Requiring each Member, officer, and employee of the House of Representatives to complete a program of training in workplace rights and responsibilities each session of each Congress, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4924) to amend the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 to reform the procedures provided under such Act for the initiation, investigation, and resolution of claims alleging that employing offices of the legislative branch have violated the rights and protections provided to their employees under such Act, including protections against sexual harassment, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, a little more than 3 months ago, you tasked the Committee on House Administration with a great responsibility, to undertake a comprehensive review of the training, policies, and mechanisms to guard against sexual harassment in the congressional workplace.

I believe that the legislation we are considering today, H.R. 4924, the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 Reform Act, and, immediately following that, the House resolution, together, respond to this great task.

At the outset, I would like to thank the Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, for his leadership on this issue and for the trust he placed on our committee to conduct this important review.

I would also like to thank and appreciate the work done by our Conference Chair, Cathy McMorris Rodgers.

I would also thank every member of the Committee on House Administration, particularly the ranking member, Mr. Brady. He has been a great friend and colleague over the last decade, and I appreciate being able to work closely on this issue with him.

Both the CAA Reform Act and the House resolution reflect the dedication and commitment of a bipartisan group of Members, including Representatives Byrne, Speier, Brooks, and Deutch, who want to ensure this institution remains worthy of the trust placed in it by the American people. I also want to thank Representatives DeSantis, Love, Comstock, and Chris Smith for their contributions to this bill.

As I have said previously and will state again, unequivocally, there is no place for sexual harassment, or any type of harassment, period, in the U.S. House of Representatives.

It is no secret that the culture on Capitol Hill is unique. While there are hundreds of employing offices, we should all share the common goal of creating effective work environments--environments that are safe, productive, collegial, and, most importantly, responsive, responsive to the needs of our constituents and the public.

During our review, the committee held two hearings, three member listening sessions, a roundtable discussion with stakeholders, and meetings with victims and their advocates to examine how we could improve the workplace for everyone. We found the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 to be outdated and in need of this comprehensive reform.

We found the House training programs to be inadequate in order to meet the needs of all House employees. Additionally, we found that our House policies and procedures are in need of change as they relate to sexual harassment in the workplace.

Last November, the House took the first step in addressing these issues by passing H. Res. 630, a resolution that, among other things, requires all House employees to take annual, in-person antiharassment and antidiscrimination training. Passage of the CAA Reform Act is the logical next step.

The CAA Reform Act makes a number of reforms to the Congressional Accountability Act that will ensure its future effectiveness, including:

Reforming the dispute resolution process to establish procedures for initiating, investigating, and resolving alleged violations of part A, title II, of the CAA;

Ensuring all claims are filed in writing and are made under oath;

Requiring Members who have engaged in intentional discrimination to reimburse the Department of the Treasury;

Requiring the Office of Compliance, the OOC, to report every 6 months of a calendar year to Congress, and to publish on their website the awards and settlements from the previous year;

Directing the OOC to conduct a climate survey of the legislative branch every 2 years;

Directing the OOC to establish a permanent record retention program;

Expanding the definition of covered employees to include unpaid interns, fellows, and detailees; and

Clarifying certain commissions, such as the Helsinki Commission, are covered by the Congressional Accountability Act and providing the process for disposing of claims.

These are just a few of the reforms that the CAA Reform Act makes.

I am proud of the work of this committee and our bipartisan group of Members who have worked on this so diligently over the last several months.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on House Administration,

Washington, DC, February 2, 2018.

Hon. Susan Brooks,

Chairwoman, House Committee on Ethics, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairwoman Brooks: I am writing to you concerning H.R.

4924, the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 Reform Act

and H. Res. 724, a resolution making operational changes to

the House of Representatives as well as changes to the Code

of Official Conduct. There are certain provisions in both

pieces of legislation that fall within the jurisdiction of

the House Committee on Ethics.

In the interest of permitting the Committee on House

Administration to proceed expeditiously for floor

consideration of these important bills, I am writing to

request a waiver of your committee's right to a referral. I

request with the understanding that by waiving consideration

of these bills, the Committee on Ethics does not waive any

future jurisdictional claim over the subject matters

contained in the bills which fall within its Rule X

jurisdiction.

I will place this letter into the committee report and into

the Congressional Record during consideration of the measures

on the House floor. Thank you for the cooperative spirit in

which you have worked regarding this matter and others

between our respective committees.

Sincerely,

Gregg Harper,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Brooks), the chairwoman of the Ethics Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis), the vice chairman of the Committee on House Administration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Comstock), who continues to work tirelessly on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the time remaining for debate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. DeSantis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Utah (Mrs. Love).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this is a historic moment for the House of Representatives, and I, too, want to thank Kim Betz for her hard work on our staff; as well as Jamie Fleet, the staff director; and particularly I want to give a special thanks to Jackie Speier and Bradley Byrne for the many hours they have spent working through this process for us.

Mr. Speaker, this makes historic and important steps in the House of Representatives. It brings us a step closer to achieving our goal of creating effective and safe work environments--environments that are safe, productive, collegial, and, most importantly, responsive to the needs of our constituents and the public.

There is no place like the House of Representatives. This should be, for every employee, the most special place that they will ever work.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4924.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss the background and need for this legislation.

Accounts of sexual harassment revealed in the private sector last fall prompted former and current Members of Congress as well as congressional staff to disclose accounts of sexual harassment in Congress. Moreover, current and former Members and staff were critical of Congress' policies and procedures responding to sexual harassment claims. Criticism included, but was not limited to, the lack of awareness regarding sexual harassment generally in Congressional offices, the lack of mandatory sexual harassment awareness training; the lack of support provided to victims of sexual harassment, and the ineffectiveness of certain aspects of the dispute resolution process set out under the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (CAA) as it related to sexual harassment. Reports about the use of taxpayer dollars to settle sexual harassment claims in the past raised additional concerns about the lack of transparency in the process. The accounts of sexual harassment and criticism of the process revealed that it was not only timely, but important Congress review the employment and workplace policies and processes included in the CAA as well as those policies internal to House offices.

To that end, on November 3, 2017, the Speaker of the House of Representatives tasked the Committee on House Administration (Committee) to conduct a review of the ``existing training, policies, and mechanisms to guard against and report sexual harassment.'' The Speaker further ``instructed the Committee to be as thorough as possible,'' and to incorporate Member ideas and feedback.

