Congresswoman Laura Richardson Rises in Opposition of H. Res. 5, the House Republican rules proposals for the 112th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H. Res. 5, the House Republican rules proposal for the 112th Congress. As some of my Democratic colleagues have argued before me, this rules package is fiscally irresponsible, will balloon the national debt, and threatens the stability of government services that are critically important to millions of Americans.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican proposed rules package sets our country down a path of unaffordable tax cuts and threatens to suppress long-term economic growth and job creation. While many of my new Republican colleagues were elected on the platform of reducing the deficit, the new rules introduced by the Republican leadership will significantly increase the national debt by changing the House pay-as-you-go rules, ''PAYGO''.

The Republican proposed House rules package adds to the deficit by exempting tax cuts and the deficit increasing effects of selectively repealing the health care reform law from the PAYGO rules. On the other hand, the Republican rules package prohibits the House from raising revenue or closing tax loopholes to help pay for new spending entitlements for low and middle income Americans.

Unlike the deficit neutral PAYGO rules that the 111th Congress operated under, the proposed rules package will allow for taxes to be cut without having to pay for them. But as the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform has pointed out, ''tax expenditures are simply spending by another name and should not be exempt from scrutiny.''

Substituting cut-as-you-go, ''CUTGO'', for PAYGO is bad economics and worse policy. As the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has noted, ''Replacing the two-sided PAYGO rules with a one-sided CUTGO rule will not only make it harder to offset legislation, but also exempt potentially budget-busting tax cuts from any discipline.'' CUTGO is unwise, irresponsible, will result in economic stagnation, and substantially increase the debt burden on our children and grandchildren.

In addition to its fiscal irresponsibility, the proposed House rules package fails to address homeland security jurisdiction despite repeated calls for reform from the 9/11 Commission and every Secretary of Homeland Security. Failing to consolidate legislative jurisdiction over homeland security in the House Committee on Homeland Security will continue to complicate oversight and review of critical homeland security issues.

I also oppose the proposed rules package for the 112th Congress because it severs the user-financed basis of the Highway Trust Fund, and subjects necessary federal highway and transit investments to the vagaries of the annual appropriations process. This proposal will exacerbate the instability already being experienced by the U.S. transportation construction marketplace. Transportation projects are long-term in nature and require stable and predictable sources of funding. Subjecting them to the appropriations process creates a precarious and unaccommodating market for investments in infrastructure projects.

Finally, the Republican rules package disenfranchises residents of the District of Columbia and U.S. territories by ending the ability of delegates and the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico to vote in, and preside over, the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union. This would deliver a terrible blow not only to the symbolic vote of the delegates, but also to the voices of the five million residents of these areas who deserve to be heard.

Mr. Speaker, this ill-considered and fiscally irresponsible rules package was crafted by the new Republican majority in secret without meaningful involvement or input from members on this side of the aisle. Had such an opportunity been afforded to the minority, this rules package would be far superior and fiscally sounder.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H. Res. 5.