Beverly so, we will go ahead and get started since the moment has arrived. Others may trickle in from lunch, but thank you and welcome here to this panel on the Church Committee at 40. My name is beverly gage. I am a history professor at yale. And i will be up here mostly timekeeping and asking some questions. Before i introduce the panelists, i just wanted to say a few words about the genesis of this panel, the idea behind it and some of the issues i hope we are going to be able to address. So this year, 2015, marks the 40th anniversary of one of the most important congressional committees certainly of the 1970s. And i think arguably of the latter half of the 20th century and that was the Church Committee. The Church Committee which was chaired by Senator Frank Church began its work in the spring of 1975. And for the 16 months between the spring of 1975 and when they delivered 14 volumes of reports in 1976, the Church Committee held hearings, performed investigations, dug into Background Materials on the american Intelligence Services. And this was really the first mass scale investigation of what had been going on in american intelligence practices in the past 30 years, but arguably, back even further than that. The Church Committee held hearings investigating the fbi f. B. I. And the c. I. A. In particular, but also the n. S. A. Military intelligence, and some , of the smaller agencies that were involved in intelligence activities as well. So, our job up here is to think a little bit about what some of the causes and consequences of the Church Committee hearings were. To think a little bit about their relationship, to the politics of the 1970s, particularly to watergate, to what is described as the investigative impulse of the 1970s, to some of the power struggles between the, between congress and the executive branch in the 1970s. So where did the Church Committee come from . Why did it come about at that particular moment it did . As i said, it really was the first largescale investigation of what it was that american intelligence agencies had been doing in the latter half of the 20th century at that point. We want to talk more about what some of the causes of the Church Committee were. We want to talk about what some of the consequences of the Church Committee were for the intelligence establishment, for politics in washington. Many reforms came out of the Church Committee hearings. Some of which made a great deal of difference. Others of which did not make much of a difference at all. And there were some dashed hopes about the significance of the changes that will come out of the committee as well. We will talk a bit about the policy consequences. And i think also the consequences for the images of american intelligence citizens relationship to the intelligence agencies in the wake of what was discovered by the Church Committee. And i should note the Pike Committee. There was a similar investigation going on in the house. It was somewhat less wellknown. Its reports were suppressed and then finally released in the sort of leftwing press in the late 1970s, but maybe we want to talk of bit about the Pike Committee as well. Two other issues im hoping we can get into have a little bit to do with the present day the and the practice of history. We have questions about the causes of the Church Committee. Why did this happen when it happened . Some of its consequences for american politics. But i think there are also a lot of evolving questions about the records that are available are or not available from the Church Committee. Many of the executive sessions of the Church Committee and many of the materials are still not accessible to historianss. I think kate scott will talk more about where we are in the process. What new history might we yet learn from the Church Committee . I think we also want to talk about how it might link up with the present day. There are a lot of calls of the moment in the wake of Edward Snowdens exposes of the National Security agency for a new Church Committee. Do we want a new Church Committee . What would it mean . Is that a desirable outcome . What would we learn . Or is it not a desirable outcome in our present moment . So, hopefully, we will get to all of this. I also want to say a few things about the composition of the panel as i introduce our panelists. I was a member of the oah Program Committee and was charged with organizing some panels related to the kind of work i do in political and intelligence history. Im currently writing a biography of j. Edgar hoover. So, if you notice there is a kind of f. B. I. Centric lineup, that is entirely my doing because these are the people that i wanted to hear from. But the Church Committee got a locked into the c. I. A. Too. , maybe well talk a bit about that. Maybe we will not. But in putting the panel together, i had a couple of priorities beyond my own interest in hearing from this particular group. One, i wanted to talk to historians who were working within the federal government and outside of the federal government. And i also wanted to try to get a couple of generations together on the panel to