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




 
  OVERSIGHT OF THE OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL WORKPLACE RIGHTS: LESSONS 
  LEARNED FROM THE CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 1995 REFORM ACT

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

                                HEARING

                               before the

                           COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
                             ADMINISTRATION
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                            NOVEMBER 9, 2021

                               __________

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




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

             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
46-580                WASHINGTON : 2022         


         
         
                   COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION

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


                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                            NOVEMBER 9, 2021

                                                                   Page
Oversight of the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights: 
  Lessons Learned from the Congressional Accountability Act of 
  1995 Reform Act................................................     1

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

Chairperson Zoe Lofgren..........................................     1
    Prepared statement of Chairperson Lofgren....................     3
Hon. Rodney Davis, Ranking Member................................     5
    Prepared statement of Ranking Member Davis...................     7
Teresa M. James, Deputy Executive Director, Office of 
  Congressional Workplace Rights.................................    10
    Prepared statement of Ms. James..............................    12
Barbara Childs Wallace, Chair, Board of Directors, Office of 
  Congressional Workplace Rights.................................    19
    Prepared statement of Ms. Wallace............................    21
Barbara Camens, Member, Board of Directors, Office of 
  Congressional Workplace Rights.................................    26
    Prepared statement of Ms. Camens.............................    28

                       SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Government Accountability Office, OCWR cybersecurity management 
  briefing, submission...........................................    50
Government Accountability Office, OCWR cybersecurity weaknesses 
  Report, submission.............................................    52
Government Accountability Office, OCWR management practice 
  Report, submission.............................................    94
Office of Congressional Workplace Rights, Special Report on 
  January 6, 2021 Attack, submission.............................   130
Office of Congressional Workplace Rights, CAA Improvements 
  Report, submission.............................................   151

                        QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD

Teresa M. James, Deputy Executive Director, Office of 
  Congressional Workplace Rights, responses......................   161
Barbara Childs Wallace and Barbara L. Camens, Board of Directors, 
  Office of Congressional Workplace Rights, responses............   185



  OVERSIGHT OF THE OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL WORKPLACE RIGHTS: LESSONS 
  LEARNED FROM THE CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 1995 REFORM ACT

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


                       TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2021

                          House of Representatives,
                         Committee on House Administration,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 3:03 p.m., via 
Webex, Hon. Zoe Lofgren [Chairperson of the Committee] 
presiding.
    Present: Representatives
    Staff Present: Jamie Fleet, Staff Director; Teri Morgan, 
Deputy Staff Director; Gianni Hill, Staff Assistant; Eddie 
Flaherty, Chief Clerk; Peter Whippy, Communications Director; 
Tim Monahan, Minority Staff Director; Nick Crocker, Minority 
Deputy Staff Director.
    The Chairperson. The Committee on House Administration will 
come to order. We acknowledge that we have a quorum present. I 
want to wish everyone a good afternoon.
    As we begin, I want to note, we are holding this hearing in 
compliance with the regulations for remote committee 
proceedings pursuant to House Resolution 8.
    We ask Committee Members and witnesses to keep their 
microphones muted when not speaking to limit background noise, 
and people will need to unmute themselves when seeking 
recognition or when recognized for questions and answers.
    Members and witnesses, please keep your cameras on at all 
times. House rules require that, even if you need to leave the 
meeting, please do not turn your camera off. Also, we are 
noting that the rules do not permit Members to participate in 
two remote hearings at the same time.
    At this time, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
five legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks and have any written statements be made part of the 
record.
    And, without objection, that is ordered.
    I also ask unanimous consent that the chair be authorized 
to declare a recess of the Committee at any point.
    Without objection, that is also ordered.
    Today marks the first hearing on the Office of 
Congressional Workplace Rights since the Congressional 
Accountability Reform Act was enacted on December 21st--my 
birthday--2018.
    The reforms granted by this change to the Congressional 
Accountability Act, commonly referred to as the CAA, 
represented the first substantial change to Congress's 
workplace laws since the law's inception. The most extensive 
changes came to the administrative dispute resolution process, 
providing employees with a more streamlined and less time-
intensive process.
    Eliminating mandatory mediation as a prerequisite to filing 
a CAA-related claim, creation of an online intake system, and 
holding Members accountable for settlements and awards in which 
they are personally involved and that deal with harassment are 
just some of the elements of the Reform Act.
    While these introductory measures are laudable, it is 
unfortunate that critical pieces, such as Members of Congress 
being responsible for repaying money back to the Treasury when 
they are personally responsible for discrimination, were left 
out because of the Senate's position.
    Despite this glaring omission, House Democrats were able to 
include a provision in the House rules package to hold House 
Members responsible for Treasury repayments in instances where 
Members are personally responsible for discrimination.
    The House has led the way on workplace rights by going 
further than the CAA Reform Act to establish a variety of 
measures to strengthen our commitment to providing a 
harassment- and discrimination-free culture and workplace.
    Some of these measures include: providing a free and 
confidential legal resource for covered House employees who 
have questions, concerns, or claims or legal representation 
dealing with the CAA; mandating the posting of workplace rights 
notices by employing offices; and instituting mandatory anti-
harassment and anti-discrimination training.
    While these steps marked a good start in our efforts to 
ensure employees of the House have greater protections, we must 
remain vigilant to ways in which we can further improve and 
strengthen the congressional workplace culture to provide a 
safer and more inclusive environment for everyone.
    After 24 months of having the CAA reforms implemented, the 
Office of Congressional Workplace Rights has some basis to 
provide the Committee with an update on how well the reforms 
seem to be performing and suggestions for ways in which 
Congress and the House can strengthen employee protections. I 
look forward to hearing their testimony on this subject this 
afternoon.
    And it is worth noting that these reforms--although the 
focus is often on Members of Congress themselves, there are 
many people who work on Capitol Hill, whether they are in the 
shop or whether they are an electrician or in tech work, that 
do not directly work for a Member of Congress, and all of those 
people also need to be free of harassment or bias in their 
workplace.
    So, at this point, I would like to recognize our Ranking 
Member, Mr. Davis, for any opening statement that he may wish 
to offer.
    [The statement of the Chairperson follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
        
