Dan Goldman

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for answering. According to reporting this morning, the other previous obligation that the gentleman from Colorado had was to appear at a political campaign conference of the Speaker here in Washington, D.C., with three other Members who flipped districts. Mr. Speaker, I am sure it was essential for the gentleman from Colorado to be the fourth Republican Member to have flipped a district last time to speak with donors in Washington, D.C., so that he could not return to Boulder, Colorado, to commemorate the victims who were the subject of this resolution that he so misguidedly introduced because this resolution is the exact opposite of Mr. Van Drew's resolution. This resolution uses anti-Semitism, uses Jews, for a political objective. This was an anti-Semitic attack. The victims were Jewish. One victim was a Holocaust survivor. There is no question that the motivation of the perpetrator was anti-Semitism. It has nothing to do with how he got into this country. If you want to have an immigration enforcement conversation, let's have an immigration enforcement conversation because this has nothing to do with that. For the gentleman from Colorado to break precedent in the House of Representatives to prevent the Member representing the victims of this horrific attack from leading a resolution representing the families, I hope it is simply because he has been here for only 6 months and does not understand the traditions of this institution. It would be a shame if this is where this institution has gone, if the partisanship has gotten so deep, so raw, and so uncontrollable that we can't follow the custom of having the victims' Representative introduce a resolution condemning such a horrific attack like this. On top of that, to use this for some bogus immigration argument where he falsely characterizes Colorado as a sanctuary State and falsely represents that there were law enforcement contacts with the perpetrator when the only information we have is that there were some 911 hang-ups that traced back to an address where the perpetrator was living, to argue that somehow this is a reflection of our immigration system uses Jews as a partisan pawn. It is the exact opposite of what we Jews in this country need. I get that we are in a political body. I get that they like to put these resolutions--Mr. Evans wasn't here last term, but there were about 10 anti-Semitism resolutions that effectively said the same thing, solely to score political points. We Jews are sick and tired of being used as pawns. Anti-Semitism is rising to such a degree that people are now being murdered because they are Jewish. We are not just talking about protests on campus anymore. Every single Jewish institution has to significantly increase security. We all have to worry when we go into a synagogue whether we will be the next victim. Here we are, dealing with this resolution, trying to convert anti- Semitism and anti-Semitic violence into some immigration gotcha game. What are we thanking ICE agents for in a resolution commemorating and condemning anti-Semitism and remembering and honoring the victims when there were no ICE agents there? ICE has nothing to do with it. It is because ICE is spending so much time pulling nonviolent, noncriminal immigrants out of court, where they are going through a lawful process to come in here, so that they can be removed in expedited removal; so that they can have their asylum claims, a lawful pathway, voided; and so they can be kicked out of the country with minimal due process just so Republicans and President Trump can meet their quota of mass deportations. Mr. Speaker, we were promised they were going to go after convicted criminals. These people are not convicted criminals. This resolution says that there is cooperation between State, local, and Federal law enforcement. Really? As far as I know, the President of the United States ordered the National Guard to go into California over the objection of the Governor of California, something that has not happened since 1965. In 1965, it happened because the Governor of the State was not following Federal law. Is that the kind of cooperation that we are looking for here? This resolution should be pulled immediately. Mr. Van Drew and Mr. Neguse have offered resolutions that properly honor the victims, condemn anti-Semitism, and give the American people the sense of Congress that we, as a unified body, will not tolerate anti-Semitic violence. Instead, we are voting on an immigration gotcha resolution that uses anti-Semitism as a political pawn. Mr. Speaker, I urge you and my colleagues on the other side to come to your senses. Stop using anti-Semitism as a partisan weapon. Pull this resolution. Allow Mr. Neguse's resolution to be introduced and voted on, as is the tradition of this body, in parallel along with Mr. Van Drew's, which accurately reflects the threat not just in Boulder, Colorado, but in Washington, D.C., in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and all around the country. We still can do the right thing. It is still possible, and I am certain the American people would greatly appreciate seeing some bipartisanship out of this body on a topic that is so important to so many. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse). Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse).

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Speaker, I missed votes because of an important family matter. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 156 of the 119th Congress.

