Host are against this week on the communicators is congresswoman Abigail Spanberger. Spanberger. Shes a democrat from virginia in her first term. Congresswoman, get some legislation that was passed earlier this month. What was it . Guest i had a bill focused on five Key Technology and the bill passed 4133, and the premise of this bill is we are facing significant challenges with the future 5g technology and the United States needs a comprehensive strategy. This bill would require that we develop one. That we implement it and we work with our partners and allies to ensure they do something similar. Host who is the wii that has to develop this . Guest the executives, branch. So determining the focus of this bill is that were requesting executive branch, the administration, develop a broadband strategy, a national strategy, a comprehensive strategy and a public strategy so the recognizing the challenges, the threats as a might term them, that come from development of 5g in other countries that we, from a government perspective, from a private perspective and publix perspective understand these challenges and threats in that we move towards a place of being able to ensure Greater Development of 5g technology here in the United States, that we raise recognition among the public of some of the challenges that exist within the space, and that ideally we were to ensure were protecting American Consumers and companies and their data. Host is this a national strategy, nationalization of 5g and assist . Guest i nationalization of 5g as the technology is concerned but its a recognition when we were developing such a Significant Technology such as 5g, when we are talking about the transmission and we are talking about the use of this technology nationwide, that from a National Perspective we need to have certain standards and recognizing that the standards are meant to keep consumer data safe and create a strong Playing Field for American Companies that are going to do right by the american consumes in terms of protecting your data from potential exploitation. Theres also the added challenge related to military technology. So 5g will allow for significantly faster relate of information. It has significant use within the public sector, and in everyday business but also certainly for military use. Its incredibly important that we ensure that any technologies are protecting consumer data, if used in a private or business sector but also our military related information. Host most of the guests we have on the program come from the energy and commerce committee. You dont see it on that committee. Where did your interest come from . Guest i sit on the Foreign Affairs committee and agriculture community. For me Broadband Technology is ready much a place where both of those committees touch. When we are looking towards the future precision agriculture or technologies and precision agricultural tools that are allowing our farmers and producers to monitor their crops, to ensure the safety and security of their animals, particularly our dairies, to use fertilizer, depending on rainfall, dependent on other triggers, the use of 5g technology as we expect it to continue to develop will be incredibly important. Notably within many of our Rural Communities that could be benefiting from precision agriculture technologies theres no internet. Its not an issue of 5g technology. Its an issue of lack of access completely. I have been focused on access to broadband and internet issues within the agricultural sector, within our Rural Communities and that is part of my portfolio. Separately my work on the Foreign Affairs committee and by background as an Intelligence Officer, im a former cia officer, the recognition of the challenges or threats that come from a foreign country dominating in Technological Development is one im acutely aware of, and keenly attuned to. Its my focus on internet from the real perspective and then my focus on National Security threats and challenges from the Foreign Affairs perspective that, while im not on energy and commerce, this is a particular at Significant Interest for me. Host to help us delve into some of those issues, our guest host this afternoon is Emily Birnbaum of the hill publication. Thanks for having me. So youre talking about foreign threats and the threat of another nation dominating in the space of enormous technological innovation. Can you talk specifically, experts say while weight and zte are really at this point dominating the race quoteunquote towards 5g huawei. Why is that a concern for you these two companies and what you think of the best strategies to stave off that influence . Guest so notably the bill was passed in the house recently, my 5g and biondo, it doesnt call that china specifically or huawei and zte specifically. Recognize in future some of our challenges might come from other countries. We do look at examples of huawei and zte, there are significant indicators that because of huawei as examples close relationship with the Chinese Military and chinese Intelligence Services, that the use of Huawei Technology could create backdoors or areas of access to consumer data or company data that from an American Perspective we would find unacceptable. There are also other cementing even if its not intentional, even if it doesnt come because of direct links between the Intelligence Community and huawei, with even chinas privacy standards and corporate practices are different from those we find acceptable or even legal here. So recognizing whether its wholly intentional coordination or symptomatic of different business practices, the priority does exist that as huawei continues to show strength in the film and the 5g technologies, that we need to ensure that the american public, American Companies recognize the threat and that were taking efforts and action to ensure we have an alternative. There is real skepticism around this narrative that huawei is a National Security threat. There are some people who say we dont have any evidence that they have would create this backdoor or that they actually pose a threat, and this sudden and very intense antihuawei fervor could be sort of just another attempt to get a leg up on china in our ongoing technological and economic race. People say this is just a way to kneecap a really successful Chinese Company, one of the most Successful Companies in the world, and this a push by the use is affecting the business. What do you say to that . Guest i think its an issue