U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

71–960 PDF 2012

S. HRG. 109–1160 

INTERNATIONAL POLAR YEAR 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

AND THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS 

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 26, 2006 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

and the Committee on Foreign Relations 

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Co-Chairman 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

LISA J. SUTHERLAND, Republican Staff Director 

CHRISTINE DRAGER KURTH, Republican Deputy Staff Director 

KENNETH R. NAHIGIAN, Republican Chief Counsel 

MARGARET L. CUMMISKY, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SAMUEL E. WHITEHORN, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel 

LILA HARPER HELMS, Democratic Policy Director 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS 

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana, Chairman 

CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska 

LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland 

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

BARACK OBAMA, Illinois 

KENNETH A. MYERS, JR., Staff Director 

ANTONY J. BLINKEN, Democratic Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on September 26, 2006 ..................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Murkowski ........................................................................... 2 

Statement of Senator Stevens ................................................................................ 1 

Letter, dated September 14, 2006, from Syun Akasofu, Director, International Arctic Research Center—University of Alaska Fairbanks ......... 25 

WITNESSES

Armstrong, Dr. Thomas R., Program Coordinator, Earth Surface Dynamics, 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Department of the Interior ........................... 59 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 61 

Bell, Robin E., Ph.D., Doherty Senior Research Scientist, Lamont-Doherty 

Earth Observatory, Columbia University; Chair, Polar Research Board, U.S. 

National Committee for International Polar Year, Division on Earth and 

Life Studies, National Research Council, The National Academies ................ 27 

Prepared statement with attachments ........................................................... 29 

Bement, Jr., Dr. Arden L., Director, National Science Foundation ..................... 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 12 

Papp, Vice Admiral Robert, Chief of Staff, U.S. Coast Guard ............................. 16 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 17 

Parkinson, Alan J., Ph.D., Deputy Director, Arctic Investigations Program, 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and 

Human Services ................................................................................................... 54 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 55 

Sharpton, Dr. Virgil L. ‘‘Buck’’, Vice Chancellor for Research, University 

of Alaska (UA) Fairbanks; UA President’s Professor of Remote Sensing ....... 46 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 48 

Treadwell, Mead, Chair, U.S. Arctic Research Commission ................................ 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6 

APPENDIX

Inouye, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii, prepared statement ........... 75 

Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey ............................... 75 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of 

Commerce, prepared statement .......................................................................... 76 

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to: 

Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr. ................................................................................. 82 

Vice Admiral Robert Papp ............................................................................... 80 

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to: 

Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr. ................................................................................. 82 

NOAA ................................................................................................................ 84 

Vice Admiral Robert Papp ............................................................................... 79 

Mead Treadwell ................................................................................................ 86 

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg to: 

Dr. Thomas Armstrong and Dr. Virgil L. ‘‘Buck’’ Sharpton .......................... 86 

Robin E. Bell, Ph.D. ......................................................................................... 83 

Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr. ................................................................................. 83 

Vice Admiral Robert Papp ............................................................................... 80 

Mead Treadwell ................................................................................................ 86 

(1) 

INTERNATIONAL POLAR YEAR 

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2006 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND

TRANSPORTATION, MEETING JOINTLY WITH THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Washington, DC. 

The Committees met, pursuant to notice, at 3:30 p.m. in room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens, Chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 

presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

Chairman STEVENS. My apologies for being late. Gentlemen, I do 

appreciate your being here. And we have had some questions from 

the press concerning why we’re holding this hearing. I hope it will 

become apparent to them very quickly. 

And I’m delighted that Senator Murkowski has joined in this 

hearing. It is a joint hearing, with the Foreign Relations Committee and our Commerce Committee. You’re the first Senator who 

was ever born in Alaska. So—— 

Senator MURKOWSKI. That’s right. 

Chairman STEVENS.—you’re unique. 

As we all know, the Earth is changing, and these changes are 

happening in the polar regions faster than anywhere else in the 

world. The upcoming International Polar Year will be a critical opportunity for the world’s science community to come together and 

study the climactic changes and impacts on the Arctic and Antarctic. 

We feel we have a vested interest, as Alaskans, in the findings 

of this IPY, because many of us—many of our people live above the 

Arctic Circle, and those who don’t, live in the polar region anyway. 

The research that will be done will, we hope, enable us to make 

informed decisions on where we build schools, when and where 

subsistence hunts take place, and what to do to prepare for winter 

storms, or to, most importantly, determine what has to be done to 

help people who have already been affected by the changes that 

have taken place so far. 

Now, this third IPY aims to involve not only young graduate students, but K–12 students and indigenous people of the Arctic. It’s 

my hope that the IPY will have a lasting impact, like that of the 

International Geophysical Year that took place almost 50 years 

ago. 

2 

I look forward to the testimony you all are going to present 

today. Again, I’m sorry to be late. It’s been sort of a strange day. 

Do you have a statement, Senator? 

STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you. 

I want to thank you, Senator Stevens, for agreeing to hold this 

hearing—as you note, a joint hearing with the Foreign Relations 

Committee today. 

You know, this is a pretty significant consideration, when we 

think of the international nature of IPY and, kind of, the interrelating or overlapping interests among so many different committees here in the Senate. So, again, I’m appreciative to have this opportunity with you today. 

Understanding the polar regions is obviously very important to 

us in Alaska. The fact that you have two-thirds of the Alaska delegation in attendance today should bear evidence to that. 

I would also like to note that Alaska will serve as the host of the 

2008 Conference of the Standing Committee of Parliamentarians of 

the Arctic region. This is more commonly referred to as the Arctic 

Parliamentarians. I’ve had the pleasure of participating in this 

group as the U.S. Representative now for 2 years, and I can report 

that each of the delegates that I serve with is very much excited 

about the upcoming IPY. In fact—and the fact that the 2008 Conference comes on the tail end of IPY will give Alaska and the 

United States an opportunity to demonstrate all that has been, and 

is being, advanced through IPY. 

But, just as the interest from the Arctic Parliamentarians demonstrates, IPY isn’t just about Alaska. It isn’t just about the United 

States. This is truly an international effort, and that’s what really 

makes it exciting—an international effort involving researchers, 

from over 60 countries, whose projects and data gathered over the 

next few years will have a—truly global impact. 

We’re fortunate to have a talented group of scientists and polarregion experts with us today from all over the country, each of 

whom will play a key role in making IPY a success for the United 

States and for the rest of the world, and I want to thank all of you 

who have agreed to be with us today. I know several of you have 

come from extremely long distances, whether it’s from the north or 

whether it’s from Europe. So, thank you. We appreciate your close 

attention to this. 

With that, Senator Stevens, I’m prepared to move on to the first 

panel. 

Chairman STEVENS. Yes, thank you very much. 

We have two panels, and roughly, I think, about an hour and a 

half-plus clearance from the floor, so again, we’re delighted that 

you all would come and join us. 

And our first panel—our first witness will be Mead Treadwell, 

Chairman of the Arctic Research Commission. Mead, it’s nice to see 

you here today, we appreciate your coming. 

3 

STATEMENT OF MEAD TREADWELL, CHAIR, 

U.S. ARCTIC RESEARCH COMMISSION 

Mr. TREADWELL. Thank you, Senator Stevens, Senator Murkowski. 

On behalf of the Arctic Research Commission, thank you for 

holding this hearing. The more people who know about the exciting 

research going on in the polar regions during the International 

Polar Year, the more likely we are to see the legacy of a strong 

polar science program. 

Today, I’d like to address actions Congress may want to make, 

this session, that could make the IPY more successful. And I’ll also 

speak to the legacies of IPY that Congress may want to help foster, 

which could mean a robust Arctic Research Program for years to 

come. 

The successful IPY will do more than gather vast knowledge in 

the next 2 years. With IPY, we should establish long-term monitoring networks and other science infrastructure, including the 

ship- and land-based research platforms and remote sensing technologies, to keep the knowledge coming. And within the government itself, IPY will help us focus on our goals in the Arctic, in 

science and in policy. The Commission believes we must use IPY 

to craft a more coordinated and sustainable long-term Arctic Research Program. 

Mr. Chairman, Senator Murkowski, when I was designated chair 

by the President, there were two immediate calendar items that 

the Arctic Research Commission faces. First is the kickoff for IPY, 

next March. It is—we’re committed to making this a successful 

broadening and strengthening of Arctic science in many places and 

many disciplines. It’s cooperation across disciplines, between the 

poles, around the world, and will be involved in outreach, as Senator Murkowski has suggested many times. And with the Congress 

and within the Executive Branch, we’re encouraging a level of 

funding and participation appropriate to this Nation’s leadership in 

polar research. 

The second calendar item that we’ve got is, we owe you a Goals 

Report in January, and that Goals Report, which helps—is really 

the first draft of the Arctic Research Program, which the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee then vets and finalizes 

into an Arctic Research Program. And that committee is chaired by 

my colleague Dr. Bement, to my left. We are hoping that that plan 

next year looks at the long-term research and infrastructure needs 

that we have, and that that can be a legacy of IPY. 

Congress can work to make IPY a rousing success several different ways. First is getting the word out. We encourage you to 

have more hearings as IPY progresses. I’ve heard Senator Murkowski tell the science community several times, that we must 

share the excitement of exploration in polar regions. This is a risky 

and adventurous frontier with great rewards from solving its mysteries. We encourage you, in Congress, to visit the field during IPY 

to see the scientific work firsthand. IPY research will help human 

health, energy security, safer, sounder homes, and assist in sustaining traditional cultures in the north. 

Second, we’re hopeful enough funds and encouragement will be 

provided to the other agencies to make sure we’re able to fulfill our 

4 

commitments. The Administration’s current proposal for $62 million funding from NSF should be approved by Congress this year. 

It remains to be seen what the President and NSF will propose for 

next year, but if we’re to move beyond fragmented and leveraged 

funding for IPY, that number should be significantly greater and 

should take into account the long-term need for monitoring and 

data management. 

Two agencies under the purview of the Senate Commerce Committee, NOAA and NASA, could play a pivotal role in IPY. Mr. 

Chairman, I should say I was appointed by the President, and 

we’re team players with the Administration, but, at the same time, 

based on statute, legislative intent, and our oath to support it, 

we’re obliged to tell you in the Congress where the Arctic Program 

funding request may not effectively meet the Arctic—the Nation’s 

Arctic Research Plan. 

The Commission is sad that NOAA has recently eliminated its 

Arctic office, reducing the visibility of its Arctic Research Program, 

and just prior to the IPY. It has also had significant budget reductions this year. But, nevertheless, there is a lot of work being done 

at NOAA in the Arctic. And those are detailed in my written testimony, and we can answer specifics and questions. 

At NASA, the pressure on the Earth Science budget is also well 

documented. Much of NASA’s current Earth-sensing infrastructure 

is in polar orbits, meaning the coverage of the Arctic and the Antarctic is robust, but, therefore, at greater risk, with delays and cancellations of key remote-sensing systems. 

Japan’s cooperation with the United States on Arctic research 

could be much more productive if work being done at the International Arctic Research Center in Fairbanks had greater NASA 

participation. And Congress could help make that happen. 

Further, this is a great time for Congress to stress to agencies 

that they identify their role in Arctic research and integrate their 

work with other agencies. And I’m glad to say that we’re working 

closely with IARPC staff and the staff of OMB to make sure that 

you get what the law calls for, which is a unified Arctic research 

budget when the President’s budget is submitted. 

The Arctic research budget has grown significantly in recent 

years. It’s now approaching $400 million a year and has significant 

work going on in a variety of areas. At least 15 Federal agencies 

support this work, and the program benefits from important partnerships with the State of Alaska, our Arctic neighbors, the European community, Korea, China, and Japan. 

Last, Congress may want to encourage a discussion about U.S. 

Arctic policy during IPY. The last time U.S. Government agencies 

sat down to comprehensively review Arctic policy was in 1994. And 

while the Presidential statement that survives that process is in 

force today, much has changed. We know much more about Arctic 

climate, and the change has brought imperatives in security, housing, infrastructure, transportation, and research. 

Recently, just this afternoon, the House held a hearing on a National Research Council study on icebreakers which called for the 

construction of two new Polar Class icebreakers. And that also requires a policy consideration. 

5 

The Commission is working hard on issues, in terms of mapping 

of the Arctic Ocean floor, which relate to Article 76 of the Law of 

the Sea. And what we learned through Arctic cooperation, whether 

through the Northern Forum, the Arctic Council, or by other mechanisms, is that there are opportunities for common development, 

common protection, and common exploration. The long-held goal of 

using the Arctic Ocean as a regular shipping route may be upon 

us soon, and other nations have recently held public examinations 

of their goals in the Arctic. And it’s appropriate for us to do the 

same. 

Let me conclude by saying that our Goals Report, which will be 

delivered to you in January, will look at the infrastructure issues, 

the long-term legacies of Arctic research that’s necessary. You’ll 

hear about icebreakers, research vessels, submarines, satellites, 

and autonomous vehicles—underwater, in the air. There are a 

number of tremendous things happening and developing in improving Arctic research, but there’s one key infrastructure legacy at the 

top of everyone’s list. The U.S. will soon launch an Arctic Observing Network that must, and will, be one of the key legacies of IPY. 

It’ll be a network of networks, actually, that will collect data in as 

close to realtime with standards of measurement across the Arctic. 

While the observation capabilities the U.S. supports in the field 

today may be enough to declare that we have the Arctic Observing 

Network going, the process of designing an improved system, identifying gaps, setting standards, and managing data has yet to take 

place. We urge the Congress to pay close attention as this process 

begins. 

As our explorers head to the field, I’ve heard Senator Murkowski 

say, several times, that it’s up to them to share the excitement 

with the public. When I speak to kids about Arctic exploration, 

we’ve got lots to discuss. NASA’s animation of receding ice cover, 

as seen from satellites in space, prompts a discussion not only of 

climate change and shipping routes, but whether the robot that 

took the picture had rockets in his shoes. Alaskans used to landing 

at runway 6 at Ted Stevens International Airport in Anchorage 

learned that it’s now runway 7, because the magnetic North Pole 

is constantly moving, and taking the Aurora Borealis with it. Reports of mid-ocean ridge spreading in the Arctic Ocean bottom have 

forced instructors to rewrite the textbook on plate tectonics, and recent coring near the North Pole has revealed organic rift sediments 

that could likely serve as source material for oil and gas deposits 

around the Arctic margin. And if you get no further than the freezers at the Institute of Arctic Biology at Fairbanks, you’ll meet a 

number of sleeping ground squirrels. And what we’ve learned about 

them and hibernation may help in the fight against cancer. 

Mr. Chairman, there is much going on, and knowing about it 

stimulates further curiosity, further interest in exploration, and 

this discussion surely is to be continued. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Treadwell follows:] 

6 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MEAD TREADWELL, CHAIR, U.S. ARCTIC RESEARCH COMMISSION

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committees: 

On behalf of the U.S. Arctic Research Commission, thank you for holding this 

hearing. The more people know about the exciting research going on in the Polar 

Regions during the International Polar Year, the more likely we are to see the legacy of a strong polar science program. 

Today, I would like to address actions Congress may want to make this session 

that could make the International Polar Year more successful. 

I will also speak to the legacies of IPY the Congress may want to help foster, 

which could mean a robust Arctic research program for years to come. 

A successful IPY will do more than gather vast knowledge in the next 2 years. 

With IPY, we should establish long-term monitoring networks and other science infrastructure, including the ship- and land-based research platforms as well as remote sensing technologies, to keep the knowledge coming. 

Within the government itself, IPY will help us focus on our goals in the Arctic— 

in science and in policy. The Commission believe we must use IPY to craft a more 

coordinated and sustainable long-term Arctic research program. 

Background on the U.S. Arctic Research Commission 

I have had the honor of serving on the U.S. Arctic Research Commission since 

2001, and as Chair for less than 2 months. Six other Commissioners, whose names 

are listed on the cover of this testimony, also serve. This Commission, Mr. Chairman, reports to you in the Congress and to the President, on goals and priorities 

for the U.S. Arctic Research Program. With our counterpart, the Interagency Arctic 

Research Policy Committee, (IARPC), we work to see those goals accomplished. 

Much of that work is building cooperation—among U.S. agencies, universities, the 

State of Alaska, the private sector, indigenous and other Arctic residents, and other 

nations. 

Two immediate calendar items face the Commission. 

First is the kickoff for the International Polar Year. Within the Commission, we’re 

committed to making this a successful broadening and strengthening of Arctic 

science in many places and many disciplines. It is cooperation—across disciplines, 

between the poles, around the world. We will participate in outreach. With the Congress and within the Executive Branch, we’re encouraging a level of funding and 

participation in IPY appropriate to the Nation’s leadership in polar research. 

Our Commission’s second calendar item is a Goals Report due for delivery to the 

Congress and the President in late January, as specified by law. In formulating that 

Goals Report, Commissioners are focused on how we can ensure that the excitement 

of IPY results in long-term, sustainable legacies in Arctic research. 

The International Polar Year 

The first International Polar Year was in 1882–1883. The last International Polar 

Year, in 1932–1933, helped inspire the first International Geophysical Year fifty 

years ago, in 1957–1958. The excitement surrounding this event was palpable, and 

while I recall little of my reading in second grade, I do remember an article in ‘‘My 

Weekly Reader.’’ 

Last time around, IPY and its global counterpart, the International Geophysical 

Year, happened as the world entered the atomic age . . . the jet age . . . the space 

age . . . and soon, the digital age. The excitement of exploration—the assault on 

the unknown—was contagious. This time, we hope for a similar epidemic—a continuing thirst for knowledge. 

Whatever we gain in knowledge this time around, this IPY has important differences. Like never before, the IPY will involve the people who live in the Arctic. 

Political barriers that existed during the Cold War are behind us, and Arctic cooperation is strong. Physical access barriers are disappearing, not just with receding 

ice, but also with improved technology and navigation, at sea and in the air. Communication barriers to exploration and data collection have disappeared, with the 

availability of fiber networks and low-earth orbiting communications networks like 

Iridium phone and data systems that allow polar research to be conducted, literally, 

from afar. Barriers in scientific disciplines, and those between ‘‘western science’’ and 

traditional knowledge, are also fading. That trend suggests that the knowledge we 

get, in the end, will itself be more whole. 

Thus, we begin this IPY with the prospect that its real legacy will be a connected 

Arctic—one that will continue to reveal itself, know itself, and share its mysteries. 

Immediate Actions the Congress May Take in Support of IPY 

There are two ways the Congress can help make the IPY a rousing success. 

7 

First is getting the word out. We encourage you to have more hearings, as IPY 

progresses. I have heard Senator Murkowski tell the science community, several 

times; we must share the excitement of exploration in the polar regions. This is a 

risky and adventurous frontier, with great rewards from solving its mysteries. 

We encourage Members of the Congress to visit the field during the International 

Polar Year, to see the science firsthand, and to understand the value of what we’re 

learning. Understanding the Earth’s processes—and man’s impact—is just the start. 

IPY research will help human health, energy security, safer, sounder homes, and 

will increase culture sustainability. 

We believe the U.S. will be well represented in IPY if appropriate funding is provided in several agency budgets. The Administration’s current proposal for $62 million funding from NSF should be approved by the Congress this year. It remains 

to be seen what the President and NSF will propose for next year. If we are to move 

beyond fragmented and leveraged funding for IPY, that number should be significantly greater, and should take into account the long-term need for monitoring and 

data management. 

Second, we’re hopeful that enough funds and encouragement will be provided to 

other agencies to make sure we are able to fulfill our commitments. Two agencies 

under the purview of the Senate Commerce Committee—NOAA and NASA—could 

play a pivotal role. 

Mr. Chairman, I was appointed by the President, and we are team players with 

the Administration. At the same time, based on statue, legislative intent, and our 

oath to support it, we are obliged to tell you and the Congress where the Arctic program funding requests may not effectively meet the Nation’s Arctic Research Plan. 

NOAA has recently reduced its office, by eliminating the Arctic Program, and just 

prior to the IPY. Nevertheless, NOAA has a lot of work to do. Through negotiations 

on Capitol Hill in 1996, the Arctic Research Commission convinced Congress to establish an Arctic Research Initiative (ARI) within the budget of NOAA with the understanding that the ARI would be institutionalized as part of NOAA’s annual budget request. Instead, the ARI, which provides funds for extramural research through 

a competitive process that is managed by CIFAR (the Cooperative Institute for Arctic Research), has been zeroed out in the past 2 years. Additionally, the Joint Russian-American Long Term Census of the Arctic (RUSCALA), the result of the Memorandum of Understanding between NOAA and the Russian Academy of Sciences in 

2003, is an on-going collaboration between U.S. and Russian scientists in the northern Bering and Chukchi Sea. Funds are needed for this program to make awards 

for proposals already competitively selected and approved by NOAA for work beginning in FY07 for the next major Russian-American cruise in 2008. Without the requisite commitments to such research infrastructure—so critical to mobilize—in light 

of the upcoming IPY, it will be difficult to ensure a strong U.S. presence in the initiative. 

NOAA funds sought for Arctic research in the coming year must support further 

construction of the Barrow Global Climate Change Research Facility. Funds provided must also support NOAA’s leadership of the Arctic Council’s Arctic Monitoring 

and Assessment Program, and NOAA’s participation in the development of integrated monitoring networks. To make these things happen, the Arctic program of 

that agency—recently downgraded—needs more visibility and support. 

At NASA, the pressure on the Earth Science budget is well documented. Much 

of NASA’s current Earth sensing infrastructure is in polar orbits, meaning that coverage of the Arctic and the Antarctic is robust, but therefore at greater risk with 

delays and cancellations of key remote sensing systems. Japan’s cooperation with 

the United States on Arctic research could be much more productive if the work 

being done at the International Arctic Research Center in Fairbanks had greater 

NASA participation. Congress can help make this happen. 

Within our government, it is important to encourage each appropriate agency of 

the U.S. Government to participate in IPY. Further, this is a great time for Congress to stress to agencies that they identify their role in Arctic research and integrate their work with other agencies. 

Toward that end, Congress has called for an integrated Arctic research budget 

from Federal agencies since 1984, to be delivered in enough time for your analysis 

and ours from the Commission. The data call made this year, done only after Senator Murkowski’s request, lacked input from several key agencies. I’m happy to report that the Commission, IARPC staff, and the staff of OMB are working together 

to solve this problem. We will try again this year to see that the budget presented 

to Congress in January clearly shows what we’re up to during the IPY. And even 

though the requirement is in the law, we are helped in this process when Congress 

asks for the information. 

8 

The Commission believes that knowing what we’re doing—across the board—can 

promote much stronger cooperation. 

What we have learned so far is that our Nation’s commitment to Arctic research 

has grown significantly in recent years. IARPC reports that the U.S. Arctic Research Program, with expenditures approaching $400 million a year, has significant 

work going on in a broad variety of areas. At least fifteen Federal agencies support 

this work, and the U.S. program benefits from important partnerships with the 

State of Alaska, our Arctic neighbors, the European Community, Korea, China, and 

Japan. 

The Commission, for much of the last decade, has worked to focus the U.S. Arctic 

Research Program on five key questions: 

• What is the changing climate of the Arctic, and how will it affect the rest of 

the world? 

• What processes govern the world’s richest fishery in the Bering Sea? 

• What can be learned to enhance the health of Arctic residents? 

• What are the vast resources of the Arctic that we own in common? 

• What changes to Arctic infrastructure must we make in response to changing 

climate? 

To answer these questions, the research community has responded with a set of 

integrated science programs, some of which are reflected in budgets sent to Congress, and some of which exist as less formal initiatives combining contributions 

from many sources. 

• SEARCH, the Study of Environmental Arctic Change, is the Nation’s integrated 

look at climate and environmental change in the region. Funding is led by NSF, 

but agency contributions come from a number of sources. Leadership exists both 

in the academic community and in the government. 

• BEST, the Bering Ecosystem Study, is a part of SEARCH. It focuses on the Bering Sea, and is just getting started under NSF’s leadership. The work of the 

North Pacific Research Board is adding greatly to the capabilities of this science 

plan. 

• Arctic Health studies are coming together through a U.S. initiative at the Arctic 

Council. Dr. Alan Parkinson, speaking here today, can tell you how NIH and 

CDC are bringing a broad base together to address very important questions, 

from contaminants in the food chain to dealing with the high alcohol and suicide problems in the Arctic populations. 

• The U.S. Geological Survey has taken the lead in the Resource Assessment program called for in the U.S. Arctic Research plan. Other agencies should join, 

and the Commission is formulating specific recommendations in that area. 

• Infrastructure Research has no specific agency leader today, and we hope yet 

for integration. Candidates to participate in an integrated infrastructure research program include the Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the U.S. Geological Survey. The Commission will be 

working with IARPC to bring this about. 

Lastly, Congress may want to encourage a discussion about U.S. Arctic policy during IPY. The last time U.S. Government agencies sat down to comprehensively review Arctic policy was in 1994. While the Presidential statement that survives that 

process is in force today, much has changed. We know much more about Arctic climate—and the change has brought imperatives in security, housing, infrastructure, 

transportation, and research. 

The world is looking to the Arctic much more now for its energy security. The 

Commission has recommended that new support for oil spill research programs, focusing both on prevention, detection, and response, become a national priority. 

Even as the Senate considers the Law of the Sea Treaty, the Commission believes 

we should move forward with the mapping of the Arctic Ocean floor which other 

nations have begun to claim under Article 76. Congress could help make the submarine platforms available to do it more quickly. 

What we’ve learned through Arctic cooperation, whether through the Northern 

Forum, the Arctic Council, or by other mechanisms, is that there are opportunities 

for common development, common protection, common exploration. The long-held 

goal of using the Arctic Ocean as a regular shipping route may soon be upon us. 

Other nations have recently held public examinations of their goals in the Arctic, 

and it is appropriate for the U.S. to do the same. 

9 

An IPY Legacy: Monitoring and Other Infrastructure 

At the U.S. Arctic Research Program, we believe the legacy of IPY should be longterm, sustainable infrastructure for Arctic research. 

As our past and present Commissioners deliberate with the science community on 

what research infrastructure is needed in the 21st century, there are a wide variety 

of needs. 

Just this afternoon, a House Committee was briefed on a new National Academy 

study on the Nation’s needs for an icebreaker fleet. 

In our upcoming Goals Report, you will hear much from us about icebreakers, research vessels, submarines, satellites, and autonomous vehicles under water and in 

the air. 

The Bering Strait has been described as the ‘‘choke point’’ of the Arctic and yet 

support for oceanographic moorings (that monitor currents, temperature, salinity, 

various measures of productivity, and nutrient status) in both Russian and American waters are funded on a year-by-year basis and at present, hinges in part on 

funding for the Alaska Ocean Observing System (AOOS). As an integral part of the 

Arctic Observing Network, long-term support for the yearly recovery and deployment of moorings in the Bering Strait is an essential part of our IPY legacy and 

key to understanding how change will affect storm events in our coastal communities, marine mammal and fisheries resources so important to our citizens, as well 

as evolving transportation needs in the Arctic. 

We must sustain onshore research platforms in the Arctic, such as the Barrow 

Global Climate Change Research Facility, or Toolik Lake in the Brooks Range, or 

our cooperative facilities in Greenland, Russia, or Svalbard. 

Outside the Arctic, researchers rely on communications networks, supercomputers, ice core repositories, carbon-14 dating laboratories in Florida, and the National Ice Center here in Suitland, Maryland. 

Mr. Chairman, there is hardly a member of the Senate who does not represent 

facilities—and researchers—participating in the important work of Arctic research. 

But there is one key infrastructure legacy that is on the top of everyone’s list. The 

United States will soon launch an Arctic Observing Network that must and will be 

one of the key legacies of IPY. It will be a ‘‘network of networks’’ actually, that will 

collect data, in as close to real time, with standards of measurement, across the Arctic. The ambition of such a network—nurtured by the very effective international 

cooperation which produced the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment 2 years ago in 

the Arctic Council—is strong. 

In the next few years, new technologies will bring datasets we collect once a year 

to us in real time. Hydrology, humidity, temperature, rainfall, winds, atmospheric 

gas composition, radiation, ozone, ice thickness, currents, salinity—information collected by many agencies in many places—will be more prolific, more immediate, and 

most important, more organized. 

While the observation capabilities the U.S. supports in the field today may be 

enough to declare that we have the AON going, the process of designing an improved system, identifying gaps, setting standards, and managing data has yet to 

take place. We urge the Congress to pay close attention as this process begins. 

On so many key issues today, the Arctic is a bellwether for the globe. With suitable support, this could be an excellent and early working system of the networks 

envisioned as part of the Global Earth Observing System of Systems (GEOSS). It 

supports the goals, as my fellow Commissioner Dr. Charles Vorosmarty wrote, of the 

American Competitiveness Initiative. 

‘‘Mobilizing and harmonizing major land, water, air, and space-based observing 

systems across the pan-Arctic would also be an important vehicle to entrain the 

U.S. private sector, stimulating innovation through technology along the lines 

of the American Competitiveness Initiative. The use of miniaturized, state-ofthe-art sensors provides an interesting focal point private sector engagement. 

Training the next generation of scientists and engineers also provides critical 

long-term support to the ACI. 

‘‘What Congress could do: Call for an assessment (through the National Academies Polar Research Board) of U.S. science and technology capabilities in this 

realm with the express aim of uniting academic, agency and private sector partners; stimulate private investment in instrumentation, data broadcast technologies, supercomputing, new mathematical and statistical approaches; commit 

to make appropriate instrumentation purchases . . .’’ 

Exploration Under IPY: the Human Legacy 

As our explorers head to the field, I’ve heard Senator Murkowski say several 

times, it is up to them to share the excitement with the public. 

10 

When I speak to kids about Arctic exploration, we’ve got lots to discuss. NASA’s 

animation of receding ice cover, as seen from satellites in space, prompts a discussion not only of climate change and shipping routes, but whether the robot that took 

the picture had rockets in his shoes. 

Alaskans, used to landing at runway 6 at Ted Stevens International Airport in 

Anchorage, learned that it is now runway 7 because the magnetic North Pole is constantly moving, and taking the Aurora Borealis with it. 

Reports of mid-ocean ridge spreading in the Arctic Ocean bottom have forced instructors to rewrite the textbook on plate tectonics, and recent coring near the 

North Pole has revealed organic-rich sediments that could likely serve as source material for oil and gas deposits around the Arctic margin. 

If you get no further than the freezers at the Institute of Arctic Biology at Fairbanks, you will meet a number of sleeping ground squirrels. What we’ve learned 

about them may help in the fight against cancer. 

Mr. Chairman, there is much going on, and knowing about it stimulates further 

curiosity, further interest in exploration. This discussion, surely, is to be continued 

. . . 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman STEVENS. Thank you, Mead. It’s going to be a stimulating period, there’s no question about that. 

Our next witness is Dr. Arden Bement, Director of the National 

Science Foundation. 

Doctor, it’s nice to have you with us again. 

STATEMENT OF DR. ARDEN L. BEMENT, JR., DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

Dr. BEMENT. Thank you, Chairman Stevens and Senator Murkowski, for the opportunity to testify on the upcoming International Polar Year and how NSF and our sister agencies are addressing this important opportunity. 

Fifty years ago, the Third International Polar Year and International Geophysical Year entranced American’s youth and galvanized America’s innovative powers. That effort left a permanent 

legacy ranging from scientific Earth satellites to the development 

of a generation of world-class scientists and engineers whose interest in research was piqued by news coverage of polar research. 

NSF has equally high aspirations for the upcoming International 

Polar Year. We intend to create a legacy of infrastructure and data 

for future generations of scientists. We also intend to expand international cooperation. And, finally, we hope to engage the public in 

polar discovery and help attract and educate the next generation 

of scientists and engineers. 

The impacts of climate change on northern peoples—and, more 

generally, on ecosystems and polar environments—strongly motivate a broader focus than that of the last IPY. Thus, NSF will emphasize three scientific themes, coupled with education and outreach activities. 

