[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 137 (Tuesday, September 27, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 27, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                        REPORT ON IDAHO SHOOTOUT

  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, for a few moments this afternoon while we 
are in morning business, I would like to discuss a matter that is of 
great concern to the citizens of my State of Idaho, the many citizens 
around the Nation and a number of my colleagues here in this body.
  In fact, it should be a concern of every American who values his or 
her civil liberties and the great tradition of balance and restraint in 
the enforcement of our laws. We depend upon our State and Federal 
authorities to maintain order and keep the peace in our society, and we 
trust they will do so in a way that is consistent with the law and in 
keeping with the trust we have placed in them in a very historic and 
constitutional fashion.
  Sometimes that balance and restraint breaks down as it did during the 
botched raid in Waco, TX. Sometimes a line is crossed that runs the 
risk of breaking the trust and confidence Americans have placed in our 
Federal law enforcement community.
  Whatever one may think about the particular characters involved in 
the Randy Weaver affair in north Idaho 2 years ago, there is evidence 
suggesting that line was crossed and that crucial confidence was broken 
by Federal authorities during a standoff near Naples, ID. While this 
event did not receive the attention of the Waco raid, both episodes 
cost human lives, both could have been handled differently, and both 
may have been severely mishandled by Federal authorities.

  The major difference between the Waco and north Idaho raids is the 
first received a thorough and open public investigation. The other is 
the subject of a still unreleased Justice Department investigation by 
this attorney general.
  I am here today on this floor publicly demanding the release of the 
second investigation.
  So, Madam President, let me relate to you the story that really began 
in October 1989 when Randy Weaver allegedly sold two illegal firearms 
to an undercover BATF agent in Idaho. Fourteen months later, he was 
indicted by a Federal grand jury and subsequently ordered to stand 
trial. He failed to appear for trial and was indicted by the grand jury 
for that offense as he should have been. In March, 1991, he and his 
family began hiding out in a cabin near Naples, ID. They were kept 
under surveillance by Federal law enforcement agents for the remainder 
of that year and well into the next.
  Finally, in August 1992, the situation erupted in a shootout that 
killed Federal Deputy Marshal William Degan and Randy Weaver's son, 
Samuel. Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies converged on 
the scene for a standoff with the Weavers and their friend Kevin 
Harris, who was thought to have fired the shot that killed Deputy 
Marshal Degan. During the 19-day standoff, a Federal sniper killed 
Randy Weaver's wife, Vicki, and wounded both Weaver and Harris.
  On August 30, Harris surrendered to authorities, followed the next 
day by the surrender of Weaver. Additional charges of murder and 
conspiracy, among others, were filed against Weaver and Harris.
  The trial began in April 1993. On July 8, 1993, without any evidence 
being presented by the defendants, the jury acquitted Kevin Harris of 
all charges and acquitted Randy Weaver of all but the least serious of 
the charges against him.
  Quite frankly, public opinion in my State about Randy Weaver and 
Kevin Harris was divided. From the beginning of the well-publicized 
standoff to the end of the trial, some saw them as victims; others saw 
them as outlaws.
  However, opinion was not so divided regarding the Government's 
actions. Idahoans were first surprised by the force of the Federal 
response, which turned the small community of Naples upside down. It 
became an armed military camp. They were concerned when reports began 
to circulate about the lack of coordination with local and State law 
enforcement. Concern turned into fear and hostility as mishaps were 
revealed that the case was perhaps handled in the wrong way, from the 
original targeting of Randy Weaver through the shootout and 
investigation and the trial itself.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that upon the 
completion of the remarks of the Senator from Idaho, the Senate proceed 
to the consideration of H.R. 4606, the conference report accompanying 
the Labor, HHS, Education appropriations bill.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I 
do not think I will, might there be any time--I want 5 minutes before 
we move on to that bill--I ask the majority leader?
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I would then request that upon the 
completion of the remarks of the Senator from Idaho, the Senator from 
Minnesota be recognized to address the Senate for 5 minutes, and 
following the completion of his remarks, the Senate proceed as 
originally requested.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I thank the colleague.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I was discussing an episode that had 
happened in north Idaho known as the Randy Weaver affair, and I was 
telling you about the breaking of laws and then, of course, the 
converging of State, local, and Federal law enforcement upon a small 
cabin in Naples, ID, and the subsequent actions that happened, the 
killing of a Federal marshal, the killing of Randy Weaver's son, the 
killing of Mrs. Vicky Weaver, and then both the shooting of Randy 
Weaver himself and Kevin Harris.
  Now here are my concerns. For example, one of the most serious 
questions involved the rules of engagement observed at the site of the 
incident. It is my understanding that the Federal law enforcement 
practice is to prohibit using deadly force against an individual unless 
that individual is actually threatening the life of another. Yet in the 
north Idaho incident, official handwritten instructions directed law 
enforcement personnel that deadly force could be used against any armed 
adult in the compound area.
  Let me repeat that. A handwritten note suggested that any armed adult 
in the compound area deadly force could be used upon.
  There was some argument at the trial about whether this was an actual 
modification of the rules of engagement or a change in the application 
of the usual rules. That argument, however important technically at 
trial, ignores a more disturbing question about the substance of the 
policy itself: When does the Department of Justice consider it 
acceptable for Federal law enforcement to fire on an armed citizen 
first, even if he or she is not threatening the life of any other 
person, and then ask questions later? That appears to be what happened 
in the Randy Weaver incident.
  Citizens who take seriously their right to bear arms have much to 
fear from a Government that assumes that the mere possession of a 
firearm presents a threat to others.
  Idahoans were also disturbed by a series of apparent blunders by 
Federal authorities. For instance, the initial order to appear issued 
to Weaver contained an incorrect trial date, and no correction of the 
