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

77–036PDF 2012

THE U.S. ANTARCTIC PROGRAM: 

ACHIEVING FISCAL AND LOGISTICAL EFFICIENCY 

WHILE SUPPORTING SOUND SCIENCE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2012 

Serial No. 112–106 

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

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. RALPH M. HALL, Texas, Chair 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

VACANCY 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

BEN R. LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL D. TONKO, New York 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

VACANCY 

VACANCY 

VACANCY 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Thursday, November 15, 2012 

Page 

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

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

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Ralph M. Hall, Chairman, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 16 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 17 

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

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 22 

Witnesses: 

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

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 20 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 23 

The Honorable Subra Suresh, Director, National Science Foundation 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 30 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 28 

General Duncan J. McNabb, USAF (Ret), Member, U.S. Antarctic Program 

Blue Ribbon Panel 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 36 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 38 

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

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 41 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 44 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

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

The Honorable Subra Suresh, Director, National Science Foundation ............... 70 

General Duncan J. McNabb, USAF (Ret), Member, U.S. Antarctic Program 

Blue Ribbon Panel ................................................................................................ 73 

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

(1) 

THE U.S. ANTARCTIC PROGRAM: 

ACHIEVING FISCAL AND LOGISTICAL 

EFFICIENCY WHILE SUPPORTING SOUND 

SCIENCE 

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ralph Hall 

[Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 

Chairman HALL. The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology will come to order, and we say good morning and welcome 

to today’s hearing: ‘‘The U.S. Antarctic Program: Achieving Fiscal 

and Logistical Efficiency While Supporting Sound Science.’’ 

In front of you are packets containing the written testimony and 

the biographies and the Truth in Testimony disclosures for today’s 

witnesses. At this time I guess I will recognize myself for five minutes for the opening statement. 

The first United States presence in Antarctica dates way back to 

1830. Our support of explorers and scientists on that continent has 

yielded and continues to yield valuable research that not only affects our daily lives, but absolutely can’t be done in any other place 

on earth. As much as we currently know about Antarctica, there 

remains much to be learned. It is hard to believe that it has only 

been slightly more than 100 years since humans arrived at the 

South Pole, and now we are performing science there year-round 

at the U.S. South Pole Station, in addition to the work being done 

at McMurdo and Palmer stations, at remote camps across the continent, and on various research vessels in the Southern Ocean. 

We are fortunate to have the National Science Foundation capably managing the U.S. Antarctic Program for the entire United 

States and we are pleased that it, in consultation with the White 

House Office of Science and Technology Policy, initiated two activities to review the program: first, a National Academies report to 

focus on the science needed for the next two decades, and second, 

a Blue Ribbon Panel report to focus on the logistics required to 

support that science. 

The purpose of the hearing today is to take a look at the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Panel’s report, ‘‘More and Better 

Science in Antarctica through Increased Logistical Effectiveness,’’ 

is the title of it, and the benefits, costs and savings associated with 

those recommendations. 

Personally, I have not had the pleasure of visiting Antarctica and 

don’t expect that I ever will have an opportunity that I accept—no 

CODELs—and I don’t know anybody that has been there that 

wants to go back. I personally have not had the privilege of visiting 

Antarctica as many of my colleagues have, but I have learned from 

them and from others of the immense value and unique opportunities that that continent holds for scientific discovery. It is very important to us. I also recognize the important geopolitical reasons to 

maintain a U.S. presence there and appreciate the cooperation that 

must take place not only between relevant U.S. agencies, but also 

between our international friends and partners. Unfortunately, the 

magnitude of the logistics to support these activities is enormous 

and overwhelmingly dominates the budget for Antarctic activities. 

Therefore, the Blue Ribbon Panel’s report recommendations are 

very welcome. 

The Blue Ribbon Panel report provides ten broad overreaching 

recommendations for logistical effectiveness, and also provides a 

number of specific implementing actions categorized as either, one, 

essential for safety and health; or number two, readily 

implementable; and significant investment and large payoff. 

I want to thank Norm Augustine, General McNabb, Bart Gordon, 

the former Chairman of this Committee, a wonderful guy and a 
17 

great job he did for the years he was here, and all of the other Blue 

Ribbon panelists for the time and effort they spent on developing 

this report, and I look forward to discussing the feasibility of implementing their recommendations, particularly during this time of 

budgetary constraint, with all of the witnesses and I thank all of 

you for taking time out of your busy schedules, the time it took for 

you to get ready, the time it took for you to get here, the time you 

are going to spend with us and the time you are going to have 

going back. You are givers and not takers, and we appreciate every 

one of you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN RALPH HALL

The first United States presence in Antarctica dates back to 1830. Our support 

of explorers and scientists on that continent has yielded and continues to yield valuable research that not only affects our daily lives, but cannot be done in any other 

place on earth. As much as we currently know about Antarctica, there remains 

much to be learned. It is hard to believe that it has only been slightly more than 

100 years since humans arrived at the South Pole, and now we are performing 

science there year-round at the U.S. South Pole Station, in addition to the work 

being done at McMurdo and Palmer stations, at remote camps across the continent, 

and on various research vessels in the Southern Ocean. 

We are fortunate to have the National Science Foundation capably managing the 

U.S. Antarctic Program for the entire United States and are pleased that it, in consultation with the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, initiated 

two activities to review the Program: (1) a National Academies report to focus on 

the science needs for the next two decades; and (2) a Blue Ribbon Panel report to 

focus on the logistics required to support that science. The purpose of the hearing 

today is to take a look at the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Panel’s report, 

More and Better Science in Antarctica through Increased Logistical Effectiveness, 

and the benefits, costs and savings associated with those recommendations. 

I, personally, have not had the pleasure of visiting Antarctica as many of my colleagues have, but I have learned from them and from others of the immense value 

and unique opportunities that continent holds for scientific discovery. I also recognize the important geopolitical reasons to maintain a U.S. presence there and appreciate the cooperation that must take place not only between relevant U.S. agencies, 

but also between our international friends and partners. Unfortunately, the magnitude of the logistics to support these activities is enormous and overwhelmingly 

dominates the budget for Antarctic activities. Therefore, the Blue Ribbon Panel’s report recommendations are welcome. 

The Blue Ribbon Panel report provides ten broad overarching recommendations 

for logistical effectiveness, and also provides a number of specific implementing actions categorized as either (1) essential for safety and health; (2) readily 

implementable; and (3) significant investment and large payoff. 

I want to thank Norm Augustine; General McNabb; Bart Gordon, the former 

Chairman of this Committee; and all of the other Blue Ribbon panelists for the time 

and effort they spent on developing this report, and I look forward to discussing the 

feasibility of implementing their recommendations, particularly during this time of 

budgetary constraint, with all of the witnesses. 

Chairman HALL. I yield back my time. I recognize for five minutes an opening statement, Ms. Johnson. Ms. Johnson, you present 

your opening statement and take as much time as you need. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding 

this hearing and welcome to our esteemed panel of witnesses. The 

United States presence in Antarctica is critically important both 

strategically and scientifically. With two expert reports on both the 

science and logistics of our Antarctic research program recently 

completed, and a new contractor in place, we are at an important 

juncture in the 53-year-old U.S. Antarctic Program. 

So I am pleased that we are having this hearing now to begin 

to review the many challenges and opportunities that lie ahead. 
18 

However, our ability to address them will inevitably depend on 

what decisions we make about the larger federal budget in the 

coming months. I hope that we will also keep Antarctica on our 

agenda in the next Congress as the budget picture comes into better focus. 

