for your service.i am a secretary. not a senator. i understand, and you were a governor went what would you like those words stricken? [laughter] sen. udall: a couple of things i want to ask your support on purity the new mexico delegation recently you a letter in support of the navajo promise own submitted by the navajo nation and technical university for what is called a tribal promise zone. it is an extremely high priority for me, and let me tell you why here. the navajo nation faces significant challenges, high

poverty, lack of basic infrastructure like housing, public safety deficiencies among other things. the unemployment rate there is totally on acceptable -- it is near 50%, and an equally large percentage of the population is below the poverty level, and they have made steady progress on economic development in recent years, but they really need a boost. as part of the president's efforts, this promise own will help the navajo nation tackle the issues outlined in their application, which i have talked a little bit about here. i simply urge you to give consideration to the requests. i know there are many communities in need, but few face the extremely difficult conditions we see on the navajo nation. sec. vilsack: that is one of the reasons we include that area and our strike zone initiative, but you are right, the strikes on

would extend that approach to the federal agencies, so i appreciate the comments, senator. sen. udall: could you tell me a little bit about the strikeforce effort? sec. vilsack: strikeforce was focused to -- was designed to focus on the poverty in this country. what we found early in the administration was that we were not doing enough work in those areas to get folks to understand how to basically apply for programs that they could get help, so we instructed our teams to go to communities across the country where there is persistent poverty and basically work with a community-building organization to identify projects and needs that we could address through usda programs. it is now operating in 129

counties, 20 one states, and several tribal areas. we have invested 26 one $3 billion -- $26.3 billion. i would imagine none of those would have been made but not for the intense work relationship we created. we are working with over 1500 community building organizations and partners. it has been a successful endeavor, and i think that has led us to take a look at the promise own and some place-based initiatives throughout the entire federal government. sen. udall: thank you very much for that initiative because i have it many communities in my state that need that kind of push that you are making their. re. this next issue is an issue i made last year, and it has yet to be resolved. two communities in new mexico -- chapterparall and -- it means

neighborhoods or communities within 150 miles of the u.s.-mexico border that are economically distressed, and they have both been designated cologne he is, and they are ineligible for some usda rural funds. in this case because of their proximity to el paso, texas even though they are in new mexico, even though they do not benefit from any support or municipal services from a city or county like el paso, which they're are close to, and because they are not in the same state, these communities have high poverty rates, limited public-sector funding thomas separated by over 40 miles from las cruces. these communities need rural development funds for housing projects, economic development funding, infrastructure improvements.

the area has seen increasing traffic at the port of entry which is positive but really underscores the need for infrastructure. so waivers have been used for similar situations in the past but we are experiencing difficulty with the waivers in these cases. would you work with me and within your authority to ensure that these two communities do not fall through the crack's and are made eligible for rural development assistance? sec. vilsack: senator, as you were outlining your request, i turned to my staff to see what waivers are available and we will certainly work with you and your team to figure out if they are, how to use them, and if they are not, what else we could potentially due to provide because it is part of our strikeforce initiative, so we obviously are cognizant of the challenges of that particular area, so we would be happy to try to find creative solutions to the problem. sen. udall: thank you very much.

i could not think of a better person to be secretary of agriculture because you served as governor from a rural state. you know the communities and how they are struggling, and i appreciate this effort in terms of the strikeforce. i look forward to working with you. thank you very much. i yield back, mr. chair. chairman: you had no time to yield back, but thank you for the effort. senator from north dakota? >> thank you, mr. chairman. good to see you, mr. secretary. on behalf of our farmers and ranchers, we want to make this bill as farm friendly as possible. that is particularly important right now with commodity prices. we are seeing real stress out there on the part of farmers and ranchers with these commodity

crises. one area that we can help in terms of making sure that the farm bill is farmer friendly is with the national statistics service data. i think that you are already working on this with your fsa director. but in some cases that nas data, because there are not enough survey forms sent in for some counties, we are getting a bad result. for example, it's not unique to north dakota -- it's occurring in other states as well. i believe iowa, i don't know about kansas. a number of states where you have counties and there are not enough of the survey forms that come back. the nas information is not used. instead we are using risk management agency information , and we are getting a bad result. what i mean by that is that if you take counties in north dakota, logan and l'amour, compare them to similar counties in average for corn. for example, for the year if you

