veterans and americans who have disabilities, i was handed a note here that in terms of veterans in particular -- if you can answer this -- veterans from the post 2001. i am told that rate is higher than the natural veterans rate. can you just walk through some of those? >> the unemployment rate for february was 12.5%. it was well above the national average.

>> how about the overall. is there a number for over all veterans? >> for overall veterans the unemployment rate is 9.5%. 9.5%, actually a little less than the national average. >> so the folks serving most recently are having a tougher time? >> yes. >> persons with disabilities, do you have that number? >> yes, i do. the unemployment rate for persons with disabilities is 13.8%. i will say that the more notable fact on people with disabilities is a very low labor force participation rate. it is only about 21.9% for people with disabilities, as opposed to over 60% for a national average. >> earlier this week the white house attempted to spin the bad numbers in advance, knowing

their policies have failed our economy miserably. larry summers said that the snowstorms localized would distort that unemployment jobs numbers of today. that is equivalent of the doll 8 might economy as an excuse. -- the dog ate my economy. you collect jobs numbers for our country. one is the household survey were you call people and ask them, and obviously if they are on vacation or home sick or prevented from working by bad weather, and they are not counted as an employee, they are just not working that day. the other way you collect information through the employment survey, you sit in your testimony, the only way they would be counted as unemployed is if they received not a dime during the month of

their pay. -- pay period. they would have to be out of work for the whole pay period to be counted as unemployed during that time, is that correct pressure or cracks yes. >> would you say that the snowstorms distorted the jobs numbers you presented today? -- is that correct? >> yes. whatever happened with the snowstorms this month will be gone by next month, so we will see a bounce back if there was an effect. there is really no way for us to precisely known. obviously we saw a decline in hours worked, but as you say with a payroll jobs, it is difficult. different establishments have

different payroll periods. we really cannot even give you a good idea of how likely it is. >> i think it is important that we not be trying to spin these numbers in advance when we know they are headed the wrong direction. within the white house did not talk about was distortion caused by the hiring of temporary census workers. my understandiding is that the government will be hiring between 700,000 and 800,000 temporary workers, which will boost the jobs numbers out of the mainstream. in january and february, how many of those census workers were hired and are counted in these numbers today? >> for the job growth today,

15,000 jobs were added for the census. >> i am convinced our economic recovery is sluggish and subpar in comparison to how we respond to past recessions. how we responded to the reagan recovery. against competitors around the world, i am looking at the unemployment rate from when the stimulus to the effect until today. our unemployment rate increase by 1.5 percentage points. australia has increased by a fraction during that time. canada is one-tenth of our increase. japan has increased by less than one-third of what the u.s. has increased in an employment. we are worse than the european union and falling behind countries like south korea.

can you compare -- it appears we are falling behind our major competitors in an effort to come back to a sustained, vibrant economic recovery. can you compare our unemployment numbers and increases over the past year with our major competitors? >> i do not have that in front of me. i would have to take a look at it. we do make those comparisons in one of our programs were reduced international labor comparisons. in general, our unemployment rate is comparable with a number of european union countries. at the moment, some are better and some are worse. >> i think they've increased 1.2 percentage points over are 1.5.

>> thank you again for your work and the work of your staff. i was just going back to chairman casey's statements. it is so easy for us, and listen to my good friend mr. brady, so easy for us to say that there has not been progress. there has been, and chairman casey pointed out that back in january of 2009, we are losing 729,000 jobs, and in january of this year we are talking about 26,000. is that significant? >> yes, that is significant moderation. >> that is what i thought. it is not about twisting numbers

are trying to make them look better than they are. we want every single american who wants to be employed. the fact remains that we are seeing some progress. that me ask you this. going back to the temporary help services, that has been up. how much up was that? >> it was up 48,000 this month. that is significant, and that is a fairly reliable indicator of a strengthening labor market. >> in other words, it sounds like -- as i understand it, when you have that temporary help, the logica tells you there is a probability that at some point, those jobs will increase in to permanent jobs. is that it?