of competition, and surely recognizing that currently the United States needs to come up with a plan to better compete in this space isnt necessarily meant to kneecap while way. Its meant to give American Consumers an alternative, and potentially allied nations an alternative. And i think for me that is the priority. Given my intelligence background, i am very aware of and attuned to some of the challenges that do come from countries in the technological space where there are links between corporate interests and intelligence and military interests. But any case regardless of ones perspective, recognizing this is where we are moving on the technological front, ensuring that American Companies are competing, ensuring that American Companies and our government have strategy and, frankly, the intent to compete is only going to benefit the consumer. If we are having an active dialogue about how to protect consumer data and Corporate Information and private business interests and information that should otherwise be considered secret or specific to real privacy concerns, then i think thats a good conversation to be having. The American Consumer particularly in areas of technology where there are challenges, even understand the technology were talking about. Your phone in your pocket make sure life easier but most consumers myself included dont always know how it works. So ensuring that were having a public dialogue that we want this technology to benefit you, the future of autonomous vehicles, the future of the concept you could have a surgeon performing surgery in one city on a patient and another because the technology. The promise of all this is so incredibly interesting and i think that we as a federal government have placed in being part of that conversation to make sure we want to protect that data and we want from a privacy standpoint to ensure the United States is active. I think this week Trump Officials are in the uk trying to encourage them not to implement, not use any Huawei Technology in their systems. A lot of countries, a lot of western countries are opting for this partial ban of huawei with you wont use it in the core of the system but they would use it in the periphery. What do you think of some of our allies opting for that approach to huawei and do you agree with the Trump Administration approach to them, to make pretty aggressive threats if they do end up implementing while we technology . Guest i think the biggest, the starting point for some of these discussions and some of these threats is what information is it that we are sharing, the information wishing with foreign governments . And and i think as long as we providing what is otherwise classified information and speaking specifically towards the intelligence liaison relationships we have with, in this case, the uk, or one of our very close ally. We share a tremendous amount of information, i think it is in within a right to express concern over how that information and safeguarded. As a former cia officer i know frequently the information we share with other Intelligence Services is based on information we have received directly from human assets or directly from individuals who would face grave ramifications if it were found that they were providing information that is helping in diplomatic efforts, information that is informing decisions made by the United States or made by some of our partners, and information related to threats, be it from foreign governments, terrorist organizations. I do think there is a priority for the United States to have a say and at least express concerns related to have information that we providing that could link back to some else, some source or method hes been safeguarded. Host do you agree with the truck administrations approach saying dont use huawei, use zte equipment in your systems . Guest i think some of the threat information is pretty clear in terms of threat to the security of that information, the risk that it might be provided. I am currently not in the full scope of what some of those threats would be but i do think if there is an effort by the Trump Administration or franco by any administration to ensure we are safeguarding american information, in particular information we provide in intelligence sharing, then that is a concern i would take very seriously. Host we have a lot of members of congress on this program, and everyone of of them would ask the same question. Would you use a huawei phone. Last week we had andy purdy of huawei on the program and imagine that to him. Here was his response. The democrats and republicans are worried about china and many have said, state Department Officials and others, its was not about huawei. Its about the china government, what the china government in their view could force huawei to do. There are real all the equipment, the carriers and equipment providers have to be subject to strict scrutiny and testing of products and conformance of measures because the bad guys connect into everybodys products, particularly with a Global Supply chain deeply embedded in china. Those are the things necessary to make sure america is safe going forward. Host congresswoman spanberger. Guest so when choosing which technologies im choosing to purchase and provide my personal data, the risks that are present with what we technologies are ones are not willing to take. My answer to that would be no. But i think he made some good points talking about supply chain challenges, talking about threats that exist with any type of technology that is used. All of those things are true but its also simply the case that with the relationship between huawei and the Chinese Government, those risks are a bit more heightened. Theres another part of this conversation which is why we equipment is cheaper. Obviously you are very invested in closing the socalled digital divide. You were mentioning before the fact a lot of rural areas dont have access to internet and they rely on while we equipment. In some areas its huawei are nothing. How do you think you can address that tension . Further, do you think its worth the enormous cost and obstacles to rip huawei literally out of the ground in some of these rural areas . Guest i think the notion of ripping huawei out of the ground might perhaps be a step greater than we need to take at this time. I think you are right to raise the issue of cost many People Choose while we equipment because, in fact, it is cheap, or cheaper than some of the other alternatives. Part