With Congress stalled on sexual harassment legislation, lawmakers can escape sanctions by quitting

WASHINGTON — When Rep. Patrick Meehan announced his immediate resignation on Friday, he got rid of a big political headache: a pending ethics committee investigation into allegations that he sexually harassed a former female staffer and used taxpayer money to pay for a settlement.

Because the House Ethics Committee has no jurisdiction over lawmakers once they leave office, the panel will close its investigation. And although Meehan has promised to repay the taxpayer-funded settlement, there is no mechanism to ensure he makes good on that pledge.

“When members resign, they can evade accountability,” said Stephen Spaulding, chief of strategy for Common Cause, a nonprofit group that advocates for strong ethics and campaign finance requirements.

“Voters don’t get the answers that they would otherwise get … and (lawmakers) are able to really put a cloak over whatever violations they may have committed,” Spaulding said.

Meehan is the second Republican House member to resign this month amid a similar controversy. Rep. Blake Farenthold resigned on April 6 in the face of an ethics probe after revelations that he relied on taxpayer money to pay an $84,000 settlement alleging he sexually harassed a former staffer.

Like Meehan, Farenthold promised to repay the $84,000 when he quit the House. But he has yet to do so, prompting Texas Gov. Greg Abbott to say Farenthold should cover the cost of a special election to fill his unexpired term

The House voted earlier this year to change its sexual harassment policies — passing a bill in February that would require members of Congress to pay out of their own pockets for any sexual harassment settlements even after they leave office. That bill included a bevy of other reforms aimed at improving the way Congress handles sexual harassment cases and came in the wake of a national wave of sexual harassment scandals.

But that measure has stalled in the Senate. Democrats pushed to include the House-passed legislation in a broad spending bill that cleared Congress earlier this year, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., reportedly objected.

A spokesman for McConnell said the GOP leader “supports members being personally, financially liable for sexual misconduct in which they have engaged.”

Sens. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., and Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., the top Republican and Democrat on the Senate Rules Committee, said they are working on a compromise proposal and hope to release it in the coming weeks.

“The hold-up is, it’s still I think unclear if you look at the House language what the member of the House or Senate would have actually had to do before they would accept personal liability,” Blunt told USA Today on Tuesday. “If members are going to accept personal liability, they should know exactly how that personal liability is triggered.”

Asked if Republicans were pressing for the liability provisions to be narrowed, Blunt would not directly answer.

“I’m not quite sure where we’re going to wind up on how broad-based the individual liability is, but I am sure that we will want the members to understand what they’re liable for before they vote on it,” he said.

Klobuchar declined to answer specific questions about the negotiations. But the Minnesota Democrat said she expected they would be able to unveil a compromise measure next month.

"We're heading in a good direction," Klobuchar said.

Even if lawmakers do reach an agreement, it would not address the ability of lawmakers to keep ethics committee findings under wraps by resigning. And Spaulding said the process is so slow, it often gives lawmakers plenty of time to make an exit.

Jan Baran, a Washington attorney who specializes in federal ethics matters, said some lawmakers only resign if they see “the handwriting on the wall.” He noted that only if a lawmaker violated a federal law, rather than just a congressional rule, will the matter follow him or her out he door.

Baran cited the case of ex-Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., who faced allegations that his parents paid $96,000 to his ex-mistress and her family. He said it was a gift but the Senate Ethics Committee said it was an excessive political contribution that should have been disclosed on Ensign's campaign filings.

“The committee was recommending a public investigation that would have led to censure or expulsion,” Baran recalled. “Seeing the handwriting on the wall, the senator resigned.”

Ensign didn’t escape without some penalty. He eventually paid $54,000 in civil penalties to the Federal Election Commission to settle a parallel case.