Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will hold a hearing on September 11, 2003 at 2:30 p.m. The Committee will consider S. 432, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct and support research into alternative treatments for timber produced from public lands and lands withdrawn from the public domain for the National Forest System and for other purposes; S. 849, which would provide for a land exchange in the State of Arizona between the Secretary of Agriculture and Yavapai Ranch Limited partnership; and S. 511, which would provide permanent funding for the Payment in Lieu of Taxes program, and for other purposes. Because of the limited time available for the hearings, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, SD-364, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150 prior to the hearing date. For further information, please contact Frank Gladics (202-224-2878) or Meghan Beal (202-224-7556).

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. No amendments and passed, as is, and sent to conference. Could we have just a few moments and come back and discuss it with you?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DOMENICI. I withhold.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, as chairman of the Committee on Energy, I am ready to proceed at any time. We have no amendments on the Republican side, so the amendments are all on the Democrat side. We stand ready to accept amendments, to debate them, to vote on them, to get rid of them. We are on one of the sections that is clearly definable. It has a limited number of amendments, the so-called electricity section. We very much would like to proceed and ask the other side if they are ready, if they could perhaps start with an amendment on the electricity side, and let us know what the remaining amendments are so we can see how long it will take us to complete the electricity title of this bill. I say that, and at the same time I put it as a question to the minority leader.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, first, let me say I am very appreciative of the efforts that have been put forth by Senator Reid, working with the Senator from New Mexico and others, as we move through this bill. Second, I am absolutely positive that the issues which the distinguished leader raises, in terms of the people of our country needing protection and his long litany--I am absolutely concerned that when the day is done and the bill is passed, that the Senate will find that each and every one of them are covered and they are in this bill. We didn't work forever to leave the kinds of loopholes to hurt the American people that are described in that litany of items that the distinguished majority leader says remain undone. I understand. He would rather we prove that on the floor of the Senate. I assume that is what he is talking about, by way of debate. But so there will be no misunderstanding, this is a good bill. The electricity section covers every one of those issues that were raised. The question is, How long should it take for us to get those issues before us, debated, and completed? I am not here to discuss the policy of our leader. He is here; our whip is here. They can discuss that. But I know we could have accomplished a lot more than we have as of today on the Energy bill. We could have accomplished, in my humble opinion, without any question, the entire electricity portion of this bill. Every reasonable amendment anybody has could have been debated. We took 1 full day when we did absolutely nothing because one Senator said we could not change from one amendment to another when everybody knew that was what we were going to do upon our return. We had an Indian amendment that even the Democrat manager of the bill wanted to set aside for a few changes so we could proceed, and the whole day passed because one Senator said you will stay on it and you can't do anything else. I submit that 1 day, being the day of Monday, we would have completed one, two, or even three of the sections on the most important part of this bill, the electricity section. Far be it for this Senator to go through each day over the last 7 or 8 and talk about what has happened by way of interruptions. But I can say, only speaking for myself, that the Energy bill is the most important remaining legislation that we have for this year. I say that not just for myself, not just for my distinguished minority friend and leader, but for the majority leader. There is no more important legislation than the Energy legislation. And Senator, I say to you, I don't think you have ever said it is not, and I do not imply that. It is filled with important issues. It is filled with proposals which will lessen our need for imported oil. It is filled with provisions which will turn our electric system into a real system instead of a hodgepodge that accomplishes little or nothing other than each region of the country provides more and more and the country, as a whole, is shortchanged. It provides alternatives. It provides the energy sources we have all been worried about being shortchanged--wind energy, bio energy, and the like. It has a tax section which will sensitize and provide incentives so that we will bring these kinds of energy on board. Why do I talk about them in light of the speech which we have just heard? Because I submit that it is easy to find reasons not to get this bill done. It is easy to find justifications for saying we could not get it done. But I believe it should be very difficult to justify not proceeding. For instance, right now we have the entire days of today and tomorrow. Neither of these days is planned for anybody's vacation-- anybody's use. I beg the other side, let's finish the electricity section today. The answer is, we can't do bills in pieces. My response is why not? The electricity section of this bill is a section that is, indeed, all by itself. The amendments I have heard about are about two-thirds finished. Our leader is willing to remove the impediments which are technical in nature so we can proceed. So I beg the minority, let's do the electricity provisions in this bill. Let's do it now. Let's do it tomorrow. Granted, we will have more to do, but what is wrong with doing one big piece of this bill now? What is wrong with completing the sections, if