The Committee responded and its review was methodical. On November 14, 2017, the Committee held its first hearing titled ``Preventing Sexual Harassment in the Congressional Workplace.'' The hearing identified: (1) the gaps in the House's training, policies, and procedures; and (2) solutions to address the gaps. Testifying at the hearing were Representatives Jackie Speier and Bradley Byrne in addition to Barbara Childs Wallace, Chair, Board of Directors, Office of Compliance; and Gloria Lett, Counsel, Office of House Employment Counsel. The witnesses were unified in their recommendation the House should implement a mandatory training program.

On November 29, 2017, the House of Representatives responded to the calls for mandatory training by passing H. Res. 630. H. Res. 630 requires all House employees, including interns, fellows, and detailees, to participate in a mandatory annual training program. In addition, the resolution required all House offices to post a statement of employee rights and protections under the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (CAA). The resolution also required the Committee to promulgate regulations within 30 days to implement the House of Representatives' training and education program, which it did on December 19, 2017. Mandatory training will begin on April 2, 2018.

On December 7, 2017, the Committee held a second hearing focused on the CAA and the need to reform certain provisions to ensure the adjudication process contemplated by the CAA protects the rights of all parties to the proceedings. The Committee took testimony from four experts, including Victoria Lipnic, Acting Chair, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; Susan Grundmann, Executive Director, Office of Compliance; Gloria Lett, Counsel, Office of House Counsel; and Dan Crowley, former General Counsel, Committee on House Administration.

The Committee also held a roundtable discussion with organizations reflecting the interests of both employees and employers to discuss best practices in preventing harassment and discrimination in the workplace. In addition, stakeholders discussed potential reforms to the CAA's dispute resolution process to protect employers and employees.

Congress passed the CAA in 1995 to bring Congress, the Architect of the Capitol, the U.S. Capitol Police, the Office of Congressional Accessibility Services, the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Attending Physician, and the Office of Compliance under the same employment and workplace safety laws and standards as the federal government and the private sector. The CAA incorporates the prohibitions against discrimination contained in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.). In addition to incorporating employment and safety laws, the CAA establishes the adjudication process for resolving claims filed under the CAA. For discrimination claims, the adjudication process includes counseling, mediation, and either an administrative hearing overseen by the OOC or proceeding to federal court.

In addition to the dispute resolution process, the CAA authorizes remedies for successful claims of discrimination, including sex discrimination and harassment. The remedies are similar to those available under Title VII, with the exception of punitive damages. Successful claims under the CAA are paid from an account within the Department of Treasury of the United States authorized for the payment of awards and settlements under the CAA. Rule X of House Rules specifies that employing offices of the House may only enter into settlements providing for the payment of claims filed under the CAA only after receiving the approval of the Chair and Ranking Member of the Committee.

The CAA established the Office of Compliance (OOC) as the independent non-partisan agency to implement the adjudication process for claims filed under the CAA. The OOC is responsible for, among other things, to compile and publish statistics ``on the use of the Office by covered employees, including the number and type of contact made with the Office, on the reason for such contacts, on the number of covered employees who initiated proceedings with the Office under this chapter and the result of such proceedings and on the number of covered employees who filed a complaint, the basis for the complaint, and the action taken on the complaint.''

The CAA has not been comprehensively examined since its passage in 1995. The Committee's review revealed frustration and criticism of the initial stages of adjudication process as it related to sexual harassment claims; concerns with OOC's management policies, including its record management, and the need for additional reporting by the OOC beyond its current statutory obligations. Relatedly, the Committee believes there should be greater transparency around the use of the Settlement and Award account authorized under section 1415 for section 201(a) and 207 claims for discrimination and retaliation. Furthermore, the Committee believes in cases of harassment and discrimination where a Member of Congress' conduct is intentional, reimbursement to the Treasury account should be

required. To that end, the Committee recommends the reforms contained in H.R. 4924 to ensure the CAA's future effectiveness in preventing discrimination and harassment in the Congressional Workplace and adjudicating claims in a fair and expeditious manner.

The Committee found the current requirements for counseling and mediation to be ineffective and burdensome. Specifically, the Committee took testimony revealing the ``counseling phase'' was not counseling but more akin to claim intake. The Committee further found the mandated 30-day counseling period to be unnecessary. The Committee recommends eliminating the counseling phase altogether and replacing it with a more simplistic process. Under H.R. 4924, proceedings set out under section 1401 are initiated as soon as a claim is filed. Relatedly, the Committee heard concerns about frivolous claims being filed under the CAA and potential abuses of the adjudication process. The Committee recommends strengthening the requirements for filing a claim under the CAA as well as imposing standards and responsibilities on all attorneys involved in a CAA proceeding similar to those found in Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. H.R. 4924 requires claims filed under the CAA to be in writing and under oath. Moreover, attorneys involved in a CAA proceeding must ensure all filings with the OOC are made in a manner consistent with their ethical obligations in federal court.

In addition to concerns about the counseling phase, the Committee heard testimony criticizing mandatory mediation. The Committee agrees the mandate only prolongs a proceeding--particularly in cases where one party does not want to settle. The Committee recommends making mediation available when both parties agree that it is in their joint interest.

Apart from the reforms to counseling and mediation, the Committee recommends granting investigative authority to the OOC General Counsel. The Committee supports incorporating a similar investigative process as is currently conducted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in the private sector and executive branch. Given the OOC General Counsel already has investigative authority under the CAA in certain other claims, the Committee recommends extending limited investigative authority to claims, including those of discrimination and harassment. The Committee believes investigations early on will help facilitate the resolution of cases. The Committee further believes the OOC General Counsel should have limited subpoena authority during its investigation. However, this authority should not be construed to be any broader than the authority granted to hearing officers pursuant to section 1405(f). Further, as noted in the text of H.R. 4924, the Committee believes subpoenas should only be issued as a last resort and primarily to keep the investigation on schedule.

As noted above, during the Committee's review, reports surfaced of settlements of sexual harassment claims involving taxpayer dollars, including the use of the Member Representational Allowance (MRA). The Committee heard from Members, constituents and the public that taxpayer dollars should not be available to settle claims of sexual harassment. While the Committee agrees, it recognizes victims need to be made whole. Not victims a second time.

To that end, H.R. 4924 requires a Member of the House of Representatives (including a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to the Congress), a Senator, or a former Member of the House of Representatives or Senator to reimburse the Department of Treasury account authorized under section 1415 for certain settlements and awards. H.R. 4924 sets out a structure to compel reimbursement if voluntary reimbursement is not made.

The Committee is mindful that personal liability for employment law claims does not exist in federal law and has worked to strike a balance between protecting taxpayers from being responsible for bad actions conducted by elected officials, protecting the due process rights of those accused, and not making the provision so broad as to discourage the settlement of meritorious claims.

