[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PREVENTING SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE CONGRESSIONAL WORKPLACE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
ADMINISTRATION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 14, 2017
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on the Internet:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/administration/index.html
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
31-447 WASHINGTON: 2018
Committee on House Administration
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi, Chairman
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois, Vice ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania,
Chairman Ranking Member
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia ZOE LOFGREN, California
MARK WALKER, North Carolina JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland
ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia
PREVENTING SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE CONGRESSIONAL WORKPLACE
----------
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2017
House of Representatives,
Committee on House Administration,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room
1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Gregg Harper
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Harper, Davis, Comstock, Walker,
Smith, Loudermilk, Brady, Lofgren, and Raskin.
Also Present: Representatives Brooks and Speier.
Staff Present: Sean Moran, Staff Director; Kim Betz, Deputy
Staff Director/Policy and Oversight; Bob Sensenbrenner, General
Counsel; Dan Jarrell, Legislative Clerk; Erin McCracken,
Communications Director; Jamie Fleet, Minority Staff Director;
Khalil Abboud, Minority Deputy Staff Director; Eddie Flaherty,
Minority Chief Clerk; and Teri Morgan, Minority Deputy Staff
Director/Counsel.
The Chairman. I now call to order the Committee on House
Administration for purposes of today's hearing, titled
``Preventing Sexual Harassment in the Congressional
Workplace.''
The hearing record will remain open for 5 legislative days
so Members may submit any materials they wish to be included.
A quorum is present, so we may proceed.
At the outset, I ask for unanimous consent the Committee on
Ethics Chairwoman, Susan Brooks, and Ranking Member, Ted
Deutch, be permitted to sit on the dais and question all the
witnesses today.
Without objection, that is approved.
I also ask for unanimous consent that Representative Speier
be afforded the opportunity to sit on the dais and question our
second panel of witnesses.
Without objection, so ordered.
I would like to thank all of our witnesses for taking time
out of their busy schedule to be with us today on this very
serious issue. And I commend Speaker Ryan for bringing this
important issue to the forefront and for tasking this committee
to undertake a comprehensive review. Today's hearing is a
critical part of that review process.
First and foremost, let me say that there is no place for
sexual harassment in our society, period, and especially in
Congress. This is an extremely important topic, and it will
take all of us working together to effectively address this
issue. I believe, as Members of Congress, we must hold
ourselves to an even higher standard, a standard that
demonstrates that we are worthy of the trust placed on us by
our constituents and the American people.
The disturbing accounts of sexual harassment experienced by
current and former Members, including one of our witnesses
today, revealed that sexual harassment is a serious problem in
our society, and Congress is not immune from this issue. It is
no secret the culture on Capitol Hill is unique. While there
are 441 employing offices in the House among Members and
Representatives, we should all share the common goal of
creating safe and effective work environments that are
productive, collegial, and responsive to the needs of our
staff, constituents, and the public.
The personal accounts described by current and former
colleagues and staff suggest that not every office is achieving
this goal. These accounts dictate the need for a comprehensive
review of the House's policies and procedures, as well as the
resources available as it relates to sexual harassment in the
workplace. Currently, sexual harassment awareness training is
not mandatory for Members and staff. There is also concern that
victims of sexual harassment are not aware of the resources
available to them. Some have criticized the process that
currently exists to adjudicate claims of sexual harassment.
Today, we will hear from two Members, one of whom was a
victim of sexual harassment while a congressional staffer and
the other who specialized in employment discrimination
litigation, including sexual harassment cases, before his
election to Congress. In addition, we will hear from
representatives of the Office of Compliance and the Office of
House Employment Counsel, two entities that are responsible for
providing training and resources to Members and staff, among
other services.
The Office of Compliance is an independent agency
established by the Congressional Accountability Act to
administer and enforce the provisions of the act. While the
Office of Compliance is responsible for educating and training
Members, staff, and the public on workplace issues, there are
individuals, like Representatives Speier and Holmes Norton, who
have spoken publicly about the need for the Office of
Compliance to do more.
The Office of House Employment Counsel, located within the
Office of the Clerk, provides training and resources for
Members and chiefs of staff, as well as training for the entire
office. In addition, the Office of House Employment Counsel
represents employers in the Office of Compliance proceedings.
Several bills and resolutions have been introduced in the
House seeking changes to the process, many of which involve
making training mandatory for all Members and staff.
According to the Office of Compliance, and I quote: It is
widely acknowledged that antidiscrimination and antiretaliation
training for employees provides many benefits to the workplace.
Education directly impacts employee behavior. A comprehensive
training program continues to be the most effective investment
an organization can make in reducing complaints and creating a
more productive workforce.
Now, I believe we need mandatory training--I think probably
everyone here will agree--as well as a more organized and
comprehensive approach to address sexual harassment in the
congressional workplace. As I said at the beginning of my
remarks, this hearing is just the first step in our review. I
look forward to hearing from each of our witnesses today on
both panels.
Mr. Brady, I will now recognize you for the purposes of an
opening statement.
Mr. Brady. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Chairman,
thank you for calling this hearing today.
The congressional workplace should have zero tolerance for
sexual harassment and any kind of discrimination. That is why I
was pleased to be one of the first sponsors of the
Congresswoman from California's resolution. Congresswoman
Speier's courage and her determination deserve the respect and
attention of Members of Congress, and her plan deserves action.
I thank her very much for being here today.
The Congresswoman's proposal would require mandatory
training for Members and staff. It would also require the
Office of Compliance to get back to us very quickly on
additional improvements to their program. This bipartisan
legislation is a first step, and the House should pass it
immediately. I want to emphasize that this should be just a
first step.
I hope we can also look at ways to strengthen and clarify
our dispute resolution process and other ways to support the
Office of Compliance, including with additional money. I have
supported additional appropriations for the Office of
Compliance every year they have asked and this important agency
worthy of our support.
I thank our witnesses for being here today, and I am glad
that Ms. Speier will be joining us on the dais after her panel
discussion.
I am also pleased the Ranking Member of the Ethics
Committee, Mr. Deutch, will try to join so the Ethics Committee
will have a role to play in holding all of us to the highest
conduct.
Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the
balance of my time and look forward to our witnesses'
testimony.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Brady.
I now recognize Barbara Comstock for the purposes of an
opening statement.
Mrs. Comstock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In recent weeks, sexual harassment and sexual violence by
powerful men have come to light as never before. People have
named names, and there is a renewed recognition, rightfully, of
this problem and the need for change of a culture that looks
the other way because of who the offenders are. Whether it is
Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, Bill O'Reilly, Mark Halperin,
Roger Ailes, Kevin Spacey, or one of our own, it is time to
say: No more.
I have been an intern in this body. I have been a staffer
like our witness here today. I have been counsel on committee
and now as a Member. So I particularly appreciate the
opportunity for this hearing today. And I appreciate that we
have already committed to mandatory sexual harassment training
for all of the Members--emphasize Members--and staff. And I
think we do have a consensus of the need to have improved
training, training materials and practices, making sure we are
getting better reporting, a better response feedback loop,
really knowing what is going on with surveys or other types of
things, but, most importantly, to protect the victims. I know
we will be exploring that in weeks to come.
We need to know more of examples of what is actually
happening and making it easier for the victims to come forward.
We know there are so many who are in the shadows or forgotten
because their situations may have happened at a time where less
attention was paid.
Last night, I had the opportunity to talk to Dorena
Bertussi, who, in 1988, filed the Hill's first successful
harassment complaint, 30 years ago, against Representative Jim
Bates of California. In a recent interview in Roll Call--and I
hope you have seen that, if you haven't read it--she noted how
most--she had many women in her office who had the same
experience, but only she and one other came forward. But she
felt it was so important. In speaking with her and seeing how
brave she had been--because this was 30 years ago--you could
hear the pain still in her voice in telling that story. But you
could also hear the strength and the resolve. And women need to
hear that and know that we will be there to back them up.
And, you know, and I think it is important we name names.
The Hollywood rumors, all these things, people had heard these
rumors for years. One of Roger Ailes' victims was a friend of
mine. I never knew this had been something that had happened to
her until I read her story in The New York Times. And I knew it
was true because I knew her, talked to her about it after. But
I was here in the time of Bob Packwood, Charlie Wilson, and I
was thinking some of the things--you know, Charlie Wilson said:
You can teach them to type, but you can't teach them to grow
breasts. He used a more vulgar term.
And I wanted to close with something that I just had
somebody tell me recently. This is about a Member who is here
now. I don't know who it is. But somebody who I trust told me
the situation.
