H.Res. 211

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this 1-year continuing resolution. It is not a simple stopgap that keeps the lights on and the doors open. This is Republican leadership handing over the keys of the government and a blank check to Elon Musk and to President Trump.

As the White House has said, this bill creates more flexibility for this administration to continue to undermine the Constitution and the countless spending laws by stealing promised investments from American families, children, and businesses, unlawfully dismantling agencies, arbitrarily firing civil servants, and canceling union contracts.

Read the Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 7: The power of the purse resides with the Congress and not with the executive. In fact, the President has no legitimate authority to meddle in the appropriations process.

Mr. Speaker, our colleagues across the aisle have gone to their districts and witnessed rage from their constituents at these actions. They have been advised by their political consultants not to do townhalls altogether. Why bother listening to the American people?

It was President Lincoln who said public sentiment is everything, and without it, you can do nothing. They do not have public sentiment.

Now, what should we do? The answer should not be cutting nondefense programs by $15 billion and defense by $3 billion, as compared to the Fiscal Responsibility Act agreement for 2025.

They are in violation of the Fiscal Responsibility Act. There was an agreement with Senator Schumer and Speaker Johnson. We all voted for it here. This is a violation that cuts nondefense by $15 billion and defense by $3 billion.

Why do they want to shortchange defense investments by $3 billion, I ask them. Not only is it bad for our military--there is a reason the Department of Defense has never operated for an entire year under a continuing resolution--but, above all, it transfers more power to the administration to shut off and repurpose funding as they see fit.

The will of the Congress and the people would be ignored. Elon Musk and President Trump would be able to fire thousands of employees.

Yes, we do not oversee Social Security. That is in the purview of the Ways and Means Committee. However, we do have control over the administration on Social Security, and the President and Elon Musk would be able to fire thousands of employees at the Social Security Administration. Just witness, they are talking about 7,000 positions gone.

What does that result in? Office closures, longer wait times, and unacceptable backlogs for Americans trying to access their earned benefits. In effect, you remove the staff and personnel, thereby crippling the agency to be able to do its job and, yes, to provide benefits.

It is nice if you can individually negotiate with the administration on your own to keep your Social Security office open. There are 47 on the docket to get closed. If one stays open, why not all 47?

Army Corps of Engineers construction projects would be cut by $1.4 billion, 44 percent, and President Trump, not the Congress, would determine who gets the funding--what cities, States, and localities-- and how much money that is there.

Instead of helping to address housing costs, the bill cuts rent subsidies by over $700 million. It leaves landlords to foot the bill or to evict. We will evict more than 32,000 households.

This bill breaks promises to veterans. House Republicans wisely proposed $23 billion in advance funding for the toxic exposures fund to care for veterans who were exposed to burn pits, Agent Orange, and other toxic substances. In their bill last summer, it was in there. We voted for the PACT Act on a bipartisan basis, but that $23 billion in advance funding has now disappeared. It is gone.

We do advance funding here. We do it with veterans programs and others. We do it with the Indian Health Service. We do it for public broadcasting. Why do we not want to do it for veterans' care, their healthcare and treatment? Why? If I were a veteran and they said no to my advance funding--and we do advance funding so that issues like veterans' medical care don't get caught up in the political whims of this organization, of this body. Veterans today have to understand that that $23 billion for them is not there. There is uncertainty about that.

There is no emergency funding in this bill for disaster relief. It abandons American families who have had their lives turned upside-down by extreme weather. The funding for the disaster relief runs out in the spring.

What about Kentucky that just had a winter storm in February? Families will not be able to get back on their feet and recover. Neither will businesses that have been shut down because of a natural disaster.

The decisions about investments that we make cannot be entrusted in one single officeholder. This Congress must decide: Do we have the authority to control spending as we were granted and as laid out in Article I of the Constitution?

Why would we want to relinquish this, to give power to this administration, which is already doing massive harm by dismantling agencies, firing people, telling them today they are no longer needed? With the chaos and confusion that has been caused by Elon Musk and President Trump, why would we want to turn over our authority to appropriate bills?

I implore my colleagues to join me and stand up for our constituents against an unelected billionaire, Elon Musk, who is stealing taxpayer dollars from American families, children, and businesses. Oppose this giveaway to the administration. Pass a short-term CR, which I introduced yesterday, which would take us to April 11, to continue negotiations. Let us finish the regular bills that we agree on. That would be such an improvement over a full-year continuing resolution.

I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that a shutdown will be the result of the Republican majority walking away from negotiations. We were that close. They pulled the rug out from under us and said to stop negotiating because Musk and Trump want to have the control with a full-year continuing resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), the distinguished Democratic leader.

Mr. Speaker, the President has no legitimate authority by the Constitution to insert himself into the appropriations process.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguishing ranking member of the Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, the President did make a promise to drive down the cost of living. Instead, he has driven up prices.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), the distinguished Democratic whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the distinguished ranking member of the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), the distinguished ranking member of the Defense Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), the distinguished ranking member of the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman confirms what we have been saying all along: impoundment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

Mr. Speaker, we can pass a 1-month CR and do that and do what we need to do to keep the government open. There is an alternative.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Meng), who is the distinguished ranking member of the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, let's have the 1-month CR that has been introduced as an alternative and do the business of the House and pass appropriations bills.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel), who is the distinguished ranking member of the National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley), who is a member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), who is the distinguished ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the distinguished ranking member of the Small Business Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), the distinguished ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Speaker, for all of American history, it has been understood that Congress, not the president, has the ultimate power to determine how government funds are spent. Few principles are as fundamental to the structure of government enshrined in the Constitution.

