november elections. he talks about the type of issues resonating with voters. watch the interview sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 eastern on c-span. as the senate judiciary committee reviews of 35-year-old sexual assault the galleys and about -- allegation, there has been comparisons to anita hail's accusations of clarence thomas. we will take a look at them testifying before congress in 1991 after the senate judiciary committee reopened the confirmation proceedings. this first portion includes opening statements from clarence thomas and committee members.

>> the hearing will come to order. let me ask the capitol hill there is not absolute order and the corpsman here, we will recess the hearing and those when gauge in any outbursts at all will be asked to leave the chamber. 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. second, she had asked that these ,harges remain confidential that they not be made public and beyondred with anyone this committee. i believe that we have honored both her requests. some have asked, how could you have the united states senate vote on judge thomas's nomination and leave senators in the dark about professor hill's charges? answer, how can you expect us to have forced professor hill against her will into the blinding light which

you see here today? sorry that our havens in this respect been seen by many across this country as a this is committee does not take the charge of sexual harassment seriously. we emphatically do. 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. committee's ability to investigate and hold hearings on professor hill's charges has now dramatically changed. events which forced

professor hill, against her wishes, to publicly discuss these charges. the landscape has changed. today, freehere from the restrictions which had .reviously limited our work sexual harassment is a serious matter. in my view, any person guilty of this offense is unsuited to serve not only on the nation's highest court but any position of responsibility in or out of government. sexual harassment of working women is an issue of national concern. said, let me make clear that this is not a hearing about the extent and nature of sexual harassment in america. 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 hislem and it is instead be -- problem of sexual harassment in this country. proceedingsng these will see witnesses being sworn and testifying pursuant to a subpoena. emphasize that this is not a trial. this is not a courtroom. proceedings, our

there will be no formal verdict of guilt or innocence. nor any finding of civil liability. , these this is not a trial proceedings will not be conducted the way in which a sexual harassment trial would be handled in accordance law. -- in a court of law. on the advice of the nonpartisan senate legal counsel -- legal counsel, the rules of evidence that apply in courtrooms will not apply here today. thus, evidence in question that would not be permitted in a court of law must under senate rules be allowed here. this is a fact finding hearing. our purpose is to help our colleagues in the united states senate determine whether judge thomas should be confirmed to the supreme court. here, not here, i am not

to be an advocate for one side or the other with respect to the specific allegations which we will review. it is my hope and belief that my colleagues here today share that view. fairness in the atmosphere in which these hearings are being held may be the most difficult task i have undertaken in my 19 years in the united states senate. committee hasthis already stated how he will vote on judge thomas's nomination. the committee has already voted. committee on whether or not judge thomas should be in 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. setting, it will be easy and perhaps understandable for the witnesses to fear unfair treatment. it is my job as chairman to ensure as best as i possibly can fair treatment. that is what i intend to do. let me make three ground rules clear. first, while legal counsel is sitting behind me, they have 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 water9 -- order questions that are not

relevant to our proceedings. certain subjects are simply irrelevant to the issue of harassment. namely, the private conduct out of the workplace relationships and intimate lives and practices hill,ge thomas, professor and any other witness that comes before us. , i will not allow questions on matters totally irrelevant to our investigation. 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. 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 26.5 to ask that the committee go into closed session if the question requires an answer that is a clear invasion of their right to privacy. will take very seriously the request of any witness to answer particularly embarrassing questions as they view it, whether or not it's embarrassing. to answer those questions in private. third, the order of questioning. extraordinarys an

hearing, democrats and republicans of -- have each taken the step of designating a lidded number of senators to question for the committee. side, ourocratic questioners will be senators heflin, leahy, and myself. it on thestand 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 it will proceed. 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 what appears here and that we treat every witness with respect. without any judgment about the specific witnesses, 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. fairness means doing our best to doerstand, no matter what we or do not believe about the specific charges that we are going to listen as closely as we can. fairness also means that judge 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, to be given the benefit of the doubt. in the end, this hearing may resolve much or it may resolve little.

there are two things that cannot thisn in doubt after hearing is over. first, that the members of this committee are fair and have been fair to all witnesses. second, that we take sexual seriousnt as a very concern in this hearing. and overall. let us perform our duties with a full understanding of what i've said and of our responsibilities to the senate, to the nation, and to the truth. i yield now to my colleague from south carolina. 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 inempt to design the truth some rather extra merry allegations made against this nominee. and because judge thomas has requested an opportunity to refute these allegations and restore his good name. before we begin, i want to emphasize that the charge of sexual harassment is a great one. one that each senator on this committee takes with the utmost seriousness. this is an issue of sensitivity. 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. a great deal hangs in the balance and our duty is clear. we must find the truth. i would like to commend chairman biden who worked with me to ensure 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 on judge thomas. i've also decided after that senator specter will undertake the questioning of professor hill and the motor -- other witnesses. i reserve the privilege of

preparing the questions myself. every republican member of this committee has been deeply involved in this process from the day judge thomas was nominated by president bush. in the interest of time and fairness to all witnesses, i believe that the procedures that have been outlined will work best for everyone involved. ago, whenays 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. rather showed him to be an individual of great character and accomplishment. during the confirmation hearings, this committee heard testimony from over 100 witnesses, both for and against the nomination. not one of these witnesses, even

those most opposed to this domination, had one disparaging comment to make about clarence thomas is moral character. on the contrary, witness after witness spoke of the impeccable character, abiding honesty, and professionalism with -- 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 harassment she describes .ook place 10 years ago during that time, she continued to initiate contact with judge thomas in a friendly manner. chose to hill publicize her allegations the day before the senate would have voted to confirm judge thomas.

i fully intend to maintain an open mind. say that the timing of these statements raises a tremendous number of questions which must be dealt with. i can assure always misses -- all witnesses that we will be outstanding in our efforts to ascertain the truth. >> before i swear judge thomas, i asked a police officer to go to the front of the door while judge thomas is speaking. let anyone in or out. he's entitled to absolute quiet in this room. don't let anyone in or out. he's entitled to absolute quiet in this room. you so -- swear to tell the truth? >> i do. .> judge do you have an opening statement? please proceed. >> mr. chairman, senator thurman

, members of the committee. difficult asngly the last two weeks have been, i welcome the opportunity to clear my name today. andne other than my wife senator dems for us -- in the whom i readnator to this statement has seen or heard this statement. no handlers, no advisors. the first i learned of the allegations by professor anita 25, 1991.n september when the fbi came to my home to investigate her allegations. agentnformed by the fbi

of the nature of the allegations, and the person making them, i was shocked, , and enormously saddened. i have not been the same since that day. decade, mya responsibilities included in forcing the rights of victims of sexual harassment. as a boss, as a friend, and as a human being, i was proud that i had never had such an allegation leveled against me. even as i sought to promote into and minorities nontraditional jobs. several of my friends who are abouthave confided in me 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. september 25, -- since september 25, i have suffered immensely. i have been racking my brain and eating my insides out trying to figure -- think of what i could've said or done to anita hill to lead her to allege that i was interested in her in more than a professional way. aboutat i talked with her pornographic or x-rated films. contrary to some press reports, i categorically deny all of the allegations and deny that i ever attempted to date anita hill when first interview by the fbi.

i strongly reaffirm that denial. let me describe my relationship with anita hill. went to theer i department of education as an assistant secretary in the office of civil rights, one of my closest friends from college and law school, gil hardy, brought anita hill to my attention. indicated thathe she was dissatisfied with her law firm and wanted to work in government. on hisrimarily recommendation, i hired anita hill. during my tenure at the department of education, anita hill was an attorney advisor who works directly with me. she worked on special projects as well as day-to-day matters.

was one of twoe professionals working directly with me at the time. result, we worked closely on numerous matters. i recall being pleased with her work product in the professional but cordial relationship which we enjoyed it 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. andr my confirmation, she joinedolt, my secretary, me at the eeoc. i do not recall that there was any question or doubt that she would become a special assistant to me there.

