The hearing will come to order.Let me inform the Capitol Hill Police that, if there is not absoluteorder and decorum in here, we will recess the hearing andthose who engage in any outburst at all will be asked to leave thecommittee room.Good morning, Judge.Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee is meeting to hear evidenceon sexual harassment charges that have been made againstJudge Clarence Thomas, who has been nominated to be an AssociateJustice of the Supreme Court.I want to speak very briefly about the circumstances that havecaused us to convene these hearings. We are here today to holdopen hearings on Prof. Anita Hill's allegations concerning JudgeThomas. This committee's handling of her charges has been criticized.Professor Hill made 2 requests to this committee.First, sheasked us to investigate her charges against Judge Thomas, and,second, she asked that these charges remain confidential, that theynot be made public and not shared with anyone beyond this committee.I believe that we have honored both of her requests.Some have asked how we could have the U.S. Senate vote onJudge Thomas' nomination and leave Senators in the dark aboutProfessor Hill's charges.To this, I answer, how could we haveforced Professor Hill against her will into the blinding light whereyou see her today.But I am deeply sorry that our actions in this respect have beenseen by many across this country as a sign that this committeedoes not take the charge of sexual harassment seriously. We emphaticallydo.I hope we all learn from the events of the past week. As oneperson who has spent the past 2 years attempting to combat violenceof all kinds against women through legislative efforts, I canassure you that I take the charge of sexual harassment seriously.The committee's ability to investigate and hold hearings on ProfessorHill's charges has now been dramatically changed by theevents which forced Professor Hill, against her wishes, to publiclydiscuss these charges. The landscape has changed. We are, thus,here today free from the restrictions which had previously limitedour work.Sexual harassment is a serious matter and, in my view, anyperson guilty of this offense is unsuited to serve, not only the Nation'shighest court, but any position of responsibility, of high responsibilityin or out of government. Sexual harassment of workingwomen is an issue of national concern.With that said, let me make clear that this is not, I emphasize,this is not a hearing about the extent and nature of sexual harassmentin America. That question is for a different sort of meeting ofthis or any other committee.This is a hearing convened for a specific purpose, to air specificallegations against one specific individual, allegations which maybe true or may not be true.Whichever may be the case, this hearing has not been convenedto investigate the widespread problem, and it is indisputably widespread,the widespread problem of sexual harassment in this country.Those watching these proceedings will see witnesses being swornand testifying pursuant to a subpoena. But I want to emphasizethat this is not a trial, this is not a courtroom. At the end of ourproceedings, there will be no formal verdict of guilt or innocence,nor any finding of civil liability.Because this is not a trial, the proceedings will not be conductedthe way in which a sexual harassment trial would be handled in acourt of law. For example, on the advice of the nonpartisan Senatelegal counsel, the rules of evidence that apply in courtrooms willnot apply here today. Thus, evidence and questions that would notbe permitted in the court of law must, under Senate rules, be allowedhere.This is a factfinding hearing, and our purpose is to help our colleaguesin the U.S. Senate determine whether Judge Thomasshould be confirmed to the Supreme Court. We are not here, or atleast I am not here to be an advocate for one side or the other withrespect to the specific allegations which we will review, and it ismy hope and belief that my colleagues here today share that view.Achieving fairness in the atmosphere in which these hearingsare being held may be the most difficult task I have ever undertakenin my close to 19 years in the U.S. Senate.Each of us in this committee has already stated how he will voteon Judge Thomas' nomination. The committee, as the Senate rulesrequire, has already voted in this committee on whether or notJudge Thomas should be on the Court.Each of us has already saidwhether we think Judge Thomas should or should not be a SupremeCourt Justice, for reasons related to or unrelated to chargeswe will listen to today.In this setting, it will be easy and perhaps understandable forthe witnesses to fear unfair treatment, but it is my job, as chairman,to ensure as best as I possibly can fair treatment, and that iswhat I intend to do, so let me make three ground rules clear for allof my colleagues:First, while legal counsel sitting behind me has advised that therules of evidence do not apply here, counsel has also advised theChair that the Chair does have the power to rule out of order questionsthat are not relevant to our proceedings. Certain subjects aresimply irrelevant to the issue of harassment, namely, the privateconduct of out-of-the-workplace relationships, and the intimatelives and practices of Judge Thomas, Professor Hill, and any otherwitness that comes before us.Thus, as chairman, I will not allow questions on matters totallyirrelevant to our investigation of the professional relationship ofJudge Thomas and any woman who has been employed by him.The committee is not here to put Judge Thomas or Professor Hillon trial. I hope my colleagues will bear in mind that the best wayto do our job is to ask questions that are nonjudgmental and openended, in an attempt to avoid questions that badger and harass anywitness.Second, while I have less discretion than a judge in a trial to barinappropriate or embarrassing questions, all of the witnessesshould know that they have a right, under Senate Rule 26.5, to askthat the committee go into closed session, if a question requires ananswer that is "a clear invasion of their right to privacy."The committee will take very seriously the request of any witnessto answer particularly embarrassing questions, as they viewthem in private.Third, the order of questioning: Because this is an extraordinaryhearing, Democrats and Republicans have each taken the step ofdesignating a limited number of Senators to question for the committee.On the Democratic side, our questioners will be SenatorsHeflin, Leahy, and myself. As I understand it, on the Republicanside, the questioners will be the ranking member, Senator Hatchand Senator Specter. That is said to make sure that we do not misleadanyone as to how we will proceed.In closing, I want to reiterate my view that the primary responsibilityof this committee is fairness. That means making sure thatwe do not victimize any witness who appears here and that wetreat every witness with respect. And without making any judgmentabout the specific witnesses we will hear from today, fairnessmeans understanding what a victim of sexual harassment goesthrough, why victims often do not report such crimes, why theyoften believe that they should not or cannot leave their jobs.Perhaps 14 men sitting here today cannot understand thesethings fully. I know there are many people watching today whosuspect we never will understand, but fairness means doing ourbest to understand, no matter what we do or do not believe aboutthe specific charges. We are going to listen as closely as we can atthese hearings.Fairness also means that Judge Thomas must be given a full andfair opportunity to confront these charges against him, to respondfully, to tell us his side of the story and to be given the benefit ofthe doubt.In the end, this hearing may resolve much or it may resolvelittle, but there are two things that cannot remain in doubt afterthis hearing is over: First, that the members of this committee arefair and have been fair to all witnesses; and, second, that we takesexual harassment as a very serious concern in this hearing andoverall.So, let us perform our duties with a full understanding of what Ihave said and of our responsibilities to the Senate, to the Nationand to the truth.I yield now to my colleague from South Carolina.

