ment as is negotiated with the Mexicans. I am not sure the will is there. I am not sure the money is there. And I am concerned that the conditions will only be exacerbated over a period of time for people such as the Senator's constituents and others who are affected by the conditions that exist in Mexico today.

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Senator. You make a very good point. The fact is though that we have a lot of leverage here, we in the Congress. It is up to Congress to ratify or not ratify any agreement that the Administration sends to the Congress. We have two choices before us as Members of Congress-you either try or do nothing. I think that obviously we should try our level best to be sure that any agreement that the Administration sends to us includes provisions which address these problems. I know that all of us in the room here will work toward that end.

Senator DECONCINI. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the Senator from Ohio for his explicit discussion of the problem. It is just as bad as he says it is. He and I may differ on the Fast Track but we're not going to differ that any such treaty-at least as far as this Senator is concerned-must address and insist and have some enforceable provisions in it that Mexico will address these things. Mexico has to make priority decisions. It can't build all the highways and all the public buildings. It has to build some sewer systems in northern Mexico because that's where the population and the development is. It has not done that. I agree with the Senator from Ohio that if the Administration doesn't address that, I think that treaty is in big trouble here.

Senator METZENBAUM. I'm not sure that we can create the necessary will on the part of the Mexican Government by reason of words typed on a piece of paper and signed by the respective governments. You don't solve many problems in the world by just signing agreements. Most of them require the people who sign to have the inclination and the desire and determination to do it. Senator DECONCINI. That's true.

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you very much, Senator.

Senator DECONCINI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator LIEBERMAN. You all covered it very well. I just want to thank our friend and colleague from Arizona for coming by to remind us of these special concerns in this part of our country and to pledge to him that I and I'm sure all of us will do whatever we can to try to meet those concerns.

Senator DECONCINI. Thank you.

Senator BAUCUs. Thank you very much, Senator.

Our first panel of witnesses on coastal protection issues includes the infamous Ann Swanson; Adrian Freund, Chief, Bureau of Water Management for Connecticut; Ms. Dawn Martin, American Oceans Campaign; Joe Birgeles, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey; and also Beth Millemann, executive director of the Coast Alliance.

OK, Ann.

Senator METZENBAUM. Mr. Chairman.

Senator BAUCUS. The Senator from Ohio.

Senator METZENBAUM. Mr. Chairman, may I make a brief statement? Senator BAUCUS. Absolutely.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HOWARD M. METZENBAUM, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OHIO—continued

Senator METZENBAUM. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, I have addressed my concerns concerning the Mexican/American border. I would like to now address my concerns to some issues that probably have more to do with the northern part of the United States and the American/Canadian border but not really related to Canada.

We've come a long way from the days when Lake Erie was said to be dead or least dying. No longer are we confronted with the spectacle of burning rivers and lakes choked with oil and debris. Just one look at the lakes and you know we've made real progress. Regulatory and cooperative efforts to reign in polluters and pollution have paid off. But, frankly, more needs to be done to protect what is surely one of the Nation's most precious natural resources. Over 27 million Americans and 8 million Canadians live in the Great Lakes region. The lakes are a vital shipping channel, abundant resource for sport and commercial fishing, a home for countless wildlife plants, and a recreational and esthetics resource of world acclaim. Yet, the lakes are still threatened by habitat destruction and long-term accumulation of toxic chemicals. Untreated sewage, industrial discharges of toxic pollutants, and pollution from urban and agricultural runoff still threaten these waterways. It is not comparable to what the situation is down between the United States and Mexico is but it is still a problem.

Right now you can safely swim and fish in only one of the twelve miles of Great Lakes shoreline. According to EPA's water quality inventory you can safely fish in only three in ten miles. Thousands of acres of underwater sediment are contaminated by toxic pollutants dumped by factories, sewage treatment plants, hazardous waste sites, and other sources. In fact, these sediments are one of the main reasons for fishing restrictions in the lakes. Improper dredging and disposal of these contaminated sediments causes further harm.

