SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: I thank the chair, and I thank my distinguished colleague from South Carolina, the ranking member, and I compliment him and Senator Biden for their outstanding work.
Mr. President, after the regular hearings concluded, I stated my support for Judge Thomas because I found him to be intellectually, educationally and professionally qualified. When Professor Hill presented her statement on October 7, it seemed to me that we should proceed to the hearings which we have just conducted. I think it would have been preferable had we had Professor Hill earlier, and by 20/20 hindsight, I think we should have, but we established the hearings which have just been concluded.
Mr. President, they were a very tight time frame, and I have concerns about whether we have taken long enough, and I was one of two dissenters on the committee when we chose to close the witness list. But we have responded to the direction of the full Senate to do the best we could, and we have put in long hours in trying to come to a conclusion on this very, very complex matter.
Mr. President, I have said at the hearings that I did not regard them as adversarial proceedings and that I did not approach the matter as an advocate. I was asked by Senator Thurmond to do the questioning on Professor Hill, and I agreed to do so, realizing that it would not be an easy matter because the underlying issue of sexual harassment is one which is of enormous importance in our country, and it is plain that there are tremendous numbers of sexual harassment cases which have gone unreported and unpunished. And that you have in the overall hearings on Judge Thomas many people who are fervently opposed to him on grounds of philosophy, and then you have many of those same people who are very much concerned about women's issues, as frankly am I, so that it has been a very, very difficult matter. But we were asked to make a determination as to what happened here, and we have done our -- our beset to do that.
As I had said, I would like to have taken more time. After the hearings were concluded, the issue was raised about Professor Hill's medical records, for example, as to whether they might show some information or shed some light on what she had experienced, where some statement might have been made to a physician in the course of medical treatment. We heard later about a roommate, and there is much that regrettably we could not do within the time frame, but we have to proceed today, and I am prepared to do so.
In my judgment, Mr. President, the weight of the evidence supports Judge Thomas, and I say that because of the underlying evidence that Professor Hill moved with Judge Thomas from the Department of Education to the EEOC after he had made these statements to her, after he had stated what is sexual harassment as she viewed the statements. It seems to me that one might have expected her not to go to another job when that had occurred, and she explained that she went with him because the statements had stopped, because she was interested in civil rights and because she wouldn't keep her job at the Department of Education.
It turned out that, in fact, she could have retained her job at the Department of Education, and even where the comments had stopped, that was a serious factor in my mind as to judging the underlying issue.
Then there were a series of calls which Professor Hill made to Judge Thomas, and she initially denied having made the calls. And then when confronted with the telephone logs, she conceded that, in fact, she had made the calls. There were 11 calls recorded which came from Professor Hill, where Judge Thomas was not present -- so that is written down -- and there was testimony that there were more calls. The witness said -- Judge Thomas' secretary said five or six calls. Now that is not necessarily an enormous number of calls, but it is some significant contact. It raises a question: Why in the face of this sexual harassment did Professor Hill continue to have this kind of contact?
And one of the very difficult issues in this case has been for us to understand the attitude of a woman in this circumstance. And the question has been raised that there are 14 men on the committee, and we are struggling with this issue, and it might had been better had we taken more time to get the woman's point of view, but, again, we operated within the time constraint.
We heard testimony that it is to be expected that it is not unusual for Professor Hill to have continued to maintain a professional relationship with Judge Thomas because she needed him. She needed letters of recommendation, and one witness, I think, said she had tied her start (?) to him.
But then there were some factors as to a personal relationship. Professor Kothe, from Oral Roberts Law School, testified that they were together in a social setting and were seen laughing together and appeared to have a relationship which went far beyond the matter of just a strictly professional relationship which a woman might feel she had to have even if -- if she had been sexually harassed. And when they were together at Professor Kothe's house one day having breakfast, Professor Hill drove Judge Thomas to the airport. And all of that raises the question as to whether a woman who had been sexually harassed would maintain that kind of a relationship.
The telephone logs, Mr. President, bear some light on this issue, and Professor Hill explained that many of these calls were for professional reasons, and she was calling at the request of somebody else. But there were other calls which appear to be of a personal nature. The log reported on January 30th of 1984, after the sexual harassment is supposed to have occurred, has in writing, quote, "Just called to say hello. Sorry we didn't get together. Sorry I didn't get to see you last week," close quote, which has the overtone of a personal call. A call on August the 4th of 1987, 4 o'clock: In town until 8:15; and a telephone number of a hotel -- again raising the inference or suggestion that there is something more than just a professional relationship.