From time to time, this authority has been challenged by the Executive Branch, and each time Congress has responded by rejecting the executive's encroachment on the fisc to further underscore the legislative branch's primacy over spending matters. Those conflicts have led to bedrock laws that further bolster the Congress's fiscal authority. The collection of statutes known as the Antideficiency Act (currently codified in title 31 of the United States Code) placed controls and safeguards on top of Congress's constitutional power, reiterating the Executive Branch's inability to spend without Congressionally approved legislation.

Similarly, on the other end of the fiscal law spectrum, Congress enacted the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to establish an orderly process by which the executive could request legislative action by Congress to limit already-enacted spending--simply put, affirming the existent requirement that the executive branch carry out provisions of law that require spending (that is, appropriations).

Both the Antideficiency Act and the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 provide safeguards for a legal reality that existed before either law was enacted, and which carries on to this day: When a law is enacted providing an appropriation for a purpose in an amount, the executive branch is required to take care that the appropriation is fully and prudently obligated and expended to carry out its intended purpose unless Congress provides discretion in statute to do otherwise.

Congress may provide such discretion, for example, by setting a minimum amount for an appropriation that serves as a floor or by setting a maximum level that serves as a ceiling. Certain appropriations in H.R. 1968 provide this flexibility. But in the absence of such discretion being expressly provided in legislation, when Congress provides an appropriation for a specific amount, that level is both a floor and a ceiling. These appropriations and levels stipulate an exact amount for a specified purpose and are therefore a directive to the executive branch to prudently obligate and expend that specific amount for the purposes specified within the timeframe allowed. Such is the case for the vast majority of the appropriations in H.R. 1968.

Though H.R. 1968 is a full-year continuing appropriations Act in a format unlike a traditional appropriations Act, the legal principles underlying every appropriation in the bill are the same: an appropriation, whether explicitly spelled out in the legislation or incorporated by reference from a prior-year appropriation Act (such as those included in section 1101 of H.R. 1968) is a direction from Congress to prudently obligate and expend that specific amount, for the applicable purposes and within the timeframe defined unless discretion is provided in statute to do otherwise. H.R. 1968, the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2025 (FYCAA), effectuates these appropriations chiefly through section 1101. That provision appropriates anew for fiscal year 2025 each appropriation in the referenced bills from fiscal year 2024, under the same authorities and conditions as were included in those same bills, except as specified otherwise in the FYCAA. That is, each new appropriation from section 1101 is for the same amount, and purpose, as in last year's bill except as directed otherwise in provisions in the FYCAA.

Congress is explicit about any such deviations. For example, section 1103 states that the appropriations provided by section 1101 retain a ``comparable period of availability.'' That means an appropriation provided in a referenced bill that was available for obligation for two fiscal years (for fiscal year 2024 and remaining available through the end of fiscal year 2025), that is appropriated anew by section 1101 would be available for obligation for two fiscal years as well (for fiscal years 2025 and 2026). The FYCAA also includes some specific and explicit negations of authorities and conditions in last year's bills, such as section 1503(a), which loosens the requirements under which the Army Corps of Engineers is required to spend the appropriations provided in this bill to that agency. These are only a couple examples of the deviations (called ``anomalies'') specified in the bill.

The FYCAA is also distinguishable from the short-term continuing appropriations Act contained in division A of Public Law 118-83. which is currently applicable through March 14, 2025. The FYCAA for example, contains no provision comparable to section 109 of division A of Public Law 118-83: whereas Congress contemplated limited funding actions from the continuing appropriations provided in section 101 of such division, that instruction does not extend to the appropriations provided in the FYCAA, nor other appropriations that were previously enacted, either in this fiscal year or in prior fiscal years.

The appropriations contained in the FYCAA directly renew the appropriations with the applicable authorities and conditions from Public Laws 118-42 and 118-47--except where explicitly directed in this law otherwise--and are a reaffirmation of Congress's intent to provide for those activities in full. That intent was made clear by the original enactment of the appropriations in those laws and the accompanying Joint Explanatory Statements in March of 2024, and by the affirmation and continuation of additional funding for those same purposes under the same authorities and conditions (except where otherwise revised in statute) in September and December of 2025 through the enactment and amendment of the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2025.

Fully acknowledging the change in Administration on January 20, 2025, the Congress has observed dramatic changes in how duly enacted appropriations have been executed over the last 50 days. I note that the current Administration's actions to defy Congress's specific appropriations have been rejected by the Judicial Branch to date. The FYCAA also represents a rejection by the legislative branch of the current Administration's unlawful refusal to take care that enacted appropriations be faithfully executed.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 211, I call up the bill (H.R. 1968) making further continuing appropriations and other extensions for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2025, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the measure under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1968, the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act 2025.

Today's bill comes about at a critical time for this institution and this Nation. As Members are well aware, government funding all runs out at midnight on Friday. That means that Members are faced with a stark but clear choice: Will they vote in favor of this bill and thereby keep the government open and operating, or will they vote ``no'' thereby affirmatively choosing to shut down the government? This choice is the choice we face today.

We are now nearly 5\1/2\ months into the fiscal year 2025. Congress has previously passed two short-term continuing resolutions, both of which extended government funding and kept the status quo in place, ensuring the government can remain open.

Today's bill is really no different than the CR passed in December. Other than the most essential and critical anomalies, it simply maintains current conditions through the end of the fiscal year.

