your president -- no -- has not chosen to do anything to enforce the laws, and protect the borders. and again, you should call your speaker-of-the-house.he s no. what we need is, enforcement of the border, and -- it sounds border and, we do business with mexico, and have easy access

between mexico and the united states. so, what would you, it's very funny, that you talk about it, and democrats are the ones that are spending like crazy. fiscal disaster by shutting. down our borders. the recent graduate, congratulations, and, number two, the university of texas, has a program where, we or they expand the definition of who qualifies as a resident. because, the university's benefit, to have them, be in the university. so, citizens, yes. can enjoy, the benefits.er so we want that talent and we want folks like you, and so come to el paso, we would love to have you.av

the dream is possible, as well. and it's one of our partners. next question, please. i would like to bring up the fact that those are not documented, cannot receive welfare. they have social securityger numbers. and those who are undocumented are going paid low wages and, it's not because they're dumb, they have to survive. i would like to say, i've been here since i was one, i was born in mexico city and, when you say go back home. this is my home. i don't know mexico at all. so that hurts. and, i hope that, i hear your last name, and i hope that onene day you realize, how much you hurt these families, and i wish ili wasn'tze crying but it's jut i'm c so passionate about this.b

and i want to be a politician, to be able to say, we don't alls want to beay broeg en, and we al want to work together. i've been an honor student, and to see that america does not want to accept me, and give me n job and, let me contrib, it's tough, because i consider this my country. and to see that, he does not want to consider me a worker for you. i hope to be a public servant, who teaches the opposite tole that. thank you for whatever you think you're doing. [applause] how do you argue with t emotion? the fact of the matter is,a that the law was broken. what do we do, so we go ahead and grant her amnesty.

okay? what is that going to do for the thousands that came across, and the millions that want to come across? a the parents, all over the world, not that would love to sen thei kids to america. you have a system.al one more question. mor it's more a comment on what you j justus said, and the young lady. i'm looking around thismy room, by our standards, everyone. is. you're welcome for the houses and, thank you for the blankets. i don't know if you got that.yway anyway, so, my question is,m when you're talking about illegal aliens, and children

that were brought over as young, young children, and i used to teach public school. there's a supreme court ruling that says, when those children appeared and, i taught, i had quite a few of these kids. they're not, what was it that you called them, contra band. contra backed. they are kids.they how did that work out? ite is what it is. you're making statements, and there's no rational way. nothing wrong with it. gentlemen, the point is, when those children showed up,

in my classroom, the supreme court said, regardless of how i felt, that showed up, i was required to give them as good an education as every other childsh that showed up. whether they were disabled or differently colored, and it didn't matter, didn't matter where they were from. and i could not ask them wherei they were from. here's my question to you,er ife you're saying that, these children, brought over here, by their parents, are illegal, and need to go back, i'm asking you, how far back, how many generations does that go? i taught u.s. history, and texas history.t and there's a few folks who came in on our shores, and i'm looking at you all.

irish, and italian and, plenty of people. how many generations, do you intend that we should go back? its illegal. if every person that came here, without going through the normal legal way, it's illegal. how many generations do we go back? how many? how long has your familysi been her? five generations, and -- how did they come in? mine came -- contraband. they came across because they were sponsored, and we have a long history. and if they get, it occurred, 194, when a million people came

from mexico. and people sent their childrenri here, to get out of theil violence. t and they weren't cartels, and none of this is new, and we can learn what happened. but, again, we have to figure out, what do we do with those who are here? we are not doe porting them. so, what do we do? [applause] did you want to talk about youro own family background? there's nothing to say, because, the issue is not, it'ss an historical fact, we never have had a secure border. it's ever it's time to do it. it's time to do it. okay. any other questions? i see one.

yes. make a statement, how one person, who makes outlandish comments, can hold hin this conversation, i see five peoplea and there's one person, and i'm not goinmag to say the name. who is taking it backwards. it's probably, not as many times as you used the word illegal. so, backwards and look inho the mirror and see who it is. we're not going backwards. we'ree not. i think we have one more question. i want to respond, and say, isn't it interesting, that onehe person is attracting everyone and that's what the tea party is doing. are at.nd vote people. thank you, for being here

and, thank you to all thets panelists and lively discussion. next call for changes, in ethic investigation gays and your calls and, comments, on washington journal.

