continues. host: paul kane is not only the senior congressional reporter for the washington host: serves as a columnist for the call on —- pointing viewers to a story with that e-word and what it means for

those as they are debating going back and forth on funding the government. what do you mean? >> it used to be called earmarks back in the day narrow individually tailored projects of memberses of congress and sometimes it would be for something as small as a local interchange a highway stop area. sometimes as little as $100,000. sometimes more and in the millions and these are projects that were bread and butter that they could say they delivered for their constituents back home. the problem was in the late nineties there was an explosion of earmarks and it was politicized where congressional leadership will look at those members of

congress and then steer the money to them and then about who raise the most money. slowly but surely the whole k street lobbying community caught on and realized one way they could get more clients was to hire former staffers for specific members who were good for earmarks and higher than what the lobbying firms in working with them to that clients who had t connections to the lawmaker in order to get more earmarks and then there was an explosion and there were many of them that were still good in helping communities get through key issues they needed funding for. sometimes the bureaucracy just take so long they needed the members of congress to do that

were justhere really bad earmarks and some cases with downright corruption where the lobbyist lwould raise money with gifts to the members themselves. more than one dozen lobbyist and federal agency representatives and few lawmakers went to prison about 16 years ago that led to the banning of earmarks. mostly led by republicans and john avon democrats like brock obama did not like the practice and thought it was corrupt. that is why it ended ten years ago. board people realized over the next decade that it really devalued with a member of congressss was doing.

because you reach a point we are average rank-and-file member of the house of representatives struggled to explain what they were doing in washington.ad they had nothing to deliver for their constituents and created an environment that they would always think the government funding bills to keep it open to get those federal agencies that was a secondary task they did not care about as much they had no skin in the game with a bipartisan special committee that concluded one of the reasons there are so many government shutdowns, 17 or 18 days and 35 days or 19 they

said part of the reason is because members themselves did not have a real input or any good coming out of it's another democrat led majority try to bring the pack —- the itpractice back. host: if you want to ask our guestar questions sending money back to constituents paul kane, you said they are coming back we know them as before but they are different now? >> these are very specific terms and looking at my notes we call it the e-word in the headline because members of congress don't like to say earmarked they feel it has a

bad connotation. so the senate calls that congressionally directed spending the house set up by the appropriations chair calls it community project funding request. that is because they want to get away from the idea these things are similar to what they used to be there's a bunch of new rules that apply to the earmarks you must disclose them or write letters and post them on the website explaining what your request are. request many from private companies they have to be nonprofits even those back home in your state university.

those trying to do research and those type of project on —- projects and with the state department of transportation. and how sure limited to ten request per lawmaker that is a democratization because it used to be the speaker of the house the housede majority in house minority leader in the house says now every lawmaker gets ten and that is it also setting a limit of the overall potion on —- a portion coming between one.4,000,000,000,001.5 trillion this year if congress could reach a deal and earmarks would be 10 percent or less excuse me 1 percent.

so you're only looking at ten or $15 billion of earmarks right now sitting there in the universe with these congressional bills trying to come together. host: is therefr more interest to getak the funding bill passed now they have the ability to make these request? >> that is the sales pitch they are making. it definitely skewed ten or 12 years ago that republicans thought this wason government waste and corruption. overall back then republicans were just opposed it comes out now 108 republicans that supported a vote but then they went out to file request and

had earmarks sitting in these bills for seven different hundred projects every single democrat and they have more than 2000 projects what they are saying to the members is you may not have cared about the government funding bills in the past and that they did not do a whole lot because it was empowering the federal agency but now you have skin in the game and you have to pass the bills the only way for your earmark request submitted is by voting to improve a big bill and that is the sales pitch she is making they have through february 18 as a current deadline they could punt on that and pass a

continuing resolution that might be what happens but there may be some momentum among both sides and me will see the idea of earmarks is helping to greasern the wheels to get the government funding going. we will find out in the next three weeks or months if there is some truth. host: the first call this morning from north carolina, democrat line you are on the air go ahead. >>caller: my comment was years ago that is how they got federal funding if you wanted to build a library or anything it was to help the working-class

