where one set of regulations apply to one group of companies and another set of regulations apply to another group even though they are competing, essentially, in the same space. so i think it's important for the agency not to pursue ideological ends, but rather to make sure that consumers are protected in a way that i think generally was wisely done by the ftc. have a baseline level of privacy protection based on the unfair practice authority and a level of less stringent protection for some of the proposals, some of the less sensitive information that consumers would share based on the ftc's deceptive practices authority. that would be my preference to the extent possible. >> guest: sure. well, lydia, you asked about the internet of things which is one of the more exciting developments in communications policy as the landscape before us will include an almost infinite amount of information that a make us more effective.

.. we also have to think about security, cybersecurity with all of that connectivity. finally making sure we don't exhaust i.p. addresses. i think all of those things play into the internet of things and will be really important going forward. >> guest: the fact of the matter, you've got two agencies primary in this space, with us being expert agency when it comes to telecommunications

platforms and the like and we have to recognize and i believe the way the world is evolving. once upon a time you know, you two are still wedded to paper and i am, i am surprised i don't have it in front of me and that's where our information was stored. now most of our information is not and so when you talk about these companies that have access to your personal information and seems like like every hour we're hearing about a data breach. it is important for us to keep this working relationship with the ftc and other agencies to insure that there is a seamless line or means of protection for consumers by all the agencies that have either influence or impact here. so we are the expert agency when it comes to communications agencies. there is section 222 that speaks

to that. we have an item that is being teed up that we will review and i guess from where i sit i look at i want simplicity and administrativability if i said that correctly. this is what we're looking at. this is vital, this is your very personal information that know you want protected and we want to protect it too and there should be no disconnect along that plane when it comes to your personal information and that is why i think this conversation is important for to us have. >> guest: your question got to the internet of things, my answer i want the commission to have very small role relates to that. we have an agency. congress hasn't changed our authority to give us greater role in internet of things. i want the ftc to do what it does bet. if they are not doing sufficient work that is for congress to do, not for me to judge.

commissioner rosenworcel and i have been working hard. but, beyond unlicensed spectrum and approval of certain devices depending on the circumstances i don't want the commission to have a heavy role. we have assigned ourself certain roles because of our interpretation certain things as my colleague highlighted in the net neutrality. we have statutory authority to do certain things on privacy. now amazing we're data security and cybersecurity, not mentioned in the statute at all. i have deep concerns where this commission is going in terms of exceeding what congress has asked of us. >> guest: when you have rules and regulations and laws they are snapshot in time. when you have regulatory authorities in this process i believe that we have interpreting things based on our current framework. you can not talk about a law that might be 20 or 30 years old

and expect for it to anticipate what all we see on a showroom floor. so what i always say is, again, a law or reg is snapshot in time and what we are cared to do is interpret that through today's and through this current lens. >> guest so privacy is a cherished principle. we understand that. it is evolving, let's be honest. the way we access information are changing. pew research center found nine of 10 of us think it is really important where our information goes. at same time the every consumer knows there is value proposition going online exchanging information for services. that must sound familiar to all of us. there is moment you pause or read in a blink all that fine print and check the box to get free shipping. maybe you all come through it for hours and try to figure out

the consequences but most of just check it because we're aware that we're willing to exchange some information for a free service. and i think, not just the fcc but our colleagues at ftc will have to wrestle with over time how privacy norms are changing and our behavior is changing and our expectations is changing. >> guest: i'm sorry. i talked about the most recent study how consumers are not engaging especially our seniors as much, getting full benefit of what the broadband and internet have to offer because they're fearful and we have to, as a part of this regulatory space, we need to be mindful, a part of encouraging innovation and connectivity, which is what we are doing. david: we have to think about the entire plane, the entire ecosystem. i know we overuse the word because it is so important here

because it just lends itself and reinforces the fact that it is not static and not siloed and we can not come through and posture ourself in a siloed way and expect americans consumers to be rightly served. >> i think commissioner rosenworcel framed the issue perfectly. >> guest: i will mark that down. >> guest: the question is what kind of regulatory frame work preserves consumer expectations. i entirely embrace the white house's 2012 and consistent set of protections for consumers. let me give you example how the fcc approach bonn off the rails in this regard. if you are at home on android smartphone and power on wi-fi network you're in one isp. in our on the highway over another cellular network, you

have another and you are at work you might be on a third and take a local break at starbucks you might be on forth. does it make sense to face a multiplicity of regulations depending who the isp is? we might not know who it is. fcc decides to stringent regulation, for more stringent an that the fcc has done due the dawn of commercial internet as isps anticompetitive in this space. that doesn't make sense to me or former fcc commissioner leibowitz and nor does it make a sense to a lot of people. the new competitors in the online advertising market who are trying to pose a competitive threat to incoming players. >> guest: let me build on that. i'm not going to agree with every last thing you said. sorry there is asymmetry there.

think about a mobile phone today. we have different privacy regulations that are going to apply to the hardware, the software, the wireless network associated with it, and the online applications you might access and candidly that is far too complicated for consumers. and you shouldn't have to be a network engineer to understand how your information is collected and you shouldn't have to be a lawyer to understand how your information is protected. and i think that across the board we should be thinking from the consumer perspective about how to be consistent on all of those marketplaces. because i think the frameworks that we have in place, which are from a long time ago, and we're wrestling with how to update them, they're too complex. >> guest: that was what was great about the federal trade commission's framework because it calibrated its rules to consumer preferences. for example, for more sensitive

information there should be opt-in agreement and for less sensitive information there should be opt-out requirement. that is way to calibrate goals. >> guest: candor here there are questions about opt in and opt out and our rule making. that is something we'll talk about going forward. >> guest: we'll talk about. clear from fcc leadership write something on the well. anybody who thinks this is open conversation. >> guest: we're having open conversation. >> guest: we are, the four of us are the very fact agency refused to give anybody a stake in this issue a few extra days to submit comments on 500 some questions i -- >> i did count them. i said it was more than 500 questions. >> guest: absolutely. >> guest: i do believe this is the kind of subject that's complicated and would benefit from longer rule making. >> guest: why is the chairman saying absolutely not? we'll not have anymore time? why won't he listen to three of

