Transcripts For CSPAN3 Tom Charles Huston Church Committee Testimony 20160514

The Senate Permanent select Intelligence Committee, providing ongoing oversight of the intelligence agencies, and the creation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 19 28, which we know as fisa. Two former Staff Members of the Church Committee are with us and will be with us to help provide Historical Context and help us understand the significance of the 40yearold video you are about to see. Frederick Fritz Schwartz is with our studio is elliot maxwell, who was counsel to the committee. Thank you to both of you for joining us. Lets just start with the basics, mr. Maxwell, could you explain how the Church Committee got constituted . What was the impetus . Mr. Maxwell most of it came about from a series of articles with activities by the Intelligence Community within the United States and followed by many people. This was in the context of the postwatergate resignation of president nixon. By still continuing the vietnam war there was the thought that the intelligence agencies would be directed against american citizens and this led to some public concern and the response in both the senate and the house to establish a special committee to look at activities overall. It was in that context that you need to be able to place the activities of the committee and the response to things that happened during the vietnam war, the civil rights movement, and other activities that led to the creation of these two committees. Mr. Schwartz when, what was the mandate or the mission as was constituted . Mr. Schwarz this was to look at the facts and to expose them to the american public. Our single most important you mentioned this was in the aftermath of watergate. Some people thought we would just expose more bad things about the next in administration, but our single most important finding was to say that every one of six president s starting with Franklin Roosevelt and running through nixon, four democrats and two republicans, everyone one of them had abused their secret powers, and making that broad finding, which is our most important finding, helping with the internal cohesion of the committee and help with national reputation. How were frank church and john power selected as the chairman and republican vice chair of the committee . Mr. Maxwell mansfield selected frank church. The story is that he asked phil hart to do it that phil hart was ill and died of cancer are not too long afterwards, although he served on the committee, and the minority leader, scott, selected power. Interestingly, of the 11, none of them had been people who are responsible for the prior generation of inadequate oversight by the congress of dcia and the fbi and the other intelligent agencies. So you had a group of 11 people who came at this without bias, having had supposedly sponsor ability earlier and having failed as the congress did, to exercise really any oversight over the Intelligence Community before we did our work. Mr. Maxwell, i want to read for our audience the names of the 11 committee members, because these are some very famous, wellknown names, and these are powerful names in the United States senate. Phil hart, who was just mentioned. Walter mondale, the former Vice President of United States, Walter Huddleston of kentucky, Robert Morgan of kentucky, and on the republican side, howard baker, who went to be the majority leader, Barry Goldwater, and how did these 11, big figures, he get to become respective leaders, and what were the things that came to putting these respective leaders into place and what was expected of them on the panel . Mr. Maxwell i wasnt privy to these discussions but my sense was they chose people who had stature within the institution and within the nation that this would be considered a product of the senate and the associated stature of the members. For me it was really extraordinary in the sense that they were presented a very Broad Spectrum of views from the most conservative to the most liberal in the senate at the time and i think that the chair of the vice chair were making sure that they could move together. Was mentioned earlier about the desire to make this a unified finding about these activities in both the choice of the chair and the choice of the members. Mr. Schwarz , i wanted to talk about how the committee met mr. Schwarz, i wanted to talk about how the committee met for 14 months. What was the strategy regarding television on the hearings . Mr. Schwarz well, the first choice we made, obviously, the committee made its own discussions on the start about what would be confidential, but the first decision that was made was the plots to assassinate foreign leaders like fidel castro and other people, there was a discussion about whether those hearings should be public or not, and actually, howard baker, who was a very Effective Member of the committee, push for public hearings and frank church said, no, i think we are wiser not to have public hearings, these will be our first hearings and you dont want to inadvertently put out stuff that should be kept confidential. We should put it all in our report on assassinations, which we did. It was the most exhaustive coverage of covert actions. Then when we got to domestic terrorists, those were all public domestic issues, those were all public. The fbi was the subject of most of those domestic hearings and i think most of our important work was exposing the illegal and the Improper Conduct that the fbi under J Edgar Hoover had engaged in under j. Edgar hoover had engaged in. For decades. Those were all public. Our reports were public and in the domestic report, which was called book two, everything that we wanted to put out we put out. In the foreign report, there was some things were some things that were not included in the final report but that were available to all of the senators, but by far we had the most disclosure of any committee that has ever been in any committee dealing with intelligence in any country and that is still true to date all of the world. A side note on television and sender baker when he became the majority leader in 1981 after the election of Ronald Reagan, the first measure he put into the senate was television in the senate because he was interested in having the senate televised. We are about to show the video, but we live in an age of cspan, but prior to that, the decision to have Committee Hearings on Network Television was a big deal. What was the sense of the country in news reporting and the interest level about all of these hearings as they were happening . Mr. Maxwell well, i think there was a considerable amount of interest because the subject matter was themselves the , relationship between