The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in Room SD- 325, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Joseph Biden, chairman of the committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Biden, Kennedy, Metzenbaum, DeConcini, Leahy, Heflin, Simon, Kohl, Thurmond, Hatch, Simpson, Grassley, Specter and Brown.
SENATOR BIDEN: The hearing will come to order.
Let me ask the Capitol Hill Police that, if there is not absolute order and decorum in here, we will recess the hearing and those who engage in any outburst at all will be asked to leave the committee room.
Good morning, Judge.
Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee is meeting to hear evidence on sexual harassment charges that have been made against Judge Clarence Thomas, who has been nominated to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.
I want to speak very briefly about the circumstances that have caused us to convene these hearings. We are here today to hold open hearings on Professor Anita Hill's allegations concerning Judge Thomas. This committee's handling of her charges has been criticized. Professor Hill has made two requests to this committee: First, she has asked us to investigate her charges against Judge Thomas, and, second, she had asked that these charges remain confidential, that they not be made public and not shared with anyone beyond this committee. I believe that we have honored both of her requests.
Some have asked how could you have the United States Senate vote on Judge Thomas' nomination and leave Senators in the dark about Professor Hill's charges. To this, I answer, how can you expect us to have forced Professor Hill against her will into the blinding light which you see here today.
But I am deeply sorry that our actions in this respect have been seen by many across this country as a sign that this committee does not take the charge of sexual harassment seriously. We emphatically do.
I hope we all learn from the events of the past week. As one person who has spent the past two years attempting to combat violence of all kinds against women through legislative efforts, I can assure you that I take the charge of sexual harassment seriously.
The committee's ability to investigate and hold hearings on Professor Hill's charges has now dramatically changed by the events which forced Professor Hill, against her wishes, to publicly discuss these charges, the landscape has changed. We are, thus, here today free from the restrictions which had previously limited our work.
Sexual harassment is a serious matter and, in my view, any person guilty of this offense is unsuited to serve not only the Nation's highest court, but any position of responsibility, of high responsibility in or out of government. Sexual harassment of working women is an issue of national concern.
With that said, let me make clear that this is not, I emphasize, this is not a hearing about the extent and nature of sexual harassment in America. That question is for a different sort of meeting of this or any other committee.
This is a hearing convened for a specific purpose, to air specific allegations against one specific individual, allegations which may be true or may not be true.
Whichever may be the case, this hearing has not been convened to investigate the widespread problem, and it is indisputably widespread, the widespread problem of sexual harassment in this country.
Those watching these proceedings will see witnesses being sworn and testifying pursuant to a subpoena. But I want to emphasize that this is not a trial, this is not a court room. At the end of our proceedings, there will be no formal verdict of guilt or innocence, nor any finding of civil liability.
Because this is not a trial, the proceedings will not be conducted the way in which a sexual harassment trial would be handled in a court of law. For example, on the advice of the nonpartisan Senate Legal Counsel, the rules of evidence that apply in court rooms will not apply here today. Thus, evidence and questions that would not be permitted in the court of law must, under Senate rules, be allowed here.
This is as fact-finding hearing, and our purpose is to help our colleagues in the United States Senate determine whether Judge Thomas should be confirmed to the Supreme Court. We are not here, or at least I am not here to be an advocate for one side or the other with respect to the specific allegations which we will review, and it my hope and belief that my colleagues here today share that view.
Achieving fairness in the atmosphere in which these hearings are being held may be the most difficult task, at least I have ever undertaken in my close to 19 years in the United States Senate.
Each of us in this committee has already stated how he will vote on Judge Thomas' nomination. The committee, as the Senate rules require, has already voted in this committee on whether or not Judge Thomas should be on the court. Each of us has already said whether we think Judge Thomas should or should not be a Supreme Court Justice, for reasons related to or unrelated to charges we will listen to today.
In this setting, it will be easy and perhaps understandable for the witnesses to fear unfair treatment, but it is my job, as Chairman, to insure as best as I possibly can fair treatment, and that is what I intend to do, so let me make three ground rules clear for all of my colleagues:
First, while legal counsel sitting behind me has advised that the rules of evidence do not apply here, counsel has also advised the Chair that the Chair does have the power to rule out of order questions that are not relevant to our proceedings. Certain subject are simply irrelevant to the issue of harassment, namely, the private conduct out of the workplace relationships, and intimate lives and practices of Judge Thomas, Professor Hill and any other witness that comes before us.
