that would help them the most and nearly 80% of americans say the government should expand access to quality affordable child care. the worries that mothers have. nine, women regret not making education a bigger priority. and 10, the trauma and chronic stress of poverty are toxic to children, making them two and a half times more likely to suffer as adults from copd, hepatitis and depression. so actually, poverty is dangerous to the health of children as they grow into adulthood in very dramatic and particular ways. . so when we think about poverty in america, when we think about extending unemployment benefits, when we talk about the snap

program and when we push to raise the minimum wage, one of the important lenses to look through is how is it affecting the women who are, 1/3 of whom are on the brink or actually living in poverty? mr. garamendi: those statistics are a wakeup call for america. more than half the population are female. and yet our policies are not women-friendly policies. our laws are not women-friendly laws. and we need to change that. i'd like now to ask my colleague from california, long-time city councilwoman in the city of los angeles, a woman who knows these issues from her experience representing the communities in that area, and now an outstanding member of the congress, ms. hahn.

ms. hahn: thank you. i appreciate, john, you taking this first hour tonight to focus on women and jobs. it's certainly an issue that we women are very aware of and have worked on a lot in our jobs, in our districts, in our homes. but it's nice when our men are enlightened. mr. garamendi: if i might interrupt for a moment. i'm highly motivated. my wife of almost 48 years now and my five daughters keep me constantly abreast of this issue. ms. hahn: good. good for them. i think, as jan talked about, nancy pelosi and rosa delauro, we've had this incredible campaign called, when women succeed, america succeeds. and the point is it's good to help women in this country

because this will really help america to succeed. and we no longer have the kind of families that many of us watched on television in the 1950's. in fact, the american family has permanently changed. and women head up more families on their own, more than half of the babies born to women ages 30 and younger are born to unmarried women. by the way, most of them white. so we've got women who are heading their families. we've got women who are trying to take care of their families. and they are now the sole bread winners in their family. they're not necessarily the second income or the income that helps out. with the man having the major income. and the statistic i think that, out of the shriver report that was really eye-opening for me, when we talk about the minimum wage, is that 2/3 of the workers

who earn a minimum wage in this country are women. and if we could raise this minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, how many more women that would lift out of poverty and not just women, their families. we have too many families, children, who are living on the bridge and this is so important -- brink and this is so important. and the talk about women wanting sick days. it's unbelievable to me how many women who work in these minimum wage jobs don't get sick days. and you know how many women have the painful choice of either putting their sick child on the bus to go to school or staying home and losing a day's wages to take care of their sick child, because we don't have the kind of child care in this country that can accommodate children who are not well enough to go to

school. so, we have women choosing between missing a day's work, possibly if they have too many of those they're going to lose their job, or putting a sick child on the bus to go to school. so, we need to raise the minimum wage, we need to have affordable child care, we need to make sure that women have sick days that they can use either for themselves, mostly it's never for yourself when you're a mother. you forego being sick as a mother and you spend those days for your children. or how many women are taking care of their parents? even though many women have brothers in the family, it usually falls to the woman to take care of their parents when they become ill or need help being taken care of. so we've got to really focus on women, making sure they have good jobs, and by the way, our women veterans, our women veterans in this country have the highest unemployment rate.

that's terrible to think that our women who have put their lives on the line for this country come home and cannot find good jobs to take care of themselves or their families. i'm glad we're doing this tonight. i think it's important. i think the shriver report that was just released really sheds light on how many women in this country are near or on the brink of living in poverty. so thank you for doing this tonight. mr. garamendi: representative hahn, thank you so very, very much. this chart here, when women succeed, america succeeds, just picks up a handful of the bills that have been introduced by the democratic caucus, many of these bills by women, a few men along the way, but these are the kind of things that we really ought to be dealing with here as we move or, unfortunately, fail to move legislation. paycheck fairness. this is the issue of that 77%. in my district, being about 85%. of the minimum wage, which we

talked about here. the issue you raised, representative hahn, about paid sick leave and the problems that occur. the permanent child -- make permanent the child tax credit which is exceedingly important in providing that income necessary to support the kid. the education issues and i notice one of my colleagues, mike honda, will talk about that in a few moments. i'd like now -- we'll pick up the rest -- this one down here is really the one at the bottom, alzheimer's. you mentioned this. the children are now taking care of their parents. of course the children are now in their 50's, 60's and the parents are in their 70's, 80's and beyond. and this issue, alzheimer's, an overwhelming tidal wave is coming on us and i know that in our own home, the last two years , my wife's mother's life was spent in our home. she and i, my wife and i, had night care taking care of her.

