the sun over texas will soon be going down before it does so. let me show you something with one of our long lens cameras in a special position. this is a close up, a shot as you can get of the destroyed compound right in the middle of it. the fire is out. some of the remains still smolder. federal officials from president clinton right on down. rightly or wrongly, we'll be feeling the heat for a long time about how the federal government handled this case. what it did when it did, it did it do the right thing? second guessing is easy. the search is just beginning for remains of the more than 80 people, including an estimated dozen or more children believed killed when the compound went up in flames yesterday. one of the men survivors is blaming the fire on the fbi, but federal officials emphasize there is no doubt about it. the fire was started by followers of david koresh, an

apparent mass suicide ordered by the cult leader. and that was cbs news coverage from april 19th, 1993, after the deadly fire that consumed the branch davidian compound near waco, texas. the standoff between law enforcement and the group lasted 51 days and left more than 80 people dead. and thanks for joining us on american history. tv's special series congress investigates. this is where we look at signify house and senate investigations in our history and their results. this week, we look at the. april 1993 incursion by federal and state law enforcement at the branch davidian compound near waco, texas, and the subsequent congressional hearings, which were held in 1993 and in 1995. now, in just a minute, we're going to be joined by david jackson. he's with usa today now. but at the time of the hearings, he was with the dallas morning

news and he covered these. he'll be joining us right after we hear from jeff quinn, who is an author whose most recent book is entitled waco, david koresh and the branch davidians and a legacy of rage. here's what happened. david koresh, formerly vernon wayne, how and the branch davidians live in a large, sprawling house that they call mount carmel on a hill outside waco, texas. they pretty much keep to themselves. they literally believe in every word in the bible, and they believe that david koresh is the lamb of the book of revelation. and he and his followers are about to bring about the end of times from the book of revelation by battling the forces of babylon. they've come to the attention of atf, alcohol, tobacco, firearms, arms for being in unlawful

possession of semiautomatic weapons that have been converted to automatic weapons. there's nothing illegal about doing that. in 1993. if you register each weapon and you pay a tax for doing so. the branch davidians had not done that. disgruntled former branch davidians had made claims to atf that those that were left following david koresh were quite likely to take some of their automatic weapons, the ones they didn't sell at gun shows and descend into waco or some other place and slaughter innocent people as a means of bringing in the government, bringing about the end times of the bible. so atf thought it was not only acting to confiscate illegal automatic weapons, but in fact, public safety was involved.

they thought it was going to be the easiest operation possible. these obviously were dumb people, so they believe this kind of garbage from somebody who clearly to them was a fraud. they planned did atf to make this a bloodless, hugely successful raid. their budget hearings were coming up in march and they wanted to film the whole thing and prove to senators and congressmen they weren't bloodthirsty people trying to wipe out innocent gun owners. the branch davidians learned they were coming. they were waiting. there was a horrible three hour firefight. six of the branch davidians died. four agents died. six more were wounded. almost two thirds of the agents making the raid along. siege ensued with the fbi surrounding mount carmel. negotiator who's thought they were making progress and getting koresh to agree to come out.

the fbi lost patience. on april 19th, they decided they would insert tear gas, supposedly gradually to smoke the branch davidians out over a couple of days. instead, they filled the corridors of mount carmel with great clouds of gas. a fire broke out. all the branch davidian in there died horribly, except for nine who escaped all adults. and that became genesis and all the controversies afterwards that clearly have led to a number of violent incidents ever since. so there's not just the mount carmel story to tell, but the consequences. and now joining us is david jackson of usa today, who was with the dallas morning news during the waco hearings. mr. jackson, what do you remember from those hearings? well, the first set of hearings, i remember the fact that we had a big senate race going on in texas to replace lloyd bentsen.

we'd been named treasury secretary. and that's what i wasoving. and it was interesting in that the waco waco raid and even the waco the fire that ended the stand up did not play particularly large roles in that campaign. it was more about the clinton's stewardship and his presidency and the emerging republican takeover of the state of texas. wake up played a relatively, relatively small part in in that particular senate race. there are a lot of things going on throughout the state and nationally that that still have resonance based on what happened there back in 1993. what was the american reaction when the branch davidian compound was burned on april 19th? it's horror and mystification there because there was something that was live on cable television, a relatively new phenomenon back then. i mean, obviously seeing it as cnn had been on the air for more than a decade, but they didn't do a whole lot of live events. they did do that. and people could watch as this smoke began coming out of the

