Transcripts For CSPAN3 Sexual Harassment Congressional Workplace 20171209

[inaudible conversations] i know called to order for purposes of todays hearing i now call to order the house of administration for todays hearing entitled preventing Sexual Harassment in the congressional work place. Examining reforms to the Congressional Accountability Act. The hearing record will remain op open for five legislative days. A corm is present and so we may proceed. I ask for unanimous consent that the committee on ethics chairwoman, susan brooks and bradley burn be afforded the opportunity to question all of our Witnesses Today. That objection so ordered. At it outset i would like to thank all of our witnesses for taking time out of what i know are very busy schedules to be here. Were much appreciative of that. First and foremost let me reiterate there is no place for Sexual Harassment in our society. Especially in congress, period. And one case of Sexual Harassment is one case too many. The speaker of the house, paul ryan tasked this committee with heading up an extensive review on this issue and we take that responsibility very seriously. As members of congress we must hold ourselves to a higher standard, a standard that demonstrates were worthy of the trust placed in us by our constituents and by everyone in this country. Since our last hearing on november 14th additional counts of Sexual Harassment have surfaced, both those authorized under the Congressional Accountability Act and outside that act have been raised. These issues suggest not only that it is time but it is appropriate for the committee to review the policy goals, review the processes set out in the act. What we need do to accomplish those policy goals and evaluate the reforms needed to accomplish our bipartisan goal of zero tolerance. The Congressional Accountability Act has not been comprehensively reviewed since its enactment in 1995. By passing h res 630. This resolution requires are had house members, officers, employees, including paid or unpaid interns, fellows in detailees to complete antiharassment and antidiscrimination training every year. As well as require all House Offices to post under the Congressional Accountability Act. The logical next step is to conduct a closer are eview of the Congressional Accountability Act to identify and evaluate what reforms are needed to inhad sure were protecting all congressional employees in the work place. This hearing plays an Important Role in our hearings Important Role and if site from our Witnesses Today will help inform us and help us make those policy choices. I want to thank our speaker, paul ryan, with tasking this committee with that important issue. And the Ranking Member for his commitment to this issue and having the house work in a bipartisan manner. Not only is it essential, but its what people expect. With that ill yield to the Ranking Member. And mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing today and for the bipartisan manner by which you are approaching this issues. I also want to thank our witnesses. I appreciate the professional and nonpartisan way you approach your jobs and thank you for being here for a second time. The Congressional Accountability Act needs to be reformed. Since our last hearing i have met with our colleagues and experts to better understand how we can approve this legislation. But most importantly i met with survivors of Sexual Harassment and assault. We need improve this process. But most important we need to change the culture of this place and that change must start with us. I hope this helps us find an agreement on how we can perform the Congressional Accountability Act and give victims more process in the process and justes for the terrible experience they have endured. Mr. Chairman, i look forward to hearing from our witnesses and i yield back the balance of my time. Thank you, mr. Brady. Does any other member wish to be rec recogniz recognized . Thank you, mr. Chairman. And again i appreciate your leadership and Ranking Member brady and the bipartisan, bicameral nature by which were approaching this and i do really believe this is a water shed moment and we need to take this opportunity to really fundamentally change how we address this in congress but also beyond. I thank my colleagues jacky spear and bradley burn joining us today and i believe susan brooks, chairman of the Ethics Committee will be joining us too. 30 years ago a young woman dorina, was the first victim of Sexual Harassment who brought this forward, highlighted this issue against a member of congress and perveiled in her case. I wanted to welcome her and once again thank her for her curage and her perseverance and how gracefully she handled a terribly difficult situation then and i think its important that now, even though its far too long and it shouldnt have been this long that we do right by dorina and all the people who are the people behind many of the had headlines were seeing right now. We see offen the offenders and we want to know about sexual predators because we know they cross all party lines, their actions transcend any party labels. But we want to make sure that the victims are put first and foremost here. That we provide an advocate for them, whether its a counsel or ahmedsman or some kind of level Playing Field so they feel were protecting them and more importantly that we actually are and make this a much more fair system. And how we address the nondisclosure agreements. We know the nondisclosure agreements are often preventing us from knowing whats going on there and whether its allowing people in the past in dongress to come forward without any fear of violating their nondisclosure agreements and others legislation on that frupt too. So i think thats an important issue we need to address Going Forward. Thank you for the opportunity here to have these expert witnesses and particularly the eeoc did a report last year which i found very helpful in terms of talking about changing the culture and how we do that by permeating from the top down, from the bottom up and this needs to be something were all engaged and involved. So thank you for the opportunity today to address this important issue. The chair will now recognize the gentleman thank you both for convening this very important hearing and i want to thank our colleagues, representative spear who has been in the forefront of the new changes that were making. Congressman burn and i think representative brooks is kping or on the way. We are in the middle, mr. Chairman of a dramatic Culture Shift that is a tribute to the Womens Movement in the United States and to the Strong Political democracy that its part of here in our country. The public uproar over Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault began in other places. It has rocketed across america. It came to the halls of congress and it has shaken this institution to the core. But im pleased this is a moment where were restating our bipartisan commitment to zero tolerance for Sexual Harassment and to a safe, dignified and equal work place for everyone who comes to serve congress and were doing this on a bipartisan basis. Were doing this on a comprehensive institutional basis and i think thats the value thats being vindicated. This is a Culture Shift much like ones congress has gone through before. They used to take them out for dinner and on fancy trips and then there was a public uproar a scandal. And now its unthinkable in that culture. It used to be they could pocket Campaign Funds when they retired and its unthinkable anybody would do that today. We simply need to make Sexual Harassment something thats unthinkable, that wouldnt be done within these halls. So thats the value. I think everybody agrees with it. What we need is a process that implements that value and of course the devil is in the details. We need rules that will strongly deter sexual had arasment and we need a process that will swiftly and fairly punish Sexual Harassment and get to the facts of cases that are controverted until we really can move to a time when Sexual Harassment is no more in this body. But im glad that were all part of this. Were going through this process, which is obviously painful for some members of this institution. But we have to leave sexual had harassment behind like weve left other sorted processes behind and we have so many colleagues who come to join us in that project. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Anyone else have an Opening Statement . Chair will now recognize ms. Spear for the purposes of an Opening Statement. Thank you. And i too applaud your efforts and the bipartisan way we have undertaken this issue. From my colleague ms. Comstalk and mr. Burn. Ive been working on this issue for a very long time, long before i came to congress. In the mid1990s we a hearing on this issue. We brought in dr. Frances conley, who was the first tenured neurosurgeon in the United States and she was a professor at stanford university. And she wrote a book called walking out on it boys and talked about the it horrific environment in which she had to work as professional in academia and as medical professional. Of course anita hill hearings of 1992 was also a watershed issue and time when it was called the year of the women. Well, it was one year and that, frankly, was not enough. So what we have experienced over the last many decades is that there has been a return to the status quo, which is woefully unacceptable. We all recognize now that office of compliance is mandated to do things that really 30 victim. Its not that they do it by choice, its because thats how it is mandated in the Congressional Accountability Act. Hr 36 which some of you have co sponsored, its republicans and democrats alike as the me too congress act which attempts to do the job of reforming the office of compliance. I dont think it goes far enough. And as we continue to talk about this issue i think we need recognize that probably the house Ethics Committee or the House Administration committee is not the venue to which investigations should be sent when a complaint is filed about Sexual Harassment. There needs to be an independent investigation. Some have said how about the due process . And i would say there is due process here and if we allow this independent agency or entity to do the review and make a recommendation to the house, that that would provide it. I do think that we have to recognize that behavior like this is normally not just one incident. Normally its a pattern of behavior. And i think weve got to make sure that however we move forward that we are victim centric. We have to recognize that many of these victims, one of whom sat in my office crying said to me going through this process was worse than the Sexual Harassment itself. Shame on us for not having addressed this sooner. I want us to remember a young woman who worked in a number of offices and it was in her Second Office where she became or where she filed a complaint for Sexual Harassment. Shes no longer here. Her career was over. She was told her career would be over if she filed a complaint and she hasnt worked since. Weve got to make sure that victims have the opportunity to stay here and work. They have a right to be able to work in these