Skip to main content

tv   Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chair Mark Warner Discusses Chinas Use...  CSPAN  June 17, 2019 12:30pm-1:42pm EDT

12:30 pm
technologies and capacities. now that we are here, we will have to be strategic in terms of how do we start a factor that in ? and thinking about how we are financing incidents and the use of these capacities. we have contracts in place right , it is a huge help on incidents. in thetraining pilots federal agencies and our states are doing the same thing. it is becoming a part of how we are doing fire management. you're going to have to bill that in two all of the coordination we do together -- that into all the coordination we do together and how we balance that use. >> do you have point of contacts at for service that we can get
12:31 pm
from you to work with you on that? >> absolutely. >> i will have my staff reach out to you. >> we take you live to the council on force that counsel on foreign relations -- we take you live to the council on foreign relations. you are watching live coverage on c-span. on homeland security and counterterrorism. this is an annual lectureship that honors the memory of kenneth a moscow who was a longtime member of the council with a distinguished career in the intelligence community. further details on his life and many professional accomplishments can be found in the booklet you have at your seat. i want to extend a special welcome to the members and guests of the moscow family who are here with us today, seated
12:32 pm
at the center table. welcome to you. without further ado, i will invite senator warner who will speak for 10 minutes and i will have the opportunity to ask them for 20 minutes, and at 1:00, we will open it up for questions from members. without further ado, senator mark warner. [applause] sen. warner: thank you, judy, for that introduction, looking foward to our deception. -- four to our discussion. about 10 minutes, right? i look forward to our conversation. here an honor for me to be at the council for foreign relations and with the moscow family. i got a chance to meet the kids. it is a great tribute to mr.
12:33 pm
moscow and his service to the council, and a service to our country. [applause] what i want to talk about today, and this deals with homeland security, i want to take a slightly different bend and talk about china. , which goingject from 2008 going forward, i had what i would view as pretty traditional, conventional views about china. i think it was shared by a lot of members in our policy committee, and a lot of folks from the business community. as a former venture capitalist, i looked at china as a rapidly modernized country with the incomes and expectations, and mostly, saw opportunity.
12:34 pm
i think i saw what a lot of folks saw. a rising china, china that had been brought into the wto, china that was a part of the world good for theuld be overall world order. there would be places where we we be competitors, most likely, partners. the last three years to four years, and many, many briefings later, i have fundamentally shifted my viewpoint. xielieve that president starting with his major consolidation of power in 2015 and 2016, reasserted the country's power and dominance across all fields of business, society, the military, and he is now using that consolidated a role ofring about
12:35 pm
china that would dominate the world, not domination could lead to a diminishment of u.s. power and influence. the chinese government uses all of the traditional tools of the state to exert influence. presence inmilitary the south china seas, and an aggressive deployment in espionage. we saw that decline after his meeting with president obama. we have seen a dramatic increase since then. we have also seen is more creative mechanisms that take advantage of the authoritarian model, to force chinese companies, researchers, and others to act on behalf of of the communist party. all of this has set the stage for the chinese government to aggressively display every lever of power to service the state,
12:36 pm
and at the same time, it exploits the openness of our society to take economic advantage. this is the challenge of our time. my challenge is with the communist party of china and the president she she regime -- president xi regime. china is a great nation, and we have seen the pushback and parts of china we see the pushback going on in hong kong against some of the forces in beijing. we see the concerns raised by many chinese about the incarceration and imprisonment of two to 3 million people. the concerns about the chinese government are felt all across the region, but it is important
12:37 pm
that we continue to reaffirm the concern i have with the communist party and the government, and i am deeply concerned that we don't allow this to turn into, and our country, a diminishment of the contributions made by chinese-americans, made by chinese nationals, and others. need to repeat the case that took place in the early 1980's in detroit with that caveat -- detroit. with that caveat, i would like to think about where we go from here. on technology first, we have lived in a world -- and many of us in this room have lived in a world that still can remember sputnik. i would argue that sputnik was america'soment when technological supremacy was really question, and sputnik
12:38 pm
drove america into action. president kennedy charged us to put a man on the moon and we changed our academic institutions and or research areas and our military, industrial contest plus, and we were successful in that contest over space. since that moment in time, every major technological advancement, whether it was computing, telecommunications, wireless, around the internet, social media, all of these innovations have been american or western-led, and even if they were american, we ended up setting the standards. by setting the standard and having the world's large as economic power, that ability to s, that meantard the rest of the world had a default position. we had a single governance rule
12:39 pm
around technology. i don't think in many ways, we as a nation, has fully appreciated all of the economic, political, and social benefits our country enjoyed by being the technological -- by being the technology-setter. that is all up for grabs right now. i see this firsthand in the competition for 5g, and for those of you that are not technology nurse, 5g is the equivalent in the wireless iteration of moving radio to television, an enormous opportunity, china is basically employing the tactics we use to employ. china is providing equipment vendors with 120% or more financing, flooding the zone with engineers in terms of the standard-setting body, and what is happening in 5g could very