us and agree have more time on complicated subject matter. your point is well-taken to different portions of communications devices and activities you have and how they operate differently and how private spy is being treated but that is something, as my colleague highlights that the ftc has been able to handle. we're going to slice off one portion of that saying for broadband providers we know best and here's what it looks like. we already know what the rules are going to look like. that was in the nprm the chairman is already moving forward with that and intending to move forward with that in short order. >> guest: one of the things you keep on talking about harmonization of colleagues outside the agency who operate under different laws. i think we should focus on something else, harmonization within the agency. there are different privacy rules that apply to cable operators for instance, under section 631 and to satellite providers under section 338. we also have privacy policies

under section 222 in the law. and going forward it is my hope we find a way to create even just a level playing field within the agency and within the industries that we oversee. >> guest: we talk about level playing fields, you're so right. we're not talking about identical playing field bass we're not talking about identical interaction shuns, products or offerings. harmonization should always be the goal, but sameness when the options and product is not the same, i just, i just depart a little bit on that because i think that is unrealistic. maybe that is not what you're saying but that's just how i interpret it. >> guest: harmonization means more regulation don't put me up for that. appropriate -- >> guest: appropriate regulation is my nirvana is. >> guest: i would say what the statute says. something can't create four of us magically determine any particular word means. if you look at 22 and our statute, talks about telephone

records. doesn't talk about broadband data services and some other things we'll capture in our universe. that is problematic. the words on the page actually have to mean something or our activities are not bound by anything. >> guest: again a lot of these things we're talking about today were not envisioned back then. when you talk about laws, when you talk about their application and interpretation, you know, we're not in the 1800's or early 1900's certain laws on the books right now. certainly not applicable and i'm going to be extremely sensitive to some of them that might be. when we talk about some of the communications standpoint which is more narrow for the purposes of this conversation, we again, you have regulatory bodies in place that rightfully interpret what might been written at a certain point in time and apply it to the way in which we consume and use these services. >> guest: if the statute has an

out of bounds with what is currently happening that is the job of the legislative branch to fix it. >> guest: we know how quickly they move, right. >> guest: based on what they think is best. if they take longer time period because they determined it take as longer time period. >> host: is this conversation happening because you don't get the opportunity to talk to each other in washington. we have 15 minutes left in our conversation. we do want to involve the audience. if you have any questions, you can see a mic down hire. line up we'll try to get to the questions in the last seven or so minutes. next question comes from lived yay beyoud of bloomberg. >> you talked about how complicated questions. is fcc equipped with personnel and funding to handle the growth in privacy regulation and issues before you? because the chairman's office has been making the case they really need more resources. what do you think? >> guest: when you look at the

number of personnel we have compare it to say five or 10 years ago, we're at all-time low in terms of numbers. that is for a number of reasons. we're not only agency that has been, you know, under some strain when it comes to resources. we've been in budget crunch. our budget has not increased and has constricted a bit. you are going to have, i don't know exact numbers of 1634, i don't know why that sticks in mind, low 16 in terms of number of personnel. issues are getting more complex. i'm not going to sit here and say that you are wrong. we're doing the best, we're doing incredible work considering the fact that, compared to five or six years ago we have fewer people. >> guest: here's something that concerns me. all of our issues across the board are fet -- getting more

technical and more complicate and we need more engineers. the agency is operating right now with the lowest level of engineers in decades. our engineers who are tremendous, are by and large older individuals. we have had for some time an honors attorney program at the fcc and i think it is fair to say we have a lot of attorneys in washington, d.c. i would like us to convert the program into honors engineering program and invite engineers into our ranks, more aggressively and earlier in their careers. and i hope that going forward we can make that priority. >> guest: so in answer to your question i think the fcc has adequate resources to discharge its responsibilities of the question is, what is the fcc doing with these resources? if you think about great many rabbit holes the fcc is pursuing at fc consider leadership, striking how much time has been wasted and how many of its

delegated responsibilities have been ignored. for example, with respect to broadband deployment there is so much the agency can and should be doing but instead we spent great many staff hours on things like the set-top box proceeding or singling out cable in particular for special attention in the special access market even though they took the risk to deploy second generation networks to give businesses-speed connectivity. those activities distract us from the core mission we have under the law to make sure this industry and every industry is able to compete on level playing field to deliver digital opportunity to all americans. >> guest: i would answer it this way. congress decides our budget. i leave that in their hands but in terms of resources the priorities are driven by the chairman and if you see where our staff is allocated today, i would say problematic. when i worked on number of things already this year, you see how many staff are assigned to particular project. we worked together on rate of return. there were 10 to 15 people

working on it. the number of people working on privacy is 10 to 15. when my colleague talks about 1600 people at fcc, 10 people are working or 20 people are working on privacy that is a little disturbing. that is complicated issue as four of us come up with. assigning small number of people and wireline bureau is overrun with work and fewer people. that's a problem in my mind but that is something for the chairman to decide. >> host: i want to ask this of all the commissioners, do you have a chance, commissioner o'rielly, to see some of the complaints that come into the fcc with regard to cable, particularly content and delivery? >> guest: both. i have do get a number of complaints come directly to me and i have the opportunity to talk to the consumer and governmental affairs bureau and talk about what consumer complaints they're getting. so i have opportunity to see what is developing from consumers in the marketplace. to be quite frank, the number of people that are generally happy with their service are not the

ones that are going to write to us. it is those that have the biggest concern or maybe a little, some of them are a little unhinged. >> guest: we all have public accounts i think all of us monitor from time to time. we have regular visits from the consumer and government affairs bureau. they then reinforce that. i get a mixture, most of the feedback that i get i have to say it's complaint-driven, but i get quite a few at fcc's in terms of those people who are saying we're on right track or we're doing certain things. you naturally, usually when things are going well, you usually you don't, it is by the very nature of humans, usually don't broadcast to the world unless you're going to benefit from the broadcasting. when things are going wrong you usually escalate. that is the nature of, that is why you have a bureau. that is why we have complaints

because we want to know when things go wrong and when consumers are not getting what they expected. that's important and we need to take care of that. >> guest: i get complaints as well. last week, for example, elderly gentleman emailed all five of us. i have a problem with my provider. i forwarded to bureau staff and got it taken care of. it felt great to help average consumer on individual issue. complaints on twitter. i don't know if you get complaints, siriusxm channel, playing a station of a song made in 1990, what are you going to do about this? look, milli-vanilli is gift to civilization. complaint denied. look it up. it is on interweb. consumer facing function i think is really critical for us to remember at fcc. it is not simply agency that looks at industry and regulates to figure out what rules are. we have serious consumer protection function.

