What I gather from this is that, subject to further consideration by some of the witnesses at the table, this actually might be a step that everyone could agree to. What I'm getting is that this may be the case.
On a larger point that my colleague raised, the trade-offs we're facing, if there's one comment that has been consistent about CEPA and its administration, it's how long it has taken, that as a result of the complications and length of the processes, we still are in a situation where we're in a bad place internationally with regard to the elimination or management of certain substances. I don't know whether this is a fair characterization, but I guess the trade-off we face is, on the one hand, the kind of discussion we've heard about toxics from industry representatives and the degree of inconvenience that represents to them versus what might be a larger inconvenience in making an already slow process even slower because of the element of uncertainty it introduces. Not one witness has accused CEPA of going too fast, or implementing too vigorously, or being world-class in getting ahead of other countries.
Is that a fair characterization of the trade-offs that the committee is facing?