Thus, as Chairman, I will not allow questions on matters totally irrelevant to our investigation of the professional relationship of Judge Thomas and any woman who has been employed by him.
The committee is not here to put Judge Thomas or Professor Hill on trial. I hope my colleagues will bear in mind that the best way to do our job is to ask questions that are non-judgmental and open-ended, in an attempt to avoid questions that badger and harass any witness.
Second, while I have less discretion than a judge in a trial to bar inappropriate or embarrassing questions, all of the witnesses should know that they have a right, under Senate Rule 26.5, to ask that the committee go into closed session, if a question requires an answer that is "a clear invasion of their right to privacy."
The committee will take very seriously the request of any witness to answer particularly embarrassing questions, as they view whether or not it is embarrassing, to answer those questions in private.
Third, the order of questioning: Because this is an extraordinary hearing, Democrats and Republicans have each taken the step of designating a limited number of Senators to question for the committee. On the Democratic side, our questioners will be Senators Heflin, Leahy and myself. As I understand it, on the Republican side, the questioners will be the ranking member, Senator Hatch and Senator Specter. That means making sure that we do not in any way mislead anyone as to the nature of the proceeding and how we will proceed.
In closing, I want to reiterate my view that the primary responsibility of this committee is fairness. That means making sure that we do not victimize any witness who appears here and that we treat every witness with respect. And without making any judgment about the specific witnesses we will hear from today, fairness means understanding what a victim of sexual harassment goes through, why victims often do not report such crimes, why they often believe that they should not or cannot leave their jobs.
Perhaps 14 men sitting here today cannot understand these things fully. I know there are many people watching today who suspect we never will understand, but fairness means doing our best to understand, no matter what we do or do not believe about the specific charges, that we are going to listen as closely as we can at these hearings.
Fairness also means that Judge Thomas must be given a full and fair opportunity to confront these charges against him, to respond fully, to tell us his side of the story and to be given the benefit of the doubt.
In the end, this hearing may resolve much or it may resolve little, but there are two things that cannot remain in doubt after this hearing is over: First, that the members of this committee are fair and have been fair to all witnesses; and, second, that we take sexual harassment as a very serious concern in this hearing and overall.
So, let us perform our duties with a full understanding of what I have said and of our responsibilities to the Senate, to the Nation and to the truth.
I yield now to my colleague from South Carolina.
SENATOR THURMOND: Mr. Chairman, we have taken the unusual step of reconvening this committee in order to consider further testimony regarding the nomination of Judge Clarence Thomas to be a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.
We are here this morning to attempt to discern the truth in some rather extraordinary allegations made against this nominee, and because Judge THomas has requested an opportunity to refute these allegations and restore his good name.
Mr. Chairman, before we begin, I want to emphasize that the charge of sexual harassment is a grave one and one that each Senator on this committee takes with the utmost seriousness. This is an issue of great sensitivity and there is no doubt in my mind that this is difficult for everyone involved.
Both Judge Thomas and Professor Hill find themselves in the unenviable position of having to discuss very personal matters in a very public forum. I want to assure them at the outset that they will be dealt with fairly. This will be an exceedingly uncomfortable process for us all, but a great deal hangs in the balance and our duty is clear, we must finds the truth.
I would like to commend Chairman Biden, who worked with me to insure that this hearing would be conducted fairly. After consulting with each member on my side, I have decided that Senator Hatch will conduct the questioning of Judge Thomas. I have also decided, after consultation, that Senator Specter will undertake the questioning of Professor Hill and the other witnesses. I reserve the privilege of propounding questions myself.
I want to make it clear that every Republican member of this committee has been deeply involved in this process from the day Judge Thomas was nominated by President Bush. However, in the interest of time and fairness to all the witnesses, I believe the procedures that have been outlined will work best for everyone involved.
