Jim Sensenbrenner: “Mr. Chairman, if the civil and criminal law did not provide for sanctions against those who deliberately destroy…”

“Mr. Chairman, if the civil and criminal law did not provide for sanctions against those who deliberately destroy documents, I believe that the arguments of the gentlewoman from Texas would be valid. But they do. Adopting the amendment that she proposes will simply allow the trial lawyers to have another tool to game the system and to prevent the removal of cases that really should be removed as a result of the changes in the diversity of citizenship requirements that are contained in this bill. Let me point out that in many instances, the destruction of subpoenaed documents is a criminal obstruction of justice. The gentlewoman from Texas keeps on bringing up the case of Enron. There is a criminal investigation going on whether Enron and Arthur Andersen and other people who are involved in this obstructed justice by altering or destroying documents. I hope that that investigation is thorough, and, if there is probable cause to believe that such misconduct happened, that the Justice Department will seek indictment, prosecute those who are responsible, the jury will convict them, and I hope that the judge sentences them to jail for a long, long time, because destroying documents that are needed to fairly administer justice is something that cannot be tolerated, and it goes to the very heart of the ability of the courts to fairly mete out justice.”