community. you could not get the money unless it was through an earmark. that's iv have 70 rural community struggling. a couple other thing is that there's two things thatin i used to say 100 percent of the money politicians should raise 100 percent of the many out of their own district that keeps money from outside and the other thing is if you cannot vote you can't give meaning no corporations and no unions this unlimited secret money called citizens united has destroyed the fabric of america. host: into the first point with rural communities and the impact they have with earmarks

and the lack thereof? >> sure. historically he makes a good point. if you lived in a rural area, it was harder to get money. it was definitely essential have to be connected to a powerful figure. there are several figures in rural areas who knew the system and worked it incredibly well. robert byrd longest sitting senator of west virginia steered more money to west virginia then you can imagine there is the robert c byrd everything highways, parks, you name it he delivered for his stay in that regard and senator stevens from alaska he basically poured money into

the state of alaska. people accuse them of spending too much money one democrat from west virginia the other from alaska but there is no doubt that they poured money into the rural portions of their state. in western pennsylvania you have to members who for decades basically side-by-side one was a republican who ran the house transportation committee the other was john murtha a democrat from johnstown. and they were good buddies running the defense subject on —- subcommittee of appropriations. now over time actually both of them ended up under federal

investigation because they were raising so much money from corporate pack interest you were not from the district e to make earmarks and get money and get funding and there became a triangle of interest hiring clients from around the country to pay former staff and lobbyist and it did create the stream of influence that did not sit well with a lot of people. that's part of the reason why they went away they will try to make the system cleaner and narrower and to get people to understand what they can do. host.

viewer who says the earmarks what they used t to call pork. >> every man's pork is a perfectly sizzled stake. there was definitely a belief that john boehner used earmarks as the gateway drug if you are getting your marks for your district and you are willing to spend $500,000 to help create aun community library in some area they did not have e that. that meant you were then willing to stand 500 million on another project on another project. that is the anti- spending

deficit hawk. there is some validity to that but in the grander scheme of what we have just been through in the last five or six years in terms of government spending when there has not been any earmarks it is up to $6 trillion and pandemic relief money into all manner of life and all different agencies from the buyers pandemic. a 2 trillion-dollar tax cut to reduce revenues.

so we look at a different era right now where government spending has exploded by every possible measure. without earmarks. so s they say let's see if they care more than the way government is funded and you have republicans out there the number two house republican it want him to be the house majorityhe leader that he is asking for earmarks —- earmarks and has some in the bill right now. and for the screening unit outside of new orleans and his counterpart.

and with a big highway interchange in sioux falls south dakota. that they know better than the bureaucratic agency representatives who would take years and years. they believe that they know this better and they are pushing for this money. host: democratic line fort lauderdale florida. >>caller: good morning thank you for your continued good works ati c-span. i like the subject a lot. maybe i am strange from the ordinary voter i never thought earmarks was inherently bad it's just money that was already allocated in the budget that were directed to certain projects it was the grease for the wheels of government to work together

and once they stop the earmarks that is when the government got jammed up. the problem with government many there will always be sharp circling and to do something for themselves and so the new earmark process that they do take an issue of how republicans were so eager to get rid of earmarks the reason because the scandals were behind them. they had to get the senator up in alaska with money flowing to them like crazy. like the vietnam pilot from

california. so that is why they pushed back because they wanted to get thatt behind them. >> back in the day the earmark scandal going to thousand four through 2007 or eight there were more republicans under investigation and the pilot he is referring to is duke cunningham who was a top guy and pilot back in his younger days in the navy and went on to become low-profile but influential lawmaker and it

was literally a bride menu hero on a cocktail napkin with dollars and cents how much money and gifts you give me i spit out this much in your marks. we are democrats there is a member from new orleans, bill jefferson on the house ways and means committee and there were different forms of earmarks he was using and trade bills to basically he ended up in prison as well. so republicans had more pucorruption scandal they probably needed a cleaner slate and democrats but one of the key issues back in the day was used to be able to steer money in earmarks directly to private business and that really created the potential for corruption and i wrote a

story about people who are trying to start of the new biotech company out of boston. and they had angel investors who seeded them with and then connected to an influential democrat on the appropriations committee. there were notes and memos all we had to do was raise 30 or $40000 and we would get $1 million and that isac what they got. there were never charges filed in this particular case in some ways that is the worst type of corruption.