By all accounts, the National Science Foundation and its agency 

partners have done an extraordinary job in building and maintaining a productive, safe and efficient U.S. research program across 

the Antarctic continent. They have done so while minimizing our 

environmental footprint in Antarctica, hopefully giving all of us 

back in the United States some lessons on how we can take easy 

steps to reduce our energy consumption and reduce waste. 

Our efficient investment in infrastructure and operations enables 

cutting-edge science across many fields supported by multiple federal agencies. Most of us probably didn’t know that there is an active volcano in Antarctica being studied by the NSF and the USGS 

scientists, and that NASA conducts some research down there because the harsh Antarctic environment is a good preliminary test 

bed for the harsh conditions in space. Many of our scientists are 

also conducting research on land and at sea to help us better understand and predict global change, global climate change, and 

NOAA is making critical atmospheric measurements at the South 

Pole. 

But the more efficient and safer we are in our logistical support 

of these activities, the more opportunity we will have to expand 

and strengthen the science we do. So I commend Dr. Suresh and 

OSTP Director Dr. Holdren on their decision to request a two-tier 

review of the U.S.Antarctic Program, first to look at the science priorities, then to carry out an A to Z review of the infrastructure and 

logistics. This is the very definition of good government. 

I look forward to hearing from Mr. Augustine and General 

McNabb about the Blue Ribbon Panel’s recommendations and any 

specific advice they have for us on how the Science Committee can 

be helpful. I would also like to hear from witnesses as to whether 

the scientific community has expressed any concerns with respect 

to the Blue Ribbon Panel’s recommendations, and how the agency 

might best work with the community to minimize the short-term 

disruption to science. 

Last, but of course not least, I look forward to hearing about the 

scientific priorities for the U.S. Antarctic Program going forward 

and how and why we all benefit from the science being carried out 

so far away from our shores. 

On another note, with this possibly being our last Committee 

hearing of the year, I want to take this opportunity to thank my 

friend and colleague Ralph Hall for his leadership of this Committee. 

And with that, I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Thank you, Chairman Hall, for holding this hearing and welcome to our esteemed 

panel of witnesses. The United States presence in Antarctica is critically important 

both strategically and scientifically. With two expert reports on both the science and 

logistics of our Antarctic research program recently completed, and a new contractor 

in place, we are at an important juncture in the 53-year old US Antarctic Program. 
19 

So I am pleased that we are having this hearing now to begin to review the many 

challenges and opportunities that lie ahead. However our ability to address them 

will inevitably depend on what decisions we make about the larger federal budget 

in the coming months. I hope that we will also keep Antarctica on our agenda in 

the next Congress as the budget picture comes into better focus. 

By all accounts, the National Science Foundation and its agency partners have 

done an extraordinary job in building and maintaining a productive, safe, and efficient U.S. research program across the Antarctic continent. They have done so while 

minimizing our environmental footprint in Antarctica, hopefully giving all of us back 

in the U.S. some lessons on how we can take easy steps to reduce our energy consumption and reduce waste. 

Our efficient investment in infrastructure and operations enables cutting edge 

science across many fields supported by multiple federal agencies. Most of us probably didn’t know that there is an active volcano in Antarctica being studied by NSF 

and USGS scientists, and that NASA conducts some research down there because 

the harsh Antarctic environment is a good preliminary testbed for the harsh conditions in space. Many of our scientists are also conducting research on land and at 

sea to help us better understand and predict global climate change, and NOAA is 

making critical atmospheric measurements at the South Pole. 

But the more efficient and safer we are in our logistical support of these activities, 

the more opportunity we will have to expand and strengthen the science we do. So 

I commend Dr. Suresh and OSTP Director Dr. Holdren on their decision to request 

a two-tier review of the US Antarctic Program, first to look at the science priorities, 

then to carry out an A to Z review of the infrastructure and logistics. 

This is the very definition of good government. 

I look forward to hearing from Mr. Augustine and General McNabb about the 

Blue Ribbon Panel’s recommendations, and any specific advice they have for us on 

how the Science Committee can be helpful. I’d also like to hear from witnesses as 

to whether the scientific community has expressed any concerns with respect to the 

Blue Ribbon’s Panel’s recommendations, and how the agency might best work with 

the community to minimize the short-term disruption to the science. 

Last, but of course not least, I look forward to hearing about the scientific priorities for the US Antarctic Program going forward and how and why we all benefit 

from the science being carried out so far away from our own shores. 

On another note, with this possibly being our last full committee hearing of the 

year, I want to take this opportunity to thank my friend and colleague Ralph Hall 

for his leadership of this committee. 

With that I yield back. 

Chairman HALL. If you want to expand on that, I will give you 

some more time. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. 

If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening 

statements, your statements will be added to the record at this 

point. 

At this time I would like to introduce our panel of witnesses. Our 

first witness is one who has been here many times before, Norman 

R. Augustine, Chair of the U.S. Antarctic Program Blue Ribbon 

Panel, and a good friend of this Committee, and good friend of this 

Congress and a good friend of this country. His name is attached 

to a number of reports with which we are familiar and we are 

lucky to have the benefit of his leadership. Mr. Augustine spent his 

career working in both the private and public sectors including the 

Department of Defense. He served as either president or CEO and 

chairman of the board for Martin Marietta for more than 20 years 

before becoming president of the newly formed Lockheed Martin in 

1995. He retired as chairman and CEO of Lockheed Martin in 

1997. Mr. Augustine holds 29 honorary degrees and has been presented the National Medal of Technology by the President of the 

United States and received the Joint Chiefs of Staff Distinguished 

Public Service Award. 

Our second witness is Dr. Subra Suresh, Director of the National 

Science Foundation. Prior to assuming his current role in 2010, he 
20 

served as the Dean of the School of Engineering and the Vannevar 

Bush Professor of Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology, MIT. 

Our next witness is General Duncan McNabb, United States Air 

Force, retired, a member of the U.S. Antarctic Program Blue Ribbon Panel and a former commander, United States Transportation 

Command. U.S. Transcom is the single manager for global air, land 

and sea transportation for the Department of Defense. In his distinguished career of more than 37 years, General McNabb also 

served in a variety of leadership roles including U.S. Air Force 

Deputy Chief of Staff for Planning and Programming, Director for 

Logistics on the Joint Staff, and Vice Chief of Staff for the Air 

Force, and it is not written here for me to say but he also lives in 

Texas. Ensign Gay, who was the sole survivor of the Battle of Midway, as many of you know and remember, was a Texan, and he always in all his speeches, I never heard him make a speech that he 

didn’t say this: he said ‘‘Never ask anybody if they are from Texas, 

because if they are, they will tell you, and if they are not, there 

is no reason to embarrass them.’’ 

Our final witness is Dr. Warren Zapol, Chair of the National Research Council’s Committee on Future Science Opportunities in 

Antarctica and the Southern Ocean. Dr. Zapol is an anesthesiologist and is current Director of the Massachusetts General Hospital 

Anesthesia Center for Critical Care Research. He is also Reginald 

Jenney Professor of Anesthesia at Harvard Medical School. 

As our witnesses should know, spoken testimony is limited to 

five minutes after which the Members of this Committee will have 

five minutes each to ask you questions, and you are not relegated 

to five minutes, you are not held to that. We are too grateful to you 

for being here. We will work with you on that. Just do your best. 

