|
Edited on Tue Nov-29-11 10:12 AM by karynnj
This is not a pressing issue at this point in time. I don't know enough about Biden as a person to have any view of whether he will ever chose to address this in an autobiography written after he leaves office. Many would not cover a long ago event that makes them look bad. I would suspect that the two reasons he ended it could have been that there was enough change in what society accepted that Biden and some other male Senators may not have yet internalized how unacceptable the allegations really were. This was in October 1991. Was Biden, who ran and lost in 1988, considering a Presidential run? Here is a capture from the Senate record of Hatch defending not even having the allegations in an open hearing. It was only because the allegations were leaked that anyone not on the Justice committee would have known of them! This means that EVERYONE on the Judiciary committee was being asked NOT to speak of these allegations -meaning most of the Senate would have voted without knowing anything about them! This could just be high level people protecting high level people -more true then than now. (This was fascinating to read.) Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am happy to have this opportunity to make a few remarks and clarify the record. I know my distinguished friend from Ohio feels I named him as the person who leaked the information with regard to the FBI report, and that is not true. I must have been interviewed 50 times on this. I have my suspicions who did, and I do not believe it was any Senator who leaked the report. I do believe it was staff. But I have to say I never said that the distinguished Senator from Ohio did leak the report. Now, having said that---- Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, will the Senator from Utah yield for 1 minute? Mr. HATCH. Let me say one other thing. I apologize if that was the implication that the Senator took. It appears to me, in the New York Times today, in an article written by Mr. Wines, a journalist named Wines, that he accused me of saying that I had said that Senator Metzenbaum was the only person who could have done it. Mr. METZENBAUM. I just want to know that I have not, nor has my staff--and I say that professionally--neither I nor my staff made this story available. Mr. HATCH. I am happy to hear that. I take the Senator's word on it. But I have to say somebody on somebody's staff did that. I will take the Senator's word that it was not him or his staff. Mr. METZENBAUM. I thank the Senator. Mr. HATCH. The Senator is welcome. Somebody did it because the only people who had access to these materials were U.S. Senators. Now, I am happy to take the word of the distinguished Senator from Ohio that it was not him. The only thing I ever said that I recall was that the Senator from Ohio and the Senator from Massachusetts their staffers from the Labor Committee were the ones who initially contacted Anita Hill and, of course, did the initial investigation on this matter before anybody from the Judiciary Committee staff, which is supposed to do the investigating.
That does not negate the fact that I am highly offended by this October surprise.
Now, let us just go back over the facts. All seven who voted against Judge Thomas on the committee knew about these allegations before the vote took place. None of them were in the dark. All of them knew about it. Any one of them could have asked for a week's delay automatically under the rules. Not one did. Any one of them could have raised the issued at that time. Not one did. And any one of them could have had this matter aired before that vote. Not one did.
One Senator in particular talked about filibustering this matter. I raised the issue during that markup, I said, `can you imagine liberals filibustering one of two nominees in the history of the Court who were African-Americans?' I could not imagine it myself. But then it really began. Every effort was made to invoke the rules and to delay the matter and to try to get it past last Friday, because I guess they presumed that there would be an interim 10-day recess and there would be a full 2 weeks where Judge Thomas could be smeared while all of us were out of town.
I am not going to point the finger at any particular Senator, but we know that it had to come from a Senator's staff or a Senator in this body, because nobody else knew about that report. And it is reprehensible.
Mr. President, I believe that if Senators put this October surprise allegation in context, they will not only want the vote to go forward, but they will not feel this recent allegation should bear on the nomination. I understand if sexual harassment occurs, it is a serious thing. I do not condone it in any way. It should not happen. I understand that elected officials need to take it seriously. I think perhaps in this sense the debate has been interesting and perhaps beneficial.
But now I would like to go back and just spend a few minutes talking about the allegations of Miss Hill . Now, what is the context of this recent allegation? Allegedly the harassment occurred while the accuser was working for Judge Thomas while he was Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the Department of Education. This was a position to which he was appointed in 1981.
