Overall, EPA is requesting $832.8 million for air programs a 39 percent increase from FY 2000. We face limited budgets at all levels of government and it is important that we use our limited resources wisely.
As I mentioned when Administrator Browner was here last month, I am concerned that the Administration is proposing new initiatives when some of our current environmental needs are going unmet. As we consider the last budget of this Administration, I am concerned that instead of building on their previous initiatives and giving priority to unmet needs, the Administration is proposing new initiatives such as the Clean Air Partnership Fund.
This Administration should not be proposing new initiatives that it is not going to be around to implement. Instead it should be thinking about consolidation and putting money into existing programs. For example, it appears that EPA has a lot of work to do to meet its statutory requirement to complete Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards to reduce hazardous air pollutants. If these standards are not complete on time, it is up to the states to do it. When I was Mayor and Governor, in my last year we concentrated on finishing what we had started rather than beginning new initiatives to pass on to the next Administration.
I strongly believe our challenge in the new millennium is to work harder and smarter and do more with less. We need to prioritize so we spend our resources in a way that best protects the environment and the health of our citizens.
I noted that once again EPA has asked for an increase in funding for particulate matter research to "advance the scientific understanding of the health effects of particulate matter." EPA is requesting $65 million an increase of $3 million over FY 2000 and $9 million over FY 1999. EPA has received $118 million over the last two years to study particulate matter.
I am not opposed to research funding. In fact, I believe it is essential in order to make judgements based on sound scientific evidence. What does concern me is moving forward with regulatory decisions before the science is available to back it up. It's no secret that I have concerns that EPA moved ahead with the PM-2.5 standards without fully knowing the health effects of PM-2.5.
Last year, a federal appeals court remanded the new ozone and particulate matter standards, saying that EPA needed to justify why those levels were set. The court did not say that EPA couldn't set the standards at those levels, but they asked for further explanation of how those standards were chosen.
I may sound like a broken record when I say this, but it warrants being stated again: environmental regulations need to be based on sound science. These decisions should clearly take risks and costs into account to ensure that we are targeting our limited resources on real risk. EPA can't keep coming back to Congress and asking for more and more money without telling us and the American taxpayers that the money being spent is going toward the real problems that exist. We need to know the science that goes into a rule BEFORE a rule is finalized.
That is why Senator Breaux and I will introduce a bill in the next few days that will require EPA to conduct risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis when promulgating new rules under the Clean Air Act.
The Voinovich-Breaux bill includes the same risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis provisions that are in the Safe Drinking Water Act, which passed with broad bipartisan support and was signed into law by this Administration. In fact, I was pleased to attend the President's bill-signing ceremony along with Administrator Browner and environmental groups when these reforms were signed into law. This cooperative effort on drinking water is notable because it showed that a law could include commonsense reforms that make government more accountable based on public awareness of risks, costs and benefits. I believe it set a key precedent for reform of environmental regulations.
Under our bill, EPA would be required to conduct an analysis of risks, costs and benefits of alternative standards, while providing the agency with flexibility in making final regulatory decisions. This bill is a commonsense approach that merely addresses the obvious: if it's good enough to protect the water we drink, then it should be good enough to protect the air that we breathe. It will also help us avoid some of the legal and legislative wrangling that has occurred with respect to how we achieve clean air.
And while you are here Mr. Perciasepe, I want to reiterate my hope that EPA will act quickly to redesignate Cincinnati as in attainment of the 1-hour standard. The Greater Cincinnati community has worked together, through a variety of coordinated programs, to improve the quality of Ohio's air. Cincinnati has demonstrated attainment for four consecutive years and has met all relevant criteria for redesignation.
The Greater Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce tells me that businesses have asked them whether Cincinnati is in attainment, and when they've said no, Cincinnati has been crossed off the list as a potential place to locate. This is unjustly hurting Cincinnati's opportunity for economic growth, when Cincinnati is indeed meeting the standard. Any delays in finalizing this rule will only serve to exacerbate the problem.
I realize that EPA has extended the comment period on the proposed redesignation rule, but I want you to know that I'm continuing to watch this and I hope it will be resolved expeditiously. While litigation continues on the 8-hour ozone standard, this should have no bearing on the merits of whether Cincinnati has attained the current 1-hour standard.
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I look forward to today's hearing.