12:40 pm
well happen in quantum computing deployamerica doesn't its willingness to set the standards. i also believe that what we are makingis not only china those moves, but they are coupling that with the ability to actually manipulate and use western companies in ways that are frankly confounding. companiesen western in an effort to try to get access to the chinese market, make sacrifices on intellectual property and on business into nos, and to get other market in the world. we are starting to see companies that make that entrance into china, start to rethink as they start see enterprises -- chinese-owned enterprises pop up
12:41 pm
next to theirs. chinaople's republic of is trying to use this new enhanced power as a way to build economic dominance, i believe not only in china, but around the region. but we have also seen china has been able to do something that i don't think most of us in the west thought was possible. and that was to use and regulate the internet. i remember bill clinton in the late 1990 set, any government that would regulate the internet would be like nailing jell-o to the wall. well, the truth is china has shown to be able to use the powers of the internet, the ,ools like facial recognition the collaboration between the chinese tech companies in the chinese government, to build a surveillance space that would make george orwell blanche. we are still trying to grapple with that.
12:42 pm
what we have right now is a chinese government trying to and offer successes them to other regimes around the world. they offer a three-part plan. one, they offer an authoritative form of government, and two, the offeror wrote initiative to offer 20 century economic financing for open countries, and three, they are offering drivenchnology repressive state model, like in regimes in pakistan and ethiopia. one of the things of great concern to me as we go through the day's recognition but what china has been able to do, it bothers me a great deal when we sometimes see american technology companies who have no problem working with china on
12:43 pm
development of their social credit system or surveillance state tactics some of those same companies having challenges working with the establishment. that is something i think we need to examine, and have some honest conversations with some of those companies. where do we go from here? would leave you with before we get into our conversation. first, we need to sound the alarm. year, because i have had so many of these brief and the evidence has become so overwhelming, i have gone to the intelligence community, and said, simply terrifying or scary members of the intelligence community to give us this information, we are not doing our job if we don't find ways to declassify more this information and get it out to american businesses and american academia. i have started a series of roadshows and we have done 11 of
12:44 pm
them, where i always take a republican senator partner, usually senator rubio, and along with the director or deputy director of national intelligence and senior levels of fbi and dhs, and bringing groups of business leaders, venture capitalists, academics, to share in a one-day classified reading, some of the challenges china presents and some of the tactics they deploy. we need to send warnings out and a better way. second, we need a short-term strategy. here, i think we need a lot of work. i have seen very little articulate development from the administration on that short-term strategy. i would acknowledge that the trump administration has done the right thing, vis-a-vis china, setting the -- in saying
12:45 pm
the status quo is not working, but if it is not working, he has got to offer an alternative. the challenges of an emerging china have not only been counted to the united states, but had been counted -- but have been counter all over. there was a moment in time when we could have built a grand international coalition. china, you are a great nation among the most powerful countries in the 21st century, but you have to play by the rules. instead of building a grand coalition, the administration has called china a national security threat. not the plan we ought to have. the third thing i think we need don'tmake sure that we confuse trade issues with the national security issues. the president has launched this
12:46 pm
trade war without building international alliances were needed and not articulating what his goals are. what concerns me is a recent commas were raised indicating that the administration's appropriate actions around -- our tradebe dispute with china. we are finally starting to make progress with our allies in terms of raising the legitimate otherns about huawei and providers in the 5g area. if that would traded away as a foring chip, the ability our intelligence community, the ability for our technology community would be diminished. to the areas on legislative short-term we need toes floor, i
12:47 pm
have been a strong supporter of firma. we may need to take a broader look there because there are tactics that chinese and cities are using in terms of venture capital investing in non-control sectors that are disproportionally falling into areas of great technological advancement that we need review on. that needs to be re-examined, and i put forward legislation around beneficial ownership. beneficial ownership legislation would be geared to try to discover who the true owners are hung shall companies -- true owners are behind shell companies. it does involve a tactic with china that they use often. in terms of overall where we go with the strategy, there is a lot more work that needs to be
12:48 pm
done. i don't think we have articulated once we set the warning, what are the interim short-term steps we need to take. and we need a long-term strategy. in that strategy goes back to what kind of investment we are prepared to make the country in research and development. i like to point out that america has a defense budget last year is $716 billion. china's defense budget is roughly $250 billion. that $500 billion delta china is investing in 5g, artificial intelligence, quantum computing and a host of other areas where under president xi's vision, china will not only lead, but dominate. most of the conflict will be in the cybersecurity domain.