I now recognize our first witness Mr. Augustine for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MR. NORMAN R. AUGUSTINE, 

CHAIR, U.S. ANTARCTIC PROGRAM BLUE RIBBON PANEL 

Mr. AUGUSTINE. Well, thank you, Chairman Hall and Ranking 

Member Johnson and Members of the Committee. I am pleased to 

have the opportunity to represent my 11 colleagues on this study 

here at this hearing, and I particularly appreciate your inviting 

General McNabb, my colleague and friend on the committee. I have 

submitted a written statement, Mr. Chairman. 

As you all know, the purpose of the U.S. presence in Antarctica 

is really twofold. One is to perform science, the other is to provide 

a U.S. presence on the continent and in the Southern Ocean. The 

role of our committee, however, was, as the chairman said, to focus 

on logistics and support, both in Antarctica and the Southern 

Ocean. It is a challenge to provide logistical support there, as you 

can imagine. At the Pole, for example, you are on top of 9,000 feet 

of ice, 11,000-foot pressure altitude, strong winds, darkness for 

much of the year, and temperatures in that general area have been 

measured as far as 127 degrees below zero Fahrenheit. But it happens to be a superb place to perform certain kinds of science, and 

the other witnesses, I think, will describe that later so I will turn 

to logistics. 
21 

The logistical pipeline is rather demanding. It is about 11,000 

miles long, going from Port Hueneme in California to Christchurch, 

New Zealand, to McMurdo Base on the Ross Sea and then another 

800 miles to the Pole if that is where you are going. It is the view 

of our committee that the NSF over the years, today as well, has 

done a truly remarkable job of managing such a complex, unforgiving operation. The perhaps prime example of that is the building 

of the new South Pole Station, which this Committee approved a 

few years ago. It was a remarkable feat and was brought in basically on cost and on schedule, very close. 

Science is just the tip of the iceberg, quite literally, in terms of 

our activity in Antarctica. As the Chairman alluded to, it happens 

that about 85 percent of the people days that are spent on the continent and in the Southern Ocean are associated with logistics support as opposed to the science itself, and about 90 percent—excuse 

me—about 80 percent of the budget is attributed to logistical support. A little arithmetic there will suggest that if the logistics costs 

would go up by just 13 percent, you would have to cut the science 

in half for a constant overall budget. On the other hand, this 

means there is an enormous opportunity if we can reduce the cost 

of the logistics. 

We found the logistics and facilities in rather poor repair, particularly at McMurdo and to a lesser extent at Palmer. For example, we entered a warehouse where there were certain areas you 

couldn’t drive forklifts because they fall through the floor. We 

found them storing dry food in a facility that one of our members, 

who is the former Vice President of Proctor and Gamble for Global 

Supply, he said he wouldn’t store soap in that building. We saw 

rooms designed for two people that five people were living in, of 

course posing a considerable health hazard. Inventories are often 

stored outdoors. The wind covers them with snow, and when people 

need supplies they have to dig through the snow banks to try to 

find them. The infirmary was described to us at McMurdo by the 

physician there as being of 1960s vintage. The dock at Palmer Station has an underwater pinnacle of rock that makes it extremely 

hazardous to dock ships there. Many ships can’t dock there because 

of that. 

We think the root cause of this has to do with the lack of a capital budget plan for the U.S. program in Antarctica, and of course, 

that is not unique to the NSF. By having such a plan, it would be 

possible to greatly increase the efficiency in Antarctica. 

We have proposed in our 224-page book a number of things that 

could be done to improve the situation, and let me emphasize that 

we are acutely aware of the budgetary problems that face our Nation and face your Committee. We have proposed a four-step plan 

that could be used to fund the program we have proposed. The first 

step is to increase the U.S. Antarctic Program funding by six percent for four years; correspondingly, to shift six percent of the 

science budget for the next four years to rebuilding the logistics 

system; to apply the savings from the first four years of the 

changes we propose to improving the logistics system; and, finally, 

by reducing the cost of contract activities by about 20 percent, 

which we believe is possible. 
22 

I should say this does not address the icebreaker issue, which 

transcends the NSF’s ability to solve what is of the utmost importance and hopefully this Committee will be able to address that. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will conclude my remarks and I 

would be happy to answer questions at the appropriate time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Augustine follows:] 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 

Chairman HALL. And I thank you. 

I now recognize our second witness, Dr. Suresh, for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SUBRA SURESH, 

DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

Mr. SURESH. Chairman Hall, Ranking Member Johnson and distinguished Members of the Committee, I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the results of the Blue Ribbon Panel review of the U.S. Antarctic Program, or commonly referred to as 

USAP. 

First, let me thank my colleague and good friend, Mr. Norm Augustine, for leading this very immense undertaking. I also acknowledge the distinguished panel for their very insightful analysis of 

the challenges we face in supporting the research in Antarctica. I 

also thank Dr. John Holdren of the Office of Science and Technology Policy for collaborating with us to form and support the 

panel. Lastly, I acknowledge the important stage-setting provided 

by the National Research Council’s report on ‘‘Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, the National Science Foundation is proud of its 

presidentially directed role in leading USAP on behalf of the U.S. 

government. We must continuously address and anticipate the complex logistics needed to implement frontier science and engineering 

research in this remote and very harsh environment. 

Antarctica serves as an extraordinary laboratory and important 

bellwether for virtually all areas of science. In my written testimony, I highlighted three significant discoveries resulting from research in this region: the identification of the ozone hole, which resulted in the worldwide ban of chlorofluorocarbons; the discovery of 

antifreeze proteins that have implications for tissue preservation 

for medical transplants, hypothermia treatment and lengthening 

the shelf life of frozen foods; and the recent discovery just a few 

weeks ago of the Phoenix galaxy cluster that generates 700 stars 

a year, the highest rate ever documented. 

The U.S. Antarctic Program also supports the missions of our sister agencies including NASA’s long-duration scientific ballooning 

and meteorite collection programs and NOAA’s key observations for 

long-term atmospheric monitoring. NSF also effectively partners 

with other agencies, both in the United States and in Europe, for 

the data acquisition system in the Antarctic that is vital to the 

weather prediction systems upon which we all rely. 

USAP also implements U.S. policy and the interests of the State 

Department through an active and influential presence in Antarctica. The U.S. governing role is paramount in the Antarctic treaty 

system. 

We have reviewed USAP roughly once a decade since its creation. These reviews help determine whether the program is effectively structured, appropriately balanced and routinely aligned 

with national goals. Specifically, this Blue Ribbon Panel review focused on ensuring that the logistics and infrastructure were in 

place to support the cutting-edge research that can only be done 

and best be done in this remote environment. Given the austere 

budget environment we are in, the panel’s review was designed to 
31 

identify opportunities for efficiencies and to inform and prioritize 

future budget requests for logistics and infrastructure. 

The panel laid out a realistic blueprint for securing and improving world-class research in Antarctica. They also provided a warning that resonated with me as an engineer. USAP is currently operating under the threat of multiple single points of failure. Immediately after the release of the report this past July, I chartered a 

Tiger Team of senior NSF managers to guide development of a 

point-by-point response that includes a rolling five-year long-range 

investment plan, an integrated master schedule to implement recommendations contained in the report. The Tiger Team members 

agree with the majority of the recommendations, although as Mr. 

Augustine pointed out, not all of them can be implemented solely 

by NSF. For example, ensuring icebreaker capabilities for the 

United States requires action on the part of the U.S. Coast Guard 

and other parts of the federal government. The balance of the recommendations can be and are being acted on. We will immediately 

address the critical recommendations related to safety. We are also 

determining the feasibility and full cost implications of others. 

