Frank Lautenberg

Thank you very much, Mr. Grumbles. I appreciate your illuminating comment.

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

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.

How do we justify a cut in the budget proposal of 20 percent for the next budget?

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.

If we take something like MTBE, MTBE was said to cause cancer in animals many years ago.

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

Well, I hate to answer that question, but convenience has overtaken us.

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

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

No, we are talking about MTBE is said to be cancerous in animals.

Your concern is not comforting, I can tell you that. Action is what we are trying to get here.

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.

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?

I have 10 grandchildren and I want them to be healthy and well.

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?

So, again being very specific, would improving our wastewater treatment infrastructure, might it substantially reduce the concentration of contaminants?

I think we would be fooling ourselves to say that everything out there is with zero risk.

I want you to be more precise. Does it matter if there is 20 percent cut in the State Water Revolving Fund?

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

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…

But putting that aside, you know, accepting that as a condition of existence, Dr. Snyder you are referred to, what do you think about that?

But for now, there is not enough work to be done that a 20 percent cut would not impair?

So is it appropriate to say that there is no cause for concern about human health, even though EPA itself said that it could cause cancer in animals?

Every day, all Americans across the Country rely on exactly the same thing, clean and safe water.