The extremes of polar environments provide unique opportunities 

to advance our understanding of how organisms adapt to climate 

extremes, how they have evolved, at the genomic level, and how 

gene expression depends on the physical environment. The development of a circum-Arctic Observing Network, or AON, will provide 

the missing data essential to faithfully model and predict Arctic climate change. Multinational investigations of changes in the 

Earth’s great ice sheets will improve our understanding of how 

these affect global conditions, including global sea level. 

11 

NSF’s Office of Polar Programs and the Director for Education 

and Human Resources have already funded nine truly outstanding 

and creative projects in education and public outreach that will 

launch our IPY efforts in great style. The second round of projects 

will be funded early next year. 

To fulfill the IPY leadership role assigned to NSF by OSTP, we 

are cooperating with other Federal agencies. NSF and NASA are 

working to coordinate ground-based and space-based observations 

in order to provide a comprehensive body of benchmark data. 

NASA has initiated discussions with space agencies around the 

world to bring the worldwide satellite fleet to bear on this effort. 

A circum-Arctic system requires active collaboration with countries around the Arctic Rim. NSF has already developed strong 

links with Norway, Sweden, Germany, and Russia to bring their 

activities to bear on AON. We are working actively with the European Polar Board and the Canadian officials to build IPY partnerships. 

In response to the recommendations of the Arctic Research Commission, NSF is now working closely with the Northern Pacific Research Board. We are aligning our Bering Sea Ecosystems Program 

with NPRB’s related studies and with NOAA’s long-term Bering 

Sea fisheries management activity. Through these combined efforts, we aim to understand the response of the Bering Sea ecosystem, the most productive fishery in the U.S., to environmental 

change; most notably, to reductions in seasonal sea ice. 

Barrow was a key station in the first IPY, and we anticipate it 

will be, again. U.S. contributions to an Arctic Observing Network 

activity are expected to include Barrow’s new Global Climate 

Change Research facility, and investments to improve a safe and 

effective year-round research capability to the University of Alaska’s Toolik Field Station. 

NSF places high priority on securing funding to build a new icestrengthened ship to serve research needs in the waters around 

Alaska. Subject to appropriations in Fiscal Year 2007, construction 

will begin during the IPY. Designated the Alaska Regional Research Vessel, the ship will conduct scientific research cruises yearround in waters of the Gulf of Alaska and southern Bering Sea, 

and, in the summer, as far north as the Chukchi and the Beaufort 

Seas, during minimal ice cover. 

Chairman Stevens and Chairwoman Murkowski, earlier I mentioned the educational legacy created by IPY 50 years ago. The current IPY effort has even greater potential. By linking the public’s 

fascination with things polar to outreach into museums, homes, 

and classrooms that conveys the excitement of research and discovery, we can attract a new generation of Americans into science 

and engineering careers, while contributing to a more informed 

public. 

Thank you both, again, for providing an opportunity to highlight 

NSF’s role in the upcoming International Polar Year, and I would 

be pleased to answer any of your questions. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Bement follows:] 

12 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. ARDEN L. BEMENT, JR., DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify before the Committee 

concerning the upcoming International Polar Year (IPY) and on how the National 

Science Foundation (NSF) and our sister agencies are addressing this important opportunity. Our job is to enable U.S. scientists and educators to realize these opportunities, opportunities that members of today’s distinguished panel will be speaking 

to in more detail. 

We intend for the International Polar Year period—which has been declared by 

the International Council of Science (ICSU) and the U.S. National Academies (NAS) 

to be from March 2007 through March 2009—to explore new frontiers in polar 

sciences; improve our understanding of the critical role of the Earth’s polar regions 

in global processes; create a legacy of infrastructure and data for future generations 

of scientists; expand international cooperation; engage the public in polar discovery; 

and help attract and educate the next generation of scientists and engineers. 

Fifty years ago, the Third International Polar Year and International Geophysical 

Year (IPY–3/IGY) entranced America’s youth and galvanized America’s innovative 

powers in ways that created a legacy that lives on today. That legacy ranges from 

scientific Earth satellites to the development of a generation of world-class scientists 

and engineers who drove our knowledge-based economy forward for the next halfcentury. 

Advances in instrumentation and technology, the realization that polar regions 

are critical in the changing global climate system, and linkages among international 

research organizations offer opportunities for breakthrough developments both in 

fundamental disciplinary science and in science for policy during IPY. In addition, 

the impacts of climate change on northern communities, and more generally, on ecosystems in polar environments strongly motivate a broader focus than the last IPY 

had. The NSF tradition of linking research and education offers the further opportunity to engage America’s youth in this period of discovery and awaken them to 

the excitement of a career in science and engineering. 

In his introduction to the ‘‘American Competitiveness Initiative, Leading the 

World in Innovation,’’ President George Bush stated that a ‘‘well-educated and 

skilled work force is the bedrock of America’s competitiveness.’’ U.S. institutions of 

higher learning remain the envy of the world, but the global economy has greatly 

increased the competition for the best and brightest students. America must ensure 

that its best and brightest young people give appropriate consideration to careers 

in science and engineering and that they take advantage of the fact that ours is the 

most open educational system in the world. NSF, its sister agencies, and IPY have 

a key role to play in achieving this goal. 

NSF has been tasked by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy 

to provide leadership for the U.S. in IPY. And, the agency is poised to do exactly 

that, both domestically and on the broad international stage. We have worked closely with our colleagues in other Federal agencies and with the NAS to that end over 

the last two and a half years. Back in July 2004, I was pleased to be invited to deliver the keynote address at a meeting organized by the three Presidents of the NAS 

that was devoted to IPY planning. With your permission, I would like to enter my 

remarks for the record. As I said then, and I quote: 

Both the National Academy of Sciences and the International Council of Science 

have made a compelling case for why we should launch an international polar 

year in 2007. NSF is in full agreement. In the polar regions, we are discerning 

the outlines of environmental change, from sea ice extent, retreating glaciers, 

shifting patterns in flora and fauna, to environmental observations by Arctic natives. 

What is more, such change—whether environmental, biological, or social—has 

implications for the rest of the globe. Polar change ripples across the planet on 

a spectrum of time scales, through the atmosphere, oceans, and living systems. 

We do not yet fully understand the causes of what we are observing. Now is 

the time to change this, for new tools make possible the needed observations 

and synthesis. They range from satellites to ships to sensors, and from genomics 

to nanotechnology, information technology, and advances in remote and robotic 

technologies. 

The NAS subsequently conducted a year-long study to develop a Vision for the 

International Polar Year, one that would take advantage of the broad expertise of 

the U.S. scientific community; position the U.S. for world leadership in IPY; and 

most importantly, create a long-term legacy that would not otherwise exist. This Vision is providing a framework for IPY planning among the Federal agencies. It was 

13 

developed under the leadership of Dr. Mary Albert of the U.S. Army Cold Regions 

Research and Engineering Laboratory in Hanover, New Hampshire, and I believe 

my colleague on the panel, Dr. Robin Bell, will outline its recommendations in more 

detail. Robin chairs the NAS/National Research Council (NRC) Polar Research 

Board that oversaw the work of Mary’s committee. They both have earned our continuing gratitude and congratulations. 

In exercising NSF’s leadership role, I also convened several meetings of the policylevel officials to discuss IPY planning. These activities resulted in a report we provided to the Congress last year and a number of agencies have taken the opportunity to update their sections of the report for this hearing. With your permission, 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit a copy for the record and mention a few highlights. 

NASA is holding discussions with space agencies around the world to organize a 

coordinated program to map the polar regions using today’s sophisticated satellites. 

NSF and NASA are working together to coordinate space- and ground-based observations in order to provide future generations of scientists and others with a comprehensive body of benchmarked data. These data will greatly increase our ability 

to discern change on a regional basis—a basis that relates directly to the different 

environments in which people work and live. 

The Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NSF are developing atmospheric, land and ocean-based environmental monitoring capabilities that will be key components of the planned circumArctic Observing Network (AON), which will significantly enhance our observing capability in the Arctic Region beyond that currently available. Data from this AON 

will enable the U.S. multi-agency program SEARCH—the Study of Environmental 

Arctic Change—developed under the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee 

to get a handle on Arctic environmental change. We discuss specific U.S. investments later. 

Here, too, the NAS have helped significantly with an NSF-funded study of how 

best to implement AON. A circum-Arctic system requires active contributions from 

countries around the Arctic rim. We have already developed strong links for coordination with the $30-million European program called DAMOCLES; have initiated 

discussions with our Canadian colleagues; and have joined with Norway, Sweden, 

Germany, and Russia in establishing an office in St. Petersburg to assist with linking Russian activities to AON. NOAA has led an effort to build U.S.-Russian Federation collaboration in ocean and polar region studies, as highlighted by the Russian American Long Term Census of the Arctic RUSALCA program. This will be a 

key U.S.-Russian component of the IPY. NOAA, in collaboration with NSF, also 

leads the U.S. participation in the IPY International Arctic System for Observing 

the Atmosphere, which began as a grass roots international activity under the IPY 

umbrella that now has the potential to provide the climate component of AON. 

Responding to the recommendations of the Arctic Research Commission’s Goals 

Report, which I’m sure Mr. Treadwell will mention in more detail, NSF is now 

working closely with the Northern Pacific Research Board (NPRB) to align our Bering Sea Ecosystem Program (BEST) with NPRB’s related studies, as well as NOAA’s 

long-term Bering Sea fisheries management activity. Through these combined efforts we aim to understand the response of the Bering Sea ecosystem, the most productive fishery in the U.S., to environmental change, most notably, reductions in 

seasonal sea ice. 

I would like to note that plans have been underway for several years for construction of a new ice-strengthened ship that would serve research needs in the waters 

around Alaska. NSF has assigned high priority to securing funding to build this 

ship, and subject to appropriation of funding in Fiscal Year 2007, construction will 

begin during the IPY. Designated the Alaska Regional Research Vessel (ARRV), it 

would likely be operated by a university as a UNOLS vessel. It would replace the 

Alpha Helix, and like that ship, it would conduct research cruises year round in 

waters of the Gulf of Alaska and southern Bering Sea. And in the summer, the 

ARRV would travel as far north as the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas during minimum 

ice cover. 

Additional IPY efforts by NOAA, NASA and other sister agencies are described 

in the attached document entitled, ‘‘The International Polar Years 2007–2009.’’ 

NSF’s Office of Polar Programs (OPP) and the Directorate for Education and 

Human Resources (EHR) combined to jumpstart IPY preparations by committing 

$12 million from their FY06 appropriations to a special IPY proposal solicitation. 

The solicitation drew a very strong response from U.S. scholars; taken together the 

proposals requested over $150 million in the four focus areas (three science areas 

and education). 

14 

We chose to focus on areas that, for one reason or another, needed extra lead time 

for preparation and that would represent a good start toward realizing the NAS/ 

NRC Vision. The NSF merit review of the education proposals was completed just 

a few days ago, and the results exemplify the creativity and the enthusiasm of our 

educators and scientists. I expect to be able to announce the results from the three 

research areas by the end of October. Meanwhile, the Program Officers overseeing 

the merit review process tell me the quality of the proposals is outstanding. 

Building on this excellent FY06 start, NSF Program Officers from the Agency’s 

disciplinary directorates are working with OPP to formulate how best to respond to 

IPY opportunities in FY07 and FY08. On the basis of their work, the Administration 

requested $62 million in FY07. And, I’m very happy that both Houses of Congress 

have signaled their agreement with our IPY agenda. 

The strong partnership created with EHR in developing the FY06 solicitation is 

the very first legacy of IPY; it will ensure an effective outreach and education effort 

throughout the upcoming 2 years and well into the future. A strong partnership 

with the NSF’s Office of International Science and Engineering (OISE) is enabling 

rapid development of new international links, as well as a strengthening of existing 

ones. 

IPY planning by the Biological and Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences Directorates and studies by the NAS/NRC have identified an exciting group of leadingedge research subjects in biology and the social sciences, ones that with strong IPY 

support and focus could create 21st century legacies. The Geosciences Directorate 

and OPP have a long history of joint cooperation for proposals, and IPY provides 

a strong basis for developing new partnerships in key focus areas such as climate 

studies. The Mathematical and Physical Sciences Directorate and OPP have an outstanding partnership in astrophysics at the South Pole, another excellent IPY building block. Thus, there is great potential for creating legacies through research 

achievements, a new generation of American scientists and engineers, and new networks of international collaborations. 

The aforementioned solicitation identified three science themes and a strong education focus as key investment areas for special emphasis during FY06. These 

themes will be developed further during FY07 and FY08. A cross-directorate working group is evaluating the extent to which the original focus areas will have been 

addressed by the FY06 solicitation, and how they can be broadened to address more 

of the Vision developed by the NAS. NSF and the Office of Management and Budget 

will soon discuss how to address these focus areas in the FY08 budget request to 

Congress. 

The first of these research themes addresses climate change in the Arctic by contributing to building the circum-Arctic Observing Network (AON) that I mentioned 

earlier. This program was organized under the direction of the U.S. Interagency 

Arctic Research Policy Committee chaired by the NSF Director and involves partnership with NOAA, NASA, DOI, DOE, NIH, DOD, USDA, and the Smithsonian Institution. 

During the past few decades, the Arctic has experienced significant environmental 

changes that could have broad-reaching consequences for human and animal populations in the form of impacts on local ecosystems, as well as on global climate. One 

example is that winter sea and river ice—for centuries used by northern communities to facilitate hunting and transportation and more recently for industrial development—have become useable for shorter and shorter periods with less predictability. Warmer winter temperature minimums have lead to the spread of pests. For 

example, Spruce Bark Beetles once thrived only in the lower 48 U.S. states, but now 

have become a threat to more northerly communities by killing large stands of forest and increasing the risk of significant fire damage to communities and habitats. 

But new opportunities are also emerging. For example, significantly reduced summer sea-ice minimums might mean that the Arctic finally becomes the summer seatransportation route once sought by early explorers. 

The AON will provide a network of observations that will facilitate this understanding of the profound change that is occurring in the Arctic in a global context. 

To achieve this goal, Cyberinfrastructure (CI) will need to be developed to provide 

interoperability between the various elements of the observing network, seamless 

broadband communications capabilities at the poles, data storage and archive capabilities, and timely access to data—particularly for input into large-scale coupled 

models. This initiative will not only support the Foundation’s broader CI interests, 

it also supports the broader Administration goal of developing a Global Earth Observing System (GEOS). The Chairman need not be reminded that Barrow was a 

key station in the first IPY, and we anticipate it will be again. U.S. contributions 

to a pan-Arctic AON activity are expected to include Barrow’s new Global Climate 

15 

Change Research facility and investments to provide a safe and effective year-round 

research capability to the University of Alaska’s Toolik Field Station. 

A second broad theme addresses research on what we’re calling ‘‘Life in the Cold 

and Dark.’’ Relatively recent developments in instrumentation and technology offer 

the opportunity to study the mechanisms by which organisms adapt to the climate 

extremes they face in polar environments, how they have evolved at the genomic 

level and how gene expression depends on the physical environment. A recent NAS 

report, ‘‘Frontiers in Polar Biology in the Genomics Era,’’ outlines the opportunities 

and challenges, and describes the ecological relevance and research benefits of these 

tools of modern biology. The Life in the Cold and Dark theme also encompasses research on the interactions between living and physical systems at all levels and 

brings together researchers trained in the biological and social sciences. 

The last International Polar Year in 1957–1958 focused almost entirely on physical science but IPY 2007–2009 will be different. Many northern languages are now 

spoken by only small numbers of elderly people and NSF will partner with the National Endowments for the Humanities in the U.S. and with Canada and other 

countries in sponsoring work to document those endangered languages in Alaska 

and throughout the Arctic. 

NSF-supported research also will address issues associated with environmental 

change that are of critical importance to people living in the North. These studies, 

sponsored jointly by NSF and NIH, will seek to determine not only what causes 

change and predicting it more accurately, but also how change allows infectious diseases to move into new areas where vulnerability is high because the people and 

wildlife will not have developed resistance to the novel pathogens that will be moving into these regions. 

The third broad theme addresses changes in the Earth’s great ice sheets, changes 

that could have profound impacts on global conditions including global sea level. Recent data indicate that the Greenland Ice Sheet is thinning at the edges but thickening at the center. Some ice streams draining the West Antarctic Ice Sheet have 

slowed while at least one other is accelerating. Relatively small changes in the mass 

balance of these ice sheets can raise global sea level significantly while complete 

loss of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet would raise global sea level by over five meters. 

Furthermore, a combination of ground-based, airborne, and satellite observations 

shows that surface melt water can penetrate the ice sheet at thicknesses of a kilometer and accelerate flow beyond previously suspected rates. Research supported by 

NSF, NASA and other agencies under this theme will combine with work supported 

by many other countries to develop a much more complete understanding of the behavior of these ice sheets and how changes in this behavior might evolve. The theme 

will also address further studies of ice sheet changes that occurred over geological 

time and the causes and effects of those changes. 

The overall scientific impact of IPY will only become apparent through synthesis 

activity that brings together results from disparate research groups addressing different aspects of these broad themes. NSF recognizes the critical importance of 

funding workshops and related activities to that end, and will do so well beyond the 

end of the two-year IPY period. 

The education focus has the potential to create a legacy for the decades, one that 

will benefit the Nation as well as the science and engineering community more specifically. By linking the public’s fascination with things polar to outreach that conveys the excitement of research and discovery, we hope to attract a new generation 

of Americans into S&E careers while contributing to a more informed public. 

With the jumpstart provided by the EHR/OPP FY06 solicitation, NSF will enter 

the IPY period well-placed to make major impacts during the ensuing two-year period. A multi-year outreach and education strategy will have substantially greater 

impact than one limited to a single year, while the international collaborations that 

can greatly enhance the reach and impact of NSF-supported research will also hinge 

on continued support. 

While our outreach and education strategy will be focused on U.S. students, parents and families, we recognize that IPY also brings the opportunity to demonstrate 

to them how research and understanding can result when people from many nations 

work together on problems of global interest. The many international scientist-toscientist collaborations now under development will help us carry that story to our 

public and to others around the world. 

Indeed, part of the IPY impact will be the enduring partnerships established 

among scientists in the over 30 countries that have signaled their intention to provide funding for IPY activity. Countries around the world have seized on the 50 year 

anniversary of IPY–3/IGY to create a new legacy of scientific understanding and a 

new generation of scientists and engineers. We understand that Canada has committed $150 million over 6 years to its IPY effort, Korea—$150 million, Japan—$460 

16 

million for a new icebreaker, and China—$60 million for infrastructure and research. Among the EU commitments, one exceeds $30 million for a project closely 

linked to the U.S. IPY centerpiece addressing climate change in the Arctic. 

The 1957–1958 International Polar Year culminated in an international meeting 

in Washington, called by the State Department, to frame what became the Antarctic 

Treaty. As President Nixon noted in 1970, ‘‘. . . the Antarctic is the only continent 

where science serves as the principal expression of national policy and interest.’’ The 

State Department plans to host the annual meeting of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties in 2009, which will spotlight the historic diplomatic achievement by 

the Treaty Parties 50 years ago. We expect this new IPY to create a further legacy 

of international partnerships in the interest of advancing scientific research and understanding. 

The U.S. research community is poised to provide worldwide leadership throughout IPY, and NSF is committed to enabling that to the best of our ability. 

Chairman STEVENS. Thank you, Doctor Bement. I’m sure we’re 

going to see a lot of each other in the years ahead here now, but 

this is a very important function we’re going to commence. 

Our next witness is Vice Admiral Robert Papp, the Chief of Staff 

of the U.S. Coast Guard. 

Admiral? 

STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL ROBERT PAPP, 

CHIEF OF STAFF, U.S. COAST GUARD 

Admiral PAPP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon. And, 

Senator Murkowski, good afternoon to you, as well. Thank you for 

including the Coast Guard in this hearing this afternoon. It’s my 

pleasure today to discuss the Coast Guard’s role in the International Polar Year. 

I’d like to submit my full statement for the record and follow on 

with just a few brief comments. 

Chairman STEVENS. Yes, all statements will be printed in full in 

the record. I noticed the others have abbreviated theirs, too, but we 

appreciate your courtesy. 

Admiral PAPP. Thank you, sir. 

The Coast Guard’s committed to providing support to the scientific community during the IPY to make it a success. We’ve always maintained a presence in the Arctic, since 1867, when President Andrew Johnson dispatched one of our cutters to research and 

chart the waters of the Alaska coastline, while, at the same time, 

enforcing United States sovereignty and laws, and ensuring the 

safety of Americans in that newly acquired territory. 

Coast Guard missions to support safety, security, and stewardship, as well as sovereignty in the Arctic and Antarctic, have been 

continuous and sustained over the decades. And in 1964, President 

Lyndon Johnson directed the Coast Guard to become the sole agency with responsibility for Federal icebreaking resources. That role 

was reaffirmed in 1990 by a Presidential declaration, and then 

validated recently in the Coast Guard Roles and Missions Study of 

1999. Put simply, the United States Coast Guard has the authority, the experience, and the capabilities to support and sustain operations in the polar regions. 

Now, in terms of capabilities, 50 years ago four Wind-Class Coast 

Guard icebreakers supported the U.S. efforts in the Third International Polar Year and International Geophysical Year. Coast 

Guard icebreakers also participated in the first Operation Deep 

Freeze, in 1956, which established U.S. presence on the Antarctic 

17 

continent. Today, one heavy icebreaker, the POLAR SEA, remains 

to support the U.S. Antarctic program resupply effort. Her sister 

ship, POLAR STAR, is in caretaker status, and would take up to 

18 months to reactivate. One medium Coast Guard polar icebreaker, HEALY, remains to provide scientific and icebreaking support in the Arctic. 

The Coast Guard is committed to working with the science community and other Federal agencies to provide the support needed 

to make the upcoming IPY a success. In accordance with our existing Memorandum of Agreement, we’ll support the National Science 

Foundation and other agencies, as requested and as funded. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today, and I’d 

be delighted to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Admiral Papp follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL ROBERT PAPP, CHIEF OF STAFF, U.S. COAST GUARD

Introduction 

Good afternoon Chairman Stevens, Chairman Lugar, Senator Inouye, Senator 

Biden, and distinguished Members of the Committees. It is my pleasure to appear 

before you today to discuss the Coast Guard’s role in the International Polar Year 

(IPY). The International Council of Science (ICSU) and the U.S. National Academies 

have stated that the goals of the International Polar Year (March 2007 through 

March 2009) are: to explore new frontiers in polar sciences; improve our understanding of the critical role of the Earth’s polar regions in global processes; create 

a legacy of infrastructure and data for future generations of scientists; expand international cooperation; engage the public in polar discovery; and help attract and educate the next generation of scientists and engineers. 

Fifty years ago, four Wind Class Coast Guard icebreakers supported U.S. efforts 

in the Third International Polar Year and International Geophysical Year. Coast 

Guard polar icebreakers also participated in the first Operation Deep Freeze in 

1956, which established a stable U.S. presence on the Antarctic continent by forging 

a path through the challenging Antarctic ice belt, allowing a U.S. naval task force 

to establish permanent bases at McMurdo and the South Pole. Today, one heavy 

Coast Guard polar icebreaker, the Cutter POLAR SEA, remains to support the U.S. 

Antarctic Program re-supply effort; the other heavy polar icebreaker, the Cutter 

POLAR STAR is in caretaker status and could be available for use with approximately 18 months advance notice, due to extensive maintenance requirements. In 

the Arctic Region in 1957, the U.S. Coast Guard successfully sent the Cutters 

STORIS, BRAMBLE, and SPAR through the Northwest Passage to determine the 

feasibility of an emergency Defense Early Warning (DEW) line shipping support 

route. Today, one medium Coast Guard polar icebreaker, the Cutter HEALY, remains to provide science and icebreaking support in the Arctic. 

Since 1956, the Coast Guard has been a regular presence in the polar regions. 

Significant historical events have been the catalyst that influenced national polar 

policy decisions. These events have included: the purchase of Alaska; World War II; 

the Cold War; the 1956–1957 International Geophysical Year; the Antarctic Treaty; 

and the oil crises of the 1970s. In addition to the planned IPY events, recent focus 

on issues such as the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention, increasing world-wide demand for natural resources, changing shipping patterns driven by a global economy, 

recent severe ice conditions in the Antarctic, and changes in Arctic sea ice have 

fueled U.S. debate on national polar policies and associated resource needs. 

These recent and developing polar issues, coupled with U.S. interests in both 

polar regions, demand heightened awareness of our national polar missions. In particular, the United States must consider the increasing international initiatives in 

the Arctic. Thus far, the Arctic has witnessed a growing foreign polar presence in 

and more frequent and assertive international claims on the Arctic. 

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has been tasked by the White House to 

provide leadership for the U.S. in the IPY. As the Federal agency charged with providing all U.S. polar icebreaker needs, the Coast Guard is committed to working 

with the NSF, the science community, and other Federal agencies to provide the 

support needed to make the upcoming IPY a success. The NSF and other Federal 

agencies have had general discussions with the Coast Guard about using polar iceVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:20 Jan 09, 2012 Jkt 071960 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\71960.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
18 

breakers for the upcoming IPY, but have not made any specific requests outside of 

annually planned polar icebreaker activities in the Arctic and Antarctic. 

Coast Guard Polar Icebreakers 

The Coast Guard polar icebreaker fleet currently consists of the cutters POLAR 

SEA, POLAR STAR and HEALY. The POLAR SEA and POLAR STAR were built 

and commissioned in the 1970s and are nearly thirty years in age. The HEALY was 

commissioned in 1999 and has been actively supporting annual Arctic research deployments ever since. Unlike the older Polar class ships, HEALY was designed from 

the keel up as a science platform, with due consideration of Coast Guard multi-mission capabilities as well. Due to the harsh and remote polar environment and operating procedures for polar icebreakers, all of these vessels require durable marine 

engineering features in order to withstand years of colliding with sea ice (typically 

having the characteristics of concrete, found twenty feet thick or more, and at temperatures as low as negative 60°F). The unique environment in which polar icebreakers operate, coupled with their significant operating requirements, make the 

vessels inherently costly to operate and maintain. 

Conclusion 

The Coast Guard is committed to working with the science community and other 

Federal agencies to provide the support needed to make the upcoming IPY a success. In accordance with our existing Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), we will 

support the National Science Foundation, and other agencies’ IPY efforts as requested and as funded. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. 

I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Chairman STEVENS. Thank you very much, Admiral. 

Mead, you say that there’s already mapping going on, on the 

floor of the Arctic Ocean? 

Mr. TREADWELL. Yes, sir. In fact, the mission that the HEALY 

was doing when the two crew members were killed this summer 

was a mapping mission. The Appropriations Committee has provided for that, for a couple of years now. 

We actually believe that the United States should develop an 

overall mapping plan for the extended Outer Continental Shelf, 

and we’re glad to be participating in a workgroup that the Department of State has had on developing this proposal. 

The idea of having a claim available for—U.S. claim, under Article 76, Law of the Sea, is one of the drivers. A scientific driver is 

that it—while you’ve got the platforms out there, you’re learning 

much, much more, as well. 

We believe it’s important to have the robust icebreaker platforms 

for this work, and, also, we’ve recommended reinstating the use of 

submarine platforms also to support this work. 

Chairman STEVENS. Admiral, we’re all familiar with the loss of 

your people up there, and we do express our regret about that. Is 

this—is Mead right? Were they part of a mapping program up 

there? 

Admiral PAPP. Yes, sir, that’s what they were involved in. They 

had to terminate that early, as you know, and return, to deal with 

the deaths of the crew members, and then return to home port 

for—to, sort of, recalibrate the crew. When that will be rescheduled, a continuation of that project, remains uncertain, at this 

time. 

Chairman STEVENS. How expensive is that program of mapping, 

at this time? 

Admiral PAPP. I’m not sure how much that program costs, sir. 

We get the money to operate the ship and take it out on the missions. NSF provides us the funding for that. And I’m not sure what 

the cost of that program is. 

19 

*The information can be found at http://www.nsf.gov/od/opp/ipy/ipylreptluslfedl 

agencylplanning.pdf. 

Chairman STEVENS. Now, have we outlined mapping the whole 

part of the Arctic adjacent to our State—Arctic Ocean adjacent to 

our State? 

Admiral PAPP. I don’t know that, sir. We’ve been dealing in parts 

of that. I think probably NSF has a better handle on that than we 

do. 

Chairman STEVENS. What do you know about it, Dr. Bement? 

Dr. BEMENT. Yes. Senator, there are cartographic activities 

under the AON initiative, and in order to do the whole survey of 

the Arctic Ocean, that would be a multi-year activity that wouldn’t 

be completed during IPY, but there would be a good start. And that 

would be an important area of research to sustain in the years 

after IPY. 

Chairman STEVENS. Well, let me apologize for my ignorance, but 

I would assume that could have been done digitally by the equipment we have. Do we have to have divers to do that? Admiral? 

Dr. BEMENT. Well, I can’t answer, on the operational aspects of 

how that would be done. 

Admiral PAPP. No, sir, we don’t have—the only reason we carry 

divers on our icebreakers is for emergency procedures. If there’s 

something wrong, they become fouled in the ice, or if there are 

equipment problems, we can put down divers to inspect the hull, 

or, at times, if we have equipment—for instance, if we’re using a 

remotely operated vehicle to do some sort of work underneath the 

ice, if there are some problems with the equipment, we can put our 

divers down for that. But the divers are provided only for emergency circumstances. 

Chairman STEVENS. Mead—my last question—you assume that 

there’s going to be some cooperation in preparing a proposed plan 

for this IPY, as it affects the Arctic, in general, and our state, in 

particular, as far as Federal agencies are concerned? 

Dr. BEMENT. Yes, sir. We do have an updated plan. It’s updated, 

as of September 18. And it includes activities in the Fiscal Year 

2007 request. And we’d be glad to present that, for the record.*

Chairman STEVENS. I’d be pleased to have it. Have you made 

submissions on that, Mead? 

Mr. TREADWELL. If you’re talking to me—addressing me, Senator, 

the Arctic Research Commission, every other year, publishes a 

Goals Report. That Goals Report is referred to the Congress and 

the President, and then the Interagency Arctic Research Policy 

Committee takes that report and revises the 5-year Arctic Research 

Plan. The United States Arctic Research Program, we hope, basically runs against the plan that the IARPC prepares. 

In my written testimony, Senator, I referred to five key goals 

that were in our last Goals Report that were in the plan, two of 

which are very good programs underway, the SEARCH program 

and the BEST program, which is just getting started. You’ll hear, 

from Dr. Parkinson later this afternoon, about the first, really, 

interagency initiative on health. And we’re seeing some gaps in the 

others. But I can say, just as an affirmative answer to your question, we are hoping that by the time we bring a Goals Report back 

20 

to the Congress this winter, that that will stimulate a discussion 

of legacies of IPY throughout the Government. 

Chairman STEVENS. Well, when did you submit the last Goals 

Report? 

Mr. TREADWELL. The last Goals Report was submitted probably 

the end of January 2005. 

Chairman STEVENS. Thank you. 

Senator Murkowski? 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you. 

Admiral, I just want to make sure that I understand the situation with the icebreakers. You say the POLAR STAR is in this 

caretaker status. So, for purposes of this upcoming IPY, we can assume that it will not be available for any research that might be 

associated. Is that correct? 

Admiral PAPP. We have no plan for it to be available, Senator. 

It’s laid up right now, and our estimate is it would take probably 

up to 18 months to reactivate the ship, at a cost of probably about, 

roughly, $25 million. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. And then, the POLAR SEA is the one that 

will be available down in the Antarctic. So, would that be available 

at all in the Arctic regions, or is that exclusively down south? 

Admiral PAPP. POLAR SEA’s mission tasking is going to be for 

the Antarctic resupply mission, and she has had some money put 

into her to extend her anywhere from about 4 to 8 years. We did 

the sustainment repairs that we would—that I was talking about 

for the POLAR STAR. We accomplished that on POLAR SEA. That 

should keep her running at least 4 to 8 more years. And we envision her primarily used for the Antarctic resupply mission. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. So then, for any IPY activities in the northern region, what we’re looking at as the only available icebreaker, 

then, is the HEALY? And will they be able to handle anything that 

comes to them, as directed by NSF? 

