your concern ms. sloanabout the impact of the speech and debate clause of the constitution on prosecution of members of congress for insider trading using insider information. so, how would you change our rules to deal with this problem? >> so the speech or debate clause only applies if a member is being prosecuted. this doesn't have any implications at all for the ethics committee which is why that looks better in some ways. >> for the ethics committee and for congress itself. >> writes of the ethics committee while a prosecutor can easily be able to obtain and sift through for example committee files to see if somebody really had inside information the ethics committee absolutely could review that material and so that is why that would be so significant to make sure that the ethics committee does have jurisdiction but i think that the ethics rules are not clear enough and the house ethics committee two days ago issued guidance, but again, i think it is imperative to make it crystal clear and lay it out. t

ms. sloane, she has been kind of left out of all the fun.if you would get this kind of situation, would you think it would be a good idea in our disclosures to be more specific as to maybe more periodic update as to the stocks we own and trade and when we bought them and sold them and the exact of money that we purchased and sold them for that we anybody that is in the media or whomever is in the good government agency look at to see well so and so is on the armed services and he or she bought x amount of the military arms stock when he or she found out that company was going to be terminated. that is i think certainly the initial information the would be used to established that case saying there's an issue we need to look into. would you think that is a good suggestion? >> i think the disclosure is a great way to go because i think that there are a lot of repercussions if you have disclosure i think 90 days is far too long but there are people who will be looking at the kind of trade very frequently especially if the our searchable and on

i want to go to ms. sloan who has been left out of all the fun. if you look at this type of situation, would you think it would be a good idea in our ethics disclosures to be more specific as to maybe a more periodic update as to the stocks we own and trade and when we bought them and when we sold them and the exact amount of moneys we purchased and sold for? that way anybody who is in the media or whomever can look at it and say that senator so and so is on the armed services committee and he or she bought x amount of military arms stocks. they found out that company -- that contract was going to be terminated. that would be the initial information to say there is an issue we need to look into. is that a good suggestion? >> i think disclosure is a great way to go because i think there are repercussions if you have quick disclosure. i think 90 days is far too long. there will the people look at this kind of trade very frequently especially if this searchable in an electronic data base. you gave the example of where you learn something in a committ

melanie sloan, donna nagy -- i hope i have got that right. donald langevoort. ms. nagy is a professor of law. professor langevoort is a professor of law at georgetown university. i am having flashbacks to those terrible days in law school. remember, i am the one who asks the questions. and finally, robert walker, former chief counsel and staff director of the senate house ethics committee. thanks to all of you for being here on relatively short notice. you bring a wealth of experience and information. ms. sloan, we will begin with you. your organization has one of the best acronyms in washington. c.l.u.e. you have advocated legislation to deal with this insider- trading problem. please proceed. >> thank you, chairman lieberman. thank you for inviting me here today to join such a distinguished panel. no disrespect, but america does not trust you. 46% of americans believe congress is correct. stories on "60 minutes" a few weeks ago was bid because it confirmed what people already believe. -- was big because it confirms what people already believed. we have seen legis

. >> thank you, ms. sloan. now ms. nady. >> i am honored with the opportunity to testify. my name is donna nagy. i have written many articles, including one published last may on the precise topic of today's hearing. the article sought to debunk what at the time was becoming an urban myth that congress had exempted itself or was somehow immune from the laws for insider trading. congress in no way has sought to immunize itself. beyond that it concludes that insider trading is already illegal under existing law. based on my research i would expect the court to hold a member of congress liable for any securities trading that is based on material non-public information obtained through congressional service. if the s.e.c. or d.o.j. successfully proves the facts alleged. i acknowledge that many distinguished security law scholars see shades of gray, and some believe a court would rule, likely, the other way. the controversy surrounding the application of existing law to congress stems from the fact that congress has never snacted securities statutes that explicitly prohibits an