United states needs a comprehensive strategy. This bill would require we develop one, that we implement it and that we work with our partners and allies to ensure they do something similar. Host who is we that has to develop this . Guest the executives, branch. So determining, the focus is we are requesting the executive branch, that the administration develop a broadband strategy, a national strategy, a public strategy so that recognizing the challenges, the threat as we might term them that come from development of i. T. Technologies in other countries that we from a government perspective, private sector perspective and from a public perspective understand these challenges and potential threats and that we are moving towards a place of being able to ensure Greater Development of 5g technology in the United States, that we raise recognition among the public of some of the challenges that exist within the space and that ideally we worked to ensure with protecting American Consumers and companies and their data. Host is this a national strategy, and nationalization of 5g e in essence . Guest not a nationalization of 5ge as the technology is concern but it is a recognition when you developing a Significant Technology such as 5g e, when we are talking about the transmission and talking about the use of this technology nationwide we have to have certain standards and keep the data safe and create a a strong Playing Field for American Companies that are going to do right by an American Consumers in terms of protecting their data on potential exploitation. And theres also the added challenge related to military technologies. 5g will allow for significantly faster relay of information, and it has significant use within the Public Sector and in everyday business but also certainly for military use. Its incredibly important that we ensure any technology are protecting consumer data, if used in a in a private or busis sector but also our sensitive mr. Budgett information. Host most of the guess we have on this program come from the energy and Commerce Committee which oversees a lot of technology. You dont sit on that committee. Where did your interest come from . Guest i sit on the Foreign Affairs committee and the agriculture community. And for me Broadband Technology is any much a a place for bothf those committees touch. When we are looking towards the future precision agriculture or technologies and precision agricultural tools that are allowing our farmers and producers to monitor their crops, to ensure the safety and security of their animals, particularly our dairies, to use fertilizer depending on rainfall, dependent on other triggers, the use of 5g technology as we expect it to continue to develop will be incredibly important. Notably within many of our Rural Communities that could be benefiting from rescission of Cultural Technology there is no interest. Its an issue of lack of access completely. I have been focused on access to broadband and access to internet issues within the agriculture sector, within our Rural Communities and that is part of my portfolio and focus. Separately my work on the Foreign Affairs committee and my background as an Intelligence Officer, im a former cia officer, the recognition of the challenges or threats that come from a foreign country dominating in Technological Development is one that i am acutely aware of, and keenly attuned to. Its my focus on internet from the rural perspective and development perspective, and did my focus on National Security threat and challenges from the Foreign Affairs perspective that while not on energy and commerce, this is a particular period of Significant Interest from. Host to up us delve into those issues, our guest host this afternoon is Emily Birnbaum of the hill publication. Thanks for having me. You are talking about foreign threats and the threat of another nation dominating in this space. Can you talk specifically experts say huawei is dominating the race quote end quote towards 5g. Why is at a point of concern for you, these companies and what you think are the best strategies to stave off that influence . Guest notably the bill would pass in the house recently, my 5g and beyond bill, it doesnt call out china specifically or huawei and zte specifically recognizing and future perhaps some challenges by come from other countries. When we do look at examples of huawei and zte, there are significant indicators that because of huawei close relationship with the Chinese Military and chinese Intelligence Services, that the use of while we technology could create backdoors for areas of access to consumer data or company data that from an American Perspective we would find unacceptable. There are also others who may think even if its not intentional, even if it doesnt come from direct links between the Intelligence Community and huawei, that even chinas privacy standards and corporate practices are different from those that we find acceptable or even legal here. Recognizing whether it is wholly intentional coordination or simply a matter of different business practices, the priority does exist that as wally continues to show strength in the development of 5g technologies, that we need to ensure that the american public, American Companies recognize the threat and that were taking effort and action to ensure we have an alternative. There is real skepticism around this narrative that huawei is a National Security threat. There are some people who say we dont have any evidence but they have a would create this back door or that pose a threat, and the sudden and very intense antihuawei fervor is sort of just another attempt to get a leg up on shining in our ongoing technological and economic race. People say this is a way to kneecap a really successful Chinese Company, one of the most Successful Companies in the world, and this push by the use is affecting the business. What do you say to that, that this is a National Guest its an issue competition, and shortly recognizing that currently the United States needs to come up with a plan to better compete in the space isnt necessarily meant to kneecap huawei. Its meant to give American Consumers at alternative and potentially ally nations an alternative. For me that is the priority. Given my intelligence background, i am very aware of some of the challenges that do come from countries in the technological space where there are links between corporate interests and intelligence and military interests. But in any case regardless of ones perspective, recognizing this is where we are moving on the technological front, ensuring that American Companies are competing, ensuring that American Companies and our government have the strategy and the content intent to compete is only going to benefit the consumer. If were having an active dialogue about how to protect consumer data and Corporate Information and private business interests and information that should otherwise be considered a secret or specific to real privacy concerns. I think thats a good conversation to be having. The American Consumer particularly in areas of technology where there are challenges even understand the technology were talking about, your phone in your pocket make sure like easier but most consumers, myself included dont always know how it works. So when showing where having the public dialogue of what this technology to benefit you, the future of autonomous vehicles, the future of precision agriculture, the future of the concept that you could have a surgeon performed surgery in one city on a patient and another because the technology, the speed. Its so incredible interesting and i think we as a federal government have place in being part of the conversation to make sure we want to protect that dated and we want from a economic, from a privacy standpoint ensure the United States is applicable. This week Trump Officials are in the uk trying to encourage them not to implement, you know, not use any Huawei Technology in their systems. A lot of countries, western countries are opting for this partial