you are going to l.a.. the first or second exit you will see a sign that says baker and then there is this weird looking line up on the hill. it's probably most important mine in the united states. they produce neodymium. that goes into every phone, every laser sight on these drones, advanced weapons. until recently senator that mine , which came 36 hours away from closing permanently would ship it starts to china from the desert of california by truck to a ship to the center of china to be washed and then they would ship it back to i think oregon to be processed. i think it shows where the supply chains are really screwed up. how do we fix this? sen. warner: couple that and i'm

going to -- there's a mine in western north carolina that produces another key component, a quartz. but that, frankly i wasn't fully aware about all the aspects. i think what we are going to have to do. i'm a democrat and proud to be democrat. even democrats have to realize we have to build stuff again in this country. we can have a regulatory regime that adds two to three years of added costs to try and be able to, whether it build a new -- orest supply chain on rare minerals and the fact is even if were not to do all the processing here we need to do it with her friends and allies around the world. i think this is a huge opportunity and i think there is a growing recognition of that

across both sides of the aisle. >> world war ii effectively ended because in many ways germany ran out of oil. they couldn't move their tanks. they were really out of gas. walking by tanks that were just there. i feel like lithium, neodymium, cobalt, quartz, those of the new oil. and so it's going to change strategic. i don't think and 25 years of doing this senator i have heard anybody mention the solomon islands. sen. warner: until a year ago. i wouldn't have. you've got to learn, -- brian: does that change -- how do we adjust our lines. sen. warner: recognizing there a series of nation-states of most americans couldn't identify in that wide space between hawaii

and australia and a tiny bit there. frankly making sure some of them big tech companies bringing across actually weaken either go through those islands so they can get the broadband capabilities. this is literally pennies on the dollar in terms of american investment. but it is where part of this next frontier it's also one of the reasons why i think this competition around -- i'm all for solar and wind but we are never in a power ai data centers on solar and wind entirely because you need consistent when he 47 power. while not the complete solution, is that power source, it is safe and carbon free and we saw back into the oil analogy just as nation-states became a pet -- dependent on middle east oil for literally decades on land. you a 30 year contract with a

provider whether it's america or china. that means that country is locked into that system and many nation-states want to biotechnology. the question is if this is so good why aren't you building more of these already. and what we've got in america is lots of interest, nobody wants to go first. can we make a group purchase here and frankly the hyper scalars, the big tech firms will need this power there ai data centers need that and we are getting very close to i think some major announcements which is both good for american energy independence. american energy leadership. challenges against china and frankly since this is carbon free power 80's a winner across the board. >> three mile island many of you of certain age. >> do you want to ask, people remember fremont -- three mile island. >> put your hands down.

>> sow three mile island is a new -- a plant. in 1979 they thought it was can have a meltdown like radiation huge disaster, averted disaster. they're not turning it -- the folks of the federal energy regulatory commission agreed to turn her back on but they will use that power not to power homes, but to give microsoft more data center access. oracle wants to build a data center, energy is weird and confusing. let me put it in a tv news anchor way. one gigawatt of power is about 750,000 average size homes worth of electricity to run one computer center. the country then controls the power and has the power, china is building nuclear reactors. in one fourth the time it takes us to build the one that we built in 30 years. why are they so much better at it. >> they are willing i think to

cut corners in terms of safety protocols. >> and we've obviously seen we think about with china's belton road initiative many nation-states saying please stop. in many nation-states are unsatisfied customers because they thought there were to get a lot of jobs. in the quality of the workforce this morning and still there deep in debt. these other nation-states. europe and elsewhere, we are this close to signing up. we need our own regulatory process to move quicker and i think there's been a seachange on nuclear energy. the overwhelming majority of democrats no that has to be part of the mix and i think there were even some changes on the nrc. i thought it was hypocritical

when we walked away from nuclear for a number of years that we never said we will walk away from nuclear powered subs or aircraft carriers. the power on or aircraft carriers almost the equivalent of small modular reactors which are 200 to 300 megawatts, smaller, cheaper and safer. a half-dozen in process, we need many more and go ahead and get over this process. we need to kind of breakthrough that concern about that. brian: i've been privileging my crew to go to many countries there he did one country i will not go to because i'm a journalist i am literally afraid i will be kidnapped is the congo.

i learned most of what i say reading the notes. so because to your point you didn't mention it by name. in the china comments. importing the workforce. make a couple people really rich. and then they brought in their own people. how do we prevent how do we prevent more countries from being taken over in a way with chinese dollars. sen. warner: angola was example of a nation-state focus more russian china. there's been a complete switch over. but also to show the interest.

