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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

36–683 PDF 2007

PUBLIC/PRIVATE RESPONSIBILITY FOR

FUNDING NATIONAL TREASURES:

THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

AND THE JOHN F. KENNEDY CENTER

(110–52)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JUNE 15, 2007

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

(

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

VACANCY 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

TED POE, Texas 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

(II)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of Columbia, Chairwoman 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

(Ex Officio) 

(III)

(V)

CONTENTS Page

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vi 

TESTIMONY 

Kaiser, Michael, President, John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts . 3

Samper, Cristian, Acting Secretary, Smithsonian Institution ............................. 3

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Graves, Hon. Sam, of Missouri ............................................................................... 38

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Kaiser, Michael M. .................................................................................................. 42

Samper, Cristian ...................................................................................................... 45

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Samper, Cristian, Acting Secretary, Smithsonian Institution, responses to 

questions from the Subcommittee ....................................................................... 53

vi


36683.001
vii


36683.002
viii


36683.003
ix


36683.004
(1)

PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RESPONSIBILITY FOR 

MAINTAINING OUR NATIONAL TREASURES: 

THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION AND THE 

JOHN F. KENNEDY CENTER 

Friday, June 15, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC

BUILDINGS AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:45 a.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton 

[chairman of the subcommittee] Presiding. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, I apologize. Well, I have to apologize for the 

House of Representatives because we had a backlog of 24 votes. I 

do not believe that there has ever been that kind of backlog before. 

It was because of an issue that arose on the floor before, and not 

only are you being detained, but witnesses all over the House are 

being detained. So you have our apologies. 

I would like to say good morning while it still is good morning, 

and welcome to today’s witnesses. I am pleased to welcome our distinguished panel. Excuse me a minute. 

I am sorry. That was my first version. 

Mr. Kaiser, I understand that you have an appointment, and I 

am going to let you go first, and Mr. Graves has indicated he will 

come when he can. He is our Ranking Member. 

I am pleased to welcome our distinguished panel and our witnesses to this hearing on public and private responsibility for maintaining our national treasures, the Smithsonian Institution and the 

John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, and I look forward to today’s testimony. 

These historic institutions are unique, priceless and irreplaceable, and they must be maintained in splendor and dignity for the 

American people. The John F. Kennedy Center is not only a premier performing arts center, but also a Presidential memorial like 

the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial. The Smithsonian contains major artifacts reflecting American art, culture and 

development. These historic institutions have a rich history. 

Initial funding for the construction of the John F. Kennedy Center came from gifts, donations and contributions in the amount of 

approximately $34.5 million. The total construction cost of the 

building was approximately $78 million, and the Kennedy Center 

later opened in 1971. The Kennedy Center became a living memoVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:47 Apr 09, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\36683 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
2

rial to President Kennedy, and it remains a tribute to the love and 

appreciation of the arts. Today the Kennedy Center plays host to 

theater, ballet and a variety of musical genres and multimedia performances for all ages. 

The Smithsonian Institution was established after an English businessman James Smithson bequeathed $500,000, and Congress 

appropriated the interest from the initial endowment to establish 

the Smithsonian Institution. Since its founding, the Smithsonian 

has become a unique complex of world-class museums and galleries, educational showplaces, and unique research centers; and it 

has continued to grow with trust funds, donations from American 

culture and life and financial contributions. However, most of its 

funding continues to come from Federal appropriations. Today, the 

Smithsonian Institution has 19 museums and galleries, 9 research 

facilities, the National Zoo, and the National Museum of African 

American History and Culture, now approved by Congress, is seeking funding. 

The Kennedy Center also gets some Federal funding to maintain 

the facility, but must raise considerable private funds. The Smithsonian under former Secretary Lawrence Small raised $1 billion in 

private donations, an impressive sum, and the kind of private funding the institution should continue to try to obtain. However, according to press reports, the Smithsonian Board of Regents approved several controversial expenditures by Mr. Small. The former 

Secretary consequently resigned amidst several allegations, including overspending on our housing allowance, personal use of the 

Smithsonian artifacts, in addition to a number of expenses having 

insufficient or no justification. The Regents have now responded by 

creating an independent review board to monitor and examine expenses, as well as a governance committee to examine board actions and responsibilities. 

The conduct of the former Secretary was clearly inappropriate. 

However, its offensive nature over a number of years raises serious 

questions concerning oversight by the Board of Regents and by 

Congress. The self-study and corrections by the Regents that are 

resulting are nothing short of mandatory, but in light of the seriousness of the issues raised and the public criticism of a major 

American institution that depends on Federal funding, Congress 

would be remiss if we left the Smithsonian to its own oversight 

alone once again. 

Larger questions concerning the appropriate mix of congressional 

and private funding and how to achieve both are raised, as well as 

congressional neglect of the Smithsonian and of its congressional 

funding responsibilities and the composition of the Board, consisting of distinguished Americans, many with enormous and overriding public responsibilities elsewhere, which clearly did not leave 

them sufficient time to meet their fiduciary obligations. 

The disturbing idea of an admission fee into the Butterfly Habitat Garden was recently proposed. The fact that the Smithsonian 

has remained free and open to the public for its entire history is 

an important and a distinguished legacy to maintain. If that tradition is to be changed, Congress should look very closely at why a 

change is necessary, and only Congress should make such a 

change. 

3

I am interested in seeking alternatives and options. Whether 

gradual or rapid, if one of our institutions or exhibitions gets a 

pass, in fairness there will be no reason to deny the same to others. 

Providing unfettered access to America’s rich cultural heritage in 

the Nation’s Capital is a cherished tradition we must strive to 

maintain. This hearing provides a useful opportunity to look seriously at both of these revered institutions for the purpose of comparing the Board oversight, fundraising and other practices. As different from one another as they are, both are Federal treasures. 

We hope that this hearing on both may fertilize the search for solutions to issues affecting each. 

I will soon introduce legislation that I believe is appropriate 

under the circumstances. The Kennedy Center and the Smithsonian continue to live up to their informal designation as ′′national 

treasures′′; however, the time is overdue to take a fresh look at 

these iconic American institutions to assure the American public 

that they are equipped to meet 21st century challenges. We look 

forward to the testimony of the top executives from both the Smithsonian and from the John F. Kennedy Center concerning how they 

see these challenges and the viability of these two great American 

institutions. 

Thank you very much. 

The Ranking Member is not here, so I will proceed straightaway 

to Mr. Kaiser. 

Mr. KAISER. I will submit my testimony for the record to allow 

you to have time for questions, Madam Chairman. 

Ms. NORTON. I would like you to say something, Mr. Kaiser. 

Mr. KAISER. You would like me to say something? 

Ms. NORTON. I certainly would. You may summarize your testimony. 

Mr. KAISER. Yes, ma’am. 

I will talk about how——

Ms. NORTON. You may summarize your testimony for 5 minutes. 

That would be helpful. 

TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL KAISER, PRESIDENT, JOHN F. KENNEDY CENTER FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS; AND CRISTIAN 

SAMPER, ACTING SECRETARY, SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION 

Mr. KAISER. I will do that, ma’am. I will leave out the sections 

that discuss the programming itself, and talk about how that programming is funded. 

Kennedy Center programming is supported by a mix of government, private and earned income. As a Presidential memorial, the 

Center receives an annual Federal appropriation of approximately 

$35 million per year. I should point out that the direct Federal 

funding provided to the Kennedy Center is used only for the operation, maintenance and capital repair of the Presidential monument. 

The Kennedy Center building consists of 1.5 million square feet 

of usable floor space on 17 acres of land. The building contains nine 

theaters, two public restaurants, nine special event rooms, five 

public galleries, halls and foyers, and approximately 50,000 square 

feet of administrative offices. 

4

Over the next 24 months, we will conclude a 10-year renovation 

project that has included major renovations of our concert hall, 

opera house, Eisenhower Theater, and grand foyer, and has included a major redesign of our grounds and an installation of updated security and life safety systems. These projects have all been 

funded by congressional appropriations; however, our original statute prohibits the use of these Federal funds for any programming 

expenses. 

The extensive programming and education activities at the Center that it presents and provides are supported through private 

contributions of almost $50 million annually, not counting other 

government grants or endowment earnings, which total an additional $20 million each year. In addition, the Center earns approximately $65 million each year from ticket sales, parking fees, food 

service, space rental, and our gift shops. In sum, government funding represents one-quarter of our total annual operating budget. 

We are deeply grateful for the support. 

My experience at the Kennedy Center mirrors my experience at 

other arts organizations that I have managed both in the United 

States and abroad. At the Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater, at 

the American Ballet Theater and at the Royal Opera House, a substantial portion of the budget was covered by private contributions. 

The majority of this funding came from individual donors, with 

substantial additional support from corporations and foundations. 

In every case strong artistic and educational programming was the 

key to private fundraising. An aggressive marketing campaign and 

a strong board of directors were also prerequisites. Fortunately, I 

am blessed with each of these assets at the Kennedy Center. 

I thank the subcommittee for its continued support of the Kennedy Center, and I am pleased to answer any questions that members of the subcommittee may have. 

Thank you very much. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kaiser. 

Ms. NORTON. Dr. Samper. 

Mr. SAMPER. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the 

opportunity to testify before this committee today. 

We are grateful for the support of the administration and of the 

Congress and look forward to working with you to make the Smithsonian even stronger. 

As you mentioned, the Smithsonian is the world’s largest museum and research complex. Historian David McCulloughrecently 

described the Smithsonian as a storehouse of ideas, and it is that 

and much more, thanks to the people here. Thanks to them, we 

offer accurate, insightful and inspiring experiences. The Smithsonian has a talented workforce of more than 6,000 employees, scientists, historians, educators, curators, custodians, and many more, 

and they all do a great job in caring for our world-class collections, 

expanding our premier research, and presenting the story of what 

it means to be an American. 

The Smithsonian is a public-private partnership that was established back in 1846 thanks to a generous bequest from British scientist James Smithson with the mission of the ′′increase and diffusion of knowledge.′′ as structured by Congress, it is a unique entity, 

an independent trust establishment of the United States. The 

5

House select committee that originally considered the Smithsonian 

bequest was chaired by former President and Congressman from 

Massachusetts John Quincy Adams. 

Supreme Court Justice Holmes wrote back in 1928, and I quote, 

′′Congress long ago established the Smithsonian Institution, to 

question which would be to lay hands on the Ark of the Covenant,′′

end of quote. 

This certainly does not mean that the governance of the Institution is above scrutiny. As you mentioned, the Board of Regents has 

appointed a three-person independent review committee to review 

the issues relating to compensation and expenses, which you mentioned, and we expect to have their report available on June 20th, 

and we also look forward to reviewing and implementing their recommendations. 

The Board of Regents has also created a new Permanent Committee on Governance, and this report will be considered by the Regents at a meeting next Monday. We will work with Congress to 

improve accountability and to expand the valuable service that the 

Smithsonian offers to the public. 

One of the biggest obstacles that we face in this effort is our facilities maintenance problem. Some of our buildings are treasures 

in their own right, but, more importantly, they enable us to educate the public, to exhibit national collections and to create the experience of a lifetime for our visitors. We are expanding that experience for learners of all ages around the world with more offerings 

on line, which is an expensive undertaking. 

Today the Smithsonian owns or leases more than 700 buildings 

and structures in the District of Columbia, seven States, Panama, 

Belize, and Chile, a total of about 10.2 million square feet of owned 

space and about 1.7 million square feet of leased space, with an estimated replacement value of $5.1 billion. Some buildings are new. 

Many are decades old. Some are 150 years old. More than half are 

more than 25 years old. It is an expensive, challenging task to care 

of such collections and to keep our workers and visitors safe, especially in the post-9/11 world where security is vitally important. 

