    [Senate Hearing 109-742]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 109-742

                           FEDERAL FUNDING OF MUSEUMS

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                    FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT
                         INFORMATION, AND INTERNATIONAL
                             SECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE

                                     of the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                             HOMELAND SECURITY AND
                              GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                           ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 APRIL 5, 2006

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
                            and Governmental Affairs

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    27-760 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2006
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
    Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
    DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax:  (202) 512-2250. Mail:  Stop SSOP,
    Washington, DC 20402-0001

            COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                       SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Chairman
    TED STEVENS, Alaska                  JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
    GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio            CARL LEVIN, Michigan
    NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota              DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
    TOM COBURN, Oklahoma                 THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
    LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island      MARK DAYTON, Minnesota
    ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah              FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
    PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico         MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
    JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia

               Michael D. Bopp, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
       Joyce A. Rechtschaffen, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
                      Trina Driessnack Tyrer, Chief Clerk

    FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT INFORMATION, AND INTERNATIONAL
                             SECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE

                         TOM COBURN, Oklahoma, Chairman
    TED STEVENS, Alaska                  THOMAS CARPER, Delaware
    GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio            CARL LEVIN, Michigan
    LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island      DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
    ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah              MARK DAYTON, Minnesota
    PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico         FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
    JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia             MARK PRYOR, Arkansas

                          Katy French, Staff Director
                     Sheila Murphy, Minority Staff Director
                John Kilvington, Minority Deputy Staff Director
                           Liz Scranton, Chief Clerk

                                C O N T E N T S

                                     ------
    Opening statements:
                                                                       Page
        Senator Coburn...............................................     1
        Senator Carper...............................................     7

                                   WITNESSES
                            Wednesday, April 5, 2006

    Hon. Anne-Imelda M. Radice, Director, Institute of Museum and
      Library Services...............................................     4
    David A. Ucko, Ph.D., Program Head, Informal Science Education
      Program, National Science Foundation...........................     5
    Thomas A. Schatz, President, Citizens Against Government Waste...    11
    Edward H. Able, Jr., President and CEO, American Association of
      Museums........................................................    12

                         Alphabetical List of Witnesses

    Able, Edward H., Jr.:
        Testimony....................................................    12
        Prepared statement...........................................    36
    Radice, Hon. Anne-Imelda M.:
        Testimony....................................................     4
        Prepared statement...........................................    17
    Schatz, Thomas A.:
        Testimony....................................................    11
        Prepared statement...........................................    33
    Ucko, David A., Ph.D.:
        Testimony....................................................     5
        Prepared statement...........................................    23

                                    APPENDIX

    Questions and responses for the Record from:
        Ms. Radice...................................................    42
        Mr. Ucko.....................................................    49
        Mr. Schatz...................................................    51
        Mr. Able.....................................................    53

                           FEDERAL FUNDING OF MUSEUMS

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 2006

                                           U.S. Senate,
                Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management,
            Government Information, and International Security,
                            of the Committee on Homeland Security and
                                                   Governmental Affairs
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:29 p.m., in
    room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Tom Coburn,
    Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Coburn and Carper.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COBURN