the citizens and the committee. Little was known about it when we began the committee, at least on the foreign intelligence side, nobody knew what to request, nobody knew what was there. Nobody knew how to ask the right questions. So when the hearings took ways, it was in the context of, this was new to the public. What these agencies were doing, how they were doing it, the impact on themselves, the impact on their friends and family and neighbors and the rest of the world. This was the first time that the curtain had been drawn at all of these agencies, so i think it was inherently interesting for the public. In todays installment of our video on the Church Committees, were going to look at something called the huston plan. We are going to hear the Church Committee question Tom Charles Huston in 1975 in the Senate Caucus room. Lets watch. You dont deny that the United States should commence, as you understood it to commence or to recommence, is that correct . Mr. Huston yes, it was my understanding that this was the technique employed, particularly within the fbi, and within the Intelligence Committee and they thought it was necessary to be undertaken with an extreme circumstances and that they felt that they were authorized to do so. Mr. Schwarz you were also basing your views upon the entire Intelligence Committee, advocating that the United States should commence or recommence to commit burglary to acquire valuable intelligence information. Is that right . Mr. Huston yes, i was told that we were taking these jobs over a that the bureau had undertaken black bag jobs for a number of years up until 1966, that it had been successful and valuable, again, particularly in matters involving espionage, and they felt that again, it was something that given the revolutionary climate, they felt they needed to have the authority to do. And there you can see mr. Schwarz questioning mr. Huston in 1975. So, mr. Schwarz, who was mr. Huston . What was his plan . It was devised in the white house and with most of the Intelligence Community to get president ial lessing for the illegal things that have been done for years and years and years. And eventually, it fizzled out, but the intent was to legalize what had been done and which was illegal. Huston gave us an absolutely fantastic quote and i think in my interrogation of him later i used it, what he said when you start these programs, you always have mission creep, and his language was, you go from the kid with the bomb to the kid with the picket sign to the kid with the Bumper Sticker of the opposing candidate and you go from looking at dangerous activity to migrating to looking at the political views of people in this country, of americans, and the nsa did the same thing. They got every single telegram that left the country for 30 years, it was given to nsa. At the beginning, their objective was only to look at encrypted cables from foreign embassies back to, like from the Russian Embassy back thomas ago tech to moscow, but there was the very thing that huston admitted to me in a very language, there was mission creep, so we were looking at cables of antivietnam war protesters within the United States and of civil rights leaders in the United States, something which the government had absolutely no business looking at and certainly not looking at in a legal way. These telegrams are an agent thing for some of our younger viewers, so could you put into context what it would mean today to read every single telegram within the United States . Mr. Maxwell well, it is easy enough to do that given the last two or three years after the Edward Snowden discussions. That is an externa rethink to have if you want to look at the the Intelligence Community access to the metadata to telephone calls and the like so who wascould tell communicating to who. That is an extraordinary thing that have if you want to look at the activities of people and it is the kind of notion of people what they are talking about. If i scoop up enough of this material, sooner or later im going to find this thing. All of this material could go beyond that original thought, so it is not the kind of technology that is employed, it is the notion that you could scoop everything in and then work from that. In a little while, we are going to see 40 minutes of charles houston of Tom Charles Huston testifying. But listless and the Barry Goldwater. Lets watch. Mr. Goldwater thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to speak first about the Internal Revenue service, and i am very happy that the chairman has mentioned this. Someone on this committee has likened the cia like a bull elephant running rampant or the irs like a rattlesnake slithering along in the grass, probably the greatest threat to American Freedom and americans and yet this morning, it is the first public indication that i have heard that the Internal Revenue service is going to be investigated, and i think it is time. Mr. Maxwell, what was the intent of bringing the irs into the investigation . Mr. Maxwell i think the republican side encompassed the entire range of the political spectrum on the republican party, from mac matthias and diction whites are and dick schweizer. For Barry Goldwater, the irs was a snake and he wanted to make sure it was part of the investigation and not shunted aside. That was not part of the case for priorities for the other senators. We only have a few minutes before we begin showing 40 full minutes of questioning of Tom Charles Huston. I would like to have you kind of go back to that moment in time and particularly, the significance of people watching today. What is it that you would like people to think about this in terms of constitutional questions or americans relationships with their government in review of this testimony . Mr. Schwarz i think the American People should be bothered anytime the American Government exceeded power and does so without the American Government knowing what it is doing. So the american citizen should be free of fear that their government is doing things to harm them, to collect excessive information, now we never on the Church Committee said the government shouldnt collect any information. It was that the government shouldnt collect information without going through a proper process to develop the right, for example, or a judge saying this is legitimate to do so, the irs, just to go back to this, was a legitimate subject of inquiry, and i thought we brought out some very disturbing facts. Again, this shows the nonpartisan side of the committee. For example, we show that john kennedy as president had done things to try and get the irs to go after particular people and we had a quite cooperative witness who was of the head of the irs and we brought out a