and a number of other things. In other words, they're very, very much subject to man's presence and dramatic impacts occur because of our presence.

And there also, of course, is what they call the Banana Belt in Antarctica where there's a significant amount of tourism. Can you give us any of your views with regard to the impacts of tourism and whether or not-I mean there's always an interest in seeing Antarctica, to say you were there. But do you have any views with regard to that?

Mr. STEGER. I feel that tourism definitely has to be regulated. Right now it's a free for all. Any country or any company that can get together a ship with 1,000 people can go down. And the result of that is 2 years ago we saw one of the Argentina tankers go on the rocks right in front of our Palmer Research Station.

And we'll definitely see more accidents like that unless it's somehow regulated. For one, we need to regulate certain areas that can be visited, so tourism doesn't interfere with the wildlife or the scientific study that goes on.

I think it's a shame that the Palmer Station has to be a tour guide to so many tourists when there's real serious scientific study that has to be done there. The fact that it's in a beautiful area, I think has been the drawback to that.

But I think the regulation of, first of all, the areas where the ships can go, the types of ship, some sort of regulation on the types of ships, and also more chartered waters, better charts, better navigational aids down there in the areas where they ship. If it's regulated, it can be relatively safe.

Of course the numbers-like the bounty waters in Minnesota, the numbers now are regulated. That somehow would have to be done. But I see the other side of tourism as being very positive. Because, just to have a scientific representation in Antarctica is very lopsided.

We need representation of the average citizen, someone that's going to speak out for Antarctica. We need a tourism lobby, so to speak. And that way I see tourism as being very healthy, to balance the scientific side, scientific lobby and the tourism lobby.

But I think tourism is possible, is healthy. But we really have to look at regulations. And the question is how do we regulate something like this that's so international. That's the problem with Antarctica right now.

Mr. VENTO. Well, Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate Mr. Steger being here and sharing with us his experiences and views on this. I think he's obviously done a remarkable feat. He has become sort of our own Jacques Cousteau-an American Jacques Cousteau.

One thing about Mr. Steger, I think we can refer to him as a catalyst. We've all had initiatives. My good friend Wayne Owens had one and I had done a number of other things. But really it sort of takes someone that's a catalyst to try to get us going. And one good thing about a catalyst is you never use it up in chemical terms. So it keeps producing and energizing. And that's what he's doing today.

So I hope that he has the right effect on all of you as he's had on me and on Jim Oberstar and others. So I'm very much appreciative

of his role and his continued attention to this and other issues of environmental concern.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DE LUGO. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota.

Now, let me recognize a valued member of this subcommittee, my good friend from Georgia, Mr. Darden.

Mr. DARDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

It's a pleasure to be here this morning and participate in this hearing and to welcome the witnesses present.

I would say, first of all, Mr. Steger, that I prefer to travel Antarctica in a C-130 aircraft or perhaps a helicopter in the time I was done there with the National Science Foundation. I had a very limited exposure.

But during that time in which I became acquainted with Dr. Peter Wilkniss and others who I see here this morning, there was a very grave concern expressed, and one with which I concur, about how do we keep these ill-equipped, ill-prepared expeditions out of this area.

While we were there, I believe we had to-the U.S. Navy had to rescue a shipload of people who were following an expedition that was going across. They didn't have the proper equipment; they didn't have the proper training. And I'm concerned, will legislative emphasis in this area promote this type of expedition even more? Certainly your expedition is one thing. But what do we do about all these people who seem to be coming down there and don't really know what they're doing and, I think, create more problems for us in that region?

Mr. STEGER. Yes. The problem there, first of all, is we're dealing in an international issue. If this was in the Grand Canyon, we could regulate the rafting as we've done with certain companies and number of people and so forth, permits. But when you're dealing on the high seas or on the Antarctic continent as it is, there's very few restrictions that you have actual control over who's coming down there.

By regulating tourism, let's say, ship-based tourism, that's a possibility in certain areas in the Arctic along the peninsula. But similar expeditions to ourselves-first, we saw our expedition as a possibility of setting up a parameter of how you do the right expedition, with the right logistical backing.

Our expedition was $8 million and half of that budget went into logistics. And even then, we found ourselves ill-prepared, I mean, once we were in the storm. So you almost need the air force of a country in order to be safe.

I really think, again, limitations-in the Ellsworth Mountains, which is probably 1,700 miles south of Chile. It's probably 700 miles from the South Pole but it's in a very beautiful mountain range near the highest mountain, Mount Vincent, very good sporting area there-skiing and climbing and even dogsledding.

But there's a blue ice runway on slick ice where you can actually land a wheeled aircraft. We talked a lot about this as a group, the six of us, as we traveled-the dilemma that NSF now is facing. But we thought if it's going to be permitted, to have regulated flights into the blue ice. And it's Chile that's doing the tourism down

there. You need the help of a government like Chile where they have the air force capacity to back up a rescue.

You then have an avenue where you have a limited number that can fly in, let's say, in a C-130, maybe two or three flights a year. Then from there, at that base, you disperse them, either skiing or climbing. But it's still regulated.

And there then you have the loophole where you can allow certain expeditions and it's under certain guidelines, so you don't have these sporadic expeditions coming in and demanding rescue from your valuable time.

People in this room may not be aware of it but NSF's programs are very tight. They're planned 2 to 3 years ahead. And if you pull off the planes for a rescue, you disturb the whole intricate scientific program and the result is that a lot of science does not get done. So you run on such a tight ship there, NSF cannot afford to have a rescue craft available. That's just a huge amount of money.

