Michael Castle

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's caution about the half-cent source, and I do not disagree with that. I also appreciate the gentleman's great concern with this particular issue. I think it is going to take the efforts of all of us to come to the rescue, and in particular circumstance as we change away from operating to doing the capital funding. I think it can be done if we work together, and I absolutely believe it is a worthwhile cause. So I appreciate the gentleman's support.

Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of Chairman Lazio's amendment to restore senior and disabled housing funding to their 1996 levels. I have been a strong supporter of efforts to put us on track to a balanced budget, and I do not question the need to reduce Federal spending. However, in this year's VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies appropriations bill, Housing for our Nation's elderly and disabled has been unfairly targeted. Our Nation's vulnerable population depends on public housing programs. The section 202 and 811 programs are two of HUD's most effective, well-run programs. They have served the elderly and disabled well--providing them with housing that otherwise would have been unattainable. There are some Government programs that are wasteful or only benefit a select few, and those are the programs we should target. However, important programs like sections 202 and 811 must be maintained. Housing for the elderly and disabled provide invaluable assistance to millions of people across our Nation. If we allow these funds to be cut, many of those who depend on public housing will be denied shelter or forced into unsafe or unsanitary conditions. Those who have been disabled or are elderly deserve the peace of mind of knowing safe, affordable housing is available to them. I do not think we should turn away the disabled or the elderly when they come to us for assistance. But this is what housing authorities across the Nation will be forced to do if we do not restore section 202 and 811 funds to last year's levels. I strongly support fulfilling our commitment to the elderly and disabled of this Nation by standing in support of Chairman Lazio's amendments.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time to speak on behalf of the loss of his great friend. It is so sad to be here today and not have Bill here. He has been in this Chamber, I guess, as much as anybody else over the years. His spirit has always been here and hopefully will always be here. I got to know Bill a little bit differently than some other people. Back when I was the Governor of Delaware, he came to Delaware to look at some programs we were running involving food stamps and nutrition and delivery of services. He liked these programs, and I liked Bill Emerson. We were not used to having Congressmen come to Delaware, quite frankly, if they were not from Delaware. He took the time to come up there, and when I came to Congress he was my friend. He was one person I knew, and he was one person who spent time with me. I did not realize he was the friend of 434 of us here in this Congress. We have heard more fascinating stories in these last 2 hours about this wonderful man and the way he reached out to different individuals, be they neighbors or committee members or classmates or whatever it was. But Bill Emerson was bigger than that. He was almost bigger than anyone else who ever served in this Congress. He was for all humanity. He was the one who reached out for those who had problems with hunger around this world. He was the one who reached across the aisle to Democrats as well as to Republicans. He was the one who virtually made a friend of everybody he dealt with. He was the one who was so popular in his district that he just won by overwhelming margins there. He was the one with a wonderful family. He is the one that we are offering our condolences for here today because he meant so very much to so many people in the United States of America. There may have been finer Members of Congress, but I do not know if I could name who they were or who they might be. I do not know of anyone who has served his fellow man as well as Bill Emerson did over all of the years that he represented us in this Congress. So we will miss you, Bill. We will miss your spirit. We will miss all that you stood for, particularly at the end when you were so brave and so courageous. Frankly, I did not think it would ever end. It just came as a surprise, even though we all knew that ultimately it had to be fatal. So we will miss you, Bill. God bless you.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, considering that our country was founded on certain principles, among them the freedom of religious expression, it is utterly appalling that places of worship--homes to hundreds and hundreds of congregations--have apparently been targeted to bear the brunt of racial hatred and religious bigotry in this country. While I am absolutely outraged at the series of church fires that have brought us to this point, I am pleased that the Congress has worked swiftly and in a bipartisan manner to ensure that the church arson law is improved and strengthen. This is an issue that knows no color, race, or religion. It affects each and every one of us Americans; as a country. The passage of this bill will not heal the wounds created by the tragic burning of churches, nor help ease the pain felt by those who have seen their place of worship destroyed by the senseless and bigoted act of another. But this measure will help punish the instigators of these fires by making it easier to prosecute those responsible for these egregious acts. And in light of recent events, this could not be more timely nor more crucial.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of his amendment. Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government, as has been stated earlier today, spends roughly $98 billion on a variety of subsidies for tobacco. Tobacco use is responsible for one out of every five deaths in America. Tobacco products are responsible for more than 400,000 deaths each year due to cancer, respiratory illness, heart disease, and other health problems. Cigarettes kill more Americans each year than AIDS, alcohol, car accidents, murders, suicides, illegal drugs, and fires combined. Smokers who die as a result of smoking would have lived on average 12 to 15 years longer if they had not smoked. Smokers are 50 percent more likely to bear mentally retarded children, and on an economic basis smoking costs our economy over $50 billion a year in direct medical costs. Then there are the young people. Smoking is also a major issue for our young people. An estimated one out of every six American teenagers are regular smokers. Every day approximately 3,000 people begin smoking and over half of them have become addicted. Over 70 percent, it has been said 80 percent on this floor, of adults who smoke started smoking daily before age 18. One quarter of these new smokers will eventually be among the more than 400,000 who die of tobacco-related illnesses each year. One day in Delaware I was going through a pharmaceutical supply house and they had a room called the smokers room, and it was all liquid food, basically for people who had smoked and no longer could eat regular food as a result of that smoking. Given these facts, the amendment we are considering today is a very modest one. It would simply reprogram $25 million of tobacco subsidies from tobacco-related extension services and tobacco crop insurance to rural development and health programs, a very good cause, by the way, giving rural areas safe drinking water. Mr. Chairman, it is difficult to justify using scarce taxpayer dollars on a product which literally kills those who use it as directed. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Durbin amendment.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from New Mexico, chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies. After reviewing the report of the Agriculture, Rural Development, FDA, and Related Agencies appropriations bill, I am very concerned about the funding level of the 502 Rural Housing Direct Loan Program. The committee bill provides $83 million for the 502 Direct Program. This is a reduction of $67.8 million from the 1996 level. As the Chairman knows, the 502 Direct Program provides funds for home mortgage loans for low-income residents of rural areas who do not have adequate access to private mortgage programs or other Government housing programs. However, to offset this reduction, the committee report states that it intends that the $100 million made available under the Freedom to Farm Act be used for rural, housing, development and research programs beginning January 1, 1997. Last year, the gentleman from New Mexico worked with me and other supporters of rural housing to improve the final 1996 funding level for the 502 Program. I would like the gentleman's assurance that he will continue to work with me to ensure adequate funds are made available from the fund for rural America for the 502 Home Loan Program. And, if possible, to provide additional direct funding for the 502 Program during conference with the Senate on this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] for his response.

Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Madam Speaker, the Individuals With Disabilities Act has been in existence since 1975 to ensure that all children have access to a free and appropriate public education. Prior to the enactment of IDEA, disabled children were often denied adequate public education. Some studies have found that more than one-half of the children with disabilities in the United States did not receive appropriate educational services prior to enactment of IDEA, and 1 million children with disabilities were excluded entirely from public schools. IDEA has successfully helped States provide quality education to millions of disabled students across America. This legislation is critically important to millions of disabled children in America, not to mention their families, their friends, and their teachers. The bill updates IDEA for modern times, preserving its strengths and strengthening its weaknesses. For example, the bill makes IDEA more efficient by reducing redtape, while maintaining protections for disabled children. It makes schools safer by allowing schools to treat disabled children the same as nondisabled students where their behavior is not related to the child's disability. It increases parental involvement in key decisionmaking meetings about their child's education and placement. It provides teachers with the knowledge and training to effectively support students' learning. It gives States more flexibility in using resources. And it reduces the number of formal disputes by establishing premeditation systems where parties try to resolve their disagreements without lawyers. The bill also tries to address the problem of children being improperly and overly identified as disabled by modifying the funding formula for part B, which is the centerpiece of IDEA. The current formula gives funds to States on the basis of the number of students who have been identified as disabled. The proposed formula gives funds to States based on the number of school-aged children in the State and State poverty statistics. The new formula is phased in over 10 years. This formula change is intended to discourage the overidentification of children with disabilities. I understand and support this policy objective. The proposed formula is more rational and meritorious than allowing local schools to identify disabled students. I was concerned, however, that this formula would hurt States that legitimately had higher rates of disability. Fortunately, the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities recognized the importance of protecting States, including small States like Delaware. The formula has been modified to prevent States from facing significant funding reductions which could have hampered their ability to provide a free and appropriate public education to disabled children. The committee had an important opportunity to improve IDEA and build on its previous successes, and it worked in a bipartisan manner to achieve this goal. I want to commend the committee leadership and staff for its excellent work in drafting this bill, and I urge my colleagues to give this bill their support.