    Mr. Davis. Well, thank you, Madam Chairperson.
    And thanks to all our colleagues and our witnesses today.
    In 2018, Democrats and Republicans in the House and the 
Senate worked to pass the first overhaul of the Congressional 
Accountability Act of 1995 that Chairperson Lofgren spoke about 
since it was passed in 1995. It passed the House unanimously. 
Reforms included in the bill were based on the findings of a 
comprehensive review of the laws, procedures, and resources 
related to sexual harassment within the House.
    Our overall goal with these reforms was to professionalize 
the House by bringing more transparency to the process, 
ensuring bad actors are held accountable, and creating stronger 
protections for employees. Now, almost three years later, we 
have a responsibility to determine whether these reforms are 
working, if they are helping accomplish our goal of 
professionalizing the House.
    As a sidenote, I believe we need to be holding more 
oversight hearings like this one, especially since COVID has 
changed how many of the House offices operate.
    One area that needs to be assessed is the workplace rights 
training that is mandated by the Congressional Accountability 
Act. Under the Congressional Accountability Act, in-person 
training for Members, staff, and interns is required each year. 
However, COVID quickly forced the workplace rights training to 
go completely virtual over the last two years.
    As a former district staffer for sixteen years, it is 
critical for us in Washington to consider the practicality of 
programs that are passed out in D.C., where staff are all in 
the same place, and let's check with the impact on district 
staff, where they can sometimes be in multiple different 
offices, hundreds of miles apart, depending on the district.
    For example, allowing this training to be conducted 
virtually has made it much easier for the interns and staff in 
my district in the State of Illinois, which covers fourteen 
counties, to receive training in a timely and efficient manner.
    Before, when training was in person, the district staff 
would sometimes have to spend an entire day just to travel to 
and from the training, because it might be offered only once at 
a single location. This left them unable to help constituents 
during that time.
    Additionally, it is an added cost to taxpayers when they 
must pay someone from Franklin Covey to be sent to all 435 
districts across the country.
    I look forward to discussing with our witnesses the 
effectiveness of this virtual training and the potential for 
OCWR to take on the implementation of this training themselves 
rather than contracting it out and the impact this may have on 
the program and whether it can save taxpayer dollars.
    Lastly, I want to mention the search for a new Executive 
Director. Congratulations to the current ED, Susan Grundmann, 
on her new position, and I want to thank her for her service. 
It is important for us to understand the timeline and process 
for choosing her replacement, and I would very much like to be 
consulted on any potential replacements. OCWR works closely 
with Member and Committee offices, so we want to make sure that 
it is responsive and helpful for all staff and Members.
    With that, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, 
and I yield back, Madam Chairperson.
    [The statement of Mr. Davis follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    
    
    The Chairperson. Thank you, Mr. Davis.
    Other Members' statements will be put in the record.
    And now I would like to introduce our panel of witnesses.
    Our first witness is Teresa M. James, who was named the 
office's Deputy Executive Director for the House of 
Representatives in June 2018. She is responsible for the Office 
of Congressional Workplace Rights' legislative and public 
affairs and education programs on workplace rights, safety, and 
health, and public accessibility mandated by the Congressional 
Accountability Act. Ms. James, who came to the office in 1999, 
previously served as Director of the Administrative Dispute 
Resolution Program and was primarily responsible for the 
processing of all informal and formal claims concerning 
workplace rights afforded to legislative branch employees under 
the CAA.
    Our second witness is the Chair of the OCWR Board of 
Directors, Barbara Childs Wallace. Ms. Wallace was appointed in 
1999 by the joint leadership of the United States Congress to 
serve on the Board of Directors of the Office of Compliance, 
which was the predecessor to the Office of Congressional 
Workplace Rights. She assumed the duties as its chair in April 
2017. In her private capacity, she has over 30 years of 
experience in employment and labor law.
    And our third and final witness is Barbara Camens. Ms. 
Camens was appointed in 2000 by the joint leadership of the 
United States Congress to serve on the Board of Directors of 
the Office of Compliance and previously served as its chair. In 
her private capacity, she represents labor unions in all 
aspects of labor management relations and employment law and 
represents and advises on all legal aspects of employee benefit 
plans. She has extensive litigation experience before Federal 
courts, administrative agencies, and arbitrators.
    We look forward to hearing your insights as to how 
implementation of the reforms are working, any notable changes 
pre- versus post-reform, any challenges that the Office of 
Congressional Workplace Rights may have encountered in the 
reforms' implementation, and if OCWR has any recommendations 
for strengthening the reforms.
    I will remind the witnesses that their entire written 
statement will be made part of the record and that the record 
will remain open for at least five days to receive additional 
material that is submitted.
    We have a timer on the screen. So, we ask, when your time 
is up, that you summarize as much as possible so we can go to 
the next witness.
    First, I would like to call on you, Ms. James, for your 
testimony.

 STATEMENTS OF TERESA JAMES, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR THE 
HOUSE, OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL WORKPLACE RIGHTS; BARBARA CHILDS 
  WALLACE, CHAIR, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL 
    WORKPLACE RIGHTS; AND BARBARA CAMENS, MEMBER, BOARD OF 
      DIRECTORS, OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL WORKPLACE RIGHTS

                   STATEMENT OF TERESA JAMES

    Ms. James. Thank you.
    Chairperson Lofgren and Ranking Member Davis and Members of 
the Committee, on behalf of the staff of the Office of 
Congressional Workplace Rights, thank you for the opportunity 
to discuss the mission of our office, the work that we do to 
advance workplace rights, safety, health, and accessibility in 
the legislative branch, and the lessons that we have learned 
since the implementation of the CAA Reform Act.
    I first came to work for the office in 1999, and, since 
that time, I have served as Director of the office's 
Administrative Dispute Resolution Process and now as deputy 
executive director, where my focus is on education and outreach 
to the congressional community.
    During my tenure, it has been a privilege to work with 
stakeholders and colleagues who have dedicated their careers to 
making the legislative branch a model workplace that is 
respectful, safe, healthy, and accessible, with equal 
employment opportunity and treatment for all.
    I understand that the purpose of this oversight hearing is 
to gauge the effectiveness of the CAA Reform Act over the last 
two and a half years and to discuss our lessons learned. And 
part of that process involves looking at data and case 
processing statistics and attempting to identify trends. It can 
be frustrating to try to determine whether an increase or a 
decrease in a number is statistically significant or what 
caused it. And it is not always possible to determine whether 
the change is an indicator of progress or whether it is 
attributable to an external factor, such as the COVID pandemic. 
But we want to draw unambiguous conclusions from ambiguous 
statistics. And we, understandably, want measurable indicators 
of success. And, sometimes, through that process, we can sift 
through the numbers and glean valuable information to assist us 
in carrying out our mission.
    But I would also like to offer the members of this 
Committee my personal experience as a veteran of this office 
for more than twenty years. I worked for this office when it 
was known as the Office of Compliance and virtually nobody on 
the Hill had any idea who we were, what we did, and how to 
contact us. I worked in this office developing materials on 
unlawful discrimination and harassment for training that nobody 
was required to take. I worked in this office designing and 
printing posters on employee rights that we were required by 
statute to produce but nobody was required to post.
    But now I have also worked for more than two years in an 
office renamed as the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights. 
The blank stares and shrugs I got when I mentioned my office 
have now been replaced with nods of recognition and questions 
concerning employee rights and protections.
    I have now worked in an office that is at the forefront of 
developing materials for mandatory training on anti-
discrimination and anti-harassment protections for 
congressional employees and the many other important 
protections embodied in the CAA.
    I have now walked through the halls and tunnels of this 
Capitol Hill campus where our workplace rights posters clearly 
tell employees, as well as unpaid interns and fellows, who we 
are, what their rights are, and how to get help.
    So, whereas in the past a statistic showing a drop in the 
number of claims was likely attributable, at least in part, to 
the fact that victims of harassment, discrimination, and other 
unlawful conduct had no idea where to turn for assistance, 
after the Reform Act it is much more likely that a similar 
number is an indication that the workplace climate on the Hill 
is truly improving and employees and employing offices are 
aware of and understand their rights and obligations, that 
education and outreach is translating to change in behavior, 
and that the Reform Act's amendments to the CAA are succeeding.
    I greatly appreciate the steadfast support of this 
Committee as we work together to make the legislative branch a 
model workplace. We have much work to do, and we must remain 
vigilant to ensure that recent reforms are permanent reforms.
    Thank you, and I welcome any questions that you may have.
    [The statement of Ms. James follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
        
    The Chairperson. Thank you very much.
    We will turn now to Ms. Wallace.
    Ms. Wallace, we would love to hear from you for about five 
minutes.
    But you need to unmute.

