Investigation since over the years. This week, its the work of a Committee Led by idaho democratic senator frank church. In the mid 1970s, which uncovered information about covert government programs. Our guest is kate scott u. S. Senate historian kate scott the Senate Select committee to study governmental operations with respect to intel agents activities, a. K. A. The Church Committee. Why frank church . Why. 1975 1975 . Because in december of 14, the New York Times published a front page above the fold blockbuster article authored by Pulitzer Prize winning journalist seymour hersh. And that article alleged that the cia had operated a domestic intel agents Collection Program nationwide, wide, in clear violation of its 1947 charter. Frank church was chosen to lead this investigate mission because he wanted the job. He lobbied senator Mike Mansfield, who was the democratic majority leader in 1975. He lobbied Mike Mansfield for the position. He saw it as a continuation of some of the earlier work that he had been doing on some special investigatory committees. And importantly, he had been an 18 year at that point member of the Senate Foreign relations committee. He had been one of the first public voices of dissent in the United States senate about us vietnam war policy. And he was someone who really wanted to take on these issues. The issues related to national intel, the National Intelligence commune ity and the ways in which it may have the ways in which it may have violated americans constitutional liberties. What was uncovered by these hearings . Well, the hearings uncovered a few important things. They were meant in some ways to be a second watergate investigation. In that the Watergate Committee had revealed that National Intelligence agencies, specifically the cia and the fbi, had been used by the Nixon Administration for political purposes. And so church was interested in investigating those prior allegations in addition to now digging into these questions of, well, what was the Intelligence Community really doing . What the committee confronted was a kind of black box because congress had never provided effective and ongoing oversight of the National Intelligence agencies, especially the cia. But even some agencies, the nsa, for example, the National Security agency, most members of congress didnt even know that that agency existed in 1975. And so the purpose of the public portion of the Church Committee hearings was to educate the American Public and members of congress about what these intelligence agencies were doing in the name of National Security and in the name of american citizens. Now, kate scott, you mentioned that this was, in a sense, a second series of watergate hearings. Were americans, as enthralled with the Church Committee hearings as they were watergate the year before . I think much, much too, senator, churches chagrin. They were not as interested as they had been in the Watergate Committees the year and a half before. And i think there are a couple reasons for that. One is that americans were a little fatigued. The watergate hearings had consumed a lot of National Political energy and i think that americans in some of some americans, anyway, were ready to move on. Now, thats not to say that there wasnt a great deal of interest. The senate Watergate Committee, like other committees that held televised hearings in the era, received plenty of attention, and their public hearings were were televised. And people watch them. And the there were thousands of people, tens of thousands of people who wrote letters to the committee expressing their support for the investigation or telling them what they were doing wrong. Americans are never afraid to express their opinions to their lawmakers. So that kind of the committee did garner that kind of attention. But if you just look at Something Like the access to seating in these hearings, for example, in the watergate case, every single day of senate Watergate Committee hearings, every single seat in that in that large caucus room was packed. And there were people lined up out the doors to get seats when those seats were vacated by someone that just didnt happen in the in the in the case of the Church Committee investigation, for example, the first investigation that was held as a public hearing in september of 1975. There were plenty of empty seats in that same caucus room. So it just gives you an indication that there was less public interest. Well, recently, james risen of the New York Times wrote a book about frank church. It was called the last honest man. Heres a little bit of mr. Risen. Frank church was a man who i think is really out of out of his time. At that time, he was it was a classic american liberal who became radicalized throughout his career. And its very rare in american politics to see someone who is transform armed throughout their career and changes drastically. And and is willing to evolve as a politician. And that, to me, was fascinating thing to to understand and to write about. And i think it led ultimately to for a unique young man from the Mountain West to go from a small conservative town in idaho to lead the first Major Investigation of the cia in the mid 1970s is an amazing transformation. If you think about it. And thats what we tried to document, was how he how he got to where he ended up. He started out in boise. He was born in boise in 1924. And was always considered the smartest kid in class. And. Became one of the it became probably the class pet, if you will. All the kids sort of resented the fact that the teachers all loved him, but then they also realized he was smarter than them. And so they there wasnt much they could they had to kind of respect his intelligence when he was in middle school, he got a letter to the editor in the boise newspaper, published on the front page because he wanted to defend senator William Borah of idaho, who was being criticized for his isolationism. And then a couple of years later, he won the National Oratory contest of the American Legion by presenting a speech that was radically different from the letter to the editor. He had just written a couple of years earlier, and his speech was a essentially like the four freedoms speech of Franklin Roosevelt defending american democracy and the need for regulation of american capitalism and to fight against fascism in the world. And it was a remarkable transformation in just a couple of years. And then he he that the win in that competition got him a scholarship that he was used to go to stanford and leave boise, but then with world war two, he ended up in the army as an Army Intelligence officer in china. Hes one of the youngest officers in america in the army at the time. And became the briefer for the commanding general in china by 1945. And the he had such a precise, nice way of speaking at such a young age. He was only 21. He was a Army Intelligence officer in china that his commanding general of the chinese combat command for the u. S. Army would have him put him basically on display and have him talk at dinner parties of american officers. And because any said that you have the best diction in the army and people he began to resent it. He felt like he was just a plaything of this general. And thats one of the early signs of his radicalization, is that he resented and turned against being, you know, part of this hierarchy that he felt was supporting a corrupt part Chinese Nationalist regime of Chiang Kai Shek and he turned against the American Military power very early on. He saw he wrote letters back home that are at the Frank Church Papers in boise, where he talked. He was he was felt revolted by the american atomic bombing of japan. Even though everyone else in the