Science Committee Hearing on “U.S. and Antarctica in the 21st Century
The first full hearing of the House Science Committee was held last week on the topic of Antarctica. The sole witness was Norman R. Augustine, Chairman of the U.S. Antarctic Program External Panel. Augustine summarized the panel’s report, not yet printed, which reaffirms the importance of U.S. presence, but calls for a slimmer renovation of outdated U.S. facilities.
Committee chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) set the tone for this hearing by saying that after visiting U.S. facilities in Antarctica he had “many concerns if the buildings will last until even the end of the decade.” He spoke of the importance of the U.S. being at the pole, yet said that because of the high cost of construction and federal budget restraints it was necessary for the committee to examine renovation plans. Sensenbrenner noted passage last year of funding to alleviate some of the most pressing problems at U.S. facilities, although Rep. Steven Schiff (R-NM) added that “Congress has not focused on this as much as it should.”
Augustine described the 11 member panel’s fact-finding process to fulfill NSF’s request to “examine a full range of infrastructure, management, and scientific options” for the U.S. Antarctica program. He reported that the panel “strongly” agrees with a National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) conclusion: "...from a policy perspective the NSTC finds that maintaining an active and influential presence in Antarctica, including year-round operation of South Pole Station, is essential to U.S. interests....” NSTC based its conclusion on the importance of U.S. efforts to assure regional political stability, environmental stewardship, and the unique research characteristics of Antarctica.
A second major conclusion of the panel, Augustine stated, is that it “agrees with the NSF and the NSTC that South Pole Station will need to be rebuilt or replaced.” Emphasizing this point, he said, “the Panel believes that the U.S. would not send a ship to sea or a spacecraft to orbit in the condition of some of the facilities in Antarctica, particularly the one at the South Pole.... The Panel believes that steps need to be taken without delay to remedy these conditions.”
The panel considered four different remedial options, ranging from rehabilitation of the current station to an “enhanced station” proposed by NSF that “would provide additional capability and the opportunity for development of energy and environmental technologies.” Regarding this last option, the panel found, “however, not all of these additional capabilities are mandatory, making this option difficult to support in a fiscally constrained budget environment.”
The panel recommends replacement of the South Pole station with what they call an “Optimized station,” which could be completed by 2005. At a later briefing, Augustine said this station would support the same number of scientists, but that they would occupy two instead of three units with 7,000 square feet less space -- much of which would be residential. There would be the same number of summer berths in each alternative, 110, which Augustine stated “is what you want to focus on.” Proposed upgraded sewage and alternative power systems would not be built. Augustine concluded that the “basic science you can support...is the same” in this less expensive option. The optimized station would cost $30 million less than the enhanced station, for a total cost of $120 million.
The report suggests how to finance this cost, including a $20 million reallocation of the field research and operational support budget while the station is constructed, and the pursuit of other cost efficiencies in functions formerly performed by the Navy. Augustine concluded, however, that “unfortunately, there remains a funding shortfall which in the Panel’s judgement can only be reasonably funded by the provision of an additional $95M over the five years FY98 through FY02 in the NSF budget. This Panel believes that this will permit the phased replacement of the existing South Pole Station without unduly compromising the nation’s program of research or jeopardizing its presence in Antarctica.”
Committee members did not comment extensively on Augustine’s testimony, although Sensenbrenner said “I expect to hear complaints from the scientific community” about some details of the plan. Augustine replied that the proposal was “quite adequate” for scientists. Rep. Tim Roemer (D-IN) sought assurances that the level of support would return to what it was before the anticipated above cited $20 million reduction. In a prepared statement, NSF Director Neal Lane stated, “NSF will examine how to incorporate the panel’s twelve major recommendations and other findings into its planning in order to help the agency meet the challenge of maintaining the strength and excellence of the Nation’s Antarctic program.”
A future issue of FYI will summarize the external panel’s report when it is released.
