mr. quigley is recognized. >> thank you. ask unanimous consent to enter in an order. >> so ordered. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and ranking member for holding this hearing. there's an article by jeb bush and newt gingrich in the "local and state governments". it's important to keep things simp. it's my understanding that almost 80% of mew nit pal bonds are held -- municipal bonds are held -- >> the tax exempt bonds, yeah. >> the individuals, yeah, and what most investors hate is a nasty surprise, a downside surprise, so in markets that function well, you have transparency and a heads up oncoming bad news. people are usually less alarmed. i want to ask questions about the transparency of the markets. what are we missing today comparing these obligations between states that would enable an individual investor to better evaluate the investments. it's my understanding that they get packaged in bond funds, but you don't want to bond fund to be harmed either, so what are we missing in terms of transparency in the states? >> are yo

mr. quigley of illinois. the chair: the gentleman will be recognized for five minutes, but first, if the gentleman will hole. the gentleman from illinois is recognized for five minutes on this amendment. mr. quigley: i rise to offer an amendment that will reduce spending at the department of defense by 10%. first inclination, we know that research and development is a good thing. not when it begets wasteful spending. the continuing resolution before us makes deep cuts in nondefense discretionary spending. we are truly -- if we are truly serious about reducing our long-term deficits, we must look at the whole picture and that picture includes defense. nondefense discretionary compromise -- comprises 50% of dd -- 15% of defense spending and defense spending comprises 70% of the federal budget. as admiral mike mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, has said, this is our biggest national security threat. my amendment would cut 10% from the department of defense's budget. d o.d.'s -- d.o.d.'s r&d spending

mr. quigley, the ranking member, is recognized for five minutes. you, mr. chairman. so far, the problems that we have seen with these 8 to 10 states in particular that are troubled, they seem to be self- contained. i would like to ask any one of you, if you can, what the potential systemic risks are. the last economic crisis taught us that everything is interconnected. in terms of the market or what have you, if there is a big kick up, and certainly there is a threat which some of these states defaulting are having other problems with payments and so forth. the impact on other states, the impact on bond rating list, but also the bond market itself. and while it may only be 8 to 10% -- 8 to 10 states, that is 20% of the country's population. what is the impact on the rest of the states? >> i think their risk of contagion is much less severe than it was in 2008 with the financial institutions creed i think the bond market's know the difference between the states that are in real trouble and those that are not. >> can you tell the difference? >> i think we do. there is

mr. quigley, unanimous consent request? i ask unanimous consent to enter the record a statement from the governor of massachusetts. >> without objections ordered. mr. cooper is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you for having this hearing. unlike unanimous consent to american article at jeb bush and newt gingrich and "the los angeles times" entitled that are off bankrupt. >> without objection. >> and finance hearings it's important to keep things simple. and to my understanding, almost 80% of municipal bond are municipal in some form. is that your understanding? these are more widely held high --! the tax-exempt bonds. >> individual investors, tax exempt bonds. for most investors hate is a nasty surprise, a downside surprise. so in markets that function well, you have transparency, a heads up on that news. people are usually less alarmed. i want to ask a couple questions about the transparent yet these markets. what are we missing today comparing these obligations between state that would enable an investor, an individua

mr. quigley. you have done wonderful work. we certainly appreciate that. this is not a republican versus democrats issue. try to understand the depth of this problem behooves both parties and the american people and their right to know. before we introduced the panel, we had the mission statement of the oversight committee. at the chairman's request, i would like to read that. we exist to secure two fundamental principles -- first, americans have a right to note -- had the right to know that the money washington takes from them is well spent. second, americans deserve an efficient, effective government that works for them. our duty is to protect these rights. our solemn responsibility is to hold government responsible to taxpayers because taxpayers have a right to know what they get from their government. we will work tirelessly in partnering with citizen watchdogs to deliver the facts to the american people and bring genuine reform to the federal bureaucracy. this is the mission of oversight and government reform committee. with that in mind, i would like

mr. quigley is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> so far, the problems we have seen with these states that are in particular trouble seems to be self-contained. i would like to ask anyone of you, a few can, what the potential systemic risks are. the last economic crisis taught us that everything is interconnected, in terms of the market or what have you. if there is a big pickup, and we are certainly threatened with some of the states, -- a big certainlynd we're threatened with some of the states, the effect on other states and the bond market itself. while there may be only 10 states, what are the impacts on the rest of the states? >> i think the risk of contagion is much less severe than it was in 2008 with the financial institutions. i think the bond market knows the difference between the states that are in real trouble and the states that are not. what do you think the investors do? >> i do. i do. we have to have some confidence in the ability of the markets to make those distinctions. that would be my first point.

mr. quigley: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, as you know i come from chicago, home of the world champion chicago blackhawks, and i rise today in support of the national hockey league's designation of the month of february as hockey is for everyone month. hockey is for everyone is a nationwide initiative that works to break racial and economic barriers that prevent children from playing ice hockey. it reaches more than 300,000 underprivileged boys and girls annually across north america and includes programs for veterans and the disabled. i believe that no matter your background, every child should have the opportunity to play the greatest sport in the world. increased access to healthy exercise will aid in the fight against childhood obesity and continue to decrease high school dropout rates. on behalf of kids all over the continent, i thank the national hockey league and hockey is for everyone for putting more hockey sticks in more hands and more pucks on their sticks. thank you, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempo

mr. quigley: i want to thank you so much for having me. i want to thank my colleague from new york for his efforts and everyone who is here tonight toward this end. and this issue is critical, not just to our health, our nation's health, but also to our country's national security and our economy. because i rise today to protect the integrity of all things of science. because it is science, these facts and figures, that have led hundreds of scientists to confirm that global warming is real. it's science that led the supreme court to rule that the e.p.a. does in fact have the authority to regulate greenhouse gases. and it's this science that led the congress to pass the clean air act, the act which designated the e.p.a. as a body charge with overseaing, -- overseeing, adapting and implementing these regulations. in the coming months the e.p.a. will begin regulating greenhouse gases from certain emitters for the first time. these regulations have become hugely controversial and sadly political. these rules seek to combat man-made climate cha

mr. quigley: what they don't want us to know is investing in planning -- family planning saves money. for every $1 invested, taxpayers save nearly $4. so while cutting family planning appears to be a savings up front, over the long run it will cost us both in dollars and in health and in the well-being of millions of women. while we are being honest, let's also discuss the other motive for proponents of cutting title x. they argue cutting funds for family planning will reduce abortions. once again they are wrong. in fact, if they wanted to reduce abortions, they would increase funding for title 10. why? because title 10 services prevent nearly one million unintended pregnancies each year, almost half of which would otherwise end in abortion. if you want to get serious about cutting federal spending and reducing abortions, a good start would be investing in title 10, not eliminating it, which is exactly what this amendment will do. of course, in addition to reducing unintended pregnancies and saving taxpayers money, family planning providers like planned parenthood provide essential li