Passed
420 Yea0 Nay11 Not voting1/2 required
HRES-1399-119
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Sponsored by Thomas Massie (R-KY)
What it does
This resolution would direct the House Committee on Ethics and the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights to publicly release, within 60 days, a consolidated list naming each Member of Congress who was the subject of a sexual harassment or sexual abuse investigation that resulted in a taxpayer-funded payment, along with the total amount paid per member. It would also require disclosure of aggregate totals for all taxpayer-funded settlements involving House employees, broken down by whether the matter involved sexual misconduct or not. The resolution covers any past reviews, investigations, or matters already handled by these bodies.
Who benefits
Current and former congressional staff and other workplace complainants whose cases resulted in settlements, who would gain public acknowledgment of their experiences. Taxpayers who fund these settlements and would gain visibility into how their money was spent. Journalists, watchdog organizations, and researchers who monitor congressional conduct. Future congressional employees who may benefit from increased deterrence of misconduct. Voters who would gain information relevant to evaluating their representatives.
Who is hurt
Current and former Members of Congress named in settlements, including those whose cases may have been resolved without a formal finding of wrongdoing. Complainants who settled under confidentiality expectations and may not have consented to public disclosure of their cases. House employees (non-members) involved in settlements, whose cases would be disclosed in aggregate but whose privacy could still be affected. Legal counsel and settlement administrators who structured agreements under prior confidentiality norms.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that taxpayers have a fundamental right to know how their money is spent, particularly when it covers misconduct by elected officials who hold positions of public trust. They contend that the existing system — in which settlements are paid from public funds but shielded from public view — enables repeat misconduct and denies voters information they need to hold representatives accountable. The Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 was intended to apply workplace protections to Congress, but its confidentiality provisions have been criticized as shielding members from scrutiny unavailable to private-sector employers.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that retroactive public disclosure of named settlements undermines the integrity of confidential agreements that both parties — including complainants — relied upon when settling, potentially chilling future victims from coming forward if they fear their cases will later be made public. They contend that disclosure of a member's name does not establish guilt, since settlements may resolve claims without any finding of wrongdoing, and that naming individuals without that context could constitute reputational harm without due process. They further argue that aggregate disclosures for non-member employees could inadvertently expose identifiable individuals in small offices.
Passed