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I chair the Domestic and International Monetary Policy Subcommittee of the House Banking and Financial Services Committee, which is the authorizing committee for U.S. participation in the multilateral development banks. In this era of limited budgets, it is absolutely imperative that every taxpayer dollar be spent in the most cost-effective manner possible. I submit that with multilateral development we multiply each contributed dollar fivefold or sixfold for optimal leverage of our resources. Therefore, I would like to share with my colleagues the action the authorizing subcommittee took on the multilateral funding levels requested by the administration. As we noted when the administration presented its request to my subcommittee, we should acknowledge the substantial progress already made in reforming the International Financial Institutions [IFI's]. The best way to do this and encourage the process is by paying the United States arrears on commitments to the 10th capital replenishment of the International Development Association [IDA] made by previous administrations. It is most difficult to continue to assert a position of leadership in the various IFI's and yet owe a total of $1.56 billion in overdue obligations to them. This undermines our moral and practical influence over these institutions, and even though we still spend a very large sum of money each year, the expenditure produces little domestic or international good will. National self-interest argues that we continue to stay engaged in the multilateral development process. Our success in leveraging funds for developing countries, encouraging free market economies, private sector development and creating new high-growth markets for U.S. companies would be undermined if opted out. For these reasons, the subcommittee included the entire $550 million requested to finish authorizing payment of the accumulated arrears of $935 million for our commitments to the IDA. This bill appropriates $525 million to fund IDA, leaving a balance of $410 million still owed on previous commitments. I hope that we can retire these arrears as quickly as possible, although I fully accept that resources are limited for this year's foreign operations account. Failure to retire these previous commitments inevitably delays the program for the 11th capital replenishment of IDA. This, in turn, may result in another year of interim special funding that excludes U.S. companies from bidding on a portion of the projects funded under such interim arrangement. We authorized no appropriations for any U.S. contribution to the interest subsidy account of the successor [ESAF II] to the enhanced structural adjustment facility of the international monetary fund because this account is fully funded through fiscal year 1997. The administration requested both consent to and appropriations for the fifth replenishment of the resources of the African Development Bank [AfDB], at an undetermined level due to continuing, unfinished negotiations. We authorized a 2-year capital increase of $32 million for the AfDB that was conditioned on a successful conclusion to current negotiations to reorganize effective control of this bank away from the borrowers to the lending countries. If these negotiations are successful and sound reforms are in place, we would hope to authorize U.S. participation in the fifth replenishment next year. In response to the administration's request, full U.S. participation in the new Middle East Development Bank was authorized for 2 years, with $105 million to be appropriated over that period. Even though there are no funds for this project in this year's appropriations bill, the concept of former enemies coming together to plan and finance joint development of their region remains a good idea. The House Subcommittee reduced the administration's fiscal year 1997 request by $335 million. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, having stated my reservations and the rationale for them, I support the bill as passed by the Appropriations Committee, and urge my colleagues to vote for its passage.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I answer to the call of being a moderate. I am someone who has worked hard here, I think, for adequate funding for education, for the environment, for housing and other important domestic programs, and I believe that the Budget Committee and the Appropriation Committee in this year are acting in good faith to provide funding for these programs. I believe that our seniors, I believe that our children, I believe that our education programs, I believe that our environmental programs are going to be protected by the budgeting which we have this year. So I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct. I believe we must balance the budget. Earlier in this year, as the appropriation process went forward dealing with the 602(b)'s, 28 of us over here on the Republican side signed a letter to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] asking them to be expansive with respect to Labor-HHS-Education bills and the VA-HUD and Independent Agency bills, and they have responded to that, I think, differently than last year. I think we are in a situation now in which we can support the budget which is going ahead, but we must never forget that ultimately if we are going to help these children and these families and these senior citizens, we must balance the budget of the United States of America. That is what this is all about. We cannot add spending back into it, but we have to deal with the good faith efforts which have come forward so far. I believe that it is unnecessary and unfair to demand that our conferees accept the entire $5 billion Senate increase for domestic discretionary spending. This has been laid out very carefully this year in a way in which we can all manage. So I would urge all of us here tonight to hold the line on spending, and I would urge all of us to oppose the motion to instruct conferees.