lot of information. Senator goldwater was good on that issue. He was not someone is interested in the rest of our work. In fact, i think he was less interested than all of the other senators who were profoundly interested. Senator goldwater even first urged that we should investigate the fbis treatment of Martin Luther king week as if he said we do that, quote, they will riot, and after we discovered that they tried to convince Martin Luther king to commit suicide by sending him a composite tape of recordings taken of king in various hotel rooms, i said to the committee, i have not looked at the tape, nor have i let anybody on the staff look at the tape, because to do so was not less a serine not necessary to make our point. And then Barry Goldwater said something that i think was very disappointing. He said i think we should get that tape and play it on national television. So i am making those comments a little bit in criticism of senator goldwater all of the other 10 senators constantly worked very hard and were very interested in all of our issues. And there never was a purely partisan vote and in general was in great cooperation. I regarded myself as the chief counsel for the whole committee and not the chief counsel for the democrats. I felt i was chief counsel for the whole committee. And talking about senator schweiker, senator schweiker i think had the best record of any senator of always wanting to do what we thought was the most appropriate thing to do. Will thank you for that background and introduction. Today, the senate Intelligence Committee still has a reputation for acting in bipartisan issues, so it is something with a Historical Context as a committee. So at this point, thank you to both of you for setting the stage for this part of the investigation. We are now going to show 40 minutes as the Church Committee investigates the huston clan. This was televised in 1975 by the public broadcasting service. Lets watch. Did you admit to the president certain recommendations with respect on intelligence collections . Mr. Huston yes. Mr. Schwarz and have you got in front of you the document . Mr. Huston yes. Mr. Schwarz is that the document in which you gave the president . Mr. Huston well, which i submitted to mr. Hall. Mr. Schwarz which you gave to mr. Hall . Mr. Huston yes. Mr. Schwarz in the document, you made certain recommendations with restraints in which you thought had been placed upon the intelligence collection. Is that correct . Mr. Huston yes. Mr. Schwarz in making those recommendations, do you believe you were making a consensus within the entire working group on the study for yourself and for the president . Mr. Huston yes. Mr. Schwarz so whatever recommendations you made in respect to it illegal openings of the mail or burglary or forced entry, were one in which you believe represented the view of the entire Intelligence Community, with the exception of the footnotes mentioned . Mr. Huston yes. Mr. Schwarz you did recommend, did you not, that the United States should commence, in your view, commence or recommence, the illegal opening of mail. Is that correct . Mr. Huston yes, it was my understanding through my contact in the bureau of that this had been a technique that had been employed, particularly in matters related to espionage. The professional Intelligence Community felt it was a necessary technique under extreme circumstances and that they felt they should be authorized to do this. Mr. Schwarz similarly, you also gave your views on the recommendations for mr. Hoovers footnotes, advocating that the United States should commence or recommence to commit burglaries to acquire valuable intelligence information. Is that right . Mr. Huston yes, i was told that the bureau had undertaken black a number of years up until 1966 that had in valuable, again particularly in matters involving espionage, and they felt that again was something given the revolutionary climate they thought they needed to have the authority to do. Mr. Schwarz and in some cases, your position was in effect, the end justifies the means . Mr. Huston well, i am not going to speak to what their position is, but i dont think that rarely summarizes what my position is. Mr. Schwarz im sure other persons here would question you on that issue. Did president nixon through mr. Halderman approve recommendations for changes you made on behalf of the entire Intelligence Community . Mr. Huston yes. Mr. Schwarz what happened after that . Mr. Huston the question that rose was how should the agency changes be of limited . I have recommended to mr. Halderman that the Director Office Directors Office should be contacted and that was the proper course to take, in particularly in the view of the decisions relative to mr. Hoover. However, the president and mr. Halderman didnt think that was necessary. So then the question became, how should the decision memorandum go out . Mr. Halderman seemed to think it was not necessary for either he or the president to do that so i was nominated. Mr. Schwarz so you mr. Huston i provided signatures. Mr. Church this documented represented your proposal for the president in relaxing restraints on the Intelligence Community with respect to gathering information on what you call the revolutionary climate, i suppose that is in reference to the antiwar demonstrations and protests . Mr. Huston senator, i really was peripherally interested in antiwar protests, but i was worried about the bombings that took place in one year. I was worried about the 39 Police Officers who had been killed. Mr. Church and everything connected with that mr. Huston i am talking about revolutionary violence in opposition to antiwar protests. Mr. Church well, whatever your purpose, the document that you sent to the president contained your recommendation for relaxing mr. Huston these restraints would be in context of the military. Mr. Church now was it your understanding when use a bit of that document to the president that his authority was being requested for lifting or relaxing, if he chose to accept your recommendation . Mr. Huston yes. Mr. Church now turning to the question of mail coverage on page two of your recommendation, i read recommendation restrictions on legal coverage should be removed and i take it by legal coverage you reference the procedure that enables intelligence agencies and Law Enforcement agencies to look at the envelopes and if procedures follow, there is a legal way of doing that. Mr. Huston yes. Mr. Church then you recommended also that coverage should be relaxed on selected target priorities or intelligence and security issues. Now here, you are referring to opening the mail, are you not . Mr. Huston yes. Mr. Church and that was against the law, was it not . Mr. Huston