[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MAKING THE HOUSE MORE ACCESSIBLE TO THE
DISABILITY COMMUNITY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE
MODERNIZATION OF CONGRESS
OF THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 27, 2021
__________
Serial No. 117-06
__________
Printed for the use of the Select Committee on the Modernization of
Congress
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via http://govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
48-590 WASHINGTON : 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE MODERNIZATION OF CONGRESS
DEREK KILMER, Washington, Chair
ZOE LOFGREN, California WILLIAM TIMMONS, South Carolina,
EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri Vice Chair
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado BOB LATTA, Ohio
DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
NIKEMA WILLIAMS, Georgia DAVE JOYCE, Ohio
GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas
COMMITTEE STAFF
Yuri Beckelman, Staff Director
Derek Harley, Republican Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Chairman Derek Kilmer
Oral Statement............................................... 1
Vice Chairman William Timmons
Oral Statement............................................... 2
WITNESSES
Hon. James R. Langevin, Representative, Second District of Rhode
Island
Oral Statement............................................... 3
Discussion....................................................... 5
Phoebe Ball, Disability Counsel, House Education and Labor
Committee
Oral Statement............................................... 8
Written Statement............................................ 11
Heather Ansley, Associate Executive Director, Paralyzed Veterans
of America
Oral Statement............................................... 17
Written Statement............................................ 20
Judy Brewer, Director, Web Accessibility Initiative
Oral Statement............................................... 27
Written Statement............................................ 29
John Uelmen, General Counsel, Office of Congressional Workplace
Rights
Oral Statement............................................... 33
Written Statement............................................ 36
Discussion....................................................... 39
APPENDIX I: ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
John Uelmen, General Counsel, Office of Congressional Workplace
Rights......................................................... 50
MAKING THE HOUSE MORE ACCESSIBLE TO THE DISABILITY COMMUNITY
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 27, 2021
House of Representatives,
Select Committee on the
Modernization of Congress,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:00 a.m., via
Zoom, Hon. Derek Kilmer [chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Kilmer, Perlmutter, Phillips,
Williams of Georgia, Timmons, Rodney Davis of Illinois, Van
Duyne, and Joyce.
The Chairman. With that, I will bang the virtual gavel, and
the committee will come to order.
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the committee at any time.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes to give an opening
statement. I promise not to use all 5.
Over the past few weeks, this committee has held a series
of hearings generally focused on steps Congress can take to
build a strong and inclusive workforce. The witnesses that we
have heard from have shared some great ideas for recruiting
talented interns and staff. They have also helped us understand
what Congress can do better when it comes to retaining and
promoting staff who reflect a diversity of histories,
experiences, and views.
Putting these ideas into practice is wholly consistent with
the doctrines on which the People's House are based. The
Framers envisioned a body of Representatives that would reflect
the diverse views of the American people, and diverse staff
help Members process and understand these views in ways they
might otherwise miss.
A governing system designed to give voice to the people
depends on the active participation of people. If Members are
to transform public opinion into public policy, they need to
hear from the people they represent.
Engaged constituents routinely meet with their
Representatives and staff. They send emails, make phone calls,
and attend townhalls. They also follow committee and floor
activity, either in person or online. Their ability to access
their government in multiple ways gives them voice.
But constituent access to Congress is not universal. The
physical barriers to access are many and vary across the
Capitol complex. Small elevators, steep steps, heavy doors, and
tight spaces are, unfortunately, hallmarks of this institution.
Digital accessibility is also a challenge. Individuals who
are visually or hearing impaired currently cannot access
congressional websites and live streamed proceedings in any
consistent way.
This reality conflicts with the Framers' vision of the
People's House. The right of equal access to Congress applies
to every American.
Last year, members of this committee sponsored and passed a
resolution that included language to address the equal access
challenges persons with disabilities face when working for,
visiting, or interacting with Congress.
Since then, the House has made progress toward making the
proceedings and functions of Congress accessible to all
Americans. This committee will continue to partner with the
offices responsible for implementing these recommendations to
make sure the good work continues.
Part of that work is to publicly highlight why these issues
are so important, and that is what the committee intends to do
today.
The issue of access is central to the daily work of
Congress. Staff play a key role in this work, and if they are
unable to do their jobs efficiently and effectively due to
insufficient accommodations, they will leave the Hill for
organizations that are better prepared to set them up for
success. Congress can and should do more to prevent such
losses.
Unequal access presents recruitment challenges as well.
Internships are the main pipeline to careers on the Hill, but
they remain out of reach for many individuals with
disabilities. Requiring accommodations should not be
disqualifying, but in reality it often is.
I want to make a quick public service announcement here.
The Office of Congressional Accessibility Services can help
offices with the technical and in-person support interns with
disabilities need so that they are able to do their jobs and
get the same experience as every other intern on the Hill.
The daily work and proceedings of Congress also rely upon
public input, and that is why it is so important for the
legislative branch to be equally accessible to all Americans.
Physical and digital barriers should not prevent people with
disabilities from having a voice in the legislative process.
The bottom line is that a modern Congress is one that
welcomes and accommodates every American.
Making Congress more accessible to persons with
disabilities is a process, and today we are joined by a panel
of experts who are going to help us understand why investing in
this process is so important. I am looking forward to hearing
their recommendations for what Congress can do better.
And I would like to now invite Vice Chair Timmons to share
some opening remarks as well.
Mr. Timmons. Hey, good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you to our witnesses for being here today.
I would like to especially thank Congressman Langevin for
taking time out of his busy schedule to speak with us.
Over the last several hearings this committee has held, we
have focused a lot on staff capacity and how to recruit and
retain a talented and diverse workforce to make Congress work
better for the American people.
As I said last week, when we talk about modernizing
Congress we are talking about investing in and developing a
diverse workforce that accurately reflects the communities we
represent. This includes a very important community, those with
disabilities.
At each step in the public policymaking process here in the
House our constituents can actively participate, whether it be
meeting with Members on specific issues, attending committee
hearings, or watching debate and votes on the House floor. Or,
as we have seen over the last year, constituents can
participate in this process virtually.
However, there remains a real challenge to many Americans
when it comes to engaging in the legislative process.
Part of this committee's mission is making Congress more
effective and efficient on behalf of the American people. This
includes ensuring that those with disabilities can actively
participate in the policymaking process.
The United States Capitol is more than 200 years old. Aside
from being located on a hill, which presents natural
challenges, there are other obvious physical barriers as well:
narrow halls and doorways, steep, winding steps.
There remain other challenges for those with disabilities.
Those who are blind or visually impaired may not be able to
access information from congressional websites; and those who
are deaf or hard of hearing are not able to follow live
committee hearings when there is no closed captioning
available.
On that note, I am pleased that in today's important
hearing we are able to provide closed captioning for those
watching.
I am looking forward to our discussion today about ways
that we can improve accessibility in the House and make
Congress work better for our constituents. A modern Congress is
one that is accessible to and accommodates all Americans.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Vice Chair Timmons.
Today, we are joined by several expert witnesses.
Witnesses are reminded that your oral testimony will be
limited to 5 minutes, and, without objection, your written
statements will be made part of the record.
Our first witness today is our colleague Representative Jim
Langevin, who serves as co-chair of the Bipartisan Disability
Caucus.
Mr. Langevin, we may have to invite you back for our
hearing on cybersecurity later in the year, but we are thrilled
you could join us this morning. And you are now recognized for
5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JAMES R. LANGEVIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to recognize
you and the ranking member. Thank you for holding this hearing.
I am honored to be here to contribute my thoughts. As well as
the entire Modernization Committee. I just want to recognize
you all for the work you are doing and thank you for having me.
