Transcripts For CSPAN2 Sen. Tom Cotton Mike Rogers Others Testify On 5G Security Huawei... 20240712

Tonight at eight eastern on the communicators on cspan2. Standard john cotton one members of the bridge about buying g5 equipment from the Chinese Company while way. The arkansas republican join former House Intelligence Committee chair mike rogers and retired Brigadier General Robert Spaulding who predecease her on the National Security council under the trump administration. They answered questions from the British Defense subcommittee on china for about two hours. Order, order. Welcome to this Defense Select Committee hearing to consider the International Response to the uk government decision to allow while we to continue to operate its 5g network and implications of the gibbous decision for information sharing across the alliance. Also to discuss International Ambitions and the role of 5g technology and within this specifically look at Cyber Attacks and the distal silk road. Our session date is divided into two parts and id like to welcome senator tom cotton joining us for part one and Brigadier General spaulding and mike rogers will join us for part two. Senator, thank you very much indeed for your time today. Your ex mr. Perdue sat in the house of representatives before being elected senator. You are a regular, to use for the first and particularly on the u. S. And china relationship. For transparency, you and i have done each other for many, many years. I think prior to you entering politics so thank you very much indeed for your time today. Can i just say on a wider note we are very conscious that we meet during a challenging time for the u. S. Following the tragic death of george floyd. Our thoughts are very much with those impacted by this tragedy. The u. S. Is not alone in needing to do more to tackle the underlying issues but our thoughts and prayers are very much with those who are directly affected. Could i invite you to say a few words as an opening statement, then well move into questions. Thank you very much indeed. Thank you, mr. Chair and thank you for this kind words about some of the strife on our streets today. Of course we all want justice for george floyd and we are all deeply disturbed by that horrific video that probably all of your scene, that most of our nation sensing and at the same time we have to have an end to the violence, the looting and the writing we see and the streets. But today we are gathered here today to talk about china and specifically the threat that while way poses to our special relationships while way. And to the civilized world. Ive a few remarks at the outset on that front. You want to make clear that i am not here on behalf of the United States government. The views expressed are solely my own although i do believe they are widely shared in our nations capital. I also want to stress im a great admirer of the United Kingdom, a passionate supporter of our special relationships. In recent years ive introduce legislation that halted the planned withdrawal of forces and also help significant delay our joint development of warhead for your submarines. Both those efforts were successful. Its my hope the special relationship remains strong, although i fear china is attempting to drive a hightech wedge between us using huawei. The committee has access to testimony from very capable special about why huawei equivalent is not trust with aniston yougov has been been advised that the threat from huawei can be detained if it is kept away from sensitive facilities and the socalled core of your network. I wont way too deeply in that debate but our own technical experts to screen as well as the experts and allied democracies like australia and japan. These same experts warned that huawei could up china update host of damaging information from details about how our aircrews fly, intrusive personal information about our airmen themselves. Sin there sinners with a commune party has details about American Forces station in your country. Let me give you one hypothetical, one and i could offer. Our fighters in english with precision guided munitions. Those are transported by shipping Companies Operating on Standard Commercial networks. If that Network Includes huawei 5g quebec could be give hackers a a window into our military Logistics Operations including shipping manifests. Hackers could then redirect make it impossible to load these weapons. These are the warnings of american experts. I must take those warnings seriously. Even if all friends in the United Kingdom have come to a slightly different conclusion. But theres also another consideration i must bring to your attention. Today we judge the threat in the western pacific to be more severe than the threats in europe. China is a more grave longterm threat to International Peace and stability that is russia. So in the coming years the United States wednesday increase our defense posture in the pacific. This buildup may require us to ship assets from other commands. The case for heavy laden of air force assets in england rather than say alaska, hawaii, guam or japan was already tested in our debates in washington. Now senior u. S. Officials are realizing our troops will face Operational Security risks in the United Kingdom that they would otherwise have faced in the pacific. And i say all this as a longtime mentor and friend of our special relationship. It would be a mistake for any british moniker to misinterpret this potential realignment of u. S. Forces as a messaging effort. We believe our airmen could be at risk. We have a greater threat and different him astray will have limited number of courses to do with it. These are simply facts that are under consideration in washington right now. However, there is another patrick written conjoin the United States and other powerful free nations britain can join doesnt empower chinese intelligence. Im quitting kurds by report indicating your government intentional efforts to develop alternatives to huawei on the worlds democracies. I would welcome a close cooperation between our nations on these matters. Its no secret which of these futures i prefer that the decision of course is yours to make. Thank you again for inviting me to share my perspective as you make this important decision. Senator, thank you for those words. A lot to unpack a Witch Committee will now do. I want to start at a high level if i may. You mentioned the special relationship a couple of times. Would you agree that the pandemic we are now entering has actually exposed how frail our world order currently is . Perhaps how we can risk averse the west has become but the rise of china in pursuing a very different geopolitical agenda, and that many maybe recalibrating their views on china given what theyve been doing in relation to hong kong and coming up, suppressing the initial outbreak in the first place . And how might this lead us to the United States and britain going back to perhaps the origins of our collaboration after the Second World War and look at the Atlantic Charter . Mr. Chairman, theres no doubt that when it comes to Chinese Communist behavior over the last six months. Going back to december it is clear that beijing had knowledge of how serious this virus was. They suppressed information. He intimated the World Health Organization or at least again as late as midjanuary. They resist the travel restrictions that would have kept the virus largely contained by and in mainland china. They continue to those things in preventing the European Union from offering an honest opinion about chinese disinformation efforts. Just in last week week they have cracked down on hong kong in deep violation in 1984. And the United States, use Public Opinion moving strongly against beijing, desiring to have close cooperation with free nations, with the civilized world on things like industrial sourcing to ensure that china cant keep any of our nations over a barrel whether its things like basic medical equipment and pharmaceuticals or advanced Telecommunications Technology like were discussing today. And that situation as you said simply reiterates how important it is for our nations to cooperate and to help lead that coalition of advanced industrial democracies, combines economically, politically, militarily. We are far greater than china in terms of strength and power and the ability to maintain International Stability and peace. Divided though, china will continue to try to replace the United States as the dominant power and to rewrite the International Rules of order. Thank you. Richard drax. Good afternoon, and nice to meet you. As far as we can virtually. We heard about special relationship. Is the scope for u. S. Uk leadership in the modern world . Thank you. I think theres no doubt about that. I think thats part of what breaks it was about, the United Kingdom being able to chart its own course and not have to reach a consensus with a couple dozen other different nations. And with that greater freedom of action, the United States continues to enjoy i think theres no doubt that u. S. Uk leadership once again would be welcomed. Many nations could accuse our combined Political Economic and military might, look for instance, of what shelley is facing. One of our five eyes partner. Trade retaliation by china simple because they want investigation into the origins of this virus and also what beijing did to cover it up. I think a strong, confident, united u. S. Uk allies will, in fact, be a strong leader for the free democracies of the world. I dont want to is there anything specific that the two countries should do so for his leadership is concerned today . I think just to go back to the topic of this hearing about 5g technology, one of the challenges that will face is 5g technology is still nascent. We dont know where it might be in three years or even for that matter six months if the Technology Changes so quickly. Part of the problem, there are so few providers of 5g equipment. Theres two that are supportive but theres only three Democratic Alternatives, samsung, ericsson and nokia. That is allow them to Keep Technology and standard lockdown. If the United States and United Kingdom were to lead the way to get chinas open develop standards and you could see small and midsize businesses. Our nation and you nation and nations of the world who could compete with those five companies on price and on quality, and you know longer have huawei and zte able to undercut those Democratic Alternatives on price because theyre so heavily subsidized. Thats just one example of how we could lead the world, kind of Cutting Edge Technology and ensure that the International Order remains oriented around democracy and about capitalist economic principles. Thank you. On the issue of International Order and perhaps its strengths and weaknesses, stewart, do you want to take over from here . Thank you. Hello, senator. So weve talked about decisions that we could make us countries in different relationships. Would you say were saying of paralysis of our Current International decisionmaking at the moment . I think there is some indication, yes, that International Organizations in particular are struggling to meet the challenge the china poses. Thats in part because china has worked so effectively to try to undermine and insinuate itself into the essential decisionmaking of places in those organizations. If you look at the World Health Organization, for instance, and china Senior Leaders of their come done to the extent that our president can no longer have the confidence to remain a member or fun to get. Look what happened two or three months ago right as this pandemic get started. China was on the verge of electing a leader, of all things, the World International Property Organization when china is, in fact, the worlds leading theft of intellectual property. Now thanks to an effort by our government and yours and other free nations were able to run an Effective Campaign to defeat the chinese candidate it goes to show you how assertive effort china has undertaken of these international organization. Even if you look at the eu and the kind of division you have there among nations that of an actively cultivated by china, whether it is through low interest loans, grants and things like the belt and Road Initiative or trade possessions and so forth. I dont think theres much question that china has some influence in reducing effective and united decisionmaking among the free nations of the world, especially of the north atlantic. Something our nations need to address. Thank you, senator. We could say that we are on the back foot on a lot of these or reacting very reactive. How would we amended organizations to be more fit the purpose such as the u. N. Or the World Trade Organization . I think we have to recognize that china is not a country let undemocratic like ours. Thats committing china to the World