yes. Mr. Church so you were making a very serious recommendation to mr. Nixon. You were recommending that he authorize opening even though those openings were a violation of law . Mr. Huston well, i think what we were recommending was that they be employed despite the fact that there was a federal law that prohibited it, it was not a relationship to have surreptitious entry. There was of course electronic surveillance and the whole question as to we would exercise this power and i think that is where you asked me about this and i think this was a question that rose in my mind, what we were talking about was a something that had been done for 25 years. The question was if the president could act contrary to the dictates of the statute. You are recommending the president in this case horized mail open to opening, even though such action was contrary to the federal , and you have suggested there might be some inherent rights to circumvent the Fourth Amendment to the concert edition statesunited guaranteeing citizens against unreasonable search and seizure, barringa warrant for the National Security responsibilitys of the president. Mr. Huston i think this goes to the heart of the matter. There was a clause that that in effect nothing in this act could limit whatever power the president might have with respect to National Security matters. I think it was that kind of approach to these Fourth Amendment rights as they involve National Security, that opened the door to the men that thought they could go ahead and do it. You yourself suggested this was a very serious question. You were asking the president to take action that would violate federal statute. On the theory that he had some inherent right to do this. Since that is such a sensible question. Since it goes to the production offered american citizens offered by the constitution, you should take the matter up with the attorney general and secure his opinion. Mr. Huston no. Mr. Church when you testified, earlier in an executive session, you were asked the following. You were not aware of the fact, i take it, that at this time, the time youre smithing your recommendation to the president , the cia was opening mail. Mr. Huston, you replied, no. In fact, i think one of the more interesting things is why i didnt know half the things i didnt know and the president of the United States and directors of the intelligence agencies, and that i want a complete report on what is going on. I didnt know about the cia mail opening. I did not know about the clientele program. These people were conducting all these things on their own that the president didnt know about. Do you still stand by that testimony . Mr. Church with the exception mr. Huston with the exception00 i cant be sure that the president did not learn from other sources. But i can say that i did not know about it. It was my responsibility to see that the president knew what was going on. And to your knowledge, he did not know. Mr. Church it would have been a serious exercise for him, wouldnt it . To look at your recommendations, asking for your authority to open the mail, knowing that that process has been going on. And he never raised that with you . Mr. Huston no. Mr. Church and five days later, upon reaching consideration, when he pulled back this report, did he do that for the purpose of revoking the authority he had given . Mr. Huston yes, mr. Hoover and attorney general mitchell had prevailed upon him to change his decision, which he did. There was no doubt in my mind, nor could there conceivably any doubt in the others, that the recall of the decision memorandum meant a reversal of the president s decision. Mr. Church so the president revoked the authority he had given for such things as mail opening mr. Huston yes. Mr. Church and yet work you aware that mail openings continued . Mr. Huston i read the rockefeller report, yes. I created an entire array of new techniques that infringe upon the Civil Liberties of the American People, and i forced it down throats and i used my heavyweight on all these poor intelligence professionals i think the fact of the matter is the entire Intelligence Community thought we had a serious crisis in this country. I thought we had a serious crisis in this country. My attitude was that we have to do something about it. Who knows what to do about it . The professional Intelligence Community. They tell me this is what you give us. We can follow the problems. The thing that is interesting to me that i didnt know about mail openings, if we had known, many of these tools they were asking to use had already been used. We still were getting these results. It could easily have changed our entire attitude toward the covenant we were willing the confidence we were willing to place in the Intelligence Community to deal with this problem. This is the first time we talked back in may, on our service committee. I had been out on front in this thing. I never wrote this report. I didnt write their report. For the record, i thought we had a serious problem. I wasnt concerned about people that bought nixon that didnt like nixon. We were talking about bombers, assassins, snipers. I felt something had to be done. They said, here are the tools we need, i take full responsibility. I recommended it. Mr. Church so you are saying the inspiration for the report and most of its aspects, in the absence of the guidelines by the white house, actually came from the agents involved. Mr. Huston i never saw some of these recommendations. And yet here they are. Mr. Church what was your attitude to the president s reversal that resulted in the rejection of the plan . Mr. Huston i thought it was a mistake for several reasons. The first reason i thought it was a mistake is that it goes back to ground zero. Which was not merely ground zero in terms of operational techniques, but in terms of lack of any coordination among the intelligence agency. Secondly, i felt in my own mind that mr. Hoovers objections were not based i want to rephrase that. Not all of mr. Hoovers objections have been submitted to the president. Thirdly, i was concerned about what effect this would have on the Intelligence Community, other than the fbi, if they could put their back into this project, which was supposed to have been a joint effort. They all agreed to consensus. The director of the fbi succeeded in reversing it. Mr. Church while you did not prepare this plan, you are in fact its advocate. Mr. Huston yes sir. Mr. Church what legal justification or other do you have as an attorney, an officer of the court, and as a public officer to entertain and recommend illegal acts by the government . Mr. Huston it was my opinion at the time that the Fourth Amendment didnt apply to the president in the exercise of