 Thanks. In a couple minutes left, I'm just going to talk very briefly about some of the issues in New York in terms of getting access to court opinions. New York is actually, I think, one of the better states in terms of making available its highest court, which is the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court opinions online. That actually started in 1999, the year I was the District General of New York. We actually worked with the Court of Appeals to start making their opinions available online. So you'd have to send somebody down to the court, pick up a physical copy of the opinion. So that started changing. Just to set the stage, the sheer volume of decisions and appeals and court decisions, obviously, that are rendered at the state court level versus the federal court level. The federal courts of appeals, the decisions have generally been available in online format and West format for quite a while. About 18 million new civil cases are filed every year in the state courts. That's just civil cases, which are one-fifth of the total of new cases at the state level. More than 90 percent of human disputes are resolved at the state court level. And yet, as the predecessors on this panel have stated, the vast majority of those opinions are not available readily online. In terms of the specific challenges, even when court decisions are made available online, some examples from New York. So in New York, you have four appellate divisions, which are the intermediate state court of appeals from which there's an appeal as of right, so every decision can be appealed to the intermediate state court. The four appellate divisions render roughly dozens, each of them renders roughly dozens of appellate decisions every day. So again, we're talking about a vast volume. The vast majority of these, I would say maybe 80, 90 percent of these, are simply affirmed or the decision that's rendered is affirmed on the basis of the strength of the trial court opinion. So you often have a one or two paragraph decision in the appellate division simply affirming, stating that on the basis of the trial court's decision, the analysis is affirmed. But yet, the ability to actually get the underlying reasoning is very difficult because of that mode of operating. So the appellate court decision case name is often different from what you find at the trial court. There's often no docket number associated with what the appellate division says is affirmed below. There's no date of the lower court's opinion. There will be a court, for example, they'll say Supreme Court in New York County, but the ability to actually go back and find that underlying opinion is extremely difficult. So the only way to really do it is to run a full search, not even just a case name search, but a full search on Lexus or Westlaw, which is hundreds of dollars. So even to get an appellate division decision and to understand the underlying rationale behind it is very, very difficult. Again, and it's the same thing also because a lot of times the appellate division will affirm on the strength of the briefs, that the appellate's brief or the appellate's brief, and again, there's no access to the briefs. So the ability to get the underlying reasoning in the vast majority of cases at the state court level is seriously compromised. Even at the court of appeals level, which is the highest state court in New York. Now, as I said, since 1999, the decisions themselves have been available online on the same day, but one of the greatest challenges in a state like New York, which has the presidential impact of the court decisions is quite large. One of the great challenges is figuring out what issues are pending before the New York court of appeals, before an opinion is rendered. So for example, in order to determine amicus participation, if you're a participant in an industry or a nonprofit group that may have interest in the pending presidential, the presidential effect of pending court cases, there's virtually no way to get a quick glimpse of what is coming up on the New York court of appeals docket. The reason for that is that the petitions, what are the equivalent of the petitions for certiorari, the petitions for review in the court of appeals, those are not published. When a decision is accepted, a Pella court decision is accepted for review, the fact of the review will be noted, but there's no, again, there's no citation to the lower court opinion. There's just a simple three or four words that will state the issues in that opinion, for example, the parole evidence rule or capital punishment, but not a statement of what the particular issue is. So the ability for practitioners or nonprofit groups that regularly monitor the work of the courts to get a glimpse of what's pending on the court docket and what cases someone should weigh in on is very, very limited. In terms of the statutes, regs and codes, the New York state statutes, the state legislatures statutes are available on the state legislature's website and a number of other websites, I believe on the Cornell website as well, but again, and I don't have the breakdown of everything from the regs and the code level, but I do know that the vast majority of municipalities do not have their regs and codes available online. So again, we're talking about a state as large as New York, one in which the presidential impact of a lot of the court decisions and can have a vast effect, those kinds of materials simply are not available online. So in my current role at OMB, working with other White House components, actively monitoring the work of law.gov, and we're eager to take suggestions about how the federal government can be a leader in terms of spurring this kind of a movement on.