For those that supported the CR in December, you should have no qualms about voting the same way on today's bill. There are no policy differences, no poison pills, and no reason to vote against keeping the government open and operating.

A yearlong CR is not how I hoped the FY 2025 appropriations process would end. The Appropriations Committee and the House did their work. Indeed, the committee reported out all 12 appropriations bills by midsummer and the House passed five of those bills covering over 70 percent of discretionary spending across the floor by the end of July.

Sadly, despite our best efforts, we were unable to come to a final agreement on the full-year appropriations bills. Although we were very close on a final dollar figure, my colleagues in the minority made additional demands that would restrict the legitimate authority of the executive and the appropriations process. These are restrictions that the minority would never accept for a Democratic President, nor are they provisions that President Trump would or should sign into law.

It is deeply unfortunate and disappointing that the minority chose to make these unreasonable demands. Republicans never left the negotiating table and indeed worked diligently with Democrats to reach a bicameral, bipartisan deal.

Sadly, the minority allowed their opposition to the President to cloud their judgment, giving in to a political temper tantrum rather than voting to keep the government open.

That truly is the choice before us, Mr. Speaker. Today's bill is a simple, straightforward continuing resolution, funding the government and keeping it open through September 30. It maintains the status quo, providing flat funding for the government, and including only legitimate anomalies.

Importantly, this bill does not contain a single poison pill policy rider. It is a clean CR, fully funding our government. This includes our military and defense needs, and indeed we have accomplished this while also fully funding the Department of Defense, including the largest pay raise for junior enlisted personnel in over 40 years.

We are also maintaining funding for other critical functions of government, including border defense, roads, parks, childcare, water infrastructure projects, biomedical research, job training, and countless others.

I know Members have heard some fear-mongering about Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. This bill

makes no changes to any of these programs, leaving them intact, as is, and with the funding they need to operate through the end of the fiscal year.

Let me say that again. There are no changes to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, period.

Mr. Speaker, the outcome of the fiscal year 2025 appropriations process is not what I wanted, but at the end of the day, it is significantly better than the alternative: a government shutdown.

The choice is clear: Either Members will vote for this bill and for keeping the government open, or they will vote to shut the government down. I know which option my constituents expect, and I know which I will choose.

I urge all my colleagues to do the same and vote for this bill. I urge all my colleagues to vote to keep the government open and operating.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Alford), my very good friend and a distinguished member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the Democratic leader and certainly great respect and personal friendship for the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

I don't know what bill the leader read, but it certainly wasn't this bill. We heard a lot about Social Security. There is not a single thing in this bill on Social Security. We heard a lot about Medicare. We don't deal with Medicare under the Appropriations Committee. It is not in here. We heard a lot about Medicaid. It is not in here either. If it will be dealt with, it will be dealt with in a reconciliation bill but not this bill.

This bill is about keeping the government open, something my friends pride themselves on and have often patted themselves on the back on. They have the opportunity to do it today because that is all this bill does. It also does a couple of other interesting things.

My friend said we cut funds for food support. It doesn't do that. It actually adds $500 million to WIC.

They said we cut support for housing. It doesn't do that. It actually adds money to the housing accounts.

If we actually go through the bill, the charges made simply don't have much to do with what is in this bill.

The simple reality is we are either going to keep the government open or we are going to shut it down. If we want to keep the government open and keep working on these problems, vote ``yes.'' If we want to shut the government down and throw the country into chaos, vote ``no.''

It is certainly the privilege of my friends on the other side to vote how they care to vote, but don't say there are things in this bill which simply are not there. That is just fear-mongering of the worst sort.

Mr. Speaker, again, I urge my friends to keep the government open. By the way, just for the record, neither the President nor the Speaker ever asked me to leave the negotiating table. It was quite the opposite. The Speaker said to keep going, to keep trying, and to keep at it.

We are 4 days away from the shutdown. My friends introduced a lot of things in the negotiations that aren't normally appropriations issues. They chose to do that. We couldn't come to a deal. We are pretty close on the top-line number. We were right there, but we are not going to have a Republican Senate and a Republican House restrict a Republican President from the legitimate exercise of executive authority and then, oh, by the way, ask him to sign the bill.

How do my colleagues think that is going to work out? That is not a very reasonable request. We resisted it. My friend, Senator Collins, who is my negotiating partner from the Senate, resisted it and will continue to resist it. That is not going to happen.

This bill is about none of those things. This bill is about keeping the government open. If they choose to shut it down, then that is their prerogative. They are allowed to do that, but I don't intend to do that. I don't think my colleagues on my side of the aisle intend to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Democrats who actually read the bill to reflect on it and avoid shutting down the government as well and working with us in that regard.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the Republican majority leader and my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson), my good friend and a senior member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford), my very good friend and a member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Mrs. Bice), my very good friend and a distinguished member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), my good friend and a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Lawler).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), who is the chairman of the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in that case, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it has been an interesting debate. There have been a lot of things said that are exaggerations and a lot of things said, in my view, that are fabrications. I will talk about a few of those.

There is nothing in this bill about Social Security. There is nothing in this bill about Medicare. There is nothing in this bill about Medicaid.

There aren't cuts in nutrition for the poor. There is a $500 million increase in WIC, at the request of the President. There are no cuts in housing. There is an increase in housing to try to adjust for inflation.

We probably would have been better off if we had negotiated a deal, but that didn't happen. We did the proactive thing. There is more money in here to take care of junior enlisted personnel. I don't think that is probably an article of much dispute. It certainly shouldn't be.