Trade Organization was mistake or you might call it an experiment that failed, fillea long time ago. Our nation made a mistake by granting china the most favored nation status. We all believe if we did those things come not by we, i dont mean any of us in particular, i mean our forerunners in his offices in washington and london, if we admitted trying to those organizations, if we treated china like an open capital as a democratic economy, china would become more so, capitalists would change china. Unfortunate i think china has change capitalism in many places around the world. We need to reassess whether it is the right thing to do to continue to allow these International Organizations to get such a large role in decisionmaking to what remains a communist, authoritarian government, and a state driven economy. And until we face up to that reality and make those kind of decisions i think china continues in aftermath of world war ii, whether political, diplomatic, economic or military. Thank you. Stuart malcolm mcdonald, he wanted to come in. Yes. Take they, chair. Senator, i could beginning is your time today. Just like the chair id like to echo the sentiment of many in the uk to believe a black american citizens right now [inaudible] you mentioned your support and admire the special relationship. Theres been no shortage by right wing of frank is on the u. S. Side as far as the huawei 5g decision and goals. I would be in agreement but on the issue of American Leadership and the special relationship, some of us feel, myself included that is being undermined by the u. S. President ial specifically the president ial leadership right now, particularly as it withdraws or institution such as the World Health Organizations treaty can such as the open skies treaty. Dont visages leave an opportunity, and attacks of right across the board for authoritarian regimes as u. S. Retreats in this kind of way . No, have to disagree. If anything its opportunity for a free democracy especially those in the northern atlantic to try to help remake world order, to maintain peace and stability just as our forebearers did in aftermath of world war ii. We understand we will have disagreements, with accounts on the open skies treaty or the paris climate accords. Our relationship [talking over each other] well, we can help refound a new organization that is a World Health Organization, not a a wd Politics Organization as w. H. O. Has become. But look you had your disagreements about brexit sop obviously there are intense disagreements to cause a lump division in society for many years and we washed up with great interest. We in our society have people who supported the leave campaign and people who support the remain campaign. Whichever one, we wouldve respected that decision and we would have remained your staunchest ally. Thats what it means have that special relationship come to have those allies that when it comes to disagreements repays them frankly but we dont let them undercut our fundamental, our fundamental longstanding, deep ties that go back to the very way we live our lives. Dont you think its a bit risky to withdraw from the w. H. O. In the middle of a Global Pandemic . That strikes me as a bit odd. Not when the w. H. O. Has taken some a steps to make the pandemic worse. The president gave them an opportunity to try to reform and try to be more open and transparent. They did not take the opportunity for 30 days. Apologies. My point is, this is not standing up for our values and the 5g debate is much as a values as his sister. It running away into leaves a great opportunity for authoritarian countries around the world. I admire the United States and it is played and honorable role in many events in history, produced some incredible thinkers. But i cant help but think that current president ial leadership and the particular his style of leadership is undermining us and that is felt by not just me of my constituents of people all political persuasions in the uk right across the board. I hope you can see that. The. I hope you can understand that point, as a lawmaker in the u. S. I i do sit just as i saw a fr Ronald Reagan and george bush as well. Okay. We will move forward if we can. Sarah, georgia take us to the five eyes aspect of this . Yes. Hello, sedative. In question two, how valuable is the Intelligence Alliance . Five eyes is the most valuable and the most powerful Intelligence Alliance in the world. For 75 years its helped us identify threats and many cases eliminate those threats in advance of them gathering on the horizon. I do of course worry that the introduction of Huawei Technology in the United Kingdom Hygiene Network could impact 5g network. We find ways to work around that especially when it relates to imminent threats but when it comes in particular to signals intelligence, electronic intelligence, i worry, i know our administration worries about the implications of having 5g technology in one of those five partners and, of course, three of the partners have rejected 5g technology from huawei or china at large, United States, australia and new zealand. Canada has not yet made a decision. I know their chief defense that has made his opinions plain that he agrees with our nation. Thats one reason why i hope we can present a united front among the five eyes partners on this question. How much of a threat will be breaking down a relationship . You mention signal technology. You mentioned three countries are going in one direction kind of to decide. How much of a threat to five eyes would it be if the government continues with its plans with huawei . It will create some tension and others to show the most instant times intelligence legislation has laster calls for intelligence to consider the extent to which partner nations have chinese Source Technology in their networks. Ive introduce legislation that would take a step further. The nsc car National Security council, is undertaking its own review. Now again we would find a way to work around on the most urgent questions of sharing intelligence, sharing analysis or sharing the imminent threats of course we always pass between our five nations. Theres no doubt our intelligence agencies would face some challenges in being as open and sharing as much information. And we have for so many years and i would hate to see that come to pass. Thank you. Just before return more in detail towards the Telecom Security, can i just go back o the five eyes . I think we all agree china is pursuing its own global rules. Its not playing by the standards and does the rest of us were hoping hoping that you would choose to adopt or indeed they are leveraging the absence of our ability to enforce those rules. Is the five Eyes Community something that could be the core of something to rebuild International Standards and values . At the moment its no for sharing intelligence, but the trust that you have come is that perhaps the genesis of a dancing and Atlantic Charter and setting a new construct or set of values and norms that we can absolutely defend . Mr. Chairman, i dont think theres any doubt five eyes intelligence sharing nations have many deep economic, political, historical, cultural ties that could help the foundation of more than mirror intelligence sharing. Our nation already so close together in so many ways that we could form the core, along with many other fairly nations, nations whose cooperate will be essential in these efforts which is japan and south korea, to help establish some of these new standards, whether their technological or international, political standards. Like you. Kevin, question before we move on to Telecom Security complete. Just on five eyes. I mean, i dont think you read documentation around huawei but also i sit on the security committee. Theres no way, at all, anything that cooperation between our two nations is going to be compromised in terms of what has been proposed. So is it not being used as a threat to trying try to change policy all of it like to explain your proposal to stop deployment of f35s to uk, for example . Auditions that methods by which you talk a special relationships and uvalue district is in it clearly you said it it would be down to yuki to make the decisions. Are these being seen as threats to try to change policy in uk . I would have to say not. I think thats like the simple but international Strata Council has undertaken this review right now because but there is no evidence here theres no way, its very clear from our security agencies, theres no way that huawei equipment will come anywhere near anything in terms of her signals intelligence. This gets into the debate about socalled core and edge which is again [talking over each other] are experts just like australia and japan disagree. I would ask why are you so eager to put a a criminal organizatis technology into your networks . Im speaking out, let me finish. Organizations Whose Technology being used to repress millions of muslim minorities in st. John province, a violator. You seem very eager use the technology. So the questions why would you be so eager to use their technology . Senator, to use honest chilean phrase i am no when a brother high when his group since is elected 19 years ago. So what are want to do, actually didnt with the facts, and look to the issue, governor looked at the issue in terms of huawei preventer you are busy having your networks. We have ours. Whats changed . And as i said experts have looked at it and they disagreed. Im happy to speeders but you have huawei equipment in your three or 4g local Wifi Networks in the United States. Are you going to rip all that out . Yes, we are. Back when providing money to some of these very small, very rolled Telecom Providers so they can remove that technology. To compare british use of Huawei Technology, which i believe is well over 50 to american use, its a triple fraction of a percent. We need to move on, kevin, think of it. Doctor hughes. Thank you. Let me associate myself with a comet you made an exposure that of my colleague and friend, Stuart Malcolm mcdonald. Because whilst we all agree and also disagree with the senator, you may be quite shocked to some the agreements i will have with you but i will disagree with some the comments you made last night on the news regarding the department of the airport but what i will agree with you is this. Handing over of your 5g networks to communist party of any country is under insanity. Now, what i do like to ask you is how does the world rely ever more strongly on data . Why is it so important . Thank you for the question. Sometimes it is misperceive the 5g networks that are currently being designed and ultimately will be built across the world are still not just and it can middle step forward from 3g and from 4g technology, and i think this apprehends the leap we are taking in some ways the Information Technology revolution through which we are living out is as big as Industrial Revolution 200 years ago or the agricultural revolution of 10,000 years ago. 3g technology was primarily about mobile web browsing. 4g was primarily about video. 