fortunately we were able to have daycare come in. but this is a huge growing issue. one in which we need to provide ways to support the children taking care of their parents in their homes. i'd like now to turn to another colleague from ohio, one who has often joined me here on the floor and thank you so very, very much for joining us, marcy kaptur, who has a great deal to do with the appropriations process. congratulations on the omnibus bill just coming up. ms. kaptur: thank you, thank you, congressman garamendi, thank you for bringing us together, as you so often do. we're so fortunate that you're here and bringing us together as voices from the heart of america here in our nation's capitol to talk about what is on the minds of the vast majority of the american people. and that relates to their family life, how they're going to survive in this economy, and in listening to the statistics that

congresswoman schakowsky and hn were relating, what has happened to family life in this country, because many times, if you read articles, you see families can't hold it together. why? because of money. because of their inability to hold the household together because the jobs just vaporized. and when you have trade deficits for 30 years in our country, and we have an average of 15 factories closing every day, jobs vaporize. doesn't matter where you live. whether it's ohio, california, florida, new york. the american people have felt directly the impact of this global economy and many times they can't hold the social unit of the family together. many, many of the women who are supporting their children now have done so because of fallout

in the economy. and what you say about the gender pay gap is absolutely there. and i was very surprised to learn in ohio, as a result of a ,tudy done by the progress ohio that in fact one of the major companies, i think the largest company in our country, wal-mart, employs about 4,500 people in ohio and of their employees, those employees that work for minimum wage or probably less if they're part time, bring down 23 -- they apply for food stamps, for snap assistance. so they're trying to support their families and just those in ohio are using $23 million in federal food support because they can't earn enough to feed their families. and this type of corporate behavior is repeated over and

over and over again. so essentially what's happening is the federal government ends up subsidizing low wages because the workers can't earn enough to support their families. and i'm fortunate to have come from a working class family. our mother worked, our grandmother worked. thank god for franklin roosevelt, because i think what our family has lived represents the story of vast numbers of americans. our grandmother could hardly speak english. she worked in hotels, in kitchens, peeling carrots and potatoes and so forth, washing dishes, paid the immigrant workers the very least. and then her husband was always out of work. they lived in 13 different places because they could never manage to own anything. trying to just hold it together with a sick daughter and a

husband who often lost his job. so that was grandma on one side of the family. then our mother was the sole support of her parents and the five children in her family, working at age 13, going across town to clean homes and so forth. it wasn't until the democrats under roosevelt passed the minimum wage that she began earning something more than she had earned before. and you know what happened in the first place she worked, onette? s a little lunch when the minimum wage was passed initially, her boss, who wasn't such a nice guy, would cash her check and then pocket the difference. between what she used to earn and what she then earned in the workplace. and that was before we had the department of labor fully developed and we had inspectors on the job and so forth. this is what american working women have dealt with for

generations. and so i have to say, i am so proud i am standing on the shoulders of families like my own, to be a voice for these women and these families whose economic struggle is excruciating. it is excruciating. many of them don't have cars. our own mother, she was brilliant. she should be here, not me. she never got her high school equivalency until after she went on social security. and there were two things she had in her billfold when she died. one, was her library card. because she was brilliant. but the other one was her social security and medicare card. because of democrats. because of democrats she could die with dignity. and i think about the families across this country and i am so proud to be a voice for them here and i want to thank you very much for standing up for a

raise in the minimum wage, so that people who are struggling out there don't have to be on food stamps and e.b.t. coupons, because they're trying to earn their way forward. they should earn a decent wage, that working family life, paid sick leave. i took care of our mother when she was ill and i know how hard it was to try to work and to care for someone who was so ill. i just left a funeral home over the weekend in ohio where our former county engineer, george wilson, lost his beautiful wife, pat, to alzheimer's. in which you were saying, congressman garamendi, what it took for that family and that working daughter to try to hold everything together and it's such a cruel illness. so any help for caregivers across this country, for making care giving a profession where

