John Yarmuth

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. I want to thank my colleague. He referenced the annual profit of ExxonMobil that was reported last week. And I was struck last week on February 1, when I looked at The New York Times on the online version, the list of the headlines of the day, and I thought it was striking because I think it painted a vivid picture of where we are in this world and in this country. The first story was, ``Microsoft Bids $44.6 Billion for Yahoo,'' a lot of money, two corporations vying for each other. The next story, ``U.S. Economy Unexpectedly Sheds 17,000 Jobs,'' the worst jobs report in several years. Then, ``Dozens Killed in Worst Baghdad Attack in Months,'' then ``Kurds' Power Wanes as Arab Anger Rises'' and, then, finally, ``ExxonMobil Profit Sets Record Again.'' I think that was just an incredibly vivid picture of where we are in this world and where this economy stands and how out of whack the priorities of this administration have become. That's why I am so thankful that we are, at least, in control of this House of the Congress so that we can help to set the priorities of this country on a much more sound course. I know that I have had so many opportunities to stand on this floor and discuss these issues with my colleague from Florida (Mr. Klein). I am proud to recognize him now.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Madam Speaker, today we will pass a bipartisan economic stimulus package that will help American families and jump-start our growing economy. Throughout our great country, hardworking citizens are making major sacrifices to make ends meet, cutting back on winter clothes to pay for heat, scaling back groceries to pay for kids' medical bills, or sacrificing college in attempt to prevent mortgage foreclosure. For 117 million families, 1.6 million in Kentucky alone, rebate checks of $600 per individual, $1,200 per couple and an additional $300 per child will be in their mailboxes by as early as May. This is dramatic departure from the old strategy in which leaders hoped tax breaks for billionaires would trickle down to the people who really needed help. Hope is a wonderful thing. But as the last 7 years have taught us, it is not effective fiscal policy for most Americans. By targeting those who need help, who we know without doubt will spend and invest and put money back in the economy, we aren't depending on hope; we're providing it. I urge my colleagues to join me in providing that hope and jump- starting the economy today.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and thank him for his comments and also Mr. Walz for his leadership as well. I will say, no, the situation in Kentucky is not much different than it is anywhere else in the country, and throughout the campaign 2 years ago and before that, as I talked to people in my district and around the State of Kentucky, what I heard was the same message you have heard. You know, we're working harder and harder, we're struggling, we're doing the best we can, and yet we're falling behind. We're not making progress. Our standard of living is not getting better, not improving. And I know that we don't want to burden the audience with too many statistics, but Mr. Walz talked about productivity, and one of the most astounding statistics I've heard recently is that 25 years ago, when there was a productivity gain in the United States, workers benefited to the tune of 70 percent of that productivity gain. So for every dollar increase in productivity, workers got 70 percent, owners got 30 percent. In the current era, that number is down in the 20s. So while American workers are working harder and harder, most of the gain in their productivity is not going to them. It's going to owners. It's going to the corporations, and the workers working harder and harder are not getting the benefit of that. And we're seeing it day in and day out. And not only that; we're seeing instances in which people who have worked their entire lives, because of emergencies, because of businesses going out of business, are losing their life savings. I will never forget being at a Catholic picnic one day in 2006 and talking to a man who had worked for Winn-Dixie Corporation. He had worked 28 years for Winn-Dixie, and he had accumulated $150,000 in his retirement plan. Winn-Dixie had gone into bankruptcy. He was left with $30,000. He lost 80 percent of his life savings because of the problems inherent in his corporation, and they had not planned adequately to secure his retirement benefits. So these have ripple effects. These are stories that are heard by relatives, by friends, by neighbors, and that increases the anxiety throughout society. And this is what I sense that we face in this country today is not just the actual fact of people's standard of living not increasing despite the fact they're working harder and harder, but their faith in the future is declining and faith in the future of their neighbors and their friends because they see the threats to them, and they say what am I working for, what am I trying so hard to accomplish. Then we had the added specter, as I know one of our colleagues will discuss this evening, of the incredible crisis in the health care system where 50 percent of the bankruptcies that we now experience in this country are due to health care costs and people, again, who have done everything the right way and have lost everything because of bad luck of the draw. They've come down with cancer. They've come down with a serious injury that's preventing them from working. So as we go across the entire spectrum of American society that's what we find day in and day out. I like to think of government as the way we organize our responsibilities to each other, and in this day and age we