On the recordJune 20, 2019
Trying to control what words USDA officials use to describe changing weather conditions should not really be our focus. For one, this amendment is a solution in search of a problem. USDA has plenty of materials on their website or elsewhere with the term ``climate change'' embedded in them. If the USDA were going to completely wipe away this terminology for political purposes, which was implied, they would have done so over the past 2\1/2\ years. Secondly, the amendment attempts to politicize an issue that does not need further politicization. For example, Chairman Bishop and I were able to have a civil discussion on changing climate in a subcommittee hearing this year without dragging controversy into it. In addition to outside witnesses, USDA actually sent up a subject matter expert on the very topic. We had a hearing where we talked about how to deal with changing weather and how our farmers and ranchers could adjust to such changes. Instead of spending time on this type of messaging, let's spend our time on actually helping our farmers and ranchers and building a more secure and sustainable energy future that benefits all of America. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