This Member asked a staffer to bring them over some
materials to their residence. And the young staffer is a young
woman, went there, and was greeted with a Member in a towel--it
was a male--who then invited her in. At that point, he decided
to expose himself. She left, and then she quit her job. She
left. She found another job. But that kind of situation, what
are we doing here for women right now who are dealing with
somebody like that?
So this is really a much more complex situation than I
think--you know, we need to have more training, know about the
violence that we are seeing in some of these--that are
criminal. Like, we get people into the criminal system when you
have a crime--I would argue, that probably is a crime in that
situation--and have people know that. And then that we have a
much better process so that that person doesn't have to give up
her career.
I was listening to one of the victims of Mark Halperin, and
she was talking about how she was very strong, left, didn't do
anything. But there were other women who left their desired
profession altogether because of what had happened. And we
can't have that happen.
So, Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate your giving us this
opportunity. And I know we are going to have more hearings. I
think it is important that we do that and that we hear more
from the people who have been in the shadows.
Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair will now recognize Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren for
purposes of an opening statement.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There is no question that sexual harassment in the
workplace, including Congress, must be addressed. And I want to
thank Chairman Harper and Ranking Member Brady for today's
hearing on this important subject.
And I want to thank the witnesses, Congressman Bradley
Byrne, and Representative Jackie Speier for coming before us
today to help us examine how we can make improvements to our
policies and procedures for preventing sexual harassment as
well as for handling complaints once they are filed.
Now, Representative Speier's resolution, the CEASE Act,
calling for mandatory sexual harassment training, is a step in
the right direction. But as she and I have discussed, it is not
the end. We need to examine dispute processes at the Office of
Compliance to make sure victims can expeditiously have their
grievances heard. And I think this is especially important
because sexual harassment is often about power. It is not just
about sex. It is about abuse of power. And our hard-working
staff and others need to have an advocate just as powerful on
their behalf.
Mandatory training is long overdue. The Office of
Compliance has been recommending it for 20 years, and the
Senate just unanimously passed a resolution mandating it last
week. It seems to me if Senator Ted Cruz and Elizabeth Warren
can agree, we should also be able to agree on our side of the
building. The online training is just a small start. But study
after study shows that in-person training is where you have the
most progress in changing workforce behavior. We need to do a
better job of advertising resources that are available, but we
also need improvements in the process once people do make a
complaint.
I just want to make a special word about Congresswoman
Jackie Speier. Years ago, she and I were staff compatriots. We
worked on the Hill at the same time. She worked for Congressman
Leo Ryan from the mid-peninsula, and I worked for Congressman
Don Edwards just south of that district. It was a wild and
crazy time in many ways in our history. We had the impeachment
of Richard Nixon, the war, and the disruption and the like, but
one of the things that Jackie has talked about now--and I give
her so much credit--is the assault that she suffered. I think
it is so important that she had the courage and the grace and
dignity and grit to speak up about what happened to her. And I
know that that has encouraged other people to step forward and
take on and know that they can speak up too.
So I just want to thank Jackie for being here today, for
the lead that she has taken on this issue and so many others.
She is a great lawyer, a terrific leader, and not afraid of a
darn thing.
So I thank you, Jackie, Congressman Byrne, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back.
Anyone else on the Republican side wishing to be recognized
for an opening statement?
I recognize Mrs. Brooks for 5 minutes for an opening.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you, Chairman Harper and Ranking Member
Brady. As Chairwoman of the House Ethics Committee, I am really
very pleased to be a part of this hearing today. We know in the
House Ethics Committee that the House does have problems with
addressing both reported and unreported sexual harassment as
just described by Representative Comstock. And the House Ethics
Committee is committed to working with your committee to
eliminate harassment that occurs through ensuring that our
Members and staff are trained and have better training. And we
need to ensure that we are protecting the victims of harassment
when it does occur.
Sexual harassment is strictly prohibited by our code of
official conduct. Let me repeat that: Sexual harassment is
strictly prohibited by the House's code of official conduct and
something that the House Ethics Committee takes very seriously.
For background, at the House Ethics Committee, we have two
separate functions as they relate to sexual harassment. First,
we have an advice and education division. The attorneys in
advice and education are trained when approached with a
harassment issue to advise the person seeking advice to contact
Office of Compliance. These discussions with our attorneys on
our committee are strictly confidential, so I cannot report on
the number of harassment instances raised with the committee.
But I can report that the advice given is to educate the advice
seeker on their options.
The second function of our committee is to conduct
investigations when allegations are made. And should someone be
interested in initiating an investigation, they can contact the
House Ethics Committee investigation division.
The committee and I personally share this committee's goal
of protecting victims of harassment. I look forward to learning
from this hearing, ways we can improve the House generally and
how we can ensure that we take the lessons learned from today's
hearing and improve the House Ethics Committee's process as
well.
And, in closing, I would like to just commend the three
female Members here who have just shared and, as we have
learned, all started as staffers. And it is very important--and
I am just pleased to be a part of this today. I was not a
staffer here on the Hill. I had never worked on the Hill prior
to coming to Congress, but I think it is very powerful that the
three of you who are here in many ways representing House staff
and now as strong voices on behalf of not only your districts
but on behalf of the country as Members. So thank you.
And I yield back.
The Chairman. Congresswoman Brooks yields back.
The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Maryland,
Mr. Raskin, for the purposes of an opening statement.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Brady, thank
you very much for calling this hearing. And I also want to
thank our distinguished witnesses for their leadership and
their perseverance in dealing with this issue.
The Nation is in an uproar today over sexual assault and
sexual harassment. From the studios of liberal Hollywood to the
studios of FOX News, from Wall Street to Alabama, there is a
tectonic shift taking place in women's unwillingness to put up
with what prior generations of women were often forced to
accept as business as usual. And I believe the public generally
has seen enough too and wants action.
In Congress, we must be leaders in changing a culture of
sexual harassment and assault, not just by what we say in our
legislation but by what we do in our own workplace. Justice
Brandeis once said: ``Our government is the potent, the
omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole
people by its example.''
Mr. Chairman, sexual harassment at work is a pervasive
problem that has been documented. The EEOC estimated that
anywhere from 25 percent to 85 percent of women have
experienced sexual harassment in the workplace. And let's be
clear that it is illegal. Whether it takes the form of quid pro
quo sexual harassment or hostile workplace environment
harassment, it constitutes sex discrimination and degrades the
professional status and social position of women.
To think that this body is somehow immune from sexual
harassment and abuse of women would be naive at best. At last
count, more than 1,500 former staffers signed a petition
directly calling on us to reform policies aimed at preventing
sexual harassment and adjudicating complaints.
My chief of staff, Julie Tagen, who has spent most of her
career on Capitol Hill, says she does not know a single woman
in her age group who has not experienced inappropriate conduct
in the workplace. As businesses across the country face their
responsibilities for creating harassment-free workplaces, we
must do our own part and lead by example in the public sector.
A critical first step is requiring annual mandatory sexual
harassment prevention and response training for Members of
Congress and staffers alike, just as we require ethics and
cybersecurity training.
I am a proud cosponsor of Representative Speier's CEASE
resolution, House Resolution 604, the Congressional Education
About Sexual Harassment Eradication Resolution. And I would
urge the House to quickly move to adopt this measure as the
Senate did last week.
Although this is an important place to start, mandating
annual sexual harassment training is not sufficient. We must
examine existing dispute resolution processes, which recent
incidents suggest may be acting still as a deterrent to
reporting and resolving problems. I am eager to hear from our
witnesses today on what more can be done, and I understand that
there are multiple proposals that have been put on the table
aimed at encouraging reporting, soliciting feedback, promoting
a healthy workplace environment, and protecting staffers
against retaliation.
I am eager to learn how we can work together in a
completely bipartisan way, Mr. Chairman, to create a workplace
safe for all of our employees and that all Americans can be
proud of. Thank you, and I look forward to the testimony today.
The Chairman. The gentleman from Maryland yields back.
I would now like to introduce our witnesses on our first
panel.
Representative Jackie Speier represents California's 14th
Congressional District. She serves on the House Committee on
Armed Services as the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on
Military Personnel and on the House Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence. She received her B.A. in political science
from the University of California at Davis and a J.D. from UC
Hastings College of Law. Representative Speier has been and
continues to be a tireless advocate for women's rights. We
appreciate her efforts in raising awareness of sexual
harassment and being with us today.
Representative Bradley Byrne represents Alabama's First
Congressional District. In Congress, Representative Byrne
serves on the House Committee on Armed Services as well as the
Education and Workforce Committee. After completing his
undergraduate studies at Duke University, Representative Byrne
received his law degree from the University of Alabama School
of Law. He practiced labor and employment law in Alabama for
over 30 years.
