Historians hosted this 90minute discussion at their annual meeting in st. Louis. We will go ahead and get started since the moment has arrived and others may trickle in after lunch. My name is beverly gage. Im a history professor at gail and i will be here mostly chairing and timekeeping and asking some questions, but 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 will be able to address. This year, 2015, marks the audience 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 was chaired by idaho Senator Frank Church and the committee began its work in the spring of 1975, and the Church Committee held hearings performed investigations, dug into Background Materials on the American Intelligence Services this was the first mass scale investigation of what has been going on and american intelligence practices in the past 30 years, but arguably back even further than that. The Church Committee held hearings investigating the fbi and cia in particular, but also other Intelligence Services such as the nsa, military intelligence, and some of the smaller agencies that were involved in intelligence activities as well. 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 often described as the investigative impulse of the 1970s, to some of the power struggles between congress and the executive branch, so where did the committee come from . Why did it come about at the particular moment that it did . As i said, it was really the first largescale investigation of what it was american intelligence agencies had been doing in the latter half of the 20th century at that point, so we wanted to talk 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 work for the intelligence establishment, for politics in washington. Many reforms came out of the Church Committee hearing, some of which made a great deal of difference, others of which did not make so much of a difference at all, and there were some hopes about the significance of the changes that were made that came out of the Church Committee as well there were some dashed hopes about the significance of the changes that came out of the Church Committee as well. I should note the Pike Committee, so there was a similar investigation going on in the house that is somewhat less wellknown during these years, and its reports were suppressed and finally released in the sort of left wing press in the late 1970s, but maybe we want to talk a little bit about the pike smitty as well. The Pike Committee as well. Two other issues im hoping we can get him to have a little bit to do with the present day 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 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. So it hink kate think kate scott will talk more about where we are in the process. What history might we yet learn from the Church Committee . We also want to talk about how it might linked 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 . Is that a desirable outcome . What would be learned . 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 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 fbi centric line up here, that is entirely my doing because these are the people that i wanted to hear from. But the Church Committee got a lot into the cia, 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 a properly enough for the panel. 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 only 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 speaking 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 professors 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 fbi is a very wellknown man. He is the dean of fbi studies in our country. And anybody who studies the fbi owes him a massive debt of gratitude. Myself included. Ethan has not only written dozens of books about the fbi and its history but has been really instrumental in acquiring huge volumes of fbi files, and patiently, patiently awaiting freedom of information act request to be fulfilled. And those records 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 hole for id of other things in the 1970s, including the presidency investigating a whole variety of other things in the 1970s. She will talk about new work being done on the Church Committee from within the Senate Historical office to she is the author of reining in the state. And finally, we have john foxx who is the historian of the fbi. Who works at the fbi and has written a great deal on the fbis history. Anything you read on the fbi website has been written by john foxx or supervised by john foxx of your reading about the history of the fbi. Hes also written a number of terrific articles about the history of the fbi, the internal policy, and can give us some of the fbis own perspective on what the Church Committee means 40 years out. So, with that we will start with professor calman. 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 was sparked the Church Committee was hirschs christmas 1974 New York Times story that during the nixon years the cia 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 cias files ordered by James Schlesinger showed dozens of others illegal activities inside the United States dating back to the 1950s. 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 homestead 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 grouped by the old National Security mistake that traditionally led the press and congress to shield the cia. 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 reassertion. Has 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 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. Hirsch is like a puppy that is not house broken. But as long as he is pissing on bill bradleys carpet, let him go ahead. The post went after the fbi and revealed that J Edgar Hoover kept files on everyone. So now it was not just the cia that needed investigation but also the fbi. Third, watergate led nixon to get rid of the cia director. A very effective keeper of agency secrets. When helms resisted nixons efforts to involve cia and the coverup, nixon got his revenge on the agency by replacing helms with James Schlesinger. And his second command ordered cia insiders to disclose their activities in violation of the cias 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 cia this deeds that hirsch began exposing. What nixon replaced schlesinger with colby he turned over control to someone who helms 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 have stayed on at the cia 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 cia 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 printed. 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 cia in actions inside the United States and the fbi that cried out for investigation. But cia 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 selfdestructive. But i think we owe a lot to the Senate Committee headed by frank church, a liberal democrat. With his eye and the president ial nomination. Yes church showboating by posing with a dart gun. He got bogged down and assassinations and he seemed to absolve president s when he speculated the cia 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 observed in his wonderful history and memoir of the Church Committee. Everyone safe colby. Churchs committee brought many cia, fbi, and nsa abuses to light. I am not so sure, though, that the Church Committee resulted in significantly improved oversight of the Intelligence Community. Yes, it cost creation of the senate and house Intelligence Committees. But we need only look to the 1980s to see what mike conley did about the agencys mining of nicaraguan harbors. Beyond leading to the executive order prohibiting the cia from political assassination, the series had not changed cia operations or undercut the assumption that information about enemies must sometimes be acquired illegally. If anything, arguably the Church Committee became whipping boy. Defenders blamed everything from the 1975 murder of the cia Richard Welch on the Church Committee to 9 11 on the Church Committees emasculation of intelligence agencies. Colbys successor bush i complained in 2005 that in 1975, congress disastersly unleashed a bunch of untutored jerks against the cia. He ate the limited and temporary impact of the jer he ignored the temporary impact of the jerks. The fbi also had little to fear from congress. Sure, the Church Committee documented hoovers campaign of harassment against the left. But hoover died in 1972. Since he had been the bureaus director for 40 years, it was easy to believe that no one would ever again possesses power. So congress enacted no legislative charter for the fbi. The way was open for reagan to unleash it along with the cia. The nsa also emerged from the year of intelligence unscathed. Though the Church Committee revealed that it monitor thousands of peoples and organizations, phone calls and telegrams. The hearings did lead to passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which required the nsa to obtain warrants from a new foreign Intelligence Surveillance court