This book made available by the Internet Archive.

STATEMENT OF S. DILLON RIPLEY, SECRETARY

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

ON APPROPRIATIONS REQUESTED FOR FISCAL YEAR 1978

Mt„ Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

It is a privilege to appear once again before you on behalf of the Smithsonian Institution, We come before you today especially proud of the Smithsonian's accomplishments last year, the Bicentennial, a success made possible by the support and encouragement of this Committee. With the budget which I am presenting today, we hope to maintain this record of progress and cooperation.

Major emphasis this year--as in the past—has been devoted to evaluating the Institution's priorities and objectives and identifying the most prudent manner of attaining them. "The Smithsonian...cannot escape the needo.oto subject its activities to the most searching review and to reappraise its objectives in the light of the more rigorous expectations of the day." These words, quoted from my statement prefacing Smithsonian Year 1969 , apply equally well today.

The variety of opportunities that the Institution will have to contribute to the knowledge of Mankind make it incumbent upon us to continue to appraise the direction in which we are moving. I believe that our Fiscal Year 1978 budget request reflects such a careful assessment.

Analyses of our programs have followed and are continuing to follow certain rigorous techniques. Since 1969, we have undertaken annually a form of base review specifically tailored to Smithsonian needs. Only after this thorough review of how we are expending our existing resources and an assessment of future needs, do we propose budgetary increases. The Smithsonian budget request for Fiscal Year 1978 similarly represents the product of our managers' thorough review of our programs and their collective thinking about our needs— both immediate and long-term.

Before highlighting the key themes in our budget, I would like to outline some of the Institution's more noteworthy accomplishments since I appeared before this Committee last year.

Accomplishments in the Bicentennial Year

This past year, 1976, marked the culmination of ten years' preparation for the Bicentennial celebration. The many events of the Bicentennial year, including the opening of special exhibitions in Washington, a number of traveling exhibitions viewed by millions of people throughout the country, two new museums, scholarly publications, and the Folk Festival, have contributed to the reawakening of a sense of faith in the cultural spirit of America. The unparalleled success of the occasion was due in large measure to the foresight and generosity of this Committee and the Congress which appropriated some $13 million for the American Revolution Bicentennial Program. Forthis support, the Smithsonian and the Nation owe the Congress a debt of gratitude.

-2-

The impact of our Bicentennial programs will continue long beyond 1976. Among the Bicentennial activities that are still to be enjoyed are two significant exhibitions, "A Nation of Nations" and "1876—A Centennial Ejdiibition." These exhibitions serve as documentaries of our country's past. The "Nation of Nations" exhibit depicts the richness of our culture against the historical background of immigration. The "1876—A Centennial Exhibition" tells us what we were most proud of a century "ago. It opened in the newly renovated and restored Arts and Industries Building 100 years to the day from the Philadelphia Centennial opening in Fairmount Park. Outside the building lie the outlines of the partially completed Victorian Garden, a living exhibition of the style and grace of a century ago.

Other Bicentennial exhibitions still open to the visiting public include "Ecology 200—Our Changing Land" in the National Museum of Natural History and "The Anacostia Story" in the Anacostia Neighborhood Museum. The latter tells of the evolution of a black community, an exhibit closely intertwined with the history of the Nation's Capital and its development. Through this exhibit and its related oral history project, the museum has been instrumental in preserving the lifestyles and cultural heritage of the community. In fact, the creation of the Anacostia Historical Society in 1974 was stimulated by the presence of our Anacostia Neighborhood Museum. Also in Anacostia is the new Exhibits Design and Production Laboratory, started with Bicentennial and grant funds and now training minority people in techniques of exhibit making.

The new National Air and Space Museum—the most successful in the world today with about three-quarters of a million visitors a month—was constructed during this period of Bicentennial preparation. I want to emphasize that this museum opened up ahead of schedule and under the estimated budget. In 1965, the cost of the building was estimated to be $40 million. By the early 1970's when it appeared the project might be permitted to proceed, it was estimated that inflation had increased the cost of the structure from the original estimate of $40 million to between $60-70 million. Knowing that the inflationary rates of the late Sixties could be fatal to the project, we redesigned the building to conform to the 1965 estimate.

I also would like to mention that on October 7, the Cooper-Hewitt Museum of Decorative Arts and Design in New York City was opened to the public. Authorized by the Regents in 1968, this small museum is one of the Nation's primary showcases of decorative arts and design. To date, approximately 100 thousand people have visited the Cooper-Hewitt Museum.

Among our Bicentennial year publications and scholarly endeavors which will prove valuable as research tools for generations of students and scholars and permanent records of the period is the "Inventory of American Paintings Before 1914." This project elicited the participation of hundreds of willing volunteers all searching for American paintings throughout the country. The Inventory became available to the interested public and scholars last July with the publication of its first Directory and now lists more than 170,000 works of art.

Other particularly noteworthy accomplishments of this past year include the completion of a new three-level facility for public service in the West Court of the Natural History Building. Constructed almost entirely with trust funds, it houses restaurant and classroom facilities for the visiting public, school groups, our Associate members, and staff as well as a new Naturalist Center where professionals and hobbyists alike can study and handle specimens of every variety.

Research done at the Smithsonian, historically, has not been merely academic, but rather has presaged some of the most important potential practical studies for the future. In 1939, some 38 years ago, the late Secretary of the Ssithsonian Institution C.G. Abbot wrote a prophetic treatise entitled "Utilizing Heat from the Sun." As Dr. Abbot noted: "The quantity of energy available from solar radiation...is immense. As I shall show in what follows, we may count on the possibility of converting IS percent of the energy of such solar rays as are intercepted by our devices into mechanical work." He went on to describe various devices for converting solar energy into heat, further considered the storage of solar heat or power, and concluded by speculating on the commercial use and cost of solar heating. Dr. Abbot noted elsewhere in 1942 "...with the present rate of exhaustion of our natural fuel the use of the sun's energy for industrial jwwer and home convenience may not be far in the future." Indeed, C.G. Abbot's own important research was far in advance of its time.

Today's research may have the same useful application for the future. For example, one of our e.xperts in invertebrate zoology has recently shown that he and his colleagues are using amphipods (tiny marine creatures such as beach fleas) in crucial monitoring programs to guard agpir.st marine pollution. By understanding the physiological tolerance of amphipods to oil pollution, scientists are able to determine the level at which pollution will disrupt the entire narine ecosystem. Many studies of amphipods have taken place in southern California, and we are now witnessing a heavy demand for monitoring and assessment surveys of the narine fauna in Alaska.

A further instance of timely research--being conducted at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory--is on the relationship between the prolonged lack of solar surface activity and the cold and drought we have experienced this winter. Although dust, pollution, carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide that climb into the upper atmosphere from the surface of the earth are still believed to be the main ingredients in any changes in the weather, the degree of solar activity is becoming recognized as an important factor. Long periods of low solar activity in the past can be correlated to long periods of cold temperature on earth.

Also of recent note has been the increasing public and scientific interest in the beaching of whales along our oceanic coasts. The Smithsonian has a principal responsibility for conducting research on stranded marine mammals under an agreement with the National Marine Fisheries Service, a branch of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Smithsonian scholars are engaged in studies of natural habitats critical to the preservation of endangered species, the preservation of economically important waterways in the U.S., and the development of alternate sources of energy. At the National Zoological Park's research and conservation center at Front Royal, Virginia, research into the breeding activity of endangered species is being conducted which will ultimately lead to better management of captive animals and provide greater knowledge in the fields of animal behavior and reproduction.

The Smithsonian research activities are not confined to science, but extend to history, art, cultural anthropology, and even studies of immigration. For example, work is going on at the Museum of History and Technology into the techniques of restorxng damaged or faded photographic images using neutron activation. Anthropological film studies of non-Western cultures arc revealing patterns of behavior that have Implications for the understanding of basic

-5-

human potential. And multi-disciplinary approaches are being used to gain a more complete understanding of the immigrants who have come to the United States since 1965»

Looking at these examples of research efforts, I am becoming more and more convinced of the lack of validity and usefulness in the oft-stated distinction between basic and applied research. It is said that basic research is commonly thought of as investigation for the advancement of scientific knowledge in general. The goal of applied research is usually described as the discovery of new scientific knowledge with a specific objective in mind. I prefer to think of Smithsonian scientific pursuits as original research--research that provides the baseline data essential for policy planners in mission-oriented agencies.

In fact, the Smithsonian of today might be aptly called the Nation's environmental bureau of standards. Our many bureaus have consistently been involved in the exploration and assembly of basic information and measurements about the earth's environment, including data emanating from observations of the universe. Additionally, our anthropological collections help document man's interaction with the environment. For more than a century and a quarter, we have been looked to by our scientific colleagues as well as laymen to maintain, augment, and improve upon one of the major existing data banks dealing with natural phenomena.

For Fiscal Year 1978, we are requesting an additional 3 positions and $515 thousand which will be applied to a variety of research purposes. Approximately half of this amount will be used to support current and important new programs in such areas as solar research, linguistics, ornithology, and tropical biology. Also included in this requested increase is an amount of $60 thousand for our Research Awards Program which would restore the funding of this very valuable program to the 1976 level.

An additional $118 thousand will support urgent and important cultural documentation efforts of our Anthropological Film Center and the unique and valuable studies of new immigrants from Central America and the Canal Zone being undertaken by the Research Institute on Immigration and Ethnic Studies. Finally, further funds are requested to support continued research and presentation in the field of folklife.

Exhibitions and Performances

A review of the Smithsonian Collection of Classic Jazz in the Washington Star this past December written by Bill Bennett points to the standards we strive to meet in our exhibitions and performances programs. Mr. Bennett wrote, "...as a cultural resource for Washington's residents, the Smithsonian is second to none...." The review went on to describe recordings prepared by the Division of Performing Arts and issued on the Smithsonian Collection label as a series unique in its historical and musicological attention to the growth and development of American music and further noted that the collection is well on its way to becoming a standard reference for critics and an educational tool for the study of modem American music.

Just as Smithsonian recordings and performances are setting standards of excellence, so it is with the variety of exhibits which are on continuous

-6-

display in our nuseins, art galleries, and the National Zoological Park and which travel throughout the country. Staff members are continually seeking new techniques to make our exhibits more interesting and educational. Live displays and displays of objects that can be handled (the recently opened Insect Zoo and Naturalist Center at the National Museum of Natural History are examples) are adding new elements to our exhibits programs.

In a word—through exhibits and performances—museums come to life. We are ever nindful of the fact that no activity undertaken by the Smithsonian has ■ore public visibility than our permanent and temporary exhibits and performances. For FY 1978 we are requesting an additional 7 positions and $415 thousand for exhibits activities. These resources will be used to support a major new exhibit on African cultural development at the Anacostia Neighborhood Museum and to enable the continued production and distribution of traveling exhibitions at a cost affordable to smaller museums, galleries, and educational institutions with limited financial resources. Additional funds will be used also to maintain large areas of new exhibits space in museums on the Mall as well as in new exhibit facilities at the Zoo and to explore alternatives for potential use of the last Mall building site.

Collections Management

A third function for which we are requesting increases in FY 1978 is collections management. Collections are one important aspect that distinguish ■useums from other institutions of learning. As custodian of the National Collections, the Smithsonian Institution possesses more than 70 million art objects, natural history specimens, and artifacts, as well as the animals of the National Zoological Park, all of which require highly skilled care.

The collections management function encompasses the receipt, accessioning, documentation, and care of animals, specimens and objects, and the maintenance of archives to provide support and background materials to the collections. For FY 1978, we are requesting an increase of 13 positions and $334 thousand under this heading.

The major share, 8 positions and $158 thousand, is designated for animal management at the National Zoological Park. Largely owing to our Zoo construction program, by Fiscal Year 1978, the area under the animal keepers' care will be greatly enlarged at Rock Creek. At Front Royal, the animal collections will have grown considerably.

We are also requesting an additional $67 thousand to support the assembly, secession, and preservation of the film records of the Anthropological Film Center. An amount of $40 thousand is proposed to continue the collections management study and collections organization and installation activities related to the Museum Support Center program. This study is now in progress and a report will be available this fall. The selective but necessary growth of collections coupled with inadequate storage space in the museimi buildings necessitates a continuing long-term commitment to principles of sound collections management. It has become ever more urgent for the Smithsonian Institution to be at the vanguard of developing methodologies in the fields of conservation, data recording and retrieval, space use, and storage systems. Three new positions and $30 thousand are proposed to provide additional support personnel for staff scientists at the Hjseiai of Natural History. Finally, 2 new positions and $39 thousand arc needed to support the microfilming work of the Archives of American Art and to enable the Smithsonian Archives to preserve valuable historical records of the Inif ! t,,r ion.

Collections Acquisition

The next prograjranatic function—for which we are proposing a modest increase of $171 thousand—is collections acquisitions. Nearly all of the Institution's collections are obtained through the generous gifts of benefactors. More and more frequently, however, certain objects, most particularly works of art, are becoming available only through purchase. An increase of $150 thousand to our relatively small but vital Federal funding base for acquisitions is needed to permit our art museums to maintain fully representative collections as is their charge. Accordingly, an additional $150 thousand are requested for three of our art museums to help assure that they will be able to purchase particular paintings, sculptures, and photographs. One position and $21 thousand are also requested for the Archives of American Art. The position will be used for a Washington-based staff member who will search out and seek to collect or microfilm historically significant art history documents in the mid-Atlantic area.

Education and Public Orientation

Finally, we are seeking an increase of $50 thousand for our Office of Academic Studies. Presently, the Office is able to offer only about 40 fellowships a year to promising pre- and postdoctoral scholars. The additional funds would enable us to make six more grants. We believe that our varied and often unique collections offer especially valuable opportunities for significant research at the Smithsonian—opportunities that are not available elsewhere. As an important adjunct to university education, our fellowship program has two principal products, increased knowledge based on sound research and the intellectual enrichment of both our own staff members and the scholars who spend time with us.

Support Functions

For support functions, we are requesting an increase of 48 positions and $2.1 million in FY 1978. These additional resources are designated for buildings and facilities management (17 positions and $530 thousand), protection services (20 positions and $475 thousand), automatic data processing ($391 thousand), general administration (10 positions and $354 thousand), printing ($125 thousand), libraries (1 position and $105 thousand), and conservation ($30 thousand).

The bolstering of our support functions must proceed hand in hand with the growth of our program activities. By careful, balanced attention to program and support functions, we may be sure that the Institution is making full and proper use of the professional staff, collections, and museums and galleries. Research efforts require computer and library support; our priceless collections and millions of visitors are entitled to adequate protection services; and our buildings and facilities, many of them historical landmarks, merit proper care and attention. A sound administrative structure is integral to all of these areas and the efficient and effective running of the Institution.

Buildings and Facilities Management

The major portion of the proposed support increase, 17 positions and $630 thousand, is for buildings and facilities management. Of this amount, 11 positions and $507 thousand are eannarked for the Zoo. As I will discuss in more detail later on,FY 1978 has been designated as a year of consolidation and evaluation of the rapid progress in renovating Rock Creek facilities and developing the

-8-

Front Royal animal conservation and research center. Before proceeding with work under the Master Plan, we need to assure ourselves that what we have done is being aaintained properly and that plans for the future remain sound.

We are also seeking 4 additional positions and $45 thousand to meet the expanded workload of the Office of Horticulture. In recognition of its important role in the creation of exhibitions throughout the Institution, vo have trnn-ferred horticultural services from the Office of Plant Services to the direct responsibility of the Assistant Secretary for Musem Programs.

The remaining $78 thousand being requested is needed to pay higher rental fees at L'Enfant Plaza and 1111 North Capitol Street and for miscellaneous purposes.

Protection

We are requesting 20 new guard positions and $475 thousand for protection services. These resources will enable us to provide proper protection for the visiting public and the priceless and irreplaceable objects in the National Collections. The additional positions are associated with the new halls, galleries, and exhibitions which were opened in 1976 as part of the Smithsonian's Bicentennial observance and which we planned to keep open for the public's education and pleasure. Also included in this proposal is an amount of $100 thousand to continue the conversion from a leased to a proprietary alarm system. Under the new system, all fire and burglar alarm devices located in Smithsonian-owned facilities in the Washington, D.C. area (except the National Zoological Park which has its own system) will connect directly to a control system in the Smithsonian Institution Building. The time between the actual alarm and the response will be substamtially reduced, thus minimizing potential loss from fire or theft.

Automatic Data Processing

The Saithsonian Institution makes heavy use of computers—as an indispensable tool in the research projects of scientists and in the documentation of collections in virtually all bureaus and for efficient administrative support in such areas as finance, personnel management, and library procurement. An additional $391 thousand is requested in FY 1978 for automatic data processing. Approximately 80 percent C$325 thousand) of the proposed increase is designated for the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where a critical lack of adequate computing time has severely limited interpretation of the substantial aaount of data on the earth and sun. To remedy this situation, we are proposing to replace the nine-year old computer currently in use with one that will have three times the speed and twice the memory of the existing machine. Additional funds are also requested to enable the Accounting Division to purchase additional conputer time for its new automated integrated accounting system and to enhance the cogqsuter capability of the Office of Computer Services.

Administration

Recognizing that sound central direction, review, and services are essential to the efficient and effective functioning of the Institution, we arc seeking 10 additional positions and $554 thousand for Administration. Six of these positions and $125 thousand are required as part of the final stage in providing an appropriate level of Federal administrative and support j>ersonncl at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory. The remaining 4 positions and $229 thousand arc

-9-

requested to fund the newly established position of Assistant Secretary for Administration and to strengthen other administration units including personnel, general counsel, equal opportunity, supply services, management analysis, and facilities planning and engineering. In this year's budget submission, we have consolidated a number of administrative line items into one. This will not, however, detract from our explanation of the work of our administration components, but reflects the fact that Smithsonian administration is truly a closely integrated function.

All Other Support Functions

Rounding out our proposed increases for support are $125 thousand for printing, largely to meet additional publications costs, $105 thousand for acquisition and processing of library materials, and $30 thousand for conservation work.

Construction Accounts

The Institution's total Fiscal Year 1978 request for three construction accounts totals some $11 million: $9.7 million for renovation, restoration, and improvement of buildings; $1 million for construction and improvements at the National Zoological Park; and $325 thousand for the planning of a Museum Support Center. Because we have the responsibility to build and plan for the future and at the same time maintain a diverse and extremely valuable physical plant, the $11 million proposed for construction is essential to deal wth our needs. The Fiscal Year 1978 request is based on a prudent balancing of our most urgent, immediate requirements and longer-range plans.

The Institution's Fiscal Year 1978 construction request can be characterized as meeting four purposes or objectives. The first relates to our multi-year program of essential improvements to many of our buildings. These improvements are designed to protect the public and our valuable collections against fire and other hazards, make our facilities accessible to handicapped persons, serve program requirements, and generally maintain our physical plant in a planned manner. Examples of proposed projects under this category include the continued, phased installation of fire protection systems in our museums and renovations in the historic Arts and Industries Building and Renwick Gallery. Moreover with a physical plant as varied, complex, and valuable as the Smithsonian's, there is a substantial need for annual funding to make minor repairs before they become major and to meet emergency situations,

A second purpose served by the construction accounts pertains to major additions to existing facilities occasioned by special circumstances. For Fiscal Year 1978, we are planning to construct a major study center and library addition to the Museum of Hisfory and Technology Building, the need for which derives from the organic growth of a living museum. The center, which will consist of a sixth floor adjunct to the museum, will function as a major library resource on American civilization and will contain rare book collections, archival references, seminar space, and study rooms for advanced research.

A third purpose of construction funding is to renovate, repair, and maintain the facilities of the National Zoological Park. Since Fiscal Year 1974,

-10-

we have been proceeding with the major renovation of the Rock Creek Park Zoo according to a carefully conceived and refined Master Plan. Major construction to convert an essentially archaic facility into a modem urban 20O—healthful to the animals and enjoyable and educational to visitors—is now nearing the half-way mark. To date, we have constructed a striking new Lion and Tiger structure and a beautiful panda house; expanded and modernized the elephant and giraffe house and the bird house; and revamped other facilities to the benefit of hippos, rhinos, monkeys, bears, seals, sea lions, beavers, and otters. At the saae time that all of this renovation has taken place at Rock Creek Park, we have been moving ahead with the development of our animal conservation and breeding center at Front Royal, Virginia.

Kith the experience of four years of development under the Master Plan and funding of some $26 million, we plan to use Fiscal Year 1978 to consolidate progress thus far. First, we wish to complete all major projects previously funded. Next, we plan to reevaluate future Master Plan construction at Rock Creek Park, especially in relationship to development at Front Royal. Although the aaount of money we have spent up until now has been significant, I believe the results have amply demonstrated that a careful, deliberate and planned approach yields substantial results. Finally, we want to ensure that the new facilities are being properly maintained. Toward this end, as mentioned earlier, we are requesting 11 new positions and $507 thousand in Fiscal Year 1978 for our Salaries and Expenses appropriation.

Accordingly, our 1978 Zoo restoration and renovation request is limited to $1 million. Ne plan to use $700 thousand to accomplish further, essential rehabilitation work at Front Royal and apply the remaining $300 thousand for the renovation of the central gas fired heating plant at Rock Creek Park. This repair is vital to prohibit the possibility of a heat shutdown vrtiich could result in the loss of invaluable animals.

The fourth and last purpose to be served by our construction accounts is to plan new facilities when the need for more space becomes urgent. During the past 18 months, members of the Smithsonian staff and outside consultants have analyzed present facilities and future space requirements of the Institution. Their assessment indicates that a Museun Support Center, containing approximately 340 thousand square feet of office, laboratory, and storage space will meet the Institution's most pressing space needs through the 1980's. The Center is envisioned for construction on a site adjacent to the Institution's current preservation and restoration facility at Silver Hill, Maryland, which is now devoted mainly to the collections of the Air and Space Museum.

The fundamental purpose of the Support Center will be collections storage. A major strength of the Smithsonian Institution rests in its unrivaled collections which are now housed in ten »isei«s. While the Institution continues to resist the growth of collections just for the sake of growth, we have accepted our responsibilities for the development and preservation of collections for research, education of the public, and for scientific, cultural, and technological record. The Center will also contain facilities for a strong research and study program associated with the collections to be located there. And the new structure will offer conservation services and provide a major facility for training staff and visiting interns in scientific theory and practical conservation skills.

An additional benefit of the proposed Musei* Support Center will result froa the fact that it will allow many thousand square feet of Mall exhibit

-11-

space to be restored to public use. The construction cost of the Center is estimated to be $20„6 million. We are requesting $325 thousand in the Fiscal Year 1978 budget to initiate architectural and engineering planning; the balance of the planning funds, some $575 thousand, will be sought next year„

Special Foreign Currency Program

In FY 1978, we are requesting the equivalent of $4,5 million in excess foreign currencies—an increase of some $1 million over the FY 1977 appropriation. These funds will support field research in archeology, environmental biology, astrophysics, and other disciplines and provide for the last of four annual contributions, each of $1 million equivalent in excess Egyptian pounds, to help preserve the tentples on the Island of Philae. The Smithsonian proposes to make this final payment available to the Government of Egypt through a grant to the American Research Center in Egypt, the same method employed this year. The Center is a consortium of United States institutions of higher learning, incorporated in Massachusetts.

The foreign currency grant program makes valuable contributions to basic knowledge and to the furthering of scientific and cultural understanding while creating no additional burden for the taxpayer.

Smithsonian Science Information Exchange

Completing our Fiscal Year 1978 request is a proposed $2 million for the Smithsonian Science Information Exchange—the same level as the Fiscal Year 1977 appropriation. The Exchange acquires, processes, stores, and provides information on research in progress as a service to the research community.

Mr. Chairman, I and my staff will be happy to answer any questions the Committee may have.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF PAST YEAR

Mr, Yates, Mr, Secretaiy, I think we Avill hear your statement, or your hi^rhlifrhts from it, before we go into otlier matters,

I have received a letter from Senator Jackson, wliicli I think shoukl properly be made a part of the record. I think there ought to be some references to documents by the (xeneral Accounting Office, and to the replies.

But. I think we will deal with those after we have your statement,

Mr, Ripley. Mr. Chairman, thank you veiT much.

If I may, I would like to highlight the statement Avhich we have submitted this year for the record.

We come before you today especially proud of our accomplishments of the last year, which was the Bicentennial, I should note that the success of our Bicentennial progi-ams was largely due to the support and encouragement of this connnittee.

For over 10 years, we have been demonstrating our interest in the Bicentennial to this committee and have been allowed a phased budget, which peaked last year, and which we. according to our promises. are eliminating this year, in 1978.

I would like to outline some of our more noteworthy accomplishments since we appeared before you last year; 1976, as you know, marked the culmination of 10 years preparation for the Bicentennial. The generosity of this connnittee, and the Congress, succeeded in appropriating some $13 million for the American Revolution Bicentennial program.

For this support not only the Smithsonian but the Nation owes the Congress a great debt of giatitude. T believe that the impact of these programs will continue long beyond 1976.

The new National \\v and Space Museum, the most successful in the world today, has alxMit three-quarters of a million visitoi-s a month. I greeted the seven-millionth visitor some 2 weeks ago. It was constructed dunng this penod of Bicentennial preparation. T can't help but be proud of the fact that it opened uj) ahead of schedule and under budget.

In 1965. when we first justified the prospect of this museum, it was estimated that it wf)uld cost $40 million.

Mr, Yatks. The thought just struck me. j)ei-haps it was an unfaii' one. Perhaps the budcret was too large.

Afr. Ripley. I am hapjn' to report on that. Mr. Chairman. In 1965 the budget was ^0 million. "When I found out in the early 1970's after the i-estraints of (he Vietiiani war that the estimated budget for tin' same btiihling was goinir to be prf)bal)lv $70 million oi- more, I simplv pullofl back. We redesigned the building, we got tlie necessary approvals—the same site was invohcd- and we came in under $-U) million.

ItSCAL i;iTs HEgrT-ST

For fiscal 197>^, ur .ni' rerpiesting appropriat ums loraling $106.5 million for six appropriation ar-connfs. This represents a $6.1 million increa.so over our fiscal 1977 e-^fimafes. Of the total anioiinf recjuesled. for our salaries and expenses appropriation we are leque.sting $89 mil-

lion in fiscal 1978, a net increase of $3.6 million over our estimated 1977 base.

The unavoidable cost increases of $960,000 which are part of this increase are offset, I am happy to say, by a reduction of $954,000 for certain expenses which will not continue in this coming fiscal year. The largest of these, of course, is the phasing out of our Bicentennial program.

For program functions, as part of the salaries and expenses request, we are requesting an increase of 24 positions and approximately $1.5 million in fiscal 1978.

These resources are sought: for research, 3 positions and $515,000; exhibitions and performances, 7 positions and $415,000; collections management, 13 positions and $334,000; collections acquisition, 1 position and $171,000; and education and public orientation, $50,000.

NATURE OF SMITHSONIAN RESEARCH

Historically, research done at the Smithsonian has not been merely academic but rather has presaged some of the most important potential practical studies for the future.

I am reminded of the fact that in 1939 the late Secretary of the Smithsonian, C. G. Abbot, who was an active research man, as you know, wrote a prophetic treatise entitled "Utilizing Heat From the Sun." He continued throughout his life and retirement from the Smithsonian developing plans for solar energy and research, and took out a patent at the grand old age of 98.

In any case, his own important research was very far in advance of his time. I feel that today's research, at the Smithsonian, may have many of the same useful applications for the future.

For example, one of our experts at the Natural History Museum has recently shown that his critical systematic work on amphipods, which are small marine creatures on the beaches, is crucial in monitoring programs to guard against marine pollution. Many studies of amphipods have taken place in southern California, and we are now witnessing a heavy demand for monitoring and assessment surveys of the marine fauna as far north as Alaska.

Looking at these examples of research efforts I prefer to think of the Smithsonian scientific pursuits as original research, research which provides the base line data essential for policy planners in mission-oriented agencies.

In this sense, there is a distinction in my mind about the kind of research that we do in natural science, which in effect makes the Smithsonian a kind of environmental bureau of standards. If we can develop our work in this connection, we will have a fundamental impact on the future of this country.

INCREASES REQUESTED FOR PROGRAM FUNCTIONS

Approximately half of our requested increase for research will be used to support current and important new progi"ams in such areas as solar research, linguistics, ornithology, and tropical biology.

Also included in our request is an amount of $60,000 for our research awards program, which would restore the funding of this valuable program to the 1976 level.

An additional $118,000 will support urgent and important cultural documentation efforts of our Anthropological Film Center and the unique and valuable studie^s of new immigrants coming to this country from Central America and the Canal Zone. Further funds are requested to support continued researcli and presentation in the field of folklife.

In addition, we are requesting in the area of exluhitions and performances seven positions and $415,000. Through exhibits and performances, we believe museums come to life. "We are asking also for a small amount to explore alternatives for the potential use of the last mall building site.

In fiscal 1078, under the rubric of collections management, we are requesting an increase of 13 positions and $384,000. About half of this is designated for animal management of the National Zoological Park. Wo are also requesting an additional $67,000 under tliis category to support the assembly, accession, and preservation of the film records of the Anthropological Film Center.

An amount of $40,000 is proposed to continue the collections management study and collections organization and installation activities related to the Museum Support Center program.

As you will recall. Mr. Chairman, this study, which is now in progress, and will he completed by this fall, was requested by the OfHcc of Management and Budget. It has become ever more urgent for the Smithsonian to be at the vanguard of developing methodologies and tecliniques in the fields of conservation, data recording and retrieval, space use, and storage systems.

The next programmatic function, collections acquisition, for which we are proposing a moflest increase of $171,000. is, we feci, particularly worthwhile at this point, as more and more frequently certain objects, most particularly works of art, are becoming available only through purchase.

The present situation in regard to the tax laws makes it \'irtually mandatory for certain persons now to sell their objects rather than as formerly to give them away to foundations or philanthropic in.stitutions.

Mr. Yates. Have you noticed any impact as far as the Smithsonian is concerned with respect to that pix>vision of the tax law?

Mr. Ripley. We have had i-eferenres in lettci-s with regard to possible acrjuisitions. These peoj)le are now unable to do the sort of (hings that they would have done Ix'fore. In fact. I hear it all the time, talking to people in this regard.

Mr. Y,\TFJi. Ins^)far as the Smithsonian and its museums are concerned, imless there is a return to the pi-evious pmvision of the tax law. in all piolml>ility we may see a necessity for inn-easing tlie Sl.'iO.OOf) that is acrorde<l in your l>udget for acquisitions.

Mr. UrPEEV. I ani afraid that is true. Mr. Chainnan, unless somehow there run Ix' some e<-|uity l)etween the allowances that <'an be given to people i(t flo these things which are in the national or public interest. We are increasingly co]istniine<l to do the one thing we don't want to do, and that is to come to our committees and ask for Fedenil support for this.

It is not appropriate in our view, and yrt if you <annot obtain the objects, what altonrative is there?

Mr. Yates. Under that kind of procedure, the Smithsonian tends to become more and more federalized.

Mr. Ripley. Yes, sir. In fsiot, everything tends to become more and more federalized. Tliis, I am sure, as a taxpayer you would deprecate as much as I do.

Finally we are seeking an increase of $50,000 for our Office of Academic Studies. We believe that our varied and often unique collections offer especially valuable opportunities for significant research at the Smithsonian, opportunities that we know in many cases are not available elsewhere.

As I pointed out a few moments ago, there are opportunities in our collections to do work which have basic impact on environmental monitoring and environmental conditions in this country. As we all know, as the environment is deteriorating, this kind of research is becoming more and more popular, more and more involved in the future of this country.

INCREASES REQUESTED FOR SUPPORT FUNCTIONS

For support functions, we are requesting an increase of 48 positions and $2.1 million in fiscal 1978. These resources are designated for buildings and facilities management. A great part of this is protection services, 20 positions and nearly half a million dollars; facilities management, the control and operation of our buildings, 17 positions and $630,000; automatic data processing, $391,000; general administration for the entire Institution, 10 positions and $354,000; increased printing costs, $125,000; libraries, 1 position and $105,000; and conservation, $30,000.

The bolstering of these support functions has to proceed hand in hand with the growth of our program activities.

I think that the buildings management aspect of support is of vital importance. We can develop this need more extensively in later testimony, and we would be very happy to do so.

Under administration, in this year's budget submission we have consolidated a number of line items into one. This will not, however, detract from our explanation of the work of our administration components, but reflects the fact that our administration is really a closely integrated function. We have develo]^ed information on this during the year with your committee's staff, Mr. Chairman.

INCREASES REQUESTED IN CONSTRUCTION ACCOUNTS

The Institution's total fiscal year 1978 request for three construction accounts comes to some $11 million; $9.7 million of this is for renovation, restoration, and improvement of our own buildings; $1 million is for construction and improvements at the National Zoological Park; and $325,000 is for the planning of a Museum Support Center.

Because we have the responsibility to build and to plan for the future and at the same time maintain this very diverse and extremely valuable physical plant, the $11 million proposed for construction is essentia] to deal with our needs.

I should point out that witli regard to some of this construction we do not need the total amount of cash this year.

The Institution's fiscal year 1978 constniction request can be characterized as moetiiifr four ]iurposes or objectives. The first relates to our multiyear pro<rrain of essential improvements and renovations to many of our buildintrs. The second ]iurpose served by the construction accounts pertains to major additions to existinjj facilities occasioned by special circumstances. In tliis connection, ]Mr, Chairman, as you know, for fiscal 107R we are planninof to construct a major study center and library addition to the Museum of History and Technolofr}' I^uildincr, the need for which is, of course, not a new subject with the committee.

For several years fwe have discussed our need for the MHT Librarj^ and Study Center, and in fiscal years 1073, 1974. and 1976 funds were appropriated specifically for its planninjr. We find that that planninfi: is virtually coinplete and we are now requesting an appropriation for construction wliich amounts to some $7.1 million, and which could be phased over some 3 yeai*s.

The third purpose of construction fundintr is to renovate, repair, and maintain the facilities of the National Zoo. The Congress has been very <renerous in supporting us with the restart on the Zoo renovation program. Tliat program, which was in progress, when I first came to the Smitlisonian in 1964. was temporarily terminated due to the Vietnam war. and was renewed again some 4 or 5 years ago.

Since fiscal year 1974. we have liad funding of some $26 million for this progi'am. "We now want to pull back and consolidate our progress during fiscal year 1978. We want to reevaluate our master plan for construction in terms of today's needs and costs and especially with relation to the development at Front Royal. Accordingly, our request for this year is limited to $1 million.

With $700,000 of tliis we plan to accomplish further essential rehabilitation work at Front Royal and the remaining $300,000 will be used for the renovation of the central gas-fired heating plant at Rock Creek. This repair is vital to prohibit tlie i)ossibility of a lieat shutdown which could result in the loss of invaluable animals.

The fourth and last purpose to be served by our construction accounts is to plan new facilities when the need for more space becomes urgent. Wf ai-e extremely concei-ned about tliis as you know. We ai"e requesting in this year $.32r).O00 to initiate the architectural and engineering i)lanning for a Museum Suppoi't Center. The balance of the phuming funds will be sought next year.

As you know. Mr. Chairman, the Smith.sonian has been authorized to p!-ei)are plans for this Center, which we intend to locate in Silver Hill. Md.. adjacent to our present laboratories and storage area on land acfjuired by ti-ansfei- from (iS,\. We have a document ih'lineating the needs foi- this Center available foi- the connnittee. W\' ai-e hoping to Ik- able to complete plajining foi" the Center ihning 1979.

RKQIK-STS K<t|{ M"K( lAI, FoKKION CinKKNCV rRfK;i{.\M AND SCIEXCE INFORMATION EXrjIAXOK

In fiscal 1978 we are requesting the e{|uivalent of $-i.r) million in excess foreign nirrcncie.s, an increas** of .sonu*. $1 million over the fiscal 1977 appro|)rintion. The.s<' funds will support Held ir.search in archeology', environniental biology, a.strophysics, and other disciplines and

also provide the last contribution of $1 million equivalent in excess Egyptian pounds to preserve the temples on the Island of Philae. This will complete the U.S. pledge to the preservation of these fascinating temples.

Completing our request for this year is a proposed $2 million for the Smithsonian Science Information Exchange at the same level as last year.

INTRODUCTION OF WITNESSES

Mr. Chairman, I would be very happy to reply or answer questions with my colleagues, Mr. Yellin, who is a new member of the staff, the Director of the Office of Programing and Budget—you know Mr. Wheeler, Mr. Blitzer, our General Counsel Mr. Powers, Mr. Jameson, and Dr. Challinor, and I have Mr. Perrot and Mr. Euell, and Mr. Ault here in the audience.

ORIGIN OF THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

Mr. Yates. We know Mr. Perrot. We know them all.

Thank you, Mr. Ripley, for a very impressive summary of your statement. I suppose this is really a historic meeting in a sense. We meet to find out really what the relationship is between the Smithsonian and the Federal Government.

As Mr. Powers knows, and of course you know,^ Mr. Ripley, this has troubled me for a very long time. My concern preceded my appointment as a regent of the Smithsonian which I may say I enjoyed very much. I consider it to be not only a very distinguished honor but a very enjoyable one. I found that I couldn't balance it with the requirements of the job which I hold here as chairman of this Appropriations Subcommittee, so I withdrew.

But I asked Mr. Powers some months ago to prepare himself for this hearing with an explanation of what the identity and status of the Smithsonian Institution was and in its relationships with the Federal Government, not knowing at the time the Senate Committee would do what it did and ask for a review by the General Accounting Office of those points as well as other points relating to the funding of the Institution,

Mr. Powers did prepare a very impressive and comprehensive statement which he was kind enough to send me some time ago, and which was attached as appendix V to the report of the Comptroller General of the United States, and I read from that appendix:

I. The Smithson bequest.

It says this:

In 1826, James Smithson, an English scholar and scientist of independent means, drew up his will and provided therein :

"In the case of the death of my said nephew without leaving a child * * * I then bequeath the whole of my property * * * to the United States of America, to found at Washington, under the name of the Smithsonian Institution, an Establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men."

And, of course, with that bequest under that charge the world became theSmithsonian's oyster, because you then became an establishment which sought knowledge and proposed to increase and diffuse knowledge among men wherever they existed, and since receiving that

l)eqiiest and its acceptance by the legislation of 1836 and the legislation of 184() under the terms of wjiich the Institution itself was created, there was aj)i>()inted the l^oard of Re^i'Uts and the Secretary, and there was a jreneral delineation of what its powers and responsibilities would l)e, but there was also ci-eated in that. 5lr. Powers, and I would like your answer to this, an Establishment. We hear about the Board of Re-irents. AVe ne\er hear of the Establishment. Yet I will read from the legislation if I can find it as an attachment. I don't know whether they ever meet, do they, the Establishment?

THE "establishment'"

Mr. Ripley. Mr. Chairman, they have not met ofliciallv since about 1878.

Mr. Yate,s. Let me identify the Establishment as it appears in the legislation of 1846. Section 1 says this:

That the President and Vice President of the United States, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Xavy, the Postmaster General, the Attorney General, the Chief .Tustice, and the Commissioner of the Patent OflSce of the I'nited States, and the Mayor of the city of Washington, during the time for which they shall hold their respective oflBces. and such other r>er.sons as they may elect honorary meml)ers. he, and they are hereby constitutetl. an "establishment." by the name of the "Smithsonian Institution." for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men ; and by that name shall be known and have pen»etual succession, with the powers, limitations, and restrictions, hereafter contained, and no other.

We never hear of the Establishment. Is it nonexistent? Under the legislation it is existent.

Mr. Ripley. It exi.sts, but in fact after the establishuient had met two or three times, and as I recall, the last formal meeting, or so-called official meeting, was in the 1870's, they simply because of the press of governmental and other business never have met again.

Xow, they have assumed, therefore, a kind of honorary status. The governance of the Institution remains in the Board of Regents itself as j)rovided in the 1S40 art.

There have Ikh'U informal meetings. The last one Avas one during the Bicentennial celebration of .Sniithson's bii-th in lOOf), and T can recall there have been earlier meetings in 1027 in the administration of Calvin Coolidge when the entire Establi.shment at the "Conference on the Future of the .^Smithsonian Institution." along with th<> Regents, to di.s^u.ss the Smithsonian's need foj- additional outside sujiporters of the Institiition.

Mr. ^'ATF>i. I)oes the Establishment know that it exists^ Does each of the memlKM-sof the Establisljuient know?

Mr. Ripley. Yes: thev do. Tiu-.y are li.sted in the annual rei)ort.

Mr. Yatt-^?. Tlie.y ai-e listccl in the annual rei)Oil, but I don't know that they read it. l)o they know that tlu-y arc members of the Estab-bshment (

•Mr. Ripi-Kv. Mr. ('hairman, I assume everyone reads the anmuil re-|K>rt. .\ fter all, it i.s a nat if»nal do<!im<'nt of national interest.

.Mr. ^'a'i». Of c-onrsi' it is. .Mr. Hij)ley. but I am not ^nre that, the ( omniissioner of the Patent Otlii-e of the I'nited States, an<l. fiMuKlv. the Mayor of the city of Wasliington him been busy lately—

Mr. Ripley. He certainly has. He told me last night he was even busier than I.

Mr. Yates. Do you notify the members of the Establishment that they are members of the Establishment?

Mr. Ripley. Mr. Powers would be pleased to answer that question.

Mr. Powers. Could I say several things, Mr. Chairman ? In corporation law there is a standard provision in the incorporation of every corporation for what are called the initial incorporators.

Mr. Yates, That is right.

Mr. Powers. If you have ever had occasion to form a corporation you will find some names at the beginning of your incorporation charter

Mr. Yates. Is that what the Establishment is ?

Mr. Powers. One of their important functions is they were the initial incorporators. That section you are reading from is now the first section of the Smithsonian Charter as found in title XX, section 41. It now reads:

The President, the Vice President, the Chief Justice, and the heads of executive departments are constituted an establishment by the name of the Smithsonian Institution.

The Mayor of Washington was a position which existed in 1846, which ceased to exist later in the 19th century and exists once again. In 1894,1 believe it was, that reference to the Mayor was deleted. Now, they have under section 45 of title XX the right to hold meetings and an advisory role if they choose to exercise it. Also they can appoint honorary members, which was something that happened in the 19th century.

The last formal meeting that was attempted to be held was sought by President Garfield who had been a Regent of the Smithsonian from the House of Representatives prior to his becoming President. He came in May of 1881 to the Smithsonian to hold a meeting of the Establishment, but only the Secretary of War showed up as well as himself. That is the last, and he, of course, was assassinated in July of 1881.

Mr. Yates. No relationship to the meeting though.

Mr. Po^vI5RS. I hope there was no connection ?

In any event, the other day I had a call from one of the new members of the Cabinet, or rather one of his staff saying, "I see that I am a member of sometliing called the Establishment. Is there anything special I should do?"

And in short I said no. I actually gave him a much longer answer as to the functions of the EstabHshment, but some are aware of their role or the existence of this provision. Others clearly are not.

the act of 184G

Mr. Yates. Then we continue with the legislation of 1846 and we find that James Smithson's property, or the amount that was in money, was to be paid into the Treasury of the United States, then being the sum of $515,169 to be lent to the'lLS. Treasury at 6 percent per annum interest from the first day of September in the year 1838 and so forth. Then it goes on and says all monevs of the bequest anel so forth shall be pledged to refund to the Treasury of the United States the sums thereby appropriated.

Then the legishition provides for the appointment of Regents, and tlie Regents are the appropriate operating body of the Smithsonian Institution.

That is correct, isn't it ^

Mv. Ripley. Tliat is correct.

Mr. Yates. It also provides for the appointment of the Secretaiy. The chancellor is elected by the Regents, as I recaU.

Mr. Poa\t-:rs. That is right.

Mr. YatEvS. And lie becomes the chairman of the Board.

Then tliere is an executive committee to be appointed. They are to have regular and special meetings. The members of the Board are to be paid their traveling expenses and the Board leports annually to Congress, and the Regents were directed to find a place to build a building, and of course, I assume that is the Castle, isn't it ?

Mr. Powers. Yes.

Mr. Yates. That is the first building that was built. After that they are authorized to employ necessary superintendents. The moneys accruing to the Institution are to be paid into the Treasury-. Then provision for all objects of art and natural history and plants belonging to the I'nite<l States in "U^ashington are to be deposited and arranged in that l)uilding. The secretary of the Board was directed to take charge of the buildings and make a record of the proceedings and have charge of the libi-ary. These are Mr. Ripley's duties. The secretary of the Board of Regents shall take charge of the buildings, the propeity of said Institution, and shall under theii" direction make a full and accurate record of all their proceedings to be preserved in sai<l Institution, and the secretary shall also dischai-ge the duties of librarian and of keeper of the nniseum and may, with the consent of the I^oard of Regents, i'mploy assistants. And said officers shall receive for their services such sums as may be allowed by the Board of Regents to be paid semiannually. Then the meml^ei-s and the honorary members of said Institution may liold such stated and special meetings. We have heard n\>ont the Institution.

.Mr. PowEKs. Establishment.

Afr. Yah-^;. And so forth, and so forth.

And tiiat in essence is the basic legislation ci-eatiiig the vSmithsonian Institution, and since that time, since its origin in 18;^6, and under its creative legislation in 184r), the Smithsonian Institution has thrived and flouri.shed and l>ecome one of the great institutions of the world, and remains so to this day. and will coiiliiuu' to rciiiain so. I have no doubt.

I want to place in the recoid the statement by Mr. Powers entitled "The Sndthsonian Institution: .V Tiiist KstablishmenI of the I'niled States."

(The statement follows:]

SMiTHSoxiAX LxsTiTUTioK MaTch 1977

Wiishtnytnn. D. C. ^0560

u:s.A.

THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION: A TRUST ESTABLISHMENT OF THE UNITED STATES

INTRODUCTION

Fundamental to the administration of Snnithsonian operations is a clear understanding of the unique charter and functions of the Institution. The following "Outline of the Origin and Development of the Smithsonian Institution" is intended to explain the nature of the Institution, clarify the responsibilities of the Board of Regents and the Congress for its welfare, and detail the significance of both private and federal support in its achievements since its origin in 1836 with the acceptance of the private bequest from Mr. Smiths on.

Fifty years ago Chief Justice Taft, speaking as Chancellor of the Snriithsonian Board of Regents, observed that:

". . . many people suppose this private research establishment to be a part of the Government .... I must make clear, gentlemen, that the Smithsonian Institution is not, and has never been considered a government bureau. It is a private institution under the guardianship of the Goveriunent. "

This characterization of the Smithsonian and its relationship to the Government refers to the legal foxindations of the Institution in the will of James Smiths on and the Act of July 1, 1836, which accepted the bequest.

Smithson, in bequeathing the whole of his property "to the United States of America, to found at Washington, under the name of the Smithsonian Institution, an establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men, " created a charitable trust under the terms of which the United States would serve as trustee for purposes not limited to the national interest but for the benefit of all mankind. By the Act of

July 1, 1836, Congress accepted the Smithson trust on these terms, on behalf of the United States, and pledged the "faith of the United States" to carry out the purposes of the trust. Consoncint with its commitment to the tmst, Congress has, from the start, supplemented the trust resources with federal funds and property.

This unique combination of a privately-endowed institution, administered by the Board of Regents independent of the Government itself, and the continuing support of the United States, as trustee, in generous fulfillment of its pledge, has made possible the remarkable achievements of the Institution. It has engendered contributions from private donors which were inconceivable in 1836. The great national collections now consist largely of private gifts, and continuing private additions to the Smithsonian's independent trust funds have maintained the Institution's central resource for initiative and integrity. The Congress, on its part, has responded with the very substantial federal support which has been essential to the growth of the Institution and to many of its far-reaching services to the public for over a hundred years.

Since 1846, the Institution has greatly benefitted from the unstinted efforts of the six Congressional members of its Board of Regents. In this regard, the following paragraph, from a Smithsonian publication in 1904, is still pertinent.

"It is probable that no class of the American people appreciate the work of the Institution more fully than the members of Congress. This has been clearly shown by the uniform liberality with which, throughout many successive terms, regardless of changes in the political complexion of the administration, they have supported its policy; by the discrimination with which they disseminate its reports; by the judgment with which they select their representatives upon its Board of Regents, and above all, by the scrupulous care with which they protect the Institution in its independence of political entanglements. That the Institution has accomplished so much in the past is largely due to the support which it has received from these practical men of business, and through them by the people of the United States. It is to such support that it will owe its efficiency in the future, and it seems right that every opportunity should be taken to explain its operations to the public. No intelligent American can fail to appreciate the benefits which the highest interests of the American people receive through the proper administration of the Smithsonian bequest. '

The unique nature of the Smithsonian has been a mystery to many, and doubting voices have occasionally been raised, but throughout its one hundred and forty years there has been a broad consensus in Congress which has respected both the letter and the spirit of the original bequest. Congress has consistently maintained the integrity of the Institution's trust purposes and its independence of the administration of civil government.

In 1923, President Harding suggested the inclusion of the Smithsonian in a new Department of Education and Welfare, but the Joint Com-nnittee on Reorganization concluded:

"The Smithsonian Institution is one of the chief educational establishments under the Government, and the suggestion that it should be incorporated in the department of education and relief seems, at first blush, to be entirely logical. But the institution is effectively a corporation established under the terms of a private bequest. It is only quasi-public in character. Its growth and its splendid success have been due not less to private benefactions than to public support; and there is every reason not to endanger its development by altering its relationship to the Government, or by superseding the arrangements under which it has so greatly prospered,"

More recently, the Comptroller General, in a letter to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution on September 1, 1961, stated:

"However, there is for consideration in this instance the unique nature of the Smithsonian Institution and of the property appropriated for its uses and purposes. . . . From time to time the functions of the Smithsonian have been increased by laws placing under its control additional establishnnents or authorizing it to extend its activities into additional fields, but its organization and powers with respect to the subject matter of its creation have remained substantially unchanged. (See 20U.S. C. 41-57). . . . By the act of June 28, 1955, 69 Stat. 189, the Congress authorized the construction of 'a suitable building for a Museum of History and Technology. . .for the use of the Smithsonian Institution, ' at a cost not to exceed $36,000, 000. While the cost of this building is covered entirely by appropriations from the general treasury, we find nothing in the act to indicate any intention that the building when complete

shall not be as much the property of the Institution, and subject to its control to the same extent, as the buildings originally constructed from funds of the Smithson trust. In effect, the building is appropriated to the Institution and dedicated to the trust purposes, without qualification or restriction. "

In the course of its development, which has paralleled the growth of the nation, the Institution has been faithful to its trust mandate and, at the same time, has achieved a great many of the specific objectives which its Congressional supporters since John Quincy Adams have envisioned. The achievements of the Smithsonian, nationally and internationally, are due in essential part to the energy and discretion with which successive Boards of Regents, Secretaries, and staff have used the independent trust resources to venture into new fields "for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men" and to encourage the private gifts without which the national museums would scarcely exist. The judgment of Congress in assigning to the Board of Regents and Secretary the responsibility for selecting the most appropriate of the myriad opportunities offered to the Institution has repeatedly been vindicated and reaffirmed in the very substantial appropriations of federal resources to the Smithsonian.

Set forth in the following "Outline" is the basic history of the Smithsonian. All the major actions of the Congress with regard to the Institution fronn 1836 to 1883 are noted. During this period the principle of federal support for the independent trust establishment was recognized by the Congress, and the Institution's expansion to its present scope was begun.

OUTLINE OF THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

I. The Smith son bequest to the United States as trustee

In 1826, James Smithson, an English scholar and scientist of independent means, drew up his will and provided therein:

"In the case of the death of my said nephew without leaving a child ... I then bequeath the whole of my property ... to the United States of America, to found at Washington, under the name of the Smithsonian Institution, an Establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men. "

Smithson died in 1829. His nephew died without issue in 1835. In December 1835, President Jackson transmitted to Congress a report on the bequest, stating:

"The Executive having no authority to take any steps for accepting the trust and obtaining the funds, the papers are communicated with a view to such measures as Congress may deem necessary."

II. The Act of 1836, pledging the faith of the United States to the execution of the trust

John Quincy Adams, as chairman of the Select Committee appointed by the House to consider the bequest, prepared the bill which became the Act of July 1, 1836, and the unanimous committee report, which includes the following statements:

"To the acceptance of this bequest and to the assumption and fulfilment of the high and honorable duties involved in the performance of the trust committed with it, the Congress of the United States in their legislative capacity are alone competent. "

"Of all the foundations of establishments for pious or charitable uses, which ever signalized the spirit of the age, or the comprehensive beneficence of the founder, none can be named more deserving of the approbation of mankind than this. "

"To furnish the means of acquiring knowledge is, therefore, the greatest benefit that can be conferred upon mankind. It prolongs life itself, and enlarges the sphere of existence."

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

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

"Your Committee are fully persuaded, therefore, that, with a grateful sense of the honor conferred by the testator upon the political institutions of this Union, the Congress of the United States, in accepting the bequest, will feel in all its power and plenitude the obligation of responding to the confidence reposed by him, with all the fidelity, disinterestedness and perseverance of exertion which may carry into effective execution the noble purpose of an endowment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men. "

The Senate report on this same bill states in part:

"The committee suppose it unquestionable that the executory bequest contained in Mr. Smithson's will, of his whole property to the United States, in the event that has occurred, for the purpose of founding at Washington, under the name of the Smithsonian Institution, an establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men, is by the law of England a valid bequest; that the United States will be entertained in the court of chancery of England to assert their claim to the fund as trustees, for the purpose of founding the charitable institution at Washington to which it is destined by the donor, and that that court will decree that the fund shall be paid and transferred to the United States, or their lawfully authorized agent, leaving it to the United States to apply the property to the foundation of the intended charity at Washington and to provide for the due administration of the fund, so as to accomplish the purpose of the donor. "

"The fund given to the United States by Mr. Smithson's will is nowise and never can become part of their revenue. They can not claim or take it for their own benefit. They can only take it as trustees, to apply to the charitable purpose for which it was intended by the donor. "

"Upon the whole, the committee are of opinion that it is within the competency of the Government of the United States, that it well comports with its dignity, that, indeed, it is its duty to assert in the courts of justice of England the claim of the United States to the legacy bequeathed to them by Mr. Smithson's will, for the purpose of founding at Washington, under the name of 'The Smithsonian Institution, ' an establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men, and that provision ought to be made by Congress to enable the Executive to assert and prosecute the claim with effect. "

The Act of July 1, 1836, 5 Stat. 64, pledged the faith of the United States that all the monies or other funds which might be received for, or on account of the legacy, should be applied, in such manner as Congress should direct, to the purpose of founding and endowing at Washington, under the name of the Smithsonian Institution, an establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men. The Act required the Treasurer of the United States to account separately from all other accounts of his office for all sums received by him in virtue of the bequest. And it made the first appropriation fromi federal funds for the benefit of the trust, in the amount of ten thousand dollars, to defray the expenses of prosecuting the claim and of obtaining possession of the funds.

With regard to the pledge of the faith of the United States, John Quincy Adams, in a lecture given in Boston in 1839, states:

"Having drawn with my own hand that Act, as it stands without the alteration of a word, upon the Statute book, it has given me heartfelt satisfaction that although there were members averse to the acceptance of the bequest, the Bill was unanimously reported by a Committee of nine members of the House of Representatives; that it was adopted, without a proposal of amendment or a word of opposition by both Houses of Congress, and approved by the then President of the United States. It has delighted me yet more to find that the full import of that pledge of faith has been understood and felt, by the Agent, commissioned for the recovery of the funds, and by the present President of the United States and the Heads of Departments. In my own judgment the mere naked acceptance of the bequest, would have imposed upon the United States the moral obligation of all that was promised in the pledge of faith; but to this moral obligation I was desirous of adding a sanction equivalent to an oath before God, and such I considered the pledge of faith in the Bill. "

in. The Investment of the trust funds in State stocks in 1838

On the basis of the Act of 1836, and Adams' report, the English Court of Chancery, in May 1838, adjudged the Smithson bequest to the United States. On July 7, 1838, the last day of the session, Congress attached a rider to the appropriations act for the Military Academy, directing the investment of the Smithson funds in stocks of States bearing not less than five per cent interest and the investment of accruing interest in like manner. Adams protested in vain. The funds, in excess of half a million dollars, arrived in the United States on September 1, 1838, and were so invested by the Secretary of the Treasury. During the next eight years many of these State stocks declined substantially in value.

IV. The payment of expenses from the trust funds in 1839

The Act of 1836 had appropriated ten thousand dollars of federal funds for the expenses of securing the bequest in London, and in 1837 an additional five Aousand dollars was appropriated for this purpose. After receipt of the trust funds in September 1838, the Secretary of the Treasury requested the opinion of the Attorney General whether any of the expenses involved in bringing Ae bequest to the United States should be paid from the trust funds.

After stating the provisions of the Act of 1836, accepting the bequest and pledging the faith of the United States to apply the monies and other funds which might be received to carry into effect the provisions of the will, the Attorney General says:

"From these provisions it appears to me that Congress intended that there should be no diminution of the funds bequeathed for the purpose specified in said will, but that the whole, whatever they might amount to, should be applied to carry into effect the intention of the Testator; and when the object of the bequest is considered, it cannot be supposed that Congress would act in amy other than a liberal spirit.

"My opinion therefore is, that the amount of the whole money, and other funds rece ived by the Agent of the United States under the Act of Ist July 1836 without reduction, constitute the Smithsonian fund, for the purposes specified in said Smithson's will; and that the w-tiole expenses of prosecuting said clainn, receiving and transporting the same to this country, including ajiy additional expenses which may have b«en incurred here, ought to be defrayed out of the appropriation made by Congress. "

Since the prior appropriations were insufficient, the Secretary of the Treasury in December 1838 requested an additional ten thousand dollars to cover such expenses on the principles laid down by the Attorney General. However, in March 1839, Congress added the following sentence to the Civil and Diplomatic Act:

"For carrying into effect the acts relating to the Smithsonian legacy, $10, 000, to be paid out of the fund arising from that legacy. "

Later in 1839, John Quincy Adams wrote in his diary:

"The private interests and sordid passions into which that fund has already fallen fill me with anxiety and apprehensions that it will be squandered upon cormorants or wasted in electioneering bribery . . . the investment of the whole fund, more than half a million of dollars, in Arkansas and Michigan State stocks; and the dirty trick of filching the ten thousand dollars from the fund last winter to pay for the charges of procuring it--all are so utterly discouraging that I despair of effecting anything for the honor of the co'intry, or even to accomplish the purpose of the bequest--the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men. "

In March 1843, an additional amount of $3, 815. 73 was appropriated from federal funds to pay the remaining expenses of securing the trust.

V. The Act of 1846, establishing the Institution in perpetuity and restoring the trust funds

After eight years of debate. Congress, in the Act of August 10, 1846, 9 Stat. 102, * "for the faithful execution of said trust, according to the will of the liberal and enlightened donor, " constituted the President, the Chief Justice, and other officials:

"an 'establishment, ' by the name of the 'Smithsonian Institution, ' for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men; and by that name shall be known and have perpetual succession, with the powers, limitations, and restrictions, hereinafter contained, and no other. "

Perhaps as a result of John Quincy Adams' appeals to conscience, the Act declares that the entire amount of the bequest, without deduction for expenses, is on indefinite loan to the Treasury at six per cent interest from September 1, 1838. The amount of $242, 129, being the interest which would have been paid from September 1, 1838, to July 1, 1846, (uncompounded), is appropriated from federal funds for the erection of suitable buildings and other expenses of the Institution. A permanent appropriation of the interest accruing after July 1, 1846, is made "for the perpetual maintenance and support of the said institution. " A portion of the public

* The permanent provisions of the Act of 1846 were reenacted in the Revised Statutes of 1875, Sections 5579-5594, and now are found in 20 U.S.C. §§41-67.

grounds within the city of Washington, belonging to the United States, is appropriated to the Institution for a site for its building. And Section 5 of the Act reiterates that:

". . . all moneys recovered by, or accruing to, the institution, shall be paid into the treasury of the United States, to the credit of the Smithsonian bequest, and separately accounted for, as provided in the act approved July first, eighteen hundred and thirty-six, accepting said bequest. "

VI. The continuing responsibility of the Board of Regents and the Congress for the Smithson trust

By the Act of 1846, Congress established the Institution in its present form and provided for the administration of the trust, independent of the Government itself, by a Board of Regents and Secretary, to whom is assigned broad discretion to determine the most appropriate means of increasing and diffusing knowledge among nnen. The reasons for creating a board of distinguished individuals from the three branches of the Government and from the citizenry of the United States to carry out these unique trust responsibilities of the United States are set forth in the House debate preceding the passage of the Act in 1846:

"Very considerable latitude of control, as to the means to be used, is given to the board of managers, and the ends to be aimed at are described in comprehensive terms. But the most ample guarantee for the wise and faithful use of this discretionary power is obtained in the fact, that the board will consist of the Vice-President of the United States, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, three Senators, three members of the House, and six others to be chosen by joint resolution of the two Houses, who are required to submit to Congress annual reports of the operations, expenditures and condition of the institution. In addition to all this, there is reserved the power to alter and amend the charter, as the results of experience may render necessary or expedient. All these provisions seem to be wise, and make it almost impossible that any abuse or misapplication of the fund can ever take place. "

Implicit in these reporting and amending provisions of the Act of 1846 is the commitment of the Congress itself to assist and protect the progress of the Smithson trust and to maintain its independence from the three branches of the Government. The House report of March 3, 1855, on the Smithson fxind, states in part:

"Regard for the memory of the dead who conferred upon our citizens the benefit of the fund, and upon our nation the honor of its admioistraCion, no leas than a mere self-respect, v^-ill ever lead

this nation, through its representatives, to guard with peculiar vigilance the sacred trust involved in the bequest of Mr. Smithson, and carefully and diligently to watch the progress of the Institution in the fulfillment of the noble wishes of the founder, and the just expectation of mankind in its regard. "

"The Government of the United States, in accepting the great trust conferred, pledged itself to carry out the objects of the founder, to administer the funds with a distinct reference to the requirements of the will, and to keep the institute, which bears the name of the founder, separate in all its relations from any and every other; to give it a distinct and substantive existence, and insure independence and efficiency to its operations. "

VII. The statutory plan for the Institution

During the long debate preceding the Act of 1846, various groups in Congress had proposed that the Snnithsonian should be a national university, an agricultural school, a normal school, a school for the blind, a national library, a botanical garden, a national observatory, a chemical laboratory, a popular publishing house, a lecture lyceum, or a national nnuseum of arts and sciences. Some of the proponents focussed on the "increase of knowledge," some on its "diffusion," while others emphasized that the trust was not intended to benefit the United States only, but the world at large. Although the university and school proposals were abandoned on the theory that education was a field reserved to the States by the Constitution, the Act of 1846 achieved passage by providing for most of the other proposals in the one Institution:

"Section 5. . . . the board of regents . . . shall cause to be erected a suitable building, of plain and durable materials and structure, without unnecessary ornament, and of sufficient size, and with suitable rooms or halls for the reception and arrangement, upon a liberal scale, of objects of natural history, including a geological and mineralogical cabinet; also a chemical laboratory, a library, a gallery of art, and the necessary lecture rooms . . , ."

"Section 6. ... in proportion as suitable arrangements can be made for their reception, all objects of art and of foreign and curious research, and all objects of natural history, plants, and geological and mineralogical specimens, belonging, or hereafter to belong, to the United States, which may be in the city of Washington, in whosesoever custody the same maybe, shall be delivered to such persons as may be authorized by the board of regents to receive them, and shall be arranged in such order, and so classed, as best to facilitate the examination and study of them . . . . "

"Section 8. . . . And the said regents shall make, from the interest of said fund, an appropriation, not exceeding an average of twenty-five thousand dollars annually, for the gradual formation of a library composed of valuable works pertaining to all departments of human knowledge. "

"Section 9. ... of any other moneys which have accrued . . , the said managers are hereby authorized to make such disposal as they shall deem best suited for the promotion of the purpose of the testator . . . . "

"Section 10. . . . the author or proprietor of any book, map, chart, musical composition, print, cut, or engraving, for which a copyright shall be secured . . . shall . . . deliver . . . one copy of the same to the librarian of the Smithsonian Institution . . . . "

It is evident that this broad range of functions could not be supported solely by the annual income of $30,000. The two most influential factions which had emerged during the long debate were the national library and national museum groups. They had joined forces to pass the Act of 1846, but each intended thereafter to capture the entire resources of the Institution.

Vin. The redefinition of the Institution's basic functions

The first Board of Regents was appointed shortly after the passage of the Act in August 1846, and by the turn of the year it had elected a distinguished scientist as Secretary, selected the site on the Mall, and authorized the construction of a very large "castle" estimated to cost about $250,000. The income problem was immediately apparent, and it was agreed that construction should be spread over a period of several years in order to accumulate interest for addition to the endowment. An uneasy compromise was worked out with the library and museum factions (both of which were represented on the Board of Regents) whereby one-half of the trust income would be spent on the library and nriuseum functions and the other half on acientific research and publications.

A bitter and protracted struggle between the factions ensued, and in 1855, after investigations and reports by both Houses of Congress, the national library function was dropped. At the same time the building was nearing completion, at a cost of $325,000 (not including the federal appropriation of $7,000 in 1852 for planting and finishing the roads and walks around the building). It was necessary to decide whether the Institution could afford to accept the government collections, as provided in the Act of 1846, and whether the resulting museum would be appropriate to the basic purposes of the trust.

The House report of March 3, 1855, quoted above, includes comments on the museum concept in terms of the requirement of the trust that the Institution be not limited to local or national functions:

"We have, all around us, libraries and museums, by which what is known of literature and science may be diffused, so far as the influence of those libraries and museums extends; but it can not be denied that such an influence is necessarily quite limited. "

"A museum for the Smithsonian Institution should be of a kind to assist the student and the master in natural studies and enable them to pursue their inquiries to the full extent of attained results, that they may increase the amount of that kind of knowledge -- may add to what is already known; and when they shall have completed that commission and their reports shall have satisfied the Institution that something is contributed to the previous amount of knowledge in their particular branches, then the Institution shall cause these contributions to be printed in an appropriate manner and copies to be distributed to the various libraries of the country and the scientific associations throughout the world, thus diffusing knowledge among men. "

This concept of the research and publication functions of the museum was clearly within the basic purposes of the trust, but the additional role as curator of the national collections was also urged upon the Institution. Although much of the museum material which had been accumulating in Washington, at the Patent Office and elsewhere, was of importance to the scientific research of the Institution, much was of lesser interest, and there was a real danger that the expense of care and maintenance alone would exhaust the entire income of the trust. In 1858 the following agreement was implemented, as summarized in Secretary Henry's annual report to the Congress:

"It will be recollected that by the law of Congress incorporating this Institution 'all objects of art and of foreign and curious research, and all objects of natural history, plants, and geological and mineralogical specimens belonging to or hereafter to belong to the United States which may be in the city of Washington, in whosesoever custody the same may be, shall be delivered to such persons as may be authorized by the Board of Regents to receive them. '

"The law thus giving to the Smithsonian Institution all specimens illustrative of nature and art to be found in the several offices and departments of government was not construed as rendering it obliga-

tory of the Regents to accept these objects if they considered it inexpedient to do so. Inasmuch, then, as this collection was neither essential to the plan of organization nor directly subservient to the comprehensive purpose of the donor in regard to a world-wide benefit, it was the ultimate decision of a majority of the Board that it ought not to be accepted and that no part of the donation ought to be expended in the care of property belonging to the government of the United States. "

''In the meantime a very large amount of specimens of natural history had accumulated at the Institution from numerous exploring parties sent out by the general government; and as these collections had been made under the direction of the Institution, and their preservation was of the highest importance to the natural history of the country, it was finally concluded that if Congress would make an appropriation for the transfer and new arrangement of the articles then in the Patent Office, ajid continue the annual appropriation previously made for their care and exhibition while in charge of the Commissioner of Patents, the Institution would, under these conditions, become the curator of the national collections. This proposition was agreed to by the government, and the contemplated transfer has accordingly been made. "

On the basis of this understanding. Congress in 1857 and 1858 appropriated a total of $18,000 for the expenses of moving and installing the government collections. At the same time,the annual appropriation ($4,000) for the care of the government collections, which had begun in the 1840's, was transferred to the Institution.

IX. The growth of the Institution through federal appropriations and private gifts

The principle of annual appropriations support was thus established, but the amount remained more or less the same until after the Civil War. In 1869, Chancellor Chase and Representative (later President) Garfield pointed out to Congress that the annual cost to the Institution of the government collections had grown to over $10, 000, and suggested that the Government should take them back if it was unwilling to pay the expense. In 1870, appropriations increased to $20,000; in 1873 to $30,000. By 1877 the amounts appropriated for the benefit of the trust since its acceptance in 1836 totalled $346,000, not including the payments of interest on the trust endowment and the value of the federal property donated to the Institution.

In 1878, the annual appropriations for the first time equalled the expenditures from the Institution's trust funds. In 1879, $250, 000 was appropriated for the construction of the new building for the National Museum, now known as the "Arts and Industries Building. " With the staffing and opening of the building in 1881 the annual appropriation more than doubled, and by 1883 appropriations were providing for more than eighty per cent of the Institution's annual expenses.

During the last hundred years of the Institution's growth, the federal appropriations have doubled and redoubled many times. At the same time, substantial private contributions to the trust funds, although largely for restricted {jurposes, have continued to provide an essential portion of the Institution's resources, varying from ten to thirty per cent annually, throughout this period. This financial support has been but a small fraction of the value of the additions to the collections from private sources.

Between 1836 and 1846, Congress could, perhaps, have set up the Smithsonian as a small, self-sufficient research organization completely divorced from national interests. However, the Congressional leaders of that day, and since, with the concurrence of the Board of Regents, determined that the Institution could also serve national interests within its trust mandate. In order to achieve these more limited objectives without violating the broad purposes of the Smithson trust to which Congress had pledged the faith of the United States, it was necessary from the start to supplement the original trust resources with federal funds and property. This continuing commitment of national support to an independent and disinterested trust organization has called forth very substantial additional contributions from private individuals and organizations. The result has been to give this trust created for the benefit of mankind a scope which the foiinder could not have foreseen and, at the same time, to "promote the general weKare" of the United States without connpromising the moral and legal obligations which Congress accepted.

Volume 5, United States Statutes at Large

64

Proriso.

STinrrxL Julf 1, 1836.

May ajpoiru in agent to pro* •«cuti th* clsim.

boru

Afcnt to crra

To dtfrar ih« •rptcjrt.

' TWENTY-FOURTH CONGRjEiSS. Sesa. i: Ch.252. 1S36.

the lauda, aloreaaid of the United States; Provided, That should the said bridge nerer be conatructed, or having been constructed, shall be abandoned, bj the said compan/, the rights rested therein, by this act, shall cease and determine. . ' .

-Approved, July 1, 1S36. • ' • --

Ca^Pt-C CLIL— An Jet to autfu>r{ze and enable the Prestient to asert end pnue-eute xvii/i iffeet^iJu claim of (lie L'niUd Staiea to the le^aci/ herxitathed to them bjj Jamet Umil/uon, lal: of Lor.doa, deceoied., to found at iVashingion, under ike. name of the Sndtkionian In-Uilulion, an eitabHshner.l for the increase and di^usion <f' krffwlidge amonj men, ■ ^'

Be it enacted, hi/ the Senate rvuTHouse of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby, authorized to constitute and appoint an agent or agents, to assert and prosecute for and in behalf of the United States, and ia their name, or othervrise, as may be advisable, in the Court of Chancery, or other proper tribupal of England, the right of the United Stales to ilie legacy bequeathed to them by the last u-ill and testament of James Smithwn, late of London, deceased, for the purpose of founding, at Washington, under' the name of the Smithsonian Institution, an establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men: and to empower such agent or agents, so appointed, to receive and grant acquittances for all such, sum or sums of money, or other funds, as mayor shall be decreed or adjudged to the-United States, for, or on account of, said legacy.

Sf.c. 2. And be it further enacted. That the said agent or agents shall, before receiving any part of the said legacy, give a bond or bonds, in the penal sum of five hundred thousand dollars, to the Treasurer of the United States, and hb successors in ofHce, vntli good and sufficient securities to the satisfaction of the Secretary of the Treasury, for the faithful performance of the duties of the said agency, and for the faithful remittance to the Treasurer of the United States, of all and every sum or sums of money, or other funds, which he or they may receive, for payment in.'.vhole or in part of the said legacy. And the Treasurer of the United States is hereby authorized and required to keep safely all sums of money or other funds which may be received by him in virtue of the 3.xid bequest, and to account therefor separately from all other accounts of his oiSce, and subject to such further disposal thereof as may be hcreifter provided by Congress.

. Sec. 3. And be it further enacted. That any and all sums of money, and other fimdj, which shall be received for, or on account of, the siid let^acr, shall be applied in such manner as Congress may hereafter direct, to tlie purpose of founding and endo'.ving at Washington, under the name of the Smitbsoni.-m Institution, an establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men ; to which application of the said moneys, and other funds, tbo faith of the United Stales is hereby pledged. • .' •

Sec. 4.- And be it further enacted. That, to the end that the claim to the said bcqi:esl may be prosecuted with effect, and Lhe necessary eip'cses in proiecuting the same be defrayed, the President of the United States be, and he ii hereby, authorized to apply to that purpoie, any sum act exceeding ten thousand dollars, out of any moneys in ihe Treasury not otlier^tij* appropriated. ',' Arrrnvzo, J'llv 1 l~jn.

502 Volume 9, United States Statutes at Large 102 TWEJO-Y-NINTH CONGRESS. Ses3. I. Ch. 178. 1846.

Inraiid pen- To pay invalid pensions, thirty-two thousand three hundred and •iooa. thirty-five dollars and forty cents.

Penaiona of To pay the pensions of widows of ofEcers, seamen, and marines, widows. twelve thousand dollars.

Approved, August 10, 1846.

An?. 10, I&4C.

Preamble.

Smithionian Tn-•titation eibt>-liahed.

Ifame.

Anioant received lent to (J. S. trezaary, at sis pw cent, inter-eat, ftoffi SepL 1, 1SS8.

Interest accrued on 1st Jn-It next to be t»p-p'rapnated to tiie erection of baild-ings and other incidental ex-penaes.

Interest accruing jemi-annual-\j appropriated (or tbe perpecnal maiotenance and Eopport of the institution.

All moneys and stocks received of the bequest

Qnk.T. CLXXVIIl. —An £u to estMish the « Smithjmian Tiutiltition," for tie Inaraut and Diffusion of KiuneUdgt among .Men.

James Smithson, Esquire, of London, in the Kingdom of Great Britain, having by his last will and testament given the whole of his property to the United States of America, to found at Washington, under the name of the " Smithsonian Institution," an establishment for the increase and diHusion of knowledge among men; and the United States having, by an act of Congress, received said property and accepted said trust; therefore, for the faithful execution of said trust, according to the will of the liberal and enlightened donor ^

Bt it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President and Vice-President of the United States, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of "War, the Secretary of the Navy, the Postmaster-General, the Attorney-General, the Chief Justice, and the Commissioner of the Patent Cftice of the United States, and the Mayor of the city of Washington, during the time for which they shall hold their respective offices, and such other persons as they may elect honorary members, be, and they are hereby constituted, an " establishment," by the name of the " Smithsonian Institution," for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men ; and by that name shall be known and have perpetual succession, with the powers, limitations, and restrictions, hereinafter contained, and no other.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted. That so much of the property of the said James Smithson as has been received in money, and paid into the treasury of the United States, being the sum of five hundred and fifteen thousand one hundred and sixty-nine dollars, be lent to the United States treasury, at six per cent, per annum interest, from the first day of September, in the year one thousand eight hundred and thirty-eight, when the same was received into the said treasury; and that so much of the interest as may have accrued on said sum on the first day of July next, which will amount to the sum of two hundred and forty-two thousand one hundred and twenty-nine dollars, or so much thereof as shall by the board of regents of the institution established by this act be deemed necessary, be, and the same is hereby, appropriated for the erection of suitable buildings, and for other current incidental expenses of said institution; and that six per cent interest on the said trust fund, it being the said amount of five hundred and fifteen thousand one hundred and sixty-nine dollars, received into the United States treasury on the first of September, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-eight, payable, in half-yearly payments, on the first of January and July in each year, be, and the same is hereby, appropriated for the perpetual maintenance and support of said institution ; and all expenditures and appropriations to be made, from time to time, to the purposes of the institution aforesaid, shall be exclusively from the accruing interest, and not from the principal of the said fund. And be it further enartfd. That ail tlie money? and stocks which ])ave been, or mav hereafter be, received into the trea-

TWENTY-NINTH CONGRESS. Sess. I. Ch. ITS. 1846.

103

sury of the United States, on account of the fund bequeathed by James Smithson, be, and the same hereby are, pledged to refund to the treasury of the United States the sums hereby appropriated.

Sec. 3. And be it further enacted. That the business ofthe said institution shall be conducted at the city of "Washington by a board of regeuts, by the name of the Regents of the " Smithsonian Institution," to be compiled of the Vice-President of the United States, the Chief Justice of the United States, and the Mayor of tlie city of Washington, during the time for which they shall hold their respective* offices; three members of the Senate, and three members of the House of Representatives; together with six other persons, other than members of Congress, two of whom shall be members of the National Institute in the city of Washington, and resident in the said city ; and the other four thereof shall be inhabitants of States, and no two of them of the same State./ And the regents to be selected as aforesaid shall be appointed immediately after the passage of this act — the members of the Senate by the president thereof, the members of the House by the speaker thereof, and the sL\ other persons by joint resolution of the Senate and House of Representatives;, and the members of the House, so appointed, shall serve until the fourth Wednesday in December, the second next after the passage of this act; and then, and biennially thereafter, on every alternate fourth Wednesday of December, a like number shaM be appointed in the same manner, to serve until the fourth Wednesday in December, the second succeeding their appointment .lyAnd the senators so appointed shall serve during the term for which tney shall hold, without reelection, their office as senators*'' And vacancies, occasioned by death, resignation,br otherwise, shall be filled as vacancies in committees are filled; and the other six members aforesaid shall serve, two for two years, two for four years, and two for six years; the terms of service, in the first place, to be determined by lot; but, after the first term, then their regular term of service shall be six years;' and new elections thereof shall be made by joint resolutions of Congress;,'land vacancies occasioned by death, resignation, or otherwise, may be filled in like manner, by joint resolution of Congress../ And the said regents shall meet in the city of Washing;ton, on the first Monday of September next after the passage of this act, and organize by the election of one of their number as chancellor, who shall be the presiding officer of said board of regents, by the name of the Chancellor of the " Smithsonian Institution," and a_suitable person as secretary of said institution, who :;haJl also be the secretary of said board of regeuts. Said board shaJI also elect three of their own body as an executive committee, and said regents shall then fix on the time for the regular meetings of said board ; and, on application of any three of the regents to the secretary of the said institution, it shall be his duty to appoint a special meeting of the board of regents, of which he shall give notice, by letter, to each of the members; and, at any meeting of said board, five shall constitute a quorum to do business. And each member of ?aid board shall be paid his necessary travelling and other actual expenses, in attending meetings of the board, which shall be audited by the executive committee, and recorded by the jecretary — of said board ; but his service as regent shall be gratuitous. And whenever money is required for the payment of the debts or performance of the contracts of the institution, incurred or eutcred into in conformity with the provisions of this act, or for making the purchases and executing the objects authorized by this ict, the board of regents, or the exenutivr commutce thereof, miy certify to the chancellor and •ecretary of the board that such -ura of money is required, whereupon they shall examine the same, and, if they shall approve thereof, snail

pledged to refund to ib« U. S. iho amount herebj appropriated.

Board of regents constituted.

Regents to b« appointed — ho*', aiid when.

Post, p. 115.

Vacanciet, how filled.

\VTiea regenu shall meet and organize.

Chaocellor.

Secretary.

Eiocoiivo committee.

Reiultr and special meetiogi.

Memben of the board to b« paid th»ir (rarei-liDg eipenses.

How psTmentj ar« to t>« maije.

104

TWENTY-NINTH CONGRESS. Sess. I. Ch. 178. 1S46.

certiiy the same to the proper officer of the treasury for payment - Boani shaU re- And the said board shall submit to Congress, at each session thereof, port anauaUy to a report of the operations, expenditures, and condition, of the insti-Congre-. ^^^-^^^

Regenti to se-f Gmv. t . And be it further enacted. That, after the board of regents JTiidin ^ h°'l ^^^^ ^^^® ™®* ^"'^ become organized, it shall be their duty forthwith and where. " "°* to proceed to select a suitable site for such building as may be neces-I sary for the institution, which ground may be taken and appropriated \ out of that part of the public ground in the city of Washington lying Pronao. 5 between the patent office and Seventh Street: Jf*rori<ferf, The Presi-.

•; dent of the United States, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the i Treasury, the Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Navy, and the J Commissioner of the Patent Office, shall consent to the same; but, if ^ the persons last named shall not consent, then such location may be :; made upon any other of the public grounds within the city of Wash-( ington, belonging to the United States, which s'aid r?.'—>:,: ;.;;;y se-' lect, 'iy and with the consent of the p^-^ >.:- liiicui named; a:;>i the J said ground, so selected, shall be set out by proper metes and bounds Selection to b«j and a description of the same shall be made, and recorded in a bool recorded. 'j jq {jg provided for that purpose, and signed by the said regents, or so

l many of them aa may be convened at the time of their said organiza-ii tion; and such record, or a copy thereof, certified by the chancellor Copy of such^ and secretary of the board oi regents, shall be received in evidence, in Kcord to be eTi-j gji courts, of the extent and boundaries of the lands appropriated to 1 the said institution; and, upon the making of such record, such site i and lands shall be deemed and taken to be appropriated, by force of . i this act, to the said institution. De»oription of Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That, so soon as the board of bailding to be regents shall have selected the said site, they shall cause to be erected a suitable building, of plain and durable m.tterials and structure, without unnecessary ornament, and of sufficient size, and with suitable rooms or halls for the reception and arrangement, upon a liberal scale, of objects of natural history, including a geological and miner-alogical cabinet; also a chemical laboratory, a library, a gallery of art, and the necessary lecture rooms; land the said board shall have authority, by themselves, or by a committee of three of their members, to contract for the completion of such building, upon such plan 33 may be directed by the board of regents, and shall take sufficient security for the building and finishing the same according to the said plan, and in the time stipulated in such contract; and may so locate said building, if they shall deem it proper, as in appearance to form a wing to the patent office building, and may so connect the same with the present hall of said patent office building, containing the national cabinet of curiosities, as to constitute the said hall, in whole or in part, the deposit for the cabinet of said institution, if they deem it expedient to do so: Provided, said building shall. be located upon said patent office lot, in the manner aforesaid: Prmidcd, however. That the whole expense of the building and enclosures aforesaid shall

not exceed the amount of (a) dollars, which sum is hereby

appropriated, payable out of money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, together with such sum or suras out of the annual interest accruing to the institution as may, in any year, remain unexpended, Duplicates of after paying the current expenses of the institution. And duplicates eontra«s to be ^f ^j g^-jj contracts as may be made by the said board of regents thB°tn3aanr. shail be deposited with the treasurer of the United Stntes ; and all claims on any contract made as aforesaid shall be allowed and certified by the board of regents, or the executive committee thereof, as

erected.

