Transcripts For CSPAN2 Foreign Investment In The U.S. 20171228

Minutes for an opening statement. A bedrock tenet of the United States economy. Free flow worldwide has always been a bipartisan goal and to that end im proud to serve as cochair of the Global Investment in america caucus as well as mr. Holden, mr. Himes and mr. Manes. It promotes Global Investment in the United States economy and helps educate members about the importance of Foreign Direct Investment. Today the United States is the largest foreign investor and recipient of the greatest amount of Foreign Direct Investment through the capital is provided a good deal of the energy that has kept her economy vibrant and compensated for the notoriously low National Savings rate to provide the fuel for growth of u. S. Businesses and jobs. On the site of u. S. Workers and jobs are related to foreign men. Most of these jobs pay handsomely, far better than other u. S. Job, but of Foreign Investment is to be a force for good, and must not be welcomed unthinkingly any more than one might be the front door of the house open around the clock. Investment that my weakness is not good and we must guard against it. That investment might come from purely economic reasons but especially in the era of international turmoil, conflict and Economic Uncertainty individuals are nationstates that might weaken our economy in comparison to bears are spread technology or knowhow strengthens the military to gain an advantage over our spirit to continue vigilant watch on Foreign Investment in the United States reviews many investments to determine if they pose a threat to National Security. This involves rigorous scrutiny of proposals by l. Departments or agencies including described by the Intelligence Community and the president has the power to block Block Transactions or order divestment of such concerns cannot be mitigated by changing the original proposal. Today we face new threats and never threat and how the data sector but also major nations of economic investors but also mainly to china but concerns risen sharply in past years about Chinese Companies using the financial reserves to Keep Technology with an eye towards taking the lead and industrial markets of the future. The Chinese Government has set aside 250 billion to be used in dominating the semiconductor markets. Its not a new phenomenon but a new challenger president ford set up in 1975 out of concern that vast influence coming from opec countries could weaken our economy. 1988 among concerns japan for seeking to buy a criminal to knowledge eight, Congress Gave president reagans the authority to block deals. The authority has been used sparingly. Interestingly, the first use came in george h. W. Bush blocked the sale of the airplane component maker to a Chinese Company. More recently, president obama before he left office but chinese dylan President Trump has bought the proposed purchase of semiconductors by a Chinese Company. Also approved Foreign Direct Investment conditionally, proven a deal when divestment technologies or activities has occurred. The statute under which it operates has not been updated in a decade and clearly we should think about modernizing it aside for the intentions burdens from the complexity of the post is about 40 more reviews in 2017 and 2016 and more than fourfold expansion in the number of deals since 2013. To that end our colleagues represented ettinger and senator cornyn has spent more than year studying the process and possible reforms at the same time, we must aspire to the greatest extent possible welcoming Investment Climate so that the capital needed to grow. As well we need to be mindful of the investment overseas is not unnecessarily compromise. To start the process today the subcommittee is a panel of witnesses with unique abilities to discuss the operation southern challenges faced. This hearing in their testimonies intended to prepare members to make wise and cautious decisions on this topic here this should provide the beginning of a strong and thoughtful review. With that, i would now recognize a member of the democratic side, the gentleman from washington, mr. Heck for an opening statement. Cnet is chanting, i ask unanimous consent for a letter he sent to you in chairman of the full committee on December December 8th requesting a witness from the department of treasury be added to this hearing. Without objection. Loads rejiggering from todays witnesses they believe there is no substitute for hearing for the people who actually are administering. Ive given treasury a hard time in this committee and some of you may recall that was a very hard time about this issue in past hearings. I want to make clear they have begun to engage in what i would characterize a constructive manner. I acknowledge that and express my hope the committee could benefit from their expertise during a future hearing and i would be happy to yield to chairman barr if you would like to respond. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Just to clarify this is the first of a series of hearings. We most certainly will be extending to treasury officials who obviously have a large role in the southern process and youll have that opportunity. Thank you, mr. Chaiman. Thank you again for convening this hearing. I believe the cfius process generally works well for private commercially motivated transactions, but in the 10 years since Congress Must pass legislation that this issue, they seen some countries and their resources and sophistication needed to pursue the conservator strategy were dominating strategically Important Industries adopting cfius strategies were not designed insufficient to deal with that challenge. Although many witnesses will know this is a problem every part of the u. S. Government will have to Work Together to address. I believe some aspects of the problem can only be addressed through legislative action to close gaps existing cfius authority. When i asked secretary mnuchin about this in july he said this is what we could not afford to do. The urgency of how this approach is the work onsite for reform with the urgency and need to be i know this congress can still bring to bear on issues critical to our National Security because here we are dealing with just such an issue. Certainly things we need to keep in mind as we move forward. Im glad many of todays witnesses have raised issues, will raise issues that they need to improve information sharing and cooperation with allies and partners in the process of reevaluating their own equivalents. Im glad they will raise the need to provide more resources which i agree are urgently needed to keep pace with the times, demand and the need. I am proud that the United States is in fact a place that welcomes Foreign Investment. The broader legitimacy and acceptance of the principle of openness, which i believed then and the ability of the United States stand up for a free and open Global Economy is in fact dependent on interNational Security. Secretary mnuchin firm doing nothing is not an option but im confident starting with this hearing we can find a bipartisan path forward and straight at balance between continuing to allow robust Foreign Investment, which i think does serve our nations needs, our economic prospects of the same time balancing against very legitimate security concerns which are growing in number and velocity. Cfius needs to be reformed. Starts at this committee in this hearing today. Thank you again for convening a. Thank you at the gentleman yield back. Today we welcome the testimony of the honorable mr. Kimmitt bayfront 20052090 served as deputy secretary of the u. S. Treasury. Responsibility for the International Agenda which included a revamp of cfius producer to the Reagan White House for general counsel from 19831985. He was a member of the National Defense panel and from 19982005 as a member of the director of essential Intelligence National visor panel. Mr. Kimmitt urban combat in vietnam at the 173rd Airborne Brigade and also served as the u. S. Ambassador to germany. The honorable mr. Estevez is a National Security strategy and logistics at Deloitte Consulting mr. For 36 years at the department of defense. At 2013 to january 2017, mr. Tran for served as Principal Deputy under Acquisition Technology and logistics. He represented the department of defense has said through a Chinese Investment in the United States accelerated rapidly. Previously of several key positions including secretary of defense and logistics material readiness under secretary of defense for supply chain integration. Mr. Rove is a partner from 2010 to january 2017 the assistant secretary for export administration. Primarily responsible for the policy administration of export control system and the reform acts expert and during this time that the representative to cfius. Mr. Sokol and emerging technologies and National Security director that did show Cyberspace Program at the council of Foreign Relations is an expert on Security Issues and chinese domestic Foreign Policy before coming to cfr was an arms control analyst for the China Project at the concerned scientists. As a visiting scholar at Stanford University for International Studies from the Shanghai Academy of social sciences and the university in beijing. Ms. Mclernons presidency of the organization for International Investment representing the unique interests of u. S. Subsidiaries of global conch subsidiaries. Her efforts focused on subsidiaries played in the American Economy issues that would make the u. S. A. More competitive location for direct investments in job creation. Prior to be named president and ceo, ms. Mclernon was Senior Vice President where she focused on Strategic Communications are not pc. It do we recognize to give an oral presentation of your testimony that without objection, each of their written statements will be made part of the record. Honorable mr. Kimmitt cannot recognize her five. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you for your invitation to offer perspective on Foreign Investments in the u. S. This is one of those rare instances where including three decades of service on the cfius has some benefits. The experience began in 1985 as treasury general counsel under president reagans and secretary baker. You noted, cfius was signed in the 75 by president ford because of concern about saudi petrodollars being recycled. By 1988, concern shifted to japanese purchases which let the passage of the amendment and in 1992, concerned about stateowned Companies Led to passage of the byrd amendment. A return to treasury as deputy secretary with the Chinese National overseas oil company in dubai court blocked by congressional concerns Congress Passed the Foreign Investment National Security act of 2007. Today, growing concern about chinas investment particularly Stateowned Enterprises in the Technology Sector has fought the legislation proposed by congressman pittenger. Some observations that may assist in your deliberations. Earlier this year the committee helped legislate the secretary of the treasury of the security council. It is tightly linked to our overall security. It makes an important contribution to the u. S. Economy 7 million americans receive their paychecks this month from companies headquartered overseas. Close to 40 during manufacturing jobs and as you noted, pay almost 25 more. The more open investment policy is integral to u. S. Economic success and president trying to issue the u. S. Open Investment Policy Statement at the early opportunity. Initially in the statement is important to make clear the u. S. Government must ensure investment do not harm u. S. National security interests. It has an appropriate a high priority because china seeks to compete strategically against the United States in multiple spirits, militarily, diplomatic and economic using all elements of the state including Stateowned Enterprises. Current legislation provide significant authority. As he noted, the first acquisition unwound by president. They did not proceed under president george w. Bush and President Trump recently block the acquisition of a semiconductor by Chinese Investment group. As you consider new legislation i would discuss the authority. There is particular concern between legal structures to conclude deal short of leadership in control but could nonetheless impair u. S. National security. I believe this is a stricter scrutiny in the United States. I would be careful about outside the United States. His intended to give the president into a turn exceptional Authority Without superseding important authorities in other statutes. For example, the joint venture about Technology Transfer compromise the export Administration Regulations or International Traffic in arms regulation should be the first line of defense. Though additional legislative authority is so into the greatest problem facing cfius today is the lack of resources as cases 250 this year and with the prospect of agencies led by treasury next year in a major legislative implementation exercise, the increase in workload may begin to delay the investments that do not raise National Security concerns. But she requirements to resources continue to be a Central Point in your further deliberations. Todays hearing in your future actions are being watched closely overseas. Of particular concern the European Commission has established an investment review mechanism even though under european law the commission has no authority and National Security matters so the new d. C. Review may become a political screening process to create a new barrier to u. S. Investment in the important market of over 300 billion consumers. In conclusion, i am more concerned today about growing protectionism and trade detection is done. If we want wellpaying jobs to Foreign Direct Investment boy must send a clear message to the United States open to investment except in those instances were a cfius process focused squarely on National Security determines an investment must be bought. I know youll strive to strike the important balance. Jonahs time is expired. Mr. Estevez for five minutes. Distinguished members of the committee, to iraq for the opportunity to it. Today on Foreign Investment in the United States or cfius. I am now at deloitte, want to be clear that my views are my own views, not those of my firm. I believe its important to review why cfius is critical to the National Security from the dod press active. Many reasons the subordinate to men and women who volunteer to join the force. However, another reason for is the technological superiority of our military force we have over adversaries. Cfius is one of several stops the military retain its technological advantage. Based on my my experience of the interagency process not only work, where children protect the National Security of the United States for those cases having jurisdiction over. I never signed off, nor did i ask the deputy secretary of defense to sign off on a case resolution that would imperil National Security. They received support to propose a blocker of those cases in which mitigation was so risky. When they assess the risk involving the trend action, use a construct which i call the three c one. They represent country, company and commodity including technology with colocation and your sensitive military installation. The framework works like this. The country of the purchasing party with the potential adversary of the United States for the protection of technology were identifiable information. We determined it was a stateowned enterprise for the company had been created for the specific deal for its ownership is reliable and stable. To assess commodities, we review those technologies to dod weapon systems both current and future of cuttingedge technologies and whether of us already globally available. Colocation cases we assess whether duties were taking place at a given location and then whether the purchasing party would be able to observe or impact activities. If we had concerns with two or more the experience was headed to mitigation at a minimum or potentially unblocked. Id like to now turn to areas where i believe cfius in its expanded authorities. I recognize proposals being mooted by congress. My comments are based on the specific piece of legislation. First area is joint venture where the vast majority of joint ventures do not threaten National Security, some joint ventures may put National Security or or intellectual properties. Another area where i believe we need to expand cfius authorities and u. S. Companies and those involved with cuttingedge technologies and Sales Technology or intellectual Property Assets to countries or companies that concern. The final area we need to assess is what i call connecting the dots. During my time as the dod cfius representative we notice trends in countries and Companies Engaged in multiple transactions involving industry segment. Companies and technologies being purchased are relatively small not stateoftheart, not critical to National Security. Nonetheless there becomes a point where too much of a particular industry segment is under foreign control of this may put National Security at risk. The last area i would like to address his resources. The reality is just to process and mitigate the cases in the current workload cfius needs for resources that the cases before the committee are growing in their complexity. Resources are dedicated on the Due Diligence of the cases unfiled transactions and dramatically perform mitigation oversight. I think the committee for holding this hearing. A critical topic for the longterm viability of our technical superiority. I look forward to your questions. Thank you for the gentleman yield factor the honorable mr. Wolf for five minutes. Thank you for inviting me on the very important topic although ive no partner, my views are my own speaking for legislation in here to answer your questions about how cfius the control system works. Im also not going to speak about the case alan and i worked on or cfius now. The other panel described