hallowed halls. Just because they were pawed by a colleague of ours or a staff member is not a reason to then if they file a complaint to u. S. Ostracize them. So i hope that we will redouble our efforts to make sure theres a soft landing for them so they can continue to pursue a career in public service. Chair will now recognize gentleman from north carolina. I appreciate the opportunity to be part of this committee and i think it says much that speaker has chosen your leadership to handle a sensitive and very important matter. I think of the bravery. There is a pattern to this behavior certainly much of the time. But it usually takes a champion to begin to break through some of that whos willing to come out and we have one of those leaders in this curage movement with us today. I just want to acknowledge her bravery. I yield back. Any other person wish to be recognized for the purpose of an Opening Statement. Id now like to introduce our witnesses. First, victoria lipnic appointed the chair of the equal Opportunity Commission by President Trump on january the 25th, 2017. Before becoming the acting chair she served as the she has extensive experience working in federal labor and employment laws, holding positions such as secretary of labor and work force policy counsel to the committee on education in the work force in the u. S. House of representatives. Acting chair has also worked in the private sector as counsel to the firms safe hearth. Shawl llp and its washington d. C. Office. We welcome you. Id also like to introduce season swede grunman. She served as chief operating officer for the office of compliance which was established to insure the integrity of the Congressional Accountability Act through programs of dispute resolution, education and enforcement, ms. Grunman also works with the office of compliance board of directors to advise congress on needed changes and amendments to the Congressional Accountability Act. Previously she served as the u. S. Merit Systems Protection Board enforcing merit systems in the executive branch. She was confirmed to that position by the u. S. Senate in 2009. She has more than 20 years of professional experience in litigation and in advising and educating clients in labor and employment matters. She began her legal career as a law clerk to the judicial circuit of virginia. Thank you. Ms. Gloria serves as office prior to serving as counsel she was handling litgration a Large Communications company. She also served as an assistant Corporation Counsel representing columbia as a special assistant United States attorney for the district of columbia, handling criminal prosications and an attorney for the equal employment Opportunity Commission. Dan crowley has served as counsel to the firm k. L. Gates and washington d. C. Office since 2008. Prior to joining kl gates for five years he was chief Government Affairs officer at the Investment Company institute, the national previously he was Vice President and managing director of the office of Government Relations at Nasdaq Stock Market ink. Mr. Crowleys earlier employment includes counsel to this committee, the committee on House Administration and the committee on House Oversight and the office of speaker nuewt gingrich. And you will each now have five minutes to present a summary of that submission. Of course most of you have testified before or seen that so you have a clock in front of you that will help you keep up with your time. When you have gone, it will be green for four minutes and turn yellow for the last minute and red means that your time has expired. So the chair now recognizes our witnesses for the purposes of the Opening Statement. Thank all four of you for being here today. Thank you so much. Chairman harper, Ranking Member brady, members of the committee, good morning and thank gryou fo the opportunity to testify before you today about Sexual Harassment but something we have known to be far too common and only now being fully brought into the light. Since early october since news of what was known as it weinstein scandal broke, the issue of Sexual Harassment has dominated the nations collective conversation. Im pleased to add my voice to that dialogue this morning. Im the acting chair of the equal Opportunity Commission. I served as a commissioner for the last seven 1 2 years and President Trump designated me acting chair in january of this year. When i first joined the eeoc in 2010 i was struck by it number of harassment cases and the egregious behaviors we were addressing on behalf of victims of harassment. I had conversations with our then chair who asked me to dig deeper into this issue. I spoke with every 1 f our district directors and regional a attorneys. I was astonished that to a person i was told it same thing. The eeoc could have, if it it wanted to, just a docket full of sexual had harassment cases generally and Sexual Harassment cases we continue to see led to the establishment of the select task force on the study of harassment in the work place. An outside group of experts that the eeoc convened following a Public Commission meeting in january 2015. I was honored to co chair the select task force along side my democratic colleague who joins me in the hearing room today. The goal of creating the task force was to see if we could find new innovative ways to address work place harassment. We wanted to speak to prevention, not just address liability issues. The task force included both the management and plaintiffs bar, academics including social scientists and worker advocates. Our work concluded in june 2016 with the release of the final co chairs report almost 30 years to the day the United States Supreme Court handed down its landmark decision in which it held for the first time that Sexual Harassment was a form of unlawful sex discrimination. We took away a number of top line lessons which i would take this opportunity to share. First, work place harassment remains a persistent problem. Almost fully 1 3 of the charges received in fiscal year 2015 included an allegation of harassment. This includes on the base of sex, race, disability, age, ethnicity, National Origin, color. Particularly Sexual Harassment too often goes unreported. In fact the least common response to harassment is for an employee to take some formal action, eether to report the harassment internally or file a formal legal complaint. They may not report it because they feel disbelief or inaction on their claim or professional retaliation. Third, a successful antiharassment effort must start at the top. This cannot be over stated. Effective prevention efforts in work place culture in which harassment is not tolerated must start at the highest level of management and they must have systems in place that hold employees accountable. Finally, training must change. Much of the training done over the last 30 years has not worked as a prevention tool. Its been too focussed on simply avoiding legal liability. We believe effective training can reduce work place harassment. It must be part of a holistic culture of nonharassment. And one size does not fit all. Training is most effective when tailored to most effective i understand the committee is condom plating procedures in the legislative branch and happy to offer my thoughts on these proposals in the interests of giving the committee a full background. With respect to discrimination charges in both the private and federal sectors. I would commend to the committee a set of promising practices for combatting work force harassment that we recently published and have been provided to committee staff. No system of training is likely to succeed in preventing harassment in the absence of public buy in from the very top levels of an organization. We can and must do better in all of our work places. Im a former house staffer myself so im very familiar with working in the legislative branch. The chair will now recognize ms. Grunman. Good morning, mr. Chairman, Ranking Member brady and distinguished members of this committee and guests. On behalf of the office of compliance and our entire board of directors who join me here today thank grou the opportunity to discuss our process and our concerns. We support and commend the efforts of this committee and the members of congress for mandating work place rights training for everyone. And notice posting of those rights. We have seen a triple digit percentage increase in Sexual Harassment prevention training. A triple digit increase in the number of staffers enrolling in our Online Training module. Twice as many on how to report Sexual Harassment. A surge in people subscribing to our social media platforms. And im happy to report that posters notifying employees of their rights are flying off our shelves with reorders arriving late last week. These numbers tell us something. They mean that people are finally taking seriously the problem with which weve been sounding the alarm and proactively working to combat for years through our out reach and Education Program. However, mandatory training and posters are the floor, not the ceiling. And even though chair notes in her statement that the training in the last 30 years has not worked as a prevention tool, we have over 20 years of nonmandatory training and here we are today. To reach the ceiling, not only should our process change but as the chairman noted previously, publicly and forcefully that the culture must change and that cultural shift includes not just changes to our process but a shift of a policy a Sexual Harassment prevention policy that is currently not mandated under the law. That policy should include examples of what constitutes harassment. Standards of conduct, investigations at the appropriate level and accountability. This discussion is proof that the members of this committee in this watershed moment are validating on focusing on an issue and on our efforts to help build a strong culture of culiegeal respect. Let me note media reports have portrayed us as fake, opaque, shrouded in secrecy and while we understand these comments are directed at our process and not to us as individuals. They nonetheless sully the reputations of the went women and men who faithfully report to our Office Every Day for work. Including our Occupational Health and safety inspectors including our deputy executive director who trained 5en h en50 in person and not all at once but in ones and twos and tens and including our only alternative dispute resolution counselor who meets with employees at the beginning of their process to hear their stories and to comfort them in their distress. This is the process that congress designed in 1995. A process that not only demands confidentiality but strict confidentiality under the law. A process that congress is now seeking to change and the change that we welcome and we hope that we will play an integral role. Many call this a moment of reckoning. We call it a moment of clarity. A clarity with respect to not what we do but what we do under the Congressional Accountability Act and we ask that you bare in mind this is a new day, not just for congress but throughout the legislative community. The changes that you propose and implement should and must apply beyond the halls of congress and to our entire legislative community. During