[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                 OVERSIGHT OF SECTION 220 OF THE CONGRES-
                  SIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT: IMPLEMENTING 
                  THE RIGHTS OF CONGRESSIONAL STAFF TO 
                  COLLECTIVELY BARGAIN

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                           COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
                             ADMINISTRATION
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                             MARCH 2, 2022

                               __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration
      
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]      


                       Available on the Internet:
         http://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-administration
         
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
47-209                      WASHINGTON : 2022                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------   
        
         
                   COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION

                  ZOE LOFGREN, California, Chairperson
JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland               RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois,
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina      Ranking Member
PETE AGUILAR, California             BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia
MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania       BRYAN STEIL, Wisconsin
TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ, New Mexico
                            
                            
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                             MARCH 2, 2022

                                                                   Page
Oversight of Section 220 of the Congressional Accountability Act: 
  Implementing the Rights of Congressional Staff to Collectively 
  Bargain........................................................     1

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

Hon. Zoe Lofgren, Chairperson....................................     1
    Prepared statement of Chairperson Lofgren....................     4
Hon. Rodney Davis, Ranking Member................................     6
    Prepared statement of Mr. Davis..............................     8

                               WITNESSES

John D. Uelmen, General Counsel, Office of Congressional 
  Workplace Rights...............................................    10
    Prepared statement of Mr. Uelmen.............................    13
Mark Strand, President, The Congressional Institute..............    34
    Prepared statement of Mr. Strand.............................    37

                        QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD

John D. Uelmen, General Counsel, Office of Congressional 
  Workplace Rights, responses....................................    60
Mark Strand, President, The Congressional Institute, responses...   141

                       SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

August 11, 1994, The Washington Post, House Votes To Extend Laws 
  to Hill; Bill Gives Labor Rights to Congressional Staff; Senate 
  Passage Awaited, submission....................................   142
January 9, 1995, The New York Times, Congress, a Soon-to-be-Law 
  Says, Must Now Do Unto Itself as it Already Does Unto Others, 
  submission.....................................................   145
May 2, 1995, Congressional Research Service report, Congressional 
  Accountability Act of 1995, submission.........................   146
January 1, 2011, Office of Compliance, Labor Representation: 
  Collective Bargaining Rights in the Congressional Workplace, 
  submission.....................................................   199
March 2, 2022, Daniel Schuman, Policy Director, Demand Progress 
  Educational Fund, written statement, submission................   207
Hon. Andy Levin, Ninth District of Michigan, submission..........   211
December 1998, Senator Charles Grassley, Harvard Journal on 
  Legislation, submission........................................   213
February 8, 2022, Chairperson Zoe Lofgren letter to Board Chair 
  Barbara Childs Wallace, submission.............................   225
February 22, 2022, Board Chair Barbara Childs Wallace response 
  letter to Chairperson Lofgren February 8, 2022 letter, 
  submission.....................................................   227

 
   OVERSIGHT OF SECTION 220 OF THE CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT: 
 IMPLEMENTING THE RIGHTS OF CONGRESSIONAL STAFF TO COLLECTIVELY BARGAIN

