Hon. William F. Clinger, Jr.
Page Three

ideas were not considered seriously. Hearings on Waco alone will not answer questions about consolidation, but maybe they will raise them anew.

Every day it seems we open the newspaper to find unflattering news about federal law enforcement officials and their activities. I know the vast majority of our Federal law enforcement personnel are hard working, dedicated public servants who put their lives on the line every day. I know the distinguished service of those individuals seldom makes it into the headlines.

As these hearings and subsequent hearings on events at Ruby Ridge and the scandalous "Annual ATF Roundup" unfold, my appreciation of the dedicated service of the vast majority of Federal law enforcement officials will remain undiminished. However, I strongly believe we must uncover the truth about these unfortunate events, find inefficiencies where they exist and restore faith in the Federal law enforcement community.

I commend Chairmen Zeliff and McCollum for the hard work they and their staffs have put into preparing these hearings. I know this has not been an easy process. These will not be easy hearings. But in the end, I believe they will put to rest some of the lingering suspensions and doubts Americans have had in the aftermath of these tragic events.

###

Mr. ZELIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair now recognizes the ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee, my good friend, John Conyers of Michigan. I might add that 2 years ago reading the transcripts, you were involved in the Judiciary hearing, I believe a week after Waco took place, and I look forward to your comments and your opening statement.

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you and good morning. I want to begin by emphasizing my deep commitment to what is going to be the most important, to me, to come out of these hearings and that is how we can reform law enforcement to make it a better tool in all of the agencies.

And if that doesn't happen, then I will have to tell you in advance that as we prepared for these hearings, I have come across absolutely no new evidence that requires 8 days' worth of hearings. I want to emphasize my deep commitment to law enforcement reform and I have talked with the Secretary of the Treasury about the investigation of the Waco raid that underscores the need for reform to restrain abuse.

And the most emblematic of these problems is the race relations that infest all of law enforcement, all of the agencies. I have been working on Judiciary for 30 years. And we are finally now beginning to get to the terrible oppression and discrimination that still goes on and within the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. They had the nerve to again hold this disgraceful Tennessee Ol' Boys Roundup which is a symptom of the kind of problems that we have.

Now, of course we can abolish that roundup every year, but the circumstances and the environment that creates it won't change unless the leaders here and in the Congress and in this administration do what I believe they have committed to me that they will do is to change that. That is the kind of reform that leads to better law enforcement.

Now, the question still legitimately lingers whether there is some other motive for these hearings. We will have to listen to conspiracy theories of every stripe, but I don't think we will hear any new facts to contradict the findings that have been brought forward already. And the reform on the agenda here today that I am most worried about is the collateral attack on assault weapons. That is the agenda that I am very disturbed about.

And so no one need look around and act like they are surprised to hear that that was the first thing this new majority was coming at in this session of Congress. Oklahoma City stopped that, and now all of a sudden I am finding friends who are worried about law enforcement and racial discrimination and disparities that have never said a word before all the years that I have been working on this.

And so I don't want to give any extra credibility to anything that may come out of these hearings. Mr. Zeliff referred to I was the only member of Judiciary who severely criticized this raid when we held a hearing in 1993. And I think that gives me cause and further legitimacy to have great reservations about the purpose of these hearings.

This isn't just for the American people; it is about how some forces within our Government and Ñation and the National Rifle Association attempt to repeal the assault weapons ban by tearing down the agencies that enforce the ban. And that is not to say that the events surrounding the raid and the agencies conducting the raid are without legitimate criticism. But let's be clear about that because I have already stated my criticisms and I don't change them.

But I am also astounded by the fact that like Americans in this country by a margin of 3 to 1, we believe that the hearings on the militia and the Klan and the Skinheads and the Aryan nation are the ones that deserve the hearings before Congress, not the law enforcement agencies and Waco which has had, as most people know, many hearings, more than four complete hearings.

And so as the only member of this committee who in the aftermath of the raid dare to publicly criticize it, I will tell you now, if there was an issue that I believe that needed more scrutiny, Í would be the first to call for a hearing but, in my preparation for this hearing, I found nothing new.

Now, I welcome all the new friends that we have to this subject and to these kinds of problems. But let's remember this: Before previous support for the raid was-before the assault weapons ban gave Federal law enforcement the power to make our streets safer by prohibiting assault weapons and because in the wake of Oklahoma City, this new majority I hope will find the courage to keep assault weapon bans in the law and attempt-do not attempt a de facto repeal by going after Federal law enforcement agencies.

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the time and look forward to this process that brings us here today.

Mr. ZELIFF. Thank you.

The Chair now recognizes the ranking minority member of the full committee, our friend, Cardiss Collins of Illinois, for her opening statement.

Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

During my 22 years of service on this committee, I have always been a strong supporter of vigorous oversight by Congress over the activities of the executive branch. These hearings are being portrayed as an effort to hold fair, open, and unbiased hearings on the raid at the Branch Davidian compound at Waco and, therefore, I should have few reservations about these hearings.

Many observers have noted that despite many hearings and reports on this subject over the past 2 years, further hearings can only shed more light on the raid, and perhaps resolve unanswered questions. Taken at face value, this logic is hard to contradict.

