    [House Hearing, 112 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                          THE U.S. ANTARCTIC PROGRAM:

                  ACHIEVING FISCAL AND LOGISTICAL EFFICIENCY

                         WHILE SUPPORTING SOUND SCIENCE
    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                          THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2012

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 112-106

                                   __________

     Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

           Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    77-036                    WASHINGTON : 2012
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    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

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

                        HON. RALPH M. HALL, Texas, Chair
    F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR.,         EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
        Wisconsin                        JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
    LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas                LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
    DANA ROHRABACHER, California         ZOE LOFGREN, California
    ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland         BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
    FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma             DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
    JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois               DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
    W. TODD AKIN, Missouri               BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico
    RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas              PAUL D. TONKO, New York
    MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas             JERRY McNERNEY, California
    PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia               TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
    SANDY ADAMS, Florida                 FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
    BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona             HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan
    CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN,    SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
        Tennessee                        VACANCY
    E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia            VACANCY
    STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi       VACANCY
    MO BROOKS, Alabama
    ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
    RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois
    CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota
    LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
    DAN BENISHEK, Michigan
    VACANCY
                                C O N T E N T S

                          Thursday, November 15, 2012

                                                                       Page
    Witness List.....................................................     2

    Hearing Charter..................................................     3

                               Opening Statements

    Statement by Representative Ralph M. Hall, Chairman, Committee on
      Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives..    16
        Written Statement............................................    17

    Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
      Minority Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
      U.S. House of Representatives..................................    17
        Written Statement............................................    22

                                   Witnesses:

    Mr. Norman R. Augustine, Chair, U.S. Antarctic Program Blue
      Ribbon Panel
        Oral Statement...............................................    20
        Written Statement............................................    23

    The Honorable Subra Suresh, Director, National Science Foundation
        Oral Statement...............................................    30
        Written Statement............................................    28

    General Duncan J. McNabb, USAF (Ret), Member, U.S. Antarctic
      Program Blue Ribbon Panel
        Oral Statement...............................................    36
        Written Statement............................................    38

    Dr. Warren M. Zapol, M.D., Chair, Committee on Future Science
      Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean, National
      Research Council
        Oral Statement...............................................    41
        Written Statement............................................    44

                 Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

    Mr. Norman R. Augustine, Chair, U.S. Antarctic Program Blue
      Ribbon Panel...................................................    68

    The Honorable Subra Suresh, Director, National Science Foundation    70

    General Duncan J. McNabb, USAF (Ret), Member, U.S. Antarctic
      Program Blue Ribbon Panel......................................    73

    Dr. Warren M. Zapol, M.D., Chair, Committee on Future Science
      Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean, National
      Research Council...............................................    75

                          THE U.S. ANTARCTIC PROGRAM:

                        ACHIEVING FISCAL AND LOGISTICAL

                   EFFICIENCY WHILE SUPPORTING SOUND SCIENCE

                                  ----------

                          THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2012

                      House of Representatives,
                   Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
                                                       Washington, D.C.

        The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in Room
    2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ralph Hall
    [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 77036.001

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 77036.002

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 77036.003

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 77036.004

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 77036.005

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 77036.006

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 77036.007

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 77036.008

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 77036.009

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 77036.010

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 77036.011

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 77036.012

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 77036.013

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 77036.014

        Chairman Hall. The Committee on Science, Space, and
    Technology will come to order, and we say good morning and
    welcome to today's hearing: ``The U.S. Antarctic Program:
    Achieving Fiscal and Logistical Efficiency While Supporting
    Sound Science.''
        In front of you are packets containing the written
    testimony and the biographies and the Truth in Testimony
    disclosures for today's witnesses. At this time I guess I will
    recognize myself for five minutes for the opening statement.
        The first United States presence in Antarctica dates way
    back to 1830. Our support of explorers and scientists on that
    continent has yielded and continues to yield valuable research
    that not only affects our daily lives, but absolutely can't be
    done in any other place on earth. As much as we currently know
    about Antarctica, there remains much to be learned. It is hard
    to believe that it has only been slightly more than 100 years
    since humans arrived at the South Pole, and now we are
    performing science there year-round at the U.S. South Pole
    Station, in addition to the work being done at McMurdo and
    Palmer stations, at remote camps across the continent, and on
    various research vessels in the Southern Ocean.
        We are fortunate to have the National Science Foundation
    capably managing the U.S. Antarctic Program for the entire
    United States and we are pleased that it, in consultation with
    the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy,
    initiated two activities to review the program: first, a
    National Academies report to focus on the science needed for
    the next two decades, and second, a Blue Ribbon Panel report to
    focus on the logistics required to support that science.
        The purpose of the hearing today is to take a look at the
    recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Panel's report, ``More and
    Better Science in Antarctica through Increased Logistical
    Effectiveness,'' is the title of it, and the benefits, costs
    and savings associated with those recommendations.
        Personally, I have not had the pleasure of visiting
    Antarctica and don't expect that I ever will have an
    opportunity that I accept--no CODELs--and I don't know anybody
    that has been there that wants to go back. I personally have
    not had the privilege of visiting Antarctica as many of my
    colleagues have, but I have learned from them and from others
    of the immense value and unique opportunities that that
    continent holds for scientific discovery. It is very important
    to us. I also recognize the important geopolitical reasons to
    maintain a U.S. presence there and appreciate the cooperation
    that must take place not only between relevant U.S. agencies,
    but also between our international friends and partners.
    Unfortunately, the magnitude of the logistics to support these
    activities is enormous and overwhelmingly dominates the budget
    for Antarctic activities. Therefore, the Blue Ribbon Panel's
    report recommendations are very welcome.
        The Blue Ribbon Panel report provides ten broad
    overreaching recommendations for logistical effectiveness, and
    also provides a number of specific implementing actions
    categorized as either, one, essential for safety and health; or
    number two, readily implementable; and significant investment
    and large payoff.
        I want to thank Norm Augustine, General McNabb, Bart
    Gordon, the former Chairman of this Committee, a wonderful guy
    and a great job he did for the years he was here, and all of
    the other Blue Ribbon panelists for the time and effort they
    spent on developing this report, and I look forward to
    discussing the feasibility of implementing their
    recommendations, particularly during this time of budgetary
    constraint, with all of the witnesses and I thank all of you
    for taking time out of your busy schedules, the time it took
    for you to get ready, the time it took for you to get here, the
    time you are going to spend with us and the time you are going
    to have going back. You are givers and not takers, and we
    appreciate every one of you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
                   Prepared Statement of Chairman Ralph Hall
        The first United States presence in Antarctica dates back to 1830.
    Our support of explorers and scientists on that continent has yielded
    and continues to yield valuable research that not only affects our
    daily lives, but cannot be done in any other place on earth. As much as
    we currently know about Antarctica, there remains much to be learned.
    It is hard to believe that it has only been slightly more than 100
    years since humans arrived at the South Pole, and now we are performing
    science there year-round at the U.S. South Pole Station, in addition to
    the work being done at McMurdo and Palmer stations, at remote camps
    across the continent, and on various research vessels in the Southern
    Ocean.
        We are fortunate to have the National Science Foundation capably
    managing the U.S. Antarctic Program for the entire United States and
    are pleased that it, in consultation with the White House Office of
    Science and Technology Policy, initiated two activities to review the
    Program: (1) a National Academies report to focus on the science needs
    for the next two decades; and (2) a Blue Ribbon Panel report to focus
    on the logistics required to support that science. The purpose of the
    hearing today is to take a look at the recommendations of the Blue
    Ribbon Panel's report, More and Better Science in Antarctica through
    Increased Logistical Effectiveness, and the benefits, costs and savings
    associated with those recommendations.
        I, personally, have not had the pleasure of visiting Antarctica as
    many of my colleagues have, but I have learned from them and from
    others of the immense value and unique opportunities that continent
    holds for scientific discovery. I also recognize the important
    geopolitical reasons to maintain a U.S. presence there and appreciate
    the cooperation that must take place not only between relevant U.S.
    agencies, but also between our international friends and partners.
    Unfortunately, the magnitude of the logistics to support these
    activities is enormous and overwhelmingly dominates the budget for
    Antarctic activities. Therefore, the Blue Ribbon Panel's report
    recommendations are welcome.
        The Blue Ribbon Panel report provides ten broad overarching
    recommendations for logistical effectiveness, and also provides a
    number of specific implementing actions categorized as either (1)
    essential for safety and health; (2) readily implementable; and (3)
    significant investment and large payoff.
        I want to thank Norm Augustine; General McNabb; Bart Gordon, the
    former Chairman of this Committee; and all of the other Blue Ribbon
    panelists for the time and effort they spent on developing this report,
    and I look forward to discussing the feasibility of implementing their
    recommendations, particularly during this time of budgetary constraint,
    with all of the witnesses.

