[Continuation of Questioning of Professor Hill]
SENATOR BIDEN: Welcome back. Now again we are waiting to hear from Judge Thomas, whether he wishes to--I know there are a few people in the press who are anxious to know what the schedule will be for tonight.
I have made a commitment, I think it is only fair, that Judge Thomas can come on whenever he wishes after Professor Hill finishes. He has not made that decision, whether he wishes that to occur tonight or not. If he wishes it to occur tonight, we will go tonight and we will go as long as is appropriate or is reasonable, and I can't guess what that would be at this moment.
So I apologize to those who are trying to set their schedules but again, as I said, this is not a trial. This is a fact-finding mission, and we are going to be as fair as we can to all parties.
Now let me suggest that, as it appears now, we have, Professor Hill, two more principal questioners who will question you roughly a half-hour apiece. Then we are going to yield, as I indicated at the outset, to any of our colleagues who wish to ask up to five minutes. It is my sincere hope that they will have concluded, that all the questions that they wish to have asked will have been asked.
So we will be a minimum of another hour and a maximum of another hour and 40 minutes or thereabouts. We will then break for dinner. If Judge Thomas wishes to come back, we will break for roughly 45 minutes to an hour for dinner. If he does not wish to come back, we will just recess until tomorrow morning, and we will have to decide on the time when I speak to the ranking member, whether it is 9 or 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.
I can see my friend from Wyoming seeking recognition.
SENATOR SIMPSON: Mr. Chairman, I think that all should be aware that I feel rather positive that Judge Thomas does want to be here this evening. Whether it can be concluded or not, I don't know, but--
SENATOR BIDEN: I guarantee that he will be, then.
SENATOR SIMPSON: I know you will be fair. I know you will be.
SENATOR BIDEN: So thank you for your patience, Professor Hill, and for everyone else's. Let us now turn to the Senator from Vermont, Senator Leahy.
SENATOR LEAHY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Professor Hill, let me go back to some of the areas we were leaving, and I would like to refer first to a comment just made by the Chairman, and then I want to go into a couple of the questions by Senator Specter.
The Chairman said, and quite rightly, that this is not a trial. We are not having a trial on whether sexual harassment under the statute was fulfilled or not, and whether or not the statute of limitations failed or not. We are trying to find what the facts are.
And with that in mind, I go to the questions Senator Specter was asking you, and he talked about whether you had called this sexual harassment in your FBI statements. In your Norman, Oklahoma, October 7th press conference you were asked, "Professor Hill, you said that you did not describe this as sexual harassment in your FBI statement." You answered, "I described the incidents. I did not use the term `sexual harassment.'"
Let me go, if I might--and please just bear with me a couple of minutes on this--let me go to your earlier statement today, sworn statement. You talked of Judge Thomas calling you into his office and then saying, and I quote from your statement on page 3, "After a brief discussion of work, he would turn the conversation to discussions of sexual matters. His conversations were very vivid. He spoke about acts that he had seen in pornographic films involving such matters as women having sex with animals and films showing group sex or rape scenes. He talked about pornographic materials depicting individuals with large penises or large breasts involved in various sex acts."
Now without saying whether you felt that fulfilled a specific statutory definition of harassment, tell us in your own words, Professor Hill, after one of those conversations, how did you feel?
MS. HILL: I was embarrassed. I found this talk offensive, completely offensive. It was--I made the point that it was offensive and it was something that was thrust upon me. It was not something that I voluntarily entered into and, therefore, it was even more offensive. It was--just the nature of the conversation was very offensive and disgusting, and degrading.
SENATOR LEAHY: Without going into a statutory description of what is or is not sexual harassment, how did you feel after--and I quote from your statement, "on several occasions Thomas told me graphically of his own sexual prowess."
How did you feel then?
MS. HILL: That was really embarrassing because I thought it even personalized it more to the individual who I was looking at. I mean it is one thing to hear about something that someone has seen, but it is another thing to be face-to-face with an individual who is describing to you things that they have done and that was very embarrassing and offensive and I did not like it. I felt, I just, it was just, I mean it is hard for me to describe. It just made me feel very bad about the whole situation.
SENATOR LEAHY: And on page five, without repeating it again, you spoke of his discussions he had had with you, himself and other women, is that correct?
MS. HILL: Yes.
SENATOR LEAHY: Professor Hill you spoke of us all being lawyers and we read the statute and the code words of the statute, let me just ask you one more time, did you consider that as least as it involved you, harassment?
MS. HILL: Yes, I did.
SENATOR LEAHY: Thank you.
Now, Professor, we have spoken in other questions of phone logs. Have you seen the phone logs that Senator Danforth released; I believe the New York Times and the Washington Post and others have had articles about it?
MS. HILL: Yes, I have seen that.
SENATOR LEAHY: Now, you left EEOC in 1983, is that correct?
MS. HILL: Yes.
SENATOR LEAHY: Judge Thomas left EEOC in 1990, is that correct?
MS. HILL: As far as I recall.
SENATOR LEAHY: Approximately seven years in there?
MS. HILL: Yes.
SENATOR LEAHY: Count up the phone calls that are shown on those phone logs, assuming that they are accurate, and that amounts to, in the seven years, what a dozen phone calls?
MS. HILL: I think they were described as 10-to-12 or 10-to-11 phone calls.
SENATOR LEAHY: About one and a half per year?
MS. HILL: Yes.
SENATOR LEAHY: So assuming those phone logs are accurate, you were not exactly beating down the doors with phone calls there, were you?
MS. HILL: I was not at all.
SENATOR LEAHY: Now, there was a question of Mr. Doggett and do you have any strong and clear recollection of Mr. Doggett at all?
MS. HILL: No, not at all.
SENATOR LEAHY: If you were asked to, would you be able to accurately describe him?
MS. HILL: I could not with any specificity describe him. I think I remember him as being tall.
SENATOR LEAHY: It happens to a lot of us.
Who was the legal counsel at EEOC when you started there in the spring of '82?
MS. HILL: Legal counsel was Constance Dupree.
SENATOR LEAHY: Beg your pardon?
MS. HILL: The legal counsel was, I believe, Constance Dupree at the EEOC.
SENATOR LEAHY: Did there come a time when there was a change made in this position? After you went to EEOC?
MS. HILL: After I went to the EEOC, I believe she retired from the Government service altogether, but she left that position.
SENATOR LEAHY: Was it a short time after you arrived, a long time after you arrived, do you recall?
MS. HILL: Oh, I believe it was about mid-way, maybe four or five months, it may have been shorter than that.
SENATOR LEAHY: Who became legal counsel then, do you recall?
MS. HILL: I do not recall the individual's name.
SENATOR LEAHY: Now, in one of the interviews this morning a witness stated--and it was an interview where you have not seen the transcript but both the Republican and Democratic counsel were there--and they said that you had expressed your desire to have the legal counsel's position. Had you done that, had you expressed such a desire at the time that the vacancy occurred, the one you just described?
MS. HILL: No. I did not express any desire for that position. I had no desire for such a position. I was just new to the EEOC.
