U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the 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

27–760 PDF 2007

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

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota 

FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas

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 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

THOMAS CARPER, Delaware 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota 

FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas

KATY FRENCH, Staff Director 

SHEILA MURPHY, Minority Staff Director 

JOHN KILVINGTON, Minority Deputy Staff Director 

LIZ SCRANTON, Chief Clerk 

(III)

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

(1)

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 

2

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 

3

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. 

4

1The prepared statement of Ms. Radice appears in the Appendix on page 17. 

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. 

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 AlbrightKnox 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 anVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:28 Jan 18, 2007 Jkt 027760 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\27760.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
5

1The prepared statement of Mr. Ucko appears in the Appendix on page 23. 

nounce 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. 

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, 

6

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 thirdparty 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 

7

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 budg- et 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 

8

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? 

9

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 

10

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 

11

1The prepared statement of Mr. Schatz appears in the Appendix on page 33. 

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 41⁄2 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 

12

1The prepared statement of Mr. Able appears in the Appendix on page 36. 

look at all of this, and we appreciate the fact that there are oversight hearings. 

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. 

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 

13

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.’’

14

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 

15

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 

16

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.] 

(17)

A P P E N D I X 


27760.001
18


27760.002
19


27760.003
20


27760.004
21


27760.005
22


27760.006
23


27760.007
24


27760.008
25


27760.009
26


27760.010
27


27760.011
28


27760.012
29


27760.013
30


27760.014
31


27760.015
32


27760.016
33


27760.017
34


27760.018
35


27760.019
36


27760.020
37


27760.021
38


27760.022
39


27760.023
40


27760.024
41


27760.025
42


27760.026
43


27760.027
44


27760.028
45


27760.029
46


27760.030
47


27760.031
48


27760.032
49


27760.033
50


27760.034
51


27760.035
52


27760.036
53


27760.037
54


27760.038
55


27760.039
56

Æ


27760.040