I have also asked the Tiger Team to develop approaches for additional improvements through cross-foundational fertilization and 

external engagement. For example, they are exploring issuing 

grand challenges in areas that are related to energy utilization and 

engineering. 

Along these same lines, we fully expect Lockheed Martin, our 

current Antarctic support contractor, to implement some of the 

cost-saving ideas they included in their proposal. Our Department 

of Defense partners also continue to recommend ideas for operating 

more efficiently. We expect to provide the National Science Board 

with a point-by-point response to the Blue Ribbon Panel recommendations at its meeting in December. I would like to acknowledge the chair of the National Science Board, Dr. Dan Arvizu, who 

graciously joined us here this morning. We would be happy to provide a copy of that to the committee. 

Mr. Chairman, we appreciate this opportunity to discuss our initial response to the Blue Ribbon Panel report and look forward to 

continuing to support cutting-edge research in Antarctica. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Suresh follows:] 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 

Chairman HALL. Thank you for a good presentation. 

Now I recognize our third witness, General McNabb, for five minutes. 

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

MEMBER, U.S. ANTARCTIC PROGRAM BLUE RIBBON PANEL 

General MCNABB. Chairman Hall, Ranking Member Johnson and 

Members of the Committee, it is my honor to be with you today to 

testify on the Blue Ribbon Panel’s report. It was a true privilege 

to join our chairman, Norm Augustine, and the other Blue Ribbon 

panel members to look at how we might improve logistics in support of the National Science Foundation and our science community. I am also delighted to be joined today by Norm Augustine, Dr. 

Subra Suresh and Dr. Zapol. 

As a former Commander of the U.S. Air Force Air Mobility Command and later as commander of the United States Transportation 

Command, I was directly involved in supporting the National 

Science Foundation and the Antarctic Program. As you can well 

imagine, the movement of people, equipment and supplies to Antarctica is one of our most demanding missions. It requires special 

crews and special capabilities and we take tremendous pride in it. 

Having had visited the McMurdo area and the South Pole as a 

military commander and then later as a Blue Ribbon Panel member—so Chairman, I did go twice and really had a great time both 

times—I need to say first how impressed I am with the NSF, the 

science community and the people who support this mission day in 

and day out. It is not too strong a word that they perform logistics 

miracles. They handle unique challenges every day to make this 

work safely and they do an incredible job, given the challenges they 

face. That said, there are always opportunities to improve and 

hopefully the Blue Ribbon Panel’s effort can offer some strategic insights into how to take an already excellent operation to an even 

higher level. 

I also want to thank this Committee for your continuous support 

of the mission. It has made and will continue to make a huge difference in improving science, enhancing safety, optimizing logistics 

operations and reducing cost. My and my other panel members’ 

thoughts and suggestions are captured in the report but I would 

like to highlight a couple of points. 

First of all is the importance of McMurdo. Currently, there is no 

other location in the Antarctic which offers the advantages of the 

McMurdo area; a deepwater port with relatively easy access in the 

summer months using an icebreaker; a wheel capable airfield, capable of handling large aircraft within 20 miles of this deepwater 

port, and within effective LC–130 range of the South Pole; well-developed infrastructure including storage for 11.5 million gallons of 

fuel; ideal location to support NASA’s satellite links and long-duration balloon program, and NOAA’s and DOD’s Polar Space Programs; and access to the 175,000-square-mile ice shelf which allows 

more efficient traverse operations to much of the Antarctic. With 

recommended increases in the C–17 operations and more 

multimodal operations, McMurdo’s criticality as the principal resupply center for the NSF will even grow. For all these reasons, the 

Blue Ribbon Panel strongly recommends McMurdo to continue to 
37 

be the major support base for the NSF Antarctic Program and it 

needs to be rightsized and modernized as outlined in the report. 

Second is the importance of using an enterprise transportation 

approach to the Antarctic region. Given the challenges of providing 

logistic support to this austere area, optimizing transportation’s assets is essential. With new technology, capabilities and concepts of 

operation, there are excellent opportunities to significantly improve 

air, land and sea options. However, the most dramatic improvement will be realized through the use of a true enterprise approach, taking best advantage of all transportation modes by using 

multimodal operations across the entire resupply and retrograde 

operation. Given today’s advances in transportation support, 

multimodal solutions are not difficult to put in place and the benefits far outweigh the cost. The resulting operation will offer increased options to science and also dramatically reduce cost. 

The final area is the importance of a capital budget, as mentioned by our Chairman Augustine, and multiyear funding for longterm logistics infrastructure support. In the report we go through 

how important this would be to improving logistics support and reducing cost, but given the timelines and constraints we have in the 

Antarctic, this becomes an even more critical overarching issue. I 

would ask for the Committee’s support in looking at ways we might 

do this. 

Again, Chairman Hall and Members of the Committee, I am honored to be here today. I was privileged to be part of the Blue Ribbon Panel, and I think Norm Augustine did a superb job in leading 

the effort. I request my written testimony be submitted for the 

record, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of General McNabb follows:] 
38 
39 
40 
41 

Chairman HALL. It will be done without objection, and I thank 

you, and sometime I will yield you more time to tell us a little more 

about that National Science Foundation meeting. It sounded interesting, which surprises me. 

Now I am going to recognize what the lady that prepared this 

for me said is our final witness. At my age, I don’t like to introduce 

anything as final. This is our final witness for today, Dr. Zapol, and 

we will recognize you for five minutes and look forward to your testimony. 

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

COMMITTEE ON FUTURE SCIENCE OPPORTUNITIES 

IN ANTARCTICA AND THE SOUTHERN OCEAN, 

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL 

Dr. ZAPOL. Thank you. Chairman Hall, Ranking Member Johnson and Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to 

talk today. My name is Warren Zapol. I am an anesthesiologist. I 

am the Emeritus Anesthetist-in-Chief at Massachusetts General 

Hospital and the Jenney Professor of Anesthesia at Harvard. I am 

Director of the MGH Anesthesia Center for Critical Care Research. 

We will get to that later. 

I speak to you in my role as Chair of the 2011 report, which I 

did with 17 diverse and remarkable colleagues, ‘‘Future Scientific 

Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean’’ issued by the 

NRC of the National Academy, and I am a member of the Institute 

of Medicine. Our National Academy report holds special credibility 

because it was prepared according to stringent NAS guidelines for 

balance, objectivity and peer review, and because it was written by 

people including volunteer experts who have done scientific research in the Antarctic as well as many with no prior experience 

in Antarctica. We had preeminent scientists from a wide variety of 

disciplines and one Nobel Prize winner. 

Allow me to begin with what is certain to be one of your first 

questions: why is an anesthesiologist talking to you about research 

in Antarctica? In the 1970s, I became fascinated by stories of 

Weddell seals diving to 600 meters depth in the Southern Ocean. 

They could hold their breath for 90 minutes. Now, wouldn’t it be 

wonderful if we could help our patients to hold their breath for 90 

minutes, especially if they had pneumonia or heart attacks and 

things like that. So it was obvious as an anesthesiologist I would 

be interested in this. To answer this question, I led a small team 

of multidisciplinary scientists and doctors. We built microcomputers before there were microcomputers and we studied seals 

in their national icy environment. Over the course of nine summer 

seasons in Antarctica, a nine-time visitor, we learned how specialized storage of oxygen and nitrogen within the seals played a critical role and allowing these animals to dive for extended periods 

without suffering the bends or hypoxia—low blood oxygen levels— 

not things you would want. We brought that knowledge back and 

eventually I developed a treatment for human hypoxic newborn babies by breathing nitric oxide, and our technique is now used to 

save the lives of about 15,000 U.S. babies each year. 