                              ----------                              --
--------


                        WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 2022

                  House of Representatives,
                         Committee on House Administration,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:02 p.m., in Room 
1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Zoe Lofgren 
[Chairperson of the Committee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Lofgren, Raskin, Aguilar, Scanlon, 
Leger Fernandez, Davis, Loudermilk, and Steil.
    Staff Present: Jamie Fleet, Democratic Staff Director; Sean 
Jones, Professional Staff; Teri Morgan, Deputy Staff Director; 
Eddie Flaherty, Director of Operations; Hannah Carr, 
Professional Staff; Khalil Abboud, Deputy Democratic Staff 
Director; Lauren Doney, Rep. Raskin Deputy Chief of Staff; Kyle 
Parker, Rep. Butterfield Chief of Staff; Tim Monahan, Minority 
Staff Director; Nick Crocker, Minority Deputy Staff Director; 
Gineen Breeso, Minority Special Counsel; and Aubrey Wilson, 
Minority Special Projects Director.
    The Chairperson. A quorum being present, the Committee on 
House Administration will come order.
    We want to say good afternoon to everyone. As we begin, I 
want to note that we are holding this hearing both in person 
and remotely, and, therefore, in compliance with the 
regulations for remote committee proceedings pursuant to House 
Resolution 8.
    If you are joining remotely, please keep your microphone 
muted when not speaking to limit background noise and always 
keep your camera on.
    And for those joining us in the hearing room, we are 
holding this hearing in compliance with the most recent 
guidance issued by the Office of the Attending Physician. Let 
me just say, it is a relief to be back in person, and it is 
wonderful to be here safely with our extra ventilation and 
without our masks.
    So, with that, I ask unanimous consent that the chair be 
authorized to declare a recess of the Committee at any point, 
and that all Members have five legislative days in which to 
revise and extend their remarks and have any written statements 
be made part of the record. And, without objection, that is 
ordered.
    Now, let me just say, one of the first votes I cast as a 
brand-new member of the House of Representatives--it was late 
on my very first day in that Congress--was to pass the 
Congressional Accountability Act. Not a single Member of the 
House of Representatives voted against it.
    As someone who grew up in a union family, and as a former 
congressional staffer, and as a long-time advocate of workers' 
rights and protections, I was proud to cast that vote and proud 
to be part of an institution that sent a strong message to 
Legislative Branch employees and the American public by 
unanimously approving that bill.
    Less than two weeks later, we voted again on a very similar 
version of the bill sent to the House and Senate. Again, not a 
single member of the House voted against it, and that version 
of the bill was signed into law by then- President Bill 
Clinton.
    The CAA was a landmark bipartisan reform for the Congress. 
Until its enactment, Congress was exempt from workplace 
discrimination laws, and this included, for example, finally 
extending rights and protections of the Fair Labor Standards 
Act of 1938 to Legislative Branch employees.
    However, one provision of the bill we unanimously approved 
required additional action--the provision of the CAA that 
provided for Legislative Branch employees to organize and 
collectively bargain as employees in other workplaces can.
    That part of the law directed the new Office of Compliance, 
now called the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights, to 
recommend implementing regulations to the Congress which, when 
adopted, would take effect and permit employees to organize.
    The Office of Compliance did its part. The Office of 
Compliance carefully reviewed the issue, and after careful 
review and public notice, the office's Board of Directors 
recommended regulations that, as the law said should be the 
default, followed the substantive regulations already issued by 
the Federal Labor Relations Authority. These regulations as 
required by the CAA needed to be approved by Congress before 
they could be implemented.
    Our most recent oversight hearing on OCWR on November 19, 
2021, included discussion of the issue of unionization for 
congressional staff. During that hearing, Barbara Camens, a 
member of the OCWR Board of Directors, testified that, and I 
quote, those regulations were issued by our board 25 years ago, 
before the current iteration of the Board. We have not looked 
at them, we have not reexamined them, and we have not taken a 
position on them.
    Since our November 2021 hearing, there has been increased 
and significant attention to the issue of unionization of 
congressional staff and the 1996 regulations from both Members, 
staff, and the press.
    Accordingly, in continuing our oversight of this issue, I 
wrote to the OCWR Board and asked for their views of the 1996 
regulations. The Board responded on February 22, 2022, and said 
that following a fresh review of the regulations the board 
originally recommended, OCWR continues to support them and 
endorses their adoption.
    And, without objection, I ask that my February 8, 2022, 
letter to the OCWR and the Board's February 22 response be 
inserted into the record.
    The Chairperson. Two important principal goals of the 
Congressional Accountability Act were to improve the work 
environment for legislative branch staff and provide them with 
the same rights and protections afforded to workers in other 
sectors, and to ensure that Congress operates under the laws it 
enacts for private sector workplaces.
    We took important steps forward in a bipartisan basis in 
passing the original CAA, and we again acted together on a 
bipartisan basis to add additional reforms, including 
strengthening protections for staff, and increasing 
accountability for Members in recent years with this Committee 
playing a lead role.
    However, Congress has still failed to follow through on an 
important part of the law, and that would provide Legislative 
Branch staff with the option to organize but only if they 
choose.
    It is well past time for Congress to follow through on that 
promise. Today's hearing is an important opportunity to learn 
more specific aspects of the CAA and Congress' options for 
moving forward.
    I would now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Davis, for 
any opening comments he may have.
    [The statement of Chairperson Lofgren follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Davis. Well, thank you, Madam Chairperson, for holding 
this hearing on this topic, but I am just glad that we are back 
here too. I mean, I feel like--you mentioned 1995, party like 
it is 1995 here in the hearing room again, frankly, party like 
it is February of 2020. I like this. I think this is our way of 
getting Congress to get back to normal and get back to more 
bipartisanship.
    It is refreshing to have the majority talk about this topic 
before it goes to the Floor for a vote and especially on an 
issue that is this impactful to our institution.
    I do want to begin by stating that I believe unions can and 
do play an important role in helping to facilitate a fair 
working environment in many industries across America.
    During my time in Congress, I have been a strong supporter 
of Davis-Bacon provisions. I have supported union workers 
throughout my district, including the laborers, the carpenters, 
the operating engineers, and the mine workers, as well as many 
others in the building trades and outside the building trades. 
I have also been a supporter of existing unions here on Capitol 
Hill, in places where they make sense, like the Capitol Police 
or the Architect of the Capitol, other labor and trade unions.
    Democrats say they have called this hearing to discuss the 
status of congressional staff. Considering that they have held 
the majority for three years, this is long overdue as the first 
hearing of any standing committee to seriously discuss any 
improvements to Hill staff pay and working conditions.
    Now that the majority is finally talking about these 
issues, they are focusing on unworkable, impractical ideas like 
congressional staff unionization, collective bargaining for 
people who already have some of the best benefits in the 
country.
    Unions do a lot of good to ensure hardworking folks across 
the country can earn a great middle-class living, but they are 
simply not feasible for congressional offices. Not only do most 
congressional staff already have the benefits most unions fight 
for, voting to unionize Congressional offices and committees 
would create serious problems and lead to even more dysfunction 
in Washington.
    Congress' unique office structure, fluctuating partisan 
balance, unpredictable schedule changes, and unavoidable 
turnover due to elections make unions impractical in our 
offices and committees. This is a concept that could create 
numerous conflicts of interest and impact members' 
constitutional responsibilities to the American people without 
the guarantee that any improvements for staff well-being would 
materialize.
    As a former Congressional staffer myself, I understand the 
unique working situation that all staff face. I know both the 
incredible opportunities and challenges of being on that side 
of a congressional office.
    Like Members of Congress, staff are public servants. They 
are essential to the Legislative Branch, and our country is 
fortunate to have the benefit of their unique expertise and 
skill sets. We need to set realistic expectations of what 
unionizing in Congress would accomplish, which is to say very 
little.
    First, there is no employment law gap for Congressional 
staff.
    Second, staff unionization would fail to address one of 
staffers' main issues: low staff pay. Not only does Federal law 
prevent this, union dues would simply take more from their 
paychecks without any assurance that improvement to staffers' 
work environment would come to fruition.
    Further, congressional staff are all political appointees, 
not part of the Civil Service, and unionization would not 
change that. In other words, collective bargaining would simply 
add unworkable, additional layers without achieving much of 
anything.
    Yet we acknowledge that there is more work that needs to be 
done to improve staff well-being. Both Chairperson Lofgren and 
I are members of the Select Committee on the Modernization of 
Congress, where we have had multiple conversations on how to 
improve the recruitment, treatment, and retention of staff.
    This Committee has implemented several of these 
recommendations stemming from those conversations, for example, 
instituting the HR Help, the one-stop shop for human resource 
information for the whole House.
    However, there are more recommendations that this Committee 
should consider. Instead of focusing on those, this hearing is 
only focusing on one narrow, unworkable pathway, rather than 
all the possible solutions that could directly address the 
concerns raised by staff.
    After silence for nearly thirty years on these regulations, 
OCWR and the outgoing majority want to implement them 
overnight, without appropriate consideration. We need to 
approach this issue with eyes wide open, have all our questions 
answered before committing to a course of action.
    Our staff and this institution deserve better, as do the 
American people. This Committee should focus on regular 
oversight of these issues and review the recommendations from 
the Modernization Committee.
    Unions, again, many whom I have worked with on Capitol Hill 
and off, in government and outside of government, they play an 
important role in many workplaces. They just aren't the right 
answer for Congressional offices.
    I yield back.
    [The statement of Mr. Davis follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
    Other Members are invited to submit any opening statements 
for the record.
    I would now like to welcome our witnesses. Our first 
witness is John Uelmen, who is the General Counsel for the 
Office of Congressional Workplace Rights. Mr. Uelmen previously 
served at OCWR as acting General Counsel, Deputy General 
Counsel, and Supervising Attorney. In December of 2015, the 
Board of Directors appointed him as the General Counsel.
    In his capacity as the General Counsel, Mr. Uelmen is 
responsible for investigating and enforcing violations of the 
labor laws in the CAA, as well as ensuring compliance with 
health and safety and public access laws that are included in 
the CAA.
    Prior to working with the OCWR, Mr. Uelmen prosecuted labor 
and employment cases before administrative tribunals, trial 
courts, and courts of appeal, for more than twenty years in 
Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
    We welcome you, Mr. Uelmen.
    And our second witness is Mark Strand, who is President of 
the Congressional Institute. The Institute produces resources 
such as a House Floor procedures manual and a survival guide 
for congressional staff.
    Mr. Strand has served as president since 2007, and is also 
an adjunct professor of legislative affairs at George 
Washington University's Graduate School of Political 
Management. He is the co-author of the book ``Surviving Inside 
Congress.''
    And like some of us, Mr. Strand is also a former 
congressional staffer, having spent nearly 24 years on Capitol 
Hill in both the House and Senate, most recently serving as the 
Chief of Staff to former Senator Jim Talent.
    On behalf of the Committee, I really want to thank both of 
our witnesses for their long-standing interest in improving the 
Legislative Branch and for being willing to share their 
thoughts with us today.
    I would remind the witnesses that their entire written 
statements will be made part of the record, and we would ask 
that you confine your oral testimony to about five-minutes.
    So first, Mr. Uelmen, we are happy to recognize you.
    Could you pull the microphone just a little bit closer? 
There we go.
    Mr. Uelmen. All right.
    The Chairperson. Much better.

