So you got really old, familiar C-rations, but this was a very, very special event because of the commitment and everybody that was here to and to our allies that we've got to stick together. And by doing this, this is a big statement. Thank you very much for everything you've done. Thank you. Hello, everybody. I'm Susan Davis. I'm from San Diego, California. And I am a proud member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and also a rapporteur for the Science and Technology Committee.
And I'm very pleased to be here. You know, as politicians, we learned very, very early on that eighty five percent of your job as a representative is showing up. Thankfully, I think it's more than that. I think we have to be there for our constituents. They feel it when you are present. And so in the same way, I think it's very, very important. We will always be here in force when it comes to veto.
One of the things I wanted to mention very quickly, because we've spent a lot of time talking about Afghanistan from the Munich conference. And here we've spoken with General Secretary Stoltenberg about it. Spoken with Ambassador Hutchinson as well. And our message is a very strong one. We know that women's rights are enshrined in their constitution. But we're gonna be a little skeptical as things move forward and we await some of the announcements regarding hope for negotiations, hope for a ceasefire.
And what's important to recognize is that we're not just talking about women's rights. We know that in the United States as well, just being at the table. Why that's important is not always the full answer, but it's having what we call agencies that's having influence. It's having the ability to change, to mold, to be certain that families are protected, that the country can thrive.
And that's one of the things that NATO cares about. We triggered Article 5. We are together on that. And we appreciate the fact that our NATO colleagues and countries are with us. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm Jason Crowe from the state of Colorado, also a member of the Armed Services Committee. Before I was a member of Congress, it was the honor of my life to be an Army officer in the United States Army. And I served shoulder to shoulder with a lot of our allies and partners, including NATO and Afghanistan and other partners in Iraq as well.
And I learned during that period that it wasn't just important that we do that, but it was absolutely essential because we could not complete the mission without our partners. We are strong, though, not just because of the commitments that we have militarily, but the the alliance that has existed for over 70 years is obviously a military alliance at its height, but it's strong and it has endured through recessions, through wars, through changes in leadership and all of our countries because of shared values.
Those values are still as relevant as ever. They are still as raw as is important as ever. And that was that that is what will make our alliance endure. The challenges we face are actually more complex than we've ever faced from climate change. The great power competition and terrorism to cyber warfare to artificial intelligence. And because of these complex and overlapping challenges, it makes it more essential than it has ever been that we collaborate. And there's been some discussion over the last couple of years about debate and friction in the alliance.
Now, I'm somebody that thinks that when you're a family, when you have a strong relationship, it is actually a sign of strength. And have the confidence to be able to debate and have tough conversations. We will, as a partnership, draw strength from that. We will figure out how to address those challenges because we have the confidence that have those types of discussions. In short, we will either succeed together or we will fail separately. And America is prepared to succeed together.
My colleagues will now be happy to answer any questions you may have so that you can address them directly. I want them to do a Senate here from this. Too late. Can you hear from your from Kentucky, from Texas and Florida. California. Keating, Massachusetts. Linch, Massachusetts. Brendan Boyle, Pennsylvania. California. Jim Himes, Connecticut. Question. First question. SIEGEL Marcus. Cuming. So, Madam Speaker, you've just mentioned that the information highway should be democratized in the context of the 5G discussion.
Now, you know that the United States services have been monitoring citizens of the Western allies, to not least among them the German chancellor. And if you do not happen to be a United States citizen, you don't have a lot of tools to to be able to do. You don't have a Democratic say about your data is handled to the United States and you don't have the tools to counter any steps that you might seem unfair against yourself. So if should a Democrat become president next year?
Would you say that things like these are beginning to change?
Well, let me just say that I'm not confirming anything that you said about our activities. But I will say that there's a big distinction that what we do to protect and defend our countries and to use whatever is available to us to do so. And that is quite different from a country monitoring everything that its citizens do. I do believe that if we were to let how we have the information highway now, I'm it would be like putting the state police in the pocket of every person who uses that highway.