in fact the minority leader is correct in the chart that he showed? This Senator says he is not, but if he is, let's talk about them today. Let's see the amendments and let's vote on them. It is now 11 o'clock. Even if we do not want to work very hard we can work 7 hours today and 7 hours tomorrow. I submit you can finish five or six amendments on electricity, Senator Lott, before that time has elapsed, and we will not complete everybody's desires on this bill but that is pretty important. We can either do that or we can stand up here and say the distinguished minority leader is correct. He has just quoted a bunch of Republicans who are second-guessing the majority leader or who are being misquoted--maybe they really did second-guess him, maybe they didn't, but it looks good. The way the quotes are used, it looks as if they are criticizing him. But, nonetheless, it does not mean we can't get something done. I submit it is as simple as this. If they will agree to do that, I will get the majority leader to agree that we go home on this recess and we return and we will take up this bill as soon as we return and finish it. That is a pretty bona fide offer. It is pretty fair to the Democrats and pretty fair for the American people. Let me repeat it. Let's do the electricity provisions now. Let's work hard and complete them. That means we work until 7 or 8 tonight. Tomorrow night, we might not have to work that very hard. I saw those lists. Those are not difficult amendments. We will be finished with what everybody says is the most complicated and most difficult portion of this bill. Then we can ask, Where are we? Then we can agree and say to the Senate we can go home on recess. And, Mr. Majority Leader and Mr. Minority Leader, won't you agree that upon our return, we come back to work? We come back on a Wednesday. We will have a Wednesday, a Thursday, and a Friday, and we will set those three days aside unequivocally--absolutely nothing else but the Energy bill. We can do that. Then we can stop blaming. We can do something productive, constructive--not completion of everything but pretty much. What else would the minority like us to do? Would they like us to do something about the other pending judge? Let us ask the leader about this other pending judge, and get on with what I am just describing as a manager of a very positive approach to this bill. For some reason, it would appear to some that we must set aside 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or up to 8 days and leave them there in order to consider the Energy bill in its entirety. I see no relationship in discussing with the American people the electricity section of this bill and a section on clean air which might be offered at another time. They are completely different. As a matter of fact, the second one doesn't even belong on this bill. It could be offered 6 months from now on an Environment and Public Works bill, to be honest. But we intend to offer it here. It need not be done on the same day in the same week in some kind of togetherness so we can tell the people the entire story. We can do the biggest piece of this without any difficulty today. I believe I am just talking because that is what is expected. But the other side has made up its mind. I have found that sometimes when you make a proposal that is halfway reasonable, somebody listens to it. I am making one. The Senator from New Mexico sometimes offers unreasonable proposals. Most of those were when I was doing the budget. That was because people thought I didn't want to spend some money that was patently unreasonable. But what I have just offered is not unreasonable. I submit it should be done. I ask that it be done. I implore the minority to let us do it. I ask that they sit down for a moment off to the side of the Senate and agree to it. I also ask, since the majority leader was able to put a chart up and list seven items, if I counted right--maybe it was six--that perhaps he could let us see six amendments on electricity, or five or seven. Who knows? We might be able to agree on three or four of them. We can't get that done either. That is normally the way we do it. It is not as if we have to be hiding these issues. They are either real or they aren't. If somebody can really show the American people a piece of legislation that says the electricity bill is going to hurt the American electricity user, here is the language or not. It ought to be audible, understandable, and clear enough so we can get it out there and look at it. I have not been able to do that yet. I haven't seen any amendments on the other side that clearly say the electricity section was put together and is supported by all method, manner, and kind of electric generating and electric distribution companies in America. Did you know that? The section is supported by all kinds. With one exception, it has everybody's support. It would seem to me that it is pretty good. Let us see what is wrong with it, and let us get those solved. I apologize to the Senate for taking so much time. But I have a hunch, from what I just heard, that maybe I will not be speaking for a couple of weeks on the subject, in which event this might be the last you will hear from me for a while about this subject. But I beg you not to cut it off this morning, and not to leave here with some kind of a pick and with some kind of partisan ill feeling. Just as you might have them on your side, I am sure some have them on our side, partisan-wise. If mistakes were made, I am sure on our side of the aisle somebody will get up and say you have made mistakes. But please don't get up from the Judiciary Committee when I am finished--none of you--and talk about how we made mistakes with reference to the judges. Let us put that off for a while to see if we can't stay on electricity for a few minutes, if you do not mind. I beg you. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I came here after the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, and he is my senior. I am a youngster. But I wondered if I could speak before him and he said of course. I ask consent that I be permitted to speak for up to 7\1/2\ minutes and that the Senator from West Virginia be the next recognized for his comments.