that is something all of us share even if we might differ on particular policy that applies to them. >> guest: i think it is important that we spend time combing through complaint that come into the agency to understand how consumers are experiencing communications services. we get lots of complaints about billing, broadband not reaching certain location, about content. oldie but goodie, the do-not-call list doesn't work. >> guest: right, right. >> guest: nobody is a fan of rachel from card member services. i am not either. we'll have to work harder to make sure consumers don't get the calls they don't want. >> guest: more than one occasion i responded, you made me think about, i don't know, a lady in west virginia, that was complaining, her area shows a surge when it comes to broadband and she is not. i would responded to her about e-rate and other concerns and listed. she thanked me, wasn't

necessarily happy but we got opportunity to exchange because she doesn't have broadband services but i responded to her and forwarded and we do that individually on some and of course consumer bureau. it is important for us to never forget who we answer to and i think that is why i always scour, every day, i look at my public account to, it keeps me grounded. it is reminder, who our obligations are to. >> guest: learned new expletives from people who write into me. that is what we're talking about individual complaints but i think -- aggregate is difficult to remember. we have don't know how many single complaints at any one time. there is no repository. i proposed we create online dashboard, we, american public, members of congress how we were doing with respect to consumer complaints.

how are pending at any given time. what is meantime to disposition. what is the actual disposition. what are the different categories and how they change over time. >> guest: we have reflect categories on quart early basis. >> guest: in real time. it is better. >> guest: we should move towards real time. i want to compliment the people that worked to update the database. make sure the information is more transparent and public. they have dorn a terrific job. >> guest: updated consumer complaint form is better than it ever used to be. >> host: commissioner clyburn, what would you like to see the cable industry do when it comes to broadband deployment they're not already doing? >> guest: that's a great question. one of the things i have been pushing for when it comes to broad ban is affordability of products. i would love there to be multiple tiers when it comes to options for those who are, who can barely afford their services, be something there for them. i would like for them to

participate in lifeline. we've got a program that has been expanded to include broadband capacity and i would really appreciate the industry being a part of the program that will provide opportunities for those who can not afford, you know, with subsidy from the government but will open up the verse for so many, so that is on my wish-list. >> host: commissioner o'rielly. >> guest: simple request, if it makes business sense i would love to expand your reach to bring benefits of your technology to more americans. we are struggling with the fact that there are plenty of americans who do not have act caught broadband services. we're trying to figure out how to solve issues in the nooks and crannies throughout america. it is very difficult. we have subsidy program we're trying to work with to provide funding to entice people to enter the areas that are lovely and people love to live them in

those areas but hard to figure out how to provide broadband service. i would love for you to expand your services to other areas if it makes business sense. >> host: we have question from the audience. if you could identify yourself, thanks so much. >> i'm jan clark, ceo and magging director for coalition of innovative media meant and my question has to do with the european regulations an consumer privacy and protection part of it in particular. does that have any impact, how you all are seeing that both in terms of u.s. corporations working in europe and if it has any impact how you're thinking about this going forward? >> host: why do you ask that question? >> i was at a conference in europe recently and they're all very concerned about it and there is a lot of discussion about it, particularly opting in of all the consumer data and from the sort of measurement and research in advertising world in

which i work, there's a lot of concern about whether, you know, how we will deal with this in the global world with multinational corporations where we're all having to follow different regulations in different parts of the world and how we'll be able to manage that. so i think it is, there are some people say the u.s. would never do that but i'm just kind of curious. i never had you all in front of us like this, so i thought i would hear about it. >> host: take advantage. who wants to start? commissioner pai. >> guest: so we don't, short answer to your question we don't have direct involvement with european union's privacy regulations but we have been and i have personally been briefed by some of the folks working on the u.s.-e.u. data shield which was something that was obviously critical for us to enable u.s. companies to be able to compete effectively in europe. i think that framework has been relatively useful. i think it is telling going back

to the privacy debate we had earlier our commerce department, speaking on behalf of the entire administration has told the european union we believe this privacy framework backed up by federal trade commission enforcement is sufficient to protect consumers in the european union. telling them the fcc essentially carved out the space for itself, said no, we don't think the ftc will do adequate job with respect to internet service providers. we need special regulation for them. that kind of disjunction i think we need to be careful about. >> host: a gentleman over here as well. >> beyond broadband technology, commissioner rosenworcel raised a issue long time ago on set-top box proceeding saying this is awfully complicated proceeding. i wish we could simplify it. today you mentioned, commissioner there is a serious lack of engineers at the commission. yet the separate top box proceed

something one of the most complicated proceedings with regard to engineering. some of us have been trying to make the commission understand that there is another way to do this. that downloadable security on set-top boxes that could be sold in the open marketplace already exist. standards already exist. we've been trying to show them to the commission for at least five years now but the questions raised in the set-top box proceeding really go to changing business plan of the industry and it's that creates the complication for the technology. so why don't you simplify this process by looking at the real statute that says, we want retail sale of set-top boxes? that could be done without changing the bill. >> host: thank you, sir. commissioner rosenworcel. >> guest: good point. i look forward to reading more about them in the record. >> guest: peter, we have somebody. >> host: i will get to him in

few seconds. commissioner clyburn, let's go around the horn on this question, in your view who owns the last mile into the home or business? >> guest: who owns the last mile or who is responsible for the last mile? that is interesting, who owns it. i never really thought about it. i think once you cross my boundaries it is, you know, it's me. but i think our changing who is responsible for it i think it is all of us. we should enable that connectivity, there are 34 million americans who don't have, who can't answer that question right now. they don't have the capacity for what we define as high-speed internet. i think that is important. that is a great question exactly how you phrase it but i will say we all have a role to play as opposed to ownership. >> guest: if i understand your question correctly, years ago it used to be local telephone company owned last mile and we