and i've been guilty of this at times. sometimes even we talk about the challenge and we always say america and the west. every time we take off two thirds of the world because we are leaving out countries that what i think rather be aligned. i think of the moment when china has the belton road, my view is they are dissatisfied customers a little bit of attention making sure some of the tools we have like export import bank developing finance corporations. they need a little bit more equity, they need to take a few more risks and we can do this in concert with european friends and there is a seachange coming on. if you ask five years ago if folks knew what the greatest export was from drc you would

get stares from 90% of the members. now the vast majority realize three major mines in the congo into our controlled by china. that is a g applicable and strategic risk not only for america but for non-authoritarian regimes everywhere. brian: this belgian company, a lot of belgian references lately. is all these little minerals. we all know what quartz is. but this one mine in north carolina got flooded produces 95% of the super quality quartz that going to semiconductors. so all these things the senators talking about are these minerals , but every device you own, every car you drive has probably 100 of them in some fashion in them and a lot of them are mined in really weird hard places. lithium in a desert. the middle of australia, those are friendly nations but how much focus is there in the

senate on to your point educating newer members, younger members. here's why angola, a country we don't talk about geopolitically is so relevant. is it hard to breakthrough? sen. warner: it is hard to breakthrough when they're not on foreign relations. 51 overriding effort is to redefine national security. who has the most tanks and planes and guns but really the technology. it's a technology race which we've never faced that kind of adversary that was a military threat, ideological threat. china is an economic near peer in certain areas. and who wins the battle, 5g was a wake-up call for a lot of us. it is around energy, it is around some of the rare earth minerals. it's around a whole host of other domains that initially

quantum computing was not viewed as a national security issue. >> cheap plug at 1:30 and 4:50 today i will be on talking about these issues and how they differed. but i always remind people no matter who is president, we have this thing called congress. and we have the senate and we have foreign relations. you, especially you senator warner and many others are sort of running the show behind the scenes. under either outcome. how much does that change your work? is it more relevant as to the ultimate composition of this? sen. warner: news flash, the vast majority of us in the senate actually like each other and work together. brian: that does not rate. sen. warner: i make a joke i work in the play place in america were being a gang member is a good thing. every time you have a group of bipartisan senators called a

gang of this or that. and so if you look at every major piece of legislation the last covid package under trump, birthed the bill at least -- you look at the chips bill. you look at the offshore account act. these are all bipartisan. i believe regardless of who is president, that gang. and it gets hard. it's been harder for my republican colleagues. it's a great loss when we lose rob portman and mitt romney's of the world. but there is one thing about the senate is there kind of like a high school you never graduate from. so summing kisses you off freshman year you can't stay mad forever because that person will find another place. sometimes this will be my first

crack at the media and you guys are actually not as guilty as most. a fact-based new station. but if you are msnbc or fox, you give the -- a lot more attention to the loudest voices on the extreme. >> i appreciate the dig at the media paid it's not the first and won't be the last time. you are right and it is so critical to remind people of this and hopefully as people watching at home, there's 535 of you in a full house. 100 senators, 435 congressmen. the rest are just quietly doing the rest of their jobs and part of many people as well. so thank you for that. i think we forget that as well. ask me later on today, under either administration we've got a huge japanese delegation in right now.

i've been in europe many times. on lng ships talking about the marshall pan marshall plan synergy. most of europe but particularly germany after somebody blew up the nord stream. if you know who that was could you let us know. so how much would energy policy differ under trump or harris administration? sen. warner: i'm not sure how many of mr. trump's slapping on 100% or 200% tariffs on every nation-state, how much of that is bluster or reality. i think that would have an effect because even on energy, i think more generally, i was a big advocate of moving to lng to allow this to be exported. i think that has allowed many european nations to move off of russian gas, it's geopolitically

to our and non-. brian: should we end deposit on certain new project. sen. warner: i would take a fresh look at a lot of those projects. the threats to climate change are real. we see that in these once in a generation storms that happen every year now. but we are not going to flip a switch and make that transition overnight. and how we have and all of the above to make that while we push the greener. the nuclear area seems to be a place where both the republicans and democrats could actually find some agreement. brian: the change in nuclear has been nothing short of remarkable. we are going to shut down. here's something for it is any one here from the massachusetts area. boston in the winter because you can build a pipeline there will important natural gas from

trinidad and they have to do that from houston because of the jones act and the shipping rule means you can ship inside the united states. >> you actually know this energy stuff really well. brian: there are days to literally keep the heat and light on in boston they are burning trash. burning trash, polluting gross stuff. i was asked people tonight ask them what year did the world use the most coal ever. no question, a 1933, 1872. 2024. the world has never used more coal than today. you talk about liquefied natural gas and carbon emissions. absolutely but if they don't have that that's what germany's burning instead. cold. far far worse. at least we do it as responsible as a nation. >> and what you see in nation-states i china and india who are building nuclear but

they're all building many more coal fire plants. the west end for 150 years. and ultimately for anyone. >> we have about 10 minutes a couple question here. thank you. smart crowd usually get the -- one more before we go into this. you mentioned in your first answer you mentioned i've never heard of it so i don't know anything -- everything. who are they and why are they on the radar. >> i think the place where ai could have the most effect is in bio life sciences. a guy from a public company, jason kelly out of ginkgo works. he basically said you think about ai models when were trying to duplicate large language.