you earn a decent wage, however we figure out how to do that, we're going to need it in the coming years. so i support my colleagues in their efforts to raise the money in -- minimum wage, to close the gender pay gap, to make sure that there's paid leave, to make sure that we work as a society to find ways to care for those who are ill, and i know that with men such as yourself and those who are on the floor this evening, and with women who have not been educated and able to fully participate in this society, and to express the needs from coast-to-coast, we will change this country for the better. thank you so very much for coming down here this evening and i agree with you, that when women succeed, america succeeds. mr. garamendi: thank you for your work on the proceedingses and pushing these issues along. representative mike honda from california has been working on the issues of education for many, many years and has

insights as to how this issue of women and equality are taken up in the educational area. mr. honda, if you would like to proceed. mr. honda: thank you for putting these discussions on the floor here. and i want to also rise to join you and other colleagues in commemorating the 50th anniversary of president johnson's declaration on the war on poverty and president roosevelt, his effort to close the inequities that we are still facing and growing even larger today because of gender-pay gap and because of the unpaid portions where people have to leave their work in order to take care of their children or their families. and also to be able to address the child care issues that became very prominent through the 1970's when both parents

started to work and wondering how they are going to be addressing child care. and the caregiver support where adult children are taking care of their parents. and seeing that this is a necessity that has creeped upon our society and our communities almost very quietly and become an issue because of different kinds of situations in our -- what our parents are being faced, not only physical illnesses and mental health. these things play a part in drawing down the resources of middle-income families trying to take care of their own responsibilities, raising their own family and also taking responsibility of their parents who are aging. in the area of education, universal pre-k education and early childhood education, both

president roosevelt and johnson knew this is an important tool on the war on poverty and closing the income inequity gap. last week i read an article about two schools in east kentucky, hours apart from each over, anchorage and barberville. the median income household in anchorage is 3 1/2 times larger than the median income of that of barberville and barberville spends $8,000 and anchorage spends $20,000. equal-sized population, only a couple hours apart. why is it this country, our communities continue to refuse to recognize the inequities in funding in our public schools? why is that? the quality of education that

our children receive should not be dependent or determined by a zip code in which they live or which they were born. each and every child should receive support according to their needs, not according to the zip code in which they reside. each and every child. in the 1950's when we realized the states were responsible for the education and the constitution, we interpret it as the states' responsibility to move forward on education, we find that some states had a principle of separate but equal. in the 1950's, we realized that was not constitutional. and this became an issue in our country, when we were able to bring this issue to the living rooms of our country through television. and upon this country becoming aware of what was going on and of the states, we moved on the

federal level, we moved the communities to correct this inequity, the unconstitutionality of separate but equal in our educational systems and other policies in our different communities in different states. today, we have come to a point where we understand that equal opportunity for all children is a necessary principle, but i think having studied education a bit more, we should refine that principle into another principle, to witt, each and every child should receive help according to needs, and not zip codes or median income of their parents. one of the more important steps to accomplish this and achieve equity in funding for our youngsters in pre-school and early childhood education arena is to fully fund head start for each and every child.

so we must encourage states to adopt the more equitable funding funding and each and every child receive the resource he required. president obama had declared that he has an initiative that addresses universal pre-school education. the governor of california, jerry brown, had passed a bond that said we want more equitable funding for children in the state of california. we passed a bond to increase the funding for education to achieve a more equitable funding for each and every child, but it's the first step, right direction, where we have miles and miles to go. this journey for equitable funding for each and every child, is a journey we must start now in order to achieve the civil rights of each and every child in this country. and i thank you for this moment.

