Wicker: EPA Budget Priorities Are Not ‘Cost-Efficient’
Agency Proposes Cuts to Radon Program in Favor of Climate Change Rule
April 19, 2016
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Roger Wicker, R-Miss., today questioned Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy about the agency’s proposal to cut $8 million from the State Indoor Radon Grant Program, effectively shutting it down. At the same time, the agency is requesting $235 million in funding for its so-called “Clean Power Plan.”
Analysis from EPA shows that radon causes an estimated 21,000 lung cancer deaths annually in the United States. By contrast, the agency indicates that the power plan rule would avoid 6,600 premature deaths annually by 2030.
“The core mission of EPA is to protect human health and the environment,” Wicker said. “Taking money away from efforts to combat known threats such as indoor radon would be inefficient, when there are some 21,000 lung cancer deaths attributed to radon each year. It appears the agency is ignoring real environmental threats in favor of climate change and unknown benefits.”
Wicker’s comments were made during a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing to examine EPA’s FY 2017 budget request.
The Supreme Court recently issued a stay on the Administration’s Clean Power Plan pending further judicial review. Administrator McCarthy is on record saying that the Supreme Court’s action does not prevent the agency from continuing to work on the rule.
Last November, Wicker voted in support of two measures aimed at blocking implementation of EPA’s costly rule. Specifically, the bills would have reversed the Administration’s restrictive regulations for new and existing coal-fired power plants. Under the “Congressional Review Act” (CRA), Congress can overturn actions by a federal agency following the formal publication and submission of a rule to Congress.
Although state compliance with the “Clean Power Plan” is not required until 2022, EPA set a September 2016 deadline for states to submit a plan to comply with the rule. The U.S. Court of Appeals is not likely to issue a ruling on the legality of the rules until months after it hears oral arguments, which begin on June 2, 2016.