Friday, September 28, 2007


The Hi Power and the Glock 17

By Stephen Camp

It is no secret that my favorite 9mm pistol has been the Browning Hi Power and that either it or a 1911 pattern pistol is my most often used pistols at the range. Before retirement as a police officer my duty sidearm was either a Hi Power 9mm or a 1911 in .45 ACP. These guns are the ones I "teethed" on when I started shooting seriously circa 1969-1970. I've never been without at least one of each example since.

So the question is raised: If you have nirvana with the Hi Power, why look at anything else, especially a "plastic pistol?"

For me the Hi Power has been the 9mm for over 3 decades, but something gnawed at me to really try and give the Glock an honest try.

For me the reason is simply that I enjoy shooting handguns. Though the bulk of my personal handguns are either DA/SA revolvers or single-action autos, I do have a few conventional DA/SA semiautomatics as well as some that offer cocked-and-locked capabilities if desired. It is also my observation that the Glock is as popular with many of this generation's 9mm shooters as the Hi Power was with mine.

With the immense popularity of this handgun, I thought it might be of interest to honestly compare these pistols straight up and down the line, being as objective as possible. Obviously there will be some subjective comments, but I will identify them as such.

Taking a look at the Glock 17 compared to the Hi Power hit me shortly after I completed A Critical Look at the Glock 17, which is located here for those who might be interested:

The simple fact of the matter was that I could not really do this until I practiced more with the Glock. Decades of using the Browning-inspired Hi Power (and 1911) had taught my hand and wired my brain to accept only those pistols' very similar grip angles as "correct." Invariably I would find my sights way high when trying to draw and shoot the Glock at speed. I was also not able to get quite as tight of groups at distances beyond about 25 yards and those shot at 25 yards and under required more "work" to achieve. Since I had purchased the Glock 17 primarily to be a "loaner gun" for concealed handgun students, I'd shot it a bit now and then, but never really got "serious" with it.

It hardly seemed "fair" to try and compare a seldom used "loaner pistol" to one I'd used extensively for decades. Conclusions might be drawn from faulty input.

To try and correct this, I spent more than a few range sessions with the Glock 17 exclusively and some shooting it and either a 9mm Hi Power or a .45 1911. Checking back on my notes this involved roughly 1100 rounds through the G17, some handloaded "hotties" and some factory-loaded FMJ bought at good prices.

Slowly but surely, I found that my sights were closer to being "on" with the Glock at speed with practice. Much practice of the presentation or draw was performed at home and then at the range. Starting out I would draw and fire one shot as quickly as I accurately could, then controlled pairs, and so forth. After a month or so, it felt like second nature. I still had to exert more mental effort when trying for precise groups with the Glock than with the Hi Power and especially a tuned 1911. The 3.5-lb trigger just doesn't work for me and I continue to use the standard factory trigger spring in my G17. That is subjective and a personal preference. I am aware that many others do like the lighter trigger pull or go the other way and use various spring combinations including the "NY Trigger." I see no "right or wrong" answers here, as each of us will have our own preferences. (With the light trigger the pistol will be less forgiving of inadequate safe handling practices than it already is, but should constitute no problem for those capable of consistently safe practices.)

Whether it was because I shot them occasionally at the same sessions as the G17 or just from decades of previous use, I did not have any problem staying "on" with either the Hi Power or the 1911. For me, shooting the G17 heavily did not "ruin" me for the other two. I cannot say that this will hold true for others, but such was my experience. (I did find myself wiping off an imaginary thumb safety when drawing and shooting the Glock quickly now and then, but didn't find the reverse to be true; in no instance did I "forget" to disengage the thumb safety at speed with either the Hi Power or 1911. Will this hold true for everyone? I flat don't know. If you use the Glock predominantly and over a lengthy time-span but carry one of the more traditional single-action autos now and then, it might be a good thing to check just to be sure. If it happens to you, shoot the single-action until it doesn't or make a hard decision and go exclusively with one or the other.)

Both of these 15-yard groups were fired from a rest. Though they are similar in size, getting the one with the Glock 17 required considerably more effort than when shooting the Hi Power.

