mr. speaker , i would like to address the ethics-related provisions that are in this package at the insistence of the committee on rules . 
i had the honor of serving as ranking member of the committee on standards of official conduct in the last congress . 
it was an honor to serve with the gentleman from colorado ( chairman hefley ) , as he always managed to chair the committee in a completely bipartisan manner . 
the headlines in this morning 's paper say `` gop abandons ethics changes. '' it turns out that the headline is at best only half right . 
it is true that the most outrageous ethics undermining provision has been deleted from the rules package , but other provisions , provisions that would make major changes in the way the committee on standards of official conduct handles enforcements of the rules , they remain . 
there should be no misunderstanding that these provisions that remain would seriously undermine the ethics process in the house , both because of the changes they would make in committee procedures , but , and equally important , because of the partisan way in which they are being adopted . 
if there is to be a meaningful , viable ethics process in the house , it must be a genuinely bipartisan process . 
that point should be self-evident . 
how could there be a legitimate ethics process that is operated on a partisan basis ? 
and to have a bipartisan process , it is absolutely essential that any major changes in the rules be made on a truly bipartisan basis . 
what is more , because of the importance and the sensitive nature of the ethics rules , it is also essential that any proposed changes be considered in a thoughtful , considered , and open way , with all members being given the opportunity for input , democrats and republicans . 
until today , the house recognized these fundamental points . 
until today , the house has not attempted to make major changes in the ethics rules or the committee on standards of official conduct procedures in a slapdash way , with literally only hours of consideration , and on a party line vote . 
it will probably come as no surprise that the materials issued by the committee on rules that attempt to justify these amendments are based entirely on misstatements of the current rules . 
for example , under the benign sounding heading , `` restore presumption of innocence , '' the committee on rules memorandum states , `` currently , if the chairman and ranking minority member take no action on a properly filed complaint within 45 days , the matter automatically goes to an investigative subcommittee. '' fine . 
but that statement is incomplete and , therefore , misleading . 
the rules that have been in effect since 1997 clearly provide that at any time that a complaint is before the chairman and ranking member for consideration , either one of them may place the complaint on the committee 's agenda and when either one of them does that , an investigative committee can not be established without a majority vote of the committee . 
another example , mr. speaker . 
under the heading `` due process for members , '' the committee on rules memorandum states that , `` under the current rule , the chairman and ranking member or the committee may take action against a member without a complaint , notice , or the opportunity to be heard. '' this statement clearly implies that the committee may determine that a member has committed a violation or impose a sanction without the member having such rights , and that suggestion , mr. speaker , is flatly wrong . 
the rules are replete with the rights for members who are accused of any violation . 
when you turn to the actual text of the `` due process '' amendments , you find that what these amendments are concerned with is not committee actions that impose sanctions or determine violations , but instead on committee letters or statements that `` reference the official conduct of a member. '' it may be well that the rules should provide certain rights to a member whose conduct is going to be discussed in a letter or statement that the committee issues publicly , but what should those rights be ? 
they should be determined through a deliberative , fair , bipartisan process . 
but one specific right that this proposed rule provides to those members is the right to demand an immediate trial in front of an adjudicatory subcommittee of the committee on standards of official conduct . 
but in the circumstances that the rule addresses , that trial would take place before the committee has conducted any formal investigation of the matter . 
no committee that is serious about conducting its business would allow itself to be put in that circumstance . 
so the effect of this amendment would be that whenever any alleged misconduct is brought to the committee 's attention , the committee may be forced to choose between either launching a formal investigation of the matter or dismissing it entirely . 
both of these rule changes lack careful consideration and , more seriously , are brought to us today through a partisan process . 
i 'd like to address the ethics-related provisions that are in this package at the insistence of the rules committee . 
i had the honor of serving as ranking member of the ethics committee in the last congress , and i also served on the committee for 6 years during another time of controversy in the late 1980s . 
it was an honor to serve during the last 2 years with chairman hefley , as he always managed the committee in a completely bipartisan manner . 
a headline in this morning 's newspaper says , `` gop abandons ethics changes. '' it turns out that the headline is at best only half right . 
it 's true that the most outrageous ethics-undermining provision has been deleted from the rules package , but other provisions -- provisions that would make major changes in the way the ethics committee handles enforcement of the rules -- remain . 