I certainly have never been adverse to criticizing Federal, State, or local law enforcement when I believe that they had overstepped their bounds. I know all too well how law enforcement officials can abuse their authority. That is one of the reasons why several months ago I vigorously opposed the efforts of the Republican majority to weaken constitutional requirements for search warrants as part of the Contract With America.

Moreover, I am totally outraged by the recent revelations of Federal law enforcement agents participating in a disgustingly racist outing known as the Good Ol' Boys Roundup. Therefore, I imme

diately wrote to President Clinton to express my outrage and to demand a thorough investigation and swift action, which has now been promised.

These hearings also do not suggest any outward partisan biases. The plans for the ATF raid on Waco began in the Bush administration and continued in the Clinton administration. To the extent that errors and abuses occurred, they were bipartisan in nature. Similarly, the Ruby Ridge siege, which is getting new attention, occurred during the Bush administration. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle would be well advised to seek the facts and not attempt to turn these hearings to partisan advantage.

Nevertheless, I continue to have serious concerns about these hearings and I would like to share with you my reasons.

First, I cannot help but conclude that the recent bombing in Oklahoma City has caused this rush to 8 days of hearings on Waco. The only reference in our committee's oversight plan is a vague statement about a review of ATF activities to occur at the end of this year. The word Waco never appears, and we had no indication of 8 days of hearings until very recently.

The fact that we are holding extensive hearings on Waco just weeks after the bombing in Oklahoma City, by a suspect who reportedly was upset by government action at Waco, can only send the wrong signal to disturbed individuals, who believe that bombs will bring attention to their grievances.

Second, I am troubled because I believe that these hearings are not so unbiased as we are being told, and may have been hopelessly tainted by the involvement of the National Rifle Association. Our first indication of the relationship of the committee Republicans and the NRA on these hearings occurred when the Republicans sought to use a company known as Failure Analysis Associates to examine weapons recovered at Waco. Later we learned that Failure Analysis Associates had been retained by the NRA.

More startling was a recent revelation that individuals calling themselves the Waco Hearings Team were contacting committee witnesses. This team was not employed by our Government Reform and Oversight Committee, but instead was employed by the NRA. At this stage, we have no idea to what degree the NRA Hearings Team was working with the Republican committee staff. However, this is an unprecedented case of an outside advocacy group using congressional hearings to further their own agenda and at the same time potentially tampering with congressional witnesses.

I have called upon the chairman of our committee to immediately take action to remove the stain of this outside involvement. As an important first step, members of the Waco Hearings Team must be called before the Government Reform and Oversight Committee to explain under oath their involvement in the hearings by subpoena if necessary. To further wipe the slate clean, the chairman should also disclose all contacts staff has had with these individuals.

Third, I am concerned that some Members, the true that for some members, the true agenda is not to find the truth about Waco, but instead it appears to be an effort to protect the Nation's gun laws and, more important, to divert attention from one of the real issues raised by the Oklahoma bombing-namely the rise of militias and their preliminary indications. The American people

have expressed a 3-to-1 preference, as we have already heard, for hearings on militias, not Waco, and I have also requested militia hearings from the chairman of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee.

Fourth, I am forced to note the odd set of priorities of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee in the past 6 months. When this committee considered five items in the Contract With America, we held a total of just five hearings. On one bill, the unfunded mandates, we held no hearings. Yet now members are being asked to deal with at least 8 days of hearings on Waco. We have plenty of time to rehash Waco, but where are the hearings on matters America cares about, such as our health care system and putting people to work.

At the end of these hearings, there will undoubtedly be some positive outcomes. Perhaps members on the other side of the aisle will begin to recognize some of the concerns I have had over the past decade in the increased involvement of the military in domestic law enforcement. Maybe they will also reconsider their efforts to weaken standards for search warrants. Perhaps we can learn additional lessons that will avoid another Waco.

However, I am concerned that our Republican colleagues' new interest in constitutional protections, such as the fourth amendment's protections against search and seizure, has made them feel obligated to reinvent the facts of this case. A number of our witnesses are being called to place David Koresh in a brighter light.

The facts remain that Koresh had amassed an arsenal of illegal weapons, that there were serious cases of child abuse, including sex with minors, that Koresh and his followers fired upon Federal agents seeking to serve a search warrant, killing four agents, and that Koresh ordered the fires that led to the deaths of his followers, including women and children.

We will undoubtedly learn of significant efforts made by Government officials, and we all know that two wrongs don't make a right. However, we must never forget the context of this tragedy.

I would remind my colleagues that those who wish to protect civil liberties must be willing to recognize that those protections apply to the guilty as well as to the innocent. They apply to all citizens of this country, not just gun owners. It is a mistake for those who feel the necessity to try to prove that David Koresh was innocent of serious crimes to justify their newly found interest in civil liberties.

So finally, as we begin some of the most controversial hearings that the Government Reform and Oversight Committee has ever conducted, I urge the chairman to take immediate steps to rehabilitate the long-established honor of our committee by coming clean on the involvement of the NRA in this hearing. Anything less will leave as many doubts in the minds of Americans as they had before these hearings began.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your extension of time and yield back the balance of the time.

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Collins follows:]