the process has improved, with the formation of the office of congressional ethics, and the senate has failed to take any

actions concerning ethics violations. this is just under an hour. hello, i'm the policy director of campaign legal center, and i want to welcome everyone. this is supposed to be, what we hope will be a round table discussion. about potential reforms to the ethics process. we are pleased to have a very wide range of groups. let me just first off, give some -- a list of the groups, to try and really push for reforms. in addition to campaign legal center, citizens for reresponsebility, and common cause and, democray 21, and

judicial watch, and thomas man, the league of women voters, and the projects, on oversight. and public citizens, and taxpayers for common sense,. it's a pretty diverse group. we cannot lob which, and as

a individual, i'm very supportive of this. adam,. i'm craig, government affairs lob whichist, and i want to note one of the few lob whichists who calls himself that. i'm the director of legislative affairs. i'm with the american enterprise, and here as a individual. i'm going to turn it over to craig who has written a report, looking at the ethics, and we'll have him talk about that, and open it up, after he's had a chance. first, i i want to take a minute or so, providing some background, about what created, the edthicks, this came in the wake of jack scandals, in 2006, when our organizations here, worked on drafting, and

promoting the honest leadership, and open government act, that set up new ethics rules, along with those for lob whichists and one of the key problems, that we all noted, was, enforcement. and enforcement, has, as always, been the response boltty of members of congress, themselves, overseeing members of congress, and, both the congressional ethics committee, are run by members of congress, and, they used to, the senate still does, operate largely in secrecy. and it has always claimed they're doing a great job. and they do it all confidently and even though the public doesn't know, that's the basis of their effectiveness.

that was ridiculous. i mean, probably in the wake of the scandal, where the house ethics committee did almost nothing at all. we recognized that enforcement is the major problem. and then we started promoting, an intaketution and this office, of congressional ethics, is staffed and run by outsiders, not members of the congress, and lob whichists and even though they don't have any enforcement authority or subpoena authority, what they do, is they conduct an investigation, and make recommendations to the house ethics committee, and either to dismiss the case or to proceed. the strength of oc e., lies in the fact that their reports, once they make a referral, their reps become public record, and they become public records, 45

days after referral or at the conclusion of an investigation. but at some point, it becomes public record. we have none of that, in the senate. let me explain, the findings, on the report, and the report is the case for independent ethics, and six years later, and a history of failed senate accountability. and what we found, throughout the history of the ethics committee, prior to oc e., very, very little disciplinary actions were taken. during that decade, of inaction, there were only five disciplinariry actions, and then, during the whole scandal, of 2005-2008, there were another five actions taken. and that's it.

then we created oc e., and, period of 2009-2014, we saw a four fold increase. 20 disciplinary actions. so, the office of congressional ethics, has really enhanced greater activity in the process. but has not done so overzealously. 136 cases, and of those, have only referred about a third of them for further investigation. most of the cases, get dismissed and you're seeing a healthy workload going to the house ethics committee. and they're doing their job. and senate, we were pushing for

a similar outside office on the senate side. and i remember, ted stevens, sitting up there, saying, there's no problem here. the ethics process, is working, and shortly thereafter, he came under a scandal of which the committee never did anything. so, we take a look in the reports and we have charts, at the end of the report. you take a look at what the senate ethics committee has done, and first of all, they're receiving fewer complaints than ever. 99 complains, in 2009, and in:30:30, only 26.

they get dismissed. all but for have been dismissed and the reason that is happening is because they operate in secret. even though they publish the number of cases, they're taking a look at, and publish the number of dismissals, which is almost identical every year. that's it. we don't get any kind of record, as to what they were looking at, and who was being investigated. and without that type of accountability, on the senate side. the senate ethics committee is a failure, like we had, on the house side. so, this report recommends first of all, that the senate institute a similar type of

outside investigative agencies, to make their ethics process begin working, and secondly, you know, try to ensure that oc e., is a very effective agency. one thing, that they are missing is, subpoena authority. it can only ask people to come in and testify. we would like to see it have real authority. we have written letters, recommending changes, in their processes. as craig noted, in the house, make the oc e., a per na nent office. and every congress, we wait to have the black or white smoke come out.

and determine if it will continue and we would like to find a way for the house to go through a process, to make this more permanent. weave also encouraged the house leadership to support giving subpoena power, and lastly, to increase the transparency, over here. everything from better access, to their pink sheets and more information about the information that they provide. on the senate side, our letter, talks about creating a similar office of ethics, that would be based on the success of oc e.. more problems, who are

looking to fu travel for senators, and the senate staff, has no clue what they are all about. no track-record. so, i would like to stop there, and turn to norm, and if you could talk a little bit about why you think, these issues matter. why should they care? why you think it is so hard, to get this done. first of all, i believe the office of congressional ethics has been a terrific success. give credit to speaker john boehner, and they chose the initial members, and picked good people. very good information. but, including a real mix,

and every decision, that they made, either to not move forward or push something, has been done unanimously. and it has moved it into something that has worked better. and the fact is, they will say that a complaint brought didn't have the merit. and it has much more credibility for the members themselves. and than it would if it was down by their colleagues. when congress is given the responsibility to police its own, but it's in in a damned, if you do, and it is very easy to become politicized and we went through a long period of the criminal will asation. and they say we won't push