Both the National Academy of Public Administration and the 

Government Accountability Office examined this matter and underscored its seriousness. The GAO said that the current funding levels are insufficient to provide the estimated $2.5 billion that is required to fix and maintain the Institution’s facilities in the coming 

years. The Smithsonian has demonstrated that, with sufficient resources, it can manage large, complex projects. Over the last 5 

years, the Smithsonian’s facilities’ capital obligation rate has averaged over 90 percent. 

We have in the last few years opened two new museums, the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center of the National Air and Space Museum 

and the National Museum of the American Indian on the Mall. We 

have revitalized the historic Patent Office building, which now 

houses the Donald W. Reynolds Center, and launched, as you mentioned, the National Museum of African American History and Culture, as well as opened many new exhibitions and completed stateof-the-art storage facilities for our collections that are stored in 

flammable alcohol. 

6

The GAO Office said in its April 2007 testimony before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, and I quote, ′′The 

Smithsonian has done a very good job in centralizing and improving and professionalizing the facilities management of the Smithsonian and its operations over the last couple of years,′′ end quote. 

Our museums, galleries and research centers house some of 

America’s greatest treasures. Historically the Federal Government 

has recognized its responsibility to ensure that these treasures are 

housed, preserved and exhibited in facilities adequate to the task. 

We are grateful for the support and continue to work to correct this 

massive backlog and to obtain the funds that are required for the 

research and activities. With the help of Congress, we can solve 

these problems. 

Again, thank you for this opportunity, and I look forward to answering your questions. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Dr. Samper. 

I will ask you both: What is the percentage, on an annual basis, 

of funds from Federal appropriations that each of you receive? 

Mr. Kaiser. 

Mr. KAISER. For our operating budget, 25 percent of our budget 

is covered by Federal funds. 

Ms. NORTON. So, annually you receive 25 percent? 

Mr. KAISER. For our operating budget. The Government then further pays for our capital costs, for 100 percent of our capital costs. 

Ms. NORTON. I am only talking about the operating budget. 

Mr. KAISER. Twenty-five percent of our operating budget, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. Dr. Samper. 

Mr. SAMPER. Of the overall budget of the Smithsonian, about 70 

percent of the total budget is provided by Federal funds, and that 

would include capital investments. 

Ms. NORTON. About 70 percent, did you say? 

Mr. SAMPER. Seventy percent of the total budget. 

Ms. NORTON. Have these amounts remained, in real dollar terms, 

constant over the past several years for both of you? In other 

words, have there been increases? Are there increases for anything 

except for the cost of staff? Would you explain to me whether this 

25 percent has been constant in terms of expenses? 

Mr. KAISER. It has, actually, diminished slightly over time because the real costs of running the Center have increased more 

quickly than the government appropriation has. 

Ms. NORTON. But the Government in the case of the John F. 

Kennedy Center has never intended to pay for the entire operating 

cost. 

Mr. KAISER. That is correct. 

Ms. NORTON. How do you arrive at 25 percent, Mr. Kaiser? 

Mr. KAISER. The 25 percent comes from the appropriation of approximately $20 million for the maintenance of the building, for the 

annual maintenance of the building; $15 million we receive 

through the Department of Education for education programs both 

by the Kennedy Center and our affiliate VSA Arts, and there is a 

$1 million grant that comes to arts organizations in the D.C. area. 

Ms. NORTON. So that sounds like an amount for a particular 

year. 

Mr. KAISER. That is correct. 

7

Ms. NORTON. Overall it amounts to about 25 percent? 

Mr. KAISER. Overall it amounts to 25 percent. 

Ms. NORTON. And that has stayed constant? 

Mr. KAISER. As I said, it has fallen slightly because the real costs 

of running the Center have increased, and the Federal appropriations have increased less rapidly. 

Ms. NORTON. Dr. Samper. 

Mr. SAMPER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The overall budget of the Smithsonian has increased, and the appropriation from the Federal Government has increased in the last 

few years, but the majority of that increase has gone to two areas. 

We have seen an increase for facilities, upgrades and maintenance 

in particular, which has allowed us to make——

Ms. NORTON. I want the operating fund, not the capital fund. 

Mr. SAMPER. What we would call the ′′salaries and expenses 

account′′ includes our maintenance budget. We have seen increases 

there, which has allowed us to improve some of our maintenance, 

and we have also seen some increases for the new museums that 

have opened specifically. But if you were to look at the overall account for salaries and expenses, we would see that the overall account has not kept up with inflation and with the mandatory pay 

increases, and that has resulted in an overall decrease in the overall number of FTEs available at the various museums across the 

Smithsonian. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Kaiser, I recognize that the Kennedy Center is 

a different species of animal in some respects, but, in effect, it 

means you have to raise considerable funds on an annual basis. 

Mr. KAISER. I do. I also have the benefit of ticket sales, which 

is a very substantial portion of our budget. 

Ms. NORTON. And that is what I am getting to. 

What percentage comes from what you have to raise and from 

ticket sales? 

Mr. KAISER. What we have to raise and ticket sales are roughly 

equal, within a few percentage points for the remainder of the 

budget. So, roughly, 40 percent each. 

Ms. NORTON. How do you raise——

Mr. KAISER. Thirty-seven percent each. 

Ms. NORTON. Typically how do you raise the private funds, Mr. 

Kaiser? 

Mr. KAISER. It is like a military campaign. 

Ms. NORTON. Each year? 

Mr. KAISER. Each year, which includes four major components. 

About 55 percent of that funding comes from individual people, 

people who value the work we do. 

Ms. NORTON. That is from solicitations? 

Mr. KAISER. From solicitations that range from people who give 

us $5 a year to people who give us more than $1 million a year. 

Ms. NORTON. Does that mean you have an annual solicitation 

campaign that you send out and ask the public for funds? 

Mr. KAISER. That is true for the smaller-level grants. For the 

larger-level grants, it is done person to person. 

Ms. NORTON. So people can contribute to the Kennedy Center? 

Mr. KAISER. People can contribute. They can become members of 

the Kennedy Center. 

8

Ms. NORTON. How much is your membership? 

Mr. KAISER. Fifty dollars a year is the lowest membership, but 

we have people, again, who give us over $1 million a year, and 

there are various efforts. You do a direct mail campaign to raise 

$50. You do not do a direct mail campaign to raise $1 million from 

a donor. So that is 55 percent of the fundraising. Twenty percent 

of the fundraising comes from corporations both in the form of corporate memberships or in the form of corporate underwriting for 

particular events. 

Ms. NORTON. What do the corporations require when you ask 

them to underwrite an event? 

Mr. KAISER. Typically corporations are looking for visibility, 

which means their names in programs, their names on signage, 

their names on advertising, et cetera. Other corporations are looking for corporate entertaining opportunities where they can bring 

their larger customers to performances. It is those two key services 

that a corporation might require. 

Ms. NORTON. So, if they come to see performances, they will not 

have to pay since they paid——

Mr. KAISER. They will still buy tickets, but they would like to be 

able to get a group and have a dinner or such for their clients. 

Another 20 percent comes from events. The big events are four 

each year. The major ones are our spring gala and the Kennedy 

Center Honors, at which we raise about 20 percent in total for the 

Kennedy Center’s fundraising. The remaining 5 percent are from 

professionally managed foundations. Those are the larger foundations. They are the smallest piece of our fundraising effort. Each 

of these efforts entails a different kind of fundraising campaign. 

Ms. NORTON. As to private fundraising, what sorts of increases 

or not have occurred since you have been at the helm? 

Mr. KAISER. We have, roughly, doubled private fundraising in the 

last 6-1/2 years. 

Ms. NORTON. How did you do that? 

Mr. KAISER. To be quite honest, I think it is through both stronger programming, both educational and artistic, and then very aggressive marketing of that programming. In my experience, those 

are the two requirements. 

Ms. NORTON. When you say the ′′marketing,′′ do you mean the 

marketing of the performances? 

Mr. KAISER. More it is the marketing of the institution. It is 

what I call ′′institutional marketing.′′ it is getting people excited 

about your organization and believing nationwide that the Kennedy 

Center serves a purpose for the whole country. 

You should note, Madam Chairman, that 60 percent of our fundraising comes from outside of the Washington, D.C., area, which is 

a testimony to the work we have done, particularly in education, 

to be important in each State of the Union. 

Ms. NORTON. How are you doing that? Since you are one building 

located in the District of Columbia, how have you managed to get 

people and others outside of the District and this area interested 

in your work? 

Mr. KAISER. Sure. To answer that question, I need to separate 

it into two parts. 

9

The actual programming, doing the educational work outside, involves a series of activities. We bring trainers to teachers across 

America. We train 25,000 teachers a year to bring the arts into the 

classroom. 

Ms. NORTON. You train them in what? 

Mr. KAISER. To bring arts into the classroom so that, for example, if you are teaching American history, and you want to look at 

American modern dance and its relevancy to the civil rights movement, we would teach you how to do that as a history teacher. 

Ms. NORTON. How do you teach that, by technology, or do you 

bring them here or what? 

Mr. KAISER. We do it in three ways. We bring them here; we go 

there; and it is through technology. We run a Web site called Arts 

Edge, which allows——

Ms. NORTON. Do they pay a fee for this? 

Mr. KAISER. No. This is all free of charge. All of our educational 

programming is free of charge, and so there is the effort to bring 

arts into the classroom across the United States. 

Ms. NORTON. So, if you are seeking funds from rich Texas oil interests, you would talk about what you have done for teachers in 

the State of Texas? 

Mr. KAISER. That is exactly correct. We have a separate report 

about each State in which we work and what we do in that State, 

and then it is a question of building interest among funders in 

those States, and that is done through a series of committees that 

support the Kennedy Center that provide their own resources, but, 

more importantly, that provide access to us into their communities 

so that we can explain the work we are doing. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, what percentage of your funds comes from 

fundraising activities of one kind or the other of the Board? 

Mr. KAISER. I would say the Board gives us a little over 10 percent of our annual private fundraising, and that comes from their 

direct contributions. Then, in addition, many of our Board members 

are extremely helpful to us in providing access to other donors who 

help support the Kennedy Center. 

Ms. NORTON. Would you classify the composition of your Board? 

Mr. KAISER. Certainly, ma’am. 

There are 59 total members. Of those members, 36 are appointed 

by the President of the United States for 6-year terms; 14 are 

Members of Congress, who are appointed by the leaders of each 

House. 

Ms. NORTON. I guess they do not contribute much. 

Mr. KAISER. We have three members of the Cabinet on our 

Board, and then we have six ex officio members of our Board. 

Ms. NORTON. So what percentage of your Board then is from the 

private sector? 

Mr. KAISER. It is 36 out of the 59. So, roughly 65-66 percent. My 

math is not so good at this time. 

Ms. NORTON. How does that compare, if you know, to the Board 

at the Metropolitan Museum of Art or MoMA? 

Mr. KAISER. It is different. In other institutions throughout the 

United States, all of the board is appointed by the board, itself. 

That is, the board will have a nominating committee. That is true 

of the Metropolitan Museum or of the Metropolitan Opera or of any 

10

arts organization in the U.S. They have a nominating committee of 

its board, and they nominate members for the board to approve. So 

the board is self-perpetuating. The members are not appointed by 

any government agency. 

Ms. NORTON. Are all of your members appointed by the President? 

Mr. KAISER. Thirty-six are appointed by the President, and the 

remaining 23 are ex officio members. We have no Board members 

who are appointed by the Board itself. That makes it unusual. 

Ms. NORTON. I am not asking for names, but are people who 

serve an important post in the government, such as the Congress 

of the United States, frequent participants in your meetings and 

committee meetings? 

Mr. KAISER. I think it varies dramatically by member. 

