley. Yes.

Mr. Yates. OK. I love the way the Washington Post put it. "As it happened, the problem was child's play, for the vaulting imagination of museum director Roger G. Kennedy." That is a tribute.

Mr. Kennedy. There were a lot of crane operators on it, too, sir.

Mr. Yates. I am sure there were. It says it was about 35 tons. At any rate, by moving it, are you not playing hob with the desire of the deceased sculptor?

Mr. Kennedy. No. As a matter of fact, the sculptor left a signature on the work which we find in the record of the creation of the work, and its original purchase carried with it explicit directions as

to the positioning of the work. We are, therefore, restoring it to the kind of viewpoint which the sculptor explicitly required.

THE RIKLIS/LINDNER COLLECTION

Mr. Yates. There is another matter on the possibility of the Smithsonian having lost the collection of Riklis/Lindner because of the name on the Hirshhorn Museum. As I read the article, the reason they lost the Riklis/Lindner collection was there was no place to put the Riklis/Lindner name. Is my recollection correct?

Mr. Ripley. I have never heard of this article, and I have never heard of the

Mr. Yates. This is in the newspaper for March 27, which is today. Shows you how up to date my staff is, as opposed to you and me. Or is it you and I?

Mr. Ripley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Yates. I can never tell.

Mr. Ripley. I will reserve judgment. Perhaps Mr. Lerner could answer the question.

Mr. Yates. Al, do you know anything about this?

Mr. Lerner. Not a thing.

Mr. Yates. Let me read it out loud, what it says here. "The Modern Times: A look at the inner workings of corporate art patronage was provided a few weeks back when entertainment phenomena Pia Zadora visited the Museum of Modern Art.

"The museum, which reopens May 17 after 4 years—of four years of renovation, lured the press into its trustees' room to present the secret donors of a 'major' gift: $8,000,000 worth of 20th-century abstract art and $1.75 million for more new building. . . ."

Mr. Lerner, what is the Hirshhorn Museum's collection valued at? It was some $66 million or $75 million. As I remember, it was some $75 million in the appraisal when the

Mr. Lerner. No, no. It was $25 million in the original appraisal.

Mr. Yates. It was?

Mr. Lerner. It is now probably $100 million or more.

Mr. Yates. At any rate, that figure ought to be compared with these figures because this gift is current today, should it not?

Mr. Lerner. Only if you compare the identical works of art.

Mr. Yates. Right.

Incidentally, while I have you on your feet, I want you to know how much the committee appreciates everything that you have done for the Smithsonian while you have been in charge of the Hirshhorn and acting on behalf of the Smithsonian.

Mr. Lerner. Thank you.

Mr. Yates. We hate to see you go.

Mr. Lerner. Thank you.

Mr. Yates. All right, (continuing to read)

"Midway into the briefing Zadora sauntered into the room waving a pair of eye glasses.

"My wife has just arrived, Meshulam Riklis, one of the donors, announced breathlessly, interrupting the meeting to gaze at the woman he has taken, as her main backer from the movie 'Butterfly' to a nude photo spread in Penthouse."

I don't know what this has to do with the collection.

Mr. Hughes. May have quite a bit to do with the collection, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Yates. "Riklis had left his eyeglasses at home."

" 'The collection,' continued multimillionnaire Riklis, whose partner Carl Lindler, was at his side, 'is an important addition to the museum's holdings because it traces the influence of Russian avant-garde art through the 20th century.'"

"The two multimillionnaires added they had considered giving their collections to other museums, notably Washington's Hirsh-horn Museum and Sculpture Garden. "But the Modern and the donors struck a bargain.

In exchange for the $1.75 million contribution, the Riklis-Lindler name will appear on one of the museum's galleries.

"Considering that some co-ops in the adjacent museum tower go for $1.3 million, getting a gallery in the museum for less than half as much more is probably not a bad deal."

Okay. We have explored that question. Will not the naming of the Arthur Sackler Gallery of Oriental Art be a similar burden, preventing the Smithsonian from getting important gifts of oriental art?

I assume the thrust of that question is because the name "Sackler" will be on it. It seems to me that the thrust of this is that these names are up for grabs. I don't agree with that, because even though you have bigger collections, I don't think you are thinking of renaming the Freer Museum or renaming other such museums.

Mr. Ripley. I think, Mr. Chairman, when we discuss the

Mr. Yates. I hadn't completed my rendition of the newspaper article.

The last paragraph says " 'Washington doesn't get the tourists New York does,' explained Riklis of his choice for the collection."

All right. What about all those areas of the Mall currently seemingly up to grabs for millionnaires in search of an impressive memorial to themselves? Does Congress support this kind of peddling of the taxpayers' heritage?

Well, that is up to Congress. It is my understanding that the Freer Gallery of Art is authorized to accept gifts of oriental art of genuinely high quality. Is that correct?

Mr. Lawton. That is correct.

Mr. Yates. Is it the Smithsonian's plan to accept second-rate stuff for the Sackler Gallery?

Mr. Lawton. That is not correct, Mr. Chairman.

auditor's final remarks

Mr. Yates. Okay. Well, Mr. Peratino, we thank you for your good work. I assume this has been made available to the appropriate people in the museums affected, and that they are taking corrective steps. By this, I mean the audit you made.

Mr. Peratino. Yes.

Mr. Yates. You are satisfied with the steps they are taking?

Mr. Peratino. Yes, we are.

Mr. Yates. They are doing it conscientiously, and this budget will do much to correct the defects you found?

Mr. Peratino. Yes, we think it will. It should help them continue updating the inventory as they go along.

Mr. Yates. All right. I know one of your items, perhaps it is already corrected, relating to what may have been an inaccuracy. You talked about the lack of unique identification numbers. Specifically that you had identified two 1866 Australian gold sovereigns valued at $1600 and $2500 each, with the same catalogue number and same description on the inventory record.

You did the same for two 1895 New Guinea 20-mark gold pieces with no catalogue number. These have been corrected?

Mr. Peratino. (See below.)

Mr. Yates. Okay, we hope that doesn't happen again, don't we?

Mr. Peratino. Right.

Mr. Yates. Thank you Mr. Peratino.

Mr. Peratino. You are welcome.

[Subsequently the following was provided:]

The inventory refinement plan being developed for the National Numismatic Collections, includes a project for assigning unique identification numbers, where appropriate, to specimens already inventoried. The coins that you mentioned will be corrected when this project is completed.

OUTREACH PROGRAMS

Mr. Regula. I am interested in what the Smithsonian is doing by way of outreach programs to museums around the nation as well as to educational institutions. I have persued some of the books that you have brought. They are excellent publications and I am concerned as to whether or not this great national treasury, i.e., the Smithsonian, is really being utilized in an outreach way to the nation, recognizing of course that people who visit the city to have the advantage of seeing the exhibits and so on.

But I would be interested in what you are able to do to reach out.

Mr. Ripley. We have attempted, Mr. Regula, to approach that problem in at least three ways. One is, the National Museum Act, which is authorized every three or four years, and which provides grants for museums around the country to conduct research on how to run a museum. Museology is one of the phrases used for that.

How to improve your contact with the public, what the general outreach problems are; this is a very popular production and is very actively encouraged every year. Another way to do it is the grants and fellowships that we have under our own educational programs to bring scholars to come to these museums here and learn various techniques, conservation being one of them, for example.

And we do a great deal of that kind of work, which is also extremely popular. These are new activities in the past few years. The third one is the ongoing Smithsonian Institution Traveling Exhibition Service, which at any one time has as many as 200 exhibitions going around the country to all the 50 States, as well as a number of countries abroad. And this has been extremely popular.

We can not see the demand in time or duration of exhibits at the particular museums. So they believe in general our efforts in this connection are very effective. The last one is an adjunct to our ac-

tivities; that is, the Associates activity which we started a few years back which includes subscriptions.

THE MAGAZINE

Mr. Regula. Excuse me. How many subscribers do you have to the magazine?

Mr. Ripley. Approximately 2 million.

Mr. Regula. Is that right?

Mr. Ripley. Each issue goes to those subscribers. We estimate that in a familial group or with PTA groups and things of this sort, that then filters out, of course—either anywhere from 10 to 50 additional people see such a magazine. So that general spread of it is tremendous. This includes all the States and large segments of the public abroad as well.

RADIO AND TELEVISION PROGRAMS

Then we have the Associate organization here which has classes and sends programs out to major cities. We have radio programs which reach millions. We have a new Smithsonian World television program which has been very popular on public broadcasting. I think that we in effect have achieved a considerable spread of information, making the museums themselves much more popular as a visiting place, making demand for publications and leaflets and all kinds of adjunct things that we can afford to put out enormous-

ly.

We have great difficulty seeing the demand. Our Visitor Information Service here is usually swamped with requests.

Mr. Regula. How many visitors do you estimate each year?

Mr. Ripley. About 25 million.

I think I have pretty well covered the waterfront. It is expanding, but certainly this has been, these and the exhibits and loans that go out, everything including airplanes, are enormously popular all over the country.

TRAVELING EXHIBITION SERVICE

Mr. Regula. On the flip side of that equation, do you have exhibits that are brought into the museum on a, say, 12-month, 6-month basis for special display?

Mr. Ripley. We have reciprocal arrangements through our Travelling Exhibition Service. For example, we may contract to show an exhibition which has originated in Massachusetts, Boston Museum, perhaps. We showed the Korean exhibition. You may remember that was the opening of our new gallery in the Natural History Building which had come from San Francisco entitled , "Five Thousand Years of Korean Art." That was a sort of blockbuster show.

Mr. Regula. Who might I call?

Mr. Ripley. With regard to traveling exhibitions?

Mr. Regula. No, to one they thought might be of interest for, say, a six-month period. It is in Ohio now.

Mr. Ripley. I would think that Mr. Richards, who is part of our museum's program, he is acting—or Ms. Loar, who is in charge of the Traveling Exhibition Service. Then, of course, the complicated

question is how to schedule it. Because we have only limited facilities for showing traveling exhibitions here. We are hoping to improve that in the new center which we are building on the Quadrangle.

SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATIONS

Mr. Regula. The publications, then, are they catalogued in such a way that if a high school or college would like to know what is available by way of Smithsonian publications that they could get a catalogue?

Mr. Ripley. Yes.

Mr. Regula. That would in turn describe each of the books.

Mr. Ripley. We have the Institution Press and we have Exposition Books, both of which are published within our blanket. They provide information on their publications. Then a particular museum may have its own institutional publication, but I think we can handle that by inquiring at Smithsonian Press, because they can locate where any publication may be.

Mr. Regula. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

DETERMINATION OF FEDERAL VS. TRUST EXPENSES

Mr. Yates. Can you for the record tell us whether you charge certain expenses to the trust and certain expenses to the Federal Government? Is there a rule?

Mr. Ripley. Perhaps Mr. Jameson would like to address that.

Mr. Yates. How do you decide, Mr. Jameson? For example, I noticed in your justifications that you were moving 14 personnel from your trust account? And you were hiring, I guess, nine of these same 14 personnel who were being placed on the Federal side of the payroll. How do you decide to do that?

ASTROPHYSICAL OBSERVATORY FUNDING IMBALANCE

Mr. Jameson. Mr. Chairman, this stems from the imbalance situation that we alerted the committee to in hearing last year and for which monies were provided to us in our fiscal year 1984 appropriation.

Mr. Yates. Yes.

Mr. Jameson. Over time we discovered that the grants and contracts available at the observatory were absorbing in fact more than their fair share of the administrative or indirect costs of running the total observatory. We analyzed this and came up with what we believe to be the personnel and dollar consequences of that and presented to your committee last year a request for the money to correct the imbalance.

Mr. Yates. What do you mean by imbalance?

Mr. Jameson. I think historically the philosophy of the Astro-physical Observatory had been to develop a very high caliber core scientific staff. The several directors have done that very well. Almost all Civil Service employees working up there were people at the professional, scientific and engineering level.

Almost none of the staff historically, had been people that were administrative, technical, clerical, such as procurement personnel

or financial types. Those had always been provided to the director of the Observatory as a charge to grants and contracts. To an extent, I believe that was fair. As you know, the Observatory gets on the order of nine to ten million dollars in Federal grants and contracts on an annual basis, principally from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. But with the growth of the Federal appropriation, it seemed proper to provide a higher level of supportive staff from direct Federal sources and not charge so many to grants and contracts.

In our budget justification in 1984, we sought to address that problem and Congress granted the money to do it.

Mr. Yates. Was there an actual transfer?

Mr. Jameson. The positions, approximately half of which I think are encumbered, have been identified. There is a process working its way through the Civil Service System to affect what is called in Civil Service parlance a Federal takeover. We will take those positions into the Federal program.

Mr. Yates. How often does this balance change? Do you have a scale you weigh this on?

Mr. Jameson. I think it was a case of something getting out of kilter. We don't expect it to change over time. We don't expect to come back and make further requests to solve the problem.

Mr. Clarke. Mr. Chairman, if you will recall from last year, the total imbalance at the Observatory is in the vicinity of $650,000 to $700,000 of which the $425,000 that we reprogrammed into the Observatory to correct the imbalance will be fixed this year by conversion of these 15 or so people.

There remains $100,000 to $200,000 worth of imbalance we are still seeking to address internally by vacancies occurring on the scientific staff or by the use of—by paying with Federal dollars expenses previously paid out of the trust fund administrative costs.

Mr. Yates. Do you propose to move more and more people to the Federal payroll from the trust account?

Mr. Clarke. As vacancies occur that could happen. We could fill a scientific slot with an administrative person. Obviously we don't want to do jeopardy to the scientific research programs either. So we proceed slowly.

Mr. Yates. What difference does it make in terms of the efficacy of the program?

Mr. Clarke. The ultimate problem, Mr. Chairman, would be if the Federal grants and contracts disappeared in their entirety. If that $10 or $12 million a year went away, the observatory would then be left with purely a scientific staff and no administrative support whatsoever. This is our reason for asking to correct the imbalance in the first place.

SPECIAL PURPOSE FUNDS FOR COLLECTIONS

Mr. Yates. On page 6, you say special purpose funds in the amount of a million one are available annually for collections. In fiscal year 1983, how much did you spend for collections? Put that in the record. By you, I mean Federal and trust. Also whether comparable trust amounts will be available in fiscal years 1984 and 1985. You can do that, can't you?

Mr. Clarke. Yes, sir. [The information follows:]

Collections Acquisition

In fiscal year 1983, Trust fund expenditures for collections acquisition totalled 2.1 million dollars. Fiscal year 1984 and fiscal year 1985 levels of acquisition are estimated at about $2.0 million (including $1.1 million from the Regents' Collections Acquisitions Program). These estimates could vary considerably dependent on the ben-ficence of individual donors. Federal acquisitions totalled $801,000 in fiscal year 1983 and are estimated at $846,000 and $991,000 for fiscal year 1984 and fiscal year 1985 respectively.

VISITATION

Mr. Yates. Will you also place in the record information as to the visitation to the Zoo, to Anacostia, Cooper-Hewitt and National Museum of African Art comparable to your other visitation figures?

Mr. Clarke. Yes, sir.

[The information follows:]

ANNUAL VISITATION

Anacostia Fiscal year neighborhood fCvnri, Museum of

museum

teEff National National

E York Museum of Zool °8 ical

City) African Art 2 Park 3

1977 37,311 211,587 1,973,000

1978 42,698 116,865 2,710,000

1979 29,008 184,285 6,936 2,884,000

1980 48,570 134,671 78,019 3,146,000

1981 33,709 146,925 102,314 3,289,000

1982 46,033 166,778 85,874 3,275,000

1983 17,210 216,720 75,238 3,420,000

1 The Cooper-Hewitt Museum opened to the public in October 1976.

2 The National Museum of African Art was acquired by the Smithsonian Institution in August 1979.

3 Estimated number of visitors. Because there are seven separate visitor entrances to the Zoo and there is no access control that would generate a visitor count, exact statistics on visitation are not available. However, a reliable sampling system has been used since 1976.

COST OF BUILDING SUPPLIES

Mr. Yates. On page 21 of the justification you talk about the increased costs that various materials that are being purchased placed upon the budget of the Smithsonian, the strain it places upon it. You talk about dry ice, for example, and you talk about prices shown for plywood which are substantially higher than good quality plywood advertised in the Washington Post.

I don't know who buys plywood for the Smithsonian. Somehow it seems like such a mundane article for an august institution like the Smithsonian, but I suppose you have to have plywood. Who buys the plywood?

Mr. Clarke. Mr. Chairman, we purchase plywood at virtually every level of the Smithsonian's activities. The principal difference in cost, I believe, and Mr. Peyton can confirm this, is that almost all our exhibition-related material, including plywood, are generally treated with a fire retardant as opposed to the normal piece of plywood you might walk into Hechingers and purchase.

Mr. Yates. How much does that add to the cost?

Mr. Clarke. I think the factor is three or four times perhaps.

Mr. Yates. Really? I thought we had a Pentagon scandal on our hands.

Mr. Clarke. We are not obligated to utilize the General Services Administration. We are authorized to purchase the cheapest items we can.

GENERAL AND SPECIAL PURPOSE FUNDS

Mr. Yates. For the Museum of Natural History, the justification shows for general and special purpose trust funds in fiscal year 1983, $919,000 was available, but there were no FTEs assigned to that expenditure. What was done in 1983 that will not be done in 1984 and 1985?

Mr. Clarke. Mr. Chairman, it will be done in 1984 and 1985. What is shown under special purpose funds represents expenditures by Natural History under a variety of award programs; the Smithson Society, the Educational Outreach Program of the Regents. Since those funds are yet unallocated in fiscal year 1984 and fiscal year 1985, the expenditures have not yet occurred and will show up in future years.

monies returned to the treasury

Mr. Yates. All right. You published the Handbook of North American Indians. So far you have sold 50,000 copies. Over $1 million has been returned. Has that been returned to the Treasury or the Smithsonian?

Mr. Jameson. Mr. Chairman, that has gone entirely to the Government Printing Office to the best of my knoweldge.

Mr. Yates. And the money goes to the Treasury. Is that true of all the books you sell?

Mr. Jameson. No, sir.

Mr. Yates. Is that the only instance where money goes to the Treasury rather than the Smithsonian?

Mr. Jameson. We produce the majority of our scholarly publications and exhibit catalogues that are printed with Federal appropriations through the Government Printing Office. Occasionally, the Government Printing Office will conclude from their own standpoint that one of our publications is sufficiently attractive to their audience that they will override our printing order and print for their own purposes and then will sell that publication through the GPO distribution system.

Mr. Yates. Mr. Jameson, may I refer your attention or invite your attention to Section 53 of Title 20 of the Code which says this—and perhaps Judge Powers ought to listen to this too.

It says:

Protection of property: all laws for the protection of public property in the City of Washington or for the protection of lands, buildings and other properties of the Smithsonian shall apply to all monies recovered by or accruing to the institution shall be paid into the Treasury of the United States to the credit of the Smithsonian bequest and separately accounted for.

Is that being done? Doesn't that require that all your funds go into the Treasury to your credit, as I understand what that says?

Mr. Powers. Yes, this goes back to the revised statutes of 1874. I believe it wasn't originally

Mr. Yates. Is it still in force and effect?

Mr. Powers. Yes. In effect what it says is that we can have a bank account at the Treasury which they maintain for us.

Mr. Yates. No, that isn't what it says. It says that all monies recovered by or accruing to the Institution shall be paid to the Treasury.

Mr. Powers. And separately accounted for.

Mr. Yates. That's right.

Mr. Powers. That has always meant that we have an account there which they keep separate from the accounts of the United States.

Mr. Yates. Right. The only question I am asking is whether the money goes to the Treasury. That is why I asked Mr. Jameson. Does it all go to the Treasury to the account of the Smithsonian?

Mr. Clarke. Mr. Chairman, we have had debates with the Treasury Department about this. The fact is the banks who used to do the receiving of our funds, specifically the Riggs National Bank, is a—what is the term, Peter, a Federal

Mr. Yates. The only question I am asking is whether you are violating the law.

Mr. Clarke. No, we are not, sir.

Mr. Powers. I don't think we are.

Mr. Yates. Well, what does that say? You say the money goes to the Riggs Bank.

Mr. Clarke. Yes, which is a Federal Reserve Bank depository.

Mr. Yates. Are you saying that the Riggs Bank is authorized by the Treasury to receive these funds for the Smithsonian Institution?

Mr. Clarke. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. So in effect, you are depositing it to the Treasury and complying with the law?

Mr. Clarke. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. For all your funds?

Mr. Clarke. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. Okay. As I understand what Mr. Jameson said, he said that with respect to the Handbook of Indians that is published by GPO and those funds go directly to the Treasury, those funds are not deposited for the benefit of the Smithsonian are they?

Mr. Jameson. No, sir.

Mr. Yates. But the other publications are?

Mr. Jameson. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. All right so that you are complying with the 1874 law.

Mr. Jameson. Yes, sir.

SMITHSONIAN WORLD

Mr. Yates. All right. Tell us about your television programs, which are beautiful. Does that cost the Smithsonian anything? Mr. Ripley. No, sir. Mr. Yates. How are those programs funded?

Mr. Ripley. A grant from the James S. McDonnell Foundation has been given directly to WETA, which is the local public broadcasting system station.

Mr. Yates. Right.

Mr. Ripley. Then WETA administers the costs of production of the program with a group of people taken on contract to produce the programs, with whom we interact in terms of editorial content.

Mr. Yates. Does the Smithsonian receive any funds from those programs.

Mr. Ripley. Not that I know of.

Mr. Yates. Would anybody know?

Mr. Ripley. Well, I would think I would have heard about it.

Mr. Yates. Well, when you say not that I know of

Mr. Ripley. Yes. I'm sorry if that seemed too vague.

Mr. Yates. No, it is just that I wanted a more specific answer.

Mr. Ripley. All right. No.

Mr. Yates. That is specific enough.

Mr. Hughes. We are entitled if at some future point rescreening and so on produce proceeds, we are entitled to those.

Mr. Yates. Okay.

Mr. Hughes. There have been no proceeds as yet.

Mr. Yates. That is what I want to know, what are you entitled to? Suppose the program moves to a commercial network and obtains a sponsor. Presumably Smithsonian will receive funds at that time, will it not? Let me ask the question another way.

Under what circumstance will you receive funds, royalties, I assume?

Mr. Hughes. Yes. It is a percentage of proceeds.

Mr. Yates. Put it in the record.

Mr. Hughes. We will put it in the record as I don't recall the numbers.

[The information follows:]

Payments to SI From "World" Contract

The Smithsonian Institution's agreement with WETA provides that the Institution will receive: an Institutional fee of 8% of the series production budget, which will be used for unforeseen additional production costs; reimbursement for actual out-of-pocket expenses for guards, laborers and the like; and 50% of the net proceeds from commercial use of the program such as books, video cassettes, and sales of the program overseas.

NATIONAL HUMAN STUDIES FILM ARCHIVES CATALOGUE

Mr. Yates. When are you going to complete the catalogue for your National Human Studies Film program?

Mr. Ripley. I think this is a thing that is continuing without any real data as to whether it should be completed. The question is to continually search for and scour early records, early anthropological films. I think that is the program you are referring to, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Yates. Okay. Page 29 of the justification is where it is said the work of the Archives involves locating, collecting, preserving and making available for study of the visual records of Western and non-Western life. The Archives was transferred to the Depart-

ment of Anthropology in fiscal year 1983 and shortly thereafter an inventory was completed and a cataloging system begun.

What is the nature of the cataloging system? Is it such that there is a backlog in the work that is done, or is it up to date?

Mr, Ripley. Dr. Fiske might be able to answer that.

Mr. Yates. Dr. Fiske, what is the status of your cataloging program?

Dr. Fiske. Mr. Chairman, this is an evolving thing chiefly because the collection continues to grow. So they are cataloging material as it comes in. I believe they are essentially up to date with what we presently hold.

EVANS GALLERY SCHEDULE

Mr. Yates. What is the status of your exhibition program for the Evans Gallery.

Mr. Ripley. Dr. Fiske—perhaps he could answer that.

Dr. Fiske. Excuse me, could you repeat that please?

Mr. Yates. Sure. What is the status of your exhibitions program for the Evans Gallery?

Dr. Fiske. The Evans Gallery has a very busy program. Currently there is the Art of the Cameroons, on one side of the Gallery. A second show exploring microspace, our first natural history science exhibit highlighting the scanning electron microscope, is on the other side.

Into the future, this summer, we will open the Treasures from the Shanghai Museum in early August, followed in early January by the Maximillian Bodner show that comes to us from Omaha, a fabulous show of early American Indian artifacts and paintings that accompany these artifacts.

Maximillian Bodner made a trip up the Missouri River back in the nineteenth century and collected materials and Bodner prepared the paintings. These are being brought together in a wonderful show.

HEYE FOUNDATION COLLECTION

Mr. Yates. Good. What is the status of your negotiations with the American Institute, what is the name of the collection in New York, Indian collection.

Mr. Ripley. The Heye Foundation.

Mr. Yates. Yes, the Heye Foundation collection. There was some talk of merging your collection with theirs.

Dr. Fiske. Perhaps Mr. Kennedy could address the question.

