ACTIVITIES OF FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES TOWARD THE BRANCH DAVIDIANS (Part 1) WEDNESDAY, JULY 19, 1995 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, Washington, DC. The subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. William H. Zeliff, Jr. (chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice) presiding and Hon. Bill McCollum (chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime). Present from the Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice: William H. Zeliff, Jr., Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr., Steven Schiff, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, John L. Mica, Peter Blute, Mark E. Souder, John B. Shadegg, Karen L. Thurman, Robert E. Wise, Jr., Gene Taylor, Tom Lantos, Louise McIntosh Slaughter, Gary A. Condit, and Bill K. Brewster. Present from the Subcommittee on Crime: Representatives Bill McCollum, Steven Schiff, Stephen E. Buyer, Howard Coble, Fred Heineman, Ed Bryant of Tennessee, Steve Chabot, Bob Barr, Charles E. Schumer, Robert C. Scott, Zoe Lofgren, Sheila Jackson Lee, and Melvin L. Watt. Also present from the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight: Representatives William F. Clinger, Jr., Cardiss Collins of Illinois, and Gene Green of Texas. Also present from the Committee on the Judiciary: Representatives Henry J. Hyde and John Conyers, Jr. Also present: Representatives Joe Skeen and Chet Edwards. 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; T. March Bell, counsel for justice affairs; Marshall Cobleigh, senior policy advisor; Michele Lang, special counsel; and Sean Littlefield, special assistant and clerk; Committee on Government Reform and Oversight: Kevin Sabo, general counsel; Judith McCoy, chief clerk; Jeffrey Wilmot, professional staff member; Bud Myers, minority staff director; David Schooler, minority chief counsel; Ronald Stroman, minority deputy staff director; Donald Goldberg, minority assistant to counsel; Cherri Branson, minority professional staff member; Ellen Rayner, minority chief clerk; Cecelia Morton, minority office manager; and Eddie Arnold, minority public affairs officer. 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. OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN ZELIFF Mr. ZELIFF. Good morning. The joint hearing of the Oversight Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice, and the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime will now come to order. We would like to welcome all those present, our witnesses for the first day's panels, the public, and my friends in both the Oversight and Judiciary Subcommittees. I would especially like to welcome my cochairman during these hearings, Chairman Bill McCollum of Florida. Mr. MCCOLLUM. My pleasure. Mr. ZELIFF. Without further ado then, we will move to opening statements. We will hear first from the majority subcommittee Chairs then subcommittee minority ranking members, then the full Chairs and ranking members. We will then hear from our opening panel. All remaining members may submit copies of opening statements for the record. Today two subcommittees undertake historic joint hearings on executive branch conduct that led up to the events in Waco, TX, in 1993. These hearings were planned in early February by the subcommittees that are here today: The Oversight Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice, which I chair, and the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, which Congressman McCollum chairs. These hearings are being held because very important questions-questions that still trouble the American public and many of us in Congress-have not yet been answered. They are being held because hearings in 1993 in the Waco tragedy lacked vital information, information that we now have today. Today's hearings are the result of an extensive, 5-month congressional investigation. Tens of thousands of documents have been reviewed, hundreds of potential witnesses have been interviewed. In human terms, these hearings are about a tragic loss of life. Four brave, young law enforcement officers lost their lives on February 28, 1993. A planned raid went badly and off course. These four agents, dedicated and proud, deserve our full respect. They did not choose to die, but like many others in the law enforcement community, they chose to serve. In these hearings, we will honor them and we will seek accountability and responsibility. These four young men, so that the Nation may know their supreme sacrifice, are Conway LeBleu, who was 30; Todd McKeehan, who was 28; Robert Williams, who was 26; and Steven Willis, who was 32. If we can get to the bottom of what went wrong and why, these lives will not have been given in vain. But this is a complex event. On April 19, 1993, after a 51-day siege, our decisions led to the use of so-called CS gas, and a fire broke out. The fire rapidly consumed the entire Davidian compound, killing all 22 innocent children and more than 60 adults. The truth behind that part of the tragedy is also important, and it is the obligation of those who have responsibility for oversight to pursue the truth relentlessly. Speaking for myself, that is what I am here today to do-to find the truth. Let the chips fall where they may. At their core, these hearings are about how a constitutional government works, about how one branch of the Federal Government oversees the activities of another. About how we, as Americans, seek after the truth and do not rest until we get accountability and responsibility. Oversight is good. In fact, it is the genius of our constitutional system of government. These hearings are also about difficult legal and policy decisions. Did agents die because a well-planned raid was hurriedly executed, despite the loss of surprise? Or was the plan itself flawed? Who approved the raid and the original plan? Where are the commanders who ordered it? How did the Treasury, when it reviewed its own behavior, reach its