              STATEMENT OF BARBARA CHILDS WALLACE

    Ms. Wallace. There. Can you hear me now?
    The Chairperson. Yes, we can.
    Ms. Wallace. Okay. Thank you, Chairperson Lofgren and 
Ranking Member Davis and Members of the Committee. I am honored 
to have the opportunity to testify regarding the work of our 
office.
    This is my second opportunity to testify before this 
Committee and assist it in its important work. The first was in 
2017, at a time when workplace harassment on the Hill and 
elsewhere was a daily part of the national dialogue. Although 
much has changed since then, our office's steadfast commitment 
to advancing workplace rights, safety, health, and 
accessibility in the legislative branch has not.
    It is an honor to be here today to speak not only on behalf 
of our wonderful and committed staff but also on behalf of the 
Board of Directors, which I chair. The other members of the 
board include Susan Robfogel of New York, Alan Friedman of 
California, Roberta Holzwarth of Illinois, and Barbara Camens 
of Washington, D.C., who is here to testify also today.
    We were appointed to these part-time positions by the 
majority and minority leaders of both Houses of Congress. All 
five of us have decades of experience representing clients in 
the private and public sectors on labor and employment issues.
    The CAA requires that we be appointed without political 
affiliation. And the board works diligently and in a 
nonpartisan manner to ensure that the principles embodied in 
the CAA and the CAA Reform Act are carried out.
    Although our office has a staff of only thirty employees, 
we have a very broad mandate. We are responsible for enforcing 
the Federal workplace and accessibility laws that cover more 
than 30,000 employees in the legislative branch, and we perform 
the functions of multiple agencies, including the EEOC, the 
Department of Labor, the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration, and the Federal Labor Relations Authority.
    This year marks the 25th anniversary of the passage of the 
CAA, which designates several primary responsibilities for our 
office, although there are many others.
    First, we inspect the Capitol grounds to ensure that they 
are free from occupational safety and health hazards and are 
accessible for people with disabilities.
    Second and especially pertinent to the subject of this 
hearing, we provide an administrative dispute resolution 
program for employees to assert their rights and protections 
under the CAA.
    Third, we draft and adopt regulations concerning the 
statutes made applicable under the CAA.
    Fourth, this office maintains a robust and comprehensive 
education and training program about rights, responsibilities, 
and protections under the act. And Teresa James, who just 
spoke, is the person in charge of this and is doing a marvelous 
job.
    Finally, the board reports to each Congress on 
recommendations for changes to the laws, made applicable to the 
legislative branch.
    And this also marks the second full year implementing the 
provisions of the Reform Act, which we will be talking about, 
which made many important changes to the CAA, including 
substantially modifying the ADR process, requiring Members and 
employing offices to reimburse the Treasury for certain awards 
and settlement payments, appointing confidential advisors to 
provide information to employees about their rights, renaming 
our office, extending certain CAA protections to unpaid staff, 
and developing and implementing the means to education and 
train employees who work outside of the Washington, D.C., area, 
which I believe Ranking Member Davis spoke to.
    I stated in the OCWR's annual report for 2019 that the 
enactment of the Reform Act meant that 2019 would be the most 
challenging for our office since it opened its doors in 1996. 
And it was--until 2020 and 2021. None of us could have 
predicted then that much of our experience under the Reform Act 
would be while operating remotely as a result of the COVID-19 
pandemic. Despite that fact, we still have been able to carry 
out each of our ongoing missions remotely.
    I am pleased to report that the OCWR's doors have now been 
reopened during normal business hours, and so we are now 
staffed to accommodate both in-person and virtual business. So, 
although 2020 and 2021 are certainly contenders with 2019 for 
the most challenging year for our office, I am convinced that 
the OCWR is now better situated than ever to carry out our 
critical mission on Capitol Hill.
    I thank the members of this Committee for their unwavering 
support of our critical work, and I look forward to answering 
your questions.
    [The statement of Ms. Wallace follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
 
    
    The Chairperson. Thank you very, very much. And, finally, 
we will hear from Ms. Camens. We welcome your testimony for 
five minutes.

                  STATEMENT OF BARBARA CAMENS

    Ms. Camens. Chairperson Lofgren, Ranking Member Davis, and 
Members of the Committee, on behalf of the board and the staff 
of the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights, I thank you 
for the opportunity to appear before you today.
    As a member and a past chair of the board, it has been a 
privilege to work with this Committee and with other 
stakeholders who share our commitment to make the legislative 
branch a model workplace.
    One of our board's primary responsibilities is to report to 
each Congress on our recommendations for change to Federal 
workplace laws that may apply or should apply to the 
legislative branch. We refer to these as our Section 102(b) 
recommendations. Our board appreciates that the Reform Act 
incorporated many of our past recommendations for change that 
we think are essential to transforming the workplace climate on 
Capitol Hill.
    The Reform Act incorporated our longstanding recommendation 
that employing offices be required to post notices of workplace 
rights. For years, our office was required to produce the 
notices but, as Ms. James mentioned, there was no requirement 
that the notice be posted, and our board had long been 
concerned that victims of harassment and other unlawful conduct 
might not act simply because they were unaware of their 
workplace rights. Now, mandatory notices clearly notify 
employees of their rights and responsibilities under the act, 
and they serve as a visible commitment on the part of Congress 
to the workplace protections that are embodied in the CAA.
    The Reform Act also incorporated our recommendation that 
Congress change our name. For more than twenty years, we were 
the Office of Compliance, a name that offered no indication of 
what we did. We are now the Office of Congressional Workplace 
Rights, a name that reflects our mission, informs employees of 
what we do, and makes it easier to find us should someone need 
our assistance.
    Our board had recommended that the anti-discrimination and 
anti-harassment protections of the act apply to all staff, 
including interns and fellows, who are among the most 
vulnerable members of the Capitol Hill workforce. The Reform 
Act now extends these protections to unpaid staff.
    Finally, the board had consistently recommended mandatory 
training on the issues of discrimination and harassment. The 
House and the Senate have now adopted resolutions that require 
all Members and staff to complete an anti-harassment and anti-
discrimination training program, and the Reform Act extends 
these training mandates to the congressional workforce at 
large.
    In short, we think that Congress got the Reform Act right, 
and we commend them for it.
    Our board has an additional Section 102(b) recommendation 
for change that I would be pleased to discuss further in this 
hearing, and that is to make mediation available at the request 
of a claimant regardless of whether the employing office 
specifically agrees to the process. We believe that mediation 
is a highly effective tool in resolving workplace disputes and 
that such a change would further strengthen the statutory 
reforms.
    Training and education remain among our most critical 
statutory responsibilities, and the Reform Act presented our 
office with a clear opportunity to expand the scope of 
education and outreach. Our office fully met that challenge. We 
have built out an ambitious, innovative training program that 
goes beyond the letter of the law to address a wider array of 
issues, including best practices that ensure a safe and 
respectful workplace.
    We offer training directed to the entire congressional 
workforce, from Members of Congress and senior staff to entry-
level employees and interns. We will tailor our training to 
meet the unique needs of any employing office.
    We have added to our team of training specialists. And we 
have harnessed technology to deliver education through our 
website, in person, and through videoconferencing that makes 
our training fully accessible to the entire legislative 
workforce, including in State and district offices.
    I am so very proud of our education program and the fact 
that it is recognized as such an expert and trusted resource on 
Capitol Hill. Education remains essential to reform and to our 
office's strategic vision of a respectful, safe, and healthy 
congressional workplace.
    I thank this Committee for its unwavering support and for 
the privilege of your time, and I look forward to answering 
your questions. Thank you.
    [The statement of Ms. Camens follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
        