So as many of you know, I am the first quadriplegic to
serve as a Member of Congress. And as a founding co-chair of
the Bipartisan Disability Caucus, accessibility of the Capitol
complex has always been a priority for me, because the Hallowed
Halls of Congress are where visitors from all across the
country come to interact with their Representatives, listen to
political discourse, and track legislation that can
significantly impact their lives and their livelihoods.
So today I am going to briefly touch on three areas where I
believe we can improve, the first of which is physical
accessibility.
So physical accessibility of the Capitol complex is
something that I think about daily, not by choice, but really
out of necessity. The Architect of the Capitol staff, I have to
say, have always worked with me to remove barriers, with no
better example than the reference to install a lift system on
the House floor at the Speaker's rostrum to make the Speaker's
rostrum accessible.
However, physical barriers in the Capitol, such as
inadequate signage, lack of accessible bathrooms, and improper
curb cuts, and also lack of things like automatic door openers,
still remain, and is a fact that I am reminded of whenever
there is a joint hearing in a room that I am not familiar with
and, obviously, the accessibility challenges come up,
obviously, once again.
So we need to ensure that the Office of Congressional
Workplace Rights completes timely, biennial ADA inspection
reports, as required by the Congressional Accountability Act.
We also need to improve funding to remove barriers identified
in those reports so that we can guarantee that constituents and
advocates who travel great distances to make their voices heard
can actually enter the room to do so.
Accessible communication is another area where the House, I
believe, could be doing better. In an ideal world, each
hearing, briefing, press conference, or other event would have
Communication Access Realtime Translation--or CART, as it is
known--services or sign language interpreters provided.
However, these services are generally utilized only upon
request, and when requested, staff often don't know where to go
to ensure that they are provided.
Additionally, we must continue working to bring
congressional websites up to date with accessibility standards,
which requires two main components. That is accessible website
design and uploading content in accessible formats.
Which brings me to the third area, and that is staff
training.
So many House staff are simply not familiar with disability
rights or accessibility services and procedures. So by
requiring staff to have accessibility training, we can help
press staff put out communications in an accessible manner,
enable administrative staff to handle internal and external
accommodation requests properly, and ensure staff with
disabilities know where to request an accommodation without
fear of it impacting their job.
The bottom line is that we must continue working to weave
accessibility into the foundation of the House of
Representatives instead of remedying accessibility concerns
only when they are brought to our attention.
If we focus on the three areas that I have discussed--
physical accessibility, accessible communications, and staff
training--we can, I believe, make great progress as an
organization.
I appreciate the progress that we have made so far, but
clearly more can be done and needs to be done, and I hope we
can get there together.
So, with that, I appreciate your time, and I look forward
to working with you towards a more inclusive House.
Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Chairman. Thank you, Congressman Langevin. I want to be
sensitive to your time. I don't know if you are able to stand
for any questions or if you have got to dash?
Mr. Langevin. Sure. I have time for a couple if there are
any.
The Chairman. Let me just ask members of the committee, any
questions for Congressman Langevin?
Go ahead, Vice Chair Timmons.
Mr. Timmons. Congressman Langevin, thank you so much. If
there was one, your number one issue that needs to be changed
on the Hill, what would it be?
Mr. Langevin. So as I mentioned, the access to interpreters
or realtime broadcasting of the translation of what is said at
the hearings would be important.
The other thing is the automatic door openers. As you and I
both know, those doors can be quite heavy, some of them.
Some of them are at offices, but some of them were designed
to be, basically, fire doors. If they are not open, for
example, and I don't have somebody with me, there is no way I
am opening that door and getting through it.
So if it is happening to me, it is happening to members of
the general public if they are trying to navigate the Capitol
complex themselves.
But also, again, highlighting the staff training is really
important, just knowing where to turn and know that there are
resources out there and they can get help.
But think of just maybe interns that answer the phone or
the staff assistants that are handling the calls that come into
the office. If there is turnover and they haven't been trained
or informed that these services even exist, how are they going
to tell the public about it?
Mr. Timmons. Sure. Thank you so much.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you.
Mr. Timmons. We will do everything we can to get on top of
that.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you for the question, though, Vice
Chair Timmons.
The Chairman. Mr. Perlmutter, did I see you have a hand up?
And I saw you, Mr. Davis.
Mr. Perlmutter. I just wanted to thank the gentleman from
Rhode Island for his testimony today and for being a champion
on this subject, both for himself, but for the disability
community as a whole.
And so I don't have any questions. I always look to Jim for
advice on this subject and many others. So thanks for his
testimony.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Perlmutter.
Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And hey, Jim. You know, I have always wanted to question
you, so I hope you don't mind a few off-topic questions.
But, hey, in all seriousness, I want to know are you
getting contacted by the Architect of the Capitol on a regular
basis or their employees about suggestions and upgrades that
still may need to be done around the Capitol?
And also, what is the next, besides the automatic door
openers, when you look at the outer grounds, what do you think
needs to be done next to help the disability community and
those like yourself as we see an ever-growing number of those
who are disabled get elected to Congress, too?
Mr. Langevin. So thanks for the question, Rodney.
And, yeah, we have pretty good communications with the
Architect of the Capitol's office. And by and large, they have
been very responsive.
I think things have just taken a lot longer to get where we
need to get. I kind of joked around that--and it was reality--
that when I first got to Congress, basically, they were in the
process, this process of renovating the committee rooms and
subcommittee rooms. And so, basically, they would make
accessible those committees that I was assigned to.
And so, of course, I said, well, maybe I should, as a
freshman, get on the Appropriations Committee then and they can
make that one accessible first. But really that is what they
were doing, is going room by room, hearing room by hearing
room.
So it was helpful and it got the job done, and they
continue to progress. I don't think all of the committee rooms
are done yet in terms of making the rostrums accessible, but
they are getting there. So it is just accelerating that
timeline.
And I am trying to think of the outside the complex. There
are curb cuts that either--more curb cuts are needed in certain
places. They may not be in the right spot. And so you have got
to go way down somewhere to actually find a curb cut and then
come all the way back.
At least the curb cut is there, so that is one good thing.
But when it becomes onerous to kind of go out of your way to
get to one and waste time, we all know that time is precious on
the Hill, and so that is just one of a couple things that come
to mind.
But I do give a lot of credit to the Architect of the
Capitol's office. They have been very receptive from the very
beginning. It is just one of those things that you can only get
to so many things, I suppose. We just need to accelerate the
timeline.
Mr. Davis. Well, thanks Jim. I appreciate it. And keep in
touch if you have any suggestions on curb cuts that we might be
able to be helpful with.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Mr. Davis. Thank you.
The Chairman. Mr. Langevin, do you have time for one more?
Mr. Langevin. Sure, if we could do one more, that would be
great.
The Chairman. You bet.
Mr. Phillips.
Mr. Phillips. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Langevin, in 2 years in Congress I have never said I
would like to associate myself with someone's remarks, but
today I am going to do so. I want to associate myself with
everybody's remarks.
Gratitude to you for your testimony and your service in
Congress. I know how tough it must be here, and I want to
attract more of the best and brightest of all capabilities and
physical abilities.
And I wonder, based on your perception, is there a sense in
the disabled community in the country that Congress is
inaccessible physically and otherwise?
And if so, is there anything that we can do beyond the
physical improvements to the complex that might make this a
more welcoming place?
Mr. Langevin. Yeah. And so the Office of Accessibility
Services, I think, it is a really important office, and we want
to make sure that word gets out there about them.
There are disability advocate organizations that I am
involved with, the National Organization on Disability, for
example.
