We are here today to address a serious breach in corporate integrity – the destruction of documents by an accounting firm bearing on the corporate wrongdoing of its client during a time the accounting wrongdoing was at issue in the press and a matter of regulatory attention. This destruction was criminally stupid, or stupidly criminal.

Why were senior Arthur Andersen employees especially reminded by their lawyers to implement their document retention policy – in other words, to get rid of paper – just as concerns about Enron’s accounting were reaching a fever pitch? Why didn’t Arthur Andersen’s litigation attorney or its outside litigation counsel send Andersen’s Enron team a memo on October 22 – the day Enron announced an SEC inquiry – and tell them to retain all documents? Mr. Berardino, who refused to testify today, told us Sunday on "Meet the Press" that Andersen’s policy was to do so. Yet Ms. Temple did not write such a memo until November 10, after Andersen received a subpoena.

Why did Arthur Andersen management let it happen? Why did anyone at Arthur Andersen in their right mind think that document destruction when an SEC inquiry involving accounting practices was underway was appropriate? Was that the real Andersen policy, which is what company officials told our staff in interviews?

Today we start to learn what happened. Today we start the process of holding people accountable. Today we start to determine what tough action is required to prevent this kind of affront to our system of laws from ever happening again. And if these witnesses can’t tell us, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from those who can.

I also look forward to additional hearings on the accounting skullduggery that flourished. How should all of these shadowy special partnerships have been disclosed? How did Arthur Andersen’s overlapping roles as outside and inside auditors, and its conflicting roles as auditor and consultant, hurt full and fair disclosure? How did the lack of transparency, accountability, and enforcement for the accounting industry enable the Enron shell game to go undiscovered? How has the additional legal protection given the accounting industry by Congress over President Clinton’s veto hurt the ability of victims to seek redress?

What happened here? Are Arthur Andersen’s document destruction, and accounting shenanigans, a matter of individual conceit – wayward individuals intent on protecting their careers? Are these a matter of corporate conceit – a company thinking it was above the law? Are these a matter of industry conceit – an industry thinking that its powerful political patrons would protect it once again?

I look forward to a most vigorous hearing, and the continuation and expansion of a most vigorous investigation.