Congresswoman Abigail Spanberger. She is a democrat from virginia in her first term. You have some legislation that was passed earlier this month . I had a bill focused on 5g technologies and the premise of the bill is that we are facing significant challenges with the future of 5g technology, and the u. S. Needs a comprehensive strategy. Develop one, we implement it, so the bill would require that we develop one. That we implement it, and we work with partners and allies to make sure they do something similar. Peter who is the we . Rep. Spanberger the executive branch. We are requesting that the administration develop a broadband strategy, a national strategy, a comprehensive 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 from a public perspective, understand these challenges and potential threats. And that we move to a place where we ensure Greater Development of 5g technology in the United States. That we raise recognition 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 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 nationwide, 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. So 5g will allow for significantly faster relay of information. And it has significant use within the public and everyday within the Public Sector and for 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 sensitive military related information. Peter most of our guests on this program come from the energy and commerce committee. It oversees a lot of technology. You do not sit on that committee. Where did your interest come from . Rep. Spanberger i sit on the 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 dependent on other triggers, the use of 5g tohnologies as we expected develop will be incredibly , important. Many of our Rural Communities that could be benefiting from Precision Agricultural Technology have no internet. So it is an issue of lack of access completely. I have been focused 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 separately, Foreign Affairs committee, and my background as an intelligence officer, i former c. I. A. Officer. Am a the recognition of the challenges or threats that come from a foreign country dominating Technological Development is one i am keenly attuned to, and acutely aware of. So it is my focus on internet from a Rural Development perspective and a 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 can you talk specifically about huawei and vte are dominating the race toward 5g according to experts . Where these companies a concern and what do you think is the best strategies to stave off the growing influence . Rep. Spanberger the bill we passed in the house recently, my callout china specifically or huawei specifically, recognizing in the future our challenges might come from other countries, but when we look at huawei and zte, 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 backdoors or areas of 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 privacy standards and corporate standards are different than what we consider acceptable or even legal here. So, recognizing whether it is intentional coordination 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. Emily there 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 push by the u. S. Is affecting their business. What do you say to that . Rep. Spanberger it is an issue of competition. And surely recognizing that currently the United States needs to come up with a plan to better compete in this space isnt necessarily meant to kneecap 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 background, i am very aware of 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 perspective, 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 Corporate Information, and information and Corporate Information private as interests, and information that should be considered secret or specific to real privacy concerns. Then i think that is a good 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. Ensuring we are having a public dialogue that we want that technology to benefit you. The future of autonomous vehicles. The future of agriculture. That you could be performing surgery in one city on a patient in another because the Technology Speed is so fast paired the promise of all of this is incredibly interesting. I think that we as the federal government have a place in that conversation to make sure we protect that data. And from an economic and from a privacy standpoint, to ensure that United States is involved. Emily this week i think Trump Officials are in the u. K. , trying to encourage them not to use any Huawei Technology in their systems. A lot of western countries are opting for a partial use of partial ban 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 opting for that approach to huawei . And you agree with the Trump Administration approach, making aggressive threats if they do and up and plummeting while a Huawei Technology . Rep. Spanberger the starting 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, speaking specifically toward intelligence liaison relationships we have with, in this case, the u. K. , one of our closest allies. We share a tremendous amount of information, and i think it is within our right to express concern about how that information is safeguarded. As a former c. I. A. Officer, i know that frequently the information 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 out they were providing information that is helping in diplomatic efforts, information that is informing decisions made by the United States or made by some of our partners. An information letter to threats be it from foreign 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 congresswoman, do you agree with the Trump Administration approach saying, dont use huawei, dont use zte 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. I am currently not read into the full scope of what those threats may be. 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 intelligence sharing, that is a concern i would take very seriously. Because i would assume it is one eighth on a specific based i would assume it is one based on real, specific threats. Peter we have a lot of members 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 huawei, and i mentioned that to him, and here is his response. [video] the democrats and republicans are worried about china and many have said it is really not about huawei, it is about the china government and what the china government could force huawei to do. There are real cybersecurity risks in the world. And 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. [end of video] peter congresswoman spanberger. Rep. Spanberger when i am choosing technologies to provide my personal data, the risks that are present with Huawei Technologies are ones i am not willing to take, so my answer would be no. But i think mr. Purdy made good points talking about supply chain challenges threats that , talking about 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 invested in closing the socalled digital divide. You mentioned a lot of rural areas dont have access to internet. And they rely in some of these areas it is huawei or nothing. ,how do you think the u. S. Can best address that tension . And further, do you think it is worth the enormous cost and obstacles to rip huawei out of the ground in these rural areas . As some lawmakers have proposed . Rep. Spanberger the notion of ripping huawei out of the ground might be a step greater 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 some of the 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 concerns. About creating a path and recognizing as consumers what one is paying for, what a consumer chooses to purchase. This strikes back to what we were talking about earlier, that some of these technological decisions are so great. Wanted a you device and was looking, whether to get an ipad. Or 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 prioritizing the purchase to , purchase of american items from a purchasing standpoint, to 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 do things best, may not be the idea that we want to convey, but it is not just about, i want american produced items. It is recognizing the threat that comes from other producers, be they American Technologies or 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. Emily there is another chinese technological product that is raising alarm bells for people in congress, tiktok. It is a massively popular social media. And it is 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. The army bounded from their phones. So is that an area you are looking at, 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 a video app. 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. And that there risks associated with it. So, as it relates to tiktok in 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. And that is exciting. 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 risks . There has been great reporting on the risks that exist, which is helpful to the American Public. Peter congresswoman, 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. As a cia case officer, i was out meeting foreign assets who were 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, and trained, and 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.