do face these very serious choices and very clear choices in how we perceive our economy and what government's role should be. And the question is, do we reward wealth versus work? And I think this group that was elected in 2006 has a clear position on that; we want to reward work and not necessarily wealth. We want to make sure that when people work harder, they benefit. And we want to make sure that the economy is fair to everyone and works for everyone. And if we can't do that, then we don't deserve to be representing the American people because we have let them down. And I know that this group is not going to let them down; I know that's why we came here. And I'm proud to be here for that reason, and I'm not going to stop fighting as long as I'm here. So, I thank all of you for your collegiality and all of your efforts in this behalf. We are part of a great cause for the working families in America, and I'm very proud to be a part of that. With that, I will yield to my colleague from out west, the site of this year's Democratic convention, Mr. Perlmutter.

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. YARMUTH. Thank you. One of the things that I want to follow up on what you were talking about was we were sent here to solve problems. And I think one of the reasons that we have gotten into the predicament we're in is because a lot of people in the White House and in this Congress thought that you can govern by dogma. And when people say the free market's infallible or that regulation is bad or government should get out of the way and we hear those kinds of dogmatic philosophical statements, a lot of people bought into those. And what we see time after time, and I guess we are all slow learners in this country, but what we see time after time, whether it's with the subprime mortgage, whether it's with Katrina, or in all sorts of areas, with our health care system, is that dogma doesn't do very well when the rubber meets the road. There are real facts that we have to deal with. So we come here, and I know a lot of people, when we try to suggest that the disparity between rich and poor has gotten too great or that corporations have too much power, think we are playing at class war or we are trying to pit one part of society against the other. And that's not at all what we're doing. And I hope the audience has understood that everybody tonight has talked about fairness and, dare I say it, balance, and we are talking about the fact that in this country over the last couple of decades the economic pendulum has swung way too far to one side. And the marketplace works where there is some kind of balance in power, and now there is no balance in power because the rules are all stacked against every working American. So we're not trying to say that corporations are evil. I don't think anybody would say that, or that the rich are evil and that they don't care about the working class. But we have a situation in which that pendulum needs to be moved back to the point where everybody shares in the growth of this country. So as I look at this group, all of whom are committed to solving problems and not necessarily to advancing a dogma, I think that's what the American people expect us to do and I think that's what we are going to continue to work to do. I would like to yield to my distinguished colleague and friend from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. YARMUTH. I would just like to add as maybe a closing remark that one of the things in the area of dogma we talk about, or cliches, we want government out of our lives. Everybody hates government until they need government. That is from the richest to the poorest. We know there's a lot of subsidy to the wealthiest people, the wealthiest corporations. They say they don't like government, but they are always coming here to ask for help when it suits them. This is one of those times when everyone needs government in this country. Everyone needs the stimulus that we are about to try to provide. It's the right thing, it's the smart thing, and it's the moral thing to do. I think that if we can convince enough people on the other side of the aisle, we will strike a great victory for this country and for the American people. I look forward to doing that in the next couple of weeks.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the S- MINER Act because it will quite simply and without doubt save the lives of innocent Americans. It could have saved the life of my fellow Kentuckian, Jimmy Lee, whose widow Melissa I met this past year. She courageously came to us for help because, though it was too late to save her Jimmy, we still had the chance to prevent more loving spouses from becoming courageous widows. Yesterday, Melissa and 27 other Kentuckians sent me a letter. Each has lost a father, son or husband in a preventable mine disaster, and each urges the implementation of this legislation. I found it very interesting to listen to my colleague from across the aisle, the gentleman from Alaska. And he used the term on a number of occasions, a nail in the coffin: And this is what we're talking about. In my case, today, I'm talking about a letter from 28 Kentuckians who had to put their relatives, their loved ones in coffins and bury them because this government has not done what it can and should do to protect them. In any event, the White House threatens a veto, not so much because it disagrees, but because the Department of Labor still hasn't implemented the last law. Congress is here to act when bureaucracies drag their feet. And here the consequences of the administration stonewalling are disastrous. This is one of those choices we face in this era. We face the decision between money and lives. And as I said during the hearing when we looked into the Darby disaster and Sago and Crandall Canyon, we need to have a country and a government that value the lives of the miners as much as what they bring out of the ground. That's what this legislation is all about. That's what we stand here to do. And that's why I congratulate the chairman for his courageous act and his passion for this cause. So with that, I urge my colleagues and the President to join me in supporting the Supplemental Mining Improvement and New Emergency Response Act. And I urge them to begin saving lives today.