5g technology is fundamentally about connecting machines. Its not about being able to access social media faster or sin more stealthy videos over your devices. Its about heavy Industrial Equipment being able to come and get with each other Autonomous Vehicles being able to make it directly with each other. That is such a giant step forward in technology that a difference in degree will it becomes the difference in time. When you talk about the 5g network that is primarily about the ways we can connect machines to not only do the economic work we need to support our societies, but also the military implications come with that as well. It becomes a much graver threat to chinas technology in 5g networks that was to have it in 4g and 3g networks. I should be clear, im not thrilled that so many countries have built 3g and 4g networks because a break some of these transition costs that your nation or other nations are going through, but the risk is much greater 5g networks and thats one reason why its so important we tried to collaborate to create open standards that eliminates the technology that we faced at that creates so many problems when you only have five competitors, knowing three from democratic nation. Let me ask you a quick follow along to the. The 5g process is one part of a data ownership. Future couplets are not just about dreadful missiles and the destruction of human life. Sulks about governments and nonstate actors owning data. Not just the commonest part of china. For example, if you take the United States, the United States, has the largest private server data network, super Data Network Server in the world. Where would your allies and even those who threaten you and enemies, perceived enemies, see the value and worth of the United States owning all of the data in the own private company . Well, im not sure the United States would not own all that data. Some companies in the United States may have substantial amounts of data, most of it is been given over voluntarily but that raises a lot of personal privacy concerns and there are concerns similar to what aire summit opening remarks about what our airmen could be exposed to in nations that using 5g networks. Thats a conversation that our elected governments need to have, how we balance personal privacy on the one hand, and individual economic choices on the other hand. I think this is important for those who believe in liberty and freedom and the right to selfdetermination such as myself. The ownership of that data is the frontline in any future war by articulating fake news, by racial profiling in any country on earth. For any country data ownership by private companies, and the largest democracy in the world. I understand this concerns and trust me those are concerns that many, Many Americans have his will. Its one reason why you see the bait in a news right now about the telecom laws that govern some of our largest Media Technology companies. We need to make some progress here. Weve got still a lot to cover. Kevin jones, quickly move on to your question, please. Thanks, chairman. The United Kingdom has once had a robust since 2003 2003 a y robust monitoring of huawei and its telecom network. With a huawei assessment center. Judging by our intelligence could you tell us about americas own systems to defend its own network . Obviously, we have similarly robust protections, whether its from our fbi and what to they o with counterintelligence or the National Security the simplest way to minimize the huawei for is not to have while we present in your networks to begin with. As a making of the early exchanges we have a very, very small while we present limited primarily to a few small rural telecoms, and he goes back to many years ago before the threat that huawei ncd post. Thats one reason why were providing funds to the Small Companies to up replace that technology in their networks. I understand. So those networks rightly put in using federal money. So is it the case then in terms of huawei there were no present in the United States x we be banning handsets provided by huawei for example . I be fine banning handsets. The opposite dont pose the same kind of threats that Core Technologies do. They also virtually no Market Penetration in the United States as well. Okay. I think this mcaninch is finished, chairman . I respect your position and i value our special relationship. The problem i think with this is it is a jew political argument. I think thats what it should be articulated out. Because i think you and quite of a of the people skirt around the technical aspects of this. Do you say you dont want China Networks thats fine by me. I think thats a more legitimate argument but i think hiding behind the arguments, or they dont stand up to a great deal of scrutiny when it comes up to technology. Im not hiding been any argument. The division of your own national subscripts and is that they can only to limited assurances about the threat disposes so they would be u. S. Government and just chilled incumbent okay, kevin, we are going to have to move on because many other to many members want to get in. Bob . Thank you much indeed, mr. Chairman. Im glad you made the point because us about to do that as well. Theres very limited assurance. You introduce the bill that was stop the u. S. From sharing intelligence with countries that use huawei in their 5g networks. Do you think the five eyes can survive u. S. Limits intelligence sharing with the uk . I do, as we discussed earlier. We will find ways to continue to cooperate with the United Kingdom and the rest of the five eyes alliance. Unfortunately, it could raise challenges and and her own natl Security Council irrespective of the prospects my legislation is undergoing and a very some review on his own accord. I hope the results of the review is we can find ways to minimize that risk with very limited change to the way the u. S. And the uk interact in intelligence sharing and the five eyes, but part of my point here is i wish we didnt have to take, undertake that we do. Obviously we cant discuss in an open setting but concerns that our intelligence professionals and our technical experts have raised about not just the United Kingdom using huawei but any nation that uses Huawei Technology. I want to correct something one of the legislator said about my legislation that would deploy a 35 fighters to the United Kingdom. It does not delay that specifically. It simply says it raises too great a risk for us to have that advanced aircraft in any nation with that kind of system. Obviously the United Kingdom is not the only nation that uses huawei and we have bases in other nations that choose to use huawei to fill out their 5g network. [inaudible] this had been raised by a previous question but to what extent is the barrier between geopolitics and technical risk or is it all the same issue around china . I think theyre all wrapped up because the point i was discussing earlier is g technology is such a technological leap beyond 3g and 4g technology and it is so central to the way economies will function in the future. And the way our countries will secure ourselves that i believe using Huawei Technology, using any technology from a company that is the home of the Chinese Communist party would be as if we relied on adversarial nations in the cold war to build our submarines or to build our tanks. Its just not something we would have ever considered. There are certain technologies so sensitive and integral and vital to our prosperity and security we would never use adversarial nations or that technology and thats an analogy that i see today with 5g technology. Thank you. Could we turn to the us National Security council, derek twigg please. Darren. Can i just draw your attention. [inaudible] sorry mister twigg im having trouble hearing you. Can you speak up a bit . Can you hear me now . Sorry about that. Could you just tell a little bit more. [inaudible] i could hear thatsenator, did you want me to read that back to you . Its just, there is a review that the National Security council is looking at into sharing intelligence in collaboration with the uk. Can you spell out what outcomes have been provided from this . Unfortunately mister twigg and mister chairman i cant spell that out because i cant the Security Council and unfortunately for the president as i stressed at the outset im expressing my views today as a legislator and i can say that review is not specifically about the United Kingdom. It is about the broader question of intelligence sharing with any partner nation using Chinese Technology in its networks. I can say i believe that whatever the conclusion of that review is i know that our administration will work to find as many ways to mitigate that risk as they can and in particular mitigate that risk with the United Kingdom is our closest intelligence partner in the world. Derek if i made because of your sound ill follow up on the subsequent questions. We spoke about the demise of International Institutions and global architecture. Nato is the closest thing from our perspective to security, transatlantic security. Are you committed to making sure this is one cornerstone that continues to be of strength and investment in . Absolutely. Nato will remain a vital part of the United States National Security strategy and the North Atlantic Alliance has been the most successful military alliance in World History if you look at what we accomplished by bringing anend to the cold war without a shot being fired. And i think unfortunately many of our leaders have awoken to the rest that russia still poses to the north atlantic over the last five or six years. That more than ever, the United States, canada need the support and cooperation of our european nato partners to help check russian ambitions in europe. Just following on from that if i made where all facing an impending global recession because of covid19 and one of the budget challenged in any economic downturn is the defense budget. You wouldnt be surprised to hear this committee is very keen to make sure our budget is unaffected. I dont know what willhappen over the United States but do you agree this is not the time to let our guard down. Absolutely i agree that we need to ensure that our militaries are not harmed by this pandemic. Especially in the years ahead. As we do face budgetary constraints. Ive introduced legislation that would offset many of the cost and schedule overruns that industries will obviously face. Here as im sure there, theres a lot of Media Attention on businesses that are consumer facing. Theres not as much attention on ourDefense Industry but they too have been affected by this pandemic , small and midnight midsize businesses and military suppliers have had to shut down factories or suffer reduce our inevitably going through no fault of those contractors will lead to cost overrun and schedule overruns. I dont want to see that lead to lower budgets in the future or even worse a reduction in the number of aircraft or shifts or vehicle that we are able to produce. Id also say that collectively, nato or the free world is probably up there spending my six or 7 trillion. Im trying to survive this pandemic and get our economy back on their feet. When there spending thatkind of money , to not spend a few billion or tens of billions of dollars collectively between all of our nations, would be the ultimate example of swallowing cameras while choking onthats. We will pass on to our chancellor, thank you. John stoddard. We cant hear you, john. Cant hear me at all . Good. Senator, i think you can see from the discussion that this issue has caused divisions between traditional allies. Not least between myself and my old party friend and defense holly kevin jones. Who are normally allied on issues. But what i want to go to now is the question of what chinas intentions and actions, more broadly. In particular particularly where there increasing commonness of the war and diplomats and manifestations and also how you see their strategy and their objectives playing out over the next 10 to 15 years. Thank you for the question mister miller. I admit chinese ambitions are pretty straightforward. You can see it from your their actions but you can listen to the words of german g. In the short term they want to push the United States and our allies out of the electoral in the western pacific and indian ocean. And want to reduce countries on their periphery. So thats a safe that they have yet so often over the course of history. And they want to reunify what they perceived to be all of china. Forcibly ifnecessary to taiwan. I think you can see hong kong as something of a test run. For what they may plan to do with taiwan if the free world does not stand steadfast with that Democratic People. So i dont think their intentions are concealed or veiled in any way. Ultimately their longterm intention is what it was longterm up to the hundred Year Anniversary of the founding of modern communist china and they accelerated that because of the impact of the pandemic is to replace the United States as the worlds preeminent economic and military power. With all that means for reordering the International Rules of peace and stability. Thank you. One of the advantages they have maybe being a bit more strategic. Maybe then maybe more than our allies plan to the end of or example with huawei, have a possibly a strategic objective of selling dissension division amongst allies should we be looking far more as a strategic and coherent and agreed approach. Its true that china has had a remarkably rise over the last 30 to 40 years. Fortunately unfortunately too many people in the us and europe aided and abetted that rise even once it became clear in thelast 15 or 20 years of their intentions. Where not benign. But i think its also true that Democratic People can often look at authoritarian governments and say they have advantages because they have one strongman or they can direct capital to state uses like huawei and bbe but history showing time at the end of the advantages of democratic nations in termsof the dynamism of their people , the innovative spirit, the willingness to stand and fight for our freedom and our way of life is an incalculable advantage that we have over communist authoritarian nations. Of course we have traditions, your statement churchill said the only thing worse than fighting with allies is fighting without them and i guess you could say that about thosepeaceful decisions as well but in the end , im very confident that if we stand together, despite our occasional differences that we recognize chinas malign intentions that we will be able to face off against this threat justlike we have