Well, Mr. Reid raises the question of the size of the House and I'd say it's an important one. My view about this bill is that it provides for a much larger House with no rationale why it should be so. It's just the way the numbers work out. It provides for a House that will grow year after year, decade after decade, because the provisions you're writing into the law will guarantee that it will grow the next time and the time after that—and it doesn't provide for a proportional House. So it's a cobbled together compromise. That's okay, but it seems to me that here's an opportunity, which only comes along once every 10 years, to think hard about how big the House ought to be. Are there limits to growth? How should we contain that? How important is proportionality?
I think this bill skirts all of those issues. It basically doesn't take them up, and guarantees that we'll be doing the same old thing again, as we did in the seventies, the eighties, the nineties, and in the last decade. Maybe that's the way it will be, but I think we're missing an opportunity.