SENATOR LEAHY: So did you have conversations with an Armstrong Williams about getting that job, the job of legal counsel?
MS. HILL: No, I did not.
SENATOR LEAHY: And you do not recall applying for the job of legal counsel?
MS. HILL: I did not.
SENATOR LEAHY: Thank you.
Senator Specter questioned you at some length about following Judge Thomas from the Department of Education to the EEOC, is that correct?
MS. HILL: Yes, that is correct.
SENATOR LEAHY: And am I correct in restating your testimony that those conversations, which you now describe as--just during these questions--have described as harassment, those conversations began at the Department of Education, is that correct?
MS. HILL: Yes, that is correct.
SENATOR LEAHY: But notwithstanding that, you went to the EEOC when Judge Thomas went there?
MS. HILL: Yes.
SENATOR LEAHY: Do you recall prior to going to the EEOC, how long before that had been the last conversation of the nature that you have described here with Judge Thomas, of those conversations that you found offensive, how long prior to your transfer had one of those occurred?
MS. HILL: I would say four months or so, about four months.
SENATOR LEAHY: Some time, in fact.
MS. HILL: Some time.
SENATOR LEAHY: Now, did anybody tell you that you could stay and have a job at the Department of Education?
MS. HILL: Nobody told me that.
SENATOR LEAHY: Had President Reagan pledged and campaigned on such a pledge that he would do away with the Department of Education, if elected?
MS. HILL: Yes, he had and that was the understanding within the Department, itself. The individuals who were working in the Department understood that to be the case.
SENATOR LEAHY: And President Reagan was then President?
MS. HILL: Yes, he was.
SENATOR LEAHY: And nobody told you that there would be a job in the Department of Education where you could still work in civil rights, is that correct?
MS. HILL: Nobody told me that.
SENATOR LEAHY: But you did want to work in civil rights, according to your testimony?
MS. HILL: Yes, I did.
SENATOR LEAHY: Now, walk me through again, please what was the nature of the job that would be available to you at EEOC, how did you hear about it, what did you do to apply for it and so forth?
MS. HILL: I did not apply for it. I heard about it from Judge Thomas. He indicated to me that I could go with him to the EEOC and I would have the same type of position that I had at the Department of Education.
SENATOR LEAHY: And that was?
MS. HILL: That of a special assistant who would be working directly under him, advising him on a number of projects and issues that came up.
SENATOR LEAHY: Now, Professor Hill, you have told us of the conversations. In answer to questions today you have elaborated even on the statement that you gave us early on, is that correct?
MS. HILL: Yes, I have.
SENATOR LEAHY: Is there anything you would change, either in your statement of your answers that you have given us today about the kinds of conversations that you had with Judge Thomas that you say were so offensive?
MS. HILL: No, sir, I would not change anything.
SENATOR LEAHY: How did you feel the time that you had those conversations?
MS. HILL: During the time that I had those conversations I was very depressed. I was embarrassed by the type and the content of the conversations. I was concerned about whether or not I could continue in my position.
SENATOR LEAHY: Now, that was years ago. As you recount them today, how do you feel today?
MS. HILL: Today I feel more angry about the situation. Having looked at it with hindsight I think it was very irresponsible for an individual in the position of the kind of authority as was Mr. Thomas, at the time, to engage in that kind of a conduct. It was not only irresponsible, in my opinion, it was in violation of the law. Now, I am much more divorced from it. I am less embarrassed by the fact that I went through that, after having gone through what I have gone through now, I am less embarrassed by it. It is still embarrassing. It is embarrassing that I did not say anything, but I am angrier about it and I think that it needs to be addressed by this committee.
SENATOR LEAHY: Do you have anything to gain by coming here? Has anybody promised you anything by coming forth with this story now?
MS. HILL: I have nothing to gain. No one has promised me anything. I have nothing to gain here. This has been disruptive of my life and I have taken a number of personal risks. I have been threatened and I have not gained anything except knowing that I came forward and did what I felt that I had an obligation to do and that was to tell the truth.
SENATOR LEAHY: And my last question, would your life be simpler, quieter, far more private had you never come forth at all?
MS. HILL: Yes. Norman, Oklahoma is a much simpler, quieter place than this room today.
SENATOR LEAHY: I have a good friend in Norman, Oklahoma and I have actually visited Norman, Oklahoma and I agree with you.
Mr. Chairman, that is all I have.
SENATOR BIDEN: Thank you.
SENATOR THURMOND: Senator Specter, do you want to proceed?
SENATOR SPECTER: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
When my time expired we were up to the contact you had with Mr. Brudney on September 9th. If you could proceed from there to recount who called you and what those conversations consisted of as it led to your coming forward to the committee?
MS. HILL: Well, we discussed a number of different issues. We discussed one, what he knew about the law on sexual harassment. We discussed what he knew about the process for bringing information forward to the committee. And in the course of our conversations Mr. Brudney asked me what were specifics about what it was that I had experienced. In addition, we talked about the process for going forward. What might happen if I did bring information to the committee. That included that an investigation might take place, that I might be questioned by the committee in closed session. It even included something to the effect that the information might be presented to the candidate or to the White House. There was some indication that the candidate or, excuse me, the nominee might not wish to continue the process.
SENATOR SPECTER: Mr. Brudney said to you that the nominee, Judge Thomas, might not wish to continue the process if you came forward with a statement on the factors which you have testified about?
MS. HILL: Well, I am not sure that that is exactly what he said. I think what he said was, depending on an investigation, a Senate, whether the Senate went into closed session and so forth, it might be that he might not wish to continue the process.
SENATOR SPECTER: So Mr. Brudney did tell you that Judge Thomas might not wish to continue to go forward with his nomination, if you came forward?
MS. HILL: Yes.
SENATOR SPECTER: Isn't that somewhat different from your testimony this morning?
MS. HILL: My testimony this morning involved my response to this USA newspaper report and the newspaper report suggested that by making the allegations that that would be enough that the candidate would quietly and somehow withdraw from the process. So, no, I do not believe that it is at variance. We talked about a number of different options. But it was never suggested that just by alleging incidents that that might, that that would cause the nominee to withdraw.
SENATOR SPECTER: Well, what more could you do than make allegations as to what you said occurred?
MS. HILL: I could not do any more but this body could.
SENATOR SPECTER: Well, but I am now looking at your distinguishing what you have just testified to from what you testified to this morning. And this morning I had asked you about just one sentence from the USA Today news, "Anita Hill was told by Senate Staffers that her signed affidavit alleging sexual harassment by Clarence Thomas would be the instrument that quietly and behind the scenes would force him to withdraw his name."
And now you are testifying that Mr. Brudney said that if you came forward and made representations as to what you said happened between you and Judge Thomas, that Judge Thomas might withdraw his nomination?
MS. HILL: I guess, Senator, the difference in what you are saying and what I am saying is that that quote seems to indicate that there would be no intermediate steps in the process. What we were talking about was process. What could happen along the way. What were the possibilities? Would there be a full hearing? Would there be questioning from the FBI? Would there be questioning by some individual members of the Senate?
We were not talking about or even speculating that simply alleging this would cause someone to withdraw.