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, one might think, having been immersed in this Energy bill and waiting for a possible solution to the situation, that I rise to speak of that. But I do not. Senator Byrd, I know the Senator is busy but I would like him to listen to the few comments I have because, while they are not borrowed from him, I have heard him speak about America's involvement in other countries and I want to talk about that. It bothers my mind, as I look at Iraq, and Afghanistan, Somalia, and the possibility now of Liberia and other countries, and I want to talk about some words that we Americans and our leaders have been using ever since I was a little kid and for all the years I was here. We used to say: we don't want to build countries. We are not in the business of constructing countries. We don't want to be called upon to put a country together. We don't want to be the builders of countries-- leaving the distinct impression that we want the other countries to build themselves up. The Senator and I would not object to that, as a thesis. That sounds like a theology of Americans. But Mr. President, I say to my good friend, the problem is that it almost implies that we will not put together the ability, the capacity to help a country build itself. We must, as a nation, it seems to this Senator, have within our Government the capacity to help a country such as Iraq build itself up--or a country such as Afghanistan. We can't say the Defense Department is now in charge of Iraq and they know how to see that Iraq gets built up. That is not plausible. Look what goes on every day in that country. Does all of that flow naturally to the Department of Defense for some colonel or general or the Secretary of Defense to make the decision? Of course not. There are issues of construction of a country, the building of an infrastructure, putting schools back into operation, making sure health clinics that have broken down get built. I am not suggesting that we build them in every respect but we need to have the governing capacity to have somebody in charge, seeing that it gets done. I have said that in my own way to this administration and I am very pleased that there has been some response. I said to them on one occasion: Why don't you tell the American people what is your plan for Iraq for the next 5 years? You know, all they are seeing is the bad things. They don't know that in 6 months you are going to have a certain number of policemen trained; in 1 year, you are going to have Polish soldiers coming in; in 2 years, you are going to have all the water done. I have said to them: In order to do that, you have to have, not the Department of Defense in charge, you have to have a reconstruction team in charge. A reconstruction team is different. In fact, it might be a layman with very big municipal authority who would be in charge. It might be a great builder who knows how to sit in an office and delegate so the things that have to be put together, the contracts that have to be let, get let; the countries that have to be called upon to do things--that it happens. So I thought I might just share that with the Senator, since he has shown great concern about what we are going to do. The Senator from New Mexico is totally on this President's team. I am totally his defender in terms of having taken over Iraq. I don't even spend any time worrying about those 15 words on nuclear weaponry. That is just me. I am not speaking about anybody else. I think I ought to be listened to on some of these other issues. I know what the average folks in my hometown are thinking about. I know that they are reading in the paper about soldiers dying and the Secretary of Defense responding. I think they would feel much better if they knew there was a game plan for the reconstruction, and that America had within its Government a capacity to reconstruct what is needed and then kind of put the bricks and mortar and the building blocks together and be able to tell us, our people, and the world, what is going on month by month, 6 months by 6 months. As an example, today I could go home to my hometown and I could speak at lunch to some people and I could pull out the blueprint for the reconstruction of Iraq. I could say to them: Folks, it may change here or there but, this is what the plan is. We have a way to do it. It is not American soldiers who are going to be over there for 5 years carrying out all the details of every little thing that has to be done. We are in a reconstruction mode to rebuild that country. That part of our Government would be more credible when they tell us: We didn't have a water works. That is why we are still over here hurting. This fellow, Saddam Hussein, broke the water works down and there wasn't anything there for the people to drink water from. That is a lot different than saying our soldiers are running around trying to find water for the people and they got killed doing it. It is a lot different than saying we thought we had a production line to get the oil from here to there but it had decayed and we had to bring in a company to build another one, rather than reading a story that somebody shot an American soldier as we were attempting to build a pipeline for the oil and gas. The Senator from New Mexico is totally immersed up to his head in the subject of an Energy bill for America. I pulled myself away from it to let other Senators talk about it. I thought I would come down to the floor and discuss this issue. I don't do that very often. I kind of stick to my area. But this is an important issue. We are in the business of reconstructing that country. We can say all we want--that we aren't and we don't want to--but we can't expect our soldiers, our tanks, and our men with machine guns to do that. They have to be there, of course. They are going to be there in large numbers. But we need to have something that is a reconstruction approach. The government of our country has to be wise enough, the great builders we are. We are the builders. We are the builders of the world. We surely ought to be able to put together a master plan with a master builder for the rebuilding and reconstruction. I yield the floor. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senate.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. But the situation the Senator is talking about refers to clear accidents involving ordinary people, correct?