>> historically, when temporary help services start to add payroll -- start to add jobs, the overall payroll numbers increase. >> let me go to the african- american unemployment situation. with regard to african- americans, back in january, last month it was 16.5%, and this month, 50.8%. i understand that is not a statistically significant figure, but it is a reduction. for african-american women, in january 2010 the rate was 13.3%. now is 12.1%, 1% less. is that significant? >> i am not sure of hand. i am guessing that is probably

still not statistically significant, even though it is a fairly large change. gregg's but it is a reduction of a point, is that right? >> yes. >> let's go back to this whole snowstorms situation. i guess that could fall either way, could and it? -- couldn't it? it could have affected the numbers negatively or positively, is that right? >> that is correct, but i would expect if it has had an effect overall, it would be a negative effect on the numbers. >> in other words, the unemployment rate would have been higher or lower? >> with the unemployment rate, i am not sure it is likely to have been affected much, but the payroll jobs numbers could have been affected.

>> in what respect? >> let me give you some perspective. there were literally 1 million people who did not work during the referenced week at all. while we would tell them as employed for the unemployment rate, there is some question as to whether or not these people showed up on payroll when we collected the establishment data. some of them have shown up and gotten paid. they may have worked at least part of the time, but some may not have worked at all. if they did not work at all, they would not show up in the payroll jobs numbers. so you are saying the numbers of people employed could have been higher. >> yes. >> this whole issue of 31,000 jobs lost in local government.

i guess that is pretty significant? >> yes. >> so local governments are seeing their tax bases harm, and they just cannot have the funds? >> the numbers have been consistent with that. we have lost about 17,000 jobs a month over the last four months in local government and about 13,000 a month before that. it is unusual for local government to lose jobs like that over such a long time, even during recessions. >> we had a discussion about the weather and its effect on your numbers not quite a year ago. your expeditious data are at similar to the ones you gave last year when we had some other

weather event that occurred. because of the way you calculate things, it is unlikely that the snowstorms themselves would have had a significant effect, but have you looked back at the way the numbers were calculated back in the blizzard of 1996, and the recalculation of numbers that occurred after things to shoot out from that? >> yes, actually. as i mentioned, we had a million people who did not report to work during the referenced week. this time in 1996 we had about 1.8 million people who did not report to work, so it was a more severe storm. during that time, there was a drop in payroll employment that saw recovery the next month. there may have been an effective payroll employment in 1996, but again, that was a larger event

than this. we still do not know for sure. >> but we may see an adjustment in the figures next month, and likely that will be an adjustment in the direction that the numbers were not quite as bad as they appeared, or just do not know? >> we just do not know. >> on the household data -- let me just apologize if you have already given this number. we talked about the chronically unemployed, the people who had just given up looking for work. where is our number with this month's report? >> the long-term unemployed, people who are still looking but have been unemployed for six months, that is 6.3 million people, a very high number. we have people who are marginally attached, another 2.5 million marginally attached to the labor force.

>> talked-about 17% of people who are no longer looking for work. >> are broadest measure@@@@@@@ h seeing green shoots or weeds growing in the parking lot, as

far as the economy is concerned. just looking at the numbers for february 2009, maybe going back to january 2009, we had 2.6 million people who had been unemployed for six months, but the unemployment number now is well over 6 million. am i reading that correctly? that role in window of six months of unemployment has doubled over the past year. >> yes. >> comparing this to other recessions and other economic downturns, how is this looking for us? to meet, that looks disturbing, that people who have been looking for work for six months has doubled in the past year's time.

>> the level of long-term unemployed is record levels that we have never seen before. the number of long-term and unemployed are extremely high still. >> is that doubling in spite of the things we have tried to do to boost the economy, and that's typically what he sees in a recession, or is it unusual for this recession? >> the long-term unemployment usually goes up significantly during the recession. it is not unusual for that level to double. sometimes it might go up much more than that. i go back to the recession in the 1970's where it started out at 300,000 and ended up at 1.6 million. in percentage terms, dublin is

not unusual. -- doubling is not unusual. we started at a higher rate and we are at a much higher level than we have ever been before. >> mr. cummings was talking about the increase of temporary help and updating the leading indicators. where does this number fit in with previous recessions? is it getting better, worse, what can we say about the state of the recession? what is this number telling us? >> i am not sure it tells us a lot about current conditions. the long-term unemployed blacks. once the economy starts to recover and we start to grow jobs, this number in the past has continued to go up.