Today, I am going to introduce, along with my colleagues Senators Durenberger, Levin, Glenn, and Wellstone, comprehensive legislation which will focus on many of these problems. The bill will authorize U.S. EPA to develop numerical limits for a wide range of contaminants in Great Lake sediment adequate to protect wildlife, aquatic life, and human health. It also requires Great Lake States to adopt sediment standards to assure that such standards will be fully integrated into State and Federal water quality programs. The development of comprehensive numerical criteria for sediments will also tell policymakers just how contaminated dredge materials are and add them in making decisions about the proper disposal of such materials. The legislation will end the open lake disposal of contaminated dredge materials by 1994. It will also place tighter restrictions on where clean dredgings can be placed in the lakes in an effort protect municipal and water supply intake zones and to preserve fish spawning and recreational areas.

In addition, the bill will authorize U.S. EPA to publish uniform contaminated fish consumption fish advisories which are adequate to protect sensitive populations such as pregnant women and those

who consume large quantities of fish each week. This should help put an end to the confused and inadequate fish consumption warnings currently being issued along the Great Lakes.

The legislation addresses several other issues important to the lakes. It will help facilitate the implementation of remedial action plans designed to clean up toxic hot spots, it sets deadlines for developing and implementing lake-wide pollution management and protection plans.

It is safe to say the proposal is a comprehensive one. I hope it will be viewed as a compliment to S. 1081, the Clean Water Reauthorization bill introduced by Senators Baucus and Chafee-you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Chafee. It also fits well with a bill introduced by my colleague from Ohio, Senator Glenn. His legislation would attack the problem of sedimentation at its source by having the Corps of Engineers provide grants to States to prevent upstream erosion and runoff from winding up in the harbors and channels of the Great Lakes.

I look forward to hearing from all of today's witnesses, although I will have to excuse myself because I have just been called to another meeting. I am particularly anxious to hear from those individuals who are here to talk about the Great Lakes. I believe they were provided with a draft of my legislation prior to today's hearing. My staff will be present and I hope they will make some general comments on it and, if possible, I hope we can keep today's hearing record open to obtain comments from any other interested parties who wish to comment on my legislation.

And to you, Mr. Chairman, I doth my hat to you for your leadership in this area and look forward to working with you in this session and future ones as well.

Senator BAUCUs. Thank you, Senator. We will do our level best to include the provisions of your bill.

Now I would like to turn to the panel. I would like to remind the witnesses first that we have a five minute rule. All of your statements will be included in the record. When the light is green, keep talking; when it is yellow, begin to wind up; and when it is red, think about how you are going to conclude.

There is a vote going on now so I will begin the panel now and then I will leave. Senator Lieberman will continue to conduct the hearing and I will get back as soon as I possibly can, which will be about 10 minutes, but we'll do our best to try to keep the hearing going.

OK, let's start with you, Ann.

STATEMENT OF ANN PESIRI SWANSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CHESAPEAKE BAY COMMISSION

Ms. SWANSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Will Baker is certainly a tough act to follow, but in the Bay we have a rule that we really don't compete with one another, we compliment one another. So I am going to do my level best to do that. I really thank you for this opportunity. My name is Ann Swanson and I am the executive director of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, which is a tri-State legislative advisory committee made

up of State legislators, the Governors, and a small number of citizens from three States-Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania.

I have provided the committee with far more extensive testimony than I could ever hope to deliver today, but in my brief time before you this morning I would like to emphasize just five major points. First, and absolutely without a doubt, the Clean Water Act has proved to be the single most important step this country has ever taken in protecting its water resources. The Act served both as a vehicle to providing financial assistance to the States in areas such as construction and expansion of wastewater treatment facilities and has provided by example the incentive or, if you will, impetus for many of the water quality programs which we have undertaken at the State level. Make no mistake about it, virtually every element in the Clean Water Act enhances and supplements our efforts to protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay.

We're particularly pleased to see the nonpoint source pollution control provisions included in the Act strengthened and reemphasized.