I want to go to. Mr. Hines of Connecticut Intelligence.
So thank you for that question. And I'd make two observations for you. One is that three of us up here as members and former members of the Intelligence Committee, we are charged with oversight of the intelligence community. That means we grapple with precisely the questions that you asked. And like Germany, like Australia, Canada, Great Britain, we we will have an ongoing dialogue, including with our allies, about what we're comfortable with doing. And you will recall, of course, that President Obama had a conversation with Chancellor Merkel when when some of the revelations came out.
And so the three people up here are tasked with making sure that whatever our operations are, they are consistent with the interests of our allies. But I want to make a point that I think is equally important, because we've gotten similar versions of this question before. We have to resist the temptation to draw an equivalence between the services of the democracies and the services associated with autocratic regimes. We are here for one reason, which is that our collective strength backs the values of freedom and liberty.
That is why we are here in this building. That is not why the services of either Russia or China or even go back in history to the totalitarian and dictatorial regimes. That's not why they exist. And so we need to resist the temptation, even as we have the very important and robust conversation about what the limits are, not just with our allies, but with our own citizens. And that is something that we engage in in a very robust way, because that's our job.
We should never fall into the equivalent of saying that this activity is somehow that the via the activities of the US sector are somehow consistent with what we know Callaway does more often associated.
Yeah. Okay. Last question about the microphone, Madam Speaker, this morning you met with the president of the European Council and the European Commission. Can you describe what you learned from what is our current relationship between the European Union and the United States government in particular after the world watching the impeachment process? Can you tell us what you've learned from. I'm speaking with both presidents of the commission and council today. Well, it had nothing to do with impeachment, but that's something that is at home.
But what we did learn was the calibre of take the measure of the leadership. The new leadership in the commission and the council. We've had good relationships before. And to commend them for that. But we had a very hopeful conversation this morning based on shared values. And I know that sounds like an intangible, but it is the basis of our our our friendship and the security that is required to maintain our shared values and the investments that we need to make in soft power to do so.
So we had very positive meetings again, always using our time well to learn, but also in friendship. To be candid about any questions that we may have of each other about how we go forward, I always say and you probably heard me say that when I was a student, I heard President Kennedy say, that's not what your country can do for what you can do for your country. Everybody knows that. But the next sentence, the citizens of the world ask not what America can do for you, but what we can do working together for the freedom of mankind.
And I would say from my perspective that it was a very promising a meeting of both based on our past history, but our prospects for the future, about how we prioritize democracy over autocracy. But I want to yield to any of the remarks he made. Bill Keating, chair of the European Subcommittee on Foreign Affairs. We had a very constructive meeting. And I must tell you that it's not just shared values that we talked about. We talked about common threats and how our security is important together.
We talked about why Way and Baiji and that threat. We also talked about our economic security and how that is all part of our security. We talked about difficult issues of trade and we came to the understanding together in that discussion. It was reinforced. We had it before the fact that neither the E.U. or the United States can be effective alone. Not nearly as effective to meet the challenges of China. And what they're doing economically as we can by working together together almost half the world's GDP.
We can deal with the threats of China through strength. And I think that's the thing that people have to remember, the fact that we need each other. And the U.S. understands that and the E.U. understands that. And so constructive to hear it. It's one of the most hopeful discussions we've had since we've been here. And I also say that the overarching issue I mentioned earlier climate was something that Congresswoman Escobar led us into the discussion with the president of the commission about.
Did your speech. Thank you, Madam Speaker. And just to point out something for all of you, Representative Crow, you just heard a little bit ago and myself are two members of the freshman class, newly elected last year. And we stand together with our colleagues, Republican and Democrat, some who've said, as Mr. Cook mentioned, you know, have lived through much of the promise and the commitment to NATO, which we as as brand new elected, maybe not so brand new, but recently elected one year in members of Congress, embrace and celebrate and are delighted to continue to participate in.