this time our office stands ready and we will roll up our sleeves to assist you in the important work ahead. Thank you. I look forward to your questions. Thank you for your testimony. We look forward to asking you questions soon and will now recognize counsel for the office of house employment counsel. Good morning. I want to thank it committee on House Administrations for inviting me for a second time to give testimony on the issue of preventing Sexual Harassment in the work place. This will supplement the written testimony that i submitted earlier isthe week. I want to start by referring to an opinion piece i read on the cover of the Washington Post yesterday. It was entitled i was sexually harassed, question my story. It was written by a woman named charissa fen wick. In the article she tells her story of how she was sexually harassed. She goes on to say question my story because we need to examine our views about Sexual Harassment and misconduct. By their nature theyre characterized by gray areas and few witnesses, victims and perpetrators are both flawed and sympathetic. I thought it was important to read her language because it captures better than i could ever do the challenges my office faces on thesishe issuissues. I read her word to me and when i say these issues, i mean allegations of discrimination. Sexual harassment is a form of Unlawful Discrimination just like discrimination based on race, age and disability. I also read her words to me that automatically characterized any questions about the basis for sexual had hrassment alligations victim blaming is counterproductive. I agree. Part of my role is to question employees claims on sexual discrimination and harassment and to do so is not victim blaming. On a personal note, like most women in this country, i have experienced sexual had harassment in the work place. It began in the early part of my employment and my way to deal with it was to leave a job that i liked. Ive also experienced race discrimination in it work place. I worked at a company where a white manager brought in a whip and when questioned about it he said he wanted to quote on quote motivate the black employees. I believe these and other experiences have made me more sensitive to allegations of discrimination, not less and im probably a better lawyer for it because i understand the perspective of the employee and employer. I also try to lead by example as the head of my office. Posing difficult and challenging questions to employees most often through their lawyers is necessary to assess whether sexual had harassment has occurred and correcting any inappropriate behavior. On the other side of that equation, when were contacted about these issues, which does not happen in all instances and our clients tell us they have done absolutely nothing wrong, we question tattoo rr. We are not in the business of covering up unlawful behavior but rather we examine those gray areas i mention earlier by then working with our clients to figure out how to address the concern both legally and practically. The congressional work place is a microcosm and in many ways reflects work places across america. Yes, it occurs in the congress and while the more serious allegations of Sexual Harassment and border line criminal behavior seems to receive the most attention from the media, those type of allegations are not the normal capitol ilhad, at least not in my offices collective experience and i recognize this kind of behavior does go unreported. I want to try to answer the question of what as worked to address the concern of Sexual Harassment. I wish there was an easy answer but there is not. Although it is not a panas irks a. I believe mandatory inperson training is very helpful. The response has been encouraging. Im hopeful the training means members are talking directly with their employees and telling them they should come forward with concerns without fear of retaliation. This is still a positive step and it might help to change a perception held by some that these should not be reported. It doesnt work effectively when members schedule it around or near votes. While im convinced that no amount of training will fix truly egregious conduct that will require other mechanisms of accountability, again, it is a step in the right direction. In closing i want to thank the committee again and i welcome your questions. Thank you. The chair will now recognize Daniel Crowley for five minutes for purposes of an opening. Chairman harper and members of the exity, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. Im a partner at the law firm of k. L. Gates. I note at the outside that my comments are my own and do not represent the views of my colleagues or any firm clients. I served under congressman bill thomas through early 1998, a period that stratled the republican revolution of 1994. The Congressional Accountability Act was the first law enacted by the newelly elected congress. However, these are not fundamentally partisan issues. Rather they are institutional in nature. In fact the committees consideration began under the previous democratic majority. The basic principals that in the past guided this area are one, if a law is fright the private sector it is right for congress, two, congress will write better laws with it has to live by the same laws it imposes on the private and and three the powers embodied in the constitution must be respected. The challenge faced by the committee was to reconcile these principals. At the tieme it was felt it mus take into consideration that in the congressional contectsed, they can be career ending even if they subsubsequently prove to be untrue. The key provision is the debate clause which has been repeatedly interpreted as providing immunity for not only speech or debate in either house but other matters which it places in the jurisdiction of either house. Moreover, lower courts have ruled that speech or debate clause immunity is attached bay members in certain circumstances. Against this back drop, they sought to address violations of the federal labor and employment laws by members of congress. To that end they provided for the creation of the office of compliance within the legislative branch and charged it with responsibility for promulgating, implementing legislation and conducking studies and carrying out a program educating employees. Provide for a right of imallted judicial review. But it was carefully crafted to avoid waver of speech or debate clause immunity. Section 502, it shall not be a it to consider the Party Affiliation, domsile or political compatibility. In other words they provide an affirmative defense to allegations of discrimination. This provision and it exemptions listed thereinal show the special nature of congress by allowing member offices a well as committee and leadership offices to incorporate these three factors without prejudice to the legality of such decisions. The political compatibility exemption, while subject to broad interpretation. Is committed to provide leadership offices with more flexibility than is available under the Party Affiliation and domsile it makes dleer clear that in employment cases in which speech or debate clause immunity is asserted, it will be up to the courts whether privilege applies on a case by case basis. The committee on ethics has broad discretion which may provide another meaningful avenue to explore as the Committee Explores solutions in this area. Unconclusion the Congressional Accountability Act is legislation that sought to consistent with it legitimate constitutional protections afforded by the speech or debate clause. After more than two decades, its important to review to determine whether updates are necessary and appropriate. That said the steps the committee took more than two decades ago mean you now have experts, including my fellow panelists available to insure that employing authorities are appropriately advised. Finally i believe today as i did then that a committee to taking prompt corrective action up to and including determination must be unequivocal. Thank you again for inviting me to testify today. Thank you, for hmr. Crowley. We now have time to ask questions of the witnesses. Each member will be allotted five minutes to question a witness or witnesses. And i will now recognize myself for five minutes. And ill start, if i may with you. Certainly appreciate you being here today and the work that youve done in this area of Sexual Harassment and antiharassment generally. I want to focus on your work for a moment as co chair on the study of harassment in the work force. The eeoc has created a document titled practices for preventing harassment, identifying five core principals in which proven practices are identified. Can you give us a little insight as to what practices would constitution an effective Sexual Harassment Education Program and in your opinion of that, what have you seen that works or doesnt work . Certainly. And i would tell you that theyre driven from the tasks forces in our report. There are five core principals we think are important for preventing harassment. Our task force was focussed on prevention. At our very first meeting of our task force we all agreed that we all know what is legally actionable harassment, that is not working as a prevention tool. So we focussed on five things. One is there has to be committed and engaged leadership. There has to be consistent and demonstrated accountability within an organization. There has to be strong and comp rehence haddive harassment policies in plaes, trusted and acceptable complaint procedures and i would emphasize trusted procedures and regular and interactive training thats tailored to the audience and the organization. We were very critical of training, much of the training thats taken place and developed over the last 30 years as prevention tool. But we do not, by any means reject training as a tool. We believe that training is absolutely necessary and what ms. Let referred to in particular, she said inperson training can make a difference. It has to be kucustomized to th particular work place, the leadership of the organization has to show up for it and demonstrate that they are interested in it. It has to give examples to that particular work place and it is very important in training that individuals in the work place focus on training not even so much as what is harassment and what isnt . What are the procedures by which people can report, they know who to go to. They know what the consequences will be, what will happen. That is an important component of the training as well. So this is not going to be effective or as effective unless the person that top says this is the way it will be . Yes. And i have spoken on this many places and you will often times here, in particular outside counsel who are called in to do trainings at corporations. And it head of the Business Unit or the organization will show up for the very beginning of the training and say i want you all to Pay Attention to this and then leave. So the leadership of the organization has to be as committed to it and as engaged in that training and send the message to the individuals reseevling that training. Thank you very much. If i could now, id like the ask you a couple questions in the