order was made or ever issued, although he was indicted for failing to 
appear on the correct date he was never notified about.
  Questions also were raised about the on-the-scene investigation, 
including failing to triangulate in order to place evidence accurately 
at the scene, failing to search the scene thoroughly enough to discover 
the magic bullet uncovered days later, miscounting evidence and staging 
photographs of evidence. Law enforcement officials admitted during the 
trial that evidence was mishandled and lost.
  There was also a disturbing lack of coordination among Federal 
agencies. Documents in the possession of the Government and essential 
to the prosecution's examination of witnesses were mailed fourth-class 
to Idaho, reaching the prosecution after the witnesses had testified 
and provoking a rebuke from the judge. Yet readily available for 
publication was an FBI report highly critical of the work of the U.S. 
Marshals Service.
  Concerns were also raised about the disparity between the seriousness 
of the offenses at stake and the level of force used by the Government 
against Weaver and Harris. In this sense, comparisons drawn between the 
north Idaho action and the incident at Waco, TX, were inevitable and 
deeply troubling. It has been suggested that these two cases reflect a 
pattern of over-zealousness in pursuing firearms violations, whether 
because they are sensational, grab headlines or help secure 
congressional appropriations.
  These were only a few of the many, many concerns related to me by my 
constituents while the Weaver case developed in my State of Idaho. I 
spent literally days monitoring the case, following up on rumors, and 
discussing the matter with Federal, State, and local officials who had 
been involved in the matter.
  The virtual exoneration of the two defendants was seen as proof that 
the Federal Government had acted improperly. Fairly or unfairly, the 
public expected the Government's law enforcement experts to be just 
that--experts. Even one misstep would have raised questions. The 
cumulative effect of these blunders was devastating with public opinion 
in my State. Not only did they diminish the value of the physical 
evidence and the credibility of the law enforcement testimony, but they 
strengthened the popular notion of the case as an example of powerful, 
corrupt Government pursuing vulnerable citizens and trying to cover up 
its own misdeeds.
  It was because of the level of unease among my constituents that I 
wrote to Secretary Bentsen and Attorney General Reno following the 
trial, requesting an investigation and report on the Government's 
handling of the case and citing these very problems that I have related 
to all of you.
  Both departments responded that they were indeed cooperating in 
reviewing the Weaver case. I commended them for their promptness and 
their responsive action. It seemed to me, and I continue to believe, 
that failing to answer the legitimate questions raised about this case 
would be equally destructive to the interests of law enforcement 
community and the citizens in my State of Idaho.
  My office continued to receive a steady stream of inquiries and 
complaints about the incident in north Idaho. Rather than dying down, 
interest in the case has been increasing as time has passed without a 
report of the internal investigation of the Federal actions.
  We made informal inquiries about the progress of the internal 
investigation and confirmed early this spring that the reports were 
finished and being reviewed. In April of this year, 1994, 9 months 
after I had requested the investigation, I wrote requesting release of 
the information.
  In June, I received a response from the Department of Justice to my 
letter, stating that the report was under review. I wrote back, 
objecting to being put off, and then requesting the release of the 
report.
  On July 5 of this year, the Department of the Treasury released a 
report of its investigation. That report concluded that BATF had acted 
properly in the original investigation and arrest of Weaver; the report 
also noted that BATF was not involved in any events subsequent to that 
initial arrest.
  I expected the Department of Justice to follow the suit with its 
report, but no information was released. I spoke to the Attorney 
General and learned the report was still under review.
  Since that time, Attorney General Reno has kept me informed of the 
status of her report--and I say this to her credit. While I appreciate 
that courtesy of the Attorney General, we do not appear to be any 
closer to the report's release now than we were 90 days ago when the 
Department first officially informed me that the report was under 
review.
  Now, with my patience and credulity wearing mighty thin, I have been 
informed that there is an active effort within the administration to 
suppress this report and to prevent its release to the public.
  Madam President, I most sincerely hope the administration is not 
trying to engineer a coverup on this issue. But what am I to think--
what are my constituents to think--when my original request for an 
investigation was made more than a year ago when we learned the 
investigation and the report were completed before spring of this year 
and when the Department of the Treasury's report on its involvement was 
released more than 2 months ago?
  I said earlier that comparisons between the Weaver incident and the 
events in Waco were inevitable. Along those lines, it is instructive to 
note that the voluminous reports on the investigation of the 
Government's handling of the very complicated Waco case were completed 
and released today to the public in less than 8 months.
  Let me be clear: I am not on a witch hunt. I have no way of knowing 
what this report will say about the activities in north Idaho. It was 
not even the current administration who conducted the operation that we 
are now questioning. But it is the current administration who has 
conducted the investigation of those events and has the control of the 
findings of that investigation.
  Whatever their personal thoughts about the particular individuals 
involved in the standoff, people are concerned about a possible misuse 
of Federal power and the future threat that may pose to all Americans' 
civil liberties. Every day that passes only increases the cynicism and 
the unease felt by those who are monitoring the Weaver matter in my 
State and elsewhere in the Nation. Every day that passes only darkens 
the cloud that they see hanging over our Federal law enforcement 
agencies.
  I can promise the administration that delay will not make the case or 
the issue go away. My constituents are not going to just forget it, 
citizens who are watching from around the country are not going to tune 
out, and I am not going to melt away.
  Again, I urge the administration to release this report. Silence only 
allows doubt and suspicion to breed and adds to credence to anyone's 
claim that a coverup may well be underway. Do the right thing by our 
own law enforcement agencies and by citizens of this country: Release 
the report of the Randy Weaver investigation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Madam President.

                          ____________________