cfius wouldn't be involved in that at all. finally, there's a concern that our bill could flood cfius with too much work and they'd be overwhelmed and would lack the resources and expertise to do the job. our bill would help provide those additional resources and allow cfius to charge a modest fee to help promote its self-sustainability and submit a unified annual budget request covering all of its member agencies. furthermore, the bill's own provisions guard against an unfunded mandate, with any expansion only taking effect after cfius determines on its own that the necessary personnel and other resources have been provided. finally, our bill exempts certain transactions that are done through ordinary customer relationships, ensuring that harmless, day-to-day activities don't have to be reviewed. in closing, i'll say this, it's certainly appropriate to consider the potential impacts of this bill on foreign investment. but those effects shouldn't be considered in a vacuum. we must also ask what the impacts are on our long-term

that is a -- sort of an unprecedented approach to using cfius. i'm not saying good or bad but it is unprecedented i think it's fair to say. the question was will congress push it in that direction as well? so i think we're still midstream on that. >> frank, you mentioned a very interesting relationship between wall street firms and trade negotiators with t-tip and you gave this stylized view that wall street was pushing for quote, unquote, globalist regulatory coherence, harmizati harmonization views because it serves their interests to possible dismantle some of the dodd/frank regulations. now, steve bannon is no longer in the white house. there have -- there have been many indications that the trump administration was not exactly anti-wall street, nor is congress at this point, so would you extrapolate that insight? the direction of travel for the trump administration, despite the america first agenda, is one of global financial regulatory harmonization because that's what wall street wants? >> thank you. that's a very interesting question. bef

supply chain risk management we run the threat analysis center hooked into cfius. we bring the services together and look at supply chain risk manager for issues with whoever may get a compact and ties back to china and other nations. every case for cfius or us comes back and take a look at it. get three days with it. we could use more time to make a more thorough scrub. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i apologize for being late. we had another committee. all morning we've heard the story of russia influencing our campaigns and indeed in the current campaigns for the mid-terms. so let me begin with mr. wray. has the president directed you and your agency to take specific actions to confront and blunt russian influence activities that are ongoing? >> we're taking a lot of specific efforts to blunt. >> directed by the president? >> not as specifically directed by the president. >> director pompeo have you received a specific presidential direction to take steps to disrupt these activities? >> i'm not sure how specific. the president has made very clear we h

he was there before cfius ever signed off.l of this evidence, bribery extortion, money laundering, kick backs. everybody knew about it how is it possible they would have -- knowing clinton operatives are in this country, committing crimes, wanting uranium, why did they ever let this deal go through when we don't have enough uranium? >> well, it's a great question, sean. that's been one of the mysteries. you know, can you look back. it's 2010 when this takes place. maybe there are some people in the obama administration, you know, misguided and naive who think this is going to help with the russian reset. and it's a stupid decision. and that may have been part of the motivation when you look at the fact that hillary clinton who was hawkish on these types of cfius issues. in other words, she has an issue of opposing these types of deals came out in support of this deal along with the fact that money was flowing to her husband in speaking fees and also to the clinton foundation, the key question is what was their motivation and a

that is sort of an unprecedented approach using cfius, not good or bad but it is unprecedented, it's fair to say and the question was will congress push it in that direction as well? i think we are still administrating on that. frank, you mentioned an interesting interaction between wall street firms and teach it and you gave this stylized view that it was actually pushing for globalist regulatory coherence, views because it serves theirinterest . that's about to be dismantled , some of the regulations. now steve bannon is no longer in the white house. there have been many indications that the trump administration was not exactly anti-wall street nor is congress at this point so would you extrapolate that insight? is the direction of travel for the trump administration despite the america first agenda is one of global financial regulatory homogenization because that's what wall street wants? >> thank you, it's a very interesting question. before i answer that, may i have 10 questions on your question? this bill of senator cornyn is extremely important. it's an effort by congress, the

he was there before cfius ever signed off.his evidence, bribery extortion, money laundering, kick backs. everybody knew about it how is it possible they would have -- knowing clinton operatives are in this country, committing crimes, wanting uranium, why did they ever let this deal go through when we don't have enough uranium? >> well, it's a great question, sean. that's been one of the mysteries. you know, can you look back. it's 2010 when this takes place. maybe there are some people in the obama administration, you know, misguided and naive who think this is going to help with the russian reset. and it's a stupid decision. and that may have been part of the motivation when you look at the fact that hillary clinton who was hawkish on these types of cfius issues. in other words, she has an issue of opposing these types of deals came out in support of this deal along with the fact that money was flowing to her husband in speaking fees and also to the clinton foundation, the key question is what was their motivation and all alo