Mr. Chairman, we have taken the unusualstep of reconvening this committee in order to consider further testimonyregarding the nomination of Judge Clarence Thomas to bea Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.We are here this morning to attempt to discern the truth insome rather extraordinary allegations made against this nominee,and because Judge THomas has requested an opportunity to refutethese allegations and restore his good name.Mr. Chairman, before we begin, I want to emphasize that thecharge of sexual harassment is a grave one and one that each Senatoron this committee takes with the utmost seriousness. This isan issue of great sensitivity and there is no doubt in my mind thatthis is difficult for everyone involved.Both Judge Thomas and Professor Hill find themselves in the unenviableposition of having to discuss very personal matters in avery public forum. I want to assure them at the outset that theywill be dealt with fairly. This will be an exceedingly uncomfortableprocess for us all, but a great deal hangs in the balance and ourduty is clear, we must finds the truth.I would like to commend Chairman Biden, who worked with meto ensure that this hearing would be conducted fairly. After consultingwith each Member on my side, I have decided that SenatorHatch will conduct the questioning of Judge Thomas. I have alsodecided, after consultation, that Senator Specter will undertake thequestioning of Professor Hill and the other witnesses. I reserve theprivilege of propounding questions myself.I want to make it clear that every Republican member of thiscommittee has been deeply involved in this process from the dayJudge Thomas was nominated by President Bush.However, in theinterest of time and fairness to all the witnesses, I believe the proceduresthat have been outlined will work best for everyone involved.Over 100 days ago, when President Bush nominated JudgeThomas, this committee undertook a thorough and far-reaching investigationof his background. That investigation turned up nothingquestionable about the Judge, but, rather, showed him to be anindividual of great character and accomplishment.During the original confirmation hearings, this committee heardtestimony from over 100 witnesses, both for and against the nomination.Not one of these witnesses, even those most bitterly opposedto this nomination, had one disparaging comment to makeabout Clarence Thomas' moral character. On the contrary, witnessafter witness spoke of the impeccable character, abiding honestyand consummate professionalism which Judge Thomas has shownthroughout his career.In conclusion, I want to comment briefly about the allegationsthat have been raised by Professor Hill. The alleged harassmentshe describes took place some 10 years ago. During that time, shecontinued to initiate contact with Judge Thomas in an apparentlyfriendly manner. In addition, Professor Hill chose to publicize herallegations the day before the full Senate would have voted to confirmJudge Thomas.While I fully intend to maintain an open mind during today'stestimony, I must say that the timing of these statements raises atremendous number of questions which must be dealt with, and Ican assure all the witnesses that we shall be unstinting in our effortsto ascertain the truth.Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you.Now, before I swear Judge Thomas, I ask that the police officerto go to the front of that door while Judge Thomas is speaking, andprevent anyone from going in or out. He is entitled to absolutequiet in this room, no matter who wishes to enter.Judge would you stand to be sworn? Judge, do you swear to tellthe truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you,God?