SENATOR SPECTER: Well, if your answer now turns on process, all I can say is that it would have been much shorter had you said, at the outset, that Mr. Brudney told you that if you came forward Judge Thomas might withdraw. That is the essence as to what occurred.
MS. HILL: No, it is not. I think we differ on our interpretation of what I said.
SENATOR SPECTER: Well, what am I missing here?
SENATOR KENNEDY: Mr. Chairman, can we let the witness speak in her own words, rather than having words put in her mouth?
SENATOR SPECTER: Mr. Chairman, I object to that. I object to that vociferously. I am asking questions here. If Senator Kennedy has anything to say let him participate in this hearing.
SENATOR BIDEN: Now, let everybody calm down. Professor Hill, give your interpretation to what was asked by Senator Specter. And then he can ask you further questions.
MS. HILL: My interpretation--
SENATOR THURMOND: Speak into the microphone, so we can hear you.
MS. HILL: I understood Mr. Specter's question to be what kinds of conversation did I have regarding this information. I was attempting, in talking to the staff, to understand how the information would be used, what I would have to do, what might be the outcome of such a use. We talked about a number of possibilities, but there was never any indication that, by simply making these allegations, the nominee would withdraw from the process. No one ever said that and I did not say that anyone ever said that.
We talked about the form that the statement would come in, we talked about the process that might be undertaken post-statement, and we talked about the possibilities of outcomes, and included in that possibility of outcome was that the committee could decide to review the point and that the nomination, the vote could continue, as it did.
SENATOR SPECTER: So that, at some point in the process, Judge Thomas might withdraw?
MS. HILL: Again, I would have to respectfully say that is not what I said. That was one of the possibilities, but it would not come from a simple, my simply making an allegation.
SENATOR SPECTER: Professor Hill, is that what you meant, when you said earlier, as best I could write it down, that you would control it, so it would not get to this point?
MS. HILL: Pardon me?
SENATOR SPECTER: Is that what you meant, when you responded earlier to Senator Biden, that the situation would be controlled "so that it would not get to this point in the hearings"?
MS. HILL: Of the public hearing. In entering into these conversations with the staff members, what I was trying to do was control this information, yes, so that it would not get to this point.
SENATOR SPECTER: Thank you very much.
SENATOR BIDEN: Thank you, Senator.
Now, Professor Hill, with your continued indulgence, what we will do is, I will yield to my colleagues, alternating, and limit their questions to 5 minutes, if I may, and I would begin with my friend from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy.
SENATOR KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will just take a moment.
I know this has been an extraordinary long day for you, Professor Hill, and it obviously has been for Judge Thomas, as well, and I know for your family. I just want to pay tribute to both your courage in this whole procedure and for your eloquence and for the dignity with which you have conducted yourself, and, as is quite clear, from observing your comments, for the anguish and pain which you have had to experience today in sharing with millions of Americans. This has been a service and we clearly have to make a judgment. It certainly I think has been a very important service.
Let me just say, as far as I am concerned, I think it has been enormously important to millions of Americans. I do not think that this country is ever going to look at sexual harassment the same tomorrow as it has any time in its past. If we are able to make some progress on it, I think history books will show that, to a very important extent, it is because of your action.
The viciousness of harassment is real, it is experienced by millions of people as a form of sex discrimination, and I think all of us are hopeful that we can make progress on it, and I just want you to know that I believe that you have made an important contribution, if we do.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MS. HILL: Thank you.
SENATOR BIDEN: Thank you, Senator.
Senator Thurmond?
SENATOR THURMOND: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I appointed Senator Specter to question Professor Hill and those supporting her, so I will now yield my time to him.
SENATOR SPECTER: Well, with an additional yielding, Mr. Chairman, I would just join in thanking Professor Hill for coming forwards. I would join in the comment that this proceeding has been illuminating to tell America what is the law on sexual harassment. That is something which had not been known and, from what I have heard in the last few days, there has been a lot of change in conduct in the workplace in this country.
I just would have wished, in retrospect, that we had done this earlier and that this educational process had not come in this forum on a Supreme Court nominee at this stage. But you have answered the questions and I join in thanking you for that.
MS. HILL: Thank you.
SENATOR BIDEN: Senator Metzenbaum.
SENATOR METZENBAUM: Ms. Hill, I could not help but think of my own four daughters, as you sat there, and thought to myself how much courage and commitment and concern, but even more, the valor to come before the United States Senate and speak out in areas so sensitive, and I am sure so difficult for you to talk about.
I do not know what impact your testimony will have on the confirmation process, but I know that your testimony will have a tremendous impact on this Nation from henceforth. The women of this country, I am certain, owe you a fantastic debt of gratitude for bringing this issue of sexual harassment to the fore.
But as one of those 98 men in the United States Senate, I think I speak for all of us when I say we owe you a debt of gratitude, as well, for bringing this issue up to the fore, in a more striking, more sympathetic, more concerned manner than ever before. I think you have made this Nation, men and women alike, more enlightened, more aware, more sensitive, and the Nation will never be the same, thanks to you.
Thank you.
SENATOR BIDEN: There will be order in the chamber. I am serious when I say that, any outburst at all, no matter how small, will result in police removing whomever does it from the chamber.
Senator Hatch?
SENATOR HATCH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have been pleased to sit here and listen today, and I just want to say one thing, that I apologize to you on behalf of our committee that you had to be heard under these circumstances, because had the committee considered this matter--and I have to say that Chairman Biden and ranking member Thurmond, when they heard about this the first time, they immediately ordered this FBI investigation, which was the very right thing to do, it was the appropriate thing to do and they did what every other chairman and ranking member have done in the past, and the investigation was done and it was as good investigation.
Then Chairman Biden notified everybody on his side and many of us were notified, as well. Any member of the committee, before we voted, could have put this over for a week for consideration, if they were concerned. Any member could have insisted on at least an executive session, where neither of you would have had to have appeared in public, or any member could have insisted on an open session. The committee could have voted.
These FBI reports are extremely important and they have raw data, raw information. They take down what people tell them and that is why they are not to be leaked to the press or anywhere else, and that is why these rules are so important. And had an appropriate, fair procedure been followed, you would not have been dragged through the media and through all of these other things that both of you have been dragged through, that both of you have suffered from, as you have.
I have to say that I hope I never see that happen again to anybody in any confirmation proceeding on the Hill, let alone a confirmation for a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
Having said that, I wish you well and I won't make any further comments at this time.
SENATOR BIDEN: Thank you very much.
Senator DeConcini?
SENATOR DECONCINI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Professor Hill, I join in realizing the difficulty of today. It is very obvious and I appreciate that immensely. Sexual harassment is not as new as maybe some members seem to think it is. I just remember, as a young boy, my mother telling me about sexual harassment in her job and losing her job when she was 22 years old, so I grew up with that in my mind and she mentioned it several times as I grew in age. I had dinner with her the night before last and she got chocked up just telling me again about it 60 years later.
So, it is a subject that is very sensitive. Obviously, men have a more difficult time, I believe, of understanding it, but I do believe there are many men in this Senate, in the House of Representatives and other political offices that indeed are sensitive as much as they can be, as a man.