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Speaker, I missed votes because of an important family matter. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 132 of the 119th Congress and YEA on Roll Call No. 133 of the 119th Congress. Personal Explanation

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, Mr. Johnson, for organizing this incredibly important Special Order hour to highlight the absolutely unprecedented and devastating attacks on our democracy and on the rule of law. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to sound the alarm that our democratic values and the rule of law are under attack. We all must open our eyes before we find ourselves in Vladimir Putin's Russia. In just 100 days, President Trump has engaged in a coordinated, premeditated, deliberate attempt to dismantle our government. Let's be very clear: Donald Trump does not seek to lead us. He seeks to rule us, and we all must open our eyes. Since he first came into office, President Trump has persistently attacked the media to undermine the credibility of the messenger of news that he didn't like. Then, during Special Counsel Mueller's investigation on Russia's interference in the 2016 election to benefit Donald Trump's campaign, President Trump attacked the FBI relentlessly, trying to undermine its credibility. Rather than debate the facts or the evidence, which he knows he would lose, isn't it just a lot easier to simply shoot the messenger and claim that everything bad about you is just fake news? Mr. Speaker, while many, rightly, have been focusing on the arbitrary and devastating cuts to essential Federal programs or the disastrous and reckless tariffs that have increased prices and inflation and have tanked the economy, President Trump's first 100 days have also escalated this relentless assault on the checks and balances that have been the foundation of our great Nation. On day one, he pardoned more than 1,500 criminals who stormed this very building on January 6. Hundreds of them were convicted of violently assaulting law enforcement officers. It was a blatant and disgusting disregard for the rule of law and for our fine men and women in uniform. Next, during his first week, he fired nearly 20 inspectors general, the independent watchdogs in the executive branch agencies. It is their responsibility to ensure that those agencies follow the law. Then he went after the Department of Justice and the FBI. He fired prosecutors and special agents who investigated his criminal conduct. They simply did their job. He then turned to the Public Integrity Section, the renowned and venerable institution that was created after Watergate to be an independent investigative body of public officials. He and his administration have also been firing and forcing out anyone who might not share his political views, even though these jobs are career, nonpartisan, and apolitical jobs. Next, he went after lawyers and law firms who tried to hold him accountable to the law. He continues to do so. He has signed several executive orders, trying to limit the ability of law firms to represent their clients, one of the fundamental hallmarks of our system of law. He has gone after universities. These institutions form the bedrock foundation of the growth and innovation of our great country and underpin and form the foundation for the best global economy in the world. He is now threatening to withhold billions of dollars in Federal funding unless universities change their curriculum, change their admissions process, change their hiring process, and change other core parts of their mission that they, as educational institutions, decide in this democracy. He is also waging a war against nonprofit organizations, yanking grants away that have already been made and allocated. He is threatening to remove the tax-exempt status of any organization that may disagree with his opinions or support lawsuits that might actually enforce existing laws. Mr. Speaker, you see where this is going. The media, the FBI, inspectors general, the Department of Justice, law firms, universities, and nonprofit organizations are all institutions that enforce our laws and that hold those in power accountable. This is his methodical way of undermining all forms of accountability in this government. More recently, his attack on our Constitution has escalated. Before he even came into office in January, President Trump had completely submitted the Republican Conference of this body. They have abdicated their constitutional duty to be a check and balance on the executive branch. The judiciary, the third branch of government, still remains in his way. How does he deal with the judiciary? He is openly and brazenly criticizing and attacking judicial rulings that he doesn't like--including a number issued by Republican-appointed judges, including his own--and is openly defying court orders including Supreme Court orders. The President and some of my Republican colleagues are threatening judges. They are trying to bully them into ruling in their favor and not ruling based on their interpretation of the law. With the career folks removed from our executive branch agencies, he has put political lackeys in charge of our criminal justice system and our national security apparatus. He is ordering criminal investigations into individuals simply because they disagree with him. That is the type of corruption that our country travels the world to root out. At its core, it is as antidemocratic as it gets. It is the stuff of dictators and strongmen and not of democracies. Even worse, he is attacking our basic and fundamental right of due process. That is the right to have any allegation presented before a neutral arbiter who makes a final decision. Like a king, Donald Trump thinks it is okay for him to get to decide what the law is. That is not how our system works. The Supreme Court and our judiciary decide what the law is. When a unanimous Supreme Court rules that he is not a king and that he must abide by our basic principles of due process, he then refuses. Kilmar Abrego Garcia was deported to El Salvador, even though he had an order on him that would prohibit him from going to El Salvador. Donald Trump admits the mistake and refuses to bring him back to face due process. Due process is the cornerstone of our country. It distinguishes us from an authoritarian dictatorship, and Donald Trump wants to destroy it. It is not optional, and court rulings are not simply suggestions. They are the backbone of American democracy. They are our final safeguard against the unchecked power of the executive. When a President ignores the courts, he is not challenging policy. He is declaring war on the Constitution itself. Despite this laundry list of attacks on trying to undermine our democracy and our rule of law, my Republican colleagues remain absolutely silent and, in some cases, even supportive. These alarm bells are deafening, but too many in this Chamber would rather enable Donald Trump's descent into dictatorship than to confront him. They have laid down the power of the purse, and now they are actively trying to forfeit their oversight authority. They are silent as President Trump wages an all-out assault on our constitutional democracy. They are silent as he goes after the media, launches investigations into his political adversaries, and attacks our basic fundamental rights. This is what dictators like Vladimir Putin do. They use repression, retaliation, and the threat of violence to consolidate their own power, while doling out billions of dollars to other oligarchs who will support them. Many countries have faced moments like this before, moments where the freedom and the openness of the democracy that they represent stand at a crossroads. I urge my Republican colleagues to please stand up for our Constitution. Stand up for our democracy. None of us want authoritarianism. We don't want a dictator. Mr. Speaker, now is the time where the rubber meets the road, and my friends across the aisle will make their record for history. Do they want a dictator or do they want a democracy?

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this bill, which is simply an attempt by House Republicans to intimidate judges who issue rulings that they simply don't like. My colleagues concede that it is the Supreme Court which determines what the law is. Well, in today's modern age, how do you get to the Supreme Court? You go first to the district court, then through the appeals court, and then up to the Supreme Court. Now, there are many complaints that that takes too long. I agree, but we are citing rulings on the other side of the aisle of Supreme Court rulings on these very nationwide injunctions within a few weeks. Even former Speaker Newt Gingrich, the Republican star witness at our committee hearing last week on this topic, conceded that nationwide injunctions are appropriate in some cases. That is why this bill is not about the substance. It is clear that the House Republicans have completely abdicated their own constitutional duty to be a check and balance on the President. The only remaining check that is left in our separation of powers is the courts, but it is not enough for my colleagues to hand over all of their own authority to the President; they want to hand over the judiciary branch's authority, too. A fundamental principle of our Constitution is that the courts decide what the law is, not Congress and not the President, even if he is elected, which I would note for our friends down at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is true for every single President. My colleagues complain about the high number of nationwide injunctions during the first 3 months of this Presidency. Rather than blame the judges for that, I have an idea: Stop breaking the law. This is a bad bill that gets us nowhere other than toward autocracy.

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse) for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my disappointment that my commonsense amendment to the DETERRENT Act was rejected yesterday in the Rules Committee by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. My amendment would have distinguished between benign donations from friendly democratic countries and donations from potential adversarial, undemocratic states. My amendment would enact strict oversight on funding from regimes seeking to manipulate students on university campuses and to spread hate, particularly anti-Semitism, on those campuses for their own agendas. My amendment would have significantly expanded the list of countries whose donations the universities would be required to disclose, including a number of countries not included in the DETERRENT Act that have given billions and billions of dollars to universities in recent years. More importantly, my amendment would also require that universities disclose the detailed terms and conditions that they agreed to in return for the foreign donation from this expanded list of countries, critically revealing whether those foreign donations come with strings attached that can foment antidemocratic influences on campuses. Instead, this bill hampers universities' abilities to engage in important educational programming in conjunction with our democratic allies while failing to confront the real problem of antidemocratic and anti-Semitic foreign influence. Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that we could not work in a bipartisan way to make this bill better and to address the root issue that both sides of the aisle are trying to address, which is the potential nefarious foreign influence on college campuses from a list of countries far greater than the four countries of concern outlined in the DETERRENT Act.