time and again over the centuries. Senator, thank you. Mark french law, if youre there. Im here. The floor is yours. Senator, youve mentioned earlier there were a limited number of providers around the world to manufacture highend 5g technology. What our committee has taken over the mismatch, one of the things we focused on is why theres no american manufacturers. Why do you see that beingthe case . Sadly think its the result of failed economic and trade policies going back 30 years that we could outsource so much of our manufacturing capacity in so many different sectors of our economy around the world to include two hostile communist nation like china. We just deliberated at the peak of a pandemic where we were worried about having enough masks and gloves for ourdoctors and nurses and were worried about china having the market cornered in vital pharmaceuticals. So that theres been a degree of economic thinking over the past 20 to 30 years that privatize market efficiency over an area of market principles and thats an important principle , for resiliency in production is a very important point as well. I wish we had an american producer on the scale of samsung, gnocchi or eris ericsson. We have a lot of small and Midsize Companies can possibly compete with those giant companies if they had the kind of open standards and technology wasnt locked up. Im sure at t and verizon and a lot of our small suppliers would love to be able to choose between dozens of manufacturers of this equipment as opposed to just five worldwide and only three democratic ones and i think that really needs to be a vitally urgent effort on our part and on your nations part and the part of advanced democracieseverywhere. You for that. Sir. Something thats been put to me is go ahead. Mark, go ahead. Quickly to say that part of the heart of 5g would be hardware as well as software. Companies like cisco that are far advanced, senator, would you agree that between us have the technology and the amounts to create a less than 5g system if we have the will. You think that that is something that the United States and the United Kingdom historically as allies could help to lead on integrating if you like 5g. Absolutely and especially if you stand beyond just the us and the United Kingdom, if youlook at what your governor suggested. The heat and of democracies, the g7 and the south korea and japan combined, or other european nations as well with the United States and United Kingdom at itsheart , i have no doubt that we have the talent, the productive capability, the innovative entrepreneurial spirit, to develop 5g technologies on software and hardware that will surpass in Quality Performance unlike anything china produces. Okay, lastly, do you think its realistic given the economic pressures of cobit that congress would help finance that or at least help. Theres no doubt about that. This would be an example of straw and cameras and choking on that. Theres legislation in Congress Proposes spending a few hundred million dollars, 1 billion on helping promote that kind of technology. We would of course call on our partners to help kitchen to the kind of alliance that your government has suggested so were all in the boat rolling in the same direction. But in the same way that it would be penalized and foolish to shortchange our military it would be foolish to shortchange the opportunity we have in the months and years ahead to try to develop an open 5g system that can overcome Chinese Technology. Thank you mark. Final question. Senator, in order to explore your initial reaction to the uk governments decisions to allow huawei to continue a presence in the 5g structure. Like our governments stated reaction in january, it disappointed me. I understand you think a different kind of situation then we because of the Legacy Networks you have in 3g and 4g networks that use Huawei Technology. I do hope that if the governmentrefines its decision , that if it doesnt revert out right, we will mitigate and minimize the use of Huawei Technology, put it on a shorter timeframe, limit the expansion of 5g networks and which is what weve done to help Wing Networks off of their legacy technologies. Ive seen the media reports that suggest that could happen as early as 2023. Iwould welcome that , maybe even earlier. I am intensified why you spend that money using onetime technology only carried out three years later again, we will continue to observe and work with your governments and the decisions they take to try to ensure that our Alliance Remains as strong as it always has been. And that we are also creating kinds ofalternatives mister francoise and i were discussing for the rest of the world. The government did change tax by 2023 as you just said without enough to mitigate your concerns . In 2023 and obviously would but many of my concerns are not specific to the uk. Again, you got an act legislation about f 35 fighters, weve got to make a decision about deploying those many different countries. Obviously if you no longer have dochertyhughes technology in your Huawei Technology a virus could be made under my legislation. That doesnt mean i would drop my legislation, if my legislation is not about the United Kingdom. Its about huawei and the threat it poses to our airmen andaircraft. But i would welcome that decision to go to zero by 2023 and i would urge you to try to do so even sooner. Thank you senator. The following off my final question on Mark Francoise question. The reason why were in the situation is because we relied heavily on the commercial sector to provide the answers to 5g while what chinas response is very much to state fund their commercial sectors and provide a hightech solution with which are now able to sellwith abundance around the world. Congratulations on your driving on connecting up with the space station, thats a great example like apollo of america between the commercial sector and state funding. Clearly, the layout, the parameters for 5g go way beyond any individual nation. Would you agree that there is not five community to invest and put money up front, to work with the commercial organizations to create international secure established network for us to move forward with so we can actually replacehuawei far faster and perhaps even our government is intending to do. I think thats a great opportunity for our nations. And it will probably in the long run the exactly that kind open Network Technology that allows hundreds or thousands of companies to compete, ratherthan putting all our eggs in one Democratic Alternative , a company that we hope will be able to compete with huawei which is what the Chinese Government has done with its massive subsidies, time develop an open protector will allow a pretty our country or your country to compete build his cuttingedge technology our countries will be dependent on. Center, thank you very much for joining us today and its reassuring to hear your determination to continue furthering the special relationship but i hope we would also prove that when there are differences or views, where it to express them really work through them. We faced a very challenging time internationally and i think the more the us and United Kingdom can set up and Show International leadership as we did during the Second World War and creating the bedrock of organizations for that period, again, must we Work Together in this difficulttime now. Senator, on behalf of the committee and i say thank you for joining us thisafternoon. Thank you all. Iq, unconscious of those in a few minutes but we will continue on, we may lose Committee Members but im delighted to welcome Brigadier General spalding and mike rogers who i hope are now with us. Good to see you both. Brigadier general robert spalding, former air force general, senior director for strategy for president trump, now senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and mike rogers, former u. S. Army, former fbi, former congressman from michigan and now writing on Cyber Intelligence and 5g physically in connection with huawei and said he and now chairman of 5g action now. Center both very much welcome to market our Committee Hearing , we must look forward to hearing what you have to say. Because of time constraints we will gostraight into it if i may. And invite kevin jones to ask the first question. We cant hear kevin so thats an excellent start. Kevin is now back. Kevin, over the user. Welcome gentleman. Could you give an overview of your concerns about chinas involvement in the Telecom Sector western mark. I guess ill take that and start. Very much mister chairman and Committee Members, the understand after the committee theres a chance for a pipe along the way. I went back for that portion of the committee testimony. And thank you again for that special relationship. I do, i am a complete believer that we are Better Together as we go forward this uncertain time for this Great Power Competition about the on i would say my concern Chinese Communist Party Involvement and the heavy involvement that they have in the Telecommunications Business is really three buckets. Economic security, so think about it theft. Trillion dollars of intellectual property stolen, that means Economic Prosperity for the future could be lost and likely is lost. The fact they put themselves in a position or economic extortion. We have seen that most recently when australia came out and said they were going to investigate the origins of covid19 and the Chinese Government said that would be great so maybe the chinese would be interested in drinking australian wine or eating japanese bees so when you empower them in an economic sphere with 5g we have something to worry about for sure. National security is that other bucket. Think about government secrets, military secrets, diplomatic secrets, there continued targeting of us military readiness technology, capability. All of that is all part of that bucket of National Security that we worry about including the fact by the way that they can turn things off so you get into a conflict, if their controlling networks in Great Britain or the United States or anywhere else they would have the ability to shut certain parts of the network down. You can imagine the confusion and chaos that might cause for anybody that stating the chance to use this fear and lastly, that last bucket is personal security so you think about personal data. Ive heard you talk to senator cotten earlier about privacy of data. Thats going to be incredibly important. This is a nation who set up a credit scoring system to get every piece of data and in some reports as many as 2000 points of data on each citizen and then score them and then use that against those citizens if they have ill feelings towards the communist party in china. In the past couple of years 6 million chinese citizens were prohibited by the government from buying tickets on airplanes and trains because the Chinese Communist party deemed them not worthy of having that right within their country and remember these are the same folks talking about trying to get hold of our networks and the data that flows over them and as a cyber securityguy can tell you if i can touch your data , i can get your data read accesses everything including in the intelligence base so i look at that bucket, those three buckets of whiteim concerned. And Going Forward, why we worry about this together and i hope the Prime Minister is as he talked about maybe rethinking his position on huawei as i hope that he reconsiders and i hope that we will have at least some time today to talk about issues why, even further and just my last bit of, im going to read some of the charges that have been brought against this company. These are us charges but other countries have experienced the same. This is against huawei, conspiracy to steal trade secrets, ensure the wire fraud, bank fraud and wire fraud conspiracy to violate international power. And effective trade secrets and the list goes on. Construction of justice, if this were a French Company or a russian company, a us company that came to britain and said because we are big and important we think that you should give us a piece of your market area that we should guarantee that i get percentage of your market. What board of directors in the world would look at a company with this track record and say yes, come on in. It will make accommodations foryou. Based on what we know about their behavior in the past , and just a couple of quick newspaper highlights. China cycles for an internet control coronavirus coverage. The financial times. European mobile traffic seriously routed through china for two hours. Independent in the uk and by the way, if not mysterious, we know how this works and they did it, china systematically hijacks internet traffic research. The it news in australia and by the way what i found was anytime there was a trade negotiation or something