Michael Guest

“I want the House to pass this resolution.”

“Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I reemphasize my comments made earlier regarding these matters and would urge adoption. At this time, I reserve the balance of my time.”

“I ask that all members have five days to add to their speeches and submit extra materials on this resolution.”

“Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution printed in House Report 119-694.”

“I am asking the House to vote right now on holding Hector Roos in contempt of Congress.”

“Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1505) which is printed in House Report 119-694, regarding proceedings against Hector Roos and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read the title of the resolution. The text of the resolution is as follows:”

“I want the House to hold Michael Joseph and Hector Roos in contempt of Congress. The Ethics Committee ordered both men to share documents and testify about a former member of Congress. Neither man showed up, and neither gave a valid legal reason. We need to refer them to the Department of Justice.”

“Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as the chair of the Committee on Ethics, I rise in support of the resolutions which call for Michael Joseph and Hector Roos to be held in contempt of Congress for their failure to comply with documentary and testimonial subpoenas issued on September 11, 2025, and August 12, 2026, respectively. Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution provides that each House may punish its Members for disorderly behavior, and with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member. The House has charged the Committee on Ethics with the duty of implementing this provision on its behalf. The committee recommends and enforces ethical standards that ensure Members and staff act in a manner befitting the public trust. Pursuant to that authority, the House has authorized the committee and its subcommittees to require by subpoena or otherwise the attendance and testimony of such witnesses and their production of such books, records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents as it considers necessary to carry out its investigative functions. House rules do not specify that personal service is the only method of effecting service of its subpoenas. An individual has a legal obligation to comply with a duly issued and valid congressional subpoena, unless a valid privilege or other legal justification excuses compliance. An individual who fails to comply with a House subpoena may be cited for contempt of Congress. In this case, the committee impaneled an investigative subcommittee to inquire into certain allegations regarding former Representative Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick. In order to conduct a thorough investigation, the investigative subcommittee authorized, and the committee issued, subpoenas for documents and testimonies to Mr. Joseph and Mr. Roos. Mr. Roos was a senior campaign staffer who filed inaccurate reports with the Federal Election Commission and made in kind contributions to the campaign. Mr. Roos was served with documentary and testimonial subpoenas issued on August 12, 2025, by the United States Marshals Service. He did not appear for his deposition on September 25, 2025, nor did he produce the documents at any time. Mr. Roos did not provide a valid legal justification for his noncompliance. Mr. Joseph was the President of a company that improperly provided corporate funds for the Congresswoman’s campaign and influenced her staff to submit community funding project requests for entities that he supported. Mr. Joseph was served with documentary and testimonial subpoenas issued on March 11, 2025. Mr. Joseph accepted service. Later, he responded he could not comply because as an attorney it would violate attorney-client privilege. Committee rules provide that the presiding member of the subcommittee may consider objections on the basis of privilege and request his objection be put in writing. Although Mr. Joseph did not do so, the investigative subcommittee nonetheless considered his objection and determined it was not a valid assertion of the attorney-client privilege. Nonetheless, Mr. Joseph did not appear for his deposition on October 7, 2025, nor did he produce documents at any time. Mr. Joseph did not provide a valid legal justification for his noncompliance. The investigative subcommittee offered both Mr. Roos and Mr. Joseph a final opportunity to comply with subpoenas, but neither did so. Therefore, the investigative subcommittee voted on March 18, 2026, to adopt reports recommending the committee submit a resolution recommending the House cite Mr. Roos and Mr. Joseph for contempt of Congress pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 194 and 192. On May 13, 2026, the committee adopted its own reports incorporating by reference the reports of the investigative subcommittee and concurring with this recommendation. The reports were transmitted to the Clerk of the House and made public on June 22, 2026, and have been made available to Members of the House and the public on the committee’s website since Friday. The committee cannot fulfill its obligations to safeguard the integrity of the House when witnesses ignore its subpoenas, and the House cannot accept such willful disregard of its authority. Mr. Roos and Mr. Joseph willfully failed to comply with multiple subpoenas issued by the committee. They impeded the investigative subcommittee’s investigations into the allegations concerning former Representative Cherfilus-McCormick. Those allegations were serious and included violations of Federal law to which Mr. Roos and Mr. Joseph were party. Their conduct warrants referrals to the United States Department of Justice for contempt of Congress. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.”

“I ask that all members have five days to update their statements and add extra material on this resolution.”

“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 material on the resolution printed in House Report 119-693.”

“I want the House to vote right now to hold Michael Joseph in contempt of Congress.”

“Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1504) which is printed in House Report 119-693, regarding proceedings against Michael Joseph and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read the title of the resolution. The text of the resolution is as follows:”

“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.”

“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.”

“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.”