During Representative Byrne's practice, he advised multiple
businesses on harassment policies, protocol and procedures, and
litigated numerous employment cases. He also has overseen
multiple sexual harassment investigations over his many years
of practice.
So, Representatives Speier and Byrne, the Committee has
received your written testimony.
You will now each be given 5 minutes to present a summary
of that submission. And to help you keep time, as you have done
on the other end, you know how it works. Five minutes. With 1
minute to go, it will go yellow. With time up, it will go red.
And we certainly want to thank both of you for this time.
So the Chair will now recognize Representative Speier for 5
minutes for her summary.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JACKIE SPEIER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Speier. Chairman Harper, Ranking Member Brady, Members
of the Committee, thank you so much for the opportunity to
speak to you. And let me begin by saying how impressed I am at
the seriousness with which you are undertaking this issue. It
is complex, and it will be at times uncomfortable to deal with
it.
It is important to note that two out of three sexual
assaults go unreported in this country, and oftentimes, sexual
harassment leads to sexual assault.
Since I shared my own story on #MeTooCongress, I have had
numerous meetings and phone calls with staff members, both
present and former, women and men who have been subjected to
this inexcusable and oftentimes illegal behavior. In fact,
there are two Members of Congress, Republican and Democrat,
right now, who serve, who have been subject to review--or not
have been subject to review but have engaged in sexual
harassment. From these harasser propositions such as, ``Are you
going to be a good girl,'' to perpetrators exposing their
genitals, to victims having their private parts grabbed on the
House floor, all they ask in return as staff members is to be
able to work in a hostile-free work environment. They want the
system fixed and the perpetrators held accountable.
I have been working on this issue since 2014 and believe
there are three steps Congress needs to take to fix the
egregious and sometimes illegal behavior. The first step is to
require sexual harassment prevention and response training
every year for both Members and staff, just like ethics and
cybersecurity training. The existing Office of Compliance
online training model is a start, as some of you have pointed
out, but it is not adequate. Research has found that effective
training requires in-person, interactive instruction and
dialogue. A simple change to the House rules will achieve this
result, and there is already legislation coauthored by many of
you, H.R. 604.
And I want to give special thanks to Ranking Member Brady,
Representatives Costello, Poliquin, Lofgren, and Raskin for
their coleadership on this issue.
Second, we can't fix what we don't know. In my experience
working on sexual harassment and sexual violence on college
campuses, in academia, and in our military, climate surveys are
conducted regularly and are key to recognizing the scope of the
problem and to evaluating the effectiveness of reforms. That is
why Congress should institute a congressional climate survey
every 2 years.
Third, we must reform the broken dispute resolution system.
The present system may have been okay in the dark ages. It is
not appropriate for the 21st century. Under the current
process, as you see on the monitor, congressional employees are
at best unaware or confused, and at worst, they are utterly
betrayed.
This flowchart shows the current process. First, you report
the instance to the OC. You then have mandatory counseling for
30 days. After that, you are required--and I underscore
``required''--to sign a nondisclosure agreement before you even
begin mediation. You then have mandatory mediation for 30 days.
Additionally, the harasser and the Member's office are
represented by House of Representatives Counsel. Now, listen.
How does that compute? They are provided free legal counsel.
The victim is not.
I have also heard from mediators who say the congressional
process is atypical in that survivors don't have the option to
be in separate rooms as the defendant's counsel and that
survivors are often addressed in an aggressive manner.
Additionally, the fact that House Counsel works on behalf of
the alleged harasser during mediation and then is charged with
advocating to this Committee for the settlement agreement on
behalf of the survivor seems to be a conflict of interest.
If the employee makes it this far, they then have to go
through another 30 days of what they call a cooling-off period.
So now 90 days have elapsed, and that employee is still
required to work in that legislative office or else they are
not eligible for services through the OOC.
Now, I might also point out at this junction that interns
and fellows don't even have this process to access. So they
have nowhere to go.
After the 30 days cooling-off period, then you can either
file a formal complaint in a Federal district court or you can
have an administrative hearing where there are negotiations,
the settlement is approved, and then we move forward.
So, for the few survivors who secure a settlement, there is
no disclosure of the office involved or the amount of funds.
Taxpayers foot the bill, and the harasser goes on with his or
her life. There is zero accountability and zero transparency. I
might also add that, during that process, the victim can't even
communicate that they are going through an OOC process to their
family, to their friends, or to anyone in their religious
community.
So it is really no wonder that staffers do not seek this
process at all. And, finally, as one of them said to me who I
met with last week: I am a single mother; I can't afford to
lose my job. The thought of being blackballed in this
institution, the thought of being somehow subject to reprisal,
all of that has an effect.
So I really feel that it is important for us to move
forward, not just with training but to move forward with a
comprehensive reform of the Office of Compliance.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent to
submit the letter for the record of some 1,500 former members
of staff in Congress. And I think I have made copies available
to all of you. If you flip through those pages, you will see
that they--they range back in the seventies, all the way to the
current time.
The Chairman. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Speier. With that, I yield back.
[The statement of Ms. Speier follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Congresswoman Speier, for that
very powerful and insightful testimony that you have given us
today.
The Chair will now recognize Representative Bradley Byrne
for the purposes of an opening statement.
We look forward to hearing from you, Congressman Byrne, on
your experience to let us know what is happening in the private
sector and your time that you spent working on those cases. So
the Chair now recognizes you for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRADLEY BYRNE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA
Mr. Byrne. Thank you, Chairman Harper and Ranking Member
Brady, Members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity
to testify before you today on this important topic.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on
the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin. In
1986, sexual harassment was recognized by the Supreme Court as
a violation of title VII. In 1995, Congress passed the
Congressional Accountability Act, or CAA, subjecting us to
title VII.
Based on my prior experience and recent research into the
current policies regarding harassment here in Congress, I want
to make a few observations and offer some of my own
suggestions.
First, we need to mandate harassment training. I strongly
believe the House should require mandatory sexual harassment
training for all Members and employees. Recent events have
demonstrated that training, while available to Members of
Congress and employees, is underutilized. I will also note that
mandatory training at the House is not unprecedented and is
already required for ethics and computer security.
There are also multiple harassment trainings currently
provided by different congressional support offices. It is my
opinion that this Committee should settle on one high-quality
training product to make sure that all House employees are
trained in the same manner.
Number two, we should consider a universal harassment
policy for all House employees. Although not required by law,
creating and enforcing antiharassment policies is now a near
universal norm in the private sector. As you are aware, each
individual congressional office is an independent hiring
authority, and each office has its own policies. Given the
unique nature of House employment, it is my opinion that a
uniform, universal antiharassment policy based upon the CAA and
applicable to all House Members and employees would be much
more effective in curbing unwanted sexual harassment than the
current patchwork of different harassment policies that we have
today throughout offices on Capitol Hill. With a universal
policy, the training of House employees would be simplified and
made consistent across the House.
Number three, we should examine the Congressional
Accountability Act to consider improvements to the complaint
and enforcement process. It has been over 20 years since
Congress enacted the Congressional Accountability Act. I
believe this is an opportune time to revisit and consider
revisions to this important statute. The statutory provisions
governing harassment claims in the legislative branch are
different than those that govern private sector employment and
other public employees.
In the private sector, the EEOC administers and enforces
laws against workforce discrimination. The EEOC investigates
discrimination complaints based upon a protected class. The
process begins by an aggrieved party filing a charge with the
EEOC. The EEOC then has the option to request the parties
engage in mediation. However, mediation is not required for
either party. If mediation is not requested or it is
unsuccessful, the EEOC has investigatory power, including
subpoena power. After the investigatory process is complete,
the EEOC has the right to bring a case upon an aggrieved
individual's behalf or to issue the individual a right-to-sue
letter allowing the aggrieved party to bring litigation.
In contrast, the Office of Compliance has no investigative
authority and cannot prosecute harassment claims, and the CAA
requires mandatory counseling, as Ms. Speier pointed out, for
those making claims. We should work to bring the OOC process
and authority in line with that of the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission.
Other suggestions for revisions to the act, in my opinion,
would include subjecting our unpaid workforce, such as interns,
pages, and fellows, to the act's antidiscrimination provisions.
Certainly, these changes will increase the workload of the OOC,
and we need to be prepared to provide them the necessary
appropriations.
Fourth, we need to increase Member accountability. Given
the constitutional nature of our offices, Member-on-Member
sexual harassment is not something where harassment law and the
employment structure can easily be applied. In this matter, it
is my opinion that we must exercise our constitutional duty to
discipline our own membership. I believe we should adopt a
specific policy for this kind of behavior in our code of
official conduct, more expressive than the one we presently
have, that would send a signal that Member-on-Member sexual
harassment will not be tolerated and that Members of this body
support those being harassed in reporting these incidents to
the Ethics Committee.
