Transcripts For CSPAN3 Foreign Investment In The U.S. 201712

Submit into the record. Its called examining operation in Foreign Investment in the United States. I recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. The free flow of capital is a bed rock tenant of a United States economy. Insuring that free throw world wide has always been a bipartisan goal and to that end, im proud to serve in the caucus along with our call eelgs mr. Holding, hiems and meeks. It promotes Global Investment and help hads educate members about the importance of Foreign Direct Investment. Its the recipient of the greatest amount of Foreign Investment. That capital has provided a good deal of if aerj that kept our economy vibrant. To provide the fuel of u. S. Businesses and jobs. Today almost 5 are related to Foreign Investment. Most of these jobs pay handsomely, far better on average than other u. S. Jobs. But if Foreign Investment is to be a force for good, it must not be welcomed more unthinkingly than one might leave a house unopen around the clock. We must guard against it. That investment might come for purely economic reasons but especially in this era of international turmoil, conflict and economic uncertainty, it can come from individual or nation states who can can weaken our economy or spirit away technology or know how that could gain an advantage over ours. To maintain an a vigilant watch on Foreign Investment, sifius reviews many inbound investments to determine if they pose a threat to National Security. This involves rigorous scrutiny of all departments or agencies, including a scrub by the Intelligence Agency and the president has it power to order divestment if such concerns cannot be mitigated by a change in the original proposal. Today we face new threats on a number of fronts, not just of a hallowed out industrial sector but from terrorism and major nations that are economic competitors. Im referring of course mainly to china. Concerns have risen about using that countrys vast reserves to achieve Key Technology with aen eye towards taking a lead to the markets of the future. Theyve set aside 250 billion to be used in dominating the vital semiconductor market. This is not a new phenomenon but a new challenger. President ford set up out of concern it could weaken our economy. 1988 among concerns japan was seeking to buy critical technology, Congress Gave president ragen the ability to actually blocked deals. Interestingly the first use came when president george h. W. Bush blocked a sale of a component to a Chinese Company and President Trump already has blocked a proposed purchase of semiconductors of a Chinese Company. Approving a deal only when divestment of divisions with sensitive technologies or activities have occurred. But the statute as not been updated in a decade and clearly we should think about modernizing it. For were about 30 more reviews and a full fold expansion just since 2013. To that end senator corner have spent more than a year studying the process and considering possible reforms. I commend their work. This hearing is the beginning of the committees study of sievious. The committee will seek to insure that sifius has the tools to examine Foreign Investment. It is our duty to advance the National Security of the United States. At it same time we must aspire to the greatest extent possible a welcoming Investment Climate so u. S. Companies have the capital needed to grow. We need to be mindful the investment for clients overseas is not unnecessarily comp rusmized. Theyve have a panel of witnesses to discuss challenges that sifius faces. Its intended to inform members on wise decisions on this topic. This should be the begin oofg strong and thoughtful review. I would recognize a member of the democratic side, the gentleman from washington, mr. Heck for five minutes for an opening statement. And mr. Chairman, to begin with i would ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter i sent december 8th, requesting a witness from the department of treasury be witness at this hearing. I believe frankly theres no substitute for hearing from the people actually administering. Ive given treasury a very hard time in this committee. About this issue in past hearings. I want to make clear that they have begun to engage in what i characterize as a expressive manner. And my hope that committee could benefit in a future hearing. I would be happy to yield to chairman bar. I appreciate it gentleman yielding and just to clarify this is a first of a series of hearings. We most certainly will be extending an invitation to treasury officials who have a large role in the process to testify and you will have that opportunity. I yield back. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Im glad to hear that and i thank you again for convening this hearing. I believe it works well for motivated actions but in the 10 years since Congress Last pass legislation related to this issue, to pursue a comprehensive strategy or dominate strategically important industries. They were not designed and are not sufficient to deal with that kind of challenge. And although as many of our witnesses will note this is a problem every part of the u. S. Government have to Work Together to address. I believe there are some aspects that can only be addressed to close gaps at authority. With i asked about this in july, he agreed this was a pressing issue and that we could not aafford do nothing. I hope we can all bring that sense of urgency to how this committee approaches its work on reform. The kind of urgency and unity i know this congress can still bring to bear on issues related to our National Security. There are certainly things we need keep in mind as we move forward. Im fwlad many of todays issues have raised issues, will raise issues like the need to improve information sharing and cooperation with our allies and partners, many of whom are also in the process of reevaluating their own equivalents monopoly im glad many witnesses will raise it need to provide more resources which i agree are urgently needed to keep pace with it times, the demand and the need. And im proud that the United States is in fact a place that welcomes Foreign Investment. But the broader legitimacy and acceptance of that principal of openness, which i believe in and the ability of the United States to stand up for a free and open Global Economy is in fact dependent on our National Security monopoly as secretary mumuch toen said doing nothing is not an option. But im confident we can find a bipartisan path forward and strike that balance between continuing to allow robust Foreign Investment which i think does serve our economic prospects while at it same time balancing it against very legitimate security concerns, which are growing in number and velocity and in complexity. It needs to be reformed. It starts here with this committee and this hearing today, mr. Chairman. So finally, thank you again very much for convening it. The gentleman yields back and the honorable Senior International counsel at william hail. And served as deputy secretary of the u. S. Treasury where he had sniff kwnt a revamp of sifius. He also served as National Security kuns kounsal from 1983 to 1985. During 1987 he was a member of the National Defense panel. And to 2005 it director of Central Intelligence National Security advisory panel. He served in combat in vietnam with the 173rd airborne brigade, retired in the Major General in the army reserve and served as u. S. Ambassador to germany. A National Security strategy and logistics activity at dwight consulting who served for 36 years at the department of defense. To january 2017, mr. Estevez he represented the department of defense while Chinese Investment accelerated rapidly. Previously held several key positions including material evidence and undersecretary of defense for supply chain integration. Honorable mr. Wolf is a partner and from to 2017 was secretary of commerce for export administration. He was primarily responsible for the u. S. Dual use export control system and as a result, he helped lead part of the defense trade system. Also mr. Wolf was the primary Commerce Department secretary to sifius. And the litman chair in National Security and director of the digital and cyber space policy program that kounsel of foreign relations. An expert on chinese domestic and oo foreign policy. Before coming to cfr was an arms control analyst at the union of concerned scientists. He as been a visiting scholar of the hoover institute, the Massachusetts Institute of technology for international studies, the Shanghai Academy of social sciences and in beijing. President and ceo of the organization for international inhad vestment, representing the unique interests in subsidiaries. Her efforts feeks on the role subsidiaries play in the u. S. Economy and make u. S. A more competitive location. Prior, she was Senior Vice President where she focussed on Strategic Communications and advocacy. Each of oyou will be recognize said to give an oral presentation of your testimony. And each of urstatements will be made part of the record. You are now recognized for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee. Thank you afor your information on Foreign Investment in the u. S. This is one of those rare instances where advancing three decades of service has some benefits. My experience began in 1985 under president regan and secretary vaguer. As you noted it was then governed by an executive order signed in 1975 by president ford because of concern about saudi petro dollars being recycled to buy american assets. By 1988 concern had had shifted to japanese purchases, which led to passage of the exxon florio amendment and then concern about state owned Companies Buying technologies led to passage of the verd amendment. In 2005, after deals involving a Chinese National overseas oil company in dubai ports were blocked by congressional concerns, Congress Passed the National Security act of 2007. Today growing concern about Chinese Investment, especially in the Technology Sector has led to legislation proposed by congressman pit chger and Bipartisan Co sponsors. Earlier this year this committee helped legislate it secretary of the treasury as a statutory member of the National Security counsel, demonstrating its tightly linked to our overall security and foreign direct if vestment as beth you and mr. Heck have noted makes an important contribution to the u. S. Economy. Over 7 million americans will receive their paychecks this months. Close to 40 of those workers are in manufacturing jobs and fdi jobs pay about 20 more than the economy average. A more open if vestment policy is integral to u. S. Economic success and i urge President Trump to issue the traditional u. S. Open Investment Policy Statement at the earliest opportunity. But in issuing that statement, its important to insure Foreign Investment does not harm u. S. National security interests. Chinese investment has an appropriately high priority for