    The Chairperson. Thank you very much, Ms. Camens, and to 
all three of our witnesses.
    Now is the time when Members of the Committee can question 
the witnesses for five minutes. I will turn first to our 
Ranking Member, Mr. Davis, for questions that he may have.
    Mr. Davis. Well, thank you again, Madam Chairperson. I 
really appreciated hearing the witnesses' testimony today.
    My first question is going to be for Ms. James.
    As you know, in the 116th Congress, this Committee did pass 
the CAA Reform Act to ensure a safer and more professional work 
environment for all who serve within the legislative branch. We 
remain committed to bringing more transparency and 
accountability to the U.S. House.
    Based on your many years of experience at OCWR, what 
improvements have you seen since the implementation of the act 
in 2019?
    The Chairman. I think you are muted, Ms. James.
    Ms. James. I think I am off now. Am I okay?
    The Chairperson. Yes.
    Mr. Davis. We can hear you.
    Ms. James. My apologies.
    Overall, as you know, since the reforms have taken place, 
we have seen a decrease, a small decrease, in the number of 
claims filed. We have seen employees still contact our office 
for advice and information about what their rights are.
    We also are looking at what the implications are for the 
office, and we have looked at things like perhaps it is because 
there is mandatory training and now employees know what their 
rights and protections are, or it could be because people have 
been working in the remote work environment since COVID 
started, but we have seen also that mediation is down slightly.
    And so, we think that mediation is an opportunity, as Ms. 
Camens said, for the parties to meet together, talk about what 
their dispute is, and see if there is a way to resolve it 
through a mutual agreement.
    But we are seeing that, you know, mandated training, the 
posting of notices, and other things seem to have really 
informed staff throughout the legislative branch and remind 
them of what their responsibilities are.
    Mr. Davis. Well, let me jump in here really quick, Ms. 
James. You mentioned mediation that your board members 
mentioned in opening testimony also. Are there any other 
changes that you still think need to be made to the CAA?
    Ms. James. Boy, that is a big question. I mean, there are a 
lot of issues when it comes to substantive matters, that, as, 
you know, people are looking at what the provisions are, I 
think we have made some recommendations as to other areas that 
we might want to consider being applied to the Congressional 
Accountability Act. We have a list of new provisions.
    But, otherwise, I think that what we have with the process 
is really working out well for both staff and employees.
    Mr. Davis. Okay.
    I mean, are you--do you believe that congressional staffers 
are properly informed of the work that OCWR does?
    Ms. James. I do think so. I hope so. You know, we put out 
newsletters, we put up posters, there is mandatory training, 
there is mandatory posting of the posters. You know, we are 
doing everything that we can to get the word out that we are 
here, that we are an available resource for staff, for them to 
understand what their protections are and the process to assert 
those protections if necessary.
    Mr. Davis. Okay.
    How does OCWR proactively engage with Congress to network 
itself?
    Ms. James. Well, I think a lot of it is through the 
training. A lot of it is through our newsletters and other 
information. We do a brown-bag quarterly. That is from our 
Office of General Counsel. We work regularly with employment 
counsel throughout the legislative branch and attorneys who 
represent employees.
    So, you know, I think that all of those are opportunities 
for us to engage with the covered community.
    Mr. Davis. Great. Well, thank you.
    I know I have a little bit of time left, Madam Chairperson. 
I would like to ask the members of the Board of Directors, how 
often does the Board of Directors meet?
    Ms. Wallace. We try to meet about every five to six weeks 
if we can. Of course, we used to be meeting in person. Now we 
try to meet--now, since COVID, we have been meeting virtually. 
We also meet by conference calls.
    There are a lot of times where things are not finalized 
within an in-person meeting and we will schedule a conference 
call in between this four-to-five-week period. It seems like 
the four-to-six-week period of time in between in-person 
meetings has worked out pretty well.
    Mr. Davis. Thank you, Ms. Wallace.
    Now, it is my understanding that the Board of Directors 
writes a report each Congress with policy recommendations. How 
often does OCWR receive feedback on those recommendations?
    Ms. Wallace. Teresa, do you want to answer that?
    Ms. James. Yes, we do write a report that provides 
recommendations. It has not been consistent feedback. You know, 
we do meet with our oversight committees and often have 
conversations. So, I can't give you a specific timeline, but we 
do have those interactions.
    Mr. Davis. Well, great.
    Sorry. I yield back. My dogs are going crazy.
    The Chairperson. Okay.
    We have now Mr. Raskin, who is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much, Madam Chairperson, for 
calling this important hearing.
    In 1995, the Congress passed the CAA, which allows staff to 
form, join, or assist a labor organization for the purposes of 
collective bargaining. So, this was like a mini Wagner Act and 
NLRA for congressional staff, and it set up a two-track process 
for the potential unionization of congressional staff.
    The first track went into effect when OCWR released regs 
for unionization of staff in certain legislative branch 
agencies, like the Library of Congress and the Capitol Hill 
Police. Unions have, indeed, existed at these agencies for more 
than two decades.
    The second track allowed OCWR to promulgate regs allowing 
for unionization of staff in our personal and committee offices 
in both the House and in the Senate. But these regulations 
would not come into force until the House or the Senate passed 
a resolution adopting the proposed regulations that had been 
promulgated.
    These regs were, indeed, printed in the Congressional 
Record, I think, on September the 4th, 1996, but neither the 
House nor the Senate has ever moved by resolution to adopt 
these regulations. So, the unionization rules have not gone 
into effect for the last twenty-five years, leaving members of 
the House and Senate staffs unable to unionize.
    So, my first question is: Are these regulations still live 
at this point and simply awaiting action by the House and/or 
the Senate? Would it suffice for either house to pass a 
resolution to allow staff members in the respective chambers to 
organize?
    And I can, you know, start with you, Ms. James.
    Ms. James. Thank you. Yes, our board did propose 
regulations many, many years ago. I believe they were 
withdrawn.
    I think Barbara Camens might want to speak to this.
    Ms. Camens. Just to clarify, Representative Raskin, I do 
believe that you stated the historical course of events 
accurately, in the sense that, in 1996, our board adopted 
regulations that would govern the rights of collective 
bargaining and unionization about Members of Congress. So, they 
were adopted pursuant to a section in our statute; I believe it 
is Section 304 of our statute. They were then sent for 
publication in the Congressional Record.
    For them to gone into effect and be issued, it would 
require action on the part of the House and the Senate through 
resolution. I believe the position of our office is that those 
regulations are available for approval by Congress.
    Now, having said that, those regulations were issued by our 
board, I guess, 25 years ago. It was before the current 
iteration of the board. We have not addressed them in any of 
our Section 102(b) reports since that time.
    But you state the process, the historical process, 
accurately, Congressman.
    Mr. Raskin. So do you think those regs would need to be 
updated or revised before the House or the Senate were to act 
on it, Ms. Camens?
    Ms. Camens. It is our understanding, in consulting with our 
general counsel, that they are available for congressional 
approval----
    Mr. Raskin. Forgive me, but I don't mean in a legal sense 
or parliamentary----
    Ms. Camens. Okay.
    Mr. Raskin [continuing]. Sense. I mean, substantively, are 
there changes that you think should be made before either house 
were to act?
    Ms. Camens. Our board has not formally reexamined those 
regulations since their adoption twenty-five years ago, which 
was before any of us sat on the board, meaning the five current 
