H.Res. 1399House simple resolution · 119th CongressIn progressCongress

Directing the Committee on Ethics to preserve and publicly release records relating to .monetary settlements involving acts of sexual harassment.

Sponsored byThomas MassieR-KY-4Introduced Jun 30, 2026Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Jun 30, 2026) Motion to reconsider Agreed to without objection.

What it does

not written yet

The Congressional Research Service writes the plain-English summary for every bill, usually a few weeks after it's introduced. This one doesn't have one yet. It will appear here when it does.

In the meantime the most reliable description is the bill's own official title, which is the heading above — written by its sponsor, and the only account of the bill that exists at this stage. The full text is on congress.gov ↗

We don't write our own summaries. Everything else on this site links back to a record you can check, and a description of a bill that came from us rather than from the bill would be the one thing here that didn't — on the page that asks you to take a position on it.

Face Value

as passed the House
100Narrow

How much of this bill its name accounts for.

  • Every bill starts at100
  • Nothing counted against it: one area of law, and short enough that length doesn't register.

Face Value measures reach, not honesty. A big bill can be accurately named, and a low score is not an accusation — it means the contents reach further than any short title could describe. Count it yourself ↗ How this is worked out

What Congress did

1 recorded
  • On Agreeing to the Resolutiondecisive vote

    House · Jun 30, 2026

    Whether to adopt the resolution itself.

    4200

    Passed

    Every vote →

Discussion

8 comments

Sign in to join the discussion and put your vote on the record.

Sort
13
adaeze_oDemoTX-6voted Nay22d ago
I keep going back and forth. The problem is real; I'm unconvinced this is the instrument for it.
7
marisol_qDemoPA-14voted Nay25d ago
Against. I've seen this pattern before: a pilot programme with an authorisation that quietly becomes permanent at the next reauthorisation.
7
adaeze_oDemoTX-6voted Nay25d ago
The intent is fine. The drafting is not. There's no sunset, no review, and no mechanism to stop it if it turns out to be counterproductive.
5
marisol_qDemoPA-14voted Nay22d ago
This is my worry too — the cost estimate always assumes full compliance and full compliance never happens.
7
adaeze_oDemoTX-6voted Nay26d ago
Voting no. Not because the goal is wrong, but because this creates a new process on top of three that already exist and don't talk to each other.
4
adaeze_oDemoTX-6voted Nay24d ago
No. Unfunded mandates are still mandates, and this pushes the cost down to states and localities without saying so out loud.
8
marisol_qDemoPA-14voted Nay22d ago
That's the part I can't get past either. The authority is broad and the guardrails are thin.
2
AnnaLeeCDemoCA-38voted Nay24d ago
Agreed on the substance, disagree on the timing. Doing this badly now makes doing it well later harder.
Your position on H.Res. 139925% Yea · 4 VoteWire users