scrutiny. Because china seeks to participate strategically in multiple spheres, military, diplomatic and economic using all elements of the state, including Stateowned Enterprises in that competition. Current legislation provides significant authority to block chinese acquisitions. The first unwound by a president was under george h. W. Bush in 1990. And President Trump recently blocked the acquisition of semiconductor by a Chinese Investment group. I would be sure to address actual gaps in authority. There is particular concern Chinese Companies may be using creative legal structures short of owner sp and control that could nonetheless crippal u. S. National security. I believe this is a vauld area for stricter scrutiny in the United States. I would caution about occurring outside the United States. Its intended to give the president exceptional authority to protect the United States, without superseding authorities in other statutes. For exampleful a joint venture abroad, the export Administration Regulations should be the first line of defense. Although additional ledgislativ authority is warranted, a lack of resources. As cases filed before sifius climbed to 250 this jeer and with the prospect that led by treasury could be involved next year in a major regulatory and implementation exercise, the work load may begin to delay jobs producing investments that do not raise National Security concerns. I urge matching requirements continue to be oo Central Point in your deliberations. Todays hearing and your future actions are being watched closely overseas. A particular concern the European Commission in brussels is establishing a if vestment review mechanism, even though ethe commissions has no authority on matters. So it may become a political screening process that could create a new barrier into that important market of over 300 million consumers. In conclusion im more concerned about growing protectionism than trade protectionism. If we want to grow well paying jobs in the United States we must send a clear message that the United States is open to investment, except in those instances where a process focussed squarely on National Security determined an investment mustby blocked. Thank you. The honorable estevez. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. I do want to be clear today that my views are my own views not that of my firm. I think its important to say from the dod perspective. There are many reasons as the finest military in the world. However, another reason is technological superiority of that military force we have over our adversaries. Its one of the tools that epihads us retain our technologicaled a vajt. The interagency process not only worked but worked well in protecting National Security in the United States for those cases that sifius had jurisdiction on. Nor did i sign off or ask it secretary of defense to sign off. The dod always achieved the mitigation terms. When i assessed the National Security risk involved in each transaction, i use the construct which i call the three cs plus one. They represent company, country and commodity. It plus one was colocation, when a Foreign Company was buying your Company Located near a sensitive military installation. Framework like this. For country we assess of the home country was a potential adversary of the United States or the country it was lax in its protection. In assessing companies we were determined if the company was a stateowned enterprise or had been created for that specific deal or if the it comp own or its ownership was reliable and stable. To assess commodities or technology, we would review the technology to dod Weapons Systems both current and future, how Cutting Edge Technology was squl it was already globally available. In co location cases we would assess what was taking place at given location and whether had the purchasing party would be able to impact those activities. If we had had had concerns with two or more with those cs my concern is cases are heading to mitigation at a minimum or potentially block. I recognize there are currently reviews by congress. My views arent based on that legislation. While the vast majority of joint ventures dont put Foreign Investment<\/a> in the United States<\/a>. I recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. The free flow of capital is a bed rock tenant of a United States<\/a> economy. Insuring that free throw world wide has always been a bipartisan goal and to that end, im proud to serve in the caucus along with our call eelgs mr. Holding, hiems and meeks. It promotes Global Investment<\/a> and help hads educate members about the importance of Foreign Direct Investment<\/a>. Its the recipient of the greatest amount of Foreign Investment<\/a>. That capital has provided a good deal of if aerj that kept our economy vibrant. To provide the fuel of u. S. Businesses and jobs. Today almost 5 are related to Foreign Investment<\/a>. Most of these jobs pay handsomely, far better on average than other u. S. Jobs. But if Foreign Investment<\/a> is to be a force for good, it must not be welcomed more unthinkingly than one might leave a house unopen around the clock. We must guard against it. That investment might come for purely economic reasons but especially in this era of international turmoil, conflict and economic uncertainty, it can come from individual or nation states who can can weaken our economy or spirit away technology or know how that could gain an advantage over ours. To maintain an a vigilant watch on Foreign Investment<\/a>, sifius reviews many inbound investments to determine if they pose a threat to National Security<\/a>. This involves rigorous scrutiny of all departments or agencies, including a scrub by the Intelligence Agency<\/a> and the president has it power to order divestment if such concerns cannot be mitigated by a change in the original proposal. Today we face new threats on a number of fronts, not just of a hallowed out industrial sector but from terrorism and major nations that are economic competitors. Im referring of course mainly to china. Concerns have risen about using that countrys vast reserves to achieve Key Technology<\/a> with aen eye towards taking a lead to the markets of the future. Theyve set aside 250 billion to be used in dominating the vital semiconductor market. This is not a new phenomenon but a new challenger. President ford set up out of concern it could weaken our economy. 1988 among concerns japan was seeking to buy critical technology, Congress Gave<\/a> president ragen the ability to actually blocked deals. Interestingly the first use came when president george h. W. Bush blocked a sale of a component to a Chinese Company<\/a> and President Trump<\/a> already has blocked a proposed purchase of semiconductors of a Chinese Company<\/a>. Approving a deal only when divestment of divisions with sensitive technologies or activities have occurred. But the statute as not been updated in a decade and clearly we should think about modernizing it. For were about 30 more reviews and a full fold expansion just since 2013. To that end senator corner have spent more than a year studying the process and considering possible reforms. I commend their work. This hearing is the beginning of the committees study of sievious. The committee will seek to insure that sifius has the tools to examine Foreign Investment<\/a>. It is our duty to advance the National Security<\/a> of the United States<\/a>. At it same time we must aspire to the greatest extent possible a welcoming Investment Climate<\/a> so u. S. Companies have the capital needed to grow. We need to be mindful the investment for clients overseas is not unnecessarily comp rusmized. Theyve have a panel of witnesses to discuss challenges that sifius faces. Its intended to inform members on wise decisions on this topic. This should be the begin oofg strong and thoughtful review. I would recognize a member of the democratic side, the gentleman from washington, mr. Heck for five minutes for an opening statement. And mr. Chairman, to begin with i would ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter i sent december 8th, requesting a witness from the department of treasury be witness at this hearing. I believe frankly theres no substitute for hearing from the people actually administering. Ive given treasury a very hard time in this committee. About this issue in past hearings. I want to make clear that they have begun to engage in what i characterize as a expressive manner. And my hope that committee could benefit in a future hearing. I would be happy to yield to chairman bar. I appreciate it gentleman yielding and just to clarify this is a first of a series of hearings. We most certainly will be extending an invitation to treasury officials who have a large role in the process to testify and you will have that opportunity. I yield back. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Im glad to hear that and i thank you again for convening this hearing. I believe it works well for motivated actions but in the 10 years since Congress Last<\/a> pass legislation related to this issue, to pursue a comprehensive strategy or dominate strategically important industries. They were not designed and are not sufficient to deal with that kind of challenge. And although as many of our witnesses will note this is a problem every part of the u. S. Government have to Work Together<\/a> to address. I believe there are some aspects that can only be addressed to close gaps at authority. With i asked about this in july, he agreed this was a pressing issue and that we could not aafford do nothing. I hope we can all bring that sense of urgency to how this committee approaches its work on reform. The kind of urgency and unity i know this congress can still bring to bear on issues related to our National Security<\/a>. There are certainly things we need keep in mind as we move forward. Im fwlad many of todays issues have raised issues, will raise issues like the need to improve information sharing and cooperation with our allies and partners, many of whom are also in the process of reevaluating their own equivalents monopoly im glad many witnesses will raise it need to provide more resources which i agree are urgently needed to keep pace with it times, the demand and the need. And im proud that the United States<\/a> is in fact a place that welcomes Foreign Investment<\/a>. But the broader legitimacy and acceptance of that principal of openness, which i believe in and the ability of the United States<\/a> to stand up for a free and open Global Economy<\/a> is in fact dependent on our National Security<\/a> monopoly as secretary mumuch toen said doing nothing is not an option. But im confident we can find a bipartisan path forward and strike that balance between continuing to allow robust Foreign Investment<\/a> which i think does serve our economic prospects while at it same time balancing it against very legitimate security concerns, which are growing in number and velocity and in