        Senator Coburn. The hearing will come to order. It cannot
    be said that the Senate is always late. We are starting this
    hearing early. I would advise our witnesses that we will have
    something occurring on the floor at 3:15 this afternoon and I
    will have to leave here at about 3:05 p.m.
        This is one of the fun hearings I get to have because we
    are going to hear from witnesses that do it right. We are
    oftentimes critical of the bureaucracy and what they
    accomplish. I am a big supporter of the arts in terms of art
    education and what our history through museums can give to us
    and the difference it can make in terms of rounding an
    education.
        Our problems are that we have a wonderful structure as
    demonstrated by Mr. Ucko and Ms. Radice today, in terms of how
    things work and should work in government. The problem is that
    much of it is taken outside of their hands and it goes through
    earmarks which often times leads to not the best choice, it
    bypasses the grant system which we set up and appears to be
    wonderfully managed and supervised by you both.
        One of the things we talk about here is accountability in
    government, and I am proud to say that our first two witnesses
    today through what we have ascertained in looking at the grant
    process, the management and the oversight, are doing exactly
    what we are talking about in terms of transparency, in terms of
    results, in terms of priority setting, responsiveness, and also
    spending discipline. One of the few areas that has grown not so
    much in the last 5 years have been the expenditures, even with
    earmarks on our art history, our museums, and those things that
    comprise what we would value as great educational tools. There
    is some concern we have seen with declining attendance at some
    of these institutions, and that is not about dollars, that is
    more about have we taken our eye off the ball in terms of
    education and its value in our country.
        What I am very much concerned about is how we bypass two
    out of the four, actually, all four agencies that are
    responsible for most of these grants, and we use it through an
    earmarking process that takes away the accountability and the
    transparency that should be there, and it is my hope that our
    other witnesses today will highlight some of that.
        Because of our shortage of time, I will make my formal
    comments that I had prepared as a part of the record, and I
    will do that without objection since there is nobody here to
    object.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Coburn follows:]
                      PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR COBURN
        There is great value for communities and citizens in the arts,
    historic collections and museums. They are a reflection of our culture
    and people, and are important to our history and national identity.
    Children and young learners benefit tremendously from art programs in
    the schools. Believe it or not, I certainly did. These activities make
    for well rounded citizens, tomorrow's leaders. Museums play an
    important role in our lives.
        The focus of today's hearing is to examine the various avenues of
    Federal funding for museums including authorized programs, grantmaking
    agencies and earmarks. The Administration has requested at least $1.45
    billion in FY 2007 funds for the arts, cultural or learning activities,
    and the buildings themselves. If history is a guide, Congress will
    likely exceed the amount of the request.
        The Federal Government has spent $7 billion of taxpayer money on
    museums, centers, institutes, galleries, zoos, aquariums, and halls of
    fame since 2001. By my estimates, this type of funding has increased
    almost 25 percent in the past 5 years. Though the President actually
    cut the entire budget for Arts in Education for his FY07 budget
    request, he proposed a $65 million increase in other such spending
    overall.
        According to 2003 data from the American Association of Museums,
    the 15,000+ museums in the country depend on government grants for one-
    fourth of their operating income.
        Grantmaking agencies include: NEH, NEA, Institute of Museum and
    Library Services, and the National Science foundation's Informal
    Science Education Program. These grants are competitive. There is a
    process where an institution must prove its worth and is, from what I
    understand, closely monitored by the agencies. There are real
    consequences throughout the grant period if a museum doesn't adhere to
    the terms and conditions of the award. I wish there was more of that in
    Federal Government.
        Earmarks, however, get to cut in line and skip the competitive
    application. Favored projects receive money without having to compete
    with the other museum. Some authorized funding exists solely for Member
    earmarking. The Department of Housing and Urban Development makes
    Economic Development Initiative grants available to Congress for home
    district projects. There is no competition.
        A review of museum earmarks between fiscal year 2001 and 2006
    appropriations bills conference reports uncovered more than 860
    earmarks totaling $567 million. On average, the Appropriators directed
    64 percent of the projects and money to their home States each year.
        This type of spending peaked in FY 2005 at $88 million for 183
    earmarks. For FY2006 total earmark spending approached $72 million for
    111 earmarks. The decline was likely due to the ban on earmarks in the
    Labor HHS Education Appropriations bill.
        The earmark review also revealed that several museums ``double
    dip,'' splitting their earmark requests across bills in the same year
    to make the amounts more palatable for appropriators, or to hide second
    requests from one set of appropriators completely. This is like asking
    Mom for your allowance after Dad already gave it to you.
        Even more revealing was the individual entitlements for a handful
    of museums who receive earmarks for same amounts to fund the same so-
    called ``new'' projects year after year. Between FY04 and FY06 one
    museum requested over $1.7 million. They had two earmarks each year--
    one for ``construction of a new museum'' and the other for ``exhibits
    and programming.'' I guess they didn't plan too well, because in 2006
    they also requested money for an ``expansion.'' There is no review and
    no accountability. I will be releasing this report on my website this
    week for anyone who wants to dig further.
        I also learned that several museums request money to build
    ``visitors centers'' or ``learning centers'' for the museum. This begs
    the question: Isn't the museum itself already a center for visitors
    which facilitates and fosters primary source learning? Isn't that what
    a museum is?
        Given the local nature of most of the grants and earmarks, it is
    difficult to defend the expenditure of taxpayer dollars to benefit a
    small group of people in Muskogee, St. Louis, or Anchorage. If a
    community truly wanted such an institution or program, they would and
    should find a way to pay for it with local and State money, or through
    admission fees.
        I am so pleased to learn of the many accountability principles that
    guide the grant work of Informal Science Education and the Institute of
    Museum and Library Services which we'll hear more about today. You're
    doing a good job, and you should be recognized.
        I am not challenging the merit of a particular grant or institution
    today, but would like to remind my colleagues that the current fiscal
    environment of war, Katrina and Social Security and Medicare insolvency
    is a very serious situation. One criticism of the President I have is
    that he has not asked the American people to sacrifice during war time.
    We cannot, as a government, do everything we would like to do. I think
    the American people would be very forgiving and willing to make
    sacrifices if only asked.
        During a time of war Presidents Roosevelt and Truman slashed non-
    defense spending by over 20 percent. It can be done. I am not
    advocating a complete termination of these programs or this type of
    spending. However, it is our responsibility to taxpayers to be frugal,
    and it is our duty to be transparent and accountable for every dollar
    of their hard earned money we spend.
        Why not hold museum and arts funding steady at current levels? I
    believe that budget increases for nonessential activities during a time
    of great challenge to our Nation are indefensible. It is Congress who
    holds the purse strings and, frankly, we have been unwilling to make
    the tough decisions today for the future wellbeing of our
    grandchildren. We've got to stop focusing on political expediency and
    start thinking about future generations.

        Senator Coburn. Anne-Imelda Radice is Director of the
    Institute of Museum and Library Services. She most recently was
    Acting Assistant Chairman for Programs at the National
    Endowment for the Humanities. Before joining the National
    Endowment of the Humanities, she served as Chief of Staff to
    the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education. In the early
    1990s, she served as the Acting Chairman and Senior Deputy
    Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts. She was the
    first Director of the National Museum of Women in the Arts. She
    was confirmed as IMLS Director in March of this year.
        David Ucko is a former university chemistry professor. He
    has directed ISE since 2003, and has an extensive background in
    science museums and centers, holding directorships around the
    country and posts at the National Science Foundation and the
    National Academy of Sciences. He served as President of Science
    City in Kansas City, Missouri, from 1990 to 2000. He also
    provides consulting services to assist museums and other
    organizations in carrying out mission-driven planning and
    innovation as President of Museums+more.
        I would like to recognize each of you for 5 minutes. Your
    complete testimony will be made part of the record, and Ms.
    Radice, I think we will recognize you first.