So why did I tell you this story? Because it is an important example of the power of discovery science. Allowing scientists to ex-
42 

plore in Antarctica leads to unanticipated discoveries, and Antarctica is a place that is ripe for such discoveries. There are large 

parts of the continent that have yet to be explored. As a geologist 

friend of mine likes to say, this is a place where you can pick up 

a rock and be confident that you are the first person ever to pick 

up that rock. 

But discovery is only part of this story. Science in Antarctica is 

also critical for it teaches us about the earth and how it is changing. Antarctica and the Southern ocean comprise about a third of 

our planet. They play a key role in earth’s climate and geography 

and provide a unique environment from which to monitor and understand global change including sea-level change. Our NAS report 

highlighted the need for both discovery-driven research and research on global change questions across the wide variety of scientific disciplines. More details of this are available in the complete 

report. 

After identifying these important scientific questions, our committee made a number of recommendations about the tools and logistics we needed to support research on these questions in a more 

effective and more efficient manner. Our group realized the need 

for wider observations underpinned many of our important scientific questions and thus our first recommendation is that the 

United States should lead in the development of large-scale interdisciplinary observing network and support a new generation of 

earth systems models to integrate these observations. Antarctica is 

almost totally unintegrated in all our models, and it is such a big 

piece of the earth. This is viewed as a key element of progress on 

the widest area of scientific issues. 

Other recommendations highlighted the need to continue to support basic research, to improve international collaboration working 

with others, to exploit newer technologies, and to coordinate our 

educational activities. 

Finally, our group emphasized the need for the United States to 

maintain a strong logistical support for science in the environment 

of Antarctica, and thus we ask the Blue Ribbon Panel to address: 

one, improve the efficiency of the support provided by the contractors and to enhance communications between, and the oversight of 

and the management of contractors by the scientific community in 

the field. Two, increase the flexibility and mobility and support system to work on the continent and the ocean-wide manner the entire continent, use as much of it as possible for as much of the year 

as possible, and to maintain, develop and enhance the logistical assets of the United States including the stations, the aircraft, the research vessels and icebreakers, of which you have already heard a 

bit of. 

Before our committee wrote its report—because our committee 

wrote its report as input to the Blue Ribbon Panel, we did not have 

the later opportunity to comment as a group on that report. As 

such, I can only offer you my personal views of their report. I believe they did a stellar job, and particularly they listened to our 

committee’s recommendations for more observations and disbursed 

observations and for increased flexibility and the logistical support 

of science in the Antarctic. The only area I feel they could have 

paid more attention to was the need for improved communication 
43 

and interaction among the NSF leadership, the logistical support 

contractor and the scientists in Antarctica. Again, that is my personal opinion based on our town-hall-style meetings in Antarctica. 

In closing, I emphasize that both of our committees worked very 

hard to identify these recommendations, and I believe that by 

using the recommendations, the United States can maintain its 

leadership in Antarctic science. 

I thank you. I am happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Zapol follows:] 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 

Chairman HALL. And I thank you, and I thank this group. I 

thank you very much. I have been up here 32 years and I have 

seen a lot of panels, and I have never seen a better panel than this 

one or more knowledgeable, more capable, more educated, and 

more generous with your time, and I even understood a lot of the 

things you said, Dr. Zapol. And thanks for the way you delivered 

it. 

We are going to have a chance now to ask you all some questions. I guess I have the duty and the opportunity to be the first, 

so I will recognize myself for five minutes. You can start the clock 

now. 

Dr. Suresh, while you testified that ‘‘NSF agrees with the majority of the Blue Ribbon Panel’s recommendations,’’ could you kind of 

tell us or please share with us those recommendations which NSF 

disagreed with and maybe why? 

Mr. SURESH. I will be happy to, Mr. Chairman. It is not that we 

disagreed—— 

Chairman HALL. You only have five minutes, so you realize that. 

Mr. SURESH. It will be less than that actually. I will be happy 

to answer that. 

We set up a Tiger Team immediately after the release of the report and we charged the Tiger Team to look into ways in which we 

can address all the concerns of the Blue Ribbon Panel report in addition to see if we can go far beyond what was recommended in the 

Blue Ribbon Panel, taking also into account the NRC report. So the 

reason we said ‘‘majority’’ is that the task of the Tiger Team is not 

finished yet. It doesn’t necessarily mean that there are areas that 

will have any differences of opinion with the Blue Ribbon Panel report. We will formally present the results of the Tiger Team in 

about three weeks or so to the National Science Board, and as I 

indicated, we will be happy to submit a copy of that report to this 

Committee. 

The other reason I was careful to mention about the recommendations is that not all of the implementation is entirely 

within NSF’s prerogative. There are aspects of it that we need to 

work with other agencies and other entities, and pending those 

conversations, it is not possible for me to say conclusively. So those 

are the reasons for it. 

Chairman HALL. I thank you. 

Norm, Dr. Augustine, as you know, and you do know this very 

well because you have evidenced it in all the programs and many 

panels you have been assigned to chair and to be a part of, you always look at the money and you are very clear about it in a great 

report that we really needed NASA. You declare in one short sentence there the problems that not enough money was part of the 

problem. And I appreciate that the panel took these constraints 

under consideration when you made your major recommendations 

here. But to pay for the improvements and upgrades at the Antarctic, the panel essentially recommends a formula of funding increases, funding shifts and reinvestment of saved cost. I believe 

your testimony indicates a ‘‘seven-year financial break-even,’’ and 

this isn’t a gotcha question at all. I wouldn’t dare put a gotcha 

question on you. When all is said and done with additional future 

savings, kind of tell us or reassure us, how do you know the sce-
56 

nario is achievable, particularly given that the panel didn’t determine what the required front-end investment really ought to be. I 

know you had a way of fitting that in and recognizing it and agreeing or disagreeing with it and treating it and then going on with 

your report, but I have got almost another minute to hear you tell 

me about that. 

Mr. AUGUSTINE. Mr. Chairman, we had the Institute of Defense 

Analyses help us with the cost estimating and we did calculate returns on investment and present values of the various proposals, 

most of the proposals we made. We couldn’t do a detailed analysis. 

NSF is now doing it. We did identify the source of about $150 million, of which 64 would come from increased budget support from 

the Congress and from the White House. This should make it possible to carry out the various tasks that we have proposed. 

Chairman HALL. I thank you, and I think my time is not quite 

gone. I will close my questions with again thanks to all of you, and 

to you, General McNabb, I thank you for the support you and your 

family gave Secretary of the Army Pete Geren, who was a longtime Member of this Congress. I know of your friendship and support there and your long-time respect for Jerry Costello, who is 

leaving. We are going to really miss him. He is a terrific member. 

But you all go way, way back, longer than I have any more time 

to let you express because that is five, four, three, two, I am out 

of time. 

All right. At this time I recognize the gentlelady for her questions. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I guess I will put this question out and ask each member to comment. I have a major concern about short-term and long-term research knowing what our financial restraints are but also realizing 

that to sacrifice all of our research also is to cut off our nose to 

spite our face because it means our future, and as much as we have 

attempted to encourage young people to go into these fields, 

inengineering and scientific research, it is beginning to pose questions for them as to whether there is going to be a role in the future, not that we have impressed enough of them yet to do it but 

I am concerned about that and I would like to hear your comments 

on it. I realize how significant this research is but I also know that 

we are operating under great financial restraints, and if it was left 

up to me, I would not cut this area because I really sincerely feel 

that research is our future, and so I would like to have your comments on how you think we can best focus for the short term and 

the long term. 