complexity. It needs to be reformed. It starts here with this committee and this hearing today, mr. Chairman. So finally, thank you again very much for convening it. The gentleman yields back and the honorable Senior International<\/a> counsel at william hail. And served as deputy secretary of the u. S. Treasury where he had sniff kwnt a revamp of sifius. He also served as National Security<\/a> kuns kounsal from 1983 to 1985. During 1987 he was a member of the National Defense<\/a> panel. And to 2005 it director of Central Intelligence<\/a> National Security<\/a> advisory panel. He served in combat in vietnam with the 173rd airborne brigade, retired in the Major General<\/a> in the army reserve and served as u. S. Ambassador to germany. A National Security<\/a> strategy and logistics activity at dwight consulting who served for 36 years at the department of defense. To january 2017, mr. Estevez he represented the department of defense while Chinese Investment<\/a> accelerated rapidly. Previously held several key positions including material evidence and undersecretary of defense for supply chain integration. Honorable mr. Wolf is a partner and from to 2017 was secretary of commerce for export administration. He was primarily responsible for the u. S. Dual use export control system and as a result, he helped lead part of the defense trade system. Also mr. Wolf was the primary Commerce Department<\/a> secretary to sifius. And the litman chair in National Security<\/a> and director of the digital and cyber space policy program that kounsel of foreign relations. An expert on chinese domestic and oo foreign policy. Before coming to cfr was an arms control analyst at the union of concerned scientists. He as been a visiting scholar of the hoover institute, the Massachusetts Institute<\/a> of technology for international studies, the Shanghai Academy<\/a> of social sciences and in beijing. President and ceo of the organization for international inhad vestment, representing the unique interests in subsidiaries. Her efforts feeks on the role subsidiaries play in the u. S. Economy and make u. S. A more competitive location. Prior, she was Senior Vice President<\/a> where she focussed on Strategic Communications<\/a> and advocacy. Each of oyou will be recognize said to give an oral presentation of your testimony. And each of urstatements will be made part of the record. You are now recognized for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee. Thank you afor your information on Foreign Investment<\/a> in the u. S. This is one of those rare instances where advancing three decades of service has some benefits. My experience began in 1985 under president regan and secretary vaguer. As you noted it was then governed by an executive order signed in 1975 by president ford because of concern about saudi petro dollars being recycled to buy american assets. By 1988 concern had had shifted to japanese purchases, which led to passage of the exxon florio amendment and then concern about state owned Companies Buying<\/a> technologies led to passage of the verd amendment. In 2005, after deals involving a Chinese National<\/a> overseas oil company in dubai ports were blocked by congressional concerns, Congress Passed<\/a> the National Security<\/a> act of 2007. Today growing concern about Chinese Investment<\/a>, especially in the Technology Sector<\/a> has led to legislation proposed by congressman pit chger and Bipartisan Co<\/a> sponsors. Earlier this year this committee helped legislate it secretary of the treasury as a statutory member of the National Security<\/a> counsel, demonstrating its tightly linked to our overall security and foreign direct if vestment as beth you and mr. Heck have noted makes an important contribution to the u. S. Economy. Over 7 million americans will receive their paychecks this months. Close to 40 of those workers are in manufacturing jobs and fdi jobs pay about 20 more than the economy average. A more open if vestment policy is integral to u. S. Economic success and i urge President Trump<\/a> to issue the traditional u. S. Open Investment Policy Statement<\/a> at the earliest opportunity. But in issuing that statement, its important to insure Foreign Investment<\/a> does not harm u. S. National security interests. Chinese investment has an appropriately high priority for scrutiny. Because china seeks to participate strategically in multiple spheres, military, diplomatic and economic using all elements of the state, including Stateowned Enterprises<\/a> in that competition. Current legislation provides significant authority to block chinese acquisitions. The first unwound by a president was under george h. W. Bush in 1990. And President Trump<\/a> recently blocked the acquisition of semiconductor by a Chinese Investment<\/a> group. I would be sure to address actual gaps in authority. There is particular concern Chinese Companies<\/a> may be using creative legal structures short of owner sp and control that could nonetheless crippal u. S. National security. I believe this is a vauld area for stricter scrutiny in the United States<\/a>. I would caution about occurring outside the United States<\/a>. Its intended to give the president exceptional authority to protect the United States<\/a>, without superseding authorities in other statutes. For exampleful a joint venture abroad, the export Administration Regulations<\/a> should be the first line of defense. Although additional ledgislativ authority is warranted, a lack of resources. As cases filed before sifius climbed to 250 this jeer and with the prospect that led by treasury could be involved next year in a major regulatory and implementation exercise, the work load may begin to delay jobs producing investments that do not raise National Security<\/a> concerns. I urge matching requirements continue to be oo Central Point<\/a> in your deliberations. Todays hearing and your future actions are being watched closely overseas. A particular concern the European Commission<\/a> in brussels is establishing a if vestment review mechanism, even though ethe commissions has no authority on matters. So it may become a political screening process that could create a new barrier into that important market of over 300 million consumers. In conclusion im more concerned about growing protectionism than trade protectionism. If we want to grow well paying jobs in the United States<\/a> we must send a clear message that the United States<\/a> is open to investment, except in those instances where a process focussed squarely on National Security<\/a> determined an investment mustby blocked. Thank you. The honorable estevez. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the committee on Foreign Investment<\/a> in the United States<\/a>. I do want to be clear today that my views are my own views not that of my firm. I think its important to say from the dod perspective. There are many reasons as the finest military in the world. However, another reason is technological superiority of that military force we have over our adversaries. Its one of the tools that epihads us retain our technologicaled a vajt. The interagency process not only worked but worked well in protecting National Security<\/a> in the United States<\/a> for those cases that sifius had jurisdiction on. Nor did i sign off or ask it secretary of defense to sign off. The dod always achieved the mitigation terms. When i assessed the National Security<\/a> risk involved in each transaction, i use the construct which i call the three cs plus one. They represent company, country and commodity. It plus one was colocation, when a Foreign Company<\/a> was buying your Company Located<\/a> near a sensitive military installation. Framework like this. For country we assess of the home country was a potential adversary of the United States<\/a> or the country it was lax in its protection. In assessing companies we were determined if the company was a stateowned enterprise or had been created for that specific deal or if the it comp own or its ownership was reliable and stable. To assess commodities or technology, we would review the technology to dod Weapons Systems<\/a> both current and future, how Cutting Edge Technology<\/a> was squl it was already globally available. In co location cases we would assess what was taking place at given location and whether had the purchasing party would be able to impact those activities. If we had had had concerns with two or more with those cs my concern is cases are heading to mitigation at a minimum or potentially block. I recognize there are currently reviews by congress. My views arent based on that legislation. While the vast majority of joint ventures dont put National Security<\/a> add risk, some may through an intellectual property transfer. Bankruptcy is another area i believe we need expand authorities. Especially those involved in cutting Edge Technologies<\/a> could end in the sale of technology or intellectual property assets. The final area i believe we need asesz, during my time with the dod we noticed trends in the specific countries and companies were engaged in multiple transactions involving industry segments. Most the time those being purchased are relatively small, they were not state of the art and not critical to National Security<\/a>. None theress i believe there come as point where too much of a particular industry segment is under foreign control and this may put National Security<\/a> at risk. Last area i would like to address is resources. The cases becoming before the committee are growing in their complexity. Resources are needed to adequately perform the Due Diligence<\/a> on the cases, radically assess on file transactions and perform mitigation oversight. I thank it committee for holding this hearing. This is a critical topicing for the continuing longterm viability of our technical superiority. The honorable mr. Wolf. Thank you, chairman, members for inviting me. Although im now a partner, also my views are my own. Not speaking for or against any particular legislation, rather here to answer your questions about how sifius and control system work. Im also not going to speak about any case that others or i worked on before sifius now. My main point is sifius and the control system compliment each other. Sifius has the ability to if there is a transaction. The control system, the very purpose is to regulate the transfer of technology. This means that if specific concerns arise with respect to any particular type of technology, rather as part of sifius review of any other activity that the export control system, the rules governing the flow of soft ware and services out of the United States<\/a> should and could control that technology of concern to specific destination, specific end users and end uses. I realize identifying, describing that Technology Particularly<\/a> dual technology that has benign commercial applications is complex. I also realize the x 4 control system itself is very complex. However, the system is designed, it