I do.

Judge, do you have an opening statement?Please proceed.

Mr. Chairman, Senator Thurmond, members ofthe committee: as excruciatingly difficult as the last 2 weeks havebeen, I welcome the opportunity to clear my name today. No oneother than my wife and Senator Danforth, to whom I read thisstatement at 6:30 a.m., has seen or heard the statement, no handlers,no advisers.The first I learned of the allegations by Prof. Anita Hill was onSeptember 25, 1991, when the FBI came to my home to investigateher allegations. When informed by the FBI agent of the nature ofthe allegations and the person making them, I was shocked, surprised,hurt, and enormously saddened.I have not been the same since that day. For almost a decade myresponsibilities included enforcing the rights of victims of sexualharassment. As a boss, as a friend, and as a human being I wasproud that I have never had such an allegation leveled against me,even as I sought to promote women, and minorities into nontraditionaljobs.In addition, several of my friends, who are women, have confidedin me about the horror of harassment on the job, or elsewhere. Ithought I really understood the anguish, the fears, the doubts, theseriousness of the matter. But since September 25, I have sufferedimmensely as these very serious charges were leveled against me.I have been wracking my brains, and eating my insides outtrying to think of what I could have said or done to Anita Hill tolead her to allege that I was interested in her in more than a professionalway, and that I talked with her about pornographic or xratedfilms.Contrary to some press reports, I categorically denied all of theallegations and denied that I ever attempted to date Anita Hill,when first interviewed by the FBI. I strongly reaffirm that denial.Let me describe my relationship with Anita Hill.In 1981, after I went to the Department of Education as an AssistantSecretary in the Office of Civil Rights, one of my closestfriends, from both college and law school, Gil Hardy, brought AnitaHill to my attention. As I remember, he indicated that she was dissatisfiedwith her law firm and wanted to work in Government.Based primarily, if not solely, on Gil's recommendation, I hiredAnita Hill.During my tenure at the Department of Education, Anita Hillwas an attorney-adviser who worked directly with me. She workedon special projects, as well as day-to-day matters. As I recall, shewas one of two professionals working directly with me at the time.As a result, we worked closely on numerous matters.I recall being pleased with her work product and the professional,but cordial relationship which we enjoyed at work. I also recallengaging in discussions about politics and current events.Upon my nomination to become Chairman of the Equal EmploymentOpportunity Commission, Anita Hill, to the best of my recollection,assisted me in the nomination and confirmation process.After my confirmation, she and Diane Holt, then my secretary,joined me at EEOC. I do not recall that there was any question ordoubts that she would become a special assistant to me at EEOC,although as a career employee she retained the option of remainingat the Department of Education.At EEOC our relationship was more distant. And our contactsless frequent, as a result of the increased size of my personal staffand the dramatic increase and diversity of my day-to-day responsibilities.Upon reflection, I recall that she seemed to have had some difficultyadjusting to this change in her role. In any case, our relationshipremained both cordial and professional. At no time did Ibecome aware, either directly or indirectly that she felt I had said,or done anything to change the cordial nature of our relationship.I detected nothing from her or from my staff, or from Gil Hardy,our mutual friend, with whom I maintained regular contact. I amcertain that had any statement or conduct on my part beenbrought to my attention, I would remember it clearly because ofthe nature and seriousness of such conduct, as well as my adamantopposition to sex discrimination sexual harassment.But there were no such statements.In the spring of 1983, Mr. Charles Cothey contacted me to speakat the law school at Oral Roberts University in Tulsa, OK. AnitaHill, who is from Oklahoma, accompanied me on that trip. It wasnot unusual that individuals on my staff would travel with me occasionally.Anita Hill accompanied me on that trip primarily becausethis was an opportunity to combine business and a visit toher home.As I recall, during our visit at Oral Roberts University, Mr.Cothey mentioned to me the possibility of approaching Anita Hillto join the