army in china was elated by it. And he came back to the u. S. He turned down an opportunity to stay in intelligence after the war, which might have led him to join the cia if he had stayed in and he ended up going back to boise. And after he had suffered cancer, he went to law school and ran for senate. When he was only 32 and got elected and when he was first elected, he was a he was a very he was a very traditional, conventional, uh, cold warrior. A democratic cold warrior of the 1950s. And it really wasnt until vietnam that he was radically ized and were rejoined by us Senate Historian kate scott kate scott. Would you describe frank church as politically ambitious . Yes, i would. Yes i would. And there was some trepidation, frankly, about choosing frank church to lead this sensitive investigation. But the trepidation came from mainly people within the Democratic Party who were concerned that frank church harbored president ial ambitions, that he might use his position as the chairman of this committee to gain National Spotlight and therefore to sort of get a foothold in this in this in a in a in a president ial campaign. In fact, Mike Mansfield, who selected frank church for this position, really had some of those very same concerns. And he expressed them to frank church at the time. Now theres some debate about whether or not frank church told Mike Mansfield that he would not run for president if he was chosen to run this committee. But in the end, he did decide to run for president. He declared his candidacy in the spring of 1976 as the committee, as the committees work was winding down and that his president ial ambitions were always one of the thorns in the side of the committee. Well, lets look at the committee. Its a 6 to 5 committee. Democrats were still in control of the senate. And some of the other democratic members, phil hart, michigan, walter mondale, minnesota. Walter huddleston, kentucky. Robert morgan of north carolina. And gary hart of colorado. Couple of democrats there who did run for president. In fact, one became Vice President. Thats right. Thats right. And walter mondale, contribue portions to this Church Committee investigate and i think are unfortunately often overlooked. It was he made extraordinary contributions to the committee. He really led the fbi, the section of the committee that explored fbi abuses. And he was intensely involved and engaged in that investigatory endeavor. In fact, i think that a lot of his work on the committee helped to raise it, helped to lead him to that Vice President ial nomination in 1976, because he really came out as a proponent for legislative reform to protect america and citizens from being violated, but from having their Constitutional Rights violated in the future by intelligence overreach, the republicans, john tower of texas was the vice chair of the committee. Howard baker, tennessee. Barry goldwater, arizona. Charles mac, mathias maryland and Richard Schweiker of pennsylvania. All very well known as well. Yes, absolutely. John tower was a really important figure in this investigation, not only because he was vice chairman, of course, but also because he was placed on the committee by Republican Senate leader hugh stt and told that he should try to rein in some of the investigation, that he should be there to protect the National Intelligence community. But john tower did work very cooperatively with church. Over time, they became a surprisingly cooperative duo, even though they had decidedly different people. They came from different parts of the political spectrum and they worked really quite well together. John tower even later wrote in his memoir that he realized that over the course of the investigation that change needed happen and that congress did need to exercise better oversight over this National Intelligence apparatus. A couple of the other members there, i mean, Barry Goldwater being on the committee was important. He was largely protective of the National Intelligence community, but also he was a Civil Liberties alien. So he was concerned about the ways in which these agencies may be violating americas Civil Liberties. Howard baker, with his experience on the Watergate Committee, he was happy to join the Church Committees investigation because he did see the connections between watergate and some of the issues that werent completely resolved over the course of that investigation and some of the things that the committee would tackle during the course of the Church Committee investigation, then cia director William Colby testified in front of the Church Committee kate scott did a little background about his testimony. Yeah, William Colbys such an interesting figure in the sense of how he relates to the committee. Hes the hes the chief of the cia at the time. And the Church Committee owes him a couple of favors, frankly, during one of their first closed door sessions, they held a number of hearings initially in executive session or closed door session. And during one of the hearings with William Colby as their witness, the chief, the committees chief counsel, really says that colby kept referring when asked questions. Colby kept referring to this thick sheaf of papers in front of him on the table, and eventually the chief counsel asked, well, what is it that you keep referring to . Whats on the table there . And William Colby described to him that he had a report that had been compiled under the direction of one of colbys predecessors at the cia. And the report was basically a compendium of all of the cia transgressions going all the way back to the administration of president Dwight Eisenhower and the chief counsel asked for a copy of that report. The report is known as the family jewels and the committee staff. The investigate matters on the Church Committee. Use this. They use the family jewels as a roadmap to further explore national the National Intelligence community and its programs. Well, heres a little bit of then cia director William Colbys testimony from september of 1975. Cia is retention of an amount of shellfish toxin and cia is used in investigation of various chemicals and drugs. The relationship between the cia and the Army Biological Laboratory at fort detrick as an activity requiring further investigations surfaced in late april of this year. It resulted from information provided by a cia cia officer not directly associated with the project. In response to my repeated directive that all past activities, which might now be considered questionable, they brought to the attention of Agency Management information provided by him and by two other officers aware of the project indicated that the project at fort dietrich involved the development of bacteriological warfare agents, some lethal and associated Delivery Systems suitable for clandestine use. A search was made for any records or other Information Available on the project. This search produced information about the basic agreement between the army and the cia relating to the project and some limited records covering its activities from its beginning in 1952 to a determination in 1970. In the course of the investigation from cias Laboratory Storage facility for research and about 11 grams a little less than half an ounce of shellfish toxin and eight milligrams of cobra venom were discovered. And a little used vaulted storeroom in an agency building, a major early requirement of the agency was to find a replacement for the standard cyanide pill issued to agents in hazardous situations. During world war two. This was the basis on which eventually we discovered the target shellfish toxin. The only application of this toxin was in the u2 flight over the ussr in may 1960, during which gary powers carried such