In the Matter of Allegations Relating to Representative Chuck Edwards
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GUEST. Res. 1498.
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GUEST. Mr. Speaker, before I recognize my next speaker, I would point out that the arguments made by Mr. Edwards are facts that are contained in the report. They are part of the opening statement that I gave, the statement as to which the committee found no evidence that he was involved in a romantic relationship and found that he did not directly proposition any individuals who were in his employment.
And so there has been an attempt by this committee to put forth evidence that we believe supports sexual harassment but also to show evidence in the light that is being portrayed by Mr. Edwards, that some of the innuendos that were circulating at one time were not true and correct.
This committee worked very diligently, Mr. Speaker, to try to gather evidence and to try and present that in a fair format--evidence that both supports the findings of the committee and then at times evidence that supports the findings of those people who are charged or who are under investigation by the Ethics Committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GUEST. Leger Fernandez).
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
Chuck Edwards' behavior over the past 2 years is disgusting and horrible. The sexual harassment of two young women on his staff and his abhorrent abuse of power is outlandish and disturbing.
He not only threatened the careers and safety of his staff with his behavior, but he broke the promise he made to Americans to act with dignity and integrity.
Since he continues to show no remorse, it is obvious that Edwards refuses to understand sexual harassment or his abuse of power. If we don't take action today, there is no opportunity for these women to receive justice.
Mr. Speaker, every Member must vote to censure him.
Over the course of these 2 years, he sent two young women on his staff mountains of expensive gifts, including designer purses, personalized handguns, and jewelry. He took them on intimate dinners, trips, and sent them late-night messages, despite the women making it clear they were uncomfortable. He even skipped votes. He skipped votes to decorate one of the staffer's Christmas tree.
One of the staff, as we heard, essentially said she feared retaliation. When she said: ``I worry about having somebody with that power against me,'' that is fear of retaliation.
Not only did he disrespect these women, he disregarded his duties to his constituents. For him, decorating a Christmas tree was more important than showing up to the vote, as his constituents expected when they sent him to Congress.
Even after this investigation, he continues to deny that this behavior was harassment. I basically do not see any remorse in his 22 pages or what he spoke today. Those 22 pages are basically a rant defending his actions.
He is someone who fails to see how what he has done has negatively impacted the lives and careers of these two young women. Because of Mr. Edwards' harassment, these two women don't work here anymore.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the Committee on Ethics. I thank them for their thorough and efficient investigation. I thank the chair and the ranking member for their work. Without their investigation, we may never have known that Edwards spent years sexually harassing two young women on his staff.
This is textbook sexual harassment, and Congress must take action; but I say that the penalty should match the harassment. The precedent of censure, I believe, is not enough. These women lost their jobs because of Mr. Edwards' behavior. He should lose his.
It is time we reform the rules in Congress so abusers like Edwards are at least stripped of committee assignments or expelled if the offense calls for it--after an investigation and after a vote of the full floor--which is what we are doing today, because serving in Congress is a privilege and not an honor. It is not a right.
The American people continue to expect us to act with dignity, and if that trust is broken, there must be accountability.
We need to protect women in the House from retaliation and make sure that the men who abuse their power face real, substantive consequences. That is exactly why the Democratic Women's Caucus, together with the GOP Women's Caucus, has been working to end the widespread problem of sexual misconduct on the Hill. We are fighting to make Congress a place where our staffers feel safe coming to work.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for the censure.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GUEST. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers. I move adoption of H. Res. 1498, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source