        Chairman Hall. I yield back my time. I recognize for five
    minutes an opening statement, Ms. Johnson. Ms. Johnson, you
    present your opening statement and take as much time as you
    need.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding
    this hearing and welcome to our esteemed panel of witnesses.
    The United States presence in Antarctica is critically
    important both strategically and scientifically. With two
    expert reports on both the science and logistics of our
    Antarctic research program recently completed, and a new
    contractor in place, we are at an important juncture in the 53-
    year-old U.S. Antarctic Program.
        So I am pleased that we are having this hearing now to
    begin to review the many challenges and opportunities that lie
    ahead. However, our ability to address them will inevitably
    depend on what decisions we make about the larger federal
    budget in the coming months. I hope that we will also keep
    Antarctica on our agenda in the next Congress as the budget
    picture comes into better focus.
        By all accounts, the National Science Foundation and its
    agency partners have done an extraordinary job in building and
    maintaining a productive, safe and efficient U.S. research
    program across the Antarctic continent. They have done so while
    minimizing our environmental footprint in Antarctica, hopefully
    giving all of us back in the United States some lessons on how
    we can take easy steps to reduce our energy consumption and
    reduce waste.
        Our efficient investment in infrastructure and operations
    enables cutting-edge science across many fields supported by
    multiple federal agencies. Most of us probably didn't know that
    there is an active volcano in Antarctica being studied by the
    NSF and the USGS scientists, and that NASA conducts some
    research down there because the harsh Antarctic environment is
    a good preliminary test bed for the harsh conditions in space.
    Many of our scientists are also conducting research on land and
    at sea to help us better understand and predict global change,
    global climate change, and NOAA is making critical atmospheric
    measurements at the South Pole.
        But the more efficient and safer we are in our logistical
    support of these activities, the more opportunity we will have
    to expand and strengthen the science we do. So I commend Dr.
    Suresh and OSTP Director Dr. Holdren on their decision to
    request a two-tier review of the U.S.Antarctic Program, first
    to look at the science priorities, then to carry out an A to Z
    review of the infrastructure and logistics. This is the very
    definition of good government.
        I look forward to hearing from Mr. Augustine and General
    McNabb about the Blue Ribbon Panel's recommendations and any
    specific advice they have for us on how the Science Committee
    can be helpful. I would also like to hear from witnesses as to
    whether the scientific community has expressed any concerns
    with respect to the Blue Ribbon Panel's recommendations, and
    how the agency might best work with the community to minimize
    the short-term disruption to science.
        Last, but of course not least, I look forward to hearing
    about the scientific priorities for the U.S. Antarctic Program
    going forward and how and why we all benefit from the science
    being carried out so far away from our shores.
        On another note, with this possibly being our last
    Committee hearing of the year, I want to take this opportunity
    to thank my friend and colleague Ralph Hall for his leadership
    of this Committee.
        And with that, I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
           Prepared Statement of Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson
        Thank you, Chairman Hall, for holding this hearing and welcome to
    our esteemed panel of witnesses. The United States presence in
    Antarctica is critically important both strategically and
    scientifically. With two expert reports on both the science and
    logistics of our Antarctic research program recently completed, and a
    new contractor in place, we are at an important juncture in the 53-year
    old US Antarctic Program.
        So I am pleased that we are having this hearing now to begin to
    review the many challenges and opportunities that lie ahead. However
    our ability to address them will inevitably depend on what decisions we
    make about the larger federal budget in the coming months. I hope that
    we will also keep Antarctica on our agenda in the next Congress as the
    budget picture comes into better focus.
        By all accounts, the National Science Foundation and its agency
    partners have done an extraordinary job in building and maintaining a
    productive, safe, and efficient U.S. research program across the
    Antarctic continent. They have done so while minimizing our
    environmental footprint in Antarctica, hopefully giving all of us back
    in the U.S. some lessons on how we can take easy steps to reduce our
    energy consumption and reduce waste.
        Our efficient investment in infrastructure and operations enables
    cutting edge science across many fields supported by multiple federal
    agencies. Most of us probably didn't know that there is an active
    volcano in Antarctica being studied by NSF and USGS scientists, and
    that NASA conducts some research down there because the harsh Antarctic
    environment is a good preliminary testbed for the harsh conditions in
    space. Many of our scientists are also conducting research on land and
    at sea to help us better understand and predict global climate change,
    and NOAA is making critical atmospheric measurements at the South Pole.
        But the more efficient and safer we are in our logistical support
    of these activities, the more opportunity we will have to expand and
    strengthen the science we do. So I commend Dr. Suresh and OSTP Director
    Dr. Holdren on their decision to request a two-tier review of the US
    Antarctic Program, first to look at the science priorities, then to
    carry out an A to Z review of the infrastructure and logistics.

        This is the very definition of good government.

        I look forward to hearing from Mr. Augustine and General McNabb
    about the Blue Ribbon Panel's recommendations, and any specific advice
    they have for us on how the Science Committee can be helpful. I'd also
    like to hear from witnesses as to whether the scientific community has
    expressed any concerns with respect to the Blue Ribbon's Panel's
    recommendations, and how the agency might best work with the community
    to minimize the short-term disruption to the science.
        Last, but of course not least, I look forward to hearing about the
    scientific priorities for the US Antarctic Program going forward and
    how and why we all benefit from the science being carried out so far
    away from our own shores.
        On another note, with this possibly being our last full committee
    hearing of the year, I want to take this opportunity to thank my friend
    and colleague Ralph Hall for his leadership of this committee.

        With that I yield back.

        Chairman Hall. If you want to expand on that, I will give
    you some more time. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
        If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening
    statements, your statements will be added to the record at this
    point.
        At this time I would like to introduce our panel of
    witnesses. Our first witness is one who has been here many
    times before, Norman R. Augustine, Chair of the U.S. Antarctic
    Program Blue Ribbon Panel, and a good friend of this Committee,
    and good friend of this Congress and a good friend of this
    country. His name is attached to a number of reports with which
    we are familiar and we are lucky to have the benefit of his
    leadership. Mr. Augustine spent his career working in both the
    private and public sectors including the Department of Defense.
    He served as either president or CEO and chairman of the board
    for Martin Marietta for more than 20 years before becoming
    president of the newly formed Lockheed Martin in 1995. He
    retired as chairman and CEO of Lockheed Martin in 1997. Mr.
    Augustine holds 29 honorary degrees and has been presented the
    National Medal of Technology by the President of the United
    States and received the Joint Chiefs of Staff Distinguished
    Public Service Award.
        Our second witness is Dr. Subra Suresh, Director of the
    National Science Foundation. Prior to assuming his current role
    in 2010, he served as the Dean of the School of Engineering and
    the Vannevar Bush Professor of Engineering at the Massachusetts
    Institute of Technology, MIT.
        Our next witness is General Duncan McNabb, United States
    Air Force, retired, a member of the U.S. Antarctic Program Blue
    Ribbon Panel and a former commander, United States
    Transportation Command. U.S. Transcom is the single manager for
    global air, land and sea transportation for the Department of
    Defense. In his distinguished career of more than 37 years,
    General McNabb also served in a variety of leadership roles
    including U.S. Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff for Planning and
    Programming, Director for Logistics on the Joint Staff, and
    Vice Chief of Staff for the Air Force, and it is not written
    here for me to say but he also lives in Texas. Ensign Gay, who
    was the sole survivor of the Battle of Midway, as many of you
    know and remember, was a Texan, and he always in all his
    speeches, I never heard him make a speech that he didn't say
    this: he said ``Never ask anybody if they are from Texas,
    because if they are, they will tell you, and if they are not,
    there is no reason to embarrass them.''
        Our final witness is Dr. Warren Zapol, Chair of the
    National Research Council's Committee on Future Science
    Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean. Dr. Zapol
    is an anesthesiologist and is current Director of the
    Massachusetts General Hospital Anesthesia Center for Critical
    Care Research. He is also Reginald Jenney Professor of
    Anesthesia at Harvard Medical School.
        As our witnesses should know, spoken testimony is limited
    to five minutes after which the Members of this Committee will
    have five minutes each to ask you questions, and you are not
    relegated to five minutes, you are not held to that. We are too
    grateful to you for being here. We will work with you on that.
    Just do your best.
        I now recognize our first witness Mr. Augustine for five
    minutes.

