[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OVERSIGHT OF THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MARCH 5, 2003
__________
Printed for the Use of the Committee on House Administration
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
87-389 WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION
BOB NEY, Ohio, Chairman
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut,
JOHN L. MICA, Florida Ranking Minority Member
JOHN LINDER, Georgia JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD,
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California California
THOMAS M. REYNOLDS, New York ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania
Professional Staff
Paul Vinovich, Staff Director
George Shevin, Minority Staff Director
OVERSIGHT OF THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 5, 2003
House of Representatives,
Committee on House Administration,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:20 p.m., in room
1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Robert W. Ney
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Ney, Ehlers, Mica, Linder, Larson,
Millender-McDonald, and Brady
Staff Present: Paul Vinovich, Staff Director; Jeff Janas,
Professional Staff Member; George Hadijski, Professional Staff
Member; Pat Leahy, Professional Staff Member; George Shevlin,
Minority Staff Director; Matt Pinkus, Minority Professional
Staff Member; Charles Howell, Minority Chief Counsel; Deborah
Mack, Staff Member, Representative Millender-McDonald; and Stan
White, Staff Member, Representative Brady.
The Chairman. The committee will begin. I am sorry the
committee was delayed due to the series of votes called on the
floor of the House. We will come to order.
I want to thank all of you for coming today. This
afternoon's hearing will focus on the Smithsonian Institution
and its operations. I also want to thank our witness, Secretary
Larry Small, for taking the time to appear before us today.
I look forward to hearing your testimony as I know the
other committee members do.
In 1829, English scientist James Smithson donated his
fortune to the people of the United States. I learned this from
the Secretary, too, some of this history. He did this for the
purpose of creating an institution for the increase and
diffusion of knowledge.
On August 10, 1846, by an act of Congress signed by
President James K. Polk, the Smithsonian Institution was
officially established as a trust to be administered by the
Board of Regents and the Secretary of the Smithsonian.
Today, the Smithsonian has grown into one of our nation's
true historical and scientific gems. It is commonly referred to
as our ``Nation's attic,'' but that phrase oversimplifies a
very complex institution.
The Smithsonian contains over 142 million items and
artifacts and has a Federal budget request for fiscal year 2004
of over $566 million.
The Smithsonian Institution is the world's largest museum
complex and includes 16 museums with two more nearing
completion in the next couple of years. It also includes four
research centers, the National Zoo and various education and
traveling exhibit services, and they are all operated by
approximately 6,300 employees.
This enormous structure does not come without enormous
challenges. The Smithsonian is faced with numerous issues
pulling it in all directions, which is why managing such a
structure also becomes one that becomes difficult at times. I
am also sympathetic to the challenges ahead, as I have dealt
with similar issues involving the Congress in the past. In the
wake of the September 11th attacks, we have both had to deal
with new measures involving security, while facing an overall
tightening of Federal budget dollars for other areas.
Having said that, the American public expects nothing less
than the best from their government and their treasured
institutions, regardless of the challenges ahead.
Since the Smithsonian covers such a wide array of subjects,
I hope today to focus on some specific areas that would include
updates to our committee on major projects under way or in
development at the Smithsonian; a discussion about the report
recently submitted by the Smithsonian Science Commission that
was tasked with looking at science and science priorities at
the Institution; management at the National Zoo, the publicized
animal deaths, of course, and corrective actions taken; and the
overall management and future priorities of the Smithsonian.
As a significant portion of its funding comes from
government sources, the Smithsonian has worked hard to increase
private contributions. We credit them for that. I would like
the Secretary to explain the private donation process and how
the Institution maintains content control when accepting these
private donations.
I am also very interested to hear the Secretary's vision
for managing the Institution's personnel and keeping personnel
costs from taking away funding from other priorities.
I understand the Smithsonian is undertaking implementation
of an institutional strategic plan. I am interested in your
goal-setting and in the vision for the Smithsonian that is
found within that plan.
Lastly, I know the repair and restoration of the
Institution's infrastructure related to museum buildings has
been priority for Secretary Small. I would like to know how
that broad goal is progressing and what the vision and
priorities are from that point forward.
I also wanted to make a statement, obviously due to the
recent situation with the zoo and the publicity we have talked
to.
I am pleased to have the ranking member and the other
members of the committee, both sides of the aisle; we have an
interest, overall, in the Smithsonian. We have had discussions
and have also talked to Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton and have
come to the conclusion that we would look towards the National
Academy of Sciences, or if that doesn't seem to be the entity,
another entity to look over the zoo situation; and the
Smithsonian may want to comment on that.
I think this will be an appropriate--process where Congress
will use its oversight ability to address the controversy and
the situation at the zoo.
With that, I will yield to my ranking member, Mr. Larson.
Mr. Larson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Secretary Small, for joining us here this
afternoon as well.
I am delighted at my inaugural meeting here before the
committee that so many of the press have turned out to focus on
my initial hearing. And while my mother may believe that, I
want to thank Mr. Ney, especially, from day one, who has done
an outstanding job in bringing me up to speed with respect to
the duties of the committee and working very closely with us in
bipartisan fashion as we move forward on clearly what is
institutionally an important aspect of congressional oversight,
and that is the Smithsonian Institution.
I also want to applaud Secretary Small. I had an
opportunity about a week ago to meet at length with him, and I
would like, for the record, to submit extended remarks that I
have and in those are many of the questions that were outlined
by the chairman. And so, not to be redundant, I will submit
those in written form.
[The information follows:]
February 26, 2003.
Denny Lewis,
Manager, Accreditation Programs, American Zoo and Aquarium Association,
Silver Spring, MD.
Dear Mr. Lewis: I am writing on behalf of People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals' (PETA) more than 750,000 members and supporters
to inform you of unacceptable conditions at the National Zoo in
Washington, D.C., and to request that the AZA Accreditation Commission
consider these comments during its March 2003 meeting.
In recent months, PETA has received an inordinate number of
complaints regarding the tragic deaths of animals at the National Zoo.
These deaths, in addition to a pattern of poor judgment by zoo
management, lack of federal oversight and public accountability, and
substandard conditions, have led PETA to recommend that the National
Zoo's application for AZA re-accreditation be denied at this time.
A major problem with this facility is that it is not licensed by
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and therefore is not
inspected on a regular basis. The zoo voluntarily agrees to only
occasional courtesy inspections by the agency, once every two or three
years, to determine its compliance with the minimum standards of the
federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA). These inspections are apparently for
the purpose of AZA accreditation. We suggest that, given this special
circumstance and the zoo's poor track record, the AZA require the zoo
to submit to more frequent unannounced inspections either by the USDA,
a coalition of inspectors consisting of poor professionals, sanctuary
operators, and human officers, or both. Accreditation could be
reconsidered after a series of inspections reveals that the zoo not
only meets, but also exceeds, the meager AWA standards of care.
The recent spate of preventable and questionable deaths included
the following:
January 27, 2003: A 9-year-old pygmy hippopotamus died suddenly.
Pygmy hippos have a life span of 40 years or more in captivity. Zoo
officials have been vague about this animal's death, saying only that
``some sort of pathogen or disease agent'' brought on pulmonary
congestion and edema. Notably, pulmonary edema is a symptom of severe
aluminum phosphide poisoning (see the entry for January 11, 2003,
below).
January 11, 2003: Two red pandas, aged 7\1/2\ and 5\1/2\, were
found dead and three employees who entered their enclosure fell ill
with headaches, nausea, and diarrhea less than 24 hours after pellets
of highly toxic aluminum phosphide were buried in their exhibit to
control a chronic rat problem. A suggestion, raised during an internal
November 2002 meeting, to use the pesticide inside the giant panda yard
was immediately rejected, yet, incredibly, staff wrongly believed that
the poison was safe for the red pandas. Needless to say, these pandas
suffered agonizing deaths. Rats, the intended victims, would equally
have suffered, and PETA encourages zoos to seek human control of
unwanted visitors. The problem of roden overpopulation is largely
preventable by maintaining clean, sanitary conditions and plugging
holes or cracks where mice or rats might enter a building. If traps are
needed to remove mice or rats, humane box-type traps are available from
humane societies and hardware stores.
November 2002: According to the January 2003 Washingtonian, zoo
director Lucy Spelman approved an euthanasia order on a 24-year-old
bobcat, believing that the animal was lame with arthritis. After the
bobcat was killed, it was discovered that an ingrown claw, not
arthritis, had caused the bobcat to limp. While this bobcat was old, he
could potentially have lived for a few more years.
October 11, 2002: Tana, a healthy 14-year-old lion, died after a
routine checkup. According to news reports, zoo insiders report that
Tana's death was caused by an incorrectly administered does of
anesthetic. Tana, still glassy-eyed and groggy from the anesthetic, was
left unattended overnight and was discovered dead the next morning near
a pool of frothy, bloody fluid.
September and February 2002: Griff, an 18-year-old giraffe, and
Ryma, a 17-year-old giraffe, died suddenly, far short of their 28-year
life expectancy. Spelman refused to disclose autopsy records concerning
Ryma's death to a Washington Post reporter, making the ridiculous claim
that doing so would violate the dead giraffe's right to privacy.
Operating under a cloak of secrecy only fuels speculation that improper
care has played a role in these deaths. The zoo has acquired yet
another giraffe without fully understanding the digestive problems that
reported caused Griff and Ryma to die.
August 22, 2000: Nancy, a 46-year-old African elephant, was
euthanized. Nancy suffered a bone infection in one of her toes, a
common killer of captive elephants caused by lack of exercise, long
hours standing on hard substrates, and contamination resulting from
standing in their own feces and urine. An autopsy also revealed bovine
tuberculosis in her lungs. Since the zoo is not USDA-licensed, it is
not known whether the zoo complies with tuberculosis testing
requirements for elephants and handlers.
February 1, 2000, and January 22, 2000: A 1-year-old zebra and an
8-year-old zebra died at zoo facilities. Fed a deficient diet, the
zebras were malnourished and succumbed to the cold.
In addition to these deaths, courtesy inspections conducted by the
USDA in October and December 2002 found multiple instances of
noncompliance with the minimum standards of the Animal Welfare Act,
including inadequate maintenance, unsanitary conditions, and facilities
that were teeming with rodents, cockroaches, and ants.
On June 12, 2002, PETA wrote to Spelman complaining of poor
conditions in the small-mammal building, where animals are kept in
undersized, barren Plexiglas cages without access to the outdoors. With
no opportunity to escape from public views, a fennec fox and a leopard
cat were frightened by children banging on the windows of their cases.
Animals are much more content when they are given access to the
outdoors so that they can enjoy walking on soft grass, taking in the
surrounding scents, resting in the sun, and breathing fresh air.
The National Zoo uses an outdated, circus-style form of elephant
management that consists of dominance and punishing elephants with
sharp metal bullhooks. Most zoos today have converted to the safer and
more humane protected-contact method that utilizes positive
reinforcement instead of corporal punishment. We expect the National
Zoo to set a positive example and implement state-of-the art handling
practices.
People from all over the world go to the National Zoo while
visiting our nation's capital. The condition of this facility not only
affects the animals who are kept there, but also sets an example to
tourists of how zoos in America treat animals. Substandard exhibits
that deprive animals of their most basic needs, unsanitary conditions,
mishandling, preventable animal deaths, and mismanagement reflect
poorly on both the National Zoo and the AZA. The AZA should withhold
re-accreditation until the zoo makes significant verifiable upgrades to
its level of animal care.
Thank you for giving this matter your consideration. May I please
be informed of the commission's decision concerning the National Zoo's
accreditation? I can be reached by e-mail at [email protected], by
telephone at 630-393-9627, or by fax at 630-393-2941.
Sincerely,
Debbie Leahy,
Director, Captive Exotic Animal Department.
