STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE NICK J. RAHALL, CHAIRMAN BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON INSULAR AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS SEPTEMBER 18, 1990 Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend you for holding this very important hearing. It was not long ago that I joined our colleague, Bruce Vento, in introducing the Antarctica World Park and Protection Act of 1990, H.R. 4514. As you know, this legislation seeks to address the future of Antarctica and the question of whether the United States will be a party to the exploitation of that continent's most fragile environment, or will be in the forefront of international efforts to preserve its unique ecosystem for the benefit of the global environment, scientific research and future generations. Due to a growing interest in the possible exploitation of Antarctic minerals, and the fact that the Antarctic Treaty of 1959--which provides for international cooperation on matters pertaing to scientific research--does not address nonliving resources, in 1981 efforts began in earnest among the Consultative Parties to the Treaty to devise a minerals regime for Antarctica. The Consultative Parties are the seven nations with territorial claims in Antarctica as well as 13 other countries, including the United States, involved in scientific research in Antarctica. These efforts culminated with an agreement adopted by the Consultative Parties in Wellington, New Zealand, in 1988 known as the Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities. It should be noted that this Convention was adopted even though there is a great deal of uncertainty and debate on the extent of Antarctica's mineral wealth, and the ability to exploit it with existing technology. Even the American Mining Congress, in recent testimony before Congress, conceded that the region not only poses overwhelming obstacles to mineral exploration and development, but that any minerals likely to be found in Antarctica are abundant elsewhere and will continue to be readily available in the foreseeable future. Nonetheless, the specter of mining in the fragile Antarctic environment, given credence by an international agreement on mineral exploitation, is of great concern to many in this country and elsewhere. 1 This is a justifiable concern in light of the degradation of the Antarctic environment that is already taking place, not by developers, but by explorers and the very scientists charged with conducting research in Antarctica. A recent issue of Time magazine succinctly identified the situation as follows: "Over the years, human invaders have spillted oil into the seas, dumped untreated sewage off the costs, burned garbage in open pits, and let huge piles of discarded machinery slowly rust on the frozen turf." To its credit, Australia was the first nation to announce that it would not sign the Convention and would instead work for a permanent ban on the exploitation of Antartica's mineral resources. Joined by France, Australia is now advancing a proposal for a new convention based on establishing a comprehensive framework for the protection of Antarctic's environment. Both Australia and France are among the seven nations which have territorial claims in Antarctica and as such, their refusal to ratify the Convention effectively blocks it from ever going into force. Despite this fact, the Bush Administration strongly opposes abandoning the Convention and is stubbornly pressing forward with various activities aimed at its ratification. With this legislation, we are seeking to send a message to the world that the Bush Administration's position is not necessarily the one held by the Congress of the United States. The Democratic leadership of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, in particular, is on record in support of the consideration of other alternatives than what is represented by the Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities. I, for one, am deeply concerned that the course of action suggested by this Convention will lead to irreversible adverse consequences on Antarctica's exceedingly fragile environment. Again, I commend you for holding this hearing. 2 Mr. DE LUGO. And at this time I would like to recognize the author of this legislation we're holding the hearing on this morning. And, Bruce, I'm glad that you brought this legislation to my attention and that you allowed me the opportunity of being a cosponsor on it. Let me welcome you. This is one of the hardest working Members of Congress and one of the most effective too. Mr. VENTO. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman for your remarks. It feels a little unusual for me this morning to be sitting here testifying before an Interior Subcommittee. As you know, normally I'm on the other side of the dias and I will be with you this morning later as we review the other testimony on this measure. It's really an honor to have this bill heard late in the session. The response of my colleagues on this committee in being present this morning is appreciated, especially because we have a measure that I've introduced along with Jim Oberstar and many of you, and of course have a special person here that I think can provide a perspective that otherwise has not been forthcoming on this matter. I know that we've all followed at least vicariously, with great interest the trek that Will Steger followed, a 3,700-mile, 7-month odyssey of trans-Antarctic expedition and were excited and relieved by its successful conclusion in March of this year. He's been on really a busy schedule since then and has put that sort of celebrity status, I might say, Mr. Chairman, to the type of use which has advanced understanding and education and done a number of other things: and I'd expect no less from a fellow junior high school science teacher. And of course I know that my colleague from Minnesota, Congressman Oberstar, a former educator also, shares that view. We heard his dramatic Christmas message last year when Congressman Oberstar hosted a meeting at which I remember several of you were present, including Wayne Owens, whose resolution speaking to the issue of Antarctica you've mentioned. Will in his message focused on the fragility of the Antarctic continent's environment when he urged the United States to take a leadership role in promoting international cooperation for the preservation of that continent. And, as you know, that is exactly the point and purpose of the bill we wrote and are learning more about today. Antarctica is indeed a unique and very special region of our plant Earth; 90 percent of the Earth's freshwater is locked up in its ice. It is both a fragile ecosystem that supports diverse forms of life and is an indispensable part of the atmospheric and oceanographic systems that moderate the world's weather and maintain the overall habitability and productivity