And, in addition to accessibility suggestions that they
make, they also--obviously, there are things that they look to,
to see being done to make society in general more accessible
and being able to live in the community. The Supreme Court
Olmstead decision, for example, that people with disabilities
have a right to live actively, independently in their
communities.
We haven't quite reached that goal yet as a country, but it
is a worthy goal that I am bound and determined in my time in
Congress to see us get closer to achieving. It just takes time
and effort, and we need to keep pushing the envelope.
Mr. Phillips. I appreciate that.
I just want, to my colleagues, and we have spoken a lot
about interns, and I think we can make a special effort to
attract interns with physical disabilities to Congress to
create a pipeline, something I think we could give a little bit
of attention to.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you for that comment, by the way. You
are spot on, on that comment.
The one thing that is always a challenge is finding that
pipeline and having people with disabilities know that they are
welcome to apply for the job and hopefully actually get the
job. But there doesn't seem to be that pipeline that we would
hope for.
I think the intern program is a great way to do that. First
of all, it allows someone with a disability to kind of get a
feel for the job and say, hey, you know, yeah, this is
something that I can do and that I like.
And it also allows the potential employer to see what
reasonable accommodations are all about, and it is not onerous
accommodations, it is reasonable accommodations.
And so just a thought that you raise a very good point. I
wanted to associate myself with your remarks. So thank you.
Mr. Phillips. Right back at you. And good to see you.
Thanks so much.
Mr. Langevin. You, too.
The Chairman. Mr. Langevin, you have been very generous
with your time and with your expertise. And I just want to
thank you for your partnership to this committee and for your
leadership on these issues.
Thanks so much.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you very much. I look forward to
further discussions on the topic and others.
The Chairman. Thanks so much.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you.
The Chairman. With that, we are next joined by Phoebe Ball.
Ms. Ball serves as disability counsel on the House Education
and Labor Committee.
She has spent her professional career working on issues
related to disability law and is a published policy researcher
in the areas of employment, asset development, work incentives,
self-determination, and benefit programs for individuals with
disabilities and has gained a national reputation as an expert
in the area of guardianship.
Ms. Ball was a staff attorney with Disability Rights
Florida for 7 years, moved to the Washington, D.C., area in
2014 to become the legislative affairs specialist with the
National Council on Disability, an independent Federal agency
that advises the President, Congress, and other Federal
officials and entities on policies and programs affecting
Americans with disabilities.
Ms. Ball left NCD to join the staff of the Ed and Labor
Committee in 2019 and frequently meets with stakeholders and
advocates on issues related to disability policy.
Ms. Ball, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to give an
oral presentation of your testimony.
STATEMENTS OF PHOEBE BALL, DISABILITY COUNSEL FOR THE HOUSE
EDUCATION AND LABOR COMMITTEE, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES; HEATHER
ANSLEY, ASSOCIATE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AT PARALYZED VETERANS OF
AMERICA (PVA); JUDY BREWER, DIRECTOR OF WEB ACCESSIBILITY
INITIATIVE (WAI) AT THE WORLD WIDE WEB CONSORTIUM (W3C); JOHN
UELMEN, GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL
WORKPLACE RIGHTS
STATEMENT OF PHOEBE BALL
Ms. Ball. Thank you so much, Chairman Kilmer.
Good morning, everyone, and Vice Chair Timmons and
distinguished members of the committee. Thank you so much for
having me here today to offer my perspective on the
accessibility of Congress.
Although I am currently working from home, I have spent a
great deal of time navigating the Halls of Congress and the
House and Senate office buildings. In addition to my
experiences as a wheelchair user, I also have several hidden
disabilities that both inform my work on disability policy and
occasionally necessitate accommodations to enable me to succeed
in my work.
Providing physical and programmatic access, reasonable
workplace accommodations, and engaging with staff and members
of the public with disabilities in ways that are respectful,
open, inclusive, and offer a safe work environment are the keys
to ensuring that Congress is accessible to people with
disabilities, whether they are staffers, members of the public,
or Members of Congress.
The work of Congress takes place in buildings that were
designed and built long before the Americans with Disabilities
Act was passed. There is a reason that the image of disabled
activists crawling up the Capitol steps resonated so deeply
with the American people and led to the passage of the
Americans with Disabilities Act. It was a visual demonstration
of how we have been barred from participating in society and
the democratic process.
While my office and the common spaces where the Ed and
Labor Committee staff work are all accessible, there are still
many challenges that are largely the result of working in
buildings that predate the ADA.
Getting from one building to another through a series of
tunnels that connects the House and Senate office buildings is
especially challenging.
After 5 months on the job, I was just starting to learn the
route from my office in Rayburn to the Senate buildings where I
frequently met with Senate colleagues. This route involved
several elevators, including at least one freight elevator, a
sloping hall that was great fun in a manual wheelchair, and a
nifty subway that is only accessible on the Senate side.
It also involved a treasure hunt of sorts, following signs
that said ``accessible route to the Senate.'' These were
helpful, but definitely could be bigger and easier to follow.
The first few months, I got turned around a lot, including
a few minutes in a hallway that I am pretty sure was haunted.
While I acknowledge and appreciate the efforts of the
Architect of the Capitol to mark accessible paths, better
signage is still needed in some areas regarding accessible
paths, exits, and, critically, directions to accessible
bathrooms.
As renovations occur, wherever possible barriers should be
removed and individuals who use wheelchairs can get from point
A to point B using the same pathways as our nondisabled
colleagues. Bathrooms should be renovated to ensure that there
is at least one accessible stall in every bathroom and that
other ADA-compliant features are in place.
I would like to take a minute to talk about doors.
Representative Langevin already referenced this, but these can
be a real barrier for a wheelchair user.
The double leaf doors are only wide enough for a wheelchair
when both are open and at least one able-bodied and tall person
needs to work several latches to open both doors. These doors
need to be altered so that both doors open easily, preferably
automatically.
Getting out the door in an emergency is equally important.
Staff and members with disabilities need to be at the table
making emergency management plans and staff need to know how to
interact with the public and have training so that they can
assist people with disabilities in emergencies.
Learning how to talk about disability can help break down
barriers, too. While there is a diversity of opinion on how we
speak about disability, I prefer to use ``identity-first''
language. I am a disabled woman, not a person with a disability
who happens to be a woman. Both disabled and woman are
essential to my identity.
Some people use ``person-first'' language and that is fine,
too. What are not fine are euphemisms, including ``differently
abled,'' ``special needs,'' and outdated terms such as
``handicapped.''
There are also attitudinal barriers. I have sometimes been
greeted by congressional staff with panic, obvious discomfort,
and occasionally condescension.
Whether these barriers are intentional or unintentional,
they are unacceptable and some basic disability awareness
training can help as long as the training doesn't include
disability simulations, which can reinforce stereotypes.
Luckily, the Committee on Education and Labor was very
aware of the need to make my office's common spaces accessible.
This should be the experience of all staff with disabilities,
who must have options among a range of office equipment and
furniture that will meet their access needs.
As Representative Langevin said, public events, such as
hearings and markups, need to be accessible, particularly to
the deaf community.
Websites are public spaces and need to meet 508 and web
consent accessibility guidelines and use plain language
whenever possible, which will make websites more usable by
intellectually disabled members of the public and everyone
else.
As remote work is likely to be an important option even
after this pandemic finally ends, especially as an
accommodation for staff with disabilities, remote platforms
need to be accessible.
I also would just like to mention that it is really
important to remember that accommodations need to be made for
folks with mental health disabilities as well.
I was recently diagnosed with depression and I have a
learning disability and several other hidden disabilities.