To me the Glock 17 and the Hi Power fill the same niche in service style sidearms and each has its strong and weak points. I believe that this is probably true with anything conceived and created by man. With the advent of the Mk II Hi Powers and the factory-throated barrels, the old saw that Hi Powers are picky about ammunition simply has not proven true for me over several years with more than a few Mk II and Mk III pistols. Glocks are renowned for their reliability in most cases. If we put one up against the other, I don't know which might require cleaning to continue flawless operation. For whatever reasons, I just almost always break down and clean my autos after 700 to 800 shots when trying to check this out. If the Glock will shoot more rounds than the Hi Power before crud induces malfunctions or vice-versa, I really couldn't care less for I always clean my pistols after any shooting sessions. Before I purchased the Glock, I frequently loaned a Mk III for concealed handgun students who needed an automatic to qualify with. Neither gun jammed or malfunctioned for any of the "loanees" despite my having seen some who could make an anvil malfunction!

Empty, the Glock weighs nearly half a pound less than the all-steel Hi Power. While this difference shrinks a tad if both guns are loaded to full capacity, it is only decreased by the additional weight of four 9mm cartridges if both guns are loaded with the same ammunition. This assumes that conventional magazines are used since the G17 will hold eighteen shots compared to the P35's fourteen. I definitely find the Glock magazines easier on the skin when carried in either an OWB or IWB magazine carrier. The Hi Power magazine floor plate is of steel and has pointed corners on the rear. The Glock magazine floor plate is plastic, thicker, and has rounded edges. The Hi Power magazine "problem" can be fixed by adding either a bumper pad or carefully rounding the sharp edges…or both. (If you opt to dress down the Hi Power magazine floor plate edges, go slow and when you knock off the sharp edges, quit. The stamped floor plate is thin and folded to go over a lip on the magazine body. Nothing is gained if we file or sand too much since we just expose the lip.)

With a loose-fitting shirt or jacket, I have not found the Glock to be difficult to conceal with even a Fobus paddle holster. That said, the Hi Power is not "heavy" but I do like the Glock's reduced weight and rounded edges when carried close to the body.

Though the Hi Power shown with the G17 has had Novak sights installed, I have not found them to enhance my shooting either slow or rapid-fire over the conventional Mk III fixed sights. A couple of my Mk III pistols have them, but the rest do not and I do not foresee adding them. I'm not knocking people installing aftermarket fixed sights; what I'm saying is that for me, there has been no advantage.

On the other hand, I absolutely detest the Glock factory sights…fixed or adjustable. For me, the front sight is just too wide and I've seen the front sights on a couple of Glocks worn down when carried in a holster that contacted them! For me they simply had to go and will on any future Glocks I might own. I replaced my Glock 17 sights with fixed ones from AeroTek and have been quite pleased. (I also have them on a G26.)

Most opine that the finish on the Glock is one of the most durable and corrosion-resistant in the firearms market. At the same time, it should be noted that the matte finish on the Mk III is rustproof, as it is a baked-on epoxy. It is not as durable as Glock's tennifer finish. With considerable holster use, the Hi Power's matte finish can wear. I do not consider this a major problem as I clean my handguns regardless of their finish. While the entire exterior of the Glock is protected against corrosion, only the slide and frame are on the Mk III Hi Power. The trigger, hammer, grip screws, thumb safety, slide release and magazine button are blued and the barrel is left in the white. In my case, this is of little importance, but the Glock does have superior protection against rust or corrosion.

For me there was no advantage one pistol to the other in speed of reloading. My Glock magazines are of the "drop free" variety and the Hi Power has had its magazine disconnect removed. Magazines fall freely from either pistol. I found neither to be quicker or easier to insert a fresh magazine in than the other. I do find the Hi Power easier to drop the slide on if using the slide release lever than the tiny one on the Glock. It is my understanding that Glock doesn't recommend routinely dropping the slide by depressing what they call the "hold open" lever and I've heard folks complain of them wearing pretty quickly if this is done over time due to wear. For that reason I "slingshot" the Glock and wound up doing it with the Hi Powers and 1911 pistols when shooting them in the same sessions.

