John Garamendi

Mr. GARAMENDI

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

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to present this amendment. This amendment will not kill the bill nor send it back to committee, but it is an amendment that is important to every Representative in this House if you care about the 10th Amendment and you care about the ability of your State to set its own policies. Mr. Speaker, every Member in this House should be paying attention to this bill. We read the Constitution the first day of this Congress. The 10th Amendment guarantees that the States have the ability to take care of their own water systems and many other issues that pertain to the States. This bill, this bill overrides State law in California. This bill sets aside numerous State laws in California. This bill overrides 150 years of California water law set in place by the legislature, the governors, by the courts of California, and the Federal courts. This bill destroys the ability of California to conduct and to manage its own water. I put this map up of California so that you might contemplate for a few moments the impact and exactly what we're talking about. California is a big State, 38 million people, diverse, extraordinary water fights. There's a fellow who lived in California years ago, Mark Twain, and he said, ``In California, whiskey's for drinking and water's for fighting.'' And it's been true ever since. This is the Central Valley of California, the largest estuary on the West Coast of the Western Hemisphere. It's where the Sacramento River and the San Joaquin River join together in an inland estuary, one of the few in the world. And also, San Francisco Bay. This bill will lead to the destruction of the largest estuary on the West Coast of the Western Hemisphere, and it does so by overriding California law and the California Constitution. The California Constitution holds the water of the State of California in trust. In trust. The State of California, the government, is responsible for the care of that water so that it can be appropriately distributed, not only for the beneficial use of consumptive users, cities and farmers, but also, also for the environment. This bill takes away the laws of the State of California that would provide for the protection of the environment. The California CEQA, Environmental Quality Act, the Air Quality Act, the Endangered Species Act of the State of California, are overridden by this bill. And by the way, the Federal laws also. It takes us back to 1994, to a period of time when we didn't know the science. We didn't understand what the full impact of water diversions and other contaminants and other species would be in the delta. Since 1994, we have seen the collapse of the delta fisheries. We have seen thousands upon thousands of fishermen, both commercial and recreational, unable to fish. The loss of much. There is a much talk in this House about a manmade drought. That's baloney. It was a real drought. And yes, there were environmental considerations that further reduced water. That water was reduced under contracts that called for shortages in the case of drought. So what are we talking about here with this bill? We're talking about the usurpation of power by the Federal Government, taking the basic ability of the State of California to regulate its water, to deal with its environmental issues, and causing this House, this Federal Government, to have that power. Think closely all of you who have a reclamation project in your district, and there are some 18 States, ranging from the Pacific to the Mississippi. You have reclamation projects. Think deeply. Think about what happens when the Federal Government goes to California, the biggest State, and says: We don't care what your laws are; we're going to tell you what to do. Think what that might mean to you in the future when somebody in your State has the power to put before this House a law that runs over the top of your State laws. If you care about the 10th Amendment, if you care about States' rights, you'd better be voting ``no'' because this is a precedent you don't want to ever see in your State, and we don't want to see it in California. Think deeply, Members of this House, think deeply about what's at stake here. I ask for this motion to pass. I yield back the balance of my time. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. GARAMENDI. I am.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GARAMENDI. The chairman of the committee, if I did say the chairman of the committee, I believe I said the chairman of the subcommittee. In which case if I did, Mr. Hastings, you are quite correct; you were not there. The chairman of the subcommittee was to whom I was referring. With regard to the effect, you can try to spin this any way you like, but the reality is that in the Central Valley Improvement Act, 800,000 acre feet of water was dedicated to the environment, and it was not temporary; it was part of what was to be done into the future. And the negotiations that ensued following the accord in 1994, those negotiations were specifically designed to reach an accommodation on how to meet all of the requirements of the Central Valley Improvement Act, including what to do with the 800,000 acre feet. I would point out to the opponents of this amendment that the accord, the 1994 Bay-Delta Accord, was never intended to be permanent. It had in fact a 3-year limitation, which led to my involvement when I became deputy secretary to try to work out a solution. And in fact we did. Unfortunately, the Westlands Water District, one of the proposed signatories to the bill, walked away from the table when everybody else was ready to sign. And we have been involved in this imbroglio ever since. Now, the 800,000 acre feet is indeed taken away from the environment. No matter how you spin this, it's gone. It is the biggest theft of water perhaps in modern California water history--800,000 acre feet. It may be recycled, but the control of it for the environment is lost. The environmental protections that go along with that water are gone. Both the State and the Federal protections, the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental Protection Act, California CEQA, all of those are gone as a result of this bill. This is the most amazing override of environmental law that I have ever seen in the 37 years that I've been involved in water policy throughout this Nation. It is remarkable what is being attempted here, and we've got to stop this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining?

