Gambar halaman

they're going to legislate in this area at least to go down there. We're talking about of course a continent. We aren't talking about a State; we aren't talking about an area; we're talking about a continent that is in a very queasy legal standpoint.

And, while we can certainly regulate U.S. personnel, how we go about regulating persons of other countries poses a serious problem. So I definitely think that there needs to be action in this area. And I'm pleased to see action by this committee. But, frankly, I believe it's a mind-boggling project that we're about to undertake.

Mr. DE LUGO. Well, you know, if I may interrupt for just a moment, I appreciate the gentleman's pointing out that what we're talking about is a continent. And it is mind-boggling when one considers that 90 percent of the world's water exists on this continent-90 percent.

Mr. DARDEN. Of the fresh water.
Mr. DE LUGO. Of the fresh water.

Mr. DARDEN. Of course I am more concerned than a lot of people in the preservation of Antarctica as a scientific or as a place of scientific research. I know the frustrations that Dr. Wilkniss and others have encountered down there.

I'd just ask Dr. Wilkniss, has the situation become worse in the last 5 years or so, from the time I was down there than it is now as far as unauthorized persons coming in and ill-prepared type expeditions taking place and so forth?

Mr. WILKNISS. The Antarctic certainly is attracting more and more organized and unorganized tourists in small groups. There's no question about it. I think that trips to the Antarctic are skyrocketing. They're going into the interior. They're talking about skiing.

The South Pole can be reached at the price of $35,000 or more. We have to devote more and more time, management time and standby time of our people, to search and rescue. The U.S. Antarctic Program is the only one capable of, and therefore charged with, providing search and rescue on the continent.

One of our primary research stations in the biology area, Palmer Station, was affected by the sinking of a ship that carried tourists, causing major disruption, maybe for years to come, of our research efforts.

People are inventing new ways of going there, from rowboats to gyrocopters and so forth. We view this with great concern.

Mr. DARDEN. And some cultural resources were mentioned by Mr. Vento. Is it Shackleford's Cabin the one that is still there with the supplies still on the shelf after 60 years or so?

Mr. WILKNISS. In the vicinity of McMurdo we have three historic huts. I believe you saw at least two of them. That's Shackleton's and two of Scott's huts. That is correct. They've been there for almost 90 years and we support a major effort by the Government of New Zealand—with qualified archeologists and conservationists—to restore these sites to their original condition.

Mr. DARDEN. How can they be protected from someone who just shows up down there now?

Mr. WILKNISS. That's very difficult indeed. However, that's very important. Because you find that the very fact that visitors enter these historic huts causes a great deal of accumulation of ice, because the water vapor from the breath of these persons in the cold climate settles on the artifacts as well as the huts themselves. So they're slowly being embedded in ice.

And also the expiration of human breath causes the deterioration of the old cans and food and so forth that's been otherwise preserved in this cold desert climate for 90 years. So I think there has to be, after the investment in the restoration, controlled access or maybe restricted viewing so that the huts are maintained for future visitors.

Mr. SCULLY. If I could just follow up Peter's point there, those sites have also been designated as historic monuments under the Antarctic Treaty system of protected areas.

One of the things that's going on at this stage is the development of a more specific management plan because of increased pressures for access. So there is a process whereby cultural and historic sites are set aside and designated.

What I think Peter has pointed out is the need now, with increased possibility of visitation, for more detailed management arrangements and more detailed control on access. But that, I think, is something that the Antarctic scientific community is working on right now.

Mr. DARDEN. Well, let me just say in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I think what Chairman Vento is trying to do is what I think you contend that you want to do. And I think we're all trying to get to the same place here. And if our approach is not the approach that would carry out your purposes, we would appreciate some suggestions on how we could be helpful.