Ms. NORTON. They what? 

Mr. KAISER. It varies dramatically by member. Some members 

are extremely involved and come very frequently, and others do 

not, but almost all send representatives, staff members to almost 

all of our committee and Board meetings. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, wouldn’t you say that the majority would 

have to send staff? 

Mr. KAISER. Yes, I would say the majority would have to send 

staff to our meetings. 

Ms. NORTON. Are there or have there been naming opportunities 

associated with your fundraising? 

Mr. KAISER. We are prohibited to name any physical spaces at 

the Kennedy Center because we are a Presidential memorial. We 

have been able to name particular programs. 

Ms. NORTON. Such as? Give me an example of a named program. 

Mr. KAISER. We would have the Fortas Series, which is our 

chamber music series, which was named for Justice Fortas, who 

gave the first endowment, that has been supplemented by his 

widow, to create our chamber music series. 

So we can name a series of performances, but we cannot name 

a physical space. The only physical space that is named at our 

Kennedy Center is our Eisenhower Theater, which was named 

after President Eisenhower because the original authorization of 

the Kennedy Center happened in 1958 under his administration. 

Ms. NORTON. I worked with the Kennedy Center when they had 

this grand plan, this grand and wonderful idea—I do not know if 

it came from you or from your predecessor—for a plaza and additional buildings, and most of this, of course, was to be privately 

funded. 

Could you tell the subcommittee whatever happened to these 

wonderful plans and whether or not, for example, there has been 

any work to connect the Kennedy Center to the rest of civilization 

so you could walk there? 

Mr. KAISER. It is a painful subject, ma’am. 

Shortly after I arrived, we began work on this project. Actually 

the initial work was done before I arrived at the Kennedy Center 

by the Department of Transportation, and we had planned to build 

the connection to essentially extend E Street from downtown all 

the way to the Kennedy Center, and to build two new buildings on 

this plaza that would have been created. It was a true public-priVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:47 Apr 09, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\36683 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
11

vate partnership where the government was going to pay—the Federal Government was going to pay to create the plaza and move the 

roads, and the Kennedy Center was going to raise private funds to 

build the two buildings on this plaza. 

We were able to raise very quickly $150 million of what we estimated to be a $300 million cost for the private buildings, but because of changes in the Highway Trust Fund legislation, we were 

not appropriated any Federal funds for this project. So that project 

is in abeyance. 

Ms. NORTON. Just to get the roads that would connect the Center 

so that people who walked through the Mall could get there, do you 

have any idea what that amount would be? 

Mr. KAISER. It was going to be roughly $600 million. 

Ms. NORTON. I am wondering whether you think being a Presidential standing memorial has been a benefit or a hindrance to you 

in fundraising. 

Mr. KAISER. It is so wrapped up in our identity that it is a hard 

question to answer. We think of ourselves first and foremost as a 

Presidential memorial. We believe that President Kennedy was so 

associated with the arts that it is an advantage to us to be creating 

art in his memory. We have never—we believe——

Ms. NORTON. If you were in New York or, for that matter, here, 

and you had your private institution that was already built, do you 

think it would be easier or more difficult? 

Mr. KAISER. I think it would be more difficult. I think we have 

had an advantage in being a Presidential memorial. 

Ms. NORTON. So, when people know you are a Federal institution 

representing a memorial to an assassinated President of the United 

States, does that add some cache when you come and ask for 

money as opposed to——

Mr. KAISER. I think the answer is ′′yes,′′ but I think, if our programming were not substantial, that would not be the case. I think 

far more people relate to specific programs we do, and if we had 

been named the ′′Kennedy Center′′ but were not living up to that 

name, I am not sure we would have an easy time raising money. 

Ms. NORTON. It has been a pleasant experience to go to the Kennedy Center since 9/11, and I don’t feel like I am going into a garrison. Would you explain how you have handled the security challenges presented to you and how you have been able to keep the 

Kennedy Center an open institution to the public? 

Mr. KAISER. Yes. It has been a big challenge, obviously, and 

there is a difference between security perception and security reality, and we have been focusing on the security reality, which is 

how do we keep people maximally safe. 

There have been two major projects. One has been to move much 

of the traffic further away from the Kennedy Center because it is 

our belief, and that of all of the experts we hire, that it is the cars 

and traffic that are much more of a risk to the Kennedy Center 

than any human being is. 

Ms. NORTON. Now, that was possible because the Federal Government funded that, and they funded that because of security. 

You can get infrastructure funds when it comes to security. 

Mr. KAISER. That is correct. 

12

Then there is substantial additional security throughout the 

building in ways I would rather not enumerate publicly——

Ms. NORTON. Yes, please. 

Mr. KAISER. —to protect the people who come into a building. 

What we did not decide to do was to have metal detectors, et 

cetera, and for a couple of reasons. 

Number one, as I stated, we do not believe an individual’s coming in is the main source of danger, but also, because so much of 

our traffic happens within a 1-1/2-hour period, we also are not in 

the situation where we have a steady flow of people coming in or 

of traffic coming in. We have a very concentrated flow of people. 

Ms. NORTON. So people can enter the building without going 

through a detector? 

Mr. KAISER. That is correct. 

Ms. NORTON. It is very important to note, and I am on the Homeland Security Committee as well, and we are still learning in this 

country, from being an entirely open society, to be an open society 

in a period of global terrorism. 

One thing that is quintessential to good management is determining the risks and consequences before shutting a place down 

and driving people away who are left really wondering what kind 

of place this has become, particularly when you consider this is a 

Presidential memorial. 

Mr. KAISER. We have, Madam Chairman, added about $120,000 

a year of expense for new security systems to make sure that we 

are as secure as possible. 

Ms. NORTON. Could you briefly update us on the fire safety program? 

Mr. KAISER. Surely. 

We have embarked, as I said, on a 10-year program to renovate 

the Center. So far we have installed new sprinkler systems in our 

concert hall, our opera house, our terrace theater, our family theater, our theater lab, our terrace gallery, our motor lobbies, our garages, our restaurants, our kitchen, our office areas, our mechanical and electrical rooms, and our elevator machine rooms. 

We implemented corrective work at fire separations. We have installed standpipe systems. We have refireproofed steel structures 

where needed, and we installed fire-rated enclosures and exit signs 

where needed. In addition, we added a fire alarm system and a 

public address system. 

What we are still yet to do and will complete within the next 24 

months is the finishing of the renovation of our Eisenhower Theater and also installing sprinklers in our roof, terrace level. This 

will be completed, as I say, within the next 24 months, and then 

we will have completely reinstalled a new fire system throughout 

the entire Kennedy Center. 

Ms. NORTON. Some of us are very enamored with your Shakespeare idea. Would you talk about that idea, how you have spread 

it and how you perceived it? 

Mr. KAISER. Surely, ma’am. 

I was very interested—we are interested at the Kennedy Center 

in being a good citizen within our community. I am particularly interested in the fate of the smaller arts institutions in Washington 

that may not get as much visibility as I think they deserve. So we 

13

conceived of a project that would involve arts organizations 

throughout the District and even some outside of the District, and 

the notion was that Shakespeare was a perfect vehicle because 

Shakespeare has such a huge influence on so many art forms. So 

we gathered a group of approximately 60 arts organizations 

throughout this area, each of which created a project that involved 

Shakespeare in some way, shape or form. 

The Building Museum, for example, created a Globe Theater. 

Many of the theater companies did productions of Shakespeare. 

The National Symphony Orchestra did music inspired by Shakespeare. We have jazz performances inspired by Shakespeare, et 

cetera. 

Over the last 6 months, the entire D.C. area arts community has 

worked together to create this project. It has received a great deal 

of visibility, just one measure of which is the opening performance, 

which was a reading of a Shakespeare play Twelfth Night, that we 

had in our concert hall. Seventy-two hundred people showed up for 

our staged reading of Shakespeare. There were 2,400 seats. So that 

is one measure of the popularity of this festival. 

Ms. NORTON. Do you perceive that this has increased the popularity and attendance of the Center or of the understanding and 

the appreciation for Shakespeare? Is there any indication of that? 

Mr. KAISER. Well, we certainly have done a great deal of educational work to explain Shakespeare. We have created two different Web sites. We have created educational modules to help explain Shakespeare to more students. We have felt a great deal of 

activity at the Center for every Shakespeare-related program. 

I think almost as important is in our discussions with the smaller arts organizations around town, we hear from them that they 

are seeing a great increase in their attendance because of their 

participation in this project. 

Ms. NORTON. Now, only one play? Did you say it was Twelfth 

Night that you did? 

Mr. KAISER. That was just the first. That was the opening night. 

There have been many plays throughout the whole District that 

were Shakespearean. 

Ms. NORTON. Did you decide to do only one there because of the 

other Shakespeare theaters in this——

Mr. KAISER. No. We, actually, also did a Royal Shakespeare performance of Coriolanus, and we did a French-Canadian production 

of The Tempest. So we did several, but we coordinated amongst all, 

and Michael Kahn, the artistic director of the Shakespeare Theater, helped to coordinate and to curate this so that there was no 

duplication. So there was only one Hamlet, traditional Hamlet. 

There was only one traditional Coriolanus, et cetera. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Kaiser. 

I am going to ask Mr. Graves, the Ranking Member, if he has 

an opening statement. 

Mr. GRAVES. I do have an opening statement, but if you would 

rather, I will just submit it. 

Ms. NORTON. Anything you would like to say for the record is 

welcome at this time. 

Mr. GRAVES. Well, I apologize for being late. We, obviously, had 

votes that ran a little bit long, and I do appreciate you all coming 

14

in. I want to thank the witnesses for being here. I know, you know, 

again, that we are working on a finite schedule, and I think that 

the witnesses have to leave. 

Ms. NORTON. Yes. 

Mr. GRAVES. I think I can pretty much submit my statement for 

the record. 

What I am interested in just as much as anything else—and I 

am sure that the Chairwoman has covered it—I definitely am interested in the safety of the facility—of the facility itself and of the 

individuals who are in charge of overseeing the facility. 

I think that the Smithsonian and the Kennedy Center are wonderful treasures that we have, and it is probably—you know, every 

time that we get folks who come into D.C., that is the first thing 

they want to see, and we have to make sure that it maintains the 

status as, you know, one of the finest things to visit when you are 

in Washington, DC. 

So I will submit my statement for the record, recognizing that we 

have got some time problems, but I do appreciate the Chairwoman 

for having this hearing, and I am very interested, and I will follow 

up. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Kaiser, before us is the reauthorization of the 

Kennedy Center in this Congress. 

Could I finally ask you about bequests? Do you actively seek bequests and get bequests for the Kennedy Center? 

Mr. KAISER. Yes, we do. We actively seek bequests. In fact, we 

have something called the Roger L. Stevens Society—that was 

named for our founder Roger Stevens—which is a group of people 

who leave us money in their wills, and we have to encourage people 

to join this group, and then we meet with them annually, and we 

are very fortunate to receive bequests. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, Dr. Samper, you are here because of a bequest, as it were, or at least because of a contribution. 

Does the Smithsonian Institution have an active, ongoing program for bequests? 

Mr. SAMPER. Yes, Madam Chair, we do, and we are fortunate to 

have received bequests since our origin in 1846 and every year, and 

we do have an active program. 

Ms. NORTON. Could I ask you how often the Board of Regents 

meets? 

Mr. SAMPER. Yes, Madam Chair. 

The Board of Regents holds four meetings every year and any additional meetings as necessary. This year, clearly, given recent 

events, they have held an additional two meetings. In addition to 

that, the Board of Regents has five committees that meet regularly, 

each of them three or four times a year, and they have an executive 

committee that also meets four times a year. 

Ms. NORTON. Now, the executive committee had or has extraordinary power? 