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, once again we need to step back and really understand the full impact of this particular piece of legislation that is before us. It has profound impact on California. We heard earlier discussion about the delta, two amendments put forth by my colleague, Mr. McNerney, and as he spoke to the issues of the delta and the sensitivity of it. The delta is the largest estuary on the west coast of the Western Hemisphere, and it includes the San Francisco Bay. It's a very sensitive estuary. It's dependent upon a flow of freshwater at certain times of the year, and this legislation very artfully, in a very complex series of languages and changes in law and word, takes 800,000 acre-feet away from the environment of the delta, that would be the aquatic environment, and delivers it to the water contractors, the south-of-delta water contractors. It's done in a way that it is hard to recognize; but when I asked the chairman of the committee what the purpose was, he stated unequivocably that it was to take the 800,000 acre-feet of water. The impact of that will be profound. So whatever you may say about the species in the delta, the salmon, the striped bass, the smelt or any other species, this theft of 800,000 acre-feet of water will have a profound and negative effect. It's water that is there to be used certain times of the year to carry out the necessary protection of species, water that would flow down the river when the salmon want to migrate up the river, water that would be there for the smelt when they are breeding or when they are moving into their breeding habitat. It is one of the biggest water grabs, at least in the last half century, and it will have profound negative effects. When taken with the other provisions of the bill that wipe out entirely, entirely wipe out the Environmental Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, the EPA Clean Water Act, all of those are gone in this bill, and now you are taking the water. California protections for the environment, the California laws that replicate the Federal laws, they too are pushed aside by this bill. Then you wind up taking the water on top of it. What is left for the delta? What is left for the species in the delta, the fish, the aquatic? What is left for San Francisco Bay? Not much. Not much. That's why this bill is the worst environmental bill in many, many decades. Call it any other way you like, but that's exactly what it is. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GARAMENDI. You will hear this from the other side as they close, Oh, but you are going to be able to get some $300 million. Yes, that money will flow more quickly into the treasury to be sure because it allows the water districts, as a result of the way in which this bill is written, to achieve an enormous advantage. They will be able to get water into the future without having to pay the full cost of that water. So when you look at it from the total accounting procedures, you wind up with an additional subsidy going to these water districts. It's not right, and it's not fair to the taxpayers.

Mr. GARAMENDI. We are going around and around here. At the end of the day, I think we need to step back from the heat of the debate and realize exactly what's happening here. In this particular amendment is an effort to try to make sure that the taxpayers of the United States are adequately compensated for the money that they have loaned for the development of the Central Valley Project and for the money that they have loaned for the specific elements within the Central Valley Project. These are the specific authorized sub-portions of the Central Valley Project. For example, with the San Luis Unit, the taxpayers loaned a vast amount of money. When you look at the details in this bill, you will find that there is a very artful way of avoiding the full cost of repayment through early repayments. The way in which the bill is written, the water districts are able to pay off their loans without having to pay off the interest, and then going forward, they're not having to share in the ongoing cost of maintenance of the major reservoirs and water facilities. In other words, they are simply charged with the cost of the water, not for the ongoing operational repair and other costs. It's very interesting, very artfully done and, once again, provides an enormous subsidy to those who have had a very good subsidy for many years. It's not right. It ought not occur. The amendment before us simply says that, if you're going to get a loan, you are going to have to pay interest.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, first of all, if the gentleman would listen carefully, I was always referring not to the 1956 law but rather to the CVPIA, the 1992 law. Indeed, the 1992 law did change for the better, recognizing the unique situation in California where we had both a State and a Federal water project operating and many other appropriators operating on the rivers in California. Taking that into account, and taking into account the rapidly growing population and need in California and allowing the State to determine what might be done for the need of that water--I would refer the gentleman, if he cares to take a look, at section 3404, limitation on contracts and contracting reforms. This is what you've wiped out in your bill. It specifically provides that the California State Water Resources Control Board, in concluding their review of the California Court of Appeals--in other words, you have wiped out in your bill the ability of the State of California through the Water Resources Control Board to allocate the water, to take into account court decisions. The bill overturns 150 years of California water law and wipes it out. In fact, the CVPI took very specific account of California law and wrote it into the Federal law. What's wrong with that? Nothing that I could think about, because California is unique in so many, many ways, and the CVPIA allowed that to happen. Now, if I might just take a few seconds and clarify a few things. Yes, indeed, you were talking about the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Interior. That's me. I did conduct those negotiations.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining?