employee,as a career she retained the option of remaining at the department of education. at eeoc, our relationship was more distant and our contact less frequent. as a result of the increased size of my personal staff in the dramatic increase in 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. our relationship remained both cordial and professional. aware,ime did i become 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 gil hardy,ff or from

our mutual friend with whom i maintained regular contact. 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. oppositionmy adamant to sex discrimination and sexual harassment. there were no such statements. of 1983, mr. charles kofi contacted me to speak at the law school at oral roberts university. anda hill was 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. visitecall, during our there, mr. kofi mentioned to me the possibility of approaching anita hill to join the faculty at the university law school. i encouraged him to do so and 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 left then after she eeoc, i did see her on one or two subsequent visits to tulsa, oklahoma. 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 have been with me at the department of education, they were fairly close personally. i believe they occasionally socialize together. through -- about her through linda lambert whom both anita hill and i met at the department of education. 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 assistance. i tried to eat treat them all cordially -- to treat them all cordially and respectfully. i tried to support them in their endeavors and be interested in and supportive of their success. or basis toson believe my relationship with anita hill was anything but this

way until the fbi visited me of the more than two weeks ago. troublingparticularly that she never raised any hint that she was uncomfortable with me. she did not raise our mention it when considering moving with me to eeoc from the department of education. she never raised it with me when she left eeoc and was moving on in her life. to eeoc from the department of education. 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 lyndon jackson and gil hardy. the person i have helped at since wen in the road

met. she seemed to appreciate the continued cordial relationship we had since day one. counsel counselvice and , as did virtually all 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 the 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 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've been mistaken for sexual harassment. with that said, if there is anything that i have said that has been misconstrued by anita to ber anyone else sexual harassment, i can say that i am so very sorry and i wish i had known. if i did know, i would've stopped immediately and i would not, as i have done over the past two weeks, have to tear away myself tried to think of what i could possibly have done. done thet said or things that anita hill has alleged. god has gotten me through the days since september 25. he is my judge. , something has

happened to me in the dark days that have followed since the fbi agents informed me about these allegations. darker asave grown this very serious, very explosive, and very sensitive allegation were selectively leaked in a distorted way to the media of 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 in norma's pain and great harm -- in norma's pain and great harm. i've never felt such heard. -- hurt. i have been done a grave and irreparable injustice.

weeks, ie past two lost the believe that if i did my best, all would work out. i called upon the strength that helped me get here from pinpoint. it was also opt 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 treated fairly and with the utmost respect. better i could have been weathering this if it was from someone else. here was someone i truly felt i had done my best with. i am by no means a perfect person. done what she has alleged. what i could know possibly have done to cause her to make these allegations. when i stood next to the

, being nominated to the supreme court of the united states, that was a high honor. , 103sit here before you days later, that honor has been crushed. , chargesvery beginning were leveled against me from the abuse,, charges of drug anti-semitism, wifebeating, drug use by family members -- confirmation conversion, 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. 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 interesti have ens swarming over divorce papers, looking for dirt. unnamed people starting preposterous and damaging rumors. calls all over the country requesting dirt. this is not american. this is cost to ask. kafka-esque. it must stop for the benefit of future nominees and for our country. enough is enough. myself toing to allow be further humiliated in order to be confirmed. specifically to respond to allegations of sex harassment in the workplace. i'm not here to be further humiliated by this committee or

anyone else. or to put my private life on the spray -- display. 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. bed,as confined to her unable to work and unable to stop crying. enough is enough. chairman, in my 43 years on this earth, i have been able with the help of others and the help of god to defy poverty, avoid prison, overcome

, racism,on, bigotry and obtain one of the finest educations available in this country. i have not been able to overcome this process. obstacleorse than any or anything that i have ever faced. throughout my-- life, i have been energized by the hope that in this country i would be treated fairly in all and evers. -- endeavors. when there was segregation, i hope there would be fairness someday. when there was bigotry and prejudice, i helped that there would be tolerance and understanding someday. chairman, i am proud of my life. proud of what i have done and what i have accomplished.

proud of my family. iss process, this process 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. let this process and. end. let me and my family to regain our lives. i never asked to be nominated. little did i know the price. it is too high. i enjoy and appreciate my current position and i'm comfortable with the prospect of returning to my work as a judge on the u.s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit. positions is

public service. it at the office. i want my life back and i want them returned expeditiously. i have experienced the exhilaration of new heights from the moment i was called by the president. that was the high point. at that time, i was told that clarence, you made it this far, the rest is going to be politics. it surely has been. there have been other highs. the outpouring of support from my friends of long-standing, a bonding like i have never experienced with my old boss. the wonderful support of those who have worked with me.

there have been prayer set 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 name, myending my integrity. the cut somehow -- because somehow confidential documents dealing with this matter were leaked to the public. i am a victim of this process. 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'm not going to engage in discussions nor will i submit to probing questions of what goes on in the most intimate parts of my private life. or the sink to t of my bedroom. -- sanctity of my bedroom. these will remain private. thank you, judge. you will not be asked to. ofore i begin my questioning judge thomas, i would remind the committee and the nominee that with respect to one set of allegations, those pertaining to professor anita hill, we are somewhat limited at this stage

as to permissible questions. professor hill has recently , continues to ask us to maintain the confidentiality of her statement to the committee. so, judge thomas, at this stage of the hearing, without having heard professor hill's testimony , and without using her statement, are questioning to mayand not be complete -- not be complete. we may have to discuss some aspects of the allegations with you at the end of these hearings. i would also note for the record that the choice of the order of these hearings was left to you. withed whether or not you -- wished to go first or second. you chose to speak first.

if you so choose, you can speak last. therefore, with respect to professor hill, i intend to focus on the general nature of your relationship with her, her responsibilities in your office, and the environment in which you work. some of thesen to issues in your opening statement but let me ask you -- yes? i just want to say something for the record here. this is not the appointment of a justice of the peace. processthe nomination of a man to become supreme court justice of the united states. he has been badly maligned. add, i have a lot of sympathy for professor hill, too. here andoing to sit

tolerate her attorneys telling you or me or anybody else, now that she has made these writing, that that statement can be used. especially in this proceeding. it's a matter of fairness. i have been informed that the reporter who broke this story has her statement and read it to her before she would even talk to her. greatestbe the travesty i have ever seen in any court of law, let alone a nor --

an open forum in the nomination process for a as justice of the united states supreme court, to allow her attorneys or her or anybody on this committee, to tell us what can or cannot be used now that this man's reputation has been very badly hurt. i'm not finished. intend to use that statement because it is fair to use it. i don't want to hurt -- let me finish. >> i will not. >> yes you will. >> you are entitled to use the statement under the rules. no one can stop you. all right? >> this statement will be admissible to everyone. wasyone in this country hit. >> how can she request confidentiality at this point? , she wants toill

tell her story. she did not release the statement. she wants her story told by her. because we have given the opportunity for the judge to speak first, if he so chose, and he has. use hers to be able to thatment in her own words she has thus far not released and has not spoken to publicly. she has not spoken to publicly. when she comes and addresses the committee. now, why don't we get on with this process? >> i'm not finished. >> mr. chairman. she has been on television telling her story. she has made it public.

therefore, i think the right to use that statement ought to be admitted. >> mr. chairman? >> mr. chairman? >> i want to finish my comment. >> everybody will get a chance to speak. >> it seems to me that you outlined a reasonable way of proceeding. i think it is entirely proper that judge thomas be able to ever statement he wants to desire. i thought it was a very moving statement. appropriate, if that is the desire, that we work out in terms of the committee and the committee's understanding the way that we are going to proceed on this. indicatedsor had willingness to testify second. now we are in the situation where judge thomas has spoken. it seems that we ought to be able to work out, the way that

we will proceed that will be respectful both of judge thomas and the witness without getting into a lot of back-and-forth up your which is not the purpose of the hearing. suggest that we have a very brief recess so that we can at least find out a way that we can proceed that is consistent with judge thomas and the others in satisfactory to the way that the committee -- >> i object to a recess. is, act of the matter substantial majority of the senate asked us to get to the bottom of this. the public deserves to know now, one way or the other. the public is going to know if i have anything to say about it. our colleagues demanded it. out didn't ask us to find as much as the witness will allow us to ask.

intention of maligning professor hill. i feel sorry for both of these people. both of them are going to come out of this with less of her reputation. it's pathetic and it wouldn't have happened -- let me finish, if i could. if somebody had had the honesty and integrity before the vote to raise this issue and asked for an executive session saying this had to be brought up. nobody did. somebody on this committee or their staff, i'm outraged by it. they took an fbi report that we all know should never be disclosed to the public because of the materials that are in

them, it has raw stuff in it. and it has been only. -- leaked. the media knows everything in it. i think the american people are entitled to know if they want to. is, thererying to say are inconsistencies in the statement of anita hill to the fbi compared to her other statements. i don't particularly intend to go into that. she's entitled to explain these discrepancies. judge thomas is entitled to point out these inconsistencies for their bearing on the credibility of the accuser in this instance. be, person though she may good luck professor though she graduate though she may be. if i could just finish. i promise to be shorter. the statements of the subsequent witnesses are also at variance with professor hill's statements

with what she told the fbi. if she happens to testify differently today, we have to find out. >> we are not at liberty to publicly discuss the statement. >> the heck we're not. it has been leaked to the press. they know about it. part of it has been read to the accuser. i think it is time to be fair to the nominee. he has come this far. he's the one who is being accused. they have the burden of showing that he is not telling the truth here. he has a right to face the accuser and everything that accuser says. if he doesn't, i will resign from this committee today. i don't want to be on it. >> the hearing is in recess for five minutes. [inaudible]

>> the hearing will come to order. andcommittee has met resolve the impasse of -- the following way. professor hill indicated on the she was prepared .o have her statement released in further discussion with involved,and others it has been determined that we will excuse, temporarily, judge thomas. momentarily as the witness anita hill. sworn and will be make her run statement in her

own words at which time we would then begin the questioning of professor hill. back which we will bring judge thomas. for questioning. the committee will stand in recess -- i imagine it is only inentarily -- we will stand she is able to take her seat which should be a matter of a minute or so. i am told security is clearing the hall, she is in the hall so she can come down. theou have been watching

1991 confirmation hearing for senator clarence thomas acing sexual harassment allegations. we have been showing it to you as negotiations continue between the senate judiciary committee and christine mallozzi ford -- blasey ford. next, we will go back to that hearing in 1991 with anita hill. sharing her testimony. this includes her opening statement and questions from joe biden and arlen specter.