use the nas data -- excuse me if we don't have enough nas data and we are using the rma data and we are getting a result that doesn't correlate with like counties, so other counties that typically have the same yield , those farmers get a payment but because the rma payment is so high, it is disqualifying farmers in logan, for example. that is one example. there are other examples around the country. we have asked fsa to allow us to to work with the director in the respective state and use comparable counties with adequate nas data so that we don't get a skewed result. it is very important to farmers particularly with low commodity prices. so what can you tell me in terms of your willingness to provide this flexibility? i know that you are doing an interagency analysis or study, i think that's the right term for

it. but what can you do to help your here, secretary, so that we can get this fixed? sec. vilsack: well, as you know, congress made the decision to do a county program as opposed to an individual program. i think they did that because of the cost of the program. they needed to generate savings in the overall program. we obviously have to deal with the county program, and we obviously have a process by which we can try to treat as many of the several thousand counties that we are dealing with as fairly and equitably as we can. we have come up with the proposal in the outlined the you addressed, which is that we look at the nas data first and we if there are an inadequate number of surveys, we should be focusing on getting farmers to respond to the surveys. if we don't, we go to rma. we are not satisfied that is appropriate, enough, or correct then we have empowered our state

committees to basically take a look and provide some direction. we think that we have some degree of predictability and consistency without necessarily creating a circumstance where we can't address the anomaly or the inaccuracy of information. i'm more than happy to go back to our team and basically make sure that we are in a position to be able to explain why we are making the decisions that we are making. if we can't, the we obviously need to do something different. sen. hoeven: my understanding is that it is currently in his interagency review, and i don't know what the results of that are. if the state committee is empowered to make a decision, i think that's where we need to go. getting discretion out there in the field to your directors to make a good decision. sec. vilsack: well, that's the key. a good decision. we don't necessarily want to create a circumstance where everybody is unhappy ultimately

with what they get. then you create a confusing circumstance with an individual program when by statute you are directed to have a county program. there is a balance here, and i'm more than happy to try to be flexible, but i think we have to have some system. sen. hoeven: no, i hear you. and of course we want the forms to come in so you have adequate data and good data. but where that hasn't occurred just so that state committee or the director, harvey, wanted to see you do it, they are empowered to say that this is a nonsensical result and we will make an adjustment. my question is -- i don't think we've gotten that response back. they are still doing this interagency review and this has been going on since november and i'm asking for your help to get an answer. sec. vilsack: well, you deserve an answer, and we will try to get human quickly. -- get you one quickly. sen. hoeven: that's great. i'm also very concerned about any reductions from to the support for crop insurance, our

number one risk management tool for farmers. you are probably not surprised to hear me say that. you and i have had this discussion before. but i am very concerned about that and will make sure that we do everything we can to support crop insurance. in fact, we included language in the farm bill to make sure that that didn't happen. on the positive side, though, i appreciate the support you have provided for ag research service areas and for the national institute of food and agriculture. i think that research area is incredibly important, incredibly impactful for our farmers and ranchers. if you have some thoughts there, i would welcome them. sec. vilsack: briefly, on the crop insurance. there are two areas. one is on the preventative planning. our inspector general and general accounting office have been critical of the way that that program operates. i think it is appropriate for us to be responsive to those criticisms.

