mr. speaker , let me thank the distinguished whip for yielding .  and i have listened to this colloquy .  and let me try to add a little bit to it , if i might .  first , i appreciate the leader 's acknowledgment on process because the process is very important .  i think the debate that we are having on the floor should have been had prior to the rule being brought under a very partisan environment for passage on the first day of session .  i think if we would have had a chance , democrats and republicans , to review the rules changes , some of the problems that are now being brought out by these rules changes would have been understood .  so let me get to the policy issue that the leader brings up .  and that is , yes , the chairman and ranking member can proceed to bring a matter before the full committee .  but they do not have the investigative power in order to understand what is involved in the particular matter .  i served on the ethics committee for over 6 years , during some very difficult times , including the bank issues , including a charge against the speaker of the house .  and i can tell you this , that if we would have had a 45-day deadline considering an investigation of this matter , there would have been no way that we could have gotten the necessary votes to proceed .  in my entire time on the ethics committee we never had a partisan division .  we always were able to work out our issues .  it was not easy .  it took time .  we had to sit down and listen to each other , get the facts .  in reality , when you look at the rules that we are bound by and the facts , generally you will reach consensus and agreement within the ethics committee , and that is exactly what happens .  but if the clock is running and there are only 45 days , and after that time there is an automatic dismissal , and that is what is in these rules now , it encourages a partisan division .  it works counterintuitive to trying to work out what a consensus would bring out which is in the best interest of the institution .  and i regret we did not have the opportunity to debate that during the process of the adoption of the rules .  it is interesting to point out that the investigation and the charges that were held against speaker gingrich brought about a lot of controversy on this floor .  and the majority leader and the minority leader at that time recognized that the only way that we could resolve rules changes was to set up a bipartisan task force , and that is when mr. livingston and myself were the co-chairs .  and we listened to the debate .  and due process for the member was a very important consideration .  and we did change the rules in order to provide for that , but we did it in a bipartisan deliberation , and that was missing this time .  and i regret that .  