time that i have left. Would you describe ohecs role in the mediation phases and specifically is it retained by an employing office when counseling is initiated or when mediation begins or does it already have an Attorney Client relationship with the house office prior to being notified off a caa claim . Im going to give you a lawyerly response and that is it depends. In many instances we will know when a complaint is coming down the pike and that is because the employee in the office has contacted us. Theres been an employee dissatisfied with something in the work place. They have attach d it to a discriminatory motive and we work with the office to try to address the situation. Sometimes an employee will have an employment performance issue. Theyve been put in a Performance Improvement plan and so weve work would it office through that entire process and anticipate that when the employee loses his or her job, theyre going to the office of complian compliance. We dont know when someone has gone to the office of compliance initially because that is confidential unless the employee arranges it. Again we might know about that ahead of time that its coming down the pike or for the first time and that at the mediation phase we attempt to resolve the matter at that point. Thank you very much. My times expired. The chair will recognize mr. Brady for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Of all the cases you handle how much of your work is focussed on Sexual Harassment . Is. I anticipated that question. I have a list here enterms of the number of cases and the categories in which they occur. We typically see mostly retaliation cases because when employees file claims they routinely will include a retaliation claim. Followed by retaliation is the americans with disabilities acts claim, race claims, fair labor standards acts claims, age, family and medical leave act and sex discrimination, gender discrimination cases come in at about the same rate. It is followed by Sexual Harassment claims, pregnancy claims, National Origin and military discrimination claims in about the same rate and finally claims based on color. Do you support eliminating the period . I dont have a strong position on that one way or afther. My only caution about eliminating that 30day period is often times we do settle cases during that period. So it would take away another opportunity to possibly resolve a case before a party goes directly into litgations. In your advocacy for employployment offices, your en engagement you are engaged with changes office behavior in the future . I think its difficult for us to know to a certainty whether that is happening but it has been reported back to us that when there has been an incident of some kind or some allegation of discrimination, the Office Speaks with us and tries to take appropriate action we do action items after action items with the office that might involve training for a particular individual, it might involve training for the entire staff, it might mean, in some instances and not all house Employment Offices have written policies. It might mean sitting with them, adopting those policies, rolling those policies out with the employees and having conversations Going Forward. I do think that there is a lot of positive that comes out of some of these situations. Thank you. Mr. Crowley, thank you for your service on the committee and i understand you worked with my former member, charlie. Should we include now the library of congress . Congressman, i have to tell you that my recollection of these issues is now 22 years old, so i dont remember every discussion we have. I can appreciate that, sir. I do recall a number of conversations involving the Library Including whether the Police Forces ought to be unified. I dont remember the specific discussion about the library although i think the answer might be and i defer to my colleagues they were already covered to a certain extent under federal law, if im not mistaken. Yes. Perhaps i can provide a little insight. The library of congress does have its own internal personnel system. The system is entirely internal. There is a hearing process in the library of congress. The hearing officers decision is merely a recommended decision. It must be forwarded to the librarian where she can either accept or reject that decision. Do you think we should include the library of congress in this ongoing hearing and discussion . We do. Thank you. In the june 16th report you write about the work factors and wildfires and many with significant powerful disparities. Congress is obviously among those. We had trainingable ryounl but no one believes training is enough. The laws are not enough. We need to change the culture. What other work can we do to change that culture . Thank you. One important point the committee should consider as you are looking particularly at revising the Congressional Accountability Act. This is i would look to the testimony from congresswoman spear from your november hearing. There is a difference between what immediate action has to be taken when someone is concerned and complains that they are being sexually harassed versus what is all of the process that the office of compliance deals with and house employment counsel when you are looking to, is there liability. So as representative spear said you have to be concerned about the person complaining about it when she is still sitting there in that workforce. I would urge you to bifurcate your thinking on that in that that immediate action and investigation has to take place i think the house employment counsel i understand from the testimony does a lot of that. You should be concerned how detailed can you be and how should you construct your Work Environment how you want to deal with immediate issues of harassment. Think of harassment claims different from other types of discrimination claims. It is one thing to allege you did not get promoted to a particular job in, you know, an office because, based on your sex, that is very different than harassment complaint and a harassment claim. So the immediate investigation that has to take place, which may be referred to the house employment counsels office or maybe the office of compliance does that, i would urge you to think act what is that process and what is that type of corrective action that is taken immediately . That again is very different from all of the other process that is in place that determines whats is there liability here. That is one thing i would urge you to think about. Overall, in terms of in your focus on culture is very much what our select task force spent a great deal of time on. There are a number of things that will influence a culture, again including whats the message being sent from the top and is the leadership of the organization owning each individual workplace. Workplaces in congress you mentioned a lot of risk factors, you have a lot of young people. You have people working in very close quarters. You have people working very long hours. I think theres a recommendation maybe in one of the bills you do a culture Client Survey and maybe you are also considering it and do it. The culture and message sent from the leadership and the engagement within each individual office to address that are very important factors and can do the most to act as a prevention tool. Thank you. I thank all the witnesses for being here and for your testimony. Very important educated testimony. Mr. Chairman, i yield back. Thank you, mr. Brady. The gentleman yields back. I will recognize mr. Davis for five minutes. Thank you. And to all our panelists. Great to see you again. Thank you for your testimony. I believe a take away from our previous testimony is to become more farnl with policies and procedures not only of both your organizations but really how the ethics process works as well. I encourage more outreach to the hill in general so you have a sense how best to Work Together to serve this great institution. I want to focus my questions today on miss grundmann and the outreach to the hill. Your testimony discusses the need for new training. How are new employees currently receiving this information. We have a very unique mandate. In fact, were compelled to train on our statute by the law. Its a very robust program, which is for a very small office thats administered largely by two people. As i stated in my Opening Statement, 500 people have been trained in person in the last six weeks. Our Online Training module has soared in recent times. Heres an example. In september, five people completed the Online Training module for Sexual Harassment prevention training. In october, it was 618. In november, it was over 4,000, with 800 people arriving just last week. So in addition to this type of training we are developing new training. Coming on september 10th december 10th is a new module talking about antiretaliation and an overview orientation of the Congressional Accountability Act. We have a new module coming up as well that will focus how to report Sexual Harassment, how to respond to Sexual Harassment and behaviors that could lead to Sexual Harassment. In addition, lets talk about new employees. We dont know who these new employees are. We would love to be notified as to when new people are on boarded so we can communicate with them directly. Let me get this straight. Theres no contact between our office of our Payroll Office here at the house of representatives and your office when a new employee comes on board . Thats correct. You mentioned in your testimony, too, you want to reach more younger staffers, are you seeing the younger staffers taking these training modules you mentioned in the last few months or do you show by age and how will you reach more younger staffers . We dont know exactly the age or person taking the module. We just know the hits were receiving. What we could explore doing and we could do it with this committee and members of this panel is a particular module designed specifically for new employees and younger employees. They do face different issues. I think its a great point there probably needs to be more communications between our offices run by the cao and those modules and training. I think its important we develop training for senior managers. Theyre the first ones an employee will go to, to address the process. I think our senior managers need to know a little bit more about the process. How can we address that . There is a module in place on antidiscrimination and antiharassment and antiretaliation. That meets the standards for managers at the senate in the resolution that passed recently. It is there already. Excellent. In your testimony you talked about how you hope to strengthen ooc and programs. I look forward to working with you to do that. The author of the accountability act, chris shays, is in the audience today. Thank you for your work on this, congressman shays. I want to point out, while i have a little bit of time left, miss grundmann. We have a lot of your annual reports that come out every couple of years. There wasnt a lot in the 2016 report on harassment in the workplace. I hope as we move for wart the oac and those who make up the agency will help us better identify to better serve our employees at all levels and also