had had rules and regulations to try to bring more competition to that then portion of the network and you actually saw cable step into that marketplace very successfully. i don't think cable owns it but i think they're having a great deal of success in that marketplace. that is where they invested not only residential said but on business side. good news for all of your good work entering into the business side we're going to regulate the heck out of you, so thank you very much. >> host: we have time for one final he question from lydia beyoud from bloomberg around the horn. >> you all paint ad picture of the regulatory complexity of issues before you. can congress resolve some of these issues with the comprehensive comments they did? that is the solution or is there some other measure needed. kegs her rosenworcel? >> guest: federal communications commission is creature of congress. if congress should decide to

update the laws, we will implement them. that is first and of all their choice. they're looking at some of our laws that date back to 1996, when we called the internet the information superhighway. they're trying to look for ways to update and modernize them. that is a good effort. in the end we'll be responsive to any new laws they might choose to pass. >> commissioner o'rielly. >> guest: that is something in their capable hands. they will decide when to and when not to. they had energy at beginning of this congress to consider legislation, seems to have waned for number of reasons. hopefully they will figure out what is the best time. i will be responsive to however they change the law. >> guest: i respect congress for more than one reason. i look for guidance from them but i also know that i have a charge to keep when it comes to interpreting the law and i plan for my term to uphold that. >> guest: i would agree with my colleagues.

i would only offercation nary tale, requires fcc leadership dedicated to following law. if you look what the agency done recently with the definition of auto dialer under tcpa or navigation devices of chapter 629, deliberate indifference recently passed on joint sales agreement. requires congress to update the act and agency administering the act to respect terms. that requires a strong commitment from fcc leadership. >> host: this is "the communicators" at the show in boston. commissioner rosenworcel, ajit pai, row riley and mignon clyburn. thank you. >> you've been watching "the communicators." if you like to see some of our previous programs, go to c-span.org. >> on sunday june 5th, booktv is live what steve

forbes, on "in depth." mr. forbes is the editor-in-chief of "forbes" magazine and was republican candidate in 1996 and 2,000 primaries. steve is author of many books that focus on politics and economics. his recent titles include, power, ambition, glory, compares great leaders of the an sent world with modern business leaders and in, money, he argues for the return to the gold standard. he was on booktv to discuss his latest book, reviving america. >> the rut we're in today which is having profound implications around the world, bad economies lead to bad politics, we see that everywhere around the world t comes from mistakes. the nice thing about policy errors, is they can be corrected. those errors can be corrected. that is why we wrote the book, "reviving america." we focus on three big reforms. obviously there are a lot of other things that have to be done but you have to have priorities.

so we prioritize on health care, on new tax code, and getting our monetary system back on track for the first time in almost half a century. >> steve forbes, live on booktv's "in depth," sunday, june 5th, noon eastern time. >> up next on booktv, talking about the light of john burch, the namesake of the john burch society. [inaudible conversations]. good afternoon everyone. i would like to get started. i'm eric arnason, i'm from george washington university around cocare of the washington history seminar along with my colleague of the history and public policy program here at woodrow wilson center.

the washington history seminar as many of you know is a joint product of the woodrow wilson center and american historical association national history center. we've now been going for a good number of years now. as we do every week we would like to thank the people who make this possible behind the scenes. pete berstecker from the wilson center and amanda monizz. they are behind the scenes to make sure the sessions come off without a glitch. that our speakers survive and schedule works and the like. so their labor is -- [applause] all right. indispensable to our success. as is the support of a number of individuals and institutions. the society, historians of american foreign relations schaefer, has generally underwritten this seminar for a number of years now, as has the

george washington university history department and a number of individual donors. their support is crucial for this programing. feel free to join their ranks should you see fit. after our session today there will be a reception outside of these doors. there are books for sale. i highly recommend that you pick one up and perhaps get a signature on it. and with that i will turn over the introduction of our speaker today to christian. >> thanks, eric. good to be here. welcome, everyone, to this washington history seminar at the wilson center. it's wonderful to have terry back at the center. he is an alumnus of the wilson center and spent part of his, part of his work on this book here at the wilson center. so we're delighted today to have

him come back with the final product. let me just say by way of introduction, at that dr. lauttz, is interrim director of the asian program of syracuse university and former vice president of henry lewis foundation in that capacity supported good bork around the globe on china and asia research. he is also a trustee and chair of the harvard institute and director of the national committee on u.s. china relations. he graduated magna cum laude from harvard college. served with the u.s. army in vietnam and holds a ma and phd degrees from stanford university. his book has already been reviewed in new yorker and "wall street journal" and were all very much looking very much to his presentation today on john birch's life. terry.

>> christian, thank you very much. it is really special privilege to be here because as christian mentioned this is where this project started but i really want to take this opportunity not only to thank you for being here but to express my heart-felt thanks to all of the staff of the wilson center, to christian, for his encouragement and support for this project and for other work. to lee hamilton, who was director when i was here as public policy telephone low in 2010 and to bob hathaway, who is here with us today, former director of the asia program here at the wilson center. i also want to express appreciation to bill brown who is the person who introduced me to chinese colleagues in the city of shzheo where john birch was laid to rest. more on that a little bit later.

but it's a great privilege to be here today for variety of, for all those reasons. when i started this project back in 2010 i had no idea who john birch was. like most americans his name to me was synonymous with right-wing, anti-communist politics in the united states. when i was a kid growing up in part of the time in michigan, there was a satire of the birch society, chad mitchell trio. if you remember that there was a line that said we only hail the hero from whom we got our name. we're not sure what he did but he's our hero just the same. [laughter]. that made me curious who john birch was, but never to dig into it to find out.

lo and behold when i read and stumbled on the information that he had been a missionary and military intelligence officer in china, who lost his life shortly after the war, i was really quite astounded and quite curious. so one of my first trips was up to the national archives in college park and there was a thick oss file that had been declassified on the death of john birch. a lot of information -- interesting information on that. that i will talk about later that made me more curious. could i bring john birch to life? could i explain who he was any was fortunate to be able to meet three of his brothers who are still alive. it is a large family. they were generous sharing their letters, memories and photographs with me. i found materials in a variety of archives. i could say more about that later.

