Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

achieved that status. We're hoping that that might change for this Chile meeting since it's the first on environmental issues.

Mr. VENTO. Well, let me just back up a minute.

I understand the treaty issue but you mean that-Mr. Wilkniss said they essentially follow the NEPA procedure. Does that mean that when they essentially follow the NEPA procedure that they follow the public procedure requirements?

Mr. Manheim.

Mr. MANHEIM. Thank you, Mr. Vento.

I, quite frankly, was astounded at that remark. Executive Order 12114, which is what Dr. Wilkniss referred to was adopted in 1979. More than a decade later, NSF still does not have final guidelines implementing that order. It did issue draft guidelines about a month ago and, even according to the Council on Environmental Quality, those guidelines are completely inconsistent with what the Executive order requires as far as public participation.

Mr. VENTO. So there is no public participation. For instance, under that type of an Executive order, what recourse does a citizen have if-since there is nothing you, you wouldn't have any resource, would you?

Mr. MANHEIM. Under that Executive order, which they believe they've followed over the last 2 years, they've issued two environmental assessments. It only came to our attention that they'd done these two environmental assessments a year later.

When we do discover these environmental assessments, we have no right of action. The Executive order says that no citizen has a private right of action to challenge statements or assessments prepared under the Executive order. So it's clear that it needs something more than the Executive order.

Mr. VENTO. So you can have an EIS but then they go from there where they want, I guess.

One of the other questions I raised was, we talk about all of these conventions and treaties that accomplish certain things. I asked a question about the enforcement of these. Do you have any comments on that question that I raised?

Mr. MANHEIM. I would be very interested to see which enforcement actions Dr. Wilkniss is specifically referring to. Because the Environmental Defense Fund, a year ago, filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the National Science Foundation asking for all records of enforcement actions that the National Science Foundation has taken under the Antarctic Conservation Act. The response received was a couple of letters to scientists saying, please don't take more species than you're allowed to next time.

There's never been a civil penalty or any kind of criminal penalty pursued by the National Science Foundation.

Mr. VENTO. That's what I was trying to point out is that I thought that the results of that might be helpful for members to understand. Because I think what's portrayed here is that we're already-I mean what I was hearing is that we're already doing this. We're already doing all these things; we're doing what's possible; in fact we're doing more.

The impression I have from what I've read is that I think we have a problem here, in all candor. I think there's a problem, Mr.

Chairman, in terms of trying to find mechanisms on an international basis that are enforceable and workable.

It's one thing to set down these lofty goals in treaties or protocols. It's another to try to find a means to make them effective.

I think that that is a very difficult task. Of course I think the other issue here is that we shouldn't limit ourselves. That is, this attitude that we have in terms of policy that the United States seems to be the last willing to limit itself, Mr. Chairman.

It really disturbs me when we look at CFC's, when we talk about the Basel Conference. It seems that we ought to be putting out a vision; we ought to be setting a goal, trying to hold up something. Maybe this world park issue is difficult to achieve. But it seems that, with the type of leadership mantle that we so often try to place on our head and take pats on the back for, that we ought to also be setting goals to achieve that.

Here the United States, it seems in the last decade, has had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the agreements. I think the basic agreement-I mean you can say on rain forests, tropical rain forests, on other issues where we ought to be taking leadership, the United States, a nation of affluence generally, has seemed to be more reluctant-and those that would really be more impacted, here we find the less developed nations voting for this and we find the United States and other developed nations dragging their feet. I mean it just is the world turned upside down in terms of our responsibility and know-how. We're sitting here at the pinnacle of scientific knowledge and understanding, supposedly a democraticgoverning structure-it is, of course a democratic-governing structure; I won't say supposedly-but we seem to be so wound up in having all of the rights, not giving up any limitations on ourselves and of course, I think, the cost. The cost is going to be the ultimate degradation of this continent simply by lack of vision, by lack of a willingness to discipline ourselves is what it amounts to.

