I was going to say something very similar to what Ms. May just brought up. It's just that in the precautionary principle in Stockholm, “cost-effective” isn't mentioned.
I do want to correct the record. The Senate committee clearly spoke to removing the word “cost”. Their rationale was so that we don't limit environmental protection. Rather than reinserting this into the translation, I think we should actually just correct it in full and remove “cost” throughout.
That said, I think it seems likely that a majority of committee members might keep it in. I would love it if we could kind of move this along. I'm not sure if Madame Pauzé had officially submitted her subamendment, but I'm very much in support of it and I would love to come to a vote soon, if possible.