With this in mind, the Committee intends the reimbursement obligation to be triggered only when three conditions are met: (1) the claimant alleges (and, unless the claim is settled, ultimately proved to the trier of fact) that the Member or Senator personally engaged in an intentional act of harassment, discrimination, or retaliation with animus covered by section (d)(1)(B); (2) the alleged act resulted in a settlement or award for the claimant; and (3) payment is made from the section 1415 account to compensate the claimant for the specific claim requiring reimbursement under this section. If in contention, the trier of fact should make an express finding, separate from the underlying claim, that the Member or Senator engaged in an intentional act of harassment, discrimination, or retaliation covered by section (d)(1)(B) with animus.

A reimbursement obligation is not triggered if the claimant does not allege an intentional act of harassment or discrimination or retaliation committed by a Member or Senator with animus and covered by this section. For example, the Committee does not intend the reimbursement obligation to be triggered if an act of discrimination or harassment was alleged against a supervising employee of a congressional office, such as the chief of staff. The provision would also not apply in the case of an omission, such as a failure to properly supervise an employee with hiring authority. The provision would not apply in the case of a disparate impact or other theory of unintentional discrimination. The provision would not be triggered if the claimant alleges a violation occurred but does not name a Member or Senator as the individual who committed an act leading to the violation. In the case of a discrimination claim, the provision would not apply if there was no discriminatory animus on the part of the Member or Senator.

Concerned with its day-to-day management, Congress requested the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to audit OOC in 2004. The Committee has similar concerns today. H.R. 4924 directs the Government Accountability Office to update its 2004 review of OOC's management practices. In addition to its management operations, the Committee is also concerned with the lack of record retention policies adopted by OOC. H.R. 4924 requires OOC to establish a permanent record retention program to ensure that general questions about OOC case management may be answered in a timely manner.

Relatedly, the Committee's review brought to light the use of the Department of Treasury account established in Section 1415 to pay for the settlement of claims including claims of sexual harassment. In addition to settlements and awards constructed under the CAA, it was brought to the Committee's attention that the Member Representational Allowance (MRA) was used to settle claims of sexual harassment, including for claims filed under the CAA. While not specifically prohibited by statute or by the Committee's Member Handbook, the use of the MRA for these purposes is of concern and is addressed in separate legislation.

The Committee is concerned with the use of taxpayer dollars to settle claims, particularly for claims of discrimination and harassment. H.R. 4924 directs the OOC to report within 30 days on all settlements and awards under the CAA in which public funds were used over the last 20 years. This includes any House or Senate account. The OOC is directed to identify the claim, the award or settlement and the source of funding. In putting together its report, the OOC should take care not to disclose any identifying information about any party to a legally binding agreement or proceeding who has an expectation of privacy. The Committee understands there may be victims to agreements which may be unenforceable. To that end, the Committee recommends working with the new Office of Employee Advocacy authorized in separate legislation.

Notwithstanding OOC's responsibility to issue its comprehensive report looking backward, H.R. 4924 directs the OOC to report to Congress every six months on the payment of awards and settlements for claims filed under Part A, title II of the CAA, the name of the employing office, the amount of the award or settlement, and in cases where a Member or Senator is responsible for reimbursement--whether the Member is in compliance with the reimbursement obligation.

Notwithstanding its new reporting requirements, the Committee takes this opportunity to clarify its expectation of OOC's current reporting requirements. The Committee encourages the OOC to include in its existing reporting the following: (1) number of Complaints listed by their protected categories under the CAA (ie. race, sex, national origin, religion, disability, age) as opposed to title VII; (2) summary of general information requests listed by the groups of people contacting the OOC (ie. number of covered employees, number of public inquiries, media, union, employing offices); (3) the specific information requested by protected category for issues under section 201 and 207 (race/color, sex/gender, disability, age, national origin, retaliation, religion); (4) the number of requests for counseling and mediation broken down by their protected classes; and (5) workplace issues raised with the OOC (ADA, compensation, demotion, disparate treatment, equal pay, harassment/hostile work environment, promotion, overtime, etc).

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a section-by-section analysis of this legislation:

Section-by-Section of the Legislation

Title I--Reform of Dispute Resolution Procedures

Subtitle A--Reform of Procedures for Initiation, Investigations and

Resolution of Claims

Sec. 101 (a). Description of Procedures Available for

Consideration of Alleged Violations. Section 101 sets out the

procedures for initiating, investigating and resolving

alleged violation(s) of Part A, Title II of the Congressional

Accountability Act (CAA). The procedures require a covered

employee to file a claim with the Office of Compliance

(OOC). Once a claim is filed, an investigation is initiated

by the OOC General Counsel. The section specifies at the

conclusion of the investigation, the covered employee may

proceed to a hearing before the OOC hearing officer in two

instances: (1) the investigation results in a finding of

reasonable cause a violation occurred, or (2) the General

Counsel is unable to determine whether reasonable cause

exists on the merits of the claim. The procedures allow for a

covered employee to file in federal court within 45 days of

filing a claim. The decision to file in federal court stops

the investigation and any further ability to seek an

investigation. The section further authorizes a covered

employee to file in federal court within 90 days upon

receiving a right to sue letter from the OOC General Counsel.

Finally, the section specifies that any party may retain

counsel to protect their respective interests. The section

also imposes FRCP Rule 11 obligations on all parties to the

proceedings including OHEC, the new Office of Employee

Advocate and any party that intervenes on behalf of a party.

Sec. 101 (b). Conforming Amendments. The section makes

conforming amendments.

Sec. 102 (a). Reform of Process for Initiation of

Procedures. Section 102 specifies a claim must be filed with

the OOC to initiate the process. The claim must be in writing

and under oath or affirmation. (The bill eliminates mandatory

counseling and mediation). The employing office is notified

once a claim is filed. The section also sets out a special

notification requirement to Members whose conduct is the

focus of a section 201(a) or 207 allegation. The special

notification requirement specifies OOC must notify the Member

of the potential repayment obligation associated with claim

and the opportunity to intervene in the proceedings. The

section directs the OOC to establish an electronic reporting

and tracking system that will be used to report and track

claims. The system will be accessible by both parties, taking

into consideration the covered employee's need for

confidentiality. In addition, the section imposes a reporting

requirement on OOC to provide the Committees of jurisdiction

with semi-annual reports on the effectiveness of the system

to facilitate the resolution of cases. Under section 102, all

claims must be filed within 180 days of alleged violation.

The section reaffirms the ability of a covered employee to:

contact OOC or any other office (i.e. Office of Employee

Advocate) for information; refer a matter to the respective

Committees on Ethics; as well as to file in federal court.