 STATEMENTS OF MR. JOHN D. UELMEN, GENERAL COUNSEL, OFFICE OF 
CONGRESSIONAL WORKPLACE RIGHTS, WASHINGTON, D.C.; AND MR. MARK 
         STRAND, PRESIDENT, THE CONGRESSIONAL INSTITUTE

                  STATEMENT OF JOHN D. UELMEN

    Mr. Uelmen. Okay. Thank you for this opportunity to speak 
with you today about implementing the rights of congressional 
staff to collectively bargain under Section 220 of the 
Congressional Accountability Act.
    As you know, I am the General Counsel of the Office of 
Congressional Workplace Rights, and under the CAA, I have 
specific statutory responsibilities with respect to Section 
220. I know that many of you have questions about today's 
topic, so I will keep my oral statement brief.
    Prior to the hearing, I did provide the Committee with a 
detailed written statement and a document from my office 
containing answers to frequently asked questions about 
unionization and collective bargaining.
    In my written statement, I tried to provide you with three 
types of information concerning the past, the present, and the 
possible future, if a resolution approving the OCWR regulations 
is passed by the House.
    Regarding the past, I provided some background information 
about the regulations approved by the board in 1996, how lack 
of congressional approval of these regulations affects the 
collective bargaining rights of congressional staff under 
Section 220, and how the current board responded to the 
Chairperson's recent inquiry as to whether the 1996 regulations 
are still being recommended for approval given the changes made 
to the CAA in the Reform Act.
    As you know, the members are now unanimous in recommending 
that the regulations adopted by the 1996 board be approved by 
Congress. The statutory procedures under Section 220 were not 
changed by the Reform Act, and the regulations are not obsolete 
because of changes in the House or the Senate since 1996.
    Regarding the present, I noted the pending approval 
resolution now before this Committee and suggested some steps 
the Committee might take regarding the language. I also 
provided a brief explanation about how unionization and 
collective bargaining currently operate under the OCWR 
regulations that were approved and issued in 1996 and which 
apply to other staff in the legislative branch, since these are 
the same regulations that would apply to congressional staff if 
the House were to approve the pending regulations that the 
board has not yet been able to issue.
    These regulations contain procedures that are able to 
resolve representation questions, such as who must be included 
or excluded from a bargaining unit, as well as negotiability 
and all other issues.
    Finally, regarding the future, I tried to answer some of 
the big picture questions about how unionization and collective 
bargaining might work if the rights of congressional staff 
would be implemented in the House. Because the definition of 
employing office in the CAA and because most decisions 
regarding staff working conditions are made by the management 
of each Member office, unions would have to organize at the 
Member and committee office level. There cannot be one 
bargaining unit for most House employees because the House of 
Representatives itself is not an employing office.
    On the other hand, it would be possible to have more than 
one bargaining unit in an employing office. For example, 
committees would likely have two bargaining units which would 
be split by party affiliation.
    Since I have noticed a change in the type of questions I 
have been receiving in the last few days, I also want to talk 
briefly about the duty to bargain under the Federal Service 
Labor-Management Relations Statute, most of which is 
incorporated into Section 220. For convenience, I am going to 
refer to this as the statute.
    The duty to bargain is very limited under the statute. It 
is nothing like what exists in the private sector under the 
National Labor Relations Act. When we talk about the duty to 
bargain, we are talking about proposals made by a union that 
management must bargain over.
    Under the statute, the only mandatory subject of bargaining 
is over conditions of employment, which is defined in the 
statute as personnel practices, policies, and matters, whether 
established by rule, regulation, or otherwise, affecting 
working conditions. And that is in Section 7103(a)(14).
    In addition, there is a broad prohibition against proposals 
contrary to law and a very expansive definition of management 
rights in Section 71(6)(a) that prevents mandatory bargaining 
on any proposal that would keep management or severely restrict 
management's right to do such things as determining its 
mission, budget, organization, number of employees, internal 
security, hiring and firing, disciplining, and making job 
assignments. So many of the bread-and-butter issues that labor 
unions can compel management to bargain over in the private 
sector are usually off the table for Federal employees under 
this statute.
    The union can, under certain circumstances, compel 
bargaining over procedures which management will use when 
exercising a management right or appropriating arrangements for 
employees adversely affected by the exercise of a management 
right, but this is a far more limited form of bargaining than 
what exists in the private sector.
    [The statement of Mr. Uelmen follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    The Chairperson. Thank you, Mr. Uelmen. Your time has 
expired, but your full written report is available. It will be 
on our website, not only for the Members, but for staff and 
other interested members of the public to thoroughly review. We 
do appreciate it, and we will hold you available for questions 
after we hear from Mr. Strand, who will now be recognized 
remotely for five minutes.
    Mr. Strand.