Felt recoil was equivalent for me with the 9mm Hi Power and the Glock 17. In other words, either pistol was quite easy to handle in accurate rapid-fire drills.

In slow deliberate bullseye shooting I still shoot tighter groups with the Hi Power and 1911 pistols. Whether this is due to greater mechanical accuracy or just my ability to shoot them I cannot say. (I was somewhat surprised at this because some of the tightest groups I've ever fired at 50 yards were done shooting a revolver double-action.) At distances of 50 yards and beyond either of these pistols outperform the Glock…in my hands. Glock devotees may find that just the opposite is true. I don't have a definitive answer, as I've never seen a Glock fired from a machine rest to determine its built-in accuracy potential. If this is an important aspect of handgun shooting and you really prefer the Glock, I believe that aftermarket fitted barrels can be had.

The lack of chamber support in the Glock pistol has been mentioned on several gun sites, but in 9mm I have not found this to be a real concern. All of the Glocks in 9mm that I've seen, handled or shot had plenty of case support. This has never been a concern for the 9mm Hi Power. The only instances of inadequate support that I have personally seen were from improper "throating" of the pistol. Too much steel was removed when trying to rework the ramp on Pre-Mk II pistols.

Mentioned earlier was reliability. Either the Mk III or the Glock 17 is capable of it in the extreme. I have noticed that with some foreign military surplus ammunition, the hammer-driven firing pin of the Hi Power would fire rounds that the striker-fired Glock simply would not. If memory serves, there was some Greek surplus ball imported a few years ago and almost immediately some Glock folks began experiencing failures to fire. Within a short time the importer of this ammunition advised that it was not recommended for Glock handguns. Having said that, I have never experienced a single failure to fire using any ammunition from Remington, Federal, Winchester, CCI/Speer, Fiocchi, Hirtenberger or Corbon. With ammo not having unusually hard primers I don't think there is an issue at all.

I do not routinely carry a cocked-and-locked Hi Power just stuck in my waistband sans holster, however I'd feel safer doing that with the Hi Power than the Glock. At least there is a manual safety other than on the trigger that would have to be disengaged before the trigger could move the sear from the hammer's full-cock notch, possibly firing it. It is my opinion that the "point and pull" operation of the Glock offers more potential for disaster in this regard than the traditional single-action autopistol. The "safe action" safety tab on the trigger is certainly better than nothing for a short double-action pull but in my opinion is only adequate if:

  1. The pistol is carried in a holster that covers the trigger and is designed not to allow any safety strap or other part to get inside the trigger guard when the Glock is being reholstered, and

  2. The Glock carrier always practices safe gun handling, particularly not putting one's finger on the trigger until ready to shoot. (Without question this should be done when using any handgun, but like a cocked-and-unlocked single-action auto, the very short "DA" trigger pull of the Glock simply doesn't suffer foolish handling well.)

Subjectively, I find the Hi Power a more comfortable pistol and more pleasing to the eye. The latter attribute carries more weight with some folks than others to be sure and probably is of no real importance if interested only in form following function. At the same time, I see nothing wrong with using a gun that can not only perform but look good too. From a purely defensive standpoint, the latter point has little merit but for folks who simply "like" handguns, it is often more a factor in what they like than might be expected.

I have so many years using this pistol and find its design so pleasing that it will almost certainly remain more of a favorite with me than the Glock. That does not mean that anyone else has to share the same opinion or make the same choice.

Both pistols have few internal parts compared to several other popular semiautomatics, something I consider a plus simply because there is less to potential go wrong. Each is quite easy to either field or detail strip when necessary.

Though neither pistol seems to lend itself to as extensive customization as the 1911, either can be customized to meet the individual user's personal needs…be they real or imagined. In my observation, there are enough such options available for the Hi Power and Glock handguns, that 99.99% of real needs can be met.

Out of the box, I have to bob the Hi Power hammer spur or fit a C&S Type I ring hammer and sear to avoid hammer bite. The Glock is good to go in that regard as it comes from the factory. Neither usually has what I'd call a stellar trigger pull without work, but I admit that tuned 1911 triggers tend to spoil. Some Hi Power users like the magazine disconnect while others such as myself routinely remove them. The Glock comes with no such device. Mercifully, neither comes with forward slide serrations but either can have them via custom gunsmith work if desired.