Mr. Larson. But specifically, I view part of the role and
responsibility of this committee as making sure that Members of
Congress understand the interrelated focus and oversight that
we share with our institutions, like the Library of Congress
and the Smithsonian Institution.
I was very impressed with the way that Secretary Small has
laid out the Institution and its performance and its mission,
and I am anxious to hear from you this morning as well.
I further want to compliment the chairman. Obviously, there
is concern that has been raised in the media with regard to the
National Zoo and the problematic concern that has arisen over
the deaths of animals, most by natural causes, but some which
press reports and accounts have indicated perhaps were because
of lack of bureaucratic oversight or human error.
I fully concur that a study, an independent study by the
National Academy of Sciences is the way to go; and we share
that vision and purpose with the chairman. and we anxiously
await today the remarks of Dr. Spelman, as well, who I am sure
will explain to us some of the concerns that we have and
perhaps put at ease a number of the concerns that people in the
media have.
But I am especially heartened by the chairman's instinctive
desire to make sure that we go forward with a full, independent
study and look into what happened at our National Zoo.
Having said that, I will yield back and look forward to
hearing from Secretary Small.
The Chairman. I want to thank the ranking member of this
statement.
Mr. Linder.
Mr. Linder. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am here to
listen.
The Chairman. Ms. Millender-McDonald from California.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr.
Ranking Member.
I am very much interested in this hearing today, given some
of the startling information that has come to my attention. I
am interested in regards to the management, the oversight, or
perhaps the lack thereof, in terms of the zoo.
We recognize this very historic institution, and we want to
keep it as historic and as efficient as we have come to know
about it. And so I am interested in hearing from you, Secretary
Small.
Also, I would like for the record to reflect, Mr. Chairman
and Mr. Ranking Member, that we need to look at the exempt
clause in the animal welfare laws to discern whether on not
there can be amendments to those laws or amendments to the
congressional charter that tends to be the guiding force behind
the Smithsonian Institution. Because I think, with that there
might be some telling stories, or might be some knowledge that
we can glean from that, as we ask for the oversight study.
I would like to think that I will not presume anything
until I further hear from the Secretary, and also this
independent study that you have asked for, Mr. Chairman, that
is very much needed. Because what we are seeing or what we are
hearing really is very startling and very concerning to me. And
I would like to ask, after we do that study, will there be than
a special hearing, given this study, to discern just what we
have gleaned from that and which direction we go? We must give
them some serious through.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Brady.
Mr. Brady. I will yield.
The Chairman. Mr. Secretary, we will begin your testimony.
STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE M. SMALL, SECRETARY, SMITHSONIAN
INSTITUTION, ACCOMPANIED BY DR. LUCY H. SPELMAN, DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL ZOOLOGICAL PARK; AND DR. DAVID L. EVANS, UNDER
SECRETARY FOR SCIENCE, SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION
Mr. Small. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members of
the committee. Thank you for this opportunity to discuss the
status of the Smithsonian Institution.
As you all know the Smithsonian is dependent for about two-
thirds of its funding on its Federal appropriation. We simply
couldn't do what we do without the support of the
administration, without the support of Congress. And we are
ever mindful of that support.
Over the last 156 years, the Smithsonian has remained true
to its mission, the increase and diffusion of knowledge; and it
has become not only the world's largest provider of
authoritative museum experiences that are supported by
scholarship and science and history and the arts, but as the
chairman pointed out, it is also an international leader in
scientific research and exploration.
We have 16 museums and galleries, several research centers,
the National Zoo; and with all that, the Smithsonian offers the
world a picture of America and it offers America a picture of
the world.
What we want to do is enhance picture. We want to reach out
to all Americans, wherever they may live, with the best that
the Smithsonian has to offer and to do so in a way that
indicates that we are communicating with the public and
carrying out our mission in the highest-quality manner
possible.
We face a number of challenges to do that. Half of the
Smithsonian's 400 buildings are in trouble. The independent
study that was commissioned by Congress and performed by the
National Academy of Public Administration said that the
Smithsonian will need $1.5 billion over the course of this
decade to deal with our huge renovation and repair backlog. And
both that study and the Office of Management and Budget's
recent report card said that our outdated, malfunctioning
information and financial management systems also have to be
replaced. In addition to that, about half of the hundreds of
exhibitions in the Smithsonian's museums are now 15 to 25 years
old and some are even 40 and 50 years old.
You know, many Americans come to the Smithsonian maybe
three times in their lives--as a child, as a parent and as a
grandparent. We actually have today grandparents who are coming
to the Smithsonian and, in some cases, seeing exhibits that
they saw when they came as children. And frankly that is not
good.
The Star Spangled Banner, the wonderful tiny lap-desk that
Thomas Jefferson personally designed and on which he wrote the
Declaration of Independence, the hat that President Abraham
Lincoln had on the night he was assassinated, all of those have
to be presented in a way other objects like them, ironic
objects of our culture, have to be presented, in a way that
connects with the public, that can attract children to learn
about these things. And that way has to include modern display
techniques; and it can't be labels under the object that use
the type fonts that you would find in Life magazine back in
1952.
Additionally, we have endured a steady decrease in Federal
staff in key areas over the last 10 years. In the Smithsonian's
busiest, most-visited locations, which include the three most-
visited museums in the world--the Air and Space Museum, the
Natural History Museum and the American History Museum--we have
fewer people on the Federal payroll than we had a decade ago,
even though our museums are far busier.
The people we have on the payroll of the Smithsonian are
graying. We now have more than 1,100 employees over the age of
55; that is more than 25 percent of our work force. And almost
90 percent of the Smithsonian's Federal scientists, curators,
biologists, astrophysicists and social science researchers are
now over 40 years old, meaning that close to 10 percent of the
people in the sciences and research--of that number fewer than
10 percent, around 10 percent, are under 40 and that is it.
That means that the best and the brightest of the generation
that is 55 years and older, the generation that has built the
Smithsonian during this last century, won't be able to pass on
the collective knowledge that they have built, the wisdom that
they have built to the next generation of scientists and
scholars, because at the rate we are going there won't be any
next generation.
That would be tragic because scientific research is a much
bigger part of the Smithsonian than most people realize. In
fact, one of our units, the Smithsonian Astrophysical
Observatory in Cambridge, Massachusetts, is one of the
preeminent centers for the study of the origins and future of
the universe and actually has a bigger budget than any of the
museums in the Smithsonian.
The Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama is
arguably one of the most highly regarded complexes of
facilities for the study of tropical biology, which is so
important because so many species live in rainforests on the
earth.
The Smithsonian Environmental Research Center in Edgewater,
Maryland, is nationally known for its contribution to
ecological issues, especially in the very important work in
invasive species.
Finally, the collections at the National Museum of Natural
History are second to none, and they include the greatest and
most diverse collection of DNA specimens in the world.
As the chairman pointed out, the tragedy of 9/11 led to a
sharp drop in visitors with a resulting loss in revenues in our
gift shops and restaurants, movie theaters and other
businesses; and those revenues are vitally needed to supplement
Federal funding. Overall, our attendance, which is the largest
museum attendance in the world, in fiscal year 2002 dropped by
22 percent compared to fiscal year 2001; that is 8.5 million
visits that were lost. And lots of those visits that were lost
were children who missed the childhood phase of that pattern of
child, parent and grandparent visit that so many Americans have
experienced.
But we are dealing with these challenges. We are making
progress on many fronts.
If I may, Mr. Chairman, let me say that the more than 6,300
Smithsonian employees, whether they are curators or researchers
or custodians, have all responded in a really very dedicated
way. And while in some ways 9/11 has brought the worst of times
to the museum world, we are in the best of times because we
have great momentum with ambitious initiatives under way to
attract expanded audiences to our new and revitalized museums,
exhibitions and public programming.
You mentioned the new National Air and Space Museum, one of
our projects, the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center near Dulles
Airport. That will open on December 15, 2003. It is going to be
one of the most spectacular museums in the world. The new
National Museum of the American Indian is rising on the Mall in
front of the Capitol. That will open in the fall of 2004. The
Patent Office Building, which is home of the National Portrait
Gallery and the Smithsonian American Art Museum is being
renovated; that will open in 2006.
With respect to one of the other great parts of the
Smithsonian, the National Zoo, truly a beloved institution here
in the Capital, which gets over 2 million visitors a year, we
are also involved in a terrific revitalization plan dealing
with the dilapidated facilities and exhibits of one of the
Smithsonian's oldest activities. The zoo dates back to 1889.
It is all very exciting, but at the same time we are more
than aware of the questions that have been raised concerning
the care of animals at the zoo; and to that end, we are most
delighted to be able to work out with you, to talk with you
about just what you have mentioned: work out a process to
empanel a completely independent group of external experts to
review the situation and to make recommendations regarding
possible steps to take in this very vital area of the zoo's
operations.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, I would like to state that the
Smithsonian welcomes public scrutiny of our activities at the
zoo, and we would support modification of our special status
under the Animal Welfare Act in order to make ourselves subject
to the same rules and procedures as all other zoos. We
currently consult with the U.S. Department of Agriculture for
routine inspections under the Animal Welfare Act and we would
be most willing to go a step further and make that relationship
mandatory rather than voluntary.
Now, for those who can't come to the Nation's Capital, the
Smithsonian is determined to go to them. At any time we have
not more than 1 or 2 percent of the 142 million or so objects
in our collections on display. So in the last few years we have
tripled our program to lend, free of charge, some of those
objects to local museums all around the country. We now have
126 affiliated museums around the country.
We also have the largest traveling museum exhibition
service in the world. Five million people see its exhibitions
around America every year. We, as you know, being in
Washington, have an extensive series of courses and study tours
and regional events; 350,000 people go to those every year. We
have education programs which serve more than 1 million
educators and millions of students. And we just most recently,
in the last year or so, have gotten to the point where there
are more visitors who come to the Smithsonian over the Internet
than actually come physically to the Mall.
So we are really in contact with the American public. We
are in contact with them all across the country. We tell the
story of what it means to be an American. We tell the story of
the challenges, of the struggles, of the failures, the triumphs
that have led this society to become what it is today. And we
provide an opportunity for each new generation to discover and
rediscover what it means to be an American. That is why the
Smithsonian deserves America's attention and America's support.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement of Mr. Small follows:]
TESTIMONY OF LAWRENCE M. SMALL, SECRETARY, SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION
I am pleased to have this opportunity to address the Committee on
the mission and status of the Smithsonian Institution and, on behalf of
the Institution, its Board of Regents, and staff, to extend our
gratitude for the interest, support and counsel of the Committee.
the smithsonian institution in the 21st century
As the guardian of our nation's greatest historic, artistic, and
scientific treasures, the Smithsonian Institution has, for more than
156 years, worked hard to fulfill its mission, ``the increase and
diffusion of knowledge.'' However, while the Institution has maintained
a superb reputation for first-class authoritative work, several
competing priorities for funding and fallout from the after effects of
September 11th have combined to create a financial situation at the
Smithsonian that may require drastic actions, including substantial
personnel reductions. Nonetheless, we are more determined than ever to
meet these challenges and transform the Smithsonian into a modern 21st-
century institution.
As the largest museum and research complex in the world, the
Smithsonian's reputation rests on a strong foundation. Unfortunately,
it is also an institution contending with a severely deteriorated
physical infrastructure, outdated technology, many aged, and outmoded
exhibitions, and staffing levels that can barely meet the current
workload based on how we must operate today. The July 2001 report from
the National Academy of Public Administration documented that a total
of $1.5 billion would be required over the next ten years to bring the
Institution's facilities up to an acceptable level. The tragedy of
September 11th has led to a drop in visitors with a resulting loss in
revenues from museum stores, restaurants and theaters needed to
supplement federal funding. In addition to our existing museums, the
Institution is well down the road of opening and staffing two major
museums approved by Congress, the National Air and Space Museum's
Udvar-Hazy Center (to open in December, 2003) and the National Museum
of the American Indian (NMAI) on the Mall to open in September, 2004).