mr. garamendi: representative honda, thank you so much. among the many pieces of legislation that the democratic caucus has put forth on this issue is when women succeeds, america succeeds is the issue of universal pre-k. head start is one part of that. but it is absolutely clear that if we have universal educational opportunities before kindergarten and beyond, that the chance of a kid making it in this economy is going to be substantially greater. this is part of the agenda. over the next several months, we will be talking about the other portions of the agenda. if this nation is to succeed, we better make sure that the majority of our population, the women in our society, the young girls and the women, young and old, that they have every opportunity to succeed. and there are barriers, some

legal, some historic and some custom, that make it very difficult for a woman to have an equal chance in our economy. so we are going to address those. we would like to have the republican side of the house work with us on those issues. we know one of the major parts of that is the minimum wage issue and that is front and center. i turn to my col -- colleague from new york who has joined me so often. representative tonko, you have been on this issue of economic development for so long and i think we have got four years now dealing with this talking about jobs in america, economic growth, what we can do. why don't you pick it up and carry the ball and then we'll see where we are. mr. tonko: thank you,

representative garamendi in leading us in an hour of very important discussion which highlights the agenda of the democratic caucus and i'm proud to serve with a group of leaders, women and men who within the democratic caucus have a vision of where they want to take this nation and address the inequality and empower our economy by reaching to individuals and families. that i think is the moral compass that guides us in that caucus and many of these ills in our economy can be resolved. i with great interest listened to the opening of this hour of special order where discussion on the economy began with your quoting presidents roosevelt and johnson. and the contrast was between those who have an abundance and

those who have little. we know that in that historic time, the president, president roosevelt, guided this nation with a program, the reference to his administration being that of a new deal, a new deal. today, many of the workers, many working families, women, those who struggle in our economy, are given a bad deal. the bad deal is intolerable and needs to be discontinued. and so we work in a very progressive format making certain that all people are embraced and brought into an inclusive sort of politics where we gauge in the ills of the past and correcting those ills of the past and studying them and certainly, when you look at some of the issues today, there is this greater impact on women in

many measurable ways. the minimum wage issue with 2/3 of those working in minimum wage being in the category of women. so we need to address that minimum wage. america stands behind that concept. they understand if you work hard and trying to raise a family that you need to do it with great renew mexico ration. the appropriateness of people to have just pay for the work that is done. we can address that with a minimum wage agenda here in the house. i believe those dollars are recirculated into the economy. people earning a minimum wage are going to spend on the basic essentials of life for themselves and family members. so it's a way to again, strengthen regional economy, state economies and national economy by being fair to workers and workers' families and there was talk about providing sick

leave for the worthyness of providing for that undoing, the removing of the stress factor within families. it is critical and important to quality of life and it is the right thing, fair thing to do. i find very incredibly important for discussion today on this house floor, routinely on this house floor about the sfention of emergency unemployment insurance. that is something that has received a lot of attention as of late but this house is rigid in allowing the leadership of the house rigid in not addressing the extension of emergency unemployment insurance. let me tell you that denial of unemployment insurance has impacted women particularly hard, but women and men, families in general. let me tell you about two discussions i had this weekend.

i gathered with some folks from my district who are communicating with us about the need to have this done and two individuals happened to be local lawyery, lisa and a assembly member, met with these two individuals and heard their stories. they have been without work for nearly a year. they have been actively pursuing, sending out resumes, indicating wherever a job that is possible that fits their skill sets and not getting the response. they have talked about it. and we wanted to get a story and relate really well so we can be a stronger voice on the house floor. they brought to my attention that their children is watching this. they are watching this whole episode and can't understand the incense activity, the

callousness, the cold-hardedness and thought that the government would be there. they want to work. unemployment insurance means people have paid into that concept so when you stumble across hard times somebody will be there to assist you and they are not getting that assistance. and you look at the discrimination with many that are calling my office, women and 55 years y be 45, 50, of age, they are feeling discrimination and being bypassed, they believe because of their age. the work they require where three people are chasing every available job, we need to be there on their behalf. never have we not chosen to re-authorize, provide for the unemployment insurance opportunity in the seven recisions that have followed

since 1958. we have always extended that unemployment insurance. why now? why now do we say no? we need to be sensitive. we need to be understanding that a great number of women require this re-authorization. a number of people are feeling age diss krim nailted against. the right thing to do is empower these families. the dollars come right back into the economy. it has been stated that for every dollar of unemployment insurance is paid, $1 .52 is realized. it pays for itself. when the institutes, the economic policy institutes measure the impact not doing this, we understand full well that it sets back the economy. some 400,000 jobs are lost. $400 million was lost in the early stages of not doing the unemployment insurance re-authorization.