Now, one of the areas that intrigued me today was Senator Heflin's questions of motives, and I am not at all indicating any diminution of your motive, but I am interested in your answers to some of those.
Before I ask you that, do you see anything positive out of what you have been through here today an the last week or so, the last few days of this ordeal, other than increasing the awareness of sexual harassment in the workplace? Is there any single thing you see more significant than that coming out of this?
MS. HILL: Yes, Senator.
SENATOR DECONCINI: What do you see as the most significant thing coming out of this unfortunate experience that you have had to go through now, and I mean the public part of it?
MS. HILL: Other than creating awareness, I see that the information is going to be fully explored, the information that I provided will be fully explored, it will be given a full hearing. In addition, I think that coming out, my coming forward may encourage other people to come forward, other people who have had the same experiences who have not been able to talk about them.
SENATOR DECONCINI: That would be raising the awareness of sexual harassment in the public.
MS. HILL: Raising the awareness, but also giving people courage.
SENATOR DECONCINI: And giving people courage to step forward an do what you did not do 10 years ago or 6 years ago or 2 years ago, but you are doing today?
MS. HILL: Yes.
SENATOR DECONCINI: No, is your motive also to attempt to clear your name from any degrading publicity that has occurred? Do you feel put upon? Do you feel exposed?
MS. HILL: Coming here today?
SENATOR DECONCINI: Do you feel injured and damaged through this, even though you obviously have committed yourself to proceed with it?
MS. HILL: You mean my motive in coming here today or something that I think will be a positive thing from coming here today?
SENATOR DECONCINI: No, I mean is your motive also to help clarify your own position on sexual harassment, because of the publicity that has brought this up to the forefront? Is that one of your motives? Is that one of your reasons you came forward? In other words, was your reputation one of the reasons you came forward, you felt that your reputation was being degraded or impugned by the fact that this was printed all over the press and that people were making countercharges and questioning your motives, and what have you? Is that one of the reasons?
MS. HILL: I definitely--coming here today, yes, I did want to accomplish that. There were a number of very ugly and nasty things that have been said, and I did want to come forward and tell my side.
SENATOR DECONCINI: Do you think, now having told your side and responded to these questions, that your reputation from your standpoint could ever be fully restored?
MS. HILL: Not in the minds of many, never, it will not be.
SENATOR DECONCINI: And in your opinion, Professor Hill, is there any single group or entity that you think caused more damage to you? I am interested in your perception. It seems to me that those who leaked this information certainly caused damage, and that the press, in my opinion, is on trial, because they did not have to print this, but they elected that they could do it, and in this country they can print anything they want, true or false, as we all know. And then the Senate made a judgment here first in the committee and then in the full Senate to put it off, and I think that is certainly on trial.
Obviously, Judge Thomas is on trial, though this is not a trial. You are on trial, in the sense of credibility here. Is there any one of these that stick out in your mind? Is the committee more culpable for causing you to have to come forward, is the press more culpable, or is it all just a big bunch of stuff that we have got to deal with and everybody is culpable?
MS. HILL: I think it is just the reality, Senator, of this situation, the nature of this complaint and I cannot point my finger at any one entity and say you are responsible for it.
SENATOR DECONCINI: But you said earlier--and correct me if I am wrong--that you did not want today to be what it is, that you had hoped that you could get the information to this committee and ultimately you agreed that your name could be used among the committee members, that you had hoped that would be sufficient for the members to make a judgment, and that you would not have to do what you are doing today. Is that correct?
MS. HILL: Yes.
SENATOR DECONCINI: Yes. Now, that did not happen or we would not be here today. Would you repeat why you think we are here? Why did you have to come forward and make this public presentation, when you had hoped to do so and to bring this information, without having to do what you are doing today?
MS. HILL: Well, I think that there are a number of factors. I think that however the material was leaked, that was one factor. I believe that the press is a factor, but I think, in addition, that the information is just going before the public that wants to know and wants to know about this, and so I think, again, there is a variety of situations and factors that caused this to occur today.
SENATOR DECONCINI: Let me ask you this, if I can, Professor Hill: If this information had not been leaked, would you have suggested that you come forward and do this in a public forum?
MS. HILL: No.
SENATOR DECONCINI: If the press had not then published it or read it to you and left you with the distinct impression they were going to publish it, if they had not done that, would you have felt obligated to come forward in a public sense, other than what you had already done?
MS. HILL: I do not believe that I would have come forwards.
SENATOR DECONCINI: You would not have come forward.
MS. HILL: I do not believe I would have.
SENATOR DECONCINI: So, it is safe to say that because the information was first leaked and then made public, that you felt that you no longer could proceed with what you felt was proper, by letting this information available to us, but not in a public forum. Is that a fair statement?
MS. HILL: Yes.
SENATOR DECONCINI: Thank you. I won't be very much longer.
The concern I also have is, when you were at the Department of Education and these, in my terms. God-awful things occurred-- grotesque, ugly, I don't know how else I can depict them, and obviously they were extremely offensive to you--when that happened to you and you obviously did not want them to continue, or participate, and you attempted to inform the person that you didn't want that, I have a difficult time understanding, and it is obviously because I am not a woman and have not had that kind of personal experience, I have a difficult time understanding, even though you didn't have another job or anything out there, how you could tolerate that. And I realize that is part of the whole problem of sexual harassment in the job place, is because women tolerate it.
And maybe you explained this sufficiently, but if you wouldn't remind repeating to me what went through your mind: Why, number one, you would stay there after this happened several times; and, number two, even though it ceased for a few months, why you would proceed on to another job with someone that hadn't just asked you out and pressed you, but had gotten into the explanations and explorations of the anatomy and what have you that you pointed out to us today.
MS. HILL: Well, I think it is very difficult to understand, Senator, and in hindsight it is even difficult for me to understand, but I have to take the situation as it existed at that time. At that time, staying seemed the only reasonable choice. At that time, staying was the way that--in a way, a choice that I made because I wanted to do the work. I in fact believed that I could make that choice to do the work, and that is what I wanted to do, and I did not want to let that kind of behavior control my choices.
So I attempted to end the behavior, and for some time the behavior did stop. I attempted to make that effort. And so the choice to continue with the same person to another agency involved a belief that I had stopped the behavior that was offensive.
SENATOR DECONCINI: Is it safe to say, then, Ms. Hill-- the readings that I have done in this area and been exposed to professionals who counsel and do this-- that one term is that you stuffed this inside you and went on with your life because you just were willing to kind of stuff it and keep it from exploding?
Is that a safe assumption, because I don't know. We all go through that in different things, I think we all do, that we stuff certain things in and don't explode or take a reaction. Is that one way of describing what you did?
MS. HILL: I did repress a number of my feelings about it, to allow myself to go on and to continue.
SENATOR DECONCINI: Is it safe to say that you did this for a long period of time?
MS. HILL: Yes, I did.
SENATOR DECONCINI: And you obviously saw Chairman Thomas move on to bigger and better positions, and to be appointed to an appellate court judge, and not take any action. Did you at that time again repress it and have to keep it down? Do you recall going through that any other times?