Though the grip angle on the Glock is not to my liking compared to the Hi Power, it certainly offers good purchase with the front and rear grip strap checkering molded in as well as the finger grooves. The polymer frame's textured surface is also superior for use with wet or sweaty hands than the slick blue, hard chrome, or matte finish on the Hi Power. This is often remedied with stippling, (fine) checkering, or a simple piece of skateboard tape.

Some complain about the Glock being wider than the Hi Power. While true, I have not found it to constitute a real world problem in concealment. The main problem I've found is that if trying to tote a pistol in an IWB holster in pants that just are not big enough in the waist, the problem is amplified with the thicker Glock. Get pant sizes commensurate with a Glock and an IWB holster and there's no problem I can find.

The Hi Power has a conventionally rifled barrel. The Glock's is polygonal and said to boost bullet velocity and there may be some truth to this. The table below shows some common loads that were fired from both a Hi Power with its 4.66" barrel and the Glock 17, which has a 4.49" tube. The average velocity is based on 10 shots fired 10' from the chronograph screens.

9mm Average Velocities from Glock 17 & Mk III Hi Power


Hi Power Ave. Velocity (ft/sec):

Glock 17 Ave. Velocity (ft/sec):

Aguila 65-gr HP



Glaser Silver 80-gr. +P



Corbon 100-gr. Powerball +P



Hirtenberger 100-gr. JSP



Corbon 115-gr. DPX +P



Corbon 115-gr. JHP +P



Corbon 125-gr. JHP +P



Winchester 127-gr. +P+



Remington 147-gr. Golden Saber



Only twice did the Hi Power's longer conventionally rifled barrel outperform the shorter polygonal rifling of the Glock and then only by a very few feet per second. In no instance was there a significant difference in bullet speeds, most being well within the shot to shot variations of a given round. Still, the Glock is using a shorter barrel and running neck and neck with the Hi Power so I am pretty sure that at least with jacketed bullets, the polygonal rifling is playing a positive role.

When it comes to using lead bullets, the common wisdom is not to shoot them in Glock handguns. I have done so, but only in limited numbers (under 200 per session and only with hard cast bullets) and rigorously cleaning of the Glock barrel always followed. The idea is that the polygonal rifling "smears" the lead until it coats the interior of the barrel and kicks pressures dangerously high or prevents subsequent cartridges from fully seating due to the leading build-up near the chamber engaging the bullet too soon. (Aftermarket match barrels with conventional rifling are available for Glockers wishing to use cast bullets.) For most, it is a non-issue with jacketed 9mm ammunition being plentiful and relatively inexpensive.

It is true that the Glock can be fired with the slide not fully forward. I have not personally seen it happen when using any ammunition but IF you opt to do cast bullet shooting with the factory barrel, I'd keep an eye open for it just to be on the safe side. Likewise, if reloading, make sure that your homebrewed 9mm rounds are properly sized and seat easily in the Glock's chamber. (This is a good thing to do with any reloaded rounds to be used in any automatic.)

The Glock is touted as being super tough while some say never to use +P in the Hi Power. When asked if +P can be used in their pistol, Glock says, "Go right ahead." Browning does not recommend the use of +P in their pistols. I have given my observations on the use of hotter than standard ammo in the Hi Power and for those interested, they can be found here:

It strikes me that proponents for either pistol tend to look only at their choice's strong points and compare those to the weaker ones of the other. I've tried specifically not to do that here. Both put their best foot forward in some areas but not in all. It falls to the individual user to decide which of these areas or concern are most important to them. I still find reliability to be the most essential element in a defense gun and either the current Hi Powers or Glocks will provide this. (There can certainly be lemons from any maker, but overall, either is usually noted for dependability.)

Neither gun is represented as a match grade target pistol and neither is…but both are capable of better accuracy than are most of their owners. That I find the Hi Power easier to shoot small groups with than the Glock does not mean that such is the case for others. I have never said that the Glock 17 (or any Glock) is not capable of more than sufficient accuracy for most terror-filled, high-adrenaline deadly force encounters that are usually measured in feet, often still in the single digits!

