Good evening and welcome to the National Press club the place where news happens im Eileen O Reilly the 2023 president of the National Press club and managing editor of standards and training and axios thank you for joining us both here at the National Press club and on cspan for our headliner book event. I wanted to take a quick moment to thank our wonderful staff and volunteers here at the National Press club for helping put this event together, including our headliners, team cochairs dan on line one, la jay and laurie russo and cecily martin, who is the clubs membership events and program coordinator. We have a very exciting tonight with our esteemed Panel Focused on a book just out called last honest man. The cia, the fbi, the mafia and the kennedys and senators fight to save democracy. So lets get started. Quote, if dictator ever took charge in this country, technological capacity that the Intelligence Community has given that government could enable it to impose total and there would be no way to fight back. That may sound like a statement from today, but it dates to 1975 from then senator. Frank church, a democrat from idaho. Church served in u. S. Senate from 1957 to 1980 and assembled a committee in 1975 to investigate abuses. The cia, the National Security, the fbi and the irs. Tonight, we are looking forward an exciting conversation with james risen, author of the last honest man and former senator gary hart, who served on the Church Committee. We also have with us former Church CommitteeStaff Members, peter fenn loch johnson, Frederick Baron and rick under firth. Im happy to say. We also have coauthor and National Club member tom risen. They were joining us and answering questions. These Congressional Staffers recently found themselves at the center news when they wrote an open letter to. Representative jim jordan, a republican from ohio. Jordan chairs the newly formed select subcommittee on the weaponization of the federal government. And these former Church Committee staffers urged jordan to change course, pursue a bipartisan inquiry which they felt had made the church successful and effective. Senator hart, who was the last surviving member of the Church Committee, also wrote an op ed in the New York Times calling jordans subcommittee a mockery. We are privileged to have both james risen and senator hart here to discuss some of the lessons from the Church Committee and how they are relevant today. Ryzens currently the intercept Senior National security correspondent. Prior to that was a reporter for the New York Times. He won the Pulitzer Prize in 2006 for stories about the National Security agencys domestic program. He was also part of a team that won a 2002 Pulitzer Prize for explanatory reporting for coverage of the september attacks and terrorism. Senator hart represented colorado in the senate from 1975 to 1987. A graduate yale law school. He returned to private practice after leaving the senate. He earned a doctor of philosophy from oxford in 2001. Hart also stayed active in government as chair of the u. S. State Departments International advisory council, chair of the u. S. Defense Departments Advisory Council and chair of the american security. Gentlemen, welcome to the National Press club. So i figured id start with senator and james risen for a couple questions and then broadening the topic out to the rest of the panel. But please feel free to pop in if you have any comments or suggest or, you know, quotes you want to give with a different question. And i would try to ask as many questions from the audience as possible. So just write them down a card and hand up to me. All right. So, jim, you spent decades doing investigate reporting and National Security issues, have written several of their books on the kgb. The cia and other topics. What prompted you to write about frank church specifically, and why now . Sure. Well, thanks again for having us. The reason i wrote tom and i wrote this book, the idea originally to me because i covered the cia, the New York Times for many years, especially. 911. And after 11, if you remember the Bush Administration started complaining very loudly and publicly, the 911 attacks had been made possible by the frank church and the Church Committee, which had existed 20 years before cheney, in particular, Vice President , constant. They complained that the problems in the Intelligence Community that had led to the intelligence failure of 911 had been caused by frank church by that time had been out of the senate for 20 years and dead for than 15. And so it was a weird, weird excuse, lets put it that way that they constantly made. And so i began to think at the time that i should learn more about the Church Committee. And as time went on and as republicans and the Bush Administration continued to make that refrain, saying that 911 was caused by frank church, i realized i should learn more about it. And then over the following years, when the iraq war went badly and bush and cheney lost popularity, a lot of americans began. Listen to what cheney had been saying, the Church Committee, and realized that that they had turned against cheney. Maybe they should have another Church Committee that. And so the idea of a new Church Committee