MS. HILL: Well, at some point over the last few years, or at various points, I think that I have dealt with many of my repressed feelings about this. I have just dealt with them on my own.
SENATOR DECONCINI: On your own. You didn't hire any or solicit any counseling or any assistance. You just dealt with it on your own?
MS. HILL: Dealt with them on my own.
SENATOR DECONCINI: And finally we are here today where it is all over, so to speak. It is all out, not that by any means there won't be repercussions, but you finally have let it all out.
MS. HILL: Well, that is my feeling, but one has to consider that even before this point I had dealt with the feelings of humiliation, realizing that none of this was my fault, and had dealt with a sense that I was helpless to confront this kind of a situation again, so many of the feelings have been dealt with.
SENATOR DECONCINI: And the fact that you admit that, in retrospect, maybe you should have done something, you have concluded that it is all someone else's fault; none of it is your fault.
MS. HILL: Yes.
SENATOR DECONCINI: Is that your frame of mind?
MS. HILL: That is my frame of mind.
SENATOR DECONCINI: Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the additional time.
SENATOR BIDEN: Thank you very much.
Senator Simpson?
SENATOR SIMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, there are two additional documents here, and I am asking and take your advice, from the two FBI agents who are--if this has been furnished for over two hours under the rules--the affidavits from the two FBI agents indicating the inconsistencies as expressed by Professor Hill this morning. Is that not appropriate?
SENATOR BIDEN: It is appropriate. The inconsistences are not of all that much consequence. At some point maybe we should read it. I think it may be helpful for you to read the entire thing in the record.
SENATOR SIMPSON: I only have five minutes, Mr. Chairman.
SENATOR BIDEN: No, no. Well, you go ahead and put it in the record and I will read them, because they are not of much consequence, but I think we should--let me put it this way--I think people should know what they say.
SENATOR SIMPSON: Well, I think that they should know that the witness did not say anything to the FBI about the described size of his penis, the description of the movie "Long Dong Silver," about the public hair in the Coke story, and describing giving pleasure to women with oral sex. That is not part of the original FBI report. And the agents are simply saying that there was no pressure upon the witness, and they specifically say--the woman FBI Agent particularly said that she was quite clear that she did not care whether it was general or specific.
The interviewing Special Agent, a woman, that said if the subject was too embarrassing, she did not have to answer, that was Professor Hill's statement, but the Special Agent said that she, the other agent, apologized for the sensitivity of the matter but advised Professor Hill that she should be as specific as possible and give details. She was further advised that if the questions were too embarrassing, Special Agent Luton would leave the room and she could discuss the matter with Special Agent Jameson.
I think that is appropriate only from the standpoint that you describe in your statement so poignantly that these were disgusting things, and yet they did not appear in the FBI report. That is enough. We will enter it into the record.
SENATOR BIDEN: I realize this is a bit unusual, the way we are doing this. And my recollection was, the witness had acknowledged that they did not appear in the report, and had acknowledged that she had not said that to the agents, as well.
MS. HILL: That is true.
SENATOR SIMPSON: Mr. Chairman, you have your opportunity to--
SENATOR BIDEN: No, I just wanted, because this is unusual, she hasn't had a chance to see it, that is the reason I mentioned it now. Please continue.
SENATOR SIMPSON: You are very fair.
Let me ask you, I think both of you say that you--both Judge Thomas and you say you never met each other until 1981. Is that correct?
MS. HILL: That is correct.
SENATOR SIMPSON: Weren't you both members of the Black Republican Congressional Staff Association?
MS. HILL: No.
SENATOR SIMPSON: You never were?
MS. HILL: No, I never was.
SENATOR SIMPSON: Well, I don't have enough time to go into that one. I had heard you were, and that you knew him there, and other people stated that, and perhaps- -that is what I was advised by a person that called me who knew you both, and was there with you both, but that is enough.
I am not leaving that out there as some sinister thing. I am just trying to find out if you knew each other before, because I heard that because he knew you there and respected you and enjoyed you there and found you very professional, that it was there he made the contact to then bring you to the Department of Education.
MS. HILL: Which group is this?
SENATOR SIMPSON: The Black Republican Congressional Staff Association.
MS. HILL: No, I am not a member of that. I have never been a member of that group.
SENATOR SIMPSON: In the 1970, 1979 or 1980, some time in that--
MS. HILL: I was in law school in 1989 and 1980.
SENATOR SIMPSON: Eighty and eighty-one?
MS. HILL: In eighty, I graduated from law school in 1980 and went to work in private practice here in Washington, D.C.
SENATOR SIMPSON: Okay, that's good. Thank you. That was presented to me.
Now I heard Howard Metzenbaum say, and you have presented yourself and your testimony in an extraordinary way. I did think that Senator Specter pointed out some inconsistencies. But like Howard, I thought too of my daughter, my rainbow of life, and I would be outraged if such alleged conduct occurred directed to her.
And then I have had the terrible pain of also thinking of my sons, raised by a very enlightened mother, responsive, still kiss their old man good night and things like that, and rather expansive, stalwart boys, and where that kind of conduct could lead them--very troubling for me. Because all we have heard for 103 days is about a most remarkable man, and nobody has come forward, and they scoured his every shred of life, and nobody but you and another witness, apparently who is alleging no sexual harassment, has come forward.
And so maybe, maybe, it seems to me you didn't really intend to kill him, but you might have. And that is pretty heavy, I don't care if you are a man or a woman, to know that 43 years or 35 years of your life or 60 years of your life, where no one has corroborated what is a devastating charge, kind of a singular torpedo blow below the water line and he sinks, while 103 days of accumulated things never penetrated the armor.
So I guess I would just say it is a very troubling thing to me, it really is, and leave out who leaked what to who or what media person let it out. That all will be hashed. But let me tell you, if what you say this man said to you occurred, why in God's name, when he left his position of power or status or authority over you, and you left in 1983, why in God's name would you ever speak to a man like that the rest of your life?
MS. HILL: That is a very good question, and I am sure that I cannot answer that to your satisfaction. That is one of the things that I have tried to do today. I have suggested that I was afraid of retaliation, I was afraid of damage to my professional life, and I believe that you have to understand that this response--and that is one of the things that I have come to understand about harassment--that this response, this kind of response, is not atypical, and I can't explain. It takes an expert in psychology to explain how that can happen, but it can happen, because it happened to me.
SENATOR SIMPSON: Well, it just seems so incredible to me that you would not only have visited with him twice after that period and after he was no longer able to manipulate you or to destroy you, that you then not only visited with him but took him to the airport, and then 11 times contacted him. That part of it appalls me. I would think that these things, what you describe, are so repugnant, so ugly, so obscene, that you would never have talked to him again, and that is the most contradictory and puzzling thing for me.
SENATOR BIDEN: Thank you, Senator.
Senator Simon?
SENATOR SIMON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, Professor Hill, let me say to your parents, you have a daughter you ought to be very, very proud of. I am sure you are proud of all your whole family.
