Requiring Completion Of Training Program In Workplace Rights And Responsibilities
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…
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.