This file was prepared for electronic distribution by the inforM staff. Questions or comments should be directed to inform-editor@umail.umd.edu. The following is a small excerpt from the hearings before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate on the nomination of Clarence Thomas to be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. For the full, four volume transcript of the hearings, contact the Senate Judiciary committee. TESTIMONY OF ANITA F. HILL, PROFESSOR OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA, NORMAN, OK 10/11/1991 The CHAIRMAN. Professor Hill, please make whatever statement you would wish to make to the committee. Ms. HILL. Mr. Chairman -------- The CHAIRMAN. Excuse me. I instruct the officers not to let anyone in or out of that door while Professor Hill is making her statement. Ms. HILL. Mr. Chairman, Senator Thurmond, members of the committee, my name is Anita F. Hill, and I am a professor of law at the University of Oklahoma. I was born on a farm in Okmulgee County, OK, in 1956. I am the youngest of 13 children. I had my early education in Okmulgee County. My father, Albert Hill, is a farmer in that area. My mother's name is Erma Hill. She is also a farmer and a housewife. My childhood was one of a lot of hard work and not much money, but it was one of solid family affection as represented by my parents. I was reared in a religious atmosphere in the Baptist faith, and I have been a member of the Antioch Baptist Church, in Tulsa, OK, since 1983. It is a very warm part of my life at the present time. For my undergraduate work, I went to Oklahoma State University, and graduated from there in 1977. I am attaching to the statement a copy of my resume for further details of my education. The CHAIRMAN. It will be included in the record. MS. HILL. Thank you. I graduated from the university with academic honors and proceeded to the Yale Law School, where I received my J.D. degree in 1980. Upon graduation from law school, I became a practicing lawyer with the Washington, DC, firm of Wald, Harkrader & Ross. In 1981, I was introduced to now Judge Thomas by a mutual friend. Judge Thomas told me that he was anticipating a political appointment and asked if I would be interested in working with him. He was, in fact, appointed as Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights. After he had taken that post, he asked if I would become his assistant and I accepted that position. In my early period there, I had two major projects. First was an article I wrote for Judge Thomas' signature on the education of minority students. The second was the organization of a seminar on high-risk students, which was abandoned, because Judge Thomas transferred to the EEOC, where he became the Chairman of that office. During this period at the Department of Education, my working relationship with Judge Thomas was positive. I had a good deal of responsibility and independence. I thought he respected my work and that he trusted my judgment. After approximately 3 months of working there, he asked me to go out socially with him. What happened next and telling the world about it are the two most difficult things, experiences of my life. It is only after a great deal of agonizing consideration and a number of sleepless nights that I am able to talk of these unpleasant matters to anyone but my close friends. I declined the invitation to go out socially with him, and explained to him that I thought it would jeopardize what at the time I considered to be a very good working relationship. I had a normal social life with other men outside of the office. I believed then, as now, that having a social relationship with a person who was surviving my work would be ill advised. I was very uncomfortable with the idea and told him so. I thought that by saying "no" and explaining my reasons, my employer would abandon his social suggestions. However, to my regret, in the following few weeks he continued to ask me out on several occasions. He pressed me to justify my reasons for saying "no" to him. These incidents took place in his office or mine. They were in the form of private conversations which would not have been overheard by anyone else. My working relationship became even more strained when Judge Thomas began to use work situations to discuss sex. On these occasions, he would call me into his office for reports on education issues and projects or he might suggest that because of the time pressures of his schedule, we go to lunch to a government cafeteria. After a brief discussion of work, he would turn the conversation to a discussion of sexual matters. His conversations were very vivid. He spoke about acts that he had seen in pornographic films involving such matters as women having sex with animals, and films showing group sex or rape scenes. He talked about pornographic materials depicting individuals with large penises, or large breasts individuals in various sex acts. On several occasions Thomas told me graphically of his own sexual prowess. Because I was extremely uncomfortable talking about sex with him at all, and particularly in such a graphic way, I told him that I did not want to talk about these subjects. I would also try to change the subject to education matters or to nonsexual personal matters, such as his background or his beliefs. My efforts to change subject were rarely successful. Throughout the period of these conversations, he also from time to time asked me for social engagements. My reactions to these conversations was to avoid them by limiting opportunities for us to engage in extended conversations. This was difficult because at the time, I was his only assistant at the Office of Education or office for Civil Rights. During the latter part of my time at the Department of Education, the social pressures and any conversation of his offensive behavior ended. I began both to believe and hope that our working relationship could be a proper, cordial, and professional one. When Judge Thomas was made chair of the EEOC, I needed to face the question of whether to go with him. I was asked to do so and I did. The work, itself, was interesting, and at that time, it appeared that the sexual overtures, which had so troubled me had ended. I also faced the realistic fact that I had no alternative job. While I might have gone back to private practice, perhaps in my old firm, or at another, I was dedicated to civil rights work and my first choice was to be in that