as you mentioned in your opening the committee is considering legislation to expand cfius in a way toddress this threat. the foreign affairs committee which i chair is considering export control reform as an additional way to tackle the problem. would you support new authorities to restrict the export of critical technologies and countries that threaten the u.s. national security? >> i absolutely would. >> with that i will yield back. >> do you yield to the chairman? >> i yield my time mr. chairman. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. i want to go back to the fsoc designation process mr. secretary just to make sure i'm clear. in the previous administration fsoc seem to make their designation without taking in the input of the institution's primary regulator. it's not really an agency. we certainly know that under the previous administration there is little to no interaction and the actual company that was the subject of the designation with with -- review. as head of fsoc how is your process changed? will the primary regulator be involved in this process and what exactly is the dia

most of the cfius committee that approved this sale -- again, 20% of u.s. uranium production, richly canadian, barred by the russians, a russian owned con my company named rosatom, the racketeer in, the influence going on. to me, that seems bizarre that they wind know that the fbi is looking into this. >> how could be state department seriously argue that they didn't know that any of this was going on? even back then, the fbi had offices in new york, washington, los angeles, and little rock starting this investigation. it is just beyond belief that the clinton foundation at least wasn't advised that the fbi was making this, surely this would have found its way to the secretary of state. >> laura: let's move to draining the swamp. what we thought was going to happen with the republicans in charge of the house, the senate, and still some fiscal responsibility in this budget process, but here we are again right up against the clock. rand paul gave a speech today on the senate floor, it was unbelievable, let's watch a piece of it. >> are you going to cheer for

campbell with the clinton's help it was a shoe-in to get cfius approval.were so confident in that that they even had him open up the new conference because they were planning on the top of. approved it. >> she brought up a good point. he did question fbi handlers. he asked them why aren't you doing anything about this? why aren't we arresting people now that we know this is going on? why is this, you know, uranium one deal still going through? and what he was told was this is all politics. this is about politics. that's what his fbi handlers told him so take it from there. >> sean: robert mueller, did he know about this. >> we don't know. mr. campbell was told by the fbi that he was being told and they were taking it upstairs and he was also told that the president obama had it in his daily briefing twice. shane sean twice. >> when he was asked today why can you do all of this for so long and you were losing moneyened a you were sick, you said. because i'm a patriot. that's what i believe. >> sean: then we have quote to take everything back to the money. a

a modernized cfius will enable to be protect our national security. i look ford to working with the committees to advance firma. one of treasury's core missions is to safeguard the national by using powerful economic tools. we will continue to take frequent and ongoing actions to combat threats from malicious actors. these include terrorist groups, proliferators of weapons of mass destruction, human right abusers, cyber criminals and rogue regimes like north korea, iran and venezuela. we continue to review intelligence to identify targets with maximum impact, deny them access to the u.s. and international financial system, disrupt their revenue streams and ultimately pressure for a change in behavior. as you're aware, last week the treasury department submitted a series of reports in compliance with sanctions legislation. these reports represent another chapter in our efforts to use our economic authorities to counter the threats that we face. on housing finance, the current situation of indefinite conservatorship for fannie mae or freddie mac is neit

things like that, cfius isn't doing what we built to do. i applaud your efforts that we needed different construct. we don't want to get rid of it. we need to think about more broadly about the national security challenges in areas that have national security implications for us. >> is a role for cybercomment to be actively involved in some of that process providing information so you will be aware of things that you're concerned about? how do you see a potential role? >> i think it's much more intelligence to my role is generating knowledge and insight is much greater. one of the things we do is we generate knowledge that we are putting out reports or go to the broader effort. >> thank you. i appreciate it. >> thank you mr. chairman and admiral thank you for your 37 years of service. >> when you say that i just feel horrible. >> no, no feel strong. we have pics up on a theme today this this committee feels a sense of urgency about the russians interfering in our elections. this is not a personal criticism of you. we are frustrated that thi

half a million dollars four months before the cfius decision. >> sean: this is like unpeeling layers phenomenal. last predictions as john mclaughlin used to say. will it become bigger than any other scandal we are following. >> we know the fbi is investigating the clinton foundation. >> sean: bigger. >> might have some future there. >> i think so bigger sean. especially with the finn investigation. >> back to 2006 in kazakhstan and go forward to when a famous russian ole garr -- >> sean: people go to jailing? >> we will see depends on if the justice department does its job. >> they better lay off my client. >> sean: big hand for these guys. they have done amazing work. mass shootings with students, parents and teachers at the white house. earlier today. we will play you the highlights tomi lahren and much more straight ahead. [cheers and applause] ♪ let your inner light loose with one a day women's. ♪ a complete multivitamin specially formulated with key nutrients plus vitamin d for bone health support. your one a day is showing. >> we're going to be very strong on background checks.

