This book made available by the Internet Archive.

NEWS RELEASE

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

Biographical Material

RCBERT McC. ADAMS. SECRETARY

smuhsonian institlition, msHiNgroN. d.c.

Robert McC. Adams, a distinguished anthropologist, archaeologist and university administrator, known for his extensive research into the ancient civilizations of Mescpotaniia, is the ninth Secretary of the Sinithsonian Institutic»i.

As Secretary of the Smithsonian, Dr. Adams heads a conplex of 13 museums and the NatiCTial Zoological Park as well as scientific and cultural research facilities in nine states and the R^)ublic of Panama.

The 1846 Act of Congress that founded the Institution as an establishment for the "increase and diffusion of knowledge" stipulated that it be administered by a Secretary responsible to the Board of Regents. The Regents have traditionally appointed scientists to serve as Secretaries of the Smithsonian, vAiich has become world-renowned not caily for its exploration of scientific frontiers but also for its caitributions to the arts and humanities.

Secretary Adams assumed the Shiithsonian post on Sept. 17, 1984. In his most recent position prior to his appointment, he had served as provost of the University of Chicago from 1982 until 1984. He had be^i affiliated with the university for

The Office of Public Affairi, SmUhsonian InstUution, Waihington, D.C. 20560 {202) 357-2627

nearly four decades, earning his bachelor's, master's and doctoral degrees there (in 1947, 1952 and 1956 respectively) and beginning a teaching and administrative career in 1955.

As an archaeologist, Adams' principal interests lie in the agricultural and urban history of the Near and Middle East, geogr^hical and archaeological study of settlement patterns and corrparative economic and social history of pre-modem societies. He has carried out significant field research in these areas over a period of 27 years in the deserts of the Near and Middle East and in the cloud-forested mountains of Chiapas, Mexico.

Secretary Adams is best known for his studies in Mesopotamia (modem-day Iraq), site of ore of the world's earliest civilizations. Working with aerial photographs taken from thousands of feet above the desert, Adams has spent nuch of his professional life studying the development of these earliest societies, from the layout of anciait villages and their waterways to the growth of true cities with sophisticated canal systems.

Secretary Adams was bom on July 23, 1926, in Chicago and was educated there. Adams first enrolled at the University of Chicago in 1946 and was invited in 1950 by archaeologist Robert Braidwood of the university's Oriental Institute to join his expedition to Jarmo, a site in the remote foothills of Iraqi Kurdistan. Jarmo was the first major expedition to define an inportant problem in Near Eastern archaeology—the transition of a prehistoric peculation in the eighth and seventh millamia B.C. from food gathering to food production.

Adams' interest later shifted from the origins of agriculture to ccaicentrate on the tc^ic that has occupied him since—cities and their dynamics in the rise and fall of civilizations. Some of his early work was concerned with Mexico and the New Vforld, but the bulk has always been in the Near East. In 1956, he led the first of a series of expeditions to the Mesopotamian plain, surveying ancient canal systems.

rivercourses and settlement patterns. It was on this trip that he first became acquainted with aerial photographs. Taken from thousands of feet above the desert, the pictures revealed faint traces of individual watercourses, even stperinposed sequences of watercourses dating back to remote times.

Mams returned to Iraq to continue his research in 1957 at the request of government officials in that country who were considering investing in a major new irrigation system in the Diyala Plains. He moved into an old expedition house near Baghdad with his family—his wife, Ruth, and daughters Gail, then 10, Beth, 8 and Megan, 2. Adams surveyed a nuitber of sites each day, covering more than 800 in about a year.

The survey revealed develojment of the region from the scattered layout of ancient hamlets, villages and towns with their incipient canal systems. Vo researcher had previously identified acconplishtnents of this complexity. Adams had planned to forge ahead with a survey of the entire plains but was unable to do so because of the revolution which occurred in July 1958, when Iraqi military and popular forces overthrew the monarchy.

For a time after this upiieaval, Iraq remained virtually closed to outside scholarship. In 1960, Adams surveyed ancient irrigation systems on the Kuzestan Plain in the southwest province of Iran at the invitation of authorities in that country. And in 1961, the entire Adams family moved to Chiapas in the highlands of southern Mexico for a survey of the relationship of man and land use through time.

Since the early 1960s, Adans has returned to Iraq whenever the political climate has permitted. In 1966-1967, 1968-1969, 1973 and 1975, he was able to expand and refine his earlier work, coitpleting two surveys that, along with the insights of other archaeologists, have revolutionized the understanding of the rise of urban societies in Mesopotamia.

His survey in 1967 of the countryside near Uruk in the lower Euphrates flood-plain revealed hundreds of previously unsuspected villages of the fourth millennium B.C.; he was able to trace the dynamics of the shift from small villages and towns to the great city of Uruk, which appeared as a kind of sudden explosion a little after 3000 B.C.

In 1968, Adams, Ruth, Beth and Megan returned to Iraq to work on an exhaustive study of the central Euphrates River floodplain, conducted on and off between wars for the next seven years. Tlie survey, encompassing more than 1,600 sites, was described in "Heartland of Cities: Surveys of Ancient Settlement and Land Use in the Central Floodplain of the Euphrates" (1981), the definitive work of its kind.

Adams has also carried out field research in Syria (1970) and Saudi Arabia (1976, 1977).

During the years that he was conducting field research, Adaits' career as an academic administrator at the University of Chicago continued to flourish. In 1962, he was named director of the university's Oriental Institute, which is devoted to research in the ancient civilizations of the lands stretching from the Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean. He held this position until 1968 and again from 1981 to 1983.

In 1975, he was named Howard H. Swift Distinguished Service Professor of Anthropology, and he twice served as dean of the Division of Social Sciences (1970-1974 and 197&-1980) .

He was appointed provost of the University of Chicago in 1982, serving as the principal deputy to University President Hanna Gray. Adams held the position of provost until September 1984 when he came to the Shdthsonian.

Adams has been a visiting scholar and lecturer in anthropology at a nunber of universities in the Uhited States, including Harvard University, the University of California (Berkeley and San Diego), University of Rochester, University of Colorado, Denmark's Aarhus University, McGill University and the Baghdad School of the American

Schools of Oriental Research. In 1976, he was the distinguished lecturer for the American Anthropological Association. He was also a National Academy of Sciences Exchange Scholar to the German Democratic Republic in 1978 and a member of the Social Sciences Humanities Planning Commission to China in 1981.

In addition to writing "Heartland of Cities" and "The Evolution of UrtDan Society: Early Mesopotamia and Pre-Hispanic Mexico" (1966), Adams is the author of "Land Behind Baghdad: A History of Settlement on the Diyala Plains" (1965), "The Uruk Countryside: The Natural Setting of Urban Societies" (1972, with H.J. Nissen) and of more than 75 articles in professional journals.

He also is co-author of "City Invincible: A Synposium on Urbanization and Cultural Development in the Ancient Near East" (1960). Since 1956, Adams has served as advisory co-editor in archaeology for the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Secretary Adams is also concerned with modem institutions and policies for the support of scientific research. As an active roentser of the National Academy of Sciences and its affiliated organization, the National Research Council, Adams has been a councilor of the Acadony, chairman of the Assenbly of Behavioral and Social Sciaices and Chairman of the Academy Forum. In 1982, he co-edited a two-volume report titled "Behavioral and Social Science Research: A National Resource." Adams was also vice chairman (1977-1980) and acting chairman (1980-1981) of the NRS Conmit-tee on Science and Public Policy.

He is active in the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest interdisciplinary association of scientists. Adams is a trustee of the Russell Sage Foundation and the National Opinion Research Center. Re is a roenber of the American Philosophical Society, the German Archaeological Institute, the American Oriental Society and the Middle East Institute and is a fellow of the

American Acadeirti' of Arts and Sciences, the Ajnerican Anthropological Association, the Middle East Studies Association and Sigma Xi.

Secretary Adams is married to the former Ruth Salzman Skinner. They have three adult daughters, Gail, Beth and Megan. Robert and Ruth Adams reside in Washington, D.C., and have a mountain cabin near Basalt, Colo., about 22 miles northwest of Aspen.

« » # »

SI-370-a-84 updated: Pipril 2, 1985

Biography of Dean Anderson

Education : B.A, Macalester College (Political Science) 1968. M.A, University of California, Berkeley (Public Administration) 1970. Other course work: University of Michigan (Fine Arts) 1965, University of Minnesota (Middle East Area Studies) 1966-67, Michigan State University (Education) 1968.

Employment : Office of Management and Budget, 1970-73. Responsible for review and formulation of the President's annual budget and legislative program for the District of Columbia Government, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, U.S. Civil Service Commission, Cost of Living Council, Pay Board and Price Commission, American Revolution Bicentennial Administration, National Gallery of Art, John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, and the Smithsonian Institution; program analysis and special projects related to the above.

Smithsonian Institution, 1973-present. Gradually increasing responsibilities within the Office of Assistant Secretary for History and Art regarding program oversight and review of the National Portrait Gallery, National Museum of American Art, Archives of American Arts, National Museum of American History, Cooper-Hewitt Museum, Center for Asian Art, National Museum of African Art, Hlrshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, Anacostla Neighborhood Museum, Joseph Henry Papers, and the Office of American studies. Presently serving as Acting Assistant Secretary.

Awards, Honors, etc. ; Elected to Pi Sigma Alpha, 1967, and Phi Beta Kappa, 1968; Minnesota SPAN Foundation fellowship supporting undergraduate research In Israel, 1967; University of California honors fellowship, 1970; Smithsonian distinguished service citations in 1974 and 1982, and Robert Brooks award, 1983.

Miscellany : Bom August 28, 1946; married with two children. One-time member of musicians' union. Enjoy building furniture and taking care of my 1972 Saab.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT McC. ADAMS, SECRETARY

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

ON APPROPRIATIONS REQUESTED FOR FY 1986

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee,

It Is a privilege to appear before you today, for the first time. In support of the Smithsonian's FY 1986 budget request. Before explaining the nature of our budgetary needs, I first would like to offer my overall impression of the state of the Institution.

As I have learned from a review of the record of the past several years, a great strength lies In the Institution's status as a Federal Trust establishment with the unique ability to generate a significant part of Its funds. As the record shows, Mr. Chairman, largely through your cooperation with the Smithsonian and Its Regents, we have articulated better the many uses to which our nonappropriated monies have been put, in conjunction with appropriated resources provided by this Subcommittee and the Congress, to Increase the Smithsonian's capacity to serve the public. Our FY 1986 budget request manifests this appropriated-nonapproprlated funds relationship in several ways.

Most evident is the Joint funding of the Quadrangle complex and of the programs that will be located there. I will talk more about these later, but let me note here that not only is the building Jointly financed between appropriated and nonappropriated sources, but nearly all organizations to be located in the Quadrangle are partially or completely financed with nonappropriated funds. The Smithsonian Institution Traveling Exhibition Service, the Center for Asian Art, the National Museum of African Art and the programs of the International Center are financed Jointly, while the Resident and National Associate Programs are funded wholly with nonappropriated funds.

Less evident than support for the Quadrangle but equally impressive has been an annual allocation for the Institution's Collections Acquisition, Scholarly Studies and Educational Outreach Program. This year, we will spend a sum of $2.2 million for purchase of outstanding works of art, for scholarly research projects and for educational outreach efforts that bring the benefit of our programs to the public.

During FY 1984, the Collections Acquisition portion of the Program, supplemented by varying amounts of outside contributions, was used to purchase a wide variety of objects throughout the Smithsonian museums. A noteworthy acquisition by the National Portrait Gallery was the famous portrait of Mary Cassatt by Edgar Degas. The Scholarly Studies Program supports scholarly research projects that do not lend themselves to Federal funding for reasons of timing. With an award from this Program, scientists at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute were able to study the rare phenomenon of the El Nino Southern Oscillation which brought widespread climate changes to the Pacific by a significant warming trend. Apart from shedding light on important issues in coral ecology and evolution, findings from this study will assist governments in providing proper management to protect reef areas. Examples of projects made possible by Educational Outreach are Smithsonian-sponsored on-site workshops at

small Buseums, a program of public service announcements for minorities and a program to teach science and mathematics to high school and junior high school students building on the fascination of young people with astronomy and space science. Through FY 1985, the Institution will have allocated a total of $19.1 million for the Collections Acquisition, Scholarly Studies and Educational Outreach Program.

Beginning in FY 1985, the Board of Regents also approved an annual allocation of $3 million to meet the cost of important temporary exhibitions throughout the Institution. We have just completed our initial allocation of these monies for support of eight exhibitions, the most significant of which will be two shows: "Aditi - A Celebration of Life" at the Natural History Museum and "The Golden Eye" at the Cooper-Hewitt Museum, complementing the nationwide Festival of India; and "Men of Greatness: Feats of Daring" in our Evans Gallery commemorating the United States exploring expedition of 1838-1842. The "Aditi" show will feature some 1,500 artifacts and 40 traditional performers, artisans and crafts people; its theme is the life cycle. "The Golden Eye" will celebrate traditional Indian crafts expressed in modern design. Circumnavigating the globe, the United States exploring expedition of 1838-1842, led by Lieutenant Charles Wilkes. mapped and surveyed the South Pacific and confirmed for the first time the existence of Antarctica as a continent, making the voyage a major landmark in United States science and maritime history. The precious cargo brought back by the expedition formed the nucleus of the Smithsonian's scientific collections, much of which will be displayed. After showing for one year, beginning this November at the Natural History Museum, the exhibition will be toured by the Smithsonian Institution Traveling Exhibition Service (SITES) to major museums and historical societies throughout the United States. Each exhibition funded from the Special Exhibition fund will be accompanied by a scholarly catalogue and some will feature associated seminars, symposia and other public programs.

A third significant expenditure of nonappropriated Trust monies first approved by the Board of Regents in FY 1979 has been to support a variety of the Institution's fellowship programs. Since 1979, a total of $8.6 million has been committed for fellowships Including a projected amount of $2.0 million in the current year.

It was in this context of self help and of mutual concern that we developed our FY 1986 budget request. While I was not at the Institution when this budget first was developed last spring, I have had an opportunity to shape its context and to sharpen Its focus subsequent to its submission to 0MB and prior to the final Congressional submission, which you have before you.

BUDGET PROCESS

During October and November, we began a new and more fully participative budget review process. With the Institution's Management Committee, consisting of the Under Secretary, Assistant Secretaries, the Treasurer and Development Officer, as veil as with museum and bureau directors, we examined programs proposed In the OMB budget and established relative priorities among them. Moreover, faced with a number of construction needs, we set to work on establishing long-term priorities for them. The result of our reviews is the budget we are presenting today. Although our request represents a total proposed Increase of $12.7 million in all appropriation accounts (adjusted by pay supplemental requirements), our FY 1986 budget contains no frills.

FY 1986 BUDGET PRIORITIES

In developing this budget we addressed three major objectives. The first Is to provide adequate base resources to enable all of the Institution's museums, research organizations and support functions to carry out their existing programs effectively. The second objective is to provide resources to permit the new facilities in the Quadrangle to open as scheduled — with Smithsonian staff and collections moving in during FY 1986 and the general public welcomed in FY 1987 with the opening of important inaugural exhibitions. The third goal in the FY 1986 budget is to strengthen essential and highest priority Institutional efforts that were initiated in previous years. These consist of programs to provide an Improved level of equipment support to research bureaus, to extend the benefits of automation throughout the Institution, and to further collection inventories.

There also is provision in this year's request to complete staffing for the Museum Support Center and to continue purchases of collections storage equipment as the move of collections to the Center proceeds. An important initiative in the FY 1986 request concerns increased support for the operations of American overseas research centers for advanced research.

With the new facilities in the Quadrangle scheduled to be completed during FY 1986, an additional Federal sum, to be matched by nonappropriated Trust funds, is essential for final construction work and to purchase furnishings and equipment.

While our FY 1986 request places continued emphasis on improvements to the physical plant, building projects specifically designed to meet programmatic objectives In the areas of research, collections management and exhibitions also are of great Importance. The most noteworthy of these projects are planned for the Freer Gallery of Art, to create critically needed additional collections storage and conservation space; and for the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama, to construct new facilities in support of research. There is provision also for the National Zoological Park to build a new animal hospital at Rock Creek Park that will facilitate improved medical practice and insure the continuation of a high standard In health care of the Zoo's valuable animal collection. The following details our budget request by appropriation.

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The FY 1986 Smithsonian request for the Salaries and Expenses appropriation totals $179,790,000. This constitutes a $13.6 million increase over the FY 1985 base. The proposed Increase consists of $10.0 million for program increases, $6.8 million for expenses over which the Institution has little control such as inflation, rent and utilities, and $3.3 million for restoration of the two percent across-the-board reduction in the FY 1985 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation Act (Public Law 98-A73). These sums are offset by a reduction of $5.8 million for a five percent pay decrease as recommended by the Office of Management and Budget and the nonrecurrence in the Institution's budget in FY 1986 of a trustee grant to the John F. Kennedy Center for which an amount of $.7 million was added in FY 1985.

The total of $10.0 million sought for program increases consists specifically of an additional sum of $4.7 million to finance Quadrangle-related projects; $2.0 million to expand Institution support of American overseas research

centers; $.5 million to continue the process of scientific equipment replacement and Improvements; $.8 million to expand computer capabilities within the Smithsonian; $.3 million to further Inventory efforts; $.9 million to complete staffing and support requirements for the Museum Support Center; and $.8 million to correct base shortages In the Office of Plant Services and the Office of Protection Services.

Of prime importance to the Smithsonian is the successful opening of the Quadrangle in the spring of 1987. The Quadrangle culminates years of planning and will be a major resource for improved intercultural understanding between the people of the United States and the peoples of Asia and Africa. The requested funds will cover the majority of the costs for the major public programs planned to Inaugurate the Quadrangle. The Sackler Gallery will present its entire magnificent collection of 1,000 objects. The Museum of African Art will display three exhibitions; "African Art and the Cycle of Life"; "African Textiles"; and "African Art from the Permanent Collection." The International Center will hold an exhibition on "Birth - A Ritual for Life." It is anticipated that these exhibitions will draw over one million visitors to the Quadrangle during the first year in which the facilities are open to the public.

The Quadrangle is a major development for the Smithsonian, but it is only one manifestation of the increasingly international role of the Institution. The international programs of the Smithsonian date back to its earliest days and are Integral to the nature of the Institution Itself. The most recent inventory of current Smithsonian international programs reveals more than 700 projects carried out in 116 countries.

This involvement in the international arena has found expression in the establishment of the Directorate of International Activities. The Directorate, responsible for the coordination and advancement of the international activities of the Smithsonian, will assist me in establishing balanced International program emphases, reflecting all world regions and fields of existing Smithsonian interest. It seeks to foster scholarship, intercultural understanding and communication through the exhibitions to be Installed and programs to be presented In the International Center.

Involvement in international affairs is not limited to Smithsonian activities on the Mall. The Institution has a sustained and keen Interest in the fate of the American overseas research centers which now face a very difficult financial future. These centers, which were created for the advancement of field scholarship by American universities and research Institutions, are located in a number of countries abroad, where they provide an invaluable research asset for American scholars. Smithsonian interaction with the centers over the years has Included grants for core administrative and fellowship support, as well as research projects and other special programs, in countries where excess foreign currencies have been available — India, Egypt, and Israel. In addition, the Smithsonian played a key role in the creation of the Council of American Overseas Research Centers, an essential step by the centers for collective action to strengthen their programs. Participating from the outset in 1977 in the studies and discussions that led to the Council's formation, the Smithsonian convened the organicing meeting of the Council in 1981. Since that time the Institution has worked closely with the Council in the improvement of liaison and exchange of information among the centers, the preparation of materials for increased public information about them, and the development of the Council's future program. Dedicated to the advancement of knowledge for all people, the

centers provide a low-key and low-coat, but highly effective network for the promotion of international exchange.

For FY 1986, we request $2.0 million In Federal funds to support the core costs of these institutions and thus relieve the financial pressures which threaten them. Loss of some or all of the centers would seriously undermine U.S. scholarly research in the field and cannot be allowed. Authority for the program exists within the basic enabling legislation of the Institution.

At this point, I would like to thank Congress for its past support for procurement of current equipment to further research efforts of the scientific bureaus of the Institution. Due to this support, the Institution has been able to maintain an excellent reputation in the field of scientific research, and this can be seen in the work of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory which was furthered by additional Federal appropriations for scientific equipment replacement in FY 198A and FY 1985.

To continue this program of scientific replacement and improvement, we request a total additional sum of $500,000 to ensure access to state-of-the-art technology by the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (SERC), the National Museum of Natural History, and the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute. In 1983 and 198A, a comprehensive equipment survey was conducted which concluded that 55 percent of SERC's equipment should be replaced at a total estimated cost of $2,330,000. To continue this program an increase of $100,000 is requested to provide an expanded base of $240,000 for FY 1986.

The National Museum of Natural History/Museum of Man holds one of the world's largest and most valuable scientific collections of plants, animals, rocks and minerals, fossils and man's cultural artifacts. It is essential to the research efforts of the NMNH/MOM that an additional sum of $250,000 in Federal appropriations be provided in FY 1986 for scientific equipment replacement to establish an expanded base of $660,000 for this purpose.

The Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI) located in the Republic of Panama serves as a world center for fundamental studies in tropical biology. With a permanent staff of 24 scientists, supplemented by hundreds of visiting international scholars, STRI is making important contributions to understanding the functions of tropical ecosystems. Increasingly, scientists and policymakers are recognizing the Importance of the tropics and its interrelationship with environmental changes here in the temperate zone. Utilizing its unique facilities located across the Isthmus, STRI scholars are examining vital issues relating to deforestation and its effects on people, climate alteration and biological diversity. The addition of $150,000 sought for scientific equipment replacement will further STRI's research programs in the complex questions of the tropics.

We seek an increase of $800,000 to improve the quality and level of service to the public through automation in the National Museum of American Art, the National Portrait Gallery, the Rlrshhorn Museum, the Smithsonian Institution Libraries, the National Museum of American History, the Archives of American Art, the Cooper-Hewitt Museum, the Office of Information Resource Management, the Office of Personnel Administration, the Office of Design and Construction and the Office of Programming and Budget. This request reflects a long-term goal of the Smithsonian to Improve the computer facilities of the Institution.

In June 1983, the Institution completed the first Inventory of Its collections. The inventory was conducted under a policy established by the Smithsonian in 1978 as part of a collections management program designed to ascertain the full extent of the Institution's holdings and to assure continuing accountability by the maintenance of comprehensive records of these holdings. To further the process of collections inventory, we seek $1.1 million In FY 1986, an increase of $250,000 over the amount appropriated in FY 1985. This will enable the National Museum of Natural History/Museum of Man, the National Museum of American History and the Cooper-Hewitt Museum to continue their Inventory work. Major emphasis will be placed on refining Inventory data, to matching it to existing collection records, and reconciling differences which may exist between the two sets of information. Additionally, there is provision in the FY 1986 request for the advancement of inventory work in the Archives of American Art.

Our request Includes a total of $900,000 to complete the staffing and support requirements for the Museum Support Center (MSC). Of this amount, $311,000 will be directed toward facilitating and improving the operations of the Conservation Analytical Laboratory (CAL). Specifically, $111,000 will be used to establish an adequate base for the purchase and replacement of scientific equipment required for the expanded duties of the Conservation Analytical Laboratory at the Museum Support Center, and $200,000 will be devoted to the enhancement of the expertise of the scientific staff. The balance is for the operations of the National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution Libraries, the Office of Protection Services, the Office of Printing and Photographic Services, and the administration and maintenance of the MSC.

Because of the importance of placing our ongoing programs on a sound basis, funding is included to restore the two percent across-the-board cut in the FY 1985 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation Act ($3.3 million), to correct base shortages in essential support units ($.8 million), and to meet expenses that essentially are beyond the Institution's control, consisting of Inflation, higher utilities charges, mandated pay Increases, and unemployment compensation costs ($6.8 million). Without these monies, virtually all of our museums and bureaus would not be able to plan effectively for the conduct of their programs at the beginning of the year. While we are absorbing the two percent reduction and other cuts this year through deferrals, our analyses indicate that continuation of base reductions will effectively cancel advances that we have made with your assistance in programs of research, collections management and automation.

RESTORATION AND RENOVATION OF BDILDINGS

For the Restoration and Renovation of Buildings Appropriation, we are seeking a total amount of $14.9 million, a $1.4 million Increase over the FY 1985 Appropriation. This request represents a continued commitment to a program that will improve our physical plant for the safety of the collections, enjoyment of visitors and enhancement of basic research.

With the support of the Congress, the Institution has devoted substantial sums to facade and roof repairs, fire detection and suppression systems, improvements to make Smithsonian facilities more accessible to disabled persons and utility systems repairs and improvements. We propose to continue these efforts in FY 1986.

I am pleased to report that the multi-year project to renovate the facade of the 120 year old Renwlck Gallery Building will be completed during FY 1986. Excellent progress Is being made also on roof and facade repairs to the historic Arts and Industries Building. These are scheduled for completion in late FY 1987. Moreover, the Institution Is continuing to upgrade fire suppression systems in all buildings, with particular emphasis on the Museums of American and Natural History to provide a level of safety consistent with today's standards and technology. Efforts are proceeding as well to upgrade heating, ventilating and air conditioning systems in buildings throughout the Institution both to protect the collections and to conserve energy.

The FY 1986 request includes a total of $8.0 million in restoration and renovation monies to support the development of the Institution's outlying facilities and to meet programmatic objectives In the categories of research, collections management and exhibitions. The most noteworthy of these projects in FY 1986 are plans to create critically needed conservation, storage and exhibition space at the Freer Gallery for which $A.5 million is sought, and to fulfill requirements in support of research at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute for which a total of $1.5 million is requested.

CONSTR UCTI ON AND IMPROVEMENTS; NATIONAL ZOOLOGICAL PARK

For the Zoo, a total of $4.9 million is requested, the same amount as appropriated in FY 1985.

With funds appropriated in FY 1985, the Zoo will begin renovation of the Olmsted Walk area. Under the first phase of this project, the section of Olmsted Walk from the Rock Creek entry up to the Small Mammal Building will be renovated to create an Identifiable pedestrian entrance at the Rock Creek side of the Zoo. New overlooks will be created above the Beaver Valley exhibits. A new gibbon facility and modified tortoise yard will be included as part of the Improvements. Also with monies provided in FY 1985, the Zoo is moving ahead with plans for an aquatics exhibit. In addition to continuing with essential repairs and improvements to the Rock Creek Zoo and the Front Royal Conservation and Research Center ($1.6 million), the major project for which a sum of $3.3 million is requested in FY 1986 Is the construction of a new and badly needed 17,000 square foot hospital building at Rock Creek.

OUADRANGLE CONSTRUCTION

As I have noted previously, the new facilities located in the Quadrangle constitute a key element of our FY 1986 budget request. We anticipate that construction of the Quadrangle building will be completed in FY 1986 with the exception of the connecting link and modifications to the Freer Gallery that will provide a passage for public and staff between the two buildings.

Subsequent to the receipt of the very favorable construction bid for the Quadrangle construction in FY 1983, the Institution prepared detailed cost estimates for security equipment, furniture and equipment for public, administrative and shop areas. Costs for these items were not included in the original construction project estimates. Rather, the Institution assumed that they would be sought separately within the Salaries and Expenses Appropriation. We now find that within the $75 million Quadrangle authorization we are able to construct the Quadrangle building and the link to the Freer Gallery as planned originally. Install a security system and purchase all equipment and fur-

nishlngs. The amount that we are seeking for FY 1986, $4 million to be matched by an equal share of nonappropriated funds, and a further anticipated sum of $A million In Federal monies In FY 1987 also to be matched by nonappropriated funds, can be accommodated within the $75 million authorization. Our budget request explains In detail the specific uses to which these monies would be put. At this point, I would emphasize that the proposed funding Is essential for the completion of the Quadrangle project and for the public opening In the spring of 1987.

SPECIAL FOREIGN CURRENCY PROGRAM

Finally, we seek $2.5 million for the Special Foreign Currency program. This will enable the continuation of grant awards to United States institutions for research in nations where local currencies are available. This program to further the research of associated institutions provides the Smithsonian with access to various collections, attracts scholars to the Institution and maintains the Smithsonian excellence in research. This funding would also provide the fourth and final United States contribution to the international effort to restore and preserve the ancient city of Moenjodaro in Pakistan.

Mr. Chairman, I and my staff will be pleased to answer any questions that you and the members of the Subcommittee may have.

Mr. Yates. Would you provide it for the record? Are there others we should have, too? When are you leaving, Sam?

Mr. Hughes. Some Friday pretty soon.

Mr. Yates. Really? How soon?

Mr. Hughes. Two weeks, three.

Mr. Yates. Will you be replaced? I know it is impossible to replace you, but I mean will you be followed?

Mr. Hughes. Yes.

Mr. Yates. Mr. Adams' biography may go in the record at this point to be followed by his statement. Tell us about the state of the Smithsonian. Is it good, bad, indifferent? Why do you want so much money? What do you want to use it for? We have been looking at some of your statistics. I must say that Smithsonian's appropriations are burgeoning and they are in prospect of burgeoning even more.

Tell us about where you are going and what you want to do with all of this money.

Mr. Adams. Mr. Chairman, I have submitted a lengthy statement for the record.

Mr. Yates. That has been placed in the record.

Mr. Adams. I have a brief version of it which I could read, but I think your question is properly directed at a somewhat more philosophical view of the situation.

Mr. Yates. Well, I try not to be too subtle.

Mr. Adams. I think I would say the Smithsonian is in very healthy condition.

Mr. Yates. Would you pull the microphone toward you, because the audience is hanging on every word.

Mr. Adams. If you don't watch out, I will read my statement. [Laughter.]

Mr. Yates. Go ahead, Mr. Adams.

Mr. Adams. I think I would say the Smithsonian is in very healthy condition. Its budget is indeed burgeoning. I think it is burgeoning because it has fulfilled an important need here in Washington and elsewhere. I am pleased to see groups of students attending a session of this institution, but if you want to find groups of students, you will find them in far greater numbers than the buildings of the Smithsonian on any day of the week.

Mr. Yates. Well, that is where they have gone yesterday, and they will be going to again.

Mr. Adams. I think that we take very seriously both halves of our charter. The first half involves the increase of knowledge. I think the activities the Smithsonian carries on—in a great variety of fields of research, extending from the arts and art history to some of the most fundamental of the natural sciences—are carried on at a very high order.

They involve us in increasing expenditures both because the sciences themselves are becoming more complex and because the instrumentation that the sciences require also becomes more complex. I think similarly we are prospering with regard to the exhibit programs we maintain as one of our fundamental forms of the diffusion of knowledge.

Those programs are going to reach, I think, a new form of intensity in the course of coming months with the arrival of the series of

India exhibits. The first, of course, has already opened at the National Gallery of Art, but the main Smithsonian exhibitions connected with this very complex program are still to come. I think our budgetary growth is related to the recognition by the Congress that the Smithsonian has been doing a good job, and to the support by the Congress for a series of new facilities which has then involved us in expanded requirements for utilities and guards for the programs that will go on in those buildings.

As we will hope to show in the course of these hearings, a good many of the apparently increased expenses of the Smithsonian are the outgrowth of that form of increase in the programs that Congress itself has mandated. I think I should probably limit my statement at this point, Mr. Chairman. I think we will have ample opportunity to deal with the details in the area your questions lead us.

BUDGET GROWTH

Mr. Yates. Okay, let's see where my questions lead us. The committee print shows that the appropriation for the Smithsonian 10 years ago, fiscal year 1976 was $79,408,000. The request for this year is $179,790,000. In 10 years the requested budget has gone up by $100 million. In addition to that, you have got a construction program—excuse me, before we get to that, the operating expenses show that—your chart in your justification five-year prospectus, dated January 28, at page 2 shows that for fiscal year 1984 your proposed Federal salaries and expenses was $156.5 million, and that in the next four years, or through fiscal year 1990, it is proposed that your operating expenses will go up to $257,984,000. That is a jump of another $100 million.

Hi, Norman. We are glad to see you. I should say we are honored this morning by having one of the distinguished Smithsonian regents for the hearing, the Honorable Norman Mineta, Member of Congress from California. Glad to see you, Norman.

Mr. Mineta. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Yates. That is a big increase. It doesn't even relate to the construction program. The construction program itself is one of awesome prospect, too. The construction program, as I remember it, in addition to the Quadrangle, which I think is scheduled to cost about $75 million.

Mr. Hughes. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. You want to—oh, we are delighted to have another Regent of the Smithsonian today, Mr. Boland of Massachusetts.

Mr. Boland. The quiet one.

Mr. Yates. Quietly, yes.

It shows you propose to spend something like $59 million. That is each of the years, $4 million in 1986 in addition to the $15,981,000 in 1987; $39,388,000, $18,300,000 in 1989 and $59,800,000 in 1990. I don't see in this list either the $31 million that is in addition proposed to be spent at least prospectively for the Arts and Industries rehabilitation.

Can you comment on this, Mr. Adams? Is this what the prospect looks like?

48-292 0-85 17

Mr. Adams. Well, the prospect is subject to the will of Congress. So I don't want to say at this moment what the prospect really is. I think we are indeed facing construction requirements of awesome proportions. But I think there are questions as to priority which we will as yet need to resolve. Part of the problem is that we have studies on going right at the moment with regard to the Arts and Industries Building, for example, so that it is simply not possible to say what the requirements there really will be or where they properly belong in our scheme of priorities.

My personal impression is that they have to be given a high place in that scheme and we may need to make adjustments in other parts of that list in order to accommodate them. But that is something that is still under discussion and with the basic architectural and feasibility studies still very much underway.

WOODROW WILSON CENTER RELOCATION

Furthermore, the question of the Arts and Industries Building is one that is likely to involve a joint interest with the Woodrow Wilson Center. I should say that I have just met this morning with Mr. James Billington, the Director of the Woodrow Wilson Center, who indicates that an informal poll of his trustees is supportive of the idea of the Woodrow Wilson Center moving its primary and indeed its entire organization into that building so that, while details of this are still completely unclear, the number that you worry about is at least a number that would be divided in some fashion between the requirements of the Smithsonian Institution and the Woodrow Wilson Center.

I would say that the kind of problem that confronts us as we look at this question of priorities is one that cannot be resolved within the Smithsonian Institution alone. You have the responsibility for the Woodrow Wilson Center as well as the Smithsonian. And we are concerned that the Woodrow Wilson Center's needs be met. To some extent we need to harmonize their priorities and needs with our own.

Mr. Yates. Yes.

Mr. Adams. And to build that into an overall scheme of priorities. That has not yet been done. I think you are asking a much broader question, however, that extends into the growth of the Smithsonian budget, not really the past 10 years, but prospectively over the years to come. On the details of that question, I think I should ask Mr. John Jameson perhaps to comment.

Mr. Yates. Mr. Jameson?

five year prospectus

Mr. Jameson. The prospectus that you are looking at, Mr. Chairman, is the result of a process that began within the Institution approximately a year ago now, one that very much involved the heads of the bureaus and offices, many of whom are in this room. And it reflects, I think, quite accurately a general statement of aspirations for the Institution and for its constituent bureaus and offices. It does not reflect, certainly in the operating budget now before you, any new ventures, things that you have not seen before as chairman of this committee.

It very much reflects the activities that we have described to you before. The care and maintenance of a growing physical plant, support for research in the Institution, support for the exhibition program, collections management, some support for the Bicentennial of the Constitution, perhaps for the strengthening of the Native American Program and for making the new facilities, such as the Museum Support Center and Quadrangle fully operational. It certainly is a large number, but I would say that it is a growth figure that represents the requirements of the 60 line items tnat are reflected in the budget before you.

Mr. Yates. We talked about another hundred million for new buildings. Repair projects during the same period would be another $133 million. So we are almost up to—where are we? We are up to a budget of—what is your total budget for 1990?

Mr. Jameson. This would be the almost $289 million figure.

Mr. Yates. That is salaries and expenses alone.

Mr. Jameson. Plus the sums of the nonappropriated trust fund figures you see in the columns below. These are stated on a gross basis, something on the order of $170 million projected for unrestricted funds and, of course, relatively small amounts for unrestricted special purpose, restricted funds and grants and contracts, but all adding up to $491.3 million in the operating budget.

Mr. Yates. That is quite a jump.

Mr. Jameson. Yes, sir.

COOPER-HEWITT AND DULLES CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Yates. Well, shall you move forward with these or should we stop and digest a little bit along the way? Is it in the character of the Smithsonian to stop and think a little bit, and not to provide the funds, for example, for the General Post Office renovations, or is my memory right? Wasn't the Cooper-Hewitt extension supposed to be paid for by private donation?

Mr. Jameson. The legislative proposal introduced by the Board of Regents quite recently is estimated for construction at $23 million, half of which would be raised by the Cooper-Hewitt museum with help from the Secretary and staff, and the balance is proposed in the construction projection that you are looking at for appropriated monies.

Mr. Yates. Yes. And Dulles, of course, is to be a facility that houses part of the overflow from Air and Space, isn't it?

Mr. Jameson. Yes, sir. Among other things, but it would provide a replacement for our storage and restoration facility which is now in Suitland and would also have facilities for exhibitions for public use and for scholarly use of the new structure.

GENERAL POST OFFICE BUILDING

Mr. Adams. Mr. Chairman, I have a serious problem in working out what we can do with regard to stopping and reflecting, as you put it. It seems to me the times do indeed make that a very attractive general stance. The point is that some of these buildings are already on the Smithsonian plate, so to speak. That is the case with the old Post Office, for example.

I understand that GSA has just sought bids on another building into which the International Trade Commission, ITC, might move. The Smithsonian sees itself with the prospect of a very old building in very bad repair as quickly as that. In that sense we are not fully in control. The pacing is not something we can fully control. There are external factors at work here.

Mr. Regula. Will the chairman yield?

Mr. Yates. Sure. Mr. Regula?

Mr. Regula. Isn't there a potential for other tenants? Why does it necessarily have to be filled by the Smithsonian?

Mr. Adams. We may indeed have to look at that.

Mr. Regula. Have you examined that?

Mr. Adams. At this moment the building has had tenants. The announcement they might vacate on a definite date, to my knowledge, just appeared.

Mr. Regula. But you would contemplate that as an alternative.

Mr. Adams. We may have to contemplate a variety of alternatives.

Mr. Hughes. I think there are various alternatives, Mr. Regula. The legislation does place the building in the custody of the Smithsonian. I think there are a range of questions as to what we do then, whether it be 1986 or later, depending on the luck GSA has in relocating the Commission.

One possibility is another tenant. Another is occupancy with less than desirable renovation. Conceivably the building could be used as staging space—I guess that is as good a term as any—for some of the other moves that will be necessary, for example, in the A&I building. If that building is renovated, we will have to put people somewhere.

Conceivably that could happen with the general post office building.

Mr. Regula. Is your lease with GSA?

Mr. Adams. We don't have a lease.

Mr. Regula. Whatever arrangement you have.

Mr. Adams. This would be a transfer of title to the Smithsonian.

Mr. Yates. Has it already taken place?

Mr. Adams. It has been approved by the Congress. I don't think it takes place until the ITC moves out.

Mr. Jameson. That's correct.

Mr. Yates. Had you finished?

Mr. Regula. Yes.

Mr. Yates. Well, it is a quantum jump forward. But I guess the Secretary is used to quantum jumps or will be at any rate.

Mr. Adams. It is a relatively new problem in my life, sir.

ADEQUACY OF ESTIMATES

Mr. Yates. How firm are your estimates, Mr. Jameson, on what these buidings will cost?

Mr. Jameson. I think they are quite good in the immediate prospective out years, 1986, 1987. They become more speculative, I think, when we get out closer to the end of the five-year period. One of the problems is that until we have in hand some planning

money, it is difficult to get the kind of specific plans and estimates on the drawing boards, so to speak, to come up with firm estimates.

We have been over these figures quite carefully and believe they reflect accurate estimates of the costs of producing these facilities.

Mr. Regula. Will the chairman yield?

Mr. Yates. Sure, Mr. Regula.

Mr. Regula. Do the estimates—do you have anywhere an estimate of what additional operating expenses would be triggered by construction and/or acquisition of the buildings outlined in this package?

Mr. Jameson. We have with us today and can speak to estimates on the Quadrangle and on the STRI and Whipple facilities and on the old Post Office building. We have not yet done estimates on projects in the outer out years.

Mr. Regula. Construction is only the beginning.

Mr. Jameson. Yes, sir. Each of the new facilities to a greater or lesser degree would require additional staff to maintain, protect, keep in good order and also funds to pay utility costs.

Mr. Adams. That, in fact, Mr. Regula, is one of the problems we face with buildings that are already coming on line or would be soon.

Mr. Yates. Do you know yet what you will use the General Post Office for?

Mr. Adams. There is a preliminary arrangement that has been reached that doesn't involve a detailed division of the internsd space, but that does involve joint use of the structure by components of the National Museum of American Art, of the National Portrait Gallery and also of the Archives of American Art, which will move there more or less intact.

Mr. Yates. Is Cooper-Hewitt's planning already finished? Do they know what they want to do?

Mr. Adams. I believe the planning is in relatively final state. Mr. Jameson, are you familiar with that?

Mr. Jameson. Requirements have very well spelled out the concept study for the use of the Carnegie Mansion and the Miller House and the new construction around those two facilities. We are not yet in the hard design phase of that construction.

Mr. Yates. How firm is the proposed figure?

Mr. Jameson. It is a good figure.

Mr. Yates. Is it?

Mr. Jameson. Yes, sir.

nasm restaurant

Mr. Yates. All right. Let's talk about your restaurant for a minute. You are having some problems with the so-called glass bubble, are you not?

Mr. Hughes. I can talk to that, Mr. Chairman, if I might.

Mr. Yates. You might.

Mr. Hughes. I don't think we are having any problems.

Mr. Yates. Well, Mr. Califano called yesterday and he said you have got a problem.

Mr. Hughes. Perhaps we have, if he says so. In any event, I think you are familiar with the general history. We have felt for

some time, that we needed to upgrade the visitor eating facility in the National Air and Space Museum. Over a period of time, we developed some plans with professional help from the original architects of the Space Museum. We also developed the concept of attempting to find a contractor who would be willing to put up the capital for the restaurant improvement.

The plans involved the moving of the restaurant from the third floor down to the plaza at the east end of the building.

Mr. Yates. What happened to Mr. Ripley's gourmet restaurant on the third floor?

Mr. Hughes. The gourmet restaurant was to be, if at all, a second or third stage in the process. Nothing could be done about it until something was done with the visitor facility on the third floor. The gourmet restaurant, so-called, would have occupied that space when it was vacated. The plan involved the move of that restaurant on the third floor which is grossly inadequate for the volume of visitors the Air and Space Museum receives, moving that down to the first floor, enlarging it by several times and placing it on the plaza at the east end which is currently simply a concrete slab.

We went through the necessary approval processes with the National Capital Planning Commission, Fine Arts Commission and others, and as I say, developed the concept that we would seek to have a financing handled by the potential contractor. We put out a request for proposal on this basis and received response from a number of large firms, several of whom had the necessary capital to build that restaurant and to contemplate improvements at American History and Natural History as well.

Among those firms, after rather careful review, we selected Mar-riott-Leroy to negotiate a contract arrangement with. That was last May, about a year ago, as I recall it, and provided that we would explore with them and to negotiate with them the kind of financing arrangments which might be possible, and the other important features of a contract. Those negotiations proceeded rather slowly, I think it is fair to say, and last fall in an effort to bring about a speed up and decision with respect to the contract, we sent to them a proposal by us as to the t3T)e of contract that we would be willing to agree with and asked them to respond with their final offer if our proposal was not satisfactory.

They did respond after quite a period. We had some further discussions and since have advised them—that was around the first of this year, as I recall it, that we found their final offer unsatisfactory, and that terminated the negotiations. Mr. Califano, I am sure, can express the Marriott-Leroy's position more fully than I can. Their position, I believe, is in part that we did enter a contract with them last May which we don't believe to be the case.

We think our case is sound. His position also is that whether or not that was the case, there was insufficient communication during negotiations which makes it necessary for him to do various things to encourage us to return to the negotiating table with Marriott-Leroy. Our position is, as I have said, is that those negotiations were not successful and have been terminated. I think that is essentially the present state of affairs, but we have been receiving a good deal of correspondence from Mr. Califano and others.

LIABILITY OF THE SMITHSONIAN

Mr, Yates. Well, Mr. Califano thinks he has got a case and I don't know what it means to have a case. Let me ask Judge Powers a question.

Judge, can the Smithsonian be liable in a case of this type? Can Mr. Califano's client sue the Smithsonian and if the court finds he has a contract, can he recover?

Mr. Powers. It is conceivable. Anyone can sue, of course.

Mr. Yates. Is the government of the United States liable at all?

Mr. Powers. I think in this case the government would not be. It is our feeling, my very strong feeling that Mr. Califano's legal position is absolutely without merit, not to put it too strongly. [Laughter.]

So I think it is a very minor risk that we would have litigation at all, and I think we would be able to deal with it easily.

Mr. Yates. Who is liable in an appropriate case? Are the Regents liable?

Mr. Powers. No, not normally.

Mr. Yates. Not normally. What do you mean? Are there abnormal cases where the Regents are likely to be liable?

Mr. Powers. In all cases where the Regents are acting in their official capacity, they would not be liable.

Mr. BoLAND. Not personally, of course. [Laughter.]

Mr. Yates. To whom would the liability go, to the Smithsonisin Institution as such?

Mr. Powers. In this case what I think Mr. Califano and friend would try and achieve is not a liability, but compulsion to further negotiations leading to a contract.

Mr. Yates. I think he wants to do that. I told him I thought he ought to talk to Mr. Hughes and talk to Mr. Adams instead of talking to me about the matter.

Mr. Hughes. We would agree with that.

Mr. Yates. I will, too. That is where it was left. But one of the questions I asked last year when we had our discussion about development of the Mall was what is the potential liability here and it was represented at the hearing that there wasn't a potential liability at all. The concessionaire was going to put the money up. If the concessionaire didn't do a good job, you were going to be able to get rid of the concessionaire and get a new concessionaire.

Mr. Hughes. If I could interrupt, Mr. Chairman, those were precisely the points at issue in the negotiations with Marriott-Leroy, the terms of the contract. Whatever the type of the relationship with Marriott-Leroy there would not be a Federal Government liability, we so testified, I think, at that hearing you referred to and would do it again.

It is not a Federal liability as I see it, and could not in any circumstance be such.

Mr. Yates. Be a Federal

Mr. Hughes. It could not be.

Mr. Yates. Nor a Smithsonian?

Mr. Hughes. Whatever liability there is, is a Smithsonian liability. There would be some liability as we see it under the terms of

the Marriott-Leroy contract, particularly as they had put it forward in what we presumed to be their final offer.

Mr. Yates. Have you offered anything this settlement or has there been anything offered in settlement?

Mr. Hughes. There has been no request for settlement. There has been no request for damages or anything of the sort.

Mr. Yates. You didn't offer a million dollars.

Mr. Hughes. No, sir, the Secretary wrote to Mr. Marriott and said if they have incurred expenses that should appropriately be reimbursed, we would be pleased to consider those. That was done months £igo. We have heard nothing.

Mr. MuRTHA. Question, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Yates. Just one minute, John.

Have judgments ever been recovered against the Smithsonian?

Mr. Powers. Ever?

Mr. Yates. Ever.

Mr. Powers. You receive, I think, the Regents' minutes. At any one time there are 14 or 15 cases of one kind or another, tort claims and that sort of thing.

Mr. Yates. Against the Institution itself.

Mr. Powers. Yes.

Mr. Yates. So the Institution is a sueable body?

Mr. Powers. That's right.

Mr. Yates. Have judgments been entered in any of the cases?

Mr. Powers. Occasionally, yes. They are paid formally by the Justice Department out of the judgment fund.

Mr. Yates. Out of the judgment fund?

Mr. Powers. Right.

Mr. Yates. As an indebtedness of the United States?

Are you saying a judgment against the Smithsonian Institution is a liability of the Federal Government?

Mr. Powers. Not automatically, but in most cases, particularly in tort claims where we are under the Tort Claims Act, they are. It is a complicated question because it depends on a lot of things. Sometimes we have insurance that covers the claim that is raised, and so on. But in the tort claims area and obviously the Federal contract area, those are cognizable and are defended by the Justice Department and paid from the judgment fund.

Mr. Yates. Why are they defended by Justice instead of by you, or by the lawyers for the Smithsonian?

Mr. Powers. Well, we cooperate, but it is fortunate that we have the assistance of Justice Department.

Mr. Yates. That is something else again. But you are—are you a government agency in this respect? You say so emphatically from time to time that you are not a Federal agency.

Mr. Powers. You recall, Mr. Chairman

Mr. Yates. I recall a lot of things. [Laughter.]

Mr. Powers. The Smithsonian is a trust instrumentality of the United States. In other words, the trustee that Mr. Smithson left his money to, is an entity known as the United States. The Congress accepted the trust. It is on that basis as much as any other thing that the Justice Department feels that the United States has an interest when the Smithsonian is sued. They have broad jurisdiction.

Mr. Yates. So you are a Federal agency.

Mr. Powers. Agency is the term I don't think is terribly useful.

Mr. Yates. I didn't hear you.

Mr. Powers. I don't think that is the most useful term under all the circumstances. [Laughter.]

Mr. Yates. Well, what judgments—in other words when a judgment is rendered against the Smithsonian it is accepted as a claim and judgment against the United States.

Mr. Powers. In most cases, yes.

Mr. Hughes. Tort cases?

Mr. Yates. Tort cases. What about contracts?

Mr. Powers. If it is a Federal contract which this case is not, it would be. We would probably pay this one ourselves, as Sam said, if we have a problem. It probably won't go to litigation in any event. If there are appropriate expenses which Marriott-Leroy can establish, we will negotiate them and pay them.

And it will never involve litigation. We don't sue on every question that comes up or insist the Justice Department go to litigation.

Mr. Yates. Now suppose this did go to litigation and Marriott-Leroy did get a judgment. Is that a claim against the United States?

Mr. Powers. I can't tell you at this point because I don't know the nature of the case that they would make. I think it—we would probably pay it ourselves, but I can't give you a final answer to that.

Mr. Yates. Will it be defended by the Justice Department?

Mr. Powers. Yes.

Mr. Yates. How does it differ from the other cases?

Mr. Powers. Jurisdiction of the Justice Department is extremely broad to represent and take a position in any case in which the United States has an interest. The question of whether a particular judgment is payable from the judgment funds is more complicated and is narrower.

Mr. Yates. Mr. Murtha has a question.

Mr. Murtha. What happened here? I don't understand. When you have no chance of liability, you have an outfit that could improve the restaurant system according to the testimony last year, what happened that it fell through and what are your plans for the future? I understand you had a long dialogue with the Senate. I don't want to go into great detail, but I am just interested.

Mr. Hughes. Your assumption is wrong in part, Mr. Murtha. We do have a liability, at least as we see it, under the terms of the— what we presume to be the final proposition Marriott-Leroy put forth. First we would have a liability extending throughout the period of 25 years in effect to pay them the opportunity cost if we chose to break off relations with them for other than cause, cause in a legal sense.

That liability would reach 40, 50 million dollars, as we see it. Our auditors have advised us it would be necessary to footnote that in our accounts. It would affect our credit. We see that as a liability. There is no statement in the final proposition which they made to us that we have no liability, that they would assume all liabilities. Lacking that, we do assume we would have some additional liabilities as well.

PROPOSED RESTAURANT CONTRACT

There are a good many features of the proposed contract that we have trouble with. Some of them have to do with the extent of our control over price and quality. Under the proposal they would have controlled those things. Another fascet we had problems with was the price of money, the price they were going to charge us for the capital that they would invest which we believe was well above the market even at that time.

And there were various other features. None of this is intended—should be interpreted as reflecting our desire to go into business for ourselves. We want a contractor, one or more, in the Institution to run the restaurants. We do not regard the restaurant business as one that we are expert in. But we did not regard that proposition, and Mr. Califano has suggested they might be more flexible than the contract itself indicated.

But we don't know what that flexibility might be. We simply don't regard that as one we could recommend to the Regents that they design or

Mr. MuRTHA. So my impression that you were going to go back into the business and you were in the business at one time and were losing money over there, weren't you?

Mr. Adams. That's light.

Mr. Hughes. We briefly ran the restaurant and we didn't enjoy it, to put it mildly.

Mr. MuRTHA. It is a tough business. So you are not contemplating getting back into business?

Mr. Hughes. No, sir.

Mr. MuRTHA. You are contemplating continuing a similar idea where you contract out the services

Mr. Hughes. That's correct.

Mr. Murtha [continuing.] To somebody. Are you contemplating continuing negotiations with

Mr. Hughes. We would be glad to continue with all interested parties. There would be a very fundamental change, though, Mr. Murtha. One of the difficult points about the negotiations that we have been going through with Marriott-Leroy was simply the size of the investment that they would have to make. The size of that investment, as we see it, made it very difficult for them to come to terms with our public service and Smithsonian related interests.

We would like to reconsider the financing arrangements so as to make possible a variety of alternatives. And I think the Secretary wants to utilize this opportunity for reconsideration of the whole business including the size of the restaurant that is needed.

Mr. Murtha. No question about it.

Mr. Hughes. And where we might pare costs and those kinds of things.

Mr. Murtha. I hope you will move expeditiously because you sure need a bigger facility there at the Air and Space Museum.

Mr. Hughes. We would like very much to. We are hoping events will help us along.

Mr. Yates. Well, we have three letters that came in this morning from Mr. Califano; one dated March 18, 1985—or copies of letters—addressed to Mr. Adams. One dated April 23rd, 1985, ad-

dressed to Chief Justice Burger, and one dated April 26th addressed to Senator McClure, plus statement of facts submitted to us by Marriott-Leroy Enterprises respecting what they conceive to be the factual situation.

Has the Smithsonian answered these at all?

Mr. Hughes. We are. Some of them have been answered. Others are in the process of being answered. We would be delighted to give you our views on all of them.

Mr. Yates. We would be pleased to accept those and we will put them into the files of the committee rather than the record. If any questions come up later by anybody, they will be available in the files of the committee because they are kind of voluminous and I don't think they ought to be in the record.

Now tell us about the negotiations going on with the government of Saudi Arabia respecting their contract with the Smithsonian. Is that contract at an end yet?

Mr. Adams. May I conclude the comments on the restaurant, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Yates. I'm sorry. I thought they had been. Please continue.

Mr. Adams. No, I want to make a little sharper a comment Mr. Hughes just made. With the termination of the negotiations as we saw it, at the beginning of the year, for the first time I had an opportunity to question the basic concept that was involved in the plan for the restaurant that was embodied in those negotiations. I must say I felt that the scale of the project was dubious.

A $13.7 million investment was called for in that restaurant plan. Whether we needed to have a restaurant of that scale or could properly do so at a time when in other respects we are facing serious deficits seemed to me to be a question we ought to reexamine. And with the approval of the Regents at their meeting on Monday, we are going to be looking at a range of opportunities that obviously will continue to include the glass bubble or whatever your term for it was.

But also a variety of less expensive options on that site and other less expensive options within the building itself. I don't know where that will come out, but we are going to be pursuing that during the summer. If any of those other options were going to go forward, we would need to have a new request for proposals in any case because it would not be the plan originally discussed. That is really all I have to say on that.

SAUDI GIFT

Mr. Yates. Okay. Tell us now about your negotiations with the government of Saudi Arabia on the International Center.

Mr. Adams. There was an agreement made between the then Secretary of the Smithsonian and the government of Saudi Arabia that covered the gift that was to be made by the Saudi government in the amount of $5 million, payble in installments upon completion of portions of the Quadrangle itself.

There were a number of provisions of that agreement. Part of them covered appropriate recognition of the gift itself in the publications

Mr. Yates. Is there any reason why that contract shouldn't be made a part of the record?

Mr. Adams. If you ask for it, sir, I see no reason it shouldn't be.

Mr. Yates. Okay, to show—rather than having your explanation, I think the contract itself speaks better than anjrthing else.

Mr. Adams. All right.

Mr. Yates. It may go into the record at this point.

[The contract follows:]

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA

AND THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

December I6, 1983 Washington, D. C.

AGREEMENT

This Agreement is entered into between the KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA; represented by His Royal Highness Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdulaziz, its Ambassador to the United States of America, and the SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, a corporate body chartered by the Congress of the United States and situated in Washington, D. C, represented by its Secretary, Dr. S. Dillon Ripley.

WHEREAS the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is prepared to make a grant of Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00) to the Smithsonian Institution for construction and development of the International Center planned as eui integral part of the Quadrangle Project of the Institution, and such grant is being provided in furtherance of better understanding and mutual relations between the people of the United States and those of Saudi Arabia Jind the Arab and Islamic world; and

WHEREAS the Smithsonian Institution is desirous of receiving that donation,

NOW THEflEFORE it is mutually agreed and understood between the two parties as follows:

1. Upon receiving the indicated grant and construction of the International Center, the Institution will permanently attach and maintain a plaque indicating that the Center has been made possible by a grant from the Kindgom of Saudi Arabia.

2. Diverse materials indicating varied Islamic facets from various periods of Islamic history, including the present, will receive important attention within the Institution's general conceptualization in the Eastern Gallery, which will be named the Asian and African 'Gdllery and will be devoted to the arts and cultures of those parts of the world.

3. PamphletsJ publications^ letters of announceaent and all siailar materials distributed or made available by the Institution in connection with the inaugtiration of the International Center, or telling about it in the future, will include appropriate acknowledgment of Saudi Arabia's contribution in helping to make the Center possible. Any scholarships or materials distributed to educational institutions or others and financed by funds provided by Saudi Arabia shall clearly acknowledge the source of the funding to the recipient and those receiving any such materials.

4. For working purposes, the grant which the Kingdom is planning to make to the Institution will be made available in five equal installments, with an initial payment of 20? to be made at the time of groundbreaking and the subsequent four installments to be paid upon completion of each increment of 20^ of the work as certified by the consulting architect supervising the project.

5. In recognition of this contribution, the Smithsonian Institution will develop a Center for Islamic Arts and Culture, to be integral to the programs of the Quadrangle Project and located in the East Pavilion. The Institution intends to raise the necessary funds to provide frequent exhibitions, lectures, seminars and related activities in connection with this Center, offer fellowships concerned with Islamic historj', art and culture, and develop an endowment on behalf of these very important functions.

6. In order to assure historical and content accuracy, cind so that there is Islamic as well as non-Islamic input on materials, exhibits and other presentations concerning the Arab and Islamic world, an informal consultative coamittee will be constituted by the Smithsonian Institution for consultations in the preparation of such materials, exhibits and projects, with representation from qualified specialists in Saudi Arabia and the Islamic world as well as Smithsonian personnel; and that group will consider possible specific materials to be prepared for possible display or other presentation.

Thus, as only one example, presentation of the Islaadc eras and the historical terms by which they will be identified so as to assure the accuracy and dignity of exhibits on the history of Islam.

This document is executed this Sixteenth day of December I983, in fc'ashington, D. C.

FOR THE KINGDOM OF SAyPl ARABIA

Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdulariz Ambassador to the United States of America

FOR THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

;. nillon Rinlev I

S. Dillon Ripley Secretary

y

PROVISIONS OF THE GIFT

Mr. Adams. There were two provisions of that agreement that seem to me to be unacceptable as a basis for planning for the International Center. I didn't become aware of this until last September. One of those covered the formation of an Islamic center within the International Center in the Quadrangle. My problems there were not that one might not have a whole series of such centers, but that the scale of the project was not going to be such as to permit a whole series of such centers. And to have an Islamic center only seemed to me to represent a questionable choice. Let's put it that way.

Secondly, there was the proposal that the Museum of African Art be renamed the Museum of Near Eastern and African Art. And it was my view then and I think is the view of all those familiar with the situation that the name Museum of African Art was in fact set forward in legislation and that could not be changed by a contract.