Mr. GARAMENDI. Sometimes on this floor you just shake your head and wonder if you may have fallen down the rabbit hole and ``Alice in Wonderland'' is really real, where up is down and down is up, and left is right and right is left, and this confusion abounding. I just heard the most amazing argument I could possibly have imagined, that somehow this bill will stop the peripheral canal. I think not. Perhaps it will because it will totally destroy any opportunity that there may be for California to come together around a comprehensive solution to its water situation. It just makes me wonder what in the world is going on here, particularly my colleague from California who wants to represent this county of Tuolumne who may want to read his own bill where he wipes out all of the contracting provisions in the Central Valley Improvement Act in which the Tuolumne County Regional Water Agency is given the right to water out of the New Melones Reservoir. That is gone. By the way, if you happen to care about veterans who might somehow be placed in the San Joaquin Valley National Cemetery, their 850 acre-feet of water is also wiped out. This bill has far-reaching effects. It has far, far-reaching effects in wiping out the Central Valley Improvement Act. It also wipes out the environmental laws, wipes out the water for the Central Valley National Cemetery, it wipes out the water for Tuolumne County. What effect it has on the peripheral canal, I just can't understand other than it will destroy whatever comity and working together there is in California to solve the overarching problems. By the way, you are stealing 800,000 acre-feet from the delta in this bill. That's water that the delta community needs. That's water that the delta community needs for its citizens, for water quality, and for agriculture.

Mr. GARAMENDI. There is always the rest of the story. And while this amendment deals with one of the pernicious parts of the legislation that would have been a perpetual contract, it does not deal with the remaining pieces of the Central Valley Improvement Act, which dealt with the issue of how those contracts were to be renegotiated at the end of 40 years. In fact, those parts of the Central Valley Improvement Act said that, in the renegotiation process, the Federal Government needed to take into account the issues of water availability. You know, maybe there's not that much water available and we need to downgrade, or maybe we need to increase the amount of water, take into account the environmental issues. So those very, very important qualifications on how the contracts would be renegotiated disappeared in the underlying bill. You did deal with one of the problems, and that is the perpetuity issue, and we understand that. But, nonetheless, there is a very, very serious problem that remains in the negotiation or the renegotiation of the contracts; and, therefore, the amendment, while dealing with one problem, allows the remaining problems to exist. And those remaining problems are how and under what circumstances is the Federal Government to carry out the negotiations; that is, do we take into account environmental issues, fish in the river or not, and availability of water or not.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank the gentlewoman. One hardly knows where to start, when you take California water law and push it aside and preempt it with Federal water law, really running over the top of the State of California, and then you steal 800,000 acre-feet and transfer it to your buddies--yes, you're going to come up with a lot of reasons why it makes sense. But the reality is quite different. Let us understand very clearly here that 150 years of California water law is thrown out and a new Federal law is put in place that preempts California water law. The 1994 CALFED agreement was an interim agreement. It was never, ever intended to be a permanent statutory agreement on how water would be delivered in California. In addition to that, let me understand--yes, I see your little chart over there that you're going to throw up. That was 1994, and it said precisely what we ought to do today. And that is: today, we ought to be working together to solve the problems of California water. And guess what, California is. But with this law in place, it won't happen. The ability of California to work together to solve its problems are thrown out. What sense does that make unless you want to steal 800,000 acre feet of water and take an agreement that was forged over 20 years ago to solve a problem on the San Joaquin River that is not for year-round salmon flows but only for the spring salmon flows. Why would you want to do that, except you want to take somebody's water? The water is the water of the fishermen as well as the water of the farmers. By the way, facts are ugly little things. There are no 3,000 people that lost their jobs, no 60,000 people that lost their jobs. The University of California, Berkeley, the University of California, Davis, and the University of the Pacific all say that the losses were less than 7,000, which almost equaled the loss of the fisheries. When we get to the end of this story, it is going to be a story of the rest of the Nation. If you happen to be a Western State, if you happen to be a Midwestern State that has a Federal water project from the Bureau of Reclamation, beware, because this is the first-ever attempt to throw aside 100 years of