Over one-hundred days ago, when President Bush nominated Judge Thomas, this committee undertook a thorough and far-reaching investigation of his background. That investigation turned up nothing questionable about the Judge, but, rather, showed him to be an individual of great character and accomplishment.
During the original confirmation hearings, this committee heard testimony from over 100 witnesses, both for and against the nomination. Not one of these witnesses, even those most bitterly opposed to this nomination, had one disparaging comment to make about Clarence Thomas' moral character. On the contrary, witness after witness spoke of the impeccable character, abiding honesty and consummate professionalism which Judge Thomas has shown throughout his career.
In conclusion, I want to comment briefly about the allegations that have been raised by Professor Hill. The alleged harassment she describes took place some 10 years ago. During that time, she continued to initiate contact with Judge Thomas in an apparently friendly manner. In addition, Professor Hill chose to publicize her allegations the day before the full Senate would have voted to confirm Judge Thomas.
While I fully intend to maintain an open mind during today's testimony, I must say that the timing of these statements raises a tremendous number of questions which must be dealt with, and I can assure all the witnesses that we shall be unstinting in our efforts to ascertain the truth.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SENATOR BIDEN: Thank you.
Now, before I swear Judge Thomas, I ask the police officer to go to the front of that door while Judge Thomas is speaking, and do not let anyone in or anyone out. He is entitled to absolute quiet in this room, no matter who it is that comes in.
Judge, would you stand to be sworn: Judge, do you swear to the truth the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, God?
JUDGE THOMAS: I do.
SENATOR BIDEN: Judge, do you have an opening statement? Please proceed.
[First Statement of Judge Thomas After Professor Hill's Allegations]
JUDGE THOMAS: Mr. Chairman, Senator Thurmond, members of the committee:
As excruciatingly difficult as the last two weeks have been, I welcome the opportunity to clear my name today. No one other than my wife and Senator Danforth, to whom I read this statement at 6:30 a.m., has seen or heard the statement, no handlers, no advisors.
The first I learned of the allegations by Professor Anita Hill was on September 25, 1991, when the FBI came to my home to investigate her allegations. When informed by the FBI agent of the nature of the allegations and the person making them, I was shocked, surprised, hurt and enormously saddened.
I have not been the same since that day. For almost a decade my responsibilities included enforcing the rights of victims of sexual harassment. As a boss, as a friend, and as a human being I was proud that I have never had such an allegation leveled against me, even as I sought to promote women, and minorities into non-traditional jobs.
In addition, several of my friends, who are women, have confided in me about the horror of harassment on the job, or elsewhere. I thought I really understood the anguish, the fears, the doubts, the seriousness of the matter. But since September 25th, I have suffered immensely as these very serious charges were leveled against me.
I have been racking my brains, and eating my insides out trying to think of what I could have said or done to Anita Hill to lead her to allege that I was interested in her in more than a professional way, and that I talked with her about pornographic or X-rated films.
Contrary to some press reports, I categorically denied all of the allegations and denied that I ever attempted to date Anita Hill, when first interviewed by the FBI. I strongly reaffirm that denial. Let me describe my relationship with Anita Hill.
In 1981, after I went to the Department of Education as an Assistant Secretary in the Office of Civil Rights, one of my closest friends, from both college and law school, Gil Hardy, brought Anita Hill to my attention. As I remember, he indicated that she was dissatisfied with her law firm and wanted to work in government. Based primarily, if not solely, on Gil's recommendation, I hired Anita Hill.
During my tenure at the Department of Education, Anita Hill was an attorney-advisor who worked directly with me. She worked on special projects, as well as day-to-day matters. As I recall, she was one of two professionals working directly with me at the time. As a result, we worked closely on numerous matters.
I recall being pleased with her work product and the professional, but cordial relationship which we enjoyed at work. I also recall engaging in discussions about politics and current events.
Upon my nomination to become Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Anita Hill, to the best of my recollection, assisted me in the nomination and confirmation process. After my confirmation, she and Diane Holt, then my secretary, joined me at EEOC. I do not recall that there was any question or doubts that she would become a special assistant to me at EEOC, although as a career employee she retained the option of remaining at the Department of Education.
