Scott: Congressman Ami Bera has served the Sacramento region since 2013.

He joins us today to share his insights on the major issues confronting Congress and their impact back home.

Congressman Bera, you have a huge foreign policy portfolio.

What are the most pressing global challenges facing the U.S. at this moment?

Ami: You know, there's a ton... Im not only on the Foreign Affairs Committee, but also on the, um, Select Permanent Committee on Intelligence.

So traveling a lot.

We're trying to get to a point where we can end the war in Europe, in Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine.

We are trying to contain a conflict in the Middle East, in Israels and Hamas war in the Gaza.

And we're trying to prevent a war in Asia with some of the cross-strait tensions between China and Taiwan.

And that is taking up a lot of our time, not to mention some of the challenges that we see on our southern border, um, and you know, just across the world.

So, you know, it is a... a really important time.

We've got to get this right.

But that term the indispensable burden of being the United States, when things go wrong in the world, everyone looks to us to try to solve them.

Scott: With all of the challenges that you've just named.

It makes one wonder whether or not we're overstretched.

When you look at them as priorities, and they're all priorities.

But if you were to name the one or two single most dangerous threats that we've really got to handle, what... what's top of mind for you?

Ami: I mean, here domestically, you know, we just were briefed by the director of the CIA, the director of national intelligence and the FBI director today going through the worldwide threat assessment.

I would agree with our FBI director.

The single largest domestic threat is that lone wolf actor, that individual certainly since October 7th.

And the tensions in... in Gaza.

Um, what we saw with the heinous attacks from Hamas, but also the... the tremendous loss of civilian life post October 7th.

We've seen real tensions in our community, and that would be what keeps me awake at night if there's a domestic terror attack from a lone wolf actor.

You know, we certainly understand that a lot of the Iranian proxy groups, some of the groups like al Qaeda, ISIS and others are trying to foment attacks against US interests.

So that... that is the thing that keeps me awake at night.

Um I can't really, you know, it is incredibly important for us not to back off of our support for the Ukranian people.

They're fighting valiantly to protect their own sovereignty as a as a nation, to push back on Putin.

Um, and they're doing a valiant effort.

Now's not the time for us to pull that support, but rather to continue to support them.

But the, um, war in the Middle East, we have to make sure that doesn't become a wide... wider regional conflict.

And again, that's something that's falling on our shoulders again and then put in a coalition together to maintain the status quo in Asia.

We're not seeking a war with China, but Beijing, Xi Jinping have really changed the calculus through their aggressive moves in the straits in the South China Sea, elsewhere.

We really do have to put that coalition together.

So they're all incredibly important.

And again, it falls on us as United States of America sometimes to keep the peace in the world.

Scott: You know, the way that you described it, all of these while... while separate and they stand on their own, all seem to have an interrelationship.

Let's talk about Ukraine for just a moment.

Many experts argue that the United States, if it does not adequately support Ukraine's defense needs, it could have far reaching consequences on global security in general.

What do you think is the most significant risk of not providing sufficient assistance to Ukraine?

Ami: You know, our... our biggest competitor in the world in the 21st century is not going to be Russia.

It's going to be China.

Um, and we don't have to guess on Beijing's ambitions because Xi Jinping publicly says what his ambitions are for for the PRC.

They're watching how this conflict and flow- unfolds.

And they clearly have seen Vladimir Putin overestimate the Russian military might.

Um, Russia has suffered over 300,000 casualties, thousands of tanks and other military equipment.

So they've suffered massive losses and they overestimated their strength.

Xi Jinping has to take that into calculus if he was going to try to do anything aggressive.

So they're watching, but they're also watching the American commitment.

You know, President Biden has been able to hold together the European alliance.

Europe is doing things that I never would have expected them to do in terms of stepping up their defense spending, trying to reach that 2% obligation for NATO.

Finland and Sweden have now joined the alliance, which if Vladimir Putin clearly did not want to see happen.

They're both very sophisticated militaries with good defense production lines, but it will take time and again if we were to pull out and not support Ukraine at this moment in time, Vladimir Putin would go on the offensive.

It would put us in a worse negotiating position.

And there's nothing to say that he would stop there.

Would he go to the Baltics?

Those are NATO allies.

Article five would then obligate us to send our men and women into harm's way, because that is what this alliance is all built on.

Article five, the mutual defense.

Scott: You know, an old boss of mine told me years ago that you teach people how to treat you.

Our lack of being able to get a definitive response on the funding of Ukraine.