Mr. SAMPER. The executive committee is allowed to make certain 

decisions in between the sessions of the Board of Regents as established by the bylaws. 

Ms. NORTON. What power does it have that boards usually have? 

I want to ask the same question of Mr. Kaiser. 

15

Mr. SAMPER. The executive committee can, in between the board 

meetings, for example, and given recent events that have happened, Madam Chair——

Ms. NORTON. Does everything that the executive committee does 

come as a ratification to the Board? 

Mr. SAMPER. All of the minutes and decisions do go to the Board, 

and many of them have to be ratified, but the main role——

Ms. NORTON. Do the major decisions come to the Board? 

Mr. SAMPER. They come to the Board, and they are recorded 

there, yes, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. Do you have an executive committee, Mr. Kaiser? 

Mr. KAISER. Yes, we do. 

Ms. NORTON. How does the executive committee vis-a-vis the 

Board——

Mr. KAISER. The executive committee—since the Board is so 

large, it is a smaller group of Board members who help advise on 

serious issues. Any resolution that would get passed by the executive committee would also go to the Board, but they are a group 

where you can have a better conversation amongst 12 people than 

you can amongst 59 people. 

Ms. NORTON. But everything goes to the Board if it is a thing of 

any moment? 

Mr. KAISER. The budget. Every major project. Every budget, 

every capital item, et cetera, goes to the Board as well. 

Ms. NORTON. Who sets the wage or the salary for—shall we call 

him the CEO since you have different titles among you? 

Mr. KAISER. We have a personnel committee of the Board that 

worked with the Chairman and an outside counsel who did a study 

of recommended salary levels who then created the contract for the 

CEO. 

Ms. NORTON. And increases come to the full Board? 

Mr. KAISER. This contract was written at the time that I was engaged, and then it was revised one additional time for a period of 

years. It was not a salary level that was approved by the full 

Board. It was approved by the personnel committee and the Chairman. 

Ms. NORTON. The initial contract was approved by whom? 

Mr. KAISER. The initial contract—the nonfinancial terms are approved by the whole Board, but the financial terms are done by a 

smaller group. 

Ms. NORTON. And that smaller group does not report——

Mr. KAISER. It is part of the Board. It is a group of the Board, 

one of our committees called the personnel committee, that reports 

to the Chairman. 

Ms. NORTON. The decision regarding the salaries of the top officials, is that reported to the Board? Is that ratified by the Board? 

Mr. KAISER. The salaries for the top officials are set by me. They 

are part of our budget. 

Ms. NORTON. What about your salary? Is that reported to the 

Board after being set by——

Mr. KAISER. My salary is set by contract, a multiple-year contract. 

Ms. NORTON. I mean, does that include the increases and the——

16

Mr. KAISER. Yes, that includes everything in there, and it is ratified by the Board. The salaries of other employees are part of our 

annual budget, and that budget is approved first by the finance 

committee and then by the executive committee and then by the 

full Board. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, suppose the Shakespeare idea was such a colossal idea that it—I do not know—sent the Kennedy Center into 

the stratosphere of fundraising and other things. Would a bonus 

come forward outside of your contract? 

Mr. KAISER. I have a small bonus within my contract, but I have 

no bonus outside of my contract, and I am expected to do extraordinary work, so I am not entitled to any other bonus. 

Ms. NORTON. Let me ask you the same question, Dr. Samper. 

Who sets—and I am talking about even if there are recent changes. 

I expect you to indicate that to the subcommittee. You know, I 

would expect that you would speak about both before and after if, 

in fact, there have been recent changes. 

Mr. SAMPER. Madam Chair, as to the current process, the Board 

has a compensation committee that meets and reviews all of the 

compensation of all of the top senior-level executives at the Institution, and their recommendations go to the full Board for approval. 

That compensation committee was established a few years ago. I 

think it was 4 years ago. Before that, most of the negotiations were 

done by the executive committee of the Board of Regents. So, at 

this point, all of the top executives are reviewed based on the recommendations of management, and it is reviewed and goes to the 

full Board for approval. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Kaiser, I see you are nervous about the time. 

Mr. KAISER. I am. 

Ms. NORTON. Could I ask you just one more question? 

Mr. KAISER. Yes, of course, anything you want. 

Ms. NORTON. I am interested in whether or not there is a housing allowance or any allowance other than salary. 

Mr. KAISER. No, ma’am. I get no compensation apart from my 

salary. 

Ms. NORTON. I appreciate that you waited. I know that the committee has inconvenienced you, and I will allow you to go now. 

Mr. KAISER. Thank you so much, Madam Chairman. 

Ms. NORTON. Would you, Dr. Samper, give us a breakdown of 

your funding sources, the Federal Government, donations, grants, 

bequeaths, and others? 

Mr. SAMPER. Yes, Madam Chair. 

The budget for fiscal year 2006 would include the Federal appropriations and what we would call the ′′trust funds.′′ for fiscal year 

2006, the salaries and expenses were $516.6 million. 

Ms. NORTON. I am sorry. I was distracted for a moment. Would 

you——

Mr. SAMPER. Salaries and expenses were $516 million. These 

are——

Ms. NORTON. No. I asked you for the breakdown of your funding 

sources. 

Mr. SAMPER. Federal appropriations. The overall——

Ms. NORTON. I know about that, but what about donations or 

grants? 

17

Mr. SAMPER. I am coming to that, Madam Chair. 

Ms. NORTON. All right. 

Mr. SAMPER. What I was saying is that our budget includes Federal appropriations and trust funds. For Federal appropriations, 

the total amount for fiscal year 2006 was $615 million. Of that, 

$516 million were for salaries, and $98 million were for facilities 

capital. 

What in our budget would be called ′′trust funds′′ amounted to 

$332 million, and that included $112 million for grants and contracts; $161 million of what we would call ′′restricted trusts′′ that 

would include the gifts and bequests that have a particular objective in mind; and a total of $58 million of what we would call 

′′unrestricted trusts,′′ which are general donations that are not earmarked for any particular activity within the institution. 

So the total on what we would call ′′trust funds′′ would be $332 

million, and the total of Federal funds would be $615 million for 

fiscal year 2006. 

Ms. NORTON. Does the Smithsonian have an annual goal for private fundraising that you would expect to receive from private 

fundraising? 

Mr. SAMPER. Yes, Madam Chair, we do. For this fiscal year our goal is $115 million in private gifts. 

Ms. NORTON. One hundred fifteen million dollars? 

Mr. SAMPER. In gifts. That does not include grants and contracts, 

which are a very important part of our activities for the research 

part of it. 

Ms. NORTON. How are those funds raised? I realize you are acting and you are new. 

Mr. SAMPER. Yes. 

Ms. NORTON. Typically who raises those funds? 

Mr. SAMPER. There are a number of people who are involved. 

That includes, of course, the Secretary, the Directors of the various 

museums. 

Ms. NORTON. The Directors of the museums separately raise 

their own——

Mr. SAMPER. As part of the activities, yes, and it is included in 

our performance plans, and having been a director——

Ms. NORTON. Is the private funding divided on a 70 percent basis 

to each of them? 

Mr. SAMPER. No. It depends on each of the museums. There are 

some museums that have a much larger proportion of the private 

funds or endowments; for example, in the case of the Freer/Sackler 

Galleries, which have a large endowment that was set when it was 

done. So it depends on each of the museums. 

Ms. NORTON. Which part of the museum is most dependent on 

Federal funds? 

Mr. SAMPER. I think what you find is the larger museums——

Ms. NORTON. I mean, obviously, the Smithsonian is most dependent on Federal funds. 

Mr. SAMPER. Yes, all of the large museums and, in particular, 

those museums where you have very large collections. So, for example, the National Museum of Natural History, the National Museum of American History, the Air and Space Museum, those museums have as part of their charge or are dealing with the bulk of 

18

the collections of the Smithsonian, or they are receiving the largest 

number of the visitors. Those tend to receive a large appropriation 

on the Federal side. 

Ms. NORTON. Is it the Director, or whatever the title is, of these 

museums who receives a larger amount, say, at the Natural History or Air and Space? Which did you say? 

Mr. SAMPER. American History. It really depends across the 19 

museums and the research centers, so——

Ms. NORTON. What fundraising responsibilities do their Directors 

have? 

Mr. SAMPER. It depends on the moment and the projects, but the $115 million that I mentioned in overall fundraising as our target 

includes the responsibilities and the allocations that we do by each 

of the museums. The figure I am most familiar with, of course, is 

that of Natural History, having been the Director of that museum 

myself. Our target there was about $8 million this year, and we 

have brought in about $20 million so far. So it depends on the 

projects that we are doing in each of the museums. 

Ms. NORTON. So is fundraising done for the Smithsonian, or is 

fundraising done for each of these——

Mr. SAMPER. We do both. I mean, each of the museums individually will do fundraising activities. 

Ms. NORTON. Is that done collectively as a group? Is there a development apparatus that knows how to raise funds for each of 

these different functions? 

Mr. SAMPER. We have a Central Development Office that serves 

the overall Smithsonian Institution, with a team of people, and 

they have particular duties, including all of the research background for potential prospects and the coordination of activities 

across the museums so that we make sure that we are all approaching the donors in a consistent manner. 

Ms. NORTON. That is the Central Development Office? 

Mr. SAMPER. That is the Central Development Office. 

Ms. NORTON. Now, do each of the other facilities have their own 

central development offices as well? 

Mr. SAMPER. The larger museums would have a small development staff in each case. In the case of Natural History, we had 

three or four people in addition to our development activities, and 

I would add that, in terms of the governance, all of the large museums also have advisory boards, and those boards are actively engaged in the fundraising activities. 

Ms. NORTON. I will ask you the same question I asked of Mr. 

Kaiser. Has the funding been flat, and over what period of time? 

Obviously I am just talking about operating funds. 

Mr. SAMPER. Just the fundraising from private funds over the 

last decade has been increasing to the Smithsonian. You do find 

certain peaks that relate to particular facilities. So, say, when we 

are actively fundraising for the National Museum of the American 

Indian, you would see a peak associated with that activity. 

Ms. NORTON. What percentage of funds for the Museum of the 

American Indian came from the Federal Government? 

Mr. SAMPER. Bear with me. Approximately half. I can get you the 

exact figure, Madam Chair. About half of the funding. 

Ms. NORTON. Were the tribes solicited for funds? 

19

Mr. SAMPER. Yes, they were. 

Ms. NORTON. Did they give substantial funds? 

Mr. SAMPER. They were important contributors to the overall 

project, yes, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. What about the Portrait Museum? That is a wonderful facility. 

Mr. SAMPER. As to the Portrait Gallery—again, in all of these 

new museums, we are doing renovations——

Ms. NORTON. How is the Portrait Gallery funded? 

Mr. SAMPER. The Portrait Gallery includes Federal funding. 

Ms. NORTON. What percentage is Federal funding, and what percentage is private funding? 

Mr. SAMPER. I do not have that breakdown before me, but I will 

be happy to get that for you. 

Ms. NORTON. What about the zoo? 

Mr. SAMPER. The zoo is primarily Federal in terms of its funding, 

and they do some fundraising activities on the order of about $10 

million a year. 

Ms. NORTON. Do you feel that there has been a systematic exploitation of fundraising possibilities by the Smithsonian over the past 

couple of decades? 

Mr. SAMPER. I think fundraising two decades ago was almost 

nonexistent at the Smithsonian. As I see the record, we have been 

steadily focusing more and more on that. Prior to 1997, the level 

of fundraising that we were doing was quite limited, and we have 

seen a steady increase. I think certainly over the last decade, it has 

been a very important part of our activities. We are consistently 

bringing in about $120 million in gifts every year at this point. 