anything against your members, and you windows push anything against ours and, push it under the rug. so there's a real lack of credibility, and it hurts congress as a whole. that's why. of us have pushed for some kind of process, respecting the sneutional responsibility, which resulted in the office of the office, and multiple attempts to do it in the senate. and you don't take the full authority away from congress. the final decisions have to be made by congress. just make one other point, there was another element to

this, which is when the ethics committee pushed and did its job, against tom delay, the speaker then, in effect, fired 3 members of the ethics committee who came out with what was mild punishment. but, the chairman, and two other members, were dismissed from the committee. that shows you how this process, can get caught up, in a hot house. and we want to move it out, and then, one final point, when you don't have any enforcement, the word gets out to the members, and the staff, and anything goes. there's no reason, that members or staff feel, to figure out what is wrong and what isn't. you end up with more

violations. so, not only do you need some significant enforcement, you also need a constant process of education, and that's something else we're calling for. know what the lines are. travel, or relationships with lob whichists or others, or the kinds of things that you can and cannot do. all of those things need to be, not only enforced, but also taught. we want to do this to strengthen congress. i have been teaching a course in ethics for ten years. it gets a laugh. but it is very important.

we track through the good workings all of the articles, that appear, dozens have them, each week, on ethics problems. and they have not gone away. i think the primary problem, is we don't have enforcement. there's little transparenty, and also the senate side about problems, and solutions, and i think transparency, is like oxygen, to fire, and you have to have it. it's cleansing. and next, for you, in the media, there needs to be better access to say information from the ethics committee, if it does

something, and ethics training and education. what does this do? it goes against the very human norm, and i call it the iron law of reciprosty. when you have peers, helping them, and it is within each party. it is very difficult to push against that. i want to build something on the speaker before me said. transparency, is critical here. and what it does, when the oce, releases its report, it has two effects. one is to act as, make the edthicks committee accountable,

and makes members more accountable. they know that it will not just disappear into the black hole. so, for me, what's most important is transparency in the process. and, oce has made progress, on the house side, and not enough. but it's gotten better. perhaps, in response to that, the house ethics committee has gotten more transparent. and they post, reports. there's more to be done. i would add that there are certain documents that are very difficult to obtain. pink sheets and some of them are online, and not all of them.

and those are things that they need to have to know what standards, they will be held to. we asked the rules committee for access to this. and it seems absurd that they won know what the rules are held to. and they didn't provide it to us. and that newspaper reporter was able to get it. the senate has a lot further, to transparency.

another a time, when the approval ratings are in there at best. and they would welcome it, and when we talk to everyday americans, about this, and they're shocked, in place, and

all these organizations, have been helped to create the ethics investigation, and that's to provide welcome transparency, and it's not complete. so, i think creating a senate office of professional ethics, in the senate, would provide a welcome to the boost in rating. there are any questions? what's your -- you're written john boehner, and it should be renewed, have you had responses to that? well, i need to say, it's very important, to talk about the leadership at oce, and the excellent job, that they have done. very difficult to find.

examples, where you have had bipartisan leaders, who make them unanimously. so, i think they deserve credit. and leadership matters, in this town. and they should be singled out. we have written a letter to the leadership of the house, asking that they make a public statement, that oce will be renewed. and the only thing that we saw, there was a press report miss pel lowe's office, saying they were supportive. we would well, could it. making very clear, that they expect them to resume, and, we also are hoping that, there will ab opportunity to engage in this conversation, about how to strengthen o.y.e. and we're hearing reportings,

that the lack of subpoena power is harming their ability to do their job. we are careful about opening up a discussion, about it, because we know, it is in the house, and particularly those who have been the subject after investigation. but, we also think that, creating this ability for them to get the information, they need, so they can do a fair job, is important. but, so far, we have her, other than the report that was right after our letter was sent, it's been silent. let me add, a lost members don't like this. they didn't like it from the beginning. and nancy pelosi deserves, credit. she took heat.

any member who mass an investigation, gets a lawyer and, the lawyer, says, we're going to stonewall. we hope, when the office was created, that they would get indirect subpoena power and something there. but when they do this, it creates trouble, and more difficulties, and anybody who has a referral to the ethics committee doesn't like it. so it is tough to get this going. my guess is, some of the 7 or 8% still approve of congress, will turn against it, and when john mccain says, they're down to blood relatives, and paid staff,

they'll lose them. i have not met one of the 7-8%. and context of the senate. it was senator obama who pushed it and one-third of the senate. and that's in the context of, over 30 states that have an office of public integrity. so we have a tough lift here. just to get some background, in case people are missing, oce was created as part of house rules. as a result it, has to be renewed each session. that is a potential weakness, if the house chooses not to renew oce. however, with the current leadership, speaker john boehner, and nancy pelosi, i'm

comfortable that they are not in danger. last session we had a crisis, and new people appointed. and neither speaker boehner, nor nancy pelosi reeledlized, they had to do it. and we were getting right next to the next session, and this whole board would have gone defunct. both sat down and, ended the term limits for the board and, renewed it. so, with this house leadership i'm not worried about it. however, if we do see a change in the leadership, i suspect, this will become an issue.