What do you think is the lesson that we're teaching those adversaries you describe in how to treat us in the future?

Ami: Well, so that then also comes up with influence and interference.

The vast majority of members of Congress, House and Senate, understand we need to support Ukraine.

They understand that we need to continue to fund and support our allies in the Middle East.

They understand that we have to get humanitarian aid to the Middle East -- Scott: Well, wait a minute, Congressman.

Do you really believe that the vast majority does?

Because while there seems to be a great deal of consistent support on the Democratic side of the aisle, there does seem to be much less support on the Republican side of the aisle.

So do you really think that there's a consensus that exists?

Ami: I...

I still do.

But the politics in the Republican conference are very different than you know, I grew up in Orange County.

The Republican Party that I grew up in Orange County in the 1980s was... was a very different party, I guess, where I was going on the influence operation.

You look at folks like Tucker Carlson and others who seem to really cozy up to Vladimir Putin.

You saw that interview with Putin.

Um... And I think there's a handful of folks in the Republican Party, not the majority.

But when you have a narrow majority of two, three votes, five or six people can bring down a speaker of the House.

We saw that with Kevin McCarthy.

And I think that's the challenge that Speaker Mike Johnson is operating under.

Now, he has told us that as soon as we finish our our budget, which we have to get done by March 22nd, the next order of business is getting the supplemental across the finish line.

The Senate passed a strong bill in a bipartisan way that has all those elements.

It is sitting here in the House of Representatives, and we would urge the Speaker to say take up the bipartisan Senate bill that funds Ukraine, that funds Israel, that provides humanitarian aid, that provides necessary deterrence in the Indo-Pacific.

And let's just vote on that and get that to the president's desk.

I think thats the case Scott: Well you bring up the Scott: other side of the big debate, and that has to do with the funding for Israel that is tied to that particular piece of legislation.

And it seems that as much as there are civil wars that are going on within the Republican Party in Congress, that there are similarly charged debates among the Democrats.

And where do you come down on standing by a historic ally, on the one hand?

But on the other hand, the cry out from many of your colleagues in the Democratic caucus in the House who want an immediate ceasefire and want to move toward some sort of solution that preserves human life.

Ami: So obviously, we will support our allies in Israel.

They do have a right to defend themselves.

But, you know, what we're seeing right now is a massive humanitarian crisis, starvation, lack of water, lack of, um, necessary medications.

That is why we do need a long term ceasefire.

That -- long term is 4 to 6 weeks at -- At least that gives us a window where we can get necessary supplies in there.

You're starting to see President Biden, you know, talk about that, push back on Prime Minister Netanyahu a little bit more strongly than we were just with our our defense in the intelligence, um, committee, you know, talking about what it would look like.

And when you talk about this floating pier to use the sea to get humanitarian supplies, then that is something that, you know, I think we all fully support.

But there's a immediate need, especially now that, um, Ramadan has started to get the humanitarian supplies and to prevent unnecessary loss of life.

These children, these grandparents, older folks, women, they're not Hamas fighters.

We should do everything we can to save their lives.

If we get that window 4 to 6 weeks, we should then really step up our negotiations to see if we can find a longer term permanent solution for a longer cease fire and potentially a longer term peace.

It's not going to be easy.

But what I would say is I've sat with the Saudi foreign minister, I've sat with the, um, foreign ministers from Jordan.

King Abdullah was here on the Hill.

They're all still committed to trying to find a longer term peace to continue to, um, you know, recognize Israel's right to to its own security.

But that has to come with the solution to the Palestinian challenge.

That won't be easy because we've got to find the right Palestinian leadership that doesn't pose a security threat to Israel, but also allows the Palestinian people to live in dignity - Scott: You... You... You named a couple of elite leaders, uh, that are on the -- Typically, historically have been on the other side of the conflict in the Middle East who say that they're seeking for a longer term peace.

Do you think that the current prime minister of Israel, Netanyahu, do you think that he's committed to seeking a longer term peace?

Ami: I mean, I have to take him at face value for what he has said publicly.

And I would argue that a long term peace is going to be difficult while Prime Minister Netanyahu is the prime minister of Israel.

His public comments don't make it easy for us.

Scott: Okay.

Well, let's turn... let's turn, uh, back to China for one second.

A big issue which is really ripe and coming up very quickly for you and your colleagues, is the threat from China and the popular social media app Tik Tok, which is owned by the Chinese company Bytedance, has come under increasing scrutiny over concerns over data privacy, national security and, frankly, manipulation potentially of the American public.