But one of the things that the speaker, as she mentioned in her remarks. We face an existential threat of the climate crisis. And as that climate crisis continues to ravage the earth, we are going to face security issues that deal with famine, food insecurity, economic insecurity, and probably increased migration throughout the globe. And how we solve that together, not just the climate crisis itself, but the consequences of it. We are stronger when we collaborate on those solutions.
We are stronger when we face those challenges as opportunities together. And we are stronger when we recognize the realities of what we face immediately and with the urgency that they deserve. And that the climate crisis is something that each day in the news we see more and more terrifying information. And so the urgency that we have. And again, the opportunity that comes with that was something that we discussed. And I'm I feel very hopeful as well about those shared interests and that shared commitment and what we the steps we need to take together going forward.
You know, meetings with the president of the commission, president of the council and the sandwich. General climate crisis was a national security challenge. Here's a question Wall Street Journal. Dana Michaels, you mentioned trade and that clearly has been a bone of contention between the two sides and even touched on security because security was the justification for the president's tariffs. Where did you think the situation on trade stands and is there one in Congress? Is there a feeling that Europe needs to do more?
Or is the feeling that things are in the right direction?
Thank you. Before I take your question and share it with my colleagues, I do want to call on Mr. Dunn, who is also a veteran who has served our country so well for any comments he may have on everything else for the purpose here. Thank you, Madam Speaker. As the speaker mentioned, I was a army physician for a long time and it actually has assisted me in my congressional career. We recently had the Corona virus break out in my former life.
I worked in the Army Institute of Research, Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick. So it was very helpful to be able to call up my old pals and ask him some questions about that. And so I've I've enjoyed my time up here. I also want to say there's a complete 100 percent commitment on the part of America to remaining in NATO and me making sure it remains strong. And I think that is, as the speaker said, a very bipartisan energy.
Thank you for coming forward, sir. Well, you know, a lot. I thought you were going to share any information your twin brother gave you about trade. Any of my colleagues in the investigation along the way and means committee.
Brendan? Yeah. Brendan World, Pennsylvania, proud member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, as well as a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, which has jurisdiction over trade. And so while our negotiations with Canada and Mexico for the replacement of NAFTA and USMC, they took a lot of attention last year as well as the ongoing bilaterals with China, I hope and I think many of us in the Ways and Means Committee on a bipartisan basis are hopeful we will get back to was what was a big discussion in terms of T-TIP at the tail end of 2015 and 2016 and then got this real.
So you saw through the U.S. a process, a real bipartisan achievement of many of us on on this stage. I'm pretty hopeful that we could have a strong U.S. EU comprehensive trade deal, even with the UK extricating itself from the European Union. The European Union still represents a large percentage of world GDP, a market of almost 500 million people and obviously a natural partner for the US in terms of shared values. So I am optimistic and I think that I'm reflecting the view of a bipartisan group of us on Ways and Means 79.
I do have had for a long time thought that the United States and the EU collaborate together on the issue of the exploitation of our markets by China, that we would be a bigger force to change them as we go forward because these trade deficits are harmful to our countries and this EU and it shouldn't have to be that way. So rather than short contending with that, let's join together the synergy of these two big markets together is bigger than the sum of its parts.
Question Jonathan, stand by. Thank you. I'm from Bloom. I'm Jonathan starts from Bloomberg. Mrs. Stryper, could you please tell us after your meetings today in downtown Brussels that the commission and the council, are there differences fundamentally in your view of the threats posed by hallway and Chinese technology and the views of the Europeans? Or is there much more common ground than the headlines might suggest? Like anyone else who wants to weigh in, but I'll begin by saying this.
