In the matter of allegations relating to Representative Chuck Edwards.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, as if we didn't waste enough time participating in yesterday's purely performative exercise at the Rules Committee, here we are again.

After zero floor activity for the last 5 weeks, House Republicans have brought to the floor a nonbinding resolution calling for enactment of the SAVE America Act.

I was recently asked by a constituent: ``What is a nonbinding resolution?'' And I effectively said: A nonbinding resolution is a statement of how Congress feels, but it does nothing.

So here we are taking up a nonbinding resolution of how we feel. And in an ironic twist that would be comical if it weren't so sinister, this resolution, this nonbinding feeling of Congress, stokes fears of a repressive totalitarian dictatorship while in the same breath affirms House Republicans' obsession with subverting Americans' right to vote-- the same House Republicans that have ceded entirely Congress' constitutional authority to one single person.

Absurd doesn't begin to describe this.

This resolution, this nonbinding resolution, asks the House to condemn government ownership of private industry, yet under Donald Trump's administration, the Federal Government has spent almost $28 billion of American money acquiring stakes in dozens of private companies--$28 billion.

Now, personally, I believe in capitalism, but if my Republican friends want to debate socialism, they should start with the shareholder in chief who sits in the Oval Office.

Mr. Speaker, after hearing from their own constituents about the affordability crisis in America and the corruption in this administration for the past 5 weeks, House Republicans are wasting time on a vote for a resolution condemning a political philosophy, a resolution which has already passed the House, and calling for the enactment of a bill aimed at making it harder for Americans to vote--a bill which I also note has already passed this House. This bill would make it harder for married women and veterans to vote, a bill that would essentially gut mail and online voter registration, a bill that would force States to hand out voter rolls to President Trump's Department of Homeland Security.

Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised we are here today because one thing is clear: As costs are skyrocketing for American consumers, Republicans are afraid to face their constituents at the ballot box. The White House and congressional Republicans have failed the American people, and the only remaining option is to try to keep Americans from voting at all.

They want bills like the SAVE America Act to disrupt election administration and keep millions of eligible voters away from the polls. The President has issued illegal executive orders to block ballot access for millions of Americans, including an unlawful attempt to weaponize the United States Postal Service and eviscerate vote-by- mail regimes in States across this country because the President says mail-in voting is fraudulent, even though the President himself voted twice in the last few weeks by mail.

This administration has defunded and gutted the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, CISA, and its support for election administrators. And of course, the President and his allies continue to actively spread mis- and disinformation about the integrity of our elections.

Maybe that is the point: to cause a lack of confidence in our election writ large and get people to question the very legitimacy of our long tradition of self-governance.

House Democrats will continue to fight back because, despite continued efforts by the President and his allies, our elections are safe and secure. State and local election administrators, both Democrats and Republicans, not the President, will continue to run elections in this country. States will do it. Local and State election administrators will do it, not the President of the United States.

The courts will continue to reject unlawful attempts by the Department of Justice to force States to turn over their voter rolls.

As of earlier this month, the Department of Justice's record in these cases now is 0 for 23. There were 23 cases brought in Federal court, and the Department of Justice has lost every single one of them in their effort to force States to turn over voter rolls.

House Democrats' objectives are straightforward. Every eligible American must have a meaningful opportunity to cast a ballot, and those ballots must be counted fairly and accurately. There is nothing more important in this moment than our collective efforts to ensure Americans are given every opportunity to render their verdict in November, and despite the best efforts of House Republicans, we are going to make sure that happens.

Mr. Speaker, in a recent poll, Congress was found to have a 15 percent approval rating. Mr. Speaker, 15 percent of the American people approve of the job Congress is doing today. Some might understandably think that number is low, but frankly, after participating in this absurd exercise, I am surprised it is that high.

With all due respect to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, would this entirely symbolic resolution Republicans are seeking to advance today do anything to lower gas prices? Would this pure messaging bill do anything to make your groceries less expensive? Would this resolution do anything to hold all the crooks in the White House accountable? The answer is simple. It would not.

Promises were made to the American people, but they have not been kept. The American people deserve better than this. I strongly urge my colleagues to reject this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

When the gentleman began to speak and said this was a simple resolution on socialism, I thought perhaps he hadn't read his own resolution because it also creates incredible barriers to people registering to vote in America and engaging in self-government, which has been the whole point of this Republic for 250 years.