of importance to the Chinese Government , traffic routed china so eat these are the folks who had control of networks, using that access to those networks to do things that would not the inline i think with our values and that list is long and i could go on for a while that gives me at least mister chairman or gives you at least the understanding of why i thinkso many of us in the National Security state are so passionate about making sure we get some decisions right. I agree with you on the threat from china. In hacking and some of the clear examples of stealing intellectual property. But what id be interested to know is the relationship within the us and china in terms of the technology because a lot of these things are funded by investors from the us so on investing in chinese coldness and you say the ability with huawei to turn off the network, can you ask wayne how that would happen because i struggle and ive had extendedbriefings on this understand how you would do that. When you havent got direct control of the network in each country. So it would be pieces of the Network Number one. So the one thing about 5g is people say we can protect the core. The interesting thing about the developers of this technology is all that is in the court then 5g is functioning properly about pushing the security to the endusers so when you do that , it gives the ability i am doing any multiflexing that system meaning finally moving data, and interpreting data and sending data somewhere we would know it as routers and other pieces ofequipment. Then i am doing the patches on those pieces of equipment and by the way, the vendor operators for the patents every day, lots of Administrative Functions go over into these devices to make sure their functioning properly so you get updates, they get the latest and greatest technology. If you have the ability to do any Administrative Functions you have the ability to disrupt that function. And have access to those units so it might not be your old network goes down but what you could do is jeopardize certain parts of your network and if you know theyre interested in economic extortion we watched the chinese do this. And i think you have to be concerned about their ability to go in and make things difficult or even just slow it down. But general,you dont need access to hardware back into a system. And in terms of the example you just gave me, a Network Vendor operator would know if data was being taken out part of his network and beable to stop it. I think the biggest threat personally is from hackers and technology with chinese invested in both military and in the open secrets and that doesnt mean necessarily the hardware,that i have an issue with a friend very extensively. Im not sure, i was in the army. Less around the general, general and i can before you. I think these are all great issues and i think good conversation. The challenge that we have is understanding what ip is. And really, when i hear the Telecom Industry talk about their not really talking about 5g. 5g is not really about passwords he. Its really about building an industrial internet provides for automation, self driving cars, industry 4. 0. The challenge that we have today is reform. First is the technological challenge. We built the current mobile internet on eminently distinct data models that the internet was built on an open data model so to the point about if youre in your end, thats the challenge with the data module. Turned into a business problem for the telecoms. What happened with the open data model is that companies from Silicon Valley came over the top and monetize user data. And when they monetize user data and all the value out of the system so in the United States we spent doing hundred 50 billion in these networks. Then the Telecom Industry was payback for it. So on top of that, what you had over the course of 10 years 2007 when the iphone cannot, a complete change in the Global Economy from an industrial economy to an information economy at t, topfive in market cap in 2007 and in 2018 was nowhere to be seen. You have instead facebook, amazon and google. So what you have in addition to the Technology Problem and the business problem is you have a policy problem because we havent caught up to the fact National Security is on the mentally shifted from the traditional battlefield arena to write in our own mixed so were talking about social media influence, talking about undermining of our collective economy. Most of that surrounding the use or misuse of data so this is what the Chinesecommunist Party has figured out. The way that they do this is first create a moat around their population to ensure that they cant. And then have the freedom to attack others by deploying the network. How do they do that . They know theres a business problem in the Telecom Industry so they take ali baba and . 10, they are Silicon Valley companies examples. Hold the money, the enormous amount of money, ali baba alone made 38 million last november on 1111 in one day. They pull that money and subsidize the deployment of the network because they want access to the data. If you listen to their leading Artificial Intelligence researcher he says we are today as saudi arabia is oil or gold is due, collect and monetize that data. Its not just for the Economic Dominance of china. It is also theinfluence. If you look during coronavirus , 40 percent of the closed on social media are coming from box. I would venture to say youre probably seen the same thing going on with the rise that are happening. They have learned very well how the internet can be used to influence populations. So chairman rogers talk about how theyre doing it in their own society but theyre also figuring out how they do it abroad by using huawei as one of the avenues from it. Its not just huawei though. Huawei is a member of three gtp which is the industry standards making body so if you look in the security of the 5g Network Today across all the staff of 5g, theres 800 writeups in front of 3tgp for security. 3000 technical vulnerabilities just on the Network Stack and if you look at all of our networks, not just yours but ours, there networks that are built on 2g, 3g, 4g so theyre adding five key radios to an already Insecure Network with an insecure text at so were talking about the right things but we have to understand the problem we face and its not a problem that you is unique. Its one of those where a technology would become in front of our eyes a dual use technology in terms of its use to undermine our economy and our society and we dont have the needs means to stop it, primarily because in the United States we created the Global Engagement center. This was supposed to counter influence over the internet but what we found is the Global Engagement center and state department doesnt have the authority to collect data so that they can understand the influence that going on right now Carnegie Mellon is one of the universities and others around the country and are trying to make sense of the influence thats going on in our social media networks. Quite frankly our Intelligence Community is sidelined because of our own loss so this is what the chinese and russians quite franklyfigured out and i think theyve harnessed it quite well for their own ends. Thank you for that. Richard drax. Good afternoon general and good afternoon mister rogers. Can i just pick up and a question i asked the Prime Minister recently and that was a review on every single defense supplied in the country because theres evidence that i understand china is buying out all Companies Going bustduring this pandemic. Do you have any evidence about being in america that even if you dont argue changing your supply lines as well as far as the Defense Industry is concerned . General spalding perhaps would be best if we may. This started back in 2014 looking at the Industrial Base not only are we losing Tech Startups that would be considered dual use technology but we are also seeing, weve already seen the erosion of our Industrial Base. The main challenge that we have as a country is we dont have an industrial policy to speak of that really ensures what are those critical things we could do to ensure that we have either made in the United States or in the country of an ally. Thats like im coming to my question about why the United States does not have a Global Market leading provider of 5g and i think youve answered that in several ways or at least the ability to collect data area that is the case what is the United Statesdoing to increase its capability in this area . Unfortunately were not doing enough because the need remains. The chief problem in the industry today if you want to deploy 5g, first of all were not deploying american which i talked about which requires Data Security and Data Sovereignty and really an industrial, more of a military Grade Network so you can prevent the hacking of the self driving cars or remote surgery. The thing thats really preventing us is that we dont have enough volume of production of the radios that actually gets it down to a price point that you can deploy it easily and the reason we dont have that is because none of the telecoms are buying those radios. The only ones deploying a lot of 5g radios are the ones the south koreans did in south korea but the chinese are getting the production flow in for their radios so we can actually get a price point in addition to what theyre subsidizing. Were not doing it because our telecoms are buying enough radios so if we want to really get after this is really about having a major project that bumps up, gets us in the production flow. Could i say one quick point here if i may on this. This is where i think we often talk about our five partners and the brits are certainly very high onthat list. Heres where i think we made a mistake and the general is right, industrial policies were having those debate what does that look like, should the government do it or a private sector and i have some strong thoughts on that but where i think we can help , Even Companies that have the same values, if you look at and erickson and gnocchi up that are in your neighborhood so to speak who do have the same kinds of values that we would appreciate and to build out of these networks, why they cant compete is when the company like huawei is so heavily subsidized by the Chinese Communist party. On 2 fronts. They also subsidize the research and development which takes that cost almost off the shelf for pricing, to price their products and number two, they finance deals with zero interest loans or no loans at all just by financing deals and allowing the equipment to take that to places where the deal is so good that no western company or no free market Oriented Company can even compete on the price. Which by the way is exactly how i got on to the huawei problem back in 2010 when someone walked into my office and said i dont know if this is a problem but somebody wants to build i think it was 13 towers with all the gear on it and it cost me less than two towers for the nearest competitor. And i said i dont know much but i may have had to take my shoes off to count that high but i thought something doesnt smell right here and thats kicked off this old investigation about how they were crushing the private sector free market Competitive Companies who had the same values as we do by doing these kinds of deals that no one could compete with so this is where i think we have an opportunity to step in and help them through xm bank and other things to say were going to at least allow you to be competitive with the chinese companies. Right now its hard to dothat when the government is supporting their efforts. I hear you and the points weve heard lots of reasons from those whove given answers youve just given at my question to both of you is what is the government saying is such a serious issue and the nature of the defense of the west i think were looking at is as big as that. What are they doing aboutit. I can say this, the Us Government today is having debates on what that looks like what the first step they did and they took a lot of heat for this, the trumpet ministration as an excellent on saying were going to confront huawei purchases and one of the ways we can do that is by saying were not going toallow them here and that does hurt. It deprives them of revenue and it sets the security standard of what we think a security standard should be for these companies. Huawei wouldnt touch that within 100 miles so that was the first step and i think it was a concretestep. Thats why when canada and ive met with our canadian friends and our british friends on this notion that you can have, you can be a little bit pregnant with huawei here and everything will be okay. I just dont believe that and it also hurts the grand notion of if they are a collection platform for the state of china and they are illegally