what we have proposed in the budget is our effort at being responsive. on the price of harvest lost option, we are proposing a slightly different arrangement between the producer, the government, and the insurance company where we are currently financing 62% of the premium. we think that it is probably fair to taxpayers that it he be more of a 50-50 partnership. those are the two proposals. sen. hoeven: i would point out that since 2008, $12 billion -- since 2008, $12 billion has been taken out of crop insurance support. you want a robust number of companies out there providing insurance to have a competitive market. we have to be careful or you will not have enough competition out there for a robust market. sec. vilsack: that's true. our projections on this return on budget are 18%. sen. hoeven: for which they have to cover all of their costs. sec. vilsack: well, not all of

their costs. there is also an additional resource. sen. hoeven: but again, at the end of the day if they can't make enough money to continue to stand as a business and cover their costs, you will not have a robust insurance group out there providing crop coverage. sec. vilsack: i'm not sure that either one of these two proposals necessarily impacts the issue you have raised, but i'm certainly sensitive to the fact. that is why we continually look at the return on the investment. we had a couple of years where it was difficult, but we are beginning to see more profitability in that part of the operation. again, i think it was 15% or 13% last year. 18% projected for this year. sen. hoeven: i understand your point of view, though i don't agree with it. but again i want to emphasize that crop insurance support has been reduced by $12 million since 2008. there are a lot of programs across the federal government that have not contributed as much in terms of help with finding savings as crop

insurance. sec. vilsack: you don't have to tell me about reductions senator. my overall operating budget is less than it was in 2010. sen. hoeven: secretary, thank you for your willingness to take a look at the nas data. i appreciate it. chair: senator? sen. murphy: -- sen. merkley: i thought i would take a look at an issue i hear a lot about. rural broadband. folks note the important of it to the success of their rural communities. -- importance of it to the success of the rural communities. as i understand it, the usda recently rewrote the broadband loan programs to reflect the 2014 farm bill.

it has just gotten going, but i believe that you are now eliminating this. meanwhile, the grant program that has increased is a distinctly different program. the grant program serves a small number of poor, unconnected communities. the number of communities it focused on in fy 15 were five communities. i think that there was a concern that there was going to be a sacrifice of these large expanses for assisting a small number of communities and whether or not that really reflects the demand for rural broadband -- there is probably a lot more thinking behind it, i just thought i would give you a chance to explain it. sec. vilsack: well, senator, i appreciate the question. what we have found is that it is not impossible for companies to secure loans, but to the extent that they can get grant funds that either reduce the amount they have to borrow or reduce the interest rate on the loan, that makes it much more likely that they are in a position to do significant improvements and expansions.

listening to what we believe the industry is telling us is necessary to get more broadband in more places, combining that with, hopefully, what the fcc is attempting to do and hoping that it works properly to create more incentive and resource for expansion of broadband. the combination of those two. that is why we are proposing an increase in the grant program, because we think that will generate more activity than simply a loan program. sen. merkley: thank you for the explanation. i look forward to tracking that. it is of so much importance. my colleague from wisconsin has arrived. i want to turn this over to her. just closing on my comments thank you again for your service over seven plus years and

counting. there is many more questions that i have that i will be submitting to you for the record, but i don't need to address them at this point. thank you. chair: the senator from wisconsin. my intention is to have the senator from wisconsin ask her questions, i have a few follow-up questions, and then we would anticipate concluding the hearing. senator: i thank the chair. mr. secretary, in wisconsin water issues on everyone's mind. our rural communities are facing many challenges to protect their water quality. in particular, kewanee and door counties in wisconsin's northeastern region have nitrate bacteria in their water. testing is showing that more and

more private wells are contaminated. local stakeholder groups are working with the state department of natural resources to talk about long-term solutions. but as those deliberations continue, rural families remain without immediate solutions to these very pressing concerns and the obvious need for safe drinking water. mr. secretary, i believe that your department can help. but it is going to take some really, really hard work. i would ask you how you see the usda playing a role in these communities in wisconsin. will you commit to working with me and the local communities to offer both immediate and long-term solutions that help watersheds in this vital region of our state and country? sec. vilsack: senator, offhand do you know what the population are -- what the population is of those communities?

sen. baldwin: i would have to -- secretary vilsack: is it greater or or less than 10000? sen. baldwin: i believe they are both greater, but they might be close. [whispering] counties, or? yeah. they are sparsely populated. sec. vilsack: the first line in your question, to the extent that the infrastructure can be modernized, obviously the usda has a wastewater treatment program available. we also have a partnership with co-bank and other farm credit agencies that are providing infrastructure loans that the usda can't do or won't to do. it's leveraging our resources. we have had a series of partnerships with the farm credit system where we will fund half a project and co-bank will fund the other half.

