Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, earlier today I spoke of my general views on this terrible bill. I want to comment on a remark the chairman of the committee made during the debate on this technical amendment concerning language proposed by the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) and initially accepted by the majority that would protect legally separated spouses from having the income of their spouses attributed to them in calculating how much they can repay their creditors. The gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) testified in support of the Sensenbrenner amendment in front of the Committee on Rules yesterday because of the inclusion of his language and what he thought was a simple clarification. In fact, his language, unknown to him, had been dropped from the amendment. The members of the majority on the Committee on Rules sat silently while he testified in favor of the amendment and never once disclosed to him or to any member of the Committee on Rules minority or the Committee on the Judiciary minority that in fact that language was removed from the manager's amendment. Now the chairman tells us the Schiff amendment is not technical or clarifying but is in fact a controversial and substantive change. That is a startling admission. Is it really his intent that a woman who has been abused and is now separated from her husband and is living in fear and poverty must still count her abuser's income as a resource to be given to her creditors? I can see why some people in the banking industry might support this, but is there a single member of the majority who thinks that making it clear that the victim cannot be charged with the income of her abuser is anything more than a clarification or that it in fact reflects a controversial proposition? If they really do think so, why did they fail at least to do the minority the courtesy of being honest about dropping the Schiff amendment rather than allowing our colleague from California to testify in support of the manager's amendment thinking his language was still included within it? Mr. Chairman, our substitute attempts to make this bill a little more humane, or a little less inhumane I should say, by softening the inflexible means test which the former chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), objected to and attempted to change last year. Evidently, the IRS is more popular on the other side of the aisle than the rhetoric would indicate since they would put into this bill the IRS guidelines to determine how much a debtor can afford to repay, the same IRS guidelines they found too harsh and instructed the IRS not to use with respect to tax cheats. The substitute amendment drops the special interest amendment that benefits those wealthy investors I mentioned earlier. It makes sure the debtor has funds to support a foster child and pay for needed medical care. It modifies the bill to take up provisions that were secretly inserted into last year's conference report without any hearings or discussion that would hinder business reorganizations at a time when many more businesses are turning to chapter 11 to stay alive and preserve jobs and communities. It protects the privacy of the public from having their personal information disclosed or resold when a company goes into bankruptcy. Earlier, we agreed to an amendment to strike the names of children from online bankruptcy information. We did not have hearings on that. We have not had hearings on most of the special interest provisions in this bill. Why so much interest in hearings now? I sympathize with the chairman, who says he was not part of the deliberations in conference on this bill. Neither was I, and I was a conferee. One last word on child support. I do not want to hear again that this bill makes child support the first priority. No bankruptcy practitioner thinks that this bill in any way benefits children. At worst it will hinder the administration of the case. At best, it will do nothing. In ch. 13, all priority debts must be paid in full. In ch. 7, 98 percent of all cases are zero asset cases, so priority debts are almost never paid. It does nothing to help women whose debts are made non- dischargeable by this bill, and it does nothing to help them compete in state court if the non-custodial parents' debts to Visa survive bankruptcy. It does give a new and perverse meaning to the phrase, ``women and children first.'' I urge adoption of this amendment which will somewhat improve this bill. I urge adoption of the motion to instruct which would provide basic privacy protections for individuals in the bankruptcy system while we wait for the bureaucracy to get off its keister, and I urge rejection of this terrible bill.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill which will harm American families, American businesses, especially small businesses, harm children of divorce and open the door to even greater predatory practices by lenders. It is a wish list of every big money special interest group. It does not protect debtors, and that should be no surprise, because families in bankruptcy cannot make large campaign contributions, cannot buy ads in the paper, cannot hire fancy K Street lobbyists. This bill is the poster child for the need for campaign finance reform, the ugly result of much too much special interest money in politics. Why is this bill being rushed through? Is it because there is a crisis in bankruptcy? No, there is not. Chapter 7 filings have declined by almost 20 percent in the last 2 years. Declined. Although studies bought and paid for by the credit card industry a few years ago told us that up to 25 percent of chapter 7 debtors could repay a substantial portion of their debts, the only independent study, sponsored by the American Bankruptcy Institute, found that only 3 percent could do so. There is no crisis warranting the most radical rewrite of the Bankruptcy Code in a quarter century. The bill does not protect debtors and families. If it does, ask yourself why every consumer organization, every organization representing debtors, women's groups, children's advocacy groups, civil rights groups, seniors groups, bankruptcy judges, trustees and bankruptcy professionals have consistently criticized this bill for the last 4 years? How dare the sponsors of this bill tell us that it will improve the custodial mother's ability to collect child support because they make child support a priority when they know perfectly well that the priority expires with the bankruptcy discharge and Mom will then have to compete with the bank's collection department in State court with no priority. Why do the agencies that collect child support for State tax departments support this bill while those agencies who try to help mothers collect child support all uniformly oppose this bill? If this bill is good for business, why have some of the top judges and big business reorganization specialists all told us that this bill will make it harder to reorganize a business under chapter 11 and force more viable businesses into chapter 7 liquidation? As the economy slows down, is this any time to make business survival more difficult? If this bill is about personal responsibility, why have so many consumer protection amendments been rejected, watered down and ruled out of order so we cannot even debate these issues? Why does the bill contain a special interest provision to allow a small group of wealthy investors to avoid having a legal judgment against them enforced in our courts as required by international law? Why does the bill let anti- abortion terrorists abuse the Bankruptcy Code to evade lawful court judgments through costly and lengthy litigation? Why does the bill fail to place a real cap on the millionaire's loophole, the unlimited homestead exemption? Why were we not even allowed to offer amendments and debate these issues on the floor? If this bill is so pro-family, why was an amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) which would have corrected the bill so that a battered, legally separated spouse would not have to count the income of her husband as her own even if she never saw a nickel of it taken out of the bill? Why would the bill require that she use this phantom income to repay her creditors and deny her relief when she cannot? Why should a landlord be allowed to evict tenants despite the normal bankruptcy stay? Will homelessness make people better able to repay their debts? Does any Member think that credit card companies will really return the extra profits this bill will give them over to consumers in the form of lower interest rates? How much of the profits that the credit card companies realized from interest rate deregulation have been passed on to consumers in lower interest rates? Have credit card interest rates gone down with mortgage rates and car rates? Why have the conferences been held in secret? Why have industry lobbyists had more access to the deliberations than most members of the Committee on the Judiciary, even those appointed as conferees? This bill is rotten and, like the bipartisan Garn-St Germain bill of a decade and a half ago that caused the savings and loan crisis and cost the taxpayers half a trillion dollars, this bill will come back to haunt every Member who votes for it when people lose their jobs, lose their families and are crushed under mountains of debt. I urge rejection of this bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution, which celebrates the triumph of Israeli democracy. Israel has been our consistent strategic ally in one of the most important and volatile regions of the world. Surrounded by enemies, plagued by acts of vicious terrorism, which have claimed the lives of countless civilians, many specifically targeted at children and other noncombatants, Israel has nonetheless maintained its commitment to a free, open, and democratic society. Nations facing far fewer and less substantial threats have degenerated into repressive and despotic regimes. In the wake of the Israeli election, regardless of whether Members of this House or, indeed, average Americans may have had a preference for one candidate, party or another, we must continue as we always have to respect the fact that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. It is the people of Israel who must live under the guns of hostile neighbors and terrorists, and it is their sons and daughters who must wear the uniform of IDF and bear the risks. As friends of Israel, we hope for peace; but we remain committed above all to Israel's security. And for that reason we must continue to work with the democratically elected government of Israel. It is only when Israel's neighbors understand that they cannot achieve their goals through violence that they may be willing to talk peace sincerely. As we have unfortunately witnessed, even when offered 95 percent of their stated goals, a Palestinian state, 100 percent of Gaza, and 95 percent of the West Bank, including even sovereignty over sites holy to Judaism as well as to Islam, the Palestinians responded with violence, refusing even to make a counteroffer; violence that continues to this day. Israel was willing to make substantive and wrenching concessions in the form of land and control, for which in return she asked only the intangible promises of peace. Yasser Arafat could not even bring himself to mouth the words. Instead, he schooled Palestinian children in hate and violence; he placed young children in front of armed terrorists as human shields and offered their parents money to secure those children, practices that have drawn criticism from international human rights organizations. The members of the world community have now clearly been shown, and we hope they have seen, that the honest and real efforts of Israel and of the United States to secure peace in that region have been rebuffed by the Palestinians, who continue to initiate violence and to proclaim as a condition for the end of that violence demands that, if accepted, would mean the end of the suicide of the Israeli state. Even under these heavy burdens, Israel remains a strong and vital democracy. I congratulate the people of Israel on their commitment to peace and a free society; and I urge the administration to make clear that we will stand behind Israel 100 percent.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Reclaiming my time, the bill by its terms says that the lockbox ends whenever Congress includes in a bill the words ``we are saving Social Security,'' whether we have or not.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent after speaking to yield 15 minutes of the 20 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to this bill. I recognize that I rise in opposition to almost every other Member of this House in both parties. But I think it is time to speak out against this bill and against the nonsense of the lockbox concept which for political reasons has been embraced by Members of both parties at all levels. It is not true that for the last 30 years we have raided the Social Security system. The fact is the Social Security system when it has a surplus must invest the money in something. The law has always said that it can invest it only in the safest possible investment, namely, government securities. When you invest money in government securities, you are lending money to the government. You float bonds, you buy securities, you lend money to the government. When you lend money to the government, what the government does with that money has no bearing on the security of the Social Security trust fund. If the government spends that money on housing or education or prescription drugs for Medicare or bombers or submarines, what is in the Social Security trust fund is an IOU for that amount of money. If the government spends that money to pay down the national debt, what is in the trust fund of the Social Security system? The same IOU for that amount of money. Whether it is wisest and most prudent to spend a given amount of money borrowed by the government from the Social Security system on bombers or missiles or education or housing or paying down the debt is a budget question and a policy question. But it has nothing to do with Social Security. To say that if you use the proceeds that you have borrowed from the Social Security system for anything other than paying down debt, you are stealing that money from the Social Security system, makes exactly as much sense as saying that your bank is stealing your money when it lends it out as a mortgage loan or a car loan. The only thing you care about with respect to the money you put in your bank is that the bank has sufficient money to pay you your interest on time and your principal when due. And the only thing the Social Security trust fund cares about when it lends the government money is that the government has sufficient funds to pay the interest on time and to pay back the bond, the security, when it comes due in 10 or 20 years or whenever it may be. Period. To say that we must not use the proceeds of borrowing from Social Security and paying it back with interest for anything other than paying down the debt, well, it is a good excuse on the part of some why we cannot have government spending for things that otherwise the people of this country and the people of this Congress might want to spend it on, like prescription drugs or housing or health or education or increasing the defense budget or whatever. And it is a good excuse on the part of others why the tax cut cannot be as big as otherwise other people might want it to be. But it makes no economic sense. I oppose this bill because although it may make sense this year and maybe next year and maybe the year after to take the entire surplus of the Social Security system and use it for paying down debt because the national debt of the United States is too big, maybe that is the best use of that money this year and next year, it makes no sense to tie the hands of future Congresses and say that always in the future, in all circumstances, the best economic choice for the United States, the best policy choice, the best budget choice is to use that money only for paying down debt. As I said before, what you do with money that the government borrows from Social Security before it pays it back with interest is a budget and policy question, but it has nothing to do with the safety of the Social Security system. The only thing that bears on that question is does the government have the money to pay it back on time, and then you get into the questions of economic growth and the health of the economy and so forth. To generate better economic growth, at one time it might be that you should pay down debt and another time it might be that you should invest in public works or whatever. We should not tie the hands of future Congresses. I felt impelled to start raising this today because the political imperative to fool the American people on this subject which both parties have been subject to the last couple of years ought to start coming to an end.

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

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Housing Preservation Matching Grant Act of 2001 previously championed by our esteemed colleague, the late Representative Bruce Vento. With the recent rise in real estate prices, many owners of HUD- assisted and insured projects are finding it more lucrative to repay their mortgages and operate their buildings in the private market. The tendency to opt-out of Section 8 contracts is placing hundreds of thousands of affordable housing units at risk. According to the National Housing Trust, there are over half a million Section 8 apartments in all 50 states that are below market and in danger of losing affordability. We simply cannot allow this vital housing stock to evaporate. The Housing Preservation Matching Grant Act would provide assistance to states for operating costs, capital expenditures, debt restructuring, and acquisition of projects with HUD-insured mortgages, Section 8 contracts, and resident ownership. This project-based assistance is a necessary complement to tenant-based approaches by preserving the units that accept vouchers, and ensuring that low-income families have a safe and affordable place to live. Federal matching grants would also give states a much needed incentive to either continue or create innovative programs to preserve their housing resources. Before we can create new affordable housing we must preserve the resources we already have, and stop the rising tide of low-income rents to the private market. This legislation achieves both these goals, and hopefully will entice states to appropriate more money for public housing programs knowing that the federal government will provide a substantial share of the cost. By setting up a mechanism for federal and state partnership, this legislation fosters cooperation and coordination between all those responsible for administering and maintaining housing programs. Mr. Speaker, the Housing Preservation Matching Grant Act of 2001 is an important part of any broader strategy to save affordable housing, and I ask all my colleagues to support it.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to the National Committee for the Furtherance of Jewish Education, which will be celebrating its 60th Anniversary on Sunday, December 10, 2000, at an affair in Manhattan, New York. The National Committee for the Furtherance of Jewish Education was founded in 1940 by the late Lubavicher Rebbe Joseph I. Schneerson. It was continued under Rebbe Menachem Mendel Schneerson. Both Grand Rebbes lived through pogroms, two world wars, the rise of communism, the holocaust and tremendous personal challenges. But their idealism, learning, and faith shone through it all and inspired millions. The Rebbes fled war-torn Poland to establish the Lubavitcher movement in the United States. Not only were they the spiritual leaders of the Lubavicher Chasidim, but they were also revered and respected as great scholars and teachers by Jews and non-Jews around the world. Indeed, their work still lights the learning and daily mitzvos of Jews everywhere. Through the many manifestations of their energy and vision, and most of all their profound commitment to the importance of Jewish thought, belief and ethics, the Rebbes made an incalculable contribution to the spiritual lives of all people. In 1940, during the darkest days for Jews, Rebbe Joseph Schneerson dedicated himself to revitalizing Judaism, and in particular to inspiring American Jewry, by nurturing the Jewish soul and fostering ``Yiddishkeit''. The Rebbe reasoned that only through learning and education would Jewish faith and Jewish life flourish. The Rebbe's idealism, learning, and his faith shone through it all and he inspired millions to love their Jewish culture, history and traditions. The Committee for the Furtherance of Jewish Education (NCFJE), is today the strongest in its history. Under the administrative leadership of Rabbi Jacob J. Hecht, the NCFJE is known as the ``organization with a heart'', with dedicated people willing to work tirelessly to help all Jews, regardless of their affiliation, with much needed education and social programs to help in both their spiritual and physical needs. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating NCFJE on the occasion of its 60th Anniversary, and wish it continued success and many great mitzvah's in the future.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman. I trust he will look into this because I am reflecting the concerns of one of the authors of the original Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act, a former Member of this body, Liz Holtzman, who sent me a memo on this and called my office about it. It does seem to give a shield to operational details of the CIA with respect to Japanese war crimes. I can think of no reason. I cannot imagine that an American spy against Japan in World War II needs protection from disclosure at this point. If that were disclosed, he would probably be a hero. The Imperial Japanese are not looking for him at this point. So I hope that this will be looked into in conference and corrected if need be.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, one provision in this bill purports to expand the Nazi War Criminal Records Disclosure Act to include war crimes committed by the Imperial Japanese during World War II. The problem with this, as I see it, is that under title VIII of the bill, the CIA is given the power to exempt automatically all its operational files on Japanese war criminals from declassification. So it seems that the bill, or the conference report, sets up a double standard. CIA operational files relating to Nazi war crimes must be disclosed, but CIA operational files relating to Japanese war crimes may be absolutely shielded from disclosure. In addition to that, some people read title VIII as shielding Nazi war crimes operational files from disclosure as well since title VIII explicitly covers allies of Imperial Japan, and Nazi Germany obviously was an ally of Imperial Japan. Now, I know that the intent of the sponsors of the bill and the intent of the bill is to expand the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act to cover Japanese war crimes. I am somewhat concerned that inadvertently it may be shielding operational files of the CIA with respect to Japanese war crimes and maybe even going so far as to shield that with respect to Nazi war crimes. I would ask the gentleman what he can tell me to assure me that obviously it is not the intent or that this is not the effect.