                 STATEMENT OF MR. NORMAN R. AUGUSTINE,

            CHAIR, U.S. ANTARCTIC PROGRAM BLUE RIBBON PANEL

        Mr. Augustine. Well, thank you, Chairman Hall and Ranking
    Member Johnson and Members of the Committee. I am pleased to
    have the opportunity to represent my 11 colleagues on this
    study here at this hearing, and I particularly appreciate your
    inviting General McNabb, my colleague and friend on the
    committee. I have submitted a written statement, Mr. Chairman.
        As you all know, the purpose of the U.S. presence in
    Antarctica is really twofold. One is to perform science, the
    other is to provide a U.S. presence on the continent and in the
    Southern Ocean. The role of our committee, however, was, as the
    chairman said, to focus on logistics and support, both in
    Antarctica and the Southern Ocean. It is a challenge to provide
    logistical support there, as you can imagine. At the Pole, for
    example, you are on top of 9,000 feet of ice, 11,000-foot
    pressure altitude, strong winds, darkness for much of the year,
    and temperatures in that general area have been measured as far
    as 127 degrees below zero Fahrenheit. But it happens to be a
    superb place to perform certain kinds of science, and the other
    witnesses, I think, will describe that later so I will turn to
    logistics.
        The logistical pipeline is rather demanding. It is about
    11,000 miles long, going from Port Hueneme in California to
    Christchurch, New Zealand, to McMurdo Base on the Ross Sea and
    then another 800 miles to the Pole if that is where you are
    going. It is the view of our committee that the NSF over the
    years, today as well, has done a truly remarkable job of
    managing such a complex, unforgiving operation. The perhaps
    prime example of that is the building of the new South Pole
    Station, which this Committee approved a few years ago. It was
    a remarkable feat and was brought in basically on cost and on
    schedule, very close.
        Science is just the tip of the iceberg, quite literally, in
    terms of our activity in Antarctica. As the Chairman alluded
    to, it happens that about 85 percent of the people days that
    are spent on the continent and in the Southern Ocean are
    associated with logistics support as opposed to the science
    itself, and about 90 percent--excuse me--about 80 percent of
    the budget is attributed to logistical support. A little
    arithmetic there will suggest that if the logistics costs would
    go up by just 13 percent, you would have to cut the science in
    half for a constant overall budget. On the other hand, this
    means there is an enormous opportunity if we can reduce the
    cost of the logistics.
        We found the logistics and facilities in rather poor
    repair, particularly at McMurdo and to a lesser extent at
    Palmer. For example, we entered a warehouse where there were
    certain areas you couldn't drive forklifts because they fall
    through the floor. We found them storing dry food in a facility
    that one of our members, who is the former Vice President of
    Proctor and Gamble for Global Supply, he said he wouldn't store
    soap in that building. We saw rooms designed for two people
    that five people were living in, of course posing a
    considerable health hazard. Inventories are often stored
    outdoors. The wind covers them with snow, and when people need
    supplies they have to dig through the snow banks to try to find
    them. The infirmary was described to us at McMurdo by the
    physician there as being of 1960s vintage. The dock at Palmer
    Station has an underwater pinnacle of rock that makes it
    extremely hazardous to dock ships there. Many ships can't dock
    there because of that.
        We think the root cause of this has to do with the lack of
    a capital budget plan for the U.S. program in Antarctica, and
    of course, that is not unique to the NSF. By having such a
    plan, it would be possible to greatly increase the efficiency
    in Antarctica.
        We have proposed in our 224-page book a number of things
    that could be done to improve the situation, and let me
    emphasize that we are acutely aware of the budgetary problems
    that face our Nation and face your Committee. We have proposed
    a four-step plan that could be used to fund the program we have
    proposed. The first step is to increase the U.S. Antarctic
    Program funding by six percent for four years; correspondingly,
    to shift six percent of the science budget for the next four
    years to rebuilding the logistics system; to apply the savings
    from the first four years of the changes we propose to
    improving the logistics system; and, finally, by reducing the
    cost of contract activities by about 20 percent, which we
    believe is possible.
        I should say this does not address the icebreaker issue,
    which transcends the NSF's ability to solve what is of the
    utmost importance and hopefully this Committee will be able to
    address that.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I will conclude my remarks and I
    would be happy to answer questions at the appropriate time.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Augustine follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 77036.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 77036.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 77036.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 77036.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 77036.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 77036.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 77036.021

        Chairman Hall. And I thank you.
        I now recognize our second witness, Dr. Suresh, for five
    minutes.

                STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SUBRA SURESH,

                 DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

        Mr. Suresh. Chairman Hall, Ranking Member Johnson and
    distinguished Members of the Committee, I am pleased to appear
    before you today to discuss the results of the Blue Ribbon
    Panel review of the U.S. Antarctic Program, or commonly
    referred to as USAP.
        First, let me thank my colleague and good friend, Mr. Norm
    Augustine, for leading this very immense undertaking. I also
    acknowledge the distinguished panel for their very insightful
    analysis of the challenges we face in supporting the research
    in Antarctica. I also thank Dr. John Holdren of the Office of
    Science and Technology Policy for collaborating with us to form
    and support the panel. Lastly, I acknowledge the important
    stage-setting provided by the National Research Council's
    report on ``Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the
    Southern Ocean.''
        Mr. Chairman, the National Science Foundation is proud of
    its presidentially directed role in leading USAP on behalf of
    the U.S. government. We must continuously address and
    anticipate the complex logistics needed to implement frontier
    science and engineering research in this remote and very harsh
    environment.
        Antarctica serves as an extraordinary laboratory and
    important bellwether for virtually all areas of science. In my
    written testimony, I highlighted three significant discoveries
    resulting from research in this region: the identification of
    the ozone hole, which resulted in the worldwide ban of
    chlorofluorocarbons; the discovery of antifreeze proteins that
    have implications for tissue preservation for medical
    transplants, hypothermia treatment and lengthening the shelf
    life of frozen foods; and the recent discovery just a few weeks
    ago of the Phoenix galaxy cluster that generates 700 stars a
    year, the highest rate ever documented.
        The U.S. Antarctic Program also supports the missions of
    our sister agencies including NASA's long-duration scientific
    ballooning and meteorite collection programs and NOAA's key
    observations for long-term atmospheric monitoring. NSF also
    effectively partners with other agencies, both in the United
    States and in Europe, for the data acquisition system in the
    Antarctic that is vital to the weather prediction systems upon
    which we all rely.
        USAP also implements U.S. policy and the interests of the
    State Department through an active and influential presence in
    Antarctica. The U.S. governing role is paramount in the
    Antarctic treaty system.
        We have reviewed USAP roughly once a decade since its
    creation. These reviews help determine whether the program is
    effectively structured, appropriately balanced and routinely
    aligned with national goals. Specifically, this Blue Ribbon
    Panel review focused on ensuring that the logistics and
    infrastructure were in place to support the cutting-edge
    research that can only be done and best be done in this remote
    environment. Given the austere budget environment we are in,
    the panel's review was designed to identify opportunities for
    efficiencies and to inform and prioritize future budget
    requests for logistics and infrastructure.
        The panel laid out a realistic blueprint for securing and
    improving world-class research in Antarctica. They also
    provided a warning that resonated with me as an engineer. USAP
    is currently operating under the threat of multiple single
    points of failure. Immediately after the release of the report
    this past July, I chartered a Tiger Team of senior NSF managers
    to guide development of a point-by-point response that includes
    a rolling five-year long-range investment plan, an integrated
    master schedule to implement recommendations contained in the
    report. The Tiger Team members agree with the majority of the
    recommendations, although as Mr. Augustine pointed out, not all
    of them can be implemented solely by NSF. For example, ensuring
    icebreaker capabilities for the United States requires action
    on the part of the U.S. Coast Guard and other parts of the
    federal government. The balance of the recommendations can be
    and are being acted on. We will immediately address the
    critical recommendations related to safety. We are also
    determining the feasibility and full cost implications of
    others.
        I have also asked the Tiger Team to develop approaches for
    additional improvements through cross-foundational
    fertilization and external engagement. For example, they are
    exploring issuing grand challenges in areas that are related to
    energy utilization and engineering.
        Along these same lines, we fully expect Lockheed Martin,
    our current Antarctic support contractor, to implement some of
    the cost-saving ideas they included in their proposal. Our
    Department of Defense partners also continue to recommend ideas
    for operating more efficiently. We expect to provide the
    National Science Board with a point-by-point response to the
    Blue Ribbon Panel recommendations at its meeting in December. I
    would like to acknowledge the chair of the National Science
    Board, Dr. Dan Arvizu, who graciously joined us here this
    morning. We would be happy to provide a copy of that to the
    committee.
        Mr. Chairman, we appreciate this opportunity to discuss our
    initial response to the Blue Ribbon Panel report and look
    forward to continuing to support cutting-edge research in
    Antarctica. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Suresh follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 77036.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 77036.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 77036.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 77036.025

        Chairman Hall. Thank you for a good presentation.
        Now I recognize our third witness, General McNabb, for five
    minutes.

           STATEMENT OF GENERAL DUNCAN J. MCNABB, USAF (RET),

            MEMBER, U.S. ANTARCTIC PROGRAM BLUE RIBBON PANEL

        General McNabb. Chairman Hall, Ranking Member Johnson and
    Members of the Committee, it is my honor to be with you today
    to testify on the Blue Ribbon Panel's report. It was a true
    privilege to join our chairman, Norm Augustine, and the other
    Blue Ribbon panel members to look at how we might improve
    logistics in support of the National Science Foundation and our
    science community. I am also delighted to be joined today by
    Norm Augustine, Dr. Subra Suresh and Dr. Zapol.
        As a former Commander of the U.S. Air Force Air Mobility
    Command and later as commander of the United States
    Transportation Command, I was directly involved in supporting
    the National Science Foundation and the Antarctic Program. As
    you can well imagine, the movement of people, equipment and
    supplies to Antarctica is one of our most demanding missions.
    It requires special crews and special capabilities and we take
    tremendous pride in it.
        Having had visited the McMurdo area and the South Pole as a
    military commander and then later as a Blue Ribbon Panel
    member--so Chairman, I did go twice and really had a great time
    both times--I need to say first how impressed I am with the
    NSF, the science community and the people who support this
    mission day in and day out. It is not too strong a word that
    they perform logistics miracles. They handle unique challenges
    every day to make this work safely and they do an incredible
    job, given the challenges they face. That said, there are
    always opportunities to improve and hopefully the Blue Ribbon
    Panel's effort can offer some strategic insights into how to
    take an already excellent operation to an even higher level.
        I also want to thank this Committee for your continuous
    support of the mission. It has made and will continue to make a
    huge difference in improving science, enhancing safety,
    optimizing logistics operations and reducing cost. My and my
    other panel members' thoughts and suggestions are captured in
    the report but I would like to highlight a couple of points.
        First of all is the importance of McMurdo. Currently, there
    is no other location in the Antarctic which offers the
    advantages of the McMurdo area; a deepwater port with
    relatively easy access in the summer months using an
    icebreaker; a wheel capable airfield, capable of handling large
    aircraft within 20 miles of this deepwater port, and within
    effective LC-130 range of the South Pole; well-developed
    infrastructure including storage for 11.5 million gallons of
    fuel; ideal location to support NASA's satellite links and
    long-duration balloon program, and NOAA's and DOD's Polar Space
    Programs; and access to the 175,000-square-mile ice shelf which
    allows more efficient traverse operations to much of the
    Antarctic. With recommended increases in the C-17 operations
    and more multimodal operations, McMurdo's criticality as the
    principal resupply center for the NSF will even grow. For all
    these reasons, the Blue Ribbon Panel strongly recommends
    McMurdo to continue to be the major support base for the NSF
    Antarctic Program and it needs to be rightsized and modernized
    as outlined in the report.
        Second is the importance of using an enterprise
    transportation approach to the Antarctic region. Given the
    challenges of providing logistic support to this austere area,
    optimizing transportation's assets is essential. With new
    technology, capabilities and concepts of operation, there are
    excellent opportunities to significantly improve air, land and
    sea options. However, the most dramatic improvement will be
    realized through the use of a true enterprise approach, taking
    best advantage of all transportation modes by using multimodal
    operations across the entire resupply and retrograde operation.
    Given today's advances in transportation support, multimodal
    solutions are not difficult to put in place and the benefits
    far outweigh the cost. The resulting operation will offer
    increased options to science and also dramatically reduce cost.
        The final area is the importance of a capital budget, as
    mentioned by our Chairman Augustine, and multiyear funding for
    long-term logistics infrastructure support. In the report we go
    through how important this would be to improving logistics
    support and reducing cost, but given the timelines and
    constraints we have in the Antarctic, this becomes an even more
    critical overarching issue. I would ask for the Committee's
    support in looking at ways we might do this.
        Again, Chairman Hall and Members of the Committee, I am
    honored to be here today. I was privileged to be part of the
    Blue Ribbon Panel, and I think Norm Augustine did a superb job
    in leading the effort. I request my written testimony be
    submitted for the record, and I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of General McNabb follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 77036.026

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 77036.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 77036.028

        Chairman Hall. It will be done without objection, and I
    thank you, and sometime I will yield you more time to tell us a
    little more about that National Science Foundation meeting. It
    sounded interesting, which surprises me.
        Now I am going to recognize what the lady that prepared
    this for me said is our final witness. At my age, I don't like
    to introduce anything as final. This is our final witness for
    today, Dr. Zapol, and we will recognize you for five minutes
    and look forward to your testimony.