understand to get anybody who may be a victim in front of you and in front of the office on the path to get the problem rectified. Thats the goal. I appreciate you being here. Great. We couldnt agree with you more. Thank you. I yield back. The gentleman yields back, the chair will now recognize the gentleman from maryland, mr. S raskin for five minutes. Thank you very much. I think i want to begin with a question for miss lipnic, the less power women have in a workplace the more vulnerable they are to Sexual Harassment. We have to take to it a sign and cause of progress here we have 84 women in the u. S. House today and 21 in the senate. One can only imagine the conditions of Sexual Harassment when the senate and house were all male, were virtually all male. I saw an interesting comment by barbara arenreich, of lots of women in professional jobs and said people are not talking about Hotel Workers and farm workers and waitresses who face rampant Sexual Harassment. Im wondering if there is anything we can do that will benefit everyone not necessarily in the same legislation but are there policies to make a change for people across society . Thank you for that question. In our work at the eoc, youre right, we see harassment across income levels from the executive suite to factory floor to farmers fields. Weve had horrendous harassment for particularly vulnerable workers. Thats part of the reason why when we put our task force together we included representatives from worker advocacy groups and certainly things more outreach along those lines and that recognize the work that advocacy groups, worker advocacy groups can play, and how individuals who are in vulnerable work situations can go to those organizations and seek some redress. Certainly, one thing to consider, and this is something that we have in the federal sector, is requirements that there are different information is provided in different languages. So that, you know, youre reaching populations that particularly for vulnerable workers that english may not be their first language. Thats certainly one thing to consider. In terms of legislative changes, in terms of title 7, im not sure that theres im not sure that theres anything i could recommend right now and id certainly be happy to give more thought to it. Lets pursue that. I thank you very much. Let me ask, you began with the interesting article i saw, question my story by a victim of Sexual Harassment. You invoked her description of gray areas and the lack of third Party Witnesses and so on. It bright to mind f. Scott fitzgerald saying the sign of first class intelligence is the ability to hold contrary thoughts in your mind at the same time and still conduct yourself effectively. Everyone agrees we need zero tolerance and everyone agrees we also need a process fair to the victims and fair to the accused. The problem is people today think our process is so cumbersome and convoluted its purpose is not to discover the truth but somehow to bury the truth or complicate the truth. Thats at least a public perception. What can we do to make sure we do have a process that is fair, perceived as fair, but also moves things quickly enough so people see were taking the issue seriously . As i mentioned before, when i was asked the question about the coolingoff period, i dont have a practical reason to think thats not a good idea. Certainly it wont change how we do business. Eliminating possibly that particular piece of the process might be helpful. I do think that i know off the compliance can speak more to this. To be clear you think we dont need the coolingoff period . From my perspective i dont think its needed. As i said, the one reservation i have is that it does provide an additional chance to resolve the matter before fullblown litigation begins. I do think its important to communicate to employees their rights. Thats not my job, not our offices job. I know there have been over the years efforts by the office of compliance, i know when i first started on the hill we would get paychecks and get questions about the congressional communication act. More efforts to train employees and make them aware of their rights and ongoing communication, i think, would be helpful. I have to say the plaintiffs bar is very savvy about these rules and typically complainants dont have problems getting them to representing them. The biggest complaint is this process is lengthy. Eliminating the coolingoff period would be careful. Thank you, mr. Chair. The gentleman yields back. I would recognize the gentle lady, miss comstock for five minutes. Thank you. I want to talk about the trusted procedures. And we have the procedures by law youre required to have. I appreciate, miss lett, you have to deal with both sides. A number of us talked about a second victims advocate whether ombudsman or counsel, wouldnt it help whether they have the training or in that situation, we have special people for rape victims they then go and youre walked through that process when theyre in crisis. If we could have that, wouldnt that improve the dynamic of the experience for the victim, putting them on a level Playing Field and helping them through this process . Ill start with you, miss lipnic. When we were doing the work of the task force, we actually invited people from the pentagon, from the Defense Department because of what they had been dealing with for the last, you know, 14 years. In their own internal procedures as to Sexual Assault in the military. So having a victims advocate is something i know they set up there and i would urge you to maybe consult with the generals there that have been dealing with that. They would have more experience with that. That is something that i think youre focused on addressing the immediate situation and for the person, what can help them in that immediate situation, how will they know whats going to happen and whats the corrective action taken immediately needs to be a big focus. Thank you. I know that is in congresswoman spears legislation and another congressman talked about that. And i do want to thank her again. When i asked her what could we do that would have helped . That was an ombudsman counsel advocate was the single thing that she identified. I do think its thinking about that experience. I think its very important that we get that legislation. And then also have that be, you know, embrued through the training also. Perhaps on the training process too, you though, when someone sets up a house account and a new employee, maybe we can have more social information and getting to it them in multiple methods. Lets make sure we are getting more information out that way. And then i wanted to because i guess the office of compliance, i know youre continuing to go through the records and to give us the information on the overall cases. But given the publics concern and sort of publics right to know what type of cases youre dealing with, and particularly what members are involved and or members staff, do you estimate you will have that information soon so that we can have that available for the public in whatever legal way youre allowed to have it but have a much more detailed accounting . A couple of things. Let me address the Victims Counsel specifically because it was part of our statement. We understand that during the counseling stage and certainly in the mediation stage when the employing office is represented by ohec that the victim feels entirely alone and is at a severe disadvantage. What we propose to do is beef up the d counseling stage so the counselor participates in drafting a compliant. That coupled with investigatory to immediately investigate these claims as it emerges can be a form of advocacy on behalf of the employee. In response to your question, and this actually dovetales into mrs. Brooks request to us regarding the ethics, we provided a response this morning, the law as it is currently written is difficult for us to produce this kind of information. We know in counseling it is strict confidentiality. That binds our office from discussing it. The employing office is not told. Specifically adheres to the products, the materials that are produced in mediation. That is again strictly confidential but not unusual in our process. Mediation is private throughout the industry. What our laws requires in terms of producing information in the rules is numbers and types of inquiries that come to our office, number and types of initial requests for counseling. Numbers of covered employees to the complaints they filey the claims they raise and disposition of those claims. In terms of disclosure to ethics, we, to our knowledge, have not received any requests from your up until this recent one. We appreciate the concern. The the law as it is currently written only allows us to disclose this type of information in a very narrow circumstance. It is under two conditions, when the case reaches a final decision and employee is consulted. In the event there is we cannot release documents with respect to counseling, mediation, where there is no final decision and when the employee has not been consulted. Have been said that we would like to work with this committee to change that rule. A potential change goes towards granting us the authority to investigate claims. If the General Authority granted us that authority, it could be similar to what we have in today and osha. In ada and osha. The General Council could find if there is reason to believe the law had been violated a report could be generated. That report could be made available to you. Okay. Mr. Chairman, i would mention i hope we can get much more detailed information and if we need to make changes to allow you to do that. If we are going to correct the process we need to know what has happened and where the complaints have been. I noticed the committee got a report, a memo detailing from 1997 to 2007 where it laid out that 90 of the cases were with the architect and capitol police, probably a lot of safety things. I think we need to know what are the type of cases and when members and member offices are involved and how we are going to do it Going Forward. I think the public has a right to do that going back and certainly Going Forward how we can improve that transparency. I hope you can work with us in getting more detail. Understood. The gentle lady yields back. The chair will recognize the gentle lady from california, miss lofton for five minutes. Thank you. My apologies for being tardy. The fbi is over in the Judiciary Committee and i had to be there a bit and i think my colleague, mr. Raskin, has the same conflict. This obviously is a very serious matter for us and we are i think very clearly going to change the procedures and statute that we have. So the question is how to do that, to avoid pitfalls. One of the things im interested in is the recommendation that youve made, miss grundmann, on the additional powers for the general counsel that you just referenced, specifically how the counsel would use investigative powers to get to the facts of the matter that you currently cant do. What conflicts might exist if it were assigned to you and could you more fully explain that to us . Absolutely. Rather than reinventing the wheel, we propose to use the internal mechanisms we currently have. The