. >> thaupg, clark. let me provide a few wrap up comments, if you will. and then we'll open the floor for questions. i think it's useful for us to observe that we're not really trying to diminish the difficulty that the defense department had in making the decisions associated with the $487 billion in cuts. i'm quite confident that inside the room as the decisions were being debated, it felt really hard. and for all the constituents involved in each of those, it was really hard. none the less, it's fair to say that, you know, there's not a lot of, in fact, visible damage from $487 billion of reductions. and that would lead the casual observer, like an appropriator, to say, surely, there must be more. now, se quest ration takes more. and there's a great deal of language out about sequestration that doesn't take into account the law itself. and this is worth pointing out because the basis of any change to the sequestration process. that sequestration provides enormous flexibility to both the executive branch, in general, and the defense department specifica