ban of huawei weather will use it in the core of their system but they would use it in the periphery. What you think of some of our allies opting for for the apprh to huawei and do you agree with the Trump Administration approach to them, to make pretty aggressive threats if they do end up implementing Huawei Technology . Guest i think the biggest, the starting point for some of these discussions and threats is what information is it that we are sharing, the information wishing with foreign governments . As long as we are providing what is otherwise classified information in speaking specifically towards the intelligence liaison relationships that we have with, in this case the uk, one of our very closest allies, we sure tremendous amount of information, i think it is in it is within a right. As a former cia officer i know frequently information that we share with other Intelligence Services is based on information we received directly from human assets or directly from individuals who would face grave ramifications if it were found that there were providing information, information that is helping in diplomatic efforts, information that is informed decisions made by the United States or made by some of our partners, and information related to threat, the from foreign governments, terrorist organizations. So i do think there is a priority for the United States to have a say and at least express concerns related to have the information that were providing, that could link back to some else, some source or method is being safeguarded. Host do you agree with the Trump Administration approach saying dont use huawei, use zte equipment in your systems . Guest i think some of the threat information is pretty clear in terms of the threat to the security of information, the risk that it might be provided. I am currently not read into the full scope of what some of those threats would be but i do think if there is an effort by the Trump Administration or frankly by any administration to ensure that we are safeguarding american information, in particular information that we provide in intelligence sharing, then that is a concern that i take very seriously because its one based on a real specific threat. Host we have a lot of members of caucus on this program and everyone of them would ask the same question, would you use a huawei phone. Last week we had andy purdy of huawei on the program and i mentioned that to them, it was his response. The democrats and republicans are worried about china, and many have said state Department Officials and others, that its not about huawei. Its about the china, and what the china government in their view could force huawei to do. There are real cybersecurity risks in the world, and all alf the equipment, the carriers and equipment providers have to be subject to strict scrutiny and testing of products and conformance of measures because if there gasket gasket hacking everybodys products particularly in a Global Supply chain deeply embedded in china, those are the kinds of things that are necessary to make sure america is safe going forward. Host congresswoman spanberger. Guest and so when im choosing which sets a guppercaseletter im choosing to purchase and provide personal data across, the risks that are present with Huawei Technologies are ones that im not willing to take, and so my answer to that would be no. But i think andy purdy made some good points talking a supply chain challenges, talking about threats that exist with any type of technology that is used. All of those things are true but its also simply the case that with relationship between huawei and with, between huawei and the Chinese Government, those risks are a bit more heightened. Theres another part of this conversation which is huawei equipment is cheaper. Obviously you are very invested in closing the socalled digital divide, you know, you are mentioning before the fact a lot of rural areas dont have access to internet and they rely on huawei equipment for some of these areas its huawei or nothing. How do you think u. S. Can best address that tension . Further, do you think its worth the enormous cost and obstacles to rip huawei totally out of the ground in some of these rural areas . Guest i think the notion of ripping huawei out of the ground might perhaps be a step greater than we need to take at this time. Youre right to raise the issue of cost, many People Choose huawei equipment because, in fact, it is cheap, or cheaper than some of the other alternatives. Part of the reason it is cheaper is because the Chinese Government involvement which harkens back to the challenges of having such a significantly tied relationship between huawei and the Chinese Government. Part of a larger discussion needs to be about privacy concerns, about creating a path and recognizing as consumers what one what is it that one is paying for . What is it that it consumer chooses to purchase . This strikes back to what we talked about earlier which is some of these technological decisions are so great. I recently bought, i wanted to have a new device to carry with me and i was looking to get an ipad or another thing, and the data thats available, how much their way, how fast they are, the speech, the weight, all of these things can be overwhelming for a consumer. But its all about choices. Its all about recognizing within our domestic market, first and foremost, how can we ensure that we are protecting consumers . Is that through information . Is that through prohibitions on certain technologies . Is that through conversations with american Technological Companies about where they can really be engaged in an involved in . Is that directing or prioritizing the purchase of american items, that maybe directing but prioritizing from a purchasing standpoint to ensure that there becomes enough of a push for these technologies to be created here at home. Certainly i understand the challenge where it seems this notion that were going to do things the best may not be the idea that we want to be conveying but it isnt actually just about i want to purchase American Produce items. It is actually to recognize the threat that comes from other producers. And be the American Technology or technologies that are produced by our closest allies, we as American Consumers and me as a legislator i think have a responsibility to ensure the American Consumers or Companies Know the risks that come with certain options that it makes on the market. Theres another chinese product, another chinese technological product that is raising a lot of alarm bills for people in congress and thats tiktok, and its a really popular massively popular social media app and its one of the first beijing owned apps to make inroads in western markets. Inevitably, there is a lot of concern. I think Chuck Schumer has weighed in on this and said the army shouldnt use this. The army has banned it from their phones. Is that another area youre looking at, the concern about these foreign owned apps . Guest i think for some of your viewers, tiktok first came on my radar as something that my childrens friends are talking about. So at first i was thinking its another thing like instagram or i dont know, that you type app. And then you see tremendous reporting that provides a great deal more information about the fact that it is this Chinese Company that your data may not be protected and the risks are associate with it. As the relates to tiktok in particular, i think as i have done much work on this so far, we just pushed our five gmt on bill over the finish line at least in house and thats exciting 5g bill. What you are referencing his next album of how we create that balance if the consumer wants to use the tiktok app and thats her priority, but wheres the responsibility to ensure that people recognize the risk . Theres been a great press supported on the risks that exist which has been helpful to the american public. Host in your previous job as u. S. Postal inspector, cia, did you use a lot of technology . Were you involved in technology at that point . Gue