I just wanted to follow-up, Mr. Dolcini, on the drought relief again, affecting California.

We are all concerned that some of these requirements impose a burden that is much greater than any possible benefit for U.S. markets.

Position limits are, in my opinion, a sideshow that has unnecessarily diverted human and fiscal resources away from actions to prevent another financial crisis.

I would imagine it would be pretty overwhelming, given the feedback we are getting so far on this, that they are not at all in favor of the proposed rule and that it should likely be scrapped, or some other angle taken on that.

Why is the Commission seeking to take away this longstanding legitimate hedging tool from farmers?

Of course, one of the key issues we are concerned with is the ability for end-users to have the access to the market.

These requirements were so costly that many swap and futures sellers simply stopped working with publicly-owned utilities.

To the waters of the United States, this really is a vast overreach of property rights, and we need you to be a strong voice to have sense restored back to that.

We really need your strong voice in those discussions you have with fellow Secretaries, and in the Administration.

I am pleased that we are hearing this key measure today, one that will help with the development of surface storage projects across the West, including in my own region in California, which has had the failure to adequately update our…

This measure will allow us to move forward with desperately needed projects like Sites that will end the gap in California's water supply that will only continue to grow if we do not take action.

Isn't that where really the hang-up is?