Robert Aderholt

Mr. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, it is evident that our country is in desperate need of jobs. And I rise today to bring light on an issue that could cost literally hundreds of jobs in America. Currently, there is a flaw in the GSP, and if it is not addressed, it will cause the loss of 150 jobs in the district that I represent alone, and could cause the loss of many other jobs across the industry. Implemented back in 1974, GSP was designed to exclude import- sensitive items, and therefore excluded all textiles. However, in the early 1990s, sleeping bags, along with a long list of other items, were added to GSP as eligible for duty-free import, causing sleeping bags to be the only manufactured textile that is allowed to be imported without a 9 percent duty. The sleeping bags made at Exxel Outdoors in Haleyville, Alabama, are simply fabric, filling and zipper, yet they are not treated as other textiles. Sleeping bags that are manufactured in Bangladesh, where 90 percent of their value comes from materials in China, cut into America's sleeping bag sales by 20 percent a year. Without this modest import duty, there will be at least another 150 people who will lose their jobs unnecessarily in a region where unemployment is already over 15 percent. While the economy added no new jobs in August and U.S. unemployment numbers remain stagnant, this issue gives us another example of government policy that hinders job growth and retention. I want to thank the Ways and Means Committee for their time, attention, and concern regarding this matter and for working with us as we move forward on this process to find a resolution. I am looking forward to continuing our work with them in pursuit of a fair, commonsense solution.

Mr. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that our debt crisis is a result of Washington spending money it does not have and leaving the American people--both of today and future generations--with the devastating tab. Spending money Washington does not have is the problem, so controlling Washington's spending must be part of the solution. The Cut, Cap and Balance Act delivers immediate spending cuts, puts in place reasonable spending limits going forward, and requires Washington to live within its means from here on out. Since 2009, the national debt has increased by $3.7 trillion alone and today the national debt stands at nearly $14.3 trillion. That's $46,000 per American citizen. Needless to say, we cannot continue down the same path and expect a different result. The measures put in place through the Cut, Cap and Balance Act are important steps to getting America on a fiscally responsible path. It is the least we can do. I am proud to support such a common sense solution and help get our country back on the right track. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask one simple question to the other Chamber across the Capitol: Where is their appropriation bill for the Department of Homeland Security for FY 2012? On June 3, some 19 days ago, the House passed its version of the FY12 appropriation bill for the Department of Homeland Security, a bill that not only invokes fiscal discipline and needed oversight, but one that ensures that our frontline security and personnel and homeland security programs are adequately funded for the coming fiscal year. In addition, the House-passed bill includes $1 billion in supplemental funding for FEMA's disaster relief efforts that is available immediately upon enactment. Unfortunately, as of today, we have seen absolutely no action from the other body. There is no plan, no leadership, and no commitment to fiscal discipline, security, or disaster relief. The Democrat leadership in the other body was not elected to wait. That is not what the American people elected them to do. Waiting only puts our security and disaster relief on hold.

Mr. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman from Nebraska raises some excellent points, and I strongly support robust enforcement of our Nation's immigration laws. That includes partnership with the States and local law enforcement through the 287(g) program. As the gentleman from Nebraska noted, 287(g) is an important tool among many and gives ICE a force multiplier for immigration enforcement. I thank the gentleman from Nebraska for his attention to this important program, and I will continue to work with him as we move this bill forward. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. ADERHOLT. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. ADERHOLT. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. ADERHOLT. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. ADERHOLT. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. In addition, this bill puts money where it matters: frontline operations, intelligence, counterterrorism, and disaster relief. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's motion is simply a political ploy at the end of an open process on a bill that delivers the Nation's spending restraints and robust security that our Nation needs. And furthermore, under Speaker Boehner's leadership, as executed by Chairman Dreier and Chairman Rogers, we have just completed 2 days of floor debate under a completely open rule. It is the most open possible debate before the people's House. We have repeatedly addressed the issues that the gentleman is raising with this motion and thoroughly debated the merits of this shortcoming of his points. In short, it is time to vote, Mr. Speaker. It's time to deliver fiscal discipline, and it's time to deliver robust security. The American people are demanding no less. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, this bill is about priorities, fiscal discipline priorities as our Nation grapples with a genuine budget crisis, and security priorities in the aftermath of Osama bin Laden's death and as we approach the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. This bill includes robust spending reductions on bureaucracy and on programs that are not producing, cutting waste, reducing spending, and instilling genuine budget discipline.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's motion.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass.

Mr. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the gentlelady's amendment.

Mr. ADERHOLT. I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law, and constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill. It therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law requires a new determination. I request a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentlelady's amendment.

Mr. ADERHOLT. I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if a change in existing law requires a new determination. I would ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.

Mr. ADERHOLT. I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law modifies existing powers and duties. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.