reclamation law in which deference is given to the States over the power of their water rights and their water laws. Yes, you can say section 4 of this bill deals with that. No, it doesn't. It does not deal with the totality of California law. In fact, the bill destroys that totality. Western States are opposed to this. The list has been given. Other States, watch out. This is a power grab. This is a water grab. This is an imposition of the Federal authority over the States, and specifically over California. Yes, Mr. Chairman--excuse me, if I might, through the Chair--you said that there is 100 percent water. No water district except those that preceded the Federal project have 100 percent allocation. Every other water district has shortage provisions in those water contracts. By the way, whatever power we may have, we don't have the power to overcome a natural drought, which is precisely what is happening in California today and happened during the period that this bill speaks to. It was a natural drought. Yes, there were restrictions placed on the pumps, restrictions that were necessary to protect an endangered species. By the way, the judge that you cited took a job 45 days after he quit with the water contractor that is supporting this bill. Figure it out yourself. Figure out what is going on here. This is a theft of 800,000 acre feet of environmental water. This is an overturning of California water law, and we ought not do it. Announcement by the Acting Chair

Mr. GARAMENDI. If you know California water, you know that we can get pretty wound up about it, and the solution for California water is not to be found in this particular piece of legislation. Facts are difficult things to deal with, but they are facts. There has been no manmade drought. There was a very real drought. In addition to that, there were restrictions on the pumping. Let us understand that the principal advocates of this bill have the shortest straw. They came last in line, and therefore they're not first--they're last. Their contract provided for shortage provisions for a variety of reasons, among them droughts and environmental restrictions. So they should have planned for that. Apparently, they did not. The losses to the agricultural community were significant to be sure, but at the same time, the agricultural community in the Central Valley prospered, having the best years to any previous year that occurred during this drought period. Certain farmers were shorted--no doubt about that--but they had a contract that called for those shortages. Now let us understand that this bill has profound implications on every State, some 21 States that have contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation. This bill, should it pass and become law, is a signal to every State that you cannot count on State law allocating the water within your district. Instead, it will be Congress that will allocate the water within your State. That is a profound change: 100 years of reclamation law are pushed aside by this piece of legislation. For the State of California, it is a total preemption of State law--a total preemption of State law--and the State constitution is pushed aside. There is within the California constitution a thing called the ``public trust.'' The legislature and the government of California hold in trust for the people of California the water of California, and this legislation pushes that aside and gives that water to a very special group. Groups Opposed to H.R. 1837 Statement of Administration Policy U.S. Department of the Interior State of Colorado State of Montana State of New Mexico State of Oregon State of Wyoming Western States Water Council \1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ 18 member body, composed of governor-appointed representatives from the 18 Western states. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Elected Officials California Secretary for Natural Resources Congresswoman Anna Eshoo Congressman John Garamendi Congressman Mike Honda Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren Congresswoman Doris Matsui Congressman Jerry McNerney Congressman George Miller Congresswoman Grace Napolitano Congresswoman Jackie Speier Congressman Mike Thompson Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey Senator Barbara Boxer Senator Dianne Feinstein Newspapers The Sacramento Bee The San Francisco Chronicle The San Jose Mercury News Water Districts and Local Governments Central Delta Water Agency City of Sacramento City of Stockton Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County Grassland Water District Reclamation District 999 Sacramento County Board of Supervisors Sacramento County San Joaquin Council of Governments San Joaquin County San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors San Mateo County Harbor District Solano County South Delta Water Agency South San Joaquin Irrigation District Water Replenishment District of Southern California Yolo County Business and Civic Groups BIA of the Delta Business Council of San Joaquin County California Delta Chambers & Visitor's Bureau California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation Concerned Citizens Coalition of Stockton The Contra Costa Council Environmental Entrepreneurs Hawkeye Marketing Silicon Valley Leadership Group Stockton Chamber of Commerce Environmental Groups Alameda Creek Alliance American Rivers AquAlliance Audubon Battle Creek Alliance The