faculty at Oral Roberts University Law School. I encouragedhim to do so. I noted to him, as I recall, that Anita Hill woulddo well in teaching. I recommended her highly and she eventuallywas offered a teaching position.Although I did not see Anita Hill often after she left EEOC, I didsee her on one or two subsequent visits to Tulsa, OK. And on onevisit I believe she drove me to the airport. I also occasionally receivedtelephone calls from her. She would speak directly with meor with my secretary, Diane Holt. Since Anita Hill and Diane Holthad been with me at the Department of Education they were fairlyclose personally and I believe they occasionally socialized together.I would also hear about her through Linda Jackson, then LindaLambert, whom both Anita Hill and I met at the Department ofEducation. And I would hear of her from my friend Gil.Throughout the time that Anita Hill worked with me I treatedher as I treated my other special assistants. I tried to treat themall cordially, professionally, and respectfully. And I tried to supportthem in their endeavors, and be interested in and supportive oftheir success.I had no reason or basis to believe my relationship with AnitaHill was anything but this way until the FBI visited me a littlemore than 2 weeks ago. I find it particularly troubling that shenever raised any hint that she was uncomfortable with me. She didnot raise or mention it when considering moving with me to EEOCfrom the Department of Education. And she never raised it withme when she left EEOC and was moving on in her life.And to my fullest knowledge, she did not speak to any otherwomen working with or around me, who would feel comfortableenough to raise it with me, especially Diane Holt, to whom sheseemed closest on my personal staff. Nor did she raise it withmutual friends, such as Linda Jackson, and Gil Hardy.This is a person I have helped at every turn in the road, since wemet. She seemed to appreciate the continued cordial relationshipwe had since day one. She sought my advice and counsel, as didvirtually all of the members of my personal staff.During my tenure in the executive branch as a manager, as apolicymaker, and as a person, I have adamantly condemned sexharassment. There is no member of this committee or this Senatewho feels stronger about sex harassment than I do. As a manager,I made every effort to take swift and decisive action when sex harassmentraised or reared its ugly head.The fact that I feel so very strongly about sex harassment andspoke loudly about it at EEOC has made these allegations doublyhard on me. I cannot imagine anything that I said or did to AnitaHill that could have been mistaken for sexual harassment.But with that said, if there is anything that I have said that hasbeen misconstrued by Anita Hill or anyone else, to be sexually harassment,then I can say that I am so very sorry and I wish I hadknown. If I did know I would have stopped immediately and Iwould not, as I have done over the past 2 weeks, had to tear awayat myself trying to think of what I could possibly have done. But Ihave not said or done the things that Anita Hill has alleged. Godhas gotten me through the days since September 25 and He is myjudge.Mr. Chairman, something has happened to me in the dark daysthat have followed since the FBI agents informed me about theseallegations. And the days have grown darker, as this very serious,very explosive, and very sensitive allegation or these sensitive allegationswere selectively leaked, in a distorted way to the mediaover the past weekend.As if the confidential allegations, themselves, were not enough,this apparently calculated public disclosure has caused me, myfamily, and my friends enormous pain and great harm.I have never, in all my life, felt such hurt, such pain, such agony.My family and I have been done a grave and irreparable injustice.During the past 2 weeks, I lost the belief that if I did my best allwould work out. I called upon the strength that helped me get herefrom Pin Point, and it was all sapped out of me. It was sapped outof me because Anita Hill was a person I considered a friend, whomI admired and thought I had treated fairly and with the utmost respect.Perhaps I could have better weathered this if it were fromsomeone else, but here was someone I truly felt I had done my bestwith.Though I am, by no means, a perfect person, no means, I havenot done what she has alleged, and I still do not know what I couldpossibly have done to cause her to make these allegations.When I stood next to the President in Kennebunkport, beingnominated to the Supreme Court of the United States, that was ahigh honor. But as I sit here, before you, 103 days later, that honorhas been crushed. From the very beginning charges were leveledagainst me from the shadows—charges of drug abuse, antisemitism,wife-beating, drug use by family members, that I was a quotaappointment, confirmation conversion and much, much more, andnow, this.I have complied with the rules. I responded to a document requestthat produced over 30,000 pages of documents. And I havetestified for 5 full days, under oath. I have endured this ordeal for103 days. Reporters sneaking into my garage to examine books Iread. Reporters and interest groups swarming over divorce papers,looking for dirt. Unnamed people starting preposterous and damagingrumors. Calls all over the country specifically requesting dirt.This is not American. This is Kafka-esque. It has got to stop. Itmust stop for the benefit of future nominees, and our country.Enough is enough.I am not going to allow myself to be further humiliated in orderto be confirmed. I am here specifically to respond to allegations ofsex harassment in the work place. I am not here to be further humiliatedby this committee, or anyone else, or to put my privatelife on display for a prurient interest or other reasons. I will notallow this committee or anyone else to probe into my private life.This is not what America is all about.To ask me to do that would be to ask me to go beyond fundamentalfairness. Yesterday, I called my mother. She was confined toher bed, unable to work and unable to stop crying. Enough isenough.Mr. Chairman, in my 43 years on this Earth, I have been able,with the help of others and with the help of God, to defy poverty,avoid prison, overcome segregation, bigotry, racism, and obtain oneof the finest educations available in this country. But I have notbeen able to overcome this process. This is worse than any obstacleor anything that I have ever faced. Throughout my life I have beenenergized by the expectation and the hope that in this country Iwould be treated fairly in all endeavors. When there was segregationI hoped there would be fairness one day or some day. Whenthere was bigotry and prejudice I hoped that there would be toleranceand understanding some day.Mr. Chairman, I am proud of my life, proud of what I have done,and what I have accomplished, proud of my family, and this process,this process is trying to destroy it all. No job is worth what Ihave been through, no job. No horror in my life has been so debilitating.Confirm me if you want, don't confirm me if you are so led,but let this process end. Let me and my family regain our lives. Inever asked to be nominated. It was an honor. Little did I knowthe price, but it is too high.I enjoy and appreciate my current position, and I am comfortablewith the prospect of returning to my work as a judge on the U.S.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and to my friends there.Each of these positions is public service, and I have given at theoffice. I want my life and my family's life back and I want themreturned expeditiously.I have experienced the exhilaration of new heights from themoment I was called to Kennebunkport by the President to havelunch and he nominated me. That was the high point. At that timeI was told eye-to-eye that, Clarence, you made it this far on merit,the rest is going to be politics and it surely has been. There havebeen other highs. The outpouring of support from my friends oflong-standing, a bonding like I have never experienced with my oldboss, Senator Danforth, the wonderful support of those who haveworked with me.There have been prayers said for my family, and me, by people Iknow and people I will never meet, prayers that were heard andthat sustained not only me, but also my wife and my entire family.Instead of understanding and appreciating the great honor bestowedupon me, I find myself, here today defending my name, myintegrity, because somehow select portions of confidential documents,dealing with this matter were leaked to the public.Mr. Chairman, I am a victim of this process and my name hasbeen harmed, my integrity has been harmed, my character hasbeen harmed, my family has been harmed, my friends have beenharmed. There is nothing this committee, this body or this countrycan do to give me my good name back, nothing.I will not provide the rope for my own lynching or for furtherhumiliation. I am not going to engage in discussions, nor will Isubmit to roving questions of what goes on in the most intimateparts of my private live or the sanctity of my bedroom. These arethe most intimate parts of my privacy, and they will remain justthat, private.

