Well, I can tell you generally that when we do our strategic reviews, the intention always is.... Obviously, there are some parts of an agency that might be underfunded but do important work. There might be other parts of the agency that have the appropriate funds and are doing well. And there are certain parts of the agency under review where the results have been not up to standard and where the agency has concluded it can get by doing it in another way without having a direct impact on their reason for being. That's my general comment. I'd have to look at the specific case in order to find out whether it fits in that category or not.
On May 5th, 2009. See this statement in context.