    TESTIMONY OF HON. ANNE-IMELDA M. RADICE,\1\ DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE
                     OF MUSEUM AND LIBRARY SERVICES

        Ms. Radice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your
    gracious remarks. I am pleased to represent an agency that was
    built from the ground up with integrity, professionalism,
    transparency, and imagination. This is an agency where
    achievement is highlighted through competition, where return on
    investment is measured, grant-tracking required. We do share
    your commitment to ensuring that the Federal Government is a
    good steward of taxpayer dollars.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Radice appears in the Appendix on
    page 17.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Through the competitive grant process, we assist our
    Nation's zoos, science centers, planetariums, national history
    museums, nature centers, history museums, historic houses,
    specialized museums, children's museums, art museums, botanical
    gardens, arboretums, aquariums, and libraries, to build
    capacity, develop programs that protect our heritage, provide
    training that develops new jobs, support research, and provides
    seed money for reports and how-to guides that have a life span
    beyond the tenure of any one director.
        For nearly 30 years, the Institute has developed and
    refined the process. Every application receives a thorough and
    objective review, and those recommended for funding have
    received independent reviews from two different peer-review
    processes before I make the final decision. These expert
    reviewers are not Institute employees. We have a stringent
    conflict-of-interest policy, and we require matching funds for
    the projects. Prior to the awarding of the grants, IMLS staff
    also conducts cost analyses of these projects. A grantee is
    required to exert fiscal control and employ fund accounting
    procedures that ensure proper disbursement of and accounting
    for Federal funds. IMLS grantees may not award subgrants, and
    we do not accept applications for cost overruns.
        Mr. Chairman, I, too, come from a family in the medical
    profession. My dad Lawrence was a neurologist, and my mother
    Anne was a surgical nurse. Their parents were immigrants who
    worked hard so that their children would have better
    opportunities to be educated, and a better life. My parents, by
    example and sometimes fiat, instilled the importance of
    integrity, hard work, and giving back. As a child growing up in
    Buffalo, I was brought to the library on Elmwood Avenue every
    Saturday morning, and the Albright-Knox Art Gallery in the
    afternoon. These visits were important for us, and provided me
    with the inspiration to pursue a career in the arts. And I have
    been a museum director and was acquainted with IMLS, the IMS,
    as a customer, and I must say, even those early days, this
    Federal agency was the gold standard. The dream was to receive
    a grant which gave not only important funds for operations, but
    a professional imprimatur and needed leverage for fund-raising.
        Each dollar is precious, as is the education and betterment
    of each of our citizens. IMLS has long understood the tenants
    of return on investment and help that produces long-term
    solutions rather than quick fixes. My own personal passion is
    conservation which resonates with both libraries and museums. I
    was so pleased that one of my very first acts as director of
    the Institute was to announce emergency grants to museums in
    the Gulf Coast. What a wonderful list they are. They include a
    State museum, an art museum, an arboretum, a children's museum,
    and Jefferson Davis's home. They underscore our commitment to
    help the Gulf Coast recover from these hurricanes.
        I hope when my tenure is completed with the help of those
    who are interested and want to participate, that we will make
    great advances in preserving our heritage, objects,
    experiences, but that also we can help create some new jobs,
    and we can help create an army of volunteers, just as museums
    and libraries have done, docents, information specialists, and
    gift shop workers. And I say as you listen to Mr. Able today,
    you will marvel at how these structures are built on the
    goodwill, big hearts, and donated time of our fellow Americans.
        Mr. Chairman, I am proud to represent a Federal agency that
    can look at itself straight in the eye and be proud of its
    transparency, efficiency, and accountability, and I believe
    that the American people are well served by what we do and what
    we are able to provide libraries and museums.
        I welcome your questions, sir, and I seek your counsel.

     TESTIMONY OF DAVID A. UCKO, PH.D.,\1\ PROGRAM HEAD, INFORMAL
         SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