talk about how our memories and experiences of the Church Committee have in fact changed over time. Im grateful to the panelists for agreeing to do this. They are going to speak in the order in which they are seated. I will introduce them all individually in a moment. They are going to speak relatively briefly, give formal remarks about 10 minutes each. And then, since this is a roundtable, we will hopefully have a bunch of time left over for interchange. I should note the session is the being taped by cspan. Everything that is said is being recorded appropriately enough for the panel. It will be disseminated to the world. There will be a historical record of what is said here. As you ask questions that means two things one, know that. And two, we are going to ask when we get to the q a that you go up to the microphone so that the recording equipment in back can capture what you have to say. So now to introduce our panelists, we will move quickly through the lineup. They said they are going to speak in the order in which they are seated. Laura is a professor of history at the university of california. She specializes in legal history. And i was hoping that she would participate in this panel because of her most recent book right star rising. There is a lot of work being done on the 1970s right now. But her book is one of the best books in attempting to really integrate what is happening in the postwatergate moment into a larger narrative of american politics in that very transitional period. So, we are hoping she will be able to provide some political context for the Church Committee. Next we have ethen harris who for anyone who studies the history of the f. B. I. Is a very wellknown man. He is the dean of f. B. I. Studies in our country. And anybody who studies the f. B. I. Owes him a massive debt of gratitude. Myself included. Ethan has not only written dozens of books about the f. B. I. And its history but has been really instrumental in acquiring huge volumes of f. B. I. Files, and patiently, patiently awaiting freedom of information act requests to be fulfilled. In those records, happily for all of us, are now available at marquette university. It is just a wonderful repository. And a great contribution to American History. Kate scott, or Catherine Scott is here. She is an assistant historian in the Senate Historical office. And is one of our great experts on congressional committees and how they operated. So she is going to be talking some about the senate and what the Church Committee meant within the senate and its operations related to a series of other committees that were investigating a variety of other things in the 1970s, including the presidency. She will talk about new work being done on the Church Committee from within the Senate Historical office. She is the author of reining in the state. And finally, we have john foxx , who is the historian of the f. B. I. , who works at the f. B. I. , and has written a great deal on the f. B. I. s history. Anything you read on the f. B. I. Website has been written by john foxx or supervised by john foxx if you are reading about the history of the f. B. I. Hes also written a number of terrific articles about the history of the f. B. I. The , internal policy, and can give us some of the f. B. I. s own perspective on what the Church Committee means 40 years out. So, with that we will start with the professor. And hopefully will hear from all of you soon, too. Laura ill focus on two questions. What was the relationship between watergate and the Church Committee, and whose interests did the Church Committee serve . Recall that what sparked the Church Committee was hirschs christmas 1974 New York Times story that during the nixon years, the c. I. A. Created a massive, illegal Domestic Intelligence operation against the antiwar left, which some linked to the houston plan of watergate fame. Additionally, hirsch said, a check of the c. I. A. s domestic files ordered by former director James Schlesinger showed dozens of others illegal activities inside the United States dating back to the 1950s. Thus, the hirsch revelations went far beyond watergate. And on the one hand, you can argue that watergate made establishment of the Church Committee less likely. As Catherine Olmsted stresses many reporters in december 1974 who were still reeling from their role in bringing down nixon ran away from hirschs story. They worried about altogether eradicating trust in government. And igniting a backlash against the media. Many disliked hirsch. And remained gripped by the old National Security mistake that traditionally led the press and congress to shield the c. I. A. Consequently, hirschs resolved to carry the watergate mentality into the postwatergate era discomfited other reporters. And after the watergate trauma americans were burned out on politics. Indeed, in many ways, it is unsettling how little contemporary public anger the Church Committee provokes. On the other hand, watergate made the establishment of the Church Committee more likely by leading first two congressional two congressional reassertion. Had the story appeared before 1974, the