Bay Institute Berkeley Conservation Institute Biodiversity Conservation Alliance Butte Environmental Council California League of Conservation Voters California Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility California Save our Streams Council California Water Impact Network Cascade Action Now Center for Biological Diversity Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation Clean Water Action Conservation Congress Coast Action Group Defenders of Wildlife Desal Response Group Earth Law Center Earthjustice Ebetts Pass Forest Watch Endangered Habitats League Endangered Species Coalition Environmental Defense Fund Environmental Protection Information Center Food and Water Watch Foothills Conservancy Forests Forever Forest Unlimited Friends of Butte Creek Friends of the Calaveres Friends of Del Norte Friends of the Eel River Friends of the Gualala River Friends of the Lower Calavera River Friends of the North Fork American River Friends of the River Humboldt Baykeeper Institute for Fisheries Resources KS Wild Living Rivers/Colorado Riverkeeper Madrone Audubon Merced River Conservation Committee Mid-Klamath Watershed Council Mono Lake Committeee Monterey Coastkeeper National Parks Conservation Association Natural Resources Defense Council Nature Abounds The Nature Conservancy Northcoast Environmental Center North Coast Rivers Alliance Northern California River Watch Oceana Oregon Waterwatch Oregon Wild The Otter Project Palos Verdes Audubon Chapter Planning and Conservation League Protect our Water The Public Trust Alliance Redwood Regional Audubon Society Restore Hetch Hetchy Resource Renewal Institute Restore the Delta The River Project Rocky Mountain Wild Rose Foundation Russian Riverkeeper Russian River Watershed Protection Committee Sacramento Audubon Society Sacramento River Preservation Trust Safe Alternatives for our Forest Environment San Francisco Bay Keeper San Joaquin Audubon Santa Clara County Creeks Coalition Santa Clarita for Planning and the Environment Santa Cruz Women's International League for Peace and Freedom Save the Bay Save the Frogs! Sierra Club California Sierra Foothills Audubon Sierra Nevada Alliance Siskiyou Land Conservancy South Fort Mountain Defense Committee South Yuba River Citizens League Southern California Watershed Alliance Trinity Lake Revitalization Alliance Trust for Public Land Tuolumne Conservancy Tuolumne River Trust Unitarian Universalist Ministry for Earth United Outdoorsmen Upper Mokelumne River Watershed Council Waldo Holt Conservancy Western Nebraska Resources Council Whidbey Environmental Action Network The Wilderness Society Commercial and Recreational Fishing and Hunting Organizations and Businesses Ankeny Street Sportfishing American Sportfishing Association Auburn Flycasters Back to Class Guide Service Bob Sands Fishing Bob Sparre's Guide Service Bodega Bay Fishermen's Marketing Association Bodega Bay Sportfishing Boyce Image California Inland Fisheries Foundation California Sportfishing Protection Alliance California Striped Bass Association California Striped Bass Association--Sacramento Chapter California Striped Bass Association--West Delta Chapter Checkmate Charters Chris' Fishing Charters Chubasco Charters Coastside Fishing Club Delta Fly Fishers Diablo Valley Fly Fishermen El Dorado III Charters Emeryville Sportfishing Fishery Foundation Fish Sniffer Flash Sportfishing Charters Flying Fish Charters Foothills Angler Coalition Fred Hall Shows Golden Gate Fishermen's Association Golden Gate Salmon Association Golden West Women Flyfishers G. Pucci and Sons Manufacturing Granite Bay Flycasters Hi's Tackle Box Hog Heaven Charters Huck Finn Charters Humboldt Area Saltwater Anglers Humboldt Fishermen's Marketing Association Jim Cox Sport Fishing Charters Johnson Hicks Marine Kokanee Power Leisure Sales Lower Sherman Island Duck Hunters Association Lovely Linda Sportfishing Lovely Martha Charters Lower Sherman Island Duck Club Mission Peak Fly Anglers Monterey Fish Market New Captain Pete Charters New Easy Rider Charters New Ray Ann Charters New Salmon Queen Charters Northern California Council Federation of Fly Fishers Northern California Guides Association Northwest Guides and Anglers Association Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association Outdoor Pro Shop Outer Limits Charters Outwest Marketing P Line Pacific Catch Fish Grill Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations Pacific Fishery Management Council Pasadena Casting Club Pro-Troll Fishing Products Queen of Hearts Charters Que Sera Sera Charters Rapala USA Randy's Fishing Trips Recreational Fishing Alliance Reel Steel Sportfishing Riptide Charters Roy Gray & Associates SalmonAid Foundation Salmon King Lodge West Salmon Water Now Sandy Ann Charters San Francisco Crab Boat Owners Association Santa Clarita Casting Club Santa Cruz Fly Fishermen Save our Wild Salmon Coalition Sep's Outdoors Inc. Sierra Pacific Flyfishers Sir Randy Charters Soleman Sportfishing Charters Small Boat Commercial Salmon Fishermen's Association Sonoma County Abalone Network Southwest Council Federation of Fly Fishers Sportfishing Association of California Spring Creek Guide Service Stagnaro's Charters Star of Monterey Charters StriperFest Sunny's Electric Marine Ted's Sports Center Telstar Charters Trek II Tri-Valley Fly Fishers Trout Underground Trout Unlimited USA Fishing Vance's Tackle Wacky Jacky Charters Water for Fish West Marine Tribal Groups Karuk Tribe Mocdoc Nation Winnemen Wintu Tribe Wishtoyo Foundation Agricultural Groups Friant Water Authority \2\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ Opposition limited to San Joaquin River Restoration provisions. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Organic Sacramento Recreation Groups Adventure Connection, Inc American Whitewater California Outdoors Camp Lotus Mokelumne River Outfitters The O.A.R.S. Family of Companies River and Rock Adventures River Runners, Inc. Rubicon Whitewater Adventures Sport Sales Whitewater Connection Whitewater Voyages

