IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK EDWARDS

On 2026-09-01, Representative Glenn Ivey (D-MD-4) delivered a floor speech titled "IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK EDWARDS" in the House.

IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK EDWARDS

Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 138 (Tuesday, September 1, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 138 (Tuesday, September 1, 2026)] [House] [Pages H5389-H5393] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK EDWARDS Mr. GUEST. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of today, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 1498) in the matter of allegations relating to Representative Chuck Edwards, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House. The Clerk read the title of the resolution. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of today, the resolution is considered read. The text of the resolution is as follows: H. Res. 1498 Resolved, That (1) the House adopt the Report of the Committee on Ethics dated July 22, 2026, In the Matter of Allegations Relating to Representative Chuck Edwards; (2) Representative Edwards of North Carolina be censured; (3) Representative Edwards forthwith present himself in the well of the House for pronouncement of the censure; and (4) Representative Edwards be censured with the public reading of this resolution by the Speaker. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The resolution shall be debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by Representative Guest of Mississippi and Representative Edwards of North Carolina, or their respective designees. The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Guest) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards) each will control 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi. {time} 1430 general leave Mr. GUEST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous materials on H. Res. 1498. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mississippi? There was no objection. Mr. GUEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Committee on Ethics conducted a monthslong investigation into the activity of Mr. Edwards, and the committee released a report on August 3 and made the following findings. First, the committee found no--and I do repeat the word ``no''-- evidence that Mr. Edwards engaged in sexual activity or that he explicitly propositioned any individuals under his employment. The committee did find that Mr. Edwards' conduct toward two young female staffers was inappropriate and violated rules prohibiting sexual harassment. Mr. Speaker, sexual harassment can be shown generally in one of two ways. The first is unwelcome sexual advances premised on a quid pro quo exchange; i.e., there is a tangible job benefit that is conditioned on the employee engaging in a relationship with his or her employer. The second way sexual harassment can be shown is an abusive work environment that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the House be in order. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct. The gravity of this resolution requires the attention of everybody in the Chamber. If you have to have conversations, would you please take them off the floor. The gentleman from Mississippi is recognized. Mr. GUEST. Mr. Speaker, the allegations in this matter do not implicate a quid pro quo sexual harassment but, rather, that Edwards' conduct and behavior create a hostile work environment. Under Federal law, a hostile work environment must be objectively and subjectively offensive, one that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive and one that the victim, in fact, did perceive to be so. Determining whether an employee was subject to such an environment depends on a totality of the circumstances test. That test includes the frequency, severity, and offensiveness of the conduct at issue. Mr. Speaker, in this case, the committee reviewed Representative Edwards' conduct and determined that he engaged in persistent unprofessional and inappropriate conduct toward two young female staffers. While Representative Edwards denies that his conduct was intended to be sexual or romantic, his pattern of behavior would lead a reasonable person to interpret it as such. The behavior includes: providing the young women with lavish and recurrent gifts, making comments regarding their appearance and dress, inviting them to intimate dinners and vacations, sending notes regarding his affection, and inviting them to other activities as a way to spend time together. Representative Edwards was aware that his excessive attention toward these young ladies led to rumors and innuendos that he was engaged in a romantic relationship with one or both staffers. Representative Edwards was also aware that the women were uncomfortable with his behavior. The women communicated their feeling of discomfort to senior staff who then spoke with Representative Edwards on their behalf. Representative Edwards did not appreciate the action of senior staff expressing the discomfort felt by the two women and continued his behavior. The committee found that Representative Edwards was, at a minimum, blind to the reality and, at worst, dismissive of the impact his conduct had on the careers and well-being of the women on his staff. Representative Edwards' conduct was singling out certain staffers and isolating them from other members of the staff, making frequent comments regarding a person's appearance and weight, sending messages in the middle of the night, texting staff deeply personal and seemingly romantic thoughts, intruding on personal occasions without invitation, paying for personal vacations, and spending thousands of dollars on gifts for staffers. [[Page H5390]] When taken individually, this conduct is, at a minimum, inappropriate, but these actions, when taken in combination with each other and when viewed under a totality of the circumstances test, led the committee to find that Representative Edwards engaged in unprofessional conduct toward two young female staffers. Said conduct created a hostile work environment that resulted in both staffers leaving the employment of Mr. Edwards' office. Furthermore, the Committee on Ethics recommends a floor sanction should be imposed, and Representative Edwards should be censured for his conduct. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to simply ask my colleagues to vote against a resolution of censure. I rise to ask this House to do something more fundamental: Judge me on the facts, not on the inference, insinuation, or headlines. First, sincerely, I want to say something directly and publicly to the two women who have been at the center of all of this: I am sorry. I am sorry that my actions, my judgment, or the way that I expressed a friendship ever put either of you in an uncomfortable position. My intentions were only grounded in what I understood our friendship to be and in genuine admiration and respect that I had for each of you, not only as professionals but as people--people who were willing to share so much of your stories and your backgrounds with me. I recognize now that my understanding of those relationships may not have always matched yours. You didn't ask to have your names, friendships, work, or private lives subjected to public speculation. You deserve better than to be caught in the middle of a controversy involving me. You are both talented, intelligent, strong women who served the people of western North Carolina with dedication. Nothing about this episode should diminish that service or your accomplishments. Most importantly, I want to apologize to my wife, Teresa, and to my family. You are the people that I love most in this world, and yet, you are the ones who have had to carry a burden that you did not create and did not deserve. Teresa, you stood beside me through a lifetime of challenges, sacrifices, successes, and disappointments. You supported my public service and endured the demands that came with it. I am deeply sorry that my judgment and my actions put you in a position where you had to endure embarrassment, hurt, public scrutiny, and questions that no wife should ever have to face. {time} 1440 Mr. Speaker, regret is not an admission of sexual harassment. I can acknowledge poor judgment, regret the discomfort that some of my actions may have caused, and apologize to those who were hurt by this episode, while still disputing a conclusion that the evidence just simply does not support. I have detailed most of that in a letter to my colleagues. Some will read it, some have, and some will simply cast judgment. I am going to spare this body the time to review all of those details, but a few points bear discussing. The committee concluded that I engaged in no sexual activity. The committee concluded that I did not explicitly proposition any staff member. The committee concluded that the allegations in this matter do not implicate quid pro quo sexual harassment, and the committee concluded that I did not violate Federal sexual harassment law. That law, by the way, was very specifically defined by Congress. Those findings matter. Yet, despite those findings, the committee bridged a substantial evidentiary gap, called that gap sexual harassment. My colleagues should ask themselves whether the evidence truly supports that conclusion and whether it justifies one of the most serious punishments that this House can impose on one of its Members. I provided the committee approximately 186,000 emails, text messages, voicemails, and other documents. That enormous record told the story of a long-standing relationship with those women that began years before we entered Congress. The two coworkers at issue and I worked together in my North Carolina Senate office. We worked on campaigns together. We came to Congress together. We traveled together on official business. We exchanged gifts re

Referenced legislation: HRES1498, HRES1498