Both the planning and construction of the Udvar-Hazy Center and the
establishment and construction of NMAI were authorized by the Committee
on House Administration.
In the first decade of the 21st century, we are working to
revitalize the physical plant, modernize the Institution's
infrastructure, open the new museums, expand and energize research,
bring visitors back to the capital, and thereby expand the impact of a
great and trusted institution.
smithsonian goals
Because our staff responded to these many and various challenges
with resourcefulness, dedication and plain hard work, the Smithsonian
had a successful year under very trying circumstances. But much more
needs to be done to revitalize the Institution. To that end, we're
pursuing four major goals: (1) increased public engagement, (2)
strengthened scientific research, (3) enhanced management excellence,
and (4) greater financial strength.
increased public engagement
In fiscal year 2002, 33 million visitors enjoyed our many museums,
research centers, the National Zoo, and traveling exhibitions. Many of
them visited our new exhibitions, including 411,391 visitors to
September 11, 2001: Bearing Witness to History in the six months since
it opened. Our annual Folklife Festival, which featured the cultures of
the Silk Road, drew a record 1.3 million visitors to the Mall last
summer. More than 62 million people visited our web site. And of
course, our giant pandas continue to delight and fascinate National
Zoo-goers, with more than 5 million visitors since their arrival in
December 2000.
Our ability to reach Americans across the country continues to
expand. We now have 125 affiliates in 36 states, plus the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico and Panama. The Smithsonian Institution Traveling
Exhibition Service (SITES) now has 56 exhibits visiting 220
communities. A component of SITES, Museum on Main Street (MoMS), serves
a particularly important purpose in offering four of those exhibits to
84 rural and smaller towns. In addition, 250,000 people took advantage
of The Smithsonian Associate's wide range of lectures, seminars,
courses, study tours, performances and regional events last year.
In April, the Smithsonian Center for Education and Museum Studies
will launch SmithsonianEducation.org, a new education website tailored
for three distinct audiences: educators, students, and families. The
site will feature a searchable database of the Institution's
educational programs, productions, publications, and events. It will
also offer interactive learning labs, field trip guides, lesson plans
for teachers, online product ordering, and workshop registration. The
Smithsonian Center for Education and Museum Studies also sent out its
first national issue of Smithsonian in Your Classroom, a teaching guide
based on Smithsonian primary sources. More than 80,000 public, private,
and Department of Defense schools will receive this biannual
publication.
strengthened scientific research
The Institution is determined to revitalize science at the
Smithsonian as suggested by ``The Report of the Smithsonian Institution
Science Commission,'' released in January 2003. The Smithsonian Science
Commission, created by the Board of Regents, delivered its report,
following a 15-month study in which the Commission looked at all
science activities at the Institution. The report, which has been
endorsed by the Regents, concluded that Smithsonian science is first-
rate and deserving of continued federal support. However, it states
that Smithsonian science is facing the most critical time in its 156
year history and delivered specific, focused recommendations which
challenge us to renew dedication to our science enterprise by improving
funding, leadership, and communications. Specifically noted was the
serious erosion of science staffing over time because of a long-term
trend of budgetary shortfalls. The newly appointed Under Secretary for
Science is leading efforts to develop a detailed implementation plan to
address the Commission recommendations. The Commission's highest
priority was to improve the funding of Smithsonian science, including a
boost to the Fellowships and Scholarly Studies Programs--a national
competition for pre-doctoral and post-doctoral fellowships for the
infusion of new energetic talent--and an internal program for providing
incentives and support for the best and brightest Smithsonian
researchers. This priority is reflected in our fiscal year 2004 budget
request.
The Smithsonian has been involved in scientific research since its
inception--research efforts that span astronomy, astrophysics,
biological diversity, the global environment, human ecology, and space
science. Staff, fellows, and visiting scientists conduct research at
the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in the Republic of Panama;
the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center in Edgewater, Maryland;
the National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C. and its
research stations in Ft. Pierce, Florida and Carrie Bow Cay, Belize;
the National Zoological Park in Washington, D.C. and Front Royal,
Virginia; and the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory in Cambridge,
Massachusetts, Mt. Hopkins at Amada, Arizona, Mauna Kea at Hilo,
Hawaii, and Las Campanas, Chile.
Smithsonian scientists continue to maintain their prominence world
wide and capitalize on the institution's greatest strength: our ability
to undertake long-term, systematic, big-picture science. For example,
over the past year, we have made significant contributions to better
understanding the transmission of West Nile Virus between mosquitoes
and birds and the impact on human health; defending the United States
against invasive species by monitoring ballast water exchange; and
discovering that planets exist around nearby stars. The work of an
astrophysicist at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory earned a
Nobel Prize in 2002.
enhanced management excellence
An important component of improving the management of the
Smithsonian is to recruit the best candidates to senior level
positions. In the past year, we have succeeded in attracting highly
qualified individuals to serve as the Under Secretary for Science,
Director of the National Museum of American History, Director of the
National Museum of Natural History, Director of the Hirshhorn Museum
and Sculpture Garden, Director of the National Museum of African Art,
Director of the Freer and Sackler Galleries of Art, Director of the
National Postal Museum, Director of the Smithsonian Institution Press,
Director of External Affairs, and Director of Communications and Public
Affairs.
In 2002 we continued work on the implementation of a new
information technology-based financial management system that we
started in 2001. In 2002 we completed the development and configuration
of the PeopleSoft General Ledger Accounts Payable and Purchasing
modules as well as components of three additional modules, and
implemented the first phase of our new financial system on schedule on
October 1st. As part of this implementation we converted a large amount
of data from the previous system and trained more than 800 employees on
the new system.
greater financial strength
The Institution's private-sector fund-raising efforts generated
$164.6 million in private support in fiscal year 2002. This was a
remarkable 93% of 2001's figure of $177 million, accomplished in what
museums and cultural institutions nationwide say was one of the
toughest years ever for fund raising, due to a weak economy and a
faltering stock market. Over the last three years, the Smithsonian has
raised over a half a billion dollars from the private sector.
It is particularly gratifying to see such solid support for the
Smithsonian at such a challenging time. And the Smithsonian's support
came at every level. Our Contributing Membership, for example, where
membership begins at $70, grew to 73,000 members, its largest number
ever, and giving through estate planning marked a 10% increase over
2001.
Included in 2002's total were four gifts of ten million dollars
each. These were from a Native American tribe in New York, for
construction of the National Museum of the American Indian on the
National Mall; from a corporate foundation, for America on the Move, a
transportation exhibition opening in 2003 at the National Museum of
American History, Behring Center; and family trusts and an aerospace
corporation, for construction of the National Air and Space Museum's
Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center. A $5.1 million anonymous gift was given
for construction of the National Museum of the American Indian.
We do no expect the fund-raising climate to improve this year.
Indeed, it may well be more difficult. However, we can already report a
number of significant 2003 gifts to date. These include a $2 million
gift to the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama; $1.5
million given to the Smithsonian American Art Museum; more than $1.2
million contributed to the Smithsonian Libraries; and support of over
$1 million by a corporate donor for the National Air and Space Museum's
Udvar-Hazy Center. These generous gifts underscore the continued strong
commitment of individuals, foundations and corporations to the
Smithsonian, even in a terrifically challenging fund-raising
environment.
Smithsonian Business Ventures (SBV), which oversees the operations
of Smithsonian theaters, magazines, books, recordings, museum shops,
mail order and concessions, produced a total net gain of $16.6 million
in fiscal year 2002 on total revenues of $139 million. Although all
Smithsonian businesses were profitable, net gain declined by $9.7
million from the prior year, primarily because of dramatically reduced
museum visitation following September 11, 2001 and the continuing
recession in the magazine advertising industry, and an initiative to
outsource Smithsonian's catalogue distribution that is already
producing dramatic cost savings. Declines in domestic and international
travel and tourism following September 11, 2001 continued to have a
serious impact on SBV in 2002: sales at museum stores, theaters and
restaurants rely on the number of visitors to the museums, and travel
industry clients are Smithsonian magazine's single largest category of
advertising revenue. Improvements and new concessions in museum retail
operations successfully generated incremental revenue and improved our
visitor's experience. Smithsonian magazine maintained 2 million paid
subscribers and readership levels of 8 million monthly; however, its
publishing staff sold only 514 pages of advertising, a 19% decline from
fiscal year 2001, in the face of the magazine industry's worst
recession since World War II.
smithsonian funding priorities
Given the Institution's budget realities, Smithsonian funding
priorities fall into five categories: First, funding to keep
Institution museums in operation, collections safe, and research
programs intact--in other words, what we refer to as mandatory costs.
The Smithsonian's second priority is to provide adequate security
to the Institution's staff, visitors, collections, and facilities, and
to protect against terrorist actions.
The Smithsonian's third priority is to address the Institution's
critical facilities revitalization and information technology needs
recommended by the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA)
study commissioned by Congress in 2000.
The Institution's fourth priority is to fulfill the Smithsonian's
mandate to open and operate two new museums: the National Museum of the
American Indian on the National Mall, and the National Air and Space
Museum's new Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center, adjacent to Dulles Airport in
Northern Virginia.
fiscal year 2004
While Smithsonian private fund-raising efforts were successful in
fiscal year 2002 and we are striving to continue that success, the vast
majority of those funds were given to us for specific purposes. These
``restricted'' funds are not available for day-to-day operating
expenses such as repairing and maintaining our facilities; providing a
safe and secure environment for our visitors, staff and collections; or
for paying our heating and cooling bills. For these sustaining types of
expenses, the Smithsonian relies on federal funding.
The institution's budget request for fiscal year 2004 totals $566.5
million. Of that, $476.5 million is allocated for Salaries and Expenses
(S&E), including $13 million in mandatory increases to cover the
proposed 2% pay increase in 2004 as well as the effect of a 3.1% (later
changed to 4.1% by Congress) pay raise for 2003. However, the request
for the S&E account also reflects an unallocated reduction of $12.3
million. The Institution had a similar unallocated reduction in fiscal
year 2003. This reduction was largely avoided through very supportive
action by Congress that increased Smithsonian's fiscal year 2003
funding to $559.0 million. However, the combination of the carry-
forward of the fiscal year 2003 unallocated reduction, the new $12.3
million unallocated reduction, and the unbudgeted increase in the pay
raise means we begin the fiscal year 2004 congressional budget cycle in
a challenging position. The Institution will address this challenge
largely by a combination of personnel actions, which could include a
hiring freeze, reductions in force, and/or furloughs. If the reduction
is taken solely through personnel actions, it is likely to cut upwards
of 10% of the Institution's federal workforce. These actions would come
in the wake of the 17% reduction in staff experienced by the
Institution over the last ten years.
Also included in the S&E request is a total of $34.2 million in
programmatic increases. These include funding and additional positions
required to meet the increased security needs of the Institution
following the September 11, 2001 attacks, and to support improvements
to the Institution's facilities and information technology
infrastructure, in line with the 2001 report of the National Academy of
Public Administration. The request also includes the resources needed
to allow the two new museums, the NMAI Mall Museum and NASM Udvar-Hazy
Center, to continue their preparations for opening as scheduled
(December 2003 the 100th anniversary of manned flight for the Udvar-
Hazy Center, and September 2004 for NMAI). Finally, the request
includes increases for key areas in scientific research and public
programming, including research fellowships and scholarly studies as
recommended by the Science Commission; management of the Very Energetic
Radiation Imaging Telescope Array System (VERITAS) by the Smithsonian
Astrophysical Observatory; critical support for programs that recognize
Latino contributions to the United States' heritage and culture; needed
funds for purchasing electronic journals and databases by the
Smithsonian Institution Libraries; and additional staff support for
contracting activities throughout the Institution.