Though there was some difficulty in setting up meetings, I communicated those concerns to the Saudi government beginning in November and have done so on several occasions since. Most recently I wrote to the Saudi Ambassador several weeks ago indicating that we did need to renegotiate the terms of that agreement. The Saudis have contacted us through the person of an attorney. And we expect to begin discussions with that attorney very soon as to what sort of renegotiation of the agreement, if any, is possible. We are not prepared to put those two components of the original agreement into effect. That is all I can tell you at the moment, I think.

Mr. Yates. You had written a letter to them, a copy of which I think you sent to me.

Mr. Adams. Yes.

Mr. Yates. I can't make out the date. Can you tell us what that is likely to be?

Mr. Adams. The date is April 2, 1985.

Mr. Yates. All right, did you receive a reply to this letter?

Mr. Adams. We received a reply only in the form of a telephone call from an attorney.

Mr. Yates. As I understand it, what you have told me you indicated that the Smithsonian would not accept that contract.

Mr. Adams. We have indeed indicated that. We could not put those provisions into effect.

Mr. Yates. So that there is a possibility that your $5 million gift may be in jeopardy?

Mr. Adams. It is a possibility that the $5 million gift may be in jeopardy.

Mr. Yates. Yes.

Mr. Adams. I should say that $1 million of that amount has been in fact turned over to the Smithsonian.

Mr. Yates. So you would be required to return that, then, if you couldn't come to an agreement.

Mr. Adams. That is certainly a possibility.

Mr. Yates. Right. I know, I think, in the magazine of the American University the Saudis had just given a million dollars to estab-

lish a chair there as it has done in various places throughout the country. I wondered, this has been pending for a long time now, almost a year.

Mr. Adams. My impression is that the original agreement was signed in December of 1983. I may be wrong.

Mr. Yates. December of 1983?

Mr. Adams. Yes.

REGENTS APPROVAL

Mr. Yates. Was that ever approved? My impression is that that agreement was never approved by the Regents. I asked that question when we discussed it the first time, and I asked Mr. Humel-sine that question when I discussed it with him. And his impression w£is it had not been.

Mr. Hughes. The Regents never reviewed the specific agreement.

Mr. Yates. Is it necessary for the Regents to execute an agreement of this kind or does the Secretary have the discretion to approve it?

Mr. Powers, do you know the answer to that question? Do you want to think about it for 10 minutes?

Mr. Powers. I don't think there is a single answer. It is up to the Regents the degree of discretion they wish to give the Secretary.

Mr. Yates. Yes, I know that. Here is a gift that requires certain actions by the Smithsonian Institution which are not normal actions by the Institution. Wouldn't deviations from the norm require consideration and approval by the Regents?

Mr. Powers. Normally, yes.

Mr. Yates. So that the contract if signed by the then Secretary, Mr. Ripley, may not indeed be a document—a binding contract because it was never approved by the Regents.

Mr. Powers. Well, it might be binding even if it wasn't approved.

Mr. Yates. That was my question.

Mr. Powers. I didn't understand that. It might well be binding, yes.

Mr. Yates. Do you prefer that phraseology to my using the phrase, "a valid contract"?

Mr. Powers. The first question was whether the Regents should have approved it or should have considered it, right.

Mr. Yates. I said is it a binding contract unless the Regents approve it?

Mr. Powers. There is a document in law called "apparent authority". The chief executive of the Institution has a great deal of it and his agreements may be binding even if the Regents don't approve of them.

Mr. Yates. That was my question. Is it possible in this case?

Mr. Powers. It is possible.

Mr. Yates. Is the Smithsonian subject to recovery of damages?

Mr. Powers. Well, in this case the contract is what you would call executory. That is to say only a portion of the funds have been supplied.

As the Secretary said, if the negotiations do not succeed, it may be necessary to return the initial million.

Mr. Yates. Okay.

Mr. Adams. Mr. Yates, I perhaps should say that there are quite a variety of agreements, some more formal than others, some, largely routine in content, I would say, that the Secretary is called upon to sign with institutions and governments on a variety of occasions. This one is out at the far end of the continuum, and I would certainly not question Mr. Powers' judgment that this should have come to the Regents.

But it has to be seen in the context of a whole series of such agreements that indeed are underway at any one time and would submerge the Regents in a volume of paper.

Mr. Yates. This is true except as you pointed out previously, this agreement requires, and I quote from the agreement. This agreement requires "Diverse materials indicating varied Islamic facets from various periods of Islamic history, including the present, will receive important attention within the Institution's general conceptualization in the Eastern Gallery, which will be named the Asian and African Gallery and will be devoted to the arts and cultures of those parts of the world."

Now that provision in itself requires major changes. One, it requires a major change in the—what the understanding was for the Sackler gift, as I understand it, does it not?

Mr. Jameson, No.

Mr. Adams. I don't think so.

Mr. Hughes. The only change required, I think, Mr. Chairman, has to do with the name applied to the eastern pavilion and to the

Mr. Yates. Which is now the Gallery of African Art.

Mr. Adams. That's right.

Mr. Hughes. Per the statute which established it.

Mr. Yates. Right. It would, yes, would require a change in the name. Well, the Sackler Gallery, the Freer and Sackler Gallery would be devoted to Asian art.

Mr. Hughes. Largely. Of course, Mr. Whistler is also

Mr. Yates. That is the point. How can you have a gallery for Asian art which is the Sackler Gallery and Freer Gallery in another part of the Smithsonian?

Mr. Hughes. That is one of the reasons for changing the nsmie.

Mr. Yates. What do you do with the Asian artifacts, leave them in a gallery that isn't the Asian gallery?

Mr. Hughes. It seems to me some Asian artifacts might well be in the Museum of African Art. There is an area of the East in North Africa which is essentially Islamic.

Mr. Yates. They are now in the Freer Gallery.

Mr. Hughes. Some of them are. Not all of them.

Mr. Yates. Where are the others?

Mr. Hughes. Others are yet to be acquired for the gallery of African Art.

Mr. Yates. Okay. But at any rate there are significant differences here that require change, are there not?

Mr. Hughes. Yes.

Mr. Yates. You have no way of knowing when this will be resolved.

Mr. Adams. No. We do have a scheduled date, I believe, for this first meeting with their attorney.

Mr. Yates. Their lawyer? Mr. Adams. Yes.

INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS

Mr. Yates. Okay. Tell us what you propose for the International Center next.

Mr. Adams. Here is one case where I did anticipate that you might ask such questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Yates. It is understandable. I have been asking you that for months.

Mr. Adams. We are with—with your permission, I would like to read a very brief statement for the record.

Mr. Yates. You may indeed.

Mr. Adams. Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer a very few general observations on our general concerns with regard to the Smithsonian international programs. I speak in particular of the research component which already accounts for a substantial majority of them, but I should also point out that the distinction between research, exhibits, outreach and other forms of scientific and cultural interchange is not easy to draw.

Increasingly we are finding that activities initiated in one of these areas may be reciprocated in another, and that our relations with institutions with other countries are most fruitful when they are going on simultaneously in several areas. There are four important challenges that we face, with increasing frequency, and with increasing urgency. First a shift toward greater interdisciplinary complexity in the projects we wish to undertake or participate in. This is largely a consequence of advances in sciences itself both here and abroad. Secondly, there are increasingly complicated and severe problems of research access for American scholars and scientists particularly in the social sciences and humanities, but also in the natural sciences. In collaboration with the Social Science Research Council, the Smithsonian plans to hold a National Conference devoted to this topic in the near future. Third, as funding problems have multiplied, it becomes necessary to make priority decisions across very broad ranges of seemingly noncompetitive activities and to carry on more intensive fundraising with long lead times. Fourthly, there is a class of world problems of increasing salience for which the Smithsonian seems to be a highly appropriate international organizing and coordinating mechanism. This includes, for example, tropical deforestation, an area which there is a lot of Smithsonian work already underway, desertification particularly as it applies to the Sahel region of Africa, to global climatic and CO2 trends and so forth. All of the above considerations point toward a more substantial international center at the Smithsonian itself devoted to bring these diverse activities into some coherent mutually supportive arrangement that corresponds with our available funding potential.

WOODROW WILSON CENTER

I might add that this perspective differs from that of the Wood-row Wilson Center. Although there is no doubt that the Woodrow Wilson Center and the Smithsonian can draw strength from one

another's programs, can usefully collaborate on some programs, and need to remain closely in touch in their general planning.

The Woodrow Wilson Center, with a relatively small core staff, primarily devotes its energies to selecting and bringing to Washington very distinguished groups of U.S. and foreign fellows. The Smithsonian with literally hundreds of its own staff periodically working abroad needs to take a more project oriented approach that is integrally related to our own institutional priorities and needs.

Almost all of the Woodrow Wilson Center's fellows are drawn from the social sciences and humanities, while the majority of foreign collaborators involved with the Smithsonian are drawn from the natural sciences. But in spite of these operating differences, I want to emphasize that the two programs are potentially very supportive of one another. With some urging from you which I gratefully acknowledge, both the Woodrow Wilson Center and Smithsonian are working hard at present to make the sjnnbiosis more extensive and more effective.

I might say that we have prepared a brochure—I believe it has been submitted to the committee already, which provides a profile of the international activities of the Smithsonian.

Mr. Yates. May I see it?

Mr. Adams. Describes activities in—I believe the total in 116 countries.

Mr. Yates. We don't have it. Do you have an extra copy of it?

Mr. Adams. Certainly, we do.

Mr. Yates. Okay.

Mr. Adams. I think that outlines my very general views.

INTERNATIONAL CENTER

Mr. Yates. Why is this preferable to continuing the Smithsonian's international activities through your various museums and bureaus as you have carried them on over the years?

Mr. Adams. Let me illustrate with the opportunities that I think are foregone by our present arrangements. We wish to carry on, let's say, some sort of a biological survey in a foreign country that runs into obstacles of one kind or another. The project is at that point initiated by an investigator who has nowhere to turn.

The point at which you might attain leverage on that situation is if you then were able to say, can't we come up with something that they want from us that can be put together with that? Can't we improve our relations with that country through the exchange of scholars in a quite different field than the one where that individual wants to work or through somehow letting the people involved in holding up his or her permit be aware we are beginning to train people in conservation science they can use in their own museums by bringing together the components of what we are doing which is, as you can see, there is really very extensive—we think we can do far better with the funds we have and with the staff we have; that we can make this simply work better.

The other point that I touched on briefly in my statement is that there are many problems that are truly general that I think are best addressed where you have a sense of their generality. Take the

question of the destruction of tropical rain forests. And I use it simply as an illustration, but I think it is a good one. This is a worldwide process, Dillon Ripley having recently returned from India was appalled to find how rapidly it was proceeding there where there hadn't been any published reference to it.

We know it in detail, of course, from our own work in Panama where we have our Tropical Research Institute. The estimates are that something like half of the world's tropical rain forests will disappear in the course of this century. And the consequences

Mr. Yates. Do you mean in the next 15 years?

Mr. Adams. That's right.

Mr. Yates. Why? What is happening?

Mr. Adams. Well, we are talking about a variety of processes that are at work, that include everything from the erosion around the margins of these forests as through population pressure people try to find subsistence plots and to meet their own subsistence needs that way.

We are talking about the accelerating extracts of tropical hardwoods for the world markets. We are talking about the development of immense areas for cattle ranching in order to feed the world's meat market.

These processes are all interacting with one another but the fact is that they have potentially immense ecological effects that have not been well studied. They have obvious effects upon tropical ecosystems which are primarily a scientific concern in the Museum of Natural History. Somehow there needs to be a worldwide concern with the impacts of this problem.

I am not saying we are in a position to persuade or cajole other countries into following any particular policy, but the consequences of what is underway do need to be studied to receive worldwide attention.

Mr. Yates. Why is that easier through your International Center than through the arrangement you now have?

Mr. Adams. Well, the arrangements we now have, Mr. Chairman, really don't permit any coordination at all of those activities which go on, carried on by individual investigators wherever they are working. If there is to be a series of, I mean if one were to plan a major undertaking in that area, you would want to build into it conferences at appropriate times, workshops drawing in people from key areas where you could compare the rates at which these changes are taking place. You would want to draw in people who were working on insects and those who are working on botany.

There are many questions which would be far more impressively dealt with if you were thinking them through as grand questions. It seems to me that is an opportunity for something to go forward at the international level which is concerned with the Smithsonian's international impacts rather than with each individual project or each individual exhibit as a separate entity.

Mr. Yates. What is the difference in appropriations likely to be? What is the difference in cost likely to be between the activities, international activities that now take place in your museums and will take place in your international center?

Mr. Adams. Well, the

Mr. Yates. Have you got a comparative cost of something?

Mr. Adams. We do have estimates. I will ask Mr. Jameson to give them. But the point I want to make is it really is a very modest item indeed.

Mr. Yates. Is it?

Mr. Adams. In terms of what I see as being the sort of intelligence coordinating function.

John, could you come up with the estimate?

Mr. Jameson. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. What page of your five year plan, sir?

Mr. Jameson. Page 126. This shows projected to 1990 that the federal salaries and expenses budget for this general coordinated organizing role might be on the order of $650,000.

Mr. Yates. How many employees, John?

Mr. Jameson. This shows 11 in the federal account and prospectively 10 that might be paid from unrestricted trust funds, at the line below, Mr. Chairman.

federal/trust budget relationships

Mr. Yates. How do you decide that? How do you decide how many employees to put on the federal payroll and how many to keep on your private payroll?

Mr. Jameson. A question I am always more or less prepared for. Let me try.

Mr. Yates. I must say that I am not.

Mr. Jameson. This was a very lively topic you will recall back in 1977 and 1978.

Mr. Yates. Very lively.

Mr. Jameson. When we were not being as forthcoming as I think we ought to be on the relationship between our trust budget and our federal appropriations. Thanks in large measure to the study that Sam Hughes did for the Board of Regents we have done a variety of things including giving in the budget document we give you, a much more complete array on what the numbers are, what they buy for us and the general strategy on budgeting federal funds and trust funds. It is always easy to explain the two ends of the spectrum. There is a large body of activity which is particularly appropriate for federal appropriation support. That is the maintenance, operation, and protection of buildings and the care, maintenance and research on the collections of the Smithsonian. That is the federal end of the spectrum.

The other end of the spectrum is our auxiliary activities, the magazine, museum shops, mail order, product development, and other such activity. This activity is entirely funded out of the trust funds of the Institution. They receive no federal subsidization even to the extent that they have to pay rent to the institution, as we mention in our budget.

Mr. Yates. There is no reason to have federal subsidization because you are making money on it, aren't you?

Mr. Jameson. They are doing quite well. I think even if they weren't doing quite so well, Mr. Chairman, we would not propose federal subsidization.

Mr. Yates. What I am really asking is under what circumstance do you use your private fund toward helping the federal establishment?

Mr. Jameson. Again beginning roughly five or six years ago, as is mentoined in the introduction to the budget, the Regents recognized that our trust funded activities were doing better for the Institution and were producing some net gain. It was agreed that we should begin to fund certain activities out of the unrestricted trust funds of the Institution. We took over fully the pre- and post-doctoral fellowship program, which is now about $2 million a year. We also put a major portion of trust funds into our rent budget. The Regents also approved the collection acquisition, research and education fund, which is now funded at about six million dollars, over a five-year cycle. This supports major acquisitions for the collections of the Institution beyond the point where the federal funds provide for acquisitions.

EXPENDITURES FOR ACQUISITIONS

Mr. Yates. How much do you spend for acquisitions, John?

Mr. Jameson. About $1 million annually.

Mr. Yellin. Approximately.

Mr. Yates. We provide for acquisitions out of the federal budget too.

Mr. Jameson. As I recall, there is about a million dollars of federal money that is distributed primarily our history and art activities.

Mr. Yates. Which isn't very much in this day and age.

Mr. Jameson. No, sir. Even with the trust fund it still isn't very much.

telecommunications activities

Mr. Yates. How much do you make on your private establishment, your empire with your stores and your magazines? Do you make anjrthing on your radio program?

Mr. Jameson. No, sir. It is a good radio program, and is one of the outreach services we support with trust funds for the benefit of the national constituency of the Institution.

Mr. Yates. Do you make any money on your T.V. program?

Mr. Jameson. The arrangement with WETA is that they pay us something on the order of a quarter of a million dollars.

Mr. Hughes. Less than that as I recall. It is a payment essentially for services rendered by the museums.

Mr. Yates. How much

Mr. Hughes. Small amount.

Mr. Yates. Quarter of million?

Mr. Hughes. It's of that magnitude.

Mr. Yates. Wouldn't John know?

Mr. Jameson. It's $241,921.

museum shops income Mr. Yates. That is T.V. What do you make on your shops?

Mr. Jameson. Overall, the projection for the current year, Mr. Chairman, is that available trust fund income after the auxiliary activities meet their expeneses is approximately $33 million.

Mr. Yates. You are doing a real good job then, aren't you?

Mr. Jameson. I personally take no credit for it. We are fortunate the Institution got a good treasurer after my

Mr. Yates. Why don't you? I am giving you the opportunity. Why don't you do it?

Mr. Jameson. Well because I had my brief stint as treasurer of the Institution when we were between real treasurers. We now, fortunately, have a real treasurer. She could not be with us today.

Mr. Yates. Does she do it or do you do it?

Mr. Jameson. The auxiliary activities of the Institution are in part under the auspices of the Office of the Treasurer. These include the museum shops, mail order and product development. The Magazine reports to Ralph Rinzler, who is with us today. Those are the big producers, if you will, for the Institution.

But I take vicarious pleasure that they are doing well.

Mr. Yates. Why, you have lost money then, haven't you, really? 1984, you made almost $35 million. Here in 1986 you estimate you are only going to make $35 million.

Mr. Jameson. We are only halfway through the year. We tend to be conservative.

Mr. Yates. Cautious.

Mr. Jameson. Cautious, yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. I see.

Mr. Jameson. You will notice that subsequent years go down even a little bit more. That is because we are being even more cautious.

Mr. Yates. How much do you make on your shop?

Mr. Jameson. May I call on John Clarke, representing Ann Leven as treasurer.

Mr. Clarke. Museum shops now net approximately a million to one million two hundred thousand annually for all the museum shop activities.

Mr. Yates. Where do you make all your money then?

SMITHSONIAN MAGAZINE

Mr. Clarke. Mr. Chairman, the Magazine is the principal contributor to the unrestricted trust funds. Last year it netted approximately $12 million.

Mr. Yates. That is $13 million. Here Mr. Jameson says you are making $33 million.

Mr. Clarke. Another portion, approximately $4 million is made up from short-term investment funds. Total unrestricted funds portion of the 34 million referenced is approximately $20 million. The balance of the trust funds are made up of funds that are actually available to each of the Smithsonian bureaus in the form of more dedicated types of funds.

Mr. Yates. Do you mean gifts and so forth?

Mr. Clarke. Some unrestricted gifts to bureaus. The Air and Space Museum for instance, runs its own theater operation. That is a fairly large portion.

Mr, Yates. Then the $33 million is not really an accurate picture of your money-making activity?

Mr. Clarke. It is not the purely unrestricted portion, that is correct.

Mr. Yates. How much of your $33 million comes in the form of gifts?

Mr. Clarke. Unrestricted gifts, something less than a million dollars.

Mr. Yates. How many in the restricted gifts?

Mr. Clarke. More like five or six million dollars.

Mr. Yates. Seven million. So your money-making activities then are about $26 million.

Mr. Clarke. Actually it is a little less but, yes.

Mr. Yates. Twenty-five million. That is pretty good, isn't it?

Mr. Clarke. Again, half is attributable to the Magazine.

Mr. Yates. How much do you make on your restaurant?

Mr. Clarke. In the form of concession fees from the concession-naire slightly more than a million dollars.

Mr. Yates. Does that go into the trust?

Mr. Clarke. Yes, it does.

Mr. Yates. I see.

Mr. Clarke. We get a percentage of the gross sales.

Mr. Yates. What happens on the—there are no federal appropriations that go into the establishment of the restaurant, are there?

Mr. Clarke. No, sir.

Mr. Yates. Fair enough.

You talked about in your statement on the International Center, a directorate of biological diversity.

Mr. Adams. Yes.

Mr. Yates. What is that?

Mr. Adams. Well, that phrase has been used fairly generally within the biological sciences, I think, primarily as a reflection of the quite surprising discoveries that have been made in tropical biology in recent years as to the extreme proliferation in the numbers of species that far surpasses an5rthing that anybody had ever believed.

Species diversity is species diversity here. We have studies under way in Panama which, in an area of half a square kilometer finds more varieties of trees than occur in all of eastern North America. There are reports of comparable test areas in Malaysia with two or three times that number. Extraordinary.

Something is going on with regard to species cohabitation here which is a very surprising and important scientific discovery that is not fully understood. This is even more true with regard to some of the work being done on it.

evening hours

Mr. Yates. Let me ask you another question that I think involved an irritant to the public. That is the question of evening hours. You have an appropriation of $189 million for 1985. Yet you won't keep your museums open for evening hours. Why not? What is the cost of those extra hours, I think it is $300,000, isn't it?

Mr. Hughes. A little more than that? Between three hundred and four hundred. We are keeping the Air and Space Museum open, Mr. Chairman. We recognize the public's problem. It was in recognition of that of course that we have kept the Air and Space Museum open which takes care of about two-thirds of the visitation that we would anticipate those hours. We would hope that the rest could adjust their hours in one way or another to see the other museums at an appropriate time.

On the total money situation, it is always difficult to make the case that we cannot squeeze further somewhere else and simply keep the museums open. We have explored that rather carefully and it seemed to us that looking at the total size of the appropriation, the need to stretch out our protective services, to stretch out the cleaning services and other utility costs and so on that are associated with later hours, that the wise course of action in managerial terms was to close the museums in the hours of lesser visitation.

Mr. Yates. Why didn't you take $350,000 from your $33 million profit?

Mr. Hughes. That is also possible, and the Regents have raised the same question. It is always possible, but not always popular even with this committee to substitute trust funds for federal funds. We have tried

Mr. Yates. Have you ever found the committee objected to your using trust funds for normally federal appropriations?

Mr. Hughes. Yes. I believe the record would show but I would have to

Mr. Yates. You sure would. I would think we would say thank you very much, it is very nice of you to do this.

Mr. Hughes. I think personally that it is useful and important to maintain some rules with respect to how we use trust funds and federal funds, thereby attempt to avoid some confusion.

I just think it is important, Mr. Chairman, that the easy out of substituting trust funds for federal funds not be taken in circumstances such as this. The trust funds are an important and distinguishing feature of the Institution. They provide very important elements of flexibility. It is clear that despite the fact as you say that we are doing very well

Mr. Yates. Don't you think so?

Mr. Hughes. I do indeed. As I say, as you say, we are doing very well.

Mr. Yates. I say. I want you to say too.

Mr. Hughes. Fair enough. Even though we are doing very well, the trust funds will not last if the substitution of trust funds for federal funds becomes widespread and wholesale, so to speak.

Mr. Yates. This is true, Sam, but how does that relate to an expenditure of $350,000 for one year?

Mr. Hughes. It is something in my judgment of a camel's nose. It is encouraging to the Congress, to the 0MB, which has not always been as friendly as you have in the Congress, to substitute those trust funds for other purposes previously federal. 1 think

Mr. Yates. We wanted to help the public. We wanted to make those funds available for keeping the museums open during evening hours in the summer. We were told we couldn't do it.

Mr. Hughes. I didn't tell you you couldn't do it.

Mr. Yates. Yes, you did. You told us we didn't have time to do it, after passage of a supplemental.

Mr. Hughes. No, sir, I did not.

Mr. Yates. Who did then?

Mr. Hughes. Shall I tell you what I think I said?

Mr. Yates. Sure, tell us what you think you said.

Mr. Hughes. I had rather extensive discussion not just with you but with Regents, some of whom—and their representatives—all of whom, I guess are here present, as to whether we could indeed catch onto that supplemental, with federal funds, and receive the dough in time so we could spend it.

Our feeling was that we could not. First we don't think we could get the deficiency apportionment out of 0MB

Mr, Yates. You might get it out of the committee. Sometimes the committee acts without regard to 0MB.

Mr. Hughes. The committee I don't believe can give us an apportionment

Mr. Yates. Where is the deficiency apportionment if you use your trust funds?

Mr. Hughes. We are talking about why we didn't catch on to that supplemental.

Mr. Yates. Go ahead.

Mr. Hughes. With a deficiency already because of the across-the-board cuts and other factors in our 1985 appropriations, I did not feel that we should place ourselves in further jeopardy when we would not know the outcome of the supplemental for several months at least.

Mr. Yates. Is there no fund from which you might have asked for a reprogramming?

Mr. Hughes. We did not think so.

Mr. Yates. Did you consider that?

Mr. Hughes. Yes, we did consider reprogramming. We thought a good deal about not having the evening hours. We curtailed them in previous years. We had them last year, when we had the money. We are seeking the funds again in 1986.

Mr. Adams. There is one further consideration that certainly bore on our decision. The question of security in the museums is one that can never be entirely handled by guard forces or security devices. And in fact even if you were to try to go as far as we should in that respect, I think we would still feel we were somewhat deficient.

But it is the case in museums that security depends in considerable part on visitors. Our problem in some of those museums in the evening hours is that there would be very few visitors there. That reduces the security there. There is, we place the jeopardy—we place in jeopardy some of those collections as the visitation falls off in the late evening hours.

Mr. Yates. Then you are arguing against the evening hour opening?

Mr. Adams. No. This was the reason for our choice of Air and Space where the, as Sam

Mr. Yates. Where you get people, yes.

Mr. Adams. Yes.

Mr. Yates. So it is arguing against marshal—

Mr. Adams. Well, it is a service to the public to keep them open. One balances that service against the cost. All I am saying is that in that balancing process one additional consideration is that there are security problems as visitation falls off.

LOSSES OF ARTIFACTS

Mr. Yates. Yes. Are there any losses during the last year of any of your artifacts?

Mr. Adams. Perhaps I should call on someone else. I am conscious of only one.

Mr. Yates. Charlie Blitzer testified you had lost a silver bowl and I think Washington's sword.

Mr. Jameson. The most significant theft that I recall, Mr. Chairman, was the four small letters that were stolen from the Portrait Gallery. We recovered, with good help from the FBI, all those. May I ask Robert Burke, head of security, to answer that question in detail?

Mr. Yates. Sure. Mr. Burke. The question is, were there any of the Smithsonian artifacts that were stolen in the last year? Have you had any thefts?

Mr. Burke. Yes, we have had thefts; very few from the collection. The most significant, of course, is the one John just mentioned. Our instances have gone up about 13 percent in the last year.

Mr. Yates. Tell us what has happened, Mr. Burke?

Mr. Burke. 1984 over 1983?

Mr. Yates. Do you want to come up to the table and tell us, please?

Mr. Burke. The most significant theft as I mentioned was the theft of the writings. We had a scientific illustration we lent to the Rhode Island School of Design that was stolen there.

Mr. Yates. Stolen at the Rhode Island School?

Mr. Burke. Correct. We had something stolen at the Museum DeBario in New York.

Mr. Yates. What is something?

Mr. Burke. A prehistoric mammoth item on loan was stolen. This is the second significant theft. A gold medal on loan to the National Museum of American History was also reported stolen.

Mr. Yates. On loan from whom to whom?

Mr. Burke. On loan from the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York City.

Mr. Yates. To the Natural History Museum. That was stolen?

Mr. Burke. No, sir. To the Museum of American History.

Mr. Yates. American History.

Mr. Burke. Correct. Most of our thefts during the year as I said were of non-collection type articles. We concentrate the guard force on the collections. We have through our program of upgrading alarms begun to provide better security to the collection storage areas.

If you remember several years ago, we were experiencing losses from our collection storage areas. Through funds provided by Congress we have been able to better protect these areas by locking

and alarming them. This allows us to take the guard force we have and concentrate it on the collections in the galleries.

As the Secretarj'^ has mentioned, with the staff, with the visitors and with the guard force we have been rather successful in protecting the collections. Now the incident rate as I mentioned has gone up.

ROBBERIES

I am looking here. Our main problem has been where we have had to reduce our levels of guards. This is evidenced in robberies of personnel around the outside of the museums.

Mr. Yates. Oh, you mean of visitors?

Mr. Burke. Visitors, et cetera.

Mr. Yates. Yes.

Mr. Burke. That has caused our rate to go up somewhat during the year.

Mr. Yates. Where do these robberies occur, on the grounds?

Mr. Burke. The grounds, terrace of the museums, to people coming in, and strangely enough, in restrooms. Frequently, youngsters to a small group like this coming in today. One or two go into a restroom. One of the local hoods sees them go in there and as they are in the restroom says, give me your money. The robbery may be $5, lunch money, but it's still reported and, of course, is pretty bad.

Mr. Yates. How many of those incidents were there?

Mr. Burke. I would have to check to find out specifically, but I would say in the neighborhood of ten juvenile type instances. In most cases we turn the culprits over to the juvenile bureau when we catch them.

Mr. Yates. Do you ever catch them?

Mr. Burke. Frequently. We can almost spot them when they come in. For instance, juveniles or truants during the school day coming in to the museum. We cannot throw them out but we pass the word around and follow them around.

LOSSES OF artifacts

Mr. Yates. Why did you lose the gold medal on loan from the Metropolitan Museum?

Mr. Burke. I must say because we didn't have enough security.

Mr. Yates. Well, I think that is obvious. But why didn't you have enough security? Last year I think we gave you all the guards you wanted.

Mr. Hughes. Could Roger talk to this?

Mr. Yates. Sure, it's Mr. Kennedy's turn. Tell us what happened, Mr. Kennedy.

Mr. Kennedy. The medal presented to Cyrus Field in 1867 was lost sometime in 1984. We don't know exactly when. What we do, of course, is inventory those things that are on display, and note what is missing.

Mr. Yates. This was on display, was it not?

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct, sir.

Mr. Yates. Okay.

Mr. Kennedy. All we know is that it wasn't any longer on display after one of the periodic checks. We do not know when it went. We think it's likely that this is associated with the same losses that we reported to you last year. Probably the same person and probably at the same time, though we do not know that. This is one of the few of that set of difficulties reported to you last year where the object has not turned up again in any of the places where these things tend to turn up.

Mr. Yates. How was it being displayed, in a display case?

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, it was.

Mr. Yates. Do you not have that case wired for alarm?

Mr. Kennedy. We

Mr. Burke. We are wiring most of our exhibit case now.

Mr. Kennedy. As you remember in the discussion of last year we thought at this point we would go off the record with respect to the repairs and changes that have been made.

Mr. Yates. I don't want you to tell me about the changes that have been made. I just want, you can tell me that it's wired?

Was there some way the person had of tripping the wire?

Mr. Kennedy. There may have been such a way. There no longer is.

Mr. Yates. In other words, the alarm wasn't sounded?

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct.

Mr. Yates. Okay.

Mr. Hughes. Many of these, as you recall, Mr. Chairman, are inside thefts of one sort or another. Where the individual knows

Mr. Yates. What do you mean by many of these? How many are there?

Mr. Hughes. Roger talked about

Mr. Yates. About one.

Mr. Kennedy. In this instance we believe we know who took this and the other set described to you last year. We cannot prove that. We believe that it was probably not necessary for the person who took them to come from the outside. It looks as if it were an employee, but we cannot prove that. I am reluctant to state it as a fact.

Mr. Yates. Okay. Roger, this medal was on loan from the Metropolitan Museum?

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. What do you do, pay them for the medal or what is the relationship then? If you can't return something on loan what do you do?

Mr. Kennedy. It depends, of course, on the uniqueness and monetary value. In this instance while it is a valuable medal, it is neither unique nor, in market terms, of very significant monetary value.

It has historical significance and we are deeply sorry for the loss but between us and the lending institution there is no problem with respect to restitition.

Mr. Yates. What do you do? How much do you pay them?

Mr. Kennedy. You don't in many instances. There is a risk assumed by lending institutions, stated in the terms of lending instruments back and forth. If it were an object of high monetary

value, it would be insured or self-insured in the Smithsonian instance. There would be recovery of such a value. If it doesn't have a monetary value it would not tend to be so.

[Committee note. —Committee was later informed that insurance coverage was waived when the loan was originally made.]

Mr. Yates. Do you have insurance on various loans? When you loan objects from other museums, are they ever insured?

Mr. Kennedy. In some rare instances. My general understanding, Judge Powers, is that we self-insure.

Mr. Powers. No. In the case of loans from other museums there is a standard requirement that they be insured. We have a very successful and rather inexpensive insurance program that covers all of those objects.

Mr. Yates. Then the medal that Mr. Kennedy got from the Metropolitan Museum was covered by insurance?

Mr. Powers. I assume so. I had never heard of this particular incident before, so I don't know.

Mr. Yates. Who would know?

Mr. Kennedy. Actually the—since this case is not yet closed, we don't, we are not sure that there is a necessary collection on the part of the lending institution as yet. We are in discussion with them about it.

Mr. Yates. But you notify your insurance company?

Mr. Kennedy. 'That we do do. That discussion is proceeding as well. There is a reasonably good chance of getting this object back at this moment.

LOSSES TO SITES PROGRAM

Mr. Yates. While we are on the question of possible losses, what do you do with respect to your SITES program which have such beautiful things put out on loan. Do I ask Ms. Loar this question? You have some very valuable objects that go out from Smithsonian to whoever wants to rent them for a particular time. They pay an appropriate fee for that purpose. What happens in the course of a loan, do you ever lose anything?

Ms. Loar. Very rarely. We have over a period of years but our track record is extremely good. All of the insurance is maintained by the Smithsonian as the SITES program tours around the country. It is supported by the Institution in a general way. For special exhibitions coming in from abroad where the insurance is higher than what our policy is, we then take out separate insurance or additional insurance through our own insurer.

Mr. Yates. You loan paintings, don't you, and some of them are very valuable?

Ms. Loar. Yes, sir,

Mr. Yates. Does the rental cover the cost of the insurance?

Mr. Powers. Yes, it does.

Mr. Yates. It does. Okay. Your renters are usually well fixed then to get the painting?

Ms. Loar. They pay a sizable fee to get the show.

Mr. Yates. What have you lost, do you remember?

Ms. Loar. Pottery. We haven't lost anything valuable for about eight years.

Mr. Yates. What did you lose eight years ago?

Ms. LoAR. A piece of Scj^hian gold taken from a Museum in Chicago. [Laughter.]

Mr. Yates. Taken from a museum in Chicago. Did you want to say something?

Mr. Regula. No, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Yates. I could feel your eyes boring in.

What did you do in that instance? Did the insurance company cover it?

Ms. LoAR. The insurance company did cover it. It was an international situation but I think everything was mended. There really is nothing you can do

Mr. Yates. Is this part of the Metropolitan Museum's exhibit of Scythian gold?

Ms. LoAR. No, it was not, it was an earlier show.

Mr. Yates. Okay.

Anything else I ought to know about your loans? How are you doing with your SITES?

Ms. LoAR. Extremely well. A little poor, but well.

Mr. Yates. What do you mean by a little poor? Do you mean Hughes won't give you enough money?

Ms. LoAR. Mr. Chairman, we are facing a situation where all of the private funds have to be recovered through our fee structure. Our federal appropriation does not get factored into the cost of traveling exibitions as they tour around the country.

So the extent to which our federal appropriation continues and is increased will help the program enormously.

Mr. Yates. Is this a lobbying thrust?

Ms. LoAR. Just in conjunction with the budget you see before you, sir.

Mr. Yates. Just a statement of fact. Okay. All right. Is this what Mr. Hughes told you to say?

Ms. LoAR. We haven't had a conference for a while.

Mr. Yates. What does that mean, Peggy, I mean Ms. Loar, that you don't have enough money to cover your operating expenses?

Ms. Loar. What I am really saying is that fees for SITES exibitions are becoming more and more expensive and we are getting a lot of mail from smaller institutions around the country that are telling us the program is too expensive for them. In going out to the private sector to find funding for the shows, the private sector is primarily interested in funding the more major, exciting exhibitions rather than those that deal more with scholarship; that is, some of the smaller, gem-like shows we really feel are very important to the cultural and academic community.

gem collection

Mr. Yates. Okay. Well, now, speaking of gems, what is the status of the gem problem; is that all solved?

Mr. Hughes. I think we are in good shape, Mr. Chairman. Our friendly auditors are here and can talk with you about it. But I believe

Mr. Yates. Well, which are the friendly ones and which are the unfriendly ones?

4»-292 O—85-

Mr. Hughes. They switch sides from time to time.

Mr. Yates. I remember Chris. You are the IG, aren't you?

Mr. Peratino. Not yet. We made a recent review and reported to the Board of Regents that the current management of the gem collection is good, it's under control. They are following the policies and procedures that have been established and their inventory is up to date. We were very comfortable with the situation there now.

Mr. Yates. Are they still exchanging gems?

Mr. Peratino. Not to the extent they were several years ago, but when they are exchanging now, the proper approvals are being obtained at the higher levels of the institution, yes.

Mr. Yates. Thank you, Chris. That is all pretty well settled then.

SITES PARTICIPATION FEES

Mr. Adams. Mr. Yates, may I go back to Mrs. Loar's comment for a moment.

Mr. Yates. Sure.

Mr. Adams. There is a policy issue that has troubled me and I know is troubling some of my colleagues. There is developing kind of a two-tier system with regard to museums in this country that Peggy Loar's comments illustrate in which the smaller museums are cut off from access to private foundations in the same way the major museums are.

We find ourselves through our own SITES Program reenforcing a pattern that tends to support the largest of the museums around the country rather than the very small ones.

Now, this isn't our direct responsibility to worry about the fate of all those small museums, but I think it is a matter of national concern.

Mr. Yates. I am glad to know about that. Perhaps I left Peggy too soon. On a question of, what are the smaller museums you have heard from, Ms. Loar, who complained about the fee?

Ms. Loar. I have a letter that came in this morning from Mount Wachusett Community College in Gardner, Massachusetts.

Mr. Yates. Is that in Mr. Boland's district?

Ms. Loar. Yes, it is.

Mr. Yates. Go ahead.

Ms. Loar. They basically tell us that their area, their region needs more cultural events but they simply do not have the dollars to support them.

Mr. Yates. The State of Massachusetts needs more cultural events?

Ms. Loar. This little community of Gardner, Msissachusetts needs more cultual events.

Mr. Yates. All right. They tell you they need more cultural events and tell you they haven't the money to pay for them.

Ms. Loar. That is correct. They are looking at our price range for exhibitions and they simply cannot afford to pay the participation fee for an exhibition as well as the shipping which they are required to pay. Each institution pays outgoing shipping to the next location.

Mr. Yates. What does a museum that wants your exhibit usually do, seek help from a private source?

Ms. LoAR. In some cases, they go to their state arts commission or state humanities committee for these funds. But those funds too are very, very limited. They would try to build them into their budget fee structure but they simply don't have many exhibition funds for outside shows. All their resources have to be poured into their own problems at the Institution, such as research or conservation.

Mr. Yates. So what are you going to tell them?

Ms. LoAR. I was hoping you would give me

Mr. Yates. What are you going to tell this museum in Gardner, Massachusetts?

Ms. LoAR. We do tell them through publications that we are working on this effort. One way we would like to do that is piggyback on some major shows with outside corporate or private sponsorship so we could do smaller shows using some of the same graphic materials, for instance, and circulate these "spin-off exhibitions to the smaller community colleges, libraries and the like. These efforts have not been forthcoming because of limited funds.

Mr. Yates. Was there a specific museum exhibit that museum wanted?

Ms. LoAR. They did not mention a specific exhibit but they had recently read through SITELINE, our newsletter, and UPDATE, our publication which lists all the exhibitions. They stated that of those exhibitions that were available, all of them were too expensive and out of their reach. The ones that are in the lower price range are scheduled solidly and pretty unavailable for the next two or three years.

Mr. Yates. Well, there is this article that appeared in the New York Times on February 5th. It talks about corporate patronage. Mr. Oldenberg, Director of the Museum of Modern Art, is quoted as saying,"It has evolved to where we seek corporate funding for all our shows. It is getting harder now because there is more competition and the shows are more expensive. Yet many people won't let"—end of quote. "Yet many people warn this trend has eroded the quality of the art shown in museums across the country. The pressure on art museums to produce exhibitions that promote a positive corporate image, these critics say, has caused museums to shun challenging new art in favor of safe shows with no overtones of debate." Have you found this to be true?

Ms. LoAR. Absolutely.

Mr. Yates. Now, then, Mr. Neff, Director of the Museum of Contemporary Art in Chicago says,

There is nothing controversial about impressionism or the older masters. They can be recycled through a new audience every ten years or so. In the meantime there are issues people feel are important but won't be addressed because the money isn't there from the corporations.

Well, we know that when Carter Brown testified before us for his appropriation earlier this year he said that there were several of his shows he thought he would be able to get corporate funding and he wasn't able to get it. Apparently this is a new trend.

Mr. Adams. There is another interesting innovative approach being taken by the National Institutes of Health which is going into its centennial in 1987 and which proposes to develop two tiers

of shows; major shows on the developments in biology and health related fields for a relatively small handful of major urban centers.

Another series that would be much more widely available would be available for very small fees or perhaps no fees at all. I think that kind of two-tier approach may be something we need to give some attention to in the Smithsonian.

Mr. Yates. Smithsonian is always looking for gifts and donors, as it should. Is it possible that Smithsonian, or does Smithsonian have any kind of a service that will permit a museum such as the one in Gardner, Massachusetts, to be in touch with the potential benefactor?

Mr. Adams. We certainly have no such service now, sir, no.

Mr. Yates. That is too bad. All right. Thank you, Ms. Loar.

APPRAISALS OF GIFTS

Let me go to the Wall Street Journal on gems. What is the date of this? It is an item that appeared in the Wall Street Journal which talks about a gift. Dr. and Mrs. Robert Chaou of Columbus, Ohio, paid about $57,000 for gemstones but deducted $263,000 for donating them to the Smithsonian Institution.

William W. Pinch of Pinch Minerological Museum appraised the gift value. But the tax court cut the deductions back to the prices paid. The most reliable evidence of the value. Gift deductions by four other Columbus doctors whose gems were valued by Pinch were cut to cost or less. We went into this question some time ago.

Chris, are you familiar with the Chaou gift?

Mr. Peratino. Not that particular one, no. I know the IRS is investigating a lot of individuals who have taken deductions for donations to the Smithsonian and we have been working with them on that.

We now have policies and procedures in place for evaluating donations and where there are t£ix deductions to be taken for them, to determine whether or not the amount of the appraisal is reasonable.

If we feel it is not reasonable we so notify the donors.

[Committee note: The Committee was later informed that unless the donor submits a reasonable appraisal, Smithsonian will not accept the gift.]

Mr. Yates. When did you start doing this?

Mr. Peratino. About a year ago.

Mr. Hughes. Year, year and a half ago.

Mr. Yates. Following discussions with the committee on proper procedures?

Mr. Peratino. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. What are those procedures, Chris? What do you do with the prospective donor, or Sam?

Mr. Hughes. We can provide you

Mr. Yates. I think you did once.

Mr. Hughes. I think we have. But generally speaking now with respect to gems, which is really a unique situation, they provide that where there is a donation, and while we do not wish to get in the business of appraising for gift or tax purposes, there is a re-

quirement that there be judgment exercised that the appraised value is more or less reasonable.

But the main burden has been and will continue to rest on IRS. We have endeavored to, and have, I think, cooperated fully with them. I have been informed by them and by the U.S. Attorney that the continuing investigations of the sort that you talk about, do not involve the Smithsonian per se. They involve relationships between the particular donor and the IRS.

COLLECTION INVENTORY

Mr. Yates. All right. Tell us about inventory. Is that completed?

Mr. Hughes. The baseline inventory is complete. We are refining it in several areas. I think notably, stamps and coins. It is a long and slow job because of the size of the collections. But we are getting no surprises out of the refinement process.

The Museum Support Center moves are underway of so-called wet collections, the stuff in jars. And we are about to enter into a final arrangement with the contractor on the three pods of dry storage and that move will be starting when those pods are completed.

We have had our troubles with the equipment, but I think those are behind us now. Insofar as the inventory is concerned, the inventory per se, it is complete and we know what we have.

Our challenge at this point is to convert the processes that went into the inventory and the people that conducted the inventory onto a schedule and a system of work which enables us to keep continuing control of the collections, to take account of acquisitions and loans and deacquisitions and so on, and to refine the data, the raw data and the very general data that was collected for the inventory to enable the collections information on paper to be more useful for research purposes. We are proceeding with that and our budget request covers that.

Mr. Yates. Is everything on computers now?

Mr. Hughes. Everything is not on computers, but a lot of things are on computers. Everything ultimately will be. The real challenge is to make it as useful as possible in the computer so that we can reach it.

Mr. Yates. Right. That is what—that was the intention of the committee.

Mr. Hughes. Yes. And that will be a long pull.

Mr. Yates. How long and how expensive?

Mr. Hughes. How long? I am sure we are talking years, because we are struggling with how we classify objects, what the key words for search purposes ought to be and so on, and getting all of that into a form so we can do it.

In dollar terms, I don't see it as a large figure in relative terms. There are funds in the 1986 budget which will further the process, but won't complete it.

COMPUTER storage OF COLLECTION INFORMATION

Mr. Yates. Well, how much of it is subject to computer? Mr. Hughes. You got a guess, John? Mr. Yates. John, have you got a guess?

Mr, Jameson. Of the hundred miUion objects, approximately, that are in the collections information on about 10 percent is fully available on computers.

Mr. Yates. You have them listed now. You said your inventory is complete.

Mr. Hughes. That is correct.

Mr. Yates. Except for a few refinements. What is it in? What form does it take?

Mr. Hughes. Most of it is in the computer in the sense that it is on tapes and stored in a fashion that computers can get access to.

The term on computer means to me that we ought to be—we ought to work to get beyond that so that we can, for example, identify all of the civil war historical items that are in the collections in a kind of a sweep through the computer. We cannot do that at this point. Other cross-cutting classifications might be used to extract information.

Mr. Yates. How do you know everj^hing is on the computer, I mean everything has been inventoried?

Mr. Hughes. Because the objects have been sighted, recorded, and by and large it is my understanding, placed on computer tapes. That is different than being able to pull them out of the tape, any of those hundred million items, according to any

Mr. Yates. Well, if you can't pull them out of the tape, aren't they lost?

Mr. Hughes. No.

Mr. Jameson. We have the worksheets. We have the inventory input documents that are feeding the computers on all the objects that were inventoried.

Mr. Hughes. We know where the objects are and have records on all of them which say where they are and which in general terms describe the object. The problem is with the manipulation of the data.

Mr. Yates. What are the worksheets you have? Are they card catalogue?

Mr. Hughes. Sometimes.

Mr. Yates. What form does it take?

Mr. Hughes. Some of them are in card catalogues, some of them are in different forms. Some are on computer tapes. And can be viewed with a viewer as you rotate the tape.

Mr. Yates. How much is on the computer?

Mr. Hughes. We need to define "on the computer." If we are talking about how much is on a computer tape I think essentially all of what we have is on tapes.

Mr. Yates. Is on tapes. Can you push a button and find out something that is on the tape?

Mr. Hughes. Yes. It depends on what kind of question you ask, but the answer is yes.

Mr. Yates. If you don't ask the right question you won't find it?

Mr. Hughes. If you ask questions like, how many civil war items do we have, to fall back on my previous example, we cannot get that out. But if we want to know where Grant's sword is, we can find that.

Mr. Yates. Well, that is something. So now the job

Mr. Hughes. May I pause and ask Roger if I am right?

Mr. Kennedy. Oh, yes. [Laughter.]

Mr. Yates. You know where Grant's sword is. Whatever happened to Washington's sword?

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. Have you ever found it? Isn't that one that was taken?

Mr.. Hughes. Washington's teeth.

Mr. Kennedy. There was a ceremonial sword taken which I believe

Mr. Burke. Recovered.

Mr. Yates. Who said that?

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Burke.

Mr. Burke. The gold handle on the sword was damaged and they tried to get the gold off, but we recovered the actual sword minus a little of the handle.

Mr. Yates. But his teeth are missing.

Mr. Burke. No.

Mr. Kennedy. No, sir, that m5i:hic loss remains m3^hic. I suspect it is best to suggest that the problem of the teeth was off record and under investigation. I don't think that remains or was ever a problem.

[Committee note. —A partial recovery of the teeth was made and the investigation is continuing.]

Mr. Adams. I think I should say that the problem of inventory and cataloging will go on as long as there is a Smithsonian.

Mr. Yates. I would think so, for all the different cross references that you want. Well, are you doing it?

Mr. Hughes. Yes.

Mr. Yates. Do you have enough money to do it?

Mr. Hughes. We are not doing it as rapidly as we would like. "We" includes people like Roger who have sought more dough than they will have for these purposes, but we are proceeding with it and I think effectively.

Mr. Yates. How quickly or how slowly are you proceeding with it?

Mr. Hughes. Roger, how quickly or how slowly are you proceeding?

Mr. Kennedy. As quickly as—as quickly as the dough permits. That is how rapidly we are going.

Mr. Yates. Well, how quickly does your dough permit? How many objects do you have in your museum, Roger?

Mr. Kennedy. Sixteen million, roughly.

Mr. Yates. All those are on tape?

Mr. Kennedy. Yes.

Mr. Yates. Okay. Now, what you are doing is starting the cross referencing?

batch inventory

Mr. Kennedy. Well, Mr. Chairman, as we discussed last year, a number of those are batched. That is to say, there are trays and groups and boxes with varieties of contents.

Mr. Yates. Right.

Mr. Kennedy. Those do need to be further broken down into what is actually within each of those components. That is proceeding slowly. There is also the process of microphotography, which is a necessary way of recovering the image in a convenient form, as Mr. Hughes is suggesting.

We also of course have continuous additions to these museum collections, particularly the larger ones, philately, photography and numismatics, so it is a matter of our making more usable and in greater detail what we already possess and keeping up with the additions to those collections. That is the process we are describing. We are up on it and we feel we are in control of the circumstances in the gross.

What we do not have, as Mr. Hughes has suggested, is the kind of control of the recovery of that data which we need to have in order for these resources to be put to appropriate use.

MUSEUM OF AMERICAN HISTORY INVENTORY NEEDS

Mr. Yates. How much more money do you need for your inventory purposes?

Mr. Kennedy. We are asking for $112,000 to speed it up, plus our base—could I ask my deputy, Mr. Evelyn, to give us a boxcar for all the components and submit it for the record?

Mr. Yates. Sure. Mr. Eveljni.

Mr. Evelyn. Mr. Chairman, would you ask a specific question of me so I could respond to that.

Mr. Yates. What is in the boxcar? Mr. Kennedy talked about a boxcar. I asked him where he was having—wait a minute. Mr. Hughes said that Mr. Kennedy asked him for money and Mr. Hughes turned him down, for speeding up the inventorying of the objects in the American History Museum. I said, how much more money do you need for the purpose. He said, there is a boxcar.

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, may I give you a simple response to that?

Mr. Yates. Sure.

Mr. Kennedy. We asked 0MB.

Mr. Yates. Not yet, Mr. Evelyn.

Go ahead.

Mr. Kennedy. We asked 0MB for $224,000 for the speedup process.

Mr. Yates. Yes.

Mr. Kennedy. We are now asking for $112,000 as a result of OMB's cut.

Mr. Yates. Yes.

Mr. Kennedy. That is in response to your direct question.

Mr. Evelyn. It is difficult to estimate how long that level would have to be sustained but my guess is Sam's estimate of several years is pretty much on the mark. It is a time limited project.

I would think that within five years or so, at a level of $500,000 a year which we would clean up the refinement of our major collections including breaking down the batches that are out at Silver Hill, the batches we were unable to deal with individually because of the condition of the buildings there during inventory.

So, we have to refine the two major collections, philately and numismatics, and a million or so items at Silver Hill that have been very generally counted by broad categories.

Mr. Yates. Is this true of the other museums as well in addition to American History?

Mr. Hughes. Yes.

Mr. Yates. All right. Are they behind too?

Mr. Hughes. The people are here who can speak for them. In my judgment the most serious problems are at American History and Cooper-Hewitt, for somewhat different reasons. Natural History has a problem of sheer volume and of breaking down batches, but it is a somewhat lesser problem in my judgment than either American History or Cooper-Hewitt because of the differences in the collections themselves.

Mr. Yates. Have you got somebody who is coordinating the entire effort?

Mr. Hughes. Yes, we do and it is being coordinated from the Office of Museum Programs. Mr. Richards is the gentleman who is ill and not here. But I think the process is proceeding as it should in these museums.

Granted, the constraints which we have. I regard the American History problems as the most serious because the stamp and coin collections are extremely valuable. And the problems are difficult too because one essentially does not mark stamps and coins, so the problem of identification is a difficult one. Those factors have made Roger's

Mr. Yates. Do you not mark coias by dates?

Mr. Hughes. Coins are marked by dates.

Mr. Yates. Can't you identify them that way?

Mr. Hughes. No because there are lots of coins of the same date. Some of them very valuable, I say, not being much of a numismatist, and the same of course is true of stamps. There are minor variations in stamps but they are very minor and the description of them is difficult and the identification of them is difficult.

Mr. Yates. Okay. WeU, let's come back at 1:30.

Afternoon Session

RECEIPT OF gifts

Mr. Yates. Mr. Reporter, show the hearing as coming to order.

How was the record on new gifts last year? Did you receive any new gifts?

Mr. Adams. Yes, we did.

Mr. Jameson. In collection items or doUars, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Yates. Both.

Mr. Jameson. Both? I can't speak to collection items.

Mr. Yates. Who can?

Mr. Jameson. I think each museum director could give you a quick rundown of the important acquisitions.

Mr. Yates. All right. I will get them in a minute.

Mr. Jameson. Mr. Chairman, I think there is introductory information on that at the bottom of page 6, if you want to get started with that.

Mr. Yates. There are some, for instance, on page 6. I am trying to remember what Mr. Fern paid for that Mary Cassatt.

Mr. Fern. The cost of it was $1,300,000 of which $650,000 came from the Cafritz Foundation and $650,000 from the Smithsonian trust fund.

Mr. Yates. Six hundred and fifty thousand? Where do you get so much money for your museum? I don't think they give that much to other museums, do they?

Mr. Fern. We were very lucky.

Mr. Yates. What does that mean? You don't get any more acquisitions money for another 10 years?

Mr. Fern. I was told after we did that that we were in the hole on the special acquisitions fund quite strongly. I think 1988 is my next chance.

Mr. Yates. Eighty-eight? You are getting off easy? Was that cheap for a Cassatt?

Mr. Fern. Yes. For a Degas. Right. Yes, it was very reasonable. We were extremely lucky.

Mr. Yates. I know also the Gallery's first purchase was an extraordinary late 18th or 19th century Japanese ceremonial palanquin norimono. What is a ceremonial palanquin? It is a carrying device of some kind, isn't it?

Mr. Lawton. Mr. Chairman, this particular palanquin was used for a Japanese bride. It would be part of the wedding so she would have ridden in it from her own home to the home of her husband.

Mr. Yates. Who bought it?

Mr. Lawton. We bought it with money from the Regents' acquisition fund.

Mr. Yates. How much did you pay for it?

Mr. Lawton. Sixty-five thousand dollars.

Mr. Yates. Oh, you ought to tell Mr. Fern how you do these things.

Then there is the National Museum of American Art acquired its first work by Thomas Benton, a 7 x 24 foot mural of Achelous and Hercules. How much did you pay for Mr. Benton's mural?

Mr. Eldredge. Three-hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars, the balance contributed in kind by Allied Stores.

Mr. Yates. What was the total value?

Mr. Eldredge. I don't think they have a final appraisal on it, yet. Approximately $1 million.

Mr. Yates. Where did you get all the money for this? Did all this come from your private fund?

COLLECTION ACQUISITION FUND

Mr. Anderson. If I might, Mr. Chairman, the Regents back in 1978 established a collection acquisition program funded at about $1 million in trust funds per year set up for a five-year period, so each of the participating Smithsonian museums wouldn't be tempted into a rush to judgment to buy something each and every year just to make sure the money didn't go to one of their colleagues instead.

So over that five-year period each of the directors has been keeping a weather eye out to see what things coming up potentially on

the marketplace would represent the most extraordinary new acquisition for his or her collection. As they arise on the radar screen and can be acted upon, we achieve these results.

Mr. Yates. What radar screen?

Mr. Anderson. The radar screen represented by the art marketplace in the case of art museums and the historical marketplace on the part of people like Mr. Kennedy.

Mr. Yates. Do they have a radar screen?

Mr. Anderson. I think that is probably an analogy. If not I would

Mr. Yates. It isn't exact then? It isn't a radar screen?

Mr. Anderson. Oh, of course not, sir.

Mr. Yates. Oh. Well, you know Smithsonian does so many marvelous things. I never know when you are pulling my leg.

Well, how much is left in your acquisition funding, anything?

Mr. Anderson. For fiscal year 1983 through 1988 a couple of museums have already exhausted their share. As Alan said, he has, the Museum of Natural History has. The others have not yet, though most have made at least one purchase during this five-year period.

Mr. Yates. Suppose Alan Fern gets a portrait that he wants, or finds a portrait coming up on the radar screen that he wants to buy. He can't buy it?

Mr. Anderson. The guidelines are just that; they are guidelines. If it were a truly extraordinary acquisition, of the sort that the George and Martha Washington portraits by Gilbert Stuart were, the proposition I am sure would be brought before the Board of Regents for their consideration.

Mr. Adams. Mr. Chairman, it is precisely the maintenance of that kind of flexibility—to take advantage of opportunities that do come along like that—that at least in part justifies the effort of the Regents to preserve what they can of the trust funds and not to commit them to expenditures that previously would have fallen on the Federally appropriated side.

Mr. Yates. I would agree with that. Bob, accept I don't think the expenditure of $350,000 for evening hours would have broken the fund.

Mr. Adams. The problem is that it has every risk of becoming a permanent expectation once you start that.

Mr. Yates. I take it then the committee and Congress need never expect any kind of a switch of that position, right?

Mr. Adams. Well, I think that if you look at the record over the years, the Regents have in fact gradually stepped up in a number of areas to increase support of what previously has been

Mr. Yates. Give us a for instance.

Mr. Adams. For example, with regard to the purchase of acquisitions.

Mr. Yates. What?

Mr. Adams. With regard to acquisitions, with regard to the purchase

Mr. Yates. We have been putting money in but not enough.

Mr. Adams. Well, then what the Regents have been doing is adding to that. Same way with regard to the support of the Smithsonian research, for which at one time, my understanding was,

there was an expectation that there would be something comparable to the support of the research which would go on in universities and other laboratories and research institutions.

That has not gone on. Regents have come up with funds in support of research.

Mr. Jameson. Mr. Chairman, at the bottom of page 7, I think you will find a good recent example of an effort by the Board of Regents.

Mr. Yates. Let's see what that says. Starting in 1985 you have an annual trust fund for special exhibition fund. The cost of exhibition programs has generally been complete with Federal funds which will continue to provide the predominant financing for the Institution's overall exhibition effort, as supplemented by donations from individuals, foundations and corporations to be part of and administered similarly to the collections acquisition, scholarly studies and educational outreach programs. The special exhibition fund with $3 million in fiscal year 1985 will increase opportunities by providing funds for important temporary major exhibitions as proposed by organizations of the institution.

Subject to competitive review and selection process, the request must be for temporary special exhibitions of sufficient importance. Exhibitions currently in the planning stage include, "Men of Greatness, Feats of Daring," by the National Museum of Natural History, which will produce to the American public the U.S. exploring expeditions of 1838-1842 and establish its place in the development of natural and Naval science in America; "Field to Factory: Afro-American Migration 1915-1940" by the National Museum of American History which will portray the movement of hundreds of thousands of Afro-Americans from southern States to northern urban centers; and "ZOOARK Twentieth Century: The Last Chance" by the National Zoological Park.