compound and the fire engulfed the place, killing all of the people inside. so initially there were shock and i don't thint of people really knew the background of wt happened while the feds raided the place in the first place and what the standoff was all about. but they learned quickly. but i think the initial reaction was shock. and to wonder how this happened. and that's what spurred the hearings. well, within ten days, the house judiciary committee, led by jack brooks, a democrat from texas, held hearings. what was the point of those hearings so quickly? well, it depends on what you are. depends on you talk to. some people say the point of the hearings was to answer some of these questions that were raised by what happened. i mean, there was such a astonishment at what had happened. people wanted to know right away what what did happen and what, you know, what people did that led to this fire that engulfed children as well as adults. there's also a saying that was also a sign that the democrats ran the house back in 1993. and there was a feeling that they, the majority, wanted to move quickly in order to protect the clinton administration,

which kind of struggled out of the gate. president newly new president clinton had had a lot of struggles early on his administration, waco, obviously one of them, and i think some house democrats were looking to give him cover right away after this terrible incident. well, the new attorney general at the time, janet reno, testified at the hearings. what was the reaction to her testimony? well, i think she did herself a lot of good. i think she walked everyone through it when it happened, what the davidians were like, what what they talked to. and she also presented compelling evidence that they were the ones who started the fire. you know, in the immediate aftermath of the fire, there were people who were wondering if the government somehow contributed to it. but i think reno did a pretty good job of persuading people that that was, in fact, the davidians who started the fire. well, even though she was having political problems, i think she did. i think came across as a kind of a folk hero. she came across as a regular person, someone who was not particularly a bureaucrat or washington type of person. she'd come from miami, where she was the d.a. so she was familiar with local crime issues. and i think all of that came out during her testimony.

i mean, my recollection is that she actually made herself kind of a folk hero. well, this is april 28, 1993, then attorney general janet reno testifying in front of the house judiciary committee. i want to be as open as possible with you and with all the american people about what we knew before, what we knew on that day and what we know now. and as our investigation proceeds, i want to be responsible and accountable to the congress and to the american people in every way i possibly can. this is one of the hardest decisions that anybody could ever be asked to make. we deliberated long and carefully before reaching a decision. nothing we do now can change the suffering felt by the families of the atf agents or the families of those who perished in the compound. but as you have pointed out so

eloquently, we must do everything we can to learn from these events about what we can do in the future to prevent people like david koresh or people motivated by other thoughts from causing such a senseless, horrible loss of human life. on february 28th, 1993. four agents of the bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms were killed and 16 were injured in a shootout that occurred when they attempted to execute an arrest warrant for burn in hell, also known as david koresh and a search warrant at the branch davidian compound near waco, texas. the agents were met by a barrage of gunfire from numerous firing points in the compound that lasted 45 minutes. involved thousands of rounds of ammunition and left the agents dead and injured. weapons used by the branch

davidians included 50 caliber rifles having an effective range of 3000 yards from the capitol to the white house. all of those killed or wounded were shot or injured by homemade hand grenades. while several members of the commune were killed and injured. it was apparently no serious injury to any of the children after the shootout remains. atf agents established a protective perimeter around the compound. a few hours later, three branch davidians attempted to enter the compound, resulting in a second shootout with atf agents in which one davidian was killed. attempts were made to further secure the perimeter. atf officials then requested that the fbi dispatch a task rescue team, which we refer to as hrt. on february 28th, 1993. agents of the federal bureau of investigation include the hrt arrived on the scene. the fbi found an armed fortress,

a compound consisting of approximately 70 acres located on route seven near waco. i took office on march 12th, 1993, after my fbi clearance. i had been briefed previous solely by the acting attorney general and was thereafter briefed specifically on the situation at waco. i was advised that the primary goal of the fbi's hostage rescue team was to negotiate with koresh to secure the release of the children and the surrender and prosecution of all those who participated in the murder and assault of the federal agents. without further violence or injury to anyone concerned, i concur that we must try to negotiate to avoid further bloodshed. to the extent that we could. as this situation evolved, the fbi had consistently rejected a direct assault on the compound because of the danger of heavy casualties to the agents and to the children and because of the layout which prevented a

surprise assault. i was told as i was briefed that the fbi had a trained negotiator on the scene and that they had and during the course of these deliberations, continued to discuss and consult with behavioral experts and others who had knowledge of the cult to determine how best to proceed to negotiate with kersh. from the start, the negotiation tactics focused on restrict the activities of those inside the compound, and to depriving them of a comfortable environment so as to bring the matter to a conclusion without further violence. those inside the compound were advised that the fbi's rules of engagement under those rules, the agents. conveyed the information that they would not use deadly force against any person except as necessary in self-defense or defense of another. when they had reason to believe that they or another were in danger of death or grievous