above works and so want to get straight to my main point, which is the export control system complement one another. Cfius has the authority to control and regulate to block the transfer of technology or National Security concerns if there is a transaction. The export control system is to regulate the transfer of technology regardless of whether there is an underlying transaction. This means that specific concerns arise whether any other activity of u. S. Government that the export control system of goods, technology should and could control that technology is concerned to a specific destination, endusers and endusers. I realize that technologies with benign commercial applications as well as military applications is complex. I us have realized the export control system is complex. The system is designed, created and constantly evolve to address new threats, new technologies of concerned. Im particularly at the bureau of Industry Security for the previous eight years of the authority to alter them in coordination was largely department of defense and commerce. And the concern arises generous to specific entities or can apply to endusers and endusers. Most of the export administrations implement multilateral controls that are controls that are agreed to by between 30 and 40 other countries with similar concerns. This is a reflection of the fact multilateral controls that our allies will work on together for the most effective because they achieve it, and active. Also reflection of the understanding of unilateral controls proposed by only one country generally tend to be counterproductive because they result only in harming the industry and dont actually block in the end for concern. Recognizing these two structures and recognizing the system can move slowly because the consensus to decide which technologies to impose, we created to track and identify technologies unilaterally to be able to tailor it on a condition that the multilateral regimes. Many roles that can be tailored such as a process of informing particular companies about particular technologies and endusers regardless of whether there is an underlying transaction that there is deep concerns. The first four minutes on Technology Transfer issues with respect to this issue you need to keep in mind code location issues, transactions with espionage for cybersecurity vulnerabilities. Those that reduce the benefit, transactions with personally identifiable information and those who security of supply issues and those that would implicate one person issues and those that create exposure for Critical Infrastructure communications. Each one of the topics were as their own hearing. Im here because i have three minutes in 30 minutes and three hours three day version. Ill stop here with a five minute version and be available for the course of the hearing. Thank you for hearing us. Thank you. Mr. Segal, your recognize for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you for inviting me here. The context for chinese activities. Im going to make three points. They move up the value chain for National Security and economic interests. That strategy involves many parts. It involves are indeed come a Science Technology policies in particular, both semi conductors, Artificial Intelligence and made in china 2025, which is the use of the internet of things the nomination on manufacturing. It had its own Foreign Investment regime, which forces Foreign Companies to transfer technology and fails to protect ip r. Decipher an industrial espionage and is involved in the foreign acquisitions. United states, europe, israel and other locations. The policy china has adopted in any u. S. Response will similarly have to be broad and comprehensive. Spec and as a number people have noted behind chinas friends is often opaque to the actors are. They still receive the enterprises and so the sources at the money and the motivations of the money are often clear. They may be hiding money from corruptions are jealous. Xi jinping has started under who gentile of military fusion and that goal is to tightly link to civilian and military economy and does far to the civilian economy are eventually turn into military strength as well. So that means any advantage can also be broad to the military economy. While i support many of the specific reforms mentioned about increase capacity, increase information sharing and its important to point out that good Chinese Technology platform and systems are increasingly integrated. Receiving Information Technologies where it is very, very hard to draw a line between what china starts in with the United States starts. We see a massive flow of people back and forth, investments, a huge amount of Coal Research and call writing research paper. With chinese scientists look for coauthors, they look to the United States. Over 40 are u. S. Authors and this will be reproduced in technology. We are defeated for the a. I. , Artificial Intelligence. The two systems right now are often cast as competitors is running a race against each other. They are going to be tightly integrated and google announced yesterday was setting up an r d center inside china. It is just the most recent example of how tightly linked the systems are going to be. That means for any type of either export control law or cfius were formed, there is a high degree chance we could in fact hurt ourselves, that we would be effective and Science Technology into the u. S. System that drives u. S. Companies and drives u. S. Innovation. Thank you for a much adequate to your question. Gentleman yields back. You are recognized for five minutes. Chairman barr, thank you for your invitation to testify this morning. And Nancy Mclernon at the pleasure of being president and ceo of the organization for International Investment, the only Business Association exclusively underpriced at the national company. Numbers represent a wide variety of industries from companies headquartered all over the world including lego, samsung, and me. I the subcommittee effort to take the time for economic importance of direct investment to americas economy and the effectiveness of the process. The mission is to ensure the United States remains the most effective for Foreign Direct Investments to the outside impact it has on the economy and workforce. Fix for an 8 million workers in the United States take home a paycheck including 20 of the manufacturing work force and 24 and the economy wide average and somewhat counterintuitively, International Companies in the u. S. Not for consumption, but also for worldwide consumption. U. S. Workers and International Companies produce about 25 of all u. S. Exports. International companies are providing worldclass training and help strengthen communities in which they sustainably operated. Toyota is kentucky plant is the largest manufacturing facility in the world is applying its manufacturing knowhow to help childrens hospitals reduce infection rates with Neonatal Intensive Care Units by 80 . Japanese company and kentucky the largest manufacturing facility in the world. The vast majority of fbis flows into the United States through mergers and acquisitions. Into industry is totally unrelated to National Security. It has been issued for their Strategic Acquisitions here. They include research, manufacturing and distribution facilities across 13 states. They go out to a facility in little rock, arkansas that was a result of the acquisition of enabling facility. That is the largest cosmetic manufacturing facility in the world. In little rock, arkansas, a French Company manufacturing consumers all around the world. Examples demonstrate when Global Companies acquire or merge with u. S. Companies they raised Economic Performance and account reliable anchors begin Large Capital investment and reinvested earnings into their operations here. Our economy would not receive the full benefits International Companies provide to the critical factor in the attraction of the u. S. Is our countrys commitment to the rule of law and stability of the Regulatory Environment as was mentioned earlier. But deliberations in congress laid the foundation for success. During 2008, congress engaged in an equally thoughtful process to implement. The resulting regulations carefully captured the Balance Congress saw providing guidance on a transaction within the purview of cfius in a wide range of factors relevant to National Security assessment. Based on publicly available information of anecdotal experience it seems clear that process is under stress. There appears to be more investigations and litigation agreement for a resolution. Our members report although Staff Members continued to be impressed with long hours and attention to unique circumstances, resource constraints are straining the ability to handle the current workload. Special is increased in emanate an auction process potentially forcing them to pay a premium. Let me underscore the International Business community ensure america remains safe and we are in full agreement National Security should be