was created to constantly evolve to address new threats, new technologies, new issues, new end users of concern. In particular the bureau of industry and security where i was for it previous eight years. Have the authority to impose these controls and alter them at state and commerce. The descriptions of technology can be as broad or narrow as it concern arises. The scope of the controls can apply to specific entities or entire countries or they can apply to a particular end users and end uses. Most of the export Administration Regulations<\/a> implement multilateral controls that there controls agreed to by between 30 and 40 other allies countries with similar concerns and this is a reflection of the fact that multilateral controls that our allies work on together are it most effective because they achieve a Common Objective<\/a> and unilateral controls imposed only by one country generally tends to be counterproductive because they result only in harming the industry of the country imposing the controls and dont actually block in the end the technology to the country of concern. So recognizing these two competing structures and recognizing that multilateral system can move slowly because its a need of consensus with our allies to decide what technologies to impose. We created, during my time, a unilateral process to tag and identify sensitive control to be able to address the threat quickly and taylor it in the hope that eventually it gets presented for controls there. Frs for there are many additional tools, such as process of informing particular companies about particular technologies and particular end users again regardless of whether there was an underlying transaction that there is technology of particular concern. I focussed in just the first four minutes and you need to keep in mind that National Security<\/a> issues you looked at are co location issues, those that could reduce it benefit of u. S. Investment, transactions that would reveal personally identifying information, security of supply issues for other government agencies. Those that would implicate law if forcement issues and those that would create exposure for critical infrastructure, such as telecommunications. Im here because i have a three minute and three hour and three day version. And be available for your questions. Thank you, mr. Wolf. Mr. Seagull, youre now recognized for five minutes. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for inviting me here today. Pull your microphone towards you. My purpose is to provide a context for chinese activities and what the motivations and challenges might be. Im going to make three points. The first is that china has a comp rehence v strategy to develop technologies for National Security<\/a> and economic interests. That strategy involves many parts. It involves increased investments in r and, d, industrial policy and in particular policies focussed on semiconductors, Artificial Intelligence<\/a> and whats called made in china 2025, which is the use of the internet of things and automation on manufacturing. It has its own foreign if vestment regime and fails to protect ipr. And it is involved in cyber and industrial espionage and finally involved in foreign acquisitions. So can it acquire those technologies in the United States<\/a>, israel and other locations. So it policy that china has adopted is broad and comp heh rehence haddive and any similar response would have to be broad and comprehensive. The Investment Decisions<\/a> is often opaque, who the actors are is opaque. They may say that ta are private. But instill receive significant support from state owned interprinte enterpri enterprises. They may have tight connections to local or provingsal governments. The motivations of that money are often unclear. They may be strategic, economic, may be hiding money from corruption scandals. Its compounded by it fact that president xi jinping started a process of Civil Military<\/a> fusion and that goal is to tightly link the civilian and military economies so theyre eventually turned into military strength as well. And so that means in this context any advantage brought to the civilian economy could be brought to the military economy. Third and final. While i support many of the specific reforms that have been mentioned about inhad creacreas capacity and information sharing and other points it is extremely importedant to point out that the u. S. And Chinese Technology<\/a> platforms and systems are increasingly integrated. Weve seen where it is very hard to draw a line between where china starts and the United States<\/a> starts. We see a massive flow of people back and forth. We see investment. We see a huge amount of co research and co writing research papers. When chinese scientists look for co authors, they look to the United States<\/a>. Over 40 are u. S. Authors. And this pattern is going to be reproduc reproduced. We already see this in Artificial Intelligence<\/a>. Although theyre often cast as competitors they are going to be tightly integrated and googles announcement yesterday it was setting up an r and, d center inside china is the most recent example of how tightly linked those systems are going to be. That means for any type of either expert control law or sifius reform, theres a high degree of chance we could in fact hurt ourselves. That we would be effecting Scientific Technology<\/a> that drives u. S. Companies and drives u. S. Innovation. Thank you very much and i look forward to your question. Gentleman yields back. Youre now recognized. Ranking member moore and others of the subcommittee, thank you for your if nvitationo testify this morning. I have the pleasure of being the president and ceo for the only Business Association<\/a> exclusively comprised of u. S. Subsidiaries of national companies. We represent from Companies Head<\/a> quartered all over the world ifcluding samsung, lego and bae. I applaud the effort to take the time of economic importance of Foreign Investment<\/a> in it u. S. Economy. Its mission is to inhad sure it United States<\/a> remains the most attractive destination for Foreign Direct Investment<\/a> due to the out sized impact it has on the economy and work force. 6. 8 million workers in the United States<\/a> take home a paycheck from an international company, including 20 of the u. S. Manufacturing work force offering 24 higher compensation than the economy wide average and somewhat counterif tewatively International Companies<\/a> manufacture in it u. S. Not just for our consumption but also for world wide consumption. In fact they produce about 25 of all u. S. Exports. International companies provide world class training and World Class Work<\/a> force training and help strengthen the communities in which they sustainably operate. For example toyota whose manufacturing plant is the biggest in the world is applying its manufacturing know how to help Children Hospital<\/a> reduce infection rates with a fneonata intensive care unit. A Japanese Company<\/a> in kentucky the largest manufacturing facility they have in the world. Historically the vast majority of fdi flows into the United States<\/a> through mergers and acquisitions, in line with other economies and the vast majority is into industries totally unrelated to National Security<\/a>. Loreals success has been achieved by their 2investment here. Manufacturing and distribution facilities across 13 states. I recently had the opportunity to go out to a facility in little rock, arkansas the result of an acquisition of a mableen facility, now its the largest cosmetic manufacturing facility in the world. In little rock, arkansas a french company. Indeed examples like loreal demonstrate when Global Companies<\/a> ichoir or merge they often raise the economic performance, making Large Capital<\/a> investments and reinvestic u. S. Earnings into their operations. Our economy would not receive a full benefits that International Companies<\/a> provide. A critical factor in the attraction of the u. S. To Foreign Investors<\/a> is our countrys commitment to the rule of law and the stability of the regulatory environment. The result of extensive deliberations in congress laid the foundation for success. Importantly during 2008 congress inhad gauengaged in an equally l process and carefully sought the bal ngs congress sought and the kind of transactions in the pursue of sifius. Based on publicly available information and anecdotal of experience, it seems clear the process is under stress. There appears to be more investigations and mitigation agreements, withdrawal of lengthening resolution. Although sifius Staff Members<\/a> continue to impress and attention to unique circumstances, resource constraints are straining their ability to handle current work load. And in an auction process, potentially forcing them to play a premium. But let me underscore the International Community<\/a> supports sifius and were in full agreement National Security<\/a> should be paramount but should not be viewed to address all the concerns raised. The government as a wide vurayty of tools at its disposal. It must remain the tenants of the process. Any changes to this process need to be done thoughtfully with the full awareness of the economic states. Once again thank you, i look forward to answering your questions. It chair recognizes himself. I appreciate it witnesss outstanding testimony. Educational. Let me start with you because of your background. And your expertise. Obviously as she was pointing out, its critical to the u. S. Economy. She mention said toyota and kentucky. But Foreign Direct Investment<\/a> supports 117,000 jobs, a little more than 7 of if tire employment. At the same time National Security<\/a> of our countsry is of critical importance and fdi, if not carefully watched could enable our enemies to inflict harm not just oen our economy but create consnchs. Quote china appears to be conducting a campaign of commercial espionage against u. S. Companies involving espunaush to infiltrate systems to devalue them, and acquire them at dramatically reduced prices. The central question of this hearing is how can we balance both the desire for strong Foreign Investment<\/a> and National Security<\/a> and can you give us a little bit of guidance on that . Precisely striking that balance that not only you seek to do but what 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 it reasons that you and others have mentioned. At it same time no one in Public Office<\/a> has a higher calling and were looking for ways to attract good, high paying fdi jobs in the United States<\/a>. Appearing before this committee now almost 30 years ago my then boss jim baker said Foreign Direct Investment<\/a> was our ace in the hole. Its Foreign Companies<\/a> deciding our market place, our system and our workers are worth that if vestment. I think thats where we start but thats not where we end. We have to look at those security concerns you mentioned and i think today, unlike past concern, the