>> welcome, professor hill. let me explain what the be!!! while yourh"" $$$$$ family and others are being seated. when that isl

let anyone in or out that doort while professor hill is making her statements. >> mr. chairman, senator thurman. and i am aanita hill professor of law at the university of oklahoma. i was born on a farm in oklahoma 1956. i am the youngest of 13 children. i had might early education there. my father, albert hill, is a father -- armor in that area. my mother is also a farmer and a housewife. one of a lot of

hard work and not much money. it was one of solid family affection as represented by my parents. i was reared in a religious atmosphere in the baptist faith. i have been a member of the antioch baptist church in oklahoma since 1983. it is a very warm partantioch by life. i went to oklahoma state university and graduated there in 1977. i'm attaching to the statement a copy of my resume for further details of my education. thank you. i graduated from the university with academic honors and proceeded to the yale law school where i received my jd degree in 1980. aon graduation, i became

practicing lawyer. in 1981, i was introduced to judge thomas by a mutual friend. judge thomas told me he was anticipating a political appointment and ts if i would be interested in working with him. he was in fact appointed assistant secretary of education for civil rights. he had taken that post, he asked if i would become his assistant and i accepted that position. there, i hady time two major projects. was a paper i wrote. the second, a seminar on high-risk students which was abandoned because judge thomas

transferred where he became the chairman of that office. this time, my working relationship with judge thomas was positive. i had a good deal of responsibility and independence. i thought he respected my work and he trusted my judgment. after approximately three months, he asked me to go out socially with him. and tellingd next the world about it are the two most difficult things -- experiences of my life. ofis only after a great deal agonizing consideration and sleepless nights that i am able to talk of these unpleasant matters to anyone but my close friends. i declined the invitation to go

i wascially and said afraid it would jeopardize what i considered to be a good working relationship. i had a normal social life with other men outside the office. i believe then as now that having a social relationship with a person who is supervising my work would be ill advised. i was very uncomfortable with the idea and told him so. i thought that by saying no and explain my reasons, my employer would abandon his suggestion. however, to my regret, in the following few weeks, the continued to ask me out. to justify my reasons for saying no. incidents happened in his office. any form of private constellations -- conversations

that would not have been overheard by anybody else. my working relationship became even more strained. judge thomas began to use work situations to discuss sex. projects, or he might suggest that because of the time pressures of his schedule we go to lunch to a government cafeteria. after a brief discussions of work, he would turn the conversation to a discussion 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 individualsñ with large penises or large÷?h? breasts involving various sex$>

acts. on several occasions, thomas told me graphically of his own sexual prowess. because i was extremely uncomfortable talking about sex with him at all, and particularly in such a graphic way, i told him that i did not want to talk about this subject. i would also try to change the subject to education matters or to non-sexual personal matters, such as his background or his beliefs. my efforts to change the subject were rarely successful. throughout the period of these conversations, he also from time to time asked me for social engagements. my reaction to these conversations was to avoid them by eliminating opportunities for us to engage in extended conversations. this was difficult because, at the time, i was his only

assistant at the office of of my time at the department of education, the social pressures, and any conversation of his offensive behavior, ended. i began both to believe and hope that our working relationship could be a proper, cordial and professional one.÷l÷xlhx when judge thomas was made chai of the eeoc, i needed to face the question of whether to go with him. i was asked to do so, and i did. the work itself was interesting, and at the time it appeared that the sexual overtures which had so troubled me had ended. i also faced the realistic fact that i had no alternative job. while i might have gone back to

private practice, perhaps in my old firm or at another, i was dedicated to civil rights work, and my first choice was to be in that field. moreover, at that time, the department of education itself was a dubious venture. president reagan was seeking to abolish the entire department. for my first months at the eeoc where i continued to be an assistant to judge thomas, there were no sexual conversations or overtures. however, during the fall and winter of 1982, these began again. the comments were random and ranged from pressing me about why i didn't go out with him to remarks about my personal appearance. i remember his saying that some day i would have to tell him the real reason that i wouldn't go out with him.

he began to show displeasure in his tone and voice and his demeanor and his continued pressure for an explanation. he commented on what i was wearing in terms of whether it made me more or less sexually attractive. the incidents occurred in his inner office at the eeoc.po0oúm one of the oddest episodes i m0m remember was an occasion in which thomas was drinking a coke in his office. he got up from the table at which we were working, went over to his desk to get the coke, looked at the can and asked, "who has put pubic hair on my coke?" on other occasions, he referred to the size of his own penis as being larger than normal, and he also spoke on some occasions of

the pleasures he had given to women with oral sex. at this point, late 1982, i began to feel severe stress on the job. i began to be concerned that clarence thomas might take out his anger with me by degrading me or not giving me important assignments. i also thought that he might find an excuse for dismissing me. in january of 1983, i began looking for another job. i was i was handicapped because i feared that if he found out, he might make it difficult for me to find other employment, and i might be dismissed from the job i had. another factor that made my search more difficult was that

this was during a period-of a hiring freeze in the government. in february 1983 i was hospitalized for five days on an emergency basis for acute stomach pain, which i attributed to stress on the job. once out of the hospital i became more committed to find other employment and sought further to minimize my contact with thomas. this became easier when allison duncan became office director, because most of my work was then funneled through her, and i had contact with clarence thomas mostly in staff meetings. in the spring of 1983, and opportunity to teach at oral roberts university opened up. i i participated in a seminar, taught an afternoon session in a seminar at oral roberts university. the dean of the university saw me teaching and inquired as to whether i would be interested in further pursuing a career in teaching beginning at oral

roberts university. i agreed to take the job, in large part because of my desire to escape the pressures i felt at the eeoc due to judge thomas. when i informed him that i was leaving in july, i recall that his response was that now i would no longer have an excuse for not going out with him. i i told him that i still preferred not to do so. at some time after that meeting, he asked if he could take me to dinner at the end of the term. when i declined, he assured me that the dinner was a professional courtesy only and not a social invitation. i reluctantly agreed to accept that invitation but only if it was at the very end of a working day. on, as i recall, the last day of my employment at the eeoc in the summer of 1983, i did have

dinner with clarence thomas. we went directly from work to a restaurant near the office. we we talked about the work i had done, both at education and at the eeoc. he told me that he was pleased with all of it except for an article and speech that i had done for him while we were at the office for civil rights. finally he made a comment that i will vividly remember. he said that if i ever told anyone of his behavior that it would ruin his career. this was not an apology, nor was it an explanation. that was his that was his last remark about the possibility of our going out or reference to his behavior. in july of 1983 i left the washington, d.c. area, and i've had minimal contacts with judge clarence thomas since.

i am of course aware from the press that some questions have been raised about conversations i had with judge clarence thomas after i left the eeoc. from 1983 until today, i have seen judge thomas only twice. on one occasion i needed to get a reference from him, and on another, he made a public appearance in tulsa. on one occasion he called me at home, and we had an inconsequential conversation. on one occasion he called me without reaching me, and i returned the call without reaching him, and nothing came of it. i have, on at least three occasions, been asked to act as a conduit to him for others. i knew his secretary, diane holt. we had worked together at both eeoc and education. there were there were occasions on which i spoke to her, and on some of the these occasions, undoubtedly, i

passed on some casual comment to then-chairman thomas. there were a series of calls in the first three months of 1985 occasioned by a group in tulsa, which wished to have a civil rights conference. they wanted judge thomas to be the speaker and enlisted my assistance for this purpose. i did call in january and february, to no effect, and finally suggested to the person directly involved, susan cahall, that she put the matter into her own hands and call directly. she did so in march of 1985. in connection with that march invitation, miss cahall wanted conference materials for the seminar, and some research was needed. i was asked to try to get the information and did attempt to do so. there was another call about the possible conference in july of 1985.

in august of 1987 i was in washington d.c., and i did call diane holt. in the course of this conversation, she asked me how long i was going to be in town, and i told her. it is recorded in the message as august 15. it was in fact august 20. she told me about judge thomas' marriage, and i did say congratulate him. it is only after a great deal of agonizing consideration that i am able to talk of these unpleasant matters to anyone except my closest friends, as i've said before. these last few days have been very trying and very hard for me, and it hasn't just been the last few days this week. it has actually been over a month now that i have been under the strain of this issue. telling the world is the most

difficult experience of my life, but it is very close to having to live through the experience that occasioned this meeting. i i may have used poor judgment early on in my relationship with this issue. i was aware, however, that telling at any point in my career could adversely affect my future career, and i did not want early on to burn all the bridges to the eeoc. as i said, i may have used poor judgment. perhaps i should have taken angry or even militant steps,g1 both when i was in the agency or after i left it. but i must confess to the world that the course that i took seems the better, as well as the easier, approach.

i declined any comment to newspapers, but later, when senate staff asked me about these matters, i felt i had a duty to report. i have no personal vendetta against clarence thomas. i seek only to provide the committee with information which it may regard as relevant.hahala it would have been more comfortable to remain silent. it it took no initiative to inform anyone. i took no initiative to inform anyone. but when i asked by a representative of this committee to report my experience, i felt that i had to tell the truth. i i could not keep silent.