Thank you, Judge. You will not be asked to.Before I begin my questioning of Judge Thomas, I would remindthe committee and the nominee that, with respect to one set of allegations,those pertaining to Prof. Anita Hill, we are somewhatlimited at this stage as to permissible questions. Professor Hill, asrecently as late last night, continues to ask us to maintain the confidentialityof her statement to the committee.So, Judge Thomas, at this stage of the hearing, without havingheard Professor Hill's testimony and without using her statement,our questioning to you may not be complete. We may have to discusssome aspects of the allegations with you at the end of thesehearings.I would also note for the record that the choice of the order ofthese hearings was left to you. I asked whether or not you wishedto go first or second, and you chose, as is your right, to speak firstand then, if you so chose, to speak last.Therefore, with respect to Professor Hill, I intend to focus on thegeneral nature of your relationship with her, her responsibilities inyour office and the environment in which she worked.Judge you have spoken to some of these issues in your openingstatement, but let me ask you

Mr. Chairman.

Yes.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say something forthe record here. This is not the appointment of a justice of thepeace. This is the nomination process of a man to become a Justiceof the Supreme Court of the United States, and he has been badlymaligned.I might add that I have a lot of sympathy for Professor Hill, too,and I am not going to sit here and tolerate her attorneys tellingyou or me or anybody else that, now that she has made these statementsin writing, with what is, if the Judge is telling the truth—and I believe he is—scurrilous allegations, that that statementcannot be used, especially in this proceeding. It is a matter of fairness.I might add that I have been informed that the reporter whobroke this story has her statement and read it to her before shewould even talk to her. Now, it would be the greatest travesty Ihave ever seen in any court of law, let alone an open forum in thenomination process of a man for Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court,to allow her attorneys or her or anybody on this committee or anybodyelse, for that matter, to tell us what can or cannot be usednow that this man's reputation has been very badly hurt.

Would the Senator yield?

I am not finished.I intend to use that statement, because it is fair to use it. I do notwant to hurt

Senator, let me

Let me finish.

NO; I will not.

Yes; you will. Yes; you will.

Let me just make one—you are entitled to usethe statement under the rule. No one, the Chair cannot stop youfrom using the statement.

Well, Mr. Chairman, how can it be admissible toeverybody? Everybody in this country is going to see it.