Managers and supervisors need to understand that they need to
make accommodations to these types of disabilities, in addition
to the visible disabilities.
Congress is a high-pressure environment where the American
people must come first, but the ADA doesn't require fundamental
alteration of that dynamic. But barriers to access, denials of
reasonable accommodation, and ignorant or disrespectful
attitudes about disability should never be tolerated and are
impediments to recruiting and retaining a diverse congressional
workforce.
The mission of this committee is more important than ever
as we consider whether we are just going to return to business
as usual or if we are going to make the People's House work
better for everyone.
Thank you so much, and I look forward to questions.
[The statement of Ms. Ball follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Ball.
Our next witness is Heather Ansley. Ms. Ansley is associate
executive director at the Paralyzed Veterans of America.
She also works to promote collaboration between disability
organizations and veterans service organizations by serving as
a co-chair of the Consortium for Citizens With Disabilities
Veterans Task Force. Additionally, she serves as an officer for
CCD's Board of Directors.
Prior to joining PVA, Ms. Ansley served as vice president
of VetsFirst, a program of United Spinal Association, and as
the director of policy and advocacy for the Lutheran Services
in America-Disability Network.
Ms. Ansley, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to give an
oral presentation of your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HEATHER ANSLEY
Ms. Ansley. Chair Kilmer, Vice Chair Timmons, and members
of the Select Committee, Paralyzed Veterans of America, or PVA,
would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify today
regarding our views on ways to improve disability access to the
facilities and activities of the House of Representatives.
PVA is a congressionally chartered veteran service
organization whose members are all veterans who have acquired a
spinal cord injury or disorder, and the overwhelming number of
them use assistive devices for mobility, such as wheelchairs,
scooters, and canes.
Having the opportunity to participate in visits with
Members of Congress, testify before congressional committees
and roundtables, and attend hearings and briefings, whether in
person or on Capitol Hill, is an important part of our
democracy.
For veterans, including those who have incurred
disabilities as a result of their service to our Nation in the
protection of our freedom, ensuring that disability is not a
barrier to participating in their government is an important
duty of Congress. If all people with disabilities do not have
proper access to their legislators, policies will not
effectively reflect their needs and perspectives.
Barriers to Capitol Hill can start at the curb. Providing a
designated drop- off or pickup zone near any accessible
entrances would help to mitigate this barrier and also help
people with disabilities to more easily identify the accessible
building entrances and paths of travel.
The next barrier is often transiting security. Prior to the
pandemic, the security process for wheelchair users was at
times inconsistent.
Consistent security procedures must be developed and
screening officers must be trained on proper procedures to
ensure that visitors receive a fair screening that meets the
security needs of Capitol Hill.
Once through security, navigating a House office building
can be difficult due to the lack of signage to guide people
with disabilities.
Improved signage that clearly identifies the accessible
path of travel for people who use mobility devices would help
them to be able to more easily locate offices and committee
rooms.
Also, elevators can be quite small and not fully accessible
to those who use wheelchairs and scooters.
Additional signage would help to steer them to bigger
elevators that can more easily accommodate devices,
particularly for people who use large power chairs. Also, when
renovations are made, small elevators should be replaced.
According to advocates for people who are blind or low
vision, Braille signage is falling into disrepair and needs to
be maintained.
In addition, these advocates believe that Congress should
continue providing services like Aria, which was previously
provided for free to users in the various buildings on Capitol
Hill. This was helpful to travel successfully from office to
office.
Once arriving at a Member's office, additional barriers
often make entering and navigating them difficult. Offices are
often small and do not always allow easy access for people who
use mobility devices.
Each congressional office should be modified to include
push button access, particularly for those located in Rayburn.
Office layouts should also be developed with a consideration of
the needs of visitors and staff with disabilities who use
assistive devices when feasible.
Members of Congress and their staff should also provide
more information about how to access their offices and request
accommodation. For example, when individuals identify as using
a wheelchair, staff should proactively move furniture, if
needed, and ensure entrance door access.
Staff should also develop and use checklists to ensure
access to all of the events that they hold, and additionally
should develop plans for detailing how they are going to
address accessibility needs before those requests arrive.
Training should also be provided to congressional staff
about how to interact with people who do not use speech to
communicate or who appear to behave in a nontypical manner.
Providing initial and ongoing training for staff about how
to interact with constituents and advocates with disabilities,
including those with nonapparent disabilities, will help to
ensure equal access for all.
Accessing the services available to the general public in
House office buildings can also be difficult. Restrooms are not
universally accessible for people who use mobility devices, and
all restrooms should be renovated to provide at least one
wheelchair-accessible stall. In addition, family restrooms
would help those with disabilities who may require assistance.
Finally, the pandemic fundamentally changed the way that
constituents and advocates have interacted with Capitol Hill.
In-person meetings, hearings, roundtables, and briefings
transformed to virtual events. The ability to participate
virtually in these events has expanded the ability of people
with disabilities to more easily participate.
As the Nation emerges from the pandemic, PVA believes that
continued avenues for virtual participation in events is needed
to ensure full access to the legislative process for people
with disabilities who may experience travel, physical, and/or
monetary barriers.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit our views on
improving access. We look forward to answering any questions.
[The statement of Ms. Ansley follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thanks so much, Ms. Ansley.
Our next witness is Judy Brewer. Ms. Brewer directs the Web
Accessibility Initiative at the World Wide Web Consortium. She
is also a principal research scientist at MIT's Computer
Science and Artificial Intelligence Lab.
Her work includes coordinating the development of
accessibility standards, guidelines, and best practices for
digital technologies, including the web, mobile, digital
publishing, virtual reality, and other technologies that are
converging on the web.
Ms. Brewer's current interests include expanding access to
digital accessibility for people in underresourced regions and
communities around the world, and exploring the potential of
virtual meetings and gatherings to improve connections between
people with disabilities and others.
Ms. Brewer, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JUDY BREWER
Ms. Brewer. Thank you. To the Honorable Chair Kilmer and
Vice Chair Timmons and distinguished members of the committee,
thank you for this opportunity to speak with you about the
importance of digital accessibility in modernizing Congress.
I direct the Web Accessibility Initiative, WAI, at the
World Wide Web Consortium, W3C, the international standards
body for the web. We are headquartered at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology. I have been working on accessibility
for over three decades as a technology expert, as well as a
person with a disability. My oral testimony summarizes my
written testimony.
Digital accessibility is the design of technologies so that
people with disabilities can use them, along with everyone
else, whether their disabilities are auditory, cognitive,
neurological, physical, speech, or visual.
The scope and impact is broad. Digital accessibility
enables constituents who are blind to find and comment on
legislation that you are developing. It enables a staff member
experiencing stress to smoothly navigate to a secure and
private telehealth session. It enables a Congress person who is
hard of hearing to follow witnesses' testimony by streaming
captions in a video conference. It could allow students who are
deaf or have low vision or difficulty with hand coordination to
take a virtual tour of the Capitol with their classmates.
We count on accessibility thanks to the 30-year-old
Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA. It is timely for
congressional attention given that the pandemic has accelerated
society's move from physical to virtual. COVID has, at the same
time, put the digital disability divide into sharp relief.
The accepted worldwide standard for web accessibility is
the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, WCAG, which also sets
a foundation for accessibility of mobile, publishing, and more.
WCAG is developed by the Web Accessibility Initiative at
W3C with extensive contributions from industry, research,
people with disabilities, and government. It is incorporated
into Section 508 and cited for conforming to the ADA.
WAI also develops authoritative educational, explanatory,
and technical materials for implementing WCAG.
