| |
Basic Research Subcommittee Gets Update on Antarctic
July 23, 1996
The House Basic Science Subcommittee of the Science
Committee used the National Science and Technology
Council's review of the U.S. Antarctic Program as
the focal point for a July 23 oversight hearing on
the future of NSF's role in Antarctica.
Dr. Ernest Moniz, Associate Director for Science at
OSTP, provided an overview of the Report on the
United States Antarctic Program (USAP). The report,
issued in April, responded to a Congressional request
for a reassessment of U.S. policy in the Antarctic
in light of the end of the cold war, the current constrained
budget environment, and discussions concerning the
replacement of the South Pole Station. The report
focused on the science conducted under the USAP in
three broad categories: understanding the Earth and
its large-scale systems; science that can be done
only (or best) in Antarctica; and exploration of the
geographical frontier.
The Report concluded with six findings and recommendations:
- Maintaining a year round presence in Antarctica,
including the South Pole Station, is essential
to U.S. interests;
- NSF has implemented U.S. policy in an effective
manner;
- The USAP research program is of high quality and
broad scientific interest;
- At the current level of investment, the USAP is
cost-effective in advancing scientific and geopolitical
objectives;
- Recommends an external panel to explore options
for sustaining the USAP science activities within
realistic funding levels; and
- The USAP should give highest priority to correcting
health, safety and environmental issues a the
current South Pole station.
Dr. Neal Sullivan provided an overview of the research
activities currently being supported by NSF and a
discussion of the logistics support of the USAP. He
noted that the ongoing transition from Navy logistics
support to the Air National Guard and private providers
met both cost containment goals and training goals
of the Guard.
R. Tucker Scully, Director of the Office of Ocean Affairs,
U.S. Department of State, provided the foreign policy
context for the USAP and discussed the Antarctic Treaty
which ensure scientific access to the Antarctic and
prevents further territorial claims, military activity,
the taking of flora or fauna, mineral exploitation,
and environmental degradation. The U.S. presence at
the South Pole, Scully testified, provides a demonstration
of U.S. commitment to research and to the stability
of the treaty system.
Hon. Robert Pirie, Assistant Secretary of the Navy
(Installations and Environment), discussed the involvement
of the U.S. Navy in the Antarctic, other DoD logistic
support, and the rationale for the transition to Air
National Guard support for the snow ski-equipped LC-130
operations. That transition began in March of this
year and is expected to be completed in March of 1999.
Commercialization of base support functions is nearly
complete and commercialization of Antarctic helicopter
operations is underway, making the single point management
of the LC-130 operations by the Air National Guard
as the final step in the transition.
Chairman Schiff (R-NM) asked about the differences
between the Arctic and Antarctic geography, environment,
and research opportunities and quizzed Dr. Sullivan
about his research on life forms in the Antarctic
ice. He inquired about the participation of other
nations --26 are signatories to the Treaty, but 13
have ongoing research activities. The USAP represents
between one-fourth and one-third of the total research
being conducted in Antarctica.
Rep. Bud Cramer (D-AL) inquired whether the $25 million
in the FY 1996 budget for health, safety and environmental
improvements at the South Pole Station would be permanent
improvements, regardless of future plans to rebuild
the station. Dr. Sullivan responded that the new power
plant, garage, and environmental improvements would
be integrated into a new station if plans were approved.
Rep. Cramer asked if the USAP had sought international
contributions for a South Pole station. Dr. Sullivan
stated that international support for scientific infrastructure
was a possibility, but difficulties in joint management
of a facility, combined with the singular U.S. capacity
to provide logistical support to the South Pole made
such collaboration impractical. Mr. Scully, in response
to a question about possible contributions from the
State Department for the South Pole Station, responded
that the station was a national resource to which
funds were provided on behalf of national interests,
and that it was appropriate that NSF both provide
those resources and manage them..
Rep. Volkmer (D-MO) requested (and Mr. Scully provided)
a brief history of U.S. involvement in the Antarctic
and suggested that Members be invited to see the station
for themselves. He also asked if the old station would
be dismantled and removed if a new station were constructed.
Dr. Sullivan responded that it would be removed. Rep.
Gutknecht (R-MN) asked where the funds for a new South
Pole station would come from, to which Dr. Moniz replied
that, in addition to the $25 million in FY 1996, new
funds would have to come from savings in other areas.
The second panel consisted of Dr. Robert Rutford, University
of Texas, and Dr. David Clark, University of Wisconsin,
who testified on research opportunities in the polar
regions, and commented on the NSTC report in generally
favorable terms.
|
|