board members. We have not looked at them, we have not 
reexamined them, and we have not taken a position on them.
    So I would think that, in order to respond to your 
question, it would require additional deliberation amongst all 
of the members of the board. I can't speak for the other 
members----
    Mr. Raskin. Okay.
    Ms. Camens [continuing]. Of the board----
    Mr. Raskin. Okay. Thank you very much for that. I am just 
running out of time.
    One last question having to do with January 6 and the OSHA 
investigations. I know that you opened an OSHA inquiry into the 
lack of PPE that was provided, or was not provided, to Capitol 
Police, and there were other occupational safety and health 
concerns arising out of January 6th.
    I am just wondering what has happened with the citation 
that you issued citing four or five serious violations by the 
Capitol Police and whether the Capitol Police have developed 
plans to better protect Capitol Police employees, whether these 
plans are underway or have been filed with you.
    Ms. Wallace. Congressman Raskin, let me just say that this 
is a matter that is currently in front of our general counsel. 
It is a matter that will ultimately or could very well come 
before us as a board. So it is very difficult and probably 
inappropriate for any of us on the board to comment on the 
citation that could come before us, and we need to stay back 
from it as best we can.
    Mr. Raskin. Gotcha.
    I think my time is up, Madam Chairperson. Thank you for 
your indulgence. I yield back.
    The Chairperson. Yes, it is.
    The gentleman from Georgia is now recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Madam Chairperson. Can you hear 
me?
    The Chairperson. Yes, we can.
    Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you. Sometimes I have problems with 
the setup remotely, but I appreciate the opportunity to 
participate in this hearing today.
    I am going to start my questions with--for Teresa James.
    Ms. James--sorry, my computer is acting up on me--as you 
know, Susan Grundmann, the current Executive Director of OCWR, 
has been nominated to the Federal Labor Relations Authority. 
Ms. Grundmann has been with the OCWR for several years, leading 
the agency through the implementation of the CAA Reform Act.
    My first question is: How important do you think the role 
of the Executive Director for OCWR is?
    Ms. James. I think the role of Executive Director is very 
important. I think it is a position that--obviously, the 
management by an Executive Director is a key factor. And so, 
that is the person that oversees the office, the hiring, you 
know, all aspects of the functioning of the Office of 
Congressional Workplace Rights.
    Mr. Loudermilk. Again, does OCWR have a plan to ensure a 
smooth transition to a new ED?
    Ms. Wallace. I think I can answer that.
    We have posted a job vacancy notice. Of course, we have no 
idea the timing for when Ms. Grundmann will leave, but we have 
posted a job vacancy notice. We are beginning to get resumes 
in. Some of them you can put in a pile because they are not 
attorneys or something; they don't fit the qualifications that 
are required.
    As soon as we get those compiled, it is my responsibility 
as the chair to choose, along with consideration with the rest 
of the board, the next Executive Director. So, we will go 
through the resumes as soon as we can and hopefully whittle 
them down, have interviews, and make a decision hopefully by 
the beginning of the year or soon into it.
    I will say--and I hope this is okay, Teresa--but if there 
is a gap in there, Teresa James has agreed to be our acting 
Executive Director until a new Executive Director is chosen.
    Mr. Loudermilk. Do you foresee any particular issues during 
the transition period?
    Ms. Wallace. No, I don't. I think Ms. James is fully 
capable, and the board is there to assist wherever we can. We 
don't have any issues that could be extremely controversial 
coming up, other than the normal operations of the office, so I 
don't foresee that. Ms. James has so much experience that it 
will be seamless, I think.
    Mr. Loudermilk. So, you mentioned you can set aside some of 
the applications or resumes. What qualifications is the board 
going to look for when you are interviewing the candidates?
    Ms. Wallace. We had a lot of discussions on this. We are 
looking for someone who has management experience, because it 
is managing an office of thirty employees. It helps to have 
legislative experience, because dealing with Congress is a 
whole other world, and if somebody has some experience with 
that, it is very beneficial. A background in labor and 
employment is essential to understand our laws and to be able 
to quickly pick up on it.
    So those are the primary things that we are looking for.
    Mr. Loudermilk. In your process of selecting someone, do 
you have plans to consult with the Committee as you are 
interviewing these candidates?
    Ms. Wallace. Are you talking about bringing individuals' 
names before you?
    Mr. Loudermilk. Just to consult with the Committee in any 
aspect as you are going through the selection process.
    Ms. Wallace. I would be more than happy as the chair to 
speak with our oversight committees in the House and in the 
Senate as to what you are looking for, because that is 
important.
    It has been wonderful that our office is having monthly 
meetings with CHA staff, and we appreciate that coordination 
with your staff. And you see things that we may not see. So I 
would be very open to meeting with the staff or with any of you 
to find out what you think is important in an executive 
director.
    Mr. Loudermilk. Well, I appreciate that and maybe the 
opportunity to meet your final candidates going forward. So we 
appreciate that.
    Madam Chairperson, I yield back.
    The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
    And I think it is worth noting that, although we have not 
had monthly hearings on this, we have had bipartisan staff 
attention----
    Ms. Wallace. Yes.
    The Chairperson [continuing]. Constantly. We have been 
paying attention to this.
    I would like to yield now to Mr. Butterfield for his five 
minutes.
    Mr. Butterfield. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
    Let me say good afternoon to all my colleagues. It is good 
to see all of you today. I hope you are well this week.
    Let me also say thank you to the witnesses for your 
testimony. Your work is obviously very, very important.
    Let me start with one of the board members, whether it is 
Ms. Wallace or Ms. Camens. I prefer Ms. Camens, I suppose.
    The board has recommended, Ms. Camens, that claimants 
should be allowed to initiate mediation without any objection 
by an employing office.
    Do you track the number of cases or the number of 
complaints where an employee requested mediation and the office 
has denied the request? And, if so, can you tell us the number 
of cases where this has been an issue?
    Why do you believe it is important that claimants be 
permitted to initiate mediation without any interference from 
the employing office?
    Ms. Camens. Representative, we believe that approximately 
fifteen to twenty percent of the requests that have been made 
by claimants for mediation have been turned down by the 
employing office. We see that as a sufficiently material 
percentage that we are recommending a change to the procedure 
that is set forth in the Congressional Accountability Act.
    We have great faith in mediation. We have a lot of history 
under our belt where we have seen the very professional, 
skilled mediators that we retain through our office assist 
parties in finding a way to a voluntary resolution of their 
workplace disputes.
    Now, we understand that under the old system mediation was 
mandatory; it was a jurisdictional prerequisite. We understand 
that mandatory mediation doesn't make sense, because that does 
not always serve the interests of a claimant who might be, 
frankly, intimidated by the process. I think there were also 
concerns that that mandatory mediation simply delayed access to 
the exercise of statutory rights.
    But giving the claimant the opportunity to determine 
whether they want to attempt to explore a voluntary resolution 
makes a great deal of sense to our board----
    Mr. Butterfield. Yes.
    Ms. Camens [continuing]. And----
    Mr. Butterfield. And it seems to me that there ought to be 
some inferences that could be drawn. Anytime an office, you 
know, denies the request, there should be some inferences.
    Some years ago, the Chairperson, Ms. Lofgren, and I served 
on the Committee on Ethics. There were cases when there were 
accusations made against a sitting Member of Congress. If that 
Member refused to cooperate, our Committee could draw some 