It's just that we see the situation; we hear about the situation deteriorating down there and we want to do something. We don't want to do anything counterproductive but we certainly believe we have a role here and want to maximize our ability to do something about it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I thank the gentleman from Georgia. Let me ask Dr. Wilkniss, Doctor, can you tell us what the National Science Foundation is doing to improve its record of protecting and preserving the environment even while it conducts scientific research?

Mr. WILKNISS. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'll be happy to do that.

Over the last several years, we have conducted major reviews of all U.S. legislation and regulations that apply to the Antarctic. We have set forth an environmental protection agenda. We have followed up with an environmental protection implementation plan. The President has submitted to the Congress an initiative that's being funded-I mentioned it in my summary-at $180 million for safety, environment and health improvements during the next 5 years for the Antarctic program, with $30 million dedicated to environmental remedial action that is needed in our stations.

We have hired 10 full-time employees to deal explicitly and solely with these issues so that we follow up the funding by Congress with appropriate action in a timely manner. We have had a major impact in the deliberations of the Antarctic Treaty nations, for instance, with the passage of a new code of conduct for waste disposal that was mainly based on U.S. ideas and contributions.

I can say, all around, we have made-we have put our actions where our words were and we have significantly improved our operations. We're dealing with past problems and we're also dealing with having a total waste management system, from grave to cradle to grave. We are involved with U.S. national laboratories that have expertise in this area. We're working closely with other agencies, including the EPA, for instance, and we have had very good cooperation from the Park Service. They make videos in the same way they use them to instruct visitors in our own national parks-as to what to watch out for in the Antarctic. And we have obtained advice as to how one might conduct visitors around our stations, especially if you consider them like the many parks that the United States is responsible for.

Mr. DE LUGO. You mentioned your review of statutes. Is there any single statue under which the National Science Foundation is required to clean up Antarctica and, if not, why not?

Mr. WILKNISS. The single most important statute that I can cite is the Antarctic Conservation Act. It gives the Director the authority and responsibility to deal with all environmental matters in the Antarctic. And we are carrying out our responsibility under Executive Order 12114 that the President has prescribed for major environmental Federal actions abroad.

Mr. DE LUGO. Doctor, how is policy established within the National Science Foundation? Is there an established process for decisionmaking or is this done on an ad hoc basis?

Mr. WILKNISS. No, sir. We follow the Executive Order 12114 which, for all intents and purposes, is equivalent to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. We have published regulations for the implementation in the Antarctic of that order and we follow, in essence, all the requirements that would be done at home, carrying out environmental impact assessment and carrying out environmental impact statements, with the full process that is described by law.

Mr. DE LUGO. One final question, Doctor.

In your written statement you state that the National Science Foundation prepared a programmatic environmental impact statement in 1980 on Antarctica and that you're in the process of updating this.

Can you tell us if there's any difference between your environmental statement and what would be required if the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 applied to Antarctica?

Mr. WILKNISS. First, with respect to the supplemental EIS, there have been major changes since the EIS in 1980, in perception and regulations and how we conduct our business in the Antarctic. So what you will see reflected in the environmental impact statement-and by the way we had a public scoping process for it in 1989—will be the changing approach that our recently departed Director, Mr. Bloch, has very strongly pushed with us, the staff and the administration.

I think we also have to come to grips with trying to involve the best technology and streamlining procedures. Because I believe no matter how much money you designate for environmental purposes, if you don't have the current attitude of the people and if you don't have the minimum support that we see necessary for research, then you really can't be making great progress.

As far as the second part of your question-I lost a little bit of track, Mr. Chairman, if you wouldn't mind

Mr. DE LUGO. Restating the question? The second part of the question was, what would be required if the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 applied to Antarctica?

Mr. WILKNISS. I think it would do two things. No. 1, one, it would set a bad precedent for making mandatory a lot of our environmental domestic legislation which we feel has not been designed, or is not suitable, for the Antarctic.

And, No. 2, we think, based on case law, especially in conjunction with citizen suits, it would give rise to litigation which would definitely give rise to injunctions and shut down our program.

Mr. DE LUGO. Thank you very much, Doctor.

