Alan Lowenthal

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3878, the Strengthening Cybersecurity Information Sharing and Coordination in Our Ports Act of 2015. Mr. Speaker, in southern California, I represent the Port of Long Beach, which is one of the busiest seaports in the country, is set to handle more than 7 million containers this year, and accounts for nearly 20 percent of all the loaded containers moving throughout our Nation. It is a critical link for trade between our country and Asia and is a linchpin for our national security and our national economy. In other words, the security of the Port of Long Beach is not to be treated lightly. I am not a stranger to the critical nature of the port, but we are now learning about emerging port-specific cyber threats. This body recently took the first steps to fight off the growing threats to our Nation's cybersecurity with a number of bills and hearings on this topic. I am glad that out of those hearings, our attention now turns to the cybersecurity of our critical infrastructure, including the hundreds of cargo ports in this country. As a result of H.R. 3878, we would see working groups forming at our ports and coming together to address port-specific cybersecurity vulnerabilities. These findings would be shared with appropriate stakeholders, including Federal and local governments, port authorities, terminal operators, as well as law enforcement, in an effort to enhance cybersecurity situational awareness at the ports. Mr. Speaker, I am confident that these working groups will continue to find innovative solutions in response to this emerging threat. Within the working groups, I hope that they will codify key definitions and classification mechanisms and that they will come out of these discussions to ensure the effectiveness of the group. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to celebrate Human Rights Day, the anniversary of the proclamation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was signed in 1948. Today is the 67th anniversary of that, as I just indicated. I also just introduced a resolution recognizing this anniversary and supporting the ideals of human rights. I am pleased to have the support already of 37 of my colleagues as cosponsors of this resolution recognizing Human Rights Day. I believe we should take this opportunity to pause and to honor all those struggling across the globe to claim the fundamental rights and freedoms that belong to all human beings. Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to take up my resolution and set aside today to recognize Human Rights Day.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I wish to clarify my position on Roll Call vote 665. On agreeing to the Conference Report to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, I voted Aye. I wish to explain further why I voted in favor of this reauthorization. The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) is a good fix to the monolithic standards of No Child Left Behind. Now we have an environment that lets teachers teach and students learn, while maintaining and enhancing the original civil rights intent of the original ESEA. While ESSA is a significant improvement over current elementary and secondary education standards, I will not claim ESSA is a perfect bill--no bill can ever claim that title. In particular, I was disappointed that all AAPI students will continue to be categorized together as one group when student performance data is aggregated and reported. The data on AAPI students does not reveal the intricacies of the disparate ethnic groups and at worst, it will mask the hard truth of low- performing subgroups. I am cautiously optimistic that report language included in the accompanying conference report to provide for technical assistance to states who do wish to disaggregate AAPI data will be made a reality. With ESSA in on its way to becoming the law of the land, it is now the responsibility of the states to hold their schools accountable. I firmly believe the state of California will rise to the occasion and develop the standards which work for our state and our institutions of higher education. I look forward to successful implementation of ESSA which emphasizes equal opportunities for all students.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I came to talk about no harmful omnibus policy riders, and I hope to get to that point, but my thoughts and prayers go out to the people of San Bernardino, the victims, and the families who have been affected by this violence. Again, I hope that this violence wakes up the Congress to begin a really serious discussion about violence in America, by Americans, against Americans. In 8 days, we are going to find ourselves staring at a deadline to keep the Federal Government open. As negotiations are finalized, we need a clean spending bill, not one that is peppered with toxic policy riders. We do not need more attacks on environmental protections, Planned Parenthood, the Affordable Care Act, and financial regulations. These are unacceptable policy changes in an appropriations bill, and they are being threatened to be included. Mr. Speaker, in order for all of us to support this bill, I hope you have the courage to bring a clean bill to the floor.