But the idea of, let's say, working with Chile, where you allow a certain number of people to fly into the interior by air in one area might be a solution to that.

We found, working through a private charter company, we almost had disastrous results on that. We put a lot of money into that company. But still, any private company cannot come up with the capital to fully assure that you're going to have rescue backup. I think a private enterprise is highly unlikely—a safe private enterprise.

Because eventually on these tourist aircraft flights to the pole, you're going to see an accident. I mean it's a matter of casting dice unless it's regulated somehow. And I think we really have to look at the tourism. And the shipping is the big problem with the number of tourists on the peninsula right now.

But we have to approach the dilemma of aircraft. And I think the one way of doing that is through Ellsmere Island because you can regulate that.

Mr. DARDEN. Well, my greatest concern is that any legislation we pass not have the effect of bringing more people down there in such a way to disturb or inhibit the very valuable scientific research and exploration that goes on. So perhaps we can strike a balance.

Thank you very much for your time.

Mr. DE LUGO. Thank you. I thank the gentleman from Georgia. I, again, want to thank you, Will, for making the trek and for coming here before us this morning. You've been a great help to this subcommittee.

Mr. STEGER. Thank you.

Mr. DE LUGO. Thank you.

Next, we're going to hear from the administration. We have a panel representing the administration.

We have Mr. Bill Houston, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Territorial and International Affairs, Department of the Interior. He's accompanied by Dr. Eugene Hester, Associate Director for Natural Resources, National Park Service, Department of the Interior.

Also on the panel will be Mr. Tucker Scully, Director, Office of Ocean Affairs, Department of State, and Dr. Peter Wilkniss, Director of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation.

I want to welcome all of you gentlemen here this morning. We have statements from Mr. Houston, from Mr. Scully and we have one from Dr. Wilkniss. And, without objection, all of your statements will be placed in the record in their entirety and we will proceed under the 5-minute rule and I would like to ask you if you could summarize your statements.

And let me first recognize the gentleman from the Interior Department, Deputy Assistant Secretary William Houston.

PANEL CONSISTING OF BILL HOUSTON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR TERRITORIAL AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; TUCKER SCULLY, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF OCEAN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, AND PETER WILKNISS, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF POLAR PROGRAMS, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Mr. HOUSTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased to appear before the Subcommittee on Insular and International Affairs today to present the views of the Department on H.R. 4514.

The Department of the Interior recommends that H.R. 4514 not be enacted. Instead, we support the Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities as an appropriate alternative to enactment of H.R. 4514.

H.R. 4514 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to prepare an inventory of natural resources of Antarctica and to prepare a general management plan for Antarctica as a world park.

We do not support a unilateral resource inventory and a plan by the National Park Service. Such undertakings would cost millions of dollars, would take far longer than the periods set forth in the bill, and would require the application of skills and expertise unavailable to the National Park Service.

However, the Department does recognize the value and need for a comprehensive resource inventory and an internationally negotiated management program.

H.R. 4514 prohibits mining and mineral leasing in Antarctica. The bill would also require U.S. officials to make public mineral resource data pertaining to Antarctica..

The Department has been active in Antarctica for many years. The U.S. Geological Survey has probably the most knowledge of any Government agency about the geology and geography of this continent and adjacent seas. We would be pleased to have the U.S. Geological Survey brief this committee on what is known about the Antarctic at the committee's convenience.

We agree that protection of the unique Antarctic environment is essential. But passage of this bill would result in unilateral action on the part of the United States that cannot guarantee reciprocity from other nations with an interest in Antarctica.

The elimination of all mineral activity is apparently based on a premature assumption that mining and protection of the unique Antarctic environment are incompatible. Protection of the sensitive environment of Antarctica is essential. But there are examples of mining activity which has occurred in sensitive environments with successful implementation of safeguards.

A unilateral prohibition could dampen emerging and future technology that could offer even greater protection to the Antarctic environment. However unlikely it may seem now, it is possible to envision circumstances where shortage of critical mineral resources may force other nations to ignore our ban. Negotiating an effective agreement to protect the Antarctic environment under these circumstances would be very difficult.

Finally, the legislation may affect the foreign policy objectives of the United States. We defer to the views of the Department of State on such policy matters. Specifically, section 6(a)(4) would prevent the President from submitting any future agreement to the Senate for ratification that is inconsistent with this act. We defer to the Department of Justice on whether this provision infringes on the President's constitutional prerogatives.

We have a viable alternative to H.R. 4514. The Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities, or CRAMRA, represents a balanced and sound framework for addressing both environmental and mineral storehouse issues. The convention does not presume that mineral activities will take place but establishes an internationally agreed system for determining the acceptability of such activities should they be proposed in the future.

The U.S. policy regarding Antarctica is intended to preclude human activity that may harm the environment. And we have sought, through negotiations, an agreement that would protect the Antarctica environment and associated ecosystems. CRAMRA actually prohibits exploration and development of minerals unless there is a consensus that such activities can be accomplished in an environmentally sound manner.

The United States must keep its options open. Events in the Middle East remind us how interdependent our national economy is with the others in the world. This tense situation is a good example of how strategic outlook is subject to change.

In the future, similar challenges may confront us with regard to critical and strategic minerals. It is wise to make decisions based on knowledge. In short, we should know what's there and preserve the environment.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. [Prepared statement of Mr. Houston follows:]