mr. speaker , reclaiming my time , i thank the leader for his thoughtful response .  we have a difference of view on the change that was made from the livingston-cardin and house-adopted ethics rules which provided for an investigation of any member to go forward unless a majority of the committee disposed of it .  that meant , as the gentleman knows , that it would have to be bipartisan , because the committee is equally divided , so we would have to have at least one other member , assuming one party was united on either side , one other member of the other party to join in the disposition of a case .  and if that disposition did not occur , an investigation would go forward .  unfortunately , it is our perception , i say to the gentleman , that what the speaker , because the gentleman said the speaker wanted to protect the members , what the speaker has done from our perspective and , we think , from the perspective of many is created a process where on the inaction of the committee , based upon a tie vote so that a partisan group can stop an investigation , that the investigation will thereby be dismissed .  so it turned the process 180 degrees , from having a bipartisan vote to dismiss to now having a partisan vote or a bipartisan vote necessary to proceed .  we believe that undermines the protection of the institution .  we believe that that was not necessary in order to protect individuals and members , which we think is an appropriate due-process protection .  