they have made a $10 billion commitment to infrastructure in rural areas across the united states. the third alternative on this side of the equation is to work with us to identify potentially private sector investors that might be willing to provide the financing to improve the systems. so those are three basic avenues of financing infrastructure. we would be more than happy to work with you and have our rural development people to work with those two counties and those two areas. you asked for a long-term solution. obviously, long-term is to try to work with conservation programs to try to prevent the problem from getting worse and ultimately reversing it. actually, wisconsin has a number of communities, like green bay that are working with the fox river, trying to create ecosystem markets where they essentially regulated industries would be able to pay farmers for conservation that would allow them to satisfy a particular ecosystem regulation. or there may be a corporate

entity that is looking from a social responsibility perspective. we just did an event with chevrolet on carbon credits, for example, in north dakota. so, we are trying to create more ecosystem market opportunities in wisconsin. that requires us to be able to measure and e-verify and quantify the conservation results. if you can do that -- and i would encourage those folks to consider a conservation grant innovation grants a, a cig grant, which we have used in the past to help create a measurement and certification qualification system. there is also -- one other piece of this -- there is also another regular crs program and, in fact, crp program -- there is a continuous program that could potentially be used to develop bioreactors in those conservation programs that would allow for better filtering of contaminants.

nitrates and so forth. there is a body of steps they can be taken, short-term and long-term, to address this. sen. baldwin: i appreciate that. there has been, as i mentioned, a good local collaboration with not only with our state dnr, but i know of a real interest in these collaborations on long-term solutions at the federal level. i will restate that many of the residents impacted have private wealth. they therefore have an immediate need for clean drinking water. so i hope that we can follow up this exchange with ways in which the usda can help to meet those very important and immediate needs. sec. vilsack: what we were able to do in a slightly different situation in california where there was drought, and they had private wells, but there was no

water in the well, we took a look at where they were adjoining areas of municipal systems that could potentially be extended to those private homes or serviced by a private well. i don't know if that's possible. sen. baldwin: i appreciate your commitment to work with me. we will certainly follow up. i did have one other question that i wanted to address to you mr. secretary. in addition to being america's dairyland, wisconsin also produces a lot of specialty crops. we have a very vibrant and rapidly growing organic sector second only to the state of california in the number of organic farms within our state. the specialty crop and organic farmers have a great need for new varieties and animal breeds that are adapted regionally and respond to market demands that can help them grow their market. so-called seeds and breeds.

in response to the subcommittee's work last year and the direction in gear 16 the spending bill, i know that the usda is producing a report on classical breeding investments. this committee also directed the agency to create a specific competition for classical breeding. proposals for this specific type of research compete against each other and not against other different research fields. so we have yet to see progress on that particular front. for wisconsin farmers, it is not about the academic competition. it is about having the varieties that they need right on the farm to help them make it through tough years. i hope that you will commit to resolving this issue this year and pushing forward with that

specific competition for classical breeding research. sec. vilsack: i will certainly take a look at that. i will tell you that there is an intent and interest in this area. we are investing a bit more time and energy in it. we are also making sure that our own seed banks are available in the event that there is a situation where we don't have seed in the past. so it is a combination of preserving the past and also preparing for new varieties. i said earlier that our research has already created over the time i have been the secretary 1700 plant varieties. we are engaged in this. we've got genomic information using that, or we don't, and we using the classical breeding, so it is a combination and a balance.