Well, I take it from what you say, there are no Federal funds for these programs.

Mr. Adams. There certainly is Federal funding of exhibitions.

Mr. Yates. I mean for these you mentioned.

Mr. Adams. I am afraid I do not know.

Mr. Yates. I thought Mr. Jameson brought these forward as an example.

Mr. Jameson. These dollars represent the out-of-pocket costs of fabricating exhibits with associated travel or shipments of objects that might be borrowed for the show. There will be substantial involvement represented by the professional and exhibit staff of the institution who are planning the shows.

Mr. Yates. That is fine. What you are saying is that sometimes there is a partnership between your private funds and the Federal funds.

Mr. Jameson. As with the Quadrangle.

Mr. Hughes. And as proposed again with Cooper-Hewitt.

Mr. Yates. What happens to Mr. Fern, though? The radar shows, Mr. Fern, that you have a special find, like Martha Washington's nephew or something, and you think it is important to buy it. You have used up your funds. What happens, do you give them first choice or something like that?

Mr. Fern. It would be a question of the level of that acquisition. If the cost was less than, say, the Degas we were just talking about, less than perhaps $100,000, we do have an appropriation for acquisitions. We would buy it on those funds if our commission approves it. We have a commission that has to approve all our acquisitions. If it was very substantial, over $200,000, and if it were of sufficient importance, we would ask the Regents whether we could have an additional allotment of money.

If we could not, then the thing becomes an unidentified fl)dng object and somebody else acquires it.

DEACCESSIONING POUCY

Mr. Yates. Do you ever deaccession any of your things in order to pick up new ones?

Mr. Fern. No, sir.

Mr. Yates. Does anyone at Smithsonian do that?

Mr. Adams. There certainly are formal provisions for deacces-sioning and there are some possibilities for deaccessioning that are now being examined and moving forward, yes. Let me say that there is of course another opportunity

Mr. Yates. How do you deaccession? What is the process?

Mr. Adams. It is a rather detailed and lengthy process that has to begin with the recommendation from the individual bureau director and has to be examined by the Commission of the museum. It also has to be examined by the legal office.

Mr. Yates. To see whether it is violating a gift or something.

Mr. Adams. Yes.

Mr. Yates. Then it goes to you and to the Regents.

Mr. Adams. That's right. It goes to the Regents only in the case of value exceeding, I believe it is $50,000, isn't that it? Yes.

For major acquisitions we also have the development office. Where an attractive offer comes along, one can make an urgent appeal to a foundation or individual. There are other ways than depending on funds immediately at hand.

Mr. Yates. Where does that leave your acquisitions fund, now that you have used part of it? Do you have to restore the money somewhere along the line, or—you have $5 million in there, used up about 75 percent of it, haven't they?

Mr. Anderson. That might be about the right figure at this point in time, yes.

Mr. Yates. What happens, do you go along, or replenish it?

Mr. Anderson. The program as set up, and renewed once already, is for a five-year period. The next five-year period would commence with fiscal year 1988 and run through fiscal year 1992; 1988 through 1992, inclusive. The fund would be recapitalized at that time provided the Regents approve its continuation.

Mr. Yates. Recapitalize from your trust fund?

Mr. Anderson. That's correct.

Mr. Yates. Is this an automatic process now?

Mr. Anderson. It is part of the discrete budget process that the Regents review for trust funds annually.

FEDERAL FUNDS FOR ACQUISITIONS

Mr. Yates. How much is in this budget for acquisition, from the Federal?

Mr. Adams. I am informed it is $1.2 million.

Mr. Yates. Is this pooled then when a museum needs it

Mr. Yellin. It is, Mr. Chairman. In individual line items of six museums, American History, American Art, Portrait Gallery, Hirshhorn, Center for Asian Art and the African Art Museum.

Mr. Yates. Are they getting their share already before they are even in business?

Mr. Yellin. There is a request in the 1986 budget for the Sackler.

MUSEUM OF AFRICAN ART COLLECTIONS

Mr. Adams. Staff plans to begin moving in a little less than a year from now. Collections would open the following year. The problem is that one has to put the collections in place. I should say that we have, I think, special institutional priorities which may need to be attended to over and above any of the items that are now anticipated here. For example, I think that the expansion of the quarters of the Museum of African Art calls for special attention to that collection which we will have to give it.

Mr. Yates. What does that mean? It is not full enough to fill up the new museum.

Mr, Adams. I mean the collection needs improvement. I think its need for improvement will become more evident as it moves into more spacious quarters.

Mr. Yates. As I remember from the past there were collections that you would receive if you got into new quarters, were there not? I think, wasn't that a representation that was made at one time?

Sylvia?

Ms. Williams. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Yates. Wasn't there a representation made sometime in the past that because of the quarters on A Street you couldn't get collections, but if you moved into the Quad you would get some new very worthwhile collections?

Ms. WiLUAMS. If so, Mr. Chairman, that preceded my arrival.

Mr. Yates. Well, that was my understanding. Perhaps I thought I learned this from Warren Robbins, but perhaps I am not right. I will check. Do you know of any collections pending you may receive?

Ms. WiLUAMS. I am hopeful continuously, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Yates. I know you are. And we hope for the triumph of hope over experience. But what do you expect? Are there any in the offering that you may get?

Ms. Williams. There are some in the offering, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Yates. That you may have to buy or may receive as gifts?

Ms. Williams. We will have to follow a three-pronged program.

Mr. Yates. Would it be possible for you to raise your tone just a bit because the reporter is hard of hearing.

Ms. Williams. We will have to pursue a three-pronged program, Mr. Chairman. That is purchase gifts and loans in view of the new facility that we are about to occupy.

Mr. Yates. How much money are you going to need?

Ms. Williams. It is difficult to give you a figure, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Yates. Well, if you don't give me a figure, I can't give you one.

Ms. Williams. African art on the market today, very fine pieces, range anjrwhere from $25,000 to a half a million. Good pieces.

Mr. Yates. You don't share yet with Mr. Fern and Mr. Lawton and the others, do you?

Ms. WiLUAMS. Share?

Mr. Yates. A share in the acquisitions

Ms. Williams. Oh, yes, but we have exhausted those funds.

Mr. Yates. What did you buy?

Ms. Williams. Several pieces. Two Nigerian pieces, a fine Central African maternity and a textile collection jointly acquired with the Museum of Natural History.

Mr. Regula. Would you yield, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Yates. Mr. Regula, yes.

Mr. Regula. Is this something that is incremental, that you can do over a period of years and add to the collection without having it all in place the first day?

Ms. Williams. Oh, we must add to it over the years, but there is no question that opening a new facility, the collection must have a certain strength.

Mr. Regula. Was there some materials in storage, or had nothing been done in the way of collection?

Ms. Williams. There is limited material. There are objects in storage but there is limited material, what I would call primary base quality. But there is a good teaching collection, good collection for study purposes.

Mr. Regula. Will there be pieces available on loan from other institutions?

Ms. Williams. We hope from both private collectors and possibly other museums for the opening installations.

Mr. Adams. Mr. Regula, we anticipate that it will depend very heavily on loan exhibits for some considerable time to come. But gradually the strengh of the collection itself would begin to be

Mr. Regula. When you get a loan from, say, another museum, what period of time is that? Is there a pattern of like 18 months, two years or six months?

Ms. WiLUAMS. It is variable. It depends on the exhibition that is being called in for. It depends on the piece, whether it is on permanent view from the Institution that is lending and therefore they need it back. But museums try to cooperate as much as possible with each other.

Mr. Regula. So I guess what I am saying is that you can fill some of the space with various means and incrementally build your own collections. Is that a fair analysis?

Ms. Williams. Building of collections is an ongoing process in an art museum.

Mr. Regula. Are there collections in other nations that we might get on loan that would be of interest for a period of time?

Ms. Williams. Not that I know of right off in any great quantity.

Mr. Regula. This facility would be somewhat unique, then, as far as the international museums go?

Ms. Williams. Yes, and it is unique in the United States.

Mr. Regula. Yes, well, I understand that.

Ms. Williams. Yes.

Mr. Regula. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Yates. Well, you are not going to lose your new Benin piece to Nigeria, are you?

Ms. WiLUAMS. No, we carefully researched all those pieces before we acquired them.

Mr. Yates. Where is your collection of pre-Columbian shown? Would it be in Natural History?

Mr. Adams. There is pre-Columbian material in Natural History. There is no major collection as part of the Smithsonian

HIRSHHORN MUSEUM

Mr. Yates. I asked about deaccessioning. I read an article from the Washington Times on February 15 which says that Mr. Deme-trion is cleaning house at the Hirshhorn. He says, according to this article, "There aren't many killers in this collection. We have a painting by Giorgio Morandi in the collection, but it is just off. It is not a killer, you know."

"His eyes gleamed with all the enthusiasm of a big game hunter closing in on a tiger. Clearly the new director of the Hirshhorn likes nothing better than dragging down a beautiful work of art." Is he different from your other people? [Laughter.]

Mr. Yates. "Paradoxically, he is finding the art chase is considerably more difficult"—that is kind of interesting, "in the nation's capital than it was in Des Moines. For one thing, I will have a lot less money to spend." Now only, he says, it says here, "Annual Federal appropriation for acquisitions is only $140,000, hundred thousand less than Des Moines and a fraction of what equivalent national museums of contemporary art such as the Tate Gallery in London have earmarked for the purchase of works of art." Is that true?

Mr. Kennedy. That is true, sir.

Mr. Yates. Hi, Mr. Demetrion. You weren't here this morning, were you?

Mr. Demetrion. I just got back from Iowa trying to raise some more money. They opened a new wing last night and I was there.

Mr. Yates. Tell me how much money the Tate Gallery gets.

Mr. Demetrion. In the current budget, $2.2 million annually. Last year they had $2.5 million according to information which I received from the British embassy.

Mr. Yates. Is the Tate unique in this respect among British museums?

Mr. Demetrion. It is the museum which is most comparable to the Hirshhorn. It is a national museum which collects contemporary and modern art. The Hirshhorn is the national museum which collects modern and contemporary art. In that respect, they are analogous.

Mr. Anderson. I might comment, Mr. Chairman. My office down at the Castle routinely receives annually a copy of the Queen's "supply estimates," they are called, the analogous document to the President's budget here in this country. And the supply estimates detail the amounts of monies sought as appropriations from Parliament for the various museums in the British museum system.

Each has a remarkable sum, comparatively speaking, but you have to view that against the background of what I understand to be less favorable tax laws in England. They do not support to the same degree as the United States Congress does the charitable tax contribution for income write-off purposes. So museums over there are forced to do more purchasing, perhaps, than we are. Nevertheless, it is a very generous supply of appropriated money for purchases.

Mr. Yates. That doesn't tell us anything when you say a generous supply. Give me numbers.

Mr. Anderson. I would be happy to supply it for the record, Mr. Chairman.

[The information follows:]

ACQUISITION FUNDING FOR PRINCIPAL MUSEUMS OF ENGLAND

[Figures in pounds sterling]

1984-1985 1985-1986

British Museum

Victoria and Albert Museum

Science Museum

National Gallery

The Tate Gallery

National Portrait Gallery

Toy 10,155,000 7,941,000

Source: Museums Yeartxwk 1985 (published by the Museums Association, London, England). Note— $1.2323 U.S. equals 1 British pound.

deaccessioning collections

Mr. Yates. Mr. Demetrion, it says in this article you are not entirely happy with the Hirshhorn collection.

Mr. Demetrion. That's correct.

Mr. Yates. What do you want to do?

Mr. Demetrion. I would say no museum is entirely happy with the collections.

Mr. Yates. What do you want to do? Are you going to get rid of a lot of the stuff?

Mr. Demetrion. I think it is essential.

Mr. Yates. Is Mr. Adams inclined to go along with you?

Mr. Demetrion. Better ask Mr. Adams. [Laughter.]

Mr. Yates. Well, I was asking Mr. Adams.

Mr. Adams. I failed to see a turn of the head.

Mr. Demetrion. The law which established the Hirshhorn Museum states that the board of trustees of the museum has the sole authority to deaccession or dispose of works of art. However, there are some instances where it is likely, indeed is a fact that

other museums in the Smithsonian may want some of the things we have that are not germane to our collection.

We are trying to work something out along those lines.

Mr. Yates. Too bad you didn't get Mr. Lewis' collection, isn't it?

Mr. Demetrion. Exactly.

Mr. Yates. Yes. As I remember, isn't he a Hirshhorn trustee?

Mr. Demetrion. He is. He has been a long time trustee of the Museum of Fine Arts in Richmond.

Mr. Yates. Yes. How long is it going to take you to put your collection in shape?

Mr. Demetrion. I think it is going to be an ongoing process. I would hate to put a time limit on it. I think it is going to be over the next 20 years or so, long after I am gone.

Mr. Yates. You look awfully young.

Mr. Demetrion. Long after I reach retirement age.

Mr. Yates. You don't have any fatal diseases, do you?

Mr. Demetrion. Not right now.

Mr. Yates. Not right now. Thank you, Mr. Demetrion.

Mr. Adams. Insofar as that question was directed at me, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that particularly in connection with a museum of contemporary and modern art, one does need to pursue a fairly aggressive policy of keeping the collection attuned to whatever are the contemporary currents and rejudging material which was perhaps thought important 10 years ago and which seems much less important now.

I think that is the single museum where the deaccessioning is likely to be the most important part, to play a more important part in its activities among all of our museums.

Mr. Yates. What do the other museum directors feel about this? Are they satisfied with their collections? I have never heard any of them put it quite like Mr. Demetrion puts it, saying he would rather have one good Picasso than 40 bad ones. How is yours, Roger? Do you have anything there other than Archie Bunker you want to get rid of.

Mr. Kennedy. We don't want to get rid of Archie Bunker, sir. But we don't have him; we have a chair or two. All of us make transfers of materials which we own to other bureaus and to other government agencies from time to time when those objects would be better presented or used in association with other bureaus or other government agencies. Most of us do not deaccession in the sense art museums do, in the sense of qualitative upgrading.

We don't know what 100 years from now will be considered a significant historical object. That is a little different than the taste criteria that determine an art collection. What it is that is an artifact that represents a period or group of persons is different from a bad Picasso as against a good Picasso. So that distinction is hard for some of us to make also.

Mr. Yates. I would think so. It is for me.

What is the distinction, Mr. Demetrion, between a good Picasso and a bad one?

Mr. Demetrion. I would say a good Picasso represents the artist at his peak during a certain period, whereas other works might be of lesser importance during that time.

Mr. Yates. Do you mean like his Blue Period?

Mr. Demetrion. Even within the Blue Period there are certain works which are more outstanding than are others.

RESTORATION AND RENOVATION AT THE FREER

Mr. Yates. Let me find out first about the restoration and renovation of buildings.

Mr. Peyton, are your roofs still leaking?

Mr. Peyton. We have a few that still are, sir, but we have a regular program that attends to them and we try to keep up with them.

Mr. Yates. The last time, as I remember it, you weren't taking care of Mr. Lawton's roof.

Mr. Peyton. The particular leak we did take care of. I think if you would ask him he would tell you generally we have been taking very good care of his roof.

Mr. Yates. Mr. Lawton, you heard Mr. Pe3rton.

Mr. Lawton. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. I don't know, maybe he is coaching you on what he wants you to say.

Mr. Lawton. We wouldn't do anything like that.

Mr. Yates. No, I know. What is the condition of your roof?

Mr. Lawton. Excellent.

Mr. Yates. It is?

Mr. Lav^tton. Yes.

Mr. Yates. No more leaks?

Mr. Lawton. No more leaks, but in conjunction with the Quadrangle at the moment we are installing on our roof an elaborate cooling tower. As noted in our budget, ultimately it will be necessary to do extensive work on our roof.

Mr. Yates. You mean to support it or because it will vibrate or something?

Mr. Lawton. No, to rewaterproof areas of the roof where they have been working.

Mr. Yates. Are you going to ask Dr. Sackler for these funds?

Mr. Lawton. No, sir, it is on the roof of the Freer.

Mr. Yates. I see. You can't ask Mr. Freer?

Mr. Peyton. It is in the budget.

Mr. Yates. When do you anticipate you will have to do that, this next year?

Mr. Peyton. As you may have noticed in the budget, we have asked for some significant funds to expand the capability of the Freer, to enlarge their activities, and to increase their storage facilities. Total cost in fiscal year 1986 proposed is four and a half million dollars to have a rather significant project. Two million dollars of that is for remodeling of the basement after some important activities of the Freer move into the Sackler Gallery.

The remaining two and a half million dollars is phase 1 of the two-phase project, the second being an equal amount to be asked for in fiscal year 1987 to do some extensive excavation of the Freer courtyard and going down two levels and creating some much needed storage space for the Freer. We would expect to start this work using the appropriation requested in fiscal year 1986, immediately after Dr. Lawton and his staff move into the Sackler Gallery.

As was previously indicated, that would take place just about this time next year. Mr. Yates. Is he moving into the Sackler? Mr. Peyton. Yes, sir.

RENWICK PROJECT

Mr. Yates. What about the Renwick? That seems to be in a perpetual state of repair?

Mr. Peyton. Yes, sir. Well, we expect to finish the Renwick this calendar year. We have completed the manufacture of all of the architectural stone pieces that are intended for the project. Putting the stones in place is about 50 percent complete. It's now possible to go there and look at it and get a sense of the final product.

We think it looks very good; a very good replication of what might have been the original stone. We think we are doing a good job and look forward to finishing it.

ARTS AND INDUSTRIES BUILDING ROOF

Mr. Yates. Everybody is.

You had some problems with its roof, did you not?

Mr. Peyton. I think maybe you are referring to the Arts and Industries Building.

Mr. Yates. Yes.

Mr. Peyton. Well, we have an ongoing project there to completely restore the entire facade of the building, as well as the roof. The project is now about 60 to 70 percent complete. It is going very well. I think the parts that have been completed look excellent, and we are looking forward to finishing it.

AIR and space museum WALL REPAIR

Mr. Yates. Do you have any problems, still, with the walls of the Hirshhorn and the Air and Space?

Mr. Peyton. We are still continuing to get some condensation on the interior of the Air and Space Museum. We have ongoing a project which will contribute to correcting a portion of that problem by adding insulation and trying to isolate the air space in between the outer walls of the museum or stone walls that you see as you drive down the street, and the inner walls that you would see if you were a visitor to the museums.

Condensation has been caused by relatively warm moist air on the inside of the building coming in contact with cold outer walls.

Mr. Yates. There was some problem, too, with Air and Space where rain was driven through the outer walls.

Mr. Peyton. Yes, sir we still have some work to do to correct that.

Mr. Yates. What are you going to do seal the marble or what?

Mr. Peyton. It is not a very easy solution, but we will attempt to recaulk the joints of the building with a regular commercial caulking compound, not unlike the caulking one would do on the home between the wooden part of the windows and the brick of the house.

Mr. Yates. Is that where the rain comes in?

Mr. Peyton. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. It doesn't come through the marble then. They said the marble was porous.

Mr. Peyton. I think that was speculation that didn't prove to be well-founded.

Mr. Yates. How much of a job is it? We have five minutes. I will have to wait for that answer.

[Recess.]

Mr. Yates. Well, Mr. Peyton, had you completed your answer?

Mr. Peyton. No, sir. You asked about the work to be done on the facade of the Air and Space Museum, and we think at this time about $400,000 will be the cost of the recaulking the exterior of the museum.

Mr. Yates. Is that your statement or architect's or the contractor's?

Mr. Peyton. It is always hard to say in cases like this. Some of the problem stems from the fact that the facing stone for the building is slightly oversize, one stone with respect to another. One would normally be able to expect to put caulking material in that space.

Mr. Yates. I noticed as I drove past the other day that some of it overlaps. It isn't exactly smooth. I think it adds to the appearance of the building, but probably gives you some problems.

Mr. Peyton. Well, it does have a rough texture. It is not polished material.

Mr. Yates. Yes, that's right.

Mr. Peyton. It has a sand-type grain to it.

Mr. Yates. Yes.

Mr. Peyton. But in the expansion and contraction of the individual stones, in some cases there is more expansion than there is caulking material in there and it opens up.

Mr. Yates. So you need elastic caulking material, don't you?

Mr. Peyton. That's right, we do.

Mr. Yates. Can you find any?

Mr. Peyton. Well, I think it is a product that manufacturers are constantly trying to improve. I would hope that we can.

FIVE year plan for R&R

Mr. Yates. I look at Table 4 on page 89 of this silver book. You want $133 million through 1990, page 89.

Mr. Peyton. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. One hundred thirty-three million bucks. Do you need all of that? Why do you need so much?

Mr. Peyton. This is based on some careful reviews that we have made, and as a matter of fact, we make them every year, to try to develop a sense of not only the current work that needs to be done that forms the basis for an annual budget, but also to anticipate work that would need to be done during this five-year timeframe.

It is built up on the basis of building-by-building, project-by-project. There is something very specific behind each of these entries in here. As a matter of fact, the details of this chart are

shown on pages 231-238 and A-3 to A-14 of our budget justification.

Mr. Yates. In here, you are fairly general. You don't tell us exactly how much you want.

Mr. Hughes. Details are by individual structure, Mr. Chairman, I believe. They aren't combined.

Mr. Peyton. Another array of comparable

Mr. Yates. Why do you need so much for the Arts and Industries Building, $17 million?

Mr. Peyton. Why so much?

Mr. Yates. Yes.

Mr. Peyton. This v/as developed before we arrived at a firmer concept on the matter that was discussed this morning.

Mr. Yates. You mean Woodrow Wilson?

Mr. Peyton. Yes, sir. But having reached within fairly short range the idea of finishing the outside of the building, the next step is to move inside and attempt to put the inside in order.

Mr. Yates. What are you going to do to the outside?

Mr. Peyton. The outside we have been working on over the last four or five years, and we are completely restoring the exterior of the building including the roof, repointing the bricks, stone work and

Mr. Yates. What is your estimate for that and how long will it take?

Mr. Peyton. The exterior, total bill for the exterior is about $14 million, of which Congress has already appropriated about ten million. As I said, a little while ago, we are about 60 to 70 percent complete on that work. We expect to finish the exterior in 1987. We then expect to move on the inside and to restore the interior of the building.

The Arts and Industries Building is currently a group of bandaid solutions to trying to provide space for people.

Mr. Yates. What are you going to do about it?

Mr. Peyton. We intend to modernize the heating, ventilating and air-conditioning systems in the building. We will require some significant updating of the electrical systems. We expect to re-layout the building for a combination of office use in the Pavilion and some of the ranges, and to use the principal halls in the building for museum exhibition purposes. The Woodrow Wilson Center would occupy approximately a third of the building.

WOODROW WILSON CENTER RELOCATION

Mr. Yates. How firm is that, this move by Woodrow Wilson?

Mr. Adams. Well, nothing can be firm, Mr. Chairman, until we know that the funds can be found to do this. We have made the suggestion to them. Their response, as I said this morning, is positive. They do think somewhere within the framework of what we have suggested there is a solution that meets their needs and that in fact they term generous.

And now we must obviously talk about it at greater length, but we must also see what the prospects are of funding this. Of course, it then becomes a matter that has to go to our Regents and their trustees for formal action.

Mr. Yates. Does that take place, do you go to the trustees and their board after we react or before? Suppose one of your board doesn't want it?

Mr. Adams. Well, I would assume we need to go to our Regents and they to their trustees at the forthcoming meeting in September. I think we need to have a formal proposal from the staffs that goes by that time to both of those bodies.

Mr. Yates. Yes.

Mr. Adams. I might say with some ruefulness that I read recently the entire initial cost of the Arts and Industries Building—of course, that was in rather a different kind of dollar—was $500,000.

Mr. Yates. Slight difference. Was that the base upon which you made your agreement, $500,000, with Woodrow Wilson?

Mr. Adams. No, we have not discussed

Mr. Yates. The financing?

Mr. Adams. We have not discussed the question of what proportions there would be in the financing.

Mr. Yates. Well, is there an5rwhere in the justification giving the details of how this will work?

Mr. Adams. No, because this has come up much more recently than these documents were prepared.

Mr. Yates. Has any kind of a paper been prepared which would indicate what each of you proposes be done?

Mr. Adams. At this point all we have done is to provide sketches, really, of possible layouts that they had looked at and to which they have a variety of detailed responses by way of suggested changes. And we are operating on the basis of those sketches. It has just happened too recently for there to be more information.

Mr. Yates. All right.

Mr. Peyton. We have a presentation drawing which I could bring tomorrow. I think you could see rather graphically the area involved and what is generally proposed to be done.

Mr. Yates. Well, I suppose I should have asked Jim Billington the question as to whether or not he is overcrowded where he is at.

Mr. Adams. He is.

Mr. Yates. I got the impression he was not really when he appeared.

Mr. Adams. He feels very overcroweded where he is.

Mr. Yates. Really? You don't have room for him in the Quad building, do you?

Mr. Adams. I think that we might have temporary room for him in the Quadrangle.

Mr. Yates. Not permanent?

Mr. Adams. I don't think permanently, no. We have spoken about the International Center on the third level of the Quadrangle, but also on the third level will be the Traveling Exhibition Service, the National Associates Program, the Resident Associates Program. There will be a variety of educational facilities used by the whole Institution so that the space occupied by the International Center is only a fraction of that third level.

Mr. Yates. I hate to contemplate the expenditure of $31 million for a move like that. You can almost have a new building for that, couldn't he?

Mr. Peyton, Possibly. But they very much, I beheve, want to be on the Mall. They want to be in a prestigious location.

Mr. Adams. I think they value the association with the Smithsonian and we value their association. So I think there is an additional issue there of our symbiosis.

Mr. Peyton. The project we have in mind would be at least a 20-year-use, kind of improvement that they would have to be content with.

Mr. Yates. What are you going to do with the material that is there now?

Mr. Peyton. The space they would occupy is mostly office, and is presently occupied by the Smithsonian. The concept would be to find temporary space for our own staff, remodel the area for the Woodrow Wilson Center; Woodrow Wilson Center would move into the refurbished space.

We would remodel the space that the Wilson Center moved out of and then move the Smithsonian staff into the original Wilson Center space.

Mr. Yates. Why don't you just leave things as they are?

Mr. Adams. Because the problem is that there is no way that they can expand in their present quarters beyond what they already have. There is simply no way it could be done.

Mr. Yates. Don't you have additional space?

Mr. Adams. In the Castle?

Mr. Yates. Yes. You are going to move some of your people over to the new building, aren't you?

Mr. Adams. My understanding is that the Woodrow Wilson Center already occupies about 60 percent of the usable office space of the castle.

Mr. Yates. How many square feet is that?

Mr. Adams. It is about 18,000.

Mr. Yates. How many square feet are you going to give them in Arts and Industries?

Mr. Peyton. Thirty-six thousand.

Mr. Yates. Well, let me go back and vote while you relax.

Mr. Regula. Did I understand, Mr. Chairman, that the Woodrow Wilson Center would go from 18,000 to 36,000 square feet?

Mr. Yates. Yes.

Mr. Regula. By going into this new building?

Mr. Yates. That is what they are telling us.

Mr. Regula. Then what happens to

Mr. Yates. They didn't tell us that when they were here.

Mr. Adams. Let me add that they occupy additional space they now rent.

Mr. Regula. Yes.

Mr. Yates. Do they? I didn't know that. Rent from whom, you or somebody else?

Mr. Adams. No, at the Capital Gallery building, I believe, commercially.

Mr. Yates. Are you over there, too.

Mr. Adams. We are over there, too.

Mr. Yates. Are you paying their bills?

Mr. Adams. No, we are not Mr. Chairman.

[Recess.]

INTERIOR RENOVATION OF ARTS AND INDUSTRIES

Mr. Yates. Back to work. Where were we, Mr. Peyton? The $133 million you want.

Mr. Peyton. Possible expansion of the Woodrow Wilson Center.

Mr. Yates. Yes. You know, as I walked along to the Capitol I was thinking. You are moving Woodrow Wilson's people over to Arts and Industries and moving Smithsonian people over to the Wood-row Wilson quarters in the Castle and that is costing you 30 million bucks?

Mr. Peyton. Well, it is not just the move, but it would be a major improvement of a significantly deteriorated and inefficient interior

Mr. Yates. Yes, but we are taking care of the exterior with other funds.

Mr. Peyton. It has never in modern times, as far as I can tell, had a proper layout. As the Smithsonian has grown this space has been converted to an office, that space has been converted to an office. That is the story of the whole building.

Mr. Yates. It is going to cost $30 million in order to remodel the offices?

Mr. Peyton. Yes, it will. Part of that is

Mr. Yates. Who makes your budget for you?

Mr. Peyton. We make our own, sir.

Mr. Yates. Should we give it to somebody else?

Mr. Peyton. Some of the cost is in the historic preservation of the building. It is a landmark building.

Mr. Yates. Yes.

Mr. Peyton. I think you are familiar enough

Mr. Yates. Aren't the offices landmarks, too?

Mr. Peyton. No, sir, most are not. Only the tower and pavilion ones like Mr. Perrot had restored.

Mr. Adams. Mr. Chairman, I don't think it is my job to defend the plan of the Woodrow Wilson in detail, but I would say I personally feel it is an important intellectual force on the Washington scene and one we need to be hospitable to. What we had in mind here is to create quarters for them that were permanent quarters and were consistent with what their really very important role is in this city.

Mr. Yates. Would they be less an intellectual force if they stayed where they were?

Mr. Adams. Well, they are unable to grow in the space they now occupy and they have plans for growth, as I believe you heard.

Mr. Yates. Is that good or bad if they don't grow?

Mr. Adams. I will leave it to Mr. Billington and you to work out the answer to that question with regard to the Woodrow Wilson Center itself.

Mr. Yates. Okay.

Mr. Adams. But I think the fact is that they would do better what they are now doing if they were allowed to grow.

Mr. Yates. They couldn't do better than they are now doing. They have good forums; they have good speakers. Let's stay with Arts and Industry, you wanted $11,900,000 last year. Now you have a total cost of $14.4 million.

Mr. Peyton. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. Why the addition?

Mr. Peyton. The project clearly has an overrun. We have been doing it on a multiyear basis, and it will require the additional amount to complete the building. There are several reasons for the overrun.

Mr. Yates. Is that going to happen to your $133 million, too, you are going to have overruns on that?

Mr. Peyton. Hopefully with an overrun on some and underrun on others, it will balance out.

Mr. Yates. Does the underrun ever happen?

Mr. Peyton. Yes, it does.

Mr. Yates. Okay.

Mr. Peyton. There is some inherent additional cost in remodling a building that is almost entirely occupied. We have had to relocate some people temporarily which has been an expense. We ran into an unexpected situation in which we had to strengthen the structural integrity of the trusses of the building which was an added expense.

SOLE SOURCE MINORITY CONTRACTING

The procurement system which was used for the building is a small business set aside under Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act which means a sole source minority contractor. Added costs are inherent in negotiation on a sole source basis.

Mr. Yates. Will you repeat that? Sole source minority contractor?

Mr. Peyton. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. Why don't you have competition?

Mr. Peyton. I believe the act says something to the effect that it is the intent of Congress that a certain portion of Federal procurement activity shall be set aside for small business, and more specifically Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act, provides for minority business procurement, and under those circumstances the procurement is on a sole source basis.

Mr. Yates. Why can't you have competition among minorities and among small business?

Mr. Peyton. I am afraid I am not the right person to answer that.

Mr. Yates. Who shall I give it to then, Mr. Kennedy?

Mr. Peyton. I think there is probably a legislative history on the Small Business Act that explains some of that.

Mr. Yates. I am sure that act doesn't require sole sourcing, does it?

Mr. Peyton. It provides for sole source procurement for minorities. It doesn't require it.

Mr. Yates. That doesn't make sense. I can't believe Congress would pass a sole sourcing requirement. I can see why Congress would say sure, set aside a certain amount for small business and set aside a certain amount for minorities or among small businesses.

Mr. Peyton. Well, it is my understanding that Section 8(a)

Mr. Yates. Is this Judge Powers? Who told it to you?

Mr. Powers. I wish I could help. My understanding is the same as Mr. Peyton's. That competition is not required under 8(a).

Mr. Yates. I know it is not required. Well, I would have thought mavbe it was required. But even assuming that it is not required, isn t it desirable? Why go to a sole source? I would think that would be productive of, I won't say corruption but productive of extra expense.

Mr. Peyton. It is and that is why I brought it up in responding to this question.

Mr. Yates. I am glad you brought it up. But nobody's giving us an answer as to why you have to do that. Who gave you the answer that you have to do it?

Mr. Peyton. Mr. Jameson, do you want to talk about this? This is procurement.

Mr. Yates. Well, it is

Mr. Jameson. Let me try to define. We are approached each year by the Small Business Administration and asked to give them some targets, some goals for the amount of business that the Institution will give to small, minority and women-owned businesses. Our track record on giving them a fairly good percentage of our business is a good one.

Mr. Yates. I don't have any objection to that. In fact, I am in favor of it. But is there only one woman, one female-run business? Is there only one minority-run business? Do you mean that they wouldn't compete with each other, or do they have some kind of a conspiracy to allot a contract to one person one day and another contract to another person another day? Who does Small Business allocate this work?

Mr. Jameson. They ask us to set up a goal for each year.

Mr. Yates. Okay, but you set up a goal. But who lets the contract?

Mr. Jameson. The Smithsonian lets the contract through the Small Business Administration. Not only is there not a requirement for competition, there can't be any competition.

Mr. Yates. Why?

Mr. Jameson. Well, Mr. Chairman, I will have to go back to review the technical details.

Mr. Yates. I don't believe that. I just don't believe this. Have you heard of this?

Mr. Hughes. Yes, sir. I think they (pointing to Jameson and Peyton) are right.

Mr. Yates. Well, if they are right, it is wrong.

Because they, you, what you are doing is barring women and small business people and minority from competing.

Mr. Jameson. We are not barring them

Mr. Yates. On the contrary, you are barring them. You are not letting others compete who are minorities and women in small business. Aren't there that many contractors who are like that? Have you looked into it at all?

Mr. Jameson. The firm that has been doing the exterior renovation of the building is a minority business.

Mr. Yates. That doesn't answer my question, John.

Mr. Jameson. I'm sorry. I guess I don't understand the question, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Yates. The question is do you have more than one minority business in the Smithsonian.

Mr. Jameson. Yes, we use lots of minority businesses.

Mr, Yates. Why don't you let them compete with each other?

Mr. Jameson. Once a firm has been certified by the Small Business Administration as a qualified small business or minority business, and to be qualified they have to meet certain dollar thresholds, volume of business they do, we cannot compete.

Mr. Yates. I don't believe that. It doesn't make sense.

Mr. Jameson. It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman. If I am wrong, I will apologize.

Mr. Yates. You will not only apologize, you will pay the difference yourself.

Mr. Jameson. That is even worse than apologizing.

Mr. Yates. That is terrible. I just can't believe it. Will somebody check that this afternoon and have an answer tomorrow?

Mr. Jameson. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. You are going to find out whether or not you can have competition, right?

Mr. Jameson. With qualified small business firms, yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. Right.

Mr. Jameson. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. Have you given all your construction business to one small business?

Mr. Jameson. By no means.

Mr. Yates. There are lots of them, aren't there?

Mr. Jameson. The majority of our business is competition or negotiated contracts.

Mr. Yates. With small business?

Mr. Jameson. With a whole range of businesses large and small.

Mr. Yates. Do you have only one small business to whom you give work?

Mr. Jameson. No, sir.

Mr. Yates. There is more than one small business engaged in contracting.

Mr. Jameson. That's right, on different jobs at the Institution.

Mr. Yates. Why can't you offer it out for bid?

Mr. Jameson. I better go back and reread.

Mr. Yates. Well, not reread. Ask Small Business and find out.

Mr. Jameson. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. That is crazy. Don't you think so? Can you conceive of that?

Mr. Mineta. On an 8(a) set aside, yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. Why wouldn't you have competition, then?

Mr. Mineta. Because what the SBA does is send a letter to the agency saying here is the qualified contractor for the set aside program.

Mr, Yates. Why don't they give more than one?

Mr, Mineta. What they do is with their certified list, they will then rotate among the 8(a) minority contracting people.

Mr. Yates. Why don't they let them compete?

Mr. Mineta. Disabled women, minority business enterprises.

PURPOSE OF SET ASIDE CONTRACTING

Mr. Yates. Norman, we know the business is going to be to one of these. We know that, under 8(a) set aside. Why don't they let all those who are qualified compete for it.

Mr. Adams. Mr. Chairman, can I offer a speculation?

Mr. MiNETA. Part of it is that they start them at a small level and want them to grow in terms of size of business. Instead of having them bid and bonding requirements and other things, what they will do is find people who are qualified as contractors who are small and then say now that we have set aside this kind of business to be contracted we have a qualified contractor and they marry the two.

They marry the qualified contractor from SBA's perspective and the fact that SBA has already said to—whether it is NASA or Smithsonian—we want you to come up with a bunch of set aside contracts. Then they will just pair them

Mr. Yates. I agree. That is fine. Except for the wedding. Sure. Let Mr. Jameson set aside his contract for small business. But why do you have one particular business get it instead of others being given the opportunity to compete for it? It just doesn't make sense,

Mr. Adams. Mr. Chairman, I think the growth potential is what is key to this.

Mr. Yates. But you must have one or two or three who are equally small.

Mr. Adams. But you are talking here about allowing firms to cross a threshhold they otherwise would not be able to cross and bid for larger projects that call for more expertise than they would otherwise have. If they are able in this way to become certified, they are in a position to get the necessary skilled men, skilled whatever kind of expertise they need in order to undertake these projects which otherwise they couldn't even bid for.

I am sure that is the language that goes with this as it is so described.

Mr. Yates. Well, it doesn't make sense to me.

Mr. Hughes. On the other extreme you will recall the fellow circling the moon on a gadget and all of a sudden it dawned on him that was made by the lowest competitive bidder.

[The information follows:]

Contracting With the Small Business Administration (the 8(a) Program)

Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act established a program that authorizes the Small Business Administration (SBA) to enter into all types of contracts with other agencies and to let subcontracts for performing those contracts to eligible firms. Those subcontractors are referred to as "8(a) contractors." Through cooperative efforts the SBA and an agency, such as the Smithsonian Institution, match project requirements with the capabilities of 8(a) concerns to establish a basis for the agency to contract with the SBA under the program. Agencies are encouraged to use the 8(a) program for appropriate projects.

Under this program, the following requirements are in effect:

Agencies cannot go out with invitations to bid.

An 8(a) firm is certified to an agency by the SBA.

SBA is the contractor; the 8(a) firm is the subcontractor.

An agency upon notification by SBA can negotiate with a certified 8(a) firm but cannot negotiate with another firm until negotiations with the first firm become unsuccessful.

The use of an 8(a) firm for the renovation of the exterior of the Arts and Industries Building was desirable and appropriate because it was known by the Institution at the beginning of the project that the work needed to be phased over several years (as funds would be appropriated). The Smithsonian was very much interested in obtaining quality work and the firm selected was known because of its work in the White House. Under the 8(a) program, it is permissible to retain the same contractor for incrementally funded projects. Retention of the same contractor has enabled continuity of work and avoided the possibility that two or more contractors would have been involved in the restoration. This particular contrator has produced good work although the phased funded approach probably has resulted in higher costs and additional time.

COMPLETION OF ARTS AND INDUSTRIES BUILDING

Mr. Yates. That is Arts and Industry. You have an overrun. Your completion is spht for a year on Arts and Industry. Is there a reason for that? Is that because of the overrun?

Mr. Peyton. It is because the contractor has taken a little bit longer than we thought, plus we have to delay the final portion of the contract until after the Quadrangle is complete. There is

Mr. Yates. Why do you have to do that?

Mr. Peyton. Because there is a part of the work that is immediately adjacent to the Quadrangle site. We need to have the contractor for the Quadrangle project out of the way first so we can then finish the Arts and Industries Building thus avoiding possible interference claims from the two contractors.

MUSEUM OF AMERICAN HISTORY RENOVATION

Mr. Yates. All right. For Mr. Kennedy's building you want $300,000. Because you say the lighting in the entrance isn't bright enough?

Mr. Peyton. When Mr. Kennedy became director, he decided to make some changes in the north and south public entrances to the building. As it stands right now, there is too much of a transition from the very bright light colored pavements and facades of the building, as compared with relatively dark lobby areas where we now have the "Star Spangled Banner," and other artifacts displayed in dim light for conservation purposes.

What we need to do is to put some tinted glass in the largely glass entranceways at the Mall area and on Constitution Avenue.

Mr. Yates. Why don't you just put a couple of $6 dimmers in? You could turn the lights to whatever intensity you wanted?

Mr. Peyton. It is the outside light that is too bright that we can't control without some sort of tinted glass. The project also includes lobby lighting changes to assist in the transition.

Mr. Yates. I see.

Mr. Peyton. Also, we have had

Mr. Yates. Is an awning cheaper?

Mr. Peyton. We have had difficulty with those doors ever since the building was built because the way they are manufacturered, they are, first of all, too light weight to handle the large crowds.

Mr. Yates. That Mr. Kennedy attracts?

Mr. Peyton. That's right. The style, the manufacture, the way the doors were designed make it extremely difficult to make adjustments to the doors. They have to be removed for adjustments and frequent repairs.

Mr. Yates. So what are you going to do, buy new doors?

Mr. Peyton. We are going to replace the doors and put tinted glass in the new heavier duty doors that will accomplish the light softening problem.

Mr. Yates. This costs $300,000?

Mr. Peyton. Yes.

Mr. Yates. For new doors?

Mr. Peyton. Yes, sir.

Mr. Adams. Plus the lighting change.

Mr. Yates. That is just glass, isn't it? Sounds like a lot of money, doesn't it?

Mr. Peyton. Yes, sir it is. It is a busy place, though.

AMERICAN ART PORTRAIT GALLERY BUILDING FACADE

Mr. Yates. Well, all right. Let's talk about American Art and Portrait Gallery. You are doing some facade work. What is the status of that?

Mr. Peyton. The facade work we have had in our annual appropriation over several years, is now complete. We caulk

Mr. Yates. Let me ask a question. On Mr. Kennedy's, is that going to minorities, too, or are you going to have competition for it?

Mr. Peyton. We don't know that at this time, but we would expect to have competition because the principal element of the project is the manufacture of the doors and the glass.

Mr. Yates. They have got to be customized.

Mr. Peyton. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. Okay. American Art and Portrait Gallery, what is the status of that?

Mr. Peyton. We finished the major facade work there, and

Mr. Yates. What else do you have to do?

Mr. Peyton. As far as the facade is concerned, I am not aware of anything.

Mr. Yates. You are not going to need anymore money for that?

Mr. Peyton. Well, we show $75,000 in FY 1987; we are asking

Mr. Yates. That was last fiscal year or next year?

Mr. Peyton. It was 1987.

Mr. Yates. Why do you need $75,000 if you are almost through with the facade?

Mr. Peyton. Well, there is a continuing repair type of problem on a building like that. The stone is the same type that is on the Capitol building involved in the west front restoration.

Mr. Yates. You mean it expands and contracts, or what?

Mr. Peyton. It is a poor quality stone. The stone came from a local quarry during the days when transportation was much more primitive. And the buildings in the Washington area, at least monumental buildings, were built of local stone. Actually it came from Aquia Creek near Quantico.

Mr. Yates. What would the $75,000 do?

Mr. Peyton. We will probably have to replace some selected stones. It does deteriorate. We will have a stone carver locate some replacement stones that will match; cut the deteriorated stones

out; put the new stones in and caulk around the joints. This involves setting up scaffolding, of course, to do that.

Mr. Yates. That is $75,000?

Mr. Peyton. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. Did you go out on request for bid on something like this?

Mr. Peyton. We would expect to bid it under the authority you granted in the past of identifying qualified firms and taking competitive bids among the qualified firms.

Mr. Yates. Mr. Fern, is your roof leaking?

Mr. Fern. My roof is fine, thanks.

Mr. Yates. Okay. This is the glass roof.

Mr. Fern. They worked hard on it over several years.

FIRE PREVENTION

Mr. Yates. Okay, that is fine. So no dampening effect. Arts and industry again—fire suppression, detection and suppression. A million for that. You want to update the plans and spend—why do you want to update the plans, because of Woodrow Wilson?

Mr. Peyton. No, sir, this is part of a Smithsonian-wide endeavor to properly protect our buildings from a fire prevention point of view, and it has been some time since we made an overall survey of the building. We know from experience in our other buildings that we need to take a comprehensive look. And that is what we propose to do here.

Mr. Yates. How many of your buildings are lacking adequate fire protection?

Mr. Peyton. I would say all of them lack some element of adequate fire protection except the Museum Support Center.

Mr. Yates. How much will it cost to make them fire resistant?

Mr. Peyton. I could only guess, but probably $20 million.

Mr. Yates. Is that in addition to your other costs you have listed?

Mr. Peyton. Well, we have attempted to show a phased plan of fire protection in each of our buildings. That is reflected in here. However

Mr. Yates. What does fire protection mean, installation for a sprinkling system?

Mr. Peyton. First of all, we try to confine potential fires to a fire zone, which means that within a prescribed area we make sure the petitions that enclose that area are fire rated against lateral spread of fire or in the case of ceilings, up to the next floor. Within a given space, we consider some kind of suppression system, usually sprinklers.

In the case of some art storage, we go to a more expensive suppression system which is a gas very similar to freon which literally smothers the fire. We must look at the air distribution system, in most cases sheet metal duct work to make sure fire dampers are located appropriately, once again, to isolate this fire zone.

Mr. Yates. You want to give the committee a report on the fire problem?

Mr. Peyton. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. With anticipated costs.

Mr. Peyton. Yes, sir.

[The information follows:]

48-292 0-85-

Ommu-tOOOOOinoO'noOO O

OO^CM<fcM00THOO*noor^OOO r^

cMfnooa^OiOvOiAOrsiint-(Oiri<i-o o

^1 rsjl m <f|.r,|

ooooooooooooooooo

OOOOOOOOOO'

O O m o O O m

O r-^ 00 m "^ <J" <r

inou-iuliOOOOOOOOOOOOO

vOO>3-CN<tCM00vO ^ Cvi CO CM <N t-t

u o c -o CJ

01 u o —<

X 3 OQ ns 3

O n] ij (u ^^ 3 u

V4 3 c u a.

O <U i-l U X3 < U

m in dj -H o •iH •H e 3 XI a i« uj >3SOoa)o><-i

4J r-J H O. >^

a -v < a.

-•races

3 -r^ to j: ^ o

o o c M c

e e w 08

3 3 JS

01 (U U 01

S S w <

ID T3 Ji C 01 O O

C ^i X >< c

0) 3 0) S -H

01 O J= O <J -H

CL, z M M (

-H| <N| fol <r|l

01 C u

<ft;c/3wcn3:u<:c/iu-u*o

FIRE PROTECTION PROJECTS

Mr. Yates. How come it is just coming up now? Why wouldn't we have heard about this years ago?

Mr. Peyton. We have reported this and have received money through the appropriation process each year, and we have received all the money we could absorb for any given year; the reason being that these fire protection projects are very disruptive to activities in the building.

Mr. Yates. I am sure they are.

Mr. Peyton. And they

Mr. Yates. Can't you close off galleries or parts of the buildings?

Mr. Peyton. We do do that to a certain extent. But right now we have fire protection projects going on in the Renwick Gallery, Natural History Museum, and American History Museum. We have had recent fire protection projects in the American Art and Portrait Gallery, Freer Gallery, Arts and Industries Building and the Castle and I am sure any of the directors who are here can tell you what a pain in the neck it is to have their space disrupted.

Mr. Yates. Does this mean they don't want you to put them in?

Mr. Peyton. I think they want us to put them in, but they don't want to put up with the disruption.

Mr. Yates. Put them in only in the evenings.

Mr. Peyton. We do that to a certain extent. Once again that brings certain security problems into the picture. We will have to pay premium pay to have the work done in the evening. So that each of these projects becomes a negotiation between my organization and the bureaus.

Mr. Yates. How many buildings are in this condition?

Mr. Peyton. Well, we have 14 museum and gallery buildings and every one of them needs some improvement to achieve a high state of fire protection.

Mr. Yates. Let's take Mr. Kennedy's museum, for example. How much money do you need for that one?

Mr. Peyton. I can't tell you at the moment. But it is on the order of

Mr. Yates. You have a five-year plan set out at Page 232. Let's look at the National Museum of American History. We want $2,300,000 to put those in shape, right?

Mr. Peyton. Yes, sir for the period indicated.

Mr. Yates. Through 1990?

Mr. Peyton. Right.

Mr. Yates. Will that complete the work?

Mr. Peyton. No, sir, it won't.

Mr. Yates. Why won't that complete the work? How much money do you need?

Mr. Peyton. You asked me earlier how much I thought it would take to do the whole job.

Mr. Yates. You said about $20 million.

Mr. Peyton. I said about $20 million.

Mr. Yates. Yes. You look at the total on page 232 and we see $7.5 million.

Mr. Peyton. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. Why are you not—why don't you tell us? Why don't you do more work during this—are the buildings in danger of fire in the interim?

Mr. Peyton. The answer to that is kind of a relative thing. I would say relative to most museums around the country the Smithsonian is probably in pretty good shape.

Mr. Yates. Well, that is true in every respect compared to most museums.

Mr. Peyton. Together with that answer has to be considered the value of the collections we are trjdng to protect and the public.

Mr. Yates. Yes. But that is why I am asking you. Is there a danger of fire now, a danger of destruction through fire of the collections.

Mr. Peyton. There is always that danger.

Mr. Yates. Well, will there be less danger in 1990 than there is now?

Mr. Peyton. I fully expect there to be, yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. If you get the appropriation.

Mr. Peyton. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. You are going forward with the program.

Mr. Peyton. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. You have $7.5 million requested. Why don't you ask for more to do more work?

Mr. Peyton. Because we can't absorb anymore in occupied space during the timeframe.

Mr. Yates. Is that because of the resistance of the directors, or because you can't do anymore?

Mr. Peyton. We could do more, but it would involve shutting down the museum.

Mr. Yates. The whole museum.

Mr. Peyton. No, sir, not necessarily.

FIRE PROTECTION AT MUSEUM OF AMERICAN HISTORY

Mr. Yates. Let's go back to Mr, Kennedy. You want to spend $2,300,000 in his museum and you told me that wasn't all that would be required to protect his museum.

Mr. Peyton. That's correct.

Mr. Yates. Can you tell me how much would be required to protect his museum?

Mr. Peyton. To meet the standards we are striving for, I would think probably a couple of million beyond that.

Mr. Yates. Four million three. If you had the $4,300,000 by 1990, could you complete the work?

Mr. Peyton. We could, but it would require shutting down significant elements of the museums.

Mr. Yates. What happens, Mr. Kennedy, you do not want the work done by 1990?

Mr. Kennedy. No, I don't think we do. There is a trade off here between the

Mr. Yates. I am thinking of the risk.

Mr. Kennedy. Sure. There is, it is like security or custody of an object. The pace at which the work is carried on has to be balanced

against the disruption of the public service that you are conducting.

Mr. Yates. Right.

Mr. Kennedy. The. pace at which this work is being done also is associated with other renovations with respect to the heating and ventilation, air conditioning and a whole range of other stuff that we think we can get done while we are still receiving the public in the facility, still providing them with adequate safety from fire. There is a judgment about the balance you strike.

If you shut the whole place down for a year and spent $4 million on it you probably could get it done, but shutting the whole place down would be undesirable.

Mr. Yates. I know. I respect that viewpoint. But my own feeling is that one of these days as fast as possible we ought to be protecting you and the other museums and other buildings against fire.

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, so do we.

Mr. Yates. So you only want $2,300,000 during this period of work, through 1990.

Mr. Kennedy. I don't want to pretend to be an expert on fire protection. Mr. Peyton is, more than I. My sense of it is that this pace does accommodate the orderly planning of the other work that has to get done in the place, in physical terms, just getting the plan in shape and the fire protection and amount of public service we could accommodate.

We probably could go somewhat faster, but I do not know that, sir, of my own knowledge.

FIRE protection AT NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY

Mr. Yates. Well, all right, let me move then to Mr. Fern's museum. He wants $600,000 through 1990.

Mr. Peyton, how much money do you think will be required to put Mr. Fern's building in shape, up to the standards you say are necessary?

Mr. Peyton. We are showing $450,000.

Mr. Yates. You are showing more than that. You are showing, oh, you have a public address system. Okay. I know that is what you are showing, but is that all you will need?

Mr. Peyton. Well, this gets into another aspect of this which hasn't come up until this point. Those in the fire protection field believe that certain building areas should be sprinklered, and there are those in the museum field who do not want sprinklers.

Mr. Yates. They don't want the water damage, do they?

Mr. Peyton. Well, there is potential for water damage.

Mr. Yates. Well, what do we do, take a vote?

Let me ask you a question.

Mr. Peyton. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. What you are saying to me is that this is something for Mr. Adams and for the Regents, because this is an overall problem, isn't it?

Mr. Adams. It is one of a number of such overall problems. You could say that asbestos protection is another example of the same.

Mr. Yates. Exactly.

Mr. Adams. One of the things that that illustrates is that standards don't remain the same either. The standards you may shoot for in 1985 may be regarded as inadequate by 1990. That is in fact what has happened in the case of asbestos so that you have moving targets here. Those targets have to be recognized as somewhat arbitrary at any point.

Mr. Yates. All right. What do you want me to do? I am willing to help you out by giving you adequate appropriations to protect the nation's treasures here. You have submitted this budget. Does this budget represent your best judgment or have you thought it through?

Mr. Adams. I think this represents as good a judgment as we can provide. I think the fact that we sound equivocating about it is because one is necessarily equivocating in an area such as this. I don't think we could go back to these figures and produce numbers that represented any more wisdom than they already embody.

Mr. Peyton. The dollars that we have asked for in the safety area have not been significantly influenced by 0MB.

Mr. Yates. Have been or have not?

Mr. Peyton. Have not been.

Mr. Yates. I know. This calls for judgment.

Mr. Peyton. We have asked for the amounts that we think represents an orderly program to get where we think we need to be. And it recognizes some of the problems that you have heard from others.

Mr. Yates. Then we just take for granted that your buildings are not going to be fire protected for 10 years.

Mr. Adams. This is not a case comparable to being pregnant or not pregnant where you are one or the other. This is a question of shifting degrees of risk and shifting degrees of

Mr. Yates. Right. Right.

Mr. Adams. In those circumstances this represents the best we think we can do at this point, yes.

Mr. Yates. Then you don't want anjrmore money for it is what you are saying.

Mr. Adams. I think if we had more money, we would not invest it in this program.

Mr. Yates. Where would you invest it?

Mr. Adams. That is a very open-ended invitation and I would not want to make a judgment off the top of my head. If you would invite me to do so, I will do some thinking on it overnight.

Mr. Yates. Do some thinking overnight. I haven't yet asked you the question; that is, does this budget represent, in your opinion, the amount of money you want to do a decent job of operating and running the Institution?

Mr. Adams. I think in light of the existing circumstances, it represents what we

Mr. Yates. That is the standard answer, like any critical or emerging situations that require attention that you are not going to give attention to. One is fire that you are not going to give attention to but it is not for reasons of the budget, right?

Mr. Adams. That's right.

Mr. Yates. Are there other emergency situations that you are not going to be giving attention to because of the budget constraints? That is one of the questions we would like to ask.

Mr. Adams. Would you limit the targets to emergency situations or would you allow us to take into account?

Mr. Yates. Pretty much because of budget constraints. Now of course the definition of an emergency varies, again, like your standards for asbestos and your standards for fire protection. What has to be done or what should be done in the cause of husbandry of your museums and your institutions? What should you be doing now that you are not doing that you should be doing?

That, I would like you to give some attention to and tell us tomorrow. Let us decide whether we can help you.

Mr. Adams. Thank you. We will.

Mr. Yates. We did that last year with the Harvard Computers, didn't we?

ASTROPHYSICAL OBSERVATORY

Mr. Adams. At SAO, yes.

Mr. Yates. Dr. Shapiro, I think. Yes, that was reckoned to be an emergency later, wasn't it, after the hearing was completed?

Mr. Shapiro. The computer? Yes.

Mr. Yates. When the hearing had been completed, the committee felt you hadn't made a case, right? At any rate you didn't get your $800,000.

Mr. Shapiro. That's correct.

Mr. Yates. At a later meeting, I forget which building it was, the story was told that you desperately needed these computers to move forward.

Mr. Shapiro. That's correct. And in fact the funds were appropriated.

Mr. Yates. That's right. Are there such situations now? That is what I want you to tell me tomorrow if you want to.

Mr. Adams. We would like to but

Mr. Yates. I don't want you to go, you know. You are new on this job.

Mr. Adams. I understand.

Mr. Yates. Maybe you ought to have Sam cautioning you about the heavy hand of 0MB.

Mr. Hughes. I don't think the Secretary

Mr. Yates. For your protection, this is something that our committee is demanding from you.

Mr. Hughes. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, we are almost stuck with the position that what we sought from 0MB is what we thought we needed.

Mr. Yates. This is what 0MB wants you to say, but we have some discretion here, too.

Mr. Hughes. I think what we sought from 0MB represented a judgment, given the guidelines, as to what we needed for running the Institution. To the extent that the present figures are different from that it represents a departure from what we orginally sought to meet our needs.

We may have some variations on that, but in general I believe, it represented a rather a rather considered judgment by the institution of its needs.

Mr. Yates. How does it do that, Sam? It doesn't make sense.

BUDGET HISTORY

I will be back to you in a minute, Mr. Peyton. In the meantime, let's look at your budget history. You started out asking—the various bureaus started out asking you and Mr. Adams and whatever powers there be in the Smithsonian for $277,739,000. So you sent that figure over to OMB.

Mr. Hughes. We exercised some judgment with regard to those numbers in sending a number over to OMB. I don't remember the number.

Mr. Jameson. It is $254,107,000.

Mr. Yates. Oh.

Mr. Hughes. That was the number we requested.

Mr. Yates. These are what your department heads said they needed, right? You said, well, you can't have it.

Mr. Hughes. We exercised some judgment.

Mr. Yates. That's right.

Mr. Hughes. As did OMB and as will you.

Mr. Yates. That is what I am trying to find out. I am trying to find the facts, sir.

Mr. Hughes. Fair enough.

Mr. Yates. So we can exercise some judgment. But your bureau people thought they should get $277 million.

Mr. Hughes. If one goes back

Mr. Yates. And you said, no, you can't have $277 million; you can only have $254 million. So you cut off $23 million right there.

Mr. Hughes. That's correct.

Mr. Yates. Then you sent it to OMB and they said you are still asking for too much money. They cut you by almost another $50 million.

Mr. Hughes. That's correct.

Mr. Yates. Okay, so lots of things that you thought were necessary were cut out by OMB.

Mr. Hughes. That's correct.

Mr. Yates. Now, I am asking Mr. Adams and I am asking you, all right, what was cut off that you think was essential, right.

Mr. Hughes. Sure.

Mr. Yates. All right, what were they? I will tell you what is cut out. Do you want to go through the list?

Assistant Secretary for Science, didn't cut him very much. Let's look at the big cuts. Well, sciences was cut by $3 million—$2.5 million. Are you hurt badly, David?

Mr. Challinor. Some, but not insurmountably.

SAO budget reduction

Mr. Yates. Okay, how about Dr. Shapiro's computers, do I have to see him some other time and find out about them.

Mr. Challinor. I will let him answer. He got $800,000, which should allow him to replace computers in a reasonably orderly fashion.

Mr. Yates. Okay.

Mr. Adams. May I introduce a problem there however? The long-term development of SAO calls for careful advanced planning with regard to future instrumentation needs. You said you were interested only in emergency items, but one of his important concerns is the development of instrumentation possibilities toward machines that would only come on track in the 1990's. That may be outside the framework that you are now considering.

