mr. speaker , i thank the chairman for yielding me this time . 
i am going to support this rules package . 
i was not . 
i came here today fully expecting not to support it ; but because of the action taken last evening where we reconsidered some of the suggestions that had been made , i think we have a package now that we can live with . 
i think some of the recommendations that are in here are ill conceived , and i would hope to work with the chairman again in a bipartisan way with him and his committee and with the leadership to make some additional changes as we go through the process . 
but i want to thank him and thank the speaker and the leadership for accommodating my concerns about some of the amendments that i thought were the most difficult and the ones that created the biggest problem in trying to implement the code of official conduct . 
each of us , in fact all of us , individually and collectively , have a responsibility to maintain the highest standard of conduct for this house . 
and changes in the rules , as was said by the previous speaker , should strengthen , not weaken , those standards . 
as it stands now , i think the previous speaker said we are gutting the ethics committee standards now . 
we are not as it stands now . 
i would not be standing up here encouraging people to support the rules package if in any way i thought we were gutting it . 
we are tweaking it , and as i said earlier , we are tweaking some of it in a way that i wish we were not tweaking it , but it does not gut it . 
it is something that the rules work pretty well the way they are now , and this does not change that that much . 
i have had the privilege of serving on the committee on standards of official conduct since 1997 and have had an additional responsibility as serving as chairman since 2001 . 
and during that time , i have learned one paramount lesson : ethics must be bipartisan . 
the ethics process must be bipartisan . 
ethics reform must be bipartisan , and the ethics committee must be bipartisan . 
and i can tell the members the ethics committee is bipartisan . 
i see our ranking member over here . 
i could not have a better partner in this ethics process than the gentleman from west virginia ( mr. mollohan ) xz4002810 . 
the ethics committee is a bipartisan committee that follows the evidence wherever the evidence leads . 
meaningful ethics reform must be genuinely bipartisan . 
to have a bipartisan process , any significant change in the ethics rules must be made only after careful , thorough bipartisan consideration , as was done in 1989 and 1997 . 
in 1989 and 1997 , ethics reform came only after a broad consensus developed for change . 
i have always strongly supported reevaluating the ethics rules and procedures and making changes wherever a need is shown . 
i think a number of the criticisms of the ethics process that have been made over the past year are well taken and should be looked at . 
on the other hand , since i joined the committee , almost every significant decision , i believe every significant decision , has been made on a unanimous vote . 
despite the deletion of the amendment that i found the most objectionable to the code of conduct , the rules package includes a number of provisions that would make major changes in the ethics-related rules , but as to which neither the committee on standards of official conduct nor members outside the rules process were consulted . 
while i will not vote against the rules package because of these provisions , i urge the leadership to reconsider all the amendments added to the committee 's procedural rules without a bipartisan process . 
in 1997 the house , through a bipartisan task force , carefully studied the committee on standards of official conduct 's enforcement procedures , made a series of changes . 
the rules package includes provisions that would significantly alter those procedures . 
it would be a mistake to reverse these bipartisan determinations without a bipartisan process of our own . 
the 45-day thing that has been mentioned , i do not like that . 
i think that creates a problem in trying to implement a fair and even-handed ethics process . 
i would like to see that removed . 
when in 1997 the bipartisan task force report was before the house , the house significantly rejected , on a bipartisan vote of 181 to 236 , an amendment that would have required automatic dismissal of any complaint after 180 days , not 45 days . 
the reason for rejection of that amendment , as set out in the floor debate , is that such an artificial time limit on the life of a complaint would serve to encourage deadlock within the committee and partisanship among committee members . 
i could go on and on , mr. speaker . 
i think that is something we need to look at . 
the ranking member and i and the members of the ethics committee have been considering a group of suggestions that we would like to bring to the full house . 
we would like to do that , mr. speaker , shortly after the new session of congress convenes , when we are ready for that process . 
i think that is the way it ought to be done . 
these are the people that struggle with these issues every day . 
i think they ought to be concerned about what we think would make the process better . 
they do not have to follow it , but at least be concerned about it . 
the process in the house is not perfect . 
let us strive to make it perfect . 
on this one issue , let us act together on a bipartisan basis . 