bodily harm. the fbi installed lights to illuminate the compound at night and loudspeaker to ensure that they could communicate with all members of the compound at once rather than having to rely solely on the single telephone line available to speak to caution those he permitted to talk on the phone. he also used loudspeakers to disrupt their sleep. they cut off their electricity and they sought to restrict communications of those within the compound just to the hostage negotiators. additionally, they sent in letters from family members and made other good faith efforts designed to encourage a surrender by those who wish to leave the compound. in particular, and i asked about this during the course of our deliberation, they made repeated efforts to secure the release of the children and further efforts to encourage the negotiating process. attorneys representing koresh and steve schneider were allowed to enter the compound and communicate by telephone with them on several occasions throughout this 51 day process, koresh continued to assert that

he and others inside would at some point surrender. however, the fbi advised that at no point did he keep his word on any of his promises. despite all efforts, the negotiators concluded that negotiation lines were at a standstill and that they had not been able to negotiate a single item with koresh. although 21 children and 14 adults had been allowed to leave the compound between february 28th and march 23rd, 1993, those persons who left the compound did so because koresh affirmatively wanted them out, as they were not fully committed to his cause. they were a drain on his efforts and internal discipline and resources reviewed them as potential spokesmen to the media during the week of april the fifth. the fbi advised me that they were developing a plan for the possible use of tear gas in an effort to increase the pressure on those in the compound to surrender. thereafter, i had a series of meetings with the fbi to discuss the emerging proposal.

the threshold question and i asked was whether the gas would cause permanent injury to the children. i did not even want to consider the matter further. if we could not be certain about this factor. the fbi assured me that the gas would not cause permitted entry. i asked them to research further and subsequently they arranged for me to meet with dr. harry salem, a top expert at n toxicology, who is chief of the life sciences department at the edgewood arsenal. he reviewed with me case studies that confirm that it would not cause permanent injury. then the primary question i asked again and again during the ensuing discussion was why now? why not wait? i asked about their food and water supply and was told that it could last at least a year or more. i asked that the information about the water supply be checked and double checked by observing the level in the water tanks. we explored but could not develop a feasible method for cutting off their water supply. i asked my staff to have direct

personal discussions by phone with the chief negotiator on the scene to satisfy ourselves that we had indeed reached an impasse in discussion and negotiations. after two and a half hour conversation that seemed clear, i became convinced that short of allowing david koresh to go free, he was not coming out voluntarily. given that unacceptable result, in light of the fact that he was such a dangerous criminal, allowing the status quo to remain, was not going to lead to an ultimate peaceful resolution and eliminate any risk to the safety of the innocent children in the compound and the public at large, or the government agents at the scene. on the contrary, the passage of time only increased the likelihood of incidents and possible injuries and attendant injuries and harm. but we continued to deliberate and in the course of our deliberation, we met with general peter schoomaker and

colonel jerry boynton, former and present commanders of delta force respect to the army's rough equivalent to the fbi's h.r. team to review the plan. their comments were instructive, while indicating that the plan appeared to be sound. one suggestion was that rather than an incremental approach to use to the use of the gas as proposed by the fbi, gas should be inserted into all portions of the compound simultaneously. i preferred the fbi approach, which called for a gradual increase in pressure over time. seemed to me that that would be best to ensure the safety of those inside. i directed that if at any point koresh or his followers threatened to harm the children, the fbi should cease the action immediately. likewise, if it appeared that as a result of the initial use of tear gas, koresh was prepared to negotiate in good faith, resulting in surrender. the fbi was to seal operation. on the other hand, of caution as follows. followers endangered the agents by firing upon them. they were authorized to return

the fire. to the great credit of the fbi. they received substantial fire from within the compound, both at the vehicles and at sniper positions surrounding the compound. and without returning any fire. in fact, throughout the 51 day siege, the fbi never fired a single shot. instead, when fired upon, the fbi responded by beginning to insert gas throughout the compound consistent with what the delta force commanders had suggested. commanders also expressed concern about the length of time the hrt had been on the scene and the state of constant readiness. and all expressed the view that the team would have to be pulled back for retraining very quickly if they were going to come back to the scene. all advised that there was not a substitute civil force that could secure the extensive area around the compound that had the extra expertise of the hostage rescue team. we continued deliberations. i wanted and received assurances that the gas and its means of

use were not pyrotechnic. i was concerned about intentional or accidental explosions and ordered that additional resources be provided to ensure that there was an adequate emergency response. if we should go forward. and i also consider the corish had talked about suicide and that might occur and any time under conditions that the fbi might be less likely to control it. experts, however, advised the bureau that the chances of suicide were not likely. but i again emphasized that it was something that was considered, something that was considered that might happen at any point along the way, regardless of what the fbi did. in considering the fbi proposal. i weighed the many concerns of the government with respect to the state of affairs inside the compound. they included the well-being of the children in the compound. given the deteriorate rating sanitary conditions, the apparent lack of adequate medical care inside and reports of sexual and other abuse over

