The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP'S LOBBYING FOR CHINESE TELECOM FIRM HUAWEI” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Commerce was published in the Extensions of Remarks section on pages E796-E798 on May 15, 2012.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP'S LOBBYING FOR CHINESE TELECOM FIRM HUAWEI
______
HON. FRANK R. WOLF
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I submit my recent correspondence with Mr. Carter G. Phillips, managing partner for Sidley Austin LLP, regarding the firm's representation of Chinese telecom firm Huawei. As noted in the letters, the U.S. national security community has serious concerns with Huawei's connections to the People's Liberation Army and Chinese intelligence.
Equally troubling is Huawei's well-documented history of supporting America's greatest adversaries--some of the most repressive and brutal regimes in modern history--including the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq and the current regime in Iran.
Today, through Huawei, China exports its repressive technologies to likeminded governments. An October 27, 2011, Wall Street Journal piece reported that the Chinese telecom giant Huawei ``now dominates Iran's government-controlled mobile-phone industry . . . it plays a role in enabling Iran's state security network.''
Respected national security reporter Bill Gertz also recently reported that Huawei has also been ``linked to sanctions-busting in Saddam Hussein's Iraq during the 1990s, when the company helped network Iraqi air defenses at a time when U.S. and allied jets were flying patrols to enforce a no-fly zone. The company also worked with the Taliban during its short reign in Afghanistan to install a phone system in Kabul.''
For these reasons, I also wrote to Ms. Samantha Power, the director for multilateral affairs on the National Security Council at the White House. I also submit this letter for the Record. Given Huawei's troubling activities in Iran, I urged Ms. Power, in her capacity as chair of the newly-created Atrocities Prevention Board, to consider whether the company should be sanctioned.
It is inconceivable to me that a respected law firm like Sidley Austin would represent a Chinese state-directed company like Huawei, given the significant national security concerns as well as its appalling record of supporting some of the world's worst regimes.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, April 25, 2012.Mr. Carter G. Phillips,Managing Partner, Sidley Austin LLP, Washington DC.
Dear Mr. Phillips: It has recently come to my attention that a lobbyist with your firm has been retained by the Chinese telecom firm Huawei to lobby Congress and the administration.
Given the longstanding and serious concerns from senior officials in the U.S. intelligence and defense communities, as well as the Congress, about Huawei's connections to the Peoples' Liberation Army and the potential vulnerabilities of its telecom products, I was surprised that a firm of your caliber would agree to represent a company that is so closely connected to the Chinese government.
In all my years in Washington, very rarely have I seen the leadership of defense, intelligence and civilian agencies come together in such a concerted effort to warn of a security threat from a foreign entity. When the White House, intelligence community, Defense Department and the Commerce Department all have worked to block Huawei from gaining greater access to U.S. networks, everyone should take notice.
Just last month, during a hearing before the House Commerce-Justice-Science (CJS) Appropriations subcommittee, which I chair, Secretary of Commerce John Bryson noted that the ``Commerce Department has been very focused on Huawei.''
Secretary Bryson told the panel ``I think you're right in characterizing that as a considerable challenge to our country. It appears that Huawei has capabilities that we may not fully detect to divert information. It's a challenge to our country . . . we have taken some steps to not have Huawei advance yet further in our country but the reality is in the market--they are advancing further so we need to address that further.''
Also noteworthy is that shortly after Secretary Bryson's testimony before the CJS subcommittee, Australia announced that is has banned Huawei from bidding to help build a nationwide high-speed Internet network due to concern about cyber attacks traced to China. Australia's actions follow several similar moves by the U.S. government to block Huawei access to American networks.
In 2009, The Washington Post reported that the National Security Agency ``called AT&T because of fears that China's intelligence agencies could insert digital trapdoors into Huawei's technology that would serve as secret listening posts in the U.S. communications network. In 2010, then-Commerce Secretary Locke called Sprint CEO Dan Hesse to raise concerns about Huawei, which ultimately resulted in Sprint choosing not to use Huawei equipment.
These moves should not be surprising given Huawei's long-documented deep ties to the Chinese government and the Peoples Liberation Army. According to a 2005 report by the RAND Corporation, ``both the [Chinese] government and the military tout Huawei as a national champion,'' and ``one does not need to dig too deeply to discover that [many Chinese information technology and telecommunications firms] are the public face for, sprang from, or are significantly engaged in joint research with state research institutes under the Ministry of Information Industry, defense-industrial corporations, or the military.''