Mr. Speaker, I can go charge by charge.

On the Toxic Exposures Fund, we are going to deal with that in the fiscal year 2026 bill. It is for 2026. Everything is funded for 2025. That is what this bill covered. It is an appropriations bill for fiscal year 2025. That is what we are covering here.

We are going to deal with the fiscal year 2026 bill, and then we will deal with that issue. I voted for the Honoring our PACT Act. I believe in it. I voted for additional funding for it. I suspect we will find common ground there.

There are a lot of fireworks around this bill. Let's just talk about what it does.

Mr. Speaker, it is pretty simple. It is a CR. It is a continuing resolution. The Democratic leadership came out against it before they ever saw it. Maybe that is why we have all these fabrications and hallucinations about what is in it. It is pretty short. It is 99 pages. Read it.

Now, I am sorry that everybody didn't get their projects. I really am sorry about that. We don't do that in CRs.

The big cuts here mostly are an elimination of congressional projects. I think most of those are worthy projects. I support them. I actually support the reforms my good friend, the ranking member, put in there. I think she did a great job for that for this institution, but we can't do them in a CR. We just don't do them. People are upset about that. I am sorry about that.

At the end of the day, there is only one important thing that matters here. Members can vote ``yes'' and keep the government open. Whatever my Democratic colleagues' problem is and whatever the minority's concern is, it is going to be worse in a government shutdown, not better. It will be worse. Whatever my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are worried about, shutting down the government is not the answer to their concern. My colleagues are only going to make it worse.

Keeping the government open is the right thing to do. I wish we could have gotten a deal, but we are not going to sit here and concede the executive authority of a Republican President because it upsets the minority. It is not going to happen.

We made that crystal clear, and I think that was the biggest thing. It wasn't a top-line number. We basically got to a top-line number. We are here, and the government shutdown is 4 days away.

If Democratic Members want to vote ``no'' and succeed in shutting down the government in 4 days, that is their choice. I respect every Member's vote.

I have never voted for a government shutdown. I have always voted to reopen the government. I don't like government shutdowns. I don't think they work. I think the minority will find that if they succeed in shutting down the government it won't work very well for them either.

It never works. I think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would be better advised to vote ``yes'' than to

have to defend a vote to shut down the government, personally.

Actually, this body will not have the final say. It is going to go to the United States Senate, and the minority has the power in the Senate to shut down the government if they choose because they have a filibuster over there. They have 60 votes. If Democratic Members are worried about it, just let it go over there. They have the power in that body to do it.

If my colleagues want to shut down the government, it is their choice.

Mr. Speaker, I think the choice is crystal clear. If we took a poll on it and the American people were asked: Do you want to shut down the government? The overwhelming answer would be: No.

Do you think we should keep the government open and keep working on our problems? That would be an overwhelming yes.

I choose to do what the American people want to do: keep the government open. That is what my constituents want. Maybe Democratic Members' constituents want to shut it down. Mine don't, and I suspect theirs don't, either.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest we set aside the rhetoric and the intense feelings and just do the right thing, and the right thing is to vote ``yes'' and keep the government open.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I urge them not to vote to shut down the government, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 211, I call up the bill (H.R. 1156) to amend the CARES Act to extend the statute of limitations for fraud under certain unemployment programs, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the American people supported President Trump in November because he pledged to eliminate waste and fraud in government.

There is no better example of what President Trump is talking about than the rampant fraud the Ways and Means Committee has uncovered in the COVID-era unemployment insurance program.

This money was supposed to help workers and their families through a crisis. Instead, it was stolen. It was stolen by fraudsters and criminals. According to government estimates, between $100 billion and $135 billion of UI benefits were stolen during the pandemic.

Outside estimates range as high as $400 billion. That is higher than the economy of my home State of Missouri and about 20 other States. It is the greatest theft of tax dollars in U.S. history. So far, the government has only recovered about $5 billion. As we stand here, there are over 157,000 open UI fraud hotline complaints and more than 1,600 ongoing fraud investigations.

This is a must-pass bill. The statute of limitations for these investigations starts to run out in 16 days on March 27. If we don't extend it, the criminals who stole money from the pockets of taxpayers, and continue to do so to this day, will get away.

The Pandemic Unemployment Fraud Enforcement Act is simple. It doubles the statute of limitations from 5 to 10 years so we can prosecute and recover hundreds of billions of stolen tax dollars. We did this in the 117th Congress when Republicans and Democrats voted unanimously to extend the statute of limitations for fighting fraud and other COVID- era programs plagued by criminal theft. This legislation deserves the same strong bipartisan support. Yet during our markup, not a single Ways and Means Democrat voted for this bill. Let me preview some of the fear-mongering you are going to hear today on this floor.

First, committee Democrats will argue that giving law enforcement more time to prosecute fraud will lead to surprise bills or targeting of innocent Americans who accidentally received an overpayment. This is completely false.

DOJ is focused on prosecuting sophisticated criminals who maliciously defrauded the government, including international crime rings, online scammers, and gangs that are using tax dollars to illegally purchase firearms and commit crimes.

This is not about going after grandma who made a mistake on her form. Anyone making that claim is simply not telling the truth. That isn't happening today, and it won't happen tomorrow. All this bill does is simply extend the investigations ongoing today.

Second, Democrats claim that rescinding $5 million to offset the cost of this bill is a bridge too far. This is unused money sitting over at the Department of Labor. With over 1,600 open investigations, Democrats should be more concerned about what their constituents and American taxpayers have to lose if this doesn't get done.