the past. the vulnerability of the outer perimeter, which created a threat to public safety and the federal agents at the perimeter. the outer perimeter was vulnerable because there were inside the compound 50 caliber weapons having an effective killing range of 3000 yards a distance. that would reach from the u.s. capitol to the white house. our inability to maintain the presence of the hrt on site indefinitely and the advice i received that there was a lack of a suitable substitute force that could replace them at the compound and ensure the security of all involved. fourth, the increasing risk as the standoff continued of entry to federal federal agents, whether by accident or by the risk of shooting from the inside. since being sworn in as attorney general, i have had numerous conversations with people both inside and outside the department of justice concerning the waco situation. in addition, i directed my staff to keep the white house apprized of ongoing developments. my discussions with

representatives at the white house were predicated on the premise that as chief law enforcement officer, the decision on how to proceed was mine, advised the president on the sunday before the operation of my decision to authorize the fbi use of tear gas at the compound. and he said he would support my decision. i believe we were dealing with the situation that would not resolve itself by mere acquiesce essence to the standoff, negotiate had proven to be fruitless and despite our best efforts, we could not secure the release of the children. was the situation. and that suggested to me that time would only increase the risk to public safety or to the safety of government agents and to those within the compound without any realistic expectation that the matter would be resolved peacefully. if we did nothing, it was my call and i made it the best way i know how. and that was janet reno from april 28, 1993. were talking on congress investigates about the waco hearings that were held in 93

and in 95. david jackson of usa today is our guest. he was with the dallas morning news at the time of the waco incursion. mr. jackson, were there critics of janet reno? there certainly were, particularly among the republicans. and in the more conservative parts of the nation, particularly talk radio, where rush limbaugh was a very big force back then. the concern there was that the was to them a lot of to a lot of conservatives, it was about guns that the federal government attacked the branch davidians order and only in order to confiscate their guns. there had been several previous incidents involving federal agents and raids on large gun owners or people who owned a lot of guns. and there was a feeling amongst the real far right i mean, the real conspiracy theorists, that the government was planning to take everyone's gun guns registered. so that was their concern coming out of waco. there was that it was an opening movement in the government's effort to take away people's firearms. now, she also said that the

government denied all this, that their concern was the anti-government attitude, that some of these groups, including the branch davidians, that that was their main concern was that there was a group of people who were decidedly anti-government, didn't want to pay their taxes, was against congress, against washington in general, and they were arming themselves. and so there was a lot of concern about what these folks were up to. concerned that was manifested two years later with the oklahoma city bombing. well, one of janet reno's biggest critics, critics on the house judiciary committee was democrat john conyers of detroit. here's a little bit of an exchange between attorney general janet reno and congressman john conyers. madam attorney general, i am extremely disappointed in the decision that had been made out of the department of justice. the federal bureau of investigation. the agency of alcohol, tobacco and firearms.

in philadelphia. we had a mayor that bombed people out of an eviction in jonestown. we lost the lives of my colleague, congressman ryan, who tried to get don edwards to go to go out there with him because of a miscalculation about people. we had patty hearst in the serbian liberation army. we had wounded knee with the indians. now, when in god name is the law enforcement at the federal level going to understand that these are very sensitive events, that you can't put barbed wire or guns, fbi secrets, service around them, saying in some 24

hours a day and night and then wonder why they do something unstable. the root cause of this problem was that it was considered a military operation, and it wasn't. this is a proof disgrace to law enforcement in the united states of america. and you did the right thing by offering to resign. you did exactly the right thing. i commend you for. now, there is no longer any reason why the alcohol, tobacco and firearms agency cannot be folded into the federal bureau of investigation. and if there is some reason for

continuing atf, i'd like to hear it today. and i'll be introducing legislation to that point very, very shortly. and now i'd like you to know that there is at least one member in the congress that isn't going to rationalize the death of two dozen children that weren't cultists. they weren't nuts. they weren't criminals. they happened to be the parents of people. and they were innocently trapped in there. and that decision that was jointly made by these agencies, bears extreme criticism. and it's not president clinton's fault. he's taking your advice. he's taking judge sessions advice. he's taking mr. paul's advice.