Also included in the fiscal year 2004 federal budget request is $90
million for Facilities Capital which will allow for the continuation of
several major revitalization projects, including the 167-year-old
Patent Office Building, the 104-year-old National Zoological Park, the
39-year-old National Museum of American History, Behring Center public
space revitalization, and the 93-year-old National Museum of Natural
History. In addition, $10 million is included to start construction of
the addition to the Museum Support Center at Suitland, Maryland known
as Pod 5, to house the flammable collections currently stored in
alcohol underneath the highly trafficked public spaces of the National
Museum of Natural History. Authorization for the revitalization and
enhancement of the Patent Office Building and for design, construction
and equipping of Pod 5 had also been included in the Smithsonian
omnibus bill of the last Congress. Congressional Members of the
Institution's governing Board of Regents will introduce an undated
version of the previous bill shortly and we hope for expeditious
Congressional consideration and passage of the measure.
conclusion
The Smithsonian plays a vital role in our country's civic and
cultural life. Using art, artifacts, history, and science, the
Smithsonian tells a comprehensive story--America's story. The
Smithsonian offers the world a picture of America, and America a
picture of the world. Now more than ever, this is an important role to
maintain. To reach more people with such seminal stories, the
Smithsonian needs to transform itself into a true 21st-century
institution. It won't be easy. The Smithsonian Institution faces
significant challenges if it is to continue to serve the public in an
exemplary manner with both engaging, modern exhibitions backed by
authoritative scholarship, and groundbreaking scientific research and
exploration. We appreciate the Committee's past assistance and guidance
in addressing the challenges and needs of the Institution and look
forward to a strong alliance with the Committee in meeting the
obligations of the Institution to preserve the past, expand the
boundaries of knowledge, and to offer the highest level of public
service possible.
The Chairman. I want to thank the Secretary for his
testimony.
I want to ask a few questions here. Then we will turn to
the other members.
First, I want to ask about the Dulles Air and Space
extension. That will house, as I understand it, dozens of
aircraft and artifacts. We are looking forward to the opening
of that.
Could we have a brief update on it, what costs are
anticipated, what congressional assistance would be needed in
the future?
Mr. Small. Sure. As I indicated in my remarks, this is
going to be a spectacular museum. When you fly into Dulles now,
sometimes the winds take you on a pattern where you fly over
it; and it takes a while to get over the whole facility it is
so big.
We expect that it will be the--the main chamber, if you
will, of the New Air and Space Museum will be probably the
largest room in the world. It is almost three football fields
long, it is 10 stories high, it is 250 feet wide. It has the
capacity to holds 88 Goodyear blimps--not that we have 88
Goodyear blimps in our collection. There will be over 200
aircraft and well over 100 spacecraft inside, scores of
engines, propellers, all sorts of equipment that make up the
fantastic history of aviation.
As you all know, this will be opening up in December of
this year, which is the 100th anniversary of the Wright
Brothers' first flight.
It is an $311 million project. This first phase of it is
200 million. There is a very small amount of Federal funding
that is in it, and the bulk of the rest of it comes from
private-sector funding and support from the State and
municipalities in Virginia that are around there to provide
access to it.
We expect there will be transportation from the Mall in the
form of a bus service, and we think it is going to become one
of the most popular museums in the world.
Just lastly let me say, right now the Air and Space Museum,
which is already the most visited museum in the world, is
displaying only a small fraction of its collection. With this
new museum, the two museums will be displaying about 80 percent
of the national aircraft collection. So it is going to be a
fantastic experience for visitors.
The Chairman. Thank you.
During the end of the 107th, the Congress was approached
about backing legislation to authorize funding for the Patent
Trade Building; and that also included employee buyouts and
overall infrastructure needs.
Do you think the Smithsonian will push the similar
legislation this upcoming year?
Mr. Small. Yes. We still need to get approval to carry out
a certain number of tasks that are important for us. We need
approval. We have an omnibus bill we are working on with
Congress so that we will have the ability to carry out
enhancements to the wonderful Patent Office Building, which is
downtown in the revitalized center of Washington. That is the
home of the Smithsonian American Art Museum and the National
Portrait Gallery.
It is the third building built by the American people,
started back in 1836; it is in need of a major restoration.
We have a $216 million project going on; 166 million of
that will require Federal funding--Congress and the
administration are working with us on that--and 50 million will
be private-sector funds of which we have raised more than half
already. We will need legislation to help us carry that out. We
also need legislation in the same package to help with us with
what are called ``continuous contracting authorizations.''
We also will be looking for help in terms of recognizing
the tremendous contribution that jazz has made to the music
culture of America, part of the major area of study of the
Smithsonian's National Museum of American History.
So there are a number of these, what I would call
``administrative items'' that will help us carry out our
activities, including further authorization required to add to
our storage facilities for some critical items that need to be
moved to our storage area in Maryland.
We will be working with Congress to secure appropriations
for the ongoing operating funding for the new Air and Space
Museum and the National Museum of the American Indian.
So, yes, there are some activities that we have to work out
with Congress.
The Chairman. I would also note to the audience, please--
cell phones and BlackBerries, please put them on vibrate.
The Smithsonian Institution is a leader in scientific
research, the Astrophysical Observatory, Tropical Research
Center, volcano projects, Smithsonian Environmental Research
Center and others provide important information and are a great
wealth to the world--just what you do in Panama, for example,
and what is done in Hawaii for future generations.
Do you have any plans for highlighting and promoting the
science to the public, to the media, and to the Congress? We
are encouraging here, for all Members, to physically go see
these facilities; they are unbelievable. I wonder if you have
any plans to highlight that to the public. Sometimes we have
these great facilities; is there a way we can get more public
exposure for them?
Mr. Small. I believe we can do a better job on that. We
are, in fact, working more closely with Congress to brief
Members on an ongoing basis as to the breadth and depth of
scientific activities in the Smithsonian.
We are also--we have started now the publication of a
weekly newsletter, which we are sending also to Congress, so
that people can see the developments as they take place in the
Smithsonian. We have encouraged the development of even more
extensive activity on the various Web sites of all of our
scientific units.
We have expanded the number of education programs that our
scientific units are carrying out with school systems
throughout the United States. We have put in place a number of
programs to take objects from our taxidermy collections, for
example, and lend them out to school systems so they can have a
closer, hands-on feel for what goes on in animal biology.
And the answer is, yes, we are trying to extend as many
programs so that people can learn more about what goes on in
science at the Smithsonian, because as I indicated before, even
though these operations are very large, very extensive, in many
cases people just don't know about them because the museums are
what tend to captivate the public's image of the Smithsonian.
The Chairman. My final question, and I will make it brief,
although your answer may be lengthier--I am not sure, but I
know other Members want to look at overall questions--but it
would be related directly to the zoo. And let me just, you
know, say that there has been a lot of items we have read.
I would like to know how the animal deaths at the National
Zoo compare to the number of animal deaths that are expected as
a result of normal life spans in captivity, for example, To
what extent are these attributed to natural causes versus human
error?
There has been a debate about human error. Was it
contributing to the death of any other animals besides the red
panda? And I understand some of the deaths occurred as a
natural life span with some of the animals. There was a
question, of course, of the zebras.
And so I wondered--I would suggest Dr. Spelman would come
forward--but would you want to address the zoo?
Mr. Small. Sure, Obviously, with all of the focus on it,
the question that I am concerned about, as are my colleagues: I
was told before I came to the Smithsonian, as I was doing due
diligence on that, this would be an area that would come up
because of the fact that the animal population at the zoo--
there are about 2,800 animals in the zoo's collection--is an
aging population, and that there has always been a particular
focus on the larger animals that are better known to the
public. And just before I came to the Smithsonian 3 years ago,
the second of the two pandas that had been given to the United
States had died and there was a great debate of what to do with
the panda's remains.
I saw immediately, even before taking on the job, that this
was a very sensitive topic. So obviously it has been an area of
concern. People knew the age of the animal collection and that
it would be an issue, so we are very pleased to be able to
address it.
In terms of the issue of the deaths of animals, whether we
look at the period of the last year or you go back 3, 4, 5
years, I think you can divide all of the cases into two groups:
one group which would be a group where there is clear human
error, which there is no doubt about, which has taken place,
which has resulted in the death of animals.
And in the recent past there was a case where there was an
attempt to deal with a rodent problem at the zoo. The zoo has a
rodent problem, just as all of us who live in Washington, D.C.,
know that is a rodent problem; but it is greater if you have
feed out and animals out, and it is in the middle of Rock Creek
Park.
We attempted to deal with that, and a judgment was made to
put a rodent poison, bury it in the ground in an animal
enclosure. It was not done in consultation with the higher
authorities in the zoo. It was a bad decision, bad judgment,
and then poorly implemented. There is no question, based on the
pathology reports that the two red pandas--not giant pandas,
but they are smaller animals--ingested the poison and died.
Absolutely no question about that.
Action has been taken by the Under Secretary for Science
and the Zoo Director, in consultation with other colleagues, to
make organizational changes at the zoo, change procedures, put
in a much greater series of controls any time there are any
chemicals that could be dangerous to either animals or humans
at the zoo. And I think we are hopeful that with these actions,
with the putting in of new positions for oversight, that that
situation will be dealt with.
Three years ago there was a situation involving two animals
that are called Grevy's zebras. I know about this because a
couple of months after I came to the Smithsonian, I was
testifying before the House Appropriations Committee that deals
with the Smithsonian, and that question was raised then. It was
amply covered in the press; I commented on it then. And that,
too, was a case where there was a combination of factors that
represented human failure.
And I think that if you went back over the zoo's history--
certainly, I don't think there are records that take you back
to 1889 on this--you will find that there is a very small
percentage involving this population of animals--which, as I
say, is 2,800--where occasionally mistakes are made--it is not
good that the mistakes are made; it is bad, it is terrible--but
mistakes are made which resulted in the death of animals.
That is one category, and to our knowledge, there is
perhaps a handful of those over the last 3 or 4 or 5 years. Not
to say that there isn't something I don't know about, but to my
knowledge, there may be just a handful of those.
Then there is the other category. The other category is the
category where there is a diseased animal of some sort, or an
animal who is not diseased, could be a geriatric animal nearing
the end of its life span. And what happens is the zoo cares for
these animals with teams of people who are curators,
pathologists, veterinarians, keepers and they monitor the
health of the animals. In some cases, they decide the animal is
at a point in its life where life is too painful and they
euthanize the animal. Some of these deaths have resulted from
the collective decisions to put the animal down, to euthanize
the animal. In other cases, they couldn't figure out what was
wrong with the animal and weren't able to cure it, and it died.
And all of the cases, other than the ones that we have read
about in the press, whether the red pandas, zebras or a few
other animals, all of the other cases fall into the second
category. When those have been investigated, in some cases by
our Inspector General, in each case we have had the same
general answer that has come back: The decisions made have
fallen within what you could call the realm of professional
judgment. And some professionals, in the blinding light of
hindsight, might have gone this way, some might have gone that
way.
I have been on the board of a major hospital for 15 or 20
years in the United States, and there are in that hospital, all
hospitals--every year there are some mistakes that occur, not a
lot, but some mistakes that occur that can be fatal. And then
there are many, many cases where physicians might disagree in a
postmortem on exactly what treatment regiment should have taken
place.
So, just to sum up, I think there are definitely a small
number of cases which have taken place which involve human
error and poor management, and then there are a number of cases
that involve differing judgments after the animal has died or
been euthanized as to what would have been a better way.
As I say, we are very open to the idea of creating a panel
of external experts to come in and be completely independent
and public about their findings in terms of looking into this
matter. We are also perfectly willing to have our status
modified, so that the Department of Agriculture can make
surprise visits to check the situation at the zoo.