Mr. AUGUSTINE. Absent anyone else, I would be happy to try to 

answer that. Obviously, this is one of these things that you can’t 

do all short term and you can’t do all long term, it takes some balance. The advancements from science have been said to drive about 

85 percent, up to 85 percent of the growth in our economy, and by 

my own calculations, that suggests that about each percentage 

point you add to the number of scientists and engineers in this 

country creates about a million jobs. So there is great leverage to 

be had here. We are not doing well at attracting young people into 

science and engineering. In fact, out of 93 nations, we rank 79th 
57 

of the fraction of bachelor degrees that go to science and engineering. 

But I think what it takes is balance, and in business I have 

learned that at times that you have to cut your overall budget, 

there are some cases that you increase the budget in some areas, 

and science and engineering are one of those areas, marketing is 

probably another, but I think that is true of government as well. 

Mr. SURESH. First of all, I want to thank you, Ms. Johnson, for 

your support for science. In terms of short term, we will do everything possible with the budget that we have to make sure that 

safety and security for not just NSF colleagues but for everybody— 

contractors, scientists who travel to Antarctica—is ensured. So we 

will do everything possible in the present environment. 

Going to the long term, I fully resonate with your concern, and 

I also echo what Mr. Augustine just said. NSF receives approximately $7 billion a year from U.S. taxpayers to support science. 

Last year we supported 300,000 individuals in over 2,000 institutions in the country. I would argue based on a lot of evidence that 

the return to the U.S. Treasury based on the annual $7 billion investment is many, many, many times the $7 billion, and that is a 

compelling enough reason in addition to the jobs and everything 

else to continue to support science. 

I am very concerned about our ability to compete with the rising 

competition from all over the world for not only science and engineering research but also for human talent; our ability to attract 

and retain talent in science, both from domestic talent and talent 

from all over the world which this country has relied on very heavily, and if we lose that, I think it will be major competition, so I 

very much appreciate your concerns. 

General MCNABB. Yes, ma’am. I would say that one of the things 

that we really looked hard at is the productivity of your scientists 

and that community, and one of the things you want to do is, you 

can increase their productivity a lot if you give them the right facilities and logistics support. Right now I would say that if you go 

down and you visit the Antarctica, you will see that it is not efficient for them and it just—and it begs for the fact that if you can 

really help that, if you can really make sure the have the proper 

logistics infrastructure underneath them, it will be amazing how 

much more their time is worth, not only to the NSF and to the 

science community but really to the country. 

One of the big things in this country is transportation infrastructure. It is what fuels our productivity, and if you do it right, you 

compete very well. Well, I think we are competing for those young 

people, and when they go down and do a tour down the Antarctic, 

you can just imagine if they go down there and give it some of the 

things that we saw. If you give them world-class stuff, they will 

give you world-class results. The problem is, it is hard to get ahead 

of that, especially on logistics. I was the J–4 for the joint staff looking at logistics. The one place everybody seems to think they can 

always take money is logistics, and normally, logistics infrastructure and all you have to do is look at what happens when a Sandy 

or something comes through and you go boy, I sure wish we had 

buried all those electrical lines. Those are things that we can get 

ahead of now and really do pay back some dividends, and so that 
58 

is one of the things that we really focused on in the Blue Ribbon 

Panel with the understanding that we are trying to increase 

science and reduce cost. 

Dr. ZAPOL. Ranking Member Johnson, two points from an 

Antarctican view. First, Antarctica is extraordinarily attractive to 

young people. It really turns on high school classes. We surveyed 

in our report and we asked about—we asked do you have enough 

young people to do your research or enough Americans wanting to 

go to Antarctica and do research? We got a resounding reply that 

everybody wants to go, everybody is interested, there is no shortage. So this isn’t like NASA. This is an extraordinarily attractive 

place where young people can really get the idea of science, how 

to do it and want to do it. So I think Antarctica is really not suffering that way. 

And I think the second thing is, the science community worries 

about the price of logistics. We worry about the price of the Pole 

and the Pole Station and whether it was worthwhile, all of it, and 

we worry about the logistics taking over the minimal science budget. It is only 20 percent. If you shrink it, a lot of good grants won’t 

get funded. I know more about NIH where the funding rates get 

down to ten percent and eight percent and you lose competitive— 

you just start losing people at that point. You can’t shrink the 

science too much, and there is an anxiety. I speak for the community from what people have told me. They worry that logistics will 

get 100 percent of it and there won’t be any science. So those are 

the worries. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much for your time. My time is 

expired. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you. And when you talk about under 

budget and you look at NASA back through the years, and if we 

had just done a little different to what Norm had suggested and 

others for just even close to one percent of the overall budget, we 

would still have access to space that we must have, must get back. 

At this time I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith, 

for five minutes. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Zapol, let me address a couple of questions to you. First of 

all, you have great knowledge both about Antarctica and the Arctic 

Circle, and I am wondering if that makes you a bipolar expert. 

Dr. ZAPOL. It does. 

Mr. SMITH. Without question. I also want to thank you for the 

discovery you made ten years ago and the research you did that results in the saving of 15,000 babies’ lives every year. That is just 

incredible and a real credit to you for doing so. 

My question is this, and I appreciate what you said about the 

Antarctic being exciting to young people. I understand what you 

said about the sense of exploration when you are the first person 

to pick up a rock, and we might say that that holds true not only 

for the surface of the ice in Antarctica but also picking up a rock 

on the moon or an asteroid or on Mars. But my question is this. 

Is it possible that some of the research done in Antarctica could be 

done elsewhere for less cost? And more specifically, for example, 

some of the research you did on seals that you mentioned in your 

opening statement, could that have been done elsewhere? 
59 

Dr. ZAPOL. Well, let me approach it from the seal point of view. 

I couldn’t have at that time. I am not sure you could do it today. 

The ice, the fast ice of Antarctica, by freezing and freezing fast to 

the shore creates a platform, and it allowed us to go 25 miles offshore and drill a hole through the ice. Then when you released a 

wild seal there, we knew it couldn’t breathe anywhere else. So it 

had a computer pack and things on its back and it had to come 

back to our hole. I honestly don’t think if you did this on a shore 

where they could take off, you would probably never find them 

again or you would spend a lot of time tracking them down, and 

we did that in 1984 and so technology was in an earlier time. You 

might be able to today but I doubt it. I think that sort of research 

with captive hole diving can only be done there. 

Mr. SMITH. You might be able to replicate that today but you 

would know more about that than I. 

Let me then ask all the other panelists this question, and it is 

a little bit of a follow-up to what you have been asked already. The 

cost of research and the logistical support in Antarctica now is 

about a third of a billion dollars. Is it not possible that not only 

could some of that research be done elsewhere but is it not possible 

that some of the research might get done anyway by, say, the private sector, and is it possible that some of the research could be 

done elsewhere other than the Antarctic at that cost? And Mr. Augustine, we will start with you. 

Mr. AUGUSTINE. All right. Thank you. I think when you are dealing with basic research of the type we are talking about, it is highly unlikely that the private sector would support it. The reason is 

that the results are too uncertain, too long term, too costly. 

Mr. SMITH. But the private sector would certainly support saving 

15,000 babies a year. 