12:49 pm
are not doinga we as much as we need to do, so we need to make those research investments. if you go back at the end of world war ii, the u.s. accounted for 69% of annual will rmd, now we are down to 29%. china is on an upward trend and they will pass the united states by 2020 in the number of patents issued. -- this is onorld a collaborative basis, i think we can get this right and a world where the chinese government under president xi, has been looking for strategic dominance, this should be a concern for us. i -- through this discussion, i hope we can get to how we get this right. we don't want to go back into the bipolar world we live in post-world war ii. we don't want to have these
12:50 pm
concerns about the chinese onernment's actions wipe off the greatness of the chinese nation. come to anto understanding that the best notion of five or six years ago is not -- years ago is the past. that, libby bring you forward and let's go forward into -- with that, let me bring you forward and let's go into our conversation. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, senator warner. over a few minutes, so i will go over into the member's time a few minutes. what is the main worry you have about china? what is the worst-case scenario? i hear you saying you don't
12:51 pm
think china is going to come across the ocean with weapons, but what are you worried about? sen. warner: there are two things i am worried about. one is there has been no economic success story greater than china's in the last 25 to 30 years. pre-1989 era,to a america versus the soviets, there was a complex. we are defaulting not in two and ideological concept with china, but china is on the move, and they are operating a theory of the case that the rest of the world looks pretty good. if you can obtain china's growth here,they are saying
12:52 pm
don't look at democracy, look at our authoritarian form of government, that will give you the control to move your country forward. their coupling that with the same tools we may be used in the past with economic incentives. and third, i am buried troubled -- very troubled with china -- with what china has been able to do with the creation of a surveillance state that would make george orwell pale in comparison when china is --ating this system where how loyal each of its citizens are to the regime based on their daily movements because of the presence of facial recognition and the willingness of chinese tech companies to share that information with the government. that authoritarian monitoring surveillance space concerns me greatly. that vision they are offering around the world, number one, number two, i think we sometimes
12:53 pm
underestimated the economic investments that precluded our country for the last six years. being the leader in setting the standards, it has brought us a lot. it will be a different world in these areas, like ai and facial recognition, 5g, if china is the leader and ends up setting the standards. europeanow this well, governments are questioning the van. they say they can allow weigh down in their commercial network -- they can allow huawei in their commercial network. how do you see that? sen. warner: you hear british politician say that. you don't hear bridges intelligent -- you don't hear british intelligence services say that. friend david
12:54 pm
we have solar systems around the country. it is about 30% to 40% cheaper. were we made a mistake, and we should've raised this issue much earlier, and i think the intelligence community needs to be more forthcoming, it is not the fact that the huawei equipment has the backdoor now, fullhen you buy a whole kit from huawei, soup to nuts, and in notion of a 5g network having a much more distributed system, all the upgrades that softwareare sent via downstream, so no matter what you do in terms of defense today, you cannot prevent, and
12:55 pm
the chinese, and his party put laws in place that every corporation's first obligation is to the communist party, and you cannot prevent the government from telling huawei to send that malware downstream once the equipment is installed. rural telecom.he they are invested in and bought it. what do you say? sen. warner: number one, in , ats of our rural carriers least take the first step towards creating a fund that would help potentially change out some of this equipment. and again, i don't want to pull out the tech/geek side, but there were issues earlier, earlier versions that won't be is compromised.