paramount. I caution cfius should not be viewed as a panacea to address the concerns raised the government has a wide variety of tools at its disposal ensuring fairness, predictability, National Security produce mustard and independence of the process. Any changes to the process need to be done thoughtfully with the full awareness of economics to you. Once again, thank you, mr. Chairman. I look forward to answering your questions. Spin that the chair recognizes that south. I appreciate the witnesses outside the testimony illuminated and educational. Mr. Kimmitt, let me start with you because of your background and your expertise. Obviously, as ms. Mclernon was pointing out, she mentioned toyota kentucky, but in my home state of kentucky, Foreign Direct Investments supports 117,000 jobs cut a 17 of the entire employment. At the same time as many witnesses pointed out here today, National Security of our country is of critical importance and fbi if not carefully watched, could enable our enemies to inflict harm not just on our economy, but create a whole lot of National Security concerns. The u. S. China economic review commission, china appears to be conducting a campaign of espionage against companies evolving cyberespionage in human infiltration to systematically penetrate the Information Systems of companies to steal intellectual Property Committee value them and dramatically reduce prices. The central question of this. Its how can we balance both the desire for strong investment and strong National Security and can you give us a bit of guidance on not . Precisely striking that balance that not only u. S. A. Subcommittee seek to do, but really the members of the administration do on a daily basis. I think it is important to reiterate that the u. S. Is open to investment for the reasons you and others have mentioned. At the same time, no one serving in Public Office has a higher responsibility than protecting the National Security. We start up from the point of view that we are looking for ways to attract good, highpaying fbi jobs from the United States. Appearing before this committee now almost 30 years ago, my then boss jim baker said the directive that that was their ace in the hole. Foreign companies deciding our marketplace, our system and workers are without investment. That is where we start, but that is not for leanne. We have to look for cicely security considerations you mentioned and today, i might pass concerns, the saudis, perhaps the japanese are talking about someone who not only wants to appear a competitor, the winner against the United States, that is china and we have to look at Chinese Investment particularly closely. There could be Chinese Investment that do not raise security concerns. It doesnt exclude that there could be Chinese Investment that needs to be regulated or lucked out by others. Again, we serve at the of view we want to attract that investment but not at the cost of harming u. S. Nationals. Of ms. Mclernon, what interests me about the issue is why there are not sufficiently robust Capital Markets in the United States to provide alternative sources of capital for startups are maybe Mature Companies in financial distress. Is there an alternative to Foreign Direct Investment and why do we not have Strong Enough Capital Markets in the United States to provide that capital is an alternative to maybe a chinese entity . I would start with the fact we dont want to close our borders to Foreign Direct Investment. These away to fund our Capital Markets here. We dont have all the answers. Foreign companies that i come to the United States, they dont just bring capital. They bring innovation, worldclass workforce training, new ways to do things. Weve seen that in the auto sector. So i dont think it would be a desire to wallace off to think that weve got all the smarts and we can have all the answers of the sort of contain it here. We have many people on the panel and you yourself talk about the amazing benefits Foreign Direct Investment means to the u. S. Economy into the workforce. And the remaining time, mr. Estevez, observers have said the cfius process that others will the pentagon on the decision would depress the pentagon somehow caved having input from the pentagon staff. Can you elaborate on that . I will. I dont think that is true. Inside the pentagon, when i look at a case, we brought in all the parties from the pentagon. The military services, key agencies like National Security agencies who are concerned on labor cases, for example. For example. Signed for example. Signed off at the Senior Leadership level. We always went into a cave looking i believe that the Foreign Direct Investment. We need to have the innovation that brought. I was like to make sure we are protecting National Security doing that and we brought the resources have examined the case. The construct, china was always the case we looked up regardless of the next step and when we went to the committee i had to make the case. I could never say the committee wrote me against. Mr. Wolfe would tell you. My time as well more than expired. I would like to recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, mr. Pittenger. Not only is he the review act, but also the author of the legislation amid the treasury secretary and member of the National Security council and the data go go to my friend from North Carolina on the issue. Im from North Carolina. We have the largest hog Processing Plant in the world in my district owned by the chinese. 5000 jobs. Right across the border for me as a textile plant owned by the chinese, so i have a real interest in Chinese Investment, Foreign Investment of all kinds. Great appreciation for that. Having said that, i certainly read the statement by president xi with his plan to acquire technology companies. They have been pretty focused on matt. 2014 i think they acquired 43 semiconductor companies, 20 which have been in the United States. It brings us enormous concern and i think those concerns are shared by many of the leaders to support our interest in reform recipients. Secretary hernandez, cfius is outdated. It needs to be updated to do with the situation. Admiral rogers, today and tomorrow. Who would disagree with those perspectives. Thank you for the. I would like to just ask you. Thank you for your service. The secretary of commerce and the export administration. At that time you involved in providing relief in the arms embargo the u. S. And the e. U. Has involving the massacre. These offers an export controls led to massive Chinese Military modernization effort and of course today the capable pla efforts. Under the same 10 years that took half a decade to punish the chinese for actions by z t. E. What we have in technology to north korea and iran. They were fined a billion dollars, but it took a long time to get that done. How credible you think you could be on the witness on the cfius process given the lapse through the time of your tenure. With respect to the dtd case, i was the one that signed the denial order pursuing it. I think were extraordinarily aggressive with respect to the export control effort is the opposite with respect to china. The whole point of the reform effort was to make it easier with respect to trade with our close allies, nato in particular so we would have more resources in order to focus and to strengthen the embargo with respect to china. It provided chinese access and greater capability as a result of what occurred and did not occur. I would like to clarify for this committee but we intend not to do in the bill. The bill does not impose a bad or automatically lock all Chinese Investments of any other country. It does not require cfius reciprocity is part of this bill. It does not require joint ventures. It does not require all of them. It does not require any list of countries of special concern. No country is named in this bill. It does not require any list of technologies for duplicated functions by the export control system and it does not designate technologies that are to be safeguarded. I think there has been prudent consideration for what needs to be done and what should not be done. Then conveyed to this committee and to each of you that without this type of clear focus and commitment, americas interest will be greatly threatened. I got back my time. My time is gone. The gentlemans time is expired. The chair now recognizes that this question is from arkansas comest any number of the committee, mr. Hill. I thank the chairman. Appreciate the witnesses. Thanks for the effort to start this process, mr. Barr, and evaluating how we address the needs on behalf of the administration has so gone new challenges to our country and i appreciate my friend from North Carolina taking a leadership role in the topic as well. I would like to start with the issue, mr. Kimmitt about challenges of life in technology as opposed to outright acquisition of it. Could you reflect on not . I will confirm that we will let others do. There is no definition of National Security is existing law for