The U.S. business community also is concerned about Huawei. On April 6, The Wall Street Journal reported that ``Cisco Systems Inc. Chief Executive John Chambers identified Huawei Technologies Co. as its toughest rival, stating that the Chinese company doesn't always `play by the rules' in areas such as intellectual property protection and computer security . . . he suggested that, [unlike Huawei], Cisco is considered trustworthy by governments around the world.''
It's not just Huawei's longstanding and close connections to Chinese intelligence that is troubling. Huawei has also been a leading supplier of critical telecom services to some of the worst regimes around the world. Last year, The Wall Street Journal reported that Huawei ``now dominates Iran's government-controlled mobile-phone industry . . . it plays a role in enabling Iran's state security network.'' And given the president's April 23 executive order addressing entities that are providing Iran and Syria with technologies to repress their people, I would think representing Huawei would give you further pause.
For these reasons, I urge you to reconsider your firm's relationship with Huawei. I think you would agree that Sidley Austin's reputation and integrity is worth far more than its contract with a state-directed company like Huawei.
Best wishes.
Sincerely,
Frank R. Wolf,
Member of Congress.
____
Sidley Austin LLP,
Washington, DC, April 27, 2012.Re Huawei
Hon. Frank R. Wolf,Chairman, Commerce-Justice-Science Subcommittee, Washington,
DC.
Dear Congressman Wolf: Thank you for your letter of April 25, 2012. We understand your concerns and appreciate your bringing them to the firm's attention.
Sincerely,
Carter G. Phillips,Managing Partner.
____
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, April 30, 2012.Mr. Carter G. Phillips,Managing Partner, Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Phillips: Last week, I wrote you sharing concerns about your firm's representation of Chinese telecom firm Huawei. This company is of great concern to the U.S. national security community due to its well-documented ties to the People's Liberation Army and continued questions about the integrity of its products.
Although Huawei generally dismisses all legitimate criticisms of its ties to the Chinese government as ``tired disinformation,'' I thought you should be aware that just last week the House Armed Services Committee singled out the threat from Huawei by name in its FY 2013 National Defense Authorization Act.
According to the committee report, the committee is concerned about the supply chain threat from Chinese telecom firms, ``specifically Huawei and ZTE Corporation, have been, and are likely to continue to provide billions of dollars in Chinese Government support. The report also stated that these firms have been blocked from certain deals with U.S. firms because of national security concerns.'' I have enclosed a copy of this section from the report for your reference. There should be no question that the national security community actively considers Huawei a serious concern.
Perhaps this is due, in part, to Huawei's longstanding history of supporting America's greatest adversaries--some of the most repressive and brutal regimes in modern history--including the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq and the current regime in Iran.
Through Huawei, China exports its repressive technologies to likeminded governments. An October 27, 2011, Wall Street Journal piece reported that the Chinese telecom giant Huawei
``now dominates Iran's government-controlled mobile-phone industry . . . it plays a role in enabling Iran's state security network.''
Respected national security reporter Bill Gertz also recently reported that Huawei has also been ``linked to sanctions-busting in Saddam Hussein's Iraq during the 1990s, when the company helped network Iraqi air defenses at a time when U.S. and allied jets were flying patrols to enforce a no-fly zone. The company also worked with the Taliban during its short reign in Afghanistan to install a phone system in Kabul.'' I have also enclosed a copy of this article.
How can an American firm like Sidley Austin represent a company that has provided our enemies with equipment? How does Sidley Austin reconcile working for a company that is empowering the world's worst governments to monitor and repress their own people? Certainly this must give you pause.
Huawei is believed to receive billions of dollars in subsidies and assistance from the Chinese government--the same government that is an equal opportunity oppressor of people of faith. Catholic bishops, Protestant house church leaders and Tibetan Buddhist monks and nuns are routinely harassed, imprisoned and placed under house arrest. China maintains an extensive system of slave labor camps as large as that which existed in the former Soviet Union.
The 2010 Nobel Prize recipient Liu Xiaobo still languishes in prison to this day. China's abysmal human rights record has been thrust into the international spotlight with the courageous escape last week of Chen Guangcheng, the blind lawyer activist who, after serving several years in prison on trumped up charges, had been confined to a virtual prison in his home.
According to your Web site, Sidley Austin's mission is ``to adhere to the highest ethical standards.'' Representing a firm with Huawei's record certainly doesn't live up to your stated mission.
Again, I urge you to reconsider your firm's representation of Huawei, Rest assured, I will continue to inform my colleagues of Huawei's unrepentant record of supporting some of the world's most brutal regimes--and America's greatest adversaries--and the U.S. national security community's continued concern about their threat to our supply chain.
Best wishes.
Sincerely,
Frank R. Wolf,
Member of Congress.