matters relating to the Internet Security to internal security. Justice douglas anticipated this in the district court, and was ruled unconstitutional domestic wiretaps. Up until 1972, every president , with the exception of attorney general clark, every attorney general argued that the president has the authority and executive power to engage in warrantless wiretaps. Although the court in criminal matters held that a warrant widely the fourth amended. The Justice Department took the case to the Supreme Court because they felt there was that inherent power. You and i both know as lawyers that if there is an exception to the Fourth Amendment, it doesnt take a lot of imagination to extend that via the telephone to trespass the a mail opening. These were the kind of dangerous raods roads. Mr. Church you are going that it is legal for the president to violate rights, Constitutional Rights of citizens if he is the president and invokes National Security as a justification. You did not say that in the memo. You said these things were illegal. Which is it . Mr. Huston for the purposes that seemed to me most relevant at the time, that the operation will be undertaken by an individual, where if he is caught, it is clearly illegal. Mr. Church it would be fair to say that you understood that it was illegal, but to justify it now, you invoke a National Security defense that would make it lega. Which position is it . Mr. Huston senator, i am not invoking anything now. You asked me what my opinion was you willyou asked me what my opinion was at the time. I am telling you my opinion now. What im saying to you is that the consideration given by not i only me, but by the others that signed this report, was that it was in the president s power to do it. Mr. Church why didnt you say that in your memo . That it appears to be illegal, but in fact it is legal, because as president you have powers not mentioned in the constitution, but in our judgment, we feel was necessary. You are essentially saying the law doesnt apply to you, and that the Constitutional Rights of citizens dont apply. Where does the president decide that National Security dictates the course . Why didnt you say that, instead of it being illegal . Mr. Huston i said that because that is what the report said. Mr. Church do you recall at the time you were discussing these various options to be recommended to the president what the position was that the principles representing the various agencies. You had a representative from the nsa, one from the cia, and one from the fbi. Which of them objected during the course of making up these options to these recommendations which involved illegal acts . Mr. Huston i dont recall any objections. Mr. Church do you recall any of them saying, we cant do this because it is illegal . Mr. Huston no. Mr. Church can you recall any discussion whatsoever concerning the legality of these recommendations . Mr. Huston no. Mr. Church does that strike you as peculiar . That top public officers in the most high level and sensitive positions of government would discuss recommending to the president , actions which are clearly illegal and possibly unconstitutional without ever asking themselves whether that was a proper thing for them to be doing . Mr. Huston yes, i think it is. Except for the fact, that for many of those people, they were aware this had been taken care of for a long period of time. Mr. Church is that an adequate justification . Mr. Huston i am just trying to explain what happened. Mr. Church if criminals to be excused on the ground that someone had done it before, there would not be much of a population in the presence today. In the prisons today. What are the things were being done, as you discovered, that may or may not have been recommended . Mr. Huston i think there were several things that were critically important that we should not that we should have known about that have influenced our judgment. Operation chaos, or whatever it was, the cia had its own operation going that we do not know about. Mr. Church is there any reason the witness should not tell us what those programs are . Mr. Church there is no reason. The justice permit has made these disclosures. Mr. Huston the program was designed, i dont know what the correct technical term is, but a program against the designated targets by the fbi in terms of mr. Church give us an example. Mr. Huston lets say professor jones is a member of the socialist Workers Party and is running for the school board. A neighborhood fbi agent sends a letter to the newspaper saying, you may not know this, but this guy is running for the school board and is a member of the socialist party. When the Justice Department mr. Church did or did not president of the United States know mr. Huston i dont believe anyone in the bureau was to know about it, including the Justice Department. Including the attorney general. Mr. Church was the other operation . Mr. Huston operation chaos, apparently the cia had a group set up. They were concerned directly with matters affecting Domestic Intelligence collection. Or agents that were occurring within the continental United States. We didnt know about that. In fact, impression we had was that the cia had very little interest in areas which we thought were important, which was what happened abroad when these people under surveillance by the fbi. Left the country. That is where we thought the cia effort should be. I am told i only have one minute left. Let me ask you this. Do you have any information, qui ckly, who authorized these programs . Was it president ial operation . Mr. Huston i dont think any president knew about it. I think both of those programs were originated before this administration. I think the first went back into the johnson administration. Im not trying to establish blame or even responsibility. I am just trying to establish in my own minds eye, whether these agencies were selfstarters. Mr. Huston i dont know, except that they were inspired by the administration. My understanding is that president johnson did not know about it, and i dont believe president nixon did either. Thank you mr. Chairman. I have a watch in front of me and i will confine myself to 10 minutes. Some of the interrogations ahve run 15. I want to speak first about the Internal Revenue service. Im very happy that the chairman has mentioned this subject. Somebody on this committee has likened the cia to a bull elephant running rampant. I liken the irs to a rattlesnake, sliding along in the grass, probably the greatest threat to American Freedom and americans of anything we have. Yet this morning was the first indication that the irs is going to be investigated. I think its time. I noticed a letter written by you on september 21, in which he