Sec. 103 (a). Investigations of Claims by General Counsel.

Section 103 authorizes the OOC General Counsel to initiate an

investigation of a claim under Part A, Title II once a claim

is filed. The OOC General Counsel has subpoena authority to

compel production of documents and testimony from witnesses

during the pendency of the investigation. The subpoena

authority is consistent with existing subpoena authority held

by the hearing officers under Section 1405(f). Subpoenas may

be enforced in same manner as provided in Section 1405 (f).

The OOC General Counsel is required to make one of three

findings at the end of the investigation: (1) a finding of

reasonable cause that a violation of Part A, Title II

occurred; (2) a finding that there is no reasonable cause to

believe a violation of Part A, Title II occurred; or (3) a

finding indicating the General Counsel cannot determine cause

based on the facts. In the event there is a finding no

reasonable cause exists to believe a violation occurred, the

General Counsel will issue a letter to the covered employee

authorizing their right to sue in federal court. The section

authorizes the General Counsel to transmit the findings to

the parties. With respect to section 201(a) and/or 207 claims

involving Member conduct, the General Counsel is authorized

to transmit the report to the Committees on Ethics. The

section authorizes the General Counsel to recommend mediation

to the parties at any time. The General Counsel has 90 days

to investigate and issue findings. The General Counsel can

extend investigation for an additional 30 days with notice to

the parties.

Sec. 103 (b). Conforming Amendments. This section makes

conforming amendments.

Sec. 104. Availability of Mediation during Investigations.

Section 104 allows the parties to request mediation while the

investigation is proceeding. The request for mediation must

be made by both parties and may be for a period of 30 days.

The parties may jointly agree to extend for another 30 days.

The section allows the parties to be separated during

mediation if requested by the covered employee.

Part B--Other Reforms

Sec. 111. Requiring Members of Congress to Reimburse

Treasury for Amounts Paid as Settlements and Awards in Cases

of Acts Committed Personally by Members. The section requires

Members of Congress (including former Members who were in

office at the time of the allegation) to repay the Settlement

and Award Account authorized under section 1415 of the CAA.

Members are responsible for repayment in cases in which the

allegation of an act or violation under section 201(a)

(discrimination and harassment) and section 207 (retaliation

resulting from a 201(a) violation) involves a Member

personally. The section authorizes the appropriate Committees

to establish a plan to withhold compensation if the account

is not repaid within 90 days. If the account is not repaid

within 180 days, section 111 authorizes the transfer of funds

from the Member's Thrift Savings Plan. The section clarifies

that spouses' rights are not applicable when TSP is accessed.

In the event, the Member is no longer receiving compensation

(i.e. former Member), the section authorizes withholding

annuities and transferring amount to the account. The section

reiterates a Member's right to intervene in his or her

personal capacity during mediation, hearing or civil action

to protect the Member's interest. The section ensures the

covered employee is not unduly burdened in depositions

resulting from the intervention. The Committees on House

Administration and Senate Rules are charged with promulgating

regulations to implement this section.

Sec. 112. Automatic Referral to Congressional Ethics

Committees of allegations involving Members and Senior Staff.

Section 112 authorizes an automatic referral to the House

Committee on Ethics (and Senate Select Committee on Ethics)

with respect to claims filed under section 201(a) (harassment

and discrimination) and/or 207 involving Member and senior

staff conduct. The referral occurs when there is: an order to

pay an award or settlement (including agreements resulting

from mediation outlined in section 104); a final decision of

a hearing officer; a final decision by the Board under

Section 406(e); and a final decision in a civil action. The

section authorizes the Committees on Ethics to have access to

records and information relating to any investigation,

hearing, or settlement. The section prohibits the Committee

on Ethics from releasing the identity or position of an

individual making allegation.

Sec. 113. Availability of Remote Work Assignment or Paid

Leave of Absence during Pendency of Procedures. The section

allows a covered employee to work remotely if requested. If a

covered employee's responsibilities require on-site presence,

an employee may request paid leave. The section prohibits an

employing office from using requests as a method of

retaliation. The section protects any collective bargaining

agreements that are in place.

Sec. 114. Modification of Rules on Confidentiality. The

section makes technical changes to sections 1416(a) and (b)

regarding confidentiality as it relates to filing a claim and

the subsequent investigation as well as information relating

to mediation. The section includes a rule of construction

indicating nothing in the section precludes a covered

employee or employing office from disclosing information

related to a claim.

Sec. 115. Reimbursement by Other Employing Offices of the

Legislative Branch of Payments of Certain Awards and

Settlements. Section 115 requires the Legislative Branch

agencies under the CAA to repay the Settlement and Award

account as result of awards and settlements issued under

section 201(a). Repayment shall be made from the operating

expenses of agency within 180 days. The section directs the

OOC to establish procedures and timetables for repayment.

Title II--Improving Operations of Office of Compliance

Sec. 201. Semiannual Reporting on Allegations, Awards, and

Settlements. In addition to their current reporting

requirements, section 201 requires the OOC to report every

six months of a calendar year to Congress and to publish on

their website the awards and settlements from the previous

year. The report to Congress must include: the employing

office; the provision of Part A, Title II that was the

subject of the allegation or violation; and the amount of the

award or settlement resulting from an allegation or

violation. In cases where the Member is personally

responsible for repayment, the report will identify whether

the Member has complied with repayment obligations. In

addition, the section requires the OOC to submit a report

within 30 days of enactment on all payments made with public

funds, including MRAs, used to settle section 201(a) claims.

The report is to include the amount paid and the source of

funding.

Sec. 202. Workplace Climate Survey. The section directs the

OOC to conduct a climate survey of all employing offices

covered under the CAA regarding the workplace environment

each Congress. The survey will also collect data on sexual

harassment in congressional employment. The section requires

the OOC to ensure all responses to the survey are anonymous

and confidential and to consult with the respective House and

Senate Committees on the survey including collecting and

analyzing data. The section requires OOC to maintain

confidentiality during the process and with the results. The

section directs the survey results to be sent to the

Committees.

Sec. 203. Record Retention. The section requires the OOC to

establish and maintain a permanent recordkeeping program.

Sec. 204. GAO Study of Management Practices. The section

requires the GAO to update its review of the OOC's management

practices and effectiveness within 180 days. The last GAO

study was conducted in 2004.

Sec. 205. GAO Study of Cybersecurity. The section requires

GAO to conduct an audit of the OOC's cyber security systems

and practices within 180 days.