The accuser did not file a complaint with the Department's Equal Opportunity Office. The accuser did not complain to the Inspector General or the general counsel or any one else at the Department. Not one person. The individual did not complain to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
She did not come forward to disclose the alleged harassment when the judge was nominated to chair the EEOC, which, by the way, is the most important Government agency dealing with sex discrimination. And she is not some young high school secretary. She is a Yale law graduate interested in civil rights and these issues and an expert on them. Instead, what did she do? She left the Department of Education with Judge Thomas and went to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission with Judge Thomas and worked with him for a period of time there.
Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. HATCH. I am happy to yield.
Mr. KERRY. As I listened to the Senator going through the chronology here, it seems to underscore to me the fact that is why we are where we are. Indeed, that may be the chronology and that maybe in fact all the facts stack up on the side the Senator is articulating. But the question I ask the Senator is: Does he not sense that because we are where we are, because this has now become public, because Senators outside of the committee were not aware of this, because the full Senate must vote in order to confirm and advise and consent, that because the Nation as a whole and particularly the 50 percent or more of our country made up of women now have a doubt about the process, do we not have an obligation to air the very kinds of arguments the Senator is making in an appropriate way? Should we not act to provide people that sense that there is integrity and a process, so that the facts be put in place, and not simply by the Senator from Utah, who I know speaks with conviction and a sense of faith about it, that he not be the sole voice in this?
Mr. HATCH. I think it is a good question, but I have to point out to the Senator that everybody on the committee knew about that. Part of our job is to screen these things out, and all 14 members of the committee basically found them out. They have had full access to the FBI reports.
We have a disparity. We have Miss Hill alleging that there was sexual harassment and we have Judge Thomas denying it. Now, nothing is going to occur to change those two facts. It is nice to say that and it is nice to talk about that, but we are talking about a Supreme
Court Justice nomination, and we are talking about proceeding because he has been smeared over the last 3 days, 4 days, while most of us were out of town and we do not want to see the smear continue. And in all honesty, I am pointing out here right now and I am going to continue to point out the discrepancies in her press conference and some of the other things that she has said.
Mr. KERRY. Well, I understand that.
Mr. HATCH. Let me finish my remarks and I think I will clarify for the Senator what I am saying because I am going to go into some newer things today if I can.
What I am saying is that even though she claims sexual harassment, she leaves the Department of Education and goes right along as one of his top staff people at the EEOC. There she justifies that on the basis that the harassment had stopped and that she did not want to lose her job.
First of all, let us understand something. As a graduate of Yale Law School, a woman graduate of Yale Law School, there is no question in my mind she would have had a job anywhere she wanted, especially in this town, almost anywhere she wanted. She knows it, and everybody else knows it. And she had a job when she wanted it. And she could have gotten a job almost any time she wanted it, not only here but elsewhere. But she goes to the EEOC with Judge Thomas.
Now I ask my colleagues, is that the behavior of someone who has been sexually harassed?
Then she claims that he talked to her again there, that he continued to press her for dates, she said.
Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. HATCH. Let me finish my statement then I will be happy to answer any questions.
She says he continually pressed her for dates. And then she claims he talked about sexual matters with her. Well, she is at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. She is a Yale law graduate. If she was offended by it, if that is what happened, why did she not make a complaint right then and there? She was not going to lose her job. As a matter of fact, the law says she could not lose her job making that allegation. She knew the law, and she did not complain. And the Yale Law School graduate claims that she feared about getting her next job. Come on.
Now, as I understand it, the accuser says that she was also, as I have said, harassed at the EEOC. She never complained to a relevant official there. She then left the EEOC in 1983. Now, keep in mind, she lived through the second confirmation of Judge Thomas. She went with him after the first time he was confirmed to the EEOC. Then she lived through the second confirmation of Judge Thomas.
That is the third time he was confirmed because he was confirmed to the Office of Civil Rights, as Assistant Secretary of Civil Rights in the Education Department.
So she had been around for two confirmations, which occurred after the alleged sexual harassment. The reason I mention these confirmations is because that is pretty important. These are important positions and he is now in his fourth confirmation period, with no one ever having raised the slightest criticism of his personal conduct, no one until this last weekend while we were all out of town.
