Duncan Hunter

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to reintroduce the Postal Service Core Business Act of 1997. Last year, I introduced this same bill as H.R. 3690. This is an important bill framing a debate on an important subject: Where is the line between U.S. Government competition with the private sector, particularly small business? My bill will establish a clear line of demarcation between the U.S. Postal Service, a Federal agency, and small private businesses across America. For the past 20 years, a vibrant private sector business has been evolving. In fact, the industry was born within a region I represent, San Diego, CA. This business sector is known as the CMRA, or Commercial Mail Receiving Agents, industry. These businesses establish a special relationship with the Postal Service and become agents for receiving mail for individuals and small businesses. These small businessmen and women open a store, usually in a shopping mall, or a downtown business district, and rent private mailboxes to customers. Altogether, an industry of nearly 10,000 privately owned stores in all 50 States and virtually every congressional district has grown. These CMRA stores are either franchise stores of nationally recognized groups like MailBoxes Etc, Postal Annex, PostalNet, Parcel Plus, or independently owned stores affiliated with the associated mail and parcel centers. Often, these small business owners use their life savings to establish their store. No matter what their origin, all of the stores are owner-operated by individual entrepreneurs who work long hours and thrive on fair and healthy competition. They do not look for government subsidies, nor do they shrink from competing with each other or any other private business which seeks to compete with them. What these small businesses did not count on was having to compete with the U.S. Government, in the form of the U.S. Postal Service, which has been known to describe itself as the 12th largest business in the Fortune 500. The problem is that the Postal Service has decided to go into the business of packaging parcels, a service born and bred by these 10,000 small businesses, and there is clearly more on the horizon. In fact, the Postal Service announced its intention to spend billions to enter into retail competition with private business. Stated simply, the Postal Service is not General Motors, AT&T, or Phillip Morris. It is an agency of the U.S. Federal Government. Its employees are Federal employees, its lawyers are from the Department of Justice, its benefits are Federal employee benefits. Further, it enjoys unique advantages as a Federal agency which none of its top 10 Fortune 500 compatriots have. For example: 1. USPS has a legal monopoly on first class mail--This generates the lion's share of its $50+ billion revenue. This gives it great opportunity to cross-subsidize from its stamp revenue to money losing operations such as their Pack & Send's. 2. USPS has no profit incentive--Since the Postal Service is a Government agency, it is not necessary for it to make a profit. That means it can run unprofitable business lines with impugnity. 3. USPS can cross-subsidize these unprofitable businesses--There is no guarantee that the Postal Service will not use its monopoly revenue to cross-subsidize unprofitable activities like Pack & Send. In fact, it can, and does, even discount coupons on these nonstamp products. 4. USPS does not charge sales tax--That is a 4- to 8-percent advantage in most States. 5. USPS pays no property tax on its own facilities--It is not fair that the USPS can enter into direct competition against private sector businesses while being exempt from property tax. 6. USPS is self-insured--As an agency of the U.S. Government, the Postal Service does not need to buy insurance. All these small businesses must, or risk losing their business in litigation. 7. USPS borrows money from the Federal Reserve--Federal law permits the Postal Service to borrow money directly from the Federal Reserve at preferred rates. CMRA's must borrow from banks at market rates and with secured collateral. 8. USPS is immune from antitrust laws--All private businesses in America, big and small, must comply with Federal and State antitrust regulations. The Postal Service, however, claims they are not subject to the same antitrust laws. As a result, the Postal Service, a $50+ billion business, is preying on small business owners with impugnity, doing what it wants with little regulation from Federal, State, and local authorities. It is critical that Congress step in and set up some rules. Mr. Speaker, the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 was enacted before the CMRA industry had developed. A review of the act makes that clear. The act does not even include a definition of what services the Postal Service can and cannot offer. This 1970 law needs to be revised to set some groundrules--a line of demarcation setting out what activities the Congress intends the Postal Service to offer. Most agree that it should continue to deliver the mail, but I don't believe its job description should also include T-shirt sales or packaging services. My bill sets out some rules as to what the Postal Service can and cannot do regarding competition with the private sector. It is simple and straightforward: Like most of my colleagues, I am a strong supporter of the Postal Service and I rely on it everyday to receive and deliver my mail. The Postal Service Core Business Act protects and promotes a strong and vibrant Postal Service by allowing it to keep offering the same services it has been doing all these years. It can continue to concentrate on its core business: mail delivery. It can continue to offer those special and ancillary services as it has for decades, including