Mr. Chairman, how can she request confidentialityat this point, when she said she

Wait just 1 minute.

I can answer that question. Professor Hill saysthat she wants to tell her story. She did not release the statement,she says, and she wants her story told by her. Because we havegiven the opportunity to the Judge to speak first, if he so chose,and he has, she wants to be able to present her thus far unreleasedstatement in her own words. She will not have spoken publiclywhen she comes and addresses the committee.Now, why don't we get on with this process?

Mr. Chairman, let me say a word.

I am not finished.

OK.

Mr. Chairman, she has been on televisiontelling her story. She has made it public, so, therefore, I think theright to use that statement ought to be admitted.

Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I did not release the floor. I didto the chairman, because the chairman—I want to finish my comments.

The Senator from Massachusetts and then wewill go back

Mr. Chairman.

Everybody is going to get a chance to saywhat

All right, if you will come back to me, I wouldappreciate it.

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that you outlineda reasonable way of proceeding. I think it is entirely properthat Judge Thomas be able to make what statement that he so desires.And I thought it was a very moving statement, Judge.It might be appropriate, if that is the desire, that at least wework out in terms of the committee and the committee's understandingthe way that we are going to proceed on this. As I understand,the professor had indicated a willingness to testify first or gosecond, and now we are in the situation where Judge Thomas hasspoken, and it seems to me that we ought to be able to work out atleast the way that we are going to proceed that is going to be respectfulboth of Judge Thomas and the witness, without gettinginto a lot of back and forth up here, which is not really the purposeof the hearing.What I might suggest, at least, is that we have a very briefrecess, so that we can at least find out the way that we can proceedthat is consistent with Judge Thomas, consistent with the others,and satisfactory to the committee.

Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman.

The Senator from Utah.

I object to a recess. The fact of the matter is, lastThursday, a substantial majority of the Senate frankly asked us toget to the bottom of this. The public deserves to know now, oneway or the other, and the public is going to know, if I have anythingto say about it.Our colleagues demanded it. They did not ask us to just find outso much as the witness will allow us to ask, and I have no intentionof pillorying or maligning Professor Hill. I feel sorry for bothof these people. Both of them are going to come out of this withless of a reputation. It is pathetic and it would not have happened

Mr. Chairman.

Let me finish, if I could.If somebody on this committee or their staff had had the honestyand the integrity before the vote to raise this issue and ask for anexecutive session and say this has to be brought—nobody did, andthen somebody on this committee or their staff, and I am outragedby it, leaked that report, an FBI report that we all know shouldnever be disclosed to the public, because of the materials that generallyare in them. They take it down as it is given. It has rawstuff in it, but it has been leaked. The media knows everything init. I think the American people are entitled to know, if they wantto.What I am trying to say is that, to be frank, Mr. Chairman,there are inconsistencies in the statement of Anita Hill to the FBI,compared to her other statements. I do not particularly intend togo into that. She is entitled to explain these discrepancies, butJudge Thomas is entitled to point out these inconsistencies fortheir bearing on the credibility of the accuser in this instance, niceperson though she may be, a good law professor though she maybe, a fellow Yale law graduate though she may be, and the statementsof

Senator

Mr. Chairman.

If I could just finish. I promise to be shorter. Thestatements of the subsequent witnesses are also at variance withProfessor Hill's statements with what she told the FBI.If she happensto testify differently today, we have to find out which of thosestatements are true, and if I

Senator, we are not at liberty to publicly discusswhat is in the FBI report. Her statement is what

The heck we're not. This report has been leakedto the press, they know about it. Part of it has been read to theaccuser in this case. I think it is time to be fair to the nominee. Hehas come this far. He is the one who is being accused. They havethe burden of showing that he is not telling the truth here, and hehas a right to face the accuser and everything that accuser says,and if he does not, then I am going to resign from this committeetoday. I am telling you, I don't want to be on it.

The hearing is in recess for 5 minutes.