Mr. DOMENICI. I agree with the Senator's view. I will be a conferee on this bill. I assure the Senator that I will resist any attempt to open the conference to discussion of waste issues. I would also like to note that there are provisions in this bill that will allow the national labs to play a strong role. From our positions on the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee, let's work together to ensure their participation. Criminal Liability

Mr. DOMENICI. Is the Senator referring to the criminal negligence provision of the Clean Water Act and the strict criminal liability provision of the Migratory Bird Act and the Refuse Act which can be triggered by a simple accident?

Mr. DOMENICI. My colleagues are clearly describing a legal minefield where employees involved in an accident become less likely to cooperate with accident investigations because they are being advised by counsel not to potentially incriminate themselves.

Mr. DOMENICI. And as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, is it the Senator from Oklahoma's position that this leads to less environmental safety instead of more?

Mr. DOMENICI. I am familiar with the provisions--it requires risk of physical harm to the public for an accident to trigger criminal prosecution.

Mr. DOMENICI. I agree with the Senators' assessment, share their concern, and look forward to working with them to address this important issue. Cantwell Amendment

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce a piece of legislation that is of paramount importance to the State of New Mexico and many other western States. This bill will address the mounting pressures brought on by the growing demands throughout the west of a diminishing water supply. This bill that I am introducing today authorizes the Department of Interior acting through the Bureau of Reclamation to establish a series of research and demonstration programs to help with the eradication of this non-native species on rivers in the Western United States. This bill will help develop the scientific knowledge and the experience base to build a strategy to control these invasive thieves. In addition to projects that could benefit the Pecos and the Rio Grande, the bill allows other states in the west such as Texas, Colorado, Utah, California and Arizona to develop and participate in projects as well. Allow me to explain the importance of this bill. A water crisis has ravaged the west for four years. Drought conditions are expected to expand into the upper mid-west this year. Last year snow packs were abnormally low, causing severe drought conditions. Snow pack conditions this year were also low, but marginally better in the southwest. The rest of the west did not have promising winter snows and spring rains. The presence of invasive species compounds the drought situation in many states. For instance, New Mexico is home to a vast amount of Salt Cedar. Salt Cedar is a water-thirsty non-native tree that continually strips massive amounts of water out of New Mexico's two predominant water supplies the Pecos and the Rio Grande rivers. We have already had numerous catastrophic fires in our Nation's forests including the riparian woodland--the Bosque--that runs through the heart of New Mexico's most populous city. One of the reasons this fire ran its course through Albuquerque was the presence of large amounts of Salt Cedar, a plant that burns as easily as it consumes water. Estimates show that one mature Salt Cedar tree can consume as much as 200 gallons of water per day; over the growing season that is 7 acre feet of water for each acre of Salt Cedar. In addition to the excessive water consumption, Salt Cedars increase fire, increase river channelization and flood frequency, decrease water flow, and increase water and soil salinity along the river. Every problem that drought causes is exacerbated by the presence of Salt Cedar. I know that the seriousness of the water situation in New Mexico becomes more acute every single day. This drought has affected every New Mexican and nearly everyone in the west in some way. Wells are running dry, farmers are being forced to sell livestock, many of our cities are in various stages of conservation and many, many acres have been charred by fire. The drought and the mounting legal requirements on both the Pecos and Rio Grande rivers are forcing us toward a severe water crisis in New Mexico. Indeed, every river in the inter-mountain west seems to be facing similar problems. Therefore, we must bring to bear every tool at our disposal for dealing with the water shortages in the west. Solving such water problems is one of my top priorities and I assure this Congress that this bill will receive prompt attention by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Controlling water thirsty invasive species is one significant and substantial step in the right direction for the dry lands of the west. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, September 4, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the Department of Energy polygraph program. Because of the limited time available for the hearings, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, September 9, at 10 a.m., in 366 Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to consider the nomination of Suedeen G. Kelly to be a Member of the Federal of Energy Regulatory Commission and Rick A. Dearborn to be Assistant Secretary of Energy, Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs. For further information, please contact Judy Pensabene of Committee staff at (202) 224-1327. committee on armed services

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time does Senator Cantwell have left?

Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator from New Mexico has a half hour less than the Senator----