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, the people of France and the people of the United States have shared a common bond of liberty and equality for over 200 years. In the face of the recent terrorist attacks in Paris, that bond brings us now even closer in unity and in solidarity. We stand with the French people as they mourn. We stand with the friends and families of those who were killed, like Nohemi Gonzalez, a young California State University, Long Beach, student studying abroad in Paris. We also stand with our Cal State, Long Beach, family in their mourning. Nohemi's death is a very personal loss for each and every one of us. It tears at the very bonds of fraternity that embrace every member of our Cal State, Long Beach, family and the Long Beach community. Nohemi was a daughter, a friend, and a mentor. Just 23 years of age, she was a vibrant student and what those who knew her have called ``a shining star.'' Nohemi committed herself to learning. She traveled across the globe to express and to explore her talents, her creativity, and the world. Now all that seems broken. Yes, we grieve for Nohemi. But we also grieve for all the victims in Paris. We grieve for their families, their friends, and all their loved ones. We grieve for each and every one of them. Today we are all part of the human family. As a family, we mourn Nohemi Gonzalez, our shining star. But in our mourning, let us remember something very, very important. This was not an attack on Paris, though Paris was the target. This was not an attack on the French people, though the French people were the target. This was an attack on what unites us, our shared humanity and our shared values of liberty. In that humanity, in those values, we will find the strength to stand strong in the face of senseless violence because, in the end, humanity that unites us is what frightens those who would do us harm.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, on November 3, our Treasury Department has informed us that we are going to begin to default on payment obligations that the United States Government has already entered into. So let's be clear. We are talking about obligations that this House made, the President has signed, and that we have obligated ourselves to pay. This default would be the first time ever. It is going to damage our credit. It is going to increase our borrowing cost. It is going to damage our economy. It is really going to damage the welfare of millions of our constituents. These are financial obligations that the Congress has already entered into and agreed to pay. We put the name of the United States behind these commitments. These are our bills. We need to pay them. We should not be playing political brinksmanship with the future of the United States economy, but this is where some in the majority have brought us to once again.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This bill takes us in the wrong direction. It not only fails to make any meaningful reforms to our antiquated system of mining in this country, but it proposes to make them worse. We have a mining system that was put together in the 1870s when the number one goal for President Grant at that time was to get people to settle in the West. I am here to tell you, Mr. Chair, the West has been settled. As a resident of southern California, we have this 150-year-old bill that really makes things as easy as possible for miners. We still have a law that doesn't require any royalties to be paid on the extraction of hard rock minerals on public lands. Let's be clear. If you drill for oil or gas on public lands or mine coal or soda ash or potash or a number of other minerals, what do you do? You pay a royalty to the American taxpayer, but not if you mine copper or silver or platinum or gold or other valuables. You get to mine royalty free. When the Mining Law of 1872 was enacted, there was no such thing as environmental safeguards. There was no concept of the multiple uses of public lands to ensure that mining could coexist with grazing, with recreation or conservation. There were no requirements for miners to clean up after themselves when they were done mining. Simply mine as long as it is profitable, and when you are done, just pick up and leave, and don't worry about it, except that the people who live anywhere near the half million abandoned mines in this country need to worry about it. Communities located near the tens of thousands of miles of polluted rivers with toxic acid mine waste, they need to worry about it, and, certainly, the United States Congress needs to worry about it. But, instead of tackling this problem, what does this bill do? It declares that the biggest problem we have with mining in this country is that we are not doing it fast enough. So this bill proposes to undermine one of our bedrock environmental laws--the National Environmental Policy Act--and it makes land managers who are reviewing mine plans prioritize mineral production over every other potential use of the land, which threatens hunting, fishing, grazing, and conservation. Mr. Chair, it would be one thing if the data showed that a large number of mines were being delayed for no good reason; but, in fact, according to the data from the Bureau of Land Management, mines are getting approved much faster. We just heard that it takes a decade, but let's be clear what the data says. Between 2005 and 2008, on average, 54 percent of the plans were approved in less than 3 years. In 2009 to 2014, 69 percent of the plans were approved in less than 3 years. So, in reality, rather than taking a decade, we are seeing that the Obama administration is permitting mines at a much faster rate than the Bush administration. Now, I have an amendment that would address one of the key problems in this bill. This bill has an incredibly broad definition of what is a strategic and critical mineral. I have yet to hear anyone tell me--and we asked in committee--what mineral now doesn't