                    STATEMENT OF MARK STRAND

    Mr. Strand. Thank you, Chairperson Lofgren and Ranking 
Member Davis and other Members of the Committee. Thank you for 
inviting me to testify on the issue of congressional staff 
unionization.
    I believe unionizing would ultimately harm Congress and 
inhibit the work of elected Representatives and threaten their 
independence. I want to make clear, though, that I am not 
against labor unions. I am the son of a union shop steward. As 
a former staffer who served in the House and Senate for 24 
years, I am mindful of the often challenging circumstances of 
being a congressional employee.
    My written testimony contains a lot of open-ended questions 
that need to be answered before taking a single step towards 
allowing employee unions among your staff. Because once you 
start down this road, you might find it extremely difficult to 
turn back.
    For the first hundred years of our government, Congress 
didn't have staff. It wasn't until a joint committee in the 
1970s pushed through a number of reforms that modernized 
Congress that we arrived at the current number of staffers 
working for individual Members.
    I mention this because citizens do not elect staff. They 
elect a single individual to represent them. Members then are 
given broad latitude to hire the staff they think will best 
serve their constituents.
    The Executive Branch currently has more than two million 
employees, plus 4,000 political appointees, all of whom help 
the President execute his agenda. For Congress to compete, it 
requires strong individual legislators. We empower Members to 
organize in offices based on the unique needs of their 
district.
    The independence of each individual Member is the key to 
Article I powers invested in the Legislative Branch through our 
Constitution. Our system of government was intentionally 
created to invest significant power in individual lawmakers. By 
contrast, the political parties in the parliamentary system 
control most staff, which serves as a check against individual 
Members, showing independence from party leaders. To give up 
that kind of independence that is engrained in our system would 
put Congress at an even greater disadvantage against the 
Executive Branch.
    The essential problem with unionization is that the union 
will share control over terms and conditions of employment with 
the elected Representative that intersect at vital points with 
the ability of a Member to represent his or her constituents.
    A classic example is the right to discharge an employee. A 
lawmaker hires a legislative aide to assist with that Member's 
primary committee assignment. The aide performs adequately on 
most issues but develops a contentious relationship with 
committee staff which, in turn, threatens the Member's ability 
to participate in the committee process.
    Is there a just cause to discharge the employee and hire 
someone who can get along with the committee staff and thereby 
ensure the Member's legislative agenda is achieved? How do you 
prove that in grievance procedure? Do you get affidavits from 
committee staff?
    What if, while that process is going on, the committee is 
passing a comprehensive reauthorization that won't occur again 
for another ten years? How will the Member explain to voters 
that internal staff disputes led to legislative failures but 
that Member still deserves to be reelected?
    What if the staff member performs their job functions well 
enough but makes a very poor impression on constituents, like a 
front desk person who has difficulty making people feel 
welcome? What if the scheduler makes periodic mistakes that 
embarrass the office with double booking meetings or not 
factoring in travel times in the district? How many mistakes 
are enough to justify replacement?
    Unionization would require uniform jobs in each office 
ultimately, which would take an incredible amount of agency 
away from lawmakers. Right now, a staff assistant in one office 
might also be a press assistant, but in another, she oversees 
interns or handles one or two smaller policy issues.
    How would standardizing the job of a staff assistant help 
young employees learn the other roles needed in a Capitol Hill 
office?
    A union, under the guise of improving workplace conditions, 
might enforce labor hours, but congressional committee 
schedules can vary from week to week, even day to day. 
Washington, D.C. staff can put in long hours during session, 
but during recess periods, it is the district staff who is no 
longer working traditional nine to five, and instead is 
staffing their boss at breakfast, dinners, and weekend events. 
These are the normal feast or famine hours for congressional 
staff.
    But if union decides that such long hours are detrimental, 
what happens then? How is a Member sufficiently served when 
someone other than she and the chief of staff determine when 
employees can work within reasonable limits? What happens to a 
committee if a markup runs long or extends into the morning 
hours? Are time-sensitive negotiations put on hold because 
staff must remain off the job for certain periods to comply 
with union mandates?
    Senator Robert Byrd, a supporter of unions, spoke against 
Capitol Hill unions. He said, Senators will no longer have the 
ability to structure and manage their staffs consistent with 
the unique needs of the States which they represent without 
first consulting with union representatives.
    Congressional staffers, just like Members, get pulled to 
public service. Working conditions can certainly be improved, 
but the correct approach is robust oversight through this 
Committee or even by looking at what your colleagues on the 
Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress have done.
    Discretion over things like salary levels, job 
responsibilities, titles, hours to a reasonable extent, among a 
myriad of other issues, need to be left to the Members 
themselves.
    Thank you for inviting me to testify.
    [The statement of Mr. Strand follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    The Chairperson. Thank you very much, Mr. Strand.
    And now is the time when Members of the Committee can ask 
questions for as long as five-minutes, and I will turn first to 
the Ranking Member, Mr. Davis, for his questions.
    Mr. Davis. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
    Mr. Strand, I appreciate you being our witness today and 
great to see you again. You mentioned in your testimony, did I 
hear you correctly, that former Senator Byrd from West Virginia 
did not support unionizing congressional employees because of 
the unique office type of experience?
    Mr. Strand. Yes, that is correct. And, of course, Senator 
Byrd was a strong supporter of unions in West Virginia, but he 
just felt----
    Mr. Davis. That is what I was going to ask you.
    Mr. Strand. Yes.
    Mr. Davis. Has he ever been accused of being anti-union?
    Mr. Strand. No. He just didn't think it would work on 
Capitol Hill. The reason for that, as you know, he was a great 
institutionalist of Congress, and what he said was that they 
will no longer have the ability to structure and manage their 
staff consistent with the unique needs of their States.
    Because this is a unique relationship. When you are elected 
by the voters, they elect you; and whenever you invite somebody 
else into that process of how you are represented, whether it 
is staff or a union representative or someone else, you are 
necessarily getting in between the Member and their 
constituents. And this is a dangerous place to be, because it 
already undermines the ability of Members to do the job the way 
they think it is best for their district.
    Mr. Davis. And former Senator Byrd, who had some other 
unique historical perspectives, felt this way, that it would 
disrupt the--could impact the legislative process and also 
maybe disrupt the congressional process that we follow here in 
the House?
    Mr. Strand. Yes. And I think this is----
    Mr. Davis. Do you agree?
    Mr. Strand. Yes. I think he agreed with that statement, and 
I agree with your assessment there.
    The biggest challenge continually is that what is the 
leverage that unions would have? Auto workers make automobiles, 
and so their leverage is to stop making automobiles in a 
strike.
    Legislative staff make legislation. Caseworkers do 
casework. Staff assistants perform constituent services. And 
these are all at the--but they don't do them independently. 
They do them at the express direction of the Member of Congress 
who hires them.
    So once you invite somebody else into that process, there 
is multiple influences generating how they perform their duties 
serving constituents. And this is where the problem comes for 
the independence of individual Members of Congress.
    Mr. Davis. Well, listen, I know you mentioned the Select 
Committee on the Modernization of Congress and recommendations. 
I think you and I both agree that some of those recommendations 
ought to be discussed at this Committee's level.
    So I appreciate your time today, Mark. It is great to see 
you again and give my best to your family too.
    Mr. Uelmen, I was very impressed with your resume until I 
saw that you actually went to a law school that let my 
colleague Mr. Steil in. So a little lower there knowing that 
you both went to the University of Wisconsin-Madison Law 
School.
    Mr. Steil. Hey, hey.
    Mr. Davis. No, I will not yield, Mr. Steil.
    In a letter from February 22 of 2022, from Barbara Childs 
Wallace to Chairperson Lofgren, she stated that the board urges 
Congress to approve these regulations. Do you think it is the 
proper role for OCWR to advocate for the adoption of certain 
policies?
    Mr. Uelmen. Well, I think it is the position of the board 
that the policies have already been decided by the 
Congressional Accountability Act. I mean, I think it is 
Congress' role to determine the policy. The Congressional 
Accountability Act clearly provides that these rights exist for 
employees, and it is just a technicality that they haven't been 
implemented for congressional staff. So, if Congress does not 
believe that unionization is something good for Congress, they 
should pass legislation that says that. I don't think the CAA 
says that.
    Mr. Davis. Has OCWR crafted a handbook or guidance on the 
organization and management of unions in the House of 
Representatives?
    Mr. Uelmen. Well, it is going to be a challenge, you know--
--
    Mr. Davis. So the answer is no?
    Mr. Uelmen. No. I mean, I think we had a challenge with the 
Reform Act, and we met that challenge. I think the same thing 
would be true with this effort, you know, with--and, again, it 
is very hard to predict exactly how many petitions we are going 
to get.
    I mean, it is going to be extremely difficult for a union 
to organize, and it is going to be even more difficult to get a 
collective bargaining agreement, so----
    Mr. Davis. Well, again, another question. My time is 
running short. I apologize Mr. Uelmen. It was announced during 
an OCWR-hosted brown bag lunch last week that your office is 
compiling a resource of frequently asked questions. Is this 
correct?
    Mr. Uelmen. Yes. In fact, it is up on our website.
    Mr. Davis. All right. It is just inexcusable that the only 
guidance your office is offering is FAQs. It is clear that 
there are a lot of unknowns and that your office hasn't 
provided the necessary information for staff and employing 
authorities alike for them to fully understand the impacts of 
what we are discussing today.
    So, with that, Madam Chairperson, I am out of time, and I 
yield back.
    The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
    I believe that Mr. Raskin is joining us remotely. I would 
recognize Mr. Raskin if that is correct.
    Mr. Raskin is not appearing on our screen, so I will turn 
to Mr. Aguilar, who is also, I understand, participating 
remotely. Mr. Aguilar would be recognized.
    Oh, apparently, Mr. Raskin was trying to log on, so we will 
go back to Mr. Raskin, to recognize him remotely.
    Mr. Raskin.
    Apparently he has lost the feed. So we will go to Ms. 
Scanlon, who is here in person for her questions. And hopefully 
the two remote Members, who they noted, both of them, publicly, 
have tested positive for COVID and have to participate 
remotely, will be able to reconnect.
    Ms. Scanlon.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, Chairperson Lofgren, for holding 
this important hearing, and thank you to our witnesses for 
being here. Obviously, this is a topic of intense interest, 
both on the Hill and off, and I really welcome the opportunity 
to dig into this a little bit.
    I have worked for many years in the legal services field, 
and many of the arguments we are hearing here are similar to 
the arguments that we heard when legal services lawyers tried 
to organize. Also, there are many of the same reasons why legal 
services lawyers tried to organize.
    If you look at their union, as they started talking to each 
other, they found out that they had widely shared concerns. 
Resources were problematic. Workers from around the country 
found that their working conditions weren't great. There were 
problems with hours and treatment and those kind of things, 
some of the things we see right here in Congress, where, as has 
been mentioned, the working conditions are not always ideal.
    So I do welcome the opportunity to talk about what are the 
barriers to unionization, so that they can be addressed, and 
what can we do to make it easier.
    I too have served on the Committee, the Select Committee on 
the Modernization of Congress, and we have had many, many 
discussions about things that need to be done to make life on 
the Hill more livable for everyone.
    I was really interested in reading, in the May 23, 1996, 
Congressional Record, there was debate about staff unionization 
efforts that could not include pay, health insurance, or 
retirement benefits. These are typically things that people 
negotiate with through their unions. So can you talk a little 
bit about that, just so it is clear to people.
    Mr. Uelmen. Sure. And that was the point I was trying to 
make about how limited both the duty to bargain is as well as 
the scope of bargaining is under the statute. So really what I 
would call the bread-and-butter issues really cannot be 
bargained under the statute because they are usually determined 
by law or they would infringe upon a management right, so----
    Ms. Scanlon. And can you compare or contrast that to how 
other Federal employees are treated?
    Mr. Uelmen. It is really the same.
    Ms. Scanlon. Okay.
    Mr. Uelmen. You know, there may be more opportunity in 
Congress, simply because there are less laws that regulate, you 
know, some of these areas, you know, so--and then those 
opportunities would probably have to be decided by the board, 
you know, by a petition. But for the most part, those are the 
same restrictions that are on all other Federal employees, so--
--
    Ms. Scanlon. So what do you see as the greatest impediments 
to unionization that would need to be addressed?
    Mr. Uelmen. Well, I am not sure some of them can be 
addressed. As I said, unions would have to organize them on the 
Member level. So you can't have one Member for one bargaining 
unit for everybody in Congress.
    Now, there are ways that you can collectively bargain with 
multiple employers. So, if a union was able to organize 
multiple offices and the management of those offices agreed to 
bargain collectively with the union, you can come up with 
either a master agreement or a lead agreement that would apply 
to all of the offices.
    So, I mean that is something that management would have to 
decide, and that would be something where the union would have 
to, you know, be able to--one union would have to be able to 
organize multiple offices, so----
    Ms. Scanlon. So that would be similar to implementing model 
employment rules----
    Mr. Uelmen. Sure, sure. I mean----
    Ms. Scanlon [continuing]. For the offices?
    Mr. Uelmen. I mean, this is something, like, for instance, 
that happens a lot in the construction industry where you have 
multiple small employers. So there is a master agreement that 
all of them have signed onto----
    Ms. Scanlon. Right.
    Mr. Uelmen [continuing]. You know, so----
    Ms. Scanlon. Okay. It is just really interesting to tease 
it out, especially this idea that it would have to be office by 
office. So if we can only have 16 employees, some of whom are 
part time, whatever, those are pretty small units, but there 
could be a greater collective bargaining space.
    I am very interested in the organization movement. I 
represent southeastern Pennsylvania. That is union country like 
no other, and it has served our country well. It has built the 
middle class, and we have seen how the rollback of the ability 
to organize and collectively bargain has really hurt our middle 
class. I am really, really heartened by the fact that we are 
seeing a resurgence in interest in organizing around the 
country, in places where people previously said it was 
impossible, like legal services, although that has existed for 
a while; like Starbucks, for example. So I am interested in 
teasing out what we can do in this area, so thank you.
    The Chairperson. The gentlelady yields.
    The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Loudermilk. Well, thank you, Madam Chairperson. 
Appreciate the opportunity to be here today, and this is an 
important issue, and it is important that we discuss these 
issues.
    I think this is a solution looking for a problem, and--but 
still, an idea is an idea, and we have to look at it 
reasonably. Another committee I am on, we took on a nonsensical 
idea, the Post Office becoming a bank. So as we went through 
the process, we realized, I think everybody realized that was 
not a good idea. I think we do need to look at this.
    But there are several pitfalls that unionization would have 
that would--and I agree with Senator Byrd. The uniqueness of 
this institution requires flexibility. It requires each 
individual office to meet the unique needs of its constituency. 
It is not just State by State, it is district by district.
    A homogenous type of operation, I think, would create many 
more problems, and those who would suffer from that would be 
the constituency of the people in America. I even think back of 
what happens when the staffers decide to go on strike right at 
the end of a government shutdown and we can't really function 
here? I mean, these are the types of things that, ah, you are 
crazy. Well, there is crazier things that have happened in the 
world, and we must think through these.
    My office is very transitional, you may say, in the way 
that we have operated. My staff and what they do now is 
different than the staff that I had when I first came in. I 
have made up positions to meet the unique needs of our 
district. As Georgia's economy has grown, even after the 
pandemic, we have grown substantially.
    Many, many more new businesses are coming into the State, 
so I created a staff position for someone to go and just 
introduce themselves to new businesses and new organizations to 
let them know how we can represent them and work with them.
    So, the duties in my office is based on the strength, the 
talent, and the interest of each staff member. I have at one 
time, I had a scheduler here and a scheduler in the district. 
My scheduler in the district also took on other duties when I 
was up here. I may have a legislative correspondent who also 
works as a staff assistant, or I have one right now that is a 
legislative correspondent and is working as a legislative 
assistant because they have an interest there, but they still 
like doing the legislative correspondent work.
    We actually look at the interest and the talent of every 
