Steny Hoyer: “Mr. Leader, we obviously have a disagreement in the perceptions as to what the rule does and does not do. I think both…”

“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. {time} 1615 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.…”