there are many ills that come from the lack of action here and many ills that need to be undone that are generations long and their impact on women. making certain that as we empower women, as we empower them, we empower families and this nation. there are many things that need to be done. and i'm proud to work with the caucus that understands it, that greets it. that is trying to be out there speaking the progressive voice that will strengthen this economy and grow the economy. no more important issue today than growing our economy and we do it by a sense of inclusion with those inclusive politics, women and men, younger workers just entering the work force, senior work force members, everyone is improving that enables us to grow this economy. i am pleased you are leading us

in this discussion on growing the economy and doing it on social and economic justice that speaks to individuals out there in many cases, the ills that are borne upon women because of a lack of fine-tuning to our policy need to be addressed. so i'm pleased you are leading us in this discussion here this evening on the house floor so we can express the contract, the difference. not just everyone holding back on progress. there are those who have an agenda that speak to the common folk, the workers out there, the individuals, the families, the children that are empowered by quality day care, child care services that are empowered by a minimum wage increase, empowered by the extension of emergency unemployment insurance, by skills development programs. it will grow the economy and strengthen the future and provide a sense of hope.

it's been done. we need to replicate history. we saw what happened when we engaged in issues like social security, medicare, workers' right, standing up for the individuals out there in order to provide for the renume ration that they require and deserve. that's respect and that is providing hope for america's working families. so, let's hope we can move forward with a progressive agenda for this nation's working families. with that i yield back to the gentleman from california. mr. garamendi: mr. tonko, i knew i would enjoy listening to you. the passion, the knowledge, the intensity that you bring to this issue is critically important. you've worked on these issues for a long time. and we're going to -- i want to talk, just wrap up the unemployment insurance issue with going back to which are started here some time ago. again, in early december, a jobs fair in fairfield, california,

nearly 1,000 people came to it, 50 employers. more than half of the people in this line are women. i could probably go down through this line, i remember a conversation with a couple of the women here, and they were on unemployment insurance. now, unemployment insurance actually started with the new deal. it was part of the effort to deal with poverty in america. and it was an insurance program, a program into which the employer and the employee pay for insurance for the employee, should there be a layoff. should there be unemployment. so that individual would be unemployed. it is not a welfare program. an insurance program. but if i were to go back down this line and talk to each one these individuals, probably -- maybe 15% of them have lost

their unemployment insurance the e the house rfent -- house of representatives has refused to extend the long-term unemployment insurance. so where are they today? they're without a job, because as you said, mr. tonko, for every job available in america today, there are three people looking for that job. so two are going to go without the employment. minimum wage doesn't count because they yet don't have a job. we need to develop a jobs program and we need to extend that unemployment because these omen are mothers of children that now have a family with no income. no unemployment insurance. the food stamps, the proposal on this floor by our colleagues was to cut the food stamp program by $40 billion. where will the food come from? not from the snap, which is the

new name for the food stamp program, supplemental nutrition program, that's going to be cut. hunger in america among children, one in four children go hungry. and we're adding to it. we're adding to that number today. by the refusal to extend the unemployment insurance. some 72,000 people will lose their long-term unemployment insurance each month as this rolls along. each week. thank you, mr. tonko. you're welcome to interrupt me whenever. and we can have a dialogue here. so thanks for the lip reading. each week, 72,000 people. at the end of the year, another 3 1/2 million will have lost their unemployment insurance. will they have a job? they could have a better opportunity for a job if we

carried out the president's jobs program. let's spend the next -- i think we've got about 10 minutes or so, let's spend some time on that. i'm going to put up one of my favorite and often used charts here. mr. tonko, you'll recognize this. mr. tonko: absolutely. mr. garamendi: it's the make in it -- make it in america chart. it's the revitalization of manufacturing in the united states. i could probably give your speech on the industrialization of the state of new york. i'll let you do it, however. but these are the issues that we think are critical. we've spent most of this night talking about this one, labor. last week i said we would pick this up. and we are. and particularly focused on women in the labor force. but here it is, trade policies, international trade, i gave a speech this morning on the martime industry, the decline of the martime industry, the necessity of maintaining it.