The reauthorization and full funding of the provisions supporting the State Revolving Loan Fund are crucial to our efforts. In the Chesapeake region, and nationwide, we've made great strides in our efforts to construct and upgrade our sewage treatment plants. Blue Plains is a classic example of that effort. We have seen dramatic reductions in the levels of phosphorous and of toxic substances discharges from these plants. But in the Chesapeake there is mounting evidence that we have to do more; we have to begin to remove nitrogen as well as phosphorous. In many ways, it is our ticket to saving the Bay. And with the expiration of the construction grant program, the State Revolving Loan Fund represents the only Federal assistance available to us.

Provisions relating to stormwater management, combined sewer overflows, groundwater contamination, marine sanitation device, and also additional research particularly in the area of nonpoint are vitally important to the Bay.

Second point. Your recognition of the Chesapeake Bay as a resource of national significance, and your financial support to the program since 1984 has provided the essential underpinnings of the entire effort. Federal involvement has functioned, I would say, as a catalyst, as an inspiration, and clearly as a watchdog. The involvement of the Federal Government has enabled the States to undertake efforts that I am absolutely positive could not have otherwise happened.

Third. Revisions of the Chesapeake Bay section-section 117 of the Clean Water Act-are necessary in order to reflect the more than 7 years of work and progress and commitments that have taken place since the authorization language was first adopted.

The Chesapeake Bay Commission is the only signatory to the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement that represents the legislative branch in the clean up effort. Because of that role, Senator Paul Sarbanes, anticipating the reauthorization, came to us for assistance. At his request, we chaired a group made up of representatives of all three States, the District of Columbia, all of the Federal agencies involved-there are nearly 10-the scientific community, and the private advocacy groups involved in the Bay clean up, in

cluding Will Baker. The result of that was S. 114. That is the prod uct of this effort. It includes only those programs that we felt were of the highest priority and whose needs could only be fulfilled by Congress.

Fourth. S. 114 reflects the full consensus of the many players involved in the Chesapeake Bay clean up. The processed used was similar to the process we always use-that of full consensus. I am very proud to come before you today and tell you that you only have one product, which is S. 114, because it does reflect the mutual consensus of everyone involved.

Fifth and finally, the Chesapeake Bay restoration effort is a state-of-the-art experiment in aquatic environmental protection. It serves as a national model. In our 10 years, the Chesapeake Bay program has developed a long list of successes and, to be quite candid, an even longer list of "still to be dones". But the lessons here in the Chesapeake can be applied almost universally elsewhere in the Nation. They can be applied to Long Island Sound, to the Great Lakes, to the Puget Sound, and more. I firmly believe that if we can do it on the Chesapeake, we can do it for the Nation. It is absolutely critical that we don't abandon the National experiment at this critical juncture.

So I would like to close in commending you for your foresight in pursuing the reauthorization and strengthening of the Clean Water Act and for including enhanced funding for the Chesapeake Bay program through S. 1081. I would especially urge you to consider incorporating portions of S. 114 into the final Clean Water Act proposal.

Thank you very much. I will answer any questions that you might have.

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Ms. Swanson. We will go on now and we will come back for questioning.

I am delighted to have a moment to welcome Adrian Freund, who is the chief of the Bureau of Water Management, Connecticut Department of the Environmental Conservation. Good to have you here.

STATEMENT OF ADRIAN FREUND, CHIEF, BUREAU OF WATER MANAGEMENT, CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMEN

TAL CONSERVATION

Mr. FREUND. Chairman Baucus and members of the subcommittee, I am Adrian Freund and I am chief of the Bureau of Water Management. I would like to bring greetings this morning from our Commissioner, Timothy Keeney. I would especially like to express my appreciation at this point to Senator Lieberman for his outstanding leadership on Long Island Sound. He is largely responsi ble for the program that we have today, and hopefully soon we will have the good news of the location of a Long Island Sound office Of course, we hope it is in Connecticut.

I will focus my comments this morning on Long Island Sound and on aspects of S. 1081, which contains some provisions we think of importance to coastal areas.

The Long Island Sound Management Conference is entering its fifth year. The costs and challenges of clean-up are becoming clear