Board of regents aiuliorixed to cootract for the erection of a Miitable building.

Ptoviao.

(a) No sum ta inserted in the record at Washington.

TWENTY-XINTH CONGRESS. Sess. I. Ch. 173. 1S46.

105

the case may be, and, bein? signed bv the chancellor and secretary of the board, shail be a sutiicient voucher for settlement and payment at the treasury of the United States. And the board of regents shall be authorized to emplov such person-s as they may deem necessary to superintend the erection of the building and fitting up the rooms of the institution. And ail laws for the protection of public property in the city of Washinstou sh;dl apply to, and be in force for, the protection of the lands, buildings, and other property, of said institution. And all monevs recovered by, or accruing to, the institution, shall be paid into the treasury of the United States, to the credit of the.Soxith-sonian bequest, and separately accounted for, as provided iu the act approved July first, eighteen hundred and thirty-six, accepting said bequest.

Sec. 6. And be it further enacted, That, in proportion as suitable arrangements can be made for their reception, all objects of art and of foreign and curious research, and ail objects of natural history, plants, and geological and mineralogicai specimens, belongin;r, or hereafter to belong, to tiie United States, which may be in the city of Washington, in whosesoever custody the same may be, shall be delivered to such persons as may be authorized by the board of regents to receive them, and shall be arranged in such order, and so classed, as best [to] facilitate the examination and study of them, in the building so aa aforesaid to be erected for the institution ; and the regents of said institution shall aAerwards, as new specimens iu natural history, geology, or mineralogy, may be obtained for the museum of the institution, by exchanges of duplicate specimens belonging to the institution, (which they are hereby authorized to make,) or by donation, which they may-receive, or otherwise, cause such new specimens to be also appropriately classed and arranged. And the minerals, books, manuscripts, and other property, of James Smithson, which have been received by the government of the United States, and are now placed in the department of state, shall be removed to said institution, and shall be preserved separate and apart from other property of the institution.

Sec. 7. And ht it further cnitctcd, That th^ secretary of the board of regents =hnll nke rharre of rhe ^TiH.iT» an'l rr^icrtv of said institution, and sliai:, uuder their diruoJou, liiaiio a \^ .^j,l accurate record of ail their proceedings, to be preserved in said institution; and the said secretary shall also discharge the duties of librarian and of keeper of the museum, and may, Avith the consent of the board of regents, employ assistants; and the said officers shall receive for their services such sum as may be allowed by the board of regents, to be piid semi-annually on the first day of January and July; and the said officers shall be removable by the board of regents, whenever, in their judgment, the interests of the institution require any of the said officers to be changed.

Sec. S. And be it further enacted, That the members and honorary members of sajd institution may hold such stated and special meetings, for the supprrision of the affairs of said institution and the advice and instruction of said board of regents, to be called in the manner provided for in the by-laws of said institution, at which the President, and m his absence tlie Vice-President, of the United States shall pre.'!ide. .And the ?aid regents «hail make, from the interest of said fund, an appropriation, not exceeding an av rage of twenty-live thousand dollars annually, for the gradual formation of a library composed of raJuabie works pertaining to all departments oi human knowledge.

Sr.c. 0. And he it further enacted. That of any other moneys which bavB accriied, or ?<haJl hereafter accrue, as interest upon the said

Vot- VL Pub. — 14

Employment of neceasarr au-perintendenu au> tiionzed.

Moneys iccru-iag to ilie insti-ruf.un to be paid iuto the treaa-ury.

.\U object! of art, natural history, plants, iScc, belonging to the U. S. in Washington, to be deposited and arranged in taid building.

Xewfpecimena as obtained to be also appropriately claimed and arranged.

Minerais, books, «Scc., of James SmiUuoa, now in department of itate to be remored to nid inaCitntiou.

Secretary of board diall taiiie charge of biuld-injs, iScc, and malce a record of proceeding* ; to naxa charge of libnry, ii.c., and employ asiut-tanis.

Compensalioa of od^cen. Re-moTible by the board.

.Members and honorary inem-bcn mij hold •tated and ip*-cui meetingi.

.Uinuil appro-pnauon for the Vraduai forma-.Don ol"* library.

.Mana^frr* «u-thorix'd to di»-poM of luuppro-

106

priatea ioterest nind.

Persons taking oat copyH'.'hts for books, vVc, to deposit a copy ■with librarian of institute, and a copy with librarian of Confess.

Right reserved of alterini; or repealing this act. Proriso.

TAVENTY-NINTH CONGRESS. Sess. I. Ch. 179, ISO. 1S46

Smithsonian fund, not herein appropriated, or not required for the purposes herein provided, the said managers are hereby authorized to make such dispoi^al as they shall deem best suited for the promotion of the purpose of the testator, any thing herein contained to the contrary notwithstanding.

Sec. 10. Andhr it further enartcd, That the author or proprietor of any book, map, chart, musical composition, print, cut, or engraving, for which a cop%Tight shall be secured under the existing acts of Congress, or those which shall hereafter be enacted respecting copyrights, shall, within three months from the publication of said book, map, chart, musical composition, print, cut, or engraving, deliver, or cause to be delivered, one copy of the same to the librarian of the Smithsonian Institution, and one copy to the librarian of Congress Library, for the use of the said libraries.

Sec. 11. And be it further enacted, That there is reserved to Congress the right of altering, amending, adding to, or repealing, any of the provisions of this act: Provided, That no contract, or individual right, made or acquired under such provisions, shall be thereby divested or impaired.

Approved, August 10, 1S46.

Aug. 10,1816.

Appropriation, to pay .\labama mosevs disbursed for subsistence, &c., of Alabama troops, and for provi-tioni and I'onge {amished to

friendly Indians.

Chat, CLXXIX. — An Act authorizing the Payment of certain Claims of the State of Alabama.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United Slates of America in Congress assembled, That there be paid to the State of Alabama, out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of thirteen thousand four hundred and fifty-five dollars and thirty-two cents, for moneys paid by the said State for subsistence, supplies, and services, of her local troops, and for provisions and forage furnished the friendly Indians during the Creek and Seminole hostilities, in the years eighteen hundred and thirty-six and eighteen hundred and thirty-seven.

Approved, August 10, 1846.

An?. 10,1^;6.

Secretary of Treasury to redeem trensory notes whicii havi» been stolen and put into circula-tioo and not cancelled.

Ante p. 40.

Proviso as :• nature of c\ dence requircil I prove the fucis.

Caxr. CLXXX. — ^a Act to provide for the Payment of the Evidences of public Debt in certain Casts.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That whenever it shall appear, to the satisfaction of the Secretary of the Treasury, upon due proof taken in the manner hereinafter directed, thai any treasury note, which has been, before the passage of this act, received or redeemed by any authorized officer of the government, has been subsequently purloined or stolen, and put into circulation, without having upon it any evidence or marks of having been cancelled, and has been received by any person or institution, for a full consideration, in the usaal course of business, without notice or knowledge of the same having been redeemed or received as aforesaid, or liaving been cancelled, or having been purloined or stolen as aforesaid, and without any circumstances existing to create suspicion of the good faith or due caution with which the same may have been received by such person or institution, he shall be, and hereby is. authorized to cause the amount of such note to be paid to the innocent holder thereof, out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated. Pro-oidrd. That the fact;* upon which any such payment sh;dl be made siiall be proved by the oath or alfiruiatiou of a credible witness or witnesses, taken before any judge of the United States, or of the

1/ 7 '^o'i

PERCENTAGE OF FUXDIXG KECETVED FROM TIIE FEDERAL GOVERNMEXT

Mr. Yates. So since its ori<rin, wlien it was beorim and financed by Mi-. Smitlisons bequest, it has come more and more to depend upon ;ij)13ix>pnations from tlie Fedei-al Government for tlie continuation of its activities, for the expansion of its activities, until today, if I remember tlio fioriire, approximately So to 87 percent I think of its fundinfr eomes from tlie Federal Government. Istliat fiofiire about correct ?

Mr. "Ripley. 87 percent, ^Ir. Chairman.

Mr. Yates. 87 percent.

Mr. "V^'itefjj:r That would include "rrants and contracts from Federal aorencies.

Mr. Yates. What is your appropriation? "Wliat percentage of your fundinii does direct Federal appropriation represent?

Mr. "Wheeler. 77 percent tliis year for operations.

Mr. Ripley. With the increment of the Federal srrants and contracts that raises it up to some 87 percent. The rest is all on the trust side.

Mr. Y.\tes. And that 77 percent I believe is in the neighborhood of S^IOO million or exceeds it.

Mr. Wheeler. If you include construction fimds it would run some-wlrit over that.

Mr. Y.vtes. "\Miat would you say it would be ?

Mr. Ripley. Salaries and expenses is approximately ?58,5 million in fiscal year lf>77. and then of coui'se the construction funds which come and <ro: they ebb and flow year in and year out.

In recent years we have funded constniction of the Air and Space ^fuseum and renovation of the National Zooloorical Park, so they were rather hea\^.

^fr. Yates. Rou£rhly $107 million, I think, Mr. Wlieeler.

Mr. Wheeler. That is the total amount requested for fiscal 1978.

^fr. Yatf.s. Yes; for fiscal 1078. So we find the Smithsonian Institution has eome to depend more and more upon its appropriations for the rarryingout of Mr. Smith-son's ro/|uegt.

SMmiSON-IAX nEI,.\TTOXSHTP WTTTT THE FEDERAL OOVERXMEXT

The Smithsonian is a unique in.<=titntion. and from time to time the question of Avhat its relation.ship with the Federnl GoveiTiment is has attracted the attention of quasi-judicial bodies like the Genei"a1 Ac-'oimtinir Office, which has to pa.ss on que.«?tions i-elatmir to its expenditures. As Mr. Powci-s Doints out in his treatise, in lOrd wlieJi t1>e oues-fion of whethei- the Smithsonian was required to ndheix* to Federal regulation in the lettinir of contracts the Genei'al Accounting Office ruled that it was not .so required.

At that time the decision related to the question of purchasing a cafeteria for the newly constructed Museum of Science and Technology-, anfl the fiiK'stion was whether or not the contract for the cafeteria liafl to be let under crmqx't iti\e bidding, and in accordance with Federal regulations the Ciencral Ac<'ounling ()ffic('decided that it did not.

This last week, iiist by wav of parenthesis. I noticed the decision of the General Accounting Office, which T tliourrht was not in line with its 1001 decision in connection with the purclmse of your elevator

for one of the buildings, and it decided that you did have to comply with Federal regulations and resort to competitive bidding. Are you familiar with that decision ?

Mr. Powers. Absolutely.

Mr. Yates. Are you able to reconcile that with the 1961 decision ? There was no reference to the 1961 decision in tliat.

Mr. EiPLEY. Mr, Powers has familiarized himself with this. I would be very happy if he answered this, and Mr. Ault can provide any building details.

Mr. Yates. At any rate, we can talk about that when the hearing is over, but I was struck by the fact that I thought it didn't follow that decision.

Mr. Powers. The recent GAO decision dealt simply with the expenditure of appropriated funds on elevator repair; those kinds of contracts are all subject to the regular procurement regulations, and the other laws governing Federal contracts. The earlier decision dealt with a use of the building not involving any appropriated funds, and a building which the GAO found had been appropriated to the purpose of the trust, and that is the distinction, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Yates. I read further from your document which is a part of the record, and you start out very properly by saying that Chief Justice Taft, who was then speaking as Chancellor of the Smithsonian Board of Regents, observed that, and I quote:

Many people suppose this private research establishment to be a part of the Government. I must make clear, gentlemen, that the Smithsonian Institution is not, and has never been considered a Government bureau. It is a private institution under the guardianship of the Government.

This document, Mr. Powers, rightfully emphasizes the fact that the Smithsonian has the character of a private institution. He refers repeatedly to the independence of the Smithsonian, of its independent trust funds, of its independent actions, but then we come to President Warren G Harding in his document on page 3. In 1928 President Harding apparently disagreed with the chancellor. Chief Justice Taft, in a quote that appears here, by saying that the Institution is only quasi-public in character.

I think there is a distinction between private and quasi-public. At any rate, all this leads up to—through the 3^ears and through the decisions of the GAO, and through the relationship of the Smitlisonian with the Congress and with the congressional committee—the decision of the Appropriations Committee, the subcommittee of the Senate last year in its request to the General Accounting Office, to take a look at the Smithsonian Institution and advise the Senate Committee as to whether or not it was properly carrying out its functions, or properly expending the Federal funds it was receiving from the Government.

general accounting office report

The Comptroller of the United States issued a report on March 31 entitled "Need To Strengthen Financial Accountability to the Congress." And I may say that I thought the report of the General Accounting Office did not fully cover what I thought was the request of the Senate Appropriations Committee. It did not really define the role of the Smithsonian vis-a-vis the Federal Government, and ultimately

its decision, at least the hoadnote describes the decision as sayin<r this only:

Two private corporations establisheil \>y the Sinitlu-^oiiiaii should he (li.s.solved l)ecause tliey avoid Federal laws governiiit; appropriated funds and because tiieir functions can be readily carried out within the Smithsonian orjcanizatiou. The Congrress should be kept better informetl on Sniithsonian financial matters, including proiX)sed uses of its private funtb<.

I thought this answer beorged the question in which certainly this committee was interested, and I assume the Senate committee was interested as well.

At any rate, the report of the Comptroller of the United States may be made a pait of the record at this point.

[Tlie repoit follows:]

.-■' ':^;', REP OR T OF THE P^'^ i COMPTROLLER GENERAL '<';.?:^^' OF THE UNITED STATES

Meed To Strengthen Financial Accountability To The Congress

Smithsonian Institution

Two private corporations established by the Smithsonian should be dissolved because they avoid Federal laws governing appropriated funds and because their functions can be readily carried out within the Snaithsonian organisation. The Congress should be kept better informed on Smithsonian financial matters, including proposed uses of its private funds.

GCD 77-43

••»•»•« o ■ n • ii

COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES WASHINGTON. O.C. 2034*

B-133332

The Honorable Robert C. Byrd, Chairman The Honorable Ted Stevens, Ranking

Minority Member, Subcommittee on

the Department of the Interior and

Related Agencies Committee on Appropriations United States Senate

This report covers the results of part of the work we are performing at the Smithsonian Institution in response to your joint request of June 14, 1976.

Our review disclosed three specific problems that have to be resolved: (1) the Smithsonian's distribution of Federal funds to private, nonprofit corporations thers by avoiding fiscal year and civil service restrictions, (2) the need for congressional approval of reprograming of funds within the Salaries and Expenses appropriation, and (3) the need for the Congress to be informed of the Smithsonian's planned use of private funds.

Smithsonian officials disagree with our position that they should not use private, nonprofit corporations to disburse Federal funds, contending that the corporations enable them to operate programs efficiently and effectively. We believe the Smithsonian should not channel appropriated funds through the corporations in order to use them in a way that it clearly could not if the funds were spent directly.

We are recommending to the Smithsonian Board of Regents that the Smithsonian Research Foundation and Smithsonian Science Information Exchange be dissolved and that the Smithsonian justify to the Congress the exemptions from existing laws it believes necessary to run effectively, and with a minimum of red tape, programs now funded through these corporations.

As you know, section 236 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 requires the head of a Federal agency to submit a written statement on action taken on our recommendations to the House Committees on Government Operations and the Senate Committee on Government Affairs not later than 60 days after the date of the report, and the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations with the agency's first request for appropriations made more than 60 days after the date of this report. We will be in touch with your office in the near future to arrange for release of the report so that the requirements of section 236 can be set in motion since we think the Smithsonian as the recipient of appropriated funds should comply with section 236.

The report contains information on a number of other topics in which you expressed interest. Work is continuing on the Smithsonian's cash management and banking practices and the fiscal policies of the National Gallery of Art.

Comptroller General of the United Stat£s

COMPTROLLER GENERAL'S REPORT TO TBE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE

NEED TO STRENGTHEN FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE CONGRESS Smithsonian Institution

DIGEST

About 90 percent of the Smithsonian's funds come from the Government; 80 percent in direct appropriations and 10 percent in grants from Federal agencies.

In requesting GAO to review the Smithsonian Institution's fiscal practices and policies, the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member of the Appropriations Subcommittee expressed concern over the management and accountability of Federal funds. This report covers the results of reviews of selected Smithsonian activities. Work is continuing on other reviews requested by the Subccmrnittee. The results of that work will ce reported on separately. (See app. I and p. 4.)

GAO identified three specific problems that have to be resolved.

The Smithsonian established the Smithsonian Research Foundation—a private nonprofit corporation—to distribute Federal funds as a means of avoiding restrictions on the use of appropriated funds. Funds channeled through the Foundation are treated as private funds in the hands of recipients, many of whcm are Smithsonian employees, to be spent without regard tc restrictions, such as civil service laws and fiscal year limitations.

Funds appropriated by the Congress for the following activities are channeled through the Foundation:

—Research Awards Program.

—Academic and Educational Programs.

87-564 1365

T«jf <l>»tl. Upon rtmovil. Ih« r«0Ort Cbv«r 0*1* IfiOuld &« loltd n«rion.

--Special Foreign Currency Program.

--Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

About $2,3 million was disbursed by the Foundation during the 15 months ended September 30, 1976. GAO's discussions with Smithsonian officials show that a common reason given for disbursing funds through the Foundation is their desire to avoid the restrictions placed on appropriated funds. In this connection we noted that while both private and Federal funds are expended by the Smithsonian on some of these programs, only Federal money is disbursed through the Foundation. The Foundation--consisting of three employees and' fully controlled by the Smithsonian--serves no function of consequence other than as a device that attempts to avoid restrictions relevant to appropriated funds. The Smithsonian should not use funds channeled through the Foundation in a way that it clearly could not if it spent the funds directly.

The Smithsonian Science Information Exchange was not specifically established as an independent corporation solely to avoid Federal restrictions on the use of appropriated funds. However, its corporate form accomplishes that purpose. GAO believes that there is no need for it to be operated independent of the Smithsonian. (See pp. 15 to 18.)

REPROGRAMING OF FUNDS:

A CONTINUING PROBLEM

The Smithsonian did not inform the Appropriations Committees of Salaries and Expenses reprograming accomplished through the contingency fund or otherwise, although the Committees had expressed their desire to approve repro-gramings. Smithsonian officials indicated that they were unsure of what actions required congressional approval, and the matter was never satisfactorily resolved with the Committees .

The contingency fund was abolished in fiscal year 1977 in response to congressional directives. However, the Smithsonian can still, as a matter of law, reprograra funds among programs, projects, and line items covered by its lump sum Salaries and Expenses appropriation. The Appropriations Committees and Smithsonian need to reach an understanding as to which reprogramings require Committee approval. Otherwise the Congress has no assurance that appropriated funds will be spent as it intended.

In fiscal year 1977 the Smithsonian requested the Committees' permission to reprogram a total of $765,000 of its Salaries and Expenses appropriation. As of February 14, 1977, not all requests had been approved. The basic question of which reprograming actions require approval had not been resolved, although the Smithsonian and the Committees were working to develop guidelines governing the types of reprogramings requiring Committee approval;

NEED TO INFORM THE COMGHESS OF THE PLANNED USE OF PRIVATE FUNDS

Because the Smithsonian receives private as well as Federal financial support, it has a degree of flexibility not enjoyed by Federal departments and agencies. The Smithsonian is able to undertake programs and acauire facilities with private funds without prior congressional approval, even though these may eventually impact on the level of Federal funding required to support the Smithsonian.

The Cooper-Hewitt Museum in New York City is an example of a new undertaking initially planned to be financed solely with private funds but now requiring continuing Federal support. (See pp. 33 to 39.) The large stake the Government has in the activities of the Smithsonian dictates the need for the Smithsonian to keep the Congress informed of major new programs and directions, even when formal congressional approval is not required.

Private funds are used for the same or similar purposes as funds appropriated by the Congress. The Smithsonian does not provide the Appropriations Committees with information on the planned uses of its private funds and, as a result, the Committees cannot fully assess the impact of their budgetary decisions on Smithsonian programs and activities. A greater recognition of the Congress' need to know by Smithsonian officials would go a long way to dispel

JtMf ';^>tf

congressional concerns over the lack of accountability, and do much to preserve the operating flexibility the Smithsonian desires.

RECOMMENDATIONS

GAO recommends that the Board of Regents, Smithsonian Institution :

—Dissolve the Smithsonian Research Foundation and the Smithsonian Science Information Exchange.

--Provide the Appropriations Committees with information on the planned use of private funds when appropriation requests are submitted.

--Establish, in conjunction with the appropriate congressional committees, clear policies governing the use of Federal and private funds.

GAO also recommends that the Secretary, Smithsonian Institution :

--Propose and justify to the Congress the exemptions from existing legislation that the Smithsonian believes it needs to run effectively, with"a minimum of red tape, the programs now funded through the Smithsonian Research Foundation and the Smithsonian Science Information Exchange.

—Continue working with the Appropriations Committees to reach a common understanding as to the types of budget reprograming actions the Committees wish to approve in advance, and, in the interim, continue seeking Committee approval of all reprograming actions.

AGENCY ACTIONS AND UNRESOLVED MATTERS

The Smithsonian does not agree with GAO's position or recommendations to dissolve the Smithsonian Research Foundation and Smithsonian Science Informiation Exchange. Smithsonian's position is that the Foundation and the Exchange were both created with the approval of the Regents, the knowledge of the Congress, and meet the requirements of law. Smithsonian officials believe that the programs administered by the Foundation and

the Exchange are administered more efficiently and effectively independent of the Smithsonian.

The Smithsonian generally agrees with GAG's conclusions and recommendations concerning the reprograming of funds within the Salaries and Expenses appropriation and with the need to inform the Congress of the planned use of private funds.

CONTENTS

Pace

DIGEST

CHAPTER

1

2

INTRODUCTION

Scope of Review

AVOIDANCE OF

OF APPROPP

Why the

Found What th Financi Conclus Agency

evalu Sraithso

Excha Agency

evalu Recomine

Regen Recomine

RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE lATED FUNDS

Smithsonian Research ation was established e Foundation does al operations ions

comments and our ation

nian Science Information nge

comments and our ation

ndation to the Board of ts ndation to the Secretary

THE CONGRESS NEEDS MORE INFORMATION ON SMITHSONIAN FINANCES

Reprograming of operating funds:

The Congress needs to be informed The Congress needs to know how

Smithsonian private funds are

to be used Conclusions Recommendations Agency comments

ESTABLISHMENT OF FACILITIES AND THEIR IMPACT ON FEDERAL FUNDING REQUIREMENTS Cooper-Hewitt Museum of Decorative

Arts and Design Chesapeake Bay Center for Environmental

Studies Conservation and Research Center Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute Conclus ions Agency comments

5

8

12 13

13

15

18

18 19

20 20

24 30 31 31

33

33

40 43 45 47 47

CHAPTER

Page

5 OTHER MATTERS 48

Museum support facility 48

Conclusion 50

Smithsonian expanding research role 51

Travel by Smithsonian officials 53

APPENDIX

I Letter from the Committee on Appropriations

requesting review 55

II Application of salary and expense funds for

fiscal year 1976 and the transition quarter 57

III Summary of travel for assistant secretaries and above for fiscal years 1974, 1975, 1976, and transition quarter 62

IV The role of the Secretary of the Smithsonian

Institution 55

V Letter dated March 21, 1977, from Secretary

of the Smithsonian 75

VI Principal officials of the Smithsonian

Institution responsible for administering activities discussed in this report 110

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

The Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member, Senate Subcommittee on the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, requested that we review various activities of the Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. (See app. I.)

The Congress created the Smithsonian Institution in 1846 to carry out the terms of the will of James Smithson of England, who had bequeathed his entire estate to the United States "to found at Washington, under the name of the Smithsonian Institution, an establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men."

After accepting the trust property for the United States, the Congress vested responsibility for administering the trust in the Smithsonian Hoard of Regents composed of the Chief Justice, the Vice President, three Members Of the Senate, three Members of the House of Representatives, and nine citizen members appointed by joint resolution of the Congress. The Board of Regents elects the Secretary of the Smithsonian, who is the chief executive officer. The Secretary is assisted by an Executive Committee consisting of the Assistant Secretaries for Science, History and Art, Public Service, Museum Programs, and Administration; the Treasurer; the Director of Support Activities; the General Counsel; and an Executive Assistant.

The Smithsonian has become one of the world's leading research centers and largest museum complexes. The Smithsonian engages in a wide variety of activities, such as conducting basic research, explorations and investigations; preserving for study and reference, items of scientific, cultural, and historical interest; maintaining exhibits representative of the arts, American history, aeronautics, space exploration, technology, and natural history; and engaging in programs of education and cooperative educational research with national and international organizations.

The Smithsonian receives financial support from both Federal and private sources. Federal funds are appropriated annually for expenses of the various Smithsonian museums and educational and research centers. Excess foreign currencies

are appropriated for a separate program of academic grants for overseas research projects. Federal funds are also appropriated for renovation and restoration of buildings and for construction and improvements. Additional funds are received from Federal agencies and private institutions in the form of research grants and contracts. Private funds are derived from gifts, investment income, the Smithsonian Associates Program, museum shops, concession fees, and other revenue producing activities. The following table summarizes the Smithsonian's sources of funds for the last 3 fiscal years.

<2

^ 00 ^

^ STV ^

a

CO

^ JJ

o> o

10 a

(U IQ

in 1^

u c

o

I I

^1 XII

At September 30, 1976, the Smithsonian had a total of 4,625 full-time employees—3,487 on the Federal payroll and 1,138 on the private payroll.

SCOPE OF REVIEW

We reviewed selected aspects of the Smithsonj.an Institution's fiscal policies and practices, selected activities of its affiliated nonprofit organizations, and other matters of interest to the Subcommittee. In addition to reviewing Smithsonian activities conducted in Washington, D.C., we visited the following Smithsonian facilities:

—Conservation and Research Center, Front Royal, Virginia.

—Cooper-Hewitt Museum, New Yor-k', New York.

—The Chesa'peake Bay Center for Environmental Studies near Annapolis, Maryland.

—The museum support facility. Silver Hill, Maryland.

—The Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Panama.

In response to requests from the Subcommittee, audit work at the Smithsonian is continuing. The principal areas of review are

—banking and cash management practices and

—financial management at the National Gallery of Art.

The results of this work will be covered in later reports.

CHAPTER 2 AVOIDANCE OF RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF APPROPRIATED FUNDS

The Smithsonian established the Smithsonian Research Foundation—a private, nonprofit corporation—to disburse appropriated funds. Funds channeled through the Foundation are treated as private funds by the recipients and spent without regard to restrictions, such as civil service laws and fiscal year limitations, governing the use of appropriated funds.

The Foundation—consisting of three employees and fully controlled by the Smithsonian—serves-jio function of consequence other than as a device that attempts to convert Federal funds into private money. The Smithsonian did not adequately inform the Congress or obtain its approval to establish the Foundation and operate independent of civil service laws and fiscal year limitations. In our opinion the Smithsonian should not use funds channeled through the Foundation in a way that it clearly could not if it spent the funds directly.

WHY THE SMITHSONIAN RESEARCH FOUNDATION WAS ESTABLISHED

Before fiscal year 1956, Smithsonian scientists received research grants from the National Science Foundation. Grant funds received from Federal agencies are treated as private funds by the Smithsonian, just as they are when received by colleges and universities. However, the Independent Appropriations Act of 1966 precluded the National Science Foundation from transferring funds to a governmental unit that receives direct appropriations for research without receiving, in each individual case, specific permission from the Bureau of the Budget. Beginning with fiscal year 1S65, the Smithsonian has requested and received research funds from the Congress to replace the funds previously received from the National Science Foundation.

In hearings before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee in March of 1965 the Secretary offered the following explanation of how the research funds would be soent.

"We intend to allocate this money in exactly the same way as when the National Science Foundation gave it to us. We will have to set up research panels to advise and judge the requests for grants and the same standards of excellence we anticipate will prevail as when the National science Foundation awarded them to us in the open market, as it were. Other scientists were requesting these moneys from all over the country."

In response to a question raised in the hearings on the 1967 budget request the Secretary responded in pertinent part;

"Under a statute, under the Independent Appropriations Act for 1966, the National Science Foundation was precluded from transferring funds to any other agency of the Government for research and grants without, in each individual case, specific permission of the Bureau of the Budget.

"As a result of that, we requested last year a sum representing the average of the amount our individual scientists have been granted by the Foundation, just as they might have obtained grants at other institutions anywhere in the country, and this sum represented $350,000. We feel that these projects are of such scope and depth as individual research projects that they are not viewed as ordinary research undertakings which would be supported by our conventional funding means. Prior to 1966, members of our staff were permitted to submit these proposals to the National Science Foundation: under present law they cannot do so except in special cases. As a result, our scientists submit these grant proposals to review panels within the Smithsonian. The grant is for an appropriate period of time.

"The funds are intended to serve a special purpose for a project rather than for the ongoing institutional normal funding we request. We feel this small amount of research money would be most advisable.

"* * * These funds together with the base amount of 5350,000 appropriated for 1966 will be administered on the same basis as were the grants received from the National Science Foundation."

A paper prepared for the 'Executive Committee of the Board of Regents in deciding whether the Smithsonian Research Foundation should be established states

"In order to achieve the same degree of flexibility in administering these special funds independent of fiscal year limitations or civil service requirements; it is proposed to establish a research foundation to receive, disburse, and account for the funds granted to projects which have been competitively selected for a research award. The foundation will have a corporate structure composed entirely of Smithsonian personnel."

The paper concluded by stating

"In addition to financing and administering research projects formerly funded by the NSF, it is contemplated that the foundation may also prove useful for other special programs such as visiting fellowship awards or cooperative projects in field biology."

The Executive Committee approved the proposed establishment of the Foundation which was then presented to the Board of Regents for approval.

At the Board of Regents meeting'a discussion on why the Foundation was needed took place. A question arose as to whether the Foundation could be established without congressional approval. The Secretary responded that the Foundation was in effect a special bank account through which funds would be administered in the same way other grants for research are administered. These funds would be expended and replenished each fiscal year and this system would simplify administrative procedures in the financing of scientific projects by Smithsonian scientists. The Board of Regents approved the establishment of the Foundation and in June of 1966 it was incorporated in the District of Columbia as a private nonprofit corporation.

In hearings held in March 1967—the first hearings held after the Foundation was created—the Subcommittee Chairman asked with respect to the research awards program, "Just what is this program?" In the Secretary's response, no mention was made of the Foundation or the Smithsonian's need and intent to operate independent of fiscal year -or civil service requirements,

The Smithsonian's General Counsel stated that receiving the research funds through the appropriation process created the following problems:

—Federal employees cannot receive Federal grants, which in effect made Smithsonian Federal employees ineligible to participate in the program.

—Research assistants must be hired from the civil service rolls which limits Smithsonian scientists' flexibility in operating their research projects.

—Appropriated funds must be obligated within 1 year which allowed the Smithsonian little flexibility in operating the research awards program.

Funds for other Smithsonian programs have been channeled through the Foundation. Smithsonian officials contend that agreements with the Foundation obligated funds and that when funds are transferred to the Foundation by means of these agreements the appropriated funds become private funds and restrictions on the use of the»appropriated funds no longer apply.

WHAT THE FOUNDATION DOES

The Foundation's Board of Directors is composed entirely of Smithsonian officials appointed by the Secretary of the - • the Smithsonian Institution, who is Chairman of the Board and President of the Foundation. He appoints all other officers of the Foundation and the Board of Directors.

The stated purpose of the Foundation is to cooperate with the Smithsonian in encouraging, sponsoring, aiding, or conducting scientific research; studies in education, the arts, and the humanities; training persons in any of these areas; and making gifts, grants, contracts, for any of these purposes. However, the Foundation has three employees and its actual functions are "" set out in annual agreements between the Foundation and various bureaus of the Smithsonian. The agreements covering the last 3 fiscal years—1974-76—provide essentially for the Foundation to do no more than disburse funds and maintain records supporting the following programs.

1. Grants and fellowships awarded to Smithsonian employees-, or other individuals for study and research and charged to Smithsonian's Salaries and Expenses appropriation for the Office of Academic Studies and the Research Awards Program.

2. Grants awarded to Smithsonian employees for research in foreign countries and charged to United States' excess foreign currencies appropriated to the Smithsonian for its Special Foreign Currency Program.

3. Grants, stipends, and fellowships awarded to various individuals by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for scholars.

4. Miscellaneous Smithsonian activities funded from the Salaries and Expenses appropriation, such as Smithsonian conferences, lectures, seminars, and educational activities; internships; and the Foundation's administrative fees.

The Foundation does not perform scientific research, does not provide educational services, does not get involved in decisions on the use and allocation of funds, and does not have responsibility for supervising the programs. In short, the Foundation does not provide any management function, of consequence.

Smithsonian program officials were asked why funds for their particular program were channeled through the Foundation.

The Office of Academic Studies awards fellowships to individuals in the academic world to study and conduct research at the Smithsonian. The program officer stated they use the Foundation because of the flexibility it provides. It was explained that the Office of Academic Studies operates its program on a calendar year rather than fiscal year basis; consequently, the fiscal year limitation on Federal funds creates a problem. To resolve this problem, its funds are transferred in a lump sum to the Foundation by means of an agreement, usually at the end of each fiscal year. This is presumed to be a valid obligation of funds, converts the funds into private money, allows the Office of Academic Studies to avoid the year-end limitation on the funds, and permits the Office to award^grants after the close of the fiscal year for which the funds were appropriated.

Besides Federal funds, the Office of Academic Studies has some private funds it awards to fellows. According to the program officer, the private funds are not transferred to the Foundation but are handled by the Office directly.

87-564 O - 77 - 34

The Office of International Programs is responsible for j operating the Smithsonian's Special Foreign Currency Program. ' The purpose of this program is to award grants for research ^ in foreign countries where the Onited States has excess j

foreign currency. Only the grants awarded to Smithsonian employees are administered through the Foundation. The Office of International Programs directly administers the grants to , other individuals. The Director of the program was asked why j the Foundation administered the awards to Smithsonian employees. He stated that he understood that Federal grants cannot be r awarded to Federal employees and that by channeling grants to Smithsonian employees through the Foundation the Federal funds became private funds and the problem no longer existed. The , excess foreign currency appropriation is available until expended, and the use of the Foundation offers no benefit in avoiding fiscal year limitations.

The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars awards fellowships to individuals to conduct scholarly research in various disciplines. The Center's Assistant Director for Administration stated that it uses the Foundation because the Center lacks ad.Tiin-istrative capabilities.

The Center's agreement with the Foundation provides a lunp sura to.be used to support individual grants designated by the Center. In addition to awarding fellowships with Federal funds, the Center has private funds that support fellowship awards. The ; Foundation administers Federal funds, but the Smithsonian's Grants) and Insurance Administration Division administers private funds. ; We asked the Center's Assistant Director for Administration why the Foundation is used to administer the fellowships supported by Federal funds and not the private funds. He explained that at one time the Foundation administered all fellowships but the Smithsonian informed him that the Smithsonian should administer the private funds. The Treasurer of the Smithsonian acknowledged that it was the Smithsonian's intent to have the Foundation only administer Federal funds. It should be noted that by transferring the Center's funds to the Foundation, the fiscal year limitation ■ on their use is eliminated.

The following chart shows the amount of Federal funds that have been transferred to the Foundation during the last 3 fiscal' years, including the transition quarter. '

10

a; ^^ -w

0) in

c o

HI JT

o

c w o

i-t o

•<-l tM

2 <U o -u

U C

u-( O

13 O 3 W

4J JJ

11

FINANCIAL OPERATIONS

The primary purpose of the agreements with the Foundation is to establish a means to keep program funds from lapsing at the end of the fiscal year, and to overcome civil service law restrictions applicable to the hiring of research assistants. The agreements provide for the Foundation to administer funds to grantees subsequently designated by the Smithsonian. While the Foundation performs some housekeeping services in administering the funds, the cost of those services represents a small portion of the total funds transferred to the Foundation; in fact, many of the services the Foundation is obliged to perform under the agreement are actually performed by the Smithsonian itself under a separate contract with the Foundation.

The Smithsonian purports to obligate its appropriations at the time it signs agreements with the Foundation. Under the agreements, the Smithsonian conveys through the Foundation, to those that the Smithsonian designates, funds that otherwise clearly would become unavailable. The following tabulation shows the dates selected fiscal year funds were considered obligated under the agreements, and the period of performance for the Research Awards Program and various miscellaneous projects sponsored by the Office of Academic Studies.

Date of Fiscal year Period of

obiigation funds obligated performance Amount

Research Awards Program:

6/28/74 1974 6/30/74 to 6/30/75 $450,000

6/30/75 1975 6/30/75 to 6/30/76 450,000

Office of Academic Studies:

6/30/73 1973 fiscal year 1974 185,OOO'

6/28/74 . 1974 fiscal year 1975 397,000

9/30/76 1976 fiscal year 1977 80,517

In many cases the specific research projects were made to and accepted by the recipients on various dates after the end of the fiscal year in which the funds were considered obligated.

12

We noted a number of other obligations recorded for miscellaneous contracts awarded to the Foundation. A total of $57,000 was obligated in fiscal years 1974 through 1976 under the Urgent Anthropology Program, but as of late February 1977 no research projects had been selected. The obligations had been recorded in late June of fiscal years 1974, 1975, and 1976, and late September 1976, covering the transition quarter. Thus, the funds were being accumulated by the Foundation awaiting a decision by the Smithsonian to undertake the project. In another instance the Smithsonian recorded on June 24, 1974, an obligation of $103,000 of fiscal year 1974 funds covering reimbursement to the Foundation for administering foreign currency grants in fiscal year 1975. The above-cited transactions served as a device to hold onto funds after their availability lapsed.

Hiring of employees outside of Civil Service System

Congress has provided the Smithsonian through the Research Awards Program, with funds for individual research projects by Smithsonian scientists. The Research Awards Program is funded as part of the Smithsonian Salaries and Expenses appropriation, some of the funds in the Research Awards Program are used to hire research assistants for Smithsonian scientists, without regard to the restrictions of the Civil Service System. This is justified by the Smithsonian because the funds used to pay the assistants have been channeled through the Foundation. We question whether Congress would approve of this treatment of appropriated funds to hire non-civil service employees.

CONCLUSIONS

The Smithsonian Research Foundation was established to overcome restrictions placed on appropriated funds, and civil service rules. It is not used to administer the private funds received by the Foundation—only the appropriated funds. Except for its "virtue" of overcoming the effect of laws that typically attach to appropriated funds, the Foundation appears to serve no useful function that could not be performed by the Smithsonian itself.

AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR EVALUATION

The Smithsonian's comments pertaining to the Foundation contend that: (1) full notification of the purposes for establishing the Foundation was provided to the Board of Regents and the Congress, (2) the Foundation performs

13

economically, management functions of consequence, and,

(3) the agreements between the Smithsonian and the Foundation

meet legal requirements.

Smithsonian officials believe that our criticism should be tempered by the fact that six Members of the Congress, including members of the Smithsonian's oversight and appropriations committees, were serving as Regents when the Foundation was approved. While this is true, we do not equate approval by the Board of Regents with approval by the Congress. Nonetheless, the Smithsonian never adequately informed the Congress of the creation of the Foundation or of its intent to operate independent of fiscal year and civil service requirements, although it had the opportunity to do so during appropriation hearings.

The Smithsonian relies on the same facts to support its conclusion that there was full disclosure to the Regents and the Congress as we do in concluding that there was not.

Our criticism is muted by the fact that there is nothing to suggest that appropriated funds were spent on anything but the programs authorized. Nonetheless, the Smithsonian should have presented to the Committees its case for operating outside the normal appropriations and civil service law restrictions. Assuming the Committees would have been swayed by the Smithsonian justification, they then would have had the options of approving the concept of the Foundation, or granting exemptions from civil service laws and providing no year appropriations Since the Smithsonian has never obtained congressional approval for the Foundation, we believe it should not use funds channeled through the Foundation in a way that it clearly could not if it spent the funds directly.

The Smithsonian takes exception to the statement that the Foundation performs no management function of consequence. The Smithsonian listed several administrative functions performed by the Foundation. However, it must be recognized that the Foundation contracts back with the Smithsonian to provide many administrative functions because it lacks such capabilities, consequently, the Foundation maintains little more than a housekeeping operation and its primary function is the disbursement of funds. The fact that private funds expended on the same programs are administered by the Smithsonian and not by the Foundation demonstrates that the Foundation exists to avoid restrictions applicable to appropriated funds.

14

Smithsonian officials believe that the Foundation administers its programs more economically than would otherwise be the case, we do not believe this issue is particularly relevant to the dis- . cussion and did not make a detailed analysis of the costs involved, However, we do not see how the workload would differ with the form of the organization.

The Smithsonian states that the Foundation is legally constituted and the agreements between the Smithsonian and the Foundation are legally binding. We are not questioning the legal standing of the agreements or the Foundation. Even assuming the agreements and the Foundation meet legal requirements, does not lead one automatically to the conclusion that it was proper for the Smithsonian to create the Foundation to operate its programs independent of fiscal year and civil service requirements without clear approval from the Congress.

SMITHSONIAN SCIENCE INFORMATION EXCHANGE

The Smithsonian incorporated the Smithsonian Science Information Exchange in June 1971 as a private, nonprofit corporation in the District of Columbia. It was organized to facilitate effective planning, management, and coordination of scientific research activities sponsored by governmental and private agencies and individuals; to provide for exchange of information about basic and applied research projects and proposals in physical, medical, biological, social, and engineering sciences; and to encourage scientific research, train persons for such activities, and make grants or contracts to accomplish any of these purposes.

In April 1971 the Smithsonian notified the Appropriation Committees that it intended to incorporate the Exchange and that such action had the approval of the Office of Management and Budget. The reasons given for incorporation were to

—continue Exchange operations without disruption

—provide flexibility to the Exchange as it built revenues from user charges

—eliminate the requirement to convert the Exchange's staff to civil service status.

15

The Smithsonian pointed out that the Smithsonian staff would retain full control of the Exchange through majority membership on the Exchange's Board of Directors, and that the primary concern of the Board would be with overall policy and program decisions, public relationships, resource planning and the management of the Exchange's fiscal affairs.

The Exchange is managed by a Board of Directors which is assisted by an Advisory Council. The Assistant Secretary for Science of the Smithsonian serves as Chairman of the nine-member Board, and the Secretary and two other employees of the Smithsonian are also Exchange Directors. The President of the Exchange is elected by the Board of Directors serves on the Board and appoints the other officers of the Exchange subject to the Board's approval. An Advisory Council of 22 members, nominated by the Chairman of the Board and appointed by the Secretary o'f the Smithsonian, advises the Board of Directors regarding the Exchange's technical and scientific functions and related policy matters.

The working relationship between the Smithsonian and the Exchange has been embodied in a series of substantially identical annual agreements under which the Exchange, as contractorj is to maintain the Exchange as the National repository of ongoing scientific research. Maintenance functions include negotiating for input, codifying and indexing incoming projects, storing materials, and improving data bank processes for handling records. The Smithsonian transfers funds appropriated by Congress for the Exchange's necessary expenses as the contract price under these agreements. Funds for the Exchange were no-year appropriations!/ until fiscal year 1975 when they became available for obligation on only a 1-fiscal-year basis. The Exchange charges fees to both Federal and non-Federal users of its services in accordance with directives from the Congress and the Office of Management and Budget.

The total funds available to the Exchange during each of the last 3 fiscal years ended September 30, 1976, were as follows:

1/ No-year appropriations are available until expended without regard to fiscal year.

16

^ Fiscal year

TF74 T975 T976 (note a;

Aporooriations $1,695,000 $1,805,000 $2,461,000

User fees ■-416,273 834,003 1,519,714

Total funds available $2,111,273 $2,639,003 $3,980,714

a/ Includes transition quarter.

Although the above tabulation shows that a substantial amount of the Exchange's financial support comes from user fees, it should be noted that a large part of such fees are received from Federal agencies. In fiscal year 1976, for example, about $1.1 million of the fees came from Federal agencies. In that year, then, about 90 percent of the Exchange's financial support came from the Federal Government either in the form of direct appropriations or user fees.

Appropriated funds transferred under agreements with the Smithsonian are private funds in the hands of the

Exchanca.

Since the Exchange is a private, nonprofit corporation, it does not have to comply with Federal statutes such as fiscal year limitations and civil service and Federal procurement laws, applicable to the use of appropriated funds.

Before the incorporation of the Exchange as a private body in 1971, all or parts of its present functions were carried out beginning in 1950 by sundry organizational units indirectly connected with the Smithsonian, the National Science Foundation, and a number of other Federal agencies. These earlier organizations obtained their operating funds through grants and contracts from Federal agencies. Dser fees were instituted in 1969. The same situation prevailed then as it does today—the Federal operating funds and user fees were considered private funds in the hands of the predecessor organizations without the restrictions applicable to Federal funds.

17

AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR EVALUATION

Smithsonian officials believe that any recommendation to dissolve the Exchange's corporate form, as we oropose should be based on a clear demonstration of the operational benefits that such a change would bring. They believe that the Exchange is well run now and fully accountable to the Congress. They expressed concern that there would be severe impacts on the Exchange's staff and loss of flexibility to the Smithsonian to adjust the Exchange's operations, if the staff was converted to civil service status.

Our remarks about the Exchange's corporate form do not speak to the efficiency of the organization but to the Questions of accountability and control. From the Smithsonian's justification for incorporation it is clear that the Exchange is controlled by the Smithsonian, and-is almost wholly supported with Federal funds.

While we can agree that the Smithsdnian provides the Congress with much information on the Exchange's activities, «we do not necessarily equate this with effective congressional control and accountability. The fact that the funds appropriated to the Smithsonian were made 1-year funds by the Congress in 1975 but still become no-year funds in the hands of the Exchange demonstrates•the impact the Exchange's corporate form has on congressional control. In our view the nature of the services provided by the Exchange and the fact that it is partly financed by user fees, of and by themselves, do not justify a corporate form of organization. In reaching this conclusion we are aware of the Exchange's history and that its incorporation by the Smithsonian was made known to the appropriate congressional committees beforehand.

RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF REGENTS

We recommend that the Board of Regents dissolve the Smithsonian Research Foundation and the Smithsonian Science Information Exchange. Further we recommend that their operations be carried out as part of the Smithsonian's regular organizational structure.

18

RECOMMENDATION TO THE SECRETARY, SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

We recommend that the Secretary:

—propose and justify to the Congress the exemptions from existing legislation the Smithsonian believes it needs to run effectively, and with a minimum of red tape, the programs now funded through the Smithsonian Research Foundation and the Smithsonian Science Information Exchange.

19

CHAPTER 3

THE CONGRESS NEEDS MORE

INFORMATION ON SMITHSONIAN FINANCES

The Congress needs to receive better information on

— the reprograraing of funds appropriated for salaries and expenses and

—the use of private funds to finance Smithsonian activities.

Without full and complete information the Congress cannot assess the impact its budgetary decisi-ons will have on the Smithsonian nor does it have assurance that the funds are spent as intended.

REPROGRAMING OF OPERATING FUNDS; THE CONGRESS NEEDS TO 3E INFORME D

For years the Smithsonian set up a contingency fund from its appropriation for salaries and expenses to meet extraordinary expenses that might occur during the year. The contingency fund was established by withholding about 2 percent from some line items in the Smithsonian's final salaries and expenses budget. In each of the last 3 fiscal years, 1974-76, the contingency fund amounted to about $1 million.

Using the contingency fund resulted in some of the major bu within the Salaries and Expenses some less than the amounts the S congressional budget approval, all used for purposes authorized appropriation. However, the app mittees was not obtained because of which budget reprograming act wanted to approve in advance.

and other budget reallocations dget categories and subcategories

appropriation receiving more and mithsonian had allocated following The reallocated funds were

by the Salaries and Expenses roval of the Appropriations Com-

Smithsonian officials were unsure ions, if any, the Committees

The contingency fund was abolished in fiscal year 1977. Re-programings continue, but requests for approval have been sent to the Appropriations Committees. Still, the Smithsonian and the Committees need to reach an understanding of the type of actions that require advance Committee approval.

20

Reprograming of funds not approved by Conunitte'ei

In recent years the Congress has favored lump sum appropriations for Federal agencies stated in terms of broad object categories, such as the Salaries and Expenses appropriation of the Smithsonian.

In justifying requests for appropriations for salaries and expenses (operating funds) the Smithsonian breaks down the amounts requested into six major budget categories: (1) Science, (2) History and Art, (3) Public Service, (4) Museum Programs, (5) Special Programs, and (6) Administrative and Support Activities. Under each of these major categories, there are generally 5 to 13 subcategories totaling about 50 budget line items. The Smithsonian remains free, as a matter of law, to depart from its budget justifications and congressional expressions concerning them, so long as its use of funds is within the broad scope of the Salaries and Expenses appropriation and does not violate any limiting provision of the- appropriation act. The Appropriations Committees have consistently expressed the desire to approve in advance budget reprograming actions by agencies, including the Smithsonian, covered by the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.

The Smithsonian obtained advance approval on a number of occasions for reprograming its Construction and Improvements and Repairs and Renovations appropriations. Also, the staff of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees were advised by the Smithsonian in 1971 of its practice of establishing a contingency fund to meet pressing emergency needs or opportunities. Smithsonian officials stated that because the Committee staffs did not respond they assumed the use of the contingency funds was approved. They told us that they were unsure of which Salaries and Expenses reprogramings, if any, the committees wanted to approve. As a result, they had not obtained approval for reprogramings within the Salaries and Expenses appropriation. Smithsonian's reallocations have been within the broad purposes of the Salaries and Expenses appropriation.

While it would appear to be simple enough to clarify the situation through a dialogue with the Committees, the Smithsonian officials indicated that discussions were held but they ' never obtained a clear understanding of what was required of them.

21

Commonly, during the congressional review and approval process the Smithsonian budget request was reduced in total without identifying what major category or subcategory should be adjusted. Consequently, the Congress did not generally provide the Smithsonian with an approved final allocation to budget categories of the amounts appropriated for salaries and expenses.

A limited exception to this general rule occurred in fiscal year 1975. The conference report directed the Smithsonian to provide the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a report showing the Smithsonian's final allocation by program area of the amount the Congress authorized for salaries and expenses .

The following table compares by major budget category the amounts obligated by the Smithsonian with the allocations reported to the Committees.

22

(0 V-l

o o

(U -<

Oi <z

539

o in ^ p» r^ i-< cN ve •<3< (~-

\o cN in •^ CN va

(-1 O ■^ r-( in 1—1

(»» in rr o o o

o rn o 00 in oo

a> CO ^ r~ CO i-i

i^ i-t CN o r- vo

vo i—I CN in •>»■ o

o o o o o a

o o o o o o

o o o o o o

O eo ■v CT^ vo o^

CN ^O CO CN CO r-t

in ^ o fn 1—I 1—1

CI >il

O IQ •n U

e 0)

M nj O

4J 0) E -1-1

u 0) E iq 0) >

<a u IQ b > u

-g > oi o -u 03

C U O 1-1 (Q

IT] 0) U CU b JJ

■- Oi -u u

^ M O

E 10 --^ a

c o •-* 3 •-< c a

oj ij ^ a> o ■-* 3

•W M ^ to 4J S W

o-w 3 3 a.'d CO s b s en <

01 >i

No approval of these budget reprogramings was obtained, although the Senate report on the appropriations bill stated:

"No funds shall be reprogramed from approved projects and programs within activities without a written request from the agency involved requesting specific approval." (Underscoring added.)

Current status of reprograming authority

In response to congressional directives, the Smithsonian did not establish a contingency fund from its fiscal year 197? appropriation. Instead, reprograming within the Salaries and Expenses appropriation has been requested from the Appropriation Committees.

In this connection, the Smithsonian requested the Appropriation Committees' approval to reprogram a total of $765,000 of its 1977 appropriation and has proposed guidelines to the Committees as to what items should be subject to advance Committee approval. This is a major improvement over the situation that existed in prior years where the Congress received no information. until the proposed guidelines are approved by the Committees or some other direction given, the Smithsonian should continue to obtain approval of all salaries and expenses reprograming actions.

We believe also that it is only realistic for the Committees to give the Smithsonian some flexibility in reallocating funds among budget categories and that formal Committee approval should be limited to reprograming actions above a specified amount and thereby likely to impact on the accomplishment of program goals.

THE CONGRESS NEEDS TO KNOW HOW SMITHSONIAN PRIVATE FUNDS ARE TO BE USED

The Smithsonian receives private as well as Federal financial support. Because of its dual funding, the Smithsonian has a degree of flexibility not enjoyed by Federal departments and agencies. The Smithsonian is able to undertake programs and acquire facilities with its private funds without prior congressional approval. Also private funds can and are used for the same or similar purposes as appropriated funds.

24

The committees of the Congress have never requested and are not furnished with information on the planned uses of Smithsonian private funds when considering appropriation requests. However, Congress receives historical information on the uses of Smithsonian private funds. Without complete information on the Smithsonian's financial plans, the Congress does not know in advance the full level of program funding and cannot fully assess the impact of its budgetary decisions on the activities of the Smithsonian. Accordingly, we believe the Smithsonian should provide the committees on Appropriations with its private funds budget when it submits its appropriation requests.

Classification of private funds

The Smithsonian classifies its private funds as either restricted or unrestricted. Restricted private funds have been designated for specific purposes by the donors.

Unrestricted private funds fall into three categories: (1) general funds, (2) special purpose funds, and (3) auxiliary activities fund. The general funds are those private funds that are not designated for any specific purpose and are expended by the Smithsonian as it deems necessary. The special purpose funds consists of funds, including the net income from certain revenue producing activities, reserved for use by a particular bureau of the Smithsonian in accordance with the wishes of the donor or decisions by Smithsonian management. The auxiliary activities fund consists of funds from various other Smithsonian revenue producing activities and are expended at the discretion of Smithsonian management.

The following schedule shows the source of restricted and unrestricted private funds during the 15-month period ended September 30, 1976.

25

87-564 O - 77 - 35

Cm

wit:

00 00

n o

1-4 00 r^ <NJ (N I

ui c\ in o in

OJ 0) •

tn en en

0) "0 •■ JJ

"O c 0) Cu

3 IT3 g --J

^ e o 0)

26

Private funds generated from revenue producing activities

The Smithsonian engages in a number of auxiliary revenue producing activities, including the sale of books, photos, and other articles; restaurant concessions; parking facilities; and special events for which fees are charged. These private fund activities are carried on by the authority of the Smithsonian Board of Regents in furtherance of its educational mandate.

The following chart summarizes the net income or loss from these auxiliary revenue producing activities for the last 3 fiscal years.

27

VO «N t^ <Ti o iri

^^ W VO -H O —I

<N fH CN ^^ in (N

I « I I

r^ Ko ca a\ cs a 'H cTi \a r» —I (N

vo a^ o •'T r^ C3 CN CO o^ o m o^ CN I in ^ I

§.t:

■u J2 J=

■-< £ O •-<

wo a» CO o i

(U (0 u a,

ij to jj o ^

Q, (O u -H o

to 13 01

ace > 0)

o "c 10 en 0) jj

j= -< •-• c TJ o

to C C ■'' c

e w to u o

3 JZ £ - -m jj jj

3 E E .

s CO tn o. Oi o

UJ ■r^ o 1-

'Bl

28

Receipts from auxiliary activities are placed in the Smithsonian's general unrestricted private funds and expended at the discretion of Smithsonian management.

Appropriated funds support the Smithsonian's revenue producing activities by paying for such expenses as heat, light, maintenance, repairs, janitorial services and supplies, guard services, and other costs relating to the operation, maintenance, and administration of the Smithsonian institution buildings and grounds. In a 1972 opinion, we agreed that the Smithsonian could retain the gross receipts as private funds but believed that the books should be maintained in such detail as to show clearly the gross amount of such receipts so .that full disclosure could be made to the Congress of the amounts received from these operations.

The Smithsonian provides the Congress with general financial information on auxiliary fund activities in the Secretary's annual report. Little information is provided the Congress by Smithsonian management On activities whose revenues are retained by the bureaus generating the revenues and included in the special purpose private fund. The Trea»3urer informed us that until recently these revenues were insignificant. Revenues from some of these activities are now substantial, however, and these revenues are used to support activities for which the Congress appropriates funds. For example, in fiscal 1976 and transition quarter receipts from the theater and parking fees at the popular new Air and Space Museum were $273,000 and $356,000, respectively. Ninety percent of the parking fees go to the Smithsonian's General Unrestricted Funds and 10 percent to the Museum as compensation for its efforts related to the garage operations.

Policies governing financing decisions

The Smithsonian has no formal policy for determining the purposes for which or circumstances in which Federal or private funds will be used. However, as a general practice appropriated funds are used for constructing, operating, maintaining, restoring, and renovating Smithsonian's buildings; and maintaining the National Collections. Direct expenses of auxiliary activities such as the Associates program and museum shops, are funded from private funds.

In this connection when determining whether an employee will be Federal or private, the decision is generally based on the sourc

29

of funding of the bureau where the individual is employed. For example, the Museum of Natural History is predominantly federally funded, and the majority of the employees are on the Federal payroll. In contrast, the Freer Gallery of Art is predominantly supported by private funds and its employees are for the most part, on the private payroll. A mixture of Federal and private employees work in the administrative area and engage in activities relating to both Federal and private funds. Administrative employees often have the option of either being a Federal or private employee.

Even with these general financing policies private funds and appropriated funds are used for the same or similar purposes, Appendix II shows the uses made of both Federal and private funds in fiscal year 1976 and the transition quarter.

The Appropriations Committees receive this type of historical cost information regularly as part of the appropriation process. However, this information is of limited usefulness in making funding decisions for the future. We believe the Committees should receive information on the planned use of private funds for the upcoming year. Without this information the total level of funding by program and activity is not disclosed to the Committees and it cannot accurately assess the impact of its budgetary decisions on the Smithsonian's activities.

CONCLUSIONS

The large stake the Government has in the Smithsonian dictates the need for the Smithsonian to keep the Congress informed on

—reprograming actions so that the Congress has assurance that funds are spent in accord with its budgetary decisions and

—planned private fund use so that the Congress can accurately assess the full impact its actions have' on Smithsonian programs.

The Smithsonian has a long tradition of private financing and independence. The Congress has noc reviewed the private funds budget in the past. In our view, the mixture of Federal and private funding in so many Smithsonian activities makes a review of the Smithsonian's Federal budget of and by itself inadequate. Simply stated, there can be no assurance under the present set up that congressional budget actions will have the intended effect.

30

The long-run answer for the Smithsonian is to establish clear policies on the appropriate use of Federal and private funds and provide the Congress with its private funds forecast when requesting Federal funds. Smithsonian officials expressed a willingness to do this but indicated that the decision would have to come from the Board of Regents.

RECOMMENDATIONS

We recommend that the Secretary:

—Continue to work with the Appropriations Committees to reach a common understanding as to the types of budget reprograming actions the Committees wish to approve in advance.

We recommend that the Board of Regents:

—Establish, in conjunction with the appropriate congressional committees, clear policies governing the use of Federal and private funds.

—Provide the Appropriations Committees with information on the planned use of private funds at the time appropriation requests are submitted.

AGENCY COMMENTS

The Secretary stated that the Smithsonian fully concurs in the conclusion that the Smithsonian requires some administrative flexibility in reallocating funds among budget categories and with the recommendation that the Smithsonian work with the appropriation subcommittees to arrive at a mutually agreeable understanding as to the reprograming actions above some amount that the committees would want to approve in advance.

He said the Smithsonian is anxious to continue discussions with the subcommittees to develop guidelines which will provide Congress with the necessary level of control yet offer the Smithsonian some administrative flexibility given the number of line items in the Smithsonian's budget, the more than 2-year period over which any fiscal year's budget is developed and carried out, and the number and variety of needs that arise over this period as the Institution attempts to meet its responsibilities.

31

Concerning Smithsonian private funds, the Secretary stated that the management of the Smithsonian has been and is willing at all times to furnish fully to the Congress any and all facts, financial or otherwise, about its operations. He recognized that in some areas, notably nonfederal funds expended under the immediate direction of individual bureaus, reporting of additional details may be desirable.

The Secretary also said that providing the Congress budget projections of the Smithsonian's trust fund, as recommended by the GAO, can be furnished with the concurrence of the Smithsonian Board of Regents which approves all such budgets. Such projectrons, however, should be received by the Congress with the understanding that they do not have the same degree of reliability as, for example, estimates for Federal apprcpr iacions , since the projections of trust fund income and expenditures-depend in part upon future economic conditions, numerous nianagement decisions, the personal circumstances and decisions of important donors, and a host of other variables which sre net predictable with certainty so far in advance.

The Secretary said that the S-^.itr.scnian will endeavor to set forth more clearly the pciicies by which decisions are made on the use of federally appropriated funds and the limited trust funds av=ii=cle to the Board of Reaents.

32

CHAPTER 4

ESTABLISHMENT OF FACILITIES AND THEIR IiMPACT 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 devote<d 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, 1975.

33

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 1953 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 Mew York City able and willing to help the Museum continue as an entity.

34

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 until October 1967. An agreement was signed and later validated by the New York State Supreme Court in May 1958. 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.

35

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.

36

^J- ■V f-( o

o* T m in

r» vo rs) c>

1—I <—I I—I ON

•«s« va ON m

TP rH tN ON

Lfi r~ «N >^

CN i-i n

ON rn CO 03

cN o r~ r~ n ON {N •»?

n ^ r^ ro

CO >

o o o o

n ON fn ko o « in >? m i-t CM in

(0 -a

rH tn u

M O'

IS

3

2 J

^ a

3 J3

ON rr in vo u -u va r~ f*- p» c —<

ON ON ON ON -^H

37

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 nego— tiations. 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 six members are also Members of Congress.

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 fo..' 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 S2.5 million in private funds and $159,000 in Federal funds in renovating the Carnegie property. About 3235,000 of the private funds were in the form of grants from Federal agencies including 5195,000 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 1973.

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

33

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. Smithsonisr. officials estimate that $243,000 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.

39

CHESAPEAKE BAY CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

In 1962 the Smithsonian was bequeathed a 368-acre tract of land just south of Annapolis, Maryland, known as the Java farm. In 1964, the Secretary of the Smithsonian proposed use of the tract for biological research and education. The proposal was approved by the Smithsonian's Board of Regents and the Center was established in 1965. The Smithsonian purchased adjoining tracts of land with private funds to have an area large enough to be representative of the region and to protect the shoreline of the Rhode River watersheds. As of February 1977 the Center consisted of about 2,600 acres with 14 miles of shoreline on the Rhode River, which flows into the Chesapeake Bay. Of the 2,600 acres, 1,700 are owned by the Smith-^onian and the remainder is covered under covenants of restricted uses.

Federal funds were first used to support the Center in fiscal year 1966. The Center first appeared as a separata item in the Smithsonian budget in fiscal year 1974. In arior years the Center had appeared in the line item justification for the Office of Ecology.

The Smithsonian is a member of the Chesapeake Research Consortium, formed to define and coordinate research contributing to the better management of the Bay's environmental system. Other members of the consortium are The Johns Hopkins University, the University of Maryland, and the Virginia Institute of Marine Science.

According to the director of the Center the major research currently financed with Smithsonian appropriated funds is a study of how the Rhode River estuary works and interacts with its watershed. The directer stated that the continuous monitoring of the flow, content, and properties of the estuary's water has intrinsic value, because it provides a framework from which various applied research projects can evolve.

Appropriated funds are also used to manage the Center and to support and maintain the facilities. Much of the research is carried out under grants and contracts from other Government and private agencies.

40

In October 1976 there were 19 research projects underway, 15 of which were funded by Smithsonian private funds. Federal agencies, or private organizations. Four were funded with money appropriated to the Smithsonian. The research performed at the Center is discussed further in chapter 5.

The source of funds and costs to operate the Center are shown on the following page.

41

o o o o

I • - I

o tn

o o o o o

o o o o o

CN (33 va o r~

^ CO o tn

o o o o o o o o o o a> va o^ o o

::! '

o o o

o o o •-I 00 tn

o o o o o a o.o ■«r o \o o

PM 0\ CM (^ vo

o o o o o o •ON r» va

o o o o a o o o o o vo in r» n p«-

o o o o o o o o o o o 00 r-- r- o>

42

CONSERVATION AND RESEARCH CENTER

The Conservation and Research Center in Front Royal, Virginia, is a rural annex of the Smithsonian's National Zoological Park. The Center is used for breeding endangered wildlife species and for associated conservation and research efforts. The Center is located on a 3,150-acre site.

Before becoming part of the Smithsonian, the Front Royal site was used by the Department of Agriculture for beef cattle research. In 1973 the site was declared excess property by the Department of Agriculture, and in fiscal year 1974 the National Zoo began using the property under a temporary use permit granted by the General Services Administration. The property was officially transferred to the Smithsonian Institution in July 1975.-

The National Zoo has been searching for a breeding farm site for about 14 years., possible site locations in Maryland and Virginia had been considered, but the Front Royal site was determined to be superior because of its size, location, and facilities. The facilities include 19 residences, a conference center, an ad-ir.istration building, several animal barns, a commissary, various workshops, and miscellaneous sheds and storerocnis. It should be noted that the Appropriations Committees were >.apt informed of the Smithsonian's intentions to acquire a breeding farm.

According to the Director of the ^^ational Zoo, catching wild anim.als to replace animals that either die or are unable to adapt to z >*^j conditions is difficult because of declining wild animal populations, legal restrictions against obtaining some species from the wild, and the prohibitive price of many species. He stated that the National Zoo did not have enough space to keep adequate numbers of many species to build breeding herds, but the Center has the space required for successful breeding of many wildlife species that are difficult to breed under normal zoo conditions.

The Center's breeding herds have been formed through cooperative arrangements with several zoos which share the offspring. The Center's animal oooulation has qrown from 25 in 1974 to 96 in 1976.

43

The Center is administered by a curator-in-charge, two conservation project officers, an administrative assistant, and a secretary. The Center has 22 full-time employees. Five temporary employees are hired to harvest grass, hay, and alfalfa during the spring and summer. The Center's staff increased from 4 in 1974 to 22 in 1976.

The Center's funding since its inception is shown in the following table.

Fiscal years

IFTe and

1974 1975 transition quarter (thousands )

Operating funds:

Federal appropriation $80 . $276 $ 473

Private funds _^ . 20 68

$80 $296 $ 54T

Repairs, renovation and construction (Federal)

(note a) _ 125 1,110

$80 $421 $1,651

a/No private funds have been expended for these purposes.

The funds for renovation and construction were used to install fencing, to renovate several buildings, to convert the granary to a commissary, and to make minor repairs to barns. In fiscal year 1977 it is estimated that Federal funds of approximately $440,000 will be required to operate the Center.

Master planning for the Conservation and Research Center is scheduled to be completed by mid-1977. Preliminary estimates indicate that renovation and construction at Front Royal will cost $10 million over the next 10 years. The bulk of the $10 million will go toward preparing the site for animals. However, a $2 million visitor and education center is planned. The public does not now have access to the Center; opening it to the public would require additional facilities, such as parking lots, restrooms, and a visitor transportation system. A visitor center would require additional staffing and operating funds.

44

SMITHSONIAN TROPICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE

The Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute is a bureau of the Smithsonian Institution devoted to promoting research, education, and conservation in the tropical zones of the world. The Institute is headquartered in the Panama Canal Zone where it maintains a number of facilities including the biological reserve and field station on Barro Colorado Island.

In 1923 the Governor of the Panama Canal Zone designated Barro Colorado Island as a reserve and delegated its supervision to the Institute for Research in Tropical America, an agency of the National Research Council. Until 1940 the Island was supported by a number of biologists and their universities. It became apparent at this time that the Island was becoming a major center for tropical research.

To keep the Barro Colorado Island as a center for tropical research, the Congress passed legislation placing the Island and its research activities under the U.S. Government. This act (20 U.S.C. 79b) established the Canal Zone Biological Area as an independent governmental entity with its own board of trustees. In July 1946 the Island was transferred to the Smithsonian institution as one of its bureaus to be the principal tropical basic research center in the Western Hemisphere. The Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute was created by the Smithsonian in April 1966. The Institute includes the Barro Colorado Island, and certain marine laboratories on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts.

The funds to operate the Institute come from appropriated funds, donations from individuals, universities., and foundations, and fees from visiting scientists. Financial support is derived also from research grants and contracts from Federal agencies and private firms. The following chart shows the cost of operating the Institute for the last 3 fiscal years.

45

5 m u 10 c

tt Vl <t-l

k a

K Q.

p» •<>• 1/1 03 in i-H

in a>

i CO CN

O 1^ o

1^ O 133

m o 1^

t:* r^ cN o n

n r» n CN .-H

o r» m m

rr 03 CN .-H

IJN 03 ^ 00 tN ^

n in po

vo vo rr in (N CN rH in I—I oj ■V (N rt vo fs

O in (~- C3 CN

CN 00 in 1^ o

vo ^ cr\ in

CD in CN o

o in CO-r- ■^ T

rt rH vo

I » - »

o r- in —I in ^H in ^^ o rvj

>—I •— 00 ^O C3

in la --( p~

<N vo vo

^ <r\ in ■V c\ in

•rt 4J C

CONCLUSIONS

The scope of the Smithsonian's activities has grown and will -continue to grow. This is entirely consistent with the Smithsonian's mandate to increase knowledge among men. However, a byproduct of new undertakings by the Smithsonian is growth in the amount of Federal support required.

In our view the fact that the Smithsonian has private funds with which it can launch new programs should not be viewed as justification for less than full and timely disclosure of new programs to the Congress. The Government has too large a stake in the Smithsonian for it to be otherwise.

AGENCY COMMENTS

The Secretary stated that the Smithsonian completely respects the congressional need to be promptly informed of Smithsonian plans that might involve substantial new Federal expenditures. He agreed that more comprehensive and timely communication with the appropriate congressional committees is essential and that this will be done.

47

CHAPTER 5 OTHER MATTERS

The Committee requested information on several other matters. Each is discussed separately below.

MUSEUM SUPPORT FACILITY

The museum support facility is a proposed complex of buildings to be constructed in Silver Hill, Maryland. The facility would be constructed in several phases over a period of years. When completed it would provide approximately 1.9 million square feet of space for (1) the expanding national collections, (2) support and maintenance services, and (3) research by and training of conservators. It would permit museum space presently used for storage to be converted to exhibition halls.

The storage problem

The Smithsonian's collections now include well over 70 million objects and specimens, of which only a small percentage is on display while the>vast majority is in storage. According to Smithsonian officials, collections are growing at a rate of about one million items annually. Smithsonian officials predict that collections will increase 2 to 5 percent annually.

The Smithsonian stores most of its collections in its various museums. With the growing quantity of collections it has become increasingly difficult to find the space necessary to house collections. The Smithsonian has been storing bulky items, primarily those for the National Air and Space Museum, on a 21-acre site in Silver Hill, which was acquired from the General Services Administration in 1959. Presently there are 27 one-story, prefabricated metal storage buildings on the site. Smithsonian officials said that storing collections in these facilities was inadequate because they lacked humidity and temperature controls essential for conservation purposes.

In fiscal year 1976 the operating costs of the Silver Hill storage facility were about $1.4 million and a staff of about 69 employees was assigned there. Renovation and construction at Silver Hill cost $450,722 in fiscal years 1974-76. No private funds were used.

48

Plans for the new facility

Several years ago the Smithsonian determined that greatly expanded facilities were needed for collection storage and laboratory space. In Hay 1968 the Regents of the Smithsonian approved the construction of a museum support facility, subject to authorization and appropriation of funds by the Congress. By December 1969 the Smithsonian had developed initial plans for a museum support facility.

Over the last few years the Smithsonian, with the. help of consultant studies, developed further plans for the facility, including site selection, analysis of space requirements, definition of growth rates, and advance planning and design for the first phase.

A consultant's study estimated that the first phase would cost about $40 million for a building of 545,000 square feet. The design concept provided for storage space in single-story buildings which would provide future expansion by use of^relatively inexpensive double decking. It also provided for office and research space in a multi-story building. The buildings were designed to allow for reasonable fle.^ibility and to satisfy the Museum of Natural History's collection requirements through the end of the century. Since 1969 the Smithsonian has spent about $133, COO in Federal funds for sdpport facility planning.

Public Law 94-98, dated September 19, 1975, authorized the Smithsonian to plan the museum support facility and authorized the appropriation of planning funds. Bills to authorize construction of the facility were introduced during the second session of the 94th Congress, but no action was taken.

In its fiscal year 1977 budget, the Smithsonian requested $500,000 to begin the design of phase one. The Congress did not approve the design money requested for the support facility in fiscal year 1977. The House Appropriations Subcommitter stated that it fully supported the need for and desirability of the facility, but recommended that the project be delayed because of the project's large future year costs. The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee suggested that the project be reexamined by the Smithsonian because of the project's high costs.

49

The Smithsonian scaled down the first phase's original size and cost projections. The Smithsonian is seeking $325,000 in its fiscal year 1978 budget to develop specifications to begin' the design for a first phase building estimated to cost about $21 million. The scaled down version is estimated to cost about one-half the original proposal and has reduced the area from 545,000 square feet to 338,000 square feet. The Smithsonian anticipates that the facility will meet the Institution's most urgent space needs through 1986, whereas the earlier more ambitious plans were estimated to satisfy space requirements to the year 2,000.

Sixty-one acres of land adjacent to the Silver Hill storage facility have been tranferred by the General Services Administration to the Smithsonian, which is trying to acquire an additional 21 acres to be part of the museum support facility site.

Related to the need for a museum support facility is a collections policy and management study now underway. The study, requested by the Office of Management and Budget, is assessing the effectiveness of the Smithsonian's collection management policies and practices and providing a projection of future space needs . The Smithsonian has never performed a comprehensive study of its collections practices in relation to long-range planning and the study should provide information pertinent Co future space requirements in the museum support facility. The study is being conducted by Smithsonian personnel and it is estimated that will be completed in the fall of 1977.

CONCLUSION

The first phase of the museum support facility is designed to meet what the Smithsonian believes are its most pressing needs—those of the Museum of Natural History. The original proposal for a $40 million complex was expected to satisfy the Museum's storage needs through the end of the century. The Smithsonian's latest proposal for a $21 million facility is estimated to satisfy the Museum of Natural History's needs only through 1986, a few years after construction is comoleted.

50

Under its present collections acquisition and disposal policies and practices, the Smithsonian is continuously-adding to its collections inventory and its storage needs will inevitably grow.

The thorough review of the Smithsonian's collections policies now underway is an essential first step in projecting future storage requirements. It should provide valuable information and serve as a guide for effective collections management by the Smithsonian.

SMITHSONIAN'S EXPANDING RESEARCH ROLE

The Committee was concerned that some of the Smithsonian's research efforts might duplicate other Federal research.

Since its establishment, the Smithsonian Institution has been involved in various types of research activities. Scientific research at the Smithsonian covers a broad spectrum from research pertaining to animal behavior to the study of outer space.

The Smithsonian's research role has grown as shown by the types of research installations located in this country and abroad.

—The Chesapeake Bay Center for Environmental Studies, near Annapolis, Maryland, was established to advance man's knowledge of his environment. Its primary purpose is to contribute to the rational use of land and water resources through research, educational programs, and the dissemination of information.

—The Tropical Research Institute in Panama is a research organization devoted to advanced studies and support of tropical biology, education, and conservation.

—The Fort Pierce Bureau, located at Link-Port between Fort Pierce and Vero Beach, Florida, carries out research in marine biology and geology.

—The C"nservation and Research Center located in Front Royal, Virginia, conducts research relating to the study of the reproductive behavior and biology of rare and endangered animals.

—The Radiation Biology Laboratory, located in Rockville, Maryland, studies the effects of sunlight on living

51

things. Its scientists are interested in how and why plants respond to the different quantities and qualities of radiant energy.

—The Astrophysical Observatory, located in Cambridge, Massachusetts, has a number of research projects underway pertaining to the study of outer space. The Mount Hopkins Observatory in Arizona is an adjunct of the Astrophysical Observatory.

Research is also carried on at various Smithsonian museums. For example. The Center for the Study of Man, located in the Natural History Museum, coordinates a worldwide program of interdisciplinary studies in the human sciences.

The Smithsonian contends that it concentrates in the area of basic research which does not conflict with research performed by mission-oriented Federal agencies. We obtained listings of all ongoing research projects and discussed the problems of duplication with the directors of the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute and the Chesapeake Say Center for Environmental Studies.

At the Chesapeake Bay facility most of the research projects were sponsored and paid for by other Federal agencies which have the prime responsibility for insuring that the research is worthwhile. None of the projects sponsored and paid for by the Smithsonian seemed to duplicate the projects of the other Federal agencies.

The Director advised us that the major research currently financed with Smithsonian-appropriated funds is a study of how the Rhode River estuary works and interacts with its watershed. The Director stated that this work does not duplicate any research being done by others. In this regard, the Smithsonian is a member of the Chesapeake Research Consortium, formed to define and coordinate research contributing to the better management of the Say's environmental system. Other members of the consortium are The Johns Hopkins University, the University of Maryland, and the Virginia Institute of Marine Science.

According to the Director of the Chesapeake Center, every proposed research project supported with Smithsonian funds must go through a review process before it is approved. It was explained that this process screens proposed research projects for possible duplication of research. Each proposed research project is reviewed by the Director and Associate Director for Scientific Programs for scientific quality and possible duplication. In addition, we were informed that many of the proposed research projects are sent to the Smithsonian Science Information Exchange to assure that there is no duplication.

52

As of October 1976 there were 34 research projects in process at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, 19 of which were funded with Smithsonian-appropriated funds at a cost of $568,906. The remaining 15 research projects, costing approximately $190,000, were either funded by-private organizations or Federal agencies.

The Director stated that duplication of research is very unlikely because there are no Federal agencies engaged in basic tropical biology research. In addition, the Assistant Director informed us that duplication is unlikely because there are few scientists doing tropical research. For projects to be funded by the Institute, the Director reviews the proposed projects to determine whether there may be duplication. This determination is made on the basis of correspondence received from other researchers describing their projects, and information which is on record with the Science Information Exchange.

TRAVEL 3Y SMITHSONIAN OFFICIALS

At the request of the Committee, we obtained information en the travel for the last 3 fiscal years of the Secretary, the Under Secretary, and Assistant Secretaries.

The Smithsonian's travel regulations conform to the Federal Travel. Regulations and apply to travel financed by both private and Federal funds.

We noted that the Smithsonian's general practice is to charge travel expenses to Federal funds if the employee is on the Federal payroll and to private funds if he is on the private payroll. The Secretary, a private employee, used private funds for travel expenses except for one foreign trip made in each of the last 3 fiscal years on research projects which were charged to appropriated excess foreign currencies. Appendix III contains a summary of travel for the last 3 fiscal years for the positions of Assistant Secretary and above. All of the officials shown are on the Federal payroll except the Secretary.

The summary shows that the Secretary was in a travel status 147 days in fiscal year"1974, 89 days in fiscal year 1975, and 125 days in fiscal year 1976 and the

transition quarter.

The Smithsonian provided us with a memorandum (see app. IV) explaining the role of the Secretary. In addition to describing his responsibilities, it refers to purposes for which travel is necessary, such as:

53

(1) He is responsible for executive direction of bureaus and centers of the Institution which are located in various parts of the Dnited States and abroad.

(2) He serves on scientific and other research committees of the Nation as well as internationally.

(3) He participates in programs and activities throughout the United States in connection with raising private funds and attends official functions here and abroad as the representative of the Smithsonian,

(4) Traditionally, he has been expected to write and publish scholarly papers, often requiring field work in foreign countries.

The Smithsonian also stated that

"* * * the Secretary has exercised continuing responsibility for carrying out the duties of his office even during periods of absence from his office. His responsibilities frequently involve meetings and discussions outside of office hours both here and abroad. The Secretary has a staff of principal assistants who are organized for advice and assistance in the effective execution of the Institution's broad programs, with guidance from the Secretary,"

They said that Litchfield, Connecticut

"* * * is a regular place of duty for the Secretary, as arranged with the Board of Regents, where he maintains a residence, office, library, and waterfowl preserve. While there, he conducts research, writes official reports, receives and sends official correspondence, receives official visitors, and maintains daily contact with the Washington office by telephone and exchange of correspondence."

54

MdCX HAMSnCLa. MQMT.

HCST r. MOUJHCS.

Hotxr eu-LxoM, cki.1.

■QICTrHet) ^iaies ^crtaio

coMMrrrsE on appropriations Washington. d.C 20510

waucn O. HUOO<_£TTaN, XT.

June 1^3 1976

Ihe Honorable ELmar B. Staats ConDtroller General of the

Uhited States V- •

Washington, D. C. 250^8

Dear Kr. Staats:

Ihs CoiHTiittes, in conducting annual budget' hearinss and cevelccing appropriation recorrmendations has e:<:peri3ncsd a grov/ing concern over the irar-2genent and accountability of Federal fands i?ade a'v'ailacle to the Scithscnian Institutio.n. "we wish to request a general re^'/iev/ by your office of Snathscnian fiscal practices and policies vrith the specific objective of determirj-ng v.tiether these funds are effectively and prcperlj' utilized for the purposes for which they were appropriated.

5his request in no v/ay should be cor.strued to iirply an^' suspicion of UTongdoins or deliberate inpropriety. Saeause of its urique status, hov/ever, the Smithsonian h.as not undergone the usual Federal reviews and exsralnations accorded nsst govemrient agencies. Tnis can be attributed In part to the fact that the Smithsonian is governed by a Board of Regents comprised, a:rong others, of the Chief Justice and I-=.^rers of Congress. Further, private support for the Institution vras once a irore doninant factor, leading to a tradition of independence.

Recent testirasny h.as determined that Federal support in the fcim of appropriations and grants now.accounts for about 90 percent of the Institution's funding. Certainly the Smithsonian should be as accountable to the Congress as any other Federal agency or organization.

V/ithout liiTdting the scope of the C-AO reviev/ of the Smithsonian's fiscal policies and practices, v/e wish to direct your attention to an internal funding account disclosed during the Conrnittee's f-'arch 23, 1976, budget hearings. This account has been ca3J.ed variously the Secretaiy's Reserve Fund, the Contingency Furd, and, more recently, the V/orlcing Fund. Generally, assessnsnts are made on the allocation of appropriations to various units of t.he Snithsonian \-Tlth the monies

55

APPENDIX I

APPENDIX I

-2-

belng held for use at Secretary S". Dillon Ripley's discretion for prcgra-TS or activities. This use Is not necessarily associated vd.th the origLral purpose of the appropriations as allocated in the Conrattee reports aoccn-panying the appropriation bills. Until this year the precise use of these funds Vi-as not reported to the Congress.

Ihe Srlthsonlan has indicated a vrillir-sness to revaro its procedures vdth respect to this contingency account so that the Cormittee vri'll be fully informed in the future. A close exariination of past practices is needed to help the Committee develop future requlrernents and reconrrendations.