If being able to provide maintenance to your handgun is just not in the cards due to climate or battlefield conditions, the Glock might be the better choice. Having said that I would also ask the reader to recall that for much of the last century the Hi Power was present in military and covert actions all over the globe.

If weight is a major consideration, the Glock is lighter and for some that might be the deciding point while the difference is meaningless to folks not in the same situation(s).

Some shooters report not being able to remember to wipe off the safety when firing at speed or under even a small amount of stress. Assuming that they are not willing to practice enough for this to become second nature or it just really bothers them that they might fail to do so in a fight, go with the point-and-pull Glock.

The other side of that coin might be people who simply prefer a pistol not having the safety on the trigger. Jeff Cooper once likened it to having the combination to the safe written on the door. For those, the Hi Power might win out. Some prefer a weapon that requires deliberate safety disengagement should their handgun be wrested from their grip. The idea is that their opponent might not be able to fire the pistol long enough for them to escape. We each have to make our own decisions here.

This Glock 17 is a trusted 9mm handgun and one that is on constant "duty". It remains loaded 24/7 and I would not hesitate to depend on it in a life-and-death struggle. While it will not replace my Hi Power, it will remain a viable handgun for either fun at the range or as the "final option" if no other reasonable alternative exists.

I've worked pretty hard with the Glock 17 and while it certainly will not replace my Hi Powers, it has proven itself worthy of respect as a "serious gun" in my opinion. Compared to many Glockers my round count is not high and the things seem to just work and work and work without major parts failures. Now and again a trigger spring will break. While a police firearm instructor, I saw more than a few Glocks come through training sessions and qualifications. Most worked quite well. Now and again one would break a spring and I did see one defective slide break on a new Glock 19, but such were the exceptions rather than the rule. (I've also seen several other brand name pistols go down for various reasons.)

I don't see the question as "either-or" but as which best meets my needs. I have no major problems with either and intend to own both. Would this be the right decision for you? Only you can answer that.

It is my intention to keep shooting and learning the Glock. Will it ever find a warm spot in my traditionalist mind? It already has… but it won't replace my Hi Power or 1911.

Wednesday, September 26, 2007




DISCLAIMER AND PERSONAL COMMENTARY: I can not tell anyone what to believe or what to do, but I have my own opinions. As my health declines I will still take in trigger work for carry people or military or special ops or police in harms way. I DO NOT TEACH GUNSMITHING OF ANY KIND, all I can do is point some one in the right direction. My action work is legendary and second to none but I will take it all to the grave with me. THIS IS MY CHOICE.

I had my son eliminate all my sight work off my price list on my website. I will cut down on the no charge free painting of sights that I have always done. I WILL NOT SEAL ANY SIGHTS WITH EPOXY FOR ANYONE. I WILL NOT DO ANY WORK UNLESS THERE IS A METHOD OF PAYMENT UP FRONT. This is the way it must be done. If a person wants a copy of an old invoice you must provide me with the name and year which the work was done, nothing is computerized, its all in loose leaf books organized by year only. If you have bought a handgun that I did you must know the original owners name that the work was done under.

As for my religous beliefs, I am quite religous and have been reading HEBREW since I was 7 years old. I believe in the G-D of Moses, Abraham, Isaac, & Jacob, and nothing else. I spend all my spare time reading the Bible and related prophecy books, & the book of Prophets. I never read gun books or gun magazines. I will answer all emails in a timely fashion but its best to call me at 281 565 6977 as sometimes I get so many emails they get away from me.

I have gone to a great deal of trouble to provide you with things you can not find most any place else. My day starts at about 5 am, but its best to call me most any day after 10 am central time. I hope you will realize my sincerety and honesty and the quality of my work.




The Hi Power and Hammer Bite

By Stephen Camp

The Hi Power's hammer biting the hand that holds it is not an uncommon problem for many of us. Usually, it is not all that difficult to cure.

This affliction usually occurs when the tip of the hammer spur hits the shooting hand behind the pistol's abbreviated tang. Folks who are bitten by the spur hammer will usually get the same if using the factory ring hammer which is the hammer almost always seen on the Practical out of the box.

