SEN. ADAMS: The senator from Mississippi.
SEN. THAD COCHRAN, R-MS: Mr. President -- Mr. President, today I will vote for the confirmation of Judge Clarence Thomas to be associate justice of the United States Supreme Court. I ask unanimous consent that the balance of my remarks be printed in the record.
SEN. ADAMS: The senator from South Carolina.
SEN. THURMOND: I yield two minutes to aid the senator -- Senator Craig.
SEN. ADAMS: The senator -- (inaudible) --
SEN. LARRY CRAIG, R-ID: I appreciate my colleague for yielding.
Mr. President, like many Americans, I and my colleagues have spent a tremendous number of hours over the course of the last week and through this past weekend monitoring our Judiciary Committee's proceedings, reviewing the evidence, and trying to decide how to vote on the confirmation of Judge Thomas.
But something else fundamentally important has happened in this country -- the beginning of a necessary and important debate about sexual harassment, the protection of employees, policies, and if they exist or not and how this nation should handle them.
Now, I would have to tell you that I did not, until this morning, have a sexual harassment policy in my office here or in my offices in Idaho. That is now being corrected today, and in the course of the last four days, there has been a rising of national consciousness of tremendous significance. We have learned that sexual harassment is real, that it comes in a variety of forms, and that it's happened to thousands of Americans, men and women alike.
I hope we have learned a few other things, Mr. President. I hope the American people have learned that this is, indeed, a serious matter -- serious enough to stop the United States Senate dead in its tracks, to reverse and to begin to hear again charges and to examine those who charged and those who are accused. We did that. And for hours that occurred, Mr. Chairman.
Today we have an accuser who has tried to make a case against Judge Clarence Thomas. I am one of those who believe she failed. I simply do not believe that Anita Hill proved her case against Clarence Thomas, and in this system, although it is not a court of law, our American sense of fairness requires that the accuser has the burden of proving his or her accusations.
This process has not revealed any new reason for me to vote differently than I had said earlier and publicly I would vote. And today I stand saying that I will support the nomination of Clarence Thomas to become an associate justice of the US Supreme Court.
SEN. ADAMS: Who yields time?
SEN. THURMOND: I yield 20 minutes to aid the senator from Utah, Senator Hatch.
SEN. ADAMS: The senator is recognized.
SEN. ORRIN HATCH, R-UT: Mr. President, I appreciate the seriousness of this particular nomination process.
Mr. President, I've been interested in some of these comments about the White House dominating the strategy on this time. Anybody who knows Senator Specter knows that he does his own legal work, and that nobody dominates what he does and I suspect all these battles that I've led in the past have been dominated by the people, I'm sure.
The fact of the matter is anybody who believes that -- I -- I know a bridge up in Massachusetts that I'll be happy to sell to them -- that's what happened to Senator Kennedy.
Mr. President, I also want to join in the comments of Senator DeConcini about our chairman. Mr. President, the way these processes work -- and the process would work well if there wasn't so much influence from the outside -- the way these work is if an allegation comes in, the chairman then notifies the ranking member.
In this case, they both agreed to order an FBI check. It was an extensive check. The FBI did a good job. Then they brought it back and they thought they should notify the members. Senator Biden notified everybody on his side. Nobody -- nobody -- failed to have understanding of what was going on. And he did what was right there.
These FBI reports contain raw data. You get everything from enemies to divorced wives to nuts to whatever it is, although in this particular matter, it doesn't appear like that FBI report had any of those factors. And they make a value judgment about whether they make these matters public or whether they call an executive session, but that would have been the way to go.
If anybody on that committee before that vote had wanted an executive session -- session, they would have gotten it. If anyone would have desired to put this matter over for one week, they had an absolute right to do it. If anyone had said on that open executive -- that open workup that, "I've read the FBI report or I've heard of the FBI report or I've been briefed on the FBI report," which is the way you find out about these, one of the three ways, and "I am concerned about this allegation about sexual harassment and I think we need public hearings," I don't think there'd have been any question that they would have been listened to.
But there was a judgment made, as there is in many of these things, and a value judgment made that a sex harassment allegation 10 years old, with all of the difficulties that this case had was one that -- and especially one that the allegator -- the alleger, I guess I'd better say -- (laughter) -- where the alleger -- (laughter) -- will you let me strike that word "allegator"? I don't want that misconstrued. (Laughter) Where the alleger -- (laughter) -- where the alleger literally -- literally had some difficulties.
But then a judgment was made, and any senator could have overturned that value judgment. Senator Biden did everything that he should have done -- (brief audio break) -- the decision joined in by the rest of the committee was a valid decision under the circumstances. The alleger did not want her name used.
But someone on that committee, someone on that committee breached the rules, waited until after that vote, and then leaked these matters to the press and did great harm to two, I think, basically good people. And both of them have been smeared in the process, and all because of a political motivation -- and I don't think anybody can conclude otherwise -- of the person who did this in full violation of the rules, of ethical responsibility, and of just good, basic decency and fairness.
And Clarence Thomas has been smeared, and anybody that doesn't believe that just hasn't listened to the facts. And, unfortunately, Professor Hill has not come out of it well, either.
Now, Mr. President, I just want to tell you that I'm very concerned about sex harassment and those charges. As ranking member of the Labor Committee, former chairman of the Labor Committee, I have to tell you that this is something we overview and we take seriously, and that should be taken seriously. And one good thing that has come out of this is that I think everybody has a heightened awareness -- and hopefully a heightened sensitivity -- to these issues.
I have three daughters that I love very, very much and three sons, and I have nine granddaughters and three grandsons -- 12 grandchildren -- and I don't want any of them to have to face the types of sexual harassment that we have heard since we've started to hear these matters.
Mr. President, I'm extremely concerned about this. And it's good that maybe all of us have a heightened sensitivity. And I have listened to people all over this country, men and women, express their concerns about this issue, and I think it's easy for all of us to say that we don't like these things to occur.
But, Mr. President, they are occurring. They're occurring more than they should. They're occurring in tremendous quantities around the country. People are not sensitive to them or haven't been up till now, and I think everybody has to pay attention to what has happened here.
Now, Mr. President, I have known Clarence Thomas for 11 years, or thereabouts. I have personally participated in all five of his confirmation processes before the Senate -- all five of them. I presided over three of them -- his assistant secretary of Education and both of his nominations to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. I saw people raking over everything to try and hurt him then, and they were tough confirmations -- at least the latter two.
And then I have sat in on, of course, this -- his confirmation before the Judiciary Committee to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and I've sat in on his confirmation throughout this process. This man's life has been thoroughly scrutinized. He's been watched over because many people on the far left have hated having him as chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, even though he has done a remarkable job, so well done that he -- that "The Washington Post" itself complimented him for it.
Was it perfect? No, but it was darned good and better than anybody who preceded him.
And I'm telling you and everybody in this country and everybody that listens and everybody that sees this or reads this, that Clarence Thomas is an honorable, decent, wonderful man, and I think if you look at the facts -- he said that at one point he was so poor -- he'd had a divorce. He was in the midst of a divorce -- he sold his only car to help keep his son in school.
Now, that doesn't sound like a man on the prowl or a person that doesn't have good values to me. He has tremendous values, and everybody -- everybody -- who has worked with Clarence Thomas or knows Clarence Thomas or has a relationship socially with Clarence Thomas knows he's a good man. Everybody -- except this one woman and some others who did not come forward -- one or two, and I think would have come forward, and rightly so.
This man is a decent human being whose life has been really wronged and really hurt and, frankly, because of a process that broke down because of at least one dishonest person who sits in this body, the greatest deliberative body in the world, only 100 people. And his life, though not ruined by any stretch of the imagination, has been severely harmed.
Now, it seems to me that all of that lifetime and all of that service to the federal government and all of the good things that he's done should not be swept away because of one substantiated set of allegations that really don't stand up, that were 10 years old -- nine years and nine months after the statute of limitations expired on the charges.
That's why we have a statute of limitations, so we stop people from bringing up charges afterwards, so they have to bring them within a reasonable time or eat them. So that they have to live within that statute and get these charges made so that the problems can be corrected, so that if the individual doesn't realize that -- that he or she is committing sexual harassment, they can be informed of it and changes can be made and life changes can be made and recompense can be brought.
And that's what we all wish had been done here, but nine years and nine months after the statute of limitations expired, small wonder that Senator Biden and Senator Thurmond and virtually everybody on the committee agreed -- well, these are serious, but let's give some credibility to the process. And they are at the last minute, she doesn't want her name known, and we know about them, and the vote was still seven to seven, and I don't think one of the seven voted against him because of those allegations at that time.
Now, Mr. President, I would just like to mention a few questions that I think anybody who looks at this will have to ask. I think these questions are serious, and I'm only mentioning a few. There are many others that I think people who have watched this process, have listened to the testimony could come up with.
One. Why did she wait 10 years? This is a law graduate from one of the great law schools of this country, working in the very area that overviewed these problems, in both the Department of Education and the Equal Opportunity Commission. Why did she wait 10 years, and why should it suddenly arise on the weekend before the final vote was to take place?
Number two. Why did she not raise this issue in five confirmations -- five confirmations -- here in the Senate? These are important. Everybody knows it.
Everybody knew that Clarence Thomas was on the fast track when he came up for the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Everybody knew it -- the fast track to the Supreme Court. Everybody knew that a great justice was getting elderly and probably would retire, and that this man was a likely pick.
Number three. If Judge Thomas was harassing her at the Department of Education and saying these vulgar, sexually explicit things to her, why didn't she complain even to some official at the Department of Education or to some official at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as an attorney, graduate of the Yale Law School?
As I watched her comments last night, she said she thought it was her duty to come forward. Why wasn't it her duty closer to the actual facts, if they did occur? And I'm telling you I don't believe they occurred. I believe she believes they occurred, but I don't believe that they did.
Number four. If she felt uncomfortable going the official route, going to the appropriate people at the Department of Education or the Department of -- or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, then why didn't she confine -- confide in -- in Gilbert Hardy of her old law firm, who put her in touch with Clarence Thomas to begin with? Well, why didn't she solicit his advice and his assistance?
Number five. If Judge Thomas was harassing her at the Department of Education, why did she go to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission no more than two or three months after the harassment -- the alleged harassment took place and possibly only one month after she says the last incident occurred?
Number six. If she was uncertain about her ability to stay at the Department of Education, why didn't she make any inquiry with the designated replacement of Thomas, who came on board while she was still there? That would be a natural thing anybody would do -- "Can I stay? Are you willing to consider me?
Number seven. If she didn't want to talk to that designated replacement, then why didn't she call anyone in the personnel office or anywhere else or anyone else to find out what her rights were at the Department of Education?
Number eight. If she left the Department of Education in 1982 because she feared the Department was going to be, quote, "abolished," unquote, why did she leave a lucrative private sector job just a year earlier to go to work in the same department? To the extent there was any risk that the Department of Education was going to abolish -- be abolished, that risk was greater in 1981 than it was when she left, than in 1982.
Number nine. Why was she with Judge Thomas at the Equal -- while she was with Judge Thomas at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, why did women -- really strong, noble women who worked closely with both of them and around the chairman's suite of offices -- testify to the committee that they never saw any signs of distress or discomfort or irritation of the sort that you would expect in Professor Hill? Why didn't Professor Hill suggest any concerns to any of her co-workers?
Number 10. Why, after leaving Equal Employment Opportunity did Professor Hill continue to call Judge Thomas seeking assistance in obtaining research and leaving messages that clearly show a continued interest in cordial social professional relations with him?
Number 11. Why did she call him so many times -- not only the 11 times mentioned in the logs, but four, five, or six times mentioned by Ms. Holt, whom nobody could doubt? I've never seen a person who testified more forthrightly and more favorably to her when she had a chance with regard to their personal friendship and relationship.
She was fair to her. She just doesn't believe her, and said, basically, she knew that this did not go on. And so did the other three. They were very powerful witnesses.
Number 12. If those lurid references to a Coke can and a pornography star, if you want to use that term, occurred, why did not she use those vivid and dramatic conversations in her September 23, 1991, statement to the Judiciary Committee or in her interview with the FBI? She did not.
And why is it so circumstantially interesting that one of those references was used in a 1988 case right in the very Circuit in which she was teaching law school, in the very type of a case that she would have been concerned about as a civil rights expert, a lawyer? And why was the other quote so vividly similar to the one in the book?
Number 13. Why, when Clarence Thomas, years later -- years later -- after she had her own job, was out from under his control, why, when he visited Oral Roberts University did Professor Hill socialize with Judge Thomas? Why did she have breakfast with him? Why did she volunteer to take him to the airport? Why was she so friendly to him? The dean said she was tremendously friendly to him.
I don't believe that that woman that I saw there is a hypocritical person. I just don't think it makes sense that she would have treated somebody who treated her with such disdain, according to her allegations, that she would have treated him like a long-lost friend.
As Dean Kothe of the Oral Roberts University asked -- this is number 14 -- how could Professor Hill even think of suggesting Clarence Thomas speak to the University on the issue of sex harassment if she believed any of her allegations to be true? How could she? What was her professional obligation then -- allow him to come speak to these students, most of whom are in their 20s?
Number 15. How could Professor Hill, according to two witnesses at this summer's ABA convention, say that it was, quote, "A good thing," unquote, that Judge Thomas was being named to the Supreme Court of the United States of America -- and those two witnesses were sure of that -- that statement?
Number 16. Why, if Judge Thomas said these vile things, did Professor Hill not try to distance herself from him? You saw when Ms. Fitch said that there were some vile things of a similar nature said to her, she got away from the person as quickly as she could and got another job. That was really credible testimony by Ms. Fitch.
I don't know about you, but I fell in love with those four witnesses. They were as good a witness as I've ever seen, and you couldn't have found witnesses in central casting for a movie that were better than those. They were wonderful, honest women, and they love Clarence Thomas as a professional leader.
Number 17. Why would Judge Thomas, as an African-American male, acutely sensitive to black issues, why would he --
SEN. ADAMS: (Gavels) The senator's 20 minutes has expired.
SEN. HATCH: May I have just two more minutes?
SEN. THURMOND: Mighty short, Senator. Go ahead.
SEN. HATCH: I'll -- I'll try to be even shorter.
Why would Judge Thomas, as an African-American male who was acutely sensitive to black issues use those anti-black stereotypes, racial stereotypes? To me that was a dramatic part of his testimony, and he testified honestly. If you read that record and watched him, you knew he did. Why would anybody of his sophistication, his intelligence, and his experience even use that type of language?
I don't think it adds up.
In summary, Mr. President, even if some people believe that Anita Hill -- or they assume that Anita Hill believes what she is now saying, I don't think anyone can ignore these questions. I just don't think they can. Some may come up with certain explanations to respond to one or some of these questions, but all of them cannot be satisfactorily answered, and, cumulatively, they raise very grave doubts about her story.
Now, I don't know why she told this story. I know many believe that she believes she is telling the truth, and I tend to try to understand that.
All I can say is that a very -- a very good man who (sic) many of us know personally, who we've watched through these 11 years, has been seriously damaged by these allegations by one woman -- unsubstantiated allegations that nobody else who worked with him on a continuing and lengthy basis believes.
Thank you very much, Mr. President.
SEN. ADAMS: Who yields time?