The Chairman. I am not going to ask additional questions at
this point in time because I want the other members to be able
to ask overall questions about the Smithsonian and obviously
the zoo as well. But I leave this thought about what steps or
procedures have been taking place, or are taking place, beyond
what the committee is going to do with oversight, which is
critical and important.
And I want to commend you for accepting that oversight. I
am sure that we will continue to work together to make sure
that that oversight is done correctly and follows all the
procedures it needs to.
But there--it also raises other questions. For example,
there was a quote by Dr. Spelman, and there are quotes in the
media--and I know, I have been in office 22 years, so you can
quote something and maybe there is another side to it--that
only the panda death was attributable to human error. So you
might want to, at some point in time, clear that quote up,
because that has become a controversial quote.
With that, I will yield to our ranking member.
Mr. Larson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Following along the lines of the chairman's questioning, I
think that the call to have the National Academy of Sciences do
a thorough and complete and independent investigation of the
deaths that have occurred, I think is the appropriate manner in
which to proceed.
Along the lines of my colleague, Juanita Millender-
McDonald, we are looking for that independent analysis to come
back and further inform the committee as well. And I am pleased
to hear that you are open, as well, to the unannounced
accountability that would accompany the Agriculture
Department's routine reviewing of others across the Nation.
Could you explain to me, please, why the Smithsonian would
be exempt form that currently? This is a question that has been
raised by constituents of mine and, most notably, my children,
who have visited the zoo. If you explain that, I would greatly
appreciate it.
Mr. Small. I really don't know the facts behind it,
Congressmen. There are a number of situations, because of the
unique status of the Smithsonian, which is a trust
instrumentality of the American people, which have caused it to
be treated slightly different than other institutions,
particularly the executive branch of the government and all of
the other parts of it. So I can only guess that it goes back to
that.
Perhaps--do you know David?
But it is because of the Smithsonian's, I think, having its
public-private status as a trust instrumentality that it
probably wasn't placed specifically under this law. But as I
indicated before, we have no objection whatsoever and are
perfectly comfortable with modifying that status so that we
would be subject to it on a mandatory basis.
Mr. Larson. I think you for that point of view. I think the
unannounced inspections will be very helpful, again, in
reassuring the public as well.
Let me also say that I further embrace the chairman's focus
with regard to science. I, along with Mr. Ehlers, serve on the
Science Committee as well, and in my initial conversation with
you, I was impressed with the depth and breadth and scope of
the Smithsonian and its mission with regard to scientific
research. And in keeping with my opening remarks, I hope to
make other Members of Congress deeply aware of this mission and
make sure that it gets the appropriate kind of funding that it
deserves.
Having said that, I will yield back my time.
The Chairman. The ranking member yields back.
Mr. Ehlers.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you for being here. The Smithsonian is indeed a
great American treasure, and you probably have the best job in
the country.
Mr. Small. I agree with you. Thank you.
Mr. Ehlers. They are not only the ``Nation's attic,'' which
is a familiar description, but they handle it very well. And
also, as Mr. Larson said, a great deal of your work is in the
scientific realm.
The only comment--I think your lending of objects to
various entities in the country is superb. You should do that.
I hope you expand that. And you mentioned that you notify the
public and everyone else. I might make a point of being certain
to notify Members of Congress when an object from your museum
is in their district, because I have a couple of times found
out--to my surprise found out they were there, and I hadn't
heard about it.
I want to talk to you about animals, too, but not the zoo
animals. You have some of the best people in the world dealing
with invasive species, particularly with the Smithsonian
Environmental Research Center in Panama, which I had the
pleasure of visiting last year. It is a great place and
certainly worthy of continued support.
But invasive species are becoming a huge national problem
at this point. It as a surprise even to me. I knew a lot about
them, but I had a idea the cost to our Nation per year now is
$135 billion per year. That is the latest estimate, and that is
a terrible expense to pay.
I have introduced a bill on improving our approach to
invasive species, so we can better stop them from coming in and
know better what to do with them once they are here--also,
collaborating with Congressman Gilchrest, who is authoring the
reauthorization of the Invasive Species Act. These bills are a
package, which is also being introduced in the Senate by
Senator Levin and Senator Collins.
We have chosen in that to continue to give your facilities,
particularly CIRC, a major role in the continuing work on
invasive species. I want to get that you were comfortable with
that and supportive of that because that will continue to
delegate significant responsibility to the Smithsonian to
handle that.
And I believe Mr. Evans is totally familiar with that too.
Mr. Small. We couldn't be more supportive. I agree with
you.
Mr. Ehlers. I am very pleased to hear that. There is a
great deal of research that will have to be done and we
certainly welcome your participation in that. Your scientists
were very helpful to us in writing the bill, as well.
Another comment, as Congressman Larson mentioned a moment
ago in the scientific role, that is a role that many people in
the public aren't aware of. But yet traditionally in the early
years of the Smithsonian that was the most important role,
following the charge from Joseph Smithson that was to advance
and extend understanding; and that didn't mean just showing
objects in museums, but conducting research. I welcome the
recent efforts to reemphasize that role.
I am certainly not arguing for reducing the role of the
institutions you have, that is always very important, but you
have lost some of the focus, I think, over the last 20, 30,
maybe 50 years on scientific research. You have much to offer
there because of the background of the Institution and the
worldwide reach of the Institution. So I hope you and the
Regents will continue to emphasize that and try to increase the
funding.
Let the record show, he nodded his head.
Mr. Small. Let the record show, I said I agree with you
too.
Mr. Ehlers. The other issue, I know there has been a move
to stop that funding and require you to apply to the NSF for
that funding, and I am pleased you were able to beat that back.
I am a strong, strong supporter of the National Science
Foundation and was very active in getting the bill passed last
year which will result in doubling NSF--we hope, doubling NSF
appropriations over the next 5 years. But at the same time you
have a unique role which doesn't necessarily fit in the
National Science Foundation's panoply of responsibilities.
I am pleased that you were able to remain separate, and I
hope that you and the Regents will continue that effort. I will
certainly continue it here. But at the same time I think you
should be trying to follow what we have already done with NIH,
what we are hoping to do with NSF, and that is doubling the
research effort. If you and the Regents get behind a well-
thought-out doubling plan, we can certainly try to get some
congressional support for that as well.
Mr. Small. Would you like to say that again, Congressman,
for the record?
The Chairman. We have got him right there on record.
Mr. Ehlers. So now we need you on record.
Mr. Small. I couldn't agree with you more, and you can
count on our efforts to be redoubled in that regard.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will stop at this
point. I may have others later.
The Chairman. The gentlelady from California.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Small, you mentioned, and thank you so much for
offering to provide the--I guess the ``sneak attack'' for lack
of better words, for the inspection to come unannounced. I
think it will lend credibility to the Institution and certainly
will glean from that that you have nothing to hide, in other
words.
The other thing that I wanted to talk with you about is,
you get two-thirds of your budget from us and the other third
you have to go out and solicit the funding. So, as a result of
that, you have seen the need to rename facilities after those
who have been donors to you.
What type of practice do you put in place for that
renaming, or is it just done, you know, independent of any type
of organizational group?
Mr. Small. Thank you.
As was mentioned by the chairman in his remarks, the
Smithsonian does rely to a certain degree, one-third of its
funding, on private-sector sources. It has always had a mix,
and its private-sector dependency goes back all the way to the
founding of the Institution, which started with a bequest that
was first put into a will in 1826 and ended up being announced
to the American people in 1835, in that will there was a
bequest that came to the United States from a British scientist
who is the source of the name of the Smithsonian.
So the first naming, that took place related to private
philanthropy of the Smithsonian, comes from the name of the
founder, James Smithson. Other parts of the Smithsonian are
named for philanthropists--the Hirschhorn Museum, the Cooper-
Hewitt Museum, the Freer Gallery, the Sackler Gallery.
So the recognition of philanthropy, which is something that
is very much a part of American culture, is very much alive and
well in the Smithsonian and very much represented in what we
see at major universities, libraries, and medical centers.
The Smithsonian has for many years had rigorous procedures,
written procedures that have been followed for such activities
as recognition of corporation, foundations, individuals when
they contribute support for the Smithsonian, whether it is for
fellowships, for programs, for exhibits, for concerts or the
like. The activity----
Ms. Millender-McDonald. There is a procedure for that?
Mr. Small. Oh, very definitely.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. And it is not done independently.
Mr. Small. No. Much of the procedure involves--the naming
of anything must be approved by our Board of Regents.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. That is what I want to hear.
Your decrease in Federal staffing--I am just getting over a
cold, so please excuse me. Your decrease in Federal staffing,
does that come through attrition, promotion or low morale, or
how do you suggest this decrease has come about?
Mr. Small. The decrease comes about by simply not being
appropriated enough money for salaries to cover the mandatory
salary increase that must be given to Federal employees. So if
we are--let's just assume that in a given year there is a
mandatory salary increase of 4 percent and we are appropriated
a budget that increases by 2 percent, the only way to deal with
that is to reduce the staffing level of the Smithsonian.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. Are they furloughed out or just
terminated?
Mr. Small. More often than not what happens is simply
through the turnover process of retirements, through attrition,
it has taken place. But it is very, very serious, particularly
in the sciences. The ranks of the scientific scholarly staff
have been tremendously depleted over the last 10 or 15 years.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. It is very serious because-not only
with the Smithsonian; it is also serious for all, other
agencies within the Federal Government. And this is something
that we must look at in terms of keeping, really, persons who
have the institutional memory around, and training, as they
become older, because as you said to us, 10 percent, only 10
percent of your staffing is under the age of 40. And so we are
going to lose out if we are not training and bringing people in
in the meantime.
You are traveling around the country and certainly you have
been in my parts of Long Beach, unbeknownst to me, but that is
good to know; I will get you out there more often. But then the
next question will be, whether I do or not, the costs
associated with that. That is a rather ambitious undertaking,
how do you pay for this traveling around, setting up these
different art exhibits or whatever?
Mr. Small. In the case of our affiliations program, which
is the one for traveling expeditions, a very significant
portion of the expense is raised from the private sector. So
part of the money that would come from our gift shops or
restaurants goes into that, part of the payout of our endowment
goes into that, and in some cases, we have Federal support for
specific projects.
But a great deal of what we do in the way of national
outreach across the country comes from private-sector
sponsorship.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. The last one that I would like to
talk about, the clear human error when it comes to the care of
our animals. When there is a human error, what type of punitive
measures do you have in place? Because there certainly has to
be something to curtail this type of incident from happening
again. So what type of punitive measures do you have in place?
And lastly, when persons are coming on at the higher
echelon of the Institution, do you have a yearly annual
appraisal of how well they are doing? And is this told to the
person?
Or the lack of having--doing well in this position, what do
you do? What are you doing to make sure, to ensure that the
persons who are at the helm are really efficient and do know
the job?
Mr. Small. Regarding the first question, when there are
failures in carrying out one's duties, there are certainly
actions taken. In the case of animals where deaths have
occurred because of human error, call it, during the period of
the last 3 years or so, in some cases it was deemed by the
supervisors in charge--let's say in the zoo, the Director of
the zoo--3 years ago, the then-Under Secretary of Science to
indicate the lack of performance in a performance assessment.
That might have had a negative comment in it, in that
particular case, because of the judgments made.
In the more recent case of the red pandas, there was a
reorganization of the zoo; two of the employees involved
retired, another one was reassigned to a different position.
New people are being brought in, new procedures are being put
in place--very straightforward, quick action taken to deal with
that particular situation.
Regarding your second question, all of the executives of
the Smithsonian receive annual appraisals, all of the
executives of the Smithsonian have specific annual goals they
must achieve. I personally review, I would say, the top 35 or
40 myself.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Mica of Florida.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you also for
holding this oversight hearing. It is the first one I recall
directly related to one of our most important institutions, the
Smithsonian.
