mr. donohue and mr. gerard represent do, i really would like to know for a fact why it enhances a company's ability to make claims when they can easily make it through any other country that they operate in. i would really like to know that. if you could send that to me, i would appreciate it. and again, i ask these questions with great respect. >> can i take a moment? i want to add, senator corker, if i could for just a minute. first of all, you know how much i appreciate the due diligence you do on this stuff. and i really am grateful to you for taking the time and looking at this without all the external influences and kind of working through it. but let me just say to you. with respect to the dispute resolution, and we'll get this for the record. you've asked it of mr. mcadam, but we'll also have our own council, which is important, and we can spend some time with you on it. you cannot only -- only a country has access to dispute resolution, not an individual company. so it's irrelevant that they may

mr. donohue? >> well, if you read what seems to be the treaties and environmental interest, we have met all of them. all of them. period. and if we were a party to the treaty and inordinate or particularly inappropriate climate demands were made on us, we would have the ability to veto it, veto it. it takes one veto. >> may i ask you -- yes, mr. timmons? >> you'll tell me how you think that is wrong, and i'll be happy to discuss it with you. >> i think that's a very important point that mr. donohue has just made. we would have the only permanent seat on the sea bed authority, and we would have the right to object to any provisions that are put forward. that said, there is nothing in the treaty that i've read that indicates that we would have to join kyoto or any other -- any other treaty of that type. and that's coming from an organization that does not support kyoto and has serious reservations about a cap and trade regime. >> some critics have additionally argued that if the u.s. joins the conve

mr. donohue. >> senator, i was just going to add something that you already know. the answer, the others than is very significant in your state is natural gas. as you know the price is down to the $2, $3 range today. 83,000 new jobs in your state as a result of that resurgence. i think as jay said earlier, that is primarily what is driving the manufacturing resurgence in the united states. we often forget that those chemical plants and others are primarily driven by the feed stock of natural gas where they convert natural gas to all the products we consume every day and don't think about. so it's natural gas, low cost, affordable, reliable energy that is driving those other benefits in our economy today. >> i'll submit some more questions for the record. thank you so much for your testimony. >> mr. chairman, thank you. >> thank you very much. senator shaheen, do you have any second-round questions? >> i do have a couple, mr. chairman. and i know that one of the issues that has been raised about the treaty, and i heard some of that debate today as been what is the r

mr. donohue. some have argued that a product that seeks to maintain a stable net asset value, while investing in instruments that can decline in value is essentially maintaining -- is the staple net asset value money market fund a fiction? mr. stevens. >> if not, why not? >> it is clearly not. we've actually done considerable amounts of empirical analysis of the variability of funds, net asset value per share, over extended period of time. the degree to which they fluctuate is really quite marginal. you can look at it carried to stress but you can look out over long periods of time. >> does it depend on what you're investing in? >> well, we invest, you're absolutely right. we invest only in the shortest, highest quality paper that is available. >> and that's for protection, is in its? >> that's why, under the structural 2a-7, permit a funds to keep their net asset value per share with a great deal of precision around 1 dollar. >> esther dardinger, do you have any comment? >> we had a hearing back