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Speaker, I missed votes because of an important family matter. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 72 and YEA on Roll Call No. 73. personal explanation

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the Republicans' partisan sham of a government funding bill which is nothing more than a blank canvas for Donald Trump and Elon Musk to continue their smashing and looting of our Federal Government. There are too many things that are wrong with this bill to mention in just 2 minutes, including cuts to safety net programs for housing, food, veterans, and law enforcement, as well as essential community projects for every district in the country. What is really shocking is that Republicans rejected any and all input from Democrats, even though they need Democratic votes to pass this bill in the Senate. If the Republicans want to go it alone, then go it alone, but they can't blame anyone but themselves when it fails. If the government shuts down with a Republican House, Republican Senate, and Republican President, then it will be solely because the Republicans have moved forward with a terrible and partisan, take-it- or-leave-it bill. In November, the clear number one issue on voters' minds was the economy and the cost of living. However, since he has taken over, President Trump has increased costs significantly and tanked the economy. It gets even worse. The President has not only failed to keep his promise to help working Americans, but he has enlisted a corrupt, unelected billionaire to slash essential programs that hundreds of millions of Americans depend on. Elon Musk isn't cutting waste, fraud, and abuse. He doesn't even know what he is cutting. Unlike regular appropriations bills, this bill does not include the usual language to fund specific programs. What that means is that Elon Musk has unfettered discretion to cut whatever he wants. You don't need to take my word for it, Mr. Speaker. The House Freedom Caucus issued a press release supporting this bill because of that very reality. With this bill, Republicans are handing the power of the purse to Congress and not working with Democrats. We continue to stand ready to work together, but this bill does not do that.

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Speaker, I missed votes because of an important family matter. Had I been present, I would have voted: YEA on Roll Call No. 63; YEA on Roll Call No. 64; and YEA on Roll Call No. 65.

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Speaker, I missed votes because of an important family matter. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 34, and NAY on Roll Call No. 35. personal explanation

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my heartfelt gratitude to Jo-Ann Yoo for her lifetime of public service on behalf of the AAPI community in my district and the entire city of New York. This year, Jo-Ann will retire after 13 years as executive director of the Asian American Federation, an organization dedicated to supporting the 1.5 million Asian-American community members in New York City. Under Jo-Ann's leadership, the AAF played a leading role in combating the horrific rise in anti-Asian hate in 2020, organizing and ensuring local community response to provide safety to AAPI New Yorkers. Jo-Ann testified at a public briefing held by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights on the Federal response to anti-Asian hate, and she serves on New York City's Advisory Board on Implementation of Racial Justice Commission, working to end hate and discrimination of all kinds in our city. Jo-Ann leaves behind a lasting legacy of spirit, courage, determination, and advocacy that will be felt for decades to come. Thanks to Jo-Ann, New York City is a better and far more tolerant place.

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Speaker, I hereby remove my name as cosponsor of H.R. 6887 and H.R. 6598.

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Madam Speaker, due to travel delays, I was not able to be present to vote on the passage of H.R. 8932, the FAFSA Deadline Act. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 465.

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Madam Speaker, nearly 1 year ago today, I was awoken by sirens in my Tel Aviv hotel and quickly sheltered in a stairwell as rockets from a terrorist organization intent on destroying Israel and all Jewish people flew toward my family and me. My kids are still struggling from that traumatic day. It has now been 354 days since that terrorist group, Hamas, launched the most barbaric, genocidal, and murderous sneak attack on Israel in its history, killing 1,200 people, including more than 40 Americans. It has been 354 days since more than 250 people were brutally and illegally captured and taken hostage in the tunnels of Gaza, where four American citizens remain today, as well as approximately 100 more. The violence in Gaza could end today--today--if Hamas would simply release the hostages they illegally hold. The path toward peace and prosperity for both Israelis and Palestinians begins with the immediate return of the hostages. Bring them all home now.

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Speaker, 24 years ago next week, the Food and Drug Administration approved the use of mifepristone, authorizing it as a safe and effective means for women to end a pregnancy through medication. In the ensuing two decades, there has been no evidence that it is not effective, nor that it is dangerous in any way. It is actually safer than Tylenol, and millions of women have exercised their right to control their own bodies by using it. Naturally, in their quest to control women's bodies, Republicans have fought tooth and nail to prohibit access to mifepristone. Women's healthcare is not some abstract concept. It is a human right. When Republicans criminalize reproductive freedom, women die, as we learned this week about two women in Georgia. On this 24th anniversary of mifepristone's FDA authorization, which remains the law of the land, I call on pharmacies around the country to continue to distribute this safe and effective medication to women who want it.