Moreover, while an employee may be able to obtain monetary
relief under the CAA, a settlement or judgment is paid by the
taxpayers. Personally, I find this unacceptable. If a Member of
Congress settles a claim as the harasser or is found liable as
a harasser, it is my belief that the Member should be
personally liable or required to be repay the Treasury for such
damages. Furthermore, any payment out of the Treasury in
response to a claim of discrimination or harassment by a House
office should be made in a manner that is fully transparent.
Finally, it is my opinion that, given the inherent power
differential between a Member and their staff that they
supervise, we should include a strict prohibition on Members
engaging in a sexual relationship with staff under their direct
supervision.
In closing, I appreciate the opportunity to share my
observations and would be happy to provide more information to
the Committee as necessary.
[The statement of Mr. Byrne follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. I want to thank you, Congressman Byrne, for
your testimony and with your experience that you bring.
And, Congresswoman Speier, we want to thank you, as well. I
know that this is such an important issue. And you have given
us much to think about as we go through this review process.
So, with that, we will excuse you.
And I believe Congresswoman Speier will move up to the
dais.
We will now take just a moment to get our second panel in
place.
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, the Judiciary Committee has the
Attorney General as a witness in oversight right now, so I am
going to excuse myself.
[Recess.]
The Chairman. I want to thank our witnesses on the second
panel for being here and taking the time to come educate us as
we discuss this very serious issue of how we are going to
prevent sexual harassment in Congress as we go forward.
I would now like to take a moment to introduce each of you.
Ms. Barbara Childs Wallace currently serves as the Chair of the
Board of Directors of the Office of Compliance. She received
her undergraduate degree from Purdue University in 1973, her
J.D. from Loyola University in Chicago in 1977, and an LL.M in
labor law with highest honors from the National Law Center of
George Washington University in 1979. Ms. Childs Wallace has
worked at Carter Child and Caraway since 1983 in the field of
labor law, giving her 37 years of experience in this area. She
also served as chairman of the Labor and Employment Section of
the Mississippi Bar Association.
And we welcome you, Ms. Childs Wallace.
Ms. Gloria Lett currently serves as Counsel to the Office
of House Employment Counsel. She received her undergraduate
degree from State University of New York and her J.D. at George
Washington University. Prior to serving as counsel, Ms. Lett
was a corporate attorney handling employment law issues and
litigation for a large telecommunications company. She also
served as an assistant corporation counsel representing the
District of Columbia in civil litigation, as a Special
Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Columbia
handling criminal prosecutions, and as an attorney for the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
We welcome you, Ms. Lett.
The Committee has received each of your written
testimonies. Each witness will have 5 minutes to present a
summary of that submission.
As you know, to help you keep the time, when I recognize
you, the light will be green for 4 minutes. It will turn yellow
for the last minute and red when the time is up. So, at this
time, the Chair now recognizes for the purposes of an opening
statement Ms. Barbara Childs Wallace.
STATEMENTS OF BARBARA CHILDS WALLACE, CHAIR, BOARD OF
DIRECTORS, OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE; AND GLORIA LETT, COUNSEL,
OFFICE OF HOUSE EMPLOYMENT COUNSEL
STATEMENT OF BARBARA CHILDS WALLACE
Ms. Childs Wallace. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman
Harper, Ranking Member Brady, distinguished Members of the
Committee of House Administration, Congresswoman Speier, and
Congressman Byrne. It is an honor to be here today representing
not only the Office of Compliance but its Board of Directors,
which I chair. The other members of the Board are Susan
Robfogel from New York, Roberta Holzwarth from Illinois,
Barbara Camens from the District of Columbia, and Alan Friedman
from California. And we were appointed to these part-time
positions on the Board by the majority and the minority
leadership of both Houses of Congress. We are required by the
Congressional Accountability Act, or commonly known as the CAA,
to each have professional expertise in the application of the
workplace laws that apply to the legislature by the CAA. In
fact, all five of us who are in private practice have decades
of experience within the private sector and a few of us also
within the Federal Government in both labor and employment and
discrimination issues.
The CAA also requires that we are to be appointed without
regard to political affiliation. Our Board has been serving
since 1999, and we have worked diligently and in a nonpartisan
manner during this time to try and ensure the rights of all
individuals working on the Hill, that they are protected. I
also want to thank the members of our staff, many of whom are
here with me today. The OOC has a huge mandate from the
statute, which we accomplish with approximately 20 full-time
employees. They are very skilled and equally committed to the
task laid out for us by the CAA.
Finally, I want to especially thank Chairman Harper, who
just happens to be my Congressman from Mississippi. I am
originally from the Chicago area, but for the past 34 years, I
have practiced employment law in Jackson, Mississippi. It is
nice to see a neighbor holding the gavel, and we appreciate the
fact so much that you have called for this important hearing to
take place.
As you know, Congress--and as has been testified to
already--Congress created our office in 1995 under the CAA,
which has incorporated 13 Federal workplace laws that are
applicable in the private sector and the executive branch to
the legislative community. This act designates three primary
responsibilities for our office, although there are many other
statutory functions that are performed in addition. First, we
inspect the Capitol Grounds and the legislative branch
facilities to ensure that our community is free from
occupational, safety, and health hazards, and is accessible to
persons with qualified disabilities. Second, and especially
pertinent to the subject of this hearing, we provide an
alternative dispute resolution program to covered employees who
seek to assert their rights under the CAA. And, third, also
pertinent to this hearing, our office maintains a robust and
comprehensive outreach and education program to this community
about their rights, responsibilities, and protections under the
act.
In addition, the CAA mandates that our Board report to
Congress every 2 years on our recommendations for changes to
the CAA based on the labor and employment laws in the private
sector and in the executive branch. Mr. Chairman, since 2010,
our Board has zealously advocated in these biennial reports,
also known as our 102(b) reports, for mandatory training on how
to prevent and remedy harassment, discrimination, and
retaliation of all sorts in the entire legislative community,
the sort of training that is regularly performed in the private
sector and in the executive branch.
It is with great satisfaction that we see that this
Committee and the many lawmakers on Capitol Hill are responding
to this recommendation. Before harassment can be corrected,
everyone in the legislative community must understand the
meaning of harassment, how to respond to it, and, more
importantly, how to avoid it. Consistent with our statutory
mandate to inform and to educate individuals within the
legislative branch, our Board believes that mandatory training
on harassment, discrimination, and retaliatory behavior will
provide the best avenue to not only avoid the conduct in the
future but to help transform the legislative branch into a
model work environment whereby the lawmakers can and do lead by
example.
This concludes my remarks, and I ask that my extended
statement that has been submitted to the Committee be included
in the record of this hearing.
I now looked forward to any questions that you might have.
And thank you again.
[The statement of Ms. Childs Wallace follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, so much, for your testimony.
The Chair will now recognize Ms. Gloria Lett for 5 minutes
for the purposes of an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF GLORIA LETT
Ms. Lett. Good morning. My name is Gloria Lett, as you
know, and I am one of the attorneys with the Office of House
Employment Counsel, also known as OHEC. OHEC is basically an
in-house law firm available to Members of Congress, each of
which is a separate employing office, committees, House
officers to provide advice and counsel on the various issues
that arise under the Congressional Accountability Act and,
specifically for the purposes of this hearing, the question of
sexual harassment. We are there as a partner with employing
offices to help them understand the issue of sexual harassment
and to help them prevent and address the issue of sexual
harassment when it does occur in the workplace.
I am very grateful to be here, to have this opportunity to
talk about my office and the resources that we do provide to
House employing offices.
OHEC basically has three core functions. Those are to
provide counseling, to provide training, and to provide
representation and litigation when employees raise claims of
sexual harassment in their workplaces. The way that manifests
itself--and I think it is important to keep in mind that our
office is a nonpartisan office. All contacts with our office
are confidential, protected by the attorney-client privilege.
And so when we are called by employing offices to talk about
these issues, I think it is a good model in that they can speak
frankly to us. We can ask difficult questions. We can learn the
good and the bad and the really bad and give them advice and
counsel on how to address those issues. We talk about the legal
issues, but more importantly, we talk about how the office can
address issues and take appropriate corrective action to make
sure that the behavior stops.
That corrective action can range from counseling, sending
an employee to training, or discipline up to and including
termination. And there is accountability in congressional
offices and House offices for individuals who engage in
harassment. Sometimes they are, indeed, fired.
The other part of our role is to provide training. We
provide training on a request basis. We provide training on a
regular basis. The House officers in IG, for example, schedule
mandatory training for all new employees and all new managers.
