I ask the members of this subcommittee, in their evaluation of H.R. 4514, to coordinate on a bipartisan basis the legislative efforts on the preservation of Antarctica, to bring together the interests of the varied groups to one leadership position for this nation. We must commit to the prohibition of mining, to the proper management of tourism, to the continued monitoring of man's impact on the planet, and to understanding that the joint effort in the preservation of the continent of Antarctica can be a blueprint for how the nations of the world can work together to solve the other global environmental problems. This effort can be a symbol of peace.

As I have traveled the world during the last several months and met with the world's leaders, including President Bush, President Mitterrand of France, Prime Minister Kaifu of Japan, President Yang Shangkun of the People's Republic of China, and Foreign Minister Schevardnadze and Vice President Lukyanov of the Soviet Union, I have been struck by a groundswell of public opinion in the nations of the world for the preservation of Antarctica. During the International Trans-Antarctica Expedition, 15,000,000 school children around the world followed the expedition as teachers brought to life the study of this continent. For these children, and for all the other children of the world, we must move and commit to the establishment of the Antarctic continent as a World Park.

Mr. DE Luco. Thank you very much, Will.

That was a very moving presentation. When you describe a 60day storm. I mean, 60 days. What were the temperatures during that period?

Mr. STEGER. The temperatures would vary between minus 10 and minus 40 but the temperature is nothing compared to what the wind is. The wind would average 35 miles an hour, up to 50. And usually those were headwinds against you. So the wind chills were something totally unimaginable almost. I don't think anyone has ever traveled that length of time under those conditions.

Mr. DE LUGO. Sixty days.

Mr. STEGER. We have to really thank our dogs here because they're really the heroes, not the 6 of us but the 36 dogs that pulled the sleds and had the strength to pull this trip off. They were the real heroes.

Mr. DE LUGO. You describe getting up in the morning and facing that day that you had to go on under those conditions. How did you go on?

Mr. STEGER. Sometimes we wondered how we did it. But this is where it's good to have six strong people that are working together. We really cooperated together on this expedition and our strength was the international basis.

And sometimes I thought it would be impossible to travel during the day. But there was always one or two or three people within the group that had the right attitude to do it. And there was always someone within the group that would carry us through the hard times. Because to do this individually would have been impossible. Because the individual spirit is not strong enough to face something like that.

We also drew a lot of strength from our dogs. They set a very fine example of spirit and good attitude. But we were really fortunate, I think, because this was a real vivid demonstration of faith. A lot of times we put faith into something, faith into the environment and we don't see the output of that. But there we had the exercise of faith and, by God, we made it across Antarctica. And it wasn't just because we were strong; it was because our attitudes and our spirits were there. And that was very powerful.

When we reached the other end, this is what we all personally experienced among the six of us, that we actually had done this. Our spirit, our drive, had accomplished this.

Also, I must add, it was the prayers of them back home that has a tremendous amount of power that I drew my strength, mainly from the children. Because I knew-I could feel that almost, the millions of kids. There was a power behind that.

We had the usual incredible luck along the way. We also had bad luck which we made into good luck. But it was the strength of the human spirit, of the prayers that really made this all possible.

Mr. DE LUGO. Will, you and Jim Oberstar presented these pictures from the children. I assume these are the children of Minnesota?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Yes. Pike Lake Elementary School in my district. Mr. DE LUGO. An elementary school in your district. And they are moving. There are letters here from the children and, you know, I'm very impressed by the sincerity of the letters and the

concern of these children and their drawings, trying to express their concern for Antarctica. They're addressed to Congressman Oberstar.

You described how you lost one of the members of the team and I was reading about that last night. That was the member representing Japan, was it not?

Mr. STEGER. Yes. Yes.

Mr. DE LUGO. And how long was he lost for?

Mr. STEGER. Fourteen hours. We were very fortunate because it was a warm storm. It was above zero actually but it was very heavy snow. An ordinary snowstorm that we had on the peninsula, he wouldn't have survived. But he dug himself under the snow.

He went out to feed his dogs and he was dressed very lightly, just with Kortex socks, so he wasn't really ready for that type of a storm. But he kept his thoughts going positive and kept moving his body and thought a lot about home and his parents and it pulled him through.

Mr. DE LUGO. You mentioned the meeting in Chile. What do you think the position of the U.S. Government should be at the November meeting in Chile of the Antarctic Treaty consultative parties? Mr. STEGER. Well, I'll just speak in terms of mining. I really think the United States should take a leadership role in the preservation of Antarctica. I think the real issue here is mining. And I think what the world needs is an environmental victory to galvanize the spirit, similar to what the Berlin wall did.

And this is why I feel so strongly that we need to preserve Antarctica. We need that for humanity. Not just for future generations, we need it right now for the spirit to go on to face the massive problems and the sacrifice that we're going to have to make in facing up to the environmental problems.

And the crux, I feel, around this is the minerals. What are we going to do with the minerals? Do we mine them or do we leave it as is? And, to me, the question is, further down the line, even if we permitted exploration of minerals, the question is, who owns Antarctica? And are we setting up Antarctica for another cold war or maybe a nuclear war 30 years down the line by even leaving the door open for the possibility of exploring or mining. That's what I think we have to seriously look at.