let me provide a little bit more context for the birch society which was established, i should explain this, membership card has, features john birch on the left and robert welch, the founder of the society on the right and the slogan, watchword for the birch society, was less government, more responsibility and with god's help, a better world. robert welch was a business executive for the james welch candy company based out of boston. he was quite successful and was able to retire at the age of 60 and decided to get involved in politics. he, however, had decided not to run for political office. he actually tried that around 19479, 1950. ran for lieutenant governor of massachusetts. didn't do that well. so he decided to set up ad very can sy group that was --

advocacy group, that was very effective, popular and widespread at the grassroots level. his agenda was opposition to not only communism but opposition to big government, in a sense two sides of the same coin if you will. and if you were driving around the highways of the united states during the late '50s or early '60s, you might very well have noticed signs, billboards, saying, save our republic, impeach earl warren, chief justice of the supreme court. you would also see signs, saying, get the united states out of the united nations. so the birch society and robert welch represented and stood for tricks constitutionalism, states rights. this is why they opposed earl warren because of his support for brown versus board of

education, school integration. welch felt that, defended himself saying he was not a racist but felt it was up to the state to make these kinds of decisions. opposition to social security. you may sense some resonance with contemporary political rhetoric and there are scholars who draw a line. they see continuity between the origins of the birch society and the contrary tea party, not to mention the libertarian wing. it is interesting to note that fed koch, father of the koch brothers who were very supportive of the tea party, fred koch was one of the founding members of the birch society, on their national society. the birch society effective as i mentioned at the grassroots level but it was in 1960-61, when it was he revealed that dwight eisenhower, hero of

world war ii, president of the united states, had been accused by robert welch, he had written what he said was a private letter to about 350 people, expressing the opinion that eisenhower was a dedicated, conscious agent of the communist conspiracy. [laughter]. he said eisenhower knowingly accepted and was abiding by communist orders, serving the communist conspiracy for all of his adult life. and he went on for, i think something like 350 pages to prove his thesis. well, needless to say this is what led to the birch society becoming so notorious. it became, an explosive topic in the u.s. media.

magazines, newspapers, commentary and so forth. also it became a subject of satire. the same group that sang about the john birch society said, in their song, you can not trust your neighbor or even next of kin if, if you're mommy is commie then you have got to turn her in. but keep in mind of course, this is still we're still in the throes of really the height of the cold war. the -- taiwan straight crisis was august of 1958. castro is on the move in cuba. sputnik, the soviet satellite, was launched about a year earlier. so there is a sense of concern, a sense of anxiety. if not, if not fear. and this led a lot of americans who were respectable, middle-class americans, could

have been your neighbors. i had a student earlier today at sais, my grandfather was a member of the birth society. it is not uncommon. there were many advocates for the birch society but the question i wanted to get to in my book was, who was john birch? here we have robert welch pointing to his portait. at his headquarters in belmont, massachusetts. i wanted to try to understand why his name was used after his death posthumusly. was birch really a hero and a martyr? was he anti-communist? would john birch have been a member of the john birch society? and what does all of this tell us, what might be the commentary or lessons learned for u.s.-china relations? birch was one of seven children, born, birch himself, who is in

the middle here, standing up, he was eldest of seven children. he was born in india where his parents were missionaries for three years. grew up then in vineland, new jersey, which was his mother's home and macon, georgia. he moved there when he was teenager, which was his father's home. he graduated from mercer university, a baptist institution, in 1939. very bright young man who was at the head of his class. nominated by mercer to be a rhodes scholar candidate. but birch, following in the footsteps of his parents had decided early on that he wanted to be a missionary and of course so many americans aspireed to go to china as missionaries. was the largest country that received missionaries, both men and significant number of women as missionaries, and it loomed

large in the emotional imagination of americans who aspired to do something great with their lives and who were looking for some kind of adventure. so birch decided that he wanted to go to china. in order to accomplish this, he hooked up with an evangelical preacher who, by the name of frank norris. he is not in this picture. birch is the second from the left. here he is graduating from a small bible institute in fort worth, texas. the leader of this bible institute was a man named frank norris, who was kind of the billy graham of his age, very charismatic, graham had, sorry, norris met john birch in georgia and promised him he could send him to china. he was recruiting young men like

birch to go to china. here is john birch on the right with as car wells, his colleague from the fort worth bible institute. they have just arrived in shanghai in july of 1940. looking at this photograph, you would never imagine that china had been at war for three years, from 1937 on. and shanghai was still a refuge at this point. it had not been attacked and occupied. that wouldn't happen until after december 1941. but looking at this picture you would imagine that birch and oscar wells were just getting ready to go out for a picnic or going to the racecourse or something with their white pith helmets and white shoes and white suits. reality of course was quite different, which they soon

learned but like many missionaries they were full of idealism and they were totally unprepared. they really didn't know what to expect. birch's job was as a fundamentalist, evangelical, independent baptist missionary to convert the chinese to christianity. and here he is, right about there. oscar wells to his right, with a congregation in shanghai. and birch, to his credit, unlike a lot of foreign missionaries, did not isolate himself. in fact he didn't remain in shanghai for more than a few months after he had studied chinese, chinese language. but he moved on to honcho and subsequently beyond.

birch was independent. he was stubborn. he was very dedicated to what he was doing and he was really quite courageous. so as i mentioned he started off in shanghai. moved down to honsho, for about a year where he taught at a boys school. it was occupied by the japanese at this time and i decided to strike out on his own with two or three chinese colleagues and go to a city beyond japanese lines over in the province here. write removed, quite isolated from the rest of china. initially he did already. but subsequently he wasn't getting enough to eat. he was suffering from malaria.