Some lawmakers want a ban.

Where where do you stand on this issue?

Ami: I mean, I certainly see and know the risks of Tik Tok, how they manipulate algorithms, how the data of our young people and those that are using TikTok go straight back to Beijing and and the Chinese Communist Party.

That is a direct threat.

What... what I... what I believe the legislation is asking for, and I think what ultimately will come out of the Senate is bytedance the Chinese company divesting itself of US Tik tok.

If what our young people want to do is look at cat videos?

Great.

But let's wall off their information, their privacy and keep that safe and secure.

Let's also make sure Tik Tok is not being used to manipulate and influence our elections to influence how folks think about, you know, wars and conflicts around the world.

And let me use a real example.

I was in Taiwan a few weeks ago, shortly after they had their elections.

Much as the American government doesn't allow Tik Tok on our devices, the Taiwanese government doesnt allow Tik Tok on their devices.

In that scenario, though, young people are still using Tik Tok and the message they're receiving is, well, the United States is not a reliable partner right now and you know, this political party, the DPP, which won the election, they want to be a separatist.

They want to break Taiwan off.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

But you're seeing that message that's... that's going out there and the algorithms amplify the PRCs message.

We see that here in the United States as well.

And that's... that's where our concern is.

Scott: With your work in intelligence.

I'm just curious, as an aside, this type of threat is a threat that we couldn't even have con - uh, contemplated ten, 15 years ago.

How do you assess the current readiness and state of the U.S. intelligence apparatus?

And are there places where you're concerned that we're falling behind or where we need to make investments?

Ami: Um, I think we have the best intelligence community in the entire world.

That said, the threats are changing rapidly.

And are we evolving as quick as we should to address those threats?

Um, you know, Now -- toss... toss in um, AI on top of that.

Right?

And deepfakes where, you know, you've already seen fake political advertising, where they may use a presidential candidate's voice to... to do a robocall.

They may use a likeness in a fake way to influence um, you know, a... a position.

Those are real threats.

And we've got to figure out how to address that.

I'm also on the AI Task Force that Speaker Johnson and Leader Hakeem Jeffries just put together.

And I'm busy right now, but they're super important issues for us to get right because AIs not going away.

So how do we make sure we use AI in positive ways to enhance our lives, to make our lives better, but also clearly understand the negative threats of AI.

So, you know, we're busy.

The intelligence community is busy, but we've got to get this stuff right.

And I think our challenge Scott: Well I -- Ami: Scott, I was just gonna say, I think our challenge in the United States is we're an open and free society.

So we also have First Amendment rights that we have to be very conscious of.

And I mean, navigating that, it's different than an autocratic country like China or Russia, where they don't care about individual rights.

We have to honor our constitution and make sure we don't do anything to infringe on an individual's personal rights either.

Scott: What your... your last statement and talking about what an open and free society we are and not trampling on individual rights seems to almost be at the core of another big issue that is confronting you and your colleagues in Congress.

And that has to do with border security and immigration.

Everyone seems to recognize that there is a huge issue.

What is keeping you all from getting this fixed?

Ami: I think two things.

One, I think the border and immigration all get conflated together.

And I've been making the case recently that we should separate the border and think of the border as a national security issue and then think of immigration as an economic issue.

You know, folks that are coming here for a better life, working, you know, whether it's farm labor, whether it's high skilled immigration, whether it's DREAMers, because the solutions are different.

If we think about the border as a national security issue, it's a different type of migrant that is coming to the border right now.

Refugees, folks that are seeking a better life from the Global South.

They're not the economic migrants that you saw a decade or two ago that would come across the border, work for a while, but then also go back to Mexico.

So it'll take a different solution and a different conversation.

These are human beings, and I absolutely understand why they're seeking a better life.

I think we're about to see an influx from Haiti because you're seeing that country literally fall apart.

Where are those folks going to go when you have rampant gang violence?

So we've got to address that.

Also, being on the Intelligence Committee, you know, you do worry about some of the threats that potentially are mingling with these folks coming across the border.

But I would do border security not as immigration, but as a national security issue.

And then I think the solutions would be a little bit different than I would do immigration as an economic issue.

Scott: That's a really different framing, um, than... than is typically stated And it does kind of change the lens as to how you might approach it.

I want to turn to health care.

You are a physician.

You've been very, very much in the middle of issues related to access quality of care outcomes.

You've also served on a committee that really took a strong look at the coronavirus and the pandemic.

What lessons have you and your colleagues learned from your work studying the pandemic that we need to go to school on and apply so that we're prepared so that this does not happen again?