of our planet. Since 1961, the Antarctic Treaty has provided a framework for peaceful and cooperative international activities in Antarctica. America can be proud of its leadership role in the development and implementation of the treaty, as well as the scientific research and other activities that have taken place in Antarctica_under_the treaty. However, there is now a growing concern about the need for new steps to assure that Antarctica will remain unspoiled and dedicated to peaceful research, especially since the 1988 signing of the Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities, or CRAMRA as it is known. That would, for the first time, constitute a framework for possible mineral prospecting and other mineral exploration and mineral development actions on the Continent of Antarctica. I believe that CRAMRA was a mistake and a step in the wrong direction. It may be well-intended but I think we have to look at what the logical consequences of that action are. Instead of pushing forward with it, I think we need to regroup. I would counsel that the United States exercise leadership toward prohibiting mineral exploration and development in Antarctica. Our special contribution to Continent Antarctica's future should be based on the uniquely American national park concept, a initiative developed first in our Nation that has won converts around the globe. Our bill would put America where it should be, in the forefront of those working to make the continent Antarctica the first truly world park. Leadership from the United States today is essential. As human activity in Antarctica has increased in recent years, environmental problems and impacts have also grown. The number of research personnel stationed in Antarctica has grown dramatically over the past decade, and so has tourism. Accommodating and supervising these increasing numbers of people has been a growing problem, especially concerning protection of Antarctica's environment and sensitive life forms and avoiding the disruptions of ongoing, long term, benchmark scientific research activities. These current unintended environmental impacts could well be insignificant by comparison should Continent Antarctica be opened to widespread mineral development. The Bush administration maintains that the CRAMRA agreement would establish the framework for regulating and controlling mineral activities so as to reduce environmental problems. But I believe that we can do better. I believe that we can take the lead in seeking and obtaining international agreement that Antarctica should be forever off limits to mineral activities and continue to be dedicated to peaceful and cooperative uses that advance our understanding of the world and universe, preserving and conserving this part of planet Earth unimpaired for all generations to come. Therefore, I have attempted, along with you, Chairman de Lugo, and other sponsors, including my colleague, Jim Oberstar, and Wayne Owens, and Bob Lagomarsino, Dante Fascell, and Chairman Udall, to shape a legislative alternative that I believe more fully responds to the importance of Antarctica and America's proper leadership role. That alternative is embodied in the bill being considered today. Its central purpose is to establish that the policy of our Nation will be to act to protect Antarctica's lands, waters, resources and values so as to preserve them. Accordingly, we would direct the Secretary of the Interior, through the Park Service, to prepare an inventory of Antarctica's wilderness, cultural, scenic, wildlife, marine, historic, environmental, ecological, scientific and other resource values, and direct this be done so to as to identify areas that should be managed to preserve unique natural ecological systems, areas of exceptional scientific in terest, and other Antarctic regions possessing the special resources and values that must be properly safeguarded. Building on that inventory, the Secretary of the Interior, through the Park Service, would then prepare a management plan providing for interpretation and public education and for tourism and of course for scientific research. He would act as a clearinghouse to try and provide for some screening of the activities that go there. Of course meanwhile the Antarctica World Protection Act of 1990 proposes to prohibit activities by the United States related to Antarctica that are inconsistent with the purpose articulated in this measure, the protection of the continent. The bill would immediately prohibit prospecting and mining in Antarctica by U.S. entities and would extend to Antarctica the environmental and historic preservation laws that govern actions of our Government and other entities in the United States. The bill of course would provide that the Interior acts as a clearinghouse for information activities. In the same vein, the measure would require the Secretary of State to develop international and cooperative agreements that would fulfill the same mission with regards to this matter. Now, in the year when we mark the 20th anniversary of Earth Day, and just before the important meeting in Chile, is the time for us to send a strong signal and for our Nation to take the lead in preserving the last continental region that is still essentially natural. Mr. Chairman, Will Steger, in 1990, has riveted mankind's attention on this pristine continent, personally organizing a truly international team with key members from our Nation, the Soviet Union, France, the United Kingdom, and Japan, which has demonstrated in an extraordinary way a successful path for global cooperation and success to address our fundamental responsibilities. In 1990, all the people of planet Earth have a stake, a heritage,in this truly international continent, Antarctica. Antarctica defies the historic and flawed construct of territorial possession, of boundaries and the rights to the few and the most powerful. Rather, this Continent Antarctica speaks to a new hope, a new responsibility, that engages the best instincts of mankind and the know how of the 21st century-a family of nations cooperating, sharing the resources of our planet and preserving them. Let us, as a Congress, as a committee, as Members, dedicate ourselves to make it the first step in this new decade, the eve of the new century, the first step in a global environmental crusade to preserve and conserve what is possible, to clean up the problems within the global environment and the prudently utilize the resources which sustain us on planet Earth. Again, thank you for scheduling this hearing this morning, Mr. Chairman. I know it's a busy time of the year for you and for all of us. I look forward to working with you, Chairman de Lugo, and with Chairman Udall and the other members of the subcommittee and full committee to guide this measure to reality and enactment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [Prepared statement of Mr. Vento follows:] |