Admiral PAPP. Yes, ma’am. That’s the standard operation for the 

HEALY, is the Arctic operations in support of NSF. HEALY’s back 

in port now, will be going through some minor repairs and a drydocking in the upcoming months, and then we’ll prepare it for the 

next season, and she will be devoted solely to the support of NSF 

and the IPY. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. OK, thank you. 

Doctor, in your testimony—and both you and Mr. Treadwell both 

spoke to the legacy of IPY, and this is something that—I really look 

forward, Mead, to the report coming out, and further discussion 

about the specifics of the legacy and how we make this happen, because it’s one of those things—we do great research, we have great 

things happening, but, at the end of the International Polar Year, 

everyone’s done and goes off on their respective ways. We want to 

know that the legacy is in place, whether it’s through the socioeconomic effect on some of our indigenous people, infrastructure, 

whether it’s roads or facilities. We want to see that. And, Doctor, 

you’ve spoken to the educational legacy and an effort underway 

now to do an education and public outreach. What types of programs is NSF looking at right now for purposes of funding? And 

what kind of prioritization do you go through for that? 

21 

Dr. BEMENT. Well, we give this very high priority. I can talk 

about what NSF has currently funded, but I should also point out 

that we’re coordinating activities with other Federal agencies, so 

that’s—the overall effort will be larger than what I’ll represent. 

And I should also point out that this is also international in scope, 

so our international partners are also involved. In fact, almost all 

the grants that we have issued to date have strong international 

participation. But we issued nine grants, based on a current solicitation this year, to jumpstart public outreach and education four 

are in the area of informal education that would involve museums, 

the media, bringing the experience of polar research into the classroom and into the home. Three of them are in formal education, at 

the graduate and undergraduate level, that deal with the development of new courses and also involving broadening participation of 

minorities. Two of them are in the K–12 area and will involve students and teachers actually working with researchers in both the 

Arctic and the Antarctic. And some of this work will be brought to 

bear on teacher training, teacher involvement, broadly. And so, we 

think that is a good spectrum of activities to begin with, but I 

should point out we’ll be doing a second solicitation next year, and 

we expect to have an additional spectrum of activities that will deal 

with both public outreach and education. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. What efforts will be made to make sure 

that you are working with the Alaskan native community? 

Dr. BEMENT. Almost everything that we do in Alaska, from a research point of view, and also from the social studies point of view, 

will involve Native Alaskans. I should mention another project that 

we have with the National Endowment for the Humanities, which 

is focused on capturing endangered languages. There are about 52 

native languages in Alaska, and half of those will disappear in another year or two. So, we’re working very actively—in fact, I think 

we have a grant with the University of Alaska in Anchorage—to 

help not only document those languages, but understand the culture and the history that’s embedded in those languages. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Well, we recognize that we have some challenges in education, the traditional education, particularly out in 

some of our remote areas, and to know that you can make science 

come alive, that you can make languages come alive by the kids 

being the researchers, the kids being the scientists. I mean, I think 

we’ve got some opportunity here to help you, but to also help so 

many in our State. 

It has been mentioned, certainly by Mead, and by you, as well, 

the reality of multiple agencies, and then you throw in over 60 different countries that you’re dealing with. Can you let me know how 

we’re doing, in terms of the interagency cooperation? Is it working? 

What do we need to be doing to make it flow better, if it’s not flowing well? 

Dr. BEMENT. Well, today we’ve had several high-level meetings. 

One meeting at the policy level was held last year. And it was during those meetings that we began to formulate the identification of 

all the activities that each of the agencies are going to be engaged 

in and begin cross-correlating, through interagency cooperation, to 

see that we get highest leverage of those activities, especially to— 

with regard to the two major activities identified by the Arctic ReVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:20 Jan 09, 2012 Jkt 071960 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\71960.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
22 

search Commission—namely, the AON, the Arctic Observing Network, and also the Bering Ecological Study, of the Bering Sea. 

Those two are very critical. And its not only important that we get 

a good start during IPY, but we also advocate for sustainability of 

those activities so that they become stronger over time. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Again, going to that legacy concept that everyone’s talking about. 

Mr. Treadwell, you had mentioned in your testimony some of this 

fragmented funding and some of the issues associated with that. 

We certainly look forward to this unified Arctic research budget. I 

think that will certainly help. I think getting this Goals Report, as 

it comes due, is going to be—going to be very important for all of 

us. But as far as the funding issues that you have mentioned, you 

have—perhaps it’s just politically correct language, but in your testimony, you say, ‘‘a level of funding and participation appropriate 

to the Nation’s leadership in polar research.’’ Do you have any idea 

what you figure the appropriate level might be? 

Mr. TREADWELL. Well, Senator Murkowski, I don’t have a specific 

number in mind. I don’t think the Commission has discussed a specific number. And, in fact, if you track the number that IARPC has 

collated for Arctic research over the past several years, the Arctic 

research budget level of the Government has grown, it’s now approaching $400 million. 

Where we’re concerned—and, as I mentioned in my testimony— 

we’re concerned that some of the goals that were adopted last time, 

after our Goals Report two years ago, haven’t been funded as yet, 

and also that some of the programs—I mean, there is a general 

concern in the science community that NOAA, by closing its Arctic 

office, so to speak, is moving in the wrong direction. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Is NOAA’s perspective, if you will, that it’s 

a funding issue, and it’s not for lack of interest in the Office of Arctic Research? 

Mr. TREADWELL. I don’t think it’s for lack of interest. I mean, the 

jobs that NOAA has taken on are tremendous. They basically coordinate the international work on the AMAP program through the 

Arctic Council, the monitoring program. They are responsible for 

this mapping project that we talked about, all of the funding for 

the Barrow Climate Change Research Facility that—you know, I 

expect you to be involved in a ribbon-cutting for that sometime this 

spring—is coming through NOAA. The—NOAA is responsible for 

the—I believe it’s the RUSCALA program, but—the U.S./Russian 

cooperation on studies in the Bering Sea, which is a very important 

window, given the access problems that all of our researchers have 

with Russia. And to have all of these NOAA responsibilities that 

they’ve taken on, and they’re appropriately taking on, at the same 

time to see the budget reductions, is just a difficulty. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Well, then how do we get these agencies, 

whether they’re NOAA or whether it’s NASA, to get excited about 

what we’ve got going with the potential for IPY so that they are 

able to move forward with those goals that have been set out? 

Mr. TREADWELL. I think we can both ask. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. We’ll keep asking. 

You mentioned the kickoff for the International Polar Year for 

March 2007. And, Doctor, this might also be a question for you. Do 

23 

we have anything planned for the kickoff? Is there anything that 

we’re looking at doing? Should we be focusing on that right now? 

That’s coming up soon. 

Dr. BEMENT. The one thing that we’re trying to schedule, at the 

present time, is a White House event on or at the time of the beginning of IPY, which will be next March. We would also like to 

have major events both at the—in the Arctic and the Antarctic, and 

certainly in Alaska. We would like to be involved in a kickoff in 

Alaska. 

I should also mention, going back to the Barrow Global Climate 

Change Research Facility, we recognize the importance of that facility to support researchers who are going to be doing research in 

that area, especially in connection with AON, and their greatest 

need is going to be for cyberinfrastructure and also for communications and data management tools, because the amount of data 

that’s going to be generated in the Arctic is going to be enormous, 

especially in Alaska. So, we have put in change orders during the 

construction of the building to incorporate cabling and other facilities, so that at the time we put in the cyberinfrastructure and also 

broadband communications, the building will be fully equipped for 

that. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Well, we’ve been given a copy of a picture 

here of the Army Signal Corps building, built for the first IPY, in 

Barrow, in 1888. 

Dr. BEMENT. Yes. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Hopefully it looks better than what 

we’ve—— 

Dr. BEMENT. No, that has been—— 

Senator MURKOWSKI.—were able to produce in 1888. 

Dr. BEMENT.—has been fully renovated, and I’ve been in that 

building. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Yes. Well—— 

Mead, one last question for you. You raised the issue that we 

really haven’t updated our Arctic policy in over a decade now, a 

decade-plus, and it’s an issue that I have been trying to raise to 

a level here where we can have a discussion about Arctic policy. 

But, oftentimes, I get looked at by other Senators or other colleagues and say, ‘‘Well, I’m from Alabama, or Arkansas, or Iowa. 

Why do I care about Arctic policy?’’ And I think what is happening—we’re on the verge of pushing forward with IPY—is an 

awareness that the issues in the Arctic are not just isolated to the 

north, and then, of course, down to the south, in the Antarctic. So, 

I’m hopeful that one of the things that we will accomplish with this 

IPY is an understanding as to this—you talk about the connectedness of the Arctic, I think we also need to look to the connectedness 

of the Arctic to the rest of the world. And if you want to just take 

a minute and speak to that—— 

Mr. TREADWELL. Well—— 

Senator MURKOWSKI.—I’d appreciate your thoughts. 

Mr. TREADWELL.—since 1994, the last time the Arctic policy 

interagency process produced that kind of a document, a Presidential Decision document, it was just at the beginning of the Arctic Council process. In fact, the Arctic Council hadn’t been formed, 

as yet. We had the beginnings of circumpolar cooperation with the 

24 

Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy. And, since then, we’ve 

had a robust Arctic Council process, a robust northern forum process. The kinds of activities in this whole panoply of research activities with IPY will reflect not just geophysical science, which is extremely important, but also the social science that you talked 

about. So, we have a much more developed Arctic community. 

The change in the Arctic since then—that statement really did 

not address climate change, it didn’t address the opportunities or 

the problems of climate change in the Arctic, and the opportunities 

are numerous. It’s not just climate change, but technology, which 

is going to make the Arctic Ocean much more accessible. And if you 

think about it, an accessible Arctic Ocean that has changes in 

boundaries coming with—Article 76 of the Law of the Sea Treaty, 

has varying claims. The Russians have claimed 45 percent of the 

Arctic Ocean under that, that hasn’t been adjudicated, as yet. It’s 

important for the United States to sit down and assess what it is. 

And I can think of no better time, the Commission can think of no 

better time, than during this IPY process to chew on these policy 

issues at the same time. 

So, with that, coming out of the other end we may find more important commitments to science, the legacies that we’ve talked 

about. You have a very tough policy decision on the platforms, including the icebreakers, which—the report that just came out this 

afternoon, issues of how much the United States wants to promote 

transportation in the Arctic Ocean. And these are the kinds of 

things that should be considered. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Doctor? 

Dr. BEMENT. Yes, if I may address your question. NSF supports 

about 20 long-term ecological research sites, which include Lake 

Toolik, Bonanza Creek in Alaska, but are distributed across the 

United States, all the way to Puerto Rico. And the purpose of these 

ecological research sites is to look at ecological change, especially 

with regard to climate change and other changes in the environment. Those sites, collectively, will be able to determine how the 

changes in the Arctic will ripple through the U.S. over time. Admittedly, the changes are most dramatic and most easily seen in the 

Antarctic, not only with regard to the flora and the fauna, but also 

with regard to insect infestations, as you’re well aware of, the 

spruce bark beetle. But also the spread of infectious diseases and 

the response of people who have not normally been exposed to 

these types of diseases, as warming occurs, as these viruses and so 

forth move north. 

So, all these things are part of our ongoing study involving the 

ecology. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Mr. Chairman, I could probably spend the 

rest of the afternoon with these three, but I know that we have an 

equally distinguished second panel, so I’m done with my questions. 

Thank you. 

Chairman STEVENS. Thank you very much. 

Staff just gave me this. This is a planning document from the Office of the IPY. And it lists studies for—related earth, land, people, 

oceans, ice, atmosphere, space, and education, and outreach. I mention it, because I had a personal letter from my old friend, the DiVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:20 Jan 09, 2012 Jkt 071960 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\71960.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
25 

rector of the International Arctic Research Center in Fairbanks, at 

the university. And I’ll print the whole letter in the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

INTERNATIONAL ARCTIC RESEARCH CENTER—UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA

FAIRBANKS

Fairbanks, AK, September 14, 2006 

Hon. TED STEVENS, 

Chairman, 

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Ted: 

The idea of an International Polar Year (IPY) started as a celebration of the 50th 

anniversary of the International Geophysical Year (IGY) (1957–58), which was the 

largest geoscience enterprise in history at that time. Sydney Chapman, who was my 

professor during my Ph.D. student days, was the President of the IGY, and I am 

one of the few ‘‘survivors’’ (still active) of that event. By working alongside Professor 

Chapman during that period, I learned what it took to make the IGY successful. 

Government support was necessarily easy. 

From the beginning of the preparations for IPY, I have voiced my opinion that 

the 2007 IPY is a rare opportunity for polar researchers to demonstrate publicly 

that they are combining their talents for studying a few crucial problems of the 

present global warming, which is one of the major concerns of the people of the 

world. In this way, we would gain a better understanding of climate change and also 

the support of the people. 

To be specific in terms of science, Arctic researchers should work together in distinguishing between natural components and manmade components in the present 

climate change; this is one of the most difficult scientific problems. I am not saying 

that because this is precisely what IARC is working toward but because, without 

succeeding in this work, it is not possible to reduce uncertainty of climate change 

prediction. 

I believe that the IPY needs a few, focused projects. Unfortunately, the present 

trend appears to be that individual Arctic scientists want to satisfy their own curiosity by expecting special funding for the IPY. Such projects are undoubtedly important, too, but we would lose the rare opportunity for combining many talents in pursuit of specific and focused programs. 

When I expressed this opinion recently, one of the most respected climatologists, 

John Walsh, who is Chief Scientist of IARC, called it ‘‘excellent,’’ saying that my 

written opinion saved him the time of writing the opinion himself. 

With best regards, 

SYUN AKASOFU, 

Director. 

Chairman STEVENS. But Dr. Akasofu says this, ‘‘I believe that 

the IPY needs a few focused projects. Unfortunately, the present 

trend appears to be that individual Arctic scientists want to satisfy 

their own curiosity by expecting special funding for the IPY. Such 

projects are undoubtedly important, too, but we would lose a rare 

opportunity for combining many talents in pursuit of specific and 

focused programs.’’ 

What do the three of you think about that comment? 

Dr. Bement? 

Dr. BEMENT. Well, I have a high regard for Dr. Akasofu. We do 

communicate. I would remind him, however, that all of our projects 

are merit-reviewed. We pick the best of the best. And he happens 

to be one of them, in the work that he’s doing at IARC. So, I think 

that the statement is a bit extreme, but we do pay attention to 

those details. 

Chairman STEVENS. Well, do we need some special—some broadgauge projects that encompass a series of studies, or are we going 

to just pick individual studies, as we can afford them? 

26 

Dr. BEMENT. Senator, we have some of both, and I think you’ll 

hear, in the next panel, some of the activities that we are funding 

at the University of Alaska at Fairbanks that are focused and involve multiple investigators. And those investigators are collaborating with other investigators throughout the United States. The 

broader-gauged programs that are interagency and multinational 

tend to be the Arctic Observing Network and the Bering Ecology— 

Ecological Study. 

Chairman STEVENS. Well, we’re going to be very interested in 

this. And it does get subjective. Before I came here, I had a visit 

with—from three members of the Alaskan Native community from 

the West Coast, three separate villages. And they wanted to know 

what we were going to do to try and deal with the causes of the 

change that they see, that many of them have great fear of today. 

Dr. BEMENT. Yes. 

Chairman STEVENS. We know that some of them have already 

been impacted by enormous waves and storm conditions. But they 

also see changes, in terms of the habits of the wildlife, of the 

growth of trees, and other plants in the Arctic area, and they see 

the permafrost thawing. So, they want some answers. And I’m not 

sure how the IPY is going to function into getting some of the answers to their questions—the people most affected by the change 

we know of, in terms of our country. And I think their questions 

are similar to those that would be in Siberia and others areas of 

the Arctic throughout the world. Are we going to find a way to try 

to do both, to look into the long-range science and, at the same 

time, try to get some answers for the people who are affected now? 

Dr. BEMENT. The answer, Senator, is yes, we have involved Native Alaskans in our studies. I have personally talked with elders 

at Barrow. I understand their concerns. I understand the trauma 

of trying to adapt to change that they’re facing, especially with regard to movement and hunting and whaling. The answers to some 

of those issues are not going to be short term, necessarily, but we 

are focused on dealing with climate change through our SEARCH 

programs. And, of course, that’s what the AON is all about, in 

order to make those measurements on a regional basis. And we are 

also interested in the effects of ice sheet stability, on the possible 

climate change, as well as ocean rise, over time. We have a fair 

amount of data, working with NASA, on the recession of ice coverage in the Chukchi Sea and also in the Beaufort Sea, and we’ll 

be able to continue to measure that over time. And that will affect 

the fetch of—caused by storms. It will contribute to coastal erosion. 

We understand some of those processes now. We’ll be able to add 

more information as time goes on. 

In addition to that, we are looking at the effects of extreme environments, especially the cold and the dark in the Arctic regions, on 

the ecology, as well as on life forms. And there are, in addition to 

that, social studies that will involve not only individuals, but also 

communities to examine the issues that have, with adaption to 

change among these—they used to be nomadic, they’re less nomadic now—but, nevertheless, this is a community that has 

learned how to adapt, over time. And we have to maintain very 

close communication with that—with those native populations. 

27 

Chairman STEVENS. Well, thank you very much. We thank all— 

the three of you. 

We’re going to turn to the second panel now, if we may. It’s Dr. 

Robin Bell, Dr. Buck Sharpton, Dr. Alan Parkinson, and Dr. Thomas Armstrong. 

Thank you very much for coming, the first panel. 

[Pause.] 

Chairman STEVENS. Thank you very much. Our first witness in 

this panel is Dr. Robin Bell. She’s Chairwoman of the Polar Research Board for the National Academy of Science, and Chairwoman of the USIPY Planning Committee. 

Thank you for coming, Dr. Bell. 

STATEMENT OF ROBIN E. BELL, PH.D., DOHERTY SENIOR 

RESEARCH SCIENTIST, LAMONT-DOHERTY EARTH 

OBSERVATORY, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY; CHAIR, POLAR 

RESEARCH BOARD, U.S. NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR 

INTERNATIONAL POLAR YEAR, DIVISION ON EARTH AND 

LIFE STUDIES, NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, 

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES 

Dr. BELL. Good afternoon, Senator Stevens and Senator Murkowski. Thank you very much for inviting me to speak about the 

International Polar Year, which I see as a scientific opportunity of 

a generation, for our Nation, for our society, and for our planet. 

I’m a geophysicist at Columbia University Lamont-Doherty Earth 

Observatory, where I run major programs looking at the stability 

of ice sheets and looking at subglacial lakes. So, that’s my passion, 

in terms of trying to understand our planet. And I’ve been active 

in planning for the International Polar Year, both nationally and 

internationally, since the inception of the idea. 

You may wonder why—in this era of instant communications, 

why the scientific community has gotten excited about a strategy 

that was developed 100 years ago, when maps of both poles were 

empty, blank. We didn’t even know if there was a continent in the 

middle of the Arctic Ocean. You wonder if we’re arguing about 

what it looks like now; then, we still thought there might be a continent sitting on top of the North Pole. And our cutting-edge communication was the telegraph. But, even though the maps are 

much richer today, the scientific community is still motivated by 

our need to understand our planet, as a whole. 

While environmental change and variability are part of the natural pattern on Earth, the environmental changes currently witnessed in the polar regions are generally much more pronounced 

than they are elsewhere in the world. The Arctic Ocean sea ice is 

thinning. The ice shelves in Antarctica, in some cases, are retreating and thinning. Glaciers are shrinking, and ecosystems, as you 

know, are changing. These changes have impacts locally and globally. Alaskan villages have been moved. Permafrost is thawing and 

undermining roads. Environmental change and rising sea level is 

really of impact globally, even though it’s at the poles. So, that’s 

one of the tremendous motivators, is the scientific community is 

very concerned and wants to understand what’s causing the change 

in our planet. 

28 

Now, although we made tremendous progress in the last year in 

coloring in those maps—those last hundred years—there are still 

tremendous frontiers at the edges of scientific knowledge. The 

maps aren’t blank anymore, but the frontiers and the unknowns 

have grown. They’re no longer just spatial and geographic, but 

they’re actually at the molecular and, still, at the continental scale. 

They’re fundamental unknowns. 

Through the planning process begun at the National Academy, 

we’ve identified five major challenges. The first is to assess the 

large-scale changes that are happening in the polar regions. The 

second is to conduct scientific exploration of these new frontiers, 

whether they’re molecular or continental. Third is to observe the 

polar regions in-depth, with adequate knowledge, so we can look at 

what’s causing the change. The fourth is to understand the human/ 

environment dynamics in an environment where the interaction is 

very intimate. And, finally, we want to create a new connection between the science and the public. 

And that’s one of the major differences between this IPY and the 

earlier IPYs, is the recognition that the physical world and the biological world and the human society are intimately interrelated. 

The upcoming IPY is inherently not just about science, but science 

in support of human interests. 

As you saw before, as you were holding up, Senator Stevens, this 

is the present international map of the 225 projects that highlights 

the geographic and discipline breadth of the IPY. And while this 

looks a little overwhelming, this represents 63 nations and 6,000 

scientists. So, this is really the global view. And it’s broken down 

so you can understand the breadth, both discipline-wise and geographically, of this International Polar Year. It provides an illustration of how their projects have crossed both poles, crossed the 

disciplines, and crossed the nations. Each cell is a major program 

with an international team of scientists working together and producing a tremendous multiplicative effect, far more than we would 

if it was simply funded through our classic national funding process. 

The net result will be a huge leap forward in our understanding 

of polar processes—physical, biological, and social—and the global 

connections. 

Planning’s proceeding, as you’ve heard today, at a rapid pace 

with the official kickoff coming in March 2007. And there are a couple of potential requirements that must be met if it’s going to meet 

the expectations. I think we need to see a broadening and deepening of participation of the agencies, increase in the level of funding, increase the coordination, nationally and internationally, and 

fostering the interdisciplinary work. How do we draw the linkages 

between these columns? These issues are things that must be addressed for a vibrant and successful International Polar Year. 

In conclusion, I just want to address your questions about what 

the societal benefits of the International Polar Year are going to be. 

Just as these science programs are multifaceted and multidisciplinary, so are the benefits. It will advance our fundamental understanding of our planet, from the polar ecosystems to subglacial terrains. It will improve our understanding of the processes of change 

and that complex double-edged sword of how society is influencing 

29 

change, and how change is influencing society, especially to the inhabitants of the North. It will inspire a new spirit of discovery 

across ages, and help us develop the next generation of leaders in 

science, engineering, education, industry, commerce, and, we hope, 

government. 

At the international level, it’ll show, again, even in the most difficult times, that science can be a powerful arena for international 

cooperation. Why should much of our Nation, who primarily live in 

the warmer part of our Earth, care about IPY? They think of the 

polar regions as being physically distinct, and they don’t understand the critical links to the global climate system. I like to think 

of this simple experiment that you can do—or you can just do in 

your mind, I can do right now. Imagine holding an ice cube between your thumb and your forefinger. As you hold it, your finger 

starts to melt the ice cube, and you quickly feel the water dripping 

down across the ice cube and down your hand. That’s what the 

poles are like. We know the poles are changing, but, as the poles 

change, it impacts the rest of our planet, the rest of the ice cube. 

We don’t actually understand. And what we hope to understand is 

what’s causing the warming fingers on our planet. But on our planet, the poles are causing the ocean currents to change—that’s 

what’s keeping Europe warmer, presently. And the sea ice is what 

modifies much of the climate as it reflects the solar energy back. 

Melting the ice sheet will raise sea levels, threaten coastal communities around the world. Polar regions are integral parts of the 

Earth system and will respond to, and drive, changes in the planet 

elsewhere. 

So, from assessing large-scale environmental change to exploring 

the new frontiers, the International Polar Year is a scientific opportunity of a generation. 

Thank you very much for your time, and I’m happy to address 

any questions you have. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Bell follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBIN E. BELL, PH.D., DOHERTY SENIOR RESEARCH

SCIENTIST, LAMONT-DOHERTY EARTH OBSERVATORY, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY; 

CHAIR, POLAR RESEARCH BOARD, U.S. NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR INTERNATIONAL

POLAR YEAR, DIVISION ON EARTH AND LIFE STUDIES, NATIONAL RESEARCH

COUNCIL, THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

Good afternoon. Thank you very much for inviting me to speak about International Polar Year 2007–2008. The International Polar Year (IPY) is the scientific 

opportunity of a generation for our Nation, for our society, and for our planet. 

My name is Robin E. Bell, Ph.D. from Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty 

Earth Observatory, where I am a Doherty Senior Research Scientist. I am a geophysicist by training and at Columbia I lead major geophysical programs on the stability of ice sheets including subglacial lakes. I also direct Columbia’s NSF sponsored ADVANCE program, aimed at recruiting and retaining women in science. I 

was the first woman to lead a major aerogeophysical program from the Antarctic 

continent, and this has been the focus of much of my research for the past two decades. 

In addition to my research, I chair the National Research Council’s Polar Research Board, which acts as the national coordinating committee for IPY. The Research Council is the operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences, National 

Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine, chartered by Congress in 

1863, to advise the government on matters of science and technology. I served as 

the Co-Chair of the International Council for Science’s (ICSU) initial IPY Planning 

Group, and I currently serve as a member of the ICSU-World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Joint Committee for IPY, the main international planning group. 

30 

Today I will provide an overview of why IPY is happening and why it’s important 

to us here in the United States. What has motivated more than 5,000 scientists 

from some 63 nations to decide to participate in a year devoted to polar studies and 

education? I’ll highlight the major science questions that will be addressed, outline 

the role that U.S. scientists and science managers have been playing developing 

IPY, and conclude with thoughts on the many societal benefits that can result from 

the IPY. 

In this era of instant communications and global connectivity, it might seem surprising that the global scientific community is so excited by a scientific strategy that 

was developed more than 100 years ago. Because it was indeed back in 1882–1883, 

that the idea of holding a focused, internationally-coordinated year of polar research—an International Polar Year—was first developed. At that point in history, 

the poles were blank white spaces on maps, and the cutting edge communications 

technology was the telegraph. The decision to coordinate with other nations rather 

than compete, and to focus on research to understand polar phenomena rather than 

acquisition of territory, was something new and exciting. That first IPY in 1882– 

1883 and subsequent ones in 1932–1933, and the International Geophysical Year 

(IGY) in 1957–1958, drew great minds and generated great leaders; these ‘‘international years’’ set a precedent of cooperation in science that, while innovative at 

the time, is considered the norm today. 

Today’s scientists are similarly motivated by society’s need for integrated global 

knowledge. There is still a fundamental human need to push the limits of our understanding about polar phenomena. The polar regions are integral components of 

the Earth system. As the heat sinks of the climate system, they both respond to, 

and drive, changes elsewhere on the planet. While environmental change and variability are part of the natural pattern on Earth, the environmental changes currently 

witnessed in the polar regions are in many cases more pronounced than changes observed in the mid-latitudes or tropics. The Arctic sea ice cover is decreasing; some 

ice shelves in Antarctica are retreating and thinning; glaciers are shrinking; and 

ecosystems are changing, for instance, with plants flowering at earlier times. These 

changes are having human impacts: some Alaskan villages have been moved to 

higher ground in response to rising sea levels, and thawing of permafrost is undermining roads and buildings in northern communities around the world. We must 

understand the implications of environmental change for the future of our global society. 

Although we’ve made tremendous progress in all science over the past 100 years, 

the polar regions are still at the frontiers of human knowledge. The maps aren’t 

quite as blank, but the frontiers and unknowns have actually increased, and range 

from the molecular, to the ecological, to the continental. How is it that certain microbes can survive at minus 2 degrees Fahrenheit, that certain nematodes live even 

when ice forms in their cells, that polar fish species have evolved with an antifreeze 

protein in their blood? What will happen to the unique under-ice ecological communities of the Arctic, which are the base of the Arctic food web, as ice conditions 

change and new species arrive from southern waters? In just the last 10 years we 

discovered more than 150 subglacial lakes that exist under the ice in Antarctica. 

These range in size from something similar to the reflecting pool on the Mall to a 

lake the size of Lake Ontario. Why are these lakes important? They are thought 

to contain exotic ecosystems; the water in these lakes is part of the subglacial 

plumbing system that can be thought of as the lubricant that makes the ice sheet 

flow faster. 

At its most fundamental level, IPY 2007–2008 is envisioned to be an intense, coordinated field campaign of polar observations, research, and analyses that will be 

multidisciplinary in scope and international in participation. IPY will provide a 

framework to undertake projects that normally could not be achieved by any single 

nation. It allows us to think beyond traditional borders—whether national borders 

or disciplinary constraints—toward a new level of integrated, cooperative science. A 

coordinated international approach maximizes both impact and cost effectiveness, 

and the international collaborations started today will build relationships and understanding that will bring long-term benefits. Within this context, IPY will seek 

to galvanize new and innovative observations and research, while at the same time 

building on and enhancing existing initiatives. IPY will serve as a mechanism to attract and develop a new generation of scientists and engineers with the versatility 

to tackle complex global issues. 

In addition, IPY is clearly an opportunity to organize a range of education and 

outreach activities designed to excite and engage the public, with a presence in 

classrooms around the world, and in the media in varied and innovative formats. 

The IPY will use today’s powerful research tools to better understand the key roles 

of the polar regions in global processes. Automatic observatories, satellite-based reVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:20 Jan 09, 2012 Jkt 071960 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\71960.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
31 

mote sensing, autonomous vehicles, Internet, and genomics are just a few of the innovative approaches for studying previously inaccessible realms. IPY 2007–2008 will 

be fundamentally broader than past international years because it will explicitly incorporate multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary studies, including biological, ecological, and social science elements. 

IPY 2007–2008 is an opportunity to deepen our understanding of the polar regions 

and their global linkages and impacts, and to communicate these insights to the 

public. IPY planners have identified five broad scientific challenges: 

• Assess large-scale environmental change in the polar regions, with questions 

looking at both the physical and human dimensions of change and its impacts. 

• Conduct scientific exploration of ‘‘new’’ frontiers, whether these are once inaccessible places beneath the ice sheet, or areas of inquiry that are now open because of advances in technology, such as how the tools of genomics now allow 

exploration of previously unanswerable questions about biological adaptation. 

• Observe the polar regions in depth, with adequate coverage of the vast and 

challenging landscape, to provide a description of current conditions and allow 

for better future understanding of variability and change. 

• Understand human-environmental dynamics in a region where the connections 

are intimate and where the impacts of change are clear. 

• Create new connections between science and the public, using these regions 

that are inherently intriguing. 

Previous IPY efforts were characterized by very top down planning and generally 

driven by the military. For example, under the oversight of Abraham Lincoln’s son, 

Robert Todd Lincoln, then head of the Department of War, the U.S. participation 

in the first IPY in 1882–1883 was led by the Army. The science priorities for our 

upcoming IPY, on the other hand, emerged from grass roots planning, international 

scientific groups, U.S. agency input, and help from the U.S. National Academy of 

Sciences and National Academy of Engineering. 

Beginning in 2002, the National Academies became involved in a serious dialog 

about whether there should be another International Polar Year (following in the 

tradition of the year held in 1882–1883, 1932–1933, and 1957–1958) and whether 

it would be advantageous to participate. We began talking with colleagues around 

the world to judge international interest, as well. Here in the U.S., the Chair of that 

first planning effort was Dr. Mary Albert of the Army’s Cold Regions Research and 

Engineering Laboratory. She led a committee that sought wide input on whether the 

U.S. should participate in IPY and, if so, what we should hope to accomplish. The 

Committee led a series of web discussions, gave talks at numerous professional 

meetings, wrote an editorial for Science magazine (included as an attachment), met 

with agency leaders, hosted a multi-day workshop, and compiled contributions from 

13 Federal agencies into an initial planning document. The report, ‘‘A Vision for 

International Polar Year 2007–2008’’ was released in 2004, and came to be the foundation for much of the international planning as well. (A summary of this report 

is attached to my testimony.) This early involvement put the U.S. in a leadership 

role in planning the IPY internationally. 

