I was disappointed, as we discussed yesterday, to see that the budget request reduces funding for the Commercial Service.

I am encouraged by the new administration's interest in tackling the backlog of investment in our country's infrastructure needs.

I think you just made a very good argument for why the international marketing that is done through Brand USA is a program we should continue.

I was also disappointed to hear that the department proposes to eliminate NIST's Manufacturing Extension Partnership.

I hope, as you work to finalize the agreement, that you will take into consideration not only the interest of the sugar producers...

So why are you going to make the students in New Hampshire suffer for the fact that there are programs in some places that are not working as well as they should?

But I also understand that when a program is working for students and making a difference in their lives, to pull that rug out from under them with nowhere else to go is a defeat for the policy and a defeat for the student.

How concerned are we about that and about our capacity at that point to be able to offset what we expect China to be doing?

A State like New Hampshire doesn't have the funds to put together programs if you take away the Federal dollars that support these at-risk kids.

I appreciate the challenges that the Navy has, given Congress' failure to address the budget issues.

Why are you reducing opportunities for hardworking Granite State students to earn the money they need for college by eliminating the work study program, by eliminating the opportunity to get those subsidized student loans?

Actually, the New Hampshire Hospital Association also opposes the bill for the very same reason. We have hospitals at risk if this bill is passed.