As you probably know, the EU has established some criteria that they have agreed to that if company, whatever direction a country may want to take, it has to have a certain afterwards protection. But those standards said there said they're not going down the autocratic path, a democratic path. Now, that's the consensus in the EU. Countries individually will do what they do. And as you know, there's some differences of opinion. And we want to point out that while some people say, well, it's cheaper to do.
All right. Well, yes. Because it's a People's Liberation Army developed initiative using reverse engineering from America, Western technology. So, of course, it's going to be cheaper to put on the market. And if it's cheaper, they get the market share and then they bring in their autocracy of lack of privacy and other energy. So let's so again, because of price, people are saying, well, I can afford it better. That shouldn't be the reason to take it.
Because what you might gain in price, you lose in values. In addition to that, there's some economic threats by the Chinese to companies. If you don't if you don't. If you don't take. How is your country? We won't be doing these deals. Well, that's totally unacceptable. And again, I would hope that they would be the majority of these countries to understand that for the benefit of a few corporations, you cannot sell the privacy of the people of your country down the river.
As I said before, it's like having state police, right. The Chinese state police right in your pocket. Anybody under Mr. Government. So. BROWN Brett Guthrie, Kentucky miner on our Energy and Commerce Committee, deal with this. And there's a couple of things. One, with the state subsidies have always gotten it's it's but, you know, we have businesses that have gone out of business. So the other options are out. We're lose options if we don't take action, not because they're competing on the bear market and a free enterprise way, but because of the state subsidy.
That's important. The other thing is with Loblay, it's not just the back door that you're afraid of that the Chinese government can access is the fact that it's not that secure and always that is a very secure site or very secure system so that other people can access it, too. So it's not just we're fearing which we should fear, but it's not the only fear that the Chinese government is gonna gain access to us by implementing these systems or to Europe or anyone is the fact that anybody that knows how to get into these networks is going to it's it's not just a back door for China.
Guess it's a back door for a lot of people to enter into. And I think that as we're discussing, I'm on a little parliamentary assembly side of this delegation. So we've got the next couple of days and planned to discuss with our colleagues to come up with some of the answers you're talking about and make sure that we have dialogues with each other about why this is important to us as a country and and hopefully important to our NATO partners as well.
Thank you. And I might say that what we've talked about is not an Americanization of this. It's about internationalization of it. What we can do, working together to have a system that exploits the opportunities of technology well in advance. Mr Bell, economists from Silicon Valley may have something like your candidate, Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to thank you for taking this issue very, very strongly on the House Armed Services Committee. This issue is of paramount importance to us.
And I would suspect that we will see in this year's National Defense Authorization Act a very strong, very bipartisan effort to address the hallway issue and more importantly, how we can build an alternative and international alternative to hallway, one that we can count on to carry out all of the goals that the speaker has so clearly laid out. This is a fundamental national security issue for America. And I dare say for any other country, particularly the European countries, there are many different aspects of the hallway system that ought to give great concern to all of us.
And so be aware we're going to move on this. It'll be part of the war that will papoose out of the House of Representatives, whether it becomes law or not, we shall see. But I'd just be very much aware this is where we're headed. Thank you. Any. Again, some countries have gone down the path again. We hope that without even just naming hardly any entity that would be exploitive of individual rights and privacy of people backdoored or whatever way.
But it's something that we have to avoid at the moment. This is the threats of some people say we'll talk about it, but don't use their name. Well, we have used their name in our legislation and we are concerned about them or anyone else who decides to go down this path. We see a brilliant relationship with European Union force, a strategic one for our security and NATO and our values in both. We think trade is very important. We did have some long discussions with Mr.
Hogan about trade and how we can work together as we go forward. And in fairness, but what contributes to the economic growth of all of our countries creating good paying jobs in a way that is respectful of the environment as we go forward. So thank you all very much for coming. I thank my colleagues for being part of all of this and wish our North Atlantic Assembly member interparliamentary assembly members under Mr Carnaby's leadership, but in a bipartisan way. Much success in their deliberations that they go forward.