selling packaging materials for use by its customers. What it cannot do is compete with private businesses in areas that the Postal Service has not been traditionally engaged. For example, its new packaging service, called Pack & Send, would be prohibited under my bill. The private sector is already offering this service in over 10,000 locations throughout the country. The Postal Service will also be prohibited from becoming a volume photocopy dealer; there are plenty of private businesses which provide this service. The same goes for gift wrapping, notary services, and other business-related services. The aforementioned services are not functions of the Postal Service established by our Founding Fathers in the Constitution, and are therefore better left to the willing and able private sector. This bill will not effect the Postal Service's ability to deliver overnight packages. This bill will not prevent the Postal Service from accepting packages for mailing or shipment. This bill will not interfere in any way with normal postal service operation. Ny bill provides that line of demarcation which must be established now that the Postal Service is trying to branch out into other nontraditional areas of business. The American entrepreneur is out there in all 50 States to provide these new services We do not need a Government created and protected entity like the Postal Service to provide these services. Nearly 10,000 small business owners in virtually every congressional district support this bill. During the 104th Congress, many of these business owners contacted their Representatives with their support for a clear definition of Postal Service activities. Mr. Speaker, I believe it is important to point out to my colleagues that the Postal Service is now offering this Pack & Send service in violation of the Postal Reorganization Act. The Postal Rate Commission [PRC] has recently found that this service cannot be offered unless and until the Postal Service has submitted it for a rate and classification hearing before the Commission. There is one problem, however, only the Postal Service can submit the case to the Commission; the Commission cannot initiate it themselves. The PRC is now waiting for the Postal Service to submit the case or to cease the service. Until that time, the largest Federal agency, the Postal Service, is offering a service in direct competition with private sector businesses, and in violation of its own enabling legislation. Clearly, we do not want Federal agencies acting independently of the mission they were assigned by Congress, which is the ultimate authority. The Constitution specifically directed the Congress to determine what kind of post office the Nation should have. That is what my bill is all about. Interestingly, Mr. Speaker, the United States is not the only country experiencing this quandary of what business line its post office should and should not be permitted to enter. In Canada, the Canada Post Corporation is currently in the business of competing with the private sector. There is no constraint on Canada Post in this regard under Canadian law, and the Canada Post has jumped in with enthusiasm. In 1993, Canada Post purchased the largest private, Canadian owned courier service, Purolator Courier, in order to compete with local and American delivery services. Further, it is in the mailing center business as well. Much as its American counterpart, it is competing head to head with local and franchised private centers such as MailBoxes, Etc. Canada Post is aggressively promoting unaddressed admail in direct competition with private mailers and even going so far as to deny access to private apartment boxes to its private sector competition. This is the future for the U.S. Postal Service if my bill is not passed and Congress does not act to set ground rules in this area of what the U.S. Postal Service can and cannot do. The Situation in Canada has so deteriorated that the government appointed a one man commission to review these and other issues and to make recommendations to the Canadian Government. That Commission held hearings and took testimony throughout Canada and thoroughly examined the issue of competition by Canada Post with private mailing centers. Its conclusion was straightforward: ``The Government should direct Canada Post Corporation to withdraw from all competition with the private sector in areas of activity outside its core public policy responsibilities for providing postal services.'' [Report of the Canada Post Mandate Review, p. 86] ``Specifically, that means exiting from the courier business, from unaddressed admail, from the operation of business support or mailing centers, from electronic products and services, and from retailing of non-postal merchandise,'' [Report of the Canada Post Mandate Review, p. 84] Mr. Speaker, my bill does not take on all the issues that this comprehensive review did, but that review hit the issue on the head. The basic conclusion of the Commission was that no government agency, like Canada Post or the USPS, can serve and compete with its customers at the same time. The Postal Service Core Business Act is sound and fair in identifying a workable solution for all parties. I urge my colleagues to join me in support, because it establishes the rules necessary for both the Postal Service and the private sector as to this area of postal related business. These small business owners are looking to us to ensure that they are afforded a fair chance to succeed, and as their Representatives we need to work to meet their needs.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, In lieu of requesting Representative-elect Sanchez to step aside, is it the fact that a notice of contest filed on behalf of Robert Dornan pursuant to the law is on file with the Clerk?