tea party was instrumental in going t. among the groups, are judicial watch, and national taxpayers union, and we tried to create a dialogue, based on ethic standards that apply across the board. we know that ethical problems are not reserved had to one party or another. so, we have tried very hard to ensure that the work that we do is non partake sent, and we think that's a important message. this is not about one party or another. this is about the integrity of the institution.

a couple are getting old, and, bill, from minnesota, so, at some point, there will be changes and, we want to be sure, when they occur, the leaders, step up to the plate. and pick people of the same quality and integrity.

[inaudible] one of the senate copies, and only one difference, because one of the groups got left off. i'll make sure you get that. the national taxpayers union, the only thing they raised concern was travel. and i think that was because there are groups here, myself included and public citizens, who have been in favor of eliminating privately financed travel, and that was not a position, that national taxpayers was comfortable taking, and they said they would rather not go there. up subpoena power, is that a decision, that still needs to be made by john boehner, and pelosi

or the house. well, they would have to take some action, and in house rules, to take this and there are different ways, you can give it to third parties, and you know, you can give them full subpoena power to any witness involved. but that would have to come from the leadership, and it would have to be contained in the changes in the house rules. and while all the house rules are recreated every two years, we don't have a lot of concern, that the standing committee, like agriculture, are going to disappear. we want to make sure that it

is embedded into the congress. a little story, about subpoena power. i think all the reform groups supported having oce, back in 2008, when it was being debated. and however, congress wasn't willing to go that far and, so they stripped it. and that caused, you know, somewhat after division, i know, i and mayor. mer a did, and this isn't going to work. they have done their job and, reason, is because of the transparency, that it still has, even without subpoena authority.

two questions, first, anyone on the panel, if oce were giving subpoena authority, are there any separation of powers, this agency having direct oversight? is this something where you would envision, individual witnesses having a right to not self incriminate, in addition to criminal justice rules. i'm not certain. so, i don't think, and i'm speaking tentatively here. and i don't think there would be a exception. constitution provides for the house to govern its own

membership. and i don't see why you would have a separation of powers, and problem, if you were looking to third parties, somebody who is funding travel. so, that's the first one. and the second one again? just, the subpoena power, how it would be envisioned, where a person would have a right to not self incriminate. i have to admit, i haven't thought that through, and i don't know if other people have views, and the right to self encrime nation, and so, it would be a criminal violation. so, i don't see where that would apply. some of the rules are based in

statute, and there may be some grounds for making a fifth amendment, but i wouldn't see it, in the context of house rules. i can address both of those, when we were going through what was a painstaking process of trying to create this panel, we add working group, and we were part of it, and public citizen and common cause and, we went through each of these issues, as he went back to his members, enormous resistance to direct subpoena power. at one level you can understand. the members were frightened of any outside group. and there were questions about, having an outside group, and i think they could be resolved. what would we aimed for was an

independent power, and we thought it would be enough. have a backup, where, either members or staff would feel reason to commune indicate with and, offer information, and testify to the panel, instead of what's now happened, and as i said, lawyers, say we're not going to give them anything. and it works against their clients, and there's that. on the second question, this is the same kind of question, that emerges, we are any congressional committee has a witness in front of it. namely, if there is a potential criminal violation, then, of course, you can say, that you're invoking the fifth amendment, and the committee can offer you some immunity.

not clear that the office could. but almost every enstands, does not involve criminal activity, violation of the ethics rules. and so there's no protection there. is there any indication of subpoena power is necessary? have there been cases where they don't cooperate? yes. the report that we have, is that is growing problem. they have found when they go to conduct their investigations, folks are lawyering up and, shutting up. so, they want to be able to do a

full investigation and when people don't talk to you, you can do that. it's a problem. they got a lost information. there's a lot of voluntary participation going on. in. of the cases, where they get more extreme, you find that a number of parties involved in the cases are not participating. it puts oce, in an awkward position. because they have to, issue a report, with some sort of recommendation. if no one is going to talk to them, and explain what happened, that just leaves questions, wide-open. so, sometimes, oce will send a referral, saying, we can't answer these questions, and we recommend that you pursue it.

[inaudible] what i understand, it is a growing problem, notion of not cooperating, leave a bad mark. and they're fining that people are saying is, we're just not going to cooperate. and they're left to this, a good resolution, and going to the ethics committee, and the process against, if they the subpoena power, they could get definitive answers. the same lawyers, for those parties, that urge them not to participate, in an investigation, if oce then sends a report, saying we can answer these