Title III--Miscellaneous Reforms to the CAA

Sec. 301. Extension to Unpaid Staff of Rights and

Protections against Employment Discrimination. The section

extends coverage of the rights and protections established

under the CAA to unpaid interns, fellows and detailees.

Sec. 302. Coverage for Purposes of Protections against

Workplace Discrimination. The

section extends coverage of Part A, Title II of the CAA to

the Library of Congress. The section acknowledges the

existing process utilized by covered employees of the Library

and gives those employees choice of whether to continue to

use the LOC internal grievance procedures if they choose.

Sec. 303. Clarification of Coverage of Employees of

Helsinki and China Commissions. The section extends covered

employee status to employees of the above Commissions. The

section establishes employing office status for the

Commissions, which is contingent on whether the House or

Senate maintains the Chairmanship. Section 303 also sets out

the process for approving the disposition of claims against

the Commissions as employing offices. The section also

extends coverage to the Office of Technology Assistance and

the John C. Stennis Public Service Training and Development

Center.

Sec. 304. Training and Education Programs of Other

Employing Offices. Section 304 directs the legislative branch

agencies to establish programs of training and education for

covered employees on the rights and protections under the

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the ranking member, Mr. Brady, and acknowledge his longstanding leadership and friendship, and as well the work that he does with the chairman and for his leadership as well.

This is a highlight on the floor of the House for the bipartisanship that it represents, the tone of which we are speaking, even though we know that this is a matter of urgency and we have seen the telling of situations that none of us would want to see repeated.

And forgive me for using more of a most recent set of circumstances just to capture the intensity of the moment, and that is, of course, the recent trial with a conspicuous and vile sex offender to the 200- plus young women athletes.

Now, this is not the circumstances here in the House of Representatives, but I think it captures the intensity of silence, because those young women had to live or thought that that was what they were obligated to do because they wanted to achieve greatness in their field, and they were stopped by the wall of silence and, therefore, could not find relief. The courts have finally given them relief, but through an enormity of pain.

I think it is important for the congressional standards to be such that it sets a wide net across the Nation to be able to ensure that the wall of silence is broken.

Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 4924, to amend the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 to reform the procedures provided under such Act for the initiation, investigation, and resolution of claims alleging that employing offices of the legislative branch have violated the rights and protections provided to their employees under such Act, including protection against sexual harassment, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will provide a broader subpoena authority to the Office of Compliance, which adjudicates workplace disputes, and as well it would expand protections in other areas of antidiscrimination.

Let me say that this is a positive statement made by all of us, and I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 4924.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 4924, the ``Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 Reform Act,'' legislation to amend the Congressional Accountability Act (CAA) of 1995 to reform the procedures provided under such Act for the initiation, investigation, and resolution of claims alleging that employing offices of the legislative branch have violated the rights and protections provided to their employees under such Act, including protections against sexual harassment, and for other purposes.

Legislative branch employees who allege sexual harassment or other workplace violations could use an accelerated claims process under H.R. 4924.

The bill would amend the 1995 Congressional Accountability Act (CAA; Public Law 104-1).

I celebrate and congratulate Jackie Speier and the women members of Congress who stood up. Thanks again to the Ranking Member and Chairman of the House Administration Committee.

The amendments include:

Eliminating a requirement for counseling and mediation before a legislative staffer could file a civil action in a U.S. district court;

Requiring members of Congress to pay for settlements and awards if they're the alleged offender;

Giving broader subpoena authority to the Office of Compliance (OOC), which adjudicates workplace disputes for most legislative branch offices;

Requiring the OOC to publish more information on claims, awards, and settlement payments and reimbursements from lawmakers;

The measure follows recent accusations that lawmakers sexually harassed or otherwise mistreated employees.

Some of those cases went through the OOC process and resulted in resignations and taxpayer-funded settlements.

The OOC approved more than $17 million in awards and settlements from fiscal 1997 through 2017.

Many of those cases originated outside of member-led congressional offices and didn't involve alleged sexual harassment.

The House is also slated to consider a separate resolution (H. Res. 724) that would apply only to House offices and employees.

That measure would establish an office to provide House employees with free legal assistance during the OOC process, and would bar the Office of Congressional Ethics from investigating an alleged workplace violation once a staffer files a claim with the OOC.

These comprehensive reforms will provide a positive change of culture within the Congress, and improve the overall process of both preventing and reporting any harassment in the future.

The CAA requires congressional and other legislative offices, such as the Congressional Budget Office, to comply with about a dozen workplace protections that apply to private-sector and executive branch employees.

For instance, the 1964 Civil Rights Act bars discrimination based on factors such as race, religion, and sex.

The Supreme Court has held that the law also prohibits sexual harassment in the workplace.

Some CAA provisions don't apply to offices such as the Library of Congress (LOC), whose employees are covered by other laws and procedures.

To seek relief for certain workplace violations specified in the CAA, a legislative employee must go through a multistep OOC process.

Within 180 days of an alleged violation, the employee must bring it to the attention of the OOC to initiate a 30-day counseling phase and be informed of his or her rights.

The OOC doesn't notify the employing office unless the employee waives confidentiality.

An employee can participate by phone and be represented by someone else.

If a claim isn't resolved during the counseling phase and the employee wishes to keep pursuing it, he or she must file a request for mediation, which lasts at least 30 days and can be extended for an additional period.

Materials prepared for mediation are kept confidential, though an employee can still discuss the allegations publicly, according to December 2017 testimony from OOC Executive Director Susan Tsui Grundmann.

If a resolution can't be reached through mediation, the employee can file a confidential administrative complaint with the OOC or a public civil action in a U.S. district court.

Either filing has to be made within 90 days after mediation ends, though the employee must wait at least 30 days during a ``cooling off'' period.

OOC-appointed hearing officers are authorized to issue subpoenas to investigate the allegations.

An employee can appeal a hearing officer's decision to the OOC board and then to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

For most legislative branch offices, including congressional offices, settlements are paid from an account in the Treasury general fund.

The bill would still require employees to file a claim with the OOC within 180 days of an alleged violation. The measure, however, would allow an employee to file a civil action in a U.S. district court within 45 days, which would end the OOC investigation.

Otherwise, the matter would go through a revised OOC process.

At the outset, the OOC would inform the employee of his or her rights and notify the head of the employing office.

Employees could also contact the OOC before filing a claim to learn about their rights.

The OOC general counsel's investigative authority is limited to certain types of claims, such as alleged violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

The bill would expand that authority to cover a wider range of claims, including alleged discrimination or harassment under the Civil Rights Act.

The general counsel could issue subpoenas regardless of whether a party requests one.