Mr. Kennedy. My understanding, Mr. Chairman, is that the negotiations between the trustees of the Museum of the American Indian and trustees of the Museum of Natural History in New York are proceeding pleasantly and fruitfully.

Mr. Yates. That is nice.

Mr. Kennedy. And we wish them well.

REPROGRAMMING MAJOR EXHIBITION FUNDS

Mr. Yates. Okay. Dr. Fiske, your justification discusses a repro-gramming of $360,000 from the special exhibition program to

permit you to go ahead with exhibition at the Evans Gallery. Now is the schedule of exhibitions that you just described dependent upon that reprogramming?

Dr. Fiske. Well beginning in fiscal year 1985, yes, it is, sir. The funding in 1985 is needed for the Wilkes Exhibition that will open just at the beginning of fiscal year 1986, but most of the money will have to be spent in fiscal year 1985.

Mr. Yates. The reprogramming is possible, you state, because of the demise of the exhibition that you had planned with the Israeli Museum, correct?

Dr. Fiske. No, I don't think there is a relationship between those two events.

Mr. Yates. I thought it made the funds available in 1984.

Mr. Clarke. Fiscal year 1984, Mr. Chairman, that's correct.

Mr. Yates. Yes. Who writes these letters? Mr. Ripley. And he says that's what happened. Maybe we ought to show you a copy of the letter.

Mr. Ripley. I don't recall it.

Mr. Jameson. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Yates. Sir?

Mr. Jameson. We are proposing this reprogramming letter which pertains only to 1984 using the funds appropriated to us in 1984. For fiscal year 1985 we are proposing a budget change. That is where Mr. Fiske's exhibition comes into play.

Mr. Yates. Is that budget change represented in this budget?

Mr. Jameson. Yes, sir.

CANCER RESEARCH

Mr. Yates. All right. In the justification you talk about the high prevalence of malignant cancers in fish where human cancer rates are also high. How does it happen you do that kind of research, Dr. Challinor?

Dr. Challinor. Mr. Chairman, we have a very large collection of fish, amphibians and all sorts of invertebrates. In the course of looking at these collections, we have been able to observe anomalies, in other words, odd growths.

Mr. Yates. Yes.

Dr. Challinor. This, then, was of interest to the National Cancer Institute.

Mr. Yates. I am sure it would be.

Dr. Challinor. They say, if we can learn why undifferentiated cell proliferation would occur, i.e., a cancer, in an oyster or a plant or a fish, then perhaps we can learn some of the reasons why it might occur on human beings. This contract we have with the Cancer Institute, we have enjoyed for, oh, more than a decade. It is appropriate to carry out this contract at the museum because of our very large collections.

And we have the experts to identify the different kinds of fish or amphibians or invertebrates.

Mr. Yates. Well, in our hearings with the Fish and Wildlife Service their monitoring activity indicates fish with cancers in many of the fresh water streams and lakes in the country. Where do you get your specimens from?

Dr. Challinor. We get our specimens from all sources including the Fish and Wildlife Service. When these specimens come in, under our contract with the Cancer Institute, we, one, identify the nature of the fish. We then take sections of the tumor and keep a registry of the kinds of tumors that grow on different kinds of lower animals.

This is what the National Cancer Institute is particularly interested in.

Mr. Yates. Do you also trace the cause of the tumor?

Dr. Challinor. That is not primarily our job. Our job is to keep a record of what tumors grow on what animals and to observe whether there is an increase in the frequency of these tumors.

Mr. Yates. Could you in your research trace the cause of the tumors?

Dr. Challinor. We could start, but that would be a whole very separate project from what we are doing now.

Mr. Yates. Is anybody doing that?

Dr. Challinor. I do not know. I would have to check with the National Cancer Institute.

Mr. Yates. Well, I would be interested in finding out, if you would check with them, because this would relate to the research being done or monitoring being done—presumably EPA is doing, I would guess.

Dr. Challinor. I will be happy to look into that, Mr. Chairman, and give you the information.

Mr. Yates. Is Dr. Harshbarger with your group?

Dr. Challinor. He is stationed in the Museum of Natural History. He is supported primarily with the contract with the Cancer Institute.

Mr. Yates. In his testimony to the Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment Subcommittee of the Merchant Marine Committee, Dr. Harshbarger said something very interesting. Oh, my goodness. Lots of things he said were interesting.

He points out "... that composite human cancer rates are high in the five locations where fish cancer is high based on 1973 National Cancer Institute County Maps. This probably means that humans in those areas are exposed to many of the same carcinogens that fish are exposed to but not necessarily from eating the fish. Unfortunately, in some areas of high human cancer such as New Orleans, fish have not been surveyed for tumors. ..." Perhaps you ought to do it. At any rate, how long is this research going to continue?

Dr. Challinor. I expect as long as the Cancer Institue will support us. It has been doing this for more than a decade. As far as we are concerned, we are prepared to keep going as long as they will support Dr. Harshbarger and his colleagues.

tracking stations

Mr. Yates. I see NASA is giving up on Dr. Shapiro and his colleagues. According to the 1983 Torch, it marks the end of a 25-year era in satellites, that you no longer will be undertaking for NASA. How much money did you lose as a result of the loss of the program?

34-632 0—84 12

Dr. Challinor. It was as I recall four to five million dollars per year. The contract was awarded to Bendix, which is carrying on these tracking operations on a much larger scale than our original 20- to 25-year operation. We had three laser tracking stations. Under the new contract that Bendix has, aren't there about 20?

Mr. Shapiro. Only mobile stations and a few fixed stations, about 13 all together.

Mr. Yates. Are they doing as well as we would?

Mr. Shapiro. In my opinion, not nearly so well nor so cost effectively.

Mr. Yates. I think I will send a copy of the record to NASA.

THE BIG BANG THEORY

Are you familiar, Mr. Shapiro, with the thrust of Dr. Thomas' book, "Late Night Thoughts on Listening to Mahler's Ninth Symphony," in which he says, apparently taking issue with T. S. Eliot that the world will end with a whimper instead of a bang. He says, "The world began with what is now the fashion to call the 'Big Bang.' Characteristically, we have assigned the wrong words for the very beginning of the earth and ourselves, in order to evade another term that would cause this century embarrassment. It could not, of course, have been a bang of any sort, with no atmosphere to conduct the waves of sound, and no ears. It was something else, occurring in the most absolute silence we can imagine. It was the Great Light."

Would you agree with that?

Mr. Shapiro. Well, when you talk about "bang," you have to understand that there are different interpretations for that word.

Mr. Yates. I am sure there are.

Mr. Shapiro. The reason the origin of the universe as we now understand it is referred to as the "big bang" is because, we think, according to current theory, that the universe evolved from an unimaginably small point with the gushing out of an unimaginably large amount of energy.

Mr. Yates. Big light.

Mr. Shapiro. Big—energy in all forms. In fact, rather exotic forms according to current theory. But since there was no person around to hear it or watch it, I suppose one could have a metaphysical discussion as to whether there was anything going on or not.

Mr. Yates. How long before somebody could have heard that it

Mr. Shapiro. Well, the age of the universe is a hot topic of current investigation, with the age as estimated by various techniques differing by approximately a factor of 2, between 10 and 20 billion years before the present.

Mr. Yates. Twenty billion years?

Mr. Shapiro. Yes. Billion.

LAND FOR THE WHIPPLE OBSERVATORY

Mr. Yates. You want $150,000 to buy land for the Whipple Observatory. Is the land available for sale at the appraised price?

Mr. Challinor. We have inspected this land which was most convenient, We had it appraised and the owner of the land is unwilling to sell it to the Smithsonian for the appraised price. We are therefore looking at three other possible sites in the general area.

Mr. Yates. Is this the same headquarters identified in the R and R account for the Administration Building?

Mr. Challinor. Yes, it is.

RESTORATION OF AIRCRAFT

Mr. Yates. Are your aircraft deteriorating in the National Air and Space Museum? Page 52, you say you have got a special program that is beginning this year to slow the deterioration of aircraft.

Mr. Challinor. Some of the aircraft, Mr. Chairman, particularly those very early 20th century aircraft that had fabric covering, we have still to restore.

Mr. Yates. What is required for restoration?

Mr. Challinor. The fabric still continues to deteriorate. Some of the wood will rot and have to be replaced when we make the complete restoration. What we are now trying to do is to slow down the inevitable dry rot, particularly of wooden and cloth-covered airplanes. But even in some of the metal airplanes we have found very early aluminum skins starting to deteriorate. We are taking measures to slow that down as well.

Mr. Yates. What do you do?

Mr. Challinor. Well, the metal ones you might cover with a special kind of protective coating to prevent the oxidation of the metal itself.

Mr. Yates. Like they are putting on the sculpture at Hirshhorn?

Mr. Challinor. Yes, that kind of thing. This is merely a temporary measure until we have a chance to make the restoration. We are restoring about four or five airplanes a year at Silver Hill. There just are not enough experts in the whole country to make the pace much faster than that.

fire protection at silver hill

Mr. Yates. Well, at Silver Hill, have you got a cooperative agreement for fire protection now?

Mr. Challinor. For fire protection?

Mr. Yates. For fire protection?

Mr. Challinor. Yes, there is a firehouse right next to us.

Mr. Yates. That is what I am asking about, whether you have an agreement with that firehouse to help you.

Mr. Challinor. Yes, sir.

RABIES AT THE ZOO

Mr. Yates. Okay. Well, now, you lost a red panda at the Zoo because of rabies. Periodically there are reports on television of rabies being very prevalent in this area. How prevalent is it at the Zoo?

Mr. Challinor. There was an epidemic of rabies that moved north from Virginia. I believe it is now up into Pennsylvania.

These epidemics occur every five or six years. We trap raccoons at the Zoo which are the primary carriers. I think we have trapped in the vicinity of about 60 different raccoons of which, maybe a dozen were positive for rabies. All the animals and animal keepers receive rabies inoculations. The one red panda that died was pregnant at the time we were giving inoculations and we took a gamble, rather than risk the health of that pregnant red panda, which is only a little bit bigger than a raccoon, we decided not to inoculate her. That gamble we lost, and she died. Red pandas incidentally are breeding very regularly at both the Zoo and Front Royal. So this death did not endanger the species in any way.

Mr. Yates. Any problem with rabies at Front Royal?

Mr. Challinor. We have not had any particular problem. The animals down there are also inoculated.

"GERMANS IN AMERICA" EXHIBITION

Mr. Yates. Page 63, there is a statement that you are going to have some new exhibits during 1984 including "Germans in America." How do you happen to have one on Germans in America and not Irish in America or anybody else in America? Did somebody pay for the exhibit?

Mr. Kennedy. Oh, yes, that was a small exhibition. Actually, Mr. Chairman, I also have a recollection of "Italians and the creation of America" recently.

Mr. Yates. Have you?

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. "Germans in America" is a small two-case exhibition which has to do largely with Pennsylvania settlements, and we expect to sustain that process of exploring the American experience.

Mr. Yates. With other ethnic groups.

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, sir.

CONSERVATION AT THE AMERICAN HISTORY MUSEUM

Mr. Yates. What is the status of conservation? Did I ask you yesterday, Mr. Kennedy, what the status for the need for conservation at the American History Museum was?

Mr. Kennedy. No, I don't think you did.

Mr. Yates. Can I ask you that now, then?

Mr. Kennedy. Probably.

Mr. Yates. What is the status?

Mr. Kennedy. It is

Mr. Yates. You want $100,000 in the budget for that purpose according to what I read.

Mr. Kennedy. This breaks into two parts: personnel, and continuing activity by the people we have already got. In our personnel requests there are three for conservation—two technicians and a paper conservator. These are related to our holdings of American advertising materials in the N. W. Ayre and Warshaw collections that are fundamentally on paper. Paper grades into photography and prints and drawings.

We hold large collections, into the hundreds of thousands of photographs and prints and drawings, and their conservation is ongoing. I don't think there is anything special to be said about that.

Mr. Yates. How many of those are framed?

Mr. Kennedy. Not very many. We keep—the Warshaw collection, which is about 400,000, is unframed.

[Committee note: The Committee was later informed that the holdings of the Warshaw Collection total approximately 1.5 million items.]

Mr. Yates. The reason I ask is I wonder whether any of them happen to have been framed with mats on the rag mats.

Mr. Kennedy. The rag mat problem—housing paper collections in acidic materials—to which you referred last year is a problem for us because generally the material we are dealing with tends to be archival in nature. It hasn't been used for art museum kinds of purposes.

Mr. Yates. So they don't have mats.

Mr. Kennedy. That does not tend to be the case.

Mr. Yates. Do you have a problem such as Dr. Challinor stated that he had with respect to some of the metal airplanes? Do you have that problem with respect to some of your trains and other metal objects? Do you have the trains?

Mr. Kennedy. Sure, and cars.

Mr. Yates. Do you have that deterioration of the metal, do you know?

Mr. Kennedy. I am sure that we do. We have specialists in metal conservation whose job it is to see to it that doesn't happen too fast.

Mr. Yates. I just wanted to make sure it was covered.

Mr. Kennedy. Yes.

Mr. Yates. You are doing it?

Mr. Kennedy. Yes.

Mr. Yates. Anything I ought to know? Are you behind in the process? If we give you this budget, will you be able to stay current?

Mr. Kennedy. Yes.

PHOTOGRAPHIC COLLECTIONS

Mr. Yates. The National Museum of American Art received 1300 photographs from the National Endowment for the Arts. How did they get the photographs, do you know, Mr. Eldredge?

Mr. Eldredge. Those were accumulated by the Endowment as part of submission reports from sponsored artists or just as gratuitous gifts by the artists.

Mr. Yates. They turned them over to you?

Mr. Eldredge. They did indeed.

Mr. Yates. Did they have to pay for them?

Mr. Eldredge. No, they did not.

Mr. Yates. Are you in charge of all the photographs for the Smithsonian?

Mr. Eldredge. No, sir.

Mr. Yates. How do you keep track of the photographs, through inventory process?

Mr. Hughes. Yes.

Mr. Yates. Can you push a button now and say there are these photographs in Mr. Kennedy's museum, these photographs in Mr.

Eldredge's museum and these photographs in Natural History? Can you do that?

David wants to say something.

Mr. Challinor. In the Air and Space Museum I am happy to report that we can push a button and retrieve some 100,000 photographs on the videodisc we showed to you yesterday.

Mr. Yates. Yes, but is there a central button-pushing point where somebody who wants to know where a Stieglitz photograph is, can go push a button and say it is over at this museum?

Mr. Kennedy. We are working hard at that. There are 670,000 odd photographs in our place alone. Therefore, the process of getting all that material together with the other million-odd photographs we understand in various chunks to be in other bureaus, we are working at that together now to get a composite inventory or recovery system together.

Mr. Yates. So the inventory process now, which is now completed, will only permit an interested person to go to the American History Museum, push a button and know what the American History Museum is. There is no way the Smithsonian will know what the Smithsonian has unless it goes to each of the museums?

Mr. Kennedy. We are getting there. We are aware of that desirable outcome and are getting there.

Mr. Richards. Mr. Chairman, may I contribute?

Mr. Yates. Sure.

Mr. Richards. The Office of the Smithsonian Archivist is beginning a program to do an inventory of all

Mr. Yates. Inventory?

Mr. Richards. Inventory of photographic collections scattered around the Smithsonian. This is the first cut, to get a comprehensive Smithsonian-wide

Mr. Yates. That of course was the purpose of the inventory, to know where everything was. Now, you are taking an inventory of the inventory?

Mr. Richards. No, sir.

Mr. Yates. Isn't that what you are doing with all the photographs, of the collections?

Mr. Richards. We are developing a catalog of the collections of photographs and photographic resources around the Institution so there will be an overall

Mr. Yates. How long will that take?

Mr. Richards. I believe it is planned for a two-year period.

Mr. Yates. You are talking about a card catalog?

Mr. Richards. No, sir.

Mr. Yates. Is this computer?

Mr. Richards. It will eventually be. The information will be computerized when it is developed in cooperation with each of the museums holding photographic collections throughout the Institution.

Mr. Yates. That is just one of the collections that you will be inventorying as being in the various museums. Are there other collections comparable?

Mr. Richards. This one is focusing in response to your question, on the photographic resources of the Institution.

Mr. Yates. Are there other collections similar to photographs? Well, I would assume paintings, for example. You have all the museums?

Mr. Kennedy. Sure.

Mr. Richards. There has been an index done on that.

Mr. Hughes. Mr. Chairman, I think there are an infinite number of possible classifications of items which have been inventoried. We are, as has been said, working on the process of indexing according to various classification systems.

Mr. Yates. That is a big job.

Mr. Hughes. We expect before too long to be able to do those kinds of things. But there are many, many ways—all Civil War-related items for example.

Mr. Yates. Matthew Brady photographs and the others.

Mr. Hughes. Yes.

Mr. Yates. Have you got enough money in the budget to do that?

Mr. Hughes. As part of our mechanization process, we are working toward that end. My answer would be yes.

PHOTOGRAPHING THE NUMISMATIC COLLECTION

Mr. Yates. Yes, okay. According to the audit of Mr. Peratino, dated March 1984, it shows you are going to photograph both sides of your coins?

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. How many coins?

Mr. Kennedy. There are over 600,000

Mr. Evelyn. We have identified some 202,000 coins and currency items that we wish to photograph because of their extremely high value.

Mr. Yates. 200,000.

Mr. Evelyn. 202,000. Of those, we have photographed 150,000. We have an additional 52,000 to photograph. This has been part of our inventory because the photograph is the best means of identifying certain of these items. The fastest means for getting control over them.

Mr. Yates. How many of your 100 million items in the Smithsonian will have been photographed? Two hundred thousand of the coins. Are you taking pictures of the paintings?

Mr. Hughes. Paintings and stamps, I think. As Mr. Evelyn indicated, it is a selective process depending on the value of the item. Stamps and coins present special problems because you can't mark them.

Mr. Yates. What is the level above which you decide to take pictures? Level of value.

Mr. Evelyn. The level of value?

Mr. Yates. How do you decide whether to take a photograph?

Mr. Evelyn. Well, let us take the case of coins. If the item is particularly rare and simply unknown in any other collection, it is rare both monetarily and also for research value, we would photograph those items.

Mr. Yates. You don't look to the value, you just look to the rarity?

Mr. Evelyn. Yes. I don't think we have in mind a particular standard. It depends. In Russian coins, there may be certain items in our collection of Russian coins that have a lower monetary value than other coins. But they are very important items in that particular segment of our collection; therefore, we would photograph them.

Mr. Yates. Who decides whether a photograph should be taken?

Mr. Evelyn. That is done by Mrs. Stefanelli the curator of numismatics and her staff.

ITEMS ON LOAN

Mr. Yates. Under what circumstances does Smithsonian loan any of its properties? For example, do any of the museums loan any of their objects to other government buildings?

Mr. Hughes. The short answer to that is yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Yates. I am aware of the fact that your National Collection of Fine Arts has paintings in lots of government buildings. Is that correct, Mr. Eldredge?

Mr. Eldredge. Yes, sir, it is.

Mr. Yates. How many do you have out, do you know?

Mr. Eldredge. I can't give you a precise count. It is less than it was a few years ago. An effort has been made to draw back into the collections.

Mr. Yates. Do you know how many are out?

Mr. Eldredge. No, I do not. I can get that information.

Mr. Yates. No, I don't mean that. I mean do you know at your shop how many are out?

Mr. Eldredge. Yes, we do.

Mr. Yates. You have a record of every one that is out?

Mr. Eldredge. Yes.

Mr. Yates. Is that true of other museums?

Mr. Hughes. Yes.

Mr. Yates. Are there any objects that you refuse to loan because of their inherent value?

Mr. Hughes. The answer to that is yes I am sure.

John?

Mr. Reinhardt. The answer to that is yes, and because of the fragility of certain items we would be very reluctant to loan.

Mr. Yates. I thought, I remember

Mr. Hughes. It would be true of some science specimens, also. Specimens in the science area.

Mr. Yates. I thought I remembered that you had loaned the Hope diamond to the donor?

Mr. Hughes. Yes.

Mr. Yates. Was that part of the gift, that he be permitted to see it later on?

Mr. Hughes. No.

Mr. Yates. You were just being nice?

Mr. Hughes. We were being nice and he was quite nice. He had the gem only overnight.

Mr. Yates. Who paid for protecting it?

Mr. Hughes. He did.

Mr. Yates. How was it protected?

Mr. Jameson. Armed guards up and back.

Mr. Yates. What about the National Portrait Gallery, does it permit its paintings to go out to government agencies? Mr. Fern?

Mr. Fern. Mr. Chairman, we have very few works that are out in that sense. We have just recalled two paintings from the American embassy in London where they had been for about 10 years.

Mr. Yates. What about the White House?

Mr. Fern. We have a few works there, not many paintings, if I remember. We do keep a record, very careful inventory. Every year we review the condition of the works that are on loan.

WORKS OF ART RECOMMENDED FOR PURCHASE

Mr. Yates. On page 75 of your justification you talk about works of art that were recommended for purchase and were purchased. You also talk about works of art that were recommended for purchase but don't indicate whether they were purchased. How would you—can you tell us whether those were purchased? Recommended for purchase were a large collection of graphic works pertaining to Abraham Lincoln, wood block prints by Antonio Frasconi, Duke Ellington, Woody Guthrie—were those purchased?

Mr. Fern. Yes, they were, sir.

EXHIBITIONS RESEARCH AT THE HIRSHHORN MUSEUM

Mr. Yates. Mr. Lerner, what is the nature of the research conducted by the Hirshhorn Museum? "An active program of exhibitions research" is the phrase you use.

Mr. Lerner. Research is conducted on all the exhibitions we do. I don't understand the

Mr. Yates. Well, that is on page 80. And you say the Hirshhorn Museum celebrated its ninth anniversary in October. As one of the major museums of modern art in the United States, the museum operates an active program of exhibitions, research and acquisitions.

Mr. Lerner. Yes. Well, when we do our exhibitions, of course, we do considerable research on the exhibition itself.

Mr. Yates. For purposes of the catalog?

Mr. Lerner. For purposes of the catalog and for the purposes of our own records. We also constantly research the works in the collection. We have at least two curators who do that almost all of their time.

COLLECTIONS ACQUISITION AT THE HIRSHHORN MUSEUM

Mr. Yates. Thank you. Mr. Lerner, you are trying to get outside help to buy works estimated to cost $600,000. Any luck?

Mr. Lerner. Not yet.

Mr. Yates. Any partial luck?

Mr. Lerner. We have been looking.

Mr. Yates. Looking for people, or looking for what?

Mr. Lerner. Looking for works of art.

Mr. Yates. What you say in your justification is that you are seeking outside support from various sources to help acquire costly

and important major works for the permanent collection. I see. You haven't found the works of art yet that you want to buy.

Mr. Lerner. That is right.

Mr. Yates. You haven't found a purchaser.

Mr. Lerner. That is right.

Mr. Yates. Good luck.

USING CONTRACT PRINTERS

Is OMB trying to close the Smithsonian Institution Press? There has been a rumor that it is. Have you heard about it?

Mr. Ripley. Mr. Jameson?

Mr. Jameson. About a year ago, Mr. Chairman, OMB asked for some information on our in-house printing plant, what we call our duplicating section. And we provided that information. In due course they came back and said perhaps you ought to more fully investigate on a selective basis the use of contract printers. We are doing that investigation. They have withdrawn the proposal that they had made at one point that they would reduce our budget by $76,000 because we had an in-house printing plant, but we are continuing to look into the merits of sending some jobs outside.

Mr. Yates. Do you print these books yourselves? For instance, this Treasures of the Smithsonian?

Mr. Jameson. No, sir.

Mr. Ripley. No.

Mr. Hughes. It is printed under contract.

Mr. Ripley. The printing plant, of course, referred to by OMB was our duplicating unit.

Mr. Yates. Did Abrams print it for you? It says distribution by Harry Abrams, New York. I know they have these beautiful books. Did he print these books?

Mr. Jameson. I believe he did, yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. Under contract to you. How does he get paid for this?

Mr. Ripley. He advances a good deal of the money himself, under the contract, to handle it.

Mr. Yates. Will he sell these throughout the country for you?

Mr. Ripley. He will sell these, yes. Then we get a royalty. A royalty arrangement just like any other publishing.

Mr. Hughes. We also sell them ourselves.

Mr. Yates. Yes, I know. They are in your shops.

Mr. Ripley. I am sorry it is so heavy.

Mr. Yates. On the contrary. That is one of the reasons it is so beautiful is because of the quality of the paper and the print.

RESTRICTED FLNDS FOR SITES

Let us talk about SITES for a minute. You have got a justification reduction of almost $900,000, restricted income. Restricted means trust. Why the reduction?

Mr. Richards. I didn't hear the question.

Mr. Yates. SITES program. It is being cutback by $900,000 in the Trust account. Why did you cut it back in the Trust account? I take it the Trust account does not go to OMB, does it?

Mr. Jameson. This is in the restricted fund area, I believe, Mr. Chairman. This simply reflects the ebb and flow of monies that

come to the Institution for specific purposes. My estimation is that a larger percentage of that reflects that the large amount of money for The Precious Legacy show that we got this past year will not replicate itself in fiscal year 1985.

