 Well, good morning, Mark. I was just telling him, I'm waiting to find out what the branch got shook up. The first, I've got to say, the resolution passed in the houses just a blatant attempt by the Democrats to, I think, go back to what's been going on for the last 40 years and the goddess of menace that we've been in for so long. It's been a form of economic ruin, and I think higher spending, higher interest rates, and complete irresponsibility with regard to propensity abilities. The resolution supported with Senate budget committee, I know it's an effort to get something on the floor, but I have to tell you, I am not enthusiastic about that. I think spending is strange and stressed a bit more. The tax increases are unacceptable, and I will be doing a sample of a third year of the cuts or indexing on yesterday I was put in when I was brought two letters from the Senate and one from the House and the vote signed by an individual from the vote. I was in a position to sustain the veto that I thought was necessary. Now, I understand the two year compromise budget. The resolution being drafted by the Republican Congress is important, but my revenue numbers for 84 and the expenses restored to 7.5% growth for 84. I'm not happy about the 5% increase in 85 when I vote with the 7.5, 7, 6, 5, 4 of the proposed bills and help the slice in the original proposal. But I also understand the domestic spending cuts are at the same level as the mini version, and I can't be happy about that. I'd like to discuss very frankly with you how we can do that. I know that there's a drum beat of propaganda out there in the press and in the media and from the other side about the cuts that we've made so far in domestic spending in the budgets. The truth of the matter is we've all said budget cuts so long that we don't realize there never has been a budget cut. We have reduced the part of projections over the years for increased spending. But the budgets we have now are record budgets. They're higher than anything else. You've never with me for a message. I'd like to read you a letter that is going from CBS Sunday evening news. I came in this morning yesterday about Joe Snyder's report. Any of you who watch CBS evening news on Sunday May 1st, they had an entire feature there on food spending, food stamps, and so forth. And it was almost this story, the story that you could imagine. Yet many people bought it. We were cutting masks, but there were people who were being denied food stamps and now they're going to be hungry and they had shots of the soup kitchen lines and everything else. Well, this is the letter that is going to you. They had the news, the Sunday news. The report contained a number of errors about the food stamp program. The first was Leslie Stahl's lead in assertion with some 21 million people received food stamps, considerably fewer than a couple of years ago before cutbacks. Actually, the number of people receiving food stamps has grown nearly 14% since 1980. The number of beneficiaries was 19.3 million in 1980. It is 22 million in 1983, the largest number ever. This is the net increase even after some 875,000 were made from that because they had income above the guidelines mandated by Congress. Despite the tightening of eligibility, the fact is that the family cited in the CBS news account for the food stamp program received food stamp benefits until their family income exceeds $25,623, which is $3,235 more than most families in America earn in a year. Second, Ms. Snyder reported the program has been reduced by one and a half billion. The fact is the amount of federal funds dedicated to food stamps has increased by 45% since 1980. The rising from 8.3 billion to 11.8 billion in 1983, and the average monthly benefit per person during the conversation has risen faster than inflation. All together, the Department's food system programs cost more than $18.6 billion, up some 27% since this administration took office. This money subsidizes either a full apartment or more than 95 million meals a day for families. The report also airs coverage of the commodity distribution program. The department will actually be providing more cheese per month than a monthly average since the inception of the program. Since December 81, the department has distributed an average of 19 million pounds of cheese per month. Just last week, as announced, we would be stabilizing the amount of cheese distribution, 25 million to 35 million pounds per month, and this was not mentioned in the 70 evening report. Nor were your viewers told that last week we also announced the planned distribution of additional commodities. These new commodities are corn, meal, rice, flour, and honey. We have them will continue the distribution of surplus dairy products, cheese, non-fat dry milk, and butter. My opinion is to be sent by Jack Smith. My opinion, CBS owes it, or I mean Jack Block, sending it to Jack Smith, owes it to hear viewers to present the full facts in the evening news as quickly as possible. This story needs to mislead the American people and present the administration's policies at an highly unfair level. I have to believe that these figures are likely typical of much of what we've been doing. But it is our spending. Every budget was something that ordered here and there in an effort to get a more healthy people to lower their living. But I, of course, I wish that we could take another look at the budget that we submitted. If we were to go into a conference committee that denotes any budget that they propose, well, they themselves made it obvious that this would be an arch, and as Tim called it, a reaffirmation of traditional democratic policy. But if we were to go into something hoping to negotiate with that budget, I don't think we ought to dignify that democratic house, but there's even something you negotiate with, because it is a total reversion of going back to before we came here. And I still think that all the people out there, yes, we want to take care of the needy. And I think the thing like this indicates that we are. But we've also, some day, come back to the point, doesn't it spin us within its remit? And we've made a pretty good start. And again, I just want to say that here, around this table for months preparing the budget, our cabinet secretaries come in. They agree to figures that they believe that they've honestly performed the responsibilities of their agencies with those figures. And then we just throw them aside as if they didn't have. These are the people that would be trusted with making the programs work, and they believe they can do it with those lower figures. So right now, if we had gotten all that we asked for in reductions of increase, because we never did ask for a reduction, although what we were spending here before, and certainly we've kept up with inflation. But if we had gotten those cuts, right now the deficit would be $31 billion less than it presently is. I just hope that we can go back in there with that other house, and it's something that's true with the public. We can show the American people the way we want to go. That's the President. Well, thank you. Excuse me. Nice to see you again, sir. Good morning, sir. Good morning. Well, I mean, you know without my saying how much the people of America value our friendship with South Korea, we tend to maintain that and our commitment to sharing security for South Korea remains unchanged. We've been pleased with the efforts that President Chung has made to try and negotiate, or at least to meet with counterparts in North Korea. But in regard to that, we again affirm that we will make no approaches to North Korea. If you have been asked, you were requested your admission to do so. It should ever come. And we've been pleased also with the Secretary to want to see that the President has approached there. But you might hear something with you.