>> judge. thank you very much. , there are aókooçk be[ number of people sitting behind you. are any of them your family members? >> my family members haven't arrived yet. yes they have, they are outside the door. >> we will make room for your family to be able to sit. >> it is a very large family. [laughter] attempt tobegin but accommodate as quietly as we can what may be an unusual arrangement. anyone sitting

behind june necessary to sit find you? maybe they could let your family set. i would assume the reason why, to make it clear the reason your family is not here is you did if thoseipate coming who are not necessary could stand and let family members come in. we will try to get a few more chairs, if possible, we should get this underway. did you get some chairs?

i would ask we may at some point , professor hill, attempt to

accommodate your counsel or family members with chairs. need not all be up front. we cannot completely reconfigure the situation. we can put them in the back as well. there are two chairs on the end, folks. get this hearing moving. two chairs on the end. we will find a seat but we must begin. , at the risk ofi#aci# everyone behind you standing up, would you introduce your primary family members to us? >> i would like to introduce

first of all my father, over hill.- albert >> mr. hill, welcome. my mother. my mother is going to be celebrating her 80th birthday. my eldest sister is here. joanne. gilchrest.arling >> i welcome you all. >i am sorry? >> my brother. i think that is everyone. professor. sorry. i would also like to introduce my counsel at this time. >> that would be appropriate. >> mr. gardner. mr. charles ogletree. >> thank you. no professor, -- now professor,

thank you for your statement and your introductions. i think it is important the committee understand a little more about your background and experience before we get into the specific allegations you have made in your statement. i understand, as you have demonstrated, you have come from a large family. i have been told you have indicated you are the youngest in the family. i assume, like all families, they have been of great assistance to you. tell me again your educational background. to primary, elementary, and secondary school . morris junior high school

reverse order. oklahoma state university, starting in 1973 and graduated in 1977. a degree in psychology. attending yale law school. jdraduated, received my @ in 1980.s r r r r s r a d r r a job afters your first law school? dc law is a washington firm. >> the first interview took place at yale law school. i don't remember the names of the interviewers. i was called to washington for i was interviewed

and iumber of people accepted an appointment with them. process washat .receded by work at the end of the summer associate chip, i was asked to work there full-time. who is your immediate supervisor? >> a number of individuals. >> it would depend on the project i was- working on. >> what type of work did i -- did you do? was it specialized? i was a fairly new associate.

most of my work was basically was available and when i had time available to do it. however, i did some federal trade work. i did some environmental law work there. i participated in the drafting of a manual on banking law while i was there. >> did you decide you wanted to leave or was it suggested to you? did someone say, there is another job you might like? or did you indicate you might want to leave? >> i was interested in seeking other employment. it was never suggested to me at the firm i should leave the law .orm and anyway

>> how old were you? >> i was 24 years old. >> i left of the law firm because i wanted to prefer a practice other than the commercial practice. the civil practice that was being done at the law firm. i was not dissatisfied with the quality of the work or the challenges of the work. i thought i would be more irsonall÷÷÷ñxlñ÷ñññnñhh]? other fields of law.hihlñx >> were you pursued as to the department of education opportunity or did you seek it out? with clarencey thomas about the possibility >> me, how did you get to

clarence thomas? >> i was introduced by a mutual friend. >> were the member of -- was the mutual friend a member of the law from work -- where you worked for to mark >> yes. >> you had expressed to mr. hardy you would like to move into government or out of practice? are you specific in what you wanted to do with mark >> i told him only i was interested in pursuing something other than private practice. activities the office of civil rights at the time were pretty controversial. heard testimony about the fact it was under court order to change its practice for carrying out its duties. some have suggested mr. thomas job ine an exemplary changing things. some have suggested otherwise. did the controversy surrounding the office detract from your interest in taking this job, or did you consider it?

ms. hill: i certainly considere! it. i considered the fact that there was talk about abolishing the office. i considered all of those things, but i saw this as an opportunity to do some work that i may not get at another time. >> did you think this was as/1 did you think this was as good job? >> pardon me? >> did you view this as a good job, or did you view this as an intermediate step? >> i viewed it as a good job, yes. >> can you describe for the committee your duties, initial duties when you arrived at the department of education, in the civil rights area? what what were your duties? >> my duties were really special projects and special research. a lot of the special projects involved commenting on office for civil rights policies, it

involved doing research on education issues as they related to socioeconomic factors, and so forth. >> was judge thomas your direct supervisor? did you report to anyone else but judge thomas at the time? i reported only to judge thomas. so, the department of education, your sole immediate supervisor was judge thomas? >> yes. >> and what was your title? >> attorney adviser. attorney adviser. now, did you have reason to interact with judge thomas in that capacity very often during the day? >> we interacted regularly. >> did you attend meetings with judge thomas? >> i would attend some meetings, but not all of the meetings that he attended. >> perhaps you would be willing to describe to the committee what a routine work day was at that phase of your career in working with judge thomas. >> well, it could -- i am not sure there was any such thing

as a routine work day. some days i would go in, i might be asked to respond to letters that judge thomas had received, i might be asked to look at memos that had come from the various offices in the office for civil rights. if there was as meeting which judge thomas needed to attend, that he wanted someone there to take information or to help him with information, i might be asked to do that. >> where was your office physically located relative to judge thomas's office? >> his office was set up down the hall from mine. inside his set of offices, there was a desk for his secretary and then his?? office was behind a closed door. my office was down the hall, it was separated from his office. >> can you describe to us how it was that you came to move over to the eeoc with judge thomas?

well, my understanding of -- i did not have much notice that judge thomas was moving over to the eeoc. my understanding from him at that time was that i could go with him to the eeoc, that i did not have - since i was his special assistant, that i did not have a position at the office for education, but that i was welcome to go to the eeoc with him. it was as very tough decision, because this behavior occurred. however, at the time that i went to the eeoc, there was as -- or prior to the time we went to the eeoc, there was as period where the incidents had ceased, and so after some consideration

of the job opportunities in the area, as well as the fact that i do was not assured that my job at education was going to be protected,x> i made a decision to move to the eeoc. >> were you not assured of that, because you were a political appointee, or were you not assured of it because -- tell me why you felt you weren't assured of that. >> well, there were two reasons, really. one, i was a special assistant of a political appointee, and, therefore, i assumed and i was told that that position may not continue to exist. i i didn't know who was going to be taking over the position. i had not been interviewed to become the special assistant of the new individual, so i assumed they would want to hire their own, as judge thomas had done. in addition, the department of education at that time was scheduled

to be abolished. there had been a lot of talk about it, and at that time it was truly considered to be on its way outñ and so, for a second reason, i could not be certain that i would have a position there. >> now, when you moved over to eeoc, can you recall for us, to the best of your ability, how that offer came about? did you inquire of judge thomas whether or not you could go to eeoc? did he suggest it? do you recall? >> i recall that when the appointment at the eeoc became firm, that i was called into his office, and i believe diane holt was there, too, and >> diane holt, his personal secretary? >> diane holt was his secretary at education. we were there and he made the announcement about the

appointment and assured us that we could go to the eeoc with him. >> now, when you went to eeoc, what were your duties there? >> well, my duties were really varied, because it was a much larger organization, there were so many more functions of the organization, my primary duties were to be the liaison to the office of congressional affairs and the office of review and appeals, so that i reviewed a number of the cases that came up on appeal, to make certain our office had given proper'l'lnlnll consideration, i acted as a liaison to the press sometimes for the chairman's office, through congressional affairskhh i had some additional responsibilities as special projects came along.