And they schedule that directly with our office, and we conduct
that training.
We also do training after there has been an issue of sexual
harassment. So we go to district offices as a followup to make
sure that the behavior doesn't happen again, and we do it on a
request basis for those offices that are proactive on these
issues.
We do two--three types of training, actually. One is
antiharassment training that is specifically for employees.
Again, that is on a request basis by an office. And we educate
employees about what sexual harassment is. That is in-person
training. We have vignettes and video where we stop the
training at each section, and we explain the behavior, and we
have a conversation so that employees understand what they have
seen and how it can be unlawful and how they can report that
behavior to their management so that it can be addressed.
We also do something called sensitivity training. The
sensitivity training is broader because, as you know, sexual
harassment is unlawful under title VII of the Civil Rights Act,
but so is racial harassment and so is harassment based on an
individual's religion. So we discuss those broader issues, but
we discuss sexual harassment in the context of that training.
And, lastly, we do training for managers. And that
training, in my view, is vitally important to be in-person
training because managers have to navigate around a lot of
issues in order to properly handle the issue of sexual
harassment. Not only do they face claims by employees who
allege harassment, but they can also face claims by an employee
who has been accused of harassment if the office doesn't
properly investigate the issue and conduct it in a fair manner.
So, if someone is accused of harassment and they feel that it
was unfair or discriminatory, the result, they can also sue the
office. And so we help offices manage that.
And, lastly, we do represent employing offices in
litigation when an employee goes to the Office of Compliance.
Sometimes we know that those cases are going to happen because
we have advised the office, and they have done everything in
their power to correct the issue. And sometimes we don't know
about it. And so we do represent them and do corrective action
in that context as well. Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Lett follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. I want to thank both of you for taking the
time to be here and to educate us as we go through this
critical review process and come up with a plan to make sure
that we do prevent future cases of sexual harassment, hopefully
decrease your workload in the process.
So, at this time, the Members will have an opportunity to
ask questions, and I will now begin by recognizing myself for 5
minutes for questions.
And I will start with you, if I may, Ms. Childs Wallace.
And I want to thank you for that insight you have given us to
highlight what the Office of Compliance's adjudication process
is. So I have got a couple of questions just to make sure we
understand that fully.
I want you to describe the importance of each step in the
process, and, for example, how important is the counseling
intake step that you have? And why is confidentiality important
during this phase?
Ms. Childs Wallace. The counseling process, I think, is
somewhat of a misnomer. It is more like an intake process. It
is not therapy to the person who comes in seeking the--
initiating the counseling step. People who come to us often--
well, most likely are not lawyers. They don't know the statutes
necessarily. And they need assistance to see whether or not
their claims fit within the context of the 13 laws that are
applicable under the CAA. To give you a very basic example, if
you have someone who comes in and says, ``I think that I have
been discriminated against on the basis of my age,'' and in the
intake process, ``Well, how old are you?'' ``I am 30 years
old.'' ``Our statute does not cover you until you are 40 for
age discrimination.'' It is that kind of information that--it
is a give-and-take to let them know the law. It also is a time
when our office can explain what the proceedings are and the
employee can determine whether or not they want to go that
route. Oftentimes, things are resolved during that period very
easily.
Confidentiality is not meant to be a gag order.
The Chairman. Uh-huh.
Ms. Childs Wallace. It is confidential primarily for the
Office of Compliance. We don't call up the employing office and
say, ``Your employee has come in to see us about X, Y, and Z.''
What it is, is the employee still has the ability to go out and
talk to their friends and neighbors and say, ``My supervisor
has done A, B, and C.'' We don't contact the employing office.
It is maintained confidentially so that the employee has a
chance to learn the system, learn what the laws are.
One thing about the 30-day period. The law specifically
says that 30 days can be cut short on the request of the
employee. So, if the employee comes in and gets the information
that they need and they say, ``Fine, I know what I am going to
do,'' counseling ends, and it may last 1 day. So it doesn't
have to be a 30-day period.
The Chairman. Talk to me for just a minute, if you would,
about the mediation phase and what, just in general terms, what
percentage of cases are resolved during that part of mediation?
Ms. Childs Wallace. I don't have the specific statistics on
it. But what I have been informed about from my staff is that
about 40 to 50 percent of the cases are resolved during the
counseling or mediation period. So that is a significant amount
that are resolved.
The mediation process is very similar to mediation that
Congressman Byrne would have seen with the EEOC. It is not
required that the employee attend. This is particularly
important for employees in our district offices. It is not
required that they sit in the same room with the person that
is--that they are accusing of sexual harassment, for instance,
in this instance. They can be in separate rooms. I have done
countless mediations in my private practice where the two may
never even look at each other. They may be in separate
conference rooms and the mediator may go back and forth. So I
think it is a valued procedure. I don't know the legislative
history as to why Congress put it in there. But we have seen
that it works. It does not have to go 30 days.
The Chairman. Okay.
Ms. Childs Wallace. If they meet together and the mediator
and they say, ``This is not going to be resolved,'' they can
cut it short, and the next process starts.
The Chairman. Ms. Lett, if I may ask you, on the training
that you referred to, you have, obviously, online training, and
then you will also do in-person training. How much of your in-
person training is done here in the D.C. offices versus in
district offices?
Ms. Lett. We do training--typically, when an office asks
for training, they ask for training for their entire staff. So
we will do the training here in D.C. and in the district office
as well.
The Chairman. Got ya. You know, I know the office will
typically contact you before they take employment actions, I
assume. For example, do they contact you before taking
employment actions or contact you generally regarding sexual
harassment awareness?
Ms. Lett. Congressman, I wish all of our clients contacted
us before they took employment action. It doesn't always happen
that way, but it typically does happen that way. And we work
with them to get to the underlying issue, to find out if there
is any merit to the allegation, to do an investigation, and
then take appropriate corrective action.
The Chairman. And you would usually come in during the
mediation phase from OOC. Are you ever contacted before OOC, or
is it typically just following what you hear from them?
Ms. Lett. I mentioned earlier that sometimes we will know
that an employee is going to go to the Office of Compliance.
What the courts have said is that if an employer takes
appropriate corrective action designed to stop the behavior,
they are going to be insulated from liability in hostile work
environment cases. But sometimes employees are not satisfied
with that. So they will go to the Office of Compliance, and we
expect it.
As Barbara just mentioned, the counseling phase is
confidential, but the employee can waive that and reach out to
the employee. Typically, we will find out about mediation when
there has been a notice of mediation issued.
The Chairman. Thank you both very much.
The Chair will now recognize Ranking Member Mr. Brady for
the purpose of questions for 5 minutes.
Mr. Brady. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a question for both of you. It is important to have
staff and managers participate in antiharassment training for
the betterment of the workplace. Can you speak on how
antiharassment and discrimination training directly relates to
less complaints and a better workplace? Either one.
Ms. Lett. I can take that one. I think it is very important
that employees understand what sexual harassment is, that they
have a right to come forward and report it, and that they will
not be retaliated against if they do so. And that is what
training accomplishes. It gives them knowledge. I think that
that will invariably lead to less complaints because an
employer can address the issue before it becomes a formal
process where they go to the Office of Compliance.
I just ran into a chief of staff that I have known since I
started on the Hill in 1996. And she told me, in her
experience, she has only ever had one situation with sexual
harassment. And I know that there are obviously many cases that
go unreported. But she said that it was a staffer in the
office. He said something that was inappropriate. She called
him into her office. She read him the riot act, and she told
him if it happened again, he would lose his job. So,
oftentimes, if employees are aware of these issues, it can be
addressed at the earliest possible stage for the employee. And
that is what we all want. We want employees to have safe and
productive work environments.
And I think it is important for employers to say to their
employees: Please come tell us.
When we do the training for the managers, we tell them how
important it is to talk to your employees, to walk around, to
respond to rumors or anything that you hear where someone might
be feeling uncomfortable and then have a conversation with
them. Oftentimes, these things can be addressed at the earliest
possible stage.
Ms. Childs Wallace. I agree with everything that Ms. Lett
said.
The one thing I do want to add to it is that training is
yet another opportunity to tell the employees: Here is where
you go if you have a problem; there is this entity called the
Office of Compliance.
One of the things that we are hearing so much in the media
is that people on the Hill don't know who the Office of
Compliance is. If there is a trainer in front of you that says,
``There is this body, the Office of Compliance, and this is
where you go to make a complaint,'' there is no reason why any
employee on the Hill shouldn't know who we are and where we are
located and how to make a complaint.
I would like to correct one thing that I said about the
mediation process, that that is a 30-day period that cannot be
waived. And I misspoke on that.