sen. baldwin: thank you to the chairman and ranking member for their leniency and watching the clock. chair: thank you for joining us, and thank you for your questions to the secretary. let me editorialize, mr. secretary, for just a moment with regards to agricultural research. the 2016 agricultural appropriation bill provided $350 million for avre. we worked hard under the allocation that we had to provide additional support for agricultural research. you mentioned its importance, as have a number of my colleagues. my editorial comment is that we cannot compete with the administration's budget when they use mandatory spending as the solution to funding this and many other programs. not just in your budget, but across the federal government. federal government wide. again, this is a budgetary issue beyond your scope, but it is

important to that the administration recognize that when they make a budget request to us as appropriators, we do not have the ability to provide funding on mandatory spending. i think they know that. it sets a bar. perhaps it's just posturing to suggest that the administration and your department is more interested in agricultural funding than we are. but when we come to the amount of money that we have within our jurisdiction to provide support, agricultural research, in my view, we have been there. you have been kind enough to attempt to include me in a visit to cuba. i appreciate that invitation. and i have been a longtime advocate for lifting the embargo, particularly as it relates to food, medicine, and agricultural commodities to cuba. i had some success in that regard as a member of the house of representatives. your budget includes some funding for changes that may

occur in our relationship or is occurring in our relationship with cuba. what is the circumstances by which you ask for dollars for agricultural representation in cuba? secondly, knowing that the appropriations process in which you are asking for this money to be included may be a controversial request -- i'm not certain -- but even if it's not, this process takes a long time. what is usda doing in cuba today to export and assist in the sale of agricultural commodities? sec. vilsack: [chuckles] well, senator, the embargo statute basically prohibits the department of agriculture from using any of its market assistance programming money. so we can't directly help promote, as we do in other countries. that's one of the reasons we need to get rid of the embargo.

but even if we got rid of the embargo tomorrow, we wouldn't necessarily be prepared -- even retaining market -- regaining market share that we lost over the years, because we don't have the relationships and people on the ground to basically no people we know on the cuban side to be able to effectuate more trade, that is the reason why we have asked more chanel to be down in cuba and the permit we located down there so they can create the relationships so that when the embargo is in -- is lifted and we can use resources we are in a position to move expeditiously. >> i don't know off the top my head the amount of dollars you have requested. the point you are making is, that is not to assist directly in support subsidization of any sale to cuba or any marketing

program, it is directly related to the effect to have usda personnel in cuba developing relationships with potential customers. >> also to do an evaluation of the pests and diseases we could potentially confront an hour relationship becomes more bilateral. the second piece of this is, there are commodity groups that are quite interested in doing business down there because they realize we have a competitive advantage and they are asking us to explore ways in which they themselves, apart from what we can't do, can they be more aggressive in their promotion efforts, and we are looking for ways in which we can find a way for them to be more aggressive, so that we without direct support from usda, commodity groups secretaries individual farm groups will be able to promote the product. >> in that regard, by

understanding of the current state of the law in regard to cuba is, we can sell agricultural commodities, food and medicine to cuba for cash. commodity groups could promote those sales. >> the question is whether or not any of the resources that could be used by those commodity groups and we are in the process of trying to figure out the answer to that question. we don't want to create a circumstance for we violate the law. this is a tremendous opportunity for us. >> dr. johansson indicated that significant opportunities and compared it to the dominican republic. >> 80% of cuban food is imported.

we do like 15% of their needs. >> we have seen significant improvements in the opportunity in selling. regulations were altered at one point in time and the money had to be received up front when it arrived in havana and the third-party financing issues, but those are regulatory issues that perhaps will be addressed but this issue of cuba will be one of broad interest. it has its opponents, which i had discovered in my time working on this issue. let me return to a topic we visited, last year. i encourage you and you indicated that you do and would new your conversations with the federal communications commission. i have expressed an ongoing concern about the ability for

rural telephone companies to be able to repay loans they of the rural utility services based upon decisions that the fcc has and is continuing to make. i would get a highlight that i would again highlight this issue. -- i would again highlight this issue. we should expand these opportunities but you also have a default rate of significant magnitude if the fcc makes decisions as it relates to the universal service fund that would have consequences to a telephone company, a broadband provider's ability to repay. >> we are cognizant of that and i can assure you that we indicate to fcc, a concern in that space. we are keeping an eye on it, and we have advised them of your

concern and of our concern. >> on the same topic, i am an advocate for expansion of those opportunities in places that are unserved. i have worried that various programs perhaps more related to the stimulus package that the programs under your department have provided loans and subsidization for companies to compete in already existing territory, and which broadband services exist. could you tell me the current state of your programs that you are responsible for, and their ability to attain support from your department to compete with existing broadband providers? >> we don't have unlimited resources, so we have to make sure they do the job and we are mostly focused on underserved areas.

