with ethics. every time they talk about health care, medicare, social security is brought into it. since 1935 when social security was first instituted, the government had borrowed in excess of $900 trillion. they should be made to pay that money back. i do not know where they are going to get it, but that is what they should do. host: of the land in iowa. we are talking about ethics. caller: first of all, i totally agree with that guy that was just talking about paying back social security. i originally called in to say to the lady -- what is her name

again? melanie sloan. i was wondering, if you are so much for ethics in congress, how come you did not hold congress accountable for the legal but they took to keep order in iraq and also the defense contractors continuing to steal our money and murdering our soldiers in iraq? guest: crew is an ethics group that focuses on house rules. this is a bit outside of our scope, but i think there are plenty of groups that have been interested in what members of congress are doing my thing that you should look to the american civil liberties union group for that. host: how was your group started? guest: we were started in 2003 because we thought members were

not being held accountable for their conduct. at that time, we were dealing with tom delay. he was going unchecked for many years. when we came into being, we were able to write the complaint with a former texas congressman bur . host: how are you fund it? guest: we are funded by private donations -- i am blanking. mostly by private donations. people visit our website to contribute as well. host: our guest has a law degree from the university of chicago. she used to be assistant to the district attorney in washington, d.c.

she has worked on committees led by john conyers, joe biden at different times. next phone call from norwich, new york. catherine. caller: first of all, your guest is awesome. i have seen her on other programs and she has a lot of character. i've wanted to ask her, if the public has access to the ethics committee to make a complaint about something that they see going on, in the government, something that they feel should be investigated, i would wonder how to contact them? also, i wonder if there has been any investigation on part to pack -- bart stupak and the

money that he paid -- that religious cult -- to pay for him. i also thought that religion was not supposed to get into politics. i am wondering why these senators are able to put their views on a certain matters in politics and be able to get away with it. host: several points. if someone years of something, they can contact this office of the ethics? guest: actually, no, they cannot. only members can filed against each other and they will not do it, for the most part. where people can file is with the office of congressional ethics. they will accept complaints from the public. as for the c street matter, we

are looking into that. if bart stupak was only paying $600 in rent for many years, that is something that we will be looking at. host:, many people do you have in your group? guest: about 13 people here, two in colorado. host: talk about what is going on in these offices. guest: we keep this information on our website, but there are about 15. most members of congress are good people who came to do a good job. they care about the problem facing our country, but there are some players who really engage in misconduct. other members of congress are

not quick to condemn them and say that we ought to not want the meeting our country. host: next phone call from california. caller: it seems a lot of people are not donate to charity. i started juan and i said issuances to a nearby school. this is helping them feed their school program. [unintelligible] what do you think about voluntary charity? host: something you can speak to? guest: that is outside our bailiwick. it is great when americans are

concerned about their fellow citizens. host: indiana. you are on . caller: good morning. i have a five-point plan that i believe would prepare americans and part of it has to do with ethics. the first thing is bringing the troops home. not just iraq and afghanistan, but everywhere. close down all the military bases. that would save us trillions of dollars. we need to get away from the trade agreements. new trade agreements should be, if you sell it in america, it should be built in america. host: can you get to the topic of the summit, ethics? guest: yes -- caller: yes, we need more voting for the citizens. we need special elections. instead of having to wait every

two years, when it comes to a health care bill, that needs to be put in our hands. we cannot have 500 people holding up america. host: advocating some changes in the system. guest: as it is, members are constantly looking for campaign cash. we had every year, there would never be a moment when they were not campaigning and focused on governing. host: focus on the house ethics committee itself, the separate entity. how is it structured first of all? guest: it is the only committee in the house that is complete my heart is in, five members from each party. -- bipartisan, five members from each party. they are very secretive, and we know very little of what goes on there. they are responsible for policing the conduct of members,

and they have a constitutional responsibility to do so. they can subpoena members, other people, unlike the office of congressional ethics. they also have the power to sanction members of congress for something as light as an admonishment to censure, and they can even recommend to congress expel somebody. host: who sits on the ethics committee? guest: there are two people that lead it. host: what kind of work are they doing now? guest: how active they are, it is hard to say. they take a long time to come out with anything. usually, it takes about one year, and often, and a clear members of conduct of any action, so their record is not