             STATEMENT OF DR. WARREN M. ZAPOL, M.D., CHAIR,

               COMMITTEE ON FUTURE SCIENCE OPPORTUNITIES

                 IN ANTARCTICA AND THE SOUTHERN OCEAN,

                       NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL

        Dr. Zapol. Thank you. Chairman Hall, Ranking Member Johnson
    and Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to talk
    today. My name is Warren Zapol. I am an anesthesiologist. I am
    the Emeritus Anesthetist-in-Chief at Massachusetts General
    Hospital and the Jenney Professor of Anesthesia at Harvard. I
    am Director of the MGH Anesthesia Center for Critical Care
    Research. We will get to that later.
        I speak to you in my role as Chair of the 2011 report,
    which I did with 17 diverse and remarkable colleagues, ``Future
    Scientific Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean''
    issued by the NRC of the National Academy, and I am a member of
    the Institute of Medicine. Our National Academy report holds
    special credibility because it was prepared according to
    stringent NAS guidelines for balance, objectivity and peer
    review, and because it was written by people including
    volunteer experts who have done scientific research in the
    Antarctic as well as many with no prior experience in
    Antarctica. We had preeminent scientists from a wide variety of
    disciplines and one Nobel Prize winner.
        Allow me to begin with what is certain to be one of your
    first questions: why is an anesthesiologist talking to you
    about research in Antarctica? In the 1970s, I became fascinated
    by stories of Weddell seals diving to 600 meters depth in the
    Southern Ocean. They could hold their breath for 90 minutes.
    Now, wouldn't it be wonderful if we could help our patients to
    hold their breath for 90 minutes, especially if they had
    pneumonia or heart attacks and things like that. So it was
    obvious as an anesthesiologist I would be interested in this.
    To answer this question, I led a small team of
    multidisciplinary scientists and doctors. We built
    microcomputers before there were microcomputers and we studied
    seals in their national icy environment. Over the course of
    nine summer seasons in Antarctica, a nine-time visitor, we
    learned how specialized storage of oxygen and nitrogen within
    the seals played a critical role and allowing these animals to
    dive for extended periods without suffering the bends or
    hypoxia--low blood oxygen levels--not things you would want. We
    brought that knowledge back and eventually I developed a
    treatment for human hypoxic newborn babies by breathing nitric
    oxide, and our technique is now used to save the lives of about
    15,000 U.S. babies each year.
        So why did I tell you this story? Because it is an
    important example of the power of discovery science. Allowing
    scientists to explore in Antarctica leads to unanticipated
    discoveries, and Antarctica is a place that is ripe for such
    discoveries. There are large parts of the continent that have
    yet to be explored. As a geologist friend of mine likes to say,
    this is a place where you can pick up a rock and be confident
    that you are the first person ever to pick up that rock.
        But discovery is only part of this story. Science in
    Antarctica is also critical for it teaches us about the earth
    and how it is changing. Antarctica and the Southern ocean
    comprise about a third of our planet. They play a key role in
    earth's climate and geography and provide a unique environment
    from which to monitor and understand global change including
    sea-level change. Our NAS report highlighted the need for both
    discovery-driven research and research on global change
    questions across the wide variety of scientific disciplines.
    More details of this are available in the complete report.
        After identifying these important scientific questions, our
    committee made a number of recommendations about the tools and
    logistics we needed to support research on these questions in a
    more effective and more efficient manner. Our group realized
    the need for wider observations underpinned many of our
    important scientific questions and thus our first
    recommendation is that the United States should lead in the
    development of large-scale interdisciplinary observing network
    and support a new generation of earth systems models to
    integrate these observations. Antarctica is almost totally
    unintegrated in all our models, and it is such a big piece of
    the earth. This is viewed as a key element of progress on the
    widest area of scientific issues.
        Other recommendations highlighted the need to continue to
    support basic research, to improve international collaboration
    working with others, to exploit newer technologies, and to
    coordinate our educational activities.
        Finally, our group emphasized the need for the United
    States to maintain a strong logistical support for science in
    the environment of Antarctica, and thus we ask the Blue Ribbon
    Panel to address: one, improve the efficiency of the support
    provided by the contractors and to enhance communications
    between, and the oversight of and the management of contractors
    by the scientific community in the field. Two, increase the
    flexibility and mobility and support system to work on the
    continent and the ocean-wide manner the entire continent, use
    as much of it as possible for as much of the year as possible,
    and to maintain, develop and enhance the logistical assets of
    the United States including the stations, the aircraft, the
    research vessels and icebreakers, of which you have already
    heard a bit of.
        Before our committee wrote its report--because our
    committee wrote its report as input to the Blue Ribbon Panel,
    we did not have the later opportunity to comment as a group on
    that report. As such, I can only offer you my personal views of
    their report. I believe they did a stellar job, and
    particularly they listened to our committee's recommendations
    for more observations and disbursed observations and for
    increased flexibility and the logistical support of science in
    the Antarctic. The only area I feel they could have paid more
    attention to was the need for improved communication and
    interaction among the NSF leadership, the logistical support
    contractor and the scientists in Antarctica. Again, that is my
    personal opinion based on our town-hall-style meetings in
    Antarctica.
        In closing, I emphasize that both of our committees worked
    very hard to identify these recommendations, and I believe that
    by using the recommendations, the United States can maintain
    its leadership in Antarctic science.
        I thank you. I am happy to answer any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Zapol follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 77036.030