>> did you have as much occasion to interact personally with judge thomas at eeoc as you had with him at the department of education? >> no, no. we were much busier. we were all much busier and the work that we did was work that did not necessarily.x,x$x,x$x,x,h$h$8&88 require as much interaction. a lot of times, at the education ô the work required some -- there were policy decisions that were to be made and we were trying to do an evaluation of the program, so there was more interaction at that time. @?@?a? at eeoc, there were just projects that had to get out, and so there was less of an opportunity for interaction. >> who was your immediate supervisor at eeoc? >> at the eeoc, initially, clarence thomas was my immediate

supervisor. after a period, allyson duncan was appointed to be the director of the staff. initially, the staff consisted of two special assistants, myself and carleton stewart. the the staff eventually grew to a larger number of assistants, and allyson duncan was brought up from the legal counsel's office to take control of that situation. >> now, how long were you at eeoc with judge thomas before allyson duncan became the chief of staff? >> i don't recall. >> once she became the chief of staff, was she the became the chief of staff? person who gave you assignments most often and to whom you reported most often? >> that's right. occasionally, at the staff meeting assignments would be given out, but that was

held only one day a week, so during the rest of the week when things came up, allyson was in charge of giving out assignments. >> now, did the judge's chief of staff report directly to him, or did she have an intermediate supervisor? >> no, she reported directly to him, as i understand. >> who prepared your performance evaluation? >> i understood that judge thomas prepared the performance evaluations. >> did the chief of staff, to the best of your knowledge, have the power to fire you? >> not to my knowledge. >> who had that power? >> judge thomas. >> was there anyone else at eeoc that you believe possessed that power? >> no, not for that office. >> was judge thomas still then your ultimate boss and the boss of the entire office? >> yes. >> now, was there any routine work day at eeoc that you could describe for the committee? actually, most of the work

that we did, unlike at education, most of the work was responding to internal memos, instead of responding to things that had come from outside. there were many more of those, because there were many more offices, and so each of us were responsible for a certain area, would respond to a memo or write up a memo to be sent to the chairman for his response. we also had hearings and there was always a special assistant who was assigned to sit in the commission hearings, and so some days, if we were having hearings, well, one of the special assistants -- very often it was me -- would sit in the hearing to provide the chairman with information. during the days of the week that we were not having hearings, we had to prepare the chairman for the hearings themselves, so

that we had to go through the files on the hearings and the records and brief the chairman on those or write memos that briefed the chairman on them. >> professor, you have testified that you had regular contact with judge thomas at the department of education and you have just described the extent of your contact with judge thomas at eeoc, and you have described your professional interaction with him. now, i must ask you to describe once again, and more fully, the behavior that you have alleged he engaged in while your boss, which you say went beyond professional conventions, and which was unwelcome to you. now, i know these are difficult to discuss,

but you must understand that we have to ask you about them. professor, did some of the attempts at conversation you have described in your opening statement occur in your office or in his office? >> office? >> some occurred in his office, some comments were made in mine. most often they were in his office. >> did all of the behavior that you have described to us in your written statement to the committee and your oral statement now and what you have said to the fbi, did all of that behavior take place at work? >> yes, it did. >> now, i would like you to go back -- >> let me clarify that. if you are including a luncheon

during the workday to be at work, yes. >> i am just trying to determine, it was what you described and what you believe to be part of the workday? >> yes. >> now, i have to ask you where each of these events occur? if you can, to the best of your ability, i would like you to recount for us where each of the incidents that you have mentioned in your opening statement occurred, physically where they occurred. >> well, i remember two occasions these incidents occurred at lunch in the cafeteria >> do you remember which of those two incidents were at lunch, professor? let me ask this, as an antecedent question: were you always alone when the alleged conversations would begin or

the alleged statements by judge thomas would begin? >> well, when the incidents occurred in the cafeteria, we were not alone. there were other people in the cafeteria, but because the way the tables were, there were few individuals who were within the immediate area of the conversation. >> of those incidents that occurred in places other than in the cafeteria, which ones occurred in his office? >> well, i recall specifically that the incident about the coke can occurred in his office at the eeoc. >> and what was that incident again? >> the incident with regard to the coke can, that statement? >> once again for me, please?

>> the incident involved his going to his desk, getting up from a worktable, going to his desk, looking at this can and saying, "who put pubic hair on my coke?" >> was anyone else in his office at the time? >> no. >> was the door closed? >> i don't recall. >> are there any other incidents that occurred in his office? >> i recall at least one instance in his office at the eeoc where he discussed some pornographic material and he brought up the substance or the content of pornographic material. >> again, it is difficult, but for the record, what substance did he bring up in this instance at eeoc in his office?

what was the content of what he said? >> this was a reference to an individual who had a very large penis and he used the name that he had referred to in the pornographic material >> do you recall what it was? yes, i do. the name that was referred to the name that was referred to was long dong silver. >> were you working on any matter in that context, or were you just called into the office? do you remember the circumstances of your being in the office on that occasion? very often, i went in to report on memos that i had written. i'm sure that's why i was in the office.

what happened generally was that i would write a note to clarence thomas and he would call me in to talk about what i had written to him, and i believe that's what happened on that occasion. >> let's go back to the first time that you alleged judge thomas indicated he had more than a professional interest in you. do you recall what the first time was and, with as much precision as you can, what he said to you? >> as i recall, it either happened at lunch or it happened in his office when he said to me, very casually, "you ought to go out with me some time." >> you ought to or you are to? >> you ought to. >> was that the extent of that incident? >> that was the extent of that incident.

at that incident, i declined and at that incident i think he may have said something about, you know, he didn't understand why i didn't want to go out with him, and the conversation may have ended. >> would you describe for the committee how you told at that time when he asked you out? what was your reaction? >> well, my reaction at that time was a little surprised, because i had not indicated to him in any way that i was interested in dating him. we had developed a good working relationship. it was cordial and it was very comfortable, so i was surprised that he was interested in something else. with regard to the other incidents -- and my time is running down, and i will com? back to them -- but with regard

to the other incidents that youñ?x7 mentioned in your opening statement, can you tell us how you felt at the time? were you& uncomfortable,wwwwwwuuuww were you embarrassed, did it not concern you? how did you feelww about it?wwwww >> the pressure to go out with him i felt embarrassed about because i had given him am explanation, that i thought it was not good for me, as an employee, working directly for him, to go out. i thought he did not take seriously my decision to say no, and that he did not respect my having said no to him. i -- the conversations aboutoggw sex, i was much more embarrasseg and humiliated by. the two combined really made me feel sort of helpless in a job situation because i really wanted to do the work that i was doing. i enjoyed that work.

but i felt that that was being put in jeopardy by the other things that were going on in the office. and so, i was really, really very troubled by it and distressed over it. >> can you tell the committee what was the most embarrassing of all the incidents that you have alleged? >> i think the one that was the most embarrassing was this discussion of pornography involving women with large breasts and engaged in a variety of sex with different people, or animals. that was the thing that embarrassed me the most and made me feel the most humiliated. if you can, in his words --###g

not yours - in his words, can you tell us what, on that occasion, he said to you? you have described the essence of the conversation. in order for us to us, inne -- can you tell his words, what he said? >> i really cannot quote him verbatim. i can remember something like, you really ought to see these films that i have seen or this material that i have seen. this woman has this kind of breasts or breasts that measure this size, and they got her in their with all kinds of things, she is doing all kinds of different sex acts. and, you know, that kind of,

those were the kinds of words. where he expressed his enjoyment of it, and seemed to try to encourage me to enjoy that kind of material, as well. >> did he indicate why he thought you should see this material? >> no. why do you think, what was your reaction, why do you think he was saying these things to you? >> well, coupled with the pressures about going out with him, i felt that implicit in this discussion about sex was?'' the offer to have sex with him, not just to go out with him. there was never any explicit thing about going out to dinner or going to a particular concert or movie, it was, "we ought to go out" and

given his other conversations i took that to mean, we ought to have sex or we ought to look at these pornographic movies together. >> professor, at your press conference, one of your press conferences, you said that the issue that you raised about judge thomas was "an ugly issue." is that how you viewed these conversations? >> yes, they were very ugly. they were very dirty. they were disgusting. were any one of these conversations -- this is my last question, my time is up -- were any one of these conversations, other than being asked repeatedly to go out, were any

of them repeated more than once? one the same conversation, the reference to -- >> the reference to his own physical attributes was repeated more than once, yes. >> now, again, for the record, did he just say i have great physical capability or attributes or was he more graphic? >> he was much more graphic. >> can you tell us what he said? >> well, i can tell you that he compared his penis size, he measured his penis in terms of length, those kinds of comments. >> thank you. my time is up, under our agreement. by the way, i might state once again that we have agreed we will go back and forth in half-hour conversation on each side.