saudis, perhaps the japanese, were talking about someone who not only wants to be a pure competitive, but a winner against the United States<\/a> and that is china and we have to look at Chinese Investment<\/a> particularly closely. That doesnt exclude that there could be Chinese Investment<\/a> that does not raise National Security<\/a> concerns. It doesnt exclude that there could be Chinese Investment<\/a> that needs to be regulated or looked at by others. But i think again we start with a point of view that we want to attract that investment but not at the cost of harming u. S. National security. And ms. Mcclurnen, what interests me about this issue is why for are not robust sufficiently robust capitol markets in the United States<\/a> to provide alternative sources of capital for start ups or maybe Mature Companies<\/a> in financial distress . Is there an alternative to Foreign Direct Investment<\/a> and why do we not have Strong Enough<\/a> Capital Markets<\/a> in the United States<\/a> to provide that capital as an alternative to maybe a chinese entity . Yeah, well i would start with it fact that we dont want to close our borders to Foreign Direct Investment<\/a>. So even if there was a way to try to figure out how to fund through our Capital Markets<\/a> here, we dont have are the answers and Foreign Companies<\/a> when they come, they dont just bring capital they bring innovation, World Class Work<\/a> force training, new ways to do things. Wree weve seen that in a ought so sector. I dont think it would be a good idea to think we would have all it answers if we just contain it here. We have had many peep thonl panel and you yourself talked about the amazing benefits that direct Foreign Investment<\/a> means to the u. S. Economy and the work force so i wouldnt even think that would be a goal. Observers have said the process offers it view that other Committee Members<\/a> somehow roll the pentagon on a decision or that the brass at pentagon ignored imput from pentagon staff. Can you elaborate . I will. I dont think thats true. Ifside the pentagon, when i looked at a case, we brought in all the pertinent parties. From it breadth of the pentagon. Military services, key agencies like National Security<\/a> agencies and i always got the sign off at the Senior Leadership<\/a> level. We always went into a case looking to say i believe in Foreign Direct Investment<\/a> too. And we need have that flow of capital and we need the innovation that brings. But i want to make sure were protecting National Security<\/a> in doing that. We brought the full gambit of the pentagon resources when we exam an case. My three cs construct, chooichb was always a place we looked at regardless of the next step. I was pretty firm as mr. Wolf would tell you. My time is well more than expired. I appreciate members indulgance and i would like to recognize it gentleman from North Carolina<\/a>. Not only is he the author of the risk modernation act, the author of the legislation that made the treasury secretary a member of the National Security<\/a> counsel and with that i yield to my friend from North Carolina<\/a> and applaud his leadership on this issue. Thank you, chairman bar for your commitment and leadership. And thank you for being with us today and your expertise and background. Im from North Carolina<\/a>. We had the largest hog Processing Plant<\/a> in the world in my district. Owned by it chinese. Smithfield. 5,000 jobs. Right across the border from me is a big textile plant owned by the chinese. I have a real interest in Chinese Investment<\/a>, Foreign Investment<\/a> of all kind. I have a real appreciation for that. And having said that reading president xis clear vision for china, the fiveyear plan to aggressively acquire technology companies. Theyve been pretty focussed on that since 2014 i think theyve acquired 43 semiconductor kwu companies, 20 of which in the United States<\/a>. To that end it brings us enormous concern and i think those concerns are shared by many leaders who support our interest in reform of sifius. Attorney general Jeff Sessions<\/a> says sifius is not able to be efficient eff. Your legislation is first rate. We think it as Great Potential<\/a> to push back against the abuses and dangers we face. Secretary mattis, it needs be to updated to deal with todays situation. Director cokes, we should do a significant review of the Current Situation<\/a> to bring it up to speeds. Admiral rogers, u. S. A. Director. We need to assess the sifius process and make sure its optimized for it urld with of today and tomorrow. Does anyone disagree with those perspectives . Thank you for that. With that in mind i would just like the ask you, mr. Wolf and thank you for your service again. You served as secretary of commerce for export administration. At that time you were involved in providing relief in the arms embargo that the u. S. And eu had had had impose said in 1989 following the tinman massacre. These enabled through president obamas export through presiden obamas export control led to a massive Chinese Military<\/a> modernization effort. Today, the u. S. Military faces a far more capable pla because, frankly, i believe of these efforts. Under the same tenure you had it took half a decade to publish the chinese for actions by zte and selling what we have in technology to north korea and iran. I worked on this. Ultimately, they were fined a billion dollars. It took a long time to get that done. I would like to know from you how credible you believe you can be as a witness on this sifius process, given the lapse and what has occurred through the time of your tenure . Thank you for the question. With respect to the zte case, that was two years of my life pursuing the matter and i was the one that signed the denial record. That spokes for itself. We did exactly the opposite with respect to china. The whole point to the reform effort was make its easier with respect to trade with our close allies, nato in particular to have more focus and to strengthen the embargo with respect to china. Net effect was it provided chinese access in greater cullability as a result of what occurred and did not occur. I would like to clarify for this committee what we intend not do in the bill. The bill does not ban or automatically block all Chinese Investment<\/a>s or that being of any other country. It does not require sifius to consider reciprocity as part of this bill. It does not cover all joint ventures. Joint ventures are a concern but does not require all of them. Does not require any list of countries or special concern, no country is named in this bill. It does not require a list off technologies or duplicate functions performed by the system and does not designate specific technologies that are to be safe guarded. I think there has been prudent consideration for what needs to be done and what should not be done. I would convey to this committee and to each of you, without this type of clear focus and commitment, americas interests will be greatly threatened. I yield back my time. My time is gone. The gentlemans time is expired. The chair recognizes the distinguished gentleman from arkansas, mr. Hill. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Appreciate your witnesses being with us today. Thanks for the effort to start this process, mr. Barr, in evaluating how we adjust sifiuss resource needs on behalf of the administration as well as balance the new challenges to our country. I appreciate my friend from North Carolina<\/a> taking a leadership role in the topic as well. Id like to explore the issue, maybe starting with you, ambassador, talking about the challenges of Licensing Technology<\/a> opposed to outright acquisition of it. Could you reflect on that and how that gets reviewed in the process . I will defer to well let others, too. Two panelists to the left. What i would say is there is no definition of National Security<\/a> either in existing law or the new bill. I think thats very wise because National Security<\/a> is a dynamic concept, quite different today than it was during the cold war. To me, its the summation of foreign defense and International Economic<\/a> policies all resting on a strong intelligence base. When those sifius Committee Members<\/a> come together they have responsibility in their statutes and regulations to protect National Security<\/a> at the foer and particularly for state and commerce and licensing issues on another track are brought into cfius on that particular case. Its really important to note that cfius shouldnt substitute for work done on licensing export controls in other areas, but certainly it needs to be part of that consideration. I just would make sure cfius isnt leading in an area more properly the domain of state and commerce. Somebody else want to comment . Thats exactly my main point. If there is technology of concern we should be controlled by the technology of return regardless whether theres a transaction or licensing arrangement. If we will spend the time and attention of Government Resources<\/a> with dual use of commercial technology concern i grant everything said today except for note vating anxieties and concern we should do that and the control system is specifically created regardless of the nature of the transaction to control it and without the collateral consequences of spooking or otherwise having a broader impact on foreign in investment and can be tailored without affecting the entire ecosystem. Thats why im an advocate to the extent humanly possible, it cant solve all problems but if there is a Technology Issue<\/a> spend the time on that to regulate it accordingly through the system. You think the statute gives you the ample authority to go through that process and identify it inside the executive branch . The legislation is already there. A matter of will and time, not a statutory issue. Whats a bigger challenge to this country, Foreign Direct Investment<\/a> of sensitive assets or outright theft of American Intellectual<\/a> property . In my view, its clearly the latter. Foreign direct investment at large is not the issue but transfer and ip theft can occur in many circumstances not necessarily something captured by Foreign Direct Investment<\/a>. I would agree with that. Something like 510 of exports not exports, export value, sheer theft of intellectual property from europe and the United States<\/a>, would you agree with that estimate . I dont know the percentages but that seems reasonable, yes. That was always a concern of mine, things that werent in our process, the cfius process. Cybertheft was a major concern. We put in rules through rules that required companies to have a minimum standard of protection doing business with the department of defense to protect their ip that we were using. Do you think inside the executive branch, in todays world, intellectual property, cyber risk, data security, true protection, im not talking about just the trademark on mickey mouse but talking about all of the above, is that really adequately