The fgdl of the Soviet regime has resulted in an outpouring of in- 

 formation about the practices and activities of the former Soviet 

 Union. We've also see Congressional action on a Russian Aid Bill. 

 The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which I'm a member, 

 adopted my amendment authorizing funds to map, monitor and 

 contain environmental threats to the United States or the Arctic/ 

 Sub Arctic ecosystem. The accompanying Senate report makes it 

 clear that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee intends that 

 these activities be undertaken in collaboration with scientists from 

 the former Soviet Union. The report also specified that the resesu-ch 

 plan should be developed in collaboration with the National Science 

 Foundation, the Interagency Arctic Research Policy, and the Arctic 

 Research Commission, and the State of Alaska. 



The full Senate adopted the bill on July 2nd. Clearly, we have 

 a Congressional dictate. And while it has not yet passed the House, 

 I'm confident that it will. 



Earlier this year the Senate Intelligence Committee began to re- 

 ceive reports from environmental and nuclear scientists in Russia 

 detailing the reckless nuclear waste disposal practices, nuclear ac- 

 cidents and the use of nuclear detonations. We found that informa- 

 tion disturbing to say the least. Also troubling is the fact that 15 

 Chernobyl style RBMK nuclear power reactors continue to operate 

 in the former Soviet Union today. These reactors lack a contain- 

 ment structure and they're designed in such a way that nuclear re- 

 action can actually increase when the reactor overheats. As sci- 

 entists here at the University of Alaska have documented, polar air 

 masses and prevailing weather patterns provide a pathway for ra- 

 dioactive contaminants from Eastern Europe and Western Russia, 

 where many of these reactors are located. 'The threats presented by 

 those potential radioactive risks are just a part of a larger Arctic 

 pollution problem. Every day, industrial activities of the former So- 

 viet Union continue to create pollutants. I think we should face up 

 to the reality that in a country struggling for economic survival, en- 

 vironment protection isn't necessarily the highest priority. And 

 that could be very troubling news for the Arctic in the future. 



The Arctic is the principal food source for many Alaskans. Small 

 amounts of heavy metsds possible from industrial pollution or Arc- 

 tic haze are already making their way as we know into the walrus 

 and other marine mammals that feed many Arctic residents. Will 

 radionuclides follow? We don't know. Do we have the monitoring 

 mechanism in place to warn us should this occur? Can we address 

 through bilateral and multilateral mechanisms the need to halt the 

 spread and promote the cleanup of these pollutants? Who has the 

 talent and capabiUty to do this kind of work? These are all impor- 

 tant questions which we hope to ejqplore here today. 



At today's hearing, which is the first ever field hearing of the Se- 

 lect Committee on IntelHgence, we'll hear from a remarkable group 

 of witnesses in an effort to explore these issues from several dif- 

 ferent perspectives. Because this is an international problem, we've 

 asked the Assistant Secretary of State, Curtis Bohlen, to give us 

 the State Department's perspective. As a senior member of the 

 Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee, Secretary Bohlen 

 can also tell us what can and should be done to scientifically assess 

 the threats facing the Arctic from these various pollutants. We also 



