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 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.