member, and we know how to best operate our office, and we 
transition as needed.
    So, Mr. Strand, unions appear to be more effective. Now, I 
am in a right-to-work State of Georgia. The unions we have in 
Georgia are predominantly in larger businesses, larger 
construction companies, larger industries. You very rarely find 
unionization in the small businesses because, quite frankly, 
the employees don't want to be unionized, and the uniqueness of 
each small business is they must have the flexibility within 
their staff. The makeup of Congress, because of the way the MRA 
is done, the way that we do our own hiring, is we operate more 
as individual, small businesses.
    So, Mr. Strand, the independence of each individual member 
is key to the Article I power invested in the Legislative 
Branch. Can you elaborate on that and what some of the pitfalls 
of a homogenous-type operation would be?
    Mr. Strand. Well, thank you, sir. I think that it goes back 
to the whole central issue that if you have another interest 
negotiating the terms--the control and terms of conditions of 
employment besides yourself, that voters are getting someone 
they didn't vote for. And this is the challenge continually is 
that I do staff retreats all over, and every office is 
different.
    Every Member has their own unique needs in their districts. 
They do things differently, from outreach to casework to the 
legislative staff and setup. So, the uniqueness of the office 
is based on your unique relationship with the voters. And 
therefore I think it is just not practical to do it, especially 
on an office-by-office level. You know, I am not sure how that 
would work on a practical basis.
    Now, this is not to say there aren't bad employers up 
there, but the key thing is that I think most Members recognize 
that, other than their own time, their most precious resource 
is their staff. You can exponentially increase your influence 
and your ability to do the job when you have good management 
and good staff. And that is something you can't change through 
a union, that is something that you must do as Members.
    Mr. Loudermilk. All right. Thank you. We could go on this 
all day, but I see I am out of time. And you are right, this is 
a unique employment. This is not generally a career path for 
people who work here. I have got folks in this room that used 
to work in my office and moved on to other things. Hopefully, 
they enjoyed our time there, but still, there are bad employers 
and that is something that must be dealt with individually.
    With that, Madam Chairperson, I yield back.
    The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back. I understand 
the technical difficulties have been resolved, and Mr. Raskin 
is now recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Raskin. Madam Chairperson, thanks so much for calling 
this important hearing. As I was listening to my distinguished 
colleague speak just now, I was reflecting how----
    The Chairperson. Mr. Raskin.
    Mr. Raskin. Yes, can you hear me?
    The Chairperson. Oh, apparently, I was--oh, there he is. 
Mr. Raskin, you are recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much, Madam Chairperson.
    You know, all employers are unique in his or her or its own 
way. The history of the labor movement, of course, is 
confronting employers who say, we are different, we are unique, 
and we take care of our people, and we are sensitive to the 
needs of our employees and so on. So I think we have got to 
take that with a grain of salt.
    Well, what is unique about our situation is the point that 
I think Mr. Strand and the Ranking Member make, which is that 
we are the Congress of the United States, and we have to get 
the job of lawmaking done.
    Having said that, under Article I, we have the power to 
pass all laws necessary and proper to the functioning of our 
institution. So, we can design it the way we think we need to 
design it, in order both to vindicate the interest of staff to 
having a fair workplace, where their interests are recognized 
and taken into account, as well as the paramount interest of 
the government in legislation. I think we can do both.
    So, Mr. Uelmen, let me come to you. First, does the right 
to organize exist now in the staffers? In other words, is there 
anything that would stop, under the First Amendment and under 
this legislation already passed, workers, staff members in a 
particular committee or office getting together, meeting, 
caucusing, and then saying they want to present the Member with 
requests or demands of some kind?
    Mr. Uelmen. Well, that is a difficult question. I mean, 
yes, certainly they can do that. The problem is they probably 
could not enforce any type of agreement they reach through our 
procedures and then through the OCWR, so----
    Mr. Raskin. And then that is the necessity of action right 
now, but theoretically, the right of them to get together 
exists. After all, Section 7 of the National Labor Relations 
Act itself was based on the First Amendment and the idea of 
people having the right to speak, to assemble, to associate, 
and get together. And that is really all we are talking about 
doing is vindicating that right.
    There are particular complexities that are attendant to the 
legislative function of the national government. So help us 
with this. What exactly is the bargaining unit? Is it each 
Member's office? Is it each committee's office? Or is it, I 
could contemplate the situation where it is all the press 
secretaries from all the offices. Is it the Democratic and 
Republican and Independent members together, or is it each 
separate? Is that going to be defined by regulation by us or is 
that going to be defined through a kind of common-law process 
of considering collective bargaining agreements and attempts to 
organize?
    Mr. Uelmen. Well, I think the question you are asking is 
literally what we call the appropriateness of the bargaining 
unit. So, the way the process works is a union would propose a 
bargaining unit, and if there was a disagreement with 
management regarding the appropriateness of that unit, they 
would then use the OCWR procedures to resolve that 
disagreement.
    Generally, I mean, a bargaining unit must be composed of 
staff members of the same employer. So, I think that you can't 
have a bargaining unit representing, you know, from multiple 
employers. As I said, you may be--there may be opportunities 
after you form the union to bargain, you know, jointly, but 
from an organizing perspective, I think it must be from each 
employing office.
    Mr. Raskin. Okay. I hear you are defining an employer as a 
Member, is that right, or a committee or subcommittee?
    Mr. Uelmen. Yes. The problem is the CAA says an employing 
office is not the House of Representatives; it is each office 
of a Member or each committee office.
    Mr. Raskin. Okay. Good. All right. So, I think what 
probably gives everybody pause on this is the nightmare 
scenario invoked by some of our colleagues, which is, you know, 
what happens if we face some kind of massive strike or shutdown 
in the middle of, you know, the appropriations period or 
something like that.
    I know that there are public sector workers who have the 
right to organize but not, for example, the right to strike. I 
think it works that way with a lot of teachers and, you know, 
other public employees. Is that something that would be 
determined along the way or is that something that will be 
built into the legislation that we are considering right now?
    Mr. Uelmen. Yes. The statute itself actually, you know, 
totally prohibits both strikes and lockouts. So, I mean, that 
really isn't an issue. It has never been an issue with Federal 
employees, so----
    The Chairperson. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Raskin. Madam Chairperson, thank you. I ask unanimous 
consent to insert a statement by our colleague, Andy Levin, 
from Michigan.
    The Chairperson. Of course. Without objection.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you.
    The Chairperson. Mr. Steil is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Steil. Thank you very much, Madam Chairperson.
    Mr. Uelmen, appreciate you being here. It is good to see a 
fellow Badger alum despite what Ranking Member Davis says. It 
is good to have you here.
    I want to discuss with you the process of developing the 
regulations. I know your team recently went through an 
expedited review of the draft regulations from the 1990s and, 
to my knowledge, had no edits. Is that correct?
    Mr. Uelmen. Excuse me. I didn't hear the----
    Mr. Steil. You reviewed the draft regulations that were 
produced in the 1990s with your team and you had no additional 
edits?
    Mr. Uelmen. Yes. The board did review the 1996 regulations 
that were adopted by the 1996 board, you know, so yes.
    Mr. Steil. So, there were no recommended changes or----
    Mr. Uelmen. No.
    Mr. Steil [continuing]. Edits to that regulation. Is that 
accurate?
    Mr. Uelmen. Right. That is correct.
    Mr. Steil. And can you explain the process of the review 
that your team went through when reviewing these regulations?
    Mr. Uelmen. Well, again, they went through the Notice of 
Adoption, which is very detailed. It went through all the 
comments and the 1996 board's response to the comments. They 
reviewed kind of the dissenting views and determined that--and 
really the regulations themselves, all they say is that the 
regulations that apply to everybody else are going to apply to 
Congress. So, we have had those regulations in place since 
1996.
    Mr. Steil. And how many days total did that process take, 
Mr. Uelmen?
    Mr. Uelmen. Well, it is the date between the two letters. I 
mean, it pretty much ended--began when we received the letter. 
It ended, I believe, on the date that the board sent the 
letter.
    Mr. Steil. Do you recall what those dates were, just how 
many days that might have been?
    Mr. Uelmen. Off hand, I don't. If I could look----