I want to underscore what has been said by my colleagues. You have shown great courage and you have handled yourself with dignity, and you have lifted the level of consideration of this whole question of sexual harassment as no one has done before in the history of our country. No matter what happens on the nomination, I think you have performed a real public service.
On the question of sexual harassment, you and I know and the members of this committee know that physical contact is not necessary for sexual harassment, but I have had two people tell me over the phone that there couldn't have been sexual harassment because there was no physical contact. If I can use another analogy that I think people would understand, if you were to receive the kind of language over the telephone that you received in an office, would you consider that an obscene phone call?
MS. HILL: Yes.
SENATOR SIMON: And I think everyone understands obscene phone calls.
Let me just ask two totally disconnected questions beyond this: You say in your statement, "In February, 1983 I was hospitalized for five days on an emergency basis for an acute stomach pain which I attributed to stress on the job." One of the things we have to do in this committee, and my colleagues in the Senate have to do, is to make an evaluation, who is telling the truth? This is something objective that happened out there. But when you say "which I attributed to stress on the job," did your physician also suggest this as a possibility?
MS. HILL: My physician suggested that it could be stress-related. They could not identify the nature of the illness. They couldn't give a medical diagnosis, so the physician did suggest that it might be stress related.
SENATOR SIMON: And then, finally--and this has been partially touched upon--but there are those who say the timing of this is all some kind of a plot. That is the term I hear over and over.
I recall calling you the day before our committee voted, when we talked about the possibility of distributing this, your statement, to Members of the Senate, and I said, "You can't do that and keep it confidential, and keep your name confidential." I sensed that you were really agonizing on this whole thing, and I think I sensed correctly, for obvious reasons.
But this thing gradually built, from the time you first contacted or had contact with the members of the Senate staff and Senate committee. Was there at any point anyone who suggested, "If you hold this out until the last minute, you could have a great impact on this process?"
MS. HILL: No one ever suggested that, not at all.
SENATOR SIMON: And then finally let me just make a suggestion. You are always giving assignments to students at the University of Oklahoma Law School.
If I could give you and your fellow faculty members at the University of Oklahoma Law School and your law students an assignment, we face a very difficult problem, and it is not just with the Thomas nomination. How do we deal with a charge that someone makes, that is a substantial charge, but that person says, "I don't want my name used publicly," or even "I don't want the charge made publicly"? We should not simply ignore it. On the other hand, how are you fair to a nominee?
This is the struggle that this committee has gone through and the Senate is going through. I would be interested in you and your colleagues taking a look at that, sending a letter to members of this committee. But again I thank you. I think you have performed a great public service.
MS. HILL: Thank you.
SENATOR SIMON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SENATOR BIDEN: Senator
SENATOR GRASSLEY: Professor Hill, let me at the outset be very candid and tell you that even though the issues that have been discussed here this afternoon and this morning are very, very important, if I had to ask some of these questions that were asked of you today, I would not be able to do that. It is just not my nature. But I have one question and a couple of comments.
This is in regard to your testifying that you were approached by Senate staff members about disclosing these allegations. My question is whether or not any other individuals or any other organizations other than those who you publicly stated today or otherwise, or Senator Specter stated, whether any other individuals or organizations have approached you about disclosing these matters to the Judiciary Committee any time since Judge Thomas was nominated by the President on July the 1st?
MS. HILL: No. No other individual, no other organizations or individuals have approached me to disclose this to anyone. Do you mean prior to the contact from this or even after SENATOR GRASSLEY: Or any time during July, August, or September, other than all those names that have already been discussed here today?
MS. HILL: No. No one has urged me to do that or even approached me about it.
SENATOR GRASSLEY: Okay.
Now, a couple of points that I would like to make and I suppose I am making these more for my colleagues than I am for anybody else. But one of the hardest parts of this discussion for me is the fact that if any of our Senate employees had a complaint of sex harassment that individual would not have the same remedy that you had available to you, Professor Hill, when you were an employee of Government, particularly, EEOC, although I know you chose not to make that and pursue that remedy. Because, like so many laws that we pass, the United States Senate has exempted itself or we have exempted ourselves, as employers, from the coverage of Title VII, including the EEOC rules governing sex harassment. That is a situation that I hope the Senate will soon change so that our employees will be treated fairly just like any other employees.
On another point there has been much said--and, of course, each of us on this committee have had to deal with this, as the press has asked us how come we did not consider all of these things prior to voting this out of committee. So that deals with the process of the Judiciary Committee. People are asking how we could have let your statement slip past us? How could we have had the committee vote without airing this matter? Those are valid questions.
And let me say that I am going to work towards assuring that this never happens again. I realize, of course, that our committee gets hundreds, maybe even thousands of allegations in a nomination like this one. And we rely upon our chairman and ranking member to determine which ones need investigation and which ones might be coming from cranks and crackpots. They determined this one needed investigation and they called in the FBI. But somewhere along the process something broke down.
So I would like to work with the chairman and ranking member and other colleagues to establish a new ground rule. Whenever the FBI is dispatched, every committee member should be notified about the nature of the allegation. And when the FBI has completed its work, every committee member should be notified and have access to that report. And a determination by the committee should be made as to how we need to proceed with any allegations.
A rule like this should ensure, once and for all, that even an 11th hour charge, like yours, has been fully considered.
I yield the floor.
You can comment if you want to.
MS. HILL: I would like, for a moment, to revisit your first question. I am keenly aware that I want to be certain of my answers. The first question was whether or not anyone had contacted me to urge me to come forward with this?SENATOR SENATOR GRASSLEY: Yes.
MS. HILL: No. No one did that. Ms. Hirschener did contact me and reminded me of the situation and we discussed the fact that we had talked about this in earlier years but she did not urge me to come forward at all.
SENATOR GRASSLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SENATOR KENNEDY: [Presiding.] Thank you, very much. Of course the state of the law actually is that women, even in these kinds of situations, don't have adequate remedies. All they have is an injunction. They are not permitted to get any damages which is one of the matters that is being addressed in the Civil Rights Bill.
The Senator from Wisconsin?
KHOL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Professor Hill, as you said, this has been a difficult time for you. You wanted to make the committee aware of your experiences with Clarence Thomas but you also wanted to preserve your privacy and that is understandable and we deeply regret that it has not worked out this way. But while the process may have failed you, Professor Hill, you certainly have not failed the process.
For without making, at this time, any judgments about the ultimate truth of your claims we can make a certain judgment about the value of the public discussions that your claims have created. All of us have learned a great deal about and become more sensitive to the problem of sexual harassment and inappropriate behavior. The issue is complex and our understanding may never be complete, but your perception of your relationship with Judge Thomas is clear in your own mind and your courage in coming forward and the composure you have demonstrated since this issue became public all speak to your character.
I am sure this has been very painful for you, as it has been for all of us, but I believe the pain will vastly improve the way that men and women respond to this problem throughout our country.
Thank you, very much.
MS. HILL: Thank you, Senator Kohl.
SENATOR THURMOND: Senator Brown is next on my side.
SENATOR BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman
Professor Hill, you were kind enough to take my call earlier this week and you were very forthcoming and I appreciated that and the information you provided. I had a few additional questions that I thought might be helpful that I would bring up.
