[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