we are a martime nation. we have oceans surrounding us, whether it's the arctic ocean, the pacific ocean, the caribbean or the atlantic ocean. so it's trade issues. tax policies. why do we continue to subsidize the wealthiest industries in this world? the oil industry, why do we continue to subsidize the oil industry? energy policy, fortunately we're having a good run on the energy issues and we'll come back and talk about that. mr. honda talked about educational policy, research and infrastructure. these are the elements of the make it in america agenda and when we use our tax money to buy american-made equipment, really good things happen. americans go to work. in my district -- just on the edge of my district, in sacramento, siemens, that huge german manufacturing company, opened a manufacturing plant to build 100% american-made

locomotives for the first time n generations because in the stimulus bill a sentence was added to the support for amtrak. and that sentence said, these locomotives will be 100% american-made. a german company said, huh, $600 million, $700 million contract, we'll make them in america. and so all across this nation manufacturing companies are now participating in the construction of 100% american-made locomotives, using american taxpayer money. as the key here. mr. tonko, i know you get really excited about this issue. as you were about poverty and equality in america just a moment ago. why don't you pick up this and carry it for a while. mr. tonko: sure. i thank again the gentleman from california for yielding. the make it in america program, the concept of that is a very strong domestic agenda.

in and of itself, it has great merit. let's put that into the context of the bigger picture. that is the international sweepstakes for the economy, for landing jobs. many of us can recall the global race on space in the 1960's. and it was critical to win that race. we had come off a failing moment with sputnik. dusted off our backside and said, never again. so this nation committed with passionate resolve that we would win that global race on space. that was just two nations. u.s. versus ussr. who would land on that moon, stake their flag first? we were determined it was going to be the united states. and a rather youthful president led a nation, again with passionate resolve, so that we had dollars for training, for research, for education, for equipment, and we were going to

win that race and we did. and in my first year in congress, in 2009, we celebrated the 40th anniversary and neil armstrong was here to shake the hands of many members of congress and thanks him for the poetry of the moment in that july of 1969. it was more than the one small step for man, one giant step for man kind. the poetry of the moment. it was the unleashing of untold amounts of technology, that impacted communications, energy generation, health care, across the gamut of job creation, technology entered in. fast forward to today, a rather youthful president is asking again that we embrace with passion our entry into a global race. this time on innovation and clean energy and high-tech. but this time dozens of competitors. so, make it in america is noble in and of it its own right -- of its own right. but it is critical when we place

it in the bigger place of a global race on innovation. it's not our choice to determine if we're going to enter the race, our choice ought to be how prepared, how strong, how competitive will we be as we enter that race? that requires education, higher ed, skills development, energy costs, innovation of all sorts. that comes with the passion of reform and so we need an agenda like that presented with made in america, that addresses the needs of the workers, that speaks to the empowerment that comes with research, which equals the jobs, for us to tab that pioneer spirit, which i believe is in the nadarkhani of america and her workers, we need to embrace that pioneer spirit and move forward. representative garamendi's going to joke that i always talk about the donor area, that the 20th congressional district of new york is and was to the development of the industrial revolution in this nation. but the eerie canal, made a port out of a little town called new

york, and then developed into the birthing of a necklace of communities called mill towns that became the epee centers of invention -- epicenters of invention and innovation. we need that same spirit to be embrace d today with this out of the box thinking. where we can bring about the best of america and provide hope for workers, for families across this nation. and to do it in a way that allows us to win this given race, this global race on innovation. whoever wins this race, as the president, president obama, has been quoted often times, will be the kingpin of the international economy. that is an important assignment to this house, the house of representatives. it's an important assignment to congress, it's an important challenge to all of us as americans. to commit to that agenda of investing, investing in america so that our best days lie ahead. and i am convinced that with this sort of progressive

thinking, our best days lie ahead. and that we deliver hope to the doorsteps of individuals and families across this nation. with a vision of how we can win this next order of global competition. mr. garamendi: representative tonko, once again you've laid it out very, very clearly. the challenge that we have. there's 435 of us here in the house of representatives. i think we're a little lower of that because of some retirements. but this is a 435 and 100 members of congress, together with the president, we set the national policy, we set the national agenda. and frankly at the moment the agenda is one that is stalled out. really, we had been prevented from pushing forward an aggressive agenda such as you've described. those elements, research, education, manufacturing, infrastructure, the role of labor, particularly the role of women in the labor force, those issues are road blocked.