qualify as strategic and critical under this bill. Certainly, none of the witnesses we had at our Natural Resources Committee hearing could, and the majority hasn't suggested anything. Now we are talking about expediting the process for sand and gravel, crushed stones, gold, silver, diamonds. All of these are now going to be considered strategic and critical by the definition in this bill. All get an expedited process for permitting, and they have weaker environmental reviews. But, even if this bill were limited to the definition for critical minerals that the rest of the world goes by--basically, that those minerals be important, they be unique, and, most importantly, we are defining them as strategic and critical minerals because they are subject to a supply risk--it is clear that this bill does not help. We had one rare earth element mine start up in this country a few years ago. The rare earth elements are ones that are truly critical. Two months ago, that mine stopped operating because prices were too low. That is what has happened. That one mine was already permitted, already built, and already operating, and it had to be shut down because of economics. I don't think changing the environmental laws in any way solves the problem of economics, but it certainly would help major international mining conglomerates--companies based in Canada or Australia. It is going to help them grease the skids when they want to open their next giant copper mine or gold mine or uranium mine right next to a national park or a sensitive watershed. Mr. Chair, this bill is bad policy. The outcomes here won't be any different than the outcomes over the past two Congresses. This bill is dead on arrival in the Senate, and the administration has already expressed its strong opposition. What should we be doing? We should be here today, discussing how to fix our outdated and antiquated mining laws, how to make mining companies pay their fair share, how to clean up the half million abandoned mines that litter our landscape from coast to coast. We shouldn't be here talking about a bill that is only going to make things worse. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1937. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just like to point out that the proponent of the bill has said--I believe it was the National Research Council--that all minerals and products could be or could become critical to some degree. That is really what they said, but let's be clear what this bill says and what the National Research Council's definition is. That is, really, what we are talking about, and we are going to discuss that later on. Just what is the definition? In the bill that we see before us, in terms of strategic and critical minerals, the term ``strategic and critical'' means minerals that are necessary for national defense and national security requirements-- there certainly are some of those--for the national energy infrastructure, including pipelines, refining capacity, electrical power generation, and transmission and renewable energy products, for supporting the domestic manufacturing of any mineral for agriculture, housing, telecommunications, health care, transportation and infrastructure, or for the Nation's economic security and balance of trade. For that reason, they are saying let's shorten the process, eviscerate NEPA--the National Environmental Policy Act--and let's expedite this process. I ask you: What mineral is not included in this definition? They are including everything. Let's see what, in actuality, the National Research Council said. They published the report in 2008. It was called: ``Minerals, Critical Minerals, and the U.S. Economy,'' and it defined what should be our definition of strategic and critical minerals. It states: ``To be `critical,' a mineral must be essential in use.'' We agree. They talk about strategic, and those proponents talk about essential minerals; but the National Research Council also says: ``To be considered `critical and strategic,' it must be subject to supply restriction.'' We do not see anything in this bill about supply restriction. Therefore, what it is is a blank check for mining companies to mine anywhere, to have an expedited process so as not to protect communities; and I think that is a great mistake and takes us the wrong way and is exactly the opposite of what the National Research Council has called for. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would really like to discuss in a little bit more detail the idea that the permitting process is so onerous, that it takes so long to do it. In 2012, 2013, and 2014, let's talk about the last 3 years of permitting of mines, of plans of operation, what really is the data? I will tell you that of all the plans of operation that were approved in 2012, 93 percent of them were done in 3 years or less; in 2013, 79 percent were done in 3 years or less; and in 2014, it was 68 percent. In summary, in the last 3 years, close to 80 percent of all plans of operation were permitted in less than 3 years. So we are not talking about an onerous time. Also, let us remember that the same bill was twice introduced last year. It was twice introduced in the last session, and it was also introduced once in the 112th Congress. It never got taken up in the Senate. This bill, if it ever did get through, let's see what the administration says. I read to you a Statement of Administration Policy: ``The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 1937, which would undermine existing environmental safeguards for, at a minimum, almost all types of hardrock mines on Federal lands. Specifically, H.R. 