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for his excellent question to the Secretary this morning. I was reminded, as the Secretary and others talked about responsibility, and responsibility being on the base commander, I was reminded of Stonewall Jackson's comment that defending Harpers Ferry was like trying to defend the bottom of a teacup. Somebody placed those thousands of Americans in the bottom of a teacup right next to public roads where terrorists could drive up or down in large trucks. Then we are charging the base commander with the responsibility for defending the bottom of that teacup. I think the gentleman made exactly the right questions when he asked whether responsibility could go up as well as down.

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

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to continue this discussion with my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon], concerning the national security hearings that just took place with the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Perry, and General Shalikashvili, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and General Downing, the director of the task force assigned by the Secretary to investigate the bombing of the Khobar Towers. I just want to ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania to go a little further into the assessment as to whether or not we should have an upward evaluation with respect to blame for this incident, as well as a downward direction, which appears to be the way it is going. It appears that blame is going to be laid at the feet of the base commander. Yet, there are a number of indications that show that this was an untenable position that this base commander was placed in. As General Downing said this morning, he was dealt a fairly poor hand to begin with, because of a number of circumstances that he could not control.

Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman for his statement, Mr. Speaker. Let us review the basic facts here. This bombing took place because we had a building housing thousands of Americans literally within feet, within 85 feet, of not only a public highway, down which any terrorist could drive a truck, but also a public parking lot, where the terrorists could park a truck. This truck, loaded with explosives, with thousands of pounds of explosives, and the Secretary estimated it at 20,000 pounds, and General Downing said between 3,000 and 8,000; but even if you say it is 20,000 pounds, for country boys that is basically half the weight of a hay truck. Any large truck can carry that amount of weight very easily. That truck was within 85 feet. It was closer to our personnel and their living area than the distance in the House Chamber from one end of the Chamber to the other. That happened. If we were to expand our perimeter, which should have been done, or we should have vacated the site, we would have had to expand out and take out part of the Saudi public road. If we had to do that, we had to do that. But the people who placed this contingent in this indefensible area should be examined.

Mr. HUNTER

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

Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding, Mr. Speaker. Let me just tell my friend, as a guy who went over to Lebanon shortly before the bombing and who stayed to work with Colonel Garrity, because I thought there were security problems, our problem is this, and not in terms of assigning blame, but you have two bombings. We see that truck bombs are the weapon of choice in the Middle East for terrorists. We had the Riyahd bombing 6 months ago. That showed us where we had public areas, public drive areas near troop concentrations, we were in danger of being hurt. If this hearing today made people upset, if we got after people and we embarrassed them or made them feel uneasy, if that results in the Pentagon going back and saying, we will not have a troop concentration in the Middle East that is within 85 feet of a public road, then that is good.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I could not help but join this delegation of Tennesseans and talk a little bit about, I could not help myself from joining the other member of the Duncan caucus, Jim Duncan, who was such a good friend and was preceded by such a wonderful colleague also, John Duncan. To my other, my co-colleague in the Duncan caucus, thanks for letting me have a minute, and to watch my friend Kika de la Garza and John Myers talk about Jimmy Quillen and about the great tradition and all of the good things that he brought to the House that sometimes are tough to see. I have often thought of politicians, some politicians, some members of the political establishment make a great 30-minute impression. If they have a 30-minute meeting with you, you think you are the hottest thing in the world. But other politicians and statesmen make a 30-year impression. And Jimmy Quillen is one of those guys who made a 30-year impression. He is a guy whose word was as good as his bond. When he told you he was going to do something, he did it. He was a great ally of mine, a great friend of mine in the House and a friend to so many of us and had that great wisdom that he expressed in that quiet, calm Tennessee manner. I think in Jimmy, when you watch Jimmy and you talk with him, you had a little bit of an idea of the tradition that has gone before us in this House of Representatives. I am going to miss that. I am going to miss him. But it is neat that he is leaving such a great delegation of Tennesseans to follow in his steps. I thank my friend, my co-founder of the Duncan caucus, for letting me speak just a little bit.