Barton Condemns H-P for Leak Investigation Opening Statement of U.S. Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas WASHINGTON – U.S. Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, delivered the following statement today as part of an Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee hearing entitled, “Hewlett-Packard’s Pretexting Scandal”: “Thank you, Chairman Whitfield and Ranking Member Stupak for continuing this investigation. We’re convened here to examine the facts of the Hewlett-Packard pretexting scandal. Pretexting is the use of deception to discover who you have been on the phone with, and maybe even where you were. In plain language, it’s pretending to be somebody you’re not to get something you probably shouldn’t have to use in a way that’s probably wrong. We’ve been investigating it because most Americans believe that their phone records are theirs, that they’re private property should only be accessed with their permission. “Pretexting first came to this subcommittee’s attention when it was reported that the Chicago Police Department of all people had warned undercover police officers that suspicious drug dealers could expose them just by poking through their phone records. Months of investigation and hearings produced plenty of troubling facts, but even some news. Now today, with this hearing, it’s global news, as you can see with all the cameras and reporters that are in the room. Because nobody could have guessed that such a great company as Hewlett-Packard, one of the first high-tech companies in the United States, would employ the methods of pretexting that are sometimes used to chase after cheating spouses, in order to stalk its own board members and, believe it or not, even tail journalists. “But against what standard should Hewlett-Packard’s conduct be measured? “I guess the best place would be a quote from an e-mail, written by a Hewlett-Packard security employee on August 23rd of this year. The subject line of that e-mail reads: ‘Standards of Business Conduct,’ and the author writes, and I quote: ‘This investigation will be a defining case which will test the company’s claim of having uncompromising integrity.’ “I should say so. This hearing is going to examine a year-long course of questionable conduct, led by Hewlett-Packard’s chairman of the board and reviewed by Hewlett-Packard’s general counsel, who I’m told resigned this morning or has announced that she’s going to resign. That conduct included, among other things, obtaining personal phone records through pretext, physical surveillance, monitoring of employees’ instant messaging over the Internet, planting spyware, or attempting to plant spyware, on a journalist’s computer and even planning to put spies in newsrooms. I think it will be some time before this American corporate icon of Hewlett-Packard can reclaim its mantle of ‘uncompromising integrity.’ “The public, Hewlett-Packard’s shareholders, and this committee are all very concerned that such a great company has strayed off course. I have to say that, as these alarming details have been disclosed, I wonder if Hewlett-Packard would have and could have done more to right the ship. The company seems paralyzed. “On Sept. 6th of this year, H-P publicly disclosed to the Securities and Exchange Commission that the company had obtained personal phone records procured through pretext, as part of an effort to find an individual who was leaking confidential business information. Records provided to this committee show that phone records were being pulled by H-P’s internal investigation team for more than a year, with the approval and knowledge of both then-Chairman Dunn and General Counsel Baskins. It is my understanding that the day-to-day operations were controlled by the company’s lead ethics attorney, Kevin Hunsaker, so that the investigation could be protected by the attorney-client privilege. Mr. Hunsaker would frequently report to Ms. Dunn and Ms. Baskins about the developments and the next steps in the investigation. Yet not until last Friday, Sept. 22nd, did H-P force Patricia Dunn’s resignation. “I also have to say that I am troubled to find out that the board’s outside counsel, Larry Sonsini, learned last April that the investigation included information from fraudulently obtained phone records. Why didn’t he immediately recommend putting the brakes on the investigation? Did he ask any questions about the investigative methods employed by Ms. Dunn, Ms. Baskins or Mr. Hunsaker? “On June 28th of this year, instigated by the concerns of former board member Tom Perkins, Mr. Sonsini reported to Mr. Perkins that pretexting for phone records was, I quote, ‘a common investigatory method’, end quote, and that the, quote, ‘process was well done and within legal limits,’ quote. I hope that Mr. Sonsini will explain to us exactly what due diligence he undertook before providing his assessment of the legality of pretexting for phone records. And again, pretexting is pretending to be somebody you’re not to get something you probably shouldn’t have to use in a way that’s probably wrong. “By coincidence, just a week before Mr. Sonsini’s e-mail, the Federal Bureau of Investigation testified before our subcommittee about its position on the legality of procuring records through pretexting. The FBI testified that there are ‘compelling reasons’ to believe such operations violate federal law, including the Wire Act. In fact, over the next two days of hearings, we actually expect several individuals, and I should say numerous individuals, to invoke their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination – which they’re obviously entitled to do – and decline to answer our questions about their involvement with pretexting for phone records. It’s funny to me that if you have to invoke your Fifth Amendment right, you’re doing something that’s legal. I’m still waiting for someone to describe a legitimate way, short of a subpoena issued by a judge or Congress, to obtain another person’s phone records without their permission. “I would like to close on this note. Whether such activities are already illegal or not, this committee has done its part to pass a bill that makes it abundantly clear where the federal government stands regarding pretexting for personal records. On March 8th, the ‘Prevention of Fraudulent Access to Phone Records Act,’ H.R. 4943 was unanimously, unanimously, reported out of this committee. H.R. 4943 would make it illegal to obtain cell phone records fraudulently, as well as to solicit or sell such records. I am, of course, disappointed by the delays that this bill has experienced since it left our committee. It’s not yet come to the floor for a vote but I have asked, as late as early this week, that it be put on the floor as soon as possible. I’m going to continue to request that the House of Representatives vote on this bill on the floor before this Congress adjourns this year. We must make pretexting clearly illegal. There is no room in our society for pretexters getting your phone records. If it can happen to a member of the board of directors of a Fortune 500 company, like Hewlett-Packard it can happen to any of us. “With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.” ####