12:56 pm
but we are putting for legislation that would have $700 million funding. time, you are starting to see some countries we consider. but one of the challenges we have is because there is not an american-based or large western country-based equipment provider as an alternative, we don't have a particular course. we are betting on nokia and samsung. theyreat companies, but don't have the chinese support. >> you are saying that you are late to the party on huawei and the alarm should have been raised sooner? hadn the past, we would've a whole government effort around those standards. it should have started under obama, and didn't.
12:57 pm
you would have had someone in charge of this in the white house. we are not operating in a normal white house. >>'s administration on the right track? sen. warner: the administration has gotten folks within the appropriate agencies, the fcc, dod, state department has an important role, and others have come together. we have convened that group to make sure they are working on a regular basis, but i wish they were convened two years ago. >> looking into my crystal ball right now, what is going on in hong kong? does that affect what your assessment is of president xi? sen. warner: what it says to me is the concerns that i and others are raising about
12:58 pm
president xi's model of governing, you know, don't take my word for it, but take the people of hong kong, who yesterday out of the 17 million people were on the streets. i cannot think of any time in modern history for that great of a percentage of the population showed up in a protest. i think there are huge concerns about president xi's style of governing. >> to other things i want to raise with you, and a story in the new york times over the weekend about newly revealed capabilities to get inside the and withinin russia, the story, there was interesting information on whether or not the president was told about this. thingerall, is it a good
12:59 pm
-- first of all, is the u.s. doing this? it a good u.s. is, is thing or not? sen. warner: i am not going to comment on what our government is doing or not doing in the cybersecurity arena, number one. i do think the overall willingness of the trump administration to allow us to use of offensive cyber capabilities within reason is appropriate i think for a long time, which have not -- we have , our- even post 9/11 adversaries like russia and china could easily steal from us
1:00 pm
or hit us with impunity because i think there was a reluctance in ar government's side concern of cyber escalation. the notion being in the extreme for 24u shutdown moscow hours and you have a problem and you shutdown new york with no power for 24 hours, you have a crisis so we were concerned about cyber escalation. our cyber-based leads made us more vulnerable. put crazy that we have not in place things like minimum cybersecurity on the internet of things connected. the second part of the story that i think is worthy of commenting on and i don't know whether it's accurate or not, but if it's accurate, it's a stunning statement. that statement being that if intelligence officials were afraid to brief the president because he might tell someone
1:01 pm
and that on top of the presidents utterly outrageous comments last week, coming out of the white house to a national media correspondent that in a sense, he would welcome assistance from russia or china in election interference and did not have a moral compass to know that there is a moral and legal obligation to report that. you take that story and you take his comments last week and if you're not concerned, you should be. you jumped over to the next thing i was going to ask about but on the cyber , offense of cyber capacity -- it's fair to say those of increased in recent years on the part of the united states? sen warner: the trump administration put out an executive order that i think appropriately took some of the constraints on the process off for the use of cyber. ms. woodruff: but to move to the
1:02 pm
, what the president said in an interview last week, that he would listen and he back walked to the little bit in another interview. resolution that make it acally violation, you would require anybody receiving information that amounted to an interference with u.s. elections. sen warner: i introduced this legislation a month ago. this was not -- it was already there. the president mentioned last week in his statement that he would take something from russia or china. me but you goto the presidents own director of
1:03 pm
the fbi and national intelligence saying watch out for others, they will be back in 2020. it's cheap and effective. i don't think we are fully prepared. i think it's amazing that when the president's own secretary of homeland security wanted to hold a cabinet meeting on election security, she was told not to does it might offend the sensibilities of john -- of donald trump. to me that's outrageous. i put forward three pieces of legislation that i would hope congress and a bipartisan way could pass if they're serious about protecting the integrity of our elections. first, if there is any ambiguity about taking foreign assistance in a presidential campaign, my legislation would make it clear that if you have an offer of a prohibited item and that's defined in law elsewhere, your obligation is not to say thank you, your obligation is to reported to the fbi. i don't know how anyone could
1:04 pm
miss that. we also need to pass bipartisan legislation, election security legislation, to make sure there is a paper ballot after everyone -- at everyone of our voting machines and if we can have an gott to make sure it's appropriate security and i got a series of legislation on basic rules of the road around social media so we don't have the kind of manipulation that the russians used last time that increasingly the chinese are using in a variety of other countries right now. subject whole different but i think all the three of these areas, if we care about making sure our elections 2020 is fair, we need these provisions. why ofdruff: in brief, those being held up in town at turnaround? republicans have the majority. sen warner: the good news is it if the election security legislation got to the fuhrer, it would get 85 votes. . get a series of bills
1:05 pm
i've got a republican partner on everyone of them. reporting them a number of republican colleagues have indicated that they thought that would make common sense to say if a foreign government intervenes, you have to tell the fbi. what's stopping this is the white house. ms. woodruff: can that be turned around? sen warner: it can only be turned around if americans of of both political parties say our democracy and the integrity of that democracy than themportant feelings and sensibilities of the current occupier of the white house. ms. woodruff: there is a lot more to ask you and your the vice-chairman chairman of the committee that oversaw a lot of the work running parallel with the mueller investigation.