general counsel, as we state, does have Investigative Authority in certain areas. Such as osha and ada. How it really works is a claim can be filed anonymously, which is unusual. It is not the same in the labor forum. The Current Practice would be we would work, the general counsel would work with the employing office. Now, clearly thats not going to work in this particular circumstances. But in the investigation there is a move towards resolution. In osha and ada cases theres a lot of dollars involved. There is a significant amount of negotiation and discussion. If the matter is not resolved it could result in the filing of a complaint by the general counsel. They actually represent the employee in this case and moving the case forward. That is the process we envision putting into effect. The reports are not made public, and theyre given to the party that can control the outcome, who can fix the outcome, if you will. So the process is in place. The concern we have is the lack of staffing. We dont know how great the volume will be. Of course. One of the things that i think we want more transparency on some of this the issue if you have an employee employer dispute for example under the act we adopted in 1995, certain employees are exempt from overtime and certainly employees arent just as in the private sector, you could have a dispute about that category and a fight about overtime. I dont know that that needs to be have the same level of disclosure as a Sexual Harassment thing. We want to stomp that out. Part of the way to do that is to have some daylight on this process. So one of the things i have been thinking a lot about, and certainly my colleague, miss speier, has done the work on this bill, but its the beginning point. How do we make this transparent in a way that protects the victims who want to maintain their privacy but some victims are bullied into a confidential agreement. So i am just wondering, in terms of what other people in an office where there is Sexual Harassment, what their role is, what their obligation is, and are they constrained by these agreements that are being undertaken right now. Part of our training in the future, coming soon, will cover bystander training. Specifically how do people who view this type of activity, what do they do. This is something representative speier has previously mentioned in terms of our training. Its a hard area for us to deal in. The confidentiality currently in the rules prohibits us from having a conversation. We can change those rules. Let me urge this committee, as you go about changing those rules, one of the communities you need to reach out to is the plaintiffs bar and employee rights. We are. Let me talk about what we hear at nondisclosure agreements. Its a confusing area but we have a simple answer. We dont require nondisclosure agreements. Its a product of the parties. We dont provide standardized language and we dont require anybody to sign a nondisclosure agreement to come into our system. All right. That is important. But certainly the inherent power differential between, say, a member of congress who is harassing and a staffer who has been harassed is pretty extreme. I think i read an article recently about a young woman who stepped forward and has never been able to be employed again, even though she did the right thing. Certainly we need to get our heads about how to protect victims even beyond a Settlement Agreement. And i see my time has expired, mr. Chairman. Thank you very much for your testimony. Gentle lady yields back. The chair will now recognize the gentleman from north carolina, mr. Walker, for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I would like to thank those for the leadership not just on this committee for the example you set in our entire conference. I have a couple of questions for mr. Crowley. Its come to our attention that federal agencies are required to reimburse the Judgment Fund or judgments against agencies and settlements for discrimination in the workplace, yet, there is no comparable requirement for congress. So when we talk about liability, what discussions were held prior to or during consideration of the Congressional Accountability Act regarding personal liability for settlements and judgments awarded under the caa . Well, congressman again, my memory is two decades old here. I understand. As i recall, there was a very clear discussion early on that would have simply prohibited personal liability for members as well as punitive damages. That changed as the process unfolded to limiting the ability to pay judgments out of the new fund that was created. And of course, those discussions occurred extensively with the subcommittee on legislative Branch Appropriations who had a significant input into that decision. But i think the general notion was that, first of all, its not the member personally, its the employing office of the member so that, for example, if a member leaves office there would still be the ability to get restitution from the office after the fact. So i think it would be aberrational to hold members personally responsible when, in fact, its an employing office of the congress for all other purposes including the federal tort claims act, et cetera. Okay. You covered actually the second part of the question. Let me, then, ask this. Is there any provision in the Congressional Accountability Act or in house rules that would forbid the use of the mra funds to pay for settlements reached at any point during the dispute resolution period . I am not sure there is a clear answer to that question. There is in the statute a limitation on what funds can be used to settle claims. But, of course, members have broad discretion over the use of the mra. And i imagine that, in certain circumstances, particularly when part of the settlement involves reinstatement to a position, that implicitly the mra would be used. I cant imagine that that wasnt part of the discussion, whether the authority that a member would have and even going back to those years, the budgets for staffing were much higher than they even exist today. Twoweek settlement or a month for conflict resolution or maybe an employee didnt fit. But the authority or the the ability to cover up such office behavior, wrong doing, harassment, leaves a lot of discretion in the members hands. Is that what you are telling me, that there can be a separate settlement or payment outside of the Congressional Accountability Act using the mra . I think members implicitly have that authority. But you have to remember that at the time the mra didnt exist until bill thomas created it. Before that we had the clerk hire allowance and roughly a dozen different allowances that were consolidated with the specific intention of giving members discretion on how to deploy those resources. To such an extent that the committee was actually renamed from the committee on House Administration to the committee on House Oversight to emphasize the fact that it was not going to be determined at the Committee Level but by the individual member. So i think that there is some conflict between the Congressional Accountability Act language and the Inherent Authority that members have over the mra. Your testimony highlights the speech and debate clause within the constitution. Can you explain to the committee how this clause has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in its applications within the context of the Congressional Accountability Act. Yes, sir. The lower courts i dont think the Supreme Court has ruled, but the lower courts, d. C. Circuit in particular, has ruled that the clause does not preclude suits under the Congressional Accountability Act but there still remains the immunity that is essentially an affirmative defense that members can assert. So weve created sort of a gray area. Stepping back to the original discussions around the act, there was case law saying that its unclear whether congress can waive its constitutional privileges, but any waiver would have to be explicit and unequivocal. I would have to say that in the Congressional Accountability Act we equivocated. One last question a simple yes or no, mr. Crowley. Do you believe its wrong for members to use the mra to settle interpersonal Sexual Harassment . Claims . My personal opinion. Personal opinion. The taxpayers should not be on the hook for that. Thank you. With that i yield back. Gentleman yields back. Chair will recognize the gentleman from nebraska, mr. Smith, for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you to our witnesses and certainly thank you for this interaction today among members on certainly a very serious topic. Its interesting. I appreciate my colleague, miss comstocks recommendation for a victims advocate. And if each of you, starting with miss grundmann and miss lett, if you could express how that might able to be brought into the exist process, what changes might need to take place so that, if thats the decision to make changes, if that would work and how it might work and then miss lipnic, if you could perhaps express your knowledge of how thats been done elsewhere and how effective it has been. Go ahead, ms. Grundmann. Sure. What we propose really is beefing up what we already have rather than throwing out what we have and creating a separate office. We could take the counselors position and make it a much more interactive process with the employee whereby the counselor would help technically advise the employee on how to draft a charge or a complaint, coupled with using the general counsel and giving him the authority to investigate claims in the dispute resolution program. If the general counsel were to find that there is a reasonable cause to believe that the law were violated, he would actually represent the employee in further administrative processes. Thank you. Ms. Lett. I would have to think a little bit more about how it would work in terms of the specifics. But i can tell you that it would likely be a welcomed thing from my clients perspective in that i think an advocate would encourage employees to come forward sooner rather than later. That would be music to our ears, certainly, because the sooner an employer knows that there is an issue, the sooner they can address it. Its not a good model when things barrel way down the track and an employee feels he or she has to go to the office of compliance for relief. So i think that that absolutely there could be some upside to that. Thank you. Ms. Lipnic. Mr. Smith, all i would add, by the time people are coming to the eeoc to file a charge of discrimination, they are at that point we are investigating for liability purposes. So there is no victims advocate advocacy role on the part of the eeoc itself. Thank you. Mr. Crowley, do you wish to comment . I think its an interesting idea. Its amazing to me the extent to which the issues have not fundamentally changed. The intent at the time was to create a process that would both encourage victims to come forward and allow for resolution in a way that didnt incentivize politically charged claims immediately before an election. So anything consistent with those objectives which this sounds like this might be, seem worth pursuing. Thank you. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes gentleman from georgia, mr. Loudermilk, for five minutes for questions. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you for being here. Of all the issues that i ever thought i would be dealing with when i ran for congress, this is not one of them. It sickens me that the idea that the most respected legislative body in the worlds reputation is being tainted by discussing this, but its extremely important and it boils down to character. In reality, there is nothing that we can do to affect someones character, but we can remove the bushes that allow the bad characters to hide behind. I think thats kind of the direction that we are looking. Miss grundmann, in your testimony you described in detail eocs process and makes several recommendations. But you didnt address the role in administering the awards settlement fund. Can you take us through your role in the payment process once the tentative settlement is reached or final judgment is received . Absolutely. First if you will allow me to clarify. The statute refers to funds that are appropriated by the treasury. In actuality there is no fund. It is an account, and that account is empty. Until we requisition the funds for a particular award or settlement. Also, to be clear about the settlement the settlement act, the 17 million weve talked about, yes, it covers awards to settlements from our dispute resolution process. It also covers awards and settlements from District Court. It also covers settlements and awards that derive out of the arbitration process for various collective bargaining agreements in the legislative community such as the architect of the capitol and of the capitol police. Can i ask one quick question. Its a zero dollar account. When something occurs like we are talking about here, where does the money come from . We actually requisition it. The account is empty until a settlement comes through, then we ask for the money through the vehicle of a warrant which should be familiar to this committee. Our role in settlements is purely ministerial. We dont the parties negotiate the terms. Its incumbent upon them to agree. It is incumbent upon ohec to secure the Proper Authority from this committee when settlements come out of the treasury for the house. Should congress desire to beef up our role by giving us a greater review for legality of these decisions, you would have to change the act. Currently we dont have the authority. The only thing we look for is whether its signed by the parties and its a written statement. Can you kind of walk me through this process. Say the zero dollar account. You receive notice of a settlement of x number of dollars. Then you request through warrant that much money. Can you start at that point, walk us through who sends the money to the account. Is it the treasury. From house i mean what and until the the individual who filed the complaint receives the check, what is that process . Lets take one step back. When the settlement is reached, the award comes to our office. We review it for two things. In writing and signed by the parties. That is it. Clarity, essentially. The Settlement Agreement then goes to our case administrator. She obtains Payment Information from the parties who will receive payment. Routing information, banking information. Then the document moves down the hall and goes to our budget officer. She actually requisitions the funds. This is the account we are talking about through the vehicle of the warrant. Once the funds are there, the Settlement Agreement actually goes to who do the funds come from . From treasury. Thank you. Sorry. Then it goes the final step that we have in this process is the agreement goes to a fourth person to check that all the information is correct, the routing information and then the funds are released. At that point our involvement with the fund ends. We do not determine when the person is paid. There could be an offset, for instance. But were done with the process. Is there any other process in there to where Congress Anyone in congress is notified of a settlement, has to sign off on it or just in your office . Other than rule 10 which governs this committee where the chairman or Ranking Member has to sign off on particular settlements that come out of the account. Thats the only rule i know. In the process the chairman and Ranking Member do sign off on that . That would be a good question for miss lett. Miss lett. A few moments left. Could you answer that question . The answer is yes. If there is a settlement that comes out of the treasury that has to be approved by this committee. Thank you. If we do other questions i would have some others. I yield back at this point. Gentleman yields back. The chair will now recognize miss speier for five minutes for questions. Mr. Chairman, its been said a couple of times and i just want to underscore the importance of having a plaintiffs bar appear before the committee as well to hear from them how the process has or has not been working so we can refine it moving forward. To the last question that mr. Loudermilk just raised, it was my understanding in one article that i read that the former chair of this committee declined to approve any Sexual Harassment cases and as a result the mra started to be used for that process. Is that your recollection, miss lett . Thats not exactly accurate. There were more than Sexual Harassment cases that were not approved. Maybe so. But were there Sexual Harassment cases in which the former chair declined to sign off on the Ranking Member was not made aware of . Thats how she was reported. I am just trying to get clarification. I dont remember the exact number. It may have been one or two, but it certainly was not more than that. So if it is not signed off by the chair, then there has to be another way in which the settlement is reached. And that, in my understanding, is how the mra has been used in some cases. Thats correct. I want to focus back on the victim. One of the problems and you made mention of it, miss lipnic, is that you have a victim who has come forward, is concerned about the fact that she has been sexually harassed, either by the member or someone in the office. But she has to continue to work in that office. In order for it to be resolved through the office of compliance. If she doesnt continue to work in the office, then the office of compliance has no role. Correct . I thought you were talking to miss lipnic. There is a concern we havent discussed today. That really is about retaliation. The employee has filed a complaint. Thats what i am getting to. Perfect. Retaliation is covered currently under the caa. An employee who comes to our office, experienced some sort of retaliation, would have a separate claim. Heres how the process works. The employee comes in, they seek counseling, they go to mediation. The Employee Office now knows of the claim. There is retaliation that occurs. Under the current process the employee would have to restart the process again, go back through counseling, go back through medication. This is why we propose the possibility of investigations for the general counsel and the possibility of amending the complaint so that the charge the charges all merge at one point in time rather than going back through the whole system again. I am also concerned, though, that we dont have a means yet, and possibly should consider this, to allow the employee to work remotely, to the extent that they can. In some offices you cant. If you work for the architect and you have got to be painting offices, you cant do that remotely. But in offices where you can, so that there is not the continued environment that is very uncomfortable for the victim. May i address that, congresswoman. There actually is a way that that can happen and it has happened in other cases. In the i think we just need to make it explicit is what i am suggesting. I dont think its always been the case for everybody. There was one of the complaints that was filed that went through the process the employee had to be in the office. And i dont think thats right. Personally. I cant speak to specific cases. As i said, Employment Offices have a lot of flexibility in this area. I think that this is an area where employers have been very effective. As soon as we know that an employee has engaged in protected activity well counsel the Employment Office strongly that while the underlying case may not have merit, if the employee is retaliated against in any shape, form or fashion, if they even have a thought bubble to retaliate, they will face a very difficult case. We have never lost a case in retaliation. My time is running out. I will ask a couple more questions. Soft landings. That one case that we all are familiar with where the employee, after the settlement, couldnt find a job in the capitol. I would be interested maybe we dont have time right now. But some kind of discussion about what we do for employees who have, through no fault of their own, have been sexually harassed, they have come forward, they now have a Scarlet Letter that they wear and cannot be employed elsewhere. Could i answer that question very quickly . Under the current law an employee who has left is still a covered employee up to 180 days from the violation. So if there was retaliation, if they had left, they could still file a claim for that 180 days. What happens if they still want to work in the building . Larger policy. Thank you. I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. The chair will now recognize the chair of the Ethics Committee, miss brooks, for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman and thank you, again, for allowing me to participate. I would like to ask permission to admit for the record the letter that representative deutsche, my Ranking Member on ethics, and i submitted that miss grundmann has just referred to. The letter of december 1st. Thank you. I would also ask unanimous consent that we admit into the record the office of compliances response that was received this morning that i have been reading this morning. Without objection. Thank you. In our letter on december 1st, we asked that the committee and because this is a hearing about the process and examining reforms to Congressional Accountability Act thats what i want to zero in on. There are many other things i want to talk about. We asked ooc to promptly provide the committee with all records in the possession of the Office Related to any claims of Sexual Harassment discrimination, retaliation and so forth. The response that we received today indicates that you refer and i quickly went to section 1416 of confidentiality. As i am reading your response, you cannot share, because of the strict confidentiality rules, any claims that you have been involved in, ooc, relative to referrals to ethics. Am i correct . Youre absolutely correct. The way the law is written, the strict confidentiality not only binds the parties, it specifically binds our office from discussing those claims. You are talking about claims overall. The law currently prohibits us from releasing information regarding in the counselling period, the mediation period but allows for a very narrow exception when the case has gone to hearing and a final decision has been rendered. To that point on the hearing. There was only one hearing