he was not getting any money from his mission at home. and after pearl harbor, the japanese attack on pearl harbor in december '41 he wrote a letter to the american military mission in chun king and he volunteered for u.s. army. he wrote a letter which i quote in full in the book and said i'm willing to do anything if you will take me on but his feeling was that, it was necessary to defeat the japanese before he could return to his work as a missionary. he couldn't be effect tiff in his mine and he could do more if he were to join the military in some capacity. his, while i was waiting for a reply from the u.s. army, he was on a small river and he was told

chinese where he was eating lunch, that there were some americans tied up in a small boat along a river down below. and birch was skeptical. he said, how could there possibly be americans in that boat down there? so he went down. he knocked on the door of the cabin of the boat, and he said, are there any americans in there? door opened up and lo and behold there was none other than jimmy doolittle, in the middle here with his crew of men who had just bombed tokyo. this is the famous tokyo raid. doolittle raiders ape of 1942. john birch was the first white man any of them had seen. because birch spoke chinese and knew the territory, doolittle asked birch if he accompany them

and help them out for a few weeks which he did. this was his introduction to the u.s. military. this was the transition from civilian life to military life. birch was helpful to doolittle and his men, as you may know had launched, had launched b-25 bombers, 16 planes, total of 80 men from the uss hornet. about 500 miles to the east of tokyo. they didn't just bomb tokyo by the way. they bombed i think five or six different cities in japan. nokia had ever launched a bomber from an aircraft carrier. this had never been done and nobody imagined it could be done but doolittle was fearless. and he figured out how to do this. the problem though was you couldn't land an airplane the size after bomber on an aircraft carrier.

one thing to launch it but another to land it. so the plan was to fly from japan down to chichon-f province and land on bases there. there was miscommunication. they arrived in the middle of the night in rainstorm, instead of the day as was scheduled. the chinese didn't know they were coming. they turned off runway lights, thinking they were being attacked. so this was birch's introduction to the army. the doolittle raid was turned into a famous movie. there have been a number of books but here we have "30 seconds over tokyo" with playing the role of jimmy doolittle. they claimed john birch single-handedly rescued

doolittle and miss men. doolittle never would have made the claim but this is one of the ways in which birch's name was misused and was inflated. as i mentioned birch went to chun king. he was introduced to the army. he quickly made the transes significance -- transition. in his mind there was no contradiction between his former life as an evangelist and joining the army. no need to reject or deny his past. he had substituted one all-consuming passion for another, a battle against a different form of evil, a tyranny that happened to be temporal, instead of spirit all. he quite naturally expected to be a chaplain, which would afford the double opportunity to serve god and country as he put it.

little did he imagine that he was about to assume a entirely new identity, not as a preacher but an intelligence officer. general claire chenault, famous commander of the flying tigers, who knew china quite well was in the process of setting up an intelligence network and he recruited men like john birch to be field intelligence officers, to live and work in the countryside with chinese armies. people who could adapt to those conditions, who knew the language, knew the territory, could eat chinese food and chinese food for the chinese army was not necessarily great food. and birch was the first of these intelligence officers recruited

by chenault. he did this quite effectively, quite well and here is chenault decorating john birch with the legion of merit for exceptional service. he chenault were quite close. people were drawn to john birch, despite the fact that he was a hard-line evangelical baptist, those who knew him and met him in china were attracted to him. arthur hopkins, who is the roguish looking guy in the upper middle, with the pipe in his mouth, said john had an amazing grasp of the chinese language and understood the people. he was absolutely fearless, completely unselfish. never thinking of his personal discomfort or danger. i should add it's clear from

letters from birch wrote and from people who knew him, that he matured during the course of the war. the circumstances of war i think lead young men to grow up and young women as well to grow up very quickly. that is what happened to him. so he developed a more open view of the world and of other people including the chinese. earn -- ernie johnson a b-25 gunner on the right, wrote after the death of birch, birmuch was not a bigot or political person. while birch did not drink, smoke or sleep with women, he also did not self righteously criticize those who did. birch never had time for romans or for that matter, he didn't have much money. he was, his family was really quite poor.

faced a lot of hardship but he never had time for romans when he he was in college or in his bible institute in fort worth. but when he got to china he decided it was time to settle down, get involved, meet somebody, who he could, who he could marry. and he was engaged to audrey mahre, shown here, a scottish nurse who arrived with the british red cross in 1943. where birch was based with a radio intelligence time. . .

.. . i was much attracted to this handsome young man with his devotion to china and his burning missionary zeal, to say nothing of his charm and appealing southern courtesy. birch worked with radio intelligence teams. here he is right there, and at this point he's a captain in the u.s. army. he coordinated bombing missions for u.s. pilots, assisted -- he and his men -- assisted with the rescue of downed u.s. pilots,

u.s. fliers, recruited and coordinated with chinese agents, intelligence agents, provided weather reports, gathered intelligence information. and while birch was not in combat, it was, nonetheless, risky and dangerous kind of work often close to, sometimes even behind enemy lines. at the end of the war, towards the end of the war as the japanese were withdrawing their forces towards the north, birch moved from the south of china up to hanweiing province which really was behind japanese lines. and in this area, keep in mind that the nationalist forces were primarily in the southwest where

they'd been, they had to retreat, withdraw after fighting so long and hard with the japanese. the chinese were forced up to the shock si but their power increased. so when birch gets there, he is in contact with communist forces from time to time, and he's -- the policy of the united states government is a very pragmatic policy, and that is to cooperate with the communist forces if necessary when there's a good reason to do so. he didn't have any particular sympathy for the communists or their cause, nor did he have any sympathy for the nationalists. his loyalties really were with the chinese people. there was great relief on his

part at the end of the war. here he is right there in the middle of the back row. and he was ready to go home. he had been in china for five years. he had suffered from malaria, he had refused a 45-day leave to return home. he wrote to marjorie tucker: when the first wild thrill swept through this little river town where i was last night as the radio said japan was trying to surrender, i realized for the first time how utterly wearily, even -- weary, even heartsick this war has made me. it marked the u.s. effort in general. almost no one could imagine that a horrendous civil war would

result in a communist victory within the next four years. birch, however, was not permitted to just turn around and go home. by this time he's working for the oss, the office of strategic services, which is the forerunner of the cia. the oss asked him or told him -- ordered him, i should say, to take a final mission from his base in -- whoops -- up to the city of xujiu, and this is where bill brown's parents and grandparents were presbyterian missionaries. and on the way there, he and his team of ten chinese, two koreans who presumably spoke japanese and could help translate, and

three other americans -- a total of four americans -- they were intercepted and detained by a detachment of chinese communists from the eighth route army. birch's mission was to proceed to the town to gather intelligence on the condition of the air base there, see if there were documents that the japanese had left behind, see what was going on. but on the way there in the town, market town of wanko, right there, he is, he runs into this detachment of chinese communists who have orders to detain and disarm any intruders. birch refuses to be disarmed. he's carrying a .45 pistol on his hip. they're not heavily armed. they're not expecting trouble. the war is over.