>> we put $787 billion into the economy a year ago, or at least we thought we were. then there is talk about a second stimulus bill. people are asking, what good are we doing with pumping these dollars into the economy if we are not seeing any relief for people who have been looking for work for six months? they are the very ones who were six months into this stimulus package six months ago. the rolling number of looking back for six months, six months ago was august, and we were down six months into pumping all that money into the economy and saving are creating all those jobs, but it did not work out for these folks. >> this number did rise over

2009. the last month or two it has not moved very much. over a longer time, and has continued to grow. >> i wanted to make a few points about the numbers. dr. hall, the total number of americans unemployed right now, according to your report, is 14.9 million. i think the record is clear, not only from your testimony but also from other data we have been seeing or recently, it is validated today that job loss has come down. according to the numbers you gave us for january and february

2009, 1.5 million jobs lost, in 2010, 62,000 jobs lost. i know those numbers will be adjusted, but that is a significant difference. the other reference point i wanted to put in the record, the bureau of economic analysis reported that real gross domestic product grew at an annual rate of 5.9% in the fourth quarter of 2009, which is a 0.2 percentage points higher than initially estimated. we went from 8- a -- a negative -- i wanted to ask you a couple of specifics on some of these

sub sectors. i asked about veterans and persons with disabilities. congressman cummings engine african-americans. i am not sure any of us asked about hispanics. with regard to african-american unemployment, that rate is 15.8, so substantially higher than the overall number. for hispanics, 12.4%? >> yes. >> i think the percentages are always helpful, but sometimes the numbers are more telling. i forgot to ask about veterans number, the total number -- for those who served post 2001, do you have that number? >> the number of unemployed are 212,000 veterans overall.

>> you do not know how many of those -- >> those are post 2001. >> 212,000 unemployed veterans in those who have served since 2001. >> correct. >> and in terms of the african- americans, we have talked about the african-american total and the hispanic total as opposed to just the percentage of unemployed. >> for african-americans, 2.8 million are unemployed.

it is the same number for hispanic or a latino, 2.8 million. >> i think that is all i have for this round. >> i think we are looking for hopeful signs in these numbers. what we are not looking for is false hope, especially one that would a drive an agenda of more spending. many sectors hold the key to job creation. i think it is important to remember that keeping perspective, we looked -- we actually lost your jobs during this recession than during the 2001 recession. in the first six months of 2001, lost more than 50 million

jobs. in this one, 48 million. one reason the unemployment rate continues to be so high is not in the job losses, it is in the lack of job creation. we have almost 8 million jobs gap right there. i believe the uncertainty throughout this country by businesses, many of whom spoke to the president in his roundtable, where they basically said we are holding on for capital. we are delaying key investment and hiring decisions because of this forcing through this health-care takeover, with all its mandates and taxes. cap and trade will have a devastating impact on our

economy long term. just a debilitating debt and we are rapidly approaching levels where we will lose confidence among our investors in the united states. i question is, how do you measure, or are you able to measure the obstacles to an economic recovery, those rational expectations where businesses look at this massive stimulus with little effect and look at the second stimulus, and are you able to measure the fact that in this environment, businesses are delaying those key hiring decisions? >> we really are not able --

what we can and do measure is the number of people they employ and the wages they pay. >> looking at productivity, it seems that we always look at that hour is that average workers have, knowing that businesses tend to make their workers more productive until they began hiring back are bringing new people on board. it continues to be around 33 hours a week. the long run averages 35 hours before businesses start to consider adding on and the cost of hiring new employees. what range are we in right now? >> for the number of hours? it is still around 33. i am sure that is correct. i will look up the exact number for you.

yes, the average weekly hours are 33.8. glaxo hiring temporary workers is a good sign and should be an indicator. we still have a lot of room to grow in hours per week. they are not quite near where we want them to be before businesses traditionally start to hire. >> that is correct. we have had some strengthening in hours worked in the last number of months. like temporary help services, that is an indicator of a tightening labor market that in the past has signaled better job growth. >> but construction, manufacturing, the two areas we were told would see the most job gains in the stimulus, he said construction was down how much more? >> 64,000 this month. manufacturing was essentially