The bill would express the sense of Congress that subpoenas should be issued only if other methods are insufficient.

The general counsel would have to finish the investigation within 120 days.

The OOC would have to conduct an administrative hearing if the general counsel finds reasonable cause to believe there was a violation, or if the general counsel is unable to make a determination.

If the general counsel finds no reasonable cause to believe a violation occurred, the employee would be notified that he or she could still file a civil action within 90 days.

The general counsel could also recommend mediation, and the parties could file a joint request for mediation at any time.

The bill would allow an employee to request mediation meetings in which the parties are separated.

Any investigative reports concerning allegations of discrimination or retaliation by members of Congress would be referred to the House and Senate Ethics committees.

The OOC would also refer claims to the committees if there's a final disposition--such as a settlement or final decision by the OOC or a court--in a case involving a lawmaker or a senior staffer.

The bill would require current and former members of Congress to reimburse the government if an employee receives an award or settlement for the member's alleged act of discrimination or retaliation.

Funds could be withheld from the member's salary or retirement account if he or she doesn't meet payment deadlines specified in the bill.

The OOC would have to notify members as soon as a claim is filed that they may be required to provide reimbursement.

The member could intervene in a mediation, hearing, or civil action to contest an award or settlement, though the employee who filed the claim couldn't be subject to an additional deposition.

Non-congressional legislative offices would also have to reimburse the government for certain award or settlement payments.

The filing and investigation of a claim would be kept confidential, though an employee or employing office could disclose claim information during a proceeding.

The bill would also clarify that information discussed or disclosed during mediation would remain confidential, without barring the parties from talking about the underlying allegations.

An office could allow an employee to work remotely or grant the employee a paid leave of absence while a claim is pending.

The provisions wouldn't override the terms of a collective bargaining agreement for the office.

The bill would rename the OOC as the ``Office of Congressional Workplace Rights'' and make other changes to the office.

The office publishes annual reports with statistics on employee contacts with the office, the basis of their claims, and the results of proceedings.

The bill would require the office to publish semiannual reports listing each award and settlement in the previous year related to a wide range of CAA workplace claims if the money comes from the Treasury account.

The reports would have to specify the employing offices, award amounts, and alleged violations.

They would also have to indicate whether members of Congress made reimbursements resulting from cases of alleged discrimination.

Reports couldn't include the names or positions of employees who filed a claim.

Within 30 days of the bill's enactment, the office would have to publish a report on all previous payments related specifically to discrimination claims if the payment involved any public funds.

That report would have to indicate the amount paid and the source of public funds, including a House or Senate office account, though it couldn't identify the specific office.

The OOC would also have to establish an electronic system to receive and keep track of claims, and use the system to provide Congress with semiannual reports on the time required to resolve claims.

The OOC would collect information from employing offices, including the Library of Congress, every two years on their workplace environment and attitudes regarding sexual harassment.

All responses would be anonymous and confidential.

The OOC would consult with Congress on survey procedures and methodologies and share the survey results.

The office would have to create a program to permanently retain records of investigations, mediations, hearings, and other proceedings.

The Government Accountability Office would report to Congress on OOC management practices and cybersecurity.

The bill would expand certain protections--including antidiscrimination provisions--to cover employees at the LOC, as well as unpaid legislative branch interns, detailees, and fellows.

Because of these clarifications and expanded protections included in H.R. 4924, I stand in support of this bill and urge my colleagues to join me.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his leadership on this important issue.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 630, my legislation to begin to deal with the sexual harassment issue.

Thirty years ago, in 1988, a 34-year-old legislative aide named Dorena Bertussi faced a very lonely fight when she decided to stand up to a powerful Congressman, Jim Bates from California, who repeatedly sexually harassed her and others in his office with questions, comments, and actions such as asking her what type of sex she

liked and saying different things that he would imagine. He talked about her breasts. He humped her leg in front of the staff and said vulgar things that are really too unpleasant to talk about in this body.

Dorena didn't get a lot of press attention or some of the support that victims get today. She got little support from this body. She went on her journey alone. She received nasty phone calls and even threats. She was warned they would release damaging information about her.

Fortunately, she prevailed. Men and women in the workplace should know her name and know she was the first woman to win a sexual harassment case against a Member of Congress.

Let's remember, as we see all these headlines about men leaving their jobs and things going on, behind all of them are women who are victims like Dorena. There is a lot of pain in dealing with such a situation. In speaking with her recently, I could hear that pain even 30 years later.

As a mom, former intern here in this body, former congressional staffer and counsel, and a Justice Department employee, I do believe this is a watershed moment.

I have a female chief of staff. I have a female district director. But we also need to have men and women involved in this process. I am so happy with the men who are coming forward, because this is a workplace issue, a human rights issue, and an issue that addresses all of us and our daughters and sons in the workplace.

When I was working in Congress in the nineties for Congressman Wolf, just a few years after Dorena, there were Members like ``Good Time'' Charlie Wilson, who openly bragged about hiring staff based on their looks and breast size, famously saying: You can teach them to type, but you can't teach them to grow breasts. He used a more vulgar term.

At the same time, Senator Bob Packwood--and this is a bipartisan problem--assaulted over a dozen women. He kept a diary of his debauchery that had been ignored for years.

It wasn't acceptable then, and it certainly shouldn't be acceptable now. Yet we have stories of Members still in this body today that my colleague, Ms. Speier, and other victims are bringing forward. I told one such story, and I am pleased that Members have responded to say there is no place for that type of sexual action in this body.

This legislation promotes the essential principles of accountability and personal responsibility. It is bipartisan legislation because bad behavior transcends party labels. Men and women--all of us--are coming together. You are seeing this beyond this body. Obviously, it was in the corporate world just today.

This resolution sends the message, as Peggy Noonan wrote in The Wall Street Journal: ``The Sexual-Harassment Racket Is Over.'' I include in the Record her op-ed from this past week.

[From the Wall Street Journal, Nov. 23, 2017]

The Sexual-Harassment Racket Is Over

(By Peggy Noonan)

This Thanksgiving I find myself thankful for something that

is roiling our country. I am glad at what has happened with

the recent, much-discussed and continuing sexual-harassment

revelations and responses. To repeat the obvious, it is a

watershed event, which is something you can lose sight of

when you're in the middle of it. To repeat the obvious again,

journalists broke the back of the scandal when they broke the

code on how to report it. For a quarter century we had been

stuck in the He Said/She Said. Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas

gave their testimonies, each offered witnesses, and the fair

minded did their best with the evidence at hand while sorting

through all the swirling political agendas. In the end I

believed Mr. Thomas. But nobody knows, or rather only two

people do.

What happened during the past two years, and very much in

the past few months, is that reporters and news organizations

committed serious resources to unearthing numbers and

patterns. Deep reporting found not one or two victims of an

abuser but, in one case, that of Bill Cosby, at least 35. So

that was the numbers. The testimony of the women who went on

the record, named and unnamed, revealed patterns: the open

bathrobe, the running shower, the ``Let's change our meeting

from the restaurant to my room/your apartment/my

guesthouse.'' Once you, as a fair-minded reader, saw the

numbers and patterns, and once you saw them in a lengthy,

judicious, careful narrative, you knew who was telling the

truth. You knew what was true. Knowing was appalling and

sometimes shocking, but it also came as a kind of relief.

Once predators, who are almost always repeat offenders,

understood the new way of reporting such stories, they

understood something else: They weren't going to get away

with it anymore. They'd never known that. And they were going

to pay a price, probably in their careers. They'd never known

that, either.

Some great journalism, some great writing and thinking, has

come of this moment. Ronan Farrow's New Yorker pieces have

been credible and gutsy on all levels. Masha Gessen's piece

in the same magazine last week warned of moral panic, of a

blurring of the lines between different behaviors and a

confusion as to the boundaries between normal, messy human

actions and heinous ones. Rebecca Traister of New York

magazine has argued that it is a mistake to focus now on the

question of punishments, that maybe the helpful thing is to

focus on what's going on in our society that predators think

they can get away with this.

Caitlin Flanagan in the Atlantic wrote the most important

political piece in `` Bill Clinton: A Reckoning.'' What is

striking about this moment, she argued, is not the number of

women who've come forward with serious allegations. ``What's

remarkable is that these women are being believed.'' Most

didn't have police reports or witnesses, and many were

speaking of things that had happened years ago. ``We have

finally come to some kind of national consensus about the

workplace; it naturally fosters a level of romance and

flirtation, but the line between those impulses and the

sexual predation of a boss is clear.''

What had impeded the ability of victims to be believed in

the past? The Bill Clinton experience. He was ``very

credibly'' accused, as Ms. Flanagan wrote, of sex crimes at

different points throughout the 1990s--Juanita Broaddrick

said he violently raped her; Paula Jones said he exposed

himself to her; Kathleen Willey said she went to him for

advice and that he groped and assaulted her. These women

``had far more credible evidence'' than many recent accusers.

``But Clinton was not left to the swift and pitiless justice

that today's accused men have experienced.'' He was rescued

instead by ``a surprising force: machine feminism.''

That movement had by the '90s devolved into a ``partisan

operation.'' Gloria Steinem in March 1998 wrote a famous New

York Times op-ed that, in Ms. Flanagan's words, ``slut-

shamed, victim-blamed, and age-shamed'' the victims and

``urged compassion for and gratitude to the man the women

accused.'' This revealed contemporary feminism as ``a

weaponized auxiliary of the Democratic Party.'' Ms. Steinem

characterized the assaults as ``passes,'' writing: ``Even if

the allegations are true, the President is not guilty of

sexual harassment.''

Ms. Steinem operated with the same logic as the skeeviest

apologist for Roy Moore: Don't credit any charges. Gotta

stick with our team.

Ms. Flanagan: ``The widespread liberal response to the sex-

crime accusations against Bill Clinton found their natural

consequence 20 years later in the behavior of Harvey

Weinstein: Stay loudly and publicly and extravagantly on the

side of signal leftist causes and you can do what you want in

the privacy of your offices and hotel rooms.''

The article called for a Democratic Party ``reckoning'' on

the way it protected Bill Clinton.

It was a great piece.

I close with three thoughts.

The first springs from an observation Tucker Carlson made

on his show about 10 days ago. He marveled, briefly, at this

oddity: Most of the accused were famous media personalities,

influential journalists, entertainers. He noted that all

these people one way or another make their living in front of

a camera.

It stayed with me. What is it about men and modern fame

that makes them think they can take whatever they want when

they want it, and they'll always get away with it, even as

word, each year, spreads. Watch out for that guy.

Second, if the harassment is, as it seems to me, weirder

and more over the top now than, say, 40 years ago, why might

that be?

Third, a hard and deep question put quickly: An aging

Catholic priest suggested to a friend that all this was

inevitable. ``Contraception degenerates men,'' he said, as

does abortion. Once you separate sex from its seriousness,

once you separate it from its life-changing, life-giving

potential, men will come to see it as just another want, a

desire like any other. Once they think that, then they'll see

sexual violations as less serious, less charged, less full of

weight. They'll be more able to rationalize. It's only petty

theft, a pack of chewing gum on the counter, and I took it.

In time this will seem true not only to men, but to women.

This is part of the reason I'm thankful for what I'm

seeing. I experience it, even if most women don't, or don't

consciously, as a form of saying no, this is important. It is

serious.

She noted the patterns of the various infamous predators of late and how their victims were now coming forward. These are the same kind of victims that we see in human trafficking or child abuse.

She writes: ``Once predators, who are almost always repeat offenders, understood the new way of reporting such stories, they understood something else: They weren't going to get away

with it anymore. They'd never known that. And they were going to pay a price, probably in their careers. They'd never known that, either.''

Sexual predators--and we need to understand the predator behavior-- has no place in this body.

Today's education effort is just the first step. In the weeks going forward, we need to revise our process.

In the weeks going forward, we need to revise the process to make it easier for women to come forward and provide them an advocate, ombudsman, or counsel, as Dorena recommended; we need to have a prohibition on any kind of Member-staff relationships with subordinates; no taxpayer funding for settlements of sexual harassment by Members of Congress; and transparency and accountability about who the harassers are.

Mr. Speaker, I also thank the business community for their support.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 630) requiring each Member, officer, and employee of the House of Representatives to complete a program of training in workplace rights and responsibilities each session of each Congress, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 630.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this House resolution. The resolution is one part of the Committee on House Administration's comprehensive review of the laws, procedures, and resources concerning workplace harassment in the House. A harassment-free policy and workplace is vital in creating that culture that will require everyone on Capitol Hill to work together effectively.

First and foremost, Mr. Speaker, there is no place for sexual harassment in our society, and especially in Congress--period. I believe as Members of Congress, we must hold ourselves to a higher standard, a standard that demonstrates we are worthy of the trust

placed in us by our constituents and the American public.

There have been a number of accounts by current and former colleagues and staff that suggest not every office is achieving this goal. That is simply unacceptable.

This resolution will mandate that each Member, officer, employee, intern, and fellow of the House of Representatives is fully aware of the laws that apply to them and their right to a harassment-free workplace under the Congressional Accountability Act.

