Civil rights groups slam it

Senate passes harassment bill as civil rights groups slam it

By RACHAEL BADE and ELANA SCHOR

The Senate on Thursday easily passed a bipartisan deal to overhaul Capitol Hill’s sexual harassment system even as civil rights and women’s groups joined House members in knocking the bill as too easy on lawmakers accused of inappropriate workplace behavior.

The Senate approved its harassment legislation by voice vote, setting up likely conference talks with the House over its version of the bill — which is more stringent than the upper chamber’s in several key areas. More critics of the Senate approach emerged on Thursday, with five advocacy groups writing to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) with a series of concerns about the bill and its speedy path to passage.

The Senate’s workplace misconduct bill “contains numerous provisions that are contrary to key principles we’ve previously articulated, falls short of an acceptable compromise, and may have unintended negative consequences,” the groups wrote to the chamber’'s leaders. The letter was signed by the American Civil Liberties Union, Equal Pay Today, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, National Women’s Law Center and Public Citizen.

“Given the scope and breadth of the bill and significant differences between this and the House-passed bill, we are deeply concerned that neither senators nor key stakeholders have been given adequate time to fully vet the bill,” the groups added, urging the Senate to fix what they view as mistakes.

The letter came just hours before the Senate swiftly approved its compromise remodeling of Capitol Hill’s decades-old policy for acting on and deterring harassment complaints, with lead negotiators Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) touting their bipartisan accord on the floor. Under the Hill’s current system, lawmakers are allowed to use taxpayer money for payouts to alleged victims — who are required to wait months in a “cooling off” period before filing complaints.

While the House version of the bill has received praise, critics say the Senate version significantly waters down accountability for members of Congress.

One of the bill’s biggest flash points, for example, is the Senate’s requirement that the slow-moving ethics panels in each chamber review and approve reimbursements for settlements when a member is the perpetrator. That essentially leaves it up to lawmakers to decide the fate of their colleagues and whether they engaged in harassment — not an independent investigator.

“This provision appears to provide an opportunity for a Member who has settled a claim to avoid personal accountability and to be absolved from reimbursing the taxpayers,” the groups wrote in the letter.

Democrats on the House Administration Committee tweeted Thursday that “we continue to believe the House version is a stronger bill — in terms of adjudication process and protection of victims and rights of all parties.”

“We appreciate their efforts, and look forward to working with the Senate” in talks on a final agreement, they added.

Even the bipartisan leaders of the House Ethics Committee criticized the Senate proposal in a rare Thursday news release on legislation. The ethics panel leaders lent their support for the House bill’s requirement that lawmakers personally pay up for discrimination claims that compose the bulk of misconduct settlements — not just cases of harassment, as the Senate has proposed.

“We believe that any proposal to reform [congressional misconduct law] should include provisions to ensure that Members remain personally liable for their own conduct with respect to discrimination and retaliation, and that they remain liable even if they leave Congress,” House Ethics Chairwoman Susan Brooks (R-Ind.) and ranking member Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) wrote.

The advocacy groups criticizing the Senate bill also told Schumer and McConnell that their version undermines the House bill’s designation of legal counsel for victims.

“A Member who has committed wrongdoing should be liable for all damages negotiated in a settlement or awarded by a court; they should not be shielded from the consequences of their actions,” they wrote.