in 2016, in fiscal year 2016. Is that correct . If thats whats in the letter. Its not in the letter. Its a screen shot on your website. Its possible the case settled. There was one hearing and you indicated you indicated in this letter that there have been no proceedings before a hearing officer, and the hearing officer comes after mediation. Its the end stage of your process. Correct. Correct . And you indicate that there have not been any proceedings before a hearing officer or a board relative to any members or employees. Correct. That doesnt cover District Court. Okay. That covers the court of appeals. Does not cover the court of appeals. It only covers our administrative hearing process. Before one of our hearing officers. Okay. And so are you saying that there are matters that have gone to District Court . There are matters that have gone to District Court. That you dont have possession of those records. We are not part of that process. Okay. So those people who decide to go to District Court, they pursue their own process in District Court. That is correct. And so, were not getting anything. Pardon me . Were not going to receive anything regarding any and we actually asked about any employment matters. We actually asked related to the claim of Sexual Harassment, discrimination, retaliation or any employment practice. That goes back to the law. The law doesnt allow us to release anything to your committee. But, if we were to change the law, then we could use the method through investigation by our general counsel any report thats generated where reasonable cause has been found that the law has been violated could be released to your committee. And so, let me ask you as well as miss lett, what are your opinions on mandatory reporting to the Ethics Committee . In harassment matters. I have to say its a very difficult question to answer. When we handle matters of discrimination and we talk with our clients, we tell our clients that its possible that we will resolve the case or the case may go forward, but there may also be some type of ethics matter that might arise out of those circumstances. So they will know that they may be fighting on two fronts, whatever the claim may be. Can i ask ms. Grundmann, in your letter you state to us that you have encouraged employees who have been the victim that may constitute an ethical violation to contact our committee. How do you do that . And to cooperate with our investigation. We do that through the counseling period. Is that just written . Its a written discussion . Or do you provide them that in writing . Its generally counseling is generally by phone or in person. Its a verbal discussion. Is there any discussion i am sorry, my time is up. My question was is there any discussion about the confidentiality of the ethics proceedings in many ways, not that initial investigations might not be reported but, in fact, very oftentimes the witnesses, the complaining witnesses, are often kept confidential . I believe there is. Okay. Thank you. I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. The chair will now recognize gentleman from alabama, mr. Byrne, for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I appreciate you allowing me to participate in this hearing. Mr. Crowley, i want to clarify one thing with you. I dont think youre saying this but i want to make sure we get this very clear. You are not saying the speech or debate clause provides immunity to a member or Members Office if they engage in Sexual Harassment. Congressman, thats a very difficult question to answer. Clearly the conduct itself is not protected. The question becomes what happens when a member of congress asserts that the discriminatory action, which, of course, Sexual Harassment includes, was not motivated by what the victim says it was clearly Sexual Harassment under any circumstances it will not be Sexual Harassment then. Well, keep in mind that Sexual Harassment is a form of discrimination under the rights subset of discrimination based on gender but Sexual Harassment cannot be immunized by the United States constitution. Thats correct. Want to make sure we got that clear. Now, i want to move to what we do about it. And i think, with the where were really touching here is how we investigate and enforce this. Miss grundmann, you do not have the authority to investigate or enforce that today. In Sexual Harassment. That is correct. But if it was an osha case, you would. That is correct. Why would there be a distinction between osha cases and Sexual Harassment cases . We have those same questions. Mr. Crowley, you want to answer that question . You know, congressman, the honest answer is i dont recall. I do recall conversations around having the office of compliance play a particular role with respect to the ada and osha because it was a case of first impression. These are historic buildings. If there needed to be retrofitting of an elevator shaft, for example, it was a more involved discussion. So that was the reason that the o office of compliance was given responsibility in that area. But why it didnt go further, i cant tell you. I will say this. A lot of case law occurred in this area after 1995. We have the decisions from 1998. A lot happened after that time that you wouldnt have known about at the time you were writing it. Miss lipnic, let me turn to you. You do have the power whether regarding people in the private sector or employees who dont work for the congress you have the power with the eeoc to both investigate and enforce. Do you think the office of compliance should have similar powers when those sorts of things come up with regard to members of congress or people who work for us . The short answer is yes. Okay. I like short answers. Theyre the best. Again, as you well know and, you know, i thought your testimony from the november hearing was spot on, again, there is this point i keep making. There is the difference between that immediate investigation that has to take place and that corrective action and then, you know, the investigation that the eeoc when someone comes to us and we are investigating, essentially, was there an investigation, what happened internally, what was the corrective action taken by the company. By the company. But someone needs to be doing that. And now its my understanding from the testimony that i read that the house employment counsel plays that first role in terms of investigating Members Offices. But i think it certainly worth considering do you want to have a third party essentially whos not representing the Members Offices later on in the process. Conducting that initial investigation. And then also making some determination in terms of liability. Heres a really sticky issue. And ill look at you for this one. Now in the private sector we dont have Public Disclosure issues, when we engage in mediation or settlement discussions and reach an agreement, its almost always confidential. Mediation rules require confidentiality and the agreements which are contracts have Confidentiality Provisions in them. Because the confidentiality or the promise of it helps foster the negotiation. Foster people coming to a meeting of the minds. How do we resolve that tension here in the Public Sector . I wish i had an easy answer for you on that one. There is a tension there. Oftentimes employee was the confidentiality they want to go and get other jobs. Members of Congress Want that because even if a member or the office has done absolutely nothing wrong, putting that information out into the public can certainly hurt. So i dont have an easy answer to the question. I certainly will give it additional thought. But its a very difficult situation. Me either. Thank you, sir, i yield back. I want to thank you to the witnesses for being here today. You have given us very valuable testimony. To consider. As we go forward. And i particularly want to also thank miss come stock for her work on this. She has been invaluable to the committee and will be going guard. Also again i want to thank representative spear and burn. For your previous testimony here on november 14. And your participation along with miss brook. And appreciate that. The insight you have given. We have a great responsibility to get this right. And to make sure that we continue with the message that one case of Sexual Harassment is one too many. How do we make sure the victim is protected . With changes well consider when we balance transparent si issues with making sure a victim is not a victim a second time. Because of any changes we make. We want to make sure with your input that we make this in the correct way. It doesnt seem that difficult for members to remember the golden rule. Treat people with respect. And that will solve a lot of future problems. As well try to clean this up. I want to remind everyone that members that we have five legislative tas to submit to the chair additional questions writing that would be passed onto the witnesses if we do that we would encourage you to answer those as quickly as possible. So those can be made part of the record. Without objection this hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [ inaudible conversations ] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [ inaudible conversations ] cspan washington journal. Live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. Coming up saturday morning. Wall street journal economy reporter. Talks about the november jobs report. Then Time National security correspondent on the role of special operations forces. And the potential impact of the proposed cvs merger. With professor of Health Policy and management at the university of pittsburg. Be sure to watch washington journal live at 7 eastern saturday morning. Join the discussion. This weekend on American History tv. On cspan 3. Saturday at 7 00 p. M. Eastern. Yale University Historian joe ann freeman on hamilton. When washington became president , he made hamilton the nations first secretary of the treasury. In that post, hamilton structured a National Financial system and pushed to strengthen and empower the national government. Launching a really fierce political battle. Against those who wanted a far less powerful national government. And obviously Thomas Jefferson and madison were his political opponents sfwl sunday at 4 00 p. M. Eastern on real america. The 1980s training film unwelcome affection. About inappropriate behavior in the workplace. Youre new here on the staff. And its like to a man that i make a lot of decisions. Im the one that fix up the evaluation reports. I assign passes and leaves. And word of advice if you want to get a loan on the staff it will be beneficial to be nicer to me. At 8 on the presidency. Historian on president jacksons efforts to challenge and cripple the bank of the United States during the 1830s. No president before had said anything like this. Other president s had warned americans against entangling foreign alliances. They had warned americans against sectionism and excessive partisan ship at home. Jackson warned them against control of their own government. By in his words the rich and powerful. American hisly tv. All weekend. Every weekend. Only on cspan 3. The Senate Armed Services commit teet held a hearing this week to look at defense acquisition and