the new bill and i think thats very wise because National Security is a Dynamic Concept quite different today than it was during the cold war. The summation of our foreign defense and International Economic policies and the strong intelligence base. So one the cfius Committee Members come together, they have the responsibilities and their statutes and regulations to protect National Security at the four and particularly for state and commerce of licensing issues that are proceeding on another track are very often brought in to cfius on consideration of that particular case. Its really important to note they shouldnt substitute for the work that is done i might sing, export controls in other areas, but certainly needs to be part of the consideration. I would make sure cfius is awaiting an area that is more properly defensive commerce. Someone else might want to comment. Thats exactly my main point. There is technology of concern. We should be controlled about the technology of concerned in the transfer of their regardless of whether there is a transaction, regardless of the joint venture or an acquisition by Licensing Agreement if we are going to spend the time and attention of Government Resources of identifying commercial technology, everything thats been said today with respect to the underlying anxieties and motivations concerned and the export control system regardless of the nature to control a collateral consequences of having another rest broader impact and it could be tailored to the User Technology concerns about the entire economic ecosystem. Thats why im an advocate, but if there is a technology concern issue, spend the time identifying that a work into the system to regulated accordingly. You think theres ample authority to go through the process and identify that . The legislation party and the willing resources time and commitment is not a statutory issue. Whats a bigger challenge of this issue of Foreign Direct Investment by sensitive assets or just outright threat of intellectual property. Its clearly the latter that Foreign Direct Investment by and large is not the issue but the underlying transfer you are referring to not necessarily in something captured by Foreign Direct Investment. I would agree with that. Something like 5 or 10 of expert, but export value is intellectual property from europe in the United States. Would you agree with that . I dont know the percentages, but that seems reasonable, yes. Repugnance of rules to our position rules to have the minimum standard they were doing business with the department of defense. Do think inside the executive branch in the intellectual property cyberrisk, data security, not talking about just the trademark on mickey mouse. Im talking about all of the above. As i relate adequately coordinated in the executive branch process . Having worked in a recently as opposed to mr. Kimmitt, centuries ago, we didnt even have email. Talk to me, are we adequately coordinated there . I agree with your question which is all a part time and resource and commitment should be made to the effort to identify those technologies that are commercially warwick control. Absolutely. Thank you, mr. Wolf. My times expired. To churn out recognizes the gentleman from ohio, mr. Davidson. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you or witnesses. I appreciate your expertise on this vital matter for National Interest and i certainly appreciate the Foreign Direct Investment of the United States. We want to be clear that we are talking about things counter to our National Security interests, but not things that would be counter to our National Interest. We want Foreign Direct Investment. We dont want to give away our national secrets. Im grateful to mister pittenger and the folks in this committee that have tried to address the modernizing of legislation that post1993 but past due for reforms. One of my big concerns is where are the gaps . Even with this legislation. Whats left to be done . Mister hill talked about licensing but also one of the big things you see is Startup Companies and Venture Capital in investing. We spent a little time talking about china. We are not only concerned about the relationship with china. When balanced we benefit from that trade relationship with concerns about trade policy. Here were talking about National Security. The kind of mechanisms which we are transferring technology that we may still need to address beyond this as it stands today. Miss mclernon, would you care to start . I think you raise a number of very important issues and there are a variety of different Security Experts on the panel other than myself. I think its important that we dont lower ourselves into a false sense of security. If we do focus on one country and we reincentive, we risk being vulnerable to other areas of threat and also risk discouraging investment from that particular country that could benefit the us economy. And further questions, Mister Kimmitt. I would say that your point about instances beyond normal activities really is an important one congressman. We must remember the current law applies not only in the case of ownership but also controlled. Cfius looks closely at investments including startups. Where a Foreign Company or investor would have enough Equity Ownership and enough governance rights towards the observer status accumulation rights, special Voting Rights that could trigger the cfius covered transaction rule. I think having spent two years myself on the sophomore company in Silicon Valley, it isnt well understood there. We need to do a better job of letting people in our technology hubs, not just Silicon Valley but the Research Triangle around the country, know that they have to be careful as they take that Foreign Investment, that it does not rise to the level of control which would then trigger cfius and for example if theyre going to set up an investment fund, lets make sure any Foreign Limited Partners are truly limited. That they are passive investors. Thats an area that cfius looked at closely but i think on the company side, particularly in that startup community, theres not as clear and understanding is there should be of what foreign investors, particularly with malign purposes maybe trying to do thank you, lets hear from ambassador kimmitt on that point. We also have to watch negative implications. If youre a startup in Silicon Valley with cool technologies, i want those companies to do business with the department of defense. I dont want them to not want to do business with the department of defense because we are going to put a fence around them. To your point, my time is expired but the point is a lot of these earlystage folks dont realize the National Security implications. It has profound potential applications for our Global Economy but it could be used for nefarious purposes. My time is expired and mister chairman, ideal. The chair recognizes the gentleman from california for five minutes. To my ports, we had a company that happened to be owned by the government, that government was at the time supporting international terrorism. Should we have in any cfius law a provision that says you explicitly must take into account whether the host government of whatever company is making the investment supports terrorism whether or not is a state sponsor of terror. Does anyone have comments . Anybody here think that we shouldnt take into consideration whether the Company Making an investment in us assets is a based in a country that supports terrorism . I think at the treasury which i know quite a bit better although the cfius processes run by the International Affairs division as you know. The people in cfi terrorism and finance comment. There is not an explicit provision that says it might be a Wonderful Company by a wonderful asset, it just happens to be based in tehran. And that wouldnt, and theres nothing in the law that i read that you can point to that says that would be one of the factors, correct . Theres nothing specifically in this although in the wake of that port there was much greater scrutiny put on acquisitions estate owned or controlled entities. Im not talking about state owned or controlled entities. Where you will find that specific language is in legislation that you pass and executive orders issued by the president on state sponsors of terrorism including the iranians and others so a government or private enterprise based in tehran . Id say both. You say it would be rejected on that basis or what would it be given . Certainly if it were a Company Based in tehran it would be rejected i think outright. Maybe dubai we would look at more carefully. I would point out that we may be looking to narrowly when we look at ownership or control of a company. If you have to have seats on the board to control them. Ill give you one example. Weve allowed the terrible situation in our weak position with china so they are able to turn to bowling and say we wont buy your planes unless you make the fuselages in china. They dont have anybody on the board. They dont