At EEOC our relationship was more distant. And our contacts less frequent, as a result of the increased size of my personal staff and the dramatic increase and diversity of my day-to-day responsibilities.
Upon reflection, I recall that she seemed to have had some difficulty adjusting to this change in her role. In any case, our relationship remained both cordial and professional. At no time did I become aware, either directly or indirectly that she felt I had said, or done anything to change the cordial nature of our relationship.
I detected nothing from her or from my staff, or from Gil Hardy, our mutual friend, with whom I maintained regular contact. I am certain that had any statement or conduct on my part been brought to my attention, I would remember it clearly because of the nature and seriousness of such conduct, as well as my adamant opposition to sex discrimination sexual harassment. But there were no such statements.
In the spring of 1983, Mr. Charles Cothey contacted me to speak at the law school at Oral Roberts University in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Anita Hill, who is from Oklahoma, accompanied me on that trip. It was not unusual that individuals on my staff would travel with me occasionally. Anita Hill accompanied me on that trip primarily because this was an opportunity to combine business and a visit to her home.
As I recall, during our visit at Oral Roberts University, Mr. Cothey mentioned to me the possibility of approaching Anita Hill to join the faculty at Oral Roberts University Law School. I encouraged him to do so. I noted to him, as I recall, that Anita Hill would do well in teaching. I recommended her highly and she eventually was offered a teaching position.
Although I did not see Anita Hill often after she left EEOC, I did see her on one or two subsequent visits to Tulsa, Oklahoma. And on one visit I believe she drove me to the airport. I also occasionally received telephone calls from her. She would speak directly with me or with my secretary, Diane Holt. Since Anita Hill and Diane Holt had been with me at the Department of Education they were fairly close personally and I believe they occasionally socialized together.
I would also hear about her through Linda Jackson, then Linda Lambert, whom both Anita Hill and I met at the Department of Education. And I would hear of her from my friend Gil.
Throughout the time that Anita Hill worked with me I treated her as I treated my other special assistants. I tried to treat them all cordially, professionally, and respectfully. And I tried to support them in their endeavors, and be interested in and supportive of their success.
I had no reason or basis to believe my relationship with Anita Hill was anything but this way until the FBI visited me a little more than two weeks ago. I find it particularly troubling that she never raised any hint that she was uncomfortable with me. She did not raise or mention it when considering moving with me to EEOC from the Department of Education. And she never raised it with me when she left EEOC and was moving on in her life.
And to my fullest knowledge, she did not speak to any other women working with or around me, who would feel comfortable enough to raise it with me, especially Diane Holt, to whom she seemed closest on my personal staff. Nor did she raise it with mutual friends, such as Linda Jackson, and Gil Hardy.
This is a person I have helped at every turn in the road, since we met. She seemed to appreciate the continued cordial relationship we had since day one. She sought my advice and counsel, as did virtually all of the members of my personal staff.
During my tenure in the executive branch as a manager, as a policy maker and as a person, I have adamantly condemned sex harassment. There is no member of this committee or this Senate who feels stronger about sex harassment than I do. As a manager, I made every effort to take swift and decisive action when sex harassment raised or reared its ugly head.
The fact that I feel so very strongly about sex harassment and spoke loudly about it at EEOC has made these allegations doubly hard on me. I cannot imagine anything that I said or did to Anita Hill that could have been mistaken for sexual harassment.
But with that said, if there is anything that I have said that has been misconstrued by Anita Hill or anyone else, to be sexually harassment, then I can say that I am so very sorry and I wish I had known. If I did know I would have stopped immediately and I would not, as I have done over the past two weeks, had to tear away at myself trying to think of what I could possibly have done. But I have not said or done the things that Anita Hill has alleged. God has gotten me through the days since September 25th and he is my judge. Mr. Chairman, something has happened to me in the dark days that have followed since the FBI agents informed me about these allegations. And the days have grown darker, as this very serious, very explosive, and very sensitive allegation or these sensitive allegations were selectively leaked, in a distorted way to the media over the past weekend.
As if the confidential allegations, themselves, were not enough, this apparently calculated public disclosure has caused me, my family, and my friends enormous pain and great harm.
