Summary#
The Duty of Transparency Act is a proposed bill that would set rules for Members of Congress who expect to be physically absent from their House’s proceedings for at least 21 consecutive days. It would require disclosures to House and Senate officers and public posting; its stated purpose is to require transparency about prolonged absences. The bill is not law, and passage is uncertain.
- A Member who reasonably believes they will be absent for at least 21 days must file a disclosure within 5 days of that belief. If incapacitated or otherwise unable to file, the Member must file within 5 days after that inability ends.
- The disclosure must give expected absence dates and a reason, say whether and how the Member can perform official duties while away, and identify a staff member employed under the Member’s Representational Allowance who can be reached if needed.
- The Member must file an updated disclosure every 30 days during the absence. The House Clerk or Senate Secretary, or a designated officer or employee, must post each filing publicly within 2 days.
- The relevant House or Senate ethics committee would have jurisdiction over noncompliance. The bill sets no specific penalty.
What it means for you#
- Members of Congress: They would have to disclose the required information when the 21-day threshold applies. They would not have to disclose medical diagnoses, treatment, records, or other protected health information.
- The public: You could see the filings on a House- or Senate-authorized website. The bill does not give the public a new way to require a Member to attend or perform particular duties.
- Congressional staff: A Member’s filing must identify a staff member employed under the Representational Allowance and provide contact information. The bill does not specify additional duties for that staff member.
- Members and the two chambers: The bill would not itself prevent Members from being absent. It also says each chamber may change its own rules, including these rules.
Money#
No publicly available information on the bill’s cost.
- The bill requires officers to publish disclosures and gives ethics committees jurisdiction over noncompliance, but provides no cost estimate or specific funding.
- The amount of staff time or other administrative cost is not stated.
What is unclear#
- The bill does not define “reasonable belief” or explain how to handle absences whose expected dates change.
- It does not set out an ethics review process, deadline, or penalty for failing to comply.
- It does not explain how the filing and 30-day update rules apply when a Member’s absence overlaps with periods when the House or Senate is not meeting.
- It does not specify what information is enough to explain the reason for an absence, beyond exempting protected health information.
- The bill would apply to absence periods that begin after enactment, but it does not set a separate start date or explain how the chambers would put the rules into effect.
Case for#
- The bill appears intended to make prolonged absences more visible to the public, while requiring only a disclosure rather than barring an absence.
- Requiring expected dates, a reason, and information about official duties could help the public understand what work a Member expects to do while away.
- The medical privacy protection limits what a Member must reveal about their own or another person’s health.
- Requiring a staff contact could give the relevant House a point of contact if a need arises during the absence.
Case against#
- One concern is that the bill leaves key terms and situations unclear, which could lead to inconsistent disclosure practices.
- The bill requires public disclosure of a reason but does not define how much explanation is sufficient; the health privacy exception may leave some reasons difficult to describe.
- It does not set a specific consequence for noncompliance or a clear process for how an ethics committee would handle it.
- The bill creates administrative duties but gives no cost estimate or funding details.