Mr. Richards. Yes.

Mr. Jameson. It is also somewhat speculative. It is very difficult for us to look ahead more than a year and determine what kind of restricted funds may come to the Institution. So we do not speculate.

Mr. Yates. Let us recess now until 1:30.

MAJOR EXHIBITION PROGRAM

Mr. Yates. Mr. Reporter, show the hearing as coming to order.

Why are you going to switch the financing of your major exhibitions over to Trust funds? Is there a reason for it?

Mr. Ripley. Is John there? Yes. John Reinhardt.

Mr. Yates. John, why do you want to do that, rather than

Mr. Reinhardt. It is not so much a switch, Mr. Chairman, as it is a kind of cooperative endeavor. In the budgets of each museum, each bureau, there is a certain amount of money now that goes to exhibitions. The normal, by which I mean the smaller exhibitions, are paid for, in general, out of that fund. The larger exhibitions are very, very expensive, as I need not tell you.

The proposal to use some Trust Fund money is a proposal to finance these larger exhibitions. All of the bureaus of the Smithsonian would be able to apply, as it were, to the Secretary for a certain amount of money from this sum that would be made available annually.

Mr. Yates. John, that is a substantial amount of money, isn't it?

Mr. Reinhardt. It is, but it is a substantial amount of money to finance any large exhibition.

Mr. Yates. I know that, but haven't the exhibitions been financed out of Federal funds?

Mr. Reinhardt. Exhibitions have been and will continue to be.

Mr. Yates. What are we talking about here, then? Which exhibitions will be financed out of Trust funds and which out of appropriated funds?

Mr. Reinhardt. Out of the Trust funds we would finance only what I am describing as a very large exhibition.

Mr. Yates. Give me an example.

Mr. Reinhardt. Exhibitions of the past, for example, the Shanghai exhibition that is coming.

Mr. Yates. Precious Legacy.

Mr. Reinhardt. Precious Legacy would be an

Mr. Yates. Major?

Mr. Reinhardt. Major undertaking.

Mr. Yates. You didn't pay for that, did you?

Mr. Reinhardt. No. We would not necessarily for all future exhibitions out of this fund. It would be a mix

Mr. Yates. I am trying to get an example of a major exhibition that was paid for out of Trust funds.

Mr. Reinhardt. A major exhibition that was paid for out of a combination of Trust and Federal funds was the Versailles exhibition at the Portrait Gallery, recently.

Mr. Yates. What was the advantage of doing it with Trust funds?

Mr. Reinhardt. The only advantage, sir, is a supplementary advantage. It is a matter of stretching your money in the end.

Mr. Yates. You don't save any money by it, do you? Does it make it easier on you?

Mr. Reinhardt. We do not save money, but it makes it possible for the public to see some exhibitions that probably could not be seen in the future.

Mr. Yates. Well, you have to schedule your exhibitions at least a 3'ear or two in advance, don't you?

Mr. Reinhardt. That is correct.

Mr. Yates. All right. Is it easier for you to know in advance whether you have the money for those exhibitions, and therefore you know that if you get it out of Trust funds, you don't have to worry about whether you are going to get it in the appropriations bill? Is that part of it?

Mr. Reinhardt. That would be a part of it. But I don't want to mislead you into thinking that there won't be a need for Federal funds for exhibitions. There will be.

Mr. Yates. Well, a Regent has walked in.

Mr. Boland. I am glad I came. I just got a look at what is in front of me here.

Mr. Yates. At the publications.

Mr. Boland. I like Big Band jazz. I thought I would like to come over and just join with this committee of which I am the lowest man on the totem pole, and just to welcome the Secretary.

Mr. Yates. And the troops. All these are troops.

Mr. Boland. All the recruits, too. But this is the last appearance before this committee of Secretary Ripley. I chair another committee that also is running at the moment, but I thought I would come over and just wish him well. In the 20 years he has been Secretary the institution has developed rapidly and well. You are familiar with the figures. You were a Regent yourself.

THE PERICLEAN AGE

Mr. Yates. Yesterday I referred to his tenure as the Periclean Age of the Smithsonian.

Mr. Boland. Well, that is a good description, I think. The statistics, of course, are dramatic when you stop to think of the, what, $10 million, when you came in 1964 visitors, now, $24, $25 million; operating revenues of $30 million in 1964, now it is up to what, 200-and-some-odd millions of dollars?

Mr. Yates. Both budgets are close to $300 million, I think.

Mr. Boland. The Institution itself, the value of that plant, of course, is indescribable. It is priceless. The number of institutions on the Mall, and other places are incredible. So I just wanted to come and to express from my point of view as a Regent my appreciation for what I consider his remarkable leadership. You know they say that an institution is the length and shadow of a man. If

that be so, then of course the Smithsonian is a lengthy shadow of the Secretary.

Mr. Yates. They have named a famous train after him: the Empire Builder.

Mr. Ratchford. Mr. Secretary, I am pleased to participate in all of this, especially in view of the fact that we are talking of one of Connecticut's favorite residents. The only good news in your decision to leave is that Connecticut will see more of you. You look forward to fewer flights on USAir, more time in Litchfield County and more opportunity to enjoy the quality of life that is the hallmark of Connecticut.

But we are extremely proud in the fact that Connecticut has played a role, and especially proud of the type person that you are. So I am pleased to be here and commend you for all that you have done for this city and this country.

Mr. Boland. Would you like to take the 196.1, million dollars and walk out right now.

Mr. Ratchford. All those in favor?

Mr. Yates. When he started his tenure the Smithsonian's budget was $13 million.

Mr. Boland. Is that right?

Mr. Yates. Yes, $13 million when he started. He leaves it a little larger.

Mr. Boland. That is the mark of a successful man, isn't it?

Mr. Yates. Oh, yes.

Mr. Boland. Particularly with you as chairman. Anyone that can do that with you as chairman has done pretty well.

Mr. Yates. You are darn right, because I have been holding him back.

Mr. Boland. At least I have made this a lively meeting, if nothing else.

Mr. Yates. Well, it has been pretty lively. But you have sparked it and we appreciate it. And I am sure that Mr. Ripley appreciates your coming in and representing the Board of Regents here today.

Mr. Ripley. Very much indeed.

BOARD OF REGENTS APPROVAL

Mr. Yates. Has your plan, your proposal that exhibition money be paid out of Trust funds been approved by the Board of Regents?

Mr. Reinhardt. It has not yet, sir. It will be presented to the Board of Regents at their May meeting.

Mr. Yates. How do you propose that the exhibitions be funded for the current year, 1984?

Mr. Reinhardt. Exhibitions for the current year will be funded as in the past.

Mr. Yates. Okay.

Mr. Hughes. Mr. Yates, if I could just comment a bit, it might be helpful.

Mr. Yates. Sure.

FUNDING PROBLEMS WITH MAJOR EXHIBITIONS

Mr. Hughes. One of the problems with major exhibitions is long lead time. Frequently, because of that long lead time, we have

I

found ourselves in the position of committing to do a major exhibition, without the assurance of funds to do it. And despite Mr. Symington's best efforts, at times we haven't been able to raise the funds and we find ourselves in an embarrassing position. This major exhibition fund will permit us to commit and provide resources on the basis of which we can plan. If we can raise enough dough, then we won't need it. But we will have the resource available.

Mr. Yates. Interestingly, sometime ago I spoke to Carter Brown. He expressed the wish that perhaps some day in view of the fact that his commitments have to be made a great deal ahead of time, expressed the wish that he could get forward funding for his exhibitions. Is it possible that you will include the National Gallery in this plan?

Mr. Hughes. It seems unlikely to me, Mr. Chairman. You will have to ask the Secretary.

Mr. Ripley. It is always reciprocal, Mr. Chairman. If they will help us out, we will be glad to help them out.

SPECIAL FOREIGN CURRENCY PROGRAM

Mr. Yates. I see, okay. All right. Let us talk about special foreign currency. We talked some about it yesterday. But you want an increase from $7,040,000 to $9 million. Now, why is this important, Dillon? Why is this program so important for your purposes?

Mr. Ripley. It has been important ever since we began to defend the need for the Smithsonian to administer such funds because it is done in a special way which is different from government grant agencies. That is, we associate a university with an institution abroad, a scholar with a scholar abroad. In each case it is on a one-to-one basis, which is, we feel, not only in the tradition of the Smithsonian itself, for sponsoring research, but also far better in terms of the real interchange and intercommunion of the scientists and scholars in the humanities that are involved.

Mr. Yates. This is another example of forward funding.

Mr. Ripley. It is. Part of it is forward funding for the American Institute of Indian Studies, which we have helped to support, as you know, for years, almost since the beginning of the program.

Mr. Yates. Why don't you take this out of your Trust funds, too, then, if you want forward funding, as you do the—as you propose to do for the exhibitions?

Mr. Ripley. This money we feel is available and can be applied for, whereas we do not know in any one year how we are going to be able to finance a major increment like $4 million in forward funding. But this is money which is blocked currency lying in an account in India which is not available except to those institutions qualified under Treasury regulations to apply for it.

Mr. Yates. Okay.

Mr. Ripley. It is simply going to end up not being spent, and, I think, swallowed up in inflation.

Mr. Yates. What is the attitude of the Treasury on this?

Mr. Ripley. Favorable.

Mr. Yates. It is. And OMB, too?

Mr. Ripley. Yes, they have allowed us in 1985 $4 million, which would bring the reserve for the AIIS, as we call it, up to $7,250,000. What we need for the five-year needs of that institute is $10 million. So we would always, as usual, Mr. Chairman, like a little more. But we feel that this Indian reserve currency is in general somewhat misunderstood. I think we testified a little bit to that yesterday.

Mr. Yates. Well, it is kind of interesting you should be asking for $10 million. The museum programs and related research background paper indicates that all you spent over 16 years was $8 million. Now, why do you want $10 million now?

Mr. Ripley. Because we want it on a forward funding basis so it can be used to lie there against the days when there is no more of the "excess" fund. The "excess" fund could disappear as early as fiscal year 1986.

Mr. Yates. Suppose we do make it available. What is to prevent the State Department from coming ahead and touching Smithsonian for it?

Mr. Clarke. Once it has been appropriated to us, Mr. Chairman—we can hold on to it.

SECURITY

Mr. Yates. Let us talk about security for a moment. There was a question as to whether or not you had an adequate number of guards for the security of your properties. What is that situation now, Mr. Peyton?

Mr. Peyton. As you recall, we obtained through the help of this committee last year 48 positions which we now have filled. But we have remaining a base deficiency of 65 positions which we have identified as critical. We asked OMB for some of those positions this year. It was not allowed. We now plan to continue to ask for the total of 65 positions over a several year period starting with next year.

Mr. Yates. Does the budget show anything for an increase in guards?

Mr. Peyton. Only the Museum Support Center, which is treated separately.

Mr. Yates. Did you ask OMB for an increased number of guards?

Mr. Clarke. Yes, sir, we did.

Mr. Yates. How many more?

Mr. Clarke. 17.

Mr. Yates. Is that all you need?

Mr. Peyton. No, sir, we need a total of 65.

Mr. Yates. Does that include the new Quad building?

Mr. Peyton. No, sir, it does not. We don't require any guards in fiscal year 1985. In 1986 we will start asking for guards for the Quad.

Mr. Yates. You need 17 more guards. Where are you going to put them?

Mr. Peyton. We have identified specific locations. I can furnish that.

Mr. Yates. Put that in the record.

Mr. Peyton. Yes, sir.

[The information follows:]

Response by Tom Peyton, Director Office of Facilities Services

Distribution of guards requested in budget submission to OMB — fiscal year 1985

Freer Gallery of Art 1

National Air and Space Museum 2

National Musem of American History 5

Paul Garber Facility 1

National Museum of American Art/National Portrait Gallery 4

National Museum of Natural History 4

Total 17

GUARD TRAINING

Mr. Yates. How long does it take to train a guard? Do you hire guards already trained, or do you train them? What do you do?

Mr. Peyton. The majority of the guards who come to us are Vietnam veterans. So of course they have obtained some rudimentary training through their military service. They are trained by a combination of on-the-job and formal classroom training conducted by our own training staff within the Protection Services organization.

CONDITION OF ROOFS

Mr. Yates. Now, tell us about the subject we talked about last year. How do you propose to keep the guards from getting wet?

Mr. Peyton. Well, I think we continue to make progress each year. We work very hard on this program. I think realistically it can be expected that sooner or later for large buildings, roofs will leak. So it is a matter of sending our roofing crews around to each of our buildings on a very regular basis. We have a good telephone communication service with the building managers. They are always very quick to tell us of problems.

Mr. Yates. As I remember it, Mr. Lawton was the one most rained upon last time. Is his situation taken care of?

Mr. Peyton. He is here.

Mr. Yates. Mr. Lawton, are all your objects dry and safe and protected in the elements now?

Mr. Lawton. They are.

Mr. Yates. Is this because of Mr. Peyton's efforts?

Mr. Lawton. Entirely due to his efforts.

RENWICK FACADE

Mr. Yates. When are you going to take the supporting structures away from Renwick?

Mr. Peyton. We expect to start that within 30 days. We now have in actual final production the man-made stone elements that will be placed on the building. We have not let the contractor start with the actual demolition until we have enough man-made stone accumulated to complete the portion of the building which he would first demolish.

THE CASTLE BUILDING

Mr. Yates. What shape is the Castle in?

Mr. Peyton. We have had a number of recent projects to improve the electrical and fire protection systems. On the exterior of the building we are beginning to identify some deteriorated stone. And we have requests in to start on a selective basis replacing those stones.

FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS

Mr. Yates. Do all the Smithsonian buildings which house its exhibition objects have fire protection sprinkler systems?

Mr. Peyton. Not entirely, but we have embarked on a program to install them in virtually all of them.

Mr. Yates. Which do not?

Mr. Peyton. There are mixed feelings on the part of the bureau directors and curators about water.

Mr. Yates. I know, as to whether or not it is more dangerous to have fire than water.

Mr. Peyton. But on a one by one basis we are gradually we believe convincing them that the systems that are installed today are reliable. And the net result of whether to put in or not put in weighs heavily in favor of putting the systems in.

Mr. Yates. Are there alternative methods of fire protection

Mr. Peyton. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. To water?

Mr. Peyton. Yes, sir, there are. Did you say other than water?

Mr. Yates. Yes.

Mr. Peyton. Yes.

Mr. Yates. I mean other than sprinkler systems.

Mr. Peyton. Yes, sir. There is a system used on a highly selective basis within the Institution involving a chemical called Halon which is a gas. It denies oxygen to initial combustion. If a fire breaks out, it literally starves the fire. Halon gas is very expensive. It is expensive to install. Therefore, we only do it where we think we must.

Mr. Yates. What is the effect of Halon on art objects that could be ruined by water?

Mr. Peyton. Mr. Postlethwaite from our Conservation Lab is here.

Mr. Yates. Mr. Postlethwaite, wherever you are.

Mr. Postlethwaite. Yes.

Mr. Yates. What is the effect of Halon on art objects?

Mr. Postlethwaite. Well, it is, has some solvency, but the concentrations it comes in, it certainly is better than water, and certainly better than being on fire.

Mr. Yates. Would it ruin Mr. Lawton's screens or his books?

Mr. Postlethwaite. I don't think so, no; not if properly installed.

Mr. Yates. Not to the same extent as water might?

Mr. Postlethwaite. It is extremely expensive.

Mr. Yates. More expensive than water?

Mr. Postlethwaite. Much more expensive. An order of magnitude more expensive I would say at least.

Mr. Yates. How much more expensive is it?

Mr. Postlethwaite. I would defer to Mr. Peyton.

Mr. Yates. Mr. Peyton?

34-632 0—84-

Mr. Peyton. I don't think I could give a figure. Mr. Yates. Would you put it in the record, please? Mr. Peyton. Yes, I would. [The information follows:]

Office of Facilities Services

Sprinklers cost us on the average of $1.50/square foot of floor space to install. Halon on the other hand costs approximately $1.50/cubic foot of space (volume), but this figure does not include the additional costs of necessary smoke detectors, relays and controls to shut doors and stop air circulating systems, etc. For the complete working Halon package, the cost should be closer to between $2.00 and $3.00/cubic foot of room volume. For a room with a ten foot high ceiling, therefore, the cost of a Halon system would be 20 to 30 times greater than that of sprinklers.

In addition, with sprinklers there is virtually an endless supply of extinguishing agent (water) at essentially zero cost. With Halon, there only is the "one shot" capability for extinguishing a fire and the replacement cost for Halon gas is $7.00/lb. (one pound of gas covers approximately 41 cubic feet (3.5'X 3.5'X 3.5') of space).

Halon is hazardous (toxic) above a concentration of seven percent in air and therefore systems must be designed so as not to exceed this concentration. While concentrations as low as 4% are extremely effective in extinguishing flammable liquid fires, research has shown that Halon has limited capabilities on Class A fires (those involving ordinary combustibles) and up to a 20% or better concentration may be required to extinguish a deep seated fire.

It has been argued that water can cause as much damage as fire to some objects, and this may be true in some instances, but we know an object turned to ashes cannot be restored. Sprinklers only operate directly over the fire, and discharge an engineered amount of water (usually about 15 gpm or .15 gpm/sq. ft.) as opposed to a fire fighters hose line operating betwen 100-250 gpm and discharging water everywhere. It is for this reason that we recommend sprinklers be installed as a back up to a Halon system should the Halon fail to extinguish the fire (the fire department should only be a last resort).

One other consideration to be given in installing Halon is the extremely high air turbulence generated by the discharging gas. There have been numerous incidents of paintings, and objects being blown about and damaged in a room where the Halon system has discharged. Therefore, careful planning must take place both in designing the system and in the placement of objects.

ASBESTOS CONTAMINATION

Mr. Yates. What else should we know about the safety of the Smithsonian buildings and exhibitions? Are you worried about any deficiencies that ought to be remedied?

Mr. Peyton. We have developed, as you commented yesterday, a fairly comprehensive plan which addresses this very subject. We laid out a program covering the prospectus period, and even looking beyond that in some respects. I would think that one of the principal nagging concerns that all of us have is the question of asbestos. We have asbestos in most of our buildings.

Mr. Yates. On the walls, or in the ceilings, or both?

Mr. Peyton. Both. Asbestos has been used both as an insulating material for human comfort, at least it was so conceived when it was put on. It is also used as a fireproofing medium and sprayed on steel beam's structural steel beams, to avoid distortion and collapse when fire occurred in buildings. We have large quantities of asbestos in the Portrait Gallery Building, Museum of American History; we have some in Natural History. We have encountered some in the Freer, the Arts and Industries Building and a fairly significant quantity at Silver Hill and some at Cooper-Hewitt in New York. I think those are the principal ones.

Mr. Yates. Are you going to replace those installations?

Mr. Peyton. Well, we have inventoried all of this in two categories. First those spaces where the asbestos is exposed and activity in the room could dislodge the asbestos, make it airborne, and therefore possible for a person to breathe. Second, in our inventory we have located asbestos which is used mostly in pipe covering and is wrapped in canvas in the traditional way that I think most of us are familiar with.

Generally, the concealed or covered asbestos doesn't pose an immediate threat. But it is sort of like a bomb ticking, because there is always the possibility of a workman snagging the pipe covering and dislodging the asbestos.

Mr. Yates. Is there any way of sealing it in by spray or some sealant?

Mr. Peyton. There are generally three methods that are used. One is to remove it, the obvious one. The second is to cover it up with some material and then sealing it. The third is the sprayed on approach, which tends to put a stabilizing coating on the outside of the asbestos.

Mr. Yates. I hope it isn't polyurethane.

Mr. Peyton. No. We have been using all three methods depending on where it is and what is involved, what the use of the space is and the like.

Mr. Yates. Are you going to remove the asbestos facilities there ultimately?

Mr. Peyton. I think in the long run we should.

Mr. Yates. What is the cost likely to be?

Mr. Peyton. We are speculating $10 million.

Mr. Yates. Oh, boy. Is this coming out of Trust funds?

Mr. Peyton. No, sir, it is not planned to come out of Trust funds. In our R&R budget for the last several years we have included several hundred thousand dollars, and we expect to continue that program. As we make alterations in the building we use that money to either remove the asbestos or, in some cases, encapsulate it. For example, at Silver Hill where we have these prefabricated metal buildings, which are lined for the most part with exposed asbestos. We have retained the insulating value of the asbestos, covered it with fiberglass on the inside, and then sealed it off. We feel that that is an effective way to deal with that. We think eventually those buildings should be torn down. But say in the next 10 years that is an effective way to deal with the matter. The problem, one of the reasons why I am raising this is because there is a morale problem among Smithsonian employees because of the presence of the asbestos and the relative unknown aspects of the harmful effects.

No one is saying that it is not a carcinogen. But how much exposure causes cancer is yet to be established.

Mr. Yates. Well, we do know that the National Cancer Institute has isolated cancer which is caused by asbestos. There is a special name of the cancer which escapes me at the moment. Is there an incipient liability built on the part of Smithsonian to employees who work in such surroundings? Or by the public, for that matter?

Mr. Peyton. A layman's answer is yes. But maybe Mr. Powers—

Mr. Yates. Judge Powers, what do you think?

Mr. Powers. I really don't know, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Yates. Oughtn't we to find out? Might the expenditure of $10 million be relatively inexpensive by comparison to what the ultimate cost might be if the Smithsonian is sued for having that? Is the public exposed to any of these asbestos walls or ceilings?

Mr. Peyton. No, sir, they are not.

Mr. Yates. In none of the museums?

Mr. Peyton. In none of the museums.

ASBESTOS AT SILVER HILL

Mr. Yates. Where are these installations then? I know you said Silver Hill.

Mr. Peyton. They are frequently located in basements or attic spaces that the public doesn't normally access. I have been asked by Mr. Kennedy to raise a concern in this general area that he has in that he has many objects located at Silver Hill in buildings where the objects themselves have become contaminated.

Mr. Yates. By asbestos?

Mr. Peyton. Yes, sir. Part of our R&R program out there is, as I mentioned before, and included in the budget this year, for renovation of an additional building and future budgets provide for the renovation of other additional buildings. In order to do that, we have to move the objects out of the building, clean them. We then clean the building, and then move the objects back in. He has indicated that he does not have sufficient resources right now to clean the objects. Maybe he would like to comment on that, if you would care to listen.

Mr. Yates. Well, I would care to listen if you want to tell me about it. It is one of the things that I wanted to ask you about yesterday.

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, you did ask that question. Overnight, I asked my helpers to tell me whether we had any problems along this line, and we do. We have got a bunch of objects that belong to the public and will ultimately ought to be in exhibits that we can't use and shouldn't use while they are contaminated. We have got to clean them and then put them back into clean surroundings. We can submit a memo to you. But the amount of money that will take to get them clean and make them available again is about six people to do the cleaning, about $80,000, protective clothing, and some further asbestos testing. This is the kind of thing which we are unfortunately discovering as we proceed, because this asbestos problem is a continuing one.

But in response to your question of yesterday I should have included in that response a reference to the asbestos problem which is a health and safety problem, and the answer to your subsidiary question was, which was roughly how much money, it will be close to $200,000 to do that job, get that material cleaned and restore it to the public.

Mr. Yates. Where will you store it after you clean it?

Mr. Kennedy. Back in the clean building. We have got the building cleaned. The problem is that we have the contaminated objects.

Mr. Yates. How important are the objects?

Mr. Kennedy. They are important matters, yes. They are important. I suppose they are important in two ways. First of all, at the

J.TJ.X

195

tt they are dangerous to health. Second, they are intrinsical-able in the collections.

Yates. So that you need another what, $80,000 or $200,000? Mr. Kennedy. The $80,000 is just personnel costs. The rest of the budget would come out to a total of about $200,000. I will give you a memorandum. [The information follows:]

National Museum of American History

Last Spring, the Smithsonian Safety Office conducted sophisticated tests at Silver Hill which indicated that asbestos had contaminated the collections in all of our five storage buildings, posing a threat whenever collections were moved or sent out on loan, as well as causing recontamination of the three buildings which had been renovated to encapsulate asbestos.

We conducted inventory wearing cumbersome and hot safety suits and masks. Work was inefficient and tiring to certain elderly and less physically fit employees and we were uable to do any more than the most general surveys of collections. Following inventory, we imposed a moratorium on any items moving into or out of Silver Hill. Exceptions have been made only in the most urgent circumstances. In these cases we have wrapped incoming items to keep them free from becoming contaminated and we have laboriously cleaned outgoing items.

Unavailability of this principal storage area and the continuing existence of hazardous conditions was cited with alarm by the American Association of Museums Reaccreditation Team during its visit in November. The team was concerned about the working conditions of employees as well as the need to care for important collections stored there such as: 19th century furniture, antique toys and tools, paintings, musical instruments, maritime collections, photgraphs, carousel animals, early computer and medical instruments, and the Morgan type collection, which is an unparalleled collection of American advertising type faces worth several hundred thousand dollars. There are over 800,000 items stored in our Silver Hill buildings.