Mr. AUGUSTINE. The problem is, if you go to a corporation and 

say we want you to study Weddell seals, they probably would say 

no, and another former member of your Committee told me of a 

project your Committee supported to study butterfly wings that 

turned out to produce one of the ingredients that is used in treating cancer, and those things just in industry frankly were too 

shortsighted by pressures of the marketplace that companies just 

won’t support it. A classic example is the great Bell Labs that are 

basically shutting down. 

Mr. SMITH. There may be more potential than we think right 

now. I think about commercialization of space, which was just a 

few years ago thought not to be practical, and look what is happening there as well. But thank you for your answer. 

Dr. Suresh, good to see you again. 

Mr. SURESH. Good to see you, sir. Let me first address your earlier question about why Antarctica, can this be done somewhere 

else, because that is related to your second question. In my opening 

statement, I highlighted three discoveries. Those three discoveries 

could not have been done anywhere else. One of them has had a 

huge impact in addressing—because Antarctica is sort of a place 

where you identify things that you cannot see anywhere else, even 

if you just take Arctic versus Antarctic, the Arctic is much more 

heavily populated and it is not nearly as pristine as Antarctica. So 

the scientific discoveries that we make in Antarctica that have im-
60 

plications for so many different fields, we could not do anywhere 

else. So that is the first point I would like to make. 

Related to that, I think given that and given the fact that every 

branch of science and engineering that NSF supports, which is 

pretty much all fields of science and engineering, benefits from the 

research in Antarctica, and given the fact that 31 nations have now 

recognized the importance of this and are increasingly investing in 

it, and the United States has historically had a leadership role, I 

would argue very strongly that now is not the time to cut back on 

the investment. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate those answers. My time 

is up. 

General McNabb, I assume you would agree with the responses 

that we just received? Okay. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HALL. And I thank you. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. 

McNerney, for five minutes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do want to echo 

your comments on the panel’s hard work, and I want to thank you 

all for coming and getting engaged in this issue. As Dr. Zapol indicated, when I was in high school I wanted nothing more than to 

go to Antarctica. So one point of validation for that. 

There was some—some of your testimony is quite concerning, almost alarming. Mr. Augustine, you sort of were indicating the dilapidation of many of the facilities there, and then Dr. Suresh, I 

think, mentioned operating under multiple single points of failure. 

What is the worst-case scenario we are talking about? Are people’s 

lives at risk that work in Antarctica? 

Mr. SURESH. So first of all, as pretty much every panel member 

suggested here, the National Science Foundation in partnership 

with other agencies for more than half a century has had a phenomenal record of safety in running the U.S. Antarctic Program, 

and I want to emphasize that. So I think the spirit of the recommendations, and my distinguished colleagues can speak for the 

report, which I cannot speak for, the spirit of the recommendations 

is that there is a potential if we don’t address and improve the logistics. For example, having access to Antarctica to supply fuel is 

so critical, so if you don’t have the right icebreaking capabilities, 

that will potentially lead to severe loss of investments for the future. Not having a capital budget is one of the biggest recommendations. So it is in that spirit, some of the recommendations 

like the dishwasher in McMurdo, which feeds a number of people, 

we take it very seriously, and it is not that—if you look at it historically, we will look at each of these recommendations and as 

quickly as possible try to address to see if we can improve the situation. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, one of the things that keeps coming up is 

the small fraction of money that goes to science as opposed to logistics. Is part of that because of the dilapidated state of logistics? If 

the logistics were improved, could more money go to science, to real 

science? 

Mr. AUGUSTINE. I think the answer to that is without question 

that could be the case. If you took the one recommendation we 
61 

made that produces the highest savings after the initial investment, in the steady state, it alone could add 60 typical grants to 

the science effort. So there is a huge opportunity here. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Okay. Let us talk a little bit about the foreign 

presence or the risk to American leadership in the Antarctic. We 

clearly have—the United States clearly has the largest presence in 

Antarctic. What would be the risk if other countries were to come 

in and co-dominate that presence? General McNabb? 

General MCNABB. I think our leadership on the Antarctic along 

with all the other nations that have signed a treaty has really been 

superb, and the ability to preserve this place on our earth in a time 

when science is going to be so important is going to be critical. I 

am not sure that if we were not there and taking the leadership 

role, I am not sure how fast, given what you see happen around 

the world and really the competitive—you know, the competitive— 

competition for resources, that you would end up seeing the Antarctica be what it needs to be for the world, and that would be my 

take. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Anyone else want to comment on that? 

Mr. AUGUSTINE. I would welcome the opportunity. I think if you 

consider both the missions in Antarctica, with regard to the political implications, there are overlapping claims that you are well 

aware of that have been made by seven different countries, and 

there is, I think, good evidence that the United States presence 

there, particularly the presence at the Pole, has led to a very 

peaceful Antarctica, and as there is more and more exploration in 

that area, that will become more of a challenge, I believe. 

With regard to science, the United States has given up its lead 

in things like particle physics that it has had for years. It would 

be a shame to see us give up our lead in another area. I also find 

a certain irony that this Committee probably has recognized it. 

Today we can’t reach our—I say ‘‘our,’’ the International Space Station of which we pay for a major part, without flying on Russian 

launch vehicles. Similarly, we can’t get to Antarctica without using 

today Russian icebreakers, and that is a trend that probably is not 

something that a great nation would want to have. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I concede my time. 

Chairman HALL. And I thank you. 

I recognize Mr. Brooks, the gentleman from Alabama. 

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I could not help but note 

the correlation between us using Russian icebreakers and manned 

spaceflight vehicles. Hopefully, we will be able to restore America’s 

preeminence in both fields in our near future. 

I have got a two-part question addressed to the whole panel. By 

the very nature of the Antarctic treaty, international cooperation is 

essential to success in Antarctica. With specific regard to logistics, 

that being such a high-cost area, how are we currently sharing 

logistical burdens, with whom and at what savings to the United 

States taxpayer, and then the more important second part of the 

question, how can we expand logistics cooperation with other nations and at what projected or potential savings? 

Mr. AUGUSTINE. With the Committee’s permission, I will start 

out and try to be brief. Today there is a lot of sharing, particularly 
62 

with New Zealand, somewhat with Australia and with others. New 

Zealand recently built three wind-power facilities at McMurdo, 

which provide a substantial part of the power to the U.S. station 

there as well. 

In terms of the future, very briefly, one of the main opportunities 

would be on the Antarctic peninsula where Palmer Station is located. There are many stations of other countries in that same area 

and one could imagine instead of each nation providing its own logistics, that there could be basically a logistics Walmart, if you will, 

on a ship that makes a route around the Antarctic peninsula and 

has a stockroom that various countries could buy their parts from. 

So I think there is enormous opportunity. 

Mr. SURESH. Congressman Brooks, I will be very brief. We have 

had very longstanding collaborations with a number of countries 

from the U.K. to New Zealand to Chile and to many others. Recently, some countries have expanded their activities in Antarctica. 

For example, South Korea is in the process of building a new station not too far from McMurdo, just a few hundreds kilometers 

from McMurdo. They have also built a new icebreaker, and we 

have been engaged—the head of our polar program has been engaged in discussions with the president of the South Korean Polar 

Program on ways in which we can collaborate including in the area 

of infrastructure and logistics. 