        Mr. Ucko. Chairman Coburn, Senator Carper, thank you for
    the opportunity to describe the merit review process by which
    the National Science Foundation makes available grant funds for
    museums.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Ucko appears in the Appendix on
    page 23.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Have you had the opportunity to explore the hands-on
    exhibit ``Invention at Play'' at a science museum? Perhaps you
    have seen the ``NOVA'' program ``Einstein's Big Idea'' on TV,
    or watched ``ZOOM'' or ``Peep'' with your children or
    grandchildren. Or listened to ``Science Friday'' or ``Earth and
    Sky'' on the radio. Or been immersed in the film ``Forces of
    Nature'' in a giant screen theater. Or perhaps visited the
    Exploratorium Website on the science of cooking.
        If so, you are familiar with the investments of the
    Informal Science Education Program, the primary source within
    NSF of funds for museums and other organizations that promote
    public interest, engagement, and understanding of science,
    technology, engineering, and math. Our program invests in
    projects that develop educational activities for self-directed
    learning outside the classroom for audiences from preschoolers
    to older adults.
        Over the last two decades, the ISE program has catalyzed
    the expansion of science museums to some 338 institutions in
    the United States today, and made possible about half the
    national traveling exhibitions. The program has established
    science programming for children and adults on television,
    radio, and large-format film. Today the ISE program is funded
    at $63 million, within the $5.6 billion NSF budget. About 40
    percent of ISE awards each year are made to science museums,
    including science-technology centers, natural history museums,
    children's museums, planetariums, zoos, aquariums, botanical
    gardens, and nature centers. They represent nearly two-thirds
    of total NSF funding for museums. The rest comes from
    throughout the agency, such as research grants to scientists
    and curators in natural history museums and botanical gardens.
    In total, 40 to 50 museums receive grant funds each year.
        The NSF appropriation does not receive earmarks for museums
    or other institutions. Funds are awarded solely through merit
    review based on the National Science Board criteria of
    intellectual merit and broader impacts. Funding is extremely
    competitive. Last year, the success rate for NSF overall was 23
    percent, and 17 percent for our program. Project directors from
    museums and other organizations called principal investigators,
    or PIs in NSF lingo, submit proposals in response to our
    solicitation. To conduct merit review, program officers form
    panels of experts with relevant knowledge and experience in
    informal learning, scientific content, evaluation, and areas
    specific to the type of proposal, such as exhibition design and
    production.
        First, panelists write independent reviews, rating
    proposals from excellent to poor. Then the panel meets as a
    whole to discuss the merits of the proposals, rating each as
    high, medium, or low as a priority for funding. All the
    reviewers and panelists serve as volunteers. Costs for running
    panels are modest, about one percent of program funds.
        Program officers then meet as a group to recommend for
    funding from the most highly rated proposals those that will
    create a diverse portfolio of exhibition, media, community,
    youth, and technology projects, with greatest potential
    national impact on the public and the field. These
    recommendations and their rationale must be approved by the
    division director. Awards are then made by the Division of
    Grants and Agreements, following review of the budgets and the
    financial capability of the grantee organizations.
        After a grant is made, the PI is required to submit an
    annual report describing progress. It must be approved by a
    program officer before the next annual funding increment of a
    multiyear award can be authorized. Site visits may be made by
    the program officer or by the Division of Grants and Agreements
    to monitor financial aspects.
        At the end of the project, the PI must submit a final
    report summarizing outcomes and impacts, including an
    independent third-party summative evaluation, which must be
    posted at the Website informalscience.org so that others can
    learn from the project. Each NSF program is reviewed every 3 to
    4 years by a group of outside experts called a Committee of
    Visitors. Last year our program was favorably reviewed by such
    a committee, including how well we carry out the merit review
    process.
        That is not to say we cannot improve. We have recently
    started using Web conferences as a low-cost mechanism for
    reaching new prospective PIs. We are creating an online
    database to help us monitor projects. Through these and other
    means, we continue to work towards making the most effective
    investments in fostering a well-informed citizenry and a
    diverse future work force of scientists and engineers, a goal
    that supports the President's American Competitiveness
    Initiative. This outcome is especially important to our Nation
    today when science and technology play ever-increasing roles in
    our daily lives, in local and national policy, and in the
    competitive global marketplace. Thank you.
        Senator Coburn. Let me take this opportunity to give
    Senator Carper, my partner on this Subcommittee, both of us
    dedicated to making sure that we do have accountability,
    transparency, and efficiency in the Federal Government, an
    opportunity to speak, and then we will ask some questions.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER

        Senator Carper. Thank you. We are delighted that both of
    you are here. He leaned over to me and he said, ``These two are
    great, aren't they?'' And I feel we are very fortunate that you
    are here today and your testifying and proud of the kind of
    programs that you are running. I have some questions that we
    will get into here, but I will just reserve any other comments
    at this time. Thanks.
        Senator Coburn. You both have testified about how your
    process works, the oversight that you have on it, the
    transparency, the innovation. You probably did not know that we
    had a hearing not long ago on travel and conferences, and the
    fact that you are using digital video to do some of these
    things and you are putting some of this online is great because
    it saves the taxpayers money.
        My big concern is you have both demonstrated integrity in
    what you do, and yet over the last 5 years, over a half a
    billion dollars has gone outside of you through earmarks which
    are not necessarily, some are, I understand, but many are not
    subject to the same scrutiny. Without putting you in a position
    cross-wise with the very people who appropriate your funds,
    would you care to comment on the value that America would
    attain if everything we did in those areas actually went
    through, and I know some are checked and some are discussed
    between the Appropriations Committee, but the fact is they are
    not run on a competitive basis. They do not have to meet the
    same things.
        What is the result when $567 million worth of funds, your
    budget is $63 million a year I think you testified, what is the
    result in terms of discouragement to those people who wait in
    line and are in competition for scarce dollars, when all of a
    sudden somebody jumps ahead of them with an earmark? What is
    the result in terms of, does it send more people to go get it
    that way so that we have less oversight? What is the result of
    that that you all see in terms of not only just the best
    priority, where do we spend the dollars the best and which is
    what your organization attempts to do, both of you, but also
    the scrutiny that money then undergoes? Do you have any comment
    on that, Ms. Radice?
        Ms. Radice. As you know, we do have some earmarks that are
    delivered to our door like Moses, and thank you for commenting,
    that, yes, we do in fact make sure that once they are delivered
    that they are well handled. I think you have said it very
    succinctly. It is a shame that they do not have the opportunity
    to have the review process, because a review process is not
    than a contest. It is the ability to seek technical assistance,
    it is being plugged into a network to know what else is going
    on in the field. There may be some efficiencies in developing
    partnerships. Of course, all of those steps cannot happen if,
    in fact, it is just delivered to you. And I have to say our
    staff, and thank you for noting that we have kept our
    expenditures down, puts the same effort in making sure that
    those are handled correctly. But you said it very succinctly,
    sir. I could not add any more to that.
        Senator Coburn. Mr. Ucko.
        Mr. Ucko. We have not had the experience of earmarks at
    NSF, but we have found the merit review process to be a
    tremendous mechanism for encouraging extremely innovative and
    creative approaches to addressing issues in the field and a
    method that is really beyond reproach in terms of selecting
    those that are most worthy of funding. So we have found it to
    be an excellent way to allocate our scarce resources.
        Senator Coburn. What happens when somebody is not compliant
    within your process now? In other words, they have not met the
    requirements of the grant, or they are overbudget, or they have
    fallen out of line as set up under your processes? What
    happens?
        Ms. Radice. Would you like to go first?
        Mr. Ucko. For example, if the progress is not sufficient or
    if there are serious issues on a multiyear award, because each
    of our awards is made one annual increment at a time, future
    increments are held up. So there is a check on the continuing
    funding for that award if there is a problem with it.
        Senator Coburn. Ms. Radice.
        Ms. Radice. We operate on a reimbursable procedure, so in a
    few instances there is some advanced money that can be sent,
    but it is minimal. And there are not only annual reports, but
    sometimes semiannual reports, and if there were any problem
    that the money was not spent correctly, we would have no
    problem in going and recovering it. But thank heavens, we have
    not really had to do that.
        Senator Coburn. So the best treatment for that is
    prevention in the first place?
        Ms. Radice. And there is another point to your competitive
    process, because there is an opportunity to actually review the
    structure that the grant might be operated under. Again, they
    can get advice from us.
        Mr. Ucko. One of the things we have started to do
    particularly for smaller organizations is Web conferencing on
    the financial aspects of awards with our Division of Grants and
    Agreements so that the PIs can become very familiar with the
    financial management issues as well as the program issues.
        Senator Coburn. Ms. Radice, what I picked up from you is,
    when we go through the earmark process rather than the grant
    process, we do not take advantage of some of the things that
    could make organizations better, they could be more excellent.
    In other words, things do not get focused down the funnel of
    the experience that is out there both from your organization,
    but also from those people who you fund, that learn things. Is
    that a significant factor related to cost, first? And second,
    performance, in terms of how the money is actually spent?
        Ms. Radice. I think the rub on some of this is that the
    institutions that have come in for earmarks, and I would say
    99.9 percent are very good institutions, and the project may be
    quite valuable, however, it could be even better if it had
    been, I think, competed.
        Senator Coburn. So there is an opportunity cost there?
        Ms. Radice. There are some opportunity costs, but I have to
    say, and I think you have said this as well, sir, that in many
    instances they are great projects, but they could be better,
    and as you say, people bumping ahead of the line is an issue.
        Senator Coburn. One final question. You have steps in place
    to recall a grant award or ask for reimbursement from a museum
    if they do not adhere to conditions?
        Ms. Radice. Yes, sir.
        Senator Coburn. What are some examples of things that can
    get a grant pulled?
        Ms. Radice. Obviously, any kind of financial malfeasance,
    not doing what you say you're going to do. Those are pretty
    egregious. Because the grant process is intricate and because a
    lot of these reports about the condition of the museum or a zoo
    or whatever have already been submitted to IMLS, we are pretty
    confident that when that grant goes out it is going to be
    handled correctly. But there are instances where things happen.
        Senator Coburn. And it does happen?
        Ms. Radice. It has happened, but the staff is on it.
        Senator Coburn. That is great. I will have a few more
    questions, but will submit them for the record and in writing
    to you, if you would return those.
        Senator Carper.
        Senator Carper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to follow-
    up a little bit on a question that has been asked by our
    Chairman. We have a project that is funded through an earmark
    as opposed to a regular competitive grant process. I think you