Third, Mr. Speaker, you will hear complaints about items unrelated to this bill like DOGE or the streamlining of the Federal Government to make it work better for the American taxpayer.

I understand that my colleagues on the other side may want to use their floor time to discuss those issues, but that is not what the bill in front of us is all about. It is simply about continuing ongoing efforts to recoup tens of billions of dollars criminally taken from the American taxpayer.

A ``no'' vote is a vote to allow these criminals to keep the money they stole from taxpayers. It is a vote to surrender to fraudsters. It is a vote that says to Americans we don't care about their hard-earned taxpayer dollars.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), the chairman of the Work and Welfare Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Yesterday, my colleagues introduced an amendment that would limit prosecution of fraud cases with at least $100,000 in stolen funds.

Apparently, Mr. Speaker, Democrats want to give some criminals a get- out-of-jail-free card.

Let me give you an example of what that looks like. A woman from Rockford, Iowa, was sentenced to more than a year in prison for receiving $45,000 in unemployment benefits from eight different States using stolen identities and laundering the proceedings through cryptocurrency.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a September 20, 2022, release from the United States Attorney's Office Northern District of Iowa titled: ``Iowa Woman Sentenced to Federal Prison for COVID-19 Related Benefit Fraud and Money Laundering.''

Tuesday, September 20, 2022.

Iowa Woman Sentenced to Federal Prison for COVID-19 Related Benefit

Fraud and Money Laundering

mendenhall received over $45,000 in fraudulently obtained benefits and

laundered most of the funds by purchasing cryptocurrency

A Rockford, Iowa woman who received unemployment benefits

in other people's names, and laundered most of those funds

through cryptocurrency transactions, was sentenced September

20, 2022, to more than a year in federal prison.

Stephanie Mendenhall, age 53, from Rockford, Iowa, received

the prison term after a March 24, 2022, guilty plea to four

counts of theft of government funds and one count of money

laundering conspiracy. At the plea hearing, Mendenhall

admitted to facilitating false claims for unemployment

insurance benefits, which were intended for those in need due

to the COVID-19 pandemic, in the names of other people and

allowing those funds to be deposited into bank accounts she

owned or controlled. Mendenhall received fraudulent

unemployment benefits paid through the states of Maine,

Michigan, Washington, Arizona, Colorado, Texas, Kansas, and

Illinois, including benefits related to COVID-19 relief

funds, to which she was not entitled. Mendenhall received at

least $35,985 in false unemployment benefits. Mendenhall

spent some of the money on herself, but laundered the

majority of it by purchasing cryptocurrency and sending it to

a co-conspirator. After being indicted in this case, while on

pretrial release, Mendenhall attempted to deposit counterfeit

checks into other bank accounts she owned.

Mendenhall was sentenced in Sioux City by United States

District Court Chief Judge Leonard T. Strand. Mendenhall was

sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment. She was also ordered to

make $46,378.31 in restitution to the states of Maine,

Michigan, Washington, Arizona, Colorado, Texas, Kansas, and

Illinois. She must also serve a 2-year term of supervised

release after the prison term. There is no parole in the

federal system.

On May 17, 2021, the Attorney General established the

COVID-19 Fraud Enforcement Task Force to marshal the

resources of the Department of Justice in partnership with

agencies across government to enhance efforts to combat and

prevent pandemic-related fraud. The Task Force bolsters

efforts to investigate and prosecute the most culpable

domestic and international criminal actors and assists

agencies tasked with administering relief programs to prevent

fraud by, among other methods, augmenting and incorporating

existing coordination mechanisms, identifying resources and

techniques to uncover fraudulent actors and their schemes,

and sharing and harnessing information and insights gained

from prior enforcement efforts. For more information on the

Department's response to the pandemic, please visit https:// www.justice.gov/coronavirus.

Anyone with information about allegations of attempted

fraud involving COVID-19 can report it by calling the

Department of Justice's National Center for Disaster Fraud

(NCDF) Hotline at 866-720-5721 or via the NCDF Web Complaint

Form at: https://www.justice.gov/disaster-fraud/ncdf/ disaster-complaint-form.

Mendenhall is to surrender to the Bureau of Prisons on a

date yet to be set.

The case was prosecuted by Assistant United States

Attorneys Ron Timmons and Tim Vavricek and was investigated

by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of

Labor's Office of Inspector General.

Court file information at https://ecf.iand.uscourts.gov/ cgi-bin/login.pl.

The case file number is 21-3028.

A criminal, Mr. Speaker, is a criminal no matter how much they steal from the American taxpayers. H.R. 1156 is a must-pass bill for anyone interested in enforcing the rule of law.

I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Malliotakis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Estes).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Yakym).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bean).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Kiley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Schmidt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the folks on the other side of the aisle were referring to President Trump firing the Department of Labor inspector general earlier. President Trump campaigned on changing Washington. He is well within his power to remove members of the executive branch at will, and it is understandable, Mr. Speaker, that he wants people in his administration who reflect his views.

The Labor Department's inspector general plays an important role in identifying fraud but does not charge cases or decide which ones to prosecute. The Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney's Offices handle prosecution of Federal crimes. This bill extends the statute of limitations to ensure the Department of Justice has the time they need to go after criminals who committed acts of malice and intentional fraud against American taxpayers.

The criminal activity in the COVID-era unemployment insurance program represents the largest theft of tax dollars in U.S. history. This money was supposed to help American families through a once-in-a-lifetime crisis. Instead, thousands of criminals, including foreign crime rings, made off with hundreds of billions of dollars.