Other rcatters of specific interest to the Conrdttee include the Snithsonian's travel practices, particularly the reportedly er.tensive travel of the Secretary' here and abroad; plans for construction of a large museum support facility in /'aryland; use of the new Front Royal Center in support of the "aticnal Zoological Park; the expanding Smithsonian research role, v.'hJ.ch often appears duplicative and Ln'.'olves such operations as the Tropical Research Center in the Panar^. Canal Zone and the Cnesapea!-:e Bay En''/iron~e.ntal Center; the rrsrr.er in which cri\'ate funds are used in con-Junction v.'ith Federal fundLng; and practices involving the establish-^nt of new units and facilities ^'ith private funds th,at involve an obligaticn of future Federal suocort.

In the latter case, the Ccmittee is concerned over the r.anner in which the Smithsonian established the Cooper-He■.•.^Ltt Miseura in N'ev; York City. This nev; facility now requires Federal support, and ve felt there was inadequate prior notice and advance consultation vdth the Cc^rJ-ttee.

Mr. D.-.lght D:^-er of the Subccrmittee staff can be reached on 22'?-7262 if any additio.nal iri'onraticn is needed.

^

■^^'d istevens ^^ Ranking f'inority Merber, Subconrlttee on the Department of Interior and Related Agencies

/^incerely_ yours,

Robert C. Byrd

Chairman, Subca-rrdt^e^ on the Departnsnt of Interior and Related Agencies

56

RCB:Db

APPENDIX II

APPENDIX II

Ml <UI Kl

03 CO in n

03 cs n CN

o^ r- o 03

n CM r>" 03

<j\ 00 r-< a\

r« n i-H r-4 I I

m 03 o

E-il

Ml W|

21 <l Kl E^l

<l at

^1 Jl <l U|

|ca -u

I ol

|M t:!

ni-u ui

-uic JJ|

c|n3 c|

3|U Ol iw|0 Ul

-al

0)1

•wi

ai ai

in ■>3' r^ f—I o

in o ^' I—) m

CN CN CN in r*

vo in ■^ 03 in

-H CN <T\ r» o

m en

n vo

o rn en m

O CN

o o in C3

57

87-564 O - 77 - 37

APPENDIX II

APPENDIX II

■Ul

~— ,-f -rr

00 o 00 r- 1.0 ^

T in vo v« •<r n

m CO o^ vo tn CN

T ,—i T m \a ^

rp n vo -H 00

^ m vo

9\ n r~ o

-H 00

o\ r^ vo en o CN

o in "S" f^ in CN

in ■»»• in tN 00 m

p» o in CO I

o 00 in ">r

in in

ai <l

-H 'V —t O 00 O '^ m TT O 03 03 o o

-H ■-< 0^ 03 GO I—I O

o --(r-«cooor~ t

in (~»^o>a3mr~ o

in <NfNr-(or--r- in

CO tNOCTi(nO-H r~

c^ CNr-HC^tn^rn go

58

APPENDIX II

APPENDIX II

Ml T3I CI

tni

\<JS JJl

Ol

tnic jj|

TJinj CI c|i- Ol 3ia Ol

"Ml

I

-Hi -Ul

59

APPENDIX II

APPENDIX II

I u icn mi

LU U|

0) c -ui

C|i- oi 3iej 01

£1

<l

vo in I—( in in m

rr >fi f^ o (S (~ o <N ^ <N vo <N

Tj. r» o vo

P^ 00 ^ (^

o^ TT in CO

o> rn in o

m fN —in

vo (^ cn cj

cr

ID tn CO oi-H

■u e e —1 1- 0) 10

0) ID 3 73 u « c

1.1 Vi 0) iH

O^ 01 •• 0) O 3

El cu

(0|4J «-l

u|C E O

WiD 3

Oi-u 01 4)

U|IO (0 u

Qj^ 3 -w

io) s: <u

3 *J .

m 3

0> <U J-i

o u c

cu u-i E

—( 41 4J (J C 3 O

c en u u c

>D OJ fD

■^ -^ iw oi aj —<

o c o c

•-< M (D IM C >J

o

C HI

e o w

3 -w

4) AJ —f

M -iH ID

3 ^ u

Z -< 3

ID U 3

<U -H > W C O

_ _ O 01 1- jT O »- -<

•-H J u-l ID W ■

C (U

O 1/5

'-H 3

> ^

S ID ID O J-l

O 5-" W 2 s: = o

60

APPENDIX II

APPENDIX II

0\ i-H

in ffi

on m

O 03 VO ■>3>

r I ^ I ^

<H (Ti n

T in in

I » » »

in m rH

CN .

in

<jl 4J O

m IT3

tnic -u

C|vj o

= ICJ oi

IW|

-al

9)1

I I I I I

(—03 voin i-i^oo'^'^

m CN

o^ --( ^ VO CT\ O 03 O CN ^O

rn CN Tj- ^H

03 CO —i

03 CN CN

in VO

■<T O

O VO

61

APPENDIX III

APPENDIX III

- M

oi

cs o

ZIUIZ Olw|<

Ml I I

312 ir-1

E^icni I W|i-i| >| 2 ICO |ui I I- ICO |r-1 l<|c>| 21 Ml <ic:| I M|0 »l 2 |fc hr I OI |r~l CO U |0> I = |M M I &'l>l I MKICOI

Eicsicsi

CO|£h|<|

"I

O I ■Jl <l OI

cni

SI

mi <l

[m 0)1

c -ui

(0 o ol

l>. ci

ifl CO w I

U >—"1

ID a| oi-a >l = -Di

M 3^ u| J«: C -J|

&-I

SI I

1^11

I «3| I I 1^1 I I tNI I

^ u -^ en

62

« c 01

-us OJ >

C u-l CO)

3 -H C

<4J 01 ■—I -

01 u

t- o

> »

1-1 r-

APPENDIX III

APPENDIX III

101 CN PO

O 0| O >W|

c oi

I <r>l I

■c-l I

on

II r-|i

63

APPENDIX III

APPENDIX III

3|>

O VO

in) I

-i I

001 I

O (ol (U|(U|

Q-roi

(T3 '^ TJ j "O ^ 1

■-lie -^^l c u« i- —' I

lUlU O Ol

■WIS c «-i|

I O <^|

'CM C Ol

CH I

it. c o

"V,

031 I

-I I

Oil I

-HI I

Ol I

mi I

—■ U Lj U L4 kd

01 >> aj

C IC U (U

C 4J 1) O

■— OU -J!! C

U 3)

>! O iJ •-!

u (ji c CJ

'D to "3 W

XI j.<

4) u b^ U

u OJ •■-" O

4) C 0}

cn 3 <

■<J JJ O J^ >^ X' IC

(U iJI lU u 01 3; a.< u

U >i O O O '-1

(Uuo)EJOa-H

W O 01 r M — OJ C

xJ O •—4 •'■^

c ■-< E r.

to ^ u) u

1/7 IM 3] U^

-1 ^

10 Cu

Vi u E-i 0]

64

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

" The Role of the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution

The Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution is by law also the Secretary of the Board of Regents. Ke is elected by the Board of Regents and is paid from non-Federal funds.

The founding act provides that the Secretary shall be in charge of the buildings and property of the Institution, shall record the proceedings of the Board of Regents, shall perform the duties of librarian and of keeper of the museum, and may with the consent of the Board of Regent-s" employ assistants.

The Smithsonian was explicitly established as a charitable non-profit corporation to carry out the trust responsibilities of the United States independent of the Government itself. It receives the support and assistance of each of the branches of the Government without becoming a part thereof. The acceptance by the Institution of increasing amounts of directly appropriated funds has not changed the basic independent authority of the Board of Regents.

Provision was made in the formal creation of the Smithsonian for programs in the areas of concern that have since occupied the Institution through succeeding generations -- art, science, history, research, museum and library operations, publications and lectures, and exhibitions in museums and art galleries.

65

APPENDIX IV APPENOIX IV

The Secretary is responsible to the Board of Regents for all of his activities and serves as Secretary of the Board of Regents as well as of the Executive Committee, the Permanent Committee, and the Investment Policy Committee.

Administratively, the Secretary is responsible for the formulation and execution of programs, legislative proposals, budgetary proposals, their justification and execution. This includes direct participation in the consideration of fiduciary affairs, the portfolio management of the funds of the Institution; recruitment for and appointments to principal professional and administrative positions; program planning and the determination of objectives of Smithsonian activities; review and approval of the exhibition and educational programs; participation in the deliberations of numerous committees, both Federal and non-Federal; providing information to the public through publications and other media; and representing the interests and responsibilities of the Institution before the Congress, the Executive Branch, the public, learned societies, educational institutions, scientific organizations^ and other bodies international and domestic.

Traditionally, in connection with scientific and other research programs, the Secretary of the Institution has served as an office holder, member of committees, or administrative adjunct to many of the senior learned societies of the Nation as well

66

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

as internationally. For example, the Secretary is a member of the National Acaderr-y of Sciences, a Trustee of the Kennedy Center, a Trustee of the National Gallery of Art, Chairman of the World Wildlife Fund U.S. Appeal, and President of the International Council for Bird Preservation. A number of related activities include the Harvard University Visiting Committees in special fields such as zoology or astronomy and astrophysics on which the Secretary has served for nearly 15 years; the consortia involving activities in the Panama Canal Zone (first undertaken with Carnegie Corporation, Harvard University, and the American \Iuseum of Natural History in :he 1950's) or with allied institutions conducting asironomical research in South America or in observatories v/ithin the Uniisd States. Cther memberships of the Secretary on boards, commissions and committees are set forth in the attached appendix.

Of particular significance in addition to the traditional responsibilities of the Secretary is that he also serves in a promotional and representational capacity on behalf of the Institution. This involves a constituency of approxinr-ately 1,000,000 Associate members, and requires visits to cities around the United States, lecturing, holding meetings, and otherwise participating in programs in connection with raising private funds and seeking support for the Institution.

67

APPEjNDIX IV ■ APPENDIX IV

Tlixoughout the history of the Institution, the Secretary-has been responsible for the day-to-day operations of a scientific nature related to fields of research in which the Secretary is a specialist.

All eight Secretaries have been distinguished men in science and each has pursued his scientific career after becoming Secretary. Joseph Henry was a physicist; Spencer Fullerton Baird, a naturalist; Samuel Pierpont Langley, a physicist of astronomy and aeronautics; Charles Dcollttle V/alcott, a geologist; Charles Greeley Abbot, an astrophysicist; Leonard Carmichael, a physiological psychologist; and S. Dillon Ripley, an ecologist and an

* ornithologist.

The Secretary has traditionally been expected to wrice and publish scientific papers, books, and other material of a scholarly nature. It is difficult in recent years, with tHe volume of work of the Institution, to have such field work occupy prolonged periods of time, but as recently as the 1950' s such research was undertaken for several months at a time in areas such as Panama or Peru.

At such times, however, the day-to-day administrative work of the Secretary is designated to an Acting Secretary, who has so been designated by the Chancellor as provided for in the Act of May 13, 1384,

The Secretary has assembled a staff of principal assistants, knowTi as the Secretary's Executive Committee, who are organized

68

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

for advice and assistance in the eifective execution of the Institution's broad programs. These are Assistant Secretaries in the fields of Science, History and Art, Museum Programs, Public Service, and Administration, a Treasurer, a General Counsel, and an Executive Assistant. The support and staff services required to provide administrative and specialized support are also well established and are under a Director of Support Activities.

The Secretary has continuing-responsLbility for carrying out the duties of his office even during periods of physical absence from his office; his decisions on a variety of matters are based on public contacts outside official hours and away from his official post of duty; he has freedom for self-supervision and responsibility; and he is not under the provisions of the annual and sick leave act.

69

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

Conseil International de la Chasse, Honorary Meinber

Cooper Ornithological Society

Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology

International Council for Bird Preservation, President

International Wild Waterfowl Association, Director

Ornithological Society of New Zealand

Pacific Tropical Botanical Gardens, Emeritus Trustee

Societe Ornithologique de France, Honorary Fellow

South African Ornithological Society, Corresponding ^lember

Wildlife Preservation Trust IntarnationaJ

World Wildlife Fund, Board of Directors Chairman, U. S. Appeal

Zoological Society of India, Honorary Fellow

70

APPENDIX rv APPENDIX IV

MEMBERSHIPS OF C^IR. S. DILLON RIPLEY ON BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMN-HTTEES

Government

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Dept. Interior)

American Folklife Center

Federal Council on the Arts and Humanities National Council on the Arts National Council on the Humanities

Federal Council for Science and Technology

Inter-Agency Committee on Marine Science and Engineering

Institute of Museum Services, Governing Board (HEW)

Suprs—.e Court Historical Society', Advisory Board

White House, Committee for the Preservation of

vrr.ite House Historical Association, Board of Directors

Smithsonian

Archives of American Art, Trustee

Cooper-Hevvitt Museum, of Decorative Arts and Design, Advisory Board

Freer Gallery of Art, Visiting Committee

Joseph H. Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, Trustee Nominating Committee

J. F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, Trustee

Executive Committee, Nominating Committee, Fine Arts Committee

National Air and Space Museum Advisory Board

National Arsied Forces Museum Advisory Board

National Board of the Smithsonian Associates

71

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

National Collection, of Fir.e Arts Conimission

National Gallery of Art, Trustee

Executive Comrr.ittee, "Lnance Committee

National Portrait Gallery Commission

Reading is Fundamental, National Advisory Board Executive Board

Board of Regents and Executive Committee

Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Visiting Committee

Smithsonian Council

Smithsonian Research Foundation

Smithsonian Science Information Exchange, Inc.

Woodrow Wilson Litemational Center for .Scholars, Trustee

Washington

African Art, Museum of (Honorary Trustee)

American Security and Trust Comp?ny, Board of Trustees Trust and Investment Committee

America-N'epal Society

American Association for the Advancement of Science

Cafritz Foundation, The Morris and Gwendolyn, Advisory Board

Federal City Council

George Washington University, Board of Trustees

Standing Committee on Academic Affairs

National Academy of Sciences

National Society of Arts and Letters, Advisory Co'oncil

Naval Historical Foundation, Honorary Vice President

Pennsylvania Avenue Developmsnt Corpor'^tJ.'in, Board cf Directors

72

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

Philosophical Socier/ of Washington

Pioneer Foundation., Board of Directors

, lited States Capitol Historical Society, Honorary Board of Trustees

Washington Institute of Foreign Affairs

Ivliscellaneous

American Academy in Rome

American Association of Musexims

American Instit-^ite of Architects, Honorary Member

American In5titu:e of Biological Sciences

American Museum in Britain, Member of Council

Arts Council of Great Britain, Committee of Horror

Association of Science Museum Directors,- Member

Foreign Relations, Member of Council on

Formats School, Trustee

French Institute, Alliance Francaise, Honorary Tr-'tee

Harvard Board of Overseers, Committee to Visit Department of Ccmpsrarive Zoology "

International Congress of Systematic and Evolutionary Biology

International Council of Museums, .U. S. National Committee

Charles LLidbergh Memorial Fund, Honorary Co-Chairman

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Visitor to Department of Egypt and Ancient Near Eastern Art

Naidonal Institute for Performing Arts of Lidia (Bom/oay), Member of Ad-.'isory 3c

Pilgrims cf the United Stages 73

87-564 O - 77 - 38

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

National Book Coir-mittee

New York Academy of Sciences

New York Zoological Society

Research Corporation, Director

Royal Oak Foundation, Trustee

Society of the Cincinnati of the State of Connecticut, Honorary Member

Society for the Study cf Evolution

Society of Systematic Zoology

Systematic Collections, Member of the Conference of Directors

Wedge Entomological Research Foundation, Patron

White Memorial Foundation, Trustee

Vvlio's Who in Anierica, Board of Advisors

Winterthur Museum., The Kenry Francis dupont, Trustee

Yale University

Jonathan Edwards College Fellow, Peabody Museum Associates

Yale Uruversity Library

Honorary Curator, Coe Collection, Ornithological Books

Conservation and Ornithology

An:ierican Ornithologists Union

Associacion Ornitologica de la Plata, Honorary Fellow

Bombay Natural History Society, Life Fellow

British Oriiithologists Union

Charles Darwin Foundation for the Galapagos Isles, Executive Committee

74

APPEf^DIX V APPENDIX V

SltlTHSOXIAX D.-SUlLl'iOy

W;tshin^n.J).C. 20560 rrr 1

March 21, 1977 Mr. Victor L. Lowe

Director, General Government Division General Accoxinting Office Washington, D. C. 20548

Dear Mr. Lowe:

Fundamental to any analysis of the specific Smithsonian operations to which your report is directed is a clear understanding of the unique charter and functions of the Listitution. The following "Outline of the Origin and Development of the Smithsonian Institution" will, I believe, explain the nature of the Institution, clarify the responsibilities of the Board of Regents and the Congress for its welfare, and detail the significance of both private and federal support in its achievements since its origin in 1336 with the acceptance'of the private bequest from Mr. Smithson. This will provide the essential context for the specific comments which follow.

Fifty years ago Chief Justice Taft, speaking as Chancellor of the Smithsonian Board of Regents, observed that:

". . . many people suppose this private research establishment to be a part of the Government. ... I must make clear, gentlemen, that the Smithsonian Institution is not, and has never been considered a government bureau. It is a private institution under the guardianship of the Government. "

This characterization of the Smithsonian and its relationship to the Government refers to the legal fotindations of the Institution in the will of James Smithson and the Act of July 1, 1836, which accented the bequest.

Smithson, in bequeathing the whole of his property "to the United States of America, to found at Washington, under the name of the Smithsonian Institution, an establishment for the increase auid diffusion of knowledge among men, " created a charitable trust under the terms of which the United States would serve as trustee for purposes not limited to the national interest but for the benefit of all mankind. By the Act of

75

APPENDIX y ' APPEilDIX V

July 1, 1836, Congress accepted the Smithson trust on these terms, on behalf of the United States, and pledged the "faith of the United States" to carry out the purposes of the trust. Consonant with its commitment to the trust, Congress has, from the start, supplemented the trust resources with federal funds and property.

This unique combination of a privately-endowed institution, administered by the Board of Regents independent of the Government itself, and the continuing support of the United States, as trustee, in ■ generous fulfillment of its pledge, has made possible the remarkable achievements of the Institution. It has engendered contributions from private donors which were inconceivable in 1836. The great national collections now consist largely of private gifts, and continuing private additions to the Smithsonian's independent trust funds have maintained the Institution's central resource for initiative and integrity. The Congress, on its part, has responded with the very substantial federal support which has been essential to the growth of the Institution and to many of its far-reaching services to the public for over a hundred years.

Since 1846, the Institution has greatly benefitted from, the vmstinted efforts of the sis Congressional members of its Board of Regents. In this regard, the following paragraph, from a Smithsonian publication in 1904, is still pertinent.

"It is probable that no class of the Arr.ericati people appreciate the work of the Institution more i'zlly thsm the members of Congress. This has been clearly shown by the uniform liberality with which, throughout many successive terms, regardless of changes in the political complexion of the administration, they have supported its policy; by the discrimination with which they disseminate its reports; by the judgment with which they select their representatives upon its Board of Regents, cund above all, by the scrupulous care with which they protect the Institution in its independence of political entanglemer.ts. That the Institution has accomplished so much in the past is largely due to the support which it has received from these practical men of business, and through them by the people of the United States. It is to such support that it will owe its efficiency in the future, and it seems right that every opportunity should be taken to explain its operations to the public. No intelligent American can fail to appreciate the benefits which the highest interests of the American people receive through the proper administration of the Smithsonian bequest. "

76

■APPEiDIX V ' APPENDIX V

The imique nature of the Smithsoaiaa has been a mystery to many, and doabting voices have occasionally been raised, but throughout its one hundred and forty years there has been a broad consensus in Congress which has respected both the letter and the spirit of the original bequest. Congress has consistently n-aintained the integrity of the Institution's trust purposes and its independence of the administration of civil government.

In 1923, President Harding suggested the inclusion of the Smithsonian in a new Department of Zducation and Vreliare, but the Joint Committee on Raorganization concluded:

"The Smithsonian Institution is one of the chief educational establishments under the Governrr.ent, s^i. the suggestion that it should be incorporated in the department of education and relief seems, at first blush, to be encirely logical. But the institution is effectively a corporation established under zs.e terms of a private bequest, it is only quasi-public in character. Its growth and its splendid success have been due not less to private benefactions than to public support; and there is every reason not to endanger its deveicp-ment by altering its relationship to the Govern—iant, or by

prospered."

Secretary of the Smithsonian. Institu-ion on September 1, 1961, stated:

"However, there is for consideration in this instance the

unique nature of the Smithsonian Institution s.-zc. of the property appropriated for its uses and purposes. , . . Trom time to time the functions cf the Smithsonian have been increased by laws placing 'under its control additional establishments or authorising it to sz^s~d. its activities into additional fields, but

20 U. S. C. 41-57) .... 3y the act of Tune 23, 1955, 59 Stat. 189, the Congress authorized the construction of 'a suitable building for a Museum of History and Technology. . . for the use of the Smithsonian Institution, ' at a cost not to exceed $36,000,000. ■'.Vh.ile the cost of this building is covered entirely by appropriations from the general treasury, we find nothing in the act to indicate anv intention that the building when conr-olete

77

APPENDIX V APPENDIX V

shall not be as much the property of the Institution, and subject to its control to the same extent, as the buildings originally constructed from funds of the Smithson trust. In effect, the building is appropriated to the Institution and dedicated to the trust purposes, without qualification or restriction. "

In the course of its development, which has paralleled the growth of the nation, the Institution has been faithful to its trust mandate and, at the same time, has achieved a great many of the specific objectives which its Congressional supporters since John Quincy Adams have envisioned. The achievements of the Smithsonian, nationally and internationally, are due in essential part to the energy and discretion with which successive Boards of Regents, Secretaries, a^d staff have used the independent trust resources to venture into new fields "for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men" and to encourage the private gifts without which the national museums would scarcely ercist. The judgnnent of Congress in assigning to the Board of Regents and Secretary the responsibility for selecting the most appropriate of the myriad opportunities offered to the Institution has repeatedly been vindicated and reaffirmed in the very substantial appropriations of federal resources to the Smithsonian.

Set forth in the following "Outline" is the basic history of the Smithsonian. All the major actions of the Congress with regard to the Institution from 1836 to 1833 are noted. During this period the principle of federal support for the independent trust establishment was recognized by the Congress, and the Institution's expansion to its present scope was begun.

78

APPENDIX V APPENDIX .V

OUTLINE OF THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT

OF THE- SMITKSONL4JM INSTITUTION

I. The Smithson bequest to the United States as trustee

In 1826, James Smithson, an English scholar and scientist of independent means, drew up his will and provided therein:

"In the case o£ the death of my said nephew without leaving a child ... I then bequeath the whole of my property ... to the United States of America, to found at Washington, under the name of the Smithsonian Institution, an Establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men. "

Smithson died in 1829. His nephew die_d without issue in 1835. In December 1835, President Jackson transrnitted to Congress a report on the bequest, stating:

"The Executive having no authority to take any steps for accepting the trust and obtaining the funds, the papers are communicated with a view to such measures as Congress may deem necessary."

n. ■ The Act of 1836, pledging the fai& of the United States to the execution of the trust

John Quincy Adajns, as chairman of the Select Committee appointed by the House to consider the bequest, prepared the bill which became the Act of July 1, 1836, and the unanimous committee report, which includes the following statements:

"To the acceptance of this bequest and to the assumption and fulfilment of the high and honorable duties involved in the performance of the trust committed with it, the Congress of the United States in their legislative capacity are alone competent. "

"Of all the foundations of establishments for pious or charitable uses, which ever signalized the spirit of the age, or the comprehensive beneficence of the founder, none can be named more deserving of the approbation of mankind than this. "

79

APPENDIX V APPENDIX V

"To furnish the means of acquiring knowledge is, therefore, the greatest benefit that can be conferred upon mankind. It prolongs life itself, and enlarges the sphere of existence."

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

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

"Your Committee are fully persuaded, therefore, that, with a grateful sense of the honor conferred by the testator upon the political institutions of this Union, the "Congress of the United States, in accepting the bequest, will feel in all its power and plenitude the obligation of responding to the confidence reposed by birr., with all the fidelity, disinterestedness and perseverance of exertion which rr.ay carry into effective execution the noble purpose of an endowment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men. "

The Senate report on. this same bill states in part:

"The corr.mittee suppose it unquestionable that the executory bequest contained in Mr. Smithson's will, of his whole property to the United States, in the event that has occurred, for the purpose of foxinding at 'Vashington, under the name of the Smithsonian Institution, an establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men, is by the law of England a valid bequest; that the United States will be entertained in the court of chancery of Sngland to assert their claim to the fund as trustees, for the purpose of founding the charitable institution at Washington to which it is destined by the donor, and that that court will decree that the fund shall be paid and transferred to the United States, or their lawfully authorized agent, leaving it to the United States to apply the property to the foundation of the intended charity at Washington and to provide for the due administration of the fund, so as to accom»plish the purpose of the donor. "

80

APPENDIX V . APPENDIX V

"The fund given to the United States by Mr. Smithson's will is nowise and never can become part of their revenue. They can not claim or take it for their own benefit. They can only take it a.3 trustees, to apply to the charitable purpose for which . it was intended by the donor. "

"Upon the whole, the committee are of opinion that it is within the competency of the Government of the United States, that it well comports with its dignity, that, indeed, it is its duty to assert in the courts of justice of England the claim of the United States to the legacy bequeathed to them by Mr. Smithson's will, for the purpose of foundirg at "Washington, under the name of 'The Smithsonian Institution, ' an establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men, ajid that provision ought to be made by Congress to enable the Executive to assert and prosecute th« claim with effect. "

The Act of July 1, 1836, 5 Stat. 64, pledged the faith of the United States that all the monies or other funds which might be received for, or on account of the legacy, should be applied, in such manner as Congress should direct, to the purpose of founding and endowing at Washington, under th- name of the SmithsonisLn. Institution, an establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men. The Act required -fee Treasurer of the United States to account separately from all»other accounts of his office for all sums received by him. in virtue of the bequest. And it made the first appropriation from federal funds for the benefit of the trust, in_the amount of ten thousand dollars, to defray the expenses of prosecuting the claim and of obtaining possession of the funds.

With regard to the pledge of the faith of the United States, John Quincy Adazns, in a lecture given in Boston in 1839, states:

"Having drawu with my own hand that Act, as it stands without the alteration of a word, upon the Statute book, it has given me heartfr:i.t satisfaction that although there were ir.embers averse to the acceptance of the'be :uest, the Bill was unanimously reported by a Committee of nine members of the House of Representatives; that it was adopted, without a proposal of amendment or a word of opposition by both Houses of Congress, and approved by the then President of the United States. It has delighted me yet more to find that the full import of that pledge of faith has been understood and . .-felt, by the Agent, commissioned for the recovery of the funds, and by the present President of the United States and the Heads of Departments. 'In my own jtidgment the mere naked acceptance of ths . bequest, would have imposed upon the United States the moral obiigacion of all tLa,t was pro:rr.ised in the pledge of faith; but to tnis moral obligation I was desirous of adding a sanction equivalent to an oath before God, and such I cqn^id^red die pledge of faith in the Bill, ''

■ APPENDIX V APPENDIX V

m. The Investment of the trast funds in State stocks in 1838

On the basis of the Act of 1836, and Adams' report, the English Coart of Chancery, in May 1838, adjudged the Smithson bequest to the United States. On July 7, 1838, the last day of the session, Congress attached a rider to the appropriations act for the Military Academy, directing the investment of the Smitiison funds in stocks of States bearing not less than five per cent interest and the investment of accruing interest in like nnanner. Adams protested in vain. The funds, in excess of half a million dollars, arrived in the United States on September 1, 1838, and were so invested by the Secretary of the Treasury. During the next eight years many of these State stocks declined substantially in value.

rV. The payment of expenses from the trust funds in 1839

The Act of 1836 had appropriated ten thousand dollars of federal funds for Ihe expenses of securing the bequest in London, and in 1837 an additional five thousand dollars was appropriated for this purpose. After receipt of the trust funds in September 1838, the Secretary of the Treasury rsquastsc the opinion of the Attorney General whether any of the e^ensas involved in bringing the bequest to the United States should be paid from rhe trust ^--i.

After stating the provisions of the Act of 1836, accepting the bequest and pledging the faith of the United States to apply the m.cnies and cthsr funds which might be received to carry into effect the provisions o: r;e •.vill, the Attorney General says:

"From these provisions it appears to me that Congress intsndec Hiat there should be no diminution of the funds bequeathed for the purpose specified in said will, but that the whole, whatever they might amount to, should be applied to carry into effect the intention of the Testator; and when the object of the bequest is considered, it cannot be supposed that Congress would act in any other than a liberal spirit.

"My opinion therefore is, that the amount of the whole money, and other funds received by the Agent of the United States under the Act of 1st July 1836 without reduction, constitute the Smithsonian fund, for the purposes specified in said Smithson's will; and that the whole expenses of prosecuting said claim, receiving and transporting the same to this country, including any additional expenses which ntay have been incurred here, ought to be defrayed out of the appropriation made by Congress. "

82

APPENDIX V APPEfJOIX V

Since the prior appropriations were insufficient, the Secretary of the Treasury in December 1838 requested an additional ten thousand dollars to cover such expenses on the principles laid down by the Attorney General. However, in March 1839, Congress added the following sentence to the Civil and Diplomatic Act:

"For carrying into effect the acts relating to the Smithsonian legacy, $10, 000, to be paid out of the fund arising from that legacy. "

Later in 1839, John Quincy Adams wrote in his diary:

"The private interests and sordid passions into which that fund has already fallen fill nae with anxiety and apprehensions that it will be squandered upon cormorants or wasted in electioneering bribery ... &e investment of the whole fund^ more than half a million of dollars, in Arkansas and Michigan State stocks; and the dirty trick of filching the ten thousand dollars from.the fund last winter to pay for the charges of procuring it--all are do utterly discouraging that I despair of effecting auiything for the honor of the country, or even to accomplish the purpose of the bequest--the incr'^ase and diffusion of knowledge among men. "

In March 1843, an additional amount of $3, 815. 73 was appropriated from federal funds to pay the remaining expenses of securing the trust.

V. The Act of 1846, establishing the Institution in perpetuity and restoring the trust funds _^

After eight years of debate. Congress, in the Act of August 10, 1846, 9 Stat. 102, * "for the faithful execution of said trust, according to the will of the liberal and enlightened donor, " constituted the President, the Chief Justice, and other officials:

''an 'establishment, ' by the name of the 'Smithsonian Institution, ' for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men; and by that name shall be known and have perpetual succession, with the powers, limitations, and restrictions, hereinafter contained, and no other. "

Perhaps as a result of John Quincy Adams' appeals to conscience, the Att declares that the entire amount of the bequest, without deduction for expenses, is on indefinite loan to the Treasury at six per cent interest from September 1, 1838. The amount of $242, 129, being the interest which would have been paid from September 1, 1838, to July 1, 1846, (unconnpounded), is appropriated from federal funds for the erection of suitable buildings and other expenses of the Institution. A permanent appropriation of the interest accruing after July 1, 1846, is made "for the perpetual maintenance and support of the said institution. " A portion of the public

4.ne permanent provisions of the Act of 1846 were reens.cted in the Revised Statutes of 1875, Sections 5579-5594, and now are found in 20 U.S.C. §§41-67.

APPENDIX V APPENDIX V

grounds within the city of Washington, belonging to the United States, is appropriated to the Institution for a site for its building. And Section 5 of the Act reiterates that:

". . . all moneys recovered by, or accruing to, the institution, shall be paid into the treasury of the United States, to the credit of the Smithsonian bequest, and separately accounted for,.as provided in the act approved July first, eighteen hundred'and thirty-six, accepting said bequest. "

VI. The continuing responsibility of the Board of Regents and the Congress for the Smithson trust

By the Act of 1846, Congress established the Institution in its present • form and provided for the administration of the trust, independent of the Government itself, by a Board of Regents and Secretary, to whom, is assigned broad discretion to determine the most appropriate means of increasing and diffusing knowledge amiong men. The reasons for creating a board of distinguished individuals from the three branches of the Government and from the citizenry of the United States to carry out these unique trust responsibilities of the United States are set forth in the House debate preceding the passage of the Act in 1846:

"Very considerable latitude of control, as to the means to be used, is given to the board of managers, and the ends to be aimed at are described in comprehensive terms. But the rr.ost ample guarantee for the wise and faithful use of this discretionary power is obtained in the fact, that the board will consist of the Vice-President of the United States, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, three Senators, three members of the House, and sL-c others to be chosen by joint resolution of the two Houses, who are required to submit to Congress annual reports of the operations, expenditures and condition of the institution. In addition to all this, there is reserved the power to alter'aj;d amend the charter, as the results of experience may render necessary or expedient. All these provisions seenn. to be wise, and make it almost impossible that any abuse or misapplication of the fund can ever take place." a

Implicit in these reporting and amending provisions of the Act of 1346 is the commitment of the Congress itself to assist and protect the progress of the Smithson trust and to maintain its independence from the three branches of the Government. The House report of March 3, 1855, on the Smithson fund, states in part: - -

"Regard for the memory of the-dead who conferred upon our citizens the benefit of the fund, and upon our nation the honor of its administration, no less than a nnere self-respect, will ever lead

84

APPENDIX V APPEHDIX V

this nation, through its representatives, to guard with peculiar vigilance the sacrad trust involved in the bequest of Mr. Smithson, and carefully and diligently to watch the progress of the Institution in the fulfillment of the noble wishes of the founder, and the just expectation of mankind in its regard. "

"The Government of the United States, in accepting the great trust conferred, pledged itself to carry out the objects of the founder, to administer the funds with a distinct reference to the requirements of the will, and to keep the institute, which bears the name of the founder, separate in all its relations from any and every other; to give it a distinct and substantive existence, and insure independence and efficiency to its operations."

Vn. The statutory plan for the Institution

During the long debate preceding the Act of 1346, various groups in Congress had proposed that the Smithsonian should be a national university, an agricultural school, a nora:ial school, a school for the blind, a national library, a botanical garden, a national observatory, a chemical laboratory, a popular publishing house, a lecture lyceum, or a national rr.useum of arts and sciences. Some of the proponents focussed on the "increase of knowledge, " some on its "diffusionj" while others emphasized that the trust was net intended to benefit the United States only, but the world at large. Although the university and school proposals were abandoned on the theory that educadon was a field reserved to the States by the Constitution, the Act of 1346 achieved passage by providing for most of the other proposals in the one Institution:

"Section 5. ... the board of regents . . . shall cause to be erected a suitable building, of plain and durable materials and structure, without ■unnecessary ornament, and of sufficient size, and with suitable rooms or halls for the reception and arrangement, upon a liberal scale, of objects of natural history, including a geological and mineralogical cabinet; also a chemical laboratory, a library, a gallery of art, and the necessary lecture rooms . ^ . ."

"Section 6. ... in proportion as suitable arrangements can be made for their reception, all objects of art and of foreign and curious research, and all objects of natural history, plants, and geological and mineralogical specimens, belonging, or hereafter to belong, to the United States, which may be in the city of Washington, in whosesoever custody the same maybe, shall be delivered to such persons as m.ay be authorized by the board of regents to receive them, and shall be arranged in such order, and so classed, as best to facilitate the examination and study of thsm . . . . "

85

APPENDIX V APPErmiX V

"Section 8. . . . And flie said regents shall make, from the interest of said fond, an appropriation, not exceeding an average of twenty-five thousand dollars annually, for the gradual formation of a library composed of valuable works pertaining to all departments of human knowledge. "

"Section 9. ... of any other moneys which have accrued . . . the said managers are hereby authorized to make such disposal as they shall deem best suited for the promotion of the purpose of the testator . . . ."

"Section 10. ... fiie author or proprietor of any book, map, chart, musical composition, print, cut, or engraving, for which a copyright shall be secured . . . shall . . . deliver . . . one copy of the same to the librarian of the Smithsonian Institution . . . . "

It is evident that this broad range of functions could not be supported solely by the annual income of $30, 000. The two most influential factions which had emerged during the long debate were the national library and national rr.use'im groups. They had joined forces to pass the Act of 1846, but each intended thereafter to capture the entire resources of the Institution.

Vni, The redefinition of the Institution's basic functions

The first Board of HTegents was appointed shortly after the passage of the Act in August 1846, and by the turn of the year it had elected a distinguished scientist as Secretary, selected the site on the Mall, amd authorized the construction of a very large "castle" estimated to cost about $250,000. The income problem was immediately apparent, and it was agreed that construction should be spread over a period of several years in order to accumulate interest for addition to the endowrr.ent. An uneasy con:aromiss was worked out with the library and museum factions (both of which were represented on the Board of Regents) whereby one-half of the trust income would be spent on the library and ir.useum functions and the other half on scientific research and publications.

A bitter and protracted struggle between the factions ensued, and in 1855, after investigations and reports by both Houses of Congress, the national library fTonction was dropped. At the same time the building was nearing completion, at a cost of $325, 000 (not including the federal appropriation of $7,000 in 1852 for planting and finishing the roads and walks around the building). It was necessary to decide whether the Institution could afford to accept the government collections, as provided in the Act of 1846, and whether the resulting inuseum would be appropriate to the basic purposes of the trust.

86

APPEMDix V appe;;dix V

The House report of March 3, 1855, qiioted above, includes comments on the museum concept in terms of the requirement of the trust that the Institution be not limited to local or national functions:

""We have, all around us, libraries and museums, by which what is 1-eiown of literature and science may be diffused, so far as the influence of those libraries and museums extends; but it can not be denied that such an influence is necessarily quite limited. "

"A museum for the Smithsonian Institution should be of a kind to assist the student and the master in natural studies and enable them to pursue their inquiries to the full extent of attained results, that they may increase the amount of that kind of rciowledge -- niay add to what is already known; and when they shall have completed that commission and their reports shall have satisfied the Institution that something is contributed to the previous amount of knowledge in their particular branches, then the Institution shall cause these contrihutions to be printed in an appropriate manner and copies to be distributed to the various libraries of the co\intry and the scientific associations throughout the world, thus difnising knc-v-lecge amcng men. "

This concsp: of ihs rassarch and publication functions of the museum ■was clearly ';vithin ihe basic purposes of the trust, but the additional role as curator of the national collections was also urged upon the Institution. Although much of the muse'^^ni inaterial which had been accumulating in "Washington, at the Patsnc Office and elsewhere, was of importance to the scientific research of the Insrir-non, much wa.s of lesser interest, and there was a real danger rhat the expense of care and maintenance alone would exhaust the entire income of the trust. In 1858 the following agreement was implemented, as summarized in Secretary Henry's annual report to the Congress:

"It will be recollected that by the law of Congress incorporating this Institution 'all objects of art and of foreign and curious research, and all objects of natural history, plants, and geological and mineralogical specimens belonging to or hereafter to belong to the United States which may be in the city of Washington, in whosesoever custody the same may be, shall be delivered to such persons as may be authorized by the Board of Regents to receive them. '

"The law thus gi-/ing to the Smithsonian Institution all specimens illustrative of nature and art to be found in the several offices and departments of government was not construed as rendering it obliga-

87

APPENDIX V APPcfiDIX V

tory of the Regents to'accept these objects if they considered it inexpedient to do so. Inasmuch, then, as this collection was neither essential to the plain of organization nor directly subservient to the comprehensive purpose of the donor in regard to a world-wide benefit, it was the ultimate decision of a majority of the Board that it ought not to be accepted and that no part of the donation ought to be expended in the cars of property belonging to the government of the United States. "

"In the meantime a very large amount of specimens of natural history had accuaaulated at the Institution from numerous exploring parties sent out by the general government; and as these collections had been made under the direction of the Institution, and their preservation was of the highest importance to the natural history of the country, it was finally concluded that if Congress would make an appropriation for the transfer and new arrangement of the articles then in the Patsnt Office, and continue the annual appropriation previously made for their care and exhibition while in charge of the Commissioner of Patents, the Institution would, under these conditions, become the curator of the national collections. This proposition wa^ agreed to by the government, and the contemplated transfer has accordingly been made. "

On the basis of this understanding. Congress in 1857 and 1858 appropriated a total of $13,000 for the expenses of nrioving and installing the government collections. At the same time,the annual appropriation ($4,000) for the care of the government collections, which had begun in the 1840's, was transferred to the Institution.

IX. The growth of the Institution through federal appropriations and private gifts

The principle of anniial appropriations support was thus established, but the amount remained more or less the same -until after the Civil War. In 1869, Caancellor Chase and Representative (later President) Garfield pointed out to Congress that the annual cost to the Institution of the government collections had grown to over $10, 000, and suggested that the Government should take them back if it was unwilling to pay the expense. In 1870, appropriations increased to $20,000; in 1873 to $30,000, By 1877 the amounts appropriated for the benefit of the trust since its acceptance in 1836 totalled $346,000, not including the payments of interest on the trust endowment and the value of the federal property donated to the Institution.

88

APPENDIX V APPENDIX V

In 1878, the annual appropriations for the first time equalled the expenditures from the Institution's trust funds. In 1879, $250, 000 was appropriated for the construction of the navv building for the National Museum, now known as the "Arts and Industries Biiilding, " With the staffing and opening of the building in 1881 the ann,ual appropriation more than doubled, and by 1883 appropriations were providing for m.ore than eighty per cent of the Institution's annual expenses.

During the last hundred years of the Institution's growth, the federal appropriations have doubled and redoubled many times. At the same time, substantial private contributions to the trust funds, although largely for restricted purposes, have continued to provide an essential portion of the Institution's resources, varying from ten to thirty'per cent annually, throughout this period. This financial support has been but a small fraction of the value of the additions to the collections from private sources.

Between 1336 and 1846, Congress could, perhaps, have setup the Smithsonian as a small, self-sufficient research organization completely divorced frona national interests. .However, the Congressional leaders of that day, and since, with the concurrence of the Board of Regents, determined that the Institution could also serve national interests within its trust mandate. In order to achieve these more limited objectives without violating the broad purposes of the Smithson trust to which Congress had pledged the faith of the United States, it was necessary fronn the start to supplement the original trust resources with federal funds and property. This continuing commitment of national support to an independent and disinterested trust organization has called forth very substantial additional contributions from private individuals and organizations. The result has been to give this trust created for the benefit of mankind a scope which the founder could not have foreseen and, at the same time, to "promote the general welfare" of the United States without compromising the moral and legal obligations which Congress acceoted.

89

87-564 O - 77 - 39

APPENDIX V APPENDIX V

SMITHSONIAN RESEARCH FOUNDATION

In substance, the Report suggests that the Fovindation is not a properly constituted entity, that its contracts may not be valid obligating documents, and, therefore, the administration of Foundation programs might not be in accord with the fiscal and civil service laws.

The historical outline set forth earlier in this letter describes the basic authority of the Board of Regents to incorporate the Foundation. This authority was furtiier confirmed when the Congress and the Office of Management and Budget approved the incorporation of a similar organization, the Sniithsonian Science Information Exchange, Inc. , and the administration of its program under a contract obligating appropriated funds. The type of contract employed to provide for the administration of research projects and fellowships by the Foundation has been in use for majiy years throughout the Government, and is recognized as a valid obligating document. It is a truism that appropriated funds, when properly contracted, become the funds of the contractor, subject, not to the laws goverrdng the expenditure of appropriated funds, but to the rules of accountability applicable to federal contracts. The employees of the contractor are not subjected by the contract to the civil service la'.vs.

The Report states that "the Foundation does not provide any management function of consequence." Since there are few facts stated in support of this opinion, the following s\immary of the history of the Foundation and the operation of its principal programs may be helpful.

In the exercise of its statutory responsibility for the internal management of the Institution, the Board of Regents has authorized the numerous administrative organizations and arrangements necessary to carry out the programs and activities of the Institution. For many years the Institution, as <Ln independent trust establishment, has contracted with Government agencies and other organizations for the execution ajid funding of a variety of special research and scholarly functions. Eleven years ago the Board of Regents authorized the incorporation of the Smithsonian Research Foundation as the most efficient and appropriate way to provide for the administration and accountability of one or more special programs which Congress had approved and funded.

90

APPENDIX V APPENDIX V

At the meeting on May 11, 1966, of the Executive Committee of the Board of Regents, the following recommendation was discussed and approved:

"SMITHSONIAN FOUNDATION FOR EDUCATION AND RESEARCH

"For a number of years prior to FY 1966 the Institution receivedfunds from the National Science Foundation for a continuing series of special research projects of individual staff members. These projects differ from, more routine curatorial work in that they are based on individual research objectives to be achieved within specific periods varying from a few months to several years, and they are selected by a competitive process on the basis of merit. Each project is planned and funded as a separate unit which includes the special equipment, short term technical assistance, travel, etc. , necessary to achieve the research objective within the stated period. The funds received by grants from the NSF are administered by the private side of the Institution with an individual account for each project.

"In FY 1966 and FY 1967 these projects are being financed by direct appropriations to the Institution, which, as reported to Congress, are to be administered and expended in the same manner as the grants received from, the NSF (See Senate Hearings onH.R. 14215, 89th Cong. , 2nd Sess. , Part n, pp. 1500-1501). In order to achieve the same degree of flexibility in administering these special funds independent of fiscal year limitations or Civil Service requirements, it is proposed to establish a research foundation to receive, disburse, and account for the funds granted to projects which have been competitively selected for a research award. The foundation will have a corporate structure composed entirely of Smithsonian personnel.

"Nonprofit foundations of this type have been established by many colleges and universities, particularly state universities, for the flexible administration of research projects. In 1959, the NIH incorporated its 'Foundation for Advanced Education in the Sciences'; and in the Bell Report (1962) the Director of the Bureau of the Budget recognized the advantages of the nonprofit corporation for the administration of federally financed research.

"The transfer of funds from a Smithsonian appropriation to the proposed foundation account for the purpose of financing research projects is consonant with our established practice of receiving approximately ten million dollars annually from the appropriated funds of Government agencies in the form of grants

91

APPENDIX V APPENDIX V

and contracts for the performance of scientific research by the Institution as a private organization. The authority for the Smithsonian to use appropriated funds to finance scientific research by contract is found in 41 U. S. C. 252(c); and 42 U. S. C. 1891 provides that such research may also be financed by grants, where it is deemed to be in furtherance of the objectives of the agency.

"In addition to financing and administering research projects formerly funded by the NSF, it is contemplated that the foundation may also prove useful for other special programs such as visiting fellowship awards or cooperative projects in field biology. "

The proposal was approved by the full Board of Regents at its meeting on May 17. 1966.

The Smithsonian Research Foundation (SRF) was duly incorporated under the laws of the District of Columbia in June 1966, and shortly thereafter received formal recognition from the Internal Revenue Service as an exclusively charitable, scientific, literary, and educational organization tax-exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Under its first contract, the SRF agreed to be responsible for the "Research Awards Program" for which funds had been appropriated to replace the earlier grants received from the National Science Foundation for the special research projects of individual SI scientists. At the 1966Hearing before the Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations this program was presented with the understanding that the funds would be administered in the same manner as the grants received from the National Science Foundation. By its contract,the SRF accepted the binding legal obligation to provide the administrative services and advice necessary to individual researchers and the reports and fiscal-accountability required of grantees of federal funds. Its accounts are subject to audit by independent auditors, amd by the General Accounting Office, at its discretion.

The recurring cycle for the Research Awards Program begins in Novenriber, when the Foundation solicits project proposals, of scientific, cultural, artistic, or educational intent, from any qualified professional sta.ff member of the Institution. The SRF Executive Director reviews each proposal for appropriateness \inder the Foundation's charter. He aids and assists the scholar in the preparation of the proposal, and he may suggest modifications either to the proposed plan of work or to the budget. Proposals must be received by March and may be accepted or rejected at the discretion of the Executive Director. Those accepted are forwarded to the appropriate office in the Institution, which, in turn, submits them in

92

APPENDIX V APPENDIX V

May to a qualified review committee whose expert members are drawn largely from the academic world. No Smithsonian or Foxindation individ-•ual is involved in any judgment concerning the scholarly merits of any proposal after it is presented for panel review, nor is any expert member of the panel an employee of the Institution or Foundation.

The periods of these special research projects vary from one to four years, and the budgets range from a few hundred dollars to about $30, 000, to cover the costs of the equipment, supplies, travel, research assistants, and other requirements specifically justified for the particular project. The review panel ranks the projects in order of merit and recommends awards for as many as can be funded within the estimated amount of appropriations for the Program. As soon as practicable after the appropriation is available, normally after July first in the past, the total amount for the recommended projects is contracted to the Foiondation, and the Foundation makes the awards to the individual scholars. In several recent years, funds have been available, and have.been contracted, for partial or complete funding of the Program prior to the end of the fiscal year in June.

The Foundation is then responsible for administering all fund disbursements through its own account and voucher check system, purchasing equipment and supplies, processing travel documents and vendor payments, hiring qualified individuals for the approved research assistants, and providing insurance where necessary. All expenditures are audited annually, and periodic reports on each contract and the projects there'jnder are furnished by the Foundation to the federal contracts office. In a particular cycle, the last project will be closed out about five years after the cycle began.

With regard to another program administered by the Foundation, for several years prior to 1968, the Smithsonian had received appropriations for visiting fellowships. The Fellowship Program was administered by the National Academy of Sciences under a contract which was identical in its basic provisions with the contracts executed by NASA, the Department of the Army, and other agencies, to have the Academy administer visiting • scientist programs for them. In 1968, it was determined that the Institution-wide Fellowship Program could be more efficiently and economically administered by contract with the Smithsonian Research Foundation. The proce- -dures for selection, administration, and fiscal accountability are substantially the same as for the Research Awards Program.

Appropriations have been approved annually for about forty pre-doctoral and postdoctoral visiting fellows. This program for one-year fellowships is advertised in September, and in March the very numerous applications are sent to eight committees, consisting of Smithsonian scholars in the eight discipline areas for which fellowships have been offered.

93

APPENDIX V APPENDIX V

which rank the applications in. order of merit and recommend appointments and alternates. Notices of awards are sent out in March-April, and acceptances are received in May or June. As soon as funds are available, a contract is executed with the Foundation for the total amount necessary for the administration and accoionting for these approved fellowships. A few fellows will begin their year in the late stimmer, the majority in the autumn, and a few as late as February of the following year. Each program cycle thus covers a period of about two and one-half years from the advertising to the completion of the last fellowship in the cycle.

In 1967 and in 1970, the Foundation agreed to accept responsibility for administering two additional and similar programs: the foreign currency research grants to Smithsonian scholars, and the Woodrow Wilson Center Fellowships. These programs have the same characteristics, involving research projects or fellowships of varying duration unrelated to the calendar or fiscal year, funded by lump-sum annual appropriations. The specialized administration provided by the Foundation to fulfill the particular requirements of these programs is the same as has proved effective, economical, and fully accoxintable for the Research Awards and Fellowship programs.

The clear objective of Congress in appropriating funds for these special programs is that they shall be adrriinistered in a manner appropriate to the special term and requirements of the individual project or fellowship. The valid obligation of the annual appropriation for each of these programs, by contract with the Foundation, guarantees the continuous funding and single-purpose administration of each project or fellowship according to its particular term. Similarly, the lim.itations of the contract assure that the temporary research assistant authorized for a particular project will not become part of the regular Smithsonian staff, for which other funds are appropriated, and that no program funds will be used and no commitments made for this purpose beyond those required and approved for the specific research project.

Information was supplied to the GAO auditors which indicates that during the first ten years of the specialized administration of the Research Awards Program by the Foundation, the administrative cost was about $500, 000 less than it would have been under the federally mandated overhead rates for all grants (like those from the NSF) and contracts received by the Smithsonian from Government agencies during the same period. It is believed that further analysis would show similar economies in the other programs administered by the Forindation. The Foundation achieves -these economies by keeping its staff to the minimum consistent with its basic legal and professional responsibilities and procuring a number of its technical service requirements by contract from various Sm.ithsonian

94

APPENDIX V APPENDIX V

support activities. In June 1976, the Foundation reduced its staff ty three when it determined that certain bookkeeping services could be provided more economically by the Smithsonian's fiscal office with its computerized systems.

The Foundation derives its operating income by means of a negotiated fee provided for in the contract for each program. This overhead income rate is determined according to the generally accepted principles of reimbursement for costs incurred in the administration of a number of contracts, where the indirect costs of administering an individual contract cannot be identified. After a review of the labor and time involved in administering the Foundation's programs, a two-tier system has been established: at present programs requirijig stipend issuance and income withholdings are charged 8-1/2% by contract; research contracts, involving equipment, supplies, travel, and some payroll administration, are charged 13-1/2%. The overhead income covers the salaries and benefits of Foundation administrative employees; the cost of Institution technical services; unemployment and workmen's compensation for all Foundation employees; a general liability policy for all Foundation employees; a severance fund for the administrative staff; purchases of office supplies and equipment; and official travel related to the Foundation business.

The Foundation's Board and staff have, for eleven years, sought to assure that the operations of the Foundation would be in accordance with the highest professional and accounting standards, and consonant with the trust purposes of the Institution itself. To maintain ihese standards, periodic outside review is extremely helpful, and the recent discussions with the GAO audit staff have already suggested a ntimber of improvements in the administration of these special programs. However, there is nothing in this brief section of the Report concerning the operations of the Foundation to indicate how the Board of Regents might have exercised its discretion more responsibly with regard to these important programs, or to spell out in what way some other unspecified method of administration would be more appropriate, more effective, or more accountable. Indeed, the "Recommendation to the Secretary" appears to recognize that, if the suggestions of the Report are adopted, these programs cannot be run effectively without additional legislation to provide exemptions from existing legislation. Since the present arrangement of eleven years standing is properly authorized by the Board of Regents and is efficient and fully accountable, and since the programs regularly funded by the Congress have proved valuable and productive, it is difficult to perceive how implementation of the recommendations of the Report would result in substantial improvement in these programs. On the other hand, further advice as to any technical problems mentioned in the Report would be appreciated.

95

APPENDIX V APPENDIX V

These research and fellowship programs, though modest in amoiint, have been extremely important to the Institution's basic mandate for the increase of knowledge. The fellowships have greatly expanded the use of the national collections, and the availability of special research support has made it possible to compete more successfully in the academic community for scholars and curators of the highest attainments. The Institution would welcome an opportunity to discuss with the GAO and the appropriate Congressional committees any alternative administrative procedures that would 7)reserve and enhance the effectiveness and economical operation of these programs.

SMITHSONIAN SCIENCE INFORMATION EXCHANGE

The Report does not adequately set forth the history of the Exchange. It gives the impression that the present mode of operation of the Exchange originated with its incorporation in 1971. As in the case of the Smithsonian Research Foundation, the Exchange was incorporated to maintain an activity formerly funded by the National Science Foundation in the form most appropriate to its particular requirements. However, the Exchange was created in 1949-50, outside the Smithsonian, as a unit under the administrative charge of the National Academy of Sciences, and funded entirely by contract.

In 1953 the Exchange came under the aegis of the Smithsonian at the request of •the Academy and the government agencies which had set up the Exchange to assist them in their growing programs of support for independent scientific research. The Smithsonian's acceptance of a limited administrative responsibility for the Exchange was unrelated to the Institution's own programs. It was accepted as a service to the national and international science community, with the clear understanding that it would be maintained as a separate organization, funded by contract, with its program requirements determined by its user organizations and with the authority for its budget, staff, space, equipment, expenditures, and operations vested in its Director.

"History and Function of Science Information Exchange

"The SIE was established in 1949. Originally called the Medical Sciences Information Exchange, it was created by an interagency agreement among the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, the Atom.ic Energy Commission, the Veterans' Administration, and the Public Health Service and funded out of their separate budgets. In 1953 the National Science Foundation joined in its support, the Exchange was renamed the Biosciences Information Exchange, and it was put under the aegis of the Smithsonian Institution.

96

APPENDIX V APPENDIX V

"In general, its function is to serve the participating Government agencies, and the scientific community, by facilitating 'the prompt exchange of information about their current research activities. ' As its former names im.ply, the Exchange began by concentrating on supplying information about basic research in the life sciences, chiefly medical and biological.

"In I960 the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Federal Aviation Agency were added to the list of supporting agencies and the Exchange was once again renamed, this time the Science Information Exchange to reflect the fact that it had broadened its scope to include research in the physical sciences, such as 'chemistry, physics, matherr.atics, engineering sciences, earth sciences, materials, /and/ electronics.' "

pg. 67, House Report No. 1729, August 10, 1964, "Administration of Research and Development Grant

"Summary and Recommendations

"The committee concludes that:

"1. Continued Federal support of SIE is deemed to be warranted. The committee is convinced that, with better cooperation on the part of the various Government agencies, SIE's holdings can be made substantially complete. Its services, both to the scientific community at large and to research administrators, are clearly useful; as a tool for coordination and avoidance of needless duplication, it has already demonstrably paid for itself many times over.

"2. The SIE should continue to be operated within the Smithsonian Institution. While some benefits might certainly accrue should it be brought into the Federal system proper by making it an in-house facility of an agency such as the National Science Foundation, it seems best to keep it set apart lest the easily documented possibility of interagency rivalry affect its efficacy as an interagency coordinating service. "

pg. 90, House Report No. 1729, supra.

97

APPENDIX V APPENDIX V

"The history of BSIE may be traced back to the dissolution of the wartime Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD) in 1946, at which time a number of Federal agencies then undertook their independent support of research in the medical sciences. Information exchanges were established within various agencies, the largest of which was the Office of Exchange of Information of the Public Health Service. When the amount of research supported by Federal agencies in the medical field had grown from $4. 3 million in 1946 to $33 million in 1949, with corresponding growth in the number of research organizations, investigators and related multiply-submitted proposals, it became imperative that research project information be coordinated in order to prevent unknowing duplication of sponsorship. The Medical Sciences Information Exchajage was then founded as a cooperative venture in July 1950_within the Division of Medical Sciences, National Research Coioncil. Support and administrative policy for the Medical Sciences Information Exchange (MSIE) was considered the joint responsibility of the six participating Federal agencies. In the fall of 1953 the National Research Council urged that the MSIE be shifted to the Smithsonian Institution; it'was then renamed the Bio-Sciences Information Exchange to take into account its expansion in the fields of biology and psychology. Until the consolidation into the SIE, BSIE was still governed and funded by the seven original supporting Federal agencies. ""

pg. 75, Senate Report No. 263,

May 18, 1961, "Coordination of

Information on Current Scientific

Research and Development

Supported by the United States Government

"The Bio-Sciences Information Exchange is an independent establishment located in Washington, D. C. , administratively attached to the Smithsonian Institution, and following the September 22, I960, action by Smithsonian, now a division within the recently founded Science Information Exchange. "

"Policies of BSIE are determined by a governing board which, \intil recently, was composed of two representatives from each of the seven participating Federal agencies and the Smithsonian Institution. These were: Atomic Energy Commis-

98

APPENDIX y APPENDIX V

sion, the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, Public Health Service, Veterans' Administration, and the National Science Foiindation. BSIE operations have been funded by these same agencies out of their operating budgets. The Governing Board operated under an 'agreement' which served as a charter outlining the responsibilities of the Exchange and the services it may offer granting agencies and individual scientists. Non-Federal cooperating agencies were not represented on the Governing Board."

pg. 73, Senate Report No. 263, supra.

"The Smithsonian Institution has experience in the operation of such facilities by having provided its auspices to the BSIE for the past 7 years. On the other hand, Sm.ithsonian has apparently considered that responsibility for assuring BSIE effectiveness lay with the Governing Board. It is true, however, that since an information exchange involves a ser-vice, Smithsonian has the advantage in itself not being a prirr.ary contributor to or user of the service and thus has no special interest that may be considered in competition with other participants. Moreover, the Smithsonian Institution has a stature in the scientific community that distinguished it from a Federal entity. "

pg. 187, Senate Report No. 253, supra.

". . . the Foundation has given consideration to the matter of governing-and advisory instrumentalities for the SIE and of representation by non-supporting as well as supporting participants. Extending the present technique of having two representatives of each supporting agency on the BSIE Governing Board would result in a most unwieldy policy and management group for the enlarged Exchange. In striving to create a service of national proportions, there would be considerable merit in trying to provide for some type of participation, at least of an advisory nature, by organizations which are not providing financial support.

"Consideration of a solution somewhat along the following lines is suggested. Provide in the SIE charter for a Governing Board comprised of one member of each Federal Depart-

99

APPENDIX V APPENDIX V •

ment or independent agency which contributes funds for the support of the Exchange, and one for the Smithsonian Institution, each member to have one vote. Each supporting agency should, of course, exercise its own. judgment in the designation of its official representative, with the understanding, however, that each such representative should be able to speak for his agency with respect to fvmding and similar management problems.

"To provide technical advice and guidance on substantive problems, an Advisory Panel is suggested for each major field covered by the SIE and for which there is an Associate Director. These Panels would be advisory to and designated by the Governing Board, and membership need not be restricted to supporting organizations. NSF proposes a Life Sciences Advisory Panel, a Physical Sciences Advisory Panel, and a Social Sciences Advisory Panel. While having continuing status, these Panels would meet and function very largely on an ad hoc basis, as problems arise which warrant their individual attention. The size of each Panel, tenure of membership, and similar matters would appear relatively easy to resolve, if there is agreement on this type of structure. This suggested structure seems to offer the best compromise of the differing views which have been expressed about governing and advisory Ijodies.

"To implement these views, the NSF recommends that first attention be given to the charter of SIE. To assist in this phase the Foundation has prepared a draft SIE charter, based on the BSIE charter, for review by appropriate Federal agencies. After such review it is hoped that a working meeting can be convened to agree on an SEE charter which would be acceptable to the agencies concerned. June 30, 1960, is suggested as an appropriate target date for ratification of the SIE charter. "

pg. 191, Senate Report No. 263, supra.

The charter recommended by NSF was agreed to on September 22, 1960, and is set forth at pg. 192 of the same Senate Report No. 263. The seven-niember Governing Board of the Exchange, consisting of representatives from the six major granting agencies and the Smithsonian, has responsibility for policy and general management directions. The Director of the Exchange is responsible for the direction and coordination of all

100

APPENDIX V APPENDIX V

SIE operations. He is authorized to appoint Associate Directors for appropriate scientific areas as determined by the Board; to prepare the annual budget; to determine needs for staff, space, and equipment; and to approve expenditures. The charter provides that the Exchange is to be funded through contracts or grants between the signatory agencies and the Smithsonian Institution, and that the function of the Smithsonian is to "provide financial and administrative services as required for operations of the SIE."

For all of its 27 years the Exchange has maintained its own offices in downtown Washington, and its self-contained operation with its own employees supervised by its Director in cooperation with its user organizations has been supported and approved throughout by both the legislative and executive branches. In 1968-69, the NSF, which was then the single funding agency, requested the Exchange to charge user fees to both nonfederal and federal users. At about the same time, NSF recommended that its appropriation for the Exchange be transferred to the Smithsonian's federal funds budget.

The Smithsonian agreed to accept responsibility for the Exchange's appropriation on condition that the Exchange would be incorporated in order to continue its independent operation by contract. This was approved by the Office of Management and Budget and the Appropriations Committee. Since 1971 an entirely separate line item has been included in the Smithsonian appropriation bill to fund the contract with the Exchange.

Under its corporate charter the Director of the Exchange (now entitled "President") continues to be responsible for the entire day-to-day management of the Exchange, including personnel and procurement. His planning and implementation of the programs of the Exchange in cooperation with its user organizations is carried out through the SSIE Advisory Council. The ministeriar and audit responsibilities of the Smithsonian are fulfilled through its contracts with the Exchange and through the President's reports to the Exchange's Board of Directors. The membership of the Board normally includes four representatives from the Smithsonian, one from NSF, one from NIH, the chairman of the SSIE Advisory Council, and the President of the Exchange. Although Smithsonian officers serve on the Board, it is the Board, rather than the Smithsonian, that is legally responsible for the independent corporate obligations of the Exchange. The Board approves general policies, but the day-to-day operations of the Exchange, such as personnel actions and related workload management, are the fianctional and legal responsibilities of the executive officers of the Exchange.

101

APPENDIX V APPENDIX V

It is apparent from this STimmary of the history, organization, and operation of the Exchange that the Smithsonian does not "control" the Exchange in the ordinary sense of the word. The operations of the Exchange are controlled by the restrictions on the appropriation, by the mandatory provisions of the federal contract with the Exchange, by the decisions of the President of the Exchange and user organizations on programs, by the requirements of the procurement laws embodied in the contracts with federal users, and by the complete accounting and reporting procedures necessary for audit, by the GAO and others, and for the Appropriations Committees' review. An example of the latter is the following table submitted to the Appropriations Committees as part of the Exchange's budget justification for fiscal year 1977.

102

APPENDIX V

APPENDIX V

^

>

o o

>^

>

-H o c

o ii n o > I"

> Vi l< 2 < o

'J g -u

3 C a o u

a ^ =: u u

>.

O n -D o

^ O U 11

a. s. z a

-I -t O -tji

JJ JJ '3 O C

O 0 3) C n

z z [u Hia

B-3

103

APPENDIX V APPENDIX V

This portion of the Report, commenting on the Exchange, recognizes that the Exchange perforins a valuable public service, that it is efficient and economical, and that its long-standing mode of operation has the approval of Congress. Nevertheless, the Report recommends that the separate organization of the Exchange, which has been fundamental to its highly specialized functions for all of its 27 years, be dismantled. This recommendation, supported only by a vague reference to "effective congressional control and accountability, " is not explained or analyzed in the Report, and is clearly unwarranted.

The Report contains no evidence, for there is none, that the pervasive controls available to the Congress and exercised by it throughout the life of the Exchange have not been effective. The Report makes no reference to the extensive Congressional studies which have comprehended all aspects of the Exchange. On the basis of the full financial and program information regularly supplied to the legislative and the.appropriations committees, Congressional approval and support of the separate operation of the Exchange has consistently been reaffirmed.

This recommendation is made without any attempt to analyze the effect its implementation would have on the essential ability of the Exchange to adjust its staff levels and procurements rapidly to meet changes in user demands. The Report is silent on the unjust results that would follow from mandatory conversion to federal status of the nriany employees of long service to the Exchange. Moreover, the Repor-u apparently disregards the long-standing policy and practice of the Government to obtain and administer many specialized services and functions by contract, which practice was approved by both the executive and legislative branches as one of the basic conditions under which the Smithsonian agreed to assist the Exchange.

It should be observed, although there has not been time for a detailed study of this \inexpected recommendation, that its irriplementation would likely diminish both accountability and control. The presently identifiable indirect costs of the Exchange would disappear into the general -expenses of Smithsonian support activities. The unified responsibility and accountability which is now clearly vested in the President and other executive officers of the Exchange would be dispersed to various Smithsonian units such as the personnel and procurement offices.

The Exchange has greatly benefitted from the continuing interest of the Congress over nearly three decades, which has encouraged its growth in its present form and helped resolve the complex problems of information transfer. Problems continue, such as the incompleteness of coverage in a n\imber of areas because input to the Exchange from some agencies is

104

APPENDIX V APPENDIX V

variable. But these are problems relating to program, not to organization. A review of the roles of the Exchange and its potentials for the future was recently presented by the President of the Exchange at the request of the President's Committee on Science and Technology Policy as a part of its current study of information dissemination. As in the past, the Smithsonian will appreciate any opportunity to participate in the continuing examination, by the executive branch, the GAO, and the legislative and appropriations committees of Congress, of the development of the Exchange and the advantages or possible improvements in its operations.

INFORMATION ON SMITHSONIAN FINANCES

This section of the Report first describes the reprograircning of operating funds with regard to the establishment of a contingency fund capability. The Report concludes that the Institution requires some administrative flexibility in reallocating funds among budget categories and recommends that the Smithsonian work with the appropriation subcommittees to arrive at a mutually agreeable understanding as to the reprogramming actions above some amount that the committses would want to approve in advance.

The Institution fully concurs in this conclusion and recomjmendation and is anxious to continue discussions with the subcommittees to develop guidelines which will provide Congress with the necessary level of control yet offer the Institution some administrative flexibility given the number of line items in the Smithsonian's budget, the more than two-year period over which any fiscal year's budget is developed and carried out, and the number and variety of needs that arise over this period as the Institution attempts to meet its responsibilities. It might be added that the Office of Management and Budget has urged the Smithsonian to work out such a procedure with the Congress.

This section of the Report also deals with the various types of trust fund incoine and the expenditure thereof by the Institution, pointing out that annual reports on the subject are regularly supplied to the Congress. It recommends, however, that information on the planned use of trust funds should be provided to appropriations committees at the time appropriation requests are submitted and that clear policies should be established governing the use of federal and trust funds.

As has already been demonstrated by the complete cooperation with GAO auditors reviewing Smithsonian operations, by the annual submission to Congress since 1971 of comprehensive financial reports and by n\imerous informative letters to Congressional committees over the years, the management of this Institution has been and is willing at all times to furnish

105

-564 O - 77 - 40

APPENDIX V APPENDIX V '

fully to the Congress any and all facts, financial or otherwise, about its operations. Currently it is recognized that in some areas, notably nonfederal funds expended under the immediate direction of individual bureaus, the amount of such funds ha.s increased in the past year or two to the point where reporting of additional details concerning them may now be desired. If so, such information will be provided in the future.

Budget projections of the Institution's trust funds for two years in advance, as recommended by the GAO, can also be furnished to the Congress with the concurrence of the Smithsonian Board of Regents which approves all such budgets. Such projections, however, should be received by the Congress with the understanding that they cannot be viewed with the same degree of reliability as, for example, estimates for federal appropriations, since the projections of trust fund income and expenditures depend in part upon future economic conditions, numerous management decisions, the personal circumstances and decisions of important donors, and a host of other variables which are not predictable with certainty so far in advance. At the same time, it should be' respectfully pointed out that, in order to assure that Smithsonian is to continue its operations linder the direction of its Board of Regents as it has done so successfully for the past 130 years, the provision of advance planning information to the Congress should be for the purpose of assisting its appraisal of Smithsonian operations without limiting the statutory responsibilities of the Regents.

In this respect, the Institution will indeed endeavor to set forth more clearly the policies by which decisions are made on the use of federally appropriated finds and the limited trust funds available to the Board of Regents. It should be emphasized that all funds, both federal appropriations and trust fxinds, are always used for purposes consonant with the Smithson gift. The flexibility provided by the combined enaployment of federal and trust funds has been of immense value to the Institution in the attraction of national collections, the carrying out of important research efforts, the ability to take advantage o'f valuable opportunities, and the initiation of fruitful, innovative activities.

ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW FACLLITIES

This portion of the Report briefly describes four centers of Smithsonian activity: Cooper-Hewitt Museum, Chesapeake Bay Center for Environmental Studies, National Zoological Park's Conservation and Research Center, and the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute. While these activities have been under the Smithsonian's stewardship for periods ranging from three years in the case of the Conservation and Research Center to over thirty years in the case of the Tropical Research Institute and thus should not be categorized as newly established, the Institution completely respects the Congressional need to be promptly informed of Smithsonian plans that might involve substantial new federal expenditures.

106

APPENDIX V APPENDIX V

We agree that more comprehensive and timely communication with the appropriate Congressional committees is essential. This will be done. ^

Regretfully, the Report does not evaluate the miany and varied benefits, as compared with the costs, which have accrued to the American public from, the programs cited in this section of the Report. These benefits include the acqmsition of valuable private collections and property, the development of a national preserve for the study and documentation of environmental systems, the conservation of endangered wildlife species, and the gaining of important and practical insights into the biology of the tropics, an area whose floiaand fauna are of dramatic significance to the entire Western Hemisphere. It is recognized, however, that the GAO had limited time to review the effectiveness of these programs as suggested in the Senate request. Consequently, the Institution would be pleased to provide any further information required by-the Congress.

OTHER MATTERS

Informational items reported in this section include the proposed Museum Support Center, the types of research conducte^d by a number of Smithsonian bureaus, and travel by Smithsonian officials. Of special importance to the future of the Institution is the Support Center project. The Institution welcomes the opportunity afforded by this Report and by the appropriation hearings on the fiscal year 1978 budget to elaborate on the benefits that this Center will provide for the management and preservation of the national collections, and for the training of conservators. With regard to the two research programs identified for special review, the Chesapeake Bay Center and the Tropical Research Institute, the Smithsonian is pleased that the Report-addresses the concern, shared by the Institution, that their work does not duplicate activities carried on elsewhere.

CONCLUSION

In their letter of June 1976, which initiated this GAO review. Senators Byrd and Stevens specifically requested a determination of whether Srrxithsonian appropriations "are effectively and properly utilized for the purposes for which they were appropriated" (emphasis added). While the Smithsonian is rro st appreciative of the diligence, the objectivity and the courtesy of the GAO staff engaged in this study, it regrets that so little attention was devoted to the first of these questions, the effectiveness with which appropriations have been used. Admittedly, in an enterprise as complex and varied as the Smithsonian, no simple quantitative measure

107

APPENDIX V APPENDIX V

of effectiveness suggests itself. Nevertheless, it seems not unreasonable to conclude this letter by asking whether the people of the United States--and indeed of the world--have been well served by the Institution's use of the fiinds available to it in recent years. How well has the Smith-■ sonian fulfilled its obligation to increase and diffuse knowledge among men?

A full catalog of Smithsonian achievements over the past decade would be tedious and out of place here. Nevertheless, it m.ight be noted that the national collections have been enriched by a number of spectacular gifts, among them the C. S. Johnson and Hirshhorn collections of art, the Lilly collection of coins, the Cooper Union collections of decorative arts and design, and the Dibner collection of rare books, manuscripts, and instr\iments in the history of science and technology. Six new museums--the National Portrait Gallery, the Renwick, the Anacostia Neighborhood Museum, the Hirshhorn Muse\im and Sculpture Garden, the National Air and Space Musexim, and the Cooper-Hewitt Museum--have been opened to the public, and are now enjoyed by millions' of visitors each year. The National Collection of Fine Arts, for the first time in its long history, has been installed in an appropriate setting, and the century-old Arts ar.c Industries building has been refurbished and air-conditioned for the enjoyment of the public and the safety of its exhibits. The National Zoological Park is in the midst of a long-planned program of modernization and beautification, and badly-needed space for public enjoyrr.ent and icu:ation has been added to the Museum of Natural History.

During the same period, the Smithsonian has developed naw •■.vays of bringing enlightenment and pleasure to additional millions of visitors, and to others who never visit Washington. The Festival of American Folkiife has helped to awaken an interest in the folkways and ethnic roots of all the peoples who make up this country. The National Associates program, and its Smithsonian magazine, have brought the Institution closer to millions of Americans througliout the country, as has the expanded Traveling Exhibition Service.

Have these dramatic successes in the diffusion of knowledge been achieved at the expense of the increase of knowledge? Emphatically not. The Smithsonian tradition of research in the sciences, humanities, and art has also been well served during these years, and constitutes the foundation upon which all other Sm.ithsonian activities rest. Whether one thinks of the pioneering work of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, of the definitive Encyclopedia of North American Indians, or of the Freer Gallery's studies of ancient bronze, it is clear that the Smithsonian continues to attract first-rate scientists amd scholars, and to provide a setting in which they can freely and fruitfully pursue work of incalculable value to all mankind.

108

APPENDIX V APPENDIX V

Finally, it should be emphasized that every one of the achievements mentioned above was in one way or another made possible by support from both the'public and the private sector. This is the tradition of the Smithsonian Institution, and has been for more than 130 years. It is a tradition that adds immeasurably to the effectiveness of the funds granted to the Institution by the Congress.

Sincerely yours.

S. Dillon Ripley Secretary

109

I

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

PRINCIPAL OFFICIALS OF THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION RESPONSIBLE FOR ADMINISTERING ACTIVITIES » DISCUSSED IN THIS REPORT

I

SECRETARY FROM TO

S. Dillon Ripley 1964 Present

UNDER SECRETAR Y

Robert A. Brooks 1973 1976

ASSISTANT SECRETARIES

Robert A. Brooks (The Assistant Secretary)

Charles Blitzer (History and Art)

David Challinor (Science)

Paul N. Perrot (Museum Programs)

Julian T. Euell (Public Service)

John F. Jameson (Administration)

TREASURER

T. Ames Wheeler 1968 Present

GENERAL COUNSEL

Peter G. Powers 1964 Present

110

SMITHSONIAlsr REPLY TO THE REPORT

Mr. Yates. Following that report of the Comptroller General there may be made a part of the record the reply of the Smithsonian Institution to that report, a reply which is designated the "Statement on the Report of the Comptroller General," dated April 18,1977.

[The information follows:]

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

STATEMENT ON THE

REPORT OF THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL

April 18, 1977

On March 31, 1977, the Comptroller General issued his report entitled "Need to Strengthen Financial Accountability to the Congress--Smithsonian Institution" in response to the request of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies. The Institution's comments on an earlier draft of this Report were included as Appendix V to the Report. This statement is intended to summarize and supplement those comments.

As an introduction and background to specific comments on the numerous topics in the Report, an "Outline of the Origin and Development of the Smithsonian Institution" sets forth the statutory history of the Institution as an independent trust establishment which is not part of the three branches of Governmenc but which shares the trust responsibilities with the Congress. The Outline makes it clear that the Report's repeated use of the word "private" to describe the Institution's nongovernmental status and its non-Federal trust funds should not imply any lack of accountability for any of its operations or funds. The Act of 1846 specifically provides that the Institution is entirely accountable to the Congress independent of and in addition to any specific requirements of appropriations. As stated in the Institution's comments on the Report, the Institution is already taking a number of additional steps to expand its reports to give the Congress an even fuller picture of the Institution's operations.

Smithsonian Research Foundation and Smithsonian Science Information Exchange

This section of the Report raises questions about the administration of several special programs, approved by the Congress and operated by contract with the Smithsonian Research Foundation (SRF) and the Smithsonian Science Information Exchange (SSIE). These are legally competent corporate entities organized to continue the operation by contract of several specialized functions formerly funded by contract with the National

-2-

Science Foundation and the National Academy of Sciences. The research award, fellowship, and technical information programs, which are distinct from normal curatorial and operational functions, have been administered under this contract system, for 11 years in the case of SRF and for 27 years in the case of SSIE.

Although the Report states that it is not questioning the legal standing of the agreements or the corporations, it nevertheless recommends that both corporations be dissolved. The Report does not indicate how its recommendations would enhance the control or accountability of these special programs, but makes fiie surprising statement that any effect on economy of operation is "not particularly relevant. " In addition to economy, however, one of the major effects of separate administration by contract is to provide unified controls and specific financial accountability for each program.

It is essential to note that the principal questions raised in the Report do not, in fact, concern the existence of the corporations, but the contract method of administration of these programs. On page 17 the Report summarizes with regard to SSIE the same criticisms applied to SRF earlier in the Report:

"Since the Exchange is a private, nonprofit corporation, it does not have to comply with Federal statutes such as fiscal year limitations and civil service and Federal procurement laws, applicable to the use of appropriated funds. "

The applicability of fiscal year limitations, and civil service and procurement laws, is not determined by the corporate status, profit or nonprofit, of the contracting organization, but is entirely a function of the contract itself, * which is governed by the Federal statutes, regulations, and rules applicable to the obligation, administration, and expenditure of appropriated funds by contract.

Under these rules, many contracts, such as research contracts, cover the term of the project, which normally extends over more than one fiscal year. The rules do not contemplate that the employees of the contractor will become civil servants, although the employment practices of the Federal contractor are now subject to many other Federal regulations, as are the contractor's procurements. In short, the rules and regulations for Federal contracts are as comprehensive as those for direct expenditures referred to by the Report.

* The references to "contracts" herein are intended to include "grants," which are a fornn of Federal contracts.

-3-

Since the contracts for these special programs are in compliance with the Federal laws governing the use of appropriated funds by contract, the statement in the Report that the Institution uses the corporate contractor as "a device that attempts to avoid restrictions relevant to appropriated funds ... in a way that it clearly could not if it spent the funds directly" is somewhat misleading. The present method of administering these various funds by contract arrangements does not free their expenditure from proper Federal controls; rather, a different set of Federal regulations governing the use of appropriated funds applies. The Report's unstated premise that direct expenditure is always preferable to expenditure by contract is not supported by Federal law or Government practice, particularly in the administration of specialized research projects, fellowship programs, and technical information functions.

The Institution's research awards program is now administered under the same type of Federal contract as that deemed appropriate by the National Science Foundation when it originally funded these research projects, and the fellowship program contract is similar to that which is used by many agencies to provide for the administration of visiting scientist programs by the National Academy of Sciences. Likewise, the contract with the SSIE is the same in its basic provisions as that used by tlie National Science Foundation prior to Fiscal Year 1972, when it funded the operations of the SSIE through the Institution. The Institution, in continuing the adinin-istration of these special programs by contract, adopted the method which has long been deemed by the Government to be appropriate, legally authorized, and effective.

The Institution's comments on the Report set forth the long history of the separate operation of SSIE by contract, as agreed upon by the user agencies in the Executive Branch and repeatedly reviewed and approved by numerous committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Report does not take note of the continuing interests of the legislative and executive branches in the present operations of the SSIE, nor indeed of the studies by the GAO itself with regard to SSIE. Moreover, the Report does not address the question whether the Board of Regents could unilaterally dismantle the present operation of the SSIE without prior consideration by the appropriate committees of Congress, by the public and private user agencies, and by the President's Committee on Science and Technology .

In House Report No. 94-595 on what was enacted as the "National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976" consideration was given by the Committee on Science and Technology (pp. 24-26) to the present operation of SSIE and the possibility of merging it with the Commerce Departnient's National Technical Infornnation Service

and the NSF's Office of Science Information Service. It was recommended that the resulting organization be a "Corporation with a single executive head and a governing Board. " This proposal was among the subjects referred for furtlier consideration by the President's Connmittee on Science and Technology created by Title III of the Act.

With regard to the programs administered by contract with SRF, the Report points out two areas which require correction and improvement. In the course of the audit by GAO, which coincided with a review-by, the Institution's internal auditor, it became apparent from both sources that there had been some uncertainty among the various program managers as to the appropriate time relationship between the availability of appropriations, the general contract with SRF, and the final commitments to the selected scholars and research projects. The Report is correct that the funds intended for fellowships in the Urgent Anthropology Program should no longer be considered available for specific commitments, and they have been deobligated . The other programs administered by SRF are now current. Contract obligations to SRF and final commitments by SRF are being made within the same fiscal year as the appropriations are available.

In this connection, it should be noted that the Report states: "Our criticism is muted by the fact that there is nothing to suggest that appropriated funds were spent on anything but the programs authorized."

The second area for improvement recommended by the Report does not concern the contracts and administration of SRF, but points to the need for the Institution to inform the Congress fully about the status of SRF and to report its finances in such a way as to demonstrate its financial accountability. Although no specific effort to inform the Congress was recommended when the Board of Regents authorized the incorporation of SRF in 1966, it is apparent in retrospect that such an effort at the outset might well have prevented this recent criticism. No attempt has been made to conceal the SRF: it has been mentioned in a number of the Institution's Annual Reports to Congress; it is shown on the organization chart submitted to the appropriations committees with the budget estimates; and a brief report is filed annually as a public document with the Corporation Division of the D. C. Office of Recorder of Deeds.