And to reiterate what Mr. Ehlers and some others have said,
you truly have probably one of the most incredible
opportunities of anybody in the Nation to be responsible for
our Nation's treasures--the Archives, the Library of Congress--
and you sort of hold all of our treasures. And it is a great
responsibility.
Also, I think you have heard once or twice also, not
everybody can come to Washington; and you testified that a
small percentage of these items, artifacts and other things
that you hold, where they can be circulated. We strongly
encourage that because we have hundreds of great small museums
throughout the country. So I think that is very important in a
cooperative effort.
Oversight. You spoke--well, this is the first hearing that
I know of in 6 years, and some people have come up to me and
said, Why haven't you conducted oversight? You did testify
earlier that the appropriators conduct oversight, and you have
done that each year since you have been in office.
Have you presented----
Mr. Small. I have had one hearing with them over the course
of the last 3 years.
Mr. Mica. One hearing. What about oversight, the conduct of
oversight from them?
Mr. Small. There is tremendous interaction with the
Appropriations Subcommittees that deal with the Smithsonian.
And the staffers on the Hill and the people in Congress on
those committees are extremely involved in the Smithsonian.
Additionally, the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian has
nine public-sector members and eight private-sector members.
There are three Members of the House who are members of the
Board of Regents and Three Members of the Senate who are
members of the Board of Regents; all of them are actively
involved in the governance of the Smithsonian, as is the Chief
Justice of the United States, who is actively involved.
Mr. Mica. So you feel the oversight is adequate?
Mr. Small. I feel it is very strong.
Mr. Mica. What about IG?
Mr. Small. We have an IG and full staff.
Mr. Mica. There are now missing positions. The last 2 or 3
years, that has been a full service?
Mr. Small. As far as I know, they are up to--I meet
consistently with the IG, and I have never----
Mr. Mica. Is there a complaint process?
Mr. Small. Yes. We have an omnibus person that----
Mr. Mica. Also for the public, if they have complaints
about conduct operation?
Mr. Small. No shortage of ability to communicate.
Mr. Mica. All right.
Positions: I have reviewed some of the information, your
budget submission, I think, by the President was 566--$566
million, over half a billion. What percentage increase is that
over last year, or is it a diminished amount?
Mr. Small. The amount--that is the 2004 one. That is just a
1.4 percent increase.
Mr. Mica. What were you--so it is an increase. Where were
you at least----
Mr. Small. 594 million.
Mr. Mica. And before that?
Mr. Small. 528 million.
Congressman, can I correct myself on answering your
questions on the Appropriations hearing. I forgot. I had two
Appropriations hearings; I had one with the Rules Committee
also.
Mr. Mica. So there have been three.
Mr. Small. I have been three years in the job. I had two
hearings with the House Subcommittee on the Department of the
Interior and Related Agencies of Appropriations.
Mr. Mica. For the record, I would like to know what the
sequence of that is. So maybe you could provide that. It will
be part of the record, so we know what we have done and what we
should be doing if we haven't.
Private money, you had a decline in private money. Was
that--did that begin after September 2001?
Mr. Small. That is correct. We had----
Mr. Mica. Was it necessary to cut any positions--was it
necessary to cut any positions, full-time equivalent positions,
because of the diminished private dollar contributions?
Mr. Small. Yes.
Mr. Mica. And how many positions were lost?
Mr. Small. Since 2001, we have reduced--of those employees
who were funded with private-sector funds, 235 employees.
Mr. Mica. What about other full-time equivalents under
Federal salaried positions?
Mr. Small. There have have been some reductions, but not
related to 9/11.
Mr. Mica. Basically, you have the same number.
Where have those reductions occurred?
Mr. Small. There are--I couldn't answer it specifically. It
depends really on the attrition.
Mr. Mica. Of course, everyone is going to ask about the
zoo. So tell me about the zoo.
Mr. Small. The zoo has had a decline in staff of 15-plus
percent over the last 10 years.
Mr. Mica. Now let us go back--it had a decline over 15
years?
Mr. Small. No. Ten years.
Mr. Mica. What about the last couple of years, how much of
decline has been since September 11? What I am trying to get
at, are there diminished personnel resources going there?
Mr. Small. The zoo--where September 11 has an impact on the
Smithsonian is that one-third of the employees who are funded
with private-sector dollars. September 11 hasn't really
affected directly the two-thirds that are funded with Federal
dollars.
Mr. Mica. The zoo is also that ratio?
Mr. Small. No. The zoo is much more heavily federally
funded.
Mr. Mica. What loss of positions have you had at the zoo
since September?
Mr. Small. Out of the almost 300 employees, it is just a
few, because the Federal funding at the zoo has remained
relatively constant.
Mr. Mica. So it is not a diminished personnel problem.
Are there any key positions that are unfilled now or since
2001--I don't know if you have--or whatever kind of personnel?
Mr. Small. We need some more funding for the new senior
animal care positions.
Mr. Mica. But my question wasn't that.
My question is, are there any questions that have been
vacant or not filled for some reason--lack of money or finding
a qualified person?
Mr. Small. Right now, not for lack of money. Simply, in
some cases there are open positions.
Mr. Mica. And no positions cut or eliminated of key
management, oversight, veterinary?
Mr. Small. I am told--not more than five to six people over
the last few years out of the total complement, the physicians,
reduced. And we are not hampered in finding good people.
Mr. Mica. We are here to conduct oversight.
Changing subjects, just a quick second, if I may, Mr.
Chairman. We are building a Visitors Center; has anybody
contacted you about exhibitions in the Visitors Center?
Mr. Small. There have been conversations over the last few
years, and the Smithsonian is willing to be as helpful as we
can.
Mr. Mica. I just want to make sure that is being done. That
is one of my pet projects.
I think that covers it for me, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. Mr. Chairman, may I just ask is Dr.
Spelman in the house? Is it permissible to raise questions to
her?
The Chairman. Yes. And we will start the second round here.
I wanted to make a note on the Visitors Center, which I think
is a tremendous project. The advice and assistance of the
Smithsonian is going to be critical to it, and also the Library
of Congress. I think both of those institutions have a
tremendous amount to offer when the public will come forth.
Right now, they stand out in the hot sun, no seats; you pass
out. You go inside, and there are two rest rooms for 3- or
4,000 people.
This will not only provide decent human accommodations that
the public of this country and the world deserve, but on top of
it, it is going to have--it is a wonderful project that you
spearheaded, Congressman Mica, that is going to provide a lot
of education, interactive ability to look at the history of
this country.
I had two questions, and we will go right back down the
line of questioners. On the first, on the issue of private
donations, there is always a give-and-take argument about the
Smithsonian's ability to maintain content control, getting
private donations.
I think you might want to expand a little bit on that how
you have do that.
Mr. Small. The Institution, I think, has done a superb job
in its almost 167 years of history. There is no question in the
negotiations with people, let us say in the private sector or
anyplace else that would deal with us to support exhibits, that
the curators and museum directors and the administration of the
Smithsonian must retain content control. And I would say over
the history of the Smithsonian, that has been precisely the
case.
That is a key point. Our Board of Regents insist on it. It
is in our written procedures. It is in what we communicate to
donors when we negotiate arrangements with them. And all I can
say is, I believe it is adhered to in as rigorous a fashion as
it possibly could be.
The Chairman. The gentlelady has made a request for
Director Spelman to come forward.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. I would like Dr. Spelman to come
forward.
The Chairman. I am sorry. If I could interrupt just for a
second. We will go to Mr. Larson.
Mr. Larson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me welcome Dr. Spelman as well and let me start as well
again, and I think--as Mr. Mica pointed out, thank the chairman
for this oversight hearing as well. Obviously, the concern with
regard to the zoo has been debated widely in the press and
certainly is on the minds of our constituents.
I mentioned my children--I think children all across
America, because the Smithsonian and the National Zoo are, in
fact, treasures of the nation in your safekeeping. The
questions that I have--and again, I want to thank the
Secretary. I think--when you were answering the questions that
were posed by the chairman, you indicated that there were two
groups and they fall into the categories of human error and
also of natural causes due to disease and old age.
I think what is on the minds of--and I would like to ask
these questions, and I also have questions that constituents
have sent me that I would like to ask unanimous consent to
submit them for the record and have the Secretary or his staff
respond.
But the basic question the public has been asking on the
deaths of the red pandas is, how could this happen? You
explained from your perspective the two groups that you feel
these categories fall into, and you started down the path of
explaining what can be done to ensure that this never happens
again. And I would like to hear more on that.
Secondly, have there been any health-related after effects
on personnel who became ill following their exposure to the
poison in the enclosure after the panda died?
Third, because you mentioned you focused on the problems,
the problematic concerns of rodent control, are poisons or
other hazardous substances used and stored in such a way that
there is never a risk of exposure to the general public, or are
they only brought in by outside contractors?
Fourth, has the poison ever been used before in animal
enclosures during rat extermination procedures at the zoo?
And my overarching question with respect to rodent--the
rodent eradication program: Is the problem more severe now than
it has been over time?
And finally, with the recent deaths at the National Zoo,
what impact will that have on your accreditation when the
National Zoo's accreditation renewal is due?
Ms. Spelman. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor
to be here.
I have been at the National Zoo for nearly 8 years, and
everybody who works there works there because of their
dedication to the animals, myself included. It is a wonderful
place. It is a peaceful place. It is a natural place. And yet
it is an older facility.
And as the Secretary noted, not only are we renewing our
facilities, many of which are 75 to 100 years old, but we are
also looking at renewing our staff, our programs, our
commitment to science. It is an exciting place. There is a lot
of change.
With respect to the red panda incident, as you mentioned,
people were sickened by the use of the rodent bait. And
experienced staff in supervisory positions who were aware of
the chemical being used did not share that information or
disseminate in a way that is considered best practice at any
zoo.
We are currently reviewing all of our best practices, all
of our procedures. And with respect to chemical use, both
rodent control and any chemical in the whole park, whether it
is an animal area or nonanimal area, we have put in place an
entirely new procedure by which all chemicals used are reviewed
by all levels of major divisions within the zoo--the animal
care staff, the veterinary staff, the facility staff.
Mr. Larson. How are the chemicals introduced? Is it
exclusively through outside contractors?
Ms. Spelman. No. We use chemicals that are used in
laboratory. We have a whole research element at the National
Zoological Park as far as Smithsonian science. So we have any
chemical that is being used in a research setting or used to
clean an animal area.
All such chemicals will now be reviewed by a series of
people, with a final review done by our head pathologist, who
is veterinarian, with all chemicals signed off by the zoo
Director, myself. And that is a new procedure and one by which
we will prevent any future tragic mistake like red pandas.
Mr. Larson. In your mind, what have the unannounced
inspections--how do you view that? Is that viewed in the mind
of someone who is responsible for the National Zoo as a
positive step forward?
Ms. Spelman. I review that as very positive. I welcome an
outside panel to come in and look at our procedures and
practices.
We are renewing the entire organization. We have a lot of
changes to make, but we also have a wonderful future, and the
Zoo and Aquarium Association accreditation process, which is
something that comes up every 5 years. Our recent site visit--
several team members come and visit the Institution in the
review process, and their exit interview report to me was
extremely helpful. They noted many of the longstanding
problems, and they noted the changes that we are making; and
they were quite positive that those changes were going in the
right direction, including the fact that they noted that there
was a sense of optimism amongst the staff that we were going
forward into the future.
Mr. Larson. One of the questions I asked was, how do you
think this will impact accreditation, you know, with what has
transpired?
Ms. Spelman. My view is that the more outside expertise we
can bring into our Nation's zoo, the better. I mean, I really
do welcome it.