Perhaps you should ask him about that because I think there are elements of his proposal that were cut back there that leave him hurting, frankly.

Mr. Yates. Well, but this is true, is it not? We have targeted Dr. Shapiro, but, as I see reductions, as I look through this list of science and see reductions in each of the activities, I wonder whether that same question shouldn't be addressed to each of the people in Dr. Challinor's bailiwick.

Dr. Challinor says that they can get by with it. Then I ask him about Dr. Shapiro, and he says ask him. Now should I be asking your museum directors, too?

Mr. Challinor. That is up to you, Mr. Chairman. You are the chairman.

Mr. Yates. All right. Let me start with—wait a minute now. Yes, astrophysical. Let's ask, first, the Assistant Secretary for Science. That is you, Dr. Challinor.

Mr. Challinor. Yes.

Mr. Yates. You were cut $50,000. Are you hurt by it?

Mr. Challinor. Some, but we can live with it.

Mr. Yates. Okay, you are going to live with an arrow now.

national museum of natural history budget reduction

Let's look at the National Museum of Natural History. They started with $27 million requested, Sam Hughes only gave them $22 million. And 0MB cut them another million dollars or $800,000. How badly are you hurt?

Mr. FiSKE. We are able to move forward with most of our programs, Mr. Chairman. We are looking forward to an increase in equipment and more particularly restoration of the 2 percent across-the-board cut.

Mr. Yates. In other words, you hope you don't get another 2 percent across the board cut.

Mr. Fiske. Very much so.

Mr. Yates. Then you are going to forever hold your peace?

Mr. Fiske. Oh, no.

Mr. Yates. Well, where are you hurt by the reduction? You didn't tell me anything.

Mr. Fiske. We have leveled the reduction across several of our programs, purchase of equipment, contractual services and printing.

Mr. Yates. Where are you hurting?

Mr. FiSKE. Printing, contractual services and equipment is where we are hurting the most.

Mr. Yates. What equipment are you losing that you need?

Mr, FiSKE. A whole range of scientific equipment, computing equipment. Computing equipment is especially critical. In fiscal year 1984, we were able to acquire 50 microcomputers and word processors. This year we are able to purchase only a handful.

Mr. Yates. How many do you need?

Mr. Fiske. We need at least 40 more. So we have been stopped almost dead in our tracks this year and are hoping for restoration of the 2 percent next year. I will provide you with a memo.

[The information follows:]

NMNH Budget Needs

Computers and related equipment have been used for nearly twenty years in the Museum of Natural History for collections management, scientific research and museum administration. On the average, these machines have a practical life span of five years or so, either because they wear out or because they are made obsolete by advances in technology. Recognizing the need to keep its large inventory of computing equipment functional and modern, the museum has established and hopes to maintain a five-year schedule for replacing worn-out and obsolete equipment, and for adding new equipment to meet increased demands and needs. This replacement schedule will also allow the museum to streamline its computing environment, creating more compatibility between machines which need to exchange data or share equipment, and establishing a more uniform inventory of machines that is easier to use and maintain.

The museum needs forty IBM work stations to meet basic needs in research and collections management. We have a long way to go before filling all the computer needs of the scientists, collections management staff and administrative staff. Additional funds in the amount of $280,000 (40 stations at an average cost of $7,000 each) will allow us to make significant progress toward meeting current staff computer needs.

SAO BUDGET REDUCTION

Mr. Yates. All right. Dr. Shapiro, Astrophysics, you were cut $2 million by the department, by Mr. Hughes. Then 0MB cut you by another $500,000. Are you hurt?

Mr. Shapiro. We are very hurt in the sense that our major new thrust in the area of submilimeter-wave astronomy was cut out. We have been planning a facility in that range to exploit this area for the first time with high resolution observations, as I mentioned at the hearing last year. A study was completed last summer by a committee at the Observatory, pointing out all the scientific advantages of exploiting that new region.

We were proposing to start tackling the longest lead time item which is the development of receivers for that part of the spectrum. That initiative was eliminated from the budget.

Mr. Yates. How important is it? How should I phrase the question?

Mr. Shapiro. How shall I put it? That was the major new thrust that we at the Observatory felt would advance our science the most by exploring

Mr. Yates. How much money is involved?

Mr. Shapiro. Overall or for this beginning?

Mr. Yates. Yes, for the beginning.

Mr. Shapiro. Five hundred thousand dollars for the beginning.

Mr. Yates. What is the overall amount?

Mr. Shapiro. The overall amount for a full array spread over a number of years would be 25 million.

Mr. Yates. How many years?

Mr. Shapiro. Well, that depends on the funding.

Mr. Yates. Suppose you get $500,000 and you don't get anything the next year or year after that, does that help you at all?

Mr. Shapiro. Yes. We have planned things in the way such that by developing the receivers we can still take some advantage by using the receivers, for example, on the MMT. It is a start. It wouldn't really allow us to exploit this opportunity, but it wouldn't be a waste.

Mr. Adams. This illustrates, Mr. Chairman, the problem I have with separating out an emergency component and a long-range component. There is a tendency

Mr. Yates. I know. I know. But I wouldn't have known about this unless I had asked Dr. Shapiro specifically, because he is enjoined, I take it. I don't know what 0MB is going to do to him now.

He is enjoined by 0MB, mandated not to tell me anj^hing. Okay, Sam, step in.

Mr. Hughes. To use your pronoun, "I" did. We took more than 0MB, as I recall it, did we not?

Mr. Yates. Okay, then, that protects 0MB.

Mr. Hughes. I think the rationale to simply

Mr. Yates. Okay, why did you take it out then?

Mr. Hughes. It was a new start of some size which seemed post-ponable.

Mr. Yates. He says it isn't postponable.

Mr. Hughes. It seemed to me to personalize it, that it was.

Mr. Yates. Do you understand the astrophysical horizon he is opening up for you?

Mr. Hughes. No, I understand the budget horizon that was impinging upon us.

Mr. Yates, Okay. You just lost it, Dr. Shapiro.

stri budget reduction

Tropical Research Institute lost a million dollars from Mr. Hughes. You lose another $500,000 from 0MB. Who takes care of that, David, do you?

Mr. Challinor. I do since Dr. Rubinoff is not here. What we had to do, and I will take the rap here with Sam. We gave the priority to replacement and upgrading of equipment. You see they asked for $319,000. We recommended $220,000. The 0MB figure was 150. They have a base of $122,000. If we get the $150,000 this year, we will have $272,000 in our base for replacement and upgrade of equipment.

You will notice also one big item was research support. They asked for 139; we okayed 125. So that is a relatively small cut. That was wiped out completely. The other big item was a high speed boat. The reason for the $450,000 request was that we were worried that the train service to get to Barro Colorado Island, would become defunct. It has been threatened for many years. If it does become defunct, the high speed boat would be crucial to get supplies and personnel to the island.

The train is still running, I am happy to say and my fingers are crossed. What we have had to do is make a whole series of value judgments.

Mr. Yates. Can't you borrow a boat from the Navy?

Mr. Challinor. Not that is suitable to our purposes. We have two Navy surplus boats, but it would take better than an hour to get to Gamboa, which is the end of the paved road.

Mr. Adams. We are the happy recipients, Mr. Chairman of a boat confiscated from the drug runners.

Mr. Challinor. More than one, three.

Mr. Adams. We do look forward to that as a future source of supply. But unfortunately the kind of boat we most immediately need is not one which seems to be in favor among the drug runners.

Mr. Yates. Environmental Research Center, David?

Mr. Challinor. That again was an equipment replacement request. We did get an okay to ask for $100,000 of the $300,000 that we asked for. That will in turn increase their equipment base from an existing base of $140,000. If we get approval of the hundred thousand that we are asking for this year, this will bring the base up to $240,000 a year to replace and upgrade new equipment.

NATIONAL AIR AND SPACE MUSEUM BUDGET REDUCTION

Mr. Yates. What about National Air and Space Museum? That is cut by about a million dollars.

Mr. Chalunor. That was cut, yes. Again you will see here the big items are the video disk project which we have high hopes for— and digital recording. We cut some. Those monies were cut out by the 0MB. Space telescope, historical research on the space telescope station was cut out. It had a somewhat lower priority. See, they were looking for 16 people.

Much of what Air and Space was looking for, in $1,165 million was in salaries. We are quite limited on what we can do to hire new people.

national zoo budget REDUCTION

Mr. Yates. I know. What about the Zoo? The Zoo was cut $2 million, two million five.

Mr. Chalunor. Yes, there again, the equipment replacement and upgrading program that the Zoo was targeted for half a million increase, in fiscal year 1987 we expect to have the Zoo on a regular equipment replacement schedule that we now have with Natural History, Astrophysical Observatory and Environmental Research Center.

HISTORY AND ART BUDGET REDUCTION

Mr. Yates. Let's turn to history and art for just a minute. Who is the Assistant Director for History and Art?

Mr. Adams. Mr. Anderson here.

Mr. Yates. Okay. Your office wasn't hurt too badly. You must be one of Sam's favorites.

Mr. Anderson. We were modest in our request, Mr. Chairman.

NATIONAL MUSEUM OF AMERICAN HISTORY BUDGET REDUCTION

Mr. Yates. Now National Museum of American History. Mr. Kennedy wanted $13 million, and they cut him half a million. Then he went to 0MB and they cut him another half million. So, Mr. Kennedy, are you hurt?

Mr. Kennedy. Two areas primarily, in the exhibit area and then some matters of accelerating the inventory. Let's talk about the exhibit matter first if we can.

Mr. Yates. Sure.

Mr. Kennedy. We went for the second of a three=year appropriation to signify properly the Bicentennial of the Constitution of the United States, requesting $265,000 for the purpose of carrying forward both the research and inquiry into, and presentation of, the story of the relationship of the Japanese American units in the Second World War to the constitutional questions raised by the internment of them and their families, their release into heroic service in both the Pacific and Atlantic sides of this war, and the questions that were raised by their return to their circumstances before internment.

It is a complex story which demonstrates rather clearly, we think, two primary points. First, that the Constitution is an evolving document; that it wasn't all written, and all the agony completed in 1787. Secondly, that the relationship between military life and civilian life in the United States is a complex and evolving story. We think that telling that story adequately is essential to an understanding of what will otherwise be a somewhat monochromatic presentation of the story of the Constitution; namely, one which celebrates gray figures long dead, 200 years dead.

It is also important to launch the Armed Forces history area in the museum, with the primary theme that the United States remains primarily a civilian nation in which service occurs—we think we are hurt badly by the OMB's lack of interest in that story.

Mr. Yates. Sam hurt you, too?

Mr. Kennedy. Yes.

Mr. Adams. I would like to make a special pitch for this program, Mr. Chairman, because you know there has been a long delay in the appointment of the Commission on the bicentennial.

Mr. Yates. I agree.

Mr. Adams. What had been originally intended to be a galvanizing force in the country at large for this purpose is not on the scene yet, and will not be on the scene in time to begin to give this the national attention it should otherwise have. It seems to me the requirements for what the Smithsonian does are thereby increased.

Mr. Yates. Why didn't you talk to Sam?

Mr. Adams. Well

Mr. Hughes. I did it before he was on the scene.

Mr. Yates. I see. How much do you need?

Mr. Kennedy. We need $265,000.

Mr. Yates. How much do you have available?

Mr. Kennedy. Right now?

Mr. Yates. No, for this purpose. You need $265,000 in addition to what you have?

Mr. Kennedy. You gave us $100,000 last year.

Mr. Yates. Yes.

Mr. Kennedy. We spent that. We need $265,000 for this year. The schedule called for another $185,000 to finish the work the year following.

Mr. Yates. Two hundred sixty-five this year and 185 beyond that.

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. All right. Will that satisfy you?

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, sir, with regard to that program.

Mr. Yates. There are no others, are there?

Mr. Kennedy. Sure.

Mr. Yates. What, for instance?

native AMERICAN PROGRAM

Mr. Kennedy. Well, as a secondary, but still a high priority for us. We don't think the treatment of native Americans in our museum or elsewhere in the Smithsonian is adequate. We think it

Mr. Yates. I thought that was in the Natural History Museum.

Mr. Kennedy. The subject doesn't belong in natural history exclusively, but belongs, we think, in American history as well.

Mr. Yates. I would have thought so.

Mr. Kennedy. We think so, and we asked for $104,000, and three work years to add a scholar focused upon that subject who has some training in history and much more important, to provide some training in getting history across to a broad public and serving Native American museums around the country. That program got knocked out in the course of the process you described.

We think it ought to be restored because we think that without it that emphasis will not be adequately presented.

Mr. Yates. How much does that involve?

Mr. Kennedy. One hundred four thousand dollars for American History and a like for Natural History.

Mr. Yates. A one-year?

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. Mr. Regula?

NATIONAL zoo HOSPITAL FACILITY

Mr. Regula. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Did you find any today that should be reduced?

Mr. Yates. Did I find any that should be reduced?

Mr. Regula. Should be.

Mr. Yates. I didn't find any that should be. I found some that could be.

Mr. Regula. Put them in suspense.

I note you are requesting $3.3 million for construction of a new hospital at the Rock Creek Zoo facility. Was there not just a new hospital at the Front Royal facility built recently?

Mr. Robinson. Yes, there was indeed, but unfortunately Front Royal is an hour and a half by fastest car from the Zoo.

Mr. Regula. I know, I have been there.

Mr. Robinson. In emergencies, there is no way at all.

Mr. Regula. What do you have at the Rock Creek facility at the present time?

Mr. Robinson. A building built in 1969 which was then a compromise between what was desirable and what was available in finance. It was built at a time when veterinary medicine was in a poor state of development, and you lost one animal in 10 to anesthesia.

The first room you enter is the autopsy room and not the treatment room. It is hopelessly inadequate at this stage.

Mr. Regula. In space or facilities?

Mr. Robinson. In space and location of the facilities. For instance, you have to wheel animals from the operating room to the x-ray room, something like 20 yards.

Mr. Regula. Wasn't that taken into consideration when they built it originally?.

Mr. Robinson. It was, as I say, compromise between the small amount of money available and best design we could get for the money. I have here as an exhibit a picture of Ling-Ling being operated on when she last had her kidney problem, and she had to be operated on in the corridor of our hospital because the operating room was inadequate.

Here we have the best kidney surgeons in the United States working in the corridor, perhaps you would like to see this picture and keep it as an exhibit.

[The photo follows:]

Mr. Regula. How much did the facility at Front Royal cost?

Mr. Robinson. Approximately $1.4 million.

Mr. Regula. Why would this new facility be $3.3 million?

Mr. Robinson. Because this is designed as the major hospital for the Zoo and will also contain research rooms and reproductive physiology labs.

Mr. Regula. It seems like a pretty expensive facility for the Zoo.

Mr. Robinson. The one they are building in New York at the moment for the Bronx Zoo is going to cost in that region, and I think the Bronx Zoo has not the degree of medical expertise that we have and representation in the field of veterinary research that we have.

It is not really a very large amount of money by modern standards and will only provide a minimum facility, it won't provide the optimum facility even at that.

Mr. Regula. In conjunction with that, I note that your present plan would anticipate about $81 million in renovation and improvements for the Zoo which, of course, includes the hospitals. Does that number still stand or would it be larger than the master plan indicates?

Mr. Robinson. You are talking about the total duration of the master plan?

Mr. Regula. Yes.

Mr. Robinson. That number is relatively realistic. We have abandoned phase II of Olmsted Walk for next year's priority simply because we feel animal health is the important priority. We had it scheduled to be completed in three years, it will now be pushed into the future and has the enthusiastic support of the Fine Arts Commission as a means of improving the visitor experience at the Zoo.

The fact of the matter is that at the end of the master plan conceived before I came to the Zoo we will not have a really modern Zoo. We will have a renovated Zoo of the old exhibits. I feel if we are going to keep our reputation as the National Zoo, the shop window for all the zoos of the United States, we have got to think of new exhibits. And then the press can no longer say there is a National Zoo in Washington, but the National Zoo is probably somewhere else.

Mr. Regula. Where do they say it is?

Mr. Robinson. They said it is in San Diego. I think we are a long way behind some of the other major zoos in the United States simply because we have just been renovating and not innovating. I think the time has come to innovate and really build ourselves into a premier, excellent facility.

deer at front royal

Mr. Regula. In conjunction with the Zoo, what is the status of the deer problems at Front Royal?

Mr. Robinson. We have more or less solved that problem. There is some indication of problems with meningeal disease with the captive deer coming from the white tail deer, but rather than getting involved in a complicated problem of white tail deer control,

we are trying to control the vector of this meningeal disease which is a snail.

And it seems easier to kill snails than cause another uproar by killing deer.

Mr. Regula. I doubt if snails will generate TV coverage.

Mr. Robinson. Right.

Mr. Regula. I was down there and understand the problem that confronts you.

RESTORING TWO PERCENT CUT

I note in the budget justification that you are unhappy about the 2 percent across the board reduction taken in last year's bill. I might say you are the first group that has appeared before the subcommittee to complain about that cut, which was not very large. And I don't think that you have been impacted by rescissions or deferrals.

I am curious why the Smithsonian believes it has been so much more adversely impacted than other agencies.

Mr. Adams. I think I will ask Mr. Yellin to talk to that.

Mr. Yellin. I think one of the reasons, Mr. Regula, is that our appropriation is mainly for salaries, and we don't have great deal of flexibility to absorb reductions of the $3 million magnitude other than in salaries. Our other objects funding is limited.

Secondly, we are divided for budgetary purposes into about 40 line items. Each of those has had to absorb a relatively large sum. Therefore I think this cut has impacted just about everybody rather than in a central location where other agencies might be able to absorb the reduction.

TRUST income

Mr. Regula. What has been the pattern of income from your endowments and/or contributions? As I recall from earlier testimony, it was $33 million in this fiscal year. What was it, say, two years ago, other than Federal sources.

Mr. Yellin. Fairly similar.

Mr. Regula. Are you saying $33 million has been a consistent figure for maybe the last five years.

Mr. Yates. I think it has been fairly constant, yes, sir.

Mr. Regula. What is the distribution of that $33 million? Is it salaries? Do you use it for capital improvements, or do you have any pattern for the way it is used?

Mr. Yellin. Our Regents approved programs where we spend large chunks of that money every year, $3 million for major exhibitions, $2 million for research, collection acquisitions, and educational outreach and plus another million dollars for fellowships.

We support approximately 40 percent of our administrative activities with that money. We have a budget plan as explained in our presentation for use of those funds.

Mr. Regula. Does the justification contain the breakdown of the $33 million? It does?

Mr. Clarke. In the back there is a copy of the annual financial report, fiscal year 1984 actual distribution.

Mr. Regula. Yes, this just deals with totals. There is no breakout of what happens on the $33 million.

Mr. Clarke. It is there.

Mr. Regula. In what form? Is it just part of the total or does it give some specificity as to how it is to be expended?

Mr. Clarke. On page A-34.

Mr. Regula. Okay.

Mr. Clarke. It is a breakdown of the sources of the income broken out by type of funding as we are required to keep our accounts as a nonprofit organization and it also shows the expenditure of those same dollars by line item in our budget. Subsequent charts give you a bit more breakdown. Other information is certainly available.

Mr. Regula. Is the nonfederal portion controlled entirely by the Regents as to authorization?

Mr. Clarke. Yes, it is placed before the Regents for approval, recommended by the Secretary to the Regents and motion is passed approving the budget.

Mr. Regula. I think in our appropriations process we are impacted by how that money is spent, but have no voice in it.

Mr. Yates. That's right, except indirectly if we wanted to exercise it.

Mr. Regula. We could by just withholding on the Federal portion.

Mr. Yates. Yes, I think so. I don't know whether or not our influence extends into the trust

Mr. Regula. I understand. It is a displacement situation.

Mr. Yates. Do you want to quit until tomorrow morning?

Mr. Regula. Fine with me.

Mr. Yates. Let's come back at 10:00 tomorrow.

Thursday, May 9, 1985. SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

WITNESSES

ROBERT MCCORMICK ADAMS, SECRETARY

PHILLIP S. HUGHES, UNDER SECRETARY

DEAN ANDERSON, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR HISTORY AND

ART DAVID CHALLINOR, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR SCIENCE JOHN F. JAMESON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION RALPH C. RINZLER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR MUSEUM PROGRAMS JOHN E. REINHARDT, DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES JOHN R. CLARKE, ASSISTANT TREASURER TOM L. PEYTON, DIRECTOR, FACILITIES SERVICES MICHAEL H. ROBINSON, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ZOOLOGICAL PARK JON E. YELLIN, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PROGRAMMING AND BUDGET PETER POWERS, GENERAL COUNSEL HON. NORMAN MINETA, A MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA ROBERT BURKE, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PROTECTION SERVICES CHARLES ELDREDGE, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL MUSEUM OF AMERICAN ART CHARLES ROBERTSON, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL MUSEUM OF

AMERICAN ART JAMES DEMETRION, DIRECTOR, HIRSHHORN MUSEUM AND SCULPTURE GARDEN

NANCY KIRKPATRICK, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, HIRSHHORN MUSEUM AND

SCULPTURE GARDEN RICHARD MURRAY, DIRECTOR, ARCHIVES OF AMERICAN ART HAROLD PFISTER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, COOPER-HEWITT MUSEUM VIJA KARKLINS, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION LIBRARIES JOHN KINARD, DIRECTOR, ANACOSTIA NEIGHBORHOOD MUSEUM ALLEN FERN, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY MARY ROSENFELD, PLANNING MANAGER, SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION LIBRARIES

\RBARA SCHNEIDER, PROGRAM COORDINATOR, NATIONAL MUSEUM VCT

MBERTUS VAN ZELST, DIRECTOR, CONSERVATION ANALYTICAL LABO-VTORY .IX LOWE. DIRECTOR. SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION PRESS

NATIONAL MUSEUM OF AMERICAN ART BUDGET REDUCTION

Ir. Yates. Mr. Reporter, show the hearing as coming to order in for the hearing on the Smithsonian appropriations for fiscal r 1986.

(595)

Had we completed Mr. Kennedy's museum? We knew Mr. Kennedy wanted more money, and deservedly so, may I add.

Now, I turn to the National Museum of American Art. Mr. El-dredge?

Mr. Eldredge. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. Are you satisfied with your budget or were you cut so severely that your operations are going to be hurt as was the case with Mr. Kennedy?

Mr, Eldredge. We are not satisfied with our budget, sir.

Mr. Yates. You are not?

Mr. Eldredge. No.

Mr. Yates. Come up here and tell us about it. Is this something in the nature of a minor revolt by the administrators of the museums against their leadership?

Mr. Eldredge. No, sir, I wouldn't call it that.

Mr. Yates. Or just say against 0MB, then. How are you hurt? How much were you cut first?

Mr. Eldredge. We were cut in the request submitted to 0MB by $245,000.

Mr. Yates. How will this hurt you?

Mr. Eldredge. That specific cut came in the area of automation which means our effort to improve and make more available the information data that we preserve and report for the whole profession, not simply the Smithsonian, will be greatly delayed. And as well, the functioning of our offices and daily management of the museum, conservation and recordkeeping on the collections, publication programs

Mr. Yates. What does that mean, the recordkeeping on the collections?

Mr. Eldredge. The registrar's use of computers to record the location of art.

Mr. Yates. Isn't that now on computer?

Mr. Eldredge. Just this past year we have begun to automate that aspect of the operation. Previously it was not.

Mr. Yates. I am still not clear. I had the impression the art was all inventoried.

Mr. Eldredge. As of last year, we have begun that process.

Mr. Yates. How far advanced is the process?

Mr. Eldredge. We now have an object tracking system that tells us where any given object is. That is on line as of fiscal year 1985.

Mr. Yates. That is on line. What does on line mean? How far toward completion is it?

Mr. Eldredge. There is still an enormous backlog 6f materials— that is approximately 33 percent of the collection is not yet catalogued, therefore not yet on line.

Mr. Yates. On line meaning on the computer?

Mr. Eldredge. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. Why isn't it catalogued?

Mr. Eldredge. Because of the lack of staff and time and re/ sources to catalogue this perennial backlog.

Mr. Yates. How do you know where it is, or don't you?

Mr. Eldredge. I cannot tell you exactly where it is. I assume-

Mr. Yates. A third of your collection?

Mr. Eldredge. Mostly works on paper.

Mr. Yates. Are out in various offices of the government.

Mr. Eldredge. Oh, no, sir, they are on our premises, boxed and under control in that respect.

Mr. Yates. Yes. '

Mr. Eldredge. But they are not fully catalogued yet. They are objects which we have a brief catalogue on but not a full catalogue, and they are not accessible to researchers because of the inability to get them on to a computerized inventory.

Mr. Yates. How do you know all of them are there?

Mr. Eldredge. I cannot with absolute certainty tell you that.

Mr. Yates. Well, you better find out. We better put you in charge of getting everything together then.

Mr. Eldredge. We are doing as best we can. The request made to 0MB would have assisted in that effort. _^

Mr. Yates. How much money is involved in that effort?

Mr. Eldredge. That was part of the larger package of $300,000.

Mr. Yates. How much is involved in finding out where the rest of your material is?

Mr. Eldredge. It would be some portion of the $245,000.

Mr. Yates. That I know, but how much money is involved in that? Can a budget officer here tell us that?

Mr. Robertson. Approximately $50,000, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Yates. Will that complete the job?

Mr. Robertson. Yes, it will.

Mr. Yates. So with the expenditure of $50,000, you will be able to know where all your collection is?

Mr. Eldredge. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. Is that most important of the administrative items that were cut?

CONSERVATION NEEDS

Mr. Eldredge. That is one of the two most important.

The other deals with the perennial problem of conservation. This problem is aggravated because this budget was developed prior to the receipt of several large collections needing attention immediately, among them the Container Corporation of America's donation of early this year, and immediately before that the Roby Foundation Collection.

Mr. Yates. Are those contemporary art?

Mr. Eldredge. Primarily, yes, from the fifties through the seventies.

Mr. Yates. What is wrong with their condition?

Mr. Eldredge. In the case of the Container Corporation, they have simply been obtained over the years by the corporation and housed in less than ideal circumstances in Chicago.

Mr. Yates. Seems that everything bad comes from Chicago including the chairman, but go ahead.

Mr. Eldredge. No, sir. They are now with us but

Mr. Yates. And the Secretary. Go ahead.

Mr. Eldredge. They have not been preserved under optimal conditions since they were acquired by the corporation.

Mr. Yates. Does that mean some of the paintings are in same condition as those I read about where parts of the pa)'

/

are chipping or going into a state of disrepair because of the type of paints that were used?

Mr. Eldredge. Some of it is that so-called inherent vice, but some has to do with paper being put in frames that were not acid free environments, and therefore there is some deterioration. The effort we have projected is to take them out of that unstable situation and stabilize them as quickly as we can in order to preserve the works.

Then we would pursue the longer range requirements for safe storage and preservation of these collections on our premises.

Mr. Yates. Is what you are saying this, that you don't have a large enough conservation staff at the present time?

Mr. Eldredge. We are short-staffed in terms of perennial needs, short in terms of storage equipment and other specialized equipment with which to conduct the conservation necessary, yes.

Mr. Yates. What do you need, conservators?

Mr. Eldredge. We have no sculpture conservator on our staff. That is a primary need. We have inadequate storage racks and facilities in which to put the works of art. They are stacked in boxes and cartons at the moment.

Mr. Yates. Where, out in Suitland?

Mr. Eldredge. No, in our offices. We have additional requirements for equipment to make the conservation laboratory safe.

Mr. Yates. Will you need additional personnel?

Mr. Eldredge. We would need one sculpture conservator or contractual funds for that.* ,

Mr. Yates. What about putting it out on contract?

Mr. Eldredge. That could be done as well.

Mr. Yates. Do you have any idea as to how much money that would take?

Mr. Eldredge. I do. Maybe Mr. Robertson could give you the figure more quickly. Charles?

Mr. Robertson. We requested $80,000, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Yates. Was that covered in an outside contract? That would be cheaper than hiring staff, wouldn't it?

Mr. Robertson. Yes, it would in the long run, because there would be no overhead or benefits required. I do think the $80,000 that was an earlier estimate, made before we got the two latest large collections which would, need additional storage equipment and large sliding racks.

Mr. Yates. Why don't you give us, for the record, your estimate as to what you would need in order to protect these collections that you just received?

[The information follows:]

CONSERVATION NEEDS for the National Museum of American Art

An area of the Museum's permanent collection which has long been neglected is sculpture. Although the Museum has almost 1,500 sculptures in its collection, it has no sculpture conservator. Among other items, urgent work is required on bronzes by Paul Manship and plasters by Hiram Powers. Many of the Powers works have received no attention since their arrival from Italy in 1969 after purchase from Powers' descendants.

Another need is proper conservation of the 1,700 prints by contemporary American photographers which were recently transferred by the National Endowment of the Arts as the nucleus for the Museum's permanent collection of photographs. These prints have for 10 to 15 years been languishing in filing cabinets and on desk tops at the NEA, handled simply as a part of the applications submitted by photographers for NEA grants. Many photographs are quite valuable. Many also require restoration, proper mounting and acid-free storage.

With the major gift to the Museum last year of the Sara Roby Foundation's collection of twentieth-century works of art and the even larger gift this year of the Container Corporation's collection of contemporary paintings, sculpture and graphic works, the Museum finds itself in an emergency situation for the proper care and storage of these works. Particularly with the Container Corporation works on paper, immediate conservation attention is necessary. They must be removed from acidic mats, treated and remounted in safe conditions, utilizing new equipment which will expedite the conservation process. Painting storage racks and storage bins for prints must be purchased to ensure the works' safe preservation. Lastly, the long-standing need must be addressed for equipment in the Museum's conservation laboratory which will bring it into compliance with current safety requirements and will enable the conservators to perform their tasks more professionally and competently with the use of modem equipment.

The Museum's request for $125,000 is itemized as follows:

Sculpture conservation (on contract) $ 30,000 Paper and photograph conservation

(on contract) 30,000 Fume hood (for organic and inorganic

vapors) 8,000 Blotter dryer/press (for works on

paper) 5,000 Binocular microscope (for detailed

examinations and restoration) 10,000

X-ray developing area with sink 12,000

Painting storage racks (sliding) 25,000

Paper storage cabinets 5,000

$ 125,000

Mr. Robertson. I would say $125,000.

Mr. Yates. What is that based on?

Mr. Robertson. Storage sliding racks for the paintings would be about $25,000.

Mr. Yates. My question was directed primarily against the cost of an outside contractor for putting

Mr. Robertson. Sculpture?

Mr. Yates. And your paintings. What is wrong with your sculpture?

Mr. Eldredge. It deteriorates as do other media. Some are plaster. Some are made out of fragile materials and have not been stored or preserved under ideal conditions before they were received at the Smithsonian. In order to make them exhibitable and available to scholars, museum exhibitions and the like, they have to be worked on.

Mr. Yates. Do you now have ideal conditions for them in your shop?

Mr. Eldredge. They are far better than conditions they were previously stored in, yes.

Mr. Yates. That doesn't really answer the question, does it?

Mr. Eldredge. They are as close to ideal as we can manage.

Mr. Yates. Does that answer the question?

Mr. Eldredge. I hope so.

Mr. Yates. I think that is an important question that I am asking. You have a very important, valuable collection. Are the conditions you have as good as they should be to preserve them for the generations? That, I should ask of the Secretary and all the people who have charge of these collections.

I think I asked it last year and we were told that you were moving in that direction. You were having air conditioning and were putting in whatever other measures were necessary. You say as nearly as you can under present conditions. What do you need that you don't have?

Mr. Eldredge. Much of what is in our request, which Mr. Peyton has been addressing himself to, would relate to the ideal conditions we seek

Mr. Yates. Should I ask Mr. Peyton what that is? Mr. Peyton, can I ask you why you were not making Mr. Eldredge's collections impervious to deterioration?

Mr. Peyton. Well

Mr. Yates. Don't tell me he has a leaky roof.

Mr. Eldredge. No, sir.

Mr. Peyton. No, sir, he has a roof in very good condition. It is a new one we provided.

Mr. Yates. All right, yes.

Mr. Peyton. With the help of this committee. The building, the Portrait Gallery, National Museum of American Art and the Archives of American Art, as you well know, sir

Mr. Yates. Is a beautiful building.

Mr. Peyton [continuing]. Is a beautiful building, but it was built many, many years ago.

Mr. Yates. That is where Abraham Lincoln had his second inaugural ball

Mr. Peyton. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. Okay.

INTERIOR TEMPERATURE AND HUMIDITY CONTROL

Mr. Peyton. It is not presently possible to achieve the interior temperature and humidity that conservors feel is absolutely necessary.

Mr. Yates. Is the proper word, "conservors?" I have been using conservators. Mr. Eldredge?

Mr. Eldredge. We call them conservators.

Mr. Yates. Is his word right, too?

Mr. Eldredge. Yes.

Mr. Yates. Go ahead.

Mr. Peyton. As you know, for example, in our discussions about the Museum Support Center we maintain very close to 70 degrees Fahrenheit.

Mr. Yates. Out in Suitland, yes.

Mr. Peyton. Yes, sir, and 50 percent relative humidity. It is not possible to maintain those standards in the American Art building

Mr. Yates. Under any circumstance, no matter how you improve it? What do you have to do? You have to tear it apart and make smaller rooms or something?

Mr. Peyton. It is the envelope of the building that is the problem. More specifically the walls and the windows. It is necessary to have a vapor barrier. Today we use plastic type materials to assist in controlling the humidity within necessary limits.

In the building at present, this humidity migrates into the walls and moves on through. And we cannot pump enough moisturized air into the building interior during the winter months when the natural or ambient humidity on the outside drops down to about 20 percent or lower than that. When the outside temperature gets down to about 20 degrees we get excessive condensation on the inside of the windows.

Water runs down the windows, down the walls, on to the floor and creates

Mr. Yates. Is that true through the entire building? I know that. I remember Mr. Fern's building better than I do Mr. Eldredge's, but he has the second floor, for example, and he has a lot of his art hung there. It seems like a normal floor.

Mr. Peyton. It is generally true, but it becomes more pronounced around the perimeter of the building when this relatively warm moist air comes in contact with the

Mr. Yates. Did you tell Mr. Fern where he is to hang the art work in order to protect it?

Mr. Peyton. Well when you said condition, I thought you were referring to the condensation.

Mr. Yates. Well, no, I am trying to fmd out how you protect their very valuable artifacts. How do you do it? You say you can't do it.

Mr. Peyton. We do it by

Mr. Yates. Well, do you do it?

Mr. Peyton. When the outside temperature gets low as I have just described, we do not try to achieve the 50 percent relative humidity, but drop it down to some lower percentage.

Mr. Yates. You are being very technical with me and you probably should be. But I am trying to find out what has to be done in order to protect Mr. Fern's portraits and Mr. Eldredge's nonpor-traits.

Mr. Peyton. To do it to the level that the conservators feel is necessary would require stripping the interior finishes of all of the outside walls of the building, installing a vapor barrier and installing a new liner to the building, and triple-glazing the windows throughout the building.

Mr. Yates. This is a condition that exists only in the wintertime, this dangerous condition.

Mr. Peyton. Yes, sir, that's correct.

Mr. Anderson. If I might, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Yates. You might.

Mr. Anderson. I think a good conservator would argue that the best conditions under which to store any work of art is in a locked, totally dark room, reasonably refrigerated, with constant humidity. Not being able to achieve that and carry out a public service mission at the same time, there are constant compromises in the way one treats works of art as between their long time preservation and their public utility. I think with regard to the wintertime situation that Mr. Peyton was talking about, we achieve almost as good a result by permitting humidity to fluctuate downward during the course of the coldest winter months and then back upward as spring comes, in a very slow gradual curve.

Mr. Yates. What you are saying is that you have the best conditions that are possible in the buildings that you have to use.

Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. Okay. Now, Mr. Peyton doesn't agree with you.

Mr. Peyton. Not entirely.

Mr. Yates. You gave him his chance. Go ahead, Mr. Peyton.

general post office

Mr. Peyton. Not entirely. We do have plans and have partially implemented them to improve the quality of the interior environment. However, we have placed a temporary hold on progressing past the point we have achieved because of the emergence of the availability of the old General Post Office. We anticipate significant elements of Dr. Eldredge's activity. Dr. Fern's and all of the Archives of American Art will move to the old General Post Office.

This indicates a replanning job to reconfigure the interior use of the old Patent Office. We want to get that settled before we continue with the air conditioning improvements.

Mr. Yates. Boy, you want more money than you have asked for already.

Mr. Peyton. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. How much more money do you want?

Mr. Peyton. Well, we won't really know that until we get this new space use plan all settled.

Mr. Yates. What does this mean? You have got a beautiful building.

Mr. Peyton. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. Historic building. You want to reshape it. You don't want to reshape the outside, but you want to reshape the inside.

Mr. Peyton. But still respecting the interior architectural treatment.

Mr. Yates. Integrity of the building?

Mr. Peyton. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. You are not going to change it.

Mr. Peyton. Not the integrity.

Mr. Yates. You are very conscious of that.

Mr. Peyton. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. But you still don't know how much money you will want for that?

Mr. Peyton. No, but we will.

Mr. Yates. Significant.

Mr. Peyton. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. Okay. Well, sorry I asked you then. Okay, Mr. El-dredge. I guess you are doing as well as you can under the circumstances.

Mr. Eldredge. We are trjdng.

Mr. Yates. You need two items then. You need $125,000 and $50,000 and you will be happier, right?

Mr. Eldredge. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. So will your collections?

Mr. Eldredge. My collections will be happier. That is the most important thing.

national portrait gallery budget needs

Mr. Yates. Thank you.

National Portrait Gallery, Mr. Fern. Do you need more money?

Mr. Fern. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. Tell us where. This is really a revolt.

Mr. Fern. No, no. Within the Smithsonian we had two items from the National Portrait Gallery that came into the thinking about the fiscal year 1986 budget. As you remember, last year in this committee, a certain amount for conservation was added. It didn't survive the final budget process. That need continues.

Mr. Yates. What was that need? Remind me.

Mr. Fern. That need was for the treatment of certain collections for which we do not have help, photography being one, collections on paper with mixed media, oil and other techniques mixed together such as the Time cover originals or certain portraits in the 20th century that we have.

Mr. Yates. Covarrubias.

Mr. Fern. Those that we have, yes. We are trying to get appropriate housing for drawings. We have the drawings and have them scattered. We need to find good storage for them and an amount is needed to gather them together into one secure place.

Mr. Yates. Let me ask Mr. Eldredge and Mr. Kennedy and you, and probably the other directors of the museums to give me a short

written memorandum of what you need and how much you need in order to take care of what seems to be a condition in the nature of an emergency for preserving your collections, if that's correct.

Mr. Fern. That's correct.

Mr. Yates. All right.

[The information follows:]

COLLECTIONS MANAGEMENT

AND ACCESSIBILITY NEEDS

for the National Museum of American Art

As of May 15, 1985, 6,919 works of art in the Museum's permanent collection had not been catalogued (or adequately catalogued), a figure which comprises somewhat less than one-third of the Museum's total collection. After the works are catalogued by a curator, the catalogue information must be entered by computer in the Museum's permanent collection data base so that it will be accessible to curatorial, registrarial and exhibitions staff of the Museum. The lack of this complete data means that the works are not fully or accurately identified for inventory, location, exhibition, loan and other collections management purposes. In particular, the entry on computer will greatly facilitate and expedite the new "object tracking" capability which was implemented by the Museum this year and will permit the staff to ascertain the exact location of each object in the collection instantly by keying into a computer terminal.

The backlog in cataloguing has resulted from two factors. First, much of the Museum's collection - and especially its prints, drawings and other works on paper- were acquired earlier in this century when modem registrarial methods were not in practice. This situation has been exacerbated lately by the acquisition of such major collections as those given by the Sara Roby Foundation and the Container Corporation of America. Second, with the coming of computers to the Museum and the automation of record keeping in the Registrar's Office, the Museum has not had the additional staff or equipment to enter all of the necessary data in the computer as it is produced.

The Museum's request for $50,000 to eliminate the cataloguing backlog and enter the data on computer is itemized as follows:

Cataloguing by curator (on contract) $ 25,000

Entry of information by technician

into computer data base (on contract) 15,000

One keyboard terminal 6,000

One printer 4,000

$ 50,000

Conservation and Storage Units for Housing of Drawings and Paintings National Portrait Gallery

The drawings in the NPG's collections are presently stored in several different locations, some framed, some unframed. To insure better security optimal environmental control, including constant temperature and humidity, and protection from light, and better administrative control, the drawings ought to be housed with the Gallery's other works on paper in the prints and photographs area. For this we need to purchase special shelving and storage boxes at a cost of $18,000. These materials are readily available, but funds have not been available to remedy this major deficiency in the National Protrait Gallery's collections management.

The moveable storage screens used In NPG's painting storage areas must be replaced at a cost of $30,000. They have been in service for more than 15 years, and now roll with such difficulty that the paintings stored on them are often endangered when the units are used. This is an essential need in the Gallery's collections management program.

Conservation remains a critical area of concern. New technologies have been introduced in the conservation of paintings, sculptures and works on paper. Our lab was equipped over 15 years ago without significant improvement since. A space study was conducted a few years ago and it was determined that the entire lab area is not only inefficient as far as space and storage is concerned, but present safety and security hazards in its present configuration. Our estimate to begin replacing equipment and to improve the arrangement of the conservation lab is $25,000.

The conservation lab also suffers from lack of personnel support. It Is Impossible for the one painting conservator and the one paper conservator presently on board to keep pace with our growing collections and expanded exhibition schedule. A great portion of our collection is in need of treatment, but remains in danger of further deterioration due to lack of staff and funds. We require a position and funds for a GS-9 conservator, $25,000. The new conservator would be available to start gaining proficiency in the new area of photographic conservation-a field of critical importance to the National Portrait Gallery. The Meserve Collection is only one example of a precious group of photographic objects urgently in need of specialized care. Many of the original Time covers are photographs, often in color, which imposes special preservation problems, and the Gallery needs to care for its daguerreotypes and other 19th century photographs using the latest in developing technology.

To summarize:

Special shelving, storage boxes $ 18,000

Storage screens 30, 000

Conservation lab equipping 25,000

Conservation lab- support 25,000

$ 98,000

Program Heeds for the National Museum of American History

Collections Management embraces both physical care and intellectual control and access. These major elements include storage, conservation, inventory and information management. In recent years, and especially following the completion of the shelf survey part of inventory in June 1983, the Museum has placed its priority on the information management function, introducing new computer equipment and systems. To be sure, the physical care functions have received continuing attention, and the anticipated MSC move represents a critical stage in that development.

In the budget process for FY 1986, the National Museum of American History originally sought funding for, but experienced cuts in the automation program ($100,000 cut), in the Inventory program ($112,000 cut) and in the program to remove asbestos from buildings and collections at Silver Hill ($31,000). The funding requests for automation and inventory would have served to pay for the requirements of refining the data collected, that is, breaking down the "batches" and making necessary corrections and data additions for minimal use; and the funding would have paid for the corresponding software and computer service associated with these tasks. At Silver Hill, the Museum received partial funding in FY-85 to deal with its asbestos emergency, but was denied the remaining funds of $31,000 needed in Fy-86 by 0MB.

The Museum considers the funding represented in these requests as fundamental to its base operations. It would improve the Museum's asbestos cleanup operation, and provide the impetus for producing a complete collections data base, still years away, but central to collections access to researchers and for control generally. Beyond these needs, there are others which must be met as well, principally backlogs in conservation and preservation.

The Museum must have at least an elementary capability in staff and equipment to photograph its collections (3 positions and $115,000); our Archives, which was only established in FY-84 out of reprogrammed Museum funds, needs 2 positions and $45,000 to create proper housing and archival care; conservation contracting for photographs and paper items at the very least require an additional $50,000; and $60,000 is needed for basic storage equipment at the present time alone. The Museum has an estimated 1,500,000 photographs of which 10% have serious conservation needs. There are over 6,000 paintings and 64,000 prints and drawings in our collections, many needing immediate attention. The Archives has more than 4,000 cubic feet of primary source material that remains untouched and often inaccessible, and has one major collection - the Warshaw Collection of Business Americana - with approximately 3 million items. These collections are only salient examples of Museum holdings and programs for which our budget requests have been formulated, and their requirements for proper housing and conservation, unless addressed, only increase with time.

48-292 0—85-

Mr. Fern. The other item which you will find in reduced form in the present budget submission is the need for an automation fund in the National Portrait Gallery. We have never had a base item for this.

AUTOMATION NEEDS AT NPG

Mr. Yates. What do you mean by automation?

Mr. Fern. Provision of terminals and small computers within the Portrait Gallery for both collections management and management of other kinds, financial and—

Mr. Yates. Why do you need the personal computers? Do you have no computers?

Mr. Fern. We had none until November of this year.

Mr. Yates. None at all.

Mr. Fern. None at all.

Mr. Yates. How do you deal with the question of inventory then.

Mr. Fern. We were having that done by sending data to the central Smithsonian computer and having printouts returned to us. There was a time lag in this. The information was processed, but if new information is added, for example, moving the location of a picture from one gallery to the other, that had to be and has to be still maintained by hand.

What we would like to do is to have a copy of our inventory record that we can use on small computers within the Gallery and keep absolutely up to the minute on location changes, when things go out on loan and so on.

This would be needed in many ofices, registrar, curatorial offices, our business office, for the people involved paying insurance, what we were discussing yesterday. All these people need to know where items are, how long they will be there and in what condition they are.

Mr. Yates. Do you know where all of your objects are?

Mr. Fern. Yes, but it is in a manual record, on pieces of paper written by hand.

Mr. Anderson. If I might, again, Mr. Chairman, those manual records, as Dr. Fern said, are part and parcel of the same computer record that Mr. Hughes referred to yesterday. They are recorded on magnetic tape in the central Smithsonian computer office.

Mr. Yates. Does Mr. Fern know that?

Mr. Anderson. Yes, indeed. What Alan, I think, is referring to is the added utility that comes from being able to query that tape directly from a little typewriter terminal, rather than having to wait for punch cards

Mr. Yates. How often do you do that?

Mr. Fern. I would say given all the offices of the Gallery, probably 20 or 30 times a day.

Mr. Yates. I can understand. How many of these computers do you want, just one and what is the cost?

Mr. Fern. No, we are asking for several things. We need to have right now five or six more small terminals.

Mr. Yates. Why do you need five or six? Why can't you get along with one so some of your people can go down a corridor and punch away?

Mr. Fern. Because we have the information desk and education office of the Gallery which has public inquiries constantly about where is the picture of Abraham Lincoln or where is our portrait of President Taft. Second would be our registrar's office.

Mr. Yates. How do you tell them that now?

Mr. Fern. We look at the printout that I described to you, then call the registrar's office to see if there is any change, because we have only one central record of current locations. We trj'^ to share that information as best we can.

But besides the registrar's office, which obviously needs to keep this up, we have curatorial offices, which do the actual cataloging of all the different parts of the collection. You have the Director's Office, which often has need to answer questions promptly and accurately.

These computers are useful for other purposes as well. For our business records, for the better provision of our memoranda, and so forth. It is a tremendously efficient tool and will reduce the need for additional clerical personnel. We have enough staff if we can have the computers to

Mr. Yates. What happens now if you put a—if you agreed to loan one of your paintings? How do you log it?

Mr. Fern. After everybody has considered the question, curatorial offices, education office, conservation staff and then the director decides, if we are able to spare it, it is in condition to travel, there are no immediate program needs for this that cannot be met with another work in the Gallery, then it may go. And I review it to see whether the loan request is for a kind of an exhibition, let's say, which is going to increase western civilization's knowledge of American art, whether it seems a serious venture.

If all of these tests are met, we then agree to make the loan. This is simply done by passing a request form around.

Mr. Yates. How do you know whether the loan has actually taken place?

Mr. Fern. When it has taken place the registrar's office maintains a record, and I know that.

Mr. Yates. Somebody calls the registrar's office. They know

Mr. Fern. That office actually has to make the shipment and arrange for the insurance.

Mr. Yates. Will you, in your memorandum, tell the committee how much the cost of the installations will be and what the cost for one, two, three, four, five and six is, whether any money is saved by putting six in or one and so forth.

[The information follows:]

NPG— Automation

Increasing demands for automation applications by the small Gallery staff far exceed the resources available by the six units currently installed. The FY 1986 request for $40,000 is for the purchase of five additional personal computers and printers for the Departments of Education. History, Exhibit Design and Production, and the Publications Office. The functions of these offices are closely related and frequently require the exchange or use of like information (e.g., collections information is used by Education to prepare public programming; by History for catalogue and exhibition preparation and research; by Exhibit Design and Production for exhibition labels, exhibition planning, and layout; and by Publications for editing labels, manuscripts, etc.i. Direct, immediate and simultaneous access to information by these offices and those outfitted in FY 1984 will increase greatly the efficiency of

the Gallery. In FY 1987 and following years, this base funding would provide for the further expansion of the system throughout the Gallery, the acquisition of software packages, and maintenance costs of the system.

Mr. Fern. We are in for $40,000. That was cut from $105,000 at the 0MB.

Mr. Yates. So it isn't in our budget

Mr. Fern. Yes, sir, a small part of it.

AUTOMATION NEEDS FOR HISTORY AND ART

Mr. Anderson. There is some $430,000, Mr. Chairman, in the budget before you that 0MB agreed we might seek from the Congress for computerization purposes throughout history and art.

Mr. Yates. Yes.

Mr. Anderson. In Dr. Eldredge's museum and Dr. Fern's museum, Mr. Demetrion's museum, et cetera.

Mr. Yates. Are you talking, about the $430,000 the computers, is that what the $430,000 represents.

Mr. Anderson. Almost exclusively.

Mr. Yates. Will this come off a main computer?

Mr. Fern. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. Where is the main computer?

Mr. Anderson. Physically, in the Arts and Industries building.

Mr. Yates. Is that something Mr. Pe5rton wants to move in his reconstruction?

Mr. Jameson. Yes, sir, it will have to be.

Mr. Yates. So you have got to deinstall it and reinstall it.

Mr. Fern. We reach that through telephone lines.

Mr. Yates. Why give them the personal computers if you want to do that?

Mr. Fern. Because that is how we reach

Mr. Yates. But he is going to cut the main terminal on you.

Mr. Jameson. No, sir.

Mr. Peyton. Just relocation to

Mr. Yates. It doesn't work while you relocate it.

Mr. Peyton. That won't take very long.

Mr. Yates. I see.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC AND COLLECTIONS COMPUTER SYSTEMS

Mr. Jameson. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Yates. Mr. Jameson?

Mr. Jameson. If you have patience for a little more automation, may I say something.

Mr. Yates. My patience is infinite.

Mr. Jameson. The third part of what Dr. Fern and Mr. Anderson and others have been talking about on automation relates to the special automation account that this committee funded beginning in 1984, which in total is now $1.4 million, including the $275,000 appropriated in 1983 for the bibliographic system.

That system is now operational thanks to your help. The second major automation phase relates to the collections of the Institution. This will provide the kind of software that would allow inventory and a whole raft of collections management activity to be processed on line by individual museums, art galleries and other organiza-

tions. On line processing is very important because of the day-today highly operational nature of the work of the museums and art galleries. This system will allow public inquiries on objects in the collections, student and scholarly inquiries about collections, not only collections that may be in a particular museum where these persons may happen to be, but collections that are in other parts of the Institution.

For instance, all of the collection items of silver held by the Institution manufactured prior to the Civil War, is the kind of question that ultimately could be answered by this system we are fabricating. We are out now with an RFP for the software this year to begin to bring this collection information system on line to give the museums and galleries the reference access they need.

It is directly analagous to the bibliographic system, just different kinds of collections. These are the specimens and objects in our holdings, the hundred million or whatever number ultimately is found in computer files for research purposes. I just wanted to mention that is sort of the third part of this equation.

COLLECTIONS OUT ON LOAN

Mr. Yates. Mr. Fern, do you loan any of your collection to government buildings?

Mr. Fern. We have a very limited program of doing that, only to cabinet level officers, presidents.

Mr. Yates. Do you know where they are at?

Mr. Fern. Indeed, we do. But that is again a manually maintained record. We have to check them out every year. And as we can bring this up in a more efficient system, we will be able to maintain those records with greater accuracy and speed.

Mr. Yates. Why will that follow? I would think a physical inspection would be required.

Mr. Fern. It is required. Right now we have to search through files. We will be able to have the machine give us—

Mr. Yates. But your registrar knows where they are.

Mr. Fern. That s correct. Our registrar's office consists of three people to deal with the collections of 12,000 objects in our permanent collections and another 40,000 in our study collections. Their burdens can be quite heavy on a daily basis. Anything we can do to make more efficient their handling of this, which is a legal responsibility, truly, that they have, I think, is fundamental to what we do.

ITEMS MISSING FROM NPG

Mr. Yates. Have you found anything missing?

Mr. Fern. Well, we had a theft that, this past year that you read about in the newspapers. That was not a question of finding anything missing. We do constant Gallery checks.

Mr. Yates. What happened?

Mr. Fern. Four Civil War autograph items on view under the painting of Grant and his generals were stolen on New Year's Eve by a thief. And the FBI has efficiently apprehended the thief, recovered the ol^ects and he has been

Mr. Yates. So nothing is missing now?

Mr. Fern. Everything is back.

Mr. Yates. None of our photographs or anj^hing? Mr. Fern. No.

MISSING ITEMS FROM NMAA

Mr. Yates. Thank you.

Mr. Eldredge, let me ask you that same question. Are any of your objects missing? There was a time I think when you first came on that numbers of your paintings and objects were scattered around through government offices.

Mr. Eldredge. Yes.

Mr. Yates. That still is true?

Mr. Eldredge. They are still scattered. We know now where they are with the exception of a very small number which are still being looked for.

Mr. Yates. How many are still being looked for?

Mr. Eldredge. I think it is 99.

Mr. Yates. A small number?

Mr. Eldredge. Out of 32,000 objects.

Mr. Yates. My goodness, 99. What is in that number?

Mr. Eldredge. Mostly works on paper, posters, prints, graphics, a few paintings. I can provide you, if you wish, the whole list.

Mr. Yates. The committee would like to see the whole list.

Mr. Eldredge. I will have it sent to you.

[The information follows:]

KESSIHG ARTWORKS LENT TO GOVERNMENT OFFICES BY THE NATIONAL MUSEUM OF AMERICAN ABI

Accession No,

Albrektson, Evald

Anderson, Stanley Arnest, Bernard Atl, Dr.

Auerbach-Levy, William Bontecou. Lee Brandt, Rex Brough, Richard Budd, Robert Burr, George E. Catalan©, Guiseppi Chamberlain, Samuel Citron, Minna Cranmer, Thomas Crawford, R. Livingston Culver, Charles Culver, Charles Dahlgren, Charles Dahlgren, Charles Dechenaud, Louis Deming, Edwin W.

Dodge, Frances F. Buston, J.H. Gernand, John Giddens, Philip Gonzales, Xavier Grant, Gordon Gray, Cleve Grey, Frances Griffith, Louis O. Hall, Arthur w. Hcirdie, Martin Hartman, Elsa Heintzelman, Arthur Holmes, Kenneth Holmes, William H. Holmes, William H.

The Cottage of Betsy Williams, Providence, R.I.

Beach Scene

H.

Holmes, William H Holmes, Willi After J.A. Houdon Hulett, Ralph Hutty, Alfred Indi ana, Robe r t Jaques, Bertha Jaques, Bertha Jaques, Bertha

Jenkins, Paul Johnson, William B.

Volcanoes and Clouds

Quai Grande Augustine

NCFA Opening Poster

Eventide, St. Lucia Mountains, Ca .

Louisiana Rice Fields

Snowflakes

Winter Evening

The Canal

Beauvais

Untitled

House at Beaufort, South Carolina

Turkey

Eagles

Winter Shadows

Evening Shadows

Before the Crucifix

A Group of Elk, Wind River Mts ,

Wyoming Old Bridge, Jackson Park, Chicago Aspens in the Snow Flowers

Port of Calvi, Corsica Abandoned Track The Sons of Peter Untitled American Woman Little Mexico Edge of Antibes Low Tide Hills

Old Man Thinking Venice

Coal Barge, Capri, 1880 A Maryland Meadow, Watt's Branch,

Near Rockville Study of a Bridge Maryland Dirt Road George Washington Russian River Northern Pines External Hexagon Mill in Delft Palazzo Minelli, Venice Cheviot Sheep, Han^stead Heath,

Phenomena Sea Born

Street Scene in Cagnes, France

watercolor

engraving

oil on wood

oil on canvas

etching

poster

watercolor

watercolor

poster

etching

etching

etching

watercolor/chalk

color woodcut

watercolor

watercolor

watercolor

drypoint

drypoint

drawing

watercolor

drypoint

drypoint

oil on canvas

drypoint

watercolor

etching

lithograph

poster

aquatint

print

drypoint

oil on canvas

print

drypoint

watercolor

watercolor

watercolor

watercolor

plaster

watercolor

drypoint

color serigraph

etching

etching

etching acrylic/canvas oil on board

1968.151.24

1935.13.431

L.1965.9.8

1959.11.20

1935.13.190

1969.65.p-28

1966.36.17

1968.151.8

1969.65.p-30

1935.13.41

1935.13.48

1935.13.54

1962.8.17

1965.41.10

1968.151.25

1966.36.67

1966.36.57

1935.13.71

1935.13.544

1915.11.22

1930.12.33

1935.13.548

1935.13.94

L.1965.55.9

1935.13.108

1969.137

1935.13.569

1969.2.15

1969.65.p-ll

1935.13.126

1935.13.136

1935.13.144

1964.1.24

1935.13.149

1935.13.157

1930.12.5

1930.12.7

1930.12.68

1962.4.4

xx6

1966.36.99

1935.13.588

1965.37.2a

1935.13.482

1935.13.493

1935.13.479 1976.108.61 1967.59.687

MISSING ARTWORKS (continued)

Artist

Kettner, Magnus B. Kirkland, Vance Lobre, Maurice Macouillard, Louis Margoliez, Joseph Mattson, Henry Mauroner, Count Fablo Hichaelson, J. Morris, John Moser, James Henry Palmer, Frances Peirce, Gerry Peixotto, Ernest Pescheret, Leon Pescheret, Leon Pollock, Merlin Reed, Earl Reed, Earle Rummel, Richard Ryder, Chauncey Sahlin, Carl F. Scott, Edwin Scott, Edwin Slcinner, Frank Sloan, John Smith, Norbert

Soderberg, Edward Soderberg, Yngve Spart Graphics Stcunos, Theodore Stevens, Helen Stokes, Frank W. Stokes, Frank w. Stokes, Frank W. Stokes, Frank w. Sturges, Lee Sturges, Lee Thayer, Abott Thon5>son, D.G Thompson, Ernest Thomson, Rodney Twitty, James Unidentified Artist Unidentified Artist Unidentified Artist Warhol, Andy Woiceske, R.W. Wood, Franklin T. Wood, Stanley Woodward, Ellsworth Zorach, William

Rolling Stones

Twin Lake, Independence, Colorado

Church Interior

Looking Past San Francisco, Ca.

