And we work with partners and allies to make sure they do something similar. Pedro who peter who is the we . The executive branch. We are requesting that the administration develop a broadband strategy, a copperheads of strategy and a public strategy, recognizing the challenges and threats that come from development of 5g technologies in other countries, that we from a government perspective or a private sector perspective and publicsector perspective understand the challenges and potential threats and that we move to a place where we ensure Greater Development of 5g technology in the u. S. , that we raise record nation among the public of challenges that exist within the space and that ideally we ensure we are protecting American Consumers and companies and their data. Peter is this a nationalization of 5g, in a sense representative in a sense . Spanberger it is a recognition we are developing a Significant Technology with 5g, when we talk about transmission and we are talking about the use of this technology , that from a National Perspective we need certain standards, and recognize those standards are meant keep consumer data safe and create a strong Playing Field for American Companies that are going to do right by American Consumers in terms of protecting their data from potential exploitation. And there is the added challenge related to military technologies. Allow for significantly faster relay of information. And it has significant use within the public and everyday business, but certainly for military use. So it is incredibly important we ensure any technologies are protecting consumer data, if it is used in the private or business sector, but also our military related information. Most of our guests on this program come from the energy and commerce committee. On theanberger i sit Foreign Affairs committee and agriculture committee. And for me, Broadband Technology is a place where both committees touch. So when we are looking at the future of precision agricultural technologies and precision agricultural tools that allow our farmers and producers to monitor their crops, to ensure the security of their animals, particularly our dairies, to use fertilizer dependent on rainfall, the pendant on other triggers, the use of 5g technology will be incredibly important. Many of our Rural Communities that could be benefiting from Precision Agricultural Technology have no internet. It is an issue of lack of access completely. So i have a focus on access to broadband and internet issues within the Agricultural Sector in our Rural Communities. That is part of my portfolio and focus on the agricultural committee. My work on the Foreign Services committee, my background is as an intelligence officer, former c. I. A. Officer. The recognition of the challenges or threats that come from a foreign country dominating Technological Development is one i am keenly focus ono, so it is my internet from a Rural Development perspective and my focus on National Security threats and challenges from a Foreign Affairs perspective that, while i am not on energy and commerce, this is an area of Significant Interest for me. Peter to help us delve into those issues, our guest host this afternoon is Emily Birnbaum of the hill publication. Emily you are talking about foreign threats and the threat of another nation dominating in this space of enormous technological innovation, so you so can you talk specifically , dominating the race toward 5g according to experts . Where these companies a concern and what do you think is the best strategy . Rep. Spanberger the bill we mysed in the house recently, 5g and beyond bill, it doesnt callout china specifically or huawei specifically, recognizing in the future our challenges might come from other countries, but when we look at huawei and cte, there are significant indicators that because of huaweis close relationship with the Chinese Military and chinese intelligence, that the use of Huawei Technologies could create ofkdoors for for areas access to consumer data or company data that we would find unacceptable. There are others who would maintain even if it is not intentional and doesnt come from direct links between the Intelligence Community and huawei, that even chinas private privacy standards and corporate standards are different than what we consider acceptable or even legal here. So recognizing whether it is intentional ordination or a matter of different business practices, the priority does exist that as huawei continues to show strength and development of 5g technologies, that we need to ensure that the American Public and American Companies recognize the threat, and that we are taking action to make sure we have an alternative. Is real skepticism around the narrative that huawei is a National Security threat. Some say we dont have any evidence that they created the back door or that they actually pose a threat, and this sudden and very intense antihuawei fervor might just be another attempt to get a leg up on china in our ongoing technological and economic race. People say this is just a way to kneecap a successful chinese company, one of the most successful in the world, and this pushed by the u. S. Is affecting their business. What do you say to that . Rep. Spanberger it is an issue and surelyion, recognizing that currently the United States needs to come up with a plan to better compete in this space isnt necessarily meant to kneecap huawei. It is meant to give American Consumers an alternative, and potentially