Defense, diplomacy, and development are equal legs on the stool of American foreign policy.

I want to thank you. And as a strong supporter of the BBG and other similar programs, many of us have had questions about their effectiveness.

Dramatic reductions in the President's proposed budget for the function 150 account would undermine that delicate balance.

While I am very pleased that your budget focuses on readiness and strengthening our military, I have serious concerns about how this dynamic world would impact nondefense discretionary funding.

I do not want, frankly, the responsibility for these major infrastructure programs that the President talked about, and how he was going to create jobs, fall on the tax base of our local citizens.

I am a strong supporter of public-private partnerships, but I am strongly opposed to a proposal when President Trump has emphasized infrastructure.

I am concerned that the President's plan lacks actual funding and, instead, would put a burden on State and local taxpayers to pay for those programs.

These cuts would close the door on Americans who are learning the skills to earn a better life.

I remember that issue with absolute clarity. And I know the chairman and I believe deeply in the work that the State Department and USAID are doing, but we have to continue to make sure that the money is spent efficiently and effectively.

There is a lot of money being spent there, and we really have to look more carefully.

I have been in this Congress and on this Committee for a long time, and sometimes I feel like a broken record on this issue.

Conflicts of interest have become a particular concern in the confirmation process of several Cabinet-level nominees.