We know that some of these same groups are continuing to perpetrate UI fraud targeting disaster victims. Fraudsters are filing claims on behalf of individuals impacted by fires in your State, Mr. Speaker, and the North Carolina floods, and then using the money for criminal activity.

The statute of limitations to prosecute these crimes is set to expire this month with just 4 percent of the stolen funds having, so far, been recovered. Criminals are going to get away scot-free unless we pass this legislation.

Over the past few weeks, Democrats have sued and stonewalled President Trump, Elon Musk, and DOGE over the broader investigation into how our tax dollars are being spent.

The American people are tired of words. It is time for action. The Pandemic Unemployment Fraud Enforcement Act will buy prosecutors and law enforcement more time to go after criminals and recoup the money taxpayers are rightfully owed. It is no wonder this legislation is widely supported by Federal law enforcement agencies and States.

The American people deserve justice, and now it is up to Congress to deliver it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, for his leadership in helping negotiate a really important bill to keep the government funded.

As has been duly noted along the way, over this past year, roughly 6 months in this House, the last majority in the last Congress passed over 70 percent of the government funding bills, Mr. Speaker. We passed them to the Senate. Back then, Chuck Schumer and the Democrats were in charge, and they chose not to pass a single House appropriations bill, not one.

The House under Republican majority, not always with help from the other side but we still got it done on our own, passed over 70 percent of the government funding bills. Eventually it got to a point where we had to let the Senate try to get something done which, unfortunately, they didn't. Then we got to the verge of a shutdown. We said we are not going to let that happen, and we had a short-term funding bill.

Here we are again on the eve of another potential shutdown, and this Republican majority said we are not going to let that happen. In fact, this Republican President Donald Trump said we are not going to let that happen either. It would be irresponsible to have a government shutdown.

Maybe it is because Donald Trump said he is for it that then the Democrat leadership decided they were going to be against it. When did they decide they were going to be against this bill? They decided this before the bill was even written. Before it was filed, they came out against it and started saying things that were in the bill when it wasn't even written, Mr. Speaker.

You heard them talking about cuts to Medicare, cuts to veterans. The bill wasn't even written, and they were already making up stories to try to figure out how to vote ``no'' and shut the government down. That is sadly where this Democratic Party has gotten.

The Democratic Party of today is a leaderless, rudderless ship. They don't have an agenda. You saw it at the State of the Union, Mr. Speaker, when you saw President Trump--not only laying out his agenda-- that 77 million people, a majority of Americans, went to the polls to elect. That is the mandate that President Trump got, not just with the majority of Americans and a majority of the electoral college but all seven--seven out of seven swing States all voted for President Trump because they wanted that agenda implemented.

You know what irritates the Democrats the most? What irritates them the most is the fact that President Trump is following through on the promises that he made, actually doing the things he said he would do.

He is securing the border. That was the number one issue all across this country. No matter which State you went to, people wanted a secure border. He is following through on it, and yet the Democratic Party is criticizing him for doing that part of his job.

Rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse in government is something that should be bipartisan. In fact, it used to be bipartisan to root out waste, fraud, and abuse, but now, because Donald Trump is doing it, the Democratic Party of today up here in Washington is so consumed with hatred that they oppose even rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse that has been not only highlighted up here but people around the country are talking about getting rid of that waste once they have seen it.

A lot of this was a veil that was pulled down where people couldn't even find out what was going on because the payment systems were being hidden by the Biden administration. We couldn't even find out about a lot of that spending that we were anecdotally hearing about, but finally you saw it on full display. It was so embarrassing that some of those employees have left.

Fortunately, a lot of that taxpayer money that was being wasted is now being saved, and the money is being recouped so that we can shore up programs that work vitally for people.

The President talked about Social Security, a program that we help protect. When you have got somebody that is listed as 300 years old in the Social Security system, that shows you the kind of fraud and abuse that is going on. President Trump is willing to confront that and take it on so that people who actually paid into the program their whole lives can get the benefits they deserve.

That is what people elected President Trump and this majority on the Republican side to do. You would think Democrats would want to join in and help accomplish that, and yet here they are on this floor talking about things that aren't even in the bill, trying to scare people. They are talking about cuts to veterans in the bill, and maybe it is because they just didn't read the bill. It is only 99 pages long. I would urge them to go read it. They might actually vote for this bill in the next hour because they will realize, in fact, the cuts that they are talking about are not true. They are not in the bill.

There is an increase for veterans in this bill. You know what else is in this bill, Mr. Speaker? I again applaud the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and his members for negotiating something that has been needed for a long time, and that is the largest pay raise for our junior enlisted military personnel in over 40 years. Now, if somebody doesn't think our men and women in uniform deserve that pay raise, maybe they will vote ``no.'' I am proud to say I am going to be voting ``yes'' to support our men and women in uniform who have been waiting for that raise and deserve it. How can you justify a ``no'' vote on that, Mr. Speaker? That is actually in the bill.

As they talk all day about what is not in the bill because they were against it before it was even written, if they actually read this bill, again only 99 pages, it is a pretty quick read, you would find out that that pay raise for our troops is in the bill. Stronger funding for our veterans is in the bill.

Why are they voting ``no,'' you would ask? It is just because the name of the President is Donald Trump.

I think the people of this country are fed up with that kind of hatred that consumes people here in Washington.

