The article talks about the $1.5B shortfall based on potentially not receiving federal funds. Perhaps I am mistaken, but what about the additional funds that were identified a month or so ago as being needed -- above and beyond what was originally budgeted? I believe I read that amount is about $1.5B. So, are we really $3B short? If so, then it would make more sense to not build the line all the way and just fund the $1.5B existing shortfall rather than go the whole way and further erode individual spending.