Folks bitten by the Hi Power usually fall into three categories:

1. Those who get hit by the rear of the hammer spur or the lower rear of the factory ring hammer.

2. Those who get the web of the hand pinched by the rear of the hammer shank and tang.

3. Those who get bit for the reasons cited in both #1 and #2!

I fall in with the first group and have found that the easiest way to rid myself of this problem is to bob the hammer spur off at about the second lateral serration from the rear of the spur. This is a small amount, but it makes a huge difference for me.

The hammer on the left is factory and is stock. I bobbed the one shown on the right using a Dremel tool and a cutting wheel and then reshaped using files and stones. I then cold blued to refinish. (I heated a small amount of cold blue in a plastic cap in the microwave for a very few seconds and this did help the degreased hammer surface to take an even blue.

Here you can see the bobbed hammer atop the factory. Not much metal is removed, but the relief for me has been very well worth it. I do not find the hammer hard to manipulate with the slightly shortened spur. The miniscule loss of weight doesn't come close to causing light primer strikes. With the original mainspring, the bobbed hammer will fire any 9mm ammo I've tried and probably any in the world.

Usually taking the steps mentioned above will solve hammer bite from the Hi Power for most people. Another option is to use a C&S Type I rowell (ring) hammer. This hammer is very similar to the old "Commander" hammer seen on 1911 pistols with the ring being more circular than the FN factory ring hammer. The C&S hammer does not extend as far rearward as the factory hammer. You can see pictures of it here:

If you pistol has a spur hammer and a good trigger pull, I'd simply bob it. If you go with the C&S ring hammer, you really need to go with their sear as well. It's harder than the factory sear and using their hammer with the factory sear does not result in a stable trigger pull for more than about 2K rounds in my experience. If you get the hammer and the sear, you will probably have to have a trigger job as well. This is considerably more expensive than just bobbing the spur or bobbing and having a trigger job done.

If you are in group #2, click to the next page after clicking on the link above to see the C&S "no bite" version of the Type I ring hammer. What it amounts to is that the shank is relieved so that the lower portion of the shank doesn't get close enough to the tang to pinch. These are sold in blue and hard chrome and sets with the hammer and sear are available.

Taking one of the approaches described above usually solves hammer bite problems for folks in groups 1 & 2. A gunsmith can also remove the lower portion of the factory ring hammer should this be desired. This is harder than it looks, especially in reshaping, and I suggest one hire a gunsmith for it. Some gunsmiths can make your existing spur or ring hammer into a "no bite" hammer like the C&S. If your pistol already has a great trigger pull, but you get pinched all of the time, this is an option that will save you the cost of a trigger job and C&S parts. The relief cut on the shank of a factory spur hammer as well as bobbing it should solve the problem for almost all the folks bitten by their Hi Powers. Ditto using the C&S parts.

If you are "lucky" enough to be one who finds no relief, several of the name Hi Power gunsmiths like Novak's, Bill Laughridge, Ted Yost, or Gartwaite (and others) can weld an extended tang onto your Hi Power. This is expensive and requires that the frame be refinished, but this will solve the problem.

The C&S Type I abbreviated ring hammer is shown on the 9mm Mk III below the CZ-75. I'm "lucky" with both guns. Despite its longer tang, I had to bob the spur hammer on the Pre-B CZ-75 to avoid hammer bite.

Tuesday, September 25, 2007





go to -


Congress debate begins
on North America Union
Resolution calls for end of NAFTA superhighway, abandonment of integration with Canada, Mexico

Posted: September 25, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2007

Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va. (Photo: University of Virginia) A House resolution urging President Bush "not to go forward with the North American Union or the NAFTA Superhighway system" is – according to its sponsor Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., in an exclusive WND interview – "also a message to both the executive branch and the legislative branch." As WND previously reported, on Jan. 22 Goode introduced H.C.R. 40, titled "Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada." The bill has been referred to the House Subcommittee on Highways and Transit of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. ;

WND asked Goode if the president was risking electoral success for the Republican Party in 2008 with his insistence on pushing for North American integration via the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, or SPP. "Yes," Goode answered. "You won't hear the leadership in the Republic Party admit it, but there are many in the House and Senate who know that illegal immigration has to be stopped and legal immigration has to be reduced. We are giving away the country so a few very rich people can get richer." How did he react when President Bush referred to those who suggest the SPP could turn into the North American Union as "conspiracy theorists"? "The president is really engaging in a play on words," Goode responded. "The secretary of transportation came before our subcommittee," he explained, "and I had the opportunity to ask her some questions about the NAFTA Superhighway.