Mr. DOMENICI. I inquire if the Senator from Louisiana desires to speak?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I will yield and speak after Senator Landrieu.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we will soon have a unanimous consent request that will set up another amendment of the same class to follow this afternoon immediately after the vote on the judge. In the meantime, I have around 20 minutes to speak. I would like very much to be as short as I can. But first, let me say to fellow Senators that I am very proud of the electricity amendment, with 13 bipartisan cosponsors, which is pending. Does anybody think we would have worked on that for days on end and not have provisions in it that take care of the problems that Senator Cantwell is talking about? Is it conceivable that I would come to the Senate floor with what we perceive to be a great American reform of an electricity system from top to bottom and leave out protection for the kind of people she is speaking of? I will answer my own question by saying that is impossible. It is impossible because we wouldn't let it happen. Second, it is impossible because it didn't happen. Having said that, I understand full well--and I have explained privately to the very distinguished Senator, Ms. Cantwell. As I talked with her, I could just see how her very being was upset with what has happened to her constituents because of the pricing that went wild in the State of California for which she got the aftermath in her State. But it is not only her State and her constituents, it is a whole section of the country which, in a sense, got it in the neck because of California. While I am at it--I intended to do this later in my remarks, but let me do it right now--there was a lot of talk about what happened to bring those prices to that outrageously wild system that ended up falling over on to her constituents. And the word ``manipulation'' was used and that even FERC said, in a report, manipulation caused it. Let me suggest, the Senator from New Mexico has done everything he could to try to find out what the real experts say caused it, and none of them say it was manipulation that was at the heart of the problem of prices going outlandishly high on the west coast. As a matter of fact, whether you ask the Federal Reserve Board or whether you look at the FERC report, the root cause is found not to be--not to be-- manipulation. The meltdown was a significant supply shortage and fatally flawed design statutes. Let me repeat, the general consensus of those who have looked at it carefully say significant supply shortfall added to a fatally flawed design market and that blew up the California market and, thus, its surrounding States. On March 26, 2003, FERC issued its ``Final Report on Price Manipulation in Western Markets.'' Senator Cantwell believes the report proves there was manipulation. However, not everyone shares that view. As a matter of fact, the Cambridge Energy Research Associates, CERA, is considered one of the top, if not the top, energy market analysts in the world. Daniel Yergin, the chairman of CERA, is the most respected expert in energy policy and the author of the ``Prize,'' the Pulitzer Award-winning book on the global oil market. CERA noted that FERC ignored the natural gas and electricity supply shortages and assumed scarcity was attributed to manipulation. It was scarcity first, and then it was flawed design statutes which permitted the scarcity to go berserk. Now, that is aside from the question. Let's get back to the issue of the bill and whether we would bring before the body a bill that we would ask the entire Senate to support-- that I am very hopeful, by the time we are finished, will get in excess of 65, 70 votes--that does not protect the citizens from what happened on the west coast. Now, this amendment addresses the Federal Power Act and the Natural Gas Act in the following ways: No. 1, it establishes an electronic information system at FERC to enhance market transparency. No. 2, it increases criminal and civil penalties under the Federal Power Act and the Natural Gas Act. No. 3, it enhances FERC's refund authority. No. 4, it requires FERC to issue regulations establishing conditions under which utilities can charge market-based rates. No. 5, it prohibits the filing of false information. And, last, it