Because of the contamination of collections and buildings we cannot: Complete inventory at Silver Hill, Incorporate Silver Hill collections into the Mall exhibitions, Respond to requests from other museums for loans which would both serve those museums and reduce congestion at Silver Hill, Relocate to Silver Hill collections displaced from the Mall as reinstallation proceeds, Free spaces on the Mall for staging new exhibitions and the move to the Support Center, Upgrade protection of important collections at Silver Hill, and Receive new collections.

Hallways in the Mall building are becoming storage areas. Over 15,000 square feet of prime exhibition space on the Mall is used for storage, and more will have to be committed if Silver Hill cannot be used as reinstallation continues.

There is a solution in sight if funds can be found for cleaning the collections. It involves hiring a team of six people to clean the objects. Inventory staff are fully committed to maintenance, refinement and reconciliation tasks and cannot be diverted. Other existing staff are equally involved in inventory and exhibitions and public service work. This emergency situation requires a temporary (5 year) special workforce. Because the collections are in many instances fragile and need cleaning methods tailored to their type and condition, we must supervise the work closely and cannot turn over the job to a private contractor.

Here is what we have done:

Purchased six ship containers to house architectural pieces, thus freeing space in Building 16 to be a cleaning facility.

Estimated for FY 1984 purchase by SI a 12,000 square foot inflatable holding facility for cycling of cleaned objects, permitting buildings to be emptied and then efficiently cleaned (Cost $88,500).

Developed efficient cleaning systems for various types of objects (while cleaning up the Objects Processing Facility).

Scheduled funds in R&R budgets beginning in FY 1985 to remove asbestos from the remaining buildings.

Secured advice from the nation's foremost asbestos consultants.

Here is what we need in FY 1985:

*Asbestos Cleaning Team (6 People) $84,000

* Disposable Safety Clothing 80,000

* Asbestos Tests 30,000

'Supplies 2,000

Nilfisk Vacuums 12,000

Total 223,000

We estimate that the work will take 5 years at a continuing cost of $211,000 for those items asterisked.

This budget could only be prepared after consulting with experts and conducting extensive testing of various cleaning methods. We know of no comparable situation in the nation. This hazard to people and collections severely hampers our work and justifies a mid-course adjustment to the budget.

ASBESTOS AT THE NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY

Mr. Yates. Are there any other museums similarly situated that have to face an asbestos problem?

Mr. Peyton. I believe American History is the one that has the problem.

Mr. Yates. What about the Portrait Gallery? No, not the Portrait Gallery?

Mr. Peyton. There is asbestos in the building, but it is presently under control and we have been removing it on a case-by-case basis as we pursue other R&R-type projects. We expect to be removing some more this fiscal year, for example.

ASBESTOS AT THE NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM

Mr. Yates. Then I take it that Mr. Kennedy's is the only museum that has to worry about it? No, Natural History just

Mr. Ripley. They found asbestos in the space over my laboratory in Natural History three weeks ago.

Mr. Fiske. That has been cleaned.

Mr. Yates. What is your situation, Dick?

Mr. Fiske. Mr. Chairman, our situation is that we are moving many thousands of objects, especially the ethnographic materials belonging to the anthropology department, to the Museum Support Center. These materials have been stored in the attic and are contaminated.

Mr. Yates. Are they tainted?

Mr. Fiske. They are, but they are in the process of being cleaned. The move funding has been made available. We are providing for cleaners, packers, people dealing with the asbestos problem in a very special way. So we have material coming from our attic now, and moving into a staging area in our museum.

Mr. Yates. Any others? Okay, we worry only about two museums and your administrative buildings. What else should we know about your health and safety, the health and safety of the Smithsonian?

Mr. Peyton. Well, we recently, because of concerns of our employees, called in two outside consultants who have compiled a history of expertise in the asbestos area. They have examined our procedures, and although they have given us some improving type recommendations, have felt that we are on the leading edge of dealing with this problem. So we take some comfort in that.

OFFICE OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Yates. Okay. Now, you want $150,000 for the Office of Design and Construction?

Mr. Peyton. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. Will this be enough for the expanding program you have got?

Mr. Peyton. We expect to ask for some additional resources next year, but I believe that this is sufficient for now.

PROPRIETARY SECURITY SYSTEM

Mr. Yates. Is the proprietary security system in good shape?

Mr. Peyton. Well, we are in the process of installing this on a multi-year basis. Initial installation has now been made in the new Museum Support Center, and its counterpart computer equipment in the Castle. It is in the process of final installation and testing. There will be subsequent installations in all of our key buildings.

Mr. Yates. Mr. Ratchford?

CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY

Mr. Ratchford. Mr. Chairman, we do have a roll call, as you know. The one thing I would like an update on, and I know it is not something we can spend time on now, is the conflict policy, We spent a lot of time discussing that last year. And the Smithsonian was in the process of updating its policy relating to conflict. I think an update and report on that would be of benefit.

Mr. Yates. All right. We will do that when we come back. We will vote now and come back.

Mr. Yates. When we left to vote, Mr.Ratchford had asked about a question of conflict which will be raised in last year's hearings. Do you want to make that more precise, Mr. Ratchford?

Mr. Ratchford. Well, Mr. Chairman, last year as you know, we went through extensive hearings on the question of the gem policy. In connection with that, the issue of conflict came up. We had the benefit of testimony from counsel that he was at that point in fact updating their policy as it related to conflict.

I wonder if that update had been completed and if so, he could report to us on that issue.

Mr. Yates. All right.

Mr. Powers. Yes, sir. That was completed last May following the hearings, the so-called revised rules of conduct were issued. They have been working very well. I believe we have as one part of that the statement of interest that the top staff has to file each year. They came in last year and we found no problems with it.

And they have just been sent out for this year. It is on an annual basis.

Mr. Ratchford. Mr. Chairman, I think it would benefit the committee if we could have for record purposes both the new policy and the new disclosure form, if in fact there is one.

Mr. Powers. Absolutely.

Mr. Yates. We have no objection.

[The information follows:]

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

OFFICE MEMORANDUM 688 (ReV ) May 9, 1983

TO: All Smithsonian Employees

SUBJECT: Revised Smithsonian Standards of Conduct

Attached is a copy of the revised Standards of Conduct which apply to all Smithsonian employees and supersede those which were promulgated in 1968 for civil service employees and made applicable to trust fund employees in 1974. These Standards incorporate the basic principles and guidelines of the earlier Standards, clarify the procedures to be followed in implementing these principles, and provide additional guidance in areas such as personal collecting and other outside activities.

As in the past, the primary responsibility rests with the individual employee to be familiar with these Standards, to act in accordance with them, and to seek guidance prior to engaging in any activity which might not be consonant with the principles or specific provisions set forth in the Standards. Such guidance must be provided by bureau directors and other supervisors and professional staff, as well as the Ethics Counselors, to assure that the Standards will be effective in protecting the individual employee and the Institution.

The General Counsel is Ethics Counselor for the Institution, and Robert A. Dierker, George S. Robinson, and Alan D. Ullberg of the Office of the General Counsel have been designated as additional Ethics Counselors to assist employees as provided in the Standards.

S'iQ^.

Dillon Ripl Secretary

ley ' V-

' CANCELLATIONS:

INQUIRIES: RETENTION:

FILING -INSTRUCTIONS:

OM 254 dated 12/10/58

OM 688 (Rev) dated 2/14/68

Office of the General Counsel

Indefinite. This office memorandum is subject to review for

currency 18 months from the date hereof.

File this office memorandum in numerical sequence with

other current office memoranda.

Smithsonian Institution STANDARDS OF CONDUCT

Table of Contents

OM 688 (Rev) 5/9/83

Section Page

§ 1 Loyalty And Conflicts Of Interest 1

§ 2 Compliance, Clearance, Interpretation And Advice 1

§ 3 Remedial Action And Discipline 2

S 4 Federal Laws Relating To Employee Conduct 2

S 5 Gifts, Entertainment, And Favors From Outside Sources 3

(a) General Institution policy 3

(b) Federal law of bribery and illegal gratuities 3

(c) Exceptions 3

(d) Gifts and decorations from foreign governments 4 S 6 Unauthorized Solicitations And Gifts By Employees 4

(a) Individual solicitations and sales by employees 4

(b) Gifts to supervisors 4 § 7 Outside Activities 4

(a) Voluntary and professional activities 5

(b) Political activities 5

(c) Use of Smithsonian name or official title 5

(d) Paid outside employment that is related to Smithsonian employment 5

(e) Writing or speaking about the Smithsonian 6

(f) Outside work and dual compensation 6

(g) Smithsonian contracts with employees and relatives of employees 6 (h) Employment or positions with foreign governments 6 (i) Personal acquisition of museum objects 6 (j) Dealing in museum objects, materials, or specimens 7 (k) Appraisals of museum objects 7

OM 688 (Rev) 5/9/83

S 8 Restrictions On Activities After Leaving Smithsonian Employment 7

(a) Lifetime restriction on certain activities 7

(b) Two year restriction on other activities 7

S 9 Prohibitions On Official Actions That Could Affect An Employee's 8 Financial Interests

S 10 Employees' Statements Of Employment And Financial Interests 8

(a) Criteria for filing the financial statement 8

(b) Protests with respect to filing confidential statements 8

(c) Effect of filing a financial statement 9

(d) Interests of employees' relatives 9

(e) Review of financial statements 9

S 11 Reimbursements By Outside Organizations For Travel Expenses By 9 Employees While On Institution Business

(a) Procedures for approval of reimbursements and their sources 9

(b) Limitations on reimbursements for travel on Institution business 10 S 12 Use of Smithsonian Property Or Funds 10

(a) Prohibition on private uses 10

(b) Ownership of data and materials prepared by the Institution 10

(c) Laws applying to misuse of Smithsonian funds 10 S 13 Restrictions On Disclosure Of Information 10 S 14 Financial Responsibility 11 S 15 Gambling, Betting, Lotteries, And Lending Money 11

(a) Gambling 11

(b) Lending money for gain 11 S 16 Borrowing Money From Subordinates 11 S 17 Exceptions To These Standards 11

OM 688 (Rev) 5/9/83

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION STANDARDS OF CONDUCT

S 1 LOYALTY AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Employees shall maintain high standards of honesty, integrity, and loyalty to the Institution and shall refrain from any private or personal activity which might conflict, or appear to conflict, with the interests of the Institution.

Employees must avoid any action, whether or not specifically dealt with in these Standards, which might result in, or create the appearance of:

—using Smithsonian employment for private gain;

—giving preferential treatment to any person;

—losing complete independence or impartiality of action;

—affecting adversely the confidence of the public in the integrity of the Institution.

Employees shall not directly or indirectly make use of or permit others to make use of, for the purpose of furthering a private interest, information obtained through their Smithsonian employment which is or would be unavailable to scholars or the general public.

S 2 COMPLIANCE, CLEARANCE, INTERPRETATION AND ADVICE

It is the responsibility of individual employees to conduct themselves and all their activities in compliance with the general principles and specific provisions of these Standards. If there is any doubt whether the activities or planned activities of an employee are in compliance with these Standards, it is incumbent upon the employee to seek advice from his/her supervisor, bureau or office head, and from a Smithsonian Ethics Counselor. A number of activities specified in these Standards require prior clearance.

The General Counsel is Ethics Counselor for the Institution and its employees on Standards of Conduct and conflict of interest matters. The General Counsel will designate one or more attorneys on the staff as additional Ethics Counselors, and employees should consult an Ethics Counselor in advance regarding the propriety of their activities.

Employees may appeal rulings by the Ethics Counselor to a committee convened by the Under Secretary. The committee shall be composed of the director of the employee's bureau or office, the Assistant Secretary with jurisdiction over that bureau or office, the Assistant Secretary for Administration, and the Under Secretary. The employee may appear before the committee, or make a written submission. The determination by this committee shall be final. The Ethics Counselor shall meet with the committee but shall not vote.

OM 688 (Rev) 5/9/83

S 3 REMEDIAL ACTION AND DISCIPLINE

An employee's failure to comply with these Standards is cause for remedial or disciplinary action. Action may include but is not limited to:

—change in assigned duties;

—the employee's divestment of any conflicting interest;

—disqualification for a particular assignment;

—appropriate discipline including removal.

S 4 FEDERAL LAWS RELATING TO EMPLOYEE CONDUCT

Apart from disciplinary or remedial action by the Institution arising from violation of these Standards, civil and criminal penalties may be imposed for violation of the federal statutes referred to in these Standards to the extent that such statutes are applicable to civil service or trust fund employees. Employees should also be aware of the statutory prohibitions against:

(1) Lobbying with appropriated funds (18 U.S.C. S 1913).

(2) Disloyalty and striking (5 U.S.C. S 7311 and 18 U.S.C. S 1918).

(3) Employment of a member of a Communist organization (50 U.S.C. S 784).

(4) Disclosure of confidential information (18 U.S.C. S 1905).

(5) Habitual use of intoxicants to excess (5 U.S.C. S 7352).

(6) Misuse of a federal vehicle (31 U.S.C. S 638a(c)).

(7) Misuse of the franking privilege (18 U.S.C. S 1719).

(8) Use of deceit in an examination or personnel action in connection with federal employment (18 U.S.C. S 1917).

(9) Fraud or false statements in a matter involving the United States (18 U.S.C. S 1001).

(10) Mutilating or destroying a public record (18 U.S.C. S 2071).

(11) Unauthorized use of documents relating to claims involving federal funds (18 U.S.C. S 285).

(12) Employees acting as the agent of a foreign principal registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (18 U.S.C. S 219).

(13) Appointing, employing, promoting, or advancing a relative or advocating such actions for a relative (5 U.S.C. S 3110).

OM 688 (Rev 5/9/83

(3 4) Engaging in prohibited personnel practices including discrimination (5 U.S.C. S 2302).

(15) Representing others or accepting payment in matters involving the Institution or the United States (18 U.S.C. S§ 203, 205).

§ 5 GIFTS, ENTERTAINMENT, AND FAVORS FROM OUTSIDE SOURCES

(a) General Institution Policy

Employees are prohibited from soliciting or accepting gifts from individuals, businesses, or other organizations with whom they have or expect to have official business as Smithsonian employees. Gifts include objects, financial interests, entertainment, favors, discounts, travel, lodging, meals or other arrangements advantageous to the employee. Gifts from such sources to or for the benefit of members of an employee's immediate family or household are also prohibited, unless the recipient has a relationship with the donor which is independent of the Smithsonian employee ' s official relationship with the outside donor.

(b) Federal Law of Bribery and Illegal Gratuities

Employees may be subject to criminal penalties if they solicit, accept, or agree to accept anything of value in return for being influenced in performing or in refraining from performing an official act. (See 18 U.S.C. § 201, subsections (a)-(c).) An employee shall not solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any gift, gratuity, discount, favor, entertainment, loan, or any other thing of monetary value from a person who: (1) Has, or is seeking to obtain, contractual, business, financial, or any other official relationship with the Smithsonian, or (2) has interests that may be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of the employee's official duty (see 18 U.S.C. §§ 201, 203). Employees may not receive or agree to receive anything of value in connection with any official action performed or to be performed (see 18 U.S.C. § 201, subsection (f)).

(c) Exceptions

The following axe general exceptions to paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section:

(1) When the circumstances make it clear that the employee has a family or personal relationship (such as that between the employee's parents, children, or spouse and the employee), rather than official business with the persons concerned, it is permissible to accept gratuities, favors, entertainment, or any ether thing of monetary value.

(2) Food and refreshments of modest value may be accepted by an employee on infrequent occasions in the ordinary course of Smithsonian business such as a luncheon or dinner meeting.

(3) Loans from banks or other financial institutions with which the Institution deals may be accepted on customary terms to finance proper and usual personal requirements of employees such as financing an employee's home.

(4) Unsolicited advertising or promotional material such as pens, pencils, note pads, calendars, and other items of modest intrinsic value may be accepted.

(d) Gifts and Decorations from Foreign Governments

An employee shall not accept a gift, present, decoration or other thing from a foreign government except in accordance with.the standards and procedures set forth in Smithsonian Office Memorandum 826, Acceptance of Foreign Gifts and Awards, and in 5 U.S.C. S 7342.

S 6 UNAUTHORIZED SOLICITATIONS AND GIFTS BY EMPLOYEES

(a) Individual Solicitations and Sales by Employees

Employees shall not solicit or promote the sale of tickets, stocks, articles, commodities, or services on Institution premises. Placing advertisements or notices on bulletin boards or in publications provided for these purposes by the Institution is permitted, and employees may participate in the promotion and sales activities of the Smithsonian Recreation Association.

(b) Gifts to Supervisors

Employees shall not solicit contributions from other employees for a gift to an official superior, make a donation as a gift to an official superior, or accept a gift from an employee receiving less pay than himself/herself (see 5 U.S.C S 7351). Voluntary gifts of nominal value made on a special occasion such as marriage, illness or retirement are permitted.

S 7 OUTSIDE ACTIVITIES

Employees are entitled to independence in their personal activities, subject to their duty of loyalty to the Institution. This duty requires each employee to ensure that any outside activity:

—is compatible with the full and proper discharge of the responsibilities of his/her Smithsonian employment,-

—will not be construed by the public as the official action of the Institution,-

—will not adversely affect the Institution;

—will not impair the employee's mental or physical capacity to perform his/her Smithsonian duties in an acceptable manner;

OM 688 (Rev) 5/9/83

—will not create a conflict of interest or give the appearance of a conflict of interest.

The following specific rules and policies are not intended to cover all instances to which these Standards apply and do not relieve the employee of his/her obligation to seek consultation, and clearance if necessary, in all cases of outside activities which are similar or related to his/her Smithsonian employment or might affect the Institution. Work performed by an employee for another Smithsonian unit, apart from his/her regular duties, is not considered outside employment for purposes of these Standards.

(a) Voluntary and Professional Activities

Smithsonian employees are encouraged to participate in the affairs of charitable, educational, religious, public service, professional and other voluntary organizations. Employees may not solicit or proselytize for such organizations during Smithsonian duty hours, or attempt to use in any way the name, reputation, property or facilities of the Smithsonian Institution for the benefit of such organizations. The latter prohibitions do not apply to professional organizations and institutions (such as the American Association of Museums and other recognized academic or scientific organizations) with which the Smithsonian or one of its divisions has a supporting or cooperative relationship, charitable solicitations which are endorsed by the Institution, or recognized employee union activities.

(b) Political Activities

Employees may participate, as private citizens, in the activities of political groups. However, participation by any Smithsonian employee in partisan political campaigns is restricted by Institution policy (Office Memorandum 507).

(c) Use of Smithsonian Name or Official Title

No employee should use or permit the use of his/her official Smithsonian title, the name "Smithsonian Institution," or other designation of the Institution or any unit, division, or department thereof, in connection with outside activities. Use of an employee's official title may be permitted, solely for purposes of professional identification, in connection with an employee's unpaid nonprofit activities with the approval of his/her bureau or office head and the Smithsonian Ethics Counselor. Use of an employee's official title is permitted on the title page of a non-Smithsonian scholarly, educational or professional publication written by the employee. Questions related to use of official titles should be directed to the General Counsel or Ethics Counselor.

(d) Paid Outside Employment That Is Related to Smithsonian Employment

Because of the potential for conflicts with these Standards, prior to engaging in any outside professional employment for pay (including consulting, teaching, lecturing, or writing) which is similar or related to his/her Smithsonian responsibilities, an employee should request clearance in writing from the head of his/her bureau or office and the Smithsonian Ethics Counselor.

OM 688 (Rev) 5/9/83

(e) Writing or Speaking about the Smithsonian

Employees shall not receive compensation or anything of monetary value for any outside consultation, lecture, discussion, writing, or appearance, the subject matter of which is the Smithsonian itself, its collections, programs or operations, unless approved by the appropriate Assistant Secretary or other member of the Executive Committee, and the Under Secretary.

(f) Outside Work and Dual Compensation

All outside work should be carried out on an employee's personal time apart from his/her Smithsonian duty hours. The receipt of additional compensation from any source for work carried out during time for which the employee already is being paid by the Institution is not permitted, and may subject the recipient to fines and imprisonment (see 18 U.S.C. S 209).

(g) Smithsonian Contracts with Employees and Relatives of Employees

A Smithsonian employee who is additionally engaged by the Institution as a contractor for special services or products outside the scope of his/her regular Smithsonian duties, should be certain that the contractual obligations will be incurred and all the work performed, in conformance with applicable policy statements as set forth in section 4(a), Chapter 5, Smithsonian Handbook for Auxiliary Activities , SSH 340. Such special contractual work must be carried out on an employee's personal, non-duty time.

Contracts between the Smithsonian Institution and relatives of Smithsonian employees may give rise to conflicts of interest or give the appearance of favoritism, and may be entered into only after review and approval by the Assistant Secretary for Administration.

(h) Employment or Positions with Foreign Governments

Smithsonian employees may not become employees of or accept positions with any foreign government (see U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 9, clause 8). Employees must consult with the Ethics Counselor prior to making any commitment to perform services for a foreign government or any of its departments.

(i) Personal Acquisition of Museum Objects

Employees should avoid acquiring important museum objects in direct competition with the collecting activities of any of the museums or departments of the Institution. Direct competition would exist when an employee knows or has reason to believe that a Smithsonian bureau or department would acquire the object for the National Collections if aware of the opportunity. In such cases the employee shall discuss the matter with his/her bureau or office head, the appropriate curator or museum director, and the Ethics Counselor. If the conflict, or appearance thereof, is substantial, clearance should be obtained, for the protection of the employee and the Institution. In cases where the conflict cannot be resolved in other ways, clearance may require providing the Institution the opportunity to purchase or otherwise acquire the object, or, if already acquired by the employee, a reasonable time for the Institution to decide whether

OM 688 (Rev 5/9/83

to obtain the object from the employee upon payment of his/her costs of acquisition. Smithsonian personnel who are directly responsible for acquiring objects for Institution collections, must obtain clearance to acquire personally any object, material, or specimen which is within the scope of the collections for which they are responsible.

Clearance is not required for objects received by employees as bequests, or for gifts which can be accepted pursuant to Section 5(c) of these Standards.

(j) Dealing in Museum Objects, Materials, or Specimens

Smithsonian personnel who are directly responsible for acquiring objects for Institution collections shall not deal (buy and sell for profit on a regular basis or maintain an interest in any dealership) in objects, materials, or specimens similar to those collected by the museum or bureau in which they are employed. Any other dealing by Smithsonian employees in objects of the type collected by museums requires prior clearance by the bureau or office head and the Ethics Counselor.

(k) Appraisals of Museum Objects

Employees may not make appraisals (statements as to monetary value) of objects, materials, or specimens of the types collected by museums. Appraisals may be made solely for internal Smithsonian use, such as insurance valuations for loans.

§ 8 RESTRICTIONS ON ACTIVITIES AFTER LEAVING SMITHSONIAN EMPLOYMENT

Employees should be aware that conflicts of interest and the appearance of conflicts may arise, if they are involved with matters as employees which may benefit them financially after their Smithsonian service has ended. Such questions should be discussed with appropriate Smithsonian officials and the Ethics Counselor.

(a) Lifetime Restriction on Certain Activitie s

A person shall not, at any time after his/her Smithsonian employment has ended, represent anyone other than the Smithsonian Institution in connection with a matter in which the Smithsonian is a party or has a direct interest, and in which he/she participated personally and substantially while employed by the Institution (see 18 U.S.C. S 207).

(b) Two Year Restriction on Other Activities

A person shall not, for two years after his Smithsonian employment has ended, represent or aid, counsel, or assist in representing anyone other than the Smithsonian or the United States in connection with a matter in which the Smithsonian Institution or the United States is a party or has a direct and substantial interest, and which was under his/her official responsibility (but in

34-632 0—84 14

OM 688 (Rev) 5/9/83

which he/she did not participate personally and substantially) during the last year of his/her Smithsonian employment (see 18 U.S.C. S 207).

S 9 PROHIBITION ON OFFICIAL ACTIONS THAT COULD AFFECT AN EMPLOYEE'S FINANCIAL INTERESTS

Employees shall not participate in their official capacities in any matter in which they, their spouse, minor child, or an outside business associate or organization (profit or nonprofit) with which they are connected or are negotiating employment, have a financial interest (see 18 U.S.C. § 208). Shares held in a widely diversified mutual or similar fund, or an insignificant number of shares in a corporation, are exempt as being too remote or inconsequential to affect the integrity of an employee's services. Each employee shall, whenever a question might be raised concerning the influence of financial interests on the integrity of his/her official services, request administrative approval to participate in the matter. Requests for approvals under this section should be sent to the Under Secretary through the bureau or office head and the Ethics Counselor.

§ 10 EMPLOYEES' STATEMENTS OF EMPLOYMENT AND FINANCIAL INTERESTS

(a) Criteria for Filing the Financial Statement

A confidential financial disclosure statement (form SI-1085) must be filled out for each year, by certain designated persons who occupy Smithsonian positions with power to make commitments of institutional resources of any type, or with authority to recommend commitments that generally are accepted by supervisors and can affect businesses, individuals, or organizations outside the Institution. This includes authority to:

—recommend or make purchases of supplies, equipment, or services;

—review or approve a contractor's performance;

—arrange for the exhibit of objects or otherwise commit the resources, reputation or name of the Smithsonian Institution.