Let me tell you, there is no one to my knowledge in the
history of this country, who has been confirmed four times in 9 years--no one--confirmed by this very body, with all 100 of us looking at these matters. And I have presided over three of those confirmations and have participated in the other two, including the pending confirmation. Let me tell you, if anybody could have given him a rough time on those other confirmations, they would have; they tried. But not on these types of allegations.
So she never came forth at the Department of Education and made a complaint or said anything to anybody in authority. She did not come forth in the first confirmation to the EEOC, but came with him and worked at the EEOC. Does that sound like somebody who has been sexually harassed? And then, she did not come forth in, I believe it was 1986, when he was reconfirmed to the EEOC. Nor did she come forth when Judge Thomas was nominated for his position as a judge on the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. She never came forth with this accusation until around September 3, when Labor Committee staffers from Senator Metzenbaum and Senator Kennedy contacted her.
She says they contacted her. Senator Metzenbaum, as I recall his testimony--I want to be honest about this and frank about it, I think he said she contacted them. I do not know which way it happened.
But she did not come forth when he was nominated to be an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court; not at first. It happened around September 3. And she was not contacted by regular investigators from the committee staff who are supposed to do this type of work. No, we heard testimony from 100 witnesses but none from this individual. This privately made accusation was investigated by the FBI. The FBI report was available to the Judiciary Committee before its vote and of course it has been, since then, available to everybody in the U.S. Senate.
No Senator on the committee or during the 2 full days of floor debate had even alluded to it, much less suggested that we should delay consideration of the vote. Indeed, no one asked for further investigation during the entire time.
That, naturally, has upset a lot of women out there and I thing rightly so. But I just want to get back to that time, because I am personally offended that some staff of our colleagues in this body, according to one press account would criticize the chairman of the Judiciary Committee who conducted this in the most upright, straightforward way I know and went personally to every one of the seven who voted against Judge Thomas, as though he should have done something more.
The fact is, it came down to an allegation by a woman which was rebutted by Judge Thomas and by Judge Thomas' whole life. Everybody sat there and watched him in one of the longest confirmation proceedings in the history of the Supreme Court.
There are a couple of other things I would like to just say, just to make this entire recent development understood by a lot more people. Something that bothers me is this woman is so upset at Judge Thomas, suddenly, after 10 years and after all these opportunities to tell her story, all of these positions being important positions, all confirmable positions.
I understand that there are phone logs of Judge Thomas from 1984 forward, reflecting quite a few telephone calls from none other than Anita Hill . Let me just give you a sample of telephone messages from her. On January 31, 1984--this is approximately 2 years after she left the EEOC. `Just called to say hello. Sorry she didn't get to see you last week.'
That was the handwritten note by the person who took the call for Judge Thomas.
On August 29, 1984, `Needs your advice on getting research grants.' From Anita Hill , from Professor Hill . Why is she calling Judge Thomas--then Chairman Thomas, Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission--if she was so upset at him? If this really had happened, why would she call him, of all people?
On August 30, 1984, `Anita returned your call.' So the judge presumably called her back to try to help her on the research grants, when she called on August 29, 1984.
March 4, 1985, `Please call re research project.'
March 4, 1985, a call from Susan Cahall, of the Tulsa EEOC office: `Referred by Anita to see if you would come to Tulsa on 3/27 to speak at an EEO Conference.'
October 8, 1986, almost 4 years later, `Please call.'
August 4, 1987, `In town till 8/15, want to congratulate you on marriage.'
What is going on here? Here is a woman who was so offended, on TV, that she is willing to accuse this person, who everybody else knows to be a reasonable, wonderful, upstanding person of integrity and honesty, and she is continually calling him. I could go through the rest. There are some 11 calls over this period of time. One of which was to call and ask him to come to the University of Oklahoma and speak to the law school.
Does this sound like a victim speaking to her harasser? It does not to me. What is really going on here? For 10 years, no public complaint at all. Even as a Yale Law School graduate, an attorney, working right in the agency that takes care of these problems.