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, last night this House acted in bipartisan fashion to reject some of the President's harmful budget cuts to important education programs. Had this Congress simply rubber-stamped President Bush's budget, education funding would have been slashed by $1.2 billion, including a 50 percent cut in vocational education and the elimination of every student aid program except Pell Grants and Work Study. This House rejected those cuts. Instead, we invest $767 million more than the President's request for K-12 education, including targeted increases in special education, teacher quality grants, after-school programs and Head Start. We invested $575 million above the President's budget for technical training in high schools and community colleges. And we provide $1.7 billion more than the President for Pell Grants and other student aid programs. Mr. Speaker, this new Democratic Congress has prioritized the needs of children and young adults by investing in their education so they can better compete in an ever-expanding global economy.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, we have spent much of this year uncovering and correcting shortfalls in this country's treatment of our uniformed heroes. Reversing negligence is one thing, but today we address the reprehensible and willful act of docking a soldier's pay for being injured while answering the call of duty. This literally is our government adding insult to injury. These men and women left their homes and families, they paid with their time, bodies, and health for the security of our fellow citizens. Without them, we are defenseless. Thanks to them, we are the most powerful Nation in the world. To save the injured, that is not enough, and to ask them to pay once more is shameful at best. They volunteered to become part-time and full-time professional soldiers out of love of this country, and it is high time our leaders started to show some gratitude. We owe them the best medical care, respect, honor, forthrightness, and, at the very least, we owe them the payment they were promised. I urge my colleagues to restore honor to our injured heroes and, in so doing, restore honor to the Nation they fight for by supporting the Veterans Guaranteed Bonus Act.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, we watched two African American coaches make history in the Super Bowl. This week, Ty Scroggins made history again, guiding Louisville's Central High School to the Kentucky 3-A Championship, becoming the first African American football coach to win a Kentucky State title. As alma mater to Muhammad Ali, Central is no stranger to athletic success. Still, it took a total team effort, led by Darrell Taylor's inspired rushing, to give the Yellow Jackets their first championship. As the first predominantly and historically black high school to win the Kentucky Gridiron State trophy, their landmark win is a victory for a Commonwealth proud of overcoming adversity as we progress toward real equality. The school that began 125 years ago as Louisville Colored High School now sends 92 percent of its students to college. Renowned for economic excellence, successful magnet programs, and unique entrepreneurial opportunities, few schools so thoroughly prepare students for careers in business, law, technology, and medicine. Four decades ago, Central gave us The Greatest. Today, the school continues to give us greatness. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Central High School, Coach Scroggins, and Kentucky's 2007 3-A football champs.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the most profound step forward in energy policy that this country has taken in 30 years. In those 30 years, we in America have seen our dependence on foreign nations increase exponentially. The same issue which has caused this great nation to be beholden to others is draining the wallets of our fellow citizens while warming the earth at an alarming and unnatural rate. And so, I am incredibly proud to be a part of the Congress that isolated the source of those problems and responded resolutely, in a bicameral, bipartisan way. When the energy bill is fully implemented, a gallon of gasoline will take the average American nearly 30 percent farther, our need for foreign oil will plummet by a colossal 4 million barrels a day, energy bills will drop as appliances grow more efficient, and thanks to an unprecedented investment in homegrown, renewable, clean fuel, the prospect for real, safe energy independence is closer than it has ever been. Mr. Speaker, this is more than simply an energy bill, this is America's declaration of energy independence, and I urge my colleagues support it.