subsidizing using it to illegally steal intellectual property, using it for espionagepurposes in addition to what its function , we really shouldnt allow them to be anywhere though the most immediate thing we can do is just to say no, because you dont raise to the center we cant let you in. If they want to go back and change the way they do business we should think about it but theyre not doing that because its in conflict with their data dominance by 2025. Thank you for that richard. Can i ask you if the purpose of this study is really not just to nudge the government into wider thinking but also our parliamentary colleagues but you talked about a wider debate. It still feels that its not resonating with the general public. Are we missing eight sputnik moment, that point in 1957 where really america woke up in recognizing the soviets were far far ahead they needed to be an invigorated effort to not only catch up but overtake . Do you feel that weve reached that moment yet or is it yet to come . I think it yet to come. You can see the signs but if youre not looking for it, its very difficult to tease out the impact to our democracy, to our economies of whats been essentially going on over the last 10 years so in that the challenge, is describing it to people. Most people dont understand the technology. They dont understand the business and therefore they dont understand the policy, the Foreign Policy and National Security policy implications and im not talking about just the general public, im talking about National Security professionals themselves. They are totally comfortable talking about the land, the sea, air and space in terms of a threat to our society but in terms of what the internet has, its very difficult in terms of that group to really understand it or articulateit. Just to add on that im a little more optimistic only because of the tragedy we are in now with covid19. People are seeing the stresses on what people thought would be normal behavior to share masks or share personal Protection Equipment or medicines but what we found was the Chinese Communist party as they went in, they hugged around and said we will share it with who we want and use it as a weapon to people with whom we have differences. I think is going to wake up the American Public on a reliance on supply chains of Critical Materials and i would argue i think we can slide five the in the future. Do you really want to be dependent on the Chinese Government with Everything Everything goes wrong . My argument is probably not. That i asked general spalding, you wrote a memo i think to your own government about government buildout on 5g networks. Have you had a response from this at all west and mark. I think there has been a positive response in some quarters. The problem that we have again is the same problem that you have and that other democracies have is the entrenched interest in the Telecom Industry. They dont want to see change and quite frankly, theyre not capable of deploying the type of network that i think that we are trying to get you in terms of emoting industry 4. 0. We have, were in a place where because of invention, because of our established business overseas, its very difficult for us to break out of and its one of those things where government actually has to take a leading role. I just look at British Telecom as one example. There a requirement for British Telecom to provide services to the people of the uk. But theres also a definite need for the uk Going Forward for an advanced ai platform for the automated things of the future. Thats not British Telecoms business right now. So ultimately, you cant take that network and modify it to do those things. You have to build an entirely new network and thats the challenge that were all facing is that all of these use cases and applications that were talking about will never come to market unless you build a network because what were talking about is a new type of network area is not just communication, its alsocomputing and its also needs to be done securely. For that and weve lost a couple of our colleagues. Ironically were having a vote on how we should vote given the virtual process of voting, whether we should be here in person or not. Its class with our committee which gives it anillustration of the challenges we are currently facing. Im conducting my own little rebellion against this staying with you and focusing on my committee work. Glad to see some of my other colleagues have done the same. I just want to focus on the actual companies themselves. What is on offer there . If you want to not use huawei, whos out there . From the british perspective youve got erickson and nokia but also samsung in korea. In the United States, what are the companies that are now advancing your own 5g capabilities and are they now gaining any state sponsorship to upgrade their abilities to overtake what huawei offers . Theres a couple companies, gma and air fan that produced 5g radios. Gma is more of an open ran company. And has had more of their kind of proprietary equipment like a samsung and but very small volumes. The problem quite frankly is just the lack of Real Investment in 5g. In terms of, those are the radio providers. On the core provider side, its a mismatch of companies that have been selling to the Telecom Providers based on a servicebased architecture, also on is one, green wave is another. Microsoft just bought a firm, the firm is another Software Core based on a servicebased architecture. All of these are essentially Building Telecom Traditional Telecom software course so right now, looking at the core businesses, theres not a lot of kind of what i would call enterprise industrial Internet Provider amongst the Software Providers for the network equipment. But none of these in the spirit of that sputnik moment are receiving state funding to expedite or advance their offerings. Not yet. It seems very late in the day given the length of time that this is happening so i would agree with you that sputnik moment hasnt come. You mentioned the policy for the programs on offer. There was talk of acoalition forming on it ran. Can you expand on that andwhat is happening on that front . There are companies coming together in open ran. I think at the end of the day , the problem with open ran just like i stated is the lack of investment coming from the Telecom Industry you really accelerates the one in combat. That being said i think youre going to see 5g radios in the market by the end of the year. Again though if you want to have widespread deployment that to get into production flow and in order to get into production flow were talking volume orders. Need to see an order for 10,000 radios, not in order for 10. Thats the challenge that we face today so if you really want to make your country competitive, for the future youre going to have to look at this more as a National Investment and somehow simulate that with policy. Mike, i know youve got your thoughts on this. Quickly, there is oran group is coming together. Theres interesting conversations from the Us Administration with companies that are producers, even the ones currently in the business, erickson and nokia about how that plays out in the future. Oneof the other reasons, though theres been a little bit of a difference of debate on how we get there. Ive been trying to get out of the west and one of the ways we do that is by clearing spectrum and they call it the goldilocks spectrum, and unfortunately thats been clogged up and its been clogged up for a long time so we finally got our federal Communications Commission to agree on an option and are chairman has done an excellent job to actually open up that spectrum and help clear it out, put it up for auction and i think youre going to get lots of investment once their certainty. Right now there would be enough certainty based on what spectrum you have available and this has been for the United States eight circular firing squad for a long time. Weve often talk about why we dont invest, we cant get in and we have no certainty that you have no certainty because we have to leave the spectrum to someone else. That is starting to get cleared away in a way that i think will allow the United States not only through the oran initiatives meaning we make those boxes done, meaning that can be a commodity, im not even sure where its produced because the real value will be in the software and the virtualization and in the network splicing that lays over that year so open radios, clear out the spectrum and allow us companies to bid on the spectrum in the United States. Now youll get at t interested and verizon and all the big players, Companies Like century link and others who can participate in a way they couldnt participate before so im not as pessimistic. I do think were a little behind but once you unleashed the hounds of American Innovation i say look out. I think thats the way were going to be able to not only match the chinese beat the chinese in the near term. Ill say that i think when you go back to the last industry disruption, you were really, it was based on the mobile platform and of course the 4g network was the prize and in that case what you do is rely on consumer, consumers to buy the equipment by platform essentially and was consumer adoption that drove the industry disruption. What were talking about here 5g is on the infrastructure side. Consumers dont drive infrastructure investment, thats done at the enterprise level so were looking at enterprises that need to invest in technology quite frankly they havent determined what the Business Model is so this is really the kitchen a problem. How to use for investment in what is really an enterprise investment, not a consumer purchase . Thank you for that and i do think when you look at the sheer number of sensors thats going to mean enterprise productivity and increases in productivity thats going to drive this rain and that the other side of it and there are companies out there now who are looking at secure ip and how they protect the core and control plane. And 5g that to me its exciting. I think theres going to be opportunities here but with a clear out the underbrush i think to get there. Asked a little bit about greater collaboration to western vendors themselves causes seems to be a challenge. In relation to that, could i , you understand the british set up that we have here. Theres been pressure on the United States, quite vocal open pressure, and all these from congress and so on, get out of, huawei should get out of our 5g conversation but youre aware of how embedded they are in 3g and 4g. Is it realistic for this government to be able to make a commitment to unpick that in the next couple of years . I have to think it is possible but i think it is a commitment and its not going to happen overnight. We areworking through this in the United States. We have companies that have huawei gear and all legacy systems and with mergers that happened within the last decade. Theyve picked up quantities of huawei gear in the networks and its expensive to replace no doubt but here the Us Government is considering helping to fund, they call it rift and replace so theyre going to help these companies rip and replace, i think that is all but a certainty coming up in the fall. And theyre going to help promote a mitigation plan for these companies to get out of it. And wed like to have it happen fast, probably not going to happen as fast as we would all like. I think britain can do the same thing and it gives you an opportunity to come up with networks, i think its kind of exciting. If you say yes, in order for 5g to work you have to have a functioning 3g and 4g space. And its just the way it works so can you, and be creative on what happens next on these networks that help to mitigate the problem . I know the answer is yes. Theres Great Technology on the horizon and we all ought to be together on it. I believe maybe this heading are good friends the brits over the head is not the best way to go about this. Its better to invite someone to the dance and i would hope that we would engage in this invitation to the next because i think we can be a pretty powerful team on huawei what worries me is even as the chairman and the work that i do now is the message that it sends the uk just says whatever. Our guys said it doesnt really matter, therefore it doesnt. Thats dangerous and was going to do is make people make decisions based on a heavily subsidized Chinese Government product that has all tear your motives because its cheaper. Though i worry about that a little bit but i think we ought to try to find our way forward on this and i think theres a way to do it. General, did you want to comment. A in the rip and replace, defining issues in terms of the adoption by rural operators because quite frankly they dont want to pause service and deal with the challenge with that so thats one thing