senate would have tasked john stennis with investigating it, not a special committee. Second, watergate promoted investigative reporting and fanned journalistic rivalries. Many reporters may have hesitated to take on the secret government, but hirsch show that showed that just one could do a lot of damage. And he received loads of encouragement from Abe Rosenthal in part because of rosenthals annoyance that the Washington Post had scooped the times on watergate. Rosenthal said, hirsch is like a puppy that is not house broken. But as long as he is pissing on post editor ben bradleys carpet, let him go ahead. The post went after the f. B. I. To catch up and revealed that j. Edgar hoover kept files on everyone. So now it was not just the c. I. A. That needed investigation but also the f. B. I. Third, watergate led nixon to get rid of the c. I. A. Director. A very effective keeper of agency secrets. When helms resisted nixons efforts to involve c. I. A. In the coverup, nixon got his revenge on the agency by replacing helms with James Schlesinger. He and his second command ordered c. I. A. Insiders to disclose their activities in violation of the c. I. A. s legislative charter. That led to the amassing of what the agency referred to as the skeletons and the media called the family jewels, that 693 page documentation of c. I. A. Misdeeds that hirsch began exposing. When nixon replaced schlesinger with colby, he turned over control to someone who helms and others believed was all too willing to sing about the skeletons to reporters, the Church Committee, and president ford. Had there been no watergate, helms would likely have stayed on at the c. I. A. , stonewalled and the agencys skeletons mightve stayed in the closet. Fourth, watergate led to the ford presidency. When the hirsch allegations broke, ford listens to dick cheney who advised him to try heading off a congressional inquiry by naming a blueribbon National Security establishment Investigative Committee headed by Vice President nelson rockefeller. Ford justified the Rockefeller Commission to New York Times editors by stressing the need to appoint responsible people and restrict the scope of the investigation. The skeletons, he said, included evidence of c. I. A. Assassination plots against foreign leaders and their disclosure would blacken the name of every president back to harry truman. Was ford blurting out what lawyers call an excited utterance . Or was he engaged in a calculated move to blacken the name of democrats along with republicans . Whatever his motivation, it was a monumental leak. Gripped by the National Security mystique that helped explain the medias cool reaction to the hirsch story, the times did not print it. But predictably the news ford worried about exposure of assassination plots was passed to daniel short who predictably broadcasted it on tv. So now it was not just the c. I. A. Illegal actions inside the United States and the fbi f. B. I. That cried out for investigation. But c. I. A. Assassination plots too. Now the media had to chase the story. And of course the senate and house decided they had to investigate the Intelligence Community. The house investigation, the Pike Committee selfdestructiveed. But i think we owe a lot to the Senate Committee headed by frank church, a liberal democrat. With his eye on the president ial nomination. Yes, church show boated and famously speculated the c. I. A. Had behaved like a rogue elephant rampaging out of control. Perhaps, too, he shouldve stood up more to the white house, the Intelligence Committee community , and its senate defenders. But especially given the amnesia that affected so many summoned before the Church Committee as johnson observes in his wonderful history and memoir of the Church Committee. Everyone save colby. Churchs committee brought many c. I. A. , f. B. I. , and n. S. A. Abuses to light. I am not so sure, though, that the Church Committee resulted in significantly improved oversight of the Intelligence Community. Yes, it caused creation of the senate and house Intelligence Committees. But we need only look to the 1980s to see William Casey misleading them about nicaraguan harbors and beyond leading to the executive order prohibiting the c. I. A. From political assassination, the series had hearings did not change c. I. A. Operations or undercut the assumption that information about enemies must sometimes be acquired illegally. If anything, arguably the Church Committee became a convenient whipping boy. Intelligence Community Defenders blamed everything from the 1975 murder of the c. I. A. s Richard Welch on the Church Committee to 9 11 on the Church Committees emasculation of intelligence agencies. Colbys c. I. A. Successor bush i, complained in 2005 that in 1975, congress disastersly unleashed a bunch of untutored little jerks against the c. I. A. He ignored the limited and temporary impact of the jerks. The eagerness to clip the c. I. A. s wings had disappeared before the hearing ended. The f. B. I. Also had little to fear from congress. Sure, the Church Committee documented hoovers campaign of harassment against the left. But hoover d