(b) Protests with Respect to Filing Confidential Statements

Any employee who believes that his/her position has been improperly included as one requiring the submission of a Statement of Employment and Financial Interests is encouraged to discuss the matter with the Ethics Counselor, and, if not satisfied, shall be given an opportunity for review of his/her complaint. The final determination to require an employee to file a Statement will be made by the Assistant Secretary for Administration.

OM 688 5/9/83

(c) Effect of Filing a Financial Statement

The filing of a required financial statement and the disclosure of certain financial or other interests does not in any way exempt the employee from full compliance with these Standards, or from any disciplinary action as a result of noncompliance. For example, the listing of an outside employment does not relieve the employee of the obligation to seek consultation, and clearance if necessary, to ensure that the employment does not involve a conflict of interest or an appearance of conflict.

(d) Interests of Employees' Relatives

Each employee's report must include information, as called for in each section, concerning his/her income, and property interests of a spouse or dependent child, as well as certain gifts and reimbursements they may have received. "Dependent child" includes any child or stepchild under age 21 who lives in the employee's household, or any child or stepchild who was claimed as a dependent on the employee's income tax returns. Employees need not report the interests of a spouse with whom they do not reside, unless he/she is a dependent.

(e) Review of Financial Statements

The Ethics Counselor shall review the Confidential Statements of Employment and Financial Interests submitted by employees. When this review indicates a conflict between the interests of an employee and his/her responsibilities in the performance of his/her services for the Institution, the Counselor will bring the conflict to the attention of the employee and attempt to resolve the situation. If the conflict cannot be resolved after discussing it with the employee, the counselor shall forward to the Under Secretary a written report on the conflict. The Under Secretary shall decide what, if any, remedial or disciplinary action is required to end the conflict or appearance of conflict.

§ 11 REIMBURSEMENTS BY OUTSIDE ORGANIZATIONS FOR TRAVEL EXPENSES BY EMPLOYEES WHILE ON INSTITUTION BUSINESS

Where activities are carried out or work performed for outside organizations as a part of an employee's Smithsonian duties (such as participation in conferences or seminars sponsored by other museums or professional organizations) employees may accept directly from the outside organization reimbursement for expenses of travel, accommodations and subsistence, and such other necessary reimbursement for which no Smithsonian reimbursement is made.

(a) Procedures for Approval of Reimbursements and Their Sources

Advance approvals for reimbursements directly to the employee must be obtained pursuant to the procedures outlined in Smithsonian Office Memorandum 722 (rev.), Financial Support From Outside the Smithsonian , General Guidelines S 14. Such reimbursements, accommodations, or travel expenses may be accepted

OM 688 (Rev) 5/9/83

only from organizations exempt from taxation under section 501(c)(3) of 26 U.S.C. (see Smithsonian Travel Handbook, SSH 320, Chapter 4, Part 3, and 5 U.S.C. § 4111)

(b) Limitations on Reimbursements for Travel on Institution Business

Employees may not be reimbursed, or payments made on their behalf, for excessive personal living expenses, gifts, entertainment or other personal benefits. Payment or reimbursement may not be accepted from any organization for the travel and related expenses of a spouse or other individual who is not an Institution employee and accompanies the employee while the Smithsonian activity is performed, but who does not participate substantially in the activity which requires the travel. Such individuals may be provided, or may accept, food and incidental benefits of nominal value.

§ 12 USE OF SMITHSONIAN PROPERTY OR FUNDS

(a) Prohibition on Private Uses

Employees shall not use or allow to be used, directly or indirectly. Institution property of any kind for other than officially approved activities. Employees who engage in outside activities, paid or unpaid, must be particularly scrupulous to avoid any use of Institution property, equipment or services, in carrying out such activities.

(b) Ownership of Data and Materials Prepared by the Institution

Manuscripts, lectures, and all other materials prepared by an employee within the scope of his/her employment are the property of the Institution (see 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, 201, and 105). Employees should seek the advice of the General Counsel or the Ethics Counselor before agreeing to author as a private individual any publication that substantially draws upon materials prepared in the course of carrying out Smithsonian responsibilities.

(c) Laws Applying to Misuse of Smithsonian Funds

—Embezzlement or conversion of public money, property, or records to one's use (18 U.S.C. S 641);

—taking or failing to account for public funds with which an employee is entrusted in his official position (18 U.S.C. § 643);

--embezzlement or conversion of money or property in the possession of an employee by reason of his/her employment (18 U.S.C. S 654).

§ 13 RESTRICTIONS ON DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION

Unless specifically authorized to do so, employees will not disclose any official Smithsonian information which is of a confidential nature or which represents a matter of trust, or any other information of such character that its

OM 688 5/9/83

disclosure might be contrary to the best interests of the Institution, e.g., private, personal, or business related information furnished to the Smithsonian in confidence. Security and investigative data for official use only shall not be divulged to unauthorized persons or agencies.

§ 14 FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

An employee shall pay each just financial obligation in a proper and timely manner, especially one imposed by law, such as Federal, State, or local taxes. For the purpose of this section, a "just financial obligation" means one acknowledged by the employee or reduced to judgment by a court. If there is a dispute between an employee and an alleged creditor, the Smithsonian will not determine the validity or amount of the disputed debt. The Institution has statutory obligations with regard to the attachment of employee wages or salary for enforcement and collection of child support and alimony obligations (42 U.S.C. § 659).

§ 15 GAMBLING, BETTING, LOTTERIES, AND LENDING MONEY

(a) Gambling

No employee shall participate, while on Institution premises or while on duty for the Smithsonian, in any gambling activity, including, but not limited to, the operation of a gambling device, conducting a lottery or pool, involvement in a game for money or property, or in selling or purchasing a numbers slip or ticket.

(b) Lending Money for Gain

While on duty, or while on Smithsonian Institution premises, employees are forbidden to lend money to anyone under any arrangements for the purpose of monetary profit or other gain. This prohibition is not applicable to operations of a recognized employee credit union or employee welfare plan.

§ 16 BORROWING MONEY FROM SUBORDINATES

No supervisor may borrow money from subordinates, nor shall he/she request or require any subordinate to co-sign or endorse a personal note.

§ 17 EXCEPTIONS TO THESE STANDARDS

If any situation arises in which it would appear contrary to the best interests of the Institution, or cause undue hardship to an individual, to apply these Standards, a request for exception with full disclosure of the relevant facts should be forwarded to the Ethics Counselor. The Ethics Counselor or the General Counsel shall consult with the Under Secretary who may make exceptions to these Standards in the best interests of the Institution, to the extent allowed by applicable laws.

CONFIDENTIAL STATEMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND FINANCIAL INTERESTS

I nit ructions: This form it designed to include the information pertinent to possible conflicts of interest, end the requirement to report en item does not indicate it is improper. Attach additional sheets, rf needed. Identifying each sheet with your name, position, and the section of this form being continued. When values are required check the applicable category, or where dollar amounts are required provide ■ figure beted on your own good faith estimate, an appraisal, or other objective criteria. Each section and subsection must be completed or 'None' checked where applicable.

Confidentiality : This report is confidential and will be maintained in a locked file safe in the office of the Smithsonian Ethics Counselor, end access will be provided only to officials responsible for reviewing these forms and those officials with specific audit authority over these financial disclosure forms.

Reporting Period : The period covered by this report is the preceding calender year, and reports must be received in the office and are due as specified in the attached memorandum. This report also must be completed as part of the exit clearance procedure by persons leaving the Smithsonian, and their financial reports must include information for the preceding calendar year (unless already reported} plus the current calendar year up to the date of termination. "Positions Held" (Section VII) and "Contracts, etc." (Section VIM) also require reporting for the current calendar year.

Parties whose interest! must be reported : In addition to information about yourself, each employee's report must include information, as called for in each section, concerning the income, end property interests of a spouse or dependent child, as well as certain gifts and reimbursements they may have received. "Dependent child" includes any child or stepchild under aye 21 who lives in your household, or any child or stepchild you support in whole or in part, such that you daim him/her as a dependent on your income tax returns. Do not report the interests of a spouse with whom you do not reside, unless he/she is a dependent. The source(s) of earned income in excess of $1,000 received by a spouse must be reported separately in Section II and designated (S). You need not separately identify (although you must report) other income, assets, or interests of or gifts and reimbursements to a spouse or dependent child, although you may do so by designating such items with an (S) or (C).

I. INVESTMENT INCOME (you, spouse , and dependent child)

Lte-t the source end amount of Income which exceeded $100 from eny single eource during the reporting period.

Exclude: Any

amounts and values aggregating under

$100 from any one eource; Income from aale or exchenge of property -wt held for investment, e.g., ueed for furniihing of your

el transportation, or tor other peraonel purposes; gains

from tale or exchenge of your residence; interest on bank or savings and loan accounts, credit union balances, certificates of deposit, or money market funds; interest

or federel bonds; or

II. OTHER INCOME (you and spouse)

Lin the source and

activity which exceeded $100 from any ona source for you, and list any tourcolsl from which your spouse received

raportad under

Exduda: Any no reinvestment income of a child; earned

spouse that than $1,000 from a •ingle aource; salaries, weflOT, bonuaai or cash awards paid by the Smithflonian; and benefit paymenti

from eny government agency in the United Statu such as unemployment compensation or social security.

Il.'(a). GIFTS (you, spouse, and dependent child)*

Report sources and amount or value of gifts, including any gifts of objects, where tha total amount received from any single source exceeded

Si 00.

Exclude: Any gift of a value of S35 or less

child

bequests from relatives; gifts to your spouse or dependent child if the gift <

lll(b). HOSPITALITY (you, spouse, and dependent child)*

ved from eny single source exceeded

S250. Values need

Exclude: Items or occasions valued at S3S or less; personal hospitality provided for nonbusiness reo-

Sll(c). REIMBURSEMENTS (you, spouse, and dependent child)*

Report source(s) of reimbursements for

imbursable activities where tha aggregate

single

Jed £2!

caedad $250. Include

Exclude: Travel or

other reimbursements received directly from an employer in the

child if rt was received independently of any connection with you.

■ Smithsonian Ethics Counselor,

nlng gifts, hospitality, or reimbursement that might be improper

IV. PROPERTY INTERESTS and ASSETS (you, spouse, and dependent child)

Report any interests in property hold in • trod* or business. for the production ol

excess of $1,000 the close of

coding calendar yeei

P re-

Report debts ownid t you by corporations, partnerships, end

Other entities. Include property of e tnift of which you, your

Souse, or dependent lid U e beneficiary.

or thet ponton thereof, used as residence (s) by you. your

S>use or dependent ltd; tangible

property I object. )not held for investment end used by you or a

Souse or dependent ild for personal purposes, such ea furnishing for your

ties issued by i

>P"

deposits in banks.

credit

snd

market funds; debits

V. LIABILITIES {you, spouse, snd dependent child)

Report debts to indl-

non-profit organiu-tions where indebted-

credhor exceeded

f 10,000 at any time during the preceding

Exclude: child supi

obligatior

Alimony.

loans sacurad by the residence of employee

ortgages or debts payable to reietives.

VI. TRANSACTIONS IN REAL and PERSONAL PROPERTY (you, spouse, and dependent child)

personel property, including stocks, bonds.

51.000. Report the approximate date of any transection, end designets if purchase.

these persons;

governmental entity;

ad under Sectk

VII. POSITIONS HELD (YOU ONLY)

List portions htid at •ny time during tho currant or prevous y«tr, as officer, director, proprietor, trustw. partner, representative, employee.

ny, firm, partntfihip.

labor organiie-

in tho Smithsonian or amities affiliated with tho Smithsonian or federal government entities: organizations where you are only a member and do not hold any office; positions in religious, social, fraternal, political, neighborhood im-

provement or similar civic entities; and positions solaiy of an honorary natura.

VIII. CONTRACTS, AGREEMENTS, and ARRANGEMENTS (YOU ONLY)

Describe any existing

or arrangement,

verbal or written, that you have with a former, present, or future

nonfederal employer; for e leave of absence

Smithsonian service, continuation of payments, and participation in a pension or an employees' welfare

tamed by a nonfederal former employer. Also include agreements with any employer including the Smithsonian or any unit or affiliate thereof for writing.

ESS

Statement: I have read and understand the statement of my obligations as a Smithsonian Institution employee as explained on this form and in the current Smithsonian Standards of Conduct. I also am aware of my obligation to discuss all conflicts of interest, real or apparent, with the Smithsonian Ethics Counselor and to seek the advice of that officer before engaging in any transaction which does or might present such a conflict or might be in violation of Smithsonian Standards of Conduct. I agree to cooperate with the Ethics Counselor and to furnish whatever additional in forma tion about the items reported that may be needed for review and evaluation of the information on this form.

Section 10(c) of the Smithsonian Standards of Conduct provides: "The filing of a required financial statement and the disclosure of certain financial or other interests does not in any way exempt the employee from full compliance with these Standards, or from any disciplinary action as a result of noncompliance. For example, the listing of an outside employment does not relieve the employee of the obligation to seek consultation, and clearance if necessary, to ensure that the employment does not involve a conflict of interest or an appearance o f conflict."

Continuation Space:

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS

Mr. Hughes. There is one other aspect you might be interested in, Mr. Ratchford, responsive to the committee's interest and our own concern. The Regents changed and tightened somewhat the policies and procedures under which they review the financial disclosure statements. They extended their review to additional positions beyond the Secretary and Under Secretary and also extended their review to include the process through which Mr. Powers and his staff review the financial disclosure statements of the rest of the employees.

Then during the course of the fall, the Regents' personnel committee reviewed the process, reviewed the additional statements and reported to the full Board their findings, which were satisfactory.

Mr. Ratchford. This will be an annual practice?

Mr. Hughes. Yes, sir.

Mr. Ratchford. To me it makes great sense to have the review done by the Regents as opposed to having someone who in effect is an employee doing the reviewing of his or her peers.

Mr. Powers. Yes, sir.

Mr. Hughes. Yes, sir.

Mr. Ratchford. That troubled me.

Mr. Powers. Right.

Mr. Ratchford. I think the involvement of the Regents is critical. I appreciate the move in that direction and would like to see the detail. Thank you.

Mr. Hughes. We can show you both the process and the report of the personnel committee.

Mr. Yates. Who reviews the Regents' statements?

Mr. Hughes. The IRS, I guess.

Mr. Yates. Regents aren't required to file statements?

Mr. Hughes. I know of no such requirement. Just like the Congress.

Mr. Yates. We file.

Mr. Ratchford. Those that don't develop some notoriety, too.

water filters at the zoo

Mr. Yates. The Zoo is about to provide the seal and polar bear with water filters.

Mr. Wemmer. The water filter currently being used is basically a swimming pool filter. The bears do a lot of things in their pool that people swimming in pools don't do, so the filter cannot do the job.

Mr. Yates. Have you tried training courses?

Mr. Wemmer. We need an industrial type of filter.

ELEPHANT TRAINING

Mr. Yates. Are any of your animals subject to training?

Mr. Wemmer. Yes, the elephants are trained. In fact we have an elephant demonstration almost every day.

Mr. Yates. What do they do?

Mr. Wemmer. They stand on a stool and balance themselves on two legs.

Mr. Yates. How do you do that? Are you the trainer?

Mr. Wemmer. No. On contract we have brought in a number of trainers to keep the program current. It is an ancient technique that goes back thousands of years in fact because elephants have been used as beasts of burden in warfare and construction for at least 2,000 years and probably more like 4,000 years.

Mr. Yates. As I remember Hannibal had a lot of elephants, didn't he, when he crossed the Alps?

Mr. Wemmer. That's correct.

Mr. Yates. They were the tanks of the day, I guess.

Mr. Wemmer. That is true.

DETERIORATION OF AMERICAN ARTS/PORTRAIT GALLERY BUILDING

Mr. Yates. We talked about the Olmsted Walk yesterday. Now, the American Arts/Portrait Gallery Building is deteriorating. What is the cause of that deterioration?

Mr. Peyton. Yes, sir. That building was built back in the days when

Mr. Yates. Abraham Lincoln.

Mr. Peyton [continuing]. When reliance was placed on local materials and building stone came from local sources. It was of relatively poor quality, very similar to the stone problems faced by the Capitol Building.

Mr. Yates. When was that building built?

Mr. Peyton. Over a period of time between, I believe about

Mr. Powers. 1840 it started.

Mr. Yates. 1840.

Mr. Ripley. A little bit before the creation of the Smithsonian.

Mr. Yates. I thought you were created in 1836.

Mr. Ripley. The statute was 1846.

Mr. Yates. Will your program arrest deterioration?

Mr. Peyton. Yes, sir, it is specifically directed towards that. The process is called consolidation. And it achieves a hardening effect on the exterior of the stone and is being done under the recommendation of Dr. Lewin, Professor of Chemistry at New York University, a specialist in this particular field.

Mr. Yates. You mean the protection of stone?

Mr. Peyton. Yes, sir.

deterioration of the castle building

Mr. Yates. Are any of your other buildings deteriorating?

Mr. Peyton. The Castle Building, as I mentioned a few minutes ago, similar period; also local stone, but selected with a great deal more care, and has held up remarkably well. Nonetheless, there are some stones that do require replacing. We also have a requirement for caulking the Natural History Building, as well as American History.

We have also been engaged in some preservation work on the Miller House, which is part of the Cooper-Hewitt complex in New York.

Mr. Yates. Are you supervising the Cooper-Hewitt repairs?

Mr. Peyton. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. Do you have somebody up there doing it?

Mr. Peyton. Combination of both. There is a building manager and a representative of the Office of Plant Services in residence up there who work there every day. We also send people up from our Office of Design and Construction and our Office of Plant Services here in Washington on a periodic basis.

RELOCATION OF ANACOSTIA NEIGHBORHOOD MUSEUM

Mr. Yates. I take it from the reply yesterday that it is not the intention of the Smithsonian to relocate the Anacostia Museum at Fort Stanton Park, or is it?

Mr. Peyton. The plan is to move the present exhibit facility, which is located in the former Carver Theater on Martin Luther King Avenue in Anacostia to Fort Stanton to a new building, part of the funds for this are requested this year.

Presently at Fort Stanton is the exhibit preparation lab. So we will have a joint exhibit and exhibit preparation facility. The director will be located there as well as the educational aspects of that museum. In the long range plans, the Anacostia Neighborhood Museum as reflected in the prospectus, there is a proposal to build a new museum at Poplar Point, which is also in Anacostia at a different location.

THE CHILDREN'S MUSEUM

Mr. Yates. Are there any proposals pending before the Smithsonian to include additional facilities or museums? Is there any proposal pending to include the Children's Museum, for example?

Mr. Ripley. No.

Mr. Yates. There is not.

Mr. Ripley. No.

THE TARIFF BUILDING

Mr. Yates. Would you tell the committee why you need the Tariff Building?

Mr. Ripley. The Tariff Building?

Mr. Yates. Yes.

Mr. Ripley. This is obviously a result of pressure in the adjacent building. When we reconstructed the old Patent Office Building in 1966 and 1967, it was assumed that the GSA would eventually give us the Tariff Commission Building next door, built at about the same time and with access underground, because in the normal development of these museums we would sooner or later grow out of our quarters. We would get too big for the space we started with.

This, of course, has inevitably occurred with the accretion of collections in the Portrait Gallery and in American Art. With the addition of the Archives of American Art, which is an extremely important educational historical resource, we had increasing reason for eventually falling heir to that building, which in a natural sort of symmetry, the positions and aesthetics of the buildings themselves, was a beautiful potential solution.

We have now studied, as you know, Mr. Chairman, the facility there. It is somewhat deteriorated and has fared badly over the years. To restore it properly now, with the amount of the repair

work that has to be done, and with the pressing need for an auditorium for these combined museum facilities, we are going to need a lot more money than we thought would have been necessary to accomplish the same task ten years ago.

Mr. Yates. Is this hyperbole, your statement to the authorizing committee, where you said we believe the general Post Office Building will, with the Patent Office, become the nation's most significant center for the study of American art.

Mr. Ripley. Yes. I don't know that that was exactly invented by me, but I think it is absolutely true. And I hope I said it.

Mr. Yates. Well, they reported you to have said it.

Mr. Ripley. It is hardly hyperbole. I would say it is a fact. We feel that the sources we have here are more than sufficient to justify such a statement, actual and potential.

Mr. Yates. Well, that is all of your establishment, I think, rather than what I thought you had said, which was the combination of the general Post Office Building and Patent Office.

Mr. Ripley. Well, within those buildings, of course, would lie the core of the study and preservation and understanding of American Art.

SMITHSONIAN INTERNATIONAL CENTER

Mr. Yates. All right. Is there a conflict between your proposal to have a Smithsonian International Center and the already established International Center of Woodrow Wilson?

Mr. Ripley. No, sir, there is not. I feel that there are many areas in which the Woodrow Wilson Center, which operates, as you know, on a rather small basis in rented rooms in the Smithsonian Castle, with a considerable addition intellectually and in a general sense to our resources, could utilize and combine with the International Center to expand its resources, its space availability for lectures and discussions and the kind of interaction between those nations with which the present Woodrow Wilson Center has inevitably less to do—with third world nations that are fully represented at the present time in Washington and its potential.

So I feel there is a great deal of merit in the fact that Woodrow Wilson Center is in existence here in Washington. That it is one of our brain children and that it is possible with the International Center it will be able to develop a new sort of dimension for education and dissemination of information.

JAPANESE GARDEN FOR QUADRANGLE

Mr. Yates. You have dropped the Japanese Garden from your plan for the Quad?

Mr. Ripley. No, sir, we have not, but we haven't been pushing it at the present time until we see how the general dimensions of the garden come along.

closing remarks

Mr. Yates. Is there anything else we should say to each other before we adjourn the meeting? We do have some questions for record.

Mr. Ripley. Well, I can only reiterate what I hope is not fulsome, that I have always enjoyed these hearings very much.

Mr. Yates. We have always enjoyed having you, Mr. Ripley. And I think that if we repeat what each of us said before, it would be fulsome.

We are sorry to see you go, because you really have an institution revolving about yourself. I hope that—well, I forget the story. What was the story? Somebody asked who would be your successor and you replied—no, not you replied. Somebody asked—it was a Benjamin Franklin story. Somebody asked Benjamin Franklin who would be Thomas Jefferson's successor. And he said he will have no successor. Someone will follow him.

I think that perhaps we can close the hearing on that note. Thank you very much, Mr. Ripley.

[The questions and answers for the record follow:]

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Uncontrollable Costs

Question: For the record, for electricity, steam, gas, telephone, postage, and fuel oil and water show the 1983 estimated amount compared to the actual for each of those areas. Also provide the amount budgeted for 1984 in the 1984 budget compared to the 1984 estimate in this budget.

Answer:

TOTAL

$14,567

$14,021*

$12,312

*Includes $205,000 permanent base transfer from SAO, SERC, STRI, and Cooper-Hewitt for utilities costs plus $13,816,000 approved by Congress.

TOTAL $14,021

$12,961

$13,220

$13,163

Question: At page 19 the justification shows that because of a reorganization the Federal budget is now being charged for space in 1984 and 1985 for the Archives of American Art in New York and Boston. What is the reorganization which requires that change?

Answer: Prior to FY 1984, the cost of providing rental space for the Archives of American Art in New York and Boston was funded by the Federal operating base of the Archives of American Art. In FY 1984, this reorganization transferred the responsibility and funds for the space rental costs from the Archives of American Art to the Institution's Central Space Rental Account administered by the Office of Plant Services. This reorganization does not affect the amount of Federal funds that the Smithsonian requires for space rental costs.

Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory

Question: The table on page 34 shows that in unrestricted and general grants, there will be a reduction of 14 FTP 's at SAO and that there will be an increase of 9 FTE 's in Federal funds. The justification at page 40 indicates that the funds provided in 1984 will permit converting approximately 14 employees to Civil Service status. Do the 14 employees convert to 9 FTE's?

Answer: No; there are to be 16 conversions and these will correspond to about 15 FTE's. The difference between 14 FTP's on the Trust funds and 9 FTE's on the Federal side is due to a decrease in FTE's provided for temporary hires in FY 1983 only. The totals in the table reflect overall activity at SAO and do not relate only to these conversions.

Question: How many conversions have occurred to date?

Answer: Twelve conversions have occurred as of April 9, 1984.

Question: How much of the $425,000 will be used in 1984 for conversion from trust to Federal employees?

Answer: Approximately $215,000 will be used for FY 1984 conversions.

Question: Identify by name (or position if vacant) the date and salary of the conversions made to date and for those not yet converted, the expected conversion date and salary cost by position.

Answer:

name

central engpeeruc : Brennan, Patricia B.

COMPUTATION FACILITi : MacDonald, Douglas H. McCausland, Howard C.

PUBLICATICKS : Omundsen, Anne F. Duggan, William J.

DIRECTOR'S OFFICE : Gregory, Bruce N.

