Release House Committee on Ethics’ records of sexual harassment in the House?
This resolution directs the House Committee on Ethics to preserve and publicly release records of violations and alleged violations of the Rules of the House of Representatives that were caused by sexual harassment and/or unwelcome sexual advances within the House, specifically breaches of clauses 9 and 18 of rule XXIII. Clause 9 maintains that any worker of the House may not discriminate against an individual, which includes sexually harassing the individual, while clause 18 states that a member, delegate, or resident commissioner shall not engage in a sexual relationship with an employee under their supervision.
Sponsor: Rep. Nancy Mace (Republican, South Carolina, District 1)
View full bill text ➔
How do you feel?
Oppose
Support
Opponents say
• "I am in favor of total and complete disclosure of sexual harassment claims against Members of Congress. I’m not in favor of disclosing unfounded allegations, as that will inevitably become a tool of partisan political abuse. And I’m not for creating a system with loopholes that risks the privacy of those who come forward. These cases are too serious." Source: Rep. August Pfluger (Republican, Texas, District 11)
• "The idea is good but the text itself was rushed and not thought through. It violated a lot of standard practices to protect survivors and due process: 1. It also released documents related to allegations found to be false or unsubstantiated, not just verified violations or settlements. So innocent people would get lumped in with violators. 2. To our knowledge, there was zero victim consent or consultation on this text. That is very different than with Epstein, where victims are centered and consulted at every step. Here, victims offered all their statements with the promise of protection and anonymity. The text gave them no way to have a voice in what information of theirs or their accounts they wanted public or keep private… 3. Although there was a throwaway line about redacting victim names, I do believe full witness or victim statements would have been released. With the way employment at the House works (offices are small, time periods of staff employment are publicly disclosed, etc) it means that even with names redacted you can definitely track details in witness statements and use that to ID victims without their consent. And there was zero mechanism for victims themselves to assert their privacy." Source: Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (Democrat, New York, District 14)
• "The Ethics Committee is deeply committed to delivering appropriate transparency and accountability in all cases of ethical misconduct. All Members of the Committee treat their roles with solemn responsibility and utmost seriousness… We believe the forced disclosures mandated by House Resolution 1072 could chill victim cooperation and witness participation in ongoing and future investigations. Victims may be retraumatized by public disclosures of interim work product, excerpts of interview transcripts, and certain exhibits. And witnesses, who often only speak to the Committee confidentially or on condition of future anonymity, could fear retaliation if their cooperation is made public. Across all our investigations, the Committee strives to maximize information-sharing with the public while balancing the confidentiality rights of victims, whistleblowers and witnesses with the due process rights of respondents. We will continue to strive to improve the Committee’s investigative processes, and the Committee is always open to considering ways to more swiftly bring accountability to bear. We believe House Resolution 1072 could have a negative impact on the Committee’s ability to investigate and eliminate sexual misconduct in the House. We encourage the House to refer the resolution to the Committee at this time." Source: Rep. Michael Guest (Republican, Mississippi, District 3), Chairman of the House Committee on Ethics, and Rep. Mark DeSaulnier (Democrat, California, District 10), Ranking Member of the House Committee on Ethics
Proponents say
• "...I wanted to step out and talk to you guys about something particularly swampy that happened today, which was a vote on a resolution that was brought forward by my colleague Nancy Mace. And what it would have done is require full disclosure of any sexual misconduct cases that are paid with a slush fund that the taxpayers fund. I just believe that if the American taxpayers are paying for it, they deserve to have full transparency of exactly what the details are. So I was one of the few. There were only 65 of us out of 435 that voted to disclose the details of this, and so it just sends a message that the fight continues and we’ve got to keep on pushing for more transparency, more accountability, and I’m going to keep bringing you guys the news." Source: Rep. Kat Cammack (Republican, Florida, District 3)
• "I support Representative Mace at Mace’s subpoena here as well as the amendment too, and I just think that it’s really disgusting how this institution protects itself because y’all just half of them voted to send this stuff to House Ethics, where you know it’s going to die. We know that members of Congress are using taxpayer dollars to pay off sexual harassment. We just had a member of Congress literally sexually harass someone who then lit herself on fire, and you guys all protected him! You guys all protected him! My own side, your side, and so, if you guys want to talk about victims, if you want to go out virtue signal, and then you guys are going to kill her stuff on the floor, and then try to pass, "Of course, we should subpoena all this stuff!" But just, I’m not going to sit here and play games. I think it’s a complete fraud, I think that’s why the American people hate us, I think the midterms are coming up and everyone should go on record for this, and I hope that members are exposed for this." Source: Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (Republican, Florida, District 13)
• "I’m absolutely disgusted that we couldn’t even get to 50 members of Congress who want immediate transparency. Don’t we all campaign on transparency? Don’t we all go out and tell the American voters that we are leaders and that we are going to get justice for them, that we are going to do right by them? And then, we hire their daughters to come work for us, and your tax dollars, millions and millions of dollars, have been used in this slush fund as hush money to silence victims who have been sexually harassed, sexually abused, by members of Congress. And then, Congress is going to do exactly what it does best: investigate itself. And we know that none of that ever goes anywhere… This is happening, right here, in our nation’s capital, and we should be held to the highest standard. And to every member who voted to send this to committee, where you know this was sent to die on the House floor, just moments ago, I hope you have a darn good reason to tell your constituents why you’re not going to stand up for the victims… But again, these are your tax dollars, these are your tax dollars that were used to silence victims. They have been settled with victims." Source: Rep. Lauren Boebert (Republican, Colorado, District 4)
- Rep. Nancy Mace Introduces Resolution To Expose Sexual Harassment Records Of Members Of Congress (Press Release)
- Congress’s sexual harassment system, decoded (Politico)
- How Congress plays by different rules on sexual harassment and misconduct (The Washington Post)
- Mace files resolution requiring Ethics Committee to release all sexual misconduct reports (The Hill)
- GOP lawmakers demand release of $17M ‘congressional sexual slush fund list’ (New York Post)
- Rep. Tony Gonzales admits to affair with former staffer, calling it a "lapse in judgment" (CBS News)
- Rep. Nancy Mace’s Largest Donors (OpenSecrets)
