[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]