completing those environmental protections. We need the resources necessary to protect the environment in Antarctica; we do not need to fight over the Antarctic environment in a courtroom. Contravention of International Agreements and Duplication of The Antarctic Treaty and related accords and recommendations, often referred to as the Antarctic Treaty System, presently govern the activities of nations that operate scientific establishments in the Antarctic, as well as the activities of non-governmental operators or individuals. This system already includes numerous provisions concerning environmental protection, tourism and non-governmental expeditions, and historic sites and monuments. New comprehensive environmental measures will be considered in Chile this November, and continuing discussions on these and other matters are an integral part of the regular consultative meetings between all contracting nations. Unilateral U.S. imposition of a management plan over the entire Continent raises serious questions regarding the exercise of U.S. jurisdiction over Antarctica. Questions concerning these sensitive issues are expressly reserved for discussion by the Contracting Parties under Article IX of the Antarctic Treaty. Enactment of H.R. 4514, as presently written, appears contrary to the letter and spirit of this Treaty provision to which the U.S. is a signatory. Presidential Memorandum 6646, dated February 5, 1982, directs the National Science Foundation to "budget for and manage the entire United States national program in Antarctica, including logistic support activities so that the program may be managed as a single package." The National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended, also directs the Foundation to initiate and support basic scientific and engineering research and programs, vesting in NSF the authority to make contracts or other arrangements to support such activities. NSF has performed its lead agency role in providing scientific and environmental leadership for the Antarctic program under the Presidential Directive and the National Science Foundation Act. H.R. 4514, on the other hand, ignores these authorities and NSF's program functions and agency mission. As presently written, H.R. 4514 appears to be in direct conflict with the programmatic responsibilities of the National Science Foundation and the United States Antarctic Program. Section 5 of the bill requires that the Secretary of Interior be provided a copy of any proposal or project relating to Antarctic, that all such information and documents be made available for public review and comments, and that the Secretary shall prepare and provide an analysis and comments to which NSF must conform. In addition, section 3(b)(4) of H.R. 4514 seeks to regulate United States tourism in Antarctica through Interior's management plan. The Antarctic Conservation Act, however, provides NSF with express statutory authority to regulate environmental impacts of U.S. tourists in the Antarctic. Additional tourism authority, and the extent and nature of that authority, is further derived from the Antarctic Treaty, Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora, Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting Recommendations IV-27, VI-7, VII-4, VIII-9, and X-8, National Security Decision Memoranda 71 and 318, Executive memorandum 6646, Memorandum of Agreement/Department of Defense and National Science Foundation, and NSF's regulations at 45 C.F.R. Part 670. NSF already has promulgated regulations under the ACA which govern the impacts by United States citizens, including tourists, on native species of Antarctica or its environment. Those regulations also control access to "specially protected areas" and "sites of special scientific interest." In addition, NSF recently promulgated enforcement procedures and tourism guidelines which provide for administrative enforcement of the ACA and NSF's conservation regulations. Based on existing authority under the ACA, NSF can reach the activities of any U.S. tourist in order to prevent or control the discharge or other disposal of pollutants. That same authority enables NSF to reach any U.S. vessel which, as a source of a pollutant within Antarctica, unlawfully discharges or disposes of pollutants without a permit. At the suggestion of NSF, United States tour operators recently adopted guidelines to minimize the impact of their visits on the environment. Reports indicate that those guidelines have been fully observed. In addition, NSF provides educational materials to tour operators to assist them in ensuring passenger awareness of the necessity to protect the Antarctic environment. We have strong evidence that these materials are used and are effective. No further regulation appears necessary at this time. NSF is presently incorporating sound environmental practices throughout its Antarctic activities. Every effort is now being made to reduce the amount of waste produced and disposed of in Antarctica. We are eliminating unnecessary plastic from packing materials, recycling aluminum and other materials used in Antarctica, and retrograding solid and hazardous waste. NSF Several additional actions have already been undertaken. recently initiated a program of materials import limitations; successfully conducted the first segregation and recycling program at McMurdo Station last season; and requested the Argonne National Laboratory to conduct a study of alternatives for comprehensive materials and waste management at McMurdo Station, including evaluation of the feasibility of emissions-controlled incineration of appropriate wastes as well as import limitations, waste segregation, recycling and retrograde of waste materials. NSF has also begun a proposed rulemaking to designate pollutants and design a permit program to prevent or control the discharge of pollutants. An inter-agency group of experts, including representatives from Interior, State Department, NOAA, and EPA, and other