and so i'd like to get some straight answers. i've read so many conflict ing rationales about this. that is absolutely embarrassing. and i've been through each of these incidents that i've cited. doesn't anybody have any historical recollection in federal law enforcement about how to deal with these kinds of people? and i'll yield the balance of my time for anything you'd like to respond to me, madam attorney general. i haven't tried to rationalize the death of children, congressman. i feel more strongly about it than you will ever know. but i have neither tried to rationalize the death of four atf agents. and i will not walk away from a compound where atf agents have been killed by people who knew they were agents and leave them unsafe around. i will not authorize a military excursion with the forces of the military into that compound with

a direct assault, such as what you might expect in the military situation. i will stand by and be proud of the fbi as it used its restraint. but most of all, congressman, i will not engage in recrimination. i will look to the future, try to learn everything i can from this situation, and to avoid tragedies such as this in the future. are you concluded? i'm not concluded. if you have further questions of me. so i consider that a non-responsive answer. you did not ask me a question, sir. you asked me if i had any comment, and i responded with my non-responsive comments. do you have a question of me, sir? i have more questions of you than i'll ever get time to, but i am prepared for as long as you would like to question me, sir. on something to give me some more time. i will come to your office and be prepared to answer any question at any time that you may ever have about anything that i have ever done. well, i think the gentlelady and accept her invitation and david

jackson, why did john conyers go after janet ro? well, there was concern about the botched raid. there were people wondering why the government engaged in this raid in the first place that create this 51 day standoff. so there's was a lot of performance issues and it should be noted that the people within the clinton white house also had problems with janet reno. there was a disconnect from the beginning between attorney general reno and president clinton. they didn't see eye to eye on a lot of things. and there was a feeling in the white house that the entire program was botched, that they should have handled this in a much different manner. they shouldn't have gone in guns blazing onto the branch davidians to start this to start this standoff. so i think that's reflected in a lot of john conyers this question. i think he had a concern about basic competence, not to mention the power of the federal government. and speaking of president bill clinton, was he making statements during the hearings about waco? a few. he lamented the deaths of the children, just like anyone else publicly. he was very supportive of his

government and of attorney general reno and the justice department. but my understanding is that privately, a lot of clinton and a lot of his aides were were very concerned about the way this thing was handled at the outset and that the government wound up creating a situation that they really didn't need. now, a reminder that there were two sets of hearings in 1993. the house judiciary committee took up the hearings. here are the democrat seats that served on that committee. jack brooks, democrat of texas, was the chair. javier becerra, california, john bryant of texas, john conyers of michigan. don edwards of california. barney frank, massachusetts. dan glickman kansas. william hughes, new jersey. romano mazzoli, kentucky. jack reed, rhode island. george sang meister, illinois. pat schroeder, colorado. charles schumer. chuck schumer who was in the house at the time. new york, bobby scott of virginia and mike signer of okla homa. do any of those democrat names stand out to you?

david jackson is effective on the committee. of course, schumer, who is perhaps the biggest proponent of gun control in congress, so he was someone that a lot of democrats rallied around because this was already an issue back in 1993. and he was cast as the villain by republicans and a lot because of his gun control views. so he he he very much was a player in both sets of hearings, both in 93 and in 95. and mike skynyrd's, an interesting name he's brought up. i believe he was defeated in his next election by a conservative coalition that included a lot of gun owners, gun, gun ownership groups. and so there's a feeling that the hearings may have cost him a chance to move on up and in congress, the republicans on the 1993 waco hearing. ham, fish, hamilton fish was the lead republican charles kennedy of florida. howard coble, north carolina elton gallegly, california. george gekas, pennsylvania. bob goodlatte, virginia. henry hyde of illinois. moorehead of california.

jim ramstad of minnesota. steve schiff of new mexico. james sensenbrenner of wisconsin and lamar smith of texas. any of the republicans stand out to you? well, a few of them were on the waco hearings in 95, but yet in leadership positions, and they were able to pursue an against the clinton administration, which they blame for a lot of the problems that happened up in waco. the name henry hyde, of course, is interesting because so much of the waco investigations, both in 93, 94 and 95, revolved the president himself. and as we know, henry hyde went on to conduct the impeachment hearings of president bill clinton over, the monica lewinsky episode. another thing about that list is that you've got some old line republicans like ham fish, who were kind of in the past and then the new harder edge republicans. i'm thinking of guys like jim sensenbrenner were a little more conservative, a little more of a harder edge. they were basically the vanguard of what would become the tea party movement later in that decade. david jackson were members eager

to have these hearings or was this an assignment that they were not so eager about? well, it again, depends on which hearing you're talking in 93. i think the democrats wanted to have them in order to give cover to the clinton administration, which was struggling out of the gate in 85. the republicans were eager to do another set of hearings because they were anxious to pursue their agenda. coming off the waco incident, particularly concern about gun control efforts and also what they considered they were the over authority and the rising power of federal law enforcement. did the committee in 93 issue a report and did they reach conclusions? yes, they did. and they reached the conclusion that basically more or less exonerate hated the clinton administration and put most of the blame on the branch davidians for what happened. were there unanswered questions at that point? well, here again, it depends how you talk to the republicans felt like there were unanswered questions because a lot of their issues weren't pursued at the time, particularly this idea that took hold. it was became kind of a conspiracy theory du jour during

