 Well, welcome all. I'm going to recite the shooting of Dan McGrew. No. Listen, I want to thank you for taking your time to come over here this evening. And, you know, for 25 years we've been saying that the federal government must get its fiscal house in order. So in all the socializing that's going on, there's going to be a little bit of business and I'm going to be responsible for it here in a few, for a few minutes. It seems so long that our voices were voices in the wilderness, but despite our warnings and determined efforts, spending kept growing. The building deficit kept climbing and the threat to our economy kept building. And now we've reached the end of the line. And even the other side, it used to tell us that deficit spending was good for us, now agrees that least in their speeches with us. We've reached an hour of decision when hard choices must be blaved and made and I believe that this budget compromise that we put together with Bob Dole and Pete Domenici deserves your support across the board without reservation. I know that in a plan which fundamentally restructures a budget built up over decades, everyone will have to swallow hard on one or two items. I did myself. But if we don't stick together on everything, we could end up with nothing. We must keep this package intact because it's the only alternative we've got. The tax increase is not an alternative no matter how it's described. Loophole closing, revenue enhancement, neck size taxes all amount to the same thing. Trying to close the budget deficit by raising the 19% of gross national product that we're already taking in taxes when the problem is the 25% of gross national product that we're unjustifiably spending. I've said I'll veto any tax increase no bill no matter how it's disguised and I will. And the other day I got some backing. Two young congressmen came in to see me with a letter pledging their support of any veto that I might make on any tax increase and it was signed by 146, the required number. Our obligation to the American people is to cut government down to an affordable size, not raise their tax burdens to even more unaffordable levels than they face now. The other alternative being suggested a budget freeze we know is also unsatisfactory. A freeze would fall way short of the mark in savings. It would be temporary. It would permit the deficit to problem to fester and to grow in future years. And it fails to recognize that all spending is not created equal. Spending is so far in excess of our income that we have no choice but to provide for what is essential for our national security and domestic welfare first and then have the courage to cut out the frills and the dispensable programs entirely. And the first priority must be our national security. We've now agreed to lower the three-year defense spending line by $120 billion, but that's the rock bottom level needed to continue our defense buildup. The Soviets are far more dangerous than they were 10 years ago and they continue to arm way beyond the defense needs of their country. To counter that threat, 3% defense growth each year is imperative. Likewise, our budget compromises, compromise doesn't touch the safety net because those programs were reformed in 1981 and are now targeted to genuine need. So to get the overall budget savings we need, we must go deeper than a freeze in lower priority programs in order to keep the safety net intact. And that brings us to the hard choices. Our proposal is for a leaner, healthier, and firmer budget that keeps what should be kept and cuts what should be cut. Some programs whose costs far outweigh their benefits have been eliminated entirely. Amtrak, for instance, because as you know, every time an Amtrak train leaves the station you've heard it over and over again, it costs the taxpayers $35 for each passenger. In many cases it would be cheaper to hand passengers a free plane ticket. The same holds true for the Job Corps, the Small Business Administration and 15 other programs that we've proposed will eliminate entirely. Other major programs have been reformed on the theory that it isn't fair that those with low incomes must subsidize the wealthy. Student aid will still be provided in low and middle income families but aid to the wealthy will be scaled back. Now many of you have said that we must curb the automatic cost of living adjustments and pension programs and we have, with over $30 billion in savings over the next three years. But unlike the current law, our bill would guarantee at least a 2% increase in social security benefits more if inflation picks up. While the low income elderly, those who are on supplemental and the disabled will receive full cost of living adjustments. You know that special interest groups will be flooding your offices in coming days. But we have this one great historic opportunity to protect the larger interest of all the people. To clearly identify the Republican Party is the party of courage, the party of leadership, and the party of growth for the future. And this we must do. We've reached the moment of truth. But if each of you personally condemns and votes to kill each item you find unacceptable, the entire $300 billion spending reduction package will be doomed. I hope we can work together, send the right signal to resolve to the markets and the American people and to the world. You know, for a half a century, there have only been four years in that half a century in which Republicans had a majority in both houses of the Congress. And now there's been an additional four years in which we have had one house, your house. So all that's happened and all the build-up and all the things that are wrong have to be laid at one door. That's the door of the opposition. And lately for the first time in a great many years the people of this country in polls are indicating that they believe we're better for the economy than the Democrats are. Now if we go in there and we start quibbling about this or that why can't we make up our minds and the only way to go is we have a package and that's it, up or down. I can only tell you if you haven't been told before that in our meetings with all of the cabinet, all of those who have to deal with these programs, instead of being in there and plumping for money, we went through and then we let them come back. If they had objections, we heard them and we made final decisions that yes, this was the program that we believed could work and that we could make work and do the things that government is supposed to do for the people. So I'm not going to say anymore except that maybe for a few minutes here, I haven't seen one of you raise your glass since I started talking. You just stand there. All right, okay. I'll even take one myself. Orange juice and vodka. You see, we got good relations with the Soviets. But maybe for a few minutes, maybe if you've got some questions or something you want to throw and then I'll get down off of here and we'll mingle. Anyone have a, yeah. We start making other pieces of the package just by some of the real concerns that some of our colleagues have that we're committed to the package. We're making only minor changes that are necessary because of some suggestions. I think one way to really make this work is to go on television early next week and I think my colleagues would agree with that. We need a lot of help. We need a big ambulance to mail to tell us who's the right thing. I'll tell you this. I've gotten an awful lot of letters from an awful lot of people out there who might be, you might think that I would be interested in some of the government programs for themselves. Thank you. And they're all saying the time has come and they want to volunteer to help. So somebody else got something? If you don't, I'm going to get down on the floor with all of you. No other? Well, Dave came prepared to answer questions. Yeah. What's that? You're my guest. There was an administration here that charged for breakfast and they had you fellows over, but no, we won't do that. Presentation. Here's the way I'm looking at it. If we did not have that program, and we had $200 million that's growing, would we pass the new law to break the business administration and cost $800 million a year? Would your congress be able to get away with that? Would you let them get away with that? $250 million. The notion is, if we're all new, would you pass it because that was the fact that they're there with the facts? You know, I told you, and I was the president of the state and they told me that the government's like that. They're like the same thing.