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about two issues here, one of which was discussed by my colleague from California, which is the bill that will be up later this afternoon. While the rule allows for amendments, some of the amendments that were proposed are not going to be before us. Specifically, this bill is a blatant attempt to do two things: one, steal 800,000 acre feet of water and transfer it to heavily subsidized farmers on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley; and, secondly, completely overrule and override State law. That's why, I suppose, States such as Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Wyoming, and the Western States Water Council, which is composed of the representatives of the Governors of 16 Western States, are all opposed to this bill. This is a terrible precedent. If you care anything about your State's ability to control its own destiny insofar as water is concerned, you do not want this bill to pass because it is a blatant attempt by the Westside Farmers to simply grab water and take total control of the California water system. It blows away all of the environmental laws of the Federal Government and all of the environmental laws of the State of California and even overrides the State Constitution. I cannot think of a worse policy for anyone to be supporting if you care anything at all about States' rights. In addition to that, the bill totally destroys the efforts that have been underway to solve the problems that do exist in California water. There is absolutely not one new drop of water in this bill, but there is 800,000 acre feet stolen and delivered to the southern water contractors. For many, many reasons it ought to be defeated. Briefly on Mr. Bishop's attempt to have his bill heard on this floor: not a bad idea. Consider for a moment the fact that 26 million gallons of gasoline are exported from the United States every day. Something is wrong when that is occurring at the same time we're finding higher and higher gas prices.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you very, very much for bringing that issue up. It's one that is extremely important in my district because I do have the two major northern California wind farms in my district, one in the Solano County area and the other one in the Altamont Pass area. My own history in this goes back to 1978, when I authored the first State law to provide a tax credit for those companies that built the wind turbines way back in 1978. So we've come a long, long way on this, and we ought to get it going. I notice that you're going to have to go, and I'm going to wrap up shortly after you leave. We've gone through a lot of things here. I'm going to just bring one more issue, and that has to do with the price of fuel in America today. Thank you so very much, my colleague from Oregon, bringing us the Northwest perspective on this. I went out and purchased gasoline this last week when I was back in California, and it was something around the range of $4.15 in one station, another, $4.25. I said, What's going on here? Why are we seeing this sudden rise when, in fact, in the Midwest of the United States, there is actually a surplus of oil? What's happening here? I think we can look to several different things that are taking place. One thing we know that is taking place is speculation. Because of the Dodd-Frank legislation, the government now has the power to deal with speculators, and I know the President picked this issue up when he was in Florida last week and said that this is something that a special task force has been set up in the Department of Justice to ferret out the speculation that's taking place in the gasoline markets. I've also said I'd heard a rumor that the United States is actually exporting gasoline. In fact, we are. We're exporting over 26 million gallons of gasoline a day. You heard that right. The energy companies say, well, the price is going up because of a shortage of gasoline. What are you selling me? There's a shortage when we're actually exporting gasoline? Why are we doing that? Well, we do import gasoline, too, but your imports are balanced by exports. So how does that help America? I don't think it does. Speculation, the export of gasoline, and you wonder why the prices are going up? Well, certainly the speculation has to do with the question of Iran and whether we're going to shut down the Strait of Hormuz or not. Well, that's speculation. But the reality today is there's a glut of oil in the Midwest that ought to be used for refining gasoline and diesel in the United States. We ought to make it in the United States and keep it in the United States. Twenty-six million gallons a day being exported? We'd like to have that in California. We'd like to have that drive down the price in California. There's not a shortage. There