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Madam Speaker, I wanted to comment a little bit about the upcoming hearing that will be held tomorrow by the Committee on National Security, myself and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon], who is here, the chairman of the Committee on National Security, the gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. Spence], and our other members. We will have before us the Secretary of Defense and a number of other military leaders to explain some of the issues that have arisen from the bombing in Saudi Arabia that took place June 25 of this year, the bombing of the Khobar Barracks, in which 19 Americans were killed and several hundred, more than several hundred, were wounded. Madam Speaker, I think this bombing and the way it took place is symbolic of the way the Clinton administration conducts national defense, at least the American preparation. And the situation we placed ourselves in, that our military leaders placed our uniformed people in, I think is symbolic of the weakness of the Clinton administration on defense, the naivete of the Clinton administration on defense, and the fact that they tend to be, time and again, taken by surprise in this very dangerous world. Mr. Speaker, first, a number of Americans, since the Middle East is in the headlines again, a number of Americans are asking what we are requesting to do in Iraq. They are worried about what the administration has in terms of their plan, whether they have a goal, whether they have a military operation that really evaluates all the possible contingencies. Many people we talked to throughout the country, our constituents, say to us, we think, if we have to, we will go in and do the same thing that George Bush did several years ago in Desert Storm. I just want to report, Madam Speaker, to the House and to our constituents, that we cannot do today what we did in Desert Storm, because the Clinton administration has dangerously weakened our forces, your forces. They took your United States Army, that numbered 18 divisions, 8 of which we sent to Desert Storm, and they have cut that almost in half, to 10 divisions. So we cannot send eight divisions to Desert Storm if we have to, because that only leaves two left for another contingency that could take place. They have cut our fighter airwings, our air power, and reduced them from 23 fighter airwings, so we have roughly 50 percent of the United States air power that existed just a few years ago. They have cut our U.S. Navy from 550 ships to about 350 ships. So Madam Speaker, the Clinton administration has dangerously weakened the United States. With respect to the attack on the Khobar Barracks on June 25, the analysis that is coming forth from General Downing's report strongly criticizes the way the Department of Defense and the Clinton administration handled the security measures that existed immediately prior to this bombing. Let me just go through some of the criticisms: They strongly criticized U.S. central command for failing to support the enhancement of force protection measures under an increased threat. Remember, when we say increased threat, that last November, 6 months before the bombing in Saudi Arabia at the Khobar Barracks, we had a bombing with a 250-pound bomb at Riyadh. That was November 13, 1995. We should have learned something from that. But the Downing report criticizes the U.S. central command for failing to support the enhancement of force protection measures under an increased threat, and they criticize them for creating a confused set of command responsibilities. That means that the so-called czar, this force protection czar that was put in place, that was put in place with such an undermanning of responsibility and had so little authority, that in fact that was nobody in Saudi Arabia who really was in charge of force protection. They are also criticized for passively accepting Air Force manning and rotation policies. What does that mean? That means that in this fighter airwing the tours are approximately 90 days. That means that the command turns over, 10 percent of the command turns over. Every week, 10 percent of your command is changed, so there is no continuity of leadership, such that a leader realizes he is going to be there for a while and has a chance to settle down, look at the security problems, and address those problems. So the rotation policy is an extremely bad policy and nobody addressed that. Let me just say one other thing about the bombing, Madam Speaker, that took place in November, that should have warned us about the Khobar bombing. That was a 250-pound bomb. We should have known that there could be a similar bomb launched on our troops 6 months later at Khobar. That occurred. I hope people will watch the hearing tomorrow and follow this analysis in depth.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to commend the work of the Fort Guijarros Museum Foundation and the U.S. Navy Submarine Base, San Diego. The foundation and the submarine base have brought history alive to the people of California. This effort began in 1980 when the U.S. Navy Commander, submarine force, U.S. Pacific Fleet invited a civilian volunteer committee to work with the submarine support facility to research the history of a 1796 Spanish fort on Ballast Point. Since that time the committee has conducted scientific investigation, analysis, reports, and public exhibits on their findings. The foundation has established public education programs for our elderly and retired citizens. Through traveling exhibits to high schools, banks, and government buildings the foundation has brought hands-on history to our citizens. One particular exhibit in Old Town San Diego reaches 11,000 children each year. Further walking tours of the historical buildings, slide lectures, and education programs maximize use of the ruins of Fort Guijarros. In addition, the foundation has been analyzing the thousands of artifacts in former U.S. Army World War II buildings assigned by the U.S. Navy. Recently, congressional legacy grant funding enable adaptive reuse of the former Army morgue to a refrigerated repository to ensure preservation of the artifacts and field notes well beyond the year 2000. Each year, the submarine force hosts the annual battle of San Diego Bay fiesta at Monument Circle near the Fort Guijarros site. This year the event will be held on September 21 and I would like to take this opportunity to commend the work of both the submarine force and the Fort Guijarros Museum Foundation. Many people have given their time and effort to this important project. In particular I would like to recognize Capt. Bruce Scott for his support in preserving this part of our history. I know my colleagues join me in recognizing the Fort Guijarros Museum Foundation and wish them continued success in the future.