own any stock but they control corporate decisions. And i dont know whether it was the fuselage or the Wing Assembly and i dont know whether that poses a risk to our National Security intellectual property but i do know that once we consent to a situation where a country can have a huge trade surplus with us, over 300 billion and then turned to our companies and say you cant even sell your products here. Unless you transfer this technology. Unless you build this plant here. Unless the patents are located here. Unless the Computer System or cloud is located here. That we may be looking over at corporate ownership and not looking at corporate control. The fact is if you can close your markets, you can control corporate decisions. Another thing i will point out is that i think its important to note that if bad decisions are made by citizens, they can be reversed. Under the International Emergency economic powers act. That would be extraordinary, never been done before but i think that as we plan to revisit cfius, we should be aware of that which could be used and eyesight 50 usc 1702 to reverse a bad decision. And ideal back. The gentleman reeled back, the gentleman from minnesota mister ember. That you mister chair and thanks to the witnesses for being here today. So i want to go back to german bars opening when he was talking about how do you balance, how does cfius balance National Security versus Foreign Direct Investment. And i want to fight together with i think it was something that Mister Kimmitt said about there is no definition of National Security in the law. So what is the priority for cfius when you are reviewing a transaction . Is it National Security . Or is it Foreign Direct Investment . Which one comes first and have to be balanced against the other one . When you are talking National Security, ill add, how do you define it and we will start with the ambassador. My point only was that National Security is a dynamic everchanging concept , it meant one thing during the cold war, another during post9 11, post financial crisis and i think the important thing is that cfius, which exists only to screeninvestments for National Security concerns , has at the table every department and agency that is responsible for safeguarding the National Security interest of the United States. Because the Defense Department might bring their concerns about military technology, the state Department Might bring to the treasury some of the concerns that Mister Sherman mentioned about terrorist activity. Commerce will bring concern about export control. Dhs, doj bring a different set of concerns so basically, each of the agency is looking at the investment in an open investment policy environment but the reason there there is to say we are open to investments, are there any elements of this transaction if concluded that would raise concerns from our department or agencys perspective. If so, they need to be identified, addressed, mitigated or if they cant be mitigated, the deal needs to be blocked. It doesnt look like it when i look at the summary, a total of 770 transactions over the last, what is it, six years or Something Like that thats cited in this graph. There are many and i go back maybe mister, i shouldnt call you the honorable Mister Estevez. You were talking about when you review something inside the pentagon. Theres a case that i tried to look up and its back from 2011, 2012 involving serious airplanes in duluth minnesota. A Chinese Company came in and put a Purchase Agreement together and all kinds of red flags went up because the argument was they are going to buy this very interesting technology. Theyre going to reverse engineer it in china so we lose the jobs. Its great to want this Foreign Direct Investment, but Mister Sherman had a great point. Youve also got it going on with what mister hill is talking about with outright theft. You remember the case im talking about . And is it one of the ones, there were 20 in 2012 that notices were withdrawn after commencement of the investigation. Being a member of the committee, we dont really want to talk about specific cases because of the confidentiality of that process. It helps us dig into those companies but the reality is i also dont recall that case. Thats great and i respect that. If i can ask before i forget about it, it would be helpful if at some point down the road when you think its not hot anymore where policymakers can actually see some of these cases and the deliberations that you go through, it would help us understand how cfius is working. On any case we look at the technology and its not about , theres Economic Security as far as National Security, absolutely. We would discuss that do when we were discussing cases. But we would look at the technology and say is it technology that in the state, is it useful militarily . Would it advance their capability, whoever they are and in this case, over hours. And if there was any doubt about that, i would either argue that we have to put control around this pending on who the company was and the country was and whether we would trust them on those controls or i would be arguing for a block. Honorable Mister Wilson would say i was usually sitting therepounding the table. But then you could get overruled. I see my time is expired, thank you. The gentleman yelled back in the chair recognizes the gentleman in illinois, mister foster. Thank you to our witnesses, mister siegel, in your testimony you mentioned things like source code. As one of the things hard to keep under control when you have Government Investment and are there investment models that allow us to accept money but keep the intellectual property here or is that pretty much alost cause when you have a significant investment . Is there a workable model of that . Where once you have someone whos got a 20 percent stake, they are going to want to see a review of the technology on regular intervals. They want to have basically people injected into the company and see the both the present and the future technological developments. Anyway to keep that from happening . Thank you. I think thats a case that refers to investment inside china so when, it was an example of the sort of intellectual property thats hard to keep in one place. I think i would go back to ambassador kevin that once you are investing in a startup or other technology company,what percentage control you get , what the terms are and what access to the information i think those are often individually negotiated and then it would have to be brought to the attention depending on what the source code was or the technology was that one he transferred. Is there a look at how successful those have been in keeping the technology from escaping . Where this is a one time decision and then you dont look back five years later and see if the technology is actually not been adequate. We would always look at the technology to the extent of how cuttingedge it was and how it would impact potential adversaries again from the department of defense perspective. That way we would look at the technology itself but the industrial process so some companies are better at doing things that other companies and we wouldnt want the secrets to migrate overseas. If there was a very stateoftheart company. We would consider all those things if we thought we could mitigate, we would propose mitigation on how to wall off assets of foreign cash going into the company. If we didnt think we could do that, we would propose a loss. When you believe you wallet off, do you then have a process in place to review how successful that is . If we propose mitigation we would enforce that mitigation agreement in perpetuity so you would assess how that was working. With that said, ill go to my earlier testimony. Theres not enough resources to continue doing that, especially as cases get more complex. If you look further into the future, its easier to catch up then to develop new technology that doesnt previously exist so in the medium long term were going to be coequals with many countriesin europe and asia and a lot of areas. So the question is do we have a structural disadvantage . Will it be, as easy for us to invest and get their technologies moving back in areas where they are ahead of us . Is that something we should start negotiating now to make sure we havent built in a structural disadvantage as coequals . This is in a world where we are coequals technologically. In particular with the case of china we do want to insist on greater reciprocity. There are a number of sectors in High Technology that are so offlimits for us investment. The amount of access to us r d, us universities does not exist in the chinese case so as china becomes a more capable player, i think it moves us to insist on greater reciprocity. In addition to absolute cutting edge technological spaces, a lot of the future military applications are going to be things like drone swarms like massive numbers of security cameras, things like that where its the price that is as important. The mass production