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 77036.031

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 77036.032

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 77036.033

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 77036.034

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 77036.035

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 77036.036

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 77036.037

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 77036.038

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 77036.039

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 77036.040

        Chairman Hall. And I thank you, and I thank this group. I
    thank you very much. I have been up here 32 years and I have
    seen a lot of panels, and I have never seen a better panel than
    this one or more knowledgeable, more capable, more educated,
    and more generous with your time, and I even understood a lot
    of the things you said, Dr. Zapol. And thanks for the way you
    delivered it.
        We are going to have a chance now to ask you all some
    questions. I guess I have the duty and the opportunity to be
    the first, so I will recognize myself for five minutes. You can
    start the clock now.
        Dr. Suresh, while you testified that ``NSF agrees with the
    majority of the Blue Ribbon Panel's recommendations,'' could
    you kind of tell us or please share with us those
    recommendations which NSF disagreed with and maybe why?
        Mr. Suresh. I will be happy to, Mr. Chairman. It is not
    that we disagreed----
        Chairman Hall. You only have five minutes, so you realize
    that.
        Mr. Suresh. It will be less than that actually. I will be
    happy to answer that.
        We set up a Tiger Team immediately after the release of the
    report and we charged the Tiger Team to look into ways in which
    we can address all the concerns of the Blue Ribbon Panel report
    in addition to see if we can go far beyond what was recommended
    in the Blue Ribbon Panel, taking also into account the NRC
    report. So the reason we said ``majority'' is that the task of
    the Tiger Team is not finished yet. It doesn't necessarily mean
    that there are areas that will have any differences of opinion
    with the Blue Ribbon Panel report. We will formally present the
    results of the Tiger Team in about three weeks or so to the
    National Science Board, and as I indicated, we will be happy to
    submit a copy of that report to this Committee.
        The other reason I was careful to mention about the
    recommendations is that not all of the implementation is
    entirely within NSF's prerogative. There are aspects of it that
    we need to work with other agencies and other entities, and
    pending those conversations, it is not possible for me to say
    conclusively. So those are the reasons for it.
        Chairman Hall. I thank you.
        Norm, Dr. Augustine, as you know, and you do know this very
    well because you have evidenced it in all the programs and many
    panels you have been assigned to chair and to be a part of, you
    always look at the money and you are very clear about it in a
    great report that we really needed NASA. You declare in one
    short sentence there the problems that not enough money was
    part of the problem. And I appreciate that the panel took these
    constraints under consideration when you made your major
    recommendations here. But to pay for the improvements and
    upgrades at the Antarctic, the panel essentially recommends a
    formula of funding increases, funding shifts and reinvestment
    of saved cost. I believe your testimony indicates a ``seven-
    year financial break-even,'' and this isn't a gotcha question
    at all. I wouldn't dare put a gotcha question on you. When all
    is said and done with additional future savings, kind of tell
    us or reassure us, how do you know the scenario is achievable,
    particularly given that the panel didn't determine what the
    required front-end investment really ought to be. I know you
    had a way of fitting that in and recognizing it and agreeing or
    disagreeing with it and treating it and then going on with your
    report, but I have got almost another minute to hear you tell
    me about that.
        Mr. Augustine. Mr. Chairman, we had the Institute of
    Defense Analyses help us with the cost estimating and we did
    calculate returns on investment and present values of the
    various proposals, most of the proposals we made. We couldn't
    do a detailed analysis. NSF is now doing it. We did identify
    the source of about $150 million, of which 64 would come from
    increased budget support from the Congress and from the White
    House. This should make it possible to carry out the various
    tasks that we have proposed.
        Chairman Hall. I thank you, and I think my time is not
    quite gone. I will close my questions with again thanks to all
    of you, and to you, General McNabb, I thank you for the support
    you and your family gave Secretary of the Army Pete Geren, who
    was a long-time Member of this Congress. I know of your
    friendship and support there and your long-time respect for
    Jerry Costello, who is leaving. We are going to really miss
    him. He is a terrific member. But you all go way, way back,
    longer than I have any more time to let you express because
    that is five, four, three, two, I am out of time.
        All right. At this time I recognize the gentlelady for her
    questions.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        I guess I will put this question out and ask each member to
    comment. I have a major concern about short-term and long-term
    research knowing what our financial restraints are but also
    realizing that to sacrifice all of our research also is to cut
    off our nose to spite our face because it means our future, and
    as much as we have attempted to encourage young people to go
    into these fields, inengineering and scientific research, it is
    beginning to pose questions for them as to whether there is
    going to be a role in the future, not that we have impressed
    enough of them yet to do it but I am concerned about that and I
    would like to hear your comments on it. I realize how
    significant this research is but I also know that we are
    operating under great financial restraints, and if it was left
    up to me, I would not cut this area because I really sincerely
    feel that research is our future, and so I would like to have
    your comments on how you think we can best focus for the short
    term and the long term.
        Mr. Augustine. Absent anyone else, I would be happy to try
    to answer that. Obviously, this is one of these things that you
    can't do all short term and you can't do all long term, it
    takes some balance. The advancements from science have been
    said to drive about 85 percent, up to 85 percent of the growth
    in our economy, and by my own calculations, that suggests that
    about each percentage point you add to the number of scientists
    and engineers in this country creates about a million jobs. So
    there is great leverage to be had here. We are not doing well
    at attracting young people into science and engineering. In
    fact, out of 93 nations, we rank 79th of the fraction of
    bachelor degrees that go to science and engineering.
        But I think what it takes is balance, and in business I
    have learned that at times that you have to cut your overall
    budget, there are some cases that you increase the budget in
    some areas, and science and engineering are one of those areas,
    marketing is probably another, but I think that is true of
    government as well.
        Mr. Suresh. First of all, I want to thank you, Ms. Johnson,
    for your support for science. In terms of short term, we will
    do everything possible with the budget that we have to make
    sure that safety and security for not just NSF colleagues but
    for everybody--contractors, scientists who travel to
    Antarctica--is ensured. So we will do everything possible in
    the present environment.
        Going to the long term, I fully resonate with your concern,
    and I also echo what Mr. Augustine just said. NSF receives
    approximately $7 billion a year from U.S. taxpayers to support
    science. Last year we supported 300,000 individuals in over
    2,000 institutions in the country. I would argue based on a lot
    of evidence that the return to the U.S. Treasury based on the
    annual $7 billion investment is many, many, many times the $7
    billion, and that is a compelling enough reason in addition to
    the jobs and everything else to continue to support science.
        I am very concerned about our ability to compete with the
    rising competition from all over the world for not only science
    and engineering research but also for human talent; our ability
    to attract and retain talent in science, both from domestic
    talent and talent from all over the world which this country
    has relied on very heavily, and if we lose that, I think it
    will be major competition, so I very much appreciate your
    concerns.
        General McNabb. Yes, ma'am. I would say that one of the
    things that we really looked hard at is the productivity of
    your scientists and that community, and one of the things you
    want to do is, you can increase their productivity a lot if you
    give them the right facilities and logistics support. Right now
    I would say that if you go down and you visit the Antarctica,
    you will see that it is not efficient for them and it just--and
    it begs for the fact that if you can really help that, if you
    can really make sure the have the proper logistics
    infrastructure underneath them, it will be amazing how much
    more their time is worth, not only to the NSF and to the
    science community but really to the country.
        One of the big things in this country is transportation
    infrastructure. It is what fuels our productivity, and if you
    do it right, you compete very well. Well, I think we are
    competing for those young people, and when they go down and do
    a tour down the Antarctic, you can just imagine if they go down
    there and give it some of the things that we saw. If you give
    them world-class stuff, they will give you world-class results.
    The problem is, it is hard to get ahead of that, especially on
    logistics. I was the J-4 for the joint staff looking at
    logistics. The one place everybody seems to think they can
    always take money is logistics, and normally, logistics
    infrastructure and all you have to do is look at what happens
    when a Sandy or something comes through and you go boy, I sure
    wish we had buried all those electrical lines. Those are things
    that we can get ahead of now and really do pay back some
    dividends, and so that is one of the things that we really
    focused on in the Blue Ribbon Panel with the understanding that
    we are trying to increase science and reduce cost.
        Dr. Zapol. Ranking Member Johnson, two points from an
    Antarctican view. First, Antarctica is extraordinarily
    attractive to young people. It really turns on high school
    classes. We surveyed in our report and we asked about--we asked
    do you have enough young people to do your research or enough
    Americans wanting to go to Antarctica and do research? We got a
    resounding reply that everybody wants to go, everybody is
    interested, there is no shortage. So this isn't like NASA. This
    is an extraordinarily attractive place where young people can
    really get the idea of science, how to do it and want to do it.
    So I think Antarctica is really not suffering that way.
        And I think the second thing is, the science community
    worries about the price of logistics. We worry about the price
    of the Pole and the Pole Station and whether it was worthwhile,
    all of it, and we worry about the logistics taking over the
    minimal science budget. It is only 20 percent. If you shrink
    it, a lot of good grants won't get funded. I know more about
    NIH where the funding rates get down to ten percent and eight
    percent and you lose competitive--you just start losing people