The reason a lot of us feel it is time to go to a vote and decide what is going to be done here is, let us be fair to the judge and his family. I do not know about other Senators here but I have anguished, as I have seen these people just torn apart in the public media. I have anguished as I have seen their children suffer.
I happen to like both Clarence Thomas and his wife and I care a great deal for his son, who is a wonderful young man, and his mother. I will never forget right in the middle of the hearings I went down to console his mother after some pretty tough things were said by a couple of our friends on the committee. She is a very humble, wonderful woman. It is easy to see why he is a humble, wonderful man. I put my arm around her and said `Don't let it get to you.' She said, `I did not doubt'--she mentioned one Senator--`would treat my son this way. But I really did not think this other one would.'
That is what she said to me. This is tearing families apart. And I have to tell you, anybody looking at it would say his accuser acts like she is so offended right now, why did she not do it during the 10 years beforehand? And why the repeated contacts with Judge Thomas? Why keep asking him for his help, which he always seemed to give?
This man was nominated to chair the most important civil
rights agency in government, renominated to that position, reconfirmed, nominated to the court of appeals, and at that time he was openly discussed as a potential Supreme Court nominee. Everybody knew he was on the fast track. And still this alleged set of incidents never surfaces. And, in the meantime she retains a friendly disposition to him.
For over 2 months after his nomination to the Supreme Court, and despite being interviewed by the Washington Post about the judge, still no allegation of harassment. It bothers me.
What happens next? Well, in early September, staff of not even the appropriate committee come to her, from two Senators.
In early September, I guess based on rumor or something--I think it is important to note that one of those staff members was her classmate at Yale Law School.
I think enough said.
Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. HATCH. I will be glad to.
Mr. KERRY. I just want to clarify something. When the Senator quoted those telephone call messages, I take it that is new information; is that accurate?
Mr. HATCH. That was said by Senator Simpson last night on `Nightline.' There were 11 messages since 1984, all of which were cordial, friendly, and asking for various things.
Mr. KERRY. My question simply is that was not before the committee? Those messages, I take it, are new information; is that accurate?
Mr. HATCH. I think that is accurate.
Mr. KERRY. What I am trying to suggest to the Senator respectfully is that just underscores exactly why one ought to have----
Mr. HATCH. I do not think it does.
Mr. KERRY. The Senator has the floor, and let me articulate why. I think the Senator from Utah raises very legitimate questions. I am not doubting the appropriateness of making those kind of judgments, but when the Senator talks about sort of expected actions of somebody who has been accused or has suffered from sexual harassment, I sort of stand here and I say to myself, how are 98 men in the U.S. Senate going to make a judgment about the expected actions of some woman who has suffered from sexual harassment in the workplace?
Frankly, I do not think 98 of us here know very much about that. That is exactly what people are feeling about this issue all across this country.
What is at stake here, I respectfully suggest to the Senator, is not the veracity of what the Senator has said, not the veracity in this movement of what Professor Hill has said, but the process. Are we going to be so rigidly glued to an expected vote that we just shunt this thing aside----
Mr. HATCH. I would like to interrupt--I would like to take back the floor.
Mr. KERRY. Let me sort of go through my comments and I will be glad to engage in the dialog.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. Leahy). The Chair advises the Senator from Utah does retain the floor.
Mr. KERRY. I apologize if the Senator has the floor.
Mr. HATCH. No apology is needed. I appreciate what you are saying.
But I just want to interject at this point because we all know that this is a game. We all know that if this is delayed that every leftwing group in the country is going to come out and do to Thomas what they have done to Judge Bork. Every group in the country. They have been doing it all this time.
We all know that the whole game by those who are against him is to delay this and continue to try to shoot at him with innuendo, stuff like this. We all know that we had one of the most extensive committee hearings in history. We all have the FBI report, and in that report you have her statement, you have his statement, or at least his interview with the FBI, you have the interview of Miss Horchner, I think her name is. If you read that carefully, you will find it does not quite match what she said yesterday in public. And we also have other statements that have come as a result of that investigation.