1937 would undermine sound Federal decision-making by eliminating the appropriate reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act if certain conditions are met, circumventing public involvement in mining proposals, and bypassing the formulation of alternatives to proposals, among other things. The Administration also opposes the legislation's severe restrictions on judicial review. Although the legislation purports to limit litigation, its extremely short statute of limitations and vague constraints on the scope of prospective relief that a court may issue are likely to have the opposite effect. ``The Administration strongly supports the development of rare earth elements and other critical minerals, but rejects the notion that their development is incompatible with existing safeguards regarding the uses of public lands, environmental protection, and public involvement in agency decision-making.'' If we are really concerned about updating this old law, let's work together and come up with a better definition of what is a critical and strategic mineral and let us not eviscerate the environmental protections and the public participation which we now afford people. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. In closing, we have heard in this discussion that we should have a sweeping definition, every mineral should be under the definition of a critical mineral, and that we should not be beholden to foreign sources if we don't do that. Well, I agree in many ways. We should not be. This bill doesn't really deal with that issue because, if the authors were really concerned about restrictions to the supply, they would make the definition of ``critical'' and ``strategic minerals'' much narrower. We would not give up our environmental protections. We would not give up our public participation. We would not give up our legal protections when, in fact, there is no danger to the Nation's supply of this mineral. The problems are really that we are now broadly including everything under this definition, and the bill that is in the Senate under--I think it is Senator Murkowski--has a much more limited definition of what is a strategic and critical mineral. I urge the authors here, the proponents, to really amend this bill so that we can all work together on this to really restrict the two very specific occasions of when we would enable a change in the protections that we already have under NEPA. Right now, everything is included. This eviscerates all of our protections. I urge a ``no'' vote. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would fix a critical problem with this bill, namely, that the name of the bill doesn't match the substance of the bill. When you read the title, you would think this bill has something to do with critical and strategic minerals, but, in fact, as currently written, the bill would define practically every mined substance--and that is every mined substance in the United States--as being strategic and critical. Sand, gravel, gold, copper, clay, all of these, are strategic and critical under this bill, and I think that is going too far. In fact, I am still waiting for someone to explain to me what mineral wouldn't fall under the definition of this bill. Certainly none of the witnesses at our June Committee on Natural Resources could name one. The National Research Council published a 2008 report called ``Minerals, Critical Minerals, and the U.S. Economy,'' and it states: To be critical, a mineral must be both essential in use and subject to supply restriction. They go on to point out some specific examples of minerals that are essential, but not critical, such as copper, iron ore, and construction aggregates, such as sand and gravel, except that this bill would completely ignore the National Research Council and many other organizations that know what criticality means and define all of these--copper, iron ore, sand, gravel, and more--as strategic and critical minerals. There is no doubt that these minerals are essential, but they are widely produced in the United States, and there is no danger of a break in the supply chain. Let me state that again. There is no danger of a break in the supply chain. Let's talk about the sand and gravel that was just mentioned before. There are roughly 6500 sand and gravel quarries in the United States. We are not going to run out of gravel by not permitting one more gravel mine. Gravel is important, but no one from the National Research Council or the Department of Energy or any organization that knows the real definition of critical minerals would consider sand and gravel to fall in that category, period, end of discussion. My amendment would ensure that the scientifically vetted definition determined by the NRC is what the Secretary of the Interior uses to assess the criticality of minerals to be mined under this bill. It would ensure that the bill actually addresses the intent that is suggested by its own title: critical minerals. It puts no time limits on the identification of these minerals. So, as conditions change over time, the Secretary would be able to add or remove items from the list of critical minerals, as necessary. Republicans in the Senate understand this. Senator Murkowski, the chair of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which oversees mining, has introduced a bill that requires a methodology for determining which minerals would qualify as critical. That methodology is to be based on an assessment of--I quote in her bill--``whether the materials are subject to potential supply restrictions and also important in use.'' I may not agree with everything that is in Senator Murkowski's bill, but I believe that she at least understands the definition of a critical mineral and is making a serious attempt to expand the production of minerals that are actually critically important and strategic. But without my amendment, this bill is just a guise for mining interests to loosen public review, judicial review, and environmental protections for all hardrock mining. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say, in conclusion, that we are talking about a definition of critical and strategic minerals that comes from the NRC, or the National Resource Council, that really talks about things that are essential. But it also says that, to be declared critical, it must have a danger of disruption in the supply chain. We must have a limit to where we can access other materials. As it was just pointed out, what happens if there is an earthquake in Southern California? God help us. Let's hope that there is not going to be an earthquake in Southern California. And there is a limitation on the supply. I would like to urge us to say that the Secretary has the ability to change what is on that list or not under my amendment. I urge support of my amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Long Beach Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, which is celebrating its 75th anniversary this week. Since its founding in 1940, the NAACP has been at the forefront of the fight to protect the civil rights of all Americans. The mission statement of the NAACP is to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights of all persons and to eliminate race-based discrimination in the United States. It has done so by advocating for and influencing the passage of numerous pieces of landmark legislation including the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. It has also been a forceful voice behind numerous court decisions that have set our nation's course on civil rights. The NAACP has had a presence in Long Beach, CA since 1940 and has done much to advance the cause of civil rights for the city's residents. Before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Los Angeles County was similar to many segregated counties throughout the nation and African- American residents in the county experienced racial discrimination in all aspects of their lives. The NAACP was central in the fight to combat these injustices and worked over the following decades to expand voter participation, legally challenge the segregated school system, and bring the equality of opportunity to Long Beach. Today, the Long Beach Branch of the NAACP sponsors many award winning programs and projects, such as the Community Impact Program, which promotes academic excellence, social responsibility, leadership, and community service. Since its founding, the Long Beach Branch has been recognized over 20 times with the prestigious Thalheimer Awards, the National NAACP's top award given to branches for outstanding achievements. The Long Beach Branch NAACP has also been recognized as one of the best NAACP branches in California. This success is thanks in no small part to the NAACP, which has always resolutely placed them in the vanguard of the struggle for equality. Despite all that has been accomplished over the years, the mission and goals of the NAACP remains an ongoing journey. Racial profiling remains a pervasive policy in both the workplace and in many police departments all over the country; inequities in the criminal justice system continue to overwhelmingly impact African Americans; and, threats to voter access continue to gain traction in certain areas of the country. These injustices show that the NAACP's work is just as important today as it was when the Long Beach Branch NAACP was founded 75 years ago. While our recognition of past progress made under the leadership of the NAACP is critical and necessary, we also must look to the future and rededicate ourselves as Americans to the fulfillment of their goals of a truly equal and just society for all Americans.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in recognition of the upcoming National Day of the Republic of China, commonly known as Taiwan, on October 10th. The economic relationship between the United States and Taiwan has been long and prosperous and will continue long into the future. Taiwan is a key trading partner for my state of California, and indeed for the entire United States. In my own district, Taiwan is a vital source and destination of cargo coming through the Port of Long Beach. In recent decades, Taiwan has created a democracy that, since 1996, has conducted direct presidential elections every four years and witnessed the peaceful passage of power from one political party to another on two occasions. It is a regional and global economic force, and makes global contributions culturally in fields ranging from art to fashion. Through our shared security partnership, Taiwan also contributes to the security of the Asia-Pacific, and is a humanitarian force around the globe. I ask my colleagues to join me in wishing the people of Taiwan a Happy Double Ten Day, and in thanking Taiwan for its many contributions to the global community.