Referred to the House Committee on Ethics.
This resolution amends the internal rules of the House to prohibit Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner from having sexual relationships with House employees, with narrow exceptions for spouses and for relationships the Committee on Ethics exempts. It requires the Committee on Ethics to issue confidential procedures within 60 days for members to request exemptions, including disclosure requirements, standards for conflicts of interest, authority to protect House integrity, and rules for notifying the Committee of material changes. The change governs House conduct and personnel rules and does not create criminal law or apply outside the House.
This is a House simple resolution that changes House rules and is decided only by the House; it is adopted by a majority vote and is not presented to the President. The resolution was referred to the House Committee on Ethics for consideration.
The resolution amends House Rule XXIII, clause 18 to prohibit Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner from engaging in sexual relationships with House employees, except for spouses and limited exemptions.
Exemptions may be granted when the employee is not supervised by the Member and is not a committee employee.
The Committee on Ethics must issue confidential procedures within 60 days for exemption requests, require disclosure, set standards for conflicts of interest, permit protective actions, and require notice of material changes.
As a narrow, administrative ethics amendment with limited fiscal impact and built-in exemptions, it has a reasonable chance to be approved by the House but depends on Committee review and member objections.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly focused administrative amendment to House rules that establishes a categorical prohibition with limited exceptions and directs the Committee on Ethics to produce implementing regulations within a defined timeframe.
Liberal emphasizes staff protection and stronger enforcement
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberal emphasizes staff protection and stronger enforcement
This persona will generally support the rule as a protective measure for House staff and a step toward ending exploitative power dynamics.
They will view stronger, confidential Ethics oversight as necessary to reduce harassment and conflicts of interest.
They may push for robust enforcement and broader coverage where gaps exist.
A pragmatic centrist will view the resolution as a reasonable, narrowly tailored ethics reform that addresses clear power imbalances.
They will support it if the Ethics Committee's regulations protect privacy, ensure due process, and operate efficiently.
They will be cautious about administrative burden and potential unintended consequences.
This persona will be mixed: acknowledging the goal of protecting workplace integrity but worrying about federal overreach into private relationships and politicized enforcement.
They will emphasize privacy, limited scope, and safeguards against vague authority granted to the Ethics Committee.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
As a narrow, administrative ethics amendment with limited fiscal impact and built-in exemptions, it has a reasonable chance to be approved by the House but depends on Committee review and member objections.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberal emphasizes staff protection and stronger enforcement
As a narrow, administrative ethics amendment with limited fiscal impact and built-in exemptions, it has a reasonable chance to be approved…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly focused administrative amendment to House rules that establishes a categorical prohibition with limited exceptions and directs the Committee on Ethics to…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.