said nearly 18 months ago, the president indicated a desire for irs to move againsts leftist organization taking advantage of tax shelters. I had been pressing irs since that time to no avail. In other words, the irs will protect any organization they feel like protecting in this country, and close down on any organization that they feel like protecting. I think its high time that this committee or some other committee expose just what we are up against in this country. The power to tax is the power to destroy. Mr. Huston, have you ever been a member of the cia . Mr. Huston no sir. Fbi. Or goldwater mr. Huston no sir. Dia. Mr. Huston yes, i was assigned when i was enormous i was an Army Intelligence officer. You were hired by the white house as a speechwriter . And you went in preparation to the socalled huston plan. Was it ever used . Mr. Huston no sir. What do you think about the huston plan as you sit here today. Mr. Huston senator, i still believe there is a threat that maybe characterized as an internal security threat. I think there are people that want to destroy this country. I think people are willing to go to Great Lengths to do it. I think the 2 attempts on the life of the president are symptomatic of that. I think there is a necessary place in our society for an effective Domestic Intelligence collection effort. More importantly than collection, for professional analysis of that information. I think that it is perhaps easy to justify the emphasis that we attached in 1970. I think it is just as easy to discount it. We were sitting in the white house, getting reports day in and day out about what was happening in this country. In terms of the violence, the numbers of armies, the assassination attempts, the snip ing incidents, 40,000 bombings. In a 2 week period, 6 attacks a day against rotc facilities. What happened then, at least from my perspective, is that we were convinced that this was something that would continue to get worse. Until we reached the point where everybody looking everbody predicting Police Intervention was a self fulfilling prophecy. Same in the black panther raids. My view is that we had to do something to stop it. Theoretically, that maybe true. I dont think the terms that we used with top selected targets was a bit looser than the tersm attorney general clark used and what president truman authorized electronic surveillance. The fact is, we were motivated unjustly perhaps, or unconscionably by a legitimate concern related to the lives and property of people subject to random acts of violence. My view was that i had confidence in the professional Intelligence Community. These were the professionals. These were the people that have been authorized to solve these problems. What i didnt realize then was that these kinds of programs, although theoretically could be used in the best interests of the country by responsible people, can lead to the federal things that happened with watergate. Everybody tries to link the huston as the precursor of the plumbers and watergate. In my mind, that is totally untrue. But its obvious that this kind of thing lends itself easily to the corruption that we have seen. Therefore, i have come to the conclusion that wheras i have traditionally taken the position that i will run some small risk of converging on some small portion of the publics legitimate rights for the greater good of all the people, i know come to the conclusion that we have no practical or genitive to take a far greater risk. There are kinds of things that we cant deal effectively against until such time as perhaps our records is for the ongoing criminal process. I dont want to leave the impression that i think there is no problem. I think we need to do with this in such a way as to maximize the respect of the rights of the citizens. At the same time, not just not destroying the capability of the people to protect themselves against those who would destroy this country. I thank you for that statement. I agree with that 100 . No other questions, just comments. As long as we have some newspapers, journalists, media people, organizations intent on changing the basic philosophy of this country by the same kind of subversion that you are now b eing charged with partway, i think we have to be forever on our toes. I think you have expressed your purpose well. Every time i pick up a morning paper and see the disclosure of secrets that i thought were locked up in my brain or heart, i get worried about my country. I hope that this committee, through the continued diligence of its chairman and Staff Members, will disclose everything wrong with this country. Thats all i have. Thank you, senator goldwater. You have indicated that after the fact, you found that many thaties were using tools they were sitting there discussing white house approval for obtaining. Why do you think they were going through the charade . Mr. Huston i wish i knew. I dont know. I think part of the problem was that if the other agencies knew they were doing it, there would be all sorts of problems. For example, the fbi greatly resented president johnson ordering collection intelligence, because that was their charter. They had to live with it, although they were anxious that the urban Committee Hearings leave those out of the water. With the fbi, mr. Hoover would have had a stroke if you did not know that the cia had operation chaos going on. The last thing the cia have done is disclosed to the bureau that they were working on their turf. I think interagency jealousies had part to do with it. The second thing, if you have a Program Going and are happy with its results, why take the risk that it might be turned off if the president decides she doesnt want you to do it . They had no idea what decision the president might make. Why should the cia run the risk that the president might say no . If they had admitted it, they would have to close the thing down. Even the Justice Department did not know about it. It seems to me many of these agencies operated in their own world. They had their own programs going. They did not want anyone else to know it. I always have the illusion that the purpose of intelligence was provide policy makers with information to make policy. But policymakers dont even know that information is available, i dont know what good it does anybody. This brings the facts to senator mondales question. How could president feel that the law is being obeyed and that the president ial policies being adhered to . Doesnt that bring us full circle back to the constitution and the assurance that we can be sure of any human undertaking that the constitution is understood . That loyalty of the constitution is being given by every Public Servant . Mr. Huston yes, you can count on a assumption