there's a stop sign that's been put up here in the house of representatives that basically says, we shouldn't do any of that. that government has no role in any of those issues. i would challenge that philosophy. i would challenge that philosophy with the founding fathers. our colleagues on the right often talk about we ought to do what the founding fathers did. one of the things that the founding fathers did was to turn to hamilton and say, develop a strategy for american manufacturing. building the american economy. hamilton went off, probably talked to a few people and came back with a lengthy report, which you will now see, and in that document, laid out a strategy for building the

american economy. interestingly, guess what he talked about? he talked about trade. talked about infrastructure. among the infrastructure that was specifically in the plan that hamilton presented to george washington, who then presented it to the congress was canals. 0 years later, the erie canal, here in washington, the chesapeake canal, the canal on the potomac river. talked about roads. talked about ports. those were the infrastructure projects of the day. the constitution, by the way, says the federal government must maintain and build coastal roads. infrastructure. we talk about that nearly all the time we are here. research. at that period of time, thomas

jefferson, not exactly in league with the representatives from new england, but nonetheless, was pushing forward the research agenda and the education agenda. go back to the founding fathers. pick up those elements of economic growth that they put on the economic agenda in the very earliest days of this nation and carry those forward. we are not a shy country, but if one would look at the policies coming from the congress today, you would think that we are a country that does not envision the necessity of grabbing the strength of the past and using those elements that have created the economic growth and pushing them forward. we can and we must do this. and as we do it, i want to go back to where we started today's discussion, and that is we

started this discussion with the ole of women in our economy. cents. , 77 equal pay. no, no. a man will earn a dollar and woman see same job, same skill set will earn 77 cents. in my own district, it's 85 cents. working full-time at a minimum wage cannot earn enough money in this nation to feed her child and pay the rent. a woman in this nation with a , child e has a job yo gets sick, we need to address these issues. we must keep in mind that make it in america agenda, jobs agenda that we push forward and

we must always remember that when women succeed, america will succeed, with that, i thank my colleagues, mr. tonko, mr. honda, and the women that joined us earlier to bring this message to the american people. mr. tonko, would you like to wrap? mr. tonko: not far from the 20th congressional district is the women's hall of fame and just recently, our leader, the minority leader, nancy pelosi was inducted in that hall of fame. and we think of the stories in american history. women who embraced sacrifice and struggled to make the difference. think what happens when we empower the inequitable outcomes that they have journyeed through. think of the america powerment.

with the orders of reform, our best days lie ahead and we deliver that hope that we are challenged to deliver. it has been tremendous speaking with you and our colleagues on the floor here this evening. let's move forward and provide that hope to america's working families. mr. garamendi: mr. speaker, i thank you for the hour and i yield back the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from california, mr. lamalfa is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. lamalfa: our subject tonight is about california's high-speed rail project, a project that was voted in by 2008.

approximately $9 billion worth of bonds to help fund a project that would seek outside private investment as well, a project that would link san francisco to los angeles with possible additional spurs to sacramento and san diego. it has run into large funding problems and that's the subject of our time tonight is that we see that there is huge problems in the funding and where will the funding come from. i have my colleagues from california who would like on this project. i would like to recognize congressman den ham, who has been a leader on this issue and chairs the subcommittee or transportation that deals with rails. congressman, we would love to hear from you. mr. denham: i thank the gentleman, i supported

california high-speed rail projects. it was supposed to be $33 billion with equal amounts coming from the california taxpayers in the form of a bond but private investors, but the $33 billion has ballooned up to $100 billion. what do they do for cost control, they cut off the legs that mr. lamalfa talked about, the section going to san diego and still it is a $68 billion project with over $26 billion hole just in the first initial operating segment alone. tomorrow as chair of the committee on rail, we will be discussing a review of california's high-speed rail. i want to reiterate, i believe that high-speed rail is our future. as a growing economy with more