And I repeat, Mr. President, the difficulty of evaluating this from a point of -- from a woman's point of view and also the additional difficulty that when you have a sexual harassment charge that the emotions run high and that when you make a finding in favor of the man, in favor of Judge Thomas, and against the woman, against Professor Hill, that there is an overtone of discouraging women from coming forward, and there is an overtone of discouraging women from asserting their rights by a group of 14 men who may not really understand all these ramifications. But we searched very hard through this -- through this record in an effort to treat Professor Hill in a very polite and professional -- professional way. But it was necessary to ask questions, and it was necessary to ask precise and pointed questions.
There was one exchange, Mr. President, which had significant weight in my mind, and that was an exchange which I had with Professor Hill over the story which appeared in USA Today which raised the issue as to whether Professor Hill was contacted by Senate staffers in a context that if she came forward and made these serious charges that Judge Thomas would withdraw and it would not be necessary for these very elaborate proceedings to be undertaken. And when I questioned Professor Hill about that, she denied that there was every any such conversation in an extended morning question-and-answer session.
Then in the afternoon, Professor Hill came back and flatly changed her testimony, and I was very disturbed by that, Mr. President, in terms of the credibility of Professor Hill, much more so than her change of testimony that she hadn't gotten the calls and then when confronted with the logs admitted it, and much more so than the issue of leaving the Department of Education because perhaps there she might not have known that she could have stayed on.
And overnight, the transcript was prepared, and the next day, I read the transcript and came to the conclusion that her change in testimony was an intentional misstatement of fact, and I think it is worthwhile to take the time to go through this testimony because the central issue we have here is credibility, whether Judge Thomas was correct or whether Professor Hill was correct. And I cannot read everything in the limited time which was available. So I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that the full transcript appear from pages 79 to 85 and from 203 to 208.
SEN. : Without objection, so ordered.
SEN. SPECTER: I thank the chair.
At page 80, I asked -- and I asked nine questions, all of which Professor Hill denied. At page 80, Question, "Did anybody ever tell you that by providing the statement that there would be a move to request Judge Thomas to withdraw his nomination?" Ms. Hill, "I don't recall any story about pressing -- using this to press anyone." Second question, "Well, do you recall anything at all about being related to that?" Answer, "I think that I was told that my statement would be shown to Judge Thomas, and I agreed to that." Then the third question, "But was there any suggestion, however slight, that the statement with these serious charges would result in withdrawal, so that there would not have to be necessary for your identity to be known or for you to come forward under circumstances like these?" Answer, "There was -- no, not that I recall. I don't recall anything being said about him being pressed to resign". Question, "Well, this would only have happened in the course of the past month or so because all this started just in early September." Ms. Hill, "I understand." Senator Specter, "So that when you say you don't recall, I would ask you to search your memory on this point, and perhaps we might begin -- and this is an important subject -- about the initiation of this entire matter with respect to the Senator staffers who talked to you, but that is going to be too long for the few minutes that I have left. So I would just ask you, once again, and you say you don't recollect whether there was anything at all said to you by anyone that as USA Today reports, that just by having the allegations of sexual harassment by Clarence Thomas that it would be the instrument that would quietly and behind the scenes would force him to withdraw his name, anything related to that in any way whatsoever." Professor Hill, "The only thing I can think of -- and if you will check, there were a lot of phone conversations. We were discussing this matter very carefully, and at some point, there might have been a conversation about what might happen," close quote. Well, that registered a red light with me, Mr. President, when for the first time Professor Hill said there might have been a conversation.
Then, referring again to the transcript, quote, my question, "Might have been?" Professor Hill, "There might have been, but that wasn't. I don't remember this specific kind of comment about quietly and behind the scenes pressing him to withdraw." My question, "Well, aside from quietly and behind the scenes pressing him to withdraw, any suggestion that just the charges themselves in writing would result in Judge Thomas withdrawing, going away?" Professor Hill, "No, no. I don't recall that at all. No," close quote. And there I point out to you, Mr. President, the flat denial of Professor Hill that any conversation occurred.