One of the major differences between the first two IPYs and IGY and our upcoming IPY 2007–2008 is the recognition that the physical world, and the biological 

world, and human society are intimately interrelated. This upcoming IPY is inherently about not just science, but science in support of human interests. It includes 

work in engineering, medicine, sociology, and human-environment interactions. The 

so-called ‘‘honeycomb diagram’’ (attached) highlights some 225 large groupings of 

projects that illustrate the geographic and disciplinary breadth of IPY 2007–2008. 

Each cell represents a major program with many participating projects involving 

international teams of scientists. Working together, this research will produce a tremendous leap forward in our understanding of polar processes (physical, biological, 

and social) and their global connections. 

Of the 225 projects, the U.S. plays a leadership role in 52 projects (20 percent) 

and is participating in 80 percent. Right now, everything is still conceptual—what 

will actually happen on the ground is still being determined, both here and in other 

nations. Significant planning efforts are occurring in each of the participating nations; in addition, there is an international IPY Programme Office, staffed by Dr. 

David Carlson and hosted in Cambridge, England, by the British Antarctic Survey. 

There is also an international planning committee, called the Joint Committee, of 

which I am a member, and subcommittees devoted to data management, observation 

systems, and education and outreach. 

Although planning for IPY started with the scientific community, all the Federal 

agencies with cold regions responsibilities are having roles in implementation. When 

32 

the National Academies hosted a workshop to encourage agency coordination in 

2004, 13 agencies participated. At the request of the White House, the National 

Science Foundation is serving as the lead Federal Agency. (In Alaska, the University of Alaska Fairbanks has stepped forward as the state-wide leader.) NSF has 

shown real leadership in its role, holding interagency planning meetings, creating 

a multi-agency website, and starting the process of soliciting proposals for the actual 

on-the-ground research and education and outreach activities. (In fact, last week 

NSF announced the first of the education and outreach activities to be funded, and 

these provide an excellent first glimpse at the kinds of exciting activities that will 

occur.) 

The National Academies continues to provide coordination through the Polar Research Board, which acts as the U.S. National Committee for IPY. The Polar Research Board focuses on communication and coordination, in particular interacting 

with other nations and the international Programme Office, communicating what’s 

happening in the U.S. science community, encouraging U.S. agencies to participate, 

and looking for ways to bring other partners into IPY. For instance, as part of its 

coordinating role, in early October, the Polar Research Board will host a meeting 

of the heads of IPY secretariats so that the staff working behind-the-scenes on IPY 

have an opportunity to coordinate. 

Planning for IPY is advancing at a continued, rapid pace, with the official kickoff coming in March 2007. But there are some potential requirements that must be 

met if the IPY is to meet expectations. 

1. Broaden and deepen the participation of the agencies. NSF is doing a stellar 

job leading and coordinating efforts, but other key agencies with polar interests 

remain less engaged. 

2. Increase the level of funding. The programs outlined in the Vision document 

require a significant investment of funds both to NSF and other Federal agencies. 

3. Enhance coordination nationally and internationally. Early IPYs were directed by the military. Today’s grass-roots approach provides great flexibility 

and innovation, but frankly is more difficult to coordinate. 

4. Foster multi-disciplinary work. While in the 1950’s science was very discipline-based and that met the needs of the times, today’s biggest scientific and 

societal challenges require a more complex, systems-based approach. 

These issues must be addressed to ensure a vibrant and successful International 

Polar Year. 

In conclusion, I want to think ahead about the societal benefits of the International Polar Year. Just as the IPY and the emerging science programs are multifaceted and multi-disciplinary, the benefits of the IPY will be multifaceted and multidisciplinary. The IPY will advance our fundamental understanding of our planet— 

from polar ecosystems to subglacial terrains. The IPY will improve our understanding of the processes of change, and that complex double-edged sword of how 

society is influencing change, and how change is influencing society—especially the 

inhabitants of the north. The IPY will inspire a spirit of discovery across all ages, 

and help us develop the next generation of our Nation’s leaders in science, engineering, education, industry, commerce, and government. At the international level, IPY 

will again show that even in the most difficult times, science can be an arena of 

international cooperation. IPY will foster the continued peaceful use of the polar regions, engage new partners in the global science community, and leverage precious 

scientific and logistical resources so that, in essence, we get more from our investments. 

Why should the vast majority of us, who live in the warmer regions of the Earth, 

care about IPY? The polar regions, while physically distant, are critical links in the 

global climate system. Does this matter for the rest of the planet? Imagine holding 

an ice cube between your thumb and your forefinger. Beneath your fingers a pool 

of water forms quickly. The water will drip down your arms and down the ice cube. 

The changes at the end driven by the warmth of your fingers are transferred across 

the entire ice cube. The relationship between the poles to the rest of the globe are 

the same. The polar oceans play a critical role in maintaining ocean currents that 

keep coastal Europe much warmer than it would be otherwise, and the sea ice cover 

modifies Earth’s surface temperature by reflecting solar energy. Melting ice sheets 

will raise sea levels, threatening coastal communities around the world. The polar 

regions are integral components of the Earth system that both respond to, and 

drive, changes elsewhere on the planet. 

The polar regions also hold unique information of Earth’s past climate history, 

and they are growing in economic and geopolitical importance. They are a unique 

33 

vantage point for studies that will help scientists understand environmental 

changes in the context of past changes, which in turn will help us make informed 

choices for our future. The exploration of new scientific frontiers in the polar regions 

also will lead to new discoveries, insights, and theories potentially important to all 

people. 

In summary, International Polar Year 2007–2008 will leave us the following important legacies: 

• an improved understanding of environmental status and change, 

• more comprehensive data and the ability to understand trends in the future, 

• improved observation systems to capture future environmental change, 

• a continued spirit of exploration into new frontiers of science, 

• a new and inspired generation of scientifically literate citizens and leaders, 

• an enhanced level of international cooperation to address global scale issues. 

Thank you for your time. I’d be happy to answer any questions. 

34 


bell1.eps
35 


bell2.eps
36 


bell3.eps
37 


bell4.eps
38 

* Mary R. Albert is Chair of the U.S. Planning Committee for IPY 2007–2008. 

* The U.S. National Committee to the IPY actively welcomes input from the science community (www.us-ipy.org). 

Science Magazine, March 5, 2004 

THE INTERNATIONAL POLAR YEAR

by Mary R. Albert * 

Change is ubiquitous in Earth’s history, and evidence is clear that Earth’s climate 

is changing rapidly now. The harbingers of change can be seen vividly in the polar 

regions. The Arctic ice cover is melting, ice shelves in Antarctica are crumbling, glaciers in temperate regions are disappearing, some ecosystems are changing, and permafrost thawing is causing the collapse of roads, buildings, and pipelines. Are we 

witnesses to an extreme in natural variability, the threshold of an abrupt change, 

or something more subtle? How will changes first seen in the polar regions affect 

us all? 

Plans are under way for the International Polar Year (IPY) 2007–2008. Previous 

IPYs (1882–1883 and 1932–1933) and the International Geophysical Year (1957– 

1958) (which began as an IPY) produced unprecedented exploration and discoveries 

in many fields of research, and fundamentally changed how science was conducted 

in the polar regions. IPY 2007–2008 will benefit society by exploring new frontiers 

and increasing our understanding of the key roles of the polar regions in globally 

linked systems. Recent technological developments give us a new ability to investigate previously unexplored areas, using new tools and new ways of looking to understand once-unanswerable questions. Autonomous vehicles, genomics, and remote 

sensing instruments and networks are just a few of the technologies providing new 

tools for investigating previously inaccessible realms. The polar regions also continue to loom large in facilitating our understanding of the processes by which solar 

activity may seriously disturb Earth’s space environment, affecting the performance 

of modern technologies deployed in space and on Earth. We believe that research 

is needed now, so that future generations may mitigate vulnerabilities and adapt 

to potential change. 

Many important broad and interlinked research challenges exist today. To name 

just one example, how and why are the changes in polar regions occurring, and how 

can we predict and mitigate the outcome? Changes in ice mass are linked with regional and global environments, and atmospheric and oceanic processes; implementing polar observation systems would help document these changes. Clues for 

understanding how and why similar changes occurred in the past remain stored in 

polar earth and ice; sediment and ice coring would help us understand past changes. 

Polar changes are interlinked with the behavior and survival of ecosystems, from 

microbial life to large organisms, including humans; studies in polar biology are 

needed. Keys to fundamental discoveries for understanding change may spring from 

new modes of exploration that range from using autonomous underwater vehicles 

under the ice to the use of genomics for investigating adaptation; exploration reveals 

surprises. Communications technologies such as television and the Internet, combined with changes in the environment, are challenging traditional human lifestyles 

in our cold regions and elsewhere. Yet, these same technologies hold the potential 

for sharing ideas and experiences in both polar regions and for promoting global understanding; Internet-based efforts in global data collection, sharing, and education 

are needed. 

Various international organizations and individual nations are actively planning 

for the IPY. The International Council for Science (ICSU) formed an international 

planning group to catalyze IPY development across national boundaries. The World 

Meteorological Organization also has identified IPY as a major new initiative. Other 

endorsements to date include the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research, the 

International Arctic Science Committee, and the Arctic Council. Interested countries 

have begun to form national committees and develop a consensus regarding scientific themes that will form the backbone of the activities. In the United States, 

the Polar Research Board of the National Academies has formed a committee * to 

facilitate IPY planning. 

In a world of much uncertainty and change, citizens turn to science for answers. 

The polar regions play an important role in providing these answers. A framework 

such as the IPY can provide the impetus to undertake projects that normally could 

not be achieved by any single nation, reaching beyond our traditional borders toward a new level of cooperative international science. Our vision for IPY 2007–2008 

is that it will be the dawn of a new era in polar science, kicked off by an intense 

internationally coordinated campaign of activities. IPY 2007–2008 will address reVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:20 Jan 09, 2012 Jkt 071960 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\71960.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
39 

search in both polar regions, which have strong linkages to the rest of the globe. 

It will be multi- and interdisciplinary in scope and truly international in participation. It will educate and excite the public, and help produce the next generation of 

engineers, scientists, and leaders. 

Science Magazine, March 5, 2004 

POLAR EXPLORATION—A YEAR TO REMEMBER AT THE ENDS OF THE EARTH

RESEARCHERS CHARTING A COURSE FOR AN INTERNATIONAL POLAR YEAR IN 2007–2008

ARE HOPING TO RECAPTURE THE GLORY OF A SIMILARLY AMBITIOUS VENTURE A

HALF-CENTURY AGO

by Richard Stone and Gretchen Vogel 

Cambridge, U.K. and Berlin 

When Les Barclay and 20 intrepid fellow voyagers set out for Antarctica in November 1956, they knew they were embarking on the scientific adventure of a lifetime. After 5 weeks at sea, the radiophysicist and his colleagues on the International Geophysical Year (IGY) Antarctic Expedition put in at Halley Bay, then 

Britain’s new toehold on the Antarctic Peninsula. They had lugged all the equipment they could possibly need there until the next ship called a year later. ‘‘We 

went down without recourse to any facilities back home,’’ says Barclay. 

For the next 2 years, he and counterparts across Antarctica and at the other end 

of Earth, in the High Arctic, made some of the first high-latitude measurements of 

the ionosphere and its most spectacular phenomenon, the aurora. Barclay also 

teamed with W. Roy Piggott to pioneer the use of radio waves for measuring the 

thickness of ice shelves, a technique that led to ground-penetrating radar. Other 

major finds of the $1 billion IGY of 1957–1958 include the discovery of the Van 

Allen radiation belts and radical new estimates of ice volume on Earth’s surface. 

‘‘We learned a tremendous amount about the world,’’ says Barclay, who now runs 

a consulting firm in Chelmsford, U.K. 

Nearly a half-century later, researchers are marshalling forces for another major 

assault on the poles. Under the auspices of the International Council of Scientific 

Unions (ICSU), the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), and more than a 

dozen other scientific groups, an ambitious plan is taking shape for an International 

Polar Year (IPY) to kick off during the Arctic spring of early 2007, and extend 

through the Antarctic fall of early 2008. ‘‘We want a real quantum jump in our understanding of how the poles work,’’ says Chris Rapley, Director of the British Antarctic Survey and Chair of ICSU’s IPY planning board. 

Rapley and other organizers now face the daunting task of convincing countries 

to pitch in funding and logistical support beyond that already committed to ongoing 

polar programs. The overall investment could easily top $1 billion, organizers say, 

as dozens of countries sign up to multilateral agreements that will govern IPY 

projects. 

The will be no shortage of ideas in search of funding, for unanswered questions 

of polar research are legion. IPY’s planning board will try to winnow the field to 

a few major themes that promise to have deep scientific impact and broad public 

resonance. ‘‘One of the goals is to get people to realize that . . . the cold ends of 

the sphere we live on really do influence us,’’ says ICSU IPY planning Vice Chair 

Robin Bell of Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York. And, like their predecessors, they intend to leave a lasting legacy. 

‘‘We want to design a way to take the pulse of the poles in 2007 and 2008,’’ Bell 

says, ‘‘but we also want to leave a heart monitor in place so we can continue to see 

what’s going on.’’ 

40 

From Cape Horn to Sputnik 

The Polar Year of 2007–2008 will follow in the footsteps of illustrious predecessors, each of which overhauled our understanding of global processes. The first 

IPY, in 1882–1883, was largely the brainchild of Karl Weyprecht, an Austrian naval 

lieutenant who commanded a ship during the Austro-Hungarian Arctic Expedition 

of 1872–1874. He argued that polar exploration required more than geographic discovery and called for the establishment of a network of research stations in the 

polar regions. The idea caught fire, and during the first Polar Year, 11 nations established 14 stations—two at Cape Horn and South Georgia Island in the South Atlantic and a dozen in the Arctic—to record data on everything from meteorology to 

terrestrial magnetism, and the aurora, findings that shaped later theories of the 

ionosphere. ‘‘It was the first big meteorological experiment,’’ says Cornelia Lu ̈decke, 

a science historian at the University of Hamburg, Germany. 

The second IPY took place 50 years later, in 1932–1933. Despite a global economic 

depression, 44 countries teamed up on nearly two dozen dedicated expeditions to the 

Arctic and the Southern Hemisphere, although like the previous IPY the effort did 

not reach as far south as Antarctica. Technology had come a long way: Telephone, 

aircraft, and radio sounding all were at the disposal of researchers. A major achievement was obtaining detailed measurements of the upper atmosphere, including the 

first maps of the jet stream. 

Grand as those efforts were, they paled in comparison to the massive undertaking 

of 1957–1958. Lloyd Berkner of the Carnegie institution of Washington aired the 

IGY idea at a dinner party at the home of space physicist James Van Allen in the 

spring of 1950. The suggestion snowballed into one of the biggest global scientific 

undertakings ever. Still, it was the depths of the Cold War, and politics was never 

tar from the surface: The Soviet Union in 1956 announced that it would put the 

first satellite in orbit during the IGY (Sputnik duly went up the next year), and 

China withdrew from the effort after Taiwan was brought aboard. Antarctica was 

seen as a potential Cold War battleground, with countries laying claim to slices of 

the continent. An international research effort, some hoped, would ease tensions— 

and indeed, the IGY is credited with fostering the political climate for the Antarctic 

Treaty, in which signatories agreed to share the continent in the name of ‘‘peace 

and science.’’ In all, roughly 80,000 scientists and support staff from 67 countries 

took part in the IGY. 

‘‘It was a thrilling time,’’ recalls David Limbert, who confesses that as a 29-yearold meteorologist he left several girlfriends in England to join the Royal Society’s 

IGY advance team, dispatched in late 1955 to build the Halley Bay camp. ‘‘We were 

there as pump primers,’’ he says. For the first several weeks he and the other expeVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:20 Jan 09, 2012 Jkt 071960 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\71960.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE

be3.eps
41 

dition members slept in tents as they built Halley beam by beam. Halley and many 

of the other few dozen Antarctic bases established during the IGY continue to 

produce world-class science. The IGY, says Rapley, ‘‘set the standard for what can 

be achieved.’’ 

The Next Frontier 

The IGY will be a hard act to follow. But the half-century of polar science it ushered in has only deepened scientists’ appreciation of the complexity and importance 

of polar processes. What happens at the poles is inextricably tied to patterns of cold 

and warmth, rainfall and drought. To have any hope of understanding what is happening to global climate today, and what might happen in the future, scientists need 

a better picture of conditions at the poles and how they interact with and influence 

ocean and air currents. 

So far scientists have only the vaguest clues to how those interactions work. ‘‘We 

know the climate models don’t get the polar regions right, and there is a lot of work 

going on to understand why that is,’’ Rapley says. One puzzle, he notes, is that the 

models have largely failed to predict the dramatic melting of the Antarctic ice shelf 

And even state-of-the-art models vary widely in their predictions for the severity of 

the warming that might occur in the Arctic. 

One challenge is that the polar regions seem to be reacting more dramatically 

than other latitudes to global climate changes. The three fastest-warming regions 

in the last 2 decades have been Alaska, Siberia, and parts of the Antarctic Ice 

Sheet, notes Rapley. But whether that is the start of a long-term trend or a normal 

fluctuation is unclear. Figuring this out ‘‘is directly related to our ability to collect 

data,’’ Rapley says. 

One likely project for the upcoming IPY will be updating an array of monitoring 

stations strung across the Russian Arctic during the IGY. In the last decade alone, 

many of those stations have fallen silent, depriving meteorologists of key data on 

temperature and rainfall, for example. According to the Russian Academy of 

Sciences, only 45 polar hydrometeorological stations were functioning in 2002, a 

two-thirds reduction over the past decade. Refurbishing the stations is a top priority, says Eduard Sarukhanian, WMO’s IPY Coordinator. However, adds Rapley, 

‘‘what we’re keen to do is make sure that doesn’t just focus on meteorology and hydrology but opens up new vistas on other research—from any field that people can 

convince us is worthwhile.’’ 

Opening new vistas may well be the driving theme of the IPY. ‘‘There are subglacial lakes and the spreading ridges under the Arctic that have never been explored,’’ 

Bell says. And while biologists have barely begun to catalog life in polar oceans, 

there are hints that here, too, the frozen ends of Earth have a global influence. 

One theory suggests that the Southern Ocean might have been a source of much 

of the biodiversity in the deep oceans worldwide. When the Antarctic continent 

broke away on its own, a girdle of swift-moving ocean currents formed around it, 

trapping species in the chilly waters of the Southern Ocean and forcing them to 

adapt to extreme conditions, Rapley explains. Those creatures, then, may have 


be2.eps
42 

hitched a ride to other oceans. Brigitte Hilbig of Ruhr University in Bochum, Germany, recently identified several worms in 5,000-meter-deep waters off Angola that 

are nearly identical to one first identified in the Southern Ocean, 5,000 kilometers 

away, suggesting that there may be important connections between the life forms 

of polar oceans and seabed habitats worldwide. To probe this further, Hilbig and colleagues have proposed taking a zoological and genetic census of the Southern Ocean 

as part of the IPY. 

The Arctic waters, too, likely hold new surprises. An expedition in 2001 to the 

Gakkel Ridge, where the continental plates bearing Europe and North America are 

spreading apart, turned up much more hydrothermal activity than scientists expected, says Jo ̈rn Thiede of the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in Bremerhaven, Germany. As part of the IPY, he and his colleagues hope 

to send a remote-controlled sub to survey the region. 

IPY organizers also hope to attract interest from astronomers who can use polar 

summers for uninterrupted views of the sun; medical researchers who study human 

responses to extreme conditions; and social and political scientists who could study 

the impact of Arctic warming on northern Russia, Canada, and other Arctic Rim nations. 

In an initial call, organizers received nearly 150 proposals. ‘‘It’s taking off like 

gangbusters,’’ Rapley says. The ICSU committee and its partners will settle on a 

handful of flagship projects by autumn, he says. (Contributions are still welcome; 

see Editorial, p. 1437.) Rapley says that ICSU might try to coordinate three to five 

large-scale efforts, such as major transects across the poles or large-scale atmospheric or ocean surveys. He hopes the effort will inspire a wellspring of multinational projects around the globe organized by other scientists. 

It’s not yet clear whether such efforts will add up to the $1 billion infusion the 

last IGY enjoyed. Karl Erb, Director of the U.S. National Science Foundation’s Office of Polar Programs, estimates that NSF might contribute up to $50 million in 

research funding and logistical support for IPY-specific activities, from its nearly 

$400 million annual budget. Given the formidable base that the field is building on, 

a smaller investment than that plowed into IGY could have just as profound an impact, argues Chad Dick of the Norwegian Polar Institute in Troms<, Norway. The 

onus will be on organizers to choose projects with far-reaching payoffs. ‘‘If all we 

do is have a blast for 2 years and nothing changes in our ability to monitor the poles 

for the long term, we will have failed,’’ he says. Considering the track record of the 

first two IPYs and the IGY, failure would appear to be only a remote possibility. 

AN OTHERWORLDLY PLACE TO HUNT FOR OTHER WORLDS

by Gretchen Vogel 

High on Antarctica’s frozen desert, astronomers have found some of the best conditions on Earth for peering into space. The calm, cloudless skies above Dome C, 

3233 meters above sea level in the middle of the main Antarctic ice sheet, make 

the isolated spot a stargazer’s dream. The site is the location of the newest permanent year-round station in Antarctica, a joint French-Italian project called 

Concordia. 

The main buildings, which will host 16 people over the 9-month winter and twice 

as many in summer, are expected to be finished by the Antarctic winter of 2005– 

2006, in ample time for the station to participate fully in the International Polar 

Year (IPY) to begin in 2007 (see main text). 

Concordia, perched on an ice dome, should entice scientists from a range of disciplines. For example, researchers who use ice cores to decipher dues to past climates expect to look deep into the last Ice Age thanks to nearly 500,000 years of 

snow accumulation at Dome C. And as the third permanent station on the continent’s interior, located more than 1,000 kilometers from its nearest neighbor, the 

United States’ Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station, Concordia will help fill gaps in 

measurements of Earth’s magnetic and gravitational fields and the continent’s seismic activity. 

43 

* U.S. National Committee for the International Polar Year 

Concordia is also set to rival the South Pole as a premier astronomical outpost. 

Although there are not yet any full-size telescopes at the site, measurements suggest it is an outstanding place for optical and near-infrared astronomy. The air can 

be so still, says Eric Fossat, an astronomer at the University of Nice in France, that 

smoke rings from tractors at the construction site often linger for tens of seconds 

before dissipating. The lack of wind and heat currents makes the atmosphere extremely clear, cutting down on the shimmer that disrupts Earth-based views of 

stars. Thus astronomers can look forward to some of the best ‘‘seeing’’ anywhere on 

Earth. ‘‘The indications are that the seeing may be absolutely extraordinarily good,’’ 

says astronomer Tony Stark of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 

who has worked extensively at the South Pole. 

That quality, combined with the site’s aridity and average ambient temperature 

of ¥50 °C, makes it a great spot for infrared astronomy—perhaps the best on Earth 

for searching for planets similar to our own, Fossat says. In the infrared, planets 

show up brighter and stars dimmer, allowing astronomers to discern planets more 

easily. And, he notes, there is half as much cloud cover as at the already impressively clear South Pole Station. Astronomers are still securing funding, but they 

hope to have the first telescope in place for the IPY in 2007. An array of telescopes 

could come further down the road. 

Concordia may even help humans reach for the stars. To simulate the effects of 

long-duration space flight, researchers plan to study how staff members cope with 

the Antarctic winter (Science, 15 August 2003, p. 906). Fossat himself says he won’t 

winter there. ‘‘I’m too old for that kind of sacrifice,’’ he says. But with Concordia’s 

astronomical attributes, don’t expect any shortage of volunteers. 

A VISION FOR INTERNATIONAL POLAR YEAR 2007–2008 * 

Environmental change and variability are part of the natural pattern on Earth. 

But environmental changes currently witnessed in the polar regions are, in many 

cases, more pronounced than changes observed in the mid-latitudes or tropics. The 

Arctic sea ice cover is decreasing; some ice shelves in Antarctica are retreating and 

thinning; glaciers are shrinking; and ecosystems are changing, for instance, with 

plants flowering at earlier times. These changes are having human impacts: some 

Alaskan villages have been moved to higher ground in response to rising sea levels, 

and thawing of permafrost is undermining roads and buildings in northern communities around the world. 

Why should the vast majority of us, who live in the warmer regions of the Earth, 

care? The polar regions, while physically distant, are critical links in the global climate system. The polar oceans play a critical role in maintaining ocean currents 

that keep coastal Europe much warmer than it would be otherwise, and the sea ice 

cover modifies Earth’s surface temperature by reflecting solar energy. These are just 

a few of many global connections. The polar regions also hold unique information 


be1.eps
44 

of Earth’s past climate history, and they are growing in economic and geopolitical 

importance. They are a unique vantage point for studies that will help scientists understand environmental changes in the context of past changes, which in turn will 

help us make informed choices for our future. The exploration of new scientific frontiers in the polar regions also will lead to new discoveries, insights, and theories 

potentially important to all people. To better understand these and other questions, 

nations around the world are making plans to participate in International Polar 

Year (IPY) 2007–2008. 

IPY 2007–2008: Scope and Objectives 

At its most fundamental level, IPY 2007–2008 is envisioned to be an intense, coordinated field campaign of polar observations, research, and analysis that will be 

multidisciplinary in scope and international in participation. IPY 2007–2008 will 

provide a framework and impetus to undertake projects that normally could not be 

achieved by any single nation. It allows us to think beyond traditional borders— 

whether national borders or disciplinary constraints—toward a new level of integrated, cooperative science. A coordinated international approach maximizes both 

impact and cost effectiveness, and the international collaborations started today will 

build relationships and understanding that will bring long-term benefits. Within 

this context, IPY will seek to galvanize new and innovative observations and research, while at the same time building on and enhancing existing relevant initiatives. IPY will serve as a mechanism to attract and develop a new generation of scientists and engineers with the versatility to tackle complex global issues. In addition, IPY is clearly an opportunity to organize an exciting range of education and 

outreach activities designed to excite and engage the public, with a presence in 

classrooms around the world and in the media in varied and innovative formats. 

The IPY will use today’s powerful research tools to better understand the key 

roles of the polar regions in global processes. Automatic observatories, satellitebased remote sensing, autonomous vehicles, Internet, and genomics are just a few 

of the innovative approaches for studying previously inaccessible realms. IPY 2007– 

2008 will be fundamentally broader than past International Years; because it will 

explicitly incorporate multi-disciplinary and inter-disciplinary studies, including biological, ecological, and social science elements. It will run from March 1, 2007 until 

March 1, 2009, to allow two field seasons of research in both the Arctic and the Antarctic. 

What Will Happen During IPY? 

During the window of IPY 2007–2008, scientists from many nations will join together in expeditions and research projects designed to meet the IPY objectives, coordinated at both the national and international levels. They will work both in the 

Arctic and the Antarctic, and in universities, laboratories, and observatories around 

the world. The specific research projects have not yet been selected, but we envision 

teams of researchers collecting coordinated measurements to compile a snapshot of 

environmental conditions, which can serve as a baseline for understanding future 

environmental change. There might be an effort to coordinate satellites to gather 

consistent data on ice extent. Ecologists might mount a massive effort to conduct 

a census of marine life so that we better understand population trends for important 

fisheries. Other groups might drill into the ocean floor in search of sediment cores 

with evidence of past environments. Multidisciplinary teams might document ecosystem changes in far northern communities where traditional subsistence foods are 

important to the local lifestyle, and try to understand how changes are affecting the 

people of those communities. The next year is very important to IPY planning, because it is time to sort through the many ideas that have been suggested and see 

which are best to pursue. 

Who’s Involved in the IPY? 

Enthusiasm for IPY 2007–2008 is strong and growing. In barely more than a year, 

the science community has progressed from its earliest discussions of possibilities 

for new international science endeavors to serious planning of what an IPY might 

accomplish and what resources are needed. More than 25 nations have formally declared the intent to participate and many more have discussions in progress. Here 

in the United States, scientists have been presenting talks and holding open forums 

at professional meetings, and using an interactive website to brainstorm ideas 

where U.S. leadership might ensure significant contributions. A call to the science 

community for ideas about what science themes to pursue brought forward hundreds of ideas, and this input has been crucial in the IPY planning. 

The U.S. Committee for the International Polar Year 2007–2008 was formed by 

the Polar Research Board of the National Academies to articulate a vision for U.S. 

participation in IPY 2007–2008, in coordination with and on behalf of our Nation’s 

45 

scientific communities. The Committee has worked closely with the U.S. science 

community using a variety of mechanisms. It has worked with our international colleagues, especially the International Council for Science’s IPY 2007–2008 Planning 

Group, to identify the important science themes and develop the detailed information needed to implement its many contributing activities. 

When IPY 2007–2008 gets underway, it will involve far more than scientists. The 

hope is that many people—scout leaders, teachers, museum directors, filmmakers, 

journalists, parents, and students of all ages—will be involved. Some of the participation will be hands-on; other involvement will take full advantage of the tremendous opportunities for instantaneous communication offered by modern technologies. 

What Should We Do To Make IPY a Success? 

The Committee recommends the following actions for ensuring a successful IPY 

2007–2008: 

• The U.S. scientific community and agencies should use the IPY to initiate a sustained effort aimed at assessing large-scale environmental change and variability in the polar regions. 

• The U.S. scientific community and agencies should include studies of coupled 

human-natural systems critical to societal, economic, and strategic interests in 

the IPY. 

• The U.S. IPY effort should explore new scientific frontiers from the molecular 

to the planetary scale. 

• The International Polar Year should be used as an opportunity to design and 

implement multi-disciplinary polar observing networks that will provide a longterm perspective. 

• The United States should invest in critical infrastructure (both physical and 

human) and technology to guarantee that IPY 2007–2008 leaves enduring benefits for the Nation and for the residents of northern regions. 

• The U.S. IPY program should excite and engage the public, with the goal of increasing understanding of the importance of polar regions in the global system 

and, at the same time, advance general science literacy in the Nation. 

• The U.S. scientific community and agencies should participate as leaders in 

International Polar Year 2007–2008. 

Scientific Challenges 

IPY 2007–2008 is an opportunity to deepen our understanding of the physical, biological, and chemical processes in the polar regions and their global linkages and 

impacts, and to communicate these insights to the public. Five broad scientific challenges provide a framework for organizing IPY activities: 

• Assessing large-scale environmental change in the polar regions, with questions 

looking at both the physical and human dimensions of change and its impacts. 

• Conducting scientific exploration of ‘‘new’’ frontiers, whether these are once inaccessible places such as the seafloor, or areas of inquiry that are now open because of advances in technology, such as how the tools of genomics now allow 

exploration of previously unanswerable questions about biological adaptation. 

• Observing the polar regions in depth, with adequate coverage of the vast and 

challenging landscape, to provide a description of current conditions, and allow 

for better future understanding of variability and change. 

• Understanding human-environmental dynamics in a region where the connections are intimate, and where the impacts of change are clear. 

• Creating new connections between science and the public, using these regions 

that are inherently intriguing. 

Previous International Years 

International Polar Year 2007–2008 is an ambitious program following in the footsteps of some past campaigns. There have been three similar programs over the last 

125 years. During the first International Polar Year in 1882–1883, 12 countries 

launched 15 expeditions (13 in the Arctic and 2 in the Antarctic). As part of its contribution, the United States established our northernmost scientific station at Point 

Barrow, Alaska. The second International Polar Year in 1932–1933, even in the 

midst of the Great Depression, included participants from 40 nations, and brought 

advances in meteorology, atmospheric sciences, geomagnetism, and the ‘‘mapping’’ 

of ionospheric phenomena that advanced radioscience and technology. The United 

States established the first year-round research station inland from the Antarctic 

coast. 

46 

The International Geophysical Year (IGY) in 1957–1958, in which 67 nations participated, was conceived as an effort to use technology developed during World War 

II, such as rockets and radar, for scientific research. IGY brought many ‘‘firsts,’’ 

such as the launch of the world’s first satellites. IGY had a strong polar component, 

especially in the Antarctic: research stations were established and the experience 

in international collaboration, even in tense political times, led to ratification of the 

Antarctic Treaty in 1961. Each of these campaigns produced unprecedented exploration of Earth and space and led to discoveries in many fields of science. IPY 2007– 

2008 is expected to leave a similar legacy of accomplishments. 