In order to improve this situation, the independent auditor's report of the SRF's Financial Statements and Schedules will be included as an appendix to the Institution's Annual Report to the Congress . Similarly, in addition to the information already furnished to the Congress concerning SSIE, the audited statement of SSIE's financial operations and fund balances will also be set forth in the Annual Report .

-5-

Information on Smithsonian Finances

In connection with the former reprogramming of appropriated operating funds to establish a contingency fund capability of which Congress had been advised, the Report concludes that the Institution requires some administrative flexibility in reallocating funds among its numerous budget categories. It recommends that the Smithsonian work with the appropriation subcommittees to arrive at a mutually agreeable understanding as to the size of reprogramming actions which would require advance approval by the committees. The Institution fully concurs in this conclusion and recommendation and is anxious to continue discussions with the subcommittees to develop guidelines .

The Report also discusses the various categories of trust fund income and expenditures, pointing out that annual financial reports are regularly supplied to the Congress, It recommends, however, that information on the planned use of trust funds should be provided to appropriations committees at the time appropriation requests are submitted and that clear policies should be established governing the use of Federal and trust funds.

The Institution is willing at all times to furnish to the Congress all facts about its operations. Budget projections of the Institution's trust funds for two years in advance can be furnished to the Congress with the concurrence of the Smithsonian Board of Regents, which approves all such budgets. Furthermore, the Institution will endeavor to set forth more clearly the policies which affect the budgeting of federally appropriated funds and the limited trust funds available to the Board of Regents, all of which are used for the Institution's statutory trust purposes .

Establishment of New Facilities

This portion of the Report briefly describes four centers of Smithsonian activity: Cooper-Hewitt Museum, Chesapeake Bay Center for Environmental Studies, National Zoological Park's Conservation and Research Center, and the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute. While these have been administered by the Smithsonian for periods ranging from three years in the case of the Conservation and Research Center to over thirty years in the case of the Tropical Research Institute and thus should not be categorized as newly established, the Institution completely respects the Congressional need to be promptly informed of Smithsonian plans that might involve substantial new Federal expenditures, and will provide comprehensive and timely information to the appropriate Congressional com-mittees.

-6- .

Other Matters

Of special importance to the future of the Institution is the proposed Museum Support Center. The Report takes note of the benefits that the Center will provide for the management and preservation of the national collections, and for the training of conservators. With regard to the Institution's research installation, the Smithsonian is pleased that the Report, in reviewing the Chesapeake Bay Center's basic research, states that "none of the projects sponsored and paid for by the Smithsonian seemed to duplicate the projects of the other Federal agencies. "

Conclusions

In summary, the Smithsonian has cooperated in every way possible to provide the information requested in the course of this extensive inquiry, and hopes it will serve as the basis for productive discussions in our continuing efforts to improve administrative and program practices. A number of practical questions raised by the Report's alternative recommendations concerning the programs of SRF and SSIE require further study. With the improvements and corrections already being made, the Institution believes that its current programs and activities are being administered effectively, with full accountability in compliance with all applicable Federal laws; and a continuing effort is pledged to inform Congress of every aspect of the progress of the Institution and to maintain the accountability required by its statutory charter .

LETTER FROM AUDIT REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF REGENTS

Mr. Yates. Continuing the ad hoc historical summary, the matter came to the attention of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian, and I am now in receipt of a letter from Senator Henry Jackson, who is one of the congressional members of the Board of Regents, and it will be a part of the record.

[The full text of Senator Jackson's letter follows:]

United States Senate, Washington, D.C., April 26,1977. Hon. Sidney R. Yates,

Chairman, Subcommittee on the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Washington, B.C.

Deab Mr. Chaieman : I am writing this letter as Chairman of the Audit Review Committee of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution. Our committee was recently established by Chief Justice Burger, the Chancellor of the Smithsonian, and has been asked to review the Report of the Comptroller General on the Smithsonian Institution released March 31, 1977. The committee will also explore the concerns that were expressed during the Smithsonian's budget hearing in the Senate on April 18.

The Audit Review Committee met last Thursday, April 21, and is committed to undertaking a thorough review of the entire situation. The GAO Report and the concerns expressed during the Senate hearing have been discussed with Secretary Ripley and his staff, all of whom are committed to working with your subcommittee, the Audit Review Committee, and the Board <yl Regents to resolve these matters. In this connection, I enclose a copy of a letter I have received from the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution pledging his cooperation in this effort and suggesting that the Board of Regents authorize an independent study of the Smithsonian's organization, management and procedures to assess the Institution's present accountability to the Congress and the effectiveness of its operations and management. Such a study would also re-examine the Smithsonian's present statutory authorities and recommend whatever changes may be needed to bring them up to date and strengthen them.

I think Secretary Ripley's suggestion is well taken. Such an independent study will be recommended to the Board of Regents. The Audit Review Committee feels as I do, that an independent study by a qualified consultant would be very helpful to the Congress, the Smithsonian itself, and the public generally. In view of the heavy Federal investment in its facilities and the Institution's increasingly heavy reliance on appropriated funds for its operations, the Smithsonian has taken on a predominantly Federal character. Its full accountability and responsiveness to the Congress must be assured. The proposed study should clearly define the Smithsonian's charter and determine whatever new legislation may be desirable to assure its responsiveness as a Federal instrumentality. As Secretary Ripley points out, the objective should be to identify opportunities for improvement while, at the same time, preserving the unique qualities that have made the Smithsonian such a source of national pride and achievement.

The study to be undertaken by the Board of Regents will require time. In the meantime, the Smithsonian's programs—including the special activities administered by the Smithsonian Research Foundation and the Smithsonian Science Information Exchange—must go forward. We are well along in the appropriations process. In view of the proposed study and the determination of the Smithsonian to work with your subcommittee to resolve the present problems, it is my hope that your subcommittee will be able to maintain the status quo and provide appropriations for these important programs for fiscal year 1978. It is important that as we work to respond to the questions that have been raised, the very valuable programs of this great institution should not be impaired. Sincerely,

Heney M. Jackson.

SMITHSONIAN ASSURANCE OF COOPERA.TION

Mr. Yates. Appended to that letter is the letter dated April 25, signed by Secretary S. Dillon Eipley of the Smithsonian Institution, addressed to Senator Jackson, and containing the assurances of cooperation to which Senator Jackson referred.

Secretary Ripley's letter may be made a part of the record at this point, too.

[The letter of S. Dillon Ripley follows:]

Smithsonian Institution, Washington, B.C., April 25,19711.

Hon. Henrt M. Jackson,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, B.C. . .i.„ „„

Deab Senator Jackson : I am addressing this letter to you m yo^.^'-f^^LoHnt Chairman of the Audit Review Committee of the Board of Regents. At its meeting lasfSsday yourcommittee commenced its consideration of the comments and ecomm^ndat^ons contained in the Report of t^^/Comptroller General of the United States on the Smithsonian Institution released March 31, 1977. As you know, tne Report was also the subject of questioning during the Smithsonian's budget hear-

"lon?.'S ufon our'^'L'^^^ at Thursday's meeting, I am writing to assure

vou as Secretary, that I and the Smithsonian staff will cooperate m every way liih your committee, the Board of Regents, and the Congress. We are most desir-ous of resolving the questions raised by the Comptroller General and of responding to the concerns evidenced by the Appropriations Subcommittee. Indeed, we are

^^Siere can be no question concerning the need to insure the Smithsonian Institution's full financial accountability to the Congress respecting both its Federal and private funds. No uncertainty should attend the policies and procedures governing the use of either appropriated funds or trust funds, or the internal management and operations of the Institution. And, of course, there should be a clear understanding by all of the statutory authority underpinning our activities.

It is our desire and intention to work with your committee, the Board of Regents, and the staffs of the appropriate committees of the Congress respecting the Comptroller General's recommendations. The Appropriations Committees have been provided annually with detailed information covering past expenditures of private funds. We are now preparing estimates of future private spending for review and approval by the Board of Regents. Trust fund expenditures which might entail the need for future significant commitments of public funds vsdll be highlighted for the Appropriations Subcommittees. We are undertaking to make all desired information available to the relevant committees of the House and Senate, and have been in touch with the Appropriations Committees concerning the preparation of approved guidelines for the reprograming of funds. We will cooperate with the committees in every way.

In view of the concerns expressed during our budget hearing, I think a broader review of the Smithsonian and its operations might well be helpful to the Congress, the Institution itself, and to the public understanding of the Smithsonian. I suggest that the Audit Review Committee may want to seek approval of the Board of Regents for an independent study and evaluation of the Institution's organization, management and procedures, including an assessment of its accountability to the Congress and the effectiveness of its operations and management. The goal should be to identify opportunities for improvement while, at the same time, preserving the qualities that have made the Smithsonian a source of national pride and an effective instrument of public service. At the same time we might also review the statutory authorities under which we operate and recommend changes to update and strengthen the Smithsonian's present charter. We are now compiling these authorities for the Audit Review Committee and the interested committees of the Congress.

Any meaningful exploration of the questions raised will require considerable time. In the meantime, of course, the important work of the Institution must go forward. We are at a critical juncture in the appropriations process. The subcommittees will soon complete their work on the Institution's pending budget requests. It is our hope that arranerements can be made for the continued funding of our programs without interruption in the period ahead while we work together to resolve present concerns.

Please be assured of my personal commitment and that of mv entire staff to work closely with your committee and the Board of Regents on these matters.

With appreciation, I am. Faithfully yours,

S. Dillon Ripley, Secretary.

SMITHSONIAN ACCOUNtIbILITY

Mr. Yates. Before we get into the recitations, Mr. Powers, what have I omitted from the summary that ought to be in the record ?

Mr. Ripley. Mr. Chairman, may I comment just briefly

Mr. Yates. Surely.

Mr. RiPLET [continuing]. On two points that were raised in your discussion of this very admirable history, and I think broadly very worthwhile report of the GAO. One is, as we point out in the statement til at we have made on the report of the Comptroller General: the Outline of the Origin and Development of the Smithsonian Institution makes it clear that the GAO Report's repeated use of the word "private" to describe the Institution's nongovernmental status and its non-Federal trust funds should not imply any lack of accountability on the part of the Smithsonian for its operations and funds.

The use of the word "private" has come to have a different meaning in the midpart of the 1970's than it did in the midpart of the 192Q's when you cited Harding's statement,

Mr. Yates. Chief Justice Taft's statement used the term "private" and Harding used the term "quasi-public."

Mr. Ripley. That is correct. Use of the word "private" has come to have not exactly the meaning it had in Chief Justice Taft's times. These funds are totally accountable because they represent trust funds, and like a trust or a foundation it would be totally illegal for the Institution not to disclose to the Congress the funds and the accountability of them vested in the institution.

In the same way as the Congress has pledged the faith of the United States to defend the trust, it is the responsibility of the administration of the trust to account to the Congress how the trust is administered.

APPROVAL OF BUDGET BY THE BOARD OF REGENTS

Mr. Yates. The administrators of the trust are the Regents.

Mr. Ripley. Yes.

Mr. Yates. If that be true, why do not the Regents appear at the Cono;ress to request their budget rather than the Secretary ?

Mr. Ripley. I think that under the Smithsonian's legislation the Secretary is empowered to prepare the budget. Ever since the first meeting of the board as far as we can determine, they have allowed the Secretary to present the budget.

Mr. Yates. What is the evidence that the Regents have approved the budget? Is there a resolution passed by the Regents approving the budget to be submitted to the Congress ?

Mr. Ripley. Yes. and empowering the Secretary to administer that budget.

[Note. Subsequent to the hearing, a revision to the answer was received. The revised response follows: "No, the Regents do pass resolutions approving the trust funds budgets and empowering the Secretary to administer that budget. I might add, however, that the status of Federal appropriations and budget requests are reviewed at each meeting."]

Mr. Yates. I think it would be well for the Regents to pass a similar resolution on the Federal budget and to present a copy of that reso-

87-564 O - 77 - 41

lution to the Appropriations Committee showing that the Regents have examined the budget and that they have approved it and have submitted it to the Congress.

Mr. Ripley. This has been done in the past. I found in the early annual reports that the Secretary reported that at a meeting of the Board of Regents at which he had been directed to present requests to the Congress for specific funds.

Mr. Yates. I think this would be a good practice. I wasn't aware of it having been done during the time I have been on this committee.

HISTORY OF SMITHSONIAN FUNDING

Mr. Ripley. I became very much interested when I was studying the history of the Institution in the approximate cut-off date when the income from the fund was overbalanced by the annual appropriations to the Smithsonian from the Congress. It occurred to me there was a time around the middle of the last century when the then Secretary, Joseph Henry, complaining constantly about the drain on funds required for the support of the collections, the library, and the other management functions that had been put on the Institution at the instigation of the Congress, requested the Congress for annual support. We have prepared a table of the funding of the Institution from 184Y through 1976. One of the striking parts of this is the graph on the last page, which shows quite clearly that whereas the main support of the Institution's administration came from the trust funds right up to 1880, the agreement by the Congress to build the new building to house the collections given to the Smithsonian as a result of the 1876 Centennial Exposition in Philadelphia, and then to provide for maintenance with appropriated funds, turned the tables so that by 1883 approximately 80 percent of the annual budget of the Institution was coming from Federal support, federally appropriated funds, and some 20 percent only from the income of the trust. Ever since then the ratio has been approximately the same, notwithstanding the changes in the dollar amounts and values from 1880 to 1976.

You can see from the graph that the real growth of the Institution has been phased gradually ever since, with small peaks when a new building was added. It has been substantially 80 and 20 percent ever since 1883.

It is a question really, then, of interpretation. When one says the Smithsonian Institution today, because it is supported overwhelmingly from Federal funds, is in effect a kind of quasi-Federal institution; it is not very different from the Smithsonian Institution in 1883 when it was overwhelmingly supported by Federal funds as a so-called private institution. This is essentially a semantic problem, quite aside from the legal provisions of the charter under which the Institution was set up.

Mr. Yates. This statement of the Smithsonian's operating expenditures by source for the years 1847 through 1976 dated April 28, 1977, will be made a part of the record at this point. [The information follows:]

TOTAL SMITHSONIAN OPERATING EXPENDITURES 1847 - 1976

''"'■ ^•"' PER CENT DISTRIBUTION

1001

TRUST RESPONSrBILITY SHARED BY CONGRESS

Mr. Powers. I would like to say one more thing that may be helpful. You asked about the administration of the trust being assigned to the Board of Eegents. It is important to remember, I think, that the bequest made the United States the trustee, and although the principal operating responsibilities for the Institution were delegated or assigned in the 1846 act to the Board of Eegents, it is clear from the statute, as is spelled out in the statement about the origins of the Smithsonian, that the Congress, in reserving the right to amend the act and insisting that the administrators of the Institution report to the Congress, has continued to share the trust responsibility ever since. Therefore, in an ultimate sense not only are the congressional members of the Board of Regents specifically trustees as part of the Board of Regents, but all Members of Congress who are charged with responsibilities with regard to the Institution have trust responsibilities, and it is the nature of the trust

Mr. Yates. You are giving me that trust responsibility ?

Mr. Powers. I didn't give it to you, Mr. Chairman; the Congress gave it to you in 1836 and in 1846.

Mr. Yates. But the actions of each Congress are said to end with that Congress. . .

Mr. Powers. Sometimes they are so said to end, yes, sir, and it is sometimes said one Congress cannot bind another.

Mr. Yates. You are saying it in another way.

Mr. Powers. It is one of the continuing mysteries of congressional practice, but that is a whole additional subject.

I would like to add one thing. It is a primary requisite of trust law, clearly recognized in 1836 and 1846, that the trust responsibilities must be kept separate from those of the Government itself. There is no prohibition of the Government giving the Institution support; indeed, the statement shows the support began in 1836. It has continued ever since, to a greater or lesser extent, and, as Mr. Ripley just pointed out, it became a predominant factor in the operations of the Institution as early as 1883.

Mr. Yates. You are making me part of the overall conglomerate trusteeship of the Congress?

Mr. PowTiRS. I think so. ]\Ir. Chainnan. You recall in 1836 the message first came to the President and he said, "I don't think I have the power as Chief of the executive branch to decide whether the United States will accept a trust as trustee."

He sent it to the Congress. John Quincy Adams and his colleagues in the House and the Senate decided that they did have that power and they did so act in 1836 and did accept the trust for the United States,

Mr. Yates. You raised a very interesting and important point, Mr. Powers. Several points come to mind. The first question that was in my mind, you have expanded. I wondered as the personal liability of the Regents for any misfeasance while in office. If the affairs of the Smithsonian are within their keeping with the tort liability, suppose somebody falls down some stairs as a result of some imperfection in the staircase and sues the Smithsonian Institution. Are the Regents liable in tort?

Mr. Powers. Normally not. As you know, Mr. Chairman, in most of the areas that you are referring to, the Congress has acted, as in the case of the Federal Tort Claims Act, as to how to handle the rights of third parties dealing with entities which are created or supported by the Government.

Mr. Yates. "Wliat about contract ?

Mr. Powers. Also in contract there is the Tucker Act and other acts dealing with liabilities to third parties.

Mr. Yates. So the Regents are free from liability from misfeasance ?

Mr. Powers. Yes, normally.

You have to make a peculiar hypothetical where some member of the board has done something unthinkable—I suppose you can think of some case—but I think it is a very dubious and unlikely kind of case.

Mr. Yates. "Wliat about the rest of us who have just been incorporated as trustees for the Smithsonian?

Mr. Powers. As was quoted on page 2 of the statement—I am glad you asked that question—this was a statement made in 1904 in a Smithsonian publication:

"It is probable no class of the American people appreciate the work of the Institution more fully than the Members of Congress." The rest of that paragraph indicates

congressional review of budget versus trust responsibilities

Mr. Yates. That is very nice of you to say.

As I recall, it was some official of the Smithsonian who said this about the Members of Congress who were Regents. That was nice

of you to say so. Having given me a charge as a trustee together with all the members of my committee and all the other Members of the Congress, what right have I as a trustee who has to foster and expand the best interests of the Smithsonian Institution as a result of what John Quincy Adams said in 1836, to turn down Mr. Ripley's request for a storage facility in Suitland, now that he has told the Congress that the artifacts of the Smithsonian are in the aisles, they are in drawers, they are in dire peril of being abused or broken ? He has told us he cannot carry on—I am just putting words in his mouth, but I assume he will accept them—his responsibilities as Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution of preserving and protecting the assets and properties of the Institution, which is his charge, because Congress has not given him a proper respository for his artifacts.

Am I required to build that building ?

Mr. RiPLET. No, sir, I would certainly say not.

Mr. Yates. Wait a minute, you are the Secretary. He is the lawyer.

Mr. Ripley. I am here to defend and protect my lawyer.

Mr. Yates. I didn't know he needed defense.

Mr. Ripley. I have been extremely interested in the history of this Institution.

Mr. Yates. Where did you obtain your law degree ?

Mr. Ripley. I do not need a law degree, as you know very well, INIr. Chairman, to practice law.

Mr. Yates. That is a new one, but go ahead.

Mr. Ripley. It seems to me that this implication that the Congress indeed are trustees of the trust does not require that as trustees you must accept the application jDut forward by a body for all the funds. You have within your own discretion as trustees the ability to turn down the director or the board of the foundation if you do not approve of such things.

It seems to me if you were to carry out what you were suggesting, the Smithsonian Institution would be as big as the U.S. Government by this time.

Over the years the appropriations requests have continually been modified or adjusted to the realities of the total amount of funds available and we have, we believe, a firm record through the mechanism of the Board and its scrutiny of the budget, of being prudent about our request.

Mr. Yates. Tlien it is all right for us to turn down the Suitland repository ?

Mr. Ripley. It would be a shame, but this is not a legal issue.

last mall site

Mr. Yates. Perhaps I shouldn't have referred to the Suitland repository but I certainly can refer to your plan to take over the last building site on the Mall, which you want to do. What are we going to do for breathing space on the Mall ?

Mr. Ripley. That is a liypothetical question.

Mr. Yates. At this point.

Mr. Ripley. It seems to me the United States has some problem about what it is going to do about breathing space not just on the Mall.

We have been authorized by the Congress to prepare plans for the last space on the Mall and in that authorization

Mr. Yates. Wliere was that contained ?

Mr. Ripley. That is in an authorization by the Congress to the Smithsonian that we are entitled to prepare plans for the last site on the Mall.

Mr. Powers. He is referring to the legislation reserving the last site on the Mall. It was about 2 years ago.

Mr. Yates. Would you provide that for the record ?

Mr. Powers. We would be delighted.

[The information follows:]

643 Legal Reservation of Mall Site

Public Law 94-74

94th Congress, H. R. 5327

August 8, 1975

an act

To reserve a site for the use of the Smithsonian Institution.

Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the portion Smithsonian of the Mall bounded by Third Street, Maryland Avenue, Fourth Street, Instittitioiu and Jefferson Drive in the District of Columbia is reserved as a site Site reservation, for the future public uses of the Smithsonian Institution.

Sec. 2. The Smithsonian Institution may not make anj^ use of the portion of the Mall described in the first section of this Act unless such use is first approved by the Congress.

Approved August 8, 1975.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY ;

HOUSE REPORT No, 94-257 (Comxn, on House Administration), SENATE REPORT No, 94-301 (Comm, on Rules and Administration), CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 121 (1975):

June 16, considered and passed House.

yaiy 25, considered and passed Senate.

89 STAT. 407

GPO 57-130

BALANCING OF CONGRESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES

Mr. Yates. Did you want to comment upon my potential breach of trusteeship ?

Mr. Po^vERS. I want to reassure you, Mr. Chairman, first, as I said before, the situation with both IVIembers of Congress on the Board of Regents and the general responsibility of the Congress in the first instance to speak for the United States as trustee was the act of the Congress itself. It has been assumed from the start there would be no conflict between the general responsibilities of the representatives in Congress and their specific duties or concerns with regard to the Smithsonian, that they would go in parallel and not in opposition.

I analogized it in our conversation a few months ago to an individual Member of Congress wlio is supposed to represent his own district's interests; on the other hand, when he becomes chairman of a congressional committee interested in the entire national welfare, he obviously must reach a responsible accommodation between the interests of his own locality and those of the Nation at h^r<re. I think similarly when it comes to the needs of the Smithsonian Institution there need not and should not be read into it any obligation of the Federal Government or the committees of Congress to spend a particular sum of appropriated funds for Smithsonian purposes.

They must consider it as they do every other request, in terms of needs of the Nation and relative priorities, as in this particular bill. I think all Members of Congress who have ever dealt with this question have succeeded in reaching a balance between those two kinds of responsibilities.

Mr. Yates. Now you are taking the trusteeship away from me.

Mr. Powers. No, I am making it a part

Mr. Yates. You are limiting my responsibility only to my district and to the Nation now.

Mr. Powers. No ; because under the rules of the House the consideration of the Smithsonian Institution Federal budget is before this committee, it is an additional responsibility you have, but it does not mandate you to spend so many particular dollars on a particular project that has been proposed. After all, these projects are discussed earlier by the Board of Regents and its congressional Members, and many proposals are turned down that some people think would be highly desirable for the Institution.

AUDIT OF SMITHSONIAN FUNDS

Mr. Yates. I think we ought to complete the record by pointing out that the Smithsonian's private funds are audited by a private auditor and the report is given to the Board of Regents. That is correct, isn't it?

Mr. Ripley. Under the direction of the Regents, that is true.

Mr. Powers. And published in the annual report.

Mr. Yates. And as I understand it, that is a thorough audit ?

Mr. Rtt»ley. It is.

Mr. Yates. With respect to the Federal funds, a report is given to the Regents but those funds are subject to the audit of the General Accounting Office ?

Mr. Ripley. Yes, they are. In addition, the grants and contracts from Federal agencies, as well as the Institution's trust fund administrative expenses, are avidited annually by the Defense Contract Audit Agency.

Mr. Yates. By the Defense Audit Agency for defense contracts, other than those of the Department of Defense ?

Mr. Blitzer. Yes.

Mr. Ripley. They are an accredited governmental audit agency.

Mr. Yates. And a report is given by them to the Regents as well; and your annual report I think provides both audits ?

Mr. Ripley. It does.

Mr. Wheeler. Their audit goes to the cognizant agency. That is the Office of Naval Materiel at the moment.

Mr. Yates. The Office of Naval Materiel acts on behalf of the entire Government ?

Mr. Wheeler. Yes.

THE institution's ESTABLISHED NATURE AS TRUST INSTRUMENTALITY

Mr. Yates. Let's take the next step, Mr. Ripley. The emphasis throughout Mr. Powers' statement has been upon the independent and private nature of the Smithsonian, a status which the Smithsonian wants to preserve. Will you tell us why you want to preserve it?

Mr. Ripley. We feel as administrators of the Institution that

Mr. Yates. I am not wrong in according that opinion or viewpoint to you ?

Mr. Ripley. Yes, we wish to preserve the established nature of the Institution. We feel that the established nature is unique as a trust instrumentality to which the Government has pledged its support, and that we cannot contemplate any change of that unless Congress in its wisdom so orders.

I think that the kinds of buffers that we have described in this paper to the origination of the code to the Board of Regents amply demonstrates through the years the ability of the Institution to comply with complete accountability.

Mr. Powers. Mr. Chairman, I don't feel that the Smithsonian management has any choice in the matter. The purpose of the statement about the Smithsonian, which consists almost entirely of a recital of the actions of Congress, is to point out that having accepted a trust in its own terms, the Congress is not free in a most basic sense to amalgamate that trust with, say, the executive branch. That question was considered in 1923 by a Joint Committee on Reorganization. Mr. Yates. You are saying it would be a breach of trust, then ? Mr. Powers. I think it would raise very serious legal problems of that kind. "Breach of trust" is a strong phrase and it generally refers to specific actions in violation of the trust. I think it would cause very, very serious problems with regard to the many, many private gifts that have been made to the Institution since 1829 and now amount to some $45 million of largely restricted funds. They were given on the assurance that the Institution was not, as such, a part of the Government. It is a creature of the Congress but it is not part of the Government itself.

So I don't feel that we can say we want to or don't want to maintain that status. I feel that status is built into the legislative and legal history of the Institution, and it is a question really for Congress rather than for thelnstitution.

SMITHSONIAN RESEARCH FOUNDATION AND THE SMITHSONIAN SCIENCE INFORMATION EXCHANGE

Mr. Yates. As I recall what the General Accounting Office stated in its report, the purpose of creating the two funds was to give yourselves some flexibility in the expenditure of those organizations in order to carry out the purposes of the Smithsonian which the Board of Regents believed could not be undertaken as well because of federal restrictions on the expenditure of funds. Is that correct ?

Mr. Powers. In substance that is correct, Mr. Chairman, but I would like to amplify this with reference to the Smithsonian statement of April 18, 1977, on the report of the Comptroller General.

Mr. Yates. All right, you may do so.

Mr. Powers. All the programs involved or the principal programs— you are referring now to the Smithsonian Research Foundation and the Smithsonian Science Information Exchange?

Mr. Yates. That is correct.

CONTRACT system

Mr. Powers. All the principal progra^ns involved were previously managed under the contract system rather than under the direct expenditure system. We have tried to point out in our statement, what the Comptroller General's opinion does not go into, that the contract method of administering a program is recognized throughout the Government, and by the Congress, for certain special kinds of programs.

As we pointed out in the Senate, there was no attempt to run the Institution by contract and therefore "avoid," as the GAO report says, certain restrictions on the expenditure of funds. It might be analogized to saying if you decide to drive in the right-hand lane of a highway you are "avoiding" the left-hand lane. There are two major ways of administering programs, recognized throughout the Government. One is the direct expenditure way and the other is by contract.

We have very large organizations, such as the NSF, and the two endowments, which operate their programs entirely by grant or contract. That is considered highly appropriate. These Smithsonian programs were administered by contract before, and I was asked in the case of the Smithsonian Research Foundation in 1966, how to continue that administration of research awards for the special research projects of our scientists in the same manner.

After discussions with the GAO about the various ways this might be done, I recommended to the Secretary, and the Board of Regents agreed, that this foundation would be an appropriate way to establish an entity which could properly contract with the Institution's Federal contracting officer to continue to maintain these programs and to operate them under a contract method.

They are subject to all the Federal requirements for contracts. The GAO report recognized these are valid Federal contracts and that they are in compliance with the pertinent regulations governing procurement.

As you know, there are extensive regulations now governing contractors with the United States as to their employment practices, their safety regulations, and so forth. I feel that the basic question was not dealt with by the GAO, and instead they rushed to a conclusion, which we feel is not warranted, that somehow these corporations are just a bad thing and should be disbanded without consideration of the effect on the programs and whether it was an appropriate way to administer them.

That is what this statement in its first few pages is really about.

Mr. Yates. Senator Jackson in his letter has requested that the committee permit the Board of Regents to review what the GAO has said and your reply and to see how necessary those programs are to your operation. I think, speaking as one member of the committee, it might be well to let Senator Jackson and the committee take a look at the whole situation.

DISPOSITION OF SMITHSONIAN REAL ESTATE

Mr. Powers, I think probably we will get into the appropriation in a minute, but perhaps you may want the opportunity to expand upon the answer that appeared in the Washington Post in reply to the question addressed to you by Senator Stevens to the effect you thought the Smithsonian had the power to sell a building. I think what impressed me about that possibility was the action previously taken by the Smithsonian looking to the issue of a bond issue to expand one of your buildings.

I think you decided not to go ahead with that. At one time you did consider this possibility. Do you want to correct the record for whatever it is worth, or would you rather leave it as it is ?

Mr. Ripley. I would be happy to have Mr. Powers answer you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Yates. You know what the newspaper report was, and I must say I was kind of struck by that answer as it appeared in the paper.

Mr. Powers. So was I, Mr. Chairman. I was rather surprised by it, too. The question arose in connection with the Cheapeake Bay Center for Environmental Studies. Mr. Stevens' question was directed to whether or not the Institution could sell any of the real estate that was assembled on the Chesapeake Bay.

This matter has been reviewed for the Regents and in many reports to this committee. You recall the Chesapeake Bay Center originated with a private bequest of about 300 acres in 1963. Initially the Regents were considering whether they would just sell this property and put the proceeds in the trust funds for other Smithsonian purposes.

Mr. Yates. Did you say it was a gift?

Mr. Powers. An unrestricted bequest. It came as a total surprise.

It was determined by Mr. Ripley and the Board of Regents in 1964 that there was a unique opportunity at this point to secure an environ-

mental center and to protect an entire watershed in a semideveloped area—not out in the wilderness, not in the middle of a city, but an in-between kind of area, much affected by nearby urban growth and having problems characteristic of the environment of the contemporary world in the United States.

We also knew at that time that other properties in the area were probably available. So we went to the Ford Foundation in the first instance and then a number of other foundations and acquired additional trust funds to acquire these other properties. All the real property in the Chesapeake Bay Center has been acquired with trust funds.

Mr. Ripley. Some $1,700,000 of trust funds was raised by the Institution.

Mr. Powers. So in that context, much as I believe that the Regents had power without any question to sell the first acreage in 1963,1 believe they continue to have the power to dispose of that acreage at the present time. The thing that concerned Senator Stevens was, what about the Federal investment, as the word is, in that property ?

There has been some additional construction at the Chesapeake Bay but very little has been paid for with Federal funds.

Mr. Rtplkt. The onlv restoration and renovation funds that have been used since the bes^inning of that program are some $29,000 for minor structural repairs, upgrading the security system, this sort of thing. In addition, approximately $150,000 was spent for emergency bulkheading on Jefferson Island—a part of the Poplar Island group. No investment has been made in any acreage. We have been absolutely scrupulous to preserve the trust fund funding of the land acquisition program, and it is a misinterpretation to assume that we have piled federally appropriated funds into the acquisition program.

From the beginning in 1966, when we began talking about this acquisition program with the committees of the Congress, we specified in every case on direction of the Regents that we would raise trust funds for these purposes, and we have done so. So that what Mr. Powers really was referring to was the fact that the Regents would never undertake—^this is a wholly hypothetical question—the sale of important properties without the appropriate series of actions which would involve committee scrutiny and reporting such actions to the Congress.

DlSPOSmOX OF HTLLWOOD

Mr. Yates. How was Mrs. Post's Hill wood disposed of? Under her bequest, the Smithsonian received Hillwood as a arift.

Mr. RrPLEY. It was specifically provided for in her will.

Mr. Yates. "Wliat procedures did you follow ?

Mr. Ripi,ey. We followed the provisions of her will, again with the approval of the Regents. The bequest in her will stated that the Smithsonian should use the income of the fund which she also left to administer this property for the benefit of the United States.

We discovered that the income was insufficient, and we petitioned her foundation, as we had the right to do in the will, for an additional increment, never for a moment assuming tha<- durinsr the interim when we were merely holding the property while the" estate was being

settled—it was a very complex legal proceeding'—that we would have to determine eventually whether it could be administered.

We have reported to the Regents in evei-y meeting as we have gone along the status of these negotiations and the funding of the budget of these trust funds, and we finally detennined that it would be impossible to administer this estate for the purpose intended in the will with the funds available. There was a clause in the will stating if the Smithsonian Regents determined it could not be administered in this way, then it was to revert to the foundation, so at no time was there any Federal appropriation involved, nor any question of purchase or sale.

Mr. Yates. I knew you had received it and had disposed of it. I didn't know how or what the procedure was, and I thought it might be comparable to the Chesapeake Bay case, but apparently it is not.

Mr. Ripley. It is comparable in a very interesting way to a Federal situation in this regard. Under Mrs. Post's will she left her property in Palm Beach, Mar-a-Lago, to the Department of Interior, to the National Park Service, with a small endowment fund which was to be used to maintain this property. In order for the Interior Department to accept the property, a bill had to be introduced in the Congress, unlike the procedure with regard to the bequest to the Smithsonian, Then, once the Interior Department detennined they could not use this property for the stated purposes or that the funds were not sufficient to administer it, instead of being able to have a Board of Regents hand it back to the foundation, provision for reversion to the foundation could be accomplished only after the long procedure of having another bill enacted to have it revert to the foundation.

This is rather interesting because it is a very good example of the unique ability of the Smithsonian to act rather rapidly for the public benefit either to accept or reject a particular thing without the long administrative and bureaucratic tedium of the Federal agency procedures.

FUNDING OF PUBLIC SERVICE FACILITY IN NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM

Mr. Yates. I want to ask you one thing relating to the bonding issue. With the Museum of ]S'atural History, how did it happen that you wanted to take out a bond issue ?

Mr. Powers. It wasn't a bond issue but I think Mr. Wheeler has all the information on that.

Mr. Wheeler. We considered a bank loan for $1 million on a project that was going to cost $3 million. We thought at that time that we did not have immediately the funds to put in there and we might need a temporary loan.

Mr. Yates. First of all, I think you ought to describe what it was that you wanted a loan for.

Mr. Ripley. The loan was considered for a public service function. It was a vacant courtyard in the center of the Museum of Natural History. It had been determined by the committees first at the museum and then by the Institution, then by tlie Regents, it would be in the public interest to develop a public service facility in the center of this museum which would house classrooms, a naturalists' center, a new museum

shop, and would also benefit the associates of the Institution who had no restaurant facilities.

Mr. Yates. Then you estimated a cost of $3 million ?

Mr. Ripley. We had a time element. We wanted to complete this by the Bicentennial summer.

Mr. Yates. What year is this ?

Mr. Ripley. It started in 1974. We completed it in 1976.

Mr. Wheeler. It was opened in June of 1976.

Mr. Yates. Gro ahead.

Mr. Wheeler. At no time was there going to be any drain on either the private funds or the Federal funds of the Institution to repay that loan. There was a concession to run the restaurant, which would provide sufficient fees to cover all of the return of principal and interest over a 10-year period.

In the proposed arrangements we had governing the bank loan there was no mortgage or any loan of any kind on any of the assets of the Institution such as buildings and so forth. There was a pledge on our part to repay the money from our trust, funds, but the money to repay that was pledged in turn by the concessionaire so that actually we were not going to be called on—in fact, we hoped to get something of a surplus every year out of it.

ISIr. Yates. What was to happen if the concessionaire defaulted ?

Mr. Wheeler. We would have been bound to repay out of our trust funds, but there was always the possibility of getting another concessionaire, which we would certainly have sought to do.

Mr. Yates. Did you complete that facility ?

Mr. Ripley. It has been completed.

Mr. Yates. Is the loan repaid ?

Mr. Ripley. We didn't take the loan.

Mr. Yates. You completed it out of your trust funds ?

Mr. Wheeler. Yes.

Mr. Ripley. The concessionaire receipts in the meantime began to be sufficient to defray the cost of the facilities.

Mr. Wheeler. And the concessionaire contributed veiy substantially to those facilities.

Mr. Yates. Wlien you come to the Federal Govermnent for funds to build a facility or an expansion, do you also use your private funds ?

Mr. Ripley. In this particular case we determine this would benefit the associates and, as you know, the associates are an entirely private organization within the rights of the Institution.

Mr. Yates. Wiich would provide the Institution with funds from various activities ?

Mr. Ripley. In return for public service on our part.

Mr. Yates. Let's take a break until 1 o'clock.

Afternoon Session federal responsibility for upkeep of national collections

Mr. Yates. Let's resume the hearing.

May I ask whether it is implicit in the act of 1846 that the Federal Government would have to pay for the upkeep of the national collections under the jurisdiction of the Smithsonian ?

Mr. EiPLEY. In the act of 1846, the national collection

Mr. Yates. I should say under the law.

Mr. RrpLEY. I think this came up in a subsequent agreement with the Appropriations Committee, that they accepted this responsibility. I am not sure that it is legally implicit in the foundation of the Institution. I think it was based on a representation of the then Secretary that we lacked sufficient funds.

Is that right, Mr. Powers ?

Mr. Powers. Yes, Mr. Secretary, in substance. On pages 13 and 14 of the statement of March 1977, that has been introduced in the record, there is an explanation of the arrangement or the agreement reached between the Board of Regents and the Government, under which the Institution would accept the national collections if the Government would agree to pay for their upkeep.

It is reflected in that report of Secretary Henry of 1858. It is not embedded explicitly in any specific legislation.

OBLIGATION OF FUNDS FOR RESEARCH PROJECTS

Mr. Yates. Appropriated funds must be obligated within 1 year, as you know. Apparently from the report I gained the impression that the Smithsonian feels this is too restrictive in the field of research awards. Can you tell us why ?

Mr. Powers. If I could respond to that, too, Mr. Chairman, the research awards frequently cover periods of 1, 2 or at most 3 years. Even a 1-year research project will not fit neatly within the fiscal year. So, the pragmatic and practical way to obligate the funds for that project is for the period of the project. This is what is done throughout the Government for research grants and contracts.

Mr. Yates. Is this true ? Do the Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities make their awards for 2 or 3 years ?

Mr. Powers. I don't know for how long a period.

Mr. Yates. What do you mean by throughout the Government ?

Mr. Powers. Yes, in the case of the Endowments, I believe they do. When they make a 1-year award, it is not an award which starts on the first day of the fiscal year and terminates on the last day of the fiscal year. It is for the period for which the proposal has been made.

I am sure in the case of the National Science Fovmdation that they fund multiyear awards, multiyear projects, I should say.

Mr. Ripley. It is extremely difficult, Mr. Chairman, to carry out the award procedures, with the grant application and peer review by committees which, meet only at certain times of the year, and have them exactly coincide with a fiscal year cycle.

Mr. Yates. What does the W^oodrow Wilson Center do ? Is this covered ? Don't they dispose of theirs within a period of year ?

Mr, Powers. Xo. The requirement of the law is that the funds be obligated within the fiscal year. These funds are obligated within the fiscal year in which they are available.

The question of their expenditure—and this is true of lots of other kinds of procurements—their expenditure may be stretched out for a period, I believe, as long as three or three and a half fiscal years.

CORPORATION CONTROL ACT

Mr. Written. Mr. Chairman, as you know, I have served here quite a while, but I have not had direct contact with the Sunihsonian Institution insofar as hearings before the Appropriations Committee. May I say that I was on a committee where we wrote the Corporation Control Act some years ago. We found through an invCvStigation we had that there were corporations in this country who never had accounted to anybody.

One I remember was the Spruce Corporation, out in the State of Washington, that was created in World War I.

It was just a place where you put some colonel who was almost ready to retire, a friend of somebody and he was out there just drawing pay, and having a good time. So, we wrote the Corporation Control Act.

One of the most difficult things that you have here is that where any organization has a variety of sources of funds not only what, the Congress appropriates, but also endowments, they have various accounts and sources.

The Department of Agriculture at one time had three research setups: the Research and Marketing Act of 1946. the regular research fund, and the Secretary's fund. So, if they didn't get it one place, they went to another.

I am coming around to the fact that we read where Mr. Ford has quit the Ford Foundation. The Foundation that follows the man who made the money frequently gets completely away from what, the history of the man who provided the money in the first instance.

INTERVIEW FOR SMITHSONIAN MAGAZINE

Now, I had a man that called me and said he was with the Smithsonian magazine. I said, "What is the relationship with the Smithsonian Institution?" "Well, we are related"—we are coordinated, pai-t of, something of the sort. Then he wanted to come to talk to me, he said, about a project down in my area, I said, "Are you writing an objective report?"

So, I gave him an interview for about an hour, and I think he quoted t^TO lines. Now, that is lall right. But he took the whole thing and picked out of it that which served a very one-sided partisan view.

COMPILATION or THE INSTITUTION'S CONTROLLING L.VWS AND ACCOUNTING

DATA

I have also read in the newspapers where without the knowledge of the Congress—and I don't believe everything I read in the newspapers by any means—^that the Smithsonian" Institution had bought lots of land to protect against future development.

Now, Congress has got ways to declare Avild rivers and sanctuaries. But the Institution didn't go through that.

Now, I am coming to this. Do we have anywhere a compilation of the laws that control the Smithsonian ? Do we have anywhere a list of the amount of f mids, the amount of accounts that you have, to whom you are accountable ? Do Ave have one place where we can bring all the information together, where we can put our stamp on it to see what you are doing with what ?

It developed that this man who wrote the article had made a trip down through the area with two people who later admitted they were being paid by a railroad. Yet it was supposedly an objective report.

I recite the reasons why I would, as a former lawyer, like to bring all this together, so we can find out what is what. I don't say there is anything wrong. I just say that when you put it in so miany pockets and so many places and from so many sources, and so many activities, nobody can put their finger on anything.

Now, that is the way it looks just with the things that have come to my attention.

Is there any place we can find a listing of your accounts, a listing of your activities, the source of your money, and whether you account to anybody ?

Mr. Powers. Yes, we can, sir.

Mr. Whitten. Would it be in order, Mr. Chairmian, to have that supplied to the coimmittee ?

Mr. Yates. I think he wants to answer it now.

Mr. Whitten. I am talking about the material.

]Mr. Powers. Let me identify the two main source®. You will find the legislative provisions in title 20, section 41, and following. There are about 48 or 50 different sections.

Mr. Whitten. Let me interrupt, if I m:ay. Eveiy place I have deialt with brings those together in a compilation, so you won't have to go to the United States Code to fuid it.

You know, we are not as smart in Congress as we are in my State legislature.

Mr. Powers. I happen to have a compilation right here.

Mr. Whitten. I am glad to have it.

Mr. Ripley. We would be happy to submit this for the record.

Mr. Powers. I am preparing a more comprehensive compilation.

In the second place, where we try to reflect everything that the Institution is doing, is in its annual report. The Congress gets every year a more complete annual report from the Smithsonian than I would venture to say it gets from any other organization.

Mr. Whitten. It still could leave a whole lot out.

Mr. Powers. It is 2 inches thick. Does anyone have an annual report with him ?

Mr. Whitten. I see it from time to time.

Mr. Yates. Do you want this ?

Mr. Powers. That is the financial report, which has all the accounts.

acquisition of land at the CHESAPEAKE BAY CENTER

Mr. Whitten. Why is it that nobody knew anything about your investment and control of all these lands if there is any merit to the story ? You are familiar with the story.

Mr. Powers. You are talking about the Chesapeake Bay ?

Mr. Whitten. Yes.

Mr. Powers. That is all reported in the amiual reports, and all the accounts are there.

Mr. Whitten. Any question I ask, you are entitled to answer.

Mr. Powers. I really want to help answer your question. I think you will find in the accounting section, as well as in the detailed reporting

87-564 O - 77 - 42

of the activities of the Chesapeake Bay Center for Environmental Studies, all the detail of the acquisition of those lands and the purpose for which they were acquired.

Mr. Whitten. Would you tell me when I have time to do that ? That is your job. I am trying to get you to tell me about it.

Mr. Ripley. This shows the details of the origins of the lands of the Chesapeake Bay Center.

Mr. Whitten. This is what calls it to my attention. What I am driving at is to bring before the committee your authority. It may be that you do need new laws.

LETTER FROM AUDIT REVIEW COMMITTEE

Mr. Yates. Mr. Whitten, this morning I read a letter from Senator Jackson. With your permission, I would like to refer to it.

Senator Jackson is one of the members of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian. If you will refer to that letter, you will see that apparently what you read in the newspapers has come to the attention of the Board of Regents, and they are somewhat concerned about it.

As a result, they have appointed what Senator Jackson calls the Audit Review Committee of the Board of Regents.

If you will look at the latter part of the letter, he says:

I think Secretary Ripley's suggestion is well taken. Such an independent study will be recommended to the Board of Regents. The Audit Review Committfee feels as I do, that an independent study by a qualified consultant would be very helpful to the CJongress, the Smithsonian itself, and the public generally. In view of the heavy Federal investment in its facilities and the Institution's increasingly heavy reliance on appropriated funds for its operations, the Smithsonian has taken on a predominantly Federal character. Its full accountability and responsiveness: to the Congress must be assured. The proposed study should clearly define the Smithsonian's charter and determine whatever new legislation may be desirable to assure its responsiveness as a Federal instrumentality. As Secretary Ripley points out, the objective should be to identify opportunities for improvement while, at the same time, preserving the unique qualities that have made the Smithsonian such a source of national pride and achievement.

He asks the committee to hold off on anything that we might want to do while they proceed with their study. Of course, the subcommittee is going to have to pass on that.

appropriations committee investigating staff

Mr. Whitten. Let me say one thing here. I have the highest regard for Senator Jackson, as you well know, personally and otherwise. The Committee on Appropriations has an investigating staff where the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking Republican can request an investigation by the Appropriations Committee staff. It is really an inspection to coordinate and bring together the activities. That would be something that would be in order, which I wouldn't ask for offhand this way. It is an authority that rests with the Appropriations Committee in case it sees fit to do it.

tennessee-tombigbee article

But let me come to the one thing on my mind. This was quite definitely a partisan article, and in violation of the commitment made to me when I agreed to talk.

The man took a tape of what I said, which he still has—if he will tape it and report it, the statement is completely opposite to the impression he left.

Mr. Yates. Who is this fellow ?

Mr. Whitten. You can tell me. The fellow who wrote the Tennessee-Tombigbee article.

Mr. Powers. It is a magazine aritcle ?

Mr. Whitten. In the Smithsonian. He took a completely biased position in connection with the article, not objective in the least. That is a fact which I know.

magazine's relationship to the SMITHSONIAN

Now, let me ask what is the relationship of the magazine with the Smithsonian ?

Mr. Ripley. The magazine is run by the Associates organization.

Mr. Powers. It is an integral part of the Institution.

Mr. Whitten. It is the Smithsonian.

In these things that are matters of public concern or where they are involved in actions of the Congress, where are you authorized to attack in effect through your organization—and the Smithsonian is you, to attack a position that has already been taken by a Congressman. Are you qualified as a lobbyist ? Are you qualified to take after the Congress? Where is your authority to write this kind of article? Then you come to Congress wanting them to appropriate money to attack its awn action.

Mr. Ripley. We are not appropriating money for the magazine.

Mr. Whitten. You pay for the magazine out of given money, so you can take Government money and spend it over here. But if you commingle it in your activities, you just as well commingle it in the bank account.

Mr. Powers. Could we look into that and write you a letter because I am afraid we don't know what the article is at this point.

Mr. Whitten. Well, the mail service is poor. I sent my two grandchildren a letter the other day, and one of them got it 5 days before the other, and they live in the same house in the same town.

Mr. Powers, We would like to try to correct it whatever it is.

Mr. Whitten. I would like to help you correct it. If I find out what the facts are, I will give you my services free.

Mr. Powers. Fine.

Mr. Whitten. You tell me on the one hand that the Smithsonian magazine is part of the Smithsonian. Then when I tax you with its activities, you say that is not paid with Government money.

Now, I am tiying to find which is and which is not.

Mr. Powers. We are responsible for all the activities of the Institution and we w^ant to look into that and see if we can correct whatever the error is.

Mr. Whitten. You oan't recall the article ? You could send me the tape and I could put it in the record to show what Idnd of objectivity you have.

Mr. Powers. Let's see if we can look into that.

Mr. Whitten. Looking into it is not sufficient. That is a mighty broad word.

Mr. Ripley. We oan't look into it while we are sitting right here.

CLEARANCE OF ARTICLES

Mr. Whitten. Wlio clears what the magazine carries? ^Vho is the editor?

Mr. EiPLEY. Mr. Thompson. He is not here at this moment. - Mr. Whitten. Does he g'o over the articles?

Mr. EiPLEY. Yes. He has a board of editors.

Mr. Written. Does he take i^ue with the Congress ?

Mr. Ripley. I am quite sure

Mr. Whitten. I ask what is his obligation or authority to the Board of Regents?

Mr. Ripley. Mr. Thompson is appointed by me as the editor and publisher.

Mr. Whitten. So you are responsible for his actions.

Mr. Ripley. The buck stops here.

Mr. Whitten. But you didn't even know .about the article.

Mr. Ripley. I didn't know about the Tennessee-Tombigbee article.

Mr. Whitten. You mean you have a wonderful magazine like that and don't even read it youi-self. It would take a good while, but do you mind me reading it to you ? You see, the minute we start holding somebody responsible, he is never here. That is why we have the Government Corporation Control Act.

I think the GAO is right. If the Government money is in it, the Government ought to Imow all of its activities, so we won't end up a partner with somebody doing something wrong, or partisan.

Mr. Ripley. I didn't realize they were doing anything wrong in the magazine. If they do, I apologize.

Mr. Whitten. Maybe it is completely right. There are folks who are absolutely qualified to take issue on anything. But, I don't know that I want to be a party to appropriating money to attack other actions that I have taken as a Member of Congress.

Would you want to appropriate money to attack yourself ?

Mr. Ripley. It depends on my degree of objeotivity, I suppose.

Mr. Whitten. Well, let me analyze that just a little bit. Maybe Mr. Thompson can tell us what that means. But really, you didn't know the article was in here ? So the Board of Regents did not direct this.

Mr. Powers. No.

Mr. Whitten. Nor did they read it.

Mr. Powers. Certainly not prior to publication.

Mr. Whitten. Since they published it. If I have to pin it down. Did you read it before ? Did you read it at the time, or have you read it since ?

Mr. Powers. Was that an issue that came out while you were on the Board of Regents, Mr. Chairman ?

Mr. Yates, I beg your pardon ?

Mr. PowTiiRs. Mr. Chairman, speaking as a former Regent—what month was that ?

Mr. Murtha. December 1976.

Mr. Powers. You were still a Regent. Were you aware of that article ?

Mr. Yates. I think you ought to talk to Mr. T^Hiitten. No. I wasn't aware of the article. I don't remember that any of the material in the

magazine, material in that article, was ever submitted to the Board of Regents.

Mr. Powers. The editor has very broad authority. If there was a mistake here, Mr. Whitten

WHITTEN QUOTE IN MAGAZINE ARTICLE

Mr. Whitten. I don't know that it is a mistake. It might be your place in the sun. It might be a part of your charter. But if it is not, I just want to trace it back and see.

Mr. Powers. I hope we can shed some more light on that in the next few weeks.

Mr. RrpLEY. Let me get the tape, if there is such a tape, and I can find it.

Mr. Whitten. It was very clear as to my views, if I may say so. It was requested.

Mr. Ripley. Are you quoted in the article ?

Mr. Whitten. Yes. And it does me no harm. It doesn't in any way reflect the interview that I had. I think I could quote it right. I think they picked up one little statement in it in which I had said to a professor from a Mississippi State university, who later acknowledged that he was receiving money from the railroad company, but that it didn't affect his opinion. He has quoted me where I had said in a public hearing that if our forefathers had had the same views he has, that they would still be living in teepees and wearing loin cloths, except that if they had his belief to the extent he did, they wouldn't let us kill the animals to have the hides for the teepees.

So, I said that. But he lifted that statement out of a 45-minute interview. It didn't do me any harm. I said that in a public place. The remark is not all that damaging, I am just trying to see if you folks are sitting on top of your own operation and it is evident that you are not.

It is not all that bad, to tell you the truth. But it was anything but objective.

sources of funding

If we could get the information showing the various parts and places where you get money, and what you do with it, then we would have a starting point, Mr. Chairman, for the committee to consider.

Mr. Yates. You can ask any questions you want here.

Mr. Whitten. In the first place, I am asking more than they can p-ive us offhand, I guess. I would like for you to supply to the committee the pamphlet, which you have done, carrying the various statutes that apply.

Mr. Yates. Those statutes are in the record. What we already placed in the record was the report which you have before you of the General Accounting Office, plus the reply of the Smithsonian to that report.

Mr. Whitten. Could we have this for the record ?

Mr. Yates. Certainly you may.

Mr. Whitten. All right. I want a list in the record of each of your activities, who heads it, who they report to, and how it is controlled. One is the Smithsonian magazine. One is the acquisition of land on the

Chesapeake Bay. What you are doing may not be wrong, but it doesn't seem to be brought to a head so that anyone can tell anything about it. It is like the corporations were before we got the act.

Mr. Yates. This morning, they testified that the land on the Chesapeake came to them as a result of a bequest, unknown until they received notice of it.

Mr. Whitten. Well, everything I ask gives you a chance to answer.

Mr. Yates. We asked them about that particular bequest this morning. I think your point is well taken about knowing where the sources of the revenue come from, and who is responsible for it.

Mr. Whitten. If they don't know—we are helping them to find out.

Mr. Yates. I don't know that they said they didn't know. Are you talking about the publication itself ?

Mr. Whitten. Well, perhaps I have made that a little broad. But right now, if they do know, they could rattle it off one, two, three, four, five. I bet you they can't.

Mr. Yates. Ask them.

Mr. Whitten. All right, I will. I have given you m.ore time to talk together. List one, two, three, four your activities right here, and the monej?^ that you spend for them, and how" it is operated, and who is responsible.

Mr. Poavers. This is found, Mr. "\^'^litten, in the treasurer's report, broken down by activities, both Federal and private funds, for each year. I have in my hand the report for 1976, which is the most recently printed one. You will find

Mr. EiPLEY. Pages 35 and 36.

Mr. Powers. Yes. You will find these lists here. I see one on page 35 which says Chesapeake Bay Center. It gives the funds available for fiscal years 1974, 1975, and 1976, and the transition quarter. Then table 2 recites the funds available from both Federal and private funds for all of those years.

Mr. Whitten. Is this the first time you have read this, Mr. Ripley ? I just want to know if I helped you by directing your attention to it.

Mr. Wheeler. This same report is in the submission of our budget request.

Mr. Whitten. Well, I said I was new on this committee. I assure you I will know more about it next time.

Mr. Powers. We are very keen to be responsive to that kind of interest, Mr. ■\^niitten. The Smithsonian is not widely understood. We provide a great deal of information that only people like yourselves seem to be interested in reading. Very few ever get down into the detail which we provide in these reports.

Mr. Whitten. On both sides of the table ?

Mr. Powers. No. I read the report myself. Others around here write it.

objectivity of the tennessee-tombigbee article

Mr. Yates. Who reads the magazine ? Mr. Powers. One and a half million Americans, I guess. Mr. Whitten. I am very proud of many, many things about the Smithsonian. You have been criticized a lot. This article, other than

filling your magazine, was well written, the fellow knows grammar and punctuation.

From the article you can clearly see which side he is on.

Mr. Powers. I think it was a freelance writer, Mr. Whitten, that wrote that. You have to

Mr. WHmEN. You paid him for this article ?

Mr. Powers. I imagine so. You have to respect to some extent the author. You cannot tell him in every case what he shall say, or you won't have any authors.

Mr. Whitten. On the one hand you can't, and on the other hand you can tell a fellow with a known viewpoint when you hire him to write an article, you are going to be sure it is in line with his viewpoint.

Here you hired a man with a known viewpoint, because he gave it to me. Is that a part of

Mr. Powers. I just don't know the details of that.

Mr. Ripley. I wish you had called me up if you had any reservations at the time you were interviewed.

Mr. Whitten. I had none. But I was led to believe it would be objective. I don't consider it so. But I don't consider it amounts to a Avhole lot one way or the other.

Mr. Ripley. It is very difficult in connection with any published material, whether it is in the press or anywhere else, to be sure it is totally objective when it comes out.

Mr. Whitten. I mean there is such a thing as carrying articles on both sides of a controversial issue. I recognize that.

My friend, the chairman, kids me about a book that I wrote in 1966. I have a fellow that works for me in my office. He said, "Wliy don't you give a copy to your friend?" I said, "He never read a book in his life." He said, "Jamie, that is the fellow that talks about your book. He covers up the fact he doesn't read by talking about it so it looks like he reads."

Mr. Yates. Did I say that ? Now you have misquoted me.

Mr. Whitten. I apologize to you for bringing it up again.

Mr. Yates. I am sitting here in all innocence, learning for the first time—and I had read that particular issue of the magazine, but I must say I passed over that article, I think it is a good magazine.

Mr. Whitten. I do, too. I have read it with interest.

Mr. Yates. I am sorry to learn

Mr. Whitten. There is nothing wrong with tliis article except I was told it would be objective, and in fact it is rather partisan. But, I wanted to know if the publicly financed Smithsonian was in the business of writing slanted articles on controversial subjects which Congress was acting. Maybe it is all right.

Mr. Yates. I had always assumed, inasmuch as it has the imprimatur of the Smithsonian upon it, that its articles spoke true. You have raised a doubt in my mind by saying that they misquoted you.

Mr. Whitten. No, no. They quoted me. They just lifted out of a 45-minute interview two sentences.

Mr. Yates. Would you rather I said they distorted the thought in your quotation ?

Mr. Whitten. No ; they just passed over lots of wonderful information I gave them.

FUNDING AND CONTROL OF MAGAZINE

I really have no complaint. My whole idea is to try to find out how it is operated. Having had the experience with the Corporations Act, I know that any group that has a diversified head—this fellow handles that, and he doesn't know about it, and he doesn't read the magazine, he doesn't know what is in it after the fact, much less at the time. Where you have money in a whole lot of different pockets received from different sources with different strings, it is awfully hard to tell. When the GAO says we need to do something about the problem, I really have set out to see what we could do to bring it together.

I have seen much more partisan articles than this. But the question is whether Government money should go into these things. It may be that it should.

Mr. Yates. Of course. Government money doesn't go into the magazine, according to what Mr. Powers said.

Mr. Powers. That is correct. But that doesn't mean we are not generally responsible for the accuracy.

Mr. WurrrEN. There are lots worse things than this article, as far as that goes. Now you can see I have folks reading the other side of this.

Mr. Yates. You want me to read this for the record ?

Mr. Whitten. No ; there is no need to read it. The quote from me doesn't do any damage. It was made and recorded in a public hearing.

Mr. Yates. I think in view of the fact that you have raised it, it is going to become a best seller. I know I am going to read it later.

Mr. Whitten. From what I read in the press, what they are selling now is not the kind of thing I write.

Mr. Yates. You have raised some valid points, and I think that this was what lay behind the original request of the Senate Appropriations Committee for the GAO report.

Mr. Whitten. The fact that I asked this is not meant to condemn anybody.

Mr. Yates. It certainly condemns the author of the article.

Mr. WHriTEN. Well. I think he might have refrained from indicating it was objective when it wasn't.

investigation by appropriations committee

Mr. Yates. The point I was making was I thought the GAO, as I said this morning, didn't completely perform the functions that the Senate Appropriations Committee wanted, or that we wanted on this committee. That is why I read the letter of Senator Jackson to the effect that they have now, among the Regents, a review that they are going to do which is fine.

But, that does not negate the possibility of carrying through on your suggestion—if you think that the investigative committee of the Appropriations Committee

Mr. WnnTEN. I think there has been sufficient information to this point that it would be well for the committee to consider whether to ask for an investigation by the Appropriations Committee investigative staff.

I want to say that it is a case of bringing together the facts and not a case of seeking evidence of wrongdoing. I don't want to be misunderstood about it. So, I think it well for us to consider later whether we wish to do that because we are so busy. Yesterday I attended three different committee meetings and a noon luncheon where there were groups from my State that are in trouble. We were here until 12 last night. I had breakfast at 7:30 this morning and was at the AVliite House at 10. So I think we could use a little help to have the inevtsigat-ing staff bring all the information together so that we can review it, on the grounds that we don't have the time.

Mr. Yates. We spent the whole morning really trying to analyze, not only what the Smithsonian is—it is a unique institution—and what its relationship is to the Federal Government, but—true, it is a function of the Appropriations Committee to find out the sources of the funds, and how they are spent. We received assurances this morning of both Mr. Eipley, Mr. Powers, and whoever else spoke, that they want to cooperate with the Appropriations Committee, that their private funds are audited by private auditors, their Government funds are suggest subject to auditing by the GAG, and their Federal grants and contracts are audited by the Defense Contract Audit Agency, which reports to the Office of Naval Materiel.

Mr. Whitten. I would like, Mr. Chairman, for us to act on it later because under our system, as you know, we request an investigation through a letter, which is really done by Mr. Mahon as chairman, at your request.

Mr. Yates. He is going to ])e two-hatted. He is a Eegent.

Mr. Whittex. Be that as it may. But I am talking about the committee staff of the Appropriations Committee. It is similar to the Department of Agriculture. They had one group of auditors, another group of investigators, and one reported to one fellow and another to another.

If they didn't speak to each other, it stopped everything. It is more the reason I think for our committee to get into it, just to find out what the facts are. I don't know if anything would come of it, but at least we would have an understanding.

So, let's discuss it at some future time with regard to how to write the request, so it will cover what Ave have in mind.

Mr. Yates. Sure. When the committee assembles for a review and a marku]:), I think it would be a good idea to discuss it.

Mr. Whittt.x. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope I have not used up too much of your time.

SALAKIES AND EXPENSES REQUEST FOR FISCAL 1978

Mr. Yates. On the contrary, I think you have made a constructive interrogation.

Now let's go back to the appropriation.

The overall appropriation for this year for salaries and expenses is $89,033,000, an increase of $3,797,000 for the next fiscal year. There is a requested increase in the foreign currency allocation of $1,019,000. There is a requested increase in science information exchange of $5,000. There is a requested increase of $1,495,000 for the construction and renovation. There is a request for an additional 70 positions in the overall account.

REPROGRAMING REQUEST FOR SILVER HILL FACILITY

Now, tell us a little bit about Silver Hill. I notice that you want to reprogram some of the funds. You want to reprogram about $500,000 of funds from the Air and Space Museum to upgrade the National Air and Space Museum facilities at Silver Hill.

Wliat is Silver Hill ? Would you describe it for the record ?

Mr. Yellin. Yes, sir. That is now a museum as well as the place where exhibits are designed and fabricated for the National Air and Space Museum. Since January people have been coming through two or three buildings at Silver Hill.

Mr. Yates. Where is it ?

Mr. Yellin. In Suitland, Md.

Mr. Yates. How far away from the District ?

Mr. Yellin. About 15 minutes.

Mr. Yates. How much in distance ?

Mr. Yellin. About 7 miles.

Mr. Yates. All right.

Mr. Yellin. There are some very special kinds of artifacts and airplanes that are on exhibit now. The public is invited on a tour basis. Since January, about 3,,000 people have toured Silver Hill. At the same time, it is the place that the exhibits for the downtown mall museum are designed and fabricated.

Mr. Yates. We have that description for the record.

What effect will the requested reprograming have on the exhibit program at the National Air and Space Museum? Why do you want the reprograming—when you asked us for the $500,000 for the Air and Space Museum ? Will the Air and Space Museum not need the $500,000?

Mr. Yellin. That is correct, they will not. When we asked you for funds for the exhibit program of the Air and Space Museum, we didn't have much experience or data on which to base that request because it is a new museum. Several of the exhibits were thought to be temporary in nature, such as World War IT aviation, rocketry and space flight! and balloons and airships. We found, through studies, that these exhibits have been so successful that there is no need to upgrade them or change them.

Therefore, the $500,000 or so have been freed up for use for other purposes. In this particular request, as you know, the Silver Hill is part of the NASM line item in the budget. If the request is

approved, Mr. Collins would have the opportunity to take all the necessary steps at one time, many of which pertain to health and safety, to upgrade the Silver Hill facility.

Mr. Yates. How do you propose to spend the $500,000 at Silver Hill?

Mr. Yellin. For a variety of items, sir. The list would include upgrading the lights and wiring, installing a fan ventilation system, installing a paint booth—the present one in existence is unsafe—and upgrading the fire hydrant system.

Mr. Yates. I notice in Mr. Kipley's letter of April 6 addressed to me and requesting the reprograming there is a listing of what is proposed to be done, and he says this in the letter—the letter may go into the record.

[The letter follows:]

! Smithsonian Institution,

Washington, B.C., April 6,1977. Hon. Sidney R. Yates,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior andi Related, Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, United States House of Representatives, Washington, B.C.

Deae Sid: On September 24, 1976, the Smithsonian requested approval to reprogram $525,000 from the National Air and Space Museum (NASM) to meet needs of other units within the Institution. As we informed the committee, the overwhelmingly favorable response to NASM's opening exhibitions has reduced the anticipated need for exhibit revision, resulting in significant cost savings. Since reprograming of only a portion of these funds ($130,000) was approved, the remaining $395,000 are still available. Moreover, additional surplus funds have developed in the form of salary savings. We are now requesting permission to reapply some $500,000 in NASM's fiscal year 1977 budget from exhibits and related projects to the more urgent need to upgrade NASM's facilities at Silver Hill, where the majority of aircraft restoration and exhibits fabrication takes place.

During the past 5 years aU of NASM's resources were directed to the opening of the new Air and Space Museum building. Now, however, attention must be given to improving public, employee, and storage facilities at Silver Hill.

As you may recall, in January 1977 two of the hangar-like buildings at Silver Hill were opened to the public. These buildings permit public viewing of fascinating and historically significant air and spacecraft, engines, propellers, models, and other items that could not be exhibited in the new museum building. In addition visitors can now walk through a section of a third building for a behind-the-scenes look at ongoing restoration. In fiscal year 1978, we plan to open one additional Silver Hill building to the public.

Many of the projects which we are proposing to accomplish this year have a direct effect on the health, safety, and well-being of employees and the visiting public. Others will contribute to improved operations. In the health and safety category are projects such as provision of adequate lockers and restrooms; installation of correct wiring and lighting; installation of a dust collector, a fan ventilation system, and a modern paint spray booth; addition of a loop in the fire hydrant system ; covering of asbestos insulation in one building; creation of a screened, drained area for preservation work; roadway patching; and insulation of two buildings. Projects contributing to improved operations include various modifications and improvements to increase storage space and areas for exhibits production, completion of roadway repairs, and the construction of new office spaces.

With your approval, we will proceed as quickly as possible to eliminate the inadequate environmental, safety, fire protection, electrical, and sanitation systems now in existence. Several of the proposed projects could be initiated almost immediately while others, requiring architectural and engineering preparations, could begin in early .lune.

Certain of these projects, namely, the provision of adequate lockers and rest-rooms, electrical service modifications, and installation of the dust collector, the fan ventilation system, and the modern paint spray booth, were included in the Institution's fiscal year 1078 requ(>st for restoration and renovation of buildings (please see attached fiscal year 1978 budget submission, page D-10—Silver Hill improvements [$175,000]). Thus, with the approval of this proposal, we will be

able to reapply $175,000 from Silver Hill improvements to other purposes in fiscal year 1978.

We would appreciate the opportunity to present our priorities for the alternative use of these funds at our upcoming fiscal year 1978 budget hearings. Sincerely yours,

S. Dillon Ripley,

Secretary. P.S. We would very much welcome a visit by you and your staff to our Silver Hill facilities. Attachment.

8. Fire detection and control systems {$115,000)

Fire protection surveys have been conducted in all major facilities identifying specific needs for fire detection and control systems. Such systems are presently lacking in many public areas and should be installed for the protection of visitors and exhibits. Similar safeguards are needed in areas where museum collections are housed and where research by staff and visiting students and scholars takes place. Other fire protection needs include the addition of booster pumps to give adequate water pressure and the installation of fire doors. An amount of $250,000 was provided in fiscal year 1977 for these needs. Additional funding of $175,000 is sought in fiscal year 1978 to continue a phased program.

9. Silver Hill facility improvements ($175,000)

The Silver Hill facility is' primarily a storage and object restoration facility. Three hangax"-type buildings containing historically' significant aircraft and providing a view of ongoing restoration activity have just been opened to the public. The total facility consists of 24 steel frame buildings on 21 acres of land and contains approximately 290,000 square feet of storage area. The development of this facility over the years has been on an as'-needed basis with many buildings changing use and/or function several times. As a result, many buildings have inade-uate environmental, safety, fire protection, electrical, and sanitary systems. To provide a safe and healthful environment for employees at this facility, dust collection and venting should be provided in the shops, paint spray booth modifications are required, electrical service modifications are necessary, and the locker and restrooms need to be brought up to acceptable health standards. An appropriation of $175,000 is requested for this work.

10. Mt. Hopkins Observatory day-sleeper dormitory ($240,000)

For several years, the Smithsonian Astrophysical Ob.'^ervatory has been following a phased plan for physical site improvements to its Mount Hopkins, Ariz., Observatory. This includes work to provide adequate and safe facilities for staff and visitors. An appropriation of $240,000 is required in fiscal year 1978 to continue this program. This amount would be used to add a dormitory complex to serve staff and visiting scientists and technicians who will be observing at night with the Multiple Mirror Telescope (MMT) now under construction at the summit of Mount Hopkins (elevation 8,585 feet) and scheduled to become partially operational by December 1977.

The proposed facility will meet the following essential criteria. It will have sufficient capacity to accommodate 8 people in single rooms under normal conditions, and up to 16 with double occupancy in case of an emergency or in periods of exceptionally intensive observing; be readily accessible and in proximity to the MMT to minimize time consuming travel over mountain roads at the end of a night's work; and provide a controlled daytime sleeping environment for personnel participating in long hours of night observation work, so that their observing visits, which normally range from 3 to 15 days, can be most productive.

An existing barrack-type, prefabricated, metal structure erected in 1971 to provide dormitory facilities for users of observing instruments located along the 7,600 foot ridge, fails to meet any of these needs. Because of its metal construction, it cannot be adequately soundproofed; and its capacity is insufficient (eight small bedrooms which often are fully occupied by users of facilities now operational). Moreover, the alternative use of commercial motels is impractical because of distance, time, and safety considerations involved in traveling over mountain roads. Hence, construction of a new day-sleeper dormitory is considered the only feasible solution to permit the efficient use of the new MMT.

QUOTATIONS FROM THE REPROGRAMING REQUEST

Mr. Yates [reading].

As you may recall, in January 1977 two of the hangar-like buildings at Silver Hill were opened to the public. These buildings permit public viewing of fascinating and historically significant air and spacecraft, engines, propellers, models and other items that could not be exhibited in the new museum building. In addition, visitors can now walk through a section of the third building for a behind-the-scenes look at ongoing restoration. In fiscal year 1978 we plan to open one additional Silver Hill building to the public.

Then there is a whole list of what is proposed to be done. As you point out, Mr. Yellin, you have health and safety categories, such as adequate locker rooms and restrooms, installation of correct wiring, lighting and so forth.

Will you provide in the record a breakdown of an allocation of the cost to each of the items for which approval of $500,000 is requested.

Mr. YeiuLIn. We would be very happy to, sir.

[The information follows:]

Detail of Silver Hill Beprograming Request

Project Estimated cost

Health and safety items :

Provision of adequate lockers and restrooms $22, 000

Installation of correct wiring and lighting 12, OOO

Installation of a dust collector 2, 000

Installation of a fan ventilation system 15, 000

Installation of a modem paint spray booth 65, 000

Addition of a loop in the fire hydrant system 15, 000

Covering of asbestos insulation in one building 50, 000

Creation of a screened, drained area for preservation work 8, 000

Roadway patching 20, 000

Insulation of 2 buildings 40, 000

Improved operations:

Improvements to increase storage space 49, 000

Improvements to provide additional space for exhibit fabrication

and assembly 100, 000-120, 000

Complete road repairs 60, 000-80, 000

Construct new oflBce spaces with adequate heating, cooling, and

and lighting 25, 000

Total 483, 000-523,000

SMITHSONIAN GROWTH OVER PAST 10 TEARS

Mr. Yates. In an attempt to find some way of anchoring to a zero-based budgeting rather than going back the almost 150 years that Smithsonian has been in existence, we asked the Smithsonian to go back 10 years and review with us how their appropriations have grown in the 10 years. In fiscal 1967 the salaries and expenses appropriation was $22,699,000. This year the request is for $89,033,000, an increase of $66,334,000 since 1967. ,

The significant portion of the growth is due to new space and new expanded programs. How big can the Smithsonian become, would you say, Mr. Ripley, before you lose control of it? Have you lost control of it?

Do you think it is becoming very large? Your operating expenses 10 years ago were $22 million. Now they are $89 million. It has really increased. It has really trebled.

Mr. KiPLEY. It has increased by about $65 million. This is true, Mr. Chairman. I don't believe that I have lost control of it.

Mr. Yates. I don't single out you as one. I mean the directors.

Mr. Rlpley. Or that the Board of Regents has lost control of the Institution. What we would like to demonstrate to you is that this growth pattern over the past 10 years consists of a number of mandatory items which amount to approximately 50 percent of the increase. These include mandatory pay increases, as well as utility, telephone, and postage rate increases specifically identified each year in our budget submissions. An additional 27 percent of the growth relates to the acquisition of new and expanded space.

Now, once we have identified an item as new space, all the subsequent increases have been included under that category. The Zoo is shown in 1971 as a new program. Subsequently, we have depicted the Zoo under the category of new space. Of course, it was not really new space. It is the new construction aspects of it which are new. As we demonstrated, the overall inflationary costs, that is, mandatory pay, identified utility, postage, and telephone rate increases, account for half of that increase, and 27 percent additional relates to the acquisition of new or expanded space, including funds for the operating costs of the authorized museums or construction programs.

The additional 23 percent, it is true, is the result of a growth in existing or new programs.

We explained this morning about the Chesapeake Bay Center. Increases for the Bay Center and" the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute are associated with environmental studies, tropical/biological studies, and a variety of things wliich we have come to you and demonstrated we felt we had unique or special capability to do.

I could also cite the Anacostia Neighborhood Museum. Other examples are the development of the Portrait Gallery which was authorized in 1962, the development of the Ren wick Gallery as an adjunct of the National Collection of Fine Arts; of course, the activities of the Hirshhom Museum and Sculpture Garden and the Zoo itself, which has extended its breeding facilities out to Front Royal, Va.

I should point out in addition that the National Zoological Park as a line item only came into tliis budget in 1971. Prior to that it had been under the District Committee budget. And the environmental science program is a new program which was established in fiscal year 1971.

Tlie National Museum Act and night openings of buildings and the Archives of American Arts are all new activities which started in 1972. The Research Institute on Immigration and Ethnic Studies, the National Anthropological Film Archives, and the extension of some Federal support to the Smithsonian Traveling Exhibition Service, which on submission to the Congress was deemed worthy of support from Federal funds because of the services it perfonns in outreach around the country, are further examples of new programs that we have justified fully to the Congress. We believe that these program increases have been relatively minor. This is especially true because the Institution has absorbed a good deal of inflation in "other objects" of

expense for such items as specimen storage cases and animal food at the Zoo.

FEDERAL SUPPORT FOR CARE AND HOUSING OF THE NATIONAL COLLECTIONS

Mr. Yates. They may be minor, but, of course, the charge to the Federal Government has been major, and the question comes to my mind, for example, you acquired a new library, a science library, I think.

Mr. Ripley. The Dibner Library.

Mr. Yates. That is right, as a gift, and of course it was an outstanding collection. I think the description was perhaps a paramount collection of its type.

Mr. Ripley. Yes.

Mr. Yates. Then the charge is put on the Federal Government to house it, or to provide space for it. What is the role of the Congress in that function ? Once the Regents approve the acceptance of the gift, then the responsibility rests with the Congress to provide an adequate space and Federal funds for it, doesn't it ?

Mr. Ripley. Or not.

Mr. Yates. Or not.

Well, what would you have done with the collection ?

Mr. Ripley. Well, we can put it into our additional storage and hope that some time or other, somehow or other, we can arrange to make it available. This is extremely difficult.

The same thing, of course, goes with the National Collection of Fine Arts. The setting up of the Portrait Gallery implicitly assumes donations of the collections of portraits. Then, they have to be curated, taken care of, and housed.

Ever since the beginning of the Institution the Secretary has explained about the fact that Congress ordained that we were supposed to be the custodian of national collections and he has questioned how we are going to support them without the appropriate endowment or Federal support ?

USE OF federal VERSUS PRIVATE FUNDS

Mr. Yates. I think this is really the reason that the GAO stated on page 29 of its report the following:

The Smithsonian has no formal policy for determining the purposes for which or circumstances in which Federal or private funds will be used. However, as a general practice appropriated funds are used for constructing, operating, maintaining, restoring, and renovating Smithsonian's buildings; and maintaining the national collections. Direct expenses of auxiliary activities such as the Associates program and museum shops, are funded from private funds.

And it goes on to say:

The Appropriations Committees receive this type of historical cost information regularly as part of the appropriation process. However, this information is of limited usefulness in making funding decisions for the future. We believe the committees should receive information on the planned use of private funds for the upcoming year.

EFFECT OF ACQUISITIONS ON FUTURE NEED FOR FEDERAL FUNDING

And I would go further than that. I would say that perhaps the Congress should also be advised of what prospective charges are likely to be made on Federal funding in the ensuing years.

The gift has been accepted. The first news the Appropriations Committee will have of that generally is in the request for funding for housing that collection. That is correct, isn't it ?

Mr. Ripley. We try to get advance news to the committees as rapidly as we can and, of course, the reporting of our Regents' activity has a supplementary effect in doing this. We have been very conscious of our reporting responsibilities, and we certainly have determined in our reply to the GAO that it is our intent to prepare forward budgets of the trust funds.

FIVE-YEAR PLAN FOR FEDERAL FUNDING

Mr. Yates. That was my next question. Does the Smithsonian have a 5-year plan, or a 10-year plan, or does it have a forward plan under the terms of which it would be able to relate to the appropriate committees of the Congress the expenses that are likely to incur to the Federal Government ?

Mr. Ripley. We do. At the present we have a 5-year projection, and we are prepared to submit that to you.

Mr. Yates. All right.

[The information follows:]

Federal Funding Projection, Fiscal Year 197&-83 A 5-year summary of the proposed three funding levels is as follows:

lln millions of dollars]

Level 1 Level 2 Leve 13

Year:

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

The minimum funding level for the Institution (level 1) is projected to be approximately $137 million by fiscal year 1983. This amount presumes that only increased pay costs vpould be funded in the salaries and expenses and Smithsonian Science Information Exchange accounts; that the special foreign currency program will maintain a level of $3.5 million annually for field research; that the restoration and renovation of buildings account will proceed with annual funding of $5 million for various repairs that would be accomplished mostly in a phased manner; and that $575,000 will be provided in fiscal year 1979 for planning the Museum Support Center based on the planned $20.6 million structure. Funds for Zoo construction according to the master plan are provided in this and the other two projected levels.

A second funding level (level 2) would increase the Institution's appropriations to some $143 million by fiscal year 1983. The same assumptions as in level 1 apply and, in addition, the salaries and expenses and Smithsonian Science Information Exchange accounts would be increased for estimated inflation in "other objects" of expense according to figures presented in the President's fiscal year 1978 budget.

A third funding level (level 3) would build in the pay and inflation assumptions of the above two levels and also provide for modest growth in the salaries

and expenses and Smithsonian Science Information Exchange accounts and an amount of $20.6 million in fiscal year 1980 for construction of the Museum Support Center. This level projects fiscal year 1983 appropriations of $156 million.

FOKMAT OF 5-YEAR PROJECTIONS

Mr. RrPLET. It is a 5-year projection, from 1979 through 1983.

Mr. Yates. That it proposes.

Mr. Ripley. That is to 1983.

Mr. Yates. What does that show? That shows the growth of the Smithsonian for operating expenses as such? Does it show new acquisitions ?

Mr. Ripley. It shows three categories at three levels of growth including a minimum base growth for salary increases only; a somewhat larger growth to defray a conservatively estimated inflation: and then some modest developjnent and construction.

We do have such information, and we are supplying it to you.

advance notice to congress of bequests

Mr. Yates. That would be fine. But I am troubled by this, and I assume you are too. If it is a 5-year program you don't know what bo-quests you are likely to get within the 5 years. If a bequest does come in I assume from what Mr. Powers said this morning that you are under no legal requirement at least to advise the Congress of what you propose to do in acquiring the bequest or rejecting the bequest.

There ought to be some j^ocedure whereby if you acquire the bequest perhaps the Congress ought to be told in advance of what you propose to do. For exaffiiple, as a Regent I know that you had under consideration the possibility of acquiring the African Museum. I assume that is still pending before the Board of Regents.

Mr. Ripley. Yes.

Mr. Yates. I don't think I am revealing anything that is confidential, but while the museum would have been received without pay for its ver}'' substantial and valuable collection, the Federal Government would the be called upon to assume the operating expenses of the collection in subsequent years, and the question before the Regents at that time Avas whether they should accept the collection on that basis. That is the question, they have to assume for almost everything, unless you propose to do it through your private funds.

I take it that you are not going to have very much of this type through 3^our private funding henceforth. You cannot afford it, can you?

Mr. Ripley. No. We are attempting to forecast what our trust fund budget will be in future years, but we cannot predict in advance obviously, any more than you can tell what happens when you wake up the next morning, what is goinff to come in. But we do not, of course, traditionally do anything without deep consultation with the Regents on any acquisition of this sort, and I think we are fully pre-pai-ed in tliese trust fund budgets to discuss with the committees any projected activity that we possibly can foresee.

Mr. Yates. I think that would be helpful.

Mr. Ripley. We are A'ery glad to do so.

87-564 O - 77 - 43

As you know, Mr. Chairman, having been a Regent, we turn down far more than we accept, and I think there is no doubt in my mind that as far as major acquisitions we would continue to feel this way now.

SIXTH FLOOR ADDITION TO THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY

Mr. Blitzer. I did not want the record to suggest that our request for the sixth floor of the Museum of History and Technology was simply because we had got the Dibner collection of books.

Mr. Yates. You mean there are other things there ?

Mr. Blitzer. Yes.

We have been talking to this committee for years about the plans. In fact the need existed I think the da^^ the building was completed.

I may say honestly that we started coming to this committee to plan the sixth floor before there was any dream of getting this new collection.

Mr. Ripley. They really don't tie in together.

By the way, we have a model of it in case you would like to see it.

Mr. Yates. A model of what ?

