In the Matter of Allegations Relating to Representative Chuck Edwards

The House considered a resolution censuring Representative Chuck Edwards of North Carolina, following a bipartisan Ethics Committee investigation. The committee’s chair said it found no evidence of a romantic relationship with staff or direct propositions, but found that Edwards’ conduct toward two young female staffers, including gifts, comments about their appearance, and paid trips, created a hostile work environment, and recommended censure. Edwards asked the House to vote no, saying he made mistakes and apologized for making the women uncomfortable but did not sexually harass anyone or break the law, and the chair responded that the report included those facts and clarified rumors that were not true. Democrats supporting censure described the conduct as harassment over two years that led both women to leave their jobs, and one member urged that staffers know about free legal help and that cases of sexual assault be referred to police.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text (opens in a new tab)

3 statements

Mark DeSaulnier, CA

Democrat
“I want the House to censure Representative Chuck Edwards. The Ethics Committee investigated him and found that he sexually harassed two female staffers for more than two years. He gave them expensive gifts, took them on trips, commented on their looks, and sent them personal texts and poems. The women felt uncomfortable and feared for their jobs, and both eventually quit. We must hold members accountable and protect our staff from harassment.”
Official Congressional Record

Mr. Speaker, I will start by thanking the chairman, whom I have great respect for, and our collegiality is focused on enforcing the rules of this body. I also thank all of the committee members, who were thoughtful and bipartisan on this particular subject matter, and all of the things that come before the Ethics Committee. I also thank our nonpartisan, professional committee staff for their tireless efforts and devoted service to this House and this country. Our committee’s investigation of Representative Edwards’ conduct spanned 4 months and included interviews of 16 individuals and a review of nearly 1,500 pages of documents. Our subsequent censure recommendation reflects our bipartisan and unwavering commitment to a congressional workplace free of sexual harassment and discrimination. Unfortunately, Representative Edwards, in my opinion, failed that standard. For more than 2 years, Representative Edwards lavished two of his female staffers with gifts of jewelry, designer purses, shoes, flowers, gifts, and vacations, to name just a few examples. He commented on their appearance and dress in their congressional office, remarking favorably on their weight and telling them they looked pretty and breathtaking in certain clothing. He invited them on intimate one-on-one outings and trips to restaurants, casinos, and live performances. He sent them personal texts late at night and wrote them deeply personal letters and poems expressing his affection. He even skipped a vote series to decorate a Christmas tree at one of the staffer’s homes. These are not innocuous, isolated incidences. They are part of sustained, unprofessional, and inappropriate conduct by Representative Edwards toward two young women he employed. Neither individual felt free to reject Representative Edwards’ attention without fear of professional consequences. Despite attempts to communicate their discomfort, his behavior continued, and both ultimately left their congressional employment. One woman told the committee that she felt she could not resist Representative Edwards because she ``did not think having a Member of Congress against me would benefit my career.’’ This statement gets to the heart of the matter--the power and balance between Members of Congress and their staff. Representative Edwards’ interpretation of his own conduct does not change how the women experienced it. Whether or not he occasionally gave gifts to, or received them from, other staff is irrelevant to how he treated these two women, who felt his behavior was uncomfortable and unwanted. Representative Edwards may not have made physical advances or explicit propositions, but sexual harassment does not require either. His conduct was inappropriate, unwelcome, and, most importantly, created a hostile work environment. As a result, the House of Representatives lost two staffers, and, for that, I believe he should be censured. In the House, censure is not simply a punishment directed at an individual Member. It is a collective statement by this institution that we will and will not tolerate certain behaviors. Today, with this censure resolution, we can make our standard clear. Professional boundaries must be respected. When congressional employees say that conduct is unwelcome, they will be heard, and that conduct will not be allowed to continue. There must be zero tolerance for sexual harassment and misconduct in the Halls of Congress, but zero tolerance does not mean zero due process. Representative Edwards was fully informed of the allegations and sat for a voluntary interview. He ultimately waived certain procedural steps so that the committee could recommend a House-level sanction. In exchange for accepting this recommended censure, he reviewed and was allowed to respond to the committee’s report. For sexual harassment to truly have no place in the congressional workplace, the principle cannot exist only on paper in a committee report. It must be modeled for accountability. To deliver that accountability, to defend the integrity of this institution, and to affirm that every congressional employee deserves a safe and respectful workplace free from sexual harassment, I would urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chair of the committee one more time for his work on this matter.

Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM

Democrat
“I want the House to censure Chuck Edwards. An investigation showed he spent two years sexually harassing two women on his staff, gave them unwanted gifts, and abused his power. He has not apologized, and censure is the minimum punishment he deserves.”
Official Congressional Record

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.