of the reason its cheaper than some of the alternatives is because the Chinese Government involvement which harkens back to the challenges of having such a significantly tied relationship between huawei and the Chinese Government. Part of the larger discussion needs to be about privacy concerns, about creating a path and recognizing as consumers what is it that one is paying for, what is it a consumer chooses to purchase . This strikes back to what we talked about earlier which is some of these technological decisions are so great. I recently bought, i wanted to have a new device to carry with me and they were looking to get an ipad, and the data thats available, how much they weigh, how fast they are, the speed of all of these things, it can be overwhelming for a consumer. But its all about choices. Its all about recognizing within our domestic market, first and foremost, how can we ensure we are protecting consumers . Is that through information . Is that through prohibitions of certain technology . Is that through conversations with american Technological Companies and Technology Companies about where they can really be engaged in and involved . Is that directing or prioritizing the purchase of american items, not directing but prioritizing or from a purchasing standpoint to ensure that there becomes enough of a push for these technologies to be created here at home. I understand the challenge where it seems this notion that were going to do things best may not be the idea we want to be conveying but it isnt actually just about i want to purchase american created items. It is recognizing the threat to come from other producers. And be they American Technology or technologies that are produced by some of our closest allies, we as American Consumers and me as a legislator i think i have a responsibility to encourage the American Consumers and companies to know the risks that come with certain options. Theres another chinese product, another chinese technological product that is raising a lot of alarm bells for people in congress, and thats tiktok. Its really popular, massively popular social media at and its one of the first beijing owned apps making inroads into western markets. Inevitably, there is a lot of concern. I think Chuck Schumer has weighed in on this and said the army shouldnt use this. The army bandit. Banned it. Is that another area you are concerned with, foreign owned apps . Guest for some of your viewers tiktok came on my radar something that my childrens friends are talking about. At first i was saying its nothing like instagram or i dont know, video type app. Then you see tremendous reporting that provides a great deal more information about the fact that it is this Chinese Company that your data may not be protected and there are risks associated with it. As as a relates to tiktok in particular i think, and i havent done much work on this so far, we just pushed our 5g and beyond bill over the finish line at least inhouse, and thats exciting but it do think what you are referencing is the next element of how is it that we create that balance if the consumer wants to use the tiktok outcome and thats their priority. But wheres the responsibility to ensure that people recognize the risk . Certainly theres been great press aboard and some of the risk that exist which have been helpful to the american public. Host in your previous jobs, as u. S. Postal inspector, cia, did you use a lot of technology . Were you involved in technology at that point . Guest not particularly actually. As a cia case officer i was out meeting foreign assets who were providing information to the United States government, and so when i was doing, i was doing so without a soulful, without any way i could be tracked. So my level of awareness is a fact that when were not go outo have a meeting i would go out without any electronics, anything that could track me. And so recognizing the threat, i have been trained, trained and trained come if you have a piece of electronics on you, it can be hacked. It can be used as as a listenig device. It can be used in the various ways. Even if it is just your phone, your everyday phone. And because as a former Intelligence Officer that was always top of mind. I aware of the risks that exist with the phone, with the smart watch, with any of these things that is essentially tracking information. I was on opposite side of it when i was actually use a lot Less Technology than others. Actually youve done saprocit checks in your office . Theres a lot of concern with members of congress dont know how to practice good cyber hygiene. What is your approach in your own office . Guest everything from, i taken two trips overseas and ive gotten the phone that i check up from the travel office the start associated with me, a call for an attack the problem. Some members dont know its a priority because you never know replug the phoneme if its going to charge for what might get loaded on it, where you leave it, who may come in contact with it. So thats one of the steps i i take. I also had my office swept. When people send us things, i will have my office ensure that they are scared to make sure there are no listening devices or other host argued unique in this regard . Guest i dont know. I havent had this conversation with a lot of other members, but he recently received something to the office, and i went out to our lovely staff assisted and he said, have you swept this, have you had been checked this one for bugs . Actually the new intern was there anything she was thinking bugs, like creepy callers. So they had a look that of a chuckle as she explained that. The interesting thing about it and its wonderful how public our offices are, but anyone can come in at any point in time, and having been on the opposite end of intelligence collection, i recognize how broad intelligence priorities are in terms of whats interesting to note about what sort of, be it legislative priorities with other countries, in this particular case the legislative priorities of the United States or other countries, the challenges between different parties or different groups. And so i think that every member of congress should consider themselves to potentially be a target what people might be inclined to want to know what your thinking or doing. And certainly in my case when i was running my fs 86 was released publicly. Thats my standard form 86 which is background check information, and so that information was found. Is also one