    Mr. Steil. A handful of days? Weeks? Months?
    Mr. Uelmen. I mean, it was twenty days. I--you know, I 
think it was around there.
    Mr. Steil. Couple weeks, okay. Well, maybe we can get that 
for the record later.
    And then following that process, you sent the regulations 
to the board for their approval. Is that accurate?
    Mr. Uelmen. Again, the regulations, the way it works is the 
regulations are published in the Congressional Record once they 
are adopted by the board. So those regulations are still there. 
I mean, we did send another copy to the Chairperson, but those 
regulations have already been published and have been out there 
since 1996.
    Mr. Steil. Okay. And, obviously, a lot has changed since 
1996. I think there is a lot of staffers on the Hill that 
probably weren't born at that time.
    Have you considered whether it would be necessary or 
appropriate to have an additional notice and comment period 
since it is, you know, approaching 25, 30 years since it was 
initially drafted?
    Mr. Uelmen. Just so we are clear, you know, this is the 
decision of the board. That is not my decision to make.
    Mr. Steil. Understood. But in your opinion, would that be a 
helpful process or a not necessary process?
    Mr. Uelmen. You know, unless they are going to change what 
they proposed in 1996, it really--there is no----
    Mr. Steil. You don't see a need for it?
    Okay. Committee staff in both the House and the Senate have 
requested to see copies, I think, of the original comments that 
were made during the initial notice and comment period, but I 
believe your office stated that those no longer exist. Is that 
accurate?
    Mr. Uelmen. No. I think what we--there were three comments, 
I think--no, the comments are fully described in the Notice of 
Adoption. I think the actual letters, I think we found three 
out of the six. So, I think we are still looking for the other 
three.
    Mr. Steil. So slightly incomplete record, it would be at 
least my analysis of it.
    Have you considered kind of the potential conflict of 
interest congressional unions may create with their Members? 
And let me put a pin on this. In your comments, I believe, to 
my colleague, Ms. Scanlon, you noted that a bargaining unit 
could exist with more than one Member. Is that piece accurate?
    Mr. Uelmen. No.
    Mr. Steil. It would be one Member to one bargaining unit?
    Mr. Uelmen. Each Member office would have to have a 
separate bargaining unit.
    Mr. Steil. So you couldn't have a group of Members come 
together into one cohesive bargaining unit under your 
understanding?
    Mr. Uelmen. I don't believe that is possible under the CAA.
    Mr. Steil. Okay. Very good. And then would a committee 
staff, would that bargaining unit be a minority and a majority 
staff, or would that be all under the chair of any given 
committee?
    Mr. Uelmen. I think, as I indicated, I think it would have 
to be split along partisan lines, because the Ranking Member 
determines for the minority and the Chairperson determines the 
working conditions for the majority.
    Mr. Steil. Even though the employing authority might be 
just the chair on a committee?
    Mr. Uelmen. Right. An employing office can have more than 
one bargaining unit. I mean, we have multiple bargaining units 
in----
    Mr. Steil. Okay. And do you see a conflict that would exist 
if the Senate and the House chose different paths?
    Mr. Uelmen. A different path?
    Mr. Steil. Different path. If the House chose to unionize 
and the Senate did not, or the Senate chose to unionize, and 
the House did not.
    Mr. Uelmen. Well, the CAA allows that, I mean, since it can 
be adopted by one House resolution. So at least the Act itself 
contemplated that, where one House would adopt regulations and 
the other wouldn't, so----
    Mr. Steil. Thank you very much. I appreciate your testimony 
today.
    Madam Chairperson, I yield back.
    The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Aguilar, we will see if our technology is working and 
can we recognize you for five minutes.
    Mr. Aguilar. Madam Chairperson, can you hear me?
    The Chairperson. We can hear you, but we can't see you.
    Mr. Aguilar. Well, I assure you I am around. We will see if 
they can switch the----
    The Chairperson. Ah, there you are.
    Mr. Aguilar. There we go. Thank you, Madam Chairperson. 
Appreciate the importance of this hearing.
    Mr. Uelmen, I will get to you. According to the OCWR, when 
employees file a petition to eventually be certified as an 
official bargaining unit, the petition--I want to get this 
right--must have the signatures of thirty percent of the 
employees. Is that what you testified?
    Mr. Uelmen. Yes. There must be a showing of interest by 
thirty percent of the employees in a bargaining unit.
    Mr. Aguilar. Our colleague from Georgia talked about the 
[inaudible] so let's go with that. Knowing that some of our 
offices are small, the bargaining units could be comprised of 
two or three staffers, and if an individual leaves a bargaining 
unit, how does that change a union in an individual office? Is 
the union still legal? What if all the employees covered in the 
bargaining unit leave their positions over the course of the 
congressional term, what would happen in that case?
    Mr. Uelmen. Excuse me. I didn't catch the end of that.
    Mr. Aguilar. What if the employees covered in the 
bargaining unit--let's just say that it is a bargaining unit of 
four people--what if there is a transition and over the course 
of the two-year cycle in Congress, all those employees end up 
moving on to other positions? You know, what would happen in 
that case?
    Mr. Uelmen. You know, generally the way union--collective 
bargaining agreements operate is that once the agreement is in 
place, it really--it is in place for those positions, and so it 
doesn't matter whether the actual people in those positions has 
changed.
    Mr. Aguilar. Okay. I appreciate that.
    In your testimony, I wanted to get a little deeper into the 
membership and management piece. You noted that management 
officials are--and I am quoting here--those employees whose 
duties and responsibilities require or authorize the individual 
to formulate, determine, or influence the policies of the 
employing office.
    Can you tell us a little bit more about what kind of 
staffers would be considered management?
    Mr. Uelmen. Well, generally management are those staffers 
who determine the conditions of employment. The idea is to 
separate those staffers who are going to be on one side of the 
table from those who are, you know, going to be on the other 
side of the table. So, if you are going to bargain, you are 
going to bargain with the people who are determining the terms 
and conditions of the employment, so that is really the 
dividing line.
    Mr. Aguilar. So it doesn't have to do specifically with 
supervisory responsibilities and roles? I think that is just an 
area of confusion.
    Mr. Uelmen. Yes. I mean--I mean, as I said, that is how you 
divide it. So, whatever you call the position, the question is 
whether this is a position that is deciding what the rules of 
the office are going to be, or is this someone on the other 
side who is being subjected to those procedures, so----
    Mr. Aguilar. Yes. No, I understand that. I just think from 
the perspective of an employee, it oftentimes, you know, might 
feel like management is whoever is supervising you. So, if you 
are an intern, you know, your supervisor is a staff assistant 
potentially. If you are a staff assistant, your supervisor 
might be the chief of staff or deputy chief of staff. So, I 
just think that there is some confusion in that sense that we 
might need to clear up.
    House committees also have nuance management structures. 
How would the committee staffers fit in in those respects on 
the management side? Is it still the same answer?
    Mr. Uelmen. Yes. Again, it would be who in the committee is 
deciding what the conditions of employment are. So, it would 
undoubtedly be the senior staff.
    Mr. Aguilar. But do you have any more guidance on what that 
definition of senior staff might be?
    Mr. Uelmen. Again, some of these questions obviously can be 
tricky, I mean, which is why we have procedures in place to 
determine if somebody should be included or excluded from a 
bargaining unit. I mean, there is a difference between what we 
would call a lead worker position and somebody who is really in 
management. Somebody who merely is giving direction for work 
but doesn't really have a role in determining the conditions of 
employment is not going to be considered management, so-and-
so----
    Mr. Aguilar. I appreciate that.
    My time is running short, so I will yield back, Madam 
Chairperson.
    The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentlelady from New Mexico is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you so much, Madam Chairperson, 
and for our witnesses for shedding light on this issue.
    In the fourteen months I have been here, I truly admire our 
staffers. They are committed to this institution. They are 
committed to their jobs. I think them speaking out about this 
now is a good thing.
    And it strikes me, listening to the testimony and reading 
it, that the CAA was adopted, as was pointed out, decades ago. 
It was in the Congressional Accountability Act that set up the 
process for this unionization. So, Congress already did this.
    And it also strikes me, sitting here today after that great 
State of the Union Address last night, that President Biden 
said, when we invest in our workers, we can do something we 
haven't done in a long time--build a better America.
    I think if we apply that principle everywhere, we will want 
to apply it here as well, so we can build a better Congress to 
better serve our constituents, because that is indeed what we 
are trying to do.
    So in looking at this, Mr. Strand, you have spent decades 
committed to this institution and committed to making sure that 