    mentioned, Ms. Radice, that most of them are good projects, and
    I think you also said that they actually could in some cases be
    better. Do you ever have a situation where, and I think Mr.
    Ucko alluded to this as well, we talked about the merit review
    process actually enhancing the quality of the projects that
    have occurred, do you ever have a situation where you put the
    merit review process at the end of the approval process for
    earmarks, realizing they do not have to go through this, they
    have been earmarked and they are going to get the money? Is
    there some way to do that to tag it on almost as an
    afterthought, but really as a way to better ensure that the
    monies that are going to be appropriated are well spent?
        Ms. Radice. Actually, Senator Carper, that is a great
    question, and the way we handle it is when it is apparent that
    an earmark is going to occur, a letter actually goes out from
    IMLS that is extremely detailed, budgets, schedule of
    completion. It hands out the general terms and conditions of
    IMLS grants. So even though the horse is out of the barn, folks
    are required to adhere to our regulations. But, yes, absolutely
    they have to.
        Senator Carper. Are folks ever surprised when they find
    that they have to?
        Ms. Radice. Since I have been there 3 weeks, I would guess
    they may be, some might be, but I cannot say for sure, sir.
        Senator Carper. What were you doing 4 weeks ago?
        Ms. Radice. I was at the National Endowment for the
    Humanities.
        Senator Carper. Mr. Ucko, you talked earlier in your
    comments and your testimony, and I wrote down these words,
    ``Made possible about half the traveling exhibitions,'' those
    words. Could you just go back and revisit that sentence and
    that statement and expand on that for us, if you will? What
    were you talking about there? I think I know, but I want to
    make sure.
        Mr. Ucko. Museums have two kinds of exhibitions, what are
    considered permanent exhibitions, which have a lifetime from 5
    to 10 or more years, and those that are there for typically a
    3-month period and then move on to another institution. So
    these touring or traveling exhibitions are ones, many of which
    we have funded through our program, that get, over a course of
    years, to go to many museums across the Nation. Those are
    traveling exhibitions, typically 3,000, 5,000, maybe 10,000
    square feet in size.
        Senator Carper. I was at the Children's Museum in Atlanta a
    year or two ago, and they are real proud of their museum and it
    is a real focus on science. They actually create some of their
    own traveling exhibitions. They have it on display there for a
    while as a sort of semipermanent exhibition, but then their
    exhibition goes on the road, and I think they actually do this
    as a way to make money to help pay for the cost of running
    their museum. Does that ring a bell?
        Mr. Ucko. Yes, you can do that, if you do it right.
        Senator Carper. How common or how prevalent is that?
        Mr. Ucko. It is fairly common. It is cost-effective for us
    because we are not just impacting one community, but we are
    impacting lots of communities across the Nation.
        Senator Carper. Let me ask you, Chairman, do you have in
    Oklahoma some Children's Museums or Science Museums?
        Senator Coburn. We have a couple of Children's Museums. Of
    course, we have the Western Heritage Museum in Oklahoma City,
    and then we have the Murrah Building Bombing Memorial which is
    another area, as well as the Gilcrease Museum and the Philbrook
    Museum in Tulsa, so we have several.
        Senator Carper. There has been talk in Wilmington for a
    number of years to create a Children's Museum, really sort of a
    Children's Science Museum, and initially we are making sure
    they have a place to build their museum along the riverfront in
    Wilmington. If you ever come through Wilmington on the train in
    a year or two, hopefully you will be able to look outside the
    window and see the Children's Science Museum taking shape.
        For a start-up like that, how can your agency be helpful to
    them?
        Mr. Ucko. We cannot fund capital costs, but we could fund
    programmatic development that is part of it if they can come in
    with a competitive proposal. One of the roles our program
    officers play is working with people that are interested in
    submitting proposals well in advance of submitting one, to help
    them and guide them in developing something that is consistent
    with our solicitation. So we would be glad to talk to whoever
    is working on that project to see if there are some things that
    would fit.
        Senator Carper. Thank you. The Chairman mentioned earlier
    in his comments a hearing that we had a month or so ago focused
    on travel and to what extent agencies were using really too
    much money in some cases for travel, when they could just as
    easily have done meetings by teleconference or by
    videoconference. Some agencies are doing a real good job and
    others are not. If you had to look at your agencies to say
    there are a couple of things we think we do really well that
    maybe the rest of the Federal Government or others in the
    Federal Government could benefit by replicating what we do,
    does anything come to mind as a really best practice?
        Mr. Ucko. Certainly the merit review process for us would
    be a best practice, and it is one that works throughout the
    agency, and the agency is really known for what is the gold
    standard for making Federal awards through that process.
        Senator Carper. Thank you.
        Ms. Radice. I would say in addition to the review process,
    I believe IMLS has been super in developing partnerships,
    whether it is with the American Association of Museums or
    heritage preservation or you name it, we are open to
    partnerships, and we are very concerned about travel. When we
    can do it through the Internet we do. In many instances,
    though, there are large regional meetings and we will send
    someone because it is a face-to-face opportunity. I might also
    say that from what my notes tell me, there are over 200 museums
    in Oklahoma, and over 50 in Delaware, so you are very well
    represented.
        Senator Carper. I had no idea they had that many museums in
    Oklahoma. I knew we had 50. Thanks to both of you. Thank you.
        Ms. Radice. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Coburn. Thank you all very much, and you will
    receive some written questions from the Subcommittee.
        Mr. Ucko. Thank you.
        Ms. Radice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Coburn. Our next witnesses is Thomas Schatz,
    President of Citizens Against Government Waste. He is a
    nationally recognized spokesperson on government waste and has
    appeared on national television and radio talk shows as
    President of CAGW. They released their 2006 Congressional Pig
    Book today, an important resource for taxpayers where they can
    learn how Congress is spending money.
        Also Edward Able, President and CEO of the American
    Association of Museums. Mr. Able has served as the President
    and CEO of AAM since 1986. He served for 9 years as Chief Staff
    Executive of the American Society of Landscape Architects and
    the Landscape Architecture Foundation. He also served for 4\1/
    2\ years as Assistant Director of the Resident Associate
    Program at the Smithsonian Institution.
        I welcome you both. I will apologize to you that we will be
    leaving here in about 8 or 9 minutes, so your complete
    testimony will be made part of the record. Mr. Schatz, I will
    recognize you, and if we could do it in 2 or 3 minutes to give
    us a chance to ask some questions, it would be very important.