field. Moreover, at that time the Department of Education, itself, was a dubious venture. President Reagan was seeking to abolish the entire department. For my first months at the EEOC, where I continued to be an assistant to Judge Thomas, there were no sexual overtures However, during the fall and winter of 1982, these began again. The comments were random, and ranged from pressing me about why I didn't go out with him, to remarks about my person appearance. I remember him saying that some day I would have to tell him the real reason that I wouldn't go out with him. He began to show displeasure in his tone and voice and his demeanor in his continued pressure for an explanation. He commented on what I was wearing in terms of whether it made me more or less sexually attractive. The incidents occurred in his inner office at the EEOC. One of the oddest episodes I remember was an occasion in which Thomas was drinking a Coke in his office, he got up from the table at which we were wording, went over to his desk to get the Coke, looked at the can and asked, "Who has put pubic hair on my Coke?" On other occasions he referred to the size of his own penis as being larger than normal and he also spoke on some occasions of the pleasures he had given to women with oral sex. At this point, Late 1982, I began to feel severe stress on the job. I began to be concerned that Clarence Thomas might take out his anger with me by degrading me or not giving me important assignments. I also thought that he might find an excuse for dismissing me. In January 1983, I began looking for another Job. I was an handicapped because I feared that if he found out he might make it difficult for me to find other employment, and I might be dismissed, and I might be dismissed from the job I had. Another factor that made my search more difficult was that this was during a period of a hiring freeze in the Government. In February 1983, I was hospitalized for 5 days on an emergency basis for acute stomach pain which I attributed to stress on the Job. Once out of the hospital. I became more committed to find other employment and sought further to minimize my contact with Thomas. This became easier when Allyson Duncan became office director because most of my work was then funneled through her and I had contact with Clarence Thomas mostly in staff meetings. In the spring of 1983, an opportunity to teach at Oral Roberts University opened up. I participated in a seminar, taught an afternoon session in a seminar at Oral Roberts University. The dean of the university saw me teaching and inquired as to whether I would be interested in pursuing a career in teaching, beginning at Oral Roberts University. I agreed to take the job, in large part, because of my desire to escape the pressures I felt at EEOC due to Judge Thomas. When I informed him that I was leaving in July, I recall that his response was that now, I would no longer have an excuse for not going out with him. I told him that I still preferred not to do so. At some time after that meeting, he asked if he could take me to dinner at the end of the term. When I declined, he assured me that the dinner was a professional courtesy only and not a social invitation. I reluctantly agreed to accept that invitation but only if it was at the very end of a working day. On, as I recall, the last day of my employment at the EEOC in the summer of 1983, I did have dinner with Clarence Thomas. We went directly from work to a restaurant near the office. We talked about the work that I had done both at Education and at the EEOC. He told me that he was pleased with all of it except for an article and speech that I had done for him while we were at the Office of Civil Rights. Finally he made a comment that I will vividly remember. He said, that if I ever told anyone of his behavior that it would ruin his career. This was not an apology, nor was it an explanation. That was his last remark about the possibility of our going out, or reference to his behavior. In July 1983, I left the Washington, DC, area and have had minimal contacts with Judge Clarence Thomas since. I am, of course, aware from the press that some questions have been raised about conversations I had with Judge Clarence Thomas after I left the EEOC. From 1983 until today I have seen Judge Thomas only twice. On one occasion I needed to get a reference from him and on another , he made a public appearance at Tulsa. On one occasion he called me at home and we had an inconsequential conversation. On one occasion he called me without reaching me and I returned the call without reaching him and nothing came of it. I have, at least on three occasions been asked to act as a conduit to him for others. I knew his secretary, Diane Holt. We had worked together both at EEOC and Education. There were occasions on which I spoke to her and on some of the occasions, undoubtedly, I passed on some casual comment to then Chairman Thomas. There were a series of calls in the first 3 months of 1985, occasioned by a group in Tulsa which wished to have a civil rights conference. They wanted Judge Thomas to be the speaker and enlisted my assistance for this purpose. I did call in January and February to no effect and finally suggested to the person directly involved, Susan Cahall, that she put the matter into her own hands and call directly. She did so in March 1985. In connection with that March invitation, Ms., Cahall wanted conference material for the seminar, and some research was needed. I was asked to try and get the information nd did attempt to do so. There was another call about another possible conference in July 1985. In August 1987, I was in Washington, DC, and I did call Diane Holt. In the course of this conversation she asked me how long I was going to be in town and I told her. It is recorded in the messages as August 15, it was, in fact, August 20. She told me about Judge Thomas' marriage and I did say, congratulations. It is only after a great deal of agonizing consideration that I am able to talk of these unpleasant matter to anyone, except my closest friends as I have said before. These last few days have been very trying and very hard for me, and it hasn't just been the last few days of this week. It has actually been over a month now that I have been under the strain of this issue. Telling the world is the most difficult experience of my life, but it is very close to have to live through the experience that occasioned this meeting. I