Riviera Rag Picker

Landscape

Venice

Three Dogs

Untitled

Catskill Mountains

Desert Evening

Lake Scene

Ij^asse de la Chapelie, Paris

Blacksmith Shop

View near Chatham, Alaska

Dune Hills

Princeton University

Road and Cedar Tree

Mayas of Yucatan

Port de Cherbourg

Cote aux Environs de Cherbourg

A Picardy Orchard

Hondo Reservoir

Tippecanoe County Court House,

Lafayette, Indiana Leaping Ahead Stormy Weather San Francisco Abstraction The Coppery, Bruges Poi-du-nah

Ko-lo-ting-wah, Eskimo Man Meh-soh-neh, Young Eskimo Boy Au-ring-ah-doh, Eskimo Woman

Spring

Male Wood Duck

New Orleans

Acadian Fishing Village

The Beginning

Old North Road

The Park, 1827

Abraham Lincoln Family

Milky Way

Jean Marie

Boulder Dam, Intake

Tony

Maine Landscape

Medium

print

watercolor

charcoal drawing

watercolor

print

oil on canvas

etching

poster

oil on canvas

watercolor

print

etching

ink wash drawing

print

drypoint

oil on gesso

etching

print

lithograph

print

watercolor

oil on canvas

oil on canvas

etching

oil on canvas

watercolor

drypoint

etching

poster

poster

etching

crayon drawing

crayon drawing

crayon drawing

crayon drawing

etching

etching

oil on canvas

lithograph

drypoint

print

acrylic/canvas

print

lithograph

oil on canvas

poster

drypoint

print

watercolor

print

watercolor

Accession No.

1935.13.179

1966.36.117

1915.11.53

1966.36.127

1935.13.608

1965.18.25

1935.13.213

1969.65.p-5

L.1957.9.1

1969.30.3

1966.48.7

1941.6.30

1963.6.54

1935.13.247

1935.13.647

1972.27

1935.13.413

1935.13.416

1966.48.38

1935.13.276

1963.7.5

1952.12.127

1952.13.105

1935.13.299

1965.19

1968.151.11 1935.13.675 1935.13.673 1969.65.p-6

1935.13.312

1955.4.80

1950.8.29

1950.8.34

1950.8.33

1935.13.322

1935.13.320

1950.2.9

1966.48.32

1935.13.343

1935.13.347

L.1969.5.2

1966.48.35

1966.48.27

1962.8.86

1935.13.692

1935.13.397

1962.8.31

1935.13.393

1968.154.191

Total number of missing works:

Mr. Yates. Any valuable ones?

Mr. Eldredge. One painting of New Mexico that is probably the most valuable but

Mr. Yates. By whom?

Mr. Eldredge. John Sloan.

Mr. Yates. That would be valuable. Are any of the other works by any artists of distinction or fame?

Mr. Eldredge. There are probably some graphic works by artists that would be considered of distinction. I don't know them off hand. The Sloan is probably the most valuable one unlocated.

Mr. Yates. When was it last seen or hung?

Mr. Eldredge. I am not sure, sir. It was loaned out many years ago, and it was probably last seen somewhere in the executive offices.

Mr. Yates. That is 103 objects you haven't found yet, right?

Mr. Eldredge. Yes.

NMAA paintings OUT ON LOAN

Mr. Yates. Are there others hanging around the city?

Mr. Eldredge. There are other objects hanging in selected government offices, of which we keep an annual record—check them annually and have good records on them.

Mr. Yates. How many of those are there?

Mr. Eldredge. I can provide that.

Mr. Yates. Please, with their locations.

[The information follows:]

ARTVJORKS ON LOAN TO GOVERNMENT OFFICES BY THE NATIONAL MUSEUM OF AMERICAN AFT

As of May 15, 1985, there were a total of 151 works of art on loan from the National Museum of American Art to the following branches, agencies, ctnd organizations of the Federal Government:

The White House

Office of Management and Budget

Supreme Court of the United States

Other United States Courts in the District of Columbia

Architect of the United States Capitol

Office of the Senate Curator, United States Capitol

Department of Agriculture

Department of Defense

Department of Labor

Department of State (Art in Embassies Program)

Department of Transportation

Central Intelligence Agency

General Accounting Office

General Services Administration

Loans are made for two-year periods, and all are covered by a National Museum of American Art loan agreement, signed by a designated representative of the borrowing agency. Loans are made only to offices or agencies within the Washington metropolitan area. Yearly on-site inspections of the works are conducted by the Museum staff or its designated representatives.

MUSEUM OF AMERICAN HISTORY ITEMS OUT ON LOAN

Mr. Yates. What about you, Mr. Kennedy? Do you have anything out on loan?

Mr. Kennedy. Do we have anything out on loan? I don't think so.

Mr. Yates. I mean loan in the government buildings.

Mr. Kennedy. I do not believe so, sir.

[Committee note. —The Smithsonian provided subsequent information that several hundred items are on loan to several Federal entities for exhibit or display use and are inventoried and accounted for.]

Mr. Yates. Did your inventory result in any objects missing other than those you described to the committee?

Mr. Kennedy. No, sir, not beyond those already reported to you both last year and this.

ITEMS MISSING FROM HIRSHHORN

Mr. Yates. Thank you.

Let's turn to Hirshhorn, Mr. Demetrion. Would you come up, please. Are you missing anything from your museum?

Mr. Demetrion. One object I am told was stolen from the Canadian embassy, a sculpture by an Eskimo artist. I just learned about it five seconds ago.

Mr. Yates. Do you know about it?

Mr. Hughes. I don't.

Mr. Demetrion. This happened several years ago.

Mr. Yates. Somebody ought to know about it besides the person who told you.

Mr. Demetrion. My business administrator told me about it. She is here and our registrar would have that information, sir.

Mr. Yates. How valuable a piece was it?

Mr. Demetrion. I don't know.

Mr. Yates. What does the Canadian embassy say about it?

Mr. Demetrion. They have no information about it apparently. An investigation was made and it has not yet turned up. Do you know when it was taken, how long ago?

Mr. Yates. Would you identify yourself for history?

Ms. KiRKPATRiCK. Nancy Kirkpatrick from the Hirshhorn. The sculpture—it was a small Eskimo piece that was on loan to the Canadian Embassy. We had a joint symposium on Canadian Art. I don't think it was of great value. It was taken from the embassy, about 10 years ago.

Mr. Yates. Where it was on loan?

Ms. Kirkpatrick. Yes.

Mr. Yates. Was it insured?

Ms. Kirkpatrick. It would have been covered by the Smithsonian policy.

Mr. Yates. Insurance policy.

Ms. Kirkpatrick. Yes.

Mr. Yates. Is anything else missing?

Mr. Demetrion. Not that we know of.

Mr. Yates. Do you have everj^hing on the master inventory?

Mr. Demetrion. We do.

THE HIRSHHORN BEQUEST

Mr. Yates. Then do you need other funds other than for acquisitions and deacquisitions?

Mr. Demetrion. We are concerned that the bequest of Mr. Hirsh-horn's we beheve will be coming to us this year and a couple of years ago an appropriation was made when the bequest was not transferred. Those funds were taken away from us, and I think are back in the fiscal year 1987 budget.

Mr. Yates. Is it 1986 or 1987?

Mr. Demetrion. It is 1987,1 am told.

Mr. Yates. Whose, yours?

Mr. Demetrion. The Hirshhorn's.

Mr. Yates. What is that fund for?

Mr. Demetrion. It is for the transfer of these objects from New York, where approximately 5,000 of them are stored.

Mr. Yates. In warehouses up there.

Mr. Demetrion. Yes.

Mr. Yates. How much money is involved?

Mr. Demetrion. About a hundred thousand.

Mr. Yates. Is that for moving?

Mr. Demetrion. For moving, processing. I think it will be necessary to hire one or two additional persons to help with the cataloging of all these objects.

Mr. Yates. Are these listed in the probate records?

Mr. Demetrion. They are.

Mr. Yates. So you know what the objects are?

Mr. Demetrion. We do. There are some listed as being unidentified, but we do have a printout.

Mr. Yates. Why are you in the 1987 budget instead of the 1986, because that is the time necessary for completing the probate?

Mr. Demetrion. No, we were in the 1984 budget, as I understand it. And then the funds were taken away when the transfer was not made. In bringing them back it was brought back in the 1987 budget because it was still unclear.

Mr. Yates. Why not 1986?

Mr. Demetrion. I don't know. I think it was still unclear as to when the transfer would be made. It appears it may be made very shortly.

Mr. Yates. Who is paying the storage charges?

Mr. Demetrion. The estate of Mr. Hirshhorn.

Mr. Yates. They will pay. it for another year, then?

Mr. Demetrion. They will pay it until such time as the probate is completed. It might not be another year.

Mr. Yates. Could they turn it over to you now?

Mr. Demetrion. No, they cannot turn it over to us now, although they have turned over approximately 1,000 objects which were in the Hirshhorn homes here in Washington, though works have been brought to our premises. And we have gotten permission to go ahead and catalog those, so we are not swamped all at once.

Mr. Yates. Why the difference? Why are you allowed to take possession of the objects that were in the Hirshhorn homes and not those in the

Mr. Demetrion. I do not know. The attorney for the Hirshhorn estate indicated

Mr. Powers. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Yates. Yes.

Mr. Powers. It was simply a matter of convenience. These are some rather valuable works in the Hirshhorn collection that were in Mr. Hirshhorn's house in Washington.

Mr. Yates. Oh, and they sold the house.

Mr. Powers. They are paying insurance on the works while they are in the Hirshhorn Gallery. They have not been transferred formally as yet because the estate has not been liquidated, but it was much simpler to have them here, and safer.

That warehouse in New York is not absolutely ideal.

Mr. Yates. Then why don't they turn them over to you where it is ideal?

Mr. Powers. Because there are 5,000 in the warehouse. There was no possible place, I gather, we could put them at the moment.

Mr. Demetrion. Well, that is a part of it, but I think they are not prepared to turn them over formally until the probate is completed.

Mr. Yates. How valuable is that collection?

appraisal of items

Mr. Demetrion. In 1981, and early 1982, it was appraised at about $12 million by Sotheby.

Mr. Yates. For how many objects?

Mr. Demetrion. About five to six thousand objects. Closer to six thousand.

Mr. Yates. That is not very valuable then.

Mr. Demetrion. Many works were appraised at $5 apiece. The most valuable at $500,000.

Mr. Yates. Was this for Federal estate for tax purposes?

Mr. Demetrion. I believe it was.

Mr. Yates. So the value may be much more than that?

Mr. Demetrion. Yes, sir, and in the ensuing years, the value may increase considerably on some of the objects.

Mr. Yates. Were any particularly valuable?

Mr. Demetrion. Yes, three paintings by George Fellows, an excellent painting by Gorky.

Mr. Yates. A painting by Gorky?

Mr. Demetrion. Yes.

Mr. Yates. That should be a class A painting, then, shouldn't it?

Mr. Demetrion. It is a class A painting. It is at the museum at the present time.

Mr. Yates. It is?

Mr. Demetrion. Yes. Not on view.

Mr. Yates. How did you get it, because it was in the house?

Mr. Demetrion. That's correct.

Mr. Yates. That is fascinating. So you don't need any money, then?

Mr. Demetrion. Yes.

Mr. Yates. Then what money do you need after all this discus-

sion

Mr. Demetrion. I should point out that the 1986 budget was prepared by my predecessor, but I certainly concur with what he has indicated. Aside from the $100,000 which was not asked for, I should point out.

Mr. Yates. Then you don't need it for the 1986 budget?

Mr. Demetrion. I think we are going to need it.

Mr. Yates. I thought you said it was going to be in the 1987 budget.

Mr. Demetrion. Yes, but I think the transfer will be made prior to fiscal year 1987.

Mr. Yates. So you need $100,000 to collect the collection?

Mr. Demetrion. I think it is just a case of changing it from the 1987 budget to the 1986.

storage of bequest items

Mr. Yates. Do you have a place to put the 5,000 objects?

Mr. Demetrion. Most of the objects are works on paper. It is going to present a problem to us.

Mr. Yates. Are they all framed?

Mr. Demetrion. No, they are not.

Mr. Yates. What is your problem going to be?

Mr. Demetrion. Storage to some extent, especially with large objects such as sculptures. Some of the objects, I think, can be stored in the

Mr. Yates. What about Suitland?

Mr. Demetrion. New facility at Suitland.

Mr. Yates. Some of them, not all of them.

Mr. Demetrion. No, not all of them. I don't think we would want them all there. Some of the larger pieces I would hope we could find some storage areas for an outdoor installation for sculpture out there if need be. We have gotten permission to install one of the pieces there. Whether or not we can do that with the others, I don't know yet.

Mr. Yates. What is the physical process? Do you have somebody up there checking these things out, or do you wait until they come to the museum? You can't really because you haven't the room for 5,000 objects. What is the physical procedure you use?

Mr. Demetrion. We will have to have them come down over a period of time.

Mr. Yates. But that is going to add to your expense, isn't it?

Mr. Demetrion. Yes, it will.

Mr. Yates. Does the $100,000 include that?

Mr. Demetrion. It is my understanding that it does, yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. How do you do it, then, you just check them off as it comes in?

Mr. Demetrion. That's correct.

Mr. Yates. You give a receipt to the executor of the estate?

Mr. Demetrion. Yes. We will have our registrar and a member or two of his staff.

Mr. Yates. Will you be looking at the condition of the paintings?

Mr. Demetrion. We will be doing most of that when the objects are transferred to the museum itself. We are doing that right now with those thousand objects which were in the Hirshhorn homes.

Mr. Yates. You want $100,000 for the moving process and you started to say that perhaps you wanted something else.

ACQUISITION FUNDS FOR HIRSHHORN

Mr. Demetrion. Yes. My predecessor had also put into the request an additional $200,000 for acquisition. I certainly would concur with that. Over the years the Hirshhorn

Mr. Yates. Will you repeat that please?

Mr. Demetrion. Yes. An additional $200,000 for acquisitions was requested for the 1986 fiscal year budget.

Mr. Yates. Why don't you get that from Mr. Jameson?

Mr. Demetrion. The figure was cut out by Mr. Jameson.

Mr. Jameson. It was really Mr. Hughes, I think, who did it.

Mr. Yates. Why did you cut it out? What was the Browning line? He was asked about a line. What was behind it when he wrote a certain line. He said, when I wrote

Mr. Hughes. God and I.

Mr. Yates. God and I knew what that line meant. Now only God knows. Okay, Mr. Demetrion. Go ahead.

Mr. Demetrion. Thirty thousand dollars was requested for the 20th Century Consort.

Mr. Yates. Let me go back.

Mr. Demetrion. Sure.

Mr. Yates. You have got $2 million still in your acquisition account, haven't you, the trust fund?

Mr. Jameson. Let Mr. Anderson speak to the difference between those funds and the Federal funds.

Mr. Anderson. The Hirshhorn does indeed participate in the major acquisition program established by the Regents back in 1978. They have, if memory serves me, a remaining balance at this point of some $850,000 against which they may draw, between now and fiscal year 1988.

Mr. Yates. He doesn't want to take that?

Mr. Demetrion. Sure. This is part of the annual

Mr. Yates. Why don't you give it to them. If it is striken from the Federal budget, why don't you give it to them?

Mr. Demetrion. We indeed have it, is that not correct?

Mr. Yates. Then you don't want that money from us?

Mr. Demetrion. Sure we do.

Mr. Yates. I don't understand.

Mr. Demetrion. Those funds are restricted, I might point out, to objects of $200,000 or more in value.

Mr. Yates. You mean, Mr. Jameson's money?

Mr. Demetrion. Yes.

Mr. Yates. That is Jameson's, not Mr. Anderson's.

Mr. Demetrion. Okay.

Mr. Yates. Apparently, it is Mr. Hughes.

Mr. Adams. It will become Mr. Anderson's.

Mr. Yates. When does it become yours? Go ahead.

Mr. Demetrion. We requested $30,000 for the 20th Century Consort, a music program. That was denied by 0MB. We are hoping to fund it through various other sources including the Hirshhorn, in-

eluding the Resident Associates Program, possibly from the Smithsonian as well.

Mr. Yates. The committee would appreciate if you could find another source of funding for some of these objects. Okay.

Mr. Demetrion. Those were the major ones.

Mr. Yates. Those were the items.

Mr. Demetrion. Yes.

Mr. Yates. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Demetrion.

Mr. Demetrion. Thank you.

center for ASIAN ART

Mr. Yates. Now how about the Center for Asian Art. Mr. Lawton, do you want to come up here and tell us about it? Are you all inventoried now.

Mr. Lawton. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Yates. Anything missing?

Mr. Lawton. No, sir.

Mr. Yates. How many objects do you have?

Mr. Lawton. In the Freer, 25,000 and in the Sackler roughly a thousand.

Mr. Yates. An5rthing on paper that you don't show.

Mr. Lawton. Oh, yes, everjrthing is written down.

Mr. Yates. How do you keep your kakemonos? They are rolled up?

Mr. Lawton. Those are stored in wall cabinets.

Mr. Yates. You don't need any money then?

SACKLER gallery BUDGET REDUCTION

Mr. Lawton. When we submitted our budget originally we submitted a request for new positions and it was submitted with the idea that the Sackler would open in 1986. The date is now set at May of 1987, but we can absorb the cut because we can hire the people later in the year. So I don't complain about that cut.

It is something we can live with. I think it was a $160,000 cut.

Mr. Yates. That means you don't need any money.

Mr. Lawton. But we are asking you for a great deal already. I should be grateful.

Mr. Yates. Oh, you mean budgeted?

Mr. Lawton. Yes.

Mr. Yates. Oh, when I asked you whether you needed additional money it was for funds cut out.

Mr. Lawton. Yes. The $160,000 was cut we can live with. I have no problem with it.

Mr. Yates. Then you don't need any money in addition?

Mr. Lawton. No, sir.

Mr. Yates. Well, that is refreshing.

Mr. Hughes. I think there must have been something I did, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Yates. Well, I don't know, Sam. Are your plans all in order for the amalgamation of Sackler and Freer?

Mr. Lawton. Yes, if we are given the money we are asking for, we will be in very good order.

Mr. Yates. All right. Thank you.

THE FREER-SACKLER LINK

Mr. Adams. Mr. Chairman, may I make one comment there.

Mr. Yates. Sure. Where?

Mr. Adams. The question you just asked about the amalgamation of Freer and Sackler, in the Senate Appropriations hearing there was quite an extensive discussion of the proposed tunnel connecting the Freer and Sackler. I simply want to underline the tremendous importance of moving forward with that. If we lost that connection, the disruption will be disastrous. I do hope that can be kept in mind as the budget is considered.

Mr. Yates. Is there any question on the part of

Mr. Adams. There was serious questions raised.

Mr. Yates. What were some of the questions raised? As I understand it, correct me if I am wrong, the Senate has taken the position that the money for the construction was already given to you and you want to use the money for something else; is that correct?

Mr. Adams. It is a question of moving it from one year to another. Perhaps I could ask Mr. Yellin to explain it.

Mr. Yates. Is it from one year to another or one object to another?

Mr. Yellin. It is both. In the first place, we anticipate purchasing in 1985 furnishings and installing security equipment for the Quadrangle and deferring for technical reasons which Mr. Peyton will address the construction of the Freer link until 1986.

Mr. Yates. Here is a letter addressed to you of which we have a copy dated March 21st signed by Senator McClure. He says this:

Dear Secretary Adams: There is one area of major concern which we were unable to discuss due to time constraints during the Smithsonian budget hearing. It relates to the Quadrangle construction and the Smithsonian's plan to divert previously appropriated funds from approved activities to activities which Congress has neither reviewed nor approved.

The fiscal year 1986 justification has added four subactivities to the Quadrangle construction program which are not normally part of construction and which were not included in the package previously approved by Congress. They are security installation, furnishings, moving costs, and final space preparation.

It is apparently the Smithsonian's intention to spend $3,950,000 in fiscal year 1985 for security equipment and furnishings. These funds would be derived from portions of the approved construction project, such as the Freer link.

Mr. Yates [continuing]. That is your tunnel.

And then Congress would be asked to reappropriate funds for the Freer link construction which was included in the original project.

The authorizing legislation, as you know, specified that Federal funds for the Quadrangle construction must be matched on a 50-50 basis with non-Federal funds. The converse, however, is not the case. You have additional trust funds earmarked for the Quadrangle for which matching Federal funds are as yet unavailable. I would request that any planned expenditures for the current fiscal year which were not previously identified in the construction budget be funded solely from trust funds until Congress has the opportunity to act on the current proposal during the consideration of the fiscal year 1986 appropriation bill.

Does that mean you are going forward with the trust fund in accordance with Senator McClure s recommendation?

Mr. Adams. There is a response to me from Senator McClure.

Mr. Yates. Right. There is, dated March 28th.

Mr. Adams. Second to last paragraph.

Mr. Yates. All right. This is the paragraph to which you refer. Both letters may go into the record.

[The letters follows:]

' UAM 0 HATTKLfi. OWGON. CHAIMUAN

TB) STTVENS AIASKA JOHN C ST^NNIS MtSStSSIPn

LOWCLl P WCICKEH. JH COMWKTICUT ftOtflTT C BrUD WtST VlflGlNIA

JAMCS A. McCLUHt IDAHO WIUJAA* PWOXMiPft. WISCOMtlN

'AIA LAXAiT. MFVADA tUMIEL K. MOUIX HAWAII

624

Bnitd States Senate

J. HNNrrr jomnston

PAma J UAMT. VBMOWT COMMfTTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

SI M 0 AUATO NFW YOflK JM tASSCR. TBMftSfe

MATTIMGLT CCOnClA OfNMS MCONCM. AUOMA WASHINGTON DC 20510

MLEM SKCrn. PCMiSTiVANU

¥ \\AMP % lw m MLI tUMVCm. AMKANtAS

EMU

pm V ooMEma.

I KKTTM ttM I BB T. «T*ff OMtCTM

nu*fCtS J- SUUJVAH. WIOTI STAR DMKTM

March 21, 1985

Dr. Robert McC. Adams

Secretary

Smithsonian Institution

Washington, D. C. 20560

Dear Secretary Adams:

There is one area of major concern which we were unable to discuss due to time constraints during the Smithsonian budget hearing. It relates to the (Xiadrangle construction and the Smithsonian's plan to divert previously appropriated funds from approved activities to activities which Congress has neither reviewed nor approved.

The fiscal year 1986 justification has added four subactivities to the Quadrangle construction program which are not normally part of construction and which were not included in the package previously approved by Congress. They are: security installation, furnishings, moving costs, and final space preparation.

It is apparently the Smithsonian's intention to spend $3,950,000 in fiscal year 1985 for security equipment and furnishings. These funds would be derived from portions of the approved construction project, such as the Freer link, and then Congress would be asked to reappropriate funds for the Freer link construction which was included in the original project.

The authorizing legislation, as you know, specified that federal funds for the Quadrangle construction must be matched on a 50-50 basis with non-federal funds. The converse, however, is not the case. You have additional trust funds earmarked for the Quadrangle for which matching federal funds are as yet unavailable. I would request that any planned expenditures for the current fiscal year which were not previously identified in the construction budget be funded solely from trust funds until Congress has the opportunity to act on the current proposal during consideration of the fiscal year 1986 appropriation bill.

Sincerely,

a. T

James A. McClure Chairman

Subcommittee on the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies

SMITHSONIAN INSTITITION

^hskln^tVK. D C10560 USA.

March 28, 1985

The Honorable Janes A. McClure

Chairman

Subconnnlttee on the Department of the Interior

and Related Agencies Washington, DC 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman,

Your letter of March 21, 1985 raised three major points concerning the Quadrangle to which I would like to respond. We, too, regret that time constraints during the Smithsonian budget hearing prevented us from discussing these issues. We appreciate this opportunity to state our case.

Your first point was that security installation, furnishings, moving costs and final space preparation are not normally part of construction. In general, we believe that the inclusion of such expenses in the Construction account enhances the opportunity for Congressional oversight in that all project costs are shown in one place. Moreover, since the 1983 construction contract proved to be well below our original estimate, we are able to accommodate all costs associated with the Quadrangle project including security installation, furnishings, moving costs and final space preparations within the $75 million Quadrangle authorization.

Your letter next correctly points out that the Smithsonian Intends to spend $3.95 million in FY 1985 for security equipment and furnishings, the funds for which would be derived from portions of the approved construction project, such as the Freer link. The table shown on page 240 of the Smithsonian Institution's FY 1986 budget request details what we are attempting to accomplish in this fiscal year and next. The proposed plan would obligate monies for security installation and initial procurement of furnishings in this fiscal year and then proceed %rl.th the Freer link in FY 1986. It was developed to support our current occupancy schedule.

Plans call for occupancy of the third level and kiosk by operating engineers and security personnel in February, 1986. The move of program units which also will be located on the third level, namely the Smithsonian Institution Traveling Exhibition Sevice, the Resident and National Associates Programs and the Directorate of International Activities, is scheduled for March, 1986. Museum personnel will be relocated in May, 1986. To make this schedule possible, it will be necessary to have your approval to obligate monies for the installation of security equipment ($2.35 million) and for the initial procurement of furnishings ($1.6 million) before July 1, 1985, and to receive the proposed FY 1986 appropriation at the start of next fiscal year. Our purpose in detailing in the budget justification the proposed obligation schedule for each

category of expense in the Quadrangle construction account was to demonstrate the need and obtain your approval. We earnestly hope that you and the Subcommittee can continue to support the project and give your approval to our request. Unfortunately, If approval Is not forthcoming until Congress considers the FY 1986 appropriation bill, It would significantly delay the current occupancy schedule.

As you indicate in your letter, the authorizing legislation specified that Federal funds must be matched on a 50-50 basis with non-Federal funds. However, we believe that the converse also Is the case. The fund raising effort was predicated on the basis of full sharing in costs of this project. It was the understanding by large and small donors that their contributions would be matched by Federal appropriations on a one-for-one basis. Therefore, we believe that we are constrained against advancing Trust contributions ahead of Federal appropriations.

We very much appreciate your support of the Smithsonian Institution and of

our Quadrangle project. We hope that our explanations in this letter and in our

FY 1986 budget request will permit timely approval of the proposed obligation schedule.

Sincerely,

Tl6bert McC. Adams

Til Secretary

MATCHED FUNDING FOR QUADRANGLE

Mr. Yates. As you indicate in your letter, the authorizing legislation specified that Federal funds must be matched on a 50-50 basis with non-Federal funds. However, we believe the converse also is the case. The fundraising effort was predicted on the basis

Mr. Adams. Predicated.

Mr. Yates. Predicated, right. I left out a syllable. "Predicated on the basis of full sharing in costs of this project. It was the understanding by large and small donors their contributions would be matched by Federal appropriations on a one for one basis. Therefore, we believe we are constrained against advancing Trust contributions ahead of Federal appropriations."

I don't understand that. Tell me why you are so constrained. Why can't you put the money up and then let us put the money up later?

Mr. Adams. I guess because there is some faint uncertainty as to whether it will in fact be put up later.

Mr. Yates. Suppose it isn't put up later? It has to be done, doesn't it?

Mr. Adams. But then we are in the position of not honoring the understanding we had with our private donors. Apart from the hard feelings it might generate, at this particular point, it would have, quite possibly, serious long-range consequences.

Mr. Yates. I don't understand that. We are talking about trust funds. How much money do you have in your trust account, open fund, Mr. Jameson, which aren't connected

Mr. Jameson. For this project, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Yates. Yes.

Mr. Jameson. Or just in general?

Mr. Yates. Couldn't you act as the banker for this without regard to the construction fund?

Mr. Jameson. In a pure fund availability sense, yes, there are trust funds available. There are trust funds available in this particular account.

Mr. Yates. So the question of the donors understanding wouldn't be involved?

Mr. Jameson. I think

Mr. Yates. You mean that the Regents would be asked to take it out of the endowment?

Out of the funds that you have, gentlemen, I don't understand why this problem is so difficult.

Mr. Jameson. I think our problem is as Mr. Adams mentioned, the uncertainty about whether the Federal monies might ever be provided.

rescission of 8 million dollars

Mr. Yates. Why is that so uncertain? I don't understand. Have you ever been denied funds?

Mr. Hughes. Yes. Eight million were taken back.

Mr. Yates. Eight million was taken back at your—yes, but that

Mr. Hughes. Yes.

Mr. Yates. That was taken back when you said you didn't need the money.

Mr. Hughes. OMB. We never said we didn't need the money.

Mr. Yates. Are you talking about the $8 million

Mr. Hughes. Rescission.

Mr. Yates. Well, now the $8 million rescission was the underbid, right, the amount shown not

Mr. Hughes. I don't believe we ever said we would not need the $8 million.

Mr. Yates. You said you came in under bid by 8 million?

Mr. Hughes. We received a low bid on the construction. I think our position has consistently been that we would ultimately need the money for purposes related to the Quadrangle and that we would want it.

I thought the committee's position was at least that

Mr. Yates. I thought the committee's position has been that if 8 million were saved, it would be split between you and the Federal government, as the construction fund would.

Mr. Jameson. The $8 million is matched by 8 million of trust funds. So in effect at this point we are down 16 million in terms of our capacity to spend money to complete the project at the authorized amount of $75 million.

Mr. Yates. I don't understand your argument, Mr. Jameson. If $8 million is saved on construction, that means you don't have to put up the $8 million, right?

Mr. Jameson. We believe at this point, Mr. Chairman, that to bring the Quadrangle project on line, open it to the public in the kind of quality way that we all want, including the Congress, we believe, that we are going to spend the $75 million.

Mr. Yates. I think you are reaching for straws when you use that argument.

Mr. Jameson. I am?

Mr. Yates. Yes. Why do you, if you are only required to put up 67 million for completing this project, half of that is required from the Federal Government, and half by you, right?

Mr. Hughes. We are down $16 million.

Mr. Yates. How are you down $16 million?

Mr. Hughes. Eight million Federal, 8 million trust.

Mr. Adams. The bid came in at $59 million.

Mr. Yates. Wait a mintue. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding or miscommunication. We were told that you need $75 million to construct the building.

Mr. Jameson. That's right. The project was authorized at $75 million.

Mr. Yates. That is for building the building. You come back and tell us that you have a bid of $67 million.

Mr. Adams. Fifty nine.

Mr. Yates. Excuse me, $59 million. So that we split the cost, let's make it 60 million—30 million for your funding and 30 million for the Federal Government. Right?

Mr. Jameson. Let me—can I correct that just slightly, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Yates. Sure.

Mr. Jameson. The government estimate prior to receiving bids as I recall was about $55 million for the construction of the project. Fifty-five million of the $75 million estimated total cost. To our pleasant surprise the low bidder which we accepted came in at 38 million or roughly 16 million under the government estimate for construction only.

Mr. Yates. In other words, you are saying the figures I used weren't accurate. The $75 million wasn't the figure that should have been used.

Mr. Jameson. Seventy-five million was never an estimate for total construction cost for the contractor's construction, but had in it a range of related costs including site preparation, design and construction management, the Freer link in it. All those components and some others.

Mr. Yates. All that is in the $59 million.

Mr. Jameson. All that was in the $75 million, yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. The $59 million. On page 240 of your budget justifications, all the items you are talking about are shown in column 1.

Mr. Jameson. I was starting from a slightly different basis. Yes, you are right, sir.

Mr. Yates. So it is $59 million?

Mr. Jameson. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. Were we to share the costs only of construction? Is that what you are saying?

Mr. Adams. My understanding, Mr. Chairman, is that there are a great many items including security items and furnishings and so on that were not included in the original $75 million. Now the proposal is that since the bid came in low, they can be included within the original total. The rescission of the $8 million then leaves us in the position of not being able to take that course of action any longer. If I am wrong on that, I hope one of my colleagues will correct me.

security and furnishings costs

Mr. Yates. Let me ask you a question, Mr. Jameson.

Mr. Jameson. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. When we look at the various categories that are on page 240, you have operating type items that are in there. We concede those are operating type items for which the Federal Government should be paying. Why then do you have them in a construction account?

Mr. Jameson. Mr. Chairman, taking advantage of the very favorable bid, it now seems possible and proper to include in the total authorized amount of $75 million, those things which are often included in construction budgets, such as equipping and security systems.

Mr. Yates. There is something here that doesn't meet the eye. You move from construction to operations, 75 back to 59. I am willing to concede the operating expenses, but I don't know why you put them in a construction account.

Mr. Jameson. These, Mr. Chairman, could as readily be considered £18 part of the S&E budget.

Yates. Yes, they shouldn't be in the construction account, should they?

Mr. Jameson. Smithsonian has had construction projects that have included these kind of items. We are talking to a large extent about one time expenses.

Mr. Yates. What about furnishings?

Mr. Jameson. Yes, sir, those are all one-time equipment to equip and furnish laboratories, work spaces, the offices, public galleries, other public spaces in the building.

Mr. Adams. Mr. Chairman, I

Mr. Yates. Just a moment, Mr. Adams. I guess it all gets down to what was understood when we originally set up approval for the Quad building, which was to be shared. Apparently there is a misunderstanding on that now, isn't there? That is what is involved here.

Isn't that what the problem is?

Mr. Jameson. I don't think there is a misunderstanding. I think at that point we were assuming that the total construction including related expenses would cost $75 million. Clearly as a result of the bid it is costing a lot less in a construction sense. We are proposing to the committee that we can now cover within the authorized amount on a fully cost-shared basis, 50-50, Federal funds, appropriated funds and trust funds, certain one-time costs of equipping and other items.

Mr. Yates. What is the Senate objecting to, the fact that you used the money without reprogramming it?

Mr. Jameson. No, we haven't used any money yet without congressional approval. This is a pending reprogramming request.

Mr. Adams. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Yates. Well, you are going to have trouble with the Senate. I will vote and I will be back.

[Recess.]

I think that what we better do with this item is let the staffs of the House and Senate subcommittees sit down with the Smithsonian rather than leaving it for conference or the question on the appropriation. Obviously, the tunnel has to be built. The question is how to do it and how to fund it. And if there is dispute, and the Senate has been somewhat difficult at times, and I assume the Senate thinks we have been difficult at times, too, but I had rather get it resolved before we go into our markup.

I think what I will ask our staff to do is try to set up a meeting with the Senate staff and Smithsonian to try to resolve this question rather than trying to work out all the different completion aspects of this at the present time.

Mr. Adams. Thank you very much.

Mr. Yates. Archives of American Art. How do you do? Would you come forward and tell us why you need all that money.

ARCHIVES OF AMERICAN ART BUDGET NEEDS

Richard Murray. You were cut by approximately $300,000. You really were pushed around, weren't you? What is it that you need that Mr. Hughes didn't give you?

Mr. Murray. Well, Mr. Chairman, the Archives of American Art is coming to grips, trying to come to grips with the problem that we think is overwhelming. That is our collection. We have some eight million documents dealing with art in the United States.

Mr. Yates. Eight million. Are all those catalogued?

Mr. Murray. No, they are not.

Mr. Yates. I see.

Mr. Murray. We have problems of inventory, of indexing automation, conservation, not to even mention our inability to publish on our collections and to make those collections available to scholars through the nation and indeed throughout the world through inter-library loans.

We requested what we thought would be adequate funds to begin to give attention to our collections, in the realm of care and conservation, collections management, and in acquisition of collections. As you may recall, we have regional offices around the country—in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Detroit, Boston, New York, and here.

We are constantly endeavoring to find the important documents that provide fundamental information on American art and culture and to preserve those documents through measures here in Washington, as well as by microfilming those documents and sending them back out to our regional offices for use there.

We requested funds to begin a publication program. For example, the Archives of American Art has the finest collection, the most thorough collection of documents dealing with the federal art projects during the WPA.

We do not have money to publish a guide to our collections or interpretive material on the WPA during this anniversary decade of the federal projects.

As another example, the Archives of American Art has the entire records of the American Academy in Rome, which is probably the most important kind of classical graduate school for painters, sculptors and architects. In fact, the people who attended the American Academy at Rome went there as Fellows and they probably did more to shape the urban environment of the United States than any other group. That is, from around 1900 to about 1940.

But it's really our collections that we are most concerned about. We have, as I said, eight million documents dealing with American Art. We have, we think, about 400,000 photographs. We think we have about 75,000 works on paper. We know we have about 3,000 world history interviews with artists, dealers, art historians, collectors, public officials—all of those people that go to make up the kind of matrix.

Mr. Yates. Where are you short then? How much money? You requested $1.3 million.

Mr. Murray. From the Institution we requested $155,000 and four workyears for

Mr. Yates. $155,000 and four workyears. That would be roughly what, $38,000 a year? How much did you say?

Mr. Hughes. For four workyears.

Mr. Yates. $85,000 a year.

Mr. Murray. $85,000 for staff positions plus another $70,000 for suppHes, equipment, and conservation material. These positions would be directed towards our collection of photographs which I

think is an outstanding one, an understatement. We have four hundred thousand.

Mr. Yates. How are they stored now?

Mr. Murray. I am sorry to say that they are stored in what might be called the most abject kind of conditions at 1111 North Capitol Street, the Smithsonian Service Center. That is where all of our collections are.

Mr. Yates. You mean the Smithsonian Service Center is an abject building?

Mr. Murray. We have recently asked the security and facilities service people to do a survey on the space out there and

Mr. Yates. What kind of a building is the Smithsonian Service Center? Who is in charge of that?

Mr. Hughes. It is essentially warehouse space.

Mr. Yates. Yes, but is it a bad building?

Mr, Hughes. I don't

Mr. Yates. What do you mean by abject conditions?

Mr. Murray. The security at our space of the building, I cannot speak for the other spaces, is minimal, to say the least.

Mr. Yates. Who owns the building? Does Smithsonian own the building?

Mr. Jameson. No, sir, it is a leased property, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Yates. Why do you rent such poor quarters?

Mr. Jameson. Well, it is a convenient location and it has been a relatively inexpensive building up until recent years, $4 or $5 a square foot.

Mr. Yates. What good is that if security is a question?

Mr. Jameson. I don't know what security problems

Mr. Yates. Is this your job, Mr. Peyton, to rent space?

Mr. Peyton. Yes, it is.

Mr. Yates. Why did you take a building like this then?

Mr. Peyton. At the time it was leased it represented a consolidation of quite a fragmentation of leased properties around the city which were in substantially poorer condition.

Mr. Yates. What has happened? Are you working your way up in the world?

Mr. Peyton. Yes, sir, indeed we are.

museum support center

Mr. Yates. Is Suitland too small to use? I notice you have requests for space.

Mr. Peyton. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. Why don't you use Suitland for these requests?

Mr. Peyton. The Museum Support Center is administered by Dr. Fiske, and the space there, is committed to the activities primarily under him. Some National Museum of American History activities.

Mr. Yates. Do you mean Dr. Fiske of the Museum of Natural History, he has charge of the whole facility there?

Mr. Peyton. The Museum Support Center, yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. What happens if Mr. Kennedy or Mr. Fern wants to use part of it?

Mr. Peyton. They ask him for space in the building.

Mr. Yates. Dr. Fiske, do you want to say something?

Mr. FiSKE. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I am Chairman of the Space Committee of the Museum Support Center. And as such, represent the interests of the whole Institution, not just the Museum of Natural History.

We are the dominant occupants as projected, but there is provision made for materials from the Museum of American History, and, in a transitional mode, the excess space that will not be filled by the initial move in of Natural History and American History will be made available to other Smithsonian units. And through this committee that I chair we deal with these requests and pass judgment on them.

Mr. Yates. What is the relationship of the Archives of American Art to Smithsonian? Are you a Smithsonian organization?

Mr. Murray. We are a bureau.

Mr. Yates. Is he entitled to use your space? Is the Archives entitled

Mr. FiSKE. He is entitled to submit a request to use the space, but with the conditions out there in the storage pods there are collections, three dimensional objects, that in many cases we, the committee, feel have higher priority.

Mr. Yates. What do you mean by that?

Mr. F^ske. Paintings, wood, things of this sort that are best served by being in the special environment there.

SMITHSONIAN SERVICE CENTER

Mr. Yates. Yes, but he is in abject conditions. Now I don't know how hardhearted you are. What else do you have in these buildings besides the Archives?

Mr. Peyton. It is a receiving, storage and shipping point for all of our property administered by the procurement office. Most of the supplies that come through there are everyday supplies that are used in offices; paper, products of all kinds. Things of that sort. We have a storage facility for our Office of Plant Services where supplies are assembled prior to the initiation of a repair project, or minor new construction projects.

Mr. Yates. Obviously the records that the Archives have, if they are as valuable as the witness says they are, deserve better care, don't they, than is available at that place?

Mr. Peyton. I would certainly say so, sir.

Mr. Yates. Mr. Anderson?

Mr. Anderson. I might add, Mr. Chairman, that there is also art storage, in addition to Dr. Murray's collections, from Charlie El-dredge's museum and Alan Fern's museum.

Mr. Yates. At that place?

Mr. Anderson. That is correct, sir.

Mr. Yates. Why don't you move it out to the storage facility, Suitland?

Mr. Anderson. Logistically, sir, the building is not ready to receive collections in other than the wet storage pod, where pickled fish and other marvellous specimens have already been moved. In the future we had been looking toward the possibility of the old General Post Office Building, presently occupied by the Interna-

tional Trade Commission, as the most appropriate long-range solution to these storage problems.

Mr. Yates. For all of you?

Mr. Anderson. Of the Art Bureaus that are now in the Patent Office Building.

Mr. Yates. You mean of the Archives?

Mr. Anderson. Archives of American Art, National Portrait Gallery and National Museum of American Art, all of which presently have storage in the 1111 North Capitol Street building.

Mr. Yates. What do you have, what does Mr. Eldredge's museum have there?

Mr. Anderson. He can probably speak to that better than I.

Mr. Yates. What is in storage there, Mr. Eldredge?

Mr. Eldredge. A variety of decorative arts which are not used for exhibition purposes, and are stored there; some paintings were until recently stored there.

Mr. Yates. Will they never be used for exhibit?

Mr. Eldredge. Most likely not. These are European works which are historical parts of the

Mr. Yates. Shouldn't they be in a place like Suitland then?

Mr. Eldredge. They could well be, as space permits.

Mr. Yates. Wouldn't you think so, Mr. Anderson? If they are not going to be used for exhibition purposes and are going to be stored, why shouldn't you move them out of the way?

Mr. Anderson. Once Suitland is available for storage

Mr. Yates. When will Suitland be available? Where is Mr. Perrot?

Mr. Anderson. Very conveniently in Richmond, sir.

Mr. Yates. He deserted you, didn't he? Who is in charge of Suit-land?

Mr. Peyton. Suitland will be ready in approximately 12 months, Mr. Yates.

Mr. Yates. It will take another 12 months?

Mr. Peyton. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. So you have got to live there for 12 months then, I guess, don't you?

Mr. Murray. Well, to my point

Mr. Yates. What happens in 12 months? Does he go out there or does he not? What happens to your stuff, Mr. Anderson, do you go out to Suitland? Now you have got wet storage. What happens in 12 months? I take it from the way you are hesitating you don't want to go out to Suitland.

Mr. Anderson. I am not suggesting that necessarily, Mr. Chairman. It is a complicated matter to decide the highest and best use of the space that will remain temporarily vacant at Suitland, after the initial materials from Dr. Fiske's and Roger Kennedy's museums are moved in.

MUSEUM SUPPORT CENTER EXPANSION

Mr. Yates. Let me ask another question. Suitland presumably was built so that you could add modules to it. Another module for storage for your various things?

Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. Assuming cost is a factor. How much do you pay for this building that Archives is in?

Mr. Anderson. I think the rent is something over a milUon dollars a year.

Mr. Jameson. Over two hundred thousand square feet at about $5 a square foot.

Mr. Yates. So how much will it cost to build another module out there?

Mr. Peyton. About $10 million in 1985.

Mr. Yates. It makes sense to build it then, doesn't it, and put your things out there, assuming you don't have enough space?

Mr. Adams. In the best of all possible worlds, yes.

Mr. Yates. I remember Dillon Ripley wanting to put in 22,000 square feet or something like that and the committee, or 22 million, the committee put the money in to make it 29 million so you would have additional space. Now is it already obsolete?

Mr. Anderson. No, sir, not for the purposes for which it was designed.

Mr. Adams. No, sir.

Mr. Yates. It is not. Can vou store these things out there? Is there any reason you shouldn t store them out there? Must they be available at 1111 whatever that street is?

Mr. Hughes. No.

Mr. Murray. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Yates. Yes.

Mr. Murray. I think the point here is that we are trying our best to improve the security and climate control conditions at 1111 North Capitol in hopes that soon our collections will be able to join the staff at the General Post Office Building.

Mr. Yates. Well, but how much is that, $40 million to put that in shape?

Mr. Yellin. Yes.

Mr. Yates. You have still got a couple of hurdles before you go into the General Post Office. $40 million when you have a few other priorities is something to be reckoned with. It's a lot easier to build a $10 million installation out at Suitland than $40 million to rehabilitate the Post Office Building, which is another thing that has to be considered.

At any rate

Mr. Adams. Mr. Chairman, I think the question does have to be asked though where in fact in the long run you cooperate with your colleagues out at Suitland. It's a great deal further away.

Mr. Yates. That is what I am trying to find out. I have been talking about Suitland. I guess I should have been aware of your hesitation, shouldn't I?

Mr. Murray. If the Archives collections moved to Suitland then the Archives staff would have to move there too.

Mr. Yates. How do you like Suitland?

Mr. Murray. It's a question of whether the researchers that come to use the Archives in conjunction with the Portrait Gallery and Museum

Mr. Yates. How tough is it to get to Suitland?

Mr. Jameson. It's very easy to get to Suitland. It's about 15 to 20 minutes away by car from the Mall during non-rush hour traffic.

Mr. Yates. Then that is not so bad for researchers, then, is it? It isn't so bad for a person living in the city either, is it?

Mr. Jameson. MSC is designed for researchers and students to go there, and have access to the collections.

Mr. Yates. Well, you have heard Mr. Jameson.

Mr. Murray. I think we disagree.

Mr. Yates. Well, okay. What are we going to do in the interim then? How long will it take to build a module at Suitland? How long, Mr. Peyton, assuming that the Regents and Mr. Adams thinks that is the way you ought to go?

Mr. Peyton. From the point of availability of money, not more than 24 months.

Mr. Yates. You have got the plans for one already, haven't you? It is just a question of putting it up. Okay. You have got the land.

Mr. Peyton. Yes, sir.

conservation needs for archives of AMERICAN ART

Mr. Yates. All right. Well, what do you think? How much money do you need now, though? Why put the money into an old facility that is rented for protecting you? Isn't there any other place that you can put it? I guess not?

Mr. Murray. Are you talking about the increases that I am asking for?

Mr. Yates. Yes. What are you asking for?

Mr. Murray. Well, I am asking for, as I said before, $155,000 which would be staff positions and conservation funds.

Mr. Yates. Conservation funds. What does that mean? What do you want in the way of conservation funds, what will that do?

Mr. Murray. We would contract out our conservation to the Conservation Center in Philadelphia, a well-recognized center for

Mr. Yates. Just ship it over there to be stored temporarily?

Mr. Murray. After we identify the conservation problems in our collection, we could then take those items by priority.

Mr. Yates. Why do you want to send them to Philadelphia rather than Suitland? What is the advantage? I would think you would want them closer at hand and probably you ought to be building another module at Suitland, assuming your collection is important enough for Mr. Adams' attention, right?

Mr. Murray. Well, the conservation would take place in Philadelphia, and the objects would come back to our collections here if we had access to

Mr. Yates. In other words, they have got to have some attention, some treatment?

Mr. Murray. Yes.

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

Mr. Murray. Well, the works on paper, after we identify those that are most important either historically or aesthetically, would need to be deacidified and the regular kind of work done on works on paper.

Mr. Yates. You have got a mammoth almost impossible task there, haven't you, if you have got eight million objects?

Mr. Murray. We have to begin sometime.

Mr. Yates. Yes, a journey of a thousand miles and so forth.

Mr. Murray. We really have to address the question.

Mr. Yates. But is this the time until you know where the objects are going? Don't you have to find a decent place? How expensive is it to ship it to Philadelphia and back?

Mr. Murray. Not expensive at all.

Mr. Yates. Well, how much will it cost?

Mr. Murray. Well, I really don't have any idea right now, but I would think it would be on a batch basis which would be several hundred works at a time.

Mr. Yates. Out of eight million?

Mr. Murray. We have to perform the inventory. We have to hire staff to perform the inventory to find out what we have—identify the problems. Then take the most important works and those that have the most difficult problems and send them into the conservation laboratory.

Mr. Yates. What do you do? You have got eight million objects. Are you going to keep all eight million or are you going to deaccess some of them, do you think? Are all of them valuable enough to keep?

Mr. Murray. Well, we don't envision deaccessing at all.

Mr. Yates. You are going to keep them?

Mr. Murray. Yes.

Mr. Yates. So then, you have the problem of putting them in shape?

Mr. Murray. That is right.

Mr. Yates. That is a big, big job, isn't it?

Mr. Murray. Yes, it is.

Mr. Yates. How many people do you have on your staff now?

Mr. Murray. We have 16 federal and 16 trust. The trust people are supported by funds raised by our board of trustees annually. We have five technicians in Washington and five in the field in the regional offices to do preliminary processing of papers before they reach Washington.

We can dedicate in Washington really only five people of our own staff to the task. That is why we are asking for more technical help and more professional expertise to help us with these special collections.

Mr. Yates. Give us a memorandum on it.

[The information follows:]

Program Needs of the Archives of American Art

For FY 1986 our most pressing need is $155,000 to support four new positions on our collections management staff and to fund the cost of construction processes for photographs, works on paper, and oral history tapes. The staff positions would include a curator and an assistant to care for, study, and publish our collection of photographs and works on paper; an archives technician to care for the oral history collection; and a clerical support position. The curator and assistant would be responsible for the sf>ecial collections of some 400,000 photographs, and 75,000 works on paper. The technical and clerical support positions would aid the professional staff and bolster our existing technical staff of five. A sum of $70,000 would provide the necessary supplies and equipment for the staff and provide the funds for conservation of photographs and works on paper. It is necessary to begin work on the preservation of these collections that contain important items and information. This increase in funding was proposed by the Smithsonian in its request to OBM, which denied the request in the subsequent passback.

PREFERRED STORAGE LOCATION FOR AAA

Mr. Adams. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Yates. Mr. Adams.

Mr. Adams. I hate to shoot from the hip, but I do think I can in this case with some justification. In the long-run Suitland is not the answer for that collection. This is the connecting fabric between the work of the Museum of American Art and Portrait Gallery and the community of producing artists and collectors and other museums out there. This is a working archive. To move the Archive away from the other museums in the long-run would be dysfunctional.

It is important that it be located where the people who come in to use it are the people who know that material and who interact with ones who are already in those museums.

I really don't think in the long-run no matter what we have to do in the short-run, and I recognize we may need to do something in Suitland in the short-run, but in the long-run, that collection belongs in reasonably close proximity with the existing museums on Gallery Place.

Mr. Yates. Why is that?

Mr. Adams. Well, it's like a great library that belongs in the same fields as those museums. So to separate them by 15 miles or whatever the distance would really destroy the fabric of communication that ought to go on between the people who are working on these things and the community that supports that activity.

It really would be a very unfortunate choice. We may get driven to almost anj^hing, but that would be a most unfortunate choice.

Mr. Yates. All right. Let's have a memorandum on this, would you?

Mr. Murray. Thank you.

Mr. Anderson. A final thought, Mr. Chairman, concerning the Archives of American Art.

Mr. Yates. Mr. Anderson.

Mr. Anderson. The inventory work Mr. Murray refers to would be supported by the budget already before you. The special inventory appropriation account, the line item within our budget called that, does include funds for fiscal year 1986 to accomplish that preliminary work.

Mr. Yates. Was this striken by 0MB?

Mr. Anderson. No, sir, it is in the budget request before you.

Mr. Yates. You and I have been waiting—no, we haven't.

Mr. Anderson. No, sir, Mr. Murray has been speaking of things over and beyond that.

Mr. Murray. The $65,000 in collections in management inventory funds would provide for a shelf inventory reconciled to our accesses records inventory to make sure we do have what we think we have.

Mr. Yates. Okay. Thank you. Dr. Murray.

COOPER-HEWITT BUDGET NEEDS

Cooper-Hewitt, is Ms. Taylor here?

Mr. Pfister. No, Mr. Chairman, she isn't and she regrets that as much—I am Harold Pfister, assistant director.

Mr. Yates. Okay. You have been cut, haven't you?

Mr. Pfister. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. By Hughes or 0MB?

Mr. Pfister. Both.

Mr. Yates. Tell us, do you need additional funds?

Mr. Pfister. Yes, sir, I think my answer personally as someone who has worked both here and in New York is that we do, clearly. I would suggest first we discuss whether the museum's budget, in toto, is large enough to do the task posed for it.

If the answer to that is no, that it is not large enough, then which component should be larger, the federal, the trust, or both? I might point out the box at the top of the page certainly reflects pretty accurately that our budget is a combination of federal and trust. In FY 1984, 1985 and 1986, the federal participation level averages between 26 and 29 percent, and the collections for which we bear responsibility recalling your remark yesterday about the cause of good, husbandry, those collections as inventoried, permanent collections, exceed something like 50 percent of the combined holdings of all Smithsonian art museums.

In other words, better than twice the combined number of the holdings of the art museums, as inventoried, are the responsibility of the Cooper-Hewitt Museum.

Mr. Yates. Really?

Mr. Pfister. Yes.

Mr. Yates. Why is that?

Mr. Pfister. Well, it's a function of how lucky the museum's founders were in assembling collections of significance, depth, breadth and quality. Over 167,000 items, as I mentioned.

Mr. Yates. Oh, my. Is my memory right? Do you have the largest collection of Church drawings?

Mr. Pfister. Oil sketches, that is correct. We hold wonderful American art materials in addition to extraordinary international materials in the realms of wall coverings, textiles, decorative arts, and what we think is the largest drawing collection of any museum in America.

Mr. Yates. Are they all on your grounds?

Mr. Pfister. Yes, overwhelmingly, the majority. All the finest materials are in the Andrew Carnegie Mansion, the museum's main structure.

Mr. Yates. I have been there. But where are the 167,000 items except for the finest ones, which would represent a small part?

Mr. Pfister. They are either in boxes, in cases, inventoried in the department of prints and drawings and other departments or they are in the Miller House which is the second physical structure on the property which was part of the gift from the Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Mr. Yates. Are they large enough to hold your collection?

Mr. Pfister. In terms of warehousing, if all we were doing was warehousing the collections, most of the collections are warehoused there. We have a few things down here at 1111 North Capitol and we have some things in commercial storage in New York City.

To make them accessible to the public, to be able to exhibit them, no, the facilities are not large enough. We have no exhibition space we feel we can devote to the semipermanent display of the

48-292 0-85 21

permanent collections at all. All the space has to be devoted to temporary exhibitions. That is not just because we enjoy doing temporary exhibitions, either.

That is a terrific workload for our three curatorial staff members; 12 to 16 projects a year. We have to do those exhibitions to keep attracting members who support the museum in the way of earned income, and to keep attracting the public to support the museum through paid admission.

VISITOR ATTENDANCE AT COOPER-HEWITT

Mr. Yates. How attractive is the public, how many visitors do you get?

Mr. Pfister. It varies depending on the nature of exhibitions. An exhibition such as the British Royal Family's personal collection of Faberge items will draw the equivalent of a quarter of an annual attendance in a more average year. Attendance figures are in the submissions, roughly 200,000 to 250,000 on average.

On Museum Mile in New York City most people go first to the Metropolitan, but for the specialized international community of designers, architects, Cooper-Hewitt has become in the last ten years a "must see" museum in New York City. We get a large volume of repeat visitors as well.

Mr. Yates. You don't have much exhibition space, do you?

Mr. Pfister. Roughly 11,000 square feet to work with on two floors of a building originally designed as a private residence for a wealthy family.

Mr. Yates. I have been there and I remember some of the exhibits that I saw there.

In what respect was Cooper-Hewitt funding to be raised from private sources?

Mr. Pfister. I have been with the Museum for almost two and a half years, sir. My understanding on the basis of a review of prior budget submissions was that the Institution and government agreed that basic operational costs for protection and care of the collections and facilities would be an acceptable federal degree of participation. Operational costs insofar as possible would be raised privately.

Mr. Regula. Will the Chairman yield?

Mr. Yates. Mr. Regula.

Mr. Regula. I note that your visitor numbers fell off rather sharply in 1984 as opposed to 1983.

Mr. Pfister. 1983 was the Faberge year. That is what I meant by the impact of one "blockbuster."

Mr. Regula. But it even dropped off in 1982 from 1981 and even 1980.

Mr. Pfister. Any given mix of exhibition materials will draw a different level of attendance. I don't know how those figures compare with the statistics for tourist seasons during that time or with the New York Museum attendance in general. But we know we do exhibitions in areas such as architecture, urban design, textiles, that appeal or have importance to a specific professional community and don't necessarily appeal to the broad general public the way Queen Elizabeth

Mr. Regula. That seems to be a pattern in all the galleries, not just Cooper-Hewitt.

Mr. Pfister. That may be so.

Mr. Regula. As I look at the numbers here.

Mr. Pfister. We have the challenge of going on and raising private funds. That we continue to do. It's not really strictly a function of just attendance, per se.

the SMITHSONIAN COLLECTION

Mr. Regula. Dr. Adams, someone else told me that for every item on display, there was a volume of say as much as ten to one in storage, is that correct?

Mr. Adams. It would vary very substantially from one field to another. At the furtherest extreme, the Smithsonian collection of 30 million-odd insects which I would doubt, I could ask Dick Fiske, but I would doubt we have more than a thousand or two on display. At the other extreme, perhaps in the Freer Collection, I suspect the Freer collection is the opposite extreme.

Tom Lawton, is he still here?

Mr. Lawton. The collection consists of about 26,000 items. We have on exhibition at any one time maybe 800 pieces.

Mr. Adams. Then I think 10 percent is too high. If the Freer collection in which there has been emphasis throughout on collecting master works still only puts 800 on exhibit I think 10 percent would be substantially too high a number.

Mr. Regula. So even a smaller percentage of the total collections is on display?

Mr. Adams. Yes.

Mr. Regula. Do you have some systematic program that all the collected items in any given area eventually get displayed? What I am getting at is, do you just end up with warehouses full of things sort of like an attic that lays forever?

Mr. Adams. I don't think they should be regarded as items in an attic in any case, Mr. Regula. The collection is of immense value as a study collection. There are people who would be coming in to study, let's say, in the case of Mr. Lawton's collections, Persian miniatures of which they might find a relatively small group on exhibit but with the collection having been carefully assembled to illustrate different schools and different periods and so on.

That collection would be in very substantial use, and it would be a resource. It would be a resource not in the case of Freer, but many of our other galleries that might be drawn upon by people elsewhere, they wouldn't know these things exist. There would be a variety of different forms of use made of it beyond its exhibition in a given museum.

Mr. Regula. So v/e can assume that everything that is either on display or in storage is being used in some form over time?

Mr. Adams. That would be my assumption. I am venturing outside of my own field here, but there are duplicate stamps and coins where there might be very little use made. But I think generally speaking the collections are important as collections. To keep them intact as collections is not simply the result of instinct on the part

of curators but a result of the way in which you can work with collections productively.

Mr. Regula. Is there ever any program of purchasing the collections to say, maybe this is not relevant any more, avoiding continued expansion of volume?

Mr. Adams. It's a very hard thing to do.

Mr. Regula. I understand.

Mr. Adams. It's hard. But the point I would make is that it is hard not only because there is a physical effort involved in the deaccessing and choices that go into it, but also because you are making a collection against future uses that you can't always anticipate. It's that uncertainty about the concerns of the curator of the future, or the scholar of the future coming in from somewhere else to study the collections, that really makes this very difficult.

Take my own field. Pots that look like archeologically excavated pots that look like duplicates of one another would suggest to the casual visitor that you could certainly get rid of several of those and keep only the best example.

But if you are concerned with the processes of production at the time, or if you are concerned with reconstructing the patterns of trade by which those things moved from their point of origin to the point of consummation, you need to be able to analyze those in ways that wouldn't have been anticipated at the time they were excavated.

So that there are these evolutions in the fields of study themselves that make it important to keep collections intact.

Mr. Regula. But isn't there a danger that we just simply get a volume that is beyond our ability to manage both in terms of cost—that includes manpower and physical facilities? We like to move our office every so often just to purge some of the paper we retained. Maybe this is a little different but nevertheless, there has to be a finite point, I think, on building additional storage and the cost of managing that.