I am glad he did indicate, though, that this is also including efforts to make it harder for Americans to vote.

However, I would say this: I know this is so important that we pass this resolution, except I would also remind the body that we passed this resolution a year ago condemning socialism, so we are doing here just the same thing. I guess next week we will do it again and again and again, but we have already done this, and we have also passed the awful SAVE America Act several times here as well.

Rather than focusing on gas prices and the ill-advised illegal war in Iran, which has raised the price of groceries and gas, which has spent hundreds of billions of dollars not authorized by the Congress, we stand here talking about a resolution that has two parts, both of which have already passed. That is what we consider a critical measure to consider, a nonbinding resolution today on two things we have already done in the House, but I guess that passes for progress in some people's minds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I will just note that in the text of the resolution it talks about how socialist ideology necessitates the concentration of power, but the whereas is essentially any form of socialism. I am just sort of curious, as I read it, it denounces socialism in all of its forms.

I just ask the question of my colleagues. The current administration has entered into 39 announced deals, has invested $28 billion of American taxpayer money, and $8.9 billion of that was to purchase 433 million shares of Intel. We now have a 9.9 percent stake in Intel-- which sounds like socialism to me, the government control or ownership of the means of production--15 percent of MP Materials, 5 percent of Lithium Americas, and another 5 percent of its joint venture with General Motors.

Frankly, if it comes to government ownership of private industry, which it does, as a capitalist I said this, I actually voted on the resolution when it came before the House before, but I wonder: If the United States Government gets into the habit of purchasing shares and ownership of a chip manufacturer, Intel, does that mean when it comes to procurement that we are somehow compromised?

Can we choose another chip manufacturer to the disadvantage of American taxpayers because we are part-owners of the company that is competing for our business?

How will we regulate companies now where we have a vested interest in the profitability because the American taxpayers are part owners of that company?

I would have taken a little more care with the resolution because you would have to argue that perhaps the most socialist President in recent memory is Donald Trump because he is having American taxpayers own shares of private companies. I would think there would be a number of Members on my friends' side of the aisle that would have distress about such a measure taken by an American President.

I can imagine if Joe Biden was taking ownership of Intel how we would have heard people screaming about it, but they are oddly silent because the would-be dictator of America, the would-be king, has decided that he is going to invest American money in private companies.

I just would be curious to see what people's response is to that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I share with Chairman Steil many things we agree on. He is a good friend, but his suggestion that this is about the concentration of power--concentration of power? What we have seen in the last 2 years is the concentration of power at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue and a Congress that has done little to nothing about establishing our Article I prerogatives. When it comes to appropriations, when it comes to the impoundment of money, when it comes to the illegal activities in Iran, which has put hundreds of billions of dollars of American money spent over there, which has made us less secure, cost the lives of 18 Americans, that is a concentration of power.

We ought to talk about that. We should be having that conversation about Article I powers and reestablishing Congress' rightful role.

Mr. Speaker, if you want to talk about concentration of power, Republican Members, including my friend, have made clear the SAVE America Act would take effect immediately upon passage. With just 63 days before this election, this bill would upend elections in every State across this country.

Regarding concentration of power, Members of this body know that States begin mailing millions of ballots just 3 weeks from now, and yet, we would pass this concentration of power to put further power concentrated in the hands of one individual at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. How are these election administrators supposed to comply with this new Federal law should it take effect?

It is election malpractice, frankly. The committee heard months ago from an election director on the ground who called this effective date unworkable.

The purpose of this change, which is in this resolution, is clearly to throw election administration into disarray, because elections in chaos are easier to disrupt and subvert.

That is why President Trump unleashed an angry mob on the building on January 6, 2021, to create chaos, undermine confidence in our election system, and literally create a dangerous situation, all in service of overturning an election that he lost.

This change is irresponsible. It is the ultimate move to concentrate power in the hands of one individual.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Ramirez), my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on this floor this afternoon, we should be debating legislation to lower gas prices. We should be debating legislation to lower the cost of groceries. We should be debating legislation to rein in the most corrupt administration in the history of this country.

That is what I heard when I went back home in Rochester and spent the last several weeks talking to people who are fearing for the futures of their families, who are fearing not being able to pay their medical bills, who fear not being able to pay their mortgage, who fear having to make tough decisions about childcare and putting food on the table.