may have used poor judgment early on in my relationship with this issue. I was aware, however, that telling at any point in my career could adversely affect my future career. And I did not want, early on, to build [sic] all the bridges to the EEOC. As I said, I may have used poor judgment. Perhaps I should have taken angry or even militant steps, both when I was in the agency or after I had left it, but I must confess to the world that the course I took seemed the better, as well as the easier approach. I declined any comment to newspapers, but later when Senate staff asked me about these matters, I felt that I had a duty to report. I have no personal vendetta against Clarence Thomas. I seek only to provide the committee with information which it may regard as relevant. It would have been more comfortable to remain silent. It took no initiative to inform anyone. I took no initiative to inform anyone. But when I was asked by a representative of this committee to report my experience I felt that I had to tell the truth. I could not keep silent. [The prepared statement of Ms. Hill follows] Embargoed Until 10:00 am, 10/11/91 Professor Anita F. Hill Senate Judiciary Committee October 11, 1991 Mr. Chairman, Senator Thurmond, Members of the Committee, my name is Anita P. Hill, and I am a Professor of Law at the University of Oklahoma. I was born on a farm in Okmulge, Oklahoma in 1956, the 13th child, and had my early education there. My father is Albert Hill, a farmer of that area. My mother's name is Erma Hill, she is also a farmer and housewife. My childhood was the childhood of both work and poverty; but it was one of solid family affection as represented by my parents religious atmosphere in the Baptist faith and I have been a member of the Antioch Baptist Church in Tulsa since 1983. It remains a warm part of my life at the present time. For my undergraduate work I went to Oklahoma State University and graduated in 1977. 1 am attaching to this statement my resume with further details of my education. I graduated from the university with academic honors and proceeded to the Yale Law School where I received my J.D. degree in 1980. Upon graduation from law school I became a practicing lawyer with the Washington, D.C. firm of Wald, Harkrader & Ross. In 1981, I was introduced to now Judge Thomas by a mutual friend. Judge Thomas told me that he anticipated a political appointment shortly and asked if I might be interested in working in that office. He was in fact appointed as Assistant Secretary of Education, in which capacity he was the Director of the Office for Civil Rights. After he was in that post, he asked if I would become his assistant and I did then accept that position. In my early period, there I had two major projects. The first was an article I wrote for Judge Thomas' signature on Education of Minority Students. The second was the organization of a seminar on high risk students, which was abandoned because Judge Thomas transferred to the EEOC before that project was completed. During this period at the Department of Education, my working relationship with Judge Thomas was positive. I had a good deal of responsibility as well as independence. I thought that he respected my work and that he trusted my judgment. After approximately three months of working together, he asked me to go out with him socially. I declined and explained to him that I thought that it would only jeopardize what, at the time, I considered to be a very good working relationship. I had a normal social life with other men outside of the office and, I believed then, as now, that having a social relationship with a person who was supervising my work would be ill-advised. I was very uncomfortable with the idea and told him so. I thought that by saying "no" and explaining my reasons, my employer would abandon his social suggestions. However, to my regret, in the following few weeks he continued to ask me out on several occasions. He pressed me to justify my reasons for saying "no" to him. These incidents took place in his office or mine. They were in the form of private conversations which would not have been overheard by anyone else. My working relationship became even more strained when Judge Thomas began to use work situations to discuss sex. On these occasions he would call me into his office for reports on education issues and projects or he might suggest that because of time pressures we go to lunch at a government cafeteria. After a brief discussion of work he would turn the conversation to discussion of sexual matters. His conversations were very vivid. He spoke about acts that he had seen in pornographic films involving such matters as women having sex with animals and films showing group sex or rape scenes. He talked about pornographic materials depicting individuals with large penises or large breasts involved in various sex acts. On several occasions Thomas told me graphically of his own sexual prowess. Because I was extremely uncomfortable talking about sex with him at all and particularly in such a graphic way, I told him that I did not want to talk about those subjects. I would also try to change the subject to education matters or to nonsexual personal matters such as his background or beliefs. My efforts to change the subject were rarely successful. Throughout the period of these conversations, he also from time-to-time asked me for social engagements. My reactions to these conversations was to avoid having them by eliminating opportunities for us to engage in extended conversations. This was difficult because I was his only assistant at the Office for Civil Rights. During the latter part of my time at the Department of Education, the social pressures and any conversations of this offensive kind ended. I began both to believe and hope that our working relationship could be on a proper, cordial and professional base. When Judge Thomas was made Chairman of the EEOC, I needed to face the question of whether to go with him. I was asked to do so. I did. The work itself was interesting and at that time it appeared that the sexual overtures which had so troubled me had ended. I also faced the realistic fact that I had no alternative job. While I might have gone back to private practice, perhaps in my old firm or at another, I was dedicated he in that field. Moreover, the Department of Education itself was a dubious venture; President Reagan was seeking to abolish the entire Department at that time. For