outside environmental experts, will assist NSF in this important task. Under these circumstances, remedial and preventative action under NSF's existing Antarctic Conservation Act authority is the most direct and cost-effective means of achieving sound environmental practices in Antarctica. NSF's detailed recommendations and implementation plan for executing these goals were released for public comment in January of 1990. All of the programs outlined in the plan are also contained in the Administration's safety, environmental, and health initiative. NSF believes that adequate funding of its Antarctic environmental initiative is the key to improving environmental conditions in Antarctica. With continued Congressional support for requested resources, NSF will operate a vigorous United States Antarctic Program, help set an international example for environmentally sound practices, and maintain a strong scientific presence for the United States in Antarctica. Antarctic Minerals Policy and Related Issues We defer to the Department of State's and Justice's comments on all legislative provisions concerning international issues, agreements, or prohibitions on Antarctic mineral resource activities. NSF's principal concern with pending legislation on this issue is that language prohibiting Antarctic mineral activities may inadvertently interfere with ongoing scientific studies or projects. Geophysical studies and other related research could be affected, and NSF could be prohibited from funding research of antarctic crustal tectonic plates, the evolution of sedimentary basins, the uplift of the Transantarctic Mountains, polar paleobiology, and the detailed history of the antarctic ice sheets areas essential to understanding global Earth systems. - If it is necessary to define mineral exploration or prospecting or development activities, there must be a clear delineation between research in an international setting with guaranteed availability of the data and results, and activities with a purely commercial objective. This concern can be fully addressed by carefully defining mineral resource activities. We believe that the final determination of whether activities are scientific or commercial should rest with NSF pursuant to its responsibilities in the Antarctic. The Division of Polar Programs, through its peer review panels, already has much experience in examining these very issues. The environmental problems in Antarctica should be taken seriously, but not exaggerated. NSF has designed and begun to implement a program for meeting the problems that remain. However, in spite of these efforts we are faced with a growing number of costly legislative proposals that duplicate programs already being implemented and disperse authority for environmental programs to an ever-growing number of federal agencies. The result may not be better environmental practices, but perhaps more bureaucracy and more federal population in Antarctica, with a potential increase in environmental impacts. For the reasons stated above NSF cannot support H.R. 4514. Thank you for this opportunity to speak to your committee, and voice some of our concerns with pending legislation. I will gladly answer any questions that you may have. Mr. DE LUGO. Thank you very much, Doctor. My colleague here from Georgia, Mr. Darden, has told me about the adventures that the two of you have shared. And he's a great admirer of yours. Let me address the first question to the Department of the Interior. I understand that you chair an Antarctica work group or task force within the Department of the Interior; is that correct? Mr. HOUSTON. Yes, sir, I've been nominated to be the chair of that Antarctic working group. Mr. DE LUGO. Could you tell us when this group was formed, which DOI agencies are represented on it and what the group's goals are, and what to date has been accomplished by the group? Mr. HOUSTON. I would be glad to send you a detailed answer on that question, sir. [EDITOR'S NOTE.-Mr. Houston supplied the following information.] The Antarctic Working Group was formed in 1988 to address the recently completed Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities. All Department of the Interior agencies were asked to participate. Attached memo dated August 26, 1988, and signed by Under Secretary Earle Gjelde identifies the issue the working group addressed. The result was endorsement of the Minerals Convention. The working group membership is attached. Mr. HOUSTON. We have a working group so that we can go to the State Department with a concerted DOI voice. We are giving input for the next negotiation round in November. That is the general thrust of our working group so far to date. Mr. DE LUGO. What role is the Department of the Interior planning to play in the upcoming Antarctic Treaty consultative meetings in Chile? Mr. HOUSTON. Just to voice our opinions to the Department of State at this point on how the consultations should go. Mr. DE LUGO. Who's likely to represent the Department at these important meetings? Mr. HOUSTON. I'm not sure if anyone's been identified to go down to Chile during those meetings, sir. Mr. DE LUGO. Prior to the formation of the Antarctica work group, how has policy been developed within the Department? Mr. HOUSTON. To my knowledge, there was an Antarctic working group prior to my arrival there. There hasn't been a chairman for some time. But the Antarctic working group has been in place; they had been working these the issues. Mr. DE LUGO. Well, have the issues been worked according to some prescribed process, which we'd like to hear about, or has it been done simply on an ad hoc basis? Mr. HOUSTON. I can't answer that specifically, sir, if I can get back to you with a detailed answer on that. [EDITOR'S NOTE.-Mr. Houston supplied the following information.] The Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals represents the Department of the Interior to the State Department Antarctic Policy Group. The Assistant Secretary |