Of course, she answered, 'There's no NAFTA Superhighway.' But then Mary Peters proceeded to discuss the road system that would come up from Mexico and go through the United States up into Canada." Goode is a member of the Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development of the House Committee on Appropriations. "So, I think that saying we're 'conspiracy theorists' or something like that is really just a play on words with the intent to demonize the opposition," Goode concluded. Goode stressed that the Bush administration supports both a NAU regional government and a NAFTA Superhighway system:

"The Bush administration as well as Mexico and Canada have persons in the government in all three countries who want to a see a North American Union as well as a highway system that would bring goods into the west coast of Mexico and transport them up through Mexico into the United States and then in onto Canada," Goode confirmed. The Virginia congressman said he believes the motivation behind the movement toward North American integration is the anticipated profits the large multinational corporations in each of the three countries expect to make from global trade, especially moving production to China. "Some really large businesses that get a lot from China would like a NAFTA Superhighway system because it would reduce costs for them to transport containers from China and, as a result, increase their margins," he argued.

"I am vigorously opposed to the Mexican trucks coming into the country," Goode continued. "The way we have done it and, I think, the way we should do it in the future, is to have the goods come into the United States from Mexico within a 20-mile commercial space and unloaded from Mexican trucks into U.S. trucks. This procedure enhances the safety of the country, the security of the country, and provides much less chance for illegal immigration." As WND reported, the Department of Transportation has begun a Mexican truck "demonstration project" under which 100 Mexican trucking companies are being allowed to run their long-haul rigs throughout the U.S. Previously, Mexican trucks have been limited to a 20-mile commercial zone in the United States, with the requirement that goods bound for locations in the U.S. beyond the 20-mile commercial zone be off-loaded to U.S. trucks.

WND reported last month that Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., successfully offered an amendment to the Department of Transportation Fiscal Year 2008 appropriations bill to block DOT from spending any federal funds to implement the truck project. Dorgan’s amendment passed 75-23, after Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C., changed her vote to support Dorgan. By a voice vote, the House passed an amendment offered by Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., to the DOT appropriations bill comparable to Dorgan's, designed to block the agency from using federal funds to implement the truck project.

DeFazio chairs the House transportation subcommittee that oversees motor carriers. "With the Trans-Texas Corridor, which I would say is part of the NAFTA Superhighway system, and with this NAFTA plot with the Mexican trucks just coming in and not loading off to U.S. trucks, they will just drive right over the Rio Grande and come on over into Texas," Goode argued. "A lot of these Mexican trucks will be bring containerized cargo from the west coast of Mexico where they will be unloaded in Mexican ports to avoid the fees and costs of unloading at U.S. ports." "So, when you look at the total package," he continued, "we do have a NAFTA Superhighway system already in place.

There are those in all three countries that believe we should have a North American Union and the Security and Prosperity Partnership, in my opinion takes us down that road. And I am vigorously opposed to the loss of our sovereignty." Why, WND asked, do so many congressmen and senators insist on writing and telling their constituents that they don't know anything about the Security and Prosperity Partnership, or that SPP working groups are really just to increase our competitiveness?

"In the House, a strong majority voted to provide no money in the transportation funding bill," Goode responded. "I commend Congressman Duncan Hunter for submitting an amendment to the Department of Transportation funding bill [which] got over 360 votes that said no funds in the transportation appropriation measure, prohibiting Department of Transportation funds from being used to participate on working groups that promote the Security and Prosperity Partnership." As WND reported, Hunter's amendment to the FY 2008 Department of Transportation funding bill prohibiting DOT from using federal funds to participate in SPP working groups creating NAFTA Superhighways passed 362 to 63, with strong bipartisan support. The House approved H.R. 3074 by 268-153, with the Hunter amendment included.