conclusions? On the use of military personnel and heavy equipment against U.S. citizens, other questions linger. How much was used and why? What was the legal justification? Was there a drug connection or not? Why did we need so much force? What are the legal limits and were they violated? On the use of CS gas, did the Justice Department know that it could seriously harm children? Did the President know? Who advised the Attorney General and who advised the President? Was the Attorney General pressured by the White House to end the siege? What were the roles of Webster Hubbell and Vince Foster? Who actually made the decision to use CS gas with 22 children inside the Davidian compound? After 2 years, why is there still no clear answer? Finally, what can we do to keep a tragedy like this from happening again? What lessons have we learned, and what lessons did we learn about having agencies do their own reviews? In these hearings, we will hear nearly 90 witnesses. They have all been called to tell their accounts. All will testify under an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. At the end of the hearings, my hope is that lingering doubts about what happened on February 28 and April 19, questions about who ordered these events and why, will be answered. Some facts may never be known. But most significant facts will be, for the first time, openly and vigorously discussed. Three last points. First, I spent the better part of my life supporting and being supported by law enforcement. I come from New Hampshire and, up there, we have great respect for our law enforcement people. Second, many have tried to take these hearings off track. Once and for all, these hearings are not about the Oklahoma City bomb ing, the Brady bill, the issue of gun control, or any other issue. They are about constitutional oversight. We have sought factual information from every available source. We have done so doggedly. And I am proud of that. I make no apology for seeking the truth. And I will add there may be greater accommodation of the minority party than in any oversight hearing that I am aware of during the past 40 years. One last final point. As we listen carefully to every witness and as we search together for the answers to the many unanswered questions surrounding the events at Waco, I would urge my colleagues to back away from the attraction of political rhetoric. Americans are a very forgiving people. They seek the truth and they will accept nothing less. If we can perform that function for them, not as Republicans, not as Democrats, but as truth-seeking Americans doing our oversight role, there will be no more Wacos. That is my personal prayer. And I urge you all to join me in that effort. Thank you. [The opening statement of Mr. Zeliff follows:] OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM H. ZELIFF, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM the State of New HampshIRE, AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, and CRIMINAL JUSTICE Today, two subcommittees undertake historic, joint hearings on executive branch conduct regarding the events at Waco, Texas in 1993. These hearings were planned in early February by the subcommittees that are here today-the oversight subcommittee on national security, international affairs and criminal justice, which I chair, and the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, which Congressman McCollum chairs. These hearings are being held because many important questions-questions that still trouble the American public and many in Congress have not yet been answered. They are being held because hearings in 1993 on the Waco tragedy lacked vital information, information that we have today. Today's hearings are the result of an extensive, five-month congressional investigation. Tens of thousands of documents have been reviewed. Hundreds of potential witnesses have been interviewed. In human terms, these hearings are about a tragic loss of life. Four brave, young law enforcement officers lost their lives on February 28, 1993. A planned raid went badly off course. These four agents, dedicated and proud, deserve our full respect. They did not choose to die, but like many others in the law enforcement community chose to serve. In these hearings, we will honor them and we will seek accountability. These four young men, so that the nation may know their supreme sacrifice, are Conway Lebleu, who was 30, Todd McKeehan, who was 28, Robert Williams, who was just 26, and Steven Willis, who was 32. If we can get to the bottom of what went wrong and why, their lives will not have been given in vain. But this is a complex event. On April 19, 1993, after a 51-day siege, other decisions led to the use of so-called C-S gas, and a fire broke out. The fire rapidly consumed the entire Davidian compound, killing all 22 innocent children and more than 60 adults. The truth behind that part of the tragedy is also important, and it is the obligation of those who have responsibility for oversight to pursue the truth unremittingly. Speaking for myself, that is what I am here for-to find the truth. Let the chips fall where they may. At their core, these hearings are about how a constitutional government works, about how one branch of our Federal Government oversees the activities of another. About how we, as Americans, seek after the truth and do not rest until we get accountability. Oversight is good-in fact, it is the genius of our constitutional system of government. These hearings are also about difficult legal and policy questions. Did agents die because a well-planned raid was hurriedly executed, despite the loss of surprise? Or was the plan itself flawed? Who approved the raid and the original plan? Where are the commanders who ordered it? How did the Treasury, when it reviewed its own behavior, reach its conclusions? On the use of military personnel and heavy equipment against U.S. citizens, other questions linger. How much was used and why? What was the legal justification? |