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to go over the language of the provision itself and what it does because the operational and tactical control that is vested in the President and his subordinates in the American chain of command is a very precious thing not just to people that are in the military forces but to their parents, to their families, to the people who rely on somebody who is accountable for that young person who may be in a life or death combat situation. I want to point out to my colleagues that we do not detract from the President's ability to, on a very limited basis, cede that operational and tactical control to, yes, a foreign commander if it is a unique situation; but we require a certification. It is a thorough certification. First, with respect to David Jones, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs and his problems with this certification, if the President does not have time to give the certification well in advance, which is what we would like to have, because we want the White House to think about this, we want them to think it through, then he can give it after he has made the deployment. Mr. Chairman, nonetheless, we go through some fairly important areas. We ask the President when he does this certification to set forth a description of the national security interest. We do not think that is unfair or unreasonable, that would be advanced by the placement of United States forces under the United Nations operational or tactical control. We ask him to tell us that. We ask him to tell us the expected size and composition of the U.S. forces involved. We think that is reasonable. We ask him to explain the precise command and control relationship between the U.S. forces involved and the U.N. command structure. We think that is reasonable. We ask him to explain to us the extent to which the U.S. forces involved will rely on forces of other countries for security and defense. I think this element is a very important one. The degree to which we rely on forces, those Americans that might be under operational or tactical control of a U.N. commander that agree that we are going to rely on the forces of other countries for security and defense, that our forces will see their security depend on somebody else, we think that is a very important element for the President to lay out. So we ask the President to lay out concisely these very important elements. We do not deprive him of his constitutional authority. We just require him to certify. We think that is reasonable.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Let me start out by thanking the gentleman for all the great work that he has done on this bill, the great leadership he has given us, and the fairness and decency with which he has conducted the entire oversight process. Let me also give kudos to my friend, the gentleman from California, Mr. Dellums, for being an outstanding minority Member in this process, and ranking member, and really sowing the seeds for the bipartisanship that we have had in this year. I want to thank all of the subcommittee chairmen who worked this bill, because they are all great people; the gentleman from California, Bob Dornan, the gentleman from New York, Mr. McHugh, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Weldon, the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Hefley, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Bateman, and all of their counterparts on the Democrat side, and my old friend and compadre, the gentleman from Missouri, Ike Skelton, for the great bipartisanship that he displayed. I remember the meetings we had, some in his office, some in my office, working military issues. Mr. Speaker, we undertook to do a few things in this bill that were important for the American people. We had hearings on the safety of our fighter aircraft that were crashed in a series of crashes beginning in January of this year. Both F-14s and AV-8Bs went down in high numbers. We had good oversight hearings and we came up with fixes and recommendations by the Navy and the Marines that we followed. We put those fixes into this bill. We spent a lot of time on ammunition. We came up with extra ammunition for the Marine Corps and Army. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton] and I want to see more ammunition for the Marine Corps and Army, but we will get that in the next session. We armed the bombers. We thought it was important in this enormous investment in long-range strike capability to put the precision-guided munitions that served us so well in Desert Storm on those bombers. We did that. We continued through with our reform of the submarine program to widen that qualitative edge that we have over other nations of the world. We did a lot of things to give the right kind of equipment to the men and women who wear America's uniforms. The gentleman from South Carolina, Floyd Spence, did a wonderful job putting this package together. There were some things we would rather have seen on the House side, some things that dropped out, but it was a compromise between the Senate and the House. We are going to work those other issues next year. I would urge a yes vote on this package.