at which time, when the principals have finished asking questions, those members who have not been designated to ask questions, since all have been keenly involved and interested inq1a1i1q1 this on both sides, will have ao opportunity to ask questions fog five minutes. but let me now yield to my friend from pennsylvania, senator specter. >> thank you, mr. chairman. professor hill, i have been asked to question you by senator thurmond, the ranking republican, but i do not regard this as an adversary proceeding. >> thank you. >> my duties run to the people of pennsylvania, who have elected me, and in the broader sense, as a u.s. senator to constitutional government and the constitution. and my purpose, as is the purpose of the hearing, generally, is to find out what happened. >> certainly. >> we obviously have a matter of

importance from a of?#?#?'?'?## points of view. the integrity of the court is very important, the supreme court not have any member who is tainted or have a cloud. in our society, we can accept unfavorable decisions from a court if we think they are fairly arrived at. some of our colleagues on this and cannot hear you. can you pull that closer? i have done that carefully to avoid that. mr. chair: you succeeded. you can hear me all right? hill: yes, i can. sen. specter: i was just saying should be importance of

should bewhere therekcc a feeling of confidence in decisions as theccccc we parties can take unfavorable if they think they are being treated unfairly. this is of critical importance to judge thomas and you whose careers are on the line. it's not easy to go back toxx- events that happened almost a month ago to find out what happened. there he difficult to do. --< very difficult to do. i would start with one of your most recent statements, according to a man by the name of carl stewart, who says he met year.

ran into you at the american bar association convention in hillta, where professor stated to me in the presence of stanley grayson, how great clarence's nomination was and how much he deserved it. we went on to discuss judge eehaxayqzaxaxahahaxahahqhaxahac for an additional 30 minutes or so. there was no mention of sexual harassment or anything negative about judge thomas. he stated during that conversation. there is a statement from stanley grayson corroborating what carlton stewart has said. my question is, did mr. stewart accurately state what happened with you at that meeting? professor hill: as i recall at that meeting, i did see girls and stewart and we did discuss the nomination. carlton stewart and we did discuss the nomination. he was very excited about the nomination.

i believe those were his words, how great it was that clarence thomas was nominated. i only said that it was a great opportunity for clarence thomas. i did not say that it was a good thing, this nomination was a good thing. i might add that i have spoken with newspaper reporters and have gone on record as saying that i have some doubts and some questions about the nomination. however, in that conversation where i was faced with an individual who was chelated about the probability of his friend being on the supreme court, i did not want to insult him or argue with him at that time about the issue. i was very passive in the conversation. so that mr.: stewart and mr. grayson are simply wrong when they say that

you said specifically, how great his nomination was and how much he deserved it. they are just wrong? professor hill: the latter part is certainly wrong. i did say it was a great opportunity for clarence thomas. i did not say that he deserved it. sen. specter: we have a statement from former dean of oral roberts law school, roger le, who quotes u.s. laudatoryas saying comments about judge comments as a fine man and excellent legal scholar. in the course of three years tle knew you at the law school, that you had always praised him and had never made any derogatory comments. is he correct? professor hill: during the time

i was at oral roberts, i realized that charles kothe, who was a founding dean of that school had very high regards for clarence thomas. i did not risk talking and disparaging ways about clarence thomas at that time. i don't recall any specific conversations about clarence thomas in which i said anything about his legal scholarship. i don't really know of his legal scholarship, certainly at that time. i can understand it if you didn't say anything, but he makes a specific statement. said, theare that you most laudatory comments. i have nohill:

response because i don't know exactly what he is saying. sen. specter: there is a barry,n about phyllis who was quoted in the new york barryin an interview, ms. suggested that the allegations, referring to your allegations, 's the result of miss. hill disappointment and frustration that mr. thomas did not show any sexual interest in her. y atare asked about ms. barr the interview on october 9 and are reported to have said, i don't know her and she doesn't know me. there are quite a few people who have come forward to say they saw you together and that you .new each other very well

i wouldor hill: disagree with that. she worked at the eeoc. she did attend some staff meetings there. we were not close friends. we did not socialize together and she has no basis for making a comment about my social interests, with regard to clarence thomas or anyone else. i might add, that at the time that i had an active social life and that i was involved with other people. ms. anna je: did arez, whod ms. jc alv both have provided statements

attesting to the relationship , aween you and ms. barry friendly one. where she would have known you were coworkers in a position to observe your relationship? professor hill: they were both workers at the eeoc. i can only say that they were commenting on our relationship in the office. it was cordial and friendly. we were not in from a with each other, but we were not social acquaintances. we were professional acquaintances. sen. specter: so that when you said, ms. barry doesn't know me and i don't know her, he weren't referring to just that, but some intensity of knowledge? professor hill: this is a specific remark about my sexual interest. i think one has to know another person very well to make those

kinds of remarks must bear very openly expressed. unless they are very openly expressed. professor hill: did she observe u.n. judge thomas together in the office? sen. specter: yes, at staff meetings where she attended at the office. professor hill: let me pick up on senator biden's line of questioning. you referred to the oddest episode i remember then talked the coke incident. ton you made your statement the fbi, why was it that that was omitted if it were so strong in your mind and such and ought incident? theessor hill: i spoke to fbi agent and told him the nature of the comments and did not tell them are specific. i referred to the specific comments that were in my statement. sen. specter: when you talk to the fbi agents, you did make

specific allegations about specific sexual statements made by judge thomas. professor hill: yes. sen. specter: so that your statement to the fbi did have specifics. you, why, if this was such a not episode, was it not included when you talk to the fbi? professor hill: i don't know. sen. specter: i would like you to take a look, if you would at your own statement in the first full paragraph of page five. whye÷ l and ask you that was not included in your statement to the fbi? professor hill: would you

referred to that passage again? sen. specter: yes, of course. of theng to page five!0!p#p statement which he provided to the committee. there is a strong allegation in the last sentence. my question to you is, why did you not tell that to the fbi? when the fbil: investigation took place, i tried to answer their questions as directly as i recall. talkingry uncomfortable to the agent about that, these aincidents. i am very uncomfortable now, but i feel it is necessary. the fbi agent told me that it was regular procedure to come back and ask for more specifics

if it was necessary. providetime, i did not all of the specifics that i could have. i can understand that it is uncomfortable and i don't want to add to that. if any of it is something you want to posit about, please do -- pause about, please do. you testified this morning in response to senator biden that the most embarrassing question involved -- this is not too bad -- women's large breasts. that was the most embarrassing aspect of what judge thomas had said to you. professor hill: no. the most american aspect was his description of the acts of these

individuals, these women, the acts those particular people would engage in. , it wast just a breasts a continuation of his story of what happened in those films with the people with this characteristic, physical characteristic. sen. specter: with the physical characteristic of -- professor hill: the large breasts. sen. specter: in your statement to the fbi, you did refer to the , but there is no reference to the physical characteristic you describe. i don't want to attach too much weight to do it, but i had thought you said the aspect of the aspectts was that concerned you and that was missing from the statement to the fbi. professor hill: then i have been misunderstood. it wasn't the physical

characteristic of having large breasts. it was the description of the acts this person with this characteristic would do, the act they would engage in, group acts, acts with animals, things of that nature involving women. i would like you now to turn to page three of your statement that you submitted to the committee. sentence on the first full paragraph, you again on that statement, a very serious allegation as to judge thomas, and i would ask you why you didn't tell the fbi about that when they interviewed you. i suppose myl: response would be the same. i did not tell the fbi all of the information.

the fbi agent made clear that if i were embarrassed about talking about something, but i could decline to discuss things that were too embarrassing, but that i could provide as much information as i felt comfortable with at that time. you declined did to discuss with the fbi anything on the grounds that it was too embarrassing? professor hill: there were no particular questions that were asked. he asked me to describe the of incidents that had occurred as graphically as i could without being embarrassed. i did not explain everything. i agree that all of this was not disclosed in the fbi investigation. it easier forwas you because one of the fbi agents was a woman, or did you ask at any time that you give

the statements to her alone in the absence of the man fbi agent? professor hill: no. i did not do that. i do not have to disclose. i did not. disclose.ot ask to i did not. sen. specter: i understand from what you are saying now that you were not told that you didn't have to say anything if it was too embarrassing for you. my question is, did you use that at any point to declined to give any information on the ground that it was too embarrassing? professor hill: i never declined to answer a question because it was too embarrassing. he asked me to describe the thanents, and rather to declined to make any statement at all, i described them to my level of comfort. sen. specter: you described a fair number of things in the statement, but i come back now to the last sentence on page

three in the first full. paragraph because it is a strong allegation hadnow have said that you not omitted that because of its being embarrassing, or you might have said even something embarrassing to the female agent. my question to you is, why was that omitted? at the time of the fbi investigation, i cooperated as fully as i could at that time. explain why anything in specific was not stated. you testified that that judge inference might want you to look at pornographic films, but you told the fbi specifically that he never asked you to watch the films.