Mr. Adams. Well, fortunately, Suitland is already built. We are not therefore considering whether to construct that facility.

Mr. Regula. I know.

Mr. Adams. I think that represented a judgment on the part of the Smithsonian and the Congress that they weren't prepared to say that, for some considerable time to come, that space, physical space limitations ought to play some arbitrary ceiling on the collections at this point.

I am glad that is so. I think it would be terribly difficult to make wise choices as to the areas in which you would say we will put a ceiling on the collections at the precise limit and not go further. I am almost certain you would make choices that were resisted as terribly unwise by people who were basically as authoritative in the subject as those who made the original decisions.

Mr. Regula. Well, I know I am a trustee of a rather substantial McKinley Museum back in our district, and probably one of the better ones in the country for a community that size. We have a difficult problem, because we are getting constant flow of items. There is so much space. You have to make judgments. I think there is always a temptation to not make judgments and just add space.

That avoids the problem of having to make a judgment as to the value or merit of a proposed acquisition. I just have some concern that that might be the easy way out, is to just store it all.

Mr. Adams. Let me offer another suggestion which seems to me in the long-run to have more, to hold more hope, at least as I would look at things. If you take the case of libraries where the same problem occurs

Mr. Regula. It sure does.

Mr. Adams. You could say we just don't want any more books, thank you, in the first place. I think anyone who is using a library would go up the wall if that suggestion were seriously explored because the uses of libraries are so diverse that you can't really

Mr. Regula. But there are limitations.

Mr. Adams. But let me continue. What one is seeing and what I think does make sense is to move toward segregation of collections and parts that are kept more accessible for more ready use either in exhibits or by visiting scholars and so on, others that are put in special forms of intensive storage where they can be gotten at only with considerable difficulty and where you have made the density so great that you can keep them much more inexpensively.

Now what is happening with libraries. The—whatever it is in Chicago is one central library holding less used materials. There are similar facilities emerging in my own field again with regard to the archeological materials coming out of salvage excavations all over the country.

Those will be of very, very specialized use, yet there is a concern not to dispose of them altogether. So there are forms of very intensive warehousing if you wish which do make them available but make them available under conditions of relatively inexpensive storage.

And I think we might move in that direction.

Mr. Hughes. I want to point out, Mr. Regula, the Institution—I think the directors here will confirm this—does turn down far more than it accepts. So there is a good deal of discrimination.

We might argue as to whether it is adequate. But there is a substantial judgment exercised. In addition, on the question of the use of objects, there are various ways of doing that. We do have loan programs, loaned to other museums and exchanges with them.

Mr. Regula. Yes.

Mr. Hughes. We had some testimony yesterday from Peggy Loar who directs our Traveling Exhibition Service which travels, I think, 150 to 175 exhibitions around the country.

Mrs. Loar. Slightly less this year.

Mr. Regula. I assume you have the same problem as do all museums. That you—you are telling me you do reject quite a lot.

Mr. Adams. On that particular score, I published a column in the Smithsonian Magazine within the last two months or so warning the public, or that part of the public that sees the Smithsonian Magazine, that we were in fact forced frequently to exercise that kind of discretion and that they had to recognize that we couldn't take everything into the nation's attic.

SMITHSONIAN MAGAZINE

Mr. Regula. Speaking of the magazine, what is your circulation? Is it self-sustaining?

Mr. Adams. It is not only self-sustaining, it is the largest single source of the so-called trust funds that we use in support of the budget. Its circulation is about 2.2 million.

Mr. Regula. Well, I can understand. It's a very high quality publication and one that I enjoy reading myself.

ACQUISITION FUNDS USED BY COOPER-HEWITT

Mr. Pfister. If I might offer a small footnote to the discussion of acquisitions and care for existing collections. It might not be immediately apparent, but it is a fact that not a federal dime has gone into collection acquisition at the Cooper-Hewitt since the relationship has existed. All that is done through private funds, a good deal more through gift than through purchase.

Mr. Yates. The problem is that we have a very major decision to make with respect to Cooper-Hewitt.

Mr. Pfister. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. On this committee and you have a major decision to make.

Had you finished?

Mr. Regula. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I will just reserve the rest of my questions for the record.

Mr. Yates. All right.

The report of the Controller General dated March 31, 1977, I think is historically valuable. Chapter 4 should go into the record at this point.

[The report follows:]

CHAPTER 4

ESTABLISHMENT OF FACILITIES AND THEIR IMPACT ON FEDERAL FUNDING REQUIREMENTS

This chapter provides an overview of four facilities, the Federal and private funds used to support each, and the reasons why the Smithsonian became involved in each facility.

Increased Federal support is the frequent byproduct of new Smithsonian undertakings, whether or not initially launched with private money. The Congress needs to be fully informed of new programs and directions in a timely manner.

COOPER-HEWITT MUSEUM OF DECORATIVE ARTS AND DESIGN

The Cooper-Hewitt Museum of Decorative Arts and Design in New York City is devoted to the study of historical and contemporary design. Its collections currently span 3,000 years and include over 100,000 objects, including textiles, drawings, wallpaper, furniture, jewelry, glass, ceramics, and silver. The Museum has materials devoted to architecture, urban planning, and industrial design.

The collections are supported by a decorative arts and design library encompassing a reference library, a rare book library of about 25,000 volumes, picture archives of over one and one-half million items, and archives on color and light, patterns, materials, symbols, sensory and technological data, interiors, advertising, and typography.

Cooper-Hewitt opened its doors to the public as a Smithsonian museum on October 7, 1976.

i

From its inception in 1897 as the Cooper Union Museum for the Arts of Decoration, until 1963 the Museum was funded and operated by the Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art, a philanthropic organization. However, in June 1963 the trustees of Cooper Union announced that space and funds needs of their Schools of Art, Architecture, and Engineering had forced them to consider discontinuing the Museum, with the possibility that the collections and reference materials would be dispersed and the Museum as an entity would cease to exist. In July 1963 the trustees closed the Museum to the public.

Soon after the closing, a group of individuals formed the Committee to Save the Cooper Union Museum. The Committee, inquiring why the Museum was being discontinued, was given three reasons by the trustees: (1) there had been a decline in the use of the collections in relation to the school's own educational program, (2) the Museum's location at Cooper square provided insufficient space and was somewhat remote from New York's museum and gallery center, and (3) the proposed discontinuance would free needed funds that could be used to enhance the other educational programs of the Cooper Union.

In November 1963 the Cooper Union trustees accepted an offer from the American Association of Museums to form an independent committee to seek a solution which would preserve the Museum intact in New York, with space and funds sufficient to permit its revitalization.

The Smithsonian was generally aware of these developments but it was September 1964 before the preservation committees made an inquiry as to whether the Smithsonian might be able to aid the Museum. The Smithsonian informally responded that although the decorative arts were a major concern of the Smithsonian's National Collection of Fine Arts, and the preservation of the Cooper Union Museum might therefore require some affirmative action by the Smithsonian, such action would be discussed only if there were no organization in New York City able and willing to help the Museum continue as an entity.

In January 1965 the Committee to Save the Cooper Union Museum wrote to the Smithsonian Board of Regents explaining that in the 18 months of the Committee's existence it had been unable to find any New York institution, suited and equipped for the responsibility, interested in preserving the Museum as an entity.

Efforts by the American Association of Museum's Committee to find help for the Museum were similarly unsuccessful and it also turned to the Smithsonian as a last possible source of help.

The Smithsonian Regents decided that the preservation of the Cooper Union Musuem was a proper Smithsonian concern and in January 1965 authorized negotiations for the transfer of the Museum to the Smithsonian. Acquisition of the Museum was to be conditioned on adequate assurance of sufficient funds from private sources to provide for the continuing operation of the Museum in New York without burden to the public and private resources of the Smithsonian.

Negotiations between the Smithsonian and the Cooper Union lasted unuil October 1967. An agreement was signed and later validated by the New York State Supreme Court in May 1968. The Smithsonian took control of the Museum on July 1, 1968.

The Cooper Union transferred to the Smithsonian the Museum's collections, library, and endowment funds (estimated at that time to be $300,000). In addition. Cooper Union agreed to provide the Smithsonian $100,000 a year for 3 years. The agreement required the Smithsonian to maintain the Museum in New York City, unless it became financially or otherwise impossible. The agreement further provided for a lease arrangement between the Smithsonian and the Cooper Union, whereby the Museum could remain in the original Cooper Union building rent free for 3 years. In addition, the Smithsonian received a pledge of $200,000 annually for 4 years from the Committee to Save the Cooper Union Museum.

At the time the agreement was signed the Smithsonian's stated policy was that the Museum would be supported by the community of interests which it served in New York and elsewhere. The direct and indirect costs to the Smithsonian would be kept to the minimum necessary to maintain administrative control and policy direction of the Museum's future course.

From July 1968 until its official opening to the general public in October 1976, the Cooper-Hewitt Museum allowed visits by scholars, educational groups, and other organizations on request. The Museum held several in-house exhibitions as well as staging some off-premises events. In addition, it loaned many art objects to other museums, moved the Museum from Cooper Union to the Carnegie Museum, studied and cared for the collections, and developed future programs. The total cost of these activities was $4.2 million—$2.9 million in Smithsonian private funds and $1.3 million from Smithsonian-appropriated funds.. The following chart shows the source of funds for Cooper-Hewitt through September 30, 1976. The figures for private funds include gifts, income from endowment funds, and private unrestricted Smithsonian funds.

>

a,

<

649

<Ti ^ m in

P^ VO CN CT^

^ ^ ^ C^

T vo 0> ro

rr ^H <N ON

in P~ CN ix>

CN .-I ro

JJ — o

o> ro CO 00

tN o r^ r>-

m a\ fN ^

n r-i pvi m

o o o o

J

Before the Smithsonian Institution signed the agreement to acquire the Museum in October 1967 it had not notified the appropriate congressional committees of its intentions to acquire the Museum. Signing of the agreement was not a sudden or unplanned action. It was preceded by over 2 years of negotiations. Furthermore, the Smithsonian did not notify the congress even after the signing until an inquiry was made by a Member of Congress.

Smithsonian officials, while agreeing that some formal notice should have been given to the appropriate congressional committees, nonetheless said that there was no attempt to keep the negotiations or the signing of the agreement a secret. They pointed to articles that appeared in the New York Times, one in 1965 which referred to a proposal to transfer the Museum to the Smithsonian, and another in October 1967 which reported the transfer. Before the negotiations were initiated, approval .to negotiate was given by the Smithsonian Board of Regents, of which si: members are also Members of Congress.

LX

In January 1972, the Carnegie Corporation of New York gave the Andrew Carnegie Mansion and the adjoining Miller House and grounds, comprising the entire block from 90th to 91st Streets on Fifth Avenue, to the Smithsonian to house the Cooper-Hewitt Museum.

Under the'terms of the gift, the Smithsonian is free to sell the property if it becomes necessary. In that event, the Smithsonian would be reimbursed for all expenditures it had made on the property, and the remaining funds would be divided equally between the Smithsonian and the Carnegie Corporation. As of September 30, 1976, the Smithsonian had spent approximately $2.5 million in private funds and $159,000 in Federal funds in renovating the Carnegie property. About $235,000 of the private funds were in the form of grants from Federal agencies including $195,000 for the installation of air conditioning and humidity controls in the Museum.

Renovation of the Carnegie Mansion, which houses the Museum, has been completed. There is no plan to renovate the Miller House which is used as a classroom and study area and to store art objects. According to Smithsonian officials. Federal money will probably be requested for repairs to the two buildings as they become necessary in future years, but there are no plans for such a request through fiscal year 1978.

For fiscal years 1969 through 1971, about $147,000 in appropriated funds were spent for Cooper-Hewitt. The Smithsonian first explicitly identified funds for Cooper-Hewitt in its

budget for fiscal year 1972, and for fiscal years 1972 through 1975 $625,000 from the Salaries and Expenses appropriation line items for libraries, plant services, registrar, protection services, and Assistant Secretary for History and Art were used on Cooper-Hewitt. In fiscal year 1976 Cooper-Hewitt was added as a specific line item in the Smithsonian's Salaries and Expenses appropriation budget request. When discussing the use of appropriated funds for Cooper-Hewitt, the Smithsonian stated; "the programs of Cooper-Hewitt should be operated with nonappropriated funds, and appropriated funds should insofar as possible be limited to the protection and preservation of the collections and property."

"Appropriated funds for Cooper-Hewitt have increased substantially over the last 3 fiscal years, 1974-76. The need for protection and maintenance services increased as the Museum was readied for its public opening. "

Cooper-Hewitt requested Federal appropriations totaling $616,000 for operations in fiscal year 1977, $367,000 directly as a budget line item and $249,000 from other Smithsonian departments, such as Libraries and Protection Services. The fiscal year 1978 budget justification to the Congress included $377,000 for Cooper-Hewitt operations. Smithsonian officials estimate that $248,000 will be spent by other Smithsonian units in support of the Museum for a total Federal cost of $625,000 in 1978.

According to the Assistant Secretary for History and Art, the 1978 budget request for Cooper-Hewitt should be representative of requests for the foreseeable future. He told us there are no plans to increase the number of federally salaried personnel at Cooper-Hewitt or to expand the list of operating expenses which require Federal funds. Acquisition of objects for the collections, exhibitions, and special projects will continue to be financed by private funds.

Smithsonian officials estimate that in fiscal year 1977 Cooper-Hewitt will raise $699,000 from all sources other than Smithsonian, including $150,000 in admission fees, $115,000 from memberships, $180,000 from benefit receipts, and $100,000 from classes. These funds will be used to support all the programmatic activities of the Museum, which the Smithsonian estimates will cost $823,000 in fiscal year 1977. The difference will be raised in special contributions or supplied from Smithsonian private funds.

ACQUIRING COOPER-HEWITT MUSEUM

Mr. Yates. With respect to the relationship of the Congress to the Cooper-Hewitt and the Smithsonian to Cooper-Hewitt. It gives the background and description of Cooper-Hewitt which in measure, supplements the description in the budget presentation, very helpful. On page 35 it says this.

Cooper-Hewitt, of course, the first couple of pages talks about the threat of closing the Cooper-Hewitt Museum in 1963, when funds were failing and the committee to save Cooper Union Museum was organized, and the Cooper-Hewitt—Cooper Union Trustees had the task of saving it.

They went to the Smithsonian. And I read from the report:

"In January 1965 the Committee to Save the Cooper Union Museum wrote to the Smithsonian Board of Regents explaining that in the 18 months of the Committee's existence it had been unable to find any New York institution, suited and equipped for the responsibility, interested in preserving the Museum as an entity.

Efforts by the American Association of Museum's Committee to find help for the Museum were similarly unsuccessful and it also turned to the Smithsonian as the latest possible source of help.

The Smithsonian Regents decided that the preservation of the Cooper Union Museum was a proper Smithsonian concern and in January 1965 authorized negotiations for the transfer of the Museum to the Smithsonian. Acquisition of the Museum was to be conditioned on adequate assurance of sufficient funds from private sources to provide for the continuing operation.

Are you listening, Ralph?

Mr. Regula. Yes.

Mr. Yates [continuing].

Private sources to provide for the continuing operation of the Museum in New York without burden to the public and private resources of the Smithsonian.

Negotiations between the Smithsonian and Cooper Union lasted until October 1967. An agreement was signed and later validated by the New York State Supreme Court in May 1968. The Smithsonian took control of the Museum on July 1, 1968.

Cooper Union transferred to the Smithsonian the Museum's collections, library and endowment funds (estimated at that time to be $300,000). In addition. Cooper Union agreed to provide the Smithsonian $100,000 a year for three years. The agreement required the Smithsonian to maintain the Museum in New York City, unless it became financially or otherwise impossible. The agreement further provided for a lease arrangement between the Smithsonian and the Cooper Union, whereby the Museum could remain in the original Cooper Union building rent free for 3 years. In addition, the Smithsonian received a pledge of $200,000 annually for four years from the Committee to Save the Cooper Union Museum.

At the time the agreement was signed, the Smithsonian's stated policy was that the Museum would be supported by the community of interests which it served in New York and elsewhere. The direct and indirect costs to the Smithsonian would be kept to the minimum necessary to maintain administrative control and policy direction of the museum future course.

From July 1968 until its official opening to the general public in October 1976, when did it become Cooper-Hewitt?

Mr. Pfister. I think when the Smithsonian actually took it over to indicate the differences in administrative responsibility.

Mr. Yates. Why Cooper-Hewitt?

Mr. Pfister. The Hewitt daughters, sisters, granddaughters of Peter Cooper, founder of Cooper Union. And they made the Museum their own particular concern and in fact, established the Museum. So it was in honor of them as founders, cofounders.

Mr. Yates. Did they put up any money for it?

Mr. Pfister. There were various small family bequests that were transferred and are still administered as restricted private funds.

Mr. Yates. In October 1976, the Cooper-Hewitt Museum allowed visits by scholars, educational groups and other organizations on request. The Museum held several in-house exhibitions as well as staging some off-premises events. In addition, it loaned many art objects to other museums, moved the Museum from Cooper Union to the Carnegie Museum, studied and cared for the collections, and developed future programs. The total cost of these activities was $4.2 million—$2.9 million in Smithsonian private funds and $1.3 million from Smithsonian-appropriated funds.

Presumably there were not to be Smithsonian appropriated funds. Presumably. Because acquisitions, I read again.

Acquisitions of the Museum was to be conditioned on adequate assurance of sufficient funds from private sources to provide for the continuing operation of the Museum in New York without burden to the public and private resources of the Smithsonian.

The following chart shows the source of funds for Cooper-Hewitt through September 30, 1976. The figures for private funds include gifts, income from endowment funds and private unrestricted Smithsonian.

Then there is the chart, which showed operating funds, and so on.

It doesn't show, well, anyway, it doesn't show whether it was federal or otherwise. Does it? Appropriated funds. That is thousands instead of millions. $303,000, 1969 to 1973, appropriated funds. 1974, $169,000 appropriated funds. In 1975, $235,000 appropriated funds. 1976, $546,000 appropriated funds or a total of $1,271,000 through September 30, 1976.

And building renovation received $159,000 in appropriated funds during the same period. Well, let's go to lunch and come back at 1:30.

We had thought that perhaps we wouldn't have to meet this afternoon. But I think what we are doing is of some help, considering, I think we can't leave Cooper-Hewitt dangling in the air with the request for funds. So, let's come back at 1:30.

Afternoon Session appropriations for cooper-hewitt

Mr. Yates. Mr. Reporter, show the hearing as coming to order. We were talking about Cooper-Hewitt. I had been reading from GAO's report.

I read from page 39 of the report.

In fiscal year 1976, Cooper-Hewitt was added as a specific line item in the Smithsonian salaries and expenses appropriation budget request. When discussing the use of appropriation funds for Cooper-Hewitt, the Smithsonian stated, the programs of Cooper-Hewitt should be operated with non-appropriated funds, and appropriated funds should be insofar as possible be limited to the protection and preservation of the collections and property.

Appropriated funds for Cooper-Hewitt have increased substantially over the last three fiscal years, 1974 to 1976. The need for protection and maintenance service has increased as the museum is readied for public opening. Cooper-Hewitt requested federal appropriations totaling $616,000 for operations in fiscal year 1977, $367,000 directly as a budget line item and $249,000 from other Smithsonian departments such as libraries and protection services.

The fiscal year 1978 budget justification to the Congress included $377,000 for Cooper-Hewitt operations. According to the Assistant Secretary for History and Art,

I guess that would be Charlie Blitzer, the 1978 budget request for Cooper-Hewitt should be representative of requests for the forseeable future.

He told us there are no plans to increase the number of federally salaried personnel at Cooper-Hewitt or to expand the list of operating expenses which require federal funds. Acquisition of objects for the collections, exhibitions and special projects will continue to be financed by private funds.

That is kind of interesting. I remember reading this at the time when Sam Hughes came on board in 1977. The notes that I asked myself, Cooper-Hewitt is not supposed to cost the federal government anything. Why? Why does it cost anything? Does Congress have an obligation to fund any venture approved by the Board of Regents? What do you think, Judge?

Mr. Powers. No, no comment.

Mr. Yates. Is that continuous, or was the first no? Was that no, and then no comment, and then no? Interesting, I wrote this. Why may not the Smithsonian, with the charges, the mandate to engage in diffusion of knowledge among men, take over the entire research operation of the federal government? What is its limit? Any comment. Judge?

Mr. Powers. There is a limit imposed by this committee, I think.

Mr. Yates. Well, but you didn't answer the first question. You didn't answer the first question as to whether or not we have to fund whatever Smithsonian decides what it wants to do. You said no comment to that.

Mr. Powers. Well, I say no.

Mr. Yates. It doesn't, we don't have to. Okay. What are we going to do with Cooper-Hewitt? Now, we have the minutes the Board of Regents for January 28 respecting Cooper-Hewitt. You say this. Something you didn't tell us before. Renovation of the Miller House and construction of its link to the Carnegie Mansion have been an integral part of the museum's plans since the two adjacent properties were donated to the Smithsonian in 1972. That doesn't appear in the GAO report I just read from.

Hardy Holtzman and Peppers conceptual schematic plans call for combination of new construction, renovation of the Miller House and a redistribution of various functions within the Mansion, providing new galleries for changing exhibitions, the ability to display a greater portion of the permanent collection, expanded and improved collection storage and registration areas and new educational facilities including an auditorium and classrooms.

In 1984, the Regents approved these expansion plans in principal and agreed that $250,000 per year for up to three years be made available to the museum to underwrite the costs of professional fundraising assistance. With the assistance of Gregory, John Jones, campaigning began in earnest this fall.

A professional cost estimate of $23 million assumes a fiscal year 1989 construction start, and completion by the end of fiscal year 1991 including architectural costs, construction management costs, equipment, furnishing and an amount for inflation.

At the September 1984 board meeting the Board of Regents learned of the findings of several of the members who had visited the museum over the summer.

After discussion of the extremely cramped and deteriorating physical conditions which are jeopardizing collections, the Smithsonian accepted 18 years ago.

Incidentally I didn't have that feeling when I visited Cooper-Hewitt last year, I thought somebody had done a first rate job of putting it in shape.

Mr. Pfister. Were you in the Miller House, sir?

Mr. Yates. No.

Mr. Pfister. It is principally in reference to that.

Mr. Yates. No, no, the tour didn't include that.

Mr. Pfister. Yes.

Mr. Yates. "The Board agreed an appropriate form of shared funding might be considered to speed the project along." That is a deviation from the original mandate, isn't it, shared funding. "A demonstration of strong institutional support is crucial if major donors are to be attracted. It's believed that federal support is fully warranted, given the importance of the museum and the public use and scholarly value of the collections."

That is a new switch, too, isn't it? "Mindful of the concerns of the Regents about construction priorities, the staff proposed that a Cooper-Hewitt project be substituted for a previously identified administrative office building" that wasn't represented either, was it, to the committee as being the actions of the Regents, from presently released space.

"While important to move, the needs of Cooper-Hewitt appear more urgent. The Regents agreed that the proposed legislation"— what legislation?

Mr. Adams. Authorization of the shared expenses.

Mr. Yates. Authorization of shared expenses for Cooper-Hewitt?

Mr. Adams. For the refurbishment of Miller House and extension.

Mr. Yates. Then we don't have anj^hing to consider on that, yet, do we, in the committee? Okay. That is Mr. Seiberling, isn't it?

But this is a real deviation. "Regents agree the proposed legislation should indicate that no appropriations for Cooper-Hewitt construction should be expended until it is determined the entire matching amount has been raised from non-federal sources," which is how much?

Mr. Adams. Eleven and a half million.

Mr. Yates. And we better find out what that, based on our experience with the Quad, we better find out what items are included in the $11.5 million, hadn't we?

Mr. Adams. Yes.

Mr. Yates. "Voted that the Board of Regents recognizing the urgent need for improved and expanded space for the collections and programs of the Cooper-Hewitt Museum supports legislation authorizing the appropriation of $11.5 million for one half the construction costs of the museum's physical expansion." Then I think we will have to define what we mean by construction costs, won't we? Mr. Jameson?

Mr. Jameson. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. Right. In other words, what was it they said about the cat who sat on the hot stove plate? He would never sit on a hot stove plate again whether it was hot or cold, right? I don't know whether that is appropriate. I thought it was, anyway, here you are from Cooper-Hewitt.

Mr. Pfister. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. Now that you know based on history that the Smithsonian is to pay for all your expenses, what is it that you are asking us for?

POSITIONS NEEDED AT COOPER-HEWITT

Mr. Pfister. Well, it has been a very refreshing review of the history of the museum. In planning its budget documents each year, the museum of course has responsibility for the future of the collections.

What we had asked for was a group of critically needed positions. Perhaps you recall last year we were before you with a request for additional federal funding for positions and we failed to make our case with respect to the virtue of converting those positions.

Mr. Yates. Go ahead.

Mr. Pfister. This year at the 0MB level, we lost a request for five critically needed positions to assist with the problems of collections management, which in your review of the history I think it is at least possible to justify. It depends whether you are thinking of exhibitions as programs to be paid for with restricted gifts or whether you are thinking of collections management as that sort of activity. We are talking about curators or associate curators in the departments of decorative arts and prints and drawings where we have basically one curator each.

Mr. Yates. It seems to me we are going to have to get a whole set of definitions of what we mean by the costs because of the prospect of cost sharing.

Mr. Pfister. I might say the request for annual operational support—

Mr. Yates. Last year, in our own report, you asked for $200,000 for Cooper-Hewitt. Increased request to provide appropriations for operations now funded by trust funds is not approved. Private support is not eroding. No good reason was offered for funding personnel now paid from trust funds from federal funds. Last year you wanted to move some people from the Cooper-Hewitt payroll over to, I mean to the trust payroll over to the federal payroll.

Mr. Pfister. That is correct. These positions, however, were new positions to support existing positions and to make possible a volume of work that simply otherwise is not going to get done.

Mr. Yates. All right. Something I think that has to be worked out. I think probably by the authorizing committee, and the authorizing committee, I am sure, will be very sympahetic. Thank you very much.

Now I guess I better go vote before we bring Sylvia to the table.

(Recess.)

national museum of AFRICAN ART BUDGET NEEDS

Mr. Yates. African art. Sylvia, where are thou? What is that piece of art called?

Ms. Williams. Yipwon from the Sepik River, region.

Mr. Yates. Tell me, you don't need any more money, do you, or do you?

Ms. Williams. Oh, yes.

Mr. Yates. Tell us. Do you need it now?

Ms. Williams. We need it now. We requested $219,000 for acquisitions and that was reduced to $100,000, which is in the 1986 request. Which meant we sustained a $119,000 cut in our collections development fund. That is, in view of the discussion on construe-

tion we had yesterday, it is very important to the Institution to move into the new facility.

Mr. Yates. Do you know of an5rthing around now that you want to buy?

Ms. Williams. There is material available, Mr. Chairman, yes.

Mr. Yates. Is that the same thing as saying yes?

Ms. Williams. Yes.

Mr. Yates. It's pretty expensive though, isn't it?

Ms. Williams. Yes, African art is expensive because it is getting rarer and rarer. As cultures change so do artistic traditions. In my lifetime I think we will be all right. We will be able to find material. After that, I don't know.

Mr. Yates. Are you bu3n[ng any current African art?

Ms. Williams. Yes, we are able to buy a little bit with the modest federal funds we have.

Mr. Yates. I don't think that was what I meant. The pieces you buy are usually antiques, aren't they, historic?

Ms. Williams. They are objects that have functioned in traditional contexts, rather than antiques. Antiques is a word associated with western traditions.

Mr. Yates. Yes. It is a sideboard.

Ms. Williams. It's a what?

Mr. Yates. How do you know whether it is legitimate or not?

Ms. Williams. I think you gain that over years of working with the material, first. Second, sometimes you have documentation accompanying pieces which tell exactly where they were found, how they were used, the context in which they were used. So it is an accumulation of knowledge as it would be in any other art historical tradition.

Mr. Yates. Where in Smithsonian do they have the oceanic art? Should that be in your shop, too?

Ms. Williams. That is in natural history.

Mr. Yates. Is it? Do you have many good pieces of art?

Mr. FiSKE. Yes, we do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Yates. Do you show them?

Mr. FiSKE. On occasion, yes. A number of them are on permanent exhibit and we make them available for loan to other museums for their exhibits also. Some of these will be included in the new exhibit that will open in the Evans Gallery in November on the U.S. exploring expedition because that expedition returned many hundreds of anthropological objects from the Pacific Ocean area.

Mr. Yates. Okay. Go ahead, Sylvia.

Ms. Williams. The only other thing, since the quadrangle will not open until spring of 1987, we have delayed hirings coming on board. It's not a cut. It is a delayed bringing on board of personnel, and we were reduced in our automation request. We don't have any automation. But that again is more of a delay. It will come in as we get more people on board and are in the building.

Mr. Yates. Is your automation request for the kind of personal computers the other directors were talking about?

Ms. Williams. Yes, except since—the number is going to be very modest, we are putting it into the most strategic areas, such as collections management rather than everybody having one.

Mr. Yates. I see. Do you want Mr. Fern to take notice of that? Ms. Williams. Oh, I am sure Mr. Fern needs exactly what he asked for, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Yates. What else? Ms. Williams. That's it.

ANACOSTIA NEIGHBORHOOD MUSEUM BUDGET NEEDS

Mr. Yates. What about Anacostia?

Mr. Hughes. John Kinard.

Mr. Yates. Do you need any money, John?

Mr. Kinard. I am glad you asked the question. I think my case may deviate from the rest of my colleagues here in that we have been treated very fairly. I don't have anything to add. Anything I would say would be miniscule.

PUBLIC service budget NEEDS

Mr. Yates. Thank you very much. Public Service. Public Service, Mr. Rinzler.

Mr. Rinzler. I think consistent with the Institution's priorities the Public Service activity is in good shape. Most of the activity is trust funded and therefore is less critical in this dialogue.

Mr. Yates. You lost $300,000?

Mr. Rinzler. It's consistent with the overall Institutional priorities.

Mr. Yates. You will take a pain killer, right?

Mr. Rinzler. Right.

SMITHSONIAN PRESS BUDGET

Mr. Yates. What about the Smithsonian Press. They take care of themselves.

Mr. Rinzler. Mr. Lowe is here.

Mr. Yates. Mr. Lowe, Smithsonian Institution Press.

Mr. Lowe. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. You take care of yourself pretty well, don't you.

Mr. Lowe. We have been very fortunate. Over the last several years we have been able to do that.

Mr. Yates. Yes. Your books are beautiful.

Mr. Lowe. Thank you.

Mr. Yates. Why do you ask for any funding, Mr. Lowe? Shouldn't your books take care of ever3^hing?

Mr. Lowe. The only money we ask for on the federal side is money to produce the Smithsonian Year which is a requirement of Congress, and for salaries which we use for our editors to edit the contributions series and other materials produced to give to visitors and so forth.

MUSEUM programs

Mr. Yates. Thank you.

Now, museum programs, Assistant Secretary for Museum Programs. Who is that?

Mr. Hughes. Mr. Richards is the gentlemen who is ill. He is not with us.

Mr. Yates. Does he have an assistant? Does the assistant secretary have an assistant here?

Mr. Peyton. The acting has an acting—

Mr. Yates. If you are acting, then come forward where we can hear you. Have your activities been hurt?

Mr. Peyton. Consistent with the priorities of the Institution, not greatly but I would just as soon have our unit directors direct themselves to their needs.

Mr. Yates. You mean like the Office of Registrar.

Mr. Peyton. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. He wasn't heard.

Mr. Peyton. We don't currently have a registrar.

conservation analytical laboratory budget reduction

Mr. Yates. I know. He asked for $102,000, got it through us. Then you have a conservation analjrtical laboratory?

Mr. Peyton. Dr. Van Zelst is here.

Mr. Yates. Are you in good shape, Doctor?

Mr. Van Zelst. I would say qualified yes and no, Mr. Chairman,

Mr. Yates. Yes and no? If you are hurt, what happens to you?

Mr. Van Zelst. If we are hurt it's more a question of the delay of development of the laboratory, due to the cuts of last year, rather than this year. I think that with the budget action proposed for this year we will be able to continue with the development of the laboratory, with a one year lapse.

S.I. libraries budget reduction

Mr. Yates. The libraries.

Mrs. Karklins. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Yates. Six million five. You almost lost two million dollars, didn't you?

Mrs. Karklins. Yes, we did, sir.

Mr. Yates. Is the pain intense?

Mrs. Karklins. Yes, it is. It means postponement of some of our major projects such as inventory of the book collections. We have about four hundred thousand books that are not inventoried and catalogued and we have severe conservation needs because the books are in very bad condition.

Mr. Yates. How do you propose to correct that? Are these books that were on acid paper?

Mrs. Karklins. That is right, sir.

Mr. Yates. Do you have to deacidify them?

Mrs. Karklins. The thinking is to go towards miniaturization, such as microfilming.

Mr. Yates. That is a lot cheaper than deacidification.

Mrs. Karklins. Yes, it is and also saves space, which is also a problem.

Mr. Yates. Yes. How many libraries are under your jurisdiction?

Mrs. Karklins. About 35, sir.

Mr. Yates. Thirty-five?

Mrs. Karklins. Sixteen major and many smaller.

Mr. Yates. How do you keep track of them? Are you missing any books?

Mrs. Karklins. We haven't done an inventory in a long time.

Mr. Yates. So you don't really know?

Mrs. Karklins. We don't know.

Mr. Yates. Well, how valuable are your books?

RARE BOOKS COLLECTION

Mrs. Karklins. We have about 35,000 volumes of rare books and many of those are quite rare.

Mr. Yates. Are you missing any of those 35,000 volumes that have not been inventoried?

Mrs. Karklins. We have a much better idea of the state of our rare books. We do know where they are, should any be missing, we would know.

Mr. Yates. How would you know?

Mrs. Karklins. Because the books are physically in secure conditions; they are in locked, secured rooms.

Mr. Yates. But you and I have seen movies, haven't we, of thieves who open a lock, take something and put the lock back on?

Mrs. Karklins. We hope it hasn't happened.

Mr. Yates. We won't know until we take an inventory.

Mrs. Karklins. That is true.

Mr. Yates. Do you have any kind of records that show what books you should be owning?

Mrs. Karklins. Yes, for some of the books we do have records, we have lists. But for rare books that is not a very satisfactory inventory. For rare books you have to describe the books fully, for instance, you have to know exactly which edition you have and you have to make a note of whether the book has valuable illustrations and whether any of the illustrations are missing. Otherwise you may have the same title but a worthless copy.

Mr. Yates. Have you done that yet?

Mrs. Karklins. No, we don't have the funding for that. It costs $35 per title to do that.

Mr. Yates. Why doesn't Mr. Hughes let you do it? I think Mr. Hughes indicated to the committee he had everything being inventoried. Are your objects not sufficiently valuable so as to be inventoried?

Mrs. Karklins. I can only assume the discussion referred to museum objects and perhaps books are considered to be in a different category.

Mr. Yates. No, aren't your rare books museum objects?

Mrs. Karklins. We don't collect rare books as museum objects, we only collect them to support the research.

Mr. Yates. Give me an example of what you consider to be a rare book.

Mrs. Karklins. We have a set of criteria, such as date of publication in conjunction with the place of publication. For instance, it makes a difference whether it was published east or west of the Mississippi. The price; the illustrative material; provenance, meaning previous ownership association, such as a famous person's signature; and so on.

Mr. Yates. If your book is a rare book it becomes expensive, doesn't it?

Mrs. Karkuns. Yes, some of them are quite expensive.

Mr. Yates. Give me an example of how expensive they are.

Mrs. Karklins. How much is the Audubon Book?

Mr. Yates. Oh, that is way up there.

Mrs. Karkuns. We don't have it.

Mr. Yates. How much is way up there?

Ms. RosENFELD. It's about

Mr. Yates. $300,000.

Ms. Rosenfeld. I think it's more than that.

Mr. Hughes. My recollection is the magnitude of a million dollars.

Mrs. Karkuns. We don't own it.

Mr. Yates. You don't?

Mrs. Karkuns. No, the Smithsonian doesn't own that.

Mr. Yates. What do you own that is that rare? Does any example come to mind?

Ms. Rosenfeu). May I?

Mr. Yates. Sure.

Ms. Rosenfeld. Mary Rosenfeld, administrative librarian.

I was a rare book librarian at the Smithsonian. We have in the Dibner collection alone some two hundred of the most valuable books in the history of science. This would include first editions by Newton, Darwin, Einstein, first printed

Mr. Yates. How much would a first edition by Newton be worth today?

Ms. Rosenfeu). I would hate to go on the record at this point not following the market, but $40,000, $50,000 easily.

Mr. Yates. If this is true, why don't you have an inventory of them?

Ms. Rosenfeu). We have records in some form for most of our rare m.aterials but they are paper records, local records. It's a very expensive process.

Mr. Yates. Paper records, what kind?

Ms. Rosenfeld. Some sort of local record. It might be in the one location the book itself is.

Mr. Yates. Where the book itself is. How do you know where the book is then, except by looking there?

Ms. Rosenfeld. Luckily we have four rare book rooms and most of the rare books now have been gathered into those locations.

Mr. Yates. How many rare books did you say you had?

Mrs. Karkuns. 35,000 volumes, about.

Mr. Yates. Should I ask Mr. Hughes why these aren't inventoried?

Mr. Hughes. Again, we are to some extent discussing what term "inventory" means.

Mr. Yates. Are these on your tape?

Mr. Hughes. These are not on tape. They are not museum collection items, as Mrs. Karklins has suggested.

Mr. Yates. When does a rare book become rare enough to be a museum item?

Mr. Hughes. I can't answer that. I really don't know.

Mr. Yates. Isn't your elephant edition

Mr. Hughes. We don't have one.

Mr. Yates. Ms. Rosenfeld said you have got some of the rarest books in the world apparently, right?

Mr. Hughes. It's my undertanding we have them as reference works for specialists, scientists, historians, artist. In my judgment there is no question they should be inventoried and identified more fully than they are.

Mr. Yates. Shouldn't they at least be on your tape?

Mr. Hughes. They certainly should be on there at some point.

Mr. Yates. How much will it cost to put your important

Mr. Hughes. Seventy-five bucks a book, as I understand it.

Mr. Yates. I thought you said $35. Did you say $75 or $35?

Mrs. Karklins. I said $35. A contractor charges $35.

Mr. Hughes. That was for ordinary, not rare.

Miss Cooke. Ordinary costs about $20.

Mr. Hughes. Sorry. I misunderstood.

Mrs. Karklins. We do have our own automated system, Mr. Chairman, in which we put all of our book records. We make those records accessible to anybody in the Institution, and also nationally because those are included in a national data base which is accessible by about 6,000 libraries.

Mr. Yates. Then have you already got the automated system?

Mrs. Karklins. We do but it's not just a question of putting them onto the automated system.

Mr. Yates. Oh. Would you give the committee a memorandum of how much it would cost to put your rare books on tape?

Mrs. Karklins. I would be glad to.

[The information follows:]

Cataloguing and Inventory Costs of Rare Books

In its collections the Smithsonian Institution Libraries has identified at least 25,000 titles or 35,000 volumes as rare and valuable. Of these, 9,950 are not inventoried. The inventory process includes the creation of a computer record for each book, including features such as hand colored plates, previous owner's signatures, and manuscript notes. These clearly describe the specific copy and can be used for positive identification in case of loss. The record which includes a detailed notation of author, title, imprint, subject matter, can be used for subsequent inventories and for user access. To catalog and inventory the 9,950 rare books, SIL requests $373,250 including 1 FTE. At the completion of the project the records of these books will be available in the SIL online catalogue and a national bibliographic data base, accessible to some 6,000 Libraries.

Mr. Yates. How else have you been hurt?

Mrs. Karklins. We had requested $200,000 for conservation, that is for microfilming basically. We have requested in the FY 1987 budget again to establish a preservation unit in order to start microfilming the brittle books because they are very, very rapidly deteriorating to the point where they are literally crumbling in your hands. To set that up and start the microfilming would cost $68,000.

Mr. Yates. Isn't there another process of putting them on a disk?

Mrs. Karklins. We are studying optical disk technology right now.

Mr. Yates. I thought the Library of Congress was using it.

Mrs. Karklins. Yes, they are using it but we have to make a start before that is a reality for us.

SITES BUDGET REDUCTION

Mr. Yates. Okay. Thank you.

Conservation Analytical Laboratory, I have asked.

Office of Exhibits Central.

Mr. Thomas J. Peyton. I don't think he is here, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Yates. Traveling Exhibition Service, where are you, Peggy Loar? Have you been hurt?

Ms. Loar. We were cut.

Mr. Yates. Not too much. $50,000.

Ms. Loar. No, we were actually cut institutionally $116,000. 0MB cut us another $80,000. What is maintained is our request in conjunction with the Quadrangle which will both strengthen our base of operations and help us to integrate institutionally with the international activities of the Institution.

We were cut initially in terms of personnel and some automation: personnel in the form of two exhibition coordinators who were to develop low cost panel exhibitions for the small museum market. We were cut in the area of shipping, some $35,000, which again is shipping to the first location which now has to be incorporated into the full prorated cost of shipping to the institutions.

Mr. Yates. Is that everjd;hing?

Ms. Loar. That is it.

Mr. Yates. Thanks, Peggy. I should compliment you on the way you prepare your catalogs.

Ms. Loar. Thank you.

Mr. Yates. Beautiful.

Smithsonian Archives?

SMITHSONIAN ARCHIVES BUDGET

Mr. Moss. Mr. Chairman, we are content with the fiscal year 1986 budget as it is.

NATIONAL MUSEUM ACT BUDGET

Mr. Yates. Thank you. What does that National Museum Act require you to do? Why are you the National Museum Act? Why are you described as the National Museum Act?

Apparently, I am not making myself clear. We have here a request of each of the individual agencies of the Smithsonian, which has about—a line item. There is a line item for the National Museum Act. I want to know what that is for.

They have signified that you would know—right—or somebody would know?

Ms. Schneider. I am the program coordinator for the National Museum Act.

Mr. Yates. And you get the money, then? I mean, you administer the money?

Ms. Schneider. That is correct.

Mr. Yates. What do you do?

Ms. Schneider. Well, the

Mr. Yates. What does a coordinator do?

Ms. Schneider. Receives the applications and organizes them for peer review.

Mr. Yates. Applications for what?

Ms. Schneider. We have six different programs in three areas: training, research, and dissemination of technical information to the museum field.

Mr. Yates. You are the liaison with the museums of the country, then?

Ms. Schneider. That is correct.

Mr. Yates. That is very important.

What happens if the committee, by some chance, were to agree with the administration on eliminating the funding for the Institute of Museum Services? Would that help or hurt the museums, do you think? Or is this an unfair question?

Ms. Schneider. I think it would hurt the museum field.

Mr. Yates. Yes.

Well, would you be out of business, too?

Ms. Schneider. No, because the emphasis of the two resources for the museum field is different. The Institute of Museum Services involves operating expenses; whereas, we are involved in the training of museum professionals.

Mr. Yates. I see.

Ms. Schneider. Ours are technical assistance awards,

Mr. Yates. Have you been hurt by the cuts?

Not too much?

Ms. Schneider. We can live with it.

Mr. Yates. Go ahead.

Ms. Schneider. If we had the full $1 million, we could make from 15 to 20 more grants, and certainly we have good applications that could be funded.

Mr. Yates. Okay. How many applications do you get?

Ms. Schneider. In 1985, we received 185 applications.

Mr. Yates. How many did you approve?

Ms. Schneider. Sixty-three.

Mr. Yates. Thank you.

folklife programs

Special programs, American Studies and Folklife.

Is Mrs. Haas here?

Mr. Anderson. Peter Seitel.

Mr. Yates. Peter, where are you?

He is not here. He has been cut significantly.

Does this mean you won't have as much folklife, or what?

Mr. RiNZLER. The explanation, sir, is that the program which he administered for the festival and research involved in it involves about equal amounts of trust and federal funds. The budget has been eroded by inflation, cost of living increases. The budget has not increased with cost of living.

Mr. Yates. Yes.

Mr. RiNZLER. So that we stopped working with the National Endowment for the Arts on their Heritage Award Program, a program which Bess Lomax Hawes has testified on before this subcommittee. That was a program whereby she gives the awards, but we give visibility to the program and validate the participants.

The request for $170,000 was to avoid the problem which you had pinpointed for borrowing between federal agencies. We no longer had an outside grantor for that program, so we requested federal funds which were'cut before the request went to 0MB.

The remaining money was cut at 0MB, and that was part of the Native American Program about which Mr. Kennedy spoke yesterday.

DIRECTORATE OF INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES

Mr. Yates. Directorate of International Activities.

Is that John Reinhardt?

Mr. Reinhardt. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. John, why didn't you speak up?

Mr. Reinhardt. I counted on you to recover rapidly.

Mr. Yates. You really took an action, didn't you?

Mr. Reinhardt. Well, in a way, sir.

Mr. Yates. Does that mean you are not ready for the money, or what?

Mr. Reinhardt. No. We are relatively new, eis you know.

Mr. Yates. Yes, I know.

Mr. Reinhardt. We started in October. The budget that you have before you represented an old program. The program for which we have made a request of $267,000 was that which was explained to you yesterday by the Secretary. So before Mr. Hughes had a chance to cut us, we started.

Mr. Yates. Let's give him that opportunity now.

Mr. Reinhardt. We started after his process ended.

Mr. Yates. Oh, I see. Smart.

Mr. Hughes. I also dealt with higher authority.

Mr. Yates. Should I hear any more, John, or are you satisfied?

Mr. Reinhardt. Well, the budget that we have submitted we think is a realistic one. It is based on the programs that we would inaugurate with the opening of the Quadrangle. We have a small staff preparing those programs now, as is explained in the budget book.

Mr. Yates. Yes.

Mr. Reinhardt. And we think it is a realistic figure.

international environmental science program

Mr. Yates. Okay. Let's look at academic—let's see. International Environmental Science Program. They aren't hurt very much.

Is that yours, David?

Mr. Challinor. That is mine, Mr. Chairman. If, indeed, we get the restoration of our 2 percent reduction last year, and our inflation, we should be in good shape on that program.

museum support center

Mr. Yates. Okay. Academic and education programs, increased dramatically. So we won't look at that one.

Museum Support Center—oh, Collections Management Inventory. Are we worried about that? No, they got more money.

Museum Support Center was cut by Mr. Hughes and put back by 0MB, so we won't worry about that.

Mr. Adams. Doesn't sound right.

Mr. Yates. All right. Museum Support Center, according to the figures I have, shows a bureau request to Smithsonian of $5,487,000. It shows an SI request to 0MB of $1,581,000. It shows an SI request to Congress of $5,060,000.

Would you like to see this?

Mr. Hughes. We have been doing a good deal of work. I can't account for the numbers, Mr. Chairman. But I think Jon Yellin can.

With respect to the Support Center, I think the major item is equipment for so-called dry storage which will be in three of the four pods. As you may recall, we had our troubles with it. We were embarked on something of a pioneering effort to construct three tiers of steel—a sort of erector set construction inside each of those pods. We have had a tough time meeting the specifications required for bug-proofness and so on, and have finally been advised by the contractor that he can't meet them. This has forced some change in the interior structure.

What it boils down to is, we are going to have a more orthodox structure with poured concrete floors. It can be done on schedule overall and at about the same cost as the other structure. The resultant storage cabinets and drawers and so on will meet our specifications. And I guess there was some jiggling in the money at various points depending on the anticipation as to what we would actually be buying this year.

Mr. Jameson. The amount in the budget for the storage equipment is approximately the same amount as in 1985, and would keep the phased construction of the storage equipment on schedule.

Mr. Yates. Should it be expedited?

Mr. Jameson. We believe we have enough funds available to us now, plus the 1986 appropriation and projection for 1987, to complete the initial equipping of the MSC as planned.

Mr. Yates. OK.

Mr. Hughes. We think we are doing all right now. We had our troubles.

KENNEDY CENTER GRANTS

Mr. Yates. We won't put our judgment over yours.

Kennedy Center grants, you started with $686,000 and 0MB eliminated them. What is a Kennedy Center grant, Mr. Jameson?

Mr. Jameson. This was the money that was added to our 1985 appropriation by the committees to support the symphony and opera.

Mr. Yates. That is a committee add-on?

Mr. Jameson. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. OMB struck it out, and the committee will put it back in.

Mr. Jameson. We assumed such, Mr. Chairman.

MAJOR EXHIBITION PROGRAM

Mr. Yates. Major Exhibition Programs have zero, zero, zero. I don't know what that means. What is a major exhibition program?

Mr. Anderson.

Mr. Anderson. Mr. Chairman, about five years ago the Smithsonian requested, and the Congress appropriated, funds for major exhibition costs around the campus. Under that program, a number of shows were financed, perhaps most notably among them the "Celebration" show, that played for nearly a year at the Ren wick Gallery.

Mr. Yates. What did you celebrate?

Mr. Anderson. It brought together objects from all 11 Smithsonian Museums, many of which had never been displayed before, that spoke to various events in the life cycle of normal human beings from various cultures around the world and throughout time; interesting juxtapositions of materials.

The Regents this last year determined that this was one of those programs of the Institution that could be supported in full by trust funds.

Mr. Yates. Thank you very much.

Mr. Anderson. Consequently, the burden previously borne by the taxpayer in this respect is being borne by our own income-generating activities.

Mr. Yates. Thank you.

administration activity

Administration, do we worry about that?

Mr. Jameson. Mr. Chairman, administration is in good shape financially.

Mr. Yates. That is all we can ask for.

Mr. Jameson. Provided we get the restoration of the 2 percent. And of particular importance to us are the small items of increase which are already in the 1986 budget—Personnel Office, photography and computer activities we talked about a bit this morning.

Mr. Yates. Okay.

facilities services needs

Mr. Jameson. Picking up on conversations of yesterday about emergency items, might I ask Tom Peyton to talk about the facilities section?

Mr. Yates. Sure we cut him off in full flight yesterday, as I remember. All right, Tom. Come up here and tell us in a few words what it is that you need.

Mr. Peyton. This will cover the Office of Design and Construction.

Mr. Yates. Yes.

Mr. Peyton. Office of Plant Services and Office of Protection Services, and R&R program.

Mr. Yates. What is that? Relief and Rehabilitation?

Mr. Peyton. For buildings, yes.

The Office of Design and Construction, if the FY 1986 funds are received as requested, will be able to do its job adequately. Similarly, the Office of Plant Services, if they receive their appropriation request, they will be able to get along satisfactorily in fiscal year 1986.

Mr. Yates. Okay.

Mr. Peyton. In the case of the Office of Protection Services, with a focus on emergency and preventive types of activities, we had to adjust

Mr. Yates. You are cut pretty steeply, aren't you?

Mr. Peyton. In our security equipment upgrade program, we would like to restore the $180,000 that had to be reduced. In the case of the two fire protection engineers we asked for, we would like to have restored both spaces, and the related $100,000 in S&E funds; also one full-time position in the area of industrial hygiene, and $125,000 for S&E expenses.

I might add that the industrial hygienists are the key people in the asbestos abatement program, and we have been removing a lot of asbestos. In order to ensure that that is done properly, either by our own personnel or by contractors, we insist that an industrial hygienist be present to make sure it is done properly.

Mr. Yates. That is understandable.

Mr. Peyton. The additional S&E funds that go with that are for testing that must be done by an outside independent laboratory, and it is rather expensive.

Mr. Yates. Okay.

restoration and renovation program

Mr. Peyton. In the case of the restoration program

Mr. Yates. You are cut by $10 million.

What is the cut for?

Mr. Peyton. It is across the board for a number of projects.

The two most disappointing ones we will not be able to proceed with are a major renovation program in the Museum of Natural History for the heating, ventilating and air conditioning system, a long-needed project, and disappointing to defer to another year

Mr. Yates. What is the cost of that?

Mr. Peyton. We had asked for $2 million.

The other disappointing item was $2.5 million we had to defer until next year on the expansion of the courtyard at the Freer. I assume the Freer courtyard project will be discussed in the joint meeting

Mr. Yates. Is that courtyard the tunnel project, too?

Mr. Peyton. It is related.

Mr. Yates. Well, I assume it will be discussed there, too.

Mr. Peyton. Yes, sir.

The other projects that we would also recommend be funded over what we requested are all in the fire prevention category. In the case of Natural History, our request was for $300,000. We recommend it be increased to $500,000; in the case of American History, from $300,000 to $500,000; for the Castle, from $100,000

Mr. Yates. What is the American History for? The doors at the end?

Mr. Peyton. No, sir. This is for continuation of the sprinkler program.

Mr. Yates. Fire prevention?

Mr. Peyton. Yes, sir. These are all fire prevention.

In the case of the Castle, from $100,000 to $150,000; in the case of the Air and Space Museum, from $100,000 to $150,000. Those four items total $500,000.

Mr. Yates. In construction, you were cut by $20 million—almost $25 million.

Mr. Peyton. I don't quite understand that.

Mr. Yates. Well, the chart we have indicates that you asked the bureau for $25 million.

Mr. Peyton. That would be the R&R program.

Mr. Yates. It has $24,625,000. The next column the same; then $14,875,000.

There is another item, construction, $24.9 million and then $4 million.

Mr. Peyton. We asked to proceed with the old General Post Office planning, three science facilities and restoration of the full $8 million for the Quadrangle.

Mr. Yates. I see. Okay.

zoo construction

What about construction at the zoo? A separate line item? What happens if you don't get your money? You asked for $9 million; you were cut by almost $5 million. What will you lose by that cut?

Mr. Robinson. We are losing phase II of Olmsted Walk, which was approved by the Fine Arts Commission.

Mr. Yates. You are losing the Olmstead Walk? You have got the Olmstead Walk now, haven't you?

Mr. Robinson. That is a modification of the central pedestrian thoroughfare through the zoo, which we planned several years ago and which was approved by the Fine Arts Commission. It is in three phases and will upgrade the whole experience and route the public through a different plan.

Mr. Yates. Then you have been deferred from 1986 to 1987; right?

Mr. Robinson. Right.

Mr. Yates. Are you hurt by the deferral?

Mr. Robinson. Well, it makes things a little bit difficult. We will start the first phase this year and complete it, and then we will have a hiatus of a year. As a result the public will get so far along a nice, new walk with new trees and everything, and then come to a dead-end.

Mr. Yates. We will put a refreshment stand in there.

Mr. Robinson. Thank you, sir. That would be a very good idea. Wine or beer?

Mr. Yates. Both.

Is that the extent of your injury, the fact that it is not completed?

Mr. Yellin. There are three other items.

Mr. Robinson. We also lost in that same cut several improvements in exhibits. We were going to upgrade our hoof stock facility, which is part of that and, as you may know, if you have been out to the zoo recently, is in fairly bad condition. The buildings in the center of the area are run down, the barns in which the animals live, and the roofs on these barns.

Mr. Yates. Any danger to health and safety?

Mr. Robinson. The veterinarians from the Agriculture Department who inspect the zoo are constantly complaining about the materials dropping from the roof and possible contamination of food.

Mr. Yates. Food for people or animals, or what?

Mr. Robinson. The hoof stock in that barn area.

Mr. Yates. What is dropping from the roof?

Mr. Robinson. Paint chips apparently fall into the hay, and things like that.

Mr. Yates. You mean arsenic poisoning and so forth?

Mr. Robinson. Possibly.

Mr. Yates. Have you lost any of your animals as a result?

Mr. Robinson. No, we have not lost any animals recently. But the U.S.D.A. veterinarians come and inspect that facility and complain about the conditions.

Mr. Yates. How much will it cost to remodel or rehabilitate it?

Mr. Robinson. We had an item in the 1986 OMB budget of $2^300,000.

Mr. Yates. That is more than a roof, isn't it?

Mr. Robinson. That is remodeling completely, yes.

Can I give you a memo on this?

Mr. Yates. Please do.

Mr. Robinson. Thank you.

[The information follows:]

zoo RENOVATION NEEDS

By far the most crucial item affected by the cut of over $5 million from the National Zoo's FY 1986 construction request is Phase II of the Olmsted Walk project. This project intends to upgrade and enhance the visual character of the visitor experience at the National Zoo. The Zoo lies between Rock Creek Parkway on the north and east, Calvert Street on the south and Connecticut Avenue on the west. The entire park site is a designated landmark of the National Capital and is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The improvements included in this project will reinforce and interpret design principles used by Fredrick Law Olmsted, Jr. The focus of the project is to provide a curvilinear alignment of the walkway that is compatible with the natural topography of the Zoo. The character of the walkway would be enhanced through additional plantings, a new gibbon exhibit, improved viewing areas, handicap access and adequate drainage.

Since 1972 almost all the major animal exhibits have been renovated. The Olmsted Walk project will tie together all the exhibits into a unified, cohesive facility providing improved visitor orientation and amenities. Because the Olmsted Walk traverses the entire length of the Zoo property, renovation of the entrance gates and sections of the walkway are being divided into three phases which can conveniently be constructed in three successive years. Construction was estimated at $4,500,000, phased for: FY 1985 ($2,000,000), FY 1986 ($1,000,000) and FY 1987 ($1,500,000) with overall completion scheduled prior to the National Zoo's centennial celebration in 1989. Construction funds of $2,000,000 for the first phase were provided in FY 1985. If the $1,000,000 for the construction of Olmsted Walk (Phase II) is restored to our FY 1986 program followed by $1,500,000 in FY 1987 our National Zoo will have the environment it desires.

The other projects that were cut have been reprogrammed into other years. This will reduce the adverse impact of the reductions on our mission.

NEEDS AT FRONT ROYAL

Mr. Yates. Does that take care of your problem?

Mr. Robinson. It takes care of our problems on construction. But if I could refer back to the kinds of questions you were asking yesterday on our general budgets, we were cut positions for four keep-

ers at Front Royal and two water quality technicians. And that could affect our operation fairly seriously.

Over the years, there has been a tendency to build without— which I think is found throughout the Institution—putting in the necessary staff to cope with the new situations. And at Front Royal, we have expanded considerably; put in for the staff and been turned down.

Mr. Yates. Who turned you down, Mr. Robinson?

Mr. Robinson. At this stage, we got a turndown from Sam, and we also got a turndown from 0MB.

Mr. Yates. Well, he is leaving.

Mr. Robinson. And the turndown from 0MB was larger than the one Sam instituted.

Mr. Yates. Okay.

Mr. Robinson. This is really care of collection, I think.

closing remarks

Mr. Yates. We have gone through just about everything. We have had a travelogue through the Smithsonian.

Mr. Adams, anj^hing before we close that you want to tell us?

Mr. Adams. I had a couple of notes to myself on points I did want to tell you, and they seem to have disappeared as we were shuffling books back and forth here. I guess I would make a couple of points, if I might.

Mr. Yates. You might make a couple of points.

Mr. Adams. The first is that I think it is important to stress the need with regard to certain kinds of central functions to

Mr. Yates. I have got to go vote. How much time do I have left?

Mr. Adams. Maybe we should close and then not come back.

Mr. Yates. That is right.

We have got two minutes. Let's see. You have got two minutes— one minute. I want to eulogize Sam for a minute.

Mr. Adams. Eulogize Sam, which is more important. Then I will make my point.

Mr. Yates. No. Go ahead.

Mr. Adams. That certain kinds of central functions, such as computing, require coordination that is also essential. We need to somehow articulate software needs and distribute these internally in ways that are rational. And one can't approach these solely in terms of the needs of individual bureaus. We hope you will keep this in mind as you look at your

Mr. Yates. We will.

I don't want to close the record without saying a few words about our good friend Sam Hughes, and how much he has meant to this committee, let alone to the Smithsonian. I will leave the Smithsonian eulogies to the Smithsonian. But over the years I have been in Congress—and I have been in Congress since 1948—I have met no public servant in any of the government agencies I considered to be superior to Sam Hughes in ability and conscientiousness and toughness and devotion to his task.