Instead, we are debating a nonbinding resolution. It is a nonbinding resolution which they said gives the sense of Congress. We have already given the sense about socialism less than a year ago. It has already passed this body, but we keep doing it. I guess we will keep saying it because we have nothing else to do and because we are not prepared to address the rising costs of gas and groceries and the challenges that families are facing.

We are also calling for the enactment of a bill that has already passed the House. This is the important work this Congress is taking up today, passing a resolution that calls for the passing of a bill we have already passed and calling for the enactment of a resolution which we have already enacted.

By the way, that bill, the SAVE America Act, would restrict access to the ballot box for millions of Americans, in particular, women, rural voters, students, and people of color. The SAVE America Act would effectively

end vote by mail in the United States. It would force States to surrender private voter information to the Department of Homeland Security. If enacted today, the SAVE America Act would instantly throw the upcoming midterm elections into chaos.

Mr. Speaker, House Democrats will continue to fight back because, despite the continued efforts by the President and his allies, our elections are safe. They are secure, and there is nothing more important in this moment than our collective efforts to ensure Americans are given every opportunity to render their verdict in November. House Democrats will make sure that happens, and I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1499, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 1490) providing for the condemnation and denouncement of socialism in all its forms, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Crank) for authoring this very timely resolution.

Mr. Speaker, let's set the stage. Socialism has no place in the United States of America. Hard work and merit are the backbone of American Dreams, not socialism in government outcome and government control.

Our Nation is at a crossroads. Across the country, socialist policies are increasingly dominating democratic politics. Members of this body openly support key elements of the Democratic Socialists of America's platform.

The mayor of our largest city is a socialist. The U.S. Senator who was a leading candidate for the 2020 Democratic nomination for President is a socialist.

America has a choice. We can go down the path of Big Government socialism, or we can keep fighting to shrink government and help the American people keep more of their hard-earned money.

The resolution condemns socialism, and it exposes the radical policies of the Democratic Socialists of America's platform.

Let's quickly look through the platform. It supports giving the right to vote to 12 million noncitizens and criminals who are currently incarcerated. It supports ranked-choice voting for all elections. It calls for abolishing the electoral college and the United States Senate. These are radical policies, and they would undermine the integrity of the American election and destroy our democratic system.

Now, contrast this radical agenda with what Republicans support. We believe that American elections are for American citizens only. We are focused on making it easy to vote and hard to cheat. Our goal is to strengthen election integrity. That is why we are pushing commonsense reforms like requiring photo ID and citizenship verification when individuals register to vote.

Socialists are opposing these commonsense ideas because they fundamentally oppose securing our elections. Mr. Speaker, socialism is easy to elect, but it is nearly impossible to remove. That is because socialist ideology concentrates power in a way that has led to totalitarian rule, time and time again.

Here at home, DSA leaders have repeatedly described our bicameral Federal Republic as inherently undemocratic. Make no mistake, if socialists are given the chance, socialists will abolish our democratic system.

Mr. Speaker, socialist policies are responsible for the death of 100 million people worldwide. This resolution rejects and condemns this dangerous ideology.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I note my colleague said this resolution allows Members to state how they feel, where they stand. I think that is actually reasonably true.

You can pull out the Democratic Socialists of America program, and you can flip to page 15 and read through some of the highlights: defund the Pentagon, free Palestine with Jerusalem as the capital, grant amnesty for all immigrants regardless of legal status.

This is a chance, as my colleague says, to show how we feel and where Members stand. The American people will get to see. Do they stand with the Democratic Socialists of America or do they stand with democracy and freedom and oppose the socialist policies that we are seeing from the radical left?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Crank), the author of this resolution, to speak.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Malliotakis) to speak on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, per the comments that this calls out socialism and not communism, it calls out socialism in all its forms. So if the gentleman who just spoke dislikes communism, he has a great opportunity to vote for this resolution.

Per the commentary about election law, this is a direct contrast between the platform of the Democratic Socialists of America who want to dramatically change the election process in the United States of America. The Democratic Socialists of America want to change how we elect the President of

the United States. They want to abolish the Senate. They want to dramatically transform the democracy of the United States of America.

Why?

It is because socialism concentrates power. What they want to do is establish socialism, which is easy to elect but very difficult to remove.

