New Senate Bill Would Add Equipment Security as Trade Policy Negotiating Objective

Senate Communications Subcommittee Chairman John Thune, R-S.D., introduced legislation on March 5 meant to make sure “U.S. communications infrastructure security is a clear negotiating objective of our country’s trade policy,” he said in a news release. “This legislation would ensure the security of equipment and technology that create the global communications infrastructure are front and center in our trade negotiations, because you can’t have free trade if the global digital infrastructure is compromised.”

The bill would update the 2015 Trade Promotion Authority “to include a negotiating objective related to the security of communications networks,” it said. “While the bill does not name specific state-owned companies, it would direct the executive branch to ensure that the equipment and technology that are used to create the global communications infrastructure are not compromised. It would achieve that goal by addressing barriers to the security of communications networks and supply chains and unfair trade practices of state-owned or state-controlled communications equipment suppliers in new trade agreements. Confronting these issues, which this legislation requires, is critical as the United States begins formal trade talks with the United Kingdom and other allies.”

U.S. telecom security should be “at the forefront” in negotiations on “future trade agreements” with the U.K. and other countries, Thune said during a March 4 subcommittee hearing. Center for Strategic and International Studies Technology Policy Program Director James Lewis said the Thune bill is “long overdue. It's essential. Of course, it should be part of the discussion with our allies and partners, and in fact in any trade agreement.”

Thune was among 20 senators who signed a recent letter urging the U.K. Parliament to “revisit” its partial ban of Huawei products from the country’s telecom infrastructure, “take steps to mitigate the risks of Huawei, and work in close partnership with the U.S. on such efforts.” Some Conservative members of Parliament are fomenting a revolt over the partial ban despite members of Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s Cabinet promising it will eventually move to phase out Huawei and other high-risk 5G equipment suppliers.

“We understand the challenges the U.K. faces regarding a lack of diverse, secure, and affordable suppliers,” Thune and the other senators wrote to the House of Commons. “These are challenges we also face here in the United States. However, the security and integrity of our telecommunications infrastructure cannot be compromised for convenience.” Other senators signing the letter include Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.; Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr, R-N.C.; ranking member Mark Warner, D-Va.; and seven other Commerce members. They are Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn.; Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.; Ted Cruz, R-Texas; Ed Markey, D-Mass.; Jerry Moran, R-Kan.; Rick Scott, R-Fla.; and Todd Young, R-Ind.

Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., and others questioned whether Ericsson, Nokia or others could be an effective equipment supplier alternative to Huawei. “The absence of a viable and affordable American or European alternative for end-to-end telecommunications components, including radios, chips, software, and devices, has enabled Huawei to increase its global influence,” Wicker said.

Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., pressed Ericsson North America Head of Security-Network Product Solutions Jason Boswell and Nokia Americas Chief Technology Officer Mike Murphy on whether their products made for U.S. use were manufactured or developed at the companies’ China-based facilities. Ericsson “doesn’t have production in China for the U.S. market,” Boswell said. “All of our software from a development standpoint funnels through Sweden,” and is scanned and verified. Nokia has a footprint in China but “no equipment that is manufactured in China” for U.S. use, Murphy said. Nokia conducts R&D in China and ensures its employees maintain the same ethical standards as those elsewhere.