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I have friends on both sides of this argument. I understand there are merits on both sides of the argument. But let me give you my humble opinion as a guy who used to practice law in the barrio in San Diego about 5 blocks south of Chicano Park in half of a barber shop. There is merit to the argument that Legal Services did go far past the bounds that we set for them when we first initiated this program. We know that we had legal services to get Aunt Flossie's car out of hock, to do domestic law, allow people to have access to court for personal injury when they did not have the up front money that was necessary if they went to a paid lawyer. But what some legal services devolved into was a legal services operation that went for the sexier lawsuits. They liked the class action suits. They like innovating, and they liked lawsuits that drew headlines. And they liked to move away from what I call the ham and eggs things. I think we have to strike a balance. I think the money that we have in the bill right now is a balance. It does balance the need to have legal services for people who cannot afford them, but it also leaves a little need there so the local bars will step forward and pick up the slack. One thing that I say as a lawyer who never got any Government money was the fact that when you do have these Government programs, you do have a lessening of the private bar's interest in protecting the poor and in doing pro bono suits. You do have a reduction in that area. So we have to maintain a balance. I think the money that we have in the bill does maintain a balance, and the reason that we have gotten away from class action suits and gotten away from these abuses is because this Congress has monetarily and in a policy sense constrained Legal Services. We have constrained them from doing the class action suits. I am sorry to see that, if it is true that some shell corporations are being formed to allow them to continue to pursue a social policy, I am sorry to see that because they are supposed to be doing ham and eggs work for poor people. I like the balance. Let us stick with what we have got.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague for the nice presentation that he has made in support of this railroad, but let me tell my colleagues what this involves. This is a railroad that once existed between Imperial County, which is east of San Diego County some 100 miles or so, almost to the Arizona border. It is a railroad that runs from San Diego into Mexico, travels a number of miles in Mexico, goes up some steep canyons and finally rereemerges in the United States in my district in what is known as East San Diego County and travels about 70 miles through my district in San Diego County into Imperial Valley, almost to the Arizona border. This railroad was knocked out of commission many, many years ago. It has not been in operation for a number of years. There is an issue here that is a very important issue to everybody in the country, and that is border patrol. Let me just tell my colleagues what I am concerned about, Mr. Chairman. There were articles in the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, the San Diego Union, the last headline of which said, Robbers Ride the Rails. And they were headline stories about the enormous number of robberies of American trains in New Mexico, for example, some 600 robberies of Southern Pacific, in one year with an enormous criminal base, basically endangered by this train robbing operation. Those were trains that are in the United States. They do not even go into Mexico. We propose at a time when our border in southern California is totally out of control and totally in the hands of criminal aliens and there is a massive flow of cocaine coming across the border both in the urban areas and now in the suburban areas, and incidentally I have 60 miles of farm families and ranch families who right now are being held prisoners in their homes by armies of illegal aliens and drug smugglers marching north through East San Diego County who have not concurred in the chamber of commerce recommendation, who have not concurred in the port authority's recommendation and who have real concerns. So, Mr. Chairman, there have been no studies whatsoever as to what effect this train is going to have on the smuggling of illegal aliens. And thousands of illegal aliens have been smuggled on the border trains in New Mexico. We have had no studies. On the prospective robberies, southern border trains have been robbed at the rate of some 600 robberies per year, per line in New Mexico. We have had no studies on the effect on cocaine smuggling. If we have a border which is out of control, which we have right now in southern California, our primary goal now is to control the border. I like the chamber of commerce. I like the boosters. I am reminded that all of them pushed the port at San Isidro and the accelerated means of bringing in traffic from Mexico with goods. They all promised that the cocaine problem is going to go away but it did not go away. Because we did not accompany that port of entry with a right type of controls, we have a cocaine freeway right now through San Diego County. Nobody in the chamber of commerce or the port authority has come forward to say, we are sorry we made a mistake. I am going to offer my colleagues and, Mr. Chairman, a little while later an amendment that asks that, before we fund any such program, we do a study with respect to the effect it will have on exacerbating illegal immigration, exacerbating drug smuggling, narcotics smuggling and creating a base of railroad robberies such as the one that has existed for some time now in the area around the border between New Mexico and Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition. From my calculations, I do have about 90 percent of this railroad in my district. I think we need to have this type of information before we blindly move ahead because we have a lot of governmental entities that like this project.