to consider when youre looking at what your policy should be. I favor a non, i mean i favor a Standalone Network but still securely. Thats built alongside what your existing networks are because it allows you to take a clean sheet of paper and design a secure network from the ground up. I think that the only way youre going to be able to actually deploy the network of the future. I think if you try to doit the other way your voice constantly have security issues. Thank you for that and martin, and i hand us over to you and mark. Thank you chairman and good morning. We have i think might talked about buying cheap, we have an expression where i am in scotland called you buy it cheap, you buy it twice and clearly thats where the United Kingdom and Great Britain and Northern Ireland are heading right now so my question is already answered is how can western governments Work Together to defend high risk chinese vendors from getting in their networks as opposed to you dont like he and you dont like twice, you work with your key allies, would you agree with that after mark. I agree with that 100 percent and particularly we go back to what chairman rogers talk about, rip and replace i would advocate making a bulk buy of radios that when you go to spend that money to invest in it, that those radios are now in production flow much more bang for your buck and i think we can really do a good job if we, the five guys stimulated production on that because once you do that the investment will go a lot further. I would argue again if we all came together with five eyes and say heres the security theater for anybody who competes in any one of the five eyes countries. That would lead to the purchasing of the general talk about and dont present Companies Like huawei and zte. Theyre going to make the trade argument with our friends in britain. They will argue theres a cost to this. If we cant get it in your market will find it, will get around that by agreeing if the five eyes partners this is the security candidate and by the way that standard will be adopted by others because they will know the care and concern we go through to make sure we got it right. Id like that approach so that youre not buying twice. If you buy huawei here you will buy, you have a problem at some point, regretted at some point. It will happen and then you have to figure out your way how to get out of it. That first start to be lets band together, create these requirements, lets by in bulk. Lets figure out a way we can buy these networks in a way that drives down prices and helps consumers. Right then five eyes, the terminology is 5g vendor from a liberal democratic state. Its not just the west. Who would you invite to the dance to great that content more robust i. T. Network for democratic nations . I dont disagree or dont disagree with your description. The problem is we have a time crunch. Here are the five countries we have these very deep secret relationships with that we can sit in the room, behind the curtain, and say here we will share what we know about how this Security Services of china manipulate these networks, manipulate these companies. We can have that pretty quickly. Its not that we dont trust other nations, but as you know the childs beyond the five eyes is what are the length of relationship, we dont have the depth of relationship to each country has a little bit of a different view of intelligence and how we should pick my argument is if you want to do it fast, do it five eyes first and just say for us, were going to set the standard. Would love to invite people in to join us in the standard or at least broaden it out. All of those countries across europe would be interest in my mind. Look at the countries in asia better under the foot of heavy chinese influence operations and other things let me ask, you talk about the debt of relationship through five eyes. I totally agree. Australia, new zealand, canada, u. S. , uk, totally get it. Effectively were saying theres no way in which we can invite others to the dance. And it at the roundabout way are we saying we dont have robust longterm relationships with the french republic, for example . Standard looks like because we have this incredible sharing relationship, to be i would start with the five eyes. Its an easy meeting to convene, for whatever reason. We dont question. That thing would have to be worked through. Again i dont disagree. I would love anybody at this party, how open these countries are and really sensitive things. I think its a great thing. We dont have that same relationship with the French Intelligence Service that we have a great relationship with French Intelligence Service, or the germans for that matter or the polls but they dont, of the technical side dont raise to the same level. Doesnt mean all of those cant participate. I would encourage to do. The bigger this thing is the better. If you want a quick solution of study what a security standard looks like, because we have this incredible sharing relationship, to me i was struck with the five eyes. Its just an easy meeting to convene, getting bigger, you have to go through all of the nuances, can we share this . Can we not sure that . Just the same way the brits dont share things with the french they might not for whatever reason. We dont question. That kind of a a thing would he to be worked through. I dont disagree. I would love anybody at this party that in order to get the party started, famous american singer said that at some point, weve got to have that five eyes relationship working upfront. Thats the way i would do. Im sure there are other folks a different opinions. I would totally go off that theme and look at interoperability and the need for our forces to operate across one common platform. So five eyes absolutely. Nato might be another idea, and nato and japan in the five eyes but between those three groups right there you could create a very strong, a very strong buying coinclusion for secure 5g network. All the forces need them, so all the bases need them. This would really stimulate kind of deployment of those alternative economy the great secure networks. Thank you. Maybe if i can go to the next question specifically and maybe f mike wants to come in on that, could democratic vendor 5g provide for other countries some use the word developing, rather than the chinese . This is far easier challenge, but for the United States its one that we have been struggling to meet. And that is getting usaid, the development of finance corporation and tda, exim, all of these allied to learn more of a strategic application of Development Finance and bring in other organizations like this is the thing that amongst the same group of countries we could come together and be much more over thinking about how we can rather i call it building rather than breaking and will using the combined efforts. In a lot of ways like the Marshall Plan to use the billy to drive the department in these economies in in a way that also promotes democratic principles and human rights and Civil Liberties and free trade. Thats something that needs to be done but we dont act strategically in this way. We are typically, tend to focus on the military aspect of our alliances and we dont focus more on the building part of our collective economies. Quite frankly we dont get the private sector involved. Many in the United States dont get involved outside our borders with exim, with usaid. This is really something i think that we could change the way we collectively work in terms of how we promote our collective security. Just in terms of europe part of continental europe, in terms of both europe and north america. Do you think we have lost our technological dominance . Im not asking if thats a good thing or a bad thing but it does no, no. So this is actually what i found when i was working in the white house. The problem, the technological dominance has shifted out of the Telecom Industry into the Defense Industry. So whether youre talking Software Defined readers, antenna, computing, all of pieces of security, all of those, weve been pouring money into Defense Development and they havent been brought to the commercial market because of the Market Forces that ive described, the inability we have to bell labs, and that was getting money from the governments to do basic science and research. That basic science and research, the stuff that still remains is in the defense crimes. Weve got a lot of very advanced capability that in the evening of deployed in a one off in the military or put on the shelf after it develops. This is really about bring that into the commercial sector, recognizing telecom is a dual use technology and in the point it in the proper way. You want to add anything . I dont think were losing i didnt think we used to be so far superior, we always used to count on our decadelong gap and intelligence with our nearest. Adversary. Thats just closing. Doesnt mean we are not knocking the sting out of the park. I think we are candidly. My biggest pet peeve is people say the ai, china is beating us in ai. The reason their algorithms in ar are performing at the levels that the deal is that because we are not where they are at, and i would argue me places ahead of us, its they collected data. Itll have the same concerns about privacy that we do. You think about the polls of data which would we can apply ai algorithms can to their pretty small compared with the chinese two, 700, 80 billion people, 1000, 2000 data points per person. Both algorithms get better as they run bigger databases. I pushed back a little bit and say no, no, with some issues. We have to get out of her with your great Work Together. As liberal democracies will do, and well get over our small differences. I always argued there are smaller differences than with our adversaries. I think well be okay as long as were paying attention to it and trying to get ahead of it. If we just let it happen to us, youre right we will be looking, we would be standing in the dust wondering what in the heck happened. But as long as we understand we had these challenges, we had to get out of the way, and power the private sector, use private sector with the government, i think were going to be fine. The development of 5g, remember, if we can get to opensource radios and get all the spectrum figured out, the good news about all that is that what happens next is what lays over those that works with Software Defined networks. Were going to own that. That is something for the United States and our allies far superior to with the chinese are today. Thats going to be a big part of how wifi why 5g is successful. Movie on the Access Points in terms of the technology of 5g and look at issues around ownership of data, giving accurate data, high quality data because some people say thats where the wars of the future will be one in terms of getting knowledge. Just also in terms of your document ai, ai itself, everyone keeps forgetting the acronym is artificial. Eventually being pushed by a human being for a specific purpose. Im just wondering are we winning the battle around access to accurate time and i quality data . I dont know general if you some point on that as well . Our challenge is again the open data model that chairman rogers just mentioned. The challenge is that the authoritarian regimes have figured out the power of that and it relies in the aggregation of data. The more data you have, the better your ai is. One of the things that democracies have the ability to do is not listen in on their citizens. What im talking better is pervasive encryption across an ai platform that enables the preservation of privacy, but then at the same time allows for the use of those algorithms in ways that promote our principles. This is that something that quite frankly Chinese Communist party can compete with, and would become a competitive advantage. It were legal course us in the free world to change our focus from an open data model to more of the close data model thats more consistent with gdpr. Gdpr doesnt work because the world is still on an open data model. That requires a change in how we treat data on the network. If we change the way we treat data and we make that owned by the individual creator, then it becomes much more powerful engines of innovation, in terms of speeders i know them overtime but on the part of ownership of data, the chinese a very good at using Ledger Technology. Im just wondering what you think the technology Ledger Technology [inaudible] can be utilized to create an element of trust around ownership of data . Theres a huge element of disinformation, will look at profiling even liberal democracies like amazon, facebook, google, great cause for concern. Im just one if that type of technology covers your vision of all of the future. Was unfortunately not. Really what you do buy is encouraging the data and i would argue you got to