the mid 1990s that the government were the ones that somehow stirred the fire, that they, in addition to bullets they put into flammable containers or something that started the fire. this was never proven, but it was a lingering issue that lasted for four years and was the subject of civil lawsuits. so far as the republicans are concerned, there were questions the democrats felt like they did. they did answer the questions. so in 1995, a second round of hearings. and again, the purpose of the second round was basically, again, depending on who you talk to for the republicans, it was basically to go back to some of the questions that they believe lingered after 1993. and so the democrats at this point, we're in a defensive posture. they were out there, were definitely out to defend president clinton and also to defend their gun control policies. so for a big subject of those hearings, of course, the republicans had taken the house in 1994, in that year that newt

gingrich became speaker in 1995. it was two committees that were part of the waco hearings. first, the house judiciary subcommittee on crime, chaired by bill mccollum of florida. steve schiff was on there as well. new mexico. steve boyer of indiana, howard coble, north carolina. fred, north carolina. ed bryant of tennessee. steve chabot of ohio and bob barr of georgia. the democrats on that committee. chuck schumer. new york. bobby scott. virginia. zoe lofgren, california. sheila jackson lee of texas. and mel watt of north carolina. the other committee that was part of that government reform and oversight subcommittee on, national security, chaired by bill zeliff, new hampshire. bob erlich, maryland. steve schiff, new mexico. ileana ros-lehtinen of florida. john mica of florida. peter blute, republican of

massachusetts. its mark souder of indiana. john shadegg of arizona. the democrats. karen thurman, florida. bob wise, west virginia. gene taylor, mississippi. carrie meek, florida. tom lantos, california. louise slaughter of new york and gary condit of california. what do you remember about the 1995 hearings, mr. jackson? there was a manifestation of what had happened in 1994. those congressional elections in which the newt gingrich so-called revolution basically took over the house. like i said, they were more conservative. they were harder edged. they had intense support from gun rights groups. and also, frankly, some support from anti-government groups. gingrich and his allies used that energy to help get themselves elected. so while bill mccollum was pretty much a moderate guy from florida, there was the bob barr's of the world. and steve schiff. i remember being very conservative and very aggressive on the idea that it was the federal government's fault about what happened in waco.

i have a parliamentary inquiry. please, please state your nature of your inquiry. chairman, for the last days, some of us who are concerned about the integrity of this hearings and about the cloud that still hangs over the involvement of the national rifle association, have requested that nra individuals who were surreptitiously with a gentleman state his parliamentary inquiry. i am i am attempting to and i hope the chairman will not attempt to muzzle me. i would like to state an inquiry and i would like to do so uninterrupted. for the last three days. we have requested that that nra individuals who were

surreptitious stay involved in the preparation of this hearings. and there is new york times story, which i think you would wish to address, because it goes directly to your involvement. gentleman is not stating, i am parliamentary mind. parliamentary inquiry. we were told by the chairman yesterday and by you that you will consult with your leadership before you respond to our request that nra officials involved in the preparation of this hearing be invited and testify under oath. my inquiry, mr. chairman, is at what point will this. we will. we discussed discussed with the leadership the decision that we made relative to that request.

and they have concurred with our judgment. we are not going to have subpoenas of either mnre or other outside groups. we're really here to get at the bottom of what happened at waco and that's what we're going to do. mr. chairman, i have not used this term until now, but now i'm afraid we are confronting a cover of the cover up of the involvement of the national rifle association in the preparation of this hearing. which i think is most regrettable. and i hope you will reconsider your decision. stephen willis conway. lebow, todd mckee and robert williams. you don't know these men, but they are four of the reasons why congressional hearings into the events surrounding waco will be held this week and next. these four federal law enforcement agents were among the more than 90 americans killed in the single most fatal episode in the history of federal law enforcement. the calamitous incident at waco last week, a new york times

editorial called it one of the biggest law enforcement fiascos in recent memory. the disturbing truth is that all of these deaths were the direct result of federal government action. this tragic incident has added to the distrust of the federal government and specifically federal law enforcement. the deadly mishandling of the crisis and the ensuing mistrust is why congress must independently investigate all events surrounding waco. in looking at this, the basic fact remains no matter how you look at it, that more than 90 people, including four law enforcement officers and 22 children, died as a direct result or indirect result of federal government action. unavoidable though some say maybe so. but before we close the book on those 90 human beings, we better be very sure we know exactly what happened. ensure that everyone who should be held accountable is held accountable. and determine how we can avoid such tragedies in the future. there's a woman in the audience today, husband, an atf agent for 17 years, was wounded during the raid. she traveled a long way. just a reminder that there is a

