No quick fix for sexual misconduct in the House

WASHINGTON — When Colorado Republican Rep. Jeff Crank introduced legislation last week aiming to crack down on members of Congress dating staff, not everyone was happy.

“If you talked to the women who are working on this, maybe you’d get it right,” the Democratic Women’s Caucus posted in response, accusing him of “trying to get a headline.”

The public spat comes as a bipartisan group of women is hoping to change how the House handles sexual misconduct.

In theory, it could be relatively simple: The House could adopt a resolution to change its own rules if most members agreed, adding small tweaks to safeguard staff.

But as with most things in Congress, change hasn’t come quickly. It’s been more than three months since Reps. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., and Tony Gonzales, R-Texas, resigned as a wave of allegations shook the Capitol. Now House lawmakers have left for their August break without a deal to rein in bad bosses.

“We’ve been really hard at work, but we also have gotten some requests to have some additional input, especially from staff. And since this is all about protecting staff, we want to make sure that we take the time to listen to them,” said DWC Chair Teresa Leger Fernández, D-N.M.

Rep. Kat Cammack, R-Fla., who was tapped by House leaders to head the anti-misconduct group alongside Leger Fernández, said they are looking to unveil a proposal in September. They’ve come up with ways to improve training, she said, but enforcement is trickier.

“I would say we’re probably 90% there on the training element for both members and staff. The sticky wicket is the accountability. What are the consequences for bad behavior when it comes to sexual misconduct on Capitol Hill? That’s where we’re having to have some difficult conversations,” said Cammack, who also chairs the Republican Women’s Caucus.

Although House rules already forbid members from dating people they supervise, some want to expand that. Crank’s proposal would bar lawmakers from sexual relationships with any House employee, though it offers members an out: They could ask the Ethics Committee for an exception.

Seeing male colleagues go solo on their own legislation is frustrating, said Leger Fernández. “You could have walked over and said, ‘I’m thinking of doing this,’ and I could have said, ‘Well, if you’re really committed to it, then this is the way to go to join our effort,’” she said.

In an emailed statement, Crank defended his approach and said he was willing to work with anyone: “Everyone seems to be on the same page that this behavior needs to stop, and we need to hold Congress to a higher standard.”

Cammack said she thought Crank’s idea came in good faith and called sexual relationships in Congress “a really big effing problem.”

“It’s ridiculous that people don’t recognize the power imbalance that exists here on Capitol Hill,” she said. “Even if it’s another staffer in another office, you still have tremendous influence over that congressional staffer’s career.”

“If people were less concerned about who gets credit and more concerned about getting it done, then we’d be a lot further along,” she added.

Changes in rules, changes in law

The last time the House overhauled its sexual misconduct policies was eight years ago, after then-Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif., led the #MeTooCongress movement, sharing her own story of being pushed against a wall and kissed without her consent as a junior staffer.

That’s when the House added its ban on relationships between members and their direct employees, adopting a resolution in 2018 that also established the Office of Employee Advocacy.

Such a resolution, since it applies solely to the House, doesn’t require a vote in the Senate or a signature from the president. Cammack said the bipartisan group is eyeing that House-only route again.

As far as she can tell, the “Senate doesn’t want to do anything.” And a single-chamber resolution would have its perks, according to Daniel Schuman, executive director at the nonprofit American Governance Institute.

“It’s something that they could do that they could put into effect immediately, without needing the Senate to engage, without needing to worry about what the White House would do, which is good,” Schuman said. “You can change a lot of the incentives through this process — the incentives to come forward, the incentives to be protected against retaliation, things like that.”

But without deeper changes codified in law, “the punishments would be limited,” Schuman said.

Several months after the House adopted its resolution in 2018, Congress also took more permanent action, passing a law that revised how workplace harassment and discrimination claims are handled in the legislative branch. Among other things, it got rid of a mandatory “cooling off” period and blocked the use of taxpayer dollars for settlements, putting lawmakers on the hook to pay instead.

That lasting approach is more along the lines of what one staff group wants to see.

“If they can really slice and dice the rules in such a way to lead to the same outcome, by all means that’s fine,” said Michael Suchecki, spokesperson for the Congressional Progressive Staff Association. “But I really would like to see ... a substantive conversation on what sort of changes can go deeper than just a resolution.”

Earlier this month, the progressive staff group sent a letter to the heads of the House Administration Committee and the Senate Rules and Administration Committee detailing the protections the group thinks would help, calling it an “urgent need.”

Many of the staffers’ ideas, like strengthening the independent ethics office known as the Office of Congressional Conduct, would require changes in law. They also want to codify the Office of Employee Advocacy created back in 2018, describing it as a “vital lifeline” that offers advice and representation to staff in the face of harassment.

The Swalwell and Gonzales resignations may have been a wake-up call for some, but Hill culture hasn’t improved overnight.

“I wouldn’t feel comfortable sending my daughter to work here,” Cammack said. “And until I feel like that has changed, we’re going to keep trying to figure out ways to make Capitol Hill a safe place to work.”

Leger Fernández and Cammack each said they have the support of their party’s leaders for the proposal they’re working on. According to Cammack, Speaker Mike Johnson “has been very aggressive in trying to get this moved along.”

“His office has been engaged with us every single week. That’s not hyperbolic, that is actual truth, that every single week we have been updating the speaker’s office on progress being made,” Cammack said.

While new rules in the House often stick, carrying over in the package adopted at the beginning of each Congress or lingering in informal norms, they can also shift with the party in power. In Suchecki’s eyes, “safety concerns should not be taken lightly.”

“Congressional staff protections should not be dependent on the grace of leadership every two years,” he said.

_____