6 



throughout the State, much less throughout the Nation. The cost of complying with 

 Mr. Hughes' bill is also at issue, especially in States with long coEistlines and long 

 tourist seasons, like Texas. The Washington Post recently noted the dissatisfaction 

 voiced by States faced with an extended laundry list of Federally-imposed obliga- 

 tions with no funds or technical assistance to back them up. Finally, there is a ques- 

 tion whether the human health risk posed by swimming in less than pure waters — 

 which can be generally described as uncomfortable but hardly deadly — is worth 

 EPA's time and money when there are many other, more significant environmental 

 challenges which need the Agency's attention. 



I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and hope that these issues can be 

 addressed as we move forward with the B.E.A.C.H. Act. 



[The statement of Mr. Weldon follows:] 



Statement of Hon. Curt Weljjon, a U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania 



Mr. Chairman, Congressman Hughes should be commended for reintroducing the 

 Beaches Environmental Assessment, Closure, and Health Act. So much of our coast- 

 al economy depends on tourism, and we should protect those who use our waters for 

 recreation, just as we attempt to protect shellfish from the effects of water pollu- 

 tion. 



The people of Pennsylvania are not blessed with an ocean shore, and a great 

 many travel to the New Jersey beaches. This is fortunate because New Jersey has 

 some of the most stringent recreational water quality standards in the country. My 

 guess is that most swimmers don't realize that coastal bathing standards vary from 

 State to State and that many waters are tested infrequently. They rely on State and 

 local governments to protect their health, and there is some concern that the exist- 

 ing Environmental Protection Agency guidance to States on recreational water 

 quality falls short of this. 



I think we can all agree that jumping into the waves at Ocean City, or Pensacola, 

 or San Diego, or Seattle, shouldn't be harmful to your health. The question is, "At 

 what price?" Critics of earlier versions of Mr. Hughes' bill note that compliance 

 costs for States to monitor and test their coastal recreational water can be astro- 

 nomical. Coastal business operators and coastal communities dependent on tourist 

 dollars are concerned that overly protective standards will impair their livelihood 

 without any proof that people are getting seriously ill. And there is the question 

 whether the EPA should invest time and money in establishing new standards, 

 when there are more serious environmental risks to human health to be addressed. 



I hope that our witnesses can add to the debate on the bill and I thank our Chair- 

 men for scheduling this hearing. 



Mr. Ortiz. We don't have any other opening statements? 



Thank you. 



We are pleased to have testifying before us today the distin- 

 guished Senator from New Jersey the Honorable Frank Lauten- 

 berg. The Senator serves as Chairman of the Appropriations Trans- 

 portation Subcommittee. He is a Member of the Budget Committee, 

 a Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and 

 the Small Business Committee. 



He has introduced legislation in the Senate similar to the bill we 

 are considering today. 



Senator, we take this opportunity to welcome you and thank you 

 for agreeing to appear before us today. I understand that your col- 

 league from New Jersey, Senator Bradley, will not be able to join 

 us today because of other business he has pending, but he will 

 submit his statement for the record. 



[The statement of Senator Bradley can be found at the end of the 

 hearing.] 



STATEMENT OF THE HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, A UNITED 

 STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 



Mr. Ortiz. Senator. 