of large numbers of relatively lowtech, where lowtech includes cameras with facial id. And i wondering, is there a lot of concern that even though the technology might not be bleeding edge, that just the very high volume of manufacturing is another area where we could fall behind and have to protect. Let me address that briefly. We would look at the technology, if it wasnt cuttingedge, we believe our innovation would paste that and more importantly, from a military perspective, our tactics and the men and women that are in our armed forces constitute an advantage on how they use that technology. With the case or whatever competitors there are. Thank you. The gentlemans time has expired and the gentleman recognizes mister hollingsworth. I appreciate all the witnesses being here today. This is an interesting topic in the final topic that we discussed further. Mister foster, my colleague brought up some of the ongoing monitoring and Mister Estevez answered some of those questions but i wanted to talk a little bit about these monitoring agreements and how vital it is that we insure what we set in place and the guardrails around that are continually being looked at and updated. Can you talk about previous issues with resources, what resources might be required and what apparatus we have in place. What apparatus we need in place. I want to fill in color around the ongoing monitoring agreements. Others can certainly take questions as well. Sorry, admiral, im going to let my colleagues go into specifics. I spent a lot of time working in government. Most of the energy and resources go in on the outside. The policy decisions, the legislation is enacted. We dont get the attention and resources to the implementing side which is important. In business you got to drive the results so what i would say is lets make sure weve got resources on both sides of that equation and if in the middle is the mitigation agreement, lets make sure there is as much energy put into implementing overseeing that mitigation agreement as there was in negotiating it. Thats where i think we run into a resource problem. Both in treasury and the interagency process we have barely enough people to address todays cases. And if you then have an increase in cases for implementation responsibilities because you pass new legislation, i think the place thats going to lose is on continuing to watch those mitigation agreements, make sure they are faithfully executed and as Mister Estevez said importantly that we connect the dots across the decisions that are made. Thats where i think the resources, one other factor and i agree with the ambassador is that as time lapses from the time of mitigation agreements put in place, we did one for the od in 2013. I remember some of the staff was turned over. Some of the outside directors we put on have turned over so im really concerned about institutional memory, that comes with resources to figure out enforcement. Both your comments are thoughtful in ensuring that ultimately were going to make a certain investment, we need to have the resources to enforce those decisions. If we are going to be faced with many more cases then resources are barely enough to face those cases, theres a probability greater than zero some of those will be monitored and resources can be allocated to those agreements in the long term as well. I wanted to specifically ask mister wolf, was there ever a time in your tenure where you felt like you didnt have enough time to adequately review the relief that and arrive at the right decision in your mind . I agree with him we never cleared off our transaction for any of the departments with unresolved security threats. To the extent we needed more time there was withdraw and with massive support from the Intelligence Community, that was all the cases we reviewed we made it to the right outcome and to refer to earlier, we were never balancing investments in National Security. If there was an unresolved threat we mitigated. We didnt balance so to answer your question, no. That question will help hoosiers sleep better at night knowing we were thinking about these things and getting them that adequate amount of time and i appreciate the comments and i think this is something more broadly as you well said thats an epidemic across all aspects of government. We spend too few of our resources focused on the enforcement of a decision instead of on the decision itself and with that i will yield back. Can i have one point to get up on the point that Mister Wilson said, its important to understand the Critical Role the Intelligence Community plays in the cfius process. One of the cases are filed, it is down to the director of National Intelligence for a communitywide look at the case. I would say going to mister bostons point, some of the absentee considerations that need to be looked at closely and the dni then comes back with a low, medium or high assessment to help guide and make the decision or guide the committee and then as was mentioned, old all of the major cfius agencies have their own intelligence elements inside. Theres almost two bytes of that apple. And i think for looking ahead, in addition make sure that we implement correctly, we are relying on the Intelligence Community with not just the instant concerns on this transaction but what are those trends, those life trends that we need to be concerned about. The gentlemans time has expired and the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mister green. Thank you mister chairman and thank you to the witnesses for appearing today. This is an exceedingly important hearing and im very much concerned about assuring ourselves that we are on the right course. Mister siegel, you have indicated that unilateral action may not be sufficient. That theres something more that we have to do so as to protect our science and technology. Could you give some additional intelligence on this please . The fundamental issue is there are few if any science and Technology Issues that the us still monopolizes. So for any technology the United States has decided that it represents a dual use threats, it is very possible to find except for a very narrow range of technologies similar production. To give an example on issues on Cyber Security or ai or Computer Science or technology, the chinese are sending delegations to israel every week. And while israelis are more aware of our concerns about use, they are not going to find the same ways we are in every instance so i think the issue is that unless you have a fairly broad set of disagreements among your partners, it would be easy for chinese actors to find most technologies in other markets. With reference to partners, are there certain institutions that can validate a partners positions such that we can feel more comfortable with it as opposed to someone that might not be associated or affiliated with the institution . I may defer to mister walt but i suspect the intelligence agencies cooperate and share information. If you would please. To the extent there is information about an entity that creates Foreign Policy concerns, my bureau of security have the authority to identify it publicly as an entity to which exports are blocked or other transactions are red flag and within the cfius review process, the Intelligence Community will provide information about other entities that may not necessarily be known to the parties and we factor that into our decisions to either block or mitigate. What about nato . Our membership in nato. Does that give you some degree of reassurance . With respect to the country absolutely but it doesnt mean every nato country is per se not adhering so when we review not only the country of issue but the company, the personnel, people that may be behind it, just because its from germany or france doesnt mean they are absolutely no concerns. How effective are we at spotting companies that have investors that may have ill intent or ill intentions such that they are in a position to take advantage of knowledge that they acquire, notwithstanding the fact that they look legitimate. Real quick, thats one reason for my emphasis on the focus on technology. If the technology werent review period, regardless of who the parties are, and the licensing process gives the Us Government the opportunity to do a deep diveand who the investors are as opposed to the other way around. The Intelligence Community does a good job giving out all the facets of the Company Including who are the investors that may not be reacting. We have some sensitive areas in the United States where we have certain things being developed that are to be kept under wraps for want of a better terminology. Do we have any concerns about persons locating businesses in and around these very sensitive areas . If it was a transaction, we would address that. Could you get closer to the mic please . If it wasnt covered transaction we address that under the cfius measurement. My time is up mister chairman, thank you. I yield back. The gentlemans time is expired and with the witnesses