Again, when you watch the State of the Union Address, and the President is not even talking about his agenda, he is introducing and paying tribute to a 13-year-old boy who just beat cancer, they couldn't even stand up and applaud that on their side because of the person who said it? If the hatred is so consuming that you can't even support what is great about America, maybe you need to reevaluate what is important in doing these jobs.

We are elected to represent the people, and if the President, no matter who he is or she is, has a great idea, you support it.

There were a lot of things about Barack Obama's policies I disagreed with, Mr. Speaker, yet, when he said something that was good for America at a State of the Union Address, I stood up. We actually worked with the President. The chairman was part of that, Chairman Cole, in passing the 21st Century Cures Act, the last bill that Barack Obama signed to help put more funding in the NIH so we could cure major diseases. We protect those gains in this bill.

If they are advocating to vote ``no,'' they are advocating for a government shutdown. It is a binary choice. It is not like there is a plan B behind door number two, Mr. Speaker. If the plan is to vote ``no,'' what you are really saying is you want to shut down the government.

We all get to bring a guest to the State of the Union, and they get to sit up in the balcony. You have the First Lady and the President's guests up there. Again, there was the 13-year-old boy who beat cancer who was a guest. The widow of a slain police officer was in the balcony, and Democrats would not even applaud and pay tribute to her. They were there. Everybody else got to bring a guest.

Most Democrats bragged that they were bringing Federal workers as their guests. You saw a lot of them holding rallies in front of Federal offices with Federal employees, some of whom hadn't shown up for work in 3 years since COVID, but they found their way to the office not to work but to protest. Democrats are about to vote to furlough all of those Federal workers. Why? Not because of what is in the bill. They have been telling you stories that aren't even true about what is in the bill. They don't like it because of the name of the President of the United States.

Aren't we bigger than that? Aren't we a better country than that, Mr. Speaker?

This is our responsibility to get this job done and then turn the page and go to work. This is the business, frankly, of the Biden administration that we are cleaning up, and we all ought to join together and finish that and then come together and start a real appropriations process where we move not just 70 percent of the bills in the House and zero in the Senate.

Senator Thune, to his credit as the new majority leader, has vowed to actually work on a true appropriations process so we are not working at the midnight hour on CRs but where we can actually have a fully functioning appropriations process, something we haven't seen in this town in a long time.

We have to first take care of yesterday's business before we can start on tomorrow's appropriations process. It is critical that we get this job done, not to vote to lay off and furlough all the Federal workers and the TSA agents. You won't even be able to go to the airport or your favorite Federal park if they got their way.

Let's actually get our work done so we can start a 12-bill appropriations process that moves through the Senate too where you can actually have a negotiation between two sides of the aisle, again, something we haven't seen in a long time but is long past due.

It is a new day in America, and I applaud President Trump. This morning we had Vice President JD Vance come and talk about the importance of passing this bill because they want to fix the problems of this Nation. They want to fulfill the promises that were made during the campaign and follow through on the mandate that was given to President Trump, Vice President Vance, and this Republican majority in the House and Senate by 77 million people to turn this country around.

Let's get back to being the greatest country in the history of the world. We can do it. We can come together and solve big problems. We solve big problems by first taking care of the basics of government and that is to keep the government open.

Let's pass this CR. Let's see a big vote to do it, too. I welcome both sides of the aisle. My friends on the other side, they can criticize a bill they have never read that wasn't even filed, but once they look at this bill, I think you might even see some of them vote ``yes,'' as well.

Let's get our work done, and let's move on to the next challenges that the American people expect us to deliver for them.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I have to ask, Mr. Speaker: What the hell is the Republican majority doing?

I mean, last week, these guys canceled Congress and went home all because they don't want new moms or dads to be able to vote. So much for being the party of family values.

The gentlewoman just said that the Speaker is very much in support of family values, yet he has a problem with allowing new moms and dads to be able to vote by proxy. He seems to have no problem with Republican Members flying to the West Coast, filming comedy shows in Hollywood, and voting by proxy.

I mean, I don't get it. That is what family values mean to my Republican friends?

It took the Speaker a week--it took the Speaker a whole week--to buy off a few votes by offering a pretend deal. Now, Republicans are ready to move forward on the important legislative business of--wait for it-- passing the same bills they rejected last week, not that these bills are any better the second time around.

These bills include a bill that will make it harder for women to vote, a bill to let the Trump administration break the law, and two resolutions that stick it to consumers.

Honest to God, Mr. Speaker, who asked for these? Which Trump donor wrote these measures?

Meanwhile, what aren't we talking about on the floor right now? We aren't talking about the tariffs, not a peep about the tariffs, not a peep about the chaos in the markets, not a peep about the uncertainty this is causing, not a peep about how this is going to screw over middle America.

Never in my life have I seen anything like this.

The President promised lower prices and a booming economy, and we are going to get higher prices and a recession. This is nuts.

Trump isn't using tariffs strategically. He is launching an economic nuclear war, and we are all in the blast zone. This is a disaster.

Even if you agree with these tariffs, which is nuts, put that aside. Even if you are a fan, can just one Republican admit that it is insane that one guy is making this call alone?

Our Founders fought a revolution to stop one person from having this much power, and so-called conservatives are rewriting the rules to dodge a vote in Congress. This is crazy.

They are totally fine giving Trump unlimited power to do whatever the hell he wants, and they won't even let us vote. They won't even let us vote.

A few minutes ago, I sought recognition for a motion allowed under the law to bring a joint resolution to the floor to end just one of Trump's tariffs, and that request was denied because Republicans have rigged the rules. Let me repeat that. Republicans have rigged the rules, and I will talk more about that during this debate.