General MCNABB. Congressman Brooks, I would say that one of 

the things that we really bring is our transportation capability to 

the team, if you will. Because of the nature of how our DOD works, 

we bring some capabilities that nobody else has. I can use the LC– 

130 ski bird as a great example. You know, other nations will have 

smaller airplanes that are equipped with skis but that LC–130 is 

kind of unique. One of the things we want to do is to make sure 

that we are freeing up assets for better support of science, and one 

of the places where we talk about that is a better mix of how we 

use our C–17s and our C–130s as an example. If we use our C– 

17s more to do more normal-type movement, we can free up LC– 

130s to do a better support for the field operations that are out 

there. 

Mr. BROOKS. But right now I am focused just on international cooperative measures, our own logistical issues internally. 

General MCNABB. And in this case, where we joined with some 

other nations was the AGAP project out in west Antarctica which 

where we provided really the LC–130 and C–17 air drop. Other 

countries, China provided traverse operations and other countries 

that did their part with little airplanes and so forth. 

Mr. BROOKS. I am going to have to go to my next question. I 

apologize, Doctor, but you can jump on this first if you so choose. 

Is it the role of Congress or the White House and the NSF to facilitate these kinds of international cooperative measures to help 

lower our logistical costs, and if it is Congress, what can Congress 

do to facilitate that cooperation? Anybody can answer. 

Mr. AUGUSTINE. I will step into that. I think it is the responsibility of NSF. It is the responsibility that was delegated to NSF 

some 30 years ago but obviously it takes the support of the Congress, the White House. 
63 

Mr. BROOKS. What, specifically, should Congress do to facilitate 

cooperation internationally on logistical costs? 

Mr. AUGUSTINE. I think it is mainly a matter of encouragement. 

I should say that the State Department takes the lead, obviously, 

in these international contacts. 

Mr. BROOKS. But we give encouragement to cut down costs so is 

there anything else we need to do? 

Mr. AUGUSTINE. The only thing I could think of is that some of 

the—well, it is not the Congress’s role. Some of the early presidential decisions needed to be updated but that is—I think the 

Congress is doing what it can do. I think it is really NSF, the State 

Department, they probably will be asking for funding. That will be 

obviously a Congressional issue. 

Mr. SURESH. I would like to add to that. I think, you know, NSF 

has been appointed as the point agency to work with our sister 

agencies and coordinating, and we work very closely with the State 

Department and the White House and other agencies as well. I 

think Congress can help us with—I mean, we keep Congress involved frequently and continuously about what we do. Both moral 

support and support for infrastructure and funding for the science 

in Antarctica will go a long way. 

Dr. ZAPOL. A bipolar comment. The Arctic has much more problem, and I am a commissioner, an Arctic research commissioner, 

and they are much more difficult. This is actually a rather easier 

place to work. The Antarctic treaty works. I have had five or six. 

In my team of eight, I had a New Zealander, an Australian, a German, a Canadian and a Dane. It is very easy to mix in our teams, 

and I think the scientists are way ahead there. It has been slow 

cooperation in a strange form. It is not a—it should go better, 

warmer. I think New Zealand in particular so close to McMurdo, 

so involved. I think we need to do more of that. 

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing the witnesses additional time to answer my question. I yield—well, I 

would yield but I have none. 

Chairman HALL. If you have some, I will accept the yield. If you 

don’t, I will accept it also. 

Ms. Bonamici from Oregon, I recognize you for five minutes or 

more. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Chairman Hall and Ranking Member Johnson, for calling this hearing, and to the panel, you 

have done an excellent job of effectively communicating the value 

of research in Antarctica from the discovery of the ozone hole to 

saving thousands of babies a year. I also want to point out, Dr. 

Zapol, in your testimony where you talk about monitoring space 

weather and how space weather could disrupt the proper functioning of communication satellites, GPS systems, electrical power 

distribution systems and how the space weather is better viewed 

from the South Pole than the shifting seas of the North Pole. I just 

wanted to point out, I found that extremely compelling as well. 

So scientific research and technological innovation are very thriving in the district I am proud to represent. My constituents are 

keenly aware of the impact of NSF, fundamental research dollars, 

and I have, for example, Oregon State University, Portland State 

University, my alma mater, the University of Oregon, all have com-
64 

pleted research projects through the U.S. Antarctic Program. In 

fact, the acting director of the Office of Polar Programs at the NSF 

was previously with Oregon State University. 

Considering the role of university-based polar research in Oregon 

and nationally, I want you to look ahead to the impending acrossthe-board cuts that would be brought on by the sequester, and I 

have a question about the funding for science versus the funding 

for logistics because Mr. Augustine, you mentioned that the cruel 

arithmetic of conducting research in the climate presented by the 

polar region, meaning that if logistics costs rise by 13 percent, the 

science would be halved. So with that in mind, will you please comment on the impact that the proposed cuts to NSF might have on 

the future of the Antarctic program considering especially the multiplier effect that Mr. Augustine talked about. Would the sequester 

effectively end the science portion of the program, and perhaps Dr. 

Suresh, you could begin? 

Mr. SURESH. I would be happy to address that. So if the worstcase scenario that is being proposed materializes, the Office of 

Management and Budget predicts that NSF’s budget along with 

that of our sister agencies, science agencies, will suffer about 8.2 

percent. So that—if it is across the board, that will be reflected 

across NSF. That would mean 1,000 fewer grants will be awarded. 

We typically give about 13,000 per year. About 1,000 fewer grants 

per year, thousands of scientists will be affected, and it goes back 

to an earlier question by the Ranking Member. It will also discourage a lot of very young people from going into science. This is the 

future of American leadership in science and engineering and 

therefore this is the future of our economic leadership and national 

security and other issues, and that is the biggest concern. That is 

our projection of the worst-case scenario of sequestration. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. And I know you have already—did 

you want to talk about that too, Mr. Augustine? 

Mr. AUGUSTINE. I would welcome the chance, just briefly, if I 

might. If this eight percent cut that is likely to take place if sequestration occurs, it would have an impact primarily on the science 

and not the logistics. It would be disproportionate, and the reason 

for that is that you still have to have an icebreaker. If you have 

one scientist, you still have to heat the buildings. If you have one 

scientist, then you have provide a fuel tanker, and so on. So I can 

imagine the impact on science, and I have never calculated the 

number, but it would be many times the eight percent. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. And with the brief time remaining, 

you did an excellent job of conveying to this committee the importance of the research that you do there. What efforts are you making to convey that to the public? 

Mr. SURESH. We have a lot of activities in Antarctica from conveying a lot of educational activities which reach not just researchers and undergraduate students but also schoolchildren. We even 

have an artist-in-residence program to convey the unique aspects 

of the excitement of Antarctica to the general public, and there are 

many, many ways in which this is communicated through videos to 

supporting science programs to communicating to school districts, 

et cetera, et cetera. 
65 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. Anyone else want to weigh in on efforts? 

Thank you very much, and I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HALL. The gentlelady yields back. I think that we 

have no other witnesses, and I want to thank all of you for your 

very valuable testimony and the Members for their questions. The 

Members of the Committee might have additional questions they 

want to submit to you, and if they do, I hope you will respond to 

those in writing to them. The record will remain open for two 

weeks for additional comments from the Members. And with once 

again just heartfelt thanks to all four of you and to those who attended and those who work with you and background information 

they sent to us, we thank all of you for it, and we are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:19 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(67) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
68 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Mr. Norman R. Augustine 
69 
70 

Responses by The Honorable Subra Suresh 
71 
72 
73 

Responses by General Duncan J. McNabb, USAF (Ret) 
74 
75 

Responses by Dr. Warren M. Zapol, M.D. 
76 

Æ