[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 91 (Wednesday, June 25, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H4609-H4610]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        THE POLICE STATE COMETH

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Paul] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, in a police state the police are national, 
powerful and authoritarian. Inevitably, national governments yield to 
the temptation to use the military to do the heavy lifting. Once the 
military is used for local police activity, however minor initially, 
the march toward martial law with centralized police using military

[[Page H4610]]

troops as an adjunct force becomes irresistible.
  Throughout our history, law enforcement in the United States has 
remained for the most part a local matter. In recent history, 
especially since the 1970s, the growth of Federal agencies to enforce 
tens of thousands of regulations, not even written even by Congress, 
has changed our attitude toward the proper use of police power as 
established under the Constitution. While this is annoying to many 
Americans, many of whom are voicing their resentment, the principle of 
a centralized police power has become acceptable and unchallenged by 
our political leaders today.
  The emotional frenzy surrounding the war on drugs has allowed Federal 
police powers to escalate rapidly into the areas of financial privacy, 
gun ownership, border controls and virtually all other aspects of law 
enforcement. Many see this trend as dangerous to our liberties while 
doing little or nothing to solve the problems of violence, gang wars, 
deterioration of the inner cities or the decline of the public 
educational system.
  The declared justification for military intervention at Mount Carmel, 
although never substantiated, was that the Branch Davidians were 
manufacturing amphetamines. This provided the legal cover for army 
tanks to use the poisonous gas which apparently resulted in the 
devastating fire in what was a military operation to enforce the law, 
something which in ordinary times would have been strictly a local law 
enforcement matter.
  Despite the legitimate concerns surrounding nationalization of the 
police force and using the military to enforce local laws, the House 
just recently and overwhelmingly approved the use of 10,000 military 
troops to patrol U.S. borders, none of whom, however, expect to be 
deployed on the northern border. Rather than addressing the incentive 
of welfare benefits to legal and illegal aliens, Congress instead 
reinstated the funding to aliens which was struck in last year's budget 
welfare reform. The House evidently in its infinite wisdom believes 
that 10,000 troops will solve many of our social problems.
  If this Nation's drug laws are not reconsidered, the tremendous 
incentive for quick profits will prevent any success that might 
otherwise result from more and more armed border agents.
  But it is also the psychology behind this effort that so often allows 
the enforcement process to get out of hand, whether at Ruby Ridge or 
Waco. So far the military on our southern border has not exactly done 
itself proud.
  In January of this year, the army shot and wounded an illegal 
immigrant near the Rio Grande Valley. Initially the Army said the alien 
fired twice at the soldiers and had been involved in a robbery. These 
facts, however, were never substantiated. Even worse, though, is the 
case of an 18-year-old exemplary high school student and U.S. citizen 
named Ezeqaiuel Hernandez who on May 20 was shot and killed after being 
tracked for 20 minutes. He was wounded but then was allowed to bleed to 
death. What is more, now that more evidence regarding the shooting has 
become available, the soldier pulling the trigger is the subject of an 
ongoing investigation. Perhaps to some, these are minor incidents but 
the issue of using military troops for routine law enforcement is 
indeed a serious matter.
  According to an article by Thaddeus Herrick in the June 22 issue of 
the Houston Chronicle, changes in the law permitting the military to be 
used for law enforcement occurred during the Reagan administration and 
expanded steadily during the Bush and the Clinton administrations. 
Currently, about 700 troops are being used for law enforcement, mainly 
for the purpose of enforcing drug laws. However, with the new 
legislation working its way through Congress, the numbers could grow 
substantially. This does not include the 6,000 border control agents 
already manning the borders, a number which is slated to increase to 
20,000 over the next 10 years.
  Lawrence Korb, former Assistants Secretary of Defense under Reagan 
was and remains critical of the trends toward using military troops in 
this manner. His argument according to Herrick is that 
soldier's ``whole mindset to is to go to war. They try to perform law 
enforcement but at some points their instincts may take over.'' This is 
a good warning which could be equally applied to our troops being used 
as civil policemen in foreign countries under the United Nations 
banner, such as has done recently in Haiti, Somalia and now as well in 
Bosnia. Korb has consistently opposed using the military on our 
borders.

  The Clinton administration, in continuing the process begun by 
Reagan, defends his doing so. Don Maple a spokesperson for the National 
Drug Control Policy stated, ``We believe there will always be a role 
for the military in law enforcement.''
  When the Mexican Government ignored the Mexican Constitution in the 
1830s and used the military to enforce civil law in Texas, the Texas 
settlers would have no part of it. The Texians' strong objection and 
resistance to military law eventually led to the Battle of San Jacinto. 
Military law in the colonies led to a similar result. Congress must be 
more careful in ignoring this principle.
  Until Congress addresses the failed policy of a national war on drugs 
and welfare state incentives which draw aliens across the borders in 
ever-increasing numbers, this unconstitutional national, centralized 
police state can only result in more loss of liberties in a never-
ending battle fought at the expense of the American taxpayer.

                          ____________________