Ms. NORTON. You have a very substantial and challenging task 

with so many institutions, but there are others who would say you 

had marvelous opportunities. If you had 19 museums and galleries, 

a zoo, nine research facilities, one might look at that in one way 

as, ′′Oh, my God.′′ the other way to look at this is to look at all of 

these avenues for raising funds.RPTS MCKENZIEDCMN 

MAYER[12:45 p.m.] 

How do you perceive it? How does the Board of Regents perceive 

it? 

Mr. SAMPER. Well, my view is that that diversity of activities is 

part of the strength of the Smithsonian. 

Ms. NORTON. How do research facilities fund it? 

Mr. SAMPER. Primarily through Federal funding and grants, and 

contracts in particular. So in the case of our astrophysical observatory and the activities there they are involved with, they get 

grants from NASA. 

In the case of——

Ms. NORTON. They compete for grants the way universities do? 

Mr. SAMPER. They certainly do. Most of our research facilities are 

very aggressive in terms of grants and contracts, and that is most 

of their outside funding; not so much private gifts, but——

Ms. NORTON. Any idea of what their track record is in receiving 

competitive grants from the government? 

Mr. SAMPER. Overall, very good, Madam Chair. And as I mentioned before, across the nine research facilities and some of the 

20

museums that have important research programs, we bring in over 

$100 million a year in grants and contracts. 

Ms. NORTON. And that is apart from this $100 million? 

Mr. SAMPER. Yes, correct. 

Ms. NORTON. What is the composition of the Board of Regents? 

Mr. SAMPER. The Board of Regents, the way it was established 

with the original act of Congress includes 17 members. There are 

two ex officio members who are the Chief Justice of the United 

States and the Vice President. There are six Members of the Congress, three from the House and three from the Senate, that are 

appointed. 

Ms. NORTON. Would you hold a minute? 

I am sorry. Would you begin again? 

Mr. SAMPER. Yes, Madam Chair. As I was saying, the Board of 

Regents is made up of 17 members. There are two ex officio members, the Chief Justice of the United States and the Vice President. 

There are six Members of Congress, three from the House and 

three from the Senate, and there are nine what we call ′′citizen regents,′′ and those citizen regents are nominated by the——

Ms. NORTON. So, overall, the percentage of public officials to citizen regents is——

Mr. SAMPER. There is actually a majority of citizen regents. 

Ms. NORTON. Because you are excluding the ex officio members? 

Mr. SAMPER. Yes. We have nine. 

Ms. NORTON. The Members of Congress are ex officio members 

or sitting members of the Board? 

Mr. SAMPER. They are members of the Board and they are appointed—in the case of the House they are appointed by the Speaker. They serve as members of the regents with fiduciary responsibilities. 

Ms. NORTON. So there are six of each? 

Mr. SAMPER. There are three of the House and three of the Senate. So you have nine citizens. 

Ms. NORTON. Total is six. 

Mr. SAMPER. So you have nine citizens, total six Members of Congress, and the other two are the Chief Justice and the Vice President. So you actually have a majority of citizens and the three 

branches. 

Ms. NORTON. Given their duties in Congress, do most Members 

of Congress send proxies of one kind or the other, namely staff, to 

meetings? 

Mr. SAMPER. There are some cases, but in my experience Madam 

Chair——

Ms. NORTON. Well, your experience meaning as the acting——

Mr. SAMPER. Well, certainly as acting, but actually based on the 

records that I reviewed, most of the Members of Congress have 

been very active and certainly show up. In the two meetings that 

have taken place since I came——

Ms. NORTON. I am trying to get a snapshot not of what has happened since the roof fell——

Mr. SAMPER. Correct. 

Ms. NORTON. —where I would expect people to show up. I am 

trying to get a candid and honest view of whether people who hold 

high office, like the Vice President—I mean, I can go and get atVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:47 Apr 09, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\36683 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
21

tendance. What I am asking for you to tell me is whether people 

whose day job is here in the House regularly over a period of, let’s 

say, 10 years have regularly been able to attend meetings. 

Mr. SAMPER. Our experience is they are actively engaged. Most 

of the congressional members——

Ms. NORTON. I didn’t ask you if they were actively engaged. I 

don’t even know what that means. 

I am trying to get very specific information, and I can get that 

information simply by asking you submit it to me, if you prefer. 

Mr. SAMPER. I would be happy to do that, Madam Chair. 

Ms. NORTON. I am not trying to cast aspersions on anybody. This 

is an institution which got into some trouble. I don’t think anybody 

was at fault. And I can tell you one thing, that just as I could not 

come up here when there was a vote on the floor, I don’t care how 

many meetings you were having over there, I know what my major 

responsibility is. And if there is a hearing here and there is a meeting there, I also know what my regular responsibility is, and it 

doesn’t take a markup to know that. 

But if the institution hasn’t been looked at for decades, if, for example, no one has wondered about the increasing responsibilities 

of the Congress and the much greater scrutiny of public institutions today—I must say, not by us—when it comes to the Smithsonian and the Kennedy Center but certainly brought by the media 

and now the blogs and whoever will take a picture with a cell 

phone. If that isn’t done, it is no criticism to anyone who has participated to say, let’s take—let’s look with fresh eyes at it. 

What you are telling me is that despite the increasing responsibilities of Members of Congress with roles on committees, with responsibilities here, with scrutiny on us here, that it hasn’t 

mattered. 

I want to understand that, too. 

Mr. SAMPER. Madam Chair, based on my review of minutes and 

records of attendance, what I can tell is that most of the regents 

have attended the meetings, including Members of Congress, including the Chief Justice. 

Ms. NORTON. When do you have the meetings of the Board? 

Mr. SAMPER. On Mondays. 

Ms. NORTON. What time of the day? 

Mr. SAMPER. In the morning. The Board has met as a committee 

in the morning. They are always done Monday mornings precisely 

to facilitate the scheduling relating to Congress; and as I mentioned before, meetings of the year, there are——

Ms. NORTON. Would you submit to this committee the record of 

attendance for members of the Board over a period of the last 10 

years? 

Mr. SAMPER. We will put that information together, Madam 

Chair. 

Ms. NORTON. Who is in charge? Is there a chairman of the 

Board? Who presides at these meetings? 

Mr. SAMPER. There are two figures. There is a chancellor of the 

Board. 

Ms. NORTON. What is that? 

Mr. SAMPER. The chancellor of the Board is appointed by the 

Board itself. By tradition, the chairman of the Board has been the 

22

Chief Justice of the United States. In addition to that, there is a 

chairman of the executive committee of the Board that, by tradition, has been one of the citizen regents. 

Ms. NORTON. Now, the chancellor, does the chancellor have to be 

a citizen regent? Or can he be a public official? 

Mr. SAMPER. It can be selected. It is appointed by the Board, so 

it doesn’t have to be. But the chancellor, as I mentioned, by tradition has been the Chief Justice of the United States. 

Ms. NORTON. I thought you said the chancellor is the Chief Justice. 

Mr. SAMPER. But appointed by the Board. It is not automatic. 

The bylaws establish——

Ms. NORTON. Has the chancellor over the past couple of decades 

been, in fact, the Chief Justice? 

Mr. SAMPER. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. Does he preside at meetings? 

Mr. SAMPER. Yes, he does. 

Ms. NORTON. If he is unable to attend a meeting, who presides? 

Mr. SAMPER. The chairman of the executive committee of the regents, which is a citizen regent. 

Ms. NORTON. Some changes were made after the fact when the 

matter involving Secretary Small arose. On what basis were they 

made—some things that had not been approved, some expenditures 

that had not been approved? 

Mr. SAMPER. If you are referring—I don’t know which you have 

in mind, Madam Chair. But from the records—as you know, I have 

only been Acting Secretary for 10 weeks. So I am going on the 

records of what I read. There were some decisions that were passed 

to clarify——

Ms. NORTON. There were what? 

Mr. SAMPER. There were decisions passed by the Regents to clarify in the case of something like the housing allowance of Secretary 

Small and what it covered. Specifically, it was to clarify what was 

to be included under that term of the——

Ms. NORTON. Was something ratified? 

Mr. SAMPER. They clarified what was included and what was the 

intent and also some of the issues about the types of expenses and 

travel that were covered by the original contractors. 

Ms. NORTON. Were any of those expenses disallowed? 

Mr. SAMPER. Not that I am aware of, Madam Chair. 

Ms. NORTON. So, in effect, they were ratified? Whatever was 

spent was ratified? 

Mr. SAMPER. There was a review that was done, and there was 

an independent review of the expenses, and that went to the audit 

and review committee of the Regents. 

Ms. NORTON. There was what? I am sorry. 

Mr. SAMPER. There was a review that was done of all of the expenses of Secretary Small. And that original review went to the 

audit and review committee of the Regents. 

As I mentioned before, Madam Chair, the Regents have also appointed an independent review committee that is currently reviewing all of the issues relating to the expenses. They will be receiving 

their report about that independent review; that will come to the 

23

Regents, and the Regents may make additional decisions once they 

receive——

Ms. NORTON. So all of Mr. Small’s expenses were subsequently 

deemed appropriate? 

Mr. SAMPER. Well, at this time, there is an independent review 

that includes——

Ms. NORTON. If there is an independent review, why did the 

Board of Regents feel it necessary to ratify the expenses of Mr. 

Small, some of which I understand occurred after he resigned? 

Mr. SAMPER. Not that I am aware of, Madam Chair. 

Ms. NORTON. What are you not aware of? 

Mr. SAMPER. That there were any expenses of Mr. Small approved after he resigned. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, but each and every expense of Mr. Small has 

been ratified by the Board of Regents. 

Mr. SAMPER. The Regents have reviewed the expenses for Mr. 

Small and did an initial review of those expenses. They have appointed an independent review. 

Ms. NORTON. Excuse me. It would be one thing to say they were 

reviewing, and I can understand that. 

I am asking, have they not ratified, in effect, signed off on some 

of those, if not all of those, expenses? 

Mr. SAMPER. I don’t think, Madam Chair, they have approved or 

reviewed individual expenses. What they did was clarify what the 

intention was relating to travel and the housing allowance of Secretary Small as a general statement. 

Ms. NORTON. And clarifying what their intention was, were they 

saying that these expenses met the intent? 

Mr. SAMPER. In most cases, yes, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. So I still cannot understand, you are saying anything except that they found the expenses that he incurred were 

appropriate or at least were intended by the Regents. 

Mr. SAMPER. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. What is the status of the Arts and Industries 

Building, please? 

Mr. SAMPER. Madam Chair, the Arts and Industries Building, as 

you know, is a very important part of the institution. And the current status is that following an analysis of the structural stability 

of the roof and some of the facilities, there was a decision to actually close the building to the public and then vacate all of the offices. So the building at this point has no collections and is off limits to the public. 

In reviewing our options going forward in terms of the investment, we have estimated what it would actually cost to stabilize 

the building, fix the systems, including the roof and electrical systems and other areas. And at this time there is a decision by the 

Regents to pursue potential public-private partnerships in terms of 

bringing—doing the investments that are required to get that 

building back up and running and open to the public. 

We estimate the basic cost just in terms of fixing the basic elements of electrical systems, HVAC, and roof would be in excess of 

$60 million, and the overall project would probably be on the order 

of a couple hundred million dollars once they have included the 

other facilities. So, at this point, we are considering and consulting 

24

with relevant committees here in Congress to be able to move forward and issue a request for qualifications to explore potential public-private partnerships that would allow us to reopen the building 

in ways that would be entirely compatible and consistent with the 

missions of the Smithsonian. 