U.S. National Committee for the International Polar Year: Mary Albert, (Chair) 

ERDC Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory; Robert Bindschadler, 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration—Goddard Space Flight Center; 

Cecilia Bitz, University of Washington; Jerry Bowen, CBS News; David Bromwich, 

The Ohio State University; Richard Glenn, Arctic Slope Regional Corporation; Jacqueline Grebmeier, University of Tennessee; John Kelley, University of Alaska Fairbanks; Igor Krupnik, Smithsonian Institution; Louis Lanzerotti, Bell LaboratoriesLucent Technologies; Peter Schlosser, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University; Philip Smith, McGeary & Smith; George Somero, Stanford University; Cristina Takacs-Vesbach, University of New Mexico; Gunter Weller, University 

of Alaska Fairbanks; Douglas Wiens, Washington University; Mahlon Kennicutt, 

(Ex-officio) Texas A&M University; Patrick Webber, (Ex-officio) Michigan State University; Terry Wilson, (Ex-officio) The Ohio State University; Sheldon Drobot, (Study 

Director) Polar Research Board; Chris Elfring, (Board Director) Polar Research 

Board; Kristen Averyt, (Christine Mirzayan Intern) Polar Research Board; and 

Rachael Shiflett, (Program Assistant), Polar Research Board. 

This brief was prepared by the National Research Council based on the Committee’s report. For more information, contact the Polar Research Board at 202–334– 

3479. A Vision for International Polar Year 2007–2008 is available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001; 800–624– 

6242 or 202–334–3313 (in the Washington area); www.nap.edu. 

Chairman STEVENS. Thank you very much, and we thank you for 

coming. I did not know that was an international chart. I thank 

you for bringing that up. I will have some questions later. I do appreciate the charts and slides that you have brought with you. 

They’re very informative. 

Our next witness is Dr. Buck Sharpton. He’s the Vice Chancellor 

for Research of the University of Alaska in Fairbanks. 

Doctor, it’s nice to have you with us. 

STATEMENT OF DR. VIRGIL L. ‘‘BUCK’’ SHARPTON, VICE 

CHANCELLOR FOR RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA (UA) 

FAIRBANKS; UA PRESIDENT’S PROFESSOR OF REMOTE 

SENSING 

Dr. SHARPTON. Thank you, Chairman Stevens and Senator Murkowski, for the opportunity to be here today. 

Fifty years ago, the world embarked on the most ambitious scientific program in history, the International Geophysical Year. This 

18-month-long series of internationally coordinated observations returned untold dividends in the form of new scientific knowledge: 

discovery of the Van Allen radiation belts, sea-floor studies leading 

to the revolutionary theory of plate tectonics, the Antarctic Treaty, 

and many, many more. And our Nation derived other important 

benefits from this investment, as well. IGY expanded national research funding significantly and permanently, leading to tremendous payoffs in intellectual property and societal benefits throughout the latter half of the 20th century. IGY was also a much-needed opportunity for the United States to exhibit, on the global stage, 

its technological capabilities and political will to work equitably 

and openly with the international scientific community. We inVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:20 Jan 09, 2012 Jkt 071960 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\71960.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
47 

vested heavily; and, as a result, the world has looked to the U.S. 

for scientific leadership ever since. 

The upcoming IPY is a much-needed opportunity to reaffirm our 

place as world leaders in science and technology, to demonstrate 

that we are still committed to open international programs that advance scientific knowledge, and to invest wisely in activities that 

will inspire and train the next generation of U.S. scientists and engineers. 

Often, when the term ‘‘polar’’ is used, people gravitate toward visions of Antarctica or the North Pole. Obviously, one does not need 

to look that far. ‘‘Polar,’’ in United States terms, means Alaska and 

its people. 

Alaskans are in the midst of change. We are in immediate need 

of IPY to more fully understand what’s happening, and why, to be 

able to reliably forecast events to come, to identify how to hold on 

to our unique and valuable resources, such as indigenous languages and culture, and to make informed decisions to address the 

multitude of challenges before us. 

The University of Alaska has been involved in IPY planning and 

implementation for the past 3 years. Over 75 percent of our research pertains to Alaska and the broader Arctic region, and over 

25 percent of all the research and educational proposals endorsed 

by the IPY International Programme Office involve our researchers. I’ve attached a list of those to my written testimony. 

Through our network of colleges across rural Alaska and ongoing 

research programs, we have gained valuable experience working 

with and for our Alaskan Native populations. This experience is essential in ensuring that the upcoming IPY addresses their issues, 

involves them as research partners and astute observers, not just 

subjects, and returns to them the results and rewards of these research activities. 

Considerable financial resources will be needed if the United 

States is to take a leading role in IPY. Other nations have committed far more than ours, at least thus far. But we, at the University of Alaska, are not waiting for outside funds before we move 

forward. The University’s president, Mark Hamilton, has committed $3.5 million to support 13 IPY postdoctoral fellows for 3 

years. We look to these young scientists, five of whom come from 

other countries, to broaden our research capabilities and expand 

our connections around the world as we engage in IPY. 

Eighteen months ago, we launched an IPY strategy that extends 

the research and educational opportunities afforded by IPY across 

all sectors of Alaskan society. Through awards from the State Department and NOAA’s Cooperative Institute for Arctic Research, 

we have the resources to initiate this plan, the components of 

which are provided in my written testimony. 

In conclusion, I would like to leave you with four recommendations for investments that would yield lasting returns to the Nation 

in our Nation’s only Arctic State. Further details are included in 

my written testimony. 

First, approve the National Science Foundation’s budget to support IPY research and educational outreach. 

Second, support the Arctic Observing Network. 

48 

Third, expand network connectivity infrastructure within Alaska, 

and from Alaska to the U.S. mainland, to acceptable national 

standards to promote economic growth and ensure equal opportunities for all the residents of our State. 

And, finally, please help us acquire high-resolution digital imagery and elevation data for Alaska that meet national standards 

and are currently available for every State in our Nation except 

Alaska. 

Thank you, again, for the opportunity to present this testimony 

today. And thank you very much for your interest in the International Polar Year. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Sharpton follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. VIRGIL L. ‘‘BUCK’’ SHARPTON, VICE CHANCELLOR FOR

RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA (UA) FAIRBANKS; UA PRESIDENT’S PROFESSOR

OF REMOTE SENSING

Thank you Chairman Stevens, Chairman Lugar, Senator Murkowski and Members of both Senate Committees for the opportunity to be here today. In my capacity 

as Vice Chancellor for the University of Alaska in Fairbanks, I am responsible for 

developing and implementing the University’s strategy for participating in activities 

of the upcoming 4th International Polar Year. As a researcher and educator, and 

now the Chief Research Officer of America’s only Arctic University, I would like to 

share my perspectives on why IPY is important to Alaska and our Nation, how we 

have prepared ourselves to play key roles in these activities, and leave you with recommendations for valuable legacies that could result from IPY. 

The upcoming IPY is staged to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the International 

Geophysical Year, IGY, held in 1957–1958. IGY was modeled on the two previous 

Polar Years, 1882–1883 and 1932–1933, where coordinated scientific studies were 

conducted to understand our planet’s natural processes and cycles. IGY was originally planned to take place at the centennial celebration of the first Polar Year in 

1982–1983, but instead was held 25 years earlier to take advantage of an unusually 

intense period of sunspot activity. Thus IGY came at a most critical time for our 

Nation and the world. During World War II and the early post-war era, technologies 

had been developed with the potential for unimaginable devastation. Ideological differences between the two multi-national superpowers heightened concerns that 

those technologies might some day be used as tools of aggression. IGY was an effort 

to develop peaceful uses of these post-war technologies in order to improve knowledge about our planet—particularly its polar regions—through an international 

campaign of coordinated scientific observations. IGY was a tremendous success; over 

30,000 scientists from 67 countries took part in what was the largest and most ambitious scientific program ever attempted. Some of the scientific legacies left by this 

effort include: 

• The discovery of the Van Allen radiation belts that ring the earth and affect 

communication and spacecraft operations; 

• The charting of ocean depths and ocean currents; 

• A mapping of the magnetic characteristics of the ocean floor that soon led to 

the revolutionary theory of plate tectonics; 

• The first rigorous study of the Antarctic continent and its ice sheets; 

• The Antarctic Treaty, making the whole continent a place of scientific research, 

free of national claims and international rivalry. 

But there were other important benefits that our Nation derived from the investment we made in this program. IGY expanded national research investments significantly and permanently, leading to tremendous payoffs in intellectual property and 

societal benefits throughout the latter half of the 20th century. Furthermore, IGY 

was a much needed opportunity for the United States to exhibit, on the global stage, 

its technological capabilities and the political will to work equitably and openly with 

the international scientific community. We invested heavily and, as a result, the 

world has looked to the U.S. for scientific leadership ever since. 

Now, on the eve of the 4th IPY, we face a different type of scientific challenge: 

the challenge to understand how our circumpolar regions are changing, and to develop reliable strategies for mitigating the negative impacts and optimizing the opportunities that accompany this change. You have undoubtedly heard testimony 

49 

from others on the various lines of evidence demonstrating that the Arctic is experiencing dramatic climate-induced changes: retreating sea ice, melting permafrost, 

and the migration of the Arctic tree line to higher elevations and latitudes, to name 

a few. And this is not just a regional issue affecting a relatively few Arctic inhabitants. The Polar Regions play key roles in the global climate system; therefore a 

more complete understanding of the Arctic and Antarctic is imperative if we are to 

improve global climate models. 

In addition, many of the benefits our Nation derived from IGY, fifty years ago, 

apply today. The upcoming IPY is a much needed opportunity to reaffirm to the 

world our place as leaders in science and technology, to demonstrate that we are 

committed to open, international research programs that advance scientific knowledge, and to invest wisely in activities that will inspire and train the next generation of U.S. scientists and engineers. 

Often, when the term ‘‘polar’’ is used, people gravitate toward visions of Antarctica or the North Pole, or exotic uninhabited places. Obviously, one does not need 

to look that far. Polar, in United States terms, means Alaska and its people. 

Alaskans are in the midst of change; we are in immediate need of IPY to more 

fully understand what is happening and why, to be able to reliably forecast events 

to come, identify how to hold on to our unique and valuable resources such as indigenous languages and culture, and learn to make informed decisions so that we can 

address the multitude of challenges before us. 

As Alaska’s Research University, the Fairbanks campus as well as the University 

of Alaska’s other campuses have been involved in IPY planning and implementation 

for the past 3 years. We are well prepared to play key roles in the upcoming activities. Over 75 percent of our research pertains to Alaska and the broader Arctic region. This commitment is reflected in the fact that over 25 percent of all the research and educational proposals endorsed by the IPY International Programme Office involve Fairbanks campus researchers. A list of the endorsed research projects 

is appended to this testimony. 

Our field research stations, such as the Toolik Field Station on the North Slope, 

have been systematically gathering ecological and biological data for nearly half a 

century. Those sites will undoubtedly be important centers of IPY research. Through 

our network of colleges across rural Alaska, and ongoing research programs such 

as the Center for Alaska Native Health Research, we have gained valuable experience working with and for our Alaska Native populations. This experience is essential in ensuring that the upcoming IPY addresses their issues, involves them as research partners and astute observers—not just subjects—and returns to them the 

results and rewards of these research activities. 

Considerable financial resources will be needed if the United States is to take a 

leading role in IPY. Other nations have committed far more than ours, at least thus 

far. But we at the University of Alaska are not waiting for outside funds before we 

move forward. The University’s President Mark Hamilton has committed $3.5 million to support 13 IPY postdoctoral fellowships for 3 years. These young researchers 

were chosen from 180 applicants from around the world to work on IPY-related research projects at the 3 main campuses across the UA system: 9 at Fairbanks, 3 

at Anchorage, and 1 in Juneau. We look to these young scientists—five of whom 

come from other countries—to broaden our research capabilities, and expand our 

connections around the world as we engage in the internationally coordinated research activities of IPY. 

Eighteen months ago we launched an IPY strategy that included research coordination, educational outreach, community engagement, and public relations. We have 

taken steps to ensure that the research and educational opportunities afforded by 

IPY extend across all sectors of Alaska society. Through awards from the Department of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, and the NOAA Cooperative Institute for Arctic Research, we have the resources to initiate this plan which 

includes the following activities: 

• The IPY Education and Outreach Office in conjunction with the University of 

the Arctic. UArctic is a cooperative network of educational institutions committed to higher education and research in the North. Its members share resources, facilities, and expertise to build post-secondary education programs 

that are relevant and accessible to northern students. 

• Graduate and undergraduate research grants for student involvement in IPY 

research projects across the University system. 

• A K–12 engagement plan built around two ‘‘contests’’ targeted toward K–12 students: the first is an IPY art contest where students from across Alaska submit 

works of art that capture the spirit of IPY. The best from each age group will 

be brought to Fairbanks for an awards ceremony and their art will be exhibited 

50 

1Toward an Integrated Arctic Observing Network, Committee on Designing an Arctic Observing Network, National Research Council, ISBN: 0–309–10052–6, 128 pages, 81⁄2 x 11, paperback, 

2006. 

at our Museum of the North during IPY. The second is a writing contest for high 

school students to submit their research papers on the benefits of past IPY activities to Alaska and the Arctic. Again, each age group will be judged and the 

winners will give presentations at one of the public functions during IPY. 

• Implementation of the Think Tank of the North. This is a series of events that 

seeks to address critical issues facing the Arctic such as climate change impacts, 

development and mineral extraction issues, sustainable natural resource management, natural hazard mitigation, cultural impacts, and information technology infrastructure needs. The University will sponsor leading researchers, 

educators, and policymakers from around the world for week-long visits to 

brainstorm with our faculty and engage the public in open discussions. 

• Planning for the Ninth International Conference on Permafrost to be held late 

June–early July 2008, in Fairbanks. Attendance at this event is expected to exceed 900 people. 

• The Helge Instad Memorial Symposium on Arctic Change held September 8–10, 

2006. More than 170 scientists from Alaska, Norway, Russia, Canada, and the 

lower 48 gathered at Fairbanks to commemorate the Norwegian explorer, scientist and author, who spent time with the Nunamiut (Eskimo) people of 

Anaktuvuk Pass, Alaska, and discuss common research areas across the Arctic 

countries. The symposium was co-sponsored by the Fairbanks campus and the 

Royal Norwegian Embassy and included a celebration officially naming Ingstad 

Mountain in Anaktuvuk Pass on September 10, 2006. 

• A series of public presentations extending through the end of IPY, beginning 

with Jared Diamond (Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed) last 

March, Peter Smith (The Martian Arctic) June 27, and Dava Sobel (Latitude) 

March 19, 2007). Others will be selected during the next few months. 

• Support for the Arctic Institute of North America to advance the study of the 

North American and circumpolar Arctic through the natural and social sciences, 

the arts and humanities and to acquire, preserve and disseminate information 

on the physical, environmental and social conditions in the North. 

In conclusion, I would like to leave you with a few recommendations for legacy 

investments that would yield lasting returns to the Nation and our Nation’s only 

Arctic state: 

• Approve the National Science Foundation’s budget to support IPY research and 

educational outreach. NSF is the ideal support organization to lead our Nation’s 

IPY activities with its demonstrated commitment to polar research, and the development of a U.S. research community that is globally engaged. This is an investment that will pay huge scientific dividends, will strengthen our academic 

institutions, and gain the world’s appreciation. 

• Support the Arctic Observing Network (AON). The tight linkages between the 

physical, biological, and social systems in the Arctic, and the intensity of current and projected changes, call for a coordinated monitoring program that extends across the Arctic and provides long-term, multi-disciplinary observations. 

‘‘Without such a program, it is very difficult to describe current conditions in 

the Arctic, let alone understand the changes that are underway or their connections to the rest of the Earth system.’’ 1 AON would include satellites, terrestrial 

observatories, ocean buoys and moorings, weather stations, hydrologic monitoring stations, ecological sampling networks, Arctic residents, and other data 

sources, many of which already exist or are being planned. IPY offers an immediate opportunity for major progress. 

• Expand network connectivity infrastructure within Alaska and from Alaska to 

the U.S. mainland to acceptable national standards. Currently, our main academic network connection to the outside world is OC–3. The current standard 

for large Internet Service Providers in the rest of the Nation is OC–192, which 

is 64 times faster than our connection. But this is just part of the problem. Our 

state is in desperate need of better high-speed connections between rural communities to ensure values that most U.S. citizens have grown accustomed to: 

educational opportunities, employment opportunities, and access to other information that could enrich their lives. 

• Update high-resolution digital imagery and elevation data coverage for Alaska. 

These fundamental datasets are critically important in emergency response, 

51 

wildfire behavior modeling, aviation safety, change detection, and making informed resource management decisions. Yet, the most recent program to acquire 

imagery and elevation data for Alaska was over 50 years ago. Alaska has 

changed and technologies have improved to the point that Alaska’s maps are 

significantly below national standards. This year, Alaska’s Governor Frank 

Murkowski and the State Legislature approved $2 million to initiate a Statewide Digital Mapping Initiative to ‘‘put some skin in the game.’’ Some Federal 

assistance would assist us in bringing our maps up to national standards. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to present this testimony today, and thank 

you for your interest in the International Polar Year. Please feel free to contact me 

if you have any additional questions. 

Appendix: Endorsed IPY Projects With University of Alaska Participants 

UA Faculty Member Title 

Igor Polyakov, UAF Integrated Arctic Ocean Observing System 

Hajo Eicken, Rolf Gradinger, Igor Dmitrenko, UAF The Pan Arctic cluster for Climate forcing of the Arctic 

Marine Ecosystem 

Sarah Fowell, UAF The Bering Strait, Rapid Change, and Land Bridge 

Paleoecology 

Katrin Iken, UAF Impact of CLImate induced glacial melting on marine 

and terrestric COastal communities on a gradient 

along the Western Antarctic PENinsula (ClicOPEN) 

JingFeng Wu, UAF International Polar Year GEOTRACES: An international study of the biogeochemical cycles of Trace 

Elements and Isotopes in the Arctic and Southern 

Oceans 

Matt Nolan, UAF The dynamic response of Arctic glaciers to global 

warming 

Virgil L. (Buck) Sharpton, UAF International Polar Year (IPY) Data and Information 

Service (DIS) for Distributed Data Management 

Vladimir Romanovsky, Larry Hinzman, Gary Kofinas, 

Matt Nolan, Tom Osterkamp, Chien Lu Ping, Buck 

Sharpton, Kenji Yoshikawa, Doug Kane, Donald 

(Skip) Walker, UAF 

Permafrost Observatory Project: A Contribution to the 

Thermal State of Permafrost 

Peter Schweitzer, Anne Sudkamp, UAF International Congress of Arctic Social Sciences VI in 

Nuuk, 2007–2008 

Bernard Coakley, Sarah Fowell, Leonard Johnson, 

UAF 

Plate Tectonics and Polar Gateways in Earth History 

Scott Bailey, UAF Synchronized observations of Polar Mesospheric 

Clouds (PMC), Aurora, and other large-scale polar 

phenomena from the International Space Station 

(ISS) and ground sites 

David Atkinson, UAF Arctic Circum-Polar Coastal Observatory Network 

Hajo Eicken, Jennifer Hutchings, Rudiger Gens, Rolf 

Gradinger, Mark Johnson, Virgil (Buck) Sharpton, 

UAF 

The state of the Arctic sea ice cover: Physical and biological properties and processes in a changing environment 

Douglas Kane, UAF The Arctic Hydrological Cycle Monitoring, Modelling 

and Assessment Program 

Jeffrey Welker, UA; Craig Lingle, UAF The State and Fate of the Cryosphere 

Martin Truffer, UAF IPY in the Antarctic Peninsula—Ice and Climate 

Ray Barnhardt, Oscar Kawagley, UAF Circumpolar Center for Learning and Indigenous 

Knowledge Systems 

Vladimir Romanovsky, UAF Deep Permafrost Scientific Drilling 

Gerd Wendler, Martha Shulski, UAF Climate change in the Arctic with special emphasis on 

Alaska 

52 

Appendix: Endorsed IPY Projects With University of Alaska Participants—Continued 

UA Faculty Member Title 

Russ R Hopcroft, UAF Ecosystem West Greenland 

Lawrence D. Kaplan, James Ruppert, Patrick Marlow, 

UAF 

Glocalization—Language, Literature and Media among 

Inuit and Sami people 

Matt Nolan, UAF Bipolar Climate Machinery—A study of the interplay 

of northern and southern polar processes in driving 

and amplifying global climate as recorded in 

paleoclimate archives and their significance for the 

generation of realistic estimates of future climate 

and sea level development 

Todd O’Hara, UAF Polar bear (Ursus maritimus) circumpolar health assessment in relation to toxicants and climate change 

Larry Hinzman, Vladimir Romanovsky, Igor 

Semiletov, Donald (Skip) Walker, UAF 

Cold Land Processes in the Northern Hemisphere continents and their Coastal Zone: Regional and Global 

Climate and Societal-Ecosystem Linkages and Interactions 

Donald (Skip) Walker, Andrew Balsar, Uma Bhatt, 

Keith Boggs, Brian Barnes, Rick Caulfield, Terry 

Chapin, Craig Dorman, Hajo Eicken, Brad Griffith, 

Tom Heinrichs, Larry Hinzman, John Kelly, Gary 

Kofinas, Hilmar Maier, Gary Michaelson, Corinne 

Munger, Matt Nolan, Chien-Lu Ping, Anupma 

Prakesh, Peter Prokein, Martha Raynolds, Vladimir 

Romanovsky, Mike Sfraga, Buck Sharpton, John 

Walsh, UAF 

Greening of the Arctic: Circumpolar Biomass 

Frank Willams, UAF High Performance Computing and Mass Storage Resources for IPY Research Support 

Gary Kofinas, Perry Barboza, Brad Griffith, Kris 

Hundertmark, Robert White, Greg Finstad, UAF 

Starting the clock for the CARMA Network: Impacts 

on Human-Rangifer Systems in the Circumarctic 

David Norton, Martin Robards, UAF Sea Ice Knowledge and Use: Assessing Arctic Environmental and Social Change 

Karen Perdue, UAF; Kathy Murray, Carl Hild, UAA Arctic Human Health Initiative 

Catherine F. Cahill, UAF POLAR–AOD: a network to characterize the means, 

variability, and trends of the climate-forcing properties of aerosols in polar regions 

Roger Hansen, Jeff Freymueller, UAF Polar Earth Observing Network 

Syndonia Bret-Harte, UAF International Tundra Experiment (ITEX): impacts of 

long-term experimental warming and climate variability on tundra ecosystems 

Martin Jeffries, UAF The University of the Arctic: Providing Higher Education and Outreach Programs for the International 

Polar Year 

Richard Collins, UAF International Arctic Systems for Observing the Atmosphere 

Larry Hinzman, UAF The hydrological cycle of the Canadian Polar Regions: 

processes, parameterization, prediction and change 

David Atkinson, UAF Impacts of Surface Fluxes on Arctic Climate: Severe 

Storms, Effects on Coastal Processes and Relationships to Changing Climate 

Richard Boone, UAF Biodiversity of soil meso- and macro-fauna and latitudinal gradient impact assessment along the proposed 

Alaska gas pipeline 

Richard Collins, UAF The Structure and Evolution of the Polar Stratosphere 

and Mesosphere and Links to the Troposphere during IPY 

53 

Appendix: Endorsed IPY Projects With University of Alaska Participants—Continued 

UA Faculty Member Title 

Shusun Li, Martin Jeffries, Kim Morris, UAF Assessment of surface albedo feedback and the variability of surface radiation budget in the Arctic climate system using satellite and ground observations 

Jack Kruse, UAA The Political Economy of Northern Development 

Dave McGuire, UAF Arctic Biosphere-Atmosphere Coupling across multiple 

Scales 

Martin Jeffries, UAF Bering Sea Sub-Network of Community-Based Environmental Monitoring, Observation and Information 

Stations 

Chien-Lu Ping, UAF Response of Arctic and Subarctic soils in a changing 

Earth: dynamic and frontier studies 

Martin Truffer, UAF Remote sensing, monitoring, and forecast of surging 

glaciers’ evolution with the investigation of modern 

fluctuations of surging glaciers of the Alaska, 

Svalbard and high elevated Asia glaciers 

Stuart Chapin, UAF Polar Disturbance and Ecosystem Services: Links between Climate and Human Well-being 

Martin Jeffries, UAF Consortium for coordination of Observation and Monitoring of the Arctic for Assessment and Research 

Maribeth Murray, UAF The Impacts of Oil and Gas Activity on Peoples in the 

Arctic Using a Multiple Securities Perspective 

Martin Jeffries, UAF Integrated Communication, Education and Evaluation 

Rolf Gradinger, Russ Hopcroft, Bodil Bluhm, Falk 

Huettmann, Rob Cermak, John Kelley, Stephen 

Jewett, UAF; Oliver Hedgepeth, UA 

Arctic Ocean Diversity (ArcOD) 

Martin Truffer, Roman Motyka, UAF Measurement and Attribution of recent Greenland Ice 

sheet chaNgeS (MARGINS) 

Scott Goldsmith, UAA The Economy of the North 

Chien-Lu Ping, Vladimir Romanovsky, UAF Carbon Pools in Permafrost Regions 

Jack Kruse, UAA Survey of Living Conditions in the Arctic, SLiCA—Remote Access Analysis System 

Elena B. Sparrow, Donald A. (Skip) Walker, UAF Biodiversity and Climate Induced Lifecycle Changes of 

Arctic Spiders 

Gary Kofinas, Patty Gray, UAF ANTLER Network Secretariat and Workshop Series 

Peter Schweitzer, UAF Moved by the State: Perspectives on Relocation and 

Resettlement in the Circumpolar North 

Todd Sherman, Jean Flanagan Carlo, UAF International Polar Year Arctic Nations Exhibition and 

Activities including Symposia, Seminars, Workshops, 

Residencies, Documentation and Event Coordination 

Todd O’Hara, Alan Springer, UAF MERSAM (MERcurySeabirdArticMonitoring) 

Chairman STEVENS. Thank you very much, Doctor. 

Our next witness is Dr. Alan Parkinson, the Deputy Director of 

the Arctic Investigation Program, Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, in Anchorage. 

Doctor, nice to have you with us. 

54 

STATEMENT OF ALAN J. PARKINSON, PH.D., DEPUTY 

DIRECTOR, ARCTIC INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM, CENTERS 

FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION, DEPARTMENT 

OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

Dr. PARKINSON. Thank you very much, Chairman Stevens, Senator Murkowski. I’m very pleased to be here today to describe to 

you our national efforts to use the International Polar Year and the 

Arctic Human Health Initiative to increase the visibility of human 

health concerns of Arctic peoples. 

Human health has not been a research theme of any previous 

Polar Year, so we see this event as an opportunity for the United 

States to take a leadership role in the International Polar Year by 

supporting human health research, disease prevention, and control 

activities that will improve the health and well-being of Arctic residents. 

While much has been achieved since the last Polar Year, some 

50 years ago, to improve the health of Arctic residents, life expectancy is shorter, and infant mortality rates are still higher among 

the indigenous Arctic residents. These health disparities can be resolved with greater understanding of their causes through research 

and by focused application of existing health strategies. 

The rapid pace of change in the Arctic is presenting new challenges, as you heard earlier. Of particular concern are the potential 

health impacts of climate change, environmental pollutants, and 

economic development. The Arctic is unique in many aspects, but 

one particularly important aspect is the spirit of cross-border cooperation. And on issues of human health, the international cooperation is facilitated through the working groups of the International Union for Circumpolar Health and the Arctic Council. Nationally, the U.S. interagency cooperation on Arctic research is 

grounded in the Arctic Research and Policy Act of 1984, which established the Arctic Research Commission, which has emphasized 

human health as a special interagency focus area. 

These international and national partnerships have led to the 

creation of the Arctic Human Health Initiative, which is an Arctic 

Council IPY Project which is being led by the U.S. Department of 

State, the CDC, and other U.S. interagencies and international 

partners. And the goal of this initiative is to use the Polar Year to 

really increase the public and political awareness of the human 

health concerns of Arctic peoples, and through international collaborative research, jointly develop strategies that will—which will 

improve the health and well-being of all Arctic residents. 

The Arctic research programs of the CDC are focused on improving public health in Arctic communities. Programs currently are 

conducted by the National Center for Infectious Disease, the National Center for Environmental Health, the National Center for 

Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, and the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. And these programs are conducted with—in collaboration with partnerships with 

the State of Alaska Division of Public Health, the Alaska Native 

Tribal Health Consortium, regional tribal health corporations, the 

Indian Health Service, the National Institutes of Health, University of Alaska, and other state and local agencies. 

55 

The mission of the Arctic Investigations Program is prevention 

and control of infectious diseases among the residents of the Arctic 

and sub-Arctic. And we focus particularly on the elimination of the 

health disparities caused by infectious diseases that exist among 

indigenous populations of these regions. The National Center for 

Environmental Health is concluding studies of the levels of human 

exposure to environmental pollutants in the Arctic and the potential role of these contaminants as co-factors in breast cancer in 

Alaskan Natives. The National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion is actually just beginning a study to 

generate new information on nicotine carcinogens in commercial 

and homemade chewing tobacco. And, of course, the Alaska Field 

Station of the National Institutes of Occupational Health and Safety is continuing studies aiming at decreasing the number of—and 

rate of work-related injuries among industries that face the extreme hazards of the Arctic environment. 

In summary, the IPY presents us with a unique opportunity to 

focus political and public attention on the health concerns of Arctic 

communities and to develop collaborative international programs, 

research programs, that will address those concerns. 

The improvements in the health status already achieved by Arctic peoples provide hope that, through concerted effort, clear vision, 

existing health challenges and disparities can be overcome. We believe that the U.S. leadership and scientific contributions of the 

International Polar Year and the Arctic Human Health Initiative 

are an important step in this direction. 

Thank you for your attention, and I am happy to answer any 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Parkinson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALAN J. PARKINSON, PH.D., DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ARCTIC

INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM, CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION, 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Good afternoon, Chairman Stevens, Chairman Lugar, and members of both Committees. I am Alan Parkinson Deputy Director of the Centers for Disease Control 

and Preventions, Arctic Investigations Program located in Anchorage, Alaska. I am 

pleased to be here today to describe our national efforts to use the International 

Polar Year (IPY) and the Arctic Human Health Initiative (AHHI) to increase the 

visibility and awareness of human health concerns of Arctic peoples and to coordinate at the national and international level research programs that will improve the 

health and well-being of Arctic residents. As you have heard from previous speakers, the IPY is an intensive one year multi-disciplinary program of collaborative 

international science, research, education, and communication focusing on the Arctic 

and Antarctic regions. 

The years 2007–2008 will mark the 50th anniversary of the International Geophysical Year, and the third IPY. This event has been designated the 4th IPY by 

the National Academy of Science, International Council of Science, the World Meteorological Organization, the Arctic Council, and many other international organizations. This period of focused activity promises to ‘‘further our understanding of the 

physical and social process in polar regions, examine their globally-connected role 

in the climate system and establish research infrastructure for the future, and serve 

to attract and develop a new generation of scientists and engineers with the 

versatility to tackle complex global issues.’’ U.S. activities during the IPY will focus 

on highlighting research, education, and public outreach efforts, and will be coordinated among Federal agencies and international partners that support research in 

Polar Regions. Human health has not been a research theme for any previous Polar 

Year and we see this event as an opportunity for the U.S. to take a leadership role 

in the IPY by supporting research activities that will address the human health conVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:20 Jan 09, 2012 Jkt 071960 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\71960.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
56 

1 Estimates on the proportion of mortality accounted for, by infectious diseases, are based on 

a catchment population size of 34,000 and 87,000 Alaska Natives, in 1950 and 1990, respectively. The estimated number of mortalities amongst Alaska Natives during these 2 years, was 

575 and 565, respectively. 

cerns of Arctic communities and set the stage for an integrated approach to Arctic 

human health research beyond 2009. 