TRAVEL OFFICE : Luke, Linda H. Grant, Phyllis J. Park, Eun Sock

CONTRACTS & PROCUREMENT : Hardy, Kevin J. MacLaughlin, Karol Maguire, Richard

PERSONNEL OFFICE : Vacancy (Moore Repl.) Vacancy (McCarthy Repl.)

CONTROLLER'S OFFICE :

Vacancy

Trischitta, Michael P.

SAO Federal/Trust Conversions

JOB TITLE GRADE/STEP RATE/HR-

ANNUAL SALARY

Staff Assistant (GS301)

IS901

Canp. Systems Analyst (GS334) IS1203 Canp. Programmer Analyst (GS334) IS1203 Total Salaries

Tech. Editor (Phys. Sci. GS1083) IS1201 Offset Dupl. Press Oper. (HG4417) HG0701 Total Salaries

Assoc. Dir. for Planning (GS301) IS1508

15.54 15.54

14.57 8.07

32,432 32,432 64,864

24,326 16,785 41,111

EST. ENTER ONDUTi

$10.05 $20,974 4/1/84

4/1/84 4/1/84

4/1/84 4/1/84

29.70 61,977 4/1/84

Total Personnel Costs

$385,574

34-632 O-

Question: If all of the $425,000 provided for these conversions will not be used for the purpose justified and appropriated, when may the Committee expect a reprogramming request?

Answer: The committee may expect a reprogramming request for approximately $210,000 by May 4, 1984.

Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility

Question: The justification at page 36 indicates that SAO will play a major role in the advanced X-ray astrophysics facility. How will it happen?

Answer: The Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility (AXAF) is the highest priority, large, new project recommended by the Astronomy Survey Committee. It has been under study for some years, but is not yet an approved program. It is expected to be a new NASA start in FY 1987. At the moment, SAO is supporting NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) in the key role of oversight of the contractors responsible for the design and test of the AXAF telescope. SAO expects to continue to work on AXAF in this role through the construction, integration and final tests of the AXAF telescope and spacecraft. Further, SAO has submitted four AXAF proposals to NASA this February, in response to an open request. Three of these proposals, with SAO Principal Investigators and Co-Investigators from a variety of other institutions, both in this country and in Europe, concern the development of major instruments to be used with the AXAF telescope. The fourth proposal, with an SAO Principal Investigator, is for the position of Telescope Scientist which is a scientific oversight role in the development of AXAF. There is, of course, no guarantee that any of these proposals will be accepted by NASA nor is there a guarantee that AXAF itself will achieve a new start status in FY 1987.

SAO Multiple Mirror Telescope

Question: The justification also indicates that in the coming year SAO

scientists will utilize the great sensitivity of the MMT to search for a very

faint and distant quasar. What percent of the total MMT time will be used for this?

Answer: The justification stated on page 36 that SAO scientists planned to utilize the great sensitivity of the MMT to search for very faint and distant quasars. It is not possible to predict exactly how much observing time will be spent on this particular project in FY 1984. Observing time on the MMT is allocated by a scientific committee at the Observatory every four months on the basis of the scientific merit and feasibility of the proposals it receives for observing from individual scientists and groups of cooperating scientists. Based on recent patterns of time allocation, we can estimate that 5% of the total available to SAO will be spent on this project.

Question: What percent of MMT time is allocated to SAO and what percent is allocated to the University of Arizona?

Answer: SAO and the University of Arizona each allocates 36% of the total time to its own scientists. The remainder (28%) is divided among visitors (10%), maintenance and engineering development (12%), and the MMT Observatory Director (6%).

SAO Equipment Replacement

Question: The justification at page 40 indicates that an increase of $600,000 is requested for equipment replacement at SAO. Does this mean that there is $1,420,000 available for general lab test and computer equipment replacement?

Answer: If the $600,000 requested increase is granted, there would then be available a total of $1,420,000 for equipment replacement and improvement in FY 1985.

Question: How has the $820,000 provided in fiscal year 1984 been allocated?

Answer: The $820,000 provided in FY 1984 has been allocated to each Division of SAO utilizing SAO master property records and the lists submitted to the Committee last spring as a basis. We will be pleased to provide the Committee with a detailed list of individual procurements as they occur should the Committee so desire.

Question: How much has been obligated to date?

Answer: $550,000 of the total available has been obligated to date.

Question: How will the $1,420,000 requested in 1985 be allocated between general laboratory, test, and computer equipment?

Answer: Approximately $800,000 will be allocated for computer equipment and the remainder for general laboratory and test equipment.

Question: The justification at page 41 states that special purpose funds come primarily from two sources — external users of SAO's computer center and Institution's trust funds; that the former may be used for research purposes and for computer related purchases in future years. How much income is generated from the sale of SAO computer time?

Answer: With the increasing availability of computers everywhere, the income generated from the sale of SAO computer time has decreased substantially over the past few years. In FY 1984, through January 31, 1984 (four months), the income has been $10,700. The accumulated income from the sale of SAO computer time is $240,000.

Question: How much of that income can be added to the $1,420,000 for equipment replacement to accelerate completing elimination of the backlog?

I

226

Answer: All of the accumulated income could be added to the $1,420,000 to accelerate the replacement program, but in fact the available amount is relatively insignificant in the context of the projected $9 million replacement program over the next decade. The Institution's policy has been to retain this computer income as an emergency reserve for SAO (or for the Institution) for unique research opportunities, protection against grant or contract overruns and emergency travel needs.

Question: Does income from sale of computer time have a no-year availability?

Answer: Yes, as do all Institutional Special Purpose funds.

Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute

Question: For the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, $3,574,000 is requested, a program increase of $25,000 for a computer specialist. Mr. Corrada of Puerto Rico is interested in getting tropical forest research support for Puerto Rico. What assistance can the Smithsonian provide to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in developing a rain forest research and recovery program?

Answer: The ability of STRI to help the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in developing rain forest research and recovery programs may be limited by a number of factors. We have no expertise in the field of applied biology although a number of our scientists are engaged in fundamental studies of the ecology of moist tropical forests and are certainly interested in applying the results of basic studies to the solution of environmental problems in the tropics. In addition, our experience in basic forest studies is limited (five years on our forest structure project). Finally, the climate in Puerto Rico is very different from that in the humid tropics where our studies are based; therefore, the ability to apply knowledge gained in tropical forest research to other rain forest research is reduced. Nevertheless, even with these limitations, a number of our scientists remain most keen to visit the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico for discussions and consultations. They would expect to discuss matters of common concern with scientists there, to exchange views and ideas and explore the possibilities of developing mutually interesting programs. They could discuss techniques, hypotheses, experimental design and computer use with their Puerto Rican colleagues. In the field of computer use we have developed data storage and retrieval systems for our tree-mapping project that could be directly applicable to forestry in Puerto Rico. The possiblities for cooperative activities could be initiated in FY 1985 with a delegation of three or four STRI scientists undertaking a field trip to meet with their colleagues in Puerto Rico, if the necesary funding can be secured.

Smithsonian Environmental Research Center

Question: For the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center an increase of $140,000 is requested. This permits establishment of a program to upgrade or replace scientific equipment. What is the plan of SERC to replace 55% of their equipment over the next five years?

Answer: A comprehensive scientific equipment replacement survey was conducted at SERC to determine the Center's equipment replacement and upgrading

needs given the condition of existing equipment and the state of the art changes that have occurred since the existing equipment was originally purchased. The survey included all scientific equipment held by the Center and showed that 55% of the equipment surveyed should be replaced within the next five years at a total cost of $2,330,000. The replacement program will be initiated in FY 1985 with a $140,000 request. The continuation of this scientific equipment replacement program will remain a high priority in order to achieve the goal of replacing 55% of the current equipment over the next five years. The anticipated schedule of replacement would require additional funding in FY 1986 -FY 1989 as follows:

FY 1985 $ 140,000

FY 1986 445,000

FY 1987 405,000

FY 1988 520,000

FY 1989 820,000

TOTAL $2,330,000

Schedules showing the types of new equipment to be purchased will be provided to the Committee shortly.

National Air and Space Museum

Question: An article in the November 20 New York Times discusses the videodisc program of the National Air and Space Museum. How was this program developed?

Answer: The National Air and Space Museum videodisc program began as a pilot project experiment to see if a new means could be created to not only protect the photographic collection, but also provide a method of more rapid retrieval, rapid scanning, and most important of all, inexpensive dissemination of the material without risk to the originals. The pilot program was so successful that it was expanded, from within the Museum's own resources, to a full scale program which ultimately will not only place all 1,000,000 of the Museum's photo collection on videodiscs, but also other outstanding collections around the country. We are already placing a significant portion of the Air Force collection on discs, and have several private collections lined up for the process. The discs can be reproduced rather inexpensively, and sold for about $30.00 for 100,000 photos per disc.

Question: Who holds the patent on the concept?

Answer: The National Air and Space Museum did not attempt to patent the videodisc process, which is different more by the quality, quantity and exacting nature of its methods rather than by mechanical differences. It is important to note, however that of the 120 discs which have already been sold, about half have been sold to persons who wished the photos of the aircraft and about half to persons or companies who were interested in the technique. Many large industrial firms have come to examine the process, as well as representatives of many U. S. government agencies and foreign countries. It should be noted that a new digitizing storage process has attracted even more attention and that the

Museum is exploring the patentability of this process, which was invented on premises.

Question: How much income does the theater generate in the Air and Space Museum?

Answer: The theater generates approximately $1,500,000 in gross revenues per year. Annual operating expenses total approximately $1,100,000 resulting in total net income of approximately $400,000 per year.

Question: How much of that income of the profit is retained in the Air and Space Museum and how much is passed on the Smithsonian overall?

Answer: The division is based on the following formula (Langley Theater and Sky Theater combined):

NASM Unrestricted Trust Funds

100% 0 First $1,000,000

60% 40% Any Additional

(Based on gross income)

National Zoological Park

Question: For the Zoo, $11,074,000 is requested for Fiscal Year 1985; no program increase. The justification at page 55 indicates that the hospital facility will be designed and constructed at Front Royal in 1984. Has construction begun?

Answer: Actual construction began in April 1984.

Question: When is construction expected to be completed?

Answer: The schedule calls for completion of the facility in March 1985.

Question: Did the funds provided in 1984 include equipping the facility?

Answer: The funding provided in FY 1984 for the construction of the hospital at Front Royal as part of the Construction and Improvements, National Zoological Park Appropriation did not include the cost of equipping the facility. Partial funding for equipping the facility was requested in the FY 1985 budget formulation process and included in the Smithsonian's FY 1985 S&E Appropriation budget request to 0MB (as indicated in the insert provided for the record by Christen Wemmer, Acting of the Zoo), but not approved.

Question: The Zoo's new director is Michael Robinson. Does the new director have any plans to modify the construction program of the Zoo?

Answer: At this stage it is too early to say. He will carefully review and revise (if necessary) the existing five-year plan. He has a number of ideas for new facilities to improve the Zoo as an educational institution.

Question: Does the new director feel that the Zoo should have an acquisition account comparable to some of the other facilities in the Smithsonian?

Answer: Definitely a very strong requirement exists and this is a priority if the National Zoological Park is to keep pace with other major zoological institutions.

Reintroduction of Golden Lion Tamarins in Brazil

Question: How is the Golden Lion Tamarin Recovery program working?

Answer: Fifteen golden lion tamarins were shipped to Brazil in November 1983. They are currently housed at the Primate Center in Rio de Janeiro and are scheduled to be transferred to the Poco d'Anta Reserve in June in anticipation of their release. We have identified a site for release, are now monitoring wild animals by radio telemetry, have initiated the conservation education program and some experimental reforestation efforts, and have been re-training the captive-born animals in foraging techniques. The program is moving along right on schedule.

Giant Pandas

Question: What is the prognosis for further baby Pandas at the Zoo?

Answer: Ling-Ling and Hsing-Hsing, the NZP Giant Panda pair, mated twice on March 19, 1984. We are hopeful that a pregnancy and birth will result.

Question: Is Ling-Ling fully recovered from her kidney problem?

Answer: All medical tests suggest that Ling-Ling has recovered from her kidney infection although it is impossible to be 100% sure. However, Ling-Ling's appetite is excellent and she has gained weight. Also, the fact that she had such a strong heat and at the normal time of year suggests that she has completely recovered.

Question: With what seems to be definitive identification of Hsing-Hsing as the father of the cub, will the Zoo continue to use sperm from other male Pandas in the Panda recovery program?

Answer: Since Hsing-Hsing mated successfully with Ling-Ling and fathered her single offspring in 1983, we did not see the need to use semen from another male panda and to use techniques of artificial insemination, except as back-up, if Hsing-Hsing had failed to mate successfully during this 1984 heat period.

National Museum of American History

Question: The justification at page 65 explains how $525,000 of the special exhibition program will be allocated to an exhibit reinstallation program at this Museum. What is the difference between an exhibit reinstallation program and the Restoration and Renovation activity which is justified elsewhere? How does reconfiguration of corridors and rotundas and removal of escalators differ from restoration and renovation?

Answer: The Museum's exhibit reinstallation program is directed at replacing its permanent exhibition halls, now over 20 years old, with new exhibits. Restoration and Renovation activity deals solely with upgrading and improving the Museum's physical plant. Reconfiguration of corridors and rotundas and the removal of escalators directly affect public spaces and consequently the visual and aesthetic experiences of our visitors. These changes represented the initial stages of the reinstallation of this Museum's permanent exhibitions, which involves far more than replacing old exhibits; also, many of these changes have been funded principally with Trust funds. New permanent exhibitions require changing public access in order to accommodate and direct the movement of visitors, and they need to be tied to the new permanent exhibitions also with design and thematic considerations in mind. For instance, the rotunda of the first floor, where the pendulum is situated, will incorporate the pendulum into an exhibit called "Materials," serving to orient visitors to the Museum and its collections and to the major exhibitions on either side, in addition to making its own important statement about technology and artifacts. This kind of work, while involving construction, is not a part of the Restoration and Renovation (R&R) work that continously takes place in the Museum. R&R traditionally includes such things as replacing the roof, upgrading the air system, recaulking the facade and other building-related improvements which are done for the benefit of the physical plant as a whole.

Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden

Question: Funds were provided in FY 1984 to support costs for the extended loan program of the Hirshhorn. The full request was not provided as it was felt that the recipient organization should pay some of the cost associated with receiving the art works. Has that reduction had any affect on the planned program of loans?

Answer: The extended loan program is based on the current permanent collection and the new works of art included in the bequest left to the Museum by Mr. Hirshhorn. Because Mr. Hirshhorn's estate is still in process of being settled, this bequest, which the Museum expected to receive in FY 1984, has not yet been transferred. Work is nevertheless under way to organize exhibitions from the Museum's current holdings to be circulated across the United States, some of them are already in circulation. We will make as much of the collection available as we can within the funds appropriated. Obviously, because of the delay in receiving the Hirshhorn bequest, our program has been slow. Consequently, the fact that funds were reduced in FY 1984 has not had the impact it would otherwise have had.

Question: For how long a period are the objects expected to be loaned?

Answer: This varies from object to object. Since works on paper can be endangered by prolonged exposure to light, their loan would be limited to one year, at most, and stringent requirements imposed. There is also a restriction, in the original deed of gift establishing the Museum that limits any loans of sculpture to 360 days. Paintings, on the other hand, are sometimes lent for longer periods, depending on particulars, the recommendation of the Chief Curator, and the approval of the Director. Delicate (fragile) and rare works, as set forth in a list approved by the Board of Trustees, are not permitted to

leave the Museum except with the approval of the Board's Committee on Collections.

Question: The justification at page 81 mentions fountain coins. How much is collected in the fountain?

Answer: In FY 1983, $643.00 was collected.

Center for Asian Art

Question: The justification for the Center for Asian Art at pages 82 through 86 shows no program increases; however, the justification at page 161 through 167 shows several increases which are related to that area. Why aren't the increases justified where the program is explained?

Answer: A separate line item was established to show the total impact of the additional resources required to support operations of the Center for African, Near Eastern, and Asian Cultures (The Quadrangle). Therefore, the program increases requested for the Center for Asian Art and other Smithsonian bureaus and activities in FY 1985 that were related to the development, planning, and initial staffing of Quadrangle operations were presented under the Quadrangle line item to provide Smithsonian management, the Board of Regents, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Congress with information of the complete budget requirements to initiate this important program. It is anticipated, however, that beginning in FY 1986 it will be more appropriate to show Quadrangle-related increases in the program line items, rather than in a centralized fashion.

Archives of American Art

Question: The justification at page 88 for the Archives of American Art indicates that over 1,400 rolls of microfilm were sent out to requesting libraries. Who pays the cost associated with the transportation of that microfilm?

Answer: The costs of mailing microfilm to borrowing libraries is shared between the Smithsonian and the borrowing institution — the Smithsonian pays the cost of sending the microfilm to the requesting library and the borrowing institution pays the return postage.

Cooper-Hewitt Museum

Question: For the Cooper-Hewitt an increase of $200,000 is requested to provide Federal status in funding for seven positions. The justification at page 90 shows that the number of special purpose FTE's decreases from 12 to 6 in 1985 but the dollar amount increases from $963,000 to $1,007,000. What is the basis for the Federal shift if other than Federal funds are steadily increasing?

Answer: The increase in Special Purpose funds from $963,000 to $1,007,000 is attributable to increases in expenses primarily in the Cooper-Hewitt's revenue producing activities and is unrelated to the Federal shift. In fact, total Trust fund activity decreases from $1,921,000 in FY 1984 to $1,822,000 in

FY 1985 due to a projected decrease in Restricted fund exhibition support. The basis for the Federal shift is the need for adequate funding in the collections management area, comparable to other Smithsonian museums.

Question: How will the private funds that were previously used to fund those 7 positions be used if those 7 positions are funded with Federal dollars?

Answer: Trust funds previously used to support the seven positions will continue to be spent primarily in support of the Cooper-Hewitt's exhibition programs. Personnel previously supported out of Special Purpose and Restricted funds will now be supported out of General Unrestricted funds. The freed-up Special Purpose funds will be used for exhibits support previously spent out of Restricted funds. Additional Unrestricted funds will be committed as necessary to maintain the appropriate level of support.

Visitor Information and Associates' Reception Center

Question: The justification at page 106 for the Assistant Secretary for Public Service indicates that the Visitor Information and Associates' Reception Center is planning to develop and implement a multi-faceted program to upgrade the different visitor services provided by the Institution. They will establish a nationwide pre-visit education program that will coordinate this unit's efforts with Washington, D.C. and National Travel and Tourism Industry. How will that work?

Answer: The goal of the Pre-Visit Education Program is to provide visitors to Washington, D.C. with advance information about the Smithsonian, through the tour and travel industry, as well as existing Smithsonian outreach programs, to prepare them to make informed choices about the opportunities for learning and enjoyment available to them and to enjoy more fully the diversity of exhibits, activities and resources offered by the Institution during their visit to Washington, D.C.

Millions of visitors from the United States and other countries come to the museums of the Smithsonian each year. Unfortunately, the majority of these visitors arrive with little or no understanding of the Institution's size and the breadth of its collections. As a result, many visitors fail to take advantage of the opportunities for learning and enjoyment that are offered and leave Washington unsure of what they have seen and how much they have missed. It is, therefore, important for the Smithsonian to work with the local and national travel and tourism industry to gain access to the large numbers of visitors to Washington before their visit in order to provide them with the advance information that will help them enhance their visit to the Smithsonian and Washington, D.C.

The Visitor Information and Associates' Reception Center will develop the program through its participation in industry marketplace functions, which bring together tour packagers, tour planners, and tour leaders from around the country and the world; through the distribution of a variety of informational materials to these travel and tourism representatives and press kits to journalists and travel writers; through the preparation and mall distribution of pre-visit information packets to interested individuals; and through participation in the

program of Regional Events sponsored by the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, in order to provide these educators with information on the diversity of the Smithsonian's resources. Moreover, VIARC will use its close working relationship with the U.S. Travel and Tourism Administration (USTTA) to provide pre-visit information about the Institution to overseas markets. As a result of these efforts, VIARC will utilize the established channels of information and distribution within the travel and tourism industry to augment the ability of existing Smithsonian outreach programs to provide better assistance and advance information to visitors prior to their arrival in Washington, D.C. to ensure that they reap the maximum benefit from their Smithsonian experience.

Conservation Analytical Laboratory

Question: The justification at page 117 for the Conservation Analytical Laboratory indicates that the senior conservation staff have become involved in teaching specialized skills to Smithsonian museum conservation labs and other places. How much of their time is spent training Smithsonian staff and how much is spent training non-Smithsonian staff?

Answer: Senior CAL conservators devoted about 7% of their time during the last year in training museum specialists from Smithsonian museums in special aspects of care and preservation of objects.

To date the formal conservation training program has not commenced for non-Smithsonian personnel. CAL involvement with non-Smithsonian staff has been limited to giving informational and advisory lectures on conservation awareness to museum personnel attending Smithsonian sponsored workshops. These lectures do not involve training in conservation practices, as such.

Question: What compensation or reimbursment is received for their non-Smithsonian activities? What use is made of any reimbursable income for such training?

Answer: Since no formal conservation training program has commenced yet, there has been no compensation or reimbursement. As revenues are received they will be used to pay for expenses related to the training program, such as materials and supplies and minor equipment.

Automation of Smithsonian Institution Libraries

Question: An increase of $200,000 is requested for the Smithsonian Institution Libraries of which $120,000 is for purchase of books and increased journal subscriptions and $80,000 is to begin to reduce the backlog of cataloging. In Fiscal Year 1983, $275,000 was addedto automate the library. In 1984 that automation effort was transferred to Administration and continued there. Is the automation program initiated in Fiscal Year 1983 complete? When will it be complete?

Answer: A contract for the bibliographic system's development and implementation was signed in September 1983. As of March 1984 the processor (funded with Trust funds) has arrived and is being installed in the Natural History Building. In April 1984 the cataloging software will be implemented and will

become operational this summer. By February 1985 It is expected that all functions of the system will be Implemented fully and will be used by the libraries and archives.

Question: Where is the offset in that nonrecurring activity shown?

Answer: The Fiscal Year 1985 budget presentation under the Administration heading should have re-addressed this matter as explained in the FY 1984 justification. While it is not expected that further obligations of Federal funds will be permanently required in future years for the bibliographic system, those funds will be required to acquire specimen/object collections and financial management software systems and for further development of the communications network system. Essential progress is being made in all these areas.

Office of Exhibits Central

Question: For the Office of Exhibits Central no program increase is requested. The justification at page 125 indicates that OEC greatly expands the resources of Smithsonian units that do not have full time exhibits staff, which units are these?

Answer: Many non-museum bureaus of the Institution frequently require the services of the Office of Exhibits Central In relation to their program activities. Some of these are: the Office of Folklife Programs, the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Smithsonian Institution Traveling Exhibition Service, the Visitor Information and Associates' Reception Center, the Resident Associates, the National Associates, and the Office of Museum Programs. In addition, museum bureaus supplement their own exhibition capabilities by drawing upon OEC's specialized services which include model making, sheet plastic fabrication, production of special brackets and mountings for objects and specimens, specialized crating, design and editing services and graphics production. OEC also assists these units during periods of particularly heavy workloads, and provides all exhibit services required for special exhibitions presented in the Smithsonian Institution Building.

Question: How much reimbursement does the Office receive from internal Smithsonian units?

Answer: OEC is reimbursed approximately $170,000 on a yearly average. This amount may vary due to the amounts and types of materials needed for projects occurring in any given year.

Question: What are some examples of the complex projects which require up to two years' lead time to which reference is made at page 126?

Answer: Some examples of complex projects undertaken by OEC are:

o Quetzalcoatlus Northropi, a life-sized model of a pterodactyl type flying animal with a 44-foot wing span, required two years of research and production of a series of scale models to assure scientific accuracy. When the final model was approved, full scale fabrication for the exhibition piece required six months of effort by five staff model makers at OEC.

o Detailed planning models of natural history dioramas, done to exact scale, are required for study by the staff of the National Museum of Natural History before final decisions on full-sized dioramas can be reached. When approved, a full-sized diorama itself will require at least nine months to construct, and will require use of many OEC special services.

o Spacecraft models, intended to be touched by the visually-handicapped required a substantial period of design and testing before being incorporated into a traveling exhibition. Final production will require approximately four months.

o A model of "Tatlin's Tower" for the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden required three months of research and five months construction time by as many as four model makers for the final exhibition piece.

National Museum Act

Question: No program increase is requested for the National Museum Act program. The justification at page 133 indicates that this program has not been authorized since September 30, 1982. What is the problem with the authorizing committee on this program?

Answer: S.840 providing for $786,000 in FY 1984 and $1,000,000 in each of Fiscal Years 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988 was approved by the Senate on May 25, 1983. H.R. 2117, a similar bill, is pending before the Committee on House Administration, which has indicated a problem in general with "small" grant programs.

Question: The justification at page 135 indicates that, in 1983, 144 applications requesting $2.8 million were reviewed and that 226 proposals requesting $4.5 million have been received for the 1984 program. What accounts for that substantial increase in program?