1:06 pm
it is the turn of the members to ask questions when want to hand. you to raise your i'm reminding you again that everything is on the record. they will bring you a microphone we ask you to stand and state your name and affiliation and limit yourself to one question. lots of hands are up so right here in the front. i'm from california. i run a technology policy company there. there supporting rural operators and other from huawei supplier so we are in a major changing wireless environment which is software. interestingly, american have an advantage in
1:07 pm
the area of software so china has had a long run benefiting from the manufacturing side. the shift to software should help us but who can compete with 120% financing? i would like to see if you can offer more about that. is thater: the irony the 120% financing model was started by the american providers back in the 1980's as they built up the first generation of wireless networks. it's a challenge, there is not a short answer. i believe the legislation we put forward is a good first step that probably doesn't go as far or have enough funding as needed if you are going to rip and
1:08 pm
replace across all the domestic carriers that are not huwei. i think it exit bitter -- a bigger question which is what china has defined, the chinese government has defined and they spelled it out is specific areas where they hope to be dominant. they have, in a sense modern industrial policy where they bring the power of the state and its financing tools, their banks , their equipment vendors and research to bear. we have not done that in america or the west. areasare thinking about particularly where he who has the most data, he who has the most information may win in many of these areas, we made to rethink some of that if we want to stay competitive. ms. woodruff: somebody in the back? thank you for your comments.
1:09 pm
you address the south china sea china seas and whether you think the chinese government has violated its promises to not militarize those areas? the path we are on, do you see a time when china will be a greater military power in asia than the united states? sen warner: china is very aggressive. sense, have chosen to bear the responsibility for the whole world. china is more focused on its neighborhood. china also has a military base in djabuoti so it's not just asia. i don't think their efforts in the south china sea's go beyond
1:10 pm
what they promised they were going to do in terms of constraints. concerns have been where the countries most affected are the the anonymous philippines. i wish we had a foreign policy that would leverage those ties. if the chinese government can make as they china-u.s. potential conflict over adversarial relationships as opposed to the region and the world saying they have to play whether it's around surveillance states and trade, we don't have that kind of foreign policy coming out of this administration.
1:11 pm
there are grave concerns from our military about china's rise and whether they will surpass us , i will not comment on that. but it is clearly got the attention of our american military establishment. ms. woodruff: all right, this gentleman over here. you have called for greater regulation of social media firms. can you speak about how that regulation should be enhanced with regard to content? i'm not talking about violence or hate speech but rather deep fakes and other content that has a disruptive effect even if it's removed quickly once posted. sen warner: let me try to do i will try to give you the short version but this is one more example of where i was saying that america has been
1:12 pm
giving up his leadership role. copies -- our country started in social media and it would happen fine if we set the ground rules for social media. the europeans act of set the rules on privacy and now the californians. you got the u.k. and australia moving on content. this is one more example not 5gike the full standards on were until recently, we would have been setting these standards and even other countries might have complained that by us having one standard, we were generally in the right direction and countries could default to our standards and it would've overall work all around. on social media, there are four areas that i think need examination. the first is privacy and there is already well thought out ideas around privacy from the europeans and californians that
1:13 pm
are not member states and there is bipartisan efforts going on privacy legislation on the hill. second is around the question of identity validation. one of the areas around hate speech i think would diminish it a great deal if you had to validate your identity. i'm concerned about the female journalist in egypt to needs to be anonymous but there are a number of people internationally who think we will move to identity validation or default into one internet commerce and a dark web for anonymous. and you have countries like estonia who already had so much outside interference of the hip gone to a validation model. that they have gone to a validation model. i think short of full identity validation, we should be distinguishing between humans and bo which is lowts hanging fruit.
