[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 1]
[House]
[Page 404]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL BOONDOGGLE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
California (Mr. LaMalfa) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Speaker, today I once again will speak about 
California's high-speed rail system.
  Now, just this last week, they had a symbolic groundbreaking for this 
system in the context of getting started. California has been, since 
2008, anticipating the start of high-speed rail. What do we have 
instead? Empty promises, a lot of waste, and a lot of money going down 
the tubes.
  What we see is that when the plan was first put in place, the voters 
of California approved a $33 billion link from Los Angeles to San 
Francisco. What they are now being given is something that has tripled 
in price. What they have now been given at this groundbreaking, which 
is symbolic, what you saw was a mound of dirt with about an 8-foot 
section of ties and rails on that. That is very symbolic for those 
doing the groundbreaking, but also for those of us that will be paying 
for it.
  What this high-speed rail system will turn into is several links of 
rail between north and south California that aren't linked up, that 
have no way to power them, and no trains will be running on them for 
several years.
  So instead of the $33 billion plan that they saw on the ballot in 
2008--which, by the way, it was on the 2006 ballot and, before that, on 
the 2004 ballot, but those involved knew that they would have, 
politically, a hard time selling that to people in California--it has 
ballooned to a $100-billion plan until they revise it again downwards 
by taking away part of the high-speed system in San Francisco and L.A., 
where they will instead be using local transit to link to the center 
section that runs through central California.
  That is not even legal under Prop 1A. What Prop 1A spells out is that 
it has to be a high-speed system that will make it from San Francisco 
to L.A. or reverse in 2\1/2\ hours at speeds of 220 miles per hour. 
This promise will not be upheld.
  Now, why is this important to a national audience, to Members of 
Congress, and to people in other States? It is because, after the 
stimulus package was passed in 2009-2010, some of that Federal money is 
going to go for the high-speed rail system in California. Indeed, 
several other States were recipients of those initial grants. After 
they looked at their own ideas for high-speed rail and saw the costs 
involved and the infeasibility, they turned that money back into that 
pot of money. California, of course, stepped forward and said: Hey, 
give us all of that money. So they have received, at this point, about 
$3.5 billion that they can spend, dollar for dollar, for the bond money 
they spend themselves, the State money.
  So what that means for Americans is that we know Californians will be 
back at the Federal well once again trying to get more money for their 
high-speed plan. What we see is that their down-sized plan will still 
cost $68 billion. They only have identified $13 billion for the whole 
system. No private sector money--which is what we were told when the 
ballot measure passed--has stepped forward to be part of this. The plan 
is $55 billion short. The Federal Government, so far, has offered about 
3\1/2\. Did they think they would get the other 52 from the Federal 
Government since no private sector money wants to come forward for 
this? Will they get it out of the California taxpayers? Nobody knows.
  Indeed, the Governor, at the groundbreaking the other day, said: 
Don't worry about the money; we will get it. Well, part of their 
measure has been to impose a cap-and-trade program on the people of 
California which so far has generated about $250 million per year. At 
that rate, it will be how many centuries before they can catch up and 
get enough money just to pay for high-speed rail which cap-and-trade 
wasn't even intended for anyway?
  Folks, we have a giant problem here. High-speed rail in California 
should not be the Federal taxpayers' burden. It shouldn't even be the 
people of California's burden. They barely passed it by 52-48 percent 
on that 2008 ballot after two previous ballot delays. Delay, delay, 
delay is what you see with this system.
  So what really needs to happen is the people of California need to 
step forward, put this back on the ballot, and have a vote once again 
on this. And the Federal Government doesn't need to be giving signals 
that they are going to send even more money for this boondoggle which 
has been failed, flawed, and deceptive since day one.
  Madam Speaker, it is a massively flawed project that leaves taxpayers 
at all levels on the hook for many, many years to come for something 
that may not even run in our lifetime. So we, as Federal legislators, 
need to put a stop to any idea--as my colleagues have been doing--for 
more money to go forward for high-speed rail. And we need the people of 
California to wake up to that idea and demand that it be placed back on 
the ballot, this money go instead for other projects that could be 
helpful for their transportation corridors, for their highway system, 
and for the normal mode of rail which can be made to be enhanced to 
drive 125 miles per hour, which would be beneficial.
  Madam Speaker, we need to get on the ball and get back to reality on 
what high-speed rail will really cost Californians and the American 
taxpayer and urge that it be placed back on the ballot and give the 
people that choice once again.

                          ____________________