Answer: No specific reasons are known to account for the substantial increase in the number of applications received, and the dollars requested, in FY 1984. The increases occurred throughout all six grant categories; for example, a large increase of 82% appeared in the Museum Internship Program alone. The number of Guidelines distributed, and the method of distribution, was identical in both years. These figures seem to reflect continuing needs within the museum community for training, research and technical assistance, and the increased costs associated with meeting those needs. Among museums, there is a growing concern about conservation and, since this has long been a programmatic emphasis of the National Museum Act, this may account for some of the increase.

Question: The justification also indicates that in 1983, 64 grants totalling $693,000 (80%) were related to conservation training and research. Is that deliberate or simply proportional to the number of requests?

Answer: The percentage of FY 1983 grants related to conservation is neither deliberate nor proportional to the number of requests received. In all six program categories, the National Museum Act Guidelines do encourage submission

of conservation proposals. However, recommendations for awards are made on the basis of the quality of individual applications rather than preference for subject matter. On the whole, proposals for conservation training and research were convincingly presented and received high ratings in the review process.

Festival of American Folklife

Question: No program increase is requested for the American Studies and Folklife Programs. When will the 1984 program be held? What will be the highlights of this year's program be?

Answer: The 1984 Festival of American Folklife will be held on the National Mall from June 28 - July 1, 1984 and from July 4 - July 8, 1984. Three programs will be mounted at this year's Festival. The folklife of the State of Alaska will be presented including a major Native Alaskan component, an ethnic component, and an occupational component, with music, dance and crafts representative of the State's diverse cultures. "Black Expressive Culture from Philadelphia" will depict vital urban traditions in music, dance, and verbal artistry ranging from blues to gospel, tap dancing to street drills, traditional humor to "rapping." A major national program on folklore and aging will highlight and celebrate the vital role that older generations play in the preservation and perpetuation of America's cultural heritage and identity.

Office of Smithsonian Symposia and Seminars

Question: The justification for Academic and Educational Programs at page 145 indicates that a civics seminar series "Learning the Duties of Citizenship" will explore how child rearing practices and other early influences in the life of the individual contribute to his later exercise of rights and duties as a citizen. What is the background for providing that kind of seminar?

Answer: The concept for the seminar series "Learning the Duties of Citizenship" grows out of the Smithsonian's long-term interest in research and education about American history and the practice of elective democracy in the New World. Moreover, the focus on childhood experience as preparation for the duties of citizenship stems from Smithsonian participation in the International Year of the Child in 1979 and the recommendation that children should be educated about their duties as well as rights.

Question: To whom will participation be offered?

Answer: The Smithsonian plans to invite specialists in education and child development from concerned agencies such as the National Institute for Child and Human Development, the National Institute of Mental Health, the Society for Research in Child Development, the Society of Behavioral Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, the American Anthropological Association, the Social Science Research Council, the American Association for Public Opinion Research, and the Council for the Advancement of Citizenship, to participate in the series.

Question: Who will participate in the other programs discussed at page 145 in this same area?

Answer: Other OSSS programs related to the Bicentennial of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, including "Ideas Behind the Constitution," and the symposium on "The Pursuit of Justice," will draw upon a broader range of participants, including such groups as the American Bar Association, the American Legion Boys' State and Girls' State Programs, the School of Law of the University of Virginia, Project '87 of the American Political Science Association, the American Historical Association, National Archives Constitutional Study Group, National Community Education Association, American Newspaper Publishers Association, American Library Association, and the Close-Up Foundation. Students from public and independent schools also will participate through the efforts of the Smithsonian's Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.

Museum Support Center

Question: At pages 156, 157 justifications are provided for Increases for the National Museum of American History, the Conservation Analytical Laboratory, the Library, and the Office of Printing and Photographic Services. These are in addition to any other increases that those programs might justifiy. Since the Conservation Analytical Laboratory is located at the Museum Support Center, why are the funds shown and justified in two separate places?

Answer: The FY 1985 Budget Justification, as in past years, presents the program increases of different bureaus related to the Museum Support Center (MSC) in the Museum Support Center Equipment and Operations line item in the Special Programs chapter in order to provide the most complete information on the total funding needs required for the occupancy and operation of the MSC. This method of presentation has allowed Smithsonian management, the Board of Regents, the Office of Management and Budget and the Congress to be informed of the additional funding necessary for the development and implementation of this high priority project since FY 1982.

As part of this budget framework, the program increases for the Conservation Analytical Laboratory (CAL) that are related directly to the expanded programs of CAL at the MSC have been shown under the Museum Support Center line item and the existing base resources for CAL have remained within the Museum Programs activities (as has been done in the case of other MSC program elements).

Question: Will the activities related to the Museum Support Center continue to be shown separately if this funding level and arrangement is approved or will these funds go back into the program base never to be seen again?

Answer: It has always been planned that the FY 1986 budget justification would see the elimination of the Museum Support Center line item, with accumulated bases of each MSC entity being distributed back into the appropriate visible programmatic line items, particularly since the initial equipping and move costs will have been appropriated and obligated.

Quadrangle

Question: The justification for an increase of Quadrangle operations at page 163 identifies a food facility. How large will that facility be?

Answer: The proposed facility will encompass about 2,500 square feet (50

feet by 50 feet) and will be used for receptions, dinners and special food

tasting events related to particular exhibitions. There may also be employee

lunch facilities (soup, salad, sandwiches, etc.). All events will be catered as there will be no kitchen facilities to speak of.

Question: Why are the increases shown here rather than under the Sackler Gallery, the National Museum of African Art, the International Center, Sites, and Library activities?

Answer: As with the Museum Support Center, a separate line item was established to show the total impact of the additional resources required to support operations of the Center for African, Near Eastern, and Asian Cultures (The Quadrangle). Therefore, the program increases requested for Smithsonian bureaus and activities in FY 1985 that were related to the development, planning, and initial staffing of Quadrangle operations were presented under the Quadrangle line item to provide Smithsonian management, the Board of Regents, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Congress with information of the complete budget requirements to initiate this important program. It is anticipated, however, that beginning in FY 1986 it will be more appropriate to show Quadrangle-related increases in the program line items, rather than in a centralized fashion.

Question: Since the Quad will not be available for occupancy until 1986, what is the need for three positions and $45,000 for SITES in Fiscal Year 1985?

Answer: SITES needs a Graphics Technician in early FY 1985 to begin implementing the necessary design, typography, photographic documentation, and development of themes for the Introductory Gallery scheduled to begin functioning in January 1986.

An Educational Workshop Coordinator and a secretary are needed beginning early in Fiscal Year 1985 to begin all the necessary programming for a variety of activities of a fully-operational workshop facility at the Quadrangle. This position will coordinate educational activities involving schools, special traveling exhibitions audiences, multi-media workshops and other activities. Ample lead time is necessary for these activities to be in operation during FY 1986.

Question: What is the justification for one position and $27,000 for the Museum of African Art for a chief conservator and one position and $22,000 for curatorial assistant when it is related to occupying the new space which will not be available until 1986? Why can't this increase wait until Fiscal Year 1986?

Answer: The requested increase for the National Museum of African Art for FY 1985 was developed in order to allow for the necessary planning and preparation work prior to the move of the Museum to the Mall and for the necessary planning of the inaugural exhibitions in its new location.

Since conservation treatment procedures require long periods of time depending on the nature and the difficulty of the work to be performed, it is especially important to begin the conservation work as soon as possible, in view

of the increased workload that will result from the conservation needs of the objects to be exhibited in the expanded facilities. Moreover, considerable time and work will be required for the specialized preparation of the textiles to be exhibited. The conservator sought for this position must have not only a strong background in ethnological objects, but an excellent knowledge of ethnological textiles as well.

The curatorial assistant is requested in FY 1985 to enable the necessary collections research and documentation work to be accomplished prior to the relocation of the Museum to the Mall. Building on the research conducted for the Union Catalogue, the hiring of the curatorial assistant in FY 1985 would greatly improve the Museum's ability to carry out the essential collections management and research responsibilities for the scheduled move and the development and documentation for the opening exhibitions in the new location.

Increased Workload of Personnel Actions

Question: For Administration, an increase of $40,000 is requested in the Office of Personnel Administration. What is the increased workload that will occur that will require this additional position?

Answer: Since the passage and implementation of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, there has been a significant increase in the volume of personnel actions and data elements required. These additional requirements have put a severe strain on the ability of the personnel staff to assure an acceptable quality and timeliness of data input into the Central Personnel Data File (CPDF) maintained by the Office of Personnel Management. The additional $40,000 requested will be used to fund one position and temporary help to provide the necessary technical supervision and management of the data processing activities and to oversee the improvement of the present internal personnel data systems.

Automation Funding

Question: What happened to the $275,000 that was provided in Fiscal Years 1983 and 1984 for automation of the Library?

Answer: As noted in an earlier answer these funds are being used to acquire by contract the bibliographic system and software to meet the needs of our libraries and archives collections. It is anticipated that the system will be fully operational early in calendar year 1985.

Question: Why is there not an offsetting reduction in Fiscal Year 1985?

Answer: It is important that the Institution be allowed to retain these funds to continue the development of collections and financial systems and to extend the communications network. Our justification should have elaborated on our previous statements on the need to retain these funds. We will provide information on all new planned systems as the Committee wishes.

Office of Plant Services

Question: An additional $325,00 is requested for the Office of Plant Services to restore a base deficiency. Why isn't this simply inflationary

34-632 0—84 16

increases rather than a program increase? How does this differ from the inflationary increase request discussed and identified earlier?

Answer: In recent years, it has become increasingly necessary to provide additional workyear resources and dollars to the OPlantS preventive maintenance program, in an effort to slow the rate of growth of the Restoration and Renovation program. OPlantS has had to divert "other object" resources to the personnel line item to fund this need (as further explained in Insert 119a); hence the shortage in the supplies category. True inflationary increases will be justified in the uncontrollables section of future budget justifications.

Construction and Improvements, National Zoological Park

Question: The $3,500,000 includes $2 million for "renovation of Olmsted Walk - Phase I." What will Phase II cost?

Answer: Phase II will cost $1,000,000 and the funds will be requested as part of our FY 1986 request.

Question: Of the $2 million how much will be related to the Gibbon Facility, the waterfowl exhibit, the Panda display, and the Tortoise Yard and how much will be provided for modification of the main walkway?

Answer: We have programmed $450,000 for the Gibbon Facility; $5,000 for the Tortoise Yards; and $1,200,000 to modify the main walkway. At this time no funds have been programmed for the waterfowl exhibit or the Panda display.

Question: $300,000 is requested to replace the seal and polar bear water filter systems. How long have the existing systems worked?

Answer: The systems have worked 4 years.

Question: How long will the new systems last?

Answer: The new systems should last 20 years.

Question: How will the $450,000 for renovation, repairs, and improvements at Front Royal be used?

Answer: The funds will be used for the repair of existing buildings and for the upgrade of the Center's utility systems. Funds will also be used for road and culvert repairs.

Restoration and Renovation

Question: The justification at page 213 indicates that $160,000 will be used to install fire protection systems in Building 19 at Suitland. Another $500,000 is requested for environmental control and lighting things in Building 19 at page 217. Are we better off with an expansion of the MSC rather than these interim repairs to upgrade Butler buildings?

Answer: Eventually, but not now. Expansion of the MSC by about 25% of the current storage capacity is planned in about ten years. Based on current

construction costs this expansion is expected to cost approximately $8 - 10 million, including storage equipment.

Although some environmentally sensitive and high value collections will be stored at the current MSC building on an interim basis, continued storage space must be provided at the Silver Hill Facility. Institution plans for the temporary buildings at the Silver Hill Facility include retention for about 15-20 years when they would be demolished. Meanwhile in FY 1985 and FY 1986 it is proposed that two of the temporary buildings (Buildings 17 & 19) now occupied by collections from the Museum of American History, totalling approximately 40,000 square feet, be improved for continued use until about the year 2000. It is proposed to spend approximately $35 per square foot (versus $200 per square foot for new construction) to contain or eliminate asbestos insulation in the buildings, add proper insulation and building liner, add new lighting, improve the heating and ventilation systems and add fire protection systems.

Question: At page 219 justification requests $185,000 to complete the development of a master plan initiated with $130,000 provided in 1984. The last sentence of the paragraph indicates that $300,000 is expected to be sought in 1986 to complete the master plan. Will the master plan cost $315,000 as implied by the first sentence in the paragraph or $615,000 as implied by the last sentence of the paragraph?

Answer: The statement on the development of the master plan for the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (SERC) on page 219 of the FY 1985 budget justification was not consistent. The first sentence should have read "...an amount of $185,000 is needed to continue the development of a master plan initiated with funds of $130,000 appropriated in FY 1984." The total cost estimated for the master plan at the time the request was submitted to Congress was $615,000 ($130,000 appropriated in FY 1984; $185,000 requested in FY 1985; and $300,000 expected to be sought in FY 1986 to complete the master plan).

During the past month, however, the consultant has been selected for the master plan and, based on the current discussions with him on the proposed plan, it appears that the estimated funding required in FY 1986 to complete the master plan will be about $65,000.

Question: What do we get from a master plan?

Answer: The Master Plan is intended to be an integrated series of documents which presents in graphic, narrative and tabular form the present composition of the facilities and proposed short-term and long-term development programs to meet the goals of the Board of Regents. The purpose for developing master plans is three-fold.

1. To obtain a complete and detailed inventory of all buildings, facilities, systems and programs.

2. To provide for an orderly and comprehensive master development program for the foreseeable future.

3. To comply with Section 5 (a) of the National Capital Planning Act of 1952, as amended, when required.

General Post Office Building

Question: Is a master plan being developed for the Post Office Building?

Answer: A type of master plan has been developed and is currently in draft. It is entitled Functional Space Use Study and Recommended Conceptual Plan , Smithsonian Institution Use of the General Post Office Building (7th and E Streets, N.W., Washington, D. C.) October 14, 1983, and has been provided to the Committee. This plan will be refined as necessary in the future.

Space Management

Question: An audit on space management dated December 1983 recommends that a comprehensive study of space utilization in the Washington area be conducted. That such a study might lead to an expansion of the MSC and that an administrative facility discussed in the Five-Year Plan might not then be needed. What is the Smithsonian Institution's response to that proposal?

Answer: The theory presented by the Office of Audits is that if more collections could be transferred from our museums by expanding the Museum Support Center the space freed by such transfers could be used to meet program, administrative, and support needs. This theory assumes that collections could be moved in sufficiently large blocks to free floor space to accommodate whole organization units or, even more desirably, to keep related organization units close by such as is now possible in leased space where, for example, the supply and accounting functions are close to one another. While we do not as yet have good information on actual floor spaces that will be freed as part of our initial moves to the MSC, it does not appear that large connected blocks of space will materialize. The Smithsonian agrees that a study by a professional space utilization expert (firm) would be useful and we have entered into such a contract to first examine the utilization of the SI and A&I buildings. Such a study would assist in supporting the Institution's request for authorization and funding of the MSC expansion at the appropriate time. Similarly, it would confirm our assessment that a Smithsonian-owned administrative facility near the Mall is required and is economically preferable to the present leasing arrangement.

Question: Since the Assistant Secretary for Administration agreed that such a study could be useful, why does the Five-Year Plan still include a proposal for an administrative building?

Answer: A study would be useful to confirm by independent review the results of our own study that a significant block of administrative space cannot be absorbed at any Smithsonian-owned location and that it has been necesary for some years now to lease space to meet this need. We can also demonstrate, under GSA/OMB criteria, that it is more economically advantageous to own a building providing this equivalent amount of space, rather than to continue leasing.

Physical Plant Condition

Question: Beginning at page 221 is a description of the Physical Plant Condition by Facility. For the record update this to include Fiscal Year 1983 actual, 1984 appropriation, using the same entries that were used in the Fiscal Year 1984 justification. Where there are significant expansions for shifts, those should be explained. For example, for the National Museum of Natural History, the 1984 justification indicated that $13,038,000 would be needed between 1984 and 1988. This justification indicates that $33,690,000 is required between 1985 and 1989, an increase of $20 million with minimal explanation of the increase cost.

Answer: The following charts are provided to update the Physical Plant Condition report as requested.

Anacostia Neighborhood Museum

PHYSICAL PLANT CONDITION BY FACTLITY CCMPARISON (Dollars in Thousands)

WORK DESCRIPTION

FISCAL

YEAR FY 1983

REQUEST ACTUAL

FY 1984 FY 1985 FY

FY 1987 FY

FY 1989 TOTALS

PLANNBC PERIOD

General Repairs Sprinklers

1984 1985

1984 1985

Install Elevators

1984 1985

Disabled Access - Rest Roam 1984 1985

Design & Construction Lab

/l 1984 1985

Roof Replacement /2

1984 1985

Master Plan - Poplar Point 1984 1985

20 20 20 20 20 — ICO 1984

— — — — — — 1985

— 25 — — — — 25 1984 •

— — — — — —— 1985

— — 55 — — — 55 1984

— — — — — 55 55 1985

— 10 — — — — 10 1984

— — — — — — 1985

450 — — — — — 450 1984

— 400 — — — — 400 1985

— — — — — — — 1984

— 200 — — — — 200 1985 ■

— — — — — — — 1984

— — — — 100 250 350 1985

1988 1989

Subtotal, FY 1983 Actual TOTAL FY 1984 - 1988 TOTAL FY 1985 - 1989

20 640

100 305 1,005

/I See explanation on page 217 of FY 1985 Budget Justification.

/2 In recent years efforts by OPlantS to obtain effective repairs has proven unsuccessful with the conclusion that a new roof was the only practical solution to continued leaks. Rather than wait for a more conventional planning process it was decided that a preferred action was to include this work as a part of the Laboratory expansion project.

Arts and Industries Building

PHYSICAL PLANT CONDITION BY FACILITY COMPARISON (Dollars in Thousands)

/l See explanation on page 211 of FY 1985 Budget Justification.

/2 Funding request deferred until conpletion of current ongoing long-term utilization study of building, vhich V7ill have a major impact on the scope of this project.

PHYSICAL PLANT CONDITION BY FACILITY COMPARISON Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (Dollars in Thousands)

WORK ASCRIPTION

FISCAL

YEAR

REQUEST

Road Repairs & Improvements

1984

/1_ 1985

General Repairs

1984 1985

Roof Repairs

1984 _/2 1985

Fire Alarm System

1983 1984 1985

Visitors' Center - Disabled Access - Rest Room

1984 1985

Administration Building -Disabled Access

1984 1985 Master Plan/Sewer Study

1984 /3 1985

Utility Improvements

1984 1985 Calf Bam Modifications

1984 1985

Subtotal, FY 1983 Actual

TOTAL FY 1984 - 1988

TOTAL FY 1985 - 1989

FY 1983 ACTUAL

20

— — 10 — — — — 10 1984 1988

— _______ 1985 _ 1988

— — 25 — — — — 25 1984 1988

— — — — — — 2525 1985 1989

— — — 25 — — — 25 1984 1988

— — — — — — 25 25 1985 1989

— 130 — — — — — 130 1984 1988

— — 185 300 — — — 485 1985 1989

1984 - 1988

1985 - 1989

385

660

200 200

1,015 1,485

/l _provements deferred until completion of a comprehensive facility master plan which now is

II Detailed examination disclosed more extensive work than was initially anticipated.

/3 We are learning that a professionally prepared (raster plan costs more than originally thought. Of be sought In FY 1986 for the Master Plan/Sewer Study project, 365 thousand is required to complete

1984 - 1988

1985 - 1989

the $300 thousand to the Master Plan.

Cooper Hewitt Miseun

W08K. EESCRIFTIGN

PHYSICAL PLANT CONDITION BY FACILITY COMPARISCN (Dollars In Thousands)

FISCAL

YEAR

REQUEST

FY 1983 ACTUAL

FY 1984 FY 1985 FY 1986 FY 1987 FY 1988

General Repairs

Window Replacement

1984 1985

1984 1985

Wood Flooring - Repair, Replacement

Fence Restoration -Repair & Painting

1984 1985

1984 1985

Elevator Improvements -Miller House

1984 1985

Facade Repairs - Miller House

1983 1984 1985

Roof Repairs - Carnegie Mansion 1984 1985

Emergency Generator

1984 1985

Disabled Access Ramp -Carnegie Mansion

1984 1985

Electrical/Mechanical/ PI inning Study - Miller House 1984 1985

HVAC/Electrical/Pliinhlng Repairs /2 1983

1984 1985

Attic Space Renovation

1984 1985

Subtotal, FY 1983 Actual

TOTAL FY 1984 - 1988

TOTAL FY 1985 - 1989

/l Scope of window replacement is i

100 150

30 — — — — 30 1984 - 1988

— — — — 30 30 1985 - 1989

45 — — — — 45 1984 - 1988

— 50 — — — 50 1985 - 1989

— 10 — — — 10 1984 - 1988

— — — — 10 10 1985 - 1989

— — — — — 1984 - 1988

— — — — —— 1985 - 1989

40 — — — — 40 1984 - 1988

— — — — 50 50 1985 - 1989

45 — — — — 45 1984 - 1988

— — 45 — — 45 1985 - 1989

— 10 — — — 10 1984 - 1988

— — — — 10 10 1985 - 1989

20 430 390 540 20 320 970 925 270 extensive and costly than originally anticipated.

fl Completion of energy conservation study disclosed additional repairs are necessary.

-5-

PHYSICAL PLANT CONDITION BY FACTLTTY COMPARISON

American Art/Portrait Gallery (Dollars In Thousands)

FISCAL

YEAR FY 1983 PLANNING

MOEK DESCRIPTION REQUEST ACTUAL FY 1984 FY 1985 FY 1986 FY 1987 FY 1988 FY 1989 TOTALS PERIOD

Space Improvements - Archives

1984 — — 90 — — — — 90 1984 - 1988

1985 — — 100 — — — — 100 1985 - 1989 General Repairs - Storage Space

1984 — — — 120 — — — 120 1984 - 1988

/l 1985 — — — 120 145 — — 265 1985 - 1989 Window and Trim Painting

1984 — — 40 — — — — 40 1984 - 1988

1985 ______ 75 75 1985 _ 1989

Stone Repairs

1984 — — — 150 150 150 — 450 1984 - 1988

1985 — — 150 180 — — — 330 1985 - 1989 Sprinkler Installation

1983 65

1984 — — 50 — — — — 50 1984 - 1988

1985 — — 180 120 — — — 300 1985 - 1989 Public Address System

1984 — — — — 150 — — 150 1984 - 1988

1985 — — — — 150 — — 150 1985 - 1989 Upgrade Exterior Security Lighting

1984 — — 50 — — — — 50 1984 - 1988

1985 — — 50 — — — — 50 1985 - 1989 Building Accessibility Study/

Implementation

1984 — — 20 — 100 — — 120 1984 - 1988

^2 1985 —— — — — — 20 20 1985 - 1989

Dust Abatement - Shop Areas

1984 — — 20 — — — — 20 1984 - 1988

1985 — — — — 50 — — 50 1985 - 1989 HVAC Renovation

1983 700

/3 1984 — 800 — — — — — 800 1984 - 1988

1985 _____ lj2 00 4,900 6,100 1985 - 1989 Electrical/Plumbing Repairs

1984 — — 50 — — — — 50 1984 - 1988

1985 — — — — — — 5050 1985 - 1989

Space Utilization Study

1984 — — 40 — — — — 40 1984 - 1988

1985 — _______ 1985 - 1989

Building Renovation, Design/

Construction

1984 — — — — — — — — 1984 - 1988

1985 = = — = 500 2,000 = 2,500 1985-1989

Subtotal, FY 1983 Actual 765

TOTAL FY 1984 - 1988 800 360 270 400 150 1,980

TOTAL FY 1985 - 1989 480 420 845 3,200 5,045 9,990

/l Detailed examination disclosed more costs than originally Identified.

/2 Deferred pending long-term utilization study now being planned.

/3 Deferred pending long-term utilization study now being planned.

-6-

PRYSICAL PLANT CONDITION BY FACILITY COMPARISON

Freer Gallery of Art (Dollars In Thousands)

FISCAL

YEAR Fit 1983 PLANNING

WORK DESCRIPTION REQUEST ACTUAL FY 1984 FY 1985 FY 1986 FY 1987 FY 1988 FY 1989 TOTALS PEBIOD

Attic Space Modifications

1984 — — — 40 — — — 40 1984 - 1988

1985 — — — — — — 60 60 1985 - 1989

Office General Repairs

1984 — — 50 30 30 — — 110 1984 - 1988

1985 — — — — — — — — 1985 - 1989

Skylight Repairs

1984 — — 40 — — — — 40 1984- 1988

71 1985 — — — 265 — — — 265 1985 - 1989 Sprinklers - Basement/Book Store

1983 100

1984 — 85 — — — — — 85 1984 - 1988

1985 — — — — — — — — 1985 - 1989

Public Address Installation

1984 — — — — 100 — — 100 1984 - 1988

1985 — — — — — — 100 100 1985 - 1989

Disabled Access - Entrance

1984 — — — 300 — — — 300 1984 - 1988

22 1985 — — — 500 — — — 500 1985 - 1989 Disabled Access - Rest Roans

1984 — — — 25 — — — 25 1984 - 1988

1985 ________ 1985 _ 198 9

Electrical Wiring Replacement

1984 — 50 — — — — — 50 1984 - 1988

1985 — — — — — — — — 1985 - 1989

Plumbing Repairs

1984 — — — 50 50 50 — 150 1984 - 1988.

