84 



[The report of the Environmental Protection Agency Science Ad- 

 visory Board will be retained in committee files.] 



Mr. Weldon. Thank you, Dr. Hecht. Thank you both for your 

 comments and your testimony. 



Can either of you come up with an idea of how much total U.S. 

 dollars are being spent on the Arctic or the Arctic dumping prob- 

 lem, if you look at DOD, EPA, State, NOAA, and perhaps any other 

 agency, the Geological Survey or whatever, any idea what that 

 total amount is annually? 



Dr. Hecht. I am not sure. Off the top, I have the total number 

 that reflects all of the agencies' work under the Arctic environ- 

 mental strategy, but the Arctic research community, which is here 

 in full force today, has lots of documents and I think that we can 

 get from them, from NSF, which is part of this group, or even the 

 next panel, a good assessment of all the agencies. 



Mr. Weldon. We will get that, I guess. It looks like we are going 

 to get that, then. 



Dr. Hecht. Separate from that, I can tell you that for just the 

 Murmansk activity which I have just described, the assessment 

 phase has been on the order of about $400,000, of which Norway 

 has contributed $50,000. The construction phase is something on 

 the order of $1.2 million, and Norway will contribute half of that; 

 the United States Government will contribute half. And then be- 

 yond that is the operational phase. 



So I would look to the interagency community that is here today 

 to give you a good, solid number which reflects, I think, what all 

 the agencies are doing. 



Mr. Weldon. I have been very supportive of the money that has 

 been spent up until now, both within the committee and on the 

 floor of the House, defending our investment because of the impor- 

 tance in this area and the spin-off impact it is having. I was 

 pleased to attend a conference hosted by one of our friends in the 

 audience. Dr. Radvani, down at Mississippi State University, par- 

 tially funded with money, to encourage the Japanese to step up to 

 the plate and provide similar support for a solution out on the east- 

 em part of Russia, which I understand now is moving along. 



As a matter of fact, I got a fax to me that looks as though there 

 is an effort by the Japanese to put as much as $20 million into a 

 floating barge that will be used to dispose of low-level nuclear 

 waste from submarine decommissioning, which is a success that is 

 taking place. 



So I am supportive of this and I would just ask Ms. Goodman 

 if, in all the money that we are going to spend on environment this 

 year in the defense bill, which, if I am not mistaken, and correct 

 me if I am wrong, is about $13 billion if you take both nuclear and 

 non-nuclear dollars that we are going to spend this year, do you 

 think it is possible for us to find that $10 million that was not put 

 in because it was not requested and because perhaps it fell through 

 the cracks? Do you think that is possible that we could get from 

 the administration some assistance in trying to find those dollars 

 to keep that program going? 



Ms. Goodman. Mr. Chairman, the answer to that depends on the 

 Department having an authorization or direction to invest that 

 money. The $13 billion you refer to, more of that is in the Depart- 