Mr. Brady. Most of the complaints about harassment that are
filed with the Office of Compliance are coming from non-Member
and noncommittee offices such as the AOC, CAO. How can we make
staffers and Members and committee offices feel comfortable
speaking up on their issues of harassment or discrimination?
Ms. Childs Wallace. Well, I think that, in training that I
have done in my private practice--and I think that Ms. Lett
indicated the same thing--is it can be a dialogue. It can be
talking about what is appropriate and what isn't appropriate.
One thing I think that needs to be understood is there is
illegal sexual harassment, and there are bad practices. And
some things don't--a complainant might not win in court with
what their complaint is, but they can still ruin the morale of
an office and be inappropriate. And I think that the training,
in-person training in particular, can go into both areas of
what is illegal and what is inappropriate for this particular
office.
I think one thing that Congressman Byrne said in his
statement about having a universal policy is very interesting,
so that everybody is working on the same page and everybody
knows, even in the office, as Ms. Lett was saying, where you go
to complain within your office. But, also, a necessary
component has to be who OOC is and what our purpose is in the
whole process.
Ms. Lett. And I agree with that, if I may respond. It is
very important to have written policies. There is a model
sexual harassment policy that is part of the model handbook
that this Committee makes available to House employing offices.
We worked with the Committee staff to develop that. And that
policy basically sets out zero tolerance for this type of
behavior and tells employees of the consequences if they do
participate. But training is vitally important. When we do
training, in-person training, it is amazing to see how men and
women might have very different reactions to the same conduct
that they view in the video. And when they have that dialogue,
it helps to inform both groups where they are coming from and
why it is problematic and unwelcome behavior.
Mr. Brady. I thank both of you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
I would ask the witnesses to just maybe pull your
microphones a little closer to you as we are having some
background noise.
And the Chair will now recognize the Vice Chairman of the
Committee, Mr. Davis, for the purpose of questions for 5
minutes.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Ranking Member, for hosting this hearing.
And I would like to thank my colleague Bradley, somebody
who practiced employment law in Alabama. I think many of the
comments in his opening testimony were very well stated.
And the powerful testimony from my colleague Jackie. Thank
you.
And then also the opening statements of Barbara and Susan.
Thank you for your testimony and your comments.
I think it is long overdue, and I appreciate both of you
and your opening statements because no one should have to worry
about sexual harassment in the workplace. And as a former
staffer, one of the reasons I wanted to serve on this Committee
is to continue to professionalize the House and establish a
workplace that is grounded in respect.
I look forward to discussing with each of you the potential
areas and current policy that need improvement and any areas
you suggest that we need to make better because, in Congress,
we have got to lead by example.
My first question for both of you is: It is important we
get this right. And I have a female-led staff. And I asked them
their opinion. And they were concerned some offices--that an
unintended consequence may be that some offices may just take a
shortcut and not hire women as a way to avoid these issues.
And, obviously, that is not the right approach. How do we
ensure that we use this moment to work toward true prevention
of sexual harassment while also continuing to make Capitol Hill
a place of opportunity for female professionals?
Ms. Childs Wallace. I think that one of the things that is
just tremendous is to see women as Members. And I think that I
am not as concerned about that with the strong, fantastic women
that we have as Members. And I think as--there is a great
wealth of experience and talent out there with females, and I
would certainly hope that that would not be a consequence of
harassment----
Mr. Davis. Agreed.
Ms. Childs Wallace [continuing]. Training.
Ms. Lett. And my office certainly has had discussions
with--we have heard that. And we have had those discussions
with our clients to remind them that that is unlawful, and,
obviously, individuals should be hired based on their merit
without regard to gender. But, again, I think it is very
important to have training. I keep coming back to that. And we
do training on hiring techniques and things of that nature as
well. But just awareness is very important with respect to that
issue.
Mr. Davis. Thank you both.
Ms. Childs Wallace, what challenges does the OOC face in
carrying out its educational duties? For example, I am a former
district staffer. So how does the OOC reach out to the district
offices, and how can we as a Committee be helpful?
Ms. Childs Wallace. Well, there are several things, I
think. First of all, one of the recommendations that we have
made every other year is with regard to these posters. We are
required by statute to develop these posters. These are the
kind of posters that are posted in workplaces in the executive
branch and in the private sector. And we do, and we hand them
out. And there is no law that requires anybody in Congress to
post these notices. They are notice of rights. They also talk
about OOC. These can go in the district offices too.
We do training with another outside organization through--I
am blanking on the name of the organization--that does training
in the district offices, and also, the online modules of
training that we have that we have been developing and are
continuing to develop more and more can be taken by employees
in the district offices.
Mr. Davis. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.
Ms. Lett, if an employing office conducts an internal
investigation, what role does OHEC play during the
investigative process? And are there internal investigations
that are resolved--I think you mentioned some--without using
the OOC process?
Ms. Lett. When an office contacts us and there is an issue
with sexual harassment, we work with the office to conduct the
investigation. We give them materials that are very exhaustive.
Not every situation requires that they learn this 25-page
document of instructions on how to conduct an investigation.
But we work with them every step of the way.
Some offices, their staff is very savvy, very comfortable
doing investigations. And when I say ``investigations,'' in
some instances, it may mean talking to two employees and
figuring out what happened.
But some offices aren't quite as comfortable with
investigations. So what we will do is we will help them to get
the help of an independent, outside investigator. And that
investigator will get to the bottom of what is going on, report
it to the office, and then we will work with that office to
figure out what the appropriate corrective action is.
Mr. Davis. Thank you both.
I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair will now recognize Congresswoman Speier for 5
minutes for questions.
Ms. Speier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me ask you, Ms. Lett, whether or not you end up
representing the harasser in mediation or not?
Ms. Lett. Our client is the employing office. So we never
represent an individual. At the end of the day, someone
obviously is accused of harassment, but they are not our
client. The client is the employing office of the Member or the
committee or the House office.
Ms. Speier. So I think we are mincing words here. Let's say
a Member is being accused of sexual harassment. You are
representing the Member, correct?
Ms. Lett. We are representing the employing office, which
sometimes can also be the Member, yes.
Ms. Speier. Do you think that is appropriate?
Ms. Lett. I think it is appropriate given our role. Our
role is an in-house law firm. We are no different than a
private sector company. They have their own lawyers to
represent them in these matters. And under the Congressional
Accountability Act, the House employers are supposed to
experience the same thing as private sector employers. So the
situation is analogous.
Ms. Speier. So when you are representing--let's, for
discussion purposes, say the Member, it is your job to try and
resolve this so that the Member is kept whole and none of it
becomes public. Do you ever find yourself in a position of
saying to the victim, ``You know, if you pursue this, your
career on Capitol Hill is over''?
Ms. Lett. My office absolutely would never say that to a
victim. Our role is to assist the office in getting to the
bottom of what is going on and to take appropriate action. In
the case--we have had a couple of cases where the Member was
the individual who was accused of the harassment. And there are
corrective steps that can be taken to make sure the Member acts
appropriately in those circumstances.
Our office does not have the ability to discipline a
Member, but certainly the Ethics Committee does, and leadership
can interject in those situations as well.
Ms. Speier. But if you settle a case between a Member and a
staff member, it never goes to the Ethics Committee, correct?
Ms. Lett. That is not necessarily true.
Ms. Speier. Well, how would it go to the Ethics Committee?
Ms. Lett. A staffer could bring a claim, can contact the
Ethics Committee. Anyone can contact the Ethics Committee and
allege that a Member has acted inappropriately.
Ms. Speier. And kiss their job on Capitol Hill goodbye.
Ms. Lett. That is not the way it is supposed to work,
Congresswoman. Certainly, we assure--we have the employing
office assure any employee who raises these claims that they
will not be retaliated against because, if they are retaliated
against, the office can be sued for retaliation.
Ms. Speier. It is true, though, that the staff member must
be in continuous employment in order to access the services of
the OOC. Is that correct?
Ms. Lett. I don't think that that's correct. I assume that
the----
Ms. Speier. Well, if they are no longer employed by the
House of Representatives, then I have been told that this
office is not available to them.
Ms. Lett. I don't have that information.
Ms. Speier. All right. What percentage of your mediations
is between Member and staff versus staff and staff?
Ms. Lett. I am sorry, Congresswoman. I can't hear because
of the background noise.
Ms. Speier. What percentage of your mediations is between
Member and staff versus staff and staff?
Ms. Lett. Overwhelmingly, the mediations concern staff and
staff. It is very rarely when it involves a Member. But those
occasions have occurred.
Ms. Speier. Okay.