coordinated in the executive branch process . Whats your view, having worked on it recently opposed to centuries ago when we worked on it we didnt even have email then. Are we adequately coordinated there . I agree with the essence of your question a lot more time and resources and commitment could and should be made to identify those technologies commercial that werent controlled absolutely. Both ip theft and thank you. My time has expired. Thank you. The time has expired, i recognize the gentleman from ohio, mr. Davison. Thank you. I appreciate the importance of Foreign Investment<\/a> in the United States<\/a>. We want to be clear were talking about things that would be counterto our National Security<\/a> interests, not things that would be counter to our national interests. We want Foreign Investment<\/a>s. We dont want to give away our national secrets, even at a high price, if they would jeopardize the security of our country. I became concerned about this when i was a cadet at westpoint. In 1993, one of the first things the Clinton Administration<\/a> did was transfer release authority for Sensitive Technology<\/a> from department of defense to department of commerce, and we proceeded to sell, via hughes, the capability to china to launch multiple satellite, in this case, not warheads, off of one launch vehicle. It seemed tantamount to trace strace tre tracetreason at the time but really a commercial decision. Im grateful to mr. Pittenger and folks on this committee post 1993 but really past due for some reforms. One of my big concerns are where are the gaps, even with this legislation . Whats left to be done . Mr. Hill talked about licensing, but also one of the big things you see are Startup Companies<\/a> and capture and venture and not only about balance but we benefit from trade and concerns of trade policy. Here, were talking about National Security<\/a>. Setting aside countries, the kinds of mechanisms transferring technology we may still need to address beyond this cfius, as it stands today. Would you care to start . I think that you raise a number of very important issues. There are a variety of different Security Experts<\/a> on the panel, other than myself. I do think its important that we dont lull ourselves into false sense of security if we focus only on one country. We ring fence it and risk being vunerable to other areas of threat and risk discouraging investment from that particular country that could actually benefit the u. S. Economy. Thank you for the clarification. Mr. Kimmitt . I would say your point about instances beyond normal mna activity is a really important one, congressman. The current law occurs in ownership and control. Cfius looks at investments including startups where a Foreign Company<\/a> or investor would have enough Equity Ownership<\/a> and enough governance rights, board seats, observer status, accumulation rights, special voting rights, that that could trigger the cfius covered transaction rule. I think, having spent two years myself running a Software Company<\/a> in Silicon Valley<\/a>, that isnt well understood there. We need to do a better job letting people in our hubs. Not just Silicon Valley<\/a> but austin, they have to be careful when they take that Foreign Investment<\/a> that it does not rise to the level of control, which would then trigger cfius, and if they set up an Investment Fund<\/a> lets make sure any Foreign Limited Partners<\/a> are truly limited, passive investors. I think thats an issue cfius looks at closely but i think on the company side, particularly in the startup community, there is not as clear understanding what Foreign Investors<\/a> with mall lined purposes may be trying to do. Thank you. Mr. Eastevez . I have to agree with ambassador on that point. I want those companies to do business with the department of defense and dont want them to not want to do business with the department of defense because we will suddenly put a fence around them. My point is my time is expired a lot of folks dont realize the National Security<\/a> implications. Its a Brilliant Technology<\/a> for our economy but can be used for nefarious purposes. My time has expired. I yield. The chair recognizes mr. Sherman from california for five minutes. With dubai ports we had a company that happened to be own by the government that at that time was supporting national terrorism. Should we have in the cfius law a provision that says you explicitly must take into account what ever host government of whatever company is making the investment supports terrorism whatever the state sponsor of terrorism. Anybody have a comment . Anybody think we shouldnt take into consideration whether the Company Making<\/a> an investment in u. S. Assets is based in a country that supports terrorism . Mr. Sherman, i think the treasury i know a bit better, although the cfius process is run by the International Affairs<\/a> division, as you know, the people in tfi, terrorist finance comment on every they comment but theres not an explicit provision that says it might be a wonderful Company Buying<\/a> a wonderful asset, it just happens to be based in tehran. Theres nothing in the law i read that you can point to that says that would be one of the factor, correct . Theres nothing specifically, as you know in wake of c nook and dubai ports there was scrutiny put on acquisitions of state owned or controlled entities. Not just talking about state owned or controlled entities. I would say where you will find that language is legislation you passed and executive orders issued by the president on state sponsored terrorism on iranians and others. Government or private enterprises in tehran. I would say both. You say it would be rejected on that basis or what weight would it be given . Certainly, if it were a Company Based<\/a> in tehran, it would be rejected outright. Maybe dubai we would look at more carefully. I would point out we may be looking too narrowly when we look at ownership or control of a company, as if you have to have seats on the board when you control them. I will give you one example. We allowed a terrible position in our weak position with common. Theyre able to turn to boeing and say, we wont buy your planes unless you make the fuselages here in china. So they dont have anybody on the board, they dont own any stock but they control corporate decisions. Now, i dont know whether it was the fuselage or Wing Assembly<\/a> and i dont know whether that poses risk to our National Security<\/a> or intellectual property but i do know once we consent to a situation where a country can have a huge trade surplus with us, over 300 billion, and then turn to our companies and say, and 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 customer system or cloud is located here, 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 cfius, they can be reversed under the International Emergency<\/a> economic powers act. That would be extraordinary, its never been done before. As we plan to revisit cfius, we should be aware of that act which could be used and i cite 50 us c1702, to reverse a bad decision. I yield back. The gentleman yields back. The chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota, mr. Emmer. Thank you, mr. Chair and thanks to the witnesses for being here today. I want to go back to chairman barrs opening when you say how do you balance National Security<\/a> versus direct Foreign Investment<\/a>. I want to tie it to i think it was something ambassador kimmitt said, there is no definition of National Security<\/a> in the law. What is the priority for cfius, when youre reviewing a transaction . Is it National Security<\/a> or is it Foreign Direct Investment<\/a> . Which one comes first and then has to be balanced against the other one. When youre talking National Security<\/a>, ill just add, how do you define it and well start with the ambassador. My point was National Security<\/a> is a dynamic ever changing concept. It meant one thing in the cold war, post 9 11, post financial crisis. The important thing is cfius, which exists only to screen investments for National Security<\/a> concerns, has at the table every department and agency that is responsible for safe guarding the National Security<\/a> interests of the United States<\/a>, so the Defense Department<\/a> might bring their concerns about military technology. The state Department Might<\/a> bring or treasury secretariry, some of the concerns mr. Sherman mentioned about terrorist activity, commerce will bring concerns about export controls. Dhs, doj bring a very different set of concerns. Basically, each of the agencies is looking at the investment, in an open investment policy environment, that the reason theyre there is to say even though we are open to investment, 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, or mitigated. If they cant be mitigated the deal needs to be blocked. It doesnt look like, when like at this summary, a total of 770 transactions over the last what is it six years, Something Like<\/a> that, cited in this graph. There arent many. I go back, maybe mr. I shouldnt call you mr. The honorable mr. Estevez. There was a case i tried to look up in 2011 or 2012 involving airplanes in duluth, minnesota, a Chinese Company<\/a> came in and put a Purchase Agreement<\/a> 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, we lose the its great to want this Foreign Direct Investment<\/a>, mr. Sherman had a great point, you also have it going on with what mr. Hill is talking about, with outright theft. What happened . Do you remember the case im talking about. There were 20 in 2012. The 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 helps us dig into those companies. The reality is i also dont recall that specific case. Thats great. I respect that. If i can just add before i forget about it and let you finish. It would be very helpful at some point down the road when you think its not hot anymore when policymakers can see some of the cases and deliberations you go through to help us understand how cfius is working. In any case we would have looked at the technology. There is Economic Security<\/a> as part of National Security<\/a>, absolutely. We would discuss that, too, when we were discussing cases. We would look at the technology and say, is this technology in the stateoftheart . Is it useful military, that it would advance their capability, who ever they are, in this case, china, over ours . If there was any doubt about that, i would be in there arguing we either have to put control around this, dpinding who the company was depending who the company was and discuss those controls or i would be arguing for a block. As the honorable mr. Wolf sitting next to me would say i was pounding the table. You can get overruled. Never. I see. My time is expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. Foster. Thank you, mr. Chairman and our witnesses. In your testimony, you mentioned things like source code as one of the things that are hard to keep under