I don't know that there is much more to say about that, other than to talk about his personal qualities, and you all know that as well as we. We are sorry to lose him from the position which he

48-292 O—85-

has graced, and with so much dignity and ability. And we hope that his future is a happy and rosy one. We hope that he will come back and see us frequently.

Good luck, Sam.

Mr. Hughes. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Yates. With that, I have got to vote. Otherwise, I would say more.

SmTHSONIAN INSTITOTION ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Restoration of the FY 1985 Two Percent Reduction

Question: Why are you asking for the 2Z reduction to be restored in total in every line item? Haven't certain savings occurred or costs been absorbed that cannot be replaced in a subsequent year? Would it be possible to document the portion of the 2% reduction that represents an ongoing shortfall, which requires restoration In this budget, such as for supplies, equipment, etc.? Please indicate also in order your highest priorities for restoration of the reduction.

Answer: The two percent across-the-board reduction Is having a detrimental effect on virtually all Smithsonian programs. In general, the effect in FY 1985 of this reduction in the Salaries and Expenses account Is to cause deferrals of planned programs. The continuation of this reduction Into FY 1986 would cause serious and pennanent disruption to previously budgeted programs. The following list explains the relative importance of the two percent restoration by line-item within each major activity.

SCIENCE

Ranking Bureau Item/Amount Rationale for Priority

1. National $40,000 In FY 1985 to accommodate the two percent

Zoological Salary and budget cut, the Zoo delayed filling a Park Benefits number of positions. Next year, in order

to fully support newly constructed facilities, such as the Veterinary Hospital at Front Royal (opening summer 1985) , the Zoo will need to establish two Animal Keeper positions that rely on funds which were struck. This restoration is necessary for the continued operation of the collection management program at the Zoo, for the health of the collections under Zoo care.

Ranking Bureau

Itern/Amount

Smithsonian $25,000 Tropical Computer Research Specialist Institute

Rationale for Priority

Since 1981, a local consulting firm, BYTE S.A., has been responsible for installing, customizing and maintaining an administrative program which has not yet been completed, due mainly to the fact that STRI does not have in-house computer expertise. The scientific functions are also in great need of a Programmer/Analyst, as was recommended by an independent consultant, COMPUTER SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL. This critical hire has been delayed due to the two percent reduction. STRI Is planning to terminate its association with BYTE, S.A. by September, 1985, and a Computer Specialist must be on board by then to assure the continued delivery of critical scientific and administrative data.

National Museum of Natural History

$196,000 Equipment

Smithsonian Environmental Research Center

$39 ,000 Equipment

The cuts incurred in FY 1985 slowed NMNH's efforts to: replace obsolete scientific equipment; purchase new state-of-the-art multi-user instrumentation; and severely limited the Museum's ability to provide much needed computer equipment for staff and adequate storage equipment for the museum collections. Restoration of these monies will allow critical research programs to continue, and proper care to be given to the national collections.

Due to the FY 1985 two percent reduction, equipment funds are substantially below the FY 1984 level. This will: a) limit the scope and accuracy in scientific investigations which state-of-the-art equipment would have provided (for example, before any significant research on bio-engineering can be initiated, sophisticated scientific equipment must be obtained); b) Increase the time and effort required to accomplish data acquisition (much of the available state-of-the-art equipment comes with direct interface compatibility thus freeing work hours for more productive use), and; c) adversely affect the Center's equipment replacement program by delaying the purchase of much needed equipment, thus making it compete with future needs.

Ranking Bureau

National

Zoological

Park

Item/Amount

$90 ,000

Equipment

Purchase

National Air and Space Museum

$40,000 Exhibits & A/V Equipment Replacement

National $155,000

Museum Publication

of Natural Support History

Rationale for Priority

In FY 1985 the Zoo reduced equipment purchases by $80,000. The Items cut included health and medical equipment; scientific equipment; and vehicles. To insure the health and safety of the collection and to support the mission of the Zoo it is vital that the funds be restored in FY 1986. The equipment cut In FY 1985 included sterilizer, autoclave; incubator; microscopes and three vehicles.

The exhibits within NASM rely heavily on the use of many types of audio-visuals. The use of this equipment adds Interest and educational value to exhibits. Over the past nine years this equipment has undergone an enormous amount of wear and tear due to the length of service and high visitor attendance. Much of the exhibitions' audio visual equipment is in desperate need of replacement. The Museum is only able to afford to fix and patch the equipment for short-term operation. The $40,000 reinstatement is crucial to the continuance of audiovisual presentations throughout the Museum.

The results of the research by the staff of the National Museum of Natural History are made available to the scientific community by means of publications. Currently, the SI Press has manuscripts to be published in the SI Contribution Series, which will be ready to go to GPO in FY 1985 with publication costs totalling $247,000. In addition, there are other manuscripts in the mill that will be ready to go to the GPO before September 30, 1985. If no relief is provided in FY 1985, FY 1986 will start with a publications backlog of at least ten major scientific contributions, with unfunded new publications already and always in the Immediate background. In addition, support for reprint costs and page charges for articles published in private Journals is expected to fall short in FY 1985.

Ranking Bureau Item/Amount Rationale for Priority

8. National $40,000 Due to extremely high visitor attendance. Air and Building the Museum requires an extraordinary Space Maintenance amount of dally maintenance. Additional Museum equipment, materials and supplies must,

therefore, be purchased to keep the building In good repair for visitors. The budget reduction has forced a delay In the purchase of replacement carpet, vacuum cleaners and other building maintenance Items.

9. Smithsonian $39,000

Tropical Maintenance Research Programs

Approximately 90 percent of the funds for Supplies and Materials and Other Services have been spent In FY 1985, though only half of the fiscal year has elapsed. The extreme climatic conditions In the tropics have a great effect on STRI's maintenance programs (cars, boats, buildings, etc.). In addition, most parts and materials are bought locally, generally at higher prices than those In the U.S. Ordering from the States would place an additional burden on STRI's maintenance program. I.e. having to wait several months for dell-very. Over the years, STRI has obtained much of Its maintenance equipment and tools through military surplus. This equipment, in most cases. Is over eight years old and obsolete, making It difficult to obtain spare parts. The vehicle used to transport visiting scientists to the immigration and collecting permit office to obtain their visas, permissions, etc. is beyond economical repair for reliable and safe service. It needs to be replaced immediately, and is one of the priorities sacrificed to the two percent cut.

Ranking Bureau Item/Amount Rationale for Priority

10. Smithsonian $75,000 Lack of funding prevents SAO from taking

Astro- New type of advantage of new technology which holds high physical detector array promise of yielding new data on the large-Observatory for use on scale structure of the universe. Important to Optical/Infra an understanding of how the universe evolved red Telescope after the "Big Bang" to form galaxies.

$30,000 Deferral prevents completion of a novel new

Optical optical instrument which would enable a

Interfere high sensitivity search to be made of our

metry galaxy for other planetary systems.

$36,000 Funds are required to study molecular Position interactions important for understanding Sensitive how molecules formed in space, and, even-Detector tually, led to organic precursors of life. Array

$30,000 Deferral prevents analysis of data from

High-Resolution X-Ray detectors being developed to carry

X-Ray detector out detailed studies of the energetic

development nuclei of galaxies and quasars.

National $25,000 The Staff of NASM is currently performing Air and Research research in many different areas. Due to Space the budget reduction there has been a

Museum decrease in funding support for various

research projects. The Oral History, Space Telescope and History of Aviation projects have all had to reduce the number of outside contracts necessary to support their research. This has meant that these projects must be handled entirely by the Museum staff who also must handle simultaneously their other Museum duties. These projects will, thus, take longer to complete. A number of these projects are linked to other outside projects, such as the launch of the Space Telescope, and must be completed on time. It is, therefore, Imperative that NASM regain the reduced funding to complete these research projects on schedule.

Ranking Bureau

National

Zoological

Park

Item/Amount

$40 ,000 Animal Food

Rationale for Priority

In FY 1986 the Zoo will need to restore $A0,000 which was cut from the animal support budget. Due to the fluctuation of food prices, the collection and care and collection management programs can not long survive without the restoration of all funds cut In FY 1985.

National $A1,000 NASM's extensive collections management Air and Collections program has suffered greatly from the Space Management budget reduction. Plans for expanding the Museum Inventory system to tie the Mall Museum to

the Garber facility have had to be delayed. A planned computerized Inventory system for the Facility will require the reinstatement of the two percent budget reduction before It can be Implemented. In addition, the start of the spacecraft restoration program, which requires additional expertise and tools has had to be postponed.

Smithsonian $30,000 Due to the two percent overall reduction. Environ- Supplies funding for supplies has been reduced mental below the FY 1984 level. With a

Research projected Inflation rate of five - six

Center percent, a shortage in the availability

of supplies will uniformly restrict the Center's research effort. Moreover, a serious shortfall in the Center's inventory of chemicals would cause the greatest hardship, since in many cases these form the basis of SERC's research.

National $25,000 Zoological Expendable Park Supplies

Restoration of funds will enable the Zoo to take full advantage of volume discounts. The two percent cut forced the Zoo to reduce its shelf stock to a two-week supply. The restoration of the fund would allow a return to the regular four week shelf stock and insure that all Zoo programs progress without delay.

Ranking Bureau

16 National Museum of Natural History

International Environmental Science Program

Item/Amount

$44 ,000 Services

$11,000

Data Reduction and Analysis Analysis

Smithsonian $7,000 Tropical Travel Research Institute

19.

Office of Assistant Secretary Science

$3,000 Travel

Rationale for Priority

The cost of contractual services has skyrocketed. The two percent cut has caused delays in hiring consultants to provide critical computer systems support for registration, inventory, management and scientific computing. It has caused equally disruptive delays in the reconstruction/refiguration of space for staff changes, and for collection, computer equipment, and laboratory needs.

Over the past ten years, monitoring at all lESP sites has resulted in the accumulation of several hundred crucial data sets. These data must be reduced and analyzed in order to finish critical manuscripts, and to distribute this information to the general scientific community which utilizes this data for research efforts, and to host foreign governments which depend on these data for management decisions.

Travel is a basic tool of STRI's research efforts. Comparative studies between different climatic and zoographic regions are of extraordinary importance in biological research. It is critical that STRI's research staff, which is situated abroad, make regular visits to meetings, seminars, conferences, congresses, etc., in order to sustain their professional contacts and competence.

The demands and complexities of administering a research complex located over 4,000 miles away in a foreign country, require occasional trips to review programmatic and administrative matters. As the principal liaison for STRI in Washington, it is crucial that travel funding be restored to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Science to properly represent the concerns of the bureau.

Ranking Bureau

21.

National

Zoological

Park

Item/Amount

$30,000

Acquisition

Funds

Office of Assistant Secretary Science

$8,000 Establish Data Base System

Rationale for Priority

In order to accommodate the FY 1985 budget reduction, NZP cut all federal animal acquisition funds. The Zoo can not long operate without an adequate animal purchase fund. For this reason, the restoration of the $30,000 Is vital to the collection management and exhibition program of the National Zoological Park.

These funds are necessary to print reports and to provide results In a timely fashion to interested parties.

The National Museum of Natural History cannot operate without the ability to ship Items on a timely basis. Shipping funds are especially critical to getting scientific supplies and equipment into the field when required, and bringing specimens collected by scientists and others to the Museum. The Museum's highly selective acquisition policy will be damaged by the decreased ability to safely and expeditiously transport objects. There Is an anticipated shortfall In FY 1985 of at least $15,000.

With direct responsibility for over $2 million In research funding for Institutional scholars, and for oversight of science bureau activities, there exists a priority need to automate all expenditures across various program lines to properly monitor and analyze research expenses. An automated system will Increase personnel efficiency by eliminating the previously used manual systems.

Ranking Bureau

Item/Amount

681

Rationale for Priority

24. Office of $8,000 The two percent reduction In the FY 1985 base will

Fellowships Typesetting not permit the publication of the booklet entitled and Grants and Printing Smithsonian Opportunities for Research and Study , of S.I. This publication is revised biennially and

Opportunities continues to be the Institution's only compre-for Research hensive guide to its scholarly programs and and Study staff. It is absolutely essential to the preparation of all fellowship applications as well as to all visiting scholars' enquiries. In addition, it serves the SI community as an instrument for explaining its research interests and capabilities. Several years ago, distribution lists were carefully examined and the number of volumes distributed was reduced in an effort to cut back on costs. The number now printed is at an absolute minimum.

National $20,000 NASM's education program provides free Air and Public brochures and pamphlets to schools and Indlvl-

Space Orientation duals on many subjects. The budget reduction Museum and has prevented the updating, reprinting and

Education printing of new educational materials and has

reduced the amount of such material available to the public, despite an ever increasing demand.

Subtotal, Science

J

HISTORY AND ART

682

Ranking Bureau

1. Museum of African Art

2. Center for Asian Art

Hlrshhorn Museum & Sculpture Garden

Item/Amount

$10,000 New Hires

$32,000 New Hires and public programs for FGA

$60,000

Accessioning

Bequests;

Hire of

Chief

Conservator

Rationale for Priority

Lack of funding and the resultant hiring deferral delays preparation of 3 Inaugural exhibitions scheduled to open in FY 1987.

The two percent budget reduction has delayed the filling of positions authorized by Congress in FY 1985 for the Sackler Gallery. Also, the cut has led the Freer Gallery to eliminate the distribution of free brochures to the public and to reduce its exhibition program.

The Museum has been advised that the 6,000 objects in the Bequest are due to arrive in the latter part of FY 1985. A chief conservator will be of utmost Importance in processing and accessioning these objects into the permanent collection.

National $185,000 The two percent cut has made It difficult to care Museum of Collections for the collections due to decreased funding of: American Storage; MSC MSC "move" projects; security in collections History Move; areas storage areas; and automation. This reduction has maintenance also caused delays in the inventory refinement of objects undergoing cleaning, a project that had already been deferred due to asbestos and a deterioration in the maintenance of public areas.

National Museum of African Art

$10,000 Contract Photography for Union Catalogue

In FY 1985, NMAA received a sum of $25,000 to hire a data clerk to work on standardizing bibliographic information In the Museum's art data bases; the two percent funding cut eliminated the Museum's ability to support this position. Restoration of the two percent cut in FY 1986 would permit hiring for this position.

The Union Catalogue project began with a Congressional increase received in FY 1984 and was scheduled for completion in FY 1985. Due to the 2 percent cut, photography work was deferred, resulting in a delay In the placement of basic collections in the formation of the catalogue.

National $20,000 The National Portrait Gallery drawings collection

Portrait Collection remains in special need of rehousing in a secure.

Gallery Storage properly equipped and monitored area. These

Equipment & funds are necessary to carry out this endeavor

Conservation and to purchase much needed supplies and

Supplies materials.

Raaklng Bureau

8. Cooper-Hewitt Museum

Item/Amount Rationale for Priority

National Portrait Gallery

S18,000

This need Is particularly critical as

Janitorial the New York location of the Museum prevents it

supplies, from being able to take advantage of the

woodshop Smithsonian Institution central management faci-

equlpment lltles services.

NMAA's permanent collection of 32,000 objects grows at the rate of 1,000 new works a year. The preservation and restoration of American art works is an important function of the Museum, and has been hindered by the lack of funding stemming from the two percent cut.

Trash removal, pest control and uniform cleaning services have been diminished as a result of the funding cut.

$9,000 Building Management Services

National $5,000 Teaching guides used in conjunction with the Museum of Teaching "African Masterpieces" exhibition have had to African Guides and be curtailed and the lecture series being Art lectures conducted in conjunction with the exhibition,

"Igbo Arts: Connminlty and Cosmos", has been

cancelled.

The brochures are distributed to the general public as part of the Museum's efforts to Improve the public's awareness of Its programs and activities. Without funding this will have to end.

The 2 percent reduction resulted in the elimination of orientation posters, signs, and banners, making it difficult for the public to learn

signs, about National Portrait Gallery programs and

banners activities.

National $10,000 The reprinting of brochures distributed free Portrait Brochure to the general public and of the Checklist of Gallery and check- the collections, which is an invaluable

list reference guide to the permanent collections,

have had to be deferred due to the 2 percent

reduction.

National Museum of American Art

$42,020 The two percent cut has caused the cancell-Public atlon of two exhibitions, two symposiums and Programs four lectures.

National Museum of American History

$40,000 Funding uncertainties have prevented the Museum Public from making final conmiitments for any unannounced Programs programs.

J

Rationale for Priority

Worn carpet In the public areas of the Gallery requires replacement and NPG needs to purchase adequate supplies to clean the existing carpet.

Despite an increase In the number of requests for Docent-led tours from public schools and from the general public, the services of this key employee cannot be extended due to the reduction.

Although It was possible to offset the effect of the 2 percent reduction by deferring the filling of a vacancy for an Archives Technician, an indefinite postponement of hiring for this position would have an effect on the Archives' research services and collections management activities.

Anacostla Neighborhood Museum

Immediate Office

Office of American Studies

$17,000 The annex is scheduled for completion by April,

Furnishings 1987, and furniture must be installed prior

for new to that time, building

The loss of a full-time position resulted in slowing progress on the Joseph Henry Papers project.

$9,000 Restore part time position to full time in JHP, supplies & equipment

$2,000 Deficiency in the salaries and benefits of the Base Director and a secretary must be funded. Deficiency

Subtotal, History and Art $ 563,000

PUBLIC SERVICE

Rationale for Priority

Reduction to this unit's allotment has eliminated basic printing funds used, most notably, for the production of the American Historical Association Annual Report and for the purchase of specialized printing equipment.

Reduction severely hampers unit's ability to plan for and carry out the annual Festival on the Mall.

Cut-back directly affects the office's major communicative tool for sharing the programs of the Institution vrlth local schools.

Public $12,000 Affairs Other

Objects

At the heart of this office is its need to Inform in a most timely manner those inside SI, the public, and various news services. The equipment eliminated by this reduction adversely affects the Office of Telecommunications' means to carry out this task.

Visitor $3,000 Information Other and Assoc. Objects Reception Center

This office operates a substantial, essential, visible and varied component of the Smithsonian Institution. Cut-backs in its meager funding affects the level and quality of services to the visiting public.

Telecomm- $4,000 unlcations Other

Objects

Some slippage in services can be geared to the willingness of those units served to subsidize the Office of Telecommunications services from their own federal resources.

Specialized studies and services, as well as other object expenses have been eliminated by the funding reduction.

The Office lacks adequate other objects funding and this reduction would essentially eliminate its flexibility.

Subtotal, Public Service $65,000

MUSEUM PROGRAMS

Rationale for Priority

Reducing funds to purchase books and Journals places the SI Libraries farther behind in its attempt to become an adequate research library.

Reduction disrupts a phased and orderly approach to the replacement of worn out and/or obsolete scientific equipment essential to the effective functioning of the conservation laboratory.

Lack of funding reduces inventories of supplies and equipment necessary to design exhibitions. This prevents the office from responding in as timely and effective a manner as should be the case. This may also cause the Office to have to contract greater amounts of exhibition design, which is by far a more expensive proposition than In-house development.

4.

7.

The Office is a labor intensive organization which has very limited amounts of other objects funding. Lack of funding will delay the production of any audio-visual program since no outside editing will be available.

The two percent cut delays the microfilming of the fragile and deteriorating records of the SI Archives. This exposes these documents to the threat of further deterioration which would prove to be irreversible.

This funding is necessary to support the cost of shipping exhibitions to their first stop.

This delays until 1986 the ongoing program of preventive maintenance of Horticultural equipment, resulting In Increased equipment deterioration.

Ranking Bureau 8.

Item/Aittount Rationale for Priority

South $20,000

Group Building

Bldg.MgC. Supplies

9.

Office of $7,000 A/S Museum Office Programs Automation

Office of $2,000 Registrar Malnt. of Office Equipment

Funding Is required for the cleaning and maintenance of the Arts and Industries Building and of the SI Castle.

The two percent reduction eliminates the possibility of awarding up to three additional grants for critical projects in conservation within the museum profession.

Funding would enable the use of emerging technologies which will make this office more efficient and productive through the use of automation equipment.

This delays maintenance of automated office equipment in the Office of the Registrar, and adversely affects the productivity of that Office.

Subtotal, Museum Programs $ 245,000

ADMINISTRATION

688

Ranking Bureau Item/Amount Rationale for Priority

Accounting $22,000

and

Financial

Services

ADP Applications

Giving this top priority Is consistent with the emphasis on automation In the FY 1986 budget. Funds may also be needed to help Implement new payroll data entry plans. Funds, If appropriated, must be earmarked and used for automation.

Office of $37,000 Information Salaries Resource Management

Office of $42,000 Personnel Salaries Administration

Office of

General

Counsel

$11,000

Office

Support

Office of $8,000 Audits Office Support

Office of $20,000 Supply Paper, Services Repairs & Equipment

Office of $33,000

Printing & Services

Photo Supplies

Services & Equipment

Other Units

$50,000

Funds are required to meet staffing levels consistent with the planning and implementation of automation efforts. Also, OIRM has a base shortage which losing the two percent would compound.

Funds are required to maintain service and reduce complaints. OPersA also has a base shortage.

The Office of the General Counsel was able to absorb the two percent reduction in FY 1985 by delaying the hiring of an attorney. The attorney has been hired and the funding shortage must be corrected before the functions of the Office are impaired.

Office has base shortage which the two percent reduction compounds.

If need be, units could reimburse OSS for copy paper so this item is given a lower priority.

Cut if restored would help to sustain videodisc program and replace mural enlarger. Nitrate film project should be largely completed in FY 1986, however, so funds may be available in that account. Thus the lower priority for this item.

Balance in overall reduction for 13 units in amounts ranging from $1,000 to $9,000 should be correctible, if necessary, in FY 1986 from base resources using SI reprogramming authority.

Subtotal, Administration $223,000

DIRECTORATE OF INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES

Ranking Bureau Item/Amount Rationale for Priority

$6,000 Restoration Is necessary to alleviate

Funding funding shortages In the Office of

Shortage Service and Protocol and the Office of Publications Exchange.

Total $6,000

COLLECTIONS MANAGEMENT/INVENTORY PROGRAM

$17,000 Various Inventory Projects

Together with base monies and the proposed Increase for FY 1986, restoration of these monies vd.ll be used to continue Inventory efforts at the National Museum of Natural History, the National Museum of American History and the Cooper-Hewitt Museum, and to initiate Inventory procedures In the Archives of American Art.

Total $17,000

MUSEUM SUPPORT CENTER

$97,000 Equipment, Operations and Move

Total $97,000

OFFICE OF PLANT SERVICES

Although the $97,000 represents a relatively small percentage of the funds sought for these purposes in FY 1986, these resources are necessary to adhere to the current move schedule.

$557,000 Partially Correct Base Shortage

Consistent with the FY 1986 budget request, it is critical that this funding be restored to provide an adequate base for OPlantS to perform preventive maintenance and repairs to Smithsonian facilities. These monies, together with the increase of S650,000 sought in the FY 1986 budget Justification will a) correct a shortage of base funds for essential supplies used extensively by OPlantS in maintaining Smithsonian buildings and in making essential emergency repairs to mechanical and electrical systems throughout the Institution's physical plant; and b) provide full funding for existing staff.

OFFICE OF PROTECTION SERVICES

$342,000 ConBistent vd.th the FY 1986 budget Partially request, these funds are needed crlti-Correct Base cally to help correct a long-standing base Shortage shortage In salaries, and thereby eliminate

the need to cover the security deficit through reductions In the security program and the diversion of resources from other bureaus of the Institution.

OFFICE OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

Ranking Bureau Item/Amount Rationale for Priority

3. $41,000 These funds are required to support

Architectural/ Architectural/Engineering Contracts In

Engineering support of the Institution's Restoration

Contracts and Renovation of Buildings Program.

Subtotal, Facilities Services $940,000

S.I. GRAND TOTAL, $3,301,000

Utilities

Question: The requested Increase for utilities, postage and communications Is $1,576,000 or 11%. Explain the Increase in electricity use. which had been shown last year as 86 millions of KWH actual in 1983 and estimated in succeeding years?

Answer: The primary reason consumption estimates for electricity have Increased is due to inclusion within the central account of 7.2 million KWH representing projected electricity usage at the Museum Support Center (MSC) In Suitland, Maryland. MSC electricity consumption and cost estimates were, in previous years, justified under the Museum Support Center line item.

Question: What is the basis for the projected increase in 1986 of steam use (to 219.4 million pounds, up from 206.5 million)?

Answer: The primary reason for the projected 12.9 million pound increase in steam usage in FY 1986 is attributable to the projected initial occupancy of the Quadrangle during FY 1986. Steam will be the primary source for heating and humldification of all areas within the Quadrangle facility.

Question: The estimates for gas use have also increased significantly for 1984 through 1986. Please explain.

Answer: Although modifications to space at facilities in Suitland and at the National Zoological Park have resulted in slight increases in consumption, increases are primarily due to increased collections use of the Museum Support Center. Ongoing transfers of collections to this facility require that stable temperature and humidity controls be maintained for their preservation. Moreover, as collections are transferred into the MSC storage pods environmental conditions necessary to preserve the collections are extended to these specific areas of the facility. At the Museum Support Center gas is used to fuel the boilers which in turn generate steam to heat and humidify all areas of the facility.

Question: The unit costs you are showing for gas in 1984 and 1985 are now significantly lower than they were in last year's budget. Explain these decreases, and why you think 1986 will increase as projected.

Answer: The unit costs for gas in 1984 and 1985 are derivatives of consumption and total costs. Decreases in unit costs for gas in 1984 and 1985 can be attributed to delays in the scheduled movement of collections to the Museum Support Center and less than anticipated increases in rates for fuel which are passed on to consumers by the local utility companies. For FY 1986, it is anticipated that with additional transfers of collections to the MSC, consumption and unit costs for gas will be more in line with previous estimates.

Question: For the record, for electricity, steam, gas, telephone, postage, and fuel oil and water, show the original 1984 estimates compared to the actuals for each.

Answer: The following table shows original 1984 estimates and actual usage, unit cost and total costs realized for each component which comprises the central utilities account. For comparison, 1984 actual figures for electricity and gas do not include amounts for the Museum Support Center.

TOTAL $14,021 $13,650

Space Rental

Question: The increase for rental space is $345,000, or 26% above the 1985 amount. Why are you planning to keep the space at the Navy Yard Annex under lease, now that the Oceanographic Sorting Center has moved to the Museum Support Center?

Answer: A year ago it was our intention to give up the rental space at the Navy Yard. This intention was based on the expected move schedule of the staff and collections from that site to the Museum Support Center. However, we had problems with the storage equipment on which these collections would be placed. These problems were not solved until last fall and the collections themselves could not begin to move until December. This move is now well underway and will be completed by late summer or early fall. Once vacated, however, we now believe that Navy Yard space will continue to be a valuable resource given its convenient location to the Mall, size, relatively low cost, and likely continued availability. A portion of the freed-up space is now serving as a mock-up or test galley for exhibitions that will go into the Quadrangle. The space can be very useful for storage of equipment or materials; and, our present lease for space on North Capitol Street will expire in a few years. That space is becoming increasingly costly as the North Capitol Street corridor becomes more attractive for development. We need to find less costly long-term space that that at North Capitol. As a start in that direction, the space at the Navy Yard could accommodate one or more of the activities now at North Capitol. For these reasons, we hope you will allow us to retain this space.

Question: How do you plan to handle the projected deficit of $302,000 in FY 1985 rental costs?

Answer: Since, as noted, we did not plan on retaining the Navy Yard space in FY 1985 — the need to retain this space is responsible for the deficit. We are working to correct this deficit through a combination of belt-tightening efforts and reprogrammings within the lostltutlon's authority, as necessary.

Question: Why has the rental cost for the Archives of American Art Increased?

Answer: The higher costs are occasioned by the need to negotiate a new

lease to replace the one that expired in December 1984. The previous lease was

very inexpensive and the current one more accurately reflects the New York City rental market.

Assistant Secretary for History and Art

Question: For the Assistant Secretary for History and Art, $457,000 is requested, an increase of $22,000. Last year, the justification Indicated that the salary of the Assistant Secretary was paid from nonappropriated funds. Is this still the case? If not, what is the reason for the change?

Answer: Through a reorganization, the employee occupying the position of Assistant Secretary for History and Art was appointed the Director of International Activities, and the nonappropriated salary and benefits of the Assistant Secretary for History and Art position were transferred to support this position. In the interim the Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for History and Art, whose salary and benefits are paid with appropriated funds, was appointed Acting Assistant Secretary for History and Art.

National Museum of American History - Automation

Question: The request for the National Museum of American History is $12,151,000, an increase of $824,000. A program increase of $223,000 is requested, including $108,000 for the move to the MSC and $115,000 for computer systems, including adding one computer specialist. How many computer specialists do you currently have on the NMAH staff? Will this complete the computer staffing for the Museum?

Answer: The Museum currently has two computer specialists, two computer assistants and a vacancy for a secretary clerk in its computer support staff. In addition to the computer specialist requested In FY 1986, three additional positions are planned for FY 1987 which, if approved, will bring the total computer support staff to a full-time permanent strength of nine. This level of permanent staffing is adequate to support presently planned computing services at NMAH.

Question: What will be the relationship between this position, and the Office of Information Resource Management of the Smithsonian?

Answer: The NMAH computer specialist will provide on-going support for implementation of non-collections computer systems in NMAH including, but not limited to. Institution-wide capabilities developed by OIRM. This individual will work with counterparts in OIRM to provide technical integration and coordination between NMAH and Institutional systems.

Question: What is the relationship between NMAH's Collections Management Inventory System, and the OIRM's Collections Information System?

Answer: The NMAH system is part of the OIRM system. The central Smithsonian collections data base resides on the OIRM computer system and includes all NMAH inventory data that has been initially processed. The Collections Management Inventory System is the NMAH system that initially receives, processes and edits all new and changed inventory transactions prior to their inclusion in the OIRM Collections Information System.

Question: What has been the role of OIRM in the planning and development of the NMAH's non-collection automation management needs?

Answer: OIRM is or will be involved in non-collections automation management needs as follows:

NMAH Automation Plan - Review and approval

NMAH Automation Budget - Review

Local Area Network - Establish Sl-wide standards

Large Equipment/Software Acquisitions - participate in evaluation

The current automation management staffs of OIRM and NMAH meet frequently to discuss matters of interest and concern to either or both parties. The NMAH staff is committed to the planning and development of NMAH needs in coordination with OIRM policy and standards.

Question: You are requesting $65,000 to purchase printers and terminals. How do you define "optimium effectiveness" regarding this request (p.67)?

Answer: "Optimum effectiveness" pertaining to automated Inventory /collections management is the placement of standard terminals in each

curatorial division and in each curatorial storage facility, in all elements of the Registrar's Office, in the Offices of the National Numismatics and Philatelic Collections and in several other special purpose inventory/collections areas. This placement would provide for a terminal in each major work area that five to six specialists could share. The optimum for printers is to acquire at least two printers for each floor that has private office space and as many as four depending on population and workload per floor. This overall plan will provide basic terminal and printing resources to keep up with the collections of the NMAH.

Question: Will this $65,000 become part of the base? What is the anticipated total cost of this effort?

Answer: The amount of $65,000 will become part of the base. A conservative estimate of the total cost of this effort, at today's cost, would be approximately $300,000 Including the $65,000 for FY 1986. This would allow NMAH to implement standard office automation and communications systems throughout the Museum by giving all key managers and administrative staffs access to both the NMAH computer system and the OIRM computer system. Approximately 15% annually of the aggregate purchase value of all systems will be devoted to maintenance and necessary replacements over time.

Question: On what basis is it necessary to plan now for upgrading these workstations every five years?

Answer: The need to accomodate requirements for additional memory, respond to newly realized needs and newly trained staff, to replace worn out or obsolete equipment - all can be predicted.

Question: $25,000 is requested to contract with outside consultants to help determine software needs and how to meet them. Why can't this need be met by the OIRM?

Answer: These funds were requested to provide specialized consultation in software development and implementation in areas relating to exhibitions and educational programs where OIRM does not have the required expertise. The application of such funds will be restricted to systems approved by OIRM and the statements of work under such contracts will continue to be developed with OIRM assistance.

Question: How do you propose to exercise central control over software proliferation or duplication if individual Museums or other offices are allowed to contract for such outside consultants? What kind of control mechanism now exists?

Answer: All software acquisition, whether by contracted development or procurement of commercially available systems, is reviewed by OIRM. Software which could be acquired "off-the-shelf" is purchased or leased. Statements of work for contracts to develop specialized local capabilities to which OIRM cannot allocate resources are reviewed by OIRM both for suitability within the Institutional plans and technical specifications. When requested, OIRM assigns staff to monitor such contracts and assist bureaus and offices in the testing and acceptance of delivered systems.

Question: Is this a one-time expenditure? '

Answer: Yes, this specific requirement is a one-time cost which is not being requested as a permanent addition to base, however, similar requests may be made in the future based on bureau needs.

National Museum of American Art - Automation

Question: The request for the National Museum of American Art is $4,970,000, an Increase of $299,000, of which $55,000 is for automation. Why did the 2% reduction keep you from hiring a data clerk, since it would have represented only a $500 decrease from the $25,000 included in the budget?

Answer: The 2% reduction in the FY 1985 base of the National Museum of American Art amounted to $84,000. Since this reduction was substantially greater than the $25,000 added for the data clerk, a decision was made to forego the hiring of the data clerk until such time as the 2% reduction is restored to the base.

Question: How were the funds used instead?

Answer: The funds were used to offset partially the $84,000 reduction described above in order to sustain ongoing programs of research, exhibition, and public education.

Question: Regarding the $34,000 request for computer equipment, will it allow for the use of your existing workstations with Institution-wide computer systems?

Answer: Six of the Museum's existing workstations are dedicated to obsolete word-processing equipment and are not compatible with Institution-wide systems; the remaining workstations and all future workstations (including those eventually acquired to replace the obsolete equipment) will be compatible with both local and central computer systems.

Question: What is the total planned cost of the automation effort? Over what timeframe?

Answer: If the National Museum of American Art obtains the $34,000 requested in FY 1986 for the new central processing unit, increased funding of $345,000 will be required in FY 1987 to purchase additional workstations ($195,000), "to pay for operation, maintenance and on-line access to art research databases being Implemented in the SIBIS computer system and new databases developed within the Collections Information System ($100,00)", and to provide additional operating personnel ($50,000). The Museum requires a substantial base for automation not only for collection inventory and automated office functions, but also for its six discrete art research data bases which number 530,000 object records on American art in public and private collections throughout the United States. In successive years, a base of $255,000 would cover the following ongoing annual expenses: Increasing central usage charges (an additional $5,000 per year), maintenance fees for equipment ($20,000), personnel costs ($50,000), supplies ($5,000), training ($3,000), establishment of a three-to-flve-year replacement cycle for equipment ($72,000).

National Portrait Gallery - Automation

Question: The request for the National Portrait Gallery is $3,620,000, an increase of $234,000. What was the source of the "Internally reprogrammed" funds with which automation equipment was first purchased?

Answer: In FT 1985, the Smithsonian Institution had salary lapse, which permitted $20,000 of appropriated funds to be reprogrammed to the National Portrait Gallery to purchase automation equipment.

Question: Will the $40,000 requested to establish a base for the automation effort be used to replace these Internally reprogrammed funds, or be added to them? If the latter, what will the total available be? if the former, what will the reprogrammed funds be used for?

Answer: The $40,000 requested will not replace the "internally reprogrammed" funds. The reprogrammed funds were used solely for a one-time automation equipment purchase and were not an Increase to the National Portrait Gallery's base resources. Given requirements to absorb one-half of the pay raise and other absorptions, the Institution does not anticipate having monies available to reprogram for such purposes in the current or future years.

Hirshhorn Museum - Automation

Question: The request for the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden is $3,229,000, an increase of $213,000, including $45,000 for automation. Regarding the $45,000 request, you mention connection to the Institution's central computer system only in relation to accounting, personnel, and supply. Would not some of your needs for inventory and bibliographic systems also be met by Institution-wide systems? If not, why not?

Answer: We appreciate the opportunity to clarify that the FY 1986 budget request for the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden is for an increase of base resources predicated on a plan to provide access for HMSG to the Institution-wide bibliographic and inventory systems, not for the independent development of such capabilities. All the functions identified in the request will be satisfied by providing access to these Institutional systems which have been supported by Congress through the OIRM budget.

Question: You state that beyond 1987, the base funding requested will be used for maintenance and operation of the system. Do you really believe it costs as much to buy a computer as to operate it?

Answer: No. The plans for implementing automated support of the HMSG program recognize three dependent variables: acquisition of workstations to provide access to curatorial and bibliographic information systems in the Institution; growing use of central computing resources by the bureau as new functions are supported and databases grow; and increased requirements for training, maintenance and equipment enhancement and replacement as the systems mature. During FY 1986 and FY 1987, the largest part of the base resources will be devoted to acquisition of workstations to support bibliographic and collections processing which will also serve as part of a bureau-wide office automation system. Growing databases and Increased access to these by bureau staff will dramatically Increase the charges to HMSG (currently less than $2,000 per year) for central computer system utilization. Based on the experience of other bureaus which have progressed further in implementation of such systems, it is anticipated that base resources of approximately $17,000 per year will be dedicated to such charges by FY 1988. From FY 1988 forward, the bulk of the proposed increase in base resources will be devoted to slowly enhancing existing workstation capabilities, adding slightly to these as new functions are automated, and to the training of staff and replacement of systems on a five-year schedule.

Access to external databases In art history through such vendors as DIALOG and the Research Libraries Group are expected to consume approximately $6,000 of the base as these capabilities are made available to curatorial and research staff.

Question: Please provide an Itemization of these future year costs.

Answer: Estimated expenditures for FY 1988 and beyond allocate $23,000 to user fees ($17,000 within the Smithsonian and $6,000 for outside services as reported above), $13,000 for equipment maintenance (based on 15% per year of base value of equipment Installed), and $9,000 for training, supplies and equipment enhancement and replacement.

Ouestlon: You are requesting $35,000 to purchase four personal computers. Can you explain how the Sackler Gallery can request the same amount for five units of what appears to be similar equipment; and the Archives Is requesting $15,000 less for what appears to be similar equipment? What are the differences , If any, In the equipment to be purchased?

Answer: The Archives of American Art Is requesting $20,000 for four standalone workstations In Its regional offices to be linked by telecommunications with Its New York and Washington offices for the purposes of exchanging administrative Information and providing shared access to the bibliographic Information system. The Sackler Gallery Is requesting five workstations and peripherals Including Increased central disk storage capacity to support an Integrated office system with Its own shared central processing unit for a range of administrative functions Including those of Its conservation laboratory and bureau administrative staff. The cost estimates for the shared system are higher because they Include costs of enhancing a cluster of workstations, each capable of standing alone, but also using the central processing unit serving the Sackler Gallery. Essentially, the difference reflects the added cost of a more Integrated and broadly functional capability which still provides access to the Instltutlon-wlde systems.

Sackler Gallery Exhibitions

Question: The request for the Center for Asian Art, Including the Sackler and the Freer, Is $3,368,000, an Increase of $1,766,000. Included for the Sackler Is a request of $1,153,000 to establish a base for an exhibitions program. When Is the first exhibit scheduled?

Answer: The first exhibition Is the Inaugural exhibition of the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery scheduled to open In May 1987 when the entire Quadrangle opens to the public. This exhibition will consist of approximately one thousand objects given by Dr. Sackler to the Gallery. A considerable amount of design and construction work Is needed In FY 1986 to meet the May 1987 opening date. This Includes the design of the exhibition with the layout of objects; detailed design of temporary walls, exhibitions, lighting, security requirements, seating needs In exhibition areas, exhibition props, and other structures; and design of exhibition labels and graphics. Funds must be in hand to begin the long contracting process for construction of exhibition walls, cases, lighting fixtures and other structures; for contracting the production of graphics; for the construction of temporary walls and other structures, etc.

Question: Is this the level you expect to maintain for this program, or do you foresee further Increases in future years?

Answer: We anticipate that the exhibition base for non-personnel expenses ($1,105,000) requested in the FY 1986 budget will maintain this program for approximately five years. However, several positions will be added to the exhibitions staff in subsequent years. An additional one-time-only cost of $400,000 will be requested in the FY 1987 budget to complete the installation of the inaugural exhibition. Subsequent year expenditure of the $1,105,000 base will be used to support eight to twelve separate shows a year.

Question: How does the size of this exhibitions base budget compare to that for the other Smithsonian museums?

Answer: The entire Sackler annual exhibition budget is approximately the size of the budget for one blockbuster show at the National Gallery. The Sackler exhibition base budget is higher than most of the other museums in the Smithsonian, yet is is not the highest. Unlike other museums, the Sackler will use outside contractors in combination with is own staff to install exhibitions rather than use the Office of Plant Services since this office cannot accept additional work due to the limitations of its staff and budget. If the other Smithsonian museums used their own staff or contracted exhibit installation, their budgets would be comparable to the Sackler's exhibition budget.

Question: How much of the request consists of one-time purchases, such as permanent lighting and audio-visual equipment, built-in security features, etc.?

Answer: Although some of the budget will be used for equipment that can be reused, most of the funds will be used on expendable supplies and services that will change with each exhibit. When possible, cases will be refurbished for future exhibits if the variety of objects found in traveling exhibitions permits. However, storage of old cases is limited. Lighting fixtures and security devices can be reused. An expense that will not reoccur in FY 1986 will be the cost of transportation and insurance. However, in exhibitions subsequent to the inaugural exhibition, these expenses will occur when traveling exhibitions are shown in the Sackler Gallery and when objects from other collections are borrowed for Sackler-organlzed exhibitions.

Sackler Gallery - Collections Acquisition

Question: Last year, $100,000 was requested for collections acquisition for the Sackler Gallery, which was not agreed to by the Congress. This year $200,000 is being requested. Why do you believe Federal support for collections acquisition is required for the Sackler at this time?

Answer: A significant amount for collection acquisition is needed initially. To be able to attract gifts and financial support from the public at large, the Sackler Gallery needs to develop an acquisitions program not identified with the collections of Dr. Sackler, and this can be done by a program of Gallery purchases. Dr. Sackler himself recognizes this need for the long-term health of the museum and 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 federal appropriation, the Smithsonian Institution may be able to work out an arrangement with the Sackler Foundation to enlarge the collection acquisition fund at least on a one-to-one basis.

The Sackler Gallery needs to concentrate on expanding the initial collection In specific areas to develop a more appropriate balance as soon as

possible. An active acquisitions program at this time would signal to lending institutions around the world that the Sackler Gallery and the Smithsonian will be able to reciprocate In the lending of major Asian art objects. It would also assure countries that have contributed substantially to the Quadrangle construction that the deficiencies in the collection of art objects representing their cultures will be redressed.

Question: Under the terms of the Sackler bequest, could excess items in one area be deaccessioned in order to increase the collection in other deficient areas, such as the Japanese, Korean, Indian and Islamic collections?

Answer: Yes. However, according to the Collections Management Policy of the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, the general policy is one of extreme reluctance and careful determination, since the initial acquisition process Itself requires such careful selection. In this case, the masterpieces of the Sackler collection were selected for the permanent Gallery collection; thus, it would seem anomalous to dispose of this initial collection. Lesser objects might be considered for deaccession in the distant future.

Question: Does the Freer also have a similar level of deficiencies in these areas? If not, why is it necessary to increase the Sackler collection?

Answer: The Freer has not as extreme deficiencies as the Sackler in these areas. However, due to the Will of the founder, the Freer cannot lend or borrow objects outside its permanent collection. The Sackler was created, among other reasons, to promote the advancement of knowledge on Asian art through traveling exhibitions as well as other means. The Sackler Gallery aims to develop this capability for traveling exhibitions that will reach out to the greater constituency beyond the Washington area. The Freer collection does have some deficiencies In its collection created in part by limited space. For example, a Japanese palanquin (carriage) in the Sackler collection is unlike anything in the Freer collection because of the size of the object.

Sackler Gallery - Travel Requirements

Question: An increase of $121,000 is requested for education and administration. What is involved in administrative travel, for which $6,000 is requested?

Answer: The top administrative staff of the Sackler will be Involved in negotiations for traveling exhibitions, in negotiations with potential donors of objects, etc.. In searching for or developing future exhibitions, in negotiating for joint projects in conservation and research with other institutions, and in attending Asian art symposia. Administrative travel funds are also used for interviewing applicants for senior positions. In addition to the Increases listed above, increases are requested also for collections management and research.

Sackler Gallery - Total Operating Cost

Question: In addition to the increases listed above, increases are requested also for collections management and research. What Is the total anticipated cost, when all positions are fully funded, for the Sackler Gallery?

Answer: The sum of $2,474,000 includes the FY 1986 request of $1,672,000, necessary pay and inflation of $17,000, the FY 1985 base of $476,000, and the

additional $309,000 required for full-year funding of the nineteen positions requested In the FY 1986 budget. The sum of $309,000 would not be an expense until FY 1987.

Archives of American Art - Automation

Question: The request for the Archives of American Art Is $819,000, an Increase of $72,000, Including $40,000 for automation. What purchases of automation equipment have been made to date, and what was the source of funds for such purchases? Why can't these sources be used to purchase the remaining equipment?

Answer: To date, the Archives of American Art has expended $29,474 on automation hardware and $2,815 for software from base funds over the last three fiscal years.

The expenditures have provided six operating stations; four In the Washington office, one In the New York Administrative office, and one In the Midwest Regional Center.

In order to make these purchases, the Archives used Its small general equipment budget originally designated to purchase and replace microfilm readers, archival storage shelving and cabinets, typewriters, etc., postponing any such expenditures in order to being automating its financial and administrative operations. Given the complexity of the organization, the multiple sources and different types of funding, the geographical dispersion of the Regional Centers and the limited staff, it was believed essential that the Archives begin automating its systems in order to manage effectively its operations and to improve access to and exchange of information. As a result of the reallocations and postponed purchases of general equipment, the Archives is now in urgent need of rededlcating its limited equipment funds to the purchase of basic equipment used by researchers, technicians, and collectors everyday. Therefore, we are requesting a base addition of $40,000 to enable the Archives to continue its development of automation in the remaining Regional Centers and the general administrative offices, and to pay the costs of user fees and telecommunication charges related to the installation of the SIBIS and Collections Management system subsidized by OIRM.

Question: Provide for the record an itemization of your future year costs that would Justify adding this $40,000 to the base.

Answer: The forward plan for automation of the Archives of American Art addresses the coordinated development of systems for administrative information and bibliographic/scholarly information. The installation of the SIBIS system in each of the AAA offices over the past year has been funded by OIRM from Institutional funds, but on-going telecommunication charges and annual equipment maintenance and user fees will cost the AAA $12,000 per year at the level of use projected for FY 1986.

Acquisition and maintenance of administrative systems, and access to Institutional administrative reporting systems, will cost an estimated $28,000, based on plans to take advantage of compatible equipment and communications facilities to support the two functions at the lowest (wsslble cost. Over the next several years, growing utilization of the bibliographic/scholarly system (especially the use of workstations presently used by staff to support

researcher access to the Archives holdings), maintenance charges for both systems, the need to expand the number of workstations, and ultimately, to replace and upgrade equipment will consume the requested Increase In base resources. According to present plans, the Increase in base resources should enable the Archives to complete the implementation of the two systems, including providing access to researchers, over the course of the next four years, putting it in a position to replace or upgrade equipment and software on a five-year cycle.

Cooper-Hewitt Museum - Automation

Question: The request for the Cooper-Hewitt Museum is $995,000, an increase of $105,000, of which $50,000 is for automation. Regarding the request of $16,000 to upgrade your micro-computer, what are the specific components of this request?

Answer: The specific components of the $16,000 to upgrade the microcomputer are as follows:

Micro-computer w/double drive and built-in

Communication capability for CPT 8525 $12,000

Multiplexer (to connect two present

computers to one printer) 1 ,000

To upgrade printer w/sheet feeder 1,000

Math pack software for administrative

f inanclal record-keeping 1 ,000

To modify space to house second

workstation 500

Supplies 500

$16 ,000

National Museum of African Art - Exhibitions

Question: The request for the National Museum of African Art is $2,945,000,

an increase of $1,624,000. $1,211,000 is requested for exhibitions. How much

of this request represents one-time costs related to establishing the initial exhibition space?

Answer: No one-time costs are represented In this request. Since an active future exhibition program is planned for the Quadrangle location, including a number of loan exhibitions, costs associated with preparing exhibition space, such as temporary partitions, platforms, cases, etc., will reoccur annually in response to the design requirements of each new exhibition.

National Museum of African Art - Automation

Question: $50,000 is requested for automation. What is the cost of the total program recommended by the OIRM for the Museum? Vfhen do you expect to have it in place?

Answer: The total cost of equipment and staff training as estimated by

OIRM la $150,000. This base of $50,000, together with additional funding

expected to be requested for FY 1987, will provide sufficient resources to

complete the installation of the total program, as planned in FY 1987.

Anacostia Neighborhood Museum

Question: The request for the Anacostia Neighborhood Museum is $914,000, an increase of $48,000. How much are the anticipated savings from terminating the lease of the old Carver Theater, which you intend to apply to equipping and furnishing the new exhibit area, now under construction?

Answer: The anticipated savings from tennlnating the lease of the Old Carver Theater will be $35,500 annually.

Question: When will the new facilities be completed?

Answer: The contract for the expanded facility at Fort Stanton calls for construction completion in April of 1986.

Conservation Training Program

Question: The request for the Conservation Analytical Laboratory is $2,197,000, an increase of $410,000. What is the status of the conservation training program being started this year?

Answer: The Conservation training program, authorized under Public Law 94-98, was Intended to be initiated upon the completion of the Museum Support Center. In the fall of 1983, CAL moved from its previous quarters at the National Museum of American History to the new facilities at the Museum Support Center, and started a multi-year expansion of staff and program activities, described and reported to Congress on many occasions, and scheduled to include the conservation training program.

While the commitment of the Smithsonian to the establishment of this program has never changed, and was confirmed repeatedly, a number of issues affected the nature and direction of the program with regard to size, level, and specialization. Moreover, a delay in the development of the training program, as well as of the overall CAL programs, was caused when Congressional budget action for FY 1985 did not authorize ten newly requested positions, of which six were Justified as necessary for the training program. As a consequence, it was deemed desirable, rather than to engage immediately in the creation of a full size academic degree oriented program, analogous to those which exist already nationally at Wlnterthur, New York and Cooperstown, to start Instead with a number of carefully chosen, but limited activities. This would provide CAL with a chance to evaluate thoroughly the needs of the profession and the particular strengths of the Smithsonian which will enable it to play a major role in the alleviation of those needs, while at the same time the staff, which for a large part has been recruited since the expansion related with the nuve, could gain the necessary experience.

The choice for such Initial activities was made to consist of specialist courses and Internship training. Specialist courses provide training for practicing conservators, centering on special skills and knowledge which normally are not taught at the regular training programs. During FY 1984, CAL organized one such course; for FY 1985, a total of six courses have been announced, to

48-292 O—85-

take place between May and September, 1985. CAL expects to organize additional rounds of courses during the following years. Internships, which provide students or recent graduates of training programs with the highly necessary practical experience under the close supervision of expert conservators, form the second part of CAL's present program. The first four Interns, at the graduate student level, will start In July 1985 for summer Internships. During the next academic year, which will start In September 1985, two graduate students will spend extended Internships at CAL. CAL also has announced the availability of a post-graduate Internship for the upcoming academic year; candidates for this Internship will be selected early In June. In the future, CAL expects to maintain an active Internship program.

Meanwhile, a few potential target areas for further expansion of the training program have been Identified. These Include basic training of furniture conservators and of conservators of archeologlcal and ethnographic materials, as well as training of conservation scientists. A start has been made with the development of curricula for the conservation specialties; negotiations with appropriate collaborating universities will be undertaken In the near future. It Is not anticipated that the first class for such graduate training could start before September 1987.

Question: How much Is the program expected to cost annually?

Answer: Once the program has been developed fully. It Is expected to require a direct outlay of $922,000 annually, of which $780,000 will be applied toward the cost of the basic, degree oriented conservation training program and the remainder toward the cost of Internships and courses. Additional, Indirect contributions will be made through time spent by CAL staff members who are not primarily employed for the program, on teaching, planning and supervision. The Increase will take place gradually, with the growth of the program In size and activities, over the period FY 1987 to FY 1992.

Conservation Analytical Laboratory - Staffing

Question: $200,000 and A workyears are requested to expand the staff to 40 FTE's. For the 36 workyears currently authorized, how many positions are actually filled?

Answer: Thlrty-slx positions are filled at CAL. An additional four positions, presently unfilled, are authorized to CAL to accommodate the 36 workyears.

Question: Does the $160,000 requested for salaries represent full-year costs for the 4 workyears?

Answer: The FY 1986 budget request reflects full-year funding for the four positions asked for CAL. The specialists described in the request are urgently needed. Upon Congressional authorization, immediate recruitment will be initiated; it is expected that the positions could be filled early in the year.

Question: What is the basis of $40,000 in "increased operating expenses" per additional workyear? What is the current ratio of operating expenses to workyears in the base?

Answer: A total amount of $40,000 in Increased operating expenses is requested in association with the four requested workyears. This amounts to

$10,000 per workyear. The corresponding ratio In the current base Is $15,000 per workyear. Although the requested workyears are all for scientific and conservation professionals, who generally require a larger amount in associated operating expenses than support staff, it is anticipated that the modest amount requested will suffice because the new staff members will be able to share a certain amount of equipment and supplies with staff already on board.

Conservation Analytical Laboratory - Scientific Equipment Replacement

Question: An increase of $111,000 is requested, to Increase the base for purchase and replacement of scientific equipment from $100,000 to $211,000. What is the basis for Increasing the base to this extent? Are there one-time large purchases that will not need to be repeated in future years? How are the equipment replacement requirements determined?

Answer: Congressional budget action for FY 1985 resulted in a reduction of CAL's equipment base by its CAL-MSC portion of $108,000. This left CAL with a total of $113,000 in equipment funds, at a time that it was allowed 36 workyears. This sum compares with the base funds for equipment from before the move to MSC, which amounted to $100,000, to meet the needs of a staff allotment of only 18 workyears. Since the move to MSC, CAL has engaged in a large number of new and expanded research activities in conservation and archaeometry, and it expects to continue in this direction as its staff and programs grow over the next few years, as projected in a number of reports to Congress. Such activities require the purchase of equipment for new programs, as well as the replacement of older, worn or obsolete equipment used for existing programs. The requested Increase will restore the ratio of equipment funds to workyears to approximately the same level as that of several years ago; it is expected that this will suffice to enable CAL to continue its program development.

While several large purchases are foreseen for the next few years, as has been Illustrated in the narrative of the Congressional budget submission for FY 1986, these cannot be qualified as one-time acquisitions. Most scientific equipment, especially the more recent which Is heavily dependent on electronic components, has only a limited useful lifespan. After this period, which typically ranges from five to seven years, a combination of obsolescence and frequent component failure necessitates partial or total replacement.

Question: How much do you expect to spend on equipment, such as kilns and forges, to simulate technological processes from various locations and periods of history? What will you gain from this effort?

Answer: The activities of CAL's archaeometry department center around the technical and analytical studies of archaeological and historic objects and their materials. These studies aim at an elucidation of such attributes as place, technique and date of manufacture, all of which contribute to define the historical context of the objects, thus contributing directly to archaeological or art historical knowledge. , CAL is rapidly becoming a major center for such studies, both nationally and worldwide, as evidenced by the increasing number of guest workers and fellows from many countries.

Technological studies provide data regarding the status of technological development of individual cultures at a particular time; this information contributes to the completion of a sociological-anthropological description of such groups, to our knowledge regarding the history of technology, and, though comparison with that obtained for various contemporary groups, to the

understanding of cultural contacts as evidenced by the exchange of technological knowledge, or the lack thereof.

Experiments in replication of ancient technologies are necessary to confirm the correctness of conclusions drawn from analytical and structural observations, as well as to establish criteria used in the individual studies. CAL expects to spend a total amount of no more than $15,000 to $20,000 spread out over a period of two to three years, on purchases of equipment used for such replication experiments.

SI Libraries - Automation of Bibliographic Records

Question: The request for the Smithsonian Institution Libraries Is $4,813,000, an Increase of $551,000. Included Is $200,000 for retrospective conversion of manual bibliographic records into machine readable data. Is it correct to assume there is no funding In the base for this effort?

Answer: It Is correct to assume that there are no funds in the base for

this purpose. All of the base funds will be needed to maintain ongoing programs

including the cataloguing of current materials and for acquisitions needed to support research.

Question: What has been the cost to date of this effort, and the source of the grants used to accomplish it? Why are you now proposing to establish this base funding?

Answer: To date the Smithsonian Institution Libraries have spent $298,000 on retrospective conversion. This has been funded through a combination of endowment trust fund grants. Institutional redistribution of funds when possible, and a one-time reallocation of funds from the books and journals budget to start the project. The request for an addition to base will allow SIL to complete this phase of its automation by finishing the retrospective conversion in order to make the SIBIS data base complete for all Inventoried items. The SIL will then turn to uninventorled materials (those for which a record must be created or significantly changed).

Library Support for the Quadrangle

Question: $50,000 is requested for Quadrangle-related support. How much is available In FY 1985 for cataloging new volumes purchased for the Quadrangle museums? How will the $25,000 requested for accelerating this effort be used?

Answer: In FY 1985, the sum of $40,000 was made available for cataloguing materials for the African Art Library. The additional $25,000 will increase the number of volumes catalogued by approximately 1000/per year.

MSC Branch Library - Staffing

Question: $47,000 is requested for the Museum Support Center branch library, including two library technician positions. How many library technician positions at the MSC are now filled? What is the total planned staffing level?

Answer: There is one temporarily assigned library technician at the Museum Support Center Branch. The SIL transferred this staff member because the need for support staff at the MSC was crucial to operations conducted there. If

staff shortages continue In other areas of SIL, we will need to reduce this technician's hours or remove him from the MSC. The total staffing for the MSC library is planned at one librarian and two technicians.

Office of Exhibits Central - Support for the Quadrangle

Question: The request for the Office of Exhibits Central is $1,707,000, an increase of $175,000. What will the increase of $68,000 for Quadrangle-related support contractual services be used for?

Answer: The increase will be used to obtain the services of a variety of exhibition and technical specialists who are normally not needed as full-time OEC production staff but whose skills are on occasion required for the mounting and installation of an exhibition and for the proper preparation of objects to be used in an exhibition. These specialists possess knowledge and qualifications for dealing with exceptional problems associated with different kinds of objects to be exhibited. Some specialists, drawing on the understanding of the vulnerability of objects and the stresses to which they will be subjected when on exhibit or on travel, design and fabricate special supports to eliminate the stress and be compatible with the objects' Inherent materials. Others design special lighting devices to avoid damage from heat or exposure. Such services will be required for the additional exhibitions which will be produced in the future for the new exhibition space in the Quadrangle.

SITES - Quadrangle Programs

Question: $446,000 is requested for the Traveling Exhibition Service, an increase of $135,000. How much is Included in the base for courier travel and registrarial travel?

Answer: For FY 1986, SITES has allocated $8,000 for courier and registrarial travel in Its base funding from federal appropriations and has requested an increase of $3,000. The total need for federal support in this category is therefore $11,000.

Question: Are the two positions requested in connection with the Inaugural exhibition of the International Center a one-time only expense?

Answer: It has been agreed between the International Center and SITES that SITES will participate actively in the continuing exhibitions program that will constitute a major aspect of International Center activities. These two positions will therefore be required to meet an on-going need In future years. These positions will provide professional competence essential to the development and presentation of exhibitions of high quality in the new facility.

National Museum Act Authorization

Question: The request for the National Museum Act is $793,000. The authorization for this program expired September 30, 1982. What is your prognosis as to whether new authorization will be enacted this year?

Answer: On February 28, 1985 HR 1337 was introduced in the House and subsequently referred to the Committee on House Administration. On March 5 , 1985 S582 was introduced in the Senate and then referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration. No further Committee action has been taken or scheduled at this time.