so great. host: next phone call. caller: i think we need to have congress pledged their ethics committee c-span once a month. that way, maybe they would not be so secretive. they want to hold obama to those standards. maybe they should follow them themselves. another thing that is a great impediment to more things being exposed is the fact that municipalities can chart for freedom of information copies. i filed for a copy in my town and i had to pay $49.50. not everyone can do that, not everyone wants to do that. it is freedom of information, they should not be able to charge. one last thing that has nothing to do with you, but a woman

called in earlier and said that our representatives were taking an oath to god when they became public figures. they do not, they respond to the constitution. host: anything to respond to? guest: i think you make ian interesting point about freedom of information. we always argue that we should be distributed this information to the public. host: what is your take on how the speaker feels about the conduct, the effectiveness of the office? guest: i do not want to speak for nancy pelosi, she can speak for herself, but the committee has publicly slapped down the

office of congressional ethics on a couple of cases. pete stark from maryland had a property tax problem in maryland. they have found that he had engaged in wrongdoing but the house ethics committee not only cleared him but were very insulting to the office of congressional ethics about the investigation they had undertaken a publicly. i found it odd that the two groups would have so much public spat. you really have to wonder why speaker nancy pelosi would allow that, given the office of congressional ethics was one of her ideas, and she wanted it to be successful -- at least that is what she told us. if true, what would you allow the author of the committee to this. so publicly? host: we have read that two

members of the house at one. refused to speak to investigators. can you explain what that was about? guest: this is the pma investigation we were talking about, and charred wood whether or not members were earmarked in for -- the ethics committee took with the office of congressional ethics said and they did not do anything. they never spoke to either office. yet, he has been cleared. it is odd that the ethics committee has a lower standard of conduct and then the justice department. they believe there are possible criminal charges but the ethics committee did not even wait to see what would happen before they said that there was nothing

wrong. host: caroline, louisiana. republican line. caller: i believe her ethics committee is, like united nations, sort of neutered. nancy pelosi was supposed to drain the swamp but we still have small animals in congress and it makes dysfunctional. about the other people saying that we think the ethics committee should be on c-span because barack obama was on to spend -- it was his idea to be on c-span. i wish and pray that some day you will be unneutered and be

able to do your job. you should be an entity that is almost like a judge, lawyers, and put these things on c-span, on tv somewhere, so that we can understand what the people need to know. who are you going after, what are you going after them? all this secrecy is the problem. guest: i agree, there is too much secrecy surrounding ethics issues. the reason behind it is the ethics committee believes that if they are clearing members of congress, members should not be tarred by your allegations. the problem is, if we know so little of what is going on, we suspect that they are white washing everything. then when you see the reports,

which are quite pathetic, when you look at the work on the pma investigation, pete starck investigation, and they had cleared everyone except for charlie rangel, it is hard to understand. their behavior defies logic. host: said that, new york. paul. good morning. caller: the question i have for ms. sloan is how does she feel about the recent supreme court decision on campaign finance? it is she able to shed any light on the current eric massa situation? our people vetted for the committees they are on? guest: the eric massa situation

is a mess now. it looks like he engaged in some. -- pretty serious misconduct. steny hoyer did the right thing here. when he first learned of the allegations, he gave his staff members 48 hours to either report it to the ethics committee, or he would. this was a matter that required immediate investigation. now given the allegation that mr . massa is making over some conspiracy to kick him out over health care, it would seem logical that there would be a report so that we can make up our own mind about that. host: will that happen? guest: it would be unusual, but i think mr. massa has gone so far -- if he would have just

resigned, he would have sounded him said -- saved himself and his family some embarrassment. now we are starting to hear about actual roping of male staffers. i am glad mr. weir took that stand, and i think the ethics committee has given him incredible remarks, should be public, and we should be getting the full story. citizens united. that is a troubling decision. there will be great implications in the congress. there are problems now for donations in congress and we may see that more in the future now that corporations can use their treasury funds to run ads for and against other members. you will see other members of congress shaping their messages and boats to make sure they do not in your certain companies, or that they will make friends with companies who can pay for

these campaign ads. host: the front page of "usa today" -- they write -- jericho, and vermont. ron, good morning. caller: i have two questions. are you not doing the job of the free press in the country?

it is more of an indictment of our free press system than anything else. i was wondering, if someone tattletales on a congress member, do you have the power to protect resources, like us? and my second question is, do you consider a violation of the logan act and ethics issue? have you championed any kind of indictment for people who violate the logan act? host: let's start with the second point, what is the logan act? guest: i remember learning about it in law school, but i cannot remember it now. i am sorry i cannot speak to

that. we can certainly protect sources if members of the pope come to us about information of wrongdoing. we're always interested in hearing that. host: more from "usa today" --

any thoughts, melanie stone? guest: that was the primary person in charge of the congressional office, so he has a lot to defend their, but i think he is wrong. they did not give the office of congressional ethics the power is needed to be successful. here we are now with the mess that we have now. host: carol from california. on the republican line. caller: someone mentioned the press. i would like to talk about this tinyurl.com/youdidnnnthearit. speaking of ethics, what kind of ethics is it to spend billions and billions every year to

support a criminal acts of is real and what they're doing to palestinians? i want to mention to c-span and everyone up there, if you go to camera.com, there are two zionists on there and they are monitoring our calls to make sure that they are not anti- semantic. guest: that seemed like a pretty anti-emetic remark, and all i can do is condemn that sort of speech. host: janemes from new jersey. caller: they were not anti- emetic comments. i am worried about the speeches that john roberts had been getting lately. the biggest fear is that he will begin to lead his life from the bench. that seems to be exactly what is happening. i have no love for the current

administration, but i am also politically aware enough -- it is loaded when someone on the supreme court begins to work against an administration. it is not that they are supposed to be silent. i am pretty positive that there is no group that can look at the supreme court, including yours. guest: that is right. that is one of the things about being a supreme court justice. you are appointed to life and groups do not enter the court, groups that talk about what they are doing, but you are correct, there is nothing to be done. the courts have the ultimate independence. host: held at the committee, the members have a specific term? -- house ethics committee, do members have a specific term? guest: i believe there are. however, nobody really wants to

be on that committee. often, you are rewarded later for having sat there, but it is pretty tough while you are there. host: what about the oce? guest: i am not sure how long they are appointed for. it will be interesting to see if board members decide they are interested in staying, given how ineffective they have proven to be, not because of their own fault, but because the ethics committee refuses to act on their recommendations. host: who gets to appoint people to the oce? guest: speaker pelosi and steny hoyer. host: jack on the democratic line. caller: thank you for c-span.

melanie, thank you for your efforts in getting the truth out there. the ethics committee should not be part of the house. it should be a citizen organization and they should have subpoena power and everything else. when they have enough evidence, they should be able to put it through the justice system. members should be informed about all those rules and they should come up with a lot congressman -- law that congressmen are required to report if they hear about bad behavior. until they take these committees out of congress, things will not

change. guest: this is the reason the office of congressional ethics was formed. the ethics committee was considered to be too chummy with each other. that is the goal of the congressional ethics office. host: one last call from robert. an independent from belmont, north carolina. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. the ethics committee is pretty much let congress itself. you have 545 people and all they do this robbery with each other, regardless of their party, to get done what they want to do. as far as ethics bill, right now i have 29 domestic violence cases, said in fraud cases, 19 for bouncing checks, 117 members

that are bankrupting two companies, we have done time for assault, 71 cannot get a credit card. 14 arrested for drugs, eight for shoplifting. 21 our current defendants in lawsuits, 84 in from thriving. what kind of ethics is that? -- 84 from drunk driving. guest: members do not let this issue, but the fact is, the voters care about this, and they crossed party lines for this. we saw this in 1994 when the democrats lost the house. ethics is a critical closing issue. if members want to impress the voters, they will take at this more seriously. host: melanie sloan is the executive director of the

citizens for responsibility and ethics. thank you for your time. in a couple of minutes, we've all learned of the young adults and politics. we will hear from some young adults. the polling director of the harvard institute will be with us. in the meantime, more news with c-span radio. >> vice-president joe biden at a news conference early with palestinian president mahmoud abbas tells palestinian they deserve a viable independent state with contiguous territories. his comments come one day after israel planned to build 600 new homes in the disputed east jerusalem area. he reiterated his condemnation of the plan and urged both sides to refrain from actions that could inflame tensions. the visit meant to promote u.s.- led peace negotiations set to begin in a couple of weeks. the deadline set by president