control when you get an investment. Are there investment models that allow us to accept money but keep the intellectual property here, or is that pretty much a lost cause once you have a significant investment . Is there a workable model of that, or once you have somebody who a 20 stake they will want to see a review of the technology on regular intervals and have basically people injected into the company and see both the present and the future Technological Developments<\/a> . Any way to keep that from happening . Thank you. I think that that specific case refers to investment inside of china. So when it was just an example of the sort of intellectual property thats hard to keep in one place. So i think it would go back to ambassador kimmitts point, when you are investing in a startup or other Technology Company<\/a> what percentage control you get, what the terms are and what access to the information. I think those are often individually negotiated. It would have to be brought to the attention, depending upon what the source codes was or technology was to be transferred. Is there a retrospective look how successful those have been in keeping the technology from escaping or this is a one time decision and you dont look back five years later and see if the technology has actually not been we would we would always look at the technology and see again how cutting edge it was and how it would impact potential adversaries capability again from the department of defense perspective. Not only would we look at the technology itself, we would look at the industrial process. Some companies are better at doing things than other companies. We wouldnt want the secret sauce to migrate overseas if it was a very stateoftheart company. We would consider all those things. If we thought we would mitigate we would propose the mitigation to wall off the fact there was foreign cash going into the company. If we didnt think we could do that we would propose a block. When you believe youve walled it off, do you have a process in place to review how successful that walling off has been . If we proposed mitigation we would enforce that mitigation agreement in perpetuity and assess how thats working. With that said, to my earlier testimony, theres not enough resources to continue doing that especially as cases get more complex. If you look farther into the future, its easier to catch up than develop new technology that doesnt previously exist. In the medium long term we will be coequals with many countries in europe and asia, in a lot of areas. Then, the question is, do we have a structural disadvantage or will it become as easy for us to invest and get their technologies moving back in areas where theyre ahead of us or is that something we should start negotiating now to make sure we havent built in a structural disadvantage, as coequals . This in a world where we are coequal technologically . Particularly in the case of china, we do want to insist on greater reciprocity. There are a number of sectors in Technology Still<\/a> offlimits investment. The amount of access to u. S. R d and universities does not exist in the chinese case. As china becomes a more capable player it we hooves us to insist on greater reciprocity and access to those resources. In addition to cutting edge technological pleases a lot of technology are things like drone swarms and massive numbers of security cameras where its actually the price as important, mass production of very large numbers of relatively low tech includes cameras with facial id and things like that. I was wondering, is there a lot of concern, easteven though the technology might not be leading edge, manufacturing is another area we could fall behind and have to protect technology . Let me address that very briefly. We would look at the technology. If it wasnt cutting edge, we believe our innovation would pace that. More importantly, from a military perspective, our tactic, techniques and the men and women in our forces constituted an advantage how they used that technology that would pace whatever competitors there are. Thank you. The gentlemans time is expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from indiana, mr. Hollingsworth. Good morning. I appreciate all the witnesses being here today. This is certainly an interesting topic and vital topic we discuss further. Mr. Foster, my colleague brought up ongoing monitoring and mr. Estevez answered some of his questions, i want to get back to these monitoring agreements and how vital it is what we set in place and the guardrails around that continually being updated. You mentioned resources are a problem. Can you talk about previous issues with resources, what resources might be required, what apparatus we have in place and need in place and fill in some of the color around the ongoing monitoring agreements. Others can certainly take the question as well. I would start at the general, let my colleagues go to the specifics. I spent a lot of time working in government. Most of the energy and resources are on the upside, the policy decisions reached, legislation enacted. We dont give the attention and resources to the implementing side of it, which is really important. You know that from your businesstime, you have to drive to results. What i would say is lets make sure we have resources on both sides of that equation. If in the middle of it is a mitigation agreement, lets make sure theres as much energy put into implementing overseeing that mitigation agreement there was negotiating it. Thats where i think we run into a real resource problem, both in treasury and the process more broadly we have barely enough people to address todays cases. If you then have an increase in cases or implementation responsibilities because you passed new legislation, i think the place thats going to lose is continuing to watch those mitigation agreements, make sure theyre faithfully executed. As mr. Estevez said very importantly we connect the dots across decisions made. Thats where the resource strength comes in. One other factor and i fully agree with ambassador kimmitt on that, as time elapses from the time the mitigation agreement is put in place. We did one for dod in 2013, i remember it, im gone, some of the staff is turned over, some of the outside directors we put on have turned over. Im real concerned about institutional memory that comes with resources to do that enforcement. I think both of your comments are really really thoughtful in insuring insuri insuring ultimately if were going to make a decision we have to have the resources and if its barely enough to face those cases if theres a probability above zero, resources need to be allocated to those longong term well. I wanted to specifically ask mr. Wolf, was there ever a time in your tenure you felt like you didnt have enough time to adequately review, thoroughly vet and arrive at the right decision in your mind, that the process was rushed . No. I agree with alan we never cleared off a transaction we believed there was an unresolved security threat. There was refiling and with massive terrific support from the intelligence im confident with all the cases we made to it the right outcome. They were never a balance. We were never balancing investment with National Security<\/a>. If there was an unresolved National Security<\/a> threat question blocked and mitigated and didnt balance. The answer to your question is no. That answer will certainly help hoosiers back home sleep at night knowing were giving enough time to vet them. This is a problem more broadly a problem, open demmic across all aspects of government we spend too few of our resources on the enforcement of a decision instead of on the decision itself. I yield back, mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman could i add picking on the point mr. Wolf just made, its important to understand the role the intelligence plays in the cfius process. When it is filed it is sent to the director of Central Intelligence<\/a> for a communitywide look at the case. Going to mr. Fosters point some of the snt considerations need to be looked at closely and dni comes back with a low, medium or high assessment. It helps guide, doesnt make the decision but guides what the committee does but as mentioned most all cfius agencies have their own intelligence inside. Theres almost two bites at that apple. For looking ahead, that five years look ahead to make sure we implement correctly were really relying on the Intelligence Community<\/a> to come with us, not just on the instant concerns on these transactions, what are the five ten year trends we need to be concerned about. Thank you. The time is expired and the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. Green. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I thank the witnesses for appearing today and i think this is an exceedingly important hearing. Im very much concerned about assuring ourselves that we are on the right course. Mr. Segal, you have indicated that unilateral action may not be sufficient, that there is something more we have to do do protect our u. S. And science originated technology. Would you give additional assistance on this, please . The fundamental issue is there are very few technology the United States<\/a> still mon noplizes. For any technology the United States<\/a> decided it represents a dual use threat it is very possible to find except for a very very range of technologies, similar producers. To give an example on issues on cybersecurity or ai or Computer Science<\/a> or technology the chinese are sending delegations to israel every week. While the israelis are more aware of our concerns about dual use, theyre not going find in the same ways that we are in every instance. I think the issue is unless you have a fairly broad set of agreements among your partners, it will be very easy for chinese actors to find most technologies in other markets. With reference to partners, are there certain institutions that can validate a partners position, such that we can feel more comfortable with it as opposed to someone that night not be associated or affiliated with the institution . I may defer to mr. Wolf, but i suspect the intelligence agencies cooperate and share information. If you would, please . Sure. To the extent theres information about an entity that creates National Security<\/a> or policy concern, my old bureau has the ability to identify it publicly to which exports are dropped or other transactions are red flags and within the cfius process the Intelligence Community<\/a> will provide other information about entities that might not be known to the parties and we factor that into whether to block or mitigate. What about nato, a membership in nato, does that give you some degree of assurance . With respect to a company absolutely, it doesnt mean every Company Inside<\/a> each nato company is not of concern. When we view not only the company of issue, personnel and thunders that may be behind it, just because its from germany or