unchanged. it was essentially flat. >> when we look at this whole issue, we are trying to figure out the unemployment rate and jobs lost, we are talking about net. it is not that jobs are not being created, it is that you are looking at an overall picture, is that right? >> that is actually true. some of our data suggest that literally 1 million people are hired a week, even now, during a recession. but 1 million people lose their jobs as well, so the numbers we give you our net numbers. >> looking at the long-term unemployed, that is basically people who have been unemployed for at least six months. >> that is correct. >> 23.6% of those people have been unemployed for more than a

year. . . @@@@@@@ @ bb@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @? >> i meant that. it is true that the job loss has moderated considerably. we are fairly close to neither

gains nor losses. that is consistent with the idea of possibly stabilizing. >> sometimes i listened to my good friends on the republican side. it is not that anybody is trying to paint a rosy picture. we are very realistic. we refuse to look nc a difference between 729,000 jobs lost in january 2009 and 26,000 lost in january of 2010 and said that is not significant. we want every single american working. or we talk about stimulus, and lots of people beat up on stimulus. i had when the most interesting

experiences three weeks ago in my district. we hired 50 police officers for who would not have been hired if it were not for the stimulus. to see the show officers -- these are people that we desperately need. i think a lot of people have beat up on summer's and the administration, saying he predicted this would happen. for trying to predict is not always easy. the fact still remains that we are -- i do believe -- moving in the right direction. i always say i believe in cheering for the home team.

so often what happens is they spend so much time looking at the doom and gloom that we do not see the progress that we are making. i want to thank you again for your testimony. i want to thank your staff. hopefully, we will be able to have been even stronger report for the american people with regard to the employment situation. thank you very much. >> i am reminded of the philosopher who said the future ain't what it used to be. the problem with these predictions, and is not easy to be in the prognosticating business. these predictions were part forward as a rationale for selling a policy or a group of policies that congress passed rather hastily last year. i think the only quarrel that i

saw and said i wish to would it taking a little bit more time to get things right. we passed the "cash for clunkers" bill that may have been nothing but accelerate fourth quarter. we are not sure how that will pan out. i think there is someone in my neighborhood to good vantage of "cash for clunkers on " it was passed by congress. it is available to take advantage of. every day when i walk on my front door, i see the automobile down the street. a cannot help but think my grandson is lent to paper that car every day for the rest of this lies. there are better ways of doing some of the things we have done. we may be blocking ourselves and to policies that may be difficult to unwind. just on the numbers themselves, for when this number hovers

around her has been for the last several months -- when is the last time in our economic history that the numbers we are here? -- were here? >> yeah, he is going to look up the exact number. i am sure it is 1983, that recession. >> we talked a little bit about the number of minorities that are unemployed. what about young people who are just getting out of college? >what is their unemployment rat? >> i may have to get back to you with that. >> where i am going with this -- i can characterize it for you.

>> it is really high. >> it is very high. the use unemployment rate tech -- the youth and of plummet trade has gone up quite a bit. >> has anyone looked at it this situation in previous recessions? order the numbers of young people unemployed, college graduates? for this is verses' times that may be regarded as more normal. does having the bad fortune to start up in your projected years when the countries in the midst of a serious recession -- i think fairly member of 1983. i do not remember 1972. it is hard to find a job. i went back to school because it was hard to find one.

it does affected in a significant way. i remember in 1982 or 1983, the new start talking by and people getting out of college with no hope for employment. it is the worst economy that they have ever merged into. with all the statistics gathering, i just wondered if anyone had looked them now that we have the 25 years of experience. how did they differ from some of their cohorts who might have graduated at times when things were perhaps immeasurably better? you have to ask yourself, a young person who aspires to go to college and once to go to a great college and amassed a lot of debt, is the really a good idea? the expectation of lifetime earnings may have adjusted downward.

nolan those along the recession will continue. i think is a valid questions. we as policymakers do need to take the into account. just one last thing. we heard from the american enterprise institute. he voiced a concern that the extension of unemployment benefits was -- the word is not encouraging, but we were facilitating people staying unemployed. if you all look into that, their 99 weeks of unemployment benefits which time of the six month rolling average. we have gone down to for three years of unemployment benefit. is there any correlation delaney

to become aware of it? o>> i do know how to characterize it. the three unemployment rates go up. i do not know the cause and effect of that is. fowe could put together some studies. >> a thing that will both helpful. -- i think that will be helpful birde, >> the one in to comment about some of the points that were made by my republican colleagues. and a constant refrain has been

