Referred to the House Committee on Ethics.
This resolution changes the internal rules of the House to forbid any Representative, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner from living with a House employee, except if they are married to each other. It is an internal House rule change, not a federal law, and applies only to conduct covered by the House. Enforcement would be through House channels such as the Ethics Committee or other internal disciplinary procedures. The change does not affect the Senate or require presidential action.
This is a simple resolution that only needs approval by the House of Representatives; it is not sent to the Senate or the President and governs only House internal rules and procedures.
This resolution amends House Rules to bar any Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner from cohabitating with a House employee, with a single exception for married couples.
It inserts the prohibition into Rule XXIII as a new clause and redesignates the subsequent clause number.
Narrow, low-cost ethics change with a clear internal jurisdiction; adoption depends on House political will and Ethics Committee recommendation.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly scoped administrative amendment that directly inserts a categorical prohibition into the House Rules. It is structurally simple and precise in where it modifies the Rules, but it omits several common elements that aid operational clarity and enforcement.
Privacy vs. staff-protection emphasis
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Privacy vs. staff-protection emphasis
Likely supportive overall as an ethics and workplace-protection measure addressing power imbalances between Members and staff.
Will welcome a bright-line prohibition reducing potential coercion, while urging clear definitions and privacy protections to avoid undue intrusion.
Cautiously favorable as a straightforward ethics reform that simplifies enforcement.
Would press for precise language, fair enforcement mechanisms, and assessment of unintended personnel impacts before final approval.
Mixed to skeptical: some welcome ethics tightening, others see government intrusion into private life.
Will question necessity, scope, and whether a ban is overbroad versus targeted disclosure or recusal rules.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow, low-cost ethics change with a clear internal jurisdiction; adoption depends on House political will and Ethics Committee recommendation.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Privacy vs. staff-protection emphasis
Narrow, low-cost ethics change with a clear internal jurisdiction; adoption depends on House political will and Ethics Committee recommenda…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly scoped administrative amendment that directly inserts a categorical prohibition into the House Rules. It is structurally simple and precise in where it…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.