Sunday, October 13, 1991 Evening Session

[Statement of Ms. Berry, former Special Assistant, EEOC]

MS. BERRY: You can call me Phyllis Berry, since that was my name that I used throughout my professional life, and that's probably what most people are going to refer to me as.

Mr. Chairman, Senator Thurmond and members of the committee, I am Phyllis Berry.

I know and have worked with both Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill. I have known Judge Thomas since 1979, and Anita Hill since 1982. Once Clarence Thomas was confirmed as the Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and had assumed his duties there, he asked me to come and work with him at the Commission.

I joined him staff as a special assistant in June of 1982. At the Commission, Chairman Thomas asked that I assume responsibility for three areas: I was to, one, assist in assessing reorganizing his personal staff, scheduling, speech writing, and those kinds of things; two, to assist in professionalizing the Office of Congressional Affairs, as that office was called then; and, three, assist in reorganizing the Office of Public Affairs, as that office was called then.

Anita Hill was already a member of Clarence Thomas' staff when I joined the Commission.

There are several points to be made:

One: Many of the areas of responsibilities that I had been asked to oversee were areas that Anita Hill handled, particularly congressional affairs and public relations. We, therefore, had to work together. Chris Roggerson was the Director of Congressional Affairs at that time, and Anita Hill worked more under his supervision than Clarence Thomas'.

Two: Clarence Thomas' behavior toward Anita Hill was no more, no less than his behavior towards the rest of his staff. He was respectful, demand of excellence in our work, cordial, professional, interested in our lives and our career ambitions.

Three: Anita Hill indicated to me that she had been a primary advisor to Clarence Thomas at the Department of Education. However, she seemed to be having a difficult time on his EEOC staff, of being considered as one of many, especially on a staff where others were as equally or more talented than she.

Four: Anita Hill often acted as though she had a right to immediate direct access to the Chairman. Such access was not always immediately available. I felt she was particularly distressed, when Allyson Duncan became chief of staff and her direct access to the Chairman was even more limited.

Five: I cannot remember anyone, except perhaps Diane Holt, who was regarded as personally close to Anita. She was considered by most of us as somewhat aloof.

In addition, I would like to make these comments:

In her press conference on October 7, 1991, Anita Hill indicated that she did not know me and I did not know her. However, in her testimony before this committee, she affirmed that not only did we know one another, but that we enjoyed a friendly, professional relationship.

Also, she testified that I had the opportunity to observe and did observe her interaction with Clarence Thomas at the office.

Two: I served at the Department of Education at the same time that Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas were there. One aspect of my job was to assist with the placement of personnel at the department, particularly Schedule C and other Excepted Service appointments, such as Schedule A appointments.

Excepted Service means those positions in Federal Civil Service excepted from the normal, competitive requirements that are authorized by law, Executive Order or regulation.

The Schedule C hiring authority is the means by which political appointees are hired. The Schedule A hiring authority is the means by which attorneys, teachers in overseas dependent school systems, drug enforcement agents in undercover work, et cetera, are hired.

The office that I worked in was also responsible for reviewing any hiring that the department's political appointees made under the excepted service hiring authority. Therefore, in that capacity, I was aware of any excepted service hiring decisions made in the Office of Civil Rights, and that is the office that Clarence Thomas headed at that time, and Anita Hill was hired in that office as a Schedule A employee.

Federal personnel processing procedures require a lot of specific knowledge and a lot of paperwork, and I do not profess to be a Federal personnel expert. But I can attest to the procedures required by our office and the Office of Personnel at the Department of Education at that time.

At the end of such procedures, a new employee would have no doubt whatsoever regarding their status, their grade, their pay, their benefits, their promotion rights, employment rights and obligation as a Federal employee and as an employee in the department.

A new employee would know whether their employment is classified as permanent or temporary, protected or non-protected, and those kinds of things. Each new employee must sign a form that contains such information, before employment can begin.

The Personnel Department at the Department of Education is a fine one, and it takes pride in thoroughly counseling new employees.

Three, Anita Hill has asserted the Department of Education was going to be abolished and that was one factor i her decision to accept a position with Clarence Thomas at the EEOC.

Well, at that same time, there was much discussion in Congress about the abolition of EEOC, as well. It was seriously suggested that Title VII enforcement functions and Age Act responsibilities be redistributed to other agencies of the Federal Government, and that the Commission, itself, should be abolished. Anyone involved with the confirmation proceedings of Clarence Thomas to the EEOC Chairmanship, as Anita Hill was, surely would have been aware of this.

I have known Clarence Thomas in times of his darkest moments, and in his shining triumphs. I have had a role in most of his confirmation battles, none of which have ever been easy. In that capacity, I have been privy to the most intimate details of his life. In all that time, never, never has anyone raised allegations such as Anita has.

Clarence Thomas, whom I admire and greatly respect, is a fine and decent man. He does not deserve this savaging of his character, of his reputation, of his honor. He does not deserve this.

SENATOR BIDEN: Thank you, very much, Ms. Myers.

The Chair yields to the Senator from Vermont.

SENATOR LEAHY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, what is the--

SENATOR BIDEN: We will work the way we did in the past. We will have two 15-minute rounds on either side, a total of four 15-minute rounds if it is the desire of the primary questioners to go that long and then we will move to 5-minute rounds.

SENATOR LEAHY: Thank you, very much.

Ms. Alvarez, prior to giving it here, had you discussed your statement with anybody else, before you delivered it here?

MS. ALVAREZ: Oh, no.

SENATOR LEAHY: Thank you.

And, Ms. Fitch?

MS. FITCH: I discussed it with counsel, procedural matters, and was simply advised, the only advice I was given was to tell the truth and that's what I tried to do.

SENATOR LEAHY: Did anybody ask to change any part of your statement?

MS. FITCH: No, I had my statement with me. It was simply typed up.

SENATOR LEAHY: Ms. Holt?

MS. HOLT: No. As Ms. Fitch indicated, I also talked to counsel on procedural matters and was simply told to tell the truth.

SENATOR LEAHY: And nobody asked you to make any changes in your statement?

MS. HOLT: No.

SENATOR LEAHY: Thank you.

And Ms. Berry?

MS. BERRY: I talked with staff. I am not known as a woman that anybody can tell real easily--

SENATOR LEAHY: That's not my question.

MS. BERRY. --what to do. And nobody changed anything on my testimony, asked me to change anything, just asked me to tell the truth and the facts as I know them.

SENATOR LEAHY: Now, Ms. Berry, just for the confusion, I saw a list on a panel earlier that Phyllis Myers was going to be here and you say your name you always use professionally is Phyllis Berry. You made some reference earlier to the fact that Professor Hill said she didn't know you. Wasn't that a case where she was asked about Phyllis Myers, and said she didn't know Phyllis Myers, and said later she understands it was Phyllis Berry and said, yes, she does know Phyllis Berry, and that she was confused by the name?

MS. BERRY: I am not aware of that.

SENATOR LEAHY: Let me ask Ms. Alvarez, when you worked with Clarence Thomas, how much of a typical day did you spend with him?

MS. ALVAREZ: Sometimes I saw him once a day, sometimes I didn't see him at all, sometimes more than once. There was really no typical day. We did not spend a lot of time in his office or with him.

SENATOR LEAHY: And you certainly did not see him all day long, though, that's my point?

MS. ALVAREZ: No, I mean I would see him come into the office. I would occasionally see him during the day, not all day.

SENATOR LEAHY: And so there could have been times he could have had discussions with Anita Hill that you would not have been there?

MS. ALVAREZ: Oh, absolutely.

SENATOR LEAHY: So you don't know, from personal knowledge, whether Professor Hill is telling the truth or not, from personal knowledge?

MS. ALVAREZ: No, sir.

SENATOR LEAHY: Thank you.

And Ms. Fitch, when you worked with Clarence Thomas, how much of a typical day did you spend with him?

MS. FITCH: My schedule was rather unusual because I was out in research libraries and out in the school system so there were days, there might be weeks when I did not see him or touch base with Ms. Holt to let her know what I was doing.

SENATOR LEAHY: So it would be fair to say that, from personal knowledge, you would not know whether Ms. Hill was telling the truth or not?

MS. FITCH: Personal knowledge, no.

SENATOR LEAHY: And Ms. Holt, you probably were as close to Judge Thomas as anybody, you were his personal secretary, is that correct?

MS. HOLT: That's correct.

SENATOR LEAHY: And the door between your office and his--

MS. HOLT: I am sorry?

SENATOR LEAHY: I said there was a door between your office and his?

MS. HOLT: Yes.

SENATOR LEAHY: And there were times when people would go in and meet with him, the door would be closed, is that correct?

MS. HOLT: That's true.

SENATOR LEAHY: And times when Anita Hill, for example, might be in the office and it would be just the two of them and the door would be closed, is that correct?

MS. HOLT: That's correct.

SENATOR LEAHY: And so you would not know, from personal knowledge, whether Professor Hill was telling the truth or not?

MS. HOLT: No, I would not.

SENATOR LEAHY: And Ms. Berry, how about you, would you have, from personal knowledge, knowledge of whether Professor Hill is telling the truth or not?

MS. BERRY: I would not have personal knowledge.

SENATOR LEAHY: Now, let me ask this of each of you. As I told Judge Thomas, and I think other people who are here did, I don't really have any interest in what he does in the privacy of his home, nor do I have of any of the rest of you, but as you are probably aware, a supporter of his, Lavita Coleman is quoted in the New York Times as saying that at Yale Law School Judge Thomas "At least once humorously described an X-rated film to me and other colleagues." Then the Times story continues and says, "elaborating beyond the statement, she acknowledged that this had occurred more than once."

I will start with you, Ms. Alvarez, have you ever heard Judge Thomas engage in such conversation with colleagues in the work place?

MS. ALVAREZ: No, never.

SENATOR LEAHY: Ms. Fitch?

MS. FITCH: Never, ever.

SENATOR LEAHY: Ms. Holt?

MS. HOLT: Never.

SENATOR LEAHY: Ms. Berry?

MS. BERRY: Absolutely not.

SENATOR LEAHY: Have you ever heard or do you have others that will tell you of Judge Thomas talking about pornographic films, Ms. Berry?

MS. BERRY: Absolutely not.

SENATOR LEAHY: Ms. Holt?

MS. HOLT: No.

SENATOR LEAHY: Ms. Fitch?

MS. FITCH: No.

SENATOR LEAHY: Ms. Alvarez?

MS. ALVAREZ: No, Senator.

SENATOR LEAHY: Now, did Judge Thomas ever engage--let me be more specific, I want to speak of social activities with the staff--did he ever go out to lunch with members of the staff, Ms. Alvarez?

MS. ALVAREZ: Yes, he went to lunch with members of the staff, that was not unusual, but not frequently, very rarely.

SENATOR LEAHY: Would you ever go out--Ms. Fitch, you said you were gone a lot, but would your answer be the same?

MS. FITCH: There were occasions when I was in the office, and I would be walking through and he would look for someone to go accompany him to lunch so two or three of us might accompany him at that time.

SENATOR LEAHY: And, Ms. Holt, that was your experience also?

MS. HOLT: Absolutely.

SENATOR LEAHY: And Ms. Berry?

MS. BERRY: The same.

SENATOR LEAHY: Did you ever go out for beers or drinks or socialize after work, Ms. Alvarez?

MS. ALVAREZ: Yes, very, then again, very infrequently. It would be something like, you know, it would be 5:30 or 6 o'clock and we would still be talking over something and we would just go grab a beer.

SENATOR LEAHY: Ms. Fitch?

MS. FITCH: I am not aware of that.

SENATOR LEAHY: Ms. Holt?

MS. HOLT: Not with me, sir.

SENATOR LEAHY: Ms. Berry?

MS. BERRY: No, the only social functions that we had at all would be in connection with my job when I became director of the Office of Congressional Affairs and there was some reception or something like that that we had to attend.

SENATOR LEAHY: Did you ever know of Judge Thomas dating any member of the staff, Ms. Alvarez?

MS. ALVAREZ: No, sir.

SENATOR LEAHY: You never dated him, for example?

MS. ALVAREZ: No, sir.

SENATOR LEAHY: Ms. Fitch?

MS. FITCH: No, sir, and I never dated him either.

SENATOR LEAHY: Same answer. Ms. Holt?

MS. HOLT: No, sir.

SENATOR LEAHY: And Ms. Berry?

MS. BERRY: I never dated him and I guess my husband would have a lot to say about that if I did.

[Laughter.]

SENATOR LEAHY: I just didn't want to leave--I knew what your answer would be but I didn't want, having asked the same question of the other three leave you out and leave some inference.

MS. BERRY: That's a legitimate question.

SENATOR LEAHY: But did you ever know of him dating anybody else--

MS. BERRY: No, never.

SENATOR LEAHY: Either at EEOC or at the Department of Education?

MS. BERRY: Or at the Department of Education, no.

SENATOR LEAHY: And your answer from each of the rest would be the same.

Now, Professor Hill, I think by the feelings of most people here, was a quite believable witness and so now we hear a lot of Judge Thomas' supporters saying that well, that it must be the press or it is some kind of outside groups, or who are really the villains in this process. At least the telephone calls to my office seem to be this and I hear a number of his supporters speaking virtually from the same fire book in that regard. We even had a suggestion that her testimony was lifted from the "Exorcist", I guess this is sort of the Devil made me to it defense here.

Do you have any personal knowledge that Professor Hill is a part of a conspiracy to stop this nomination, Ms. Alvarez?

MS. ALVAREZ: No personal knowledge, sir.

SENATOR LEAHY: Ms. Berry?

MS. BERRY: I don't have any personal knowledge that Anita is a part of a conspiracy. I think she has allowed herself to become a pawn in this process.

SENATOR LEAHY: And Ms. Holt?

MS. HOLT: No, sir, I don't.

SENATOR LEAHY: Ms. Fitch?

MS. FITCH: No personal knowledge, no.

SENATOR LEAHY: Ms. Myers, in the statement that you issued in response to Anita Hill's press conference, you said--and I want to make sure I am quoting you correctly--"At the Commission I was Clarence Thomas' political eyes and ears and that meant that I knew a great deal about his personal life, as well."

Is that an accurate characterization of what you said?

MS. BERRY: Yes, it is.

SENATOR LEAHY: Thank you.

MS. BERRY: It's exactly what I said.

SENATOR LEAHY: Do you know Angela Wright?

MS. BERRY: I certainly do.

SENATOR LEAHY: And in what--let me ask you this--Angela Wright attributed the following comment about Judge Thomas, and attributed this to you in her statement to the committee, and she attributed you as having said this, "Well"--speaking of Clarence Thomas--"he's a man, you know, he's always hitting on everybody."

Did you ever make that comment to Angela Wright?

MS. BERRY: Absolutely not. By the time--I know Angela Wright in this way. Angela and I are from North Carolina and Angela and I both served on the staff of Congressman Charlie Rose. I was responsible for getting Angela a position at the Republican National Committee. I was not responsible for her having a position at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. By the time Angela was hired at the EEOC she and I were not friends.

One thing that I am not in the habit of doing in the capacity of being Clarence Thomas' political eyes and ears and sharing many confidences with him, is discussing him with anybody. I was not in the habit of discussing Clarence Thomas with anybody.

SENATOR LEAHY: Did you- -

MS. BERRY: And I certainly was not in the habit of saying anything to Angela Wright. Her staff and my staffs could confirm that we were barely on professional speaking terms.

SENATOR LEAHY: So you would say that the comment that she attributes to you, that, "Well, he's a man, you know, he's always hitting on everybody", you never made that comment either to her first, yes or no, you never made that comment to her?

MS. BERRY: No.

SENATOR LEAHY: Did you ever say anything even like that to her?

MS. BERRY: That doesn't even sound like me.

SENATOR LEAHY: Or to anybody else?

MS. BERRY: Never.

SENATOR LEAHY: Now, Ms. Fitch, one of the things that all of us have asked in here, and I am sure that you and everybody else has gone through in their mind is what motivates all of this? And if a woman--well, just let me ask you this--you know Professor Hill very well.

MS. FITCH: I know Professor Hill, we were collegial and friendly. I never said I knew her very well, but we were friendly, yes.

SENATOR LEAHY: She worked hard to get where she was--

MS. FITCH: I am sorry?

SENATOR LEAHY: Would it be a fair statement that she worked hard to get where she was?

MS. FITCH: I think she did, yes.

SENATOR LEAHY: Did you ever witness at any time when she would take an action that would just jeopardize her career?

MS. FITCH: No, I never did.

SENATOR LEAHY: And did you ever have an occasion where she lied to you?

MS. FITCH: No.

SENATOR LEAHY: What can she possibly gain from speaking out against Judge Thomas? I mean what could she possibly gain by making up a story and speaking out against him?

MS. FITCH: Senator, I have no idea. I am not a psychiatrist, though I admit I wanted to be for a long time. But I have no idea. I cannot speak to her motivation. It may very well be that Professor Hill believes what she says.

That's not to say that, therefore, she's telling a falsehood, but it doesn't mean that the situation ever happened. Those two things can exist together.

SENATOR LEAHY: Well, we have two such diametrically opposed stories. There is one thing that both agree on in testimony here. Professor Hill agrees that what she has described would be sexual harassment. I asked Judge Thomas exactly the same question. I said, on these set of facts, of course he categorically denies them, but on these set of facts would that be sexual harassment? And he said, yes, it would. So they both agree on that.

Is it possible that each of them believes he or she is telling the truth?

MS. FITCH: Of course, it is possible, Senator.

SENATOR LEAHY: I mean you know them both.

MS. FITCH: I know them both. I believe because of his past performance, because of the way he has treated me, I have been at meetings with him in his office with the door both closed and open. When I do come back from my sojourns in libraries, we did talk about my reports. I believe him to be telling the truth. There has never been anything in his character or in this interaction with me or anyone else that I saw him interacting with that would suggest even the remotest possibility that this could be true.

SENATOR LEAHY: And, Ms. Holt, you have known Professor Hill, would you say she worked hard to get where she was?

MS. HOLT: I would say she worked hard, yes.

SENATOR LEAHY: Did you ever see her do something that would jeopardize her career during the time that you knew her?

MS. HOLT: Not to jeopardize her career, no.

SENATOR LEAHY: Did she ever lie to you that you know of?

MS. HOLT: Not that I know of.

SENATOR LEAHY: What does she gain by doing this?

MS. HOLT: I have no idea. I think she would be the only person that could answer that question for you.

SENATOR LEAHY: Now, you have not worked for Judge Thomas for some time. When did you stop working for him?

MS. HOLT: September of '87.

SENATOR LEAHY: Of '87?

MS. HOLT: Yes.

SENATOR LEAHY: Thank you.

Now, he was nominated in the first part of July, the 4th of July weekend, I believe it was, and after he was nominated when was the first time that anyone showed you phone logs or any portion thereof or talked to you about phone logs?

MS. HOLT: After he was nominated?

SENATOR LEAHY: He was nominated in July and there have been discussions of phone logs that you kept. When was the first time that somebody came to you and said, hey, by the way I want to talk to you about these phone logs?

MS. HOLT: It was last week.

SENATOR LEAHY: Last week, that was the first time?

MS. HOLT: Right.

SENATOR LEAHY: And who first showed the phone logs to you?

MS. HOLT: I don't know who first showed them to me. I was shown the phone logs by a person from the Justice Department and I was also shown the phone logs by the Vice Chairman at the EEOC.

SENATOR LEAHY: And who is that, please?

MS. HOLT: Ricky Silberman.

SENATOR LEAHY: Do you know where the Vice Chairman obtained the pages she showed you or how she determined they were pertinent?

MS. HOLT: I have no idea.

SENATOR LEAHY: Now, you said in your staff interview that the Vice Chairman asked you if a caller were returning a Clarence Thomas call you would have entered returned your call.

Now, callers did not always indicate whether they were returning his call or not, did they?

MS. HOLT: Usually they did, sir.

SENATOR LEAHY: But not always.

MS. HOLT: I can't think of an instance when one didn't.

SENATOR LEAHY: Did you ever use a tear-out pad or a phone message book with individual message sheets and carbons?

MS. HOLT: I never did.

SENATOR LEAHY: When Vice Chairman Silberman brought you pages from the log, were any particular messages asterisked, did they have some asterisks on them?

MS. HOLT: Asterisked? No.

SENATOR LEAHY: None?

MS. HOLT: You said an asterisk?

SENATOR LEAHY: Yes. Or a special mark?

MS. HOLT: There were messages with check marks and with X's.

SENATOR LEAHY: Were those check marks that you had made?

MS. HOLT: Yes.

SENATOR LEAHY: Were there any marks on the pages that they brought back to you that you do not recall having made?

MS. HOLT: No, there is a phone call, a message that I did not take.

SENATOR LEAHY: I notice my time is up. Mr. Chairman I--I know you are going to keep all questioners to tight time limits, I will wait until the next go around.

SENATOR BIDEN: Thank you, very much, Mr. Chairman.

What I suggest now is Senator Thurmond will assign somebody to question you for 15 minutes.

SENATOR THURMOND: Mr. Chairman, I have asked Senator Hatch to question this panel.

SENATOR HATCH: Well, thank you, Senator Thurmond.

Welcome to these proceedings. I am just going to ask a series of questions I would like to get out of the way first. All four of you have worked very closely with Clarence Thomas, is that right?

We will start with you, Ms. Alvarez, and just go across the table.

MS. ALVAREZ: Yes, sir.

MS. FITCH: Yes, sir.

MS. HOLT: Yes, sir.

MS. BERRY: That's correct.

SENATOR HATCH: Bring your mikes a little bit closer so that everybody can hear you. Tell me the number of years each of you have worked closely with Chairman Thomas, Ms. Alvarez?

MS. ALVAREZ: I worked closely with him for four years and have known him for 13 years.

SENATOR HATCH: Four years and have known him, yes, that's good, give both.

MS. FITCH: I worked for him for seven years and have known him in the subsequent two years, nine years.

SENATOR HATCH: So, nine years.

MS. HOLT: I was his personal secretary for a total of six years, but I have known him for 10.

SENATOR HATCH: Okay, Ms. Berry?

MS. BERRY: I have known him since 1979 but I worked most closely with him at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and that was about five years.

SENATOR HATCH: Have any of you ever seen anything or seen him do anything or have heard him accused of doing anything like what Professor Hill has articulated here, before this committee, Ms. Alvarez?

MS. ALVAREZ: No, sir.

MS. FITCH: No, sir.

MS. HOLT: No, sir.

MS. BERRY: No, sir.

SENATOR HATCH: Let me start with you, Ms. Holt. You were here in what we would call, in a true trial, in the capacity of really a personal witness as well as a custodial witness. You can help us, it seems to me, figure out the significance and relevance of the telephone log records of the messages received by Clarence Thomas.

Also, since the testimony of Anita Hill on Friday, the issue of whether Professor Hill's telephone calls to Judge Thomas might in fact have been telephone calls to you has been interjected, because she indicated some of them were just calls to you. Is that so?

MS. HOLT: She did call me on occasion.

SENATOR HATCH: Are they ones you have listed in these logs?

MS. HOLT: They are not, no.

SENATOR HATCH: They are not?

MS. HOLT: No.

SENATOR HATCH: And this is your handwriting on these logs, primarily?

MS. HOLT: Primarily.

SENATOR HATCH: With regard to these phone calls involving Anita Hill?

MS. HOLT: Right.

SENATOR HATCH: Each and every one of them?

MS. HOLT: Each and every call? No.

SENATOR HATCH: But I am talking about the ones involving Anita Hill only.

MS. HOLT: That is what I am saying. No, there is one call on here that--

SENATOR HATCH: Well, we will go through it. Yes, one call, but all the others are your handwriting.

MS. HOLT: Right.

SENATOR HATCH: Now there are 10 messages recorded by you in the telephone log book which I had entered into the record yesterday. Now do these represent all of the times that Anita Hill called or might have called Judge Thomas during the seven years that you worked for Judge Thomas?

MS. HOLT: There were other times she called and he was available to take the call, which would mean that there was no indication in the phone log.

SENATOR HATCH: So there were a number of other times besides the at least 10 that you wrote down, mentioned in these logs?

MS. HOLT: Right

SENATOR HATCH: Were they frequent or were they just sporadic?

MS. HOLT: They were sporadic.

SENATOR HATCH: But they were more than one, two, three? Could you give us an estimate?

MS. HOLT: I would say maybe another five or six.

SENATOR HATCH: Another five or six, so at least 15 or 16 calls that you received over these years, during the seven years you worked for Judge Thomas. Is that right?

MS. HOLT: Right.

SENATOR HATCH: Were these always cordial calls?

MS. HOLT: They were always cordial.

SENATOR HATCH: Was her voice always basically the same? Was it friendly?

MS. HOLT: It was always friendly.

SENATOR HATCH: Okay. If she called and Judge Thomas were in and available to take the call, that would be put through on most occasions, right?

MS. HOLT: It would be put through.

SENATOR HATCH: That you wouldn't write down?

MS. HOLT: I'm sorry?

SENATOR HATCH: You would not write those calls down?

MS. HOLT: I would not write that down, no.

SENATOR HATCH: Okay. Now as you have said, these 10 calls are in your handwriting. So is there any other reason to dispute their correctness?

MS. HOLT: No, sir.

SENATOR HATCH: Are you sure of their correctness?

MS. HOLT: I am, sir.

SENATOR HATCH: As I mentioned, Professor Hill spoke of you this last Friday as a friend and, you know, attempts to diminish the significance of these messages, it seems to me, were made by her, at least at the one press conference, by claiming that many were calls placed to you and not to Judge Thomas, or Clarence Thomas at the time; that the messages to Judge Thomas were only accidental developments from her conversations with you. Have you heard that?

MS. HOLT: I heard that, yes.

SENATOR HATCH: Is that true?

MS. HOLT: That is not true. Had Anita Hill called me and even asked that I pass on a hello to Judge Thomas, I would have done just that, but it would not have been an official message in his phone log.

SENATOR HATCH: I see. Now I know it is a long time ago, but can you recall any tension or strain in her voice during any of these calls that she made to you and through you to Judge Thomas?

MS. HOLT: Never.

SENATOR HATCH: So these particular questions that she would leave with you, or these particular statements that she made with you, they were basically unremarkable as far as any emotion or any other--

MS. HOLT: They were unremarkable to me.

SENATOR HATCH: And they were all friendly?

MS. HOLT: They were all friendly.

SENATOR HATCH: And they were all friendly towards Judge Thomas?

MS. HOLT: They were.

SENATOR HATCH: Did you sense any animosity or any hostility or any aggravation or--

MS. HOLT: Never.

SENATOR HATCH: Never. Is that true during the whole time that you knew her while she worked there?

MS. HOLT: That is true of the entire time.

SENATOR HATCH: You were the gatekeeper, weren't you?

MS. HOLT: I was, yes.

SENATOR HATCH: Nobody could get in or out without you?

MS. HOLT: If I was there, that is true.

SENATOR HATCH: I bet you were a good one. I bet you were a good one.

Now I would like you to go back even further, to the time when all three of you worked at the EEOC. After any meeting or lunch between Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas, did you ever notice anything about Ms. Hill--or Professor Hill, excuse me--and her behavior, her moods or simply the way she looked, that ever led you to believe that anything unusual had really taken place between her and Clarence Thomas?

MS. HOLT: No, never.

SENATOR HATCH: Never once?

MS. HOLT: I never noticed anything.

SENATOR HATCH: Is it fair to say that their relationship was entirely professional?

MS. HOLT: I would say that, yes.

SENATOR HATCH: How about the rest of you? Consider the same questions. Is there anything that would have indicated to you that the relationship was anything less than entirely professional? Ms. Alvarez?

MS. ALVAREZ: No, sir. They always appeared to be very professional with one another. That was the way Clarence demanded it.

SENATOR HATCH: Ms. Fitch?

MS. FITCH: Always professional. The times that Anita Hill and I went out together, and that might be no more than three times in a little over a year's period, we would leave work and we were talking about the job, talking about him, felt that he was going places and wanted to make sure that we, as his personal staff, were in the position to help him do what he needed to do to get there, so no.

SENATOR HATCH: Ms. Berry-Myers?

MS. BERRY: I don't remember any time them having anything that was more than professional, cordial, friendly. She always indicated that she admired and respected the man.

SENATOR HATCH: Always?

MS. BERRY: Always.

SENATOR HATCH: Right up to the day that she left to go to Oral Roberts University?

MS. BERRY: To my knowledge, yes.

SENATOR HATCH: Now, Ms. Holt, in your opinion, or any of the others of you, is there any other person in the EEOC or any other person in this country who might have been in a better position to know whether or not Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill had anything other than a strictly professional relationship?

MS. HOLT: I don't think anyone could say that they had anything other than the professional relationship.

SENATOR HATCH: Now, Ms. Holt, as I read this log, there are four messages in 1984, five messages in 1985, and then only one message in 1986, and then one in 1987, and then there follows a more than three-year gap without any messages. What is the last message before that three-year gap, in fact, the last message in the log book itself? What is the message of August 4, 1987?

MS. HOLT: On August 4th?

SENATOR HATCH: Nineteen eighty-seven.

MS. HOLT: "Anita Hill. In town until 8:15. Wanted to congratulate you on marriage."

SENATOR HATCH: So for each of the years there were a number of calls that you have in the log here, and there were a number of calls outside of the log--

MS. HOLT: Right.

SENATOR HATCH: --that were passed through because he was there, but the log calls stop in August of 1987. Is that correct?

MS. HOLT: As far as I know.

SENATOR HATCH: Were there any other calls made after that, other than the two for law schools?

MS. HOLT: I left the Chairman's office in September, immediately after that.

SENATOR HATCH: Okay. Well, as of that date in August of 1987, what was the message that was in that log?

MS. HOLT: I'm sorry, Senator?

SENATOR HATCH: As of the date that I mentioned, on August 4, 1987, in your handwriting, what is the message that was left by Anita Hill?

MS. HOLT: On August 4th?

SENATOR HATCH: Yes.

MS. HOLT: "In town until 8:15. Wanted to congratulate you on marriage."

SENATOR HATCH: And to your knowledge, that was the last one that you ever took, then?

MS. HOLT: To my knowledge, yes.

SENATOR HATCH: Now you have independent knowledge, do you not, of Anita Hill's job title while at the Office of Civil Rights. Is that correct?

MS. HOLT: Right. She was attorney-advisor.

SENATOR HATCH: She was an attorney-advisor?

MS. HOLT: Yes.

SENATOR HATCH: Now do you know how that position is classified by the government?

MS. HOLT: Right. I know it is a Schedule A position.

SENATOR HATCH: Schedule A. What does that mean?

MS. HOLT: It means that it doesn't have to go through the normal competitive process.

SENATOR HATCH: It means that that job is permanent, doesn't it?

MS. HOLT: Right.

SENATOR HATCH: In other words, even though she may not be able to keep that first assistant to the--

MS. HOLT: Assistant Secretary.

SENATOR HATCH: --the Secretary that she had with Clarence Thomas, she would be able to go in any other area as an attorney-advisor.

MS. HOLT: And even if Clarence Thomas' replacement had not wanted to keep her as his attorney-advisor, he could have placed her someplace else within the agency.

SENATOR HATCH: Now she told this committee that she felt like she had to go along with Chairman Thomas over to the EEOC, if I recall this correctly--you correct me, if you saw it--but that she was afraid that she might not have a job. Do you think--

MS. HOLT: To my knowledge, I mean, she never asked me what her options were. I didn't think there was any indecision on her part. We were both enthusiastic about going to EEOC.

SENATOR HATCH: She was enthusiastic?

MS. HOLT: She was.

SENATOR HATCH: Well, wasn't that, though, because she wanted to serve in this particularly stronger civil rights area?

MS. HOLT: We discussed that this man was a rising star and we wanted to be there with him.

SENATOR HATCH: But wasn't that just you feeling that way?

MS. HOLT: No, that was her feeling that way also.

SENATOR HATCH: That he was a rising star, and that she wanted to be part of that rising- -

MS. HOLT: We both wanted to be a part of that?

SENATOR HATCH: You did, too?

MS. HOLT: Yes.

SENATOR HATCH: I understand you because you have expressed your loyalty and your feelings towards Chairman Thomas, Judge Thomas now, but you are sure that that is the way she felt?

MS. HOLT: I am sure.

SENATOR HATCH: You took her to lunch; you two went to lunch on a regular basis, didn't you?

MS. HOLT: We did.

SENATOR HATCH: I mean, you knew each other real well. You went many times, didn't you?

MS. HOLT: We went to lunch often.

SENATOR HATCH: Quite often. Well, what did you and Professor Hill like to talk about? Any particular subject or conversation that is more prominent in your memory than any other? And if you could kind of tie it into--

MS. HOLT: There was never any particular subject. We talked about men. We didn't talk about sex in any vivid sense, but we talked about it in a very general sense, as indeed many of my women friends and I do.

SENATOR HATCH: Another other particular--

MS. HOLT: We talked about work, and we talked about what she did on the weekend or what I did on the weekend, just general conversations.

SENATOR HATCH: Well, and you never saw anything that would indicate that she had animosity towards then-Chairman Thomas?

MS. HOLT: Never.

SENATOR HATCH: Or even at the prior job as Assistant Secretary of Education?

MS. HOLT: None whatsoever.

SENATOR HATCH: And you were just about as close to Judge Thomas as anybody could have been, right?

MS. HOLT: We were--we are very close, yes.

SENATOR HATCH: You have heard--let me just throw this out to all of you--I am not going to repeat the cumulative charges that would fill a whole page, of what she said Judge Thomas told her as he was pursuing her for dates and, as she implied, maybe pursuing her for something more than dates. Now each of you have heard those, so there is no reason for me to repeat them, but cumulatively they are pretty awful. Would you all agree?

MS. FITCH: Yes.

MS. HOLT: They are.

SENATOR HATCH: Could that have happened? Let's start with you, Ms. Alvarez. Could he have used that language with her?

MS. ALVAREZ: Knowing Clarence Thomas, it is impossible.

SENATOR HATCH: It is impossible?

MS. ALVAREZ: In the work environment, he was so professional, he was so--and, you know, I considered myself a friend of his, and I could never be friendly with him in the office. He drew that line. We were friends, and he was my boss, and when I was in the office, he was professional, as well as we knew each other.

SENATOR HATCH: All right.

Ms. Fitch?

MS. FITCH: Yes. The probability of that happening, whether in the work place or outside of it, in my best knowledge is nil, is zero. The probability is just not there. When I heard those things, I knew they didn't come from him.

SENATOR HATCH: So you are saying you know that it is zero, the chances of him doing that?

MS. FITCH: The probability of his doing that is zero, Senator.

SENATOR HATCH: So it really isn't even a probability. It just means it would not have happened.

MS. FITCH: Yes, sir.

SENATOR HATCH: How about you, Ms. Holt?

MS. HOLT: In my opinion, he would never, ever subject any woman to that kind of language.

SENATOR HATCH: Ms. Berry-Myers?

MS. BERRY: When I first met with Clarence Thomas in 1982, there was no--we sat in his office. He had a desk, a chair, and the chair I was sitting in. That was all that the EEOC employees left in the Chairman's office. That is how much they welcomed him there.

And we sat down, and from my political background, usually the first thing that you ask a candidate is, "Okay, if I open up your closet, what skeletons are going to come falling out? I need to know right now." So I talked to Clarence Thomas about the need to comport himself in a way that there could be absolutely no taint on his reputation, on his character, on his honor, because we were about to embark upon an arduous task.

There wasn't anybody in this town, except perhaps Senator Hatch, that supported that man in the position that he had assumed, so I knew that everything that we did--public policy, program, firing people, anything that we did--he was going to be under microscopic scrutiny because he was a black Republican conservative in an agency that was overwhelmingly neither and in a town that is tough, and he was about to undertake a tough job. And with all the other things that we had to do, we didn't have any time to be dealing with anything that mind besmirch his character.

SENATOR HATCH: Well, do you have any concerns he might done otherwise?

SENATOR METZENBAUM: (presiding) Senator Hatch, your time has expired.

SENATOR HATCH: Let me just finish. This line only takes a--

MS. BERRY: None whatsoever, and not only would he not, but he instructed his personal staff about the need for us to comport ourselves in such a way as to not disgrace his office.

SENATOR HATCH: Okay. Thank you. My time is up, but I wanted to finish that and allow you to at least finish that thought, and we will come back to you in the next round.

MS. BERRY: Thank you.

SENATOR METZENBAUM: Senator Heflin?

SENATOR LEAHY: Mr. Chairman, would Senator Heflin yield to me just for one question?

Ms. Holt, just so we are not confused, could I ask one of the staff, just would you let me take that just for a moment? We will give it right back to you. I just want to make sure we are all reading from the same choir book here, or log book.

Let me ask you, while he is bringing that up, just these questions: Each time that it shows Anita Hill calling, did she connect with Clarence Thomas every single time she called, to your knowledge?

MS. HOLT: I don't understand.

SENATOR LEAHY: I mean, did she get through to him? A lot of these are messages. Does the fact that a message was there, does that mean that she--

MS. HOLT: The fact that a message was taken meant that she didn't get to him right away.

SENATOR LEAHY: It not mean she got to him each time?

MS. HOLT: It means she didn't get to him at that time.

SENATOR LEAHY: Okay, and you don't know whether she ever did?

MS. HOLT: She did. The check mark beside the call indicates that the call was successfully returned.

SENATOR LEAHY: And how do you know that?

MS. HOLT: It was my system. I devised it.

SENATOR LEAHY: Okay, but you know it because you placed the call back?

MS. HOLT: I placed the call, got them on the line, and I checked it off that the call had been successfully returned.

SENATOR LEAHY: And when Senator Hatch asked you if there might have been a lot of other calls, you were asked once before by the Republican and Democratic staff of this committee, "Do you have a recollection of Ms. Anita Hill calling Clarence Thomas any more times than may have sporadically shown up on three such pages?" And your answer was, "I would not even guess about that. I don't know." Is that correct?

MS. HOLT: I was saying that I would not even guess about any particular dates, any particular times, or any particular year.

SENATOR LEAHY: Thank you very much.

Senator Heflin, thank you for your courtesy.

SENATOR HEFLIN: Ms. Holt, you knew Anita Hill quite well socially.

MS. HOLT: We were professional friends.

SENATOR HEFLIN: Professional friends, all right. You went out to lunch together and things like that. Did you ever go out in the evening together, for dinner or something?

MS. HOLT: Only on one occasion.

SENATOR HEFLIN: On one occasion. All right. If Anita Hill is telling a falsehood, do you have any explanation why she would be telling it?

MS. HOLT: I have no idea, sir. She is the only one, I believe, that can answer that question.

SENATOR HEFLIN: Now, you went from the Department of Education to EEOC with Judge Thomas, Clarence Thomas and the Director?

MS. HOLT: He went over two or three weeks before I did, yes.

SENATOR HEFLIN: And then you followed him?

MS. HOLT: Right.

SENATOR HEFLIN: And Anita Hill was also one of those that followed him from the Department of Education to the EEOC?

MS. HOLT: Right.

SENATOR HEFLIN: Was anybody else?

MS. HOLT: That is it, as far as I know, at that time.

SENATOR HEFLIN: Did he ask you all to come?

MS. HOLT: He did.

SENATOR HEFLIN: He did. All right. Now, at that particular time when that move was made was there a good deal of discussion that the Reagan Administration wanted to abolish the Department of Education?

MS. HOLT: I had heard that, Senator.

SENATOR HEFLIN: You had heard it. Was there any discussion at that particular time that the Reagan Administration wanted to abolish the EEOC?

MS. HOLT: I had not heard that.

SENATOR HEFLIN: You had not heard that.

Now, did you take dictation from Director Thomas?

MS. HOLT: Not in the traditional sense of the word. When Judge Thomas wanted to dictate, he stood at my desk and I typed.

SENATOR HEFLIN: He didn't use a dictaphone?

MS. HOLT: He did on occasion.

SENATOR HEFLIN: On occasion. And sometime and direct, he would, in effect, dictate to you letters standing at your desk?

MS. HOLT: He did.

SENATOR HEFLIN: He would. All right.

Did you open his mail?

MS. HOLT: If his mail was marked "personal," I opened it. We had an Office of Executive Secretariat that was responsible for opening all mail addressed to the Chairman.

SENATOR HEFLIN: To the Chairman. But, if it was personal you would open it?

MS. HOLT: I would open it; yes.

SENATOR HEFLIN: All right. Do you know whether or not he received mail at his home?

MS. HOLT: I have no way of knowing that, Senator.

SENATOR HEFLIN: You don't know about that.

What was the age of his son at that time in 1982?

MS. HOLT: I think six, seven.

SENATOR HEFLIN: In the mail that you might have opened, did you ever open any mail that contained pornographic materials?

MS. HOLT: I did not.

SENATOR HEFLIN: You did not. All right.

Now, did you hear of or know of anyone by the name of Earl Harper at the Washington office?

MS. HOLT: I am not familiar with him; no.

SENATOR HEFLIN: You are not familiar with him. All right.

Did any of you?

MS. FITCH: No, Senator.

SENATOR HEFLIN: Did you, Ms. Berry?

MS. BERRY: Yes.

SENATOR HEFLIN: We went into this and then it was reopened later. It is my information that now may have been incorrect. He was a Baltimore, but he was in the Washington office.

Was he in the Washington office?

MS. BERRY: I am sorry. I don't know for sure which office he was assigned to.

SENATOR HEFLIN: You don't know that. Well, what do you know about him?

MS. BERRY: What I know is, and I don't recall all of the facts of the case, I just understand that Earl Harper was alleged to have been a sexual harasser.

SENATOR HEFLIN: Do you remember, Ms. Holt, dictating, any dictation by Clarence Thomas to the General Counsel pertaining to this man Harper?

MS. HOLT: I don't remember any specific letters; no.

SENATOR HEFLIN: Now, Ms. Berry, have you made any statements that suggested that the allegations of Anita Hill were the result of Ms. Hill's disappointment and frustration that Mr. Thomas didn't show any sexual interest in her?

I am talking to Ms. Phyllis Berry Myers.

MS. BERRY: That is what I said.

SENATOR HEFLIN: You said that to a newspaper?

MS. BERRY: Yes, I did.

SENATOR HEFLIN: What were the facts pertaining to that?

MS. BERRY: Just my observations of Anita wishing to have greater attention from the Chairman. I think she was used to that at the Department of Education. Wanting to have direct access to his office, as though she had a right to have access to his office. Speaking in just highly admirable terms for the Chairman, in a way sometimes that didn't indicate just professional interest.

Those were my impressions.

SENATOR HEFLIN: Now, that what you are relating to me relates to a sexual interest.

MS. BERRY: Pardon me?

SENATOR HEFLIN: What you just related, are you saying that those set of circumstances made you to believe that she had a sexual interest?

MS. BERRY: That she had a crush on the Chairman? Yes.

SENATOR HEFLIN: She had a crush on the Chairman?

MS. BERRY: Yes.

SENATOR HEFLIN: And would you recite those statements and things that you observed again?

MS. BERRY: It is in my written testimony, sir.

SENATOR HEFLIN: Well, I am asking you now, if you would, in order to recite those again as to that. I didn't understand anything that you said there--

MS. BERRY: Had any effect relative to sexual relations. They appeared to be more professional and an attempt to have greater access to him from a professional viewpoint.

I just would like for you to recite them again, if there is something--

MS. BERRY: That is your impression. My impression was that Anita wished to have a greater relationship with the Chairman than just a professional one.

SENATOR HEFLIN: And so you say that the fact that she didn't have as much access and other things that they indicate a sexual interest, as opposed to a professional or a work interest?

MS. BERRY: Exactly.

SENATOR HEFLIN: And that is what you are saying.

How would you distinguish between the two?

MS. BERRY: How would I distinguish between the two?

SENATOR HEFLIN: Yes. What you recited to me did not appear to be anything other than a work interest. But I would just like for you to go ahead and recite how in that is a sexual interest, as opposed to a work interest.

MS. BERRY: To have in a working environment, in a busy office, part of my responsibilities coming to the EEOC was to help structure access to the Chairman. There was a lot of work to do helping setting up scheduling, helping organize the work flow of a product, determining staff positions, things of that nature. That was one of my responsibilities when I first came there.

To think that you should at any hour of the day, any time that you want to be able to walk in, have time with him, indicated to me more of a proprietary interest than a professional interest.

SENATOR HEFLIN: Were you conversant or did you know what the relationship had been at the Department of Education relative to access with her boss there?

MS. BERRY: Only from her indications. That she was a primary, and whatever that meant, a primary adviser to the Chairman. And I would assume a primary adviser, such as myself or J.C. or Diane, meant someone that had readily--could be readily available to the Chairman.

SENATOR HEFLIN: Now, we went into somewhat, Senator Leahy but also Senator Specter in his examination of Ms. Hill went into this question about whether or not she knew Phyllis Berry, and I assume--I don't know how-- did the paper refer to you as Phyllis Berry or Phyllis Barry?

MS. BERRY: Yes, as far as I know. It wasn't a paper. It was a press conference.

SENATOR HEFLIN: I mean, well whatever it was, was it Barry or Berry?

MS. BERRY: That was my understanding, that they said do you know Phyllis Berry?

SENATOR HEFLIN: Is it Berry or Barry?

MS. BERRY: Berry--B-e-r- r-y.

SENATOR HEFLIN: All right. Now, Senator Specter asked these questions, and I will read the questions and the answer:

"Senator Specter. There is a question about Phyllis Barry, B-a- r-r-y, who was quoted in the New York Times on October the 7th, 'In an interview Ms. Barry suggested that the allegation [referring to your allegation] was a result of Ms. Hill's disappointment and frustration that Mr. Thomas did not show any sexual interest in her.'

"You were asked about Ms. Barry at the interview on October the 7th and were reported to have said, "Well, I don't know Phyllis Barry and she doesn't know me." And there were quite a few people who have come forward to say that they saw you and Mrs. Barry and that you knew each other very well."

Then Ms. Hill answered:

"I would disagree with that. Ms. Barry worked at EEOC. She did attend some staff meetings at EEOC. We were not close friends. We did not socialize together and we had no basis for making a comment about my social interest with regards to Clarence Thomas or anyone else. I might add at the time that I had an active social life and that I was involved with other people."

Then later Senator Specter asked her:

"So that when you said Ms. Barry doesn't know me and I don't know her you weren't referring to just that, but to some intensity of knowledge."

And Ms. Hill answered:

"Well, this is a specific remark about my sexual interest and I think one has to know another person very well to make those kind of remarks unless they are very openly expressed."

Now, I am asking you, you don't have any question in your mind that Anita Hill knew you. It is a question as to what degree of intensity she knew you relative to whether or not you could from an opinion as to whether or not she had a sexual interest with Mr. Thomas?

MS. BERRY: Senator, as I indicated in my statement, I worked very closely with Anita and I think that--I don't have the record before me, but I do believe that Senator Specter asked her also, "And she had the opportunity to observe you and Clarence Thomas at the office?" and she indicated that yes, not only did I have the--yes, I did have the opportunity to observe them. And I did have that opportunity.

And my opinion is that Anita had more than a professional interest in Clarence Thomas.

SENATOR HEFLIN: Well, did he ever indicate any return of it?

MS. BERRY: No. And, if you continue reading the New York Times article, that is exactly what I said. And I said that "And because of that I think her feelings were hurt."

SENATOR HEFLIN: Now, Ms. Holt, in regards to telephone calls other than those that you logged, do you have a recollection as to whether there were any additional phone calls that came in from Anita Hill to Mr. Thomas?

MS. HOLT: What I recall, Senator, is that there were occasions when Ms. Hill would call the office and would be put directly through to Clarence Thomas.

SENATOR HEFLIN: You have taken a deposition in this case where people asked you questions, and a question was asked you, "Do you have a recollection"--on page 44--"of Anita Hill calling Clarence Thomas any more times than may have been sporadically shown up on these three other pages?" And the answer: "I would not even guess about that. I don't know."

Have you had changes since giving that deposition?

MS. HOLT: As I just indicated to Senator Leahy, I was saying that I would not fathom a guess about any particular day or time or year that she had called him without it being in the log.

SENATOR HEFLIN: So you are saying that he could have called, or do you know that she called or what?

MS. HOLT: I know, Senator, that there were occasions when she called and was put directly through to Judge Thomas.

SENATOR HEFLIN: But those were not recorded and no record is made, is that what you are saying?

MS. HOLT: Exactly.

SENATOR HEFLIN: Do you know how often they occurred?

MS. HOLT: No, I don't. But there weren't that many of them.

SENATOR HEFLIN: Wasn't that many of them. And over a period of how many years are these phone--that is from 1984, these logs are 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987. Would there have been as many as two or three?

MS. HOLT: Four or five. Six, maybe.

SENATOR HEFLIN: It would have probably been what, in the neighborhood of no more than one a year?

MS. HOLT: Possibly, sir.

SENATOR HEFLIN: Well, my time has run out.

SENATOR KENNEDY: [Presiding.] Senator Hatch?

SENATOR HATCH: Thank you. Now, let me go back to you, Ms. Berry. If I can call you Ms. Berry for the purposes of this hearing.

MS. BERRY: That is fine.

SENATOR HATCH: Did you hear Anita Hill's press conference last Monday?

MS. BERRY: Pardon me?

SENATOR HATCH: Did you see Anita Hill's press conference last Monday, or hear it?

MS. BERRY: Last Monday? Was that October--I don't know dates anymore.

SENATOR HATCH: Whenever it was, the first press conference.

MS. BERRY: October 7th? No, I did not see her press conference. Reporters starting calling my home asking me had I seen Anita Hill's press conference where she indicated that she was responding to my quotes in the Times article and she indicated that she did not know me and that I did not know her.

And so I issued a statement saying that this is in response to Anita Hill's statement at an October 7th press conference indicating that she did not know me and I did not know her, that is not true. And then I went on to explain how it is that I did, in fact, know Anita Hill.

SENATOR HATCH: Well, when you heard Professor Hill claim "I don't know Phyllis Berry and she doesn't know me," did you think, as Professor Hill claimed on Friday, that her remark was only meant to indicate that you were not in a position to speculate about her private life or did you give those words what I would call their natural meaning and think that she was not telling the truth?

MS. BERRY: When I heard it I thought she wasn't telling the truth. Obviously, she knew me. We worked together for many years, and we worked closely together, particularly in the Office of Congressional Affairs, particularly on the Chairman's staff, and I knew of her at the Department of Education. So I had no idea what she was talking about, except that I took her at face value. She said she didn't know me.

SENATOR HATCH: Well, after Professor Hill denied that she knew you the press conference erupted in applause, which is the largest ovation of the day. What were you thinking at that moment?

MS. BERRY: I didn't see her press conference.

SENATOR HATCH: You didn't see it?

MS. BERRY: I am sorry. I was working on Little League stuff and I wasn't watching television.

SENATOR HATCH: Well, you have indicated that the reason why Professor Hill has been so reluctant to acknowledge your existence appears to be the fact that you have advanced a theory for why Professor Hill is making these allegations, and your theory is, to say the least, unflattering to her in her position.

Can you repeat that theory as you gave it to the New York Times, and tell us if it still seems accurate to you?

MS. BERRY: It still seems accurate to me.

SENATOR HATCH: And what was your theory?

MS. BERRY: Because Clarence Thomas did not respond to her heightened interest, didn't respond to her in that way. He treated her just like he treated everybody else on the staff. That her feelings were hurt.

And I think opportunities that she thought that she ought to have, access that she ought to have and she didn't receive. I mean it was competitive. We were a tough, strong group of women around Clarence Thomas and he based--we had to perform. We had strict performance agreements, and you had to perform. And, if you couldn't hang, if you couldn't perform, you got his wrath. If you performed, you got his praise.

I think because she was at EEOC not treated special that she didn't feel comfortable there.

SENATOR HATCH: Okay. Ms. Fitch, I was impressed by your statement, as I have been of all of your statements. I am impressed with each and every one of you, and I think Judge Thomas was very lucky to have you working with him.

But I particularly notice you used the term "decent"--

MS. FITCH: I'm sorry.

SENATOR HATCH: I particularly noticed you the used the term "decent" in describing Clarence Thomas.

MS. FITCH: Yes.

SENATOR HATCH: Do you use that very often?

MS. FITCH: Yes. If you talk to the people who talked to me even before I left the Commission, when I went to Lynchburg, Virginia, when I went to Temple, even at the time that he was nominated for the Supreme Court, I've always used that term about the Judge, and it kicked out for me some time ago, at last a year or two ago, if not longer, that I don't use that term for everybody, and it's not that there aren't other decent people, because there certainly are.

But what intrigues me about him is that I always paid a great deal of attention to his character, this man that I felt had a conscience that operated all the time, that realized the gravity of his position, and I found that impressive and that has a lot to do with my use of that term, and I still don't throw it around indiscriminately and I still call him a decent person.

SENATOR HATCH: Did you consider yourself a friend of Anita Hill's, and did you have a relationship with her outside of Washington?

MS. FITCH: Anita Hill and I did not spend a lot of time together. We did not go to lunch, because I don't go to lunch often. We maybe went out three times after work for dinner. We were not prowling Washington or anything. I went to her house on one occasion. When she was in the hospital, I visited her there. At her farewell party at the Sheraton, I was in attendance and I believe I was the only person from the Commission who was there.

After she left the Commission, I stayed in touch with her. We did meet once when she came into town. Subsequently, we tried to get together. I had a house-warming gift for her, but we never caught up with each other.

SENATOR HATCH: I see. Did you ever hear her mention any problems with Clarence Thomas?

MS. FITCH: Never. Never. Never, even after the left the Commission.

SENATOR HATCH: So, both during the time she was there and after she left?

MS. FITCH: Yes, Senator.

SENATOR HATCH: Okay. Now, your statement mentions that you knew both Anita Hill and Phyllis Berry while you were at the EEOC.

MS. FITCH: Yes.

SENATOR HATCH: Is it possible, in your view, that Anita Hill was telling the truth at this press conference on Monday, when she stated, "I don't know Phyllis Berry and she doesn't know me"?

MS. FITCH: Senator, when I heard that, I was very surprised. I don't know what she meant by it. I took it to mean that she was unaware of Ms. Berry's existence, and I knew that not to be the case.

SENATOR HATCH: Have you ever heard or ever known Anita Hill to lie on any other occasion?

MS. FITCH: No, I haven't, Senator.

SENATOR HATCH: Okay.

Ms. Alvarez, did you know Phyllis Berry and Professor Hill at the EEOC?

MS. ALVAREZ: Yes, sir, I did.

SENATOR HATCH: So, you knew they worked together?

MS. ALVAREZ: Yes.

SENATOR HATCH: In your stated, you noted that Professor Hill was "not a team player," and "appeared to have her own agenda." Could you elaborate on that?

MS. ALVAREZ: Well, there seemed to be all of us in the group kind of working towards the same goal, and I think we got along with each other, we would occasionally talk, and Anita mostly kept to herself. She was very strong-willed, she liked to do things her way, and that was always the way she--that was the way she gave the impression, that she kind of had her own agenda, her own way of doing things. So, no matter what the rest of the team was doing, she was going to do it Anita's way.

SENATOR HATCH: Now, you say you knew Judge Thomas well.

MS. ALVAREZ: Yes.

SENATOR HATCH: Did you ever hear him ask Anita Hill for a date, the whole time you knew both of them?

MS. ALVAREZ: No, never.

SENATOR HATCH: And you knew well, as well?

MS. ALVAREZ: I knew her at the office.

SENATOR HATCH: Okay. Did you ever see any indication that either of them had a romantic interest in the other?

MS. ALVAREZ: No.

SENATOR HATCH: Did you ever hear of Judge Thomas discussing sex with anybody, including Anita Hill?

MS. ALVAREZ: At the office, never, sir.

SENATOR HATCH: Again, I am going to ask you this question. You are his close friend and you worked closely with him. Is it conceivable that Clarence Thomas, the Clarence Thomas you have known and worked with for the past 13 years, that he could have made the perverted statements that Professor Hill said he did?

MS. ALVAREZ: Not a chance, sir.

SENATOR HATCH: Did you ever hear Professor Hill express any dissatisfaction with then Chairman Thomas or the way he treated her?

MS. ALVAREZ: No. No, not at all.

SENATOR HATCH: If you had a young daughter in her early twenties, would you want her to work with Judge Thomas?

MS. ALVAREZ: Absolutely. Absolutely.

SENATOR HATCH: From your experience of working with Professor Hill and Judge Thomas at the EEOC, did Professor Hill think that she had some sort of a special relationship with Judge Thomas?

MS. ALVAREZ: Yes, she used to give that impression. She used to like to tout the fact that she had worked with him before. You know, when we would get into debates on how we were going to handle an issue, she would say, "Well, I know how he thinks, I know how he likes his papers written or I know the position he wants to take," or something like that. That was something she always sort of held out in front of everyone at the staff, that she had this sort of inside track to him.

SENATOR HATCH: What I would like to ask each and every one of you is, rack your brains, as people who were around both of them, who have known both of them during that period of time, how really have had a close working relationship professionally and even a friendship relationship with Judge Thomas. How could she have testified the way she did here?

MS. FITCH: Senator, to me it was incredible. I don't know. I can't answer that. I was dumb-struck. I have no idea.

SENATOR HATCH: Ms. Fitch?

MS. HOLT: I have no idea, Senator.

SENATOR HATCH: Well, let me ask you this: Do any of you believe her testimony here?

MS. HOLT: I do not believe a word, not one word.

MS. FITCH: Senator, I don't believe it, either.

SENATOR HATCH: I didn't hear you.

MS. FITCH: I'm sorry. Senator, I do not believe a word of it, either.

SENATOR HATCH: You don't believe a word of it.

MS. FITCH: No, I don't.

SENATOR HATCH: How about you, Ms. Myers?

MS. BERRY: When she could stand up in front of the world and say "I did not know Phyllis Berry and Phyllis Berry does not know me," I can imagine she probably would say anything. I mean, I exist and I existed then. I worked very closely with her, and that wasn't the truth, so it seems to me that if she could not tell the truth on one thing, she could not tell the truth on another.

SENATOR HATCH: Ms. Alvarez?

MS. ALVAREZ: I cannot believe one word of her testimony. That is not the Clarence Thomas I know. That is not the Clarence Thomas I worked with.

SENATOR HATCH: You heard Chairman Thomas' testimony with regard to the allegations that she made on there successive occasions, once to the FBI, once in her four-page single-spaced typewritten statement, and another one when she appeared here before this committee last Friday, and you heard Judge Thomas' response to that.

MS. FITCH: Yes, Senator, he said he categorically denied her allegations.

SENATOR HATCH: He did deny them.

MS. FITCH: Yes.

SENATOR HATCH: Did you hear his response on the negative stereotypes?

MS. FITCH: I heard most of it, Senator.

SENATOR HATCH: What do you think of those comments made by her attributed to him and his comments back about those comments?

MS. FITCH: As an historian, I know those comments to be stereotypical.

SENATOR HATCH: Why would you think she would say that?

MS. FITCH: Senator, I have no idea. I don't know, but they are certainly kind of pat formulaic statements that people have historically made about black men in this country.

SENATOR HATCH: Don't they play on white prejudices about black men?

MS. FITCH: Of course they do, Senator.

SENATOR HATCH: Of course they do, but why would she use that language, and why would he use it?

MS. FITCH: Senator, I think what I am trying to say is that it is incomprehensible that she would say these things, incomprehensible that she might believe them. I do not know. I have not talked to her in three years. I don't know.

SENATOR HATCH: Would those kind of statements, had they been--would those kind of statements, as they are, would they tend to turn some people in this country against Clarence Thomas?

MS. FITCH: Senator, I have been in the street a lot lately listening to people's conversations, and they have been talking about this process and about this man, and I am finding that most people are concerned about the seriousness of the allegations, they take the issue of sexual harassment seriously. They are not discounting that. They do not believe the things that are being said about this man. They are too pat, they don't--even for people who don't know him--don't think they seem to hang very well together.

SENATOR HATCH: Now, have any of you women ever heard of any male using that type of language, in order to obtain a date with a woman?

MS. FITCH: Senator, this was not to obtain a date with me, but when I taught at Sangamon State University in Illinois, in a room with four other people, including an older man who was old enough to be my father, a Federal contract compliance officer said some things like that to me, and nobody said anything in response. I was very hurt by that. I stayed away from him. He had no jurisdiction or authority over me. It's possible for people to say things like that. It is improbable that this man said those things.

SENATOR HATCH: Well, what do the rest of you feel about that?

MS. HOLT: I agree that it's impossible for Clarence Thomas to have said those things.

SENATOR HATCH: Ms. Alvarez?

MS. ALVAREZ: I agree that it is absolutely impossible for Clarence to have said it.

SENATOR HATCH: Ms. Berry?

MS. BERRY: It's impossible and not a great deductive method in my way of thinking.

[Laughter.]

SENATOR HATCH: Well, you know, I hate to tell you this, but I agree with that. You know, people all over this country are trying to figure out how somebody could testify in such a believable manner and say the cumulative total of those awful, ugly, terrible sexual things and expect a woman to date him or expect some form of a relationship with a woman.

It bothers me, because she appears to believe everything that she said, and I myself don't want to call her a liar. But as an old trial lawyer, I have seen witnesses just like that who believe every word they say and every word is absolutely wrong and we have proven it wrong and they still believe it.

I am highly offended, having been the co-author, along with Senator Kennedy, of the Polygraph Protection Act to protect employees from being forced to go through polygraphs, that this group of handlers of Professor Hill have had her undergo a "polygraph."

I can tell you right now, you can find a polygraph operator for anything you want to find them for. There are some very good ones and there are some lousy ones, and a whole raft in between. And to do that and interject that in the middle of this is pathetic, as if it has any relevance whatsoever. It wouldn't even be admissible in a court of law.

Now, I just want to ask you this last question. I have known Judge Thomas for 11 years. I have sat in on all five of his confirmation proceedings. I presided over three of them, as Chairman of the Labor Committee. And I have never seen anything to indicate that he would treat any human being like this woman says he treated her.

I am going to ask you to search your minds one last time: Is there anything that could have been misconstrued or construed, in your opinion, that could have caused anyone, including Anita Hill, to say what she did here to the whole world?

MS. HOLT: Senator, since these allegations surfaced, that is all I've really done, is wonder why--

SENATOR HATCH: Me, too.

MS. HOLT: --why would she want to tell these lies, and I haven't come up with an answer yet. But I can certainly say that I don't believe a word of it.

SENATOR HATCH: I think that sums it up pretty well. Thank you very much.

SENATOR BIDEN: Thank you.

SENATOR THURMOND: Mr. Chairman, I have one question I would like to propound.

SENATOR BIDEN: If I could ask a couple, too, but you go right ahead, Senator. Instead of going back, we will go to you.

SENATOR THURMOND: Is it possible that Professor Hill had a crush on Judge Thomas and felt rejected, because he would not date her? Any of you care to answer that?

MS. BERRY: Since I am the one who said that, you have got to understand, I guess, what kind of man Clarence Thomas is. In many ways, I think he is atypical in his treatment of women. He is respectful of our abilities and our talents and expertise, allowed us to have opportunities that ordinarily women did not have at the Commission.

My own title, as the Director of the Office of Congressional Affairs, is a good example. That is usually the purview of a man. He allowed us to do things that women ordinarily did not have the opportunity to do. He made sure that women were included in almost every aspect of Commission life as it related to job opportunities. He is courteous, he is generous, he is caring, and I can understand any woman responding to a man that has those kinds of attributes.

MS. FITCH: Senator, as I said before, on the three occasions--and I don't think it was more than that--that Anita Hill and I did go out after work, from work, it was clear to me that she had very friendly feelings towards now Judge Thomas and that she felt that they were returned.

I knew that she had been with him at the Department of Education. I knew that they had met through a mutual friend, and I knew that she had friendly feelings for him. That made it all the more surprising to me, therefore, that she made these allegations. I never got any sense from her that she had any romantic interest in him at all. From my experience with her, that was not what she was concerned about. As I said before, she saw him as a person who was going places and was going to make a contribution in this country, and both of us felt that we wanted to do whatever we could to help him do that.

In my case, at last, it was not to follow a rising star, necessarily, and I can't say that that was her intention, either. I don't know. We did not talk about him in those terms, but we did talk about him when we went off together, and we talked about work and how we could make him almost perfect. I think it was unreasonable, the things that we wanted him to do, to be completely flawless, to be 100 percent perfect. No human being is that way, and when I was in my twenties I was very judgmental and wanted people to be perfect, too, and I think that was part of the problem. But I don't see that that would have led to this kind of an allegation.

SENATOR THURMOND: Any other comments?

[No response.]

Thank you very much.

SENATOR BIDEN: Just for the record, just as the Senator said, I appreciate your direct answer, Ms. Fitch, and yours, Ms. Myers. But I could ask you, for example, is it possible that there is life in outer space? Is it possible there is life in outer space?

MS. FITCH: Of course, it's possible, Senator.

SENATOR BIDEN: Ms. Myers, is it possible there's life in outer space?

MS. BERRY: It's possible.

SENATOR BIDEN: Thank you.

Now, let me ask you another question, if I may. Ms. Holt, you were asked--before I ask you the question, let me make it clear that there has been a lot of discussion about records here and the testimony taken, when you were giving testimony over the telephone or in person or to the FBI or--and I am not reading from the FBI--and there are things that are said here that seem inconsistent.

I am not accusing you of inconsistency here, but I just want to make sure I understand. You said in a question from staff, in the staff interview--and it is only one thing, so I don't think you have to have the whole page, but if you need it, I would be happy to give it to you, page 57--the staff person asked you, "Do you see Anita Hill's press conference on television?" And your answer was yes. Then the next question asked you, "Did you find her credible?" Your answer was, "She sounded credible."

Now, that is not necessarily inconsistent with what you said today, but I want to make sure I understand. Today, you said that you believed that you don't believe one word of Anita's Hill testimony. Can you make a distinction between your saying "she sounded credible" and what you said here?

I might point out, before you answer it, I think that other Senators who question for the record should be able to understand that there are these kinds of discrepancies that aren't nearly the discrepancies they are made out to be, but go ahead.

MS. HOLT: What I meant was, if someone did not know Anita Hill, she sounded credible. I know Anita Hill and I know Clarence Thomas, and I know Clarence Thomas is not the kind of person that would do those things.

SENATOR BIDEN: So, notwithstanding the fact you said she sounded credible, in response to the staff--

MS. HOLT: Right, if I did not know her--

SENATOR BIDEN: --you really meant to say, if you did to know her, you thought she sounded credible?

MS. HOLT: She sounded credible. She presents herself well.

SENATOR BIDEN: And you just failed to say the first part, if you did not know her, she sounded credible, is that correct?

MS. HOLT: That's correct.

SENATOR BIDEN: I accept that. I just want to make two points, one, to clear up the discrepancy, and, two, to point out that witnesses can appear to have discrepancies in these records, and there would be no discrepancy at all, in fact.

Now, let me ask you, Ms. Fitch, you have been extremely precise in your answers. I think you have been extremely precise, you made it absolutely clear that you think Clarence Thomas is an incredibly admirable man, an admirable person and one whom you don't believe said this.

For example, in response to my good friend from Utah, you pointed out what I think everyone in America does know, and that is that there are men who do say things like that alleged to have been said by the Judge.

Now, you don't believe that the Judge said that, but you explained to us that you believe--

MS. FITCH: Yes.

SENATOR BIDEN: From other men, not from the Judge.

MS. FITCH: Not from Judge Thomas, and I do not believe he would say those things.

SENATOR BIDEN: I understand that, and I want to make it clear. You do not believe that. You believe he is totally credible.

MS. FITCH: Yes.

SENATOR BIDEN: You believe everything he is saying, but I want the record to show what I think every woman in America knows, that there are men who do say things exactly like what Judge Thomas is accused of saying, notwithstanding my friend from Utah's research creating the impression that it is so unusual that it never happens.

SENATOR HATCH: Not as a cumulative whole, though.

MS. FITCH: Oh, no.

SENATOR HATCH: Well, see, that is what he is trying to get you to say.

MS. FITCH: Yes.

SENATOR HATCH: The fact is, he said one statement, but a cumulative whole, if you hung around that fellow--

MS. FITCH: Well, there might be two or three statements strung together, but no, it is not a whole litany like that.

SENATOR BIDEN: Let me put it another way, Ms. Fitch. And I was very fastidious about never interrupting my friend from Utah, and I assume he won't interrupt me again.

Now what do you think, let me ask you, that man who said those things to you, do you think if you had been in his company the next seven days, he might not have said similar things to you again and again?

MS. FITCH: Senator, I was very sure he would say those things to me in private if I was in his orbit, so I stayed away from him.

SENATOR BIDEN: Thank you very much. That is cumulative.

Now let me make another point, if I may. I want to make it clear, because I understand and I believe everything that all of you are saying, and it is clear that you truly believe what you say to be correct and to be a legitimate and accurate characterization of Clarence Thomas. I don't doubt that for a minute. You are under oath, and it is clear that you all believe that. I am not suggesting anybody has been put up to anything by anybody. I believe you believe it.

Now one of the things that has been indicated here is this notion of maybe that the witness, Professor Hill, really was basically the woman scorned, that she really had this romantic interest in Clarence Thomas and that she was spurned, and after being spurned she took up the role in the way that Shakespeare used the phrase, "Hell hath no fury like...," and that is what is being implied here.

Now, Ms. Fitch, you said you have no doubt, as I understand it, that the Professor wanted very much to see the Judge move on and do great things for America.

MS. FITCH: Be successful in his career, yes.

SENATOR BIDEN: Be successful. But I want the record to note--and correct me if I am wrong--that in those conversations where you drew those conclusions, that conclusion, the conversations with the Professor which led you to the conclusion to say what you just said, that she wished to see him succeed--

MS. FITCH: Yes.

SENATOR BIDEN: -- you also went on to say, unless I misunderstood you, that you did not believe there was any romantic element to that.

MS. FITCH: Oh, no, Senator, and we both said the same things about him, and for neither one of us was there any romantic talk about him at all.

SENATOR BIDEN: Thank you.

Now, Ms. Alvarez, in a statement that you issued after Professor Hill's allegations became public, you observed, and I quote, "Ms. Hill was not a team player and appeared to have her own agenda. She always attempted to be aloof from the staff, constantly giving the impression she was superior to others on the staff."

Then your statement goes on to conclude that Professor Hill had a "penchant for being self-serving and condescending toward others," and that the allegations she made "are absurd and are clearly an attempt on her part to gain notoriety." You also said the charges are "outrageous, ridiculous and totally without merit."

Now, Ms. Alvarez, my question to you is this: Could there be a different conclusion drawn from your observation that during her tenure at EEOC, Professor Hill appeared "aloof from the staff"? You draw the conclusion from that that she was self-serving and condescending. Could Professor Hill's aloofness have resulted from feeling uncomfortable around the Chairman of the Commission?

MS. ALVAREZ: No, it was not her aloofness that made me feel like she was condescending. She was aloof, and she has been described that way by a number of people. The way she made me feel she acted condescending towards others was that she would say she had this inside track, she knew the Chairman better than anyone else, and therefore she had some sort of rights, because she had worked with him before, because she was close to him, because she knew how he thought and that sort of thing. So she condescended to others in that way.

SENATOR BIDEN: Well, how about the aloofness part. Could the aloofness be--

MS. ALVAREZ: Well, she was not aloof from him. She was aloof from the rest of the staff.

SENATOR BIDEN: I see. Now how do you know she wasn't aloof from him?

MS. ALVAREZ: Just in the dealings that I saw. She never seemed to avoid him. She never seemed to try and stay away--

SENATOR BIDEN: I see.

MS. ALVAREZ: --or she didn't not respond to him in a staff meeting or anything like that. I am saying that with the other staff she was very stand- offish.

SENATOR BIDEN: I see.

Ms. Holt, did you find her condescending and aloof? You dealt with her probably more than anybody.

MS. HOLT: She wasn't condescending to me, Senator.

SENATOR BIDEN: She was not?

MS. HOLT: No.

SENATOR BIDEN: I can understand why. She wanted to get in that door, right?

MS. HOLT: That could have been it.

SENATOR BIDEN: Ms. Myers--and my apologies, do you wish me to refer to you as Ms. Berry-Myers or would you prefer--

MS. BERRY: It doesn't matter, Senator.

SENATOR BIDEN: All right.

MS. BERRY: I know who you are talking to, either way.

SENATOR BIDEN: All right. Ms. Myers, did you find her to be aloof and condescending?

MS. BERRY: I found her to be aloof, and a woman scorned can mean not just in the romantic context, but if your ideas are not longer the ones that are considered the ones that the Chairman adopts, if your point of view is not given more weight than someone else's, if your-- there are many ways, and not just in the romantic sense, but in the ways that--

SENATOR BIDEN: I'm sorry. How did you mean them, then?

MS. BERRY: Pardon me?

SENATOR BIDEN: How did you mean?

MS. BERRY: I meant it with both of those contexts.

SENATOR BIDEN: You mean both romantic and in terms of being rejected professionally, in a sense?

MS. BERRY: Yes. Those were my observations of Anita and the situation.

SENATOR BIDEN: I see. Can you give me an example?

MS. BERRY: Of what?

SENATOR BIDEN: Of where she was either rejected and you observed the reaction to her rejection, either in terms of romantic entre or an intellectual entre?

MS. BERRY: Or an intellectual entre? That was my job, as I said, to be the political eyes and ears, and that sometimes meant that I had to advise the Chairman to take a position that was in his best interest and that of the Commission, and not ofttimes a position that was in the best interests of the bureaucracy or of one side or the other. We had to do what was best in terms of enforcing the law, administering and managing the agency, et cetera, et cetera, and sometimes there were ideological conflicts in that way.

And I have heard Anita characterized in the press as a conservative, and I guess I have a different opinion of what that means. At the Commission I would not have characterized Anita as a conservative. I would have characterized her more as a moderate person or a liberal, and there were times when it was necessary that the conservative view prevail, in my opinion, on some positions that the Chairman took that she adamantly disagreed with.

SENATOR BIDEN: How would you characterize yourself, Ms. Myers?

MS. BERRY: I would characterize--

SENATOR BIDEN: As conservative or liberal, I mean, or moderate or whatever.

MS. BERRY: Now that's a good question. On some issues I am very conservative; on some issues I am not.

SENATOR BIDEN: I see that.

SENATOR LEAHY: Ain't we all?

SENATOR BIDEN: Is that not also the case for the Professor?

MS. BERRY: Obviously, yes.

SENATOR BIDEN: I see, so she is just like you, then?

MS. BERRY: No, she is not. I haven't alleged that Clarence Thomas--

SENATOR BIDEN: No, no, no. I mean--

MS. BERRY: So she is not like me.

[Laughter.]

SENATOR BIDEN: No, no. I mean in terms of her political ideology.

MS. BERRY: On some things, perhaps.

SENATOR BIDEN: Well, let me ask you--does anybody else want to ask a question?

SENATOR LEAHY: I just would like to note something for the record, not a question, if I might, Mr. Chairman. And that is that Senator Hatch had referred in just the last few minutes to Anita Hill's handlers somehow, Svengali-like--my term, not his--sending her out to take a polygraph.

I would just note for the record, according to her sworn testimony, the first suggestion of a polygraph came when the administration sent the FBI to talk to her. According to what she stated here, she told us that the FBI asked her if she would be willing to take a polygraph and she said, again according to her testimony here, that indeed she would.

I have no idea of the qualifications of whoever took it or anything else. I have just heard about it. I don't know whether--it would not be admissible in a court of law. Nobody is required to take a polygraph, but I just wanted to note for the record, the first suggestion of that came not from somebody advising Professor Hill but came from, according to her testimony, from the people the administration sent out on the investigation that was requested by the White House and this committee.

SENATOR HATCH: If the Senator would yield on that point, as the co-author along with Senator Kennedy of the Polygraph Protection Act, we did a lot of study of this, and there is no question that polygraphs should only be given under certain circumstances, with the approval of both sides, and not unilaterally by one side that may be very biased. You can find a polygraph operator to do anything you want them to do, just like you can find a pollster. Some pollsters in this country, not many, but some will do anything. They will find any conclusion you want, just by changing the questions.

Then again, polygraph operators, there are circumstances where people really believe what they are doing. They really believe it. It is totally false, but they believe it. She may very well be in that category, and might even pass a real polygraph examination.

So to throw that in the middle of a Supreme Court nomination as though it is real, legitimate evidence is highly offensive, that is my only point, and highly political, and again, too pat, too slick, exactly what a two-bit slick lawyer would try to do in the middle of something as important as this. Now that is the point I was raising.

SENATOR LEAHY: Mr. Chairman, the point to be made, it was the FBI, sent by the White House, who first suggested the polygraph.

SENATOR HATCH: No, that is not true. That is not true. It was this committee, not the White House. It was this committee.

SENATOR LEAHY: Is that why the report first goes to the White House?

SENATOR BIDEN: Will the Senator withhold?

The FBI was asked by the Majority and the Minority to investigate. The White House, the administration, has to authorize that when we request it.

SENATOR LEAHY: That's right.

SENATOR BIDEN: It was in the FBI--

SENATOR LEAHY: Now here I go. What am I doing? I am referring to the sworn testimony here.

SENATOR HATCH: It's a terrible thing, I'll tell you.

SENATOR LEAHY: The sworn testimony--

SENATOR HATCH: You only use it when it benefits her.

SENATOR LEAHY: The sworn testimony of Professor Hill was that she said that she was prepared to take an FBI polygraph.

SENATOR SPECTER: Mr. Chairman, might I be heard for one minute?

SENATOR BIDEN: Yes, you may.

SENATOR SPECTER: I think on this subject it ought to be said that lie detector tests are not generally admissible in court--

SENATOR BIDEN: That is correct.

SENATOR SPECTER: -- because they do not have the requisite reliability, and that I have extensive experience, being the Assistant Counsel to the Warren Commission, which I was present when Jack Ruby's lie detector test was taken, and that is a very different circumstance. But notwithstanding the fact that Jack Ruby passed it all without any indication of deception, when J. Edgar Hoover forwarded the report to the Warren Commission, it was his statement that the polygraph ought not to be accepted because it wasn't sufficiently reliable. And while we talk about it, it is generally accepted, a general principle of law, that a polygraph lie detector test is not admissible in court because of the lack of requisite reliability.

SENATOR BIDEN: The Senator is correct, and this is one Senator, and I think most believe that lie detector tests are not--are not--the appropriate way to get to the truth. That wasn't the issue I thought that was being raised here. The issue I thought being raised here was whether or not some slick lawyer cajoled or coerced this particular individual into taking a lie detector test. Now let me--

SENATOR METZENBAUM: Mr. Chairman?

SENATOR BIDEN: Yes?

SENATOR METZENBAUM: I don't know anything at all about polygraphs or lie detectors, but as I understand it there is a reference paper indicating the credentials of the company or the man who took the polygraph test. I think it would be appropriate--I think the CIA does use polygraph tests, I don't know that for sure, but I think they do- -and I would just suggest that whatever the credentials are of the individual or company that took the test, that that be included in the record at this point.

SENATOR BIDEN: I would object to that. I believe that the admission in the record of a lie detector test this committee had nothing to do with ordering, and cannot vouch for the credentials. And even if they could vouch for the credentials of the person issuing the lie detector test, if we get to the point in this country where lie detector tests are the basis upon which we make judgments and insist upon people having them, and by inference of those who don't have them that they did something wrong, we have reached a sad day for the civil liberties of this country.

That does not go to the issue of whether the individual is entitled to, on their own, ask for a lie detector test. People can make of it what they wish.

Now let me--

SENATOR THURMOND: Mr. Chairman, I commend you for that stand.

SENATOR HATCH: So do I, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR LEAHY: I happen to agree with it too, Mr. Chairman, while we are passing out kudos here.

SENATOR BIDEN: Well, I am flattered. Let's move on. Thank you very much. Now let's move on.

MS. Fitch, I want to clarify something in the record, again an apparent inconsistency, may not be.

You told Senator Hatch, as I understand it--I have been in and out of the room trying to accommodate some administrative problems--problems?--requirements, and I apologize for not being here. Correct me if I am wrong.

I am under the impression that you told Senator Hatch that you did not go to lunch with Anita Hill.

MS. FITCH: I did. And I said it because I tend not to go to lunch. Period.

SENATOR BIDEN: Now, is the letter that you--I don't want to misstate anything. Hang on.

I would like to ask staff to give you this letter, the original of this letter. The letter I am referring to is a letter written by you, allegedly written by you to Ms. Hill. The members of the Committee have a copy of this letter.

Again, this may not be an inconsistency. I just want to be sure I understand. This letter, I might add, was submitted to the Committee, to me and to Senator Thurmond, on October 12, from Warren W. Gardner, counsel for Anita Hill.

Just so people--while you are reading it, there is nothing salacious in it. There is nothing outrageous. There is nothing, other than for you to explain to me and for the record.

MS. FITCH: I did, this is my handwriting. Yes.

SENATOR BIDEN: Now, will you read--this sounds like a trial. Would you explain the first three or four sentences to us?

MS. FITCH: Should I read it?

SENATOR BIDEN: If you would like. I just want you to explain what appears to be an inconsistency.

MS. FITCH: Senator, ask anybody, I rarely went to lunch.

SENATOR BIDEN: No, I am not suggesting--read the first sentence, or the first two sentences. Unless you think that it is too private to read.

MS. FITCH: Oh. All right. Read it out loud?

SENATOR BIDEN: Yes, would you read it out loud, please.

MS. FITCH: Life is dull without you. I keep looking for someone to go to lunch with or sneak out to an early movie with.

SENATOR BIDEN: That is sufficient.

MS. FITCH: Now there is nobody.

SENATOR BIDEN: That is sufficient.

Now, would you just explain for the record what you mean you say "I keep looking for someone to go to lunch with," "without you," and your statement that you didn't go to lunch with Anita Hill?

MS. FITCH: I don't remember ever going to lunch with Anita Hill. It is probably just hyperbole, Senator. Really.

SENATOR BIDEN: I see. I don't doubt you.

MS. FITCH: I may have gone into her office with a sandwich that I got from the snack bar and sat in her office and eaten it. But I was not in the office that often.

SENATOR BIDEN: Sufficient. I am not being accusatory. I just want, because it is in the record and every Senator has this--

MS. FITCH: I don't see any inconsistency, what I just said and what is actually the truth. Yes.

SENATOR BIDEN: I just want to make the point again that honorable, decent people like you can say things that seem inconsistent, and I hope we understand that other people on the record can say things in the record that appear to be inconsistent and in fact are not inconsistent.

SENATOR THURMOND: Mr. Chairman, I want to call your attention.

SENATOR BIDEN: Sure.

SENATOR THURMOND: She says "I keep looking for someone to go to lunch with." She didn't say she went to lunch with her.

SENATOR BIDEN: No, I agree with that. That is why I just asked. But most people would assume, if you said--if I wrote you a letter, Senator, after I retired, which would be long before you will, and I said, "Dear Strom, it's really dull not being in the Senate, I keep looking for someone to go to lunch with," any reasonable person would assume that you and I went to lunch based on that. I don't say we went to lunch, but reasonable persons would assume that. And that is all I wanted to clear up.

SENATOR THURMOND: I wouldn't say "would" to him. I would say "could."

MS. FITCH: I think I was writing her a cheery letter. I did miss her. She was one of the first people that I met when--

SENATOR BIDEN: Let me make it clear, Ms. Fitch. I totally believe you. I think it is a totally clear explanation. I don't doubt it for a moment, and I don't doubt your credibility.

But, again, I would point it out for my colleagues on the Committee who are trying to be very precise. If I wanted to make the case--

MS. FITCH: Yes.

SENATOR BIDEN: --I could have very easily made the case, and all the press to the best of their ability would write down, I suspect, and say, "Geez. Biden just tripped her up. Biden just showed that she really did go to lunch with her." And you didn't. I believe you didn't. I accept it.

MS. FITCH: Senator, I said that I may very well have gone to snack bar and gotten a sandwich and eaten in her office.

SENATOR BIDEN: I understand. I understand.

Now, let me move on--and I sincerely do not question your credibility.

MS. Myers, and I only have a few more questions--well, as a matter of fact, you have been on a long time. I won't ask any more questions.

Anyone else have any more questions? Whomever Senator Thurmond recognize.

SENATOR THURMOND: I recognize Senator Simpson.

SENATOR SIMPSON: Well, thank you very much. You have been very impressive, and the night wears on and we have got a lot more to do. But I, since we are putting statements and things in the record about polygraphs, I want to get in the record a statement by Larry Thompson, Esquire, former U.S. attorney, with regard to the issue of the total unreliability of a polygraph test, and thank Senator Kennedy and Hatch for the Polygraph Protection Act which protects people from this kind of stuff.

This is a real, you know, Bush League type kind of a thing in the midst of these type of activities. And most of us practice law here or somewhere, and it really is quite extraordinary. And then, you know, if the resources of the handlers have been directed to this letter, which is a simple letter of friendship from Ms. Fitch to Anita Hill with nothing in it at all, then it does continue to get to be a longer night.

Whether you had lunch with anybody or nobody, there is nothing in this letter. There is nothing even to be gained from that letter.

SENATOR BIDEN: If the Senator would yield?

SENATOR SIMPSON: I certainly will, because I am commenting.

SENATOR BIDEN: It was only offered, not to purport that there was anything in there that was--

SENATOR SIMPSON: My time is not running. That is okay. Go ahead. I just to be sure about my time.

SENATOR BIDEN: Your time won't run.

SENATOR SIMPSON: Okay.

SENATOR BIDEN: It was only offered, not to purport that there was anything, as I said even before I showed it to the witness, that there was anything extraordinary in it. It was done, I assume, by not her handlers, by her lawyers. Now, if we are calling handlers, then I assume everybody has handlers out there.

SENATOR SIMPSON: Mr. Chairman, let's be quite honest here as to what is going on. When Ms. Hill came here to testify the other day, this whole front row was filled with people. I thought they were family. They were not. They were attorneys. Some were friends. Some were paid. And Ms. Hill has a public relations firm which she has hired, or someone has hired for her, and that is public record. So let's get that in to the American people, and know that in these extraordinary activities she does have what anyone would call, could call handlers. A public relations firm for a witness is unheard of as far as my time here, plus handlers.

SENATOR BIDEN: Senator, I am not arguing with that. It is no different than Mr. Duberstein, who has a public relations firm, that has been hired by the White House to "handle the nominee."

All I am saying is there is nothing wrong with any of that. Nothing about it is pejorative, on either side. I don't think we should make it that.

I assume the reason the letter was sent to the Senator and myself--the ranking member--was because there was concern that the testimony being given, I guess why we were given the letter, might come up and be something totally inconsistent with the relationship.

It was not inconsistent. But that is the reason I assume the letter was there.

MS. FITCH: And it was as I stated, that we were friendly.

SENATOR BIDEN: You did. There's not--again, I say for the 400th time.

MS. FITCH: No. I understand, Senator.

SENATOR BIDEN: I am not questioning your integrity. I do not question it. I believe you are telling the truth as you know it, as you have observed it. I believe you.

SENATOR THURMOND: In fact, you would believe all of them, wouldn't you?

SENATOR BIDEN: Yes. I don't question any of them. I do not question any of them as to the facts. I question their judgment sometimes as to being able to make these leaps of faith.

Ms. Myers is a wonderful woman. I question whether or not her instinct that says that there was romantic interest, I question that. I don't know it to be true or not true. That is pure speculation on the part of Ms. Myers. I don't question anything else that Ms. Myers testified to as the facts.

SENATOR THURMOND: You might ask her why she said that, if you want to.

SENATOR BIDEN: You did. We did. I did.

SENATOR THURMOND: That is why I said it.

SENATOR BIDEN: And now let's go back to the Senator from Wyoming, whose time it is.

SENATOR SIMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I do your unfailing patience as we grind on. But I did want that statement of Larry Thompson to appear in the record which, of course, says, as I indicated, that they are not admissible in the workplace, and thanks to Senators Kennedy and Hatch, that is the reason. Because employers are not allowed to use that as a club over their employees.

Furthermore, Mr. Thompson goes on to say, "In the context of these proceedings I understand, based on information from reliable scientific sources, that if a person suffers from a delusional disorder he or she may pass a polygraph test. Therefore, a polygraph examination in this context has absolutely no bearing on whether the events at issue or true or untrue."

That is not my quote. That is his. And now let's go to some questions. Just a few, please.

The calls, the logger of the calls. I have heard about you, Ms. Holt, and I would like to have someone like you as my gatekeeper. But I do, and they are very good. Let me ask you this.

The last call from Ms. Hill, after maybe 15 or 16 calls, some logged, some not logged, some just talking to you as a friend, or if she would talk to Nancy Fitch as a friend, or Phyllis Berry Myers as a friend, or J. C. Alvarez, she was someone you knew and I assume, you know--in all the ways I leave it to you. You have described your relationship. I won't embellish that.

But, in any event, there were no more calls to you after the last one about the marriage. Isn't that the last one we have recorded for our records?

MS. HOLT: That is right, Senator.

SENATOR SIMPSON: In other words, the calls came from 1984 to 1988, 1987--August of 1987, by a woman who was heaped a garbage stench of verbiage upon her in her life. And the calls continued to come, 15 or 16 of them, and then they ended on that August 4th day in the afternoon when she found--and did you tell her that Clarence had married?

MS. HOLT: I don't recall that, Senator.

SENATOR SIMPSON: You remember that conversation?

MS. HOLT: Not really. I don't.

SENATOR SIMPSON: In any event, she left the message, which is of the record, congratulations, and that was that.

SENATOR THURMOND: On the marriage.

SENATOR SIMPSON: On the marriage. And so that is the last call that Ms. Hill ever made to your knowledge to the agency?

MS. HOLT: That is the last one to my knowledge, yes.

SENATOR SIMPSON: Let me ask--you made a statement, Ms. Alvarez, on page 4. A rather powerful comment about Ms. Hill and your alarm as to what she had done and said. It was something to the effect--you have your statement there?

MS. ALVAREZ: Um-hum.

SENATOR SIMPSON: It was page 4. I quote from page 4, at the top: "I don't know how else to say it, but it blew my mind to see Anita Hill testifying Friday. Honest to goodness, it was like schizophrenia. That was not the Anita Hill I knew and worked with at the EEOC. On Friday, she played the role of a meek, innocent, shy Baptist girl from the South who was a victim of this big bad man." That is quite a powerful statement.

Why did you say this reference to schizophrenia?

MS. ALVAREZ: Because there were two different personalities.

SENATOR THURMOND: Speak out so we can hear you, please.

MS. ALVAREZ: There were two different personalities. When I worked with Anita Hill and I knew her, as I said, she was not a victim. She was a very tough woman. She stood her ground. She didn't take a lot of anything from anyone, and she made sure you knew it.

And the person who was here Friday was somebody who played a totally different role. Who was I am meek, I am shy, I am overwhelmed, I am victimized. And that was not the Anita Hill I knew. It was two different personalities.

SENATOR SIMPSON: Well, based upon the years that you have known her, all of you, and worked with Anita Hill, have any of you ever known her to exaggerate small slights that you might have seen, make a big deal out of something that didn't warrant it?

MS. ALVAREZ: Well, the exaggeration that I saw in her probably most often was about her relationship with the Chairman. You know, that she knew how he thought, she had some sort of special insight into him, that sort of thing. That was the exaggeration that I saw.

SENATOR SIMPSON: And so, and I am going to conclude. So have you ever known her to focus on an injustice of some sort that she felt should be remedied? Have any of you seen that? You do. I just asked you because you used that phrase. And I wonder if any of you have ever witnessed in her some exaggeration of a slight or focusing on an injustice of some sort. Do you recall that?

MS. HOLT: I don't recall, Senator.

MS. FITCH: There was once an overreaction that stuck out in my mind. It wasn't important, but I thought it was clearly an overreaction. But it was not about anything terribly important.

SENATOR SIMPSON: Did you notice anything like that, Ms. Myers.

SENATOR METZENBAUM: [presiding] Senator, your time is up, and I have tried to be patient. It has gone over for several minutes.

SENATOR SIMPSON: I know but I haven't--just the final witness, if I might. Did you notice anything like that in what I asked?

MS. BERRY: Not that I remember. Not that I can remember.

SENATOR SIMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR METZENBAUM: Thank you.

Ms. Berry or Berry Myers, you made one statement that I found quite interesting. You said that, "In that capacity I have been privy to the most intimate detail of his life," meaning, of course, Judge Thomas.

Were you familiar with the details of his family life?

MS. BERRY: Somewhat. What I meant by that was having to go through the confirmation process I am witness to like FBI documents, letters for or against, background checks, you know, those sorts of things. That is what I meant by that.

SENATOR METZENBAUM: Those are the professional parts. You were saying the most intimate details of his life. Did you know, for example, of his relationship with his son?

MS. BERRY: Yes. His son and my son were friends, and are friends.

SENATOR METZENBAUM: And did you know the ladies he dated, if any? I am not even sure if he was married at the time you made that statement.

MS. BERRY: Yes, I know.

SENATOR METZENBAUM: You knew the ladies he went out with socially?

MS. BERRY: Some, yes. Yes. I know of them. Some I know. And I knew his wife, yes. His first wife, Kathy.

SENATOR METZENBAUM: Do you know about personal problems that he had, if any?

MS. BERRY: I know how, I know the struggle that it was when he was separating from his wife, what impact that had on his life and his son's life.

SENATOR METZENBAUM: The reason I asked the question is because Judge Thomas said in his statement, "I do not and do not commingle my personal life with my work life, nor did I commingle their personal life with the work life. I can think of nothing that would lead her to this," was the last sentence. It is not relevant to this point.

But the point is he says that he kept his personal life extremely private. You seem to indicate that it was sort of public.

Let me just ask--

MS. BERRY: There is not an inconsistency in that or what--what he has said or what I am saying. In the professional contact that I had with this man I also got to know of his private life, his private travails and things. Because that was part of my job in preparing him for processes like this one.

SENATOR METZENBAUM: Let me just ask each of you a question which can be answered yes or no. Each of you has testified as to the qualities of Judge Clarence Thomas and with a great deal of respect, and one of the- -a major issue in this matter relates to Anita Hill's testimony about certain claims of sexual harassment.

I ask you yes or no. Could Clarence Thomas have made such remarks to Anita Hill, whatever those remarks, absent your present and you would never know anything about it?

MS. BERRY: Of course, Senator, if we weren't there we wouldn't know anything about it.

SENATOR METZENBAUM: Pardon?

MS. BERRY: If we weren't present, we wouldn't know anything about it.

SENATOR METZENBAUM: Correct. Would each of you answer? Isn't that the fact for each of you? That you actually would--it would be normal if a man were making such remarks at the workplace or any other place that other workers would not be familiar with those remarks?

MS. ALVAREZ: Senator, I don't think any of us could account for his time 24 hours a day, even in the office. But we know the man that he is and we know that he is not capable of making those remarks.

MS. FITCH: Senator, I had said, I think carefully, that I was talking about probability in terms of the Judge, not possibility. Anything is possible, but the probability for me was nil.

SENATOR METZENBAUM: Thank you, Ms. Fitch.

Ms. Holt, do you care to comment?

MS. HOLT: It is true that those comments could have been made in private, a private moment between he and Ms. Hill. However, I do feel that if this were going on I would have discerned something at some point, and I did not.

SENATOR METZENBAUM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR BIDEN: Thank you.

Senator Thurmond?

SENATOR THURMOND: Senator Grassley will inquire.

SENATOR GRASSLEY: Taking off on a point that Senator Metzenbaum just raised, and I guess maybe following kind of an axiom of politics, or maybe it's one that even ought to be practiced in every day life, if you always tell the truth, then you don't have to worry about what you told somebody else and you won't be in a mode of lying to cover up another lie. So always tell the truth and you won't get in trouble.

Wouldn't it, as a practical matter, if Mr. Thomas was doing all of these things that Professor Hill accuses him of, he wouldn't have been doing them just with her. It would be a weakness that would come out in conversations and with activities with other people that surely there is no way that this could have been covered up.

I mean it would have come out some place if a person had a weakness like this.

MS. BERRY: That's my belief.

SENATOR GRASSLEY: And I primarily ask the question, not just as a matter of your understanding of personal behavior, but in your office, in your office environment could anything like this have been kept secret?

MS. FITCH: Senator, no. My office was not in the suite of the Chairman. It was on staff floors and I heard all kinds of things about things that were happening in the Commission, about other people. There were never any stories floating around about the Chairman in a negative or of this kind of nature is what I am saying.

SENATOR GRASSLEY: And especially in Washington, D.C. if two people know about something it is no longer a secret in this town.

MS. BERRY: And there were no secrets at the EEOC, believe me.

SENATOR GRASSLEY: There were no secrets at the EEOC?

MS. BERRY: No, secrets.

SENATOR GRASSLEY: Yes, so I mean there is no way, just as a practical way that people are, especially in this town, that an activity like this could have been a secret?

MS. HOLT: No.

MS. BERRY: No.

SENATOR GRASSLEY: Okay. I have just kind of a comment about something that Senator Leahy asked you folks. He asked if you had any information about why Anita Hill would jeopardize her career by coming forward with public allegations about Judge Thomas.

Now, I am not sure that this is a relevant question. Professor Hill admits that she never expected her allegations to be made public, so the possibility of public disclosure must not have been a factor in her decision to accuse Judge Thomas. And by making secret allegations behind closed doors she would not have to worry about jeopardizing her career or reputation.

Does that sound reasonable to you?

MS. FITCH: I have said previously that I have no idea of motivation. I can't ascribe motivation to other people, only to myself.

MS. BERRY: And I am not a mind reader, Senator, so I have no idea what was going through her mind.

MS. HOLT: I have no ideas.

MS. ALVAREZ: I have no explanation.

SENATOR GRASSLEY: I want to ask you, there has been some suggestion by Ms. Alvarez, that maybe there is really two Anita Hills, because you never knew the one that you saw on television. I want to ask the other three, do you see a different--no, while you were working with Anita Hill, did you see that she could have been two different people? I mean you saw her as an aggressive lawyer arguing for her position very vocally, fighting for her position, etc.

Did you ever see another side to her, so that there could be some reason to believe that she was other than just this aggressive person? Any hint of that in any way?

MS. HOLT: I never saw another side.

MS. FITCH: I saw her as a smart person and also as a reserved one and that is pretty much what I saw the other day, except the story was something I had never heard before. No, so the answer is, no.

SENATOR GRASSLEY: Okay. Ms. Berry?

MS. BERRY: No.

SENATOR GRASSLEY: Let me also ask you about Professor Hill, you know the old saying about a certain individual would even walk on their grandmother to get ahead. Is she the sort of a person, did you ever see her as being that sort of a person that would do anything just to get ahead?

MS. FITCH: No, Senator.

MS. HOLT: No, I did not.

SENATOR GRASSLEY: Ms. Berry?

MS. BERRY: To have ambition, to be ambitious, yes, but to do anything? I don't know.

MS. ALVAREZ: I also saw her as quite ambitious and I have said so. To take it to the extent that she has, I think it kind of got out of hand, maybe before she even realized it.

SENATOR GRASSLEY: My time is up.

SENATOR BIDEN: If you need more time, Senator, go ahead, take a few more minutes. You have been very patient, extremely patient.

SENATOR GRASSLEY: Okay, I guess the only thing I would do and this is from your expertise as a historian, Professor Fitch, I wondered if I might ask you to draw on that background for a moment and you heard Friday Judge Thomas testify that he compared his treatment here to a lynching. I would like to have you explain or elaborate that comparison for us.

Why is this ordeal, defending against a charge of sex harassment similar to a lynching, as he put it?

MS. FITCH: I haven't talked to the Judge since he made those comments, but when he made those comments I felt that I understood them. I have a student who is working on lynching right now, so I have been thinking about this. Lynching was something that was done to intimate people, that was done to control them, as well as kill them. And I think, if I understand what the Judge was saying, was that this was an attempt to do that to him; that the process, the subsequent confirmation hearings process, this process was patently unfair, that it was a way to neutralize and control and intimidate not just him, but possibly through him, any person that was considered, as he put it, uppity.

When black soldiers came back from World War I, they felt that they had proved themselves to the country and to their fellow citizens. And wore their uniforms down south and that was a sure way to get yourself lynched, because they were wrapped, so to speak, in the American flag. That was to tell these people that they were not Americans. I see a connection and understood what he meant by that. He said, electronic lynching, I believe.

SENATOR GRASSLEY: Well, do you sense that then there has to be a larger group of people that see him a threat or people who think like him as a threat and they have to be put down right now or what will happen if they are not put down right now?

MS. FITCH: Senator, I have talked to a colleague who worked with us on personal staff who you may have a statement from, I am not sure, and we talked about this on the phone and his words, subsequently, I think used in the press were character assassination. For me the operative word there is assassination. And the other word is neutralization and I felt and some of us do feel that any person of color in this country who goes against the stream of what people think black people in this country should be thinking and feeling and doing by so distinguishing themselves, put themselves at great risk.

This is not something that my colleague and I felt only because of the last few weeks. This is something we talked about years ago and tried to talk to the Judge about, and in a comment to a friend last evening, I said, if he didn't understand what we were trying to say then--and obviously we were not beating him over the head with it, because it is a very uncomfortable thing to say to someone--I was assured that after his testimony of the last two days he understood it now.

SENATOR GRASSLEY: Yes. I had a black leader in my State advise to be against him and this was the words of this black leader, "He doesn't even speak our language."

What is meant by that? I honestly don't know.

MS. FITCH: Senator, I don't know what the person who said that meant, but I think it means that that person is somehow perceived to be outside the group, is not in some perceived lock-step. And I think if you look at the history of black people in this country you see that people have always had diverse views. We are not a monolithic community in thought. And I think that is a huge mistake for the dominant society to think and for us to buy into.

And I suppose that--I don't know the situation you are talking about--but that is probably what that meant.

SENATOR GRASSLEY: Well, have you ever heard other black American leaders use the expression, he doesn't even speak our language?

MS. FITCH: I don't know if I have heard the exact words, but I have gotten the distinct impression from working and watching Judge Thomas and how he seems to be perceived by black leaders, some of them, that that is something that they are saying, in effect, if they are not using those exact words. So I understand what that means.

SENATOR GRASSLEY: Well, it is almost like denouncing the individuality that we worship in America.

MS. FITCH: I think, Senator, the problem is that when you are a community under seige it is very difficult for people to want to allow diversity of opinion. It is understandable. I don't like it but it is understandable and I don't think in any situation where you have communities that are considered minority and where there are a majority community around them that you are going to find this kind of attitude.

SENATOR GRASSLEY: In other words, we are all going to hang together or hang separately?

MS. FITCH: That, I think that is one way of explaining it, yes, Senator. That may be a simplistic way of doing it. I am sure there are other things involved, but, certainly that is one way of putting it. And I don't think it is just true in this country, it's probably true in South Africa, and in other places where there are communities under seige within the countries that they live in, and the societies that they live in.

SENATOR GRASSLEY: So you intellectually lynch the people who do want to--

MS. FITCH: That's one way of doing it, Senator. That is probably the lesser of many evils.

SENATOR GRASSLEY: Okay, I am done.

SENATOR BIDEN: Thank you, very much.

Let me clear up two facts and you have been here a long time. We are not going to hold you much longer. But Ms. Holt, you were, you know that transcript that you have in front of you of your logs, on the last page of the transcript there is an insertion or an addition, an addendum, that has one message on it, the very last page. And it is in a different form than the others are and it says, "Judge, 11-1-90, 1:40", etc.

And the handwriting seems to be different from all the other handwriting.

MS. HOLT: It is different.

SENATOR BIDEN: Is it yours?

MS. HOLT: No, it isn't. This was probably taken at the court.

SENATOR BIDEN: I want the record to show that this is not admissible as part of your telephone logs and it is not admissible in the record. She does not, Ms. Holt cannot testify as to whether or not this is true, is that correct, Ms. Holt?

MS. HOLT: That is correct, yes.

SENATOR BIDEN: So, therefore, it is not admissible as a part of the record.

Now, let me ask one other thing. Do any of you know Sacari Hardnet?

MS. HOLT: I knew her, Senator.

MS. FITCH: Yes, Senator.

SENATOR BIDEN: Do you, Ms. Alvarez?

MS. ALVAREZ: No.

SENATOR BIDEN: Ms. Fitch, you know her?

MS. FITCH: Yes.

SENATOR BIDEN: Ms. Holt you know her?

MS. HOLT: Yes.

SENATOR BIDEN: Ms. Myers, do you know her?

MS. BERRY: No, I don't know her.

SENATOR BIDEN: Now, can Ms. Fitch and Ms. Holt tell me who she is? Ms. Holt?

MS. HOLT: She was a legal intern in the Office of the Chairman.

SENATOR BIDEN: At EEOC?

MS. HOLT: At EEOC. What happens is that we hire legal interns while they are still in law school. When they graduate law school they have a certain period, and I don't know what that is, to pass the bar. Their titles are then changed to attorney.

Ms. Hardnet completed law school but she failed the bar so she had to be dismissed from her position.

SENATOR BIDEN: I see. Do you know her she is?

MS. FITCH: Yes.

SENATOR BIDEN: What do you know of her?

MS. FITCH: Senator, the same thing.

SENATOR BIDEN: Did you work with her at all?

MS. FITCH: I vaguely remember that I might have been involved in some project or she might have been involved in some project I was working on. I remember her but I can't tell you what that project might have been about and I don't recall that she was there more than maybe nine months.

SENATOR BIDEN: More than maye--

MS. FITCH: I don't think she was there more than nine months, if possibly that long. That's my recollection.

SENATOR BIDEN: What is your recollection, Ms. Holt?

MS. HOLT: No more than a year, at any rate.

SENATOR BIDEN: Did you hear the Chairman's testimony last night?

MS. HOLT: I did.

SENATOR BIDEN: The Judge's testimony and the Judge will have an opportunity to come back and he can clarify this, but maybe you can help me. Remember when I was asking him about legal assistants, you may remember I asked him who his legal assistants were and he corrected the record and he said I had more than one legal assistant?

MS. HOLT: I think he was referring to the Department of Education.

SENATOR BIDEN: Thank you. That was my question, that was my question.

I also want the record to show that my friend from Wyoming, in an attempt to save me from myself, has suggested to me that it was not William Shakespeare who said, "Hell hath no fury." I still thought Shakespeare may have said it as well, but he says William Congrave said it, and the phrase was, "Heaven hath no rage like love to hatred turned, nor hell fury like a woman scorned."

I want the record to show that and thank him for that.

[Laughter.]

SENATOR BIDEN: I also must tell you that I have my staff researching Shakespeare to see if he said it, not that I think Mr. Congrave would ever plagiarize Shakespeare.

[Laughter.]

SENATOR BIDEN: Does anybody have any further questions?

SENATOR SPECTER: Could I inquire, Mr. Chairman?

SENATOR THURMOND: Senator Specter.

SENATOR SPECTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I welcome the chance to talk to you ladies because you are an uusual panel here which is testifying on behalf of Judge Thomas, but knows Professor Hill very well. And what we have been searching for in this long proceeding is some way to understand the issue of motivation and each of you has testified very forcefully that you think Judge Thomas is correct that the charges are false.

Let me start with you, Ms. Holt, because you seem to know Professor Hill very well. Were you surprised when these charges were leveled?

MS. HOLT: I was absolutely surprised, I was in shock.

SENATOR SPECTER: Well, knowing--I expected that to be your answer--knowing Professor Hill as you do and being confident that Judge Thomas is in the clear, do you have any insight to shed on what Professor Hill may be doing, what her motivation is, if you think she is not telling the truth?

MS. HOLT: I know, I mean the allegations she has made are not even in character with Clarence Thomas.

SENATOR SPECTER: But is it in character with Professor Hill to make such charges?

MS. HOLT: I never thought so, sir.

SENATOR SPECTER: So you have it out of character for Judge Thomas to do this and you have it out of character for Professor Hill to make the charges.

MS. HOLT: Right.

SENATOR SPECTER: Then why is she making the charges?

MS. HOLT: I have no idea, Senator.

SENATOR SPECTER: No speculation?

MS. HOLT: None whatsoever, but I hope they find out.

SENATOR SPECTER: Well, I think that with you four women we have as good a chance to find out as any way.

Ms. Fitch, you were very friendly. You didn't go to lunch with her, but you knew her very well.

MS. FITCH: We might have had lunch, Senator.

SENATOR SPECTER: I am sorry, I can't hear you.

MS. FITCH: We might have had lunch together, Senator, I am not--

SENATOR SPECTER: But at any rate, you were close to her, you were friendly with her?

MS. FITCH: Yes, exactly.

SENATOR SPECTER: And when you first heard of these charges against Judge Thomas what was your reaction?

MS. FITCH: I was stunned. I was absolutely stunned.

SENATOR SPECTER: Stunned?

MS. FITCH: Yes, and I still am.

enator Specter. Still stunned?

MS. FITCH: Yes.

SENATOR SPECTER: Was it in character for Professor Hill to make false charges like this?

MS. FITCH: I have never known Professor Hill to make false charges. And as I said--

SENATOR SPECTER: Well, you knew her very well for how long?

MS. FITCH: We were together from July '82 to whenever she left in '83, and I stayed in touch with her for possibly two years and I called maybe once every other month.

SENATOR SPECTER: Lots of contacts?

MS. FITCH: Excuse me?

MS. FITCH: Well, when I was in the office and she was in the office we saw each other.

SENATOR SPECTER: Talked to her a great deal?

MS. FITCH: Yes, I did because--

SENATOR SPECTER: Got to know her pretty well?

MS. FITCH: I felt she was kind of the person I could of relate to since I was new on the staff and she had been with the Chairman for some time, and I just felt that she was somebody I kind of gravitated to, to kind of get--

SENATOR SPECTER: But no idea, not any speculation?

MS. FITCH: No speculation because there was no basis in the conversations that we have had and we had many at work.

SENATOR SPECTER: Ms. Berry, you have testified that your relationship was barely speaking professionally and we have already had extensive--

MS. BERRY: With Angela Wright, but not with Anita Hill.

SENATOR SPECTER: No, no, I am coming with Professor Hill. Oh, your relationship with Professor Hill was--

MS. BERRY: She has described it, and it was so, that it was a cordial, friendly, professional relationship.

SENATOR SPECTER: So, were you surprised when you read her statement in the news conference on October 7th that referring to you, that she doesn't know me and I don't know her?

MS. BERRY: Yes.

SENATOR SPECTER: When you first heard of the charges by Professor Hill against Judge Thomas, what was your reaction?

MS. BERRY: I was devastated and I was angry. I couldn't understand how someone-- for a man who helped nurture her career, on the word of a good friend of his and hers, gave her a job at the Department of Education, subsequently asked her to join him at the EEOC, come to the EEOC, gave her responsibilities there, supported her, acted as her mentor, gave her recommendations to go to Oral Roberts, helped her to secure that job--

SENATOR SPECTER: But is she the kind of a person to make false charges, prior to the time that these were made?

MS. BERRY: I hadn't known her to be such.

SENATOR SPECTER: How well did you know her?

MS. BERRY: I knew her professional. I'm not much of a socializer, but I didn't socialize.

SENATOR SPECTER: But over how long a period did you know her professionally?

MS. BERRY: I knew her from 1982 until the time that she left the Commission.

Senator Spector. Did you talk to her fairly often?

MS. BERRY: Yes, it was part of my responsibility.

SENATOR SPECTER: But no idea at all why she would be motivated to make false charges?

MS. BERRY: No idea whatsoever.

SENATOR SPECTER: How about you, Ms. Alvarez, how well did you know her?

MS. ALVAREZ: No, I knew her professionally. I did not know her as well as some of these others did.

SENATOR SPECTER: How long did you know her?

MS. ALVAREZ: From the first time, my first day at the Commission until she left.

SENATOR SPECTER: What was your reaction, when you heard these charges by Professor Hill against Judge Thomas?

MS. ALVAREZ: I was shocked. I was absolutely shocked, and I was sickened by it, because, likewise, I knew that he had helped her on lots of occasions, and I just felt like it was a betrayal.

SENATOR SPECTER: Ms. Holt, this committee has to make a judgment. We have heard people of the panel before you four women came on, who said that tey had total confidence in Professor Hill. You women have said you have total confidence in Judge Thomas. Can you give any clue, any clue at all as to how this committee can break that deadlock?

MS. HOLT: Senator, I guess for all of us--again, we were talking about probability, we are talking about patterns of behavior that we have not witnessed--we are talking about the fact that up to the time of these allegations, we never heard anyone else make such allegations in our presence, talk about such things. We never heard rumors flying about this Chairman, Clarence Thomas--

SENATOR SPECTER: But how about the behavior or patterns of behavior of Professor Hill?

MS. HOLT: Senator--

SENATOR SPECTER: You never heard her make a false charge, did you?

MS. HOLT: No, I haven't, but I guess my focusing on constructive looking at people, my focus has been on Judge Thomas. I cannot--

SENATOR SPECTER: Why not put a focus on Professor Hill?

MS. BERRY: On October 7th, I made--

SENATOR SPECTER: You first, Ms. Fitch, and then you, Ms. Berry.

MS. HOLT: Well, I have been out of touch with Professor Hill for three years, so I may have written her lately about my last position, but I have not heard back from her. I can't say what she may be doing or thinking since the last three years that I last spoke to her. I have periodically run into the Judge and talked to him, stayed in touch with his mother whom I met when I was in Savannah, so it is not the same thing.

SENATOR SPECTER: What did you want to add, Ms. Berry?

MS. BERRY: Well, on October 7th, I heard a false charge, "I do not know Phyllis Berry and she does not know me."

SENATOR SPECTER: Let me ask one other questions for response by all of you, and it is this: Is it possible that Professor Hill could think this happened and it did not? We have explored that possibility, and you are not professionals and I don't know how much insight the professionals can provide, but each of you women knew her rather well, especially Ms. Holt and Ms. Fitch.

One of the questions that has been going through my mind that I started out with was some effort to reconcile the testimony of these two people who appear to be so credible. I had thought that it might be possible to reconcile them, frankly, until I heard Professor Hill's testimony and the expanded nature of the charges which were made at that time--very different from what she put in her statement and very different from what she had told the FBI, and when I saw those expanded charges, it didn't seem possible to reconcile them.

But we have a situation here where you have a pattern of conduct toward Judge Thomas, which is admitted to by Professor Hill, where she has a very cordial relationship, no indication of anger, moves with him from one job to another, she does tell one friend and tells that friend that she has only told her, and then three more people come up today, which I hadn't heard about until yesterday, and the charges are expanded and Ms. Berry has speculated about the spurned woman approach.

But can you women shed any light on the possibility that Professor Hill might have had an attachment or a feeling which would have led her to think about these things?

Senator Hatch yesterday put into the record some speculation, and that is what we are doing here, pure and simple. But you women know her well enough, so that I think you might have some insight into it, in terms of the case, which had the reference to "Silver" and reference to some other facts which came from another case. And without impugning any impropriety or wrong- doing, what do you think, Ms. Holt? I think you know her the best of anybody on the panel. Do you think it is conceivable that Professor Hill might really think this happened, when it didn't?

MS. HOLT: I think that's the only conceivable answer, Senator, because I do not believe it happened.

SENATOR SPECTER: Well, you don't believe it happened and you can't find any motivation for her.

MS. HOLT: I can't find any motivation for her saying that it did happen.

SENATOR SPECTER: Do you think she is the kind of a person who would come here under oath and say that it happened, if she didn't think it did happen?

MS. HOLT: I don't know. She didn't appear to be that type of person when I knew her.

SENATOR SPECTER: You knew her second best, Ms. Fitch. Do you think it is possible that she really believes in her mind today that it never really happened?

MS. FITCH: I think it's possible. I may be on shaky ground here. I have read a little bit in psychiatry, but there is something called transference. I'm not talking now about Professor Hill, but just in general terms.

My understanding of what transference means is that you may have strong feelings about someone and you're able to focus on someone who is either a therapist or someone who has been kind to you, and things get kind of muddled and they carry the burden of whatever someone else may or may not have done or what is something that you think actually happened.

So, there are any number of explanations, I would suspect, that would say that she is not a liar, but that this did not happen, but that, yes, she could probably pass a polygraph test, because she does sincerely believe that this happened with this person. And I say again that I do not believe in the allegations.

SENATOR SPECTER: Well, have you seen anything in her personality or had any experience with her, because you knew her very well, which would give you some factual basis or some feeling that she might think that it happened, when, in fact, it didn't?

MS. FITCH: Senator, that's why I said I am not talking about Professor Hill, but just in general terms about this idea of transference. No, I can't say that I have.

SENATOR SPECTER: Ms. Alvarez, what do you think about that possibility?

MS. ALVAREZ: I didn't know her well enough personally to be able to say that she was-- that this would be something she would do. I didn't see her professionally as somebody who would do that. I do recall her being very ambitious, and--

SENATOR SPECTER: Is this going to help her ambition?

MS. ALVAREZ: Well, she is--

SENATOR SPECTER: Her life is not going to be any easier now.

MS. ALVAREZ: Well, I think she has now become, as I think somebody on this committee put it, the Rosa Parks of sexual harassment. You know, the speaking engagements will come, the book, the movie. I mean I don't know.

SENATOR SPECTER: Do you think that's her motivation?

MS. ALVAREZ: I don't-- I'm speculating. I have had to try and sort out what I think, why I think she might have done it. I think that it might have started off as a political, she was a political pawn, and the situation got out of control and she took it--

SENATOR SPECTER: So, you think she is deliberately not telling the truth, as opposed to saying something that she thinks might have happened, when, in fact, it didn't?

MS. ALVAREZ: Yes, because I did not know her personally well enough to make a judgment on her personality and whether she was capable of that fantasy. My only way of looking at it is that it is a professional, I mean it is a personal move on her part, to advance her.

SENATOR SPECTER: Ms. Berry, you have the final comment. You had started off with a quotation of the New York Times, which I asked Professor Hill about, saying that you thought there might have been a romantic interest that was denied. Do you think that--well, you've already said you don't think she's the kind of person that makes something up, but you disbelieve what she said. Do you think that, based on your knowledge of her, that there could be a situation where she thinks it happened, but, in fact, it did not?

MS. BERRY: A point I would like to make, I was listening some to Mr. Carr's testimony this morning or today, and he had indicated that Anita said to him that "I was harassed by my supervisor." Clarence Thomas was not the only supervisor that Anita had, and Mr. Carr seemed to make this gigantic leap, because he knew that she was on Clarence Thomas' personal staff, that the supervisor that she must have been referring to was Clarence Thomas.

SENATOR SPECTER: Who were others who could be classified as a supervisor?

MS. BERRY: Mr. Roggerson was her supervisor in Congressional Affairs, and when I succeeded him to Congressional Affairs, he became the Executive Assistant, and so he was also her supervisor. How can I say this? Mr. Roggerson doesn't have such an impeccable reputation.

SENATOR SPECTER: So, you think, in the case of one of the witnesses this morning, Professor Paul might just have the wrong man?

MS. BERRY: I am saying that's possible. He seemed to make that--he didn't identify. He said, "Anita Hill said to me that she was being harassed by her supervisor," and he said, "I dominated the conversation and, because she worked for Clarence Thomas, it must have been Clarence Thomas."

SENATOR BIDEN: Senator, it is time to switch.

SENATOR SPECTER: If I may make just one more comment, Mr. Chairman. I had not heard what Senator Kennedy said this morning, and I waited until I got a transcript of the record, because I didn't want to make a comment, without being precise as to what Senator Kennedy had said.

When I got a transcript of the record about 15 minutes ago, I told Senator Kennedy that I was going to raise this point, because I strongly disagree with what he said, but I wanted to be sure, before I took issue with it.

When Senator Kennedy had a turn earlier today, he said, "But I hope, Mr. Chairman, that after this panel, we are not going to hear any more comments unworthy, unsubstantiated comments, unjustified comments about Professor Hill and perjury, as we heard in this room yesterday."

I want to say that the comments I made yesterday ere not unworthy, were not unsubstantiated or unjustified. On the contrary, they were well-based and well-founded in the record. It is as little late to debate it now, but I am prepared to do so, at your pleasure, Senator Kennedy.

SENATOR KENNEDY: Well, Mr. Chairman, it is nonsense to suggest that Professor Hill committed perjury or anything remotely approaching it. It was very clear what she was saying to Senator Specter.

Initially, she said no one on the committee staff had suggested to her that Judge Thomas might withdraw quickly and quietly, simply because she made an allegation to the committee. Later, she said the possibility of withdrawal had come up, but in the context of a very different kind of conversation about the various things that might happen down the road as one of a broad range of possible outcomes, if Professor Hill reported what had happened. That's an obvious distinction between the two statements, and it is preposterous to call it perjury.

SENATOR BIDEN: Gentlemen, before you--

SENATOR SPECTER: Just one reply, Mr. Chairman.

I regard that comment and characterization as preposterous. I did not start this argument, but I am not going to back away from it. To be in this committee room and to say that they are unsubstantiated is just patently wrong. I asked the question repeatedly, and there was no doubt about it, and the witness was very evasive, and then the witness was really decisive in saying that no staffer had approached her with a suggestion that Judge Thomas might withdraw. Then, in the afternoon, in an unresponsive way and a way which really showed calculation, she slipped in a comment to the contrary. I think, having had some experience in the field, that what she said was just flatly untrue in the morning and she changed it in the afternoon, and I think she did so, knowing that it was a recantation and avoided a problem.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR KENNEDY: Well, if I could be recognized 30 seconds.

SENATOR BIDEN: Gentlemen, I will recognize the Senator from Massachusetts for 30 seconds, and then I respectfully suggest that this is likely to go on on the floor anyway, this debate, and I would ask that we end it. In the meantime, shortly after, I am going to ask the women on the panel whether they need a break. They have been sitting there a long time. I don't know how much people have to go.

I yield to my colleague from Massachusetts.

SENATOR KENNEDY: Senator Specter has repeatedly effectively what he said in the transcript, when he said "I went through that in some detail, because it is my legal judgment, having some experience in perjury prosecution, the testimony of Professor Hill in the morning was flat-out perjury. She specifically changed it in the afternoon, when confronted with the possibility of being contradicted, and if you recant during the course of proceeding, it is not perjury, so I state very carefully as to what she had said in the morning."

But in the context of those continual denials, consulting the attorney, repeatedly asking the question, I believe this was at a time when I did interrupt. I know that the Senator from Pennsylvania didn't think it appropriate, but some of us thought he was attempting to put words into the mouth of Professor Hill. He went on and simply stated "was false and perjurious, in my legal opinion, and the change in the afternoon was a concession fatly to that effect."

Mr. Chairman, rather than going through the reference parts now and taking the time, I would like to ask that those parts of the record that refer to those exchanges be included now in the record, and the members can make up their own mind. The members can make up their own mind as to what conclusion they would draw.

SENATOR SPECTER: That is satisfactory to me.

SENATOR BIDEN: Without objection, so ordered.

[The information referred to follows:]

SENATOR BIDEN: Now, let me canvas here for a miute, because you have been a long time sitting there.

Does anyone else have a question for this panel? Senator DeConcini, roughly how long do you wish?

SENATOR DECONCINI: Five minutes or less.

SENATOR BIDEN: I will go down the line here.

SENATOR SIMON: Five minutes.

SENATOR BIDEN: Five minutes.

SENATOR HATCH: Five minutes.

SENATOR BIDEN: Five minutes, one minute.

We will give you a recess.