This work is supported in part by the National Institute on
Disability, Independent Living, Rehabilitation and Research at
the Department of Health and Human Services, the European
Commission, the Ford Foundation, WAI sponsors, and W3C member
organizations. My remarks today are my own and do not
necessarily reflect the views of WAI's funders.
A vibrant and extensive business sector has evolved to
address the need for development and evaluation of accessible
digital technologies. Practical and operational issues in large
decentralized organizations require a comprehensive and
methodical approach. There is no silver bullet.
The 116th Congress resolution on modernizing Congress
called for accessibility assessments of all House websites and
apps. This is an important first step. It is also important to
build awareness, set a centralized policy, select tools
carefully, and conduct ongoing monitoring.
Examples of issues and approaches include it is important
that documents be produced in accessible formats. Legacy
documents may need significant remediation. It is important
that tools for producing documents and websites are usable by
staff with disabilities.
Tools that conform to a different standard, the Authoring
Tool Accessibility Guidelines, ATAG, ensure that they can be
used by people with disabilities and that they support
production of accessible content.
Accessible templates and business processes for websites
and applications and training, including for nontechnical staff
writers, help achieve accessibility.
Procurement approaches from Section 508 of the Workforce
Investment Act can help set clear expectations with vendors.
Turning back to the circumstances that are causing us to
have a virtual rather than in-person hearing today, the
pandemic has hit racial, cultural, and disability communities
in a devastating way. It is more important than ever that we
have equal opportunity to comment into public processes that
impact our lives.
Everyone had to pivot to virtual modes with little
preparation. People with disabilities had to pivot in
especially difficult ways. We are now seeing progress through
innovation driven by necessity.
People with disabilities do not want to lose this virtual
access that has opened new doors during this difficult time.
WAI is developing best practices to address accessibility of
virtual, as well as hybrid events, events that are both in
person and virtual in the future. I encourage Congress to
support this emerging area of accessibility.
It is heartening to learn of interest by the bipartisan
Select Committee on Modernization.
Thank you for your time. I look forward to your questions.
[The statement of Ms. Brewer follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Brewer.
And our final witness is John Uelmen. Mr. Uelmen serves as
general counsel of the Office of Congressional Workplace
Rights, where he previously held the positions of acting
general counsel, deputy general counsel, and supervising
attorney.
In December 2015, the Board of Directors appointed him as
the general counsel, along with a team of attorneys and
inspectors who conduct comprehensive inspections of Capitol
Hill buildings and grounds.
Mr. Uelmen ensures legislative branch compliance with
health and safety and public access laws incorporated in the
Congressional Accountability Act of 1995. Mr. Uelmen is also
responsible for investigating and enforcing violations of the
labor laws in the CAA.
Mr. Uelmen, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JOHN UELMEN
Mr. Uelmen. Good morning, Chair Kilmer, Vice Chair Timmons,
and other members of the Select Committee. Thank you for this
opportunity to appear today about ADA access issues in the
House.
I have been asked to briefly summarize the findings from
the report we jointly prepared with the Architect of the
Capitol and the House Sergeant at Arms pursuant to the House
resolution passed in the last Congress at the behest of this
committee.
I think, to better understand this report, let me kind of
briefly describe the barrier identification and removal process
that is currently in place.
The current system has been in place for about 11 years.
Pursuant to the CAA, my office inspects all legislative branch
facilities on the Hill for ADA access issues and reports those
findings to stakeholders.
Under this system, we systematically inspect the facilities
and provide the periodic reports. We also conduct special
inspections at the request of Members, employees, employing
offices, and visitors. And we also then investigate specific
charges of discrimination, alleged denial of access to a
program, service, activity, or a public accommodation because
of a disability.
During the past 11 years, we have inspected almost all the
public facilities on the campus, which has, as you probably
know, 18 million square feet of building space and 460 acres of
surrounding grounds.
We have meticulously identified and recorded in our
database each barrier to access, reported those findings to the
Architect of the Capitol and other employing offices, and
summarized these findings in periodic reports to Congress.
Under this barrier identification and removal approach, we
evaluate the facilities using the 2010 Standards for Accessible
Design, which are based on guidelines developed by the Access
Board and are the most recent standards.
These standards, for the most part, apply to new
construction and alterations. So there are some challenges when
you apply them to existing buildings.
We use the standards really for planning purposes so that
as a facility is altered or refurbished, it is gradually
brought up to the standards to the extent feasible.
And, of course, here we have some very old historic
buildings that are essentially living museums that must also
function as office space and also maintain a high level of
security.
So that what we find is that in our buildings that we have
to consider both the historic preservation interests, as well
as the potential security interests when we are looking at
improving accessibility.
But under this system, we have identified most, if not all,
of the physical access barriers existing on the Hill and
provided those findings to the Architect of the Capitol and
other employing offices, together with a possible solution for
each of these barriers.
Moving to the report that we issued last Congress, first of
all, I think there is some good news in that report. The
inspectors were, I think, impressed with the renovations taking
place in the Cannon Building. I think that once those
renovations are complete we will see a great improvement in
accessibility in this building.
Also, I think the report did note that there have been many
barriers removed in Congress. I think most notably have been
the improvement in the Independence Avenue entrance to Rayburn.
I think the new lift there is a bigger improvement over what we
had before.
We have also seen an improvement kind of in the balcony
area of Rayburn, which is often used for public gatherings, at
least the lift there is greatly improved.
The not-so-good news is, of course, we found over 1,600
barriers to access in House facilities. A good chunk of those
barriers were in Member offices, 466, and many of those can be
solved fairly easily by removing or replacing furniture,
putting in self-service racks at accessible levels, keeping
both sides of double leaf doors open.
Another kind of large chunk of the barriers are 532 were in
multi-user restrooms. Again, some of these can be solved or
have been solved fairly quickly by moving fixtures and
dispensers, adding door pulls. Other solutions are more
complicated and require reconfiguring the design of the stalls
or the fixture itself.
We also saw some facility-wide barriers, such as door
hardware that cannot be grasped easily with one hand.
And in the report we also attempted to give you a
functional accessibility assessment. This type of assessment
can help to identify potential access issues that are not found
by referencing the standards.
For example, while the 2010 standards will allow us to
assess whether a restroom identified as accessible has any
barriers, the standards will not tell us whether the number of
accessible restrooms or their distribution is convenient or
adequate.
So some of the functional accessibility findings are, I
think, not surprising based on the testimony you have heard so
far. I think the current distribution and number of accessible
restrooms and family restrooms is not convenient for many
users. The current directional signage and directories are
often confusing, difficult to read, or inadequate.
Access to the buildings is affected by the topography of
the Hill, obviously, including where the drop-off locations are
for taxis and cars, and the Capitol South Metro stop elevator
leaving people at the bottom of the hill.
And also, finally, movement between the buildings, the
House buildings, can be difficult for those with disability
impairments or mobility impairments because often the most
accessible route is outside and not well marked. And I think
you heard some of the testimony about the challenges of moving
through the tunnels.
Finally, looking at the future in the report, the Architect
of the Capitol has provided a description of how it is
addressing the facility access issues that were identified.
Generally, barriers with the most--what we call an A severity
code, which are those that affect safety concerns, are
prioritized and they are removed fairly quickly.
The same can be said for barriers that could be easily
corrected. The B and C barriers can take more time,
particularly if they involve extensive designing, planning, and
funding.
The AOC does consider and integrate open ADA barrier
findings in its current and future projects, and the AOC is
also undertaking additional studies and reports which are
considering accessibility issues, including the ongoing
transportation and security studies.