As I said in my statement, I thought on Earth Day when we think about what we're doing, I think the first thing is to preserve that which we have not damaged, to clean up that which needs to be cleaned up and to be used prudently, to conserve that which we're going to use. And that's really what we're talking about in Antarctica and what we're talking about here. We've got a chance, I think, on the eve of the next century to take a rather dramatic step.

It is a dramatic step to say we're going to try to keep this area as it is for future generations. We want to understand and learn about it but under the name of research we've been dynamiting airstrips, killing tens of thousands of penguins and birds in rookeries and damaging them. That's literally what's happening. It may seem that these passive little actions don't-that can be tolerated in a lot of different environments don't have a great impact. We know that with regards to ANWR, that we're talking about opening for oil exploration. That while these actions may look passive and acceptable on the hills of Oklahoma, the effect on the Arctic plain is absolutely devastating in terms of what goes on.

So it is to even a greater extent with fragile type of ecosystems and life in Antarctica, as we know from research that's been done.

I mean there's isn't any question. The question here is putting the information, putting our know-how to work, putting it into policy.

I hope that after some thinking and after we can eliminate some of the fears, that we will be able to march forward. I think we're being challenged, Mr. Chairman, in terms of the bills coming from other committees. I think we're in a key position with your leadership and that of others on the committee. I want to join in so we can really send a message on this issue. It's important for our biosphere.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DE LUGO. Well, I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota for his remarks. I want to thank the panel, Attorney Manheim, Ms. Hurwich, and Mr. Barnes. Thank you all for your participation. You've been very helpful.

Quite frankly, we had hoped to report this bill out this morning. I spoke to the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Vento. I also spoke to Mr. Lagomarsino. And both were prepared to go.

But we've been asked to give it some time. So we'll hold off. I just want to get this bill out of the subcommittee and to the full committee as soon as possible.

Mr. VENTO. Well, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your willingness to do that. We want to obviously satisfy the questions and concerns that are raised by members.

But I think we have to take some action this year on this legislation or other referred to us. I hope we can get our policy. Because we need to assert our role in this-your important role and your jurisdiction, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DE LUGO. Thank you very much.

This subcommittee stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, the above-entitled proceedings was adjourned at 1:15 p.m.]

APPENDIX

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1990

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Reply to Will Steger

by Reps. Jim Oberstar, Wayne Owens

And Bruce Vento

January 30, 1990

REP. OBERSTAR: Will, this is Jim Oberstar, speaking to you from the Committee on Public Works hearing room. It's a significant day, the day we received the President's budget and soon we will be receiving his State of the Union message. We've just listened to your "State of Antarctica" message, which arrived just a couple of days ago in my office and we're here to send you a message back from colleagues in the House who share your

Antarctica.

concern

about

resolution

on

First I'm going to ask the sponsor of the preserving Antarctica, Wayne Owens of Utah, to speak and then our colleague from Minnesota, whom you know very well, Bruce Vento. Wayne...

REP. OWENS: Will, congratulations to you on what you're doing. You've stirred the imagination of people all over the world as we've watched your slow-but-steady and, I guess, ahead-of-schedule progress across the continent down there.

A few weeks ago we saw on television--on a special--you wash your hair (I think it was you.) and stick your head out of a tent

(207)

at 50 degrees below zero. That looked like quite an exercise.

2

We've introduced a resolution here and have almost, at this point, ten percent of the House in support of it, which in essence encourages the non-ratification of the mineral convention (which encourages exploration in Antarctica) and encourages the United States to pursue a new treaty which would ban mineral exploration. Interestingly enough, our country, along with Japan and Britain, seem to be the most anxious to take advantage of the resources that are down there, therefore it is very relevant that you are an American, that you are advocating the very noble goals which you set forth in this tape, which was a thrill to hear.

We hope to be able in essence to back it up and your two Congressmen here, my two close friends Bruce and Jim, are in positions of leadership here to affect some of those measures which you've encouraged. Together, I think we can do something. We want to be supportive of what you are doing, congratulate you and wish you well.

Look forward to seeing you when you're here this spring.

REP.

OBERSTAR: Thank you very much, Wayne. And now Bruce Vento,

who chairs the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands on the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, the man who has more to do with National Parks and preservation of the priceless natural

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »