Hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committe on the Nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court
Hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committe on the Nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court
Hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committe on the Nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court Friday October 11, 1991 afternoon session. Anita Hill is questioned by Senators about her charges of sexual harassment against Clarence Thomas.
Hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committe on the Nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court
Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D - Ohio). Mr. Chairman, again I want to raise the question about the method of procedure. What we have now, within the last 15 minutes we were presented five pieces of paper, some of which are notarized, some of which aren't, various people making certain statements. And now we find that our friend, Senator Specter - and before that we had been presented the affidavit of Mr. Doggett - now we find that this lady is being called upon to respond to these statements, some of which are notarized, some of which aren't. But what we are doing is, we are introducing a whole new element of testimony in this means by inquiring of her. And frankly, Mr. Chairman, I feel it violates the rules under which you told us this committee was operating and which I think we all agreed to. I think it is a back door way of approaching the question of how many witnesses each side will bring forth. Senator Arlen Specter (R - Pennsylvania). Mr. Chairman, if I may respond. Senator Joseph Biden (D - Delaware). Yes. Senator Arlen Specter (R - Pennsylvania). This is a key point as to why Professor Hill left one department and went to another. And according to her statements, Judge Thomas had sexually harassed her at the Department of Education, and she went with him to EEOC in significant part, if not in major part, according to her statement, because she would have lost her job. Now Senator Metzenbaum may find that uncomfortable, but I frankly object to his interruption, and the witness doesn't have any problem with the question. Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D - Ohio). I want to say I am not wanting to interrupt my friend in his line of inquiry. I am raising the question with the Chair with respect to the procedure. We were all told that there would be only so many witnesses, and unless there was agreement between the Chair and the ranking member, that is the number that would be had. But if you have witnesses come in through affidavits and then inquire of Ms. Hill, I think that it just is not following the procedures. Senator Arlen Specter (R - Pennsylvania). Mr. Chairman, this is a question which goes to the heart of the credibility of what the witness has testified to, as to her reason for a very critical move from the Department of Education to EEOC. Senator Joseph Biden (D - Delaware). There is no question that it is as represented. The question is whether or not the remainder of the committee had any opportunity to prepare, to know whether or not this was going to happen. What I am afraid is going to happen now is, by the time that Judge Thomas gets here, there will be 2, 7, 10, 12, 15 affidavits that no one will have an opportunity to look at, and Judge Thomas will be questioned on things that could be totally scurrilous, could be in fact totally off the wall, without any of our staffs having an opportunity to determine whether or not the person proffering the statement is in fact credible and whether or not that person should be called before the committee. Senator Strom Thurmond (R - South Carolina). Mr. Chairman, may I make a statement? Senator Joseph Biden (D - Delaware). Yes. Senator Strom Thurmond (R - South Carolina). I think the question is proper because without this affidavit, you don't need the Doggett affidavit. He could ask her the question that he did ask her, why she left when she could have stayed, without this affidavit. You don't need this affidavit. The question he asked is perfectly proper.
Hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committe on the Nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court
Senator Arlen Specter (R - Pennsylvania). I am shifting now, Professor Hill, to a key issue regarding your testimony that you moved with Judge Thomas from the Department of Education to EEOC because you needed the job. That is your testimony, correct? Professor Anita Hill. Well, I think that is your summary of my testimony. Senator Arlen Specter (R - Pennsylvania). Well, is my summary accurate? Professor Anita Hill. Well, I said that I moved to EEOC because I did not have another job. This position that--I was not sure whether I would have a position at the Department of Education. I suppose that could be translated into I needed the job. Senator Arlen Specter (R - Pennsylvania). Okay. I am informed, Professor Hill, that you were a Schedule A attorney and in that capacity could stay at the Department of Education. Is that incorrect? Professor Anita Hill. I believe I was a Schedule A attorney but, as I explained it, I was the assistant to the Chair of - oh, excuse me - assistant to the Assistant Secretary of Education. That, I had not been interviewed by anyone who was to take over that position for that job. I was not even informed that I could stay on as a Schedule A attorney, as well as, as I stated before, the agency was subject to being abolished. Senator Arlen Specter (R - Pennsylvania). But as a Schedule A attorney, you could have stayed in some job? Professor Anita Hill. I suppose. As far as I know, I could have, but I am not sure because at the time the agency was scheduled to be abolished. And I want to add, too, that one of the things that I have made the point about before was that the activity had ended at that time, and I enjoyed the work. I wanted to do civil rights work, but I didn't know what work I would be doing if I could have even stayed at the agency, at the Department of Education. I moved on because I assumed that the issue of the behavior of Clarence Thomas had been laid to rest, that it was over, and that I could look forward to a similar position at the EEOC.
Hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committe on the Nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court
Senator Joseph Biden (D - Delaware). Well, let me tell you what I am going to do, and then I will yield to my colleagues. I am going to speak. Let me tell you what I am going to do. It is appropriate to ask Professor Hill anything any member wishes to ask her to plumb the depths of her credibility. It would be appropriate to ask her about Mr. Singleton, but it is inappropriate to represent what Mr. Singleton says via an affidavit. There is a distinction. So you can ask anything you want. You can ask her what Santa Claus said or didn't say, whether she spoke to him or not, but it is inappropriate to introduce an affidavit from Santa Claus prior to every member on this committee having an opportunity to check it out, for the following reason: We may find out that Santa Claus is not real. Therefore, it may not be very relevant whether or not Santa Claus said something or not. So we are all lawyers on this committee, with one or two exceptions. There is a fundamental distinction between being able to ask a question, between being able to ask a question to determine the credibility of a witness and representing what an individual said they said or said they offered or said they thought about the motivation of the witness. There is a distinction. And so the Chair will rule you can ask anything you want about credibility; you cannot represent, via an affidavit or a sworn statement or a statement, as to what the individual being asked about thinks. If that is the case, ask the committee to bring that witness forward, and then we will sit down and renegotiate among ourselves and with the White House how many witnesses we are going to have. But as pointed out here, this is another way of getting in 2, 5, 7, 10, 20 witnesses without their being able to be cross- examined representing what they said. Now, that is the Chair's ruling. Did my friend want to say anything? Senator Paul Simon (D - Illinois). I would just buttress that by saying there is one other reason, Mr. Chairman, and that is, if we don't abide by the rules, we are going to end up in these wrangles constantly every time a new affidavit is brought up. Senator Joseph Biden (D - Delaware). And I assure my friend from Wyoming that I will impose the same exact rule on anyone questioning Judge Thomas. Now, the Senator from Pennsylvania has the floor. Senator Arlen Specter (R - Pennsylvania). Mr. Chairman, am I accurate that I only have 29 minutes left? Senator Joseph Biden (D - Delaware). You have whatever time was -let me ask. Let me ask Senator Simon. Senator Arlen Specter (R - Pennsylvania). Twenty-nine minutes on my 30-minute round. Senator Joseph Biden (D - Delaware). Pardon me? Senator Arlen Specter (R - Pennsylvania). Is it accurate that I only have 29 minutes left on my 30-minute round? Senator Joseph Biden (D - Delaware). It is accurate you can have as much time as you want, Senator. Senator Arlen Specter (R - Pennsylvania). Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.