The Committee on House Administration recently held a hearing as its first step in its review. We heard from Members, House employment counsel, and the Office of Compliance. There was a broad consensus that mandatory training is a necessary step for the House to prevent and eliminate harassment in the workplace.

It is important to note, Mr. Speaker, that Republicans and Democrats have joined together to take this step, and I want to specifically thank Representative Comstock and Representative Speier for their leadership on this issue.

The resolution requires training and education to ensure that each Member, officer, employee, intern--paid or unpaid--and fellow knows their obligations and rights. Further, the resolution requires that each congressional office post in a prominent place a notice describing the rights and protections provided to House employees under the Congressional Accountability Act. Both of these measures are regular order in the private workplace, and the House should do nothing less.

The American people have entrusted each of their Representatives with an enormous responsibility. Each Member is sent here to help make our country better. The first place we should start is in our own Chamber. Training on workplace rights and responsibilities will ensure that those who are victims of harassment can obtain justice and work in that harassment-free environment.

In Ronald Reagan's farewell address, he spoke of his vision of America as the shining city on the Hill, one built on rocks stronger than oceans, with everyone living in harmony and peace. We are not perfect and we never will be, but I believe in that vision.

This resolution can be one important step to protect the members of our Capitol Hill community and to demand that we have respect for each and every person here in this workplace.

The resolution sets an important requirement that each Member, officer, and employee, including interns and fellows, must undergo this mandatory training or education every year.

For the current Congress, everyone must complete this training within 180 days of the start of the second session of January 3. Following that, individuals will have to complete the training within 90 days of the start of each session.

It is often said that the urgent gets in the way of the important on Capitol Hill. Not today. This is an important issue, and today we will vote to ensure that the entire House community receives the needed training on how to ensure a harassment-free workplace.

This harassment-free environment should be afforded to every single member of our community from that unpaid intern to the Speaker of the House. Awareness, education, and training is a first step in the prevention and elimination of sexual harassment, which has no place on Capitol Hill. I look forward to working with my colleagues to achieve this goal.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis), who is the vice chairman of the Committee on House Administration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Brooks), who is the distinguished chair of the Committee on Ethics.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin), a distinguished member of the Committee on Financial Services.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Comstock), who is also a distinguished member of the Committee on House Administration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time I have left?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance). He is a distinguished member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Costello), a distinguished member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer), the chair of the House Republican Policy Committee and a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this House, this special place, should not be tarnished any longer by the inexcusable behavior of some of our Members. The standard needs to be high.

Mr. Speaker, I give a special thank-you to Speaker Paul Ryan and his commitment that he has that we get this right. I thank Ranking Member Brady for the way that we have been able to work together on this. Certainly, Representatives Speier and Comstock have been invaluable in this process as we go forward.

We have heard from so many Members today on the importance of this. This is a resolution that is necessary and it is a product of a strong bipartisan incorporation. This is something that is just the beginning, as has been said today. We had a hearing on November 14, and we will have another hearing on the Congressional Accountability Act on December 7. But to have this resolution to make sure that our Members and staff are educated to know their rights and responsibilities is a critical first step.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brady) for his leadership, and I thank Chairman Harper for his as well. I thank them for bringing this legislation to the floor.

Here it is, November 29, 2017, an historic day in the history of the Congress, a watershed moment in our Congress' history because it is a day in which we will take the opportunity to make change. This body is taking a constructive first step to protect all Members of our legislative community from harassment and discrimination in the workplace. This vote is vital to upholding the integrity of the U.S. Congress.

We are grateful for the tremendous leadership of Congresswoman Jackie Speier. I have observed her leadership on this subject for a very long time. She has a lifetime commitment to exposing and ending the scourge of sexual harassment. I thank her for that leadership.

I want to also acknowledge my own daughter, Christine Pelosi, who is the chair of the Women's Caucus of the California Democratic Party. She is a former prosecutor in San Francisco and prosecuted these cases, and she has been a strong, strong advocate for protecting people in the workplace and has had some level of success with that.

So here we are at this watershed moment in the nationwide fight against sexual harassment and discrimination. Brave women in every corner of the country and in every industry are making their voices heard. As Members of Congress, we have a moral duty to show real, effective leadership to foster a climate of respect and dignity in the workplace, with absolutely zero tolerance for harassment, discrimination, or abuse. Anything less is unacceptable.

Requiring the Members and the staff to take training, while valuable--and we must have it--must be only a first step. We must make sure that that training is very effective as well. But the next step for Congress to take is to pass the ME TOO Congress Act, introduced by Congresswoman Speier, to create greater transparency and accountability in the broken reporting and settlements system.

Taxpayer money should not have been spent to build a culture of silence and complicity around workplace harassment. We must make a judgment about how that was used. This bill, the ME TOO Congress Act, will reform the shameful secret settlements policy that has persisted. It will ensure that survivors who wish to share their stories publicly can come forward, and they can come forward to the Ethics Committee.

We want to create a culture that says to everyone who comes to work here: This will be hospitable for you. We want it to be a culture that is a model to the Nation.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, this moment is a moment of truth for Congress. It is disappointing and disturbing that some in the Capitol have not served with the dignity and respect required of this office. It is very hard to accept that people we admire in public life and here in Congress have crossed the line and broken the public trust and violated the dignity and respect of those who have worked for or with them.

But zero tolerance means consequences for everyone. No matter your contribution to our country, you do not get a pass to harass or discriminate. No matter how great the legacy, it is not a license to harass or abuse.

To the victims of harassment and abuse: We hear you, and we believe you. We are here for you.

Where there is harassment, women and men must have support to come forward. We have a duty, again, to address their concerns and provide them needed resources.

We don't want to lose the leadership or service of any patriot who comes to work in or around Congress. We cannot let harassment or discrimination destroy their safety or drive them out of public office. We cannot tell young

women or men who aspire to serve in this historic body that they must put up with harassment and abuse.

Mr. Speaker, I want to just close by again thanking Congresswoman Jackie Speier for her leadership and thanking Chairman Harper, Mr. Brady, and all who are concerned.

It is utterly unconscionable that courageous survivors who seek to end the nightmare of sexual harassment are also dealt the injustice of having their voices silenced. During this watershed moment, we must seize the moment and take real, lasting action. The eyes of the country are on us. We cannot fail them or any prospective victims.

I thank all of those who have brought this to the floor: Congresswoman Comstock, Mr. Harper, Mr. Brady, and Congresswoman Speier.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a strong, unanimous vote on this resolution.