Ms. NORTON. Dr. Samper, I understand the importance of fundraising. I myself do not belong to the school of thought in the Congress that finds private marketing to be inappropriate for a public 

institution. I was at odds with some of my—some of my colleagues 

on another committee, who complained when the Post Office, during the Olympics, marketed itself through the Olympics and did exactly what private corporations did. 

My judgment, I didn’t see how we could tell the Post Office, hey, 

you are on your own now. They get nothing from us. And, by the 

way, we have oversight of you and we are going to complain if you 

raise postage, and we know you have to compete with FedEx and 

the rest of them. You know, FedEx can go and use the Olympics 

for whatever. And I am sure they do all kinds of studies; otherwise, 

they wouldn’t invest in it. They can do that, but you can’t do that. 

I don’t belong to that school. 

I belong to the school that says public institutions should market 

and they should do so appropriately. And certainly the Post Office 

had better market or it is really going to go under, or we are not 

going to—or else the American people are going to have to buy 

more and more stamps, which will mean they go under because 

technology will take them over, or FedEx or UPS or one of the 

other——

You, the Smithsonian, recently renamed the National Museum of 

American History. I think it is the Behring Center. Am I pronouncing that right? The name is now displayed prominently on 

the exterior of the building even though that is not the actual 

name of the museum, and it has not been renamed by the Congress 

or anyone else. 

Can you explain the process by which the Smithsonian reached 

agreement in return for the gift, a very handsome gift? I applaud 

the institution and particularly the decision to display the name on 

the interior of the building—exterior of the building, as it is now. 

Mr. SAMPER. Madam Chair——

Ms. NORTON. Did the donor request that? 

Mr. SAMPER. Madam Chair, the Smithsonian does pursue opportunities to secure this fund-raising; and it doesn’t have, as a matter 

of fact, a policy of naming galleries or particular facilities or buildings after donors in recognition for——

Ms. NORTON. Is any other building named after the donor? 

Mr. SAMPER. Not the entire facility. But certainly many of the exhibitions or galleries within the buildings, they are—oh, sorry, 

Madam Chair. There is one other case, yes. Sorry, Madam Chair. 

I stand corrected. Yes, if you look at, for example, the Freer 

Sackler Museum. 

Ms. NORTON. Which one? 

Mr. SAMPER. The Freer Sackler Museum or the Hirshhorn. 

Ms. NORTON. They weren’t named anything else to begin with, 

were they? 

25

Mr. SAMPER. They were established with the bequests and the 

gifts from these donors. So there have been cases where we have 

done this. 

Ms. NORTON. The National Museum of American History was established by the United States of America. 

Mr. SAMPER. And the museum itself—the important distinction 

here, Madam Chair, is, we have not changed the name of the museum itself. We are looking at the facility—the National Museum 

of American History has several facilities, including storage facilities, in other locations, and that is——

Ms. NORTON. So you are saying you haven’t changed the name 

of the storage facility? I don’t understand why you would even 

throw that into the conversation. 

Mr. SAMPER. What I am stating is that we are not renaming the 

museum. What we are doing is renaming the facility, the actual 

physical building where the facility is contained. 

Ms. NORTON. I am lost. I am talking about the structure that we 

all see. 

Mr. SAMPER. Yes. 

Ms. NORTON. You are now confusing me because that is all I am 

talking about. And as I understand it, the name Behring Center is 

there now, and I don’t know whether to send people to the Behring 

Center—in which case they will say, where in the world is that—

or to the National Museum of American History. 

Mr. SAMPER. Yes, Madam Chair. That is the National Museum 

of Natural History. The Smithsonian Institution did recognize the 

very generous contribution from Mr. Ken Behring by recognizing it 

and using it as a subtitle there, and it is called the Behring Center. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, I am going to reserve judgment until I go 

down there and see it, since that is where I do my race walk. I will 

just take a look. I do not object. If the plaque is tasteful and doesn’t 

overwhelm the name of the building, then I don’t see anything 

wrong with that. 

Mr. SAMPER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. NORTON. People don’t give that much money for nothing. 

Does the Smithsonian find that most people want something 

named after them when they give substantial amounts these days? 

Mr. SAMPER. We do find many individuals, they do want the recognition of the naming; and that is something that we have done 

in a number of cases. 

Ms. NORTON. Has that been approved by the Board? 

Mr. SAMPER. Yes. Any naming of any space has to be approved 

by the Board of Regents. 

Ms. NORTON. How many renaming agreements have been made 

by the Board in the last 10 years? 

Mr. SAMPER. I don’t have that information with me, Madam 

Chair, and if you were to include galleries and others, multiple 

namings. 

Ms. NORTON. I would like you to provide the names. I am not objecting. I do so—I preface my remarks by indicating that I understand marketing and I understand what you have to do. Much has 

to do with taste. 

Someone withdrew, as I recall. 

26

Mr. SAMPER. There have been some cases where particular donations that were given to us were withdrawn, or in some cases——

Ms. NORTON. Wasn’t there one—and here I am taxing my own 

memory—where the name of either a building or an exhibition was 

withdrawn when the donor’s name was not prominently displayed 

or there was no agreement——

Mr. SAMPER. I believe the case that you are referring to was the 

gift that was done initially by Mrs. Catherine Reynolds for the National Museum of American History. 

Ms. NORTON. Would you recount that for us? 

Mr. SAMPER. The case was actually—there the question was not 

so much to do with the naming, but the process by which the content of the exhibition was going to be resolved and the selection 

some of the people——

Ms. NORTON. She wanted to have her hands in there? 

Mr. SAMPER. We are extremely careful whenever we accept a gift 

to maintain independence in the editorial—in the content, and we 

don’t let the donor intervene in terms of the selection of the content 

of the exhibition. 

In that case, after internal discussions within the Smithsonian 

and others, we felt it was not appropriate to make any concessions 

in that regard and we felt it was better to return that gift. 

Ms. NORTON. I understand that some officers or employees may 

serve on outside boards. I have no objection to that either, as long 

as they solicit funds while they are at it—a joke, but this is how 

people raise money. They are in touch with people who raise 

money. 

Which brings me to my next question: What have been the fundraising activities of your board, the Board of Regents? 

Mr. SAMPER. The Board of Regents, Madam Chair, is not primarily established as a fund-raising board, although we are fortunate that some of the members themselves——

Ms. NORTON. Are the nine citizen members chosen with that—

who chooses the nine citizen members? 

Mr. SAMPER. They are nominated by the Regents themselves and 

they are confirmed by Congress. 

Mr. SAMPER. In selecting nominees, to what extent do the Regents take into account the ability of citizen nominees, particularly 

given the proportion of the public nominees, to raise funds? 

Mr. SAMPER. The Regents are appointed to trying to secure the 

right mix of skills. The ability to contribute or assist in fund-raising is——

Ms. NORTON. What are the skills? I mean, they don’t run the institution. 

Mr. SAMPER. No. But we want to make sure that we have the 

right kind of expertise to provide the oversight. So, for example, we 

have always tried to have one or two members that have academic 

credentials coming from running universities or research organizations. We have always tried to have a member, someone that has 

experience in running museums. We have some cases where people 

that have finance investment or audit experience. So it is a combination of the skills that we are looking at in all of the Regents’ 

nominations. 

27

Ms. NORTON. You are aware that that mix, your mix of regents, 

is unusual for institutions. If you had to raise your own funds, that 

mix wouldn’t be very helpful to you. 

Mr. SAMPER. Correct, Madam Chair. And as I mentioned, the 

main duty of the Regents is oversight responsibilities. The way we 

secure additional, contributions for fund-raising particularly, is 

that we have another board that we call the Smithsonian National 

Board, and this is a board that is appointed by the Regents themselves. It has about an additional 50 members, and the main function of that board is to assist with fund-raising; that is the expectation and contribution when people are appointed. 

Ms. NORTON. So unlike most major museums and art galleries, 

it is a secondary board that has to raise the funds, while the people 

who have none of that responsibility, or a little bit, simply are the 

overseers of what they do? 

I mean, if you want $100 million, perhaps Mr. Behring would 

have liked to have been on the Board itself. 

Mr. SAMPER. I am sure there are some cases, and what we have 

done with cases like Mr. Behring——

Ms. NORTON. I am not sure whether he would have been otherwise qualified, and I am not implying his only qualification was the 

huge donation, but I am very grateful and that should have been 

enough. 

Mr. SAMPER. Fair enough. 

He was appointed to the Smithsonian National Board, which is 

exactly where the major contributions are done. We have found it 

is helpful to differentiate the direct oversight from the fund-raising 

activities, and I think historically when you look back at the last 

20 years or 30 years it has served the institution well. 

Ms. NORTON. Say that again. That they have an issue? I am sure 

they have. 

Mr. SAMPER. Yes. They certainly have. 

Ms. NORTON. And I applaud that they have, and I think you are 

able to have a secondary board whose job it is to raise funds only 

because it is the Smithsonian. I don’t think that would work anyplace else. 

The real question, I suppose, for the Smithsonian is whether you 

can ever expect it to raise the amount you are going to have to 

raise, particularly now that we are on PAYGO. This is an institution to which I pay some considerable attention. It would be very 

low on the totem pole. Most Members, not because they don’t appreciate the Smithsonian, but because they appreciate health care 

more, you know, because they appreciate their obligations more. 

So there is incredible pressure on all of our institutions to raise 

more money, and you brought in a first-class fund-raiser. Had it 

gotten the kind of oversight that boards or members give money, 

know-how to watch money, likely he could have been reined in, and 

he might still be there, given his prowess in raising money rather 

than virtually disgraced, although everything he did was apparently either explicitly or thereafter ratified by the Board of Regents 

who got off scot-free. 

Perhaps unlike most members of the public, when I hear that 

there is a board, there is a certain kind of fiduciary responsibility 

28

that goes along with it. I myself served on the boards of three Fortune 500 companies. I know well what those responsibilities are. 

I would have thought, if anything—and I say this for the record; 

it needs to be said: 

I don’t think Mr. Small, by any means, deserved all of the criticism that came by, specifically, since you have testified. And the 

press reports are clear that the Board went back and ratified everything he was criticized for. 

That is an outrage. If, in fact, that had happened to another kind 

of institution, people would have taken to the floor to—saying, then 

they ratified everything he did. That is why I don’t think Congress 

can—there are some of us who don’t believe that Congress—believe 

the Congress should abide by the same rules that they expect of 

everybody else. We have even enacted some legislation to that effect. 

But it is clear that although there have been some Senate hearings, that essentially there is not a public airing of what happened 

so as to say to the Regents that that was inappropriate. 

Now, as you know, I haven’t called this hearing in order discover 

more of what happened. I think the press did the oversight for this 

Congress, virtually all of it, over a decade, if the truth be told, and 

I think that oversight has been done. And any further oversight on 

that issue should await the report that is forthcoming. 

I simply, during this appropriation period, would like to see us 

get started on looking for alternatives, and that is my next question. 

I find the amount raised $115 million; is that it? 

Mr. SAMPER. That is only from gifts and contributions from individuals, and you would have to add grants and contracts on top of 

that, which is another $100 million, and the other trust funds that 

we have from endowments and requests. As I mentioned——

Ms. NORTON. Trust funds have to be put aside. The contracts, 

those are important because they are annual. I take it they take 

place annually? 

Mr. SAMPER. Yes. 

Ms. NORTON. And then there is $115 million from contributions. 

Do you believe that—you heard Mr. Kaiser, who has one building, talk about how he has marketed the—or are there similar 

things that the Smithsonian has done to market or draw in others 

so that they will see the institution as something they wanted to 

be a part of and to give to? 

Mr. SAMPER. We certainly have made efforts in that direction, 

and we have been fortunate to secure support, like Mr. Kaiser 

mentioned—for example, corporations and others that may sponsor 

particular exhibitions or events. 

Ms. NORTON. Members of the Smithsonian, can’t you? 