with regard to the recovery bill. and a they voted against it. i voted for it. a lot of democrats did. there is a real debate about what has been working in what has not been working. for when you look ahead in terms of the congressional budget office, they said the recovery act added between men in the end to put 1 million jobs by the fourth fourth quarter. the cbo director house is not a partisan in this debate. he said "the policies that were enacted in the bill are increasing gdp and employment

relative to what it otherwise would be, " fo." i am glad that congressman brady a couple of minutes ago was talking about history. history can be relevant. you mentioned the reagan era. he also compared job loss in two different time periods the history is instructive in the number of ways. if you look at in terms of jobs gains, it gained 22 million jobs. under president bush, about 2 million. you look at in terms of deficit, one president clinton

left office, the following things that happen, the surplus was to $36 billion. for president bush left office, it had changed to about a $1.30 trillion deficit. reno with the job numbers were in december of 08. with one to talk history, we ought to put that on the table as part of this debate. president obama walked into 2010 facing a set of economic circumstances that no congress had faced since the 1930's. and when not declare our say the recovery bill has worked perfectly bur. we still have a year of john starting effects from the

recovery bill. a dillon to get a question about manufacturing jobs. we did have some good news there in a sector that we seem to never have been is in. can you just walk through the for us? >> for manufacturing has had a real long-term decline in unemployment. for the previous recession literally did not recover any jobs. they have now lost a couple million. the last couple of months, the job loss is moderate it. >> no job loss? >> over the last couple of months.

the job loss is really moderated. >> 6000 manufacturing jobs lost over the last formant? >> in my opinion, that is good news. >> congress has the power of the purse strings. i'm trying to call who was in charge of congress. it is republicans, if i recall, in the major surplus. i'm trying to member who led the persian and congress for two years. i do recall that we were promised if we pass that a hundred dollar trillion stimulus the we would predict unemployment will be no higher than 8%. it would creeate jobs.

we are having a run since our unemployment. we have lost another 3 million jobs. only 6% of americans said they believe the stimulus created jobs. have americans not feel less financially secure today then they did when the stimulus past. i'm a fan of the cbo in a major way. since the report, to different reports have showed the stimulus had little impact. one reported showed it to actually cost the economy 3 $10 billion because it is crowded out. it has created jobs in the government sector. it is wonderful. fojobs in the private sector are what drives the recovery.

we want the jobs to be created. they see them sells under taxes -- themselves under taxes. our real-estate industry and hedge funds and medical devices -- it is no wonder they are not hiring jobs. i think again of will together to find the economic policies that work best for america -- we are anxious to work together with the democrats th. >> fought for th>> the will loos

2020. there are lots and numbers above the recovery reinvestment act. our contribution to growth will turn negative during the latter part of 2010. it would be nice to give it more time. i do not know the giving it more time is necessary. dr. hall, we appreciate you coming in and sharing for wisdom. i would appreciate if you could dig up those figures. for a vote for it to visiting with you. >> i fail to mention why i am in this committee.

congress woman alone cannot be here. she has been ever faithful in attending these hearings. she is not able to be here. i want to thank our colleagues from making a long trek in the house to the senate. we are trying to have this hearing in both places. the debate will go on. thank you very much. >[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> president obama said the new jobs report was better than expected. he added to many families are struggling. he urged lawmakers to expand unemployment benefits. the president made the marks in

virginia while visiting employees of a small business's top of his initiative for clean energy jobs. >> good morning, everybody. it is great to be here at opower. and just looking around, this looks like a fun place to work. the work you do here, as we just heard, is making homes more energy efficient, it's saving people money, it's generating jobs and it's putting america on the path to a clean energy future. and i understand last year that you doubled your workforce thanks to bonnie [applause] -- you're hoping to hire another hundred workers this year. and so this is a model of what we want to be seeing all across the country.

