I would rather put it my way and say, would you recommend a 20 percent cut?

Yes, but if these materials can be identified as cancer-causing in some instances, how do you determine what the pace of review should be?

a recent environmental working group study showed that there are over 140 contaminants in our water supply that are unregulated and that EPA has not set safety standards for.

First, I want to say thanks to my colleague, the Chairperson of the Committee for her diligence in making sure that we are in constant activity reviewing our responsibilities and assessing what we can do to improve the environmental…

That is why so many people were concerned about a news article that ran in March.

Well, I don't want to make judgments on what you intended, Dr. Goldhammer, but is there any concern by the industry at all about these discharges into the water?

So in your view, the fact that right now at this point in time, with the work that your department has, that a 20 percent cut in resource doesn't really mean a heck of a lot.

Do you believe that giving it a good hefty 20 percent cut is going to lead to its self-funding?

This is a hearing on Pharmaceuticals in the Nation's Water: Assessing Potential Risks and Actions, and we are pleased to bring the Committee to order.

Let me ask you this, how about a fetus, embryonic stage. Is there more risk there in the development of a child?

Do we dismiss risk altogether because the fact that these quantities are trace amounts?

On the process. How about the product?