france doesnt per se mean there are absolutely no concerns. How effective are we at spotting companies that have investors that may have ill intentions such that theyre in a position to take advantage of knowledge that they acquire, not withstanding the fact that they look legitimate . Real quick, thats one reason for my emphasis on the focus of the technology. If the technology is of concern it warrants review period, regardless of who the parties are, and the licensing process gives the u. S. Government the opportunity to do a deep dive into who the investorings of the other parties are opposed to the other way around. And the Intelligence Community<\/a> does a very good job digging out all the facets of the company, including who are the back investors that may not be good actors. We have some sensitive areas in the United States<\/a>, where we have certain things being developed that are to be kept under wraps for want of better terminology. Do we have any concerns about persons locating businesses in and around these very sensitive areas . If it was a covered transaction we certainly would address that. Could you get closer to the mike . If it was a covered transaction we address that under the cfius regiment. My time is up. I yield back. The gentlemans time is expired. With the witnesses indulgence, were about ready to have a vote on the house floor but well take the liberty to ask one final five minute round of questioning with the members agreement here. We heard earlier that although the u. S. Capital markets are the deepest most liquid and competitive in the world, in and off themselves u. S. Domestic Capital Markets<\/a> are not sufficient to define what startups other Companies Need<\/a> and a very important part of financing of our companies in this country. They provide, in cases of Foreign Direct Investment<\/a>, many times other assets other than just capital. We also heard today there are legitimate National Security<\/a> threats and we need strike the right balance. In the remaining time, could each of you briefly, if you could identify one policy recommendation to improve the current or modernized cfius review process, what would that be and well start with mr. Kimmel and work our way down. I would go back to what has been the common theme, make sure we have resources both for identification of potential issues, review and adjudication of those and implementation of any agreement that might be reached, mitigation agreement bring us to a yes answer. Mr. Kimmitt. I think it was very important going back to mr. Pittengers point, the investigation, i hope they will get involved in the process identifying what they need in the agencies and empower their people involved in the cfius process to deal with these cases expeditiously on behalf of the american people. Thank you. Mr. Estevez. I address many areas in the bill. Resources needs to be addressed. I would also say cfius is one tool in the toolbox. We need to look at the gamut of our capabilities and what industrial policy and reciprocity we might want to endorse across the board dealing with foreign nations and companies. While cfius is a way to get at that, not just cfius and you needs carrots as well as sticks in this process. A massive whole of government effort creative and deals with the emerging technologies and other technologies not on the control list in commercial applications sensitive or of concern discussed behind all the comments today. That requires a lot of agencies and a lot of creativity and a lot of attention and resources to do that. With everything were talking about today, all depends whether part of the legislation or export controls of ability of cfius or export control system to identify the areas of concern whether broadly or specifically, thats the work at the core of everything were talking about today and thats my policy recommendation. Mr. Segal. If the concern is primarily china i think we need address all the other forms of Technology Transfer<\/a> occurring. Some of the issues of reciprocity i mentioned before as well as battling back on techonationalism and Chinese Industrial<\/a> policy. On cfius process it calls for resources and perhaps new mechanisms tapping into the expertise, academic and business communities how the technologies are developing and which ones are the ones we will be worried about 25 years from now and what type of joint ventures people are thinking about in the future. Let me argue for resources. Its hard to argue how well cfius works now if they dont have resources to do the job now. If we expand the scope we risk leaving ourselves vulnerable and they take their eye off the true defense National Security<\/a> concerns. I dont think it was mentioned earlier the number of deals blocked. I dont think that is an indicator if cfius is working. You have no idea how many dont start because cfius exists and i wouldnt look at those to say its not functioning properly. I cannot emphasize the need for resources not only for National Security<\/a> but to be competitive. Foreignbased companies are concerned the length of time it happens to get a review. I cant emphasize that enough as well as looking at other tools cfiu serks cannot be the one and only thing we focus on to protect our National Security<\/a> in this space. Thank you. Id like to yield to the gentleman from North Carolina<\/a> for a comment. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank each of you for being with us today. Its very very meaningful to all of us. I would like to enter into the record statements of support for cfius that includes former secretary of commerce, penny prisker and wilbur ross. I would like to thank senator cornyn for his leadership. Its been remarkable. He and his team have worked hard on this. An honor to work with with them. I would like to thank secretary mnuchin, they have played a significant role and chairman nunez, a cosponsor of this bill and chairman burr. Everyone has participated in a significant way. Thank you, chairman barr. Nu. For a final comment ill yield to the gentleman from illinois. I want to thank you and apologize for the attention Deficit Disorder<\/a> of congress on this issue and thank you, chairman, for trying to remedy that. This is something our government and our nation suffers from the lack of the long term vision that you actually frankly see in china, a lot of our investment model youre bonused on quarrel profits opposed to the 10 year performance of a company causes us to not as invest as strategically as we should. I hear you very clearly about the lack of resources. When we have some big mess like the ebola crisis or so on, theres a temporary spike in funding and gets eaten away until the next thing becomes a crisis. This has been an ongoing crisis more than a generation. One thing that occurred in some of your testimony was reference to intellectual property violations and one of the reasons we depend on foreign capital for Venture Capital<\/a> when you have a really good invention like microsoft word and find it gets pirated in other companies you dont have the followon investment capital. Do you see this as an important area . This would be a smaller problem if there was a huge increase in the amount of Venture Capital<\/a> available simply because we didnt have our inventions ripped off offshore. There was a number of like 150 billion of Chinese Investment<\/a> into startups. Was that a number that occurred in one of your testimony . That is probably small compared to the amount of software that gets stolen, for example, in china every few years. I think we have to keep our eyes on that one very strongly. Anyway, i just want to thank the chairman for having this hearing. Its a big deal. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate the gentleman and he yields back and id like to thank all of our witnesses for their testimony today. It was very educational, illuminated a lot of issues for the members. As we indicated before, this subcommittee will continue to review the cfius process. We will have several more hearings the beginning of 2018 and we invite the continued engagement of these witnesses and others as we continue to review and update this process. I would echo the comments we do hear you loud and clear on the resources point a unanimous point made here today. Without objection all members will have five legislative days within which to submit additional written questions to the chair to be forwarded to the witnesses for response. I ask our witnesses to please respond as promptly as youre able. This hearing is now adjourned. Coming up on cspan3, a discussion of obstruction of justice, what it is and what the mueller investigators may be looking for. Thats followed by a House Committee<\/a> review of new law expanding veterans education programs. Later, whats needed to move ahead on federal Energy Infrastructure<\/a> projects. This weekend, cspan cities tour takes you to Saratoga Springs<\/a> located in upstate new york, with the help of our spectrum Cable Partners<\/a> well explore the history and literary life of this city known for its famous mineral springs. Saturday eastern on book tv. This is the place where Ulysses Grant<\/a> penned his memoirs in 1885. He was dying of throat cancer and his family was facing serious financial problems. At this point in his life, he was a man trying to take care of his family. We get to tell a story here that most people dont know about. Then, local author and former federal prosecutor, andrew mckina shares his book, sheer madness. Growing up, i thought the person who was addicted to heroin lived under a prejudice somewhere, right . Pushing a shopping cart around or Something Like<\/a> that. Thats not the case. One of the most abused drugs right now on wall street among traders you know these are elite professionals, are opioids. Sunday at 2 00 p. M. , well take a trip to the Saratoga Race<\/a> course. And well visit the Saratoga National<\/a> historic park. The New York Times<\/a> amazing said the battles of saratoga were the most important battles ever fought in the entire world in the last 1,000 years because they resulted in the generals surrender. It was the First Time Ever<\/a> in World History<\/a> a british army surrendered. Watch cspan cities tour, Saratoga Springs<\/a>, saturday at noon eastern, cspan tv book tv and sunday at 2 00 p. M. On American History<\/a> tv on cspan3. The cspan cities tour, working with our Cable Partners<\/a> as we explore america. Part of the investigation into russian interference in the 2016 election is on obstruction of justice allegations. The American Constitution Society<\/a> for law and policy hosted a discuio","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia800407.us.archive.org\/18\/items\/CSPAN3_20171215_010300_Foreign_Investment_in_the_U.S.\/CSPAN3_20171215_010300_Foreign_Investment_in_the_U.S..thumbs\/CSPAN3_20171215_010300_Foreign_Investment_in_the_U.S._000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240630T12:35:10+00:00"}