[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 184 (Tuesday, November 7, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H5474-H5475]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS IN CALIFORNIA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
California (Mr. LaMalfa) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, Congress is considering a transportation 
appropriations bill right now as we speak. It is critical that we don't 
give another dime to California's failed high-speed rail project that 
has sought money year after year after year from the Federal level.
  Indeed, this document does not provide any new money for the high-
speed rail project, but they are certainly seeking it. There are 
reportedly proposals for $3 billion requested by Governor Newsom and 
even reportedly asks of a possible $28 billion, which is what they 
really seek.
  Let's go back just a little bit to learn the history of this project. 
In 2008, a proposition was passed on California's ballot with the idea 
to build a high-

[[Page H5475]]

speed rail system from San Francisco to L.A. The voters were told the 
cost would be $33 billion. Okay. There would have to be a high-speed 
rail that would go from the two cities at approximately 220 miles an 
hour and get the job done in approximately 3 hours or less. It has 
fallen far short of those goals.
  They only have to have one high-speed train a day go in order to be 
eligible to be called a high-speed train. Otherwise, it is going to be 
a commuter line stopping in every little burg along the way. As it is 
turning out, from San Francisco to San Jose, it looks they are going to 
use local electric rail. Passengers would need to jump on a train in 
San Jose and then take it down to an undetermined point in southern 
California and perhaps jump on another train there.
  We were talking about this last night in the debate, and I mentioned 
that you could take a Southwest Airlines plane and already be on the 
beach and have half a sunburn before you could get off the high-speed 
rail at that point.
  What is the cost these days? That is the interesting part. In 2008, 
$33 billion is what they were sold. A year later, they adjusted the 
price up to $42 billion. Not long after that, when I was still in the 
State legislature, they actually admitted the price then would be $97 
billion. Today's estimates show it to be $128 billion.
  How much construction is finished on it? The voters were told in 2008 
that it would be ready to go by 2020. Well, it is 2023, and not a 
single mile of track has been laid. They have some bridges and 
aqueducts already built around Fresno and such, but it is nowhere near 
being completed.
  They are trying to do it in segments, so they are doing the Central 
Valley segment because, as they said at the time--this is pretty 
funny--they can build it in the Central Valley, there are fewer people 
there, so there is less resistance to having it built. They are going 
to do a segment from Merced to Bakersfield, where it ends up in an 
orchard somewhere as the terminus. At this point, we are finding they 
need $28 billion just to complete that segment, not the entire thing.
  It has been a boondoggle from the beginning, with lies basically from 
the rail authority about what is going to happen with the timeline, the 
environmental work, and the number of jobs.
  Here is another good one: They were promising there would be a 
million jobs for California. Well, 3 years into the project, they 
finally admitted it would be a million job years. Currently, they claim 
5,000 people are working on the rail, and so at that rate for a million 
job years at 5,000 people, that would take 200 years to complete the 
system.
  Well, the people who voted for it would probably like to see it done 
in their lifetime, which may not even happen. I think at this point, 
why don't we just cut our losses and move toward something that is 
useful not just for Californians but for all Americans.
  Indeed, we want to do infrastructure around here. Why don't we do 
true infrastructure? We talk about highways. We talk about a lot of 
things. I am focused a lot on California's water situation. We have 
several projects to add to its water supply so it can continue to grow 
crops and people can thrive in our State, not just environmental water 
that gets shifted more and more towards fish water and running it out 
the delta, which doesn't actually help that situation or do anything 
environmentally positive anyway.
  Instead of continuing to come to Washington, D.C., for more money to 
do something that is only covering this little portion of California, 
rather than San Francisco all the way to L.A. as originally planned, I 
propose instead that we shift the money into other projects that can 
help all Americans.
  They don't even have the route planned out for the high-speed rail 
project. They don't know how they are going to get the last leap from 
Bakersfield into southern California. Are they going to build a tunnel 
through there with all that seismic activity? Are they going to go 
around it? Are they going to go over it? They don't have the whole plan 
this many years into the project, and they still want more money from 
Washington, D.C., from all Federal taxpayers.
  If they shift the money into other infrastructure that can help all 
Americans, these crops that are grown in California, look at these 
numbers, basically 100 percent of walnuts and tomatoes grown 
commercially are grown in California. Many of these other crops, 90-
plus percent are grown in California. Having a stable food supply is 
what benefits Americans, so dollars invested into our water system in 
California would go much further than wasting money on high-cost rail.

                          ____________________