is that correct? professor hill: he never said, let's go to my apartment and watch films or go to my house and watch films. to seesay, you ought this material. testifieder: when you that we ought to look at pornographic movies together, that was an expression of what was in your mind -- professor hill: that was the inference i drew. sen. specter: something you might have wanted you to do, but the fact is he never asked you to look at pornographic movies with him. professor hill: with him, no he did not. mr. chair: to determine whether or not the witness ever saw the fbi report, does she know what was stated by the fbi about her

comments? i'm asking her about what she said to the fbi. i understand, i am just asking that. have you ever seen the fbi report? professor hill: no, i have not. mr. chair: thank you. would you like to take a few moments and look at it now. professor hill: yes, i would. mr. chair: let's make a copy of the fbi report. i think we have to be careful. maybe you can continue only as it pertains to her. we are not at liberty to give to her what the fbi said about other individuals. i was asking professor hill about the fbi report. i think it is fair one lawyer to another.

i would continue because you're not asking her directly, i just want to know whether or not her responses were based upon her knowledge of what the fbi said she said. that was all i was asking. she has asked to see it, and i think it is a fair request and i would be glad to delay 2 -- -- to -- mr. chair: this is the fbi report as it references professor hill, only professor hill. sen. specter: maybe stop the clock? mr. chair: yes, we will. we will turn the clock back and give the senator additional time . i will not ask along to turn it back. i will leave that decision to

senator simpson.

mr. chair: that was not to hurry you along, that was to ask for silence in the room. the only point i wish to make is that you have, that you know what is in the report and that you understand the report is a summary of your conversation, not a transcription of your conversation.

while we have this momentary break, the senator has 10 or more minutes remaining. at the conclusion of his questioning, we will recess for lunch for an hour and then begin with senator leahy. an hour from the time we end. have you had a chance to peruse it? professor hill: yes. thank you. mr. chair: i apologize to my colleague for the interruption. sen. specter: thank you, mr. chairman. now that you have read the fbi , you can see that it contains no reference to any thomas' privage

te parts or sexual prowess or size, etc. onquestion would be something that is as important as it is in your written testimony and yoin your responses to senator biden, why didn't you tell the fbi about that? professor hill: in paragraph two on page two of the report it that he liked to discuss specific sex acts and frequency of sex. i'm not sure what all that summarizes, but his sexual prowess, his sexual preferences could have -- sen. specter: which line are you referring to? professor hill: the very last line and paragraph two of page two. sen. specter: that says thomas

like to discuss specific sex acts and frequency of sex. saying, in response to my question as to why you didn't tell the fbi about the size of his private parts and his sexual sowess and "long john information was comprehended within the statement, thomas like to discuss specific sex acts and frequency of sex? i'm not saying that that information was included in that. i don't know that it was. i don't believe that i even mention the latter information to the fbi agent, and i could only respond again that at the time of the investigation, i try to cooperate as fully as i could to recall information to answer the questions that they asked. sen. specter: you said that you that judgemean

thomas wanted to have sex with you, but in fact, he never did ask you to have sex, correct? professor hill: no, he did not ask me to have sex. he did continually pressure me to go out with him and he would not accept my explanation as being valid. sen. specter: so that when you said you took it to mean we ought to have sex but that was an inference that you drew? professor hill: yes. the usa today anitaed on october 9, hill was told by senate staffers 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. was usa today correct on that, attributing it to a man named mr. keith henderson, a 10 year friend of hill and former senate judiciary committee staffer? professor hill: i do not recall. did i say that? i don't understand who said what. sen. specter: let me go on. henderson, at 10 year friend of hell and former senate judiciary committee staffer says he'll was advised by senate staffers that her charge would be kept secret and her name cap from public -- kept from public scrutiny. apparently they were referring statement henderson's

that they would approach judge thomas with the information and he would withdraw and not turn this into a big story, henderson says. did anybody ever tell you that providing the statement, that there would be a move to request judge thomas to withdraw his nomination? recallor hill: i don't any story about pressing, using this to press anyone. sen. specter: do you recall anything at all about anything related to that? i was told that my statement would be shown to judge thomas, and i agreed to that. sen. specter: was there any suggestion that the statement with these serious charges would result in a withdrawals of that it would have to be necessary for your identity to be known or for you to come forward under these?tances like professor hill: not that i recall.

i don't recall anything being said about him being pressed to resign. this would only have happened in the course of the past month or so. all of this started just in early september. professor hill: i understand. sen. specter: when you say you don't recall, i would ask you to search her memory on this point, and perhaps we might begin -- and this is an important subject. about the initiation of this entire matter with respect to the senate staffers who talk to you. but that is going to be too long for the few minutes that i have left, so i would just ask you once again, and you say you don't recollect, whether there was anything at all said to you by anyone that, as usa today

reports, that just by having the allegations of sexual harassment by clarence thomas, that it would be the instrument that quietly and behind the scenes would force him to withdraw his name. is there anything related to that in any way whatsoever? professor hill: the only thing that i can think of, and if you will check, there were a lot of phone conversations. we were discussing this matter very carefully, and at some point there might have been a conversation about what might happen. sen. specter: might have been? professor hill: there might have been, but it wasn't -- i don't remember this specific kind of comment about quietly and behind the scenes pressing him to withdraw. sen. specter: aside from quietly

and behind the scenes pressing him to withdraw, any suggestion that just the charges themselves in writing would result in judge withdrawing and going away? professor hill: no. i don't recall that at all. sen. specter: you started to say that there might have been some conversation. professor hill: there might have been some conversation about what might possibly occur. sen. specter: tommy about that conversation. professor hill: i can't relate how you anymore about what i said. i discussed what the alternatives were, what might happen with this affidavit that i submitted. we talked about the possibility of the senate committee coming back for more information. we talked about the possibility asking, going to the

fbi and getting more information. some questions from individual senators. the statement that you are referring to, i really can't verify. you talkter: when about the senate coming back for more information or the fbi coming back for more information or senators coming back for more information, that has nothing at all to do with judge thomas withdrawing. when you testified a few moments ago that there might possibly have been a conversation, in response to my question about a , i wouldwithdrawal press you on that in this context. you have testified with some specificity about what happened 10 years ago. i would ask you to press your recollection as to what happened within the last month. professor hill: i have done that senator.

i don't recall that comment. i do recall that there might have been some suggestion that if the fbi did the investigation , that the senate might get involved, that there might be -- that a number of things might occur. i really, i have to be honest with you, i cannot verify the statement that you are asking me to verify. there is really more than i can tell you on that. sen. specter: when you say a number of things might occur, what sort of things? professor hill: may i just add this one thing? sen. specter: sure. professor hill: the nature of that kind of conversation that you are talking about is very different from the nature of the conversation that i recall. the conversations that i recall were much more vivid. they were more explicit. the conversation that i have had the last fewf over days in particular have become

much more blurry, but these are vivid is thence that i recall from even eight years ago when they happened, and they are going to stand out much more in my mind than a telephone conversation. they were one-on-one, personal conversations, as a matter of fact, and that adds to why they are much more easily recalled. i am sure that there are some comments that i do not recall the exact nature of from that period as well. these, that are here are the ones that i do recall. sen. specter: i can understand ,hy you say that these comments a legend comments -- alleged comments would stand out in your mind. but when you talk about the withdrawal of a supreme court nominee, you are about something vivid, stark,very

and you are talking about something that occurred within the past four or five weeks. question goes to a very dramatic and important event. wouldere allegation pressure a nominee to withdraw from the supreme court, i would suggest to you that that is not something that wouldn't stick and a mind for four or five weeks, if it happened. professor hill: i would suggest to you that for me, these are more than mere allegations, so comment were made, these are the truth to me. these comments are the truth to me.

if it were made, i may not respond to it in the same way that you do. sen. specter: i'm not questioning your statement when i use the word allegation to refer to 10 years ago. i do still want to talk about it as a fact because so far, that is something we have to decide. i'm not stressing that aspect of the question. i do, with respect to the time period, but the point that i would come back to for just one more minute would be -- let me ask it to you this way. would you not consider it a matter of real importance if someone said to you, professor, you won't have to go public, your name on have to be disclosed. you won't have to do anything. just sign the affidavit in this report the usa today would be the instrument that

"quietly and behind the scenes" would force him to withdraw his name. i'm not asking you whether it happened, i am asking you only if it did happen, whether that would be the kind of statement to you which would be important and pressed upon you that you would remember in the course of four or five weeks. professor hill: i don't recall a specific statement and i cannot say whether that comment would have stuck in my mind. i really cannot say that.