my first months at the EEOC, where I continued as an assistant to Judge Thomas, there were no sexual conversations or overtures. However, during the Fall and Winter of 1982, these began again. The comments were random and ranged from pressing me about why I didn't go out with him to remarks about my personal appearance. I remember his saying that someday I would have to give him the real reason that I wouldn't go out with him. He began to show real displeasure in his tone of voice, his demeanor and his continued pressure for an explanation. He commented on what I was wearing in terms of whether it made me more or less sexually attractive. The incidents occurred in his inner office at the EEOC. One of the oddest episodes I remember was an occasion in which Thomas was drinking a Coke in his office. He got up from the table at which we were working, went over to his desk to get the Coke, looked at the can, and said, "Who has put pubic hair on my Coke?" On other occasions he referred to the size of his own penis as being larger than normal and he also spoke on some occasions of the pleasures he had given to women with oral sex. At this point, late 1982, 1 began to feel severe stress on the job. I began to be concerned that Clarence Thomas might take it out on me by downgrading me or not giving me important assignments. I also thought that he might find an excuse for dismissing me. In January of 1983, I began looking for another job. I was handicapped because I feared that if he found out, he might make it difficult for me to find to her employment and I might be dismissed from the job I had. Another factor that made my search more difficult was that this was a period of a government hiring freeze. In February, 1983, 1 was hospitalized for five days on an emergency basis for an acute stomach pain which I attributed to stress on the job. Once out of the hospital, I became more committed to find other employment and sought further to minimize my contact with Thomas. This became easier when Allyson Duncan became office director because most of my work was handled with her and I had contact with Clarence Thomas mostly in staff meetings. In the Spring of 1983, an opportunity to teach law at Oral Roberts University opened up. I agreed to take the job In large part because of my desire to escape the pressures I felt at the EEOC due to Thomas. When I informed him that I was leaving in July, I recall that his response was that now I "would no longer have an excuse for not going out with" him. I told him that I still preferred not to do so. At some time after that meeting, he asked if he could take me to dinner at the end of my term. When I declined, he assured me that the dinner was a professional courtesy only and not a social invitation. I reluctantly agreed to accept that invitation but only if it was at the very end of a workday. On, as I recall, the last day of my employment at the EEOC in the summer of 1983, I did have dinner with Clarence Thomas. We went directly from work to a restaurant near the office. We talked about the work I had done both at Education and at EEOC. He told me that he was pleased with all of it except for an article and speech that I done for him when we were at the Office for Civil Rights. Finally, he made a comment which I vividly remember. He said that if I ever told anyone about his behavior toward me it could ruin his career. This was not an apology nor was there any explanation. That was his last remark about the possibility of our going out or reference to his behavior. In July 1983, I left the Washington, D.C. area and have had minimal contact with Judge Clarence Thomas since. I am of course aware from the press that some question has been raised about conversations I had with Judge Clarence Thomas after I left the EEOC. From 1983 until today I have seen Judge Clarence Thomas only twice. On one occasion I needed to get a reference from him and on another he made a public appearance In Tulsa. On one occasion he called me at home and we had an inconsequential conversation. On one other occasion he called me without reaching me and I returned the call without reaching him and nothing came of it. I have, on at least three occasions been asked to act as a conduit for others. I knew his secretary, Diane Holt, well when I was with the EEOC. There were occasions on which I spoke to her and on some of those occasions undoubtedly I passed on some casual comment to Thomas. There was a series of calls in the first three months of 1985 occasioned by a group in Tulsa which wished to have a civil rights conference; they wanted Thomas to be the speaker, and enlisted my assistance for this purpose. I did call in January and February to no effect and finally suggested to the person directly involved, Susan Cahall, that she put the matter back into her own hands and call directly. She did do that in March of 1985. In connection with that March invitation to Tulsa by Ms. Cahall, which was for a seminar conference some research was needed; I was asked to try to get the research work and did attempt to do so by a call to Thomas. There was another call about another possible conference in July of 1985. In August of 1987, I was in Washington and I did call Diane Holt. In the course of this conversation she asked me how long I was going to be in town and I told her; she recorded it as August 15; it was in fact August 20. She told me about Thomas' marriage and I did say "congratulate him." It is only after a great deal of agonizing consideration that I am able to talk of these unpleasant matter to anyone, except my closest friends. Telling the world is the most difficult experience of my life. I was aware that he could effect my future career did not wish to burn all my bridges. I may have used poor judgment; perhaps I should have taken angry or even militant steps, both when I was in the agency or after I had left it, but I must confess to the world that the course I took seemed the better, as well as the easier approach. I declined any comment to newspapers, but later, when Senate staff asked me about these matters, I felt that I had a duty to report. I have no personal vendetta against Clarence Thomas. I seek only to provide the Committee with information which it may regard as relevant. It would have been more comfortable to remain silent. I took no initiative to inform anyone. But when I was asked by a representative of this committee to report my experience, I felt that I had to tell the truth. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. TESTIMONY OF HON. CLARENCE THOMAS, OF GEORGIA, TO BE ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT Judge THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, Senator Thurmond, members of the committee: as excruciatingly difficult as the last 2 weeks have been, I welcome the opportunity to clear my name today. No one other than my wife and Senator Danforth, to whom I read this statement 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 on September 25, 1991, when the FBI came to my home to investigate her allegations. When informed by the FBI agent of the nature of the 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 my responsibilities included enforcing the rights of victims of sexual harassment. As a boss, as a friend, and as a human being I was proud that I have never had such an allegation leveled against me, even as I sought to promote women, and minorities into nontraditional jobs. In addition, several of my friends, who are women, have confided in me about the horror of harassment on the job, or elsewhere. I thought I really understood the anguish, the fears, the doubts, the seriousness of the matter. But since September 25, I have suffered immensely as these very serious charges were leveled against me. I have been wracking my brains, and eating my insides out trying to think of what I could have said or done to Anita Hill to lead her to allege that I was interested in her in more than a professional way, and that I talked with her about pornographic or x- rated films. Contrary to some press reports, I categorically denied all of the allegations 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 As- sistant Secretary in the Office of Civil Rights, one of my closest friends, from both college and law school, Gil Hardy, brought Anita Hill to my attention. As I remember, he indicated that she was dissatisfied with her law firm and wanted to work in Government. Based primarily, if not solely, on Gil's recommendation, I hired Anita Hill. During my tenure at the Department of Education, Anita Hill was an attorney-adviser who worked directly with me. She worked on special projects, as well as day-to-day matters. As I recall, she was 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 recall engaging in discussions about politics and current events. Upon my nomination to become Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity 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 or doubts that she would become a special assistant to me at EEOC, although as a career employee she retained the option of remaining at the Department of Education. At EEOC our relationship was more distant. And our contacts less frequent, as a result of the increased size of my personal staff and the dramatic increase and diversity of my day-to-day responsibilities Upon reflection, I recall that she seemed to have had some difficulty adjusting to this change in her role. In any case, our relationship remained both cordial and professional. At no time did I become 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 am certain that had any statement or conduct on my part been brought to my attention, I would remember it clearly because of the nature and seriousness of such conduct, as well as my adamant opposition to sex discrimination sexual harassment. But there were no such statements. In the spring of 1983, Mr. Charles Cothey contacted me to speak at the law school at Oral Roberts Univelsity in Tulsa, OK. Anita Hill, who is from Oklahoma, accompanied me on that trip. It was not unusual that individuals on my staff would travel with me occasionally. Anita Hill accompanied me on that trip primarily because this was an opportunity to combine business and a visit to her home. As I recall, during our visit at Oral Roberts University, Mr. Cothey mentioned to me the possibility of approaching Anita Hill to join the faculty at Oral Roberts University Law School. I encouraged him to do so. I noted to him, as I recall, that Anita Hill would do well in teaching. I recommended her highly and she eventually was offered a teaching position. Although I did not see Anita Hill often after she left EEOC, I did see her on one or two subsequent visits to Tulsa, OK. And on one visit I believe she drove me to the airport. I also occasionally received telephone calls from her. She would speak directly with me or with my secretary, Diane Holt. Since Anita Hill and Diane Holt had been with me at the Department of Education they were fairly close personally and I believe they occasionally socialized together. I would also hear about her through Linda Jackson, then Linda Lambert, whom both Anita Hill and I met at the Department of Education. And I would hear of her from my friend Gil. Throughout the time that Anita Hill worked with me I treated her as I treated my other special assistants. I tried to treat them all cordially, professionally, and respectfully. And I tried to support them in their endeavors, and be interested in and supportive of their success. I had no reason or basis to believe my relationship with Anita Hill was anything but this way until the FBI visited me a little more than 2 weeks ago. I find it particularly troubling that she never raised any hint that she was uncomfortable with me. She did not raise or mention it when considering moving with me to EEOC from the Department of Education. And she never raised it with me when she left EEOC and was moving on in her life. And to my fullest knowledge, she did not speak to any other women working with or around me, who would feel comfortable enough to raise it with me, especially Diane Holt, to whom she seemed closest on my personal staff. Nor did she raise it with mutual friends, such as Linda Jackson, and Gil Hardy. This is a person I have helped at every turn in the road, since we met. She seemed to appreciate the continued cordial relationship we had since day one. She sought my advice and counsel, as did virtually all of the members of my personal staff. During my tenure in the executive branch as a manager, as a policymaker, and as a person, I have adamantly condemned sex harassment. There is no member of this committee or this Senate who feels stronger about sex harassment than I do. As a manager, I made every effort to take swift and decisive action when sex harassment raised or reared its ugly head. The fact that I feel so very strongly about