very painful side to waco besides the deaths of those that i mentioned. she describes, her husband, as a man of high integrity, who witnessed horrors on that fateful day in february 1992 that were worse than anything she saw in vietnam. this devoted came to washington to tell us not to forget the sacrifices of the wives and children, of the thousands of brave agents like, her husband. well, let me assure you, ma'am, that we will not forget. in fact, when these hearings are over, it is my that law enforcement officers will be safer because the supervisors and political officials who give them their orders will be more vigilant when placing them in harm's way. the fact of the matter is that there are a lot of questions that have to be answered when we go down this process. the four main objectives of the hearings are one to probe the lingering questions, to uncover the errors. four, find out who should be held accountable and craft reforms to prevent these mistakes from happening again. and looking at the questions that are out there to be answered, there are a number of those. the toughest of those questions

are where atf supervisors predisposed toward using military like tactics to serve a warrant. could koresh have been apprehended outside the compound, making the execution of the search warrant safer? the senior treasury department officials warn atf to call off the raid if the element of surprise was lost. or was that added to the story? the fact. did atf purposely mislead the u.s. army when it claimed there was a drug lab inside the davidian compound? was the judgment of attorney general janet reno and others in the administration to use cs gas and stormed the compound? reasonable. essentially, could the atf and fbi have delayed the assault or handled the entire operation differently? if so, would the four atf agents and 86 other americans be alive today? we still have not uncovered truth. the mishandling of the crisis and the ensuing mistrust is why we're here independently examining this question. i want to assure the american people that those responsible will be held accountable for their actions. these hearings are a step in that direction until we learn the truth and restore accountability to government. we cannot begin to rebuild our

citizens faith in federal law enforcement. i read an article by a man named dean kelly, who is an official of the national council of churches. not exactly a bastion of conservatism. and he described the the march on on waco to one mark cattle trailers drew up in front of the building at mount carmel and disgorged more than 70 agents dressed in dark commando costumes, complete with ski masks and carrying guns. who raced toward the buildings and several groups shouting and and he says, at some point, shooting david koresh, unarmed, opened the front door before they reached out and called. what do you want? there's women and children in here. the lead agent claimed to have yelled police, get down or some such crime and courage closed the door thereafter.

heavy firing broke out says from both sides, who fired first and at what remains a matter of sharp dispute. two teams of atf agents with ladders mounted to the roof of the first floor and broke into the windows of the second floor where they believe the weapons were stored. they met with heavy fire, which resulted in several casualties. one team did not make an entry, but the other did. its were not able to advance. however, and the effort failed. firing continued from both sides for some time, with the agents pinned down behind their vehicles and other cover until a cease fire was negotiated. is that substantially correct, secretary? and from your study? no, that is not correct. what you're telling me where it's incorrect? it is incorrect from the study insofar as who did the firing first. the claims are that claims fired in the study. you mean 70 swat team people

were there with guns and ski masks and not choose to shoot shot and did not choose to shoot first. they did not shoot first. that's right. all right. but other than that it's substantially correct. well, i. i think it from your exhaustive study trades it as a type of an assault, which it was not. they came try to sort of peacefully the warrens with ski masks and they and they were ambushed in the process. and i saw a situation of some very dirty headed people, some very courageous and disciplined people who tried to carry out the orders of what they thought was the law. and so far as the assembly, the machine guns and the explosives. yes, i have that. they did. i saw a situation where you had a medic trying to cover and help some of the wounded and which continued to be held under fire and had a medical bag he was

trying to utilize to help shot out of his hands with a 50 caliber gun. that's what they were subjected to. this same article says a mile long convoy of 80 government vehicles with their headlights on, including two covered cattle trailers containing over 7080 f agents in full swat gear reached the staging area at bell meet on the edge of waco at 7:30 a.m. to helicopter crews supplied by the texas national guard warmed up at the command center. well, this was quite an operation. and i'm just disappointed that your people didn't let, you know, even though you were at london, they're pretty good telephone and radio connections, as i recall. and that seemed to me a shame. well, thank you. my time is up and this is congress investigates a special american history tv series where we look at hearings that have been held in the house and senate throughout our history and their impact. this week we're looking at the waco hearings of 1993, 1995.

