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 reno? 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 on an 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 weapons. 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 o