FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, Sept. 28, 2006
Contact: In DC - Brandon MacGillis (202) 225-4431
In CO - Chris Arend (303) 844-4988 
 
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Representative Diana DeGette (D-CO) released her prepared remarks to the Hewlett-Packard Pretexting hearing.

“Over the past few years we have experienced major corporate scandals in this country.  At companies like Enron and WorldCom, Americans witnessed corporate executives break the law to enrich themselves at the expense of their customers and shareholders.

“This Committee held multiple hearings on these corporate abuses.  I was proud to be a Member during that time, as we helped shine a light on corporate excess and pave the way for reform.  And, while the specific issues before us are different, I expect that we can play that same role again as we continue our series of hearings on “pretexting,” this time in the corporate context.

“The corporate context of pretexting we will be talking about today involves Hewlett-Packard, or H-P.  It is indeed a very sad day for this very proud company.  H-P is a company of iconic stature both here in the U.S., and frankly around the world.   In fact, as I look around this room, there are many products – from the computers to PDA’s to monitors to printers – all bearing the H-P name. 

“This company -- as we all know -- was started in a small garage in the Silicon Valley and grew to one of the nation’s largest employers.  We all know the story.  We all know about how proud many should be about what H-P became over the years.

“But Mr. Chairman, something has gone wrong -- terribly wrong -- at this once venerated institution. 

“I begin my statement by talking about the positive aspects of H-P because what we say here and what we do here will affect the lives of tens of thousands of the company’s workers, and it is my opinion that they frankly do not deserve the wrath --- or taint -- that has been brought on them or this company’s name by the actions of a few.  

“Unfortunately, though, what we will hear about today is one of the darker chapters of corporate chicanery this committee has seen in quite some time.  And sadly, it is unavoidable, but the H-P name is at the center of it.

“Let me be clear, Mr. Chairman, this is no Enron.  I believe that at the heart of H-P’s operations you will find a good product and a good workforce.  You will also find some of the best traits of American business, namely entrepreneurship and competitive innovation.  It is precisely because this company’s now sullied reputation is reversible, that explains why we need to have this hearing.  Indeed, it is because H-P is not Enron, that we need to find out what happened and who’s accountable. 

“Mr. Chairman, this hearing is about more than sorting through the mess that has sullied the HP name; 

“It is about more than how the “H-P Way” became synonymous with digging through people’s trash, setting up bogus emails (approved at the highest levels of the company) and stinging unsuspecting reporters; 

“It is about more than how a computer company suddenly found itself in the business of trailing and photographing board Members across the globe or surveilling journalists using ex-FBI agents who sat in cars and watched as if their subjects were busy making truck bombs; 

“It is about more than how a company that purportedly respects electronic privacy found itself using deception and subterfuge to procure -- and then rummage through -- the private phone records of Americans (in some cases, their Social Security numbers given out to the world as well).

“Mr. Chairman, what this hearing is about is this Committee’s attempt to sort through a dark chapter of corporate governance so that shareholders and the existing employees themselves can judge and determine who should be entrusted to continue making key decisions which may affect H-P’s survival.

Understanding what happened here has not been easy.  We have reviewed thousands of documents and countless reports.  We have spent endless amounts of time working with the many lawyers who now represent the key players in this scandal.  But unfortunately, many who we would have liked to have spoken to about this matter before this hearing, have not made themselves available for interviews.  Nonetheless, we have formulated a number of key questions that, again, I believe shareholders, current H-P employees -- and victims of certain tactics -- deserve answers to.  These include the following:

“Why were such marginal methods used in this investigation and who approved them and who knew about them (and when)? 

“Have such tactics been used before (if so where) and will they ever be used again by H-P?  What assurances will the company give us that they will not? 

“For those that did approve them, what was their justification and did such approval show good judgment?

“Where was the legal and ethical guardians of HP’s corporate interest when all of this was happening and whose job was it to steer the ship clear of the icebergs?  For example, was it not a red flag when discussions were occurring about using fraud and deception to obtain third-party phone records from journalists?  Was it not a red-flag when discussions were broached about even the possibility of placing janitors -- or fake employees -- in news organizations such as the Wall Street Journal or CNET to engage in spying?  Was it not a red flag when covert teams began photographing board members or tracking their wives to bingo parlors or reporters to their children’s schools? 

“I am very concerned about the judgment that went into these decisions and why with a company of H-P’s sophistication, nobody -- neither the board, nor its CEO, nor its General Counsel, nor its outside counsel had the common sense to say “NO, this is not the ‘H-P Way.’”

“Finally, Mr. Chairman, as concerned as I am about who MAY have known about these things, and didn’t say “NO,” I am perhaps even more concerned about those who apparently now claim they DIDN’T know about these things.  I frankly, can’t understand how the entire board of directors  -- all of them potential targets of a renegade HP spy ring – the CEO, or the General Counsel saw or knew little when it came to perhaps the most sensitive investigations ever conducted at the company.  In sum, Mr. Chairman, who was on the bridge -- or at the helm -- when the HP hit the iceberg?  Apparently nobody.

“Mr. Chairman, I will conclude by saying that I look forward to obtaining answers at today’s hearing and allowing the witnesses to hopefully set the record straight.  But it is my prediction, that much of what we will hear today will be a “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” set of answers.  If that occurs, it really will be in the hands of shareholders and victimized employees to take the helm and put this once proud and distinctive ship back on course.”

# # #