That's what we heard last night as well: they like consistency of application across the board, consistency of definition. Again I go back to the section that says “For the purposes of this Act, serious harm to fish is the death of fish or any permanent alteration to, or destruction of, fish habitat”. That seems to be as far-reaching as anything that was in there before. So I think we need to make that point.
I want to make the point that we haven't had a discussion tonight about what's wrong with the content of the bill; we're talking about whether people agree with where it might go in the future or not.
I would like to go to Mr. Denning with a question as well. Your folks are very much intertwined with responsible resource development, especially off the west coast, where tankers are the medium by which a lot of our resources are going to be transported. Your chapter sometimes has been working to combat misperceptions about what you do and the safety of tanker traffic. I'm wondering if you could review some of the common misinformation you hear and what the reality is about that situation.