Other Defense Activities
Review of the Supply Chain Security and Integrity of the Nuclear
Weapons Complex
The committee is concerned by the findings of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in its report, ``IT Supply Chain: National Security-Related Agencies Need to Better Address Risks'' (GA0 12 361). The report stated that,
``Although four national security-related departments--the Departments of Energy, Homeland Security, Justice, and Defense--have acknowledged these threats, two of the departments--Energy and Homeland Security--have not yet defined supply chain protection measures for department information systems and are not in a position to have implementing procedures or monitoring capabilities to verify compliance with and effectiveness of any such measures.''
The committee is also aware that its ``2011 Report to Congress,'' the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission detailed specific supply chain threats originating from firms linked to the Government of the People's Republic of China. These firms, specifically Huawei and ZTE Corporation, have been, and are likely to continue to provide billions of dollars in Chinese Government support. The report also stated that these firms have been blocked from certain deals with U.S. firms because of national security concerns.
The committee is concerned by these developments as well and the information technology (IT) chain problems reported by GAO. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the National Counter Intelligence Executive, to provide a report to the congressional defense committees by August 31, 2012, on the supply chain risks to the Department of Energy. The report should address the following: (1) IT supply chain vulnerabilities of the Department of Energy, with special attention paid to the laboratories and plants of the national nuclear weapons enterprise; (2) Evaluate whether the Department of Energy, or any its major contractors, have a supply chain that includes technology produced by Huawei or ZTE Corporation; and (3) A plan for implementation of the recommendations of the GAO report referenced above.
Finally, the committee is aware that section 806 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111 383) provided the Department of Defense the authority to protect its supply chain. The committee is also aware that section 309 of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112 87) provided the intelligence community similar authority. The committee further directs the Secretary of Energy to include in the report an assessment of any concerns may have about providing similar authority in order to protect the Department of Energy's IT supply chain.
____
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, May 8, 2012.Ms. Samantha Power,Director For Multilateral Affairs, National Security Council,
Washington DC 20500
Dear Ms. Power, I write regarding the administration's recently released initiative on atrocities prevention. As you know, this is an issue about which I care deeply and I am encouraged to see these matters prioritized. Moving forward, it will be essential to ensure that these efforts don't simply result in additional monitoring, but rather are the impetus for action in the face of grave human rights abuses.
My reason for writing is two-fold. I noted with interest President Obama's recent executive order authorizing sanctions and visa bans against those who commit or facilitate grave human rights abuses by means of facilitating information technology capabilities in Syria and Iran. It is my understanding that the sanctions are intended to impact not just the regimes in question, but the companies that enable them by providing technology which is ultimately used to oppress and brutalize the citizens of these lands. This executive order is an important first step, but I respectfully urge the administration to broaden the scope to include countries such as China which has a long and well-established track record of using technology to repress and even imprison its citizens.
Further, I urge the administration to examine whether Huawei Technologies, a Chinese telecom firm with deep connections to the People's Liberation Army (PLA) and Chinese intelligence, should be among the companies sanctioned under this new executive order. As you may know, Huawei has been a leading supplier of critical telecom services to some of the worst regimes around the world, including Iran. On October 27, 2011, the Wall Street Journal reported that Huawei ``now dominates Iran's government-controlled mobile-phone industry
. . . it plays a role in enabling Iran's state security network.'' The article continued, ``This year Huawei made a pitch to Iranian government officials to sell equipment for a mobile news service on Iran's second-large mobile-phone operator, MTN Irancell. According to a person who attended the meeting, Huawei representatives emphasized that, being from China, they had expertise censoring the news.''
You may be aware that Huawei's actions in Iran appear to be consistent with its practice, Over many years, of doing business with rogue regimes. In a March 13, 2012 Washington Free Beacon piece, respected national security reporter, Bill Gertz, wrote, ``Huawei has been linked to sanctions-busting in Saddam Hussein's Iraq during the 1990s, when the company helped network Iraqi air defenses at a time when U.S. and allied jets were flying patrols to enforce a no-fly zone. The company also worked with the Taliban during its short reign in Afghanistan to install a phone system in Kabul.''
While there have been initial news reports suggesting that Huawei, in the face of public scrutiny and criticism, may be scaling back its operations in Iran, the Wall Street Journal also reported on December 10, 2011, that ``Huawei, which has about 1,000 employees in Iran, said it plans to continue servicing its existing Iranian contracts.''
In light of these realities, I respectfully request that the newly created Atrocities Prevention Board to take up these matters at the earliest possible time. I look forward to your prompt response.
Best wishes.
Sincerely,
Frank R. Wolf,Member of Congress.
____________________