sex harassment and spoke loudly about it at EEOC has made these allegations doubly hard on me. I cannot imagine anything that I said or did to Anita Hill that could have been mistaken for sexual harassment. But with that said, if there is anything that I have said that has been 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 had known. If I did know I would have stopped immediately and I would not, as I have done over the past 2 weeks, had to tear away at myself trying to think of what I could possibly have done. But I have not said or done the things that Anita Hill has alleged. God has gotten me through the days since September 25 and He is my Judge. Mr. Chairman, something has happened to me in the dark days that have followed since the FBI agents informed me about these allegations. And the days have grown darker, as this very serious, very explosive, and very sensitive allegation or these sensitive allegations were selectively leaked, in a distorted way to the media over the past weekend. As if the confidential allegations, themselves, were not enough, this apparently calculated public disclosure has caused me, my family, 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 all would work out. I called upon the strength that helped me get here from Pin Point, and it was all sapped out of me. It was sapped out of me because Anita Hill was a person I considered a friend, whom I admired and thought I had treated fairly and with the utmost respect. Perhaps I could have better weathered this if it were from someone else, but here was someone I truly felt I had done my best with. Though I am, by no means, a perfect person, no means, I have not done what she has alleged, and I still do not know what I could possibly have done to cause her to make these allegations. When I stood next to the President in Kennebunkport, being nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States, that was a high honor. But as I sit here, before you, 103 days later, that honor has been crushed. From the very beginning charges were leveled against me from the shadows--charges of drug abuse, antisemitism, wife-beating, drug use by family members, that I was a quota appointment, confirmation conversion and much, much more, and now, this. I have complied with the rules. I responded to a document re- quest that produced over 30,000 pages of documents. And I have testified for 5 full days, under oath. I have endured this ordeal for 103 days. Reporters sneaking into my garage to examine books I read. Reporters and interest groups swarming over divorce papers, looking for dirt. Unnamed people starting preposterous and damaging rumors. Calls all over the country specifically requesting dirt. This is not American. This is Kafka-esque. It has got to stop. It must 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 order to be confirmed. I am here specifically to respond to allegations of sex harassment in the work place. I am not here to be further hu- miliated by this committee, or anyone else, or to put my private life on display for a prurient interest or other reasons. I will not allow 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 fundamental fairness. Yesterday, I called my mother. She was confined to her bed, unable to work and unable to stop crying. Enough is enough. 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 one of the finest educations available in this country. But I have not been able to overcome this process. This is worse than any obstacle or anything that I have ever faced. Throughout my life I have been energized by the expectation and the hope that in this country I would be treated fairly in all endeavors. When there was segregation I hoped there would be fairness one day or some day. When there was bigotry and prejudice I hoped that there would be tolerance and 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 I have 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. I never asked to be nominated. It was an honor. Little did I know the price, but it is too high. I enjoy and appreciate my current position, and I am comfortable with 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 the office. I want my life and my family's life back and I want them returned expeditiously. I have experienced the exhilaration of new heights from the moment I was called to Kennebunkport by the President to have lunch and he nominated me. That was the high point. At that time I 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 have been other highs. The outpouring of support from my friends of long-standing, a bonding like I have never experienced with my old boss, Senator Danforth, the wonderful support of those who have worked with me. There have been prayers said for my family, and me, by people I know and people I will never meet, prayers that were heard and that sustained not only me, but also my wife and my entire family. Instead of understanding and appreciating the great honor bestowed upon me, I find myself, here today defending my name, my integrity, 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 has been harmed, my integrity has been harmed, my character has been harmed, my family has been harmed, my friends have been harmed. There is nothing this committee, this body or this country can do to give me my good name back, nothing. I will not provide the rope for my own lynching or for further humiliation. I am not going to engage in discussions, nor will I submit to roving questions of what goes on in the most intimate parts of my private live or the sanctity of my bedroom. These are the most intimate parts of my privacy, and they will remain just that, private. [The prepared statement of Judge Clarence Thomas follows:] [DRAFT 7:00 a.m.] STATEMENT OF CLARENCE THOMAS BEFORE THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE October 11, 1991 AS EXCRUCIATINGLY DIFFICULT AS THE LAST TWO WEEKS HAVE BEEN, I WELCOME THE OPPORTUNITY TO CLEAR NY NAME TODAY [BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE (struck out in hard copy)]. NO ONE OTHER THAN MY WIFE HAS SEEN AND HEARD THIS STATEMENT...NO HANDLERS, NO ADVISORS. THE FIRST I LEARNED OF THE ALLEGATIONS BY PROFESSOR ANITA HILL WAS ON SEPTEMBER 25, 1991 WHEN THE FBI CAME TO MY HOME TO INVESTIGATE HER ALLEGATIONS. WHEN INFORMED BY THE FBI AGENT OF THE NATURE OF THE 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, MY RESPONSIBILITIES INCLUDED ENFORCING THE RIGHTS OF VICTIMS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT. AS A BOSS, AS A FRIEND AND AS A HUMAN BEING, I WAS PROUD THAT I HAD NEVER HAD SUCH AN ALLEGATION LEVELLED AGAINST ME AS I SOUGHT TO PROMOTE WOMEN AND MINORITIES INTO NON-TRADITIONAL JOBS. IN ADDITION, SEVERAL OF MY FRIENDS WHO ARE WOMEN HAVE CONFIDED IN ME ABOUT THE HO M OR OF HARASSMENT ON THE JOB OR ELSEWHERE. I THOUGHT I REALLY UNDERSTOOD THE ANGUISH, THE FEARS, THE DOUBTS, THE SERIOUSNESS OF THIS MATTER. BUT SINCE SEPTEMBER 25TH, I HAVE SUFFERED IMMENSELY AS THESE VERY SERIOUS CHARGES WERE LEVELLED AGAINST ME. I HAVE BEEN RACKING MY BRAINS AND EATING MY INSIDES OUT TRYING TO THINK OF WHAT I COULD HAVE SAID OR DONE TO ANITA HILL TO LEAD HER TO ALLEGE THAT I WAS INTERESTED IN HER IN MORE THAN A PROFESSIONAL WAY AND THAT I TALKED WITH HER ABOUT PORNOGRAPHIC FILMS. CONTRARY TO SOME PRESS REPORTS, I CATEGORICALLY DENIED _ALL_ OF THE ALLEGATIONS AND DENIED THAT I EVER ATTEMPTED TO DATE ANITA HILL. 