allied nations an alternative. For me, that is the priority. Given my intelligence ofkground, i am very aware some of the challenges that come from countries in the technological space, where there are links between corporate interests and intelligence and military interests. But regardless of ones recognizing this is where we were are moving on the technological front, ensuring American Companies are competing, ensuring companies and our government have the strategy and the intent to compete, is only going to benefit the consumer, if we are having an active dialogue about how to protect consumer data and , andrate information information that should be or specific toet real privacy concerns. I think that is a conversation to be having. The american consumer, particularly in areas of technology where there are challenges even understanding the technology, your phone in your pocket makes your life easier, but most consumers dont always know how it works. So ensuring we are having a public dialogue that we want that technology to benefit you, at on them as vehicles, the future of agricultureso ensurint tonomous vehicles, the future of agriculture, the promise of all of this is incredibly interesting. And we as the federal government have a place in that conversation to make sure we and from at data privacy standpoint to ensure privacy. This week i think Trump Officials are in the u. K. , encouraging them not to use any Huawei Technology in their systems. Aret of western countries opting for a partial use of huawei, where they wont use it in the core of their system but they will use it in their periphery. What do you think of our allies adopting the approach to huawei . And you think that the Trump Administration approach, making aggressive threats, is working . Startingberger the point for these discussions and threats is, what information is it that we are sharing with foreign governments . And as long as we are providing what is otherwise classified information in speaking specifically toward intelligence liaison relationships we have the u. K. ,his case, one of our closest allies. We share a tremendous amount of information, and i think it is in our right took stress concern about how that information is safeguarded. As a former c. I. A. Officer, frequently the information we share with other Intelligence Services is based on information we received directly from human assets or individuals who would face grave ramifications if it were found out they were providing information that is ,elping in diplomatic efforts informing decisions made by the United States or some of our partners, information related to foreign be it from governments, terrorist organizations, so there is a priority for the United States to have a say and at least express concerns related to how the information that we are providing, that could link back to someone else, should be safeguarded. Peter do you agree with the Trump Administration approach , dont dont use huawei use cte equipment in your systems . Rep. Spanberger some of the threat information is pretty clear in terms of the threat to the security of that information, the risks that might be provided. The fullt read into scope of those threats, but i think that if there is an effort by the Trump Administration or any administration to ensure we are safeguarding american information, in particular information we provide in sharing, that is a concern i would take very seriously. Memberse have a lot of of congress on this program and every one, we ask the same question, would you use a huawei phone . Last week we had andy purdy of that toand i mentioned him, and here is his response. Many have said, state Department Officials and others, have said it is really not about huawei, it is about the china government and what the china government could force huawei to do. All the equipment, carriers and equipment providers have to be subject to strict scrutiny and testing of products and conformance measures. Because bad guys can hack into everybodys products, particularly with a Global Supply chain deeply embedded in china. Those things are necessary to make sure america is safe going forward. Congresswoman spanberger. Rep. Spanberger when i am choosing technologies to provide my personal data, the risks present with Huawei Technologies are ones i am not willing to take, so my answer would be no. But mr. Purdy made good points talking about supply chain, threats that exist with any type of technology that is used. All those things are true, but it is the case that with the relationship between huawei and the Chinese Government, those risks are heightened. Emily there is another part of this conversation, which is huawei equipment is cheaper. You are vested in closing the socalled digital divide. You mentioned a lot of rural areas dont have access to internet and rely on huawei, and in some areas it is huawei or nothing. How do you address that tension . Further, do you think it is worth the in normas cost to rip huawei out of the ground in these rural areas . Rep. Spanberger the notion of ripping huawei further, do you d might be a greater step than we need to take at this time. And you are right to raise the issue of cost. Many People Choose huawei equipment because it is cheaper than other alternatives, and part of the reason it is cheaper is because the Chinese Government is involved in it. That harkens back to the challenges of having a significantly tied relationship between huawei and the Chinese