became, something that people started talking about to investigate, the bush and cheney abuses of intelligence. And so that led me to begin to think about eventually a book about what the truth about the Church Committee. And then as i was writing about it and about publish the book, the the new Republican Party in the house started talking the need for and for a new Church Committee. And so its something i realized that has become part of the american political lexicon and the Church Committee is now a synonym for, a truth and reconciliation committee. And every time there is an a big scandal or a call for investigations everyone in washington now says we need a new Church Committee. And so i thought we needed a new history of what really happened with the Church Committee. Thats how some. Did you find any surprises . You were digging into this. Oh, yeah, lots of surprises. I mean, it was the thing that amazed the most is how much these guys investigated in one year, a span of just one year. You got remember going back into that time period and its its to watch so fascinating to me was getting back into the mindset of the 1970s to realize there were had never been any congressional of the intelligence prior to the Church Committee the cia had gone for 30 years with no supervision whatsoever and there were no rules in place no laws no rules really governed the cia or fbi, for that matter, or the nsa. And there was no public debate or public discussion of what the Intelligence Community do. And so everything the Church Committee did was brand new. And that is if you step back and you think you a committee and then you tell them you have to investigate 30 years of history, an agency, its pretty awesome. And i think they did a really Pretty Amazing job in one year. I agree. The book really details the work that you did put into it. Its amazing. And your book, as you just mentioned, the cia was around three decades old when they the committee was formed. How do you think it was able to amass so much power, operate without oversight for long . Well, thats a great question. It was something that maybe senator could talk about also. But i think there was a sense in the postworld world postwar era that americans didnt want to ask too many questions, especially after World War Two. And then the era hit in the early fifties, and there was a witch hunt for communists and for anyone was a dissident. And it was a i think in the fifties there was a sense that americans were taught to trust the government. And i think that all began to break down vietnam and the civil rights and then watergate. And i think watergate really opened the floodgates to questioning of the Intelligence Community and so that really think in a lot of ways, the Church Committee was a it seen at the time as kind of a sequel to whats with the watergate investigation, even though it ended up in a very different place. But it was it was a kind of a that was the beginning of a progressive and Reform Movement in the 1970s. And what do you think made senator church begin to question the inner workings of the American Government . Because you really did go through a transformation, didnt he . It was fascinating to learn about his background. Frank church was from idaho. He grew up in boise and in the 1920s and thirties he was know. And then when he got to the senate, when he was only 32, in 1956, he was really a very traditional liberal cold warrior. A lot like john kennedy, who he really looked up to. They were both in the senate at the same time, and he was typical 1950s democrat who believed in the the cold war fight against communism. But vietnam really radicalized him and he became one of the first opponents of the of the war in the senate. And it was largely because of his service in china in world two where he had seen how corrupt the regime ishan kaishek was that he saw in vietnam something very similar and he realized very quickly how corrupt the south vietnamese government was and that radical he eventually became radicalized by. The u. S. Involvement in the war and he he began see that United States was on the path of becoming militaristic empire. And he thought that the Intelligence Community was part of that. Senator hurt you knew senator church personally. Oh, sorry. Senator, you knew senator church personally. What was he like and what is your fondness memory of senator church. Well. We became very good friends out of that experience and a lot of democratic caucuses over the years. And when i became a National Candidate in the eighties he and nothing what i went out of the way to encourage me and me in their own way. And he was ailing at that. But if i may, id like to answer a question you have and ask him the first of many phone conversations that james risen i had. He called and said im going to write a book about the Church Committee. Are you willing to talk to me . And i said, of course, long overdue. Its almost 50 years now. And i said, why are you writing the book . He stunned me by saying, i think the Church Committee was the most important Congressional Committee in the history of the republic. Let me repeat. The author said, i think the Church Committee was the most important Congressional Committee in