My impression was that calls from the staff that had originally prompted you to begin thinking about making a statement included not only questions about sexual harassment but had actually implied to you that there were rumors circulating about sexual harassment at the EEOC and even a suggestion that there might be rumors to sexual harassment related to you.
Now, could you share your view of what those rumors were or what they had suggested to you in those calls?
MS. HILL: Well, when I received the calls I assumed that someone had known about the incidents as they were occurring who I did not know, who might have contacted the offices that called me. So when the statements were made and the questions were asked, I assumed that it was someone who knew that these things had happened and that they had come forward to the committee or to the individuals who were calling and that they were following up on that.
SENATOR BROWN: I guess what had occurred to me when I heard that description from you was that, at least the inference in my mind, was that the fact that there were stories or there could be stories circulating relating to sexual harassment, and perhaps the sexual harassment towards you, that that was one of the factors that encouraged you to come forward?
MS. HILL: That was definitely one of the factors. I did not want the committee to rely on rumors. I did not want the rumors to perhaps circulate through the press without at least considering the possibilities or exploring the possibilities through the committee process of coming forward. So, yes, that call, those calls and that raising the issue with me very much encouraged me to further explore the process to determine how and if I could come forward.
SENATOR BROWN: You mentioned that you talked to several staffers and then eventually made a decision to come forward and you chatted with the committee and had a variety of conversations there. Were there others that you talked to after you talked to those two staffers and before you decided to speak to the committee?
MS. HILL: I talked with personal friends. I talked with individuals who knew more about Title VII law than I did.
SENATOR BROWN: But I take it none of these conversations included people who were actively opposing the nomination?
MS. HILL: No.
SENATOR BROWN: On the employment question, I thought I would go back to it. I must tell you that my own impression is that I think if you have a job you are reluctant to leave it without some other offers, but I thought it might be helpful to put a cap on that. At the point that Judge Thomas was leaving the Department of Education and had invited you to accompany him or go with him in terms of a job assignment over to the EEOC. Did you contact anyone in the private sector for a job? You have already talked about not exploring alternatives within the Education Department, but did you contact anyone about a job at that point?
MS. HILL: I did not contact anyone in the private sector. I had left the private sector nine months earlier and decided that I did not want to return at that point, to the private sector.
SENATOR BROWN: At the point that the harassment, or at least the harassment was alleged to have taken place at the Department, Education Department, did you begin to explore job opportunities at that point? As I understand that was a point sometime before the decision to leave?
MS. HILL: No. I did not explore. I may have read Government printouts but I did not actively look for another job.
SENATOR BROWN: With regard to the Judge, himself, you clearly, in working with him as you had, were familiar with a portion of his philosophy. Do you find you were in agreement with his philosophy on most issues proposed? What can you share with us on that?
MS. HILL: Well, I am not really sure what his philosophy on many issues is. And so I can't say that I am in agreement or disagreement. I can say that during the times that we were there were, worked together, there were matters that we agreed on and some that we did not agree on and we had discussions about those matters.
But I am not really certain what his philosophies are at this point.
SENATOR BROWN: Would that be the case with regard to say, abortion or Roe v. Wade?
MS. HILL: That I am not sure of his philosophies?
SENATOR BROWN: Sure of his philosophy or do you perceive a significant difference between the two of you in that area?
MS. HILL: Yes.
SENATOR BROWN: Can you tell us what that might be? I don't mean to pressure you here. If you would prefer not to, please don't. But if there is something that you could share with us in that area, I think the committee would like to hear it.
SENATOR BIDEN: Senator, I don't, on behalf of--from Judge Thomas' position this was supposed to relate to harassment not investigation of Judge Thomas' views on abortion.
SENATOR BROWN: Mr. Chairman, you are perfectly correct. If there were something that wished to be offered there I thought it would be helpful.
I see the red light is on so I will conclude.
SENATOR BIDEN: Now, two of our primary questioners also want to take an additional five minutes. Senator Leahy and then Senator Specter.
SENATOR LEAHY: I will be very brief. I know that everyone is tried. Professor Hill, you were asked questions by Senator Simpson regarding this afternoon's FBI investigation which I believe you were shown and the question of whether there may be some inconsistencies--that is a matter, I mean everybody has got to determine whether they feel there is or is not, I make no statement to that--but basically on the thrust that you were less specific about these incidents, the language and the description of these two incidents when you talked to the two agents than you were in your statement, here today.
Let me just, three or four very quick questions and I think probably you could just answer, yes, or no.
The statement that you made here today was made under oath, is that correct?
MS. HILL: Yes.
SENATOR LEAHY: And that statement was more specific than the conversation that you had with the FBI agents, is that correct?
MS. HILL: Yes, I agree.
SENATOR LEAHY: And when specific questions were asked by different Senators about that you went to even more specific details of the language that you say that Judge Thomas used, is that correct?
MS. HILL: Yes.
SENATOR LEAHY: And if there had been even more questions going specifically conversation-by- conversation it would be safe to say that you would have had even more specific language?
MS. HILL: I would have attempted to.
SENATOR LEAHY: It would be safe to say, also, that you found it uncomfortable repeating even the language that we elicited from you in the questions?
MS. HILL: Yes.
SENATOR LEAHY: Thank you.
I have no further questions.
SENATOR BIDEN: Thank you.
Senator Specter?
SENATOR SPECTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just a word or two. Professor Hill, when you say that by hindsight--because I wrote this down, it is difficult for me to understand, and in looking at the entire record it is difficult for me to understand you have substantially enlarged a testimony which I had expected based on the FBI report and your statement as to what you allege Judge Thomas had done. The critical move from the Department of Education to the EEOC is not understandable to me, whee you make the statements about his offensive conduct, for an experienced lawyer not to inquire about standing or even an inexperienced lawyer not to inquire about standing to stay at the Department of Education or not to make an inquiry of the people in charge.
The toll calls you characterized as garbage which you admitted to in your interviews with the newspaper although you denied other aspects. You know concede to be true, you did make those calls. It is one thing for you to say that you felt constrained to maintain some sort of an association with Judge Thomas in the face of this kind of conduct which you have represented, but why make the calls which you agreed to, the how are you doing, or I am in town, or tell the secretary you are in town? Why drive the man to the airport? Why maintain that kind of a cordial association in the face of this kind of conduct?
We have an office, equal opportunities, EEOC to enforce the laws on sexual harassment. And we have here representations that the nation's chief law enforcement officer sexually harassed his attorney advisor and that attorney advisor is dedicated to enforcement of the law against sexual harassment and tells us that she moved from the Department of Education to EEOC because she wanted to protect the women of America. And conceding that this is an enormous educational experience, the question is why with an experienced lawyer in that position being concerned about women's rights, do you leave a man, Clarence Thomas, as Chairman of the EEOC for years when according to your testimony he has been guilty of sexual harassment, himself?