The fact of the matter is, there is a time and a place to put these matters to rest. And I am telling you there is an overwhelming case on the record as it currently exists that this is the time and place.
I have to say this: I understand those who have been against him from the beginning, some for a single litmus test issue, but they are presuming that he is against abortion, even though he said I have not made up my mind yet on that. Some are against him for that sole reason. Others are against him for that reason plus the fact that he has been very forthright in his comments about quotas and preferences in the law, and he is against them as an African-American believing that they hurt innocent people, which they do. And some do not want him because he is a moderate-to-conservative African-American that they do not want as a role model out there for others to listen to.
We have gone through this now for quite a period of time, and we have been through it on the committee. We have seen smear jobs before. I do not see how any fair person looking at it cannot be concerned about this. Only somebody on the committee or their staff, or someone else who must have gotten it from somebody on the committee or a staff person of a Senator on the committee, could have released this to the press over this weekend after knowing about it before the vote and waiting until the precise moment that everybody is out of town so that they can smear this man.
Once you go through that, and once you see people's lives turned upside down by this type of tactic, which is sleazy politics, like a sleazy political campaign, then you need to say there is a time to look at her comments. She has a four-page statement. Read it. What else is she going to add? And there is a time to look at his comments and make a decision and vote.
I want to add to it that maybe one reason why I am so vociferous about this is because I have been in all of his confirmations, and I have seen these tricks pulled against him in every confirmation. Not as bad as this. It does not get any worse than this.
Let me tell you, the law of sexual harassment is so broad that a person can accuse another at any time and ruin their reputation just by an unfounded allegation. I do not know why Professor Hill has done this. I thought she presented herself well yesterday. I do not know why she has done this. It bothers me greatly. But she has done it, and I do not think there is much basis for believing it if you look at the full record in this matter.
Again, I think it is important to look at a couple of the statements that were made. She denied she knew Phyllis Berry Myers. Phyllis Berry Myers says there is no way she can deny that. She met with her every Monday with other members of
Clarence Thomas' small staff after joining the commission.
I thought the most interesting letter I had, at least to me, was from Armstrong Williams, who served with her and with Clarence Thomas, with Phyllis Berry Myers, and others. He says:
As someone who worked with Judge Clarence Thomas from 1983 to 1986 I also had the opportunity to work with Ms. Anita Hill .
I must tell you that during that time I was very uncomfortable with Ms. Hill . I often questioned her motives. This concern was something I expressed to Judge Thomas on more than one occasion.
Furthermore, I found her to be untrustworthy, selfish and extremely bitter following a colleague's appointment to head the Office of Legal Council at EEOC. A position that Hill made quite clear she coveted. After she was passed over for the promotion, she was adamant in her desire to leave the agency and discussed this with me privately.
I also question her motivation when it comes to her recent allegations. Especially since Ms. Hill discussed with me her admiration for Judge Thomas' commitment to fight for minorities and women, and his fair treatment of women at the agency. I know, personally, that these are the rantings of a disgruntled employee who has reduced herself to lying.
That is strong stuff. I am not prepared to say that. I do not know why she made these allegations. He goes on:
I ask you, if this was a man she should loath for sexual harassment, then why did she maintain contact and continue to communicate with him?
Eleven messages since 1984, all friendly. Why did she continue to do that? Does that sound like somebody harassed?
Why did she follow him from the Education Department to the EEOC? Why did she only have praise for him in her discussions with me? Furthermore, Judge Thomas believed this woman to be a friend and someone of great intellect and wanted only to assist her as she moved along in her career.
I am sure having had knowledge of the situation prior to this past weekend is evidence that you also question Ms. Hill's accusations and credibility. I urge the Senate Judiciary Committee to listen to these allegations with a grain of salt.
In closing, as I described her ten years ago to Judge Thomas, I do so now. She always had to have the final word and the last laugh. I see now that some people just never change.
I look forward to your confirming the Judge to our nation's highest court.
I think, to answer the Senator even more specifically, there comes a time to vote. There comes a time to stand up and vote one way or another.
