“I am asking the House to immediately take up this resolution to censure Representative Chuck Edwards.”

“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 Ethics Committee investigated Representative Edwards. We found no evidence that he had sexual relations with his staff or asked them for sex. But we found that he acted inappropriately toward two young female staff members and broke the rules against sexual harassment.”

“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 Ethics Committee investigated Representative Edwards. We found that he created a hostile work environment by acting inappropriately toward two young female staff members. He gave them expensive gifts, made comments about their looks, paid for vacations, and sent them personal notes. He kept doing this even after he knew it made them uncomfortable, and both women ended up leaving their jobs. We recommend that the House censure him.”

“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. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.”

“I ask the House to vote against censuring me. I made mistakes and I apologize to the two women and to my family for making them uncomfortable. But I did not sexually harass anyone or break the law, and the evidence does not justify this punishment.”

“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. 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 reciprocally. We helped one another professionally and personally. These were not one-sided relationships manufactured after the fact as a defense. The committee had evidence of that history, and they ignored it. Even the communications selected by the committee showed reciprocity: staff initiating dinners and activities, expressing affection, complimenting me, making future plans, and maintaining relationships after their employment ended. That context matters, because selective totality is not totality at all, as the committee itself would have you believe. I am not asking anyone in this Chamber to approve of every interaction that I had, every compliment that I gave, or every gift that I purchased. Looking back, I don’t approve of all of them either. I am asking you to distinguish between conduct that you might personally have handled differently and conduct that warrants the solemn judgment of censure by the United States House of Representatives. Friendship doesn’t excuse misconduct, but neither can friendship be erased from the analysis when the committee asks what conduct meant. Context cannot matter only when it supports an accusation and then disappear when it points the other way. Generosity is not sexual harassment. Caring deeply about the people with whom you have worked for years is not sexual harassment, and conduct that is otherwise permissible does not automatically become misconduct simply because enough individual moments are assembled together and viewed through the darkest possible lens. Possibility is not proof. Inference is not evidence, and selective context is not totality. There is another principle at stake here that extends far beyond me. Censure should not be imposed because Members believe they might have exercised better judgment. It should not be imposed because conduct can be interpreted unfavorably after the fact, and it certainly should not be imposed merely because voting against censure may be politically uncomfortable. A censure by this House carries the weight of history. Once imposed, the nuance disappears. The qualifications disappear. The committee’s findings that there was no sexual activity, no explicit proposition, no quid pro quo harassment, and no violation of Federal sexual harassment law will disappear. What will remain is one word attached permanently to my name: Censured. This committee’s report is loaded with contextual and testimonial omissions, and there are two claims that I find particularly interesting. First, it claims what a reasonable observer might interpret. If the committee invokes a reasonable observer, then that observer should be given the whole context, not selected episodes stripped from years of relationships, as has been the case here. It should provide all relative context and view the circumstances as a whole, not merely what one particular person felt or what was isolated as a fact that might suggest. This report fails in those requirements. Then it goes on to say how that same reasonable person could interpret my actions. Mr. Speaker, we spend a lot of time here in D.C. working to eliminate our coulds and shoulds, to avoid the vagueness of our laws and standards. Yet, this report chooses to invoke that same hypothetical that we work so hard to avoid. So I ask each of you, Republican and Democrat alike, to look beyond the headlines and examine what the committee actually found. I am not asking for special treatment. I am asking for fair treatment. I am asking you to decide whether the punishment before you is supported by the evidence, proportional to the conduct actually established, and consistent with the standards that this House should apply to every Member, regardless of party or circumstance. I have spent my public life trying to serve the people who entrusted me with this office. I am imperfect. I have made mistakes, but I do not believe I committed sexual harassment. The factual findings of this investigation do not justify branding me as though I did. Members of this House are not required to agree with every choice I made in order to vote against this censure. You need only conclude that the evidence does not justify the punishment. I respectfully ask my colleagues to vote ``no,’’ not as a favor to me. Vote ``no’’ because censure should require more than inference. Vote ``no’’ because fairness demands that the whole record matter, and vote ``no’’ because the judgment of this House should rest on what was proven, not on what can merely be presumed. I close by reminding you: 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. Those are not my characterizations of this report. I will say again, those are not my characterizations of this report. Those are the committee’s own conclusions. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.”

“Our committee's report is fair. It includes the facts that Representative Edwards points out, including that we found no proof of a romantic relationship or direct propositions. We presented evidence of sexual harassment, but we also made clear that some rumors about him were not true.”

“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. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. DeSaulnier), the ranking member of the House Committee on Ethics.”