of all officers is that i think the problem that we have had is not just in this area, i think it is in many areas. Over the past 30 years, youve had an increase claim of an accretion of little steps to increase the claim of executive power. Pretty soon, after 30 years, you woke up one morning and here was this creature that no one had contemplated. Each of these steps were made honestly. Its my belief that these people in the Intelligence Community were honest, dedicated people, wanting to do an honest job for what they thought was great for the country. I dont think they were out to destroy the liberties of American People for any perverse political purpose. But what happened, in my judgment, where i got sucked in, and where i should have known better, and where other professionals got stuck in, is a whole concept of inherent executive power that really extends beyond anything contemplated by those who laid the incremental claims as we went through the years. I think that decision has been reached. In my judgment, perhaps we are swinging too much the other way. I think that is healthy and that kate scott, associatek. Historian of the senate, you have been watching Tom Charles Huston at the end of his testimony for the portion that we are showing. What is your reaction to that . It is a term effect example of this terrific example of this ongoing debate where the constitution was originally created. This needs to carefully balance powers within the federal government. And houston, i think, is really getting to the kernel of the matter here which is that congress is into investigating is investigating these abuses in 1975 in part because they had it provided oversight over the Intelligence Community for 20 years. And tom huston is showing that the executive branch had chelated vast powers over the period that we called the cold war. And now congress is ready to reassert its authority. And he is saying there is a tug of power, the executive branch has a lot of power and now congress once more oversight over the issue. What we are really trying to understand is what we are trying , to get to, what are the constitutional principles involved . Had we protect constitutional liberties Civil Liberties . , Constitutional Rights . And still in sure some kind of National Security . And i like how he summarizes that and senator with i. S. Of maryland does such a nice job senator matthia of maryland does such a nice job to say they have not been involved and they need to provide oversight but they need to do it in a careful and conscious manner. If you compare the Church Investigation with the parallel investigation that was happening time, house at the same you see that the senate is much about how it handles its materials, its sources is classified materials. The whole system in place to manage classified materials. The house doesnt manage the capital investigation in the same way careful investigation in the same way and brings a lot of criticism in the congressional oversight process. So i just love this particular exchange here with tom huston because he is really getting to the meat of the matter, which is, yes, we have constitutional principles. We need to protect them, we need to ensure that we are providing intelligence in a lawful matter, but we also need Congress Help to do that. He also goes to say congress should not go too far in exercising good oversight. This hearing with tom huston took place in this room in 1975 where you are sitting. Put a hearing like this happen now or Committee Like this exist now, or have hearings changed since then . Ms. Scott hearings have changed a great deal in part because of the internet revolution and Digital Technologies allow Senate Hearings to be broadcast live. Most say hearings are broadcast live in the Committee Hearing rooms. So it has taken some of the specialness out of the process. In 1975, when the senate of the Church Committee was televised nationally, broadcast live, and sections were rerun for the evening news, that was still a relatively new and novel process. This was the era before cable television. We had the big three, abc, nbc, and cbs, and if it didnt air on the evening news, most americans didnt watch it. That is not true today. Now we have the cspan broadcasts of the senate and house proceedings live and we have the live broadcast of most senate Committee Hearings. I think today if you tried to organize a Committee Hearing like this one, a Committee Investigation like this one, you you may not be the members sitting here behind the dais may not be speaking to a packed audience, because the journalists would be able to watch from the comfort of their own desks or sitting in their in front of their laptops watching the live broadcast. ,and that takes some of the specialness out of the broadcast. It is hard to get a large audience for Committee Hearings these days. Your enthusiastic about the Church Committee hearings, but why should a general audience or why should general Americans Care what happened in this room 40 years ago . Ms. Scott i think it is important because it reminds us of the issues we face today, the challenges we face in balancing the need to protect Civil Liberties and the need to protect Information Security is an ongoing debate. It is certainly not one that we have been having for short time, it has been happening for a long time. I think the crisis of the 1970s era and the senates response with the statutory warrants and suggestsy reforms there is a way to address immediate problems in a way that makes people feel more comfortable and confident in the process and in the system going forward. I think history is best when it reminds us that the Current Issues that we are grappling with today are in some ways not new. We need to look back on these , ok,ds in our past and say we have faced these problems before. We have seen these crises in the past. However we going to respond to them it is mindful of the progress we made then and also the limitations of that investigation 40 years ago . Kate scott, thank you very much. Ms. Scott thanks. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] year, cspan is touring cities across the country. Next a look at the visit to San Bernardino, california. You are watching American History tv all weekend every weekend on cspan3. [sirens] four swat officers arriving on the scene. All those officers are going to be deployed inside and around the buildings. Pete aguilar i was just walking off the floor of the house of representatives. I had just walked off. Oddly enough, we had just taken a vote, and the majority had blocked democrats advancing the idea that those who were on the terror watchlist should not be allowed to carry firearms. Purchaselowed to firearms, so it was a procedural vote we had voted on, and i walked off the floor, and my phone started buzzing from colleagues and members of congress as well as people i hear back home. I respect to the office, turned the tv on, and saw very familiar sight just up the road from where we are today. This Regional Center is less than a mile away, and i know with the facility was. I reached out to local leaders including the police chief who confirmed what was going on. And then i took the first flight back here home. So i was on the first flight back and was able to join the press conference in the evening. And received updates from Law Enforcement officials throughout the preceding days. I think the aftermath is a resilient community. Pushed downave been in the past and continue to get back up. Thats what we saw in the wake of this tragedy. Was people coming together and saying we arent going to be , divided as a community. We are going to continue to work with each other. We wont be afraid of coming together, of working together. Across the ethnicities, across the region, we were able to do that. Attending many interfaith gatherings, bringing people together. Those are the things i remember after december 2 that were so important to the healing process. I think it brought us together. I think it has also made us more aware of our surroundings. It has made it very real. When we talk about terrorism, when we talk about the fight against terror, it is not something that is in the abstract anymore. That across this country means something. This is not a big city here in San Bernardino that was attacked. This could happen anywhere. That is what i heard from my colleagues too in congress. Folks on the both sides of the aisle. Saying that if they could happen in San Bernardino, it could happen anywhere. I think that this that the support for my colleagues has been incredible in offering support, in offering up prayers and thoughts to our community as we heal. We requested that the federal government a for the increase response. The manpower and the overtime devoted assisting in this event, i hope that 100 of the costs in the aftermath could be picked up by the federal government. It would be in the millions somewhere. In the maybe 4 million to 10 million range that was expended, with increased shifts picked up in overtime. The transporting of victims by helicopter and by ambulance to local facilities. Those are the things i think the federal government should help assist in pay for and has president s in doing, and i hope that San Bernardino receives a fair share as well. I was a big supporter, someone who talked very often about the role that gun violence plays in our communities before the tragedy. But this was personal for me. My brother was a probation officer who responded to the incident. He was stationed a couple of miles from where we are, helping to protect the employees from the Regional Center. They were transported to safety. So it became very real for me. But also in the context of what we are fighting for here in protecting our country against terrorism and also making sure that illegal guns have no place in our community. That we do simple things that , that protect the community. Universal background checks. Limit the assault weapons that are in our communities. Those are things that we can do. It is incumbent upon us to do something. If it will provide increased safety in our community. There is not one law or bill that i could have authored or passed that would have protected this community, but its important for all of us to play a role and make sure our communities are safe in the future. Announcer our cities tour staff recently traveled to San Bernardino, california to learn about its rich history. Learn more about San Bernardino and other stops on the tour at cspan. Org citiestour. You are watching American History tv all weekend, every weekend on cspan3. Tv onAmerican History cspan3 has never been a full accounting of f ei domestic operations. Therefore we have taken such an investigation. Announcer the 1975 church come being to to investigate the cia, fbi, ira, and nsa. Tonight at 10 00 eastern. They quit his they question Committee Staffers and detail fbi abuses including intimidation of Martin Luther king jr. There is only one thing left for you to do. You know what it is. You have 34 days in which to do it. That execs number has been service eric has been selected for a specific region. You are done. Announcer and then associate fbi director james adams admits to the excesses while defending a number of f ei practices. And that at 8 00 on lectures in history they seeh or two, hundreds. And for them to see patterns or shifts in how people are going out of the world. So they are the ones who found the alarm. University of georgia professor steven barry on the role of the corridor and how they shed light on the emerging patterns of death in society and response to public health. Kerry, who 30, john served in the vietnam war and became a vocal opponent of the war. He shares his views on vietnam at the lyndon b. Johnson president ial library in austin, texas. John kerry they did not receive the belt go home or the benefits and that treatment that they needed. Welcome home or the benefits that they needed. They were not honored. And then on the presidency. And for the person at home that watched reagan deliver the speech, it was dwight eisenhower. He called his former attorney general and said, what a fine speech Ronald Reagan had just delivered. He then called a former special assistant and said, what an excellent speech Ronald Reagan had delivered. Dwight eisenhower wrote that a multistep political pan plan for reagan to follow. He would end up following his advice to the letter. Announcer the author examines eisenhowers behind the scenes mentoring of Ronald Reagan and the formal and the pivotal role the former president played. For the complete American History tv schedule, go to cspan. Org. Each week until the 2016 election road to the white , house rewind brings you archival coverage of president ial races. Up next is the 1968 president ial Campaign Film of george wallace, the former alabama governor and democrat best known for staunch support of racial segregation. He chose to run for president under the banner of the newly formed american independence party, and this film chronicles his push to get on the california ballot. Eventually, governor wallace succeeded getting on the ballot in all 50 states. He came in third in the general election, receiving 13. 5 of the vote and winning five states. Republican Richard Nixon won the presidency that year in a tight race over democrat hubert humphrey. This half hour film is courtesy over the Alabama Department of archives and histo