sen. specter: the sequence with the staffers is very involved, so i'm going to move to another subject now. i want to come back to this. over the lunch break, i would ask you to think about it further, if there is anyway you can shed any further light on the question because i think it is an important one. professor hill: thank you. sen. specter: the next subject i want to take up with you involves the kind of strong judgege which you say thomas used in a very unique setting where there you have the therman of the eeoc, nation's chief law enforcement officer on sexual harassment, and here you have a lawyer who is an expert in this field, later goes on to teach civil rights and has a dedication to

making sure that women are not discriminated against. if you take the single issue of discrimination against women, the chairman of the eeoc has a more important role on the question even then a supreme court justice. a supreme court justice is a more important position overall. if you focused just on sexual harassment. the testimony that you have ascribed here today depicts circumstance where the chairman blatant, as you is,ribe it, and my question understanding the fact that you are 25 and that you are shortly out of law school, and the pressures that exist in this

world -- and i know about it to extent. i used to be a district attorney and i know about sexual harassment and discrimination against women, and i think i have some sensitivity on it. even considering all of that, given your own expert standing and the fact that here you have the chief law enforcement officer of the country on this subject and the whole purpose of the civil rights law is being perverted right in the office of the chairman with one of his own female subordinates, what went through your mind, if anything on whether you ought to come forward at that stage? if you had, you would have stopped this man from being head of the eeoc perhaps for another decade. what went on through your mind? to make a decided not complaint, but did you give that any consideration, and if so, how could you allow this kind of reprehensible conduct to go on

right in the headquarters without doing something about it. it was a very: trying and difficult decision for me not to say anything further. i can only say that when i made the decision to just withdraw from the situation and not press a claim or charge against him, a dutymay have shirked or responsibility i had. i confess that i am very sorry that i did not do something or say something. that was mytime, best judgment. maybe it was a poor judgment, but it wasn't dishonest and it wasn't a completely unreasonable choice that i made, given the circumstances. my red light is

on. thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chair: thank you, senator. thank you, professor hill. we will adjourn and reconvene at 2:15. >> you have been watching testimony from a 1991 hearing hill, who is accusing clarence thomas of sexual harassment at the time of his confirmation. we have been showing it to you as conversations continue between the senate judiciary committee and professor blasey ford against supreme court nominee judge kavanaugh. next, more from that 1991 hearing taking questions from lawmakers. this portion is just over an hour.

mr. chair: the committee will please come to order. tough day and tough night for you. me ask, do you have anything you would like to say before we begin. , understand your preferences which is totally and completely understandable that we go one hour tonight, 30 minutes on each side. mi correct in that? thomas: i would like to begin by saying that i deny each and every single allegation against me today. that iggested in any way had conversations of a sexual nature or about pornographic materials with anita hill.

that i ever attempted to date her, that i ever had any personal sexual interest in her or that i in any way ever the second, and i think more important point, i think that this today is a travesty. i think that it is disgusting. should that this hearing never occur in america. this is a case in which this dirt was searched for by staffers of members of this committee. media.then leaked to the bodycommittee and this validated it and displayed it prime time over our entire nation.

of thisd any member committee, any person in this room or any person in this like those of about him or her in this fashion? or this dirt dredged up and this gossip and these lies displayed in this manner? how would any person like it? the supreme court is not worth it. no job is worth it. i'm not here for that. i'm here for my name, my family, my life and my integrity. think something is dreadfully wrong with this country. when any person in this free country would be subjected to this. this is not a closed room. there was an fbi investigation. opportunity to

talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment. this is a circus. it is a national disgrace. standpoint, as a black american, as far as i'm concerned, it is a high-tech blacks whor uppity in any way ordained to think for themselves or have different ideas. it is a message that unless you count down to an old order, this is what will happen to you. destroyed, lynched, committee ofy a the u.s. senate. rather than hung from a tree. mr. chair: we will have the

senator from north carolina. hatch toamed senator ands examine the judge those supporting him. mr. chair: i think we would start with senator heflin and then go to senator hatch. i think that is the way i was told. hefflin: judge thomas, in hill, thereanita have surfaced some other allegations against you. on a television show washington. here in

i don't know whether you saw that or not. it was carried somewhat in the media today. a man by the name of earl harper junior. who allegedly was a senior trial lawyer. eeoc in baltimore. around the early 80's. instancecall this

pertaining to earl harper junior? i remember the name, i cannot remember the details. fflin: the allegations involved somerper 12 or 13 women who claim that made sexual, unwelcome sexual advances to several women on his staff. including instances in which mr. masturbated in the of some of the female employees.

the allegations contain other aspects of sexual activity. the information we have is that the general counsel of the eeoc david made a lengthy internal thattigation and found this had the effect of creating an intimidating, hostile and offensive working environment, 1983,at on november 23, slate mmo urging

that mr. harper be fired -- a memo urging that mr. harper be fired. mr. slate eventually recommended dismissal. recites that you , that yousmiss him allow him to stay on for 11 months and then he retired. does that bring back to you any recollection of that event concerning mr. earl harper junior? again, i am: operating strictly on recollection. if it is the case i am thinking of, mr. harper's supervisor orommended either suspension

some form of sanction or punishment that was less than termination. proposal -- the supervisor initially was not david slate -- when that proposal reached my desk, i believe my recommendation was that for the conduct involved, he should be fired. if problem there was that the immediate supervisors decision is changed, and i believe mr. harper was a veteran, there are a number of procedural protections that he had, including a hearing, and of course he had a lawyer and there is potential litigation, etc.. all of theer details, but it is not as simple as you set it out. as a result of my insistence that the general counsel upgraded the sanction to termination. heflin: do you know a

congressman by the name of scott congressmanublican who was defeated by robert kas who now of wisconsin, serves in congress, who back in the early 1980's, 1983 or something, was a television reporter for a channel here in washington, and that he at that time disclosed this as that after the recommendation of dismissal, that you did not move in regards to it for some 11 months and let him retire? do you know congressman kluge?

judge thomas: i do not know him, i'm operating on recollection. there was far more to it than the facts as you set them out. his rights had much to do with the fact that he was a veteran and that we could not simply dismiss him. if we could, that was my recommendation. he would have been dismissed. sen. heflin: there was no political influence brought to bear on you at that time to prevent his dismissal? do you recall if any political -- judge thomas: no political influence pop -- influence. it was my decision that no personal decisions would be in any way change or influenced by political pressure, one way or the other. heflin: it was reported to

me that congressman kluge, after your nomination, went to the white house and told the story hearsay, thatreby the white house ignored his statement and that congressman e further came to the senate judiciary committee and made it known here. know, i attempted to check -- i've not been able to find where it was in the judiciary committee, if it was, and i think the chairman has in theed to locate it --

whole process pertaining to the nomination and the preparation for, were you ever notified that congressman kluge was in the white house in regards to this? judge thomas i do not remember that. heflin: nobody ever discussed that? judge thomas: no. lin: that is the way it has been reported to me and it is very fragmented relative to that. sen. hatch: mr. chairman, if i could interrupt.

i really think this is outside the scope under the rules.i would have to object it . mr. chair: i would have to sustain that objection. sen. hatch: i hesitate to object, but i just think we ought to keep it on the subject matter. mr. chair: i do not see where it is relevant. heflin: i think it is relevant in the issue pertaining to the period of time relative to the issue, particularly in regards to their responsibilities as head of the agency dealing with discrimination to employment. mr. chair: if i may speak, let me say this is not about whether the judge administer the agency properly. to only issue here relates conduct an allegations that have made, so i would respectfully suggest a my friend from alabama that that line of questioning is not in order and i roll it out of order. right, i willll

reserve an exception as we used to say. heardose you have professor hill testified today. judge thomas: no, i haven't. sen. heflin: you didn't listen? judge thomas: no, i didn't. i have heard enough lies. sen. heflin: you didn't listen to her testimony at all? judge thomas: no i didn't. sen. heflin: on television? judge thomas: no, i didn't. i've heard enough lies. today is a day that is high among the days in our country. travesty. you spent the entire day destroying what it has taken me 43 years to build and providing a forum for that. heflin: we have a

responsibility. involved, i had nothing to do with anita hill coming here and testifying. senator heflin: we are trying to get to the bottom of this. and, if she is lying, then i think you can help us prove that she was lying. -- that she was lying. judge thomas: senator, i am incapable of proving the negative. it did not occur. senator heflin: well, if it did not occur, i think you are in a

position, with certainly your ability to testify, in effect, to try to eliminate it from people's minds. judge thomas: senator, i didn't create it in people's minds. this matter was investigated by the federal bureau of investigation in a confidential way. it was then leaked last week into the media. i did not do that. and how many members of this committee will like to have the , and cooperated allegations made about him and then leaked to national newspapers and then be drawn and dried before a national forum of this nature to discuss those