Mr. Ripley. The building with the proposed addition on the sixth floor. This is the architectural model which has been developed over the past yeai-s by the architects to accommodate the space needs that were not in the building when it was opened in Janaury 1964. so it is quite true, as ^Ir. Blitzer says, that this has been going on parallel to and not conditional on the acquisition of the Dibner collection.

LAST MALL SITE

Mr. Yates. There is one space left on the Mall, isn't there, one space left for construction of a building or for nonconstruction of a building on the Mall. You told the committee that legislation gives you a lien on that space. Is that right ?

Mr. Ripley. Right. We are authorized to plan for future use of the space, and we have specified that we would come back to the committees, the Committee on House Administration and the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, for authorization for any such plan before we would consider any request for appropriations.

Mr. Yates. Suppose the Park Service wanted to use it ? Would they be authorized to use it ?

Mr. Ripley. They have it now for the use of temporary facilities such as the environmental exhibit that was there last summer.

Mr. Yates. The ISIarriott.

Mr. Ripley. That was actually another small diagonal plot.

Mr. Yates. Do you have your eye on that, too ?

Mr. Ripley. No. That hasn't come to our attention. We find it very close to the Congressional Conservatory, and that makes us feel uncomfortable.

future expansion

Mr. Yates. What about future expansion ? I know you turned down a collection in California. The Smithsonian is now represented in

New York City with the Decorative Arts Museum there. Where will you be expanding ? What acquisitions do you have under consideration at the present time ? Any ?

Mr. Ripley. We have no major acquisitions under consideration. The only consideration is the Regents consideration, as you are aware, of the possibilities of how one could take over in some way, either administratively or in the collection sense, or otherwise, the African IVIuseum of Art. That was brought to the attention of the Regents by a letter signed by a considerable number of ISIembers of the Congress requesting them to consider this, and they have set up a subcommittee to consider this matter. This committee has not rendered an approved report to the Regents yet.

As far as I am aware that is the only pending possibility we have.

GROWTH RATE OF PRIVATE FUNDS

Mr. Yates. What has been the growth rate for private funds in the last 10 years ?

Mr. Ripley. A rate ? You mean year by year ?

Mr. Yates. We just covered the growth of Federal funds.

Mr. Ripley. I think, Mr. Chairman, in that paper that I submitted to you this morning which shows the ratio between the trust funds, the Federal appropriated funds

Mr. Yates. The grants.

Mr. RrPLEY. Yes; and the Federal grants and contracts. It shows that since 1883 they have maintained roughly the same steady state of growth ratio to each other, that is, approximately 80 percent Federal and 20 percent trust.

NATIONAL MTJSteUM OF NATURAL HISTORY

Mr. Yates. We move to Dr. Challinor's department, science.

You want a program increase of $125,000 for the National Museum of Natural History. How do you know that an average of three technicians is a proper support level for each staff scientist, Dr. Challinor ? Dr. Challixor. This is a result of a careful analysis that was done by a committee of the National Academy of Science about 5 or 6 years ago to analyze the support required for major scientific institutions, rhey determined that for each full-time scientist three technicians or research assistants would be the ideal support level. We are now at about 1.76 or 1.77 to 1.

Mr. Yates. 1.79?

Dr. Challixor. With the addition of the three we are requesting we would then achieve a 1.79 ratio. Our immediate goal is to achieve at least a 2-to-l ratio, and this would help us on our way through a gradual increase each year.

]Mr. Yates. "\Miat happens if a scientist is required to have support personnel of, sslj, 1.7 rather than three? "^Yhat does he lose?

Dr. Challixor. What he loses is his own time. Instead of doing research, he or she has to spend time washing test tubes and other work that could be better done by technicians. It is more a question of the value of using high-priced scientific talent for relatively simple tasks.

As I say, the 3-to-l ratio is ideal. We have an immediate goal of 2 to 1. The three technicians arid $30,000 that we are requesting would ' raise us to 1.79 to 1.

Mr. Yates. You want $55,000 for the study of island birds which are threatened with extinction. Is this your function, or is it that of the Fish and Wildlife Service ?

Dr. Challinor. We feel, Mr. Chairman, that this is very much in the tradition of the Smithsonian, and

Mr. Yates. Whatever they do is in the tradition of the Smithsonian.

Mr. Ripley. There is a real distinction here. The Fish and Wildlife Service develops legislative programs for enforcement of regulations to do with prescribed lists of threatened animals or plants. We provide the raw data on which many of these lists are based. For example, the list of endangered birds of the world is currently being compiled in my lab. We have the expertise to do that in contrast to Government agencies.

Mr. Yates. You prepare the list for the Fish and Wildlife Service, and yours is the preliminary work upon which their work rests?

Mr. Ripley. We have the data on which we can prepare the facts and then they accept these lists and deal with them as they may, but they are dealing essentially in enforcement activities. We are providing the information with which they then have to cope. We are specifically authorized to do this by the Congress in the case of endangered plants, and we do it, anyway, in the case of endangered animals because of the collections, which go back a hundred years.

IMPORTANCE OF RESEARCH ON ISLAND BIRDS

Mr. Yates. Why do you pick out island birds?

Mr. Ripley. Island birds are particularly the most critically endangered species of birds.

Mr. Yates. Really ?

Mr. Ripley. Yes.

They usually are very vulnerable to introductions of predators. We have discovered within the last year that the island of Kauai in the Hawaiian Archipelago, which was the last inhabited island never penetrated by the mongoose, now has this introduced predator on it.

Mr. Yates. There must be cobras, too, then.

Mr. Ripley. No; unfortunately, there are not. The cobras might help us. The mongoose is the greatest animal predator of existing Hawaiian birds that are found only on Kauai.

Mr. Yates. How will you spend this ? Are you going to contract it out?

Mr. Whitten. Will the gentleman yield to me ?

Mr. Yates. Yes.

Mr. Whitten. Didn't you send the mongoose to Australia for the same purpose, and now Australia is being overrun by the mongoose ? Some countries brought in mongoose and the mongoose in turn became a worse problem than what they were brought in for ?

Mr. Ripley. It was introduced first and most totally to the Carib-tean Islands around 1870. It suc<!eeded in eliminating numbers of species found on these islands.

Mr. Yates. Species of snakes ?

Dr. RrPLEY. No; birds essentially. There weren't very many snakes to begin witli, and the idiocy of introducing the mongoose to the islands of the Caribbean is paralled by the idiocy with which in 1876 the so-called English sparrow was introduced in Central Park in New York and now occupies the entire continent of the United States, and the starling, the European starling, was introduced to Central Park in New York and now occupies all the United States.

Mr. WniTTEisr. Now we can come around to the gypsy moth which escaped.

Mr. RiPLET. Yes. The Government has now appropriated money to try to kill off roosts of starlings, blackbirds, and so on which have increased so much in certan areas of the country, Maryland, Kentucky, these winter roosts.

Mr. Yates. And trying to put them on the endangered species list.

Mr. RrpLEY. It would be a pleasure to put the starling on the endangered species list because it has no place here.

HANDBOOK OF NORTH AMERICAN INDIANS

Mr. Yates. You are requesting $40,000 for a linguist to work on the Handbook of North American Indians. Do you have any linguists working on it now ?

Dr. Challinor. There is a linguist who is now working on a temporary basis. Wliat we are looking for there, Mr. Chairman, is the salary for the position which exists in the authorized level of staff for the Museum of Natural History. We do not have funds to carry this scientist on a permanent basis. Since almost the very beginning, since Frank Cushing went out with Spencer Baird in 1870 to live with the Zunis, the Smithsonian has been terribly concerned about keeping track of the language of our native American Indians. This linguist would be a specialist in the languages of the native American Indians.

Mr. Yates. All the languages ?

Dr. Challinor. His specialty is languages of the California Indians, but he is knowledgeable enough in linguistics to study how these languages develop. He will also review every word in Indian language that will be printed in the big handbook called the Encyclopedia of North American Indians that we are now doing.

Mr. Yates. In English or Indian ?

Dr. Challinor. There will be words that will be printed in the Indian language. "We will have to make special type to print these, but he will see that their translations are accurate.

Mr. Ripley. The handbook was authorized as a bicentennial project by the Congress about 1973, I believe.

Mr. Yates. The bicentennial is over.

Mr. Ripley. Well, it was a continuing project to go on to 20 volumes.

Mr. Yates. For all the North American tribes ?

Dr. Challinor, Yes.

Mr. Yates. How many are there?

Dr. Challinor. In the himdreds, maybe more.

Mr. Ripley. Yes.

I last heard that there were some 36 tribes whose language we probably had no chance ever getting because the last people were dying. So there are probably several hundred.

This is a rewrite of the original handbook of 1911 which the Smithsonian was responsible for.

SOTENTinc EVENT ALERT NETWORK

Mr. Yates. What is the Scientific Event Alert Network?

Dr. Challjnor. The Scientific Event Alert Network is the successor to the Center for Short-Lived Phenomena. The Center for Short-Lived Phenomena has now become an independent organization, and the Scientific Event Alert Network concentrates solely on those events that are of particular interest to the scientist. More precisely such events as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and mass strandings of whales or dolphins.

It is a specialized network similar to the former Center for Short-Liver Phenomena and allows scientists to get to those locations where an event is occurring.

Mr. Yates. What do you do? Provide funds for them to travel or to live or what?

Dr. Challinor. We provide funds to disseminate the information that comes into us via this network. This primarily pays for the salaries of about three or four people and handles the expenses of the communications network that we now have that covers the entire globe.

Mr. Whttten. Mr. Chairman, do you reckon that linguist could translate this answer and put it on a lower shelf where I might understand it?

Mr. Yates. David, would you put it on a lower shelf?

Dr. Challinor. All right.

For example, a volcano suddenly starts to erupt in Central America.

Mr. Yates. Or Krakatoa.

Dr. Challinor. Or Krakatoa starts erupting again on some remote island in Indonesia. As the volcano is erupting all sorts of interesting phenomena occur. If laymen are there, they are primarily concerned with getting out of the way and not getting killed. If scientists are there to witness the eruption while it is actually occurring, there is a whole store of valuable information that they can gather about how volcanoes behave, and what causes the damage.

I might mention that through this network we were able to get scientists to a mountain in the Philippines called Mount Mayon while it was still erupting, and there they were able to observe for the first time a phenomenon with the French name nuee ardente. This is a hot, veiy hot, mass of gas that comes rolling down the mountain and not lip as we had thought, and this virtually smothers anybody who is in its path. We had wondered in the past what caused the death of lots of people from these volcanoes, and by having scientists there we were actually able to witness this phenomenon.

Mr. Whitten. Now you really convinced me that you have a bill of goods to sell if you say it so we can understand it.

Mr. Yates. He is very good.

Mr. Whitten. We have to have a little fun here. If my Chairman w^ill permit me, I was holding hearings several years ago for Mr. Kirwan, who was ill at the time, for the Atomic Energy Commission. It made sense really, but the scientific words used could make it sound

laughable as you read it. It was pure research.

But the way it was worded it sounded even worse in writing.

I asked him, "You have $5 million you request, and this program goes on 5 years. "Wliat do you hope to accomplish by 5 years?"

He said, "We hope to have a budget of $25 million,"

Thank you for fixing it the way I could understand it. It makes sense.

Dr. Challinor. This Scientific Event Alert Network is a very modest effort, Mr. Chairman, I might point out.

Mr. Yates. You felt the need to do that after his remark.

MASS WHALE STRANDING

Dr. Challinor. It has served a very useful function and the Secretary himself was able to get to Florida last February when there was a mass whale stranding down near Jacksonville.

Mr. Yates. Wlio was down to investigate the red tide ?

Mr. Ripley. We don't have anybody investigating red tide. We just investigate, in this particular case, marine mammals. Our activity is the result of part of the legislation that set up the NOAA program on marine mammals. The Smithsonian is charged with analyzing the deaths, physiologically and anatomically, to see if there is any evidence as to why these huge whale strandings occur from time to time.

Mr. Yates. '\^Tiat did you discover ?

Mr. RiPLET. Well, we took out pathological samples of over a hundred of these pilot whales or black fish, such as the fetuses, sections of the brain, ears, some of the viscera, to try and determine if there is any corollary between the state of the animal—the majority of them were females—and whether they were in shock or stress, carrying fetuses, carrying young, or whether this had something to do with being run clown somewhat physiologically because they were carrying young and having an excess of infestation of nematodes in the ear which either destroyed their balance or destroyed their sonar ability, or in effect were so painful that they were looking for a lessening of pressure by getting near the surface of the water in their agony with the frightful ear infection. We are working on this and hope we find out, and, if so, have some predictive capability as a result.

assignment or scientiitc event alert network to museum of

natural history

Mr. Yates. What was the reason for changing SEAN to NMNH in fiscal year 1976 ? SEAN is the Irish name for Scientific Event Alert Network.

Dr. Challinor. This is purely administrative because the majority of the people within the Institution who use this service are attached to the Museum of Natural History. It was the most efficient way to handle it, and there was space in that building to house it.

SMITHSONIAN ASTROPHYSICAL OBSERVATORY

Mr. Yates. You want another $500,000 for the Astrophysical Observatory, including a $50,000 increase for a new term appointment of a senior physicist. How many physicists do you have around now?

Dr. Chalunor. We have a total of 93 scientists there now, Mr. Chairman, of which 48 are Federal employees, either full time or part time, and 45 are scientists who are paid from grant and contracts, 90-plus percent of which are from NASA.

The new scientist that we are asking for, a solar physicist or plasma physicist, is to help us with a program that we have started at the Asttrophysical Observatory called the Langley-Abbot program. It is named after two earlier Smithsonian Secretaries who did particularly elegant work in understanding the Sun and the solar phenomena— the source of the Sun's energy, how the Sun changes over time, and how its energy is accepted by the Earth to make things grow. It is the basic source of all energy that we have here on the Earth.

Because of the high priority we give this, and indeed we feel that the Nation has ^ven to it as well, we felt it was particularly appropriate to suppler^ent the scientific staff at the observatory with a plasma physicist, an expert in solar physics.

Mr. Yates. How will this help in the energy program as far as solar heating is concerned ?

Dr. Challinor. The direct application would be hard to predict. What we do hope to be able to understand is how in the long run we can predict the Sun's behavior. Every 11 years, for example, the polarity of the magnetism of the Sun reverses. This gives us the so-called 22-ycar sunspot cycle. For the sunspot cycle, and some of this research goes back to the work of Dr. Abbot in the early 1900's, the evidence is accumulating that the Sun's cycle has an effect on our climate here on Earth. I cannot say that we will have the direct answer, but the kind of research that we propose to do under this program should go a long way to furnish an insight on how the Sun's behavior affects climate on the surface of the Earth.

Mr. Yates. By chance, are you doing any research on the ozone relating to the question of the fluorides and the possibility of changing the character of the ozone as a result of fleets of SST's in the event they do

fly?

Dr. Challinor. Yes, Mr. Chairman, we are. We have developed a radiotelescope, for example, that is able to measure moisture—water vapor is a better term—at extremely high altitudes,

Mr. Yates. How high ?

Dr. Challinor. It will go out beyond the Sun for that example.

This will allow us now to measure gases in the atmosphere to very precise degrees, to the degree that the Earth has an atmosphere up 70 kilometers, way up.

VALIDITY OF SCIENTIFIC THEORIES AND CLAIMS

Mr. Whitten. May I ask a question there? Mr. Yates. Yes.

Mr. Whitten. In another area, such as finding ressidue in food additives, there has been testimony before the committee that we have

measuring devices so sensitive now that you can measure parts by trillion, that you can isolate a dime in a budget of $100 billion dollars, a second in 32 years of time.

My question then is who is smart enough to know whether you are telling the truth or not ?

Mr. Yates. I warn you to be careful.

Mr. Whitten. Who cares whether it is beyond the Sun or whether it isn't ? How many folks are able to judge this ?

Mr. Challinor. I would say that there are hmidreds of people, if not thousands, who are qualified to make this judgment. For example, at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, we have produced a clock and are producing a series of clocks and each clock is accurate to 1 second in 10 million years.

Mr. Whittex. Now, that 10 million years is quite a little bit of time. Did the fellow who estimated use a computer ?

Mr. Challinor. Computers are certainly a key element. The reason we are interested in developing clocks—and I will put clock in context here, not the sort of clock you have on the wall—^^Ir. Einstein, you recall, at the turn of the century postulated that a clock in space where it is subject to less gravity would tick faster.

Last June NASA launched one of these clocks into space about three Earth diameters up on a 2-hour flight, and lo and behold, the clock did indeed tick faster. It sent its radio signal back to the Earth.

Mr. Whittex. How long ago was it that they came up with this theory ?

Mr. Challixor. I would say about 1907.

Mr. WnrrTEx. It took us 70 years to find some proof that his original theory was correct ?

Mr. Challixor. It did.

Mr. Whittex. How long is it going to take to find out your present theory is correct ?

Mr. Challixor. It may take 70 years.

The nice part about this is we have now developed the technology to put a clock into space and record how accurate it is. Indeed, it may take another 70 years to see the edge of the universe that we are trying to find now, but it may be possible we find it in our lifetime.

Mr. Whitten. I am not trying to take issue with you.

RESEARCH OX OZONE

Mr. Yates. We were on our way past the Smi.

Mr. Challixor. To get back to the Sun, Mr. Chairman, we feel this particular physicist would be of extreme value in coming up with in -formation that might easily have some very practical results for the use of solar energy here on Earth.

Mr. Yates. We were talking about the ozone and the fluorides.

]\Ir. Challixor. I mentioned this one device that we have developed for measuring. It has been very difficult to measure the degree of ozone in the atmosphere. There ai^ chemicals in the air that lalter the volume of the ozone, which of course filters out the ultraviolet rays. At th3 same time we have been measuring for decades the amount of solar energy that reaches the P^arth here, on the Mall for that matter, started by Dr. Abbott in 1907. We have noticed that there has been

a decline in the amounlt of ultraviolet rays reaching the Mall, and I assume the 'Oapitol, too.

Mr. Whitten. Now this is a little more practical. How much is left in the 'atmosphere from the Great Chicago Fire or the San Francisco Earthquake? How much vibration still remains in the atmosphere? Are we able to measure that? That would be a grade school test to qualify a man for this position.

Mr. Challinor. It might be dijffiicult. I am sure there have been forest fires thix)ughout the world that have been of several orders of miag-nitude gi-eater than the Chicago fire. We can notice the effect of these fires on the amount of light getting through the atmosphere.

Mr. Yates. His previous remark, I think, bears upon the question you asked. As I understood what you said, you said there are less ultraviolet rays reaching your experimental laboratory on the Mall than there was 70 years ago. If that is true, then your ozone is thicker or heavier to protect us ?

Mr. Ripley. The precipit^ates in the immediate atmosphere over Washington have increased dramatically in the last few years. We had to stop the experiment which Dr. Abbott started. I am sorry he is not here to explain, Mr. Whitten. He had started this experiment in 1907. We had to conclude it while he was still alive in 1969 because we found tliere was an appix>ximate decrease in the amount of sunlight in the ultraviolet coming through to a magnitude of about 15 percent.

This means that things like photosynthesis of plants are affected. The possibility of other effex^ts on human health a-re still to be measured.

Mr. Whitten. I don't mean to belittle these efforts in my equestions but it is hard for a layman to see that which we hear scientifically. That doesn't mean we don't appreciate it and dont see value to it. The more you get to put information in the records, it is easier to sell.

Mr. Ripley. We have put this in our reports and discussed it in previous congressional hearings.

Mr. Yates. Perhaps you ought to put it in vour magazine.

INIr. Ripley, I Avrote an editorial about Dr. Abbott's work which finally resulted in moving this observatory to Rockville, Md., beclause when you sitand up on the roof of our Rockville lab and look at the center of the Mall you can see this yellowish haze. This is undoubtedly due to automobile emissions.

FLUORroES IN the ATMOSPHERE

Mr. Yates. What about the fluorides ?

Mr. Ripley. The fluorides in the upper atmosphere-

Mr. Yates. They are also hampering the Sun's penetration ?

Mr. Ripley. This is still speculative. We don't know. They are hampering the production of ozone poissibly, which in itself shields us from ultraviolet rays.

Mr. Yates. Except that, wouldn't you as a layman draw an opposite conclusion ? If th& sun rays lare being shielded more thoroughly today than thev were 70 years ago, isn't it possible the fluorides might help that shielding to the point where it is harmful to our growth?

Mr. Ripley. Yes; this is one reason

Mr. Whitten. How nrnny people are saved from skin cancer by this?

Mr. Ripley. We can't save anybody from skin cancer,

Mr. Whitten. This protects from the rays of the Sun.

Mr. Ripley. I was about to say that we have an observation station in Point Barrow, Alaska, where the seasonal light is very variable. We have another observation station in our tropical research station where the daylight over the year is about stable. One very interesting thing we have discovered by setting these observation points up and correlating them with Rockville, Md., is that climatically just above the surface of the Earth the effect is about the same. In other words, the ultraviolet getting through the Earth is shielded in the tropics by the cloud formation and it balances out in the Arctic by the relative number of days of light.

INCREASE REQUESTED FOR AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING

Mr. Yates. You wanted an additional $S25,000 for computer. Why do you think the present computer is obsolete ?

Mr. Challinor. The present computer, Mr. Chairman, is now starting its 9th year of work. It is a Control Data Corp. 6400. Since that was built, that particular company has a series 6600 and the latest one is 7600, which is the most powerful that particular company has built.

What we have found is that in our 9-year-old computer the parts are beginning to wear out and the computer is in danger of breaking down, because it oj^erates, as most of these large computer do, around the clock. We are asking for $325,000 toward a new computer system. What we will have to figure out is exactly how it is best to replace this computer that we currently have.

The need is enormous. It takes a while to get delivery on these computers. "\^^iat we would like to do is to slowly phase out the CDC 6400 and replace it with a more up-to-date one that can do the calculations that our observations require and not be subject to the breakdowns that we have been threatened with over the years with the present computer.

RELIANCE ON COMPUTERS

Mr. Whitten. Are we beginning to rely on computers too much in some respects ? I would like to cite why. Mr. Delaney has some people in his area that are uphappy because they cannot get the Food and Drug Administration to decide in connection with some matter pending before them. He came to me with this. In checking into it quite a number of years ago, they had a preparation for migraine headaches that was experimentally used and for years they warned anybody who tried to use it, a German preparation, Ganal, and manufactured in New Jersey. I took it up with the Food and Drug Administration. They went to the computer. They couldn't find any trace of it whatsoever. They came up with Ganal, which is a treatment for obesity and something else.

I was Avrong about who manufactured it; it is Scliering. Some man who has been there long enougli remembered tliat I had taken this up be letter in 1953, and by mind" power they found it. Now they are see-

ing why they haven't ruled, 30 years later, concluded, one way or the other, and if not, why not. The thing they can't answer at all is why it didn't get into the computer.

The computer can handle only what a man has put into it. If you put it in the wrong place in the computer, you can hide it.

Mr. Challinor. You are very correct. A computer can only tell you what has gone into it, and this is where the human side comes in. The work that we use the computer for is to solve equations. These equations are very elaborate and often take years to develop, theoretical equations such as to try to plot on a graph what would happen if two black holes collided, how would this distort time and space. This took about 5 years of working up the equations and 50 hours on the biggest computer in the country to come up with something.

Mr. Whitten. The point of my question was. Can you foresee that we might start leaning on it for things it cannot do ?

Mr. Challinor. This is always a danger, just as we may rely too much on certain drugs and on all the advances scientifically and socially we have achieved. We have to maintain a perspective.

ADVANTAGES OF THE NEW COMPUTER

Mr. Whitten. The difference between the new one and the old one is what ?

Mr. Challinor. The new one will have three times as much memory. It can store three times as much data and do the computations twice as quickly as the present computer we have.

WOMEN in science

Mr. Yates. I notice that you are publishing a book called "Space for Women: Perspectives on Careers in Science." How come you are in this business ?

Mr. Challinor. This has already been published, Mr. Chairman. The discipline of astrophysics, or astronomy in general, among all the sciences, has probably had a larger percentage of famous women than almost any other. This publication was a result of a 2-day symposium, a joint effort between the Smithsonian, Radcliffe, and Harvard University to encourage women, high school seniors, and women undergraduates at the colleges around Boston to take an interest in ihe sciences. Famous women astronomers came to tell how you can combine a marriage with a career in astronomy, or the advantages and disadvantages of being a woman in this field. This was all written up, and we are now out of the publication. It has been distributed so widely around Boston we are now looking for some more money to make another edition of it. This IS part of our equal opportunity program, particularly as it regards women.

conversion of employees to federal roll

Mr. Yates. You are requesting $125,000 and 6 positions.

Mr. Ripley. That is the last paragraph on general administration.

1 '■ iTf ^^'^* ^^^' ^^^^^ ^^^ y°^^ convert private employees to the Federal roll ? That is what you propose to do here; isn't it ? Mr. Wheeler. Right at the moment we are overbalanced.

Mr. Yates. What do you mean by that ?

Mr. Wheeler. In proportion to the administration work to be carried out for the Federal employees at the observatory and the contract employees, there is too much administrative work being done by grant and contract employees in relation to the Federal administrative work. We should have more Federal administrative people up there and a few less grant and contract employees.

Mr. Ripley. You have to run parallel tracks as between your total budgets in grant and contract and your Federal appropriations.

Mr. Yates. You mean if you received $125,000 from your private sources and $325,000 from Federal sources, the number of private employees, you would be in proportion to the $325,000 ? Is that what you are saying ?

Mr. Wheeler. I am not sure that I got that.

Mr. Yates. As I understand what Mr. Eipley said, suppose you had $100,000 in private fmids for that particular project and $400,000 of Federal fiinds for the project. You would have, what, 20 percent private employees and 80 percent Federal employees on the project? Is that what that means ?

Mr. Wheeler. I think they are different projects. There are grant and contract projects being carried out.

Mr. Yates. Apparently I am not making myself clear. As I understood your answer to my original question as to why you were moving six employees from the private rolls to the Federal rolls, the answer given was in order to balance it. What does balance mean ? How do you determine what the balance is ? How do you know that you are required to have so many private employees on a particular project as opposed to so many employees ?

Mr. Whitten. Following your question, if I might. With some experience I have had, it depends on which account you charge it to. The question as you directed it was to people, but I am wondering whether it is people or just what account you are going to charge overhead to.

Mr. Yates. We are in the Smithsonian Astrophysical Laboratory. I read from the paragraph in question:

In fiscal 1975 the first step was taken to correct the imbalance that had developed between SAO's federally funded and grant and contract funded general administrative and support activities. To date, $275,000 has been authorized and appropriated for this purpose. This represents approximately 70 percent of the total of about $400,000 needed to correct this imbalance. As a final step in solving this problem, six positions and $125,000 are requested in fiscal 1978. Trained and capable administrative and support personnel currently supported by grant and contract funds will be hired to fill these positions, which includes an administrator, a senior procurement agent, mechanical engineer, personnel assistant, etc.

What is the balance ? How do you know where the balance occurs ?

Mr. Wheeler. Suppose we exaggerate in order to make this clearer and say that we had a certain number of Federal employees and a certain number of grant and contract employees and there were no Federal administrators on board. All the administration would be done by the grant contract administrative employees.

Mr. Yates. So-called private fund grant and contract ?

Mr. Wheeler. Right. Not to the extent of my exaggerated illustration but somewhat to that extent we have an imbalance. Too many people were added doing the administrative work at SAO under

grants and contracts in proportion to the amount of moneys being spent.

Mr. Yates. Where do you draw the line as to when you should hire by contract or hire Federally, and when do you move the Federal back to the contract ? Do you ever do that ?

Mr. Wheeler. Yes.

Mr. Yates. Really ? Now Mr. Wheeler, are you sure you have ? The movement is from contract into Federal, isn't it ?

Mr. Challinor. Up until 1968, 80 or more percent of the funding of SAO was NASA grants. We, therefore, to service these grants built up a large cadre of contract-paid administrators.

Mr. Yates. You ran out of grants and you wanted to keep the employees, so you moved

Mr. Challinor. The bottom fell out. We then built up the Federal side.

Mr. Yates. So you wanted to keep the employees, is that what you are saying ?

CONVERSION OF EMPLOYEES BASED ON AUDIT RECOMMENDATION

Mr. Challinor. It is a little more complicated than that. The complication is the books of the Astrophysical Observatory are audited, as we said earlier, by the Defense Contract Audit Agency. They pointed out: Look, your administration is now out of balance. Too many of your administrators are being paid out of grant money when your grant money has gone down, and your Federal side has gone up. Therefore, this would affect the overhead charge that the Defense Contract Auditing Agency allows the Smithsonian to charge NASA for the grants and contracts it receives from NASA and from all the other sources,

Mr. Whitten. Could I describe that from another angle ?

If the Federal money is controlled by the Congress, the way to do that would be to pay the grant people out of congressional funds so as to leave more grant money for the privaite. That is another way to say the same thing he said. It is a matter of what your purpose is 'as to whether to hia"v^ more free money to spend without accounting for it, because you paid the people out of tthe Government's money. That is one way of looking at the same thing you described. You described it in re"\^rse.

Mr. Challinor. I don't think it is a question of not accounting for it, Mr. Wliitten. We still have to account for all these moneys very carefully for Government auditors. It isn't a question of hiding.

Mr. Whitten. No; I just described the same thing but in an opposite way.

Mr. Yates. Do you accept the amendment ?

Mr. Challinor. I agree.

Mr. Whitten. It does leave you more money to spend freely without the same controls you had under appropriation.

Mr. Yates. Stated another way to paraphrase you: 'Wliat thev are doing actually by doing it in this way is what they established the two corporations for; isn't this true ?

Mr. Challinor. No.

Mr. Ripley. We are doing what auditors tell us to do.

Mr. Challhstor. It is all Federal money. The taxpayer still pays the NASA budget and the Smithsonian budget. This is an auditing requirement that we are trying to fill.

. ^Ir. Yates. Let me ask you a direct question in line with what Mr. Whitten said. You have moved six private employees over to a Federal level in order to correct what your auditor said was an imbalance. Does it ever happen that the balance goes the other way ? Do you ever move Federal employees back to the private rolls ?

Mr. Ripley. They are not really on private rolls; they are receiving grant fmids which are appropriated funds to NASA and the audit people audit the funds, and they therefore tell us

]\Ir. Yates. These are not private funds ?

!Mr. Challixor. It is all Federal money. It is money from NASA to do work NASA asks us to do.

Mr. Yates. Perhaps this is it. NASA doesn't want to be overcharged for the amount of work you are doing. It doesn't want unnecessary employees attributed to your work on its contracts, and therefore you are mo\dng it over to another part of your work ?

Mr. Challixor. That is right.

Mr. Yates. They are protesting, and in order to save the personnel, you moved them to the Federal payroll ?

Mr. CsALLiisroR. The work is there to be done. This is primarily a bookkeeping effort and this is the last payment we need.

CONVERSION OP EMPUOTEiES PROM FEDERAL TO PRR^ATE ROLL

Mr. Wheeler. Mr. Chairman, about the possibility of our moving people back onto the private roll, we have an example here—^Mr. Powers, who was on the Federal roll and has been moved back to private.

Mr. Yates. ^Vhy did you do that ?

Mr. Wheeler. For a number of reasons some of them I suspect are personal. There was an imbalance.

Mr. Yates, "^^-liy did this happen? Did you hire Mr. Powers as a Federal employee or under your private payroll ?

Mr. Wheeler. As a Federal employee many years ago.

Mr. Yates. 'Why was he moved over to the private payroll ?

INIr. Po^vERS. Our office, sir, was like the entire Institution. Partly owing to the strenuous efforts of Mr. Wlieeler, the non-Federal or trust fund activities have increased very substantially from the situation 13 years ago when I came. It seemed appropriate to have some part of my office paid for and charged to the trust fimds in a general proportion to the trust fund activities.

Mr. Yates. You mean for purposes of balance ?

Mr. Po^vERS. Yes. Fairness or proper accounting.

Mr. Yates. I am not saying the Smithsonian did this, but could the Smithsonian avoid the executive salar}'- ceilings of the Federal payroll if it wanted to bv putting its employees on the private payroll ?

Mr. Rn'LEY. No. The Regents have oversight of this.

]Mr. Whitten. The military has done that for many years by letting out contracts.

Mr. Ripley. I don't think that has anything to do with this.

Mr. Yates. That is not related to this. But I do know some of your highest employees were being squeezed by the Federal salary ceilings at one time, but I wondered whether this was a possibility. Mr. Ripley is saying it hasn't occurred.

Mr. Ripley. Everybody is squeezed.

Mr. Yates. But no longer.

TROPICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Let's go now from astrophysics to the Tropical Research Institute. Here we are in Panama, right?

Mr. Challinor. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Yates. You want $50,000 for higher price of goods and services. On What basis do you project a 12-percent increase for primary commodities? What would be the effect if you were required to absorb these costs?

Is this a cost you can't absorb ?

Mr. Challinor. This is a cost we are increasingly unable to absorb. We have the figures, should the committee so desire them, on how these budget costs have increased for food, for rent, and for supplies and material.

Mr. Yates. Wc will be glad to put them in the record if you want to put them in the record.

Mr. Challinor, The school tuitions, travel, what they call home leave for employees. We are obliged to pay the travel costs back to the States under the law in Panama. These inflationary costs have now gotten to the point where we can't absorb them any more.

Mr. Yates. ^AHiy don't you prepare a statement and we will put it in the record.

[The information follows:]

Inflationary Costs at the Tropical Research Institute (STRI)

During the past several years, the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute has experienced rising inflation in services, supplies, materials and equipment. These services and supplies are received from three principal sources: The Panama Canal Company, the Republic of Panama, and directly from the United States including General Services Administration depots and contractors. STRI's most expensive purchases are from the Panama Canal Company for school tuition, electricity, food, and construction supplies. The Panama Canal Company is statutorily required to recover costs of service to other Government agencies operating in the Canal Zone. The rate of inflation in the Republic of Panama was 11 percent in flscal year 1976 and is estimated by the Rates and Analysis Branch of the Panama Canal Company to be approximately 12 percent in fiscal year 1977. Moreover, the anticipated inflationary grovrth in the United States from the beginning of fiscal 1976 through the end of fiscal 1977 is projected to be well over 10 percent. Between July 1976 and September 1977, STRI's food costs alone will have increased some $9,000. Examples of how inflation is anticipated to affect other categories of expense during fiscal year 1977 based on our most recent information, follow:

Increased cost in fiscal year 1977

Tuition +$4. 600

Electricity +21, 600

Rent +300

School bus -j-600

Hospitalization +1, lOO

STUDIES or TROPICAL ANIMALS

Mr. Yates. "\Yhy do you need a manimalogist ?

Mr. Challixor. The manimalogist is to help us focus on the role of animals in Panama, or more precisely on Barro Colorado Island, and how they affect the health of humans as well. For example, we have learned that jimgle yellow fever, a serious tropical disease, is primarily carried b}^ a certain kind of monkey called a howler monkey. In studying these animals we have also learned that the sloth, a tropical animal that moves very slowly

Mr. Yates. Two-toed and upside down.

Mr. Challinor. Two-toed and three-toed—both of these also can carry the virus of the jungle yellow fever.

It is only serendipitous that we discovered the sloth was also a potential carrier of this disease. What we would like to do here is to contmue our studies of these tropical animals in cooperation with the Gorgas Memorial Laboratory, which has been studying human diseases since the canal was first dug.

Our job here is to see the role of animals in spreading such diseases.

Mr. Ripley. They act as a reservoir. It is obvious there is some partial explanation for the continued recurrence of the disease even after you have almost total inoculation preventing its occurrence in humans.

Mr. Yates. Why after you have inoculations?

Mr. Ripley. Because again mosquitoes will get in from the reservoir animals and transfer it to humans, and continually of course there is a falloff in the total number of people being inoculated, visitors, tourists, people traveling through, and as Dave says, there is one strain that appears to be resistant. There is always a possibility that new strains will form and then be totally immune to the present level of prophylaxis.

Mr, Yates. You are not medical researchers?

Mr. Ripley. We study the animals and we are finding this occurs. We can test the animals just the way doctors can test humans.

Mr. Yates. Are you testing animals in your laboratories for these diseases ?

Mr. Ripley. We found the monkeys were dying off in a certain area and we can study pathological samples to determine what they have.

radiation biology laboratory

Mr. Yates. Let's move to your radiation biology lab. I notice that four of your staff members want to go to a solar energy meeting in India. Wiy do all of them have to go so far to a meeting?

Mr. Challixor. This is the big meeting of the International Solar Energy Society, of which one of our staff is the current world president.

The RBL has been paramount in the study of the behavior of the Sun and its effect on life on Earth since it was started by Dr. Abbott. The most effective way that we can carry out our job we feel is with face-to-face confrontation with other scientists to exchange orally with them the knowledge we have irained in our own research. This

87-564 O - 77 - 44

would be a tremendous help to our staff because of their role in the international society.

Mr. Yates. All four ?

Mr. Challinor. All four, yes, Mr. Chairman.

CHESAPEAKE BAY CENTER

Mr. Yates. Then you want to try to save Poplar Island from the tides. We are talking about the Chesapeake Bay Center. There is an article in the Star saying you are trying to save the island from the tide. The Park Service says they haven't been able to do it.

Mr. Challinor. "VAHiat we are trying to do here is merely slow it down. You cannot stop the tide. This island was originally about 1,000 acres 200 years ago and it is now down to about 60 plus other smaller islands of varying sizes, so the total land mass that was once 1,000 acres is now, as I recall, 4 separate islands totaling less than-200 acres.

What we want to do is simply maintain the bulkhead that we have built to slow down the erosion. We think that we can slow it down for another 20 years. By that time there may not be enough left to be worth saving.

Mr. Yates. The article says:

Loss of the Poplar complex and Jefferson Island would be a blow to the scientific world. It is on these islands that the Smithsonian conducts studies of plant, bird, mammal and marine life.

Mr. Challinor. These islands are tremendously popular. Many people who cruise anchor there. Access to the islands themselves is controlled by a full-time warden we keep on the island.

Mr. Yates. Maybe we ought to transfer it to the Park Service.

Mr. Challinor. It is a research center. They use the waters to go fishing. It is quite shallow.

national air and space museum

Mr. Yates. We turn to the National Air and Space Museum. You are cutting their appropriation by $395,000. This year you want to transfer some $500,000 to Suitland and you want to cut this program by $395,000.

Mr. Yellin. That is the impact of what we have requested to do this year. We have already reprogramed, with your approval, $130,-000 out of NASM to Protection Services for summer guards. The second reprograming request for this year, some $500,000, is for Silver Hill. The total therefore would be over $600,000 out of their base this year of which $525,000 would carry over into fiscal year 1978. _ ^ J J

If this proposed reprograming for fiscal year 1977 is approved b}^ the Congress, it will eliminate the need for the $175,000 requested for Silver Hill facility imjDrovements in the fiscal year 1978 restoration and renovation of buildings appropriation.

Mr. Yates. You have studies to determine the acceptance of the Air and Space Museum by the public. Do you need a questiomiaire or a poll or study to know that ?

Mr. Challinor. Mr. Chairman, I suppose we could do it by eyeball. As was pointed out in the report presented to me, about 2 percent of

/

the exhibits budget is spent on these polls. What we are trying to do is to understand what the public, which has been visiting the particular museiun in enormous numbers, is really interested in seeing and what they are able to absorb when they look at a given exhibit.

This,_ we feel, is very useful in trying to bring our exhibits up to date or modify them to improve them over time, and I think the very fact that we have been as successful as we have in attracting the numbers of visitors is evidence this approach has indeed paid off.

Mr. Yates. I think it is the movie you show.

Mr. Challinor. That helps.

Mr. Yates. In addition to everything else. It is a beautiful museum and I can't understand who would have opposed building that museum.

Mr. RiPLET. It was not popular, as you recall, at the time.

Mr. Yates. ^^Tiat have you learned from your polls ?

Mr. Ripley. These polls do ser\^e a purpose.

Mr. Yates. I know that they do, but what I am trying to ask is, what do the people want ?

Mr. Ripley. I haven't seen the results of the polls.

Mr. Challinor. I have seen some of the results. They show that the language on the signs is relatively well understood, that the signs are short enough so that people will bother to read them, that people are very precise on what they want to see in most cases.

Mr. Yates. Do they know what they want to see as they come through the door ?

Mr. Challinor. Very often. The reputation of the museum is such now that people of our vintage who were in World War II, for example, really get excited about seeing the World War II Aviation Hall and they can relive 30 years ago when they were flying these airplanes.

Mr. Yates. Perhaps that is why I enjoyed seeing the World War I planes.

FUND sources

Mr. Whitten. I have to leave.

Mr. Chairman, having looked through this GAO matter and having Mr. Ripley show me in the report various matters, I don't think it will be too much trouble to ask this for the record. I believe it would help the committee if each fund for the last fiscal year that has been received be listed with the money drawn from it listed with what it was used for and under whose supervision; that comes without exception, including that which is appropriated and that which is not.

I think it would be in order to put that in the record of this hearing, and that you also put in the record of this hearing the foreseeable funds that you are building your budget on, their source, including appropriation.

Then I think it would be well in all cases where there is a use of the funds for purposes other than what you indicated to the committee you intended to do, to notify the chairman and ranking Republican on the committee in advance at least 10 days or so.

Mr. Yates. I think they are trying to do that now.

Mr. Wiiittek. In it you will be doing what Senator Jackson points out they are going to study. If you do this, it might answer the question. They are bound to keep a record someplace. Then this doesn't tie you down, it lets you change it. If you change it, you are obligated

to advise the chairman and. tht> ranking Republican member. If you don't hear from them, I would take no obligation. That is the system we follow on two or three committees I am on, which seems to work.

Mr. Yates. It is in order and I am sure the Smithsonian will be very glad to provide that.

[The information follows:]

Smithsonian Funds

iThe Institution is currently developing the information requested. The Smithsonian has in excess of 1,000 funds. To list each one, explain its use, and note the responsible individual will require additional time so that computerized data can be translated into a suitable and readily understandable format. The information will be forwarded to the committee when completed.

NATIONAL ZOOLOGICAL PARK

Mr. Yates. Let's turn to the zoo. You want $577,000 for the cost of operating a new facility in Rock Creek Park which you expect to be completed in 1978. Are j'ou going to operate those facilities for the full year ? Do you need the money for the full year ?

Mr. Challinor. These facilities will be completed this summer, yes, and by October 1 we will need the money to run them.

Mr. Yates. You want $123,000 for the Front Royal Conservation and Research Center. Why do you want 6 additional jobs there?

Mr. Challinor. There we find that the key factor is to take care of these animals which are primarily rare and endangered species, of which we are building up a population, that is becoming increasingly difficult to find in the wild. We are looking for extra people to help us support that facility, about which we have kept the Congress fully informed since the days of Mrs. Hansen, and the facility has grown. To allow us to maintain that facility and the animals there, we do need these people very badly.

Mr. Yates. How do your operating costs for 1977 and 1978 compare with 1976?

Mr. Challinor. I would have to double check the figures.

Mr. Yates. Provide it for the record.

[The information f o11ot\»s :]

Front Royal Opebating Costs

The following examples are indicative of the development at Front Royal which has made necessary increased funding for operating expenses. Animal species located at Front Royal have risen from 21 in fiscal year IQT'e to some 28 in fiscal year 1977. Moreover, the number of animals will have more than doubled by the end of the fiscal year. Acres being used for animal grazing and housing \\all increase from 245 in fiscal year 1976 to 310 in fiscal year 1977, and acres in hay production from 94 to 137. Similar growth is projected for fiscal year 1978 as research and breeding programs increase in number and scope. Fiscal year 1976:

Total operating costs $400, 000

Trust funds included above 55, 000

Fiscal year 1977:

Total operating costs 545, 000

Trust funds included above 55, 000

Fiscal year 1978:

Total operating costs 658, 000

Trust funds included above 55, 000

ACQUISITION OF COLLECTIONS FOR THE ZOO

Mr. Yates. You want $29,000 for acquisition for collections. Are you buying animals ? Are you smuggling them ? I saw a documentary and it said zookeepers were not to be trusted.

Mr. Challinok. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that we can trust ours. Dr. Reed is right here.

Mr. Yates. Dr. Reed, tell us about that. Did you see that same documentary about all the snake skins and the snakes that were in the pockets of people who were smuggling them in ?

Dr. Reed. No, sir. I did not. However, I will see it, since we had our visual people make a copy of that for me as it came in; so after the ceremonies tonight I will probably see it.

Mr. Yates. Some zookeepers do resort to hiring smugglers in order to get the animals they want. Present companj^ excepted.

Mr. Reed. We may be involved as a recipient zoo—^not as smugglers. It has been intimated we might be indicted as a result of having unknowingly purchased animals from one who may have acquired an import permit illegally, although no indictment has yet been handed out.

Mr. Yates. You have been besmirched if not indicted.

Mr. Reed. That is a very good way to put it. Anyway, there are certain zoos that apparently have done this in the past and probably would do this.

Mr. Yates. How do you get your animals ?

Mr. Reed. We get them from animal dealers, reputable dealers, we hope. We know what their reputation is and we are now paying more attention to that than we did 15 or 20 years ago.

We trade them with other zoos—Chicago, New York, and foreign zoos too.

We raise them ourselves by incubation, natural breeding, birth processes, raise them from babies.

Then on some fortunate occasions we have gone out and caught them ourselves or been presented by foreign governments, like you and I were gifted with this little elephant.

Mr. Yates. And the pandas.

Mr. Reed. Yes.

Mr. Yates. You don't resort to those nefarious practices ?

Mr. Reed. We have not knowingly or willingly resorted to any nefarious practices. I have to say this in some of Mr. Powers' language because I don't think I have done it, but apparently there are other people that think maybe I have.

Mr. Yates. I didn't mean to intimate that at all.

Mr. Reed. It is not you; it is the Federal attorney in Philadelphia.

Mr. Yates. I wasn't aware of that.

Mr. Reed. There are three or four zoos and dealers that I have always felt were highly reputable and have dealt with that have been besmirched and may be indicted.

Mr. Yates. You want $29,000 for acquisitions. What are you going to acquire?

Mr. Reed. The acquisition fund of the National Zoological Park has been about the smallest of any of the major zoos of this Nation or overseas. We have relied extensively on being able to get our ani-

mals through trades, collectors, or through gifts. The price of animals has gone up.

Mr. Yates. You are like Mr. Blitzer's contemporary art.

Mr. Reed. Definitely. A giraffe is now $15,000. The first giraffe I bought was $4,000 and I thought it was paying too much. A bongo is $30,000.

Mr. Yates. What is that ?

Mr. Eeed. That is the antelope from Africa. We have four. We got them before the price went up and from the grant of the National Geographic Society, so it did not cost us any Federal money.

Mr. Yates. Wliat can you buy for $29,000 ?

Mr. Eeed. A lot of small animals or one big animal.

Mr. Yates. How did you arrive at $29,000 ? Was that all Mr. Ripley would give you ?

Mr. Reed. To bring our total up to a more respectable figure. I think it will bring us up to about $35,000 a year purchase fund, and we will supplement that through our trades.

Mr. Yates. Can you tell us what you bought more recently and what you paid for it?

Mr. Reed. Not right now. I would have to furnish it for the record.

[The information follows:]

Recent Animal Purchases

In fiscal year 1976 and the 3-month transition period, the National Zoo acquired

these animals by purchase:

Mammals: Coat

Cheetah $5, 000

Hairy armadillo (4) 715

Slowloris 100

Tamandua 100

Geoffrey's marmoset 65

Naked-tailed armadillo (2) 305

Zorilla (2) 310

Tree shrew 50

Black-tailed prairie dog (4) 60

Hedgehog tenrec 105

African crested i>orcupine 300

Fishers (2) 400

Red brocket (2) 1, 748

Rat kangaroo (4) 508

Birds:

Darwin's rheas (6) 3, 000

White-winged trumpeter 300

Red-legged honeycreeper (6) 300

Hooded mergansers (3) 225

Pukeko 200

Red-breasted geese (8) 6,400

Moloccan cockatoo 750

Reptiles/Amphibians:

Aldabra tortoises (3) 4,700

Boa constrictor 250

Puff adder (3) 90

Vine snakes (2) 30

Mexican treefrogs (4) 40

Asiatic stripe-tailed rat snake 60

Cuban anoles (3) 30

Leopard tortoises (2) 325

Brazilian rainbow boa 215

In addition, of course, animals are added to the collection through trades, loans, and primarily, births—two-thirds of additions in 1976 were by birth.

TRANSMISSION OF DISEASES

Mr. Yates. Do any of your other animals transmit diseases in the same way as Dr. Challinor's sloth ?

Mr. Eeed. There is always a possibility of animals from foreign lands being a reservoir of some disease for human or domestic animals.

Mr. Yates. Do any of your animals catch diseases from humans? Do any of your primates catch colds from humans ?

Mr. Reed. Absolutely. That is why we have all the glass in front of the gorillas. People think that is to keep gorillas from throwing things at the people, but actually it is to protect them from getting any respiratory diseases of humans. They are highly susceptible to them. Tuberculosis from people is the one over the years that has been the most dangerous to animals in captive conditions.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has the system set up of quarantine and inspection that has protected very well the introduction of any exotic diseases with the animals coming in, but we are constantly checking.

Mr. Yates. Are you having any problems we ought to know about that we ought to help you with other than money ?

Mr. Reed. That could certainly help the most.

FRONT ROYAL CONSERVATION AND RESEARCH CENTER

Mr. Yates. You are more interested in Front Royal right now, aren't you, than Washington ?

Mr. Reed. No ; my heart is big enough for both of them. I think we need to develop these in conjunction with each other because Front Royal will mean more to zoos in the United States and to exotic animals in the breeding potential and the maintenance of large groups of these breeding animals than we can do in zoos. It will mean more to children 30 years from now than what we can do in Washington.

Mr. Yates. You have a good zoo and I think Dr. Fisher would say it is almost as good as the one in Chicago.

Mr. Reed. I think we run second to Lincoln Park if you ask Dr. Fisher.

center for the study of man

Mr. Yates. Now we go to the Center for the Study of Man and your program increase of $185,000.

This is for 5-term appointments for the Anthropological Film Center. I must say in all honesty I thought I had reached the height of being importuned with the Endowment for the Arts and Humanities because I get flooded with letters from all over, but the Anthropological Film Center runs them a very good second.

"Why am I suddenly being asked to support this program as opposed to any other program you have ?

Mrs. Margaret Mead appeared.

Mr, Ripley. Mrs. Marsraret Mead is a powerful voice in many areas of culture hi the United States today and she has taken a very laudable interest in helping to institute the Anthropological Film Center at the Smithsonian. She urged us to do this when we did not have this facility, and we represented our feeling that because the Smithsonian's

position is historically central in anthropology, there was every reason to believe her and other anthropologists who urged us to set up this film center.

We have tried off and on for some years to attract films, documentation of vanishing cultures, vanishing tribal, primitive people.

Mr. Yates. Do you give grants for films in the same way the National Science Foundation does ?

Mr. EiPLEY. We don't give any grants out at all. We have tried to attract grants to us to help build it up, and Dr. Sorenson has been very successful in getting support from outside sources. I think the complaint of Margaret Mead and the other anthropologists interested was the fact the Smithsonian on its own side has not been, as it were, reciprocating and building up a base of funds sufficient to balance the interests expressed across the land.

We know, Mr. Chairman, that the cause is a vital one. There is no doubt about it. Tribal cultures are vanishing like dust across the prairie as we sit here. It is the same way, we know, that the forests of the world in the tropics are dissolving at the rate of nearly 48 or 49 acres a minute as we sit here. There is no doubt about it that intervention in the planet by humans with technological skills such as ours has crucially affected the balance between nature, on the one hand, and the remaining tribes.

Mr. Yates. $255,000 of the $562,000 is to inaugurate studies in Third World nations. You are asking for how much here ?

Mr. Challinor. We are asking for $185,000.

Mr. Yates. A^Hiat will that permit you to do ? Will that permit you to hire five people ?

Mr. Challinor. The $95,000 in funds we are asking for the film center will allow us to hire five term appointments.

Mr. Yates. What is a term appointment ? For what period ?

Mr. Challinor. This would be from 1 to 4 years.

Mr. Yates. You are talking about temporary employees ?

Mr. Challinor. Yes. We don't have the permanent slots for them in our overall personnel ceiling.

Mr. Yates. "What will they do ?

Mr. Challinor. As pointed out in the justification, these funds would be used to pay the salaries of a research filmmaker, a research assistant, two research film editors, and an administrative assistant, and also would provide some support items related to preparation of films and the like.

The people would serve the center as a core staff. This will be an absolutely essential component to allow us to ask foundations and private individuals to support the center with private funds. Potential donors are worried that should thev give a substantial gift to the Smithsonian to support this effort, the Institution itself does not have a core to administer the gift to see the job is done properly,

Mr. Yates. Wliy don't you have this all in one operation ? AYhy must you have a film center and why an urgent anthropology program ? Wliy shouldn't they be combined ?

Mr. Challinor. These are all combined administratively in the Center for the Study of Man. As you know, according to the wishes of Congress we have kept many line items in our request to Congress.

They could easily be broken down into less precise categories but we feel that the Congress likes to be advised on these specific details. They are, as you see, all part of the Center for the Study of Man, which also includes the work on the Handbook of North American Indians.

Mr. Yates. And the Research Institute on Immigration and Ethnic Studies ?

Mr. Ripley. The Institute is asking for $90,000 of the total requested increase of $185,000.

Mr. Challinoe. The increase for the film center will more than double the budget. The present base is $43,000. We are now asking for an additional $95,000 for a total of $138,000, should that $95,000 be approved.

NATIONAL COLLECTION OF FINE ARTS' CONSERVATION

Mr. Yates. Now we turn to the National Collection of Fine Arts.

The justification has been a before and after picture^—which is before and which is after ?

Mr. Ripley. That is a tough question.

Mr. Yates. We have the illustration of Henry Moore's "Two Women." It depends on whether you prefer a Picasso treatment, doesn't it?

ACTIVITIES WITH PROGRAM DECREASES

Are there any activities where there was a decrease? The only one I remember is the Air and Space Museum.

Mr. Ripley. The Bicentennial program reflects a program decrease.

Mr. Yates. That is not a fair one.

Mr. Ripley. A^^y?

Mr. Yates. Because we no longer are in a Bicentennial year.

Mr. Ripley. But we have to effectuate it, as it were. You wouldn't want us to say that we haven't done it, would you ?

Mr. Yates. On the contrary, I just thought you did it automatically, when the year ended. Unless you wanted to save it for the Tricen-termial.

Mr. Ripley. We want to do it and get the credit for doing it.

Mr. Wheeler. There is also a reduction of $22,000 in the Office of Personnel Administration.

Mr. Ripley. And $125,000 out of the collections management study.

NATIONAL museum OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY EXHIBITS

Mr. Yates. Credit given.

Mr. Blitzei-, you want $150,000 and five positions for the National Museum of History and Technology, a fine museum. And you want to maintain exhibitions previously maintained with Bicentennial funds.

yh: Ripley. We want to keep the "1876 Centennial" exhibit going as long as we can.

Mr. Yates. Is tliat what we are talking about, that exhibit?

Mr. Rtpi>ey. That is immensely popular.

]Mr. Yatks. Is tliat what we are talking about ?

Mr. Blttzer. We are talking about 95,000 square feet of new exhibit space that has been added, inchiding 72,000 in the "Nation of Nations" exhibit, within the History and Technology Building, and

the "1876 Centennial" exhibit in the Arts and Industries Building, vind about 23,000 feet of recovered exhibit space that is being filled with exhibits in the History and Technology Building.

Mr. Yates. Is the $150,000 what it costs to maintain the Bicen-t-ennial exhibit, or all of it ?

Mr. Blitzer. This year we are spending $158,000 of Bicentennial appropriations just for those two exhibits. Actually, it will cost a little less.

Mr. Yates. You are converting 23,000 square feet of storage space to new exhibit areas. "V^^iat are you going to do with the things that have to be stored ?

Mr. Blitzer. We are moving some of them to Suitland.

Mr. Yates. Has the Suitland facility been built?

IMr. Blitzer. There are those Butler buildings out there.

Mv. Ripley. I think many of these are objects that are now on exhibit.

Mr. Blitzer. That probably is true.

collections acquisition funds

Mr. Yates. And you Want $150,000 for collections acquisitions, $50,-000 each for tlie National Collection of Fine, Arts, the National Portrait Galleiy, and the Hirshhorn Museum. AVliat happens to Freer?

Mr. Blitzer. The Freer has a substantial amount from its own endowment.

Mr. Yates. Does it have as much as $50,000 ?

:Mr. Blitzer. On the order of $300,000 a year.

Mr. Yates. Has Mr. Hii-shhorn heard about that ?

Mr. Ripley. He had to throw in his endowment funds for the construction of the building because of the gap between the increased costs that hit it right in the middle of the inflation.

structural condition of the hirshhorn museum building

Mr. Yates. Speaking of gaps at the Hirshhorn, we received a letter from Mr. Simmons, talking about serious structural faults in the Hirshhorn Museum building. Is that true ?

He says this:

It is noted the construction was completed only 3 years ago. The Piracci Construction Co. was granted the construction contract in highly irregular circumstances and over the protest of professional groups when the contract was given.

and so forth and so on.

Now, in other words he claims for various reasons Piracci shouldn't have been given the contract. He has a very intricate picture here which shows that the piers are cracked, there are radial cracks in the coffered ceilings, there are cracks in the ceilings, rusty water leaks and so forth in the roof.

Mr. Blitzer. Mr. Chairman, let me say I am aware of no serious structural—I underline serious and structural—problems in the Hirshhorn Museum.

I would be grateful if the committee could share this information with us.

Mr. Ripley. Mr. Ault is the construction man.

Mr. Yates. Mr. Ault, tell us about this:

"(«) Radial cracks have appeared throughout the coffered ceilings in the public galleries of both the second and third floors. These long, deep cracks all radiate outward from the hypothetical center of the building, jumping and continuing from coffer to coffer, indicating a generalized deterioration of the structure. In gallery No. 204, second floor, for example, the cracks are so wide that parts of the ceiling appear ready to fall. Because of the public-safety factor, it may be soon necessary to close these galleries until repairs can be completed.

"(&) In gallery No. 206, second floor, rusty water has been seeping in to drip on the carpet under a painting by Philip Pearlstein. Further serious seepage has appeared in other parts of the building.

"(c) On the outer surface of the building, rust and a white substance has been leaching out from the mortar. Holes have been drilled here and there in the mortar to try to relieve this problem. This rust can only be coming from oxidizing reinforcement steel or from the pins holding the granite-chip-concrete-aggregate facing in place. In any case, the symptoms indicate that extensive repairs are necessary.

"(<^) Some or all of the above seepage conditions are apparently caused by the porous quality of the concrete building itself. It is said that a consulting engineer has been hired by the Smithsonian to study the problem and recommend a solution."

Is that true?

Mr. Ault. That is correct. The latter part. I don't know Mr. Simons' qualifications as an engineer.

Mr. Yates, "(e) Shrinkage cracks around the lower edge of the building and vertical cracks in all of the four piers that hold up the main part of the structure are indications of the original sloppiness of construction by Piracci Construction Co. of Baltimore."

Now, tell us, what is the condition of the building? Has the contractor been discharged yet ?

Mr. Ault. The contractor has not been discharged and GSA is studying the extent to which any flaws in the construction remain the legal responsibility of the contractor. The contract was administered by the GSA, actually supervised by the GSA construction people. We are following up with the defects that develop in this new building, as they develop in any new building, Mr. Chairman, We are certainly not persuaded at this juncture that any of these defects are of a nature that would endanger the public, or we wouldn't for a moment leave the building open to the public or the staff.

Mr. Yates. GSA is the party that made the contract in the first instance. "\Anio made the contract with Piracci ?

Mr. Ault. GSA.

Mr. Yates. What about his statements about the defects in the building ? Are you saying that they are not abnormal in now buildings of this type ?

Mr. Ault. Some of these are abnormal in the sense that they are unusual. This particular building has a vei'y unusual desigTi, as you are aware, sir. We have indeed suffered some leaking. It does mar the external surface of the buildinsr.

We are still in the process of adjusting and so-called trimming the heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning systems in the building to achieve proper balance.

But, I am not aware of any defects that are of such a serious nature as would be implied in this letter,

Mr. Yates. Would you know about them if they were there?

Mr. AuLT. I am sure they would be called to the attention of our staff by our own licensed, professional engineer.

Mr. Yates. Would you personally take a look at the building, and let the committee have a report ?

Mr. AuLT. I will do so, sir.

Mr. Yates. I think you ought to let us know, too, what the cost of fixing any defects in the building might be.

[The information follows:]

Response to Inquiry on Stbuctubal Condition of the Hibshhobn Museum

AND SCULPTUEE GaEDEN

In response to the inquiry by Mr. Robert H. Simmons in his memorandum dated April 27, 1977, to Congressman Yates, the following comments are made, in the order of the questions given on page 1.

1. When will repairs on the Hirshhom Museum building be started and when finished?

The Smithsonian Institution's professional architectural and engineering staff is currently conducting a thorough investigation into the cracking and leaking problems in order to determine the extent of actions to be taken. Once we have determined the appropriate remedial action, a schedule will be established for any corrective work. It should be noted that there is no danger of structural failure of the building. If at any time we believe that there is such a danger, the building will be immediately closed to the public and staff. The items noted by Mr. Simmons appear to be more superficial than structural.

2. What is the estimated cost of these repairs?

The estimated cost of these repairs will be available upon completion of our investigation.

3. Are these costs to be found in the Smithsonian fiscal year 1978 budget?

These costs are not specified in the Institution's fiscal year 1978 budget request, pending completion of the investigation and assessment of the responsibility of the contractor for any repairs that may be necessary.

4. Will the Smithsonian Institution hold the Piracci Construction Co. responsible for the costs?

If upon conclusion of our investigation we believe that all or some of the problems result from workmanship performed by the Piracci Construction Co., the Smithsonian Institution will request the contracting oflScer at GSA to assess appropriate liability.

Are repairs covered by insurance?

The contracting ofllcer at GSA is responsbile for the determination of whether repairs are covered by insurance.

5. Has a consulting engineer been hired to explore and recommend in these problems?

In view of the fact that professional architectural and engineering personnel in the Institution's OflBce of Facilities Plannnig and Engineering Services are carefully examining the Hirshhom building, a consulting engineer has not been hired.

COLLECTIONS ACQUISITION

:Mr. Yates. Mv. Blitzer, what are you able to buy for $150,000? Mr. Blitzer. I am tempted to say'a lot of small pictures or one big one. Mr. Yates. Or a giraffe. What did you buy last year?

Mr. Blitzer. I can give you this museum by museum.

Mr. Yates. Sure. Each of the museums received a $50,000 increase.

Mr. Blitzer. A $50,000 increase. Last year the National Collection of Fine Arts had a total of $100,000. With the increase of $50,000 in fiscal year 1977, they have $150,000.

Among other things they bought a pair of portraits by Ralph Earle, early American portraits, for $55,000.

Mr. Yates. This is the National Gallery ?

Mr. Bltizer. National Collection of. Fine Arts.

I can supply a list.

Mr. Yates. For each of them, would you put a list of the acquisitions and the cost in the record. If it is convenient, also from whom they bought it.

Mr. Blitzer. Certainly.

[The information follows:]

o o u rt

E -a (u lu ni

E rt o « (U

t-iojujOOwr-40CJcou. lUtJuia: ^ ■X i^

OOOOOOLOOOOO

oooin ooooooooooo ooor^ to-^^OLOmoLrjOLOLnt^

S^-

•H O O

u<w<<cQco<oaoo

M ^ .„.„„„„

CUrtO X>s04J4->

rHXrHCCf-'HCWtn

c; u u o (U ca cd

t^ .r-t i_l -l-l Tt -p-l 1^ »i/ uj (J VJ tU iU

<0<S oSua.CL<<G.a.

■^5 -

«Q X OC E f* C

X3 <U 3 0)

•H ^

0£Of-i-l-'CC " 3«f-in!4-i<c8c ^3tS'HO (-•3 oaascjc_)tjT3u.3;

3 p. J^ -H

a> -H r-t J-. ^ Cd 4->

•a ^ .-H !-i V. e -H

C fH (U o O O 3

o o o o o o o o o o

ooooo unoo o OLniDin ooooo i^LOLo o or^ocM

lOCriOOOLT) OJCM I— CM CMCSi

O O If) IT) o

o o o LO r~. o o o Lfi I— in LTi LD «=r Ln ro i— ^o

0) ID O ID ID

■!-> C U C C ID O S- O O

•r- •!- ID •.- •!-E O 3 O O

1. S O) CD C Ol

Ol CD C C •■- C

O o •■- -r- +-> •!-

.C .C -C JZ ID JC

+-> +J O O 3 O

•I -r +J +J cr +->

1— 1— 01 01 ID 01

•-,— {/>

O -r- +-> >- 4J ID r— C CQ O -r-

ct(4- id cn

r— in S- I—

OOJOO OO QJ 013T3 COJO

XlinjQ-i-0J(_)'-3 E X r— (11T30

3333C 4-> OEOT3-QO

X10T3 •i-T3S--4-'in+->iniO S_OIO-X

3X3>,QS-OJS-S-l-3-i-iniOT-Oa-^"OeCS- iDO-OJOOJlOi— 0JX:C3 OJ

o s-E3i'i-C)a:-QQ:r— rDu oiin

■(-> -l-> 4-J (/) t/1 (/)

CO t/1 (/) (U (U O)

-l-> '!-> 4-> Q. S_ S- S-

S-S-S_0 '—• <U<UQ)

lO t/1 to (/I t/) +-> -l-> +-> ■•-> O) t/) CO to V>

r- > Oi— <— r-

<—.— ■—>,>, >>r- < cl et ct

S- S- S- O

<u a> <u -c >, (o o E E E u S- N J-

O 'r- <o to m ^ _ _-_ JD 5tJ3CDt3i— r-i—t3

• s- <u <u c

-njioiai-EEEE'OLi-'OO-

jcst3tsio<:<:<<:^ ts

(J CO S- S-

■o Q- U- U-

O O O S-

I— U)

•r- CO VI CO O

3 «i: <t «c q:

(u <u

E ■—

a)<U<U30000-i J3 >-i

CCCrD01l«tOCO>El-<U

/•as-s-S-333S-cnioi/icoio<u<o.E: ' ca: ^ ^ ^-o-D o ^ <S ■« < ■« o "-o 3: I— I

o o o o o o o o

oooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooo

o o o LO csj o o r^

ooocOLoiDLnocni

I o o o o en

Oi->- 3 en

O O (J O •!-

Q. Q. a. en iDiS32siIcno-. Q-S-

O O (T5

_ cncc-,_._._.- ___

■.-s-s-s-c->--i--i-'Ooo<aouo 3 o o o^^x: ox:^^ S--0-OX)

(Or— I— (— •!-> U U C4->+->+J OlO O O S-0OO-i--t->-l->0 •■-•>-•.- E ooo Ur-OIOJE'— >—•— iUSS3

(J C C -l-J ■

fO 4-) •(- •(- .,-

3 O) O E E

N S- .—

r— •.- ce

0) C/1 o o

•r- lO S- ■1-'

I— <u <u o

•I- Ok J3 <_)

x: trt 3 -c

O >,>,4J+J+J OOCO

"- S-J3-Q COO s->,q;

3 OJCC <US-S-(U'>-iD->-

O 0>S-!-Ci<iCCt-Q.E>

Nccccoolo tuaiajiQion] iOioio<o<03:Dror-cncT>>x;i— o

1 0:0:0: S-S-(/)<U33o: OS-

:co u(U(i)3 -0^3

•i-(U<i)a><o+-'-i->cj>;S3>— •■-•i-x: :3ccciowwx:<joo3>'*--i-> ioccctn<ua)00-i->4-''0'a3S-1—j«i:<:«a:>-i_i_i'-Do:(/)ooQ.occ:et

<u I— +J +J

I S- CO I— to (/)

j«: OI 3 <u -r- -1-

<j ■— n3 CO +J 4-> 3

•I- I— ^ c s. s. o

a:--- *-> OlctetQ s.

s: •■- CO Q)

E a> c c CO E 10 >,_i <u 3 3 3 I—

•r- J3 en O O ■!-> 10

1— <oj<:s-cci/)a-I— s. o ^ ^ <o

•1- 10 <U E C S-

3 S tD ZD ZD LU

<a c c c c s-

s- o) QJ OJ OJ a^

•r- -r- •!- (O

> O XJ -O -D -O J=

• ■— .i2 O O O O -4-)

) O C O O O O -r-

) U •.- 3 3 S S .—

O -^ •!- -r-

OJ o o -M jx:

U Q- O T- 3 LlJ LjJ

flji— r— XI X3O0JLI +JOJtO(/10JS COJ

1/1 S- ■ -■ _...-.-._---. -

to (O

cus-a>0)xjxiio

OJ to —

E +-> CO

OJ tOOO C-r-i— ^

lO

Q. Q.I— I— s-cjicojx:c/)„^^ — .V. I—■— ojt— x:cjis-Lo4-> toooioxis-(Oio-D-i-ooJOJOto s-.cx:loi— OJ o^ en >-> s o.S'-oi^ C31—I—«a:ctC3

zr 't- CQ ^ I— S S-

OJ i- u OJ

uix:4->-DaiOJ Xr—

iOOS-1— OlE CO

— OJ to CD O Ll_ O

QJ

87-564 O - 77 - 45

s- >, >, ai <u

cC S- 01 cs I- T-

<u ■— I—

■O 1— Q- O OO Ol •■-

o. >-•>-•

o o o o o-i moo o cvj o

V£> VO LO r^ »— CM

> I— s-

: lo <u • +J +->

"0 iM -a c o s-

lO o > O-

o o n3 ro

3 s- s-

.— 1— +J

•r- O •>-

O O c—

n p; R

o

o o -n o

ta

£ ■" £ j^ t^

fi '^ Ji <o <fl

w , CO O

•«J fe 4J (U -M

fi ^ R 5 B

.•1 — .rt Z -i-l

u ^ u ^ u

a

-O >H T3 O T3

O O

i; ^ 3 2 :§ W O O

H O

O O O

"o U

o

o O

^, (4 h ^ h w

0) (u (u (u <u ;? rt rt ^ ^ rt ^

f^ h ^4 fH h

fi J<!

p. eg o ^

fi CO

M ^

o o

3

01 O to

ooininoooinoo oo-*-<^ooooocno o in in M nO in

uu™oooooo o o ciobOT] boQoeobo&obo

0 o o o o X '^ '^ X. '^ o. o o o o n) (d (4 oj cd ;h ^ h h h bO 60 bo 60 00

a a m (d

i^ W

« cq

-S fi

o2

:3 «

'^H 3 2

Ph u5

U o

•5 -^ S3 a o cS

W W rt I-,

< ^ ^ CIh H rt

?: -5

Z O

>^ o

m jj

-H(Njfo-^invor-coo^o

^ s

« (U

'^ S rt O

-a ^

^ ^ ^ ■"

jl^ U M M ir fcT -r- iw

o o

i< X

C "ifl

c ^

^ -^ u o u

^ ^ S tn O

00 <n bC 0)

J^ °

nl o (Q

O ^

(0 nj i-i

r_i (sj m -nt in vo r-^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^t '*•

* h

" rj CO -^ in

I

^ o o 2

O

c m

CD f^

w "^ r^ «i

>, &c >- r;-

oooooooo o ooinooinoo o OOvOroOrJOr —t

- ^

O n 59

x: u o

.t: . CO

° «

5 K

6 S

a >i

^ <U CO Q ^ CO

2; c

5 nJ

-° r^J ■^'

i^ Pk

^ o

3 f

u -a 3 o

CN) ro Tt< in vo r- 00

EXHIBinON OF HIRSHHORN MUSEUM AGQUISmONS

Mr. BiJTZER. I hope sometime, Mr. Chairman, you will have a chance to see the exhibition now at the Hirshhorn Museum of acquisitions of the museum since it was opened, both by gift and purchase, Federal and private.

Mr. Yates. I wasn't aware of the new show.

Mr. Blitzer. It is very impressive. The critics in Washington liked it very much and spoke particularly of the things that have been purchased.

Mr. Yates. How about the New York critics ?

Mr. Blitzer. I don't recall a review by the New York critics.

ACQUISITION BUDGETS OF BRITISH MUSEUMS

Mr. Yates. You feel the funding is adequate ?

Mr. Blitzer. No, sir.

Mr. Yates. What do you think is adequate ?

Mr. Blitzer. I beg your pardon ?

Mr. Yates. A tough question is how much do you think is adequate. Let the record show he gasped.

Mr. Blitzer. That was a sigh, Mr. Chairman. I really don't know what to say. I have some comparative figures, if they would be of interest to you.

Mr. Yates. Compared with what ?

Mr. Blitzer. Last year I gave the amounts given by the British Government to its national museums.

Mr. Yates. That would be interesting.

Mr, Blitzer. This is simply for acquisitions. The National Gallery had $1.7 million. The Tate Gallery, $975,000. The Victoria and Albert Museum, $557,000. The British Museum, not counting the library, $496,000, the National Galleries of Scotl and, $496,000.

Mr. Yates. Would your records indicate whether they received an amount of this size annually, or was this just 1 year ?

Mr. Blitzer. We supplied similar figures last year, and they were substantially the same.

Mr. Yates. Would you do the committee a favor and find out what the figures are for the last 5 years, if that is convenient ?

Mr. Blitzer. Certainly.

[The information follows:]

Acquisition Funds of British Museums

Using the current exchange rate of $1.71 per Pound Sterling, previous year acquisition figures for which we have published estimates are as follows:

ACQUISITION FUNDS OF MUSEUMS IN FRANCE OR GERMANY

Mr. Yates. Would you have any j&gures respecting France or Germany ?

Mr. Blitzer. I am afraid I don't.

Mr. EiPLEY. Vie could easily get them. I just was told in a letter from Paris yesterday that it is proposed to subsidize the Museum of Natural History in Paris, including an acquisition fund, to the tune of $30 million. I haven't got a breakdown of how much is for acquisition, but I would assmne being natural history, the acquisition fund would be relatively small.

INIr. Yates. How are they providing for their new gallery in Paris ?

Mr. Ripley. That has a contemporaiy art museum in it, as well as other things, which make it more Kennedy Center-like, with activities going on as well as the gallery. It would be very interesting to find that, and we can provide that.

I am sure that they are applying major Government funds for acquisitions because they feel very competitive about this now, on account of the relatively paramount position of the museums in New York, particularly.

[The information follows:]

Acquisition Funds for Fkench National Museums

The expenditures for acquisitions by the French National Museums in 1975 (the latest year for which we have figures) totaled $1,626,875, based on the current exchange rate of 4.80 francs per dollar. For the new Georges Pompidou Center in Paris, using the same exchange rate, the expenditures for this year are estimated to be $1,583,333.

THE Smithsonian's relationship to the national gallery of art

Mr. Yates. You don't ask for any acquisition funds for the Mellon Gallery.

Mr. Ripley. No ; that is under their budget. If they do, that would be up to them.

Mr. Yates. I thought they were part of the Smithsonian.

Mr. Ripley. They are an independent bureau of the Smithsonian.

Mr. Yates. "\^'^Iich is an independent organization.

ACQUISITIONS BY PRIVATE DONATION

Mr. Blitzer. May I add also one further thing, Mr. Chainnan. Although an individual year may be idiosyncratic, I think if one looked at any 2- or 8-year period in the history of any of our art museums, the amount of acquisitions b}^ private donation would be at least as large, and I suspect larger, than the amount by Federal appropriation.

Mr. Yates. "Would you also place in the record, Mr. Blitzer, a list of the gifts that your museum has received, say over the last year. I don't think I asked you this question last year. But if I did or didn't, would you make sure that we have that information ?

Mr. Blttzek. I would be happy to.

[The information follows:]

Gifts Received by the National Collection of Fine Arts Fiscal Year 1975 and Transition Quarter

Artist

Jonathaan Meader Jonathaan Meader

Ibram Lassaw

Ralph Earl

Ralph Earl

01 in Levi Warner

01 in Levi Warner

01 in Levi Warner (attrib.)

01 in Levi Warner

Preusker Preusker Preusker

Preusker Cy Twombly Stephen Greene Emil Weddige Emil Weddige Olivia C. Starring Susan Kaprov Currier & Ives Jacob Kainen Jacob Kainen Jacob Kainen Jacob Kainen Jacob Kainen

John Rogers

Joseph Wright

H. Siddons Mowbray

H. Siddons Mowbray

Henry Benbridge (attrib.)

Unidentified Artist

(style of James Peale) Tom Wesselman Leonard Baskin Harold Altman Martin Lewis Robert Burkert Robert Gates Hedda Sterne

Ernest Leonard Blumenschein Ernest Leonard Blumenschein William H. Johnson Charles S. Chapman Oronzio Malderelli Oronzio Malderelli Oronzio Malderelli Oronzio Malderelli Milton Horn Alma Thomas Alma Thomas Alma Thomas Frank von der Lancken Frank von der Lancken

Enrico Clickenstein Enrico Clickenstein

Title of Work

Bear

Twelve preliminary drawings and

working proofs for print

Banquet

Portrait of Mary W. Alsop

Portrait of Hannah G. Wright

sketchbook

Dr. Eugene Martinache

Untitled

Untitled (after German drawing

litho Bossig Ruine) Bossig Ruine Aus dem Riesengebirge Die Sorbenburq nebst dem Schlos -

schen zu Schloss Hinterglauchau Untitled

Study of a Creche Figure Front Field Still Life with Lemon Hudson River at West Point Self-Portrait

Great East River Suspension Bridge Flagman I Advance Man Observer XV Nazarene I

Nazarene II

Why Don't You Speak for Yourself, John

Portrait of General'Giles

The Flight Into Egypt

The Magi

Peter de Vaux

Archibald Bulloch

Orange and Radio

The Tormented Man

Couple

Dock Workers

Male Torso

Untitled

Cauliflower

The Burro

The Gift

P ortrait of Ilya Bolotowsky

Forest Primeval

Redding Centre, Connecticut

Landscape, Redding Centre

Sketch of Tasha Tudor

Untitled

Job

Grey Night Phenomenon

Wind and Crepe

Myrtle Concerto

The Sisters

Defense Self-Portrait

Med i um serigraph

bronze

oil on canvas

oil on canvas

drawings

drawing

drawing

drawing

lithograph lithograph lithograph

lithograph

intaglio

drawing

1ithograph

lithograph

watercolor

color xerox print

chromolithograph

oil wash, crayon, pen

oil wash and crayon

oil wash and crayon

oil wash and crayon

oil wash and crayon

plaster

oil on canvas

oil on canvas

oil on canvas

oil on canvas

watercolor on ivory

intaglio and pencil

woodcut

lithograph

etching

drawing

drawing

acrylic on canvas

oil on ocinvas

oil on canvas

oil on canvas

oil on canvas

oil on canvas

oil on canvas

oil on canvas

pastel on paper

bronze

acrylic on canvas

acrylic on canvas

acrylic on canvas

oil on canvas

oil on canvas on

fiberboard wood pen and brush on paper

Artist

Title of Work

Medium

Fred McLain Hobard Nichols Unidentified Artist Mong Q. Lee Matilda Schmahl

Keith Achepohl Keith Achephol Keith Achephol Keith Achephol Keith Achephol Louis Eilshemius Ruger Donoho Werner Drewes Sam Gilliam Louis Lozowick Emilio Cruz Ethel Mars George von Physter Thomas O'Donohue Cynthia Knapton Nicholas Marsicano Larry Rivers Jacob Kainen Jacob Kainen Jacob Kainen Jacob Kainen Jacob Kainen Jacob Kainen Jacob Kainen John Sartain

Kerr Eby

Richard Anuszkewicz Ralph Barton Ralph Barton Ralph Barton

Ernest D. Roth Ernest D. Roth Joseph S. Murray Joseph S. Murray Joseph S. Murray . Clark Fay Clark Fay Clark Fay Clark Fay Clark Fay YaSuo Kuniyoshi Glenn 0. Coleman Unidentified Artist Walter Sauer Herbert W. Faulkner Pietro Lazzari Elihu Vedder Max Bohm Daniel Kotz Daniel Kotz Herman Herzog Unidentified Artist

Unidentified Artist Unidentified Artist

The Old Homestead

Across the Valley

(Girl on a Hassock)

Evening by the Sea Shore

The Signers of the Declaration

of Independence States of Mind I States of Mind II

States of Mind III

States of Mind IV

States of Mind VI

Rose Marie

Shepherd

In the Blue Space

Wissahickson

Distilled Fire II

Untitled (reclining nude)

For the Pleasure of Fashion

Hot Spots

Standard Bearer

Sheba

Flagman

Hesperus

Power Play

Advance Man

Home on a Furlough

various titles

various titles

Untitled

Untitled

Plan des Paris Monumental

Old Florence

Arno—Florence

Untitled

Untitled

Untitled

Crier at Chantilly

Cirque d'Hiver

La Belle Poule #1

Welcome Bar

14th Street, New York

(poster for 1931 Japanese Exhibition)

Coenties Slip

Lee & Grant at Appomattox

Malkasten 1973

A Window in the Hall

Untitled

(small landscape)

Untitled

(view of a garden)

Untitled

Mill on a Torrent

Portrait of a Man (Judge Thomas

Ewing?) Rachel (Mrs. Davis) Bartholeme w Davis Bartholemew

oil on canvas

oil on canvas

oil on canvas

ink on paper

pen and ink drawing

lithograph lithograph lithograph lithograph lithograph oil on wood oil on canvas oil on canvas serigraph lithograph pastel woodcut lithograph intaglio print intaglio print brush and ink intaglio

color lithograph color lithograph color lithograph color lithograph color lithograph color lithograph color lithograph engraving

32 etchings 9 serigraphs pen & ink drawings pen & ink drawings reproduction of a wash

drawing etching etching drawing drawing drawing lithograph lithograph lithograph lithograph 1ithograph lithograph lithograph ink drawing lithograph watercolor engraving oil on paperboard pencil drawing pastel

pencil drawing oil on canvas watercolor on ivory

oil on panel oil on canvas

Artist

Thomas Buchanan Read Milton Avery Mary Pinchot Meyer Lewis Baltz Lewis Baltz Lewis Baltz Lewis Baltz Maude Gatewood Bob Thompson Doris Rosenthal Doris Rosenthal Doris Rosenthal Doris Rosenthal Doris Rosenthal Doris Rosenthal Paul Sample Sidney E. Dickinson Clarence Schmidt Albert Christ-Janner John Randolph Carter Martyl

Alan Fenton Alan Fenton

Alan Fenton Alan Fenton Paul Reed Paul Reed

Cady Wells Cady Wells Cady Wells Cady Hells Cady Wells Louis Orr Grace Albee

Brian Halsey Brian Halsey Brian Halsey Brian Halsey Brian Halsey Terry Parmelee Werner Drewes Domjan Domjan Domjan Domjan Domjan Domjan Domjan

Lowell Nesbitt Lowell Nesbitt Nancy Graves Maude Gatewood John Sartain Rhoda Sherbew Henry G. Keller Philip Kappel

Artist

LeRoy D. Saver Henry Farrer S. Fisher Robert W. Weir Robert W. Weir David von Schlegell Bernard Solomon Robert Loftin Newman

Title of Work

Dayton Art Institute

Untitled (landscapeT

View of Baltimore

Foraging

Thomas Hamilton

Landscape

Words & Forms (portfolio of 10)

Flight into Egypt

Medium

etching

etching

mezzotint

lithograph

engraving

drawing

print

painting

Gifts Received by the National Portrait Gallery Fiscal Yeai: 1976 and Transition Quarter

FISCAL YEAR 1976

TRANSITION QUARTER, JULY-SEPT. 1976

None

Gifts Received by the Hirshhom Museum Fiscal Year 1976 anf Transition Quarter

Artist

Adams, Pat Ault, George Bohm, Max Brenner, Michael Brodie, Gandy Brodie, Gandy Caro, Anthony Coleman, Glenn

Coronel, Rafael Covert, John Cruz, Emilio Cummings, E. E. Ciunmings, E. E. Cummings, E. E, Cummings, E. E. Davis, Gene Davis, Gene De Niro, Robert Frank, Mary Gaylor, Wood Griefen, John Hartl, Leon Hartl, Leon Hine, Lewis Jacoisi, Lotte Kamihlra, Ben Mitchell, Joan Park, David Schwedler, William Storel, Sergio Strider, Marjorie Thomas, Alma Weber, Max

Title

Again of

View from My Window

Heavy Sea off Brittany

Portrait of an Adolescent

Birches in Snow

Buttercups and Daisies

Veduggio Glimmer

(8) Scenes from the Lives

of the People (Untitled)

Portrait Sketch of a Youth Untitled I Still Life

(5) ( Untitled ) paintings (3) ( Untitled ) drawings (58) ( Untitled ) drawings Untitled Untitled Seated Nude Untitled Two Women

Basket of Roses and Lilacs

Still Life

(2) ( Untitled ) photographs

Abraham V/alkowitz

Standing Female Nude

Field for Skyes

Nude—Green

Both Sides of the Fence

Nucleus

Sky Light Still Life

Medium

Gouache

Watercolor

Oil

Marble

Gouache

Oil

Steel

Carbon Prints

Oil

Oil

Ink

Oil

Watercolor

Ink

Pencil

Silkscreen

Lithograph

Bronze

Ink

Watercolor

Acrylic

Watercolor

Oil

Photograph

Photograph

Lithograph

Oil

Oil

Oil

Pen & Ink

Pencil

Acrylic

Oil

ACXiUISmONS BUDGET OF THE NATIONAL GALLERY OF ART

Mr. Yates. Do you have any idea as tx> how much the National Gallery spends for acquisitions?