Glenn Ivey, MD

Democrat
“Representative Edwards gave very inappropriate and expensive gifts to his female staffers. Members of Congress should not treat their staff this way. It hurts young workers and their careers. We must make sure staffers know they can get free legal help, and we should send cases of sexual assault to the police.”
Official Congressional Record

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank the chair, the ranking member, and all of my colleagues, as well, for the hard work and nonpartisan work, I must say, as well, that we put in, but especially the staff, who I thought did an outstanding job, yet again, in this investigation and in the report that they wrote. I will speak to two different groups of people today. The first is my colleagues. The second is the young women--and I will come back to this in a minute--who I had a chance to speak to a few weeks ago, in the same week that Mr. Swalwell and Mr. Gonzales had resigned from the House. I will come back to that in a moment. My colleagues, after they found out I was on the Ethics Committee, would frequently come up and ask me on different topics: What is over the line? What can I do to not get in trouble? How do I stay out of trouble, that sort of thing. On these issues, this is a particular set that we have talked about on a couple of occasions, so I wanted to point out a couple of things here. I commend Mr. Edwards for the comments that he made and the legal document that he filed, but one of the things it really failed to do was address the specific allegations about the gifts and how inappropriate, frankly, they obviously were on their face. As the report details on page 4 of the report: ``Both women received numerous gifts from Representative Edwards, including jewelry totaling over $1,000, designer purses, guns, shoes, flowers, a laptop and cell phone, KitchenAid mixer, robotic vacuum, vacations, tickets to performances, and one-on-one dinners.’’ The tickets to performances, that wasn’t just any performance. That was ``Hamilton’’ on Broadway. Mr. Speaker, my anniversary is coming up. I have been married 38 years as of Thursday, and my wife really wanted to go to see ``Hamilton.’’ When I took a look at what those prices were, I said: Babe, we are going to have to wait until it comes on the off-Broadway tour. He put up the money to send them there anyway, and those are the types of things, those are the types of gifts, that kind of jump out at you. This isn’t like a birthday card. This isn’t congratulations on your wedding or that new baby that was born. These are gifts that people, Members, should not be giving to staffers. I worked for a Congressman and three Senators as a staffer beginning back in 1987. We didn’t pass around gifts like this. We just didn’t. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for us to make sure we understand that, as Members, we want to mentor and help our young people move on and move up. I have to say that in that 40 years, I have seen people who fell into this situation, frequently women, where there were accusations or sexual harassment taking place or sexual relationships taking place. Some of my personal friends were forced out of their jobs in 1987 and 1988. We didn’t have the types of protections then that we do now. In fact, Congress explicitly exempted itself from these sorts of restrictions. We have to make sure that now that they are in place, we use them to the fullest extent because those people, primarily women, it was damaging to their careers, and it stays with them. That was before the internet age. These women today, in this instance, that is not good mentoring. This is something that could follow them for the rest of their careers, and it won’t be beneficial to them. Let’s make sure, as we work through this with our staff, that we don’t do things that actually injure our staffers who are doing good work for us and trying to make a difference. One other point I want to make, and this is directly to the staffers. I had a chance to speak to a group, just coincidentally, during that week of the Gonzales and Swalwell resignations. It was a group of young people, mainly interns but not solely. Some of them were young people here on the Hill in their late teens and early twenties. I asked them: How many of you heard about the resignations of Mr. Swalwell and Mr. Gonzales? There were about 40 of them in the room. Every hand went up. I asked them then: How many of you know that we have an entity here, the Office of Employee Advocacy, that you can turn to and get assistance if you find yourself in that situation? Only two hands went up. I talked to them and encouraged them about reaching out to this sort of professional assistance. It is a confidential attorney-client relationship. It makes a difference. Instead of them trying to parse out at age 19 or 20 or 22 or 25 the best way to proceed, get the sort of legal guidance to help you make it through there. We have to do a better job of making sure that when that question is posed, not just 2 hands go up, but all 40 hands go up, so that when young men and women, especially women, find themselves in these kinds of situations, they don’t have to try and figure out how to go forward. They don’t have to go to the staff director, as what happened here, and get whatever guidance they might get, recognizing that the staff directors were in a precarious situation, too, when you have a Member committing this kind of misconduct. Let’s make sure that they have that type of assistance. Mr. Speaker, the last point I will make on this, and this is in the wake of some of the other--not investigations before the committee right now, but some of the other things we have heard. There are going to come times when we need to go outside of the House of Representatives and refer these cases to law enforcement because some of the sexual misconduct isn’t just sexual harassment. It is sexual assault. To the colleagues listening out there right now, don’t do anything to approach these lines. They know that this is over the line. He knows this was over the line, and he knew it when he was doing it. Let’s make sure that we stop it in its tracks and give these young people, young women in particular, the type of assistance that they need.

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from issue 138

  1. House of Representatives Providing for Consideration of H.R. 1501, Protecting Domestic Mining Act of 2025; Providing for Consideration of H.R. 9436, Northeast Lobsterman Protection Act of 2026; Providing for Consideration... 16 statements
  2. House of Representatives Agoa Extension Act 8 statements
  3. House of Representatives In the Matter of Allegations Relating to Representative Chuck Edwards 8 statements
  4. House of Representatives Resolution Recommending That the House of Representatives Find Michael Joseph in Contempt of Congress for Refusal to Comply with Subpoenas Duly Issued by the Committee on Ethics 6 statements
  5. House of Representatives Resolution Recommending That the House of Representatives Find Hector Roos in Contempt of Congress for Refusal to Comply with Subpoenas Duly Issued by the Committee on Ethics 5 statements
  6. House of Representatives Northeast Lobsterman Protection Act of 2026 23 statements
  7. House of Representatives Providing for the Condemnation and Denouncement of Socialism in All Its Forms, and for Other Purposes 23 statements
  8. House of Representatives Liberty and Justice for All 19 statements