Ami: I think a couple of things.

On the macro level, I do think we should let the scientists and doctors be the scientists and doctors, and then they should be the ones advising your elected leaders.

And then we should be the ones communicating to the public on policy.

I think we also should, if we can take the politics out of this, there are some things that we did.

uh - did right.

But there's a lot that we should have done differently.

And I'll use an example.

I absolutely understand why we closed schools in the spring of 2020.

People were dying.

We didn't really understand this virus, but certainly by the fall of 2020, we understood a lot more about COVID 19 and the impact of not opening our schools really has had a an impact on the mental health and learning of our children.

It got very political.

We ought to study that impact and learn from it.

And we've got, you know, different states do different things, but right now we're not able to do that study because everyone's getting defensive.

I would just say, hey, let's look back without pointing fingers.

Let's learn, you know, other things.

So, you know, it was quite remarkable that we came up with a vaccine within 12 months.

But now that we know that, can we get that down to six months?

Can we get that down to 100 days?

Because it's not just the naturally occurring virus.

It could be a manmade pathogen that a bad actor or bad state does is a bio threat -- bioterrorism.

So we have to have these countermeasures.

We have to be able to work closely together.

And I guess the last thing is, you know, we still are mired in this debate of viral origins.

You know, was this a lab leak?

Was this a naturally occurring virus jump from an animal to a human?

I don't think we're ever going to know with certainty which it was, because, again, that would require China to cooperate with us.

Let us look at all the data.

I think we should accept both hypotheses so that we can start to prepare for naturally occurring pathogens, which we've seen in the past.

But we also ought to raise lab standards to the highest levels to make sure if anyone is doing this type of research, that they are operating at the highest standards and that there's full cooperation amongst the global community.

Scott: All right.

I want to turn to 2024.

This is an election year.

And from your vantage point, what do you think are going to be the most critical factors in determining the outcome of the presidential election?

Ami: Yes.

2020 was an incredibly close race, and I think 2024 is going to be an equally close race.

Um, I do think you'll see President Biden kind of lay out a vision of what he's accomplished in his first three years in office in terms of the bipartisan infrastructure bill, you know, ending the COVID pandemic, you know, the Inflation Reduction Act and some of the investments there and the Bipartisan CHIPS and Science Act, those are huge pieces of legislation that set us up for a generation.

But there's still more to do in the sense that, you know, a lot of families still feel like they're struggling.

We're still trying to shake off the pandemic hangover.

And then I think you'll see President Trump lay out a very different vision of, you know, he now has a record of being president for four years.

And I think, you know, unfortunately, I think this is going to be an extremely toxic campaign.

A lot of slugging back and forth.

And that doesn't heal us as a nation.

But I just think that's the nature of where our campaigns are right now.

And -- Scott: I just have to ask you, though, that campaign itself, um, it sounds like there might be a late actor becoming involved.

You've been involved in the No Labels movement in the past, and there's talk about fielding a candidate under that... that particular banner.

How is it that you feel about this movement and the fact that they might field the candidate and how that is going to affect your party's likely nominee?

Ami: You know, I think not just what No Labels may or may not do You already have third party candidates in the race in Robert Kennedy and, you know, some minor third party candidates, um, again, in a very close election, 50,000 votes here, 50,000 votes there in Michigan and Wisconsin and Pennsylvania and Arizona.

President Biden's going to win California and New York and you know, a lot of the real blue states.

Former President Trump will win a lot of the traditionally red states that presidential elections because of the Electoral College are not about the popular vote.

They're about the Electoral College vote.

And I think it will fall to a handful of states where 50,000 votes here or there could swing the election to one side or the other.

Yeah, I don't know, because we really haven't been in that situation.

We've had third party candidates in the past.

They usually don't have a major impact on... on a race, although we did see that in 1992 with when George H.W.

Bush, Bill Clinton and Ross Perot were running.

I think that's the only time I've seen that real impact in my lifetime.

Scott: Well, it sounds like you not only have been busy, but that the rest of 2024 is going to be a busy year for you.

Ami: I used to have very jet black hair when I first got elected and a lot more gray in this beard right now, Scott.

Scott: Understand.

Well, we'll leave it there.

And that's our show.

Thanks to our guest and thanks to you for watching Studio Sacramento.

I'm Scott Syphax.

See you next time right here on KVIE.

♪♪♪ All episodes of Studio Sacramento Along with other KVIE programs are available to watch online at KVIE.ORG/VIDEO