I think the mining issue here is plutonium and uranium. I think further down the line these are going to be the valuable minerals. Oil, to me, is almost out of the question how you could even-not just the expense but the absolute threat to the environment to try to get oil out of those circumstances. And I would have to say humanity has to be very hard fixed here if we have to go to Antarctica for petroleum. But I really think it's the precious minerals further down the line.

But the question is, who owns Antarctica. And the fact that we could enter into a war over the possession of Antarctica. The opportunity right now is to preserve Antarctica, leave it alone. And I think the main issue is mining and this is the issue that I think we're facing in the Santiago meeting coming up here in November. And many of the countries-some of the countries have blatantly said, no mining. I think China and the Soviet Union are politely waiting for the United States to take on a stance, because they

have verbally made their commitment already in the media. But, being the diplomats that they are, I think they are waiting for us to take a stance here.

So I think it's very important and the main issue here is no mining, no exploration. I feel there's a double-edged sword here in exploration. Because, in Antarctica, I feel we need to really increase our science, our investigative science. We need to find out almost immediately more about the atmosphere, more about our circulation. And this is the most perfect laboratory in the world. We don't need to put our valuable money and our valuable resources and our human energy into exploring for minerals in Antarctica. We need to put that money into scientific research.

Mr. DE LUGO. Will, you know, given the fact that you've met with many leaders and people from all over the world regarding Antarctica, are you convinced that world opinion does favor preserving and protecting Antarctica rather than exploiting it, and that it can be accomplished before irreparable damage is done?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, before Will

Mr. DE LUGO. Yes, Congressman Oberstar?

Mr. OBERSTAR. I have to leave the committee. I have meetings in my office.

Mr. DE LUGO. Absolutely. And the subcommittee thanks you for being here this morning and introducing your constituent.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Just to have a final thought about the legislation and the purpose for which Will is here.

Some years ago a visitor to a remote wilderness area in northern Minnesota came upon a sign as he was about to enter that area. The sign said very simply: "Help us preserve the wilderness; leave this place." In order to preserve Antarctica, it may be best that we leave it.

Mr. DE LUGO. Well said, well said.

Thank you very much, Jim.

Well, let me at this time recognize the gentleman from California for any questions that he might have of the witness.

Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I don't have any questions. I just want to join you and the other members of the committee in commending the witness for being here and especially for what he has done, a remarkable expedition and very moving testimony.

Mr. DE LUGO. Thank you very much.

Let me recognize Mr. Clarke here, the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. CLARKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank the witness for a very moving testimony and for a wonderful account of your brave journey.

I had just one question. You may have already mentioned it but what were the other countries represented in your group?

Mr. STEGER. The countries on the expedition itself-France, England, Soviet Union, China, Japan, and then myself and the United States. And we had two scientists from Saudi Arabia on the ship. Mr. CLARKE. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DE LUGO. Thank you. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina.

Now let me recognize the sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. VENTO. Well, Mr. Chairman, after violating the 5-minute rule and a variety of other prerogatives in terms of my opening comments, I think that Will Steger touched on the point that I just wanted to point out to the members. If you look at Antarctica-and I know obviously Will has-you see all these lines on the map and all these countries that have made claims with regard to Antarctica. And I think there's a little slice in there that the Soviet Union has; there's Chile and Argentina and New Zealand, Australia has made, I guess, larger claims. I haven't got the map in front of me. But what do you think about all those lines on Antarctica, Will? I'm just kind of interested in your view of that.

Mr. STEGER. It's a dangerous way of thinking. They made the claims early on. The claims are not recognized by, I don't think, the United States. Making claims in Antarctica, I think, is the wrong direction. But the problem is already Argentina, Chile, some of the countries have made strong claims and have bases and claim it as actually part of their own country.

This is one of the problems that we're facing, is what do we do with-how do we resolve these claims and should there be claims. Personally, I don't think there should be claims.

Personally, I also think that we need more international science, rather than having individual United States bases or Soviet bases. the South Pole, for instance, is very unique for certain scientific studies we can do at that particular location on the globe and that elevation.

And I think our bases should be more open to international science. For one, it draws a better pool and also this is more of what Antarctica represents. So, in terms of your question with the claims, I would say that's going in the wrong direction even to think in that way. But I think we ought to make Antarctica more international yet on the bases.

Mr. VENTO. You're saying it sort of defies the conventional type of way that we territorialize and try to express ownership or sovereign control; is that what you're saying?

Mr. STEGER. Well, we have made, in effect-some ways we make our claims by our bases and our sovereignty by our bases. I'm saying that Antarctica, the bases in the future should be more open to international study, international scientists. That's more, to me, what Antarctica represents.

But in terms of the claims, I think we have to look at individual countries with their bases. Are the bases actually claims or claiming a certain area? And I think the solution to that is more international science.

Mr. VENTO. Well, it seems to me it calls to-and I think you're expressing the same thing-a new level of cooperation that defies that current basis on which we function. Obviously we've got to sort out with regard to personal property and responsibilities for pollution and ecological damage.

I was reading in the past about an island that was off Antarctica and the fact that it had been actually a rookery for penguins and other types of pinnipeds and that just man's presence there had actually caused a kind of a crash in terms of the size of the rookery