Barton Condemns H-P for Leak InvestigationOpening 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."
####
|