negative inferences. You may recall that, Madam Chairperson. We 
could draw negative inferences from their refusal to cooperate.
    And so, you know, I would hope that that twenty-percent 
number would become zero percent.
    Let me go to Ms. James.
    Ms. James, thank you for your contributions over the years. 
You have been there for more than twenty years, so just thank 
you for all that you have done.
    What has been done--let me go a different way. Do you 
believe that OCWR has enough IT support to carry out its 
mission? And do you have a strategic plan, an IT plan?
    Ms. James. Yes we do. We have a strategic plan that does 
include IT.
    In fact, that is one of our goals. We have been working to 
enhance our IT infrastructure. So, we have an IT security 
person, and we have another IT person that just came on a few 
months ago. It is our goal to ensure that our system of 
confidential filing of claims stays confidential, that the 
information with the office stays safe.
    Mr. Butterfield. Let me use the last minute, if I can, Ms. 
James, in talking about educational materials and videos. In 
the development of these materials, do any of your staff 
undergo any specialized training or educational programs when 
you develop educational materials or videos?
    Ms. James. Yes. Basically, all the trainers in the office 
are attorneys, so they understand the concepts that underlie 
the laws that we apply. They have also gone to training through 
universities and other various programs to talk about how to 
have effective educational programs. So we also put----
    Mr. Butterfield. What about consultants? What about 
consultants? Do you utilize consultants?
    Ms. James. Occasionally we utilize consultants. But, you 
know, that would be just to sort of help our staff get through 
creating materials.
    But we do have--we make sure that our staff are fully 
prepared to do the work that they are required to do.
    Mr. Butterfield. Thank you so much.
    Right on the button, Madam Chairperson. I yield back.
    The Chairperson. Thank you.
    Mr. Steil is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Steil. Thank you very much, Madam Chairperson.
    I would like to take the time to speak with Ms. James.
    I want to focus my time on the workplace rights training 
and what feedback you have received from offices on the 
workplace rights training this year.
    As you are aware, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, workplace 
rights training moved from in-person training to a virtual 
format. I am sure Ranking Member Davis understands, as a former 
district director, often we don't think what works in D.C.--
sometimes it doesn't work the same way back in the districts. 
Many people were making long drives, spending possibly a full 
day just to obtain the training. We really turned that on its 
head during the period of COVID, moving it to a virtual 
process.
    Could you share with us some of the feedback you received 
from offices, whether or not they are wishing to keep that as a 
virtual training or virtual option?
    Ms. James. So, our experience has been that the virtual 
training option works very well.
    In other words, you have people who can interact with the 
trainers. The trainers can even do, you know, certain exercises 
with their staff. There is a way to have them rate the training 
when it is done. The rating that we get back is high.
    We do train on the Congressional Accountability Act as well 
as on implicit bias, bystander intervention. We are just doing 
one now on ageism. So we continue to develop our courses.
    We do find that it is effective as much online as it is in 
person. And, in fact, I think as someone said earlier, it is 
even more accessible. So, you know, we moved into this world 
where we are now all able to do Zoom, when a couple of years 
ago I was in a panic when I had to have a Zoom call. Now it has 
become commonplace and, I think, also with training, has been 
very useful.
    Mr. Steil. I think that is true.
    Let me jump down into the availability, because I think you 
bring up an interesting point. Anecdotally, I got a lot of 
feedback where people were having trouble finding available 
spots.
    With training being completely virtual, I was somewhat 
curious why that was the case, that classes had limited numbers 
of people who could attend, and whether it would be possible to 
allow more or an unlimited number of staff or interns to join a 
training.
    Have you heard that feedback? Can you provide any color to 
that?
    Ms. James. We haven't had that feedback, but I think you 
might be talking about the House-required training, and that is 
something that is done in-house and that we do not provide. So 
we do provide training on the Congressional Accountability Act, 
but the House mandates its own training.
    Mr. Steil. Understood. Okay. That is helpful. It may be 
something that we as a committee could look into, on ways to 
continue to streamline those types of programs. I appreciate 
that.
    Looking at who is running the training programs, with CAO 
managing the contract, Franklin Covey creating and running the 
training programs, it has come to my attention that OCWR is 
interested in being the entity that manages the contract.
    And as the office charged with implementing the CAA Reform 
Act, in your opinion, does OCWR have the capacity to handle the 
contract for this training?
    Ms. James. Well, in terms of handling the contract or in 
terms of providing the training?
    Mr. Steil. The training.
    Ms. James. The training? We may need to look and reassess 
some of our resources at this point, because I think that my 
understanding is that the staff must take the training within a 
certain period of time, and there are, what, approximately 
15,000, 16,000 staff that need to take it annually? So, I do 
think that we would need the resources to be able to do that. 
Our budget is, you know, it is growing, but it is still 
relatively small.
    Mr. Steil. So, the outside provider has a better ability to 
flex their staff at a period when that training comes annually 
due in the House?
    Ms. James. At this point, yes, but I think that we have the 
expertise----
    Mr. Steil. Okay.
    Ms. James [continuing]. To be able to handle the training 
and to be able to provide the answers that may be more useful 
for staff.
    Mr. Steil. Okay.
    With the minute I have remaining, I would like to go back--
Mr. Butterfield touched on this, but I just want to give you a 
little more time to elaborate as it relates to improvements to 
the IT systems at OCWR.
    In IT and an increased digital presence a real focus for 
OCWR? And how do you analyze IT more broadly?
    Ms. James. I am going to have to defer on that question and 
get back to you, and I say this only because I am not an IT 
expert.
    We do have two on staff who work very closely, you know, 
who manage our contracts, who work with different providers, 
work with the Library of Congress. We are on their system.
    You know, I am happy to answer this question with you 
offline or provide with you any information that you need.
    Mr. Steil. Thank you. I think it is just an area we should 
keep an eye on, and I appreciate you spending the time with 
your team to come back with a little bit of color for the 
Committee.
    Madam Chairperson, cognizant of the time, I yield back.
    The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
    Ms. Scanlon is recognized for five minutes.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, Madam Chairperson, and thank you 
for calling this hearing.
    It is of particular interest. I came to Congress 3 years 
ago this week on a special election to fill one of the several 
seats that were vacated that year because of #MeToo issues. One 
of the first laws that was enacted within a month of my 
arrival, not that my arrival had anything to do with it, was 
the Congressional Accountability Act reforms. And so, it is a 
topic of particular interest.
    As a matter of personal privilege, I guess I am going to 
pick on Ms. Camens because we attended the same law school 
together. I believe at the time she was head of the women's law 
group my husband was part of the men's auxiliary. So it is good 
to see her again.
    I was struck by something in your testimony about the fact 
that, in the wake of the #MeToo movement, it is apparent that 
education merely addressing the letter of the law is 
insufficient to transform the climate in the legislative 
community. And, you know, there are a lot of factors that lead 
into that. We still only have 27 percent of Congress that is 
female. There are increasing generational divides.
    I just was wondering if you could elaborate on that, on 