trucks and more goods movement on rail, that we have have to look at moralitytives to move people. high-speed rail is one of those opportunities. but in florida, a project that is being done by private investors will have no ongoing subsidies. texas will have its own high-speed rail system again with private dollars, no ongoing subsidies. here in california, you have a $68 billion with no private investor with huge subsidies and overruns and a project that cannot get out of the initial gate. so where are we today? california has no money to meet its federal obligation. in november, the 14th, we had a court decision that said they cannot spend the dollars that was approved by voters because they failed to complete a full business plan. so with no dollars available,

the governor came out this week and said we are going to have $250 million used by cap and trade dollars. cap and trade dollars that were supposed to be used for environmentally friendly project but yet this project is going to be a net polluter for at least the next 30 years. how he can come up with the legality of using these cap and trade dollars is questionable. a a $180 million is due april 1. the anti-deficiency act says that the state has to have its first set of matches and that 50-50 match is due april 1. but the legislature isn't going to vote on this new budget and $250 million until the earlieriest late june. budgets come in in august. and question whether liberals and conservatives can agree whether this environmental money

will be hues used on high-speed rail. on the operating segment itself. the judges said not only do they need to come up with the money on this initial construction segment which stops in bakersfield, and now two sets of rail that stops there and have to get on a buss, but they don't have the funding for the operating segment which goes to palm dale. and won't get the speeds they need and have a $20 billion funding gap in that first segment. so real questions, are they going to meet the timeline of april 1. are the cap and trade dollars actually legal. and thid, this huge funding gap, where does that money come from. the federal taxpayers across the nation ought to be asking the question, if you are going to

subsidize all of california's high-speed rail project, where do the matching dollars come from? they use the $9.95 billion, it isn't enough money. california can't come up with the federal match, what does -- what are the keys to hold california up to federal obligation. we have some real questions that are going to be coming out tomorrow. the f.r.a. has altered its approach. once they realized they couldn't do a 50-50 match, they came in with a tapered match and hopefully someday, the state will come up with dollars in a tapered manner and that is coming through april 1. but i think the real question is who is making these decision? did this go all the way up to the president?

was the past department of transportation secretary or the new department of transportation secretary involved in this decision? and if california can't come up with this tapered match will they adjust this outside of congress a second time? we have some real questions on what those legalities are. the next question will be the ings, what are the kingses kingensies. we have some preel priorities. as we continue to suffer with a drought, as our schools nt continue to lack behind as our safety dollars continue to get robbed, is this the best use of our money and should we be investing in something that unlike texas and florida, has no private investors, has no state match, has a lot of funding

questions that need to be answered before we move forward. and with that, i yield back to the gentleman from california. mr. lamalfa: thank you, congressman. indeed, the more time that goes by on this issue, the more problems and flaws are exposed in this. this is a measure that passed in 2008, put in front of voters that passed by 52% to 48% margin. the voters were sold something completely different. congressman mentioned the prices ballooned from what people saw on the ballot of $33 billion for the initial segment, just one year later revised up after the voters voted on it to $42 billion and then the sacramento segment and san diego segments were dropped off as options.

interestingly, we have all been in the state legislature, as congressman denham and myself and we have seen these members go past at the time. and at a hearing that was held in the california state senate in november of 2011, it was timely exposed that the numbers were way off and admitted that the project that voters expected were right near $100 to do the fran to los angeles segment if it was going to be high-speed rail from port to port. and also during that time in order to buildup and see what an conomic boon it would be, -- 100 million jobs would be created and it wasn't one million jobs but called one million job years, which anslates to 20,000 jobs to

building the entire system. we have seen a lot of creative phony numbers on costs, on benefit and even some of the ridership numbers as well. so, congressman denham what does that mean in what the jobs would translate out to and what are some of the impacts on the property as well? . . mr. denham: these were stimulus dollars that were supposed to be ready for shovel-ready projects five years ago. five years ago and still not one shovel is in the ground, not one job is created. now, unlike texas and florida, that are creating jobs, that are putting the infrastructure in, certainly in california they could come up with a better plan. they could go along the i-5 corridor, they could use existing rail corridor that has been abandoned. there are other opportunities if they truly want to cut costs. but if they don't want