Now, I do see explanations at every turn. And I have wondered about the quality of those explanations, candidly. But there is no description for this entire proceeding other than a tragedy. I do not know how Judge Thomas defends himself beyond stepping forward and saying that he is shocked, surprised, hurt and saddened. And the shortest statute of limitations I have ever heard of is 180 days, until I got involved in this proceeding I did not know there was such a short statute of limitations. Contract cases are six years, tort cases are two years, criminal cases are five years, but the Federal law has put that into effect because it is so difficult to defend and to go back and to recollect all that has happened. And I appreciate the stark nature of the statements which have been made.
But I also see that your own statement that you prepared in your leisure, put aide the FBI statement, you were with two people, but no mention about the Coke bottle, no mention about sexual prowess, no mention about other major issues which are in your statement, so I conclude, from looking at this very complex day on our obligation to try to find out what happened between a man and a woman a long ago, and nobody else was there, that I would agree with you, Professor Hill, it is very difficult for me to understand.
SENATOR BIDEN: Thank you, Senator.
The Senator from North Carolina--South Carolina, I beg your pardon.
SENATOR THURMOND: Well, don't forget it.
[Laughter.]
SENATOR BIDEN: I realize there are certain things I should never say to the Senator from South Carolina, and one of them is that he is from North Carolina.
SENATOR THURMOND: Mr. Chairman, I just have one brief question.
Professor Hill, I understand you told the FBI that you had concerns about the political philosophy of Judge Thomas and that he may no longer be open-minded. Is that accurate?
MS. HILL: I told them that I did not quite understand, but as they had been represented, yes, that I did have some concerns.
SENATOR THURMOND: I have the FBI report here, and I just wondered if you remember telling them that.
MS. HILL: I remember discussion about political philosophy and I remember specifically saying that I'm not quite sure that we understand his political philosophies. But based on what I understand, yes, there is some discomfort.
SENATOR THURMOND: That is all, Mr. Chairman.
SENATOR BIDEN: Thank you.
Now, let me just say, Professor Hill, we have heard in a sense the half of this story today, all of your story, and we have not heard all of Judge Thomas' story.
But I, for one, can assure you that, assuming for the moment what you have said is true, there is nothing hard to understand. Having spent as many years as I have dealing with the issue of victimization and victimization of women, it is every single psychiatrist and psychologist who considers himself an expert in the field who will point out that the nature of response is not at all atypical, assuming it to be true--and please do not be offended by my saying "assuming it to be true." I view myself again here as a finder of fact and we have yet to hear the whole story from Judge Thomas.
This is a tragedy, and people keep mentioning that, and my good friend from Iowa hopes that this will never happen again in the sense of he way the committee handled it.
I must be brutally frank with my colleagues and with everyone else involved: I do apologize to the women of America, if they got the wrong impression about how seriously I take the issue of sexual harassment, but I make no apologies for attempting to follow every one of your wishes, because everyone that I have spoken to, again, in the years that I have dealt with this subject indicate that the most unfair thing to do to a woman in your position is what was done to you, force you to do something that you did not intend to do.
So, I must tell you and I must tell everyone else, I take sexual harassment seriously, but I take your claim and took your claim that you have reasserted here today half a dozen times that you did not want this to go public as seriously as I possibly could. And for those who suggest that I should not have or that there was some way to do it differently and still honor your commitment, I know of no such way to guarantee that your anonymity, to guarantee you would not have to be in this place at this day.
I must tell you, every instinct in me in the world wanted to say to the whole Senate and to the whole world that we should have a hearing on this. But again, we tend to look at large issues and forget individuals. You were the individual in the middle of this, and I will say again to anyone who will listen, as long as I am Chairman of this committee, if a person comes to me in a similar circumstance and says repeatedly and in different ways that I have no right, I have no authority to tell their story, to leak their story, to demand that their story be put in a context different than they wish, I will honor that commitment.
I appreciate the fact, and to be very, very blunt about it, I can't tell you how thankful I am, purely from a personal standpoint--and I should not say this, but I am going to say it anyway--that you were so straightforward and honest about the way in which this committee handled your request, and so straightforward and honest about, notwithstanding occasional confusion, how you did not decide to do what is being done here, were it not for the fact that it was leaked to a press person, you would not be here today.
It seem to me, ultimately, in this great giant machine we call this Nation and this government, that I don't know how we can call ourselves civil libertarians, I don't know how we can call ourselves people interested in the individual, if, in the name of a larger cause to justify the ends, we make a judgment for an individual that that individual chooses and has a right not to make.
So, I must tell you, I admire you, I admire the way you handled this matter once you were confronted with it. As I said to you very bluntly over the telephone, all of us up here choose to be in this business, we choose to be under these lights, we choose to be under the scrutiny of those ladies and gentlemen sitting behind you, we choose to go before the American public and say "judge me," but we have no right to make you choose to do that.
Once you chose to do that, because you had no choice, you handled it with such grace and such elan that I can't quite understand how you were able to pull it off in the sense of walking before all those press people in the press conference and handling it the way you did. I don't know three candidates in my whole life who could do that, and they have had 27 handlers telling them how to do it.
So, I don't want to kid anybody. If you came to me again in the same circumstance and said, "Senator Biden, keep this tight, do not make it go public," I would do the same thing again. I thank you for your honesty in laying out just what you did, because you could have very easily said, oh, no, I would have come forward no matter what, I was getting ready to do that, and, quite frankly, made me look like an idiot, to make the whole process look like an idiot.
I thank you very, very much. And most of all, having nothing to do with the process--we can all talk about the process, it is a cumbersome one, but, ultimately, it seems that the purpose of the process is to protect the rights of individuals.
I thank you for being willing to be here. I thank you for your testimony.
We will now recess--
SENATOR HEFLIN: Mr. Chairman?
SENATOR BIDEN: I will yield in just as moment.
Judge Thomas has indicated he wants very much to come back on this evening, so we will reconvene this hearing at 9:00 o'clock to hear from Judge Thomas.
Before we do, I yield to my friend from Alabama, who wants to submit for the record some--well, I will let him say what he wants to do.
SENATOR HEFLIN: Mr. Chairman, I want to submit certain newspaper articles that have appeared for the record.
These are from the Washington Post, October 11, 1991, and the headline is "Thomas' View of Harassment Said to Evolve"; from the Baltimore Sun, dated October 11, 1991, "Thomas-Hill Disputes"; from the New York Times, on October 10, 1991, "Stark Conflict Marks Accounts Given by Thomas and Professor"; the Washington Post, of the same date, "Conflict Emerges Over a Second Witness"; from the Washington Post, October 11, 1991, "Charlotte Woman Details Thomas' Conducts"; from the New York Times, October 7, 1991, "Law Professor Accuses Thomas of Sexual Harassment in 1980's"; and from the U.S. News & WOrld Report, September 16, 1991, an article entitled "The Crowning Thomas Affair."
SENATOR BIDEN: Without objection, they will be made a part of the record.
SENATOR BIDEN: Again, I thank your family--
MS. HILL: Mr. Chairman?
SENATOR BIDEN: Yes?
MS. HILL: I would just like to take this opportunity to thank the committee for its time, its questions and the efforts that it has put into this investigation on my behalf.
Thank you.
SENATOR BIDEN: Thank you.
We are adjourned until 9:00 o'clock.