the workplace works for different people in these offices. Do 
you think that when we strengthen our staff's working 
conditions and pay, we also strength Congress' capacity, 
especially increasing our capacity as a coequal branch of 
government, yes or no?
    Mr. Strand. No, I think that the conditions of the 
workplace for employees makes a huge difference in the ability 
of staffers to serve the country, just like the Members of 
Congress.
    The biggest thing you have to have been that that is the 
responsibility of the Member to ensure those conditions----
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. But I was asking whether you believe 
that strengthening the employees was a good thing, and I think 
you have indeed said----
    Mr. Strand. Oh, I absolutely agree with you, that----
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Fine.
    Mr. Strand. Yeah.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you so very much.
    You know, my district is the size of Pennsylvania, and so I 
have staffers that are sent out over a very large, large area. 
I want to make sure that they work at a job that they love, but 
that they can stay at it if they so desire.
    Mr. Uelmen, you described the unionization process in 
detail. Mr. Strand earlier expressed his concern about a union 
preventing staff from working long hours or changing the at-
will nature or changing some of the things that are already in 
the Congressional Accountability Act.
    Could you just clarify, if a office chooses to unionize, 
could they change the provisions of the Congressional 
Accountability Act that says at will, strikes are not allowed, 
those other matters that he pointed to?
    Mr. Uelmen. No.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Can you point to examples from other 
unions on the Hill that might account for varied 
responsibilities, different working hours? I mean, there are, I 
could imagine, quite a few unions that are dealing with complex 
working conditions. Is that correct?
    Mr. Uelmen. Sure. We have, I think, twenty-some bargaining 
units on the Hill. I think the largest one is the Capitol 
Police. You know, so they provide, you know, a lot of complex 
tasks that--and then happily they just entered into another 
agreement, so--after many years of bargaining, so----
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Well, that is a good thing, right? I 
believe that what we are looking at here is the fact that we 
are now hearing from our staffers about these issues. And that 
if we want to invest in our staff and we want to be able to 
listen to our staff, would you describe a unionization process 
and a union as a way of increasing management's ability to 
listen to the issues that affect those workers?
    Mr. Uelmen. I mean, certainly. I mean, anytime you sit at 
the table together to discuss working conditions, each party is 
going to learn a little bit more about the other. I mean, labor 
is going to understand--have a better idea what the challenges 
are of management, and management is going to have a much 
better understanding of what the real concerns are of labor, 
so--even if you don't get a collective bargaining--even if you 
don't get an agreement, if you sit down and discuss it, I mean, 
you are likely to have a better understanding of where the 
other party sits. I mean--so----
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Yes, indeed, this concept of listening 
is a wonderful thing to do, and we all are committed to doing 
that with our constituents. And this would give us an 
opportunity--not an opportunity but an obligation to sit and 
listen to our staffers.
    With that, Madam Chairperson, my time has expired, and I 
yield back.
    The Chairperson. The gentlelady yields back.
    I have just a couple final questions. First, as you have 
mentioned, Mr. Uelmen, the issues that can be bargained is 
fairly small compared to what you would have under the National 
Labor Relations Act: pay, health insurance, retirement 
benefits.
    Some have asked the question, what about when dramatic 
changes need to happen quickly? For example, because of the 
pandemic, the Attending Physician's Office told us work remote. 
We did--you know, we changed on a moment's notice to remote for 
health reasons. Telework, masking, social distancing, hybrid 
work arrangements, office cleaning and the like.
    Would those changes be subject to collective bargaining or 
not?
    Mr. Uelmen. Again, that may be a difficult question to 
answer, but what I can point out is that there is an exception 
for emergency situations so that, generally in an emergency, 
management can act very quickly and even--it might mean that 
bargaining might be very expeditious, and it might be a call to 
the union, saying, this is what we are going to do, we have to 
do it, it is an emergency. But there is a provision in the 
statute that does allow for kind of very prompt action by 
management during emergencies, so----
    The Chairperson. Let me ask you. We have had occasions 
where a Member dies in office and the Clerk maintains the 
office staff until the election provides a successor. Is the 
Clerk--what would happen in that instance where the Clerk is 
running the office that was unionized, how would that work?
    Mr. Uelmen. Yes. I am not sure I have a clear answer for 
that, I will be honest with you. I think what we would have to 
look at would be kind of the successor type cases and try to 
apply a similar type of analogy. So, in many cases, with a 
corporation, for instance, if there is a change, that doesn't 
necessarily mean that the collective bargaining agreement goes 
away, so----
    The Chairperson. Okay. If there is a dispute between a 
Member and--the union and the Member, and then that Member 
leaves the office, what happens to this dispute and the 
bargaining unit in that case? How would you resolve that?
    Mr. Uelmen. Well, I think that again, most of the--if there 
is a collective bargaining agreement, there probably is a 
grievance procedure in place. If for some reason, you know, 
management or the Clerk, if that is who it is would refuse to 
use that bargaining unit, then it could be resolved through the 
unfair labor practice procedure. So, I mean, there are 
procedures that would resolve that issue, so----
    The Chairperson. Would it be assumed, since none of us are 
entitled to this job until reelected, that the terms of the 
agreement would be renegotiated after every election, or would 
it be a continuing agreement, do you think?
    Mr. Uelmen. Again, I am not sure. I mean, if the same 
officeholder is there and the office is the same, it may be a 
possibility to continue the agreement, you know, into the next 
term. Obviously if a Member is defeated, then the office 
changes and----
    The Chairperson. Right.
    Mr. Uelmen [continuing]. You know, so----
    The Chairperson. Well, I just think those are outlier 
situations and should not dominate any decision-making, but I 
hope that we can think through some of the odd cases that might 
come up, make sure we know what the answers are.
    Accordingly, the hearing record will be open for five days. 
If Members of the Committee have additional questions for 
either of our witnesses, we will send them to you, and 
certainly ask that you respond as best you can so that we can 
make both the questions and the answers part of the written 
record.
    I just want to thank the witnesses and the Committee 
members for their attention today. It has been mentioned that 
we had unanimity. I think I am the only Member here who was a 
Member of Congress in 1995. This was unanimous. We had two 
votes in the House. The first was 429 to 0, and the second was 
390 to 0. It included those measures, unionization for the 
staff.
    I will just mention, in 1998, one observer wrote this, this 
is a quote: The Office of Compliance drafted regulations 
implementing the section which concerns the unionization of 
legislative employees, but Congress has not approved them. This 
is a disgrace to the principles supporting the CAA.
    He continued: The result is that no regulations are in 
effect, and this section of the Act is not being implemented.
    Who said that? Senator Chuck Grassley. I would ask, without 
objection, that Senator Grassley's law review article from the 
Harvard Journal on Legislation from the winter of 1998, where 
he made that observation, be included in the record.
    I also would ask unanimous consent that the following items 
be made part of the record: An August 11, 1994, Washington Post 
article; a January 9, 1995, New York Times article; a May 2, 
1995, Congressional Research Service report; a January 1, 2011, 
Office of Compliance publication, Labor Representation, 
Collective Bargaining Rights in the Congressional Workplace; a 
March 2, 2022, written statement of Daniel Schuman, the policy 
director for Demand Progress.
    The Chairperson. I think we have additional thinking to do 
on--on this, but I think that this very helpful hearing has 
helped us focus on the few remaining nuance issues that need 
answers.
    I would just note that we all value our staff. This 
institution could not run without our staff. I was just 
thinking, I recently had my District Director, only my second, 
who retired after 22 years in my district office. As we were 
celebrating her years of service, another member of my district 
office staff mentioned that she has been working for me since 
1987, in both my local office and now in the congressional 
office.
    So we go back a long ways with these valuable people who do 
the people's business, and their rights need to be respected 
and considered as was envisioned by those unanimous votes my 
freshman year in Congress.
    So unless there are further issues before us, we will thank 
the witnesses and the Members and adjourn this hearing without 
objection.
    [Whereupon, at 3:13 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
                          [all]