    at that point. You can't shrink the science too much, and there
    is an anxiety. I speak for the community from what people have
    told me. They worry that logistics will get 100 percent of it
    and there won't be any science. So those are the worries.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much for your time. My time is
    expired.
        Chairman Hall. Thank you. And when you talk about under
    budget and you look at NASA back through the years, and if we
    had just done a little different to what Norm had suggested and
    others for just even close to one percent of the overall
    budget, we would still have access to space that we must have,
    must get back.
        At this time I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
    Smith, for five minutes.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Zapol, let me address a couple of questions to you.
    First of all, you have great knowledge both about Antarctica
    and the Arctic Circle, and I am wondering if that makes you a
    bipolar expert.
        Dr. Zapol. It does.
        Mr. Smith. Without question. I also want to thank you for
    the discovery you made ten years ago and the research you did
    that results in the saving of 15,000 babies' lives every year.
    That is just incredible and a real credit to you for doing so.
        My question is this, and I appreciate what you said about
    the Antarctic being exciting to young people. I understand what
    you said about the sense of exploration when you are the first
    person to pick up a rock, and we might say that that holds true
    not only for the surface of the ice in Antarctica but also
    picking up a rock on the moon or an asteroid or on Mars. But my
    question is this. Is it possible that some of the research done
    in Antarctica could be done elsewhere for less cost? And more
    specifically, for example, some of the research you did on
    seals that you mentioned in your opening statement, could that
    have been done elsewhere?
        Dr. Zapol. Well, let me approach it from the seal point of
    view. I couldn't have at that time. I am not sure you could do
    it today. The ice, the fast ice of Antarctica, by freezing and
    freezing fast to the shore creates a platform, and it allowed
    us to go 25 miles offshore and drill a hole through the ice.
    Then when you released a wild seal there, we knew it couldn't
    breathe anywhere else. So it had a computer pack and things on
    its back and it had to come back to our hole. I honestly don't
    think if you did this on a shore where they could take off, you
    would probably never find them again or you would spend a lot
    of time tracking them down, and we did that in 1984 and so
    technology was in an earlier time. You might be able to today
    but I doubt it. I think that sort of research with captive hole
    diving can only be done there.
        Mr. Smith. You might be able to replicate that today but
    you would know more about that than I.
        Let me then ask all the other panelists this question, and
    it is a little bit of a follow-up to what you have been asked
    already. The cost of research and the logistical support in
    Antarctica now is about a third of a billion dollars. Is it not
    possible that not only could some of that research be done
    elsewhere but is it not possible that some of the research
    might get done anyway by, say, the private sector, and is it
    possible that some of the research could be done elsewhere
    other than the Antarctic at that cost? And Mr. Augustine, we
    will start with you.
        Mr. Augustine. All right. Thank you. I think when you are
    dealing with basic research of the type we are talking about,
    it is highly unlikely that the private sector would support it.
    The reason is that the results are too uncertain, too long
    term, too costly.
        Mr. Smith. But the private sector would certainly support
    saving 15,000 babies a year.
        Mr. Augustine. The problem is, if you go to a corporation
    and say we want you to study Weddell seals, they probably would
    say no, and another former member of your Committee told me of
    a project your Committee supported to study butterfly wings
    that turned out to produce one of the ingredients that is used
    in treating cancer, and those things just in industry frankly
    were too shortsighted by pressures of the marketplace that
    companies just won't support it. A classic example is the great
    Bell Labs that are basically shutting down.
        Mr. Smith. There may be more potential than we think right
    now. I think about commercialization of space, which was just a
    few years ago thought not to be practical, and look what is
    happening there as well. But thank you for your answer.
        Dr. Suresh, good to see you again.
        Mr. Suresh. Good to see you, sir. Let me first address your
    earlier question about why Antarctica, can this be done
    somewhere else, because that is related to your second
    question. In my opening statement, I highlighted three
    discoveries. Those three discoveries could not have been done
    anywhere else. One of them has had a huge impact in
    addressing--because Antarctica is sort of a place where you
    identify things that you cannot see anywhere else, even if you
    just take Arctic versus Antarctic, the Arctic is much more
    heavily populated and it is not nearly as pristine as
    Antarctica. So the scientific discoveries that we make in
    Antarctica that have implications for so many different fields,
    we could not do anywhere else. So that is the first point I
    would like to make.
        Related to that, I think given that and given the fact that
    every branch of science and engineering that NSF supports,
    which is pretty much all fields of science and engineering,
    benefits from the research in Antarctica, and given the fact
    that 31 nations have now recognized the importance of this and
    are increasingly investing in it, and the United States has
    historically had a leadership role, I would argue very strongly
    that now is not the time to cut back on the investment.
        Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate those answers. My
    time is up.
        General McNabb, I assume you would agree with the responses
    that we just received? Okay.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Hall. And I thank you.
        The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
    McNerney, for five minutes.
        Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do want to echo
    your comments on the panel's hard work, and I want to thank you
    all for coming and getting engaged in this issue. As Dr. Zapol
    indicated, when I was in high school I wanted nothing more than
    to go to Antarctica. So one point of validation for that.
        There was some--some of your testimony is quite concerning,
    almost alarming. Mr. Augustine, you sort of were indicating the
    dilapidation of many of the facilities there, and then Dr.
    Suresh, I think, mentioned operating under multiple single
    points of failure. What is the worst-case scenario we are
    talking about? Are people's lives at risk that work in
    Antarctica?
        Mr. Suresh. So first of all, as pretty much every panel
    member suggested here, the National Science Foundation in
    partnership with other agencies for more than half a century
    has had a phenomenal record of safety in running the U.S.
    Antarctic Program, and I want to emphasize that. So I think the
    spirit of the recommendations, and my distinguished colleagues
    can speak for the report, which I cannot speak for, the spirit
    of the recommendations is that there is a potential if we don't
    address and improve the logistics. For example, having access
    to Antarctica to supply fuel is so critical, so if you don't
    have the right icebreaking capabilities, that will potentially
    lead to severe loss of investments for the future. Not having a
    capital budget is one of the biggest recommendations. So it is
    in that spirit, some of the recommendations like the dishwasher
    in McMurdo, which feeds a number of people, we take it very
    seriously, and it is not that--if you look at it historically,
    we will look at each of these recommendations and as quickly as
    possible try to address to see if we can improve the situation.
        Mr. McNerney. Well, one of the things that keeps coming up
    is the small fraction of money that goes to science as opposed
    to logistics. Is part of that because of the dilapidated state
    of logistics? If the logistics were improved, could more money
    go to science, to real science?
        Mr. Augustine. I think the answer to that is without
    question that could be the case. If you took the one
    recommendation we made that produces the highest savings after
    the initial investment, in the steady state, it alone could add
    60 typical grants to the science effort. So there is a huge
    opportunity here.
        Mr. McNerney. Okay. Let us talk a little bit about the
    foreign presence or the risk to American leadership in the
    Antarctic. We clearly have--the United States clearly has the
    largest presence in Antarctic. What would be the risk if other
    countries were to come in and co-dominate that presence?
    General McNabb?
        General McNabb. I think our leadership on the Antarctic
    along with all the other nations that have signed a treaty has
    really been superb, and the ability to preserve this place on
    our earth in a time when science is going to be so important is
    going to be critical. I am not sure that if we were not there
    and taking the leadership role, I am not sure how fast, given
    what you see happen around the world and really the
    competitive--you know, the competitive--competition for
    resources, that you would end up seeing the Antarctica be what
    it needs to be for the world, and that would be my take.
        Mr. McNerney. Anyone else want to comment on that?
        Mr. Augustine. I would welcome the opportunity. I think if
    you consider both the missions in Antarctica, with regard to
    the political implications, there are overlapping claims that
    you are well aware of that have been made by seven different
    countries, and there is, I think, good evidence that the United
    States presence there, particularly the presence at the Pole,
    has led to a very peaceful Antarctica, and as there is more and
    more exploration in that area, that will become more of a
    challenge, I believe.
        With regard to science, the United States has given up its
    lead in things like particle physics that it has had for years.
    It would be a shame to see us give up our lead in another area.
    I also find a certain irony that this Committee probably has
    recognized it. Today we can't reach our--I say ``our,'' the
    International Space Station of which we pay for a major part,
    without flying on Russian launch vehicles. Similarly, we can't
    get to Antarctica without using today Russian icebreakers, and
    that is a trend that probably is not something that a great
    nation would want to have.
        Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, I concede my time.
        Chairman Hall. And I thank you.
        I recognize Mr. Brooks, the gentleman from Alabama.
        Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I could not help but
    note the correlation between us using Russian icebreakers and
    manned spaceflight vehicles. Hopefully, we will be able to
    restore America's preeminence in both fields in our near
    future.
        I have got a two-part question addressed to the whole
    panel. By the very nature of the Antarctic treaty,
    international cooperation is essential to success in
    Antarctica. With specific regard to logistics, that being such
    a high-cost area, how are we currently sharing logistical
    burdens, with whom and at what savings to the United States
    taxpayer, and then the more important second part of the
    question, how can we expand logistics cooperation with other
    nations and at what projected or potential savings?
        Mr. Augustine. With the Committee's permission, I will
