The President did contend that he could cut spending without reducing benefits.

But when we talk about the tripling of the debt in the next 10 years based on the chart that the Senator showed earlier, that is not being scored?

I just do not believe that we can afford to throw another $270 billion of stimulus package when we got so little from the one that we have done.

A lot of us oppose that. We don't believe in that.

I don't think we can avoid that responsibility that we have to defend the country, and sometimes defending the country is better to be done abroad and early rather than late.

I am thinking that our President is going to have to lead on this issue.

I was very disappointed that the President's stimulus bill, the $862 billion, or the new one, the $270 billion stimulus package that is being talked about, does not have virtually any defense spending.

What was happening politically and morally was we were losing our discipline and people were buying into that language.

But to me it should have been a core part of his entire address, to alert the American people that changes are going to have to occur and they are not going to be pleasant for everybody who is used to getting so much money.

This could lead to a devaluing of the currency and a surge in debt.

I truly believe we did not get the kind of job creation and economic stimulus that was projected for it.

Maybe we can refrain from making it more bad than it is.

I have used the public debt simply because nobody disputed that that was a bottom-line debt figure.

I think we have too light a treatment to the need to contain wasteful spending now, that is not producing much for the economy.

We have got to confront the problem.

I just would say that any--maybe you would--my time is about up, so if any of the two of you who have not commented, I wish you would.

Make no mistake, this was another act of terrorism, another act of war.

I think it would be indisputable that you get less information if you give a Miranda warning than if you do not.

I think it is a constitutional responsibility that we do it in the right way.

I totally agree that most immigrants of this country, even those that have entered unlawfully, abide by most of the laws of this country, except for immigration.

It seems to me you have a policy that these kinds of individuals will be tried in civilian courts rather than military commissions.

I think that was probably a good approach. It is one that a good Attorney General should follow.

Well, Mr. Attorney General Holder, has already made clear his presumption that these cases would be tried in civilian court, which I think was a big error.

If we do not watch it, we are going to drift back into what courtroom you appear in.

Each of you have had significant accomplishments in your career.