we are not creating a circumstance where there is conflict. i don't believe we are pretty certain -- we are creating circumstances where we encourage competition. >> you use a few words that?-- would you confirm that >> i'm not trying to be evasive. it is not based on a place where there is already service. i would say that we may be in a situation where we are trying to upgrade the service that is being provided so that download speeds and upload speeds are increased. i don't know if that falls in the scope of your question about working with an existing operation. senator moran: i know circumstances were loans or grants were made. in order to make that

financially possible, there were -- the territory in which loans could be used included areas that already had service. they were larger communities and i assume the revenue generated at larger areas makes it economically more viable for service to be provided in places that are much smaller and has no service. but in the process, my view is the government program is the subsidy. and taking the revenue generated there support areas that don't have service. secretary vilsack: you deserve a more detailed answer and i will make sure you get it. senator moran: i'm almost done, mr. secretary. food aid. the mcgovern program.

you are proposing reductions in spending in that area. if we agree with your position your budget request, how would usda absorb those cuts? are there ongoing programs that would be affected? do you have countries that you would exclude from the program? there is less money how would , you spend the money you have remaining? >> there are countries as you know. the governed program -- the mcgovern program is designed not to be a permanent support for countries but designed to show the wisdom of linking education and food with the hope that the host country would take over that responsibility. there have been countries were

we have been active and involved -- where we have been active and involved which we think is time for them for them to pick up the mantle. that may be a consequence, so it may be that there is not a circumstance where we can cut off or cut out people without assistance without some substitute. the other possibility, we are proposing to use a small portion of the program for local purchases. i'd be happy to give you a more detailed response to that question, but it does point out the challenge. whenever we have a discussion about budgets we focus on , individual programs. it is all about choices and if

we did not have a finite number to deal with, if we could fix the fire budget, it creates more flexibility in the budget. to be very candid, this is an area that has frustrated me more than any since i have been secretary. everybody knows this is a problem. last year, i had to give out seven american flags to family members that lost loved ones. and the reason why some of them were lost is because we have not been able to do the job we need to do in restoring and making our forests more resilient. we borrow money from those various accounts to put fires out and a fire is no different than a flood or a tornado or a

hurricane where we fund not out , of an operating budget that -- but from an emergency budget. if we could just create a circumstance for the uncontrolled fires, it would create more flexibility within this budget and many of the concerns you have addressed which we share. senator moran: thank you for your passion and your compassion. i appreciate you being in manhattan, kansas. thank you very much. i would highlight as the transition occurs, my impression is that there may be employees that do not relocate. we want to work with you to make certain the training and the recruitment retention opportunities exist to make certain that when the day comes, you are fully staffed with

a highly capable and significant expertise. >> that is certainly an appropriate request. >> and finally, your budget proposes a $5 million increase. this sounds like a difficult question, that it is for -- but it is for something that i find very appealing. i am not certain they intend to utilize those dollars but i hope the subcommittee has a hearing in several weeks on this topic on how to bring veterans to agriculture. secretary vilsack: after a good deal of effort, we have secured commitments from the department of defense to begin the process. going on base as servicemen and women are leaving the service they receive a series of briefings on opportunities and in the past, agriculture has not been part of that process. now we are getting permission to

be part of that process. we want to provide veterans with the opportunity to find out how they might be able to access the chance to be a farmer. you can go to our website and the most popular aspect in the last months is the beginning farmer website we revamped. you can go in now and plug-in your wish list of what kind of farmer you would like to be. it will give you a personalized plan for the programs within usda that can help -- provide help and assistance if it is conservation, whatever it might be. we think the combination of more education and opportunities that exist, the greater the interest will be. to the extent that we can spend our that spread our tentacles to

