Date: 2009-06-26
Speaker: HERSETH SANDLIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Madam Speaker. today the House is voting on a bill that is designed to shape the course of our nations economy and way of life for decades to come. Unfortunately. I believe the process has been too rushed. and I cannot support the bill in its current form. I believe its imperative for Congress to address climate change. I agree with the scientific consensus that human activity has substantially increased the accumulation of greenhouse gases and is contributing to a rise in average global temperature. This rise threatens to create a number of dramatic and negative impacts. With much of South Dakotas economy dependent on agriculture. which in turn depends on our climate. global warming could have a profound effect on South Dakotas economy and our way of life. Moreover. the alternative to no action by Congress is action by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Air Act to step in and in a more punitive fashion dictate rules and impose costs on industry. Given the complexity both of the climate change problem and the steps needed to address it. we need to take time to get it. right. The stakes are simply too high for a rushed solution that can potentially create more problems than it solves. While I cant support the bill before the. House today. it has already come a long way from where it started both in its discussion draft form and in the form the Energy and Commerce Committee approved. Both of those versions were imperfect and incomplete and would have imposed regional inequities on a greater scale than the legislation before the House today. Since the committee approved its version of the bill. there have been some positive changes made. most notably in the agricultural sector. Important and common sense improvements have been made that go a long way towards recognizing the value that agricultural producers in South Dakota can bring to the climate change issue. I commend Agriculture Committee Chairman PETERSONS efforts as he worked together with many members of the Agriculture Committee to ensure that agricultures concerns are addressed in this legislation. This has been a priority for me over a long period of time. and I am pleased with the. progress made. The inclusion of an agricultural and forestry offsets program will enable farmers. ranchers and forest owners to fully participate in a marketbased carbon offset program. eaming income for activities they undertake to address global climate change while also ensuring environmental integrity and protecting early actors. Importantly. these provisions put the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).- not the EPA. in charge of regulating the use of farm and forestry projects intended to offset carbon dioxide emissions from industrial sources. The EPA itself has estimated that agricultural and forest lands currently sequester approximately 12 percent of our nations carbon emissions and that the agriculture and forest sectors can sequester up to 25 percent of emissions. As such. the agriculture and forestry industries must play an essential role in efforts to mitigate climate change. I am pleased that the managers amendment also corrects the controversial and unproven methods for calculating indirect emissions through the lifecycle greenhouse gas analysis for biofuels. EPAs current indirect land use proposal would be put on hold for five years pending a needed scientific study and consultation with federal agencies .and Congress. Importantly. USDA. the Energy Department or EPA could veto the results of the study if it is not based on sound. peerreviewed science. The bill also makes it very clear that agriculture and forestry sectors will be exempt from the greenhouse gas emission reduction requirements. Lastly. this bill ensures that Wall Street speculators will not be able to further drive up energy costs through dark market and secretive trading of derivatives of carbon allowances. offset credits. or renewable electricity credits by requiring that all carbon derivatives trading is conducted only on Commodity Futures Trading Commissionregulated markets. However. while I am supportive of many of the changes made to the bill that stand to benefit agriculture. serious substantive and process concerns remain when it comes to doing right by rural America. The following represent some of my concerns. I have heard from several utilities serving South Dakota. such as Black Hills Corporation. which serves tens of thousands of South Dakotans. that the allowances for emissions in the bill still arent fairly distributed and this disparity could mean dramatic rate hikes for. its customers in South Dakota. Additionally. the bill does not adequately fix the flawed definition of renewable biomass in the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) or in the proposed Renewable Electricity Standard (RES). Again. the definition of biomass has improved greatly from the highly restrictive definition included in the discussion draft. However. the flawed definition used in the final bill before the House today unnecessarily and unwisely excludes much federallysourced biomass from counting toward the RFS and a new RES. It also overlooks the essential role forests can and should play in sustainably generating renewable energy. ensuring our nation fneets the cellulosic biofuels mandate in the RFS. moving our nation toward energy independence. and creating jobs in rural communities across the nation. I continue to believe strong!y that we can take advantage of this amazing potential within the existing protections provided under current environmental laws and responsible forest management policy. I have worked for nearly two years to broaden the biomass definition to allow for federallysourced biomass to count toward the RFS and have urged its inclusion in this legislation. as well as the application of this definition to the RES. Overall. a fetleral RES presents tremendous economic opportunities for South Dakota in large part because of our states tremendous wind potential. That is why I was a strong -supporter of including an RES in the 2007 Energy Bill. and helped generate support for the RES Amendment when it passed the House. An RES has the potential to create thousands of jobs and generate economic development all across South Dakota. for farmers. ranchers. and. rural communities. as well as our sovereign Native American tribes. And much of what is in the RES in this bill presents great opportunity for South Dakota. However. the definition of biomass added in the managers amendment is still flawed. I am concerned with the "harvested in environmentally sustainable quantities" requirement. which I think invites new analysis. appeals and/or litigation about biomass in general. but More specifically. about trees that have been killed by fires or insect epidemics. Likewise. Im concerned with the "old growth" and "latesuccessional" forest stands restriction because there is no generally accepted definition of either term. and the bill doesnt define either term. So. that would leave an avenue open for challenges. and would leave uncertainty about supply fdr potential investors. These are some but not all of my concerns regarding the biomass provisions included in the managers amendment. I hope they will be addressed during the remainder of the legislative process. -Underlying these specific policy concerns are serious concerns about the rushed process for such an important and consequential bill. This bill is intended to help guide theeconomic future of our nation for decades and I think the process of fixing the bill since its been approved by the committee has been too rushed. and has raised too many questions about whether the concerns of rural America are adequately addressed. Therefore. I will vote against this bill. but I hope that the legislative process will address these concerns. and ultimately. a bill can be presented to the House that treats South Dakota and rural America fairly as it moves thenation toward the new energy economy and addresses the real threat of climate change for our nations future.