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Madam Speaker, how many times is President Bush going to hold the same press conference, hammering away at Congress just because we're meeting our responsibilities under article I and restoring Americans' faith in the future? Doesn't he understand that the American people chose to put Democrats in control of Congress for a reason? All year long we have been working to take our Nation in a new direction and restore that faith in the future. In some instances, the President has joined our efforts. We worked together to fully implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations, increase the minimum wage, and make college more affordable for millions of college students. Unfortunately, in almost every other instance, President Bush has stood in the way of real progress. He refused to help us provide quality health coverage for 10 million children. He rejected our efforts consistently to change course in Iraq. And he has threatened to veto our appropriations bills that truly prioritize our domestic needs. Madam Speaker, President Bush has every right to be frustrated by his lack of accomplishments, but he has nobody to blame but himself. He needs to stop standing in the way of progress.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. I thank my colleague. Mr. Speaker, we must acknowledge that America's continued success will not be ensured unless we equip the leaders of tomorrow with the tools they need today. This means cultivating not just the most privileged and brightest students but the students who grow up with disadvantages. We must nurture the potential of all our children from the very beginning of their lives. We don't have one mind to waste or one citizen to waste. We need everyone to have the greatest ability and preparation to live productive, meaningful lives in our society. For a million students, Head Start is the answer. For those who work hard but remain stuck just above the poverty level, the reauthorization of this program will give their children a chance to soar. I am proud to say that just as we did by increasing the minimum wage, doubling college assistance, and providing health care to uninsured children, this Congress continues to put working families first. With nine in 10 Americans reporting no increase in income the last 6 years, cynicism has replaced hope for too many. We are in a position to restore faith in the future. And as we pass the reins of our Nation to future generations, we must invest in that future by guaranteeing every child a chance to succeed. I know that in my hometown of Louisville, Kentucky, thousands and thousands of young children have gotten adequate preparation for schooling that they might not otherwise have gotten because of the wonderful training they received in Head Start. It is not just a head start; it is a very strong foundation to success in education and success in whatever careers our young children may select. So I'm proud to stand here in the House of Representatives, the people's House, and urge my colleagues to support a program which will help ensure that the people we represent are able to enjoy the prosperity and the happiness that our Founding Fathers hoped they would have. With that, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting Head Start and begin restoring faith in the future for millions of American families.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida, and it's a pleasure to be here with my distinguished colleagues from the class of 2006 talking about the issues that confront this Congress and this Nation and also some of the issues that we have in dealing with the basic functioning of government, which is one of the reasons we're here tonight. And I'm so happy that my colleague from Minnesota mentioned the President's statement that we were wasting time and doing many of these things. I can only think when I heard him make that statement, did he really think that maybe the Founding Fathers were wasting their time when they wrote the Constitution? Because the first thing they did when they wrote the Constitution was write article I, which established the Congress of the United States and vested all legislative powers in the Congress of the United States, not some of them, not those dealing with certain subjects, but all of them in the Congress of the United States. And the reason they did that was simple. They had escaped. They had revolted to escape a dictatorial form of government when one person was the decider. We've had one person who thinks he's the decider in the White House, and we've had members of both parties who have been in the White House and felt that they were the deciders, but that's not what the Founding Fathers envisioned. They envisioned a representative democracy in which people that they sent to decide how the government would affect their lives would make those decisions, and that's why they put article I first. That's why they created the executive branch in article II of the Constitution, and that's why when we act, whether it's to provide health insurance for kids, whether it's to provide resources for water projects throughout the country, whether it's to provide for the Defense Department for our soldiers, our brave men and women fighting overseas, for our veterans, whether it's when we try to create a new energy policy for this country, when we try to provide a sound and high- quality education for everyone in this country, that we're doing it pursuant to the powers, and not just the powers but the responsibilities that the Founding Fathers vested in this very body. So, when the President says we're wasting time, I would beg to differ, because if we're wasting time, then the Founding Fathers wasted time when they wrote the Constitution. And that's why it's so important that we focus not just on what we do here but why we're doing it and the fact that we are actually realizing the direction and the decisions made by those great men 220 years ago when they formed this Constitution that determines how we operate in this country and that has served this country so well for so long. So I look forward to the next few minutes of discussion, and once again, I'm so proud to be here talking about how we're putting article I to use for the benefit of the American people.

