 I'll try to get you. Sorry. I tried. Why? Thanks for coming down. As many of you are aware, we met here last Thursday morning and we had a discussion on several issues. My view the most important part of that exchange had to do with our deficit reduction objectives. Certain Democrat leaders indicated that the only way to attack this deficit monster is on the revenue side of the legend. Others suggested that defense was going to again be prepared with one of the public costs. Some stated that the budget I submitted in early January would not achieve the deficit reduction goal for 88th of the Grand Rudd-on-Hallins Law. Lastly, I disagreed on that. Lastly, some indicated that we should have a budget summit to work out our differences. It's my view that my budget meets the Grand Rudd-on-Hallins deficit reduction goal for 88th. And further, as I've said before, a budget was submitted in a timely fashion in accordance with that same statute. And I think that it's important for the Congress to come up with this project in a similar timely fashion if we're to avoid the problem of having spending bills for the entire government rolled into one gigantic continuing resolution. Also, there have been press reports suggesting significant inconsistencies between our OMB projections on the deficit level for 88th and the CBO projections. I'd like to ask Jim Miller to outline for you our deficit reduction plans and also to touch on these different deficit level projections between the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office. Jim? Thank you, Mr. President. The estimate that OMB has for the current...