Then again going back to the transcript, my question, "Well, you started to say that there might have been some conversation, and it seemed to me" -- Professor Hill interjects, "There might have been some conversation about what could possibly occur." My question, "Well, tell me" -- This is the sixth inquiry now. "Well, tell me about that conversation." Professor Hill, "Well, I can't really tell you any more than what I have said. I discussed what the alternatives were, what might happen with this affidavit that I submitted. We talked about the possibility of the Senate committee coming back for more information. We talked about the possibility of the FBI asking, going to the FBI and getting more information, some questions from individual Senators. I just -- the statement you're referring to, I really can't verify." And my question, "Well, when you talk about the Senate coming back for more information or the FBI coming back for more information or Senators coming back for more information, that has nothing at all to do with Judge Thomas withdrawing. So that when you testified a few moments ago that there might possibly have been a conversation in response to my question about a possible withdrawal, I would press you on that. Professor Hill, in this context, you have testified with some specificity about what happened 10 years ago. I would ask you to press your recollection as to what happened within the last month." Professor Hill responds, "And I have done that, Senator, and I don't recall the comment. I do recall there might have been some suggestion that if the FBI did the investigation that the Senate might get involved and that there may be that a number of things might occur. But I really -- I have to be honest with you. I cannot verify the statement that you are asking me to verify. There is really -- there is not really more that I can tell you on that." and my question, "Well, when you say a number of things might occur, what sort of things?" Professor Hill, "Might I just add one thing?" Senator Spector, "Sure." Professor Hill, "The nature of that kind of conversation that you were talking about is very difficult, very different from the nature of the conversation that I recall. The conversations that I recall were much more vivid. They were explicit. The conversations that I have had with the staff over the last few days in particular have become much more blurry. But these are vivid elements that I recall even eight years ago when they happened, and they are going to stand out much more in my mind than a telephone conversation. They were one-on-one, personal conversations, as a matter of fact, and that adds to why they are so much more easily recalled. I am sure that there are some comments that I do not recall the exact nature of from that period as well, but these that are here are the ones that I do recall." And my eighth question to her, "Well, Professor Hill, I can understand why you say these comments -- alleged comments -- would stand out in your mind, and we have gone over those. I don't want to go over them again. But when you talk about the withdrawal of a Supreme Court nominee, you are talking about something that is very, very vivid, stark, and you are talking about something that occurred within the past four or five weeks. And my question goes to a very dramatic and important event. If a mere allegation would pressure a nominee to withdraw from the Supreme Court, I would suggest to you that it is not something that wouldn't stick in your mind for four of five weeks if it happened." Professor Hill, "Well, Senator, I would suggest to you that for me these are more than mere allegations, so that if that comment were made, these are truths to me. These comments are the truth to me, and if it were made, then I may not respond to it in the same way that you do." Then my response, "Well, I am not questioning your statement when I use the word 'allegation' to refer to 10 years ago. I just don't want to take it -- talk about it for a fact, because so far it is something we have to decide. So I'm not stressing that aspect of the question. I do, with respect to the time period. But the point that I would come back for just one more minute would be -- well, let me ask it to you this way." Professor Hill, "Okay." My question -- this is the ninth time -- "Would you not consider it a matter of real importance if someone said to you, 'Professor, you won't have to go public. Your name won't have to be disclosed. You won't have to do anything. Just sign the affidavit and this,'" as USA Today reported, "'would be the instrument that quietly and behind the scenes would force him to withdraw his name'? Now, I am asking you whether it happened. I am asking you now only if it did happen whether that would be the kind of a statement to which would be important and impressed upon you that you would remember in the course of four or five weeks." And at that point, Professor Hill consulted with her attorney, which she had every right to do. That does not appear in the transcript, but I asked the staff to go back over the tapes because I recollected a consultation, and it occurred right there. And then Professor Hill says, "I don't recall a specific statement, and I cannot say whether that comment would have stuck in my mind. I really cannot say that."
Well, the conversation goes on, but my time is just about to run out. And I read this at some length to really show a number of things. One is that you have to get right into the specifics on the testimony to understand what she is saying, and a fair reading, nine questions, Professor Hill flatly says -- I think a fair reading of this is that she says she had no conversation with a Senate staffer about her coming forward might get Judge Thomas to withdraw.
Now, then back in the afternoon session, I asked Professor Hill, as it shows on page 203 of the record, "If you could proceed from there to recount who called you and what those conversations consisted of as it led to your coming forward to this committee." Professor Hill, "Well, we discussed a number of different issues. We discussed, one, that he knew about the law on sexual harassment. We discussed what he knew about the process of bringing information forward to the committee, and in the course of our conversations, Mr. Brudney asked me what were specifics about what it was that I had experienced. In addition, we talked about the process for going forward, what might happen if I did bring information to the committee. That included an investigation might take place and that I might be questioned by the committee in closed session. It even included something to the effect that the information might be presented to the candidate or to the White House. There was some indication that the candidate -- or excuse me -- the nominee might not wish to continue the process," close quote.
Mr. President, when I heard that, I was very surprised, and then my next question is: "Mr. Brudney said to you that the nominee, Judge Thomas, might not wish to continue the process if you came forward with a statement on the factors which you have testified about?" Professor Hill, "Well, I'm not sure that that is exactly what he said. I think what he said was depending on an investigation, the Senate, whether the Senate went into closed session and so forth, it might be that he might not wish to continue the process." And my next question, "So Mr. Brudney did tell you that Judge Thomas might not wish to continue to go forward with his nomination if you came forward?" Professor Hill, "Yes." Flat out, finally, nine questions in the morning, a fair reading, a denial by Professor Hill, then she comes back to it, in a way which I have read specifically --
SEN. PAUL SIMON: Would my colleague yield?
SEN. SPECTER: Absolutely not. I am going to finish this discussion, and then I'd be glad to yield.
SEN. STROM THURMOND: On his time; not yours.
SEN. SPECTER: Thank you, Senator Thurmond, on his time, not mine. But I'm on an important point, and I've been talking about it for about 15 minutes, and I really want to get to the point without an interruption, and then I'd be delighted to discuss it with Senator Simon or anybody else.
Now, I have gone through this, Mr. President, in detail because my colleagues really ought to know the specifics. We have a question of credibility, whether Judge Thomas is correct or whether Professor Hill is correct, and it is not an easy matter ever to question anybody about anything. But I would suggest to my colleagues that the questioning of Professor Hill --
SEN. : The Senator from Pennsylvania's time has expired.
SEN. THURMOND: Mr. President, I yield five more minutes to the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania.
SEN. : The Senator is recognized for five additional minutes.
SEN. SPECTER: It is not an easy matter to question anybody about anything really at any time. But in the context of this case, this was a very important matter and very difficult, and for nine times, the question was raised, and I asked my colleagues to focus on the specifics, and I've taken the time that I'm allotted. When there are many, many other important things to say -- and I haven't really finished all the testimony that goes on -- I asked that the record be included up to 208. I've only gone to 204. And I took a look at the testimony last night; saw some of it on C-SPAN, interested to see the tone of it. And I did my best to be polite. I think I was. The New York Times said I was painstakingly polite. But the substance here is: What did she say? And in the morning, nine questions, responding to the way she answered, but always seeking the critical fact as to whether a Senate staffer said: Judge Thomas might withdraw. And she said no.
And then in the afternoon -- and it comes up in the context I read which might be interpreted to be not really responsive to the subject, but that aside, then she says, in response to my question, quote, "So Mr. Brudney did tell you that Judge Thomas might not wish to continue to go forward with his nomination if you came forward?" Professor Hill, "Yes."
Now, my sense, Mr. President -- and I say this to my colleagues who have to decide this issue -- is that we have the tremendously difficult task of deciding who is correct, who is telling the truth. We have a number of factors that are really hard to evaluate, but some fair indicators of credibility. But in the context of this matter on this kind of an important question, I went back the next morning, didn't come to any conclusions, tried to maintain an open mind, not an advocate, but in rereading this testimony, it seemed to me that there was an intentional misstatement of fact.
I questioned Judge Thomas in a -- in a straightforward, perhaps toughs manner on the issue that Senator Byrd discussed when Judge Thomas said he hadn't watched the testimony of Professor Hill, and I said to Judge Thomas: I think you should have watched it. I find that very disappointing. And I was concerned that Judge Thomas had not watched that testimony. And doing the best that I could in terms of trying to get to the facts, that is what I attempted to do, and I believe that this transcript on this change of testimony has very significant weight on a decision as to the underlying credibility and what happened between this man and woman. No one is ever going to know. Only two people were present.
And I listened to Professor Hill's four witnesses, where she had talked to them before about the incident. I don't have time to analyze that, and I found them sincere people, and I weighed their credibility very, very carefully.
But, Mr. President, on the totality of this record, on the movement from Education to EEOC where she could have stayed at Education after these statements were supposed to have been made, on the series of telephone calls, on the testimony of Professor Kothe about their laughing and talking together, about her driving her to the -- about her driving him to the airport, all in a context which is different from where you might expect her to want to maintain a professional relationship, more on the personal level, and then especially nine questions being asked, the denial of any conversation about trying to get him to withdraw and that change of testimony, Mr. President, in this very, very difficult proceeding, I come to the judgment that the weight of the evidence supports Judge Thomas.
Now, I'd be glad to yield to a question.