91 



trade-offs between the size, lifetime, and capability of the station vs. the anticipated 

 requirements of the science program. 



PRIORITY OF U.S. ANTARCTIC RESEARCH ACTIVITIES 



QUESTION: Congress has asked for the Administration to provide an 

 analysis of the priority of the U.S. Antarctic research activities and the 

 pros and cons of maintaining an Antarctic program at the current scale. 

 Will this report address the need for a new, permanent South Pole Station? 

 What process is NSF using to set priorities between infrastructure support 

 for Antarctic and Arctic research activities and what is the timeline for de- 

 cisions to proceed with construction? 



ANSWER: To quote from the Administration's report: "The NSTC reaffirmation 

 of U.S. policy, including the need for a continuing U.S. presence at the South Pole, 

 implies that by the time the Amundsen- Scott Station at the South Pole reaches the 

 end of its useful life, it will need to have been rebuilt or replaced." 



The current station is nearing the end of its useful life. Plans for rebuilding the 

 station continue to be discussed within the Foundation's long-range planning, and 

 the timeline for decisions to request funding follows the planning process that is 

 taking place through the spring and summer. Due to the present budget environ- 

 ment, NSF will conduct further cost-benefit analyses that examine the trade-offs be- 

 tween the size, lifetime, and capability of the station vs. the anticipated require- 

 ments of the science program. 



Arctic and Antarctic infrastructure support are currently sized appropriately to 

 meet the science needs in each area, which are very different in scope. Although 

 NSF's FY 1997 Budget requests equal funding for research programs in the Arctic 

 and Antarctic, ($29.10 million each), NSF's responsibilities and support of the infra- 

 structure necessary to conduct Arctic and Antarctic research is fundamentally dif- 

 ferent. NSF alone serves as the Nation's manager of the USAP. The Foundation also 

 supports a program of scientific research in the Arctic, as do 11 other Federal agen- 

 cies. The scientific activities supported by NSF in these two regions are related, as 

 reflected in the agency's decision to manage both programs in a single office, but 

 NSF's mandated responsibility is broader in the Antarctic than it is in the Arctic. 

 The differing responsibilities reflect geographical and jurisdictional differences be- 

 tween the two polar regions. The Arctic centers on an ocean covered by sea ice and 

 includes land areas of populated sovereign nations (including the United States), 

 whereas the Antarctic is a continent covered by thick glacial ice, isolated from any 

 sovereign nation, governed by international Treaty, and lacking an indigenous popu- 

 lation and infrastructure. 



Because the United States has territory in the Arctic, its administration of arctic 

 research is similar to its administration of research in other parts of the country, 

 where Federal agencies perform or support research relevant to their missions. 

 Twelve Federal agencies supported arctic research and associated activities in FY 

 95 at a combined level of $175 million; NASA and NSF were the largest funders 

 at more than $40 million each. These figures do not include arctic research sup- 

 ported by the State of Alaska and the private sector. The National Science Founda- 

 tion, in addition to its primary role of supporting fundamental research and edu- 

 cation in science and engineering, has a special assignment under the Arctic Re- 

 search & Policy Act of chairing the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee 

 to promote interagency coordination. 



Because the principal expression of U.S. interest in the Antarctic is scientific re- 

 search, the National Science Foundation is tasked by the President to budget for 

 and manage the entire U.S. national program there, including operational support, 

 so that the program can be managed as a single package by a single agency. 



UPDATE ON LIGO 



QUESTION: Would you please provide the Subcommittee with an update 

 on the Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory (LIGO) pro- 

 gram? Last year, the funding plan suggested that $55 million should be re- 

 quested for FY 97. However, the new budget is proposing $70 million. Does 

 this reflect some increasing cost beyond last year's estimates. What is the 

 rationale for this increase request? Are you satisfied with the progress 

 made over the past year? 



ANSWER: NSF recently conducted an in-depth panel review of the cost, schedule 

 and management of the LIGO project. The panel review concluded that LIGO con- 

 struction will be completed within the estimated cost, schedule and scope and that 

 the project is on track. Contracts for two of the three high-cost parts of the facilities 