get to post quantum encryption. On the Blockchain Technology themselves, you approve of work and proof estate. For proof of work you have to quantum computing vulnerability that you have to hash once we get to powerful enough quantum computer on a proof of state, it really depends on the security of the platform that youre doing, one of the blockchain on. If youre on an insecure let form like we have today, then you really can verify the security of that implementation period those are two great applications that again require to be laid over a secure encrypted network. I dont know if mike once to say anything on this. Think about how we got here. Remember, tech Companies Like google and facebook and others are really very tech savvy advertising companies. That revenue is based on advertising, and that advertising is based on you. I always say if youre getting something for free, you are the product. Thats exactly what they did. They gave it to you for free and said by the way, the product is you. Im going to track everything to do, watch everything you do and then market back to things i think you want to buy to make it more efficient. Thats the model of which we are in. Intel the change how that works until will be in this for a while. Candidly, most people are accepting of that. I am willing to do facebook knowing that theyre going to sing the ads because i get it for free and i like some of the ads. Until we figure out a way, and have to agree with the general, were never going to get encryption until it is after quantum computing, and encryption, then its much, much, much more difficult to find and get that only nationstates will get versus criminal enterprises. We are going to be in the transition and to do think this argument about how to protect the data by the way which is one of my arguments about why we would let huawei in liberal democracies around the world, knowing that they have diverted data to china before, and that when you get their hands on that data, they use for purposes probably adversarial to our interests including the citizens of data. You mention information operations. You have seen what happened in 2016 here, limited information operations, the aggressive. Now we see the chinese doing the same thing. Their ability to manipulate data to get you to think one thing or another is on the rise. We know they want to interfere with elections. We know they want to put out there part of the story. This is something what to focus on and worry about because its coming. We are up against the parliamentary clock year, but we have to make very quick questions. Were going to ask richard drax to give the questions and made it you could just wrap them together. Richard, you want to go first . Yes. Thank you very much, german. Gentlemen, this is a question that i as an exsoldier debated more in my private term in in in the question. And that is, have our election become to rely on data and hightech systems . Have we become too reliant on this or future were . Do we risk an enemy with sufficient kit or when would it back in the stone age . And bob seely. That you can make a declaration . I saw with general spalding and others report last year entitled defending our data, huawei 5g. My question is to brigadier and to michael. Apologies, i been up voting so hope you have been asked already. Small Software Firms can effectively engage in building up our new advanced 5g networks, or do you have to have scale . Do you have to be a tech giant to be an effective player in this market . Thank you. General. Well, you know, so i have lived through this in the u. S. Air force. We started back in the early 2000s to shut off our gps and radios. I think the challenge that brings to the military force is a gets us just to kind of fighting in the stone age. And they would forget about the fact that if the stuff gets shut off, we have chaos in the street. We shut off gps and the grid and the Cell Networks come theres no way were going to be fighting abroad because were just going to have to bring peace to the streets. I think we lost focus of our import these technologies have become to our societies just to keep them functioning as civil societies. So no, i think that its action harmful. It forces us, it really prevents us from building emp hardened resilient military grade i. T. Systems that actually take a licking and keep on ticking. Thats what we need for our society. You shut off the internet, you shut off the power in in a majr city and your chaos in just a few hours. This is something that we know and, quite frankly, i think its responsible for the military to really think this way in terms of which is going to shut off everything because its that thinking of the implications of that if it happens and on society. To the other question, the big problem we have for skill is again cost of radius. We need to get the cost of the radius down so that we could really to play. In terms of the software though, yes. Its very easy to scale as long as you have an antenna at a reader. You dont have an antenna and a radio then you cant scale like a Typical Software company in 5g. Thank you for that. Mike . My favorite example of this is, and certainly at the series knew this and if you look at the Chinese Defense posture over the last 1520 years, they realize the advantages we had an smart soldiers, smart bombs, smart airplanes, the whole nine yards. They adjust to do that. They tried to develop a defense plan at an offense a plan that would go after our ability to export airplanes, smart bombs, smart soldiers. Candidly, they were a little ahead of us on this. We thought we couldnt get caught up. They were aggressive. Just to give you, make that point come home, the United States maybe, Naval Academy started in 2017 and they had that done this in in a think or 20 years, required that every new commissioned officer in the navy came out of the Naval Academy in 2017 and subsequent classes had to understand a very important piece of technology to compete. That was developed in 1720. Theyve gotten away from it and they decide they better get back to it just in case those gps systems were not working. I think that brought the. 0 to the military, okie, with some issues, some problems with to get around it. To the generals point, were so imagine and this is why the russians try to get into our electric grid that was announced by the administration. They found the chinese intelligence efforts to get into our electric grid, i say ours, the u. S. , trust me there cant get into yours as well, it creates a a problem because thy know if they turn off the lights, they get chaos in the street. They get such level disruption you couldnt get gas, you couldnt pump gas, you couldnt get cash out of your atm. All of the problems come you could even do a credit card transaction online. All gone. Imagine the chaos that creates. We do have to start looking at okay, realtor and civilian protection of these networks. And again if you go down to its basic point do you really want to take a risk you want to roll the dice that huawei will be a good player, that china is going to when you need them to cooperate most . Well, i think history has shown us thats not the case. I would be extra careful on that. And they look at how we build out systems that are secure and we secure every piece of that. On the smallcompany thing, im a part, im an entrepreneur invested a couple of Small Companies that do exactly this. Its hard. Its that easy. You lose a lot of sleep sometimes you lose some money but at the end of the day the innovation that is generated to try to solve is really hard problems is exciting to be part of. That spirit is alive and well in the United States. Dod is reaching out and try to find ways to talk to these Companies Come innovative ways. The air force had really good program where they can give a contract at the end of the day, you can, to the showcase and if they like it, they can to develop and mike at the end of the day, which is nearly impossible in the u. S. System. And why theyre trying to find a Small Companies, small entrepreneurs, and sometimes that what big tech is going to solve the problem. Its going to be the small innovative tech leaders to come out until we have a better way, weve got a better mousetrap year. We just need somebody to get. Were in the time right now. Thats what were doing right now in the United States. To me its a very exciting time to be here, an exciting time to talk about the 5g problem because they can be such a massive opportunity and for the betterment of all of those liberal democracies as has been mentioned before. Thank you for that. I have just written, ready fascinating book by called the shadow war that you might be deadly with pickets talk about changing character of conflict that is where were heading, this global class of ideology. It wont be on the conventional what it will all be in the very much Digital Space were speaking about. Would you concur with that . Absolutely. In fact, my book explains exactly how that happens and really is based on my last five or six years in service where i was focused on u. S. China competition and it really is, has shown how they move warfare out of the traditional battlefield really into the area of globalization, the internet and will he turned all of our once strengths into vulnerabilities just by undermining each and every one of them. And so when you understand how that truly works and you realize that we as a free, as a community of free nations have lost sight of whats important when it comes to protecting our democracies. Okay. Thank you very much indeed for helping us out today with our study on this. It is been really illuminating. General, appreciate your time. Mike rogers, i understand its your birthday today, correct . He spoke earlier about having a pint or two. And i wanted to spend it with you. We are very honored. Cut a pass on sir nicholas of this place since his best wishes to you. Thank you very much indeed and speeders and always good for a good quote at dinner. Asked the right. We miss him dearly here. Can i thank you both also extend my thanks again to senator tom cotton. Its been instructed and eliminating afternoon. Thank you to my colleagues again on the committee. Were very grateful for your time, and i can close this particular session on 5g. Order, order. They use Senate Returns and plans to spend the week on the Great American outdoors act. Legislation to establish a fund from anus of National Parks and of the public lands. The senate meets at 3 p. M. Eastern picky watch live apple to gavel coverage on cspan2. This week the house and senate will hold hearings on the federal response to the coronavirus and Law Enforcement accountability. Secretary of labor testifies before the Senate Finance committee on the cares act and the role of Unemployment Insurance during the coronavirus pandemic. Wednesday at 10 a. M. Eastern live on cspan, house judiciary Committee Hearing on policing practices and Law Enforcement accountability. Also live on cspan3, secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin testifies before the Senate Small Business committee on the implementation of title i of the cares act. Watch this week live tuesday and wednesday on cspan and cspan3. Online a cspan that over listen on the free cspan radio app. Tonight on the communicators. We are at the very beginning of building up a smart city. We were fortunate very early on to convert old telephone booth infrastructure into wifi kiosks, and are strategically located across the city of new york. That in and of itself provides a means of communicating that sets up sort of a predicate for what can be done with sensor technology, how we can regulate our lighting system. Theres so much that can be done just from that platform alone. New York Democratic congresswoman Yvette Clarke tonight at the eastern on the communicators on cspan2. Host joints on the phone is gabby orr who covers politics and the white house for politico. Its in the morning. Tank serving with us. Guest thanks for having me try what i want to beat with the story you wrote a couple days ago as the present is now defaulting to his safe space try to energize the base to make America Great base. As a present looks at their election his reelection, what is he doing . Guest well, hes trying something that really has worked for them in the past is focus on supporters who were the cornerstone of his base because focus on religious groups. This one of the reasons why you see the president do so much outreach in the past week alone to the faith community. He of course went and stood in front of st. Johns Episcopal Church in washington and held the bible up and use that photo opportunity to reconnect with his evangelical supporters. The following day he went to a shrine to Saint John Paul ii and in an effort to obviously once again reach out to religious voters and