     TESTIMONY OF THOMAS A. SCHATZ,\1\ PRESIDENT, CITIZENS AGAINST
                            GOVERNMENT WASTE

        Mr. Schatz. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
    specifically for joining us this morning. We really appreciate
    your support of our efforts to reduce pork barrel spending, and
    your oversight, as well as you, Senator Carper. Somebody is
    trying to look at all of this, and we appreciate the fact that
    there are oversight hearings.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Schatz appears in the Appendix on
    page 33.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        When it comes to museums, Citizens Against Government Waste
    has uncovered more than one-thousand museum-related earmarks
    since 1995. Your number is $567 million, and it is even a
    little higher than ours, with about $27 million for 79 projects
    this year. Your first two witnesses certainly talked at great
    length and appropriately about the merit review and peer review
    process. We think that is the way museums should be funded.
        So instead of adding more money to those particular
    agencies, Congress decided to go ahead and earmark projects
    itself. The Institute of Museum and Library Sciences has funded
    eight museum projects, at least on their Website that we could
    see, six of which are along the Gulf Coast. But Members of
    Congress decided they did not want to do that, they would
    rather fund places like the Sparta Teapot Museum, in Sparta,
    North Carolina. I do not know who might go there, it is 77
    miles from Winston-Salem, clearly they didn't think they could
    pass muster with these agencies, and that may be one reason why
    it was added.
        We have the Youth Health Museum in Boone County, Missouri,
    which got $750,000. In looking at the projects that the
    Institute funds, they are no more than $150,000. So not only
    are these not peer reviewed, often times the amounts are much
    higher. So we hope at least that these museums and everybody
    who wants money for a project will go through the peer-review
    process. And we also, of course, fully support the earmark
    reforms that you and others are trying to pass in Congress so
    we at least have a chance to see what exactly we are doing with
    our money.
        While this is one area, it is an important one because we
    are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars over the
    years that may or may not be going to museums that are
    worthwhile or have passed some kind of peer review, but we
    think that is the least that they should do.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for printing my
    entire testimony in the record.
        Senator Coburn. Thank you very much for your concise
    statement.
        Mr. Able, thank you much for being here.