1985 — — — — — — — — 1985 - 1989

HVAC Renovation

1983 500

1984 — _______ X984 _ 1988

1985 — _______ 198 5 - 1989

Space Conversions, Design/Construction

1984 — — — — — — — — 1984 - 1988

1985 — — 3 2,000 = = = 2,000 1985 - 1989

Subtotal, FY 1983 Actual 600

TOTAL FY 1984 - 1988 135 90 445 180 50 900

TOTAL FY 1985 - 1989 — 2,765 — — 160 2,925

/l Further examination has shoui that replacement rather than repair Is required.

/2 Detailed examination indicates higher cost than originally anticipated for this project.

Hirshhom Museum and Sculpture Garden

PHYSICAL PLANT CONDITION ffl FACILITY COMPARISON (Dollars In Thousands)

/l Hirehhom Mjseun Sculpture Garden has been identified for a number of years as an energy - intensive building

and an undetermined need for action recognized. Completion of an energy conservation study now indicates specific vation activity to develop, there has been some unresolved opinion about the nerit of some of the recommendations.

/2 The scope of this project has increased to include more complex needs.

HKSICAL PLANT CONDITION K FACHJTY COMPARISON

National ttjseum of African Art (Dollars in Thousands)

FISCAL

YEAR FY 1983 PLANNQG

WOEK DESCRIPTION REQUEST ACTUAL BY 1984 FY 1985 FY 1986 FY 1987 FY 1988 FY 1989 TOTALS PERIOD

General Repairs

1984 — 20 50 50 — — — 120 1984 - 1988

1985 20 _ — 20 1985-1989

Subtotal, FY 1983 Actual TOTAL FY 1984 - 1988 TOTAL FY 1985 - 1989

National Museum of American History

PHYSICAL PLANT CONDITION BY FACILITY COMPARISON (Dollars in Thousands)

WORK DESCRIPTION

FISCAL

YEAR

REQUEST

FY 1983 ACTUAL

FY 1984 FY 1985 FY 1986 FY 1987 FY 1988 FY 1989 TOTALS

PLANNDC PERIOD

Security Office Relocation 1984 1985

Registrar's Facility Alterations 1984 1985

General Repairs

1984 1985

Replace Ten Stairwell Doors 1984 1985

Cold Room Improvements

1984 1985

Terrace Repair - Ramp/Canopy Removal/Glass Insulation /l 1984

1985

North-South Entrance Doors -Replacement

1984 1985

Roof Replacement

1983 1984 1985

Fountain Renovation - Planning and Design

1984 1985

Fire Protection Master Plan

1983

/2 1984

1985

Upgrade Public Address System 1984 1985

Dust Collection System

1983 1984 1985

Card Access System

1984 1985

Fourth Floor Security

1984 1985

— — 175 — — — — 175 1984 - 1988

— — 125 — — — — 125 1985 - 1989

— — 70 — 70 1984 - 1988

— — — — — — 2525 1985 - 1989

— — 100 100 100 — — 300 1984 - 1988

— — — 100 100 100 — 300 1985 - 1989

— — — — — — — — 1984 - 1988

— — — — — — 2525 1985 - 1989

— — — — — — — — 1984 - 1988

— — 125 — — — — 125 1985 - 1989

— — 390 — — — — 390 1984 - 1988

— — — — — — 925 925 1985 - 1989

— — — 245 — — — 245 1984 - 1988

— — — — — — 245 245 1985 - 1989

50

— 500 650 — — — — 1,150 1984 - 1988

— — 710 — — — — 710 1985 - 1989

— — — — — 175 — 175 1984 - 1988

— — — — — — 175 175 1985 - 1989

350

— 350 350 350 350 350 — 1,750 1984 - 1988

— — 200 700 500 500 500 2,400 1985 - 1989

— — — — — — 1984 - 1988

— — 100 — — — 100 1985 - 1989

15

— — — — — — — 1984 - 1988

— _______ 1985 - 1989

— — — — 210 — — 210 1984 - 1988

— — — — — — — — 1985 - 1989

— — 100 — — — — 100 1984 - 1988

— — — — — — 8080 1985 - 1989

National Maseun of American History

PHYSICAL PLANT CONDITION BY FACILITY CCMPARISON (Dollars in Thousands)

WORK DESCRIPTION

FISCAL

YEAR FY 1983

ACTUAL FY 1984 FY 1985 FY 1986 FY 1987 FY 1988 FY 1989 TOTALS

PLANNING PERIOD

Disabled Access - Madif ications 1984 1985

HVAC/Energy Conservation

1983 1984 1985

Replace Sewage Ejector System 1983 1984 1985

Cooling Tower Replacement

1984 1985

Window Replacement

1984 1985

TV Studio Mezzanine

1984 1985

Joseph Henry Papers Relocation 1984 1985

Space Mxiif ications

1984 1985

Subtotal, FY 1983 Actual

TOTAL FY 1984 - 1988

TOTAL FY 1985 - 1989

— 1,200

— 1,800

2,000 1,000

150

150

5,700 5,500

100

1984 - 1988

1985 - 1989

1984 - 1988

1985 - 1989

— — — — — — — 1984 - 1988

— — — — — — — 1985 - 1989

250 — — — — — 250 1984 - 1988

— — — — — — ' — 1985 - 1989

— — — — — — — 1984 - 1988

— — — 570 — — 570 1985 - 1989

— — — — — — — 1984 - 1988

— — — — — 265 265 1985 - 1989

— — — — — — — 1984 - 1988

— — 350 — — — 350 1985 - 1989

— — — — — — — 1984 - 1988

— — 200 — — — 200 1985 - 1989

1,100

/l Removal of ramp and canopy, with associated terrace repairs displaced by higher priority need at this facility. Work still needs to be done.

/2 Cutback in FY 1985 related to physical conflicts in space temporarily caused by Intensive R&R project

activity as well as museum program activity and changes in Business Managers program activity. Fire protection work increases in later years to complete this large undertaking.

PHYSICAL PLANT CONDITION Bf FACILITY COMPARISON

National Misoin of Natural History/Museum of Man (Dollars in Thousands)

FISCAL

YEAR FY 1983 PLANNING

WORK DESCRIPTION REQUEST ACTUAL FY 1984 FY 1985 FY 1986 FY 1987 FY 1988 FY 1989 TOTALS PERIOD

Hall 16 Demolition -Skylight Renovation

1984 — — 100 — — — —

1985 — — 80 — — — — Staff Rest Room -

West Loading Dock

1984 — — 35 — — — —

1985 ______ w

Baird Auditorium - Mechanical

lift Study

Hall 30 - Demolition

Hall 9 - Demolition

Hall 27 - Demolition

1984 1985

1984 1985

1984 1985

1984 1985

General Repairs

1984 1985

Mall Checkroom Improvements 1984 1985

Facade - Caulking & Pointing 1984 1985

Fire Protection Master Plan

1983

/l 1984

1985

North - South Entrance Modifications

1984 1985

Mall Entrance - Gate Repairs 1984 1985

Dome Safety _dder and Platform 1984 1985

Mineral Science Security Entrance Foyer

1984 1985

New Handrails

1984 1985

351)

350 500

400 400

1984 - 1988

1985 - 1989

— — — 35 1984 - 1988

— — — 40 40 1985 - 1989

— — — — 8 1984 - 1988

— — — 35 35 1985 - 1989

— — — — 120 1984 - 1988

— 50 — — 50 1985 - 1989

— — — — 40 1984 - 1988

— — — — 1985 - 1989

— — — — — 1984 - 1988

— 70 — — 70 1985 - 1989

— 150 150 — 300 1984 - 1988

— — — — — 1985 - 1989

— — — — — 1984 - 1988

— — — 15 15 1985 - 1989

— — — — 500 1984 - 1988 300 — — — 550 1985 - 1989

— 1,850 1984 - 1988 400 2,300 1985 - 1989

165 — — — — 165 1984 - 1988

200 — — — — 200 1985 - 1989

25 — — — — 25 1984 - 1988

— — — — — — 1985 - 1989

25 — — — — 25 1984 - 1988

— — — — 35 35 1985 - 1989

25 — — — — 25 1984 - 1988

— — — — —— 1985 - 1989

— — 150 — — 150 1984 - 1988

— — 150 — — 150 1985 - 1989

-12-

FHYSICAL PLANT (DNDITION BY FACILITY COMPARISON

National Museum of Natural History/Museum of Man (Dollars in Thousands)

FISCAL

YEAR FY 1983 FLANNHC

WORK ASCRIPTION REQUEST ACTUAL FY 1984 FY 1985 FY 1986 FY 1987 FY 1988 FY 1989 TOTALS PERIOD

Hall 16 Access

1984 — — 125 — — — — 125 1984 - 1988

1985 — — — — — — — — 1985 - 1989

Photo Laboratory Improvements

1984 — — — — — — — — 1984 - 1988

1985 — — — — — — 65 65 1985 - 1989

West Court - Replace Mexican

Floor Tiles

1984 — — 120 — — — — 120 1984 - 1988

1985 — — 85 — — — — 85 1985 - 1989 Disabled Access Modifications

1984 — — — 80 80 — — 160 1984 - 1988

1985 — — — — — — — — 1985 - 1989

HVAC/Energy Conservation

Implementation

1983 350

/! 1» — — — 500 3,400 3,400 — 7,300 1984 - 1988

1985 — — — 2,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 26,000 1985 - 1989 Tunnel Renovation

1984 — — 50 50 50 50 — 200 1984 - 1988

1985 — — — 50 50 50 50 200 1985 - 1989 Roof Replacement

1984 — — — — — — — — 1984 - 1989

1985 — — — 200 1,000 2,000 — 3,200 1985 - 1989 North Entrance Canopy

1984 — — — — — 885 — 885 1984 - 1988

1985 — _______ 19 85 - 1989

S.I. Libraries - Space

Modifications

1984 — 165 180 — — — — 345 1984 - 1988

_/3 1985 — — 230 170 215 — — 615 1985 - 1989

Miscellaneous Space Modifications

1984 — — 560 — — — — 560 1984 - 1988

1985 — — — — — — — — 1985 - 1989

Subtotal, FY 1983 Actual 700

TOTAL FY 1984 - 1988 515 2,428 980 4,230 4,885 13,038

TOTAL FY 1985 - 1989 1,345 3,220 10,035 10,450 8,640 33,690

/l Moderate acceleration toward completion of this large project.

/2 Encouragement by CMB and Congress in increasing the overall R&R program has indicated a possibility of absorbing this very large project within existing program amounts. Although costs indicated reflect all reconnendations resulting from consultants study, more information mist be developed to determine whether all recommendations are acceptable to the SI.

/3 Scope of project has developed to be more costly than originally anticipated.

34-632 0—84 17

National Air and Space Miseun

PHYSICAL PLANT CONDITION BY FACILITY COMPARISON (Dollars in Thousands)

FISCAL YEAR

WORK DESCRIPTION

FY 1983

ACTUAL FY 1984 FY 1985 FY 1986 FY 1987 FY 1988 FY

PLANNING PERIOD

Install Removable Plate Eliminators in HVAC

1984 1985

General Repairs

1984 1985

Paint Structural Trusses

1984 1985

Parapet, Condensation Problems 1983 1984 1985

Roof Replacement/Repairs

1984 /l 1985

Sprinklers - Kitchen Ceiling 1984 1985

Extend Smoke Detection Systems 1984 1985

Fire Protection Master Plan 1984 1985

Facade Repairs

1984 1985

Emergency Telephone, Lighting and Stair Modifications

1984 1985

Energy Study - Implementation

1984

/2 1985

Relnsulate Air Handling Unit Return Plenums

1984 1985

Replace Reheat Coils

1984 1985

— — 40 — — — — 40 1984 - 1988

— — — — — — 150 150 1985 - 1989

— — — 100 100 — — 200 1984 - 1988

— _______ i9 8 5 _ 1989

— — — 125 — — — 125 1984 - 1988

— — — — — — 125 125 1985 - 1989

200

— — — — — — — — 1984 - 1988

— _______ 1985 _ 1989

— — — 1,250 — — — 1,250 1984-1988

— — — — — — 300300 1985 - 1989

— — 20 — — — — 20 1984 - 1989

— — 20 — — — — 20 1985 - 1989

— — — 100 100 100 — 300 1984 - 1988

— _______ 1985 - 1989

— — — — — — — — 1984 - 1988

— — — 125 100 100 100 425 1985 - 1989

— — — — — — — — 1984 - 1988

— — — 100 200 200 200 700 1985 - 1989

1,000 1,000

150 50

1,000 1,550

150

250

1984 1985

1988 1989

1984 - 1988

1985 - 1989

1984 1985 ■

1984 1985

1988 1989

1988 1989

National Air and Space Miseum

PHYSICAL PLANT CONDITION Bif FACTLTTY COMPARISON (Dollars in Thousands)

/l We received sane conflicting opinion on the need for replacement. More thorough investigation Indicated that maintenance and selective repair should take care of deficiencies noted.

/2 Progress made in energy conservation studies indicates additional work over that previously anticipated now is necessary.

Renwlck Gallery of Art

PHYSICAL PLANT CONDITION Bit" FACILITY COMPARISON (Dollars in Thousands)

WORK DESCRIPTION

FISCAL

YEAR

REQUEST

FY 1983 ACTUAL

FY 1984 FY 1985 FY 1986 FY 1987 FY 1988 FY 1989 TOTALS

Subtotal, FY 1983 Actual TOTAL FY 1984 - 1988 TOTAL FY 1985 - 1989

1,000

2,210 150 1,090

PLANNING PERIOD

Facade Renovation

1983 1,000

_/l 1984 — 1,800 _____ lj8 00 1984-1988

1985 — — 500 — — — — 500 1985 - 1989

General Repairs

1984 — — — 30 — — — 30 1984 - 1988

1985 ________ 1985 _ 1989

Security Modifications

1984 — — 25 25 25 — — 75 1984 - 1988

1985 — 20 — — — — 20 1985 - 1989 Roof Repairs

1984 — — — 50 — — — 50 1984 - 1988

1985 — — — — — — 50 50 1985 - 1989

Sprinklers - Basement

1984 — — 65 — — — — 65 1984 - 1988

1985 — — 80 — — — — 80 1985 - 1989 Emergency Lighting

1984 — — — 50 — — — 50 1984 - 1988

1985 — — — — — — 50 50 1985 - 1989

Install Public Address System

1984 — — — — 50 — — 50 1984 - 1988

1985 — — — — — — 50 50 1985 - 1989

Energy Study Implementation

1984 — — — 30 — — — 30 1984 - 1988

_/2 1985 — — — 50 250 — — 300 1985 - 1989

Dust Collection System - Shops

1984 — — 20 — — — — 20 1984 - 1988

1985 — _______ 1985 - 198 9

Space Utilization Study - Basement

1984 — — — — 40 — 40 1984 - 1988

1985 — — — — 40 — — 40 1985 - 1989

/1_ See page 210 of FY 1985 Budget Justification.

/2 Completed energy conservation studies indicate an expanded scope.

Whipple Observatory

WORK DESCRIPTION

PHYSICAL PLANT CONDITION BY FACILITY COMPARISON (Dollars in Thousands)

FISCAL

YEAR

REQUEST

FY 1983 ACTUAL

FY 1984 FY 1985 FY

FY 1987 FY 1988 FY 1989 TOTALS

PLANNING PERIOD

General Repairs

1984 1985

Fire Alarm System Improvements 1984 1985

Master Plan - Utility

1984 1985

Vehicle Maintenance Facility

1984

Jl 1985

Administration Building -Design and Construction

1984 A. 1985

Road Repairs

1983 1984 1985

Water Catchment

1984 1985

Visitors' Center - Design and Construction

A

Communication Network

1985

1984 1985

MMT Support Building and AlumLnizing Shop

1984 1985

300

50

50

50

250

1984 - 1988

1985 - 1989

50 — — — — — 50 1984 - 1988

— — — — — — — 1985 - 1989

40 — — — — — 40 1984 - 1988

— — — — — — — 1985 - 1989

— — 575 — — — 575 1984 - 1988

— — — — — — — 1985 - 1989

— 55 980 — — — 1,035 1984 - 1988

— 40 — — — — 40 1985 - 1989

— — — — — — — 1984 - 1988

— — — — — — — 1985 - 1989

— 50 — — — — 50 1984 - 1988

— — — — — — — 1985 - 1989

— — 50 400 — — 450 1984 - 1988

— — — — — — — 1985 - 1989

— — — — — — — 1984 - 1988

— 100 — — — — 100 1985 - 1989

— — — — — — — 1984 - 1988

— 260 — — — — 260 1985 - 1989

Subtotal, FY 1983 Actual TOTAL FY 1984 - 1988 TOTAL FY 1985 - 1989

300

1,655

2,420 650

/l Removed fran R&R program. Now included In new construction project for Base Camp.

Smithsonian Institution Building

PHYSICAL FLAW CONDITION BY FACILITY COMPARISON (Dollars in Thousands)

/I Name of project should be "Fire Detection and Suppression" Scope of project expanded to incude sprinklers, alarms and structural building changes.

/2 Scope overstated in FY 1984.

/3 Project now Includes construction.

PHYSICAL PLANT CONDITION BY FACELIIY COMPARISON Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (Dollars in Thousands)

W ORK DESCRIPTION General Repairs

Naos Pier Repairs

FISCAL

YEAR BY 1983

REQUEST ACTUAL

1984 1985

FY 1984 FY 1985 FY 1986 FY 1987 FY 1988 FY 1989 TOTALS

50

50

50

50

50

220 250

PLANNTNG PERIOD

1984 - 1988

1985 - 1989

1983 100

1984 — _______ J984 _ 1988

1985 — — — — — — — — 1985 - 1989

BCI - Kitchen Repairs and Design

1984 — 75 — — — — — 75 1984 - 1988

1985 — _______ 1985 _ 198 g

BCI - Fire Protection

1983 100

1984 — 100 — — — — — 100 1984 - 1988

1985 — _______ 1985 _ 198 9

Emergency Generator

1984 — — 50 — — — — 50 1984 - 1988

1985 — — — — — — 6060 1985 - 1989

Petroleum Storage Facility

1984 — — 25 — — — — 25 1984 - 1988

1985 — — — — — — 2525 1985 - 1989

Coomjnication System

1984 — — 45 — — — — 45 1984 - 1988

1985 ______ 45 45 J9 85 - 1989

BCI - Water/Sewage Upgrade

1983 75

1984 — — 75 — — — — 75 1984 - 1988

1985 — — — 75 — — — 75 1985 - 1989 Galeta - Sewage System Upgrade

1984 — — — 150 — — — 150 1984 - 1988

1985 — — — — — — 150 150 1985 - 1989

Galeta - Electrical System Upgrade

1984 — — 40 — — — — 40 1984 - 1988

1985 — — — — 50 — — 50 1985 - 1989 BCI - New Dormitories

1984 — — — 450 — — — 450 1984 - 1988

/l 1985 — — 895 — — — — 895 1985 - 1989 Tivoli - Terrestrial Laboratories

1984 _____ 1)2 00 — 1,200 1984 - 1988

1985 — _______ i 9 85 - 1989

New Kitchen/Dining Building

Construction

1984 — — — — 500 — — 500 1984 - 1988

1985 — _______ !985 - 1989

Master Plan

1984 — _______ 1984 - 1985

1985 — — 120 100 — — — 220 1985 - 1989

/l Project advanced and expanded based on updated program needs.

Suitland Facility

PHYSICAL PLANT CONDITION BY FACILITY COMPARISON (Dollars In Thousands)

FISCAL

YEAR FY 1983

WORK DESCRIPTION REQUEST ACTUAL FY 1984 FY 1985 FY 1986 FY 1987 FY 1968 FY 1989 TOTALS

PLANNDC PERIOD

Fence and Road Program

1984 1985

50

SI)

NASM - Covered Storage

1984 - 1988

1985 - 1989

1984 — — 60 — — — — 60 1984 - 1988

1985 — — — — — 160 160 1985 - 1989 NASM Bldgs. 21 & 24 - Balconies

1984 — — — — 100 — — 100 1984 - 1988

1985 — _______ 1985 . 1989

NASM Bldg. 24 - Balcony

1984 — — — — — — — — 1984 - 1988

1985 — — — — 60 — — 60 1985 - 1989 Exterior Painting & Roof Repairs

1984 — — — 60 — — — 60 1984 - 1988

1985 — — — 60 — — — 60 1985 - 1989 Fire Protection - MAH Buildings

1984 — — 160 160 — — — 320 1984 - 1988

/l 1985 — — 160 200 250 — — 610 1985 - 1989

Security Lighting - Upgrade

1984 — — 8 — — — — 8 1984 - 1988

1985 ________ 1985 _ 1989

Security Fence - Drainage

1984 — — 10 — — — — 10 1984 - 1988

1985 — — — — — — 1985 - 1989 MAH Building 16 Improvements

1983 300

1984 — _______ igaj _ 1988

1985 — — — — — — — — 1985 - 1989

MAH Bldgs. Improvements

(17, 19, A4B)

1984 — — 500 450 — — — 950 1984 - 1988

J2 1985 — — 500 500 750 — — 1,750 1985 - 1989

Standby Emergency Generator

1984 — — — — — — — — 1984 - 1988

1985 — — 60 — — — — 60 1985 - 1989 Master Plan

1984 — — — — — — — — 1984 - 1988

1985 — — 200 100 — — — 300 1985 - 1989 Rest Room for the Disabled

1984 — — — — — — — — 1984 - 1988

1985 — — — — 20 — — 20 1985 - 1989 NASM Bldg. 10 - Chemical Cleaning

Addition

1984 — — — — — — — 1984 - 1988

1985 — — — — — — 200200 1985 - 1989

NASM Bldgs. 7, 22 4 23 - Electrical

Upgrade

1984 — — — — — — — — 1984 - 1988

1985 —— — — — — 4040 1985 - 1989

-20-

PHYSICAL PLANT CONDITION BY FACILITY COMPARISON

Suitland Facility (Dollars In Thousands)

FISCAL

YEAR FY 1983 PLANNING

WORK DESCRIPTION REQUEST ACTUAL FY 1984 FY 1985 FY 1986 FY 1987 FY 1988 FY 1989 TOTALS PERIOD

NASM Bldgs. 22 & 23 -HVAC Upgrade

1984 — — — — — — — — 1984 - 1988

1985 — — — — — — 100 100 1985 - 1989

MAH Bldgs. 16 & 18/19 -

Concrete Slabs

1984 — — — — — — — — 1984 - 1988

1985 — — — — — — 180 180 1985 - 1989

Collections Management and

Storage Building (New)

1984 — — — — — — — — 1984 - 1988

1985 — — — = — — 160 160 1985 - 1989

Subtotal, FY 1983 Actual 300

TOTAL FY 1984 - 1988 — 813 670 100 — 1,583

TOTAL FY 1985 - 1989 920 860 1,080 50 840 3,750

/l Scope expanded to include Bldgs. A&B, to be assigned to MAH. /2 Reflects reassignment of Bldgs. A&B to MAH.

Miscellaneous Projects

PHYSICAL PLANT CONDITION BY FACILITY CCMPARISCN (Dollars In Thousands)

(pumps, transformers, refrigeration equipment, etc.)

/2 Catching up on a generally neglected area.

/3 Seeking improvement in funds management capabilities through better distribution of year-long workload and obligation efficiency.

Wednesday, March 28, 1984. NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS WITNESSES

FRANCIS S. M. HODSOLL, CHAIRMAN

HUGH SOUTHERN, DEPUTY CHAIRMAN FOR PROGRAMS

ANTHONY TURNEY, DEPUTY TO THE CHAIRMAN FOR PUBLIC PARTNERSHIP

CYNTHIA GRASSBY, DEPUTY TO THE CHAIRMAN FOR PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP

KATE L. MOORE, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF POLICY, PLANNING AND RESEARCH

PETER J. BASSO, JR., DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION

RON FINEMAN

NIGEL REDDEN

CHARLES ZUCKER

BESS LOMAX HAWES

RENEE LEVINE

FRANK CONROY

BRIAN O'DOHERTY

ANDREW OLIVER

ADRIAN GNAM

ANN DARLING

ED MARTENSON

BENNY ANDREWS

JOE PRINCE

ROB WILSON

Mr. Yates. Mr. Reporter, show the hearing as coming to order.

This is the hearing for fiscal year 1985, on the appropriation for the National Endowment for the Arts. Appearing in support of that appropriation is its Chairman, Mr. Hodsoll; Mr. Southern, its Deputy Chairman; Mr. Turney, Deputy Chairman for Public Partnership; Ms. Grassby, Deputy for Private Partnership; Ms. Moore, Director of the Office of Policy, Planning and Research; and Mr. Basso.

Mr. Hodsoll's statement and Mr. Basso's biography may go into the record at this point.

[The statement of Mr. Hodsoll and Mr. Basso's biography follow:]

(265)