our guest is david jackson of usa today who at the time was with the dallas morning news was religious freedom brought up as an issue as well in these. yes, it was. and the branch davidians did consider themselves a religious group. and this was this was also an issue brought up mostly by republicans who felt like maybe certain outlier religions or unusual religions were being discriminated against. but there was no evidence to suggest that they were targeted because of their religious beliefs. it was all about the guns. in 1995, in those hearings, carrie jewell, who was a branch davidian, testified what was her role? well, she was one of the children who was a managed to escape the fires. i recall. and she had a very emotional testimony about what it was like to live in koresh's community and the democrats produce. hard to remind people about why that why the feds raided in the first place. she was a victim, koresh, and

was nearly, nearly killed by him. so it was very powerful testimony. i think it really set back the republicans in their efforts to somehow blame the government for this. well, in 1995, c-span interviewed you, mr. jackson, about the waco hearings. here's a little bit of that video. what was the atmosphere in the room like that? perhaps you can tell in person that doesn't really come across on television. it would usually start off tense, right when witnesses would start testifying. but of course, all the sessions were quite long. i mean, some of the 1 to 9 or 10:00. so you get to you can get pretty exhausted sitting there and watching some of these hearings. in fact, lee hancock, my colleague and i, we kind of switched off to try to try to beat back some of the exhaustion. and but it's it's it's intense, i guess, is the right word because you just never know what who's going to attack when and how the person may respond.

just that at several points. the several republicans criticized ms. reno for the gas attack and ms. reno responded that was that once again, that she took responsibility for it at one point, she talked about she was particularly hurt by the suggestions that she was responsible for the deaths of the children inside the compound. i mean, this is pretty dramatic stuff. you know, it was was a horrible incident. i think anybody who saw it live on television will never forget it. i know. i never will. and just to bring back to have such a prolonged discussion of that final day of that fire and those children dying inside the compound, it was it was quite emotional. and that was our guest, david jackson. in 1995, who was covering the hearings. mr. jackson. what were those days like and what was the media coverage like? sunrise of sun up. it was the media coverage was intense. i mean, i think you guys broadcast them live and like huge swathes of the hearings were broadcast live. i know, by cnn. i don't think fox and msnbc had

started yet, but all the major newspapers, all the networks were there. there was basically early, early morning, basically at night. and i think because you had so many as you mentioned, there were two committees involved in this. there were joint committee hearings. so you had, you know, 15 to 20 members on from both parties who wanted their question time. and they took as much questioning time as they could. so, yeah, it was it was quite an arduous ordeal, but they wanted to wrap it up as quickly as possible as well. so did the joint committees issue a report, and if so, what did they conclude with that initial report? and it was they were more critical of the government that they basically said that the entire matter been handled differently and the feds made mistake, made a basic mistake when they went in onn armed raid. they should have tried to figure out another way to deal with the situation. so there was more blame to the government than that than there was in the 93 report. but the final committee's report did also lay a lot of the blame

at the feet of the branch davidians as well. well, i should note here that both the 1993 and the 1995 waco hearings are available to watch online at. did the congressional hearings impact law enforcement or anything? yes, it forced them. i think it forced the fbi and atf and other federal law enforcement agencies to kind of review their tactics and change the way they did things, especially in a raid involving armed weapo. because, like i mentioned, there have been several incidents of this type before waco. and so i think the feds basically changed the way they did business on these things after waco and especially after the oklahoma city bombing, which, of course, on the second anniversary of the waco fire. so that also caused a reevaluation of how the federal government did things when it came to law enforcement. do you think there can be a direct line or some type of line drawn between oklahoma city, ruby ridge, january six and the

waco events of 93? oh, very much so. it's still with us today. i mean, we didn't realize this at the time, at least. i certainly didn't. but it was the vanguard of an anti-government movement that's with us. the of course, the gun issues are still with us, but a lot of a lot of what we saw on january six, 2021, the trump protests of the election a lot of those folks are come from this conspiracy minded conspiracy minded milieu that was part and parcel of what happened at waco. so so many of the issues that the raid raised at the hearings, raised are still with us today in the political sphere. now, here's more from author jeff quinn on the lessons of waco. until all, we start using history properly. where keep terrible tragedy from becoming ongoing failure by really paying attention to the facts and not the mythology. that's only what we're going to start to get a handle on things,

folks, because it's just it's still coming more and more. more. and the only way to stop it is to see where it started and try to learn from that. and i still think we can. and finally, david jackson of usa today, what do you think the legacy of waco is. it's a good question. it showed that there are there are people out there who really are fearful of the federal government to conspiracy theorists. if you really feel like the federal government is out to get them for whatever reason, whether it's over gun ownership or religious belief or anything else. and it's it was it was it was a leading indicator of this anti-government that we still see in politics today leading up to and including the election of president trump and its continued popular with many of these folks. i think that's the real legacy of waco for me. david jackson usa today, formerly with the dallas morning

news. thank you for appearing on congress.

i'm pleased to see so many people here. of course, as johnnie said, i just literally landed.

i