I am particularly pleased to see reflected in this budget the recognition that many of the best ideas about how to protect the environment are formed in local communities throughout the nation.
In so many parts of the country, local communities have identified lands they would like to preserve, parks they want to expand, and suburban development they want to control. The record number of ballot initiatives directed to these purposes throughout the nation in this last election is a strong expression of the importance of these issues in people's everyday lives. In Ventura County, California, for example, citizens overwhelmingly supported a ballot initiative providing that agricultural and rural lands outside the city boundaries could not be developed until the year 2020. Development after that point may only take place if approved directly by voters.
As I understand it, the Administration's proposed Better America Bonds program would help our communities finance the open space preservation, wetland restoration, park expansion and other related projects that are often the subject of these initiatives.
That is a great idea.
As work on the proposal moves forward and authorizing legislation is prepared, I will be particularly interested in finding a mechanism that would ensure that Better America Bonds program funding would be directed to the most environmentally beneficially projects.
I was also pleased to see the Administration provide for a $17.4 million increase in funding to tackle childhood asthma. The dramatic increase in asthma rates among children is staggering. The incidence of asthma in children under the age of five has increased 160 percent from 1980 to 1994. Approximately 150,000 children are hospitalized each year from asthma, making it the leading cause of hospitalization of children due to chronic illness. The Administration's increase in funding for asthma programs is desperately needed to help us gain control over a problem that affects so many of our children.
As you move forward to implement new programs to protect children from pollution, however, I am concerned that EPA may not be fully implementing existing authority in this area.
In particular, many constituents have told me that EPA is not consistently following the mandate in the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) to set pesticide tolerances in a way which protects children. The recent study by Consumer's Union indicating that fruits and vegetables often contain pesticide residues that are unsafe for children would seem to confirm this concern.
I was a strong supporter of the FQPA children's health provision when the bill moved through the Senate. And, as you know, my own Children's Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), which I will reintroduce shortly, would expand the application of that provision to require that all standards EPA establishes under our environmental laws protect children. EPA's implementation of the FQPA c~hildren's health provision, as one of the first of its kind, may well set the standard for how a broader standard such as the one embodied in CEPA would be implemented.
Given that, I am keenly interested to learn how the agency has been implementing this FQPA provision. I have questions on this subject I will submit for the record.
Finally, I once again urge you to craft a national solution that will protect our drinking water from contamination by the fuel additive methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). As you know, MTBE contamination of drinking water continues to be a serious problem in California. Just last month, Lake Tahoe closed its 13th drinking water well due to MTBE contamination.
Due to the drinking water threats posed by MTBE, California has been actively pursuing a solution to the MTBE problem. I would like to call to your attention a number recent California studies addressing this problem.
First, in November 1998, the University of California released a study evaluating the health and environmental effects of MTBE. It concluded that MTBE should be phased-out of use. Second, in October 1998, the California Energy Commission released a study evaluating the economic and gasoline supply effects of a 3 to 6-year phase out of MTBE. It concluded that a 3 to 6-year phase out would be feasible.
I understand that you have established a panel of experts that will report to you by July 31, 1999, whether MTBE use should continue. I thank you for that action. I hope the panel will evaluate these two recent California MTBE studies. I also understand that your Office of Research and Development (ORD) will establish a pilot program in California to identify new treatment technologies to clean up drinking water contaminated with MTBE.
I am particularly interested to learn from the panel and from your ORD whether a drinking water standard for MTBE, combined with a cost-effective treatment technology, together could effectively protect our drinking water supplies from MTBE.
Once again, thank you for presenting the Administration's budget request today. As always, I look forward to working with you in the year ahead to bring Americans a cleaner, safer environment.