may be a shortage of wisdom. There may be an excess of market-driven policies here, but we have a crisis in the United States, and it is certainly the price of gasoline. A lot of discussion about ``drill, baby, drill.'' Okay. Let's understand that we are now drilling and producing more oil in the United States this year than in the previous 8 years. That's right. Right back to the Republican administration, when George W. Bush was in power and the Republicans controlled both Houses, the drilling of oil was at an all-time low. As we've come into this period of time, we've seen the production increase to the highest it's been in the last 8 years, and more to come. But the opening of the Outer Continental Shelf, the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge and others will have nothing to do with the near term, that is in the next 5 to 10 years, because of the length of time it takes to produce from those new areas. By the way, you don't need to waive every environmental law in the Nation or in the State to go get that oil. Off the coast of California, with directional drilling, you don't even need to get onto the ocean to get to the oil. You can drill from the land, reducing the risk to the marine environment to near zero and access oil that's 6 miles offshore. We ought to be looking at those things. There is one other thing, and I think I will wrap with this so that my Republican colleagues, if they need a little time to get here for their next hour, have fair warning. Natural gas, it's an extraordinary asset for America. Natural gas is readily available. We're producing more natural gas in America now than ever before, and we're discovering that we can get even more. We're looking at an extraordinary asset. This is an American asset. It is a strategic asset. It is leading to the creation of jobs in America right now. In my own district that I share with Representative George Miller, in Pittsburg and on the Antioch city boundary line, we're seeing Dow Chemical coming home, bringing jobs back to America, investing large sums of money--millions and millions of dollars--in that facility because of the low price on natural gas. All across this winter in every part of America we've seen homeowners' heating bills, not soar, but actually decline. Yes, it has been a warm winter, but the price of natural gas for heating in the North Atlantic States, in the New England States, across the Midwest, and even in California is at an all-time low. The average last year was $4.30 when, just 5 years before, it was in the $10 to $12 range. So we're seeing an incredible opportunity for America. Energy is the foundation of our economy. When you have a ready supply in abundance, you ought to recognize that as a strategic asset. Yet in committee after committee, in my own Natural Resources Committee, I've seen my Republican colleagues put forth bills that would export natural gas, that would take this strategic asset and send it overseas because the energy companies can get a higher price overseas. They don't need a higher price. They're doing quite well, thank you. What we need is a reliable, low-cost energy source in America. Do not allow--do not allow--by legislation or by executive order the export of natural gas from the United States. There is a little bit that now goes to Canada or to Mexico under the NAFTA agreements, all of that in pipeline; but just this last week, one of the big Wall Street hedge funds decided to invest $2 billion in a Texas scheme to build a liquefied natural gas export facility. Well, I suppose it's nice to build it; but by golly, that's America's strategic asset that's going to be sent overseas. Be aware of what's happening here. If you send that gas overseas in any large quantity, you're going to drive up the price of natural gas in America. So American farmers are going to pay more for their fertilizers, and we're going to see home-heating prices throughout the Nation rise as those exports of this strategic asset rise. We're going to see that Dow Chemical is going to make a different decision about whether to come back to America to take advantage of the low cost of natural gas or whether it's going to say, okay, America is so screwed up in that it's taking one of its most basic strategic assets and selling it for the highest price. I think back on the story of Esau, in the Bible, when he sold out his birthright for a bowl of porridge. We ought not do this. We need an energy supply in America that we do have available to us. So, with that, if my Republican colleagues are anywhere nearby, they can claim their hour. We've gone through some very, very important things here--the Make It in America agenda and 36 Democratic bills that would build our economy, that would cause us to come back and rebuild our great manufacturing sector. It will happen. It's government policies that over the last 25 years have caused the American manufacturing base to erode, policies such as tax breaks for American companies that would send their jobs offshore. We stopped nearly all of that before the Democrats lost power here in Congress. So we ask our Republicans to work with us in putting into law these 36 bills that will cause us to rebuild the American middle class, to reignite the American Dream and to give the middle class the opportunity to engage in manufacturing. Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. With the cows and sheep beneath the turbines.