I want to thank this panel. You've been very helpful to this subcommittee. We may have a few additional questions that we'll submit to you and we would appreciate getting the answers back for the record.

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

Mr. DE LUGO. The final panel--and I'm going to ask Mr. Vento to assume the chair for a few minutes here and then I'll be right back-is made up of Mr. Bruce Manheim, attorney and scientist, Environmental Defense Fund, and Ms. Evelyn Hurwich, associate director and counsel, Antarctica Project.

I apologize that I'm going to be leaving for just a very brief period. You have Bruce Vento in the chair and I'll be right back.

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I think we're just on a vote, so I think what we'll do is just recess now and then we'll return shortly. We have a vote. So I think I'm going to go vote and we'll come back shortly.


Mr. DE LUGO. The subcommittee's hearing on H.R. 4514 will reconvene.

When we recessed briefly, we had before us the final panel of the day, Mr. Bruce Manheim, attorney and scientist, Environmental Defense Fund, and Ms. Evelyn Hurwich, association and counsel, Antarctica project.

Welcome to the subcommittee. At this time let us begin with attorney Manheim. PANEL CONSISTING OF BRUCE S. MANHEIM, JR., ATTORNEY,

Mr. MANHEIM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I very much appreciate the opportunity to testify today on the important subject of establishing Antarctica as a world park. I think it's clear that this hearing, and the Antarctica World Park and Protection Act of 1990, are very important in light of ongoing

international events that will likely shape the future of environmental protection of Antarctica for decades.

Indeed, there is no doubt about it that the United States will play a key role at this meeting in several months in Santiago, Chile, to articulate a new, and hopefully comprehensive, agreement designed to protect Antarctica. Inasmuch as congressional action will clearly shape and influence the U.S. position at those meetings, the Environmental Defense Fund very much appreciates the longstanding efforts of Congressman Vento to protect Antarctica and the subcommittee's interest in this important issue.

As described in much more detail in my written statement, which I'd request be included in the record, the Environmental Defense Fund strongly supports H.R. 4514 because it would, first, establish a coordinated U.S. strategy to protect Antarctica.

Second, it would flatly prohibit commercial mining by U.S. nationals in Antarctica. Attached to that prohibition is an effective penalty.

Third, it would apply explicitly U.S. environmental laws to all U.S. activities on the continent.

And, finally, it would mandate the United States to lead international efforts to protect Antarctica.

Let me just summarize those four points and, in the process, attempt to respond to certain answers that you and Mr. Vento received from the administration in their presentations earlier.

First, on the need for a coordinated U.S. strategy to protect Antarctica, it's clear that many have called for Antarctica to be protected. There's a world park, an international wilderness preserve, global ecological comments, or a nature reserve-land of science. But there remains much uncertainty, specifically what form of protection those titles entail.

As Tucker Scully identified in his statement, there have been several international accords designed to protect Antarctica—the basic charter of the Antarctic Treaty, 1964 agreed measures for the conservation of Antarctic flora and fauna, the 1971 convention designed to protect Antarctic seals from commercial exploitation and, most recently, the 1980 Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources and, very much recently, the so-called CRAMRA (Convention for the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities).

In the United States two statutes have been adopted by Congress to implement these agreements: the Antarctic Conservation Act and the Antarctic Marine Living Resources Convention Act. Moreover, there are a number of Executive orders and, arguably, other environmental statutes that apply to Antarctica, creating much uncertainty in terms of a sort of patchwork nature of environmental regulation. For example, to what extent does the Environmental Protection Agency have jurisdiction over pollution produced by U.S. nationals and U.S. Federal facilities in Antarctica under statutes like the Resource Conservation Act?

To what extent does the Coast Guard have authority over vessels operating in the southern Ocean? To what extent is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service responsible for conservation in Antarctica? For that matter, to what extent is the Marine Mammal Commission, with a strong interest in marine mammals, and National

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »