Jim Kolbe

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. KOLBE. And I would say to the gentleman that fair is fair. If we are going to treat people fairly, we need to treat both sides in exactly the same way. With the kind of inspection regimen we are talking about installing here, we should have the same kinds of inspections for trucks coming from Mexico as we are talking about trucks that travel from Canada. Fair is fair. Treat all sides fairly here. That is all that I am saying that we should do. Why are we singling out our neighbors to the south? Why are we singling out Mexico to say we do not trust you, we do not think your trucks are safe, we do not think you can comply with NAFTA? I think that is wrong and it sends the wrong signal to our partner, the wrong signal to NAFTA and the rest of the world, that we are going to single out this Latin American country, this neighbor to the south of us, to say that we do not believe your trucks can travel here in the United States. I think it is just plain wrong.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the gentleman is saying, but I would say to the gentleman in response that it is very clear to me that we have the ability to do this, we have the wherewithal to do it, we have the desire on the part of both Federal and State authorities to do this checking, and they are capable of doing this. Why is this amendment not including Canada? Why are we only including Mexico under this? Canada is a NAFTA partner. Why do we discriminate against the one? That is what makes this violative of NAFTA.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman asking the question, and I understand what the amendment did do and that this amendment now, as it is offered, is somewhat different. But I believe that the amendment that was crafted before and as offered has the effect of actually stopping any trucks from coming into the United States. That is the intent of it, I believe, to make sure they do not get into the United States. So now that amendment not having been made in order under the rules, I would say to my good friend from Wisconsin, I think we are seeing the true intent here. It is interest groups. Look at the people that are supporting this amendment. Look at the people asking for this. It is groups that do not want trucks coming into the United States, period.

Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, let me just say this, and then I really will yield to the gentleman. This really is not about paperwork, in my opinion. It is really about whether or not trucks are going to be allowed to travel on our highways from Mexico. I say we should treat people equally. In a study, by the way, in California, of trucks coming across the border into that border zone, shows they meet the standards on an equal basis with U.S. trucks. So there is no real difference that is there. So I say we need to treat our neighbors to the south as partners. Those of us who live along the border understand what this partnership is all about and how important it is economically and politically to the United States, and I believe that we can make this work. It is clear the Department of Transportation is prepared to do it, the States are prepared to do it, and I would urge that we defeat this amendment.

Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I have listened with interest to this debate. I do rise in strong opposition to this amendment. I think that sometimes the rules of the House work to help to show the real true intent of what is involved here. I have said all along in the debate in committee and before on this, in the years that it has been before, that this is really an issue about trying to block Mexican trucks from the United States highways, that there are interest groups here in the United States that do not want under any circumstances to have Mexican trucks driving on our highways. Well, today we see that with this amendment. Granted, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said, it is the only amendment that can be offered or something like this amendment can be offered under the rules. With this amendment, it is very clear. Block all trucks from coming into the United States. The heck with an inspection procedure. The heck with anything else. Block all trucks. I might add, somehow within only in his State, 20 miles in my State is okay under this amendment, but in other areas, it is not okay. So somehow it is okay for us not to have safe trucks since he is worried about safe trucks. So I think it is very clear what we are talking about here. We are talking about blocking trucks from coming in the United States. Let us face it, there are interest groups in the United States that do not want those trucks here. They are joined by interest groups in Mexico. The Mexican Trucking Association does not want American trucks coming down into Mexico. So they join you in this. They want to make sure there are not trucks in the United States to have an opportunity to compete there. If we get this, we get reciprocity; and we have an opportunity to have Mexican trucks to go down there. There are Mexican truck associations that do not want us. So there are joint interest groups on both sides that do not want this. But let us review the facts here. We adopted NAFTA. It was adopted in this body at a time in fact when the other party controlled this House. It is the law of the land that took effect on January 1, 1994. It stipulated that, by January 1, 2000, that is 18 months ago, we would allow trucks to cross at all points of the border into the United States. Here we are at June 25, and it still has not occurred. Mexico filed a complaint against us under the terms of NAFTA for not meeting the deadline; and in February of this year, the panel concluded that the U.S. was indeed in breach of its NAFTA obligations. The sanctions that are being talked about could be as much as $1 billion a year. That is $1 billion on American industry. That is $1 billion for American consumers that they are going to pay more. I say let us stop treating our Mexican neighbors as though they are some kind of people that we should not want to do business with. This amendment has nothing to do, by the way, with trucks coming from Canada, our other NAFTA partner. Oh no, just the trucks from Mexico somehow are suspect. So I think we should be building bridges, not barriers to our neighbors from the south. Let us be clear about this. This issue is not about the safety of the truck, it is about paperwork. The issue as was presented earlier by the gentleman from Minnesota was about paperwork. Of course we want to be sure that all trucks traveling on our highways are safe, but the States along the border, for several years now, have said they are prepared to do that. How come the States that have the responsibility for enforcing this, along with the Department of Transportation, are prepared to do this? We have the regimen in place to check the paperwork as they come across the border, to look at the logs, to look at all these things, to make sure the bonds are there, the licenses are there, the insurance is there, and to do the actual physical inspection of the truck. Because that is after all what we are about, is it not? We want to make sure these trucks are actually safe. So the most important aspect of truck safety is the observation of the driver and the actual inspection of the truck at the border and along the highway. The gentleman from Wisconsin said people will die. Yes, people have died in my district. Not very long ago there was a truck driver who was using amphetamines, had not slept for 18 hours, crashed into a car parked along the side of the road and destroyed all the occupants of an entire family because he was violating rules and the law in the United States. We need to inspect for that. We need to have adequate inspection to make sure it is safe in this country. The trucks coming across the border are all going to be subject to inspection, and the percentage of them that are actually going to be physically inspected is going to be much much higher than currently are inspected traveling on our highways, American trucks traveling on our highways. So the paperwork is not the issue. If all my colleague wants to do is check the paperwork, the paperwork can be checked when the truck is down in Guadalajara, but that does not tell us whether the truck is safe.

Mr. KOLBE. Again reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, more than 2 years ago, down at the border, I went over the whole procedures with the Arizona Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of Transportation. Everybody was prepared at that time to begin implementing this. So there is no question. We are prepared to inspect. We are prepared to look at these trucks. We are prepared to make sure they are safe. We are prepared to make sure they have their license, their insurance, the bonding that is required, and to do the physical inspection of the truck. As I pointed out, a far greater percentage of them will be inspected than any of the trucks traveling on our highways. The gentleman must acknowledge that there are accidents occurring on our highways because of trucks not properly inspected or, more likely, because the drivers are not following the rules. In fact, there is a very interesting study I just saw the other day that states that 73 percent, I believe was the figure, of all accidents in trucks occur when there is a passenger in the vehicle as opposed to about 23 percent when there is not a passenger. So passengers' distractions have more to do with it apparently than anything else.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I appreciate the opportunity to address this wonderful class of pages here. I do stand before the House as a former member of the Page Board, but more importantly, as one of the handful of Members of this body who themselves served as a page here in the Congress. Now, you will have to forgive me. As most of you know, I was a page over in that other body across on the other side of the Capitol. But nonetheless, that experience was one of those formative experiences of my life. I look back on my younger days and I think of experiences that really changed me, and this was one of those experiences. So I would just make a few comments, and rather than about your service, which others have spoken of and which is so important, rather about the fact that you serve as ambassadors and role models in your communities, which is so important. I would rather speak for a moment about you and what you learn and what you take from this experience, because I think, more than anything else, you have an opportunity to learn something about yourself during the course of this year. For many, for most, it is probably the first time away from home on an extended period of time. You are here in the Nation's Capital, a great city in which to live and to work and to have the experience of a year. You had no idea last September when you came who you were going to be rooming with. Here you have been thrust together with people that come from all over the country: from high schools and communities large and small, from little rural farming communities, from large cities in our land. You are placed altogether, and in a very real sense, you are a microcosm of our country because you represent all these different districts of our country. You have an opportunity in the course of this year to really learn something about yourself: to learn about some of your shortcomings, but you also learn about your endurance and learn about what you can do, and you grow in this process. In the process of growing and of maturing, you become a better person. You also become a person who can carry, as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) said, the message about this program and about the House of Representatives and about your government out into the world as you go forth from here. So from this experience, you will go back to your schools, finish your high school career. You will go on to colleges. In this group, as I look at them, I know that we are going to have successful Members of the United States Congress, well one or two maybe; but most of you will be businessmen and businesswomen, professionals, lawyers and doctors. Maybe you will be artists. Maybe you will do something that is in no way connected with government or politics. But you will be citizens of this country; and as citizens of this country, you understand you have a responsibility. You have a responsibility to care about the country, and you have a responsibility to care about those around you. So if I could urge you to do one thing, it is to maintain the friendships that you have made here, and I think you will find that the most valuable part of this experience. Maintain those friendships, keep that e-mail flowing between each of you, as I know you will be the moment you leave here on Saturday. Keep that e-mail flowing. Keep in touch, come back, get together, join together once in a while, and watch yourselves grow as you go through your professional careers and your fellow classmates go through their professional careers, and you get married, you have families, you have your own children. Probably somebody is going to have a child that will be a page here someday in the not-too-distant future. So this has been a wonderful experience for you. Yes, we have gotten a lot out of it. You help us a great deal. But most of all, you have an opportunity to learn a great deal about yourselves; and as I have watched you grow during the course of this year, I know you have learned a great deal about yourselves. So I just want to say thank you. Thank you for what you have done for us. Thank you for the friendship that you extend to us. Thank you for that warm smile you give us when we come on the floor, for the help that you give us every day. Thank you for what you do in your communities with your own families and your own schools. Thank you for the role models that you play in those communities. You are going to continue to do that. I am very grateful to you for it. I want to say I wish you well. Godspeed. Good luck.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from California, not because I oppose the goal of extending Lebanese government control to south Lebanon, but because I believe this amendment would be counterproductive to that goal. I agree that the Lebanese Army needs to secure its border with Israel to prevent attacks against Israeli soldiers and civilians, but the key to achieving this is to extract more cooperation from the Syrians. We should not be punishing Lebanon for the sins of Syria and the Hezbollah. I also think that threatening to eliminate our foreign assistance program for Lebanon is the wrong way to go about this. All of the $35 million that we allocate to Lebanon in fiscal year 2001 is provided to none-governmental organizations, private, voluntary organizations, contractors. They implement our assistance program for Lebanon. Not a penny of it goes to the government, and $3 million to the American University of Beirut and the Lebanese-American University to help with education. The largest program is the Rural Development Clusters program, which helps rural villages in Lebanon. It has been focused on the south in an effort to provide an alternative to the economic and social development activities of the Hezbollah. Punishing the villagers of south Lebanon by withdrawing this program is not going to do anything to assist in the effort to persuade the Lebanese government to remove its security forces. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. It is not in the interests of Lebanon, Israel, or the United States.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. By Monday night, Duke had beaten Monmouth and Mizzou. They had sent home the Bruins, the Trojans and the Terrapins, too. The time had come to battle our beloved 'Cats. The final game would determine to whom we would tip our hats. Duke came from the East and Arizona rode in from the West for a final Minneapolis shoot-out to answer who is best. The Devils showed that they were up for the fight, and the question of who is best was answered last night. We watched the joyous Blue Devils cut down the net, and I thought to myself why did I make this bet? Arizona, Maryland, and the rest of our teams are left thinking of next year and dreaming championship dreams. For now, the Blue Devils wear the crown, they can celebrate a great victory as the toast of the town.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mrs. Ora Mae Harn, a resident of the town of Marana, Arizona for the past forty-one years. Ora Mae is being honored on the occasion of her retirement last year from the Marana Health Center. After arriving in Marana, Ora Mae worked for the Marana Unified School District from 1962-74 as a bus driver, a cafeteria cook and a warehouse assistant. Subsequently, she spent a quarter century at the Marana Health Center, serving as director of community relations (1975- 79), social services director (1979-91), and finally as director until her retirement last year. Starting in 1985, Ora Mae was a member of the Marana Town Council, and served as Marana's first female Mayor from 1990-95 and again from 1997-99. Her constant work to cultivate lasting professional relationships with regional, state and federal officials benefited Marana in many ways. She has served as president of the Arizona Women in Municipal Government, as a member of the Pima Council on Aging (1983-87), as an active representative to the Pima Association of Governments as early as 1990 (including serving as its Chair in 1999) and has represented Marana in the League of Arizona Cities and Towns as early as 1992. Ora Mae has been the major force in bringing floor control projects to Marana and starting the Pima County Santa Cruz Bank Protection Project. She also played a role in the levee project, which was completed and dedicated last year, and she was instrumental in bringing a federally funded housing program to Marana, earning her several awards from the Community Development Block Grant Program for her outstanding leadership and community involvement. Ora Mae has been involved with a large number of community projects such as Marana's Founders' Day Committee, the Sister Cities Program, Yoem Pueblo Rehabilitation Project, the Lot Beautification Program, The Great American Smokeout, and The Graffiti Abatement Program. She founded the Marana Food Bank in 1985 and is currently its volunteer director. And she continues to be extremely involved with her community by volunteering for projects as varied as reading to elementary school students and church-sponsored activities. Married for almost fifty years to Gerald Harn, who passed away last month, she is the mother of two daughters and a son and the proud grandmother of five. Since coming to Marana, she has been an active member of the Faith Community Church congregation and has volunteered for numerous church-sponsored activities. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to commend Mrs. Ora Mae Harn for her four decades of tireless service to the town of Marana and wish her well in her retirement, which I suspect won't really be a retirement.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, we are introducing today--Valentine's Day-- the Charity To Eliminate Poverty Tax Credit Act of 2001. This legislation is a Valentine's present for all the families and people who are struggling every day to survive. I am talking about our nation's poor. We are a wealthy nation. The federal government should reward people for trying to help raise the standard of living of those living in poverty. This bill would give every American the option of sending $100 to an organization that primarily assists the poor instead of sending the money to the IRS. When you fill out your tax forms this year, wouldn't you like the opportunity to redirect $100 of your money that is headed to the federal bureaucracy and give it directly to an organization that is helping raise the standard of living of some of America's poorest citizens? The Charity To Eliminate Poverty Tax Credit Act of 2001 allows a tax credit up to $100 ($200 if filing a joint return) for charitable contributions to tax-exempt organizations that help people whose annual income is under 150 percent of the official poverty level. Currently, that level is $12,525 annually for an individual and $25,575 for a family of four. The legislation also acknowledges the impact that inflation can have on the ``real'' dollars that people may give to charity so we have indexed the tax credit amount to inflation. Another important provision requires an organization to spend at least 70 percent of its money on helping the poor in order to qualify. Only a maximum of 30 percent of the charitable organization's budget can be spent on administrative expenses, expenses to influence legislation, fundraising activities, and litigation costs, among others. We want the charitable contribution to go to the poor, not to increase an administrator's salary. President Bush's tax proposal touches on this objective by suggesting that a charitable tax deduction be allowed for people who do not itemize their deductions. The President also has encouraged the States to provide a charitable tax credit. In my State of Arizona, we are already allowed to take a $200 charitable tax credit. This legislation goes one step further by offering the credit at the federal level. Private charities succeed because they are community driven and stress personal responsibility. These local food banks and shelters become personally involved in helping change lives. I believe a better way to help the poor is through local organizations that are designed, implemented, and staffed by residents of the neighborhoods they serve. Also, the tax credit will put more money on the table for programs that help the poor and create a more competitive atmosphere. Each organization will be overseen and judged, not by Washington, DC, but by the community and the people giving the money to the charitable organization. This will in turn improve services to the poor. Hopefully, we will all agree to give a Valentine's gift to our nation's poor by enacting this anti-poverty relief tax credit--the Charity To Eliminate Poverty Tax Credit Act of 2001.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, Mr. Hoyer, and I wish to recognize Special Agent John MacKinnon of the U.S. Customs Service for his exemplary service with the Office of Congressional Affairs for the past two years, including his work as the acting team leader for appropriations since May of this year. Special Agent MacKinnon has provided extraordinary assistance to the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government including planning and coordinating important Subcommittee travel to review counternarcotics programs in the Andean drug source countries, port security and drug trafficking in Miami and the West Coast, and Customs automation projects at busy commercial ports such as Detroit and New York. Mr. MacKinnon also has been highly responsive to the requirements of this Subcommittee in both anticipating and responding to our information requirements, and in facilitating any hearings or other meetings between the Subcommittee and the Customs Service. He has brought great professionalism to his work, and has always contributed a fair measure of his energy, enthusiasm and a dram of Scottish wit to all his endeavors. Special Agent MacKinnon came to his current assignment after a full and productive decade carrying out investigations of narcotics smuggling, illegal export of munitions and sensitive technology, and trafficking in child pornography. This work included six years leading undercover investigations of international child pornography, many of which involved the Internet. Out of that work, Mr. MacKinnon moved on to be one of the first investigators to work in and develop the Customs Service's Cyber-Smuggling Center. He has developed a wide reputation for his work in the field of Internet investigations, testifying before our counterpart Subcommittee in the Senate, assisting foreign police in international investigations, and teaching undercover courses for State and local police on Internet crimes against children. Special Agent MacKinnon will soon depart for Boston to take up a new assignment in the field as a Group Supervisor in the Office of the Special Agent in Charge officers. From our perspective, he has served Customs well, and in so doing has done the same for our Subcommittee and the Congress. We wish him all the best in his new assignment and expect to see great things as his career progresses.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday after this deal fell apart and we were trying to get it back together, and clearly the President's help would have been very essential, the President was unfortunately engaged in campaigning in Kentucky in a congressional race and then in New York. I believe there is a Senate race there he has some interest in that he was fundraising for. So the President has not been available throughout this time for these negotiations.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me just very briefly close this debate. I know it has taken longer than we had intended. I know the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip, will certainly be pleased with the very fine comments that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) made about his bipartisan nature of finding solutions to appropriation bills. My experience has always been that the majority whip, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), always has been very constructive in trying to find those solutions. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) also made reference to the 1995 legislative bill and the veto of that for essentially the same reasons. Although my memory does not take me back that many votes and that many appropriation bills, I believe at that time when that was vetoed there was no agreement on the Treasury Postal Bill; and, therefore, the argument was we should not be passing or should not be accepting the legislative appropriations without an agreement on the appropriations that affected the executive branch, the White House and all the executive agencies, the White House agencies. In this case, they are tied together. We have them together. So signing this bill would have made sure that we moved forward that part of the final budget that would have covered these two very large agencies, the Congress and all of its related agencies, including the Congressional Research Service and the Library of Congress, our Capitol Police, and the Treasury, with all of its agencies, the Treasury itself, the Secret Service, the Customs, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the Internal Revenue Service, the Federal Elections Commission and everything at the White House. So I think it would be very important for us to recognize that these are tied together and we should move forward with this. There is a great deal of misunderstanding or, I think, unfortunate misunderstanding about the events last night. I was not there, but I certainly understand that when an agreement is reached by appropriators that is on something as delicate as this, that includes language that is not an appropriation item, that the leadership is going to have to sign off on that. Apparently that last step had not been done. There was agreement on the basic provision, but they had not signed off on it. Mr. Speaker, I would just say that I hope we can find a solution to this very quickly and move this bill forward as rapidly as possible so these appropriations might become law.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a member of the committee. (Mr. CUNNINGHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the gentleman from Florida that we do not need to use too much time. However, I do think we need to use some time to talk a little bit about this veto, which comes as a stunning surprise to some of us. And also so that the American public and the Members of this body understand what is in this bill that has been vetoed, so that, as we consider this again, we will be able to consider those provisions very carefully. Mr. Speaker, last night, when the President vetoed the Legislative and Treasury-Postal and General Government Appropriations bill, he did more, in my view, than simply prolong the ongoing negotiations between the White House and the Congress on the remaining appropriations measures. He has jeopardized the funding that we have in this bill for our counterterrorism efforts, funds to keep our borders safe, programs to keep guns out of schools, programs to trace guns in violent crimes, the jobs of more than 150,000 Federal employees, including one-third of all Federal law enforcement, and he has jeopardized our Nation's war against drugs. The President himself has stated that there is nothing wrong with the bill in its current form. In fact, he previously stated that, after we made some changes, changes that were included in the Transportation appropriations bill, he would sign this measure. However, he has now chosen to veto it because it funds the legislative branch and the White House ``at a time when the business of the American people remains unfinished.'' He has failed to sign this perfectly good bill because of ongoing discussions relating to education funding and ergonomics, issues that have nothing to do with the bill that he vetoed. It seems to me that the President's veto is more about making political statements than it is about making good public policy. Mr. Speaker, if we want to get the work of this Congress done, we have to take these bills one at a time. The President's veto message claims that these bills reflect ``self interest or special interests.'' Let us be clear about what the President is talking about here. The Treasury appropriations bill provides, among other things, these items: $2.25 billion for the Customs Service, including increases for expanded anti-forced child labor, money to attack drug smuggling groups, and new agents and infrastructure for northern border security; $467,000 for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, including the use of forensic technologies to reunite families; $62 million to expand the Integrated Violence Reduction Strategy, a program to enforce the Brady law to keep convicted felons from getting guns, to investigate illegal firearms dealers, and to join forces with State and local law enforcement and prosecutors to fully investigate and prosecutor offenders; $25 million for nationwide comprehensive gun tracing; and $185 million for our drug media campaign to reduce and prevent youth drug use. This bill also includes $186 million for Customs automation, an item that importers have been clamoring for. This bill provides funds to begin an immediate investment in our automated commercial environment program, a system that will help us to efficiently enforce our trade laws. And finally, this bill includes $1.8 million in support of the Secret Service's new initiative, the National Threat Assessment Center to help us identify and prevent youngsters that might commit violence in and around schools. Mr. Speaker, I do not see how the items I have just described here are, ``special interest items.'' These programs reflect the interests of all Americans, not just a few. All of us have a stake in the safety of our borders. All of us have a stake in the war on drugs and in keeping guns out of our schools. On July 27, when the House passed this bill, the Administration indicated they had several concerns regarding proposed funding levels for different programs. Specifically, they said that they felt they needed another $225 million for an additional 5,670 IRS employees, and they signalled that, unless that was provided, they would veto this measure. So we sat down. We negotiated in good faith with the White House. The House, the Senate, the Republicans and the Democrats on both sides of this Congress, on both sides of this aisle. We added the funds for the IRS. It was not everything that the Administration asked for, but we also added other funds for other important programs. After we did this so-called fix, which the President signed into law as part of the Transportation Appropriations bill on October 23, we were told that the President would sign this bill. Indeed, I might have thought that the comment that the President made yesterday at his press conference when he said, ``again we have accomplished so much in this session of Congress in a bipartisan fashion. It has been one of the most productive sessions.'' I might have thought that he was talking about our bill, a bill he would have been preparing to sign. Obviously, as the hour of midnight approached, we found out that it was to be otherwise. The President's veto message says that he will not sign this bill until we fund our classrooms, fix our schools, protect our workers. The President has once again moved the goalpost in regard to the Treasury appropriations bill. I am extremely disappointed that this Administration has gone back on its word to sign this bill and has, instead, chosen to use it as a vehicle to hold Congress hostage and make political statements regarding funding for education. But, Mr. Speaker, we are here tonight with a vetoed bill, and we are prepared to get this work done. Unfortunately, I notice that the President of the United States is in Louisville, Kentucky, for a congressional candidate and then doing a fund-raising event in New York City for the First Lady. How do we expect to get this work done when we are here and the President is out on the campaign trail? I think it is a shame that the President has placed a higher value on the politics of education funding than he does on protecting our borders, on fighting the war on drugs, in keeping guns out of schools, in countering terrorism. The President has vetoed the bill that funds 100 percent of our Nation's border safety in order to make political points about a bill that funds 7 percent of our Nation's education funding. This is a sad day. This bill, which has been worked on and a compromise has been reached, and is a good bill for the agencies that we have under our jurisdiction. It is sad that it is was vetoed. I hope we can get a quick agreement with the Administration on this. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, that is absolutely correct. The amounts in there are not exactly as we would have wanted. In some cases, we would have wanted something lower, maybe a couple of cases even higher. In other cases, the President wanted more money, as he did for the IRS. But it was an agreement. It was a compromise.

Mr. KOLBE. Correct.