"So, I think a majority the House, if you had an up or down vote on the SPP, would vote down on the SPP," Goode concluded. "But some still say, and it's a play on words, that we don't have a Security and Prosperity Partnership that will lead to a North American Union. I don't think they can say anymore that we don't have a Security and Prosperity Partnership arrangement between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada, because that was done in Waco, Texas, on March 23, 2005, and the recent meeting at Montebello was to talk about it further.

" WND asked Goode to comment on the North American Competitiveness Council, or NACC, a group of multinational corporations selected by the Chambers of Commerce in Mexico, Canada and the U.S. as the central adviser of SPP working groups. At the SPP summit in Montebello, Quebec, the NACC met behind closed doors with the three leaders, cabinet secretaries who were present, and top SPP working group bureaucrats, while various public advocacy groups, environmental groups, labor unions – and the press – were excluded.

Should SPP working group meetings be open to the public? "I wish they were," Goode responded. "If it is as the Bush administration says, 'We're not planning any North American Union,' then why wouldn’t those meetings be open, why wouldn’t you let the media in?" Goode asked. "But some of the very big corporations want the goods from China to come in here unchecked," he continued. "It costs money for U.S. trucks to transport Chinese goods from West Coast ports like Los Angeles or Long Beach.

But if you can have a Mexican truck and Mexican truck driver, that's going to be cheaper. And it's all about the margins. The margins relate directly to how much money the multi-national corporations are going to make." Has the Senate debate on the Dorgan amendment brought the issues of the NAU and NAFTA Superhighways more to the attention of the Senate? "I think so," Goode said. "That debate had a very positive effect. You had grassroots support calling the Senate on the Dorgan amendment.

"The Bush administration engages in the same play of words with all these issues," Goode added. "Take a look at the Kennedy-McCain comprehensive immigration reform, which the Bush administration has now tried to jam through the Senate not once, but twice. "The Bush administration claims it's not [amnesty] when you let someone stay in the country and give them a path to citizenship," Goode pointed out. "Well, that's their definition, not my definition, and not the definition of the majority of the public.

The majority of the public called in and buried the amnesty bill because of public pressure. Public pressure also got de-funded the pilot program on Mexican trucks in this country." So should the U.S. pull out of the SPP? "Yes," Goode answered, "but the best way to end SPP would be to have a chief executive that wouldn't do anything with it." What does Goode think of the state legislatures that are passing anti-NAU, anti-NAFTA Superhighway and anti-SPP resolutions? "If enough state legislatures pass resolutions like that, it surely should have an impact on the House and the Senate," Goode said.

"President Bush's position is that we need to carry out NAFTA and we need to have this free flow of goods with Mexico and Canada," Goode explained. "Well, Bush's approach involves a derogation of our sovereignty and it also undermines the security and the safety of the country. "It will be much easier for a truck to get a container on the west coast of Mexico and haul in a biological or radiological or nuclear weapon than it would be if you are going to have to unload the trucks on the Texas-Mexico border and put the goods and material in a U.S. truck," he continued.

"The problem is that the NAU, NAFTA Superhighways and SPP all go back to money," Goode stressed. "The multinational companies want their goods from Mexico and China because they want the cheap labor." What about the U.S.'s large and growing trade imbalance with China? "I don't want to have to be an 'I told you so' person," Goode answered, "but I was a vigorous opponent of PNTR ("permanent normal trade relations") and before that of 'most favored nation' trade status with China.

We need tariffs and quotas with China. Personally, if I know food is coming in from China, I won't buy it. The American people with the adoption of COOL, country of origin labeling, with the food clearly labeled, I think you will see the American public will shy away from Chinese products." In 2000, Congress voted to extend to China PNTR. "Most favored nation" or MFN trade status, was given to China first in 1980 by the Carter administration. COOL rules are administered by the Department of Agriculture.

Goode concluded the interview by thanking WND for covering the SPP, NAU and NAFTA Superhighway issues: "I want to thank you for putting these issues out where people can read it," Goode said. "You have enlightened hundreds of thousands if not millions of American citizens who otherwise would have been greatly in the dark on the SPP."