Human Health Concerns of Arctic Communities 

Life expectancy in Arctic populations has greatly improved over the last 50 years. 

In 1950, the life expectancy for an Alaska Native, the indigenous people of Alaska, 

at birth was 47 years compared with 66 years for the general U.S. population. By 

2000, the life expectancy for Alaska Natives had increased to 69.5 years, a gain of 

over 20 years. Much of this improvement can be attributed to health research and 

public health programs that have resulted in a reduction in morbidity and mortality 

from infectious diseases, such as tuberculosis, and the vaccine-preventable diseases 

of childhood. Reductions in infectious disease mortality for Alaska Natives have 

been especially dramatic. In 1950, 47 percent of deaths among Alaska Natives were 

due to infections, as compared with only 3 percent for non-Native Alaskans. By 

1990, infectious diseases caused only 1.2 percent of the Alaska Native deaths, very 

similar to the 1 percent seen for non-Natives. 1

Public health research has resulted in innovations such as the provision of safe 

water supplies, sewage disposal, development of community-based medical providers, that have contributed to improved care and access to care for injuries and 

illness. Research on the negative health effects of tobacco has lead to tobacco cessation and education programs. Mortality rates for heart disease and overall cancer 

rates are similar in Arctic indigenous residents in relation to overall rates for the 

U.S., Canada, and northern European countries, with some exceptions (i.e., higher 

incidence of gastric, nasopharyngeal, renal cancers) not explained by known risk factors . 

Despite improvements in these health indicators of Arctic residents, life expectancy is shorter and infant mortality rates are higher among indigenous Arctic residents in the U.S. Arctic, northern Canada, and Greenland when compared to Arctic 

residents of Nordic countries. For example, life expectancy for Alaska Natives still 

lags behind the general U.S. population which was 76.5 years in 2000. Similarly, 

indigenous residents of U.S. Arctic and Greenland have higher mortality rates for 

injury and suicide, and hospitalization rates for infants with pneumonia and respiratory infections; many of these health disparities can be eliminated through the 

focused application of existing public health strategies. 

A common theme across the Arctic is the rapid pace of change and its impact on 

the health and well-being of Arctic peoples. Some of the major trends likely to affect 

the health status of Arctic peoples include economic changes, improved transportation and communications, environmental pollutants, and climate change. 

Living conditions have and continue to change from an economy based on subsistence hunting and gathering to a cash-based economy. Across the circumpolar north 

there is increasing activity toward sustainable development via local resource development, and widening involvement in the global economy. The influence of such 

changes on the physical health of Arctic residents on the one hand have been positive, resulting in improved housing conditions, a more stable supply of food, increased access to more western goods, and decreases in morbidity and mortality 

from infectious diseases. But these changes in lifestyle brought on by the move away 

from traditional subsistence hunting and gathering, and the societal changes 

brought on by modernization, in general, have resulted in an increase in prevalence 

of chronic diseases such as diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and cardiovascular diseases. In addition, it is well known that child abuse, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, domestic violence, suicide, unintentional injury is also connected to rapid cultural 

change, loss of cultural identity and self esteem. 

Globalization has meant improvements in the transportation infrastructure and 

communications technologies such as the Internet and telemedicine innovations. 

Many communities once isolated, are now linked to major cities by air transportation, and are only one airplane ride away from more densely populated urban centers. Consequently these communities are now vulnerable to the importation of new 

and emerging infectious diseases (such as influenza, SARS or SARS-like infectious 

diseases, antibiotic-resistant pathogens such as multi-drug resistant tuberculosis). 

Environmental contaminants are a global problem. Contaminants such as mercury, other heavy metals, PCBs, DDT, dioxins and other organochlorines, mainly 

originate in the mid-latitude industrial and agricultural areas of the globe, but have 

migrated to the Arctic via atmospheric, river and ocean transport. Their subsequent 

57 

bio-magnification in the Arctic food webs, and appearance in subsistence foods such 

as fish, waterfowl, marine and land mammals, and the indigenous people who rely 

on these foods is of great concern to Arctic residents. Potential human health effects 

include damage to the developing brain, endocrine, and immune system. A new concern is the role of mercury on cardiovascular diseases. Ongoing research will identify the levels and human health effects of these contaminants in Arctic residents 

and will provide public health guidance on both the risks and benefits of consuming 

traditional foods. 

The changing climate is affecting Arctic communities, and is bringing economic 

and health threats, as well as possible opportunities. The impacts of climate change 

on the health of Arctic residents will vary depending on factors such as age, socioeconomic status, lifestyle, culture, location, and capacity of the local health infrastructure systems to adapt. It is likely that the most vulnerable will be those living 

close to the land, living a traditional subsistence lifestyle in remote communities, 

those already facing health related changes. Direct health-related impacts, for example may include an increase in injuries, hypothermia, and frostbite related to 

travel, unpredictable ice and weather conditions, and heat stress in summer. Indirect impacts include the potential changes in vector borne diseases such as West 

Nile virus, zoonotic infectious diseases such as brucellosis, tularemia or 

echinococcosis, changes in access to safe water supplies, failure of the permafrost 

and damages to the sanitation infrastructure, and infrastructure in general (buildings, transportation, etc.) changes in the traditional food supply as the migration 

patterns of subsistence species change in response to changing habitats. Ongoing research will identify climate sensitive indicators that will allow the prediction of 

health impacts and the development of mitigation strategies. 

The Arctic is unique in many aspects. It can be defined by population, a population that is sparsely scattered over a very large geographical area, by climate and 

latitude, by seasonal extremes of temperature, light and dark, and by its spirit and 

history of cross-border cooperation on issues of concern to Arctic communities. 

International Cooperation on Arctic Human Health 

There is a long history of international cooperation on many issues affecting Arctic communities including human health and human health research. 

The International Union for Circumpolar Health (IUCH) (www.iuch.org) is an organization comprised of the memberships of the American Society for Circumpolar 

Health, the Canadian Society for Circumpolar Health, the Nordic Society for Arctic 

Medicine, the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, and the 

Danish/Greenlandic Society for Circumpolar Health. The IUCH promotes international cooperation, research, scientific information exchange, and education in the 

areas of Arctic Health Policy, Birth Defects & Genetics, Cancer, Diet & Heart, Environmental Health & Subsistence Food Security, Family Health, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, Health Surveys, HIV/AIDS, STDs, Indigenous Peoples Health, Infectious 

Diseases, Injury Prevention, Occupational Safety & Health, Population-Based Planning, Tobacco & Health, and Women’s Health. 

The Arctic Council (www.arctic-council.org) is a ministerial forum for cooperation 

between governments and indigenous peoples to address concerns and challenges 

common to Arctic states. Members include: the U.S. (represented by the State Department), Canada, Greenland/Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Finland, Sweden, and 

the Russian Federation. Indigenous peoples are represented as Permanent Participants and include: Sa ́mi Council, Aleut International, Inuit Circumpolar Conference, 

Russian Association Indigenous Peoples of the North, Arctic Athabaskan Council, 

and Indigenous Peoples Association. Current Arctic Council human health activities 

include monitoring the human health impact of anthropogenic pollutants, climate 

variability, infectious diseases, and the expansion and assessment of tele-health innovations in Arctic regions. 

National Cooperation on Arctic Human Health 

The U.S. Congress passed the Arctic Research and Policy Act, in July 1984, finding that ‘‘Arctic Research expands knowledge, which can enhance the lives of Arctic 

residents, increase opportunities for international cooperation and can facilitate national policy on Arctic Research.’’ The Act established the Arctic Research Commission to promote and recommend research priorities. The Commission recommended 

an interagency program focusing on the health concerns of Arctic residents, and designated that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) lead this effort with assistance 

from other agencies. We look forward to partnering with our sister agency on this 

recommendation. 

Arctic research programs of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 

are focused on improving public health in Arctic communities. Programs are curVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:20 Jan 09, 2012 Jkt 071960 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\71960.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
58 

rently conducted by the National Center for Infectious Disease (NCID), the National 

Center for Environmental Health (NCEH), National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), and the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). These programs are conducted in collaboration 

with the State of Alaska Division of Public Health, the Alaska Native Tribal Health 

Consortium, regional tribal health organizations, the Indian Health Service, the National Institutes of Health, and other state and local agencies and organizations. 

The Arctic Investigations Program, located in Anchorage, Alaska, is one of three 

U.S.-based field stations operated by the NCID. The mission of AIP is the prevention and control of infectious diseases among residents of the Arctic and sub-Arctic, 

and in particular the elimination of health disparities caused by infectious disease 

that exist among the indigenous populations of these regions. The AIP has led efforts to eliminate Hepatitis A&B, and invasive diseases such as meningitis caused 

by Haemophilus influenzae type b, and pneumonia caused by Streptococcus 

pneumoniae in the U.S. Arctic. The Division of Environmental Hazards and Health 

Effects of the NCEH together with the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium and 

the AIP are concluding studies of the level of human exposure to environmental pollutants in the Arctic, and the potential role of environmental contaminants as cofactors in breast cancer in Alaska Natives. The NCCDPHP is beginning a study to generate new information on nicotine and carcinogen exposure in users of commercial 

and home-made chewing tobacco. The results will be used to generate public health 

messages for local tobacco control programs. The Alaska Field Station of the National Institutes of Occupational Safety and Health was established to decrease the 

number and rate of work-related injuries among industries that face extreme hazards due to the Arctic environment. Through research, outreach with industry and 

community partners, and active prevention activities has resulted in a 60 percent 

decrease in the number of occupational fatalities since 1990. These CDC Program 

accomplishments and plans are reported biennially in the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee Report of U.S. Arctic Research published by the National 

Science Foundation Office of Polar Programs. 

The AHHI and the International Polar Year 

The Arctic Human Health Initiative (AHHI) is an IPY Arctic Council project, led 

by the U.S. Department of State, and the CDC. The aim of AHHI is to increase public and political awareness and visibility of human health concerns of Arctic peoples, 

foster human health research, promote health strategies that will improve the 

health and well-being of all Arctic residents. The AHHI will coordinate IPY projects 

that focus on Arctic human health research and that will advance the joint circumpolar health research agendas of the Arctic Council and IUCH. 

Priority IPY human health research needs of Arctic communities includes studies 

that include the assessment and mitigation of human health effects of: 

• Anthropogenic pollution in Arctic regions. 

• Oil, gas, and other sustainable development activities. 

• Contaminants and zoonotic infectious diseases on subsistence species and the 

traditional food supply. 

• Climate variability. 

• Infectious diseases including tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, vaccine-preventable diseases, and emerging infectious diseases such as Avian influenza. 

• Chronic diseases such as cancer, cardiovascular diseases, obesity and diabetes. 

• Behavioral health issues, such as suicide, interpersonal violence and substance 

abuse, and unintentional injuries. 

Human health surveillance, monitoring and research networks allow the monitoring of diseases of concern in Arctic communities through the development of 

standardized study protocols, data collection, laboratory methods, and data analysis. 

These networks allow the monitoring of disease prevalence over time, the determination of risk factors for disease and evaluation and implementation of disease 

prevention and control strategies. For example, the CDC’s AIP coordinates the 

International Circumpolar Surveillance (ICS) of infectious diseases, which links hospital clinical and public health laboratories and institutes in the U.S. Arctic, northern Canada, Greenland, Iceland, Norway, Finland, and northern Sweden for the 

purposes of monitoring invasive bacterial diseases that cause pneumonia, meningitis 

and blood stream infections. During the IPY this system will be expanded to include 

the monitoring of tuberculosis in Arctic countries, and include public health centers 

in 14 regions of northern Russian Federation. 

As of September 15, 2006, there have been more than 1,145 Expressions of Interest and 222 full proposals endorsed by the IPY Joint Committee to undertake reVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:20 Jan 09, 2012 Jkt 071960 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\71960.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
59 

search projects during the IPY. A full description of the AHHI (full proposal number 

167) can be viewed at www.ipy.org. The proposal has been designated by the IPY 

Joint Committee as a coordinating proposal under which other human health related research proposals will be managed. To date, 13 Expressions of Intent and 8 

full proposals from five of the eight Arctic countries have been clustered within the 

AHHI. 

The AHHI will coordinate research projects through an International Steering 

Committee led by the CDC with representation from the International Union for 

Circumpolar Health, Arctic Council human health working groups, indigenous people’s organizations, World Health Organization, the Fogarty International Center of 

the National Institutes of Health and other partners. The overall role of the Steering Committee will be to carry out the aim of AHHI, review and endorse proposals, 

identify research gaps, evaluate progress, facilitate reporting of research findings to 

the research community, communities at risk, policymakers and the general public, 

and guide the direction of human health research beyond IPY. 

The IPY presents a unique opportunity to focus public and political attention on 

health concerns of Arctic communities and develop collaborative, international research programs that will address those concerns. The improvements in health status already achieved by Arctic peoples provide hope that through concerted effort 

and clear vision, existing health challenges and disparities can also be overcome. We 

believe that U.S. leadership and scientific contributions to the International Polar 

Year Arctic Human Health Initiative are an important step. 

Thank you for the opportunity to share this information with you. I am happy 

to answer any questions. 

Chairman STEVENS. Well, thank you very much, Dr. Parkinson. 

We will have some questions. I think you have a very interesting 

role in the Arctic right now. 

Our last witness is Dr. Thomas Armstrong, Earth Surface Dynamics Program Coordinator for the USGS, in Reston, Virginia. 

Doctor, it’s nice to have you with us, too. 

STATEMENT OF DR. THOMAS R. ARMSTRONG, 

PROGRAM COORDINATOR, EARTH SURFACE DYNAMICS, 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (USGS), 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Dr. ARMSTRONG. Thank you, Senator Stevens and Senator Murkowski. Thank you for having me here today to talk to you about 

the issue of the U.S. Geological Survey’s and the Department of the 

Interior’s activities related to the International Polar Year. 

My name is Thomas Armstrong, and I am the Program Coordinator for the Earth Surface Dynamics Program at USGS. I also 

represent the USGS and the Department of the Interior on the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program’s Climate Working Group 

and activities related to the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. 

The USGS and other bureaus within DOI will participate in the 

IPY through extension and enhancement of our existing programmatic activities and research assessment and long-term monitoring in the polar regions that support the missions of our organizations and address the themes and goals of the IPY. These activities span the biologic, geologic, hydrologic, geographic, and information sciences. And some of the specific activities include the development of a satellite image atlas of glaciers of Asia, Alaska, and 

Iceland. Some of this work has already been completed. Some of 

this work is in press now, including the Atlas for Alaska Glaciers. 

The distribution of ice sheets in the Arctic, sub-Arctic, and Antarctic are critically linked to water availability for both human and 

ecological needs, as well as changes in sea level worldwide, and, 

therefore, have global-scale ecologic and socioeconomic impacts. 

60 

These images, as part of this atlas, are part of a worldwide series 

that will help in assessing the current distribution of glacial ice 

and rates of glacial ice retreat, as well. 

Another effort that’s ongoing at USGS is the development of the 

state of the Earth’s cryosphere at the beginning of the 21st century. This long-term monitoring program of the Earth has been a 

cornerstone of USGS throughout its history. The USGS has been 

monitoring many physical and biological parameters in the Arctic, 

and these include three benchmark glaciers for climate change, the 

monitoring of stream runoff, and several critical marine mammals 

and their health. The results of these monitoring efforts will be examined, analyzed, and reported on during the course of the IPY. 

Another effort that we’re conducting now, and is starting to gain 

a lot of momentum, is the development of the Yukon River Basin 

Project, which will address rates and effects of permafrost thawing 

in the Arctic. 

USGS scientists and managers are working with a consortium of 

U.S. and Canadian Federal, State, and provincial agencies, university scientists, including those from the University of Alaska Fairbanks, and tribal organizations along the Yukon River Basin to initiate a major project to understand and predict climate-induced 

changes to the air, water, land, and biota within the Yukon Basin. 

This effort will provide a benchmark for tracking and understanding changes to biological communities, stored carbon, the 

water cycle, and human infrastructure as a consequence of climateinduced permafrost thawing and landscape change. And I’d like to 

point out, in a question Senator Stevens had to the first panel, we 

are also pursuing the possibility of providing a science and education outreach person in one of the native communities that will 

work with all the communities on the Yukon Basin to help establish an educational program and a stream—or a river-monitoring 

program for water quality with the native population. 

Another effort that’s ongoing at the USGS is the petroleum resource assessment of the Arctic. The USGS World Petroleum Assessment of 2000 estimated that a significant portion of the remaining oil and gas resources of the world reside in the Arctic. 

This follow-on study will examine Arctic basins in more detail and 

report on oil and gas resource potential of unexplored basins. The 

initial results should be completed during the course of the IPY. 

And, finally, one other effort I’d like to talk about briefly with 

you is the Landsat 7 Image Map of Antarctica, also known as 

LIMA. The LIMA will create three high-quality, remotely sensed 

mosaics of Antarctica from more than 1200 Landsat scenes, in cooperation with the British Antarctic Survey, the National Science 

Foundation, and NASA. 

Other agencies within the Department of the Interior are planning to carry out activities incorporating International Polar Year 

components. Most notably, these include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service as the lead agency for the Conservation of Arctic Flora and 

Fauna Working Group, also known as CAFF. This is part of the 

Arctic Council and the international development of the Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program, which will also serve to 

guide and coordinate monitoring activities in the Arctic region, faVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:20 Jan 09, 2012 Jkt 071960 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\71960.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
61 

cilitate methodologies, and address gaps in existing data on status 

and trends. 

The Circumpolar Seabird Information Network, another new initiative led by the Service, will greatly expand the international 

knowledge base of the Arctic Region and its ability to address 

issues regarding bird species of conservation concern. 

And, finally, the Minerals Management Service will continue to— 

its environmental and sociocultural research in and around the 

Beaufort/Chukchi Seas of the Arctic to support management of offshore gas and oil resources. Research planning activities include 

collaboration with the National Oceanographic Partnership Program, individual agencies, and research scientists to incorporate 

IPY components, when feasible. 

This concludes my testimony. My intention was to leave you with 

a brief portrayal of just some of the Department of the Interior’s 

many science, monitoring, and assessment studies, and related support infrastructure that are firmly within the scope and spirit of 

the International Polar Year. I thank you for the opportunity to 

speak with you today, and I look forward to answering any questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Armstrong follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. THOMAS ARMSTRONG, PROGRAM COORDINATOR, EARTH

SURFACE DYNAMICS, U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (USGS), DEPARTMENT OF THE

INTERIOR

Thank you for the opportunity to address you, and the Committees, on the issue 

of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) activities related to the International Polar Year 

(IPY). My name is Thomas Armstrong, and I am the Program Coordinator for the 

Earth Surface Dynamics Program at USGS. I also represent USGS and the Department of the Interior (DOI) on the Arctic Council’s Arctic Monitoring and Assessment 

Program’s Climate Working Group, and activities related to the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. 

Background 

The USGS serves the United States by providing reliable scientific information to 

describe and understand the Earth, minimize loss of life and property from natural 

disasters, manage water, biological, energy, and mineral resources; and, enhance 

and protect our quality of life. It is within the spirit of this mission that the USGS 

has developed plans for participation in the International Polar Year, working with 

partners in DOI, with other Federal and State agencies, and with scientific colleagues around the world. 

The IPY will extend from March 2007 through March 2009. This period will commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of the 1957–1958 International Geophysical Year. 

The IGY, as it was called, was modelled on the International Polar Years of 1882– 

1883 and 1932–1933, and was intended to allow scientists from around the world 

to take part in a series of coordinated observations of various geophysical phenomena. The work of scientists from over 60 countries literally spanned the globe 

from the North to the South Poles. Although much work was carried out in the Arctic and equatorial regions, special attention was given to the Antarctic, where research on ice depths yielded radically new estimates of the earth’s total ice content. 

In a similar spirit of discovery and understanding, IPY 2007–2009 is envisioned as 

an intense scientific campaign to explore new frontiers in polar science, and to improve our understanding of the critical role of the polar regions in global processes. 

Most significantly, IPY is envisioned as an opportunity to engage the public in polar 

discovery and help attract the next generation of earth scientists. 

Within current funding amounts, the USGS will participate in the IPY through 

extension and enhancement of programmatic activities in research, assessment, and 

monitoring in the Polar Regions that support the scientific mission of our organization, and address the themes and goals of the IPY. These activities span the biologic, geologic, hydrologic, geographic, and information sciences and will include but 

not be limited to: 

62 

• Research and monitoring of the status and distribution of fish, wildlife and 

vegetation; determination of species at risk; permafrost evaluation to include assessment of changes in the thermal regime and feedbacks with the changing climate, organic carbon characteristics and distribution; evaluation of hydrologic 

inputs to the carbon budget—including the influence of large river deltas on 

carbon flux to the marine system, snow and water-borne contaminants and 

freshwater inputs; and the evaluation of surficial and geochemical processes in 

understanding the changing polar environment. 

• Integrated monitoring for assessing the relationship between major stressors, 

like climate change, and regional changes in the carbon cycle of Arctic watersheds; ground and satellite-based monitoring of glaciers and icecaps for volumetric changes, and monitoring of thermal changes in permafrost; reconstruction of past climate cycles and evaluation of current changes from sediment and 

ice core records; monitoring and assessment of changes in rates of coastal erosion and surficial processes; evaluation of changes in status and distribution of 

circumpolar vegetation, fish and wildlife, and freshwater discharges in the Arctic. 

• Evaluation of the nature of arctic/boreal hydrologic interactions and the relationships between climate and plant growth, productivity, permafrost depth, 

and resulting effects on nutrient availability and atmospheric heat sources and 

sinks. 

• Establishment or extension of permanent monitoring infrastructure for permafrost, global seismicity, and geomagnetic activity. Assessment of energy resources in the circum-arctic area including oil, gas, coalbed methane and methane hydrates. 

• While the USGS will not conduct specific social science research as a part of 

IPY, several of our studies will have implications for populations living in the 

Polar Regions. These include our energy and mineral assessments, especially 

studies of coalbed methane potential for providing energy to isolated communities; natural hazards monitoring; studies of scour modelling due to changes 

in hydrology and their impacts on manmade structures; and 3-dimensional assessments of changes in permafrost that may have serious impacts on Arctic 

road networks and other forms of infrastructure. 

• An additional element will include the production of geospatial information related to high-resolution elevation data and digital ortho-imagery for Polar Regions of Alaska, and the development of an IPY portal on the USGS public 

website. The portal will provide one-stop access to USGS science datasets; information products (e.g., maps and reports); educational resources for teachers; 

and tools and applications (e.g., geospatially referenced index of pertinent data, 

bibliography of key references, scientific collaboration tools). The USGS IPY 

portal will be linked to Geospatial One-Stop (www.geodata.gov), in order to leverage geospatial data and tools available from other agencies and organizations. 

Beginning with the very first geophysical and geological surveys carried out in 

Antarctica over a half-century ago, the USGS has maintained a long tradition of scientific monitoring, assessment, and research in the Polar Regions. The USGS has 

an extensive history of activities including topographic mapping and geodetic control 

in Antarctica, satellite and ground-based monitoring of glaciers and ice caps, research on movements, distribution patterns and adaptation of polar wildlife, operation of a seismic array at the South Pole, estimations of energy resources of the 

circum-Arctic, mapping of the distribution of circum-arctic vegetation, and the development of paleoclimate records from Alaskan sediments and polar ice cores. 

USGS participation in the International Polar Year allows the Agency to celebrate 

this enduring tradition with the global polar research community and to renew our 

commitment to polar science at a time when the eyes of the world are focused on 

these fragile regions. 

Numerous USGS programs are involved in research, assessment, and monitoring 

in the Polar Regions that support the scientific mission of the USGS and the Department of the Interior, and address the themes and goals of the IPY. Some of 

these specific activities and related products are listed below. 

1. Research and Long-Term Monitoring of the Polar Regions 

Products and activities include: 

• Satellite Image Atlas of Glaciers of Asia, Alaska, and Iceland http:// 

www.glaciers.er.usgs.gov/html/chapters.html 

63 

Glacial ice distribution, including major ice sheets in the arctic, subarctic, and 

Antarctic, are critically linked to water availability for both human and ecological needs, as well as changes in sea level worldwide. Changes in these ice 

masses therefore have global-scale ecological and socio-economic impacts. Over 

the last several decades, the majority of the world’s glaciers have decreased in 

size and volume. These images, part of a worldwide series, will help in assessing the current distribution of glacial ice and rates of glacial ice retreat worldwide. 

• State of the Earth’s Cryosphere at the Beginning of the 21st Century: Glaciers, 

Snow Cover, Floating Ice, Permafrost and Their Impacts on Indigenous Marine 

Mammals 

The USGS has been monitoring permafrost temperature in the Arctic; three 

Benchmark Glaciers for climate change, glacier geometry, glacier mass balance, 

glacier motion, and stream runoff; and marine mammals for many decades. The 

results of those monitoring efforts will be examined, analyzed and reported on 

during the IPY. 

• Yukon River Basin—Rates and Effects of Permafrost Thawing in the Arctic 

USGS scientists and managers are working with a consortium of U.S. and Canadian Federal, state, and provincial agencies, university scientists, and tribal 

organizations to initiate a major project to understand and predict climate-induced changes to the air, water, land, and biota within the Yukon River Basin. 

This collaborative scientific effort will provide a benchmark for tracking and understanding changes occurring throughout the Arctic and Sub-arctic region to 

biological communities, stored carbon, the water cycle, and human infrastructure as a consequence of climate-induced permafrost thawing and landscape 

change. 

• Petroleum Resource Assessment of the Arctic 

The USGS World Petroleum Assessment of 2000, estimated that a significant 

portion of the remaining oil and gas resources of the world reside in the Arctic. 

This follow-on study will examine Arctic basins in more detail and report on oil 

and gas resource potential of unexplored basins. The initial results should be 

completed during the IPY. 

• Landsat 7 Image Map of Antarctica (LIMA) 

The LIMA will create three high-quality remotely-sensed mosaics of Antarctica 

from more than 1,200 Landsat scenes in cooperation with the British Antarctic 

Survey. This work is also funded by the National Science Foundation. 

2. USGS Facilities and Resources for Arctic and Antarctic Research 

The USGS includes numerous facilities throughout the United States and Antarctica that are focused on activities that directly link to the International Polar Year. 

These facilities include: 

• U.S. National Ice Core Laboratory, USGS, Denver, CO 

The U.S. National Ice Core Laboratory (NICL) stores, curates, and facilitates 

study of ice cores recovered from the polar regions of the world. It provides scientists with the capability to conduct examinations and measurements on ice 

cores, and it preserves the integrity of these ice cores in a long-term repository 

for current and future investigations. Ice cores contain an abundance of climate 

information, more so than any other natural source of climate information such 

as tree rings or sediment layers. http://nicl.usgs.gov/. 

• U.S. Antarctic Resource Center, USGS, Reston, VA 

The U.S. Antarctic Resource Center (USARC) is the Nation’s depository for Antarctic maps, charts, geodetic ground control, satellite images, aerial photographs, publications, slides, and video tapes. These resources are items produced by Antarctic Treaty parties in support of their activities in Antarctica and 

provided to the USARC in connection with a resolution of the treaty providing 

for exchange of information. http://usarc.usgs.gov. 

• USGS Alaska Science Center, Anchorage, AK 

The USGS Alaska Science Center is a Center of Excellence for the Department 

of the Interior to address important natural resources issues and natural hazards assessments in Alaska and circumpolar regions through long-term data 

collection and monitoring, research and development, and assessments and applications. Their mission is to provide scientific leadership and accurate, objective, and timely data, information, and research findings about the earth and 

its flora and fauna to Federal and State resource managers and policymakers, 

64 

local government, and the public to support sound decisionmaking regarding 

natural resources, natural hazards, and ecosystems in Alaska and circumpolar 

regions. http://alaska.usgs.gov/index.php. 

• McMurdo Long-Term Research (LTER) Program 

The USGS provides cooperative support to the McMurdo Long-Term Research 

program for water resources data collection and related activities. The support 

provided is in the form of field assistance, guidance, and review of surface-water 

data collection by INSTAAR and University of Colorado researchers in the 

McMurdo Dry Valleys (Taylor Valley and Wright Valley) of Antarctica. Cooperation is also provided in the form of guidance and support for, and access to, 

USGS databases and streamflow-records processing applications. 

• Antarctic Seismic Data Library System (SDLS) 

The SDLS is an Antarctic Treaty effort under the auspices of the Scientific 

Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) to collate and make openly available 

for research purposes all marine multichannel seismic reflection data (MCS) acquired in Antarctic regions (i.e., south of 60 degrees South). The SDLS was implemented in 1991 under USGS sponsorship, but since about 1996, the SDLS 

has been run jointly by USGS (with National Science Foundation—Office of 

Polar Programs and USGS funding) and Osservatorio Geofisico Sperimentale 

(OGS, Trieste, Italy). The seismic library has branches in 10 countries, with two 

branches in the United States. The MCS data are sent to the SDLS by data 

collectors, put onto CD–ROM and distributed to SDLS branches where they can 

be viewed and used under the SDLS guidelines specified in SCAR Report #9 

(and addendums). To date, 60 CD–ROMs holding more than 120,000 km of 

stacked MCS data have been produced for SDLS branches. 

• Web-Enabling the U.S. Antarctic Photography Collection From the USGS Earth 

Resources Observation Science (EROS) Center 

For more the 30 years, it has been USGS’s privilege to archive and serve the 

U.S. Antarctic Program, the international Antarctic research community, and 

the public with access to the U.S. Antarctic aerial photography collection held 

at the USGS Center for Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS). This 

collection consists of an estimated 400,000 frames of historical aerial photography dating back to the 1940s. This collection is the best collection of Antarctic 

aerial photography held by any country, and its value to the Antarctic research 

community will only increase with time as work and research continues in Antarctica. 

However, neither online metadata, browser images, photographs, nor film products are available via the Internet for the U.S. Antarctic Program Antarctic aerial photography collection. New technology and improved digitizing methods 

have made it possible to digitize the original aerial film rolls creating browse 

and medium resolution images of each frame. We propose to link the digitized 

USAP aerial photography browse and medium resolution image files to the 

USARC paper map-line plots, and web-enable the digitized collection in such a 

way that users could download images over the Internet at no cost to the user. 

Implementation of the proposal will result in an integrated on-line query, 

browsing and delivery capability for all historical USARC photography in the 

USGS EROS Center. 

• Antarctic Geographic Place Names 

The USGS operates the U.S. Board on Geographic Names (USBGN) conjointly 

with other Federal agencies. In accordance with recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Antarctic Names (ACAN), the USBGN approves all new 

names to be used in Antarctica by the U.S. Government. 

In addition to work being done by the USGS, other agencies within the Department of the Interior are planning to carry out activities incorporating International 

Polar Year components. Most notably: 

• Fish and Wildlife Service Initiatives With the Arctic Council 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is the lead agency for the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna Working Group (CAFF) of the Arctic Council. As a contribution to the International Polar Year, the Service has taken a 

lead role in the international development and implementation of the Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program, which will serve to guide and coordinate 

monitoring activities in the Arctic region, facilitate common methodologies, and 

address gaps in existing data on status and trends. In addition, the Service, in 

cooperation with representatives from other Arctic countries, will convene an 

65 

international group of experts to develop an action plan for mapping the boreal 

forest, a northern ecosystem critical to migratory birds and other trust species. 

The Circumpolar Seabird Information Network, another new initiative led by 

Service (and approved as well as jointly funded by the Arctic Council countries), 

will greatly expand the international knowledge base of the Arctic region, and 

it ability to address issues regarding bird species of conservation concern. 

• Minerals Management Service Research 

The Minerals Management Service will continue its innovative mission-focused 

environmental and sociocultural research in and around the Beaufort-Chukchi 

Seas area of the Arctic to support management and development of offshore gas 

and oil resources. Research planning activities for Fiscal Year 2007–2009 include collaboration with the National Oceanographic Partnership Program, individual agencies and research scientists to incorporate IPY components when 

feasible. Plans include studies of marine mammals and birds and their ecosystems, mesoscale meteorology, river plume transport processes, ocean circulation, sea-ice modeling and potential collaboration with the developing Arctic 

component of the Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS). 