there should be no misunderstanding that these provisions that remain would seriously undermine the ethics process in the house , both because of the changes they would make in committee procedures , and , equally important , because of the partisan way in which they would be adopted . 
if there is to be a meaningful , viable ethics process in the house , it must be a genuinely bipartisan process . 
that point should be self-evident -- how could there be a legitimate ethics process that is operated on a partisan basis ? 
and to have a bipartisan process , it 's absolutely essential that any major changes in the rules be made on a truly bipartisan basis . 
what 's more , because of the importance , and the sensitive nature of the ethics rules , it 's also essential that any proposed changes be considered in a thoughtful , considered , and open way , with all members being given the opportunity for input -- democrats and republicans . 
until today , the house recognized these fundamental points . 
until today , the house has not attempted to make major changes in the ethics rules or the ethics committee procedures in a slapdash way , with literally only hours of consideration , and on a party-line vote . 
it will probably come as no surprise that the materials issued by the rules committee that attempt to justify these amendments are based entirely on misstatements of the current rules . 
for example , under the benign-sounding heading , `` restore presumption of innocence , '' the rules committee memorandum states , and i quote : `` currently , if the chairman and ranking minority member take no action on a properly filed complaint within 45 days , the matter automatically goes to an investigative subcommittee. '' that statement is incomplete -- and therefore misleading . 
the rules that have been in effect since 1997 clearly provide that at any time that a complaint is before the chairman and ranking member for consideration , either one of them may place the complaint on the committee 's agenda , and when either one of them does that , an investigative subcommittee can not be established without a majority vote of the committee . 
another example : under the heading , `` due process for members , '' the rules committee memorandum states that , and i quote : `` under the current rule , the chairman and ranking member , or the committee , may take action against a member without a complaint , notice , or the opportunity to be heard. '' this statement clearly implies that the committee may determine that a member has committed a violation or impose a sanction without the member having such rights , and that suggestion is flatly wrong . 
the rules are replete with rights for members who are accused of any violation , and because of the bipartisan makeup of the committee , members are typically accorded rights well beyond those required by the rules . 
when you turn to the actual text of the `` due process '' amendments , you find that what these amendments are concerned with is not committee actions that impose sanctions or determine violations , but instead committee letters or statements that `` reference the official conduct of a member. '' it may well be that the rules should provide certain rights to a member whose conduct is going to be discussed in a letter or statement that the committee issues publicly , but what should those rights be ? 
they should be determined through a deliberative , fair , bipartisan process . 
but one specific right that this proposed rule provides to those members is the right to demand an immediate trial in front of an adjudicatory subcommittee of the ethics committee . 
but in the circumstances that the rule addresses , that trial would take place before the committee has conducted any formal investigation of the matter . 
no committee that is serious about conducting its business would allow itself to be put in that circumstance . 
so the effect of this amendment would be that whenever any alleged misconduct is brought to the committee 's attention , the committee may be forced to choose between either launching a formal investigation of the matter , or dismissing it entirely . 
there would be no chance for an expedited but the proposed amendment that raises even more concern is the one that provides for automatic dismissal of any complaint that is not acted upon within a period as short as 45 days . 
when the house last considered ethics committee procedures , in 1997 , it rejected , on a bipartisan vote , an amendment that would have required the automatic dismissal of any complaint that is not acted upon within 180 days . 
the reason that amendment was rejected is that it was recognized that such a time limit would encourage deadlock on the committee , and partisanship among the committee members . 
under a time limit , if one side or the other is uncomfortable about dealing with a particular complaint , those members do n't have to discuss it or otherwise try to deal with it -- by their just doing nothing , the complaint will disappear . 
yet now this provision for automatic dismissal has reappeared , and this time it has a far shorter time frame for committee consideration than the nearly identical provision that the house soundly rejected in 1997 . 
i want to close by asking all members , including all members of the leadership on both sides of the aisle , to give some serious consideration -- not just today , but in the weeks and months ahead -- to whether you genuinely want to have a meaningful ethics process in the house , and what we as members , individually and collectively , have to do in order for such a process to exist . 
as i said at the outset , for this process to exist , it has to be a truly bipartisan one , and it has to be treated with seriousness and respect . 
it has to be recognized that the basic purpose of the process is to consider and address legitimate ethics concerns , and if members are successful in using the process for partisan , political purposes , it is going to fail . 
the approval of these amendments would seriously undermine the process and , for that reason alone , this rules package should be defeated . 