I have never, in all my life, felt such hurt, such pain, such agony. My family and I have been done a grave and irreparable injustice. During the past two weeks, I lost the belief that if I did my best all would work out. I called upon the strength that helped me get here from Pin Point, and it was all sapped out of me. It was sapped out of me because Anita Hill was a person I considered a friend, whom I admired and thought I had treated fairly and with the utmost respect. Perhaps I could have better weathered this if it were from someone else, but here was someone I truly felt I had done my best with.
Though I am, by no means, a perfect person, no means, I have not done what she has alleged, and I still do not know what I could possibly have done to cause her to make these allegations.
When I stood next to the President in Kennebunkport, being nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States, that was a high honor. But as I sit here, before you, 103 days later, that honor has been crushed. From the very beginning charges were leveled against me from the shadows--charges of drug abuse, anti- semitism, wife-beating, drug use by family members, that I was a quota appointment, confirmation conversion and much, much more, and now, this.
I have complied with the rules. I responded to a document request that produced over 30,000 pages of documents. And I have testified for five full days, under oath. I have endured this ordeal for 103 days. Reporters sneaking into my garage to examine books I read. Reporters and interest groups swarming over divorce papers, looking for dirt. Unnamed people starting preposterous and damaging rumors. Calls all over the country specifically requesting dirt. This is not American. This is Kafka-esque. It has got to stop. It must stop for the benefit of future nominees, and our country. Enough is enough.
I am not going to allow myself to be further humiliated in order to be confirmed. I am here specifically to respond to allegations of sex harassment in the work place. I am not here to be further humiliated by this committee, or anyone else, or to put my private life on display for a prurient interest or other reasons. I will not allow this committee or anyone else to probe into my private life. This is not what America is all about.
To ask me to do that would be to ask me to go beyond fundamental fairness. Yesterday, I called my mother. She was confined to her bed, unable to work and unable to stop crying. Enough is enough.
Mr. Chairman, in my 43 years on this earth, I have been able, with the help of others and with the help of God, to defy poverty, avoid prison, overcome segregation, bigotry, racism, and obtain one of the finest educations available in this country. But I have not been able to overcome this process. This is worse than any obstacle or anything that I have ever faced. Throughout my life I have been energized by the expectation and the hope that in this country I would be treated fairly in all endeavors. When there was segregation I hoped there would be fairness one day or some day. When there was bigotry and prejudice I hoped that there would be tolerance and understanding some day.
Mr. Chairman, I am proud of my life, proud of what I have done, and what I have accomplished, proud of my family, and this process, this process is trying to destroy it all. No job is worth what I have been through, no job. No horror in my life has been so debilitating. Confirm me if you want, don't confirm me if you are so led, but let this process end. Let me and my family regain our lives. I never asked to be nominated. It was an honor. Little did I know the price, but it is too high.
I enjoy and appreciate my current position, and I am comfortable with the prospect of returning to my work as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and to my friends there.
Each of these positions is public service, and I have given at the office. I want my life and my family's life back and I want them returned expeditiously.
I have experienced the exhilaration of new heights from the moment I was called to Kennebunkport by the President to have lunch and he nominated me. That was the high point. At that time I was told eye-to-eye that, Clarence, you made it this far on merit, the rest is going to be politics and it surely has been. There have been other highs. The out-pouring of support from my friends of long-standing, a bonding like I have never experienced with my old boss, Senator Danforth, the wonderful support of those who have worked with me.
There have been prayers said for my family, and me, by people I know and people I will never meet, prayers that were heard and that sustained not only me, but also my wife and my entire family. Instead of understanding and appreciating the great honor bestowed upon me, I find myself, here today defending my name, my integrity, because somehow select portions of confidential documents, dealing with this matter were leaked to the public.
Mr. Chairman, I am a victim of this process and my name has been harmed, my integrity has been harmed, my character has been harmed, my family has been harmed, my friends have been harmed. There is nothing this committee, this body or this country can do to give me my good name back, nothing.
I will not provide the rope for my own lynching or for further humiliation. I am not going to engage in discussions, nor will I submit to roving questions of what goes on in the most intimate parts of my private live or the sanctity of my bedroom. These are the most intimate parts of my privacy, and they will remain just that, private.