the history of this nation and simply said, based on and he said, because the Church Committee bill the bridge from 30 years of cold war and involvement the Intelligence Community in the cold war to the postcold war and certainly this cia, the fbi and others to to deal with a world beyond the socalled well, not socalled, but to communist threat that had been the central driving principle of almost all National Security in this country for three decades. So thats why this book is important, among other things and as a caution, im giving that you have us as a caution to anybody here whos going to review this book. Let me point out one thing that i think other early reviewers have missed and that is, i know at least one review where they said frank church the committee and then made himself chairman of it or like that. That is not what happened. You want to know how this happened . Turn to. Pages 162 to 167 in the ryzen book and you will find the author and the hero is my hero, mike mansfield. He had been trying for almost 25 years to bring oversight and accountability to this burgeoning intelligence network. And so the the rapper round of the committee about my friend, senator church friend, many of us here. Was the. We were all the product beginning in early 75 of senator mansfields efforts for almost a quarter of a century. Is that correct . Yeah. So its called the Church Committee because frank was chairman. There you are. But he didnt create the committee right. We a brief biography about mansfield in the book, too. Hes a really amazing guy. Yes. Yeah, thats true. Did you have any more thoughts about mansfield . Oh, man. Read the book is history. There have been entire books written about mansfield. Hes an amazing guy. So senator church grew into a left leaning progressive by the standards of that day. How does someone so to the left create a functioning Bipartisan Committee . You want me to answer . Sure. Yeah. Think, as senator hart just said, he didnt create it on his own. Right. And. Was a key. Was the Key Driving Force behind the the committee. And, in fact, is i talk about in the book, mansfield that first mansfield, who was the Senate Majority leader in 1975. And just step back one step. You got to remember that in the midterm elections of 1974, the democrats had a landslide victory. And so in 1975, the democrats had 60 seats in the senate and i think almost 284, 295 in the house. It was an overwhelming majorities. And so mansfield had the to much create this committee as whatever he wanted it but he decided to make it as bipartisan as and only gave the democrats one seat majority on the committee. And he picked a wide range of senators from, both parties. He wanted a balance because he thought this was so important that he didnt want it to be viewed as highly partizan and so he picked he originally wanted senator phil hart of michigan, to be the. Who and hart was known as the conscience of the senate. He was a liberal, but he was Close Friends with a lot of conservatives in the senate. But hart had just found out that he had cancer. And he he told privately told mansfield that he couldnt it because he had cancer. And but he recommended church because he knew church wanted it and he thought church be good at it and mansfield old church lobbied mansfield to some degree. They i can go. You want me to explain a little bit more about that . Because it was interesting. At the same time, the church wanted this job was also thinking about running for president and he had to kind of promise to mansfield that he wouldnt run president while he was Running Committee and. Mansfield and many others thought that meant that church would not run for president in 1976. But church interpreted what he had promised to mean that he would only not run until the committees work was done, which he thought mean he could still run in 76. As soon as committee finished its work. And that led that misinterpretation by both sides of what each other thought had been promised led to a lot of problems. Church over the throughout Church Committee and to the press criticism him. But i think one of the as i said they they tried it mansfield tried to balance all of the the membership of the committee. And i think senator hart told me a story about you got picked right after you were just been elected to the senate for the very first time. So then the first 30 days. Welcome you talk a little bit or member you told me about how mansfield came to you and. Well i hope a lot of people here knew mike mansfield. He was my hero and mentor and he was to an awful lot of other younger members of congress and senators. He he was also known as. Being sparse with words. So he walked up to me on the floor of the senate. I said, mr. Leader, he said, gary. Just form this committee with frank church is going to be chairman, want you on it, investigate cia, do a good job. He turned around and walked away. Id been there weeks. Let me answer another question. You have, which is you need a better question in a month or. Two. And jim, correct me if im wrong, i found employers that throughout this book, another reason why its so important and i think every person this room by now knows were in a tight Senate Struggle between demo