mr. leader , we obviously have a disagreement in the perceptions as to what the rule does and does not do .  i think both you and i are very concerned about the reputation and integrity of this house .  i think you share that view and i share that view .  it is my suggestion that resolving this in a way that is bipartisan will be productive for the house .  mr. hefley , the former chairman , i do not agree with mr. hefley  on a lot of things , but i do agree with his perception of how we protect the integrity of the house .  there may be people on my side of the aisle who agree with your perception and not mine .  i understand that .  the fact is , though , that it would be in the best interest of this house and this country for us to resolve these matters in a bipartisan way either through , as our leader has proposed , a commission to be a joint commission equally divided , as was the livingston-cardin commission , or , in the alternative , to consider h.r. 131 .  the leader is absolutely right , and i made that aside , as you recall .  we did vote against the rules package , but we had agreed to the components , and there was no controversy about the ethics component in the rules package .  there were other things with which we disagreed , obviously , but that was an agreement , and it was reached in a bipartisan fashion .  this was not reached in a bipartisan fashion .  and , yes , as both parties usually did , i can remember , it is getting more difficult to remember , but i can remember when we were in charge and your side used to vote unanimously against our rules package and we pretty much do the same because we have some disagreements .  but there was agreement on the rules package as it related to the committee on standards of official conduct , and the reason for that is because both sides felt it to be very important .  