he says ai can unlock dna. there is -- they can do that at speed and scale. to have that happen you need a lot of dna and they are basically scooping up dna samples had an unprecedented level. they are doing the things we managed to stop and sometimes where they have investments in companies be hidden and getting access to some of our information and you combine ai and dna mapping and some of this is spooky in terms of super soldiers. and i think this is, the whole question around ai and bio is hugely important and a piece of that you think about synthetic biology you think about growing their energy or growing material sciences. through kind of a more lifecycle

basis rather than manufacturing. and china is doing what they did in other domains. we talk about where they are building up a bio manufacturing capability. we have a little of that. europeans are further ahead in this domain and frankly some of those bio manufacturing are shutting down. basically a couple of them around the chemical process. where you kind of grow chemicals rather than produce them. >> and bgi. bgi is the -- two bio what huawei is to telcom. >> we are talking about the internal, not internal terms. >> literally our dna and the race for the biologics. a couple quick questions.

how do you think either candidate ai regulation. >> don't hold your breath no matter which person wins. i still think one of the great mistakes we made in this country was not putting guardrails on social media. in terms of mental health, we trace the mental health issues simultaneously smart phones 2014 going up, so when schumer had all the ai big heads in and they all said of course we want to have regulation. they'll say they want regulation to the put words on the page. and i'm deeply engaged with a lot of these companies and think i've got a b for something. the europeans of overdone we've done nothing there is somewhere in the middle. where i think smart regulation i do think the california approach and i'm usually knee-jerk against the california approach

but some level of liability regime on a nationwide basis for extraordinary harm i think there was something there. i think some of the areas, a number of states have already passed ai regulation in terms of deepfakes and politics. alabama's and florida's and texas as well as some blue states. i think we'll find out major market manipulation. i wouldn't focus on a fortune 100 company. but i think fortune 100 to 500. how can you use ai tools. manipulate stock prices. i thought that would be a spotlight. capitalist and democrats -- emocrats, but so far we have done that. >> we kind of know the trump doctrine.

harris assuming she wins what would be her one or two top foreign policy priorities day one. sen. warner: i hope it would be to continue to recognize we live in a dangerous world. she served on my committee. i think she understands the seriousness of the challenges and understand we live in a dangerous world and our adversaries are not playing for second place. continuing to realize the challenge with china is the issue of our time but i also think making sure averaging like putin is not successful in ukraine. i'm flabbergasted that donald trump in the debate wouldn't say who he thought should win that war. and i think ukraine, its long-term challenge be a negotiation but the fact that ukrainians, and this is about six months worth of information. taking out 87% of russia's pre-existing ground forces, 63%

of their tanks, 32% of their air -- without losing a single american soldier. the soviets were our ultimate -- ukrainians have done that job in an enormously powerful way and if we have not stood there, putin would have been -- the baltics would be under assault. poland and elsewhere. we along with our allies have to draw the line. it gets into a little bit of this question of realigning from playing both sides to actually saying there to make that not because of our values but because of our technology. that would be a geopolitical switch. >> i'm always careful not to characterize nation by leaders versus people. china is not xi jinping. russians are not putin. sen. warner: i think it's american policymakers are needing to make that point because every time.

it's not what the chinese people. making that point the chinese comet's party uses to great advantage on we chat in the chinese -- you see this is all racist anti-chinese. >> when putin is gone and there will be a day when he is gone. and the reason i brought up the point about the russian people, what is the u.s. long-term strategic plan. i don't want to say for russia, that implies power or ownership but with russia. what's russia's ultimate role in a post putin russia's role do they come back into the fold? to your earlier point they can't stay mad forever. >> after the wall fell, after the prime minister -- as a business guy in the 90's, i went to russia a lot. looks like us, sees like -- seems like us.

i made investments. i thought russia had turned the corner. maybe it was a little bit crooked, they want rule of law. the same thing that brought them into the world trade organization. i was a big advocate as governor of saying the more we bring china in the more it will be a stable world order. deciding the primacy of the comet's party was more important than the chinese people. i was wrong again there. so can we prevent post-russia putin? i would love to see a flowering of a more open russia but i think we have to prepare for both circumstances. you could see russia move further to the right or further authoritarian. brian: i will very quickly you mentioned venezuela at the top. humanitarian tragedy.

majuro's good to be there for life it appears. listen to opec meetings and one thing that the pistol me off was the human tragedy. he would show up with his wife and she had like $3000 shoes on. i'm thinking -- i'm a ds w shoe warehouse man myself. it was like people are eating trash in your nation and here you are showing up not only with your wife in the shoes and shopping bags. >> how do we solve the maduro. >> we basically ask the venezuelan people to get out and vote. they voted in overwhelming numbers even in the hardest barrios. the fact that we asked brazil, mexico and colombia to step back and frankly they didn't i think

there should be another contact group. i think we should not take our eyes off of venezuela. it is a humanitarian issue and potentially border issue. and if we are not willing to stand by democratic results in our own hemisphere, what does that signal. brian: anything you want to say in close that i might've missed? sen. warner: another senate filibuster. think the atlantic council. about those five regions. i hope we get a chance to continue this. >> i went to thank you for being here today at the atlantic council front page. i'm not being paid to be here. i wanted to see you again, senator. all my friends and new friends at the atlantic council. an amazing conversation. it could have gone on for hours but you have to run the country. a big hand for senator mark warner. [applause]