a wider base than we have in the past, that would be helpful. we also know that 70% of world's farmers are women. there is increasing interest to participate and it requires outreach and time. providing an easy way for people to get information. that is the purpose of this. the deputy was a great proponent of this. i think our work has been very successful. you're going to see an increased interest in working with other veterans groups. >> i applaud those efforts. we have seen a number of individuals that have created opportunities for veterans returning with traumatic

injuries. in this case, beekeeping. it was a very successful way. incidentally, legislation that i have introduced to create an opportunity for veterans to use to use their bill and become farmers. we look forward to working with the department to publish that. i hope they say no. does anybody have anything to follow up with? >> since you offered, i just wanted to address -- because senator whiten and i have been

working with senator murkowski we worked very hard to persuade the administration to back this plan. it is not in this subcommittee's jurisdiction but it is absolutely important. we did make a significant change last year and that is that firefighting was funded at 100% of the previous ten-year average . given the impact of the pacific blob and its change in precipitation, there is a chance there will be no -- we will wait and see what it looks like. you are absolutely right. the magnifiers that the mega-fires -- the neck of fires

-- mega-fires should be treated as a natural disaster. we have constantly robbed that for fighting fires. at the point of disaster rather than treating the force on the front and. people say why do you always go to the back end at a disaster rather than treating the force on the front and -- thank you for your at 50 -- advocacy on it. >> senator, i appreciate those comments, i'm going to underscore that i am not going to authorize transfers. secretary vilsack: not from this committee, to another. >> i'm not going to authorize it because it basically takes everybody off the hook. >> that it focused a lot of mines on capitol hill. -- that should focus a lot of

minds on capitol hill. >> i also want to add my words of agreement with tackling the fire borrowing issue. certainly, wisconsin is not a state where we have many forest fires, that we have a significant part of our northwoods with a very active timber industry and small business depended on -- dependent on -- and i feel like we must tackle this. how pleased i am to be on this committee and how much i what over to two -- how much i look forward to working on a number of issues with you, i did not have a chance to refer which is promoting agricultural

innovation. everything we can do to help new producers get their start with the beginning farmer program in addition to the ones the the chairman and secretary, i am a big fan. >> we appreciate your presentation we look forward to , working with you on that and other issues. thank you for your kindness and the working relationship you have. mr. secretary, you have been coveted by members of this subcommittee and -- complemented by members of this subcommittee, and i would add my complement to you. i have been on it. i am impressed, pleased about the level of the knowledge and detail that you know.

there is something said about experience. i guess i should not assume this is your last opportunity to appear in a budget hearing. i would like to thank you for being a secretary that apparently knows what's going on. that is pleasing to me. we will try to do everything that we can do to become comparable in the level of knowledge so that we can have a full and complete understanding as best as possible of the details of what goes on at the usda. i want to be knowledgeable as well and look forward to developing a greater expertise as you have developed over the last seven years and i thank you for your public service. secretary vilsack: it is an

honor to appear before this committee and i really feel blessed that i get to work with incredibly dedicated people and we all work for an amazing group of people that do so much for this country. oftentimes, what they do is underappreciated or not appreciated at all. i appreciate this privilege and i consider it a deep honor. senator moran: i won't diminish what you said by sounding very formal but there are words i , must say. for members of the subcommittee, any question that you would like to submit or the records to be turned within one week which is wednesday, march 16. we would appreciate it if you can respond within four weeks of that time. i thank the gentleman that accompanied you today and i , believe that concludes our hearing.

thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> washington journal is next, live with your phone calls and facebook comments. a meeting of the senate judiciary committee with discussion about the supreme court nominee confirmation process. tonight, live coverage of the white house state dinner for visiting canadian prime minister justin trudeau. -- on how the u.s. electorate is changing in terms of age and race and how this affects future elections.

also npr policy reporter alison kojak on the provincial candidates health plans including donald trump's recently released health care proposal. ♪ host: good morning. the democratic presidential candidates squared off last night competing for the votes of hispanics and the last and eight debate in florida ahead of that primary, next tuesday. hispanic voters an important block for the democratic party so we want to talk to them only and find out who you plan to vote for. hispanic voters in the eastern central part of the country dial-in at (202) 748-8000. mountain pacific