The one suggestion that I have for the committee, because I
know this committee likes to hear suggestions, and that would
be to create an ADA coordinator position in the House. This is
a position that is familiar with many members of the disability
community since it is a position that is required by the
regulations for State and local governments and executive
branch agencies.
I think someone in this position could assist in
implementing the three recommendations that the committee set
forth in the last Congress by dealing with websites and apps,
House proceedings, and Capitol grounds and facilities.
I think this person could help serve as a clearinghouse for
information and coordinate all of the House-related ADA access
efforts, which are really made by a variety of offices, which
includes the AOC, CAO, OHEC, CHA, SAA, USCP, OCWR, and OCAS,
the Office of Congressional Accessibility Services.
And finally, I think that this office would complement and
be consistent with the recent creation of other House offices,
such as the Office of Employee Advocacy and the Office of
Diversity and Inclusion.
So, again, I thank you for the opportunity to address the
committee. I would be happy to answer any questions you may
have.
[The statement of Mr. Uelmen follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thanks, Mr. Uelmen.
And with that, we will dive into member questions. I will
start by recognizing myself for 5 minutes. And we will have
myself and then Mr. Timmons. And then our order is Mr.
Perlmutter, Mr. Davis, Mr. Phillips, Mr. Joyce, and then Ms.
Van Duyne.
My first question is for Ms. Ansley.
I think it is helpful for us to just get a better feel for
some of the concerns you raised. You described it as being
difficult just to get the members of your organizations to
Capitol Hill. Can you just describe what a typical visit
entails and what is the process and what are some of the
difficulties?
And I know part of the trickiness of even entering
buildings in the House is just the security screenings and that
type of thing. And if you can just describe that and perhaps
how it relates to other secure facilities, like airports or
other Federal offices, if there are things that we can learn or
not learn from those entities.
Ms. Ansley. Well, thank you, Chair Kilmer, for that
question.
There are a variety of barriers that certainly have to be
considered, particularly for folks who may not be used to
navigating Capitol Hill, so if we bring up members.
That can relate to the drop-off point. Typically, PVA is
fortunate to have a van with a lift that we can drop people
off, but often that is a game of Jenga trying to find a place
where you feel like you can deploy the ramp. Our driver has to
get out many times to help the person on the ramp. He needs
some time, some space to do that.
So that begins. And then when you are looking at which is
your closest office building, the most accessible entrance,
that can depend on does the person use a manual chair or a
power chair as to which entrance is most accessible for them
and how far they want to go. Because as we mentioned several
times, Capitol Hill is a hill and that itself is an
accessibility barrier.
Then when you are getting into the Capitol, the security
process can be varied. I have seen wheelchair users waved
through without any screening at all. I have seen all the way
to an invasive pat-down that occurs right there in front of
everyone in the security line.
If you want to compare it to like a TSA screening, that
kind of depends on, do you have PreCheck, do you have regular
TSA? If you are just going through standard TSA, you are going
to get a pretty invasive pat-down in that process.
But you also have the option to, if you can afford to
upgrade to PreCheck, then it is a different process. They are
just going to swab your chair, your hands, or your feet, and
run it through a machine. So it can depend.
I think the biggest issue with security is that it is
variable and it is not easy for wheelchair users to understand,
which am I going to get? Am I going to get waved through or am
I going to get a pat-down in front of all my colleagues and
everybody else who happens to be watching?
From there, it is trying to find where is the correct
elevator, particularly if we have to go between House office
buildings.
If you are trying to go from Longworth to Rayburn and you
are going in the main entrance of Longworth, there is one
elevator that takes you down to the basement to get to Rayburn.
And you have to keep calling the elevators until that
particular one appears and it has got enough space in it that a
wheelchair user can get in it.
And then, finally, when you get to the office, I have had
to open the door and physically move chairs, coffee tables, all
kinds of things just to literally get somebody in the door.
One of our women veterans who uses a large power chair
reported that when she has come to Capitol Hill, many times she
ends up having her meetings in the hallway.
Now, all of us have had hallway meetings if you have been
on Capitol Hill, but when that is kind of your standard because
literally you cannot get into the office to navigate it, that
is troublesome, particularly for a woman who has served her
country and has a disability as a result.
The Chairman. I appreciate that concern that you are
raising.
Mr. Uelmen, you touched on the idea of an ADA coordinator.
I just want to get a sense of how the Office of Congressional
Workplace Rights coordinates with the other offices involved in
solving ADA access issues and perhaps talk about how you might
envision an ADA coordinator fitting into the current structure
that supports offices seeking accommodations for staff and for
visitors with disabilities.
Mr. Uelmen. Sure. We work with other offices in a variety
of different ways. I mean, for our systematic inspections, we
conduct an opening conference and we will invite all of the
stakeholders that might be interested.
So that might include representatives from the Architect of
the Capitol, from USCP, from it might be the CAO in the House,
it might be OHEC, the Office of House Employment Counsel.
And many times all of them are involved in our inspections
because, depending on the issue, it is going to be one of
theirs to help solve it.
So, I mean, often we, because we work with all of the
different offices, we are often right now the one that tries to
communicate and kind of smooth out who is supposed to do what
when it comes to inspections.
The same is true of our special inspections and our
charges. I mean, generally we will, again, have an opening
conference, bring in all the interested parties that may be
able to solve the issue. I mean, our focus is really future
looking always. Our approach to enforcement is not going to
punish them; it is more how do we solve this issue.
And often around here it is figuring out who can do what to
solve it, because it is, I think, confusing in terms of who has
what responsibility.
And I think that is where the ADA coordinator could help
you a lot, I mean, especially in focusing on all the House
issues. You pointed out in your report, I mean, you do have
separate issues with websites and with apps.
And just having one point of contact as somebody who--if
somebody is having difficulty, for instance, getting out of the
building because they stayed late talking to a Member and the
entrance they came in was closed, I mean, they could contact
the ADA coordinator and that person could help them get out,
get out [audio malfunction].
The Chairman. Oops. I think we have temporarily lost Mr.
Uelmen, but hopefully he will come back. I am also out of time.
So let me invite Vice Chair Timmons to ask some questions.
You are recognized.
Mr. Timmons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just can't help but think about the fact that, one,
Rayburn is one of the most confusing buildings ever constructed
by man, and the fact that if you are only able to get in and
out of one or a couple of points, how difficult it will be.
I get frustrated just walking around Rayburn because I
always get lost. But the thought that there is only one or two
ways to get in and out of Rayburn or any of these buildings
would be just incredibly frustrating.
So I think it is great that we are having these
conversations because we need--we must do better. And I
appreciate everybody's work on that.
Mr. Uelmen, welcome back. We need to work on internet, too,
obviously. I want to thank you for your work on these issues
and your testimony today.
I also want to take a moment to echo the comments of the
chairman in recognizing the services that the Office of
Congressional Accessibility Services provides to offices that
have questions about how to accommodate staff or visitors on
accessibility, as well as those wishing to visit the Capitol.
They are an important and yet probably underutilized
resource, and they are doing good work. And I just want to take
a moment to thank them.
But also really we need to bring focus to other offices on
this, to make sure that everyone knows that the services are
available.
And along those lines, Mr. Uelmen, can you talk about--we
were just talking about the ADA coordinator. How do you
envision that really working, and could you share your thoughts
kind of further on that?
Mr. Uelmen. Sure. First of all, I do think OCAS does a
phenomenal job. I think David Hauck and his folks, particularly
with the Capitol Building and CVC, I mean, they really, with
the resources they have, I think that they do a good job. And I
don't mean to diminish that in any way by suggesting that an
ADA coordinator would be useful for the House.