We do have a large staff. We have a wonderful zoo. And we
are part of the Smithsonian. And in order to incorporate
expertise, we do need to seek it from the outside. The
inspections will be helpful, as will the independent review
panel.
Mr. Larson. I will just conclude by saying this.
I am sure that you are applying all your expertise and
energy to ensure the best outcome for what is a national
treasure. I think someone described it to me, when one of the
animals that is so well known dies, it is like a death in your
own family and becomes a national tragedy to that extent.
And clearly--again, I commend the chairman. I think that
the Academy will do much to assist as we go forward to what we
all hope is the conclusion that this--we put in place the
appropriate procedures, so this never happens again.
Ms. Spelman. If I could just add that of all the people in
the Zoological Park, every death affects me the most. At the
same time, we celebrate animal life at the National Zoo. And I
welcome everybody to come and visit. It truly is a wonderful
place.
Mr. Larson. Thank you, Doctor.
The Chairman. I wanted to just throw a few things out, just
because of the nature of the controversy and the press
statements. I think we have got an agreement with the National
Academy of Sciences that is appropriate, that they will work
with you. We will make sure we have oversight and a working
relationship with all the Smithsonian issues.
But I think--I will move on to the other members--but I
think it would probably serve in the best interest if you would
want to make some statements, for example, there was the issue
of the bobcat and the onager, the three Eld's deer--we
understand that dogs went under the fence, which houses
thousands of acres, and understandably it is difficult to
control where a dog digs under the fence.
The issue of the bobcat, the Persian onager and the lion:
The lion had died of complications from anesthetics is what the
statement in the paper noted; and the orangutan, mistakenly
thought to be suffering from advanced cancer; the Persian
onager died of salmonella after riding in a contaminated
trailer; and the bobcat, there was an issue about the bobcat
being euthanized after a diagnosis of arthritis that was
subsequently discovered to be something else.
And, again, I thought you would want to make statements of
the more highlighted issues in the media.
Ms. Spelman. I need to keep my responses short and I
respect that.
I think one thing that is important to understand is that
in a zoological park, the day-to-day animal care is the
responsibility of the animal keeper staff. In our case, we have
keepers, museum specialists and biologists, and they are
supervised by curators, curators who not only oversee the daily
operations, but also the animal collection, the species that we
have in the zoological park, the species that are involved in
science and in exhibition. The veterinary staff is called upon
when there is a health issue.
So with each case, whichever way you look at each case,
there are many, many facets.
The Secretary described very well that euthanasia is never
performed lightly. It is performed based on consensus amongst
the keepers of the animal, the curator responsible for those
keepers and that animal, and the veterinary staff with their
best information at that time as to what they can do best for
the animal.
The bobcat was an older animal that had been found to be in
a moderate stage of renal failure several months prior. And the
request of the keepers and the curatorial staff was that this
was an animal they wished not to go through another medical
procedure, and when the animal was not doing well, they
requested euthanasia.
In a zoo setting, again unlike a domestic dog or cat, most
animals have to be anesthetized in order to be examined by the
veterinary staff. That is a stressful event for many of them.
They either have to be netted or darted. And they are wild
animals. So the decisions on how to work with animals when they
are older or sick is complex, and it is different in each case.
And again, as the Secretary indicated, these are cases when
one could look at it professionally and make a different
diagnosis while the animal is in life from when the animal is
in death.
We learn a lot in zoological medicine, in particular when
animals die. It is part of the piece of the puzzle that is
medicine.
I could go on and address each individual animal, but I
think that would take some time. I feel we have made a great
effort to put out the information, and presumably this is
information we can put out again with the panel that comes to
look at any of these cases. We have an extremely professional
staff and extremely dedicated staff, and these are not simple
cases.
The Chairman. We look forward to that.
The gentlelady from California.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Ms. Spelman. What are the criteria for becoming
the head veterinarian in this particular institution? What are
the requirements for becoming the head veterinarian?
Mr. Small. My requirements for my head veterinarian--and it
should be clear that we have two facilities. We have the zoo
here in Rock Creek Park, and we also have the research facility
at Front Royal; and we have a head veterinarian at each
location who then, in turn, supervises additional veterinarians
and animal hospital staff.
Both of our head veterinarians are board certified
specialists in zoological medicine. Veterinarians, similar to
human positions, specialize in different areas of expertise.
The Zoological Medicine Board is a very small group of
professionals. I believe, by now, there are somewhere on the
order of 70 in the world; we have five on our staff. We have an
exceptional veterinary staff that are known as leaders in their
field.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. What are the requirements for
becoming that head veterinarian?
Mr. Small. To have that board certification, to be
accomplished in their field, to be published in their field, to
have had experience supervising staff at other veterinary
hospitals, to have had the experience of working collectively
and collaboratively with curatorial staff.
And again, the veterinarians are to some extent a service
to the animal caretaker staff, and they do rely, when there are
2,100 animals, on the animal caretaking staff to----
Ms. Millender-McDonald. Let me ask you, board
certification, does it mean that you have to have had so many
years of intern training before you get board certified?
Ms. Spelman. Yes.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. What is the definition of board
certification?
Ms. Spelman. In order to become board certified, in order
to take the board certifying examination, the requirement is
veterinary school training, post-veterinary training that is
usually a 3-year training program in zoo medicine or 5 years'
worth of practical experience running a zoological medicine
department.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. Did you have either of those coming
into the head veterinarian role?
Ms. Spelman. Yes, I did. I had those requirements when I
came here as associate veterinarian, which was nearly 8 years
ago.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. Let me ask you, for the rodent bait
that we now know several animals, pandas, died from this, you
mentioned that before now--you put into place now that the
Director and you have to sign off on this.
Who were the signees before you put that in place, given
the deaths of the pandas and others?
Ms. Spelman. The current procedure is that I will sign off
as the Director of the zoo on all chemical use. The head
pathologist, who is our most experienced veterinarian in the
study of pathology, will prior to that recommend to me any
chemical use, whether it is for rodent control or research
purposes.
Prior to that, the policy rested within the safety office
where our pest control and chemical use----
Ms. Millender-McDonald. What office?
Ms. Spelman. Safety.
And the procedures were based on what needed to be perfect
communication between the safety officer and the head of the
animal programs division and the keepers and the curators.
Rodnet control--as you know, rodents go everywhere. They
don't know where the gate to Connecticut Avenue is by the zoo.
We have them everywhere. And because we put fresh food out with
the animals, we have to work on rodent control where our
animals are not. And that is an established best practice, and
that was violated in the case of the red pandas.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. And that was violated by whom?
Ms. Spelman. By our safety officer, who was in charge of
pest control, with the knowledge of the head of animal programs
and the senior curator of animal programs.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. And this is a practice that was
done before?
Ms. Spelman. This was the first time this chemical was ever
used in an animal area. The best practice in any zoological
park is, a pest control chemical is never used in an animal
area with the animal in the exhibit.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. So why was it this time?
Ms. Spelman. That is why we have reorganized our animal
program staff.
Poor oversight, poor judgment. And people became sick, as
well as two animals dying.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. The persons who administered this,
unbeknownst to you--am I correct on that--what punitive actions
have you put in place for those persons who administered this
unbeknownst to you?
Ms. Spelman. They are no longer supervising--they are no
longer in charge of either such duty. Pest control and chemical
use have moved to our head pathologist, away from our safety
office; and we have established a new position, a position that
the zoo has not had since 1986. That is somebody who will focus
only on the day-to-day animal care operations.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. Are you saying that these folks are
still with you?
Ms. Spelman. As the Secretary indicated, two of those
people chose to retire, and one was reassigned. We have hired
in the acting position of general curator, a former curator for
the National Zoo, a former staff member who had been with us in
a supervisory position for 28 years; he is currently in that
role. And we have a nationwide search out for a permanent
general curator; and we have many, many promising candidates.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. How many animals have died since
you have been there as the head veterinarian? And how many
animals died prior to your coming?
I am trying to get a sense of where we are going.
Ms. Spelman. I came to the zoo 8 years ago. Each year we
tabulate the numbers of animal deaths, just as any zoo does. I
would need to provide for you the actual numbers per year. I
don't have those numbers in my head.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. Thank you. I would like for you to
do that, and I would like to know the number of deaths of
animals by natural cause and the numbers of those who by other,
means, human error.
Ms. Spelman. And it may be helpful for us to also ask the
outside panel to help in that distinction. As the Secretary
mentioned, there is a professionalism--difference of opinion
that can come up with respect to when the animal has died and
the pathology report is available.
I think it would be helpful to have the panel look at those
cases with us to say whether we want to say human error or
whether we want to say this was the best judgment made, given
the available information.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. That should be up to the
pathologist to discern that. He or she is in that role to make
that decision; am I correct?
Ms. Spelman. They have all of the powers, and the fact that
they have all of the data, but when the animal is in life and
judgments about how to manage it most safely and how to care
for its quality of life, again that involves the curatorial
staff, the veterinarians.
It is a complex environment, but I welcome the outside
look. It will be helpful.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Ehlers.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Several additional
comments I would like to make, and I wonder if Dr. Evans could
come to the table as well.
First, Mr. Small, I didn't continue all the way through
because I had taken quite a bit of time my first round, but I
have concern about this; it is in your written testimony.
The only mention you make of research is that your attempt
is to keep the research program intact. My point is simply, I
hope you are doing more than trying to keep it intact, but
trying to make it applicable to the problems today.
Mr. Small. The first priority is to keep it intact, because
it has been so depleted over the years. So I would be very
happy getting back to where it was, and then would love to be
able to continue to increase it. But right now what has been
happening is, the dollars for research have been trending down,
and we have to get them back to where we were. So ``intact'' is
not meant to be a lack of interest in increasing the research.
So I am on the same line of thinking that you are. We have
to get more money for it. That is what our Science Commission
report emphasized recently, and Dr. Evans is working very hard
at doing that.
Mr. Ehlers. It is not just a matter of increasing funding,
but also improving the research. Your own blue ribbon group,
the Smithsonian Institution Science Commission, I think was
fairly tough on you on what has happened to science at the
Institution. And the NAS report, I haven't had time to review
in any detail, but I understand they were critical as well.
Are you, Dr. Evans pursuing meeting the objections raised
in this, the inside report and the outside report?
Mr. Evans. Yes, we are. I think all three of those reports,
the two reports from the two National Academy panels as well as
the Smithsonian's Science Commission report are actually very
helpful. I think they highlight both the traditional strengths
of the science and maybe, as importantly, they highlight a lot
of the difficulties that have evolved in the Institution in
recent times.
You are right, they are quite critical. I think they are
quite pointed, but in many ways that makes them really quite
valuable. The Board of Regents have given me until the
beginning of July to develop an implementation plan for
implementing the recommendations made by the Science
Commission. And the Science Commission actually included, by
reference in their appendices, the two National Academy reports
as well.
So although I just arrived at the Institution, I was given
a fairly full plate of recommendations. And I will tell you,
now, having spent a lot of time with those recommendations, I
think there is a lot of substance to them. There is serious
concern about the way some of the programs have been reviewed,
with recommendations for external visiting committees and
incorporation of individual scientists' professional
performance in their merit review processes, a lot of process
kinds of things that I think the Institution needs.
And in my discussions with leaders of the science
organizations, many of the scientists are actually welcomed by
the scientific community and the Institution. So I don't
envision great difficulty in trying to implement these
recommendations. I have the sense right now that the
recommendations have been embraced and people are ready to move
forward on them.
Mr. Ehlers. Very good. In fact, I think all of them I am
familiar with, the various science operations of the Federal
Government, have visiting committees, outside review and some
cases, peer review of proposals internally. So I certainly
encourage you to do that.
Another comment made in your internal report or review by
the Science Commission was that you can't do as much per dollar
because you don't have graduate students, postdocs, et cetera.