Mr. BLrrzER. No, sir.

Mr. Ripley. Oh, yes.

Mr. Blitzer. I don't.

Mr. Ripley. Roughly. I am a trustee, as you know, of the National Gallery.

Mr. Yates. I saw your name in that report.

Mr. Ripley. Yes; of course, this varies each year very much, depending on accessibility of anything to buy. I think you perhaps asked this question of the Gallery.

Mr. Yates. I never asked Carter Brown this question. Perhaps I should have.

Mr. RrpLEY. Yes.

Mr. Yates. You are shaking your head very vigorously. What are you trying to say—^that they have a large fund for acquisition?

Mr. Ripley. They do have. They have the Andrew Mellon Endowment Fund, and they have accessory funds, the income of which normally is used to acquire paintings.

On account of the stress of the budget of the new building, they are putting in escrow some of these purchase funds for the time being, presumably to help to pay the costs of some of the construction.

Mr. Yates. How are they going to provide for the walls in that museum ?

Mr. Ripley. The cracks in the walls?

Mr. Yates. No; the pictures that hang on the walls. They are going to have big bare walls. Presumably it is to be a museum of contemporary art.

Mr. Ripley. There are three museums—^the three towers you see poking up there. They are individual museums, with small intimate galleries in them. Then there is a large flow-through space on the ground floor, and on a level above, with large overhead bridges, like passways and surrounding the planted parts. They will have presumably major classical contemporary objects in them. We define them now as classical contemporary objects.

Mr. Yates. "What time period ?

Mr. RrPLEY. The Dale collection, of course, is in the main building, but we could go into C alder.

Mr. Yates. That is 20th century ?

Mr. Ripley. Yes; 20th century art. We have recently bought a very important Jackson Pollock, one of the last very large ones.

Mr. Yates. Did you spend as much as Australia for it?

Mr. Ripley. Yes; approximately.

Mr. Yates. $2 million.

Mr. Ripley. I forget whether it was $2 million or $1 million.

Mr, Yates. There is a difference.

Mr. Ripley, There is a difference. My mind boggles at these prices myself because I used to know Pollock, and you know they were $300 if he was lucky.

Mr. Yates. I wish I had known him.

ACXJUISinON FUNDS OF OTHER MUSEUMS

Mr, Blitzer. I did not know about the National Gallery of Art. I am told the Metropolitan Museum, for example, in 1976 spent about $4.8 million for acquisitions.

Mr. Yates. $4.8 million.

Mr. Blitzer. That is what I have been told. For comparative purposes, perhaps, the Federal appropriation for acquisitions for the Hirshhorn Museum is about the same as that of the Memorial Art Gallery of the University of Rochester.

ACQUISITIONS NOT MADE

One further thing, Mr. Chairman. I just point out that at your request, I believe last year, we have included in the justification materials some instances of things the various museums would have liked to purchase and were unable to. You will find those under the separate bureaus.

Mr. Yates. What page is that ?

Mr. Blitzer. For example, A-38, for the National Portrait Gallery. I think there is a similar one for the National Collection of Fine Arts.

Mr. Yates. Two important miniatures by Charles "\Yillson Peale of 1776, and an unusually fine painting by Asher Brown Durand.

COMPETITION FOR COLLECTIONS

You know, you talk about the acquisitions by the National Collection of Fine Arts. Is the National Collection competing with the National Portrait Gallery for works ?

INIr. RiPLET. No. Examples of particular artists lacking in the collection—there may be a painting that is a portrait of someone, but not a portrait of a figure of sufficient importance to rank as an acquisition.

Mr. Blitzer. Sometimes it is a rather delicate matter, when someone wants to give us a portrait by a first-rate artist for the Portrait Gallery, to have to tell the owner his ancestor is not worthy of being in the National Portrait Gallery, but we would like to have it as an example of a Peale portrait. We have had to do that.

Mr. Ripley. And we have to act like the judgment of Solomon sometimes because they will give us a portrait of General Blank, who belongs in the National Portrait Gallery, and his wife, who does not.

CONSERVATION BACKLOG

Mr. Yates. You are requesting $25,000 for conservation. There you indicate long neglected major works of art are not being rehabilitated. Do you have a backlog ?

Mr. Blitzer. Very much so, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Yates. How much of a backlog ?

Mr. Blptzer. There are some figures on A-36. Are we talking about tlie National Collection of Fine Arts ?

Mr Yates. I assume we are talking about all of them. Do you want to talk about the National Collection of Fine Arts first? A collection ot more than 11,000 works on paper, approximately 85 percent of

which need restoration as well as two painting and sculpture conservators. You are asking for $25,000.

Mr. Blitzer. Pathetic.

Mr. Yates. That is right. Is there a further deterioration if they are not restored or is it a process that just stops ?

Mr. Blitzer. These things now for the first time are stored under proper conditions, not subject to the kind of deterioration we are trying to catch up with here.

As you know, it was not until 1968 that the National Collection of Fine Arts had a home of its own. I think there is some deterioration. I believe that the staff tries to catch the dangerous things immediately, and then spend its time

COST TO RESTORE NATIONAL COLLECTIONS

Mr. Yates. Should all of that be restored ? Are they all that good ? Wliy don't you find out what you have to do and let us know ? How much money do you need for this total job ?

Mr. Blitzer. The entire job ?

Mr. Yates. Yes.

Mr. Blitzer. Perhaps Mr. Perrot would have a guess.

Mr. Perrot. Mr. Chairman, some years ago we estimated there were approximately 13,000 staff-years of restoration work that needed to be done to the national collections.

Mr. Yates. All the collections ?

Mr. Perrot. This is reaching to the ideal. But we have certainly hundreds of staff-years of work that is of fairly urgent character.

Mr. Yates. You are asking for $25,000. Wliat is a reasonable amount to ask for, in view of the fact that you have this huge backlog ?

Mr. Perrot. I might refer not to the Institution's problem, but to a national problem. A National Conservation Advisory Council was established in 1973 and is funded by the National Museum Act. It was created precisely to assess what the national needs are in conservation. They are staggering.

Mr. Yates. Have they reported ?

Mr. Perrot. There have been preliminary reports, sir, and I have one with me I would be delighted to give you. Additional reports will be off the press within the coming weeks and months.

Mr. Yates. I think we ought to know what the condition of our art is. We are certainly expanding our museums. We want to save these works of art for posterity and for oui^selves. What is the cost ? If you say hundreds of years, how do you translate that into dollars?

Mr. Perrot. Sir, significant progress has been made in our major museums, as well as in the Conservation Analytical Laboratory. We are hopeful that with Museum Support Center—and this anticipates later testimony—^that we will be able to provide facilities for doing work, training opportunities for members of our existing staff and some additional personnel. We also hope to teach some aspects of con-sei*vation to others. A'SHiile teaching is being done, some valuable work can be carried out on the national collections.

Mr. Yates. Are we talking about only the three museums—the National Collection of Fine Arts, the Portrait Gallery and the Hirsh-hom?

Mr. Perrot. I am including also the collections in the Museum of Natural History, of anthropology^, archeology, and ethnography. And also the ones at the Museum of History and Technology.

CONSERVATION NEEDS OF SMriHSONIAN HISTORY AND ART MUSEUMS

Mr. Yates. Let's keep with Mr. Blitzer for a minute and his three main museums. Do you have an idea as to how much he has to spend for bringing his collections into shape ?

Mr. Perrot. At the present moment I would not be able to answer that.

Mr. Yates. Is that a part of that report ?

Mr. Perrot. Not at the present time, but we will be able to report on this.

Mr. Yates. Obviously $25,000 is not enough, is it?

Mr. Perrot. This is in addition to funds already expended for conservation purposes.

Mr. Yates. How much is spent for conservation now in your three museums ?

Mr. Blitzer. I would have to supply that.

ISIr. Yates. How many museums do you have ? You have history and technology, the three art museums. You have Cooper-Hewitt in New York. Freer does not have a backlog, does it ? It has its own conservation department.

Mr. Blitzer. It has a first-rate consei^ation department. I cannot tell you there are not works that need conservation. I suspect there are.

Mr. Yates. When you talk about the works that need conservation, what are you including—what museums? You are not including Freer then because Freer is not listed in this justification, right?

Mr. Blitzer. The $25,000 request was simply for the National Collection of Fine Arts.

Mr. Yates. How much do jou need for the other two ?

Mr. Blitzer. I would have to talk to the directors.

Mr. Yates. A^Tiy do you ask money for the National Collection of Fine Arts and not the other two ?

Mr. Blitzer. I suspect it is the largest problem.

Mr. Yates. Hirshhorn probably doesn't have a problem, does it ?

Mr. Blitzer. Much less.

Mr. Yates. Because it is a new museum, and Mr. Hirshhorn, I am sure, made sure that his art objects were in good shape when he gave them to the Government.

Mr. Blitzer. Over some protests, we spent a considerable amount of money in the years when the museum was being built in caring for that collection.

Mr. Yates. What about the Portrait Gallery ?

Mr. Blitzer. Its collection is miniscule compared witli the collections of these otlier museums, again, because it is a new museum,

Mr. Yates. I think the best way to handle this is to have a report, as soon as you get it, Mr. Perrot, of all the restoration.

FUNDS IN BASE FOR CONSERVATION

Mr. Ripley. Mr. Yellin has some figures on our base analysis for conservation.

Mr. Yellin. Mr. Chairman, in 1977 we have approximately $1 million in our base for conservation. f IV ' ' ^' ,

Mr. Yates. For all your museums ? 6. s" Pn^y" '^

Mr. Yellin. That is right, including the Conservation Analytical Laboratory.

Mr. Yates. That is for Mr. Perrot.

Mr. Ripley. That includes liis programs, yes.

Mr. Yates. But he conserves everything, doesn't he ? Don't you conserve everything ?

Mr. Perrot. If I might explain the role of the Conservation Analytical Loboratory. It is to provide specialized services to the conservation laboratories of our individual museums. These are primarily concerned with day-to-day maintenance and the kind of restoration that does not require the more sophisticated scientific equipment. CAL is concerned with, to some extent, the basic nature of materials and has a full array of X-ray spectography, neutron activation, and other equipment they use, either independently at the laboratory or in cooperation, for example, with Brookhaven National Laboratories. So, they have access to a whole array of equipment to address specific problems.

scope of conservation needs

Mr. Yates. Why don't you let the committee have a report as soon as it is conveniently possible, of what the scope of your problem is in terms of restoration, and what the cost is likely to be, and separate it out by each of the institutions, and the kind of works that have to be restored.

Can you do that ? It is what you are working on now.

Mr. Perrot. I believe, if you give us the time to develop this—if it is not to be guesswork—we can in the coming weeks develop the information.

Mr. Yates. How much time do you want ?

Mr. Perrot. If we could have a month, I would appreciate it.

Mr. Yates, Take the time you need to do it. I must say, in all honesty, I wasn't really aware of the scope of the problem'.

Mr. Blitzer. It is enormous. If I may complicate things a bit— Mr. Perrot alluded to this—it is not simply a question of money. If j^^ou were to give us $10 million tomorrow, we could not find the people to do the work.

Mr. Yates. Not even by contract ?

Mr. Blitzer. I doubt it.

Mr. Ripley. There are only about 200 first-rate conservators, I believe, in the country.

Mr. Perrot. That is a statistic often quoted. It is not far from the mark.

Mr. Ripley. One of my daughters is training to bo a conservationist. She finds that the competition in these institutions, where they train tliem, is intense. But the job possibilities, once they graduate, are minimal.

Mr. Yates. The job possibilities are minimal, or great?

Mr. Ripley. Minimal, because most of the museums don't really have sufficient funds to be able to develop conservation labs,

Mr. Yates. You mean the museums are not doing the work they should be doing?

Mr. Perkot. The museums do not have the resources to do the work that needs to be done.

Mr. Ripley. For example, I was in Minneapolis on Monday, at the Institute of Arts, and they showed me the conservation lab, which is brand new. They have one man. The problem is that they just received a Flemish painting, which they had purchased, and it arrived with a crack right down the center of it, which is of such magnitude that they are going to have to farm it out to some other institution.

They are going to have to find an institution to which they can farm out this painting. That is a single painting. It happens to be on wood, so that is a very much more serious problem.

requested increase for conservation

Mr. Yates. Let's wait for Mr. Perrot to report then. In the meantime you are asking for $25,000 in addition.

Mr.' Ripley. For tlie NCFA, yes.

Mr. Yates. Yes.

"WTiy didn't you ask for the others and let 0MB knock them out ?

Mr. Ripley. Maybe they did. I don't know.

Mr. Yates. Did you ask for the others ? Wliy did you only ask for the National Collection? Did you happen to see Josh Taylor?

Mr. Blitzer. Mr. Chairman, the origin of these documents is that they arise from the museums which make some kind of judgment about their most urgent needs, and we then

Mr. Yates. You mean IMan-in Sadik didn't tell you that he needed some help on some of these paintings to conserve them ? ^ Mr. Blitzer. The Portrait Gallery I do believe is in much better position because its collection is so small.

Mr. Yates. What about the Hirshhorn ?

Mr. Blitzer. Hirshhorn I think Is in prettv good shape also partly because of the work that was done by the Smithsonian.

Mr. Ripley. We asked OINIB for about an $85,000 increase this year for conservation and we ended up with about $30,000.

national portrait gallery

Mr. Yates. A $20,000 increase is requested for tlie Portrait Gallery to defray shipment costs. Are all costs borne by the exhibiter ?

Mr. Blitzer. "^Yhen we borrow things they are, yes.

Mr. Ripley. Wlien we send things out the normal practice is, of course, they are borne by the person at the other end.

FREER GALLERY OF ART

Mr. Yates. You want $15,000 for the Freer to provide an adequate maintenance standard for oil paintings and the facility. Wliy cannot an organization like Freer absorb the costs ?

Mr. Blitzer. It would be at the expense of something else that they need; $75,000 of their endowment income goes to conservation. This is a special one-time kind of thing in order to put the American paintings in the Freer in better shape.

ARCHIVES or AMERICAN ART

Mr. Yates. I thought they were in good shape. You have requested $60,000 and 2 positions for your Archives of American Art, and you want $21,000 for an area director for the Washington office. Do you really need an area director ?

]\Ir. Blitzer. Given the pattern of the Archives of American Art, Mr. Chairman, it seems like a very sensible and useful thing to be doing.

Mr. Yates. You have a very good record by the Archives now. They have reduced their backlog without a director.

Mr. Blitzer. Excuse me. This is an area director rather than a director of the whole operation. Typically the way the Archives works around the country, and it is very much a national organization, is to have very small offices consisting generally of one person and one helper who are responsible in one case for the west coast, in one case for the middle west, in one case for New England, in one case for New York.

The job of each of those area offices, as distinct from the administrative headquarters, is partly to serve scholars and other users in that area, and partly also to acquire papers. At the moment there is nothing south of New York City and the hope is that without any extra rent or anything, if we can have an area director in the Washington headquarters, that person could cover the Central and Southeastern United States.

COOPER-HEWITT MUSEUM OF DECORATIVE ARTS AND DESIGN

Mr. Yates. There is a statement in your justification about Cooper-Hewitt.

The Smithsonian Institution continues to operate the Cooper-Hewitt Museum on the principle that the program activities of the museum be conducted with trust funds.

What do you mean by "program activities" ? You mean the programs that are for the public ?

Mr. Blitzer. It really means everything other than the upkeep of the property and collections.

Mr. Yates. These are Federal funds. Is there a distinction that ought to be made ?

Mr. Ripley. The regents requested when they directed us to take over the Cooper-Hewitt collections that we attempt to administer programs, the acquisition of property on which the museum was to be situated, and all these attendant costs with trust funds, that is, with funds to l:»e raised by private subscription, or admissions, or whatever miffht occur.

The only Federal funds that we have asked for permission to allot to the museum have be^n for maintenance, security, and curatorial conservation purposes; practically no curatorial purposes—I think only

one curator, on detail at one time in the beginning, and only one exhibits person. It has essentially been security, janitorial, maintenance services for the collections.

I think that is right, isn't it ?

Mr. Blitzer. Actually no curatorial persons.

Mr. KiPLEY. I think we had the one detail curator at one time in the beginning.

ANACOSTTA NEIGHBORHOOD MUSEUM

Mr. Yates. Let's turn to public service in your justification.

You want $60,00 for the Anacostia Museum to produce an exhibit that would depict the culture of ancient African kingdoms.

Mr. EuELL. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Yates. Is $60,00 an adequate level ?

Mr. EuELL. Yes, based on the number of exhibitions that the Anacostia Museum produces a year. This will be the first time they actually will have an adequate exhibits budget, except during the Bicentennial year. The African Kingdoms exhibit would be, I would say, the major exhibit for the year.

Most of these exhibits, by the way, are designed for traveling, following their exhibition at the museum, so they are not very large, huge types that remain in one place for a year or so.

THE DIVISION or PERFORMING ARTS

Mr. Yates. You say "The Division of Performing Arts (DPA) has a primary responsibility for the production and presentation of live performance events of the Smithsonian Institution and its museums."

We are talking about what? We are talking about dancing, and music, and so forth ?

Mr. EuELL. We present live performances of a variety of kinds. There are musical performances, dance performances, jazz performances, popular music; we have a popular song series; we do some combinations of dramatic and musical presentations. These performances are presented on a year-round basis.

INIr. Yates. Whv are you down from 1976? Because that was the Bicentennial year? Nineteen hundred and seventy-seven should have been the Bicentennial year, but in 1976 you received $567,000, and now you are down to $350,000.

Mr. EUEI.L. Yes.

Mr. Yates. Lack of popularity ?

Mr. EuELL. No; I wouldn't say that. There were a lot of one-time production costs in fiscal year 1976 associated with the extended Bicentennial festival, and also we have had a chancre in organization in which the Folklore Section of the Division of Performing Arts was moA^ed to another division, or under another office and is now under Mr. Blitzer. Moving that unit out accounts for the people and the money.

FOLKLIFE ACTIVITIES

Mr. Yates. The area folk art was moved ? Mr. EuELL. Folklife, yes, the Folklife Unit. Mr. Yates. The summer festival has been dropped, hasn't it? Mr. EuELL. Yes; it has been. It will be given in October on a smaller scale.

Mr. Yates. Isn't the Library of Congress moving in on this, on the folklife?

Mr. EuELL. Well, they are not moving in so much in terms of performance and the presentational end of it. They are trying to identify and to nurture, encourage local folklife or folklore efforts. The Smithsonian's Folklife Unit is working with them and has representation on the Board. We also work very closely with the National Endowment for the Arts on folklife programs. I think we are more into applied folklife, that is, presentations and also now, under Mr. Blitzer, we will be putting out lots of publications and materials that we have accumulated over the last 10 years. I think that is one of the major objectives of the Folklife Unit now, to begin to draw on and to develop the fruits of the past 10 years of our folklife experience in which the Smithsonian has exercised leadership.

SMITHSONIAN COLLECTION OF JAZZ

Mr. Yates. I sec you are adding to your Smithsonian collection of jazz.

Mr. EuELL. Yes; we are.

INIr. Yates. Who else did you record ?

Mr. EuELL. We have just put out an album on Jelly Roll Morton. We have a Dizzy Gillespie album. We have of course recorded Scott Joplin material. We have at least five or six new recordings coming out this year, including a Louis Armstrong and Earl Hines combination, which is a very unusual recording, putting those two performers together when they arrived in Chicago back in 1929.

Mr. Yates. Do you have to buy the rights to that ?

Mr. EuELL. No, we don't, but because of the connections and/or knowledge and the respect that Martin Williams commands and the knowledge he has about the field, together with the fact that the Smithsonian Institution has the respect of many of the recording people, who, by the way, are very tight with their tapes and with their recordings, we have been allowed to use them.

One provision that we have with the classic jazz album, for example, is that we will not sell it commercially.

We sell it in our shops and to our membership, and we distribute it through educational institutions.

Mr. Yates. Do you have anything by Art Tatum ?

Mr. EuELL. Art Tatum is I think in the classical jazz album as an example of an evolution of the art of jazz music.

Mr. Yates. He is supposed to be so good.

Mr. EuELL. He was better than that.

Mr. Yates. "Wliy wouldn't you include him then ?

Mr. Etjell. In the classic jazz album he was included because the point of that six-record album was to give a kind of chronology, as best we could, of the development or the evolution of jazz and those individuals who played an important role in its development, so certainly there was Art Tatum as well as Jelly Roll Morton. There was a Sidney Buche and a Lonis Armstrong. Each one of these individ-uas and many others made a special contribution to the music which sort of gave it its next jumpoff, and I would say that Art Tatum would come along in the 1930's and pick up from Fats Waller, Teddy Wilson, and the like.

To give an example about Art Tatum, when jazz musicians or any musicians discuss piano players like Teddy Wilson or Bud Powell, or anyone of these who played very well, Art Tatum was always separate. You didn't discuss Art Tatum in the same breath with all the other piano players.

Mr. Yates. I saw a television program one night with Andre Previn, and I forget who was the jazz musician, who was a marvelous musician and talked about Art Tatum, and Previn told the story—I guess we can take a few seconds time out—of Vladimir Horowitz.

Mr. EuELL. Yes.

INIr. Yates. He was crazy about Art Tatum apparently. He at least on one occasion took an Art Tatum record and laboriously wrote out the music so that he could play it.

Mr. EuELL. Yes.

Mr. Yates. And he invited Art Tatum to hear him play it, and Art Tatum came in and listened to him. He said, "What do you think of it?"

And he said, "It's good."

And then Horowitz asked him to play something himself, and he sat down and he played. When he finished Horowitz asked him how long it had taken him to write out the music for it, and he said, "I just made it up as I went along."

Mr. Etjell. Quite a few well-known classical pianists used to come and just sit and watch him because his hand position was perfect. His fingering was perfect.

Mr. Yates. I hear you have to have a left hand or you are no good at all.

LEARNING CIRCUS AND AFRICAN DIASPORA

Let's go back to the budget. Can you tell us about your plans for the learning circus and the African diaspora, and how much does it cost?

Mr. EuELL. We are hoping to raise money from outside sources for those programs. Actually for those hopefully we could get grants. We have no money for them.

Mr. Yates. How much money do you need ? What are they ?

Mr. Euell. Let me explain what the learning circus is first. It is an experimental program to translate museum objects and museum programs, science subjects, into a kind of children's presentation, just as we do with the puppet theater. These programs are privately funded—we raise the money. We try to make enough to break even.

Mr. Yates. Where do you get the money from ?

Mr. Euell. Foundations, or we charge small admissions for some of these programs. For the puppet theater there is an admission, just as we charge for the carousel.

Mr. Yates. Are your programs popular?

Mr. Euell. Yes; very popular.

Mr. Yates. How much money do you need ?

Mr. Euell. I can't give you an immediate answer.

Mr. Yates. Provide it in the record, would you ?

Mr. EuELL. I would certainly like to supply it for the record. [The information follows:]

Funds Requieed fob the African Diaspora and Children's Programs

In order to maintain the staff of four for the African diaspora program and to provide funds for travel to meetings, an amount of $80,000 would be necessary. An additional amount of $20,000 would be required to provide for minimal programing (such as a presentation during Black History week) and to provide materials for schools.

An amount of $50,000 is needed for a pilot program to determine the feasibility and the practicality of providing a different environment for educational programing for children. An additional $50,000 would benefit the puppet theater, enable us to develop other children's activities more related to the museums, and would permit the distribution of free tickets to children otherwise unable to attend.

OFFICE or PUBLIC AFFAIRS

Mr. Yates. You have requested a $50,000 increase for the Office of Public Affairs "to cover the increased costs associated with the printing and distribution of informational publications."

"VA^y such a big increase ? Have the costs gone up that much ?

Mr. EuELL. Right away you start out with a 15-percent increase in printing costs over last year, and also in order to enlarge our capability to reach other groups we want to do more foreign language brochures—leaflets, in Spanish, German, Japanese, and French. I would venture to say that we are not quite up to snuff in relation to the Europeans in labeling, brochures, all kinds of materials that are multilingual. We are behind in this area, and we should as the National Museum be in front.

PSYCHOLOGICAL STUDIES PROGRAM

Mr. Yates. Let's turn to the museum programs.

Mr. Perrot takes the spotlight.

You have a psychological studies program which examines the effectiveness of exhibits and visitor reactions to them. What is the budget level of this program, Mr. Perrot ?

Mr. Perrot. It is approximately $41,000, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Yates. Shouldn't we ask Dr. Challinor to do it ? He does it so much jnore cheaply.

Mr. Perrot. The kinds of studies that we are conducting are quite different from those being conducted at the National Air and Space Museum at the present time. Our objective is to determine how people learn within the museum environment; what kind of manipulation of exhibits and techniques, can be used so as to enhance the general learning quotient.

Mr. Yates. I thought Dr. Challinor was directed to do that ?

Mr. Perrot. Dr. Challinor's program—^that is at the National Air and Space Museimi—is of much larger scope and longer duration. They are studying in detail a number of exhibits within that museum.

We provide advisory services to museums of the Institution as well as advise our colleagues elsewhere on the most effective means to assess the effectiveness of their offerings.

MUSEUM TRAINING

Mr. Yates. You are providing training for the native Americans, aren't you ?

Mr. Perrot. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. Museum training. How many are there? How many native American museums are you concerned with? I know there is one in Santa Fe.

Mr. Perrot. At the present time there are approxijiiately 28 institutions that have been created supposedly for housing Indian artifacts. However, virtually none of these have any trained staffs. Our attempt is to integrate within the training opportunities that the Institution has to offer a special program that will be directed to the needs of the Indian community. To this effect we have retained the services of one staff member and are now developing a program which will be relying ver}^ heavily on foundation support because our intent is not only to bring Indians to Washington for study but also to find a way so that members of our staff can cooperate with the staffs of other organizations in different parts of the country in giving training programs, workshops, and seminars.

collections policy and management study

Mr. Yates. You want an increase of $40,000 toaneet continuing costs ?

Mr. Perrot. That is correct.

Ml'. Yates. For study efforts and the collections organization and installation activities relating to the Museum Support Center program. I am not sure I understand what that means.

Mr. Perrot. If you will note, Mr. Chairman, last year we had a $125,000 appropriation to make a collections policy and management study. This study will be completed by September. However, we feel that there are certain areas that will need to be refined, experiments that will need to be made, and preparations will have to be undertaken so we can phase into the new Museum Support Center when it is constructed.

OFFICE OF horticulture

Mr. Yates. How does it happen that you now have the Office of Horticulture under your jurisdiction? Is this the outward appearance of museums?

Mr. Perrot. This is the outward appearance of museums

Mr. Yates. Palm trees inside.

Mr. Perrot. This is a little of that, sir, but it is more than that. Horticulture is a discipline in itself. It is a historical discipline, and one that relates very closely to our collections and to the manner in which they are presented. It is more than maintenance. It is research and development, and a considerable amount will be done by the Office of Horticulture. It was with this rationale that Horticulture was removed purely from the maintenance area and integrated with other learning aspects of the Office of Museum programs.

Mr. Yates. How extensive will the Office of Horticulture be? Are you going to be in charge of growing plants ?

Mr. Perrot. We already have greenhouses which are leased at the U.S. Soldiers' and Airmen's Home, and which provide a substantial

portion of the plants that are displayed on our grounds, or that are used to supplement exhibit installations.

Mr. Yates. I agree with you, the use of plants is marvelous. When you go through the Dumbarton Oaks museum that they have there and see the magnificent manner in which they show their orchid plants in the center of those pre-Columbian Mexican exhibits, it is just marvelous, and I assume that is what you are talking about.

Mr. Perrot. This is what we are talking about. We are also very conscious of the fact that the grounds of the Institution in the past, although they have been maintained neatly, have contributed little to the general esthetic and cultural flavor that we feel the Institution should project. This is particularly evident, if I may just add a note, in the Victorian Garden which is open now all year around, and which is the only Victorian Garden in Wasliington. The choice of flowers and plants is compatible with the types which grew during the Victorian period, and particularly around 1876 to 1881, which is the period of concern to the Arts and Industries Building and the Smithsonian Castle.

SMITHSONIAN GLASS CX^LLECTION

Mr. Yates. I cannot understand why you don't have the glass collection under your jurisdiction with your background and training.

Mr. Perrot. It is being very well taken care of, sir, at the Museum of History and Technology, as well as at the National Collection of Fine Arts with its very important glass collection.

Mr. Yates. Of course, but they don't have anybody who knows more about it than you do.

Mr. Perrot. I would like to dispute that, sir, but in the interest of time I won't.

OFFICE OF the REGISTRAR

Mr. Yates. I think your modesty is becoming.

You are decentralizing the Office of the Registrar. The budget has gone down from $200,000 to $97,000. If the bureaus are assuming their own functions why do you need a central Registrar Office?

Mr. Perrot. The registration function is becoming increasingly important as we are realizing that it is more than a bookkeeping operation and one that should bring together all aspects of information concerning objects. The variety of collections that we have in the Institution, and the variety of museums, make it mandatory that there be congruity in the methods used in cataloging technology, so that we can interface the collections and develop a data base which is compatible. This is the goal that the Office of the Registrar is primarily concerned with.

This interfaces also, by the way, with the development of the Museum Support Center where we hope to have a much more effective way of retrieving objects and keeping tabs on their location. We hope that this can spread throughout the Institution.

Mr. Yates. Is it your responsibility to be in charge of the objects in all the museums ?

Mr. Perrot. No, sir. The custody of objects is the responsibility of the directors of the individual museums.

INVENTORY OF COLLECTIONS

Mr. Yates. Does the Smithsonian have an inventory of all of its objects?

Mr. Ripley. Yes.

Mr. Yates. Where do you keep the inventory, or how is it kept?

Mr. Ripley. The individual museum has its own classification system, and Mr. Perrot is essentially involved in trying, through the Registrar, to make sure these all correlate and work together. Isn't that right?

Mr. Perrot. That is right.

Mr. Yates. How often do you take inventory? How do you know whether you are missing anything ?

Mr. Perrot. There are certain collections which are inventoried very, A^ery rarely. Indeed there are some which would be almost impossible to inventory, for example, insects, the hundreds of thousands of bugs that are the responsibility of Dr. Challinor. Coins, on the other hand, jewels, paintings, objects like that, are inventoried very frequently. I could not at this moment give you a schedule of these inventories but if you would like I am sure we could provide that.

Mr. Yates. How much space does your inventory take? Is it microfilmed, or is it taped, or what? How do you keep your inventory records ?

Mr, Ripley. Some of it is on tape. Some of it is in cards. It depends on the particular collection, the particular museum.

]\Ir. Yates. Shouldn't you have a \mif orm inventory system ?

Mv. Ripley. We are attempting to do that.

Mr. Yates. That is what the Registrar OiRce is doing ?

Mr. Perrot. Yes.

Mr. Yates. '\'\^en are you going to complete it ?

Mr. Perrot. This is an ongoing program, and I don't expect it will be phasing out. On the contrary, I think in the years to come, as computer systems are developed that are more responsive to the specific needs of museums, and the Institution has made major headway in that direction, that not only will we be able to have better control of the intellectual content of our collections but we may be able to interrelate with other collections and start networking nationally and, in due time, internationally. Tliis in the ultimate aim.

In the meantime our main concern is to develop systems that are compatible internally and will provide all of the information that we need without, if I may say, the rediscovery of the wheel, which so often has to be done with manual methods.

Mr. Yates. How close are you to completing the first inventory which is going to be the base on which you continue ?

Mr. Perrot. We have an inventor}^ of such.

Mr. Yates. I meant in the manner and form which j'ou are aiming. Mr. Ripley said some are on cards and some are on tapes. Obviously vou are trying to get a uniform system. How far are you away from that?

Mr. Perrot. I think within the next 10 years we will be able to make major inroads. We have over 70 million objects and to place 1 object on a computer it has been estimated may cost $1 or $5, depending on its complexity, and in the interest of the Federal Treasury Ave would like

to be sure that we do it judiciously, and with priorities, and insofar as possible using methodologies that are compatible not only with our own needs but also can have national significance.

Mr. Yates. How often do you inventory your crown jewels?

Mr. Perrot. I will have to defer to my colleague, Dr. Challinor.

Dr. Challinor. They are almost on a continuous inventory, Mr. Cliairman. There is an elaborate security system.

Mr. Yates. But you have seen the movies, haven't you ?

Dr. Challinor. How they are monitored, and how often they are watched I would assume would be restricted information to those people who are responsible for watching them. You see what I mean.

Mr. Yates. I see.

But you haven't missed anything?

Dr. Challinor. Better not, no.

Mr. Ripley. We are in very good shape.

VANDALISM

Mr. Yates. Is vandalism still a problem ?

Mr. Ripley. Vandalism ebbs and flows in a strange way, like the Moon, I guess. I don't know about the art museums at the moment.

Cliarles, do you or Paul have anything?

Mr. Blitzer. Happily it has been a quiet period.

Mr. Yates. Quiet year ?

Mr. Perrot. I can speak for the Arts and Industries Building. No case has been reported to me.

Mr. Ripley. It has been beautiful. Something about the general sense of enthusiasm and elation accompanying a visitor who goes into the 1876 show; they just don't do anything bad.

the SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION LIBRARIES

Mr. Yates. You want a $73,000 increase to purchase library materials most critically needed by users. What does this mean ?

Mr. Perrot. That means, sir, that all of our bureaus and research departments have desiderata lists. At the present time we are meeting between 50 and 60 percent of these needs. Of the increase that is requested, much of it will be swallowed up by a 12-percent inflation factor on periodicals and 10 percent on monographs. We will be approximately at 70 percent of the optimum level we should be at.

Mr. Yates. What is the nature of the materials ?

Mr. Perrot. This ranges from every aspect of natural history and could involve the history of science and technology, paintings, the decorative arts, and what not. If you would like I could provide a list of the kinds of things we would like to have and that we haven't been able to acquire.

Mr. Yates. I would appreciate that.

[The information follows:]

Library Needs

The following is a sampling of those Items which the various libraries of the museums of the Institution would have added to their holdings had the resources been available.

For the Museum of Natural History, Departmental Libraries:

Bentham, George

Genera plantarum - reprint Loudon, J. C.

Gardener's magazine . London, 1826-1843

Microfiche Otto § Dietrich

Allegemeine Gartenzeitung .

Microfiche Botanisclies Centralblatt , Beihefte, v. 1-33

Microfiche Fortschritte der Mineralogie - subscription

approximatedy^ per year 200.00

The Department of Anthropology alone requested 200 titles which could not be purchased. For example:

The Expert Testimony before the Indian Claims Commission $1,200.00 Mourant, A. E.

Distribution of the human blood groups and other 170.00

polymorphisms Patton, Temple, ed. 175.00

Pigment Handbook

Last year lack of funds for the library of the Museum of History and Technology prevented purchase of $2,900 worth of requested interdisciplinary titles, averaging $15 to $20 each, as well as $72,000 worth of major reference works vitally needed for historical research in the museum.

Among these are:

Back files of U.S. Patents, on microfilm, 1836-1841 $150.00

(and continuing to 1975 as we can afford)

Niels Bohr Collected Works 415.20

Encyclopedia of the Negro in Africa and America , 540.00

18 vols.

American Periodicals , on microfilm, 1851-1900 22,800.00

The collections of the Cooper-Hewitt Museum have been inactive for sometime, but are now accessible and in use. Among the major research tools lacking for that Museum are:

Harvard University. Graduate School of Design. $2,860.00

Catalogue of the Graduate School of Design ,

Harvard University. 1968. 44 vols. Chicago. Art Institute. Ryerson Library. 815.00

Index to Art Periodicals . 1963, 11 vols. Columbia University. Avery Library 45.00

Avery Obituary Index of Architects § Artists . 1963.

The Central Libraries bibliographic services is missing the following:

Chemical Abstracts multi-year indexes, 1907-1976. $17,600.00 Michaud, Biographie Universelle , 2,100.00

Paris, 1843-1865, 45 vols. Science Citation Index ,

approximately, per year 2,900.00

RESTORATION OF MARTHA WASHINGTON'S KNIFE BOX

Mr. Ripley. Mr. Chairman, before we leave the subject of conservation which Mr. Perrot is a master on, could I just show you Martha Washington's knife box before and after? This is sharkskin, and this photograph gives you some idea of the relentless effects of time.

Mr. Yates. Marvelous job of restoration.

Mr. Ripley. Remarkable job of maldng it look as if it had just come out of—where ? Bloomingdale's or something.

Mr. Yates. Not quite. Just come out of Mr. Perrot's repair shop.

Mr. Perrot. That is exactly correct.

Mr. Ripley. That is the only knife box that we know of that belonged to Martha Washington.

budget request for the conservation-analytical laboratory

Mr. Perrot. I would like to make a point, a seeming contradiction to that which has just been said. The reason iwhy no increase is being requested for the Conservation-Analytical Laboratory is that we have just doubled the space available to the laboratory. Second, the training of staff and the finding of staff is a very, very lengthy process. Some of the staff we have been able to obtain still need to refine their knowledge, and to add additional staff at the present time that is not fully trained would be counterproductive. This is a problem, by the way, which is being faced by museums around the country and around the world. We do not have enough trained personnel.

The Secretary referred earlier to the fact that museums have difficulty meeting the salaries and the expenses of conservation programs. This is correct. Much more serious is the lack of a fount of trained personnel. A few years ago, statistically and actuarially, we found that over a period of 10 years the number of conservators in the United States was only barely replacing themselves while the demands on conservation were increasing constantly. Conservation is very different now from 20 years ago. If there wasn't too much dust and the air was reasonably clean and stable, we felt then the. object would not deteriorate. All of these objects have a life of their own. They are subject to chemical action which is built into them. From the time they were created they start decaying. This presents major problems for museums.

I would like to address myself briefly on that, if I may, when we come to the Museum Support Center.

TRAVELING EXHIBITION SERVICE

Mr. Yates. You want $100,000 and 2 positions for the Traveling Exhibition Service. That is on page 65.

Mr. Perrot. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. Is any portion of that expense met by a user fee ?

Mr. Perrot. Yes.

Mr. Yates. What portion ?

Mr. Perrot. In 1976 income earned was $300,000. Expenditures were $240,000. The $60,000 carryover was used to develop new exhibitions which could be put into circulation and keep our offerings updated.

At the present time we are circulating more than 200 exhibitions, of which a large number have been provided under the Bicentennial program, which was partly funded by the Bicentennial Administration, and by foreign governments.

The increase we are requesting is to enable us to develop exhibitions at a lower cost and thereby provide lower rental fees. We are aiming at a 50-50 mix, 50 percent of our exhibitions renting for under $200 and 50 percent above. As you will note, we are not at that level yet. The demand for traveling exliibitions is increasing dramatically. Last year we estimate that 8 million visitors saw 1,000-odd offerings around the country, hitting almost evei'y State of the Union.

Mr. Yates. Are you funded at all by the National Endowment for the Humanities?

Mr. Perrot. Certain specific exhibitions have been developed with funds provided by the National Endowments, by the National Science Foundation, by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and, of course, by the American Revolution Bicentennial Administration.

Mr. Yates. If you have a record, we will place in the record the amounts you received from other Federal agencies.

[The information follows:]

Smithsonian Traveling Exhibition Service Funds Received from Federal Agencies

Source

Yeai/Amount Exhibitions

American Revolution Bicentennial Administration

American Revolution Bicentennial Administration

1976 Treasures of London $122,000 Antwerp Drawings and Prints

W. H. Coverdale Collection of Canadians

The Fourth Part of the World (Australia)

Finnish Icons

The Dutch Republic in the Days of John Adams

Dream of America (Sweden)

Treasures of Cyprus

Edvard Munch

Locks from Iran

An American Inspiration (Danish)

Toys from Switzerland (two exhibitions)

Tunisian Mosaics

Naive Art from Yugoslavia

Pitseolak (Canada)

1977 Folk Woodcuts from Brazil's Northeast $154,000 Belgian Gunmaking and American History (Belgium)

Twenty-two Polish Textile Artists Silverworks from Rio de la Plata (Argentina) The Human Form (Wotruba) Austria Hungarian Art Nouveau Salzburg Festspielel (Austria)

National Science Foundation

1976 $25,000

Population (13 copies already produced by the beginning of 1976)

National Science Foundation

1977 $28,000

Pollution

Energy

Ecology

NOAA--Office of Coastal Zone Management

1977 $315,000

'It's Your Coast". Four exhibitions

1 - N.E. Coast

2 - Mid-Atlantic and S.E. Coasts

3 - Gulf Coast

4 - Great Lakes

National Endowment for the Arts

1977 $15,000

America's 'Architectural Heritage (three copies)

PRODUCTIVITY EXHIBIT

Mr. Ripley. In one case we did a special exhibition on productivity, human productivity historically. This, as I recall, was a result of an interest expressed by the Secretary of Labor, and we received a grant from the Department of Commerce.

SMITHSONIAN ARCHHrES

Mr. Yates. Do we have an archive report ?

INIr. Perrot. Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt and give you the catalog of traveling exhibitions, which is just off the press?

Mr. Yates. You may indeed.

Do you have an archival program at the National Museum of History and Technology ?

Mr. Perrot. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. You want $20,000 to establish one, or is that just to augment it?

Mr. Perrot. There is a central archive at the Institution. This archive has been concerned primarily with maintaining the archives of the Institution since it was founded. We are now finding that many of our museums are developing vast archival resources of their own which refer to their own growth, but also archival materials which come to them by gifts and requests that require archival attention. The $20,000 is to assist the Archives in serving the needs of the Museum of History and Technology.

THE NATIONAL MUSEUM ACT

Mr. Yates. The National Museum Act (Smithsonian) and the Museum Services Institute (HEW) have in part the same purposes as does the Humanities Endowment. How is it possible to avoid overlap and duplication ? Is it possible that museums may be receiving help from one of the Govei-nment agencies without the other Government agency knowing it is receiving such help? Do you require them to tell you whether they are receiving help ?

Mr. Perrot. We request that information and we also check with our colleague at the Endowments. I might say something about the Museum Act. The purpose is somewhat different in interpretation than grants generally available. Our concern is professional enhancement, research in museum management, helping our colleagues to develop new trained personnel, or developing resources they can use to sharpen the manner in which they administer their institutions. These programs are small, they are mostly inexpensive, and they are reviewed by an advisory panel, which, as you know from the written testimony, includes some of the leading personalities in museums across the country.

Mr. Yates. The committee will adjourn 10 o'clock tomorrow morninff.

Friday, April 29, 1977.

AMERICAN AND FOLKLIFE STUDIES

Mr. Yates. The hearing will be in order.

You are requesting an increase of $100,000 for the American folklife studies. Can you tell us why ?

Mr. Ripley. Yes; I think Mr. Blitzer can reply to that.

Mr. Blitzer. As you can see from the justifications, we have done a bit of reorganization, administratively within the Smithsonian. The increasing interest in folklife recently within the Institution and the country at large and in the Congress led us to reconsider what we have been doing over the last 10 years. One thing that became clear to us was that a lot of things were going on in the Smithsonian and had for a long time that were parts of the study of folklife and particularly American folklife but not so called, and I guess one way to put it is we felt we weren't getting credit for doing things in this area because it was not called folklife.

Mr. Yates. What do we mean by folklife ?

Mr. Blitzer. That is a very complicated question.

Mr. Yates. Give us a complicated answer.

Mr, Blitzer. If I could try to give a short answer, I would say it is traditional orally transmitted ways of doing things.

Mr. Yates. That is a little too simplistic of us.

Mr. Blitzer. The problem is to distinguish folklife from popular culture and from high culture and the oral transmission seems to be one way of doing that. These are not watertight compartments. One of the reasons actually we wanted to look at it the way we are now is to see the places where these overlap where something starts as folk culture and becomes popular culture.

Mr. Yates. Do you trespass upon Mr. Euell's domain?

Mr. Blitzer. We are working closely together.

Mr. Yates. You are a partner instead of a predator ?

Mr. Blitzer. I like to think that.

The folklife council appointed by the Secretary represents all of the parts of the Institution that are engaged in activities that might be called folklife.

Mr. Yates. Why don't you provide for the record a definition of what it is that we are appropriating money for for folklife ? I tliink perhaps you want to reflect on it. Apparently it is a rather complicated subject.

Mr. Blitzer. It is. It is not a clearly defined thing.

[The information follows:]

Definition of "Tolki-ife"

Perhaps the best working definition of "folklife" is that contained within the American Folklife Preservation Act (Public Law 94^201 of January 2, 1976) which states in section 3: "The term 'American folklife' means the traditional expressive culture shared within the various groups in the United States: familial, ethnic, occupational, religious, regional; expressive culture includes a wide range of creative and symbolic forms such as custom, belief, technical skill,

87-564 O - 77 - 47

language, literature, art, architecture, music, play, dance, drama, ritual, pageantry, handicraft; these expressions are mainly learned orally, by imitation, or in performance, and are generally maintained without benefit of formal instruction or institutional direction * * *"

FOLKL.IFE STUDIES

Mr. Yates. Is there a dilfference between American folklife and folklife as such ? What do your studies encompass ?

Mr. Blitzer. Our feeling is that within the broad area of folklife, which is rather fuzzy around the margins, our particular interest and particular concern is with the folklife of this country and the various kinds of people who live here.

Mr. Yates. Would the Amish be an example of folklife ?

Mr. BuTZER. Yes, very much so. They tend to be local traditions; they tend to be beleaguered in a world of mass communication.

Mr. Ripley. I thought, for the record, Mr. Chairman, if you would like to have Mr. Euell join in and say he is not being poached on and what he thinks about the setting up of this program.

JUSTIFICATION OF FOLKLIFE INCREASE

Mr. Yates. You are requesting $100,000 for recording, films, videotapes, etcetera?

Mr. Blitzer. Mr. Chairman, this, as you know, is a time when various agencies of the Government are also taking renewed interest in folklife, and we are very much aware of the new Folklife Center in the Library of Congress, the increasingly active folklife program in the Arts Endowment; we are working closely with both of those two. We are working toward a kind of coordinated program.

I have one document here I think I could submit for the record, although it is tentative; it is a proposal for collaboration among the American Folklife Center, the National Endowment for the Arts and the Smithsonian in sponsoring a series of, here it is called outreach festivals of folklife around the country. This is subscribed to by Bess Lomax Hawes, director, folk arts program of the National Endowment for the Arts; Alan Jabbour, of the Library of Congress; and Ralph Rinzler, of the Smithsonian. This is a plan under which the three institutions together would in a kind of systematic way help people around the country develop their own festivals of local folk-life. The role of the Smithsonian, if we get this appropriation, would call for expenditure in fiscal 1978 of $30,000.

Mr. Yates. Do the Indians qualify as folklife?

Mr. Blitzer. Very much so and on our folklife council we have Smithsonian anthropologists who speak for that concern. That would be $30,000 out of the $100,000. We figured we would spend another $30,000 approximately on our continuing Festival of American Folk-life on the Mall in Washington, and the remaining $40,000 would probably be spent on scholarly studies and consultations in order to develop our own program.

Mr. Yates. What kind of equipment are you going to purchase for $10,000?

Mr. Blitzer. I am not informed about that. I can imagine it would be recording equipment, sound equipment that is needed.

Mr. Yates. You mean the Smithsonian doesn't have any?

Mr. Blitzer. I am sure we have some. If you would like me to supply that, I can, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Yates. We would like to know about that.

[The information follows:]

FoLKLiFE Unit — Inoeease fok Eqtjipment

The $10,000 requested for new equipment under the "American and Folklife Studies" head will supplement in an essential way the sound equipment already available for use elsewhere within the Smithsonian. A continuing project of the Folklife Unit is the review, annotation, and cataloging of thousands of hours of recordings produced during the past 10 annual folklife festivals, as well as the duplication of those of particular significance to ongoing research. In addition, the Smithsonian's participation in the proposed tripartite folklife outreach program in cooperation with the new American Folklife Center of the Library of Congress and the National Endowment for the Arts will xequire the use of various types of sound equipment in field research and presentation activities. Both projects require that the equipment in question—^primarily tape recording units—be dedicated to these uses in order to proceed in an organized and timely fashion.

ACADEMIC AND EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS

Mr. Yates. Academic and education programs, you are requesting an increase of $50,000 for six new fellowship appointments. Are these the fellowships for which the Smithsonian people compete as well ?

Mr. Blitzer. No, sir.

Mr. Ripley. These are outside.

Mr. Yates. Which are the fellowships where the Smithsonian employees compete?

Mr. Riplet. That is the research awards program, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Yates. How do you go about selecting these fellows ?

Mr. Blitzer. This is a widely advertised international competition and panels of scholars and scientists on the Smithsonian staff select them. It is a very painful process. They turn down one or two equally qualified people for every one they accept.

Mr. Yates. Who does the selecting ?

Mr. Blitzer. Scholars on the Smithsonian staff organized into panels by subject matter.

SMITHSONIAN RESEARCH AWARDS

Mr. Yates. You want an increase of $60,000 for the Smithsonian research awards for a total of $450,000. How are the Smithsonian research awardees selected ?

Mr. Challinor. The Smithsonian research awards are selected, Mr. Chairman, through an evaluation process that starts with the museums or bureaus within which the applicant works. The proposals are then sent to my office and are reviewed by an outside panel of six distinguished scientists and scholars who have no direct connection with the Institution. The scientists and scholars on this panel serve on a

»736

rotating basis and every year one moves off, so we turn over the entire panel every 6 years.

These scholars and scientists come to the Smithsonian for 2 days every year, in order to review the proposals which number around 60 and then evaluate them in rank order on a point scale.

Mr. Yates. Is there competition ?

Mr. Challinor. There is enormous competition because we only fund perhaps half of all the proposals that are submitted each year.

Mr. Yates. Are these only by Smithsonian scholars ?

Mr. Challinor. Yes, only by Smithsonian scholars, Mr. Chairman, this award program was instituted when the Congress advised the National Science Foundation that federally funded scientists were ineligible to apply to the Science Foundation for individual research grants. This is a fine distinction because we do get grants; we, the Institution, get grants from the National Science Foundation for various activities. But this distinction was made at the request of the Congress for individual federally paid scientists, that they were no longer eligible and instead they should be funded by a direct line item.

Mr. Yates. Why wouldn't the Federal scientists compete with other scientists for the fellowship ?

Mr. Challinor. We disagree with this interpretation, because ever since the National Science Foundation was created in 1950, Smithsonian scientists had indeed competed with scientists from universities and museums and other research institutions throughout the comi-try. The area is a bit fuzzy.

Mr. Yates. It would be better, really, wouldn't it, rather than being subjected to the criticism that inevitably comes because you are giving scholarships to your own people ?

Mr. Challinor. That is indeed a criticism, Mr. Chairman. To avoid that or mollify that criticism, we have established this outside review panel of six eminent scholars and scientists

Mr. Yates. Yes, but the only qualified entrants are the Smithsonian scholars ?

Mr. Challinor. Only Smithsonian scholars can apply.

distinction between academic and educational programs and smithsonian research awards

Mr. Yates. Why wouldn't you combine the previous programs, academic and educational programs, and the Smithsonian research awards program and let your scholars compete with them and combine both programs?

Mr. Challinor. In that case there is an important distinction. In addition to young visiting postdoctoral students the academic program involves what we call predoctoral candidates. These are students who work at various universities and are candidates for a Ph. J). They come to the Smithsonian to work with curators on research toward their own doctorate from their own universities. So the mix would not be terribly appropriate, I feel, under these circumstances.

Mr, Yates. Is it not the same group ?

Mr. Challinor. It is not the same group. The scientists at the Smithsonian would certainly welcome the chance to compete with their peers throughout the whole country.

LOSS OF NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION GRANTS

Mr. Yates. Why did NSF turn it down?

Mr. Ripley. In 1963, Mr. Chairman, the then chairman of the Subcommittee on Science, Congressman Albert Thomas, made a pronouncement in the hearings in the fall of 1963 for the NSF budget in which he said that he felt that it was not appropriate for the NSF to award grants to people working in Government or quasi-Government agencies, that is, paid a Federal salary, presumably like the NIH or in this case the Smithsonian, the Bureau of Standards, and so on.

This was a terrible blow to our scientists because since the inception of the NSF in 1950, they had been eligible to apply for grants across the field, the national field, and they had been doing very well competitively with their peers, and they had come to set an enormous amount of pride and prestige in the fact that they were doing well. And indeed, if we have a scientist who is employed at the Smithsonian who then is asked by a university to come as a teacher, or some other job opens up for him, and he has his vita, his curriculum vita, his accounting, history and research, and he can show he has received NSF grants; this is considered very much of a feather in the cap for such a scientist. It is part of his life record and accomplishments in research.

I was deeply disturbed; I was still at the university teaching, when the then Secretary, my predecessor, called me up and said this is a tragic thing because it means this will close the door to our scientists in the Smithsonian from being able to apply and not.only their research funds but also their careers will be affected.

I testified to this effect before the then chairmen of the Smithsonian's appropriations subcommittees in 1965, and, a result, we were awarded this fund. I testified at that time that we would set it up in such a way that it would be as competitive with peer review, and so on, as the NSF so as to try and make up for this loss, but we have never caught up.

The fund has never approximated the availialble grants that the scientists had been receiving. It has come nowhere near it. It probably represents a sixth or a seventh of the amount of funds they would be able to apply for had they the freedom to apply to NSF. So it has been a handicap to our scientists, and they have felt the effect very much. We have simply had to live with it.

RESPONSIBILITIES OF SMITHSONIAN SCIENTISTS

Mr, Yates. Are the Smithsonian scientists relieved of regular duties when they undertake the research awards ?

Mr. Ripley. No, sir, in no sense.This research is an enhancement of their productivity. They work during their regular hours. They have allotted time; anybody who is a senior person has a certain allotted time for research and teaching, of course, as part of their job.

Mr. Yates. Are you talking about the non award recipients ?

Mr. RiPLET. Both. I mean you normally are employed in the soience bureaus and departments to perform research on the collections and help to enhance the residting exhibits as well as keeping the collections, and that research productivity is, of course, something that is a matter of each human's individual capacity to do 96.

LIST OF AWARDS

Mr. Yates. Is there in the justification a listing of the awiards and the recipients ?

Mr. Repley. We are preparing that.

Mr. Challinor. We have one here.

Mr. Yates. Would you place it in the record ?

Mr. Challinor. Yes; we will give you the names and a brief description of the grants they are working on, and do you want the amounts, too?

Mr. Yates. Yes. Place that in the record.

Mr. Challinor. Certainly.

[The information follows:]

Research Awards Grants Awarded in Fiscal Year 1977

Principal Investigator Amount Dr. J. Laurens Barnard $25,700

Dr. Jeffrey B. Graham

Dr. Clayton E. Ray Dr. Alan P. Smith

Dr. Daniel J. Stanley

7,350

Dr. Clinton W. Gray 18,600

Dr. Ronald Heyer 7,000

Dr. Devra G. Klelman 21,600

Dr. D. E. Kleinmann 15,600

Dr. Olga F. Linares 5,900

Dr. Maurice M. Margulies 17,000

Dr. Paul A. Mohr 19,000

Dr. Donald J. Ortner 29,000

Dr. David L. Pawson $15,300

Dr. A. Stanley Rand 17,800

19,000 18,000

Dr. Thomas R. Soderstrom 24,000

34,500

Brief Description of Grant

An ecological investigation of freshwater shrinp and their relationship to pollution of aquatic environments

Botanical study of tropical trees

Ecological and botanical studies of the South Pacific

Analysis of meteorite-like objects and coipilation of caiputer file

Development of high efficiency X-ray detector for astronomical observations for use on NASA's Space Shuttle

An investigation relating to the origins of air breathing fishes and their relationship to the evolutionary process

Veterinary research on the anesthetizing of animals

Zoological studies of New World anphibians

Research in animal behavior in the wolf family

The fabrication instrumentation to determine the source of certain galatic energy

Study of social and political organization of African wet-rice cultivators

A study of the development and movanent of cell proteins in the photosynthesis process

Investigation of geologic faults in the Ethiopian Rift Valley

The skeletal biology of early human populations in the Bab edh-Dhra region of Jordan

Study of marine invertebrates in the Southern Oceans

The role of malaria as vectors of disease in a natural population of reptiles

Studies of the evolution of marine maimials

Ecological and Evolutionary study of plant forms in East Africa

A taxonomic and ecological investigation of bamboos and their role in the development of the Amazon

Mediterranean Basin (MEDIBA) project: oceanography and sedimentology of deep basins, and application to the geological record

Principal Investigator Anx>ijnt

Dr. Wi11iam Trousdale 20,300

Dr. Trevor C. Weekes

Dr. Richard L. Zusi

9,300 4,000

$390,000

Brief Description of Grant

Archeological studies of Southwestern Afghanistan

An investigation into the origins of coanic radiation at high energy sources in space

A comparative study of the systematics and adaptation of hummingbirds and their role in evolution

Research Awards Grants Awarded in Transition Quarter July 1 through Septanber 30, 1976

Principal Investigator Amount

Dr. J. Laurens Barnard $4,395

Dr. Richard S. Cowan 2,600

Dr. William Fitzhugh 7,300

Dr. F. Raymond Fosberg 7,000

Dr. Jeffrey B. Graham 1,P50

Dr. Clinton W. Gray 7,180

Dr. W. Ronald Heyer 875

Dr. Devra G. Kleiman 5,400

Dr. Olga F. Linares 4,000

Dr. David L. Pawson 3,160

Dr. Clayton E. Ray 5,945

Dr. Beryl B. Simpson 7,000

Dr. Thomas R. Soderstrom 5,095

Dr. Daniel J. Stanley 12,300

Brief Description of Grant

An ecological investigation of freshwater shrimp and their relationship to pollution of aquatic environments

Botanical study of tropical trees

Archeological investigations of Central Labrador Coast

Ecological and botanical studies of the South Pacific

An investigation relating to the origins of air breathing fishes and their relationship to the evolutionary process

Veterinary research on the anesthetizing of animals

Zoological stuides of New World Amphibians

Research in animal behavior in the wolf family

Study of social and political organization of African wet-rice cultivators

Study of marine invertebrates in the Southern Oceans

Studies in the evolution of marine maimials

A selected study of plant-insect coevolution and biogeography

A taxonomic and ecological investigation of bamboos and their role in the development of the Amazon

t Mediterranean Basin (MEDIBA) project: oceanography and sedimentology of deep basins, and application to the geological record

i

Principal Investigator Amount Dr. William Trousdale $4,100

Ett-. Richard L. Zusi

Dr. D. E. Kleinmann

1,700

5,000

$85,000

Brief Description of Grant

Archeological studies of Southwestern Afghanistan

A conparative study of the systetnatics and adaptation of hunmingbirds and their role in evolution

The fabrication instrumentation to determine the source of certain galatic energy

Research Awards Grants Awarded in Fiscal Year 1976

Principal Investigator Amount

Dr. J. Laurens Barnard $16,000

Dr. Richard S. Cowan 6,600

Dr. Bert G. Drake 11,000

Dr. W. Donald Duckworth 9,500

Dr. Clifford Evans 17,000

Mr. John Fespennan 8,000

Dr. William Fitzhugh 16,000

Dr. F. Raymond Fosberg 24,000

Dr. Kurt Fredriksson 6,000

Dr. Robert F. Fudali 7,500

Dr. Robert Gibbs 11,000

Dr. Paul Gorenstein

13,000

Dr. Jeffrey B. Graham 12,000

Brief Description of Grant

An ecological investigation of freshwater shrimp and their relationship to pollution of aquatic environments

Botanical Study of Tropical Trees

Net COo Exchange and Primary Productivity in Three Chesapeake Bay Salt Marsh Communities

Studies of New World Moths

A study of Prehistoric Human Ecology in the Amazon

Spanish and American Organbuilding in Mexico 1600-1800

Archeological Investigations of Central Labrador Coast

Ecological and Botanical Studies of the South Pacific

A Mineralogical Study of Meteoritelike Objects

A study of the structure and origin of a selected crater in Australia

A Biological Investigation of Selected Deep Sea Fishes of the "Ocean Acre" off Burmuda

The development of scientific instrumentation to measure high energy sources in space

An investigation relating to the origins of air breathing fishes and their relationship to the evolutionary process

Principal Investigator Amount

Dr. Clinton W. Gray $20,000

Dr. W. Ronald Heyer 14,000

Dr. Leo J. Hlckey 14,000

Dr. Luigl G. Jacchia 14,000

Dr. Erie G. Kauffman 7,000

Dr. D.E. Kleinmann 5,600

Dr. Olga F. Linares 9,400

Dr. Maurice M. Margulies 11,500

Dr. Lawrence Mertz

5,500

Dr. Arthur P. Molella 3,500

Dr. David L. Pawson 12,500

Dr. J. W. Pierce 14,000

Dr. Clayton E. Ray 15,000

Dr. Nathan Reingold 3,200

Dr. R. Schild 15,000

Dr. Beryl B. Simpson $ 5,000

Dr. Thomas R. Soderstrom 21,000

Dr. Daniel J. Stanley 29,000

Dr. William Trousdale 26,000

Dr. Dieter C. Wasshausen 4,700

Brief Description of Grant

Veterinary Research on the Anesthetizing of Animals

Zoological Studies of New World Amphibians

An Evolutionary Investigation of Leaf Development

A Global Study of the Variations in Upper-Atmosphere Composition that Accompany Transient Changes in the Earth's Magnetic Field

Geological Research on the Evolution of Atlantic Marine Fossils

The Fabrication Instrumentation to Determine the Source of Certain Galatlc Energy

Study of Social and Political Organization of African Wet-Rice Cultivators

A Study of the Development and Movement of Cell Proteins in the Photo-sjmthesis Process

The Fabrication of New Telescopic Lenses to Study Faint Astronomical Objects

The Physics and Natural Philosophy of Gustav T. Fechner (1801-1887): A Study in the Development of German Atomic Tradition

Study of Marine Invertebrates in the Southern Oceans

Marine Sediment Study

Studies of the Evolution of Marine Mammals

The Magnetic Crusade, 1830-1850:

A Study of Science and Public Policy

in Great Britain

The Development of Instrumentation to Increase Visibility of Light Emissions from the sky

A selected study of plant-insect coevolution and biogeography

A taxonomic and ecological investigation of bamboos and their role in the development of the Amazon

Mediterranean Basin (MEDIBA) Proj ect: Oceanography and Sedimen-tology of Deep Basins, and Application to the Geological Record

Archeological Studies of Southwestern Afghanistan

Botanical Survey of the Peruvian Andes

Principal Investigator ^toaunt Dr. Trevor C. Weekes 9,000

Dr. John. Wurdack 7,500

Dr. Richard L. Zusi 7,000

Dr. Devra G. Kleiman 19,000 $450,000

Brief Description of Grant

An investigation into the origins of cosmic radiation at high energy sources in space

The taxonomy of selected flora in Ecuador

A comparative study of the systematics and adaptation of hunnningbirds and their role in evolution

Research in Animal Behavior in the Wolf Family

ADMINISTRATION

Mr. Yates. Would you place in the record a description of the reasons underlying the request for the $295,000 increiEise and the four positions that you want under administration ?

[The informaJtion follows:]

Justification of Increase for Administration

Office of the Secretary - (+ $51,000) - These funds are required to fund salary and related support costs for the newly-established Assistant Secretary for Administration. This position advises 4nd assists the Secretary, his other principal assistants, and the heads of bureaus and offices in the overall fomiulation, performance, and evaluation of Institutional activity. Included in these general oversight responsibilities are a broad range of matters including planning, development of objectives and priorities, organization and staffing, budget fonmilation and review, and the study and evaluation of ongoing and new activities with special emphasis on the relationships among bureaus and offices.

Office of the General Counsel - (+ $23,000) - For several years, while the requirements for legal services have materially increased in volume and complexity principally in the areas of contracts, employee relations, and tort claims, there has been only a modest increase in legal staffing. To relieve the legal and support staff of some of its more routine work, an amount of $8,000 is requested for the employment of a part-time law clerk and part-time secretarial assistant. An additional $15,000 is sought to meet the essential needs of the Office for maintenance of a law library, attendance at seminars by the legal staff to keep abreast of developments in the law, and basic supplies and materials.

Office of the Treasurer - (+ $30,000) - Since 1974, the Accounting Division has taken steps to automate and improve the Institution's accounting system. In FY 1974, a direct key-to-disk data entry system was installed to keep pace with the mounting number of voucher, payment, and receipt transactions that it is required to handle. This process of mechanization has resulted in the elimination of repetition in handling payment documents, reduction of errors, and faster payment of invoices. In October, 1976, the initial phase of a new accounting system was implemented. This new system principally integrated the heretofore separate Federal, grant and contract, and restricted and unrestricted trust fund accounting classification structures, thereby providing a common data base for all financial management functions. To keep . pace with the expanded accounting needs of the Institution, additional computer time is necessary. An amount of $30,000 is requested for this purpose.

Office of Personnel Administration - (+ $45,000) - In the past few years, the cost of support items has risen substantially without commensurate increases in funding. The proposed increase of $45,000 will be used for necessary training for Smithsonian professional and support staff; rental of a larger capacity electrostatic photocopier to handle increased volume resulting from an expansion in program activity; purchase reprints of the Civil Service Commission classification standards; support existing staff; and fund the cost of other day-to-day printing and office supplies.

Office of Equal Opportunity - (+ $12,000) - With funding and positions provided in the FY 1977 appropriation, the Institution established a "resources pool" to augment its Upward Mobility Program. Under the pool approach employees selected for Upward Mobility training are funded from the resource pool, thus enabling the units to fill the position vacated by the trainee. Following a training period ranging from six months to one year, the employee is placed in an existing vacancy. At that time, the trainee's position and funds revert tc the resources pool for reassignment to a new Upward Mobility candidate. An additional amount of $12,000 is requested to strengthen this program.

Office of Computer Services - (+ $36,000) - In FY 1976, the Office of Computer Services began to install direct-data-entry terminals in several functional areas of the Institution. The installation of these remote terminals allows users such as the Library, Office of Personnel, and the Conservation-Analytical Laboratory to feed information directly to centrally located processing equipment. This method of processing saves time and improves accuracy by eliminating repetitive transcription of information-prior to its entry into the computer. An amount of $15,000 is requested to expand current OCS equipment (e.g., disk memory storage capacity) to accommodate the installation of additional terminals in other areas within the Institution.

Certain older, but essential, data processing devices such as card sorting, card reproduction, plotting, and keypunching equipment have been requiring frequent repair, often at critical processing times. IVhen new, incidents of malfunctions of these devices were minimal and thus maintenance contracts were not purchased. Now to ensure the uninterrupted performance of this equipment and preclude the alternative of purchasing expensive new equipment, an amount of $6,000 is requested to purchase full maintenance service contracts.

During the past several years, the Institution has experienced a greater need for an interactive computer processing (e.g., time-sharing) capability to serve the needs of business managers as well as individual researchers. Such an interactive capability, not now provided by the current computer, would allow a user to work directly with a computing system without the delays and interruptions posed by coding, keypunching, batch processing, and slow turn-around time. In the business management area, such as Museum Shop operations, this capability would permit much quicker and more accurate processing in areas where up-to-date information is particularly important. In the research area, this capability would allow scientists, historians, and others to follow individual lines of investigation by personally performing calculations or comparisons in one continuous mental process, submitting data, getting results, testing hypotheses, and if necessary revising the approach. Funding of $15,000 is sought to provide this capability either by the purchase of commercial services or by the leasing of equipment on a cost-shared basis with user units, whichever Is determined to be the most cost effective.

Office of Supply Services - C*l position and $25,000) - There has been a significant increase during the past year in the contract, grant and procurement actions that this Office is required to process, and present indications point toward the continuation of this growth in FY 1977 and FY 1978. To keep pace with this mounting workload and cope with the greater complexity of contract administration, one new contract specialist and $13,000 are sought.

The continued effect of inflation on the ability to fund stockroom inventories necessitates the request for an additional $12,000 to purchase and stock essential supplies needed to support research, curatorial, and exhibits-related activities in the Washington area.

Management Analysis Office - (+1 position and $28,000) - The Institution has grown substantially over the past several years. This expansion in program and support activities has resulted in directives, policies, and procedures that relate to such areas as personnel, accounting, data processing, and safety regulations. Many of these directives need to be reviewed and updated on a continuing basis to satisfy regulations and Smithsonian policy and to provide managers, employees, and the public with needed reference guides. An additional position for a management analyst ($20,000) is requested to review and consolidate current issuances and to make recommendations on the development of a comprehensive set of published management-approved directives. An additional amount of $8,000 is sought to purchase supplies and materials and rent copier equipment for this Office necessitated by a recent relocation away from the Mall.

Office of Facilities Planning and Engineering Services - (*2 positions and $45,000) - During the past four years, since the establishment of the Office of Facilities Planning and Engineering Services (OFPES), there has been a strong emphasis placed on improved management methods to ensure the cost effectiveness of construction projects, a planning capability to forecast needs accurately, and maximum efficient use of existing facilities. During FY 1977, OFPES was involved in approximately 300 projects requiring architectural and engineering expertise. To provide the proper support and attention to existing repair and renovation projects as well as projects in the developmental stages, an additional architect/planner ($23,000) is requested. With the rapid price increases experienced over the past several years, it is particularly important to have the professional staff and expertise to ensure careful program planning and monitoring.

A clerk typist ($10,000) is also sought in the construction management function to provide support for reviewing, processing, documenting and recording contract actions, such as change orders, claims, delays, amendments, and payment requests. This position is needed to keep pace with the volume of work and ensure the accuracy of contract supervision.

Support funds in the amount of $12,000 are requested to meet increased costs of printing and reproduction for architectural and engineering plans and specifications, equipment rentals, contract services, office supplies and materials, equipment such as drafting tables, engineering equipment, and travel for the development of plans and designs and for construction contracts supervision away from Washington, D.C.

OFFICE OF PROTECTION SERVICES

Mr. Yates. You are requesting 20 positions for the Office of Protection Services. That is the guards, isn't it?

Mr. AuLT. That is correct.

Mr. Yates. Why do you need the extra positions ?

Mr. Axjlt. Sir, these are actually a part of the request that was made last year for 30 positions we were unable to fund at that time. These positions would be asigned as follows: seven to the Museum of History and Technology, six to the Musuem of Natural History, five to the Arts and Industries Building, and two to the Fine Arts and Portrait Galleries.

These are a part of the additional guards we feel we need to try to bring ourselves up to optimum standards of protection and security for our buildings. I am happy to say that our criminal incidents have axjtually been decreased this year by some 2 percent over last year, but we want to insure that we maintain that trend rather than having any increase.

Mr. Yates. You want $100,000 for a proprietary alarm system. Is the present one inadequate ?

Mr. AuLT. We do not have, at this time, a proprietary alarm system, per se, Mr. Chairman. We have for some number of years

Mr. Yates. You do want to install one ?

Mr. AuLT. We have been paying rental and service fees to a local outfit, American District Telegraph Co., for many years. We can achieve significant savings if we undertake to acquire, operate, and maintain these systems ourselves.

Thanks to the appropriations that you have granted us, we have expended already some $430,000 on the acquisition of the hardware ADT had installed over the years, and we are now in the process of actually installing and operating this equipment ourselves. We will achieve significant savings over a period of years through this process.

requested increase for office of plant services

Mr. Yates. You indicate in your justifications that the lessors of properties you occupy are passing on to you the additional operating expenses that they say they have. Have you fully documented the $30,000 increase you want ?

Mr. Atjlt. Yes, sir, we have and can furnish that for the record.

Mr. Yates. What happens if you don't agree with them; you get evicted ?

Mr. AuLT. I presume we could. We have never had to face that problem, I am happy to say.

[The information follows:]

Rental Increases

The following rental increases are anticipated at L'Enfant Plaza and the Smithsonian Service Center in fiscal year 1978:

L'Enfant Plaza: Fiscal year:

1977 $404, 000

1978 424,200

Increase 20,200

Service Center—1111 North Capitol St.: Fiscal year:

1977 397,600

1978 417,480

Increase 19,880

REQUEST FOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR

Mr. Yates. You are requesting a deputy director for the Office of Plant Services, for $30,000. Do you really need that person for this job?

Mr. AuLT. I believe we do, sir. We have an outstanding director of that department, but he needs help. It is one of the two largest departments for which I am responsible.

RENTAL SPACE

Mr. Yates. I would think it would be an important department.

What do you do at L'Enfant Plaza ?

Mr. AuLT. We have space that we rent up there. A number of our activities are in rental space at L'Enfant Plaza.

Mr. Yates. Which ones ?

Mr. AuLT. The Office of Audits, the Office of Facilities Planning and Engineering Services, my Office of Supply Services, accounting, the Office of International Programs.

Mr. Yates. How much space do you rent at L'Enfant Plaza ?

Mr. AuLT. About 50,000 square feet, I believe.

Mr. Yates. At what price ?

Mr. AuLT. Our annual rental is estimated to be $424,000 in fiscal year 1978.

Mr. Yates. Are you also occupying other private space or is L'Enfant Plaza the only one ?

Mr. AuLT. We have space at 1111 North Capitol Street, a former warehouse, 160,000 square feet there.

Mr. Yates. For storage ?

Mr. AuLT. Primarily storage. We have a few offices, for example, the Office of Exhibits Central, which performs the design and fabrication of certain exhibits and maintains models, plastics, and restoration laboratories, things of this sort.

Mr. Yates. Is that the sum total of all your private space?

Mr. Jameson. No, sir. For example, we also rent space in New York City for the advertising and fulfillment functions of the Smithsonian magazine.

Mr. Yates. Do you do that, or does tlie magazine do it ?

Mr. Jameson. The magazine rents it as part of its budget, yes.

Mr. Yates. Do they pay for it themselves ?

Mr. Jameson. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. So it isn't part of your appropriated budget ? I am glad to have that information, but I just want to find out who pays for it?

Mr. Jameson. Also, the Science Information Exchange, from its appropriation and user income, rents space in Washington, D.C.

Mr. Yates. Where ?

Mr. Jameson. In the Madison Bank Building, at 1730 M Street, WW.

Mr. Yates. Why the spillover; is there not enough space in your Government buildings ?

Mr. Jameson, No, sir.

Mr. Yates. When did you undertake to go into private space? When did you go into L'Enfant Plaza?

Mr. Jameson. Approximately 4 years ago.

Mr. Yates. When it opened ?

Mr. Jameson. Yes, sir, I believe so.

Mr. Ripley. The Smithsonian has rented space for many, many years, simply because for certain activities there is just no room in the museum buildings.

Mr. Yates. Would you put a statement in the record showing your private space rentals, where they are, what the costs are, what the lease arrangements are ?

Mr. Jameson. We would be pleased to, sir.

[The information follows:]

87-564 O - 77 - 48

Smithsonian Space Rentals

The Smithsonian presently occupies approximately 2,956,000 net usable square feet of space in museums, galleries, and other ovmed facilities in the Washington metropolitan area. This includes about 2,131,000 square feet of exhibits and collections storage space and 825,000 square feet of office, laboratory, and other work space.

Over the years, the growth of collections, exhibitions and other educational programs has reduced the space originally available in our public buildings for office and laboratory purposes. The Institution has long relied upon rental space to alleviate this situation and in the past four years has completed a consolidation of rental space and created an administrative focus for better management of these resources.

Currently, the Institution leases approximately 358,000 square feet of predominantly office, laboratory, and other work space in the Washington metropolitan area.

Organization and Location

Lease Arrangement

Source of FY-1977 Funds/1 Annual Rental

Oceanographic Sorting Center Navy Yard, Wash., D. C.

Archives of American Art 41 E. 65th St., N.Y.C.

Radiation Biology Laboratory Rockville, Maryland

Anacostia Neighborhood Museum Anacostia, Wash., D.C.

Smithsonian (mixed administrative) L'Enfant Plaza, Wash.. D.C.

Smithsonian (storage and distribution) Service Center, Wash., D.C.

Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory 60 Garden St., Cambridge, Mass.

New England Storage Co. (Boston) 185 Alewife Pkwy. (Mass.) Summerville, Mass. (storage) Mt. Hopkins, Arizona

Smithsonian Magazine

Graybar Building, N.Y.C.

Science Information Exchange

Madison Bank Building, Wash., D.C.

Interdisciplinary Communications Program 1717 Mass. Ave., Wash., D.C.

All Other Miscellaneous Space

Leased from GSA (Government owned)

Leased from GSA Leased from GSA Leased from GSA Leased by S.I. Leased by S.I.

Leased by S.I. w/Harvard Univ.

Leased by Magazine Leased by SIE Leased by ICP Leased by S.I.

Federal $229,668

Federal $ 11,588

Federal $254,000

Federal $ 18.600

Federal $404,000

Federal $397,600

Federal $158,000 Trust Funds $292,000

Federal $ 2,700 Trust Funds $200,000 Trust Funds $ 3,500 Federal $ 3,500

Trust Funds $ 53,440

Federal $ 72,000 Trust Funds $ 48,800

Trust Funds $ 4,500

Federal $ 16,420 Trust Funds $ 2,450

Federal Total Trust Fund Total

$1,568,076 $ 604,690

Federal and Trust Total $2,172,766

/I Trust funds include Federal grant and contract funding, endowment funds, and income.

SCIENCE INTORMATION EXCHANGE

Mr. Yates. Now we turn to the Smithsonian Science Information Exchange which is one of the recipients of the comments by the GAO. Ypii have taken issue with the criticism of the GAO on this, as I understand it. The subject of the criticism is the manner of operation, namely, that according to the charge, SSIE collects Government information without charge and dispenses it with charge. That is one of the accusations.

Mr. Challinor. That is an accusation.

Mr. Yates. You acted as though you had sat on an electric wire.

Mr. Challinor. I would like to defend that very much. We are doing this explicitly at the request of the National Science Foundation and the Office of Management and Budget, which instructed us to charge for this service. This was back on January 1, 1969, we initiated charge for services for all non-Federal users of this information, and on July 1, 1969, for all users, including the Federal Government.

Mr. Yates. "Was this pursuant to a 0MB directive or some other directive ?

Mr. Challinor. This user charge was initiated by the Science Information Exchange at the request of the National Science Foundation, their letter of September 25, 1968.

Mr. Yates. Why the National Science Foundation? Wliy did you have to kimckle under to them ?

Mr. Challinor. Because they were putting up the $1.8 million of federally appropriated fmids for the operation of this center. Those moneys were later transferred from the National Science Foundation to the Smithsonian Institution, and on July 17, 1970, an agreement was reached between the National Science Foundation and the Smithsonian and the Office of Management and Budget regarding the transfer of the responsibilities for SSIE from the National Science Foundation to the Smithsonian.

We did this thus as a favor to the National Science Foundation, the idea being if we were administering this wouldn't it save a step for the moneys to go straight to the Smithsonian rather than to the National Science Foundation and then to the Smithsonian. We did this at their request, and it has been that way ever since.

user charges

Mr. Yates. How much do you collect in user charges?

Mr. Challinor. Mr. Chairman, these are all listed starting on page B-4, and you can see what the user revenues are. We started out in 1972, the first year we have records—I am referring to B-4 now—and you look on the last lines there, you can see the total user revenues and the total cost of operations from fiscal 1972 to projected fiscal 1978. You will notice that it is roughly 80 percent Federal support in fiscal 1972. By fiscal 1975, it had declined to 68, and now its total budget is projected in fiscal 1978 to be only 57 percent Federal and 43 percent from user revenues and contracts.

Mr. Yates. You are required to do it by NSF and

Mr. Chat.tj-vop Thp. Office of Management and Budget.

Mr. Yates. How accurate is the charge that you are .furnished information free and that people who receive the information through your dispensation have to pay for it ?

Mr. Challinor. That is a perfectly accurate charge, but the information they received is put in a completely different form from which it was originally available from the Federal Government.

Mr. Yates. What happens to it?

Mr. Challinor. It goes into a computer and is then stored. This is information on ongoing research throughout the Federal Government in a whole series of fields, from health, to geology, to water re-, sources, and the computer is arranged in a fashion that the user can get the most benefit from it.

Mr. Yates. You render a service in conjunction with the information you dispense, then ?

Mr. Challinor. Yes, we do, Mr. Chairman, and that is what we are charging for, the service that we render to the customer.

Mr. Yates. Is it accurate to say that the customer could have received the information that you received free from the agency directly had he gone to it ?

Mr. Challinor. He could have, certainly; any citizen could if he were willing to take the time and energy to put it in a fashion that would be of use.

Mr. Yates. Would that citizen receive all the information that you finally provide for the customer ? I guess it depends on what he wants, doesn't it? If it is something that an agency provides free, then he could go to that agency. If he were to ask you for that information, you would charge him for it ?

Mr. Challinor. Yes, if he wanted it from a specific agency.