This concludes my testimony. My intention was to leave you with an accurate portrayal of just some of the Department of the Interior’s many science, monitoring, 

and assessment studies and related support infrastructure that are firmly within 

the scope and spirit of the International Polar Year. I thank you for the opportunity 

to speak with you today, and I look forward to answering any questions that you 

may have. 

Chairman STEVENS. Well, thank you very much, Doctor. I remember so well when there were forces that tried to move USGS 

out of Alaska. I’m delighted to know that you’re coming back and 

have a more robust program in our State. I think it’s a very important function for us to maintain. 

I’m going to let Senator Murkowski start the questioning off on 

this panel, please. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you. 

Dr. Armstrong, I’ll just begin with you, since we just finished up, 

there. You have detailed just a few of the ongoing programs within 

not only USGS, but within Interior, as a whole. So, we know that 

there are a lot of good things going on now. We will assume that 

after IPY comes and goes, there will continue to be good things. 

Do you—is it the expectation that the level of collaboration and 

sharing of the data that will be collected during these years of IPY 

will continue so that you, within USGS, can be working with— 

whether it’s other agencies or other countries, in the data that they 

have collected and, through various programs, will continue to collect? Is that, kind of, where you see this going? 

Dr. ARMSTRONG. Yes, Senator. I think one of the real beauties of 

our participation in IPY is the fact that this is all part of our current core program. And what IPY has been able to provide us is 

a focus mechanism to really focus on addressing some of the critical 

Arctic and polar issues, both in Antarctica and the Arctic itself. 

The work that we’re talking about is long-term basic science, applied science, long-term monitoring and assessment, including 

adaptive assessment. I see this work going on well beyond the end 

of IPY. I think, frankly, this is not even the beginning. We’ve been 

doing a lot of this work for many years, and we’ll continue to promote this work for a long time to come. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. That was exactly the answer I wanted to 

hear. 

Dr. Bell, I want to understand—recognizing your position on the 

International Planning Committee—if you’ve got some 63 different 

66 

countries, each country perhaps having a—perhaps a little bit different perspective, or looking for something a little bit different, 

you have all of the programs that we are hopeful will advance— 

in terms of how you coordinate all of this to make sure that you 

don’t have a multitude of different projects all going after the same 

thing, everybody spending their dollars, how do you make sure that 

we are collaborating to the fullest extent possible so that we get 

the maximum for the dollars that will be spent? 

Dr. BELL. I think that’s an excellent question. And one of the tremendous differences between this International Polar Year and 

IGY in 1958, and the earlier two, is that—the way in which we do 

science. The earlier three were all—came directly out of the military and were all very top-down. And it would have been a lot easier—any one of us could have sat down and written a science plan 

and come up with priorities, and then shared it with people—similar people in other nations, and just decided. But the process was 

very different. It was much more of a grassroots process based on 

very much the way we run science here in the U.S. And one of the 

nice things is, is that the U.S. was actually ahead in the planning, 

and much of the framework you see was set up by the U.S. science 

community. It’s important to remember, each of these little honeycombs is a group of scientists somewhere between, say, 20 and a 

couple of hundred—who have gotten together and recognized that 

this is an unique opportunity for them to work together. And they 

are working very hard to do exactly what you’re asking, is to leverage the resources, and to be able to go places and ask questions 

and install monitoring systems that, without the IPY, we wouldn’t 

have the motivation to do. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. But who is coordinating so that the 20- 

some-odd scientists that are at the top of the honeycomb over 

here—who’s telling them, ‘‘Look, the same guys are—a different 

group of guys are doing the same project down here. Get together 

with them’’? Is there that level of coordination and collaboration? 

Dr. BELL. There’s no one sitting there—as much fun as it would 

be to be the one sitting there telling everybody they must work together, there’s no one actually saying that groups must work together. These were grouped—all the ideas were put forward internationally. It was very much a sort of web-based approach to this, 

almost like an international dating service for scientists, in that all 

the ideas were put forward first, scientists were able to search the 

database, look for people who had similar ideas, and then out of 

that grew this honeycomb. So, all along there has been an encouragement of the community to work together, but—scientists don’t 

always work together, but all of these are having to go through 

their national programs, and it’s through the national programs, 

it’s through the NSFs, the NOAAs, the NASAs, who are—the agencies are talking between nations. That’s where much of the coordination is actually happening. The ideas are coming out of the scientists, and the coordination is happening at the agency level. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. In your, kind of, summary, you’ve indicated 

if there’s something that needs to be done, we need to have the 

participation, basically a buy-in by the agencies. But your second 

point was, we’ve got to increase the coordination between the 

projects and the countries. So, is the coordination and the commuVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:20 Jan 09, 2012 Jkt 071960 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\71960.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
67 

nication adequate, at this point? If not, what more do we need to 

do? 

Dr. BELL. I think it’s barely adequate. It think it could be better 

if there was, in essence, a little bit more infrastructure working to 

encourage what you’re asking. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. On the U.S., international—— 

Dr. BELL. I think both U.S. and international. I think both of 

them are really being done on a shoestring, at this point. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. And does that go through NSF? 

Dr. BELL. The international coordination is currently housed at 

the British Antarctic Survey, some funding from the British Government, a little bit from the Chinese, and the National Academies 

just put forward some funds to encourage that coordination office 

to move forward. Within the U.S., it’s really being spearheaded by 

NSF and through their interagency coordination. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. And do you think that that’s adequate? 

Dr. BELL. Oh, I think there could be some more coordination 

happening. And I think it really requires more funding. I mean, 

they need a more dedicated effort. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Dr. Parkinson, did you want to chime in 

here? 

Dr. PARKINSON. Yes. Just, perhaps, as an example to help clarify 

the coordination issue. If you look at the honeycomb there, and 

project number 167 is the Arctic Human Health Initiative, and that 

is the—that is a cluster project which is the result of some 13 Letters of Intent and 8 full proposals from researchers who want to 

do health in the Arctic. They have submitted their proposals to the 

International Polar Year Joint Committee, and they are now clustered under the Arctic Human Health Initiative. And that is a coordinating—we are a coordinating body for those projects, and we 

can help coordinate the research and the results, and make sure 

the results are distributed, as well. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. So, you didn’t all come together with the 

same idea. It was a group that was focused on similar issues, and 

you were brought together, this dating service, as Dr. Bell—— 

Dr. PARKINSON. Yes, correct. We had some international meetings. We had meetings in Alaska, we’ve been involved with the native communities across the circumpolar north, to find out what 

their vision was, what their ideas were for health and health research in the IPY. And so, we came back with this laundry list of 

concerns. You know, climate change is certainly one; environmental 

contaminants, so on and so forth. And then, individual researchers 

in various countries came forward with proposals. And one of the 

requirements for the International Polar Year, of course, is that it’s 

international. And so, we would link them up with other investigators in other countries, so they’re all working on the same project. 

And so, we’ll have a international collaborative project on pneumococcal disease or environmental contaminants. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. So, for instance, in your comments you’ve 

mentioned a few health concerns for Arctic people. You mentioned 

the infectious diseases, breast cancer, work-related injuries. Are 

these all areas that we are seeing proposals that have been submitted for—to be approved for IPY projects, then, through your 

cluster of scientists? 

68 

Dr. PARKINSON. Not all of those are addressed. Those were—that 

was just the list of concerns, and investigators with interests in 

those areas can submit proposals—— 

Senator MURKOWSKI. OK. 

Dr. PARKINSON.—apply for funding through their specific funding 

sources in their particular country, and then undertake collaborative research to answer questions in that health arena. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Well, that helps me understand, a little bit 

better, how they come together. 

Dr. Sharpton, I don’t really have a question for you, but I do just 

want to thank you for your statement about how you envision that 

Alaskans and Alaska Natives will be involved, not as subjects, you 

said, but as research partners. And I think we view this as a real 

opportunity. We don’t want to just welcome the scientists to come 

up and use the hotels and charter the air services, we want to help. 

And I hope that we will be viewed as just exactly that: research 

partners. And I would certainly encourage, in as many efforts as 

possible, if we can get the kids involved in the research projects, 

if it’s as simple as going out and collecting bird feathers or whatever it might be, or making observations in their scientific notebooks in sixth grade, what we not only gain is the data that they 

help us with, but you instill a lifetime of scientific exploration in 

these kids, and you can help them make this real, as I mentioned 

in the earlier panel. So, thank you for including them as research 

partners, and we look forward to working with you on that. 

I commend the University of Alaska for their, just, great efforts 

in moving this forward. There were a couple of different issues that 

you had mentioned: the network connectivity, needing to upgrade 

that. I think we recognize that is something that we’ve got to do. 

The mapping is just so obvious, I—I think it still stuns us to recognize how woefully behind we are in our mapping. But we look forward to working with you on those projects, as well. 

Dr. SHARPTON. Thank you. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you. 

Chairman STEVENS. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Running through the comments today, there has been this reference to maps. Now, I’ve been around for a little while, and I’ve 

known some of the things the Navy did there in—during the days 

of our standoff with the Soviet Union, and particularly the submarines. Has anyone checked to see whether the Navy has any 

specific maps that have been made of the areas that we’re concerned with, particularly around our State? 

Dr. SHARPTON. Are you addressing me, Senator? 

Chairman STEVENS. Whoever. 

Dr. SHARPTON. Well, actually, I think probably one of the previous panelists would probably be more appropriate to answer that. 

My interest in maps really extends only to the land areas that 

we have. I think that’s—you know, you use an entirely different 

type of technology for that. 

Chairman STEVENS. Well, I will ask the Coast Guard again, 

but—— 

Dr. SHARPTON. Yes. 

Chairman STEVENS.—it does seem to me that very clearly there 

has been less of a demand for maps in the polar area of the world, 

69 

in terms of population demands. And there’s a great many people 

visiting—more people visiting Florida than there are the beaches 

around Barrow, so we understand the lack of maps. But I’m going 

to try to get a handle on, how important are these maps to the proceedings under the IPY? Dr. Bell, do you have any feeling about— 

how important are maps to us before we complete this IPY? 

Dr. BELL. Well, you’re talking to somebody who, you know, lives 

for understanding what’s underneath ice sheets. So—and maps are 

how I do it, so I’m terribly prejudiced on this front. But one of— 

there a couple of issues, in terms of the North. There is the mapping offshore, which is certainly something you alluded to before. 

And there have been efforts to release some of the Navy data. And 

there are a number of people who could update you on exactly how 

much the Navy submarine data, at this point, has been released. 

Certainly, moving to where we better understand both poles, in 

terms of what’s underneath the ice, whether it’s the floating ice or 

the ice that’s fixed, is one of those goals, I think, that the science 

community has put forward as something that would be wonderful 

to come out of the IPY. It’s—in the southern regions, there are actually features the size of the Alps that we don’t know about, because we only have one profile. It’s actually worse than Alaska, in 

Antarctica, in terms of understanding what the basic topography of 

our planet looks like. We understand Mars much better. So, it is 

one of those tremendous outstanding needs of our planet, to know 

what the fundamental shape of it is beneath both poles, because 

it’s what underneath that’s going to control how ice is going to 

move in the long run. 

Chairman STEVENS. And are you privy to the type of technology 

base we have now for that mapping? Is it adequate to do the mapping you want? 

Dr. BELL. Oh, do we have the—the technology exists to do it, it’s 

really whether or not there are the focus programs that are going 

to go out—well, I’m not—I’ve been primarily—I have not talked 

about on-land mapping in Alaska. 

Chairman STEVENS. No, I’m not talking on—— 

Dr. BELL. OK. 

Chairman STEVENS. I—— 

Dr. BELL. You’re talking—— 

Chairman STEVENS. We are—— 

Dr. BELL.—underneath—— 

Chairman STEVENS.—proceeding with the on-land mapping 

through Interior on an annual—— 

Dr. BELL. Right. 

Chairman STEVENS.—basis. It’s—— 

Dr. BELL. Right. 

Chairman STEVENS.—coming along pretty well. 

Dr. BELL. Right. 

Chairman STEVENS. But the offshore, I don’t think we have ever 

had a request for any. 

Dr. BELL. For mapping all of the offshore. 

Chairman STEVENS. Yes. 

Dr. BELL. I don’t think we have. I think you’re right. 

Chairman STEVENS. You’re—— 

Dr. BELL. It’s been very much—— 

70 

Chairman STEVENS.—really interested in the characteristics of 

the ocean floor—— 

Dr. BELL. Right. 

Chairman STEVENS.—right? 

Dr. BELL. Right. Ocean floor and sub-ice. I’m continuing to wear 

my hat of looking at both poles, and sub-ice in both poles is a key 

unknown on our planet. 

Chairman STEVENS. Well, I shall ask the staff to prepare a request from me from the—to the Department of the Navy to find out 

precisely what they have and how classified it is. 

Dr. BELL. Yes. 

Chairman STEVENS. I think that ought to be a starting point. 

Now, with regard to this IPY—again, running through the testimony we’ve had is the question about a little bit more urgency, in 

terms of funding. Each of your agencies that are—each entity you 

have—not just entities, but—has some funding. Is this something 

I should have asked Mead Treadwell’s—who is going to put together the proposal for the money that we—that you all would like 

to have, as opposed to what you’ve got? 

Dr. Armstrong? 

Dr. ARMSTRONG. Yes, you—again, going back to the USGS IPY 

activities, these are part of our core program. This is work that is 

either being conducted or will be conducted from our appropriated 

funds. We typically—like with the Yukon Basin study, we will be 

pursuing additional funding for that activity as part of my Earth 

Surface Dynamics Program, but it’s on a program-by-program 

basis. But the activities that I outlined today are activities that are 

currently funded within our core program. 

Chairman STEVENS. Well, if I were to seek to add some money 

to one of these appropriations bills, there would be another scream 

about pork. Frozen pork, I guess would be this one. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman STEVENS. But are we to—are we going to see some 

sort of collaboration with regard to how much money is needed to 

make IPY a—really, the kind of function we want it to be, and how 

those moneys would be allocated? Is that, again, a question I 

should have asked the previous panel? 

Dr. BELL. I think it would have been good to ask the previous 

panel. And I can offer you the little bit of work we did on this 

through the National Academies. We did two parts of planning. We 

put together the Vision Report that very much reflects the frontiers 

and the environmental change, themes I put on the table today, 

plus involving the humans in the polar regions. That came out of 

the Vision Report. But, following that, we held an interagency 

workshop where we brought together the agencies and had them 

discuss about what they do, and made a wish list, you know, because, at that point, people were being very conservative. And so, 

at that point there was a wish list made, and an order-of-magnitude number put on the table, but nobody’s gone back and systematically looked through what’s possible to do now and what sort 

of numbers would be necessary. 

Chairman STEVENS. Do you need ships, surface ships, for your 

type of—developing the kind of information you need? 

Dr. BELL. Me, personally? I use—— 

71 

Chairman STEVENS. No—— 

Dr. BELL.—airplanes. 

Chairman STEVENS.—your part of this basic research. 

Dr. BELL. Oh, on—the basic research will involve ships, airplanes, and satellites. It will involve every tool—as well as, you 

know, autonomous vehicles, whether they fly or swim. I mean, the 

goal is to use all the technology that we have in our toolbox today. 

Chairman STEVENS. Dr. Bement, you’re still here, aren’t you, 

somewhere? He left? All right. Well, I’ll send him a letter and ask 

him about it. We just have a provision in a bill that just is ready 

to pass, that the NSF must pay the Coast Guard for the use of the 

vessels that they want to use in their basic research projects. 

There’s a problem there of one agency assuming that the other 

agency is going to put up the money for their functions. But I’m 

trying to get a grasp on the concepts of what we need to make sure 

we—you go forward. How much does—let me back up and say—I 

tried to build a new Arctic Research Institute building in Barrow. 

I’m sure you all know that. But we have not succeeded yet. Is that 

going to be needed for this function? Is it necessary to have any 

more facilities in Alaska to carry out the work that you would all 

like to see being done? 

Dr. Sharpton, what do you think? 

Dr. SHARPTON. Well, I think, with the new facility that’s being 

constructed, now, Senator Stevens, we probably have ample, but 

not excessive, infrastructure for Barrow. The real issue for Barrow, 

in my estimation, is providing the connectivity with the rest of the 

world. I mean, you know, it is going to be a site of tremendous scientific activity, and we’ve got to be able to get that information 

from Barrow to the rest of the world in an effective way. And so, 

having some means of telecommunications that is reliable and 

broadband is going to be absolutely essential. 

Chairman STEVENS. That would be simple to do if we could get 

the communications bill that’s currently stalled on the floor of the 

Senate. But I will look into that, yes. 

Are there—is there anything else that you all think that is necessary to pursue this IPY that we do not have currently scheduled 

for—in terms of funding? 

[No response.] 

Chairman STEVENS. Any activities? Let me just go to Dr. Bell. 

Dr. BELL. Well, I think, in essence, what the science community 

has been concerned about is whether or not—and this is why I 

don’t think you can—it would be called ‘‘polar pork’’—is because 

what the science community is looking for is funds to compete for— 

you know, funds that will go through the peer-review process. And 

the science community is concerned whether or not there will be 

any incremental new funds, and how much new funds. The orderof-magnitude number that was talked about at that workshop was 

on the order or $500 million new funds across the agency. 

Chairman STEVENS. In what period of time? 

Dr. BELL. Over the course of 4 years. 

Chairman STEVENS. All right. That’s—— 

Dr. BELL. And—— 

Chairman STEVENS.—a good figure. Dr.—— 

Dr. BELL. Right. 

72 

Chairman STEVENS.—Sharpton, what do you think? 

Dr. SHARPTON. Well, as far as additional funding, we certainly 

need to have the Arctic Region Research Vessel funded. I think 

that’s going to be an important element. It’s probably not going to 

come online—obviously, it won’t come online for IPY, but it can be 

considered one of those—one of those legacies that fall out of global 

attention to polar activity, polar issues during IPY. 

Chairman STEVENS. How would you—well, let me finish this 

question first. What do you think, Dr. Parkinson? 

Dr. PARKINSON. In terms of funding, Senator? 

Chairman STEVENS. Yes. 

Dr. PARKINSON. I’m—— 

Chairman STEVENS. What funding do you think we need that we 

don’t have? 

Dr. PARKINSON. I’m not aware of any specific funding for health, 

so to speak. A number of agencies are involved in the Arctic 

Human Health Initiative. What—the way we have been looking at 

it up until now is that it’s some—like a potluck, where each agency 

brings something to the table, and we are hoping that there’s 

enough to go around. 

Chairman STEVENS. And you, Dr. Armstrong? 

Dr. ARMSTRONG. As I said, we have a substantial amount of core 

funding in Arctic and Antarctic research, about $25 million, at 

USGS. We are trying to promote the establishment of larger programs in the Arctic, in Alaska, in the sub-Arctic. I—from a programmatic perspective, more money for monitoring—we can, in 

Alaska, a State that’s so important to understanding climate 

change in sensitive areas, the need for more stream gauges for carbon flex monitoring, those are examples of things that we certainly 

need more of. And—but it’s not just for USGS or the Department 

of the Interior, it’s in cooperation with our partners at the universities—NASA, NOAA, NSF. And these are discussions that are— 

we have at the Climate Change Science Program, where we all get 

together and talk about priorities in the Arctic and the Antarctic. 

So, it’s—there’s always a need for more work to enhance what 

we’re doing, and more funding for that. But those are just a couple 

of examples of things that are really needed in a place like Alaska, 

where, you know, for the issues that we’re talking about, there is 

a need for substantial infrastructure. 

Chairman STEVENS. How do you think our contribution as a nation to this IPY compares to other countries that are involved? 

Have—anybody got any judgment on that? Do you, Dr. Bell? 

Dr. BELL. I think, intellectually, so far, we’ve been playing a 

leading role. Many of the programs you’re familiar with—the 

SEARCH program, for example, the study of environmental change 

in the Arctic—are an integral part of the fabric and—of that overwhelming honeycomb diagram. That really captures much of the 

planning that came out of the U.S. science community. 

I think—relative to putting the resources on the table, I think we have not—the Canadians have put $125 million, the Chinese have 

put $65 million, and a number of places are building new ships or 

new stations. So, I don’t think we’ve quite stepped up to the plate 

as much as we can, as a nation, or as much as we need to, financially, to assure the leadership that we’re, sort of, posed to grab. 

73 

Chairman STEVENS. Mead, how long before that wish list of 

yours will be ready? 

Mr. TREADWELL. We can give you an analysis of what’s in the 

Arctic plan and what’s not in the budget soon. I’ve got an analysis 

of what was appropriated in NOAA last year and not requested 

this year, and we can get you those things. 

Chairman STEVENS. How long will that take to get together? 

Mr. TREADWELL. We can get you some numbers today, Senator. 

Chairman STEVENS. I don’t need it today. I mean—in time. 

Mr. TREADWELL. The Commission will be meeting the 9th and 

10th of October, and we could resolve something by that time. 

Chairman STEVENS. All right. My feeling is, we ought to have, 

maybe, a teleconference session to really examine—when Mead 

gets that together—to see whether you all agree, and then we 

ought to try to see if we can get an appointment with OMB and 

Josh Bolten to see how we can get some energy behind this movement. I think we ought to be in the forefront of it. If we’re not, 

we’re going to be left behind. I’m thinking about the study that 

shows how we’re far behind in educating our people now. I don’t 

think we can afford to get behind in this, now. This is something 

we should stay ahead of. And it might be a stimulus to help us play 

catch-up, in terms of some of the education we need for science, 

math, and technology. 

So, I’m going to—you deal with the substance, milady, I’ll try to 

deal with the money. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. That works for me, Senator. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman STEVENS. We thank you very much and appreciate 

your courtesy of being with us. We look forward to working with 

you. I think that this is a stimulating thing, as far as Alaska is 

concerned, and we want to try and stay on top of it. But it cannot 

turn into being just an Alaska item or it’ll just be knocked aside 

as another one of those, you know, things that have four legs and 

a swirly tail. So—— 

Dr. BELL. That’s why it’s so important to consider both poles as 

we move forward. 

Chairman STEVENS. I’ve been down to Antarctica. 

Dr. BELL. Yes? 

Chairman STEVENS. We’ve got another scheduled trip down 

there. 

Dr. BELL. Good. 

Chairman STEVENS. We should go down again, and—— 

Dr. BELL. Good. 

Chairman STEVENS.—maybe some of you could go along with us. 

Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 5:20 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(75) 

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE, U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII

Chairman Stevens, Senator Murkowski, thank you for calling attention to the upcoming International Polar Year (IPY). I look forward to celebrating 125 years of 

scientific achievement and international collaboration and expanding on this legacy 

of polar research in 2007 and 2008. 

I am excited by the prospect that this upcoming ‘burst’ in scientific research will 

lead to a greater understanding of the unprecedented environmental change currently underway at the polar regions. 

Today we face many environmental issues, but one of the greatest is global climate change. The indigenous people of the Arctic already see the effect of climate 

change on their lives, but it is only a matter of time before the impact of these 

changes will be felt around the globe. 

For example, as the Earth’s temperature has increased, the melting of icecaps and 

glaciers has become evident. 

By 2100, sea levels could be several feet higher than they are now, which would 

have devastating effects on coastal areas, including my home State of Hawaii and 

the other Pacific Island nations. 

We have already seen the powerful destruction a tsunami or severe weather can 

have on our low-lying islands, and this damage will be magnified under the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) projections of a one to 

three foot rise in sea level. 

The polar regions are important places for the United States to research and I 

am pleased that the Committees will hear about the United States’ current plans 

to participate in the upcoming IPY, as well as actions we still must take to ensure 

the United States continues to support this significant research. 

This effort also should attract a new generation of scientists to the study of our 

Earth systems—and the oceanic and atmospheric forces that drive the system. 

However, I am concerned that the Administration has not provided sufficient support to NOAA and the Coast Guard to make this IPY a true success, and I hope 

our witnesses speak to that issue. 

Adequate U.S. support for IPY is vital, not only because the scientific findings 

from this IPY will encourage us to be better stewards of the health of this planet, 

but because its true and lasting legacy will be a new generation of Earth scientists—a generation that will be tapped to reverse the awful trajectory of global 

warming. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY

Let me thank both Chairs for today’s hearing. I strongly support America’s participation in the upcoming International Polar Year. In 1882, twelve countries set 

out on fifteen expeditions in the First International Polar Year. That expedition 

taught us lessons about Earth’s science and geography we still rely on. It also 

taught us the value of international science cooperation—a legacy I hope we will 

continue. 

I have been to Antarctica and to the Arctic. I know that changes are underway 

that can alter the marine life at both poles, raise each region’s temperatures, and 

increase the sea level across our planet. Many of these changes are the result of 

global warming, and I hope the coming International Polar Year will deepen our 

knowledge into the harm global warming causes to our polar regions and globe. 

Several Federal agencies will help contribute to the success of the International 

Polar Year, including the NSF, the Coast Guard, and NOAA. I hope the impacts 

of global warming, including its role in changing the ocean food chain, will be a 

major part of our Nation’s research agenda for the International Polar Year. 

76 

I also want to talk about the condition of the Coast Guard’s icebreakers. We have 

three vessels which break polar ice and serve as research platforms for our scientists. Two of these icebreakers are thirty years old and rife with maintenance 

trouble. Congress has provided insufficient funding for the Coast Guard in the past 

and I hope we will not repeat that mistake. Let us give the Coast Guard the money 

it needs, both for the Arctic and Antarctica, and for protection of America’s seas. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC

ADMINISTRATION (NOAA), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

This statement for the record will provide a brief background on International 

Polar Year (IPY), and discuss how the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) supports this important research opportunity. IPY is an excellent 

opportunity to advance science and Earth observations in the polar regions. Our 

statement summarizes our initial plans and provides an update to expected IPY activities during Fiscal Year 2007 to Fiscal Year 2009. 

IPY has been declared by the International Council of Science (ICSU) and the 

U.S. National Academies to extend from March 2007 through March 2009. The objectives of IPY are to explore new frontiers in polar sciences; improve our understanding of the critical role of the Earth’s polar regions in global processes; create 

a legacy of infrastructure and data for future generations of scientists; expand international cooperation; engage the public in polar discovery; and help attract and educate the next generation of scientists and engineers. 

NOAA began planning for IPY activities in the Fall of 2004. NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research and programs across NOAA are using existing resources to conduct IPY-related activities. Our statement highlights work on 11 

NOAA IPY-related projects. Each of these projects is associated with a formal International Council for Science-World Meteorological Organization (ICSU–WMO) IPYendorsed project. These projects will contribute new data to Earth observing efforts, 

such as the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS), and will advance understanding and predictability of the polar environment in NOAA’s mission 

areas. 

IPY Activities 

Ocean Exploration in Polar Regions 

NOAA’s Office of Ocean Exploration (OE) solicited specific projects for IPY via 

Federal Register announcements in calendar years 2005 and 2006. OE also expects 

to solicit IPY-related projects during the calendar year 2007 Federal Register notice. 

OE, together with the NOAA Arctic Research Program and the Russian Academy 

of Sciences, plans to facilitate an expedition to the Arctic Ocean in 2008, as part 

of the ongoing RUSALCA (Russian American Long-term Census of the Arctic) program. The expedition will carry out a census of life in the unknown waters of the 

Arctic north of the United States and Russia, from the sea ice to the seafloor below. 

This information provides background observations necessary for the monitoring of 

changing ecosystems in the Pacific Region of the Arctic. 

Causes and Impacts of Recent Changes in the Arctic Ocean 

Unprecedented minima of sea ice area have occurred in the Arctic Ocean during 

the four most recent summers. Summer 2003 and 2004 brought record forest fires 

and drought to eastern Siberia and Alaska after a decade of warm springtime temperature anomalies. In surrounding seas there has been a northward shift of icedependent marine animals. Changes in the Arctic Ocean are continuing, despite the 

observation that climate indices such as the Arctic Oscillation were negative or neutral for six of the last 9 years. The Arctic Ocean may have a larger role in shaping 

the persistence of Arctic change than has been previously recognized. We will work 

with our partners to carry out observations in this area to measure movement of 

water through the Bering Strait, gather observations about physical change in the 

state of the ocean in the Bering and Chukchi Seas, and study impacts of physical 

change on marine ecosystems in this region. Bering Strait mooring programs will 

be conducted, as well as mooring and ship-board studies in the eastern Bering Sea. 

Limited ship-board studies will be made in ice-free areas in the vicinity of Bering 

Strait and Chukchi Sea in association with mooring cruises. (For more information, 

see www.arctic.noaa.gov.) 

Polar Atmospheric Observatories and Field Campaigns 

As part of the IPY project ‘‘International Arctic System for Observing the Atmosphere,’’ a system of strategically located, long-term atmospheric observatories will 

77 

be developed around the Arctic to carry out both routine measurements made at meteorological stations and intensive measurements at the surface and through the 

depth of the atmosphere. Measured quantities can include solar radiation, aerosols, 

air chemistry, trace gases, cloud properties, water vapor, ozone, temperatures, 

winds, precipitation, surface albedo, and stratospheric properties. These measurements are essential to calibrate and validate satellite sensors and to improve the 

reliability of climate models. The atmospheric observatory partnership includes the 

United States, Canada, Russia, Norway, Finland, and China. NOAA’s existing baseline observatories at Barrow Alaska and South Pole will continue to focus on measurements of trace gases and aerosols. 

Polar Stratospheric Ozone Depletion Observations 

As a part of the International Geophysical Year in 1957, column ozone measurements were initiated at South Pole, Antarctica, using Dobson spectrometers. NOAA 

scientist, Susan Solomon, was the leading scientist in identifying the cause of the 

annual stratospheric ozone depletion over Antarctic known as the ozone hole, first 

observed in the early 1980s. Solomon and her colleagues suggested that chemical 

reactions involving man-made chlorine from chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) interacting 

with icy clouds in the cold polar stratosphere could be responsible for the unprecedented losses of ozone during the Antarctic springtime. She then led two U.S. scientific expeditions to Antarctica in 1986 and 1987 that succeeded in providing key 

observations confirming the theory. The Arctic stratospheric ozone changes, though 

lesser in magnitude than the Antarctic ozone hole, are by no means of lesser importance. Key studies will be undertaken in the Arctic to monitor these changes. Routine observations of ozone will continue at Barrow and South Pole during IPY. 

These projects are continuations of NOAA’s ongoing stratospheric ozone depletion 

measurement programs. 

Antarctic Living Marine Resource Survey 

The principal objective of the NOAA Antarctic Living Marine Resource research 

program is to collect the scientific information needed to detect, monitor, and predict 

the effects of harvesting and associated activities on target, dependent, and related 

species and populations of the Antarctic marine living resources and the ecosystem(s) of which they are a part. A 35-day ship-based research program is 

planned for Fiscal Year 2007. 

Short-Term Arctic Predictability 

A scientific study in short-term Arctic predictability will explore the variability, 

and associated predictability of weather, sea ice, ocean wave, and land surface processes in the Arctic Region in the 3–90 days time range, with special emphasis on 

improving forecast guidance for high impact events in the 3–14 day lead time range. 

NOAA will complete a study of northwest Alaskan coastal waves during the IPY. 

NOAA will also participate in sea ice studies at both poles aimed at improving 

measurement of ice thickness and forecasting. The NOAA THORPEX program will 

make observations and introduce forecast products to improve weather and 

intraseasonal forecasts for the Arctic. 

Advances in Satellite Products and Their Use in Numerical Weather Prediction 

Spatially comprehensive observations of the atmosphere in the data-sparse polar 

regions significantly and positively impact high latitude numerical weather predictions. In addition, errors in model forecasts for the high latitudes often propagate 

to the mid-latitudes, implying that improvements to high latitude forecasts will result in better mid-latitude forecasts. These findings provide the motivation to improve our ability to measure the state of the polar regions with satellites and to expand the use of these data in numerical weather prediction systems. NOAA will participate in IPY projects to improve the application of satellite sensors to environmental problems in the polar regions. 