Mr. SAMPER. Pardon me? 

Ms. NORTON. Can’t you become a member of the Smithsonian? 

Mr. SAMPER. Yes, we do have a general membership program. 

Ms. NORTON. How much is that cost? 

Mr. SAMPER. It overall brings $15 million in contributions a year, 

for a general membership. 

Ms. NORTON. What does a member of the public get for that? 

29

Mr. SAMPER. Basically the subscription to our Smithsonian Magazine, and a discount in our stores and for some of the higher-end 

donors, we organize some special events during the year. 

Ms. NORTON. How much of the Smithsonian has been taken outside of the District of Columbia? 

Mr. SAMPER. Of that program? It is nationwide. 

Ms. NORTON. No. Generally. I am sorry. I recognize that probably 

membership, you get the magazine. I am not sure the store—big 

access to the store wouldn’t mean the same to you if you lived outside the region. 

But in what other ways have you drawn in others around the 

country? I know you have fund-raisers who come from around the 

country. I know your citizen board members come from around the 

country. 

Mr. SAMPER. We certainly do. We have tried to develop a number 

of ways to connect people across America to other people out there. 

For example, we have a program called Smithsonian Affiliations 

that is a way that we collaborate with museums around the country for loan collections where we will collaborate with them to do 

an annual conference with them. We just had that meeting about 

2 or 3 weeks ago. 

We have about 150 museums. These are independent entities 

that are affiliated with the Smithsonian where we collaborate on 

an ongoing basis. We have a number of educational activities and 

programs that we are doing across—just to mention one, for example, the National Science Resources Center, which is a joint program that we have with the National Academy of Sciences, is assigning educational materials that can go into classrooms; and at 

this point, it is being used in about 20 percent of schools around 

America. 

So there are a number of ways we are trying to connect with the 

communities across America, and we are certainly looking for additional ways to expand it. 

I should add, as well, that we are aggressively trying to put more 

of our content exhibitions and collections on the Web because we 

recognize that not everyone can come to Washington. So we have 

been doing this, and we have been fortunate to have an increasing 

number of Web visitors. Last year alone, we had about 150 million 

Web visitor sessions. These are people across America and other 

countries around the world accessing some of the Smithsonian content, and it is an area we are investing in aggressively. 

Ms. NORTON. Has the Smithsonian ever engaged the services of 

first-class marketing and public affairs consultants? 

Mr. SAMPER. Yes, we have some expertise in house, and for particular projects, we may go outside. And in particular cases where 

there——

Ms. NORTON. Yeah. I mean beyond—I am talking about major 

fund-raising consultants. I mean, beyond the exhibitions which I do 

regard, as you do, as a major opportunities for fund-raising. 

Mr. SAMPER. We do on occasion hire particular consultants to 

help us develop fund-raising strategies or marketing materials. 

Ms. NORTON. Have you ever had a capital campaign? 

Mr. SAMPER. Not in the recent past. 

30

Ms. NORTON. I recognize that the Federal Government is supposed to and has done some funding of your capital assets, but that 

is where you have been driven into the ground almost because getting money for bricks and mortar, especially for a museum, is particularly difficult. 

Mr. SAMPER. We have done campaigns targeted to particular 

projects, Madam Chair. So, for example, I mentioned the National 

Museum of the American Indian, which is where we went out and 

tried to secure the resources and secured a couple hundred million 

dollars for activities from across the country, and that was extremely successful as a way of doing it. These are tied into particular areas. 

Ms. NORTON. What is the endowment? 

Mr. SAMPER. It is close to $900 million. 

Ms. NORTON. Have you ever considered an endowment, a fundraising endowment campaign? 

Mr. SAMPER. Absolutely. And that is one of the options that we 

are always looking at and trying to——

Ms. NORTON. How long do you have to look at it? When the Congress continues to underfund one of its preeminent treasures, how 

long do you have to look to recognize that one has to ratchet up 

fund-raising with entirely fresh eyes and an entirely new vision? 

I find $900 million for the Smithsonian to be small, frankly. 

Mr. SAMPER. I agree with you completely. It is a very small endowment, given the size of our budgets. We are looking for ways 

to expand that, including the possibility of doing a national campaign. We are currently exploring eight or nine options to secure 

additional funding for the Smithsonian. 

Ms. NORTON. Far be it from me to pretend to be a marketing—

have any marketing expertise, I assure you I do not. That is nowhere to become clear. 

But this much I do know: 20 million visitors come here every 

year, and if they thought the Smithsonian—many of them are 

school children, many of them are families—if they thought that 

the Smithsonian wasn’t going to be there in the form that they understood it—it seems to me that people would understand that you 

don’t keep an American institution like this going just by saying 

to the appropriators, keep ponying up. 

And particularly if we are also to continue to not charge admission, which brings me to the butterflies exhibit. 

You and I have discussed this in our office, perhaps I should let 

you lay out for the record the reason that you decided that this had 

to be done, and how it will be done if you get to do it. 

Mr. SAMPER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

As you know, the National Museum of Natural History introduced what has been a very successful insect zoo back in 1971, 

many years ago, and over the years we have been looking at ways 

to expand it. It has been one of the most popular attractions that 

we have had over the years. 

Ms. NORTON. What percentage, if any, of Federal funds went into 

building the butterfly zoo? 

Mr. SAMPER. The current project? The expansion of the butterflies? 

Ms. NORTON. As opposed to what project? 

31

Mr. SAMPER. I wasn’t sure if you were referring to the original 

insect zoo that we built. 

Ms. NORTON. Is this on the same premises? 

Mr. SAMPER. This is adjacent to those premises. 

What we have decided is to double——

Ms. NORTON. So the premises—the original premises were built 

by the Federal Government? 

Mr. SAMPER. Absolutely. They are in the National Museum of 

Natural History. 

Ms. NORTON. And the adjacent premises, what percentage if any 

were built by——

Mr. SAMPER. This is within the main building of the National 

Museum of Natural History at our location which we call Hall 30, 

which is the hall on the second floor adjacent to the current insect 

zoo. And our intention, our plan there is to expand and build an 

exhibition that would allow us to have live butterflies, to be able 

to tell the story about the core evolution between plants and insects. 

This is building not only on our experience, but the very successful experiences we have seen in several butterfly houses and facilities across the United States in a number of locations. 

Ms. NORTON. Is this permanent, this exhibition? 

Mr. SAMPER. Certainly ongoing year-round for several years. We 

don’t use the word ′′permanent′′ because we don’t know how it will 

go, but certainly for the foreseeable future it would be. 

The challenge that we face, Madam Chair, is that the operating 

cost, the annual operating cost of a butterfly facility is very large. 

This is tied to the very short life cycles of the butterflies, which in 

many species are just a few days. And the way the butterfly facilities are run is that these are raised in a variety of countries 

around the world. They are imported into the United States weekly. They have to be raised there by expertise—by caretakers that 

know about this; they have to fulfill all of the requirements imposed by USDA. And we also have to raise all of the plants that 

are growing in there so they are completely free of chemicals. 

The net impact of all of this is, the annual operating cost of the 

facility is $900,000 a year, which is clearly a very expensive operation and proposition. We were struggling in looking at this. On 

the one hand, the position of how wonderful it would be to offer 

this opportunity to our visitors, and on the other hand, our basic 

budgets were not enough to be able to support this kind of operation as an additional expense. 

At that point, our decision was to look at this and to design it, 

at both the facility and the program, in a way that would allow us 

to bring this experience to our visitors but to ask them to contribute to the operating costs, taking care to make sure that the 

facility would also be available on a weekly basis, 1 day a week 

free of charge, particularly for school groups, because we recognize 

that it is really important to have this. And we are also going to 

continue looking for potential sponsors that would allow us to bring 

in additional days free of charge to people. 

Our general commitment, and my own view, Madam Chair, just 

for the record is, I do agree with you, that the admission to the 

32

Smithsonian—having free admission is important, and it is part of 

what the Smithsonian stands for. 

Ms. NORTON. It is so important that—well, let me ask you this 

question. Did you bring, before you announced—first of all, what is 

the fee that you propose? 

Mr. SAMPER. We are proposing an entrance fee of $5. This would 

be to cover the operating cost. We are estimating an attendance of 

about 200,000 people a year. 

Ms. NORTON. So that would cover the operating cost? 

Mr. SAMPER. Yes, it would, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. I asked you before about endowment. Did you consider seeking an endowment to allow this facility to remain free to 

the public as has been the case for over 100 years? 

Mr. SAMPER. Absolutely. And it is still one of the options that we 

are pursuing. That would require an endowment of about $20 million just to offset the operating costs. 

Ms. NORTON. Over time, yes. 

Mr. SAMPER. Well, $20 million at a 5 percent payout rate would give you about $1 million. So if we were to find a donor that would 

provide us with $20 million endowment, we would certainly welcome that contribution and be able to——

Ms. NORTON. Did you seek $1 million that somebody might have 

been willing to provide you? 

Mr. SAMPER. What we did seek, Madam Chair, is the cost of 

building this facility in Hall 30. The total cost is $3 million, and 

that is being brought in by private contributions. We have already 

secured about $2 million, just over $2 million for that. We are 

working to secure the additional money. 

But there are two important costs here. One is the cost of building the facility, which is what we usually find people are willing 

to contribute to. And the other is the ongoing operational cost, and 

that is the cost that, in our experience, is extremely difficult to 

maintain or to cover on a sustained basis from contributions. 

Ms. NORTON. I am not at all unsympathetic with what you have 

done, and so pleased that you have come forward with this really 

unusual way to not only fascinate the public and children, but to 

help them learn something by seeing what butterflies do. 

Did you approach the appropriators before you decided that we 

should charge a fee? 

Mr. SAMPER. It is something that we mentioned to some of the 

key staff in the committees as part of our conversations, and it was 

something that was brought to the Board of Regents before we decided to go ahead with this. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, Congress is not—the reason I raise Congress 

as the ultimate authority here is, very frankly, I cannot think of 

any way to say to the next institution within the Smithsonian or, 

for that matter, the next national treasure funded by the United 

States that they must hold to the free admission charge for 20 million visitors. 

This is not for my folks. We have been there, done that, over the 

years. I am a native Washingtonian, third generation, people here 

since 1850. You can’t find anything that I haven’t gone to. 

This affects mostly the constituents of my colleagues. Half the 

people who come here every year are school children, many school 

33

groups. There are many schools who believe you are not well educated if the junior high school class or high school class hasn’t 

made a visit to Washington. I am not pretending that $5 is a lot 

of money for most of us. But I know that many classes, once they 

raise the money to get here, will find $5 prohibitive. 

But the difficulty I have with it is simply the precedent. I just 

don’t know how to say this to an institution that comes with a oneof-a-kind exhibition that you are not—you are not the Smithsonian, 

or you are not the Museum of Natural History, so therefore you 

can’t do it. Either there is a policy or not a policy. 

And it does seem to me that the appropriators would not jump out in front on this because they are not about to come up with $1 

million, and they are the ones that hold the purse. But that doesn’t 

speak for the rest of us. And I do not believe that if Members of 

Congress believe that we are now opening the floodgates—and that 

is what it would be, that is exactly what it will be. 

We have underfunded every single institution, hugely so; and it 

is not going to get better, which is why you see me pressing you 

on private funding, because I believe—I have been saying to Mr. 

Small, why are you out there raising all that money? 

If there had been oversight, he would have been doing exactly 

the right thing. But I do not believe that the alternative is to go 

down the road to fees for service. I just don’t see how one can 

square that with what all the other institutions are doing. And I 

can guarantee you that any of your colleagues worth their salt are 

looking to see whether you get away with it so that they can plan 

to do the same thing. That is the issue I have with it. 