Government. Part of the larger discussion needs to be about privacy a paths, about creating and recognizing as consumers what one is paying for, what a consumer chooses to purchase. Wes strikes back to what were talking about earlier, that some of these technological decisions are so great eerie die recently wanted a new device and ipad anding to get an another thing and the data that is available, how much they weigh, the speed, all of these things can be overwhelming for a consumer. But it is all about choices. It is all about recognizing within our domestic market, first and foremost, how can we ensure we are protecting consumers . Is that through information . Is that through prohibitions of certain technologies . Is that through conversations with american Technological Companies about where they can be involved . Is that directing or tooritizing the purchase ensure that there becomes enough of a push for these technologies to be created here at home. And i understand the challenge, this notion that we are going to may not be the idea that we want to convey, but it is not just about, i want american items, it is recognizing the threat that comes from other producers, be they American Technologies are technologies produced by our closest allies, we as American Consumers and me as a legislator, i think i have a responsibility to ensure American Consumers and Companies Know the risks that come with certain options. There is another chinese technological product that is raising alarm bells for people in congress, ticktock. Tok, massively popular and one of the first beijingowned apps make inroads into western markets. There is a lot of concern, Chuck Schumer weighed in and said the army shouldnt use this, so is at, an area you are looking concern about foreignowned apps . Rep. Spanberger for some of your viewers, tiktok came on my radar as something my childrens friends are talking about at first, i thought it was another thing like instagram or Something Like that, and then you see tremendous reporting that provides a great deal more information about the fact it is the chinese company, your data may not be protected. Inas it relates to tiktok particular, i havent done much work on this so far, we just pushed our 5g and beyond bill over the finish line in the house, but what you are referencing is the next element of how we create that balance if the consumer wants to use the tiktok app. That is their priority, but where is the responsibility to ensure people recognize the risk . There has been great reporting on the risks that exist, which is helpful to the American Public. Peter in your previous jobs as a u. S. Postal inspector, cia, did you use a lot of technology at that point . Rep. Spanberger not particularly, actually. Was out meeting foreign assets providing information to the United States government. I was doing so without a cell phone, without any way i could be tracked. So my level of awareness is the fact that when i would go out to have a meeting, i would go without any electronics, anything that could track me. So recognizing the threat, i have been trained if you have a piece of electronics on you, it can be hacked, it can be used as a listening device, it can be used in a nefarious way, even if it is just your everyday phone. And as a former intelligence officer, that was always top of mind. I am aware of risks that exist with a phone, with a smartwatch, with any of these things that essentially track your information. So i was on the opposite side of it, using a lot Less Technology than others. Have you done cybersecurity checks in your office . There is a lot of concern members of congress dont know how to practice good cyber hygiene . What is your approach in your office . Takenpanberger i have two trips overseas and have gotten a phone that is a checkout from the travel office, not associated with me. But some members dont know it is a priority. Because you never know where you plug got phone in, whether it is going to charge or what might get loaded on it, who might come in contact with it, so that is one of the steps i take. I have had my office swept. When people send us things, they are scanned to make sure there are no listening devices. Are yourgue unique unique in this regard . Rep. Spanberger i dont know. I havent had this conversation with a lot of other members. But i recently received something at the office and i went to our lovely staff assistant and said, have you had them check this one for bugs . And the new intern was there and i think she was thinking bugs like creepy crawlers, and got a chuckle. But it is wonderful how public canoffices are, but anyone come in at any point. And having been at the opposite end then opposite end of ofelligent collection intelligence collection, i recognize how broad priorities legislative priorities with other countries, or the priorities in the United States for other countries, challenges between different irties or different groups so think every member of congress should consider themselves to potentially be a target where people might be inclined to want to know what you are thinking and doing. Certainly in my case, when i was running, my sf 86 was released publicly, my standard form 86, which is a background check. So that information was found. I was also a former federal employee who was part of the large chinese hack. There are many federal employees whose background check information was hacked by the chinese end is out there somewhere. So these are all the