Is it not a false argument, though, to suggest that it's some sort of tug-of-war between consumers and the producers of those goods, whether it's energy or whether it's a manufactured good, in looking at this bill, because at some point what this bill calls for is that the government formulate a plan to meet our Kyoto targets? Now you've raised the spectre of international credits as being the way to do that, but it seems to me a false positive to suggest that it's either the consumers' or the manufacturers' fault.
A consumer, in consuming electricity, will consume the electricity available to them. If government has set policy that has supported dirtier pollution, why is it suddenly now between the consumer and government where the fight exists, rather than government and the industry providing that energy?
It seems to me--and I guess this is advice to the clerk and committee--that if we don't have the energy sector come before us while studying this bill, this is not a complete study. Would you agree with that?