But I think the House has some specific challenges the
Senate does not have. I mean, the Members are here, they have
very short terms, a 2-year term. I think they have challenges
setting up their offices. Just figuring out who does what when
you are setting up an office, I think, is a big challenge that
Members have, and you have a big turnover in staff.
And just having somebody looking out for the House's
interests specifically and coordinating, just providing a
clearinghouse for information in terms of how you can get
assistance to do [inaudible] I think would be of great benefit,
I mean.
So that is really where that recommendation comes from. I
have spoken to the Architect about it. I think they agree that
that would be a good person that they could also interact with,
as well as OCAS, as well as Office of House Employment Counsel,
CAO, I think just having one.
The other thing is, if the House wants to set a higher
standard than what the ADA requires, it could do that in using
an ADA coordinator.
For instance, the ADA standard doesn't require door
openers. The ABA standards do, but the ADA standards don't
require door openers, although the Architect has put a lot of
them in. But if the House decided that is going to be the
standard, then the ADA coordinator could help implement that in
the House.
Mr. Timmons. Sure. Thank you. Did you say there are 1,600
doors that are not currently accessible?
Mr. Uelmen. There are quite--I mean, if you look at--the
standards require, for instance, if you have double leaf doors,
that both of the leaves be wide open. So if you look at all the
number of double leaf doors, they are virtually all--none of
them are needed.
Now, there are actual security concerns with that, too, I
think. I think the Capitol Police want Members to have heavy
doors and Members want to be able to close the doors quickly in
the event of some type of security event, which is why I think
many times only the one leaf is open. So those are things that
have to be worked out.
Mr. Timmons. Sure. And in the new--the Cannon renovation,
the doors are--I imagine that they are fire rated. There are
security issues and they are enormous and they are see-through.
So, I mean, I cannot imagine that the glass doors that do have
door openers on them--I mean, those are probably what, $50,000
to $100,000 each?
Mr. Uelmen. Yes. None of these--a lot of times the
solutions are not inexpensive.
Mr. Timmons. Well, I think that the United States
Government in our seat of power here in the Capitol probably
should be leading by example and should not allow these
problems to persist.
So I just want to thank all the witnesses for their
testimony, and we are going to do whatever we can to help on
all these issues.
So, Mr. Chairman, with that, I will yield back. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thanks.
We have a slight change in our batting order. Mr.
Perlmutter had to step out for a moment for Financial Services.
I am going to, just out of deference to his seniority, call
on Mr. Davis and then Mr. Phillips.
Mr. Davis. Well, thank you, very, very much, Mr. Chair.
And thanks to the witnesses.
I want to start with Ms. Ansley.
In your testimony, you recommended we invest more in
training Capitol Police and staff to both be more aware of
individuals with disabilities and increase accommodation and
assistance.
I agree and think we can make great strides with simply
informing staff, especially our staff assistants on the Hill,
about the resources available to them through both Mr. Uelmen's
OCWR team and the Office of Congressional Accessibility
Services.
What do you think are the barriers blocking staff from
being aware and taking advantage of the resources?
Ms. Ansley. Thank you for the question.
I think one of the barriers on the Hill is always time. It
is very busy, there is lots going on. And I think incentivizing
staff to get this training by having it be something that is
coming from the top, whether it is the Members, it is
leadership, that this type of training is important because it
helps to improve accessibility, is key.
And I think providing staff with easy resources so that
they know what to do when they get requests. Having checklists.
Having an understanding of, if somebody tells me that a
wheelchair user is coming to this meeting, what does that mean
for my office? It means I might have to move something, I might
have to have the door open and ready when it is close to time
for them to arrive.
I think as easy as we can make it for staff to have those
resources at their fingertips, the more likely it is that they
will then be able to put that into place when they are
balancing a hundred other things that they are trying to take
care of at any one moment.
Mr. Davis. Great.
Do you, or any of the witnesses for that matter, you just
mentioned some sample outreach strategies that have been
successfully deployed, do you have any more that you would be
willing to share with us?
Ms. Brewer. I would be happy to comment. This is Judy
Brewer.
Mr. Davis. Go ahead.
Ms. Brewer. Yeah. And thank you for this question with
regard to training in the digital accessibility area.
We feel that it is important to look at the many different
roles in an organization. So, for instance, someone who is a
website developer or a mobile application developer clearly
needs some training as to how to apply that standard.
But at the same time you need to make sure that management
has training so they have broad awareness of what the
requirements are, how to achieve it, what potential barriers to
uptake are, and so forth. It is helpful to have somebody at a
high level who can be a champion who is also oriented to the
issue.
It is also helpful to have nontechnical people who have
awareness of how to address accessibility in the particular
form of digital accessibility. And I imagine that that carries
over as well to the built environment. There is a training need
for the practical details, but also management need for
training and so forth.
And there are many resources available for that in terms of
digital accessibility. So we have free open courses. There are
also more specialized courses that different businesses
provide.
Mr. Davis. Excellent.
Well, as the ranking member of House Administration, I know
both the majority and the minority on that committee would love
to be able to continue to work with each and every one of you
to do what we can to make sure the areas that we have oversight
over continue to address some of the problems that have been
brought up by all of the witnesses' testimony.
And, Mr. Uelmen, if I could--and I apologize if I am
pronouncing your name wrong--but if I could end with some
questions to you.
As the Architect of the Capitol performs its security
assessment and undertakes its larger multiyear transportation
study, is your office included in either of those
conversations?
Mr. Uelmen. Yes. First of all, you are pronouncing my name
perfectly.
Yeah, the Architect, we have been very involved in the
transportation study. We have had our contractor involved as
well in terms of providing suggestions regarding drop-off
locations and some of the access issues into the buildings
themselves.
We haven't been involved too much In the security study,
but I expect that we will. Generally, we do get involved.
Mr. Davis. Good. Is there anything we can do at House
Administration or with this committee to help foster even a
better relationship with the Architect?
Mr. Uelmen. There is nothing I can think of offhand, but I
would certainly be willing to think about that question some
more and get back to you or your staff about that.
Mr. Davis. Well, I have been amazed. Since we run new
Member orientation, I have seen the office lotto that usually
takes all the energy out of Congress solving any other problems
for at least a week. That one issue does not--I hear no
complaints where we are able to make an accommodation to some
of our newly elected Members with disabilities. And that is a
testament, because people--all of us want to help and all of us
want to help you help everyone else too.
So with that, thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back.
The Chairman. Thanks, Mr. Davis.
Next up, Mr. Phillips.
Mr. Phillips. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I just want to thank all of you. Some wonderful
propositions, most of them affirming.
My real, more than a question, it is more of a statement,
Mr. Uelmen, you spoke about 477 barriers. My colleague, Mr.
Davis, just asked how House Admin can be a better liaison
perhaps.
And I just want to make that proposition that with so much
low-hanging fruit how we could easily distribute these best
practices to new Members and existing Members at the beginning
of a Congress or, frankly, at any time. That is easy. It
doesn't take a lot of action. And just want to advocate for so
doing.
But just want to thank our witnesses and your testimony.
You have elevated some important issues that we have to
address, and we intend to do so. So gratitude and many thanks.
I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Phillips.
Mr. Joyce.
The Chairman. Sorry, Mr. Joyce. I see you. I can't hear
you.
Mr. Joyce. I have been listening, but I have no questions
at this time, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman. All right.
Mr. Joyce. I am doing this off my phone. I apologize.
The Chairman. That is all right. That is all right.
Then we have got Ms. Williams.
Ms. Williams. Good morning, everybody. And I first want to
apologize for my tardiness. Right at the start of this hearing
I got a call that a constituent and a county commissioner in my
district passed way who I just spent the entire day with
Saturday. So I had to get myself together. But I am here now.