Mr. YARMUTH. I thank the gentleman, and I have a button for the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas, and I look forward to giving it to her. I thank her for endorsing the type of emphasis that we're trying to place on this very important discussion of the balance of powers in this country. You know, there's another element to this whole question, a balance of powers, and it really is reflected in the debate over the SCHIP program. Because while we debate, on the one hand, the actual legislative powers and how we might enforce those through the courts and so forth, there's another competition going on, and it's the competition that goes on in the media and in the public dialogue. And here is where there is an inherent advantage for the executive branch. And I think part of the reason why, over the last few decades, the executive branch has been able to accumulate far more power than the Constitution and the Founding Fathers envisioned was because it is much easier for the President of the United States to use the bully pulpit, as we call it, and dominate time and the news media and the television, and it's much harder for the Congress to do that since we are a body comprising 535 men and women. But what's interesting about it is that when you use the bully pulpit and when the President uses the bully pulpit, you hope that he uses it in an honest way, and, in fact, in this debate what we have seen is a performance that has actually been very insulting to the concept of a pulpit, I think, because what this President has done is used his bully pulpit, his media access, to deceive the American people about what we are doing and what he intends to do. For instance, he is constantly saying that the proposal, the legislation that we passed would enable families making $83,000 a year to access the SCHIP program. No families making $83,000 were authorized to make it or, in fact, ever found access to the SCHIP program. The only way that a family making more than double the poverty level can get entrance and access to the SCHIP program is if the executive branch gives them a waiver. In fact, the State of New York asked the President for a waiver. He declined it. So for him to then say under this program people making $83,000 would be eligible for SCHIP is not only not true, it is deceitfully dishonest. And, actually, if you talk about what he has done, he has the power, which we delegated to him, he has the power through the executive branch to waive some of these requirements. And that goes back to the interesting thing about this entire debate. In 2004 during the Presidential campaign, President Bush actually campaigned for an expansion of the SCHIP program. He loved the SCHIP program. He applauded it when he was Governor of Texas and he wanted to expand it. Now what does he do? Because it's not a Congress dominated by his party, he wants to change his perspective. He's changed his perspective as to whether the States should have waiving powers, which he wanted the States to have when the Congress was run by the Republicans. Now that Democrats control the Congress, he wants there to be Federal standards which he controls. So this is not just a battle of power internally in the Congress and through the courts but also one that we have to fight in the media. We are at a disadvantage, but I hope it is discussions like this and people who are not afraid to be outspoken and point out dishonesty and deceit when they see it that will help us even the playing field in terms of convincing the American people that not only does this Congress have the power, by virtue of article I, to make all legislative decisions, but it also has the moral foundation and the integrity to do what's right for the American people.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2258, a bill to extend programs under the Higher Education Extension Act of 1965. In addition to extending the current programs under the Higher Education Act for 5 months until March 31, 2009, the bill also makes a necessary technical correction to the College Cost Reduction and Access Act with respect to nonprofit lenders. This language will ensure the designation of a nonprofit lender will go to those that Congress intended. During this Congress we have made significant commitments to our Nation's students and families by putting resources in the hands of those most in need. H.R. 2669, as passed and signed by the President, does more to help Americans pay for college than any effort since the GI Bill at no new cost to taxpayers. Specifically, the legislation provided a landmark investment of $20 million in additional funding for Pell Grants, reductions in the interest rate on student loans, and the creation of programs to help students manage debt, as well as encourage individuals to pursue public service. Providing this critical funding is a large part of our efforts to increase access on affordability to higher education. The next step is to work on policies that further support access and affordability, such as campus-based aid, TRIO, GEAR-UP, teacher education and the other programs that make up the Higher Education Act. Additionally, we realize that millions of Americans are deeply worried about whether they can afford to send their kids to college or how they will be able to pay the bills while also paying off substantial student loan debt. Looking at how the Federal Government can assist in addressing the rising cost of college will also be a key part of the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. I look forward to working with Chairman Miller and the other members of the committee to complete work on the Higher Education Act. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2258) to temporarily extend the programs under the Higher Education Act of 1965, to amend the definition of an eligible not-for-profit holder, and for other purposes.