and birch says in chinese to the communists why are you trying to disarm me? what are you, bandits? united states of america has just won the war. i'm not going to give you my weapon. and one thing leads to another, tempers flare, birch is shot and killed. this is ten days after the surrender of japan in august of 1945. it's a tragic, a tragic incident. no one expected this to happen. lieutenant william miller who got news about the death of birch arranged for his funeral just a couple of weeks after birch lost his life.

the funeral site is on a hillside close to the city. colleagues that bill brown introduced my wife ellen and i to took us to this site. a chinese medical doctor, dr. wong, took us there on the first morning that we'd arrived, and he said i know exactly where birch was buried. he said my father was a presbyterian missionary, and he was there at the burial service, and he took us, took us right there. there's no evidence, no -- nothing but a few cement slabs now that exist. there's no memorial, no sign or anything like that. but we were able to locate the site as well as the catholic church where the funeral took place. the funeral, which william miller described as remarkable,

was attended by japanese officers and others who had just surrendered to americans at the end of the war. so you have this very curious collection of people, japanese as well as chinese, troops who had been working for the japanese who are attending the funeral of this american officer. the death of john birch came as a shock to americans in china. general albert weeder meyer was commanding officer. he received news just a few days after, a radio telegram. and he was deeply concerned that the death of an american soldier, the detention of

americans with birch who were the three americans with him as well as the chinese and koreans were taken by the communist detachment and eventually made their way to the chinese communist headquarters. that took about two months for them to get there. and weedermeyer was deeply concerned about what this meant. were the chinese communists shifting their policies after they had been cooperating with the americans? what did this mean? were they trying to send a signal to the united states? it just turned out by coincidence that the chairman of the chinese communist party had arrived with ambassador william hurley. he's the guy with the bow tie and -- [laughter] the handlebar moustache on the right.

hurley was colorful and erratic and problematic for u.s./china relations, but hurley arranged for mao to fly on an american plane, a c-47 i think it was. this was mao's first trip on an airplane, first time in his life that he'd been in an airplane. and you can sort of see this quizzical look on mao's face wondering what to make of all of this. i think it's worth noting that this was not just a photo op for mao. he stayed for 43 days to negotiate some kind of compromise with chiang kai-shek, with the nationalists. nothing much came of it, but both the communists and nationalists at this very delicate point at the end of

world war ii are hoping to avoid civil war, hoping that they might be able to arrange some sort of accommodation. and it's a very sensitive period in their relations. but weedermeyer takes advantage of mao's presence to arrange for a meeting at the home of ambassador hurley on the evening of august 30, 1945. this is just five days after the death of birch. and he says, weedermeyer says to mao that he has information about the death of an american officer. he points to a map, and he says to mao that this is a very serious and a very grave incident. why was he there, asked cho?

he was sent there by me to obtain information about the japanese, answered weedermeyer. i feel i and must send americans anywhere in china to carry out my mission. you mean any place? yes, said weedermeyer. mao seemed to be caught by surprise. we cannot say the chinese communist troops killed him or not. if this is true that communist troops shot this american officer, i extend my deepest apology. i would like assurance that this will not occur again, demanded weedermeyer. i would like assurance that this will not occur again. i cannot have americans killed in this theater by chinese communists or anyone else. i am directed by the president of the united states to use whatever force i require to protect american lives in china. so you can see this is a very tense conversation. the record of this is in the national archives in college

park. mao is apologetic at the time, but we learn from other sources that subsequently he was angry. he felt humiliated about the way he had been lectured by mao. at this point in time, the united states position is to try to maintain some neutrality which, of course, is impossible because the united states recognizes the nationalists, the republic of china. but the u.s. is trying to not get enmeshed and mired in what is a looming civil war in china. so weedermeyer says to mao and cho that he very much hopes china will not become involved in a civil war and that the various political factions could settle their differences without resorting to warfare. we have republican and democratic parties in the united states.

they have violent differences -- [laughter] but they do not resort to the use of arms, the force of arms. [laughter] we'll see. [laughter] back in fort worth, texas, ethel birch and her husband george birch are attending a memorial service for their son. frank norris on the right. this service actually was attended by claire schnault, and ethel birch had been informed by u.s. military authorities that her son had been shot on august 25, 1945, on the long hai railway and was killed as a result of stray bullets. well, that wasn't the full story, of course. and as ethel birch dug into the

story and tried to find out what had actually happened to her son, her eldest son, she became increasingly skeptical and increasingly frustrateed about the real issue. she was also angry because she felt her son had been denied recognition. he came to believe -- she came to believe as the cold war develops, as debate over the has of china takes finish the loss of china takes hold after 1949 that her son deserved recognition, deserved credit, but that never happened. so she was with open to the idea of a conspiracy. open to the idea that her son had been wronged. this leads us to senator william

noland, prominent senator from california. he was senate majority leader for a time during the 1950s. after the outbreak of the korean war in june 1950, that fall he stands up on the floor of the senate, and he delivers a speech that breathes fresh life into the story of john birch which really was just a footnote of this history. it would have been long forgotten had it not billion for noland. had it not been for noland. noland, and here i quote, told the simple story of a lone american officer who was willing to sacrifice his life so that this nation might find out whether these communists were friends or enemies. the incident, claimed nolan, was one of the least known and most significant indications of communist intentions in china. the senator went on in his

speech to ask rhetorically if members of congress had had this information in august or september of 1945, the end of the war against japan, is there any person here who feels they would have tolerated the subsequent activity of the state department in trying to force a coalition between the government of the republic of china and the same communists represented by the man who shot john birch, captain john birch in cold blood. birch was willing to sacrifice his life, according to nolan, to test the communists who pretended to be cooperating with the united states. so this is a rewriting of history, or it's nolan's attempt to say history would have been different if only the truth of the death of this american