Arctic Climate Modeling 

The general goal of the Arctic climate modeling project is to improve predictions 

of the Arctic environment on timescales ranging from seasonal to decadal. Thus, our 

research will focus on analyzing and modeling the physical processes and connections between the Arctic and the rest of the globe. NOAA will continue to improve 

global climate models that include polar processes. 

Arctic System Reanalysis 

A concerted effort during IPY to construct pan-Arctic atmosphere-ocean-ice-land 

datasets, and to assimilate and enhance these with a high-resolution (coupled) reanalysis system optimized for the Arctic region, will provide researchers with an unVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:20 Jan 09, 2012 Jkt 071960 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\71960.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
78 

precedented description of the Arctic environment over the past several decades. 

The operational analysis system (post 2008), expected to be a legacy of this activity 

should provide constantly updated depictions of the Arctic environment, and foster 

improved short- and medium-range weather forecasts as well as seasonal climate 

outlooks. Improved understanding of Arctic climate processes resulting from development of the Arctic System Reanalysis (ASR) will lead to better global climate 

models, in turn reducing uncertainty in projected future climate states of the Arctic. 

The ASR will also serve as a vehicle for diagnostic evaluation of ongoing changes 

in the Arctic system. 

NOAA’s Data, Information, and Change Detection Strategy for IPY 

NOAA’s fundamental data management responsibilities will be to securely archive 

IPY datasets and ensure that these and relevant polar data are easily accessible for 

current and future users. NOAA will utilize the existing World Data Center (WDC) 

System and NOAA’s National Data Centers in order to serve as a clearinghouse and 

facilitator for data-management issues, and will work with IPY participants to ensure that International Council of Scientific Unions-World Meteorological Organization (ICSU–WMO) IPY Data Committee guidelines are followed. NOAA will also ensure that international standards such as the Open Archival Information System 

Reference Model and the ISO19115 metadata standards are met. 

NOAA intends to build and maintain a pan-Arctic view of climate variability and 

change that will serve decisionmakers with information products. These range from 

baseline atlases against which future assessments can be carried out, to the Near 

Real-time Arctic Change Indicator website (http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/), 

where information on the present state of Arctic ecosystems and climate is given 

in historical context. NOAA Data Centers will assist NOAA scientists to archive 

their IPY data. NOAA will continue to acquire historical data and present it on the 

Arctic Change Indicator website to describe the state of the Arctic climate over the 

past 150 years, allowing a better context for new data collected during IPY. 

Decision Support for Increasing Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change and Variability in Alaska and the Arctic 

The cornerstone of NOAA’s Regional Climate Decision Support program for Alaska and the Arctic is to establish an integrated program spanning stakeholder-influenced research and development of decision-support tools for the sustained delivery 

of customer services. This includes establishing in Alaska a Regional Integrated 

Sciences & Assessments (RISA) to foster growth of climate services. NOAA plans to 

initiate the Alaska RISA, in 2006, through the University of Alaska. The Alaska 

RISA is a 5-year program designed to address regionally important climate issues 

to aid policy and decisionmaking. The Alaska RISA program could contribute significant results to our understanding of key climate related challenges facing the state, 

and would allow for innovative partnerships with neighboring countries. 

NOAA is part of the U.S. presence in the Arctic Council. The Arctic Council plans 

to conduct several assessments during the IPY period, including the Arctic Marine 

Shipping Assessment, an assessment of the Arctic carbon cycle, and others. NOAA 

will provide expertise and financial support within available resources. NOAA expects to contribute to the Arctic Council climate-related assessment tasks during 

IPY. 

Other Activities 

Ice Services 

The National Ice Center (NIC) is a U.S. Government agency that brings together 

elements from NOAA, the U.S. Navy, and the U.S. Coast Guard to support coastal 

and marine sea ice operations and research globally. The mission of the NIC is to 

provide the highest quality strategic and tactical ice services tailored to meet operational requirements of U.S. national interests. Over the Arctic, particularly, the 

NIC provides operational strategic basin-scale sea ice charting. The NIC products 

include a hemispheric and over 30 individual regional charts, sea ice tactical ice 

navigation support, Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea ice seasonal forecasts. In addition, the NIC supports the development of sea ice climatology for the Arctic, and 

manages the U.S. Interagency Arctic Buoy Program (USIABP). The NIC is participating directly or indirectly in an increased number of research and application cooperative projects with other national and international groups as part of IPY activities throughout 2007 and 2008. 

Snow and Ice Data 

NOAA’s National Data Centers handle a wide variety of Arctic data. An affiliated 

data center, the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), part of the CooperaVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:20 Jan 09, 2012 Jkt 071960 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\71960.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
79 

tive Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at the University of 

Colorado, Boulder, has a NOAA NESDIS supported program (http://nsidc.org/ 

noaa/) to produce and manage selected datasets. Significant datasets are the Online 

Glacier Photograph Collection of over 3,000 photographs dating to the late 1800s; 

upward looking sonar data from submarines, providing estimates of sea ice thickness; and the Sea Ice Index, a site that shows, with graphical products, trends and 

anomalies in sea ice cover. Overall, the NOAA team at the NSIDC emphasizes data 

rescue and in situ data. This emphasis helps collect and maintain the long-time series with broad spatial coverage that is necessary to track and attribute Arctic 

change. The program complements the activities of the Distributed Active Archive 

Center, a NASA funded center at NSIDC that supports the bulk of NSIDC’s activities. 

Education 

NOAA’s Climate Program Office is leading a NOAA-wide effort with respect to the 

IPY. The Climate Literacy Working Group, based at the Climate Program Office, 

is coordinating NOAA-wide IPY education and outreach activities with the NOAA 

Office of Education. The NOAA IPY effort is part of the NSF-led interagency IPY 

education effort, and will collaborate and coordinate their efforts with agencies participating in the IPY. Several formal and informal education initiatives are focusing 

primarily on teacher professional and science center or museum exhibitions. In addition, several formal lesson plans will be developed as part of our IPY efforts. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE TO

VICE ADMIRAL ROBERT PAPP

Question 1. How much would it cost and how long would it take to replace the 

POLAR STAR and POLAR SEA? 

Answer. Initial estimates to replace the POLAR STAR and POLAR SEA are $600 to $700 million per vessel (2006 dollars). A more accurate assessment of resource 

needs will be required after the capability and initial design requirements are completed during the major acquisition process. 

Once funds are appropriated for a polar icebreaker major acquisition, it will take 

approximately 8 to 10 years to complete construction of the polar icebreakers and 

have them ready to support polar operations. 

Question 2. Can we expect funding in the Fiscal Year 2008 budget request to 

begin the process of replacing these two icebreakers? If not, why not? 

Answer. No. Although the recently released National Research Council’s (NRC) 

report ‘‘Polar Icebreakers in a Changing World: An Assessment of U.S. Needs’’ recommended the ‘‘United States immediately program, budget, design, and construct 

two new polar icebreakers to be operated by the Coast Guard,’’ the Coast Guard is 

seeking an updated national policy on icebreaking before the service begins the acquisition. The Coast Guard is in the process of requesting a revised national policy 

from the National Security Council (NSC), and will be poised to start the acquisition 

if the Administration identifies the Coast Guard as the best Agency to continue providing national icebreaking services. 

Question 3. Does the Administration and Coast Guard have a plan for how the 

United States is going to meet our immediate icebreaker needs until the POLAR 

STAR and POLAR SEA can be replaced? 

Answer. Provided a national policy decision is made that identifies the Coast 

Guard as the lead agency for icebreaking operations, it will take approximately 8– 

10 years to complete a major acquisition to replace POLAR SEA and POLAR STAR. 

In the interim, provided NSF will adequately fund, the Coast Guard will: 

1. Continue sustainment maintenance work on POLAR SEA to gain additional 

years of service-life. 

2. Recommend completing sustainment maintenance on POLAR STAR similar 

to what has been completed on POLAR SEA. Over a 2 to 3 year period, this 

would likely require $25 to $30 million additional funds but would extend the 

life of POLAR STAR by 4–8 years, and effectively restore the U.S. polar icebreaker fleet to three vessels. This would reduce operational risk to the U.S. 

Antarctic Program and would eliminate NSF’s need to rely on foreign icebreakers. 

3. Investigate increasing HEALY’s annual operating days. HEALY currently operates at a Coast Guard standard 185 days away from homeport each year with 

one crew. The Coast Guard is investigating crewing options and resource requirements to increase the annual use of HEALY in the Arctic. 

80 

Question 4. What does the Coast Guard recommend as a strategy to fill our gaps 

in capacity during this transition period? 

Answer. If a national policy decision were to be made that identifies the Coast 

Guard as the lead agency for icebreaking operations, it will take approximately 8– 

10 years to complete a major acquisition to replace POLAR SEA and POLAR STAR. 

If the Coast Guard is identified as the lead agency, then along with continuing 

sustainment maintenance work on POLAR SEA, the Coast Guard would also recommend: 

1. Completing sustainment maintenance on POLAR STAR similar to what has 

been completed on POLAR SEA. Over a 2 to 3 year period, this would likely 

require $25 to $30 million additional funds, but would extend the life of POLAR 

STAR by 4–8 years, and effectively restore the U.S. polar icebreaker fleet to 

three vessels. This would reduce operational risk to the U.S. Antarctic Program 

and would eliminate NSF’s need to rely on foreign icebreakers. 

2. Increasing HEALY’s annual operating days. HEALY currently operates at a 

Coast Guard standard 185 days away from homeport each year with one crew. 

The Coast Guard is investigating crewing options and resource requirements to 

increase the annual use of HEALY in the Arctic. 

3. Restoring budget authority for polar icebreakers to the Coast Guard and 

funding the program to sufficiently support three polar icebreakers. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG TO

VICE ADMIRAL ROBERT PAPP

Question 1. Has funding been adequate to maintain all three of the Coast Guard’s 

icebreakers? 

Answer. No. In order to fully support the HEALY and POLAR SEA’s operations 

and maintenance needs, the National Science Foundation (NSF) decided to place 

POLAR STAR ‘‘In Commission, Special’’ caretaker status. 

Question 2. How is the Coast Guard going to carry out its polar icebreaking mission now and in the future, given the state of the two polar icebreakers? 

Answer. Given that appropriations for polar icebreaking operations were transferred to the National Science Foundation (NSF) in FY06, and the NSF now pays 

the Coast Guard to operate and maintain the polar icebreaking fleet, all missions 

are executed only after close coordination between the NSF and Coast Guard. 

To help preserve the Coast Guard’s ability to be the sole U.S. provider of polar 

icebreaking services, POLAR SEA recently completed nearly 2 years of sustainment 

maintenance which should extend its service life by approximately 4–8 years, depending on ice conditions and annual use. 

Historically, POLAR SEA and POLAR STAR would alternate Deep Freeze missions due to the arduous nature of the ice conditions encountered, and to allow a 

backup in case the primary vessel broke down. This practice aligns with the 1990 

Presidential Determination on polar icebreakers, which the Coast Guard still considers to be sound policy. 

With the POLAR STAR in caretaker status, the National Science Foundation 

(NSF) plans to use foreign icebreakers to provide contingency capability in the Antarctic, and therefore is willing to accept a higher level of risk to the mission. To 

reengage POLAR STAR for an extended period of time, it would require approximately 2 years of sustainment maintenance similar to what POLAR SEA recently 

completed. 

HEALY was commissioned in 1999, and is operating well. The Coast Guard is 

studying options to increase HEALY’s annual Days Away from Homeport (DAFHP) 

from the service-standard 185 to up to 300 days per year to accommodate national 

polar research demands. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARIA CANTWELL TO

VICE ADMIRAL ROBERT PAPP

Question 1. In their recent report ‘‘Polar Icebreakers in a Changing World: An Assessment of U.S. Needs,’’ The National Academy of Sciences concludes that with repair work deferred due to inadequate funding ‘‘U.S. icebreaking capability is now 

at risk of being unable to support national interests in the north and south.’’ Does 

this assessment fit with the Coast Guard’s view of current icebreaking operations? 

If so, what is the level of resources necessary in order to ensure adequate 

icebreaking capacity? 

81 

Answer. Yes. By putting the POLAR STAR in caretaker status, the National 

Science Foundation (NSF) has accepted a higher level of risk to the U.S. Antarctic 

Program resupply effort. 

To maintain an acceptable level of risk, two heavy icebreakers are needed for the 

McMurdo icebreaker mission. Rather than keep POLAR STAR in service, NSF has 

opted to contract with foreign icebreakers to backup POLAR SEA. In 2005 and 2006, 

NSF contracted the Russian icebreaker KRASIN, and NSF has contracted the Swedish icebreaker ODEN for 2007. Not only are these icebreakers less capable than 

POLAR STAR, they are also subject to being reprioritized by their company or country to support non-U.S. missions. 

In the long-term, three properly configured U.S. polar icebreakers would be sufficient to support the annual U.S. Antarctic Program resupply effort and maintain a 

continuous presence in the Arctic. To further meet the needs of the polar research 

community the Coast Guard is investigating options to increase HEALY operational 

days from 185 to 300 days per year. A fleet mix analysis is necessary, but additional 

ice-strengthened vessels may also be required to preserve future national interests 

in the Arctic. 

Question 2. The POLAR SEA and the POLAR STAR are nearing the end of their 

thirty-year design lives. The National Academy of Sciences recommends that the 

Coast Guard ‘‘immediately program, budget, design, and construct two new polar 

icebreakers to be operated by the U.S. Coast Guard’’ to replace these aging assets. 

Do you agree with this recommendation? 

Answer. A national policy decision by the Administration would have to identify 

the Coast Guard as the primary national service provider for icebreaking before the 

service would commence a major acquisition project to replace POLAR SEA and 

POLAR STAR. 

Question 3. Has the Coast Guard begun to take steps to plan for the long-term 

replacement or recapitalization of these unique assets, and if so, could you please 

describe these steps for me? 

Answer. Yes, to prepare for the Administration’s revised national policy decision, 

the Coast Guard has completed some preliminary steps to support long-term replacement or recapitalization. In 2005, the Coast Guard completed a mission analysis study and funded the National Research Council’s assessment of polar icebreaker needs in 2006. In addition, the Coast Guard has completed some preliminary analysis on Service Life Extension Project (SLEP) options for the POLAR SEA 

and POLAR STAR. However, a national policy decision by the Administration would 

have to identify the Coast Guard as the primary national service provider for 

icebreaking before the service would commence a major acquisition project to replace POLAR SEA and POLAR STAR. 

Question 4. As you know, the Administration is again proposing that funding for 

the Coast Guard’s polar icebreaker fleet be routed through the National Science 

Foundation (NSF), despite recommendations by the National Research Council 

(NRC) that the Coast Guard should be budgeted funds to maintain the fleet. Admiral, has this arrangement worked to the satisfaction of the Coast Guard? 

What steps will the Coast Guard take this year to ensure transfer of funds from 

NSF in a timely fashion? 

Answer. In the short-term, this arrangement has worked, since it has isolated the 

polar icebreaker budget from other Coast Guard programs. 

In the long-term, NSF and several of their Congressional staffs have stated that 

if the polar icebreaker budget authority remains with NSF, then NSF should only 

be required to support NSF’s mandates; not all USCG mandates that pertain to use 

of the polar icebreakers (i.e. Enforcement of Laws & Treaties, Search & Rescue, or 

Pollution response). Since the frequency and importance of other USCG missions are 

expected to expand in the Arctic and Antarctic, continued funding through NSF 

could become more problematic. In addition, NSF has stated that they prefer to contract polar icebreaker services. The Coast Guard has already seen NSF reprioritize 

polar icebreaker funds to contract for foreign icebreakers to support the U.S. Antarctic Program. Use of foreign icebreakers weakens the U.S. polar icebreaker program and diminishes our ability to project power and influence into the polar regions at a time of growing interest, especially in the Arctic. The NRC report, and 

the 1990 Presidential Determination on U.S. polar icebreaker requirements, state 

that national sovereignty and projection of power and influence are key aspects of 

the U.S. polar icebreaker program. 

For Fiscal Year 2007, the Coast Guard has submitted a spend plan to NSF requesting $57 million. NSF is currently reviewing the spend plan. Even though the 

spend plan is still being negotiated, NSF has given the Coast Guard authority to 

82 

spend $20 million during the first quarter of FY07 while NSF operates under a continuing resolution. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE TO

DR. ARDEN L. BEMENT, JR. 

Question 1. The IPY envisions establishment of polar observing equipment and 

monitoring systems that will eventually need to be taken over and maintained after 

the close of the IPY, beginning in 2009. 

What kind of fiscal burden will taking over these systems place on NOAA? 

Answer. NSF is aware that NOAA received the same question and they are the 

lead agency to address this issue. 

Question 2. To the best of your knowledge, what other Federal agencies will be 

responsible for maintaining post-IPY observing and monitoring activities? 

Answer. NOAA is already supporting important components of the system, particularly in establishing climate reference stations working with Canadian and Russian counterparts. NOAA is also supporting key observations in the Bering Strait. 

It is critically important that NOAA support these activities beyond IPY. NASA will 

provide access to critical remote sensing synoptic observations from satellites (also 

with NOAA) during and beyond IPY. Continued support of DOE measurement programs in Alaska is also important, as is a continuation of important DOI (USGS) 

river discharge measurements. The U.S. Coast Guard, which operates the Nation’s 

fleet of polar icebreaking ships, has requested that NOAA identify the polar icebreaker support required for maintaining polar observing systems. 

Question 3. What will happen to the scientific knowledge gained through polar 

monitoring and research if we do not have resources to continue monitoring during 

and after IPY? 

Answer. Science results will be published and basic data will be archived in National Data Centers. However, the core issues and questions related to the changing 

Arctic cannot be resolved in such a short time window as the IPY. Fundamentally, 

the rationale for an Arctic Observing Network (AON) is for observations on decadal 

time scales. 

Question 4. The U.S. Antarctic Marine Living Resources (AMLR) program, managed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), supports international efforts to protect the Antarctic and its marine life through the Commission for Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR). CCAMLR has planned 

a Southern Ocean synoptic predator-prey study, formally recognized and designated 

as IPY’s lead project for the topic ‘‘Natural Resources, Antarctic.’’ At one point, 

AMLR was prepared to offer ship time to the project. 

At this time, what resources does the AMLR Program plan on dedicating to IPYrelated activities? 

Question 5. Is that level sufficient to fulfill U.S. commitments in support of 

CCAMLR? 

Question 6. Is the level of participation the U.S. is currently envisioning to dedicate through AMLR to this project likely to compromise CCAMLR’s ability to participate meaningfully in the IPY? 

Answer to Questions 4–6. NSF is aware that NOAA received the same three questions about its programs. They are the lead agency to address these issues. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. MARIA CANTWELL TO

DR. ARDEN L. BEMENT, JR. 

Question. What steps will NSF take to ensure that funds for the polar icebreaker 

fleet are transferred to the Coast Guard in a timely fashion so that maintenance 

will not be delayed or compromised? 

Answer. As outlined in the MOA between NSF and USCG, NSF annually tasks 

the USCG polar icebreakers. USCG submits a corresponding budget. NSF and 

USCG negotiate the budget and, once agreement is reached, NSF approves the 

budget. NSF issues a Letter of Intent to USCG for the approved budget, and reimburses USCG as expenses are incurred for approved tasking. In cases where NSF 

is operating under a Continuing Resolution, and, therefore, funds are limited (as 

has been the case for the two years that NSF has had fiscal responsibility for the 

polar icebreaker program), USCG submits its cash-flow requirements to NSF. This 

document outlines the funds required on a monthly basis for personnel, operations, 

and maintenance contracts. Provided NSF has sufficient spending authority under 

83 

the Continuing Resolution, NSF reimburses USCG on a monthly basis. The working 

relationship between USCG and NSF officials responsible for managing the MOA 

appears to be effective. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG TO

DR. ARDEN L. BEMENT, JR. 

Question 1. Why has the NSF spent appropriated funds for chartering foreign vessels, rather than for operations and maintenance of the Coast Guard’s fleet of icebreakers? 

Answer. Resupply of the McMurdo and South Pole Stations, as well as temporary 

remote field stations in Antarctica, is necessary to meet both research and longstanding U.S. geopolitical policy goals. It depends on gaining access to the McMurdo 

pier through the sea ice in McMurdo Sound. In most previous years, the channel 

was opened by one U.S. Coast Guard Polar Class vessel (either the POLAR STAR 

or the POLAR SEA), but more recently two icebreaking vessels have been needed 

due to extreme ice conditions and concerns about the reliability of the aging polar 

icebreakers. 

NSF has made significant investments in maintenance of the USCG polar icebreakers. Thus, the POLAR SEA is ready for duty and will be used for the upcoming 

Antarctic break-in. However, USCG has recommended that a backup vessel be 

available, and there is no U.S. icebreaker capable of providing this assistance. NSF 

has therefore concluded a charter for the Swedish icebreaker ODEN as back-up for 

the POLAR SEA this December and January. 

In addition, Presidential Memorandum 6646, as well as guidance from Congressional appropriations committees, directs NSF to find the most cost-effective, reliable means of achieving the national goals of the U.S. Antarctic Program. 

Question 2. The Bush Administration has already established a record of censoring scientists with whom it disagrees on global warming. How will you both ensure that the research for the International Polar Year is selected, and conducted, 

without interference from the White House? 

Answer. The Administration values science as a basis for effective action in its 

service to the public, and regards the timely, complete, and accurate communication 

of scientific information an important part of that service. Administration guidance 

has required Federal agencies to develop, revise, or re-emphasize policies related to 

scientific openness, and to ensure that employees and management understand 

their rights and obligations under these policies. 

Specific to NSF, the Foundation will determine which proposals to fund by asking 

expert independent scientists, identified by cognizant NSF staff, to assess the proposals’ merits against the standard NSF merit review criteria (intellectual merit; 

broader impacts) and the guidelines established by the National Academies of 

Science National Research Council. The latter guidelines were published in the 

NAS/NRC document, ‘‘A Vision for the International Polar Year 2007–2008.’’ 

As with all other projects selected and supported by NSF, NSF does not interfere 

with grantees’ conduct of their research, other than to monitor it to insure that it 

is being conducted as proposed. NSF does not have its own research laboratories; 

and, therefore, the proposed projects will come from independent scientists and engineers who are not government scientists: but are from academic institutions. 

Question 3. What assurances can you give us that the results of the U.S. research 

will be communicated freely and clearly by U.S. scientists, even if they conflict with 

the views of the White House and the oil and automobile industries? 

Answer. Since NSF does not have its own research laboratories, the scientists and 

engineers we support are typicay members of universities, colleges, and independent 

laboratories, not government employees. NSF expects all grantees to publish their 

research results in the open literature so that all research and education communities have access to the data. NSF does not involve itself in the preparation of the 

manuscripts. Scientists seeking support from NSF are evaluated by their peers on 

the quality of the publications from prior support. Therefore. to a large degree, the 

scientific community enforces open publication of NSF-funded research. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG TO

ROBIN E. BELL, PH.D. 

Question 1. I am concerned about the recent reports that global warming is rapidly affecting the ocean’s chemistry—making it more acidic. Will our U.S. research 

effort include monitoring ocean chemistry and its potential impacts on the food 

84 

chain? Do we have any sense of how bad things are already, or when we are likely 

to see the impacts of acidification? 

Answer. The topic of how global warming may affect the ocean’s chemistry, making it more acidic, is an important one. Among the projects being proposed as part 

of International Polar Year are activities that would include collection of sea water 

and measurement of sea water carbon parameters. At this time, it is not yet known 

which actual projects will be funded, either here or by other nations. 

It is known that CO2 from the atmosphere dissolves and forms an acid in seawater. In the past 200 years, the oceans have absorbed about half of the CO2 produced by humans. As seawater becomes more acidic, the capacity of the ocean to 

absorb CO2 will decrease. One program, called the SEARCH program (Study of ARctic Environmental CHange), intends to make these kinds of measurements as part 

of the planned Arctic Observatory Network. Until relatively recently, although studied by a small number of oceanographers, ocean acidification has not been a critical 

national concern, but the topic is moving onto the national agenda (e.g., it is the 

subject of an article in November, in New Yorker magazine, as well as recent 

Science and Nature papers and recent national and international conferences). 

Oceans have a high capacity to buffer the effects of additional carbon, but current 

research is suggesting that the levels of anthropogenic CO2 input are so high that 

the ocean has already become measurably more acidic. A more acidic ocean inhibits 

the formation of calcium carbonate skeletons which form the shells of many marine 

organisms, including corals and several key planktonic species, including 

coccolithophores, a microcellular marine algae common in subpolar regions. 

Question 2. How does climate change or ocean warming affect the ability of krill 

to resist over-harvesting? How much more vulnerable does it make them? How 

much would a sharp decline in krill populations affect other species and the food 

chain? 

Answer. More than acidity, krill will be impacted by warming ocean temperatures. 

Studies along the Western Antarctic Peninsula have discovered that during low winter sea-ice years the plankton is dominated by salps instead of krill. This is because 

krill heavily depend on sea-algae as their food source. Krill, similar to other marine 

organisms, are adapted to live in a limited range of pH, so any extreme change in 

ocean acidity will affect these organisms. Krill and copepods are key members of the 

marine food chain, so changes in their populations can be expected to have potentially large impacts through the ecosystems. Along the Antarctic coast, krill is the 

primary food source for penguins, and many marine mammal species and a sharp 

decline in krill’s abundance would severely impact their populations. Potential impacts on marine organisms directly relying on calcification, such as those that make 

up commercial crustacean fisheries (shrimp, crab) and mollusk fisheries (bivalves, 

gastropods) may be of economic concern in the future. 

The concern about increasing ocean acidity is one of the research areas mentioned 

in the draft Ocean Research Priorities Plan prepared by the Joint Subcommittee on 

Ocean Science and Technology under the National Science and Technology Council. 

Generally, this is an emerging area of concern that has yet to be thoroughly studied. 

The National Academies is currently considering developing a study on this topic. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE TO

NOAA 

Question 1. The IPY envisions establishment of polar observing equipment and 

monitoring systems which will eventually need to be taken over and maintained 

after the close of the IPY, beginning in 2009. 

What kind of fiscal burden will taking over these systems place on NOAA? 

Answer. NOAA is making use of existing resources to conduct IPY work, so continuing support for polar observations would be provided through the President’s 

budget without any additional fiscal burden. 

85 

In addition to other NOAA exploration, prediction, modeling, data, outreach, and 

decision support IPY projects, the President’s Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Request includes funding for the following four polar observation-specific projects: 

Project Pres Bud Fiscal 

Year 2007 

Causes and Impacts of Recent Changes in Pacific Arctic $3,650,000 

Polar Atmospheric Observatories and Field Campaigns $2,675,000 

Polar Stratospheric Ozone Depletion Observations included above 

Antarctic Living Marine Resource Survey $1,467,000 

Total $7,792,000 

Question 1a. To the best of your knowledge, what other Federal agencies will be 

responsible for maintaining post-IPY observing and monitoring activities? 

Answer. The Office of Science and Technology Policy assigned the National 

Science Foundation the leadership role for coordinating interagency IPY activities. 

In Fiscal Year 2007, a new Arctic observatory in Eureka, Canada, will operate 

during the IPY, and the observatory in Tiksi, Russia, will be partially operational. 

Post-IPY, Canada will maintain and operate the Eureka Observatory and NOAA 

will conduct measurements. At the site in Tiksi, the National Science Foundation 

is contributing substantially to the development of the infrastructure, and NOAA 

will assist in providing instrumentation. Post-IPY, NOAA will maintain the Tiksi 

Observatory as one of our Arctic Observation Network systems. 

NOAA’s existing baseline observatories at Barrow, Alaska, and the South Pole 

will continue to focus on measurements of trace gases and aerosols during IPY. 

Question 1b. What will happen to the scientific knowledge gained through polar 

monitoring and research if we do not have resources to continue monitoring during 

and after IPY? 

Answer. NOAA will be archiving NOAA datasets during IPY to ensure that the 

scientific knowledge gained through polar monitoring and research during IPY is 

available to benefit future polar research and management. It is important that the 

Nation continue polar monitoring after IPY to observe and understand the changing 

Arctic in the years to come. 

Question 2. The U.S. Antarctic Marine Living Resources (AMLR) Program, managed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), supports international efforts to protect the Antarctic and its marine life through the Commission for the 

Conservation of Antarctic Living Marine Resources (CCAMLR). CCAMLR has 

planned a Southern Ocean synoptic predator-prey study, formally recognized and 

designated as IPY’s lead project for the topic ‘‘Natural Resources, Antarctic.’’ At one 

point AMLR was prepared to offer ship time to the project. At this time, what resources does the AMLR Program plan on dedicating to IPYrelated activities? 

Answer. The International Polar Year (IPY) actually runs from March 2007 

through March 2009 (two years; to ensure that researchers get the opportunity to 

work in both polar regions or work summer and winter if they wish). The Antarctic 

Marine Living Resources (AMLR) Program had indicated an interest in supplying 

ship time and scientific expertise to CCAMLR’s survey starting in January 2008. 

However, the AMLR Program’s participation in Fiscal Year 2008 IPY-related activities is contingent upon the availability of an ice-strengthened research vessel with 

appropriate endurance. 

NOAA only needs a 35-day cruise in 2008 to fulfill U.S. requirements under 

CCAMLR. However, it is not clear that NOAA will be able to lease the same vessel 

as in the past for such a short cruise. NOAA is reviewing options should this ship 

become unavailable. 

In Fiscal Year 2008, NOAA will evaluate all options for continuing ship-based research that would enable the AMLR to contribute to CCAMLR’s IPY-related research activities in the Southern Ocean. 

Question 2a. Is that level sufficient to fulfill US. commitments in support of 

CCAMLR? 

Answer. A 35-day cruise would be sufficient to fulfill U.S. commitments in support 

of CCAMLR. 

Question 2b. Is the level of participation the U.S. is currently envisioning to dedicate through AMLR to this project likely to compromise CCAMLR’s ability to participate meaningfully in the IPY? 

Answer. NOAA will evaluate all options for continuing ship-based research that 

would enable the AMLR to contribute to CCAMLR’s IPY-related research activities. 

86 

* Reponse was not available at the time this hearing went to press. 

If AMLR is unable to secure an appropriate vessel to conduct the survey, it will 

compromise CCAMLR’s ability to participate in the IPY synoptic survey. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE TO

MEAD TREADWELL * 

Question. The National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of 

Sciences recently released their final report assessing polar icebreaker roles and 

needs. The report recommends that the United States replace the two older vessels, 

the POLAR STAR and POLAR SEA, while maintaining and repairing the POLAR 

SEA and keeping the POLAR STAR in caretaker status during the transition period. 

• Do you support the NRC’s recommendations? 

• If the recommendation pertaining to icebreaker capabilities were implemented 

would that level of icebreaker capacity be sufficient to meet the needs of the 

U.S. Arctic Research Program? 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG TO

MEAD TREADWELL * 

Question 1. How important are the Coast Guard’s icebreakers as a platform for 

scientific research during the International Polar Year and beyond? Do you support 

the National Research Council’s recommendation to ensure long-term U.S. polar 

icebreaking capability? 

Question 2. The Bush Administration has already established a record of censoring scientists with whom it disagrees on global warming. How will you both ensure that the research for the International Polar Year is selected and conducted 

without political interference from the White House? 

Question 3. What assurances can you give us that the results of the U.S. research 

will be communicated freely and clearly by U.S. scientists, even if they conflict with 

the views of the White House and the oil and automobile industries? 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG TO

DR. THOMAS ARMSTRONG AND DR. VIRGIL L. ‘‘BUCK’’ SHARPTON * 

Question 1. I am concerned about the recent reports that global warming is rapidly affecting the ocean’s chemistry—making it more acidic. Will our U.S. research 

effort include monitoring ocean chemistry and its potential impacts on the food 

chain? Do we have any sense of how bad things are already, or when we are likely 

to see the impacts of acidification? 

Question 2. How does climate change or ocean warming affect the ability of krill 

to resist over-harvesting? How much more vulnerable does it make them? How 

much would a sharp decline in krill populations affect other species and the food 

chain? 

Æ