But, roughly, it's about $375 million to $400 million.

So you need more in fiscal year 2004 in some variation of coming up with a supplemental to implement this.

We all feel the same way.

I think that is a fair request on your part.

First of all, that's a very constructive response, and I am going to thank you.

I wholeheartedly concur with the Gehman recommendations.

I want you to know that I absolutely agree with you that astronaut safety has to be our highest priority.

When I talk about criminal, I'm talking about premeditated, deliberate desire to usurp, evade the environmental laws.

While we're here, we talked about the watershed issue, the $10 million in terms of the targeted watershed initiative for the Chesapeake Bay, again we appreciate it being targeted.

We are very concerned about the fact where are the scientists and engineers coming from, and how to get young people excited in this.

So what do we need to make sure? Do you have enough money in fiscal year 2004, or do we need to be ready to do something in partnership with you.

It is not an earmark, it is a Congressional investment and Congressional priority.

We need to make sure that we do not have waiting lines for veterans.

Control your deficits, invest in research and technology, and build the smartest workforce.

I just cannot, for the life of me, see why we would cut clean water funding.

Let me tell you, while he is getting himself together, and we look for the answers, the subcommittee feels that this is one of the most important areas that we can pursue.

We really do want this information from you, and we would like to know how many cases EPA has decided not to pursue.

I am puzzled why they are cut.