Now, we have been told that if you are accusing someone of
sexual harassment, that you are required to be in the same
room; it is only in cases of sexual assault where you can be in
separate rooms.
Ms. Lett. That is not true. You are not required to be in
the same room. I can tell you from my office, typically when we
go to mediation, oftentimes, we don't take the alleged
harasser, as we find the mediations to be more productive if we
take someone else from the office who is in management, someone
who is familiar with the underlying issues. I don't find it to
be particularly productive to have an alleged harasser and a
victim sit across the table from each other. So that is not how
we approach it.
Ms. Speier. Have you ever counseled an accuser that if they
don't want to be in the same room, that the legitimacy of their
complaints would be called into question?
Ms. Lett. Can you give me that one again?
Ms. Speier. Have you ever said to someone who was an
accuser, a victim, who did not want to be in the same room,
that in so doing, it would cause you to wonder about the
legitimacy of their complaint?
Ms. Lett. I don't recall ever doing that. It is really up
to the employee's counsel to make that decision about whether
or not they want them to be in the room. So it is not my call.
Ms. Speier. Okay.
I yield back. Thank you.
The Chairman. Congresswoman Speier yields back.
The Chair will now recognize Congresswoman Comstock for 5
minutes for the purposes of questions.
Mrs. Comstock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I also appreciate the testimony of my colleagues and
particularly the very detailed additional things that we can do
that Congressman Byrne laid out. And one of them I wanted to
focus on was really giving the Members and senior staff some
strict guidelines.
So, taking my example of the Member in the towel, we really
don't have current guidelines right now that say to a Member,
say a sexual relationship with a 19-year-old intern is off
limits. Is that at all clear right now? Because I haven't seen
that in some of the materials, just flat out: Your chief of
staff can't; your senior people--you know, we have these young
interns. We have young staff. You cannot have this in our
office.
Ms. Lett. I am not aware of anything that says that
specifically. As someone alluded to earlier, obviously, the
code of conduct, which says that a Member and staff should
conduct themselves in a manner at all times that reflects
credibly upon the House, would be relevant in that context. But
I don't know of a specific writing that says what you have
just----
Mrs. Comstock. Okay. And for any Seinfeld fans, you have
the George Costanza rule, you know, where he got fired because
he didn't know it was inappropriate to have sex on the desk in
the office with the staff. I think that is something we do need
to make clear from the Member on down because wouldn't you
agree it creates a hostile work environment if there is that
kind of relationship in an office?
Ms. Lett. No question about it.
Mrs. Comstock. All right. So that would be something when
we are looking at just a hostile work environment, like say in
this example, I think I would have done what this woman did, go
find another job. Not everyone can do that. But if she hadn't,
if she had gone along with this, then that is creating--that
can go into creating a hostile work environment, right, for the
other women in the office?
Ms. Lett. Of course. And I would hope, again, that an
employee would feel comfortable complaining to whoever would be
appropriate in those circumstances. The way the model handbook
policy is written, the employee is told--asked to report it to
either their immediate supervisor or anyone in management with
whom they feel comfortable making that complaint.
Mrs. Comstock. Okay. And I appreciate you highlighting how
the videos and the interactive, having people together because
I know when I was at my law firm, we had that type of thing in
our training. And I do think that is an important aspect of
what we need here. So, as we are looking at this, any of the
additional--I have been told, for example, the Navy does a good
job. Other Federal agencies have materials. Perhaps it would be
good for us to get more examples, if you can provide us, of
some of the things that the other agencies and the private
sector are doing. I think that would be helpful as we look at
this.
And then I had also wanted to ask about one of the
suggestions that Dorena Bertussi, who is the first woman who I
spoke of, that I had spoke to, what she suggested was an
ombudsman. I think it gets to some of the questions that Ms.
Speier had where there is sort of--I mean, your job is what
Congress has told you to be at this point. And we are looking
at how we might change that. But if we were to have an
ombudsman who is that victim's support person, then that could
be somebody maybe who would say, ``You know what, this is a
criminal case, and you don't need mediation here, you need to
go and deal with this legally,'' or, ``You know, here's the
process of what you do if you go through--if you were to go to
mediation or do these things,'' but have somebody who is really
that victim's advocate. Is that something that you have seen in
other workplaces or maybe, given the unique nature of our
workplace, might be helpful?
Ms. Lett. I have seen it in other workplaces. I believe at
one time the Capitol Police had an ombudsman that their
employees would go to to raise concerns. And it can be a
successful model depending on how it is structured.
Mrs. Comstock. And how do you--are you telling staff--when
there are criminal cases here, and that is--I mean, I know, as
I mentioned, as an intern, staffer, you know, when you heard
criminal activity that went on, people who wouldn't go forward
because they were afraid to, is that something that is--because
I am--I think I am saying we tell people it is criminal, but
really letting them know all of the things that are actually
going on so they feel like they are not alone and they can go
forward, that this has happened before, and, you know, to
report something criminally?
Ms. Lett. I can say, for our office, that is not our role.
Our role is to provide legal advice and guidance to employing
offices under the Congressional Accountability Act.
Mrs. Comstock. But is there anybody identifying when
something clearly is a crime?
Ms. Lett. I am not aware of that.
Mrs. Comstock. I think we may--that may be something we
really, Mr. Chairman, we really need to look at because it may
just be if you had a situation where somebody thought, ``Oh,
you know, I was out with the boss, this happened, it was my
fault,'' and we need to tell them, ``No, that wasn't your
fault.''
Ms. Speier. Will the gentlelady yield? Would you yield?
Mrs. Comstock. Yes. Yes.
Ms. Speier. One of the components of the legislation that
will be introduced would have the victim be represented by a
special victim's counsel, much like, in the military now, we
have created that mechanism for victims of sexual assault.
Mrs. Comstock. And then, but also--because I know at that
point--but somebody sort of having that intermediary
determination, like: Here's all the different places you can
go. Here's a crime. Here you can have somebody. But also have
somebody to talk it out with before we, you know, you decide
what to do, the individual, so that they feel like they are
covered more in some way. So maybe we can discuss that.
Ms. Speier. Well, ostensibly, that is what the counseling
component, that first 30 days of what is called counseling is
actually legal counseling. It can be 1 day. It can be 1 hour.
But it ostensibly takes place there. But, again, I am not
convinced that the system we have in place protects the victim
at all.
Mrs. Comstock. Yeah. Agreed.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The Chair will now recognize the gentleman
from North Carolina, Mr. Walker, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Walker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your
prompt leadership in this very, certainly, important issue.
I would like to thank my colleagues for their earlier
testimony and all the people that have spoken on this. It is a
very important issue. And I am grateful to stand with such
stanch advocates in our work to make the House of
Representatives a respectful and safe environment for our
fellow colleagues.
As a minister, a pastor for nearly two decades, sadly, I
have heard too many similar stories over the years. This type
of behavior should never be tolerated here or in any other work
environments. I believe that we should lead by example and set
the tone for the Nation. And in leading by example, I was
encouraged by our chairman to strongly encourage members of
this Committee--so we have gone, certainly our entire staff. I
am also chairman of the Republican Study Committee. So all 28
staffers, as well as myself, have gone through some of the very
clear and productive training. And I hope that that will lead
to even more.
But Ms. Childs Wallace, early this month, the Board of
Directors wrote to the Speaker of the House and the President
pro tem reiterating its call for mandatory antidiscrimination
and antiharassment training. Is mandatory training the most
effective deterrent to the problem of sexual harassment?
Ms. Childs Wallace. It is one component of it. I think that
leadership from within each office is also important and
letting the employees know where they can go to complain is
vitally important. But mandatory training is one very important
component of trying to stop this.
Mr. Walker. You say one very important part. In your
research, are you able to boil down or identify what you would
say is the most effective component of this?
Ms. Childs Wallace. Probably mandatory training.
Mr. Walker. Okay. All right. Is there any other deterrent
that you would believe would be equal or a part of this
process?
Ms. Childs Wallace. Well, like I said, posting these
notices and letting people know who we are and where they can
go is important. And then leadership from the top as to what is
appropriate and not appropriate.
Mr. Walker. I believe, if I am correct, also cited in this
letter to the Board of Directors, this recommendation has been
made since 1996. Is that correct?
Ms. Childs Wallace. We have made it many, many times. And I
can't give you the exact number, but it is in our biennial
reports that we recommend this.
Mr. Walker. Well, can you tell me, was it first identified
in 1996, or did earlier prompts of concerns kind of get this
thing moving?
Ms. Childs Wallace. I was not on the Board until 1999. So,
prior to that, I can't tell you necessarily.