Mr. GARAMENDI. We have work to do, and Americans want to go to work and they want things made in America. I was interested in what you were saying about the use of our Tax Code. The Big Five oil companies in America--Exxon, Chevron, BP, and the other two--have in the last decade made a trillion dollars of profit. Yet at the same time, those Big Five get $4 billion a year in tax subsidies. Our tax money is going to those companies as if they don't have enough of our money already. They do. If we dial that back and bring that back into the system for infrastructure investment, you could use it, as you say, for transportation because it's associated with transportation. You could use it for clean energy. Let's say you take 3 years of that and suddenly got $12 billion, we could capitalize an infrastructure bank. All of these things are possible if we get away from the notion of continuing to help the oil industry. The wealthiest industry in the world doesn't need our tax money as a subsidy, and we ought to reel that money back in and use it for things that really create investments in America. There are other ways we can do this. We had what are called bonds, Build America Bonds. Those have expired, but those were extraordinarily useful for small cities, big cities, and counties to build infrastructure. Many, many things that could be done, but unfortunately we are now 12, 14 months into the current control of the House by Republicans and not one of these things have come to the floor to rebuild the American economy. We have work to do. And we can do it. I want to just point out that the Democratic Caucus, our colleagues on the Democratic side, have introduced 36 Make It In America bills, different kinds of ways to do it. My two bills deal with our tax money for transportation. The gasoline tax, use it to buy American-made steel, equipment, buses, and the other one I have is using our tax money. If we're going to subsidize wind turbines and solar cells, we buy American made, and this is a way of keeping the jobs in America. I know you have some additional thoughts on this, and let's continue on.

Mr. GARAMENDI. We ought not dance around one of the issues involved in this infrastructure. That's, where is the money coming from? How are you going to pay for this stuff? Our colleague Rosa DeLauro for more than 15 years has made a proposal here in this House that we create what Europe has had for the last almost 30 years now, an infrastructure bank, a way to finance those projects that have a cash flow, the specific ones that you're talking about. The bridge has a toll, has the ability to pay off a loan. The water system has a fee associated with the delivery of water, the sanitation system. All of those are what I call cash-flow projects. Rosa DeLauro from Connecticut has proposed an infrastructure bank in which the Federal Government provides the initial capital, say a 10- year note. We could borrow at the Federal level for less than 2 percent now on a 10-year note, put that in the bank, go to the pension funds around the Nation, and they all invest in the bank. We may have $25 billion, $30 billion, $50 billion. And in some cases, depending on how robust you want to go, you could have $100 billion of capital available in the infrastructure bank to finance the kinds of projects that have a cash flow associated with them: toll roads, water systems, sanitation systems, airports, bridges. All of those things are possible. In doing that, you not only create the opportunity to finance those projects and obtain this kind of economic stimulation, but you also have taken off of the general fund of the Federal Government and some State and local governments, taken off their general fund the burden of financing those and are freeing up money for those infrastructure projects that do not have a cash flow associated with them, such as, for example, many of the highways and biways and county roads throughout America where there's no fee associated with them. We have the opportunity to finance these things if we could just get off the dime. Please, the leadership in this House, move us forward, give us a project that we can actually put in place, an infrastructure bank, and other kinds of projects that will actually create jobs.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Excuse me. You're getting too close to my roof. Move on. Don't focus on roofs, because I didn't fix it, and, yes, I got to repair the inside as well as the roof.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I would like to have handed this to you as you were talking about the expansion that occurs when you invest in infrastructure. I ran over to get this, but I didn't want to interrupt your discussion. For every dollar invested in infrastructure investments, $1.57 is pumped into the American economy. That's the multiplier effect that occurs when you invest in this. These are investments that pay dividends year after year. This is the immediate turnaround. You described it so very well. It's the small business that is fabricating, it's the steel mill, and on and on. $1.50. If we invest a dollar today, we get $1.50 back in economic activity, people paying taxes. We recoup much of that dollar investment. That is just the immediate multiplier effect. Let's say we have an investment in a water system in Portland, Oregon, that is old and needs to be replaced. That's now in the ground, and it's going to serve year one, two, three, and probably for the next century. So it's not something that is used up. I suppose if we were to invest in an artillery shell, and we shoot it off in Afghanistan, well, okay, that is a one-off, one time, and it is gone. Perhaps to good purpose, but gone. You invest in infrastructure in America, you get an immediate return, and it is there for the next generation and the generation beyond.

Mr. GARAMENDI. That's a lot of swimming.