that that system was not good at a know house to say it some of the words we cannot say on air but it needed reforming that matches clear and is happening in a very bipartisan way with the senate appropriations committee working hand-in-hand with richard shelby the republican. and the four of them the staff work so hard between ten and $12 billion in request thatbi would be honored if they could since the deal and there are no complaints so far there's a lot of anti- spending groups out there scouring these bills

now these requests are public already so there has been a bridge to nowhere that came out in and earmark there haven't been any bad examples so far not making any promises but so far it appropriate or say the process is working. >> they are right and i will tell you why we're driving on very safe highways as a result of those earmarks and the airport in johnstown is way too big with way too much money government work to than. if you want to get rid of that, trade limits.

host: time from pennsylvania? >> i have to admit i had to drive up adi few years back to chair the transportation accommittee incredibly tough republican primary and they said exactly what i expected them to say this is not my father's transportation committee trying to do highway bills that did not have earmarks and was facing really tough primaries from conservative antispending challengers but his father is to land the primary without opposition and they would have a democratic friend in the district have a writing campaign so he could win the

democratic nomination and it would be schuster versus schuster in the general election and now here we go years later his son bill was facing these challenges from republicans but all that said just as the caller suggested driving around they were beautiful. theyd were pristine and then steered a lot of money back on to a district. there were abuses that happened in most districts in pennsylvania also. but there was no question that probably the overwhelming majority of earmarks that were well attended and the money was well spent we will see what happens with the process.

host: paul kane from "washington post" republican line from indiana. >>caller:. you all mentioned about the bridge to nowhere but i remember here we read his family on construction so they got all the money but it did not come true. >> harry reid and mitch mcconnell democrat and republican leaders of their era they came up to the appropriation committee and they know how to work earmarks and they were always proud they faced scrutiny there were

earmarks that would be steered back to the development of highways and interchanges that were near property that he owned and there were issues as to whether or not that would help inflate the value of his own property. 2014 was running for reelection, in what people thought was going to be a tough campaign. he ended up winning by almost 10 percentage points or more, but he faced a primary challenge from his right flank and then a general election from a well-funded democrat and what mcconnell did on his campaign -- i will never forget -- he loved to talk about every earmark he had delivered, every dollar he had spent, everything he had brought home to kentucky. he embraced it. he swung into the criticism and

said no, that is what i do. i'm a leader in the senate and i deliver for you and that is why you need to reelect me. it worked for him, it worked for harry reid in 2010. he faced a similar tough well-funded appointment -- well-funded opponent and he went all around the vada and said -- nevada and said reelect me and you will keep benefiting from the fact that you have a leader of the senate representing you. host: matthew in new york, democrats line. we are running short on time, so quickly with your comment or question. caller: absolutely not. i don't care what party you represent. this is not a good idea. going back to this idea of earmarks is not good. it is just more corruption waiting in the wings. get rid of the big money, out of the super pac's, get rid of it all. going back is not a good idea.

we should be a progressive nation. come up with better ideas. the corruption has got to go. host: that is met in new york. -- matt in new york. guest: that is an understandable view that a lot of conservatives and liberals will have. this was a practice that at times went sideways a while ago, and i know there are a lot of people that think that this is just going to revert back to the same dirty practice as in the past. i think that is an understandable view. the rosa delauro's of the world will say the last 10 years are worse than what happened before. more government shutdowns, exploding debt without earmarks.

government shutdown after shutdown, crisis after crisis, that was all done by congress. they are just looking for some other way to try to get congress back toward basic functioning. we are going to see if this works. it might not. it could be this particular spending deal blows up in the next couple of weeks and they don't come around to a large broad funding framework, in which case the earmarks want to be brought here into fruition. -- won't be brought here into fruition. it is dicey, and i didn't think earmarks would ever come back. 10 years ago i thought they were done. but congress over the last 10 years became so dysfunctional that it opened the door to bringing them back. you've got members who have been around for 10 years now, who still don't have a committee chairmanship or a subcommittee chairmanship, and they probably

struggle to explain to their constituents, their friends back home what it is they do every week when they go to washington. this is meant to try and incentivize and learn and talk about what they do, to bring home and deliver for their constituents. host: paul kane's story can be found at washingtonpost.com. than