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

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