This is all because Republicans know what is coming, and they are scared. They know people are going to lose

their jobs. They know paychecks are going to shrivel. They know prices will go up, retirement plans will go down, and businesses are going to stop investing.

They don't want to have to go home and explain it. They don't want to have to put their names on that. They are rigging the rules so we don't have a vote.

Guess what. They can run from accountability, but they can't hide from the consequences.

You guys own this. You own the tariffs. You own the fallout.

There is no plan here, no strategy, just economic self-sabotage. Regular Americans are going to pay the price for these tariffs. This is a disaster for our country, and you guys are too chicken to even vote ``yes'' or ``no'' on whether you support the tariffs.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy) will be happy to learn that it already is the law that only American citizens can vote in Federal elections. I am happy to send him the law so that he can understand that.

Our problem with the SAVE Act is that it is an attempt to make it more difficult for women who are U.S. citizens to be able to vote.

Talking about rigging the rules, again, there are four closed rules in this rule. For those who are tuning in, that means that we can't offer any amendments, we can't change anything, and we just have to take it or leave it. That is called rigging the rules so that Democrats and Republicans can't participate in the process.

Then there is a fifth measure in here. The gentleman who was just screaming on the floor helped lead the effort to get the Speaker of the House basically to go against the will of the majority in this House who wanted very much to have an up or down vote on whether or not we could allow new parents to be able to vote by proxy, so that they could actually stay home with their new baby for a brief period of time and be able to represent their constituents at the same time.

What is in this rule is a fake compromise, they call it. It is a nothing burger. It doesn't change anything. It doesn't help anybody. Basically, we can't debate or vote up or down on that. It is deemed passed. Magically, it is deemed passed in this rule if this rule gets a majority vote.

Mr. Speaker, not to mention what I was saying at the very beginning that Republicans have basically shut off any attempts to bring legislation to the floor to deal with President Trump's tariffs, which, by the way, are going to result in enormous cost increases for consumers.

Mr. Speaker, this whole House is being mismanaged. This whole House is being run in a way that, quite frankly, would impress Vladimir Putin. Yet, then again, maybe that is who they want to impress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Pettersen), who led the effort, along with Ms. Jacobs of California, to grant new parents the ability to be able to be good parents, to be able to be with their newborns and still be able to represent their constituents.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me correct the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx). We are not voting on any kind of compromise here. It is being deemed. Republicans have it tucked into the rule so that we don't have a separate vote on it. We are not going to have a separate debate on it. Yet, that is one of the tactics used so that we can't actually talk about it on the House floor.

Secondly, paired voting, if it was such a good idea, why did we get rid of it 25 years ago? Basically, it is a glorified way to highlight to people that Members are absent and not here voting. Ms. Pettersen's vote won't count if she is not here.

It is just a stupid, ridiculous way to try to deal with the issue at hand, which is that new moms and dads actually should be able to be good moms and dads, stay with their kids at home, and be able to still represent their constituents.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Pettersen) for any additional comments.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans should be ashamed of themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago, I laid out how Donald Trump's tariffs are causing chaos and hurting families. I will explain why we are unable to force a vote to block them here in the House, even though the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the National Emergencies Act provide a process to terminate national emergencies through a privileged joint resolution.

Parliamentary Inquiries

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, the House Rules and Manual says here: ``A privileged motion to discharge a committee from further consideration of a joint resolution terminating an emergency is available after the measure has been referred to committee for 15 calendar days.''

A Member of this House, Ranking Member Meeks, introduced H.J. Res. 72, terminating the national emergency imposing tariffs on Canada, 34 days ago.

Earlier, I offered a motion to discharge his joint resolution from committee and bring it to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, why wasn't it allowed?

Yes.

Mr. Speaker, what I am just trying to figure out is whether it is in order in the House to move to discharge H.J. Res. 72 or H.J. Res. 73 from committee so that they can be considered on the floor.

I guess we are not going to get an answer.

Mr. Speaker, it wasn't allowed because Republicans changed how time itself works in the House to prevent a vote on tariffs that is allowed under the law.

Mr. Speaker, I will be clear here because the stakes are very high. We are

talking about whether this House has the authority under the current rules to stop the President of the United States from imposing disastrous, calamitous tariffs that are causing economic chaos, raising prices for regular Americans, and causing uncertainty for businesses.

A motion to discharge Ranking Member Meeks' resolution is not allowed because Republicans literally changed the definition of what a day is to protect themselves from voting on tariffs.

Now, we should have been able to call it up after 15 days, but Republicans are pretending 34 days is less than 15 days. Republicans rigged the rules to protect Donald Trump, Mr. Speaker, and to protect themselves from voting on his tariffs.

H. Res. 211, which the Republican majority adopted in March, changed the operation of the calendar.

Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, I have the resolution in front of me and it says that each day for the remainder of the first session of the 119th Congress shall not constitute a calendar day for purposes of section 202 of the National Emergencies Act with respect to a joint resolution terminating a national emergency declared by the President on February 1, 2025.

So that resolution changed the operation of the National Emergencies Act and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, also known as the law, to make sure that Members of this House cannot force a vote on Trump's tariffs.

Is that right, Mr. Speaker?

In fact, that is right, Mr. Speaker. You may not want to opine on it, but the truth is, Republicans rigged the rules to prevent a vote on these tariffs, a vote that Members of this body would have been able to demand if we were following the law. I want to get to the bottom of why we can't vote on these tariffs.

Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.