    start out and try to be brief. Today there is a lot of sharing,
    particularly with New Zealand, somewhat with Australia and with
    others. New Zealand recently built three wind-power facilities
    at McMurdo, which provide a substantial part of the power to
    the U.S. station there as well.
        In terms of the future, very briefly, one of the main
    opportunities would be on the Antarctic peninsula where Palmer
    Station is located. There are many stations of other countries
    in that same area and one could imagine instead of each nation
    providing its own logistics, that there could be basically a
    logistics Walmart, if you will, on a ship that makes a route
    around the Antarctic peninsula and has a stockroom that various
    countries could buy their parts from. So I think there is
    enormous opportunity.
        Mr. Suresh. Congressman Brooks, I will be very brief. We
    have had very longstanding collaborations with a number of
    countries from the U.K. to New Zealand to Chile and to many
    others. Recently, some countries have expanded their activities
    in Antarctica. For example, South Korea is in the process of
    building a new station not too far from McMurdo, just a few
    hundreds kilometers from McMurdo. They have also built a new
    icebreaker, and we have been engaged--the head of our polar
    program has been engaged in discussions with the president of
    the South Korean Polar Program on ways in which we can
    collaborate including in the area of infrastructure and
    logistics.
        General McNabb. Congressman Brooks, I would say that one of
    the things that we really bring is our transportation
    capability to the team, if you will. Because of the nature of
    how our DOD works, we bring some capabilities that nobody else
    has. I can use the LC-130 ski bird as a great example. You
    know, other nations will have smaller airplanes that are
    equipped with skis but that LC-130 is kind of unique. One of
    the things we want to do is to make sure that we are freeing up
    assets for better support of science, and one of the places
    where we talk about that is a better mix of how we use our C-
    17s and our C-130s as an example. If we use our C-17s more to
    do more normal-type movement, we can free up LC-130s to do a
    better support for the field operations that are out there.
        Mr. Brooks. But right now I am focused just on
    international cooperative measures, our own logistical issues
    internally.
        General McNabb. And in this case, where we joined with some
    other nations was the AGAP project out in west Antarctica which
    where we provided really the LC-130 and C-17 air drop. Other
    countries, China provided traverse operations and other
    countries that did their part with little airplanes and so
    forth.
        Mr. Brooks. I am going to have to go to my next question. I
    apologize, Doctor, but you can jump on this first if you so
    choose. Is it the role of Congress or the White House and the
    NSF to facilitate these kinds of international cooperative
    measures to help lower our logistical costs, and if it is
    Congress, what can Congress do to facilitate that cooperation?
    Anybody can answer.
        Mr. Augustine. I will step into that. I think it is the
    responsibility of NSF. It is the responsibility that was
    delegated to NSF some 30 years ago but obviously it takes the
    support of the Congress, the White House.
        Mr. Brooks. What, specifically, should Congress do to
    facilitate cooperation internationally on logistical costs?
        Mr. Augustine. I think it is mainly a matter of
    encouragement. I should say that the State Department takes the
    lead, obviously, in these international contacts.
        Mr. Brooks. But we give encouragement to cut down costs so
    is there anything else we need to do?
        Mr. Augustine. The only thing I could think of is that some
    of the--well, it is not the Congress's role. Some of the early
    presidential decisions needed to be updated but that is--I
    think the Congress is doing what it can do. I think it is
    really NSF, the State Department, they probably will be asking
    for funding. That will be obviously a Congressional issue.
        Mr. Suresh. I would like to add to that. I think, you know,
    NSF has been appointed as the point agency to work with our
    sister agencies and coordinating, and we work very closely with
    the State Department and the White House and other agencies as
    well. I think Congress can help us with--I mean, we keep
    Congress involved frequently and continuously about what we do.
    Both moral support and support for infrastructure and funding
    for the science in Antarctica will go a long way.
        Dr. Zapol. A bipolar comment. The Arctic has much more
    problem, and I am a commissioner, an Arctic research
    commissioner, and they are much more difficult. This is
    actually a rather easier place to work. The Antarctic treaty
    works. I have had five or six. In my team of eight, I had a New
    Zealander, an Australian, a German, a Canadian and a Dane. It
    is very easy to mix in our teams, and I think the scientists
    are way ahead there. It has been slow cooperation in a strange
    form. It is not a--it should go better, warmer. I think New
    Zealand in particular so close to McMurdo, so involved. I think
    we need to do more of that.
        Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing the
    witnesses additional time to answer my question. I yield--well,
    I would yield but I have none.
        Chairman Hall. If you have some, I will accept the yield.
    If you don't, I will accept it also.
        Ms. Bonamici from Oregon, I recognize you for five minutes
    or more.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Chairman Hall and
    Ranking Member Johnson, for calling this hearing, and to the
    panel, you have done an excellent job of effectively
    communicating the value of research in Antarctica from the
    discovery of the ozone hole to saving thousands of babies a
    year. I also want to point out, Dr. Zapol, in your testimony
    where you talk about monitoring space weather and how space
    weather could disrupt the proper functioning of communication
    satellites, GPS systems, electrical power distribution systems
    and how the space weather is better viewed from the South Pole
    than the shifting seas of the North Pole. I just wanted to
    point out, I found that extremely compelling as well.
        So scientific research and technological innovation are
    very thriving in the district I am proud to represent. My
    constituents are keenly aware of the impact of NSF, fundamental
    research dollars, and I have, for example, Oregon State
    University, Portland State University, my alma mater, the
    University of Oregon, all have completed research projects
    through the U.S. Antarctic Program. In fact, the acting
    director of the Office of Polar Programs at the NSF was
    previously with Oregon State University.
        Considering the role of university-based polar research in
    Oregon and nationally, I want you to look ahead to the
    impending across-the-board cuts that would be brought on by the
    sequester, and I have a question about the funding for science
    versus the funding for logistics because Mr. Augustine, you
    mentioned that the cruel arithmetic of conducting research in
    the climate presented by the polar region, meaning that if
    logistics costs rise by 13 percent, the science would be
    halved. So with that in mind, will you please comment on the
    impact that the proposed cuts to NSF might have on the future
    of the Antarctic program considering especially the multiplier
    effect that Mr. Augustine talked about. Would the sequester
    effectively end the science portion of the program, and perhaps
    Dr. Suresh, you could begin?
        Mr. Suresh. I would be happy to address that. So if the
    worst-case scenario that is being proposed materializes, the
    Office of Management and Budget predicts that NSF's budget
    along with that of our sister agencies, science agencies, will
    suffer about 8.2 percent. So that--if it is across the board,
    that will be reflected across NSF. That would mean 1,000 fewer
    grants will be awarded. We typically give about 13,000 per
    year. About 1,000 fewer grants per year, thousands of
    scientists will be affected, and it goes back to an earlier
    question by the Ranking Member. It will also discourage a lot
    of very young people from going into science. This is the
    future of American leadership in science and engineering and
    therefore this is the future of our economic leadership and
    national security and other issues, and that is the biggest
    concern. That is our projection of the worst-case scenario of
    sequestration.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. And I know you have already--did
    you want to talk about that too, Mr. Augustine?
        Mr. Augustine. I would welcome the chance, just briefly, if
    I might. If this eight percent cut that is likely to take place
    if sequestration occurs, it would have an impact primarily on
    the science and not the logistics. It would be
    disproportionate, and the reason for that is that you still
    have to have an icebreaker. If you have one scientist, you
    still have to heat the buildings. If you have one scientist,
    then you have provide a fuel tanker, and so on. So I can
    imagine the impact on science, and I have never calculated the
    number, but it would be many times the eight percent.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. And with the brief time remaining,
    you did an excellent job of conveying to this committee the
    importance of the research that you do there. What efforts are
    you making to convey that to the public?
        Mr. Suresh. We have a lot of activities in Antarctica from
    conveying a lot of educational activities which reach not just
    researchers and undergraduate students but also schoolchildren.
    We even have an artist-in-residence program to convey the
    unique aspects of the excitement of Antarctica to the general
    public, and there are many, many ways in which this is
    communicated through videos to supporting science programs to
    communicating to school districts, et cetera, et cetera.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. Anyone else want to weigh in on
    efforts?
        Thank you very much, and I yield back. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Chairman Hall. The gentlelady yields back. I think that we
    have no other witnesses, and I want to thank all of you for
    your very valuable testimony and the Members for their
    questions. The Members of the Committee might have additional
    questions they want to submit to you, and if they do, I hope
    you will respond to those in writing to them. The record will
    remain open for two weeks for additional comments from the
    Members. And with once again just heartfelt thanks to all four
    of you and to those who attended and those who work with you
    and background information they sent to us, we thank all of you
    for it, and we are adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:19 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
                                   Appendix I

                                  ----------

                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
    Responses by Mr. Norman R. Augustine
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 77036.041

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 77036.042

    Responses by The Honorable Subra Suresh
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 77036.043

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 77036.044

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 77036.045

    Responses by General Duncan J. McNabb, USAF (Ret)
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 77036.047

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 77036.048

    Responses by Dr. Warren M. Zapol, M.D.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 77036.050

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 77036.051