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Chair, I thank the ranking member for yielding. Mr. Chair, I rise today to discuss the next installment of Republican hypocrisy in the 118th Congress. This one relates to anti-Semitism. My Republican colleagues have spent months haranguing university presidents for failing to protect Jewish students on college campuses, and on this, I agree. Many university presidents have failed to show appropriate moral clarity and leadership, but let me ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: Does the removal of a university president actually change the facts on the ground? Does it make Jewish students safer? The answer is unequivocally no, and certainly not in the near term. I have spoken to Jewish students all around the country, and they remain scared and afraid as anti-Semitic encampments and protests have grown more threatening and even violent. Despite all of their lipservice about combating anti-Semitism, this Republican bill makes it significantly more difficult for universities to keep Jewish students safe. Under the guise of ending wokeness on college campuses, this bill would strip universities of their ability to enforce reasonable restrictions on campus protests. It limits time, place, and manner restrictions and allows for no-notice spontaneous protests, including anywhere on campus, such as Hillels. That is right. The bill makes it easier for agitators and others to come onto college campuses and engage in anti-Semitic protests or encampments. Once again, all talk, no action from my Republican colleagues. The most effective way for the Federal Government to combat anti- Semitism on campus is through the enforcement of the title VI antidiscrimination law by the Office for Civil Rights in the Department of Education, which requires universities to remedy any violations that make Jewish students or any other students unable to safely and securely get the education that they deserve. Since October 7, OCR has opened more than 150 investigations into campus anti-Semitism, but they don't have anywhere near the resources to fully pursue those investigations--never mind that Donald Trump's Project 2025 wants to eliminate the Department of Education altogether, including the Office for Civil Rights. If Republicans truly cared about Jewish students, as they say, they would support my Showing Up for Students Act, which would increase funding for OCR so that we can actually combat anti-Semitism on the ground at universities around the country. Yet, not a single Republican has cosponsored this bill--not one.

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Chair, instead, in the last budget, Republicans insisted on cutting funding for OCR, further hampering OCR's ability to fight anti-Semitism. I, once again, ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to stop using anti-Semitism as a political weapon and join us to actually solve the problem. If you care about anti-Semitism on college campuses, you must oppose H.R. 3724 and instead join my Showing Up for Students Act so Congress can be part of the solution, not the problem.

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Speaker, this morning at Ground Zero, we observed the 23rd anniversary of the worst terrorist attack on American soil. I was living in Lower Manhattan that day, and I will never forget watching the second plane hit the South Tower and then seeing the soot- covered people walking up Hudson Street. I will never forget the overwhelming patriotism that New Yorkers and Americans around the country displayed in the face of that evil. Our Nation owes a debt of gratitude to the first responders who returned day after day to Ground Zero, looking for signs of life and clearing the rubble, and to the survivors who helped rebuild and transform the city in Lower Manhattan. Now it is our turn to take care of them. That is why Congress must pass the bipartisan 9/11 Responder and Survivor Health Funding Correction Act to permanently address the funding shortfalls in the World Trade Center Health Program. Just like our military veterans, we owe it to the 9/11 survivors and first responders, who are true American patriots, to get this bill across the finish line.

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the Republicans' desperate attempt to, yet again, use the official business of the House of Representatives to do the partisan, political bidding of Donald Trump. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have spent most of this Congress wasting our time and taxpayer money on a bogus sham impeachment investigation of President Biden that yielded no evidence of wrongdoing, much less any high crime or misdemeanor. It was obvious that that phony effort was solely designed to provide election fodder for Trump in advance of November's election, and recently the chairman of the committee overseeing that investigation even admitted as much. Now that President Biden has selflessly and patriotically passed the torch to Vice President Kamala Harris, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are scrambling to help Donald Trump's electoral chances by using our time here today on a blatantly false resolution about Vice President Harris. The title of this resolution is ``Strongly condemning the Biden administration and its Border Czar, Kamala Harris's, failure to secure the United States border.'' There is one problem. There is no such thing as a border czar, nor was Vice President Harris ever named the border czar. The entire premise of this resolution is simply false. Not surprisingly, the resolution makes no mention of the border security bill that the Biden-Harris administration negotiated with Senate Republicans that would have comprehensively addressed the problems at the border, nor does it say anything about Donald Trump's decision to sabotage and kill that bipartisan bill because it would have solved the problems that this resolution complains about. Now, why did he do that? It is precisely because he wanted his minions in the House to introduce useless and deceptive resolutions like this one to help his campaign. While Republicans continue to play politics with the border, the Biden-Harris administration did not stop trying to solve the problems facing the administration. They used what limited authority they have to control the border, and it is working. This resolution cites statistics from May of 2024 that there were 170,723 encounters at the border; however, the resolution does not include numbers from the next month, June of 2024, which cut encounters by more than one-half, to 83,536. While my Republican colleagues continue to put politics over solutions, this administration and House Democrats will continue to put people over politics to address the issues facing the American people. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this false, inaccurate, and deceptive resolution.