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 ASSISTANT SECRETARY IN THE OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS, ONE OF MY CLOSEST FRIENDS, GIL HARDY, BROUGHT ANITA HILL TO MY ATTENTION. AS I REMEMBER, HE INDICATED THAT SHE WAS DISSATISFIED WITH HER LAW FIRM AND WANTED TO WORK IN GOVERNMENT. BASED PRIMARILY ON GIL'S RECOMMENDATION, I HIRED ANITA HILL. DURING MY TENURE AT THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, ANITA HILL WAS AN ATTORNEY ADVISOR WHO WORKED DIRECTLY WITH ME. SHE WORKED ON SPECIAL PROJECTS AS WELL AS DAY TO DAY MATTERS. AS I RECALL, SHE WAS ONE OF TWO PROFESSIONALS WORKING DIRECTLY WITH ME. 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 RECALL ENGAGING IN DISCUSSIONS ABOUT POLITICS AND CURRENT EVENTS. UPON MY NOMINATION TO BECOME CHAIRMAN OF THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY 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 OR DOUBT THAT SHE WOULD BECOME A SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO ME AT EEOC, ALTHOUGH, AS A CAREER EMPLOYEE, SHE RETAINED THE OPTION OF REMAINING AT THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. AT EEOC, OUR RELATIONSHIP WAS MORE DISTANT AND OUR CONTACTS LESS FREQUENT AS A RESULT OF THE INCREASED SIZE OF MY PERSONAL STAFF AND THE DRAMATIC INCREASE AND DIVERSITY OF MY DAY TO DAY RESPONSIBILITIES. UPON REFLECTION, I RECALL THAT SHE SEEMED TO HAVE SOME DIFFICULTY ADJUSTING TO THIS CHANGE IN HER ROLE. IN ANY CASE, OUR RELATIONSHIP REMAINED BOTH CORDIAL AND PROFESSIONAL. AT NO TIME DID I BECOME AWARE EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY THAT SHE FELT I HAD SAID OR DONE ANYTHING TO CHANCE 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 AM CERTAIN THAT HAD ANY STATEMENT OR CONDUCT ON MY PART BEEN BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION, I WOULD REMEMBER IT CLEARLY BECAUSE OF THE NATURE AND SERIOUSNESS OF SUCH CONDUCT AS WELL AS MY ADAMANT OPPOSITION TO SEX DISCRIMINATION AND SEXUAL HARASSMENT. BUT THERE WERE NO SUCH STATEMENTS. IN THE SPRING OF 1993, MR. CHARLES KOTHE CONTACTED ME TO SPEAK AT THE LAW SCHOOL AT ORAL ROBERTS UNIVERSITY IN TULSA, OKLAHOMA. ANITA HILL, WHO IS FROM OKLAHOMA, ACCOMPANIED ME. IT WAS NOT UNUSUAL THAT INDIVIDUALS ON MY STAFF WOULD TRAVEL WITH ME OCCASIONALLY. ANITA HILL ACCOMPANIED ME ON THAT TRIP PRIMARILY BECAUSE THIS WAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMBINE BUSINESS AND A VISIT HOME. AS I RECALL, DURING OUR VISIT AT ORAL ROBERTS UNIVERSITY, MR. KOTHE MENTIONED TO ME THE POSSIBILITY OF APPROACHING ANITA HILL TO JOIN THE FACULTY AT ORAL ROBERTS UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL. I ENCOURAGED HIM TO DO SO AND NOTED T0 HIM, AS I RECALL, THAT ANITA HILL WOULD DO WELL IN TEACHING. I RECOMMENDED HER HIGHLY AND SHE EVENTUALLY WAS OFFERED A TEACHING POSITION. ALTHOUGH I DID NOT SEE ANITA HILL OFTEN AFTER SHE LEFT EEOC, I DID SEE HER ON ONE OR TWO SUBSEQUENT VISITS TO TULSA, OKLAHOMA. AND ON ONE VISIT, I BELIEVE SHE DROVE ME TO THE AIRPORT. I ALSO OCCASIONALLY RECEIVED TELEPHONE CALLS FROM HER. SHE WOULD SPEAK DIRECTLY WITH ME OR WITH MY SECRETARY, DIANE HOLT. SINCE ANITA HILL AND DIANE HOLT HAD BEEN WITH ME AT THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, THEY WERE FAIRLY CLOSE PERSONALLY AND I BELIEVE THEY OCCASIONALLY SOCIALIZED TOGETHER. I WOULD ALSO HEAR ABOUT HER THROUGH LINDA JACKSON, WHOM BOTH ANITA HILL AND I MET AT THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, AND FROM MY FRIEND, GIL HARDY. THROUGHOUT THE TIME THAT ANITA HILL WORKED WITH ME, I TREATED HER AS I TREATED MY OTHER SPECIAL ASSISTANTS. I TRIED TO TREAT THEM ALL CORDIALLY, PROFESSIONALLY, AND RESPECTFULLY. AND, I TRIED TO SUPPORT THEN IN THEIR ENDEAVORS AND BE INTERESTED IN AND SUPPORTIVE OF THEIR SUCCESS. I HAD NO REASON OR BASIS TO BELIEVE MY RELATIONSHIP WITH ANITA HILL WAS ANYTHING BUT THIS WAY UNTIL THE FBI VISITED ME A LITTLE MORE THAN TWO WEEKS AGO. I FIND IT PARTICULARLY TROUBLING THAT SHE NEVER RAISED ANY HINT THAT SHE WAS UNCOMFORTABLE WITH ME. SHE DID NOT RAISE OR MENTION IT WHEN CONSIDERING MOVING WITH ME TO EEOC FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. AND, SHE NEVER RAISED IT WITH ME WHEN SHE LEFT EEOC AND WAS MOVING ON IN HER LIFE. AND TO MY FULLEST KNOWLEDGE, SHE DID NOT SPEAR TO ANY OTHER WOMEN WORKING WITH OR AROUND ME, WHO WOULD FEEL COMFORTABLE ENOUGH TO RAISE IT WITH ME -- ESPECIALLY DIANE HOLT TO WHOM SHE SEEMED CLOSEST ON MY PERSONAL STAFF. NOR DID SHE RAISE IT WITH MUTUAL FRIENDS SUCH AS LINDA JACKSON AND GIL HARDY. THIS IS A PERSON I HAVE HELPED AT EVERY TURN IN THE ROAD SEEMED TO APPRECIATE THE CONTINUED CORDIAL SINCE WE MET. THE SEEMED TO APPRECIATE THE CONTINUED CORDIAL RELATIONSHIP WE HAD SINCE DAY ONE. SHE SOUGHT MY ADVICE AND COUNSEL, AS DID VIRTUALLY ALL OF THE MEMBERS OF MY PERSONAL STAFF. DURING MY TENURE IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, AS A MANAGER, AS A POLICY MAKER AND AS A PERSON, I HAVE ADAMANTLY CONDEMNED SEX HARASSMENT. THERE IS NO MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE OR THE SENATE WHO FEELS STRONGER ABOUT SEX HARASSMENT THAN I DO. AS A MANAGER, I MADE EVERY EFFORT TO TAKE SWIFT AND DECISIVE ACTION WHEN SEX HARASSMENT REARED ITS UGLY HEAD. THE FACT THAT I FEEL SO VERY STRONGLY ABOUT SEX HARASSMENT AND SPORE SO LOUDLY ABOUT IT AT EEOC, HAS MADE THESE ALLEGATIONS DOUBLY HARD ON ME. I CANNOT IMAGINE ANYTHING THAT I SAID OR DID TO ANITA HILL THAT COULD HAVE BEEN MISTAKEN FOR SEXUAL HARASsMENT. BUT WITH THAT SAID, IF THERE IS