Do not tell this subcommittee what Congress thinks unless you have some factual basis for it. Do you?

No, you said that the Congress as well as the administration--adopted language to the effect of being disappointed in the program, not satisfied with it.

But does that say anything about the inadequacy or failure of the discretionary program?

Well, there are frequently changes in reauthorization which do not bear on a determination that the program is ineffective.

The studies show that, as summarized, that there was more parental involvement in the program.

Is it not pretty important how it impacted on the Hispanic and African American students where there is customarily a greater concern about the quality of education?

You have very, very solid Committee support here.

And that African American and Hispanic middle-school students had better grades, had less absenteeism and tardiness?

Well, when you talked about a change from discretionary funding to State grants, how is that relevant on the quality of the program?

I think you are a good advertisement for the quality and efficiency and importance of after-school programs.

So I still do not understand the relevancy of your distinction between discretionary and State grants.

Well, you have moved from the area where there had been improvement to your generalization of dissatisfaction.

Our only difficulty, candidly, is when the Administration comes in with a lower figure.

I think it is very, very important.

I think this subcommittee for the past decade-plus has been a model of bipartisan cooperation.

Nobody should decide for anybody else when the life support systems will be turned off.

When you talk about appropriate funding, one of the issues which has concerned me for many years and I have introduced legislation on, is the very high cost in the last few days, few weeks before death and the really inadequate information…

The steel industry is only illustrative of one of the industries which is victimized by foreign subsidies and dumping.