this budget reflects that it does not care very much about Indian healthcare.

I do not think we have given you anywhere near the resources to do the job at hand.

If it was a good deal, they would have put it in front of the United States Senate.

I think you made the wise decision financially for the good of the country.

It was a bad deal for the United States.

I want to commend the President for making it crystal clear... we are going to have to have a deal that is better for the United States.

It is a huge seat change to see a representative of the President of the United States bring us a budget that tries to balance and does balance within 10 years.

a $300 million cut really is not defensible or acceptable.

But I will also remind you that, as one of my colleagues referred, these are treaty obligations. They are not generous grants.

Just a quick comment, Senator Shaheen as well.

It means less illegal immigration. It means better trading partners. It means more stability in our own backyard.

We want our citizens to stay home. We do not want them to run to another country.

It is to our benefit to be able to have a stable Central America.

This is a tremendous amount of money that needs some accountability and oversight.

I agree completely with your emphasis on a narrow focus. We cannot try to do everything.

Can anyone tell me America's long-term foreign policy objective that is achieved or even short-term foreign policy objective that is achieved by investing more in the Northern Triangle?

The idea of us coming alongside of Central Americans themselves to try to improve their own conditions, their own democracy, their own markets I think is an important use of the United States political will.

So both of you say illegal immigration, we benefit what is happening here, by engaging there.