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, very simply, this amendment affects the proposal that the gentleman from California [Mr. Filner] made on the border train, which lies mainly in my congressional district, and I brought up to my colleagues the problems that we presently have on the southern border of California with overwhelming out of control illegal immigration. It has become a cocaine highway in San Diego and Imperial Counties, and the problem with this train is that a border train, which does not even go into Mexico, in New Mexico was robbed 600 times last year, according to headline stories in the Boston Globe, the L.A. Times and the San Diego Union. So you have an issue of border control and what effect this border train that weaves in and out of Mexico will have on that situation. Will it become an illegal alien express? Will it be robbed? Will it build up a base of banditry along the southern border? What my amendment does very simply is it asks for a study. It says, we cannot fund any funds under this section until and unless a study is done that addresses the effect of existing border trains on illegal immigration, cocaine smuggling, and the prospects for banditry which have taken place in great numbers in New Mexico. So we need information on this proposal, and this amendment asks for a report that gives that information, and certainly I cannot see any proponents wanting to deny the House information that would let us make a reasoned judgment on this border train. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, no, that does not mean Alaska, if the gentleman is asking. This is what I would hope that we would do under this, is to look at the existing situation. It is similar to San Diego's, and that is the border train that borders New Mexico that has been robbed 600 times in the last year. The study would under this amendment, the intent of the author is that we would look at that situation. Second, with respect to the gentleman's statement that there is no funds under this act, this is attached to this section of the bill on the presumption that if the Filner amendment did pass, there would be funds available in the act?

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I my consume. Mr. Chairman, let me just say to my colleagues, for the proponents of this border train, the point of my amendment is that there are a lot of ramifications of this train that go far beyond simply linking up a couple of railheads with an existing port and expediting trade between nations. There are enormous problems along the southern California border. There are right now enormous problems among all of the southern border with enormous illegal immigration and all of the ramifications that come about as a result of that situation. This amendment has asked for a study. It should not be mission impossible to get a study. Now, if the gentleman says, well, no monies can be spent until there is a study, well, that is easily taken care of by simply producing a study, and I think that INS, at least the people that I have talked to, Customs, Border Patrol, have got facts coming out of their ears with results of what has happened to border trains in the last few months. So let us have this study, and then the gentleman from California [Mr. Filner] can move ahead in an informed manner, and I can move ahead in an informed manner, and all Members of the House will know what the facts are. Let us do the study. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], the subcommittee chairman.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Bilbray].

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friends for yielding me this time, and I also want to rise in support of this resolution and commend the author, the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox], one of our brightest and most eloquent Members. This is a very, very important resolution from my perspective as a Member of the Committee on National Security, because I, along with my friend, the gentleman from California, Duke Cunningham, and other members of the committee, received testimony from the Clinton administration representatives with respect to China and its participation in arms sales and the sales of chemical weapons components to nations which may be in some cases unstable and in other cases are considered to be adversaries of the United States. We have just now started, really, this investigation. And when we asked the representatives of the Clinton administration whether or not there had been sales of the M-11 missiles to, for example, Pakistan, the answer was it appears that that did take place. When we asked about the ring magnets in open session, systems that are used to enrich uranium for the nuclear weapons construction process, the answer was yes, that probably did take place. It appears that also there have been transfers of chemical weapons components to Iran. That has taken place. So we see a couple of things happening. We live in an age of missiles right now, in which a number of Third World nations are acquiring missile technology, the ability to deliver a payload to another country 300, 400, 500 miles away, and also to develop the warhead components that may be nuclear components or they may be biological or chemical components. We see China now taking a very important role in that proliferation of deadly technology to other nations, and we do not see any hesitancy on their part as a result of America's entreaties to stop it. We have asked them to stop it. They will not stop it just because we have talked to them. We do need to acquire points of leverage, that was the point we made in the MFN debate, that we missed an important point of leverage, but in the ensuing months we will work in the Committee on National Security, and I know the chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. Spence], finds this to be an important issue, and we will try to develop both the facts as to what China is doing with respect to proliferating mass destructive components and weapons to Third World nations and what we can do in the United States to stop it. I want to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] and thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] for giving me this time, and I look forward to working on this very important project.