Thank you for calling today's hearing on sequestering carbon through forestry.

Congress should enact legislation to promote carbon sequestration, and forestry initiatives are one of the most effective methods of storing carbon. That's why S. 1457 has attracted bipartisan support.

Long before the Kyoto Treaty was signed, tree planting and carbon storage was good public policy. And today, in the era after Kyoto, tree planting and carbon storage continues to make sense. Congress should stop treating climate change as a political football and start recognizing the many benefits that carbon sequestration provides.

S. 1457 is a good beginning, but there are ways to improve the legislation. Hawaii's state forester has voiced concerns about the limited application that this bill will have in Hawaii, and I share that concern.

The past decade has been a difficult one for agriculture in Hawaii. Sugarcane has declined dramatically, from 100 farms growing cane on 180,000 acres to 4 farms cultivating 60,000 acres today. This decline has caused tremendous economic disruption.

120,000 acres may not seem like much in the continental United States, but in a small state like Hawaii the loss has huge implications. 120,000 acres represents more than 45 percent of our cultivated farm land. Hawaii County, where the greatest impact of these losses is felt, faces double digit unemployment.

These idle acres offer excellent opportunities for forestry. Tropical hardwoods grew on the land before it was planted in cane. Because Hawaii is in the tropics, we can sequester carbon more rapidly than any other state, and possibly as fast as any place on earth.

Unfortunately, because of the unique land tenure situation in Hawaii, none of the former sugarcane lands are eligible for the forestry assistance authorized by S. 1457. I want to work with my colleagues to correct this oversight. I also ask that eligibility be extended to Native Hawaiian lands in the same way that Indian lands are eligible for assistance.

Finally, if the goal of the bill is to achieve carbon storage, much more could be done to promote that objective. The most effective use of Federal dollars will be to promote carbon sequestration where the highest rate of carbon storage can be achieved. More carbon storage means a better return for each federal dollar that we invest. If a tree planted on one site will sequester carbon at a rate that is two or three times faster than a tree planted on a less productive site, it makes sense to emphasis sites where carbon storage rates are highest.

I look forward to working with the sponsors of S. 1457 on the issues I have identified.