My simple comment would be that they're different. I'm quite familiar with the European system, because we spend a lot of time in Europe. We've actually done REACH submissions for European proponents. We spend a lot of time in the United States working with EPA on their more risk-based approach. I see strengths and limitations to both.
I would hope we could find some kind of—I'm not trying to waffle on this one—happy medium whereby we could find the best of both worlds. There are areas in which a precautionary approach, a hazard-based approach, is particularly appropriate: big-ticket items, such as global change, concerning which if we do nothing we may be really sorry we didn't act. That's probably a key area. Whether it should be applied routinely for minor issues, something that's produced in the quality and quantity of 10 kilograms per year, I'm not sure.
I want to get this comment in at some point. This is now as good a time as any.
What you have in front of you is a wonderful opportunity to rethink a major piece of legislation that has huge impact. A lot has changed since the 1999 version of the act, to the extent that some consideration of new science, current thinking on decision-making approaches, possible consideration of other factors, maybe even whether environmental justice has a role or not.... It's just a wonderful opportunity to see whether you can get it as right as we can.
I like the last statute. I'm expecting the next one to be even better.