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As my fellow Californian Ronald Reagan once said, ``There you go again.'' Attacks on NEPA have become almost a common, weekly occurrence in this Congress, and H.R. 348 is just the latest iteration. We should really call this bill the VAPID Act because it is tired, unimaginative, and a ploy to undermine one of our bedrock environmental laws: NEPA. My amendment would not fix all of this bill's problems, but it certainly would inject some small sense of fiscal responsibility into this legislation that seemingly has been designed for wasting taxpayers' money. Restricting the ability of the public to comment on proposed projects virtually guarantees more lawsuits and more hastily approved projects that could turn into embarrassing boondoggles. Particularly in the face of climate change, we must take special care to ensure that the future value of projects is considered. This means thoroughly evaluating the risks associated with more frequent and intense wildfires as well as flooding caused by stronger storms and higher sea levels. Doing these reviews will not delay projects. As was pointed out by the ranking member, it is a fact that 95 percent of all NEPA analyses are completed through categorical exclusions, which generally require only a few days to process. Less than 5 percent require an environmental assessment, and less than 1 percent require a full environmental impact statement, or an EIS. Those projects that do require an EIS tend to be the largest and most complex, and delays that do occur are more likely the result of local opposition, a lack of funding, or changes in the project's scope, not due to NEPA. Making sure that roads aren't wiped out by a future storm surge or that activities in our national forests don't spark fires or that government-financed and -permitted actions are resilient to climate change is the least we can do to protect taxpayers and the environment. To do this, we need to keep NEPA strong, not weaken it by making government actions less transparent. The current NEPA process allows for the full consideration of the costs and the benefits of proposed actions and leads to environmentally and economically sound outcomes. I urge a ``yea'' vote on my amendment because the threats associated with climate change and related natural hazards are too great for this House to continue to ignore. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I just want to comment that risks due to flooding, to stronger storms, to climate change are not putting the cart before the horse. I am simply asking that we don't waste taxpayers' money by not considering these risks. This is a fiscally sound amendment, and I urge an ``aye'' vote. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Grijalva for calling us together for this Special Order hour to highlight the need for the Land and Water Conservation Fund and for his leadership in seeking a permanent reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. As has been pointed out, the Land and Water Conservation Fund is far and away our Nation's most important conservation program. The LWCF is a popular and successful bipartisan program for the conservation and protection of America's irreplaceable natural, historic, cultural, and outdoor landmarks. Over its 50-year history, the fund has conserved more than 5 million acres for parks, for recreation, for forests, for refuges, and for other land through the Federal program, but that is just part of the LWCF. Also, more than 2.6 million acres has been saved in communities throughout every State in the Nation. It has conserved iconic landscapes in every State. It is responsible for more than 40,000 State and local outdoor recreational projects at no cost, as has been pointed out, to the American taxpayer. In fact, according to a recent economic analysis, every dollar invested in the conservation of public lands through the LWCF leads to $4 in economic activities to local communities. Our Nation's conserved public lands are the essential infrastructure for a vibrant outdoor recreational economy that contributes over $646 billion to the economy each year and supports more than 1 in every 15 jobs in the United States. That economic activity and job creation plays out locally all over the country, not only in the broad service and manufacturing sectors, but in the thousands upon thousands of recreational destination areas and the gateway communities where we all go to enjoy the outdoors. My home State of California has received more than $2.3 billion in LWCF funding over the past five decades, which has helped to protect some of our State's most treasured places. The Land and Water Conservation Fund also plays a crucial role in building up the ability of our lands to reduce the damages caused by climate change. Our network of public lands plays a critical role in addressing the challenges that climate change poses to our forests, fish and wildlife, and riparian resources. America's forests naturally capture a remarkable 13 percent of U.S. carbon emissions each year, but the U.S. Forest Service projects that private forests, storing more than 2 billion tons of carbon, are at risk of development in addition. Coastal wetlands, we also know, can lessen the damages caused by major storms, and land conservation in the wildland-urban interface can reduce home losses from major fires. Continued investment in the Land and Water Conservation Fund will be essential to help us buffer the impacts of a changing climate. If funding is allowed to expire, the American public will lose one of our greatest tools to ensure the protection of our public lands and waters and the ability of everyone to go outside and to enjoy these wonderful resources. We simply cannot let that happen. Congress must honor the bipartisan commitment it made over 50 years ago and ensure that our children and our grandchildren get to enjoy America's treasured outdoor spaces the same way we have been able to enjoy those spaces. We must permanently reauthorize the LWCF.