It seems to me you could arrange that. I think there are many
graduate students who would be delighted to conduct their
research at one of your institutions, especially those that are
specialized, such as the one in Panama or in other areas of the
world. And it is a great opportunity for them, and that would
be a great way to increase your scientific punch. In addition
to that, a postdoctoral would be willing to do that as well,
although they cost more than graduate students, but still
certainly less than a full-time researcher.
I believe there would be faculty members who would be
delighted to spend their sabbaticals at your institution, and
then you generally get them for half-salary because their home
institution pays half.
So I encourage you to pursue all those avenues. And I don't
know if it is a policy that you simply don't accept grad
students or postdocs. But if it is, I encourage you to pursue
that.
Mr. Evans. I appreciate your encouragement. I think that
section of the report is probably not very clearly written.
There is a fairly long tradition of having both graduate
students and postdocs come to work at the Smithsonian. They
come with a variety of different kinds of support.
The Institution has traditionally had a significant program
in fellowships that they offer for both postdoc and predoctoral
students. Unfortunately, that is one of the areas that has been
funded out of the general trust revenues that we have seen
decline so seriously in the last couple of years, and it has
really come under pressure. In an effort to deal with that and
in response, or anticipating the Science Commission finding,
our fiscal 2004 budget request actually has a small line in it
that would help to begin to provide some Federal funding for
that fellowship program. I think that is especially important,
as we continue to raise private funds, to help support those
fellowships.
So recognizing the importance of fellowships, predoctoral
fellowships, postdoctoral fellowships, the NSF-funded research
experience for undergraduate programs, in which we also
participate, are all ways that we have for bringing younger
scientists into the program, and we are vigorously trying to
round up the money to participate in those more fully.
Mr. Ehlers. Fine.
Last question, would your scientists like to be able to
apply for NSF grants? I know under the current interpretation
of the law, it is assumed they are not eligible.
Mr. Evans. That was a recommendation, as you know, by both
the National Academy of Public Administration and the Science
Commission that our scientists be able to do that. And as a
matter of fact, in the report language that accompanied both
our portion of the appropriation for the current year and the
NSF, the VA-HUD portion of the appropriation, the committee
recommended in our case that the Secretary and the Director of
the National Science Foundation get together to work on this
issue. And in the case of the VA-HUD bill, in fact, it directed
the Director of the National Science Foundation to make sure
that research proposals from Smithsonian scientists were
welcomed and put into the regular competitive process.
And just to sort of bring you up to date of where we are in
that process, I have a meeting Friday morning to discuss with
Dr. Colwell--to discuss exactly how we should move ahead and
implement that committee recommendation.
Mr. Ehlers. That is a welcome change. And certainly any
projects that you have with other institutions or faculty
members with other institutions, I should think would clearly
qualify.
Mr. Evans. We have had some successes of those in the past,
but we are actually very grateful to those members who helped
with that language to provide some clarification, because
inside the Foundation, there has been confusion with some
programs accepting proposals and other programs not. And there
has been a sort of inconsistency, and Dr. Colwell actually
welcomed this language to get the clarification about how we
can proceed in the future.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know most of the people here
were interested in the questions about the zoo. But since I am
on the Science Committee and the only scientist here--the
Science Committee, as you know, has jurisdiction over most
institutions of the Federal Government that perform scientific
research; you are one of the very few exceptions.
So I felt obligated to use my expertise here to give you a
grilling and to give you some encouragement.
The Chairman. No doubt, Congressman Ehlers, that anybody
was going to get out of this room without your asking a science
question.
The gentleman from Florida.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Spelman, back to my personnel questions that you may be
able to answer better than Secretary Small. Within the zoo
operations and particularly the care for animals, are there any
missing positions? Was there any decrease in funding, or from
our oversight responsibility, has something gone amiss as far
as personnel being paid for out of the Federal funds for the
care of animals?
Ms. Spelman. No. The Secretary is correct. We have
continued attrition in our total staffing levels. That is
something we have to manage each year.
Mr. Mica. Again, specifically to the care, the veterinary
staff now decreased and----
Ms. Spelman. I understand your question. Within animal
programs, which is the division of the zoo where the caretakers
are, I have actually worked to increase the numbers of keepers;
and now we have three new curatorial supervisory positions.
Mr. Mica. Since when?
Ms. Spelman. Over the last 3 years, since I have been the
Director.
Mr. Mica. This is the kind of stuff I want for the record.
You talk about accreditation. And is the zoo--I mean, the
zoo is exempt from all these other reviews, but the zoo goes
through an accreditation process?
Ms. Spelman. The accreditation process is something we
willingly participate in.
Mr. Mica. How often?
Ms. Spelman. Once every 5 years. Current year, there are 23
zoos going through accreditation.
Mr. Mica. Going through it now?
Ms. Spelman. And ours, we are midway through it.
Mr. Mica. And you spoke to some recommendations that they
had.
Ms. Spelman. That's correct. It is a three-step process.
Mr. Mica. You did this 5 years ago. If I look at the one
from 5 years ago and we submit that as part of the record, does
it show any deficits as far as handling of rodenticides, or
whatever you call it, rat killer; or does it show any
suggestions or recommendations or deficits as far as chemicals
around animals?
Ms. Spelman. We certainly can share with you the 5-year-ago
report.
Mr. Mica. Can you get a copy? I want to see if this is
something that 5 years ago--you know we don't have a standard
review. We have some congressional oversight. You testified
that you will give us the documentation on that.
You have this accreditation process. Did they identify
deficiencies that could lead to animal deaths 5 years ago that
haven't been remedied? That is my question. So if you could
submit that--Mr. Chairman, unanimous consent, request unanimous
consent that that be made part of the record or at least
referenced to.
The Chairman. Without objection.
Ms. Spelman. May I offer that----
Mr. Mica. And you don't know anything in that report that
would specify that there were things, that were not attended
to, that are specific to any of these deaths?
Ms. Spelman. I think that every time an outside group comes
in to look at our operation, that will be helpful, but there is
nothing specific in the 5-year-ago report.
Mr. Mica. Again, I am trying to--I just want to see if
there has been oversight by somebody else, accreditation group,
our group, or something that we haven't been doing and we
should be doing.
And the chairman has already got a good way to calm
people's concerns about this.
Ms. Spelman. If it would be helpful, we have a fairly
detailed list that goes through the facts on all of the animal
deaths that have been reported in the media. We can submit that
as well.
Mr. Mica. And that has already been requested. We would
like that part of the record.
How many animal deaths are attributable to rodent poisoning
in the last couple of years?
Ms. Spelman. To the best of my knowledge, only the two red
pandas. We have not--there was a report of our prairie dogs
being lost to rodents, but we have not substantiated that.
Mr. Mica. I just have questions about rodent poisonings.
I have some question about your rats, because most people
aren't familiar with the rats in Washington. I come from
Florida, and we have what we call citrus mice and they are rats
about that big. Now I have also seen the--and I live a few
blocks from the Hill and I have seen the Washington Hill rats.
I am not talking about members of any political group or
persuasion.
The Chairman. Will the gentleman yield?
Most of the rats seem to be on the other side of the
Capitol.
Mr. Mica. I have seen rats in Washington as big as cats. I
mean, they are absolutely frightening. I am also told that
these rats can savage some of the animals. And you said that we
are not going to have any rodenticide, or rodent poison, close
to the animals, but you still have a problem because you have
animals, you have feed, you have open conditions, so that does
pose a problem.
But I don't know if the members know this, but the Hill is
infested with rats, and the offices are infested with rats or
some of our locations have been. And there is--we had a hearing
a few years ago with Mike Synar, and we had some carpeting that
was in question. People were afraid that toxic fumes from
carpeting were affecting humans. And they put a couple of
biology mice in a container with some carpeting that was going
to be used on the House floor. And you know the mouse keeled
over dead.
But it wasn't the fumes in the carpeting. I got a copy of
the report and it was the rodenticide--whatever you call it;
again, I am sure I am slaughtering the name--but the rodent
poison we spray all through here. And that can have an effect
on human beings and animals. It is very difficult to control.
So, again, you have to balance, I think, the protection of
the animals with a complete infestation.
Would that be the case also?
Ms. Spelman. That is true. There are three things we are
stepping up. One, we already mentioned our older facilities.
Any old building, in and around an older building, that is a
great site for rodents to live; and so as we are renovating old
facilities, at least we are also dealing with harborage areas
where rodents live.
Mr. Mica. Final question about rats.
Ms. Spelman. The second thing is, if you come and see the
animals at feeding time, you will see many animals are fed in a
way where the rodents cannot get at their food stuff. Giant
pandas, for instance, are fed with a piece of PVC tubing with a
hole in it, and they shake it and a biscuit falls out and they
eat that biscuit. Because the rodents learn exactly the
routines of the keepers and when the food will be put out. So
we are trying to outsmart our rodent population and use as few
chemicals as possible.
Mr. Mica. Two things. Sometimes we talk about rats, and
sometimes there are people want to rat on other people. This
isn't a personnel matter that is blown out of proportion within
the zoo, is it? Is someone trying to come after your for some
personal reason?
Ms. Spelman. I believe the National Zoo needs many changes,
and we are starting to make those changes.
Mr. Mica. This isn't a personnel matter--you can tell us.
There are different kinds of rats around, and I want to get to
the bottom of it.
Ms. Spelman. We have many policies and procedures we need
to improve, and we are on the road to doing that. And yet I
believe that we need to renew the zoo in every way.
Mr. Mica. I can't imagine somebody who has your
professional qualifications and is probably as dedicated as you
are to animals and wildlife--I am sure this is no fun for you
personally, because I know you must have some care and love for
these creatures.
And I apologize, but what I try to do is just get the facts
and lay them out and let people make the judgments.
The Chairman. Any final questions?
Mr. Larson. Just again by way of follow-up of--with the
question that Juanita Millender-McDonald asked; and I hope this
is something we can work on with the Academy as we go forward.
I think it is in everyone's best interest to make sure that we
continue down the path that you have outlined so that we have
the very best practices. And I couldn't agree with you more
that the more input that we get from independent outside
sources can only help.
Juanita asked for a compilation of what happened. I would
only add that I think we should look at it not only in the
context of the National Zoo, but other zoos so we can have some
comparative data, I think, along the lines that you have
indicated and outlined in terms of both those that might happen
through human error and--I forget exactly how you described----
Ms. Spelman. Differences in professional opinion.
Mr. Larson. And I think it is especially important for lay
Members of Congress who sit on committees like this that
scientific professionals get an opportunity to focus on this
and the come back to us with the--with their analysis and their
information, which I hope would allow us to understand the
situation better and take whatever corrective action might be
necessary.
And that is the only other question I have, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank the ranking member.
And with that, I want to again thank Secretary Small, as
well as Under Secretary Evans and Director Spelman, who worked
hard to prepare for the hearing today and her ongoing work with
the Smithsonian Institution. And I also want to thank our
ranking member for his thoughtfulness and work on what I think
we have come up with, which is the oversight ability through
the National Science Foundation, and also the overall input on
this total comprehensive look at the Smithsonian Institution
and the needs that they have.
I thank all the members that participated in the hearing
today.
Members do have additional questions; they can submit them
in writing. And I would expect the witnesses would return the
answers in writing.
The Chairman. I also ask unanimous consent that members and
witnesses have 7 legislative days to submit material into the
record for those statements and materials to be entered into
the appropriate place in the record. Without objection, the
material will be so entered.
I also ask unanimous consent the staff be authorized to
make technical and conforming changes on all matters considered
by the committee in today's hearing. Without objection, so
ordered.
I also would like to thank Congressman Eleanor Holmes
Norton, who I know has communicated with our ranking member,
and for her continued concern and thoughtfulness on this issue.
Having completed our business for today, the oversight
hearing committee is hereby adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 4 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]