The research being done presently on water resources covers a number of agencies, Agriculture, Interior, and various branches of each of these organizations. If somebody wants to find out what work is being done on water resources throughout the country, we can assemble from all the agencies all ongoing research that is put into this system by these different Government agencies for the benefit of the person who wants that information.

To acquire that information, him or herself would require a visit to 9 or 10 or 12 different bureaus or offices within Agriculture, within Interior, and within the other large Government agencies. This service of assembling the information is what we charge for, so that it becomes available in a usable foiTn to the applicants for the information.

Mr. Yates. Now that you have all the information about water resources, what can you do about the drought ?

Mr. Challinor. That is what we are working on now, at the observatory, in studying the sun. Probably nothing.

the need for the science information exchange

Mr. EiPLEY. May I interiect? I believe, Mr. Chairman, that we have additional information which is put into this system from international and private orp-anizations so that the compilation expands to more than simply the Federal report, which is a great advantage.

For example, the science advisor to the President, I recall, did make a request for information on ongoing water resource research and was able to have this information furnished in 24 hours through the computer read-out system in SSIE in a way that would have taken the Government agencies many weeks, if not months, to service and produce.

So there is no doubt about it that the system is efficient and has played an effective role over the years, and we have been absolutely free and frank and open about saying if anybody can run it better than can the Smithsonian, please do so. We have offered it to the Commerce Department. In 1969,1 recall going to the Office of Management and Budget and saying, "Look, if NSF or anybody else wants to run this and can demonstrate an effective service, please determine who should be doing it," and so far there have not been any real takers.

All we can demonstrate is that there is a need for it, and people use it and probably within 10 years the ratio of user revenues to Federal support will be so favorable that there will be a diminishing amount of Federal support.

Mr. Yates. Who uses it besides Federal agencies ?

Mr. Ripley. Any agency of the Government and all private research institutions or individual citizens.

GAO INVESTIGATIONS

Mr. Challinor. I might mention, also, that this SSIE has been the subject of about seven very detailed investigations, including three by the GAO, which do not appear, I believe, in the recent GAO report. The first one was in March 1972; the second in March 1973; the third in December 1975, which is still ongoing now. None of these reports have raised the issue that the Smithsonian should dissolve, I believe is the term they use, the SSIE. And the present GAO report, the current GAO investigation which was started in December 1975, is still going on and is primarily concerned with evaluating the idea of whether input of current research should be compulsory to all Federal agencies.

At the present time, it is not compulsory. So we do not have 100 percent of all the research going on. If the GAO recommends compulsory input, then the Office of Management and Budget, and the SSIE would have to determine what this would cost, how much more would it be of value to the Government, or to the citizens to make use of this. We do not have 100-percent input yet.

COST OF operation

Mr. Yates. The question that comes to my mind is why you don't require the users to pay for the entire operation; would it be too expensive ?

How expensive are you now ?

Mr. Challinor. Just shy of $2 million, $1.9 million. This primarily pays for input into the system, to get the research results or the ongoing research programs into the computer. The users pay for getting it out.

Mr. Yates. How much do they pay for getting it out ?

Mr. Challinor. This is listed on page B-5, Mr. Chairman; this tells you how many and the average value, and on page B-7 for fiscal 1978

we give the total cost of operations, some $3.5 million, of which the Federal support will be about $2 million, and the anticipated user support about $1.5 million.

To cause the user to pay for input and output, we would have to charge so much that we would price ourselves out of the market, and we look at this as a service to not only the Federal Government, but to the industry, and private citizens as well.

Mr. Yates. Are most of your customers the Federal agencies?

Mr. Challinor. I would say yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Yates. What percent:age would you say ?

Mr. Challinor. About 75 percent.

Mr. Yates. So you are really acting in the role of another GSA, aren't you, charging rent for what you do?

Mr. Challinor. We are charging for our services as we were specifically instructed to do.

INCORPORATION OF THE EXCHANGE

The idea of incorporating this organization was to do this in the most efficient manner possible, and 0MB concuri'ed in this incorporation on March 15, 1971, and the Smithsonian Appropriation Subcommittee of both the House and the Senate was notified by letter on April 7, 1971, that we were going to incorporate the SSIE. And we so did on June 10, 1971, having received no complaint or action or anything from either the House or the Senate subcommittee.

IMPACT OF HIGHER USER CHARGES

Mr. McDade. You indicated if you were to go for reimbursement, I think your words were you would price yourself out of the market?

Mr. Challinor. Yes.

Mr. McDade. You don't mean there is a competing service offering this?

Mr. Challinor. No. The cost would be so great that various agencies would say it isn't worth it.

Mr. McDade. Can you give me an example of what the cost would be for an inquiry now ? Suppose NASA wishes to inquire about something. Can you give me a rule of thumb as to what the cost is ?

Mr. Challinor. Yes; we have here on page B-6—the average dollar value of contract services, it varies so much; we are talking about in millions of dollars for the national

[Discussion off the record.]

Special Foreign Currency Program

Mr. Yates. You requested an increase of $1,019,000 for the special foreign currency program for a total of $4.5 million; $1 million of this goes to the island of Philae in Nubia. This is the last payment. Has the temple been saved ?

Mr. Ripley. Yes; it has.

Mr. Yates. That is good. Is it going to be completed within the projected time frame, or are you going to come back for another payment ?

Mr, Challinor. To the best of my knowledge, this will be the last payment.

Mr. Ripley. This is the last of the pledged payments so we have no indication there will be any more.

Mr. Yates. How valuable is the remaining work ?

Mr. Challinor. This is now becoming an extremely valuable adjunct to American institutions, particularly universities for working abroad as research funds become increasingly limited. This program furnishes American universities and museums with opportunities to work now in the last three countries that have excess foreign currency available to be used under this program. They are Pakistan, India, and Egypt. We have been able to reserve U.S.-owned foreign currency in Tunis, in Poland, and in Ceylon or Sri Lanka, all of whom have gone off the excess currency list to finish ongoing projects that we have started.

This represents a relatively small percentage of the total amount of money that we are using. The Indo-U.S. Subcommissions on Education and Culture and on Science and Technology have been set up to coordinate requests by American scientists and scholars to work in India. There is a similar arrangement in Pakistan; and in Egypt, the American Center for Research in Egypt coordinates requests for research by American institutions in Egypt. There is an enormous demand that we are not being able to fill at all.

TELEVISION SHOW ON THE TIGER

Mr. Yates. I happened to turn on television last night and saw a very interesting program on the tiger, and they said it was sponsored by the Smithsonian Institution. How do you do that?

Mr. Challinor. Mr. Chairman, that is funded about half from the international environmental science program for which we are not requesting an increase this year, and we also received a total of about $150,000 over the last 4 years from the World Wildlife Fund to study the tiger in Nepal. This is a vanishing species; it is an important one economically in Nepal as a tourist attraction. This is the part of Nepal

Mr. Yates. You are not the AID program?

Mr. Challinor. This is not the AID program. This is a research project where we actually put radio collars on tigers and follow their movement. We have had them on as many as nine tigers. It is like belling a cat, but in this case it is an enormous cat, and from this we have learned how much space they need and get some idea of how big the national park should be to keep tigers there, to keep tourists coming to look at the ti^er.

Secretary Ripley was there. This is an extraordinarily exciting event to actually look at a tiger with a collar on that you can track day or night.

Mr. Yates. I am sure they would have preferred the antitick collar. As long as they have them there, why don't you do them a favor ?

Mr. Challinor. We count the ticks among other things when we look at the tiger.

Mr. Yates. I thought it was a beautiful picture. How much of that do you do?

Mr. Ripley. We didn't make the picture. That was done by Survival Anglia, Ltd., a television company in Britain.

Mr. Yates. You hired them ?

Mr. Rlplet. No.

Mr. Yates. Somebody hired them. You paid for something.

Mr. Ripley. As far as I know, they did it themselves. We did not invite them. They asked if they could come.

Mr. Yates. You paid some money to somebody ?

Mr. Ripley. Not to the television people; no.

Mr. Challinor. I understand, I did not see the program, but we did pay one of our Nepalese researcli collaborators who has been working there 4 years now. He will come back to Michigan State this June to complete his doctoral dissertation on tigers. He, I believe, appeared in the film.

Mr. Yates. Was he the one who shot the gun ?

Mr. Challinor. Yes, Kirti Tamang. There may also have been another researcher from the University of Minnesota that we were supporting, named Sunquist. We have another American researcher there now named David Smith. These are supported by the international environmental science program, which is administered through my office.

Mr. Ripley. It is a unique program.

Mr. Yates. How many people do you have like Kirti Tamang whom you are financing ?

Mr. Challinor. It varies. I would say now probably not more than five or six. These are temporary employees; they come and go. In this case Kirti has been on and off and will go back to the university to get his degree. Our commitment, of course, will stop when he goes back. There are two technicians who have been monitoring ultraviolet radiation in the tropics, in Panama, and we have asked for $2,000 in fiscal year 1978 as a necessary pay increase.

research grants

Mr. Yates. Do you have a listing anywhere of the number of people who have the research grants from you, the type of grants and the amounts ?

Mr. Challinor. Yes; as I mentioned, we have that here. I don't think we included it as part of our justification. It runs to four or five pages. I have them all here, and if you want to have them, we will supply it.

Mr. Yates. I think we can put that list in the record.

Is that your scientific grants program ?

Mr. Challinor. Yes.

Mr. Yates. Does Mr. Blitzer have a nonscientific grants program, or are you in humanities ?

Mr. Challinor. Foreign currencies are used across-the-board within the limit set by the appropriation.

Mr. Yates. This isn't only foreign currency.

Mr. Challinor. Nepal is not. That is the international environmental program.

Mr. Yates. I am talking about all of your awardees.

Mr. Blitzer. Yes, sir. The program for bringing postdoctoral and predoctoral people to do research at the Smithsonian is open to all of the Institution, all of its bureaus; the research awards program is open across-the-board within the Smithsonian.

Mr. Yates. Is that in your annual report, their names and amounts ?

Mr. Blitzer. Yes.

Mr. Yates. Provide for the record, then what the Smithsonian does in this field, the amount and the description of what they do.

[The information follows:]

Smithsonian Awaeds

A list of grants awarded under the research awards program since fiscal year 1976, denoting the recipient and the amount of each award, has been entered at an earlier point in the testimony.

The following list from the Smithsonian annual report for fiscal year 1975 enumerates the Smithsonian Fellows, who have received appointment under the academic studies program. Tlae stipend for a 1-year appointment for a postdoctoral fellow is $10,000 and for a predoctoral fellow is $5,000. The stipend for a 10-week graduate research student appointment is $1,000 and for the two Smithsonian cooperative students, $3,375. Museum study appointments do not carry a stipend.

Academic Appointments, 1974-^5

Smithsonian Fellows pursue research problems in Smithsonian facilities and collections in collaboration with professional staff members.

SMITHSONIAN POSTDOCTORAL FEIiOWS

Program in American and cultural history

Kenneth J. Hagan, Ph. D., Claremont College. American naval diplomacy, 1845-61, with Harold D. Langley, Department of National and Military History, from January 1,1975, through June 30,1975.

Bernard Mergen, Ph. D., University of Pennsylvania, Shipbuilding and shipbuilding labor, 1917-33, with Melvin H. Jackson, Department of Industries, from March 1, 1975, through August 31,1975.

Program in anthropology

C. Adrian Heidenreich, Ph. D., University of Oregon. Study of Crow Indian culture and early plains ethnography, with John C. Ewers, Department of Anthropology, from August 15, 1974, through August 14,1975.

Program, in astrophysics

.John B. Heamshaw, Ph. D., Australian National University. The abundances and nucleo-synthesis of copper and zinc in stars, with George B. Field, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, from September 25, 1974, through September 24, 1976.

Frederick H. Seguin, Ph. D., California Institute of Technology. Theoretical studies of various aspects of the structure and stability of rotating astrophysical objects, with George B. Field, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatoiy, from October 1, 1974, through September 30, 1976.

Program in Earth sciences

Gary R. Byerly. Ph. D., University of Illinois. Textural variations of oceanic basalts, with William G. Melson, Department of Mineral Sciences, from September 1, 1974, through August .31, 1975.

Program, in environmental sciences

Wolfgang P. J. Dittus, Ph. D., University of Maryland. The ecology and behavior of the toque monkey, Macaca sinica of Sri Lanka, with John F. Eisenberg, National Zoological Park, from October 15, 1974. through October 14, 1975.

'758

Bronislaw Z. Drozdowicz, Ph. D., Cornell University. Genetic and biochemical analysis of light-induced phenomena in Neurospora crassa, with Roy W. Harding, radiation biology laboratory, from September 1, 1974, through August 31, 1975.

Jessie S. Weistrop, Ph. D., University of Massachusetts. Protein synthesis in chloroplast membrane bound ribosomes, vpith Martin M. Margulies, radiation biology laboratory, from! October 1, 1974, through September 30, 1975.

Barbara A. Zillinskas, Ph. D., University of Illinois. Structure-function relationships of phycobilisomes, vdth Elisabeth Gantt, radiation biology laboratory, from January 1,1975, through December 31,1975.

Program in evolutionary and systematic Mology

Raymond W. Bouchard, Ph. D., University of Tennessee. Taxonomy and sys-tematics of some members of the crayfish genera Cambarus and Orconectes in the southeastern United States, with Horton H. Hobbs, Department of Invertebrate Zoology, from August 26, 1974, through August 25, 1975.

Judith E. Dudley, Ph. D., University of Chicago. Further studies on the feeding biology of marine ectoprocts, with Richard S. Boardman, Alan H. Cheetham, and Mary E. Rice, Department of Paleobiology and the Fort Pierce Bureau, from July 15,1974, through July 14,1975.

Theodore L. Esslinger, Ph. D., Duke University. Taxonomy and systematics of the lichen genus Parmelin, with Mason E. Hale, Department of Botany, from October 1, 1974, through September 30,1975.

Richard R. Graus, Ph. D., University of Rochester. Computer modeling of coral growth, with Ian G. Macintyre, Department of Paleobiology, from September 1, 1974, through August 31,1975.

Irving L. Kornfleild, Ph. D., State University of New York, Stony Brook, Grco-graphic variation and evolutionn in Astronesthes indicus, with Robert H. Gibbs, Department of Vertebrate Zoology, from November 1, 1974, through July 31, 1975.

Wojeiech Pulawski, Ph. D., Wroclaw University, Poland. Monograph of the North American tachysphex, with Karl V. Krombein, from September 1, 1974, through August 31, 1975.

iSteven J. Zehren, Ph. D., University Of Chicago, The evolutionary relationships of zeiform fishes, with Stanley H. Weitzman, Department of Vertebrate Zoology, from October 1,1974, through September 30,1975.

Program in the history of art

Douglas G. Adams, Th. D., Graduate Theological Union. Humor in popular religious lithographs of 19th-centiiry America; social significance and artistic parallels, with Janet L. Flint, National Collection of Fine Arts, from September 1, 1974, through Jnly 31, 1975.

David S. Traxel. Ph. D., University of California, Santa Cruz. The life and times of Rockwell Kent, with Garnett M. MdCoy, Archives of American Art, firom October 1,1974, through September 30,1975.

Program in the history of science and technology

'Stanley Goldberg, Ph. D., Harvard University. The social character of science in Germany and America in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, vdth Paul Forman, Department of Science and Technology, from January 1, 1975, through December 31, 1975.

John A. Hennings, Ph. D., University of California, Berkeley. History and development of chemistry in the United States during itihe 19th and 20th centuries, with Jon B. Eklund, from January 1,1975, through June 30 ,1975.

Clifford M. Nelson, Ph. D., University of California, Berkeley. Fielding Bradford Meek, 1817-1876; a scientific biography, with Ellis L. Yochelson, Department of Paleobiology, from September 1,1974, through August 31, 1975.

William J. Simon, Ph. D., City University of New York. The Ferreira Expedition in Brasil and its contribution to Brasilian natural history in the late 18th century, with Audrey B. Davis, Department of Science and Technology, from January 1, 1975, through December 31, 1975.

Program in tropical Mology

IRiohard G. Cooke, Ph. D., University of London. The paleoeeology of the central provinces of Panama, with Olga Linares, Smithsonian Tropical Research Insititute, and Clifford Evans, Dei>artment of Anthropology, from November 1, 1974, through 0<3tober 30, 1975.

Douglas R. Diener, Ph. D., Univeirsity of California, San Diego, A comparative study in the endocrine confci-ol of sex succession and dichrooniitism, in the genus Thalassoma, with Jeffrey B. Graham, Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, from January 1, 1975, through December 31,1975.

Donald L. Kramer, Ph. D., University of British Columbia. Studies of the feeding behavior of detritus- and aufwuchs-feeding freshwater fishes, with Robert L. Dressier, Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, from (November 1,1974, through September SO, 1975.

Robert R. Warner, Ph. D., University of California, San Diego. Studies on reproductive strategies of coral reef fishes, with Ira Rubinoff, Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, from September 14, 19T4, through August 14, 1975.

SMITHSONIAN PRE5D0CT0RAL FELLOWS

Program in American and cultural history

James A. Borchert, Ph.. D. candidate, University of Maryland. American mini-ghettos ; alleys, alley dwellings, and alley dwellers in Washington, D.C., 1850-1970, with Wilcomb E. Washburn, office of American situdies, from July 15, 1974, through July 14, 1975.

Shirley Hune, Ph. D. candidate, George Washington University. American attitudes to the Pacific migration; case study, the Chinese, with Roy S. Bryce-Laporte, Research Institute on Immigration and Ethnic Studies, from September 1,1974, through August 31,1975.

Mark Lindley, Ph. D. candidate, Columbia University. Organologlcal factors bearing on the history of keyboard instruments, with John T. Fe^perman and J. Scott Odell, Department of Cultural History, from April 1, 1974, through December 31, 1974.

Program in anthropology

Avery M. Henderson, Ph. D. candidate, Univeraty of Colorado, Dental field theory; an application to human evolution, with Douglas H. Ubelaker, Department of Anthropology, from June 1, 1974, through May 31, 1975.

Robert D. Jurmain, Ph. D. candidate. Harvard University. The distribution of degenerative joint disease in skeletal populations, with Donald J. Oritner, from July 15, 1974, through July 14,1975.

Robert F. Maslowski, Ph. D. candidate. University of Pittsburgh. A reanalysis of Frank M. Setzler's trans-Peoos Texas collection, vsdth Waldo T. Wedel, Department of Anthropology, from September 1, 1974, through August 31, 1975.

Renato O. Rimoli, M.S. candidate, Universidad Autonoma de Santo Domingo. A study of the Gerrit S. Miller collection of fauna from archeological sites in Santo Domingo, 1925-1927, with Clifford Evans, Departtment of Anthropology, and Clayton E. Ray, Department of Paleobiology, from April 1, 1974, through July 30,1975.

Program in astrophysics

William M. DeCampli, Ph. D. candidate, Harvard University. A statistical mechanical approach to galactic dynamics, with A. G. W. Cameron, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, from September 1, 1974, through May 31, 1975.

Robert W. Leach, Ph. D. candidate. Harvard University. High energy astrophysics, with Riccardo Giacconi, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, from September 1,1974, through May 15, 1975.

Robert S. Pariseau, Ph. D. candidate, Harvard University. Galactic dynamics and galactic evolution, with George Rybicki, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, from September 1,1974, through May 31,1975.

Carleton R. Penny packer, Ph. D. candidate. Harvard University. Infrared pulsar search astrophysics, with Costas Papaliolios, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, from September 1,1974, through May 31,1975.

Kenneth P. Topka, Ph. D. candidate. Harvard University. Analysis of UHURU data of CTG X-3 and research on the HEAO-A modulation collimator, with Alexander Dalgarno, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, from September 1. 1974, through May 31,1975.

Ira M. Wasserman, Ph. D. candidate. Harvard University Applications of weak interaction theory to astrophysical prol)lems, with Stephen Weinberg, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, from October 1, 1974, through May 31, 19751.

Program in conservation

Sarah C. Riley, M.A. candidate, New York University. Problems in conservation with special emphasis on restoration of works of art on paper and related materials, with Robert M. Organ, conservation and analytical laboratory, from July 15,1974, through July 14,1975.

Program in Environmental Sciences

A. Lang Elliott, Ph. D. candidate. University of Maryland. Food hoarding and its relation to hibernation in the eastern chipmunk, Tamias straitus, with John F. Eisenberg, National Zoological Park, from August 1, 1974, through July 31, 1975.

Victoria C. Guerrero, Ph. D. candidate, Howard University. The courtship and copulatory behavior of Myoproota pratti, with Devra G. Kleiman, National Zoological Park, from April 1,1974, through March 31,1975.

Program in evolutionary and systematic biology

William L. Fink, Ph. D. candidate, George Washington University. Evolution and systematies of the infraorder Photichthya, deep sea fishes, with Stanley H. Weitzman, Department of Vertebrate Zoology, from July 1,1974, through June 30, 1975.

Peter R. Hoover, Ph. D. candidate. Case Western Reserve University. Paleontology, paleoecology, and taphonomy of the permocarboniferous Palmarito Formation of the southwestern Venezuelan Andes, with Richard E. Grant, Department of Paleobiology, from September 1, 1974, through August 31, 1975.

Philip D. Perkins, Ph. D. candidate, University of Maryland. Biosystematics of the New World representatives of the aquatic beetle genera, Hydraena and LimneMus, with Paul J. Spangler, Department of Entomology, from May 1, 1974, through December 14,1975.

Deva D. Tirvengadum, Ph. D. candidate, Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes. Revision of tribes Gardeniae, Guettardae, and Knoxiae of the Rubiaceae for Sri r^anka, with Dr. F. Raymond Fosberg, Department of Botany, from December 15, 1974, through December 14,1975.

Program in the history of art

George Gurney, Ph. D. candidate, University of Delaware. Olin Levi Warner and his sculpture, with Lois M. Fink, National Collection of Fine Arts, from August 1.1974, through July 31,1975.

Marc H. Miller, Ph. D. candidate. New York University. The art associated with Lafayette's farewell tour of the United States, with Lois M. Fink, National Collection of B^ne Arts, from July 1,1974, through December 31,1974.

Gerald D. Silk, Ph. D. candidate, University of Virginia. The image of the automobile in twentieth-century art, with Walter W. Hopps, National Collection of Fine Arts, July 1, 1974, through June 30,1975.

Ann Yonemura, Ph. D. candidate, Princeton University. The Ishiyamadera Engi Emaki, with Thomas Lawton. Freer Gallery of Art, from September 1,1974. through May 31, 1975.

Program in the history of science and technology

Roy S. Klein, Ph. D. candidate. Case Western Reserve University. Alexander L. Holley, his contributions to steelmaking and their impact on nineteenth-century American technology, with G. Terry Sharrer, Department of Industries, from July 15,1974, through July 14,1975.

Alice M. Quinlan, Ph. D. candidate, Johns Hopkins University. A history of the National Research Council, 1916-1936, with Nathan Reingold, from September 1.1974, through August 31,1975.

Philip T. Rosen. Ph. D. candidate, Wayne State University. The search for order; radio broadcasting in the 1920's, with Bernard S. Finn, Department of Science and Technology, September 1,1974, through August 31,1975.

Program in tropical biology

Kenneth L. Heck, Ph.D. candidate, Florida State University. A tropical-temperate comparison of community structure in estuarine grass bed areas, with Ira Rubinoff. Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, from July 1, 1974, through June 30,1975.

Catherine A. Toft, Ph.D. candidate, Princeton University. Niche overlap and competition for food in a community of frogs in Panama, with Egbert G. Leigh, Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, from September 1, 1974, through August 31,1975.

GRADUATE BESEAKCH STUDENTS

Program in American and cultural history

Gloria A. Johnson, Duke University. Studies of migration from the American Virgin Islands to the United States, with Roy S. Bryce-Laporte, Research Institute on Immigration and Ethnic Studies.

George W. McDaniel, Duke University. Studies of American material culture, with Wilcomb E. Washburn, Office of American Studies.

Program in anthropology

Mitchell S. Rothman, Hunter College. Archaeological research on chipped stone implements, with William W. E^tzhugh, Department of Anthropology.

Sara J. Wolf, George Washington University. Training in ethnographic and archeological conservation, with Bethvme M. Gibson, Department of Anthropology.

Program in environmental sciences

Richard A. Kiltie, Yale University. Study of breeding behavior of African antelopes, with Helmut K. Buechner, National Zoological Park.

Program in evolutionary and systematic Mology

Anne E. Hoffman, University of Oregon. Study of the distribution and ecology of African game mammals, with Henry W. Setzer, Department of Vertebrate Zoology.

Arthur G. Lavallee, University of Georgia. A study of Empis specimens, with Richard W. Baumann, Department of Entomology.

Kathleen Munthe, University of Cfalifornia, Berkeley. Research on the musculature of Crocuta, the spotted hyena, with Richard W. Thorington, Department of Vertebrate Zoology.

John B. Randall, University of Florida. Studies in entomological illustration, with Lawrence M. Druckenbrod, Department of Entomology.

Thomas J. Trumpler, Art Center CoUege of Design, California. Study of techniques of vertebrate fossil restoration, with Nicholas Hotton, Department of Paleobiology.

Program in the history of art

Roslye R. Ultan, American University. Study of 19th- and 20th-century women artists, with Cynthia J. McCabe, Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden.

Program in the history of science and technology

Jane A. Maienschein, Indiana University. Study of historical medical instruments, with Audrey B. Davis, Department of Science and Technology.

Stephen J. Pyne, University of Texas. Research on a biography of the American geologist. Grove Karl Gilbert, with Nathan Reingold, Joseph Henry Papers.

•John B. Schmitt, University of Pennsylvania. Research on artifacts pertaining to Elihu Thompson and his electrical engineering work in the late 19th century, with Bernard S. Finn, Department of Science and Technology.

SMITHSONIAN COOPERATIVE STUDENTS

Richard LeBaron, George Washington University. Research on methodological evolution of NASA's technology utilization program, with Paul A. Hanle, National Air and Space Museum.

James Maloney, George Washington University. Research on the economics of technological change, with Paul A. Hanle, National Air and Space Museum.

MUSEUM STUDY STUDENTS

Amy Aotaki, University of California, Davis. Investigation of pathogenic bacteria in the Chesapeake Bay area, with Maria A. Faust, Chesapeake Bay Center for Environmental Studies.

Kimberly Baer, University of California, Santa Cruz. Work on preparations before and during the Festival of American Folklife, with Suzanne Roschwalb, Division of Performing Arts.

Mary Balicki, American University. Study of motifs used on American military insignia during the 19 century, with Donald E. Kloster, Department of National and Military History.

Lucy Gommoner, Rhode Island School of Design. Identification and analysis

of woven textiles, with Milton F. Sonday, Cooper-Hewitt Museum of Design.

Sarah Cornwall, William Smith College, Coordinating the new children's

area for the Festival of American Folklife, with Suzanne Roschwalb, Division

of Performing Arts.

Catherine Corum, University of Kentucky. Coordinating photographs, text, and craft objects in Mississippi exhibit for Festival of American Folklife, with Peggy A. Martin, Division of Performing Arts.

Lauren Donner, Beloit College. Exhibit work especially silk screening, with Benjamin W. Lawless, Department of Exhibits.

Lynne Isbell, University of Redlands, Observation of the Indian rhinoceros in captivity, with Helmut K. Buechner, National Zoological Park.

Deanne Johns, University of Delaware. General curatorial tasks in the Division of Textiles, with Rita J. Adrosko, Department of Applied Arts.

Samuel McMillan, New College, Sarasota. Research and study involving all phases of photographic techniques, with Henry A. Alexander, Division of Photographic Services.

Kent Redford, University of California, Santa Cruz. Research and study involving the preparation of mammals for museum study, veith Richard W. Thorington, Department of Vertebrate Zoology.

Louise Roth, Brown University. Work on the marine mammal program in the Department of Vertebrate Zoology, with James G. Mead, Department of Vertebrate Zoology.

Robert A. Ruhl, Grinnell College. Work in the instrument restoration shop, the music patent library, tuning instruments, and giving performances, with John T. Fesperman, Department of Cultural History.

Mary Scott, University of Virginia. Study on a practical level of the workings of an educational organization within a museum, with Carolyn A. Hecker, Smithsonian Associates.

Oren Screebny, Fairhaven College. Work wtih films and slides of the Festival of American Folklore to put together shows featuring various segments of the Festival, with Suzanne Roschwalb, Division of Performing Arts.

John Sheehan, University of California at Davis. Library research on 19th-century mathematicians, with Uta C. Merzbach, Department of Science and Technology.

Gordon Uno, University of California. General research for the Museum of Natural History Bicentennial exhibit, wtih George R. Zug, Department of Vertebrate Zoology.

Wanda Walker, University of Idaho. Archival studies relating to the Festival of American Folklife, 1974, 1975, with Suzanne Roschwalb, Division of Performing Arts.

Cherilyn E. Widell, Hood College. Recipient of the Elsie Shaver Scholarship to study, organize, and preserve the correspondence of Dorothy Shaver, with Claudia B. Kidwell, Department of Cultural History.

Cheryl Yuen, University of California. Computer cataloging and analysis of Joseph Henry's personal papers, with Arthur P. Molella, Joseph Henry Papers.

In addition the following grants were made under the special foreign currency program during fiscal year 1976 and the transition quarter.

MUSEXTM PBOGBAMS AND RELATED ReSEAECH (SPECIAL FoBEIGN CUBBENCY

Peogeam) Fiscal Yeae 1976 and Teansition Quaeteb (TQ) list op geants Archeology and related disciplines

The study of archeology, anthropology, and related fields such as ethnology, is the study of changes in man's condition brought about by his environment, by cultural factors, including man's own inventiveness, and limited by his biology. Societies such as our own that are undergoing rapid change are subject to increasing pressures to accommodate new factors. These societies must look to studies of the long history of man as well as to studies of today's condition to find answers to such questions as:

(o) How have societies responded to similar pressures in the past? (6) What are those elements in our condition that are biological imperatives or are so culturally interdependent that we dare not change them)? For example, is the family unit essential to the survival of our civilization?

(c) What are the current options available to today's societies?

The urgency to understand the forces demanding change in human societies has caused scholars to study man and his communities, past and present, for a better grasp of the process of social change. Modern archeology and anthropology seek to understand such change.

Projects of U.S. institutions contributing to understanding man's condition, which received support in fiscal year 1976 and transition quarter (TQ), are listed below.

Obligation

Number Institution Principal

Investigator $ Eqv.

EGYPT

1. FR6-50002 American Research Center ,/

in Egypt, Princeton, N.J. P. Walker $308,117-'

The American Research Center in Egypt (ARCE) is a consortium of 29 United States universities and museums and over 500 individual scholars devoted to research and teaching about ancient and modem Egypt. The ARCE is an unique national resource because it is the principal source of money on an annual basis in the United States for the advancement of knowledge and understanding of ancient and Islamic Egypt as well as the training in Egypt of area specialists. Moreover, the ARCE has served the U.S. national interest by sustaining active scholarly collaboration between the U.S. and Egypt during periods of political stress when other contacts have been interrupted. SFCP support of the ARCE has totalled $2,986,117 equivalent in Egyptian pounds over a ten year period for the support of 48 research projects. Projects receiving new funds in FY 1976 are listed below (items la through Ik).

1/ Total for following parenthetical amounts (items la through Ik).

a. Operation of the Center

in Cairo, Egypt. P. Walker ($72,871)

Smithsonian grants to ARCE have supported the Cairo Center which serves as an American scholarly presence in Egypt by maintaining a reference library and by sponsoring lectures and symposia which involve the scholarly community in Egypt. The Cairo Center also provides administrative support for its members' research by obtaining research and import and export permits, housing, supplies and personnel, and by keeping project financial records and publishing research results.

b. American Museum of

Natural History, N.Y. W. Fairservis. Jr. ($1,955)

This award pays for a guard for archaeological finds stored at Hierakonpolis, a major urban complex continually occupied from 4500 to 1500 B.C., being studied with the most sophisticated scientific techniques ever applied to this formative, but previously neglected, period of Egyptian history. Work on this site was interrupted by the Six Day War in 1967 but will be resumed.

c. Brooklyn Museum

New York, N.Y. M. Botwinich ($16,148)

This award supports preparation of the Luxor Museum's catalogue and labels in Arabic, English, and French for exhibits previously installed with the technical advice of New York University with Smithsonian Foreign Currency Support. The museum serves as a model of American museum expertise in Egypt.

d. Brooklyn Museum

New York, N.Y. M. Bothmer ($10,434)

This award supports the preparation of a catalog dociimenting 150 previously-unpublished ancient Egyptian statues found at Kamak. These statues were found early in this century by Georges Legrain.

e. Harvard U. M. Mahdi 6

Cambridge, MA D. Gutas ($6,300)

This project is preparing a descriptive catalog of Arabic philosophical manuscripts in the Egyptian National Library. The study of these manuscripts is essential in the documentation of the continuity of Western thought.

f. New York U. D. Hansen ($32,339) '

This excavation of the stratified ancient port of Mendes in the Nile River delta, involves Greek and Roman settlements dating from 300 B.C. to the early Christian era. This site is providing greater insights into the life of an ancient Mediterranean port town. Work on the site was interrupted by the Six Day War in 1967 but was resumed in 1976.

Obligation Principal

Nmnber Institution Investigator $ Eqv.

g. D. King

Smithsonian Institution 0. Gingerich ($45,000)

The Smithsonian and the Egyptian National Library are preparing a critical catalogue of the Library's medieval scientific manuscripts and analysing scientific works of particular importance in astronomy and mathematics. Several of these documents suggest that some of the geometrical mechanisms employed by Copernicus were developed 250 years earlier in the Islamic world.

h. U. of California

at Los Angeles S. Vryonis ($23,452)

English translations of recent literary works evolved in Egypt under the impact of modern Western thought are being made available to the English reading public for the first time. One volume on the short story has been published; another on drama is nearing publication; a third, on the literature of ideas, is being translated. These complete te.\ts of current Arab literature will provide a unique opportunity for insight into this important culture.

i. U. of Chicago K. Weeks ($56,745)

This 50 year project carefully preserves through color reproductions the rich history of ancient Egypt carved and painted on the surfaces of its temples and monuments. The work is being carried out at Luxor before the monuments there are completely eroded and undecipherable.

j. U- of Maryland C. Butterworth ($18,690)

Averroes or Ibn Rushd, as he was called in the Arab world, was one of the most important students of Aristotle. His commentaries on Aristotle's work are unequalled. The goal of this project is to edit and publish Arabic manuscripts of Averroes' Middle Commentaries on Aristotle's Organon.

k. U. of Pennsylvania D.B. Redford ($24,183)

A pictorial reconstruction and scholarly interpretation of the temple of the Pharoah Akhenaten,consort of the famous Queen Nefertiti, is being made by matching photographs of more than 30,000 building blocks carved and painted 3,300 years ago. The temple was razed by Akhenaten's successors in an attempt to eliminate him from Egyptian history because of his belief in a single deity.

2. FR6-50010 North Texas State U. T. R. Hays $14,992

This project seeks evidence of a change in livelihood from food collection to food production by the excavation and analysis of a predynastic site in Upper Egypt, which is providing the earliest evidence of a neolithic economy in Egypt. The beginnings of Egyptian civilization are believed to tie in with this economic change which would be accompanied by adjustments in cultural and political activities.

5. TA76-26 U. of Kentucky W. Y. Adams $11,067

For 3,500 years the fortress site of Qasr Ibrim was a major administrative and religious center and is the last major archaeological site threatened with inundation by Lake Nasser which was formed by the construction of the Aswan Dam. Investigation concentrates on an unexcavated temple which was converted in the sixth century A.D. to a Christian church and on the houses and other remains of the mysterious Ballana Kingdom (fourth century A.D.) of which there is very little information.

4. FR6-50011 U. of Pennsylvania

University Museum D. O'Connor $21,800

The city of Malkata was the residence of the Pharaoh, Amenhotep III and excavation of the city and its harbor should increase knowledge of ancient Egyptian urbanization and settlement patterns. This site should also increase the understanding of the contribution of harbor towns along the Nile to the administrative and economic structure of the country.

87-564 O - 77 - 49

Principal Institution Investigator S Eqv.

5. FR6-50007 Washington State U. F. Hassan $13,504

The, origins of agriculture and human cultural adaption to a changing environment are being explored in a study which parallels that of North Texas State University. Prehistoric groups engaged in hunting and dry farming are known to have inhabited the Siwa Oasis region in Prehistoric Egypt.

6. FR6-50013 American Institute of

Indian Studies -,. . .-yj -,

Amend.5 fT.Q.) Chicago, IL E. Dimock, Jr. «S978l

The American Institute of Indian Studies (AIIS) was founded in 1961 and today has a membership of 28 United States institutions. The AIIS is a unique national resource because it is the principal source of money on an annual basis supporting in the United States the advancement of knowledge and understanding of India as well as the training in India of area specialists. Moreover, the AIIS has served the U.S. national interest by sustaining active scholarly collaboration between the U.S. and India during periods of political stress when other contacts have been interrupted. Disciplines sponsored by the AIIS are increasing from the original concentration on social sciences and the humanities to include the natural sciences as well. Smithsonian support of the AIIS has totalled $3,536,647 equivalent in Indian rupees over an eleven year period.

2J Total for following parenthetical amounts (items 6a and 6b).

a. American Institute of Indian Studies

Chicago, IL E. Dimock, Jr. ($86,850)

The AIIS provides support for its fellows and for a major language program as well from a headquarters in New Delhi and small offices in Bombay, Calcutta, Madras and Poona.

b. American Institute of Indian Studies

Chicago, IL E. Dimock, Jr. ($233,555)

The principal activity of the AIIS has been the appointment of fellows. The SFCP currently provides most of the funds for this fellowship program. AIIS fellows receiving support during FY 76 are listed below.

Brandeis U. M. S. Robinson

California State U. L. G. Tewari

Columbia U. D. L. Gitomer

Eastern Michigan U. J. Hurd II

George Mason U. D. Srinivasan

Harvard U. S. Schuler

Harvard U. G. A. Tubb

M.I.T. R.P.V. Kiparsky

Oakland U. C. Coppola III

Queens College S. Hanchett

U. of California

Berkeley R. A. Frasca

U. of California

Berkeley L. H. Bede

Obligation Number

7. FR4-60095

Amend. 6 (T.Q.)

Institution U. of California Santa Barbara

U. of Chicago

U. of Chicago

U. of Chicago

U. of Chicago

U. of Michigan

U. of Minnesota

U. of Minnesota

U. of Minnesota

U. of Pennsylvania

U. of Pennsylvania

U. of Utah

Yale U.

American Institute of Indian Studies Chicago, IL

Principal Investigator

G. J. Larson

C. Prindle

F. Pritchett K. L. Rose

C. M. Nain

J. H. Bromfield

P. C. Engblom

M. Lowah

D. N. Nelson

G. Cardona

R. W. Lariviere

B. D. Dharda

F. W. Bennett II

E. Dimock, Jr.

$ Eqv

$28,000

Another activity of the AIIS receiving Smithsonian funds is the Center for Art and Archaeology at Benares, India, which is a vital research facility serving scholars of ancient Indian from all over the world. The Center was established to apply rigorous scholarly standards to the massive job of photographing and indexing the art collections and the temples and monuments of India which abound in every region of the sub-continent. The archive of 30,000 photographs continues to grow as important projects like photographing collections in the India Museum in Calcutta are undertaken.

8. FR6-50014 (T.Q.)

American Institute of Indian Studies Chicago, IL

M. Ashton

$5,404

In the area of South Kanara, India, ancient mythology permeates the daily life of the people but the celebrations of these myths, developed over the centuries, are rapidly disappearing. This project is filming three vanishing dance forms, which embody the regional myths.

SF3-011638 Amend. 5 (?Y 76)

American Institute of Indian Studies Chicago, IL

C. R. Jones

$4,838

This project is a documentation for the first time on film and in a descriptive monograph of rapidly disappearing ritual art forms which are at least a thousand years old. The study will cast new light on traditional culture values and the changes they are undergoing.

Obligation Principal

Number Institution Investigator $ Eqv.

10. FR6-50005 American Museum of

Natural History, N.Y. W. A. Fairservis $18,660

This excavation of an Harappan Village site near Karachi seeks a clear picture of the way of life of the villagers and influences for change which affected the Harappan civilization. Scholars feel that this culture lies at the foundation of South Asian civilization.

11. FR6-S0004 U. of California

Berkeley G. F. Dales $37,346

This excavation is studying the paleo-environmental and archeological history of a 4000 B.C. coastal site in Pakistan illustrating that Balakot was indeed a seaport (now several miles inland) and that trade was carried on with Mesopotamia and the Persian Gulf. The boring of stratigraphic cores is determing the physical environmental situation in relation to the ancient coastline and may provide historical information directly bearing on present-day development schemes for harbors and coastal facilities.

POLAND

12. TATQ-IFT00237 Southern Methodist U.

Dallas, TX A. Close $1,762

The purpose of this study is the comparison for stylistic variability of a collection of artifacts in Poland with a similar group in the United States. These artifacts were taken from excavations of six sites in Egypt in a joint effort between the United States and Poland.

13. TA76-IFT00174 U. of Louisville, KY S. Jemigan $5,899

This is a survey combining archaeological and art history approaches to gain insight into the history and cultural development of Poland in the medieval period and its relationship with Central and Western Europe at that time.

TUNISIA

14. FR6-S0003 Dumbarton Oaks Center

for Byzantine Studies

Washington, D.C. M. Alexander $128,000

This is a descriptive and photographic inventory of the tile and stone mosaics from the Roman colonial and Byzantine periods in Tunisia, leading to the publication of scholarly reference works on the social, religious and artistic aspects of life in ancient Tunisia.

SYSTEMATIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL BIOLOGY

For much of our history as a nation, we have regarded technology as the key to the betterment of the human condition. It is a concept that once stood virtually unquestioned, and which has profoundly influenced changing cultural patterns around the world. Today, however, it is becoming increasing obvious that technology exacts its price, one that is multiplied by new levels of population. Biological scientists who once concerned themselves with laying the brick-work of the edifice of human knowledge now find themselves with a new responsibility. We now know that it is imperative to establish norms for our environmental systems, to monitor changes, and to predict the consequences of social policies on an Earth that has grown less forgiving of our abuses. American scientists are again the leaders in international research efforts in these new fields and with Smithsonian Foreign Currency Program support in countries where this resource is available. Through research such as described below, the Program fosters long term collaborative relationships between American and foreign institutions and scholars, thus laying a foundation for the intense efforts that will be required to solve the problems of biological science that know no national boundries.

Obligation Principal

Number Institution Investigator $ Eqv.

EGYPT

1S.TA76-56 U. of Michigan

Ann Arbor, MI P. Gingerich $1,219

This is a study of 11 million year old (Oligocene) fossil mammal specimens in the Cairo Geological Museum. It seeks clarification of the line of man's evolution from his primate ancestors inhabiting Africa and Europe.

16. FR6-50008 U. of Michigan J. B. Burch $45,166

Ann Arbor, MI

This grant supports research into the freshwater snails of Africa, including disease-carrying species, and into development of techniques for the control of the disease-carrying ones.

INDIA

17. TATQ-IFT00230 Smithsonian Institution

TATQ-IFT00234 U. of California Riverside

TATQ-IFT00248 U. of California Santa Cruz

Obligation Principal

Number Institution Investigator $ Eqv.

TATQ-IFT00236 U. of Maryland J. 0. Corliss $1,958

TATQ-IFT00229 U. of Maryland R. Colwell $2,065

The program supported the U.S. delegation to the XIX General Assembly of the International Union of Biological Sciences held in Bangalore, India, and consultation with Indian scientists and officials to explore ways to further U.S. - Indian collaboration in biological research.

18. TA76-IFT00136 Smithsonian Institution S. D. Ripley $3,845 This is a study of the ecology of the birds of South Asia.

PAKISTAN

19. TA75-261 6 Hawaii Institute of

TA262 Marine Biology A. Banner

Amend. 1 (FY 76) Kaneohoe, HI D. Banner $1,464

This is a study of the biology of the Alpheid shrimp, a commercially valuable family of shrimp found on the Pakistani coast. This project seeks to develop plans to increase their production.

POLAND

20. FR6-50012 Smithsonian Institution

U. S. Geological Survey W. A. Oliver, Jr. $9,539

This study compares and analyzes in Poland new and existing data on the geographic distribution of Devonian and Permian corals to test current hypotheses of the positions of continents during these periods.

21. TATQ-IFT00251 Academy of Natural Sciences T. Uzzell $3,012 TATQ-IFT00252 Philadelphia, PA C. Spolsky $2,137

For a number of years American and Polish geneticists have been studying the Rana esculenta , a complex of European frogs that exhibit marked patterns of variability in the passing of genetic material to offspring, producing both genetically stable and unstable . species. This research is directed toward both understanding the mechanism of heredity and toward development of techniques of genetic research.

TUNISIA

22. FR5-46241 Amend. 1 (FY 76) $ 18,640 FR6-50006 Utah State U. F. Wagner $104,469

This project, by studying the ecology of the land in Tunisia bordering on the Sahara Desert, seeks to learn the natural and agricultural processes which are causing the desert to expand thereby reducing the amount of tillable land. It also seeks to develop land use plans and to modify agricultural techniques to assist in reversing the desertification process.

i

Obligation Principal

Number Institution Investigator $ Eqv.

23. TA76-IFT00156 U. of California

Berkeley R. Omduff $1,758

TA76-IFT00157 Duke U. W. Culberson $1,833

An 'award was given for the study of pollen patterns in various economically important plants. It seeks to develop techniques to ascertain pollen production and pollenator behavior.

ASTROPHYSICS AND EARTH SCIENCES

The study of astrophysics and earth sciences is the study of man's available energy and mineral resources. Studies of the stars and their origins reveal much about the origin, composition, behavior and fate of the Earth. The forces governing the stars are of course the same as those governing the star which is our Sun. The Earth was bom of solar minerals, and the Sun remains the source of all energy, fossil or otherwise, available to man today. Uranium, for example, which provides the fuel-"fi5r atomic power plants, is present in the Sun as well as the Earth. Coal and oil are fossil remains of plants and animals which once relied on sunshine for lifej just as all life does today.

Studies, like those listed below which received Smithsonian Foreign Currency Program support in FY 1976 and Transition Quarter are contributing to a body of knowledge ' which is essential to satisfying man's future energy and mineral needs and to his understanding and prediction of earthquakes, for example, and will contribute to future space age developments of benefit to man.

Such projects help host nations, particularly the developing nations, improve their scientific output while providing United States institutions with collaborators, facilities or field research opportunities essential to the conduct of studies judged by the Smithsonian most likely to advance man's knowledge of his available energy and mineral resources.

Obligation Principal

N'jmber Institution Investigator $ Eqv.

EGYPT

24. TA76-IFT00102 TA76-IFT00103

TA76-IFT00104 U. of Pennsylvania H. Paul $9,347

An award was granted to study the geology and time sequences of the "alkaline ring-dike" formations, which occur in the eastern desert of Egypt. The purpose of this project is to shed new light on the fundamental earth processes associated with the birth of the oceans and to develop guides for mineral exploration.

25. TATQ-00238 U. of Pennsylvania R. A. Weeks $1,994

Laboratory analysis is proposed of the chemical and physical properties of desert silica glass, a naturally occuring glass of unknown origin similar to tektites, which are extraterrestrial in origin. This project also proposes to determine the source

material and mode of the glass formation.

Obligation Number

Institution

Principal Investigator

$ Eqv.

Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA

G. F. Weiffenbach

$2,756

The Smithsonian Astrophysical Observing Station at the Uttar Pradesh State Observatory, Naini Tal, India, is the only satellite tracking station in the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory network located on the Asian land mass. This station makes possible observation of man-made satellites passing over South Asia. It employs tracking cameras and contributes to studies devoted to an understanding of the movement of the continents, the shape of the Earth, the nature of its upper atmosphere, and how these are influenced by the Sun and the other planets. ]

PAKISTAN - none

TA75-306

Amend. 1 (FY 76)

FR6-S001S CTQ)

Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA

E.M. Gaposchkin

$95

$182,755

Forces affecting the movement of continents and associated volcanic and earthquake activity can be studied by monitoring the continental movements and the wobble of the Earth at the poles from observatories precisely located, not simply by latitude and longitude, which is a system tied to shifting continents, but by establishing its location in relation to the Earth's more stable center of mass. This collaborative study will establish this kind of location for a Polish observatory at Borowiec and permit substantial additions of data to studies of the Earth's dynamics.

28. FR6-S0001

U. of Chicago

D. Schramm

$16,936

This research employs computers to calculate the chemical evolution of the core of stars comparable to the earth's solar system.

29. FR6-50009

Duke U.

O.H. Pilkey

$13,500

This is a study of the sediment in the Lake of Tunis, one of the world's oldest polluted lagoons, tracing the history and long range effect of pollution. It seeks to determine what combinations of organisms are characteristic of various levels and types of pollution.

\

MUSEUM PROGRAMS

The scope of museum activities is growing and changing. The traditional museum role has been the care and preservation of scientific specimens and cultural objects for study and reevaluation as new techniques and data become available. Today museums also have a growing role in the transmission of man's cultural heritage to future generations, a role belonging traditionally to universities. Museums are now making more use of their skilled personnel and their collections for popular education. Increasingly, museums are broadening the interpretation of museum collections to include living cultural traditions such as crafts and the performing arts.

Projects like those listed below, which received Smithsonian Foreign Currency Program support in FY 76 and Transition Quarter, support both the traditional and the newer roles of museums. These projects respond to the needs of the museum profession which are not met within the framework of basic research in the natural sciences and cultural history which received Smithsonian Foreign Currency Program support separately.

Obligation Principal

Number Institution Investigator $ Eqv.

30. TA76-I 5 2 Smithsonian Institution C. Mydans S

S. Mydans $368

This award supported research for a descriptive article on the traditional dance rituals of Burma for publication in the Smithsonian magazine.

31. TA TQ -0G258 Smithsonian Institution S. Bedini $2,618 TA TQ -00267 ~~~~~^-a.^amameh $2,136

The U.S. - Eg\-ptian Agreement on Health provides for development of an Egyptian Museum on the History of Medicine and Pharmacy. The Deputy Director of the U. S. National Museum of History and Technology led a group of experts to Cairo to consult with Egyptian officials and Directors of Egypt's museums on ways to develop their museums on the history of medicine and pharmacy.

32. FR4-60107

Amend. 5 (FY 76) Smithsonian Institution S. K. Hamarneh $714

This award supported a study of medieval arabic manuscripts in Egypt to obtain material for inclusion in a history of Islamic contributions to the development of medical science.

33. TA75-23C Smithsonian Institution

Amend. 5 (FY 76) Kent State U. H. El Dabh $475

This award supported folklore research in Egypt to identify and select folk artists and craftsmen to participate in special American Bicentennial programs in the United States illustrating the cultural traditions of immigrants to the United States.

INDIA - none

Obligation Principal

Number Institution Investigator $ Eqv.

PAKISTAN

34. TA76-IFT99 Smithsonian Institution and

U. of California at Los Angeles N. Jairazbhoy $3,104

An award was granted for ethnographic research in Pakistan to identify and select folk artists and craftsmen who share roots in common with American immigrants from the same area to participate in special American Bicentennial programs in the United States.

POLAND

35. FR5-46237 National Archives Trust Fund

Amend. 1 (,F( 76) Board, Washington, D. C. A. Meisel $2,600

The goal of this project is the preparation of an animated film in Poland that will provide information for the American public visiting the National Archives on the Archives' historical development and its major services.

36. TA76-IFT00182 R. Chelminski $1,157 TA76-IFT00183 Smithsonian Institution R. Crane $1,572

This award supported research for articles on the National Forest at Bialowieza and on the archaeological project at Olsanica to be published in the Smithsonian magazine.

37. TA76-IFT41 Smithsonian Institution R. Rinzler $648 TA76-IFT72 U. of Texas S. Jakobson $760 TA76-IFT42 Wesleyan U. J. Kimball $2,252

This project identified folk artists and craftsmen who share roots in common with American immigrants from the same area who then participated in special American Bicentennial programs in the United States.

TUNISIA - none

Obligation

Number Institution $ Eqv-

38. 3300-61-01 (FY 76) Smithsonian Institution $21,502 Indian rupees were transferred to the State Department for Shared Administrative Expenses.

39. TA TQ-IFT00214 Smithsonian Institution 1,309

This obligation supported inspection and audit of research projects and liaison with host country governments and institutions by Smithsonian scientific advisory council members and by Smithsonian staff.

TRANSFER TO NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION (NSF)

40.(Transition Quarter) NSF, Science Information Program $83,000

These funds were transferred to NSF for translations of publications of priority interest to scholars conducting research in the natural sciences and cultural history.

USE OF FOREIGN CURRENCIES FOR ANIMAL ACQUISITION

Mr. Yates. Incidentally, the thought occurred to me that perhaps your foreign currency program could be used to provide a tiger for Mr. Eeed.

Mr. Challinor. We have lots of tigers; they breed well in captivity. To send one from India would be like bringing coals to Newcastle.

Mr. Yates. What about other animals ? Could the foreign currency program be used ? Mr. Reed is shaking his head yes.

Mr. Ripley. As far as the foreign currency program is concerned, I don't think the zoo has any ongoing projects ?

Mr. Yates. I know what you are doing is having your scholars look up medieval Islamic texts in Egypt, for example, but in India, I don't know how many people are going to read that, but a lot of people will look at Mr. Reed's animals. Is it possible to use that foreign currency program for some animals ?

Mr. Ripley. Subject to the Indo-U.S. Commission agreement, and they have been somewhat reluctant at the moment to continue many of these research programs because the Indian Government, I think quite rightly in view of their financial difficulties as a developing country, emphasizes the need for purely targeted specific applied projects, such as various kinds of studies, like aid to improve water resources or to improve agriculture.

The more basic kinds of research in animal behavior or animal distribution, things of this sort, they have been somewhat reluctant in recent years, because of the imposition, to undertake and so we would find some difficulty in being ,able to get through that program.

Mr. Yates. The scholars who come to visit me, probably at the be-heat of our good friend Mr. Challinor, tell me of the enormous sums of foreign currency present, and, after all, we should be using it, is the way they put it.

Mr. Reed, I am sorry; Mr. Ripley seems to be putting the kibosh on our new program here.

Mr. Ripley. During the tenure of Ambassador Moynihan as Ambassador to India, an agreement was reached by which a large amount of that aid was written off, surplus rupees and 1 billion dollars' worth of rupees alone were sequestered to be administered under these commissions. Mr. Blitzer knows about this because he is a member of the cultural commission.

Mr. Yates. I know about Mr. Blitzer's invasion of India.

Mr. Ripley. Since this has been set up, this new routine has applied that the commissions have to meet and to try to get some relaxation about the Indian side of the agreement to use these rupees for any project other than the most strictly applied ones which they targeted.

national zoological park construction

Mr. Yates. Yon want $1 million for construction and improvements in the National Zoological Park. Mr. Reed doesn't want a tiger, but he wants some bricks and mortar.

You want no new major improvement funds in 1978. You want to stop for awhile and reflect?

.776

Mr. Reed. I want to do our planning and develop our support facilities for what we already have. We must take care of what we already have.

Mr. Yates. It is well to stop and reflect for a while, isn't it ?

Mr. Reed. Yes.

Mr. Yates. Would you provide for the record your unobligated construction balances as of January 31 for each individual project for which there is a balance and the year in which the funds were appropriated ?

Mr. Reed. Yes, sir.

[The information follows:]

CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENTS, NATIONAL ZOOLOGICAL PARK, UNOBLIGATED BALANCES AS OF JAN. 31,

1977

(In thousands of dollars]

Unobligated Appropriated Project balance

Fiscal year:

1974 Lion and Tiger facility — 1

1975 Bird House Plaza.. 182

1975-76 General Services and Parking Building 304

1975 Education-Administration Building 288

1976 Lower Rock Creek Valley 70

1977 Beaver Valley area 3,741

197T.. Central area... 103

1975 Waterfowl Pond area 20

1976-77 Graphics 99

1977.. Renovation and repair, Rock Creek. 444

1977 Renovation and repair. Front Royal 145

Total 5,397

INCREASE FOR ZOO CONSTRUCTION ACCOUNT

Mr. Yates. Will you also, in conjunction with that, provide for the record an explanation of what the million dollars will specifically provide for in fiscal year 1978 ?

Mr. Reed. Yes, sir.

[The information follows:]

Fiscal 1978 Bequest fob Zoo Consteuction

For Rock Creek, $300,000 will allow renovation of the central gas-fired heating plant. The boilers must be moved and raised to a higher elevation to avoid flooding and the possibility of heat shutdown. A nearby building is to be renovated, new boilers installed, and flood protection added. A new fuel oil storage tank will be installed as a standby in event of a natural gas shortage.

For Front Royal, $700,000 will be spent in rebuilding the old utility system, updating sewage and water treatment systems, repairing animal bams, constructing one new hoofed stock barn, preparing a building for veterinary use, resurfacing roads, and removing unsafe structures.

FRONT ROYAL CONSERVATION AND RESEARCH CENTER

Mr. Yates. When are you going to open the Front Royal Center to the public?

Mr. Reed. In our plans, 2 years from now we will approach the committee with the appropriation construction request for the visitor center. It will probaly be 18 months after that. We have tentative

plans for a visitor center at Front Royal. If you wish to see them, I have them with me. It will be 2 years before we request the money.

Mr. Yates. Will you be getting any visitors at Front Eoyal ?

Mr. Reed. We will probably be picking up overflow from the Shenandoah National Park, and there are a number of people who have visited on special permission now, but we are not equipped to handle them either for the safety of the visitor or the animals.

Mr. RiPLET. There are excursion trains to Front Royal, and I notice in the spring and fall there seems to be enormous crowds of tourists coming in on the trains or buses, so it is apparently a fairly good excursion point these days.

Mr. Reed. I would say when we have a nice visitor center there explaining what we are doing and are able to handle the public, we will probably have 700,000 or 800,000 people a year.

GENERAL SERVICES BUILDING

Mr. Yates. The committee approved $1 million last year for repro-graming to cover costs in connection with the construction of a combined general services building and a parking structure due to a rock outcropping.

Has that situation been resolved ?

Mr. Reed. Yes, sir, this has been completed.

Mr. Yates. Has that been completed ?

Mr. Reed. Yes. We have dug the rock out. We have not yet completed the service building. It will be done probably in October-November of this year.

Mr. Yates. Is there anything you want to tell me about the zoo before we let you go back to the gallery; any problems we should know about; any incipient explosions of appropriated funds that we should know about, like the rock outcropping ?

Mr. Reed. I hope that we never have another one like that. How we managed to bracket that rock in our test borings I will never know, but we did it beautifully. We had 21 test borings, and they just were on all sides of this rock outcropping, underground of course.

LIBRARY AND STUDY ADDITION TO MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY

Mr. Yates. If there is nothing else you want to tell us about, we will go on to the Museum of History and Technology.

You are requesting $7.1 million to build a sixth-floor addition to the National Museum of History and Technology to accommodate the museum's present library and to house the Dibner collection.

Too many books in the present library, I take it.

Is the present library no longer adequate. Dr. Hindle ?

Mr. HiNDLE. No, sir, it is not, and it really has not been adequate since the building was built.

Mr. Yates. Can't we send your scholars over to the Library of Congress ?

Mr. HiNDLE. We make excellent use of the Library of Congress, Mr. Chairman. The Library of Congress is one of our great resources, and we have the opportunity to borrow books directly from the

Library, but this is a working library for the Institution, and it is necessary to have it adjacent to and in a position where our staff and our visiting scholars can use it.

The statistics for the Library of Congress, I think, show that about one out of every three books requested turns out not to be available. Ours is a specialized library which is now scattered in 63 different locations because of our inadequate space facilities.

Mr. Yates. Your library is scattered in how many locations ?

Mr. HiNDLE. Sixty-three different locations.

Mr. Yates. That is just your museum's library.

Mr. HiNDLE. Yes.

Mr. Yates. Not the library for the Smithsonian.

Mr. HiNDLE. No. The library is administered by the Smithsonian libraries for the museum.

Mr. Yates. Each of the museums has its own library, has it not?

Mr. HiNDLE. Each of them does, yes.

Mr. Yates. But this is yours.

Mr. HiNDLE. Ours.

Mr. Yates. Do you have the largest one ?

Mr. HiNDLE. I am not sure what the size of the Natural History is.

Mr. Yates. Will we have to worry about the cost of expanding that library one of these days ?

Mr. Ripley. No, sir. We have plans in the Museum Support Center which we think will take care of it.

Mr. Yates. You wouldn't want to take care of this museum as well, would you ?

Mr. Ripley. This library addition does include a rare book facility, which I hope will include all of the rare category books of the whole library system.

RAKE BOOKS

Mr. Ripley. This library makes space for 215,000 volumes and the Dibner collection which has been mentioned before is something less than 10,000. We have calculated the addition of the balance of the rare books within the Smithsonian to make it an Institution rare book library would not reach 20,000, Overall, the addition will provide space for 78,000 volumes beyond what we have now. We believe we can accommodate the rare book library of the Institution.

Mr. Yates. Wliat alternatives have you explored? Are there any al t ernatives at all ?

AVliere is the Dibner collection now ?

Mr. Ripley. It is stored presently in the Museum of History and Technology in temporary quarters.

Mr. Yates. Is it available to scholars ?

Mr. HiNDLE. It is available for scholars, yes.

Mr. Yates. Why is it inadequate the way it is now ?

Mr. Ripley. It represents only a small fraction, Mr. Chairman, of what we are asking for in terms of space and size. It can be housed as a collection, a rare book collection, in a relatively small space. It would be appropriate to incorporate that collection and our other rare books in a relatively small part of the addition. This would be highly appropriate, efficient, and right, because as you know, rare books now have increased in value so atrociously that they are subject to a very great

danger. It is almost like our crown jewels, possessing these books. They must be maintained mider very secure conditions.

Mr. Yates. Are your conditions such now that they are not secure ?

Mr. Ripley. No, but we feel it would be more efficient if we had them as an incorporated part of the library addition.

Mr. HiNDLE. Yes. Might I add that the present temporary housing is carved out of exhibit space on the first floor, and we have plans for developing that satisfactorily for presentation to the public. It is not a reasonable place to keep a library. It was put there only as an adaptation which we have made, and this accounts for the other 63 locations.

MODEL OF PROPOSED ADDITION

Mr. Yates. Do you have the designs and plans for the addition ?

Mr. HiNDLE. Yes; we do.

Might I use our model a minute, Mr. Chairman ?

Mr. Yates. Why, of course, please do.

Mr. HiNDLE. This is the builder's model of the building as it stands now. It has five floors, and we are proposing to add here a sixth floor. I have also a red version of this which is not the way it will appear. Actually the National Capital Planning Commission and the Fine Arts Commission have approved this, and I think it really improves the appearance of the building. This is erected directly on top of the present structure. It is, as you see, an angular space, although there will be corridors cut through. The great bulk of it is for stacks. The library work area will be in one corner, and in the other corner will be study facilities to accommodate primarily now the Eisenhower Institute for Historical Research which has been assigned under congressional legislation to the Institution. This is the primary solution we have found. Others have been explored, and one of the reasons other solutions were not pursued was the need to get something which would be harmonious and would be approved by the Fine Arts Commission. Earlier efforts, for example, to deck over the patio, to add space, were resoundingly turned down.

Mr. Yates. Are there no windows in your new addition?

Mr. HiNDLE. The windows are shown in this model; there are slits at either end, and very small windows running along a portion of it. We could not put in large window areas, and have this approved, and that was a solution which the architect proposed, and which was accepted as in fact improving the appearance of the building.

Mr. Yates. Was that plan approved before the announcement of the energy crisis? What are you going to do for lighting?

Mr. Hindle. The lighting will be not primarily from outside light. It was approved before the energy crisis reached its current peak.

Mr. Yates. Maybe you ought to go back and ask your architects.

What about the foundation? Will you be coming in here later on for some money to repair a cracked foundation?

Mr. Hindle. No, sir, I believe not. There was a question of how most expeditiously to add the sixth floor since the fifth floor was not planned to receive a sixth floor addition, but plans have been worked out so that it can simply be tied into the structural steel framework of the building. There is no problem about its being able to take the load, and I think the foundation is not in question at all.

Mr. Yates. There are no problems of impairing the building itself as a result of this addition. Mr. HiNDLE. No.

SIXTH FLOOR CONSTRUCTION COSTS

Mr. Yates. And that is going to cost $7.1 million.

Mr. Ripley. I think, Mr. Chairman, it would take about 3 years.

Mr. HiNDLE. Yes; the funding would be phased over that period with $1.5 million of it the first year, $4.1 million the second year, and I believe $1.5 million the third year.

Mr. McDade. What is the per square foot cost of the addition ?

Mr. HiNDLE. The per square foot cost is $115 per gross footage, and if I might explain that a bit, this is a high cost, and we have been from the beginning concerned about it, but the first point that perhaps ought to be made is that by projecting the costs of the original building, which was $46.50 per square foot onto inflationary scales for building, each of them diverging, our average comes to $109 per square foot for the original building, if that were to be constructed today. The per square foot cost of the addition does not seem out of line, in view of the fact that that is a difficult space to build. It is necessary to do some demolition. Everything has to be lifted up six floors in order to cany the construction through. The addition is really of the same order of magnitude as the cost of the original building, and it does, instead of making the building look worse, improve it. It answers our need, which I think this chart shows.

The present library does not serve us. It also relieves space in a kind of descending order, by moving books which are now stored in exhibit space, not simply the Dibner Library but other exhibit spaces on the first floor are being used temporarily to house books. A receiving vault area in the basement is used for our documentaiy collection, and this will ease conditions in many ways.

sixth floor plans

Mr. Yates. Has the committee been furnished with any kind of a synopsis of what the plans are like ?

Mr. HiNDLE. Yes, sir, the plan is in here, the floor plan. Mr. Ripley. We have it in the book.

MUSEUM SUPPORT FACILITY

Mr. Yates. I am troubled in this respect. Mr. Perrot wanted $40 million last year ? I suppose it may have gone up in view of inflation.

Mr. Ripley. $20.6 million.

Mr. Yates. You read the proposals and you know that for $20.6 million you don't get very much, and you need the full $40 million to get the kind of an installation that the Smithsonian wants or needs.

Am I wrong in that, Mr. Perrot?

Mr. Perrot. Mr. Chairman, we believe that the $21.5 million appropriation that is the total for this facility will accommodate our needs through 1986. Beyond that we foresee that there will be some problems.

Mr. Yates. Of course, and why build only for 1986 then ? If you are going to build, why shouldn't you take care of what you think you ought to build ? In 1986 you will be coming in to the Appropriations Committee and saying "We told you that our need would be fulfilled only until 1986." That is only what, 9 years away ? Nine years go by very quickly, and you are going to come in and say "All of our artifacts, art collections and everything else is just coming out of our new support facilities. We are back in the aisles again."

Mr. Pereot. Mr. Chairman, I would not want to tie the hands of my successors, but I will say that by 1986, no matter how much the collections grow, according to the anticipated rates, and the level of scholarly activities, we will not be anywhere near as tight as we are now. By 1986 we will have reached the limits of the ideal, but there will still be enough cushion space, I believe, within the various buildings of the Institution so that we will not have to request that additional building be completed by that year. However, it is clear if the programs of the Institution, which have been going on for 130 years continue, and develop and mature as indeed they should and must, then we will need additional spaces between now and the end of the century.

Mr. Yates. The description of your Suitland proposal is not completely clear in my mind, but I seem to remember having read something that disturbed me and made me believe that the half proposal, the $21 million proposal, was not nearly adequate. If you go ahead, you ought to go for the entire $40 million, unless budgetary restraints, of course, stop you from doing it, but as far as the Smithsonian is concerned, you do need the $41 million facility if you are going to be a permanent institution.

Mr, Perrot. Sir, since our plans were submitted last year, we have totally reviewed our programs, the needs of the various departments, and also reconsidered the structure that we originally proposed. As a result of this, rather than having two large 300-foot long and wide storage components, we have agreed to only have one, and to deck this at the start. Our original plan was to have two buildings which would be undecked, and which would have allowed for future expansion internally without requiring; building additional shells.

Wliat we are doing now is filling the shell, as it were, but we do believe that though the shell will be filled, it will be filled far less inconveniently, and indeed will not endanger the safety of the collections such as is done by the storage conditions we have now.

Mr. Yates. I remember that yon made a very thorough expanation of this to the Board of Regents when I was still a member, and I wonder whether or not you could provide something of the nature of that explanation for the record.

Mr. Perrot. I shall be glad to, sir.

|"The information follows:]

87-564 O - 77 - 50

Museum Support Center Justification of Reassessment of Project's Scope

Public Law 94-98 approved September 19, 1975, authorizes the Smithsonian Institution to plan museum support facilities and provides for the appropriation of such sums as may be necessary to carry out that authority. These facilities would house and make more accessible for research purposes the national collections of specimens and artifacts documenting the fields of natural science, history and technology, and art. They would also provide space for research on the collections and training of conservators and would permit the return to exhibits and other public services space now required to be used for research collections.

The fiscal year 1977 budget to Congress sought planning funds for the development of a building to meet the urgent needs of the National Museum of Natural History estimated at approximately 600,000 sq.ft. and an estimated cost of approximately $40 million. The House report on the FY 1977 Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation Bill stated, "The Committee fully supports the need for and desirability of this facility, but the Committee was faced with difficult choices and since this project had large future-year costs, the Committee has recommended that the project be delayed." The Senate report on the same bill said, "Because of the high costs involved, the Committee suggests that the Smithsonian use available funds to review the project scope in an effort to curb estimated spending needs."

Consistent with these instructions from the Congress, the Smithsonian has continued to study and refine the scope of this project in an effort to meet the stated needs without significant loss of quality and flexibility. The fiscal year 1978 budget to Congress requests an amount of $325,000 to initiate architectural and engineering design for construction of a Museum Support Center building with some 338,000 sq.ft. of space estimated to cost $21.5 million including all planning, construction, and an amount for some furnishing and equipping. This substantial reduction in costs is not matched by a commensurate reduction in the long-term utility of this building in terms of the benefits it will provide including the freeing of space on the National Mall.

The present plan provides 239,000 sq.ft. of easily accessible storage space primarily to meet the needs of the National Museum of Natural History. This represents essentially no^ reduction in initial storage space provided in the $40 million building plan. This economy results from immediate double decking of a smaller single story building rather than initial construction of a much larger shell to be double decked in future years.

Included in this proposed Center will be space to meet research and conservation needs. The present plan will provide some 69,000 sq.ft. of office and laboratory areas for the professional and technical staff of the Museum of Natural History as well as visiting students and scholars who will be associated directly with the collections. The plan will also provide some 31,000 sq.ft. for the conservation of museum objects and specimens, research on conservation techniques, and the training of staff and visiting conservation interns.

This Center proposed for consideration by the Congress offers the following long-term benefits to the National Museum of Natural History, the scholars who use its collections, and the many visitors who view its exhibits:

. Some 40,000 sq.ft. of space in the Museum of Natural History currently used for collections and research can be returned to its intended public purposes. Funds are available to the Museum to implement planned exhibits.

. Collections will be removed from inaccessible areas in the Museum of Natural History and made fully accessible in the new structure.

. Disciplines and collections will be brought into improved relationships in the new building to enhance interdisciplinary research.

. A major facility will be provided for conservation and training.

. Research and collection areas remaining in the Natural History Museum will be less crowded allowing for more effective use of the specimens.

Previous statements by the Institution may have implied that by the year 1986 this Museum Support Center building would no longer meet the continuing needs of the Institution and would have to be augmented by the development of additional facilities. For long-term planning purposes, the Smithsonian found it convenient to identify certain "benchmark years" to assure that periodic assessments and adequate attention would be given to collections housing needs for all the Institution's museums. It was not intended that the long-term benefits to the Museum of Natural History afforded by the Center would come to an end, but that it would be appropriate to reassess all Institutional requirements by this time.

Simultaneous with the Smithsonian efforts to consider carefully space requirements have been efforts to assure the availability of a site and legislation authorizing construction should a planning

appropriation and further appropriations for construction be favorably considered by the Congress. A site suitable for the Museum Support Center is being acquired on Government-owned land at the Suitland Federal Center, Silver Hill, Maryland. This site is expected to be available to the Institution by the end of fiscal year 1977. Construction authorization bills have been introduced in both houses of Congress. Senate bill, S.1029, was introduced on March 17 and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration. The House bill, H.R.6086, introduced on April 5, was referred to the Committee on Public Works and Transportation. Indications from staff point to activity on these bills prior to the August recess.

STORAGE NEEDS OF NATIONAL MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY

Mr. Regula. Mr. Chairman ?

Mr. Yates. Mr. Regula.

Mr. Regula. I am interested in the point on page D-12, that apparently part of this space is needed to accept transfers from the National Musemn of Natural History; is that correct ?

Mr. Perrot. One of the primary uses of this building will be for the collections of the Museum of Natural History as well as for many of the research activities which are conducted in that museum, and which, to be conducted effectively, must be in close proximity to the collections.

In addition, as you know, the Museum of Natural History provides scholarly services to the Department of Agriculture and other departments of Government who use those collections for their own purposes. We expect that the major part of these functions, which are performed at the Museum of Natural History, in spaces which were originally dedicated for exhibition purposes and which are now used for offices and storage, will be removed to the new support center.

Mr. Regula. Would the objective be then that the Museum of Natural History would expand its exhibit areas in the space that they would gain from delivering these items to the Smithsonian ?

Mr. Perrot. In the space that will be gained, there will be, obviously, a reorganization of assignments and 40,000 feet of space which once was dedicated to public exhibitions will be regained. However, it is not the intention of that museum, in the years ahead, to ask for additional appropriations for developing these exhibitions. The museum's director feels that this can be done within the existing base, taking into consideration, of course, an inflation factor.

Mr. Regula. Part of the objective here in this 338,000 square feet would be, in effect, to release 40,000 feet in the Museum of Natural History. That would then absorb 40,000 of the 338,000 you are asking for. Is this correct ?

Mr. Perrot. We are speaking, sir, only of exhibition spaces. Many of the collections of the Museum of Natural History are housed in areas which should not have been converted to storage such as attic spaces which are impossible to air-condition and to climate control. In addition, as the chairman mentioned yesterday, there are corridors, hallways, staircase wells that have been invaded by containers with objects, and sometimes by the objects themselves, exposed freely because there is no way of placing them in adequate containers in those spaces.

annual operating costs of museum support facility

Mr. Regula. Would the building of this facility requested here result in additional people being needed ?

Mr. Perrot. Yes, sir. We estimate that 68 additional maintenance and protection staff members will be required to maintain the building.

Mr. Regula. Do you have any figures that would give the annual cost of maintaining and operating this facility? In other words, do you have any figures that give the total annual cost that would result from this facility ?

Mr. Perrot. The current estimates, based on foreseen conditions as of the time of occupancy, is $1 million for salaries and approximately $700,000 for other aspects of the maintenance program.

Mr. Regtjla. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL CX>LLECTIONS

Mr. Perrot. Mr. Chairman, would it be possible for me to emote for a few moments?

Mr. Yates. To what?

Mr. Perrot. Emote.

Mr. Yates. We never stop a Frenchman from emoting.

Mr. Perrot. Yesterday morning there was a reference to the trust obligations of the Institution, and I would not want in any way to infringe upon what was said other than to remark that there is a trust, an ethical trust which goes beyond any legal requirements. The collections which have been acquired by the Institution over the decades and which have been given to it in trust by the Nation or by collectors, or that have resulted from scientific excavations and other research in this country and abroad are indeed a trust.

We would be, in a way, betraying this trust if now knowing that objects do continue to have a life of their own, and unless the conditions in which they are kept are satisfactory for the maintenance of this life, then objects eventually will decay. Unless we provide, and very soon, adequate storage facilities, as well as facilities for research and program, the ethical aspects of our custody will be threatened and, of course, the scholarly work done by our museums and particularly the work of the Museum of Natural History will be jeopardized.

Mr. Yates. Thank you for that very eloquent statement.

Mr. Regula wants to comment.

ACQUISITION AND COLLECTION MANAGEMENT POLICIES

Mr. Regula. Mr. Chairman. I serve on the board of what is a very excellent historical society, and we are constantly confronted with people who want to clean out the attic and give it to the historical society. It makes them feel good. It gets rid of problems for them, and we could build 3 acres of buildings and still not begin to house all the things people would like to give to us that have some value.

Don't you have the same problem? You make it sound as if anything you have received is a trust of great value; but perhaps you have a few things that, maybe, just maybe, do not have quite that much value. This is weighing that value against the fact that it will take energy, people and a budget to store all those things.

Mr. Perrot. Sir, you are very generous in saying "maybe." I think surely that there are certain items in the collections that have been acquired in decades past that are probably not necessary, and indeed we have now a major study underway, prompted by the request of 0MB, who asked us to define exactly what our acquisition and collection management policies were.

This study has been underway in the last few months, and we expect that it will be completed early this fall.

This study is concerned with the entire process of how we collect. It will define why we collect. We will make spot-checks and certain collections are going to be examnied, to see in what areas there might be redmidancies. Out of this, I am sure we will learn a great deal.

However, if I might add, we are museum professionals, and we do have a feeling for the value of these collections, and though we recognize that some things could be disposed of, at this moment we are confident that, even if we disposed of them tomorrow, the release of the pressure would only be very minor.

Mr. Eegula. Do you have a practical procedure for assessing priorities to the extent that you dispose of items that may have a lesser value to society than those that are proposed to be included?

Mr. Perkot. Mr. Chairman, before things are accepted, they go through a very careful review and culling process, which involves not only the curatorial staff, but the chairmen of the departments and, in the case of any large aggregation, action on the part of the director. A great many things that come to us or are offered to us do not enter the collections after scientific and professional judgment have been exercised.

Mr. Regula. Do you have a procedure to dispose of some even though they have been subject to that rigorous entry assessment that would appear to have a lower priority than what might come along in the future ?

Mr. Perrot. Certain collections are available on loan, and are loaned to other institutions where they may served a more useful purpose. We have had in some cases certain types of objects, for example, in the area of natural history that is of concern to Dr. Challinor, biological specimens and so forth which, after a period of time, lose their value as specimens because they disintegrate.

Also, as the Secretary just whispered to me, in archeology. We have and have had teams that have gone all over the world accumulating vast arrays of materials which are brought back to this country, studied, and after the study has been completed, those elements which are not necessary for determining the scholarly value of the excavation, or that are unnecessary to establish a type classification, are disposed of. But this is generally done prior to their entering the collections, and becoming a permanent part of our holdings.

Mr. Regula. Do you feel your procedure is ruthless enough?

Mr. Perrot. I believe, sir, that it is going to become, I won't say, ruthless but possibly more mindful of the realities of the time. Museum staff members are to some extent squirrels. I think that is their value to society. Some of us must do it.

Mr. Regtjla. Some of us in Congress have the same problem.

Mr. Yates. You don't dare throw anything away. For every letter that you throw away, you have to make three copies.

Mr. Perrot. I am so happy this will be in the record.

Mr. Yates. It will be in the record.

Incidentally have you ever disposed of items from the collection? Once an item gets into the collection, are you required to keep it, or are you allowed to dispose of it? Are you allowed to exchange things?

Mr. Perrot. Sir, you used the word "allowed" and I would like to refer this with the Secretary's approval, to the General Counsel.

Mr. Powers. The short answer is yes. It is in the 1846 act. The exchange and other methods of disposing, and since the very beginning collections have been transferred to other educational organizations, particularly from Natural History.

Mr. Ripley. And the Library of Congress, of course.

Mr. Yates. Thank you, Paul. That was a very eloquent statement.

GENERAL REPAIRS AND IMPROVEMENTS

Please provide for the record the specifics of the $815,000 for general repairs. You say it will be needed for repairs to roofs and exteriors of buildings to provide weathertight interiors and consen^e heating, air-conditioning, and so forth. It doesn't tell us where it is to be.

Provide it in the record, Mr. Jameson, rather than itemizing and explaining everything here.

Mr. Jameson. Yes, sir, we can give you a list of the expected use.

[The information follows:]

I

Anticipated Use of $815,000 in Restoration and Renovation of Buildings Account

Specific, major projects in this appropriation are identified and justified separately under individual building or other headings. The "general repairs and improvements" portion of this appropriation is designated mainly for a planned program of essential repairs to mechanical, electrical, and other systems, and to cope with emergency situations. By having the capability to undertake minor repairs in our valuable and historic buildings before they become major, significant cost savings can be achieved.

The following list of projects under the "general repairs and improvements' rubric represents our judgment at this time of priority needs. Because unforeseen emergencies inevitably arise, it may be necessary to substitute some more urgent projects for those listed below:

(Dollars in thousands)

Heating, ventilating and air conditioning modifications for History and Technology Building, Arts and Industries, Natural History Building and Anacostia Neighborhood Museum $158

Plumbing repairs, replacement and upgrading water and sewage systems for History and Technology Building, Fine Arts and Portrait Galleries, Barney Studio House, Anacostia Neighborhood Museum and Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute 299

Electrical and lighting repairs and replacements for Freer Gallery of Art, Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden and Arts and Industries Building 64

Repair and modifications to physical plant space in Fine Arts and Portrait Galleries, Freer Gallery of Art, Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute and Barney Studio House 90

Roof repairs for Fine Arts and Portrait Galleries

20

Elevator modifications for Freer Gallery of Art, Natural History Building, History and Technology Building and Arts and Industries Building

Architectural-engineering studies

TOTAL

142

42 ^815

MOUNT HOPKINS OBSERVATORY DAY-SLEEPER DORMITORY

Mr. Yates. Dr. Challinor wants to put a day sleeper in. That is an expensive sleeper.

Is this going to be a motel ?

Mr. Challinor. It is an expensive place to build one, at the top of an 8,000-foot mountain.

Mr. Yates. Where are they sleeping now ?

Mr. Challinor. The multiple mirror telescope facility which they will be using is not complete yet, so there is no need for the facility right now. Wliat we want to have is a place for the scientists to stay when the telescope is ready to be used. The existing facility is 1,000 feet down the mountain, and because of the nature of the twisty road, it takes about 45 minutes to drive from the existing facility which is an unsatisfactory metal, prefabricated building, to the summit.

Mr. Yates. Is it somewhat uncomfortable ?

Mr. Challinor. It is very small with closet-sized rooms.

Each room has two bunks. I have slept in it myself. It is metal. It is noisy. It is being currently used.

Mr. Yates. There is noise on Mount Hopkins?

Mr. Challinor. It is noisy when you have people walking downstairs. You can hear everything they say.

Mr. Yates. You want a right to privacy.

Mr. Challinor. Astronomers work at night primarily to look at the sky, and the rest of us or most of the rest of us operate during the day, so they have to reverse their system and sleep during the day or a portion of the day so that soundproofing is important for a day sleeping facility. We have tried to keep this existing building soundproofed, but even were we able to do so, it woiild be terribly inconvenient to get to the. new telescope which is being built as I say about 45 minutes away.

multiple mirror telescope

Mr. Yates. How much does the new telescope cost ?