what more we can do to educate people, to bring people along, 
particularly when we have some stark gender divides and, 
increasingly, generational divides in how younger people look 
at some of these issues of harassment that their elders don't 
often perceive.
    Ms. Camens. Thank you, Representative Scanlon. It is nice 
to see you.
    So, as I said during my opening testimony, we have taken, I 
think, an ambitious and innovative approach to our training 
program. We learned in the wake of the #MeToo movement on 
Capitol Hill that teaching to the letter of the law just was 
not sufficient to transform culture.
    So, we offer a wide array of programs, which I am sure Ms. 
James can address in more detail, including, for example, we 
offer a bystander intervention module which we think is very 
effective. We have found, certainly, and studies have been done 
by professionals that, if individuals recognize behavior which, 
if it continues, may result in unlawful conduct, it is very 
effective to give individuals strategies for how to intervene 
and nip that conduct in the bud.
    So that is a perfect example of a training module which we 
offer which goes beyond the mandatory anti-harassment and anti-
discrimination training that is required by statute and 
resolution, but I think is very, very valuable.
    We would encourage employing offices, both Member offices 
and employing offices across the congressional workplace, to 
avail themselves of this training. It is available on the 
website through modules. We can tailor-make an in-person 
training program that we can deliver through, this, you know, 
new technology and deliver it online.
    And it is just a matter of changing underlying behaviors 
and teaching best practices. I think that, across the 
congressional workforce, all employing offices understand that 
there is a need to professionalize the congressional workforce, 
competing to recruit and retain the most talented staff that we 
can.
    I think that this kind of ambitious education program which 
we have, you know, and which we are ready, willing, and able to 
deliver at the request of any employing office should be 
utilized as much as possible, again, beyond the letter of the 
law.
    Ms. Scanlon. And I think that relates to--I sat on the 
Select Committee to Modernize Congress last term, and this 
whole line of discussion relates to the idea that we have these 
best practices available now through your office, through House 
Admin, through the new diversity office, and we need to find 
more ways to encourage offices to take advantage of them and 
stop having so many chiefs without proper guidance.
    So thank you.
    And I yield back.
    The Chairperson. Thank you.
    The gentlelady from New Mexico is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you so much, Chairperson 
Lofgren.
    And to our witnesses, this is such an important hearing 
because it impacts all of those who work with us. And, of 
course, Congress can't function without all the amazing 
employees who work here, from those working in their own 
offices, the interns--you know, there was a great conversation 
today about the unpaid staff--and, of course, the Capitol 
Police.
    Ms. James, I want to make sure that the services you 
described reach employees and are tailored to them, whether 
they work in the Capitol or across the country in our diverse 
districts.
    Can you describe a bit the kind of training that your 
staff, including the confidential advisors and mediators, 
receive to ensure that services are provided? Also, you know, I 
have an incredibly diverse district, and, all our Members have 
diverse districts. How are they done in a culturally 
appropriate or multilingual manner?
    Ms. James. Well, thank you. That is a very complex 
question, and lots of things come to mind.
    I don't think that our trainers actually are multilingual, 
but that is something to consider.
    You know, they are able to provide training via Zoom, as I 
mentioned before. We have a sign-up on our website. There is, 
you know, a learning management system that employees can go 
to. There are videos on our website. They can contact our 
office and request training. We provide the training via Zoom 
on several issues, including the Congressional Accountability 
Act.
    As far as the confidential advisor, she provides 
information on a one-on-one basis. So, in other words, she is 
not necessarily involved in training; she is involved in 
informing staff who might call the office and say, I am not 
sure if this is an issue, you know, concerning my rights under 
the Family and Medical Leave Act, you know, or the Fair Labor 
Standards Act. But she will deal one-on-one with people.
    Our trainers deal with the education program. And some of 
our attorneys in the Office of General Counsel also provide a 
brown-bag. And, you know, that is giving information on the 
various provisions of the CAA and the legal status of those 
decisions and other cases that are affecting them.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you.
    And I know that you touched on this earlier in the 
conversation, but how are we making sure that, especially in 
our district office, people are understanding, you know, that 
these services are available?
    Ms. James. Right. So we do reach out to--you know, we do 
send out quarterly newsletters, and we have information 
available on our website, so all of that goes to everybody. All 
new staff get hard-copy brochures from us. And so we do 
regularly reach out to staff located in the D.C. area as well 
as in district offices on a regular basis so that they have 
this information.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you.
    I now want to go to the 2019 report, Chair Wallace. Back in 
2019, the GAO wrote that the OCWR lacks results-oriented 
performance goals, related measures, and reports assessing 
progress.
    So it has been about two years since that report. Can you 
describe what performance measures have been put in place? And 
can you make sure that the Committee gets information about 
that?
    Ms. Wallace. The board, in conjunction with the staff, 
spent a considerable amount of time developing a new strategic 
plan for our office. The GAO report had mentioned several 
things that they felt should be in the strategic plan.
    We worked very hard on it, coming up with five different 
goals, which--I can tell you what the goals are if you are 
interested. But, for each one, we set various initiatives and 
action items so that we could judge from those what our actions 
have been, and have we been meeting the goals, are we meeting 
them, what are the timelines.
    So I think we have become much more organized in that 
regard. Strategic goals are becoming much more important for 
offices to do, especially within the government.
    We are doing that also within our IT realm. And, as a 
matter of fact, one of the goals in the strategic plan is to 
work IT into more and more of the things that we are doing to 
update how we interact with people, that type of thing.
    So we have taken the GAO report to heart. We are working 
with them, advising them on the steps that we have taken. I 
think the strategic goals, which is available on our website, 
is probably the biggest thing that we have done to follow 
through on the kinds of things they asked us to do.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you.
    And my time has expired. I yield back. Thank you, Madam 
Chairperson.
    The Chairperson. Thanks very much.
    I see Mr. Aguilar is here, and he is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Madam Chairperson. I appreciate it. 
I appreciate the panel and sorry for my tardiness.
    Ms. Camens, in your testimony, I saw you mentioned how OCWR 
is ensuring that offices are compliant with workplace rights 
dictated in CAA, obviously. However, this isn't always enough 
to create transformative change within the workplace.
    Does OCWR's mediators and advisors, do they receive 
implicit training bias? You know, how equipped do you feel they 
are in dealing with scenarios or cases that revolve around 
workplace issues of race and culture?
    Ms. Camens. Thank you for the question. I may need to defer 
on some of these details to our Deputy Executive Director.
    But I can attest to the professionalism of our staff of 
mediators who assist the parties in exploring a voluntary 
resolution of their workplace disputes. They are expert on the 
wide array of workplace and employment issues that are 
implicated by the Congressional Accountability Act, so we think 
that they are well-positioned to assist the parties in 
determining whether there is a way forward to voluntary 
resolution.
    I don't know whether I can turn to our Deputy Executive 
Director, who might be able to talk more specifically about the 