Mr. Walker. We don't have any records or evidence or----
Ms. Childs Wallace. We do have records. And if the
Committee would like, we can go back and look at all of our
102(b) reports and give you the exact dates that we made this
recommendation.
Mr. Walker. All right. Fair enough.
Ms. Lett, in your opinion, what improvements can be made to
the adjudication process administered by the Congressional
Accountability Act?
Ms. Lett. I have, I guess, a different take than what seems
to be happening or the position. I think it is a very effective
process. We have lots and lots of cases that are resolved
through that process. Employment cases in general, the
overwhelming majority are resolved before full-blown
litigation. And I think the statistic is 85 percent of
employment cases are resolved before full-blown litigation.
I believe in this process. I mentioned this before, that
once someone goes to the Office of Compliance and we engage in
mediation, we may be hearing about the problem for the first
time. But we do an investigation, and we get to the bottom of
what is going on, and we make recommendations to the office for
corrective action. So, as I said, I believe in the process as
mandated by the statute. And I think it works very effectively
to address the issue of sexual harassment just as it does for
other forms of harassment and discrimination under title VII.
Mr. Walker. Thank you for your responses.
With that, I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Nebraska,
Mr. Smith, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And certainly thank you to our witnesses, our Members, as
well, for bringing insight and expertise to these very serious
issues.
We have talked a lot about the prevention--preventative
measures that can or should be taken. I was wondering if you
could speak more to what types of resources, whether it is
funding or other resources, that either one of you think would
help empower individuals throughout these processes?
Ms. Childs Wallace. I appreciate your asking that question.
Let me put it in the context of the Office of Compliance: If we
are tasked with mandatory training throughout Capitol Hill, we,
right now, have two employees who work on training along with
other issues. It is going to be vitally important that we
obtain funding to add what we figure is probably three more
FTEs to help us do the training. So that is one thing--and also
help with our IT process in the office. Like I said, we are a
very, very small office.
Other things, I think that training that both of us do,
those are the resources that are just essential.
Mr. Smith. Ms. Lett.
Ms. Lett. For my office, we do a lot of training. We have
gotten a lot of training requests in the last several weeks. We
do the training here and again in the district offices. We have
ramped up our training efforts. So we have multiple trainings
occurring in any given day. We have ordered additional
equipment, and that seems to be working very well.
But I think if, ultimately, the decision is that there is
going to be a requirement of mandatory training--and I really
urge that for management--we may also need to have some
additional staff hired to get that all accomplished.
Mr. Smith. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
The chair will now recognize Congresswoman Brooks for 5
minutes.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Lett, you talked about the large majority involve
staff-on-staff issues. Can you share with us at what point in
the process the Member is informed when a staffer comes to OHEC
and initiates the process with OHEC? When is the Member brought
into the process?
Ms. Lett. The Member is really brought into the process
from the very beginning because, if an employee goes to a
supervisor, management, that is going to go up the chain of
command, and the Member will be informed. So we will get calls
from a chief of staff who has told us that they have already
spoken with the Member, or we will get calls directly from the
Member.
Mrs. Brooks. And if it involves a chief of staff?
Ms. Lett. If it involves a chief of staff, we would
typically get the call directly from the Member.
Mrs. Brooks. But if a staffer had come into OHEC directly,
would you call the Member if it involved a chief of staff?
Ms. Lett. Actually, we don't talk directly to staffers.
That is not our role because we are lawyers for the employing
office. So, if a staffer calls, we essentially will encourage
them to go back to their management and speak to them because
management can address a lot of these issues. And if they are
not satisfied with that, then they can go to the Office of
Compliance. But the only time we talk directly to employees is
when we do training, employee training.
Mrs. Brooks. And if you do get that inquiry from a staff
member and you do not hear from anyone after that, does
anything happen?
Ms. Lett. We do do followup with offices to let them know
that we have heard from someone and that there may be an issue
in their office that they need to take a look at.
Mrs. Brooks. And for both of you, you both mentioned large
percentages of resolutions, resolutions prior to litigation or
in lieu of litigation. Can you give us examples of resolutions?
Ms. Lett. Well, I can speak to that. If there is an
allegation that a coworker is making inappropriate statements
in the workplace or sending an inappropriate text or email or
something of that nature, we will have the employing office, a
management employee, talk with both the person who is
complaining about the behavior and the person who is the
harasser to get to the bottom of what is going on and then
figure out what the appropriate steps may be to address the
behavior. And that could include counseling. That can include
training. We do one-on-one training quite a bit, actually. That
can include training for the staff. And it may also include
some type of disciplinary action, a letter of reprimand,
suspension without pay, and, for the more egregious cases, of
course, termination.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you.
Anything else, Ms. Childs Wallace, that you would like to
add with respect to resolution?
Ms. Childs Wallace. Sometimes in counseling, if we look at
it not necessarily in the harassment context, but if someone
came in and said, ``I am not afforded the same kind of training
as the males in my office,'' it could be as easy as, once the
employer is informed about it, they say, ``We didn't know you
wanted it; you know, yes, let's get you on the next training on
this.'' And that is a more simple resolution that doesn't
require payments of money and a settlement or something like
that.
In a sex harassment context, it could be changing who your
supervisor is, moving you to a different position or moving the
alleged harasser to a different position so that there is no
longer within the line of supervision.
Ms. Lett. May I address that issue----
Mrs. Brooks. Yes.
Ms. Lett [continuing]. As to one additional point?
An important part of the resolution is to get back to the
person who complained to let them know that the office has
taken the matter very seriously, has looked into the matter,
and has taken appropriate action to make sure it stops, and to
remind that individual that they cannot be retaliated against,
and, if there is even the remote hint of retaliation, that they
should come back to management to take care of it.
Mrs. Brooks. And since I am here representing the Ethics
Committee in many ways, can you both mention any improvements
you might make relative to coordination with House Ethics
Committee? And do you inform a complainant of that option, of
pursuing their allegation at the Ethics Committee?
Ms. Childs Wallace. I have to admit I am not as familiar
with the Ethics procedures. I do know that if someone goes to
the Ethics Committee and wants to make a complaint about sexual
harassment, they are most likely directed to our office, which
I do believe is appropriate. But I would welcome any kind of
coordination between the Ethics Committee and the Office of
Compliance. I think that would be wonderful on this issue.
One thing that I would also like to say in the context of
all of this is we don't want to limit this training or the
Ethics coordination to just sex harassment. There are other
kinds of--it is the issue of the day and the most important
one. But there is harassment that occurs in other contexts,
whether it is racial harassment, disability harassment, that
the training should also address and try and stop. But, yes,
nothing excites us more than the fact that Congress right now
is looking at the issue from the standpoint of sex harassment.
Mrs. Brooks. Ms. Lett, any recommendation with respect to
Ethics?
Ms. Lett. One of the ideas I think that has been mentioned
is the idea that there be a record of the employees having
taken sexual harassment training, much like there is a record
created when we take ethics training. And so I think that would
be a great idea to coordinate with your committee to make sure
that those records are maintained to show that employees have,
indeed, received the training.
Ms. Childs Wallace. I agree with that a hundred percent. I
think that is good.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, again, for including
me. I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you. And I would also like to certainly
thank Congresswoman Speier and Congresswoman Brooks for joining
us today for this hearing. It has been very helpful to have
your participation.
Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days
to submit to the Chair additional written questions for the
witnesses which we will forward and ask the witnesses to
respond as promptly as possible so that it can be a part of the
record.
I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today.
I know that Mr. Brady joins me in saying that it is apparent
that mandatory training is a necessary first step to improving
the House's process to address sexual harassment in the
workplace.
The Committee will continue to review the testimony given
today, work with Members, and make additional recommendations
to strengthen the process to ensure that the congressional
workplace, which includes not only the Members of Congress and
their offices but includes all the officers of the House, the
Architect, the Capitol Police--all of these things have to be
included--Congressional Budget Office, and, of course, the
Office of Compliance. All of these things were included in 1995
when Congress passed the Congressional Accountability Act.
This type of behavior cannot be tolerated. And so I believe
that raising the awareness today, we should set the standard of
proper conduct in the workplace. And I hope this is the first
step to getting there.
Without objection----
Mr. Brady. Chairman Harper.
The Chairman. I will recognize Mr. Brady.
Mr. Brady. Just for one second. I just want to say
something to my colleague from California that I didn't agree
with you. You said this is an uncomfortable thing for us to do.
I have a wife, a daughter, two granddaughters, and a great
granddaughter. It is not uncomfortable. It is our moral
responsibility and obligation to protect somebody else's wife,
daughter, and granddaughters. So I thank you, and I thank you
for your courage.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Brady. And I associate myself
with your remarks that you just made.
Without objection, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:39 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]