1:14 pm
identity validation and content are interrelated. the content restrictions are what's called section 230. in the late 90's, these companies considered themselves in the sense telephone companies, common carriers with no responsibility for content but in 2019 165% of americans get their news from facebook and google, maybe it's time to not think of them as news sources. andave taken some bites prohibitions against child pornography but i think we should have a debate in this area around content. i'm not sure where i will come out but i think we ought to have -- the deep fake technology you talked about can causes much consternation as slowing a video. morefakes are 10x
1:15 pm
challenging. area is where we could go is privacy, identity, content and then more transparency. move first.e we may we need to know how much data is being collected on all of us and we have a right to know how much it's worth. we should have that knowledge. i've got legislation on this that would stop the manipulative behavior worried indirectly give up a lot of information about and never being able to find unsubscribe which is called dark patterns. i think we should have more transparency there. we should have the ability to have data portability. one of the things that drove competition in the telephony
1:16 pm
market is what made it easy for you to move your phone number from one company to another. when he that same kind of portability and interoperability with data so if am tired of how untreated on facebook, i can move all my data easily to a new site. there will be a series of ways that i think we can get at some of these issues that will indirectly deal with content and directly deal with content short of may be full break up the way my colleagues are proposing. ms. woodruff: you said the u.s. has given up his leadership role in all of this. why and how? i think this is something that has been a long number of years. it happened because congress is not been willing to legislate.
1:17 pm
some of these are legislative actions and some are actions that could be done administratively. i think our failure to think about -- articulated cyber said look andalso of cyber tactics will not be allowed on an international order would have been anonymously powerful and we wouldn't have some of the ransomware and other activities going on now. this has been a process. it didn't start with donald trump but i would argue it's gotten worse because congress has become more inefficient and the ability of this administration to build international coalitions has been greatly diminished. ms. woodruff: let's see, this woman right here. >> university of california, beverly lindsay, in many of our major research universities we have large numbers of
1:18 pm
international students particular china. and they are involved in some of this cutting-edge research that gets transferred. what you think should be our perspective or how should we think about this continued our best research universities and the students go back home? is anrner: this extraordinarily important question. there are 306 2000 chinese students studying in america. there are 362,000 chinese students studying in america. although students are paying 100 cents on the dollar tuition. in many of the universities, this is a revenue source that the university has become addicted to. two things that the intelligence
1:19 pm
community has declassified recently -- we are currently losing four to $500 billion worth of intellectual property each year. that's going to china. that's an enormous loss. i don't want to give the specifics but it is the overwhelming majority of counterintelligence cases in our country right now involving chinese nationals. how we think about this in a way that doesn't impugn the integrity of all these chinese students but recognizes the factual basis of what is happening real time on our college campuses right now is a hard issue. three things have changed in the last five years around chinese
1:20 pm
students. one, i would argue that five or eight years ago, most chinese students, same as the indian students and brazilian students and ethiopian students, they wanted to come here and study and then stay. three things have changed since then. that americaargue in 2019 is not as immigrant friendly you may contest that but i think that is the feeling most people have. the chinese economy is roaring is more traffic to go back to. third factor that has taken place that is different is the spies are literally running chinese families to say if your son or daughter does not come back with intellectual property, your family will be put in jeopardy.