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, on April 27 to April 29, 1996, outstanding young people from 50 schools throughout the Nation came to our Nation's Capital to compete in the national finals of the We the People... The Citizen and the Constitution Program. I am proud to announce that the class from Caesar Rodney High School in Camden represented Delaware. These young scholars worked diligently to reach the national finals by winning local competitions in their home State. The distinguished members of the team representing Delaware are: Nick Amalfitano, Mark Balfantz, Sondra Bell, Pauletta Brown, Jennifer Cajthuml, Allison Chippie, Will Cordeiro, Blair Craven, Ryan Dixon, John Dodd, Tom Dodd, Lee Dunham, Shannan Foskey, Joy Ginter, Ron Hartnett, Kristie Hertz, Bonny Hodges, Jason Hutchins, Nikki McBride, Sean McGinty, Peter Morisseau, Tim Rudis, Dan Schoettinger, Andrew Towle, Jennifer VanHorn, Matt Walsh, and Jeff Whisler. I would also like to recognize their teacher, Bill Windett, who deserves much of the credit for the success of the team. The district coordinator, Diane Courtney, and the State coordinator, Lewis E. Huffman, also contributed a significant amount of time and effort to help the team reach the national finals. The We the People... The Citizen and the Constitution Program, supported and funded by Congress, is the most extensive educational program in the country developed specifically to educate young people about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The 3-day national competition simulates a congressional hearing in which students' oral presentations are judged on the basis of their knowledge of constitutional principles and their ability to apply them to historical and contemporary issues. Administered by the Center for Civic Education, the We the People... program, now in its eighth academic year, has provided curricular materials at upper elementary, middle, and high school levels for more than 60,000 teachers, 22,000 schools, and 22 million students nationwide. The We the People... program provides an excellent opportunity for students to gain an informed perspective about the history and principles of our Nation's constitutional government. I wish these young constitutional experts the best of luck and look forward to their future participation in politics and government. Congratulations again to the team from Caesar Rodney High School of Camden, DE.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this resolution. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 178, the House budget resolution, but want to comment on the President's budget and the other budget alternatives. While I am pleased that the President has finally agreed on the need to balance the budget, his plan falls short on a number of the critical reforms that are necessary to achieve this goal. It promises a lot, but delivers little. In 1994, I had the opportunity to serve on the President's bipartisan Commission on Entitlement Reform, the Kerry-Danforth Commission. For a year the Commission heard testimony from a parade of experts on the need to reform Medicare and Medicaid and other entitlements or they would ultimately either become insolvent or eat up virtually all our tax dollars. What troubles me most about the President's budget is that it does not face up to the pressing need to address the entitlement issue. Instead, the administration has played politics by portraying the sound reforms to Medicare contained in the Republican budget as a threat to seniors. Reforms to Medicare, Medicaid and welfare are not needed simply to balance the budget, they are needed to protect these programs for those they serve. I am one Member who believes that we can still achieve some major progress toward balancing the budget this year. While the President's budget falls short in key areas, I believe that the coalition budget presented earlier shows that Republicans and Democrats do not have far to go to achieve fair compromises on the most important budget issues. The coalition budget plan and the Republican budget are the two most credible plans for achieving a balanced budget in 6 years. The President's plan does not meet the critical tests necessary to achieve a balanced budget. The President's plan is based on overly optimistic economic assumptions and avoids most of the tough choices necessary to balance the budget. Mr. Chairman, today we should pass this budget resolution and then get down to the task to producing welfare, Medicaid, and Medicare reforms that will save these programs and save tax dollars. These are the areas we must concentrate on in the next few months to really make a difference in the lives of our constituents. Members of the Blue Dog Coalition and a number of Republicans have already demonstrated that we can work together to reform programs which will help people and balance the budget. Congressman John Tanner and I have introduced a bipartisan welfare reform bill which would save $50 billion over 7 years and contains all the key reforms necessary to move people from welfare to work. This compromise is based on H.R. 4 conference report and the bipartisan Governor's proposal. It contains all the essential elements of the conference report--work requirements; family cap; time limits; limits on benefits to teenage mothers; paternity establishment; illegitimacy reduction; and child support enforcement. It builds on the Governor's plan by providing additional funding for child care and the contingency fund to protect States from economic downturns, but requires more State accountability. This is the type of bipartisan effort that will lead to a balanced budget. We need to pursue similar agreements to reform Medicaid, Medicare and hopefully provide tax relief to the American people. I support passage of the budget resolution and then immediate action to pass legislation to reform the key programs that will balance the budget.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I must reluctantly vote against the fiscal year 1997 Department of Defense Authorization Act because I am troubled by a number of aspects of the bill. First and foremost, the overall spending level is too high. While I appreciate that the bill seeks to address a number of shortcomings in the President's defense budget, too much additional spending has been added to the bill. Our Nation's legitimate defense needs must be met, but if we are to succeed in the critical and ongoing effort to balance the budget, the defense budget cannot be exempt from spending reductions. This year's authorization level is $2 billion over last year's level, probably significantly higher than required to meet the essential military aspects of our national security. Furthermore, I disagree with the decision to prevent amendments to the bill that might allow for a rational debate on program funding levels and some reasonable reductions. Most of the additional funds authorized in this year's plan were for procurement--about $8 billion. This is too generous an increase over the budget request. While I believe procurement and modernization funding does need to increase in certain longlead components of major programs, this year's increase seems to avoid making the necessary choices to establish our most important priorities. This unsolicited increase is not the most rationale way to procure