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation. Let me begin by congratulating the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), ranking members, for a fine job on this legislation, as on so many pieces of legislation that have come out of the generally bipartisan work of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Mr. Speaker, I confess, I know very little about the Everglades. I am not going to speak about the Everglades. But I know a fair amount about the Port of New York and New Jersey. In this bill is some absolutely essential provisions for the Port of New York and New Jersey. This bill authorizes funding to deepen the channels to Newark and Elizabeth and Howland Hook and Bayonne and, for the first time, to Brooklyn to 50 feet, so that we can accommodate the deeper superships that are coming in. Mr. Speaker, the shipping companies are following the airlines and going to a hub and feeder port system. But there is going to be, in 15 years, one major port on the Eastern Seaboard, and that should be in the United States. We are in competition with Halifax as to which is going to be the major hub port on the Eastern Seaboard. The provisions in this bill enabling us to get to 50 feet in the Port of New York and New Jersey will go a long way to making sure that we have the hub port on the American coast in New York and not in Halifax. That will be instrumental in hundreds of thousands of jobs and a great deal of maritime commerce in the United States, which is very important to us, obviously. This bill is particularly important because it recognizes, confirms the report of the chief engineer for the Army Corps which, for the first time, recognizes the necessity or the possibility, even, of a major container shipping port in Brooklyn on the east side of the harbor instead of having the ports only on the west side. If we are going to be the hub port and we are going to be able to take 14 million or 15 million TEUs or 16 million TEUs, if we are going to be able to go up to the forecast 15 million or 16 million or 17 million TEUs, twenty-foot equivalent units, in the next 20 or 30 years, as is forecast, we are going to need all the land available for ports on both sides of the harbor, in New York, and New Jersey and Bayonne and Howland Hook and Elizabeth and Newark and Brooklyn. This bill, for the first time, makes that possible. We will need to do a lot of additional work and probably additional appropriations to make that happen, but this bill makes it possible. It is a very far-sighted piece of legislation. I am very appreciative of it. I rise in full support of it.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, today we consider legislation to give family farmers another reprieve from the brinkmanship the Republican majority has been playing with the protection available under chapter 12 of the bankruptcy code. While I seriously doubt that anyone will vote against this bill, it is unfortunate that we are still playing politics with the future of family farmers in America. I do want to commend the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), who has consistently and energetically fought to protect family farmers, sometimes against enormous odds. In the Committee on the Judiciary, on the floor of the House and in discussions with leadership and with her colleagues, she has been a powerful voice for the family farmer and truly one of their best advocates. The legislation we are considering today is the result of her bipartisan efforts along with the efforts of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), whose commitment to family farmers is similarly without question. Yet despite this bipartisan support, we go on with temporary extension after temporary extension. In fact, the political games being played with family farmers have been so extreme that chapter 12 was actually permitted to go out of existence last July 1. Each time, every year we have extended chapter 12 by a scant few months. This bill does so for 11 months. This has been going on for years. Why do we continue to string family farmers along? Why not finally pass a permanent extension? What policy justification can there possibly be to enact the permanent extension of chapter 12 when there is bipartisan agreement in both Houses that we should do so? I have yet to hear any policy justification. So it would be preferable to pass a permanent extension bill today. But this temporary bill is the best we can get in this Congress, so I urge everyone to approve it. This legislation will also extend, finally, a number of temporary bankruptcy judgeships and provide for additional bankruptcy judgeships in areas where increasing workloads necessitate them. This judgeship legislation has always been noncontroversial in this House. It was passed by the House in the form of a bill sponsored by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and myself 4 years ago. There has been no disagreement that these additional judgeships are absolutely necessary. In fact, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), who has introduced his own bill on this subject, has joined me and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) as cosponsors of this legislation. As with chapter 12, there is no policy argument against providing the necessary judicial resources to process cases fairly and in a timely manner. Delay costs everyone, debtors and creditors alike. We owe it to families and businesses in our communities to ensure that our courts can function fairly and normally. No additions to the bankruptcy bench have been made since 1992 despite the many speeches delivered on this floor concerning the large rise in bankruptcy filings. These additions to the bench are long overdue and should be approved. Mr. Speaker, if we do not pass this bill, cases will be delayed in overcrowded courts and families will lose their farms. We should do the people's business and pass this bipartisan, noncontroversial bill today.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Judy West, an outstanding New Yorker, on the occasion of her retirement from Local 802 of the American Federation of Musicians. Judy West has had a long and successful career serving as Director of Public Relations and Legislative Affairs for Local 802 since 1983. Her contributions to the Labor movement in particular, and to society as a whole, have been exemplary and set the standard to which we should all rise. As an outspoken advocate for all working people, Judy has fought to ensure that Labor's agenda is always at the top of every elected official's list. From her work on exposing the abuses of farm labor in New York State to highlighting the particular concerns of musicians and other performing artists, her persistence and determination on behalf of these causes have become her trademarks. In addition to her myriad endeavors on behalf of labor, Judy has also devoted her energies to the struggle for civil rights, affordable housing and decent health care for all. She has been so committed because she believes that as a citizen it is her duty to create a more just society for all. Through her unstinting devotion of time and generous use of talents, Judy West has become recognized as one of the most effective advocates of our time. Mr. Speaker, Judy West may be officially retiring from her job, but I know that she will continue making outstanding contributions in the service of society. Her leadership will be missed, however, she and her family will have the opportunity to spend more time together. I join with all working people in thanking Judy for her tireless advocacy, personal commitment to our community and for her friendship.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, let me just say that I have a tremendous admiration for the gentleman from New York (Mr. Forbes). I think one thing in particular deserves comment. We have on fairly rare occasions in this House seen people across the aisle walk from one side of the aisle to the other. People have done it for all sorts of motives. And I am not going to comment on the motives of anybody, except to say that I am not sure if the history of this body ever records someone going from the majority to the minority party and from the situation of a safe reelection to guarantee a difficult reelection and a situation in which one can ascribe no conceivable political motive other than conviction of principle. And for that, I think that whatever one thinks of either of the parties, one must admire greatly the very deliberate undertaking of political risk for no reason other than matters of principle. We see too little of that in any legislative body and in public life generally. I certainly want to say that the gentleman has my great admiration for his actions and for his motives in those actions and also for his service in this House, which for the last 6 years has been very honorable. I have had my eye on the gentleman since we first debated some TV show in the House gallery 5 or 6 years ago, and it has been a pleasure to serve and I look forward to working with you in other walks for many years to come.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I heard George W. Bush the other day say that he led the effort on a bipartisan basis in Texas to pass a strong patients' bill of rights. I wonder why he did not tell the truth. The truth is that the Texas legislature, on a bipartisan basis, passed a strong patients' bill of rights. George Bush vetoed that bill. Two years later when the legislature was again in session they passed it again, this time with more than two-thirds of the votes in each House, so he knew his veto would be overridden. Now, he did not sign the bill, he let it go into law without his signature, expressing, by refusing to sign the bill, his lack of support for it. Now he comes before the American people and tells us untruthfully that he supported it. Vice President Gore, his truthfulness is questioned because he exaggerates. I wonder why George Bush's truthfulness is not questioned when on a very important public policy matter, he lies outright.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my friend and colleague, the late Congressman Sidney Yates, who passed away earlier this month. Sid Yates represented the Ninth District of Illinois for close to 50 years with great distinction. He was a man of vision who will be remembered most for his dedication to defending and promoting the arts in America. Throughout his career, Sid Yates made Federal funding of the arts a priority. He helped push for the legislation establishing the National Endowment for the Arts and worked to steadily increase its budget as chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee. When the NEA came under attack in 1995, it was Sid Yates who helped lead our efforts to preserve. I was proud to stand with Sid as his passionate and eloquent defense of the NEA and of government's role in the arts helped stave off its elimination. We mourn his passing, but we should celebrate the many contributions he made to this Chamber. The arts community, in particular, has lost one of its great champions, but his memory will live on in the smiles of the young people who will be introduced to the arts thanks to the efforts of Sidney Yates. I speak for all of those who care deeply about the arts in this country when I say that he will be greatly missed, but will never be forgotten.