Texas Rep. Blake Farenthold settled a sexual harassment claim leveled against him by his former spokeswoman using taxpayer funds, according to a report.

Lauren Greene, who worked as the GOP congressman’s communications director for 18 months, sued Farenthold in December 2014 over allegations of sexual harassment and creating a hostile work environment, Politico reported Friday.

Greene’s lawsuit said another aide told her the congressman had “sexual fantasies” and “wet dreams” about her.

“On one specific occasion, Farenthold told Greene that she had something on her skirt and that he hoped his comment wouldn’t be taken for sexual harassment,” the complaint alleged. “A reasonable person would infer that Farenthold was joking that she had semen on her skirt.”

Farenthold, who “regularly drank to excess,” once told Greene that he was “estranged from his wife and had not had sex with her in years,” she alleged in the lawsuit.

Greene said she was “marginalized and undermined” when she complained about his behavior, and eventually fired. She filed a lawsuit that was ultimately settled privately.

On Friday morning, House Administration Committee Chairman Gregg Harper (R-Miss.) told Republican lawmakers that only one House office had used funds from an Office of Compliance account to reach a deal over a sexual harassment complaint, according to Politico.

In that one case — apparently involving Farenthold — the settlement amounted to $84,000.

“While I 100% support more transparency with respect to claims against members of Congress, I can neither confirm nor deny that settlement involved my office as the Congressional Accountability Act prohibits me from answering that question,” Farenthold said in a statement to Politico.

Greene and Farenthold had drafted a joint statement, which was never released, at the time of the settlement, confirming they’d made a deal.

“[A]fter it became clear that further litigating this case would come at great expense to all involved — including the taxpayers — the parties engaged in mediation with a court-appointed mediator,” the statement read. “After extensive discussion and consideration, the parties jointly agreed to accept the solution proposed by the mediator.”

“The parties believe that the mediator’s solution saves the parties, and the taxpayers, significant sums that would be expended in further discovery and/or trial,” it adds.