additional weapons, does not go far enough to reflect those items most needed by the services, and may have an adverse impact on our ability to meet real requirements in the future. I am particularly concerned by the committee's plan to pursue what may be a premature deployment of a national ballistic missile defense system. I am not convinced that a true ballistic missile threat to our Nation from rogue nations will materialize as quickly as some have asserted. Our Nation's current missile defense plan can provide for an affordable defense against limited missile threats before those threats will emerge. I am concerned over the committee's plan to deploy a space-based ``star wars'' defense, and costs that would add nearly a billion dollars over the President's request to accelerate the development of both national and theater missile defense systems. This course of action commits us to a very expensive and probably unaffordable path. This attempt to accelerate missile defense deployment without a consensus on the actual threat is not sound policy. The bill does meet important needs for operations and maintenance programs, as well as improvements in our military housing and other facilities. It is difficult for me to oppose this bill because it funds some important military construction programs in my own State of Delaware. But these worthwhile provisions are overshadowed by other problems in the bill. The authorization bill attempts to legislate divisive social policies which will not improve our military readiness. These policies include a ban on privately funded abortions for U.S. military personnel in overseas hospitals, and mandatory separation of HIV-positive personnel without evaluation of whether they can perform their duties. In conclusion, I think the fiscal year 1997 Defense authorization bill provides worthwhile support for our military personnel. Nevertheless, the overall funding level in the bill goes beyond what is necessary at this time, and the provisions regarding social policies are unnecessarily divisive. For these reasons, I reluctantly oppose the bill.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Adoption and Stability Act of 1996. Adoption, as Albert Hunt noted in the Wall Street Journal, is not a panacea for abortion or child abuse or foster care. But it certainly can help. A woman facing an unintended pregnancy may be influenced by the knowledge that her child could be expeditiously adopted. Social workers may find their task of protecting foster children somewhat easier, resulting in fewer children--1,166 in 1993--who die of child abuse at the hands of foster parents. In a successful adoption, everyone wins--the dearly wanted child, who is brought into a loving home; the adoptive parents, who have welcomed the child into their lives; and the birth parents, who know that their child is well-cared for. Unfortunately, there are barriers which reduce the number of successful adoptions, including high adoption costs and complex, ineffective regulations. As a result, roughly one in seven children in foster care is waiting for adoption, and will wait for between 4 to 6 years. Potential adoptive parents find they cannot pay the costs of adoption--which ranges from $10,000 to $15,000 for a domestic adoption--and are denied the opportunity to provide a loving and healthy home for a child. Minority children must wait two to four times as long as white children for adoptive homes. Families which are financially able to adopt must wait for years before a child can join them. Fortunately, Congress has recognized that promoting adoption is an important public policy goal. The Adoption and Stability Act of 1996 facilitates the adoption process, so that more children can be united with loving families. You know the essential details of this bill, it provides families with a $5,000 tax credit for one-time adoption expenses, and prohibits entities from delaying adoptions due to race, color, or national origin. These provisions will provide enormous assistance to would-be adoptive parents, and should help those who are presently overwhelmed by the cost to fulfill their dreams of being an adoptive parent. It will also help eliminate the appalling fact that minority children wait so much longer to be adopted as white children, even though there is no shortage of adoptive parents. This bill will not resolve all of the problems with our Nation's adoption laws, but it is an admirable first step, and I encourage all of my colleagues to support passage of this bill.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time and I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], so that he may respond.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, let me just try to bring this down to the level of what we are dealing with in this amendment, because I think the language has been overlooked here, which I think is fair language. I am a great believer in the need for public housing and that is what we are doing, but it states, and what is being stricken here, ``The Federal Government cannot through its direct action or involvement provide for the housing of every American citizen.'' I think this is a given. ``Or even a majority of its citizens.'' ``But the responsibility of the government to promote and protect the independent and collective actions of private citizens to develop housing and strengthen their own neighborhoods.'' I do not have a problem with that language, not as a Republican or Democrat, but just as one reading it. It is preamble language in this bill. It is fair language. I am not sure what we are arguing about.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I will yield, yes.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, this is an interesting argument, but I think we would all agree that the public housing situation in the United States needs to be addressed, and I hope before it is done we can sort through these amendments and make sure that we are indeed addressing those things which are good and agreeing upon that so we can come up with a good piece of legislation. With that, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], the chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to support this much-needed legislation.

Mr. CASTLE. I want to ensure that well-run housing authorities are rewarded for running fiscally sound and physically safe housing facilities. Mr. Chairman, will changes made in the funding process reflect this goal?