madam chairman , i yield myself 4 minutes .  madam chairman , first , i rise in opposition to the dingell substitute .  i do want the record to show that i supported at the committee on rules that it be made in order so we could have a full debate .  the dingell substitute , if it were actually to be implemented into the bill and become law , would go far beyond anything currently being considered in the electricity sector .  it would increase the fines already under the bill that go up to $ 1 million .  the dingell substitute would take that to $ 5 million and in some cases $ 25 million .  i will admit with the gentleman from michigan that the current fine is insignificant .  i think it is $ 5 , 000 , and we need to increase that .  so the bill takes it to the dingell substitute does not repeal puhca .  the bill before us does repeal the public utility holding company act , but the bill before us keeps in order the reporting requirements under puhca so the sec would have the ability to maintain analysis of records and things like that of the companies that are subject to puhca .  the dingell substitute would require retroactive refunds for market-based rates .  it would go back into contracts that have already been executed and electricity is being consumed and money for that electricity has been paid , and for the first time create a retroactive refund .  i think that is unwise and unnecessary .  basically , i would say that the dingell substitute is well intentioned ; but in some cases it goes too far , and in some cases it is silent on the underlying bill .  i would hope we would oppose it and keep the base text of the bill that is before us .  madam chairman , i reserve the balance of my time .  