I think the excellent materials that we received for today's hearing show that there's a real interest in using the comparative risk assessment process to prioritize resources. I am particularly pleased that Ms. Kate Hartnett, the Executive Director of the New Hampshire Risk Project, is here today to talk about New Hampshire's experience with comparative risk. Her testimony demonstrates the continued passion and innovative spirit that states and local governments are bringing to environmental protection.
This is the third in a series of general oversight hearings conducted by the full Committee. Our first oversight hearing looked at the EPA's proposed budget for FY 2001. Our second oversight hearing focused on State successes and the need for a new partnership between the States and the Federal government. We learned about programs that work, and those that don't.
Today's hearing takes us to the next level -- beginning the process of identifying the tools that will improve our environmental programs. Comparative risk assessment is one of those tools. We all recognize that there aren't enough resources available to address every environmental threat. The federal government, States, local communities, the private sector, and even environmental organizations all have to target their limited resources on the environmental problems that present the greatest threat to human health and the environmental. Our focus, therefore, is, and should be, on getting the biggest bang for the limited bucks.
Comparative risk is the tool that enables us to prioritize the risks to human health and the environment and target our limited resources on the greatest risks. It provides the structure for decision-makers to: (1) identify environmental hazards; (2) determine whether there are risks posed to humans or the environment; and (3) characterize and rank those risks. Risk managers can then use that analysis to achieve greater environmental benefits.
Today, we will hear how EPA is using comparative risk to focus on the right problems and strategies; and to what extent this approach has led to the development of a results-oriented Strategic Plan.
We will also hear how many states and local governments are already using comparative risk assessments a public and open process that allows cooperation, instead of confrontation, and encourages dialogue, instead of mandates. States are setting priorities, developing partnerships, and achieving real results by using comparative risk as a management tool. They are using good science to maximize environmental benefits with limited resources. I believe we should encourage and promote these successful programs.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses this morning.