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Disability Pride Month, commemorated in July, is a time to highlight the history, achievements, experiences, and struggles that the disability community has experienced. From battling for greater public accessibility to ensuring government officials recognize the specific needs of the community, disability advocates have often had to fight to obtain the representation they deserve. One of these great advocates is Mike Schweinsburg who has worked toward better and greater representation and inclusion in my district, New York-10 in New York City, for nearly two decades. Mike has advised mayors, agencies, elected officials, national politicians, and everyone in between on the disability community's pressing needs, working to ensure that New Yorkers with disabilities are never left without a voice. For two decades, Mike has been an integral part of the 504 Democratic Club, the Nation's first and largest club advocating for the civil rights of people with disabilities. I am truly honored and blessed to work alongside him to ensure that everyone in New York City and our country gets the proper representation they deserve.

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Speaker, there is so much to cover here from my friends on the other side of the aisle. First, I address something that my colleague from Wisconsin said when he said that the Constitution lays out very clearly in Article I the powers of Congress. I would ask him or any of my colleagues on the other side if you could point me to where in the Constitution it confers subpoena power on Congress. You won't be able to because it is something established by the Supreme Court that is derivative from Congress' power to legislate. The Supreme Court has set forth exactly what a congressional subpoena is authorized to do. In a recent case, which you may remember, the Trump v. Mazars case, Donald Trump sued his accountant to prevent them from providing documents to Congress pursuant to a subpoena. Congressional authority, that is what we are worried about here. Well, the Supreme Court reiterated that there must be a legitimate legislative purpose in order for a congressional subpoena to be valid. Mr. Speaker, I asked in our Oversight Committee when we debated this: What is the legitimate legislative purpose that any one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle can identify to justify a contempt finding here where they have the substantive information of the recording included in the transcript and everything else requested in that subpoena was provided to them? Nonetheless, they are insisting on getting the audio of that transcript that they have. Mr. Speaker, not surprisingly, in the Oversight Committee, which has no jurisdiction over this anyway, they offered nothing. I did hear in the Judiciary Committee my friend from North Carolina, who is here, refer in a subsequent hearing to demeanor evidence as a legitimate purpose for this subpoena. Mr. Speaker, demeanor evidence sounds like sophisticated legal speak that is very esoteric and only for trial lawyers, but really it is completely irrelevant to Congress' legislative role because we don't try cases. There is no trial here. There is no demeanor evidence. As much as you may want to prosecute Joe Biden, there is no congressional prosecution of Joe Biden, and his demeanor evidence is no legitimate basis for this subpoena. Mr. Speaker, you of course know, and I don't even think you would argue, that there is a legitimate legislative purpose to use the audio recordings in a political ad to support your dear leader, Mr. Trump, so that clearly falls outside of the range. Of course, my friends on the other side of the aisle should refocus from demeanor evidence to basic concepts, like due process or executive privilege, because the President of the United States asserted executive privilege over this audiotape. You may not like it. You may not agree with it, but you have no authority to determine that that is not a correct assertion of the executive privilege. Do you know who else doesn't have authority to determine that? The Attorney General, who you are trying to hold in contempt. Due process. You are going to fine someone $10,000 without notice or an opportunity to be heard? You are going to say: We are going to fine you, and you have no opportunity to make a defense, and there is no neutral adjudicator? You can go to court all you want, and that is where you went, and that is where you belong. That is why this resolution is so bogus. I have a warning for you, my friends: You will reap what you sow. In June of 2019, then-President Donald Trump said he would defy all congressional subpoenas. That is exactly what he did. During the first impeachment investigation, every single executive branch agency defied a lawful subpoena from Congress.