As I said to you in my office when you were kind enough to come 

see me after you were appointed, I would like to work with you, 

literally to work with you, in the region. I even tried out some 

ideas. I think all these people, gardening and nature and global 

warming, and all these stores that sell things that you set up in 

your backyard, things to keep it, I just can’t believe there isn’t $1 

million out there. 

Then we will think of ways to get more millions, rather than to 

say, Listen up, everybody, the Smithsonian that you knew, which 

meant that whether you were rich or poor, young or old, you didn’t 

have a dime to go into the Kennedy Center for one of those shows, 

there are a few places you could come. The capital of the United 

States is not going to charge you admission. They will take away 

your book bag, but you can come in there free. 

You can come into the monument free, you can come into any 

part of the Smithsonian; and it has been that way for more than 

100 years, and the Congress hasn’t broken that promise. And I can 

tell you this, Dr. Samper. Carry back; let ’em break it, and it will 

be the last time they break it. 

I am not here threatening you. I am here saying, I want to work 

with you to do it. I want to work with you to find the first million 

dollars in this region. 

This is one of America’s upscale regions, full of all kinds of technology, full of McMansions, all of them live in and around here. 

Many of them live in the District of Columbia, full of lobbyists. The 

notion that there isn’t somebody out there to do a good deed, not 

for you, but for school children who will be told, sorry, unless your 

34

group happens to be here on a certain day of the week, you can’t 

get in to see the one thing, the one thing you would have heard 

about about the Smithsonian. 

If you are a school child, the rest of the world may not know 

about these butterflies, but the word is going to travel about these 

butterflies throughout the United States and the world. That is 

just how exciting this is. 

Well, we didn’t do the right thing; we didn’t fund it. But I don’t 

think Congress should let you do the wrong thing and open the 

floodgates so that every institution will say, what is the difference 

between us and the Smithsonian? 

So I am putting you on notice to say that I will do everything 

I can to see it doesn’t happen. Go out and raise some more money 

after you raise this money. I want you to come, you and your development people to come see me within the next couple of weeks, and 

let’s have discussions about—let them do some homework, and I 

am going to have my staff do some homework about how we can 

fund the first year, and then perhaps go at funding the butterflies 

thereafter. 

Mr. SAMPER. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate your offer, 

and we will definitely take you up on that. And I trust that we will 

be able to do that. We are trying to fund-raise, and certainly if we 

are fortunate enough to have someone that is willing to give us 

that first million dollars but also to secure this for the future, to 

secure that $20 million endowment, we certainly look forward to it. 

And I think you mentioned it as well. If this is such a wonderful 

experience that we feel we should bring to the American people 

and to all the people here because it will be a good learning experience. We are sorry it has come to that, but as you know and you 

have recognized, clearly it recognizes how stretched our base budget and operating costs are. 

Ms. NORTON. I can’t blame you. I know where the blame lies. 

You are sitting here with it today. I only have two more questions. 

One comes from the chairman of the committee. In January of 

this year the Smithsonian Inspector General, A. Sprightley Ryan, 

submitted a report to the audit and review committee and the 

Smithsonian Board of Regents detailing then-Secretary Small’s expenses between 2000 and 2005 that are unsupported or inadequately supported by documentation. Those, of course, are the expenses that you obsess about that had been ratified by the Board 

of Regents after the fact. 

At a Senate hearing in April, these unapproved expenses were stated to total $90,000. What actions have been taken since that 

time to recover documentation for these expenses? 

Mr. SAMPER. Madam Chair, in any case where the Inspector 

General takes action, such as Mr. Small or any other employee of 

the institution, as a matter of fact, we try and secure the documentation, making sure that everything is there. If we find that an 

expense in the end was not authorized and didn’t go through the 

right procedures, we will then take appropriate measures to try 

and recover some of that funding or, if necessary, issue appropriate 

tax——

Ms. NORTON. So attempting to recover major funding and some 

of the documentation? 

35

Mr. SAMPER. For some of these, anything that was not supported, 

absolutely. 

Ms. NORTON. I thought that they were ratified after the fact. 

Mr. SAMPER. There were certain questions that were raised in 

terms of particular types of expenses, and whether those types of 

expenses may be covered under the original terms. And that was 

what was the action in terms of the Regents. 

Ms. NORTON. That is what you spoke about in terms of the intent. You need to—was counsel supported when this was done? 

Mr. SAMPER. Pardon me? 

Ms. NORTON. Was counsel consulted when the clarification was 

issued? All right, we will cover these expenses. Was counsel consulted when that was done? 

Mr. SAMPER. I believe they were, Madam Chair. 

Ms. NORTON. I would like you to provide the papers from counsel 

and others that indicated the clarification that this $90,000 that 

the Inspector General found were unapproved expenses. I would 

like to see whatever that paper from counsel and from the Board 

of Regents indicated, that that was because the guidelines seemed 

to be straightforward. 

The intent of the guidelines wasn’t clear; as read, most have 

thought that there was a violation of the guidelines, and I believe 

that the Inspector General thought there was a violation of the 

guidelines. So if, after the fact, you say, you know, what we really 

meant was this, then we would like to see the documentation from 

the Board and from counsel to that effect. 

Mr. SAMPER. I will be glad to look for that and provide it to you, 

Madam Chair. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you. 

One final question. We are having nice little discussion, phone 

calls from constituents, Members about the highly regarded Jazz 

Cafe—it is an entrepreneurial work, and one that is in magnificent 

keeping with your mission—a performance every Friday night at 

the National Museum of Natural History. Have these performances 

been discontinued? Will they be discontinued at the end of June? 

Could you give us a status report on the Jazz Cafe? 

Mr. SAMPER. Yes, Madam Chair. As a regular customer of the 

Jazz Cafe myself and someone that appreciates this, I certainly recognize the value that this has done in terms of reaching out to the 

constituencies in Washington. The answer is, we have at this point 

secured enough funding to keep the program open through the end 

of the fiscal year. So it will not be closing in June. 

Ms. NORTON. Terrific. So will it close the end of September? 

Mr. SAMPER. We are currently pursuing additional options for 

sponsorship. Again, like we are discussing——

Ms. NORTON. So there was no sponsor. How much was the public 

charged? 

Mr. SAMPER. —per year the sponsorship, but we are looking for 

at this point, Madam Chair, $100,000. 

Ms. NORTON. To go to the end of the year? 

Mr. SAMPER. No. No. It is actually quite a manageable figure. We 

have had some sponsors in the past. We have been fortunate. We 

are currently looking for additional sponsors. 

36

So again, this is another area where we would be very happy to 

work with you. But the program at a cost of bringing this performance, which certainly I agree fits in with the mission, requires that, 

and we are clearly working on trying to secure that sponsor, so at 

this point we can keep it through the end of the fiscal year. 

And if we can secure the sponsorship, we look forward to having 

the Jazz Cafe continue. 

Ms. NORTON. If I may say so, for how much, what is the public 

charged? 

Mr. SAMPER. There is a cover charge and if I am not mistaken, it is $10 per person. 

Ms. NORTON. And then what do you get when you get in there? 

Are there any refreshments of any kind, sir? 

Mr. SAMPER. There are refreshments that are available at a 

charge; and Restaurant Associates that provides the catering services there, provides meals for a cost. 

Ms. NORTON. Meals? Is wine available? 

Mr. SAMPER. There is a buffet service where people can go in and 

purchase the food. So they can be able to eat. 

Ms. NORTON. Is wine available? 

Mr. SAMPER. Oh, in the—yes, there is. 

Ms. NORTON. Okay. It occurs to me that there should be a perfect 

synergy, talking about a jazz cafe out of all places, the Museum 

of—was it Natural History? 

Mr. SAMPER. Natural History, yes, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. Part of the Smithsonian, and the music industry. 

Has the music industry or any part of it been—not to mention all 

the people who make iPods and the contracts—and don’t let me go 

on on that. 

Were any of them sponsors? 

Mr. SAMPER. Not to date. We have been fortunate to have sponsorship from some of the media companies. Some hotels in the region have provided some sponsorship, but I don’t believe that the 

music industry has provided support to date. 

Ms. NORTON. Is there a development officer for that, for the Jazz 

Cafe? 

Mr. SAMPER. Not for the Jazz Cafe. There is a jazz development 

officer for the Museum of Natural History, and this is one of the 

activities that they currently include in their portfolio. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, again, you know, speaking as an amateur on 

this, if there is food served in there, if there is wine served in 

there, if there is music served in there, the music industry is having some difficulties. 

Now, if anything, that should make them want to program what 

they do by getting into a Federal facility with sponsorship. Again, 

I suppose that you gathered from a lot of my questions I am questioning the development activities of the Smithsonian and believe 

that if our underfunding is clear, the Smithsonian needs to take 

another look at its own development activities and ask if it is 21st 

century, can it compete in the market where it exists? 

Mr. SAMPER. Madam Chair, we certainly—clearly, we recognize 

that we see the Smithsonian as this partnership. We are trying to 

secure additional resources, and as I mentioned before, we have 

come a long ways in the last 10 years, as you mentioned, securing 

37

$1 billion which has been the teamwork of many museum directors. 

Secretary Small and others have been important. 

But I agree with you that we are always looking for ways to 

strengthen that as we move forward. 

Ms. NORTON. May I remind you that when we have asked for 

documentation or documents that they are to be to the committee 

within 30 days. 

May I ask the Ranking Member if you have any questions beyond mine? 

I want to thank you very much, Dr. Samper. It is very important 

testimony. You will note that I see opportunities for the Smithsonian to do better. I think there are a lot of opportunities for the 

Congress to do better, too, but funding—and you need oversight. 

Again, it is very easy to say now that the press did the oversight, 

that Mr. Small was not what he should be. What I want to say 

right here, there was no oversight, no oversight to speak of. The 

backdated oversight, I should say to you, is troublesome, and it 

does not relieve the Board of Regents of the fiduciary responsibility. And some of them are lawyers, and I think would agree that 

on any private institution, that would have been seen—that would 

have been seen as a violation of fiduciary responsibility not only for 

the Secretary but for those whose job it was to make sure that the 

Secretary did as the guidelines specifically set out. 

I just needed to get that on the record. 

What is most important about this hearing for me is the contrast 

between your organizations, why that contrast exists, one’s performing arts institution, half of their private funds come from people who come to see what they are doing. Much harder for an institution where you have to often get people to understand what you 

are doing in order to get them in the door. 

The real question becomes, how do you get them, how do you 

lure them, whether or not better, more sophisticated development 

could be done, whether or not the treasures that are in this complex of institutions are well understood, how to make them better 

understood. I regard that as a wonderful challenge. We just crossed 

over into the 21st century, so there is plenty of time. 

I thank you for your testimony. I look forward to working with 

you specifically on funding not only from the Congress, but on your 

fund-raising in the private sector. 

Mr. SAMPER. Thank you, Madam Chair. We appreciate your attention and this opportunity to testify before you, and we look forward to working with this, which as you said is a partnership. 

We appreciate the support that we get from Congress and from 

the administration. We will do our share with private fund-raising. 

And as I told you when we met privately, we are also trying to 

learn from our own mistakes, in some cases, and are trying to 

strengthen our governance. So I have no doubt we will have a 

stronger Smithsonian. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you for your testimony. The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:45 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

38


36683.005
39


36683.006
40


36683.007
41


36683.008
42


36683.009
43


36683.010
44


36683.011
45


36683.012
46


36683.013
47


36683.014
48


36683.015
49


36683.016
50


36683.017
51


36683.018
52


36683.019
53


36683.020
54


36683.021
55


36683.022
56


36683.023
57


36683.024
58


36683.025
59


36683.026
60


36683.027
61


36683.028
62


36683.029
63

Æ


36683.030