Duty of Transparency Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Torres, Ritchie [D-NY-15]
- Committees
- Committee on House Administration (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 16, 2026
Bottom line
The bill requires Members of Congress to publicly disclose prolonged absences from the Capitol and their reasons, aiming to increase transparency and accountability regarding their physical presence and ability to perform duties.
What it actually does
This bill, titled the 'Duty of Transparency Act,' mandates that Members of Congress disclose to their respective House's designated officer if they reasonably expect to be physically absent from participating in proceedings for 21 or more consecutive calendar days. The disclosure must include expected dates of absence, the reason, whether official duties can still be performed remotely, and contact information for a staff member. These disclosures are to be made publicly available online and updated every 30 days for ongoing absences.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill enhances transparency and accountability, ensuring that constituents are aware when their representatives are not physically present to participate in legislative proceedings. They contend it promotes public trust by providing clear information about a Member's availability and commitment to their duties, especially in an era where remote work capabilities might blur the lines of 'presence'. It allows the public to hold their elected officials to a higher standard of engagement.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that while transparency is important, this bill could be overly burdensome or intrusive, particularly for Members dealing with personal or family emergencies, health issues, or legitimate constituency work that requires extended travel. They may contend that the 21-day threshold is arbitrary and that requiring a 'statement explaining why' could lead to privacy concerns or political weaponization of absences, even with the privacy clause. Furthermore, they might argue that a Member's effectiveness is not solely tied to physical presence in Washington.
The bill is very short and clearly written, making it easy to read and understand within a few minutes, allowing ample time for informed evaluation.
Section 2(a), (b), (c), (e)
Mandatory Disclosure for Prolonged Absences
This provision requires any Member of Congress who anticipates being physically absent from participating in their respective House's proceedings for 21 or more consecutive calendar days to file a disclosure statement within 5 days of forming that belief. The statement must detail the expected dates of absence, the reason for it, whether the Member can still perform official duties remotely (and what those duties are), and contact information for a staff member. If a Member is incapacitated and cannot file, they must do so within 5 days of their incapacitation ending. For ongoing absences, the disclosure must be updated every 30 days.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this provision ensures transparency by making Members' prolonged absences from legislative duties publicly known, fostering greater accountability to their constituents. It provides a clear mechanism for the public to understand why a representative might be absent and how they intend to continue serving.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that this requirement could be overly intrusive, especially when absences are due to sensitive personal or health-related matters. They may argue it creates an unnecessary administrative burden and could be used for political attacks, regardless of the legitimacy of the absence.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the public's right to know about their representatives' availability with the individual Member's privacy and the practicalities of their diverse responsibilities, which may include constituency work or personal matters requiring absence.
Section 2(d), (f), (g)
Public Availability, Privacy, and Enforcement
This section outlines that while Members must explain their absence, they are not required to disclose protected health information (PHI) like diagnoses or prognoses, though they may choose to provide additional details. All filed disclosure statements will be made publicly available on a website maintained by the designated attending officer (Clerk of the House or Secretary of the Senate) within two calendar days of filing. Failure to comply with these disclosure requirements falls under the jurisdiction of the applicable ethics committee for enforcement.
The definition of 'physically present to participate in the proceedings' is broad, including not just being in the Capitol's Hall or Chamber, voting, or making motions, but also 'entering the Capitol Buildings,' 'entering the office of a Member of Congress in the Capitol Buildings or in the area of constituency of the Member which is accessible to the general public,' or 'engaging in any other activity that requires physical presence in the Capitol Buildings.'
Section 2(j)(5)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to place definitions at the end, but its broad scope is highly consequential for the bill's practical application and could be easily missed.
Case for: Supporters would argue that a broad definition is necessary to prevent loopholes, ensuring that Members are genuinely engaged in their duties, whether in the Chamber, their office, or other parts of the Capitol complex, and that extended absences from these activities are disclosed.
Case against: Critics might argue that such a broad definition could lead to over-reporting or create unnecessary administrative burdens, as it encompasses activities beyond direct legislative participation. For example, a Member might be in their district office (if publicly accessible) but still trigger the 21-day clock if they haven't been in the Capitol Buildings.
Estimated impact: This broad definition significantly expands the scope of what constitutes 'absence' for disclosure purposes, potentially increasing the number of required disclosures.