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. YARMUTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I request 5 legislative days during which Members may insert material relevant to S. 2258 into the Record.

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I will close by once again strongly encouraging my colleagues to support this important legislation, thanking the distinguished ranking member of the Education and Labor Committee. Mr. Speaker I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committees on Education and Labor, House Administration and Oversight and Government Reform be discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 2744) to amend the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 to clarify the eligibility requirements with respect to airline flight crews, and that the bill be rereferred to the Committee on Education and Labor.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. I thank my distinguished colleague from Ohio. It is kind of interesting, because since we are going back to the kind of legislative history of the Constitution, in the Federalist Papers which do constitute, I guess, whatever official legislative history there was, one of the things that James Madison wrote in article number 51 was, he said, ``But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department'' which would be the executive or the Congress ``consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others.'' So when you talk about the efforts of the White House, in this particular case, to withhold information that the Senate requires, and we issued subpoenas, which would be our constitutional means of requiring the information to resist the encroachments of the other branch of government, we have been stonewalled on a number of occasions. And this is the type of activity that the Founding Fathers anticipated. They gave us the constitutional means to resist those encroachments. We need to continue to recognize those and to use them whenever we have to. Now, my colleague from Florida has been standing there for quite a while.

Mr. YARMUTH. I thank the gentleman. And it's interesting because, again, you can find a foundation for all these things we're doing in these very words in article I, because one of our responsibilities is to provide for the general welfare. And when we're talking about the minimum wage, we're talking about the general welfare of the people. I would like to return to our distinguished president, who has a distinguished military record of his own, since we've been talking about our efforts with regard to Iraq and the military.

Mr. YARMUTH. I want to thank my colleague. Before I introduce another one of our esteemed colleagues from the class of 2006, when you talk about your observations after having gone to Iraq, and many of our colleagues have gone, sometimes I think people get the impression that we're just acting like any other pundit talking on television. But, in fact, what you're doing and what the other Members of our body have done when they go to Iraq is to fulfill their responsibilities under article I. Because article I says that Congress shall have the power to provide for the common defense, it says to raise and support armies, to provide and maintain a Navy, to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces, and so forth, to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining, this is the militia. But all of these powers and responsibilities are given to the Congress not just to say okay to the President, the Commander in Chief, but to make the decisions as to what the appropriate levels of support for those various responsibilities are. So when we talk about going to Iraq to assess the situation there, to talk to our troops, that is not just to go for a matter of curiosity or journalistic curiosity, it's actually to fulfill our responsibilities because we are responsible to make decisions as to what appropriate levels of support are. And with that, I would like to call on my distinguished colleague from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Mr. YARMUTH. I thank my colleague. She has expressed it very well, and that is exactly what I know she has done in our 10 months here. It also gives me great pleasure to recognize our colleague, another new Member from the great State of Florida, Congressman Klein, and I know he has some thoughts on this issue as well.