        TESTIMONY OF EDWARD H. ABLE, JR.,\1\ PRESIDENT AND CEO,
                    AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF MUSEUMS

        Mr. Able. I am going to try and compile this a little bit
    shorter. I will try and hit the high points for you.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Able appears in the Appendix on
    page 36.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        AAM is the national organization that serves the entire
    museum community. We have 20,000 members, and all types and
    sizes of museums, A to Z, art museums and aquaria, to youth
    museums and zoos, and everything in between, museums with
    budgets of several hundred million, to one of $2,000.
        I want to at least mention to you in the short time that I
    have what we have discovered in the museum financial surveys
    that we regularly conduct. The most recent one shows that in
    spite of the public perception, museums are not wealthy
    organizations. I think we are perceived that way because of our
    collections, but that is not the case. Collections are not
    assets that we use.
        In the other research, we learned that the public believes
    that government primarily funds museums. That is not the case.
    About 25 percent of the funding for all museums in the country
    comes from government. The lion's share, 95 percent of it,
    comes from State and local government, not from the Federal
    Government. The Federal Government provides about 5 percent.
    Earned income represents 30 percent of the revenue required for
    our museums. But by far the largest source is 35 percent coming
    from the generous philanthropy of private citizens, businesses,
    foundations, and corporations.
        Museums compete with other charities for all of that money,
    and it takes all those pieces put together. I know that there
    is a great assumption that admissions, for example, fund a lot
    of our museums, the more people we get, the more money we make.
    We bring in about $5 plus on average from every visitor to a
    museum, everything they spend, admissions, shop sales, it costs
    us $21 per attendee. And we have in excess of 850 million
    visits a year to America's museums, and we maintain the
    collections of 750 million objects, which forms America's
    heritage.
        I think that broad roles that museums play not only in
    education, but in strengthening economic development, Tulsa is
    a good example, where they even included their museums as a
    part of the economic development plan, Vision 2025, I think it
    is called.
        Senator Coburn. That is correct.
        Mr. Able. It is key to economic development. They generate
    an enormous amount of dollars from cultural tourism, in hotel
    tax, sales tax, restaurant tax, all of that, so they play a
    variety of roles.
        The Federal Government, we believe, has a role. We have a
    unique public-private partnership with government, but the
    majority of the support for museums in this country comes from
    the private sector and not from government, and we do want to
    maintain that. We do feel that the Federal Government does have
    a role.
        I want to tell you one quick thing which I have to get in
    here because in my 20 years, I do not consider myself the
    world's greatest expert in museums, but I do say I know enough
    to be dangerous.
        Senator Coburn. That is kind of like Senator Carper
    practicing medicine.
        Mr. Able. There you go. There is a great story about a
    museum right over here in Baltimore. It is called the American
    Visionary Art Museum. They have been working with the National
    Institute on Aging to dispel the stereotypes of old age. In the
    program's first year, medical students from Johns Hopkins
    University were paired with community members age 65 and older.
    Participants in the program visited the museum, met with
    artists, and took drawing lessons together. The results on the
    older participants was as was expected. They felt more
    vitality, creativity, and improved attitudes about aging. The
    effect of the program on the medical students was astounding.
    Participating medical students who planned to obtain
    specialized training in geriatrics doubled from 10 to 20
    percent. One student noted, ``Programs like this could increase
    hope for geriatrics and make it a more appealing specialty.''
        This is an example of the way that I am always talking
    about museums changing lives in unexpected ways, and the
    Federal support and participation in this effort is a critical
    component of it. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Coburn. Let me ask you a question real quick, and
    then we are going to have to run. I apologize again, and we
    will submit questions for the record.
        The Subcommittee research on this says that American museum
    attendance is declining.
        Mr. Able. No, I do not agree with that.
        Senator Coburn. Do you have data that you can give the
    Subcommittee on that that would show that differently?
        Mr. Able. We do.
        Senator Coburn. The basis for my question is this. For the
    benefits to be gained, we have this wonderful infrastructure
    out there, how do we get more utilization of it?
        Mr. Able. We are trying to figure that out because that is
    one of the reasons that is driving so much museum expansion. In
    the prime visiting periods, Senator, we are overpopulated with
    people. We are cheek by jowl in many of our museums. If you go
    into the Smithsonian or any of the museums on the weekend, it
    is really undermining the quality of the individual visit. So
    we are talking to our museums about shifting their hours, to be
    open more in the evening, to take some of the pressure off the
    peak visiting times.
        But visitorship is not dropping. We had a slight downturn
    after September 11 because of the drop in travel and tourism,
    but that was a very limited period of time.
        Senator Coburn. Let me ask one other question. You are a
    taxpayer, I presume.
        Mr. Able. Yes, I am. Very much so, sir.
        Senator Coburn. The real Federal deficit last year was $520
    billion.
        Mr. Able. I don't like that either.
        Senator Coburn. What we're doing is just putting it on our
    kids' backs.
        Mr. Able. I agree.
        Senator Coburn. If you were sitting in our position today,
    would you agree that what we ought to be doing is making
    priorities out of where we spend our money and that maybe we
    don't want to cut spending, but maybe we can't increase
    spending everywhere we would like and that the defense of the
    country, Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, education, and if
    we could freeze or hold where we are, could you all make it? In
    other words, the real question is, where are we going to get
    the money to continue to be the 5 percent that you want us to
    be, because right now it is not there? What is happening is we
    are going on and spending the 5 percent, but we are using the
    credit card to charge it to our grand kids. The perspective of
    both who you represent and your interests there, but also your
    perspective as a taxpayer, can you give us any wisdom on where
    you would send it?
        Mr. Able. In fact, I have seen the Federal support for
    museums actually drop over the last decade. By the time you
    take the actual cuts that were meted out to both the Institute
    of Museum and Library Services, the National Endowment for the
    Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and then you
    take inflation on top of that, the support of our museums is
    actually less than it was a decade ago. Yet the cost and the
    expansion of our public service, the public attendance at
    museums grew from 486 million visits in 1989, to 850 million in
    1999. That is almost double in one decade. In fact, I feel that
    we have experienced a cut, and I certainly appreciate the
    Federal deficit and I appreciate the challenge that the
    Congress has in trying to figure out not only how much money to
    allocate, but the process by which it is allocated.
        Senator Coburn. I won't have anything else to ask, and I
    have to leave.
        Senator Carper. The Chairman has asked you a couple of
    questions. I was going to try to get a feel for that 5 percent
    number, whether it is rising, going down, or stable. It sounds
    like the percentage of the Federal contribution is actually
    down a little bit.
        Mr. Able. It is down, yes.
        Senator Carper. If that is down, is there some other part,
    whether it is philanthropy, that has grown?
        Mr. Able. Philanthropy has really grown from, I think, 19
    percent to 35 percent, and our museums have been very ingenious
    in finding other ways of generating funds.
        Senator Carper. Could you give us a couple of good
    examples?
        Mr. Able. For example, they will host special events. They
    are adding spaces that don't expose the collection to damage
    where they can actually host special events for conferences and
    conventions and things like that, because it is very good to
    have the events in there. Royalties for reproductions and
    adaptations from our collections. Parking fees. The museum shop
    sales. Every place we can get it, frankly. But philanthropy is
    the biggest portion.
        Senator Carper. I want to go back to the number of people
    that are actually visiting the museums. Did I understand you to
    say that in the last decade it was up almost double?
        Mr. Able. In a decade from 486 million to 850 million.
        Senator Carper. In our museums, and, frankly museums around
    the country, they have some great space and interesting
    exhibits, and a lot of them rent out their spaces for
    receptions, dinners, and the like.
        Mr. Able. Right, and they get a substantial amount of
    income. I know of several museums that receive as much as 20
    percent of their budget because they have a specialized space
    they can use for that, and it is a very desirable space for
    meetings, conferences, dinners, and receptions.
        Senator Carper. Mr. Schatz, if I could, just one question.
    The question relates to earmarks. You may well not know this,
    but if you do, if you would give us some guidance, I would
    appreciate it. There is a widespread suspicion that the
    percentage of earmarks that goes to appropriators, those who
    serve on the Appropriations Committees in the House and in the
    Senate, might be just a little bit greater than the percentage
    of the earmarks that go to those who do not serve on the
    Appropriations Committees. Can you put any light on that?
        Mr. Schatz. I don't think it's a suspicion, I think it's
    true. Certainly the number up here, it says 64 percent directed
    to the States of appropriators makes sense, and in our
    Congressional Pig Book we list pork per capita, and that is
    Alaska, Hawaii, West Virginia, North Dakota, it's the States
    that are represented in this case mostly by Senators from those
    States as the sole member of the Appropriations Committee in
    the House or the Senate.
        There have been examples where earmarks have come in for
    hospitals. I believe this was about 2 years ago. Some 75
    percent went to hospitals in the States and Districts of
    members of the Appropriations Committee. So 60 to 70 percent
    would not be an unreasonable estimate.
        That is one of the problems. As the first panel pointed
    out, some of these museums may be worthwhile, they may have
    merit, but when they are added as an earmark, there really is
    no way to distinguish them. And your question about how can you
    judge any kind of merit, we have existing institutions that do
    that. So if Congress wanted to fund additional museums, if they
    thought this 5 percent was not enough or they found another way
    to finance it, let these agencies make those decisions.
        Senator Carper. What did you call the book that you
    released today?
        Mr. Schatz. The Congressional Pig Book.
        Senator Carper. For folks to have the opportunity to appear
    and to grace the pages of the Pig Book, do they have to be
    prodigious appropriators in terms of getting earmarks for their
    States?
        Mr. Schatz. You're not in it.
        Senator Carper. That is probably not a good thing during an
    election year.
        Mr. Schatz. But you have lots of other things you can talk
    about. Generally, yes, it is appropriators.
        Senator Carper. These other States you mentioned, Alaska,
    West Virginia and some States, I wonder if they consider
    putting a badge of pride or a badge of shame back in their
    States? It would be interesting.
        Mr. Schatz. I don't think I can say in public what Senators
    Stevens and Byrd have called this in the past, but in any
    event, yes, it depends on how you look at it, but it is a
    disproportionate use of those funds if you're going to spend
    the $29 billion that we identified. Of course, it has gotten
    members literally thrown in jail. That is how Congressman
    Cunningham got into trouble, and it's related to the Jack
    Abramoff and Tony Rudy situation, so there are a lot of reasons
    why earmark reform is necessary and I hope you will be one that
    will support that.
        Senator Carper. Thanks to both of you. I'm sorry that this
    has been somewhat truncated, but we are grateful that you are
    here and very much appreciate your testimony.
        Mr. Schatz. Thank you.
        Mr. Able. Thank you.
        Senator Carper. The hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 3:15 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27760.001

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27760.002

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27760.003

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27760.004

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27760.005

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27760.006

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27760.007

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27760.008

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27760.009

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27760.010

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27760.011

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27760.012

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27760.013

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27760.014

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27760.015

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27760.016

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27760.017

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27760.018

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27760.019

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27760.020

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27760.021

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27760.022

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27760.023

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27760.024

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27760.025

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27760.026

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27760.027

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27760.028

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27760.029

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27760.030

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27760.031

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27760.032

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27760.033

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27760.034

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27760.035

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27760.036

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27760.037

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27760.038

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27760.039

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27760.040