Question: In the absence of authorization, why should the Committee continue to fund this program?

Answer: The National Museum Act responds to continuing needs in the museum field for professional training and research on technical Issues. Last year we received 185 applications requesting $3.2 million and made 63 awards, of which 64% Involved conservation. The Act has emphasized conservation since the early 1970s, and awareness of its importance increases each year among professionals responsible for the preservation of collections.

Directorate of International Activities - Automation

Question: The request for the Directorate of International Activities is $605,000, an increase of $282,000. What will be acquired with the $20,000 requested for automation equipment and other office equipment?

Answer: Funding will be used to acquire two micro-computer systems and software for office automation and access to central databases.

Federal Grant Support for Folkllfe Festival

Question: $731,000 is requested for American Studies and Folkllfe Programs. Why are you anticipating a decrease in Federal grant support in 1986 (from $403,000 to $257,000)? What impact will this have?

Answer: For FY 1985, the Office of Folkllfe Programs had anticipated receiving $403,000 from Hawaii as the representative State at the Festival of American Folkllfe. However, subsequent to preparation of the FY 1986 Congressional budget request, it was learned that following celebration of its Silver Jubilee in 1984, Hawaii could not support another large festival program in 1985. Therefore, the Office of Folkllfe Programs will not now receive any Federal Grants or Contracts in FY 1985.

However, for FY 1985, $458,700 has been received from other sources for Festival programming: foundation grants in the amount of $282,200 will support the Louisiana program; and Smithsonian Trust funds will provide $176,500 for the Indian Mela program as part of the festival of India Celebration.

For FY 1986, the Office of Folkllfe Programs had projected receipt of $257,000 from Tennessee for its participation in the 1986 Festival of American Folkllfe. More current projections, however. Indicate that a total of $592,000 in Federal Grants and Contracts - $285,000 from Tennessee and $307,000 from Japan - might be received in support of the FY 1986 Festival.

International Environmental Science Program

Question: The request for the International Environmental Science Program is $747,000, an increase of $41,000. The justification notes the "need to develop applied technologies to ensure the survival of rapidly diminishing tropical forests" (p.161). What exactly is the Smithsonian doing in this area? Could we do more?

Answer: Tropical forests have complex dynamics that differ from those which characterize temperate forests of North America. Consequently, long-termed sustained yields of forest products in the tropics require insights about little-known forest dynamics and development of new conservation and harvest

technologies that will preserve those dynamics. The high rate of destruction of tropical forests throughout the world and the limited understanding of those forests makes the acquisition of new knowledge especially urgent. Efforts by staff at the National Museum of Natural History, the National Zoological Park and the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute are all aimed at this task. Research at STRl is one of the largest and longest-term efforts to tackle this problem in the world. Additional support from the Congress for extant and planned programs in this area would insure the Institution's continued leadership position.

One example of Smithsonian efforts Involves a pioneering census of a permanent 125 acre plot of lowland tropical forest on STRI's Barro Colorado Island, Panama. All of the plants above 1cm at breast height diam. (over 240,000 plants) have been mapped on this plot. This project designed to explain the mechanisms affecting the diversity and dynamics of the enormously diverse tropical forest was started almost six years ago with support from the National Science Foundation. Efforts are currently in the process of taking the first five-year recensus. This will establish growth rates of trees, death and replacement dynamics and help to begin to quantify what is known about the tropical forest in only anecdotal fashion. This unique study is clearly the most massive and definitive assault to date on the mystery of tropical tree species diversity. The scale of the work assures that the results will stand for many years as the most authoritative data base on the demography, growth dynamics, and spatial relationships of tropical trees and its originality is demonstrated by the fact that this effort is now being duplicated by foresters and biologists in the old world tropical forest of Malaysia.

The Institution's Environmental Science Program staff from STRI and NMNH are monitoring the long-term natural fluctuations in physical and biological characteristics of a forest area on Barro Colorado Island. These studies now ongoing for over fifteen years are designed to examine the relationships and correlations between seasonal, annual and long-term changes in rainfall, humidity, temperature and biological events such as flowering, abundance of fruits and abundance of animals. Without an acute understanding of these natural relationships we cannot assess either Man's Influence on these systems or the ways to mitigate them.

Further, the availability of this data base Is already stimulating numerous studies by STRI scientific staff and visitors in Panama in disciplines as wide ranging as molecular biology and archeology.

A substantial program at STRI Is concerned with the developing of "alternatives to destruction" of tropical forests; that is, ways to utilize the many producsts of tropical forests while insuring their regeneration over the long-term. This effort is funded largely by a contribution from a private donor.

Finally, STRI staff and visitors seek to understand the process by which many indigenous societies are able to live in harmony with their environment, a harmony that allows sustained yield exploitation of forest products.

In short, active Institutional programs in research and education recognize the need to develop insights into the biology of tropical forests and to develop technologies to insure the survival of those forests.

The Principal Investigator of the forest dynamics project at STRI has a Joint appointment with the University of Iowa and the Smithsonian Tropical

Research Institute. The principal support for this project has come from the National Science Foundation. The Institution would like to sever our dependency upon the NSF which is not prepared to undertake long-term support of these types of monitoring programs. An amount of $175,000 and an additional workyear to support the Principal Investigator would plan this project on an independent basis including the recensus of the plot at five year intervals and also partially support STRI's participation in a comparative study in old world tropical forest in collaboration with the government of Malaysia. If funded, this program would immeasurably improve our abilities to preserve tropical forest areas, and further elucidate the relationship of destruction of tropical zones to the quality of life in the temperate zone.

Question: The justification also discusses acid rain. Do you have any recommendations to put forth at this time, particularly with regard to the potential loss of forest resources?

Answer: Research results on the impacts of acid atmospheric deposition upon hardwood forests in the Chesapeake Bay region are in agreement with findings from other studies in Norway, Sweden, and West Germany. The acid ions are displacing essential plant nutrients such as potassium, calcium and magnesium from the vegetation and surface soils. Increases in soil water acidity are also solubilizing aluminium from soil minerals. German scientists have shown that this aluminium poisons the fine root hairs of forest trees and prevents efficient uptake of nutrients such as calcium, thereby compounding the effects of nutrient losses.

Research on methods to prevent or minimize this damage to forest resources is urgently needed. Specifically, controlled experiments upon the chemical and biological effects of the treatment of forest plots with various application rates of limestone and potassium fertilizer would be very useful. Such research is highly desirable before large-scale changes in forest management for the eastern deciduous forest are attempted. Management efforts to alleviate acid effects upon receiving waters by liming them have sometimes resulted in unsuspected adverse effects. We should now be looking for both positive and negative effects upon forest resources.

Golden Lion Tamarln Project

Question: What are the results of the Golden Lion Tamarln Project in Brazil to date (15 were released last April-May)?

Answer: On May 31, 1984, a family group of eight captive-born golden lion tamarins was released to the wild in the Poco das Antas Biological Reserve in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Three additional pairs, consisting of five captive-born and a confiscated wild-born, were released in the same area over the following six weeks. At this writing, six of these fourteen survive. Their feeding, locomotion, and ranging behavior now approximates that of wild tamarins. Provisioning and other human support is slowly being withdrawn. A baby was born to #15 in December, 1984, and twins were born to #12 in February, 1985. All three infants are being raised successfully as truly wild tamarins.

Support for American Overseas Research Centers

Question: The request for academic and educational programs is $2,793,000, an increase of $2,041,000. Included is a new initiative of $2,000,000 to sup-

port American overseas research centers. Why has this initiative been placed in the Smithsonian budget? Does It require specific authorization?

Answer: The Smithsonian and the centers have in common their fundamental commitment to research in the widest range of scholarly disciplines and to the dissenilnation of its findings. This leads the Smithsonian to take a direct Interest in maintaining the continuous operation of centers in countries abroad and in supporting the regular flow of scholars In all disciplines.

The Smithsonian also since Its beginnings, has taken all possible measures to contribute to the full and free flow of knowledge Irrespective of national boundaries. In many countries of the world, these precepts are not readily accepted, and research access by U.S. and other scholars may be severely limited. American overseas research centers, which are acknowledged and often assisted by host governments, are important instrumentalities for the maintenance of research access. The Smithsonian's own scholars and scientists benefit directly from these relationships as do their colleagues in research all over the United States.

The basic substantive authority for the Smithsonian to assist in supporting the scholarly activities of the American overseas research centers is the Institution's charter, "for the increase and and diffusion of knowledge among men" (20 U.S.C. Sec 41). Under this general authority, the centers in Israel, Egypt and India have received support through the Smithsonian in the past. (7 U.S.C. Sec. 1704 provides the special access necessary to use restricted foreign currencies for this pupose.)

Question: You state that many major American universities contribute to these centers. How much Is currently Involved in such contributions? Is this amount expected to stay stable?

Answer: Each center receives support in the form of contributions by its parent institutions, In most cases universities, museums and other research organizations. In addition, the parent institutions provide enormous support in kind (to which we have not tried to assign a value) in the form of services of professors and administrators; office space; telephone, equipment and supplies; travel funds, etc. The total funding provided directly by members to all ten centers based on their most recent annual financial reports, is $475,000. We have every reason to believe this funding will remain stable.

Question: Are the centers still receiving other Federal grants, such as from USIA or NEH? How much?

Answer: Many of the centers from year to year receive grants from Federal agencies. In the most recent year reported by each of the centers, the total was $1,500,000 (exclusive of grants In "excess" foreign currencies now only available in India and Pakistan).

Question: Can you tell the Commltee how many of the centers would close if this new source of support Is not provided? With what impact?

Answer: It is not possible to predict precisely how many centers might close in the next year or two without this new source of stable funding. We consider three centers to be vulnerable to closing now, another within two years, and two others when the "excess" currencies are no longer available.

The Impact of the closing of any centers would fall most heavily on the American scholars whose work depends upon access to research resources in the host country. Without the Center's facilitation services, specialized libraries and knowledgeable staff, scholars would work much less efficiently and effectively; indeed, in some countries, a center's closing could close the government doors to the permissions essential for research and collecting, further reduce the U.S.. capacity to provide graduate students with proper field training, and could convey to host governments a lack of long-term U.S. commitment to scholarly relations with their countries.

Question: What is the basis for the estimate of $2,000,000? Do you have information as to how much of the centers' funding goes to administrative overhead?

Answer: The estimate was reached by analysis, for each center, of a number of factors, primarily relating to: the scale of their existing activity; the needs of the scholarly constituency; the likely availability of funding to permit sustained support of core operations; and the minimum amount needed to maintain an effective activity. Target amounts were arrived at for each center, all of which together total approximately $2,000,000. Should the appropriation reque^ be granted, each center will be required to submit a justified proposal for the funding it requests.

We estimate administrative overhead at 20 percent, taking administrative

overhead to represent the expenses in the United States of managing the centers

abroad, including program support such as arranging for the selection of fellows.

Question: How many of the centers have fellowship programs? At what cost?

Answer: Eight of the centers sponsor fellowship programs. The total cost to support these scholars is $2,150,000 from all sources, including grants from appropriated funds (Including "excess" foreign currencies), grants from private sources and center unrestricted funds.

New Smithsonian Fellowship Programs

Question: Three new fellowship programs have been started in 1985 with nonappropriated funds: one for Native American studies; a Masters program in conservation work; and a cooperative effort with Howard University. Please describe what is involved in these programs.

Answer: The Native American Fellowship Program is a special program for North American Indians, Inuit, Aleut, Canadian Natives, Alaskan Natives and Native Hawaiians. It provides opportunities for them to pursue research utilizing Smithsonian collections relating to their cultures which better enables them to interpret and maintain collections in their native museums and archives. A budget of $50,000 is utilized to bring these people to the Smithsonian for internships of two weeks to three months; and visiting research appointments for up to six months.

A sum of $90,000 allocated from Trust funds will be spent over the period from July 1985 to July 1987 to finance a limited number of fellowships and internships for graduates and advanced students of established Masters level degree granting conservation training programs in the United States and elsewhere. The major part of these funds, about $70,000, will be applied

toward "advanced post graduate Internships". These fellowships allow a graduate from a training program to spend a period of two years at the Conservation Analytical Laboratory (CAL), to engage in research projects aimed at the development and improvement of conservation treatment technology. CAL, with its combination of expert conservators and specialized conservation scientists, is an exceptionally appropriate host organization for this type of fellowship.

A $25,000 allotment to the Office of Fellowships and Grants for FY 1985 established a two year pilot cooperative program with Howard University for internship placements at the Smithsonian Institution. These students at the undergraduate and graduate level will be drawn from the history department and placed at various bureaus throught the Institution.

Collections Management/Inventory Program

Question: The request for the Collections Management/Inventory Program is $1,147,000, an increase of $289,000. Included is $65,000 to continue the inventory proces at the Archives of American Art. Why won't base resources continue to be available for this effort? How much is being spent in FY 1985?

Answer: In FY 1985, the Archives of American Art is devoting $179,500 (including $64,000 of Trust funds) to maintaining the inventory records as new collections arrive. The amount requested in FY 1986 will be utilized to refine the batch level inventory data accumulated during the initial base line inventory. A like amount is expected to be requested in FY 1987 to complete the process. Refinement of this information to the individual item level is required for reasons of accountability and accessibility.

Question: $185,000 is requested for the Museums of Natural History and American History, to allow the use of new technologies for collections management and inventory. Why aren't base funds available for this purpose, now that the major inventory effort is complete? Explain how your base resources for these museums will be used in FY 1986.

Answer: Both of these museums are faced with a two-fold task with respect to the collections management/inventory process: 1) maintenance of data on a current basis and 2) refinement of some of the inventory data accumulated during the inventory effort which ended in 1983. Completion of the base line inventory in 1983 provided the Institution with a vast quantity of important information. However, because of the volume of the collections involved and the amount of time allotted for the completion of the inventory survey, it was necessary to inventory some of the collections in batches of related materials rather than on an Item-by-item basis. The full potential of base line inventory data will not be realized until many of these batch inventories have been refined to provide improved documentation for large numbers of important and valuable Individual items within those particular collections. Base resources of the two museums are inadequate to support this important part of their collections management program while at the same time maintaining and updating all collections management information required to account for collections and make them accessible for research and related purposes.

In FY 1986, the National Museum of Natural History will apply $860,000 of its base resources for maintenance of collections management/Inventory work. Of this amount, approximately $610,000 represents personnel costs associated with maintenance of the records, with the remainder of the amount applied primarily to computer usage costs. The National Museum of American History will

use about $745,000 of base resources to support its collections management/ inventory maintenance program, of which about $600,000 will be needed for personnel costs and the remainder for computer and central catalogue operations.

With the increases sought for the Collections Management/Inventory Program, the National Museum of American History will continue refinement of inventory data, in its major curatorial departments, and will also acquire additional terminals to facilitate input of collections management data from each of its operating museum divisions. The National Museum of Natural History will refine records in several departments and will utilize bar code systems to accelerate the refinement process. Without these increases, this important inventory refinement work will not be possible nor will the new technologies be employed. It is expected that these additional funds will be required through the end of the decade.

Question: How many terminals will be acquired in FY 1986? At what cost?

Answer: The National Museum of American History expects to acquire approximately 20 additional terminals and 2 printers at a cost of $65,000, with funds from the Collections Management/Inventory Program. The National Museum of Natural History does not plan to acquire any terminals in FY 1986 from funds In this appropriation.

Question: What were the combined computer usage costs for these two museums in FY 1984, 1983, 1982, and 1981?

Answer: Combined total computer usage costs for the National Museum of Natural History and the National Museum of American History were as follows: FY 1984 - $503,000; FY 1983 - $385,000; FY 1982 - $230,000; FY 1981 - $199,000.

Note: The above combined computer usage costs exclude personnel but cover activities other than Just collections inventory. If inventory costs alone are desired, again excluding personnel, the answer would be as follows: FY 1984 - $212,000; FY 1983 - $147,000; FY 1982 - $125,000; FY 1981 - $105,000.

Museum Support Center

Question: The request for the Museum Support Center is $5,060,000, an increase of $309,000. The move of "wet" collections began in December. What were the structural shortcomings which the contractor modified last fall? Have any problems developed since the move began?

Answer: In the Initial Installation of the storage equipment, the contractor failed to comply with the seismic criteria included in the contract documents. This failure was not discovered until the belated structural calculations were submitted by the contractor. The contractor was then required to install corrective bracing at no additional expense to the Smithsonian. No additional problems have developed since the move began.

Question: Why is an increase of $30,000 (to a total of $750,000) required in FY 1986 to continue preparing for the move?

Answer: During FY 1986, it will be necessary to continue intensive activities required to prepare the large volume of collections to be relocated to the Museum Support Center (MSC). These preparations involve stabilizing, cleaning and packing the collections and organizing them to facilitate their actual

transportation to the MSC, placing them In designated storage compartments. Before the end of FY 1986, major portions of the MSC storage pods will be completed and equipped to receive these collections. In order to avoid any slow down In the move process, the additional funds are requested to assure that adequate quantities of materials and supplies needed for the preparation of the collections are on hand throughout the fiscal year.

Question: Is the automated data system for inventory control already in place? If so, how are you paying for supplies and service contracts, for which $42,000 Is requested in FY 1986?

Answer: The automated data system now in place at the Museum Support Center is used to support several important functions. Initially, the heaviest use Involves documenting the relocation of the "initial move" collections being transferred from the Mall museums to the MSC; subsequently, the system will document and provide records on the movement of all collections entering or leaving the MSC. In addition, the system is capable of processing data programs needed to support the analytical and research efforts of the scientific staff stationed at the MSC.

To date, the needed services and supplies have been paid for from the base resources of the Office of the Director of the MSC. However, in FY 1986 and for several years thereafter, the volume of objects being moved to the MSC will Increase dramatically, requiring heavier use of the system. In addition, as collections are moved, scientists will work more Intensively in laboratories at the MSC and will require the support the automated system can provide for their research programs. To meet existing and anticipated demands, the capacity of the system has been enlarged. These greater uses of the automated system will entail additional maintenance service as well as additional supplies of such materials as tapes, discs, and paper for printouts.

Institution-Wide Coordination of Automation Planning

Question: The request for Administration Is $12,285,000, an Increase of $900,000. Included under this account is the Office of Information Resource Management (OIRM). Does OIRM have approval authority over all data processing related equipment and software acquisitions throughout the Institution, or is its role more advisory? If OIRM does not have approval authority, who does?

Answer: OIRM has approval authority for data processing and related equipment and major software acquisitions for all SI units except the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory. Our Office of Supply Services will not process purchases or contracts until OIRM has signed off. This approval authority also extends to data communications devices, including local area networks, modems, etc., as well as to EDP software development contracts/services.

OIRM does not attempt to approve acquisition of commercially available microcomputer software. However, OIRM does evaluate that marketplace, make recommendations to the SI, and support a limited number of the best software for Institutional use.

Approval authority at the Astrophysical Observatory is by the Director with the advice of a Computer Technical Advisory Committee.

Question: What is OIRM's staffing by position classification? Answer: The following shows OIRM's staff as of May 16, 1985:

Federal Staff :

No of Staff Title

1 Director

2 Assistant Director Clerk-Typist Computer Programmer/ Systems Analyst Management Analyst Mathematician Computer Technician Administrative Officer Administrative Assistant

Trust Fund Staff

1 Supervisor

2 Supervisor Operator 5 Computer Operator

3 Computer Assistant

1 Electronic Technician

2 Part-time Computer Operator

Question: Describe the functions of your information center. On what basis do you believe it has been a success, as you state?

Answer: The Information Resource Center (IRC) program develops SI staff knowledge and capabilities to use the modern information technologies which the Smithsonian is acquiring. The major IRC goal is to Increase self-sufficiency, improve staff productivity, and ensure that SI staff have the training to utilize Smithsonian information resources.

The IRC presently performs the following functions, although some of them exist only in very limited form because of resource limitations: training courses In the use of hardware and software; referral service for user self-help groups; call in help desk for hardware and software assistance; drop in center for unscheduled assistance; publication of OIRM Newsletter ; software evaluation; technical information library; user monitoring and feedback to OIRM; identification of needs for enhancement/modification of standard software packages; hardware/software demonstrations; computer based Instruction where commercially available; and development of courses for managers of Information technology, tailored to Smithsonian needs.

The best measure of the information center success has been the good reviews Its services have received from SI staff, and requests for expansion of Its presently limited services.

Quantitatively, statistics Indicate an increasing level of usage of information center training and drop in assistance services. The center Itself has only eight workstations, which makes the following statistics more meaningful. In the first five months of FY 1985, a total of 166 persons attended software package demonstrations which included word processing, communications, database, spreadsheet, and some specialized packages demonstrated by vendors on SI unit request. During those same five months, some 1A4 persons attended training classes in the IRC, Including introduction to microcomputers; database, spreadsheets, and integrated packages. The IRC answers approximately 150 help telephone calls per month.

Question: What role does OIRM play in disseminating information, systems, etc., to the bureaus having similar requirements to avoid the "reinvention of the wheel" syndrome?

Answer: OIRM has guided two major system development projects with the specific objective of providing solutions to generic problems and thus avoiding the "reinvention of the wheel" syndrome.

1. The Smithsonian Institution Bibliographic System (SIBIS) , which is now up and running, has been extended in its use beyond the Smithsonian Libraries to archives, some museum collections, and Individual bibliographic applications. Some of these applications, for example, the Archives of American Art and the Archival Center of the American History Museum, would have been developing their own systems had OIRM not generalized the capabilities of SIBIS beyond traditional library functions.

2. The Collections Information System (CIS), the first part of which has been advertised for competitive selection of the initial software, will be implemented for database searching of specimen collections in FY 1986. A second component of the system, supporting registration and other collections management activities throughout all museums, is projected to go out as a request for proposal early in FY 1986. Beginning with an intensive requirements analysis two years ago, the major thrust of this development (Including all organization units that have collections) has been to establish Institutional requirements, construct a viable system concept, and then develop applications generically to meet cross-bureau requirements. This approach to CIS will minimize duplicative systems development in the specimen collections area.

These two efforts address major areas of data processing at the Institution. The management information area (including financial management, personnel management, supply management, etc., but excluding specimen collections management encompassed by CIS) has not been similarly well addressed yet, but will receive attention in FY 1986-FY 1988.

Question: Can you provide examples of how computer equipment to be purchased by the various museums or offices will be compatible with the equipment purchased by OIRM?

Answer: The Institulon has established, under OIRM leadership, several technical standards. Most pertinent to this question Is the Institutional work station standard. That standard is the IBM (personal computer (as a technical

standard, not as a brand name requirement). All of the workstations purchased with bureau or OIRM funds will meet that standard; it will comprise either IBM personal computers, or Wang and DEC equipment capable of emulating the IBM PC.

OIRM has gone to some length to provide technical integration for workstations. On the SIBIS, for example, access to the system for information retrieval can be accomplished by any ASCII standard terminal. For building databases, however, more intelligence is required of the workstation; as part of the contract, the Smithsonian required that the vendor provide software for the IBM PC to enable it to utilize the full capability of the SIBIS (the contractor had to develop software for that pupose). The present phase of CIS development currently under competitive procurement will provide download/upload capabilities between the mainframe and the Institutional work station; we hope that the RFP responses will provide software which will run on the Institutional workstation as well as on the mainframe.

Some computer systems do require special terminals, notably the Nixdorf minicomputer systems which have been in operation for some years. These devices are being phased out as they near the end of their life cycle.

OIRM maintains a technical architecture for SI and considers each system development project in that context. Everything that needs to fit together does not do so yet, but we are working on it.

Question: Won't you run into the situation of having microcomputers and terminals dedicated to specific bureau systems while also having separate workstations dedicated to the bibliographic and collections information systems?

Answer: Most of this question has been answered with regard to the previous one. We do have an IBM PC workstation standard which assures compatibility of hardware for bureau-specific systems (mostly office automation) and for the bibliographic and collections information systems.

An office automation application involving one or more IBM PC's obviously adheres to the standard. Office automation workstations on the American History WANG system, for example, can access the mainframe via the WANG processor; or can access the mainframe or the bibliographic system as an IBM PC by addition of a special board. Whether to add the board would be determined based on the use of the workstation.

While issues of compatibility have been addressed, all workstations will not be identical. Workstations used for heavy wordprocessing and access to a shared office automation processor will differ In hardware and software from a workstation used entirely to access the bibliographic system. In some cases where a workstation is entirely dedicated to one function (example, book cataloguing), a specialized device might be installed which will serve that function better than the generalized workstation but does not have the capability of being Integrated with other systems.

Funds are being requested according to the functional application of the workstations.

Development of Institution-Wide Software Systems

Question: Regarding the requested increase of $200,000 for development of Institution-wide automation, describe 1) the requirements analysis, and 2) the

cost-benefit studies undertaken for the purchase of management Information software, and the establishment of a Local Area Network.

Answer: Institutional management Information systems which have been developed over the course of the past seventeen years, are currently written in COBOL and require the vast majority of all SI programmer resources for their maintenance. With this present software, there Is, for all practical purposes, no staff time to develop new applications. A systematic redesign and development of these systems using modern, commercially available database management systems Is planned, based on our analysis of present problems, our knowledge of modern software capabilities, and several specialized studies by contractors over the past two years.

Based on our present situation and the overwhelming trend toward use of commercially available software generally, and database management systems (DBMS) in particular, we feel confident that our analysis supports the request for funds; functional attributes of a DBMS for Smithsonian puposes were evaluated during the winter of 1974. If funds are received, we will proceed to formulate technical specifications and competitively procure the software in the same manner in which we have previously acquired the bibliographic system (hardware and software), and the Collections Information System (software only).

Local area networks (LANS) are one of the fastest developing and least certain areas of information technologies. The Smithsonian has been assessing its requirements since 1983, and our original requirements analysis continues to provide a firm basis for planning. LAN technology has been changing throughout that period, and the Smithsonian has been monitoring the technology, working out requirements in more detail in specialized areas, and getting experience with a test LAN implemented as part of the bibliographic system. OIRM views LAN integration as critical for maximum development of the Institution's information resources, and has held up acquisitions for new operational systems since 1983. Throughout this period, SI has employed one of the leading data communications consultants to assist in planning for Integrated voice, data, and image transmissions, and has involved a number of SI program and administrative offices.

During the remainder of FY 1985, intensive planning for an Institutional LAN will lead to a selection of a vendor. Several Implementations are planned immediately, with the system being expanded over the years. We anticipate that the selected vendor will provide an open architecture, providing the best insurance available against the volatility of the LAN marketplace.

Question: Describe the planing process you use to determine information resource needs, set priorities among them, and apply resources to them.

Answer: The Smithsonian focuses its planning efforts around the budget cycle. Including the five year forward plan. In that context, SI program and support units Identify their needs. Needs for information resources are initiated by these units and are examined and priorities assigned in competition with other needs of the Institution. In this sense, planning for information resources is very similar to other program planning.

However, Institutional management recognizes that planning for information resources requires data and technology-related coordination to a greater degree than most other program areas. Primarily for this reason, OIRM was established In 1982.

Beginning with requested new resources for Information technologies at that time, OIRM has worked with bureaus and SI management to ensure that requirements have been established; that generalized solutions are attempted wherever possible; that questions of cross-bureau data and technical Integrity are addressed; and that priority Issues are surfaced for management decisions. OIRM has worked with bureaus more effectively in the budget process each year, as Is evidenced by an Increasing percentage of bureau submissions which fit within the Institutional Information resource management direction.

Beginning in FY 1985, OIRM has asked several major units to do more formal information resource planning, including a five year projection of their needs. Beginning in FY 1986, these formal EDP plans will become the foundation of OIRM planning, a much more proactive methodology than reliance on the budget process.

Proprietary Security System

Question: The request for the Office of Protection Services is $18,896,000, an Increase of $1,600,000. Please explain why $700,000 will be available from proprietary security systems to reapply to other needs In FY 1986. How does this amount relate to the $440,000 and $275,000 discussed in the justification (p.195)? Where In the restoration and renovation account is the $275,000 coming from?

Answer: An amount of $700,000 was provided in FY 1984 and FY 1985 to accelerate the Installation of the proprietary security system. This additional funding will no longer be required In FY 1986, as installation will be completed using $440,000 permanently available in the Salaries and Expenses base in FY 1986 and FY 1987, and $275,000 provided in the Restoration and Renovation account in FY 1986. The amount of $275,000 for the Proprietary Alarm System is requested in the R & R category - Access for the Disabled, Safety and Security, and Correction of Hazardous Conditions (page 233 of the FY 1986 Budget Justification).

Funding Shortage for Guard Staffing

Question: An Increase of $669,000 is requested for a salaries and benefit base shortage. How many guard positions are currently filled, and how many vacancies exist?

Answer: Currently there are 493 guard positions filled with 32 vacancies. These positions have been and will remain vacant throughout FY 1985 because of the base deficiency.

Question: How many exhibition galleries have been closed as a result?

Answer: With the current guard shortage, we have stretched the current guard level as far as It will go. Unexpected absences and large crowds cause us to selectively close galleries for short periods of time, then reopen them and close others. There are 40 galleries throughout the Smithsonian that are affected this way.

Question: What reprogrammings have you made to cover this shortage? From what sources?

Answer: Other object funds have been redirected within the Office of Protection Services to cover the shortage. The most significant item deferred as a result is a portion of the security equipment upgrade program.

Question: Provide a breakdown of the $669,000 by object classification.

Answer: An amount of $603,000 is sought In object class 11 (salaries) and $66,000 In object class 12 (benefits).

Question: $183,000 Is requested for supplies, services and equipment. When Congress added funds for 65 additional guard positions In 1984 and 1985, what amounts were provided? Provide a breakdown of these funds by object classification.

Answer: In FY 1984, Congress added 48 guard positions and $720,000, and 17 guard positions and $250,000 In FY 1985; of the $970,000 total, $875,000 was provided In object class 11 (salaries) and $95,000 In object class 12 (benefits).

Occupational Health Testing Program

Question: What substances will you be asking the Independent laboratory you Intend to contract with (for which $85,000 is requested) to test for? In how many of your facilities?

Answer: The substances to be tested for are: asbestos, paints, pesticides, proprietary formulations, biological agents, and chemical compounds numbering in the thousands. The testing for these hazardous substances would take place in virtually all of our facilities.

MSC Security Costs

Question: $224,000 is requested for nine additional workyears at the Museum Support Center. What is the basis for the $43,000 request for related support costs (estimated at $1,500 per guard earlier in the justification)?

Answer: The normal equipping of 9 guard positions will be $13,500. Additionally, funds are required for satellite radio receivers ($25,000) to ensure radio communications within the building because of the reinforced concrete structure and for the increased cost for laundry, dry cleaning and alterations ($4,500).

Question: Does this represent full-year costs?

Answer: The $224,000 requested represents full-year costs. Staff is required on-board on October 1, 1985 in order to provide security for activities and collections in place at the facility.

Quadrangle Security Costs

Question: $308,000 and 12 workyears are requested for Quadrangle security. Is 33 the total security staffing expected for the Quadrangle?

Answer: The total staffing requirement for the Quadrangle is 69. The remaining workyears and dollars will be requested in FY 1987 and FY 1988.

Question: What Is the basis for the $75,000 for supplies, uniforms and equipment?

Answer: The normal equipping of 33 guard positions will be $50,000 and funds will be required for satellite radio receivers ($20,000) to ensure radio

connaunlcatlons within the building because of the reinforced concrete structure. The additional $5,000 will be for office supplies and materials. None of these Items are Included In the Quadrangle construction budget.

Funding Shortage In the Office of Plant Services

Question: The request for the Office of Plant Services Is $34,099,000, an Increase of $4,186,000. Last March, the Smithsonian submitted a reprogrammlng request. Including $360,000 for OPlantS supplies, equipment and services, which was withdrawn when the Smithsonian agreed the funds were not required. The 1984 reprogrammlng report submitted to the Committee in February indicated the Smithsonian did reprogramm Internally $313,000 for this same purpose. Why were these funds reprogrammed, after withdrawal of the original reprogrammlng request (and denial of a subsequent related request)?

Answer: The Smithsonian reprogrammed in FY 1984 an amount of $313 thousand to the Office of Plant Services not to fund salary costs as the second reprogrammlng request stated but to provide funds for the purchase of essential supplies used dally to maintain the Instultutlon's physical plant. As explained on pages 200-201 of the Institution's FY 1986 budget request, the Office of Plant Services has a significant base shortage in supplies. Moreover, due to implementation of hiring restrictions an amount of $124,000 was actually reprogrammed out of the Salaries and Benefits account in FY 1984.

Question: Why hasn't the $257,000 shortfall in base funds for supplies which existed in FY 1981 been Identified before?

Answer: This amount has been Included in prior year budget justifications to the Office of Management and Budget. However, as a result of QMB cuts, OPlantS has not been allowed to seek full funding for supplies from Congress. Further, due to 0MB allowances, OPlantS has never fully recovered from the results of the four percent budget reduction suffered in FY 1982 which reduced base funds available for essential supplies by some $744 thousand.

Question: Why are you now identifying additional amounts required due to "inflation experienced over and above amounts provided" (p.201)?

Answer: Annual costs for oil based and wood products used extensively by OPlantS in performing day-to-day physical plant maintenance and repair tasks has, over the years, exceeded QMB allowances for inflationary cost Increases. The cumulative effect of this funding deficiency, over the years, has eroded OPlantS' base funds available for procuring basic supplies to the extent that core programs including preventive maintenance cannot now be performed at acceptable levels. If not addressed, this situation likely will result in more costly building repairs, increased instances of equipment failure and subsequent early replacement.

Question: How many vacancies currently exist In the Qffic^ of Plant services?

Answer: Presently, the Office of Plant Services has 337 full-time permanent employees on-board against an FTP celling of 379 leaving a balance of 42 positions vacant. However, 14 positions are vacant due to hiring limitations imposed in FY 1985 for the purpose of developing internal savings which, together with monies from other Institutional sources, may be applied to OPlantS' base deficiency in FY 1985 of $759 thousand. OPlantS Is recruiting for

the remaining 28 positions many of which represent critical utility system repair/operator, maintenance mechanic, and electrician positions.

Office of Plant Services Support for the Quadrangle

Question: How many total Plant Services positions are planned for the Quadrangle?

Answer: A total complement of 15 positions are deemed necessary at this time to operate, maintain and repair the complex mechanical, electrical, heating, ventilating and air conditioning systems and perform other facilities services tasks In support of organizations to be located In the Quadrangle. These consist of 11 maintenance mechanics, three trade and craft mechanics and one mall clerk. Once the Quadrangle Is fully operational, staffing needs will be reassessed based on actual facilities support services performed.

Special Foreign Currency Program

Question: Included in the FY 1986 request is $1,020,000, the final increment of the U.S. contribution to the effort to restore the city of Moenjodaro, Pakistan. Since the United States has withdrawn from UNESCO, the funds will no longer go through that organization. What other means have you determined to use to make the funds available for this effort?

Answer: The final contribution to the Moenjodaro effort will be transferred directly to the Government of Pakistan through the U.S. Embassy In Islamabad. The Director, Office of Communications and UNESCO Afairs, Bureau of International Organization Affairs, Department of State, has stated no objection to the making of the contribution and has cleared the concept of a transfer of the gift to the Government of Pakistan, bypassing the UNESCO organization.

Question: How will the balance of the funds requested ($1,480,000) be used?

Answer: An appropriation of $1,480,000 in excess currencies is being sought by the Smithsonian to continue a program of grants to United States universities, museums, and other institutions of higher learning, including the Smithsonian Itself, primarily for research and advanced professional training in the fields of archeology, anthropology, and related disciplines; systematic and environmental biology; astronomy and astrophysics and earth sciences; and museum professional programs. With the loss of the excess Indian rupee in FY 1985, grant funds will be made available in FY 1986 in Pakistan, Burma, Guinea, and Poland.

Construction and Improvements - National Zoological Park

Question: What is the status of the revised Master Plan for the Zoo, scheduled to be developed in FY 1985?

Answer: The revised Master Plan design was awarded to the firm of Cooper-Leclcy and is 10 percent complete. We anticipate an April 1986 completion.

Question: $3,300,000 is requested for construction of an animal health and pathology building. How much do you anticipate will be required In FY 1987 for the equipment for this facility.

Answer: An amount of $327,010 will be required In FY 1987 for the equipment for this facility as listed below.

New Equipment for Hospital Facilities

Acquisition

Description Cost

Large Animal Surgical Table (1) $ 7,000

Small Animal Operating Table (2) 2,000

Autoclave 33,000

Surgical Lights (1) 15,000

Surgical Instruments 20,000

Ohio Air Vac Transport Incubator 5 ,000 Orthopedic Equipment (bone plates, bone screws, taps

drills, wrenches, retractors and clays) 5,000

Dental Cart (2) 9,000

Sartorius Balance 8,000

BP Monitor, and recorder (1) 5,000

Ohio Medical EKG monitor (1) 7,000

Laparcscope Equipment 10,000

X-Ray Machine - 360 V Generating Unit 20,000

Ultra Sound 60,000

Dental X-Ray Unit (1) 6,000

Cabinets, metal 20,000

Mettler Balance (1) 7.000

Scale, Mettler Electronic Balance (2) 8,000

IMED Infusion Pump (3) 7,000

Capture Equipment 3,500

Ultra Law Freezer 5,500

Refrigerators (3) 2,000

Food Preparation Table 2,000

Computer 12,000

Primate Transport Squeeze Cage 1,300

Copy Machine 7,700

1 Dual-viewing microscope, American Optical 4,000 3 American Optical Microscopes with blue filters

polarizing lenses, micrometers and camera

adapters (series 100) @ $2,300 6,900

Camera equipment for microscope 3,000

2 Water bath CMS Equltherm 11x10x5 in. @ $700 1,400

3 Lab timers, electric. Universal, 20 min @ $70 210 Spectrophotometer 4,000 Mettler balance 3,500 Pan Balance 200 Microhematocrlt centrifuge lEC 800 Coulter Counter ZM 10,000 Floor centrifuge 5,000

$327,010

Question: Why has the total estimate required for this facility increased to $6.7 million, from $4.3 million last year?

Answer: The estimated cost for this facility is $3,300,000. The $6.7 million is the estimate for the following: veterinary hospital ($3,300,000

- FY 1986), renovation of the existing health and research facility ($3,000,000

- FY 1987), and for design ($400,000 - FY 1985).

Question: What Is the status of the design for this new facility?

Answer: The design contract has been awarded to VVKR, Inc. and has just started.

Question: What will the old facility be used for? Will it require renovations?

Answer: The old hospital facility will be used for a research complex programmed for renovation ($3,000,000) in FY 1987.

Question: $1,200,000 Is requested for renovations and repairs at Rock Creek. What have been your actual expenditures for general repairs for the last three years? How much of these have actually been emergency repairs?

Answer: FY 1982 — $ 500,000 FY 1983 — $1,000,000 FY 1984 — $1,000,000 Less than 10 percent has been used for emergency repairs.

Question: Last year, $300,000 was requested to replace seal and polar bear filter systems. This year, $300,000 is requested for seal filter system renovation. What is the relationship between these two projects?

Answer: The sea lion filter system renovation was funded in FY 1984 and the renovation was completed in FY 1985. The filter system renovation requested for in FY 1986 is for the grey seals. The systems are located in Beaver Valley, but are separated due to the species' different environmental requirements.

Restoration and Renovation of Buildings

Question: The five-year plan Identifies $133.5 million of required projects between FY 1986 and FY 1990. Since this averages out to $27 million a year, do you anticipate significantly larger requests in succeeding years?

Answer: In the event that the $133.5 million is made available through FY 1990, it is reasonable to expect that the average annual requirement in the R & R account would be below the $27 million level without considering the possible effects of inflation. This is because a portion of the projects Included in the $133.5 million are required in order to catch up with repair and restoration requirements previously deferred, and most of these requirements will be met by FY 1990.

Question: How was the 21 reduction applied In this account?

Answer: The 2X reduction, which amounted to $275,000 of the appropriation of $13.75 million, was applied as follows:

Item $ Reduction

1. The FY 1985 continuing resolution mandated that we could not proceed with the Dulles

Master Plan until construction is authorized. 135,000

2. Carpeting has been Installed in the west court area of NMNH, precluding the immediate need

to replace the tiles. The west court addition

and west wing renovations are also under study

at this time. Therefore, the tiles will not

be rescheduled for repair for some time. 85,000

3. The FY 1985 budget included $75,000 for plumbing repairs (restroom renovations) in the AIB. Pending the recommendations of the space study, no work will be done at this time. Therefore,

$20,000 was retained solely for repairs. 55,000

Total Reduction in FY 1985 $275,000

Question: $100,000 is requested for emergency repairs. How much has been spent In this category the past three years?

Answer: In the past three years, we have obligated the following amounts for emergency repairs:

FY 1983 $282,000 FY 1984 $149,200 FY 1985 $ 58,600 (to date)

Total: $489,800

In addition, we have pending commitments of $13,600 leaving a balance of $28,600 which we plan to obligate in FY 1985.

R&R Fire Protection Projects

Question: Why has the total amount required for fire protection projects at the American Art/Portrait Gallery increased (last year, it was expected to re<niire only $120,000 in FY 1986; now $450,000 more is identified through 1988)?

Answer: Additional fire protection and life safety deficiencies identified through various building surveys lead to the increase in the funding level. To insure an acceptable level of safety consistent with current standards and technology, the following fire protection Improvements need to be Implemented:

Projects planned Included:

FY 1986 - Replace selected doors with 11/2 hour fire rated doors; upgrade construction of selected walls to accomplish one hour fire resistance and Improve exit signs.

FY 1987 - Provide sprinklers for the library and the mechanical rooms on the fourth floor.

FY 1988 - Partition the building Into fire zones.

The total funding required for FY 1986, FY 1987, and FY 1988 Is $450,000. This program Is targeted for completion In FY 1988.

Question: $1,060,000 is requested for access for the disabled, safety and security, and correction of hazardous conditions. Last year, $200,000 was requested to complete work on the Natural History building entrances. Now, $200,000 Is requested in FY 1986, with $280,000 more expected to be requested In FY 1987. Please explain the reason for the Increase in the costs of this project.

Answer: As part of a consultant study prepared in 1976, a number of projects associated with Improvements for access and visitor safety were examined. Some of the projects were completed, such as the handicapped ramps and automatic door openers In the north entrance, and additional exit doors In the south entrance. Other projects were deferred because of other priority requirements of the Museum. When work was resumed in FY 1985, and a reassessment was made of the work to be done, a number of factors were discovered which increased the cost. In particular, the provision of handicapped access to the Learning Center from the North foyer will require more extensive alterations than previously projected; and the cost of manufacturing and Installing safety guard rails at both sides of the south portico and monumental stairs to prevent visitors from falling into the driveway will be considerably more than originally planned.

Utilities Systems Repairs and Improvements

Question: Two similar Increases occur under the Utility category, for which a total of $1,745,000 is requested. At the American History building, total costs have increased from $3.7 million through 1989 to $4.8 million through 1990. For Cooper-Hewitt, the total has gone from $1.7 million through 1987 to $3.2 million through 1990. Can you explain why so many of these projects seem to increase on a yearly basis? How are the original estimates determined, and what occurs to then change them so significantly?

Answer: The Utility category reflects the projects selected for implementation based on a comprehensive A & E consultant study completed in 1982. Following the study, projects are selected based on condition of the equipment, disruption to the staff of the Bureau, and other related work in that area of the building. The number of projects and the associated funding requirements change as additional projects become known based on more detailed analysis, and are added to the utility category in the upcoming years. The renovation of the HVAC system Is expected to continue through FY 1992, with total costs for completion of several of the larger museums not reflected on the five-year planning chart in the budget submission.

Cooper-Hewitt Museum Renovation

Question: Why are the Cooper-Hewitt renovations needed, if the expansion project l8 planned in the near future?

Answer: At the time of preparation of the FY 1986 budget, the Smithsonian Board of Regents had not approved the Cooper-Hewitt new construction program. It is expected that the R & R projects likely to be affected by the new construction will be evaluated and deleted as required. This will have no effect on the FY 1986 request, however, as the two projects requested are required regardless of the future expansion plans. These renovations will continue to be needed at the Cooper-Hewitt, to bring the utility system in the Carnegie Mansion up to acceptable museum standards and to reduce the overall energy consumption, and to continue to make minor repairs and adjustments to the building.

Suitland Facility Renovation

Question: A total of $7,995,000 is requested for other projects. Included is $630,000 for the Suitland facility. Why not wait until the master plan is completed before proceeding with the renovation work ($500,000 of the request)?

Answer: The requirement to proceed with the renovation work while the master plan is under way is the result of the continuing need to provide weather-tight storage space for collections. In this case asbestos abatement, fire protection and roof repairs are among the necessary improvements to enable the space to be used in the timeframe required. It is anticipated that the buildings Involved will be required for collections storage for at least the next ten years.

Arts and Industries Building Renovation

Question: $600,000 is requested for the Arts and Industries building. Since a comprehensive space study of the building is now underway, why not postpone the requested work until it is complete?

Answer: Qf the $600,000 requested, $300,000 Is to be used for work associated with the facade restoration; this work requires moving personnel from present work areas to other locations for periods up to a year, as well as insuring that the space is suitable for reoccupancy when construction is complete. The balance of $300,000 is directly associated with the initial implementation of the space study. These funds will be used principally for design development once the study is complete In late 1985.

Question: What is involved In the construction of temporary work areas within the building, for which $300,000 is requested, while roof and facade repairs are continuing?

Answer: Funding is to be used for offices which must be relocated as the result of work associated with the exterior restoration phase scheduled for FY 1986,. This work Includes facade repairs, and complete window and roof replacement in the northeast quadrant of the A & I Building. As the roof is stripped off and the old windows removed and reinstalled to form a weathertight shell, personnel occupying space below and adjacent to the work are not able to remain in-sltu. The relocations require preparation of alternative quarters for the organizations affected, occasionally in other buildings, and refurbishment of the original space once exterior work in that area is complete.

Tropical Research Institute Facilities

Question: $1,430,000 is requested for the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute. Why wouldn't it be better to wait for completion of the master plan

for the Institute before proceeding with construction of the projects requested in FY 1986?

Answer: The projects requested in FY 1986 for STRI represent critical needs previously identified, and reinforced in the Phase I of the Master Plan. The safety/health requirements on Barro Colorado Island coupled with increased usage by scientists necessitates a new conference-dining facility. The two dormitory projects are necessary due to increased long-term scientific visitation, and the loss of low rental housing previously available, due to the reversion of housing units to Panama, under the terms of the Canal Treaties.

Question: $665,000 Is included for a conference-dining facility at Barro Colorado Island. Explain why a facility is needed to provide 240 meals a day. How many personnel are on site, on average?

Answer: The Increased usage of Barro Colorado Island by permanent staff scientists, support staff, visiting scientists, and students necessitates the preparation of 240 meals a day. The Island location, 1 hour and 30 minutes each way by train and boat, makes it impossible for individuals to take meals off-site. On the average, 80 individuals are on-site each day. (35 scientists resident; 2-10 day visitors; 406 forest guards; 10-15 technicians; 20-40 workers - maintenance, construction, etc.)

Question: How often would the conference room (for lectures, symposia, and conferences) be needed? How often are such functions held? Where are they held now?

Answer: The new conference room would be used two or three times a day for Informal meetings, and three to four times a week for formal seminars. At present, such functions are held in the middle of the dining hall, disrupting meal preparations or in laboratory space Interrupting research activities.

Question: Funds are requested for two dormitories at Naos Island ($415,000) and Gamboa ($220,000). Last year, $895,000 was requested for a dormitory for 60 people. How many personnel will you be able to accommodate if these two additional dormitories are provided? Qn what basis is this amount of space required?

Answer: The two dormitories will serve 36 persons. The space requirements were calculated on present visiting scientists' demand.

Question: Do visiting personnel pay any rent for these quarters? If so, what is done with the money?

Answer: Yes, the monies are put in a special account to fund maintenance and utilities requirements, and to subsidize needs of students who cannot pay full housing costs.

Question: In Januaty, the Smithsonian announced it had received a gift of $4 million from the estate of Earl S. Tupper, to build a Research and Conference Center at STRI. The total project cost was reported at $4.5 million. Where Is the balance of $0.5 million to come from?

Answer: Total cost for the project is $7.9 million, $4 million from the Tupper Gift, and $3.9 miHion expected to be sought from federal sources. The latter cost includes interior finishings, furnishings and general laboratory equipment.

Question: What additional operating expenses are expected to result when the project is complete?

Answer: $197,000 is the anticipated additional operational cost per annum for the new facility (utilities, $185,000; maintenance supplies, $12,000).

Question: Will this project replace any planned Federal construction?

Answer: The Research and Conference Center at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute Tivoli site will be built using the $4 million Tupper gift, and $3.9 million in Federal funds to be requested in FY 1987. The original plan, for which authorization was sought as part of the Science Package in 1984, was to build two facilities at Tivoli using Federal funding; the terrestrial laboratory in FY 1986 at a cost of $6 million, and a conference center in FY 1989 at a cost of $1.5 million. The Tupper gift will allow the Federal burden to be reduced from $7.5 million to $3.9 million.

QOESTIONS SUBMITTED BY CONGRESSMAN REGULA

Office of Museum Programs

Question: Could you describe the services of your Office of Museum Programs? How does this compare with the IMS program?

Answer: Services provided by the Office of Museum Programs include the presentations of workshops and seminars, production of instructional audio-visual programs, and organization of educational activities for visiting interns and museum professionals from the United States and abroad. All of these services relate to museum operational techniques and practices rather than through the disciplinary subjects represented by museum collections (art, history, natural history, etc.). Workshops, for example, deal with such matters as the principles of collections management, registration procedures, museum lighting, preparation of labels, and so on. These services make it possible to respond in an organized and coordinated manner to the heavy volume of requests constantly received by the Smithsonian museums and from museum professionals seeking guidance and assistance. The Office of Museum Programs draws on the personnel and experience of all Smithsonian departments in the preparation and presentation of its workshops and other programs.

Also associated with the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Museum Programs Is the National Museum Act. The National Museum Act conducts a small grant program which provides limited stipend support, on a competitive basis, for persons engaged in graduate level museum and conservation training programs offered by qualified academic Institutions and conservation centers. The Act also provides support for a few research projects on conservation problems and on new or Innovative techniques for dealing with them.

Neither the services of the Office of Museum Programs nor the support provided by the National Museum Act duplicate in any way the IMS program which provides grants to museums for operational support and for earring out special projects needed to Improve their individual operations.

Space Rental at the Navy Yard

Question: Your budget justification (p.16) mentions that it had been anticipated that space leased for the Oceanographic Sorting Center at the Navy Yard

Annex would not be required after the Sorting Center's move to the Museum Support Center. According to your Justification the Institution has Identified a number of potential uses for this space. What are these uses? How much will this space cost? Is this a critical use or just something you would Ideally like to have?

Answer: As noted In an earlier answer. It will not be possible to complete the move of the Sorting Center until later In this fiscal year. Once vacated, however, we feel that this space will continue to be a valuable resource given Its convenient location to the Mall, size, relatively low cost, and likely continued availability. A portion of the freed space Is now serving as a mock-up or test galley for exhibitions that will go Into the Quadrangle. The space can be very useful for storage of equipment or materials; and, our present lease for space on North Capitol Street will expire In a few years. That space is becoming Increasingly costly as the North Capitol Street corridor becomes more attractve for development. We need to find less costly long-term space than that at North Capitol. The space is estimated to cost about $317,000 in FY 1986 for 40,000 square feet or about $8 a square foot. Retention of this space is Important to the Institution.

Hospital Facilities at the National Zoo

Question: Getting back to the hospital at the Zoo, what is the size of the existing hospital facility? I notice from your five year prospectus, you plan another $3 million in FY 1987 to renovate the existing facility into a research facility. You also received $400,000 I believe last year for this facility. This is becoming a very expensive undertaking. Are both building a new hospital and renovation of the existing facility essential?

Answer: The size of the existing' hospital facility is 3 ,400 square feet. We cannot remodel the existing hospital and at the same time keep it in operation. Loglstlcally, we must build the new hospital first and then refurbish the vacated space for research purposes. We have urgent needs for modern research space since staff and students presently occupy oflces in Holt House constructed In the last century. Climate control rooms in the research building built in 1969 are totally unsatisfactory. The National Zoo leads the country in the quality of its research, but cannot continue to do so without much-needed refurbishment and modernization of facilities that are presently unsatisfactory for the health and welfare of both staff and animals. The building of a new hospital and the renovation of the existing facility are both essential in supporting the veterinary and research functions at the National Zoo.

Question: What was the $400,000 in FY 1985 for?

Answer: The $400,000 funded in FY 1985 was for the design of the renovation of the health and research facilities at the National Zoo.

Queatioa: On your construction and renovation projects, do you compete these contracts or Is a lot of the work done In-house?

Answer: Approximately 90 percent of the construction and renovation projects are done by contract, using the competitive bidding procurement process.

Aquatic Habitat Facility at the National Zoo

Question: I also notice in your five year prospectus you plan to request $12 million in FY 1987 for an aquatic habitat. Is this an aquarium? Isn't

there an excellent aquarium In Baltimore? Should we be building a similar facility 80 nearby?

Answer: Design on the National Zoo's aquatic habitat started In 1980, and further design work was funded In FY 1985.

Unlike the aquarium In Baltimore, the proposed aquatic habitat facility will Include not only fishes, but the full range of aquatic animals. These will Include aquatic mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians. Another essential difference Is that the National Zoological Park will concentrate on freshwater animals, while Baltimore concentrates on animals found In the marine ecosystem. Hence, the two facilities will be complementary and not duplicative. Together with the Invertegrate exhibit slated for opening In the summer of 1986, the proposed aquatic habitat facility fills the last gap in the Zoo's presentation to the public of representatives of all the major animal groups. To date, emphasis has been placed almost exclusively on terrestrial dwelling animals, wih little recognition of the variety and Importance of aquatic animals in our natural world despite the fact that over 60 percent of the world's vertebrate animals are fishes. The animals proposed for exhibition will include those not heretofore exhibited in most zoos. The world of aquatic animals is little known to the public, and hence the proposed exhibit provides an excellent opportunity to educate and entertain the general public on their engaging and important groups of animals.

National Museum of American History - Entrance Renovation

Question: You are requesting $300,000 for entrance modifications at the American History Museum (Budget Justification p.218). Isn't this a little steep for doors?

Answer: The estimate is reasonable based on the fact that the custom architectural design, high public usage and unavailability of replacement parts necessitates replacement of the existing thirty doors at the Museum of American History. Attendant to this proposed life safety project will be modifications to the present illumination system which will overcome the severe visual adjustment in transition from the exterior to the interior of the building. Modifications also Include upgrade of the mechanical system for the vestibules to accomplish greater energy efficiency.

Long-Term Replacement Cycles for Facade and Roof Projects

Question: According to your budget justification (p.217) roof replacements are needed about every 20 years; facade Joints must be recaulked and repointed about every ten years; and window frames and other exterior trim should be recaulked and repainted every five years. You list several of these projects scheduled for FY 1986. $1.5 million for roof and facade work at the Arts and Industries Building; $200,000 for caulking and repointlng of ths facade of the Natural History Building; $400,000 for skylight and roof repairs at the Freer Gallery Building; $300,000 for entrance modifications at the American History Building; and $200,000 for caulking, repointlng and window replacement at the Smithsonian Institution Building. When was the last time each of these projects was done?

Answer: The funds requested for the A & I roof and facade are part of an ongoing, previously identified renovation. The last roof replacement was late in the 19th Century. The windows had reached an age where they were seriously deteriorated; they are the ones which were originally Installed in 1879.

with regard to the NMNH only remedial emergency i>olntlng and recaulklng have been performed since its completion in 1911.

The Freer skylights have deteriorated as only remedial repairs have been performed since the building's completion in 1921. A portion of the Freer funds requested will also be used for roof repairs related to the new cooling towers Installed to replace the antiquated Freer tower, and provide new towers to serve the South Quadrangle. By placing the South Quadrangle towers on the Freer roof, close to the area served, over $3 million was saved in South Quadrangle costs.

The custom architectural design of entrances at the American History Building, the high public traffic and unavailability of replacement parts, necessitates replacement of the doors. In addition, the high contrast of light levels requires modification to the illumination system. The doors have not previously been replaced.

The Smithsonian Castle, completed in 1855, has also only received remedial emergency attention to the facade mortar joints. The removal of ivy from the exterior has revealed extensive areas of deterioration. This will be the first major effort to make these joints watertight.

Tropical Research Institute Facilities

Question: I notice your Master Plan for the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute needs another $130,000 to complete. This plan I believe will have cost a total of $400,000. Why so much?

Answer: A master plan cost of $400,000 is not excessive considering the complexity of studying six existing facilities and nine potential new sites, all of which are dispersed throughout Panama; the travel time and costs plus added coordination required made this one of the Smithsonian's most complex planning efforts.

Question: You are requesting $665,000 to construct a two-story, 2,700 square foot conference/dining facility for the Barro Colorado Island facility to allow service of 240 meals a day. I notice however that there are only 26 staff there. If each of them ate three meals a day this would be 68 meals and your current facility serves almost double that many which should accomodate visiting scientists. How can you Justify this expenditure for 26 staff?

Answer: At present eighty individuals take meals on Barro Colorado Island per day. This includes not only permanent staff, but visiting scientists and students, as well as contractors. The new dormitory on BCI to be completed in FY 1986 will expand the number of residents on the Island requiring expanded meal capacity. The Isolated island location makes taking meals off-site impractical.

Question: You are also requesting $635,000 to construct a dormitory and renovate apartments near the Tropical Research Institute. Where do staff currently live? Do they pay rent? Who does the work on construction projects at this Panama facility, i.e. are they American contractors?

Answer: The new residential facilities are designed to serve long-term visiting scientists and students (up to one year) who presently reside in rented quarters provided to the Smithsonian Institution from the Panama Canal Commission under the terms of the Panama Canal Treaty. None of our resident

staff will use these facilities for living. Units currently occupied are presently being transferred back to Panama, to serve its pressing domestic housing requirements. Visitors pay rent which is placed in an account to maintain the facilities and fund utilities. The work on the new facilities will be undertaken by Panamanian contractors, but U.S. specifications are adhered to, and much of the manufactured equipment is imported from the U.S., e.g. plumbing, air-conditioning and electrical aparatus.

Whipple Observatory Communication System

Question: You have begun construction of a communication system for the Whipple Observatory. How much will this total project cost?

Answer: Construction has not started on the comunication system. The program Includes a comprehensive study to determine the most suitable system, design fee for the selected communications system, purchase of components and Installation. This project is scheduled for completion in FY 1987 at a total cost of $450,000.

Procurement Procedures for Computer Contracts

Question: I understand you discussed your computer operations this year. You are requesting $440,000 in FY 1986 for computers. Will you offer this up for competitive contract? I understand you have sole sourced your computer contracts in the past. Why is this?

Answer: The Smithsonian has acquired all major computer acquisitions competitively, including some via RFP and others purchased from the GSA Schedule.

On one major occasslon, the Smithsonian Institution Bibliographic System, the computer hardware and software was acquired by competitive bidding. On several other occassions, notably the computer for the Museum Support Center and the SI mainframe computer, equipment has been purchased off the GSA Schedule.

In the case of large acquisitions of microcomputers, the Institution has encouraged competition by having staff of the Office of Supply Services solicit quotations, or by announcement in the Commerce Business Daily as appropriate for the dollar amounts Involved. We would definitely take advantage of a competitive process should the funds requested for FY 1986 be granted.

Although you have not asked about software, SI has used competitive procurements for software as well — although at the Astrophyslcal Observatory, the special requirements may demand the use of a sole source vendor. Presently we are evaluating responses for the specimen collections information system, and we anticipate further competition for major software acquisitions in FY 1986.