training that they receive?
    Mr. Aguilar. Sure.
    Ms. James. Certainly. Thank you.
    Yes, we do have professional mediators and hearing 
officers, and we also do accept feedback from parties. If they 
have an experience that makes them uncomfortable, we will take 
that into account.
    They are all attorneys who are experienced in the areas of 
labor and employment law. We do provide them with updates 
annually on the Congressional Accountability Act, any changes 
with it. We have a summit annually bringing all our mediators 
and hearing officers together.
    We have not had issues come up that I am aware of that 
concern discrimination as a mediator or a hearing officer. But 
if something like that were to come up, we would take it very, 
very seriously.
    Mr. Aguilar. Any issues about implicit bias training you 
know, we saw after January 6 that some congressional offices, 
you know, had experienced, you know, a different degree of 
issues.
    And so just kind of in the broader category within 
discrimination of racism and inappropriate comments being 
leveled do you feel that you are adequately prepared and that 
the attorneys on staff are adequately prepared for that type of 
anti-reprisal training and everything that goes along with 
that?
    Ms. James. I do think that we are fully prepared for that. 
In fact, we have our own implicit bias training that we 
provide, and we are also in the process and will shortly have 
an implicit bias video up on our website.
    So I think that--for staff of the OCWR, it is required. It 
is something that is an area that we are very, very aware of. I 
think if we had a sense that anybody who was working for our 
office as a contractor was in any way, you know, behaving 
inappropriately, it would be upon us to remove that person. 
Because we certainly wouldn't want that behavior to, you know, 
taint anything that we do.
    Mr. Aguilar. I appreciate it.
    Ms. Camens, under the current mediation process, the 
employee and the employer must consent to mediation. In your 
testimony, you said that this effectively gives the employing 
offices a veto over claimants who wish to attempt to settle 
their claims with the assistance of OCWR.
    Can you describe or explain in more detail--I don't have a 
ton of time remaining, so I apologize--the recourse that an 
employee has once their current or former employer denies 
participating in mediation?
    Ms. Camens. Under the current process, mediation would not 
be available to that claimant, and it would be incumbent upon 
them to proceed through the steps in the Reform Act with regard 
to our ADR process.
    What we are suggesting, again, is that we broaden that 
right so that any claimant who seeks access to mediation gains 
access to mediation, and the employing office will be brought 
in. And, of course, under the procedures, then, the time limits 
under the ADR process would be stayed during the mediation.
    So, we have so much confidence in our mediators. We see it 
as such an effective tool. We see mediation as the means of 
potentially gaining a timely resolution of a workplace dispute. 
And that is why we are requesting that the Reform Act 
procedures be reconsidered to allow mediation under all 
circumstances where the claimant seeks access to the process.
    Mr. Aguilar. Thank you so much.
    My time has expired. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
    The Chairperson. Thank you very much.
    Now I will recognize myself for just a couple of follow-up 
questions.
    We have addressed the issue of cybersecurity somewhat, but, 
in a GAO report last year, there was concern about 
cybersecurity, and they point out that OCWR had not developed 
an organization-wide cybersecurity risk management strategy. 
They commend you for having a strategic plan and goal to do 
that but pointed out there hadn't been an effective approach 
for managing, organization-wide, cybersecurity risk.
    So I am interested in what progress has been made in 
establishing that approach to cybersecurity. Ms. James, I don't 
know if you can answer it or whether you want to get back to us 
on that. But obviously, we advertise a secure portal; it is 
very sensitive information that employees may be lodging, and 
we want to make sure that it is secure.
    Ms. James. Yes, thank you. I will have to get back to you 
with more information on that. I appreciate it.
    The Chairperson. Okay. Well, let's figure out a time in the 
next several weeks where the majority and minority can be 
briefed on the cybersecurity steps that you all are taking so 
that we are all on the same page.
    I was interested in the Ranking Member's comments, and I 
agree with him, that the remote training works so much better 
for district offices.
    And originally a few years ago, pre-pandemic, when we were 
thinking online training, we were thinking sort of having a 
website and, really, there is no interactive component to it. 
That has completely changed.
    I mean, the pandemic has been a terrible thing for the 
people of our country and the world, but the one good thing 
that has come out of it is the movement to have, really, 
virtual meetings that are like meetings instead of just a 
passive delivery of content.
    I am wondering, post-pandemic, whether you would intend to 
continue that type of outreach and training, not just for 
district offices but also for people in Washington.
    Ms. James. I would be happy to answer that question.
    And, yes, absolutely, if it is the most effective way to 
reach more staff throughout the legislative branch, we are 
happy to do it remotely.
    Initially, I think everyone thought in-person was going to 
be the most effective way, and here we are two years later 
realizing that, you know, it is as effective remotely as it is 
in person.
    The Chairperson. Well, and it is interesting because I 
remembered, when we put this together--and I want to give due 
credit to our colleague Jackie Speier, who worked so hard 
putting the pieces together--we wanted to make sure there was 
engagement. But clearly, you can have that engagement with a 
Webex or a Zoom. It is not like you turn on your webpage and 
then maybe you go, you know, cook dinner while it is running. 
It is a very different experience. And, also, the capacity to 
have a wider audience and one trainer and still be effective is 
present. So I would encourage the office to continue to do 
that.
    And I am wondering, along those lines: I mean, with a 
virtual environment, we have the capacity to do even more. How 
do you select topics, educational topics, for outreach and 
trainings? And what are the most popular ones or the ones most 
in demand at this point?
    Ms. James. Thank you for that question, because what we 
have often is, after we do the training, we will ask people to 
rate the training and to give us any suggestions about what 
topics they would like to see covered. So that is something 
that we do now as we have our after-training form filled out.
    We also look to issues like implicit bias, which we are 
seeing more and more of. We are doing that in a way that is 
just helping to raise awareness among staff of their 
interactions with one another. You know, we all have our own 
ways of doing things, and it is really a matter of just being 
mindful as to how you interact with your colleagues. So we are 
looking at focusing on implicit bias.
    There is also bystander intervention, which I think was 
mentioned earlier. And that is a training where, if you see 
something, say something, so a way of sort of diverting any 
inappropriate behavior in the workplace.
    We do training, again, on racial equity and civility and 
inclusion. We are moving into ageism and sexism, too, as we 
continue to develop our category--or our list of courses. But 
predominantly it is training on the Congressional 
Accountability Act, which is mandated throughout the 
legislative branch.
    The Chairperson. Well, I thank you very much for your 
answers to my questions and the questions of all the Members. 
We will look forward to an update in the near future on our 
cybersecurity situation.
    At this point, I think all Members have had a chance to ask 
their questions. I would note that we may have additional 
questions for you. If so, we will send them to you, and we 
would ask that you respond to them in writing as soon as you 
are able.
    The Chairperson. And, with that, unless there are further 
matters to come before us, this hearing will be held open for 
the responses, but, without objection, the Committee on House 
Administration will now be adjourned.
    Thank you so much.
    [Whereupon, at 4:19 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]    
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]