[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 2 (Thursday, January 6, 2011)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E19]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           RULES OF THE HOUSE

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. LAURA RICHARDSON

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, January 5, 2011

  Ms. RICHARDSON. 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.

                          ____________________