ANYTHING THAT I HAVE SAID THAT HAS BEEN MISCONSTRUED, BY ANITA HILL OR ANYONE ELSE, TO BE SEXUAL HARASSMENT, THEN I CAN SAY THAT I AM SO VERY SORRY AND I WISH I HAD KNOWN. IF I DID KNOW, I WOULD HAVE STOPPED IMMEDIATELY AND I WOULD NOT, AS I HAVE DONE OVER THE PAST TWO WEEKS, HAD TO TEAR AWAY AT MYSELF TRYING TO THINK OF WHAT I COULD POSSIBLY HAVE DONE. BUT, I HAVE _NOT_ SAID OR DONE THE THINGS THAT ANITA HILL HAS ALLEGED . GOD HAS GOTTEN ME THROUGH THE DAYS SINCE SEPTEMBER 25TH. AND HE IS MY JUDGE. MR. CHAIRMAN, SOMETHING HAS HAPPENED TO ME IN THE DARK DAYS THAT HAVE FOLLOWED SINCE THE FBI AGENTS INFORMED ME ABOUT THESE ALLEGATIONS. AND THE DAYS HAVE GROWN DARKER AS THIS VERY SERIOUS, VERY EXPLOSIVE, AND VERY SENSITIVE ALLEGATIONS WERE [THE WORD "WAS" HAS BEEN CROSSED OUT, AND "WERE" HANDWRITTEN IN] SELECTIVELY LEAKED TO THE MEDIA OVER THE PAST WEEKEND. AS IF THE CONFIDENTIAL ALLEGATIONS THEMSELVES [WORD HANDWRITTEN] WERE NOT ENOUGH, THIS APPARENTLY CALCULATED PUBLIC DISCLOSURE HAS CAUSED ME, MY FAMILY, 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 TWO WEEKS I LOST THE BELIEF THAT IF I DID MY BEST, ALL WOULD WORK OUT. I CALLED UPON THE STRENGTH THAT HELPED ME GET OUT OF PINPOINT . . . AND IT WAS ALL SAPPED OUT OF ME. IT WAS SAPPED OUT OF ME BECAUSE ANITA HILL WAS A PERSON I CONSIDERED A FRIEND, WHOM I ADMIRED AND THOUGHT I HAD TREATED FAIRLY AND WITH THE UTMOST RESPECT. PERHAPS I COULD HAVE BETTER WEATHERED THIS IF IT WAS FROM SOMEONE ELSE, BUT HERE WAS SOMEONE I TRULY FELT I HAD DONE MY BEST WITH. THOUGH I AM BY NO MEANS A PERFECT PERSON, I HAVE NOT DONE WHAT SHE HAS ALLEGED. AND, I STILL DON'T KNOW WHAT I COULD POSSIBLY HAVE DONE TO CAUSE HER TO MAKE THESE ALLEGATIONS. WHEN I STOOD NEXT TO THE PRESIDENT IN KENNEBUNKPORT, BEING NOMINATED TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES WAS A HIGH HONOR. BUT AS I SIT HERE BEFORE YOU 103 DAYS LATER, THAT HONOR HAS BEEN CRUSHED. FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, CHARGES WERE LEVELLED AGAINST ME FROM THE SHADOWS. CHARGES OF DRUG ABUSE, ANTI-SEMITISM, WIFE BEATING, DRUG USE BY FAMILY MEMBERS, THAT I WAS A QUOTA APPOINTMENT, CONFIRMATION CONVERSION, AND MUCH MORE ... AND NOW THIS. I HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE RULES. I RESPONDED TO A DOCUMENT REQUEST THAT PRODUCED OVER 30,000 PAGES OF DOCUMENTS. AND I HAVE TESTIFIED FOR FIVE FULL DAYS. I HAVE ENDURED THIS ORDEAL FOR 103 DAYS -- REPORTERS SNEAKING INTO MY GARAGE TO EXAMINE BOOKS I READ, REPORTERS AND INTEREST GROUPS SWARMING OVER [THE WORD 'THROUGH' CROSSED OUT, "OVER HANDWRITTEN IN] DIVORCE PAPERS LOOKING FOR DIRT, UNNAMED PEOPLE STARTING PREPOSTEROUS RUMORS, CALLS ALL, OVER THE COUNTRY SPECIFICALLY REQUESTING DIRT. THIS IS NOT AMERICAN THIS IS KAFKAESQUE. IT HAS GOT TO STOP. IT MUST STOP FOR THE BENEFIT OF FUTURE NOMINEES AND OUR COUNTRY. _ENOUGH IS ENOUGH._ [HANDWRITTEN UNDERLINING] I AM NOT GOING TO ALLOW MYSELF TO BE FURTHER HUMILIATED IN ORDER TO BE CONFIRMED. I AM HERE SPECIFICALLY TO RESPOND TO ALLEGATIONS OF SEX HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE. I AM NOT HERE TO BE FURTHER HUMILIATED BY THIS COMMITTEE OR ANYONE ELSE OR TO PUT MY PRIVATE LIFE ON DISPLAY FOR-PRURIENT INTEREST OR OTHER REASONS. I WILL NOT ALLOW THIS COMMITTEE OR ANYONE ELSE TO PROBE INTO MY PRIVATE LIFE. THAT IS NOT WHAT AMERICA IS ALL ABOUT. TO ASK HE TO DO THAT WOULD BE TO ASK ME TO GO BEYOND FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS. YESTERDAY, I CALLED MY MOTHER. SHE WAS CONFINED TO HER BED, UNABLE TO WORK AND UNARLE TO ST0P CRYING. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. MR. CHAIRMAN, IN MY 43 YEARS ON THIS EARTH, I HAVE BEEN ABLE WITH THE HELP OF OTHERS T0 DEFY POVERTY, AVOID PRISON, OVERCOME SEGREGATION, BIGOTRY, RACISM AND OBTAIN ONE OF THE FINEST EDUCATIONS AVAILABLE IN THIS COUNTRY. BUT I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO OVERCOME THIS PROCESS. THIS IS WORSE THAN ANY OBSTACLE OR ANYTHING THAT I HAVE EVER FACED. THROUGHOUT MY LIFE, I HAVE BEEN ENERGIZED BY THE EXPECTATION AND THE HOPE THAT IN THIS COUNTRY I WOULD BE TREATED FAIRLY IN ALL MY ENDEAVORS. WHEN THERE WAS SEGREGATION, I HOPED THERE WOULD BE FAIRNESS ONE DAY. WHEN THERE WAS BIGOTRY AND PREJUDICE, I HOPED THAT THERE WOULD BE TOLERANCE AND UNDERSTANDING. MR. CHAIRMAN, I AM PROUD OF MY LIFE -- PROUD OF WHAT I HAVE DONE --- PROUD OF MY FAMILY -- AND THIS PROCESS IS TRYING TO DESTROY IT ALL. NO JOB IS WORTH WHAT I HAVE BEEN THROUGH. 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. I NEVER ASKED TO BE NOMINATED. IT WAS AN HONOR. LITTLE DID I KNOW THE PRICE. IT IS TOO HIGH! [HANDWRITTEN] I ENJOY AND APPRECIATE MY CURRENT POSITION AND I AM COMFORTABLE WITH THE PROSPECT OF RETURNING TO MY WORK AS A JUDGE AND TO MY FRIENDS ON THE COURT OF APPEALS. EACH OF THESE POSITIONS IS PUBLIC SERVICE, AND I HAVE "GIVEN AT THE OFFICE" . I WANT MY LIFE AND MY FAMILY SoS LIFE BACK AND I WANT THEM RETURNED EXPEDITIOUSLY. I HAVE EXPERIENCED THE EXHILARATION OF NEW HEIGHTS, FROM THE MOMENT I WAS CALLED TO KENNEBUNKPORT BY THE PRESIDENT TO HAVE LUNCH, AND HE NOMINATED ME. THAT WAS THE HIGH POINT. I WAS TOLD EYE TO EYE THAT: "CLARENCE, YOU MADE IT THIS FAR ON MERIT, THE REST IS GOING TO BE POLITICS." THERE HAVE BEEN OTHER HIGHS...THE OUTPOURING OF SUPPORT FROM FRIENDS OF LONGSTANDING, A BONDING LIKE I HAVE NEVER EXPERIENCED WITH MY OLD BOSS, JACK DANFORTH. THE WONDERFUL SUPPORT OF THOSE WHO HAVE WORKED WITH ME. THERE HAVE BEEN PRAYERS SAID FOR MY FAMILY AND ME BY PEOPLE I KNOW AND PEOPLE I WILL NEVER MEET -- PRAYERS THAT WERE HEARD AND THAT SUSTAINED NOT ONLY ME, BUT ALSO MY WIFE AND MY ENTIRE FAMILY. INSTEAD OF UNDERSTANDING AND APPRECIATING THE GREAT HONOR BESTOWED ON ME, I FIND MYSELF HERE TODAY DEFENDING MY NAME, MY INTEGRITY BECAUSE SOMEHOW SELECT PORTIONS OF CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS DEALING WITH THIS MATTER WERE MADE PUBLIC. MR. CHAIRMAN, I AM A VICTIM OF THIS PROCESS. MY NAME HAS BEEN HARMED. MY INTEGRITY HAS BEEN HARMED. MY CHARACTER HAS BEEN HARMED. MY FAMILY HAS BEEN HARMED. MY FRiENDS HAVE BEEN HARMED. I WILL NOT PROVIDE THE ROPE FOR MY OWN LYNCHING OR FOR FURTHER HUMILIATION. I AM NOT GOING TO ENGAGE IN DISCUSSIONS, NOR WILL I SUBMIT TO ROVING QUESTIONS OF WHAT GOES ON IN THE MOST INTIMATE PARTS OF _MY_ PRIVATE LIFE OR THE SANCTITY OF MY BEDROOM. THESE ARE THE MOST INTIMATE PARTS OF MY PRIVACY AND THEY WILL REMAIN JUST THAT: PRIVATE. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Judge...