ACTIVITIES OF FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES TOWARD THE BRANCH DAVIDIANS (Part 1) THURSDAY, JULY 20, 1995 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, Washington, DC. The subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., Hon. Bill McCollum (chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime) presiding and Hon. William H. Zeliff, Jr. (chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice). Present from the Subcommittee on Crime: Representatives Bill McCollum, Steven Schiff, Howard Coble, Stephen E. Buyer, Steve Chabot, Bob Barr, Fred Heineman, Ed Bryant of Tennessee, Charles E. Schumer, Robert C. Scott, Zoe Lofgren, Melvin L. Watt, and Sheila Jackson Lee. Also present from the Committee on the Judiciary: Representatives Henry J. Hyde and John Conyers, Jr. Also present: Representative Chet Edwards. Present from the Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice: Representatives William H. Zeliff, Jr., Steven Schiff, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, John B. Shadegg, Peter Blute, John L. Mica, Robert L. Ehrlich, Mark E. Souder, Karen L. Thurman, Tom Lantos, Robert E. Wise, Jr., Gary A. Condit, Louise McIntosh Slaughter, Gene Taylor, and Bill K. Brew ster. Also present from the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight: Representatives William F. Clinger, Jr., Cardiss Collins. of Illinois, and Gene Green. Staff present from the Subcommittee on Crime: Paul J. McNulty, chief counsel; Glenn R. Schmitt, counsel; Daniel J. Bryant, assistant counsel; and Audray L. Clement, clerk; Committee on the Judiciary: Alan F. Coffey, Jr., general counsel/staff director; Dan Freeman, parliamentarian; Julian Epstein, minority staff director; Perry Apelbaum, minority general counsel; Melanie Sloan, minority counsel; and Tom Diaz, minority counsel. Staff present from the Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice: Robert Charles, staff director and chief counsel; L. Stephan Vincze, defense counsel; Michele Lang, special counsel; T. March Bell, counsel for justice affairs; and Sean Littlefield, special assistant and clerk; Robert Shea, special assistant; Committee on Government Reform and Oversight: Kevin Sabo, general counsel; Judith McCoy, chief clerk; and Jeffrey Wilmot, professional staff member. Mr. MCCOLLUM. The hearing will come to order. This is the second day of the joint hearings between the two subcommittees of Reform and Oversight and Judiciary. Today, I have the opportunity and the pleasure to host this hearing in the Judiciary Committee hearing room. Tomorrow, the cochairman, Bill Zeliff, will host the hearings in his setting and from now on, for the remainder of the 7 days or so that we are doing these hearings, there will be the alternative back and forth. To lay the ground rules for today, there will be four opening statements permitted of 5 minutes each in length by the two Chairs and the two ranking minority members of the subcommittees. We are not going any further with those and they will be very brief and to the point. I am only going to make a couple of minutes of opening statements and yield for about 2 or 3 minutes to my good friend, Mr. Buyer, and I am going to make that statement at this point in time. So we will begin the clock and we will run it fairly for everybody involved. Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. Mr. MCCOLLUM. Yes, Mr. Lantos. Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, at what point may one raise questions about the procedures? Mr. MCCOLLUM. The procedures will come up after the opening statements because we have to ask unanimous consent each day to begin the process. Mr. LANTOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. MCCOLLUM. You are welcome. Yesterday we had quite an opening day and I think that you saw quite a bit of why we are having these hearings yesterday. You had quite a graphic picture painted of what was going on in the Branch Davidian compound. You had some very strong statements made that paint a picture of David Koresh in less than flattering terms. And I do not think that any member of this panel, on either side of the aisle, had any false impressions before we started these hearings and we certainly do not today, that David Koresh was an outstanding citizen or that he did the right thing in what he did at his actions at Waco. But we did need to lay that predicate. But in addition to that, yesterday, what I think is really important to these hearings is not the emotion of how he mistreated people potentially, or young girls inside that compound, although that is important-not necessarily to what we are after in these hearings other than to lay the predicate. What is really important is what was being done by the ATF and law enforcement and whether the conduct of the raid was appropriate. During the course of the day yesterday we got quite a bit of testimony involving the questions of how they initially got involved in this process, the questions of whether they really were intent on arresting David Koresh before they did the actual raid on the 28th of February and whether or not, indeed, the final aspect of all this before the raid was conducted was sanctioned properly by the Treasury Department. And there are real questions that are still out there lingering from the end of the day yesterday about Treasury's role, about the accuracy of the report that Treasury put out, about a lot of the facts and the details about what really happened. Today we will go through the planning stages. We have got four panels of witnesses. Tomorrow we will do the raid, itself. We will have plenty of opportunity to go into these questions. Today, though, because he is going to be lead questioner, I am going to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Buyer. Mr. BUYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With regard to the military involvement in Waco, when you have examined a lot of the investigative reports there really is not a lot with regard to the military involvement. I think the image of the Bradley fighting vehicles, M-1 tanks set against the burning Mount Carmel compound calls into question the role of the military at Waco and that of local law enforcement. Since that time, there has been a rapid speculation concerning the level of involvement of the U.S. Armed Forces and the National Guard in support of local enforcement during the planning and execution of the initial ATF raid in February 1993, as well as during the siege and the final assault, 51 days later. Since before the founding of our Nation, Americans have deeply rooted concerns about the separation of the military from civilian affairs. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson lists, among his grievances, that the king had "effected to render the military independent of and superior to the civilian civil power." Our Constitution addresses these issues, providing for civilian control of the military and assigning the President a dual role as Chief Executive Officer and Commander in Chief of the military. The Constitution also provides for a well-regulated militia, today known as the National Guard, which is subject to regulation by the Congress and controlled by the President in his role as Commander in Chief when those forces are federalized. In 1878, the Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act which prohibited, unless otherwise authorized by the Constitution or Congress the use of any part of the Army to enforce the laws of the land. Interestingly, it did so in response to accusations of at least two Republican State governments in the South who were in power only because of the presence of Federal forces. That statute remains in force today and it is an issue at Waco. Over the years, Congress has made exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act, particularly in the area of military support of the war on drugs. However, many would be surprised today when they learn that a great deal of military support can be obtained by local law enforcement without making a drug connection. Many would also be surprised to learn that the National Guard, when under State control and receiving Federal funds, is exempt from the Posse Comitatus Act. The helicopters that supported the ATF during the initial raid were flown by members of the Texas National Guard. The purpose of this panel is to determine the role of the active duty military and the National Guard in the initial planning and execution of the ATF raid on February 28, 1993. Did the military overstep the bounds of the Posse Comitatus Act and provide inappropriate training prior to the raid? Were U.S. military forces directly involved in the planning and execution of the raid? Answering these questions will help bolster America's trust in the military and Federal law enforcement. We need to seek a larger purpose. Because of the Nation's deeply rooted concerns about separating the military from civilian affairs we need to review the manner in which the military can legally provide support to local law enforcement and Federal law enforcement. Has Congress gone too far and allowed too many exceptions to the Posse Čomitatus Act? What is the proper role of the military and law enforcement? Should we further restrict law enforcement access to the vast capabilities that our military has to offer? These are valid questions that need to be reviewed in the aftermath of Waco. I would like to thank all the panelists and many who have traveled a long way to testify. I know that many who will testify today, specifically members of the team that trained the AFT, have been hounded by many and that we will make sure that hopefully all the information and the truth comes out today. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman. Mr. MCCOLLUM. At this time, I recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Schumer, for 5 minutes. Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry? Mr. MCCOLLUM. Yes, Mr. Taylor. Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, yesterday we made a request of the chair that four additional witnesses be brought forward to give us a full accounting of the events that led up to Waco. They were the authors of the series, "The Sinful Messiah"; and it was the woman who claims to have been held captive by Koresh for 3 months against her wishes; and the woman who claims Koresh compiled a hit list to murder ex-members. Mr. MCCOLLUM. Mr. Taylor, if you work through your minority leadership that request has never been made to me by either of the minority leaders. Mr. TAYLOR. I made it on television in front of this committee. Mr. MCCOLLUM. You did indeed. Mr. TAYLOR. And you said you would take care of it. Mr. MCCOLLUM. I said we would explore it with your minority leadership. I do not know if I was in the chair or Mr. Zeliff but we said we would explore it, and we will explore it. You made the point again today and we will explore it. We have not agreed to do anything. But we will explore it. Mr. TAYLOR. In fairness to those members of this committee who want to know the events leading up to it, when will that decision be made? Mr. MCCOLLUM. I do not know, Mr. Taylor, but it will be made, probably some time later today but we have not had a break. We ran the hearings last night until very late, until 11 o'clock, and we got into a discussion with some of your leadership last night after we ran this hearing, and we reconvened this morning without having gotten together to discuss it among ourselves in any other way. That was not part of the discussion. I will take it under consideration today. We need to proceed in regular order today. Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman Mr. MCCOLLUM. I am sorry, you are not Mr. TAYLOR [continuing]. We deserve the opportunity to vote on whether or not to subpoena those witnesses. Mr. MCCOLLUM. You can always have a reservation of those opportunities. Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, can I assure my colleague that we will bring this matter from the minority leadership to the attention of the chair immediately. Mr. MCCOLLUM. You certainly may. Mr. Schumer, for 5 minutes. Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And first let me begin by saying that once again that these hearings into the 1993 events at Waco can be very useful. I think they got off to a powerful start yesterday. We heard from 14-year old Kiri Jewell, who described how she was raped at the age of 10 by David Koresh. She told us there was widespread sexual abuse within the Branch Davidian compound. She also explained Koresh's instructions on how to commit suicide, "Put the gun into your mouth, back to the soft spot above your throat before pulling the trigger." We also heard from Ray Jahn, the assistant U.S. attorney in Texas, who told us that the Davidians were armed with machineguns and believed that, “In order to die for God they had to be able to kill for God." While listening to Kiri Jewell was difficult, it was critically important for us, here in our suits sitting behind this dias, to know what the women and men of law enforcement were faced with at Waco. David Koresh was armed to the teeth with machineguns, he raped 10-year old girls, and he had visions of mass destruction. Some have the gall to ask what the testimony we heard yesterday had to do with law enforcement's decision? That is like asking what does ethnic cleansing have to do with decisions in Bosnia? Everything. These are difficult problems that do not always end up the way we want them to, yet, as feeling and caring people we feel we must act. Law enforcement moved because they could not allow other Kiri Jewells, who were still inside the compound, to continue to suffer. Remember the ATF and FBI had to act quickly, on the spot. They did not have the benefit we have of hindsight. Today we are going to hear about some serious mistakes made by the ATF but they were not made maliciously or as part of some evil conspiracy as some would have you believe. They made the mistakes because they heard the cries of the Kiri Jewells inside the compound. They heard the screams of the little kids being beat up by David Koresh with a wooden boat oar. The plan to enter the compound, however flawed its execution, was only made after careful planning and discussed down to the tiniest minutia. Let us get to the bottom of what caused the initial raid to go bad, but let us |