what people ought to be looking at why in this cfius decision made.n its face it's not a good decision. when you consider the fact that bill clinton got $500,000 four months before the decision was made and clinton foundation got $145 million from the people who gained when their stock after the uranium one purchase wept through. i can think it takes some looking into. >> the informant says that he went undercover, met with key players with a video camera and that the fbi had seen the footage so it does seem like all this threat about a grand global corruption scheme is just scratching the surface. martha? >> martha: peter, thank you very much. joining me now is david bossie citizens united fox news contributor and that roy harmaria harp state department spokesperson. old news, it's been dealt with. the time line is wrong. in this guy campbell spoke with these different panels today and told his story. he was an informant. he was there isn't it legitimate to hear him out and see if there is anything to it? >> well, martha, the fbi also determined that

this as well -- chinese tech companies and i know senator cornyn and feinstein have legislation on cfius by my fear is they may not have to acquire an american company before they become pervasive in our market. i'll start with director coats and wray. how do we make sure to send a signal to the private sector before these committee -- some of these companies in effect totally invade our market because so many of them are tied back to the chinese government? >> i think it's not only sending the signal and working together sharing information with the private and public sector. it also i think involves almost a whole of government. with the legislation being looked at in terms of the cfius process we need to go beyond what the current process is in terms of evaluating. we coordinate our intelligence to provide policymakers and those making the decisions with the best intelligence we can relative to the situation and so we think -- we view this as a top priority and it's ongoing because i mentioned the chinese are pervasive on this and we've seen it happen throughout both the public and pr

we talked about china, cfius, their involvement in trying to buy companies in the united states. what i think has to be pointed out too, they are undertaking a significant national investment in artificial intelligence and quantum computing. that is dwarfing anything that the administration is proposing or suggesting. if artificial intelligence has even half of the benefits that its promoters claim, it's going to be extraordinarily disruptive. quantum computing has the capacity to under-cut cryptology as we know it, and the experts can correct me if i'm wrong. some of the mechanisms that quantum computing can generate could, based on infinite measurements of gravity, detect devices underground and under the water, which for anybody who's a submariner, you have to be wondering. so, where is our national manhattan program for ai and quantum computing that will match the chinese? director coats, you seem to be anxious to answer that. >> i think there are some things that we ought to talk about in classified setting here. we're treading very narrow line here relative to discussing th

but you mentioned the fact that every case for cfius comes back and we lookat it, we get about three days with it. we could use more time to get a more thorough scrub. >> senator reed? >> i apologize for being late. we had a simultaneous hearing. all morning, gentlemen, we've heard the story of russia influencing our campaigns and indeed in the current campaign for the mid terms. so let me say, has the president directed you and your agency to take specific actions to confront and blunt russian influence activities that are ongoing? >> we're taking a lot of specific efforts to blunt -- >> were they directed by the president? >> not as specifically directed by the president. >> director pompeo, have you received specific presidential direction to take steps to disrupt these activities? >> sorry. i'm not sure how specific. the president's made very clear, we have an obligation from our perspectivefrom the foreign intelligence perspective, to doeverything we can to make sure there's a deep and thorough understanding of every threat, including threats from russia. >> has he singled out t

have been working toward modernization of the committee on foreign investment in the united states cfius. i support the foreign investment review, risk review modernization act firma and applaud senators cornyn, finestein and burr and representatives pittinger and jack for their leadership on this issue. a modernized cfius will enable us to protect our national security from current emerging and future threats while preserving our longstanding open investment policy that is key to fostering innovation and economic growth. i look forward to working with congress and the relevant committees to advance firma. one of treasury's core missions is to safeguard the nation by using powerful economic tools in our arsenal. we will continue to take frequent and ongoing actions to combat threats for malicious actors. these include terrorist groups and proliferators of weapons of mass destruction, human right abusers, cyber criminals and rogue regimes like north korea, iran and venezuela. we continue to review intelligence to identify targets with maximum impact and deny them access to the u.s. and in

campbell that with the clinton's help it was a shoe in to get cfius approval.tions on what former president obama knew. >> i do not talk to fbi directors about pending investigations. >> the only way we are going to figure it out is for investigators to actually talk face-to-face with these two people. brian: president trump has seth said he would sit down with special counsel robert mueller. is this really a good idea? >> don't sit down with people that want to charge with you a crime. >> president trump's second national prayer breakfast happening in just hours from now. >> arguably, president trump has done more to defend religious freedoms than any other president. you would have to go back to ronald reagan. ♪ ♪ ♪ i like the sound of that ♪ i like the sound. steve: 7:00 in new york city. it's 8:00 eastern time we will be taking you down to our nation's capitol for the 66th annual national prayer breakfast held every year. usually the guest speaker is the president of the united states been held since dwight david eisenhower held at 1600 pennsylvania. brian:

the russian dossier and the other involves the uranium one and the fact that she signed off on the cfiusyour media colleagues on these stories? >> people are awol right now, sean, and i think what's remarkable is that devin nunes got so beaten up by the mainstream media for putting out a memo that in the end did not compromise sources and methods as many people in the media predicted because they were listening to john brennan and all of these national security experts mostly from the obama administration tied to the old clinton administration or clinton campaign saying this was going to reveal sources and methods. it did nothing like that. what it did was name names, yes, but made a fundamental point that, in fact, the fisa court judges since there were multiple fisa applications it was ♪ disclosed to them that in fact the clinton campaign and dnc had paid for that dossier, which was a key part of getting the surveillance and spying of trump advisor carter page. the very bottom line is, yes, democrats are entitled to get their memo out as well. and the president says the only reason he

the cfius approved the deal for the sale of the canadian firm uranium one which had 20% of our uraniumts in the united states. in wyoming in particular. so we have to ask ourselves these questions. and say if there is an investigation going to be those investigators at the department of justice to look at the money trail. >> sean: unbelievable. we will learn more about that. both you and john agree. i see you shaking your heads. congressman gates, we don't have enough uranium, congressman. the idea that fbi director at the time mueller knew because we had the informant about bribery, extortion, kick backs, money laundering and this is nearly 18 months before ciacchellaous signs off on the uranium one deal, knowing vladimir putin wanted a foot hold -- foot hold in our industry? it's mind numbing that this could have ever happened? incident indicates, sean you would have to have improper influence to end up with these facts. real question whether or not there is going to be any consequences. clintons are used to having a different standard of justice applied to them than applied to the a

i worry we have certain low-hanging fruit as we think about chinese tech companies and how we set cfius right. one of the things we have discussed in the past is you look simply at the iot-connected devices, we're going to double them about 10 billion to 20 billion in the next five years. yet we have no minimum security requirements for the federal government purchasing of the iot devices. i have talked to general ashley on this, i don't believe there is even across the ic and d.o.d. prerequisite before we buy the connected refrigerators or consumer goods that there be that patchability. so i think there's a lot of work that we can do, but we don't have the luxury of short time. senator blunt raised some of the questions around election security. >> and right now on "andrea mitchell reports," correcting the record. the head of the fbi directly contradicting the white house today on what they knew about rob porter and when they knew it. >> we administratively closed the file in january. and then earlier this month, we received some additional information and we passed that on as well. >>

i worry we have certain low-hanging fruit as we think about chinese tech companies and how we set cfius right. one of the things we have discussed in the past is you look simply at the iot-connected devices, we're going to double them about 10 billion to 20

the chairman of the sieve just committee -- cfius committee, sale of 20% of our uranium assets to russiaast eight years, than one year of president trump,. ashley: very interesting, thanks for joining us. you are the chief strategist for the maga coalition? >> no no. national security strategist for fox news. that's it. that's it. ashley: you're not even with the maga coalition anymore? >> not since i signed with you guys. great to be back. ashley: great to have you with us, sebastian. we really appreciate it. as always thanks for your expertise this morning. >> thank you, ashley,. ashley: we got it straight. another wall street analyst downgraded snapchat's stocks rating because users are hating the redesign so much. i guess they blew it. liz: look at the hits snap is taking in trading. citigroup is downgrading below the ipo price of $17 a share. citi says it could go to 14. why? users do not like snap's redesign. snap's redesign is geared more getting more advertisers on its sign. it has sponsor stories, celebrity stories and not geared toward users. snap is saying user growth is up at

and under this bipartisan regulatory relief measure would no longer be automatically designated as cfius. they are extremely regulated anyway, outside of a cfi designation. is it not true that all of these banks are subject to a huge raft of regulations that has nothing to do with the cfi designation? >> that is true. in many cases they are probably regulated by as many as four different entities. >> multiple regulators and isn't it also true that these banks now have huge capital standards. the industry is generally extremely heavily capitalized. isn't it also true that they have very high liquid the requirements that didn't exist prior to the crash and isn't it also true that most of these entities engage in pretty ordinary banking activity as opposed to the more exotic complex and interconnected business of the truly enormous banks. >> they're all true statements. >> those are the reason yes it is perfectly reasonable to not automatically designate for yet another regulatory overlay those banks that don't create the systemic risk. let me briefly thank you and con congratulate you and