Sexual harassment rules stall in Congress
WASHINGTON — Long before Congress was consumed by the wrenching fight over sexual assault allegations against Brett Kavanaugh, lawmakers had promised to make the process fairer for those who accuse lawmakers or staffers of sexual misconduct.
But nearly a year after the #MeToo era began, lawmakers have failed to deliver on that pledge — and it is not clear when they will.
Aides on Capitol Hill still have no choice but to report abusive behavior through a system that was widely decried last year as favoring lawmakers over employees who allege mistreatment.
After lawmakers could not agree on a package of changes, they punted the issue until after the midterm elections — which are now shaping up as a battle between the #MeToo movement and Republicans who say many accusations have gone too far.
Some victim advocates and lawmakers who support changes view the delay as a sign that Congress has lost its urgency toward improving itself as a workplace and addressing one of the central concerns of #MeToo activists — holding powerful men accountable for sexual assault and harassment.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., played down the disagreements this weekend, saying it is “simply inaccurate” to assert that “the Senate is somehow broken” because of the delays.
The system for reporting workplace misconduct on Capitol Hill was created more than two decades ago by the Congressional Accountability Act, which applied federal labor laws to Congress.
The 1995 law has several elements that victim advocates see as flawed, including mandated counseling, mediation and “cooling off ” periods for accusers and lawmakers’ ability to use public funds for confidential settlements.
The House and Senate each passed bills to address such objections earlier this year, but key differences between them held up the process, according to people familiar with the discussions who requested anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.
Sticking points have included when lawmakers would be required to repay the Treasury Department for settlements; how claims would be investigated; and what kind of free advice and counsel would be provided to accusers, these people said.
“I think it’s more of a structural disagreement, in terms of the way our side of the building works [and] the way theirs does,” Senate Rules Committee Chairman Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said in an interview. “There’s no reason why we couldn’t take two slightly divergent paths here and get to where the Senate and House would like to be.”