prohibits round-trip trading. Further, the so-called Domenici amendment--that is the master amendment we are operating under that I have asked parenthetically of myself: Would I bring it here without protecting for the future events that are being alluded to by the distinguished Senator who is worried about her State--that Domenici amendment enhances the role of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to provide oversight over electricity and natural gas. The Senate, in my humble opinion, should reject amendments--all of them--to the electricity title of the bill that would affect FERC's and the CFTC's flexibility to react and deal with bad actors and upset further the already beleaguered utility industry's ability to respond to a changing market. Now, I do not want to take a lot of time because, frankly, I am not sure, when we go on forever, that anybody listens. But I want to tell you that even without the so-called Domenici Modernization Act, the markets are being forced to respond, because FERC is taking action in the form of initiatives to protect electricity consumers, increase market transparency, and strengthen the regulation of electricity markets at the wholesale level. They have proposed to identify more clearly transactions and practices that would be prohibited under electricity sellers' market- based rate tariffs and gas sellers' blanket certificate authority. These new market behavior rules would prohibit market manipulation or attempts to manipulate the market through activities such as creating and relieving artificial congestion. They have proposed to require electricity sellers to operate and schedule generating facilities in compliance with the rules and regulations of the relevant power market. They have proposed to require sellers to provide complete, accurate, and factual information in all communications with FERC, RTOs, ISOs, market monitors, and other similar entities. They have proposed measures to assure the accuracy of electricity and natural gas price reporting. They have established a new Office of Market Oversight and Investigations as part of a stepped-up enforcement and audit program. And I could go on. Clearly, they are enforcing the law. They are taking out after those who are causing this market to react other than in a normal market way. And we will add to that authority in the bill that is before us which does not have to be amended. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has aggressively prosecuted fraud and manipulation in energy markets. They have committed 25 percent of their enforcement staff to conduct investigations into misconduct in energy markets. CFTC's existing authority empowers it to prosecute fraud and manipulation. Under the authority of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, they have filed civil action against Enron and a former Enron vice president for manipulation of prices in natural gas markets. They have filed civil action against Enron for operating an illegal futures exchange. They have filed civil action against El Paso Merchant for false reporting and have a $20 million settlement. And they have filed civil action against Dynegy Marketing for false reporting and have a $5 million settlement. They have filed civil action against Encana Trading for false reporting and Williams Trading for false reporting, both with a $20 million settlement. Criminal actions have been filed, and I have a complete list of those. Enron's former head of CA trading pled guilty to conspiracy. We don't need further amendments beyond the Domenici amendment that is pending to be sure the constituents of the distinguished Senator from the State of Washington are protected. They are protected. All we do by adding more is making the market more difficult. We would accomplish little but perhaps to say to ourselves we have done much. The Natural Gas Supply Association, the Interstate Natural Gas Association, and the American Gas Association have all endorsed the market manipulation provisions in this amendment we call the Domenici amendment. I believe it is right as it is. It need not be changed. Mr. President, let me just generally talk about where we want to go. Soon we will have the unanimous consent request in writing. I say to the Senator, maybe we can just recite it here since you and I know it.

Mr. DOMENICI. Surely.