of the former federal employees who were part of a large chinese hack, and so there are many, many federal employees whose background check information was hacked by the chinese, and we know its out there somewhere. Those are all of the pieces from my experiences that lead me to have this relatively security focus. Host i want to follow up on. You check out a phone from the travel office when he went overseas. Do you find that members of congress understand technology, and are they the appropriate body to be legislating it . Guest so my answer to this one is manyfold. I think there are some members of congress who have significant technological backgrounds, either because of where they were in business or in research, and so they are perfectly well position to a very strong we had some members of congress who have been in congress as long as female has existed, so we really run the gamut. What a think its an important thing to recognize is within our committee structure, within the Staff Members that we have on capitol hill who come from a technological background, a hearing background, and engineering background and who spend their time focusing on these issues but, frankly, on all issues, we as members of congress, those of us who dont have a significant technological background, and i have Strong Security focused perspective and my technological background is not as great in terms of direct personal experience, but i spent a lot of time focused on other countries Technological Capabilities so i know in return how much of the countries are focus on ours. To answer your question, we as members of congress run the gamut but i think Overall Congress as a body does have at its fingertips an incredible amount of expertise, and even with the Nonpartisan Congressional Research Service provides as with tremendous information, the information that we need to be making these informed decisions is available to us on a daily basis and i think most members even if they were tech ceos or if theyve never had an email account, continue to make use of those resources. Host one more question. I wanted to ask one more question given your background in the cia and intelligence. Later this Year Congress is set of a debate over a trio of surveillance authorities, what of which is section 315, the snowden disclosed phone records, the pared down version. Do you have any sense of where youre going to come down . You think there needs to be, do you think congress should reauthorize these authorities . D think there needs to be some reforms and how do you think it will play out particularly given we know the fact that these programs have been shuttered . Guest i think my 30,000foot perspective view of this or response to question is anytime with discussions in the base within also congress, within the needy, within the public sector, spectrum of, of the programs we are authorizing, the programs we do acceptable, particularly comes to basic privacy issues, i think thats an excellent place to be. I predict some of these conversations will be heated, that some of the debates will be pretty significant. But i think when we are looking at our priorities of protecting consumer data, protecting individual data, protecting privacy and Civil Liberties and also looking at how to combat potential threats in the immediacy, particularly in the area of terrorism, where we were in a post9 11 place which was on overdrive ensuring were protecting against what we were worried would be the next attack, with some time and distance. My expectation is that we will have again challenging debate on this topic but its vital important. I am personally, whether its with her to privacy or related to any patriotic act provision or authorize use them to force a large, im of the opinion that congress should be weighing in on these issues rightly. Its far too easy to say its already authorized and half a generation later well have to any accountability for whats happening. I do think there will be very interesting debates to be part of, i think its vitally important element of our safeguarding our democracy to make sure that congress, members of congress as the voices of citizens across the country have to weigh in on debate and ultimately vote for what we deem to be appropriate provisions or appropriate authorization, be it for any sort of Information Collection or maintenance or authorize use of military force overseas. Host representative Abigail Spanberger is a democrat from virginia. Emily birnbaum is with the hill publication. Thank you both for being on the communicators. This communicators and all others are available as podcasts. Television has changed since cspan began 40 whingers ago but our Mission Continues to provide and then filtered view of government, already this you we brought your primary election coverage, the president ial impeachment process and now the federal response to the coronavirus. You can watch all the cspans Public Affairs programming on television, online or listen on our free radio app to be part of the National Conversation through cspans data Washington Journal Program or through our social media feed. Cspan, create it by private, americas cabletelevision company, as a Public Service and brought you today by your television provider. The Senate Returns today for legislative work with a vote scheduled for 5 30 p. M. On an executive nomination. Later in the week work possible on fisa reauthorization of talks will likely continue off the floor on future Coronavirus Relief legislation. Watch the senate live starting at 3 p. M. Eastern on cspan2. The house after consultation with members and the attending physician is not expected to resume legislative business until at least the week of may 11. May 11. Until then they continue to hold pro forma sessions every two days as bipartisan negotiations continue on possible options for remote voting took follow live Senate Coverage on cspan2, the house on cspan. John kerry and former u. S. Ambassadors and state Department Officials talked about the Global Impact of the coronavirus. This is hosted by yale university. Welcome to the more than 1000 registered attendees at this jackson virtual discussion forum. This is the fifth of these discussions. These discussions have tapped the Exceptional Leadership and knowledge that reside in the jackson network. And today is no exception. All of our panelists today are senior fellows who teach here at yale. Our moderate today, secretary john kerry, graduated from