We have another former colleague here also who talks in terms of what went on. It certainly does not confirm Anita Hill's allegations. I have statements that were put in the Record yesterday, including, I believe, the statement of the dean of the Coburn School of Law at Oral Roberts University.
Mr. President, this has been a long process. It has been a detailed process and it has been a hideous process. Frankly, there comes a time to put an end to it. Those who want to vote against Judge Thomas, so be it. Most of them have made up their minds anyway and this does not make one difference to them. Those who want to support him, so be it. I have to admit they have been very concerned about these allegations. On the other hand, if you look at the record and you look at the facts, it is pretty hard to see how these allegations stand up to scrutiny.
You have the issue joined. You have Professor Hill saying that he did these things. You have him saying that he did not. And the only reason some like to delay is a very important political reason. They want delay for delay's sake. This is what you call a liberal filibuster. They are unwilling to stand up and do it in a formal filibuster because they know that they would get criticized if they did that. So what they do is they bring up these types of things at the last minute knowing about them weeks before, bring them up at the last minute just to try to get more delay in hopes that all these outside groups will bring up their garbage and savage this man and his family even more. That is precisely what is going on here. It is a big game.
Frankly, I do not know why Miss Hill did this. I do not know why she waited 10 years if it was true. My conclusion is that I question its truthfulness. But I question it on the facts and from a personal knowledge of Judge Thomas. I know that what she said is not true because I know the man personally. I know his wife personally. I know his son personally. I can tell you he is a fine, upstanding person who, in my opinion, has always basically done what is right. Is he perfect? No. But
neither is anybody else.
Mr. President, I am very concerned about this type of stuff because we have had far too much of it. I did not think it could get any lower than it got for Judge Bork when I pointed out 99 errors in a full page ad, 99 errors. I have to say the people who did it did not even try to rebut it. They knew that I was right in pointing them out. I pointed out well over 60 errors in two others. They did not care. They wanted to smear Judge Bork, and they did, and they succeeded. A lot of us do not want that to succeed here because we are sick of it. We are ashamed of it. We are ashamed of this kind of allegation being brought to the forefront right at the last minute. I have to tell you I do not think it is justified.
Now, we can ask for time and ask for further investigation all we want. There has been a lot of investigation on it, and we had it before we voted. Everybody knew about it and anybody could have put that over for 1 week, anybody could have asked for more investigation, and now I see Senate staffers of the same party as Senator Biden criticizing Senator Biden for the way he has handled these committee hearings.
Let me tell you, Senator Biden and I differ on whether or not to support Judge Thomas, but I have to say I know that Joe Biden did a very good job on these hearings. He was fair. He was straightforward. He gave them the information. He let them know. And he did everything that basically a chairman should have done. To be frank with you, he did a very good job.
I have been in those positions where those who snip at your heels are always trying to find fault. I do not think there is any fault here. I think Senator Biden did a great job. This is coming from a Republican who differs with him on the merits of this matter--not this procedural matter, but on the merits of whether or not to vote for or against Judge Thomas. To have him criticized I think is wholly inappropriate and highly unusual. And I am tired of that, too.
I think we are all going to reassess what goes on in these confirmations because these Supreme Court nominations are starting to be run like political campaigns. When you have an October surprise at the last minute, when people knew about it
almost a month before--actually a month before--and have an October surprise like that, like a sleazy political campaign, I think it is time for all of us to stand up and say it is time to vote, and it is time to do what is right. I hope, when we do vote today, a good majority will vote for Judge Thomas. He deserves it. I think he deserves this kind of fair treatment.
I also think his family deserves not to be put through this any more. It is really miserable. When he talked to me yesterday, I mentioned it to him, and he just said--I said it yesterday--`This is really harming my family.'
It is hard to take.
Mr. President, we can differ on a lot of things and I suppose we have our differences here, but I think there is a right thing to do and the wrong thing, and the wrong thing is to continue to perpetuate this matter in a way that is going to cause even more harm to everybody concerned without giving us any more answers than we have now. I think that is the feeling of a lot of people around here, although I worry about the feeling of some.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