officer had been revealed at the time. >> [inaudible] >> he gave this speech in, i believe, it was october. >> okay -- [inaudible] >> exactly. actually, it was september. and it was a couple of months before the chinese enter the korean conflict. but, of course, relations are already badly fraying, and he's not -- well, communists in general, but the chinese communists are the real threat. nolan was sometimes called the senator from formosa. he gave so many speeches that, in defense of taiwan and chiang kai-shek that he earns that soakly debt. and it wasn't robert welch who came up with the story of john birch, it was because robert welch read a speech in the congressional record, of all places -- [laughter] can you imagine sitting and

reading the congressional record? [laughter] it was in the congressional record three years later that robert welch read the speech. it didn't get much attention in september of 1950. americans were dying by the hundreds and eventually thousands in korea at this point. so it didn't get much attention. this was old news. this was something that happened in 1945, a lone american officer. i mean, what would that really signify? but robert welch read the speech and latched on to it. he went to macon, georgia, visited with birch's parents, told them that he believed their son was a great patriot, compared him to ney than hale -- nathan hale and said that he, robert welch, would bring the recognition to their son that he

deserved despite the fact that the u.s. military, the u.s. government had refused even to award birch a purple heart. because the u.s. was not at war with the communists in 1945. welch, robert welch never met birch, and he never visited china. but george and ethel birch, here they are with their children, and ethel is holding a portrait of john, were open to this proposition from robert welch. ethel birch gave welch materials that she had been collecting for her own biography of her son. welch wrote a short -- [inaudible] which is as much his own political platform as it is a biography of welch. there are no footnotes, there's no documentation. it's a frustrating book. [laughter]

welch calls him a heroic young patriot who recognized the dangers of communism long before others. here he's just echoing what nolan has already said. he said that the death of birch was a deliberate and unjustified killing, claimed that birch had sacrificed his life as a warning to others about the true intentions of the communests. communists. so with the enthusiastic permission of the parents, welch established the john birch society in 1958. and as i mentioned, it became one of the most influential and controversial organizations of its time. its platform was anti-communism and anti-big government. welch had decided that john birch was the ideal symbol for his new movement founded in late 1958, and he did so for three reasons. one is that birch represented,

to the mind of robert welch, the epitome of american values. he'd been a missionary, he'd been a military officer, he'd helped -- according to welch -- to rescue jimmy doolittle. he was described by nolan and then welch as the first casualty of world war iii, the first casualty of the cold war. the first victim at the hands of the communists. but equally important to welch was the idea, his belief that there was a conspiracy to cover up the death of john birch. the secret file, the top secret file on birch's death was not released until after nixon's visit to china in 1972 as a result of a freedom of information request. robert welch realized it was the

geopolitical context that gave john birch's story greater significance. he noted that birch commanded no armies, headed no government, converted no nations to his creed. but his murder at the hands of communists illuminated a crossroads of civilization, leading in one direction towards slavery, stagnation and increasing darkness and in the other direction toward greater freedom, further growth and more enlightenment. as welch put it, with his death and in his death the battle lines are drawn. if birch had sacrificed his life in some other country -- this is me now, not robert welch -- say greece or india, it would have mattered far less. the fact that he was murdered by chinese communists imbued the event with much more meaning because the unforeseen loss of china was so dismaying and disorienting to americans.

chinese -- china's rejection of capitalism and democracy in favor of marxism/leninnism represented a proto found failure of u.s. leadership. accusations blaming the truman administration ranging from poor judgment, appeasement and even treason transformed a complex foreign policy problem into a potent political issue. so the name of john birch is caught up in all of this. and robert welch here is in his belmont, massachusetts, headquarters, the john birch society with a portrait of john birch. he believed that the story of welch as a missionary, a patriotic soldier and of a selfless martyr would inspire and instruct americans about conspiracy and communism.

instead, his memory was misappropriated and made synonymous with extremist politics. let me end there and thank you very much for your interest. [applause] >> now it's time for discussion and question and answers. the hands are already going up, but let's just say the rules are please wait for the microphone to reach you, please identify yourself when you get the mic and use the mic, please, so that everyone can hear you. there's a gentleman here on the left side of the table. >> my name is steven sage, i was formerly american vice consul in the embassy in beijing, and my question concerns the chinese sources for the death of john birch. surely given the high profile that welch endowed upon him,

this must have been some kind of investigation and some kind of scholarship regarding him. >> yes. in response to this confrontation between mao and weedermeyer, the chinese did investigate the circumstances of the death. the commander of the communist military forces wrote a letter to and gave a report to weedermeyer based on the information he'd been able to gather from the field. the communist report said that birch was responsible for his own death, that he had pulled his weapon and had threatened the local communist commander and that the communists had retaliated in self-defense.

i think that's hard to imagine because it would have been suicidal to actually pull out your weapon. but it's clear that birch had lost his temper, that he was angry, and the u.s. investigation of the incident does come to the conclusion that birch did bear some responsibility, that he had been provocative. nonetheless, in the final analysis it was classified as a murder. there was no justification for it, for his death at the hands of communists. i did try to get into some archives. that was not possible. as you may know, archives in china have become much more restrictive not only for foreigners, but for chinese as well. so i was not able to obtain any further information. but what we do know is that this incident, there was a follow-up as you suggest. and as a result of this

incident, we also know that the chinese communist party reversed its standing order to detain and disarm any intruders. they said specifically if any americans come into contact with your forces, treat them very carefully. treat them diplomatically. do not attempt to disarm them. basically, they were saying we do not, we cannot afford to risk another birch incident at this point in time. so there was a fallout from this which i think is significant in light of the delicate policies of this time. >> thank you. bobby? >> bob hathaway. terry, can't wait to read the book. glad the wilson center had a small part in it. were you able to track down how nolan got hold of this story? >> absolutely. yeah.

nolan's papers are at university of california-berkeley, and it turns out that he was informed about the incident by william miller. william miller being the young lieutenant who had arranged for the funeral of birch. miller was convinced that birch had been wronged, you know, that there should have been more attention given to his death, that he did deserve recognition, and since that had not happened since the incident had been forgotten, he wrote to nolan, and nolan then -- as a u.s. senator -- was actually able to gain access to the secret files. ..