House Passes Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, Censure Resolution for Representative Edwards, and Condemns Socialism

The case for

Mr. Guest, Chairman of the Committee on Ethics, stated that the committee's monthslong investigation found no evidence of sexual activity or explicit propositions, but concluded that Representative Edwards' conduct toward two young female staffers was inappropriate and violated rules prohibiting sexual harassment. He detailed a pattern of behavior including lavish and recurrent gifts, comments on appearance, invitations to intimate dinners and vacations, and personal notes, which created a hostile work environment. Mr. DeSaulnier, Ranking Member, emphasized that the conduct was unwelcome and that the power imbalance between a Member and staff meant the women felt unable to reject the attention without fear of professional consequences. Ms. Leger Fernandez argued that Mr. Edwards' behavior was 'disgusting and horrible,' an 'abhorrent abuse of power,' and that his lack of remorse indicated a failure to understand sexual harassment. Mr. Ivey highlighted the specific, expensive gifts and the potential for such conduct to damage staffers' careers, advocating for clear boundaries and accountability.

The case against

Representative Edwards apologized for any discomfort his actions caused but disputed the conclusion of sexual harassment, arguing that the evidence did not support it. He stated that his actions were grounded in what he understood to be long-standing friendships with the women, which began years before Congress and involved reciprocal exchanges. He emphasized 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. He asked colleagues to judge him on facts, not inference, and to consider whether the punishment of censure was proportional to the conduct actually established, arguing that 'generosity is not sexual harassment.'

The case for

Mr. Cole, the majority manager, stated that the bill is a clean, short-term continuing resolution that keeps the government open through December 11, 2026. He emphasized that it protects national security, provides funding for the Armed Forces and security agencies, and ensures continuity for essential services like Social Security, TSA operations, nutrition assistance, and disaster relief. He highlighted that the bill contains no poison pills or partisan riders and has the support of the White House, preserving the path to full-year appropriations. Mr. Alford stressed the importance of avoiding another government shutdown, which he claimed punished troops, farmers, veterans, and working families in the previous year. Mr. Smith of Missouri noted the bill's reauthorization of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) and Haiti HOPE/HELP, vital for economic stability and national security interests, particularly regarding critical minerals and supply chains.

The case against

Ms. DeLauro, the minority manager, supported the measure as a marked improvement over the House Republican version, noting it prevents cuts to wildfire suppression, election security, and infrastructure investments, and freezes a White House budget policy that would grant unprecedented authority over Federal spending to political appointees. She emphasized that the bill contains no funding for ICE and prevents DHS from diverting money to Border Patrol. Ms. McCollum expressed support while reiterating that continuing resolutions are inefficient and that the House had done its job by advancing all 12 appropriations bills. She also noted the bill contains no funding for the President's requested supplemental for the war in Iran.

The case for

Mr. Steil, the majority manager, argued that socialism has no place in the United States, leading to totalitarian rule and the death of over 100 million people worldwide. He highlighted the Democratic Socialists of America's (DSA) platform, which he claimed supports giving voting rights to noncitizens and incarcerated criminals, abolishing the U.S. Senate, and replacing the two-party system. He asserted that American elections are for American citizens only and that the resolution allows Members to show where they stand against this 'dangerous ideology.' Mr. Crank, the author, stated that the resolution is a simple up-or-down vote against anti-American ideas, emphasizing that the DSA is growing within Democratic ranks and promoting policies that undermine the Constitution, such as open borders and defunding the police. Ms. Malliotakis equated socialism to 'communism light,' arguing it leads to economic collapse and loss of freedom, citing her family's experience in Communist Cuba. Mr. Walberg and Mr. Mann reiterated that socialism has never produced prosperity and leads to government control, urging colleagues to reject the ideology.

The case against

Mr. Morelle, the minority manager, characterized the resolution as a 'purely performative exercise' and a 'nonbinding resolution' that does nothing to address the affordability crisis. He pointed out that the resolution had already passed the House previously. He criticized the resolution for stoking fears while the Trump administration itself has engaged in what he called 'socialist' actions, such as acquiring stakes in private companies like Intel. He also argued that the resolution's call for the SAVE America Act would create barriers to voting for millions of Americans and throw upcoming elections into chaos. Ms. Tlaib asserted that corporate greed, not Democratic Socialists fighting for universal healthcare and clean water, is hurting Americans, and accused Republicans of cutting social programs to benefit corporate donors. Mr. Pocan called the resolution 'stupid' and a distraction from real issues, also noting the Trump administration's partial ownership in over 30 companies.

The case for

Mr. Westerman, the majority manager, argued that the bill protects a vital American fishery, supporting $2 billion in economic activity and 17,500 jobs in Maine. He stated that the industry has already led conservation efforts, virtually eliminating its impact on right whales, and that the current regulatory pause (enacted in 2022) needs to be extended to 2035 to allow more time for data collection and the development of science-driven solutions. He noted that NOAA is making progress on acoustic networks and evaluating new technologies. Mr. Lawler, the bill's sponsor, emphasized the need for regulatory stability and certainty for fishermen and communities. Mr. Stauber asserted that the bill does not weaken protections but allows adequate time for fit-for-purpose regulations, preventing devastation to the New England economy. Mr. Golden of Maine highlighted that Maine lobstermen are already good stewards of marine life, citing low historical whale entanglement rates, and that the current data cannot be incorporated into NOAA's rulemaking by the existing 2028 deadline.

The case against

Mr. Huffman, the minority manager, argued that the bill would push the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale closer to extinction, noting that fewer than 380 individuals remain and 31 whales have suffered severe injuries or death since 2022 due to entanglements. He stated that the previous 6-year pause has led to complacency from NOAA, which has deprioritized ropeless gear development. He contended that the bill would destroy market incentives for safer technologies and unfairly burden other Atlantic coast communities. Mr. Beyer stated that the whale cannot afford another 7-year delay, and that delaying protections does not serve the fishing industry's long-term interests. Mrs. Dingell argued that the bill does nothing for the lobster industry and that the focus should be on the economic impact of President Trump's trade policies and the war in Iran, which are raising fuel costs and threatening fisheries.

The case for

Mr. Guest, Chairman of the Committee on Ethics, stated that Michael Joseph willfully failed to comply with documentary and testimonial subpoenas issued on September 11, 2025, during an investigation into allegations regarding former Representative Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick. He noted that Joseph, identified as a company president who improperly provided corporate funds for the campaign, did not provide a valid legal justification for his noncompliance. Mr. DeSaulnier, Ranking Member, emphasized that a subpoena from the Ethics Committee is a lawful demand and that noncompliance hinders investigations. Mr. Subramanyam highlighted that such noncompliance delays investigations and erodes public faith in the House's ability to self-police.

The case against

No opposition was aired in the Record.

The case for

Mr. Guest, Chairman of the Committee on Ethics, reiterated his earlier comments regarding the necessity of enforcing subpoenas. Mr. DeSaulnier, Ranking Member, stated that Hector Roos, a senior campaign staffer, ignored multiple documentary and testimonial subpoenas issued on August 12, 2025, without asserting any valid legal privilege. He emphasized that Roos's noncompliance unnecessarily and significantly delayed the committee's investigation into allegations concerning former Representative Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick.

The case against

No opposition was aired in the Record.