indulgence, we are about ready to have a vote on the house floor but we will take the liberty of asking one final fiveminute round of questioning with members agreement here. We heard from miss mclernon earlier that although the Capital Markets are the deepest, most liquid and competitive in the world,in and of themselves , the Capital Markets are not sufficient to provide the level of financing that startups and other Companies Need and Foreign Direct Investment is a critical part of financing of our companies in this country and they provide in the case of Foreign Direct Investment many times other assets other than just capital. We also heard today that there are legitimate National Security threats and we need to strike the right balance so in the remaining time, could each of you briefly if you can identify one policy recommendation to improve the current or modernized the current cfius review process, what with that one policy recommendation b and we will start with Mister Kimmitt and work our way down. I would go back to what has been the common theme. We need to make sure we have adequate resources both for the identification of potential issues, to review and adjudication of those at the implementation of any agreement that might be reached. Mitigation agreement to bring us to a yes answer. I think it was important going back to mister pittengers point of the number of senior officials in the administration who have talked about the need to reform cfius. I would say i hope those officials will themselves get involvedin the process. Both to identify the resources they need in the departments and agencies and empower their people involved in the cfius process to deal with these cases on behalf of the american people. Through my testimony i address certain areas. There are many areas in mister after words pittengers bill. Id also say that cfius is one tool in the toolbox. We need to look at the gallant of our legal abilities and what industrial policy and the reciprocity that we may want to enforce acrosstheboard in our dealings with foreign nations. So while cfius is one way to get it back, its not just cfius. You need carrots as well as sticks in this process. A significant massive hole government effort that is creative and digs in to all the types of emerging technologies and other technologies that arent on either of the control lists on commercial applications that are in areas of concern that are behind all the comics today. That requires a lot of agencies, a lot of creativity, a lot of attention and a lot of resources frankly to do that. With everything we are talking about today, it all depends whether its part of the legislation or export controls on the ability of either cfius or the export control systems to identify the areas of concerns whether broadly. The work at the core of everything we are talking about today and thats my policy recommendation. Mister siegel. If the concern is primarily china, we need to address all the other forms of transfer that are occurring so some of the issues of reciprocity that i mentioned before as well as battling back on internationalism and Chinese Industrial policy. On the cfius process itself i have a call for resources and also perhaps new mechanisms for tapping into the expertise in academic and business communities, about how the technologies are developing, which ones are the ones we are worried about 2 to 5 years from now and what kind of joint ventures and other agreements that people are thinking about in the future. Miss mclernon. Let me echo the importance for resources. Its hard to determine how well cfius works now and what the gaps are if they dont have the resources to do the job thats in front of them now. If we expand this vote, we risk leaving ourselves vulnerable and taking our eye off the true defenserelated National Security concern. I dont think it was mentioned earlier the number of deals blocked. Thats not an indicator whether cfius is working. You know have no idea how many deals started before cfius exists i wouldnt say it wasnt functioning properly but i cannot emphasize the need for resources not only for National Security what our ability to be competitive. Companies are concerned now with the length of time that has to happen in order to get the review so i cant emphasize that enough as well as looking at other tools that cfius cannot be the one and only thing we focus on for our National Security in the space. I like to yield to the gentleman from North Carolina for a comment. Thank you mister chairman. , is meaningful to all of us. I would like to enter into the record statements to support cfius which would include former secretary of commerce christer and wilbur ross. Id also really liked. Objection. Senator cornyn for his leadership has been remarkable. He and his team have really worked hard on this and its been an honor to work with them. Id like to thank secretary mnuchin whose latest role in writing this legislation along with chairman nunez and chairman berg. Everyones made sure that we have a good perspective with what needs to be done going forward. General and yields back and i yield to the gentleman from illinois. I want to thank you and i guess apologize for the attention Deficit Disorder of congress on this issue. Thank you for attempting to remedy that because this is something where i think our government and nation suffers from the lack of the longterm provision that you see in china. That a lot of our investment models where your based on quarterly profits as opposed to tenure performance causes us to not invest in as strategically as we should and i hear you very clearly about the lack of resources and when we have some big mess like that like the evil of crisis, theres a temporary spike in funding and it gets away until the next five times things become a crisis. This has been an ongoing crisis for more than a generation. The thing that occurred in some of your testimony with references to intellectual property violations. One of the reasons we have to depend on foreign capital for things like Venture Capital is because when you have a good invention like microsoft word and find that gets pirated in other countries, you dont have the follow on investment capital. I was wondering if you see that as an important area where we have to, this would be a much smaller problem if there was a huge increase in the amount of Venture Capital available, simply because we didnt have our inventions offshore. I guess there was a number of like 150 billion of Chinese Investments, that was a number that occurred in one of your testimony and that is probably small compared to the amount of software that gets stolen for example in china every two years. So i think we have to keep our eyes on that one very strongly. And anyway, i want to thank the chairman. Its a big deal. Thank you and i appreciate the gentleman and yields back and id like to thank all our witnesses for their testimony today. It was very educational and eliminated a lot of issues for the members. As we indicated before, this subcommittee will review the cfius process and will have several more hearings at the beginning of 2013 and we invite the continued engagement of these witnesses and others as we continue to review and update this process and i would echo the comments that we hear you loud and clear on the resources point was a unanimous point that was made here today. Without objection, all members will have five legislative days to submit additional questions to the chair which will be forwarded for the response. I asked our witnesses to please respond as promptly as you are able, this hearing is now adjourned. [inaudible conversation]. [inaudible conversation] tonight, book tv in primetime 2017 bestsellers. Pulitzer prize historian David Mccullough on his book the american spirit, former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice on her book democracy. Author , he see coats examines race, the Obama Presidency and the 2016 election in his book, we were eight years in power. In your host mark rubin on his book rediscovering americanism and roxanne gave on her memoir hunger. At 8 pm eastern here on cspan2. The cspan bus tour continues its tour in january with columbia, atlanta and montgomery. On each stop we speak with state officials during our washington journal program. Follow the tour and join us january 16 at 9 30 a. M. For our stop in raleigh North Carolina when our washington journal guest is North Carolina attorney general josh stein. Cc bands student camp, to say it all. The editing with constitutional documentary. This group showed us how its done. Two stellar interviews in one day and its students asking hardhitting questions about Immigration Reform and the dream act. We are asking students to choose a provision of the u. S. Constitution and create a video illustrating why its important. Our topic is open to all middle school and High School Students grades six through 12. 100,000 in cash prizes will be awarded. The grand plies of 2000 will go to the student or teenager