For the committee, I apologize if my questions are
redundant. This was a topic that I really wanted to hear more
about and dig into.
And so, Mr. Uelmen, I think I am pronouncing your name
correctly? Perfect.
I know that my constituents, coming from Georgia, we are
hundreds of miles away, and it is already enough of a travel to
get here for that distance. But we have so many other barriers
that in your testimony you reference of even when you get to
the Capitol that people still have to deal with just getting
around the Capitol complex.
And you mentioned 1,632 accessibility barriers in House
buildings alone, and one of them includes the multiple barriers
in Member offices, and some of those can be easily resolved.
How do you recommend that our offices proactively prevent
or identify and eliminate the barriers within our own spaces,
our individual offices?
Mr. Uelmen. Well, we actually do have some guidelines on
our website. We have got a video kind of directed at Member
offices specifically. We have got some checklists. We have
worked with both employment counsel on both the House side and
the Senate side to come up with checklists to be used in
district offices as well just to think about ADA access.
So we do our best to publicize that those resources are
available. We don't have access to the internal network at the
House, though we do have it on our website, so that is a great
place to start.
Also, our office is always available for any consultation.
We have consulted with Members before who are looking at
specific issues in their House or even in district offices, and
we have worked through how they could solve those.
So we do have that resource available to you.
Ms. Williams. And, Mr. Uelmen, I am wondering if any of
this has come up as a resource issue, like in making
modifications in offices, if that has been a challenge.
And, if so, like, what do you think needs to be done so
that we can tackle that, advocate for the resources to get some
of these issues fixed, and then to also advocate for fixing the
more complex issues around the Capitol as well?
Mr. Uelmen. Yeah. Well, the big challenge in Member offices
is how tight the space is. We work on the areas that the public
comes in so that at least there is access to a conference room
with a table that is at accessible height. We encourage them
not to have to move around furniture, that it is always in that
position so it is inviting to people who come in. There is no
easy solution to getting Members more space.
But the one thing, I think, that we are learning from the
pandemic is that Zoom is a good resource and that more and more
staff work can be done probably remotely. I think the Hill has
been somewhat slow in doing that. That potentially could at
least free up some space in the office where you don't have to
have staff in every day or something or alternate when staff
comes in.
So that may be not the ideal solution, but certainly a less
expensive solution to that.
I think the resource issues, I mean, obviously the AOC
prioritizes--there are ongoing maintenance issues in all of the
facilities, as well as safety issues, as well as ADA access
issues.
Again, I think the AOC does a good job providing to
Appropriations their list of projects and what is going to be
funded and not and leaves it up to Appropriations to decide
what is going to be funded or not funded.
So it is really a matter of getting the ADA access programs
higher priority and get them funded.
Ms. Williams. Thank you.
And, I mean, just my opinion, I don't think ADA access
should be up for if we fund it or not. Like, that should be a
must-have on the priority list.
And, finally, I have a few seconds left, you also advocate
for the creation of a House-designated ADA coordinator to
facilitate the accessibility of Congress both physically and
virtually.
Do you envision any role for the coordinator in proactively
reaching out to congressional offices to share accessibility
best practices?
I know you mentioned it was on the website, but I haven't
seen this. And so that is something that I need to be more
proactive about.
But how can we be more proactive with Members of Congress
to make sure that we have that information?
Mr. Uelmen. Yeah. Certainly, that really is one of the
primary roles of an ADA coordinator, is to work with offices.
There is mention of training. That is something that training
can be provided. All of those things.
And by having it located in the House and having access to
the House Net, which is, I think, where most Members get their
information, if there is a big presence there with those
resources, I think more Members are going to be aware of what
resources are available.
And, of course, that person can also direct you to the
other resources that are available, either to the Office of
Congressional Accessibility Services or to our office or to the
Office of House Employment Counsel.
So that is why I think the coordinator might be beneficial
too.
Ms. Williams. Thank you so much.
And, Mr. Chairman, my apologies, I did go over just a few
seconds.
The Chairman. No apology necessary, and we are glad you are
here. And I am sorry to hear about your loss.
I want to give members an opportunity if they have
additional questions. I have a round two question and it is for
Ms. Ball.
I was hoping you could just explain the on-boarding process
in your office. What accommodations were made? Was there a
point person in your office? Who was it that they worked
through in some of the other departments, like CAO and HR and
Payroll and Benefits?
Ms. Ball. Sure. Thank you very much for that question.
Obviously, some of that was sort of behind the scenes as I was
being on-boarded, so I will try and answer the question as best
I can.
Liz Hollis in our office was really the point person, and
she reached out to me very early on. Obviously, they had seen
in the interview that I was a wheelchair user and so they were
aware of that and wanted to make sure that everything was
accessible to me. And Liz literally asked me for the dimensions
of my wheelchair and different things like that so that they
could go through my--figure out which office was going to work
best for me, which furniture I might need.
And also, one other thing I really appreciated was they
made sure the common spaces that the staff work in were going
to be accessible to me, so that I wouldn't be sort of relegated
to staying in my office. And I haven't had any particular
issues navigating those spaces.
In terms of paying for things, I didn't really need any
particular accommodation. Actually, they did have a desk that
was made. Unfortunately, it ended up not working for me because
I usually get out of my wheelchair and sit in a regular chair
when I am at work. But they did go through the Architect of the
Capitol, is my understanding, to acquire that, and their
efforts were very much appreciated.
And I certainly felt like that was something that there was
a real information exchange, which I think is the important
thing, is that universal access is great, but a lot of times a
person with a disability might need specific accommodations.
And so having a conversation with that person and asking
what is going to meet their needs is really the most important
part of the process, and they absolutely did that.
The Chairman. You may have just spoken to this, but did
your employing office have to--did they spend the money to get
equipment and furniture, or was it provided by the House?
Ms. Ball. Again, I didn't really need a whole lot of extras
just because of the nature of my disability. I am able to use
most regular things. I can stand up some, so that means that I
don't have some of the same accessibility needs as other folks
do.
In terms of the desk that they did have made, I believe
that that just came out of the committee's budget.
And one thing I would like to point out about that, I mean,
I am absolutely for allocating more resources to making things
accessible. But under the ADA employers are responsible for
making the environments that their staff are in accessible
regardless, and there is no particular funding available for
that other than tax incentives and things like that.
So it is just part of doing business. And I think that that
is something that--that is an attitude that needs to be really
prevalent in the House as well. And, again, it was certainly
the case on the committee I worked for.
I think Mr. Uelmen makes a very good point that there is so
much turnover just in terms of Members being here for a
relatively short period of time sometimes, they may not have
that kind of awareness of all of their responsibilities as
employers.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Let me invite, do any other members of the committee have a
round two question?
I think I see only nodding heads or shaking heads. Okay.
Well, with that, I want to thank all of our witnesses for
their testimony today. I really appreciated your perspectives
and think you gave our committee a lot to chew on. So thank you
for that.
As I am issuing gratitude, I also want to just thank our
staff for putting this hearing together. The Select Committee
has a terrific team that is doing great work pulling together,
I think, some really insightful hearings, so thank you for that
too.
So with that, without objection, all members will have 5
legislative days within which to submit additional written
questions for the witnesses to the chair, which will be
forwarded to the witnesses for their response. I ask our
witnesses to please respond as promptly as you are able.
Without objection, all members will have 5 legislative days
within which to submit extraneous materials to the chair for
inclusion in the record.
And with that, this hearing is adjourned. Thanks,
everybody.
[Whereupon, at 12:18 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX I
=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]