Mr. Challinor. The new telescope will cost about $7 million. Those figures are all here under the Astrophysical Observatory budget request. We anticipate that first light will go through the telescope about March 1978, and the complete use of the instrument would perhaps be another year later. It takes a long time to adjust these instruments.

COST OF constructing THE DAY-SLEEPER

Mr. Yates. You want eight single dormitory rooms for a cost of $240,000. That is $30,000 apiece.

Mr. Challinor. Well, these rooms can also fit an extra person. We will have double decker bunks, so you can cut that in half again if the building was fully occupied to $15,000 apiece. $15,000 apiece, when you consid^-'T a parking space on the mall for an automobile is worth about $5,000, we think $15,000 is not out of line for a person.

Given these particular circumstances, as I say, it is to be built on the top of an 8,000-foot mountain. It is 2 hours drive up a twisty road from the base of the mountain, aiid it is terribly expensive to get equipment up there.

NO DUPLICATION OF EFFORT

Mr. Yates. Mr. Reg^ula, you have questions on Mt. Hopkins?

Mr. REGUiiA. Just two questions.

What is done with the product of this observatory, and do you make sure that you are not duplicating work of other Government agencies ?

Mr. Challinor. Let me answer the first question about what is done with the product ?

The product of the observations of this observatory are published in the astronomical journals, and are available then to scientists around the world. To insure that we are not duplicating what other astronomers are doing, particularly within the Government, there is a committee called the Interagency Coordinating 'Committee for Astronomy, Acronym, ICCA, which meets regularly to discuss among themselves what the National Science Foundation, NASA, the Smithsonian, ERDA, and there are maybe one or two other agencies involved who do work in astronomy, are doing so that we can be sure when our respective officials go to Congress, they can answer the precise question that you have asked. "We know what each other is doing, and we are not duplicating and wasting the taxpayer's money.

Mr. Eegula. Thank you.

MUSEUM SUPPORT FACILITY'S OPERATING COSTS

Mr. Yates. Do we have in the record what the costs will be for the museum support facilities' operations annually?

Mr. Jameson. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. $1.7 million. That is for the $20.6 million facility.

Mr. Jameson. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Yates. How much would it be for a $40 million facility ? Please provide that for the record.

Mr. Jameson. Yes, sir.

Mr. Yates. I think you originally computed it and then I think you probably forgot it since that time.

Mr. Ripley. We may have last year. I think we discussed it, isn't that right. Mr. Jameson? We discussed the potential $40 million facility before this committee last year ? We may have had the operating budget estimate at that time.

Mr. Jameson. We have done some refining of our general cost estimates over the last year, and I would like the opportunity to put an up-to-date estimate into the record, if the chairman would agree.

Mr. Yates. The chairman would agree.

[The information follows:]

Museum Support Center Operating Costs

The Museum Support Center project is in a preliminary stage of planning. Consequently, specifies are not known about the engineering and other technical requirements associated with heating, air conditioning, lighting, power distribution systems, structural components, water and sewer systems, etc. Drawing from specific operating experiences in the Mall museums, however, it is estimated that the $21,-500,000 Museum Support Center concept would cost about .$1,700,000 for annual operating expenses, about $5 a square foot. This includes approximately 68 positions at a co.st of ,$1 million and $700,000 for materials, maintenance, repairs, and utilities.

The dollar reduction from a $40 million project to a $21,500,000 project is about 50 percent, and the space reduction from 485,000 square feet to 338,000 square feet is about 30 percent. The disproportionate decreases are due to the use of double decking to increase storage space and minimize costs and the elimination of some relatively high cost laboratory-office space which accounts for almost all of the space reduction.

It is difficult, due to the variables of size and use, to estimate precisely the differences in operating costs between the two project concepts. The best estimate at this time is that the $5 per square foot rate which results from our estimate of the $21,500,000 project would be reasonably applicable in estimating the operating costs of the $40 million. This results in an operating cost estimate of $2,400,000 for the larger facility.

ACTIVITIES RELATED TO THE SMITHSONIAN

Mr. Yates. AVhat are "Reading Is FUNdamental, Inc." and "Center for Natural Areas, Inc." ?

Mr. Ripley. We provide a small amount of administrative services and office space to the organization "Reading is FUNdamental," which is financed essentially by grants and a number of foundations. This pioneering organization was developed by Mrs. Robert S. McNamara to provide free, inexpensively printed paperback books to children who have presumably never owned a book. There are large numbers of communities containing families few of whom who have never owned books. The education of children has been proven over and over again to be very effectively enlianced by this program, which haS( been running since 1968.

We deem this to be a kind of adjunct activity to our education programs, because of the aspect of widening horizons of interest of children. That is Avhy we have been working to help RIF as best we can with very limited space and very limited resources, but we do as a service perform a number of their administrative and acounting functions.

Mr. Yates. Has this been approved by the Board of Regents?

Mr. Ripley. Yes.

Mr. Yates. What about the "Center for Natural Areas"?

Mr. Ripley. Mr, Wheeler, can you speak to the Center for Natural Areas ?

Mr. Wheeler. The Center for Natural Areas was originally a fvmc-tion within the Smithsonian for a couple of years I think it was. Then about 1974, as I recall it, it was decided that this was not sufficiently related to our mandate or objectives so that it was spun off as a separate nonprofit organization of its own. We continued to assist them, acting as their fiscal agent, for some time.

They conduct studies of land uses, entirely under grants or contracts received, mostly from Government agencies.

Mr. Yates. Who is "they" ? Who makes up the Center for Natural Areas?

Mr. Wheeler. It is its own nonprofit organization right now. It has a president and a number of vice presidents and staff and consultants. It has a board of directors.

Mr. Yates. Wliy should they receive $420,000 from you ? Perhaps I misread it.

Mr. Ripley, They have expended some $420,000.

Mr. Wheeler. Yes; they receive no money from the Smithsonian now.

Mr. Yates. They receive no money from the Smithsonian ?

INlr. Wheeler. No.

Mr. Yates. They just occupy some of your space.

Mr. Wheeler. No, sir. They have their own space.

Mr. Yates. What is their affiliation with you ?

Mr. Wheeler. They are no longer very closely affiliated except that some of our employees are on the board of directors.

Mr. Yates. Wliy do you do it?.Why do you have to do this? Why shouldn't it be separated ?

Mr. Wheeer. It is being separated as rapidly as possible.

Mr. Challinor. This is in transition, Mr. Chairman, from a Smithsonian organization to a totally independent one. This $420,000 represents the amount of grants they have received. They was no Federal money involved in this at all.

CHESAPEAKE BAY LAND—ACXJUISITTON AISTD DISPOSITION

Mr. Yates. What is the mortgage in the justification? This gets us back to Mr. Powers.

This is paid out of private funds ?

Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir. It relates to the purchase of land at Chesapeake Bay.

Mr. EiPLEY. Under the trust fund budget as detailed, again approved by the Board of Regents.

Mr. Yates. Suppose you decided that some of the Chesapeake Bay land was not needed, could you sell it ?

Mr. EiPLEY. The Chesapeake Bay land is acquired with trust funds. As we described yesterday, no Federal funds have been involved in these transactions in any sense except for minor structural repairs, upgrading the security system, and emergency bulkheading.

Mr. Yates. And this is under the Board of Regents ?

Mr. Ripley. Yes, sir.

CONGRESS relationship WITH BOARD OF REGENTS

Mr. Yates. I still ponder about our relationship with the Board of Regents. I am not sure that I quite grasp what our relationship is. By "our" I mean the Congress and the Federal Government.

Mr. Powers, does Congress have a right to inquire how good a job the Board of Regents is doing in taking care of its property ?

Mr. Powers. I think they have not only the power but the obligation. On page 10 of the statement about the Smithsonian there is a quotation from the House debate preceding the passage of the act in 1846:

Very considerable latitude of control, as to the means to be used, is given to the board of managers—

That refers to the Regents—

and the ends to be aimed at are described in comprehensive terms. But the most ample guarantee for the wise and faithful use of this discretionary power is obtained in the fact, that the Board will consist of the Vice President

Mr. Yates. Ma}'^ I interrupt you just a moment? Let's see that Mr. Regula gets a copy of it too, because I think it is important for his frame of mind.

Go ahead, Mr. Powers. Mr. Powers, [reading] :

But the most ample guarantee for the wise and faithful use of this discretionary power is obtained in the fact, that the board will consist of the Vice-President of the United States, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, three Senators, three Members of the House, and six others to be chosen by joint resolution of the two Houses, who were required to submit to Congress annual reports of the operations, expenditures, and condition of the Institution. In addition to all this, there is reserved the power to alter and amend the charter, as the results of experience may render necessary or exrijedient. All these provisions seem to be wise, and make it almost impossible that any abuse or misapplication of the fund can ever take place.

Mr. Yates. How does that quotation tell us that the Congress has the right and the responsibility to review what the Board of Regents does?

Mr. Powers. They are required to submit to Congress annual repoits of the operations, expenditures, and condition of the Institution, and it seems to me it is not only implicit but explicit that the report to Congress is not an empty act, and throughout the history of the Institution those reports have been subject to re^'iew by appropriate committees.

Mr. Ripley. You referred yesterday, Mr. Chairman, to the fact that you felt in some cases the report could be extended, and that of course has happened in the past, and very often, and can be done at any time again.

STATUS OF LAND DONATED OR PURCHASED WITH DONATED FUNDS

Mr. PoAVERS. Could I add something, Mr. Chairman, about what you were talking about before the property question?

I am not sure that I made it entirely clear yesterday that the property, such as that of the Chesapeake JBay Center, which has been donated or purchased with donated funds, is necessarily in a different category from property from the public reservations of the Government, that has been transferred to the Smithsonian. I would contrast the Chesapeake Bay area with, let us say, the Front Royal property which the zoo uses. Those 3,000 acres were a former remount station of the Government, and were transferred from GSiV. . It is certainly my opinion, although not specified in the law as such, and not affecting the power of the Regents to administer those properties while they are in their control, that they should be abandoned, any property which has been recfdved from the Government would be transferred back to the Government.

In the case of Chesapeake Bay, there has already been a case of a very small ncreaj?e that was acnuired ps part of a larger parcel and disposed of because it was not part of the watei-shed, and the proceeds were used for the Chesapeake Bay Center.

congress' right of review

Mr. Yates. I am glad to have that explanation.

Let's go back to the relationship of the Congre&s with the Regents

Mr. Powers. Yes, sir. ' '-•.•••

Mr. Yates. Your quote talks about the furnishing of reports.

Does the Congress have a right to review the minutes of the Board of Regents? Does it have a right to review the memoranda between the Secretary and the Regents? Does it have a right to review the . inner workings of the Smithsonian Institution ?

Mr. Powers. The general answer is yes. Take, for instance, the question of internal audits, which came up at the January meeting. The general results of those audits, of course, have been referred to in the present report of the GAO. They are certainly available to Congress. Thei-e is an important problem there that if the internal audit process cannot be maintained in a confidential fashion, it won't work. If the employees Avho are being questioned cannot speak freely to the internal auditor without fear of instant publicity, the system will not work.

But except for those types of administrative problems, with regard to certain details, the subject matter of any of those concerns is of course the concern of Congress.

BOARD OF REGENTS

Mr. Yates. Mr. Regula ?

Mr. Regula. How often does the Board of Regents meet ?

Mr. Powers. Three times a year.

IMr. Regula. Can they truly carry on an oversight function on a three-times-a-year basis ?

IMr. Powers. There is an executive committee of the regents that meets monthly.

Mr. RrpLET. The Audit Review Committee and the Finance Committee also have independent meetings and the Executive Committee meets every month.

Mr. Regula, Do you think as a practical matter, the named people in this regulation—because of the demands on their time otherwise— can have much input or participation in the decisionmaking process ?

Mr. Ripley. May I say how astonished I am at the amount they do. It is tremendous, the dedication of the members. For example, just as the trustees of the university create special committees to work on particular aspects of administration, they have done the same, including the congressional members of the Board of Regents.

. meetings of the board of regents

Mr. Regula. As I understand it,, about 94 percent of your budget is really Federal funds ?

Mr. Ripley. About 87 percent of our operating budget, including Federal grants and contracts.

Mr. Regula. In light of that, are these meetings all open to the public and particularly the press?

Mr. Ripley. No ; not at the present time.

Mr. Regula. "Wliy not ?

Mr. Powers. The Board of Regents has been meeting for 131 years. They had such a request for the first time at the January meeting and they are considering a similar request in the next few weeks for the next meeting.

I think, as President Carter recognized after he first declared that all Cabinet meetings would be open to the press, that there is only one kind of meeting that can be held under those circumstances. It is not necessarily the most valuable use of the time of the people involved. Again, it is not unlike what I mentioned about the audit process if every word of a person at a meeting of that kind is instantly subject to publication such an individual is not going to participate in the meeting in the same way as if he felt he could speak candidly and without being guarded about it.

You will recall, Mr. Regula, that not only did the President close the meetings of the Cabinet after one effort but also decided not to issue the minutes because it just didn't work.

Mr. Regula. There is one difference: they are not spending money there. The Cabinet officers are in effect an extension of the President under the shield of Executive privilege. I think you have apples and oranges in comparing the two bodies here.

Mr. Powers. I was suggesting it wasn't the question of legal privilege. I think the President found the meeting didn't work if it is held as a press conference.

Mr. Regula. But, on the other hand, most every committee of this Congress is opened to the public because we are spending the public's money. The Board of Regents becomes an extension of the Congress in that it is spending public money and acting on behalf of the public; wouldn't you agree ?

Mr. Powers. I am sure that the last part is true and they are going to consider the proposal that you have raised. "Openness" in this Government is a great word. There is something about "sunshine" which I think the public gets confused with solar energy. These are great words, but as a practical matter what happens ? I saw a process of this kind take place when I first came to Washington at the Federal Power Commission and its meetings were opened

Mr. Yates. You are being a patrician.

Mr. Powers. I am sori-y, but I saw the meeting deteriorate, and other meetings had to take place in corridors or in private. There is a function for a private meeting which currently is not getting much recognition in the enthusiasm for something called openness.

Mr. Regula. Except that we can go into executive session and occasionally on the Military Construction Committee we do this. But we at least have to do it by a vote from the members.

Mr. Yates. But you don't do it very often. You don't do it unless there is a very serious question involved of something that impinges on the national security.

Mr. Regula. Correct.

Mr. Powers. I think the Regents recognize the problem and will have to decide hoAv they wish to handle the matter.

Mr. Ripley. It is merely that the matter hasn't come up before that it hasn't been considered.

Mr. Regula. I must say as custodian of the public's funds and the taxpayers in the 16th District, I am a little distrcvSsed by what I read in the newspapers about the way some of the funds that they are paying in hard-earned money are being used—and not just in the Smithsonian, but in a lot of other places.

Mr. Yates. I think you raise a valid point, and that is certainly the Regents meetings ought to be conducted in public for those who want to watch them. What do you do, Mr. Powers ? Are you going to have to separate the Regents meeting when you are considering the Federal appropriations as opposed to the other requests?

Mr. Powers. I don't know, Mr. Chairman. I don't think that distinction is important.

Mr. Yates. I don't have any doubt that it is important with respect to what Mr. Regula is inquiring about. Some say the Smithsonian is two headed.

Mr. Powers. It is not two headed. There is one Board of Regents, one Smithsonian and one Secretary and the public trust involved in the so-called private funds, the trust funds, is just as great as any trust involved with the appropriated funds, so the same principle would apply.

PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE SMITHSONIAN

Mr. Yates. What you are saying then as I understand what you said, the public is not entitled to know about private conversation between the auditor and the Secretary and the Board on occasion.

Mr. Po\\nERS. I don't know how we get to the word "entitled." This is a "when did you stop beating your wife" question. The results of the Board of Regents and their actions and so forth are known to this committee, to the public generally.

It seems to me that it is a question of balance between the need for candid discussion with people saying things they might want to change later and haven't thought out carefully and so forth, and the need of having such disclosure of the activities of the Institution.

Now, one of our efforts throughout this GAO investigation and throughout this hearing has been to be as candid as we could possibly be concerning every operation that we have. I wish I could talk tO' Mr, Regula for some time to go into the concerns that arise from newspaper articles. We have demonstrated in a number of cases that those articles are incorrect, and if we haven't succeeded, then we should keep going because we feel that the Institution is being properly managed, and we welcome criticisms and the inquiry and the interest expressed in those topics.

I recall one thing in particular which is rarely noted in the newspapers, which is that the GAO report specifically noted that there were no illegalities or impropriety in the expenditure of funds, it was purely a technical management matter. They spent 6 months coming to that conclusion and I am glad they came to it, but I also think it is the right conclusion.

Mr. Regula. Don't misunderstand me, I am not indicting you on the basis of what I read in the newspaper. Anyone in public life has long since learned that he cannot always accept that at face value. But I am saying that it is illustrative of a growing public interest,, vis-a-vis the news media and what you are doing. I think in the real world you are going to have to accept greater visibility as a price for expending public funds.

87-564 O - 77 - 51

EFFORTS TO MAKE SMITHSONIAN ACCESSIBLE

Mr. Ripley. We quite agree, Mr. Regula, and we welcome it.

One of our purposes and one of my special interests has been to make the Smithsonian known to the American public, including every Member of Congress. When I arrived here in 1964 we were a secret as it were; no one seemed to know that the Smithsonian existed; no one seem to realize that it existed for the people of the United States as well as the world. We have made every effort to make it known to the people of the United States as well as the world and in the process of making the Smithsonian accessible to people more effectively and collectively, we have received more press attention.

AVAILABILITT OF FINANCIAL RECORDS

Mr. Yates. Well, I think we had better come back at 1:30. That will give Mr. Regula a chance to review what he had in mind and come back and ask more questions.

Mr. Regula. One last one.

Are all your financial records open at all times to the public as would be the case of a school board or any public agency, so anyone who wants to know how your money is being expended can walk in and find out in the minutest detail, if that is their inclination?

Mr. Ripley. We are responsive to inquiries from the public.

Mr. Yates. Let's come back at 1:30.

Apteroon Session newspaper article on bank ac(x)unt

Mr. Yates. Let's turn to newspaper articles and other criticism aimed at tlie Institution and at Mr. Ripley, and I think perhaps the record should show and the otiicials should be given an opportunity to reply.

First of all, one of the artirles that aj^peared in the press related to the Smithsonian bank account at the Amerir'an Security Trust Co. Do vou want to tell us about that ?

Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to have a chance to straighten out tliat report.

Actually, the whole subject of our bank accounts has recentlv been reviewed thoroughlv by the General Accountino: Office. The study was not completed in time to be incor]wrated in their report, but we are hor.ing that they will shortlv present the results of their findings Avith regard to our bank accounts.

But, as far as that question is conrerned. the allegation was that we had put, as T recall the words, something liVe hundi-eds of thousands of dollars into a bank account on which we are receiving no interest

and presumably this was for the benefit of American Security & Trust Co.

Mr. Yates. Did you reply to the articles formally?

Mr. Wheeler. I tried to, by a letter to the newspaper, but it was not published.

Mr. Yates. Do you have copies of the articles ? Why don^ we put the articles and reply into the record ? Would that satisfy you ?

Mr. Wheeler. Yes, but I would like to expand slightly on that.

Mr. Yates. Sure, but I think you should put the articles and the reply in, and you may add anything else you wish.

Mr. Wheeler. Can I say right now that the article is misleading and erroneous ?

Mr. Yates. You may say right now that it was misleading and erroneous, and that is what you are going to say in your reply, too ?

Mr. Wheeler. I will give details.

Mr. Yates. Sure. We would like to have that so the committee can consider it.

[The information follows:]

[From the Washington Post, Feb. 7, 1977] Smithsonian Chief's Link to Bank Is Investigated

(By Charles A. Krause)

The General Accounting OflBce has been asked to determine whether it was proper for Smithsonian Secretary S. Dillon Ripley to sit as a director of the American Security & Trust Co. at the same time the Smithsonian was depositing hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in non-interest-bearing accounts at the bank.

As a result of the arrangement, the Smithsonian appears to have lost thousands of dollars in interest by leaving' its money in the checking accounts, rather than investing the funds in short-term securities. A.S. & T. did provide free checking and other services in return for the more than $500,000 in average month-end balances the Smithsonian kept at the bank.

Dwight Dyer, chief of staff for the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior and related agencies, said that he learned of Ripley's membership on the A.S. & T. board and the Smithsonian's deposits late last summer. He said he sent a memo to the GAO to include this as part of an audit of the Smithsonian's books requested by the subcommittee last June.

Ripley quietly resigned from the bank board in December, just as the GAO was completing its audit. The GAO is supposed to have a report ready for the Senate subcommittee later this month.

In an interview in his oflSce last Thursday, Ripley said he resigned from the A.S. & T. board after 10 years because "I'm tired. I just have less and less time (for out.side activities) as the Smithsonian grows larger."

He said his resignation was unrelated to the GAO inquiry. Furthermore, he said, "the fact that I was a director of this bank was not a conilict of interest." There was no favoritism and no partiality shown toward A.S. & T., Ripley said. He acknovvrledged that the Riggs National Bank handled most of the Smithsonian's accounts prior to his going on the A.S. & T. board in 1967.

He said the Smithsonian opened its first private bank account in 1847 and opened in 1927 its first account at a bank that became part of A.S. & T.

According to the Smithsonian's financial records, approximately three-quarters of the .$799,000 that the quasi-public Institution keeps in private banks was deposited in- checking accounts at A.S. & T. during the last 13 months Ripley served on the bank's board.

At prevailing 5-percent short-term interest rates over that period, the Smithsonian could have earned about $25,000 a year in interest on the money. However, it was impossible to learn how much A.S. & T.'s free checking and other

banking services were worth because the Smithsonian refused to explain exactly what services A.S. & T. provided.

Ripley received at least $2,400 a year in director's fees, according to a source at A.S. & T. He owns 150 shares of A.S. & T. stock, which is close to the minimum that a director is required by law to own. Ripley said he knew nothing about where the Smithsonian was keeping its money during the period he served on the A.S. & T. board—or that the money was being kept in non-interest-bearing checking accounts.

"The treasurer (of the Smithsonian) has to organize these things," Ripley said. "I see what's in our financial report. And that's about all."

T. Ames Wheeler, the Smithsonian's treasurer, said he, too, knows little about where the Institution deposits its money. Those decisions are made by Betty Morgan, an assistant treasurer. Wheeler said.

It was Morgan, Wheeler said, who decided to close one of the Smithsonian's A.S. & T. checking accounts last month. She will decide what to do about a second, much larger, account at A.S. & T., Wheeler said. "She's very knowledgeable about the banking business," the treasurer said.

Despite his noninvolvement in the decision to close the one A.S. & T. account, which had average daily balances of $65,000 over the past 18 months, Wheeler said Morgan's decision was prompted in part by the GAO audit.

The auditors "certainly caused us to peer over in that direction. We looked at it (the account at A.S. & T.) and decided to put the money in the Treasury," Wheeler said.

The Smithsonian still maintains a second checking account at A.S. & T., which had month-end balances over the past 18 months of about $450,000, Wheeler said. This account is one described by bankers as "nonzero based," which means in effect that the Smithsonian had been using the account primarily for savings without receiving any interest.

Wheeler acknowledged that keeping large balances in non-interest-bearing checking accounts?, whether at A.S. & T. or at the 24 other private banks where the Smithsonian has accounts, may not be the most eflBcient way for the Institution to be handling its money. "It pays to look at these things," Wheeler said. "Yes; it does."

Dyer indicated that the Senate subcommittee, which has grown increasingly concerned about the Smithsonian's handling of its Federal and private funds, is certain to have questions about the use of private bank accounts at budget hearings next month. Dyer said it is not clear to him why the Smithsonian does not keep its imspcnt funds in the Treasury like other Government agencies.

Another series of questions is likely to revolve around the Smith.sor: in Research Foundation, a private, nonprofit corporation set up by the Smithsonian in 1966. The Foundation is never mentioned in any Smithsonian literature or its budget documents, even though the Foundation is clearly related to the Smithsonian. Ripley, Wheeler, Morgan and two other Smithsonian ofl5cials serve as directors of the Foundation.

It was the Foundation's account at A.S. & T. that was closed last month.

According to an explanation of the Foundation's purpose and activities prepared at the Smithsonian at the request of The Washington Post, the Research Foundation was created in 1966 to handle search money appropriated by Congress to the Smithsonian.

By transferring the Federal money from the Smithsonian's account at the Treasury to the Foundation, the Smithsonian was able to fund multiyear search projects and to hire scientists and other personnel for "fiexible assignments outside of normal civil service requirements."

[From the Washington Post, Feb. 7, 1977] Smithsonian Secretary's Link to Bank Is Investigated

The Researcli Foundation will receive about $1.8 million during the current fiscal year from a variety of sources, according to the Smithsonian. Funding of this magnitude was what kept the Foundation's account at A.S. & T. at about $65,000 a day over the past 18 months, ending last September 30. The Smithsonian estimated that about 300 checks a month were written on this one account over that period.

Ripley said that Congress was told about the creation of the Smithsonian Research Foundiation in 1965 or 1966. The secretary said the absence of any reference to the Foundation in subsequent Smithsonian literature must have been "inadvertent."

Dyer said he could not say for sure that Ripley did not mention the Foundation sometime over the past 10 years. But he said he and members of the Senate subcommittee were unaware of its existence last summer when he learned about it from a, source outside the Smithsonian heirarchy.

The subcommittee ordered the GAO audit in the first place after it found out about a $1 million contingency fund maintained for several years by I^pley. The Secretary was getting the money from Federal appropriations to various Smithsonian museums and departments, funds which were then partially turned over to Ripley for emergencies—vvithout Congress' knowledge.

The contingency fund has now been discontinued.

The Smithsonian depends on Federal appropriations for about 90 percent of its $100 million annual budget. The remaining 10 percent comes from private trust funds and donations.

Because of the way it was chartered by Congress, the Smithsonian is neither a fully public nor fully private institution. Ripley is paid out of the private funds, as are more than 1,000 of the Smithsonian's employees, and answers only to a board of regents composed of the Vice President, the Chief Justice of the United States, Senators, Representatives and private citizens.

Ripley said the Regents approved both the creation of the Research Foundation and his joining the A.S. & T. board of directors in 1967.

Sources within the Smithsonian say that the GAO audit and the resulting publicity have been painful both for Ripley and the Institution, which is accustomed to being described only in the most favorable light.

Letters to the Editor,

The Washington Post, Washington, D.C.

Dear Sir : An article in the Washington Post on February 7 stated that "the Smithsonian was depositing hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in non-interest-bearing accounts at the American Security and Trust Co." and that "as a result. . . . the Smithsonian appears to have lost thousands of dollars in interest by leaving its money in checking accounts rather than investing the funds in short-term securities".

Your reporter chose to omit the following facts which were fully and clearly outlined to him:

1. Smithsonian balances at any time in either the Riggs Bank payroll account or the American Security and Trust operating account are only those required to cover outstanding checks for payroll or supplies and other services, with the minor exception that certain receipts are also deposited daily in A.S. & T. for safekeeping before being transferred to our U.S. Treasury account.

2. With a payroll of close to $1 million per month processed through Riggs Bank, and with payments of around $3 million per month for goods and services handled by over 2,000 checks through A.S. & T., the outstanding balances represent a minimum level required for prudent cash management; excess funds are invested in short-term, high-grade securities.

3. Benefits derived by the banks from the outstanding balances compensate them for the detailed and burdensome accounting and processing work required and seem well justified by such efforts. Prudent management of funds requires the use of these commercial checking accounts since lack of return of canceled checks by the U.S. Treasury and long delays in furnishing detail on outstanding balances prevents reconciliation of accounts on a timely basis.

Subject to review by the Secretary and the Board of Regents, the Treasurer is fully responsible for determining the institution's banking policies and approving changes in all banking arrangements. Ccmtrary to implications of the Post article, Smithsonian's handling of its funds is as efficient as any method we have yet been able to discover. With ever-chancring conditions at this Institution, our banking arrangements are, of course, under continual review. Sincerely yoiirs.

T. Ames Wheeler, Treasurer, Smithsonian Institution.

[Excerpt from Washington Post article of Apr. 29, 1977]

The GAO is inquiring about the reasons why the Smithsonian has about 25 accounts in private banks around the world. They are also still looking into questions concerning the propriety of Smithsonian Secretary S. Dillon Ripley's years of service as a director of the American Security and Trust Co. at the same time hundreds of thousands of dollars of Smithsonian funds were deposited in A.S. & T. checking accounts.

Response to Newspaper Articles on Smithsonian Bank Accounts

In addition to the letter of February 7, 1977, the following explanations also are offered for clarification. There are four questions involved here:

(1) BANK ACCOUNT OF THE SMITHSONIAN RESEARCH FOUNDATION (SRF)

To clarify the matter as the Research Foundation account, there was such a separate bank account at the American Security and Trust Co. from the time SRF was founded until late in 1976. As funds were required by the Research Foundation to administer and carry out the various individual projects of the programs administered by SRF, the Foundation would request a contract payment to its bank account from the Smithsonian's Federal appropriated funds which were held in the U.S. Treasury or, in the case of the Woodrow Wilson fellowships, from the AVoodrow Wilson Center's appropriated funds held in the latter's U.S. Treasury account. That A.S. & T. account was a checking account bearing no interest. In the fall of 1976, it wasi decided that it would be more efficient for the Smithsonian Institution to manage the fiscal affairs of the Research Foundation, such as its payrolls and payment of vendor invoices under a contract arrangement between the Institution and SRF. Consequently, the bank account at A.S. & T. was no longer needed and it was terminated. The balance in the account at that time was transferred to the institution's trust funds at the U.S. Treasury as a separate accounting fund.

(2) SMITHSONIAN BANK ACCOUNT FOR NORifAL OPERATIONS

As to the Smithsonian's own payroll bank accounts, the two principal ones are: a payroll account at the Riggs National Bank and a working fund account for payment of our other operating expenses at the American Security and Trust Co. Both of these operating accounts are checking accounts into which the Smithsonian regularly transfers only sufficient funds respectively to cover either the payroll checks or the vendor invoice checks after those checks are issued. Balances in those accounts at any one time, therefore, represent only the amount of checks outstanding which have not yet been cashed by the recipients. Since these are checking accounts, no interest is received by the Smithsonian on these balances as such, and the balances themselves represent "compensating balances," the use of which serves to reimburse the banks for their very important services furnished in the form of the processing of substantial numliers of checks and the furnishing to us of reports thereon.

There is a further complication concerning these balances on which the Congress will receive a more detailed report from the General Accounting Office which has been making a thorough study of our practices with respect to banking. This complication is that the institution recognizes that the balance made up of uncashed. outstanding checks, particularly in the A.S. & T. account, may at times be higher than actually needed to give adequate compensation to the bank for its services. Thus we reached agreement with A.S. & T. in January 1976, that by conferring daily with the hank officials, we tr^insfer on a daily basis any funds over and above a specified minimum balance into an investment account and thereby receive interest on a daily basis on rhe.se excess funds. Thus, we maintain at all times as closely as we can the least possible amount of excess cash in the account in order that we may benefit from this type of daily investment of such excess. This is in line with standard practices of major U.S. corporations throughout the country.

(3) NUMBER AND PURPOSE OF SMITHSONIAN'S TOTAL BANK ACCOUNTS

The Smithsonian's principal bank accounts are those at the U.S. Treasury plus its A.S. & T. account for operating funds and the Riggs payroll account, both referred to above. In addition, the Smithsonian maintains a savings account at

A.S. & T. and a "lock box" (collection) account at Riggs. An additional 13 accounts are maintained for small working funds of outlying bureaus such as the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory in Cambridge or the Tropical Research Institute in Panama, plus another 13 for field stations of the satellite tracking program and. the international environmental science program. Additional accounts are maintained for account collection purposes. Most of these accounts are maintained on an "imprest" basis. Balances in all of the accounts are small.

(4) THE SMITHSONIAN SECRETARY'S A.S. & T. DIREXTTOKSHIP

The Secretary has traditionally delegated complete responsibility for bank accounts and relationships to the Treasurer, and this was certainly the case while Mr. Ripley was a director of A.S. & T. from 1967 to 1976. In Mr. Wheeler's more than 9 years as Treasurer, the Secretary has never questioned or even made suggestions to him on the establishment or closing of bank accounts or handling of their balances.

The Secretary has traditionally delegated complete responsibility for bank

CONTINGENCY FUND

Mr. Yates. We have a letter to the editor from Robert H. Simmons, in the Washington Star of April 29,1977. It refers to an editorial which appeared in the Washington Star April 5, entitled "Bookkeeping at the Smithsonian," and it talks about the Smithsonian secret fund.

As I understand the article, it refers to the so-called administrative fund to which the committee addressed itself last year. I think it was a 2-percent fund that the Smithsonian had established subject to the discretion of the Secretary, and the committee last yeai' requested that the Smithsonian discontinue that fund and, as I understand it, that fund has been discontinued; is that correct ?

Mr. Ripley. Yes, sir; I can say with regard to this letter, which is incomplete, that the GAO report on page 21 states, "Also, the stail of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees were advised by the Smithsonian in 1971 of its practice of establishing a contingency fund"—which is what we call it—"to meet pressing emergency needs or opportunities," and they also state on page 20, "reallocated'funds were all used for purposes authorized by the 'salaries and expenses' appropriation." There is no evidence whatsoever that the funds were used in any way aside from the purposes of the appropriation.

SMITHSONIAN MAGAZINE BILLING PRACTICES

Mr. Yates. I have a letter from Mr. Dennis E. Ose, of Duke Hospital, in Durham, N.C., in which Mr. Ose criticizes what he calls the irregularity in the Smithsonian magazine billing practices which effectively increases their annual income from Smithsonian Associates by two-twelfths, or 17 percent.

I don't know whether the Smithsonian saw this letter.

Did you get a copy of it ?

Mr. Jameson. We got the letter from your committee, Mr. Chairman, and I belicA^e we answered you.

Mr. Yates. It relates to the billin.or by Smithsonian Associates. The letter complains of a kind of double-dip because the billing occurs prior to the end of the year, and I think perhaps it ought to be referred to the Smithsonian Associates unless you control the billing practices.

Mr. Ripley. I don't think the billing practices are in error. The confusion rfiay arise because of the renewal cycle outside of any fiscal or calendar year,

Mr. Yates. I am not sure, but I think inasmuch as it does concern the Associates, it ought to be referred to the Associates, unless you want to reply to it.

Mr. Jameson. I would rather not reply to it now. I am not an expert on this subject matter. Let us find either the letter that we sent you or put something in the record.

Mr. Yates. Please provide Mr. Ose's letter in the record with your reply and the Smithsonian Associates can do what they wish.

[The correspondence referred to follows:]

Januaby 14,1977.

Mr. Dennis Ose, Duke Hospital, Durham, N.C.

Dear Mr. Ose : Your recent correspondence to Mr. Ripley was referred to my attention. Ttie reasop for the June 1977 expiration appearing on a membership card can be simply explained. When processing your renewal and gift orders, an additional paid membership was inadvertently processed in your name to begin with the July 1976 issue and continue through the June 1977 issue. As a result of this, although your renewal was properly applied advancing your membership to continue through August 1977, this other membership appeared on our records for you with a June 1977 expiration. The erroneous second membership created duplicate issues and the June 1977 membership card.

You can verify the fact of August 1977 expiration by examining one set of magazine mailing labels which you have been receiving. They clearly show August 1977 on the right-hand corner. Furthermore, our records indicate that a membership card with the August 1977 expiration was sent to you with our first renewal notice in late April 1976. T^nfortunately, our correspondent failed to include the replacement card from the very letter that intended to do so. I am enclosing this membership card hercAvith.

Your gift to your mother was processed. Her issues are being mailed to the Springer Avenue, Indianapolis, address which was on your order form and not to the Greenfield address yon mention in your letter. Please send me Mrs. Earl Ose's full correct address and I will see that either all her back issues are mailed or her niembershij) extended to compensate for the issues she missed, as you prefer. Our illes will be corrected and regular delivery will ensue. A self-addressed envelope is enclosed for your convenience.

We are sorry for the problem that occurred and trust that the situation is now resolved satisfactorily. Sincerely yours,

Anne Keating,

J, . Circulation Director.

Mr. Dennis E. Ose, Decembee 23,1976.

Duke Hospital, Durham, N.C.

^J^^J'^n[l ^^n'- ^ ^PP^'^^.iate your recent letter concerning the problems you have Ionian maSne!"^ "" "" ""^''"" Smithsonian Institution relative to the Smith-

^Jn^fw" .^^'"^ee from the attached letter, I have written to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution asking for his attention to this problem ^^""^^^^^ ^^^ we wm hr^.-f" ''•'''''^f ^^'^ irregularity in billing procedures, and I expect that L^.^vl.^^1.^?^r^"!;L"l«"li---^« -^"^ ^^- Smithsonian institution on"he

fiscal year 1978 budget next year. Sincerely,

Sidney R. Yates,

rij. ■ rv , oiujNjDY rt. xates.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agemies

December 23, 1976. Hon. S. Dillon Ripley,

Secretary, Smithsonian Institution, •

Washington, D.C.

Dear Secretary Ripley : Tlie attached correspondence was sent to me in my capacity as chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee which reviews your budget.

I understand that the Smithsonian Associates program is not directly funded with appropriated funds. However, I would appreciate your response not only to the specific complaint raised in the letter, but also to the general problem of "cheating" subscribers by 2 months. Sincerely,

Sidney R. Yates,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior ap'l Related Agencies.

Duke Hospital, Durham, N.C., December 14,1976. Congressman Sidney R. Yates,

Chairman, Interior Subcommittee, House Committee on Appropriations, Washington, D.C.

Dear Sir : I understand that you will be investigating the budget of the Smithsonian Institution.

I am writing to point out a certain irregularity in the Smithsonian Institution's billing practices which effectively increases their annual income from Smithsonian Associates by two-twelfths or 17 percent.

Basically the problem arises as a fatal combination of two facts: (a) in their eagerness to get renewals, the Institution bills for the next year's membership 2^/^ months in advance, and (&) they date the new membership from re?eipt of payment of the renewal bill. This can be illustrated by a graph, or time line:

OLD MEMBERSHIP

time 0

10 months 12 moiiths * *

*new bill sent to me

*new paid by me and returned *new membership begins at once

0 months * 10 mo. * 12

*new bill sent to me *new bill paid by me etc.

Thus, one gets only 10 months of membership for a 12-month price. Or, they get 2 months for free, since the way they date the cards, the times overlap. Or, another way of saying the same thing is that every 6 years I will pay for an extra year which didn't really exist, but which was made up of a series of six 2-month overlapping segments at the end of each year. A little confusing, I admit, but one doesn't have to be a mathematical genius to understand the problem.

I would like to say that I wrote two letters to the Institution and threatened to write to you before I received an answer from Josephine Randall. In Ms. Randall's letter she states that a new. properly dated card was enclosed. No such card was enclosed in that letter, nnr has any such card arrived since October 8, 1976. Furthermore, my mother has not received a single issue of Smith-.sonian magazine for the last 4 months.

I have enclosed copies of all correspondence between the Institution and myself since this pro))lem arose. Please check into this matter when you ai'e investigating the Smithsonian Institution budget. As I pointed out in my second letter to the Institution, computers are very impersonal, and this must presumably be

the way the computer is programed. Or perhaps it was just a clerical error. But was it also a clerical error that no new card was enclosed as stated, or that my mother now no longer receives Smithsonian magazine, although it has been paid for more than once?

Why do I write? Because I haven't quite given up hope that the Smithsonian Institution can be run efficiently and honestly.

Thank you for voicing my concern to the officers of the Smithsonian Institute when you review their budget. Sincerely,

Dennis E. Ose.

Duke Hospital, Durham, N.C., December If,, 1976. Smithsonian Stjbscbiption Service, Greenwich, Conn.

Dear Sir : I have enclosed a copy of my letter to Congressman Yates. Please correct this problem. Please do it right this time.

I have enclosed copies of all our communication to help you out. Sincerely,

Dennis E. Ose.

Smithsonian Subscription Service,

Oreenwich, Conn., October 8,1976. Mr. Dennis E. Ose, Duke Hospital, Durham, N.C.

Dear Mr. Ose : This will acknowledge your letter of September 29,1976, regarding your membership in the Smithsonian National Associate program.

On checking our records we find that duplicate membership cards were as result of a clerical error. We are enclosing a corrected membership card with the August 1977 expiration date.

We have also adjusted Mrs. Earl Ose's membership. She will receive her 1-year membership in full.

Please accept our apologies for the inconvenience you have experienced. Sincerely,

Josephine Randall, Subscription Service Division.

Duke Hospital. Durham, N.C, September 29,1976. Smithsonian Institution, Membership Service, Ch'eenwich, Conn.

Dear Sir : I have a problem. I have enclosed a photocopy of my last letter, and my current and just expired membership cards. Unfortunately, it seems that I am only getting 10 months worth of membership for 12 months worth of fee. Notice the expiration date on the two consecutive cards.

I don't feel compelled to reiterate the problem since I consider it self-explanatory. Please send me a new membership card for the coming year which expires on August 31, 1977. Please change my mother's card if a similar situation occurred in her case.

Unfortunately, I never did receive an answer to my first letter. I really do not enjoy typing unpleasant letters, so if I don't receive an answer to this one, I'll call my Congressman, and send copies of all this to the committee which is presently reviewing your budget. Computers and business offices are very impersonal— I certainly haven't been singled out by your computer—so this must be happening to all your associate members, which is very unfortunate. I hope you will re-program your computer before next year comes around.

Thank you for the time and effoi*t it will take to send me a new membership card. I am sorry that the business aspect of my membership has given me occasion to write unpleasant letters to you 2 years in a row. Sincerely,

Dennis E. Osk.

Duke Hospital, Durham, N.C., August 10, 1976. Smithsonian, Greenwich, Conn. Dear Sib : I recently :

(1) Renewed my own associate membership;

(2) Renewed my mother's associate membership (Mrs. Earl Ose, Greenfield, Ind.) ; and

(3) Gave my sister-in-law an associate membership (Mrs. Paul Ose, Ypsilantis, Mich.).

I was very pleased with the clear format of the bill. It was a great improvement over last year.

iHowever. I am now receiving two copies of "Smithsonian." I do not want you to lose money by sending me two copies for the next year, if my name was placed into your computer twice. Neither do I want my renewal, or my mother's renewal, to run concurrently with my present membership. My present membership may even still have a couple of months to go at the present time, I am uncertain, but I'm sure that my mother's does. I happily paid the first bill which you sent me because I did not want there to be a gap between memberships. I very much appreciated the fact that there was only one bill—that avoids a lot of confusion. Of course, I am not at all interested in my renewals overlapping a present membership, and each year getting a renewal notice 2 or 3 months before the present membership expires.

I assume that my name simply got into your computor twice, so it will be to your advantage to check this out. Thank you very much for your time and effort on my behalf. I enjoy the "Smithsonian," and am looking forward to another trip to Washington in 1977. Thanks again. Sincerely,

Dennis E. Ose.

National Member

DENNIS E OSE AUG 31-. lS7t. ^

We are pleased to enclose your Smithsonian National Associates Membership Card.

^

National Associates Benefits

■ Subscnplion lo Smilhsonian

• Eligibility for travel program

• 10 percent discount in museum stiops

• Use of Members Reception Center whenever you and your family visit the Smithsonian

£= 67 cl'^i: OSEoX?n-^JlS jLiN7? DEiVMS £ oSt DKf HOSP

Smithsonian Institution

MAGAZINE ScRVICE DEPAflTMENT . 1 eawCETT PLACE . GREE

^

THE Smithsonian Associates

National Member \ DtiNMi -: OSE

CONN 0€eJO

LETTER FROM DR. WILLIS R, FOSTER

Mr. Yates. I have a letter from Dr. Willis E. Foster, dated April 5, which has not been referred to you yet. A complaint is made of the use of the Smithsonian Science Information Exchange as a device to avoid Federal personnel regulations.

Dr. Foster lives in Bethesda, Md., and says, "As far as I can tell, I was fired after 17 years of admittedly outstanding work for SSIE for responding to an inquiry from the National Cancer Institute.'"

I think this letter should be given to you. It should be placed in the record, and I think you should reply to it.

Mr. Powers. Could I say a word about that, Mr. Chairman ?

Mr. Yates. Yes; would you like to say a word about whether or not the SSIE is a device for avoiding Federal personnel restrictions?

Mr. Powers. We spoke about that yesterday. That is one of the corporations which is operated by contract and has been so operated for 27 years. That topic was covered in some detail yesterday. The fact of the matter is that any contract organization is not subject to civil service regulations, but to the other regulations governing contracts. But more important in this case and in our comment, such as it will be, you should realize that Dr. Foster has brought suit under the first and fifth amendments against the SSIE. That matter is presently in litigation, and is being handled by the Justice Department and the U.S. Attorney. I am reluctant to comment in any detail on whatever else is in the letter for that reason.

Mr. Yates. I see, because of the possibility of a suit being brought ?

Mr. PoAVTiRS. It has been brought, and the U.S. Attorney has filed several motions, and so forth. It is in litigation right now, and Mr. Foster is not

Mr. Yates. Let's see what the outcome of that litigation is then, and we will wait for that.

Mr. Powers. All right.

[The information follows:]

Smithsonian Comment on Letter

With regard to the letter referred to above, since it deals largely with matters that are presently in litigation, it is felt that comment would not be appropriate.

EXCHANGE OF ANIMALS

Mr. Yates. We come to the Federal Times, and we discussed articles which have been referred by a letter from Mr. Simmons, and I am told that there are a number of articles that have been the subject of exchange between the Smithsonian and the Times, itself. At least these are the replies of the Smithsonian to the statements that appear in the Federal Times.

One of the articles in the Federal Times talks about exchanges of birds between Mr, Ripley and the National Zoo. This reply by the Smithsonian dated April 20, 1977, on the National Zoo's evaluation of the Federal Times article, says this:

April 25. 1077 issue. (1) That it operates a private animal fund. Mr. Ripley, the answer is true since 1926.

The Zoo has loaned birds to Dr. Ripley that were acquired through the private animal fund.

True. Secretary Ripley has maintained an exceptional waterfowl collection 30 years. He is a Research Associate of the National Zoological Park and he does receive birds from the National Zoo for breeding possibilities. He is one of several collaborators of serious purpose and excellent facilities who help the National Zoo in its breeding efforts.

The question comes to mind, aa^Iio else do you exchange your birds with, or your animals, or whatever ?

JSIr. Reed. We have a number of breeding loans with other recognized breeders, be they private citizens, universities, or zoos. When one starts thinking of our zoo breeding loans, you can go as far east as Frankfort, Jersey Island, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Lincoln Park, Brookfield; you start naming, I would say, about 40 of the major zoos in this country. In the private field we have loaned birds for breeding purposes to collaborators and to recognized breeders. The crane trust in Baraboo, Wisconsin, Seville, the famous pheasant breeder in Long Island. There have been other duck breeders. Dr. Ripley is one of the foremost aviculturists. I think he is probably best known in this city as an ornithologist, but in my circles he is known as an outstanding aviculturist. It is not unusual for our zoo. We have as residents in our zoo many animals on breeding loan to us from other zoos. Our onager herd is from San Diego and Dallas. The Pere David deer, half of the herd is from a New York group. The bactrian camels are on a cooperative breeding arrangement with the Minnesota State Zoo. We have muntjacs from Lincoln Park. We have a number of animals on loan. This is not unusual among zoos. This is the effort we are making in the zoological circles to continue to breed animals and establish perpetual breeding colonies, populations, in the United States.

We are not so much concerned with what we do here at the National Zoo; we are concerned with the Nation's population of these exotic animals. We are getting away from the feeling that occurred in the old days that these animals are ours and we were parochial, that it was our stamp collection. These animals belong to the people of the United States. We are concerned with not necessarily our breeding and our exhibition today; we are concerned with the exhibition and education of our grandchildren. Orangutans and two gorillas are scattered in several major zoos in the country that are visible, breeding and entertaining and educating people there. They can do it all at the same time.

So it is not unusual, and we consider ourselves very fortunate in having as Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution one of the foremost aviculturists, as well as ornithologists in the countiy. We consider ourselves fortunate that four of the Secretaries of the Smithsonian Institution have had special interest in the zoo. It started with Dr. Langley in his studies on flight. He did much of his original research on the mechanism of bird flight at the zoo, with the vultures.

Dr. Wetniore, during his career as Director of the Zoo and Assistant Secretary, and then as Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, was very interested in continuing his studies here. Dr. Cannichael did studies on primate neonatal beha\dor. That is what the babies first did when born. He was interested in their first cry. Dr. Ripley has been most helpful with advice and keeping animals for us and breeding birds.

Mr. Yates. I don't know anything about Dr. Ripley's zoo.

Mr. Reed. It is a pri\'ate breeding establishment.

]Mr. Ripley. It is open to the public. It is registered in the international zoo yearbook.

Mr. Yates. Dr. Ripley, do you not submit yourself to possible criticism if you act on behalf of the National Zoo by having some of its species sent to your zoo in Connecticut ?

Mr. Ripley. In the same way I suppose that I could be criticized by the Fish and Wildlife Service because I have birds on loan from the Fish and Wildlife Service there, Department of Interior.

WHITE-WINGED WOOD DUCKS

Mr. Yates. I don't think that is quite the same thing. I think the public quite understands it, but perhaps it is because I don't know quite what the arrangement is.

Let's see what the answers are here.

"Mr. Ripley has white-winged wood ducks on loan." Are they being bred; is that the purpose of their being there ?

Mr. Reed. Yes, sir, they were imported into the United States for breeding. We have the endangered species permits, and so forth. They are rather an unusual bird from Southeast Asia. I do not believe they have been in the United States prior to these birds. They were only bred once previously in captivity. We had received these birds through Dr. Ripley's interesit and effort and my interest and effort. I believe the first shipment came in from India; a pair of birds came in. The male died shortly after arriving and the female is still here in Washington.

The second group to come consisted of two pair. After thej'^ got out of quarantine by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in Clifton, N.J., we happened to have at that particular time an outbreak of duck viral enteritis brought into us by a wild black duck. We lost some 30 birds, and during this outbreak of this disease, I was not letting any ducks come into the collection or go out of the collection, and therefore, the ducks were coming out of quarantine, and I couldn't bring them to my zoo, and I diverted them to Dr. Ripley's zoo; that was in 1975.

One pair has been returned to us, but the other paii has established, and Dr. Ripley can tell us more; they estaiblished the territory breeding behavior patterns and were evidently going into nesting. With a bird that is so rare and nests so seldom, you don't disturb the bird by moving the location. So this, I think, was a very wise and prudent decision. I would not move them anyplace.

Mr. Ripley. I have advised the Indian Government, Mr. Chairman, about this whole context, and have supplied, on my own, techniques, food, and advice to them now for the past almost 10 years, in the State of Assam, and I was instrumental in getting the birds here, and the understanding was that we would both try to breed them in captivitj'^, that is, both the zoo here and myself. I am happy to say our birds are copulating now.

Mr. Reed. I am unhappy to say that our birds in Washington aren't.

BREEDING OF RUDDY DUCKS

Mr. Yates. They also say that the zoo paid from the private fund for a pair of ruddy ducks ordered by the zoo for Mr. Ripley fi-om Ijouisiana.

Mr, Eeed. Yes, sir, boltli of us, Dr. Ripley and the National Zoological Park, have been trying to breed them for many years. They are not easy to breed. We had one pair that were not breeding, and we decided we would send them up to Litchfield to see if a change of location, getting away from the public and the other birds and any possibility of vandalism by humans might induce these birds to breed.

In order to catch the birds to send them up there,.it would have been necessary to drain the ponds. Now this is a physical difficulty at our zoo. It takes us about 3 days to drain the pond, and there were other birds that were nesting that we did not wish to disturb by going through the pond-draining business, so I got in two other pair; that is, we sitrengthened our blood lines from birds that had been previously raised in captivity rather than wild caught. A pair were sent to Ripley and a pair kept here.

COOPERATIVE BREEDING EFFORTS

Mr. Yates. I think my reaction would be, and perhaps I am wrong, but it is still my reaction, I think if you are going to have outside breeders for your birds, I think maybe you should not send them to Dr. Ripley, but to other zoos and I would think that Dr. Ripley would use his efforts on behalf of other zoos than Smithsonian.

The reason I say that is I look at an answer to your April 25,1977, issue, and you say:

Dr. Ripley is the backbone of the zoo birds and lias facilities superior to the zoo.

Tnie. Dr. Ripley has a long and expert association with the collections not only at the National Zoo but at the Philadelphia and Bronx Zoo as well.

Dr. Ripley's credentials include 30 years' experience with a waterfowl collection ; lifelong work in aviculture and ornithology ; numerous books, articles, and other contributions. His paddling ponds facilities in Connecticut are exceptionally well maintained. Additionally, those facilities offer the privacy so necessary to successful breeding.

Unable to ascertain how many birds belong to zoo at Ripley's facility.

False. If asked we would have told the reporters. We have given reporters listings of all zoo animals on loan elsewhere, a total of 166 animals.

Presently, Dr. Ripley has 166 animals?

Mr. Reed. No. It is 166 animals that belong to the National Zoo residing elsewhere.

Mr. Yates. "We have given the reporters a listing of all zoo animals on loan elsewhere, a total of 166 animals * * *." That is outside the z"0o, all over the country.

Mr. Reed. Right.

Mr. Yates. "Presently Dr. Ripley has seven birds on loan from the National Zoo. The National Zoo is grateful for and benefits directly from the availability of Dr. Ripley's facilities."

Mr. Ripley. There are nearly 50 of my birds down here, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Yates. That mav be. I think that is fine, except that there is a question of Caesar's wife here, and T think probably maybe there is nothing to be criticized about, but I think from the relationship that exists, it might be well if it were kept separate.

Mr. Reed. That well could be.

Mr. Yates. I think you might want to consider that, anyway.

Mr. Reed. May I make a statement relative to that?

Mr. Yates. Sure.

Mr. Reed. I, as director of the National Zoo, would probably feel much abashed and probably subject to some peer criticism if Dr. Ripley were not cooperating with me and he was cooperating with some other zoo; then the question would get out among the

Mr. Yates. May I point something else out to you, Mr. Reed, that somebody else might think, and that is that I>r. Ripley is your boss and he might tell you he wants you to send a couple of birds up to his zoo, and even though

Mr. Reed. Those with evil minds might do that.

Mr. Yates. That is right. On y soit qui mal y pense.

I just suggest this for your consideration.

WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARS

When Mr. Billington was before us with the Woodrow Wilson Foundation, we asked him why it was that the Smithsonian Institution took 10 percent off the top of the amount of money that he received from private donations and he looked at us in amazement and he said there is nothing I can do about it.

How would you answer that, Mr. Wheeler ?

Mr. Wheeler. I am happy to answer that, Mr. Chairman. We are not being harsh with the Woodrow Wilson Center. Such charges are for administrative expenses against grants that the Woodrow Wilson Center receives from others in the way of private funds, and which we administer for them. Charges are strictly in accordance with procedures for assessing administrative expenses which are audited by the Defense Contract Audit Agency.

And one other thing, if we did not charge Woodrow Wilson Center in that way, we, the Smithsonian, would, in effect, be paying that money on behalf of the Woodrow Wilson Center.

Mr. Yates. Mr. Billington doesn't complain, and I would not want you to think that Mr. Billington is complaining; as a matter of fact, he is very grateful for the services he receives from the Smithsonian, and I asked him, "How much time does the Smithsonian give you for each of those services ? Is $40,000 a guess ? Is that what Dillon Ripley told you to pay them ?"

Mr. Billington replied:

No, I think that is pretty reasonable for the number of services we get For instance, on all of our private moneys there is a 10-percent straight overhead so we pay additional moneys in that regard, but when you put it all together it is very inexpensive considering all the services w'e get.

Mr. Yates. They are not charging you a rental for the space, are they?

Mr. BnxiNGTON. No.

But vou are not going to do that, anyway, are you ?

Mr. Wheeler. No, sir. We do make an additional charge for a number of support services which they told you about.

Mr. Yates. The committee has been told an internal audit report of the Smithsonian indicates that Woodrow Wilson Federal funds were apparently overobligated in 1975 and 1976. Are you familiar with that?

Mr. Wheeler. Yes; I am.

Mr. Yates. What should we know about that, Mr. Jameson ?

Mr. Jameson. The way our Office of Audits works is very much at arm's-length with the activities they are reviewing. Their process, which I believe is quite standard in the profession, is to issue tentative findings. ^Vhat I believe you have is a tentative finding.

Tho purpose of these tentative findings is to get on top of problems that can be corrected. This particular problem was occasioned by the fact that the award letters going to recipients of the Woodrow Wilson fellowships were not identified by fiscal year; thereby they had not been accounted for by appropriate fiscal year. Once the Office of Audits had identified the problem, it was very easy to correct, and indeed has been corrected, and there is no overobligation.

Mr. Yates. It has been corrected; good enough.

GAO REPORT ON BANKING PRACTICES

The GAO will be issuing a further report on the Smithsonian's cash management and banking practices. I suppose we can wait for that.

You may want to comment on that, Mr. AVheeler, in connection with the bank accounts that you are going to comment on.

Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY

Mr. Yates. Is there any policy of the Smithsonian that prevents Federal and private employees from having financial interest in a business or organization that does business with the Smithsonian, the Foundation, or SSIE ?

Mr. Powers. The standard provisions for standards of conduct and conflict of interest apply by statute to the so-called Federal employees, but this past year it was determined that they should apply to all employees, as a matter of policy.

5[i-. Yates. So the answer to the question is, there is such a policy?

Mr. Powers. Right.

Mr. Yates. And that they are prevented from having financial interest in a business or organization that does business with the Smithsonian, the Foundation, or the Science Information Exchange? right ?

Mr. Powers. Correct. There are limits to that. The stanch^rd forms for financial disclosure, the confidential forms, aie filed in my offi.e. There is a de minimis level. We, like the Congress, use Xerox machines and occasionally some employee will have five .sliares of Xerox.

Mr. Yates. Five shares of Xerox, depending on the number of copies he makes ?

You don't need congressional authority for this of any kind, do you ? You can establish the policy.

Mr. Powers. Yes.

PUBLIC ACCESS TO MEETINGS OF THE BOARD OF REGENTS

Mr. Yates. Mr. Regula T think we hadn't had an answer to your question. Dr. Ripley and Mr. Powers pointipd out that the Board of Regents is perfectly willing, as I understand what you said, you don't

speak for the Board of Regents; they speak for themselves. But as far as your opinion is concerned, you see no reason why there should not be public access to the meetings of the Board of Regents.

Mr. Powers. I didn't take a position, Mr. Chairman. I tried to explain that there are considerations on both sides, and they will be considering the question.

Mr. Ripley. It is under consideration by the Board.

Mr. Yates. Would you be kind enough to advise the committee and Mr. Regula as to what decision the Board of Regents comes to ?

Mr. Powers. I am sure they will come to some decision at the end of the May meeting.

AVAILABILITY OF FINANCIAL RECORDS

Mr. Regula. I don't know if I had a complete answer on the question of financial records being available for public scrutiny.

Mr. Yates. Ask the question.

Mr. Regula. Are all financial records of the Institution available at all times for public scrutiny ?

Mr. Powers. I think the answer is no, in the sense that there is no one place. The Institution consists of 60 or 65 different organizations, and many different kinds of records. We have had a number of requests for information which have been responded to in an orderly fashion. There is no policy in existence to allow any member of the public to walk into an office and start going through the files. However, we try to be as responsive as we can to requests of this kind. Some of the requests are for information that does not exist in the form in which it is requested. We normally do what we can to compile such a record. Sometimes it takes a few davs, but we have not really had any insuperable problem I am aware of in responding to the requests ?

Mr. Regula. Do you feel that the availability of information on your operation is at least comparable to what it would be with any other Federal agency ?

Mr. Powers, I would hope so.

Mr. Ripley. I think it may be superior, although I hate to boast.

Mr. Regula, All right.

policy for use of federal versus private funds

Mr. Yates. Is there a formal policy of decidinff whether Federal or private funds should be used for a particular project ?

Mr. Powers. In a great many cases, Mr. Chairman, as you are aware, the source of funds is already determined. For example, all the funds for the operating expenses of the magazine are received from the subscribers; the same is true of the shops. In the case of grants and contracts, the specific requirements of that source of funds will govern expenditures and employment. There is a very small discretionary area, which Mr. Wheeler could speak to, in general administrative services.

As we said yesterdav, the policy at work there is to try to reflect the approximate levels of activity, based on the dollar amounts in the various areas, in makinfr tho^e decisions, but I can't say it is absolutely mathematical in its application. It is very close.

Mr. Yates. Do your projects have a mix of Federal and private funds ?

Mr. Powers. Some activities, such as the folldife festival, have always had a mix of funding". The press, to some extent, but it is largely federally funded publishing. I would say quite a few activities of that kind, that involve either revenues, or that involve restricted outside support, may well have a mix. The large bureaus, the Museum of History and Technology, the very largest part of their functions have been supported with appropriated funds since the beginning.

Mr. Yates. Mr. Wheeler.

Mr. Wheeler. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to add that there is in preparation a formal statement of policy with respect to the question you asked, and I hope that it will be reviewed and presumably approved by the Board of Regents at their next meeting, since we have been asked by the Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations to supply such a statement.

It will be very much in line with what Mr. Powers is saying, but it will spell this out, use of both private and Federal funds.

Mr. Yates. Are there instances of where a Federal appropriation request was made and reduced by Congress in which you have considered that you should make up the deficit in private funds ?

Mr. Wheeler. I don't recall an instance of tha,t particular description.

Mr. Yates. I mean make up the cut instead of the deficit.

Mr. Wheeler. I should say sometimes when there are insufficient Federal funds to carry out a project, we are called upon to supplement it in a minor way occasionally to add an additional employee, when it seems absolutely necessary. In other words, it is not that we never use some private funds for the same purposes, but we do not attempt to go around the wishes of Congress by deliberately doing things with private funds that they have forbidden us to "do or limited us doing with Federal funds.

Mr. Powers. Mr. Chairman, there is the case of the folklife festival, particularly the 1976 program; we realized that Congress was not going to fund the entire expense and a fairly substantial fundraising effort was put on to meet those costs.

Mr. Yates. Should there have been presented to the committee for its consideration in connection with the 1978 budget the proposed expenditure by Smithsonian out of its private funds for the same fiscal year?

Mr. Wheeler. Mr. Chairman, here again, we have never made up a so-called private funds budget that far in advance. However, again at the request of the Senate committee this year, we are preparing that I'ight now. and as soon as the Regents apj^rove that budget, it will be supplied to the Senate committee and to your committee, if you would like us to do so.

Mr. Yates. That would be helpful.

[The information follows:]

(■SI,000s)

816

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION FUNDS CO;rPARISON of proposed FY 1978 BUDGET VS. FY 1977 ESTIMATED £ FY 1976 6 T.Q. ACTUAL

5/10/77

NOTE: Excludes Special Foreign Currency Program and Construction Appropriations

/I Restricted Purpose trust funds are those derived from restricted gifts, bequests, grants, endowment funds and miscellaneous fund raising activities for individual museum programs which must and are used exclusively for the purposes specified.

/2 Special Purpose trust funds are a separate category of unrestricted trust funds which include monies whose use has been restricted to particular bureaus of the Smithsonian either by a donor or by decision of management.

/3 Unrestricted General Purpose trust funds are derived primarily from investment income, concession fees, and auxiliary activities.

• It must be recognized that the estimated expenditures shown in the table for FY 1978, and to a lesser extent for FY 1977, are subject to a great amount of uncertainty, and represent only our best estimates at this time since they depend upon many factors beyond our control.

($1,000)

SMITHSONIAN INSTIIUTION FUNDS DETAIL OF FUNOS APPLIED

ACTUAL FY 1976 5 T.O.

ESTIMATED FY 1977

PROPOSED FY 1978

SCIENCE

Assistant Secretary

Federal SfiR

Fed Grant S Contract

Restricted

Special Purpose

Unrestricted

413

540

64

20

292 404

297

495

96

'Jatl Museum of Natural History

Astrophysical Observatory

Tropical Research Institute

Radiation Biology Laboratory

Federal SSE

Fed Grant 6 Contract

Restricted

Special Purpose

Unrestricted

Federal SSE

Fed Grant § Contract

Restricted

Special Purpose

Unrestricted

Federal SSE

Fed Grant S Contract

Restricted

Special Purpose

Uirestricted

Federal SSE

Fed Grant 5 Contract

Restricted

Special Purpose

Unrestricted

International Programs

Chesapeake Bay Center

Federal SSE 344

Fed Grant S Contract 31

Restricted

Special Purpose

Unrestricted g

Federal SSE

Fed Grant S Contract

Restricted

Special Purpose

Unrestricted

Natl Air S Space Museum Federal SSE

Fed Grant 6 Contract

Restricted

Special Purpose U

Unrestricted 'J Primarily for attendants at film theatre and spacearium.

($1,0003

SMITHSONIAN INSTimTION FUNDS DETAIL OF FUNnS APPLIED

SCIENCE (Cont'd) Natl Zoological Park

Federal S5E

Fed Grant 5 Contract

Restricted

Special Purpose

Unrestricted

Center for Study of Man Federal S5E

Fed Grant 6 Contract Restricted Special Purpose Unrestricted

Fort Pierce

Federal S6E

Fed Grant S Contract

Restricted 1/

Special Purpose

Unrestricted

Intematl Environmental Science Program

Federal SfiE

Fed Grant 8 Contract

Restricted

Special Purpose

Unrestricted

383 2

Science Information Exchange/—

Federal SSE

Fed Grant 6 Contract

Restricted

Special Purpose

Unrestricted

2,461

1,972

1,977

Other Science

Total Science

HISTORY 6 ART Assistant Secretary

Federal S§E

Fed Grant 6 Contract

Restricted

Special Purpose

Unrestricted

2/ Resources provided from endowment fund.

3/ Does not include expenditure of funds received by SSIE of .<;i,500 in FY 1976 fi T.O., $1,325 estimated in FY 1977, and $1,500 estimated in FY 1978.

($1,000)

SMITHSONIAN INSTimTION FUNDS DETAIL OF FUNDS APPLIED

HISTORY 6 ART Museum of History 6 Technology

Natl Collection of Fine Arts

ffetl Portrait Gallery

Federal S5F.

Fed Grant § Contract

Restricted

Special Purpose

Unrestricted

Federal SgE

Fed Grant § Contract

Restricted

Special Purpose

Unrestricted

Federal S6E

Fed Grant 5 Contract

Restricted

Special Purpose

Unrestricted

Hirshhom Museum

Freer Gallery of Art

Federal SSE

Fed Grant 5 Contract

Restricted

Special Purpose

Unrestricted

Federal S6E

Fed Grant 6 Contract

Restricted /_i

Special Purpose

Unrestricted

1,999

1,880

1,958

Archives of American Art

Federal SSE

Fei Grant § Contract

Restricted

Special Purpose

Unrestricted

316 1

353 264

419 291

Cooper-Hewitt Museum

American 6 Folklife Studie"=

Federal S6E

Ted Grant & Contract

Pestricted

Special Purpose

Unrestricted

Federal S6E

Fed Grant R Contract

Rpstricted

Special Purpose

Unrestricted

342

80

685

366 1,299

377 1,017

/4 Resources provided primarily from Freer endowment fund.

($1,000J

SMITHSONIAN INSTIIUTION FUNDS DETAIL OF FUNPS APPLIED

HISTORY S ART (Cont'd) Academic Studies

Federal S5E

Fed Grant 8 Contract

Restricted

Special Purpose

Unrestricted

ACTUAL FY 1976 5 T.O.

ESTIMATED FY 1977

PROPOSED FY 1978

American Revolution Bicentennial Program

Woodrow Wilson Center

Federal S5E

Fed Grant 6 Contract

Restricted

Special Purpose

Unrestricted

Federal S5E -

Fed Grant S Contract

Restricted

Special Purpose

Unrestricted

5,800

44

655

77

4

Other History 6 Art

Federal S6E

Fed Grant 5 Contract

Restricted

Special Purpose

Unrestricted

1 522

Total History 5 Art

Federal S5E

Fed Grant S Contract

Restricted

Special Purpose

Unrestricted

PUBLIC SERVICE Assistant Secretary

Federal SfiE

Fed Grant § Contract

Restricted

Special Purpose

Unrestricted

Anacostia Neighborhood Museum

Federal S6E

Fed Grant 5 Contract

Restricted

Special Purpose

Unrestricted

Ititemational Exchange

Service Federal S6E 216 222

Fed Grant 6 Contract Restricted Special Purpose Unrestricted 5/ Does not include separate federal appropriation to Woodrow Wilson Center.

C$1,000)

SMITHSONIAN INSTl milON FUNDS DETAIL OF FUNDS APPLIED

PUBLIC SERVICE (Cont'd) Division of Performing Arts

Office of Public Affairs

Symposia 5 Seminars

Federal S5E

Fed Grant 5 Contract

Restricted

Special Purpose

Unrestricted

Federal SSE

Fed Grant 6 Contract

Restricted

Special Purpose

Unrestricted

Federal SgE

Fed Grant 5 Contract

Restricted

Special Purpose

Unrestricted

Federal S5E

Fed Grant 5 Contract

Restricted

Special Purpose

Unrestricted

2 501*

67

1

43

35 680

6 689

Elementary 6 Secondary Education

Federal S§E

Fed Grant 5 Contract

Restricted

Special Purpose

Unrestricted

133 20

Other Public Service

Federal S§E

Fed Grant § Contract

Restricted

Special Purpose

Unrestricted

Total Public Service

Federal S5E

Fed Grant 6 Contract

Restricted

Special Purpose

Unrestricted

Funded from auxiliary activities revenue.

87-564 O - 77 - 52

($1,000)

SMITHSONIAN INSTIIUTION FUNDS DETAIL OF FUNPS APPLIF.D

MUSEUM PROGRAMS Assistant Secretary

Registrar

ESTIMATED PROPOSED FY 1977 FY 1978

Federal S6E

Fed Grant 6 Contract

Restricted

Special Purpose

Unrestricted

1,799

1,843

Conservation-Analytical Laboratory Federal S5E

Fed Grant 6 Contract Restricted Special Purpose Unrestricted

SI Libraries

Federal S6E

Fed Grant S Contract

Restricted

Special Purpose

Unrestricted

2,344

2,052

2,190

Ofc of Exhibits Central

Federal S5E

Fed Grant 5 Contract

Restricted

Special Purpose

Unrestricted

1,235

1.058

1,072

Traveling Exhibition Service

Smithsonian Archives

Federal S6E

Fed Grant 5 Contract

Restricted

Special Purpose

Unrestricted

Federal S5E

Fed Grant 5 Contract

Restricted

Special Purpose

Unrestricted

155

170

38

500* 309

104 243

425* 248

206 298

400* 272

National Museum Act

Federal S5E

Fed Grant 6 Contract

Restricted

Special Purpose

Unrestricted

* Funded from auxiliary activities revenue.

($1,000)

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION FUNDS DETAIL OF FUNnS APPLIED

MUSEUM PROGRAMS (Cont'd)

Other Museum Programs Federal S8E

Fed Grant 6 Contract Restricted Special Purpose Unrestricted

Total Museum Programs

Federal S5E

Fed Grant 5 Contract

Restricted

Special Purpose

Unrestricted

Buildings Management Protection Services

5 Federal S5E

Fed Grant S Contract Restricted Special Purpose Unrestricted

23,526

2 .45

7

21,921

22,722

Administration

Transfers (In)/Out

Federal S§E 6,603 Fed Grant fi Contract

Restricted 11

Special Purpose 40

Unrestricted 5,899

Less Overhead Recovery (5,770)

Federal SgE 1,271

Fed Grant S Contract (47)

Restricted (179)

Special Purpose (1,245)

Unrestricted 6,127

5,271

108

18

5,426

(4,881)

(100) (1,400) 7,395

5,637

119

96

5,881

(5,200)

(100) (2,000) 7,036

Grand Total Applied

Federal S6E

Fed Grant 6 Contract

Restricted

Special Purpose

Unrestricted

106,654

15,512

8,178

3

6,922

87,208 11,200

4,920 (327)

8,535

91,010 12,400

4,571 (800)

8,240

ENDING FUND BALANCES

Federal SgE

Fed Grant 8 Contract

Restricted

Special Purpose

Unrestricted

-0-

101

3,984

2,488

4,074.

-0-101

4,364 4,395 4,074

-0-

101

5,093

6,625

4,084

PRIVATE ROLL EMPLOYEES

Mr. Yates. Mr. Wheeler, would you also place in the record the number of your private employees for fiscal 1977 and 1978? Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir. [The informaiton follows:]

^t

-4

5. ':!>

' i I"

CU f

rt eij *-< T3 rt

o -H ta c u

rt O. -H u.

3 tJ « >

-I fu 0)

•T3 rt E f^ o

(D (1 o r» «)

T3 E O Ol 2

CO -^ "

3 O 4-> 10

(u m c CO

h S o g

■a D. e ID »;

to >i X -H .3

c P rt *J c

^ ^ °* w 3

CD ID O ""^

M C D, 01

-. U O c

0) T3 M 00 S

■a « i~ .rt

3 u, -H oi r;

c:|Ci| Cl:

< t;«

41

Cll

5 -S

^ly--^

Id V -J -a

O .-1 TJ «

_ c •o «

5 ^1

- o ^ rt C

B <U XI U T3

tM to nJ ^ .

T3 E O O^ ^,

V m c

M C O £

j: o « ox <J

■H in u CD

<J O O « M

in t-> a. V tin

C H

0-S-o

O. V)

^ I <« ^

cl^l i^ki

> U H

a.

- ^ C OJ

^ -3 C

-icikil

-i

•-' C CO

o

Z tH u

< <J ►-.

Z w 03

o o n

CO o. o.

z a:'

U 'J

-J

Cfcl^

I

o a.

•H 3

- "> SJ

o o "

rr c: 1-^ ■z. or:

3 E-

-#

r'

05 <U

>

O T3

o .-•

>■ 4->

Jc:|ci[!:il

*- >. s

f- •" >

5 C ^

"^§ ^

Z ■r< ^

£ t: f-

S'S g

o o CL

(/) a. a.

t-« O 1

■4-

■I.

t4H

dlciPil

:lj

831

■ \0 t^ CN f-» I ^

■O fH

c o

4-

^l-i

-h ?

Ill

Jclcil^l

hS^

S; 't^

. .-I c <u

fe^

.tJ §

clcil^l

5 ID "

»-l X ^

« LI

o <

in C TJ 3 o *

c;W:

Mr. Yates. We already have the number of Federal employees. Are any Federal employees involved in private fundraising matters? Mr. Wheeler. No, sir.

secretary's travel

Mr. Yates. The GAO report indicated that the Secretary of the Smithsonian was in travel status 147 days in fiscal year 1974. The report also indicates, and I read from the report, that "Litchfield, Conn., is a regular place of duty for the Secretary."

Is the Secretary on travel status while he is in Litchfield, Conn.?

Mr. Ripley. No ; I am not in a travel status when I am at Litchfield.

Mr. Yates. Have your predecessors, as Secretary, had other places of duty other than Washington, D.C. ?

Mr. EiPLEY. Yes.

Mr. Yates. Could you provide that in the record, please, so that we may have the benefit of that information?

Mr. Ripley. Yes.

[The information follows:]

Smithsonian Secretaries Duty Stations Away from Washington

The tradition that Smithsonian Secretaries be both administrators and scientists began with the Institution's first Secretary, Joseph Henry, the distinguished physicist, who served from 1847 to 1878. In addition to his administrative duties, Henry was an active member of the U.S. Lighthouse Board from his appointment by President Fillmore in 1852 until his death in 1878. In that capacity he conducted experiments in acoustics, light, and optics, which took him to the New England and Mid-Atlantic coasts regularly. In fact, he devoted most of his "vacations" to that end. Still, he did not cease his involvement in things Smithsonian. On September 20, 1876, for instance, he wrote his Assistant Secretary, Spencer Baird, returning certain correspondence which had been forwarded for his approval and signature. Later that year, on November 16, Henry again wrote Baird to say that he had heard rumors Baird contemplated using the Smithsonian's credit with the railroads to pay for the cost of shipping certain items donated by exhibitors at the Centennial Exposition of 1876 to the Smithsonian at Washington. Henry ordered Baird not to implement any such plan. Clearly Henry, though regularly absent to pursue his experimental work, kept in touch with administrative matters at the Institution.

Spencer F. Baird, the Smithsonian's second Secretary (1878-1887), managed to combine administration of the Smithsonian, an enormous scholarly output, and the (unpaid) direction of the U.S. Commission on Fish and Fisheries, the forerunner of offices now under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. His responsibilities for the Fish Commission, as well as his scientific researches, required Baird to spend a considerable amount of time away from Washington. After his appointment as Fish Commissioner, Baird spent every summer at various locations along the New England coast, particularly at Woods Hole, Massachusetts. While in the field on these pursuits, Baird received a steady flow of telegrams and correspondence from his subordinates concerning Smithsonian business which required his attention. On July 31, 1883, we find Baird writing from Woods Hole, giving his staff instructions on administration of the National Museum and discussing drainage problems in the Museum building. The next year, August 8, 1884, Baird, writing again from Woods Hole, authorized discharging an unsatisfactory messenger. On July 28, 1886, Baird wrote his subordinates to prescribe the solution of a problem over how to pay for an incomplete shipment of artifacts from a collector. Whatever work Baird may have undertaken otherwise, he was actively in charge of the Smithsonian.

Samuel P. Langley continued the pattern established by Henry and Baird during his tenure as third Secretary (1887-1906). An early student of heavier-than-air flight, Langley carried out experiments in the field for several years after succeeding Baird in 1887, mostly at Allegheny Observatory in Pittsburgh. During that period he both conducted his own research and oversaw administration of the Institution. He regularly examined and approved vouchers, payrolls, and other business matters. The detail of his attention is illustrated by a letter of June 23, 1887, in which he approved a $10.00 per month pay raise for an employee in Washington. A few weeks later, on July 11, Langley reminded his assistant in Washington the approved raise had not gone into effect on schedule. Langley also made it a point to travel to England and the Continent during many suirmers in order to exchange information with other scientists and to make contacts for the Institution. Even then, his concern for the Smithsonian remained active. For instance, in a letter of August 2, 1898, Langley wrote an assistant in Washington, instructing him to watch for any chance to obtain a small steam launch for Smithsonian use as a research vessel if one became available as a result of the reduction of the navy at the close of the Spanish-American War.

Charles D. Walcott, the fourth Secretary (1907-1927), was a noted geologist and paleontologist. While Secretary he spent several months each year in the Canadian Rockies doing field work in the Cambrian geologic formations there. Despite his rather isolated location, Walcott received frequent reports from his subordinates on Institution business and, as required, returned specific instructions for action. One illustration of this contact was his letter to the Assistant Secretary, Charles G. Abbot, written from his camp tent on July 14, 1921, discussing appropriate strategy for the Smithsonian presentations to the Bureau of the Budget for 1923.

Charles G. Abbot succeeded Walcott as fifth Secretary in 1927 and served until 1944. Abbot, an astronomer, had travelled widely since joining the Smithsonian in 1895; and he continued his research after becoming Secretary, especially at Mount Wilson in California. He, too, kept a careful eye on administration. In a letter of August 16, 1929, he was consulted for permission to change the Civil Service classification of an instrument maker in order to accommodate the rocket pioneer, Robert Goddard. On June 25, 1932, we find him giving instructions on disposition of a bequest and on the best way to grant furloughs required by retrenchments brought on by the Depression.

Alexander Wetmore, the sixth Secretary (1944-1953), was a noted ornithologist who specialized in the birds of Central and South America. He spent a part of each year in field work, usually in Panama. Subordinates dealt with routine matters as usual; but Wetmore dealt with larger issues even if, as in one case in 1952, the question had to be put through to him by Air Force radio.

Leonard Carmichael, the Smithsonian's seventh Secretary (1953-1964), did not find it necessary to spend so much time away from the Smithsonian as did his predecessors, perhaps because his specialty, physiological psychology, did not require the kind of field work necessary in geology or ornithology. Even so, he too, spent considerable time away from Washington at conferences, symposia, and other meetings obligatory upon a modern scientific administrator. But so far as we can determine, he had no regular second duty station.

The record shows that most Smithsonian Secretaries have pursued their own research and administered the Institution. In doing so, they have spent considerable time away from their Smithsonian offices, often at regular research areas, while nevertheless attending to administration of the Smithsonian.

i

REPROGRAMING PEOCEDTTRES

Mr. Yates. I think that is all.

Is there anything the Smithsonian would like to say to the committee ?

Mr. RiPLET. I would like to say very much, Mr. Chairman, that we appreciate these hearings. I think they have been indepth in a way which entirely satisfies our own feeling about our desire to be fully equitable and fair in response to the GAO studies and our efforts to show that the records of the Institution are at your disposal. I think also that one of the remaining things which I earnestly hope the staff of these committees and our own administrative staff will be able to follow up is the recommendation about the workings of the reprogram-ing authorities, an issue which was discussed last year in connection with the questions that arose about the contingency fund, the setting aside of funds for reallocation within the Institution, depending on changing circumstances.

As I am sure you are well aware, Mr. Chairman, the nearly 2-year difference between the setting up of the budget and the effectuating of, that budget has made these arrangements sometimes extremely cumbersome, and if we could work out some procedure whereby, similar to that one I recently directed to the committee, it could be followed up in some orderly fashion on both sides, it would make our activity not only more efficient, but more effective.

Mr. Yates. I agree with you, Mr. Ripley. I think that is a desirable procedure, and I want to apologize to you for not having replied earlier to your letter requesting the reprograming. I can only say in excuse that we have had the same kind of hearings for other agencies coming to this committee for its appropriation that we have had for the Smithsonian in the last few days, and we have been rather busy.

Mr. Ripley. Please don't apologize, Mr. Chairman; that is not at issue. The point is simply day-by-day to get things done.

Mr. Yates. Yes. I know you have your duties to do and plans to make, and I think the procedure is a good one, and we will act with all reasonable haste in the future.

Mr. Ripley. If there could be some sort, of ceiling with a certain amount of flexibility over which we then could inform you, this would be a great help. I believe many agencies have sort of working fund ceilings of this sort already in existence, and/or whatever procedures you and the staff agree, we are very happy to comply with.

Let me sav once more; we do appreciate these hearings. We want to thank you all very much.

chairman's closing remarks

Mr. Yates. T^et us state what we stated at the beginning; that we consider the Smithsonian to be one of the a:reat institutions of the world, and in substantial measure I think it has achieved its pinnacle as a result of the efforts that you have made, and that your predecessors, as secretaries, have made. I think it has been very good. And there is no desire on the part of this committee or any of itsmembers to in any way hamper or besmirch the Smithsonian or any of its people.

87-564 O - 77 - 53

I think that the examinations that are now goin^ on by GAO and by other agencies will be very constructive, and I think that the Smithsonian will emerge from them in better shape. And we look forward to that.

Thank you very much.

EXPRESSION OF APPRECIATION FOR WORK OF HEARING REPORTERS

Madam Reporter, I want to thank you and all of the reporters who did such fine work and who were not only eflEicient but so conscientious during all the hearings. I hope you will convey our gratitude to all of your colleagues.

o

I