1:21 pm
most colleges and universities have started to remove some of these confucius institutes that are nothing but agents of chinese services to spy on your chinese students and hold them accountable. i think this is something we will have to keep working on. ofwe don't, what i'm afraid some toyou may have coney and cuts that may not -- some draconian cuts that may not be good for the state of our research. our squabble is with the communist party of china not the chinese people. ms. woodruff: are you saying universities are where this and acting on it? withwarner: we have met
1:22 pm
presidents and chancellors of virtually every major universities and this is much more on the radar screen today than it was 18 months ago. there areff: universities that have branches overseas. sen warner: we are changing the rules of the game midstream. when i went to china as governor of virginia and celebrated a partnership between hudan but ifity nbc -- and vcu the facts have changed, some of our policies have to change and figuring that out is something we are trying to sort through. ms. woodruff: this woman right here. louise shelley, professor of policy at george mason. one of the issues on china you enormousention is its
1:23 pm
rural and environmental devastation. the elephants have gotten a lot of visibility but the depleting fish stocks of the west coast of is fueling mexico conflict in migration and deforestation that contributes to ecological damage. is the way we can do with some of these problems that are undermining the sustainability of all of us? sen warner: great question. you know and i know the the countrieshat that are sometimes being exploiters are saying that america and the west did that for hundreds of years in terms of exploitation and now we simply want our peace of the pie in the chinese are saying we are simply doing what western companies did it years ago. truth in those
1:24 pm
comments but your point is right, climate change, global warming affect us all and i andt think i have seen articulated strategy on how we convince those nations or push china into a more responsible ecological environmental role. we did not help matters when we got out of the paris court. -- paris accord. ms. woodruff: right there, this gentleman. >> thank you. you mentionedham, the counterintelligence aspect of the mueller report. people should remember that it began as a counterintelligence investigation. many of us were surprised when we finally read the mueller he altered he said
1:25 pm
the counterintelligence information and simply provided information for the fbi to do their own investigation. you're entitled by statute to receive briefings from the administration on the intelligence committee a major intelligence and counterintelligence operations. have you received briefings on the counterintelligence side of what mueller had been investigating? do you anticipate getting such briefings? sen warner: we have made very that we hope and intend to get the underlying evidence that mueller looked at were considered in terms of our counterintelligence responsibility. we proud of the fact that are the last remaining bipartisan investigation a maybe the last remaining bipartisan committee in the senate. but we are still doing our job and we are very conscious of what mueller said and did not say.
1:26 pm
ms. woodruff: is it clear there can be a bipartisan agreement? our investigation has five components. was thet was intelligence committee's assessment of january 17 accurate that the russians massively intervened to help trump and hurt clinton and we confirm that unanimously. we came out with our report on election security. was written and that bipartisan. we are drafting the component parts on social media. we have had no disagreements to date. we will point out some of the areas where the obama him astray it -- administration got right and some prizes were the got it wrong.
1:27 pm
on the issue of conspiracy, butusion was determined it's been reported that we saw witnesses last week. ms. woodruff: it has been reported. let's see, this gentleman right here. >> hi, i'm from the council on foreign relations. from our discussion, it's clear that china is challenging the united states everywhere all around the world. it seems like our response is too little, too late. t, the like the build ac development finance corporation are minimum budgets. what is the will of this government to stand up and take on the chinese challenge and put their money where their mouth is? sen warner: great question. chris coons was author of the bill. he would be the first to acknowledge it's not near enough
1:28 pm
. when we look at the hill versus -- we road, i would argue need to make this not u.s. versus china will stop we need more democracies calling on to be more engaged and i think we need to do a better job of leveraging on foreign assistance and economic development. with our partners around the world and that's not been a strong suit of the current administration. we've got to put people there and making people more aware and trying to get more of this information declassified so that academia, business and most everyone has been receptive.
1:29 pm
with the exception of private equity. they are hugely invested in many of these chinese tech companies being used by the chinese government. we've got to put people on notice. is we've got to invest more in staff and do more economic and development, long-term broader investments we need to make. it's where we ought to be and which technology we should invest in. that's what the race to the moon was. that short-term interim over the next couple of years, what do we do? i give out some ideas but we are still pretty thin. question,ff: another time for one more. all the way in the back. >> thank you. i have a question about huawei.
1:30 pm
many american firms and other companies have cut up their thaty but still, we know some chipmakers in the united do not like this export controls they want to persuade sen government to maybe loo the control so they can continue the supply of regular parts to huawei. what's your point of view? sen warner: that was an important question. this is where i think even though this designation letter was a long time in coming, i think the fact -- it had not in fully thought through. it shows this was an issue that should have been received higher attention earlier.
1:31 pm
when you think about a network versus a handset, do we want to restrict american and other chip manufacturers from selling semiconductor chips to the chip handset? needs to be some exemptions granted that designation letter. i think we should have thought that through on the front and but i would be supportive of recognizing there is a difference between selling component parts to huawei versus purchasing huawei and there is a difference between the network and handsets. ms. woodruff: thank you, senator mark warner, vice chairman of the select committee on intelligence and thanks to all of you. the meeting is concluded. [applause] [captions copyright national
1:32 pm
cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit]
1:33 pm
1:34 pm
1:35 pm
1:36 pm
1:37 pm
1:38 pm
1:39 pm
1:40 pm
1:41 pm
>> later today, health and human services alex a's are live at 2:15 p.m. eastern on c-span. i look forward to running against them. >> tuesday, president donald trump holds a rally in orlando florida o


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on