our goal for the economy is to show similar job growth in the months ahead. this morning we learned in february our economy lost an additional 36,000 jobs. now, this is actually better than expected, considering the severe storms all along the east coast are estimated to have had a depressing effect on the numbers. and it shows that the measures that we're taking to turn our economy around are having some impact. but even though it's better than expected, it's more than we should tolerate. far too many americans remain out of work. far too many families are still

struggling in these difficult economic times. and that's why i'm not going to rest, and my administration is not going to rest, in our efforts to help people who are looking to find a job; to help business owners who want to expand feel comfortable hiring again. and we're not going to rest until our economy is working again for the middle class, and for all americans. and that's why my immediate priority is not only providing relief to people who are out of work, but also to help the private sector create jobs and put america back to work. earlier this week, after breaking through a political logjam that some of you probably saw if you were watching tv, congress passed and i signed into law a bill that extends unemployment insurance to help people who've been laid off get through these hard times. it also extended cobra so that folks who've lost their jobs don't lose their health insurance, and it extended financing for small businesses, and makes it possible for 2,000 furloughed transportation workers to go back to work. so signing this bill and getting relief out the door swiftly is absolutely essential. but it's only a temporary step.

the relief i signed into law will last about a month. and that's why i'm calling [on] congress to extend this relief through the end of the year. and because the best form of economic relief is a quality job, i'm also calling on congress to pass jobs measures that cut taxes, increase lending, incentivize expansion for businesses both large and small. now, both the house and the senate have passed a bill that would give businesses a payroll tax refund for every person hired this year. and for companies that are considering expanding, this credit could help them decide to bring an extra employee or two this year. so for companies like opower that are doing pretty well and already expanding, the tax credit may help them decide to hire even more workers more quickly. so instead of a hundred, maybe we get 110, 115. we'll see. this bill would also encourage small companies to expand by permitting them to write off expenses for new equipment. and while it's by no means enough, this legislation is an important step on the road to recovery, and i look forward to signing it into law. now, even as we fight to help the private sector create more jobs, and even as we fight to

bring about a full economic recovery, we know that there have been success stories all across america. opower is one of those success stories. this is a company that works with utilities to help folks understand their energy costs and how they can save money on their energy bills. and for the press, if you weren't able to hear, this board testifies to the number of kilowatt hours that have been saved, the amount of money that's gone back into consumers' pockets, and the amount of carbon that has been taken out of the atmosphere as a consequence of the great work that these people at opower are doing. now, part of the reason i suspect you're growing is that you're doing your jobs well. but i also know that a big part of the reason is that you're seizing the opportunities of the future.

the jobs of tomorrow will be jobs in the clean energy sector, and this company is a great emblem for that. that's why my administration is taking steps to support a thriving clean energy industry across this country -- an industry that's making solar panels, and building wind turbines, producing cutting-edge batteries for fuel-efficient cars and trucks, and helping consumers get more control over their energy bills. and that's also why earlier this week i urged congress to enact a new initiative we're calling homestar that would offer homeowners rebates for making their homes more energy- efficient -- rebates worth up to $1,500 for individual home upgrades and up to $3,000 for retrofitting their entire home. so if they're getting this good information from opower and they see that, boy, that drafty window is costing me a couple of hundred bucks a year, they're now going to have an incentive to go to home depots or go to lowes to hire a certified contractor and make the changes that will ultimately pay for themselves, improve our environment, and improve our economy. i want to thank, by the way, your home state senator, mark warner, for his great work on

homestar in the senate. think about the way that the rebates we're talking about could help spur private sector job growth. it could not only help businesses like opower to help consumers make their homes more energy efficient, it's also going to create business for the local contractors and the companies hired to upgrade homes. these companies then, in turn, have to purchase supplies and that creates business for retailers. these retailers would need to restock their shelves, and that creates business for manufacturers. and almost all the goods that are required to make homes more energy efficient are actually produced right here in the united states of america. it's very hard to ship an energy-efficient window across an ocean. so, yes, people who are out of work right now need some immediate relief. yes, we need to extend unemployment insurance and cobra to help americans weather these tough times.

and, yes, we've got to do everything we can to help the private sector create jobs right now. but even as we do, we also need to replicate the success of clean energy companies like opower. we need to invest in the jobs of the future and in the industries of the future, because the country that leads in clean energy and energy efficiency today, i'm absolutely convinced, is going to lead the global economy tomorrow. i want that country to be the united states of america. i want companies like opower to be expanding and thriving all across america. it's good for consumers. it's good for our economy. it's good for our environment. it's wonderfully exciting to be here. and i think when you look at this group that's gathered here, you can see the future in this company. so thanks for the great work you guys are doing. let's see if we can replicate your success all across the country. thank you very much, everybody.