That is why this resolution is so important. It is so the American people will know where their Member stands.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg) to speak on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman asked what we oppose. You can actually just pull out the platform of the Democratic Socialists of America, and it is like shooting fish in a barrel of what we oppose: defund the Department of Defense; free Palestine, with their capital in Jerusalem; provide amnesty to all immigrants, regardless of legal status. The list goes on. We oppose a lot of it. That is why this resolution is actually very relevant.

The radical left is taking over portions of the Democratic Party. This isn't your grandfather's Democratic Party anymore. This is a new radicalized Democratic Party that wants to install socialism right here in the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Kim).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McDowell), no friend of socialism, to speak on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, socialism is a promise that is going to make everyone equal, equally poor. This is why it is so important to stand up and vote ``yes'' on this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Mann) to speak on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock) to speak on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote for this important resolution. A lot has been said here on the floor, so let's try to re- encapsulate what has been discussed.

It was just referenced about the importance of the price of groceries and the importance of the price of gas, and I couldn't agree more with the importance. If we look at the contrast between the policies of those of us on the right and how we want to reduce those with those on the left, I think the contrast becomes quite clear.

My colleagues on the left and the Democratic Socialists of America want government-owned grocery stores. That will not lower the price of groceries. My friends on the left want a Green New Deal, and it is right here in the platform. They want to end the use of fossil fuels. That will drive up the cost of energy for hardworking American families.

Instead, we should be continuing our work to unleash American energy, to lower the costs for American families. It is a clear contrast between those that support the socialist ideals and the socialist ideas and the Democratic Socialists of America's platform with those of our platform.

We talked about election law. The Democratic Socialists of America start with the premise that America has never been a democracy. Mr. Speaker, America is the world's greatest democracy. The Democratic Socialists of America want to replace the popular vote for President with an executive chosen by Congress. That might be one of the scariest parts of the entire DSA platform.

They want this body to choose the President of the United States of America, not the people. They want to strip that power away from American citizens and instill that power here in Washington, D.C.

They want to allow noncitizens to vote. In their platform, they would allow all permanent noncitizens of the United States of America to vote. I believe, and my colleagues believe, that U.S. elections should be for U.S. citizens only.

If we want to see how this plays out, I can look right here in our Nation's Capital in Washington, D.C., where under current law noncitizens residing in Washington, D.C., can vote in municipal elections.

Let's just set this clear as to how extreme this is. An individual working in the Russian Embassy could walk out with a passport in their pocket, not need to show up because they don't require photo ID in our Nation's Capital, walk to the polls, and in 9 weeks from today cast their ballot for Mayor in Washington, D.C.

That is the current law. Noncitizens are allowed to vote in municipal elections in Washington, D.C., and the DSA platform lays out what their plan is to allow noncitizens, millions of noncitizens, to vote in American elections, but they want them all to vote.

How do we know that? You can turn the page to other sections of their platform where they want to provide amnesty for every illegal alien in the United States of America. They want to allow them to be a U.S. citizen then they can all vote.

We can see exactly what the playbook is of the Democratic Socialists of America.

The list goes on. They want aggressive taxes on successful individuals. They want to abolish the Senate. The list goes on as to where the Democrat ideas are, and they call it Democratic socialism, probably because stealing doesn't poll terribly well, Mr. Speaker.

This is a stark contrast between where the radical left and the Democratic Socialists of America want to take this country and where we believe and know this country needs to go. In particular, I am making sure that we have election integrity. We can see in the platform of the DSA exactly how they would gut the election integrity provisions that we rely on.

They want to allow noncitizens to vote. They want to drive forward a socialist agenda. As I remind everyone, it is very easy to vote socialism in. It is very difficult to remove socialism. It is why this resolution is so important so the American people know exactly where their Member stands.

Shortly here today, we will be able to vote on this resolution and everyone in the United States of America will know where their Member in the United States House of Representatives stands.

Do they stand with the Democratic Socialists of America who want socialism to drive forward in the United States of America, or do they stand with the freedoms and liberties that we know and cherish here in the United States of America?

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for this resolution, to stand up against the evils of socialism, and to stand in support of the greatest country in the world, the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ivey), a fellow member of the House Ethics Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers. I move adoption of H. Res. 1498, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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.